On Jan 26, 9:52 pm, Michael Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
The IPCC has a large group of scientists which include many of the
same people that write the reports referenced. Have you read the 4th
assessment, Working Group 1? The authors are the leaders in the field
of climate science .
> > 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.
Most of the scientists work for either governments or in
universities. Universities don't spend millions on PR campaigns and
nor does the NSF .
Got any proof that the scientific community is spending money at a
rate near that of the denialist camp?
> > I don't know where you got those ideas. Especially the adaptive part
> > as it relates to climate.
>
> Atmospheric systems tend to homogeneity.
While true, it's not an "adaptive" response, it's an inanimate balance
of forces. Learn some physics.
> > 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.
We are talking science here, are we not? The political mess comes
after the scientist have had their say.
> > 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.
Mankind's impacts were great enough to remove most of the large
megafauna from the Earth, especially in North America and that
occurred thousands of years ago. The resulting changes in the North
American ecosystems would also have impacted climate.
The repeated series of Ice Ages/Interglacials is thought to be due to
rather small changes in the distribution of solar energy, compounded
by changes in the atmospheric optical properties. Is there any reason
to think that these processes will be repeated? Yes and the latest
estimate of the driving forces suggests the Ice Ages won't return for
thousands of years. That is, the net impact of natural forcing won't
repeat for that long a period.
> > 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.
Your response again suggests you have no clue about the physics
involved. Your reply ignores the finding that the recent rise in
atmospheric CO2 is larger than any period since the beginning of the
present period of glacial/interglacial climate. I suggest that you
should learn some science before you spout off and demonstrate your
ignorance.
E. S.
--
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
