|
GOTO the ORIGNAL POST So many factors go into the global climate that, contrary to the often mentioned conservative statement, "it is the greatest arrogance to assume that humans affect the climate," the more truer statement is this:
It is the greatest arrogance to assume that anyone on this debate has unequivocally answered the question about what specifically drives climate change. Not because the planet Earth is some magical, eternal thing that human beings can't alter in any way, but instead because THE PHYSICS that describe the earth's climate are EXTRAORDINARY COMPLEX and so full of variables that definite answers are very difficult to find.
"The question" is NOT answered, and in fact "the question" seems a little ridiculous to even ask in the first place. There is no "ONE question." There are MANY questions, and I suspect that the reason it has been boiled down to one is mankind's need to see the world through the eyes of mankind. That is, we focus on the one factor we have the most ability to control (whichever of the many sides of the debate you are on, they all seem to focus almost exclusively on one factor). It is my opinion that a meaningfully complete climate change theory cannot succeed when looked at from that perspective*. The human element needs to be categorized as simply one more natural factor to consider among many, in my humble opinion.
*And no, most scientists are not doing that, since most of them are not focusing on a NET climate theory. As I said before, most scientists are focusing on small problems, which are synthesized by certain political organizations like the IPCC- which is again a den of idiots since they allow non-scientific literature in their examinations, which is a whole other debate. But the ones that ARE trying to find a general theory need to relegate the human factor to just one of many.
This is intended to illustrate a couple of points in something that everyone can grasp intuitively (vectors). (It is for EDUCATIONAL purposes, and is not an actual model, nor is it intended to be rigorous.)
First, what a vector is:
For the purposes of this thread, a vector is a quantity with both a magnitude and direction (this isn't the only way to define them). For example, FORCE is a vector- it has a certain magnitude (how "hard" it is pushing or pulling), and it has a certain direction (which direction the force is focused).
In this case vectors will represent temperature change. A vector to the right is a positive temperature change (warmer), while a vector to the left is a negative temperature change (cooler). The larger a vector is, the more cooler or warming it is (depending on its direction). A large vector to the right represents very warm. A small vector to the left represents slightly cool. Piece of cake, right? Good, on to the point.
What has been done in these four pictures is that several factors that affect the global climate have been assigned unique constant multipliers that make each one in the same unit (don't worry about this jargon), which allows for us to add them together with no mathematical problems (though these are FAR from an exhaustive list-again, this thread is to illustrate a point, not to actually make a realistic climate model). What results is a very easy to understand net "arrow," which would represent the vector sum of climate change for the model (whether the world is cooling or warming).
The arbitrarily chosen factors are these:
(1) Human greenhouse gas factors
(2) Large ice bodies reflecting radiation into space
(3) Cloud cover reflecting radiation into space
(4) Ocean currents, etc that affect climate
(5) Solar output (a negative represents a negative change from previous cycle, etc)
(6) Some unspecified other natural factors
In this pretend model, the vector sum of these contributions will tell whether the earth is in a net cooling or warming phase.
Here is the first scenario. In this scenario, the human contribution to global warming is relatively small, while there is a large deficit in large ice bodies and reflection by clouds, which would contribute to mostly natural warming. However, this is countered by a very mild solar cycle, current conditions that promote cooling, and other natural factors that promote cooling. In this version, the NET RESULT is a very harsh global cooling phase. This is IN SPITE of a small contribution to greenhouse warming by humans, and it is IN SPITE of little reflection of solar energy by ice, etc.
In the second scenario, I left every factor alone except the human factor. In this one, I allowed for the possibility of a ridiculous Al Gore scenario, in which human beings contribute greatly to greenhouse warming. However, because the several other factors that contribute strongly to cooling, the net result is only a very tiny and insignificant warming phase.
In this third scenario, I decided to make Al Gore and Michael Bay happy by combining a strong human influence with a somewhat active solar cycle, and the net result is a rather strong warming phase.
Finally, in this forth scenario, I allow for the possibility of human greenhouse gases actually reflecting more energy into space than they absorb (this would require some unusual things to occur, but it isn't impossible).
So, the points of this little exercise: (1) There are many factors involved, so many that climate models are exceedingly complex and so require MARGINS OF ERROR in their analysis. If there is no error margin in the paper you're reading, be very skeptical of it.
(2) Climate models in modern science rely on tweaking all of the parameters involved based upon empirical studies and theoretical implications (similar to this, but much more complex). This means that a climate model is only as good as the person or people using it (even IF the science it is based on is very sound), which means that you should be cautious in what material you trust on this issue. Stick to peer-reviewed sources only. These will tend to be cautious and openly admit to the possibility of being shown false later or corroborated later.
(3) Human beings can have a REAL meaningful affect on climate, all things being equal (YES even greenhouse gas WARMING), and it can STILL come out being negligible due to other factors.
Finally, the most important point I want to make: There are MANY factors that go into what affects are climate. It is NOT a simple black and white issue:
* YES human beings have an affect (if you sky-lift a giant boulder on to Mt. Everest YOU HAVE MADE THE MOUNTAIN TALLER, even if the boulder is insignificant to the size of the mountain), but it may be negligible, or it may be mildly important, or it may be very important, etc. And even if it in and of itself is important, it can still be rendered negligible by other factors (think vector sum again).
* YES the sun has an affect (and is in fact the source of energy for the entire discussion), but it's energy output can be "offset" by terrestrial factors (if the solar cycle is HIGH, temperatures can still remain mild due to atmospheric happenings, for example, aka the reason life exists on the planet in the first place. Conversely, a solar cycle can be mild, but conditions can still be literally like hell- aka Venus)
Contact the author here!
|
