Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 Next
Comments 94751 to 94800:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:22 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Chemist1... "The hockey stick has been debunked..." Well, now I know you're not serious. Good to know. -
MichaelM at 09:20 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
"In their Prudent Path document, Craig and Sherwood Idso argue ..." -
DSL at 09:20 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Paul, search for Craig Idso. -
Paul Barry at 09:10 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Could someone explain to me what the term Idso (or is that ldso?) means. Is it an acronym? A quick Google search did not help. Thankyou. -
Chemist1 at 09:07 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
No problem. I will post the links and 18 flaws tomorrowModerator Response: [DB] Please ensure that you post them on the most appropriate thread here at Skeptical Science and that you accompany them with the appropriate rationale as to why you think they support whatever it is position you are taking. Thanks! -
Chemist1 at 09:06 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Rob, I have read each IPCC report to date. Have you? The 2007 report relies heavily on a misunderstood coefficient for buffering capacity. The tree rings are not a good data source, and neither are spleotherms. The hockey stick has been debunked and the 3 rd law of thermodyamics has been ignored due to ignorance of the first and secondModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] With regard to your hockey stick comment, please refer the moderation guidance given in this comment. For the remainder, many posts exist here at Skeptical Science on the topics you discuss. Please use the search function to find one to better help you discuss those matters here. Thanks! -
RickG at 08:53 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Chemist1: In general, the IPCC report contains 18 significant flaws I can see that directly affects trend analysis and.the probability ranges, and level of confidence. NOAA data shows paleoclimate data where the global mean temps were higher and life flourished. The IPCC greatly neglects analysis of such data. Is the report 100% useless? Okay Chemist1, it's time to lay your cards on the table. List those 18 significant flaws and proceed to discuss each and every one as to why they are flawed with supporting evidence. As for the NOAA comment please be specific about what you are commenting about. What data and temps.? A link please. And please show how the IPCC neglects paleoclimate data. The IPCC AR4 WG1 has quite a bit of detail concerning paleoclimate data in Ch 6 which can be found HERE. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:46 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Chemist1... Of course, you could also check out Knutti 2008 for a broader perspective. This does include Lindzen and puts him in proper perspective within the larger body of science. -
Albatross at 08:11 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Chemist @46, You are making many unsubstantiated statements. Pielke Snr's area of expertise is land use change, not aerosols. "...and hundreds of others"-- some supporting evidence please. The fact remains that the "skeptics" are contradicting each other, some (like Lindzen) say net aerosol forcing is negligible, and you are saying that aerosols have a potent negative feedback. IIRC, Michaels in his recent testimony to congress suggested that aerosol forcing is a "fudge factor". Which is it? Again, please provide links to papers papers published by Spencer, Christy, Pielke and Lindzen to support that claim please. -
Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
thepoodlebites - My apologies, I should have put in a reference for the "random walk" discussion. Gordon and Bye 1993 examined climate temperature progressions, and found that 'random walk' progressions could only be justified for natural periods up to the order of ~5 years; ENSO, QBO, and the like cycles - long term temperature rise cannot be supported as such a random progression. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:05 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Chemist1... "Rob: please see Spencer and Christy's work confirming an iris effect with more spatial resolution and temporal analysis." Okay, you have two data points now. Please take a quick guess at to how many different studies of climate sensitivity the IPCC numbers are based on. -
Chemist1 at 08:02 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Meant to respond to Rick regarding the IPCC -
Chemist1 at 08:00 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
#43 he has other papers that do not ignore such calculations. My own calculations do not ignore them. Lindzen just like all other scientists is not infallible but the data analyisis of Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Pielke, and hundreds of others is very clear on potent aerosol effects and cirrus cloud responses to higher temps. No, they do not all agree on the exact degree location of mechansisms, but neither do: eric steig, Gavin or Tamino in all regards or contexts. -
Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
thepoodlebites - I'll note that there are a few lines in the conclusions of that paper that point out alternate causes, such as solar irradiance (which is dropping, not rising, so not a valid argument) or long term random processes (I've yet to see a reasonable paper on this topic that doesn't ignore known forcings). Hardly a ringing endorsement of said alternative causes... -
Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
