Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 Next
Comments 94951 to 95000:
-
Bibliovermis at 12:31 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Bern, Implications of "being on the payroll" as the basis for being a supporter are unwelcome here, regardless of the position being supported. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:59 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Marcus @ 205... Just trying to extend a little in order to build a connection. I actually believe that the hypotheses being put forth from the skeptic side are not consistent with observations. Low climate sensitivity for Lindzen just doesn't jibe with paleoclimate reconstructions. And there are various fundamental problems for GCR's being a serious driving force in climate. -
Tom Curtis at 11:59 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @189, George White's arguments are rife with errors. (There was going to be a third and fourth post on his errors, but the page containing his essential argument is currently down.) One of the most egregious is the halving of the reduction in outgoing radiation due to IR gases. This is very easily verified for your self using the modtran model hosted by David Archer. This is an obsolete model available on the public domain, but it still shows a change in TOA OLR of -3.17 w/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 from the default settings. Note, that is the reduction in the Outgoing Longwave Radiation, it is not "the amount of IR radiation captured" or some other vague term designed to confuse. Based on this model, with 375 ppm CO2, approx 287.8 w/m^2, while with 750 ppm, approx 284.7 w/m^2 leaves the planet. As I said, this is an obsolete model, built in the early 1990's. More recent and more accurate models have since been built which refine the prediction to 3.7 w/m^2, a result consistent by satellite observations. When you have a dispute between a single amateur and the whole of the world's scientific community on a single well known value, it is not "critical thinking" to simply accept that word of the amateur. It is gullibility. It is no less gullibility if people cannot find published papers establishing some thing taught in first year climate science courses. For some reason, journal editors are loathe to accept papers that merely reestablish some well known result (unless it is done with a novel and interesting method). However, in this case it is not true that nobody could point you to an academic source for this value. They, after all, will have pointed you to the IPCC at minimum. That you and George White do not understand the definition of "atmospheric forcing" is not their fault. Nor is it "critical thinking". Rather, it is simple ignorance, and in anyone who has read up on climate science as you claim to have done, willful ignorance. -
Marcus at 11:39 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
"Someone asked me a direct question and I answered it. I'm basing my conclusions on logic and evidence - not who has financed who." Yes, & your answer proves you to be a conspiracy theorist-not much better than a Young Earth Creationist or a 9/11 Troofer. I'm sorry, but *when* have you ever proven that your conclusions are based on "logic & evidence"? You've just revealed that you believe the whole of Climatology is just one long conspiracy-all financed by an as yet undisclosed group/individual. I see nothing logical or evidence based in that. My conclusions, by comparison, are based on reading *all* the available data, & using a mind that's been *trained* to read scientific papers (as I have a B.Sc (Hons) & work in a scientific field) to determine whether what they're saying is accurate or not. What the majority of the world's climatologists fits in with *everything* we know about how the world works-& has yet to be overturned by any competing hypotheses/theories-whereas the Denialists (like yourself) rely mostly on conspiracy theories & straw-man arguments. So, based on that choice, guess which side I'm going with? -
RickG at 11:37 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1: Not really. The physics of GHGs absorption are pretty well understood and quantified, as is the aggregate measured response of the system to forcing power (i.e. the gain of the system). The issue boils down to the net feedback operating on the system. The large amount of positive feedback need for AGW is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. I don't dispute there is likely some effect - just that the amount is too high. So, by your own words you have no problem with GHG physics. As for climate sensitivity and feedbacks I was going to recommend the thread, "Working out climate sensitivity from satellite measurements", but reading through it I see you have already been taken to task on your misunderstandings quite well. It also seems in that thread that you also seem to ignore the plethara of peer reviewed literature and care to learn no "real science". Again I'll ask you, list your sources that back up your claims for a large positive feedback nullifying the GHG forcings. You know to do this you also have to deny the 5 major global temperature measurements (GISS, HadCrut3v, NCDC, RSS & UAH) that all show significant warming is happening. Also, you seem to be drifting off topic, there are more appropriate threads concerning feedbacks and forcings. -
scaddenp at 11:36 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - what I want to see is your evidence. Your logic so far has been based on invalid assumption. If you want to talk science, then please go to appropriate thread and we can try to continue. Very important - have you got your head around Ramanthan and Coatley 1978? Science of Doom has some excellent aids to understanding the RTEs but discussions about where the 3.7W/m2 etc is going to be pointless without grasping these at some level. -
Marcus at 11:33 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
"On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories." In fairness, they don't even have alternative *theories*-they have *hypotheses*-ones which haven't even been supported by additional research. Lindzen's "Iris Effect", for example, has yet to receive any support from actual observations of cloud behaviour. Its not looking good for the Denialist Cult right now. -
guinganbresil at 11:28 AM on 21 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
Rob Painting - I see that your graphic is missing respiration and photosynthesis:
It appears that respiration and photosynthesis drives the CO2, O2 and pH profiles of the oceans...
