Comments on: A Temperature Adjustment Example http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/a-temperature-a.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:39:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Vince http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/a-temperature-a.html/comment-page-1#comment-6619 Vince Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:26:08 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/a-temperature-a.html#comment-6619 <p>I wanted to thank you for your posts on global warming -- they have been very informative. I also wanted to get your thoughts on the related subject of ozone depletion. I have seen some arguments that the ozone depletion theory has not matched up with subsequent observations concerning the annually generated Antarctic ozone hole. My questions in this regard are as follows:</p> <p>1. Is it true that we didn't start gathering accurate measurements of the Antarctic ozone hole until 1978 when the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) was launched into space?</p> <p>2. If this is true, how do scientists know that the annual ozone hole is not a natural phenomenon?</p> <p>3. Is it true that CFCs in the atmosphere reached their peak in 2000?</p> <p>4. If this is true, how do scientists explain the fact that we have continued to have large ozone holes above the Antarctic since 2000, with the ozones holes in 2003, 2005 and 2006 being considered record-sized holes?</p> <p>5. I have read that the ozone hole in 2006 (which apparently was the largest ever recorded ozone hole) does not contradict the ozone depletion theory because the atmosphere above the Antarctic during that year was exceedingly cold. The premise for this argument being that a cold atmosphere leads to less ozone. But I have also read the exact opposite -- namely that a cold atmosphere is a consequence of ozone-depletion. Either way, how does the record ozone hole in 2006 impact on the ozone depletion theory?</p> <p>6. If cold weather leads to less ozone, is it possible that the ozone holes we have been seeing since the 1970s are cold-related events rather than being man-made CFC-related events?</p> <p>7. On the other hand, if cold weather is a product of less ozone, how come we keep seeing record-sized ozone holes well after atmospheric CFCs peaked in 2000?</p> I wanted to thank you for your posts on global warming — they have been very informative. I also wanted to get your thoughts on the related subject of ozone depletion. I have seen some arguments that the ozone depletion theory has not matched up with subsequent observations concerning the annually generated Antarctic ozone hole. My questions in this regard are as follows:

1. Is it true that we didn’t start gathering accurate measurements of the Antarctic ozone hole until 1978 when the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) was launched into space?

2. If this is true, how do scientists know that the annual ozone hole is not a natural phenomenon?

3. Is it true that CFCs in the atmosphere reached their peak in 2000?

4. If this is true, how do scientists explain the fact that we have continued to have large ozone holes above the Antarctic since 2000, with the ozones holes in 2003, 2005 and 2006 being considered record-sized holes?

5. I have read that the ozone hole in 2006 (which apparently was the largest ever recorded ozone hole) does not contradict the ozone depletion theory because the atmosphere above the Antarctic during that year was exceedingly cold. The premise for this argument being that a cold atmosphere leads to less ozone. But I have also read the exact opposite — namely that a cold atmosphere is a consequence of ozone-depletion. Either way, how does the record ozone hole in 2006 impact on the ozone depletion theory?

6. If cold weather leads to less ozone, is it possible that the ozone holes we have been seeing since the 1970s are cold-related events rather than being man-made CFC-related events?

7. On the other hand, if cold weather is a product of less ozone, how come we keep seeing record-sized ozone holes well after atmospheric CFCs peaked in 2000?

]]> By: TCO http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/a-temperature-a.html/comment-page-1#comment-6618 TCO Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:59:05 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/a-temperature-a.html#comment-6618 <p>Concerns about the direction and magnitude of adjustment are reasonable. However, Hansen has at least posited reasons for the adjustments in 2001 article. It is not quite so nessessary to speculate on causes of adjustment or quite as mysterious as the lack of the algorithm would indicate. Note, I think the full algorithm should come forwzard. Also that there may be much that is wrong or not even adequately revealed within the 2001 paper. However, a more meaningful discussion would use that as the basis of discussion (at least). As it is, from your post, one gets the impression that you have not really read that paper (even to the extent of making a good criticism of it).</p> Concerns about the direction and magnitude of adjustment are reasonable. However, Hansen has at least posited reasons for the adjustments in 2001 article. It is not quite so nessessary to speculate on causes of adjustment or quite as mysterious as the lack of the algorithm would indicate. Note, I think the full algorithm should come forwzard. Also that there may be much that is wrong or not even adequately revealed within the 2001 paper. However, a more meaningful discussion would use that as the basis of discussion (at least). As it is, from your post, one gets the impression that you have not really read that paper (even to the extent of making a good criticism of it).

]]>