Here’s a new open thread, to keep the previous ones from getting too full.
By the way, I’m going away this weekend (starting today), my wife and I are celebrating our anniversary. So, moderation may be slower than usual.
-
Recent Comments
MrPete on Open Thread #5 Gavin's Pussycat on Open Thread #5 Dave Rado on Open Thread #5 MrPete on Open Thread #5 Dano on Open Thread #5 TCO on Open Thread #5 george on Open Thread #5 
Hank Roberts on Open Thread #5 Lazar on Open Thread #5 Gavin's Pussycat on Open Thread #5 Hank Roberts on Open Thread #5 george on Open Thread #5 Gavin's Pussycat on Open Thread #5 
tamino on Open Thread #5 Deech56 on Open Thread #5
49 responses so far ↓
Aaron Lewis // July 25, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I have been looking at: “Hurricane Bertha, One for the Record Books”
July 9, 2008 at 8:35AM by Chris Mooney at http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/hurricanes-storms/
His post runs:
>From the start, there was something pretty odd about Hurricane Bertha.
>The storm formed just before Independence Day last week, and immediately showed plenty of it. Bertha >developed from a tropical wave almost immediately as the disturbance came off the coast of Africa, and >so became the most easterly forming July tropical storm known to us, as well as the most easterly >forming Atlantic tropical storm period. . . . .
My question is, “How would one estimate how unusual it was for a storm to form a bit east of the normal storm formation area, given the huge variance in where storms normally form?” That is, can we expect such eastern formation of storms, once in ten years? Once in 50 years?
S2 // July 25, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I’ve been very impressed with what I’ve read here. So much so, that I’ve signed up for a degree course with the Open University - and the first two courses I’m taking are on Mathematics/Statistics.
[Response: Outstanding! Best of luck.]
Bob Tisdale // July 26, 2008 at 12:13 am
Tamino: Wasn’t there supposed to be a second part to your post on the PDO?
Happy Anniversary, BTW
Ray Ladbury // July 26, 2008 at 1:37 am
Tamino, happy anniversary. How many years is this?
nanny_govt_sucks // July 26, 2008 at 3:10 am
Global Warming: Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/spencer-ppt.pdf
dhogaza // July 26, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Tamino, yes, happy anniversary and leave the friggin’ computer at home this weekend.
NGS, only in a sense best appreciated in a Monty Python skit.
Hank Roberts // July 26, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Did I hear people chanting “bring it on!”?
Here it comes.
Rate of change:
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/29/global-warming-is-accelerating-faster-than-can-be-naturally-repaired/
“Feedback loops are common in nature, should one quantity change, production of other quantities may speed up. In the case of the carbon emission from volcanic activity, levels of the stuff appear to have been controlled by a natural “negative feedback” loop (akin to a carbon thermostat, when carbon dioxide levels were too high, another process was triggered to remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). However, the sustained atmospheric input of industrial burning of carbon dioxide by human activity has dwarfed historic volcanic carbon output, overwhelming any natural negative feedback mechanism.
This new study is published in the journal Nature Geoscience and carried out co-author Richard Zeebe. In an interview at the University of Hawaii, Zeebe comments on the climate’s ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere: “These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change [...] that we’re going to see in the next several hundred years. Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium.”
Zeebe and his team noticed that the levels of carbon dioxide and atmospheric temperature correlated, rising and falling together. “When the carbon dioxide was low, the temperature was low, and we had an ice age,” he said. His study states that in the last 600,000 years the carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated only by 22 parts per million. Since the 18th century, human activity has injected 100 parts per million. Humans have increased the quantity of carbon dioxide 14,000 times more than any natural process is capable of doing. This increase has negated any chance for the climate to naturally bring carbon dioxide levels back down to pre-industrial levels in the short term.”
