Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 Next
Comments 106051 to 106100:
-
CBDunkerson at 22:39 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
mistermack #181: "Archie, "never stop" was not meant to be taken literally. (why do I have to explain that?)" Because it's the opposite of what you said? "If CO2 is the main driver, the feedback loop would have to continue as long as there was dissolved CO2 available to come out of the oceans." Why? If we take humans digging up and burning fossil fuels out of the equation then rising CO2 levels are a FEEDBACK. Once the forcing, in this case increased insolation of the northern latitudes, stops the feedback will eventually stop as well. Look at the ice-albedo feedback for example. Even if we stopped increasing atmospheric CO2 levels today ice would continue to melt for decades to centuries. It should not be at all surprising that there is a lag time between the point that a forcing peaks and the point that all of the feedbacks caused by that forcing peak. "And as I said earlier, what is the sudden stopping mechanism?" So long as the feedback factor is less than 1 it is simple mathematics that once the forcing ends the feedback must eventually do so as well. Ergo, the 'stopping mechanism' is quite obviously the end of the forcing. When you move your foot from the accelerator to the brakes of your car does the vehicle stop instantly? If not, why would you think that the entire planet can shift directions on a dime? -
FLansner at 22:33 PM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Hi Peter! At first glimpse your work appears brilliant, i will dig into it as soon as i get a little time. I just want to comment fast: The general picture, that the dive in DMI data might be caused by my pixel counting is flat wrong. Just check out years in the DMI link: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php 1991, 1993-4 shows temperatures above average in the melting period while 2010 shows temperatures clearly below average. So the essence here has nothing to do with my pixel counting that could lead to a little marginal error in both directions. So therefore as i said earlier, either DMI´s data in melt season are pretty useless or else we have had a cooling in the meltperiod 80N-90N from 1991 and foreward. And both options to me are surpricing and "hard to swallow". If you are correct above, then i believe that DMI´s presentations contains rather fundamental errors. It simply doens make sence to present melting temperatures warmer than average in 1991 and colder than average in 2010 if this has nothing to do with reality. I think i will forward your work to DMI, perhaps? K.R. Frank Lansner -
mistermack at 21:52 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, "never stop" was not meant to be taken literally. (why do I have to explain that?) If CO2 is the main driver, the feedback loop would have to continue as long as there was dissolved CO2 available to come out of the oceans. Which would heat the planet way past the point where it "did" stop. Is that any easier? If you look at the graph I posted above, where I averaged out the peaks and troughs, you can see that the trend is a continuous fall into an ice age, until some drastic event causes a spectacular temperature rise to a one-off peak, with this repeated over and over. It doesn't reflect the patterns of the Milankovitch cycles at all. Find out what drives that huge rise, and you will know what drives the climate. That's why the widely accepted 800 year lag is important. A tiny CO2 rise, following 800 years after a miniscule rise in insolation due to the Milankovitch cycle, just doesn't fit the bill. At the depth of the ice-age, a high proportion of the sun's energy is being reflected back into space anyway. I can't see a slow, tiny, gradual increase in insolation causing such a sudden and violent rise. And as I said earlier, what is the sudden stopping mechanism? -
Peter Hogarth at 21:29 PM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
FLansner at 08:16 AM on 23 October, 2010 Klaus Flemløse at 02:50 AM on 23 October, 2010 Albatross at 09:51 AM on 22 October, 2010 (and thanks also the many others who have commented). I have concentrated my efforts on the two points of 1) possible pixel counting errors in the Lansner data, and 2) possible bias steps in actual DMI data. This highlights significant problems with the Lansner chart. My summary based on the best available evidence is that Summer Arctic temperatures are increasing slightly, the Lansner chart contains errors and any conclusions based on this chart are likely to be incorrect. 1) I used an evaluation version of a commercial chart conversion software package to carefully create a “pixel counted” version of the DMI daily data for the past few years. I then compared this with the real DMI data. Some of the Summer daily values were as different as -0.98 or +0.84 degrees C. Difference values in Winter are much larger, but the re-generated overall charts looked very similar visually. Because the “above zero degrees C” only covers a few days, and it is above a threshold, any errors have high impact here, especially as the data is extracted from a different DMI chart for each year, each with potential scale and offset errors. I have concluded that "pixel counting" is not an appropriate method for analysing trends or data in this case. The Lansner chart has large differences from the correct DMI values and it appears the conversion of numerical data to images and then pixel counting from these images is easily capable of creating bad data. 2) I obtained daily ERA-Interim 2m air temperature data from 1989 to 2009 gridded for 80.25N to 90N. The ERA-Interim uses identical raw data inputs to the operational models used in DMI, but is a re-analysis, where a great deal of attention has been paid to systematically resolving small bias differences (particularly between different satellite sensors), so that the re-analysis can be used for climatology purposes and trend analysis (Dee 2009, ECMWF Newsletter). The absolute temperature plots of both ERA-Interim and DMI for 2008 (or any other year in the overlap period) indicate that the underlying raw data is almost identical.
I used the daily ERA-Interim >80N data to look at the Summer melt above zero degrees C in exactly the same way as we have treated the DMI data. Results are plotted for daily minimum air temperatures greater than zero degrees C and also daily maximum air temperatures to look at possible differences. The ERA-Interim trends over the period 1989 to late 2009 for both Tmax and Tmin are identical and positive. This means it is likely that bias steps are affecting the real DMI melt season data. The two operational model transitions in DMI at 2002 and 2006 are identified with crosses below, but there are other points where new satellite data streams are assimilated where bias errors have been identified and addressed comprehensively in ERA-Interim.
A rolling 365 day average plot was then generated based on the daily data from DMI and ERA-Interim, which highlights the small bias steps in the DMI series which are likely to be related to the changes briefly described in the “advanced” article.
The ERA-Interim >80N 2m air temperature trend from 1989 to 2009 is 1.27 degrees C/decade. Based on the most comprehensive data set we currently have, it appears GISS is underestimating the recent high Arctic temperature trends, and the Arctic is not currently “cooling” through the melt season.
-
archiesteel at 21:02 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Oh, and where are those map-like top projections that show UHI effects "trailing off"? I mean, you must have some handy, considering you claimed they existed several posts ago, right? Right? You know, unless you made that up. -
archiesteel at 20:57 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
@RSVP: you didn't mention that, in that hypothetical scenario, humans were still emitting GHGs. How am I supposed to know what's in your imaginary world? Maybe it's full of grazing unicorns whose flatulence actually remove methane from the air. Your cooking analogy is similarly flawed. But hey, you're clearly lonely, who am I to judge. -
RSVP at 20:51 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
archiesteel #293 "how about "100 times," Looks like you forgot about the effects of GHG. 100 seems too high now. I do a lot of cooking, and turn the flame down when I put the lid on the pot. It doesnt take much to keep the pot going once the right temperature is reached. -
archiesteel at 20:34 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Oh, and KR did provide a decent answer. You should apologize to him for your rude behavior. Moderators, you should delete this entire exchange. -
archiesteel at 20:32 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Replying to yourself, RSVP? (You posted #292.) The answer to your question is no. It didn't even stop when contrarians began to ignore the facts to spew strange theories and engage in amusing but otherwise wasteful sophistry. -
RSVP at 20:30 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
#292 One question leads to another, not that KR shouldnt provide a decent answer, but here's one more. Did scientific inquiry stop when AGW was formulated? Just a question. -
archiesteel at 20:28 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
@RSVP: I don't really think you're looking for an answer. You're just here to waste people's time. If I'm wrong, and you *are* looking for an answer, how about "100 times," since waste heat is 100x smaller than AGHG forcings. Two orders of magnitude. You know, what it says in the article above. -
RSVP at 20:25 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
doug_bostrom #291 On the otherhand, for the so called "non-skeptic", if it isnt found on the internet, it cant be true... most amusing indeed. -
Rob Painting at 20:18 PM on 23 October 2010Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
Thanks for the clarification Kooiti. Readers might want to view a video of Andrew Dessler addressing the humidity issue & climate sensitivity at Deltoid -
Paul D at 19:55 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
Tenney Naumer... What's a VCR? :-) -
les at 18:58 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
I believe this nomination is nothing to do, directly, with the AGW/Anti-AGW debate or SkS position on it; except so far as this debate has forced a lot of people to communicate science in general and physics in particular, at a number of levels, with the general public. As a spin-off of this 'debate' sites like SkS have provided some stupendous explanations, digestible by anyone and everyone, whatever their perspective on AGW. SkS's 3 level explanations, appropriate use of graphs, equations, analogies etc. is clearly a great example of the communications of science with the general public - what ever your perspective on climate change. -
Riccardo at 18:38 PM on 23 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Glenn Tamblyn it shouldn't be necessary to add "net" to heat, it is already the net energy exchange (or flux). Though, you're right that there's a lot of confusion on this concept, we all often call heat the energy emitted by warm bodies (the Stefan-Boltzman law). -
Doug Bostrom at 18:21 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Is there any amount of energy put out by man on a continual basis that could cause the Earth's temperature to rise, say 1 degree C? The amusing thing about that question is that to a "skeptic" a proper answer would be impossible for all the same sorry reasons we're familiar with. A model would be necessary, feedbacks accounted for, parameterizations established, etc. -
RSVP at 18:02 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Daniel Bailey #288 You just stepped in something. Check your shoe. -
RSVP at 18:01 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
To archiesteel... It is accurate to say a response is not an answer. KR The answer only required a YES or a NO, and a number please if YES. Let me put training wheels on the question and rephrase. Is there any amount of energy put out by man on a continual basis that could cause the Earth's temperature to rise, say 1 degree C? -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:33 PM on 23 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Tony Several comments have already mentioned this, and I understand that this is a basic post, but the distinction between 'Heat cannot flow from a cold source to a hot source' (NOT a correct statement of the 2nd Law) and 'NET Heat cannot flow from a cold source to a hot source' (A more correct statement - we wont mention entropy at this level) is fundamental to identifying the fallacy in this sceptic argument. So somehow you need to weave in the NET element to avoid giving sceptics rope to hang themselves with. (On the other hand....) -
Daniel Bailey at 17:07 PM on 23 October 2010Are we too stupid?
