3 ms·
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html would be a good place to start reading
by anorwell 16y ago
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html would be a good place to start reading.
Additionally, even if you take the OP article at face value, nothing in it constitutes an argument that current temperature shifts are not man-made. All he's done is shown that there has been natural temperature variability in pre-industrial times. This is clearly not an argument that current warming is not man-made.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoWhether or not it's man-made isn't really an interesting question, as far as I can tell. In fact, the only interesting question is what is worse: the effect of climate change, or the cost of trying to avert it. And virtually all discussion of climate change completely ignores that very question.
- skorgu 16y agoThe IPCC goes into substantial detail on cost estimates for mitigation, in brief: > Stabilizing CO2 concentrations at around 445 to 535 ppm, limiting the longterm temperature rise to about 3.6 to 5.4°F (2 to 3°C), is estimated to reduce the cumulative growth in global GDP 3 percent by 2030. This is equivalent to only a 0.12 percent reduction in annual growth rate of GDP. More importantly 'what it would cost' is pernicious to calculate. Especially when 5% of global GDP could conceivably be a huge number of people: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/how-to-destroy-almost-half-planet-for.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/how-to-destroy-almost...