Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 Next
Comments 94801 to 94850:
-
dana1981 at 03:32 AM on 22 February 2011Prudent Path Week
bart - true, aerosol emissions may be cleaned up before GHG emissions are reduced, which would lead to even further warming. A valid point. Gianfranco - yes, I essentially mean compared to what's to come. The consequences thus far have been bad, but they haven't had particularly horrific consequences yet. -
Gianfranco at 03:13 AM on 22 February 2011Prudent Path Week
By "the consequences of anthropogenic climate change so far have been manageable" I presume you mean relatively in comparison to what will happen. Alpine glaciers have melted dramatically for over a century now. Sea water's acidity increased and several species alredy experience difficulties forming their shells and skeletons, and these species happen to be right at the beginning of the marine food chain. -
Chemist1 at 02:42 AM on 22 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Bern, the station picks are not an issue. What is an issue is the projected warming at NASA. Try reading the paper first please.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] This is a discussion better taken to Models are unreliable. -
Bart Verheggen at 02:06 AM on 22 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Chemist1, See e.g. here for some graphs of current sea level rise (around 3 mm/yr) in historical context. The post thereafter gives two graphs of sea level versus mean global temperature for different periods in earth' history. They may provide some useful perspective. Dana, In terms of how much warmign is still to come, there's the "unrealized" warming that still has to make its way out of the ocean as the planet equilibrates, but there's also the cooling effect of aerosols: They will most likely be cleaned up before we get rid of CO2 emissions. As aerosol pollution will be cleaned up, more and more of the "masked" warming will become apparent.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Bart: thanks for that link; I like your long-term outlook. Further sea-level rise discussion is on the thread A broader view of sea level rise, although Visual depictions of sea level rise (a prior thread) is excellent. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:37 AM on 22 February 2011Prudent Path Week
I have seen the "anomaly" issue raised many times by skeptics. I think it is partially that it suggests to the layperson that the use of the word "anomaly" implies that the records in someway demonstrate that recent temperatures are anomalous in some way, which of course it doesn't, it is just that the word "anomaly" has a specific technical meaning in climatology. The genuinely skeptical, once it has been explained that "anomaly" is not intended to (and does not) imply "anomalous", generally stop worrying about it. It only needs basic numeracy skills to see that subtracting an offset has no impact on the argument either way - just as the warming would be the same whether we gave the temperature in degrees centigrade or degrees Kelvin. -
guinganbresil at 00:59 AM on 22 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
So anthropogenic = causative... I think I am understanding now. Is it really right to gloss over factors just because they are non-anthopogenic? I sense a pattern here.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with the comments policy here. This post is sailing very close to the wind, I suggest you take a different tack. If you have no scientific point to make, another site may be better suited to your input. -
muoncounter at 00:49 AM on 22 February 2011Prudent Path Week
"climatologists are generally interested in trends and changes," Actually, those trends are 'the numbers' that should be the focus. Figure 1 in Monckton Myths#12 presents an excellent example: the number +6.3 degrees per century should be enough to sway even the most cold-hearted skeptic. Or Table 1 in the same post, where 8 of the 10 warmest years in the Arctic temperature record occurred this decade. How do the so-called skeptics usually respond to that? With stories of uncomfortable seals from 1922 or a ship frozen in the ice from 1850. I suppose its easier to laugh about how much those anecdotes 'prove' than actually think about the consequences of our actions. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:31 AM on 22 February 2011Prudent Path Week
