Quote:
Originally Posted by Solanum
if I went up to a civil engineer and told him I had seen on a website how I could make a bridge with 50% less steel and concrete but double the strength do you think he should listen to me?
I do not have the knowledge or understanding of climatology to effectively argue for or against the predicted results of anthropogenic CO2 (and other IR absorbing compounds), therefore I accept the view of the vast majority (but not all) climatologists.
|
The forces operating on bridges are well known, and generally a 100% contingency factor is used. So you probably could make a bridge with 50% less concrete and steel, but that is not a risk our society is prepared to accept.
Climate is totally different. It cannot be modeled.
So what is the view of the "vast majority" of climatologists?
It is probably recorded in
this leaked document from the US EPA. "Natural forces as opposed to human activity are largely responsible for temperature fluctuations, according to a new study. . New scientific data highlighted in the report shows that ocean cycles and solar cycles are probably the most important factors behind temperature fluctuations. Moreover, satellite information now indicates there is little chance of endangerment from greenhouse gases, according to the report. . . .Some of the major developments overlooked by EPA official include a continued decline in global temperatures, an emerging consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense and new studies that demonstrate water vapor will have a moderating influence on temperature. "
You don't need to be an expert or a climatologist to see that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures, and very little science to support causation. As Pilmer says in his book "Heaven and Earth", of the 19 variables that influence climate, CO2 is the least important.
There is a real problem with "climatologists" who are running political agendas. This
graph is a plot of raw GISS data. "The graph does not even remotely correlate to the shape of the CO2 versus time graph. The warming was greatest in the 1930’s before CO2 started to rise rapidly. The rate of rise in 1920, the early 1930’s and the early 1950’s is significantly greater than anything in the last 30 years. Despite the rapid rise in CO2 since 1960, the 1970’s to early 1980’s was the time of the global cooling scare and looking at the graph in Figure 5 one can see why (almost 2F cooling over 50 years). "