Geir Arne Moi skrev masse tull om klima :
...
Post by Geir Arne MoiOg, igjen, "Mr. Know It All" var _ikke_ en låt om heltedyrkelse. Jeg
personlig har tilegnet meg info som tilsier at det er vanskelig å
komme unna at jordkloden er et stort drivhus - altså: varme kommer
inn, men ikke ut i samme grad - og akkurat dét er det ikke mulig å
argumentere mot. Uten vår atmosfære var planeten vår preget av samme
temperaturer som månen (jækla varmt om dagen og hinsides kaldt om
natta), såvidt jeg minnes skaper drivhusgassene i atmosfæren en
gjennomsnitlig temperaturøkning på 30 grader eller rundt omkring der.
Vi _vet_ dette. Vi vet også at vanndamp, metan, karbondioksyd m.fl er
såkalte drivhusgasser i den forstand at de lar solstrålene passere,
men hindrer varme i å stråle ut i rommet igjen. Spørsmålet er
hvorvidt den menneskeskapte industri og teknologi slipper ut
drivhusgasser i slike mengder at det vil påvirke klimaet - og dette
er ikke et så lett spørsmål som mange mener. For partikler i
atmosfæren sprer lys, reflekterer lys og kan virke kjølende - akkurat
som de kan virke varmende når lyset som faktisk slapp inn ikke kommer
ut igjen som varme. Det er forbannet vanskelig å forutsi været
ettersom det er et kaossystem: ekstremt små forskjeller betyr totalt
annet vær to måneder senere, det er umulig å måle været så nøyaktig
at man med noe presisjon kan forutsi været mer enn noen dager
framover pga kaossystemets uforutsigbarhet. Derfor blir alle
klimamodeller mer påstander enn faktabaserte, vitenskaplige
konklusjoner.
Dette har du ikke greie på. La meg først lime inn en engelsk
oversettelse av
Håvamål - Den Høyes Tale
Cattle die, kindred die,
Every man is mortal:
But I know one thing
that never dies,
The glory of the great dead.
Dine etterkommere vil ha lite å være stolte av når
de leser hva du her skriver om fremtidens klima.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/
THE FEW climate-change "skeptics" with any sort of scientific
credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all
proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of
their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse
is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger
population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all.
Long-time observers of public debates about environmental threats
know that skeptics about such matters tend to move, over time,
through three stages. First, they tell you you're wrong and they can
prove it. (In this case, "Climate isn't changing in unusual ways or,
if it is, human activities are not the cause.")
Then they tell you you're right but it doesn't matter. ("OK, it's
changing and humans are playing a role, but it won't do much harm.")
Finally, they tell you it matters but it's too late to do anything
about it. ("Yes, climate disruption is going to do some real damage,
but it's too late, too difficult, or too costly to avoid that, so
we'll just have to hunker down and suffer.")
All three positions are represented among the climate-change skeptics
who infest talk shows, Internet blogs, letters to the editor, op-ed
pieces, and cocktail-party conversations. The few with credentials in
climate-change science have nearly all shifted in the past few years
from the first category to the second, however, and jumps from the
second to the third are becoming more frequent.
All three factions are wrong, but the first is the worst. Their
arguments, such as they are, suffer from two huge deficiencies.
First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit
for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for
example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the
atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human
activities. (The argument that variations in the sun's output might
be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)
Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't
even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one,
which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science
tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow
in the atmosphere is wrong.
Members of the public who are tempted to be swayed by the denier
fringe should ask themselves how it is possible, if human-caused
climate change is just a hoax, that:
# The leaderships of the national academies of sciences of the United
States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, China,
and India, among others, are on record saying that global climate
change is real, caused mainly by humans, and reason for early,
concerted action.
# This is also the overwhelming majority view among the faculty
members of the earth sciences departments at every first-rank
university in the world.
# All three of holders of the one Nobel prize in science that has
been awarded for studies of the atmosphere (the 1995 chemistry prize
to Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina, for figuring out
what was happening to stratospheric ozone) are leaders in the
climate-change scientific mainstream.
US polls indicate that most of the amateur skeptics are Republicans.
These Republican skeptics should wonder how presidential candidate
John McCain could have been taken in. He has castigated the Bush
administration for wasting eight years in inaction on climate change,
and the policies he says he would implement as president include
early and deep cuts in US greenhouse-gas emissions. (Senator Barack
Obama's position is similar.)
The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global
climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable,
it is dangerous. It has delayed - and continues to delay - the
development of the political consensus that will be needed if society
is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science
of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who
still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again.
John P. Holdren is a professor in the Kennedy School of Government
and the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard and the
director of the Woods Hole Research Center.
--
jo
"Og disse folkene sover,
og har hustruer og barn som de elsker!"
-- Emile Zola,"J'accuse ...", 1898.