Some post comment comments.
Yes indeed, there are some skeptics. There always are skeptics to all scientific papers and findings. That is welcomed by all scientists as a means to force more stringent testing of their means, findings and logic. With a system as complicated as a planet, there are an enormous number of influences. You'll note that even hitech continously tries to improve his flight model, but only with known and verifiable physics and testing, not based on a non physics-based agenda.
Lets talk about Dr. Hansen (the "NASA guy").
In 1988, he created a stir with his testimony to Congress by presenting a graph of temperature rise modeling with 3 scenarios, since the future is always unknowable, including future CO2 emission and even volcanic eruption. He factored in a large eruption for 1995 as a placeholder (Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, by chance).
The press and his critics (industry) jumped on his worse case projection of CO2 emission as being inflammatory, but Dr. Hansen testified at the time that the mid-range scenario was obviously his best estimate. Dr. Hansen has always agreed that any model needs to adjusted and modified over time and welcomes all data, without agenda.
His biggest critic, Patrick Michaels, testified before Congress ten years later and erased the low and mid-range scenario from Dr. Hansen's graph, leaving the upper scenario only and claiming that Dr. Hansen's projection was 300% off.
Well, guess what? Dr. Hansen's mid-range scenario projected in 1988 was very close to the actual observed mean global temperature. He was right. He also said, in 1999, that we needed another decade of observation to better tune the models. He, and the
vast majority of scientists, agreed that observation of the poles will provide the best clues to whether the model is getting better.
If Dr. Hansen were in this for fame and money, he wouldn't be a government employee.
-----
Since then, the data is showing that our total system is more sensitive to CO2 than we thought and the surface mean temperature rise of the planet is showing an
exponential curve,
not a flat rise for scenarios based on CO2 emission.
-----
You should read ^ again. It's going to be awhile for the significance of this to filter down from the scientists, since they don't have very good handlers or PR people. The traditional environmental groups aren't any better.
I never said the world would end in 10 or 20 years. I said that we have probably a 10 year window to start taking action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And I never said this is an American problem.
It will take enormous guts to change our complete global thinking on energy production and usage within a generation. I'm not optimistic that it can be done.
I guess I'll respond to the cynics with this: what if the vast majority of scientists are right, and those of you who know next to nothing about it are wrong?
What are the economic and global political consequences? Later...
