Monday, September 9, 2013

The hot response to global cooling

Article

Well, it has happened.  Some scientists were brave enough to present global cooling.  Naturally they were subject to ridicule.  For fun, I put up this article in our geological community.  I do weird things like that just to stimulate discussion.  Otherwise, it is very boring. Most comments decried the lack of hard data, and still supported warming.  But what is the central thesis of warming?

In pre-warming land, it was acknowledged that temperature went up and down as a sinusoid consisting of many sub-cycles which acted together.  I contend that these cycles interact non-linearly, thus making it impossible to even figure out what caused the ice ages.  These sub-cycles are solar, ocean currents, water vapour, dust, volcanic elements, etc.

Warming crashed on the scene denying all these cycles, and stating that co2 dominated over all others.  Thus, temperature broke out of the sinusoid and became exponential, because co2 was a thermal blanket and increasing linearly.  This must be enshrined as the Global Warming Hypothesis (GWH).  They are constantly modifying it and we shouldn't let them.

The difference was that GWH was drastic.  There was talk of crispy grandchildren.  Furthermore, it was beyond first order exponential because of positive feedback, and inter-linked tip buckets, such as Arctic methane.  Thus, many drastic measures were taken that all back-fired.

Had we just focussed on co2 alone, this could have been taken care of by taxes, but some countries didn't want to do anything, and this invoked a strong opposite voice.  We should always try to reduce carbon burning.

Of course, temperatures never went exponential, they are now curving in the traditional sinusoidal manner.  The GWH has been modified to merely linear, but this is breaking as well.  Now 'other factors' are being brought in, such as ocean currents.  What is the future of the GWH?

My understanding is that a hypothesis should stand or fail, based on observations.  It should not be constantly modified.  That is why I say there is no physics in it.  My experience is based on the constant hopeless attempts to predict earthquakes.  That being said, I am enjoying my last days of summer at the cottage, where it is very hot.  As a Canadian, I know it will be winter soon.  :)

6 comments:

David Evans said...

"Of course, temperatures never went exponential"

They haven't yet. No-one expected the big feedbacks, like Arctic methane, to kick in this soon.

"My understanding is that a hypothesis should stand or fail, based on observations. It should not be constantly modified."

That's admirably purist. not sure it works so well when we are still discovering all the facts and interactions.

Yes, in pre-warming times there may well have been a number of cycles. Now, however, we have human-supplied CO2 which looks more exponential than cyclic.

Gus83 said...

Human supplied CO2 is a fart in the wind. It sold new furnaces, cars, and tshirts to make people feel like the were doing something and have researchers funding. That way bigger, more toc issues could be ignored.

Now that there is no money for that expensive stuff, bring on the gas plants and cut backs...

David Evans said...

Atmospheric CO2 has gone from 320 ppm in 1960 to 397 now. The curve is not cyclic, and it tracks human fossil fuel burning. Not a fart in the wind.

Harold Asmis said...

I am always amazed when people read this. :) Still, I'm making sure my snowblower is well tuned...

Gus83 said...

I'm going to miss shorts in January and the abundance of food. I stand that the CO2 argument is more distraction than harm...

http://worldwildlife.org/pages/earth-overshoot-day-august-20

bernie said...

Just ordered another 3 cords of wood to be on the safe side.