Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 Next
Comments 83101 to 83150:
-
Riccardo at 18:01 PM on 10 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
trunkmonkey actually the term THC is less general than MOC. The latter doeas not specify one particular physical mechanism thus including wind and tidal drivers. Apart from this, they are commonly used interchangeably and even though the term "meridional" may cause some misunderstanding, as you're showing, it does not mean in any way that it includes just the atlantic latitudinal motion. But maybe we should get back on topic. -
zacharyshahan at 17:51 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
bcs the visual impact, i think, is key -- & it's very easy to miss that with the top one (i did at first) -
zacharyshahan at 17:50 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
i definitely vote for the bottom (original?) one! -
Rob Painting at 17:49 PM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
Norman @ 6 - in addition to the advice you have received above, note that the rate of CO2 increase is important to global ocean pH. In the past, increases in atmospheric CO2 have often happened over much longer timescales than is currently taking place (thousands, or tens of thousands of years vs hundreds), therefore silicate weathering, is able to buffer the extra CO2 dissolved into the oceans. The boost in alkalinity provided by silicate weathering is able to offset much of the acidification if the rise in CO2 is slow enough, because the weathering process operates on timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. An additional consideration is, if the process happens slowly enough, the extra CO2 is able to be distributed to the deep ocean, offsetting the effects of acidity in surface waters. What is happening today is that humans are adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere, so fast, that the natural buffering processes, and circulation to deeper waters, cannot keep up. CO2 is building up in the surface ocean; causing pH to fall rapidly. The oceans have not been this acidic for at least 20 million years, probably much longer, and the rate of decline in ocean pH is probably unprecedented. Hope this helps. We'll have some posts touching on this within the next month. -
y-not at 17:17 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
As an invisible sks supporter I recently had a T-shirt made with the "indicators of warming" graphic on it. Underneath it has the question "what are we doing?" and the sks web address. It was a one off, it is a bit busy, but hopefully is good advertising and the question forces people to think. -
ribwoods at 16:37 PM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
In my preceding comment, "I take that to mean that the corals that synthesize calcium carbonate (CaCO3) evolved during the last 25 million years." should have been "I take that to mean that the corals that synthesize enough calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to build reefs evolved during the last 25 million years" since the NOAA article further says, "Although all corals secrete CaCO3, not all are reef builders. Some corals, such as Fungia sp., are solitary and have single polyps that can grow as large as 25 cm in diameter. Other coral species are incapable of producing sufficient quantities of CaCO3 to form reefs." -
sailrick at 16:33 PM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
What about shelled zooplankton, coccolithophores? Aren't they a major carbon sink, which acidification could threaten? -
ribwoods at 16:22 PM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
Norman, The NOAA information page says, "Appearing as solitary forms in the fossil record more than 400 million years ago, corals are extremely ancient animals that evolved into modern reef-building forms over the last 25 million years." I take that to mean that the corals that synthesize calcium carbonate (CaCO3) evolved during the last 25 million years. Now look at the CO2 level in your graph, as of 25 million years ago. It was already lower than at any earlier time in the past 500 million years. Putting these together, it appears to me that, while solitary corals were alive during the high CO2 levels, the _modern reef-building, (CaCO3)-synthesizing_ forms did not evolve (nor have lived) during especially high CO2 conditions, according to the graph you present. -
Mike Palin at 16:00 PM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
As a "hard rock" geologist with interests in mineral deposits (and mineral carbon sequestration), I find this meme extremely tedious. Yes, some geologists are in denial about AGW, so are some physicists, electrical engineers, doctors, etc. Get over it. Also, the notion that geologists are lacking in the basic sciences and math depends on where they have gone to university. In the US, most geology majors are required to take a year each of calculus, chemistry and physics. That is unfortunately not true here in New Zealand. -
winner at 15:50 PM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
As long as we are all coming out :) I hold qualifications in geology and geophysics. To be honest I haven't worked in the field for a good ten years having moved back to a real life with kids and family in a big city. Anyway to cut a long story short as a former geologist I have been surprised at the number of my fellow "geologists" on the denial side of the argument. I admit when I first heard of GW I thought I had heard it all before but when I took time to read the work going on into GW I quickly came around to the consensus view. This is where I find it hard to understand why "geologists" would doubt the science. For me anyway knowing the earth's history better than most helped me better understand the difference between past events and what is occurring today. -
trunkmonkey at 15:50 PM on 10 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
Riccardo The common notion of MOC was developed in the Atlantic where the Gulf Stream was identified long ago, and slowly evolved into the concept of a large convection cell extending through both hemispheres along a meridion somewhat west of Greenwich. I think in the 1960's people began to realize that this was part of a larger thermohaline circulation, but the details were vague. When the benthic foram and ice core data came on line people noticed that when Greenland was colder during DO events, Antarctica was warmer. This led to the idea that the MOC and inded the THC were hemispheric temperature balancing mechanisms with the Geenland-Antarctic axis criical to the overall circulation. A large literature is devoted to how MOC may have been shut down or restricted during Bond events and when vast glacial lakes suddenly dumped fresh water ino the nordic sinking area. I believe that THC differs from MOC in three important ways: The Atlantic is not the most important axis and the overall circulation is driven by the Antarctic beltway. The circulation loops in the Pacific and Indian oceans move in the opposite direction from the Atlantic. The most important axis of THC is lattitudnal rather than longitudinal (meridional); that is, it serves to balance the ocean basins rather than the hemispheres. There, you see? I can be one of those math challenged arm waving geologists! -
winner at 15:30 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
Great site I have been reading for a long time but never posted. I like the shirt and cup but how long until the "deniers" claim this site is on the take. Raking in the cash from cup and shirt sales. :)Response:[DB] It's just a pittance compared to the vast billions in government grant money siphoned into our Swiss bank accounts, er, um... /snark.