_______________________________
Rate of change:
Letter abstract
Nature Geoscience
Published online: 20 July 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo262
Increase in hourly precipitation extremes beyond expectations from temperature changes
Geert Lenderink & Erik van Meijgaard
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo262.html
“… we analyse a 99-year record of hourly precipitation observations from De Bilt, the Netherlands, and find that one-hour precipitation extremes increase twice as fast with rising temperatures as expected from the Clausius–Clapeyron relation when daily mean temperatures exceed 12 °C. In addition, simulations with a high-resolution regional climate model show that one-hour precipitation extremes increase at a rate close to 14% per degree of warming in large parts of Europe. Our results demonstrate that changes in short-duration precipitation extremes may well exceed expectations from the Clausius–Clapeyron relation. These short-duration extreme events can have significant impacts, such as local flooding, erosion and water damage.”
___________________________
Rate of change:
Geology, March 2007; v. 35; no. 3; p. 215–218; doi: 10.1130/G23261A.1; 3 figures; Data Repository item 2007048
http://ic.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/eart120/readings/Schmitz_Puljate_07.pdf
_____excerpt follows______
A prominent increase in atmospheric CO2 at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary, ca. 55 Ma, led to the warmest Earth of the Cenozoic for 100 k.y. High-resolution studies of continental flood-plain sediment records across this boundary can provide crucial information on how the hydrological cycle responds to rapidly changing CO2.
Here we show from continental records across the Paleocene-Eocene boundary in the Spanish Pyrenees, a subtropical paleosetting, that during the early, most intense phase of CO2 rise, … over a few thousand years to 10 k.y. directly after the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. …
Only repeated severe floods and rainstorms could have contributed the water energy required to transport the enormous amounts of large boulders and gravel of the megafan during this short time span. The findings represent evidence for considerable changes in regional hydrological cycles following greenhouse gas emissions.
Trying_to_make_sense // July 26, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Dear Tamino
This is a request for a post in the spirit of what you have often said is the reason you run this site. I am under the impression that the reason you choose 1975 as the modern global warming era is due to some sort of change point analysis. Could you please explain the analysis technique? The reason for the request is also that I would like to apply this method to see if there is any change in the trend from the 1990’s (which people agree was in the IPCC range) to now when claims range from “decreasing temperature” to “IPCC range falsified.”
Joseph // July 26, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I can’t say why Tamino chooses 1975, but until around 1970, CO2 and temperature were roughly in equilibrium apparently. Maybe there was a little disequilibrium in average. But at that point we were really pumping CO2 into the atmosphere too quickly and the climate hasn’t caught up yet.
This can be seen here. There are other ways to see it too.
Hank Roberts // July 26, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Trying, did you already read this?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/cheaper-by-the-decade/
Trying_to_make_sense // July 27, 2008 at 1:20 am
Thanks Joseph and Hank. I agree that visually it is very clear something changed around 1975. But one of the lessons I have learnt from this (extremely helpful) site is not to trust my visual interpretation of a graph. My comment is related to the comment by Michael Tobis on the thread that Hank linked. I am sure Tamino used an objective data analysis method to pick 1975; I just want to learn more about the method and how it applies when red weather noise is present. It will also be a simple demonstration that no trend change occurred around 1998 (or 2001 or whatever is the favorite these days). Since Tamino is such a good educator, I would like to understand this method.
[Response: I've got another post in the works, but I'll get to it soon.]
Hank Roberts // July 27, 2008 at 1:33 am
> It will also be a simple demonstration that no
> trend change occurred around 1998 (or 2001
O rly? I’d wait on understanding the statistic before you proclaim what Tamino’s teaching here.
ErikS // July 27, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Two really interesting papers are now in open discussion at ACPD.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/12409/2008/acpd-8-12409-2008.html
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/13265/2008/acpd-8-13265-2008.html
Hank Roberts // July 27, 2008 at 5:24 pm
As an aside, recommended reading for those like myself who tend to be quick to respond to provocative posts without wondering ….
http://groups.google.ie/group/alt.troll/msg/c962c12ac7395177
A few brief excerpts follow:
____________
“engagement trolls often have a goal and plan.”
