|
Evidence for:
- ? The Greenhouse Effect. Period.
Evidence against:
- Historically CO2 has lagged temperature rather than been the driver of temperature increases
True, but that's how climatic warming gets started. It's a predicted outcome, and strengthens, not weakens, the case for exponential Greenhouse Warming. A slight rise in temperature, statistically insignificant in climate terms, causes the oceans to warm and release CO2. This extra CO2 in turns fuels a climatic warming cycle.
- Man made CO2 is minimal compared to other sources of CO2 and (more importantly) other greenhouse gasses
That is completely missing the point. See "Tipping Point"; "Metastability"; "Exponential Rise"; "Venus".
- CO2 levels have been much higher in the past
So what?
- Global temperatures have been higher in the past
So what?
- The climate has changed significantly in the past without Man being around to impact it (previous ice age etc)
So what?
- Recently global temperatures have stabilised / fallen despite continued increase in CO2 output
Over what scales compared with Greenhouse Climate Effects?
What, if any, counter effects are being masked?
Given all known factors, what would be the climatic effect without the contribution of man-made CO2?
In other words, such a statement is meaningless unless it can be shown that there are no other counter or reinforcing factors at work. In other other words, a current temperature stability does not in itself run counter to theory.
- Continued debate about the impact of cloud cover and whether this introduces positive or negative feedback loops
See above
- Climate change model predictions continually fail to match actual experience garbage in, garbage out
Evidence? Significance of the evidence? Known margin of error in the models? Accuracy trends?
If the science really was settled then there would be some definitive evidence that could be shown to justify the claims.
There's plenty of evidence. See "Greenhouse Effect"; "Venus"
In practice there is still considerable disagreement between scientists and a great deal of secrecy and manipulation to prevent alternative views from being shared.
There's always disagreement over such matters. However, take away the rants, vested interest, wishful thinking and conspiracy theories and you're still left with the hard core of irrefutable scientific research which says:
- The greenhouse effect is real;
- CO2 and other greenhouse gases contribute to a planet's climatic stability;
- A planet's climate is metastable;
- Increase a planet's CO2 and it will warm;
- Mankind has increased the Earth's CO2 levels;
- The Earth is thereby being warmed;
- How it handles that extra heat is still very much a matter for debate, in particular what the new temperature stability will be.
- In other words, the Earth is warming through manmade CO2, although we still don't know how it will end up. All in all, it seems safest to try and mitigate it as much as possible.
Advocates of MMGW have resorted to cherry picking of numbers and data manipulation to present their desired results, which would be unncessary if the science was conclusive.
Oh yeah?? And the anti brigade haven't? Pull the other one. The science is conclusive. |
|