Recent Comments

Prev  1173  1174  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  1180  1181  1182  1183  1184  1185  1186  1187  1188  Next

Comments 59001 to 59050:

59001. chriskoz at 22:28 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       alexharv074@26, you said: Posts here at SkS are filled with personal attacks. I could give you plenty of examples, the most obvious being the graphics at the left hand side of every page - "Christy Crocks", etc. "Christy Crocks" is a personal attack. You know that right? Your assessment of the nature of SkS articles is false and indicates that you likely misunderstand the meaning of "personal attack". Therefore, please take a note of the correct meaning of the term you are using, i.e. in wikipedia: ad hominem [...] is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it The characterization of someone's discourse as "Crocks" (slang term for "foolish talk, nonsense") does not imply "personal attack". It may be considered verbal abuse if it is not justified, however IMO it is justified and understood if you click at "Christy Crocks" button and read the author's debunking of various arguments by prof Cristy. Please also note that verbal abuse is not ad hominen. A hand waving statement "You know that right?" is the only support of your assessment. It is not only meaningless but can be considered the form of "shouting" similar to "upper-casing" prohibited by the comment policy on this site.
59002. CBDunkerson at 21:48 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Alex #26 wrote: "That is, indeed, an ad hominem attack" In reference to: "[Lindzen] is one of the relatively more credible climate contrarians (although he has a long history of taking contrarian positions on nearly every climate-related issue, and being almost universally wrong on those issues)". 'Argumentum ad hominem' refers to a claim that a person possesses some negative trait completely unrelated to the topic of discussion in the hope that this will lead others to disregard that person's position on the topic. Lindzen's history on other 'climate-related issues' is certainly not completely unrelated to his 'cloud iris' position. Saying 'Lindzen does not make his alimony payments' (note: I have no idea if Lindzen has ever been married / even has alimony payments) would be an ad hominem argument to raise in regards to his stance on climate science. His previous stances on climate science are not. You seem to be redefining 'ad hominem' as 'said something bad about a person'. Skeptical Science does indeed say negative things about people... but that is not 'ad hominem' as the term is commonly understood. Rather, it is known as criticism. These people have said things about climate science which are provably untrue. Identifying these false climate science positions and explaining why they are wrong is basically the purpose of this web-site. Thus, you'll see plenty of criticism, but it will be on topic (i.e. relevant to climate change) and thus not 'ad hominem'.
59003. Daniel Bailey at 21:25 PM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       

       "Is there some kine of Associate 'skeptic' Press that provides text for folks to use in their blogs?"

       Yes. (needless to say, that was the right question)
59004. pauls at 21:19 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       Bob Loblaw, I've found a nice, simple description of slab-ocean models: http://www.boinc-wiki.info/Slab_Model The ocean heat transports are the currents moving heat around the planet. Prescribing them means the model doesn't have to calculate dynamically, another reason ocean modelling doesn't have much influence on measured ECS on GCMs. The point I'm making about the shallowness of the slab-ocean is this: 'As the ocean is simplified it does not take a long time for the ocean to fully adjust to the new forcings and therefore the climate does not take anywhere near as long to settle down into its final pattern. (Like 20 model years instead of over 200 model years.) You can therefore get a reasonable idea of the overall effect of a forcing like an x% increase in CO2 in a shorter amount of computer time.'
59005. les at 21:10 PM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       50 - Skywatcher.. I know this is off topic (so, fine if this post is deleted) But, Do you know how that works? The phrase is, e.g. both by A. Watts and the Site Admin of climate realists and else where Is there some kine of Associate 'skeptic' Press that provides text for folks to use in their blogs? There's no copyright or attribution on those sites...
59006. Cole at 19:49 PM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       (-Snip-)
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

       Please note that you have already been warned and counseled about the requirements to adhere to this site's Comments Policy. Posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, ideological or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

