Tweet
One of the things you'll commonly see among arguments to dismiss human-driven climate change is the claim that the warming is simply a natural cycle. It's a tempting argument, given that we know of natural cycles that drive the entry and exit from glacial periods.
But on its own, it's not scientific, since it provides no explanation whatsoever. To be scientific, you have to identify what's cycling and how that can influence the climate, so that we can evaluate the proposed mechanism.* And, over the years, most of the scientists that dismiss the role of CO2 in driving climate change have proposed alternative explanations for why the planet was warming. And most of those proposed a cycle that is on the scale of a handful of decades - long enough that they can be checked against more recent data.
So, someone went through and did the comparison. Most of those proposed cycles turned out to last a handful of decades, which suggests that cooling should have started by now. And, since it hasn't, they're all looking pretty weak.
There was another case where the cycle identified ran over more than a century, so it is compatible with continued warming at present. But that turned out to be based on a faulty understanding of orbital mechanics, so had to be retracted.
So, two take homes from this:
Not all instances of objection to modern climate science are unscientific.
Just something is scientific doesn't mean it's right.
*I will note that to be fully scientific, these ideas would also have to explain why CO2 isn't having an effect, when we know it does on other planets. But that's a different discussion.
But on its own, it's not scientific, since it provides no explanation whatsoever. To be scientific, you have to identify what's cycling and how that can influence the climate, so that we can evaluate the proposed mechanism.* And, over the years, most of the scientists that dismiss the role of CO2 in driving climate change have proposed alternative explanations for why the planet was warming. And most of those proposed a cycle that is on the scale of a handful of decades - long enough that they can be checked against more recent data.
So, someone went through and did the comparison. Most of those proposed cycles turned out to last a handful of decades, which suggests that cooling should have started by now. And, since it hasn't, they're all looking pretty weak.
There was another case where the cycle identified ran over more than a century, so it is compatible with continued warming at present. But that turned out to be based on a faulty understanding of orbital mechanics, so had to be retracted.
So, two take homes from this:
Not all instances of objection to modern climate science are unscientific.
Just something is scientific doesn't mean it's right.
*I will note that to be fully scientific, these ideas would also have to explain why CO2 isn't having an effect, when we know it does on other planets. But that's a different discussion.
Comment