On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:38:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy wrote:



I would like to know:-

How much global warming is anthropogenic and how much natural ( e.g. the
little ice age was caused by the sun, but what were the early middle ages
and Roman warm periods caused by? It wasn't C02. It was warm enough to farm
in Greenland in 1000AD, its not that warm now, how come ice caps didn't melt
This is as bad as the nature/nurture question. It doesn't really matter what
caused it - we need to reduce it to avoid *big* problems.


I do wonder about one thing. Let's suppose that the apparent
increase in temperature is actually due to a cyclic trend and has
little relationship to CO2 emissions.

If this did turn out to be the case, then controlling CO2 emissions
would not have the effect that is hoped.

In practical terms, it is also unlikely that the larger polluters are
going to be willing to do what is required to bring CO2 emission
levels down to the figures at the point that there was first thought
to be a possible connection.

This is not to say that one should not attempt to reduce CO2
emissions, but equally one does not read a lot about work to deal with
the impact of substantial climate change if and when it happens.

Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little
unwise.


--

..andy