More Global Warming questions

Remember that if there is no/very little ice at the poles that sea level is 200 feet (70 m or so) higher. That’s a LOT of water. It’s possible the heat-sink effect modified the climate at both ends (so to speak).

And hijacking was exactly what I had in mind for this thread. Ask your questions, get some answers. Come to whatever understanding of Global Warming is possible.

Climate is extremely complex, which is why it is so hard to predict what is going to happen under different scenarios.

Your problem is thinking that just because the global average temperature changes, therefore all places change by the same amount, or change in the same way. The global average temperature is just that - a global average. Most places may be increasing in average temperature, but the amount of change is different in different places, and in some places the average may even be going down. This has probably also been true in previous episodes of warmer climate, such as those of the Pliocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous mentioned above.

Under present conditions, it is generally believed the the polar regions will undergo a much greater increase of temperature than the tropics over the next few centuries. The major effects in the tropics are more likely to be changes in rainfall patterns rather than a major temperature increase.

US Senate article (pdf) on AGW skeptics.

You might try Googling “Marc Morano,” the guy who wrote this. Not an unbiased person. Anyway, agree with the content of the article or not, this comes out of one Senator’s office, and doesn’t necessarily represent the opinion of the Senate.

What is the concensus about Dr. marcel leroux? he is a skeptic about the role of human-generated CO2 in global warming? As far as I know, he ais a respected scientist-is he considered a crank?

I don’t know - but maybe others can weigh in on that.

Judging from his book jacket, yes.

He was once director of the Laboratory of Climate, Risks, and the Environment in Lyon, so if he’s a crank, he’s at least not a run-of-the-mill crank. I can’t read French, so I haven’t found his publication record (although he does have 2 AGW skeptic books published in English). He appears to believe that computer models are insufficient and that other explanations besides anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] explain the warming, which isn’t necessarily cranky, but the devil is in the details, and I haven’t read his books.

Could be that he’s simply wrong. Keep in mind that a scientist isn’t necessarily a crank because he/she disagrees with the consensus. Einstein refused to accept quantum physics for quite some time, and he was certainly not considered a crank. Science is all about consensus and skepticism, and well-thought out criticism keeps the folks in the consensus group honest.

Of course, a problem arises when honest scientific skepticism is used by specific interests to claim that the science is uncertain and so we shouldn’t believe anyone. Problems also arise when a scientist discovers something that is truly paradigm-shifting. At first, he/she is outside the consensus and considered a crank, but as time passes and data prove the new theory, the consensus changes. If it were straightforward, we wouldn’t be discussing it here or anywhere else…