Retief wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 06 11:13:12 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.
"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."
Then clearly, by this same argument, CO2 is not the cause of warming,
Clearly LYING RETIEF is a jerk and turd.
as: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/db1009/inputs/co2-sens.dat, shows that
the CO2 concentration increased from 278 ppm (~1770), to 298 ppm by
1910, however the temperature did NOTHING during this period...:
The Earth energy system did many things during this period of miniscule
investments in science and global monitoring. Unfortunately data
uncollected then cannot be resurrected now. We know that 1933 was the
all time peak for cyclones in the Atlantic, a record which went
unbroken until 2005. We know there was extreme heatwaves in the North
American Continent in the mid 1930s. Nobody even bothered to check how
much ice was melting. Nobody kept track of asian cyclones or southern
hemisphere cyclones.
Energy may have many forms -- it is not restricted to heat alone.
The records which do exist show a continuous upwards trend in cyclones
in the places where records were kept. Where temperature records were
kept there is continuous trends towards higher temperatures.
It is plain LYING WRONG to state that NOTHING happened.
The natural sinks had surplus capacities which were getting filled.
That was happening. There were vastly more forests worldwide to sop up
CO2. That was happening.
The CO2 records before the 1950s were uncorrected for local biases. The
lanscapes and industry and even fuels have changed. Gasoline was hardly
used in 1910. It is now impossible to reconstruct the world of 1910 and
take modern precision measurements. Scientific instruments were made od
sticks and mud in 1910. They didn't even have radio or vacuum tubes in
1910.
Clearly LYING RETIEF is a jerk and turd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png
If CO2 was the cause of the warming, it clearly would have warmed by
this time...
Clearly LYING RETIEF is a jerk and turd.
It was energizing. The term warming is inaccurate and deceptive. CO2
holds in ENERGY, which is popularly equated to heat, but also manifests
as winds and ice melting.
Before the IGY International Geophysical Year in 1959 most of the data
we take for granted did not exist.
The US government didn't bother to keep records of tornadoes before
1950. People didn't even know there were tectonic plates until the
1950s.
The arguments that RETIEF uses to blast Mann can be applied to his own
sources. The furthe back you go the less reliable are the "records", or
the more care is required in understanding the flaws in the record
procedures.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h
ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/
Realclimate.org is not a refereed scientific journal, Lloyd... Didn't
you recently demand that people cite scientific journals?
Retief
Clearly LYING RETIEF is a jerk and turd.
http://www.realclimate.org%2Findex.p...y8-BuONX-ofdng
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (2006)
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC)
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/1.html
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/3.html
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/4.html