RSVP@29 There are several good reasons for doing so. Firstly if you want to compare surface temperatures (e.g. GISTEMP/HadCRUt) against satelite data (e.g. UAH/RSS), then the anomalies won't have a relative offset of (IIRC) about ten degrees (becuase the satelite measurements are the temperature of a fairly thick slice of the trophosphere and temperatures decrease with altitude, so the lowere trophosphere temperatures are much colder than the surface). To a lesser extent, you will also get offsets between different surface records, becuase of e.g. handling of the poles, which would also be misleading. Secondly, climatologists are generally interested in trends and changes, in which case the baseline offset is irrelevant, looking at an anomaly just helps focus on what is important without being distracted by irrelevant detail. If you want to have "the number", just add on the baseline offset for the particular record you are interested in, and you will have it. However, if you think measuring the Earths temperature is a straightforward matter, you are greatly mistaken, see e.g. Trewin (2010) for a very readable review of the need for homogenization etc. -
Bern at 00:26 AM on 22 February 2011Prudent Path Week
sgmuller @28: I suspect Marcus is referring to this UTS study [pdf], which estimates total fossil fuel subsidies in Australia to be around $8.9 billion per year, most of which goes to oil (see table on p.33). The subsidies on electricity to aluminium smelters are estimated to be worth $195-232 million per year (table p.17, discussion p.18), but the current figure may be $100m higher due to subsidies to the new(ish) Aldoga smelter near Gladstone. -
muoncounter at 00:12 AM on 22 February 2011Prudent Path Week
RSVP: "skeptics could be more easily swayed if instead of presenting temperature "anomaly"" This objection to a temperature anomaly seems to pop up every once in a while. I don't understand why it's an issue. The anomaly concept is simple enough: It's 'usually' some average M, now its +1 more than M; the anomaly is that difference. But you touch on a more basic issue: Can skeptics be swayed? I suppose the answer depends on what the skeptic means when he or she self-identifies as a 'skeptic'. Those who are ideologically driven, have closed their minds to new ideas and/or are living in fear that 'they are all out to get us' do not sway. This seems to describe the majority of those who show up here calling themselves 'skeptics;' a few comments in and they show their true colors. Every once in a while, you run into a 'true skeptic' - one who has an open mind; it's a very refreshing change. Wikipedia has it right (and I am usually very skeptical of Wikipedia): Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude, or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted. Usually meaning those who follow the evidence, versus those who are skeptical of the evidence (see: Denier) -
RSVP at 00:05 AM on 22 February 2011Prudent Path Week
DM #27 Is there a particular reason why the data has to be tinkered with? Why not just publish a number? Whatever the number, it should be increasing slowly. Assuming the number is valid, it should just be a matter of dividing it by the number of samples, and the difference of this result every year should be some small number that jives with the anomaly curve in Figure 1. -
Ken Lambert at 00:02 AM on 22 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
Charlie A Quite right Charlie A. 0.16 (top 700m) + 0.1 (deep ocean) = 0.26W/sq.m. Dr Trenberth et al say TOA imbalance is 0.9W/sq.m. We are finding less than one third of the warming imbalance in all the oceans. Possible conclusions: A) The 0.9W/sq.m is right and we are not measuring the oceans correctly (the its there but we can't measure it story) B) The 0.26W/sq.m are right and the TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m constructed from models is wrong. C) Or both are wrong and the correct answer lies somewhere in between. FFS (fat finger syndrome)on above post - went early. -
muoncounter at 23:47 PM on 21 February 2011Evaporating the water vapor argument
electroken: "Texas had more surface water area than Minnesota about 10 years ago?" I knew the drought was bad, but your comment really puts it in perspective. As do these maps, from the folks who measure such things:
"I only ask that ALL things which can contribute to any warming be considered and not simply dismissed"
Yeah, that's kind of why there is so much to learn. Because that's exactly what goes on - it's a big field of study, one that can't be summed up in an internet minute.
