<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Climate Science and Politics &#187; Climate Models</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climatepatrol.net/category/english-categories/climate-models/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climatepatrol.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:43:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Global Warming Doesn&#8217;t Add Up</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2010/05/09/global-warming-doesnt-add-up/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2010/05/09/global-warming-doesnt-add-up/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 05:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global cooling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ocean heat loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ocean heat uptake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radiative imbalance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roger Pielke Sr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roy Spencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TOA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2010/05/09/global-warming-doesnt-add-up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Global Carbon Trends 2007 and Climate Sensitivity</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/10/03/global-carbon-trends-2007-and-climate-sensitivity/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/10/03/global-carbon-trends-2007-and-climate-sensitivity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Climate Patrol</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AOGCM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon trends 2007]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate sensitivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[effective climate sensitivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global carbon project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MIT joint program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overestimation of climate sensitivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SRES]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=68</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The gist of the highlights of the annual update of the global carbon budget and trends of the Global Carbon Project reads: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been growing about four times faster since 2000 than during the previous decade. Natural CO2 sinks are growing, but more slowly than atmospheric CO2, which has been growing at 2 ppm per year since 2000. This is 33% faster than during the previous 20 years. All of these changes characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger climate forcing and sooner than expected. CO2 emission growth four times faster, atmospheric CO2 growing 33% faster, generating stronger climate forcing and sooner than expected. This makes a nice headline &#8211; or rather a scary one. Climatepatrol attempts to dig deeper beyond the news releases on global carbon trends 2007.  The papers and posts are many which deal with the relationship between global temperature history, carbon cycle and IPCC emission scenarios. I try to sort out some of the newer, controversal papers and divide them into three groups: A) Constraining temperature history and past emissions in climate models Stephen E. Schwartz about the huge uncertainties of aerosols and about HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH&#8217;S CLIMATE SYSTEM (Schwartz 2007) and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/10/03/global-carbon-trends-2007-and-climate-sensitivity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Monckton and Climate Sensitivity: Teacher or Student?</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/08/21/monckton-and-climate-sensitivity-teacher-or-student/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/08/21/monckton-and-climate-sensitivity-teacher-or-student/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:02:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Climate Patrol</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Temperature History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[APS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arthur Smith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christopher Monckton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate sensitivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Monckton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=66</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some say that he has become a real climatologist, others &#8211; mainly AGW alarmists &#8211; say that he is not a scientist but a strawman with bad manners. The public critiques of climate skeptic Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Benchley, may not always demonstrate the traits of a Gentleman - or even Lord. Well, if you are simply looking for the entertainment value of a debate, I suggest you go directly to the Science and Public Policy Website with it&#8217;s response to Dr. Arthur Smith&#8217;s critique of Christopher Monckton&#8217;s &#8216;Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered&#8217;. For all the others, I like to show how this whole debate regarding the magnitude of that anthropogenic global warming (AGW), as widely attributed to the burning of fossil fuels, fits in with Climatepatrol&#8217;s layman&#8217;s attempt to start to falsify parts of the IPCC view on climate sensitivity in a recent post. For the purpose of a follow-up on said climate review, I am thankful for Monckton&#8217;s newly launched debate on climate sensitivity. I am also thankful for the information given in the critique by Dr. Arthur Smith against Monckton&#8217;s paper, after the first publication of which the APS chief editor hastened to emphazise that &#8221;the following article has not undergone any scientific [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/08/21/monckton-and-climate-sensitivity-teacher-or-student/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Global Temperature About to Fall Below IPCC Scenarios</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/07/09/global-temperature-about-to-fall-below-ipcc-scenarios/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/07/09/global-temperature-about-to-fall-below-ipcc-scenarios/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:20:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Climate Patrol</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Temperature History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AGW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emission scenarios]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ENSO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global temperature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HadCRUT3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC scenarios]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pacific decadal oscillation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PDO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SRES]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAH]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=63</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent post I came up with a 100-year global temperature trend of 1.64°C per century using the temperature history of 5 metrics of the satellite era. With satellite temperature updates of June and by using GISS land-ocean-index instead of &#8220;meteorological stations only&#8221; as in May, this trend is now being reduced to 1.59°C per century. Although