If only the science academies would get over their infatuation with scientists are start listening to, you know, English majors.
The author is the Chairman of the Raccah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.
And California was nice while it lasted.
Opinion | How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong - The New York Times
I think it is an infatuation with money, combined with a broad enough uncertainty to keep the money rolling in.If only the science academies would get over their infatuation with scientists are start listening to, you know, English majors.
Unfortunately we do not understand how the climate works well enough to predict what will happen in the future.If true, this is fantastic news. The last two months were the greatest, warmest September/October weather here in Ohio history. November has gone straight into the ****er but hopefully in a few years we can stretch summer into December.
I think it is an infatuation with money, combined with a broad enough uncertainty to keep the money rolling in.
Unfortunately we do not understand how the climate works well enough to predict what will happen in the future.
One observation that may , or may not be linked to added CO2 is the diurnal temperature range.
It seems that minimum temperatures have been increasing faster than maximum temperatures, (thus raising the average temperature).
This was not predicted, and we really have no idea of how the climate will respond.
this will be the second year in the south where we were hot as summer, and then abruptly enter winter like conditions.
no real fall to speak of.
I am not sure it is ever safe to assume anything.Of course, if history tells us that 99% of the examples of unrestricted human impact on the environment has been negative, and we aren't sure what the impact of human induced climate change will be, it is safe to assume that it will also be negative. Therefore, we ought to reduce human impact on the climate.
I am not sure it is ever safe to assume anything.
For all we know, an ice age really was beginning in the 1970's, the Sun energy has been declining since about 1998.
perhaps the added CO2 is slowing the beginning of a new ice age!
That is more plausible than CO2, CO2 exists at both poles, but the warming is mostly near the north pole.If the ice age is being delayed, I will contend it's the soot, keeping the ice from increasing.
That is more plausible than CO2, CO2 exists at both poles, but the warming is mostly near the north pole.
the difference is not CO2, but soot.
Co2 is what is causing the planet to warm
With both its positive and negative secondary effects, you have to tangible proof.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?