-
sgmuller at 22:48 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Marcus, Where can I find more detail and evidence about this claimed $10 billion subsidy to fossil fuel industries? BTW, did you take into account the indirect subsidy that goes via the low electric prices for the aluminum smelting industry? regards, Stephen -
Tom Curtis at 22:01 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1, where is George White's documentation that it was not applied? Currently your "critical thinking" will not accept the results of several scientific papers, the two most seminal of which have been cited to you, it will not accept the IPCC report, it will not even accept the results of the public domain version of a radiation model designed by the USAF, and it will not accept the reports of a large number of people knowlegeable on the subject. But it will accept the say so of a single electrical engineer based on zero documentation to the contrary. This extreme contrast in willingness to believe shows it is not critical thinking at all. So, before we go any further, how about you show us the peer reviewed paper, or technical description of a line by line radiation model, or the code of such a model in which the effect is not applied already. Current evidence is that you will accept any belief contrary to AGW on zero evidence, but will not accept any belief supportive of AGW on even a mountain of evidence. Given that I am not going to waste my time presenting evidence to your that you will not consider anyway. (Afterall, I already have given that evidence to you in at least two different forms; both from very creditable academic sources.) So, either show me that you apply the same evidentiary standards you apply to Gearge White's ravings; or give principled reasons why you will not accept a straightforward truth that can be verified in any first year text on atmospheric physics, or on climate modelling? -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:25 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
RSVP@26 wrote: "Maybe skeptics could be more easily swayed if instead of presenting temperature "anomaly", NASA (or whoever) maintained and published an annual temperature-second check sum based on some stable temperature measurements sampled around the globe" GISSTEMP is exactly NASAs best attempt at a "stable temperature measurement sampled around the globe". All an "anomaly" means is that the average value over some well defined baseline period has been subtracted. I has no effect whatsoever on trends etc, and I have no idea why skeptics have a problem with the data being presented as an anomaly (for instance the need to put it in quotes). Do Spencer and Christy also need a second check sum, given that they also provide the UAH data as an anomaly? -
RSVP at 19:59 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Maybe skeptics could be more easily swayed if instead of presenting temperature "anomaly", NASA (or whoever) maintained and published an annual temperature-second check sum based on some stable temperature measurements sampled around the globe, integrating temperature over time as sampled in weather stations in a continous manner. With the internet, and so many computers out there, this should be possible. In doing so, there would be no need to factor out the effects of urban heat islands, etc. as they all form a part of global warming, (unless of course this data ran counter to an agenda of some kind.) If set up properly, all that would matter then was the data looking forward and that which was maintained from when the system was set up, so that historical proxy data going back 500 or 1000 years would become irrelevant. By defining a grand check sum, the term "global warming" might actually mean something, regardless of whether climate was cooling or warming somewhere. -
Bern at 19:08 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Chemist1 - No, I was referring to the paper you linked at #16. I had a quick look at it, and while I don't know how or why the authors chose the sites they did, I know enough about Australia to think that their choice of stations was rather odd. I can't comment much on the choice of sites in th US, but I'd second the comments above that comparing results of global climate models to records for individual stations is missing the point, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what those models tells us. If you were comparing a local climate model, or even a regional one, you might have a bit of a case, but the broad-scale averaging required for the global models means you should only compare them with measurements averaged over wide areas. Or so I understand it, not being a climate scientist myself. -
GFW at 18:38 PM on 21 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
If the deep ocean can warm on decadal time scales (an order of magnitude faster than previously thought) and if that turns out to balance the heat budget and the sea level rise budget, there is one silver lining. It means we get the thermal inertia of the deep ocean as a brake on the rate that the surface can warm. That would be very good for survivability of the next 200y or so. Unfortunately this could just make deniers think they're right longer than if the deep ocean wasn't a player. -
