[climatematters] The Truth as we know it
- From: Leslie Coelho <lesliecoelho@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "climatematters@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <climatematters@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:44:35 +0000
Hi, since my previous newsletter in which I admitted that I was some what
confused about the causes of Climate Change I have been doing some more
research. Here's what I've found out. The director of last weeks Channel 4
Documentary has a some what dubious history see
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/ for more information.
If you want to know more about the causes of climate change then I'd recommend
reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
entry on wikipedia, but to summaries
The exact proportion of this warming that is due to human influence is still
open to question, but the current scientific "consensus", as expressed in 2007
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that Most of the
observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century
is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations where "very likely" means greater than 90% probability.
Another candidate mechanism for climate change is solar forcing. Most global
climate model (GCM) studies indicate that the direct effects of solar variation
would be too small to significantly affect climate. Much of the solar research
centers around possible mechanisms to amplify the effect, possibly through
increasing solar activity reducing cosmic ray flux and, speculatively,
modifying cloud cover [8]; however there is no agreement on whether this is
correct within the scientific community. Since GCM can reproduce observed
temperature trends (including early 20th century changes, where solar forcing
is non-negligible) there is no obvious need for a high sensitivity to solar
forcing. Indeed, a significantly higher sensitivity to solar forcing would make
early 20th century temperature change inexplicableThe plateau in warming from
the 1940s to 1960s can be attributed largely to sulphate aerosol cooling
It may be asserted that in the ice core record, temperature starts rising about
800 years before CO2 increases; therefore CO2 cannot have caused temperature
changes in the past; therefore it cannot be causing temperature changes today.
Temperature does indeed lead CO2 during deglaciations (but not at all times);
but this does not prove that CO2 has no effect on climate. From studying all
the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a
termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes
Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to
start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet,
because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2
release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback" [23].
For the full details see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
And a review of last weeks programme in the Independant
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece
reveals the following
Some scientists still disagree - that is the nature of science - but their
numbers are diminishing, and few are leaders in their fields. A recent survey
of 928 published scientific papers found not one that dissented over the
reality of global warming. Even President Bush admitted - through gritted teeth
- in January's State of the Union speech that the climate change presented "a
major challenge".
Standing with Dominic Lawson on the sceptic's barricades are his father (or to
give him proper deference, Lord Lawson of Blaby) and his brother-in-law
Christopher Monckton, Lord Monckton of Brenchley. Surprisingly, there is much
common ground between sceptics and the environmentalists. Lord Lawson, for
example, says that there is "little doubt that the 20th century ended warmer
than it began".
In conclusion the evidence strongly suggest that our western life style are
affecting the environment in an adverse and potentially dangerous way, it looks
like we really are going to have to cut our carbon emission and our dependancy
on Fossil Fuels.
LeslieReduce the amount of the Earth's resources that we use.Reuse
don't just bin it, could someone else make use of it?Recycle Can the
materials be made into something new?
_________________________________________________________________
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces.
It's easy!
http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
Other related posts:
- » [climatematters] The Truth as we know it
