As I said, the only thing that says there is a future climate problem
are the 20 or so major climate models. If your friends are experts in
climate modeling and can convince me: 1) that climate is not a chaotic
system and 2) why the climate models are correct... then and only then
can I be convinced. My strong suspicion is that they know little about
either question since few scientists do.
The vast majority of people involved in climate related research are
measuring something temperature related or prognosticating about what
will happen (in their particular field) if the temperature rises as
predicted. Most researchers know little or nothing about the root
causes of temperature rise other than that CO2 is the villain. In a
climate model CO2 actually plays a rather small part. It is what forms
the core of a snowball rolling down a hill picking up more and more snow
as it goes. But the additional snow is only partly CO2. It's water
vapor from additional evaporation as temperatures rise, methane from
permafrost melt, etc, etc for perhaps hundreds of terms. Temperature
has a non-linear response to rising CO2 concentrations and it requires
many more factors to roll onward toward a disastrous temperature rise.
Strangely, climate models seem to be all about positive feedback
mechanisms with no negative feedbacks (that I'm aware of). Yet, despite
billions of years of higher and lower temperatures and higher and lower
CO2 concentrations than the present, the earth has maintained itself
within a life supporting temperature range. That can only happen if
there are negative feedbacks as well as positive. But since climate is
a chaotic system I don't worry about those results any more than I worry
about someone who supposes to predict the stock market 50 or 100 years
hence.
But you have mentioned one of the things I haven't mentally put to bed
yet which is ocean acidification. I've just started to study this which
will take me a long, long time I'm sure. But here is the skeptic's
position: You start here with a description of the acidification
database which is quite extensive
<http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/acidification.php>
and end here with a graphical summary of the available data
<http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/results.php>
All of the data in this database is from peer reviewed papers. I'm not
aware of any other such compendium of the data. Make of it what you will.
No, I don't believe in wasting scarce resources. But if the US has 100+
years of natural gas supply is it scarce? If I were a Malthusian I
should probably say yes. I am not a neo-Malthusian and the price
applied by the market says no, it's not scarce. I believe it acceptable
for me (and others) to behave according to our own economic advantage
subject to our own cultural norms. Do whatever works for your own
pocketbook and conscience.
As I said, I've been studying this problem for 1-2 hours/day for the
past several years exactly because I was concerned. Most of it was
learning to wade through the chaff to get to the heart of the matter
which I ultimately concluded was: 1) The veracity of the hockey stick
curve and its indication of unprecedented warming and 2) The veracity of
climate models. As far as I am concerned, climate alarmism has failed
on both points. I've put in a very large effort to get to this point
and feel well justified in my position. The emperor has no clothes.
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/1/2012 12:42 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> They're not from UEA, Chuck. They work for the Royal Society for the
> Protection of Birds. I'll challenge them with some of the points you
> made in your last post . . .
>
>
> . . . and let you know if they come up with anything that might
> change your mind :-)
>
> But whatever the truth of that debate, I go back to my insistence
> that we must save energy; in addition we must try to reduce our
> effect on the world around us, including reducing the acidity of the
> sea, not to mention trying to stop filling it with plastic etc . . .
>
> Chris On 30 Nov 2012, at 20:12, Chuck Norcutt
> <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> nowledge unless they're modelers. I used to believe it too. I
>> don't any more. I wonder if your scientist friends are from UEA.
>> Read the books at the links I sent you if you really want to do
>> some research of your own. "Science" doesn't fit what's actually
>> going on.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|