Snowshoe,
Let me defend my position a bit and frame it in a different manner:
Because it was warm in the recent past with higher sea levels than now does not prove that human activity is not now causing global warming, you are right about that. But it does something else, it demolishes or at least neutralizes the only piece of evidence that the advocates of the global warming theory have, that accumulated real world evidence that the world is warming is related to their theory in any way. After all, if the earth warmed and the sea level rose at a similar period in the recent past, albeit a period sans offending human activity, the warming observed today is likely a result of the same factors as in the past era, whatever they happen to be.
So seems to me the global warming advocates are forced to use an alternate route to advance their theory, and the only one I see is the analytical route using the mathematical tools of the science of thermodynamics and this is a very difficult task. What they have to do is to attempt to produce a thermodynamic "heat balance" on a planetary scale.
In a closed environment, say an industrial oven, furnace, kiln, autoclave, dryer, steamer, ect, inside a building and where you have infinitely variable control over a number of inputs and where you have all sorts of sensors and probes; thermistors, thermocuples, hygrometers, pito tubes, radiation gages, ect. and connected to a bank of strip chart recorders, even so it is a difficult to get a heat balance to work, much less to work out a projection or even make any sense out of what is happening.
But we are asked to believe that by similar mathematical modeling and with a whole host of unknown variables that at the present state of the art that we are able to make reasonable projections of temperature five or five hundred years from now. I don't buy it.
Global warming is the only evidence of global warming. Remove that support and you don't have anything.
Slagle |
