Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Next
Comments 98551 to 98600:
-
Camburn at 02:24 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
More definitive on the cold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_cold_wave -
Camburn at 02:21 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Per Moderator: A link to heat and cold for the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:20 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Muoncounter, my view the switch is natural but AO positive and AO negative both have some AGW enhancement. The AO negative enhancement is as described above. The AO positive is modeled e.g. http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/ngillett/PDFS/gcm_aochange.pdf and due to cooling of the polar stratosphere. In that case the effect described above could enhance both the negative and positive AO phases. But I don't see how it would cause a switch because the AGW effects like polar stratospheric cooling are continuous and the switch requires some sort of variation. -
Camburn at 02:06 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
There is nothing unusual about the winters of late. We have not approached the extremes of the 1950's and 1960's. The winters of the mid 1930's through the mid 1940's in the US were much colder in the upper midwest region than present. This would support the observation that a lower ice pack in the Arctic portends a colder winter season in the mid USA. Regional observation, I know, but similiar to todays winter.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please support your claims with links to sources. Thanks! -
HumanityRules at 01:59 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
12 muoncounter Thanks -
muoncounter at 01:50 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#15: "The arctic high is a consequence, not a cause, of the negative phase" What drives AO from positive to negative? Both Dec 2009 and 2010 had "strongly negative AO" per NSIDC news (cited below); both had anomalously low sea ice extents. In the model presented here, it is the heat first absorbed then released by an extended season of open Arctic sea that is the cause. See NSIDC News for Jan 5, 2011: The warm temperatures in December came from two sources: unfrozen areas of the ocean continued to release heat to the atmosphere, and an unusual circulation pattern brought warm air into the Arctic from the south. Although the air temperatures were still below freezing on average, the additional ocean and atmospheric heat slowed ice growth. This was shown by Serreze et al 2009, in what we've loosely been calling Arctic Amplification: Arctic amplification is largely driven by loss of the sea ice cover, allowing for strong heat transfers from the ocean to the atmosphere. ... Ice formation in autumn and winter, important for insulating the warm ocean from the cooling atmosphere, is delayed. This promotes enhanced upward heat fluxes, seen as strong warming at the surface and in the lower troposphere. It seems tempting to point to a single effect: 'its negative AO' or 'its el Nino' or 'its la Nina' and leave it at that. But that thinking doesn't go far enough -- these are symptoms that must have causes; we need to be able to connect those dots. -
Peter Hogarth at 01:49 AM on 16 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Further insight can be gained from viewing the temperature trends by latitude bands, here both monthly anomalies for the land and sea Surface Air Temperature (Upper image, CRUTEM3+ HadSST2 plus five year trends) and Sea Surface Temperature (Lower image, NCDC ERSST V3b) have been charted for 15 degree bands from the equator to Arctic (each band anomaly is offset for clarity). Note long term SST trends are highest at the equator but SAT trends are highest at the pole. Though there are natural limits (in Polar regions there is a SST lower limit of freezing point of sea water in winter whilst SAT above any permanent ice is limited to melting point of ice in Summer) these observations are generally consistent with results from models where there is an overall net global energy imbalance with most of the excess heat energy being stored in the Ocean, and most of the additional input occurring in the tropical regions, with enhanced NH heat transport due to western boundary currents/NH land mass distribution and resultant enhanced NH Ocean/atmosphere heat exchange, as well as Arctic amplification (due to diminishing Arctic sea ice in Summer and albedo changes).
