Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 Next
Comments 63501 to 63550:
-
jimb at 09:14 AM on 23 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
@ 26-27 Also, although nitrogen based fertilizers help to grow crops, they do not seem to be good for the ocean biosphere when the run off gets to the coastal areas.There is also seems to be some evidence that weeds are developing resistance to the chemical herbicides that GMO crops were designed to tolerate. Technological fixes seem to come with associated problems. -
Eric (skeptic) at 09:02 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
scaddenp, the decrease in dust from glacial to interglacial and the decrease in albedo from glacial to interglacial are both inapplicable to the current climate. They are part of the reason temperature rose so much with relatively small forcing changes in CO2 and solar. -
scaddenp at 08:54 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
CIMP5 has range of 2 to 4.6 Regarding feedbacks - I dont get the "applicable/not applicable bit". Feedback is response to temperature change not "co2 change" or "solar change" surely? -
DSL at 08:50 AM on 23 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Ugh. The 2nd Law thread does things to people. -
DSL at 08:49 AM on 23 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
YOGI: Wavenumber Wavelength Note the top and bottom X-axes. -
actually thoughtful at 08:47 AM on 23 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
The take-away is that scientists, truth seekers at their core, are simply not good at deceiving - this yet again underscores the vast body of scientific knowledge that tells us the world is warming, and man is to blame. -
YOGI at 08:47 AM on 23 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
@IanC, no I`ll dtract that, you are correct, the scales run in the opposite directions -
dana1981 at 08:41 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Eric, we just discussed the climate sensitivity consensus in Monckton Misrepresents (Part 1). -
YOGI at 08:40 AM on 23 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
@IanC, 1000 cm-1 is 10μm. http://www.highpressurescience.com/onlinetools/conversion.html You can also confirm that by looking at the ozone spike at 1000 cm-1 ~ 10μm. http://ber.parawag.net/images/Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands.jpg -
YOGI at 08:30 AM on 23 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Yes and there is also a nitrous oxide band at 4.5μm which has 298 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. This does not detract from the point that 6.0-7.5μm absorption displayed: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg cannot be due to CO2 as it does not absorb that band, period. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:29 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Hello jg, I didn't see you post before my last. The value of 97% is pretty much a straw man at this point, but perhaps you could indicate what the breadth of consensus is for high sensitivity. -
IanC at 08:28 AM on 23 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Yogi, No where in the article do the numbers 6-7.5 μm comes up. The closest will be "Carbon dioxide is the major contributor for emission seen between between about 600 and 750 cm-1". If this is what you are referring to, notice that 600 and 750 cm-1 is in fact the wavenumber, and it corresponds to ~13-16 μm in wavelength (see fig 1a). The absorption spectrum you've linked to indicates that CO2 indeed absorbs around these wavelegnths! -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:26 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
KR, the paleo chart shown at the bottom does not support the critique of Meyer. Meyer's part 2 can be rewritten as "CO2 warming will be substantially amplified by feedback effects" where "substantially" would be roughly 3C or more sensitivity. The feedbacks in the paleo record can be separated into applicable and nonapplicable. The applicable one is primarily the CO2 to warming amplification. However we have short circuited the amplifier and are applying CO2 directly so there is no feedback calculation to apply. Regarding nonapplicable, there is not much albedo or dust change compared to the glacial to interglacial transition, so those will not raise our target temperature. Other potential feedbacks are based on modern climate not the glacial to interglacial transition. The evidence for high sensitivity must therefore come from models. The last diagram in the op can be quantified without a climate model which will not have 97% consensus. I agree with the final question of the OP, which is that a better understanding is needed. -
Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Hi Eric: Thanks for your criticism. I accept your point about my last illustration. It implies a response to elevated CO2 levels that is proportional to that seen in the previous interglacial. Such illustrations should be accompanied by the projected forcing which is not as steep as the CO2 level. My error. I meant to show that the rate of change and expected levels of CO2 have no convenient precedent and therefore the expected changes should awaken our risk-averse qualities. My changes will acknowledge your contribution. jg -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
YOGI - Note the log scale on the X axis in that graph. There is a CO2 absorption band around 4.5μm.
