tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post7070133095477612657..comments2024-03-19T01:36:13.744-05:00Comments on Althouse: "In Face of Skeptics, Experts Affirm Climate Peril."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger160125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-64393499789186861332010-02-07T06:56:35.728-06:002010-02-07T06:56:35.728-06:00Very good share ~ message support....................Very good share ~ message support<a href="http://www.e26m.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.ss.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.uu.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.a65.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.vvv.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.gucci.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.rr.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.vv.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.oxo.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.22ing.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.e26n.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.e26p.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.3a.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.mp.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.383.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.live173.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.mom.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.hoh.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.8dgo.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.e26r.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.e26q.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.k75k.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.m75m.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.x75x.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.z75z.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://www.v75v.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://vip.zz75.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://chat.zz75.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://november.zz75.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://december.zz75.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://january.zz75.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://february.zz75.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://september.zz75.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://october.zz75.com/" rel="nofollow">.</a> <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.xyz.idv.tw/" rel="nofollow">.</a>adsv15sdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11228276766585559711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7518136871849754522009-12-09T07:29:38.156-06:002009-12-09T07:29:38.156-06:00Bruce,
If you're having a discussion with som...Bruce,<br /><br />If you're having a discussion with someone, it's not a good idea to tell him to "Wake up." That can turn it into an argument.<br /><br />You are absolutely right that there are major problems with all the big climate models. However, there are various other evidences of warming. Plants and animals are moving north. Canada is greening--which, as you pointed out, means that potential farmland is opening up there. There is more glacial ice in some places and less in others and the net seems to be a loss.<br /><br />Looking at all the evidence, I think there will be problems even if there is no tipping point and no runaway warming. The fact that Al Gore wildly exaggerates doesn't mean nothing significant will happen until a century from now.<br /><br />I was wrong in my explanation of why there would be less rain. You are right that it is a matter of relative temperatures. If all temperatures went up equally, there would be no net change. However, colder areas have been warming more than warmer areas leading to some shrinkage in differences. And, as you say, the change will be uneven, with some places gaining precipitation and some losing. Tahoe may gain and Bretton Woods may lose.Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82840951022590273262009-12-08T23:18:04.273-06:002009-12-08T23:18:04.273-06:00If I knew that any significant climate change woul...<i>If I knew that any significant climate change would take "a century or two" and if I knew that it would be as mild as "an inch or two a century" of sea level rise, I would say, "No problems, mon."<br /><br />But that's not what I think a reasonable reading of the evidence suggests</i>.<br /><br />What evidence? Real measurements of real ocean levels? Or some sort of models showing such ocean level increases? I will suggest that the scientists who actually measure the level of the ocean have not seen anywhere near the level that is being used to scare us. In real life, we are seeing an inch or two a century. Not a year. <br /><br />And the models showing major temperature increases are falling apart right now. More every day. Here is one today: <a href="http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/the-homogenized-data-is-false/" rel="nofollow">Some of the “Homogenized” Temperature Data is False</a>, where the temperature data for Australia seems to have been heavily massaged to show a temperature increase, when there has actually been a temperature decrease, over the last 60 years. <br /><br />Wake up. It looks more and more like much of the AGW data has been fudged to give desired results. It will take years to dig through all of it, but everywhere people are looking there is smoke, suggesting even more fudging. <br /><br />Let me further add that much of the predicted catastrophe not only depends on climatic temperature data that is more suspect every day, but also on the assumption of a strongly positive feedback loop between CO2 and temperature, where we will soon supposedly come to a tipping point where the climate will spiral out of control. The problem with that is that such a strongly positive feedback look looks more and more implausible, and, indeed, is more likely to be slightly negative. After all, the CO2 concentration has been higher and lower, as well as the temperature. So, why didn't it spiral out of control in previous times? Rather, it looks like both plant and animal life thrived.