Well, I'm a little more cynical. For years, every time there's an El Nino condition these experts make predictions for weather conditions on the west coast that are no more accurate than guesses. As you say, "We're talking about small, but important changes to a vast system", so now we're to believe these same people have figured out the outcome of long term global weather conditions, based on small changes to a much larger weather model?
>> -----Original Message----- > >As already noted "Global Warming" does not mean necessarily that >temperatures will increase. The problem is one of effect: it's fairly clear >that CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions will cause an overall warming >effect. However what the results of that effect could be are anything but >conclusive. > >The end result of global warming could very well be another ice age. >Melting of the ice caps resulting in more water area, more snowfall, more >glaciation and more sunlight (energy) being reflected back into space before >being converted to heat. > >(It was this idea, by the way, that haze and pollution in the atmosphere >would eventually lead to more radiation being reflected, that led to ideas >of "Global Cooling". As it was discovered this was not the case, as the >atmosphere of Venus testifies. Water and ice, however, turned out to be >excellent reflectors.) > >It's a very common, but completely wrong, misconception that any o this will >produce noticeable seasonal changes. Global Warming does not make it "hot >outside". We're talking about small, but important changes to a vast >system: a change of a few degrees, annually, globally may have vast impacts >in ice-shelf stability, air and ocean currents and precipitation patterns. > >In most scientific circles "Global Cooling" and "Global Warming" (both terms >for essentially the same processes) have become simply "global climate >change". And there's little doubt that the works of humans have definite >impacts on Global Climate change. > >The Earth is a remarkably self-healing system, however it needs time to heal >and the biggest problem with human activity is the pace at which it's >progressing. We're exceedingly efficient at using up resources. > >Let's also be clear on the possible effects. In general almost all of the >possible effects are most destructive to humans. This is not the "planet >killer" that nuclear war or a large asteroid hit is. Life on Earth will >survive handily. > >However human life on earth will suffer for it. Rising oceans levels means >less arable land (and more polluted coasts) and more contention for >resources. Increased precipitation means snow on the ground longer (making >farming harder in places) and more erosion (which also leads to more >pollution as fertilizer washed out the sea causing algae blooms and the >oxygen death of fresh water lakes). > >Finally it's a simple economic poser: what costs more, cleaning up our acts >now or fixing a potential problem of the scale feared later? > >Remember that the same pollution that causes concern for global warming also >has immediate and clear health effects including sickness, the tainting and >over consumption of fresh water supplies, and so forth. There are clear >economic benefits to conservation and optimization of resources. > >All told I find the reasons for doing nothing much less compelling, on many >levels, that the reasons for the addressing the issues now. > >Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:141109 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