[Source]
-
YOGI at 07:42 AM on 23 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
This is nonsense. There are no CO2 absorption bands at 6-7.5μm : http://ber.parawag.net/images/Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands.jpg -
scaddenp at 07:34 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
"Do you know why Knutti and Hegerl 08 do not have that in their analysis (only LGM and Royer, Berner and Park 07 which is 420 million years of data). " Well watch this space, but one of the issues is simply getting good data. It is much easier to determine maximum extent of ice, say, from geomorphology than it is to determine what the minimum extent was. Building global data sets is a long, slow effort and uncertainties will always be greater than for LGM. -
scaddenp at 07:28 AM on 23 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Re: winter regain. The relevant question really is what does climate theory predict for ice cover and what is the observations? Do we expect rapid decline in sea ice are in winter with rising GHG gases? No. Do we expect summer ice decline? yes. -
Michael of Brisbane at 07:18 AM on 23 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Thanks Phillippe. I agree with you. (although I do think my point is valid) -
skept.fr at 07:13 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Post scriptum (31) : I must add that the CMIP5 (future AR5) simulations give nearly the same range for equilibrium climate sensitivity, as it can be checked for example on slide 8 of this MetOffice Andrews et al 2011 conference (2,0-4,6 K for results of 9 AOGCMs). -
skept.fr at 07:05 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
On Meyers "Part 2) CO2-based warming will be amplified by feedback effects" Well, we can simply say that there is a consensus on that among the 23 independent models running for IPCC, as it can be seen on this page of AR4 2007 , with a 2,1-4,4 K range for equilibrium at 2xCO2. Scientists are free to formulate hypothesis about no-feedback ou negative-feedback response to GHG forcing, as Lindzen did with the Iris Effect. But they have to corroborate their hypothesis with observations and models. For the moment, there's nothing like that. I'm more skeptic about the robustness of "central estimate" for CS (3 K), it depends on the realism of models (for example, few in the AR4 had been coupled with carbon cycle models) and the details of these estimates will certainly change with time, for example with the new generation of Earth System Models. -
owl905 at 06:07 AM on 23 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
Moncton is more than a good debater; he's the classic definition of a demagogue. The 'argumentum ad populum' is a good example. Consensus in the AGW world means a consensus of evidence (AR4) that is strong enough for common sense to initiate a response. It isn't precautionary (just-in-case) - it's real. Climate Science & Opinion Moncton re-arranges the message to misrepresent that as opinion polls about AGW. He slides it into an argumentum fallacy presentation. Because there's so much attention to public opinion, no one notices his fallacy. Now he can launch the grenade that says its a product of their false groupthink opinion ... -
Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Eric (skeptic) - You appear to be (1) arguing for a low climate sensitivity by dismissing the applicability of paleo data (whether it comes from a warmer or colder climate). You are in addition (2) continuing to fail to acknowledge the modern observational data establishing climate sensitivity, or for that matter the models. You have (IMO) failed to support either aspect of your statements, or to present evidence that climate sensitivity is in fact lower than the ~3C/doubling estimated. I'm in agreement with Albatross. Could you please state clearly what portion of the OP critiquing Meyers assertions you feel is incorrect, and why? Because otherwise I fail to see your point. -
padruig at 06:00 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
I fear the discussion about this opinion piece may be misdirected. We are seeing a disturbing trend were someone without any background in any of the disciplines of climate science is given a wide public forum to express opinions about a topic that affects everyone on our planet. The authors objective isn't to argue the data or the science but to dull the general public's response to the results and conclusions of the scientific community at large. To quote "Climate of Fear" (Nature doi:10.1038/464141a) - "Scientists must not be so naive as to assume that the data speak for themselves." -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:57 AM on 23 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Michael, whether or not it is valid, your point is of no interest whatsoever. You just like to be able to use the word so you can fabricate ominous sounding sentences with it. Whatever. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:51 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Dikran, true. My arguments about sensitivity above are a separate issue since it doesn't matter how the CO2 gets there, it will have a particular, well-understood forcing whether coming quickly from modern emissions or from slow paleo temperature rises. -
NewYorkJ at 05:34 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
