Paleoclimatolgists look at what has occurred. Projections of anthropogenic warming are based on radiative transfer physics - big difference. Whether the earth warms or cools is a function of the difference between net incoming solar and net longwave loss to space. The physics are indisputable as increased in CO2 and other gasses changes the radiative balance - it impacts both solar and long wave, as do the Milankovitch Cycles. What is still an area of research is "how much?". There is still a considerable range in the estimates. Some of the estimates would be problematic if they verified. The "sky is falling" cry come from left leaning politicians and the press. The scientists working this area are simply reporting what the current state of the science is indicating. There are many international teams working on this. I fail to see the point in attempting to disparage scientists you don't know. Isn't this the same thing you accuse others of doing? Full disclosure - I am a retired atmospheric scientist and developed numerical atmospheric models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
All true. Unfortunately, the "research" is generally pro-anthropogenic due to the enormous amount of money the feds are throwing at grants, and the way in which the media is reporting it, all to justify the ridiculous amount of spending that has been proposed to "combat" it. The "best/most respected" non-biased paleoclimatologists feel that the anthropogenic factor is minimal, perhaps delaying the next period of glaciation by 3-5,000 years. As far as the WEATHER changes of the last 100 years goes, 1 good volcano will change all that.
|