A New Twist in the Climate Change Debate?
August 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm
(This post was last modified: August 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm by ManMachine.)
A report in the UK edition of The Economist based on what it says is a leaked draft of the September IPCC report is claiming the IPCC is set to revise its estimate of Climate Sensitivity downwards.
Climate Sensitivity (the extent to which the world will warm as Carbon Dioxide levels rise) for a doubling in Co2 levels was set between 2 and 4.5 Deg C, the report says this will change to 1.5 and 4.5 Deg C. It was suggested that the reason for the change is that CO2 levels have been rising over the past decade without much surface warming.
Most scientists think this could be just a blip and other methods used to calculate climate sensitivity have not changed.
The Economist - Climate science: A sensitive matter
Whatever the reason this is likely to lead to further comments from pressure groups and individuals who argue against Climate Change as a result of Carbon Dioxide (and other) emissions.
The IPCC have neither confirmed or denied these figures.
MM
Climate Sensitivity (the extent to which the world will warm as Carbon Dioxide levels rise) for a doubling in Co2 levels was set between 2 and 4.5 Deg C, the report says this will change to 1.5 and 4.5 Deg C. It was suggested that the reason for the change is that CO2 levels have been rising over the past decade without much surface warming.
Most scientists think this could be just a blip and other methods used to calculate climate sensitivity have not changed.
The Economist - Climate science: A sensitive matter
Whatever the reason this is likely to lead to further comments from pressure groups and individuals who argue against Climate Change as a result of Carbon Dioxide (and other) emissions.
The IPCC have neither confirmed or denied these figures.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
![[Image: sat_1979-2007_500.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=blogs.edf.org%2Fclimate411%2Fwp-content%2Ffiles%2F2007%2F10%2Fsat_1979-2007_500.png)
![[Image: JUkLw58.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/JUkLw58.gif)
