Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 Next
Comments 106001 to 106050:
-
Climate's changed before
KirkSkywalker - It's not CO2 ice, it's CO2 gas trapped as bubbles in water ice; a physical sequestration (think ice gas tanks). There is some movement while additional snow/ice packs on top, which depending on the ice core is why a single layer is a running average of perhaps several decades - but sublimation isn't an issue. -
KirkSkywalker at 15:29 PM on 23 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
This argument assumes that carbon-gases trap heat from both the Earth and the sun, but there's no evidence to support this; on the contrary, atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen are more absoptive than carbon-gases at certain wavelenghts; carbon-gases are not a "blanket" in any sense, they simply have different resonant-frequencies than non-carbon ones.Moderator Response: You are very incorrect. See CO2 effect is weak. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:19 PM on 23 October 2010Climate's changed before
The CO2 is in a solid state? Can't be found unless it's solidified? Have you looked in a mirror recently, Captain Skywalker? Noticed any snow coming out of your nostrils? -
KirkSkywalker at 15:16 PM on 23 October 2010Climate's changed before
"Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere." Ice-cores are worthless, since CO2 sublimates above -70C, and thus esapes to newer parts of the ice; and there's NO place on Earth where temps remain below -70C, and so ice can't provide a reliable record since it simply escapes upward whenever the temperature's above this, giving the false impression of an increasign carbon-levels in the atmosphere. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:15 PM on 23 October 2010Increasing southern sea ice: a basic rebuttal
Teh all-caps are part of the Poe's Law costume. "Case closed." Nice! -
archiesteel at 15:11 PM on 23 October 2010It's the sun
@oxymoron: temperature mid-century fell mostly because of aerosols, not a drop in solar energy. CO2 and aerosol forcing are an order of magnitude larger than solar variations. Don't get hoodwinked by scientists-for-hire like Willie Soon. -
KirkSkywalker at 15:04 PM on 23 October 2010Increasing southern sea ice: a basic rebuttal
In order for Antarctic sea-ice to increase, then the temperature has to be lower than the freezing-point of land-ice; since 1) sea-ice is salt-water, and thus has a lower freezing-temperature; 2) land-ice has a higher altitude, and so the air is colder, and 3) it's further from the equator, and therefore gets less sunlight, and finally 4) it doesn't get warmed by ocean-currents. Therefore if antarctic land-ice is melting while sea-ice is increasing, then it MUST be due to geothermal-factors-- NOT ATMOSPHERIC. This fits with the general refutation of man-made global warming, as with the melting of Greenland-ice due to underground lava-flows. It also fits with the fact that there's a volcanic activity at the South Pole, and this conducts more geothermal heat than any other kind. Conclusion: CASE CLOSED.Moderator Response: Please do not use all caps. It is considered yelling, and is prohibited by the Comments Policy. -
archiesteel at 15:02 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "Archie, if you click your own link, you will see that a feedback loop doesn't stop abruptly and dive back the other way." So, you admit that feedback loops don't lead to runaway warming, then? That was the (erroneous) claim you made which I responded to with that link. Try to pay attention. "It would stop gradually, as the available co2 in the oceans dropped in concentration. There is nothing in that graph that explains the sharp peaks in the ice-core graphs." What you call "sharp peaks" are actually gradual changes. They seem like sharp peaks to you because the time scale is compressed. Stretch it out and you'll see that not only are the changes not that quick (thousands of years), especially not when compared to the current warming trend. In short, you should stop eyeballing graphs and make the difference between long-term milankovitch-related cycles (where CO2 acts as a feedback, to get back on topic) and the current CO2-driven warming (where CO2 acts as a forcing. "Conditions most certainly did not reach equilibrium." Here you're half-right. Conditions never reach a total equilibrium, however, the changes are slow enough that they give that impression. This has nothing to do with the rapid rate of change we are experiencing, which is caused by increased CO2 levels. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:21 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
Might be worth clarifying how voting is supposed to work because for us unphysical types it may be puzzling. When you click on the link for your selected website from a given category, you'll be taken to that website, with a sort of toolbar shown at top. In the toolbar is a bargraph of little stars. Click on the star rating you want. You get to vote for more than one entry in a category, with what you think is the appropriate star rating for each site. Clear as mud, eh? -
Doug Bostrom at 13:53 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
The physicist's take on voting? Obviously it must be the best... A pretty nice selection of websites, many of which I didn't know of; I can see a lot more time expended in my future. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:29 PM on 23 October 2010It's the sun
May as well just provide a link to the entire paper, oxymoron, always better than a disconnected graph orphaned from its parent. Here: Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years (full text, pdf) -
adelady at 13:18 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
I think I voted too. Very odd. -
oxymoron at 13:03 PM on 23 October 2010It's the sun
archiesteel #713: I don't know if I will be successful in posting this chart (from Soon), but it shows the strong correlation between TSI and arctic air temperature from 1880 to 2000. Again, CO2 levels have been steadily rising, yet temperatures fell between (roughly) 1940 and 1965. To have gone from a sun-dominated system to a CO2-dominated system so quickly seems to be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.
-
Kooiti Masuda at 12:49 PM on 23 October 2010Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
Paltridge et al. (2009) did suggest that water vapor feedback would be negative, and the paper by Dessler and Davis can be considered as an activity to rebut the claim. The paper by Dessler and Davis (2010), however, concentrated on discussion whether we can say, based on scientific evidence, that water vapor has decreased in the upper troposphere during the late 20th century. It did not involve discussions of the mechanism of changes in humidity or other climatic elements. Both Paltridge et al. and Dessler and Davis made use of "reanalysis" data sets. Simply speaking, a reanalysis is an attempt to incorporate historical meteorological observations into a weather forecast model to produce a physically consistent data set describing the actual atmosphere. There are several multi-decadal reanalyses of the atmosphere, and NCEP/NCAR is the earliest achievement among them. Concerning humidity, NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis gave large weights on observations by radiosondes (baloons equipped with sensors and radio wave transmitters) conducted routinely by meteorological services of many countries. Later reanalyses put more weight on records retrieved from satellite observations. Radiosonde observations are valuable sources of information about climate change, especially because we can go back with them before the start of satellite observations. We must be careful to discuss trends based on them, however. Specific humidity (concentration of water vapor in the air) has order-of-magnitude difference between lower and upper parts in the troposphere. A radiosonde usually conducts observations while rising from the moister lower part to the drier upper part. Some sensors had long response time, or had difficulty in keeping accuracy at low humidity after having observed high humidity. Changes of sensors are likely to be improvements from longer response time to shorter one, likely to cause apparent decrease of humidity in the upper troposphere. In addition, sensors receive solar radiation in daytime and have temperature considerably different from that of the surrounding air. This difference causes a bias in records of humidity. It is a difficult issue to account for the bias, because it is dependent on many factors, such as darkness of the equipment, mechanism of the sensor, choice of expression for initial recording of humidity information, and attempt to compensate for the bias before official reporting. Teams that produce reanalyses, such as those of European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and of Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), try to find and to correct biases of radiosonde observations which they incorporate. They cannot achieve perfection, but they achive gradual improvements. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:44 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Oops. Turns out the past is prologue, sometimes (warning: suggestive carrot). Turns out that employing the word "covariance" is evidence of "a deliberately false impression being left, and a false claim being made." So we're looking at argumentation underpinned by a conspiracy fantasy. I'd suggest not providing further entertainment. -
mistermack at 12:22 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
e, the process of heading into the next ice-age seems to be almost continuous, it seems to be the naural condition, with the exception of the dramatic rise out of it. Ive illustrated that here, where I've just tried to show the underlying trends, seperated from the spikes.
Time is running from right to left. Temp is blue, co2 is green. It shows rather graphically what should be happening very soon, if manmade co2 doesn't have enough effect.
Moderator Response: Further comments by anyone about the onset of the ice age must be on the appropriate thread, which is not this one. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:17 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Before waffling on with various ignorant remarks about insolation and on the off-chance you actually care about this, mistermack, you might check into these papers: On the structure and origin of major glaciation cycles 1. Linear responses to Milankovitch forcing On the structure and origin of major glaciation cycles 2. The 100,000-year cycle Then, you ought to look at papers in turn cited by these two papers as well as citations of the pair. Once you've done that, you might be better able to simulate being a dilettante. If you don't have access to Paleoceanography your next comment here should be "where do I get a reprint?" If you don't ask that question, there should be a long (days long, at least) delay while you lift a finger on your own behalf, rather than twittering here about "guesses" and the like while rebuffing help you've asked for; between the two of them the papers are cited 748 times. (Don't bother asking me for pdf copies or the like, I could get them but you've got a poor attitude, so tough) -
Marcus at 11:59 AM on 23 October 2010Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
Ah, I see protestant is repeating the "no net warming since 1998" myth. He seems to be blissfully unaware that 1998 was a *very* anomalous year-consisting of both the strongest El Nino on record *and* the peak of the last solar cycle. 9/10ths of the 1990's had temperature anomalies of between +0.1 to +0.40 degrees C. By contrast, No year of the last decade has had temperatures *below* +0.3 degrees above the mean, & has seen temperature anomalies of between +0.35 to +0.60 degrees C-in spite of being dominated by a solar minimum. -
mistermack at 11:56 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, if you click your own link, you will see that a feedback loop doesn't stop abruptly and dive back the other way. It would stop gradually, as the available co2 in the oceans dropped in concentration. There is nothing in that graph that explains the sharp peaks in the ice-core graphs. Conditions most certainly did not reach equilibrium. -
CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, It occurred to me that the general thrust of your question is similar to the claim addressed in: are we heading into an ice age. From that post: "How do ice ages begin? Changes in the earth's orbit cause less sunlight (insolation) to fall on the northern hemisphere during summer. Northern ice sheets melt less during summer and gradually grow over thousands of years. This increases the Earth's albedo which amplifies the cooling, spreading the ice sheets farther. This process lasts around 10,000 to 20,000 years, bringing the planet into an ice age." Does that answer your question better? In summary: the leading theory is that Milankovitch cycles are accelerated by changes in albedo due to a reversal of ice melt trends. This combination of forcing and feedback is enough to overcome the effect of CO2 and reverse the temperature trend. The reason we don't expect this process to prevent warming in the next century is elaborated in that post. -
archiesteel at 11:43 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
@mistermack: exactly. Even a 10% threat seems too high for you, so a 90% threat should be even worse - and yet you seem fine taking a gamble on that 10% when it comes to the climate... -
actually thoughtful at 11:39 AM on 23 October 2010SkS Housekeeping: right margin
Right margin ideas: 1) Data! Current CO2, current rate of increase, current avg. temperature/30 year avg temperature, current ocean acidity, current Arctic ice extent, etc. 2)Dashboard - kind of speedometer graphs showing where we are and where the danger zone is. Basically tchotkes that highlight why so many of us are concerned/panicked about our future. -
mistermack at 11:38 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
The plane example is interesting. I wouldn't get on a new kind of aircraft, that had never flown before, but a panel of experts said that it was 90% sure to fly. -
actually thoughtful at 11:29 AM on 23 October 2010SkS Housekeeping: right margin
So I am one of the chumps still using an 800X600 display. Good news is it looks great, so long as I can ignore stuff in the right column. Can the comment editing box grow to roughly the same size as the commments? Pretty minor point, but wider is nicer. Thank you for this work, and more importantly, all the work to present our climate knowledge so effectively.Response: Good idea re comment box. Done! -
archiesteel at 11:24 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "If CO2 were the main driver of climate, the "feedback loop" with rising CO2 would never stop." False. Check this article here on why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming. "If you look at the ice-core graph above, you will see that "some unknown mechanism" did exactly that, stopped runaway warming" No. There's no "unknown mechanism" stopping the warming. The warming stopped because the system reached an equilibrium, i.e. the sum of all forcings and feedbacks was matched by the amount of energy lost to space. "If co2 was the main driver then, why did temps reverse as co2 continued to rise?" That's because CO2 isn't the only driver. "Main" vs. "only"...do you understand the difference? We can assume that, in those cases, some other forcing (such as aerosols, or lower TSI, etc.) caused temperatures to decrease even though CO2 levels were still high. There's lot of good information on this site. You should start reading the articles before trying to challenge the current theory. -
