Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 Next
Comments 76351 to 76400:
-
John Hartz at 14:33 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
"Perry's remarks give the impression that the science of global warming is in dispute, that some scientists feel one way, and some scientists feel another way. He says that skepticism is growing. In fact, our research shows that's not the case. We found that there is solid consensus among the major scientific organizations and that the skeptics seems to be small minority. We rate his statement False." Source: "Rick Perry says more and more scientists are questioning global warming," PoliticFact.com, Aug 17, 2011 To access this informative post, click here. -
scaddenp at 14:07 PM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
"Denial that GHG is a problem". As stated in article, if you dont have solution for GHG mitigation that is compatible with your political values, then it's hard to believe skepticism about climate change is based on appraisal of science. Okay, then without getting the government involved, how would you getreplacing coal when coal is cheaper? The various government strategies proposed (ban new coal stations, pigovian taxes, cap and trade) all focus on this. What is your non-government strategy? As to subsidies here for global, here for USA. Wouldnt you rather have that money back in tax breaks? -
Camburn at 13:43 PM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
scaddenp: Denial of what? I do not want government involved. That stiffles innovation/creativiety etc. Imagine if Thomas Edison was funded by government? Instead, he had great ideas, was funded by private monies, and GE came about. Government is good for building roads, bridges etc. Government is not innovative at all. Otter 17: What subsidies are you talking about regarding FF? -
muoncounter at 13:18 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Thanks, phil; you beat me to identing the great state of Maine (moderate Republican senators, but a new far-right governor). BTW, 'pa' doesn't mean 'father.' pirate, apparently you've never enjoyed this particular pale ale. Yes, a Tea Party beer, debuted no doubt, in a hall where there was some form of celebration. -
scaddenp at 13:09 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
??? "me" on that diagram is "Maine". (And I have never lived in the US). -
Eric the Red at 13:05 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
I don't know pirate, but muon looks like he put himself in the middle (the red me) and surrounded himself with red and blue dots. -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:57 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Muon at 62 "...who were purged in last year's Tea Party beer hall extravaganza." Do you care to explain this statement? I really don't understand it and I really don't understand why you aren't moderated at times. -
muoncounter at 12:05 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Tom C#61: Nice find. I wonder about the scaling of the axes. They have an interactive function for the US Senate; checking only the red and blue states, there is a clear ideological split. It's a bit dated, as there are some good names who were purged in last year's Tea Party beer hall extravaganza.The divide on climate policy is encapsulated in that split.
-
muoncounter at 11:32 AM on 26 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
EtR#400: "Outside of the greater variabiity," Non-starter. Variability is the point of an oscillation. And no, I live in Texas; I am most definitely not all wet - nor am I likely to be anytime soon. But have a look at wikipedia: The studies of historical data show that the recent El Niño variation is most likely linked to global warming. For example, one of the most recent results is that even after subtracting the positive influence of decadal variation, shown to be possibly present in the ENSO trend, the amplitude of the ENSO variability in the observed data still increases, by as much as 60% in the last 50 years. Does not Timmerman's "strong cold events (relative to the warmer mean state) becoming more frequent" describe the last la Nina - the one you'd like to blame for this year's bizarro weather (which is the topic of this thread)? Recall that Timmerman was written in 1999 and his models were for the remainder of this century. "no general agreement" What, exactly, does that phrase mean? If you have new evidence to present, go to any of the existing ENSO threads. Otherwise, there's not much point in a rehash. -
Tom Curtis at 10:47 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Eric the Red @53, your presumption that both parties are equally prone to ideology assumes both parties have equally extreme positions around a centrist position. That assumption is false. This can be seen on the Political Compass of the 2008 Presidential elections:
The compass shows two axes.
The Left-Right Axis shows a continuum from complete state control of production and consumption of economic goods, to zero state control of the production and consumption of goods. Thus the outer extreme of the Left-Right axis would involve slightly more control than imposed in Stalinist Russia, while the extreme Right would propose no state ownership or regulation of economic goods, and zero taxes.
The Authoritarian - Libertarian Axis represents control of personal liberty. An extreme Authoritarian believes in complete State regulation of and individuals moral life, whereas an extreme Libertarian believes in the complete non-regulation of an individuals moral life, except as it involves theft, coercion or violence towards others.
What is missing is an axis for the distinction between autocracy and democracy, which I believe to be a glaring lapse; and also an axis for the distinction between constitutionalism (rule of law) and rule by persons. There is no meaningful distinction on these axes between major parties in America, so the lack is not significant for this purpose.