<br /><br />Is it really rational to spend literally trillions of dollars trying to make minimal changes to our global CO2 output, when the models predicting global catastrophe seem to be unraveling right now? <br /><br /><i>When I say that global warming will dry some areas of the globe, I am not just saying it "based on an ice age." Rain does not fall unless warm moist air is cooled. Some times that means rising--say, against the windward slope of a mountain. More often it means meeting a mass of cool air. The warmer things are, the less cool air there is</i>.<br /><br />First note that what is important is the relative temperature between the two air masses, mostly not the actual temperatures. One air mass will be cooler than the other, and will thus cool it, even if both are warmer. <br /><br />Secondly, warmer air masses coming off the oceans will be able to carry more water vapor, which, when it hits, for example, the Sierras, will rise, cool, and dump. But since there is even more water vapor, the dump will be even greater. So, skiing here around Tahoe will be even better - hopefully. <br /><br />So, where water falls may move around a little bit. But I don't see major disruptions, and even if the models predict major disruptions (which they really can't accurately given the level of science right now), it is all dependent upon the theory that there is major global warming going on right now, and as I noted above, those models and theories are becoming more problematic every day. <br /><br />And, without runaway temperature increases (which depends on the strongly positive feedback assumption), any effect is going to be on the order of centuries, instead of years.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77036093509948350022009-12-08T22:48:25.328-06:002009-12-08T22:48:25.328-06:00[not to mention, Alex, that I couldn't care le...[not to mention, Alex, that I couldn't care less whether you're a non-believer in a god or a particular "the: god, or gods, or if you're specifically a believer in not believing in a god or gods--and/or so on, so on and so on iterations.<br /><br />Just to be clear. Is that clearer?<br /><br />And, again, does that make you <i>feel</i> better?]reader_iamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352836883752091339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-55054530394224442262009-12-08T22:21:38.587-06:002009-12-08T22:21:38.587-06:00If it makes you feel better, Alex, I couldn't ...If it makes you feel better, Alex, I couldn't care less whether you're a god-worshipper, a God-worshiper, or a worshipper of whatever "The" God [(or god) (or g-d)(or whichever other title)] you wish you to name.<br /><br /><i>Does</i> it make you feel better?reader_iamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352836883752091339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75105558620980173092009-12-08T20:18:59.940-06:002009-12-08T20:18:59.940-06:00Alex also wrote: It's hardly enough for some o...Alex also wrote: <i>It's hardly enough for some of you that I'm against AGW on scientific grounds, but I must be a God-worshipper!</i> (12:55 PM)<br /><br />While several people have taken issue with your nasty and illogical comments about people of faith, I don't recall anybody expressing an interest in who or what you worship.<br /><br />Apparently, you are delusional.hombrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12670099074010641958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83852746265085605842009-12-08T20:06:59.965-06:002009-12-08T20:06:59.965-06:00Alex wrote: The breathtaking irony of Creationists...Alex wrote: <i>The breathtaking irony of Creationists accusing AGWists of not abiding by the scientific method! Madness!<br /><br /></i>As far as I know you just made up that accusation to justify taking another cheap shot at Christians and Jews.<br /><br />Nevertheless, here's an interesting exchange from a debate between David Quinn and Richard Dawkins, aka Darwin's Rottweiller: <br /><br /><i>Quinn: You can’t answer the question where matter comes from! .... <br /><br />Dawkins: I can’t, but science is working on it.<br /><br /></i>I'm guessing that if Dawkins has no scientific explanation for the creation of matter, neither do you, Alex. Therefore, given the history of science, it is inordinately obtuse of you to imply that a belief in divine creation is incompatible with the pursuit of science.hombrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12670099074010641958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-42960991720242546932009-12-08T19:56:31.291-06:002009-12-08T19:56:31.291-06:00Bruce,
If I knew that any significant climate cha...Bruce,<br /><br />If I knew that any significant climate change would take "a century or two" and if I knew that it would be as mild as "an inch or two a century" of sea level rise, I would say, "No problems, mon."<br /><br />But that's not what I think a reasonable reading of the evidence suggests.<br /><br />When I say that global warming will dry some areas of the globe, I am not just saying it "based on an ice age." Rain does not fall unless warm moist air is cooled. Some times that means rising--say, against the windward slope of a mountain. More often it means meeting a mass of cool air. The warmer things are, the less cool air there is.Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51690757718056313052009-12-08T18:54:21.466-06:002009-12-08T18:54:21.466-06:00The breathtaking irony of Creationists...