-
giniajim at 15:15 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
How does the 97% compare to other science disagreements? And is there a summary of what the other 3% think is happening? I assume that 100% of climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring? -
scaddenp at 15:06 PM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
While well outside my expertise, I'd happily comment on CA stuff - if he published it. That is the way scientific conversations are held. Whether he has a good point or not about Tiljander or not, I dont know, but it wont affect the science unless he publishes. His past behaviour on CA does not endear him to me, and his lack of publishing suggests his motives are political not scientific. On the other aspects, keep up the good work. -
Bern at 15:02 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
I reckon a "Hockey Stick League" t-shirt would be a winner. Temperature, Atmospheric CO2, Human CO2, net forcing, and some 'inverse' hockey sticks for, say, arctic ice, permafrost, oxygen, CO2 isotope ratios, etc where available. The more the merrier, arranged on a grid, highlighting the many lines of evidence. Very tempted to pick up one of those mugs. I kind of like both versions. The second is more informative (due to the clearer graphic), but the first has more impact. -
Albatross at 14:57 PM on 10 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Norman, Before you whine too much, this is a science site. As you will note many posters direct readers to peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals or articles written by reputable scientists or statisticians-- not political blogs like WUWT or NIPCC, or some obscure blog. If you want to discuss extremes and your belief that they are not on the uptake, then on the appropriate thread on extremes point people to the reputable, peer-reviewed literature that supports your case. Using the argument that we have nothing to worry about b/c in 18blah there was a monumental storm somewhere is just another form of denying the reality of what the data and best science are telling us. It is also offensive because climate scientists are, of course, very well aware of that severe weather events have occurred in the past. Finally, your reasoning also misses the point entirely, AGW is very much about how we decide to define where we are heading down the road because of how much CO2 we elect to pump into the atmosphere. There is no denying that. -
Albatross at 14:46 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
Nice job John :) -
gallopingcamel at 14:42 PM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
scaddenp @54, Clearly you read my post before DB snipped it. While I have enjoyed our discussions (I bow respectfully to a worthy opponent), recently it feels like ( - Moderation Complaints snipped - ) You won't see me again on this site. If you miss me, why not drop in on "Brave New Climate", "tAV", "Digging in the Clay" or "Musings of the Chiefio". My Parthian shot. As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter, "There you go again". You made a personal attack on Steve McIntyre rather than address his point about the inversion of the Tiljander data: ( - Off-topic link snipped - ) I will read your rebuttal with interest although I will not reply, thus giving you the satisfaction of having the last word. For more than 30 years I have been working to improve the environment, starting with cleaning up the river Thames in the late 1970s. We are on the same side even though we may differ on issues relating to CO2. Here are some links that cover my personal views. I would appreciate your comments if you have the time: http://morcombe.net/Senate/Spruyt1.doc http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/15/solar-power-in-florida/Response:[DB] First of all, your original comment was deleted due to being off-topic (and NOT by me).
Secondly, complaining about moderation when the very act of posting a comment on this site is an acceptance of any needed moderation is a certain invitation for yet more moderation.
Thirdly, this site's moderation offers up a venue for some of the best science-based dialogue available on the internet (bar none), as many participants here will attest.
