As someone with no formal training in the subject, nor any experience with computer models, I saw 2 potential problems with the article.
"Greenhouse gases are the most likely cause of the recent rise in Arctic temperatures, said McKay and his co-author Jonathan T. Overpeck, a UA professor of geosciences and director of UA's Institute of the Environment."
This is an assertion I have no way of checking. For instance, I don't know about the large ocean currents, another possible factor in temperature change at a specific location. And then there is the problem of not knowing what I don't know, so I am unclear about what direction to look to further educate myself to either verify or refute this assertion.
"The analysis shows that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with reduced energy from the sun, cooled at an average rate of about 0.36 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) per thousand years -- until the 20th century."
There is an order of magnitude problem here. If the granularity exists for him to say the cooling was at an average rate of 0.036 degrees F (0.02 degrees C) per HUNDRED years--until the 20th century, he should have said that. If it doesn't, then that sentence is just blather.
There may be other problems with the article, I don't know, those two just stuck out. Which is not to say anything about him being right or wrong. He may be right, he just doesn't prove it here IMO.
ARS |
