• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Climate Change Denial (3 Viewers)

Simon M

Well-known member
This is continued from the Baer's Pochard threat on the rarities forum but it was completely off topic so here is my reply to Squonky in reponses to his claims that global mean temperatures are not rising...

Do you realise how patronising that sounds?

Not really, but I was assuming you’re not a anti-science crackpot, which it has become apparent from your reply you are.

And don't you think it's possible that YOU have any kind of bias? Could you not consider the possibility that someone else is equally well-versed in climate science as yourself, but applies a somewhat more critical eye to some of the evidence and arguments which are presented?

What bias would make me positively disposed to believing in climate change if it wasn’t real? What benefit would I or any reputable scientist stand to gain? Because in the case of climate change denial the reason for bias is very clear. Defending the status quo clearly means less chance of taxation, less chance of new pollution regulations, less chance of profit reduction for big business and less chance of anyone being asked to chance their lifestyle. I would feel much better if climate change were false, but it isn’t. Most deniers also have a lot gain by defending big business and have more to lose from changing the status quo than I do.

The critique is not by a blogger, but by Brice Bosnich, a retired scientist and FRS whose letter is being quoted by the blogger.

Retired being the important part of the sentence. Not a current scientist, not anyone who is in anyway respected for their scientific reputation or critical thinking skills.

Your reference (1) is to the NOAA land record. But land is only 30% of the earth's surface and is disproportionately affected by such factors as siting of weather stations. NOAA's combined temperature record for both land and sea shows a 0.7 degrees C temperature rise, exactly as stated by Bosnich. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/servic...001-201012.gif
Furthermore, NOAA is not the only non-satellite temperature record. Another is HADCRUT, which according to this page suggests a 0.8 degrees C warming since 1857, much closer to Bosnich's figure than to yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HadCRUT
But as you are versed in climate science, surely you must be aware of all of the above, so my question to you is, why did you choose the NOAA land record?

Yes I am aware of them, sorry to disappoint your overly eager ‘gotcha’ moment. The reason I used land temperatures is because sea-surface temperatures are demonstrably buffered by deep ocean circulations, which last hundreds of years and lessen the impact upon the sea temperature.

Also, even if we were to accept the NOAA land graph as the best temperature record, it shows a rise of 0.5 degrees C from 1880 to 1940, when (according to my understanding) CO2 is unlikely to have been a factor. Are you not curious as to what caused this?
Again a fallacy. Records from the numerous Ice Cores show that atmospheric CO2 increased from ~295 to ~310 ppm between 1880 and 1940 (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html), co-inciding with significant warming beginning in 1910. This graphic (reference to multiple datasets) demonstrates that well. The first 30 cooling during 1880 – 1910 was due to the effects of CO2 release being compensated by reduced solar irradiance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A..._temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png

I earlier explained that […] there is no warming in the last 8 years because ‘noise’ created by natural climate variability means that temperature datasets do not produce identifiable trends over such short periods

The idea that the lack of significant warming in the last 15 years (now; Brice's letter is from two years ago) is due to 'noise' on top of a warming trend which is set to continue, is unproven. Even if the warming does continue, the question of whether it is due to CO2 emissions rather than natural variability remains.

As far as I recall 12 + 2 = 14 not 15. And actually the data from the last two year have be neither compiled or analysed yet so we can’t really comment on more than 12 years. And no there is not a question between CO2 emissions and natural variability as causal factors since long-term trends cannot be explained by natural variability. The reasons for the last 12 years not showing the same pattern is indeed unproven, but it is not required and indeed is not unexpected of a dataset reflecting athroprogenic climate change

You have not read Brice's words carefully enough, he is saying that there has been no change in the RATE of sea level rise, not no change in sea level. In other words, the rate at which sea level was rising 100 years ago, when CO2 emissions could not have been a factor, is the same as the rate it is rising at now.

One would not expect a steady rise in the rate at which sea levels rise since glacial and ice pack melt does not correlate in a linear way with temperature rise. I don’t know enough about ice-sheet break up to go into specifics but this illustrates some of the difficulties. http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ea-level-rise-model-failure-is-the-key-issue/
Also Noteworthy is that actually sea level rose by an average of 1mm / yr during most of 20th Century and by 3mm / yr during 1993 – 2003. I think that counts as an increase in the rate of rise.
You then cite this news publication (not scientific literature) as evidence that glacial melt is not occurring. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...iers-mountains
It refers to the upper Himalayas over a 10 year period. It also contains the quote "lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this" so at best you’ve spotted a small amount of natural variation in a specific region. Again this is expected. Good work.


The letter together with Bosnich’s critique run as follows: […]There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring . The evidence comes from […] and changes to many physical and biological systems (Which ones, the sheep of St Kilda?) You commented:
I think Bosnich's point here is that any effects of warming do not say anything about the causes of that warming and without reading beyond the abstract of your reference, I don't think it has anything to say about this either.

No, it isn’t and you know it isn’t Bosnich explicitly says there is no evidence of warming in biological systems, he made no mention of ‘well there is evidence but it’s about the causes’. Stop shifting the issues you are debating. How can you even pass comment on critical thinking when your argument construction includes changing the meaning of what you’re defending and then saying ‘too long didn’t read’ when evidence which completely undermines your theories is highlighted? Incidentally that paper is a review which includes 96 scientifically proven examples of what Bosnich says doesn’t exist. http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol206/Walther et al Nature 2002.pdf
I also stated that coupled with other suitable surrogates of longer term temperature trends from ice-cores, tree rings and lake sediments the recent temperature record shows unequivocal evidence that temperature’s have begun to increase at a rate not witnessed for hundreds of thousands of years, if ever.

Do the ice cores really show this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...insolation.jpg

The graph you display shows temperature rising by up to 10 degrees over 10,000 year periods (being generous on 10 degrees aswell) at the end of ice ages this works out at 1 degree per thousand years which is far less than what has been witnessed in the last hundred years. Also we are not at the end of an ice age, we already witnessed that warming and are starting out at one of the temperature peaks on the graph.

With regard to tree rings, they were the main proxy for the famous 'hockey stick' graph. On this subject, mathematically literate people should read this book then make their own minds up:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Illusion-Cli...9068486&sr=8-1


“ The Hockey Stick Illusion; Climategate and the Corruption of Science”
Seven independent reviews agreed that there was no ground to the claims of corruption or doctoring of evidence in the supposed climategate scandal and most commentators agreed that the conspiracy was of media sensationalism and right-wing influences mist-informing the public. And the underlying conclusions of the hockeystick as well as the validity of the proxies used have been re-affirmed many times, too many to bother expanding upon.

[Bosnich’s] reference [13] shows no rise, as he states.
[14] does show a rise, so like you I am not sure why he references this graph in support of this claim. He would have been better to reference the ARGO-era data, which is now our most reliable dataset on global ocean heat content, and which I don't think shows any rise for the last 9 years. However, even if there has been a rise starting before the ARGO era, neither he nor I are particularly sceptical about there having been a rise in global temperatures, merely about the attribution (cause).


Apologies I meant 14 and 15 which both show rises but apparently something is not reliable if it shows a rise? And at the same time you move the goalposts you can’t pretend it’s not real you’re only interested in cause. Nice.

This is snide name-calling. Do you mean that because I post a link to a letter from one scientist to another, I am a bit like a holocaust denier?

Yep, or an evolution denier, or a denier of the germ theory of disease. They all deal in the denial of evidence to suit their own worldview.

But if it's a professional climate scientist you want to hear from, how about Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT

You mean the one half-reputable go-to guy for climate change deniers who other more reputable scientists have described as a lifelong contrarian who "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." (Jerry Malhmam)

As you can see above, I don't ignore the views or the work of those who actually work in that field. I have also looked closely at the work of those who promote the theory of CAGW (a good analysis is the book I referenced towards the end of my previous post). At the moment I find the arguments of those such as Bosnich and Lindzen more convincing.