Doug, your nuke car is only missing a flux capacitor. Add a small crane on the back and it would look like it was a Krell design out of Forbidden Planet. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:23 PM on 23 October 2010Are we too stupid?
Two things about that car bother me (I mean, besides whether or not the reactor is given an airbag). First, the designers apparently decided they'd change the polarity of radio broadcasts along w/introducing reactors to the roadways. Second, it looks as though it would be necessary to climb on top of the reactor to retrieve the spare wheel. I mean I'm sure it's perfectly safe even without lead underwear but it looks extremely inconvenient. -
Ari Jokimäki at 16:21 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
Somebody has thought hard how to make a voting system that is as awkward as possible. I voted SkS too, probably. I gave some stars to zooniverse too, as I have been there long time ago classifying some galaxies and lately I have digitized some old weather observations. I suggest that to everyone - this is your chance to do real climate science: http://www.zooniverse.org/home -
Daniel Bailey at 16:12 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Re: archiesteel (287) I believe that may have been RSVP's version of a concession speech... -
Tom Dayton at 16:10 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 is not increasing
KirkSkywalker, just one of several places you can find details of the problems with Jaworowski's claims is by Jim Easter.Moderator Response: Thanks to all three of you for responding to KirkSkywalker's comment. However, in the interests of not diffusing this discussion all over the site, let's redirect any additional comments to the thread where KirkSkywalker first posted on this subject (What does past climate change tell us about global warming?). -
Doug Bostrom at 16:06 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 is not increasing
Make up your mind, Captain Kirk. Elsewhere just a few minutes ago you said the problem w/ice cores is sublimation of CO2, here something different. It's ruinous to your credibility when you spew hypotheses willy-nilly. -
archiesteel at 15:52 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 is not increasing
@KirkSkywalker: Zbigniew Jaworowski's views on the validity of ice core samples are hotly contested, and do not represent the current state of the science. There's no real reason to doubt the validity of ice cores samples with regards to CO2 levels in the last 600,000 years. It's all about evidence, and Jaworowski doesn't have much to support his claims (and neither do you). -
archiesteel at 15:46 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
@RSVP: he responded to your question, quite well too. The fact you don't like the answer is inconsequential. -
KirkSkywalker at 15:44 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 is not increasing
The problem with the use of ice cores as a proxy for CO2 measurements is that the ice is unavoidably contaminated by liquid water. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (CLOR) in Warsaw, Poland, in written testimony submitted to a U.S. Senate committee in March 2004 said: "Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73°C) contains liquid water. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice." Since global-warming evidence of C02-levels rests exclusively in ice-core samples, then this argument proves its Achilles-Heel.Moderator Response: Moderator Response: You have posted related claims about ice cores in at least five different threads on this site. Please do not spread discussions of a single, narrow topic across many different threads. Another commenter (KR) has already responded to your claims in the thread where you first posted this material (What does past climate change tell us about global warming?), so it would be a good idea to respond there. Thank you. -
RSVP at 15:42 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR #283 As a thought experiment, imagine if you could simply answer the question and remain coherent, nor have to renounce your cherished beliefs and formula. Not easy is it? -
Tenney Naumer at 15:37 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
Well, it was easier than setting the clock on my VCR. -
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.
Prev 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 Next
