epoisses - if we believe the scientists, the changes that we see today in the artic will be just the tip of the iceberg, if we continue the status quo.
Greg is right - there have been many variations in climate within our recent history. The purpose of my multiple links was to respond to a question that appeared to question whether there was any warming going on in the artic. As I indicated the question is not whether it's going on but why (natural cycle or man-accelerated).
There are several in this thread who point to historical climate change apparently as proof (!?) that the current climate change are not man-created. What it proves is that from a layman's perspective there is a plausible alternative scenario. It doesn't prove one way or another what the causal factors are. To make an educated guess on that question will require consideration of the climate model with all it's forcing functions well as looking at rates of change and applying statistical analysis. If we adopted the stance that any change which does not exceed historical climate extremes should therefore be disregarded, I guess we won't be taking any actions until we see something like an ice-age? I hope we agree that is not the correct approach.
The proof to me is not in the warming, it is in the consensus among scientific organizations cited above. (I have not yet seen any credible scientific organizations or panels yet cited on the other side although I will repeat my request for someone to prove me wrong on this.)
One historical criticism of the state-of-the-art climate models is that they predict more warming from CO2 than we have actually seen. To the extent we see global warming trends become apparent, it tends to counter this criticism and support the models.
regarding corus' link - cooling of Northern Europe as I understand it would be associated with slowing down of the North Atlantic ocean conveyor, all part of the same scenario predicting overall global warming which does not mean warming everywhere, but an average warming with different changes depending on where you are.
Sompting guy - that looks like an interesting reference although I don't plan on spending the money for it. I would like to ask if you think that this single author has comparable credibility to LANL, LLNL, NANA, NOAA, NAS, WHOA, IPCC?
davidbeach - I think you are correct. An accelerated ice age is identified as a possible result of man-induced global warming but the time frame is very long. The global warming scenario's are already upon us with dramatic change forecast within a century.
Quantum - I don't see what's arrogant about trying to minimize our impact. Quite the contrary it is arrogant to on one hand acknowledge CO2 has increased by 25% as a result of man's activities, continues to increase at an INCREASING RATE, is identified as a contributor to global warming by our most credible scientific organizations, has barely begun to show it's effects due to the huge thermal inertia of the system.... and on the other hand to conclude that we don't need to do anything about it because A - someone on the internet said it doesn't exist B - we think we can cope with it when it happens, C - insert your favorite lame excuse here. THAT is arrogant!
I see a repeated refrain through the posts that there appear to be so many contradictions within climate science that we can't possibly hope to understand the problem and shouldn't waste any effort in addressing since the results of our tremendous efforts will be unknown (and if you listen to LCruiser, limiting CO2 would plunge us into an ice age!). The contradictions appear within the cluttered cacaphony (sp?) of cyber-space and the media. As we know there are winners and losers in acting responsible and the losers will undoubtedly try to influence us with any smoke and mirrors they can muster. If the appearance of widespread scientific disagreement created through these smoke and mirrors creates uncertainty, and if uncertainty means inaction, then I guess it's been a pretty effective strategy. They score bonus points using by keeping the discussion politically charged with plenty of labels like "fear monger" and "alarmist".
The uncertainty and chaos does not extend to the mainstream scientific community. They have spoken in large credible groups with a fairly uniform message urging us to reduce CO2 production as I have cited above.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
