posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:56 PM
OK, as one of the few (only person?) here who have actually read this study, the news article is a fine piece of climate 'obscurantist'
All the study actually does is reassess a set of data that showed congruence between temperature data in one area of the atmosphere and some model
predictions (Santer et al., 2005; and a few others), and suggest that it is not as congruent as previous studies suggested.
That is it. No more, no less.
Given it is from some of the 'usual suspects', I think I'll wait for it to be digested by people who know their sh!t (wich is always the way,
especially with such characters). At most, if correct, all it really does is place us back in the position before the Santer et al. 2005 paper.
Says nothing about GHGs not affecting climate. Sorry.
If you want the article, U2U me. Here's the abstract without the propoganda:
ABSTRACT: We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile
them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in
disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the
modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast
strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
So, we have one study suggesting a few other studies were wrong. Heh.
[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]