Pay attention to the IPCC's own words: "The climate system is a coupled
non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of
future climate states is not possible...". That means exactly what it
says. But if the modelers actually took that to heart they'd be out of
a job.
Everything you've mentioned below is simply a symptom of warming and
says absolutely nothing about its cause. But I agree with your comment
about increased CO2 being a result of temperature rather than the cause.
Close examination of the proxy data relating temperature and CO2 in
pre-historic times shows that temperature leads CO2 concentrations by
about 800 years.
Is this comforting? No. The climate is certainly warming (so far) but
we really don't know the cause and would likely have little or no
control over it even if we did. Just hope it doesn't revert soon to
cooling which is much worse.
Chuck Norcutt
On 11/30/2012 11:57 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Chuck, where I'm having issues with your analysis is that there is
> empirical evidence supporting the models--even as flawed as they are.
> However, I also understand that in order to make the evidence fit the
> models there are some interesting conclusions being made to avoid
> discrepancies.
>
> I believe that there are several very specific things to watch and be
> concerned about:
>
> 1. Arctic Ocean Ice. This is highly concerning because failure to have
> a proper ice sheet form over the Arctic Ocean has a significant effect
> on the global ocean currents. It wouldn't take much to interrupt the
> conveyor.
>
> 2. Greenland Ice Sheet. We're getting uncontrolled melting there in
> ways that there is no historical examples being found to show that it
> is reversible.
>
> 3. Rain Forest Destruction. This is a severe issue and not because of
> CO2 consumption, as the rain forest is usually CO2 positive, but it
> does contribute to the formation, height and density of the storms
> that form over the Intertropical Convergence Zone. These storms are
> responsible for pumping moisture into the upper atmosphere.
>
> 4. Melting of permafrost/ancient bogs. The amount of stored CO2 in
> these areas is mindboggling, but I'm not big on the CO2 causation
> issue. The issue here is that the melting of the permafrost caused far
> darker regions in the upper latitudes which increases the average
> temperatures.
>
> Personally, I consider these to be the big four.
>
> The problem I have with the climate models is that the typical
> climate-change advocate says that CO2 is the primary cause of climate
> change (global warming?), but I personally believe that the CO2
> increase is a symptom of climate change. True, there is some symbiotic
> relationship going on, but you just can't get the models to work if
> you go entirely with "greenhouse gas" causation.
>
> An acquaintance of mine turned me onto something else which may have
> had a tremendous impact on the climate. Denver. The "heat island"
> effect of Denver and the entire front range metropolitian area has
> altered the historical tendencies of the downdrafts that form along
> the eastern slope of the Rockies. This provides temporary heating all
> the way across Nebraska and into Iowa in the wintertime, but will
> typically strengthen the upper latitude lows (the super lows that
> bring us those massive winter storms every week and a half or so).
> There is evidence that this also changes the direction of the jet
> stream and Rossby Waves. It may be hard to believe that one city could
> have a global impact, but it's all about location. This is a spot that
> is hyper critical.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|