Voltian |
2 april 2013 08:52 |
Eerlijk waar, ik begrijp uw reacties op dat artikel niet...
De meeste reacties zijn _weeral_ technisch. allé, denken jullie nu ECHT dat jullie technisch wat kunnen bijdragen aan de materie, ernstig?! We spreken hier over een vakgebied waar een horde slimme mensen het merendeel van hun actieve leven aan wijden. Jullie "inzichten" over waterdamp en permafrost zijn, sorry, infantiel. Da's alsof je aan een motortechnicus van Porsche uitlegt dat een verbrandingsmotor werkt door benzine of diesel te verbranden...
Allé, zien jullie nu zelf niet in dat dat onnozel en eigenlijk gewoon arrogant is?
Soit, terug naar het artikel.
Dit is de leader van het artikel dat er eigenlijk aan voorafgaat:
http://www.economist.com/news/leader...ld-still-needs
Het belangrijkste even quoten:
Citaat:
...Does that mean the world no longer has to worry?
No, for two reasons. The first is uncertainty. The science that points towards a sensitivity lower than models have previously predicted is still tentative. The error bars are still there. The risk of severe warming—an increase of 3°C, say—though diminished, remains real. There is also uncertainty over what that warming will actually do to the planet. The sharp reduction in Arctic ice is not something scientists expected would happen at today’s temperatures. What other effects of even modest temperature rise remain unknown?
The second reason is more practical. If the world had based its climate policies on previous predictions of a high sensitivity, then there would be a case for relaxing those policies, now that the most hell-on-Earth-ish changes look less likely. But although climate rhetoric has been based on fears of high sensitivity, climate policy has not been. On carbon emissions and on adaptation to protect the vulnerable it has fallen far short of what would be needed even in a low-sensitivity world. Industrial carbon-dioxide emissions have risen by 50% since 1997.
Any emissions reductions have tended to come from things beyond climate policy—such as the economic downturn following the global financial crisis, or the cheap shale gas which has displaced American coal. If climate policy continues to be this impotent, then carbon-dioxide levels could easily rise so far that even a low-sensitivity planet will risk seeing changes that people would sorely regret. There is no plausible scenario in which carbon emissions continue unchecked and the climate does not warm above today’s temperatures
|
Kort, ondanks het goede nieuws (het is echt wel goed nieuws), is er zeker nog actie noodzakelijk...
|