For all of you who believe that it is a settled scientific fact that humans burning hydro-carbons is the main cause of global warming, it's time, once again to reexamine why it is you believe that.
A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.
Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.
I have pointed out on many occasions (here, here, and here) that most of what people think they know about the causes of Global Warming is mere pseudo-science; akin to believing in Intelligent Design.
And consider this: Even if it was true that humans were the primary cause and we could identify what precisely we were doing to encourage Global Warming, then what? Do you really believe that warming is better than cooling? What if we precipitated an Ice Age, would that be better?
Living as I do in the New England, I'm not anxious for an Ice Age any time soon. How 'bout you? I should think the the primary thing on our mind if we were in an Ice Age is how to warm things up again. You think?
The fact is, we don't know what causes global warming and we don't know what cause global cooling. And worse, we don't know what would happen if we were to figure out how to reverse the trend.
Today, I'm just looking forward to Spring....