Skip to main content

View Diary: CCSOS: Climate change just isn't Santa anymore. (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Is someone who claims that the net sensistivity is (0+ / 0-)

    probably 1.5C +- .5C rather than 3.0C a "climate denialist" or should we apply some other term?  How about a researcher who has a reconstruction that disagrees with Mann et al  regarding the MWP and LIA temperature excursions?

    Your diary glosses the real issues.  Every serious climate researcher understands the "simple physics" of direct radiative forcing by CO2.  But there is nothing simple about the aggregate feedbacks including cloud and ice albedo or the dynamics of ocean currents.

    There is nothing wrong with mounting a political campaign to change energy and environmental policy based on the risks of AGW.  But beware of making claims that are not supported by evidence.

    Where are we, now that we need us most?

    by Frank Knarf on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:42:42 PM PDT

    •  I'm not glossing anything. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citisven, QDMacaw, KJG52

      I'm pointing out the flaws in the denialists propoganda. And my claims here are supported by 150 years worth of evidence.

      I am well aware of the state of climate science. You might note that I've not discussed climate forcing and feedback in any direct way. I've only pointed out that our current temperature trends cannot be reproduced without including anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

      I have not said anything at all about aggregate feedbacks or predictions about how much the earth will warm. But whether we warm 2 or 3 or 4 degrees Celsius isn't the point of the diary.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site