Radiocarbon dating revolutions in understanding
Dr David Evans (my other half) is still hammering through climate model architecture, assumptions, and solar datasets.Readers may be impatient waiting for an update; I can only say that sometimes the art of real research and discovery is better done in silence and without the pointless “bloodsport” of blog publication, but we are thinking “August” or “September”, and there are many posts in draft.[2^] Bart Verheggen, Bart Strengers, John Cook, Rob van Dorland, Kees Vringer, Jeroen Peters, Hans Visser, and Leo Meyer.(2014) Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming.To venture a guess I would say that among skeptics the dominant hypothesis is that some factor to do with the Sun is far more important than man-made CO2.To the end that skeptics need an alternate hypothesis, I agree, and there are many working on just that.He has gone right back through the central assumptions of calculating climate sensitivity and the leading papers of the last fifteen years.
by a few percentage points) magnified in our results.” I say, given that skeptics get sacked, rarely get grants to research, and find it harder to get published, they are underrepresented in every way in the “certified” pool of publishing climate scientists.David prefers to keep a lower profile while researching, but he is working full time, and will be suggesting a paradigm shift in model design which looks like it will resolve a great many of the current model failures.The shift is only a small change in architecture, while keeping most core assumptions of IPCC models, yet it makes a profound change to the output.An expert saying “I don’t know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the IPCC 95% certainty.The IPCC AR5 Statement: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.