Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 Next
Comments 107201 to 107250:
-
archiesteel at 02:36 AM on 24 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: you clearly didn't understand what CBDunkerson explained. During those times, CO2 was a feedback. When the main forcing stopped, the feedback diminished. Today the situation is different. We don't have an insolation-based forcing. However, CO2 levels are 35% higher than at the highest point during the past 600,000 years. It *is* the forcing, not the feedback. If you disagree, please provide scientific evidence supporting your point of view. Anything else will be ignored as more noise from the contrarian side. -
TonyWildish at 02:21 AM on 24 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Bibliovermis, the blanket analogy is precisely that, an analogy. It is not a model that represents every aspect of global warming. Nor does it need to, it shows the point that a warm body can be made warmer by something cooler, without violating the second law. So it's enough to disprove the skeptics' claim. Tarcisio, are you implying that the second law does not apply to radiation? If that were true then this rebuttal would not need to exist. As it is, the second law applies equally to all forms of heat-transfer - you will not find a textbook anywhere that defines the second law as behaving differently for conduction, convection, or radiation. KirkSkywalker, nothing in this rebuttal is specific to a certain gas, any GHG will exhibit the same effect. CO2 is important because there's so much of it, and adding more is like adding another blanket, and another, and another. As others have pointed out (#3, #14) I didn't emphasise this point enough in the post, but adding more blankets will make you warmer, even though the outermost blanket may itself be quite cold. -
mistermack at 02:06 AM on 24 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
CB, you clearly don't rate CO2 as having much of a greenhouse effect, if you think that a slight drop in insolation could halt temperature rises, at a point of extremely high and rising CO2 levels. A factor of 1 could hardly suddenly drag the world out of the depths of an ice-age, all the way to the hottest point in the cycle. -
Tarcisio José D at 02:01 AM on 24 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Visitei o site sugerido por LukeW, scienceofdoom.com e achei um absurdo aplicar a segunda lei aos corpos sujeitos à energia radiante. É como se um corpo ao receber energia radiante mandasse a energia parar e responder se veio de um corpo mais quente ou mais frio. Se a resposta for mais quente, pode entrar, caso contrario será bloqueada. Quanto a questão da atmosfera ser mais fria que o solo, podemos diser a mesma coisa. O solo recebe milhões de emissões das particulas do ar e não tem a propriedade de escolher se esta emissões provem de um corpo mais quente ou mais frio. Ele simplesmente recebe esta energia. "Google tranlated" I visited the site suggested by LukeW, scienceofdoom.com and thought absurd to apply the second law for bodies subjected to radiant energy. It's like a body to receive radiant energy to send power to stop and answer came from a body warmer or colder. If the answer is hotter, you can get, otherwise it will be blocked. Regarding the question of the atmosphere is colder than the ground, we see the same thing. The soil receives millions of emission of particles from the air and has no property to choose whether this emission comes from a body warmer or colder. He just gets this energy. -
mistermack at 01:44 AM on 24 October 2010The science isn't settled
Archie, the difference is, a plane crash is almost 100% bad. A bit of warming isn't. (Certainly not for Britain). So it's not black and white like a plane crash. And considering that without MMGW, if you go by the previous cycles, we are due to drift into a full ice-age, a moderate amount of warming might be a good thing for the rest of the planet too.Moderator Response: Further comments on warming's benefits versus costs must be made on It's Not Bad. Further comments on the need to prevent the next ice age must be on We’re Heading Into an Ice Age. -
Ken Lambert at 00:22 AM on 24 October 2010It's the sun
e #717 This is the introduction to your cited Hansen paper: "Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing humanmade greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years." I don't think so. OHC content measurement debated at great length elsewhere on this blog eg; "Robust warming of the global upper oceans" has shown that OHC measurement is everything but precise. Even Dr Trenberth who would be on the same side of the debate as Hansen can only find 60% of the OHC increase posed by the 0.9W/sq.m imbalance. Will post my numbers when completed and checked. You all can be my peer review. -
RSVP at 00:02 AM on 24 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
archiesteel You keep insisting I produce a map and that I claim something about maps existing, etc. Someone's imagination definitely got sparked and related the word "map" to satellite surface imagery. Actually if you take a look at the center image above, you will notice the contours indicating temperatures actually are asymetrical around city center, with warmer temperatures downwind. I'm sure real estate agents would be thrilled have the kind of control on physics that you purport so that they could indeed command hot air to blow straight up around houses they cant sell. Again, your insistence in all this is just a way to detract from the topic at hand which looks like your best shot. Congradulations! You are king of the hill. -
mbayer at 23:35 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
Come on people, voting was not so difficult. :-) You do not vote a single website; you can give 1-5 'points' to any of the shortlisted websites for each group. You have the chance to visit the sites first before voting. Open new tabs for each website. When you do the rating for each website (selecting 1-5 stars), the system sends your vote to physics.org to get counted. -
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)
Prev 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 Next
