Posted on 04/07/2006 11:52:35 AM PDT by cogitator
Positive feedback loops? No negative ones? Also it sounds like he doesn't know the first thing about the models, or care. Pure fearmongering attached to a few bits of biased science.
"The time for debate and discussion has long since passed, he writes in his new book,.."
LOL!
In other words: "The time for debate and discussion has long since passed." he said, right before debating and discussing it.
The world's coral reefs are already substantially damaged, and, of course, we've already seen extinctions as a result of climate change.
Coral reef damage. Related to Global Warming? Caused by man? He doesn't say. He just points out that coral reefs "are already substantially damaged". Yeah, well, Abraham Lincoln is "already dead". What's it to you?
And, those extinctions which have occurred? An example? Is he thinking of the Wooly Mammoth? That Ice Age which ended about 10,000 years ago did kill off a number of species. What's that matter now?
His entire interview can be picked apart. He's just selling books by making people panic.
Good. Then you and your fellow "scientists" won't be needing anymore grant money.
"What do you say to global warming naysayers who say climate-change models are flawed?
The climate models all agree on one thing – the planet will warm as greenhouse gases accumulate. They disagree on how much warming will occur, but even at the lowest end of the projections, if we go about business as usual, the changes will be immense. "
OK Mr. Weatherman. I agree. So, until you tell me the impact of stopping this, which would cause global cooling and we will all die anyway, why should I listen to you?
Until I am shown a model of what impact global cooling will have on the world, I am uninterested in this debate.
There's no doubt coral reefs are damaged. Most indicators point to increasing water temperature as something that will only make things worse.
And, those extinctions which have occurred? An example?
I imagine he has examples in mind; they may be in the book. I'm traveling next week and I hope to peruse the book in the airport to decide if I want to buy it. I'll see what it says about extinctions.
The impact of slowing global warming down would be to reduce the level of ecosystem change that would result from global warming.
Typical scare tactic.
You have an infection on your hand. It might be gangrene. Amputate immediately! Don't wait to find out what's really causing the problem.
Cold water is a much bigger threat to reefs than warm water.
Most of the feedback loops are positive. Clouds, a major factor, are uncertain. The ultimate effect of clouds is dependent not only on whether cloud cover increases or decreases, but on what kind of cloud cover increases or decreases (i.e., low cumulus or high cirrus, etc.)
I think to pursue his analogy, if there is an ailment, we'd diagnose and treat it instead of just waiting to see if it kills us.
Many clouds such as the cirrus clouds blown off from thunderstorms to the west of me, are not in the model. They are cooling my locale. Cooling in any locale without corresponding warming in another will result in model bias. Models are not so much "uncertain" as they are biased towards warming. The only way to believe that increased water vapor does not cause more cooling clouds is to leave them out of the climate model.
"The impact of slowing global warming down would be to reduce the level of ecosystem change that would result from global warming."
Sorry, I wasn't directing this to you. I was directing it to the author. However, I want to know from the author, how much is good? What happens if we totally reduce emissions? How quickly will golobal warming stop? Will global cooling occur and if so how fast before I need my bunny boots and parka? What impact will it have on agriculture?
You have an infection on your hand. It might be gangrene. Put together a commission of doctors to hold hearings about your hand. Convene the U.N. Security Council. See if Dr. Blix is available to testify. As long as your hand is contained, you will be fine......
The argument you outline has been dictated by a small group of skeptics, many of whom are paid by those who make money from polluting and who don't wish to see changes to the way they do business. They've gone through at least three stages of denial: first that climate change doesn't exist; then that it does exist but it's not human caused; then that we are causing it, but it's too expensive to fix.
'Warming' exists, and it's a normal part of earths cycle, and it is extremely doubtful that we could 'fix it', even if we knew how.
The author is an idiot.
No sweat, don't worry. Hillary wll f**k us fore GW does.
Seems Mars is also undergoing global warming and man hasn't been there yet, so what is Gore's answer to that? Is he going to turn off the sun or what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.