Bart Verheggen makes a pretty good case that the Christy & Spencer graph
of model vs observed results is misleading, for two reasons: it uses
only 5-year running averages, and because of the way it re-baselines:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnider-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/
Their graph badly needs to be peer reviewed, as do other statements
Christy has made in public -- such as pushing an Anthony Watts "paper"
in Congress the day after it appeared on the Web, purporting to find
problems in the US surface station records. Problems with it were
immediately pointed on the Web, and the Watts et al paper still hasn't
appeared in a journal about 1.7 years later.
David
--
David Appell, independent science writer
e: [email protected]
w: http://www.davidappell.com
On 3/4/2014 9:56 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Would anyone like to comment on this? It certainly deserves comment
since right or wrong it appears in an authoritative journal.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8034?dm_i=1Y69,27QSN,E1MP2T,80LVA,1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
