Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
True, but irrelevant, since we know beyond any rational doubt that the warming is caused by humans adding fossil CO2 to the atmosphere. It's just basic physics, no different in principle than using physics to figure out that if you jump off a cliff, you will hit the ground and go splat.
|
But the majority of the warming isn't caused by us. The majority is caused by a slight increase in solar output. It is also basic physics that if you put more heat into a system that system will warm up.
I will repeat again... the recognized solar increase is calculated raw,
WITHOUT feedbacks. The contributions from CO2 are
WITH feedbacks.
Arragonis: It could still be weather cycles that has stalled the increase, it will take another decade or two to be sure. Gotta love these long term systems that leave us hanging.
One of the things that really annoys me about the way that climate science is handled is the reliance on computer models for
data. We use computer models at work, with things that are well understood and only moderately complex. They can still have 30% or more error between the model and the actual system. With the climate models we have a very complex system that is poorly understood, but its supposed to be accurate, and much of the data that is used is either processed through, or taken directly from the models.