Intriguing!!!

While I do believe that anthropogenic climate change is vastly changing the way that climate systems across the world work and will work in the future, I think it is fair to point out a few things wrong with any future climate models. To being with, there is no way that any climate models which have been created by anyone currently can accurately predict temperature or climate change. The truth is that there are so many variables which act as both positive and negative feedbacks (can increase and decrease warming) scientists cannot possibly be able to really predict what will happen to the climate in the future, or how fast that change will occur. This is in part because scientists do not fully understand which natural and unnatural variables are connected to the Earth's climate nor do they completely understand how many biogeochemical systems affect each other and the climate. When you throw in the interconnectedness of the oceans, earth's geology, biosphere and atmosphere, along with the recent discoveries of short term, decade long, and century long cyclic climatic patterns (Think El Nino, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) what you get is a cluster mess up of epic proportions. Put simply, if scientists still do not understand what things are affecting our current climate, it is impossible for them to put those things into their models. On top of all of this the changing mixture of gasses in the earth's atmosphere will likely result in different climatic reactions than those seen in the past to the same stimuli because the atmosphere will have a different chemistry (mixture of gasses).

My opinion is that with the rapid melting of glaciers (more rapid than was calculated by many of the climate models used in the past) that perhaps the effects of climatic warming might be more accelerated and occur much faster than many of the models have accounted for. I also think the effects of the warming are much more serious than the warming itself. The possibility of increased droughts, sea level rise, increased storm strength, increased hurricane strength, and acidification of the ocean are the types of effects which worry me the most. Of course I do not really have viable evidence to back this opinion up. It's just a guess.

Just curious, what do other people think of the climate models and such?

sorry Climate change is a topic I will get on a soap box about.

Conclusion: We're boned. Just keep your Glock 17 ready just in case climate gets too much to bear. Besides, a dead you produces less carbon emissions

Keep in mind that this is being studied by several hundred if not thousands of PhDs in fields that cover this theory. While it may not be exact, it is as close as we can get with our current knowledge. When we learn more the prediction will become more refined. So instead of a thirty year average we could see a fifteen year average. Also, all the points you mentioned are well known by the people doing these studies and are calculated into the model as variables that can be set before the simulation is started. These simulations are done on super computers which are able to process an insane amount of data. There could be unknown properties that throw off the model which isn't necessarily bad because it will show us an anomaly that was previously unknown and will help to focus research.

When it comes to different gases, we know the physical characteristics of methane for example. We can take data that has been compiled for the last thirty years and see what effects are caused by a change in the amount of that particular gas in our atmosphere. Using that as our base, we can then scale up the percentage of the gas and make a prediction. It might not be exact, but it will be within an acceptable margin of error.

I agree with your concerns about the effects of warming on our planet. It feels like we are on a bus that is speeding towards a cliff and only a few of us understand that the cliff is there while everyone else is telling us to shut up and let the bus continue forward.

What I was trying to say is that the points I made are not being included or calculated into the models because they are not really fully understood. For example, the nitrogen cycle and the phosphorous cycle all have an effect on global warming. For example, the ratio of nitrogen fixation to denitrification has been found to change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere between glacial and deglacial periods. Scientists seem to be concentrating just on CO2 and ignoring some of the other biogeochemical cycles which also have an effect on global warming and CO2 production which I think is dangerous no matter how " sexy" CO2 might be in the scientific community right now. PHD's and scientific research tend to follow the grant money which, currently is heavy on CO2 research and not on other pollutants being pumped into the earth system, and whose cycles we are also changing. Also, there are many natural climate cycles which have only been discovered in recent years, or are still waiting to be discovered now that we have access to higher resolution paleoclimate records. These cycles can lighten or heighten the effects of global warming to specific parts of the world. For example, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a decade- 50 year climate cycle which makes the pacific northwest wet some decades and Southern California and Northern Mexico dry, and then flips so that the Pacific Northwest is dry and Southern Cali and Northern Mexico are wet. As the climate warms up drought will increase in areas which are naturally dry due to this cycle.

Also the points above about the incompleteness of the models was taught to me in a graduate level biogeochemical cycles class only a year ago, so PHDs have not figured everything out yet. I just think that it is not valid to think that the super computer can calculate everything when the variables which they need to calculate these models are not included in the program.

If I came off as arrogant or whatever earlier it was not my intention.

I love how you put that paragraph together, I'm at a loss for how to reply exactly. All that I can say is that the fact that you were taught these things in a graduate level corse pretty much verifies that doctorates do know about these things. I know they do not fully understand every little piece of it, but then again who does? The main point that I was getting at is that these models help to make predictions which then can be verified or discredited depending on the outcome of the prediction. It helps us to understand where the gaps in our knowledge are. If you are arguing that the models aren't highly accurate then I pretty much agree with you, but I still see their usefulness. :Þ

I can agree with thier usefullness also.