Posted on 02/03/2007 3:12:22 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
WASHINGTON -- U.S. government scientists Friday said the long-term outlook for global warming may be more dire than suggested by this week's United Nations' report, which they say doesn't fully address the impact of clouds and melting glaciers.
Recent evidence of accelerated melting of glaciers in Greenland and the Antarctic ice cap came too late to be included in the report released Thursday by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Glaciers are among the largest sources of fresh water in the world and are contributing to rising ocean levels. Rising sea levels could expose population centers bordering the ocean to more storm damage and could require evacuation in some areas. But the computer models used for the IPCC report based their predictions only on the results of heating of the existing water in the world's oceans, causing the oceans to expand and sea levels to rise, said Tom Delworth, a climate modeler for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the government agency in charge of climate science and weather service.
The IPCC report predicts sea levels will rise by between one to two feet over the next 100 years. Mr. Delworth said there remains "much more uncertainty" over how much accelerated melting of glaciers might add to that.
A second area of continuing uncertainty has to do with the impact of clouds on climate change. Warming the ocean sends more water vapor into the air, and the resulting clouds accelerate global warming by trapping more of the sun's heat in the atmosphere and further warm the ocean. Jim Butler, deputy director of NOAA's global monitoring division, called this "a very scary feedback mechanism."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I would classify it as an event with precedence on Earth. You and I are conversing on the internet. Evidently Greenland becoming green again does not preclude that, no?
I will wade through your link and see if I can't wrap my blue collar mind around it though. Like I said on the other thread, I don't have much of a horse in the race. I would prefer a nice planet for my progeny but otoh I've never been much for authoritative folks who brook no dissent which is exactly what I see from the AGW crowd.
So would I. Rapid climate change threatens that prospect.
Yeah and??????????????
Your position is that ACO2 extant in the atmosphere is causing a rapid climate change. Now what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.