Really but you didn’t get past the abstract of the peer-review article citing 97 examples of ecological consequences of climate change because you don’t ignore views.
It’s fine, believe what you want. But do not pretend you do it through any kind of scientific enquiry. Not when you switch from arguing ‘the climate to is not changing’ to ‘it’s not because of CO2’ when you are proven wrong. And don’t make out like you any different from any other type of science or fact denial. Sure climate change is more complex but it’s really political and worldview motivations which mean you don’t accept it, not scientific analysis. Finally please, do not present yourself as a naturalist or birder or wildlife enthusiast when the author you’re quoting recently wrote a book called “Conspiracy is Green”!
And before you try anymore baffling with pseudo-science I’m not going waste the time or energy responding to someone who obviously doesn’t deal in facts.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
This is continued from the Baer's Pochard threat on the rarities forum but it was completely off topic so here is my reply to Squonky in reponses to his claims that global mean temperatures are not rising...

Where did I claim this? Just to make clear, Bosnich, Lindzen, and all educated sceptics that I am aware of, accept the figure that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could lead, in the absence of any feedbacks, to a global mean temperature rise of about 1 degree C. It is the existence of significant positive feedbacks that we are most sceptical about.

Do you realise how patronising that sounds?

Not really, but I was assuming you’re not a anti-science crackpot, which it has become apparent from your reply you are.

Why do you have to be rude? You are the one who is not being scientific, in treating any questioning or scepticism this way. And your rudeness suggests emotional involvement, which is an obvious source of bias.

What bias would make me positively disposed to believing in climate change if it wasn’t real? What benefit would I or any reputable scientist stand to gain? ... Most deniers also have a lot gain by defending big business and have more to lose from changing the status quo than I do.

So in answer to my question no, you don't think it's possible that you could have any kind of bias. You also think that name-calling ("denier") is appropriate.

The critique is not by a blogger, but by Brice Bosnich, a retired scientist and FRS whose letter is being quoted by the blogger.

Retired being the important part of the sentence. Not a current scientist, not anyone who is in anyway respected for their scientific reputation or critical thinking skills.

Actually I thought the important part of the sentence was "blogger", which you thought the critique was by, but it wasn't. I would suggest that it's your bias which makes you seize on "retired" as the important part of the sentence.

The reason I used land temperatures is because sea-surface temperatures are demonstrably buffered by deep ocean circulations, which last hundreds of years and lessen the impact upon the sea temperature.

I find this unconvincing. Bosnich, like most people, quoted the combined land + sea record. I suspect you chose the NOAA land-only record because it allowed you to quote a larger figure.

Records from the numerous Ice Cores show that atmospheric CO2 increased from ~295 to ~310 ppm between 1880 and 1940 (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html), co-inciding with significant warming beginning in 1910.

Do you really believe that such a small CO2 rise could have caused a 0.5C rise in global average temperature?

This graphic (reference to multiple datasets) demonstrates that well. The first 30 cooling during 1880 – 1910 was due to the effects of CO2 release being compensated by increased solar irradiance.

Or so you've read, and accepted without any scepticism because it fits your bias.

And in fact I think that's what you've done with some of the other ideas, such as "the recent rise cannot be explained by natural variability", "sea level rise is accelerating" (have you looked at the latest figures?) etc.

You have certainly been misled about the validity of the 'hockey stick' graph and need to read "The Hockey Stick Illusion" before you make your mind up.

And as I'm sure you are aware, as well as Lindzen there are many other scientists who are sceptical of alarmist claims - Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Snr., Freeman Dyson spring to mind. Are they all "half-reputable"?

As you can see I'm not going to respond to the rest of your rebuttals point-by-point. You can interpret this as having won the argument if you want, but the truth is I don't have time to do it, then wait for you to rebut all of my rebuttals, then go through it all again, who knows how many times. Also I don't enjoy arguing, especially with someone so cock-sure that they can't entertain any scepticism or admit any bias, and as a result can't help being insulting.

Just to sum up the insults, in response to my posting a link to a letter by an FRS, and attempting to rebut your 'fallacies' in it (when you thought it was written by a blogger), you have used the terms "denier" (and agreed that I'm a bit like a holocaust denier), "anti-science", "pseudo-science", "crackpot", "witterings", and told me that I can't call myself a birder or naturalist. Logically you must think these insults also apply to Bosnich and the other scientists I've mentioned.

