"Climategate" Explained

Nothing and everything is proof. The problem is the difference between the hypothesis "the earth is warming" and the null hypothesis "the earth is not warming" is so slight that it's almost impossible to measure--especially on the short term (less than 1,000 years). You have to put your faith in models, and I've done too much Met modeling to have any faith in them.

There is debate amongst meteorologists about how an enhanced greenhouse effect would manifest itself. One scenario suggests you would see more frequent and stronger storm systems in the mid-latitudes. Warmer warm fronts, colder cold fronts, and more precipitation. I personally favor this possibility. The problem is the natural variability of the sun and annual weather patterns makes picking out a trend difficult.

I think the jury is still out on man-made climate change, which is why "Climategate" is so important. Changing our energy infrastructure to mitigate a changing climate will induce risk. A changing climate will also induce risk. Determining the optimal risk management strategy will require integrity in both domestic and foreign politicians, as well as the scientists exploring the issue. I figure we're pretty much screwed when it comes to trusting worldwide politicians, and it's looking more and more like the same is true for the IPCC. I'm not particularly happy where that leaves us.


I think the jury is 11 saying yes , and one who will never change there mind....
 
Werbung:
I think the jury is 11 saying yes , and one who will never change there mind....

I've spoken with a lot of meteorologists and geophysicists about this issue--the jury is more evenly split than you think. However, if it were a civil trial I think the plaintiff would win. I personally favor a move towards greener energy--nuclear power. :eek: Shoot, I forgot to ask a moderator--can we use the N word in this forum?
 
Werbung:
Back
Top