thepoodlebites - From that AMS paper's summary (emphasis added): "The first three components from the PCA explain 29% of the total variability in the combined runoff/SST dataset. The first component explains 15% of the total variance and primarily represents long-term trends in the data. The long-term trends in SSTs are evident as warming in all of the oceans. The associated long-term trends in runoff suggest increasing flows for parts of North America, South America, Eurasia, and Australia; decreasing runoff is most notable in western Africa. The second principal component explains 9% of the total variance and reflects variability of the El Nin˜o– Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and its associated influence on global annual runoff patterns. The third component explains 5% of the total variance and indicates a response of global annual runoff to variability in North Atlantic SSTs." Note that the major component is long term trends, or climate change. You've just supported the AGW theory. Nobody argues that cyclic variations like ENSO aren't relevant to short term (<15 year) changes. But the long term trends are not to be ignored. -
Chemist1 at 07:52 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
I posted google scholar links I read each article on the first page of each scholar link Scheinder was more fair minded but he is gone now. He also failed to make his case about cloud cover as a positive feedback. In general, the IPCC report contains 18 significant flaws I can see that directly affects trend analysis and.the probability ranges, and level of confidence. NOAA data shows paleoclimate data where the global mean temps were higher and life flourished. The IPCC greatly neglects analysis of such data. Is the report 100% useless? NO. It does need considerable redesign. -
Albatross at 07:52 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Chemist, Why are you resorting to Gish gallop @39? I said nothing about the IPCC. You say, "there are papers published by Lindzen that describe the power of aerosols" Why then if they are so powerful as you claim and as you allege Lindzen claims, does Lindzen ignore them in his calculations as noted above? I stated that it has been established in the literature that aerosols (depending on their size and type) can affect cloud properties by changing their albedo, as well as other properties-- so on that we agree. -
Meet The Denominator
Poptech "Can a scientifically valid paper not be cited? (Yes or No)" - Maybe. Papers that are irrelevant, repetitious, or poorly written can be valid, yet not worth citing. It used to be (>25 years ago) that valid and useful papers could slip through, as nobody reads all of the journals, but with today's search engines that's become quite the rarity. "So all papers that have had comments on them are incorrect? (Yes or No) " - Again, Maybe. It means that someone in the field objected to that particular paper enough to submit a comment. It definitely means that at least some of that paper is contentious - whether poorly argued, poorly evidenced, or contradictory to other work. Usually the comments are clear enough - they will either break the paper or the comment itself. The thing is, Poptech, citations are the 'vote' of people in the field, indicating what is relevant, meaningful, and worth consideration. It's like a jury - trial by a body of your peers. And as I stated earlier, in the post you really didn't respond to - a lack of citations indicates a lack of worth to the field, and some of the worst papers out there are simply ignored. They don't need or get peer-reviewed comments pointing out problems unless somebody is using them as an arguing point - they'll vanish on their own. -
thepoodlebites at 07:43 AM on 23 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
#73 I've had a chance to review the Dai, Trenbreth, Qian (2004) paper. From PCA, we have observational evidence of surface warming since the 1980's (temperature + precipitation) and drying in regions prone to droughts during El Nino events. The PC1 temporal patterns seem enhanced by the surface temperature data. And we've had more El Nino's than La Nina's in the '80's and '90's. But to connect these results directly to anthropogenic global warming takes a leap of faith. This looks like another case of circular reasoning, assuming the conclusions in the premises. Here's an AMS article that presents possible alternative hypotheses that also should be considered. I conclude that the CO2-induced AGW signal from the observational drought evidence is inconclusive. -
scaddenp at 07:39 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Chemist1 - I dont find suggestions for scholar searches remotely helpful. Please post proper link to specific papers that you think show that current understanding (as stated in IPCC assessment) is flawed. Pointing to well known science doesnt mean much to me. That's all acknowledged. Where is support for specific iris effect in wake of Lin, Rapp, Chambers, and other papers? With even Lindzen backing away, I am curious to know what you mean. I am also very curious as to how you explain the current temperature trends if sensitivity is lower than 2.5 (not to mention the empirical determinations for climate sensitivity). -
Bart Verheggen at 07:38 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Chemist1 said: "Also I am adding data from other studies showing how aerosols and cirrus clouds interact to form a potent negative feedback." Such as the NIPCC report ;-) ? -
RickG at 07:34 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
#37 Chemist1: That is my issue with the IPCC. They only do meta analysis, and surveying of other's work, and at times do it well, but very often do it poorly. They also censor other's work that is not on line with a so called consensus. That's their job, to review, analyze and report on what the greater scientific community is publishing in climate science. Their Job is not to do original research as a body. Why condemn them for something that they are not given the task to do? As for censoring others work please give a citation to back that assertion. -
Chemist1 at 07:33 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Yes Daniel I read the papers and comments from NASA prior to posting I even understand their interpretations, claims and main arguments.Moderator Response: [DB] I have never specifically asked, nor was I intending to ask, that you do so (re: NASA). That one of Great Karnak's bits? -