-
ginckgo at 14:35 PM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
David Horton: Over at WUWT the other day someone pointed out that science is apolitical, but scientists aren't (which is correct as far as it goes). They can't seem to see the irony of saying this on a site that is all about attacking the scientists and not the science. I'm still working up the courage to ask my best friend, who works for a state geological survey, if he doubts AGW - he studies palaeo with me, but is now in charge of state support of mining exploration. I guess it would confirm that a link with primary industries taints your view of the science that could impact your sector. -
bill4344 at 14:29 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
It won't be worth trying to mail the items halfway round the world.
Has Australia recently drifted further away from NZ? My receipt definitely comes from CafePress.com.au, and the postage rate certainly suggested it was local!Response: [JC] Hmm, I ordered from Brisbane and my receipt came from cafepress.com - but the shipping was only $5 so that seems local. And it turns out there is an Australian version at http://www.cafepress.com.au/skepticalscience. I'm not 100% sure of how international shipping works and the CafePress site isn't that helpful in explaining. -
villabolo at 14:14 PM on 10 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
For entertainment purposes only: Arctic ice decline stopped 5 years ago. Most of the Thick Ice Was Lost Between 1988 and 1996.Response:[DB] Fixed link.
-
Kiwiiano at 14:13 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
Who do I talk to to get access to the graphics so we can have the T's and mugs printed in NZ? It won't be worth trying to mail the items halfway round the world. -
macoles at 14:12 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
In true Skeptical Science spirit you also add the peer reviewed reference in tiny print at the bottom of the shirt :) (Doran et al 2009 and Anderegg et al 2010) I prefer the later design. It is more aesthetic, the infograph gets more impact by being fully visable, which in turn prompts the viewer to read the words above it.Response: [JC] Add the peer-reviewed references? The shirt isn't geeky enough already?! :-) -
Kiwiiano at 14:11 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
It does raise the question about the 3% of climate experts that don't agree! What are they uncertain about? Have they spotted a piece of blue sky in the climate jigsaw that's incorrectly placed or something that will bring the whole climate house of cards down? Or did they get their qualifications of the back of a corn flakes packet?Response: [JC] To be precise, the Doran 2009 paper finds 1% are skeptics, 2% are undecided. -
dhogaza at 14:02 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
Yeah, but it's only 97% of scientists who wear t-shirts while they drink coffee ... Just teasing ... but it wouldn't surprise me to see that counter-argument show up at WUWT! -
Tucci78 at 13:59 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
Shouldn't you be wearing that as a tattoo? -
Stevo at 13:53 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
I must agree with bill about the larger print of the first design giving the message more clearly - especially on the coffee mug. The mug is probably what I'll buy since wearing that T-shirt arount my workplace would lead to the 'beaten up in the schoolyard' scenario. -
bill4344 at 13:45 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
Curse you and your organic cotton offering - now I'll have to be right on and buy the more expensive one! As a sometime graphic-designer I'd have to say the big text and square format works better and will have much greater impact at a distance, which is a good thing, given what some reactions may well be like! Ah, the conversations I shall have on the train... There could certainly be a case for the text above and the square 10 x 10 graphic, but see above! Hope you sell a truckload - will there be a Parliamentary edition of these, too? ;-) -
scaddenp at 13:45 PM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
Norman, changes to carbonate compensation depth is actually part of the tools for determining past atmosphere. Shallow reef corals all but went extinct during PETM and we are now increasing CO2 at rate nearly 10 times faster than this event. Read up on CCD. -
Norman at 13:44 PM on 10 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
DB are you the monitor for this thread? I did reread the comments policy and do not see why my two deleted posts were found lacking.Response:[DB] This thread is an examination of denial and the psychological forces that drive it (as you have previously acknowledged in your comment at 27 above).
Your first deleted comment was a Gish Gallop on various weather anomalies, which is far outside of the scope of this thread, as you well know.
Your second deleted comment was nothing more than a complaint about moderation.
Please do try and consider the topic of the threads you are placing comments on and ensure your comments are in compliance with the Comments Policy which you have read and are also on-topic.
