[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: