|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| A: Sure we can. We have temperatures on record, and we have visual indicators as well (such as certain ice deposits). It's clear the Earth is getting warmer on average. |
For a very short period of time, which ended more than a decade ago, that was true. Now, cooling is upon us for a couple decades. Apparently.
| Quote: |
| B: This is harder to know, but anyone intelligent with as much at stake as we have at stake knows playing it cautious is the smartest way to go, |
At what cost.
| Quote: |
| Global warming is almost purely quantiative: either the real, uncorrupted data shows it's happening, or it doesn't. |
And? What does the data say? Why are we still talking about warming? I think Madison Ave helped put out a press release that "climate change" (which won out over "global weirding") was the new title, given that global cooling has taken hold.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
So, there was warming for about 21 years after 30 years of cooling (1945 to 1977) and now we're in year 11 of cooling, with 10-20 more to go? Then warming, of course. Bet the farm. In the early stages of an economic depression. Bet the farm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jhuntingtonus
Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Location: Jeonju
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Further clarification - the reason that the skeptics are the ones claiming there is no scientific consensus is that the non-skeptics are the ones saying there is one... an opinion which goes unchallenged on most editorial pages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| No, it isn't! Not over the past ten years! |
Why are you limiting yourself to the past ten years?
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| "Playing it cautious" by slashing industrial production and other things contributing to happiness will cost tens of trillions of dollars and vast amounts of misery. |
Do you really have reliable, verifiably accurate data showing doing things like converting to primarily solar and nuclear energy, or raising fuel efficiency in cars, would cost tens of trillions of dollars and cause vast amounts of misery? If so, please show me?
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| I think it's often been implied that Americans are most to blame, and it has been often used as a club to attack American prosperity, in particular. |
So most people aren't actually saying it, but you feel it's implied? Come on man, when even third word cooking fires are taking heat for contributing to the alleged problem, it's time to stop pretending people are just bagging on America.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Perfectly correct data can be selected to support either side, and often is. The trick is ignoring that supporting the side you don't agree with. |
You can't have perfectly correct data and ignore other, genuinely accurate data. The truth value of data comes when it's considered in its entirely: perfectly correct data would consist of a compliation of all genuinely accurate data in existence. If you're ignoring accurate data, the data you've got is misleading, not correct. If a scientist collects 100 data points and ignores half of them because he doesnt' like the sound of them, his data isn't accurate. It's completely deceptive, in fact.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Agreed - the problem is believing what others have written. |
Yes, it really is hard to know who to believe. Well, sometimes. When you have people saying, "We shouldn't worry about global warming because God will decide when the world ends, so it's not in our hands, so we shouldn't do anything about it," (actual argument made by a Republican by the way), I think it's safe to discount them from the discussion.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| As above, taking this position is not exactly free. |
Not free, but as I said, we'd be doing things we should probably be doing even if global warming isn't occuring. Moving away from a fossil fuel energy economy and into a solar/nuclear one is just a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A: Sure we can. We have temperatures on record, and we have visual indicators as well (such as certain ice deposits). It's clear the Earth is getting warmer on average. |
For a very short period of time, which ended more than a decade ago, that was true. Now, cooling is upon us for a couple decades. Apparently. |
Well, that's what opponents of anthropogenic global warming want us to believe, that we're going to be cooling for a couple decades, and more importantly that said cooling proves our actions are totally unrelated to any warming or cooling that occurs (it doesn't). And if instead after a couple decades of listening to them and letting them stall any possible countermeasures it turns out we've still been going up overall, they'll say, "Oops, my bad." Not particularly reassuring.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| B: This is harder to know, but anyone intelligent with as much at stake as we have at stake knows playing it cautious is the smartest way to go, |
At what cost. |
The cost of each individual measure must be considered on its own. I'm not a big fan of things like cap and trade at all for instance, but I am a big fan of getting away from massive over-reliance on fossil fuels and needless emissions, and I'm a huge fan of mandated fuel-efficiency increases for automobiles (and if it hurts the auto industry and means fewer people own cars, all the better as far as I'm concerned).
