Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 Next
Comments 107501 to 107550:
-
Turboblocke at 22:07 PM on 7 October 2010There's no tropospheric hot spot
That's amazing: a year later and you are so right. Now it's the ratio of the surface and tropospheric trends. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/2/9/2148/pdf -
Daniel Bailey at 21:42 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Re: TimTheToolMan (51)"Perhaps our understanding of ENSO really isn't as sound as you'd like to believe."
You made some typo's. You spelled it O-U-R when you should have spelled it M-Y, and used Y-O-U-'-D instead of I-'-D. Here's a corrected version:"Perhaps my understanding of ENSO really isn't as sound as I'd like to believe."
There, that's better. In all seriousness, now, what on Earth would lead you to make such a statement? The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 21:37 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Re: Berényi Péter (49) I'm going to be kind & assume you are being fascetious with your comment. Otherwise, that was the looniest comment I've ever seen you make. Perhaps I missed a few, though. The Yooper -
Berényi Péter at 21:21 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#50 kdkd at 21:05 PM on 7 October, 2010 It's very poor form to show data without properly attributing the source of the raw data You are right. It's the Sea Level Change page at the University of Colorado at Boulder site. You can also find the data file there. The method was simple least square fit for a parabola. -
TimTheToolMan at 21:11 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
@adlady Perhaps our understanding of ENSO really isn't as sound as you'd like to believe. -
kdkd at 21:05 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
BP #49 It's very poor form to show data without properly attributing the source of the raw data (there's something in the graph title but this is not really good enough). Also poor form is to show a curve fit without explaining the methodology used to fit the curve. I'm happy to do some regression diagnostics to see if the curve fit is justified if you point to the location of the raw data (it's not terribly easy to find from a google search of the graph title). -
Berényi Péter at 20:45 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#42 doug_bostrom at 16:47 PM on 7 October, 2010 Notice, sea level sort of bounces along, upward The satellite record shows otherwise. If it goes on like this, in 2100 sea level would be below its present day value by 27.5 cm. Nothing scary, really, although it may kill off some shallow coral reefs by exposing them to air. However, by the year 3000 it would drop by 56.6 m, which is deep ice age. In this case I guess Canada should join the Estados Unidos Mexicanos as soon as practicable, then reclaim Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah along with parts of Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and Colorado.
-
kdkd at 19:49 PM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP #115: In other news, Cigarettes are good for you:
Hmm, or maybe it's just that brand ;) Presumably you're posting such ridiculous arguments to expose the stupidity of the so-called sceptic position?
-
adelady at 19:41 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
So if the energy required (pick a number) can accumulate in a matter of days, how can an el Nino last for months and months? It doesn't generate its own energy. So where is it coming from, how is it sustained for such a long period, why is it sustained for so long? -
JMurphy at 19:05 PM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP wrote : "It doesnt take facts; just common sense. Labelling CO2 as a pollutant is absurd. Maybe you can explain why refined petrolium products or coal havent received this qualification right from the get go." So, you're saying that because coal wasn't labelled as a pollutant hundreds of years ago (before the US Supreme Court existed), and because refined petroleum products weren't labelled as pollutants at least a hundred years ago, therefore we can't label anything connected with it as a pollutant now ? Surely not. Perhaps we should still be allowed to disperse raw sewage into rivers, because it wasn't labelled as a pollutant hundreds of years ago ? -
Riccardo at 19:03 PM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP, don't you consider the recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill pollution? And what about oil-derived fertilizers flowing in the oceans? Oil, fertilizers, CO2 and whatever, are pollutants if they're in the "wrong" place in sufficient quantities. -
RSVP at 18:53 PM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
michael sweet #114 It doesnt take facts; just common sense. Labelling CO2 as a pollutant is absurd. Maybe you can explain why refined petrolium products or coal havent received this qualification right from the get go. This would leave all kind of legal space for the combustion of renewable carbon sources, not to mention the peace of mind to breath with a clear conscience. -
chris1204 at 18:21 PM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Interestingly, I find myself drawn to Judith Curry precisely because she is very mainstream in relation to climate science but deals with those who aren't quite on side with courtesy and respect. I think the sceptic community value this far more than any musings on 'post-normal' science. I'm certainly not qualified to comment on her take on McIntyre - I lack the requisite background in statistics. However, no blogger proposing serious engagement with climate science can afford to leave McIntyre to out of the debate. I'm struck by the relative absence of argument as to his statistical methodology (or more accurately by my failure to notice arguments addressing the issue). Perhaps in the interests of coherence, some folk better equipped than I might care to post some comments. As far as tribalism is concerned, I have observed that those most firmly immersed in tribes/subcultures be they political parties, religious minority groups, recent immigrants to a new land, special interest groups, and the like all too often cannot see the mob mentality permeating their behaviour. Membership of a 'tribe' discourages the requisite self-reflection. As a so-called rootless cosmopolitan who has close ties with three continents and would be best described as 'non-clubbable,' I have seen tribalism operating in a wide array of contexts. Many of my patients moreover (whistle-blowers for example) suffer the consequences of expulsion from the 'tribe.' I would prefer to see myself as a member of one tribe only - the human race. For a lighter take on tribalism, see here. -
MattJ at 17:58 PM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I love this podcast! The examples of non-existent apples and cheap sheep at unknown price are great! -
TimTheToolMan at 17:57 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
What has Planck's Law got to do with the amount of energy input into the ocean from the sun? On the same day the same energy is radiated out to space minus that tiny portion that accumulates. But the point is that you wondered where the energy comes from ands the answer is that its well and truely there. -
Riccardo at 17:53 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
I'm not a fan of number of hits or number of comments races. Rather it's important that an increase in the number of comments (which is good) does not deteriorate quality. I don't know how to measure it, if even possible. With some inevitable ups and downs, it looks in pretty good shape. -
scaddenp at 17:53 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Nope - because you cant cheat Planck's Law. Try again. -
TimTheToolMan at 17:50 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
In fact I'd overestimated the amount accumulated each year. Its actually less than 1 x 10^22 Joules. So to answer scaddenp, the "mechanism" is a single sunny day puts more energy into the upper ocean than is "accumulated" all year. -
kdkd at 17:43 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Thanks John. Yet another thing I've been meaning to mention to you but haven't due to not wanting to overwhelm :) -
scaddenp at 17:42 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
TTTM - and by what mechanism "could" you accumulate that heat in days? Can we stick plausible physics? -
nealjking at 17:25 PM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
To boil it down, Judith Curry is an expert in atmospheric studies, and gives mainstream views on this topic. She knows nothing special about palaeoclimate studies, and chose to accept McIntyre's version of the debate, hook, line & sinker, rather than to consult people she knows who actually work in the field. Her wallowing in the ClimateAudit mania was disappointing and embarrassing. Her postings I have seen on her new blog tend to be open-ended bringing up of issues, which she then turns over to essentially unguided commenting. It's all very polite, but I haven't so far seen anything that would lead to clarification or resolution of anything. -
NewYorkJ at 17:04 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
"My guess is this is due to our strict Comments Policy and the fact that registration is compulsory before you can submit a comment" There's a test for this effect. Old AccuWeather page with no registration required: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/ New AccuWeather page with registration required: http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/Science I would estimate there are 10X as many comments on the average post in their old format. Registration probably eliminates some of the obvious trolls and noise, so I think that's a good thing.Response: 10 times as many? Yikes! -
TimTheToolMan at 16:54 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
@adelady I am continually astonished by people's misunderstanding of the energy flow associated with the earth. The earth receives about 385 x 10^22 Joules of energy every year. We had been accumulating somewhere between 5 and 10 x 10^22 Joules every year in our oceans. Not recently though. You can easily see that the earth receives from the sun and radiates away to space many, many times that which it accumulates even at the best of times. In answer to your question or rather to put it into perspective, the heat you speak of could accumulate in a matter of days if not hours. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:47 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
TTTM, look at this graph. Notice, sea level sort of bounces along, upward:
-
archiesteel at 16:41 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
@TTTM: "So sea levels are dropping which is further confirmation that the ocean heat content isn't increasing." Yeah, except Sea Levels aren't dropping. That itsy bisty fact kinda demolishes your whole argument, doesn't it? -
Doug Bostrom at 16:38 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Surely there must be some reasonably technology-neutral site for discussing energy liberation, capture, transmission, storage, general manipulation? I can't think of one but perhaps somebody else can make a suggestion. Maybe a case of "be careful what we wish for"-- too many obsessions, not enough time... -
