Editor's Comments: With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
Kot kaže bo uravnotežena. V julijski številki glasila sta dva članka. Prvi piše:
In this paper, we have used several basic atmospheric–physics models to show that additional carbon dioxide will warm the surface of Earth. We also show that observed solar variations cannot account for observed global temperature increase.
in zaključek:
Earth is getting warmer. Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.
Drugi pa:
In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.
Tega je napisal Christopher Monckton. Verjetno se bo kmalu pojavil na črni listi.
8 x komentirano:
res bo v trenutku na črni listi za odstrel, ali pa ga bodo Američani posvojili :)
Ziga, pa ravno sem ze mislil, da ste popolnoma 100% preprican glede clovekove vloge pri GW. Me veseli, da so na svetu (v politiki) ljudje, ki se razmisljajo s svojo glavo.
Vem, da tole nima veze s tem postom, a vseeno bi vas rad vprašal g. minister, če slučajno veste kakšne vinjete bodo v veljavi za 2010? To vas sprašujem predvsem zato, ker nisem našel bloga g. Radovana Žerjava, ministra za promet.
Upam, da mi odgovorite, ali pa napišete post o takih stvareh na svojem blogu.
Že v naprej se vam zahvaljujem.
tema za naslednjo objavo:
3 resnice in 7 potez za tehnološki preboj Slovenije- poziv k javni razpravi.
povezava
Seba, Al Gore je tudi Američan.
Miha, sem 100% prepričan, da ima človek vlogo pri izpustih CO2 in o tem, da CO2 ima vlogo pri globalnem segrevanju. Mislim pa, da znanost še nima dokončnega odgovora na vprašanje, kako velik je ta vpliv. "Večina znanstvenikov" sicer misli marsikaj, ampak v znanosti ni pomembno, kaj misli večina, ampak kaj mislijo tisti, ki imajo prav.
Zato je histerija odveč, prav tako pa tudi ne moremo kar zamahniti z roko češ, da se zemlja zadnjih 5-10 let itak ohlaja, da polarni led spet raste in da bomo že kako.
Jaka, ne vem. Baje naj bi takrat že imeli satelitsko cestninjenje.
Mislec, hvala za povezavo. Poznam.
Jaz ob izrazu globalno segrevanje vedno pomislim tudi na delo na daljavo/od doma (zmanjšanje prevoženih km, manj gužve na cestah in parkiriščih, ljudje so doma lahko drugače oblečeni kot v službi ...), ki je pri nas, posebej še v vladnih službah, totalno nerazvito/ONEMOGOČENO. Pa se mi zdi, da sem edina, ki razmišljam o tem ;-((
Indi, kot šef Službe vlade za razvoj sem do dela od doma maksimalno fleksibilen. Če kaj narediš ali imaš kakšno idejo (doma ali v službi - vseeno), premisli, če ne bi kariere nadaljevala pri nas.
Objavite komentar