carbon emissions produce global warming?
cap'n happy tracks the science (and pseudoscience) of global warming judy more closely than I do...when an article came out about it recently, I asked his opinion...i wanted to save his answer here for future reference.
>> more carbon emissions gives more warming)?
Over the past 16-22 years CO2 emissions have continued to rise and yet global temperatures have held steady (and even dropped, depending on how you calculate the trend line).
Yes – there's been no "global warming" in two decades.
The entire theory is based on "evidence" created by computer models. And these models have well known problems, like the inability to model clouds. We don't even understand the interaction of water vapor and climate, so we cannot model it properly.
Most importantly, water vapor is the real greenhouse gas. The entire AGW hypothesis is based on a runaway feedback loop that causes water vapor to heat up the atmosphere.
The AGW hypothesis fundamentally depends on an increase of water vapor (which the computer models cannot actually model). Yet the empirical evidence of global water vapor, as recorded in the real atmosphere, is showing a decrease in global humidity. This is just one of many true facts that contradicts the AGW hypothesis.
I'm certain they've got it wrong. I'm certain the world is not heating up due to CO2. If carbon has anything to due with the climate it's insignificant. Everything we see happening in our climate can be explained by natural phenomena – but we don't understand how it really works, and I doubt we will within our lifetime.
It's not valid science. Real science starts with a hypothesis, and then must rule out the null-hypothesis. That is natural phenomena. Scientist must first refute all possible natural causes. Then, and only then, can one claim the phenomena (global warming) is due to a man-made cause.
We have not ruled out natural causes. They've got an idea and show correlations, but have not proven CO2 is the cause. And, as I've said, there are many contradictions in the empirical evidence.
Real science will have a theory that makes predictions, and then the real evidence never contradicts those predictions. If the data doesn't completely support the theory – the theory is wrong!
The AGW hypothesis comes from people that are "begging the question." They assume CO2 is the cause, and look for the evidence to prove it. That's exactly not how real science works.