Coming back to the main point, the centrist positions of the Democrats shows a lack of ideological commitment on their part. The presumption that their views on the science is strongly influenced by ideology is therefore without warrant.
-
Doug Mackie at 10:33 AM on 26 August 2011OA not OK part 19: SUMMARY 1/2
Loren, sorry you don't like the style. I am not in the business of appeasment. The posts were written, as explicitly stated, and in keeping with the mission ethos of this website, to give people the chemistry background to "slice and dice the denialists." -
Eric the Red at 10:21 AM on 26 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Muon, Outside of the greater variabiity, does not your emphasis indicate that changes will favor El Nino conditions? At least that is what I am reading from the first point above. Or are you all wet on this first point? There is no general agreement on the stronger variability, although it is possible as Timmerman states. -
dana1981 at 10:16 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
badger - where do you see the slideshow on that page? -
John Hartz at 10:01 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
A slideshow version of a portion of Dana's article was posted today (Aug 25) by The Center for Public Integrity. Here's an excerpt from the intoductory text. "While 74 percent of Americans are worried about climate change, according to a March study, all but two of the Republican candidates for president have expressed skepticism about climate change. And while the Environmental Protection Agency was created four decades ago by a leading Republican, some of today's GOP candidates want to strip it of authority or shut it down almost entirely . Records of some of the candidates show their stances aren't just the stuff of campaign trail speeches." Source: "Eight views on climate change: A guide to the Republican candidates" by Evan Bush, iWatchNews, Aug 25, 2011 -
otter17 at 09:58 AM on 26 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
What next? Will we see some brave soul attempt to disprove the greenhouse properties of CO2, methane, and NO2? -
John Hartz at 09:42 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
"In fairness to Romney, he is not all that unique in his new rhetoric. For years, politicians have confessed uncertainty on the science and, from that, concluded that the government should do too little or nothing to address it. This line might continue to have political appeal in GOP primaries. But it’s still non-sensical on the merits." Source: "Mitt Romney’s position on climate change" by Stephen Stromberg, PostPartisan blog, Washington Post, Aug 25, 2011 -
muoncounter at 09:26 AM on 26 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
scaddenp#398: "amplitude of ENSO variation will increase" Spot on. EtR is indeed all wet on this idea. As far back as 1999, Timmerman et al saw the potential for these changes: The tropical Pacific climate system is thus predicted to undergo strong changes if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase. The climatic effects will be threefold. First, the mean climate in the tropical Pacific region will change towards a state corresponding to present-day El Nino conditions. It is therefore likely that events typical of El Nino will also become more frequent. Second, a stronger interannual variability will be superimposed on the changes in the mean state, so year-to-year variations may become more extreme under enhanced greenhouse conditions. Third, the interannual variability will be more strongly skewed, with strong cold events (relative to the warmer mean state) becoming more frequent. -- emphasis added The key is that stronger variability is superimposed on the warming trend. I see a clear analogy with increasing the energy content of an already oscillating system. More energy = more amplitude in both directions. -
Kevin3581 at 08:52 AM on 26 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
To all of you wondering about the wisdom or futility of participating in WUWT or other comments sections and the fact you just can't get through to convince folks. Please keep going! The person you will convince is not who you are arguing with, but rather the one who is simply reading the blogs w/out a deep committment one way or the other -- just looking. It is apparent, when you participate w/a cool head and good science, that you are the one who knows what is going on (vs. the conspiracy talker). Just having your voices there is important for that reason. Being polite, not engaging in ad homs, being very straight and reasoned, while the opponent becomes increasingly unhinged shows others the quality of arguement on each side. Frequent use of citations to back up your points helps too. True also for general news sites that occasionally report on climate -- comments generally flooded by non-sci types -- good science voices will help, esp if they are polite and don't talk down. The person you are trying to convince is in the audience, not on stage. -
Eric the Red at 08:17 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Stephen, I would echo most of your thoughts. The party leadership may pull the Republican party do far the general populace to become an endangered species. There will be those Republicans who stick with the party just for the support on election day, because jumping ship would be political suicide in their district. Local politicians do not seem to echo the party leadership. Yes, things could be worse. I have seen predictions both much higher and lower than the IPCC range, which I believe is only one standard deviation. Correct me if I am wrong on that. This is not meant to inflict uncertainty into the debate and therefore, stalement (as some have accuse me of inciting), but rather to show that the issue is not black and white, but has multiple shades of grey. -
Stephen Baines at 07:57 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
EtR I don't think the GOP has a monopoly on anti-science thinking, so I agree with your admonition there. I have heard crazy-making things from some dems, just not with regard to climate science. The autism debate comes to mind. "the middle-ground politicians have similar opinions on this issue." I would have agreed with you some years ago. A lot of scientists I know are what might be called fiscal conservatives. Heck, Hansen, Alley, Emmanuel and Keeling are/were all republicans - as was my doctoral advisor. We used to have rep. Boehlert in NY, a real champion of science. But in the last week I have read at least 10 posts on blogs stating outright that belief in AGW amounts to a religion and brands one as a liberal democrat out to steal liberty (at the very least). Now blog posts are probably not a random sample, but this is what people see more and more of when they move about the web - it is the public face of the debate. Believing the evidence for AGW has somehow become a "political stance." It has an effect...I see it in my classroom. So things seem to have changed - and this post points to one mechanism behind that change. "Middle ground politicians" who believe the science (e.g. Huntsman) can no longer survive the Republican Primary Process. The leadership has shifted to the right to appease the most militant forces that drive that process - and that rightward shift includes consideration of climate change because of its (presumed) implications for policy. It seems to be that the GOP as whole, being more of an ordered top down ship than the dems (who are historically all over the place), has shifted toward more extreme positions on climate science in response. That process is also purging the party of that moderate pro-science contingent that has always existed previously. Even strongly conservative scientists like Emmanuel are now being disenfranchised. There has been a deliberate attempt to caste science related to policy in a purely political light, so as to discredit the science. It will be a real problem for the GOP in the end, and maybe for all of us, depending on how long this trend lasts. Nature will do what it does regardless of the debate. You claim projections vary widely, and they do for very real reasons, that is actually a worrying thing -- things could be worse than we expect! Even the low end of IPCC projections would present sizable challenges. As AT and mc point out, stalemate on the issue of whether AGW is occuring is not a neutral stance. It effectively represents a decision to not believe the evidence for climate change, and not to accept the sizeable risks associated therewith. -
John Hartz at 07:40 AM on 26 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
On the bad news front... "The State Department will remove a major roadblock to construction of a massive oil pipeline stretching from Canada to Texas when it releases its final environmental assessment of the project as soon as Friday, according to sources briefed on the process." Source: "State Department review to find pipeline impact ‘limited,’ sources say," Washington Post, Aug 24, 2011 To access the complete article, click here. -
scaddenp at 07:28 AM on 26 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Since global warming theory tends to favor El Nino conditions, the occurrance of the strong La Nina runs counter-intuitive.. Unless there is new publications I am unaware of, this statement is not correct. Please reference if you do. The effect of GW on ENSO as far as I know is very much unsettled science, with different models giving different results. Expansion of the Hadley cells could give more La Nina conditions (just a lot hotter than previous El Ninos). What does appear to be robust, is that amplitude of ENSO variation will increase. -
LorenCobb at 07:10 AM on 26 August 2011OA not OK part 19: SUMMARY 1/2
I like what you are doing with this point-by-point summary, but I have a serious suggestion concerning the STYLE of the writing. Please remember that the most important readers of your material are folks in the Denial camp, or tending in that direction, who are visiting in order to see what arguments are currently being made. I suspect that they may not be amused or in any way attracted by the cutesy titles (e.g. "The f-word: pH") that you have given these points. This is at heart a political argument, and these readers may already be extremely angry about what they see as scientific fraud and meddling in important public affairs. Humor, especially of this kind, can be misinterpreted as condescension, ridicule, and worse. I think it would be best to keep everything sober and as plainly stated as possible. Thanks! -
Composer99 at 07:10 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
I have replied to EtR's final comment on Texas weather on the thread I suggested earlier. -
Composer99 at 07:06 AM on 26 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
I am going to respond on this thread to a comment by Eric the Red on the Republican Candidates vs Climate Science thread. Eric the Red: Your suggestion "Since global warming theory tends to favor El Nino conditions, the occurrance of the strong La Nina runs counter-intuitive" is, to the best of my understanding, simply false. Climate change does not favour any one state of ENSO except insofar as it affects the Pacific ocean currents which drive ENSO. Do you have a cite to scientific literature supporting your claim? -
scaddenp at 07:05 AM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
