cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:24:45 +0200
from: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de>
subject: Re: Thompson et al paper
to: mann@psu.edu

   Friends, of course Roger Pielke's A-D logical choices are also wrong. Isn't he a
   mathematician by training, so if he doesn't understand climate physics, he at least should
   understand some logic?
   I could come to the conclusion "most is anthropogenic" even if I don't know whether the
   actual warming has been 0.3 or 0.9 ºC say, e.g. on the basis of amplitude-independent
   fingerprint studies, or the fact that natural forcings tend toward cooling, etc. - and
   given the factor 3 uncertainty in climate sensitivity.
   Concluding "most" is anthropogenic expressly does not state how much that would be in ºC,
   as Roger tries to frame it.
   Stefan
--
Stefan Rahmstorf
[1]www.ozean-klima.de
[2]www.realclimate.org