59007. Kevin C at 19:29 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Alex: I think you have still misundertood or misread Dana's argument. The first half of the article, whose conclusion you quoted and objected to in your first post, is not about the value of the EQS. It is about the fact that Lindzen either misunderstands or misrepresents the very meaning of the term. Dana's argument would stand whether the actual value is 3.0C, or 2.3C, or even 1.5C. Thus, arguing about the value is a strawman. In the second half of the article Dana discusses what is, as far as I am aware, the most recent comprehensive review of climate sensitivity in the literature. If you know a more recent one, then please tell us. You mention some recent papers, but I notice you don't mention Kirk-Davidoff (2009) or Tanaka (2009). There are many other recent works you've missed, off the top of my head Padilla et al (2011) and a 2011 paper by Cook? at Leeds. Given the different definitions of EQS as highlighted by Hansen & Sato's 'Paleoclimate implications', a comprehensive review is non trivial, and probably worthy of another Nature paper rather than half a blog post.
59008. garethman at 19:13 PM on 8 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       @Dragonwyst. excellent post. Your skill at observation and analysis of a situation gained from your nursing profession shines through. Only issue I would dispute is that there is no such thing as ‘only’ a nurse. All nurses are stars in their own right and have a lot to contribute to the methodology of climate science.
59009. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:07 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       To follow up on Rob P's comment, let me put up a simple analogy that explains why a suggestion that we can determine longer term CS from what has transpired to date is wrong. I own a swimming pool complex made up of 3 toddlers wading pools and an olympic size swimming pool. These pools are all connected by modest size pipes so they share a common water level. For convenience I label the toddlers pools A, I & L, and the Olympic pool O. I have a simple float valve system that maintains the overall water level - if it is a bit low the float valve starts to let some water in and brings the level back up until the float valve shuts off. I look at my pool complex and decide that the overall water level is being maintained too low so I adjust the float-valve to maintain a higher level. So water start to flow in. The float valve is located in my 'A' toddlers pool so this starts to fill. And the level in A starts to rise compared to the other 3 pools. As a result of this flows start to happen in the pipes connecting all the pools, transferring some water from A to I, L and O. So what will happen eventually? The levels of all the pools will reach a new equilibrium and the float valve will close. But what happens in the short term? Initially the level in A starts to rise because water is being added to it. So now it is higher than the other pools, so this start to create flows in the pipes across to the other pools. Eventually the flow out of A in the pipes matches the flow rate being added to A by the float valve. At this point the water level in A can't rise until the water levels in the other pools rises. This would only matter a little if we were just dealing with 'I' and 'L'. They are similar sizes to 'A' so the net impact of their presence would be to reduce the rate at which A is filled to one third. But O is an Olympic size pool. It is huge compared to the toddlers pools. So in the end, the rate at which the water level rises is limited by O. To raise the level of A by 1 inch, I have to add enough water to also raise I, L and particularly O, by 1 inch. So if I sit there with a ruler measuring the rise in A every 10 minutes after I start I will completely underestimate how long it will take to fill A because the volume of O is the main determining factor. So how does my analogy relate to Climate Change? The water is Heat. The water level is Temperature. A is the Atmosphere, I is Ice, L is Land and O is the oceans. The relative size of my 4 pools? A is 3, I is 3, L is 4, O is 90 - these proportions come from the last IPCC report. And the Float Valve? That is GH gas levels. Adding GH gases is akin to adjusting the float valve to raise the water level. So we add some GH gases, adjust the valve for a higher water level, then sit back and watch. At first Air temperatures rise. Then Ice melt and Land temperatures start to follow. And the Ocean starts to warm - slowly. So if we add some GH gases; adjust the float valve, the first response we see is that the water level in 'A' starts to rise. This is the transient climate response, the Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS). Then the drain of water (heat) across to I, L & O will start to slow this rise and impose a slower rise rate, driven mainly by the size of 'O'. Eventually, over a much longer time period, all 4 pools will reach balance. This is the Fast Climate Response; remember, climate is about Mother Nature's timescales - decades are fast! The long term Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity over centuries and millenia is the equivalent of remodeling the swimming complex, changing the pumps and putting in different sized pipes. But there is an additional wrinkle to this. We haven't adjusted the float valve once and that's it! We keep on adjusting it every single day. Every day we add some more GH gases we are giving the valve another 'tweak'. So the level in A - the Atmosphere - will keep rising a bit because of our continual tweaks. When we eventually stop adding GH gases, the slower equilibration from I, L and O will produce a balance. Decades or centuries into the future. This is obviously a simplified description but it is still broadly valid.
59010. Rob Painting at 16:39 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       "In Lindzen's model, there is no unrealised warming." Yes, so it is clearly wrong. The Earth still has a persistent energy imbalance (Loeb [2012]) which means further warming is in the pipeline. In essence Lindzen's model assumes the oceans will not take up much heat and therefore the atmosphere warms much more rapidly. This is the basic gist of low climate sensitivity, the oceans supposedly cannot take up this extra heat so the atmosphere warms quickly instead, until the system is back in equilibrium. In contrast, mixing heat down into the deep ocean slows the response time and allows the oceans to store much more heat - much of which is eventually given back to the atmosphere. This would signify greater climate sensitivity, and greater warming in the long-term. The trouble with Lindzen's ideas on this issue is that the climate has been much warmer in the past, which indicates larger climate sensitivity. It is the No.1 climate skeptic argument at SkS. In 'Greenhouse' intervals in Earth's history, the oceans were considerably warmer according to paleoproxy data - sea surface temperatures reaching as high as 38°C in the tropics. As Dr Richard Alley would say "That's Hot!" Furthermore, the deep oceans were much warmer, as were the seas around both poles. All of this is consistent with the mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity, but incompatible with low climate sensitivity, such as that argued by Lindzen.
59011. Ari Jokimäki at 15:21 PM on 8 May 2012
       New research from last week 18/2012
       Note that the Chylek et al. paper has been criticized.
59012. alexharv074 at 14:51 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Dana #4, I don't disagree that Lindzen's estimate of climate sensitivity is an outlier. Lindzen is arguing that the cloud feedback is negative, and not many agree. On the other hand, the last couple of years has been exceptional in the number of papers that revise downwards the IPCC best estimate of 3 K per doubling of CO2. I mentioned Schwartz (2012), Kohler et al. (2010), Schmittner et al. (2011), Gillett et al. (2011). I mentioned Held's work. I could have also mentioned Loeb et al. (2012) that found a best estimate of the TOA imbalance of about half of what Trenberth et al. were requiring. Hansen et al. (2011) found the TOA imbalance just a bit higher than Loeb et al. Levitus et al. (2012) has also found the imbalance from ocean data lower than expected. Notice, these are all the most recent estimates. Are there similarly recent estimates finding higher than expected warming? You write that there are reasons to believe that Schmittner et al. might be too low, presumably echoing statements made at RealClimate. But how do you explain Kohler et al. (2010), who find the same sensitivity using a completely different method? Gavin Schmidt told me that he agrees that Kohler et al. is the best and most up to date treatment of paleo forcing. If so, one needs to see that to get a best estimate of sensitivity even as high as 2.4 K, Kohler needed to assume a "scaling factor" to increase sensitivity by some amount (10% or 15% I think), despite it being quite possible that the scaling should have been even negative (I think Hargreaves and Annan is the ref for this, I'll have to check). They also had to go with the highest value in the literature for global cooling - 5.8 K from Schneider von Deimling et al. (2006). I would forget about Schmittner et al. You need to explain why Kohler et al. is too low, if you really want to argue that 2.3 K is too low. Meanwhile I see you wrote, "first of all, we at SkS always keep our posts free of ad hominem attacks, so there is nothing unusual about this." I wish that were true. Posts here at SkS are filled with personal attacks. I could give you plenty of examples, the most obvious being the graphics at the left hand side of every page - "Christy Crocks", etc. "Christy Crocks" is a personal attack. (-snip-) In the case of the present post I contragulated you because this post is above average for this website. It still does, however, contain ad hominem attacks. The first one I find is: "[Lindzen] is one of the relatively more credible climate contrarians (although he has a long history of taking contrarian positions on nearly every climate-related issue, and being almost universally wrong on those issues)". That is, indeed, an ad hominem attack, and an extraordinary overgeneralisation. "nearly every climate-related issue" - really? Lindzen has published over 300 papers, and several books, including a widely-cited graduate textbook on atmospheric dynamics. Unless you want to claim that atmospheric dynamics is not related to climate it is nothing short of bizarre to claim that Lindzen has disputed and then been wrong "about nearly every climate-related issue". On the subject of atmospheric dynamics, Lindzen's argument for low sensitivity has always been fundamentally a dynamical one. He has argued since the late 1970s that the observed distribution of climate change during ice age cycles (e.g. in CLIMAP 1976) where the tropics cool just a little relative to the poles which cool enormously implies operation of negative feedbacks in the tropics (e.g. Lindzen, 1994, Ann. Rev. Fluid Dynam.). I look forward to a future post here where you have understood the actual history of Lindzen's thought and address his dynamical considerations too. Finally, in your post #14 you echo a popular internet confusion about the equilibration of the climate system. You write, "the timescale to equilibrium is something of an unresolved question, which I think we'll be addressing in a future blog post. Off the top of my head, I think that after 50-100 years, somewhere in the ballpark of two-thirds to three-fourths of the equilibrium warming is realized. It mainly depends on how efficiently heat mixing happens in the oceans, which is the somewhat unresolved question". It sounds like you think that the equilibration timescale can be considered separately from the matter of the climate sensitivity. However, Hansen et al. (1985) showed that the timescale for equilibrium is related to the climate sensitivity. Thus, if Lindzen was right, the system would already be virtually in equilibrium - the timescale for a sensitivity of 0.7 K is just a few years. Schwartz has also made the same point (e.g. Schwartz, 2008). It is, thus, a circular argument to say Lindzen has ignored the unrealised warming, and use that as evidence that his argument is wrong. In Lindzen's model, there is no unrealised warming.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "Posts here at SkS are filled with personal attacks."

