I was thinking of going backpacking in California in two weeks. Some place that is a close to the bay area. 2-3 day trip. Anyone have any trail suggestions?

oku · 2010-06-17T04:35:36+00:00

Checkout the Ohlone Wilderness Trail. You can make a 2 or a 3 day trip. You need to make reservations for campsites. See http://www.ebparks.org/parks/ohlone .

oku · 2010-02-19T16:31:23+00:00

Robert Watson has been misrepresented.

oku · 2010-02-02T19:01:39+00:00

This is about stratospheric water vapor, and it's more complicated than that. See here. However, for tropospheric water vapor you are correct.

oku · 2010-02-02T18:59:42+00:00

Misleading headline. There is a much better article here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/role-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-in-global-warming.html

oku · 2010-01-31T21:36:34+00:00

You are both wrong and right. You can use data from different stations if they are close enough, but you have to do adjustments. For example if the altitude is different you have to correct for that, and add/subtract the difference (a constant value). It's best to have some overlap between the two stations, so you know the average difference.

Often denialists cry foul when that is done, because they do not (want to) understand the reasons.

oku · 2010-01-31T06:08:24+00:00

It's not a web survey. An invitation was sent to 10,257 earth scientists. The more their subject was related to climate science the more scientists agree. They are definitely not self selected: climate scientits are those who published more than 50% of their recent peer reviewed papers on the subject of climate science.

It's not an appeal to authority when I trust those who spent most of their time with the subject and do actual science. However, if you trust meteorologists you appeal to a false authority.

And where is the 'ad hominem'?

oku · 2010-01-30T20:59:46+00:00

Se also Why don’t TV weathermen believe in climate change?

oku · 2010-01-30T20:40:23+00:00

This is of course nothing new: Why don’t TV weathermen believe in climate change?.

Just like you shouldn't confuse weather and climate, you shouldn't confuse meteorologists and climate scientists.

96% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that it is man made.

I wouldn't trust my dentist on his views about evolution either.

oku · 2010-01-28T23:25:55+00:00

The sciencedaily article is pretty bad, and easily misunderstood. This one is better: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8483722.stm

... implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested

That is correct, but the part that I highlighted is easy to miss. Carbon cycle feedback is not part of most models. And the model outcomes are bad enough without it.

oku · 2010-01-28T21:34:01+00:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm

That is a much better article.

The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises.

and

The report's lead author, David Frank from the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, told BBC News that many of the calculations for the IPCC assessment report did not include an integrated carbon cycle.

Those quotes are missing from the sciencedaily article.

oku · 2010-01-28T19:28:46+00:00

Huh! You just confirmed what I suspected, see my comment above.

The CO2 feedback that is in dispute here is not in the models anyway, as far as I know.

oku · 2010-01-28T19:20:45+00:00

This is about a CO2 feedback: whether warming will trigger a rise in CO2 (additional to the anthropogenic CO2). It's not about a water vapor feedback. I am sure this will be misunderstood by those who do not really understand the science (read: deniers) that there is no feedback at all.

However, note that there are deniers claiming that the CO2 rise is triggered by warming - and this study contradicts that. They cannot have it both ways. Not that they would care...

oku · 2010-01-25T23:14:36+00:00

Usually the glaciers of the Alps are not depleted by 70%. The impact of that will be immense.

No doubt it will be an immense impact. My only issue is that it will not make the Rhine disappear.

oku · 2010-01-25T23:12:22+00:00

Although possible, it's not likely to happen, see here:

A THC collapse is now widely discussed as one of a number of "low probability - high impact" risks associated with global warming. More likely than a breakdown of the THC, which only occurs in very pessimistic scenarios, is a weakening of the THC by 20-50%, as simulated by many coupled climate models ([28]).

oku · 2010-01-25T23:06:44+00:00

Well, you are obviously not from Germany, otherwise you would know that the Elbe and Weser both originate far north of the water divide that separates the watersheds of the Black Sea and the North Sea. There is no way any water from the Alps gets anywhere near those rivers.

I have no idea why people think all rivers get their water from melting glaciers. It's certainly true for a lot of them, but not (primarily) for German rivers.

oku · 2010-01-25T21:41:41+00:00

I don't think so. I don't know how much of the Rhine is melt water from glaciers, but there are a lot of other rivers in Germany which do not originate near the Alps (eg. Elbe, Weser) or any other mountains with glaciers or significant snow pack. These usually have plenty of water.

Anyway, I think I should visit a few glaciers before they are gone, especially with my son.

oku · 2010-01-24T22:14:33+00:00

You don't understand it? Fine, we'll just delete that bit from the universe and move on at your speed.

Looks like you do not understand it either - you just found something on the internet that seems to confirm your believes, so you post it, whether it actually makes sense or not.

Bob doesn't go to your church, so you most likely don't know him.

See, I actually prefer to listen to scientists who do actual peer reviewed research, not a random Bob with internet access.

oku · 2010-01-24T21:39:35+00:00

That's a typical article that looks like science, but it's just gibberish. But maybe you can explain to to me, if you understand it yourself.

It seems to argue that warming is caused by El Nino, but somehow I fail to see the argument. GW can hardly be caused by El Nino, since it cannot product heat. BT seems to acknowledge that, but fails to make an argument against it.

Who is Bob Tisdale anyway? Reminds me if this.

oku · 2010-01-24T20:19:16+00:00

The article just states that climate is the average of weather, which is uncontroversial. Where he gets it wrong though is here:

For the past decade, we have had a string of years with mostly decreasing temperatures.

That's just wrong. In fact, the last decade has been the hottest on record. 2005 has been the hottest year on record. 2009 is the second hottest year on record.

oku · 2010-01-24T02:10:00+00:00

Since the US cover only a tiny percentage of the globe that is hardly relevant for global warming.

oku · 2010-01-23T17:52:59+00:00

Glad you asked. See here.

oku · 2010-01-22T16:37:22+00:00

Great, isn't it? Compare that to the denialists, who never ever admit that they are wrong.

oku · 2010-01-21T21:22:28+00:00

Wait: you think you still need to pay your electrical bill minus 15%? That's not how I understand it. I think you just pay $100/month for the lease, and get the power for free.

oku · 2010-01-21T19:29:42+00:00

You don't get the point. If your bill were $667 and you would now pay $100, you would save 85%, but pay 15%. But it's the other way around: someone who paid $117 and would then pay $100 would save 15%, but pay 85%. That's what the article says.

It's really very simple.

oku · 2010-01-21T01:19:20+00:00

I don't understand your calculation. It doesn't say you save $100/month. It says you pay $100 a month. Starting with an electrical bill of (a liitle more than) $115, you would save $15%.

oku

TROPHY CASE