Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

When the north pole warms the south pole cools and vice versa . On average every 33. Years.

Sunspot activity is linked to climate for example the Dalton and maunder minimum. Sunspot activity has also been linked to increase's in volcanic activity here on earth though the mechanisms remain to be understood.

Over the last 2 years the sun has been very quiet leading some to predict another Dalton minimum and possibly a maunder minimum.

 

I get my info from here- http://www.bautforum.com

 

How come both Poles are warming then?

 

Solar radience has been in decline for the last 35 years (but still much higher than at the start of the century), whilst temperatures globally have been increasing.

 

We have some way to go yet before solar radience is anything like what might be described as a Dalton Minimum.

 

See graph on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_minimum

[Br8inend]

You are wrong about antarctic ice increasing.

 

It has been in steady decline on land, here has been an increase in the sea ice, despite the Souther ocean warming faster than other parts of the sea, for a variety of reasons including the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica, causing stratospheric cooling, cyclonic winds and polynyas that create sea ice. Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted.

 

You can look at a more full explanation here, including links to research papers that back up the points.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

As for the oscillation you are talking about I assume you mean the North Atlantic Oscillation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_oscillation

 

It is indeed why Antarctica has seen an increase in sea ice at that same time as the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than elsewhere.

 

I have no idea how many thermometers there are in Antarctica. It is not really very relevant when the temperature readings are being taken by the GRACE satellites.

 

Which actually showed lower average temperatures than which was assumed by temperature monitors , which are mainly based in built up areas thus benefitting from the heatsink. And then they adjusted the satellites to compensate this anomaly . Measuring the temperature of the earth is hard enough, measuring see ice is harder. The first satellites launched to measure the changing ice caps conveniently blew up on take off. This was a few years back now........They was eventually launched quite recently . A few months back if I remember rightly. So prove that I am wrong.!!!!! Seen as you openly declared it..

[Br8inend]

How come both Poles are warming then?

 

Solar radience has been in decline for the last 35 years (but still much higher than at the start of the century), whilst temperatures globally have been increasing.

 

We have some way to go yet before solar radience is anything like what might be described as a Dalton Minimum.

 

See graph on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_minimum

 

I'm affraid your mis informed , if I remember rightly the activity of the sun in the last ten years of the millennium were higher than at any time in the last 10000 years ! Do some research on solar observations , you may learn something !

[Wildcat]

Which actually showed lower average temperatures than which was assumed by temperature monitors , which are mainly based in built up areas thus benefitting from the heatsink. And then they adjusted the satellites to compensate this anomaly . Measuring the temperature of the earth is hard enough, measuring see ice is harder. The first satellites launched to measure the changing ice caps conveniently blew up on take off. This was a few years back now........They was eventually launched quite recently . A few months back if I remember rightly. So prove that I am wrong.!!!!! Seen as you openly declared it..

 

A peer reviewed paper looking at the evidence of the heatsink effect helpfully collected by Watts, has shown that the surface station records from the sites he claims are affected by heat from poor locations actually underestimate temperature change.

 

Thanks to his work a cooling bias in the surface station temperature records has been identified.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

 

Also the GRACE satellites have been providing "the most precise gravimetric data yet recorded" since 2002. Not recently after having blown up earlier. I am not sure what you are talking about but it is not the source of the information on temperatures being used to show that the Southern Ocean is warming faster than the rest of the sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment

Edited April 28, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

I'm affraid your mis informed , if I remember rightly the activity of the sun in the last ten years of the millennium were higher than at any time in the last 10000 years ! Do some research on solar observations , you may learn something !

 

Why should I do my research on your say so when you have been consistently wrong? and you have the evidence in front of your eyes in the post you were responding to that you are wrong? If you want to make a counter claim it is for you to provide evidence to back up the claim.

 

The link again in case you missed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

Edited April 28, 2010 by Wildcat

[Br8inend]

Why should I do my research on your say so when you have been consistently wrong? and you have the evidence in front of your eyes in the previous post you were responding to that you are wrong? If you want to make a counter claim it is for you to provide evidence to back up the claim.

 

Where have I been wrong?

Go research, are you scared I may be right? I'm not being your teacher , do your own research . I know what I know if you know what I mean. I consider it a curse.

[Wildcat]

Where have I been wrong?

Go research, are you scared I may be right? I'm not being your teacher , do your own research . I know what I know if you know what I mean. I consider it a curse.

 

Review my posts on this page.

[Br8inend]

A peer reviewed paper looking at the evidence of the heatsink effect helpfully collected by Watts, has shown that the surface station records from the sites he claims are affected by heat from poor locations actually underestimate temperature change.

 

Thanks to his work a cooling bias in the surface station temperature records has been identified.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

 

Also the GRACE satellites have been providing "the most precise gravimetric data yet recorded" since 2002. Not recently after having blown up earlier. I am not sure what you are talking about but it is not the source of the information on temperatures being used to show that the Southern Ocean is warming faster than the rest of the sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment

 

Those satellites do not monitor sea ice , doh

[Br8inend]

Review my posts on this page.

 

Like the one you claim that I claim that the southern oceans are warming quicker than the res of the sea. Iv decided you are a fool and you must never argue with a fool. Good day.!!!!!

[Wildcat]

Like the one you claim that I claim that the southern oceans are warming quicker than the res of the sea. Iv decided you are a fool and you must never argue with a fool. Good day.!!!!!

 

I didn't say you had said that the Southern Oceans had increased in warmth.... I said that, and then followed it up with an explanation for why that means people in New Zealand seeing Iceburg's is not inconsistent with sea temperatures warming.

 

The full explanation I directed you too on the link references the explanation I gave through 4 peer reviewed articles.

 

Not only have you misattributed who said what, you seem to think you know more than people publishing peer reviewed work on the subject.

 

Why should I be convinced by the authority of your views on the subject above the people researching the subject and publishing papers on it?