this is still consistent with Special Report on Emission Scenarios SRES as used in the two recent reports TAR and AR4 of the IPCC, the slope points towards the lower end of any scenario. First of all, lets have a look at the same global temperature trends. By using a running 4-year mean of the respective monthly temperature anomalies, the intention is to smooth out the effects of ENSO (El Nino &#8211; Southern Oscillation) as a natural variation influencing global temperature from one year to another. The professionals at Realclimate are the ones who have done it right I am sure. But this is not the main objective of the following graph. ENSO is probably the natural variability that is most cited by AGW proponents and the IPCC report is full of it alright. Yet another variable is the effect of two [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/07/09/global-temperature-about-to-fall-below-ipcc-scenarios/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More CO2 &#8211; More Rain &#8211; Booming Biosphere</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/06/17/more-co2-more-rain-booming-biosphere/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/06/17/more-co2-more-rain-booming-biosphere/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Climate Patrol</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CO2 fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[benefits of global warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charles D. Keeling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate models wrong]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global terrestrial NPP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawrence Solomon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPP per 1-ppm increase in CO2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[primary production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ramakrishna Nemani]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wetter warmer world]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=66</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lawrence Solomon, author of the book &#8220;The Denialists&#8221;, is a name that hits a nerve among global warming alarmists. No wonder, his article in &#8220;The Financial Post&#8221; earned some criticisms. Let&#8217;s go to the source of Solomon&#8217;s &#8220;praise of CO2&#8243; resulting in a boom in the biosphere (net primary production NPP) and &#8211; big surprise &#8211; another name hits a nerve albeit in the opposite camp: Charles D. Keeling! Solomon has taken a lot of his information from a paper as published in &#8220;Science&#8221;, volume 300, on June 6, 2003: Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999 (Ramakrishna R. Nemani, Charles D. Keeling, Hirofumi Hashimoto, William M. Jolly, Stephen C. Piper, Compton J. Tucker, Ranga B. Myneni, Steven W. Running) What is the message all about? Is this booming biosphere really the result of CO2 fertilization? This is what the abstract says: Recent climatic changes have enhanced plant growth in northern mid-latitudes and high latitudes. However, a comprehensive analysis of the impact of global climatic changes on vegetation productivity has not before been expressed in the context of variable limiting factors to plant growth. We present a global investigation of vegetation responses to climatic changes [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/06/17/more-co2-more-rain-booming-biosphere/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Back to the Future after Keenlyside &amp; Latif Paper</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/05/11/back-to-the-future-after-keenlyside-latif-paper/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/05/11/back-to-the-future-after-keenlyside-latif-paper/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 21:54:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keenlyside]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latif]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=58</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Source: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html The scientific community saw the need to catch the attention of policy makers and the media back to red alert on climate change after the signal had turned yellow or green in the eyes of many who interpreted a decade-long pause or stop of global warming: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector by N. S. Keenlyside1, M. Latif1, J. Jungclaus2, L. Kornblueh2 &#38; E. Roeckner2. (Source: a commenter at Realclimate). The Globe and Mail has just released an article by Gerard Wynn, Reuters, entitled &#8220;Global cooling theories put scientists on guard&#8221; (May 9, 2008 at 2:12 PM EDT) to describe how global warming alarmist scientists showed some concern that this paper may be widely seen as a reason for policy makers and climate skeptics to undermine the public awareness of catastrophic global warming. They seemed to have felt uncomfortable that such a paper predicting &#8220;cool weather&#8221; on a global and decadal scale, that is widely seen a &#8220;noise&#8221; in a long-term warming trend and which may be an undesirable distraction from the AGW scare, was released and published in the &#8216;Nature&#8217; magazine. So what did some climate scientists do about the looming public opinion that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/05/11/back-to-the-future-after-keenlyside-latif-paper/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>HadCRUT3 Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index 1850-2008</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/04/16/hatcrut3-global-land-ocean-temperature-index-1850-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/04/16/hatcrut3-global-land-ocean-temperature-index-1850-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global temperature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HadCRUT3]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=43</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HatCRUT3 is the global temperature Index of the U.K. Hadley Metoffice. In another post, I will attempt to combine the 3 land-ocean indices of GISStemp, HadCRUT3 and NCDC in one graph with 1900-2000 as the 20th century reference period, because there seems to be a bit of a confusion regarding the different developments of the temperature networks. Here are the temperature anomalies for the 3 surface temperature networks for the first quarter 2008 compared to the 20th century average.                             GISStemp   HatCRUT3  NCDC January                   0.13              0.19           0.20 February                 0.27              0.32           0.38 March                     0.68              0.56           0.70 1st Quarter 2008    0.36              0.36           0.43 The hypothesis of &#8220;the great pacific climate shift&#8221; having occured around 1976-1978, which lead to a big junk of the warming of the eighties, can be read here. In a later post, I like us to also discuss why when looking at the temperature history graphs of the various networks, some graphs make believe that the warming will continue, others don&#8217;t. For a comparison between surface stations and mid tropospheric satelite measurements, see this graph by noaa. The climate research unit informs here that the dataset HatCRUT2 was replaced by HatCRUT3 from January 2006. The old version which will not be updated anymore [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/04/16/hatcrut3-global-land-ocean-temperature-index-1850-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Earth Scientist Speaks Up Against AGW Skeptic Slander</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/24/earth-scientist-speaks-up-against-agw-skeptic-slander/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/24/earth-scientist-speaks-up-against-agw-skeptic-slander/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:27:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Propaganda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[against skeptic bashing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AGW skeptic slander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AGW skepticm earth scientist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fred Singer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stefan Rahmstorf]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=41</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, climatologist at the University of Potsdam, Germany took the risk to justify himself to sceptical commenters of his post &#8220;Ist die Erderwärmung vorbei?