PeterMP Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Would not change is a losing game(it always changes,perhaps to our benefit), but heat sinks and heat leaving the atmosphere in manners/degree not accounted for in most models is a start. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25801-huge-whirlpools-in-the-ocean-are-driving-the-weather.html#.U9xTAPldXiU co2 being less of a factor than some suggest is another So heating up the ocean isn't climate change? I mean right, your posting that huge eddies form in the ocean and distribute heat through the system, and then trying to claim that heating that water up won't affect the climate. How does that make any sense? How is that a mechanism? CO2 absorbs heat. It reflects energy that would have escaped to space back to the Earth. More CO2 means more of that reflected heat. That's a mechanism. You've got well if we assume X, Y, and Z, then maybe A will (or won't happen). Do you really not see the difference? (I'll point out in terms advantage/disadvantage, I've said here before, that I think long term it really is probably a coin flip sort of situation as to whether or not climate change is good for humans, but short term human society is an evolved thing and in the short term changes in the environment do not tend to benefit the currently best evolved entity (e.g. the USA in the current system) so I suspect short term, especially if we continue to do nothing at all, there will be a substantial cost to us.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now