There's enough I don't know about what's going on to admit I'm far from certain of my pro-warming (aka human-influence) camp viewpoint, however perhaps some interpretation may be in order:
Imagine you have a short to medium term graph. Covers.... 50 years. Cycles up and down- not quite like clockwork but due to measurable factors like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation- warming-cooling-warming etc
Now imagine you have a kind of "rubber-band" effect- 2nd order, maybe 3rd order- that keeps things pulled into the median range of values- visually on the graph this is the cause that means as we go shooting past the "average temperature" then the brakes get put on and the trend reversed until we go shooting back the other way.
This is simply musing of course- but now imagine that this rubber-band- this 3rd order equation can only be seen when you look at centuries of interrelated data- not mere decades.
Now here I define the place I stand- my "belief". This 3rd order effect of vastly complex interplaying factors evolved over the Billions of years the Earth ahs been around- or maybe only just the millions of years that defines the current Age (not human age). But any interplaying factors can have their tolerances exceeded- and the minor influence that unrestrained humanity has on the climate may be just enough to tip the global behaviour from a stable harmonic into an unstable one.
Such that after another 3, 4, 5 oscillations- each requiring 20-30 years- finally the rubberband snaps and that median is a thing of the past.
To put it in more absolute terms: Arctic icecover as an indicator. It grows from 3 <> 14 million square kilometers Next cycle 2.8 <> 14.2 Next 2.5 <> 14.5 Next 2 <> 15
The average is the same in each oscillation
And then suddenly the remaining 2km^3 is insufficient to reflect sufficient sunlight so we continue warming past a recoverable point OR >15 reflects TOO MUCH sunlight and we continue cooling past a recoverable point.
That is MY position- that the system is far larger scale than mere decades can reflect and the SAFE BET is to attempt to responsibly minimise our impact overall- part of that is to minimise our waste and make better use of resources- as a sidebenefit it will make us more of a "race" and less of a "parasite"
minimise our impact overall- part of that is to minimise our waste and make better use of resources- as a sidebenefit it will make us more of a "race" and less of a "parasite"
There's enough I don't know about what's going on to admit I'm far from certain of my pro-warming (aka human-influence) camp viewpoint, however perhaps some interpretation may be in order:
Imagine you have a short to medium term graph.
Covers.... 50 years.
Cycles up and down- not quite like clockwork but due to measurable factors like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation- warming-cooling-warming etc
Now imagine you have a kind of "rubber-band" effect- 2nd order, maybe 3rd order- that keeps things pulled into the median range of values- visually on the graph this is the cause that means as we go shooting past the "average temperature" then the brakes get put on and the trend reversed until we go shooting back the other way.
This is simply musing of course- but now imagine that this rubber-band- this 3rd order equation can only be seen when you look at centuries of interrelated data- not mere decades.
Now here I define the place I stand- my "belief".
This 3rd order effect of vastly complex interplaying factors evolved over the Billions of years the Earth ahs been around- or maybe only just the millions of years that defines the current Age (not human age).
But any interplaying factors can have their tolerances exceeded- and the minor influence that unrestrained humanity has on the climate may be just enough to tip the global behaviour from a stable harmonic into an unstable one.
Such that after another 3, 4, 5 oscillations- each requiring 20-30 years- finally the rubberband snaps and that median is a thing of the past.
To put it in more absolute terms: Arctic icecover as an indicator.
It grows from 3 <> 14 million square kilometers
Next cycle 2.8 <> 14.2
Next 2.5 <> 14.5
Next 2 <> 15
The average is the same in each oscillation
And then suddenly the remaining 2km^3 is insufficient to reflect sufficient sunlight so we continue warming past a recoverable point OR >15 reflects TOO MUCH sunlight and we continue cooling past a recoverable point.
That is MY position- that the system is far larger scale than mere decades can reflect and the SAFE BET is to attempt to responsibly minimise our impact overall- part of that is to minimise our waste and make better use of resources- as a sidebenefit it will make us more of a "race" and less of a "parasite"
Reply
In this we agree.
Reply
Leave a comment