" ... Global instrumental coverage is just sufficient to capture the rapid, concentrated warming at high northern latitudes in the 1920s, which is shown more dramatically at sites such as Upernavik. ... "
It seems abrupt climate shifts are prevalent in this paper and clearly shows that the Earth has had many tipping points and thresholds that are naturally crossed and cause severe swings in temperatures. Of course, the alarmist side of the research is trying to connect an anthropogenic forcing to the current rise in temperature, but I don't see how they can actually quantify it without understanding the direct CO2 impact. It simply shows that the Earth's atmosphere will cross these "tipping points" naturally anyway.
You can't have a debate with a mendacious dillweed like Lindzen. It becomes an exercise is patiently explaining why each statement of his is a lie. That is exceedingly tiring as well as futile.
If Lindzen had anything of substance to contribute to the science, he would submit research papers. But that didn't go so well for him last time.
It just occurred to me you could give yourself best answer and so far you certainly deserve it or has YA figured out that isn't a very good idea. I found the phrase hen pecking to be odd. That is what my wife does sometimes but I digress. The warming in the last century isn't unprecedented. I notice alarmists don't have any problems when someone makes a claim of unprecedented warming yet come out of the woodwork to slam any claims like his.
In science, debates are in replicating a researcher's finding or showing whether or not the findings are compatible with other researcher. In the case of Lindzen's Iris hypothesis, neither is true. Those who tried to replicate his data haven't been about to do so. The debate hasn't even got to whether his explanations can be right, it is about whether is data is even accurate.
Lin et al
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1...
NASA response, based on Lin et al.
0442(2002)015%3C0003%3ATIHANO%3E2.0.CO%...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feature...
I think this would be an excellent debate. RayPierre is a contributor to RealClimate, and appears to one of the less alarmist ones along with Benestad. Yes, there are not so alarmist folks there. One contributor, Jim Bouldin, has been erased from their masthead for saying more skeptical things of late.
Raypierre has written this post which reveals that models can be tuned to yield a specific temperature increase.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
Scientific debate takes place in the scientific literature, not as dog and pony shows.
Interestingly, I own a recent book that has articles by both Lindzen and Pierrehumbert in it. Pierrehumbert gives results of his investigations that show how important carbon dioxide and water vapor are in controlling Earth's temperature. Lindzen's article is not about AGW at all.
EDIT: It appears that you're confusing "global" rand "regional" again.
ye
Public debates with Deniers lying will not chance scientific reality.
Explain in more detail please.