As I said I didn't want to get into an argument. After posting that link I probably should have just restricted myself to saying, "well, he's a Fellow of the Royal Society; why don't you take it up with him?" and that is probably what I'll do from now on :)
 
Last edited:
Oh so now you're a wounded dove? Well my insults stem from having to waste so much time bothering with your arguments and your switching from a 'I'm just a analysing this critically' to glib, 'but you can't prove it' persona in two posts. You were never going to be convinced by any of the scientific arguments and your avoidance of them now shows you never will be.
You were also the one who introduced the idea that climate change isn't happening (and that is what your original comments amounted to, not that there are no feedbacks) on a public forum on a subject only tangentally linked. And I do fail to see how someone who adopts the same lines of narrative of 'enviromnental conspiracies' as Glenn Beck could have any real affinity with the environment.
 
Last edited:
Oh so now you're a wounded dove?

I don't think I said that?

Well my insults stem from having to waste so much time bothering with your arguments and your switching from a 'I'm sceptical teach me' to glib, 'but you can't prove it' persona in two posts.

I wasn't aware that I adopted either of these personas, let alone switched from one to the other.

You were never going to be convinced by any of the scientific arguments and your avoidance of them now shows you never will be.

As I said, you can interpret my bowing out as having won the argument if you wish :)

You were also the one who introduced the idea that climate change isn't happening (and that is what your original comments amounted to, not that there are no feedbacks)

My original comments were intended to highlight Bosnich's point of view that the dangers of "carbon footprints" (such as Alan's) are being exaggerated.

on a public forum on a subject only tangentally linked.

The subject of carbon footprints was introduced by you.

And I do fail to see how someone who adopts the same lines of narrative of 'enviromnental conspiracies' as Glenn Beck could have any real affinity with the environment.

Not sure what you are referring to here. Is Glenn Beck on satellite TV? (I only have Freeview.) If you are referring to the book "The Hockey Stick Illusion", again I can only recommend that you read it before you make your mind up about the 'hockey stick' graph. I haven't read the other book you saw advertised on that blog, "Green Conspiracy", nor do I have any plans to read it. Possibly if I read it I might disagree with it and could possibly see the author in a different light, but without reading it I have no opinions either way.
 
My original comments were intended to highlight Bosnich's point of view that the dangers of "carbon footprints" (such as Alan's) are being exaggerated.
The subject of carbon footprints was introduced by you.

Actually it was mentioned briefly earlier in the thread by another poster. But for some reason you regarded that as an opportunity to suggest the scientific and world political concensus on climate change was fundamentally flawed, which I'm sure you are aware is something of an outsider opinion.

Not sure what you are referring to here. Is Glenn Beck on satellite TV? (I only have Freeview.) If you are referring to the book "The Hockey Stick Illusion", again I can only recommend that you read it before you make your mind up about the 'hockey stick' graph. I haven't read the other book you saw advertised on that blog, "Green Conspiracy", nor do I have any plans to read it. Possibly if I read it I might disagree with it and could possibly see the author in a different light, but without reading it I have no opinions either way.

Well if you are dis-associating yourself from Andrew Montford then I withdraw my comments about you not having an affinity for the environment. However I think you would do well to read his other works so that you're aware of the other narratives you're associating yourself with when you start recommending everyone read 'The Hockeystick Illusion'.
 
Last edited:
Well if you are dis-associating yourself from Andrew Montford then I withdraw my comments about you not having an affinity for the environment. However I think you would do well to read his other works so that you're aware of the other narratives you're associating yourself with when you start recommending everyone read 'The Hockeystick Illusion'.

Well I found the HSI to be a very calm, well-referenced description of the maths underlying the 'hockey stick' graph and of the communications between scientists which led to this maths being uncovered and critiqued, so it's hard to see how it would not stand even if Montford has questionable opinions in other areas (which I don't yet know). I'm much less interested in political conspiracies (or allegations of them) than I am in maths and science, so I doubt I will be buying the other book.
 
Last edited:
Actually I've just looked at the blurb for that other book and it seems to be something to do with the BBC, rather than alleging anything wider-reaching. I'm still not particularly interested in buying it though.
 
