Human carbon emissions could put off ice age

[Guest]

Soon 2005 was published in Geophysical Research Letters journal (GRU).

you have quoted text from a different journal.

My mistake - but the principle and intent of the Journal is exactly the same. They recieve many thousands of submissions and it is estimated that a subeditor has one day to assess and manage each letter submitted. This is not peer review in the general sense of the word.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

My mistake - but the principle and intent of the Journal is exactly the same. They recieve many thousands of submissions and it is estimated that a subeditor has one day to assess and manage each letter submitted. This is not peer review in the general sense of the word.

Br Cornelius

you state Soon cooked his data - wrong

you state you "know" he cooked his data - wrong

you state it was not peer reviewed - wrong

you state it was a letter response to the editor - wrong

you state it was only reviewed by the editors - wrong

you state the review process was 14 days with one cycle of review - wrong

you state "a subeditor has one day to assess and manage each letter submitted" - what does that even mean?

where are you getting your information? are you plucking out comments from anonymous peanut throwers on a warmist blog again?

post 41 gives the information you need.

all this ping pong just obfuscates the fact that you are not addressing the science - there is a high correlation between temperatures in the arctic and solar irradiance, yet you still believe that the slight decrease in arctic ice is due to fossil fuel co2 when no such correlation exists. no correlation means no causation.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Little Fish

[Von Bismarck]

thanks, the different TSI data sets seem to corroborate Soon et al, 2005.

if you plot from 1900 for each dataset you'll see similar shapes for the TSI which match the shape for the arctic temperature, a rise in TSI from 1900, followed by a decline in the mid century followed by a rise. it is not very plausible that this correlation is coincidence.

?????

I am getting no where near the same result as you. What data did you use?

The only way i can get it to look similar to the Soon 2005 graph is by using the data from Hoyt(Which is obsolete)

Soon hasn't cooked/manipulated any data, he has simply used incorrect (outdated) data. This is the major flaw in his paper.

[Von Bismarck]

?????

I am getting no where near the same result as you. What data did you use?

The only way i can get it to look similar to the Soon 2005 graph is by using the data from Hoyt(Which is obsolete)

Soon hasn't cooked/manipulated any data, he has simply used incorrect (outdated) data. This is the major flaw in his paper.

The best TSI reconstruction available would be Steinhilber et al and Viera et al, which in no way resemples the Hoyt TSI reconstruction(Used by Soon)

[Little Fish]

?????

I am getting no where near the same result as you. What data did you use?

the data you provided in the Leif link you provided, Leif, Dora, Wang, etc

select the respective column in a spreadsheet after 1900 and click the plot button, they all show the same shape, rise in TSI from 1900 to mid century, falls then rises again, same as Hoyt.

[Von Bismarck]

the data you provided in the Leif link you provided, Leif, Dora, Wang, etc

select the respective column in a spreadsheet after 1900 and click the plot button, they all show the same shape, rise in TSI from 1900 to mid century, falls then rises again, same as Hoyt.

When using Whang's (actually all of them except from the Hoyt and Lean data) data i get no* way near the same result.

Could you please upload your graphs?

Remember Hoyt and Lean based their calibrations on science which are no longer valid.

Edited January 12, 2012 by BFB

[Little Fish]

leif C, dora D, wang E, lean F, krivova K, all 1900-2000

and hoyt from Soon 2005

[Von Bismarck]

leif C, dora D, wang E, lean F, krivova K, all 1900-2000

and hoyt from Soon 2005

I see in no way that they resemble the Hoyt graph

[Little Fish]

I see in no way that they resemble the Hoyt graph

there is more resemblance between the graphs and Hoyt, than there is between the graphs and co2.

if the question was, what seems to be most likely warming the arctic, would your answer be, co2 or TSI?

Edited January 12, 2012 by Little Fish

[Von Bismarck]

there is more resemblance between the graphs and Hoyt, than there is between the graphs and co2.

if the question was, what seems to be most likely warming the arctic, would your answer be, co2 or TSI?

Clearing all the knowledge from my brain and only looking at the graphs, i would say TSI.