&#8221; (is global warming over?) at Wissenslogs (powered by Spektrum der Wissenschaft). For this challenging task (during his &#8220;sparetime&#8221;), this co-author at realclimate.org deserves great respect. However, the following commenters&#8217; speech gets to the heart of global warming scepticism. [Update] For your guidance, here is Rahmstorf&#8217;s controversal claim: How „climate change skeptics“ take us for a ride and fight against effective climate protection policies. [Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf] What happened &#8211; why haven&#8217;t we got anywhere in climate politics those past 15 years? To explain this, all it takes is to switch on your TV (RTL, 11 June; ntv, 7 July; ARD, 9 July 2007). and we see Fred Singer who explains us that climate change is no reason for concern&#8230;Singer explains us the same thing for 15 years, over and over again. It&#8217;s just one little detail that has changed: Until two years ago, Singer stated that there isn&#8217;t such thing as global warming. Satellite data supposedly proof that. Meanwhile, this kind of arguing has become ever so dubious. (Satellites show the same warming as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/24/earth-scientist-speaks-up-against-agw-skeptic-slander/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Climatologist Questions “Sloppy Science”</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/16/climatologist-questions-sloppy-science/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/16/climatologist-questions-sloppy-science/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:08:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Propaganda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AGW controversy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change skeptic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cloud feedback]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Roy W. Spencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roy Spencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roy W. Spencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sloppy science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=39</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Climatatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer from University of Alabama raises tough questions regarding a supposed linear upward trend of global average surface temperature of the past 30 years, which is attributed to human activities with a confidence of 90%. 1) Why are ALL of the 20+ IPCC climate models more sensitive in their total cloud feedback than published estimates of cloud feedbacks in the real climate system (Forster and Gregory, J. Climate, 2006)? &#8230; 2) And regarding those observational estimates of (somewhat) positive cloud feedbacks: How do you know that the cloud changes that have been observed during temperature changes really are &#8220;feedbacks&#8221;? &#8230; 3) &#8230;we all agree that there has been strong global-average warming since the 1970’s. Well, how do you know this wasn’t the result of a small, natural change in cloud cover? Doesn’t it seem like (another) coincidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) just happened to shift to a different mode in 1977, about the time that the warming started? &#8230; The fact is, we DON’T know how much of recent warming is natural, simply because we don’t have good enough global cloud observations back to the 1970’s (and earlier) to measure any long-term changes in cloudiness to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/16/climatologist-questions-sloppy-science/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Science of Climate Modelling Far from Settled</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/01/01/science-of-climate-modelling-far-from-settled/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/01/01/science-of-climate-modelling-far-from-settled/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:13:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[118]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[121]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[123]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[139]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[150]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[152]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[157]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[161]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[165]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[167]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[179]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[184]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[186]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[69]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[70]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[75]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[76]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[80]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[83]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[86]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=27</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Source: NASA &#8211; widespread twilight zone detected around clouds Temperature and humidity biases in global climate models and their impact on climate feedbacks We often read that the climate models, which plot scenarios for a rise in the globally assessed SST-temperature of 2 &#8211; 8 degrees C until 2100, are being evaluated by means of &#8216;real life&#8217; measurements. In this draft paper dated July 6, 2007, V. O. John and B. J. Soden from the Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, specifiy the newest data set available (since August 2002) &#8211; the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS), a high spectral resolution radiometer which was designed &#8220;to provide vertical profiles of atmospheric temperature and humidity with higher accuracy and better resolution than previous satellite instruments&#8221; (p. X-4). By means of this latest technology, the study draws the following conclusion (p. X-9): &#8220;The above comparisons have identified significant biases in the ability of current climate models to simulate the zonal, annual mean distribution of water vapor and temperature. However, the influence of water vapor and temperature on the climate response depends primarily on the projected perturbations to these fields, rather than on their mean state (which makes it even more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/01/01/science-of-climate-modelling-far-from-settled/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