We already had a debate on the basis the facts speak for themselves and you decided to take your bat home when you didn't like how it turned out.

That's your characterisation of events, but let's leave it at that and allow everyone else to make their own minds up.
 
Can you two have this disagreement in private?

Don't read it if you don't like it. I've been finding the discussion interesting. In any case, it appears to have reached the valedictory fist-shaking stage so should terminate of its own accord soon.
 
Well I found the HSI to be a very calm, well-referenced description of the maths underlying the 'hockey stick' graph and of the communications between scientists which led to this maths being uncovered and critiqued

Montford’s comments about an email from Malcolm Hughes to Mike Mann (emphasis added by Montford):

"Mike — the only one of the new S.American chronologies I just sent you that already appears in the ITRDB sets you already have is [ARGE030]. You should remove this from the two ITRDB data sets, as the new version should be different (and better for our purposes).Cheers,
Malcolm"


Here’s what Montford has to say:

"It was possible that there was an innocent explanation for the use of the expression “better for our purposes”, but McIntyre can hardly be blamed for wondering exactly what “purposes” the Hockey Stick authors were pursuing. A cynic might be concerned that the phrase actually had something to do with “getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. And if Hughes meant “more reliable”, why hadn’t he just said so?"

This is conspiracy theory mongering at it's most blatant. The book is nothing more than a series of quotes mined from some illegally obtained private emails with a smattering of dodgy statistics courtesy of Steve McIntyre - who's own approach to statistics is not above critiscism. Take for example the series of hockey sticks he generated form red noise for a presentation to congress by Edward Wegman - and omitted all but the ones that fitted his story (10,000 graphs generated, only 12 presented - hmm).

I remain amazed that apparently intelligent people can spend so much time reading (and repeating) half-baked conspiracy theories by a chartered accountant with no history in climate science whilst failing to read any of the reams of actual science that are published every week that add support to the consensus position on climate change.

I'm sure anti-evolutionists find the works of Dembski & Jerry Bergman to be calm & well-referenced too. Of course that doesn't make them right.

It also begs the question, what does Squonk think of the other hockey sticks that are out there such as the McShane & Wyner temperature reconstruction, The timing of the cherry blossom festival at Kyoto, thearctic sea ice , or the cornucopia of hockey sticks available elsewhere (e.g. here, or here?
 
Last edited:
The book is nothing more than a series of quotes mined from some illegally obtained private emails with a smattering of dodgy statistics courtesy of Steve McIntyre

The first 16 out of 17 chapters were written before the 'climategate' e-mails release, and so do not refer to the e-mails. They are all about the maths and McIntyre's own attempts to reproduce the hockey stick graph. Only the 17th chapter deals with the e-mails, it was added hurriedly just before
publication, when the e-mails release happened. So for you to characterise the book as "nothing more than a series of quotes mined from some illegally obtained private emails with a smattering of dodgy statistics" seems a bit inaccurate.

Regarding McIntyre's statistics being 'dodgy', I don't want to try to defend the work of everyone whose name crops up in this discussion, especially someone like McIntyre who is so capable of defending himself, so I can only refer people to his blog 'Climate Audit' where he may have already dealt with your criticisms (or he may not; I don't know).

Take for example the series of hockey sticks he generated form red noise for a presentation to congress by Edward Wegman - and omitted all but the ones that fitted his story (10,000 graphs generated, only 12 presented - hmm).

Again I refer people to 'Climate Audit' and invite people to decide for themselves.

I remain amazed that apparently intelligent people can spend so much time reading (and repeating) half-baked conspiracy theories by a chartered accountant with no history in climate science whilst failing to read any of the reams of actual science that are published every week that add support to the consensus position on climate change.

I read all sorts :)

It also begs the question, what does Squonk think of the other hockey sticks that are out there

Well, let's just deal with one hockey stick at a time. McIntyre's efforts, as documented in Montford's book, seem to me to have shed some light on the validity of the most famous one. If people want to follow McIntyre's latest investigations and analyses they can do so at 'Climate Audit'.
 
