“at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age,”
hmmm
pump C02 into the astmosphere comes to mind if it is such an effective global warming gas as we have been told.
LOL
oh the irony!
Form a blog, a brief explanation of what is wrong with the IPCC models that predict so much warming - they rely on feedback THAT ISN’T THERE:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/open-thread/#comments
Is the 10% from the math or computer models or observed data from the atmosphere? I understand that CO2’s sensitivity has yet to be measured in the atmosphere.”
This number is estimated using basic physics which even skeptical scientists agree with (e.g. Richard Linzden, Pat Micheals). The source of 10% figure is explained on the junkscience.com page I linked to. I believe junkscience.com coined the term ‘playstation science’ in first place.
The computer models only become an issue when alarmists argue that a small increases in CO2 will by amplified by water vapour feedback. Saying CO2 accounts for 10% of the greenhouse effect does not include any of these feedbacks.
GW science is complex and not everything claimed by the alarmists is wrong.
The CO2 effect, in a direct sense, is not even the issue. The IPCC could be 100% right about the warming effect of CO2 and STILL be 100% wrong.
What the IPCC models rely on are the positive feedback issues. If there is no positive feedback, if there is instead, negative feedback leading to homeostasis, then the entire AGW hypothesis is in the dumper.
That’s what’s the big news about the AquaSat. No positive feedback. The water vapor that is supposed to be increasing the GH effect is instead going into cloud cover and increasing albedo/precipitation, which leads to an increase increase ice cover, which in turn leads to even more albedo.