Funkstain wrote:To find data on global temperatures measured across massive numbers of locations, different methods of measuring, different places in the atmosphere, oceans, land, and pre-historical records from ice cores and tree rings, just google it. There are literally unending links to good material.
Funkstain wrote:So to recap. You agree climate change is happening right now. You agree that it is happening very quickly. Correct? So you've moved on to the third question, which was "are humans responsible for at least a significant amount of this recent change", and you have dodged it, and gone straight on to CO2. Whether CO2 has an effect on climate is utterly and totally indisputable. The greenhouse effect is a real thing, which keeps us alive, and frankly bugger off back to GSCE Science if you don't get that. As for the chart somehow showing that CO2 is not a major, or the major factor in increased temperatures, I don't understand what you mean. It shows that the temperature has gone up and stayed up. There are questions over why it didn't continue to go up, and they have been addressed in various ways as has been pointed out to you. But in any case the chart provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever that CO2 is not a major factor in climate change. Next:And my question was, and still is, what is the correlate? Co2s? That's disputable, the chart makes that an easy challenge.I'm at a loss about this one. Why would birth rate have an effect on global climate? And how can you show (i.e.: not just conjecture or theorising, but actual evidence-based research) that this effect is real and more important than, say, CO2?The birth rate is a strong one, but we haven't examined that yet.Um, agriculture is cited as a cause for climate change because DUM DUM DUUUUM it is responsible for vast amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Are you actually arguing against your self now?Agriculture is also a major one...What you are asking for is scientific research. Which is what has been done. And the best evidence, analysed by the best minds, has led to the conclusion that this time, humans are having a major effect. What I love about this is the dichotomy you seem unaware of: on the one hand, you demand a simple fact-based explanation for everything otherwise there will always be doubt. On the other: there can never be fact-based explanation because it's too complex man! brilliant, i mean brilliant rhetoric you should write for the daily telegraph.And how do we set up 'controls' for lab work in an experiment performed on a living system? How do we know if this pattern of climate change has anything to do with us, and not an unknown cosmic phenomenon? And how do we explain ice ages of the past? Do you think we may see another ice age in the future? There's still a great deal of dispute about the cause of the ice age, and that's in the benefit of hindsight...There's nothing wrong with questions. And there's nothing wrong with doing research. You should take your own advice and actually read the science (NOT the telegraph). It is impossible to be certain about things in science, yes. What it is not impossible to be is pretty damn sure. Do you want to argue against a lot of scientists saying they are pretty damn sure? On what basis? With what evidence?What's wrong with asking questions aout the subject? I'm trying to say that it's impossible to be certain about this, and that the intelligent thing to do, is to learn more...
dynamiteReady wrote:What I'm actually saying, is that there's no widely accepted theory that explains how human behaviour is effecting climate change. Thats an absolute fact.
Even the most ardent fanatic will tell you that even the most conservative model to affirm a AGW outcome is hypothetical.
dynamiteReady wrote:You see, I'm still waiting for someone to explain this chart. Is the data fake? I'd say it's a good starting point to explore both sides of the argument... It looks like there's a correlate there. A pattern too possibly... There's a steady rise there, but where's the explanation for the fall? Were we planting more trees, or something? And what of the blantant spikes? There will surely be some explanation for those. What's wrong with wanting to know more?dynamiteReady wrote:
dynamiteReady wrote:What I'm actually saying, is that there's no widely accepted theory that explains how human behaviour is effecting climate change.
Thats an absolute fact.
Even the most ardent fanatic will tell you that even the most conservative model to affirm a AGW outcome is hypothetical.
Cases against are similarly fuzzy.
Yeah hurry up, I'm getting sleepy.Vela wrote:I'm not far out of bed though so leave me a tag if you need more reading or want some more back and forth discussion.
Funkstain wrote:You never know, it could turn out to be an invisible radiator somewhere.
Funkstain wrote:The point of science is to find the best theory to fit the facts.
dynamiteReady wrote:Well...Funkstain wrote:You never know, it could turn out to be an invisible radiator somewhere.Science is a search for facts... The truth, actually. @Vela - That's better. No recourse to a character assasination, no name calling, some facts, and some sources to follow...Funkstain wrote:The point of science is to find the best theory to fit the facts.
Yossarian wrote:