I should also add, that I dont back any particular solution. I have every confidence that market would find good solutions if building new coal generation was banned. However, no technological solution is going anywhere while coal is cheaper (are you happy with subsidies?). I am not seeing right-wing skeptics stepping up to the plate to answer this one. Does this mean they simply cant, so resort to denial instead? -
muoncounter at 06:48 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
EtR#53: Please identify the middle-ground politicians on the Republican side. Is Huntsman the one and only (and does he stand a chance?) How are any of the others' stances on climate change based on science? And the issue is cut and dry; either we do something or we do not. Postponement and 'we don't know' equates to doing nothing. It's as cut and dry as that. BTW, the post needs to be updated with Romney's latest: “Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” “What I’m not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don’t know the answer to.” Better do it quick, because his campaign might not last that long. Corporations are people. So is Soylent Green. -
Eric the Red at 06:23 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
AT, I think your description of one party being ideology-based and one being science-based is much too simplistic. While I agree that there is a huge difference between the fringe elements in each party, the middle-ground politicians have similar opinions on this issue. This issue is also not as cut and dry as some others, like abortion or the death penalty. There exists a wide range of future projections and possible solutions among scientists, let alone politicians. Your last quote could actually come true. -
scaddenp at 06:21 AM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
EtR - that would be off-topic for this thread, but obviously nuclear, renewables, electrication of transport would be majors with a host of minors. However, if you wished to discuss this, go here. -
John Hartz at 06:18 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Another recent article on the topic du jour: “A Fundamental Republican Science Problem” by Andy Revkin, DOT Earth, NY Times, Aug 22, 2011 -
actually thoughtful at 06:02 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Paul D your comments regarding the statistical likelihood of a Republican vs Democrat politician agreeing with AGW appears to ignore the broad, sweeping, overwhelming scientific consensus regarding AGW. In deed, one has to ignore the science to deny AGW. That one party does, and one party doesn't, would appear to be caused by one party basing their understanding of the world on ideology (you could loosely understand this as "seeing the world as you want to see it") and one party basing their understanding of the world on science (ie "seeing the world as it is (to the best of our ability)"). There is no room for a "he said, she said" approach to climate change. There is the immutable truth, which science hopes and labors to reveal; and there is wishes and wants, which ideology strives to make palatable to the masses. There is no equivalency between these two approaches. Attempts to create such an equivalence immediately lead into the shark infested waters of setting the science aside so the less knowledgeable participants can feel good about themselves. Better to educate the less knowledgeable than to invoke some sort of "truth lies in the middle between science and ideology" pablum. There be dragons. -
dana1981 at 06:01 AM on 26 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
fair point mdenison; text revised. -
JoeRG at 05:59 AM on 26 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
dana1981 Then you made a mistake in the post, because you wrote: This was a very simple model, excluding the effects of the sun, volcanoes,... what obviously is not true. Even if they are indirect signals, they are indeed part of the model. As it is written, it is a bit confusing. Sorry. -
muoncounter at 05:59 AM on 26 August 2011It's cosmic rays
First it was 'cosmic rays cause clouds;' now its 'Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays ...' Have the goal posts shifted? And why does the NatureNews headline read Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays, which is not at all a justifiable conclusion of the paper? From the Kirkby abstract, We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. Hmm, 100 parts per trillion NH4 is significant now, yet 395 CO2 parts per million is not? Sphaerica#57: You open an interesting possibility. If there is a good witch (helpful to Munchkins everywhere), surely an evil witch (very destructive) could be referred to as an anti-good witch. And the abbreviation for that is AGW!!! -
muoncounter at 05:37 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
EtR#45: Now you are fully off-topic; there are multiple ENSO threads, as well as specific extreme weather threads, as Composer mentioned above. Saying something is a 'historical cause' is meaningless here. -
mdenison at 05:36 AM on 26 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
#2 Dana I think your intro to fig 4 would be clearer if you changed it to something like ...and see what the model would look like with the more modern estimates of the GHG forcings from AR4 (Figure 4). As I read the text I had the impression you were only updating the projected forcings since 1990 and was rather surprised that the graphs differed before 1990. I gather from your reply to Charlie that you have replaced all the GHG forcings since 1880. -
Doug Mackie at 05:34 AM on 26 August 2011OA not OK part 19: SUMMARY 1/2
The 21% refers to current. (762 Gt). But yes. It is clunky. May look at changing that for the booklet. Arrgh. Fixed that less/more in the original post but not the master copy used to produce the summary. Fixed now. -
dana1981 at 05:24 AM on 26 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
Alexandre - correct, the baseline is 1765 as used in the IPCC FAR, and thanks! -