       Incorrect, as you are operating with a flawed definition of ad hominem (see below). If the focus is on the argument, and not the individual, it is not ad hominem.

       Please constrain your comments to the science. A continued focus on presumed ad hominems will be construed as tone-trolling; moderation will then ensue accordingly.

       Insinuation of malfeasance snipped.

59013. chriskoz at 14:30 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       MP3CE@23, "probability" is somewhat simplistic and incorrect word in this context, hence your confusion. In statistics, to indicate uncertainty, we are talking about "percentiles", which means "the fraction of the probability distribution that falls into a given range of values. So, the thick/thin bars represent 66/90 percentiles of sensitivity distribution (in common language "likely"/"very likely" outcome that the true value of sensitivity falls on the bars. 66 and 90 numbers correspond to 1-sigma & 2-sigma in normal distribution, that's why they are commonly used.
59014. jyyh at 13:59 PM on 8 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       [JH] OK, fine if everyone posted something like that the thread would become rather tedious. My 'canary' would probably be the increase of double broods/year in moths/butterflies which (in here) has been going on since the early 1990s and became pretty obvious by the late 90s for active observers.
       Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. It is much appreciated.
59015. dana1981 at 13:59 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       MP3CE - no, the thinner bars are wider, meaning they encompass a larger range of possible values, which is why we have more confidence (90% as opposed to just 66%) that they encompass the correct value.
59016. DSL at 13:29 PM on 8 May 2012
       New research from last week 17/2012
       Ari, ya got to hit this one this week: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792 Then Daniel needs to do a post on it: "Waking the Caca(en)."
59017. skywatcher at 13:01 PM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Speaking of dodgy blogs, I wonder which of the many skeptic blogs Cole is parroting, when he repeats the exact sentence

       "The paper finds that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has increased since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850) by up to 6 times more than assumed by the IPCC."

       . A quick Google search gives quite a few, including but not just: icecap, jo nova, hockeyschtick (and SkS's recent Comments page too of course!). This phrase misrepresents and magnifies the actual Solanki paper's conclusions, ingnoring the uncertainties. Now I don't mind debating sun and climate with real people, but Cole, if you're going to demonstrate the least bit of understanding of the literature, you could at least use your own words, not somebody else's?
59018. muoncounter at 12:05 PM on 8 May 2012
       It's the sun
       From here. "We all know a more active sun means a stronger magnetosphere... up until recently the magnetosphere (a la Sol), was extremely powerful." We all know... not a very scientific argument. Refer to this comment above for some actual data on the sun's mag field. Note the title: Overall Flux Reduction. 45 very flat years. See Arge et al 2002: Lockwood et al. [1999a , 1999b] conclude that the total open solar magnetic flux has increased by 41% from 1964 to 1995 and by 130% over all but the last 5 years of the twentieth century. However, solar data for more than two solar cycles ... show no secular trend in overall photospheric flux. More importantly, the magnetic flux open to interplanetary space ... fails to show evidence of a secular increase over the last two solar cycles. A final point about this vaunted solar 'aa' index increase comes from Russell and Mulligan 1995: -- source It looks like this increase ran during the first half of the 20th century - and then the index went flat. That is entirely consistent with Figure 1 above and the data presented above. This point is very clear: the early 20th century warming was solar in origin. The recent warming is not.
59019. muoncounter at 11:38 AM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Now that we're talking about solar reconstructions, we're completely off topic. I'll reply here.
59020. Daniel Bailey at 11:13 AM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       