mistermack at 11:12 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, there is so much wrong there, I don't know where to start. If CO2 were the main driver of climate, the "feedback loop" with rising CO2 would never stop. Even the IPCC don't claim CO2 drives climate, they say it amplifies the effect of the Milankovitch cycles, via a feedback loop. If you look at the ice-core graph above, you will see that "some unknown mechanism" did exactly that, stopped runaway warming, at this point in the cycle, four times in a row. It's there for all to see. If co2 was the main driver then, why did temps reverse as co2 continued to rise? -
archiesteel at 10:53 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
@mistermack: I would't board the plane if it was the other way around, and there was a 10% chance of coming to grief." So, in essence you're arguing that, even if there's a 10% chance current AGW theory is real, it would still be too much of a risk? :-) "The truth is that the 90/10 is just someone's guess." You need to learn about statistical trends. "The reality is that CO2 has some affect, but we don't know if it can push temperatures significantly higher than todays." Actually, we have no reason of believing it can't - and yet you seem ready to gamble on the fact it might not. If you're going to err, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? "The 90/10 is not based on experience of previous events, we haven't had this level of co2 during an ice-age." Exactly, so why would you expect the result to be the same if the parameters are so different now? You're not making logical sense. -
archiesteel at 10:45 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "The earth may well have a mechanism that stops it getting hotter, once it reaches the tipping point of the spikes on that graph." So, you want us to forget all we know about climate science in order to entertained the unresearched hypothesis that some "unknown mechanism" is responsible? mistermack, your question has been answered, and I'll you've been able to produce as counter-arguments is that we "don't know for sure." Well, we sure know a lot more about the Greenhouse Effect and other forcings than we do about your mysterious mechanism. Sure, the CO2/temperature graphs don't match perfectly, becaue the Earth is a complex system, but the correlation between the two is striking. All the available evidence points towards CO2 being the main driver of climate, and CO2 concentrations have not been that high in 600,000 years. If you're going to challenge this, you have to bring your own scientific explanations, and they need to be as solid as the ones presented here. You have clearly failed to do this. -
mistermack at 10:38 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
Bibliovermis, I'm not mocking, but you made me chuckle there. I would't board the plane if it was the other way around, and there was a 10% chance of coming to grief. Or even 1%. I'm not sure how that affects AGW though. The truth is that the 90/10 is just someone's guess. The reality is that CO2 has some affect, but we don't know if it can push temperatures significantly higher than todays. The 90/10 is not based on experience of previous events, we haven't had this level of co2 during an ice-age. -
archiesteel at 10:24 AM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
@FLansner: what is your obsession with melt season data? Why exclude data from the rest of the year? It seems to me (and others, apparently) that the goal of this exercise was that there is an overall cooling trend - at least that's what the comment you posted in that article tends to indicate. As for the data, I was asking about the data you used to make your graphs. Perhaps I haven't been entirely clear, so let's try to establish a few things. Since you're a busy man, I'll try to keep it to yes/no questions: Do you agree that, overall, the Arctic has been warming up over the past decades? Do you agree that, despite alleged discrepancies in summer temperatures, yearly figures from both the GISS and DMI provide the same temperature increase, and as such are both useful when trying to determine overal warming trends? Did you produce the graphs on your site, and if so do you still have the link to the official data you used (not a link to a file hosted on your own server - I mean the original data from the DMI)? I still think the science on your site is shoddy compared to what's found here, but of course that is an opinion. Feel free to disagree with it - after all, we are all entitled to our opinions, aren't we? -
mistermack at 10:19 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
e, I posed a good question. I got no answer. To be fair, you are the only one who attempted one. I think my comments about the insolation graph were fair. They weren't just debating points. When the insolation at north iceland (67N) is high, it's going to be low at north Atarctica (67S), cancelling each other out. I don't see why they chose that graph at all. It's bound to give a false impression of reality. -
BBHY at 10:18 AM on 23 October 2010It's cooling
