|
Post by eamonnshute on Jan 17, 2011 18:51:50 GMT 1
If you start from a more reasonable base, let's say 50% and twenty years to resolve, the policies are more likely to be thought through and more effective because of that. So Eamonn, what is your best guess of the value of that "surplus"? P I do not regard 50% as a "more reasonable base", why do you? If you take 100% then there are no significant incompatibilities between theory and observation that I am aware of, so there is no need to resort to unknown causes to explain anything. The correlation between CO2 and temperature looks very good, even before you adjust for other known factors. So my best guess would be 100%, and I am confident that this is close to the actual figure. If there are any unknown factors they are far too small to be worth worrying about. I don't see how adopting a figure of 50% will improve policy making either!
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Jan 17, 2011 19:17:36 GMT 1
Eammon,
How long does it take for weather to turn into climate?
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jan 17, 2011 20:16:22 GMT 1
Eamonn I have read various articles written by IPCC scientists (can't find the links at the moment) that seem to indicate that 50% of the change is anthropogenic. However, read this in the Guardian: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latifIn the Daily Mail article, Latif said: " a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles (NAO) – perhaps as much as 50 percent.” Well, how would you mitigate the 50% that was not anthropogenic- and therefore not controllable- then? P
|
|