actually thoughtful at 18:17 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
The problem here is that the US politicians will equate the real science with the bogus science. Both because their ideology requires it, and because, in the US there is no scientific education and one political party is doing very well by denying any science whose outcomes it does not care for. -
Rob Painting at 18:11 PM on 21 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
guinganbresil - I see that your graphic is missing respiration and photosynthesis Yes. Coral and phytoplankton don't drive SUV's. -
scaddenp at 17:39 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
I know I am sounding like a broken record but you start with Ramanathan and Coatley 1978. -
scaddenp at 17:37 PM on 21 February 2011Evaporating the water vapor argument
electroken - please read the post. You can evaporate more water but it also condenses so amount of water in atmosphere is function of temperature. Nonetheless, the maths is done on the basis of actual measured amounts of water vapour in atmosphere. -
scaddenp at 17:33 PM on 21 February 2011It's cosmic rays
electroken - please see CO2 lag temperature for answer. This has nothing to do with cosmic rays. Short answer CO2 can be both forcing and feedback. -
electroken at 17:28 PM on 21 February 2011It's cosmic rays
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Can it be proven that the CO2 rose before the warming in the past or did it rise as a result of the warming of the oceans which then gave off the CO2? I have understood that the rising CO2 levels do not proceed the observed warming and actually lag it in most cases where tests are done with core samples etc. I keep an open mind myself. -
Daniel Bailey at 17:20 PM on 21 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
@ Ron (34) Conditions will be none too pretty anywhere in the latter half of the century. Not only are the main mapped graphic projections of future conditions based on a medium emissions path (while actuals are tracking a high-emissions path), one of the vectors not taken into account in the models are the results of Schaefer et al 2011, discussed here. Sheafer et al 2011 further compounds this problem by being too conservative itself: it presumes all GHG emissions due to PCF (Permafrost Climate Forcing) will be in the form of CO2, while in actuality much will be in the form of CH4 (methane). Should this stand up to further scrutiny & be confirmed by subsequent studies, this means an effective CO2 doubling from PCF alone by 2200. In addition, Schaefer et al 2011 do not consider methane hydrate releases, which are currently underway in the East Siberian Arctic Sea. Needless to say, no current model begins to take this all into consideration. Net: Even though the field is advancing rapidly (to the point that many of the assumptions tested in studies are found to be hopelessly conservative & obsolete upon publication), the more we are finding out about how truly effed-up the situation is, the more we realize just how screwed our children are going to be. "Safe refuges?" In North America, I'd say Northern Labrador, due to the moderating influences of the maritime seaboard. Perhaps Northern Scandinavia, but that will be swamped by refugees from Europe. Kamchatka (if the Ring of Fire doesn't destabilize it's volcanoes somehow) should be OK for a while. New Zealand's South Island also (remoteness is a good thing!). The reality is that no place will be safe. By 2050, safety & security will be a condition of the past. All that will matter is a place to grow enough meager foodstuffs and the supply of ammunition to protect them. Such a downer today; I should just go to bed. The Yooper -
Ari Jokimäki at 17:14 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
So, here global climate is being discussed, and then a paper trying to model local weather with (limited selection of) global climate models is being offered as a proof that models don't work. If one would like to show that models don't work globally, simplest method would be to do a global analysis with them. We of course all know here that when a proper global analysis is being done, the models give quite accurate result. This is actually quite a remarkable achievement considering how crude the models are compared to the real Earth system. Models also do regionally rather well as can be seen in the link I gave. However, it is not expected that models should recreate the weather of every point of the Earth accurately. That would be expecting miracles. -
electroken at 16:54 PM on 21 February 2011Evaporating the water vapor argument
