Hi All, The exchange below is fascinating. Since no one has come forward with a non-contraversial explanation for the melting of the North American ice sheet 13,000 years ago, we should take all climate projections with a grain of salt. But, since the West Anarctic Ice Sheet has previously disappeared within the last few million years, I wouldn't buy any Florida real estate.
I guess I'll get to see a large-scale climate experiment in my lifetime: Will an open Arctic Ocean result in "lake effect" blizzards all the way south to Cleveland in July? The Russians are optimistic; they have claimed the oil up to the north pole. We have a better handle on the Kondratieff Wave which averages about 55 years. I'm just into Greenspan's "Age of Turbulence" (which should be read in conjunction with Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon"); and Greenspan is clearly a fan of Joseph Schumpeter, which makes Greenspan a believer in Kondratieff -- which goes far in explaining the actions of the Federal Reserve during the current Kondratieff trough war. [Side Note: The problem with Schumpeter's attribution of the Kondratieff Wave to an innovation cycle is the same problem associated with the positive correlation between ice cream sales and the number of drownings: correlation is not causation.] Rick wrote: "Until someone comes up with any real answers to the severe problems with the founding principles of AGW, I think a buck spent towards "changing the climate" is a buck wasted ..." As I mentioned previously, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is risky business. So let's act to get off oil now to keep our grandsons from being drafted to fight in the 'inevitable' Kondrateiff peak war, the Kazakh War of 2020. I'm willing to go along with Al Gore's publicity to that end, not that I think the end justifies the means. The security of all our families trumps everything else. Jack Smith ------------- Rick Monteverde wrote on Wed, 21 Nov 2007: ``1. We're all children of the Mu. 2. A gambler goes into a casino with $1000, plays for a while, then counts up and finds he has $1300. "I'm winning" he says, "and it's because of my lucky troll doll". 3. A failed presidential candidate goes into an auditorium and plays a movie he made about melting ice, smokestacks, and SUVs. "It's warming" he says, "and it's because of our carbon output".'' Robin van Spaandonk wrote: ``He is at least partially correct, since the CO2 level is very high, and getting higher, and it's a greenhouse gas. However it may not be the only cause of global warming. Nevertheless, it is probably the only one over which we have any control as a specie(s?), at this stage of our technological development. Furthermore, as the temperature of the atmosphere rises, so does the saturation point of the air (i.e. the maximum partial vapor pressure of water vapor). That means that the air can hold more water vapor at higher temperatures, and water vapor is an even stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. As the temperature rises, more water evaporates. This is a positive feedback loop. The effect of the CO2 is thus leveraged by water vapor. To make matters worse, the tundra is melting too, and also yielding up both CO2 and CH4 (another strong greenhouse gas). Yet another positive feedback loop. It may not be "hundreds of years", but mere decades, if these positive feedback loops kick in strongly.'' ``Robin wrote: As the temperature rises, more water evaporates. This is a positive feedback loop. The effect of the CO2 is thus leveraged by water vapor. Rick Monteverde wrote: ..and then it rains. Big moderator to the loop. Robin wrote: To make matters worse, the tundra is melting too, and also yielding up both CO2 and CH4 (another strong greenhouse gas). Yet another positive feedback loop. Rick Monteverde wrote: ...then it snows on the tundra again. Robin wrote: It may not be "hundreds of years", but mere decades, if these positive feedback loops kick in strongly. Rick Monteverde wrote: Maybe. But kicks in which way? If we do act according to most recipes, how are we supposed to know how what we're doing is supposed to work out? Where's our precedent for this type of action - certainly not the Mu. Most greens would say we should do all that we can, but how are we to know if we've done too much or anything at all? If climate begins to cycle back, how will we know if it is part of a natural cycle, or whether we been given valid feedback on our actions? How hard do we rub that troll doll's fluorescent green hair in order to win? If we lose, do we know if we rubbed it too hard or not hard enough? Reminds me of that old Twilight Zone story about the Earth heating up as it spirals in towards the sun. Then the guy wakes up... I don't mean to be disrespectful or flippant here, and most certainly not to you personally Robin. But I'm just not hearing or finding anything that goes to convincing cause/effect on this in either the "mainstream" or "progressive" or even "fringe" (that last said with greatest affection and respect) sources like here on Vortex. I think it has all become like the high priests are shaking their fist at an eclipse and telling me I had better fill their coffers with my treasure so they can defeat the dragon that's swallowing the sun before it's too late. All cheerleading and no game. I hear a lot about a huge amount of government funded science going on, but very little in the way of a convincing cause and effect coming out of it. Big reports about consensus. But most of the data passes very well for coincidence, and ALL the numerical simulations are of course garbage - and the people who run them know that. Not surprisingly, your description right here just now comes about as close to C&A as any I've heard. But is that close enough for proof, and does it show us we could do anything about it if we wanted to? And what about those big Mu - the "sinking" events? I can go out to the sea cliffs near my house and see the ledges underwater from the last two big ones. They used to be shorelines. Do we even know what our baseline's really supposed to be? Will we be able to see a 'trend' in an unknowable chaotic system? The gambler incorrectly thinks he sees one - that was one of the points of that example. Until someone comes up with any real answers to the severe problems with the founding principles of AGW, I think a buck spent towards "changing the climate" is a buck wasted by not being spent on preparations for a changing climate. The climate is always changing. I think we only see little pieces of the huge puzzle of these feedback and moderating systems, and very little evidence, especially in light of obvious historical facts, that our lifestyles and *our* carbon have anything to do with it.''
