SaigonSaddler wrote:It is long, which demands more reading.
Initial impressions is one a trite and vacant exploration of how to predict something. I think you realise it would be a lot stronger if it actually identified specific examples in the IPCC report rather than drifted along on it's own whimsical abstract.
Also, very easy to attack any prediction, about anything at any time, the one that people have worked long and hard to get as complete as they possibly can. Does a similar sceptical prediction and explanation of warming (please don't say solar flares) exist, or are you happy just to diss the only explanation?
I am happy to diss an implausible and speculative explanation that exists only in a few computer models, not backed up by empirical data, real world example or adequate scientific endeavour.
Alternatives? Given that the earth's atmosphere is a complex, chaotic thing, with non-linear trends and stochastic variables, to be able to condense it into "CO2 did it" in the space of a few years of research by some of the same people who, 30 years ago, were saying we're heading into another ice age is stretching credulity to the limit, so I'd say there's plenty of under-researched options to a very poor hypothesis out there.
The following features of the global climate model (GCM, such as there is) ought to be researched much more thoroughly for the CO2 brigade to be able to have any confidence at all in their computer game:
Oceanic heat storage and distribution - the earth's oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere and this is not adquately accounted for in IPCC reports, especially in conjunction with...
Oceanic Oscillations - decadal and multidecadal variations are poorly understood yet research is showing these can have a significant effect on climate; whether causal (I favour) or otherwise (you probably favour) needs to be explored in much more depth (haha). these will influence...
Clouds and water droplets/water vapour - this hugely important function of the earth's atmosphere is poorly understood at best, although research into it is conclusive enough to have secured extra funding for some very expensive experiments, It is under-represented in IPCC GCMs which theoretically conclude it is a climate forcing function where observations show the opposite. One aspect of clouds might be...
Sunspots and Solar Magnetic Field - in and out of synch according to the Sun's own orbital progression yet yielding cycles which mirror Earth's climate variations well, and possibly related to...
Cosmic Ray influx (variable and related to the Sun above) - looking forward to some preliminary Sevnsmark's studies later in 2010. In any rate both the above vary according to...
Barycentric orbit variations, axial tilt, etc. - aspects of the solar system that affect all planets and the Sun. Mars has been warming too, but has no CO2.
Atmospheric boundary conditions and equilbrium - probably the capstone for all the above alternative options
That's my take. CO2 may have had a small effect over a small amount of time, but it's logarithmic 'heat' properties mean it's all but useless as a driver for any climate variation, unless you include regression to the mean, or equilibrium where some effects may occur. From what I have read (incomplete as I am!) researchers in these field all suggest
See - no mention of solar flares! :wink:
Disappointing to see you are still resorting to ad hominem attacks which do you and your argument no credit whatsoever. Discredting with petty put-down really shows how closed-minded your side are when confronted with any alternatives. I'd post a whole load of sciency links to actual papers but don't think the majority of UTSers want to read them. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about, being so well versed in this.