Michael, I think you are replying to my post., not Per Edman's. Notice
the >> marks.
Michael A. Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, 27 January, 2010 8:14 am, Per Edman wrote:
>
> >> The repeated series of Ice Ages/Interglacials is thought to be due to
> >> rather small changes in the distribution of solar energy, compounded
> >> by changes in the atmospheric optical properties. Is there any reason
> >> to think that these processes will be repeated? Yes and the latest
> >> estimate of the driving forces suggests the Ice Ages won't return for
> >> thousands of years. That is, the net impact of natural forcing won't
> >> repeat for that long a period.
>
> "Thought." "suggest."
>
> In other words, we don't know.
Perhaps I should have said "the preponderance of the evidence tells us
that"...
> >> > > Or, it may be that what we do could result in the start of
> >> > > another Ice Age, even though the latest models do not make this
> >> > > projection. I think it's possible that the Thermohaline
> >> Circulation
> >> > > is changing and this may result in one of those "tipping points",
> >> > > i.e., a threshold event, which would change the Earth's weather in
> >> > > ways human civilization has never experienced.
>
> Anything is possible. What is the evidence to support the proposition
> that the Thermohaline Circulation is changing; in reality, not in
> mathematical models?
No, "anything" that violates the laws of physics must be considered
not possible until it's been shown to happen and thus the laws of
physics must undergo a revision. As for the THC, there is a large
program which is intended to monitor the AMOC and early reports
indicate some variation has been noticed. Go read the literature, I'm
not going to do your homework for you.
> I'm not asking that the evidence be trotted out here. I'm curious if
> this is a "thought" or a conclusion based on observation.
Yes, there is evidence that is now visible for the last 3 winters.
> >> Your response again suggests you have no clue about the physics
> >> involved. Your reply ignores the finding that the recent rise in
> >> atmospheric CO2 is larger than any period since the beginning of the
> >> present period of glacial/interglacial climate. I suggest that you
> >> should learn some science before you spout off and demonstrate your
> >> ignorance.
>
> The nastiness of this response suggests a lack of trust in the science.
What does that have to do with your lack of understanding of the
physics involved with the problem of Global Warming. Perhaps you
haven't bothered to study the problem, which was first analyzed more
than 100 years ago.
> In fact, it is difficult to determine with any accuracy the
> "largeness" of atmospheric CO2 variation over the past 500,000 years.
> One cannot say with any certainty that CO2 levels were less or more
> than present.
You doubt the measurements of atmospheric gases from the ice cores in
the Antarctic?
> Furthermore, such a correlation is meaningless as there is no
> established cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2
> levels and average surface temperature. The fact in isolation that CO2
> absorbs IR energy says nothing about "global warming," as other
> chaotic factors involved in climate variability far outweigh the
> effects of CO2.
Fine words. The effect of increasing CO2 in air can be measured in
the lab. Do you doubt the results of those efforts? Are you saying
that the whole of the study of atmospheric sciences is incorrect?
> This is what I mean by a narrow linear view of climate change: more
> CO2 = higher surface temperatures. This is demonstrably untrue,
> therefore this simplistic appeal to popular emotion has no merit.
I think the claim is that increasing CO2 will result in global average
temperatures increasing. Stress the word "global" here, as some areas
may cool. If the claim that increasing CO2 will result in higher
temperatures is untrue, then you should have no trouble providing hard
proof of that statement. If such exists, I expect that it would be
widely understood and there would not be any discussion possible. We
are awaiting a demonstration of your deep understanding of the
science, like, maybe, a reference to some definitive publication?.
E. S
---
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
