Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
I see that you are trying to do a personal summary of some of the available research which is certainly a good idea...but with great respect Paul, why do you doubt the IPCC's summary of what I gather would be far more reports and studies on the issue than you will ever likely lay your hands or eye's on? I am not trying to be smart here, just curious.
Why might astronomer buffs like those on this forum largely trust the summary of results that point to a Hubble constant within about the same degree of certainty but have trouble accepting the best concensus on climate change and it's likely causes?
And much more importantly, why would anyone think that a government should doubt it...?
Mike
|
Your point is well taken Mike. I guess while I generally tend towards human climate influenced denial I am always looking for more facts. There are plenty of scientists out there that are regularly featured across the planet that reject CO2 and temperature. When I say regular I mean a couple of times a year. There is some denial in the scientific world. My sister is a scientist and some of her friends are climate scientist and of those a couple are unconvinced but still searching for the answer. That is where I am I guess. I am fairly certain I will never understand what is going on, because I did not train as a climate scientist; however the logic I learnt at Uni taught me to question blanket truths and not to believe everything the government says. Politicians cannot be trusted to lie straight in bed, much less get the information right. Organisations tend to have an agenda too. Despite what many think is a blantant truth, I still see variability that bucks against the trends. I am however, happy to be proven wrong though at any time. If so why bother with a tax, why not just get on with reducing emissions by actions. People still need to heat and cool their homes, cook, keep food and be entertained. Punishing them for not having a choice of power is not the answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralTraveller
I thought that was what you were refering to. Interesting but not relevant to the current situation. It is true that the Milankovich hypothesis has the current series of glacial/interclacials driven by changes in the Earth's orbital parameters. The correlation between orbital parameters and the temperature record over the last ca. 2.5Ma is so good that the issues we still have in understanding the mechanism are seen as an oportunity for further research rather than a reason to doubt the overall hypothesis.
Now, in a natural situation CO2 cannot be a primary driver of climate because the concentration of CO2 in the atm. does not change of its own accord. Orbital parameters do. So it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that temperatures first rise a bit which degasses the oceans a bit, thus increasing atmospheric CO2 which then pushes temperatures up a bit more. If CO2 did not provide this positive feedback the difference between glacial and interglacial temperature could not be as large as it is. Also remember that the lag being discussed is between the naturally-initiated temperature rise and the rise in CO2 conc. It is not a delay between the release of the CO2 and it's radiative forcing, which begins immediately (though the forcing may need to occur for some time before its effect can be clearly seen from the climate 'noise').
Of course the point is that we are no longer in a natural situation. Suddenly releasing carbon that has been sequestered over geological time has changed the situation.
|
Yes I see your point. Still percentage of CO2 at present does seem quite at odds with increase in temp given that it is currently 0.004 parts per million. Logic does seem correct that this small amount has the capacity to change temperatures by such a large variation up till now. I thought the lag might be of significant interest though.