InvisibleBlack
Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata It's here, and more is coming... <snip> Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘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 – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. 'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.' Makes for interesting reading, and raises further questions about the anthropogenic global warming hysteria. <snip> According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’ At the very least, anyone who calls the situation "settled science" is either ignorant or lying. K. Oh, you've thrown the fat in the fire now. Didn't those five or six threads on climate change and anthropogenic global warming just die down!? I'll add my own contribution, from the IPCC Third Assessment Report on Climate Change (from 2001): "Climate variations and change, caused by external forcings, may be partly predictable, particularly on the larger, continental and global, spatial scales. Because human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it is believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change are also partly predictable ... In practice, therefore, one has to rely on carefully constructed scenarios of human behaviour and determine climate projections on the basis of such scenarios." and "It is necessary to make assumptions about how the emissions or concentrations of the other gasses may change in the future. In addition, it is necessary to have a base scenario against which the effect of the different stabilization pathways may be assessed. The state of science at present is such that it is only possible to give illustrative examples of possible outcomes." and, most importantly, "In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible." (emphasis mine) That's from the IPCC report that offcially brought the whole "global warming" problem to international attention. (You'll have to forgive me for not quoting the Fourth Assessment - I just don't have it me any more to read these multi-thousand page essays.) They flat out admit that the state of science is such we can, at best, only partially predict climate and that long term predictions are not possible - that their work is basically just an "illustrative example" of a "possible outcome". That's not hard science. The fact is, we just don't know enough about the climate, what drives it or how it works to make any future predictions within any reasonable estimate of accuracy. All the climate models are junk. It's going to take decades of dedicated research to even begin to work out the foundation for a serious set of theories, and it will take more decades to test these theories. On another thread I said that economics is a science in its pre-teen years. Climate science isn't even in its infancy - it's in the foetal stage. As late as the 1950 the theory of continental drift wasn't universally accepted. We're barely out of the stage of adjusting our thinking to plate tectonics. I think it's a grand and wonderful thing that time and money and research is going into figuring out just how our planet works and what factors influence our climate. I believe that at the end of this process, there will be huge benefits for all mankind, and likely for all living creatures on the planet. I'm not arrogant enough to expect that we'll have all the answers in a few short years of looking at some tree rings and taking samples of trapped gasses in sedimentary strata. I don't think that anyone knows or has even a clue what the global temperature will be like 50 or 100 years into the future. It could be hotter, it could be colder. I am hopeful that by then we'll know why it is that way.
< Message edited by InvisibleBlack -- 1/10/2010 7:28:36 PM >
_____________________________
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
|