Post by duwayne on Aug 28, 2015 14:53:59 GMT
If I ran the IPCC I'd try to make the output as useful and unbiased as possible. Here are 3 things I'd cover in depth in the next report.
1) Could aerosols injected in the upper levels of the atmosphere be effective in controlling global warming? Compare the cost-effectiveness of adding aerosols with other strategies for dealing with global warming.
2) Compare satellite-based temperatures with surface-based temperatures over the time since satellite temperatures were available. Assess the accuracy and significance of the two methods.
3) Ignoring the models, determine what the CO2 climate sensitivity has actually been using various techniques for making the measurements? How does this compare to the model predictions?
All discussions and conclusions in the report should take the analysis of the above 3 items into account. These are not something to be relegated to the footnotes but are in fact at the heart of the global warming issue.
1) Could aerosols injected in the upper levels of the atmosphere be effective in controlling global warming? Compare the cost-effectiveness of adding aerosols with other strategies for dealing with global warming.
2) Compare satellite-based temperatures with surface-based temperatures over the time since satellite temperatures were available. Assess the accuracy and significance of the two methods.
3) Ignoring the models, determine what the CO2 climate sensitivity has actually been using various techniques for making the measurements? How does this compare to the model predictions?
All discussions and conclusions in the report should take the analysis of the above 3 items into account. These are not something to be relegated to the footnotes but are in fact at the heart of the global warming issue.
