wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Ruud Broens" wrote

: 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
:
:
: I'm not arguing that there isn't, only about the cause.

thanks for the 'wrap up' ;-)
:
: 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 :-)
:
: There is no evidence of that happening and no proof whatsoever that humans
: COULD cause it.

you think? just explode a dozen hydrogen bombs*, see what happens
(although, granted, climate considerations will not likely be on the top
of your mind, then)
* interestingly enough, the first above Megaton Hbomb was called Mike

: 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
:
: But the only effect would be economic harm to the U.S. and other industrial
: countries

prove it. or should we talk about your market self regulating stuff ? :-)

and nothing done to the countries that use the most dirty fuels
: and causing much of the alleged problem.
:
: The U. S. has the strictest regulation on air quality control of any country
: or close to it.
:
:-)
religion takes the weirdest shapes and forms, eh ?
R.