Saturday, April 5, 2008

Comments about global warming.

The argument that because no other single theory hat explains the recent global temperature increase has found widespread accpetance in the scientific community means that anthropogenic global warming is true does not appear to follow scientific logical deduction to me.

The actual note isn't that no other single theory has found acceptance rather it's saying that there is global warming brought on by polluting the atmosphere with heat trapping gases which fully explains the warming being experienced, whereas no other alternative theories exist. The point isn't that other theories don't work therefore let's default to this. Rather greenhouse pollution explains the global warming and nothing else provides so much as a plausible mechanism.

All this appears to mean is that the mechanisms for global and regional climate change are poorly understood by our current science. Without arbitrary assumptions and deletions of significant but poorly understood factors of the climate, AGW does not come close to matching the data we do have.

To the contrary, the data fits amazingly well and if there's any shortcomings it's in predicting the secondary amplification effects. Our direst guesses have thus far been naive in underestimating the effects.

Scients are equally impaired in explaining past global climate changes other than the apparent general consensus that they were natural instead of anthropogenic. It appears that science just doesn't understand enough to be really sure what has caused any global climate changes either now or in the past.

Nothing about ignorance somewhere demands ignorance anywhere. By physics we know that CO2 is going to trap heat, we are releasing a massive amount crushing the previous records and putting it well above 300ppm. This should trap a large amount of heat. The entire planet is getting warmer. -- We have a simple easy to understand mechanism which fully explains what we are seeing and we have no other scientifically accepted theory which comes close. So, what should we conclude? One fully explains what we are seeing and nothing else does. Sure, there could be a something else, but doesn't that mean we're wrong on the basic physics part of greenhouse effect?

Previous heating events were way WAY slower. They were on the order of thousands of years rather than a decade, a decade we just happened to put massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Also, it's not like this science is newly minted, it's been well understood for decades.

A 1958 film on the question. 6 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide! -- I wish.

No comments: