Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Tom Watson on the battle for FOI | Main | Glyndebourne's turbine »
Saturday
Jan212012

An open door?

H/T to Hengist for pointing us to this interview with the BBC's new science editor, David Shukman. Here's the bit about climate change.

Interviewer: One of the inevitable hot potatoes falling into your lap will be the controversies over climate change. You will not please - probably - anyone in this tormented area but how will you approach it?

Shukman: I think we assess the weight of the evidence on any particular story, whether it's climate science or something else and make a judgement about the strength of that evidence, how we're going to cover it, the relative airtime we might give to different points of view, but it's important to stress that we have an open door and I hope we alway have to the full range of opinions

Interviewer: So no ideas are is shut off, not even in the controversial area of climate change

Shukman: Nothing is shut off, but if you have got,let's say, 30 years of data , painstakingly gathered in lets say the Arctic by the American space agency, NASA, that something you can say "that's a solid body of evidence". We'll explain to viewers where there may be weaknesses, but that's the kind of thing where you can say "let's apply due weight", and the due weight in that case might point in one direction.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (103)

geronimo, according to RSS it is cooling since 1998.

Jan 23, 2012 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Bruce

RSS land-only, with cherry-picked start-date at peak of 1998 El Nino. And so what anyway? I showed the multiple short-period cooling trends in BEST above but you can repeat the exercise with any temperature reconstruction you like. Go ahead. Put WfT to some good use instead of churning out disinformation.

The trend is up. Short-term episodes of flat or cooling average temperatures do not mean that the overall trend is going to change.

This is very basic stuff.

Jan 23, 2012 at 4:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Deny! Deny! Deny!

Sad, really.

Jan 23, 2012 at 3:10 PM | BBD

BBD, who's admitted he has no formal scientific training, denied on another thread that emissivity had anything to do with CO2 re-radiation, as he terms it.

A sort of new age law of thermodynamics which I'm sure he'll publish as soon as he can find a suitably scientifically illiterate editor.

I provide a link to a paper titled EMISSIVITY, ABSORBENCY AND TOTAL EMITTANCE OF CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) by Nasif Nahle Sabag, a highly qualified scientist with, among his portfolio of formal qualifications, the all important Physics degree for studying the field of thermodynamics.

If BBD would care to study the paper and inform us, by textbook scientific and mathematical means, where he either agrees or disagrees with the paper's conclusions, I'd be pleased, and astounded, to read his response.

Jan 23, 2012 at 4:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

here's the missing link for above!!!

http://www.biocab.org/emissivity_co2.html

Jan 23, 2012 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

RKS

Nasif Nahle... :-)

You have just made yourself look daft.

What's this got to do with misrepresentations of short temperature time-series anyway?

Jan 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Whoops - missed a bit:

BBD, who's admitted he has no formal scientific training, denied on another thread that emissivity had anything to do with CO2 re-radiation, as he terms it.

I think what I actually may have said was that the discussion was about something else (ocean heating?) and I wasn't prepared to be misdirected by another commenter wittering on about emissivity.

Jan 23, 2012 at 4:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

RKS

Nasif Nahle... :-)

You have just made yourself look daft.

What's this got to do with misrepresentations of short temperature time-series anyway?

Jan 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM | BBD


As I expected.

I ask for a scientific analysis of the paper and all I get is another cop out from a scientifically illiterate waffler and propagandist.

What is wrong with Nasif Nahle Sabag's paper other than not being on your list of acceptable scientists?

Do you agree with what he says, and if not, why not?

Jan 23, 2012 at 5:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

What's this got to do with misrepresentations of short temperature time-series anyway?

Jan 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM | BBD

I'll save this quote for the multitude of times you go off thread in order to sidetrack the subject.

Jan 23, 2012 at 5:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

BBD, who's admitted he has no formal scientific training, denied on another thread that emissivity had anything to do with CO2 re-radiation, as he terms it.
I think what I actually may have said was that the discussion was about something else (ocean heating?) and I wasn't prepared to be misdirected by another commenter wittering on about emissivity.

Jan 23, 2012 at 4:46 PM | BBD


The following taken from the thread you refer to:- CO2 and OHC


- The temperature at the skin surface affects the thermal gradient across the skin layer.

- The thermal gradient across the ocean skin layer determines the rate of heat loss from the ocean to the atmosphere.

- Increased DLR caused by re-radiation of LR by atmospheric CO2 raises the temperature of the skin surface.

- This increases the thermal gradient across the skin layer and decreases the rate of conductive energy transfer through the skin layer.

- Energy from solar SW is held in the mixed layer for longer, and OHC rises.


