Thanks for the demagoguery
Show me an accurate prediction of the temperature rise over the next decade. In the 1970s, climatologists were predicting a global Ice Age.
Since a prediction can only be judged as accurate or in accurate with hindsight you are asking the impossible.
Computer models that are being used now have predicted that the temperature rise should have been twice what it actually has been. Not having a predictive ability means that it is a type guesswork.
A computer can only work with the variables that are fed into it. Recent research strongly suggests that anthropogenic particulate pollution has been greatly offsetting the warming effects of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere:
WHITEWATER, Wisconsin, August 8, 2002 (ENS) - Contrails from high flying jets may be helping to average out the world's high and low temperatures - making days cooler and nights warmer - concludes a report based on the almost plane free days after September 11.
David Travis, a climatologist at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater conducted a study that offers some of the first evidence for the climate changing effects of the wispy trails left by jets. His results appear to indicate that jet contrails - short for condensation trails - are leveling off "diurnal temperature ranges" in certain regions of North America, making average days cooler and nights warmer than normal.
The contrails and climate connection was almost impossible to quantify before the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the resulting three day shutdown of all commercial airline traffic. The satellite data from September 11-13 provided scientists with a view of almost contrail free skies for the first time in a half century.
Travis' research team, which includes Penn State University geographer Andrew Carleton and UW-Whitewater undergraduate Ryan Lauritsen, used satellite images to compare cloud cover from those three days to 30 years of data for mid-September. Then they reviewed daytime and nighttime surface air temperatures across North America collected from 4,000 weather stations.
The group calculated the 30 year climate norm for those three days, using temperature data from the same sources between 1971 and 2000. A final step was to calculate the "diurnal temperature range," which is the difference between the warmest spike during daytime and the coldest point of night.
When compared against the 30 year record, the group found that diurnal temperature ranges on September 11-13, 2001 expanded as much as three to five degrees Fahrenheit. That was more than double any random year to year variation over that time.
The researchers also found sharp regional differences in temperature change - ones that correspond closely with where contrails form. Contrails, which are formed by a combination of below freezing temperatures and high atmospheric moisture, are most common through the nation's midsection, the northeast and the northwest.
The biggest temperature changes, as much as five degrees, were in those regions.
"Scientists have been noticing unusual changes in diurnal temperatures for quite some time, but can't explain why," said Travis. "We're providing one possible explanation here. Maybe jet contrail coverage is one of the reasons for this shrinking temperature range."
Travis said the findings may complicate the global warming debate, since in some regions contrails offset the temperature increases predicted in global warming models. The study also underscores the point that not all climate drivers are global, as factors like contrails can make a difference on a regional scale.
The U.S. military first began contrail studies in the 1960s because of the fact that they give away fighter jet locations. Travis said there is no evidence contrails pollute, and some have argued that reduced diurnal temperature ranges could save heating and cooling costs in major cities.
But, Travis added, it would be harder to find more tangible, visible proof that human activity affects climate.
"Unlike greenhouse gases, we can all look up in the sky and see contrails and imagine how they might increase cloud coverage," Travis said.
The above quote is from a corporate lackey rightwing website dedicated to rubbishing the idea that there are environmental problems and something needs to be done about them. Here is a transcript of a recent BBC program on the subject of "Global Dimming":http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes...ing_trans.shtml
The temperatures today are not the hottest it has ever been. The Middle Ages were considerably warmer than today, with the effect being more vegetation activity. More vegetation meant more food and less starvation.
Is that an incrontrovertible fact based on reliable data or a supposition? In a recent asinine newspaper article a rightwing laissez faire panglossian economic commentator confidently asserted that global warming would melt the permafrost in Siberia thereby opening vast tracts of land to agriculture! What can you say
The mechanics of global warming is poorly understood.
That's right. If you don't understand something it is not generally seen as a good idea to tinker about with it. Tinkering with a piece of electrical equipment we don't understand is foolhardy. Tinkering with the only inhabitable planet we know of is criminally irresponsible.
For instance, global warming predicts that there will be more precipitation and thus wetter soil...
It also predicts that given a large enough temperature rises the earth will be rendered uninhabitable to anything except heat-loving bacteria.
Wetter soil means that more of the sun's energy will be applied to evaporating the water and less to heating the air. The wetter soil and higher temperatures encourage vegetation to grow. Vegetation takes Carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, converting it to oxygen.
Whatever part the life of the planet could play in removing CO2 out of the atmosphere is being rapidly nullified by the physical destruction natural habitats across the face of the earth. Concreting over land simultaneously uses fossil fuels and ensures that the area available to plant growth is diminished. The use of fossil fuels in inextricably linked with the use of natural resources in general. Reducing the overall rate of natural resource exploitation to sustainable levels will reduce fossil fuel use.
If there really was the consensus that some here claim, why would 15,000 scientists sign a petition advising against signing Kyoto?....Ah, yes, they (like me) must all be radical Christians or pseudo-scientists who wish to enrich their industrial pay masters...http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title..._Climate_Change
According to another article at this site:
The petition is also in line with resolutions passed by state legislatures, labor unions, industry associations and consumer groups, who base their objections to Kyoto restrictions mainly on economic grounds—an expected slowdown of economic growth and huge job losses because of drastically higher energy costs, with gasoline prices rising by as much as a dollar.
So if using less fossil fuel will have such negative economic effects what happens when the fossil fuels run out? The traditional laissez faire panglossian view has been that "market forces" will magically produce alternative energy sources. I have always found it difficult to understand why reduced fossil fuel use as a result of a concious policy will lead to insurmountable economic problems, but fossil fuels running out will pose no great impediment to continued economic growth! Why can "market forces" only find alternatives to fossil fuels when reserves are getting exhausted?