I can tell you that it is not insignificant to evaporate 100 billion gallons of water per day and it takes an enormous amount of energy to do so. I think it takes approximately 1500 btu to evaporate 1 pound of water to vapor form. Each gallon of water should be about 10 pounds if I recall correctly. So we evaporate an extra trillion pounds of water a day. I wonder if they consider all the surface area of ponds and swimming pools as well as irrigation? Did you know that Texas had more surface water area than Minnesota about 10 years ago? So, this process is transferring massive amounts of energy into the atmosphere whereas 50 years ago this was NOT occurring this way; so what is the affect of doing that? Could it be producing larger and more powerful storms as we have been witnessing in the last 10 or 15 years? That is my opinion! If nothing else it is putting all that energy into the air for a fact. Consider that a jet plane is dumping water at approx 2000deg F into the stratosphere where this was simply not happening 50 or 60 years ago. Burning that fuel produces 5 pounds of water vapor for each pound of fuel and I know that the jets burn a lot of fuel and there are about 4000 planes in the air at any given time over the usa. I only ask that ALL things which can contribute to any warming be considered and not simply dismissed without having any proof they are not involved. Be scientific!Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] As Phil rightly points out, atmospheric water vapor excesses condense out, equalizing within a 9-day period. As one newly come out of the darkness of the Internet to Skeptical Science, Welcome! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (given the plethora of posts [I get paid extra for using big words and alliteration :-) ] odds are, there is). Or you can search by Taxonomy. If, after searching, you cannot find an answer to a question, post it on what you think to be the most appropriate thread and someone will get back to you fairly quickly. As always, please compose your comments with adherence to the Comments Policy in mind. Finally, please use the Preview function to ensure your comments are representative of what you intend for them to say. Thanks! -
Chemist1 at 16:31 PM on 21 February 2011A broader view of sea level rise
Muoncounter: the brief blog post uses scholarly references. Organic and biochemist. Elsewhere I use direct peer review, so in this thread ill do the same. Careful,please on cherry picking, in your summary of the conclusion. -
Marcus at 16:29 PM on 21 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
"Marcus, from Figure 6.10c, the rate of rise in proxy temperatures from approximately 950 to 1000 looks very similar to the rate of rise in proxy temperatures from 1940+ but I do not have the original data to make a more accurate comparison." What you need to remember, though, is that the proxies used above are far from accurate. Each proxy is done using different methods & using materials sourced from different locations-& what we seem to have above is a composite of several of the most well-known proxies (Mann, Moberg & Esper). The original data for each proxy seems to contain a lot of noise but, what seems to come through is a definite warming trend from around -0.6 degrees below the 1961-1990 mean up to around +0.1 degrees above the 1961-1990 mean-over the space of around 600 years-driven largely by a significant increase in sunspot activity. By comparison, the warming of the late 20th century is occurring *on top of* the warming already caused by the increasing solar activity of the previous 200-odd years (from around 1750 to 1940). The warming is also occurring during a period of relative solar quiescence & relatively high volcanic activity-both of which should be producing *cooling*, not warming. Hope that makes sense. -
Ron Crouch at 16:09 PM on 21 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Perhaps as Lovelock says; go north or south young man. Although I doubt that any part of Antarctica would be able to support human population any time soon. Not to mention the toxins in the food chain in the Arctic. -
Marcus at 15:59 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Wow, Ron, that's an excellent resource-especially as they make clear where specific factors are at play in above average year-to-year variability. Kudos for that. -
Chemist1 at 15:58 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
US stations. -
Chemist1 at 15:57 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Bern are you referring to a moved reference? How about we discuss my refernce in this thread that looks at 55 data points? -
RW1 at 15:51 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom Curtis (RE: 86), "it comes from the incorrect assumption that line by line radiation models do not already apply that effect already" Where is the documentation that the halving is already applied? That's all I'm asking for. I've looked around and cannot find it. -
muoncounter at 15:50 PM on 21 February 2011A broader view of sea level rise
Chemist You're citing the World Climate Report: Chief Editor - Patrick Michaels, as if it's a scholarly source? In the post in question, he seems to take issue with the IPCC's sea level rise rate, quoted in the blog as: the average rate of global mean sea level rise is estimated from tide gauge data to be 1.8±0.5 mm yr–1 He then goes on to praise GPS-corrected sea level data, which concludes: when compared to the GIA-corrected data, the GPS-corrected data are better “both on the global and the regional scale, leading to a reconciled global rate of geocentric sea level rise of 1.61±0.19 mm/yr over the past century in good agreement with the most recent estimates”. -- emphasis added Are you seriously suggesting there is a meaningful difference between these two rates? May I ask what branch of chemistry you practice? What chemicals are involved? -
