One thing that does not get mentioned enough in the whole global warming argument is the phenomenon of negative feedback loops. This basically centers around the world’s oceans and how they are a huge, natural buffer to drastic climatic changes.
It basically works like this: The temperature rises, evaporates more water, which then forms more clouds. The increase in cloud cover blocks the sun’s radiation from hitting the earth, thus cooling it (negative feedback).
Sigh.
Yes, of course there are various feedbacks.
No, scientists have NOT forgotten about oceans and clouds, and the picture is far more complex than you picture, and yes they have been aware of things for a very long time.
Indeed clouds can be negative—but its possible that clouds could be positive as well. There is evidence from geological records that there is some significant positive feedback.
And even if there were a negative feedback in clouds, the weather patterns would still have to change significantly, in a way and to a degree which must be unprecedented over more than a million or so years (as greenhouse gases haven’t been this high in this time).
I am an amateur on this level, but I have just an inkling of the depth of the knowledge and seriousness that these issues have been pursued in the scientific community for many years already. Please, an bright amateur just thinking about some complicating mechanism is not going to be news to climatologists, oceanographers and geophysicists.
When they make forecasts and judgments they already know about problems with clouds. And remember that climate change is much much more than just the globally averaged temperature.
Remember that whatever number you see, you have to increase the effect it will have on YOU because the global average includes the 70% of Earth which is ocean, and we know that land areas will have larger fluctuations still. 5 degrees C was the depth between the Ice Ages (no agriculture, glaciers 2 miles thick in New YorK) and now. There’s a good chance of 5 degrees of Heat Age by 2100.
Just as those on the right might have an agenda to disregard the global warming argument (oil production, development, etc.); those on the left also have an agenda to propagate the very same argument (research, funding, etc.).
Scientists are not all on the ‘left’, despite popular misconception, unless the right continues even more vigorously to enlarge its current bizzare anti-scientific and anti-empirical delusions. (This used to usually be on the left, including anti-evolutionists)
Scientific research funding is enormously less lucrative and much more difficult than being an apologist for oil companies. And the optimal course if they wanted to lie and maximize funding (the first they don’t the second they do) would be to claim that things are still very unclear so give us more projects.
There are many unclear aspects, in fact, but sufficient is now known that they believe policy action, and not just more research, is appropriate.
This policy action will benefit them in absolutely no direct way.
In any case, there is realistcally a near zero-sum game in research funding and climate has to compete against the large numbers of other worthy science and engineering projects (like my own) which are not getting much funding either. If I were as unethical and selfish as those on http://www.junkscience.org, for exmaple, I would decry the focus on climate research and alternate energy because they compete with my own research funding in the end. However, since I attempt to be a scientifically honest and ethical person I support them.