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Global warming is almost purely quantiative: either the real, uncorrupted data shows it's happening, or it doesn't. |
And? What does the data say? Why are we still talking about warming? I think Madison Ave helped put out a press release that "climate change" (which won out over "global weirding") was the new title, given that global cooling has taken hold.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
So, there was warming for about 21 years after 30 years of cooling (1945 to 1977) and now we're in year 11 of cooling, with 10-20 more to go? Then warming, of course. Bet the farm. In the early stages of an economic depression. Bet the farm. |
That article in no way makes me feel like we should feel anthropogenic global warming isn't happening. Warming and cooling cycles and anthropogenic global warming aren't mutually exclusive things, and natural warming and cooling cycles could easily serve to mask any impact human activity has in the short term (which in particular is why I am very suspicious of that other poster's "last 10 years" approach). Nothing I read in there eliminates my desire to play it safe. We'd need a much longer time to determine the absolute truth, even without obviously agenda driven people (on both sides of the debate) trying to deceive us. Until then, my inclination is to -- within reason -- act as if it's true, until it's proven false beyond a reasonable doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhuntingtonus
Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Location: Jeonju
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
See //inline//
| Fox wrote: |
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| No, it isn't! Not over the past ten years! |
Why are you limiting yourself to the past ten years?
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| "Playing it cautious" by slashing industrial production and other things contributing to happiness will cost tens of trillions of dollars and vast amounts of misery. |
Do you really have reliable, verifiably accurate data showing doing things like converting to primarily solar and nuclear energy, or raising fuel efficiency in cars, would cost tens of trillions of dollars and cause vast amounts of misery? If so, please show me? //Do you really have reliable, verifiably accurate data showing doing things like converting to primarily solar and nuclear energh, and raising fuel efficiency in cars, can be done for less. or be done on the vast scale (now there are somewhere near a billion motor vehicles on the planet)? If so, please show me. //
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| I think it's often been implied that Americans are most to blame, and it has been often used as a club to attack American prosperity, in particular. |
So most people aren't actually saying it, but you feel it's implied? Come on man, when even third word cooking fires are taking heat for contributing to the alleged problem, it's time to stop pretending people are just bagging on America. //Come on, man, read the articles better yourself. They don't just imply, they use ugly words to describe how the Americans are destroying the planet by dragging their feet on Kyoto, et al. "Third world cooking fires" aren't mentioned 1/100 as much.//
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Perfectly correct data can be selected to support either side, and often is. The trick is ignoring that supporting the side you don't agree with. |
You can't have perfectly correct data and ignore other, genuinely accurate data. The truth value of data comes when it's considered in its entirely: perfectly correct data would consist of a compliation of all genuinely accurate data in existence. If you're ignoring accurate data, the data you've got is misleading, not correct. If a scientist collects 100 data points and ignores half of them because he doesnt' like the sound of them, his data isn't accurate. It's completely deceptive, in fact. //Any well-trained scientist or researcher can give you half a dozen ways to write a paper, backed up by data, without resorting to anything so crude as ignoring data you have generated. There are many, many studies in the literature for most topics out there (did you know each year there are over a million scholarly journal articles published in English alone?), and you can cite the ones that support your predetermined viewpoint and ignore the others. That is helped by the biased nature of many academics, who make whole careers by developing a thesis - their work can easily, then, be cited by others who have the same axe to grind. //
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Agreed - the problem is believing what others have written. |
Yes, it really is hard to know who to believe. Well, sometimes. When you have people saying, "We shouldn't worry about global warming because God will decide when the world ends, so it's not in our hands, so we shouldn't do anything about it," (actual argument made by a Republican by the way), I think it's safe to discount them from the discussion. //And when someone cites a source, are you really going to scrutinize it, and in turn scrutinize all the sources IT uses? If you say yes, you're quite a rare bird, even in academia. //
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| As above, taking this position is not exactly free. |
Not free, but as I said, we'd be doing things we should probably be doing even if global warming isn't occuring. Moving away from a fossil fuel energy economy and into a solar/nuclear one is just a good idea. |
//That's like saying if your car makes a funny noise, you can get rid of it right then, as it would be a good idea to get a new car anyway. Exact amount of money aside, the things you propose would have gigantic personal and financial costs, which would be inappropriate outside anything but a totalitarian state to implement without being much more certain than I think we are now. // |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Do you really have reliable, verifiably accurate data showing doing things like converting to primarily solar and nuclear energh, and raising fuel efficiency in cars, can be done for less. |