———
“Arguments
“An important thing to remember when engaging is that while you may win some points, you don’t win an argument directly by what you post. You win because of what your opponent posts.”
——-
“… Patience, and emphasizing reasonable conclusions that may be drawn from a target’s own words are the keys. Humor can work as a wonderful slam.
“Hijacking Threads
“Hijacking threads is a recommended practice for engagement trolls. One effective technique is to take a minor point of the previous post, usually one that is mostly off topic, and expand on it.”
———-
“… More stunning than what any troll posts is when a grouper admonishes a fellow grouper. That needs to be the goal.
“Post Around The Target
“If you’re picking a fight with someone, an effective technique is to not always answer his posts directly. If someone slightly disagrees with the target, respond to that post instead, and support that poster rather flame the target.
“This leaves the target with the feeling he’s looking in on a discussion about him …”
————
“… Remember, the goal is not to win an argument. It’s to create an unwinnable one runs almost forever.
“Have a Goal and Plan
“This is mainly what separates a troll from a flamer. …”
——–
“… If involved in a gang troll, you must communicate with the other trolls. … you’re not going to be able to be effective without coordination.
“The old alt.syntax.tactical FAQ is good reading on the subject of gang trolls …. There’s little that can’t wait a day while trolls communicate privately on the next move. ”
———-
“You don’t win an argument because of what you post. You win an argument because of what your opponent posts.”
Lazar // July 28, 2008 at 9:50 am
TTMS,
> change point analysis
I found this to be helpful, but can’t vouch for its accuracy.
But yeah, wait for Tamino to do a post.
Hank Roberts // July 29, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Hat tip to our host,; Arctic thread here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/arctic-ice-update/
he points to:
http://thepolarisproject.org/ (Siberia)
who point to:
American Scientist July-August 2008 Ecological Responses to Climate Change on the Antarctic Peninsula (PDF, full text)
http://216.70.123.96/images/uploads/McClintock.et.al.American.Scientist.2008.pdf
Lazar // July 30, 2008 at 10:21 pm
… modelling annual ring growths of MBH98 bristlecone- and foxtail- pine series using monthly climate data compared to seasonal.
Following on from here and here.
Network 1 predictors;
TT
DJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON
P PP
Network 2 predictors;
3
2
T 4 1 T
DJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON
1 2 3
4
Top is temperature, bottom is precipitation, 1:4 in net2 are interaction terms.
Adjusted R-squared reduces slightly from 0.33 to 0.30 for net1 compared to the model using seasonal data, but for net2 increases from 0.20 to 0.30. The fits can be compared; Fig. 8 for montly; Fig. 5 for seasonal. In net1, correlation with winter (DJF) precipitation resolves to precipitation in the months J and F, autumn (SON) precipitation to O and N. The correlation with autumn precipitation moves backward slightly to August.
Two new terms are included in net2 compared to the seasonal version; temperatures in September and the preceding July. Unlike the seasonal model, no term was included for autumn precipitation. Interaction between winter precipitation and spring temperature resolves to four interactions, and are heavily dependent on May temperatures.
Using monthly predictors modelling MBH98 PC1 was poor compared to seasonal data as previously, with an adjusted R-squared dropping from 0.30 to 0.21. Probably because the PC1 includes tree-ring variation from both networks and the required number of terms, e.g. eight terms to get a comparable un-adjusted R-squared to that of the model using five terms of seasonal data.
Constraints were relaxed, with testing done at 0.10 using n-k-1 degrees of freedom, adjustments made for autocorrelation as before.
Lazar // July 30, 2008 at 10:27 pm
… whoops, sorry about the indentation. Here’s a screencap instead.
jules // July 30, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Via via i received a question if it’s true that IPCC predicts that the temperature in 2100 with the Kyoto protocol differs only something like 0.02 °C than if there wouldn’t have been a Kyoto protocol
Are there some real numbers about the difference with and without online somewhere ?
