Soleron said:
Wrong. Everybody is looking at alternative sources of global warming. Thee have been numerous independent studies of the effects of solar cycles on the climate, for example, and none of them yield numbers large enough to account for the recent warming. A lot of alternative ideas have been proposed, investigated, reported on and dismissed - often several times. Yes, all of these alternative effects added togethermay account for the warming, but the simplest hypothesis, which can account for all of the warming seen, is greenhouse gas concentrations. Greenhouse gas concentrations have also been found to account for the majority of historical climate shifts. I think the anti-global-warming camp is looking desperately for more and more 'alternative' hypotheses to a) waste climate scientists' research money - after all, every idea is considered - so it isn't spent on looking for ways to fix the problem, and b) justify their belief that it's not our fault so they can keep profiting from the status quo. |
Greenhouse gas emissions have been show to correlate... though not well.
Since the tempeture rise has been incremental while man-made carbon output has grown exponential.
It's not like greenhouse gases couldn't be the cause. However to say man-made greenhouse gases are the cause is silly. Why would it be mostly incrimental when CO2 emissions have raised exonentially?
Isn't it possible that the carbon sink system has changed, and now more natural Co2 is being put into the air then can be cycled out.
From many causes such as things like human and animal respriration. Or even other human factors? Like the covering up of soil with things like cement. (A lot of soil is known to absorb carbon.
Even if we were to cut all carbon emissions it seems likely and logical global warming would continue.