Waiting...<i>The breathtaking irony of Creationists...</i><br /><br />Waiting in line at Sam's Club Sunday, I noticed the guy in front of me had on a polo shirt with "Creation Museum" embroidered on it. With a slight smirk on my face, I wondered if he believed in AGW too.DADvocatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621021178600799126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15643162944755416032009-12-08T18:29:35.726-06:002009-12-08T18:29:35.726-06:00Even over a fairly long time frame, change is cost...<i>Even over a fairly long time frame, change is costly. If rising sea level makes your waterfront property underwater property, you aren't going to be happy no matter how long you have to adapt</i>.<br /><br />You are still talking a decade or two, not a century or two, which is likely more reasonable. As I pointed out earlier, buildings, at least in this country, are routinely replaced. In a couple of decades, regardless of sea level, it is likely that your beach front house will have to be replaced regardless. Almost assuredly within the next century. And that is the time to move it. Besides, why should I, sitting about a mile above sea level, pay for your beach front house? I doubt that there is enough water on the planet to put my house under water, even if Antarctica melted (which it isn't doing right now), etc. <br /><br />Keep in mind that the hypothesis that the sea will rise any faster than that is based on the assumption that there is significant positive feedback between CO2 and temperature, and more likely, the feedback is slightly negative. The reality, not theory based on tree rings and hockey sticks, is that the detected ocean level increases right now are extremely small, closer to maybe an inch or two a century, not 20 feet, as predicted by Photoshopper AlGore. <br /><br />I am not sure what you can say about global warming causing drying in some parts of the world based on an ice age. All that snow and ice causes a lot of climatic disruption. <br /><br />But we can say (despite the work by the ClimateGate scientists to debunk this) that the temperate climate of the Medieval Warming period disappeared in the Little Ice Age, and appear to somewhat be coming back. The Vikings were forced to retrench from Vinland and Greenland, and likely mostly from Iceland, as a result of that cooling.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-212458062718393722009-12-08T17:36:16.435-06:002009-12-08T17:36:16.435-06:00Alex, he asked for evidence of a correlation betwe...Alex, he asked for evidence of a correlation between people who say that intelligent design is settled science, and those who don't think AGW is settled science. You haven't provided anything of the sort. <br /><br />Even if it were true, that wouldn't make their claims that the activists like Jones and Mann are not conducting science at all any less accurate. <br /><br />The global warming alarmists are sounding more and more like a religion every day. It seems to be a mesh between neo-pagan earth worshipers who view man as a blight upon gaia, and power hungry bureaucrats who view environmentalism as the next vehicle to implement socialism. <br /><br />The emails and code from CRU indicate that what is going on is about as far from rigorous dedication to science as it is possible to get. Science relies upon transparency, honesty, and rigorous dedication to altering the theory to match the data, all verified by independent skeptics. Jones and Mann work very hard to make sure none of that happens.Dewavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118629322603209950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84856575844072583052009-12-08T17:05:50.437-06:002009-12-08T17:05:50.437-06:00Additionally, there is no correlation of which I a...<i>Additionally, there is no correlation of which I am aware between believing intelligent design is "scientific" and believing AGW is not.</i><br /><br />If you can't see the stunning hypocrisy then that's your problem. The breathtaking irony of Creationists accusing AGWists of not abiding by the scientific method! Madness!Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44739347643569459312009-12-08T17:03:38.433-06:002009-12-08T17:03:38.433-06:00Alex wrote: elHombre - I am saying that some Chris...Alex wrote: <i>elHombre - I am saying that some Christians are being hypocritical about AGW religion. The ones who say that "intelligent design" is scientific.<br /><br /></i>That may have been what you were <i>thinking</i>. It bears no reasonable resemblance to what you wrote. Additionally, there is no correlation of which I am aware between believing intelligent design is "scientific" and believing AGW is not.hombrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12670099074010641958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3479963325886908802009-12-08T16:53:18.193-06:002009-12-08T16:53:18.193-06:00Bruce,