"IPCC assumed that strong positive feedbacks dominated" Thanks for highlighting that, as that also jumped out at me when reading the piece. On the contrary, Meyer assumed that whoever told him that was correct, or falsely assumed that positive feedbacks are assumed. Reading the comments section of that article and then the follow-up article that references his previous one, it appears Meyer does not care to engage with critics or learn from mistakes. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:17 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Eric (skeptic) You are missing the point, which is that the amount of radiative forcing due to CO2 depends purely on the amount of CO2 that is actually in the atmosphere. We control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the oceans, our fossil fuel emissions are large enough to overpower the natural envrionments ability to restore equilibrium. Even if the oceans continue to be a net carbon sink, atmospheric CO2 levels won't start to go down until we cut anthropogenic emissions rather drastically. Sadly it is highly likely that the oceans will saturate at some point (possibly quite soon), which will make the required cuts in emissions needed to reduce atmospheric CO2 even sharper. This is one of the very good reasons for doing something meaningful now; it will mean we have more room for manoever later. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:01 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
KR, yes, prior interglacials are much better comparisons than glacial to interglacial transitions because of the similarities of climate base state. Do you know why Knutti and Hegerl 08 do not have that in their analysis (only LGM and Royer, Berner and Park 07 which is 420 million years of data). Dikran, thanks for the reply. The paleo depiction above shows how a temperature rise is amplified by CO2, outgassing on short timescales and other sources on longer timescales. The red dashed line ("what will this give us?") is what we would nominally get by heating the oceans by 16K according to ref 5 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law Except we are only going to heat the oceans by 3C over the next few centuries so during that time the oceans will always be absorbing our extra CO2. Albatross, IMO the labels on the last figure above are not meaningful ("if this gave us this, what will this give us?"). My answer is it won't give us nearly what is implied by that figure because the oceans will absorb lots of our CO2. I either am wrong or right about that, but I am not trying to obfuscate. -
paulhtremblay at 04:44 AM on 23 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam, It is time to step up your game instead of all the superficial one line responses. You have been asked to go to specific threads to discuss your arguments rather than discussing them here. I noticed that since you first started posting, two very specific criticisms of Mockton have appeared on SkS. You have not posted there, and I guess that is because you know vague arguments are easier to defend than specific ones. You bring up Douglas as an example of a peer reviewed article that supports Mockton. In fact, it does not. See: Real Climate For one discussion. Or, better still, post to this specific thread: Skeptical Science You also write that it is only my "opinion" that the MWP was not global. No. That is the scientific consensus. That latest Mockton thread discusses just that: Skeptical Science If you really think our understanding of the MWP is wrong, if you are a true skeptic, you should post there with specifics. Simply dismissing my criticism as "opinion" isn't very skeptical at all. -
Alex C at 03:44 AM on 23 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
Yes Dana, we can see the page because we're authors. I'll make the change, thanks for the catch pbjamm. -
pbjamm at 03:28 AM on 23 February 2012Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Not that any more evidence of Rick Santorum's denial of Climate Science is needed but here is a new quote: “I refer to global warming as not climate science, but political science..." -
JMurphy at 03:23 AM on 23 February 2012Ben Santer rewrote the 1995 IPCC report
It is also worth looking at the original backing for Santer from his colleagues and others, in response to the original attack using this fallacy which came from Frederick Seitz all the way back in June 1996 - he could obviously see that Global Warming obfuscation was the next step after the tobacco one he'd previously been involved with. Amazing when you think how long these people have been attacking and misinforming, and yet they still haven't been able to come up with anything substantial - they just resurrect the same old zombies time and time again. -
pbjamm at 03:21 AM on 23 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
dana1981@11 not quite fixed the link (2nd in OP) points to : http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-17-denniss-debate.html should be : http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-17-denniss-debate-part1.html -
JMurphy at 03:02 AM on 23 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
CraigR, the WWF and Greenpeace are world-wide organisations involved in a lot of other issues apart from Global Warming. You could find out the actual details by going to their websites : Best known as the world’s leading independent conservation body...[involved in] Conservation Tackling Climate Change Sustainability WWF UK - What we do We care about how all life on Earth shares our unique planet. WWF UK - About us OUR MISSION WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment, and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature by: • conserving the world’s biological diversity; • ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable; • reducing pollution and wasteful consumption. Tackling Climate Change [they spent just over] £7.5million worldwide WWF UK - Financial Report 2011 Since our founding, we’ve invested nearly US$10 billion in more than 13,000 conservation projects in over 150 countries. And while our mission has developed over the years, it remains as clear as ever: “to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.” WWF International (It doesn't itemise Global Warming in this 2010 Report but you can see that most of their work is to do with Conservation) The underlying goal of all our work is a green and peaceful world - an earth that is ecologically healthy and able to nurture life in all its diversity. Greenpeace - Our vision We investigate, expose and confront environmental abuse by governments and corporations around the world. We champion environmentally responsible and socially just solutions, including scientific and technical innovation. Greenpeace - How we make change happen We do not accept funding from any political parties, governments or corporations. As ever, the great majority (95%) of our income came from individual supporters, who donated an average of €77 a year to Greenpeace. The remainder came from foundation funding. Climate & Energy €25,027,000 Greenpeace International - Annual Report 2010 Now, how does all that compare to a secretive Conservative group, working just in America, with an agenda to undermine science ? -
