Based on known historical climates, yes. Depending on how fast it warms up, we can wait 10-50 years before it's a real issue.
Remember, grain was once a cash crop in Greenland. -Adam Tim Øsleby wrote: > I think we can agree on that the scientific prognoses on this topic are > unsure. Politics is one factor. The lack of data is another. > > The question is, can we afford to wait? > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam > Maas > Sent: 24. desember 2006 21:39 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Doomsday is coming upon us? > > Steve Farnham wrote: >> >>>> Apparently man can't adversely affect the >> environment. Didn't you know >>>> the recent rises in global temperature are all >> natural phenomenon? >>>> >> >>> There is something to be said for this theory as >> well. >>> Both sides of the debate have political motivations, >>> I don't trust either >>> side to be honest. >> >>> William Robb >> >> Non-scientists have opinions all over the map, and >> many of them are politically motivated. >> >> Climatologists, that is scientists who have spent >> years learning the underlying science and more years >> studying the climate by actually going out and >> measuring things, and in general are not political, >> pretty much agree that mankind has contributed to >> global climactic change and that the change may become >> irreversable in the near future. What disagreement >> exists amoung climatologists is more to do with timing >> than anything else. >> >> So, people who don't know what they're talking about >> claim that the people who do know what they're talking >> about are mostly wrong. What does that tell you? >> >> Steve Farnham >> >> > > Actually, there's a reasonable amount of dispute among the experts as > well. And it's a fairly politically-influenced area of study. > > Until someone comes up with a very fine-grained model of the climate > which regresses properly, this will be in dispute. The current models > have distinct issues (Either regression, or cell sizes significantly > larger than certain improtant microclimates like Panama [which has three > seperate climatic regions within an area smaller than the typical cell > size for a computer climate model). > > There's a fair bit of data to suggest human influence. There's also a > fair bit which suggests it's minimal. And nobody has a good solar > radiation model (We've only got around 30 years of good data for that, > far too small a sample for good predictions given what we know of solar > output cycles). That issue may take hundreds of years to resolve, as we > know there are certain solar output cycles that are in the several > hundred year range (like the Maunder Minimum). > > -Adam > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
