So do you agree that the use of the "lag" as counterargument is misleading propaganda, or are you changing the subject ? No, they mark (at best) instances of net negative feedback, in a climate regime similar to - but different from in at least one key respect - the modern one. To project an absence of positive feedback effects, or even a net negative feedback in general, over the next few decades of the modern regime, which includes a new and significant anthro boosting of CO2 concentrations, you would need - wait for it - Ta Da! -> Mechanism! <-
Not really, Talking mechanism, climate is just the sum of chaotic processes, several of which have not even considered yet, because we have not seen it happen in the 2-3000 years of written records. What happened for instance 19,000 years ago or 17,400 years ago or 14,500 years ago or 11,655 years ago? After reading ..oh.. a few gigs of PDF's like this older list it is perfectly clear that our understanding of paleo climate is fundamentally flawed. For instance it's overly obvious that the oceans started all the changes when you read oceanographic papers. If you read isotope climate papers, everybody is happy with the tight correlation between oceanic and ice core isotopes. But nobody seems to care how a millenium scale inert system can react so incredible quickly on changes in the atmosphere. Mind that the ocean is average 3.5 km deep and that water weigths per square cm 350kg whilst the atmosphere is only one kg per square cm. Corrected for 2/3 sea-land about 230 kg And that one kg is tossing the ~230k around instanteneously? Forget it. When the oceans started to roar it changed climates near instanteneously, especially with larges changes in precipitation, what can happen if you push an ocean of warm water of the Atlantic into the Arctic ocean. Such an event could explain all, and that means, each and every, phenomenon seen at the start of the Dansgaard Oeschger events, the Bolling Allerod and the Preboreal oscilations. The ocean also holds orders of magnitudes more CO2 than the atmosphere and vertical overturning of oceans depressurizes the deep CO2-rich waters, which vents it into the atmosphere next, like popping open a beer bottle. So the CO2 just happens to be there as an effect not cause. But since all those data were not available decades ago, people had to assume known or suspected mechanisms like the greenhouse effect to explain the ice ages. And the statement: If it's warm there is more CO2, hence CO2 causes warm, is just as true as: if the streets are wet, there is rain; hence wet streets cause rain. But why did the oceans roar?
I'm sure we all hope that some unrecognized and as yet unspecified factor will come along and help bail us out of the likely consequences of doubling the atmosphere's CO2 concentration in a couple of hundred years. And we all hope no such factor will come along and instead make things worse. There is no way you are going to be able to make sense of that, or bring it to relevance in discussing climate change from CO2 boosting.
merely illustrating that the idea of the atmosphere pushing the ocean around is a bit far fetched. Anyway, if it is not the sun, why spend so much energy to find the opposite? http://www.springerlink.com/content/f226g6036453m385/ The Arxiv version is here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. This lie has perpetuated on and on. The Corporate-Republican Hypocrisy is funded by Big Business and Big Oil. It's a highly efficient lie machine, and sadly effective since they've studied the kind of mindless brain-candy they can feed the ignorant. The biggest lie of all is that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. Why believe that? What does believing that serve? :shrug: It sells a whole shitload of oil. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
