Although I am inclined to agree that most of the recent warming has a strong anthropogenic signature, I looked at the abstract of the Journal of Climate article (I don't have access to the full article) and don't see how you can definitely conclude that the post 1950s warming is significantly greater than any other comparable period in the last 1000 years.
"The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238-1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961-1990 levels." Perhaps I'm reading that quote from the abstract wrong, but isn't a difference of 0.09°C within the margin of error of 0.19°C? I mention it because some skeptics have presented analyses that suggest that the current level of warming is not that different from that of Medieval warming period. Steve J. Stephen Brewer Professor Department of Biology PO Box 1848 University of Mississippi University, Mississippi 38677-1848 Brewer web page - http://home.olemiss.edu/~jbrewer/ FAX - 662-915-5144 Phone - 662-915-1077 On 5/16/12 10:37 PM, "Matthew Peter Hill" <hil...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote: >I don't think we need to worry too much about what Lovelock does and does >not think, especially through reporting such as that.. > >For some actual climate change science, this paper went up yesterday: > >http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00649.1 > >Showing that the the last 50 years has seen warming like no other period >over the last 1000 years in Australasia, and is very likely due to >anthropogenic influence. > >Matt. > >On 17/05/12 7:53 AM, "Matheus Carvalho" <meumi...@yahoo.com.br> wrote: > >> Lovelock, the proposer of Gaia hypothesis, says his predictions (and >>others >> also) were exaggerated: >> >> >> >>http://www.examiner.com/article/gaia-author-james-lovelock-recants-on-glo >>bal-w >> arming >> >> >> Matheus C. Carvalho >> Senior Research Associate >> Centre for Coastal Biogeochemistry >> Southern Cross University >> Lismore - Australia >> http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ostro >>