So you come in here, make a very specific claim about the costs involved, and now you won't show any data? Typical anti-reform tactics: make up random, ridiculous, scary, claims about the costs, and then hem and haw when proof is asked for. Congratulations.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Come on, man, read the articles better yourself. They don't just imply, they use ugly words to describe how the Americans are destroying the planet by dragging their feet on Kyoto, et al. "Third world cooking fires" aren't mentioned 1/100 as much. |
I read enough articles that mention problems outside of America that I don't feel America is being treated unfairly. As I said, of course America gets more play in our national discourse, because the only policies we can set are our own. That doesn't mean we're being unfairly or disproportionately blamed.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Any well-trained scientist or researcher can give you half a dozen ways to write a paper, backed up by data, without resorting to anything so crude as ignoring data you have generated. There are many, many studies in the literature for most topics out there (did you know each year there are over a million scholarly journal articles published in English alone?), and you can cite the ones that support your predetermined viewpoint and ignore the others. That is helped by the biased nature of many academics, who make whole careers by developing a thesis - their work can easily, then, be cited by others who have the same axe to grind. |
Nothing here contradicts what I said.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| And when someone cites a source, are you really going to scrutinize it, and in turn scrutinize all the sources IT uses? If you say yes, you're quite a rare bird, even in academia. |
I scrutinize everything, which is why despite having suspicions on the matter I refrain from asserting anthropogenic global warming is a proven fact.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| That's like saying if your car makes a funny noise, you can get rid of it right then, as it would be a good idea to get a new car anyway. |
That's a totally invalid analogy. Of course you shouldn't just get rid of your car if it makes a funny noise, because you can quickly and accurately have it assessed for problems and then repaired. Testing for anthropogenic global warming in a truly accurate and reliable fashion will take decades, and by the time we know the truth, it may be too late.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Exact amount of money aside, the things you propose would have gigantic personal and financial costs, which would be inappropriate outside anything but a totalitarian state to implement without being much more certain than I think we are now. |
Totally uninterested in your opinions and suspicions about the costs. If you have facts, present them. Otherwise you're just scare mongering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhuntingtonus
Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Location: Jeonju
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Do you really have reliable, verifiably accurate data showing doing things like converting to primarily solar and nuclear energh, and raising fuel efficiency in cars, can be done for less. |
So you come in here, make a very specific claim about the costs involved, and now you won't show any data? Typical anti-reform tactics: make up random, ridiculous, scary, claims about the costs, and then hem and haw when proof is asked for. Congratulations.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Come on, man, read the articles better yourself. They don't just imply, they use ugly words to describe how the Americans are destroying the planet by dragging their feet on Kyoto, et al. "Third world cooking fires" aren't mentioned 1/100 as much. |
I read enough articles that mention problems outside of America that I don't feel America is being treated unfairly. As I said, of course America gets more play in our national discourse, because the only policies we can set are our own. That doesn't mean we're being unfairly or disproportionately blamed.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Any well-trained scientist or researcher can give you half a dozen ways to write a paper, backed up by data, without resorting to anything so crude as ignoring data you have generated. There are many, many studies in the literature for most topics out there (did you know each year there are over a million scholarly journal articles published in English alone?), and you can cite the ones that support your predetermined viewpoint and ignore the others. That is helped by the biased nature of many academics, who make whole careers by developing a thesis - their work can easily, then, be cited by others who have the same axe to grind. |
Nothing here contradicts what I said.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| And when someone cites a source, are you really going to scrutinize it, and in turn scrutinize all the sources IT uses? If you say yes, you're quite a rare bird, even in academia. |
I scrutinize everything, which is why despite having suspicions on the matter I refrain from asserting anthropogenic global warming is a proven fact.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| That's like saying if your car makes a funny noise, you can get rid of it right then, as it would be a good idea to get a new car anyway. |
That's a totally invalid analogy. Of course you shouldn't just get rid of your car if it makes a funny noise, because you can quickly and accurately have it assessed for problems and then repaired. Testing for anthropogenic global warming in a truly accurate and reliable fashion will take decades, and by the time we know the truth, it may be too late.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Exact amount of money aside, the things you propose would have gigantic personal and financial costs, which would be inappropriate outside anything but a totalitarian state to implement without being much more certain than I think we are now. |
Totally uninterested in your opinions and suspicions about the costs. If you have facts, present them. Otherwise you're just scare mongering. |
Where is YOUR data???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Where is YOUR data???? |
You're the ones making specific, numeric claims about the costs. I made no such claims. I even said that individual reforms would need to have their costs considered on a case by case basis, like a reasonable person would.