       "not just any blog, but CO2Science"

       Bingo. That is the question.
59021. Composer99 at 11:04 AM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Adding a #5 to skywatcher's list: 5. You would also need to explain away the characteristics of the current warming trend, which are consistent with greenhouse gas warming (e.g. decreased diurnal temperature variation, decreased seasonal temperature variation, stratospheric cooling & tropospheric warming).
59022. Composer99 at 10:54 AM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Curious that someone who would state the following:

       As for your Realclimate post, how would you like it if I started relying on blog-science? Maybe I should look up some denier sites and use their arguments? If you want to refute, please use a solid peer-reviewed science.

       with such obvious disparagement of "blog science" would then go quote from a blog, and not just any blog, but CO2Science.
59023. Cole at 10:50 AM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       "and BTW, your claim that it cannot be reliably measured is unsubstantiated." From Agee "uncertainty in the reliability of the ISCCP lower troposphere cloudiness to show the proposed correlations" Do you see a disconnect there? Aside from that ask any climate scientist if they can directly measure or observe a 2% change in GCC. This paper finds that solar activity has increased since the Little Ice Age by far more than previously assumed by the IPCC. The paper finds that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has increased since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850) by up to 6 times more than assumed by the IPCC. (We all know a more active sun means a stronger magnetosphere) Furthermore, solar activity has slightly declined since 1958 but was running in overdrive before that point. The sun has only recently really started to slow down, and up until recently the magnetosphere (a la Sol), was extremely powerful. http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.4763 "It has been proposed that Earth's climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays " This isn't reporting a trend or a disconnect, nor does the paper purport to be able to effectively view changes GCC down to 2% (which is the difference we're talking about here). Solanki 2001, You've missed something, read it again... Straight from the abstract: A part of the Sun's magnetic field reaches out from the surface into interplanetary space, and it was recently discovered that the average strength of this interplanetary field has doubled in the past 100 years. There has hitherto been no clear explanation for this doubling. Here we present a model describing the long-term evolution of the Sun's large-scale magnetic field, which reproduces the doubling of the interplanetary field. The model indicates that there is a direct connection between the length of the sunspot cycle and the secular variations http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/abs/408445a0.html As for the rest I'll have to get back to you, I have practice.
59024. skywatcher at 10:35 AM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Cole's carefully-selected list of papers is a lovely example of cherry-picking to give yourself a confirmation bias. What is missing from the long list of papers showing correlations between various aspects of the Sun's activity and century-millennial scale climate change is a mechanism by which this might work. [and it should be added that the idea that variations in solar output are connected with small changes in climate over the past few millennia is hardly a new one - you'll find detailed discussions in the IPCC AR4 report along with estimates of the magnitude of the forcing, for example in Section 2.7.1.] Which leaves us with a bunch of unknowns, if we are to believe Cole, or those who wish to see a GCR-climate connection: 1: First of all, we need to find a mechanism by which GCR's affect climate - so far proposed and observed nechanisms (e.g. Kirkby) are orders of magnitude too small. 2: We have to explain why palaeoclimate variations do not appear to show very large responses to big solar/GCR variations - a notable example is the Laschamp Anomaly (See this excellent Richard Alley video (after about 40 minutes in). Just before Alley talks about Laschamp, he has this good line:

       ...when you really take this apart you find that when the Sun changes it does seem to show up in the temperature record. It is very reassuring to know that if you change the Sun, the temperature knows this."