[Your paragraph 2:]

If you do not accept the hypothesis that increased RF from increased CO2 causes energy to accumulate in the climate system, then just pretend for the sake of discussion.

Aug 6, 2011 at 11:38 PM | BBD

Your reference to "- Increased DLR caused by re-radiation of LR by atmospheric CO2 raises the temperature of the skin surface." most certainly makes the discussion of emissivity perfectly relevant to your subject of "re-radiation".

You don't want to discuss it because it requires a working knowledge of thermodynamics.

Now waffle off and construct another non scientific cop out.

Jan 23, 2012 at 5:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

RKS

Okay - please explain, from your position of assumed superior knowledge, what is wrong with what I say and you quote above.

Nasif Nahle is a crank. He is a member of the 'Dragon Slayers' coterie of cranks. I have no idea what rubbish he has been publishing, and I am not going to waste my evening finding out.

What I will say as a matter of certainty is that if you claim Nahle has somehow disproved the existence of the greenhouse effect, then you know nothing about radiative physics and you are gullible to boot.

Jan 23, 2012 at 6:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

RKS

Okay - please explain, from your position of assumed superior knowledge, what is wrong with what I say and you quote above.

Nasif Nahle is a crank. He is a member of the 'Dragon Slayers' coterie of cranks. I have no idea what rubbish he has been publishing, and I am not going to waste my evening finding out.

What I will say as a matter of certainty is that if you claim Nahle has somehow disproved the existence of the greenhouse effect, then you know nothing about radiative physics and you are gullible to boot.

Jan 23, 2012 at 6:30 PM | BBD

So you, a scientific nonentity, regard Nasif Nahle as a "crank" even though you refuse to read any of his output. Referring to him in your paranoia as "a member of the 'Dragon Slayers' coterie of cranks", whoever they might be.

And to put yet another of your inuendos to one side, I've made no claim that the man's work has even attempted to refute the existence of the greenhouse effect. His work merely quantifies the effect in strict scientific terms. Something your scientifically uneducated mind seems unable to comprehend.

And I rather think this guy is 100 times more qualified to discuss radiative physics than an ignoramus who is unable to conflate emissivity with the thermodynamic properties of CO2.

If you haven't read the man's work then stop trying to criticize what you are totally ignorant of.

You're full of acronyms, and 'sciency' sounding terminology you've picked up from your assiduous reading of abstracts you've been directed to, but your knowledge of the basic science comes over as virtually non existent.

How far do you think you'd get if you actually found yourself in a research lab?, I doubt you'd even know how to calibrate and operate the measuring equipment.

Jan 23, 2012 at 7:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

RKS

Compared to yourself, I know plenty enough.

The errors in what I wrote about how energy is lost from the ocean. Now please.

Jan 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Please take this to the discussion forum.

Jan 23, 2012 at 7:49 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

RKS

Compared to yourself, I know plenty enough.

The errors in what I wrote about how energy is lost from the ocean. Now please.

Jan 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM | BBD

You must be discussing a different thread.

End of discussion as you might say.

Jan 23, 2012 at 8:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

BBD: "RSS land-only, with cherry-picked start-date at peak of 1998 El Nino. "

RSS shows an even more dramatic drop. Pivot points happen. Identifying them is important. El Nino/La Nina , PDO, all seem to switch from up to down etc.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/offset:-.232

1979 to 1998 = .16C up
1998 to now - .06C down

40% of the miniscule satellite era warming gone in just 13 years.

Jan 23, 2012 at 8:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Bruce

40% of the miniscule satellite era warming gone in just 13 years.

Are you having comprehension problems?

Perhaps I need to repeat myself to help you understand:

I showed the multiple short-period cooling trends in BEST above but you can repeat the exercise with any temperature reconstruction you like. Go ahead. Put WfT to some good use instead of churning out disinformation.

The trend is up. Short-term episodes of flat or cooling average temperatures do not mean that the overall trend is going to change.

This is very basic stuff. I am worried that you appear incapable of understanding it. Perhaps you should not be going around posting 'sceptical' nonsense on blogs until you have a clearer idea of what you are talking about.

Jan 23, 2012 at 10:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Foxgoose:

"[O]ur .. BBC guardians .. are always available to do tricks on the side for a few grand."

Corrected version:

"[O]ur .. BBC guardians .. are always available to turn tricks on the side for a few grand."

Jan 23, 2012 at 10:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterJane Coles

BBD, are there any 14 year cooling trends in BEST since 1950 (when they claim CO2 started affecting weather)?

Remember, BEST horribly contaminated by UHI.

You can see that comparing

Note especially the way BEST takes an insane upwards hockey stick turn at 1998.

