2010 Global Temps

[BethesdaWX]

I never agued that calibration is used for such aging... I argued that there is no evidence that satellite data is flawed from this... at least not nearly as much as the error cone in GISS.

[skierinvermont]

I never agued that calibration is used for such aging... I argued that there is no evidence that satellite data is flawed from this... at least not nearly as much as the error cone in GISS.

And I provided you three studies which show there is substantial disagreement and error in this calibration process. So you are wrong. There is very large disagreement about how to interpret the satellite data.

[BethesdaWX]

And I provided you three studies which show there is substantial disagreement and error in this calibration process. So you are wrong. There is very large disagreement about how to interpret the satellite data.

I just read through it now...

Disagreement, Yes. Error.....we don't know if its positive or negative between calibration, & we have no way to verify where/how much....if at all, is present after calibration. We know that there is likely error, but how this manifests in the final measured anomaly is vague.

[skierinvermont]

Now that you read my links about the Antarctic being hit with the MWP, & the smaller glaciers at both poles, what is your response?

Here it is again in case you lost the link

http://www.co2scienc...pantarctica.php

Its fact, There was less ice at both poles during the MWP... that was completely solar related. Higher Global Trelines... all solar. Heck, the summers were probably ice free...completely solar.

Again....Satellite Era alone, 100% of this can be explained through Solar & Ocean. Sure, we could peg Co2 as a Cause as well... but that doesn't change the fact that it Could be explained 100% naturally.

GCC's lowlevel decrease is a major warming factor, changes in WV that we've seen are completelyt representative of those LL changes, so its not what one would consider a "cooling" factor. Whatever is causing these changes in GCC is another HUGE factor.... the only reasonable explanation is GCR, 3% decrease in the CC definitely have nothing to do with CO2 increase

Resized to 76% (was 880 x 506) - Click image to enlarge

The above poster falsely claimed that decreasing GCC is responsible for the warming the last 30 years based on ISCCP cloud data.

I received an email this morning from the head of the ISCCP, Dr. Rossow, which says quite explicitly that ISCCP cloud data should not be used for long-term trend analysis. The better data sets we have do not show significantly decreasing cloud cover.

Andrew, As I published long before this paper came out, one should not

(yet) use ISCCP for long-term monitoring... the project was not

designed for this purpose at all.

This is a classic example of why you must understand the peer-reviewed literature if you want thoughtful, factually correct information. Skeptic blog sites are full of mis-information, poor arguments, and factually incorrect data such as the classic example above.

[BethesdaWX]

Flunk..... My Quote "GCC's lowlevel decrease is a major warming factor"....

It is!

Also, try googleing the definition of "timeframe" of such.....that should help.

GCC's lowlevel decrease is a major warming factor, changes in WV that we've seen are completely representative of those LL changes, so its not what one would consider a "cooling" factor. Whatever is causing these changes in GCC is another HUGE factor.... the only reasonable explanation is GCR, 3% decrease

Uhhhh, when did I say GCC decreased 3% in 20yrs?

[salbers]

These trends are the only thing that will encourage "switching". And it still won't happen in our lifetime.

Maybe not completely, depending on exact lifetimes. It could be a majority of a switch at least by mid-century. It depends on whether we're talking about electricity, liquid fuels, location, etc.