-
David Horton at 13:38 PM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Ginckgo - that is very encouraging to hear. I'm sure there is a division between the hard rock people and the others; and there is of course no reason why geologists shouldn't contain the whole political spectrum among their ranks just as other disciplines do (there are certainly, for example, right wing biologists, whose political attitudes greatly influence their approach to conservation matters, a not unrelated topic). It is just a pity that the media, and politicians, take the views of "scientists" to climate change as if these are generic, no matter what the actual discipline involved nor the political mindset and affiliations, as if Carter (for example) speaks with a pure clear voice on climate change. Mind you it suits them to do it, which is why Alan Jones, for example, chooses geologists, not climate scientists, to talk about the subject. I think it has also taken a long time for those of us who are scientists to realise that political matters do impinge strongly on the way some of us present science. Perhaps we were naive to think that science would be uniquely free from this. if so, the climate change "debate" and its significance for the planet, has shaken that naivety away. -
actually thoughtful at 13:36 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
"97% of all climate experts agree we're causing global warming." goes on the back. I NEED an edit button around here! -
actually thoughtful at 13:35 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
Shoot! Just realized you have 17 scientists per row in the original graphic. If it is 100 - can't we have the words on top and 5 rows of 20 - or the top graphic (10/10) and the words on the back? That would be the BEST EVER! It would also be really, really cool to juxtapose the following two statements: 15% of Americans know this (on the front, with the graphic) 97% of all climate experts agree we're causing global warming. I actually like that even better than the "BEST EVER" idea above. It creates a little mystery when you look at the front of the shirt. It becomes a conversation starter. It also works if you swap the text front to back. Still a conversation starter. -
Margaret Morgan at 13:25 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
Brilliant, thanks! Shall put this on my birthday prezzie wish-list. -
actually thoughtful at 13:23 PM on 10 June 2011Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
The 2nd/original is MUCH better. I spent a while trying to find the graphic on the 1st on this page. I shall be purchasing. Hopefully you get some money out of the deal. -
ginckgo at 12:10 PM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
I'm a geologist/palaeontologist myself, and know many geologists here in Australia, and overseas. The majority of them accept that AGW theory correctly describes what's going on (a few are skeptical that we can do much about it anymore); Mike Sandiford, my lecturer in metamorphic geology, now at Melbourne Uni, is a strong advocate of AGW (Ian Plimer used to work at Melbourne Uni, but there is little respect for his academic prowess here, partly due to his very meagre publication recordl; and yet he is touted as Australia's most renowned geologist). I have actually collaborated closely with Bob Carter in the late 90s, and have respect for his work in marine geology, so it is disappointing that he is undermining another field of science, blatantly due to political convictions (Heartland Institute, srsly?). Geology is vitally important in understanding what's going on (I'm involved in organising a conference on the relevance of palaeoclimate on today's climate change in the next year), and geologists should be very involved in the whole thing. But scientists must understand that expertise in one subject does not automatically translate to others. And interestingly, the geologists more closely involved with climate (palaeontologists, palaeoclimatologists, etc) are much more likely to agree with AGW theory than those who are far removed: economic geologists can get a degree (or just go straight to a job) without ever doing any classes outside of ore formation or hard rock geology, which are as relevant to climate as inorganic chemistry is to evolution. Indeed, we see similar patterns in lists that supposedly show scientists denying evolution. -
Norman at 12:10 PM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
I do have some questions. Linking two articles together, the question is how come coral reefs and other shell creatures survived for several million years when CO2 levels were much higher than today? Why wouldn't a quadruple amount of CO2 cause more acidification than anything we can possibly reach this century? Yet Coral and other shell creatures were able to survive and thrive...why? Links: Graph of atmospheric CO2 a few million years ago to today. Source aticle for graph. Coral was alive during high atmospheric CO2 levels. -
actually thoughtful at 11:42 AM on 10 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Daniel Bailey - great video 350.org and Bill McKibben do great work. -
scaddenp at 11:39 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
CG - we both have to work from personal experience. I had not noticed any right wing bias in my colleagues. However, if they are into denial (none that I know of in my institute), then yes, I would expect that they get their info from right wing climate denial sites. And to GC as well, I am not saying that all geologist are mathematically challenged (my degree is in geology with maths minor). I am saying that you can hardly do climate physics (or physics period) without maths. In my experience, few geologists by way of contrast take maths beyond first year at uni. This does put them at a disadvantage in reading papers on climate physics or the intricacies of PCA. GC - your faith in McIntyre is touching. I would have more respect if he was publishing rather than taking cheap shots from the sideline. -
gallopingcamel at 11:10 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
( -Accusations of fraud and misconduct snipped- )Response:[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
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.
