So, you’re fairly sure it has happened, and the Earth is still here and habitable. I’m OK with that.
robert108 - 02:12am on 12/01/2005
Now why are Carrick’s wise words relegated to the “Comments” section, while gilbyguy’s drivel is front-paged?
Because I’m a sinister chap leading a propaganda campaign to mislead hapless, pseudo-libertarian college students.
Rob - 08:12am on 12/01/2005
I was asking rhetorically; it’s so symptomatic of what we see in the media every day, where uninformed but exciting extremism trumps reasoned (but relatively dull) facts. It’s Ann Coulter appearing as a war expert on cable news shows all over again.
Dave - 08:12am on 12/01/2005
Dave: Why is it then, that AC can get it right, and Murtha/Kerry/Pelosi/Reed get it wrong? Could it be, oh, I don’t know...politics?
robert108 - 08:12am on 12/01/2005
Graeme:
Do they know why the ocean is absorbing all that CO2 and are we screwed if it stops?
They know why the oceans are absorbing CO2, it was a chemistry error (something not included in the models). It’ll keep working to a degree---historical averages for CO2 are much higher than today for example. See this post for an explanation of why.
As I’ve said before, the Earth’s climate is very complex, making it easy to miss “obvious effects”. This shouldn’t make any of us feel better. Having no idea what the answer is should increase our caution, not decrease it, though within reason.
Carrick - 03:12pm on 12/01/2005
Robert108:
So, you’re fairly sure it has happened, and the Earth is still here and habitable. I’m OK with that.
The same can be said of the Permian extinction, which is believed to be the result of rapid climate change. About 95% of the species on Earth (both on land and sea) went extinct in a very short geological period (too short to measure). This extinction was not related to a meteor impact in case you are wondering.
Just because the Earth survived and life survived doesn’t mean it’s going to be Club Med. There is nothing wrong with showing some reasoned caution in the face of this degree of uncertainty.
Carrick - 04:12pm on 12/01/2005
Carrick: Assuming we(humanity) have anything to say in the matter, my philosophy is: When in doubt, don’t.
robert108 - 04:12pm on 12/01/2005
Thanks for the great info, Carrick. This post I submitted last night was a little brief, and I didn’t do a very good job of it. I do think the obvious contradiction in the reports is humorous when read back to back.
Having no idea what the answer is should increase our caution, not decrease it, though within reason.
A very good statement. My frustration lies with the European press using any change in climate or weather as an opportunity to hammer the USA for not signing the Kyoto accords. If we “have no idea what the answer is”, obviously signing a treaty that disproportionately restricts our industry and exempts polluting giants like China is not a good idea or am I wrong there too.
I remember a little from my college climatology class. My professor was a fan of equilibrium and nature’s inclination toward it. Is it possible that the “mini ice age” is simply nature trying to rebuild alpine glaciers?
By the way I am guessing you are on Christmas Island. (I think thats the southern hemisphere)
So, you’re fairly sure it has happened, and the Earth is still here and habitable. I’m OK with that.
Because I’m a sinister chap leading a propaganda campaign to mislead hapless, pseudo-libertarian college students.
I was asking rhetorically; it’s so symptomatic of what we see in the media every day, where uninformed but exciting extremism trumps reasoned (but relatively dull) facts. It’s Ann Coulter appearing as a war expert on cable news shows all over again.
Dave: Why is it then, that AC can get it right, and Murtha/Kerry/Pelosi/Reed get it wrong? Could it be, oh, I don’t know...politics?
Graeme:
They know why the oceans are absorbing CO2, it was a chemistry error (something not included in the models). It’ll keep working to a degree---historical averages for CO2 are much higher than today for example. See this post for an explanation of why.
As I’ve said before, the Earth’s climate is very complex, making it easy to miss “obvious effects”. This shouldn’t make any of us feel better. Having no idea what the answer is should increase our caution, not decrease it, though within reason.
Robert108:
The same can be said of the Permian extinction, which is believed to be the result of rapid climate change. About 95% of the species on Earth (both on land and sea) went extinct in a very short geological period (too short to measure). This extinction was not related to a meteor impact in case you are wondering.Just because the Earth survived and life survived doesn’t mean it’s going to be Club Med. There is nothing wrong with showing some reasoned caution in the face of this degree of uncertainty.
Carrick: Assuming we(humanity) have anything to say in the matter, my philosophy is: When in doubt, don’t.
Thanks for the great info, Carrick. This post I submitted last night was a little brief, and I didn’t do a very good job of it. I do think the obvious contradiction in the reports is humorous when read back to back.
A very good statement. My frustration lies with the European press using any change in climate or weather as an opportunity to hammer the USA for not signing the Kyoto accords. If we “have no idea what the answer is”, obviously signing a treaty that disproportionately restricts our industry and exempts polluting giants like China is not a good idea or am I wrong there too.
I remember a little from my college climatology class. My professor was a fan of equilibrium and nature’s inclination toward it. Is it possible that the “mini ice age” is simply nature trying to rebuild alpine glaciers?
By the way I am guessing you are on Christmas Island. (I think thats the southern hemisphere)