I was waiting for someone objective to get the data published by Dr. Barnett and to re-run some numbers. While Barnett claimed his "model" reproduced the impact of greenhouse gases on the earth's temperatures, and the liberal press went to town, the sober and analytical look at the numbers debunks his claim.
After a statistical analysis, the World Climate Report shows the above graph that contradicts the claims of Barnett. The Barnett study - like so many with a political motive- "smooths" out the data to fit the hypothesis.
"What we are seeing with the Barnett paper is more of the same. We have claims that a general circulation model can reproduce ocean temperatures when, in reality, it cannot. We have evidence of a human fingerprint in ocean temperature patterns that arises only when the data are substantially smoothed. And we have a press corps that's even more convinced of the certainty of significant human-induced global warming. In fact, however, evidence for the human global warming fingerprint remains elusive."
The advocates of Kyoto do their best work in press releases and in reports that have yet to be peer-reviewed. Several questions occurred to me immediately upon seeing Barnett's wild and highly-publicized claims. If the atmosphere does not reflect the global warming model projections, why would the ocean? Patrick J. Michaels, S. Fred Singer and David H. Douglass,”Settling Global Warming Science,” Washington Times, Aug 16, 2004 [referring to the weather baloon and satellite data that show no warming]. Their recent technical report indicates that the atmosphere is not acting like it is assumed to act in the global warming models.
I still have never received a good answer to my fundamental question: since GHG levels have been twenty times higher in the past and have flucuated over periods where we have reliable temperature proxies, why does no data over 500 million years show a correlation between GHG levels and temperature increases?