Even over a fairly long time frame, change...Bruce,<br /><br />Even over a fairly long time frame, change is costly. If rising sea level makes your waterfront property underwater property, you aren't going to be happy no matter how long you have to adapt.<br /><br />And while warmer air holds more water, the water doesn't rain out until the air cools. Warmer conditions will mean lower rainfall in various areas. Near the end of the last ice age, the Great Basin of Nevada was a garden. The Great Salt Lake was ten times bigger and emptied into the Snake over Red Rock Pass. It ain't that way no more.<br /><br />I think the chances are better than even that change is happening and that it will be fairly costly. Unfortunately, at the present time, all the methods of trying to stop the change are even more costly.Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18969199867069334702009-12-08T16:32:00.023-06:002009-12-08T16:32:00.023-06:00"But any change is going to require adaptatio..."<i>But any change is going to require adaptation, and any adaptation will be costly.</i>"<br /><br />If we really and truly wanted to do violence to the Earth we'd find a way to achieve a state of climate stasis.<br /><br />It would be unnatural and likely beyond damaging... we could look to flood control for an example of how stopping natural cycles changes the very things that mitigate the damage and severity of flooding making the problem much worse and requiring even stronger efforts and interventions to maintain control.<br /><br />What if we could do that to the entire planet?<br /><br />The thing is that the climate is naturally *not* static. The climate changes rather drastically as a natural process. Places that were underwater are now dry. Land that was dry is now submerged. Areas that were green and fertile are now desert. Glaciers have receded and glaciers have grown.<br /><br />In other words... we're going to have to adapt.<br /><br />And the good thing is that adapting is the one thing at which human beings are profoundly talented.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54873272388481582742009-12-08T16:05:03.834-06:002009-12-08T16:05:03.834-06:00The IPCC itself said that sea levels would rise 18...<i>The IPCC itself said that sea levels would rise 18-59 cm in the 21st century. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to believe we could deal with a 2 foot sea rise over 100 years at a much lower cost than the proposed avoidance measures</i>.<br /><br />But we know where the IPCC got a lot of their data (just look at the graph I linked to above). And 2 feet over the next century seems highly unlikely. Much more likely a couple of inches. <br /><br />In any case though, you are right. Even if the rise were 2 feet, no matter how unlikely that is, it is pretty much trivial to compensate for that over a century. Buildings wear out, and when rebuilt, they can be rebuilt on ground a couple of feet higher. Farm land wears out too, goes fallow for any number of reasons, etc., and if there is indeed global warming, all that tundra up north that would be unfrozen could be made arable instead.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54462465448686176392009-12-08T15:58:51.206-06:002009-12-08T15:58:51.206-06:00You are absolutely right that the faster the warmi...<i>You are absolutely right that the faster the warming, the harder it is to adapt to. But any change is going to require adaptation, and any adaptation will be costly. This will be especially true when optimal change would require crossing national borders. If Bangladesh loses farmland, India is not going to welcome the people who are flooded out</i>.<br /><br />Well, yes, but you are still assuming a fairly short time frame. Let us assume something different. For example, let us assume that in 100 years, Bangladesh will be able to support only 90% of what it can support now at those standards of living. And, all of a sudden you realize that, wait, population may plateau over that time and a 10% out migration will not be all that hard to handle. <br /><br />It is only when you assume truly massive changes over a very short period of time, that you ask the sort of questions that you do. <br /><br /><i>Warming will certainly mean that some land which is now too cold to farm will have a longer growing season. Once the land is cleared and drained, roads and houses are built, and people are moved, it may well produce significant amounts of food. However, warming will probably mean lower rainfall in significant areas of present farmland. How it nets out, no one knows</i>.<br /><br />How can you say that "<i>warming will probably mean lower rainfall in significant areas of present farmland</i>"? We have no idea of that is true, or if it will actually mean more rainfall. Keep in mind that warmer air has a higher carrying capacity for water than cooler air (which is part of why we get snow in the Sierras, Wasatch, and Rockies). <br /><br />Besides, again, you assume a very short time frame. A more realistic one is probably a century or two, not a decade. <br /><br /><i>There are always trade-offs. Global warming catastrophists say it will be all bad. They are wrong. But it will not be all good either</i>.<br /><br />Of course it won't all be good. But we have no reason to believe that it will be worse, and have plenty of reason to believe that any change will be over such a period of time that man can adapt to it without much additional expense.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74015776641211633732009-12-08T15:28:07.989-06:002009-12-08T15:28:07.989-06:00Sofa King points out two big problems. Global war...Sofa King points out two big problems. Global warming will have costs but so will any strategy to combat it. You don't want to spend more than you save.<br /><br />But it's impossible to really know what anything will cost or what it will accomplish. The uncertainties are just too great.<br /><br />So, many people fall back on what they wanted all along. Big government people want more power and money for governments. Small government people don't.Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-48992834686277771242009-12-08T15:17:20.255-06:002009-12-08T15:17:20.255-06:00Bruce,