       Again, this is not new stuff, sun being a little connected to climate! It's just not as big a player as some would wish. 3: Perhaps most importantly, we have to have an explanation for why a large change in the concentration of powerfully radiatively active gases like CO2 (we've known the since the 19th Century) are not influencing climate, as physics expects them to do. And quite what is producing the observations (e.g. good articles here, or here) of decreased outgoing longwave radiation at GHG-specific wavelengths, and a corresponding increase in downward longwave radiation, also at GHG-specific wavelengths. 4: If you think the physics works OK, you then need an explanation for a hitherto unknown cooling mechanism, perfectly correlated with warming forced from CO2, which is conveniently masking the CO2-driven warming signal, and allows GCRs (whatever their mechanism of operation may be) to modulate climate. When you need multiple unknowns to explain something for which we already have a strong, straightforward observed mechanism, supported by physical and experimental data, you're really grasping at straws.
59025. muoncounter at 09:54 AM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Cole#42: I've certainly not been 'waving' Agee around (I mentioned it once before you dragged it back into the discussion after a lag of 5 months). It really doesn't matter whether you accept thier results or not, as there are a number of other references, which up to now you've ignored. But now you summarily dismiss them all as "innefectual" [sic] without any specifics. These papers do not rely on cloud cover measurements alone - and BTW, your claim that it cannot be reliably measured is unsubstantiated. But now your case seems to be made on references from 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002. Let's look at a few (your links above): Kniveton and Todd (published ??): Using neutron data from only Huancayo, Peru (latitude 12 S), they discuss precipitation over oceans between 40S and 80S. Odd. Parker 1999 - (obtained from the blog CO2science? You've quoted their 'review' extensively). No mention of the fact that sunspot cycles have been getting weaker since 1958 - as temperatures continue increasing. Carslaw 2002: This paper appears to have no firm conclusions. It has been proposed that Earth's climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays ... Sounds like the same equivocal language you've objected to in Agee. Solanki 2001: This paper is about sunspots and the Maunder and has nothing to do with cosmic rays. ...it was recently discovered that the average strength of this interplanetary field has doubled in the past 100 years. One has to wonder how this was measured over a 100 year interval. Odd that actual measurements show the sun's magnetic field strength decreasing sharply. Face facts: the strongest thing you've got is the CLOUD experiment's preliminary results. Yet you dismissed this ("Kirkby is just a small example"). And until there is an accepted mechanism for these nano-sized cloud nuclei to form actual clouds before they disappear, that's an experimental result lacking a viable explanation. And this thread is about CERN's results, not about 10 year old correlation studies. However, it seems you cannot continue a discussion without resorting to accusation and innuendo ("You guys seem to be grasping at straws"). That is unacceptable (and no, we're not). You've already been advised (twice on this thread) that you must abide by the Comments Policy. Failing that, your behavior thus far has been worthy of this thread's title.
59026. MP3CE at 09:17 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Figure 2: Distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence. The circle indicates the most likely value. The thin colored bars indicate very likely value (more than 90% probability). The thicker colored bars indicate likely values (more than 66% probability). Shouldn'd second statement be: The thicker colored bars indicate very likely value (more than 90% probability). The thin colored bars indicate likely values (more than 66% probability) ?
59027. JoeT at 08:53 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Thank you all for your very informative responses. This site performs a very valuable service for those of us who just want to get a grasp on the basic science.
59028. Tom Curtis at 08:03 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Joe T @16, you have already received a number of informative answers, but I'll chip in as well to clarify a particular issue. Climate sensitivity is defined by three terms: a) The Transient Climate Response is the more or less immediate response to a new forcing. It has a technical definition, but can probably be best understood as the response that will be achieved in the minimum time it takes to measure an average climate state (a climatology),ie, within 30 years. It is dependent on a number of fast factors, including (most importantly) the cloud albedo feedback, the water vapour feedback, and the lapse rate feedback, but any factor which influences the Equilibrium Climate Response (or Charney Climate Sensitivity) will influence it. b) The Equilibrium Climate Response (also known as the Charney Climate Sensitivity,or the Fast Feedback Response) is the temperature change required to restore equilibrium assuming fast feedbacks but no slow feedbacks. Fast feedbacks include the cloud albedo effect, water vapour feedback, the lapse rate feedback, but also changes in albedo due to reduced sea ice or snow cover. They are characterized by feedbacks that reach an equilibrium state with temperature within decades. In contrast, slow feedbacks such as changes in albedo due to the loss of permanent ice sheets (Greenland Ice Sheet, West Antarctic Ice Sheet), changes in albedo due to massive changes in ecology (eg, the Amazon Basin becoming Savannah with isolated rainforest); changes in heat distribution due to large scale changes in ocean currents, and equilibriation of the partial pressures of CO2 in atmosphere and deep ocean. Slow feedbacks take centuries to millenia to reach equilibrium. As indicated, the Equilibrium Climate Response only accounts for fast feedbacks, and ignores all slow feedbacks. As a result, the time scale to the Equilibrium Climate Response is dominated by the time taken to establish equilibrium between the deep ocean and the surface in terms of temperature. As indicated above by others, that results in a rapid (less than 100 years) rise to about 66% of the response, followed by a slow movement to the equilibrium state (200 years or so). c) The Earth System Climate Response (or Earth System Sensitivity) is the response after all feedbacks, fast and slow have reached an equilibrium state. This takes centuries to millenia, and in the long term is governed by the glacial rate at which ice sheets melt. (OK, so I like puns. So sue me.) Because of this, we are unlikely to ever reach the Earth System Climate Response for the full measure of human emissions to the atmosphere. That is because while the ESCR takes millenia, over millenia the CO2 concentration will be drawn down. In fact, it will be drawn down to about 25% of the initial peak atmospheric concentration within a century or two, but take tens of millennia to return to pre-industrial levels. Therefore, unless the response to short term factors drives a release of natural CO2/Methane into the atmosphere of the same order of magnitude to total human emissions, our long distant descendants will face the Earth System Response to about 25% of our peak CO2 concentration rather than to the full peak concentration. That response will be about 60% of the peak warming (with large uncertainties). Given that the climate response predicted for about 2100 for BAU is about 60% of the Equilibrium Climate Response for the emissions, that is also the temperature increase we can expect for a period comparable with the entire extent of human civilization since the invention of agriculture, although it will peak at a higher level in the period 2100-2300 (assuming emissions growth is sharply curtailed at 2100 or earlier).
