Quote:
Originally Posted by White Doors
|
Global warming is happening because of a meteor, eh? That's one of the more far-fetched explanations I've heard. I strongly suspect there's a reason this is being published in "Science First Hand"(anyone ever heard of that? Didn't think so) and not, say
Science or
Nature. If this were truly groundbreaking research, one of those journals would be bound to pick it up.
The gist of it is basically that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. This is well known. The rest is merely speculation--an attempt to find an alternate explanation for data that have been explained pretty well in other models. But there's always going to be a fringe, I guess. The problem is the same confusion you had in your first post--not a criticism at all--there's a lot of confusion over this issue in the media. SOME GHG's are necessary to support life--but when our emissions upset the balance, it can have far-reaching and unforeseen consequences.
If Tunguska had been the kind of event that this guy claims, it should have caused massive global cooling in the short term, because of the huge dust cloud. It didn't. It should also have caused a steady warming over the course of the century--but warming wasn't steady--it increased in rate as the rate of CO2 emissions increased. There comes a time when Ockham's razor needs to be applied to these problems. When there's dust on your kitchen floor, you don't wonder where it came from--you just sweep it up.