Boris said:
A real “fingerprint” of CO2 warming is a cooling stratosphere. This was predicted by models and theory and has been confirmed by observation. However, at another blog Boris posted this:
Boris April 27th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
However, stratospheric cooling is the fingerprint of GHG warming. But ozone depletion is confounding that signal somewhat.
Another related post at the above mentioned blog:
In any case, the fingerprint of AGW is asserted by the models. That is, the models say, if you have AGW, then you will see this fingerprint.
When allegeded fingerprint is slow to show, they say. wait a few years. After a while of no show, they say,
the models while largely correct need adjustment in this area.
Crap, guys, raise your hand if you danced this kind of dance before. everybody? ya I thought so.
Modelers Anonymous.
This just says to me that other factors come into play and absolute statements about AGW are to to taken with a grain of salt, particularly when GCM’S are the source of the statements.
Boris, I went to the link you provided:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
There is a conflict of opinion on the sensitivity issue and no clear cut answer.
BTW, I asked about warming from cloud cover or cloud cover from warming. Is there a definitive answer to this issue?
I noticed an encouraging development of late. William Briggs’s blog and Lucia L of the ‘Blackboard’ blog are providing statistical balance to Tamino of RealClimate. I don’t pretend to understand all the advanced statistics they use but I can derive useful information from their written conclusions.
All these discussions and links to studies, etc seem to suggest that the science of AGW is not a settled issue and the GCM’s are not the final arbiter.
