what's curious about the CO2 studies is that there are some very credible data that indicate CO2 LAGS Global Temp changes...which if true, is thought to be related to oceanic warming and the resultant "off gassing" that occurs w/ slightly warmer water temps. I haven't got to the bottom of this particular relationship, it seems rather fundamental....meaning "could most of the major science studies have overlooked this??" Seems rather basic to have been overlooked so maybe there's an explanation. If not, then I would say the entire basis for (meaningful) man-made CO2 increases is completely blown out of the water. We do know that atmoshpheric C02 has been much higher in the past...well prior to industrial revolution and is thought to be related to vulcanism etc...Great post shanabe. What do you make of some of the very long term studies that find C02 levels are an effect and not a cause of global temp moves?
We almost had a frost here this morning in upstate ny...I bottomed out at 35F and avoided losing half my garden by a whisker...on June 1st...while not evidence of anything, seems ironic to be reading about global warming when I'm fretting about frost/freeze in June. I guess my ultimate position is that "the science is NOT in" unlike William Jefferson Clinton's famous statement back in the 90s...and many similar ones by Crazy Al and other pols/scientists. I remain open to either possibility, or even a combination of factors, but what I am sure of is that the simplistic AGW'ers are more Agenda-driven than Science-driven...particularly the "head" US Scientist on the matter, Hansen. He was crying about global cooling in the 70s and seems to lurch from catastrophe to catastrophe (like others) in order to justify his/their importance (and research funding?). Say it ain't so...
One last thought to chew on. A lot of AGW studies point to what climate "models" predict for our future...and they are invariably grim. Well...that's a subject unto itself but suffice to say that these models are predicting conditions years and decades into the future. These global circulation models are not dissimilar in many respects to the modeling used to predict our short term weather...and while huge advances have been made in the past two decades, no meteorologist will claim much accuracy/verification on any model beyond a few days to a week at best. I look at these model outputs often and the thought that anyone would use model output to predict conditions years (decades) out is simply idiotic. They can't get state of the art climate models to hind-cast conditions with any particular accuracy...so why are we believing forecasts?
Here's a link to a website with a LOT of information ICECAP
Edited by shanabe, 01 June 2009 - 06:19 AM.
