Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
You have only stated symptoms. They do not explain the cause.
|
Increase in carbon dioxide level is not a symptom, it is the inferred cause. It is simple physics and chemistry. We knew that certain gases were "greenhouse gases" keeping in heat. Once we realized that we were increasing the greenhouse gases we hypothesized that this in turn would lead to global warming. At that time they began to carefully monitor CO2 levels in Hawaii, figuring we would get the most accurate reading in the middle of the pacific, far from the influence of various industrialized centers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Climate is so complex it is basically a random walk and people are just fooled into thinking there is a definite cause or reason that isnt really there.
Take a look at the global temp charts they look just like the stock market. Scientists are still trying to predict the future on random walks.
|
Scientists have become very good at predicting weather 5 days out. To do this requires a detailed understanding of the factors involved and the role each plays. However, these factors in turn result in feedback loops and other consequences. Increase in acid in the ocean will result in the destruction of many organisms that require calcium based shells. Many of these are microscopic. That in turn will have its own consequences. When ice melts less sunlight is reflected back to space and more energy is absorbed.
The issue is not that scientists don't know the factors, the issue is we are not fully clear on how much each should be weighted and the point at which feedback loops kick in. For example, we know that once frozen methane begins to melt that is a major feedback loop. But exactly when and how much will be released at each tick up the temperature scale is still an estimate. This is why we have several different models. If the model is accurate it will predict the future climate. Therefore these models can be tested by plugging in data that is a few years old and seeing how well they predict. Every year we are able to tweak these models to make them correlate better with the actual climate. So far our models have all been undershooting the actual warming (predicting less warming than actually took place). That is strange, you would expect some models to undershoot and some to overshoot. The fact that they all undershoot imo reflects the pressure put on by the attacks and PR campaign from Exxon and others to discredit the science. As a result you are better off being overly conservative.
But you are wrong to say climate "is a random walk". It is simple physics and chemistry.
However, it is very complex. For example, the weight of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are very great. When you remove 36 cubic miles of ice you are removing a very great weight from each of these areas. That results in something known as "isostatic rebound" -- the earth starts rising. This in turn can trigger earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. There are many "inactive" volcanos in Antarctica that we now know have recently become active. This is another feedback loop. So as the ice melts volcanic activity under the ice could pick up causing more ice to melt.