- #1
Andre
- 4,311
- 74
As I see a new brave offensive against those devious satanic gasses and obviously, weather of mass destruction is about to destroy the world. So, perhaps it's time to review the science behind greenhouse warming.
How about using the scientific method this time.
It seems to be getting warmer, Glaciers are melting, earthquakes in Alaska, etc. whatever.
Well we know the greenhouse gas effect and we know that CO2 is rising. So could the increase of CO2 be the cause?
So if increase of GHG is causing the warming. More GHG is more warming so we can model several scenarios leading to a prediction of the temperature in the future. http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/00fig1.gif is one.
The complete story here
And indeed we have covered a few more years since 1998 and we know the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/trend.jpg .
If we http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/00fig1-1.GIF (red dots and the boldface trendline) we will find that we rougly have approached scenario C instead of A or B.
But did CO2 stopped increasing in 2000 and did we have large volcano eruptions?
Prediction failed
(or at least increasingly inaccurate)
What now?
How about using the scientific method this time.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
It seems to be getting warmer, Glaciers are melting, earthquakes in Alaska, etc. whatever.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
Well we know the greenhouse gas effect and we know that CO2 is rising. So could the increase of CO2 be the cause?
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
So if increase of GHG is causing the warming. More GHG is more warming so we can model several scenarios leading to a prediction of the temperature in the future. http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/00fig1.gif is one.
(Scenario A has a fast growth rate for greenhouse gases. Scenarios B and C have a moderate growth rate for greenhouse gases until year 2000, after which greenhouse gases stop increasing in Scenario C. Scenarios B and C also included occasional large volcanic eruptions, while scenario A did not. The objective was to illustrate the broad range of possibilities in the ignorance of how forcings would actually develop. The extreme scenarios (A with fast growth and no volcanos, and C with terminated growth of greenhouse gases)
The complete story here
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
And indeed we have covered a few more years since 1998 and we know the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/trend.jpg .
If we http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/00fig1-1.GIF (red dots and the boldface trendline) we will find that we rougly have approached scenario C instead of A or B.
But did CO2 stopped increasing in 2000 and did we have large volcano eruptions?
Prediction failed
(or at least increasingly inaccurate)
What now?
Last edited by a moderator: