RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Couldn’t make it this year (San Fran is a bit of a hike from the UK), which is a shame because it is one hell of an uber-conference.

    One observation about I have about the AGU is that it is a rather spectacular antithesis to the picture of climate science that many of the deniers like to paint. Thousands of scientists discussing and critically assessing each each other’s work on the cutting edge, as opposed to conspiring together about how they can continue to hoodwink the general public on behalf of a communist world government (or something). The fact that the whole time, they’re rubbing shoulders with scientists whose work is connected with the fossil fuel industry just goes to further dispel the myth.

    Comment by JamesA — 6 Dec 2011 @ 4:35 AM

  2. On the inability to have some discussion of papers, it is not the AGU that dictates this, it is the convener of the session. Conveners are able to schedule as few talks as they wish in their oral session, allowing for example an empty 15 or 30 minute slot at the end to hold a longer discussion. You can even have a panel discussion. It’s basically your (convener) session to do with what you like. The problem is, as you can anticipate, that everyone wants their chance to talk for 15 minutes, or more!

    Comment by Mike Ellis — 6 Dec 2011 @ 8:57 AM

  3. Here is a nice poster which would go well with our earlier discussion about trees retaining their leaves longer.

    Comment by Dan H. — 6 Dec 2011 @ 12:26 PM

  4. Any progress to report on coupling global models with detailed ice pack effects? At a symposium on climate change at Woods Hole two (or so) years back, there was mention that the models did not have a coupling into models for ice pack or ice mass effects, e.g,. Greenland and Antarctica, because of the poor state of understanding dynamics, let alone the complexity of modeling these.

    Comment by Jan Galkowski — 6 Dec 2011 @ 3:06 PM

  5. When you find the time, could you unsnarl this sentence, please? “Some good points were made about the non-Gaussian nature of observed distributions the semantic challenges in explain attribution when there are both proximate and ultimate causes.”

    Comment by CM — 6 Dec 2011 @ 3:11 PM

  6. Yes, please do explain the point made by #5, “CM says”; I. too am totally baffled by the wording.

    Comment by D. Trent — 6 Dec 2011 @ 7:50 PM

  7. Ok I’ll try:
    “Some good points were made about the non-Gaussian nature of observed distributions and the semantic challenges in explaining attribution when there are both proximate and ultimate causes.”

    Let’s really appreciate the fact that RC group is bloging from the conference at all, and give them a break on close enough syntax.

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 6 Dec 2011 @ 9:57 PM

  8. Pete (#7), thanks, that would make sense. (No pedantry intended. I honestly couldn’t make it out, I thought two different sentences must have got mixed up).

    Comment by CM — 7 Dec 2011 @ 8:05 AM

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.281 Powered by WordPress