adelady at 16:35 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Tim TTM - just how sure are you that nothing at all is happening in the deep ocean? Unless you're involved in some measurement project that we've not heard about, I'd be a bit more cautious. Where exactly will the heat to drive the next el Nino come from? El Ninos don't create heat, they only redistribute it. Whatever process has a La Nina like the current one showing lower temperatures is the other side of the el Nino coin. After this La Nina there **will** be an el Nino. Maybe straight away, maybe 3 years. Either way, the heat released will not come from nowhere. Just because we can't identify it now doesn't mean we won't see it then. -
gallopingcamel at 16:28 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
scaddenp, Thanks for that Grootes & Stuiver paper. I hope to have something to report in about a month. Before my trip to Asheville I will be visiting a 75 MW photo-voltaic power plant and a solar generator located on an 18,000 acre site. I wonder whether these technologies come within the scope of this blog? -
adelady at 16:25 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Completely OT except it is housekeeping. The IPCC Reports Science or Spin thread is a bit mucked up, with comments and moderator's remarks blanking each other out. On Topic. Keep the moderation as it is. And if things get a bit difficult - shift (or delete) comments belonging to other threads sooner than you sometimes do. Not always necessary, but a good move from time to time. -
TimTheToolMan at 16:07 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
So sea levels are dropping which is further confirmation that the ocean heat content isn't increasing. What does this say about the radiative imbalance recently? It can only say one thing...the earth is as warm as it should be. Maybe even warmer than it should be. Anthropogenic CO2 isn't heating it right now. Its ironic that the author should be criticising cherry picking so agressively and yet in the very same breath mention record hot temperatures. -
CBW at 15:54 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
I'm with scaddenp: keep the moderation. Other sites can promote controversy to run up their hit counts, but you're doing a lot of work to make this site mature and intelligent. Keep it up! I'm making a donation. I suggest others who appreciate the site do the same. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:42 PM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Getting somewhat back on topic and speaking of coherence, although contrarians find themselves bemused when Dr. Curry does not monotonically disavow mainstream science, they eagerly accept her musings on what can only be termed social science topics, again "tribalism" and "post-normal science." The coherence problem becomes visible when we compare contrarian acceptance of Curry's extracurricular communications with other examples, such as Steven Schneider's exploration of scientific consensus. On the one hand, endorsement and accolades, on the other bitter condemnation. So we have a conspicuously disjointed feature in that contrarians find their least comfort when Dr. Curry is speaking on what she's most qualified to talk about, more happiness when she's delving into matters outside of her expertise, with this odd standard of appraisal selectively reversed in other cases. Perhaps this behavior is better classified as inconsistency as opposed to incoherence. -
Phila at 15:21 PM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
#45 chriscanaris Similarly, when I've spoke favourably of Judith Curry's or Mike Hulmes' efforts to engage the blogosphere in constructive debate, folks have responded negatively somewhat to my disappointment. Judy Curry, however, has been producing some very sophisticated discussions. Somehow, their efforts seem to be perceived as a betrayal of the cause. It depends which cause you're talking about. The reason "warmists" tend to perceive Dr. Curry negatively, in my view, is that she has tended to make rather grandiose pronouncements about the "problems" with climate science, and then retreat when asked to elaborate on them. Most of us don't see this behavior as "constructive" or "sophisticated," for better or worse. I don't pretend to know anything about her motivations or her sincerity, nor do I really care. But I do think that her recent activities haven't been very helpful. A number of people -- Joe Romm and Gavin Schmidt, for starters -- have engaged with her at length; watching from the sidelines, I've seen that she tends to respond to their very detailed criticisms with vague, gnomic remarks about "tribalism." The more substantive issues often wind up on the back burner, to be discussed at a later date that never seems to arrive. Tribalism is a legitimate concern -- and plenty of sociologists and philosophers of science have discussed it with far more rigor than Dr. Curry -- but it's not a legitimate response to pointed, specific, science-based criticism of Dr. Curry's interpretation of climate research and data. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't think you have to be a "warmist" to understand why some people would perceive her behavior to be frustrating, counterproductive and -- far too often -- evasive. -
Nunataq at 14:35 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
John, just curious, how many hits do you get a day ?? I don't post often here but do follow along and learn LOTS. The moderation is spot on and it's a relief not to have to wade through the multiple posts of nonsense at far too many sites. Keep up the good work ..... ;-) -
Doug Bostrom at 13:46 PM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Chris, a lot of folks find Judith Curry a puzzle. As a publishing scientist and thus a professional communicator well-versed in expository writing crafted so as not to leave distracting ambiguity hanging in the air, nonetheless her less formal writings on the topic of climate science are riddled with strangely unintelligible remarks, innocent I think but which some take as equivocation. The other matter I find dismaying about Dr. Curry is her encouragement and stoking of sectarianism, of totemic encampments by her use of terms such as "tribalism" and "post-normal science." Her communications are often 180 degrees at variance with her quite reasonable stated objectives. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:24 PM on 7 October 2010IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