59029. dana1981 at 07:46 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       James Wight also had a very good post on the various measures of climate sensitivity (fast, slow, etc.). Rob Painting is working on a relevant post right now, and I might also do one on issues like 'warming in the pipeline', depending on what Rob covers in his post.
59030. tmac57 at 07:05 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       @Albatross #8- At least Lindzen is moving in the right direction. Maybe he just needs a bit more 'negative feedback' from his peers so that he can finally reach equilibrium ;)
59031. Bob Lacatena at 07:04 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       JoeT, You have to remember that in any case these are only very simple one-dimensional mathematical models of a real world situation. What really determines how large climate sensitivity is and how long it takes to reach a new equilibrium temperature is not determined by some simple physics equation like F=ma or e=mc2. As the Arctic summer ice melts, the open ocean absorbs more radiation rather than reflecting it. This is a positive feedback, but it depends on when the Arctic summer ice melts, and how soon in the year. It can also be a self-reinforcing feedback (sooner melt = warmer planet = sooner melt), as most are, but it is bounded by the limited summer season in the Arctic. Eventually the days get dark. How long will it take (if ever) until the ocean is warm enough to start releasing rather than absorbing CO2? How long will it take (if ever) for deserts to expand or for rain forest to turn into savanna (releasing more CO2 but also increasing the albedo of the land), and how large will the net positive feedback be? How long will it take (if ever) and how much methane will be released from permafrost? The reality of the situation depends on the slow feedbacks, but any one dimensional equation intending to model them is just a very rough approximation.
59032. Kevin C at 06:49 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       JoeT: I think this graph is what you are look for, from Hansen and Sato 2011. An exponential isn't a good model, because there are so many different timescales involved. Given that this curve is from a climate model, I have no real idea what the uncertainties are like. However you can also estimate the shape of the response function from past climate over various timescales. There's a nice paper by Padilla and Vallis (2011) on that.
59033. JoeT at 06:29 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Dana1981 Great piece, thanks for the response. Sorry to drag on about this, but I think the issue is very important, especially to neophytes like myself. An additional blog post would be great. I'm still trying to reconcile what you wrote with #2 and #11. In your example, if we choose a simple exponential and pick that in 75 years, 0.7 of the warming will occur, that gives us a time of around 60 years. That also means that roughly 99% of the warming will occur in less than 300 years. My question -- is there only 1 time constant as in this example, or is there indeed a fast and slow time constant such that additional warming due to CO2 alone takes place over millenia? Thanks!
59034. Cole at 05:54 AM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Muon, The Agee results were Spurious, (not genuine, authentic, or true) as per the inability to properly observe GCC changes, and as a result an inability to show proper correlations in either direction. From the paper: 'Research on the GCR-cloud correlations must continue, particularly in view of the two physical mechanisms mentioned above (as well as the uncertainty in the reliability of the ISCCP lower troposphere cloudiness to show the proposed correlations).' The paper itself isn't useless, but your waving it around as proof is. The rest of your papers are just as innefectual for the same reason. Now, let's get back to examining what fits. Bond et al. (2001), who in studying ice-rafted debris in the North Atlantic Ocean determined, in Svensmark’s words, that “over the past 12,000 years, there were many icy intervals like the Little Ice Age” that “alternated with warm phases, of which the most recent were the Medieval Warm Period (roughly AD 900-1300) and the Modern Warm Period (since 1900).” And as Bond’s 10-member team clearly indicates, “over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time-scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a solar minimum:" http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2130.short Parker (1999) noted that the number of sunspots had also doubled over the prior 100 years, and that one consequence of the latter phenomenon would have been “a much more vigorous sun” that was slightly brighter. Parker pointed out that spacecraft measurements suggest that the brightness (B) of the sun varies by an amount ΔB/B = 0.15%, in step with the 11-year magnetic cycle. He then pointed out that during times of much reduced activity of this sort (such as the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715) and much increased activity (such as the twelfth century Mediaeval Maximum), brightness variations on the order of ΔB/B = 0.5% typically occur, after which he noted the mean temperature (T) of the northern portion of the earth varied by 1 to 2°C in association with these variations in solar activity, stating finally that “we cannot help noting that change in T/T = change in B/B.” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N14/C3.php . Digging deeper into the subject, Feynman and Ruzmaikin (1999) investigated twentieth century changes in the intensity of cosmic rays incident upon the earth’s magnetopause and their transmission through the magnetosphere to the upper troposphere. This work revealed “the intensity of cosmic rays incident on the magnetopause has decreased markedly during this century” and “the pattern of cosmic ray precipitation through the magnetosphere to the upper troposphere has also changed.” With respect to the first and more basic of these changes, they noted that “at 300 MeV the difference between the proton flux incident on the magnetosphere at the beginning of the century and that incident now is estimated to be a factor of 5 decrease between solar minima at the beginning of the century and recent solar minima,” and that “at 1 GeV the change is a factor of 2.5.” With respect to the second phenomenon, they noted that the part of the troposphere open to cosmic rays of all energies increased by a little over 25 percent and shifted equatorward by about 6.5° of latitude. And with the great decrease in the intensity of cosmic rays incident on earth’s magnetosphere over the twentieth century, one would have expected to see a progressive decrease in the presence of low-level clouds and, therefore, an increase in global air temperature, as has indeed been observed: http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/20689/1/98-1743.pdf A number of other pertinent papers also appeared at this time. Black et al. (1999) conducted a high-resolution study of sediments in the southern Caribbean that were deposited over the past 825 years, finding substantial variability of both a decadal and centennial nature, which suggested that such climate regime shifts are a natural aspect of Atlantic variability; and relating these features to other records of climate variability, they concluded that “these shifts may play a role in triggering changes in the frequency and persistence of drought over North America.” Another of their findings was a strong correspondence between the changes in North