reply to post by crimvelvet
The biggest problem I have with the CAGW theory, is it assumes no (little) changes in the energy from the sun received by the earth.
And this is pretty much the biggest problem I have with the anti-CAGW non-theory.
Nobody "assumes" these changes. They measure them. And the overwhelming majority of the evidence points to the fact that solar activity has been
decreasing over the last 30 years. Meanwhile when you talk about the 20th century
you are talking about a 100 year period where the first half
is largely attributed to the Sun. It is only in the last 50 years that
man's role (both through GHG emissions and aerosols) becomes significant as the dominant forcing.
So if the Sun begins acting up again - and thus piggybacking on top of anthropogenic warming, this would only make the case for a "catastrophic"
warming that much stronger.
And the idea that we're about to enter some
sudden global ice age is based on what exactly?
You're taking one climate report out of context - the WHOI is clearly talking about dramatic
regional coolings associated with overall
global warming - i.e. a concept completely in line with the whole climate change/disruption/imbalance lingo. And then you're superimposing
that over a quote from Joe Romm that clearly states "we'd probably be in a
slow long-term cooling trend".
So you seem to believe that what amounts to little more than cherry-picking quotes and baseless speculation over some as yet unforeseen global cooling
phenomenon should be taken on par with all the hard physical science we have that backs up AGW.
It seems everytime I post on this topic I need to remind someone that AGW isn't just some crackpot theory that was invented on the fly to fill in the
holes and explain this mysterious warming we're seeing after the fact.
AGW is based on fundamental physics that predicted it over 100 years ago.
You say you are a chemist - do you understand anything about what makes a CO2 molecule a
known greenhouse gas? It is simply it's shape and
dynamics, and the fact that it's molecular bonds
allow it to
function as a temporary dipole, absorbing and re-emitting IR radiation.
This is pure chemistry, math and physics - and it is
well understood at this point. Everything we know about CO2 says increasing it's
concentration in the atmosphere
should trap energy and therefore
should lead to an overall warming. What happens amongst the cracks is a
lot more complicated, and your WHOI link only supports the overall idea - it doesn't detract from it. Because in the end it all adds up exactly in
line with the prevalent theory behind increasing GHGs: e.g. it leads to overall global warming, with regional climate SHTF.
And as for things like changes in albedo: these are once again completely factored into the bigger picture. Something like ice-albedo feedback is
pretty self-explanatory as a positive amplifying effect: warming = less ice = lower albedo = more warming. Meanwhile others like clouds are more
complicated. This in fact is where the bulk of the uncertainty over climate change lies.
But of course what the CAGW soothsayers completely refuse to ever recognize is that uncertainty works in
both directions. True, it might not
end up as bad as some say - but it could also in fact be worse. I already left a link in the OP pointing specifically to recent research showing cloud
feedbacks resulting in high climate sensitivity.
And meanwhile this whole thread is yet another testament to the mounting physical evidence that says this uncertainty is quickly moving more and more
towards the direction of worse. Much worse.
