from American Thinker, Paul Shlichta writes Two Approaches to Climate Change.
Our climate depends on two convective systems: one in the shell of gas we call the atmosphere and the other in the layer of water we call the oceans. Both are extremely complicated. The atmosphere is stratified, of varying composition, and bounded on one side by a surface (the Earth) with a complex pattern of temperature, thermal conductivity, and radiative absorptivity and emissivity. The convection in the oceans is disrupted by a network of continents and islands and complicated by a widely varying pattern of depth. The two systems are closely coupled and interact with each other. In addition, they are rotating (which produces Coriolis forces and circular wind motion) and bounded by a radiatively cooling background of black space, which contains a moving source of radiative heating (the sun) that emits varying energy.
I think that this is too complicated a problem for anyone, including the IPCC, to thoroughly understand. As far as I could make out in a brief but bewildering attempt to fathom their reports, their models do not consider convection patterns in any detail. And without such an analysis, I don’t think any reliable predictions can be made.
I suspect that the IPCC has, perhaps unwittingly, used a variation of the Delphi method (wisdom of crowds- my add). Deep in their hearts, they felt that our prodigal use of fossil fuels was damaging our environment. And so, rather than impartially striving to unravel the problem of climate, they became – deliberately or subconsciously – biased advocates, cherry-picking and twisting the data and “Grubering” their presentation of it so as to arrive at the desired conclusion. And so, they have relied on intuitive consensus instead of evidence.
So far, the obvious evidence is strikingly equivocal; we are warming up and cooling down. Glaciers are shrinking while Antarctic sea ice is growing. Some regions are sweltering while others are freezing. We are told that last year was the hottest since 1850 and that a “historic blizzard” is besieging our East.
I think that convection may explain these paradoxes. Convection patterns can be stable, oscillatory, turbulent, or a combination thereof. As shown in the pictures here, a slight change in boundary conditions can change a stable pattern into an oscillating one. A transient disturbance can cause a marginally stable pattern to be disrupted by a burst of turbulence. And a theoretical analysis (in an old National Academy of Sciences monograph that I cannot now locate) indicates that when a change of boundary conditions causes one stable pattern to change into another, the transition period is chaotic.