-
CoalGeologist at 10:50 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
@51 scaddenp Sorry... But I know very well where many of my colleagues get the arguments they cite. They could NOT come up with these things on their own. Many just passively receive emails from other colleagues citing certain "factoids" and arguments that appear on the internet, and then proliferate through the right-wing blogosphere with almost unimaginable speed. (I've researched this phenomenon on many occasions. Do a Google search on a unique key phrase (in quotes) from the latest Denialist argument, and see where it shows up.) Many or most of these sites are overtly political in nature. You be the judge of the political orientation. I'm not saying that left-wing, or environmental activist sites are immune from exaggeration or misinformation. Far from it... but climate change evolved from a scientific issue into a political issue when it was embraced by right-wing groups. You can disagree if you wish, but the empirical evidence supports this observation. The mathematical skills of geologists span all possible levels of proficiency from minimal to extremely sophisticated. While it's possible to be a good geologist while having minimal math skills, your argument holds little merit in my opinion. -
YayYay at 10:18 AM on 10 June 2011It's not bad
In economics, it's all really a matter of perception. The following is how a typical, greedy corporate who- I mean dude, could see it. Economic damage to poorer, low latitude countries Is positive for rich, high latitude countries. The poorer these countries stay, the less you have to pay for the workers in these countries. Billions of dollars of damage to public infrastructure Repairing this damage can be a great source of money for many companies. Reduced water supply in New Mexico Selling water to New Mexico can offer great amount of not only money, but political power. The less water they have, the better they can be ripped off. Increased risk of conflict (Zhang 2007) including increased risk of civil war in Africa (Burke 2009) If anything, then this is good for United States military complex and hence USA economy. As long as there are people who think like this, global warming, just like anything else, isn't going to go away. -
scaddenp at 10:10 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
To CG's list (which I would agree with except last one), I add: low mathematical skill level. Strong math isnt a perquisite for geology which leaves many geologist poorly equipped to follow papers where the skill is assumed. -
MattJ at 09:54 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
@LazyTeenager at 22:12 PM on 9 June, 2011 >A point that is often overlooked by the deep time climate skeptic >geologists is that there was life back then but not human life. And >there was of course no human civilization and in particular no USA >as it looks at the moment. True, but the primitive life then present does remind us of denialists in certain political parties in the US;) -
MattJ at 09:51 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
@thingadonta, #6 Sorry, but you are just not making sense. You are talking about minerals in general, the article was talking SPECIFICALLY about minerals used as FUEL. Sure, Australia has more Al reserves than anyone knows what to do with, but the same is conspicuously NOT the case for coal and oil. So your post is completely ruined by this fallacy of treating all mineral extraction cases as the same, when your interlocutor clearly had in mind the special case of mineral extraction for FUEL. -
Rob Painting at 09:48 AM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
MattJ - I was referring to pondering the palatability of what's left in the oceans. That the oceans will be greatly depleted, seems a given on our current course. Bibasir - it's a concern alright, but other scientists have questioned the results of that study, so we'll have to see how that plays out in the end. As far as oxygen in the oceans, warming reduces the solubility of oxygen, and we're consequently seeing an expansion of 'dead zones'. There's actually a whole bunch of other stuff taking place in the oceans, that we'll get around to discussing in the future. -
YayYay at 09:38 AM on 10 June 2011It's too hard
Haha, of course we could fix global warming. Technically. The thing is, we could technically also fix poverty, starvation and aids. In this case, what really matters, isn't what the climate science says, but what the social sciences say. -
Rob Painting at 09:30 AM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
John Bruno - 1. valid points, and I don't know that I've seen them adequately addressed, however: see figure 1 d above - less than 5% of the measurements find pH drops as low as 7.09 at the most intense CO2 sites (avoiding the term percentiles here). Hopefully we'll see some further studies resolving these issues. 2. Slime?, seen the same term used by coral reef experts, and a lot of it feels pretty darned slimy to me too!. Macroalgae, although technically correct, doesn't mean much to Joe and Jane Public, but if you can came up with a better term......... 3. Me, I'd rather not eat slime nor coral, but different strokes (I can do facetious too!). I've amended the text to mention the loss of fish. -
Michael Hauber at 09:03 AM on 10 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
Consider the wide swings of our climate caused by ENSO. This is caused by changing ocean temperatures over a portion of the Pacific by a couple degrees, and the effect of the changed temperature and moisture input into the atmosphere on global circulation patterns. Now consider that changing the Arctic from ice to water will probably have at least a profound impact on the temperature and moisture interactions between this area of the globe's surface and the atmosphere, and speculate on what this may do to atmospheric circulation patterns. We are already seeing small patches of ocean in the Arctic that are 5 degrees warmer than normal in late summer as they've spent a large portion of the summer absorbing solar radiation instead of sitting under a coating of ice. -
KR at 08:55 AM on 10 June 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
dana1981 - I suspect that E & E has a sufficiently bad reputation that they didn't consider it.
Prev 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 Next