Bart Verheggen at 07:33 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
pbjamm, Yes, I think that's right. The way to get out of the explanation as e.g. given by Dana (#7) is indeed to climate that a) an hitherto undefined/unknown climate forcing was at work besides the known ones or b) the responsde to a known climate forcing is enhanced (e.g. the response to solar variations being enhanced by cosmic rays). I think both arguments (a and b) are rather weak and unsubstantiated though, esp when taking into account multiple periods from the earth's past. -
muoncounter at 07:25 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Chemist: "nothing points to a rapidly warming planet" Taking the Moberg et al graph at face value, it took nearly 800 years to change from MWP peak to LIA low, a deltaT of approx 0.8 degrees C. That's 0.01 degrees per decade. The prior warming was ~0.5 degrees in 400 years or 0.013 degrees per decade. Now we are on a global trend of 0.15 degrees per decade, more than 10x the rate of these so-called natural variations - with trends of 0.3 deg/decade in the northern hemisphere extra-tropics. What part of that doesn't point to rapid warming? If you take issue with this temperature reconstruction, we have several prior threads on the MWP/LIA and other use of proxies; I suggest you review all sources of data prior to dismissing this out-of-hand. -
Chemist1 at 07:24 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Higher temps in the topics: more then less high altitude cirrus clouds. Large ice absorbs heat, smaller ice reflects and low altitude water clouds also tend to reflect. -
Chemist1 at 07:23 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Albatross, I know. That is my issue with the IPCC. They only do meta analysis, and surveying of other's work, and at times do it well, but very often do it poorly. They also censor other's work that is not on line with a so called consensus. No, Albatross, there are papers published by Lindzen that describe the power of aerosols, as well as, those by Christy and Spencer. Also I am adding data from other studies showing how aerosols and cirrus clouds interact to form a potent negative feedback. Decadal time scales are not always the proper procedures when we consider how cloud response times are on the order of 24 hours or so and negative feedbacks are a year or so in length. Rob: please see Spencer and Christy's work confirming an iris effect with more spatial resolution and temporal analysis. -
scaddenp at 07:15 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PT - Got a IPCC WG1 reference to E&E? (ie - suggestion that physical scientists might read it?). Anyway, to you rebuttals are just "another opinion" (and everyone is entitled to one, right?). I would not have been surprised to Loehle referenced but this goes to the nub of the problem. It appears that you struggle to make a critical assessment yourself of science, not a problem that everyone has. Papers and counter-papers are the normal scientific discourse but assume that the readers can make critical judgement. Rubbish like that doesnt need rebuttal since it obviously contributes nothing whatsoever to the scientific discourse. It is so clearly flawed that only hardened denialists would mistake it for having something to say. Why waste time? Since you do not admit to any data, now or future, that is able to change your mind, I dont think further debate is warranted. -
Albatross at 07:11 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
chemist @33, "Aerosols and ice nucleation influence the iris effect" That is a statement of fact, the suggested link between GCRs and CCN is anything but an accepted fact. You are grasping at straws. Also, as shown in the main post, Lindzen downplays the role of aerosols and neglects their importance, yet here we have you claiming that they influence the "iris effect". Yes, aerosols can affect the albedo and precipitation efficiency of clouds, but the purported "iris effect" does not require the impacts of aerosols, at least not in the context in which they are being discussed here. Where does Lindzen claim that aerosol forcing affects the "iris effect"? And if he did, that would run counter to his claim that aerosols are not a significant player-- in other words he would be contradicting himself. This is yet another demonstration of the incoherence of arguments made by skeptics. -
Daniel Bailey at 07:08 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Chemist1 (31, ad infinitum) (Nice Yoda imitation, BTW. Props!) An Evaluation of the Proposed Mechanism of the Adaptive Infrared Iris Hypothesis Using TRMM VIRS and PR Measurements Anita D. Rapp, Christian Kummerow, Wesley Berg, and Brian Griffith Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado "In doing so, this study addresses some of the criticisms of the Lindzen et al. study by eliminating their more controversial method of relating bulk changes of cloud amount and SST across a large domain in the Tropics. The current analysis does not show any significant SST dependence of the ratio of cloud area to surface rainfall for deep convection in the tropical western and central Pacific." Examination of the Decadal Tropical Mean ERBS Nonscanner Radiation Data for the Iris Hypothesis Bing Lin, Takmeng Wong, Bruce A. Wielicki, and Yongxiang Hu Atmospheric Sciences Research, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia "On the decadal time scale, the predicted tropical mean radiative flux anomalies are generally significantly different from those of the ERBS measurements, suggesting that the decadal ERBS nonscanner radiative energy budget measurements do not support the strong negative feedback of the Iris effect." So the first two studies that came up using your linked search parameters do not support your contentions about Lindzen's semimythical "Iris Effect". I lost interest in flogging a dead horse at that point. "Pirates cause global warming" retains equal viability to the "Iris Effect."