Karamanski, answers about where the climate is headed and how it'll get there mostly hinge on sensitivity. For the nitty-gritty on sensitivity, see "A detailed look at climate sensitivity." For some simple comparisons between expectations and observations, see "Comparing IPCC projections to observations." If you've got questions pertaining to what's covered in those links, best to submit them there as that makes the whole process of discussion more valuable.Moderator Response: For newly arrived readers, the "Search..." tool at upper left is very handy for zeroing in when seeking answers. -
chris1204 at 13:17 PM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Ned @ 22: I was impressed by your very thoughtful post. I particularly noted your comment: 'This is something I harp on all the time ... but I'll make it again. If people on this site who hold more "sensible" climate-skeptic positions were actually willing to speak up and disagree when the more irrational claims are promoted, it would do a lot to promote trust, confidence, and friendly communication on this site. Unfortunately that virtually never happens.' Actually, with respect, I think there is far too much labelling of positions taken by various players. I have sometimes posted comments broadly supportive of AGW perspectives only to find others taking issue with them because I am viewed as a 'sceptic.' I've often spoken of my extreme discomfort with the Monckton/ Plimer/ WUWT commentariat modus operandi. However, I often feel I have to couch what I say with great care to maintain credibility as a poster - far more care than if I was perceived as a card carrying warmist. I had a very grumpy moment the other day provoking a strong response - well, we won't go over that territory again. Overall, this site is far more tolerant of sceptics than the other players in the AGW team. Still, the feeling of differing standards and expectations doesn't go away. Nevertheless, I'm old enough not to go take my toys home or sulk in a corner - I appreciate this sort of thing is near inevitable on any site where people feel passionately about a topic. I would add that on the very rare occasions I've posted on WUWT, I have usually been in polite disagreement with the presentation (maybe 75% of the time but I'm only guessing - I post so rarely there because I often feel it's not worth the trouble). However, I haven't felt as if treading on eggshells when posting even when in disagreement. By way of further illustration, I'm currently reading Pielke's 'Climate Fix.' He is clearly not a sceptic but is often perceived that way because he does not accept so-called 'catastrophic' scenarios unquestioningly. He also highlights the logistical difficulties in decarbonising economies. He does support decarbonisation as best as I can tell - I haven't got that far in the book. Whether Pielke is right or not is a separate issue. Similarly, when I've spoke favourably of Judith Curry's or Mike Hulmes' efforts to engage the blogosphere in constructive debate, folks have responded negatively somewhat to my disappointment. Judy Curry, however, has been producing some very sophisticated discussions. Somehow, their efforts seem to be perceived as a betrayal of the cause. However, there really is only one cause - our welfare as people and our good custody of the planet. At the same time, your acknowledgment that the AGW side has its own issues with lack of coherence bespeaks considerable intellectual honesty. The empirical data and the hypotheses they lead to do not mesh into a neat package - one could hardly expect perfect coherence in any attempt to evaluate a system as large and as complex. Herein lies a further problem: those who note lack of coherence in some aspects of the big picture are often decried as 'sceptics.' -
Karamanski at 13:13 PM on 7 October 2010IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
I strongly accept that humans are causing global warming and that solving this problem should be our highest priority. However, I am skeptical of the accuracy of climate models. I think a global temperature increase of 3 degrees celsius by 2100 is a bit wide of the mark, even in a busisness as usual scenario . Since 1880, global temperatures have only increased by about .8 degrees celsius. In order to reach 3 degrees celsius by 2100 global warming would have to undergo a very steep acceleration. Apparently this isn't showing any signs of happening. Global Temperature increases over the past decade were at the low end of climate model projections. I find it very hard to believe that we will reach 3 degrees celsius by the end of the century. Could you please explain this to me? -
muoncounter at 13:07 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
This graph is proof positive of AGW. The amount of hot air has risen in direct proportion to the number of comments. Or is that just correlation???? And note that the comment curve has flattened. So we can all go back to sleep. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:04 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Any thoughts to a similar post on deleteds? Betcha the App triggered a spike in comments meriting deletion as well. re: Doug (3) It's still the sun. :) The YooperResponse: You had to ask, didn't you? I have a lot more important things I have to do with my limited time but the urge to plot another graph is irresistable:
Please, no more requests. I'm not plotting the ratio of deleted skeptic comments to proAGW comments (hmm, although that would be quite interesting...) -
