Consensus is not science
Dear Editor:
The concept of consensus has no place in science. The test of a theory is the continuing support of the hypothesis. No scientist would say, “the science is settled”. There are two sets of scientists in the global warming debate. One set, call them the “CO2 group,” are trying to prove man causes (and can fix) global warming. The other group, the “regression analysts,” are trying to understand what drives our climate and what the future looks like. It is a race, both sides have the opportunity to make their case.
The CO2 groups represented by over 50 computer simulations are trying to prove CO2 is dominating climate change. The regression analysis groups are plugging in various data from the past. Both are looking for a curve fit that follows the past and can predict the future. We have good data from the past on temperature, CO2, and glacier cycles. There is also a well-known temperature dependent solubility of CO2 in seawater. This is very important as oceans contain 16 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere (38,000 billion tons). Finally, is the dominating Milankovitch cycle and solar output. Evidence from the past indicates that warming events precede the increase of atmospheric CO2. It appears solar activity and the earth/sun geometry lead to warming and as expected, the oceans release CO2.
At this time neither group has the answer but the CO2 group has hobbled their study by predisposing the answer is CO2. None of their programs deliver a good curve fit. The regression analysts group appear to be ahead. The Milankovitch cycle, while not perfect, is a good start. Estimating sun output from sunspots and geomagnetic activity, then fitting a curve, presents more of a challenge. Spoiler alert - A prediction from the last listed source is an increase of less than 1.8° Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
Joe Grant
Wiscasset
BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'
20180319_docket-317-cv-06011_na-1.pdf
