2010/1/27 Eric Swanson <[email protected]> > > > We are talking science here, are we not? The political mess comes > after the scientist have had their say.
Even as a politician (and a scientific skeptic) I have to agree: "There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/10/comment.georgemonbiot "U.S., China Got Climate Warnings Toned Down" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040600291.html "Cooling the rhetoric on climate change" http://blog.seattlepi.com/environment/archives/113754.asp?source=rss The point is made abundantly clear in this comparison from deSmogBlog (PDF format warning): http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/side%20by%20side%20before%20and%20after%20WG2%20negotiations_0.pdf / Per > > > 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 > -- / Per -- 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
