http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 2-15-40-23
BY JEFF BARNARD
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Mr. Caldeira goes on to challenge the validity of this modeling further, without explaining why we must take his modeling as the gospel.A new study released Monday found that warming temperatures in Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of North America over the past century closely followed natural changes in the wind, not increases in greenhouse gases related to global warming.
The study compared ocean surface temperatures from 1900 to 2012 to surface air pressure, a stand-in for wind measurements, and found a close match.
"What we found was the somewhat surprising degree to which the winds can explain all the wiggles in the temperature curve," said lead author Jim Johnstone, who did the work while a climatologist at the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington.
—————SNIP—————
It was greeted with skepticism by several mainstream climate scientists, who questioned how the authors could claim changes in wind direction and velocity were natural and unrelated to climate change.
—————SNIP—————
"This may say more about the state of climate modeling than it says about causes of warming in the Pacific Northwest," Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology, said in an email.
And herein lies the problem......computer modeling, based on data 100 years old or more. It doesn't matter WHERE you start your data model, there is always older data going back millions of years that will invalidate your model. So whose is right? They can't answer that without throwing in their personal agenda biases.....which are NOT scientific, but rather social/political.....and they want the rest of us to follow policies they recommend based on science which is hazy at best. This is why I persist in calling it junk science......because the conclusions are junk.