More proof, less clear hypothesis

If a hypothesis predicts an outcome and the observations far exceed the predictions in a measurable quantitative scale, is the hypothesis proven to be just correct, more correct or possibly incorrect? A recent story in the Times of London, poses this question in terms of climate change. It appears that the melting of the ice caps far exceed the predictions from simulations based on green house gas emissions, using the most pessimistic inputs. Supporters of the end of the world by CO₂ hypothesis, may use this observation to convince themselves that, indeed, the world is fast progressing toward disaster. However, if observations do not quite fit the predictions, then, we may want to step back and consider a reformulation of the hypothesis.

There are both long cycle and unknown effects superimposed on short cycle and possibly known effects on the climate. The net effect of these phenomena is difficult to determine precisely. It is clear that pumping massive amounts of green house gases into the atmosphere may not be a good thing. But part of this comes from cows and Methane emitting volcanoes in the Atlantic in addition to aircrafts and automobiles. It may well be advisable to dial back our own emissions but that may not have much impact on the short cycle phenomena. To make matters worse, we are the victims of unknown long cycle phenomena that may have an even higher impact on what may happen to the climate.

As environmentalists lose sleepless nights cursing industrial development and ignorant automobile enthusiasts, worrying about the melting ice caps and rising sea levels, they may also want to consider the possibility that much of it is unavoidable.