Quote:
Originally Posted by biker1
What has gone on it the distant past isn't really the issue. The issue is "do anthropogenic increases of CO2 create a problem?". As I wrote in a previous post, if anthrogogenic increases in CO2 are a problem then the mechanism is that it produces some degree of warming which then positively feedbacks to create additional warming. Yes, water vapor is a more important than CO2 (and clouds are even more important) but CO2 caused warming can increase the amount of water vapor in the air. That is how it is theorized to work. This is what numerical models are showing. The models are not what you think. They solve the Navier-Stokes fluid equations on a rotating sphere while incorporating the physics of radiative transfer, water phase change, and turbulence, also while interacting with an ocean circulation model. The models are dynamical. The scientists working in this area are pretty clear about their results and the uncertainties in the models. The accuracy of the models can certainly be questioned but suggesting that scientists are essentially fudging the results is not reasonable. The real problem, that doesn't appear to get much attention, is that the various models used in the IPCC reports are not independent of each other and therefore all show the same trends. The reason they are not independent of each other is that the various models solve essentially the same equations. Do we have a problem? I am not sure anybody really knows. Also, there isn't much anyone can do about it with the possible exception of starting to build CO2 sequestering machines at a very rapid rate.
|
I think we pretty much agree on this issue. While I doubt any of these scientists are intentionally "fudging" their results, I still think it is possible for the economic and political bias to filter in to some extent. But even if there is no bias at all, which scientists get published and which ones appear on MSNBC may very well be cherry picked by the "powers that be"