|
Desertphile wrote:
A few of the peer-reviewed science papers regarding climate sensitivity to CO2 and other greenhouse gases:
It's very clear that these "citations are merely randomly selected articles nbased on their title. These cherry-picked citattions offer no clear conc;lisions as to climate sensitivity and greenho use gases.
To whit:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
"Long-term stabilization targets depend on climate sensitivity
and on carbon-cycle–climate feedbacks. The uncertainty in both
of these, if the past is indicative of the future, may not decrease
quickly."
http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=990
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtml
"the inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction. "
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jmgregory0201.pdf
A list of publications..
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
A graph with no analysis
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/probrevised.pdf
"While the economic analysis presented here ignores a substantial additional source
of uncertainty by selecting one specific damage function, the use of reasonable
expert priors results in a substantial lowering of the expected loss to around
2% of global GDP for the simple 2×CO2 scenario used."
|
Guests Online: 5