Lazar // July 31, 2008 at 10:03 am
It seems strange to me that it is assumed by those who demand that bcp data be excluded from climate reconstructions that they have no climatic connection, though correlations and causative effects have been known for a long time.
Relationships of Ring Widths in Arid-Site Conifers to Variations in Monthly Temperature and Precipitation
Harold C. Fritts
Ecological Monographs, Vol. 44, No. 4, (Autumn, 1974), pp. 411-440
Ecological Society of America
page 430;
Lazar // July 31, 2008 at 10:43 am
Subalpine Tree Growth, Climate, and Increasing CO2: An Assessment of Recent Growth Trends
Lisa J. Graumlich
Ecology, Vol. 72, No. 1, (Feb., 1991), pp. 1-11
page 10;
Barton Paul Levenson // July 31, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Happy Anniversary, Tamino!
David B. Benson // August 1, 2008 at 10:35 pm
This paper appears to have generated some controversy:
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252006/1607.pdf
Here might be a suitable place to determine the degree of merit (and so concern) of the hypothesis that CO2 concentrations of just 420 ppm have long-term human health consequences.
Hank Roberts // August 1, 2008 at 11:24 pm
> controversy
Where? Anyone cited it besides these two?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&cites=17881547210017842035
David B. Benson // August 2, 2008 at 12:20 am
Hank Roberts // August 1, 2008 at 11:24 pm — I wouldn’t say that the controversy is on the part of scientists. A couple of people on dotEarth wanted to know more about this, but thought it off topic there. So I suggested this Open Thread.
It seems that to the extent this is real, it hasn’t made its way into air quality standards yet. Other than that, I really know nothing, but the conclusion, if correct, is quite disturbing: we’ll be at 420 ppm in aboout 20 years.
tamino // August 2, 2008 at 12:46 am
I read the paper about health effects of permanent exposure to sub-toxic CO2 levels. This is the first I’ve heard of it, and I’m not absolutely convinced that the paper is correct (although I consider it not unlikely to be so). If it is correct, it’s one of the most disturbing things I’ve seen in quite some time.
The author suggests that the upper limit for atmospheric CO2 concentration is 426 ppmv. With current levels at 386 ppmv and increasing at 2 ppmv/yr, David Benson is right that we’ll be at that limit in a mere 20 years.
I did just a little google-scholar search on the health effects of enhanced CO2 levels; there’s not much on the impact of permanent exposure to enhanced levels, but what I found on the toxic effects of very high CO2 levels, it just ain’t pretty.
Hank Roberts // August 2, 2008 at 12:55 am
Do read the footnotes in the paper, and those in the two citing papers. There are some learning studies of schoolkids that look interesting.
Hank Roberts // August 2, 2008 at 1:33 am
Specifics:
http://www.sjweh.fi/download.php?abstract_id=1213&file_nro=1
Clements-Croome DJ. Work performance, productivity and indoor air. SJWEH Suppl. 2008;(4):69–78.
_____excerpt______
Robertson (20) shows that the pH value of the blood decreases as the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increases. This is another reason, besides global warming, why the carbon dioxide content of the external atmosphere should be limited to <426 ppm—so that the blood pH values do not decrease to an unacceptable level. Metabolism is very sensitive to body fluid pH values.
Extreme values of blood pH are usually considered to be from 6.8 to 7.8. An increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will reduce the blood pH, and at 426 ppm of carbon dioxide the estimated pH value of blood changes from a mean of 7.4 to a mean of 7.319, which is the current lower value of the range and means that acidosis is likely to onset (Robertson D, personal Communication by letter, 8 February 2007). We spend over 90% of our time indoors (21) with carbon dioxide levels of about 1000 ppm, but the 10% of time spent outdoors with levels of 380 ppm is important to help keep the blood pH value within reasonable limits.