Ron Crouch at 15:47 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
How hot is Earth? The Worldwide Surface Temperature speaks for itself, even when it is derived from multiple sources. But then I expect that the skeptic solution would be to shoot the bear (after provoking it with stones). -
scaddenp at 15:43 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Yes, hence my attempt to show that science had it right by direct empirical means since I despaired that RW1 would understand the calculation. -
Tom Curtis at 15:29 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Muoncounter @85, it comes from the incorrect assumption that line by line radiation models do not already apply that effect already, and then applying it again to the output of the line by line models. -
muoncounter at 15:28 PM on 21 February 2011Models are unreliable
Chemist1: You've linked to a 3 year old Marc Morono paper written for the senator from the state ofOklahomaPetrodollars. This isn't 'controversy,' its junk. For example: SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY - Excerpt: "Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. Even for 2007, that was blatantly false. -
calyptorhynchus at 15:27 PM on 21 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
#12 Riccardo "We are not here to Save the Planet, but to save human souls." How can we save human souls without saving the planet, where are the bodies that these souls inhabit to live?Moderator Response: [DB] I believe you mean BP's meanderings in his comment at 14 above. -
muoncounter at 15:20 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
KR, You may recall the last time we went around this tree (the endless Lindzen and Choi thread), this came from the assumption that 50% of emitted IR photons go up and out - 50% down. -
scaddenp at 15:12 PM on 21 February 2011Models are unreliable
Chemist1 - all that link shows is what wallowing in a sewer will get you. Firstly, the paper does not support the claims the tin-hats claim of it. Secondly, it was also wrong and revised by Schwatz himself in 2008. It would help to link to the science paper instead of breathless political posturing. Controversy is one thing, but controversy supported by data and published in peer-reviewed science is another. -
Climate sensitivity is low
scaddenp, RW1 - George White has stated that running the HITRAN models results in an imbalance of 3.6 W/m^2 (here, post #19). And then he, for some reason, halves that value. Which I cannot consider as other than a blatant mistake.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed URL link. -
Bern at 14:42 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Chemist1 @ 16: I haven't read through that paper yet (and I suspect the statistical discussions are beyond my skills in that area), but the site selection immediately leaps out at me as being very, well, odd for Australia. For comparison of precipitation, for example, 3 out of 4 sites in Australia are in the "red centre" - very sparsely populated areas which get very irregular rainfall. It seems very odd, considering the high density of good weather records in the rest of the country... @mod response at 15: thanks, but I was mostly commenting on the fact that there doesn't appear to be a handy link to those graphics anywhere on the standard page layout - I've previously found it by searching for the blog posts that mention it.Moderator Response: [DB] Fair point. While the link I provided originally appeared in this blog post, they seem to be unreferenced anywhere easily findable. A fix is in the pipeline; stay tuned for future developments. -
Chemist1 at 14:38 PM on 21 February 2011Models are unreliable
The title of the link desribes some of the issues with models being unreliable in peer review like this one: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 The reason I am posting this link is to show there is considerable controversy and evidence of GCM's not being reliable or valid from 1900 to 2011. -
RW1 at 14:29 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
I'm not following. -
scaddenp at 14:23 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
If George was right, (ie should be 1.85W/m2), then the model result that calculated 3.7W/m2 would not agree with the actual measurements of IR. Similarly, if you compare spectrum measured in 1979 with that in 2004, if the incremental change in IR was wrong then the measurement wouldnt agree. This is experimental verification that 3.7W/m2 for doubling is correct. Furthermore, you check that the change in IR is due to CO2 by looking at the spectrum. -
Chemist1 at 14:16 PM on 21 February 2011Models are unreliable
( -Snip- )Moderator Response: [DB] Please, no link only. Future comments containing links without some description of why you are posting it and why you think it's relevant to the discussion on this thread will be deleted. Thanks! -
Chemist1 at 14:14 PM on 21 February 2011Models are unreliable
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+models+unreliable&as_sdt=0%2C24&as_ylo=2009&as_vis=0Moderator Response: [DB] Please, no link only.
Prev 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 Next