-
RW1 at 11:27 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Marcus (RE: 203) Someone asked me a direct question and I answered it. I'm basing my conclusions on logic and evidence - not who has financed who. -
Marcus at 11:24 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
@RW1 "Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'." Oh yeah, unlike your denialist mates, who are often *proven* to be financed by the Fossil Fuel Industry. Are you suggesting that Arrhenius & all the other physicists & climatologists over the whole of the 19th & 20th centuries were also just trying to show 'what their financiers are more or less looking for them to discover'? If so, then that's a conspiracy with one *hell* of a lag time. With the sentence above, you've pretty much proved that you're not only a denier, but also a bit of a simpleton to boot. If these are the best "arguments" you can come up with to 'debunk' climate change, then its no wonder you probably spend most of your time hanging out with PopTech, Monctkon & Anthony Watts! -
RW1 at 11:22 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt, "I apologize for taking this thread off topic here but I have some more questions. So, on one hand we have some 10 thousand-odd climate scientists (not sure what the number actually is) and dozens of the most prestigious scientific organizations on one hand. On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories. There is the possibility that the larger groups have made the mistake. Or there is the possibility that the smaller group is making the mistake. Laying aside any given actions that should be taken, who are you more willing to bet your children's future on? Are you really willing to bet that so many scientists are somehow pulling a ruse, ignoring some elemental aspects of science, in order to support their preferred conclusion?" I'd respond, but the moderator is deleting my posts, so I'm done here. You're asking good questions, BTW. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:12 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1... I apologize for taking this thread off topic here but I have some more questions. So, on one hand we have some 10 thousand-odd climate scientists (not sure what the number actually is) and dozens of the most prestigious scientific organizations on one hand. On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories. There is the possibility that the larger groups have made the mistake. Or there is the possibility that the smaller group is making the mistake. Laying aside any given actions that should be taken, who are you more willing to bet your children's future on? Are you really willing to bet that so many scientists are somehow pulling a ruse, ignoring some elemental aspects of science, in order to support their preferred conclusion? -
RW1 at 11:08 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
( -Snip- )Moderator Response: [DB] You persist in posting things that are not only off-topic, but in violation of the comments policy, such as allegations of impropriety. Your comments must stand on their own based on the science (preferably with peer-reviewed sources to back them up) or not at all. -
Bibliovermis at 10:56 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1, I politely suggest that you apply your critical thinking skills to your base assumptions. Independently validated, empirical researched is not overturned by vast conspiracy notions and lack of understanding. -
José M. Sousa at 10:54 AM on 21 February 2011Portuguese translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
Hi! No problem. Keep up the excellent work and thanks to Alexandre as well. -
scaddenp at 10:53 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - "their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'." That is utter unsubstantiated nonsense that as far as I can see arises from an extremely poor understanding of science, and frankly looks like violation of comments policy. This is not "interpreting" data. Its actually doing the maths which you appear not to be. You can what political opinions you like but you cannot have your own version of reality. If you cant do the maths yourself, then unfortunately you have to accept the result from those who can. The 3.7W/m2 is result of very complex numerical integration; there is no "opinion" in it. If you want to dispute it, then refute the equations, but you cant do that with a half-baked piece of simplistic nonsense that this "gain" stuff is.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Yes, indeed it was. Please do not continue responding to these kind of comments. -
muoncounter at 10:52 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Gentle reminder: This is an ice thread. Sensitivity and energy imbalance discussions have their own threads; although I doubt if anyone wants to start that up again. Conspiracies, 'financiers,' etc are never on topic. -
pbjamm at 10:47 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1@193 "Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'." And with that we move from discussing Scientific Theory to Conspiracy Theory. -
RW1 at 10:45 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
KR (RE: 191), I'm not getting into that with you here, nor am I going to speak for George. -
scaddenp at 10:44 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - surely you still dont think that doubling CO2 actually is producing extra radiation at the TOA? (where by definition there is no atmosphere?). Its a EFFECTIVE 3.7W/m2 of rad. This has been explained so many times, I dont know how to make you understand it. -
RW1 at 10:43 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt, "So, in your estimation the 10 thousand-odd climate scientists working in this field have somehow made some critical error? And all the major scientific organizations (PNAS, etc.) who have made strong open declarations about AGW have all managed come to completely erroneous conclusions? Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'.Moderator Response: [DB] You are making an allegation of impropriety here, which is in violation of the comments policy. Future such comments will be deleted. -