Studies being carried out by the University Reading in primary schools have shown that the carbon dioxide levels vary from 800 ppm to almost 5000 ppm. This finding is of particular concern because primary schoolchildren spend several hours a day in the same room, and hence the build-up of carbon dioxide is notable in the morning and in the afternoon. So far, the tests show that there is a relationship between carbon dioxide levels and the effectiveness of some learning tasks (22). Other relevant recent studies on schools include the work of Godwin & Batterman (23) on indoor air quality in 64 Michigan primary and secondary schools, and Kim et al (24) on respiratory symptoms, asthma, and allergen levels in Korean and Swedish schools.
_____
footnotes
———
20. Robertson DS. Health effects of increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Curr Sci. 2006;90(12):1607–9.
21. Platts-Mills TAE, Sporik RB, Wheatley LM, Heymann PW. Is there a dose-response relationship between exposure to indoor allergens and symptoms of asthma? J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995;96(4):435–40
22. Bak_-Bir_ Zs, Kochhar N, Clements-Croome DJ, Awbi HB, Williams M. Ventilation rates in schools and learning performance. In: Finnish Association of HVAC Societies. Proceedings of the 9th REHVA World Congress: Clima 2007
wellbeing indoors; Helsinki, 10–14 June 2007. Helsinki: Finnish Association of HVAC Societies; 2007.
——-end-excerpt——
Lost and Confused // August 2, 2008 at 2:44 am
From Lazar, “It seems strange to me that it is assumed by those who demand that bcp data be excluded from climate reconstructions that they have no climatic connection, though correlations and causative effects have been known for a long time.”
Whether by intention or not, this is a strawman. The criticisms of using bristlecone proxies is not, “There is no correlation.” There are several criticisms ranging from CO2 fertilization to lack of reproduction (Ababneh’s Thesis). There are a number of other issues, such as determining the what impacts stem from temperature as opposed to precipitation.
Even if you disagree with the criticisms, you should treat them fairly.
Hank Roberts // August 2, 2008 at 3:16 am
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14455-could-china-lead-the-green-revolution.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_dn14455
CoolPlanet // August 2, 2008 at 4:46 am
David Benson and The rise in the atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide and
the effects on human health by D. S. Robertson
Mr Robertson’s work is based on a single mathematical model. I am not able to find any evidence that his conclusions have been tested, nor can I find any other work that attempts to explore the same question.
The IPCC#4 does not explore this issue. I would expect that military and NASA might have extensive data on the effects on health of long term exposure to low level increases in CO2. But I can’t find it.
????? Chris
Eli Rabett // August 2, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Basically anyone who lives in an urban environment is at 426 ppm and beyond. FWIW probably for over a century or more.
CoolPlanet // August 2, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Environmental Problems in Nuclear Submarines
The Effects of Extended Hypercapnia
Proc. roy. Soc. Med. Volume 65 September 1972 pp793-796
Hypercapnia - the presence of excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the blood
These folks were conducting tests in a chamber at 5000ppm.
Chris
Hank Roberts // August 2, 2008 at 4:20 pm
CoolPlanet writes:
> I am unable to find …
Google Scholar, or any reference librarian.
See the footnotes; read their footnotes; read the citing papers. Lots of work published over recent decades, both on animals and plants, regarding physiology and CO2 levels.
David B. Benson // August 3, 2008 at 12:28 am
I’m not finding much that is helpful yet:
“Brief Report: Investigation of a Home with Extremely Elevated Carbon Dioxide Levels — West Virginia, December 2003″
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a5.htm
David B. Benson // August 3, 2008 at 1:19 am
“Chronic respiratory acidosis occurs over a long period of time. This leads to a stable situation, because the kidneys increase chemicals that help restore the body’s acid-base balance.”
