I do not doubt that increased CO2 in the atm causes global warming and that nowadays much of it comes from burning fossil fuels.
Yet my opinion of the Vostok ice core data is that when global temperatures got to their present levels, rapid global warming abruptly turned into less rapid global cooling and eventual descent into another ice age. I believe the mechanism is that global warming makes the jet stream more unstable. When I was young some 50-60 years ago, the jet stream essentially went directly across the USA. Now it dips down into Texas and seemingly stabilizes there as it just fits the continental USA. The resulting snow cover in the winter changes the earth's albedo and may be the causal factor in a flip from warming to cooling. I just heard a week or so ago on NPR that Siberia is experiencing record snowfalls. So apparently stabilization of the jet stream over the USA, if that is indeed true, may stabilize it across the entire globe. Time will tell. The Republicans should be willing to pay me good money for such a theory. But I hate what they are doing to the USA so much that I hope you all will keep this possibility a secret. Richard On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:58 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 12/9/2014 7:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > ... > > As I said, I haven't developed a strong opinion in regards to > anthropogenic global warming, so I certainly wouldn't label myself a > "climate change denier" though perhaps some would take the fact that my > mind is not settled as sufficient reason to put me in that bucket. However, > there are some reasons that I remain unconvinced. Among them: > > 1. The fact that the question is so heavily politicized and that there > is so much money involved naturally arouses my suspicion (must take every > news article and report with a grain of salt unlike say, a paper on pure > number theory) > > > The money is essentially all on the side of the fossil fuel industry. > Nobody gets rich being a serious climatologist. > > 2. Lack of consensus on what the effects will be: in the 1970s the fear > was global cooling, > > > There was never such "fear". It was a popular book based on the cyclic > ice ages that "predicted" a new ice-age (eventually). It has been picked > up as by AGW deniers as proof that climatologists don't know anything. > http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf > > http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/11/10/203320/killing-the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/ > > in the 1990s it was global warming, and when neither long-term trend > established itself it has since become climate change and extreme whether, > but statistical studies have found no statistically abnormal increase in > extreme weather events. > > > Why cherry pick extreme weather as the indicator? There's plenty of > empirical evidence for global warming, based on the most cutting edge > statistical analysis and data and conducted by a former AGW skeptic. > http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings > > 3. Failure of models: Early climate models projected an increase in > global temperatures over the last 10 years, but those increases never > materialized. > > > Ten years is very short in climate terms. And global warming doesn't > necessarily imply global temperature increase. A lot of ice can melt > without the temperature increasing. > http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/has-global-warming-stopped.pdf > > (As a side-note, I used to find the existence of models which could > accurately follow past temperature changes used to be extremely convincing > with regards to the dangers of global warming, but years later I found > after experimenting with developing currency trading algorithms that > through training, genetic algorithms, etc. that it was relatively easy to > create models that were exceptionally good at reproducing past trends, yet > they utterly failed to have any predictive power. After this experience, I > came to realize that generating models that match a given trend is easy, > but that is no indication of the model's legitimacy) > > > So you're accusing climate scientists of using adaptive curve fitting > algorithms, rather than physics based models? And the simple calculations > of Arrhenius in 1890 no longer apply? > > 4. Recent exposes on the corner cutting and general bad practices of > climatologists involved in developing reports for policy makers. > > > What are these "bad practices"? The "exposes" I've read have been cheap > nit-picking by fossil fuel industry flacks. > > > > If human CO2 emissions are changing the climate, does that mean we > should adopt a Kyoto (or similar) proposal? This is even less clear. This > would require all of the following to be true: > > > Why not add: > 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. > 2. Burning fossil fuel puts CO2 into the air. > 3. Human burning of fossil fuel has almost doubled atmospheric CO2 - even > though about half of that produced has been absorbed in the oceans. > > > 1. Climate change exists > 2. Human CO2 emissions are a significant factor in that climate change > 3. Counteractive effects (clouds, biosphere) are understood and won't be > enough to compensate for the excess CO2 > > > Or they will be in the direction of amplifying the effect (e.g. Clouds > retain heat at night. Bacteria will turn tundra in methane when it thaws). > > 4. We understand the general direction of what that climate change will > be > 5. The general direction of that change is more negative than positive > and should be avoided > > > The general direction is warmer, as shown already by Arrhenius. The > question is how much warmer and how bad will it be? > > 6. Reducing CO2 emissions is the best course of action to prevent the > negative occurrence > > > Not necessarily. We could artificially reflect more sunlight by putting > sulfur particles into the upper atmosphere. But someone who is suspicious > of climate modeling might be suspicious that there can be unforseen > consequences in such enormous climate engineering. > > 7. Reductions that are possible will lead to a greater good for > humanity and the world than the costs associated with those reductions > > > Cost to whom? > > > Items 6 and 7 are the ones I am most apt to disagree with. > Geo-engineering technologies are not only far more promising in being able > to able to provide humanity with the tools to stabilize the environment, > but they're also much much cheaper > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/5987229/Cloud-ship-scheme-to-deflect-the-suns-rays-is-favourite-to-cut-global-warming.html> > than the associated economic costs of rationing cheap energy. > > > You don't know any of that. And drastically reducing CO2 emission is not > the same as rationing cheap energy. Energy can be produced by nuclear, > solar, and wind as cheaply as by fossil fuel - IF the fossil fuel industry > had to pay to clean up its pollution. > > All of these global warming projections over the next 50 - 100 years > fail to take into account the exponential rate of growth in the power of > technology and what the implications will be for opening new avenues for > solving/controlling the problem, should it turn out to be one. > > > The IPCC reports include different scenarios assuming different > technological and cultural repsonses. > > > Are humans having a profound and negative impact on the ecology of the > rest of the planet? Almost certainly. We consume/control 40% of the > planet's terrestrial photosynthesis capability, thus making life very > difficult for the millions of other species who have to fight over the > rest. Should we make every effort to conserve the limited resources we > have? Nothing good comes from waste or excess. Would the advent of safe and > cheap nuclear (or other) power bring enormous benefits to humanity and > improve air quality? Again, I also think the answer is yes. But will > political efforts or social movements that have the goal of slightly > cutting back the rates of fossil fuel consumption save life on earth? I > doubt it. If we are in peril, it will be technological change, not > political change, that saves us. > > > Politicians are never for change that would inconvenience their donors. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