Pot=Kettle
Yo-ho, yo-ho...
The Yooper
-
cms at 06:59 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey stick is broken
A recent reconstruction of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool reported by Woods Hole Institute found that for the most important body of water in the Pacific the MWP sea surface temperatures were comparable to today's. http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=59106&ct=162 Woods Hole Institute's report on the MWP in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:51 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Chemist1... But once again, all of Lindzen's work still is merely one data point suggesting low sensitivity. When we have many many other lines of evidence that point to higher sensitivity. Lindzen focusses exclusively on this one aspect of climate while ignoring everything else. He absolutely could be correct but the problem then becomes how to explain the vast amount of empirical data that suggests higher climate sensitivity. What is the magical unknown mechanism? Again, if I were here pounding the table about the research showing 10C for climate sensitivity, logically I would be on equal footing with the case you're presenting. -
dana1981 at 06:51 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Chemist - as Bart suggested, please do some research on forcing efficacies. I discussed the subject previously here. pbjamm - you understand the argument correctly. If the MWP were hotter, it would mean the climate is more sensitive to a given radiative forcing, which would mean that it's also more sensitive to CO2. If sensitivity is low, either the MWP, LIA, Roman Warm Period, etc. must all have some additional unknown cause, or they must not have been very warm/cold. RickG - not only did Chemist use the term "alleged" but he also said "which I doubt", despite the data presented in the article. One has to wonder what more it would take to erase Chemist's "doubt". -
RickG at 06:42 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
#3 Chemist1, If you look at the graph in figure 1, it clearly shows that the highest point, which is the Moberg et al (2005) reconstruction is a full 0.5 deg. below current instrumental records. I don't understand why you would say "alleged if true". Its factual data right in front of your eyes. -
Chemist1 at 06:37 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Aerosols and ice nucleation influence the iris effect. Lindzen is the main progenitor of the iris effect. Lindzen also examines aerosol effects as negative feedbacks, therefore, my post is relevant for this thread. -
RickG at 06:33 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
I meant to comment on this earlier but got side-tracked until now. rhjames said: "The IPCC has admitted that cloud formation and influence is poorly understood." To me that statement seems to imply that the IPCC was hiding something and finally admitted to it. Would it not have been more accurate to say the IPCC "stated" or "commented" instead of "admitted"? Or am I just misinterpreting the statement? -
pbjamm at 06:31 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Bart Verheggen@4 I want to make sure I understand the argument correctly so bear with me. If climate sensitivity were low (skeptic view) then based on what we know of the forcings at the time the temp would have been lower. Either sensitivity is higher than they claim or some other undefined/unknown force was at work in the MWP. I feel as though I am still missing something. -
Bart Verheggen at 06:23 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Chemist1, Climate sensitivity gives the temperature to any climate forcing, whether man-made (e.g. CO2) or natural (e.g. the sun). It differs relatively little for different forcings, as exemplified by a factor called "efficacy" (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf) And don't forget that CO2 also has natural sources and is strongly implicated in climate changes in the history of the earth (see e.g. Richard Alley's AGU 2008 talk). -
Chemist1 at 06:20 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Daniel you are. Misinformed,gravely so. Please look at the data and the links to journals I posted -
Chemist1 at 06:12 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Actually a warmer MWP would mean a climate sensitive to something other than CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The alleged 0.5 degrees cooler MWP even if true, +which I doubt) nothing points to a rapidly warming planet leading to forseeable dangers from CO2 emissions. -
Bart Verheggen at 06:00 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
rhjames said: "The IPCC has admitted that cloud formation and influence is poorly understood." As have I (starting with the very first sentence). But the funny thing is that e.g. in the case discussed in this post, it is the contrarians who implicitly build their argument on pseudo-certainty about a particular magnitude of aerosol forcing. I.e. they are guilty of what they routinely accuse mainstream science of. rhjames: "The CERN CLOUD experiment will hopefully contribute some useful data." See some preliminary results from CLOUD here. As you'll see, even the strongest link in the alleged chain of causality (ion induced nucleation) is hardly detectable, and even then in a few experiments only (I was there during one of the semi-succesful runs, and remember the comment "completely underwhelming" from someone who strongly believes in the cosmic ray-climate link). The weaker part of the link, whether those cosmic ray generated particles actually make it to big enough sizes to matter for cloud formation is much more questionable still. The second part (on cosmic rays) is not really part of this post though. Thanks for your feedback, Albatross.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See the ever-popular It's cosmic rays thread. Bart, that's interesting news about the experiment producing 'completely underwhelming' results. -
muoncounter at 05:54 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Rob, "evidence potentially supporting the hypothesis.[5][6]" Look at the discussion page. Someone (unsigned) added "I am not aware of a specific consensus view on the Iris effect" within the last 24 hours. This is why it is wise to be skeptical of Wikipedia, especially when statements are made without substantiation. Recall someone named damor*el was an editor. -
citizenschallenge at 05:43 AM on 23 February 2011Empirical evidence for positive feedback
I just had a chance to review this entire thread, being inspired by chat mat who's mantra is: "there's no proof for CO2 driving global warming." I agree with John @60, Philippe is pretty near a saint for his repeated patient and info laden replies. I just wanted Philippe know that folks do read that stuff and his efforts are appreciated and helpful. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ #61 Philippe Chantreau at 12:18 PM on 10 February, 2008 ". . . . (although I'm glad the fiat lux comment was kept, it is kinda funny)" ~ ~ ~ Yes it was! [thumbs up smilie] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ #63 GMB at 14:36 PM on 10 February, 2008 "So where is the evidence that goes contrary to all this? No-ones got it and they are all bullshitting about it." ~ ~ ~ The problem with evidence is that until you decide to study it in good-faith it doesn't do you any good. The evidence is out there you just need to be willing to read it. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:37 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
I know this is going off topic but I'd like to point out one statement by Chemist1. "These works are by authors who tend to believe the essence of the IPCC report but this work is of far higher quality than anything the IPCC has ever attempted." Can you please tell me what work the IPCC does? You do realize that the IPCC produces a report on climate change research. It does not actually do research, other than to research the published literature. The IPCC produces an "Assessment Report." -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:23 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
And... "A one-time author, Roger Pielke Jr, said '…had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there.'" -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:21 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Hmmm... Just read this on RealClimate: "...Hence E&E’s exclusion from the ISI Journal Master list, and why many (including Scopus) do not consider E&E a peer reviewed journal at all." Interesting that many do not consider E&E to be a peer reviewed journal. -
les at 04:51 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
688 pbjamm Denier-bots live! Why are online comments’ sections over-run by the anti-science, pro-pollution crowd? I told ya so... -
Albatross at 04:48 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Might I humbly suggest that arguments about the fantastical "iris effect" be moved to another thread? This thread is primarily about aerosols, and how "skeptics" like Lindzen and Singer have also mangled the science of aerosols and aerosol forcing. -
dana1981 at 04:47 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Thanis Albatross. Ljungqvist extended his proxy reconstruction through the decade of 1990-1999. Half of his proxies (15) extend through 1989, and one-third (10) through 1999. But he also plots the instrumental temperature record, unlike the Idsos. Which, considering the relatively low number of proxies extending to the late 20th Century, is a smart thing to do. -
Chemist1 at 04:32 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Addendum: I will also show why the Iris effect is alive and well even if under the radar for the moment.
Prev 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 Next
