daveman
Diamond Member
That's why they started calling it "global climate change" instead of "global warming"...so that whatever happened, they can blame it on American SUVs.You are right, of course. This is so far a hypothesis. AGW does not yet rise to the level of a theory. There has recently been warming. Prior to that there was cooling and prior to that warming. The cooling period of the Little ice Age went on for about 250 to 400 years.
Our current warming has continued for about 230 years if we are to buy into the AGW story line.
The Medieval Warm period last for centuries also. During that warm period, things for humanity were pretty good. During the Little Ice Age, not so much.
We know that Glaciers are receeding to levels prevelant in a time about 5000 years ago. This means we are warming to that level: a level persistant between 8000 and 3000 BC.
Set in a historical perspective, the panic diminishes and we see a simple ebb and flow of climate change.
Superimposing the musings of those who seek funding or who covet the wealth of one nation for another does not add as much light as it adds heat to the debate. Pun intended.
Now you're just making things up. AGW is far beyond the hypothesis stage. You can't make something so, just by saying it. As for your analysis, it fails a basic test of logic to be considered proof of anything. Just because something had a particular cause or time course in the past, doesn't prove that this time there isn't a different cause and time course, particularly given the fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!
And that shows that volcanos emit comparitively small amounts of CO2. Compared to ALL of nature, Man causes emissions between 3 and 4 percent of the total with nature emitting the rest.
The leading scientist in the world on the subject is Dr. James Hansen. His three scenarios from 1988 projected climate change based on three different possible emission patterns for CO2. The actual emissions turned out to be higher than the highest projection.
The actual temperature rise turned out to be lower than the lowest prediction.
The actual rise in temperature could be plotted better by simply averaging the past temperature increase and projecting that into the future.
In other words, the increase in CO2 has had no effect on the rate of warming.
Is this evidence the kind that moves a hypothesis into the theory category? Not for my money. One might wonder why, instead, the scientific community so stridently proclaims that something not proven is proven.
-35 in upstate New York doesn't proclaim runaway warming to me.