-
HumanityRules at 01:41 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
I thought the following was really interesting as it describes a situation not too disimilar to the one describrd here, only problem is it's occuring in the early 18th century. C Eriksson - 2007 I was particularly taken by the description of MP7 (1707–50) (p5530) in respect to figure 12 (p5328). ".....showing that the warmest documented decade, apart from the 1990s, was interrupted by the extraordinary cold winter of 1740." ".....show that the major features of the “normal” pressure maps (i.e., the Iceland low and the Azores high) were much weaker. The dominant feature was instead a continental or Scandinavian high, whose exact position determined the coldness of each winter." Somebody with more knowledge will have to tell us whether this matches the description of highs from the arctic dipole causing cold winters in the present warm period as described here. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:39 AM on 16 January 2011The Queensland floods
#71, Albatross, yes I was vague since I switched from 2000 years in #51 (because it was based on only one location) to the Holocene in #68. My less vague view that while the current SST enhancement is partly AGW, the range is normal for the Holocene. Which isn't saying much. -
Daniel Bailey at 01:29 AM on 16 January 2011The Queensland floods
Re: KL @ 75 above (this wasn't very readable in the moderation box) 1. You say:"No serious 'skeptic' argues that the planet has not warmed in the last 100 years."
At Skeptical Science this battle is brought to us almost daily. 2. Then you say:"There are 'coherent challengers' to the proposition that the temperature rise observed (0.7-0.8degC) is mainly man made"
Then you should have no difficulty supporting this claim with links to peer-reviewed sources, should you? Just put them on the appropriate threads. 3. Then you say:"and what its future trajectory might be."
Unsupported hand waving again. Repeat response to #2 above. The Yooper -
Pete Dunkelberg at 01:17 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
The Arctic Dipole anomaly is important. Note also that NOAA's annual report for 2010 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13 mentions the negative Arctic Oscillation as one of the major events of the 2010 winter. About the diagram "Records Support the Model": there is a very long link for it (not given) but does anyone know the site from which it can be found? Presumably a NASA site with a link to the diagram and an explanation.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Those graphs are produced from GISSTemp surface temperature maps as the 'zonal means' plot for a given user-made map. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:15 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
The arctic high is a consequence, not a cause, of the negative phase of Arctic Oscillation. The theory above would enhance the AO effects (creating even higher pressure) or it would make the AO more negative directly. Muoncounter, the blizzards of 1978 (midwest and NE) were a consequence of negative AO, the latter being a nor'easter. Likewise the February 1969 nor'easter came from negative AO. I remember the NE storms well. Those were and are a little different from your description which sounds more like a more common polar jet. There is a fairly simple but incomplete test of the theory above which is that the polar warming effect will be stronger in December than later in the winter (e.g. February) since the ice fills in and warming effect ceases. Last year the AO became the most negative on record in February http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii.table I personally believe the theory above is somewhat plausible as long as AO is negative from its other causes, and we will see a trend in negative AO enhancement in December (as is starting to show up in the table). -
chris at 01:04 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
HR, it helps if y ou doyour Web of Science search based on the information that you know (rather than attempt to "second-guess" what keywords might be appropriate) Try author: "Petoukhov V*" address: "Potsdam" and the paper referred to in the top article will pop up at the head of the list of papers by Petoukov: Title: A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents Author(s): Petoukhov V, Semenov VA Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES Volume: 115 Article Number: D21111 Published: NOV 5 2010 -
muoncounter at 00:55 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Petoukhov 2010 See also here. -
HumanityRules at 00:52 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
8 cynicus " I would not be amazed if turns out to be just a climatic winter afterall." Which also wouldn't be inconsistent with climate change I guess. -
HumanityRules at 00:48 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Thanks Do you have a reference for the Petoukhov study? When I put 'arctic dipole Petoukhov' into the Web of Science search engine I get nothing, 'arctic Petoukhov' is no better. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 00:34 AM on 16 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Ken Lambert The question you should really be asking is why is Monckton basing his whole analysis on one study of upper-ocean heat content (down to 700 metres only) - with this study selectively choosing mainly cooling trends - while ignoring all the studies on upper-ocean temperatures, the studies which look at ocean heat content to a depth of 2000 metres, the studies which look at changes in abyssal heat content, and the studies that look at sea-level rise and energy imbalance. In short, why is he ignoring the bulk of the evidence in favour of one paper? And why does this not bother you? -
Marcus at 00:29 AM on 16 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Sorry to burst your bubble there, KL, but OHC has gone through flat periods prior to 2003, but that doesn't change the underlying, upward trend-anymore than an occasional flattening in atmospheric temperatures would. The fact remains the same-claims of "cooling oceans" are simply not backed by the available evidence-which shows a clear upward trend in both OHC & SLR, with occasional flat points, but certainly no evidence of a sustained downward trend. Still, Kudos once more for coming to the spirited defense of Monckton-he really needs *all* the help he can get-given the weakness of his actual arguments! -
muoncounter at 00:26 AM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#7: "ominous dark red areas above the arctic circle (66.5N) in fact occupy about 4.5% of the Earth's surface," Perhaps you prefer the ominous dark red polar views?
