Former professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech.
“Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%.
“Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.”
Koonin says that a second challenge to “knowing” future climate is today’s poor understanding of the oceans, which strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise and comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.
“A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate’s response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.
“But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available,” Koonin says.
“Rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is ‘settled’ (or is a ‘hoax’) demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.
“Society’s choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.
“Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.”
Until there is proof that everything man does effects the future and survival of the planet EARTH, DO NOT FORCE on mankind, stopping the use of fossil fuels. Man can ill afford to be without economically affordable fuel. America has made strides in cleaning our waterways and air but destroying our GOD given fossil fuel’s usage for electricity, heat and mobility is a disgrace to any rational thinking human being. Until there is an economical replacement for fossil fuels, (solar and wind just don’t cut it) I strongly suggest we continue to use our natural resources until a replacement for them is available.
We have a replacement. Safe, reliable nuclear power fueled by Thorium.
Need more information. I will look up Thorium. Tell me why bho, his minions and the idiots at the UN aren’t on top of this?
If you like your doctor you can keep him…period. There’s not a smidgen of evidence that the IRS was harassing conservative groups. The Benghazi riots was caused by the guy who produced a video criticizing Muslims.
How can anyone treat seriously the climate science ramblings (or anything at all, actually) by a pathological liar?