Oh dear, selti, the link you provided shows someone attempting to refute a decades-long trend with just a few cherry-picked data points. This is either a very basic misunderstanding of science, mathematics, and especially statistics, or a very poor attempt at deliberately misleading people. When you look at the full dataset, and include up-to-date data (beyond 2008, this year happens to be 2010), then the trend clearly remains unbroken, and IPCC is fully vindicated. If Girma Orssengo, MASc, PhD was intending to mislead then shame on him. If he honestly believes his presentation is an attempt at honest discourse then he should go to wherever he got his PhD and ask for his money back. -
mistermack at 10:08 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
I think that right Doug. I'm not talking to the right person. I was looking for good answers. Bye. -
David Horton at 10:07 AM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
Done John, I think - what a clumsy voting system! Good luck. -
CO2 lags temperature
misterack, You are just repeating the same claims over and over without any empirical support or attempt to substantially address the counter claims. There is no point in continuing this conversation. -
LukeW at 09:52 AM on 23 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Sceptics have been arguing this one for a while. Surely it's about net radiation. Does a photon know which way it's going? And you can take a pyrgeometer (longwave radiometer) - into the backyard – point upwards on a cloudless night and measure the downward radiation with a pyrgeometer. So what's the back radiation doing? In fact a net radiometer is a pair of pyranometers and pyrgeometers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_radiometer So all those people doing energy balance mustn’t know what they’re doing according to the sceptics? Eli Rabbet did a nice demonstration of net radiation with his alfoil light bulb. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html Do radiation shields show that cooler can increase warmer? And it's even done commercially be Osram and GE The IRC technology used in the installation lamp (burner) contains the routing of the infrared (IR) radiation of the lamp back to the filament by means of a suitable reflecting layer mounted outside on the lamp (burner). http://www.osram.com.au/_regional_APAC/pdf/Consumer/General_Lighting/IRC_brochure_APR_lowres.pdf Although my sceptic debater didn't like the fact that it was a reflector. So I guess warming from brick walls doesn't count here then http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/02/sydneys-weather-station-150-meters-makes-all-the-difference/ An alleged refutation experiment by some is Roy Spencer's solar box - http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/first-results-from-the-box-investigating-the-effects-of-infrared-sky-radiation-on-air-temperature/ but I think the relatively small cooling actually proves the point - and note here the impact of clouds here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/ A more formal treatment of the subject at http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/07/amazing-things-we-find-in-textbooks-the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/ -
Doug Bostrom at 09:25 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Ah, you've done Weart, you've read all the literature relevant to this topic, you're here as a last resort, not to argue, mistermack. I see. I was misled when you said sensitivity estimates are "only guesswork" because that remark is on its face ill-informed and sounds simply argumentative. You also sound as though you're more prepared to reflexively disagree as opposed to listen to answers you've asked for, but again that must be a misunderstanding. My apologies. There's a certain familiar pattern to interactions here, which often take the form of rhetorical questions followed by endless refusal to acknowledge new information. Clearly this is not one of those cases. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:13 AM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
I missed the part where Frank answers Archiesteel's question in 124. Frank, can you provide the data you used to generate your graphs? -
CO2 lags temperature
Correction, the graduations you're referring to obviously are from the chart I posted not the paper on the model. How exactly do the gridlines "accentuate" the spikiness? The frequency of variation is clearly much higher than the temperature trend. You're really reaching here. -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:59 AM on 23 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Tarcisio, I have not the faintest idea of what you are trying to say -
CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, So your claim is that "real" insolation will follow a significantly different pattern than in the diagram provided? Care to show your data, or will you continue making unsubstantiated claims? Of course the graduations accentuate the spikiness, the entire point of the model presented is to examine the theory that multiple equilibria in the climate system can accentuate the changes driven by insolation. The model was indeed able to produce an excellent reconstruction of temperature trends with insolation as the primary driver, in direct contrast to your unsubstantiated claims that such a thing is impossible. -
mistermack at 08:55 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Doug, it depends what you mean by fruitful. I don't care if the argument is won or lost. I want the answer. The correct answer, and I don't care which it is. If I learned something new from any of the replies, I would call that fruitful. It wouldn't matter where it pointed. -
Are we too stupid?