“Symptoms may include:
* Confusion
* Easy fatigue
* Lethargy
* Shortness of breath
* Sleepiness”
from
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000092.htm
Hank Roberts // August 3, 2008 at 1:59 am
Search terms in this patent application may help. Plenty of work done on blood levels in respiratory therapy, pulse oximetry, anesthesia and pediatrics. The patent mentions the need for developing small and portable sensors.
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/es/ia.jsp?IA=US2006%2F028079&ia=US2006%2F028079&DISPLAY=DESC
Hank Roberts // August 3, 2008 at 2:05 am
http://biomedical-engineering-online.com/content/5/1/54
“… we considered capnography as the most suitable procedure that can provide real-time information about alveolar ventilation, pulmonary perfusion, respiratory pattern, and CO2 elimination/production. …However, although widely used in clinical and pre-hospital settings, an extensive literature search confirmed that capnography has not been used as a procedure or outcome measure in settings of controlled human air pollution studies….”
http://biomedical-engineering-online.com/content/5/1/54
CoolPlanet // August 4, 2008 at 12:13 pm
http://enewsusa.blogspot.com/2008/07/epa-posts-endangerment-analysis-for.html
Link can be found here to EPA analysis of effects of CO2 on health.
“We also analyzed direct GHG
effects on human health and welfare, i.e., those effects from elevated concentrations of
GHGs that do not occur via climate change. This information, summarized briefly
below, is contained in the Endangerment Technical Support Document found in the
docket for today’s notice.”
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Chapter I
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318; FRL-XXXX-X]
RIN 2060-AP12
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
Hank Roberts // August 4, 2008 at 7:14 pm
This one:
Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
Sixth Order Draft
June 21, 2008
Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064806691e8&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf
Hank Roberts // August 4, 2008 at 7:40 pm
dubious:
From this article:
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252006/1607.pdf
footnote 8 points to:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/820782-j4Z5co/native/820782.pdf
” There is no direct causal link between exposure to CO2 and SBS symptoms, but rather CO2 is approximately correlated with other indoor pollutants that may cause SBS symptoms.”
INDOOR CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AND SICK
BUILDING SYNDROME SYMPTOMS IN THE BASE STUDY
REVISITED: ANALYSES OF THE 100 BUILDING DATASET
Hank Roberts // August 8, 2008 at 12:02 am
“… We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren…. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us….
If we wait, and do not act, then … We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country. If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions. But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time….”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
Hat tip to:
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/08/energy-proposal-from-over-30-years-ago.html
Hank Roberts // August 8, 2008 at 12:45 am
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cement-from-carbon-dioxide
Hank Roberts // August 8, 2008 at 1:33 am
http://www.desmogblog.com/mckinsey-report-170-billion-until-2020-to-cool-the-planet
Hank Roberts // August 9, 2008 at 3:59 am
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19926683.300-humans-cause-climate-change-us-body-accepts.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_mg19926683.300
____excerpt_follows______
“… the US Climate Change Science Program has issued a report concluding that computer models do effectively simulate climate. It also accepts that the models show human activity was responsible for the rapid warming of the 20th century.
The report is the 10th of 21 due to be issued …
“The evidence is pretty convincing that the models give a good simulation of climate,”…. the report did not examine predictions of future climate change. Nor did it address policy issues, which will be left to the next administration.
——-end excerpt——–
ST // August 9, 2008 at 5:54 am
Have you had any questions about this yet?
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003307.html
YAB rebuts a scientific report. The only problem is, his rebuttal doesn’t seem to make any sense at all, AFAICT.
Hank Roberts // August 9, 2008 at 7:11 pm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008096348_friedman07.html
Hank Roberts // August 9, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Some possibly good news:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/31/10654.abstract
It’s an energy storage material _and_ a feedstock for a possibly useful material:
http://css.postech.ac.kr/publication/jacs0432.pdf.
Lazar // August 10, 2008 at 11:50 am
ST,
I’ve a response in open thread #5 if you wanna check.
Leave a Comment