Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4
The ipcc said they had been over estimating the effect that CO2 had in the climate by double what it actually is.
Is the ipcc not at least backed up by a bunch of scientists?
People have been saying man made global warming is settled science for years now. But then the ipcc says virtually everyone has been wrong all along about the effects CO2 has.
How is it settled science if stuff keeps changing and only a small part has measurable values assigned?
I'm assuming some where some one has assigned measurable numbers to at least some things. But no one can seem to find them. So when I say "some", it's the benefit of the doubt.
|
*The General Circulation Models give a range of possible quanta,and probabilities.
*The researchers who do the modeling submit all the data,and after that,they have no say in what the IPCC reports.
*The climatologists are saying that the IPCC is using too conservative of values,and that what is being observed is twice what was predicted,not the other way around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know from proxy data,what Earth's paleo record is,and the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and average temperatures.
They've been able to reverse and forward the models and get a good fits from records or more recent recorded data.That's all they can hope for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never have I seen where the IPCC disputes the climate science.