Crossposting with tongue firmly in cheek - We could always convert our automobiles to nuclear power, and avoid CO2 from transportation... -
Riccardo at 08:48 AM on 23 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
David Wrathall I could not find any usefull information following the EARS link you provide. They show a picture of the "Meteosat/MSG derived surface temperatures" between the 10 yearly periods 2000-2009 and 1983-1992. The MSG satellite has on board just visible and IR spectrometers; I wonder how they extracted surface temperature from them. Probably they used the GERB (Geostationary Earth Radiation Budget) instrument and measured the outgoing IR and claim that it's equivalent to temperature. It's not, of course, not even nearly so. This is what ESA says (emphasis mine): "By measuring the Earth's radiation balance on a continuous basis across day and night, from a higher orbit than any comparable instrument, GERB is helping climate scientists measure the energy source driving the general circulation of the atmosphere and assess if Earth as a whole is indeed warming up. " So, the satellite measures energy, not temperature, and not (only) from the ground. They awfully misunderstood (euphemism needed to stay in line with the comment policy :)) what's actually measured. -
kdkd at 08:36 AM on 23 October 2010It's the sun
KL #715 I can assure you that it's your argument that is unclear, and that it leads to conclusions that you do not state explicitly, but instead expect the reader to infer themselves. Not good enough I'm afraid. -
mistermack at 08:36 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
e, my point is there is lots wrong with your choice of insolation graph. Firstly, the baseline is 420, not zero. This makes it look far more spikey. Secondly, the 100,000 year graduations accentuate the spikyness. Thirdly, it's not insolation of the whole earth, it's just one line of latitude on the globe. Fourthly, it's just one day's insolation. The sun shines 365 days py. Basically, it's worthless in this context. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:27 AM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Oh, golly, decisions! Do I want the reactor ahead of me, or behind? So often the only answer is, "it depends." -
Doug Bostrom at 08:19 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Mistermack, it's probably worth pausing at this moment to evaluate whether it's worth your time pursuing an argument here, or more specifically which argument might be fruitful. In fact you might better spend time learning more about this subject before commencing to disagree because that way you could be more selective in your disagreements and be more generally useful. I only say this because your post at #156 is taking on the classic "throwing a cheesecake underwater" profile. Clouds, that's my suggestion... -
FLansner at 08:16 AM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
archiesteel at 07:33 AM on 23 October, 2010 "Also, you have been asked repeatedly: could you provide the data you used to generate your graphs?" Archiesteel, i have really been extreeeemly busy, so my comments here have been written in time i dont have. And i think you can see, that i have had plenty of comments that i should considder in this and other blogs. Im not sure what you look for, as my results as described on my site is not 100% accurate. Here are yearly values: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/BLANDET/DMIIS.xls But as i understood Peter Hogarth, he has actually got his hands on DMI numbers up to 2009 and alittle beyond. And Peter i would like very much to see those data :-) THen, Archiesteel you write: "...and yet both GISS and DMI show the same warming trend, as demonstrated above. How do you respond to this?" ?? Are you back to yearly numbers again or??? Please, I have shown trends 80N-90N in summer months DMI (ERA-40) data: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig1.jpg VS GISS 80N-90N summer data: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig2.jpg So 80N-90N, summer data does NOT show a match between GISS and DMI. You must be thinking of yearly data whoch was not what my article was about. Please lets move forward now. you write "Your site is under attack because the science presented on it is of shoddy quality" Well, feel free to argument on any topic mentioned whereever and whenever you want. until then, its very easy for you just to come with claims like that out of thin air. Im in for a debate on ANY topic in the climate debate. K.R. Frank -
CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, Uh yeah, it comes from the 100,000 year solar eccentricity cycle. What's your point? It's not just any "single day", it is the peak insolation for the year. Again, what's your point? What I was demonstrating to you is that the "spikiness" of the temperature trend can be predicted given insolation as a primary driver, something you suggested was impossible. You're grasping at straws in an attempt to dismiss this information.
Prev 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 Next
