ENVIRONET Archives

February 2006

EnviroNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Kane, Joseph E (US SSA)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Environmental Issues <[log in to unmask]>, Kane, Joseph E (US SSA)
Date:
Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:47:10 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
I think we should automatically discount anything in the popular press
about a 
scientific theory with the word "global" in the title ;-)

Any scientist would admit that the globe is an incredibly complex
system, and 
we currently lack the tools to model global climate with any certainty.
So any
scientific theories on this subject necessarily include uncertainty,
caveats, 
error bounding, and nuance, which does not translate at all well into
Swedish
television, the Weekly Science And Technology section of the newspaper,
or
any political forum.

My completely unscientific opinion.

-Joe


-----Original Message-----
From: Skillborg, Fredrik [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [EN] Global darkening


There was a program on Swedish television a couple of weeks ago about
the global darkening. It stated that the global warming is slowed down
by the global darkening. The global darkening is caused by the particles
we let out in the atmosphere. If this wasn't happening the global
warming would accelerate much faster than today.

 

Is this common knowledge, bullsh-t or interesting facts? To me it was
news.

 

// Fredrik

 

 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2