Stephen Baines at 04:43 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Composer99 I agree with you first statement, but that only makes the point I was trying to make stronger. Even if warming and intensity/frequency of ENSO cycles were not linked in some way, it would make no sense to dismiss warming out of hand as a factor given the ENSO state. Since they are potentially linked, it makes dismissing an effect of warming even less sensible. EtR... you specifically referenced the heatwave in your post above as quoted by apirate. It's OK to backtrack, it would be better if you did so explicitly, though. Also, I would argue that heat does exacerbate drought conditions. It certainly makes it harder for plants to maintain water balance at a given level of soil moisture. -
Eric the Red at 04:42 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Composer, Since global warming theory tends to favor El Nino conditions, the occurrance of the strong La Nina runs counter-intuitive. The warmer baseline temperatures are certainy a possible cause for the higher temperatures, however, linking that to the current drought is a stretch. This is not to say that AGW could not be a contributor, but the La Nina has a strong, historical cause for the current drought. -
dana1981 at 04:40 AM on 26 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
bart and Albatross - thanks. JoeRG - what's left is mainly internal variability, which does contain some cycles. Bear in mind that Broecker's "Camp Century Cycles" are very rough estimtes used to try and fit the model to the data. As such, they actually do indirectly include solar and volcanic forcings in the early-mid 20th Century. -
Composer99 at 04:39 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
And of course, going in circles on Texas droughts in this thread is going off-topic. I think this thread is the most topical for 2011 droughts in Texas. Bringing my own contribution back on topic, I find it unfortunate (some understatement involved) that (a) the majority of Republicans who are running to represent their party in the 2012 Presidential election are so deep in denial about climate change and (b) the one who isn't is probably not, at least the way things appear at present, likely to secure his party's nomination. -
Alexandre at 04:37 AM on 26 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
Base period for figures 2 to 5 is the year 1765? Thanks for the informative post, Dana. I've been curious about this comparision, which is in my view even more telling than Rahmstorf 2007. -
Composer99 at 04:19 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
I think that trying to de-couple ENSO from global climate behaviour (global warming) is not a productive way to distribute causality for such things as the Texas drought. That said, suggesting La Niña without acknowledging the importance of warmer baseline temperatures from AGW and the tendency for extreme weather to become more extreme as a result of the warming, strikes me as disingenuous. -
Eric the Red at 04:04 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Stephen, With regards to the drought in Texas, La Nina is the persistent cause. I was making no reference to temperatures, either daytime or nighttime, but to the rainfall, or rather lack thereof. This past La Nina was the most severe, and neither is the current drought. Texas has experienced worst droughts at lower temperatures than have occurred this year. We have a strong historical connection between La Ninas and drought in Texas, but not so with global warming. No dichotomy, no double standard. -
muoncounter at 04:00 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Maybe the point is that the exceptional, record-shattering heatwave/drought is generally blamed by the deniers of AGW on la Nina. The rest of us aren't so sure of that easy assessment any more. Look at John N-G's fingerprint analysis to see just how exceptional this drought is -- and how ignorant Guvna Perry must be to deny it. The old proverb 'may you live in interesting times' should be updated to 'may you live in exceptional times.' -
JoeRG at 03:42 AM on 26 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
Can anybody explain what remains as a natural forcing if Sun and Volcanoes are excluded, and how this remnant is able to form a cycle (as used in the model)? It must be an important one to drive temperatures in a range of nearly 0.8K within 100 years, but I've never heard of it and I found no explanations of it in any of the IPCC publications. But it is of course necessary to know about to call the model discussed here a proper one. -
dana1981 at 02:51 AM on 26 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
Charlie - which data? The caption says that the observational data is from GISTEMP. If you mean the model adjustment, the source is the IPCC FAR projected GHG forcing (Figure 1) vs. the actual forcing (from the IPCC AR4, stated below Figure 1). It's a GHG forcing model, so I took observed GHG changes into account. As I said, the model doesn't account for aerosols. That's one reason why the "best" 2.5°C sensitivity is probably a bit on the low side, even though the model matches observations quite well (also noted in the post). -
JosHagelaars at 02:38 AM on 26 August 2011OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Thank you all very much for the very informative posts on this interesting subject. It also helped to refresh my rather rusty chemical knowledge. Nice to have it combined as a booklet. Regards, Jos -
Charlie A at 02:35 AM on 26 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
What is the source of data for Figures 4 and 5 ? Did you adjust both aerosols and GHG forcings, or just GHG ?
Prev 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 Next
