Is Global Warming real Science?
Climate change...is it based on Science?
I am not going to argue with anyone as to whether global warming is occurring or not, because I don't think the data is available yet to draw the conclusion. One of the truths behind global warming is that the evidence can be skewed relatively easy by the computer model algorithm that draws a different conclusion. My heartbreak is the fact that when the data didn't necessarily support global warming theory, they changed the theory to "climate change".
You can draw the simplistic model of global warming, by inferring since the ice age billions of years ago...yes the earth has been on a warming trend since then. But the science behind the theory is that the earth is warming due to man made materials altering the climate. That is the real question here. If I copy from Wikipedia, "Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them." As you can see, a hypotheses claiming global warming is caused by man made carbon dioxide or Co2, the research to be conclusive, must show evidence that this in fact, is what could be causing the increase in temperatures.
Yet, none of this evidence has been conclusive that Co2 is actually causing this. When you look at the data from the mid 1920's and 1930's, the warmest temperatures recorded in the U.S. were during that time...before the industrial revolution. So what is the answer? Do we have science here, or is it that the Co2 level is higher than it was 30 years ago, therefore any increase in temperatures must be caused by this increased Co2 levels? With too many other variables at play, I would think this is a difficult hypothesis to support, but is there any other explanation that could be causing this.
My concern is that the evidence was not always there and scientist were puzzled by inconsistent data, which obviously makes the theory void. So instead of "global warming", the new terminology was "climate change" which is more difficult to prove because there are always going to be unusual climate patterns, with science this would not be conclusive evidence. The fact that the science behind the Co2 as the cause and effect is somewhat cloudy, because it was a "consensus" that derived the theory, I am wondering what ever happened to real science.
As someone who grew up in the 1970's when Time magazine had a cover story regarding the coming Ice Age, I wonder if we can really prove if we are in a warming phase or a cooling phase. Most climate changes appear to be cyclic in nature, so while claiming a global warming event, and during the 12 month cycle you set several below average temperature records...what is the conclusion? I think real science would start to look for other "causes" to the warming, but since there isn't any real science to support this, it has led to confusion and for many people, they don't take the climate change being man made very seriously.
You would think that a hypothesis would be able to find supporting data if this was the reason for any change in the global temperature, because that is what the basis for scientific theory is. Although there may be evidence of glaciers melting, and other phenomena that is unusual, the course of science has the burden to PROVE that Co2 is causing this. I don't think you can support this theory quite honestly, because of too many other variables. What could the variables be? The earth is a rotating similar to a gyroscope, and we could be experiencing gyroscopic precession which locate the earth closer to the sun in some areas. It could be sun spots which have been reported to be more active in the last 20 years..and the sun intensity cannot be controlled. Is it the Ozone? Wait, we tried that and nothing could be conclusive with that either, so the Ozone is just fine now.
The truth is the science isn't enough to support global warming theory, climate change, with the cause of Co2 as the problem. I am not saying the climate isn't warming, or that it isn't changing, but so far science isn't proving this to be the case. Taking a look at the Co2 levels, the rise isn't such that it would cause air to warm at an increased rate, the challenge is for you to form your own opinion. I strongly recommend your own research on the Co2 levels, the cause and effect of Co2 on climate, and I think you will agree that it is a source that won't have you a believer very long. That is why you will find during your search, a lot of words like "scam" will surface, because some scientist that have tried to prove this theory have been caught either admitting they don't know why the earth has been cooling recently, or have put bogus numbers into the computer models to continue with the theory.
Another variable is the measurement devices used to collect this data. Too often the "controlled experiment" has been tampered with to show the theory is correct. However, if this was correct then we would be experiencing a constant increase in temperatures with slight variation over the years, and that has not been the case. The scientist are puzzled as to why we haven't had this occur, but will point out the rising oceans or melting glaciers as proof. Although the physical evidence is available to SEE this melting, the explanation does not conform to the cause, so until that is a scientific conclusion, we cannot with confidence, say that man made Co2 is causing this phenomena Especially when you consider water vapor INCREASING in the atmosphere will cause visible moisture (clouds) which, without the sun's direct rays of frequency, will warm at a much slower rate. Throw in the cooling caused by evaporation in the atmosphere, and it is hard to conclude what the earths temperature will look like in 20 to 30 years.
My conclusion to this post, are we looking at our atmosphere from a scientific point, or is it a claim that is unsubstantiated at this point. Because weather is so hard to predict, and when I say weather, I mean weather is interrelated to climate, the fact we cannot forecast the high and low temperatures of the earth in the next 5 days to the exact degree, how can we forecast the temperature of the earth 100 years from now? I think most would agree that if we approach climate change or global warming as a science, most come to the same conclusion and that is...show me the empirical evidence to support this, and I am all in, otherwise leave me alone!