Marcus at 10:34 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
steve anthoney "Funny how my taxes have gone up on the back of global warming." Unless you're living in a mainland European country, I doubt very much that your claim is true-as Governments in every other industrialized Country are very much joined at the hip to the Coal/Oil Industry. Here in Australia, $10 billion per annum of tax-payers money is effectively shoveled into the pockets of the fossil fuel industry-in direct & indirect subsidies-but listen to the politicians *scream* if you suggest giving even 1% of that kind of money to the renewable energy industry. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:32 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @ 189... So, in your estimation the 10 thousand-odd climate scientists working in this field have somehow made some critical error? And all the major scientific organizations (PNAS, etc.) who have made strong open declarations about AGW have all managed come to completely erroneous conclusions? -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - George White has admitted that his own running of the models comes out with an imbalance of ~3.65 W/m^2. That is the difference in energy between what goes into the atmosphere and what comes out. Not half of it, but all of it. The difference is because of (a) increased absorption by CO2, and (b) a rise in the level of CO2 emission, where CO2 density is low enough for IR to escape to space, and due to the lapse rate is actually colder - hence less energy. These numbers are obtained by running line-by-line models (as GW has done), much as numeric integration does for equations without symbolic solutions. For some reason GW doesn't believe his own results, and goes halving them - that's no reason for you to make the same mistake. I would suggest that further discussion of climate sensitivity take place on the Climate sensitivity is low thread, where the data and the discussion on this topic are actually being presented. You are way off topic here. -
scaddenp at 10:25 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Both would also appear that a back-of-the-envelope calculation ignoring a mass of known physics (plus a mass of invalid assumptions) outweighs any calculation where its done better. This the thinking that leads to "bumblebees shouldnt be able to fly". Also, the question as to how long is long enough to distinguish a trend from internal variability is not a matter of opinion - you determine it from statistics. -
RW1 at 10:23 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt (RE: 181), "Out of curiosity, can I ask where you get most of your information on climate science?" I've read a lot of books and papers and thought about it from a whole bunch of different angles, but most of my conclusions and views come from mixing and meshing the behavior and evidence coming from both sides using logic and critical thinking skills. And yes, I have gotten a lot of information from George White. I've taken the time to understand a lot of the work he has done and have spent time watching and observing others try to discredit it only to fail in my estimation. For example, it is claimed around here that the halving of the 3.7 W/m^2 is incorrect because it's already been halved, yet I've asked numerous times for a source documenting the incremental absorption from 2xCO2 is actually 7.4 W/m^2. So far no one has provided it, and I've even searched around myself and found nothing of the sort. These kinds of things reveal things to my critical thinking mind and I then mix and mesh them in with all the other stuff I know. Eventually, I believe at least, I figure out who really knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:21 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @ 186... That's good. At least you aren't a complete denier. I run into way too many people who try to tell that CO2 has zero radiative properties or hang their hat on the idea that the CO2 effect is saturated. -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - Those 'gain' calculations were discussed to the point of exhaustion on previous threads, along with the quite incorrect 'halving' of TOA imbalances. I have no wish to rehash it here - I think you were clearly answered on the earlier thread. The 'gain' you have discussed is inappropriate for climate calculations. Please read the Climate sensitivity is low thread for the peer reviewed work and actual data on sensitivity to forcings. -
Sea level rise is exaggerated
Chemist1 - Glacial isostatic adjustment is a known issue, and sea level rise estimates are corrected for it. Your claims that sea level rise cannot be measured are unjustified; if you disagree, please provide references. -
Prudent Path Week
Chemist1 - Reply on How much is sea level rising, where the topic is appropriate. -
RW1 at 10:09 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RickG (RE: 178), "You would have to overturn a lot of well understood physics to do that." Not really. The physics of GHGs absorption are pretty well understood and quantified, as is the aggregate measured response of the system to forcing power (i.e. the gain of the system). The issue boils down to the net feedback operating on the system. The large amount of positive feedback need for AGW is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. I don't dispute there is likely some effect - just that the amount is too high. -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt - Based on our last discussions with RW1, much of his information and approach comes from George White/co2isnotevil's website, which has curious arguments claiming both a low sensitivity to forcings and no anthropogenic influence on climate. It also has unjustified halving of the forcing from CO2 doubling, and an odd 'gain' which he uses to claim that various forcings will have little or no effect. Those topics were covered in great (gah, exhausting) detail on the Lindzen and Choi thread. -
steve anthoney at 10:06 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Hmmm but if you are right about the oceans, then we're still doomed because of the population growth. And no politician will attempt to tackle that one. I'm still a bit sceptical though - why do politicians and media show us pictures of glaciers collapsing into the sea when that's what glaciers do ! Or polar bears standing on icebergs in the summer ! Funny how my taxes have gone up on the back of global warming. I reckon we'll stop using fossil fuels when there's none left.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] If you are interested in ice, see the thread Basic overview of melting ice and comment there. You will find that what glaciers are supposed to do is both 'grow' and collapse into the sea; what we have now is lacking the growing part. But blaming global warming for your tax increase? That's a new one -- and certainly not the topic here. Have a look at Carbon pricing cost vs. benefits. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:03 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Steve Anthoney... The maximum sea ice extent usually comes sometime in late March and continues to decline through the summer months until a low in September. Lots and lots of sunshine up there during that whole period. -
Marcus at 09:56 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1. You do seem not to understand the difference between a Hypothesis & a Theory, & AGW is most definitely *not* an hypothesis. As Rick rightly points out, it takes a *lot* more to overturn a theory than an hypothesis. Case in point is Evolution. There are plenty of cases which-at face value-seems to "undermine" the basic premise of evolution-yet all these cases really do is force scientists to go out & gain a better understanding of how evolution actually works. The actual theory itself is still completely sound though. Of course, that said, I'm still waiting for you or one of your Denialist mates to actually come up with anything that actually contradicts the Theory of AGW-all I've seen to date though is a lot of strawman arguments about "insufficient data" or playing up year to year variability (which isn't as high as you claim). Go to the back of the class buddy. -
steve anthoney at 09:56 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
If the minimum ice coverage occurs around September, then looking at the illustration of those globes around the sun, it seems that the ice melts just at the time when the sun is setting for the winter, and it is too late for the sun to have any warming effect on the ocean. -
Bibliovermis at 09:53 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Chemist1, The strength of your conviction is not sufficient to validate your claims. Please provide supporting references. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:50 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1... Out of curiosity, can I ask where you get most of your information on climate science? -
Bibliovermis at 09:48 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 (#176), Please read argument #2, Climate's changed before, in the top left corner and ask any questions you have on that thread. Solar irradiance changes have been the primary climate forcing agent over the past few thousand years. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:47 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1... There is far less conflicting evidence than you seem to think. To echo RickG, one piece of contradictory information does not put a hole in the theory. Contradictory information generally points to a place where more study is needed to understand what about it is contradictory and why. In order to put AGW in question you'd have to come up with a competing theory that explained all the empirical evidence better. You'd also have to explain why CO2 has less impact than we currently measure and physics predicts. That's a mighty tall order, literally on the level of overturning evolutionary theory. You say, "Can you give me all the details explaining each 100 year period for the last few thousand years?" A great deal of those changes in climate are very well understood. You just don't read about them on skeptic blogs. It's all in the peer reviewed literature. And there is a lot of it. -
Chemist1 at 09:47 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Dana, my disagreements are well supported in peer review literature and textbooks. Are you familiar with GIA?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] For those who might not be familiar, Chemist1 is most likely referring to glacial isostatic adjustment, the process of restoring gravitational equilibrium to land surfaces formerly buried by kilometers-thick ice sheets. The history of this idea goes back to Celsius in 18th century Sweden; it is extremely well-documented. -
steve anthoney at 09:37 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Its not arrogant and nihilistic to look at all the evidence, including evidence which may not support man made climate change, and including for example the strong scientific evidence that multi decadal ocean current oscillations have a large influence on the climate. Also the fact that greenhouse radiation can only warm a few millimetres of the ocean surface. It seems ridiculous to react to slight changes in atmospheric temperature when the oceans have a hundred times the heat capacity. Perhaps its easier for some to draw cartoons of drowning pet dogs than to study the science without political bias. And has anyone answered my question on population growth ? If population doubles in the next 50 years then my efforts to walk to work to save the polar bears will have been in vain !Response: "...including for example the strong scientific evidence that multi decadal ocean current oscillations have a large influence on the climate"
Climate scientists are well aware that ocean cycles affect climate. You make a good point - it's a very good idea to examine what's happening to the oceans as they have a much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere (in fact, over 90% of global warming is going into the oceans). So when we take a close look at the ocean, what do we see?
Firstly, we find globally, the oceans are building up heat. This cannot be explained by ocean cycles - it can only be explained by the planet being in energy imbalance. Our climate is accumulating heat:
The pattern of ocean warming provides much information also - we see heat penetrating from the surface into the deep waters in all the oceans of the world. Peer-reviewed research into this warming pattern found "the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system." (Barnett 2007).
-
DonaldB at 09:17 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Arrogance and nihilism seem to be common attributes of many "sceptics"- the ones for whom scepticism means a choice not believe the evidence- "If AGW is real, then I should able to see it, and its consequences should affect me!" -
Jim at 09:07 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Measuring current sea level doesn’t seem to be all that difficult for NASA/JPL: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ Actually this is a quite spectacular site for all the most recent measured data: ice extent, CO2 percent, global temperature, etc., presented on one screen. -
John Hartz at 08:41 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
I believe that your exclusive focus on the single measure of Annual Global Mean Temperature of the lower atmosphere understates the impacts that the increased greenhouse effect driven by mankind's activities has had since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. As we all know, the world's oceans have absorbed most of the additional energy generated. The Earth's climate systems have been "charged" in ways that we are just beginning to observe, measure, and comprehend. -
John Hartz at 08:30 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
The user friendliness of this article would be improved by adding tabs for "Related Articles (posted on SkS) and "Recommended Reading." -
Doug Mackie at 08:24 AM on 21 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
The short urls post has reminded me I have been remiss in not responding here. Some responses: @16 CBDunkerson re oceans soaking up the rest if we stop emitting today. The oceans only absorb because of the difference (disequilibrium) between atmosphere and surface ocean. Crudely simplifying the greater the difference the greater the absolute uptake by the oceans. Problem 1: Climate ‘inertia’. e.g. realclimate Problem 2: Ocean acidification (a focus of my own research group). e.g. the other problem various from drrocket: Incoherent runny bum dribble. Not even sure what you are trying to say. @22 koyaanisqatsi Other commenters are correct; it is not the best idea to get hung up on a single paragraph written for a mass audience compared to the actual data set. When I write a cheque then if there is a difference between the words and the figures then they trust the words because it is easier to make a mistake with figures. Plainly the 1% comes from someone else interpreting the data. I suspect that paragraph is the victim of rounding or that your +oceans interpretation is correct. The paragraph reads as if it has been written by a technical writer as opposed to a mission scientist. I recall a similar discussion years ago with someone who had a dodgy claim and would not accept any rebuttals from peer reviewed journals because they were not authoritative sources like “New Scientist”. Yes, perhaps the paragraph lends itself to misuse by deniers but I take it your friend is similarly critical of denialist writings? -
RickG at 08:24 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1: It only takes one piece of conflicting evidence to disprove a hypothesis, but that aside the key is understanding the energy balance in detail and the role of evaporation, clouds and precipitation that drive the feedback mechanism. You would have to overturn a lot of well understood physics to do that. Anthropogenic climate change is not a hypothesis, its a theory. As for the energy balance it is well documented with satellite data. Remember, you said yourself that you only believe in satellite data. There is a paper about Earth's energy imbalance (Murphy 2009) and a discussion about it on this site as well here. Again, just saying you don't believe something doesn't make it so, especially in the face of all the empirical evidence that exists and been shown to you. -
dana1981 at 08:23 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Chemist, you are of course free to disagree, but the statements in the article are supported. Yours are not. -
Chemist1 at 07:58 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
I must disagree with two points: first on sea level rise. There exists no reliable way to detect it and the best available methods show little to no rise Second, GCM hindcasts and projections, have in peer review to be shown to be unreliable.
Prev 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 Next
