AQ Acoustique Quality Donna Centrica

TQdZDsVraCQNXlZtZAk [67.125.30.*]

22.12.2012 00:20

eeOaFmaemMbmavjGta

Questing Vole,Your post is well thought out, if rhtear wordy. It is interesting in that in encapsulates in one post the complete package of arguments used by the pro AGW. Without wanting to go through your entire post line by line, I would nonetheless like to make some comments.Firstly, nobody denies (I hope) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increases would lead to rising temperatures. However, the question which nobody has an answer to is what is the actual climate sensitivity to a change in CO2 leves? Most scientists do agree though, that based on basic radiative physics, the effect of a doubling of CO2 levels would lead all else being equal to an increase in average global temperature of about 1.2C. This arises from the assumed radiative forcing to the doubling of 3.7 Watts per metre squared. The 1.2C increase is as a result of using the Stefan-Boltzman equation to solve for this increase in the radiation budget for black bodies. Where scientists are not agreed though, is the actual sensitivity to CO2 increases in the real world, the world governed by feedbacks of water vapour, cloud etc. The IPCC models all assume that a positive feedback results, which will leverage the effect of CO2. Other scientists such as Lindzen, Spencer, Christy etc, have cited evidence that feedback is net negative which would lead to a lower temperature increase than 1.2C.Also, I should add, that your assertion that none of the models can account for the current warming without CO2. None, is a tautolgy. It shows either that they are correct, or that there are other forces at work which have not been taken into account. There is also a large tranche in your post which amounts to appeals to authority. Of course, all the scientific bodies assert that CO2 increases will lead to dangerous warming, but as you will note, these statements are actually penned by a handfull of individuals committee members most of whom are not climate scientists. It is noteworthy that there has been some backlash from paid up members of those societies, such as the APS and Royal Society. The latter has now rewritten its previous alarmist statement.Contrary to your believe, the recent speight of extreme weather is not unprecendented. There is evidence that the arctic ice was very low in the early twentieth century; extreme droughts occured in the American mid west in the 1930 s; NASA has acknowledged that there is no connection between last years Russian heat wave and climate change; accurate satellite monitoring of ice has only taken place since the 1970 s. Other citations in the IPCC report were also taken from grey literature. The assertion that the Amazon rainforest (which you mention) is very sensitive to drying out and dying was taken from a paper that actually looking at the effects of grazing, not climate change. A further paper has shown the rain forest to be extremely resilient in the face of a recent drought.I hope that you will consider some of these points with an open mind, and take away the thought that the effect of CO2 is not as straightforward or as dire as the IPCC would like us to believe.

ODPOVĚDĚT