[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment



Leonard Evens <len@math.nwu.edu> wrote for all to see:

>snark@swcp.com wrote:
>> 
>> In article <32244d4d.176361891@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
>> Harold Brashears <brshears@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:

[edited]

> >In any case, if I remember correctly, the report forcasts an average
>> >global 0.5 C change in the next hundred or so years.  I still do not
>> >see that, even if all scientists agreed, as any type of emergency.

[edited]

>The actual range given is from 1 deg C at the low end to 3.5 deg C at
>the high end by the year 2100.   This is about 1/3 less than estimates
>in earlier IPCC Reports.   As indicated in the above quote, the main
>reason is inclusion of cooling by aerosols, which are somewhat better
>understood than they were earlier, but about which there is still great
>uncertainty.   It is important to be aware of the full plausible range
>since as Michael Tobis has often pointed out, the worst case scenario
>which has some reasonable degree of plausibility, could lead to much
>greater economic and social disruption than the most benigh or even the
>best guess.   

I think I would place less plausibility on the higher end, based on my
own observations of the global warming reports.  Every time a new or
revised model is generated, I have observed a downward trend in the
forcast.  This will probably not continue forever, but I am not yet
convincewd we are through, either.

I will place much more confidence in our ability to forcast the
climate in one hundred years when I observe that we can take data from
1920 to 1960 and predict correctly the climate in 1990.  This is a
mere 30 years.

[deleted]

Regards, Harold
----
"Monster one minute.  Food the next."
	Kiakshuk, Inuit Hunter





Follow-Ups: References: