Greeny News

David Rose, who wrote this piece is unrecognizable from the real man - and I was grossly distorted too

interesting that I spent an hour on Friday morning coffee with a neighbor, David Rose Mail on Sunday, talking about climate change. He was concerned about the apparent "lack of warming" in the last decade (or rather, the lack of warming at the surface), and I wondered if I wore as a climate scientist, to check my expectations for the future. /

I explained how recent observations have suggested that the very high values ??of the "climate sensitivity" values ??called (long-term warming, we expect to double the carbon dioxide), more than 5 ? C or less, it seems unlikely. And how the current rate of warming was looking unrealistic in some models more sensitive in the current round of comparisons.

But he also explained that the doubling of pre-industrial concentrations of carbon dioxide, which are almost certain to do now was only the beginning. The increased use of fossil carbon at current rates would lead to airborne concentrations four times pre-industrial figures for 2100. Thus, even if the "climate sensitivity" is as low as 2C, with a few lines of evidence now suggest, I'd always looking at 4 ? C, most of the 22 to start.

The reason is that a lot of fossil carbon, there, and continue to find more: the Japanese have just shown how to extract undersea methane clathrates. And like other carbon reservoirs are filled, an increasing proportion of carbon in the atmosphere is clear, indeed, always (unless you decide grandchildren pumping again).

David accepted this - I quote: "Of course, I agree that CO2 emissions must decrease" - while arguing that the government focus on short-term measures such as the promotion of wind power is largely irrelevant. I could not agree more. I can see a case of wind farms to avoid excessive dependence on Russian gas, but it should not be of illusions that are solution to climate change.

Find best price for : --Guardian----Mail----David--