-
Ken Lambert at 00:21 AM on 16 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Original Post John Cook - we have seen all this evidence about OHC and SLR before (Lyman 2010, von Schukmann 2009 and Trenberth 2010) - on a number of occasions. Detailed criticisms have been made of the above Charts, offsets, etc which have not effectively been refuted by those offering OHC increase as proof of AGW. I won't repeat them here. That a skilled propagandist like Monckton is citing research papers favourable to his line does not mean the work itself has no merit. The OHC story is pretty flat since 2003. The energy balance is far from closed. More ice met and less steric rise in the SLR mix means that energy balance shortfall gets worse. -
cynicus at 23:59 PM on 15 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Here in NW Europe (NL) the winter of 2009/2010 had normal temperatures compared to climate which is ofcourse colder then we're used to. 2010/2011 was off a cold start with December being the coldest in 40 years thanks to an exceptional negative NAO. January is already much warmer then usual, but it's ofcourse too early to tell if it will remain that way. I would not be amazed if turns out to be just a climatic winter afterall. -
Tom Curtis at 23:57 PM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Ken @75, I have seen several suggestions that SEQ water should have maintained dam levels significantly below 100% of normal capacity going into a wet season. This seems dubious to me on at least two grounds. First 100% capacity is the designed capacity to ensure Brisbane does not run short of water, a designed capacity already proven insufficient by the recent drought (and given AGW, likely to be proven insufficient at least once every 20 years going forward). The second point is that it is not even obvious that SEQ could run down the capacity. SFAIK, normal capacity is level with the bottom of of the spillway. In other words, running the dam below normal capacity can only be achieved by pumping, and pumping cannot keep up with high levels of inflow such as experienced over the last few months. As to the timing of water releases, SEQ is very mindfull of the risks to those downstream. It has been suggested that they should have retained more water over the critical period thus lowering the level of the flood. However, even running the dam up to its maximum capacity would have only halved (approx) the water coming over the spillway, which would still have meant moderate flooding in Brisbane, but left the dam absolutely no flood mitigation capacity for the expected additional 12 hours rain. (That rain did not eventuate, but hindsight is 20:20.) It would also left no capability to react to a second Toowoomba/Lockyer style downpour. While I'm certain the algorithm used to determine amount and timing of releases will be improved from examination of this experience, I do not think the improved algorithm will be very different. I doubt it is practical to build up the dam wall. Currently the Brisbane Valley Highway runs over the dam wall, and there is no noticable gradient on either side of the wall. The only way to increase the size of Wivenhoe would be to extend the length of the dam wall by several kilometers (probably by 10 to 20 kilometers, and possibly more, and to flood out several Brisbane Valley communities. Finally, I think you are underplaying the significance of Cyclones. Having spent the majority of my 50 years in Queensland (including the last 37), I can tell you that rains such as we just experienced have accompanied every Cyclone I have been near, even when "being near" has meant living in Mount Isa while cyclones struck Normanton or Townesville. I can also say I have never experienced rainfall as continuos and heavy as that when not in the rain shadow of a cyclone. -
Ken Lambert at 23:54 PM on 15 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Original Port By the outlines of the land masses in the 'Nasa Map' above it seems like a Mercator projection is used. This vastly exaggerates the area of the high latitudes. The ominous dark red areas above the arctic circle (66.5N) in fact occupy about 4.5% of the Earth's surface, with the Arctic above 60N about 7% of the Earth's surface. It would be interesting to see a map of recent large winter snow areas at lower latitudes to compare these areas with the Arctic. The snow reflection effect would also seem larger at lower latitudes where there is higher incident solar radiation to reflect. -
dorlomin at 23:45 PM on 15 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Potholer 54 (whos video series a thoroughly recomend) has a new video out on this topic. Very useful and a pretty funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nJuAslQPaY&feature=sub -
muoncounter at 23:38 PM on 15 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#2: "upward flowing air over a warm ocean a low pressure regime" Similarly, the winter storms of late were under the influence of a counterclockwise flowing, north-south looping jet stream, as shown here for N Amer and below for the NH. Your globe makes it look clockwise.
