Usted no se lo cree

Ir al artículo

1. Freeman Dyson – Fighting climate ‘fluff’ – National Post 23/04/1977 – http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=985641c9-8594-43c2-802d-947d65555e8e
   “Models do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They are full of fudge factors so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO₂.”
2. J.F.B. Mitchell and D.J. Karoly (2001) – Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes [En Third Assessment Report – The Physical Basis] Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change] – http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.pdf
   “It is unlikely that detection studies have mistaken a natural signal for an anthropogenic signal. In order to demonstrate an anthropogenic contribution to climate, it is necessary to rule out the possibility that the detection procedure has mistaken part or all of a natural signal for an anthropogenic change. On physical grounds, natural forcing is unlikely to account completely for the observed warming over the last three to five decades, given that it is likely that the overall trend in natural forcing over most of the 20th century is small or negative.”
3. James E. Hansen et al (1988) – Global Climate Changes as Forecast by GISS 3D model – Journal of Geophysical Research 93:9341-9364 20/08/1988 – 8 authors – http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
   “Scenario A assumes continual exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes linear growth of trace gases and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such as the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000”
4. James Hansen et al (2006) – Global temperature change – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences PNAS 103:14288-14293 – 26/09/2006 – National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University Earth Institute – 6 authors – http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
   “The congressional testimony in 1988 (13) included a graph (Fig. 2) of simulated global temperature for three scenarios (A, B, and C) and maps of simulated temperature change for scenario B. The three scenarios were used to bracket likely possibilities … Real-world GHG climate forcing (17) so far has followed a course closest to scenario B. The real world even had one large volcanic eruption in the 1990s, Mount Pinatubo in 1991, whereas scenario B placed a volcano in 1995.”
5. James E. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy, et al (2007) – Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study. Atmospheric Chemistry in Physics 7: 2287-312 – 47 authors – http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/inpress_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
   “Thus scientists are faced with difficult choices between communication of scientific information to the public and focus on basic research, as there are inherent compromises in any specific balance. Former American Vice President Al Gore, at a plenary session of the December 2006 meeting of the American Geophysical Union, challenged earth scientists to become involved in informing the public about global climate change. The overwhelmingly positive audience reaction to his remarks provides hope that the large gap between scientific understanding and public knowledge about climate change may yet be closed.”
6. Gerard H. Roe and Marcia B. Baker (2007) – Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable? – Science 318: 629 – 632 doi: 10.1126/science.1144735– 26/10/2007 – Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington – http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/figsonly/318/5850/629
   “We are constrained by the inevitable: the more likely a large warming is for a given forcing (i.e., the greater the positive feedbacks), the greater the uncertainty will be in the magnitude of that warming.”
7. The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science – UNSW Climate Change Research Centre, Australia – http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/
   “By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.”
8. Reto Knutti and Gabriele C. Heger (2008) – The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes – Nature Geoscience 735-743 – Advance Online Publication – Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich; School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh – http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
   “The quest to determine climate sensitivity has now been going on for decades, with disturbingly little progress in narrowing the large uncertainty range. However, in the process, fascinating new insights into the climate system and into policy aspects regarding mitigation have been gained. The well-constrained lower limit of climate sensitivity and the transient rate of warming already provide useful information for policy makers. But the upper limit of climate sensitivity will be more difficult to quantify.”

Ir al artículo