|
Post by socold on Apr 3, 2010 22:16:38 GMT
They're wrong. I believe human emissions warm the climate and that's because of the science. It's that simple. My politics don't even enter into it.
Which is apparently the complete opposite of the eureferedum blog, because if you look around that blog you get the feeling that the science is just something that has inconveniently bothered their politics. Their reaction is predictable but sad.
What I mean by this is that they could accept the science but attack the government's "solutions" and carbon trading, etc and argue that we should just adapt to future climate change rather than reducing emissions. But what they do instead is dismiss the science. I guess that might be politically easier.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 4, 2010 0:56:29 GMT
It is impossible to write a modeling program as the most basic scientific questions have not been answered. For example, the question as to whether the planet's feedback response is negative or positive has not been answered. If the planet's feedback response is zero, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels from 0.028% to 0.056% percent will warm the planet 1.2C. The IPCC predicted most likely warming for a doubling of CO2 is 3C to a high of 4.5C which assumes massive positive feedback. How can they make that prediction if there there is data that shows the feedback is negative not positive? If the planet's feedback response is negative (planetary cloud increase to resist increase.) the amount of warming will be less 1.2C. ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI3461.1
|
|