Re: Warning Words
"Apparently around 50% of the experienced warming may be due to a 60 year cycle of ocean currents trapping and then releasing heat (accelerating the warming for 30 years, and then decelerating warming for the next 30 years). This would suggest that some of the assumptions made regarding the relative effects of certain mechanisms (like the actual amount of warming due to the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2) may be in error, and should be revisited.
It would certainly have an effect on the numbers if, for instance, the overall warming due to atmospheric heat capture (including the effect of increased CO2) is only 50% of that measured increase, and stored heat in the deep sea is responsible for the other 50%, which would appear to be what that study is suggesting. And it would have to be around that 50% figure, if the cycle reversing (and the current switching to storing rather than releasing heat) can completely negate any increase (like the 10+ year hiatus we are experiencing) even though CO2 emissions are continuing unabated.
Of course these are all still theories, and only time will allow us to test predictions and further refine them based upon the feedback of subsequent measurements. But it does shed some small doubts upon the "obviousness" of the role atmospheric CO2 is playing on global temperatures. It does not appear to be as large an effect as some people have assumed, if it can be entirely negated by the action of polar currents."
I always find these sorts of arguments against acting on the (fairly well supported) theory that we're responsible for global warming rather odd.
If you were standing in a field, near a gate, with a bull charging towards you, and you had two theories as to why:
a) he's enraged by your red jacket and wants to charge you
b) he's planning on running past you to the exit
Would you stand still and wait for further clarification, or would you hastily ditch the red jacket and move out of the road?