So given you've made specific claims about the costs, and given your entire case rests on those alleged costs, it's time for you to provide evidence of those costs.
This is like a Fox News interview. You just throw some giant, scare mongering figure out there, then act aggrieved when it gets challenged. Come on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhuntingtonus
Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Location: Jeonju
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Where is YOUR data???? |
You're the ones making specific, numeric claims about the costs. I made no such claims. I even said that individual reforms would need to have their costs considered on a case by case basis, like a reasonable person would.
So given you've made specific claims about the costs, and given your entire case rests on those alleged costs, it's time for you to provide evidence of those costs.
This is like a Fox News interview. You just throw some giant, scare mongering figure out there, then act aggrieved when it gets challenged. Come on. |
I'm not aggrieved, but I haven't done or seen the research. If anyone is a scaremonger, it's you, who want to make changes based on studies I think are biased or misguided. You want to make the changes, so how much will they cost? What assumptions will you make for the cash value of quality of life reductions associated with behavior made more expensive or banned outright? I haven't written this book - and it would probably be one - but I happen to think the costs would be colossal.
Try www.globalwarmingskeptics.info for much more than I know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
The staunch Democrat supporter types on here just can't admit that they've been outright lied to, because then they'd then have to admit they've been duped all along (in other words admit they're wrong). For some reason this is hard for some people to do.
Not sure why exactly - back before I knew better, I used to support Democrats like Clinton and rail against Bush. Typical. Then I realized they're all a pack lying crooks working against the American people and selling us out the banks. The more I study it, the more it is confirmed to be true beyond any doubt. Yet even in the beginning it was easy for me to admit it and change my views accordingly. Not naming names, but some people on here just seem incapable of facing up to reality - that our country is run by a pack of criminals. |
It would be amusing if it weren't so serious and sad that some on here keep thinking that if only the Rs or the Ds got in this time, everything would be better. They have both had chances to do it numerous times and failed.
It is now glaringly obvious looking at the mirror images of the two OBushamas that there is no difference. They were sold to us as complete opposites but now we see with the same policies and same people doing the same things that it is the system that needs to be changed radically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| Where is YOUR data???? |
You're the ones making specific, numeric claims about the costs. I made no such claims. I even said that individual reforms would need to have their costs considered on a case by case basis, like a reasonable person would.
So given you've made specific claims about the costs, and given your entire case rests on those alleged costs, it's time for you to provide evidence of those costs.
This is like a Fox News interview. You just throw some giant, scare mongering figure out there, then act aggrieved when it gets challenged. Come on. |
I'm not aggrieved, but I haven't done or seen the research. If anyone is a scaremonger, it's you, who want to make changes based on studies I think are biased or misguided. |
You: we can't make any changes in response to this situation, because it will cost tens of trillions of dollars and cause substantial misery!
Me: anthropogenic climate change may or may not be true, but it's better to play it safe with such an important thing, and many of the changes we should make in response to it would benefit us even if it's not true.
I don't think there's a comparison. One of us is making up scary numbers to try to make a case against implementing a response. The other of us is counselling cautious behavior.
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| You want to make the changes, so how much will they cost? |
I don't know. As I said (for the third time now), each change would have to be considered on a case by case basis and have its cost vs benefit carefully considered. Some -- such as converting our energy economy -- would have high initial costs that would pay themselves off over time. Others -- such as mandating higher fuel efficiency standards -- would affect some industries more than others (for obvious reasons) in terms of financial impact. Some industries would suffer (auto manufacturers, for example), others would benefit (mass transit, for example).
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| I haven't written this book - and it would probably be one - but I happen to think the costs would be colossal. |
Thanks for your expert opinion.
Sounds like a nice, unbiased site. I'm sure you'd recommend www.creationscience.com as a good source to learn about the theory of evolution, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:25 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change Scepticism |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument |
Symptomatic of a largely modern urbanised population who need to get out more.... in the sense of connecting with the natural world, seeing environments that have changed (and remembering them how they were), talking to people who are interested and have lived closer to nature.
