year 2350
stoat | February 5, 2010Anatomy of IPCC's Mistake on Himalayan Glaciers and Year 2035" is well worth a read. Especially interesting is their taking-apart of the revisions of 10.6.2 - in brief, these mistakes were spotted before tape-out but those revising that section couldn't be bothered to make any changes (and/or didn't want to quote some embarassingly good research which would have pointed up the pap elsewhere).
[Hat tip: Deltoid]
stoat | January 25, 2010Reader enragedparrot asks the rather sensible question, which appears to have been somewhat neglected in the vast war of words of 2035, 2350, and quite what is the source for what: if 2035 is badly wrong, what is the right date?
The answer, of course, is that I don't know. But I may be able to tell you something useful along the way. If you've seen a better answer, please point me at it.
[Dragged from the comments: http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf is excellent -W]
So (forgive me, to clear more wrong stuff out of the way) 2035 is…
stoat | January 21, 2010This is my first contribution for "Ask Stoat", and I'm doing it because it is low hanging fruit :-). I was going to do the even lower-hanging "airbourne fraction" but that will come. This is for Brian.
So, the issue is in the news because of the 2350 / 2035 kerfuffle, and links to Brian's other question, "What do you think of WG II?" I'll answer that one first, because I can think of a cutting answer, which is "I don't". Oh, cruel. But true: when I was in the game, I was interested in WG I stuff, which is to say, the physical basis. Someone has to be interested in impacts and adaption, of…