wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
: oups.com...
: From:
: Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:07:34 GMT
:
: Here's the most reliable source I've found for discussion of GW.
:
:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196
:
: OK, so now you have me totally confused. I thought you were arguing
: *against* man-made causes for global warming, or even that global
: warming did not exist. The links this site recommends to readers of the
: site includes this (from Carnegie-Mellon):
:
: "#3 There is scientific consensus that global warming is real, is
: caused by human activities, and presents serious challenges.
: Scientists working on this issue report that the observed global
: warming cannot be explained by natural variations such as changes in
: the sun's output or volcanic eruptions. The most authoritative source
: of information is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
: (IPCC) which draws upon the collective wisdom of many hundreds of
: scientists from around the world. The IPCC projects global temperature
: increases of 3 to 10 degrees F in the next 100 years and says that
: human activity is the cause of most of the observed and projected
: warming."
:
: You're not trying to say that the above is representative on the web site
: you linked from are you?
:
: I find no such link.
:
:
: And this (From the US Global Change Resource Information Office):
:
: "The threat of global warming is a real issue. It is clear from
: long-term temperature records that the world is warming. It is becoming
: clear that human activities, mainly burning fossil fuels and
: deforestation, are part of the cause of this warming. Since these human
: activities are expected to continue into the foreseeable future,
: scientists predict that the earth will continue warming. The debate
: among scientists who study climate centers around questions like: How
: much warming? How fast will the earth warm? What will be the regional
: and seasonal patterns of the warming? What will be the impact of the
: warming on natural ecosystems and people?"
:
: And this (from the Real Climate site itself, Myths vs. Fact Regarding
: the 'Hockey Stick'):
:
: "MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely
: upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean
: temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.
:
:
: Nice try, but that does not appear on page found at
:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196
:
:
: This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other
: dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate
: evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence
: indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play
: a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's
: surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this
: conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution
: Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century
: climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art
: models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic
: forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
: concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."
:
: Since it appears that you are arguing *for* the position that I've
: held, have you simply been trolling me all along?
:
: If so, why?
:
: The argument, as far as I can see, is over: we agree that global
: warming exists and that the main component of global warming is
: man-made.
:
: But you still have me very confused. Can you tell me what all of this
: 'disagreement' was about when we actually agree?
:
: You're wierd.
:
second link on page 196:
Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and
aerosols
among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15 W/m2 more
energy
from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise
measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.
Implications include:
(i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further
change of
atmospheric composition;
(ii) confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying
the need
for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and
(iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.
..................
as i've mentioned before, there _is no_ arguing with heat balance measurements
made
from space, specific distribution on earth does not matter in calculations in
that case
so yes, there is warming taking place, no possible doubt there
evidently, the real worry is not a couple of centigrades rise in a couple of
centuries,
it's the idea of a runaway, a positive feedback scenario that cannot be undone
the _venus meltdown syndrome_ if ya like :-)
as mentioned before, there are many chemical and biochemical negative feedback
systems in place on this planet, but they respond* on a century and millenium
scale,
so maybe 500 years from now, a new equilibrium is reached,
but can we absorb the effect of such a long changeover (having to give up
100.000s km^2 of coastal areas, redistribution of 'fine climate areas' across the
globe,
large cities currently at near sea-level, etc. etc.)?
*significantly
like Oppenheimer said:
"Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists
obscures a more important debate over what steps
are possible to moderate its effects"
CO2 paranoia not being part of my coctail of solutions
Governments using tax instruments to encourage energy-efficient technology
to develop is a good start,
(as in reductions, _not_ penalties
Rudy