Typically the dumbed-down urbanite cannot recognise a single wild plant or bird species, cannot tell the constellations much less actually see them at night, and barely realises milk comes from a cow. usually they see everything in human or political terms- "its a consiracy driven by political groups!". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc_ido
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Someone please show me which models predicted the last decade of cooling. |
The reason nobody has bothered to address you on this is because your stance on climate change is clearly ideological and not evidence-based. If you were actually interested in the evidence, i) you'd know that the climate record and basic physics, not models, are more important and ii) you'd have looked the information up already.
After a two-minute search, here (PDF) is a paper from Nature back 1999 talking about including El Nino in climate models. Note figure 3, and the predicted cooling from about 2000-2010. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:15 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
For most discourses and theories, we have Foucauldian/Derridian deconstruction and are told, again and again, "there is no there there." All discourses have their own politics and all discourses serve only some interets[sic] and necessarily exclude others. The best we can do is perpetually deconstruct them to keep any hegemonic system that might emerge to dominate our thoughts forever off-balance.
Come now two particular discourses and theories (I shall set the antiAmerican world-affairs discourse aside for the moment): evolutionary biology and anthropogenic global warming. Apparently discourse analysis cannot apply here. These particular theories represent clear, true science, and objectively report physical realities. There is, in fact, a there there in these two cases. Moreover, those who question, challenge, or dissent are antimodern, religious fanatics, and thoroughly uneducated. |
It's interesting how philosophy, psychoanalysis and schools of literary criticism can be turned loose upon the social sciences. Where there's a will, there's a there. The jury's still out about tobacco's relation to cancer. I wouldn't describe climate change skeptics as "antimodern, religious fanatics, and thoroughly uneducated", I'd call them anti-American.  
| Quote: |
| Further clarification - the reason that the skeptics are the ones claiming there is no scientific consensus is that the non-skeptics are the ones saying there is one... an opinion which goes unchallenged on most editorial pages. |
Here you go:
| Quote: |
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
| Quote: |
| Someone please show me which models predicted the last decade of cooling. If the science is settled, we have reliable models, no? The article compared the science to the tobacco-cancer link. You can model that, with fairly tight margins of error. If it is similar, show me. Of course, they can't. The climate is far to complex an organism to be modeled, and all the attempts will fail. CO2 has been much, much higher in the past and the earth much cooler. The historical relationship isn't there. |
To start with the BBC article (which, mind you, is a key player in the liberal agenda to control all media) only says that temperatures haven't risen. Where is your decade of cooling? Snows of Kilimanjaro, Arctic ice breaking up? You, yourself, told us that the whole solar system is warming. Guess that was just the argument du jour, eh?
This brings us to cost. Are businesses going to send out rebates to every individual at whose whose expense the atmosphere has been violated by the industrial revolution? I don't think it's going to cost me much of anything. You, who criticize healthcare because you're so healthy, are crying foul because of costs to whom? Weaning people off cigarettes cost someone, should that not be happening?
So, yeah, sticking it to people who profit off of pollution is as much in order as returning to a failed gold standard or preventing bankers from the slim advantage they have over broader business in sticking it to the populace.
And, on and off, you do support carbon initiatives. By the Austrian School, who should profit from anti-carbon initiatives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The reason nobody has bothered to address you on this is because your stance on climate change is clearly ideological and not evidence-based. |
Clearly.
| Quote: |
| If you were actually interested in the evidence, i) you'd know that the climate record and basic physics, not models, are more important and ii) you'd have looked the information up already. |
The models matter. Maybe because they have completely failed the goal will be to move away from the hysterical claims informed from the models, but the only way to reach the "x amount of warming by y" conclusion is by mathematical modeling. I guess this is like the "nobody uses the hockey stick anymore". Which is true, because it was the product of scientific fraud for ideological reasons. When it wasn't known (outside evil skeptic types) that it was a fraud, it was widely used.
| Quote: |
| After a two-minute search, here (PDF) is a paper from Nature back 1999 talking about including El Nino in climate models. Note figure 3, and the predicted cooling from about 2000-2010. |
I think you should read the paper. It assumes temp changes from greenhouse gas emissions to see how their El Nino model will react. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
