Quote:
|
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/...2/10/55974.html
|
The same authors have put out numerous papers in the past 5 years or so stating similar things. Due to those papers people have been forced to go back and re-examine the data and models. After they did that they found out that most of the error could be accounted for by the methodology used to collect the data, not with the models (though the models are far from perfect themselves).
The authors originally claimed to have observed a global cooling trend, which turned out to be noise rather than a long term trend and was a whole lot smaller when they corrected their methodological errors. When you read the paper itself, it's basically a rehash of their old work only they've moderated their claims a lot. They no longer claim to see a global cooling trend, but a slower rate of warming than the models, and only in the tropics. The uncertainty of the models and observational measurements actually overlap though, so it's not clear how much if any the models and observations actually differ. The paper is far from the smoking gun the news article or press release play it up as. It doesn't demonstrate with any great certainty that the models and observations are significantly different or if they do, whether the error lies in the modeling or in the data collection. It certainly doesn't vindicate anthropogenic CO2 or show that the current trend is irreversible.
Here's a paper that actually addresses how the discrepancies relate to the uncertainty of the models and measurements.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL029875.shtml