Doug Bostrom at 12:53 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
You've obviously tried to "adjust" your "data" so as to hide both the MWP and LIA. Also the recent rise in comments is obviously due to bit-flipping because of increased cosmic ray flux; we know this because so many comments are random gibberish. -
bgood2creation at 12:48 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
"But I would argue the level of discussion here at SkS is also of a higher quality than at many other blogs..." I agree. I spent a few days at WUWT, and I would say the conversation here is generally at a higher level. (You can decide for yourself if that is an understatement.) -
scaddenp at 12:37 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Keep it draconian - even more so. I dont mind being pinged for inappropriate comment. And thanks very much for that expansion of RSS. -
Berényi Péter at 11:54 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
#119 scaddenp at 15:03 PM on 6 October, 2010 Lindzen got a Nobel? News to me though he most certainly has produced outstanding work. Lindzen and Choi not being one them however. It has been specifically rebutted in the published literature and so far as I am aware, Lindzen has not responded. Well, he is a Nobel laureate, sort of. The 2007 Nobel Pace Prize went to IPCC and Al Gore, while Lindzen was a (reluctant) lead author of IPCC TAR WG1 Chapter 7 - Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks. At least Mike Williams must have referred to this connection on BBC. I myself think this Peace Prize thing is pure shame. BTW, Lindzen has responded to critics. It was submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research on February 12, 2010.
"American atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen was one of the lead authors for the IPCC's third report on climate change. But he's not on this week's One Planet show to talk about the need for action on carbon emissions - quite the opposite in fact. Professor Lindzen believes the impact of human induced climate change has been exaggerated, and is urging political leaders to abandon their pursuit of costly carbon markets. His views may not be shared by the majority of the world's climate scientists, but Professor Lindzen is undoubtedly a formidable scientist - he's written (or co-authored) well over 200 scientific papers, and has been the recipient of numerous awards for his work on atmospheric physics. Debate is the foundation of science, so this week Mike questions the professor about why he feels the IPCC has become biased in favour of climate change, and hears his views on how humans have had a marginal impact on global warming. Also in the show, reporter Richard Hollingham looks to overcome his disdain for office pot plants - and in the process the One Planet plant gets a health check. Plus we hear about the world's smallest frog found in Malaysia."BBC One Planet - Climate change, pot plants and small frogs Nobel winner Richard Lindzen on being a climate change denier, and why office plants rock -
scaddenp at 11:47 AM on 7 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
Thanks Doug, missed that. Reading the paper, I would hesitate to draw wider conclusions than the authors do themselves. The authors argue that the waters are result of mixing two very sources so that a change in proportion of mixing could dramatically affect temperature. Interesting but more work needed. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:14 AM on 7 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
True enough, ScaddenP. There's a link to an open access copy of the full text back on the past page of comments, btw. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:06 AM on 7 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
To me the interest of this paper is what it suggests regarding the utility of sediment cores in relatively closed waters as useful records of broader changes, possibly more sensitive and thus better for recording early onset of changes. Take a look at the graphs in this paper: Rapid 20th century environmental change on northeastern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada inferred from a multi-proxy lacustrine record (pdf, full text) and notice the coincident bump in numerous geochemical and biological markers during the course of the 20th century. Details show up that we'd not necessarily expect to see so clearly in bulkier, more highly damped bodies of water. -
scaddenp at 11:04 AM on 7 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
Having trouble with our library connection to AGU so only seeing the abstract. However, the authors believe that what they are measuring is the temperature INCOMING intermediate North Atlantic waters, presumably inferred from local oceanography. To say where the warming is coming from would require data on intermediate water formation in NA - couldnt find anything useful in a quick look. -
Joe Blog at 10:48 AM on 7 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
doug_bostrom at 10:37 So true, i did make that my point myself at the begging o the thread, the correlation between this reconstruction, and hemispherical is convincing, and the authors also state they believe its because of the sources of the currents feeding it. There isnt enough info to draw anything definite about it... but i think it would be very safe to assume the anomaly has nothing to do with back radiation at the location in question, considering the depth. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:37 AM on 7 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
Point is, let's not wander off into the weeds by talking about warming of the ocean on a global scale when the author is making no such claim.
Prev 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 Next
