Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman
When he published his work ..., he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.
|
Hate mail is when White House lawyers rewrite science because it disagrees with a political agenda. He got the usual criticism afforded any public statements not relevant to the point of his paper.
"his research team discovered a new mechanism in climate that can account for all the major temperature shifts in the 20th century." It does not account for the previous 600,000 years where his mechanism did not happen.
This sudden climate change was not the point of his paper. Tsonis' paper is about a new simulation technique that maybe only applies to weather changed anthropogenically. Credibility is in the mathematics of his simulation - not in the simulation's result.
Tsonis paper discusses chaos theory. His public declaration that global warming has ended is not supported by facts in his paper. An unproven simulation method made a cooling prediction. His non-linear math explains 20 years of extreme warming followed by a point of inflection. Does not explain why this massive temperature increase has never happened in 600,000 years. And does not prove any sudden cooling. Only suggests cooling can happen if his new simulation is correct.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tsonis
No. In fact it appears that the (average) global temperature has at least leveled off if not decreasing.
|
Which ignores normal cooling that occurs during a La Nina and a traditional dimming of the sun's intensity. Both event occurring simultaneously only kept temperatures steady for the last few years when normally that would cause temperature decreases. Both routine cooling events traditionally end in the next few years.
Global cooling is not why his paper got published. Only its new mathematics earned its publication. Only details – its non-linear mathematical theory - made his paper worthy of publication. Despite its mathematics, his simulation could not explain or predict a sudden and massive climate change from 600,000 years of normal temperature variations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tsonis
If the overall warming is due to anthropogenic sources (and not some unknown very low-frequency feature of our climate system), then a break will indicate that at this point the natural variability signal is stronger than the anthropogenic signal.
|
His public statements are not supported by facts in his paper. Political extremists simply overlooked that.
Well, if Tsonis is correct, then global temperatures will significantly decrease when La Nina ends and when the sun’s intensity begins its normal increase. Meanwhile a very low- frequency feature of our climate system for the past 600,000 years says we should have never seen such massive temperature increases. Prof Tsonis’ research says nothing about the sudden and unprecedented temperature increases unseen on earth in the past 600,000 years. Another fact that gets ignore by a political agenda.
Tsonis’ paper is about non-linear mathematics in weather simulations – not about a conclusion from an unproven simulation. Funny how a political agenda never bothered to notice the difference.