Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

My comment was in fact aimed at posters here. I can't remember...

First 111 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
zzedzz

15,687 Posts.

23/01/20

12:13

Post #: 42535279
Share

Originally posted by mjp2: ↑

Well that's better. Nothing like a poster who actually backs up their statements. And interesting. Thanks for linking.

However I've not seen any other paper argue any ocean oscillation acts over a period greater than (iirc) around 30 years. Including teh AMO which is relied upon in this paper. So this paper seems to argue contrary to a number of other papers. I've seen papers argue a 30% positive contribution over periods like 1970-2000, but not over any longer time frame.
i.e. the paper you are referencing is not necessarily a robust finding.

I may have a closer look at it when I have some time, but I am not sure I'd lean too heavily on it.

Your assertion that no-one looked at natural cycles remains inconsistent with the truth. Including the evidence of your own link.

Expand

My comment was in fact aimed at posters here. I can't remember anyone on HC saying "oh but half the rise in temps was due to natural variation"

The implication by most posters here is that ALL temperature increases today are due to AGW.

Clearly natural variation does produce both warming and cooling, has done for Billions of years and will continue to do so.
4 Upvote

Reply

There are more pages in this discussion • 363 more messages in this thread...

First 111 Last