It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So if you want to prove cosmic rays are driving climate now - you have to prove they are driving climate now.
Originally posted by nataylor
There's actually more red than blue. The map projection distorts the land areas.
Originally posted by BingeBob
That map you posted was more blue than it was red...I took blue as being cold and red being hot...
So the quote in the email (paraphrasing) "Id rather destroy information than let i leak out..." doesnt stand out to you as being a reason to question someones integrity???
And no, saying in a personal email that you'd rather delete something than release it to someone who's been harassing you doesn't seem that odd to me. What a shock... scientists are real people and get frustrated.
After all a large chunk of them come from the Sun anyway.
All curves have been smoothed by an 11 year running mean (Krivova 2003).
Interestingly, poorly sited stations show bias on the cool side.
Actually, for UAH, the decadal trend is upwards.
When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2.
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
Originally posted by Athink
"Climate change" cannnot explain why deep Antarctic Ocean gets less salty and less dense. Overheating of the fission heated planetary interior can... Antarctica is just about the only "heatsink" left available for the planetary interior.
The orbital forcing is, however, relatively weak when considered on an annual globally averaged basis (the total insolation received by Earth has varied by < 0.7 W/m2 over the past 160 kyr). The amplification of this forcing, the observed dominant 100-kyr cycle and the synchronized termination of the main glaciations and their similar amplitude in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres cannot easily be explained despite developments including the nonlinear response of ice sheets to orbital forcing.
The discovery of significant changes in climate forcing linked with the composition of the atmosphere has led to the idea that changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing and by constituting a link between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere climates.
To say that CO2 causes temperature to change is analogous to saying that cancer causes smoking.
Solar activity was only 4% lower and CO2 levels were so much higher which makes the 4% irrelevant.
very strong correlation over the last half a million years.
READ THE LINK.
And take note of this part on page 141.
The lag was essentially predicted by the very scientists you are now trying to use it to debunk. They foresaw that it would explain how such relatively weak orbital forcing.
to initiate some very strong carbon/methane feedback.
It is completely misleading.
doesn't mean CO2 can't do the driving.
He's a disinformation agent.
forcing from a CO2 doubling is 3.7 W/m^2 and, as you yourself pointed out on another thread, this relationship is logarithmic.
The Milankovitch effect is anything but "weak". It's why we enter ice ages and interglaciations in the first place. They happen like clock-work every 115,000 years.
Have you seen the difference in temperature between NASA's GISS which uses only land-based thermometers and a few ocean thermometers and satellite data, i.e. RSS, HadCRUT, and UAH? Hansen's GISS data is always the highest. It's continuously breaking record temperatures and it's not surprising, since they put their thermometers next to air ports. Here's the difference between the GISS data and the satellite data (BTW, the HadCRUT is a conflation of satellite data and land-based).
Frankly, I'm fed up of you linking me to green-funded propaganda sites, like Sceptical Science.
Sorry, I haven't got time to read 141 pages.
The Milankovitch effect is anything but "weak".
The orbital forcing is, however, relatively weak when considered on an annual globally averaged basis (the total insolation received by Earth has varied by < 0.7 W/m2 over the past 160 kyr).
It's why we enter ice ages and interglaciations in the first place.
I have just given you direct proof that your links are coming from obvious disinformation sources, people who are literally being paid by large corporations to spread lies and obfuscate the science - and you're accusing skepticalscience.com of being "green-funded propaganda"??
I have just given you direct proof that your links are coming from obvious disinformation sources
Which part is propaganda.
But yeah, I guess it's "anything but" weak because, well...you know - you say so
They rely on feedback cycles and atmospheric GHG
Because there are indeed other drivers of climate too. Some of them have even been *gasp* more important than CO2.
does this somehow prove that CO2 cant affect climate?
If the Milankovitch cycle was weak the temperature wouldn't plummet and rise by 7 degrees every time the phenomenon occurs. It has been clearly demonstrated that during each of these Milankovitch warm spells the CO2 in the atmospheres increases.
Ergo, it is evident in these cases that a rise in CO2 is a consequence of the warming during these cycles and not the cause.
You might want to write to the IPCC and ask them to issue a retraction and clarification because according to the IPCC human-CO2-emissions are 13.8 times more powerful than natural focrings. That would suggest that CO2 rules the climate. You can see the net forcings here in the IPCC's AR4 report, page 4.
They attribute 10 forcings to anthropogenic influences, trivialise solar activity and don't take into account things like forcing of natural water content which contributes 95 percent of the global GHG effect.
newly added CO2 does not act any differently from the existing CO2.
we KNOW what the contribution towards forcing that CO2 is.
if you put CO2 from a different source in the atmosphere (fossil fuel comb, it will act radiatively just like the other CO2.
CO2 is a great amplifierr.
ra forcing from Milankovitch is, and all to explain the magnitude of the observed variations.
Water vapour is not a forcing on the timescale of climate models, it influences sensitivity, and it has been central to climatologist
In these paleological times, the fossil fuel that we are putting in the atmosphere was NOT in the atmosphere at any time.