physicsguy21
-
Posts
115 -
Joined
-
Last visited
About physicsguy21
-
I've explained to you why the data presented on skepticalscience blog is nonsense. For the sake of scientific etiquette you'd heed my advice and stop citing that blog. 1. The GISP DO18 isotope cores present a 30yr resolution window, instrumental data must be fitted in this window of scew resolution. Skepticalscience blog creates a graph that does not abide by this reality. 2. The measurements skepticalscience blog cites were not taken on the Greenland icecap elevated many 1000s of feet. That alone invalidates skepticalscience blog. 3. DO18 is more representative of tropical or mid latitude SSTs than it is polar temperature. Skepticalscience blog has a well known lack of physical understanding, evidenced by their widely discredited TSI - Smoothed surface temp comparison which treats the oceans as having instantaneous thermal capacity and response time. Next time you might want to think of a better source, John Cook (skepticalscience blog runner) is entrenched in political activism.
-
The images were created by skepticalscience blog. I don't have any problem with citing peer reviewed proxy evidence but correctly measuring and applying comparative datasets is very important to me. Thanks.
-
For the umpteenth time I have no idea who or what you are talking about. But if you were to actually read the paper you linked, perhaps the issue would become clearer. The skepticalscience blog images are doctored because they contain an inadequate resolution window and do not reflect conditions on the icepack itself. The readings were not measured on the ice cap, and contradict satellite data over the GISP2 region. This is directly a consequence of albedo fluctuation. For the record, DO18 is not a polar temperature proxy, It is more of a mid latitude SST proxy.
-
Please stop posting easily refutable skepticalscience blog fluff. None of the temperature data referenced were recorded on the Greenland ice sheet nor within the resolution window, which automatically invalidates it. The distinction is important by the means of albedo. Also please be aware of when applying instrumental measurements is acceptable and when it is not. GISP contains a 30yr resolution, so instrumental data must be averaged to this resolution window as well. SkepticalScience as a reference shows poor scientific etiquette.
-
I've caught a case of the giggles after reading through this thread. If in the unlikely case that warming resumes, the effect of CH4 emissions that may or may not result will be undetectable. I can provide powerful evidence of this. The previous interglacial period was much warmer than today, perhaps by 3-4C, and the temperature still plummeted 8-10C into the next ice age within centuries, while no global warming resulted from CH4 release, In reality we cooled dramatically while GHGes were at their highest. The Holocene climate optimum also featured warmer temperatures than those of today, and no explosive greenhouse warming resulted. http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif Climate change in+around Greenland. http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif As for the interglacial cycles, and periods of rapid internal variability such as the younger dryas, the causative mechanisms do not involve surface albedo or greenhouse gases.