The first 16 out of 17 chapters were written before the 'climategate' e-mails release, and so do not refer to the e-mails. They are all about the maths and McIntyre's own attempts to reproduce the hockey stick graph. Only the 17th chapter deals with the e-mails, it was added hurriedly just before
publication, when the e-mails release happened. So for you to characterise the book as "nothing more than a series of quotes mined from some illegally obtained private emails with a smattering of dodgy statistics" seems a bit inaccurate.
And yet the full title of the book makes its subject matter patently clear...
“ The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science”



Well, let's just deal with one hockey stick at a time. McIntyre's efforts, as documented in Montford's book, seem to me to have shed some light on the validity of the most famous one. If people want to follow McIntyre's latest investigations and analyses they can do so at 'Climate Audit'.

Yes, let just look at small mistakes in the minutiae of a single paper and the then claim that somehow that invalidates a myriad of other studies which all demostrate the same thing.
This is exactly the same ever-retreating 'worship of gaps' approach adopted by creationists when they claim one thing as 'a failure of evolutionary theory' are disproven, so choose something else. The eye is human irreducibly complex until they are proven obviously wrong, so then a bacterial flagella is irreducibly complex until they are again demostrated as wrong and so on.
Climate change deniers (and squonk even denies he's in denial) begin with "Climate change isn't real" until disproven when they switch too "It's the causes I'm interested in and CO2 is not the proven cause" until retreating for a desperate last stand at "CO2 may be a causal agent but there no feedbacks so warming won't b greater than 1 degree C". That is exactly what Squonk has done during this discussion.

And to those of that suggest we do this in private. I think that to allow public claims that climate change isn't real to remain unchallenged sets a dangerous precident especially on a website like this one where conservation science is a topic of discussion. Unchallenged claims of scientific conspiracy
or inaccuracy have previously been siezed on by anti-science lobbies as confirmation of their ideas and I don't intend to allow that to happen in any public forum, even if that means I come across as an irritable beligerent pillock in the process
 
.....even if that means I come across as an irritable belligerent pillock in the process

Simon,
Lucid, coherent, sound precis of current research, questioning anomalies, weight given to consistent evidence - no, you don't really qualify as a pillock.:t:

Now, belligerent? Not in my estimation.o:)

Irritable? Possibly, but perhaps you should have stopped beating about the bush sooner.:-O (Or should that be Bush?):eek!:
MJB
 
And yet the full title of the book makes its subject matter patently clear...
“ The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science”

As I said, only the final chapter deals with 'Climategate', so I think the publishers must have added that word to the title to try to cash in on the publicity surrounding that event at the time.

Yes, let just look at small mistakes in the minutiae of a single paper

They're not small mistakes!

and the then claim that somehow that invalidates a myriad of other studies which all demostrate the same thing.

I didn't claim that; I'm restricting myself to discussing the one analysed in this book, and referring people to McIntyre's blog where he may (or may not) have investigated the other 'hockey sticks'.

This is exactly the same ever-retreating 'worship of gaps' approach adopted by creationists when they claim one thing as 'a failure of evolutionary theory' are disproven, so choose something else. The eye is human irreducibly complex until they are proven obviously wrong, so then a bacterial flagella is irreducibly complex until they are again demostrated as wrong and so on.

As this keeps coming up, let me reassure you that I'm not a creationist :)

Climate change deniers (and squonk even denies he's in denial) begin with "Climate change isn't real"

I don't think I began with this?

they switch too "It's the causes I'm interested in and CO2 is not the proven cause" until retreating

Actually, I haven't retreated from that - I still don't think it's the proven cause. I think it's a possible cause, but like Bosnich, Lindzen, etc. I am not sure that poorly understand natural factors, which seem to have caused climate change in the past, have been excluded.

for a desperate last stand at "CO2 may be a causal agent but there no feedbacks so warming won't b greater than 1 degree C".

I didn't say there won't be feedbacks, but I (like Bosnich, Lindzen, etc.) am sceptical about the feedbacks being positive. If they are negative, the warming would be less than 1 degree C. I refer you to Bosnich's letter on the evidence re. negative vs. positive feedbacks. By all means feel free to disagree with him.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top