- May 20, 2009
- 144,334
- 66,694
- 2,330
A lot of flap yap there, Ian, with no links to peer reviewed articles to back it up.it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.
the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.
also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same..
what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.
theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.
CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.
so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.
the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.
I have peer reviewed this post and find it to be grossly misleading and highly inaccurate, therefore making it an ideal candidate for inclusion in the IPCC next publication
Last edited: