Ice ages is in quotes since we are in an ice age now, and what we are really talking about is what causes glacial periods to be locked in for such long periods of time? The different solar effects due to Malinkovitch cycles seem to some insufficient to explain the changes. So they have been incorrectly putting matters down to CO2-amplification.
“Graeme, I’m not sure what would persuade you. Science is never about proof…”
Science is definitely about proof. Science is always about proof. Or do you still defer to Galen, and not realise that the heart is a pump? Do you follow Ptolemy, and say that its an open question whether the earth orbits the sun, or that it could be the other way around?
Science is in fact the search for proof. And proof is found through convergent evidence in the context of developing competing paradigms in parallel. You cannot persuade me since you are wrong. You have come in on the wrong side of this argument. You are doing rather better on the economics side because you are looking at matters through fresh eyes and are hammering the neoclassical consensus.
You are perfectly capable of finding out, as I have found out, that the data is rigged. I assure you that this is the case. Its not rigged in subtle and hard to identify ways. So if you choose not to do, what for you would be very little work, and confirm this matter, well thats falling down on your calling.
The physics of absorption is well established. This is really about the colour of CO2. Its just a gas colour. The question was whether what was found in the lab, translate to certain predictions made for the troposphere, or have those predictions turned out to be wrong? You cannot reinsert in the conclusion to the inference, that which was used to make the inference in the first place.
The extrapolation of the colour of CO2, having these large effects on temperatures was a single inductive inference. You ought to know that such pieces of armchair thinking are the bread and butter of creativity in science. A good scientist ought to make three or four such inductive inferences before breakfast. A good scientist will also know that most of these examples of armchair thinking will turn out to be wrong, just as this one has.
Now on the other hand, if you take my paradigm, and start looking at resistance to circulation, right on this very page on your very first diagram you will have evidence to see that I am on the right track, and need no rigged data to reinforce my inductive inference, an inference made straight from the Stefan Boltzmann law.
Look to the younger Dryas. See the reversal of a warming trend which is held to have happened as a result of Lake Agassiz bursting and cold fresh water landing directly down onto the gulf stream. There we have a 1000 year reversal of the warming trend, until the Gulf Stream started up again, and not merely a redistribution of the available heat. To spread the joules out is to more successfully retain them.
And this is a very important matter and not to be crowded out by bad science. People have began to use the Gulf Stream for energy generation. This is a worrying trend though the proponents will cause this trend “green”. Buying land for nature corridors is green. Impeding the Gulf Stream is courting disaster.
Warming and cooling get locked in because colder water is more viscous, and because you get all this ice impeding matters off Hudson Bay. You will see this showing up in the record very clearly if you go looking for it.
Posted by: graemebird | June 1, 2011
From Whence Comes The Amplification That Starts And Ends “Ice Ages”?
Posted in Uncategorized