Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Solving American ______________

On Nov 10, 2010, at 7:21 AM, marx@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:

There are very few people that are true deniers of climate change.

That's certainly true within the scientific community and probably true on a world-wide basis, but not at all true for the American public and especially not true for "conservative" Republicans. See http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming

Yes, climate change is occurring.

That's a forceful statement. Good for you. It does seem to me that the evidence for that is becoming pretty clear cut. As clear as it is, however, it seems to me that the evidence is even clearer that we SHOULD be seeing climate change for the simple reasons that Art Hobson lays out in TPT this month:

"The sudden atmospheric CO2 spike during only the past two centuries is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years of alternating ice ages and interglacials. This spike is of undeniably human origin; so far as I know, even climate skeptics agree with this statement. The natural greenhouse effect undeniably warms Earth's surface by 33 degrees C, and CO2 is known to be the second strongest greenhouse gas, after water vapor. There's every reason to think that this CO2 spike is responsible for the temperature increase, and indeed nobody has proposed a plausible alternative mechanism. Common sense, simple models, and all of the computer models predict that the CO2 spike should cause a few-degree increase in the greenhouse effect. That's exactly what's been happening. Indeed, climate skeptics need to answer the obvious question: Why wouldn't you expect that high CO2 levels are causing high temperatures?"

The Earth is a dynamic system, where things change on various time scales.

Yes. So?

People that are labeled "deniers" are often more aptly labeled "skeptics" because they question scientific methods or
conclusions based on available information (to them).

What is that supposed to mean? You claim that very few people deny what you also claim is clearly happening, but then go on to claim that they are "skeptical" of the (relatively simple) science that explains WHY it is happening. I don't get it.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona