å…¨çƒå˜æš–æ˜¯ä¸æ˜¯ä¸€ä¸ªé‡è¦é—®é¢˜ï¼Ÿå¯èƒ½æ˜¯ã€‚但我认为,科å¦å®¶ç›®å‰æ‰€èƒ½å¯¹å…¨çƒå˜æš–问题æä¾›çš„æœ€ä½³ç”案也仅仅是“很å¯èƒ½â€ã€‚
本文全部资料æ¥è‡ªäºŽçº½çº¦æ—¶æŠ¥æœ€æ–°ä¸€ç¯‡ä¸“æ æ–‡ç« :In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm [1/1/2008]。
本文主è¦é’ˆå¯¹æœ€è¿‘论å›ä¸Šå…³äºŽå…¨çƒå˜æš–导致的气候大å˜åŒ–çš„è§‚ç‚¹ã€‚è¿™äº›äººè¯´ï¼Œå˜æš–ä¹Ÿè®¸æ²¡ä»€ä¹ˆï¼Œå› ä¸ºå˜æš–导致的ç¾é𾿀§åŽæžœæ‰æ˜¯é‡è¦çš„ï¼Œå› æ¤åº”该å«åšglobal climate changeã€‚å¯¹æ¤æˆ‘çš„çœ‹æ³•æ˜¯è¿™æ ·çš„ã€‚
1. Climate 一直都在 change。地çƒç›®å‰çš„æ°”候环境其实å¯ä»¥è¯´æ˜¯åކå²ä¸Šå°‘è§çš„好气候时期。比如说å¯ä»¥è·Ÿæ˜Žæœæœ«å¹´çš„å°å†°æ²³æ—¶æœŸæ¯”æ¯”ï¼Œé‚£æ—¶å€™æ²¡æœ‰ä»€ä¹ˆäººé€ æ¸©å®¤æ°”ä½“ã€‚
å› æ¤random的气候å˜åŒ–å¹¶ä¸å¯æ€•ï¼Œå¯æ€•çš„ systematicçš„å˜åŒ–ã€‚ä¹Ÿå°±æ˜¯è¯´åœ°çƒæœ¬æ¥å°±ç»å¸¸æœ‰å„ç§æ¶åŠ£å¤©æ°”ï¼Œæ¯”å¦‚è¯´é¾™å·é£Žå•Šå¹²æ—±å•Šä»€ä¹ˆçš„,这ä¸å¯æ€•。但是如果地çƒçš„平凿¸©åº¦çœŸçš„ç”±äºŽäººä¸ºåŽŸå› è€Œ æŒç»ä¸Šå‡ï¼Œå“ªæ€•ä»…ä»…æ˜¯å‡ åº¦ï¼Œé‚£çš„ç¡®æ˜¯éžå¸¸å¯æ€•的事情。å‰é¢æ–‡ç« 说过了,地çƒçš„平凿¸©åº¦ä¹Ÿåœ¨ä¸åœçš„èµ·ä¼ï¼Œå› æ¤åªæœ‰å½“这次温度å‡é«˜æ˜¯å‰æ‰€æœªæœ‰çš„æƒ…å†µä¸‹ï¼Œå®ƒæ‰æ˜¯ 坿€•的。
2.最新的资料表明,2007年的地çƒå¹³å‡æ¸©åº¦æ˜¯2001å¹´ä»¥æ¥æœ€ä½Žçš„一年。尽管如æ¤BBCä»ç„¶è¯´è¿™â€œç¬¦åˆâ€å…¨çƒå˜æš–的趋势。注æ„ï¼çº½çº¦æ—¶æŠ¥æŠ¥é“æ¤äº‹çš„æ—¶å€™æ˜¯åœ¨è®½åˆºBBCï¼Œæ„æ€æ˜¯è¯´å…¨çƒå˜æš–虽然å¯èƒ½æ˜¯çœŸçš„,但BBC实在有点å¹è¿‡äº†ã€‚
3. 在鼓å¹å˜æš–çš„å¤§èƒŒæ™¯ä¸‹ï¼Œå—æžçš„å†°å±‚å¢žåŠ äº†ã€‚è¿™ä¹Ÿæ˜¯å¾ˆå¤šäººæ›´æ„¿æ„æŠŠå…¨çƒå˜æš–称为“global climate changeâ€çš„é‡è¦åŽŸå› å§ã€‚
4. 那么全çƒå˜æš–对气候到底有什么影å“呢?2005å¹´çš„Katrina 飓风之åŽï¼Œå¾ˆå¤šäººè¯´ä½ 看,这就是全çƒå˜æš–导致的ï¼äº‹å®žä¸ŠçœŸæœ‰ç§‘å¦å®¶è¿™ä¹ˆè®¤ä¸ºï¼Œæ¯”如说一篇å‘表在Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Societyè¿™ä¸ªä¸æ€Žä¹ˆçŸ¥å的期刊上的论文就认为是全çƒå˜æš–å¯¼è‡´äº†é£“é£Žçš„å¢žåŠ ã€‚è¿™ç¯‡è®ºæ–‡è¢«æŠ¥é“了79次。
而å¦ä¸€ç¯‡è®ºæ–‡ï¼Œå‘表在Nature上,则认为“global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanesâ€ã€‚Natureè¿™ç¯‡æ–‡ç« è¢«æŠ¥é“了多少次?3次。
ä½œä¸ºä¸€ä¸ªé æžç§‘ç ”åƒé¥çš„人,Natureåœ¨æˆ‘å¿ƒç›®ä¸æ˜¯æƒå¨æ‚å¿—ã€‚å› æ¤æˆ‘认为所谓全çƒå˜æš–导致的global climate change,ä¸åŒ…æ‹¬é£“é£Žçš„æ˜¾è‘—å¢žåŠ ã€‚äº‹å®žä¸Š2007年没什么大飓风导致的大洪水。
5. 很多人认为全çƒå˜æš–ä¼šå¯¼è‡´å¹²æ—±å¢žåŠ ï¼Œæ¯”å¦‚æˆˆå°”åœ¨å…¶è¯ºè´å°”和平奖仪å¼ä¸Šå°±æ˜¯è¿™ä¹ˆè¯´çš„。而科å¦å®¶çš„事实是:温度å‡é«˜ä¼šå¯¼è‡´ç©ºæ°”æ›´åŠ æ½®æ¹¿ï¼Œä»Žè€Œå‡å°‘干旱ï¼
6. æˆ‘ä¸æ‡‚气候,但很å¯èƒ½ç¬¬ä¸€æµçš„ç§‘å¦å®¶å¹¶æ²¡æœ‰åœ¨å…¨çƒå˜æš–导致气候æ¶åŠ£æ–¹é¢è¾¾æˆä»€ä¹ˆå…±è¯†ã€‚坿˜¯ä¸ºä»€ä¹ˆå¤§ä¼—å´æ¯”ç§‘å¦å®¶è¿˜ä¿¡ä¹‹å‡¿å‡¿å‘¢ï¼ŸåŽŸå› æ˜¯å®£ä¼ ã€‚ä»Žå¥½çš„æ–¹é¢æƒ³ï¼Œ æ˜¯ä¸ºäº†è®©ä½ ç›¸ä¿¡ï¼Œè®°è€…ä»¬æŠ¥é“的时候矫枉过æ£äº†ï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯çº½çº¦æ—¶æŠ¥é‚£ç¯‡æ–‡ç« 的说法。从ä¸å¥½çš„角度说,å˜åœ¨ä¸€ä¸ªâ€œå…¨çƒå˜æš–说利益集团â€ã€‚
7. å¾ˆå¤šä¸æ˜¯åކå²å¦å®¶çš„人比真æ£çš„历å²å¦å®¶æ›´ç›¸ä¿¡æŸäº›åކå²äº‹å®žã€‚这是一个普é现象。
8. æ”¿åºœå®˜å‘˜å’Œå…¶ä»–è¡Œä¸šçš„ç ”ç©¶äººå‘˜ä¹Ÿéƒ½å¯¹å…¨çƒå˜æš–感兴趣,他们甚至跟气象å¦å®¶å¯¹è¯ã€‚但我ä¸è®¤ä¸ºä»–们的知识就是专业知识,或者他们真æ£â€œäº†è§£â€ä¸“ä¸šçŸ¥è¯†ã€‚å› ä¸ºæ‰€è°“ä¸“ä¸šçŸ¥è¯†ï¼Œå¾ˆå¯èƒ½æœ¬èº«ä¹Ÿæ²¡æœ‰å®šè®ºã€‚
9. 请问有多少人看过Natureé‚£ç¯‡æ–‡ç« ï¼Ÿ
[è¿™ç¯‡æ˜¯ä»Šå¹´ä¸€æœˆä»½å› ä¸ºåœ¨è®ºå›è·Ÿäººäº‰è®ºè€Œéšæ‰‹å†™çš„ï¼Œæ”¾åœ¨è¿™é‡Œä¸ºä¸‹ä¸€ç¯‡æ–‡ç« åšå‚考文献。]
#1 by Roger Wang on 5月 27, 2010 - 6:02 上午
Quote
Climate change is political topic. So it should be used as one.
Pingback: ç§‘å¦æ— 定论:从手机è¾å°„到全çƒå˜æš– « å¦è€Œæ—¶å˜»ä¹‹
#2 by ecocity on 8月 26, 2010 - 5:45 下午
Quote
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/pdf/ngeo779.pdf
Quote from the abstract of Tropical cyclones and climate change on Nature Geoscience ” Future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre.”
–Long story short, fewer but heavier tropical storms can be expected. By the way, the potential destructiveness of storms increases more steeply than the wind velocities; a 2-11% higher speed means a 6-37% higher destructiveness. (Emanuel 2005).
from realclimate
“http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/climate-scientist-bashing/comment-page-10/#comments”
#3 by åŒäººäºŽé‡Ž on 8月 31, 2010 - 12:32 上午
Quote
这是支æŒå˜æš–导致ç¾é𾿀§æ°”å€™å¢žåŠ çš„é‡è¦è®ºæ–‡äº†ï¼Œå¤šè°¢æŒ‡å‡ºï¼
#4 by Stella on 11月 2, 2016 - 12:17 下午
Quote
1.Your understanding about the anthropogenic effect is correct.
2.Temperature hiatus in the early 21st century is a very hot research topic. So far most of the world-leading studies attribute it to climate variability, such as PDO.
3.Sea ice is an important evidence of global warming, unfortunately. Please refer to IPCC report.
4.Extreme events are expected to increase in general. Specifically, hurricane, as one of the most turbulent weather event, is difficult to predict. Although, there is model simulation supporting the increasing probability of extra-tropic cyclone.
5.Drying or wetting, again, is a very uncertain topic. It’s not just temperature increases the vapor pressure in the atmosphere. Energy limitation and land condition such as soil moisture, vegetation growth, are all very important perspectives.
The more you study in a field, the more complexity you will see. Overall, it’s naive to argue that A is true, while B is a lie. If you see everything as a Yinmou or Baxi, then you can’t “take in information over affirmation”.