tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post7627213078690744635..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: Exxon Geosciences Union?James Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1544710523765016672007-10-26T02:52:00.000+01:002007-10-26T02:52:00.000+01:00Off-topic...James, I thought that you might like t...Off-topic...<BR/><BR/><B>James</B>, I thought that you might like to look at this as given your work (particularly involving the paleoclimate record) it would appear that fast-feedback Charney climate sensitivity is a well known <B><A HREF="http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html" REL="nofollow">3 C</A></B>...<BR/><BR/><B>Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?</B><BR/>Gerard H. Roe and Marcia B. Baker <BR/>Science 26 October 2007:<BR/>Vol. 318. no. 5850, pp. 629 - 632<BR/>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5850/629<BR/><BR/>From what I can see, the authors do not distinguish between the fast and the slow feedbacks. But the slow feedbacks are principally from the carbon cycle and ice sheets and as such will only raise the the long-term climate sensitivity above the Charney. The authors argue 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius is the best we will ever be able to do (more or less) which in essence means that their butterflies of uncertainty could blow the climate system down to <B>2 C</B>.<BR/><BR/>Judging from what I see, the authors' advice would be to lowball the sensitivity as higher sensitivities will take longer to reach equilibrium. The latter is probably true but the former unjustified and a waste of precious time if we know better.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, figure you already knew about it, but just in case...<BR/><BR/>Take care.Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-34808470002775900822007-10-18T21:12:00.000+01:002007-10-18T21:12:00.000+01:00i guess it depends on what you mean by "sponsorshi...i guess it depends on what you mean by "sponsorship" ... are they the sole sponsor for a certain project, or are they contributing money to a general pot...if it's the latter, take the $$$ when you can get it!BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-25576377458993673042007-10-18T13:20:00.000+01:002007-10-18T13:20:00.000+01:00Well I'd prefer it if he was merely egregious too,...Well I'd prefer it if he was merely egregious too, but I think execrable is more accurate :-)James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-24438553463815403442007-10-18T12:49:00.000+01:002007-10-18T12:49:00.000+01:00I prefer egregious.I prefer <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22The+Egregious+Crichton%22&btnG=Search" REL="nofollow">egregious</A>.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com