On Feb 16, 6:22 pm, "William Connolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15/02/2008, Tom Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > One could make an argument that the most troubling potential effect of
> > global warming is not sea level-rise or drought. The most toubling
> > potential effect of global warming is *more global warming*.
>
> > Yet there seems to be little public awareness of this. The public
> > seems view global warming as a problem that can be dealt with later,
> > but this might not be true.
>
> > "Greenpeace International polled 400 climate scientists during
> > December 1991 and January '92. The sample included all scientists
> > involved in the 1990 study of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> > Change, and others who have published on issues relevant to climate
> > change in `Science' or `Nature' during 1991. Scientists were asked
> > whether they thought there would be a point of no return at some time
> > in the future, if emissions continued at their present rate. By the
> > end of January 1992, 113 had replied, in the following way: probably -
> > 15 (13%), possibly - 36 (32%), probably not - 53 (47%). In other
> > words, 45% believe the runaway greenhouse effect to be possible. "
>
> no they don't. "point of no return" is open to many interpretations.
> you might take it to mean "greenland will melt" for example.
>
> >http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0638.html
>
> > "Runaway global warming" (RGW) is the best term I have found for this
> > (based on googling). Is there a better term?
>
> > What is the status of RGW in the scientific community these days? It
> > is frige alarmist or mainstream?
>
> no-one believes it
Why not?
I see a couple of arguments in the thread: a bit too far from the sun,
the atmosphere will not refect sufficient IR regardless of any
plausible greenhouse gas concentration.
Those are good arguments since they don't appear to rely on the
biosphere, given our proclivity to screw up the biosphere's regulation
system. An argument against runaway that depended on the biosphere
might not inspire confidence.
BTW, "runaway greenhouse effect" is better term, I think. But, as mt
pointed out, it's ambiguous. Could be either Venus or the major
factor in most or all warm periods in Earth's history. Everyone
believes in the latter.
>
> -william
>
> > Is there any research that might sort out RGW, determine if its a real
> > probability, put a probability on it?
>
> > What are the time frames for RGW? Perhaps it would play out over such
> > long time frames that it would not scare the public into action even
> > if the mainstream of scientists considered it probable.
>
> --
> William M. Connolley |www.wmconnolley.org.uk| 07985 935400- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
