Monday, April 21st, 2008
Interesting how Dr Scafetta response was an excellent rebuttal of AGW being the sole cause of GW. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/
More: continued here
Monday, April 21st, 2008
Martin, you will want to look first at Figure 9.3, Chapter 9 (attribution and detection) of the 2007 IPCC report:. “Comparison of outgoing shortwave radiation flux anomalies (in W m–2) after Pinatubo” …
More: continued here
Monday, April 21st, 2008
tom watson #174: you asked me and others where the extra energy has gone. Read some of the other comments on this page. You are keen on bringing latent heat into the picture. Find some numbers on the quantity of ice that’s been melting …
More: continued here
Monday, April 21st, 2008
Re 156 Martin Vermeer. You quote - “Re #152 Hank: you mean the self-same CSIRO that contributed model run number 15 in the Douglass et al. paper? What’s this about, a claim of scientific fraud?” When you have gained the experience that …
More: continued here
Monday, April 21st, 2008
Re: Ike Solem #263,. I don’t know what the reduction in solar irradiance reaching the surface from the Pinatubo was, but it would have to be a small percentage, since the total irradiance from the Sun is large enough to raise the …
More: continued here
Monday, April 21st, 2008
Re # 66 Lynn V: “…my meager understanding is that a lot of energy goes into melting ice (is this akin to kinetic energy?)…” It is called latent heat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat.
More: continued here