Atlantic climate and similar changes in 14C production; and they concluded that this finding “suggests that small changes in solar output may influence Atlantic variability on centennial time scales: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5445/1709.short Van Geel et al. (1999) reviewed what was known at the time about the relationship between variations in the abundances of the cosmogenic isotopes 14C and 10Be and millennial-scale climate oscillations during the Holocene and portions of the last great ice age. This exercise indicated “there is mounting evidence suggesting that the variation in solar activity is a cause for millennial scale climate change,” which is known to operate independently of the glacial-interglacial cycles that are forced by variations in the earth’s orbit about the sun. They also reviewed the evidence for various mechanisms by which the postulated solar-climate connection might be implemented, finally concluding that “the climate system is far more sensitive to small variations in solar activity than generally believed” and that “it could mean that the global temperature fluctuations during the last decades are partly, or completely explained by small changes in solar radiation: http://www.gg.rhul.ac.uk/elias/teaching/VanGeel.pdf Noting that recent research findings in both palaeoecology and solar science “indicate a greater role for solar forcing in Holocene climate change than has previously been recognized,” Solanki et al. (2000) developed a model of the long-term evolution of the sun’s large-scale magnetic field and compared its predictions against two proxy measures of this parameter. The model proved successful in reproducing the observed century-long doubling of the strength of the part of the sun’s magnetic field that reaches out from the sun’s surface into interplanetary space. It also indicated there is a direct connection between the length of the 11-year sunspot cycle and secular variations in solar activity that occur on timescales of centuries, such as the Maunder Minimum of the latter part of the seventeenth century, when sunspots were few in number and earth was in the midst of the Little Ice Age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/abs/408445a0.html In discussing their findings, the solar scientists say their modeled reconstruction of the solar magnetic field “provides the major parameter needed to reconstruct the secular variation of the cosmic ray flux impinging on the terrestrial atmosphere,” because, as they continue, a stronger solar magnetic field “more efficiently shields the earth from cosmic rays,” and “cosmic rays affect the total cloud cover of the earth and thus drive the terrestrial climate.” Next, using cosmic ray data recorded by ground-based neutron monitors, global precipitation data from the Climate Predictions Center Merged Analysis of Precipitation project, and estimates of monthly global moisture from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction reanalysis project, Kniveton and Todd (2001) set out to evaluate whether there is empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that solar variability (represented by changes in cosmic ray flux) is linked to climate change (manifested by changes in precipitation and precipitation efficiency) over the period 1979-1999. In doing so, they determined there is “evidence of a statistically strong relationship between cosmic ray flux, precipitation and precipitation efficiency over ocean surfaces at mid to high latitudes,” since variations in both precipitation and precipitation efficiency for mid to high latitudes showed a close relationship in both phase and magnitude with variations in cosmic ray flux, varying 7-9 percent during the solar cycle of the 1980s, while other potential forcing factors were ruled out due to poorer statistical relationships. http://www2.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~mtodd/papers/grl_2001/grl_total.pdf Carslaw et al. point out that cosmic ray intensity declined by about 15 percent during the last century “owing to an increase in the solar open magnetic flux by more than a factor of 2.” They further report that “this 100-year change in intensity is about the same magnitude as the observed change over the last solar cycle.” In addition, we note that the cosmic ray intensity was already much lower at the start of the twentieth century than it was just after the start of the nineteenth century, when the Esper et al. (2002) record indicates the planet began its nearly two-century-long recovery from the chilly depths of the Little Ice Age. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5599/1732 These observations strongly suggest that solar-mediated variations in the intensity of cosmic rays bombarding the earth are indeed responsible for the temperature variations of the past three centuries. They provide a much better fit to the temperature data than do atmospheric CO2 data; and as Carslaw et al. remark, “if the cosmic ray-cloud effect is real, then these long-term changes of cosmic ray intensity could substantially influence climate.” It is this possibility, they say, that makes it “all the more important to understand the cause of the cloudiness variations,” which is basically the message of their essay; i.e., that we must work hard to deepen our understanding of the cosmic ray-cloud connection, as it may well hold the key to resolving what they call this “fiercely debated geophysical phenomenon.” Now I've shown you correlations without having to rely on GCC data (that we can not observe) You guys seem to be grasping at straws trying to dismiss this. Finally to quote the press release from CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'
59035. funglestrumpet at 05:19 AM on 8 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       My 'canary' is the lengths to which Monckton has to go in order to keep his audience feeling amused, instead of feeling insulted, which is how they would feel if he gave them time to stop and think.
59036. dana1981 at 05:19 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       shoyemore @12 - aerosols are sort of a "fudge factor" in models by necessity, simply because we don't have good measurements as to the strength of their cooling effect. We do have good measurements of the temperature change, and of most other forcings, so the aerosol focing is allowed to vary within certain constraints in order to best fit the observed temperatures. You can call that a 'fudge factor' if you like. However, as noted in the post above, they do not have zero temperature influence, as Lindzen assumes. Better to treat them as a 'fudge factor' than a neglected factor.
59037. dana1981 at 05:13 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       JoeT @10 - the timescale to equilibrium is something of an unresolved question, which I think we'll be addressing in a future blog post. Off the top of my head, I think that after 50-100 years, somewhere in the ballpark of two-thirds to three-fourths of the equilibrium warming is realized. It mainly depends on how efficiently heat mixing happens in the oceans, which is the somewhat unresolved question. So yes, if we were to suddenly stop emitting CO2, we'd see most of the consequent warming within a century, but not all of it.
59038. JoeT at 04:39 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       CBDunderson: Thanks very much for your post. Actually the hundreds to thousands of years was in post #2 just above, which also says the response time is not decades. What I got from your post is that there is a fast and slow time response. Could you elaborate for me -- or point me in the right direction -- as to what constitutes the physical processes that account for the two time scales. Thanks again. I've learned a great deal in the short time I've been following this site.