dana1981 at 03:02 AM on 23 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
Monckton illustrates very well why the 'skeptics' are always calling for public debates, and why climate realists rarely participate. Public debates are 'won' by whoever can make the most convincing-sounding argument. It has little do to with who is actually right, or there would be no purpose for debate teams. Monckton clearly does not understand climate science, but he is an excellent debater. Thus he "wins" debates by convincing the audience he's right when all he's really doing is misinforming them by misrepresenting his sources. Apologies for any broken links in the article - they've now been fixed. -
Albatross at 03:00 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Eric, This is classic obfuscation by you. This post is about Meyer's very misguided understanding of the science. What is your position on his claims? Could you please let us know specifically which of his claims you agree with or support and which ones that you do not agree with or support. And one can take it from there. Open-minded and informed climate scientists know very well that model reconstructions constrained by paleo data data from periods that were both warmer and cooler than today's current climate, including independent estimates based on data from the last 130 years or so also support a value near +3 C for a doubling of CO2. This is why people like Pielke and Lindzen avoid the paleo data like the plague because it completely undermines their claims of homeostasis and strong negative feedbacks. You continue to argue against a massive amount of very solid and robust science, multiple independent lines of evidence and last but not least basic physics. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:14 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Eric (sceptic) Thank you for clarification, I think I can now see the misunderstanding. The exchange of carbon between the oceans and atmosphere is principally governed by two factors, ocean temperature and the difference in partial pressure between the surface waters and the atmosphere. Thus the warming of the oceans that we are seeing is increasing the flux from the ocean to the atmosphere now just as it did in the paleoclimate record. However, due to anthropogenic emissions there is now an increasingly large difference in partial pressures between the atmosphere and surface waters, which pushes the fluxes in the other direction. The only difference between now and then is anthropogenic emissions, the oceans are acting according to the laws of physics in the same way now as they did then. Essentially the temperature driven outgassing is happening, it is just that it is being masked by the pressure differential driven uptake*. Unless you have an argument that climate sensitivity is different now than it was then, the effect of CO2 on global temperatures depends only on the atmospheric concentration, the details of how that came to be is irrelevant. * it isn't really correct to think of it as an uptake, it is more difficult for CO2 to move into the atmosphere the more CO2 it contains, and easier for CO2 to move into the surface waters the less CO2 it contains relative to the atmosphere. Thus it isn't purely uptake, but a change in the net flux. -
Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
CBDunkerson - You have to be very careful about the pixie/leprechaun distinction: you can get in real trouble over that at the annual Mythic World Cup. The fans take such things quite seriously... -
CBDunkerson at 02:05 AM on 23 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
KR wrote: "If you know any magical leprechauns who can zero that..." Hmmm, it looks like I was in error here. I incorrectly cited pixies, not leprechauns. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. -
Stephen Baines at 01:43 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
"Nothing in that chain depends on amount of CO2, only the changes. " I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying the CO2 temp feedback does not depend on CO2 concentrations? I hope not, because that would be wrong. The changes are only relevant to the CO2 temp feedback because of their effect on CO2 concentrations. -
Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Eric (skeptic) - One of the more similar paleo periods would be the Eemian Period, with temperatures 1-2C higher than present. And sea levels 4-6 meters higher, I'll note. Perhaps that would be a better comparison in your eyes than glacial periods? We're likely to exceed the Eemian temperature change given the current path; in fact, I find it hard to believe we won't. You are of course correct, in that given different situations (such as extensive ice cover) there may well be differences in climate sensitivity to forcings. I will note, however, that all of the evidence (short term observations, paleo evidence, basic physics and modeling) points to roughly the same 3C sensitivity per 2xCO2:
Hence I would consider claims that climate sensitivity would be (currently) low due to differences in conditions from some paleo situations to be extremely wishful thinking, and quite frankly contradicted by the available evidence.