You are absolutely right that the faster t...Bruce,<br /><br />You are absolutely right that the faster the warming, the harder it is to adapt to. But any change is going to require adaptation, and any adaptation will be costly. This will be especially true when optimal change would require crossing national borders. If Bangladesh loses farmland, India is not going to welcome the people who are flooded out.<br /><br />Warming will certainly mean that some land which is now too cold to farm will have a longer growing season. Once the land is cleared and drained, roads and houses are built, and people are moved, it may well produce significant amounts of food. However, warming will probably mean lower rainfall in significant areas of present farmland. How it nets out, no one knows.<br /><br />There are always trade-offs. Global warming catastrophists say it will be all bad. They are wrong. But it will not be all good either.Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2897572357366992452009-12-08T15:12:45.158-06:002009-12-08T15:12:45.158-06:00Yes YOU! For a mere 15 cents per tonne, you can bu...Yes YOU! For a mere 15 cents per tonne, you can buy Indulgences from Al Gore. Imagine showing off to your friends around the dinner table:<br /><br />"Sure I molested the babysitter, but I BELIEVE! in AGW!! So I can't be a total cad"Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4996318229065634272009-12-08T15:11:35.783-06:002009-12-08T15:11:35.783-06:00elHombre - I am saying that some Christians are be...elHombre - I am saying that some Christians are being hypocritical about AGW religion. The ones who say that "intelligent design" is scientific.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59345192270243367752009-12-08T15:10:12.051-06:002009-12-08T15:10:12.051-06:00To add to the previous: especially so when you fac...To add to the previous: especially so when you factor in a probability, even a small one, that the IPCC is wrong. If it is, and we adopt all these expensive avoidance measures, then we've spent a fortune for almost no gain - and we won't even know it. On the other hand, if we follow an adaptation and mitigation strategy, and the IPCC turns out to be wrong, we will save that fortune AND have the benefit of hindsight.Sofa Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07659133819240484346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4825357760907640502009-12-08T15:09:35.678-06:002009-12-08T15:09:35.678-06:00See, this is why the non-religious need Religion. ...See, this is why the non-religious need Religion. Their spiritual needs are displaced into man-made things. Diefication of Obama. Mother Earth as the New God. Very dangerous. <br /><br />BTW, anyone want to buy some carbon credits? Fire sale! Down to 15 cents per tonne from $7.15. Act now! and we'll throw in some Enron stock for a mere $19.99.Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84080759736090342642009-12-08T15:05:36.119-06:002009-12-08T15:05:36.119-06:00The IPCC itself said that sea levels would rise 18...The IPCC itself said that sea levels would rise 18-59 cm in the 21st century. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to believe we could deal with a 2 foot sea rise over 100 years at a much lower cost than the proposed avoidance measures.Sofa Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07659133819240484346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36980139246739173332009-12-08T14:57:46.509-06:002009-12-08T14:57:46.509-06:00Isn't that the whole point? If these changes w...<i>Isn't that the whole point? If these changes will occur over a cenury or more, isn't there a case to be made that the sensible thing is to deal with these changes as they happen, rather than engage in economically wasteful avoidance strategies that may only cripple our ability to adapt in the future?</i><br /><br />I think that the assumption is that the change is going to happen much to fast to cope with through normal change mechanisms. But, I would also suggest that that position is based on two falacies. First, that the warming of the 1980s and 1990s is going to continue (it hasn't). Second, that there is significant positive feedback, and a tipping point at which the climate will spiral out of control. But, at present, it looks more reasonable that the feedback loop is slightly negative, if anything, and clearly not steeply positive, as would be required for the sort of fast paced climate change that would justify massive changes.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.com