Jan 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Richard Drake

"Another interesting example for me of where science, politics, social concern and societal taboos intersect."

And me, but it's so difficult to lift that particular stone without being classed as a conspiracy theorist or, more likely, nutter. Rather like opposing CAGW.. :-)

Jan 24, 2012 at 10:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Bruce

BBD, are there any 14 year cooling trends in BEST since 1950

There are no 14 year cooling trends in any land surface temperature reconstruction post 1950. And you rely on a ludicrous cherry-pick from the absolute peak of the 1998 Super El Nino to the present (an extended La Nina) to get your 'cooling' in RSS or you use a time series too short to provide any useful information (see - again - the short cooling trends in BEST vs long-term trend). Also remember that RSS is an estimate of TLT (not surface) temperatures, and the tropospheric response to ENSO is much more exaggerated than the surface temperature response.

Remember, BEST horribly contaminated by UHI.

BEST killed that 'sceptical' argument very dead indeed. The desperate misrepresentations by Watts and others (now looking terminally discredited) do not convince. Go to the source and do some reading.

You can see that comparing [BEST and HadSST]

Note especially the way BEST takes an insane upwards hockey stick turn at 1998.

The oceans have a very much higher heat capacity and so absorb more heat than the land surface. SSTs are rising more slowly than land temps (exactly as projected by theory and modelling). You have demonstrated this nicely. You have also shown that you do not understand the basics (again).

Let's take a closer look. Here's CRUTEM (red) compared to HADSST (green). Note how CRUTEM captures the recent rise in land surface T and validates BEST. Note the increasing divergence as land surface temperature begins to trend higher than SST.

I'd give it a rest, if I were you.

Jan 24, 2012 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, if temperatures have risen so consistently, why were you recently arguing the Hansen's case for aerosols explaining the lack of increase?

Jan 24, 2012 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

Dave Salt

Because the aerosol offset appears to have increased enough to help flatten GAT over the last decade. Along with the very 'quite sun' and a dominant La Nina.

This isn't incompatible with the overall rising trend. Which is what I am trying to explain to Bruce (see Jan 22, 2012 at 11:27 PM Jan 23, 2012 at 4:18 PM and Jan 23, 2012 at 10:33 PM).

Jan 24, 2012 at 1:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, I'd like to see some real data before agreeing that it isn't incompatible... though it may be necessary, it may not be sufficient.

Part of my problem with CAGW arguments is that they seem to be quite 'agile' and adapt to new evidence a bit too quickly. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that your current argument now rests on BEST data, which is still incomplete, at the expense of the other data sources like UAH. I therefore assume that if you'd been arguing this last year you'd have drawn a different conclusion.

By the way, you never did explain how Vernier paper supports Hansen's hypothesis when it says nothing 'quantitative' about the impact of aerosols on GAT. Again, I'm not saying that there is no quantitative data to support your argument, just that the evidence you point to does not provide it and so leaves it up to the reader to find the 'missing link'.

Jan 24, 2012 at 3:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

BBD: "There are no 14 year cooling trends in any land surface temperature reconstruction post 1950."

Except for RSS from 1998 on. You know ... now. The present.

BBD: "SSTs are rising more slowly than land temps"

So slowly it stopped rising in 1998. Thats it. The LIA recovery has finally (very slowly) ended. CO2 kept going up, but SST stopped.

BEST has a built in UHI fudge factor of at least .5C

Jan 24, 2012 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Bruce

Except for RSS from 1998 on. You know ... now. The present.

I don't think you know what RSS is. It is not a surface temperature record; it is an indirect estimate of tropospheric temperature at 14,000ft (TLT: top lower troposphere). There are real questions over the accuracy of the MSU-derived estimates of TLT. Your whole position rests on a single, synthetic estimate of tropospheric temperature.

BBD: "SSTs are rising more slowly than land temps"

So slowly it stopped rising in 1998. Thats it. The LIA recovery has finally (very slowly) ended. CO2 kept going up, but SST stopped.

I've explained this to you repeatedly. You obviously do have comprehension problems. Furthermore, what is this 'recovery from the LIA'? The LIA ended ca 1850. There is no evidence for any 'recovery' in the C20th (reference a single paper in a mainstream reviewed climate journal that supports your contention). C20th temperature change cannot be explained in this way. You are making things up.

BEST has a built in UHI fudge factor of at least .5C

I think you need to stop making absurd statements, stop playing with WtF and read the draft BEST paper linked above. If you have substantive criticisms of the paper, I strongly urge you to contact the authors by email. Do let me know how you get on.

Jan 24, 2012 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Dave Salt

BBD, I'd like to see some real data before agreeing that it isn't incompatible... though it may be necessary, it may not be sufficient.

Try Forster & Rahmstorf (2011). Data page here.

Jan 24, 2012 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, I'm sure you're aware of the significant 'concerns' that have been raised against the Forster & Rahmstorf (2011) paper (e.g. that they did not include the AMO in their reconstructions of natural variation), so I'm sure you'll understand my reluctant to consider it's arguments as a sound explanation for how the predicted temperature rise has been 'masked' by real-world factors that Hansen could not have envisaged.

Still, if that's the best you can recommend, I guess it tells me something about the weight of 'scientific' evidence that support this hypothesis.

Jan 24, 2012 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

Dave Salt

Not sure - was that the Tisdale thing that he got so wrong he had to withdraw it?

Jan 24, 2012 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

And if you were thinking of Lansner's rubbish, with an irony that I could not possibly have invented, none other than Tisdale eviscerates him in comments to that article.

Priceless.

Jan 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

You can review Foster's response to Tisdale here.

At this point, I suggest you need to have a re-think about this entire sentence:

Still, if that's the best you can recommend, I guess it tells me something about the weight of 'scientific' evidence that support this hypothesis.

Jan 24, 2012 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, why do you resort to ad hominem attacks when presented with a credible point?

Tinsdale may have made errors in his initial 'assessment' but I'll note that he acknowledged these in several updates and did not withdraw the article, as you stated. Also, although his comments to Lansner were critical, I don't see how you can say he 'eviscerates him'. More specifically, he agreed with Lansner that F&R (2011) had excluded the AMO that, according to RealClimate, accounts for “some, but not all, of the high-latitude warming observed in the late 20th century.”

Jan 24, 2012 at 6:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

[Improve your manners]

Jan 24, 2012 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

[Improve your manners]

Jan 24, 2012 at 7:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, thank you for pointing out the assessment by Tamino (a.k.a. Grant Foster, the co-author of F&R 2011) of the way AMO may impact his analysis.

I recommend anyone with a genuine interest to read the comments from Robert Way, which are an excellent example of how to present constructive criticism without resorting irrational arguments (ad hominems, etc.). I particularly like the following reply to Way from Tamino...

"And as I say, my own analysis contradicts any causal link from AMO to global temperature, but suggests the opposite direction.

You could be right too. So we’ll agree to disagree."

Jan 24, 2012 at 8:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

DS

BBD, thank you for pointing out the assessment by Tamino (a.k.a. Grant Foster, the co-author of F&R 2011) of the way AMO may impact his analysis.

The link I provided details exactly why the AMO does not impact the analysis presented in F&R11.

And BH wonders why I get short-tempered.

Foster notes that the definition of AMO needs tightening and he is correct. To be clear, I take it to be detrended N Atlantic SST anomalies. How (with the GW signal removed by detrending) can a regional measure of fluctuating SST anomalies influence the trend of global average temperatures?

Jan 24, 2012 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, RSS shows a dramatic drop after 1998 because temperature dropped after 1998.

Jan 24, 2012 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

BBD, you statement that "The link I provided details exactly why the AMO does not impact the analysis presented in F&R11" is rather too strong a conclusion to draw from this evidence.

You may well believe the case is proven beyond doubt but it's clear from the comments, like those of Way and others, that the analysis may not be complete and is far from conclusive... or was Tamino just being sarcastic when he said "You could be right too. So we’ll agree to disagree"?

Jan 24, 2012 at 10:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

[be more polite]

Jan 24, 2012 at 11:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

[Be more polite]

Jan 25, 2012 at 9:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

DS

BBD, you statement that "The link I provided details exactly why the AMO does not impact the analysis presented in F&R11" is rather too strong a conclusion to draw from this evidence.

Er, no, it isn't. Did you actually read Foster's analysis? Because it doesn't sound as though you have.

Jan 25, 2012 at 9:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Er, yes, it is. I actually read it... sorry you don't like my conclusions.

Jan 25, 2012 at 10:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

DS

It's not that I don't 'like' your conclusions - it's that they are not those of Foster himself. What I object to is your misrepresentation.

Jan 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Bruce

Just for fun - and of course to expose your cherry-picking - I've plotted a comparison between RSS and UAH TLT anomalies.

The full 1979 - present time series is shown in both cases along with the full (and nearly identical) trend for the period. A common 1980 - 2010 baseline is used.

But look what happens when we fit the trends for 1998 - present... RSS is cooling but... UAH is warming! Oops.

Repent ye, and pick no more!