---
Side note - I do not see how you can claim that weather patterns are excluded from paleo or other measures of climate sensitivity - since they measure the total climate system response to a forcing.
-
muoncounter at 01:34 AM on 23 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Michael of Brisbane: "I totally agree that the Earth's Climate should not be an industry" Under your definition, that would mean there should not be any "economic activity" nor "a great deal of time or effort expended" nor any "hard work." Thus every human endeavor other than sitting and contemplating your navel is an 'industry.' So your statement is nonsensically over-generalized. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:28 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
KR, the answer to your #18 is that analysis of CO2 and TSI ignores forcing from weather pattern changes. An increase in convection globally, for example, will cause the GAT to be cooler, all other things being equal. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:23 AM on 23 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Dikran the paleo record shows an amplification process, namely a rise in ocean temperature causing an offgassing of CO2 causing a temperature rise causing more offgassing and other positive feedbacks. Nothing in that chain depends on amount of CO2, only the changes. Bernard, the other forcings and feedbacks are modeled, thus the paleo evidence is the same as modern model-based evidence (not independent). KR, the albedo and dust feedbacks that are evident in the paleo chart above are not applicable to today's climate (e.g. see red squares) -
Bernard J. at 01:22 AM on 23 February 2012DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
Ah, Muoncounter, your first point is well taken. It was almost sufficient to move me to tears of frustration. Fortunately that clip (which I'd not seen before) provided the antidote! I guess all we can do is to try as hard as ever to help shine the light into the dank dungeons of denialism and intellectual decay, and hope that there's a substantive shift in the balance before it's beyond repairing. -
Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Ken Lambert - CBDunkerson is quite correct here: even if the TOA imbalance were zeroed tomorrow, the time lag of various feedbacks such as ice, vegetative albedo, etc., will cause temperature to increase from present levels. I stand corrected on that. This is because the climate has not yet caught up with the current imbalance. Best estimates for the TOA imbalance are around 0.5 W/m^2, with a fairly strong likelyhood that it's only that low due to high aerosol levels (which won't last). If you know any magical leprechauns who can zero that, please call them in. Otherwise we will have to deal with the situation as it actually stands - and work on reducing GHG emissions to mitigate ongoing climate change. -
DSL at 01:18 AM on 23 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Actually, Michael, Heartland is involved in the anti-science industry. They manufacture and distribute uncertainty within democracies, forcing people to rely more heavily on politicians, PR organizations, and/or traditional sources of authority. Climate science just happens to be one of their targets. Whenever science gets in the way of easy profit, organizations like Heartland are there. Out of one side of their mouths they'll spew a defense of the free market, and out of the other side they'll manipulate markets through campaigns of misinformation and doubt. This is, if all the forms of it are taken together, a huge industry. Companies used to grow their own market manipulation tools, but now there are hundreds of independent firms and organizations for hire. The difference between something like Greenpeace and Heartland is that Greenpeace, at least when it started, was out to prove a point: the Earth is a dynamic system, and if we treat it as a collection of disintegrated pieces of private property, we're going to whack the system. Big time. Heartland was started to create doubt where little actually existed (I'm not saying that no doubt existed/exists in climate science; I'm saying precisely "where little actually existed") in order to achieve economic and political goals. Finding the truth mattered/matters to Greenpeace. Finding the truth never mattered to Heartland. Encouraging the Heartlands of the world amounts to encouraging the death of science as an epistemology. In other words, no matter what you believe about climate science, supporting the social construction of knowledge through the scientific method is inconsistent with supporting Heartland. -
Ogemaniac at 01:15 AM on 23 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
I almost think the best way to handle a Gish Galloper in a debate is not to try to refute all their lies, but rather 1: First explain to the audience that it takes much longer to refute a lie than tell one 2: Spend the rest of your time absolutely gutting one of the Galloper's lies, showing in detail not only how it false and misleading, but also the process by which the Galloper twisted it and his or her history of repeating the lie despite having been corrected on multiple occasions. -
Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
To extend my last comment a bit - temperature response to forcings gives the total feedback, while other proxies or direct evidence (such as ice-core CO2 levels) helps break out various individual feedbacks such as CO2 response. Again, paleo evidence provides one of the most straightforward indications of total feedbacks to climate forcings, within the uncertainty range of the paleo records.
Prev 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 Next
