Eric Swanson wrote:
why do
you repeatedly refer to "alarmist" as if they were the same as the
group who are scientists?
I don't refer to "alarmist" as if they were the same as the group
who are scientists. Alarmists, such as the IPCC and Al Gore, are
alarmists. Scientists are scientists.
Al Gore is not a scientist. Scientists
don't have millions of dollars to spend on PR campaigns and to engage
in politics.
No, but the agencies and corporations they work for do.
I don't know where you got those ideas. Especially the adaptive part
as it relates to climate.
Atmospheric systems tend to homogeneity.
No one I know of has suggested that the
Stefan-Boltzmann equation was linear. Nor is the amount of water
vapor in the atmosphere a linear function of temperature. The
spectral emission lines experience pressure broadening which changes
as a function of altitude. The amount of energy in a moving fluid
increases with the cube of the velocity. Where is the linearity?
Linearity is in the minds of politicians, policy administrators, the
press and the public.
To assume that the a repeat of the forces which
started the last period of Ice Age conditions will of necessity result
in another Ice Age if now repeated is another unknown, as mankind's
impacts may have precluded the start of that next round of glacier
growth.
May have, or may not have. Mankind's impacts are minuscule compared
to the vast global and cosmic forces which have acted on the Earth over
millennia. We do know that the Earth has shifted into glacial advance
four times in the past 500,000 years. Is there any reason to think the
pattern will not continue? It looks pretty consistent so far, and ripe
for a shift.
Or, it may be that what we do could result in the start of
another Ice Age, even though the latest models do not make this
projection. I think it's possible that the Thermohaline Circulation
is changing and this may result in one of those "tipping points",
i.e., a threshold event, which would change the Earth's weather in
ways human civilization has never experienced.
If you think climate is so chaotic that the future can not be
predicted, then, tell us why you would want to take the risk inherent
in changing the basic optical parameters of the atmosphere?
I'm not taking any risk. I see no reason to think that human
activity is changing the basic optical parameters of the atmosphere, any
more than past natural processes have changed the basic optical
parameters of the atmosphere.
Michael
--
Hayduke Blogs
http://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/
--
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