--from the Jet Stream archives at SFSU GeoSciences/Meteorology
New Englanders call these winter storms nor'easters, as the low pressure loops over the Atlantic and wind comes from the northeast.
-
michael sweet at 23:20 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Since when does a journalists' personal opinion rate as equal to the conclusion of thousands of scientists? the IPCC summary was approved word by word by the Bush administration. It is not some left wing publication. Why do the deniers get to argue that the IPCC report is extreme when it is mainstream? -
michael sweet at 23:06 PM on 15 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Are the last two winters really cold? Or are people just used to winter being warmer than it used to be? I see few records being set for cold. Lots of snow, as predicted by AGW. Last week some deniers cited cold in a small part of Florida as supporting that it was a cold winter in Europe. If the winter was really cold they would not have to search the entire globe to get a few of cold reports. On the other hand, it has been record heat in Greenland and much of Canada. -
MarkR at 22:55 PM on 15 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Nice explanation with very nice pics: I haven't had time to check the meteorology myself, so thanks 'D.' :) I think this states a bit too much confidence though; The Honda et al paper from 2009 shows a good physical basis but it's also possible that there will be other ways to handle the high pressure and perhaps we won't see cold winters. Someone in my department found a link between low solar activity and cold European winters and perhaps that is the largest contributor... ...or we've just been unlucky recently! -
MarkR at 22:51 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
#6: ARGO data choice is justified since it's the best global coverage we have, but they have looked at a very short term dataset and there are some known potential problems with ARGO that they're checking iirc. It's possible that upper ocean heat content has been flat or declining for 5 years, but the data that suggests that might be flawed. It's a bit like when we put up the original MSU satellites to calculate temperatures. They are ideal, but we later found that they were dragging on the atmosphere. There's a potentially similar problem with the ARGO floats... -
boba10960 at 22:50 PM on 15 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Very helpful post! But I'm confused about one thing. Under "Global Pressure creates Arctic Corridor", isn't upward flowing air over a warm ocean a low pressure regime, rather than a high pressure regime? -
Ken Lambert at 22:24 PM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Albatross #73 Not so fast Albatros. I was a little sloppy in conceding AGW might have had a hand in this extreme event. I should have said GW might have had a hand, although even Tom Curtis has added above that Aboriginal history confirms that event 2011 + 2.5m could be more like the limit of natural flood variation in the Brisbane area. You know the rule in this wide brown land; the flood relief claim is going in just after the last drought relief cheque has been received. -
Esop at 22:17 PM on 15 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
A most excellent post! The graphics make the topic understandable for most lay people as well. -
Ken Lambert at 22:09 PM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Tom Curtis #74 After a morning of cleaning up debris - I really should not be doing this either Albatros. Tom - good points. I defer to your detailed knowledge of the capacity of Wivenhoe in the lead up to this event. There is some discussion in today's papers about whether Wivenhoe should have been run down to a lower level given warnings in October of the the very well developed La Nina and the high probability of a lot more rain through the summer with higher than normal cyclone activity. Of course coming out of a major drought - it would have been a tough decision to run Wivenhoe below its 100% level given that it was down to 15% only 18 months before. While the general points about the limits of natural variability (2.5m higher than 2011) you concede - the huge volumes released from Wivenhoe at peak (56% of capacity by your numbers) do point to better micro management of the future levels. For example - timing of the releases to arrive in Brisbane city at low tide was a major factor in the peak levels reached and the number of houses and businesses inundated. With a high to low tide cycle of roughly 6 hours - being able to hold back releases for 6 hours at a critical point could make a large difference to the peak downstream. We were lucky that a 2.6m tide was not happening on the 12th and 13th of January. This is a utilitarian argument of course - those just below Wivenhoe might suffer more for the greater good of the major population centre in Brisbane. Maybe this points to running Wivenhoe with an extra 6 hours of peak 2011 discharge capacity in reserve (14-15%) so 'full' is no longer 100% but 85%. Or indeed if feasible - to raise the dam wall and increase capacity. Your final point is a bit of a stretch: "On the assumption of AGW we should find it less surprising, both because we expect such floods to occur more frequently, and because we expect them to occur with more normal (ie, non-cyclonic) rain conditions. Of course, AGW is not an assumption but a well evidenced theory with no coherent challengers." Firstly, the difference between a cyclone which weakens into one, and low which develops into a strong rain depression can be very little. Wanda in 1974 came in at Maroochydore headed SW and sat in the Brisbane catchment as a slow moving rain depression - not unlike this week's event. No serious 'skeptic' argues that the planet has not warmed in the last 100 years. There are 'coherent challengers' to the proposition that the temperature rise observed (0.7-0.8degC) is mainly man made, and what its future trajectory might be.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] See my response to you at comment 78 below and respond to its criticisms on the appropriate threads. Thanks! -
Mila at 20:42 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
#16 I have had a quick look into ulrichsweb.com: International Journal of Geosciences ISSN: 2156-8359 Start Year: 2010 Frequency: Quarterly Editor(s): Shuanggen Jin (Editor-in-Chief) Price: Free (effective 2010) Editor homepage: http://www.geosensings.com/ Most cited paper in WOS : Micro-plate tectonics and kinematics in Northeast Asia inferred from a dense set of GPS observations EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS Volume: 257 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 486-496 Published: MAY 30 2007 11 citations the first 10 papers in WOS by citation number has GPS in the title -
SNRatio at 20:28 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
I don't think there is much use in going after Monckton. Rather, he should be pressed to present his credentials as a "skeptic". If you are not willing to assume that the negation of your hypothesis might be true, you are not a skeptic, you are a denialist. I fail to see one single case where Monckton qualifies as a skeptic. But I haven't followed him that much. He should be pressed to make public statements on issues like the following, and if he doesn't want to, that should be used for cutting him off. And of course, the 1. What would you accept as evidence for ocean warming? Parameters, single or in combination, critical values. 2. What rate of warming will you be able to detect using your methodology, or the methodologies of your trusted sources? 3. Why don't you more thoroughly consider the evidence contradicting your hypotheses? 4. Are you willing to acknowledge that mainstream science might be correct in some or all of the matters where you disagree with it? -
jpvs at 19:42 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
dana1981 and jonothansf13, I'm trying to find out what the Int Journal of Geosciences and particularly its publisher SCIRP really is. It is quite strange. The domain name www.scirp.org is in the hands of a chinese company well-know for spreading spam. It has a PO Box in the US in Irvine Californa, but so far no real address could be traced. So far, I can't help thinking that SCIRP is a fake publisher, may be instrumental to the denial machinery: flawed articles in one of the SCIRP-journals pop-up every once in a while in the skeptical scene in Europe. I have contacted the editor of IJG to ask some questions about the publisher, the editor himself, the journal, the peer review process and the quality of the articles. I'll keep you posted. -
mjp at 19:31 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
so where do we go to make personal attacks on Monckton then? you spoil all the fun :) seriously, being on the back foot responding to this horribly incorrect gentleman and others of his ilk is the very worst approach if we can set up a body as significant as the IPCC to present the scientific case to the world's political leaders then surely we can set up a marketing and political arm to present to the media and to actively denigrate these professional snake oil salesmen not your job, i know. but there is an awfully naieve game being played here. sometimes you just have to wack people on the nose. hard. as often as necessary. -
phylae at 18:15 PM on 15 January 2011Models are unreliable
I see a lot of parallels between the modelling discussed in this article and the technical analysis used by some stock traders. Of course there are many differences, but at the heart of it, both types of modelers are trying to use intelligent analysis of past data to predict/project the future. I highly recommend the book, A Random Walk Down Wall Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street) for a very approachable explanation of some of the techniques that modelers use. The author's arguments that it is impossible to "beat" the stock market through this analysis isn't relevant to weather modeling. However, I think he does a good job of addressing the question of identifying success based on past data. -
Albatross at 16:44 PM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Sphaerica and Daniel, That is an awesome graph, much better than mine @26. I see that it has a problem though-- they are soon going to have to change the colour shading because the warm end of the spectrum is becoming saturated.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] They can always paint it black... -
dana1981 at 15:19 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
jonathansf13 #8 - the International Journal of Geosciences (IJG) definitely seems very sketchy. It's the same journal that published the horridly flawed Soares paper claiming that CO2 increases are currently following temperature increases (we're working on an article on that one as well). And the group which publishes IJG (and many other journals) seems to have a sketchy habit of re-publishing papers which had been published long ago in other journals, without telling the authors. It's very strange. -
muoncounter at 14:38 PM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
DKoD was on this 2 years ago, with some nice displays showing NH warming. -
archiesteel at 14:02 PM on 15 January 2011Oceans are cooling
Is BP still trying to argue that oceans aren't heating up because they were shown to heat up too much? Some people really do sound like broken records... -
muoncounter at 13:56 PM on 15 January 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
#37: I was surprised to find a way around the paywall. Nice that he also mentions that molecules like N2 are transparent to IR 'in earthlike conditions'. Perhaps some of our deniers are actually speaking about conditions on Titan? -
Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
ClimateWatcher - You might want to take a look at the latest numbers for Argo data and OHC. -
Marcus at 13:48 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Matthew, I'm not sure but it might represent heat lost to the atmosphere in the lead-up to the El Nino of 1998. That's just a guess though! -
muoncounter at 13:47 PM on 15 January 2011Oceans are cooling
#26: Stake through the debate or the debaters? Is it just me or does it look like that graph needs a quadratic fit: kind of flattish from '55-'75, then Bang Zoom Straight to the moon! -
Marcus at 13:44 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
The difference from 1910-1945 though, ClimateWatcher, is that there was a substantive rise in sunspot numbers (&, we assume, total solar irradiance), from 1979-2010 though, we've seen a fall in Sunspot Numbers/TSI, yet still we've got oceans warming almost as fast as they were in 1910-1945. Just FYI. -
Matthew at 13:43 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Why did the rate of warming within the oceans decrease between 1993 and 2004. Sure it is going up, but from 2004-2008 on that graph posted above shows this...Why? -
Daniel Bailey at 13:40 PM on 15 January 2011Oceans are cooling
@ KR (25) You really know how to put a stake through the heart of a dead debate. ;) The devil's advocate in me can hear the cries now: "They've hidden the decline!" The Yooper -
jonathansf13 at 13:40 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
I read the Knox and Douglass paper last week, and the first thing I noticed was that it was submitted on July 28, revised August 10, and accepted August 30. This could not have been a peer reviewed paper, the process was far to quick. I don't know what the standards of the International Journal of Geosciences is, I have never attempted to publish there, but they can't be too strict about scientific integrity.
Prev 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Next
