I'm almost (but not quite!) feeling sorry for the HAFs (Hot Air Fanatics) who persist in repeating their mantra to the effect that it is 'us wot dunnit!' In other words, global warming is entirely due to Mankind in general; and greedy, exploitative capitalists in particular. The always excellent Anthony Watts, in addition to publishing a seemingly never-ending and embarrassing series of photographs of so-called climate temperature measuring sites situated next to parked cars, air-conditioning outlets and so forth, has drawn attention to this paper (in PDF format), just published by The Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering. It was written by five experts in different disciplines and perhaps the most important sentence is on the last page: "Our findings are reproducible by anyone with sufficient knowledge in these fields." This stands in direct contrast to the shilly-shallying refusal of many of the top scientific(?) teams, whose papers are used by the IPCC, to hand over the basic data upon which they base their conclusions.
Watts sums up the paper better than I can: "It is the first scientific paper I've ever seen that pulls all the interdisciplinary fields of solar physics, astronomy, meteorology, hydrology, and climatology together to prove that in fact the sun is the major driver, even with its "small" fluctuations often ignored by climate scientists as being too small to matter." He goes on to point out that "What's even better, this paper is readable. It's not written in techno-speak with accents on using words 99% of the general population doesn't use." That is, perhaps, a slight exaggeration for a second-rater like me but I can understand much of it; and who knows, if Dr. 'Teabag' is not too exhausted by his recent honeymoon (congratulations, by the way!) he might feel up to casting an eye over the mathematics? If you want a brief layman-friendly summary, go to Watts's site. It will be interesting to see if RealClimate (I refuse to link to them, they ban people with whose views they do not agree) and/or Tim Lambert deal with this research paper.
It goes without saying that I am a babe lost in the scientific woods when it comes to the technicalities of global warming so I cannot provide a judgement on this particular paper. However, I do believe it to be imperative that the rival schools of thought offer up complete disclosures of their source material for critical assessment by their opponents, something the HAFs are often reluctant to do.
Additional: For those seeking a considered and knowledgeable 'for and against' discussion of this paper, try: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1791#comments. It is possible for non-scientists (like me) to follow the debate if you skim-read the technical details and concentrate on the summaries. It will not allow you to come to a nice, tidy, final decision on global warming but at least you will not take the likes of Al Gore seriously ever again.
Thanks David. As for the paper, maybe some other time...
Posted by: Larry Teabag | Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 17:38
No problem, Dr. 'Teabag', I imagine that you have rather more pressing events in your life at the moment!
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 19:38
(This comment is from Hank who posted it in the wrong Comments box - take more water with it, Hank!)
The thought of seeing another net solar absorption isobar is almost enough to make one into an ardent HAF. Except after one has spent a collage course reading about then in poorly translated Russian or accurately translated poorly written Russian or both, I really wonder how man could have enough effect to create extreme Global warming.
Posted by: Hank | June 28, 2007 at 04:06
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 28 June 2007 at 09:08