59039. shoyemore at 04:29 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Incidentally, Professors Lindzen and Happer, plus Roger Cohen (formerly of Exxon) have responded in the letters section of the May 9th New York Review of Books to Yale Professor William Nordhaus' critique of the op-ed "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" by the group known as the Wall Street Journal 16 Their response to Nordhaus is basically a scatter gun (or Gish gallop, if you prefer!) with not much science. The most scientific parts are general attacks on climate models for not including all sources of variability, and for including aerosols as a "fudge factor" only. Perhaps a future post could cover this? Professor Nordhaus' reply is shorter, clearer and more effective, IMHO. In the Climate Casino SkS covered Nordhaus' original article here: Nordhaus sets the Record Straight
59040. CBDunkerson at 04:01 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       JoeT, I think the 'hundreds to thousands of years' you are referring to (which doesn't appear to be in the comments to this post) may be the 'long term' sensitivity. Most estimates put the eventual warming for doubled CO2 at around +6 C after all slow feedbacks have played out over hundreds to thousands of years. We're about half way to doubled CO2 forcing now, so ~3 C would be the eventual long term warming expected from current CO2 levels. However, the +3 C figure more frequently cited is the 'fast feedback' value... if we double atmospheric CO2 levels then we expect to see +3 C warming within decades. How many decades depends mostly on how fast we raise the CO2 level, but certainly less than a hundred years. The warming we've been seeing the past few decades has been the result of direct CO2 forcing (which is more or less immediate) and these 'fast feedbacks'. If we could stop CO2 at current levels then within about 50 years the FAST warming would stop at around +1.5 C (we're currently at ~ 0.8 C) and then only slowly go up to +3 C over the course of hundreds of years.
59041. Tom Curtis at 03:10 AM on 8 May 2012
       Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
       BC @59, as you seem to have realized, 1000 Petagram = 1 trillion tonnes, and yes, to have a better than 50% chance of avoiding rises in Global Mean Surface Temperatures below 2 degrees C, we need to keep total CO2 equivalent emissions below 1 trillion tonnes. It is generally accepted that rises of GMST or more than 2 degrees C will have major, net harmful effects, and a considerable body of opinion thinks the relevant limit is 1.5 degree C, to avoid which we need to keep CO2 levels below 350 ppmv, or as we have already passed that, quickly bring CO2 levels back down. With regard to the ENSO effects, changes in ENSO state have been shown to significantly effect the accumulation of Ocean Heat Content from 0-750 meters, with the "missing" heat turning up in the 750-2000 meter range. That is certainly much deeper than the mixed layer, but whether you would call it the upper levels? I don't know. What is more, I known no more about it than that, so I cannot comment on the specific movements of heat involved.
59042. DSL at 03:09 AM on 8 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       My "canary" is the biosphere's visible response to the warming planet. That is like the squawk of the canary as it struggles to breathe. The thump of the canary on the cage floor will be widespread food riots.
59043. JoeT at 03:00 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Sorry to even further low-brow the thread, but I'm trying to catch up on the topic. Great article, but when reading it my immediate question was in fact -- what is the time scale for equilibrium? I see in the comments that the answer is hundreds to thousands of years. Is it mistake to infer from this 1- That present warming is a result of emissions from a hundred years and more. 2- That if all CO2 emission were cut-off now, it would take hundreds of years to see the warming stop.
59044. Rob Honeycutt at 03:00 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       What really got me when watching the video where Lindzen states that it "should have" warmed 3C by now was... If you look at any projections by any scientists, or the IPCC, there is no one anywhere who has ever put out a graph showing 3C of warming by now. Zero. None. It's a completely outrageous claim that Lindzen makes. It's the mother of all straw man arguments. I was literally slack-jawed in amazement that he made such a statement.
59045. Albatross at 01:48 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Dana @4, I agree with you that Alex is missing the point. I would also argue that he is not accurately reflecting the content of Dr. Held's recent blog post, but I won't let us get sidetracked by that red herring. "He's arguing for ~1°C sensitivity, for which there is almost no supporting evidence." It is worse than that Dana. Lindzen has, for a long time, been arguing for a climate sensitivity less than < 1 C for doubling CO2. In 1997 Lindzen published a colloqium paper in PNAS, he stated that: "Indirect estimates, based on response to volcanos, suggest sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5°C for a doubling of CO2, which is well within the range of natural variability." In the much refuted Lindzen and Choi (2009) paper, Lindzen and his coauthor claim that: "...and ERBE data appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5 C which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models." There is that 0.5 C again... In Lindzen and Choi (2011), they revised their estimate upwards slightly to 0.7 C for doubling of CO2: "As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7K (with the confidence interval 0.5K - 1.3K at 99% levels)".
59046. Michael Whittemore at 01:31 AM on 8 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       My "canary in the coal mine" is increased infrared radiation from CO2 hitting the Earths surface. It seemed so obvious to me when I found that out. It also seems very cunning how the "Words of the Week" explain this process so well just as the "canary" question is asked. But this increased radiation seems impossible to ignore. Even if there was a cloud feedback due to cosmic rays, there would really only be a cooling and warming from their fluctuations. The average global temperature would still increase with added CO2.
59047. Kevin C at 01:07 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       DC: Good question. The relationship is indeed non-linear - logarithmic in fact. Since we are now at 1.41 x preindustrial, and 1.41=√2, the forcing is almost exactly half way to that of a doubling of CO2. The 76% figure comes from adding the CO2-equivalent of all the other greenhouse gasses we've put into the atmosphere.
59048. DC at 00:59 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Sorry to low brow the thread but I was wondering how the figure of 76% (additional) of pre-industrial CO2 forcing is arrived at? my current thinking is along the lines of: CO2 in 1750 ~= 280 ppm CO2 in 2012 ~= 393 ppm So CO2 increase is about 114 ppm which is an increase of (114/280) 41% Where am I going wrong? Is this related to the non-linear relationship between forcing and increased CO2?
59049. Michael Whittemore at 00:59 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Great post, and good commenting, people are so quick to twist the truth. Even if this truth twisting is done advertently or inadvertently, climate science needs people to make sure the topic is on the right track. Keep up the good work.
59050. Alexandre at 00:58 AM on 8 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       Issue of the week: for me, it's the obvious and known Arctic sea ice.

Prev  1173  1174  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  1180  1181  1182  1183  1184  1185  1186  1187  1188  Next