Jan 25, 2012 at 2:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, one of my basic problems with Foster's approach is that he implicitly assumes the long term increase in AMO (i.e. the thing you detrend for) is 100% due to AGW. Now, this may eventually turn out to be true but it seems to me like a rather large leap of faith at the current point in time and, if it's wrong, introduces circular reasoning into the analysis that forces you to draw misleading conclusions.

To me, this has eery parallels with the way modellers assume that any temperature rise they cannot yet explain must be due to CO2. Again, they may eventually be proved right but, given the fact that there are still many major aspects of global climate that we're still unsure about (e.g. the effect of clouds and vegetation), I think it's far too early to attribute such a high level of confidence to these conclusions... especially when the empirical data is so limited and noisy, plus all of those correction factors!

Of course, none of this would matter is this was a purely academic exercise as the scientific method would eventually deliver the real-world 'truth'. Unfortunately, it's being used to drive rather high-level policies that have the potential to cause massive harm on a global scale, so I think airing on the side of caution is more than justified... and, of course, I've not even mentioned the 'Null Hypothesis'.

Jan 25, 2012 at 5:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

DS

BBD, one of my basic problems with Foster's approach is that he implicitly assumes the long term increase in AMO (i.e. the thing you detrend for) is 100% due to AGW. Now, this may eventually turn out to be true but it seems to me like a rather large leap of faith at the current point in time and, if it's wrong, introduces circular reasoning into the analysis that forces you to draw misleading conclusions.

I think the problem here is the one I pointed to above. A local effect such as AMO cannot drive global temperatures up. The reverse is however physically plausible. This is (I believe) why AMO is considered to be an effect of GW not its cause.

Jan 25, 2012 at 6:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD "This is (I believe) why AMO is considered to be an effect of GW not its cause."

The AMO, and PDO for that matter are cyclical, ergo (according to your belief) GW is cyclical

given the consistent rise in CO2, does this not present some questions?

It seems more plausible the ocean currents respond to differing energy inputs into equatorial zones, leading to questions as to weather equatorial cloud cover (differing levels of energy input) may have more to do with GW than Co2.

Jan 25, 2012 at 6:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

BBD, I'm afraid we're going to have to (again) 'agree to disagree' on this one: you may well be right but my belief is -- and always has been -- that the current empirical evidence is just to uncertain to support such definitive conclusions. Again, this would not matter if we were discussing an abstract hypothesis like string theory but, as you well know, this just isn't the case

My point was that although AMO may or may not, of itself, drive global temperatures, it's long term trend (i.e. the thing you detrend for) may be a manifestation of other factors that are. If this is the case, it may be a useful proxy to imply a 'lower frequency' temperature modulation mechanism that would otherwise be ignored. What the mechanism is that drives this 'modulation', if it exists at all, has yet to be determined but I think that to simply ignore it, just because you're convinced that "it's all down to AGW", is rather unwise in the current circumstances -- sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Given this understanding, trying to force us to believe Foster's conclusions are beyond doubt is, in my opinion, of no help to anyone: it just makes your statements sound like political dogma, rather than reasoned argument.

Jan 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

DS

What of the calculated increase in RF from CO2 over the C20th? Does that just disappear? It seems to in your analysis.

In the widely accepted version of physical reality it is responsible for a substantial fraction of the observed warming since 1950

Yet you argue for an invisible mystery forcing instead. To me this is unphysical and illogical - just like arguing that the local AMO can heat the global climate. Ocean currents don't heat the global climate - they only move energy around within it. Think of conservation of energy. The forcing has to be external. So it's solar (TSI or orbital) or it's atmospheric RF. Clouds do not cut it either unless you can show a long-term mechanism that accounts for climatologically significant effects. And - whatever you may have heard - nobody has even come close to doing that.

It always comes back to radiative forcing from CO2, which provides the only energetically sufficient explanation for modern warming. Mystery forcing and all the rest of it are evasions and wishful thinking. Leave them to Occam's razor.

Jan 25, 2012 at 7:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Frosty

The AMO, and PDO for that matter are cyclical, ergo (according to your belief) GW is cyclical

No. Basic error. Ocean circulation moves energy around the climate system - it cannot cause global warming. Only regional. Global warming requires a global forcing. See my response to Dave Salt above.

Jan 25, 2012 at 7:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, this is starting to become rather bizarre: where did I say CO2 has no effects on climate? As for the likely impact of clouds on climate, I'll leave you to argue that one with the IPCC since you're obviously at odds with the conclusions of AR4/WG1.

Whatever physics you studied is clearly very different form the sort I learned as an undergraduate... I therefore bow to your 'superior' understanding and leave you to have the inevitable last word.

Jan 25, 2012 at 8:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>