And only "one specific (small) part of the globe" going back to...

  1. 15,273 Posts.
    And only "one specific (small) part of the globe" going back to 1900 Tristanc.
    It cannot be reasonably expected to apply in any other small part of the globe?

    Glad you have acknowledged the study. You happy to acknowledge that modelling is flawed. NOAA have ever so gently alluded to that..

    Just to remind you i am balanced on this. Take note of the carefully worded statements below that was posted earlier.

    Here is the last two paragraph's from NOAA.
    Should we be concerned about human-caused global climate change even if it can be outpaced by regional climate factors?
    Of course. Climate at regional and global scales is subject to a combination of natural and human-caused factors. The present study suggests that care should be taken in trying to identify and separate these factors. It may not be safe to assume that regional warming trends over the span of a century are dominated by human causes, nor that global climate models faithfully reproduce the relevant processes. We hope that this study will motivate further research on circulation changes and their role in overall climate change.
    So how does this research help us?
    This study shows how changing weather patterns, known to be important for West Coast temperature variations, can also contribute to century-long trends in the region’s climate. We think it provides valuable insights into past climate changes, with a relatively simple story about the proximate causes for West Coast/NE Pacific Ocean warming since 1900. The study opens new questions about mechanisms of century-long climate changes


    For the record i don't recall trying to extrapolate anything in the previous post's. You inferred that.
    What i can tell you is that NOAA are INFERRING that climate models might need to be looked at again.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.