Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Rodram, Here is yet another article for you to dispel, Lets see you get to work, but please no senile tangents and no stratosphere talk. Stay hardcore!
God bless and good luck! Here you go!!
_________________________________________________________________
US experts say global warming faster than thought

Thu Jun 24,12:40 PM ET Add Science - AFP to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A new US supercomputer has shown that global temperatures could be rising more than scientists had thought, experts said.

AFP/NASA/File Photo

The computer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research projects that temperatures could rise by 2.6 degrees Celsius (4.7 degrees Fahrenheit) if countries continue to emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.

The previous estimates were a rise of about two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Information from the Community Climate System Model, known as CCSM3, will be presented to the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, an international body of experts established by the United Nations (news - web sites) to assess the environmental impact of climate change.

According to the US National Science Foundation (news - web sites) (NSF), a variety of models in the past have been used to understand the effects of carbon dioxide, a common greenhouse gas emitted by cars and power plants.

Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have increased significantly in recent decades to about 370 million parts per million today and levels are continuing to rise.

If carbon dioxide emissions were to double, most scientific models agree that this would signifigantly increase global temperatures.

But, the models have been unable to produce consistent results in trying to determine the impact of other sources global warming, such as radiation from clouds or thunderstorms and the effect aerosol gases have on the environment.

Clifford Jacobs, an NSF scientist, said that with the new models "the degree of uncertainty has narrowed."

"We have a higher degree of confidence in these results than in the previous results."

Jacobs said scientists now hope their models will become sophisticated enough to predict how climate change will affect specific regions, such as in Africa or the American Midwest.

He hopes the scientific breakthrough will "better inform the ongoing debate" over global warming.

"The key question is: How much of the change is a natural variability and how much of the change is caused by activities of mankind on the face of planet," he said.
_________________________________________________________________

Again, a little common sense and logic goes a long way!

Well, first off, I can't argue with what the articles says. It uses a fair amount of words like might, could, and if. I could just as easily say, "if monkeys fly out of my butt, then the earth might explode and our sun could burn out, all at the same time". ---While this is not very likely, considering what we know about physics, it's pretty hard to argue against a position that tries to prop up its prediction with words that have so much "improbability" in their meaning. And please notice that the use of all these "uncertain" words are found all around the main points of the article.

Here are some things for you to think about.

How many previous predictions have they made? Which one was right? Will there be no more predictions on global temps. 100 years from now? If one more prediction on global warming is made, within the next 100 years, will it not make this most current one wrong also? Considering they have proven themselves wrong on every prediction they have made so far, are you confident they won't prove themselves wrong once again?

Has every previous projection been discredited by the then current projection?
Absoluetly! (they even changed their language from "prediction" to "projection" due to all the mistakes they found that they were making. If you were to make a prediction, why would you change it, unless you realized you were wrong because you didn't account for something?

After changing your prediction many, many times, would you have more confidence in your most current prediction, than in your earlier predictions that you have found to all be flawed? Also, yep. If you weren't more confident in the most current prediction, it wouldn't be your most current prediction! Why won't they tell you in the article what their confidence level is? Has it gone from less than 1% likely to 1% likely? Just because it is higher confidence level, doesn't mean it is a high confidence level!

"a variety of models in the past have been used to understand the effects of carbon dioxide"

That's about the only thing a computer model is designed to do, and is good for. It helps you to understand. It does not predict what will happen in an extremely complex system, by running a much, much too simple program.

"But, the models have been unable to produce consistent results in trying to determine the impact of other sources global warming, such as radiation from clouds or thunderstorms and the effect aerosol gases have on the environment. "

Yeah, now try to take into account solar radiation, cosmic radiation, the Earth's orbit and wobble, environmental causes of CO2, the effect of plant growth on global warming, all the other green house gases, the interactions between all these, and a couple dozen other things, and you might be close to what is really happening---except for all the other influences you forgot about!

"Jacobs said scientists now hope their models will become sophisticated enough to predict how climate change will affect specific regions, such as in Africa or the American Midwest."

It's nice to see him admit that he hopes their modes will someday become sophisticated enough.--and this gives them higher confidence levels that this one is accurate? What he is really saying is that the computer models can't nearly do the job now, so why should we take them so seriously, when they are known by their creators to be so flawed?

""better inform the ongoing debate" over global warming."

I hope so too. Maybe some people can read this, and see how little confidence they have in their own numbers, and then jump off the hysteria band wagon, and stop thinking that we should commit trillions of dollars to prevent something we don't even know, with conficence, is happening.

"The key question is: How much of the change is a natural variability and how much of the change is caused by activities of mankind on the face of planet," he said.

Also true, but it has been looked into. We are such an insignificant part of this planet, and CO2 is so insignificant compared to water vapor in global warming, that our effect on global warming through CO2 emissions is very minuscule.

Rodney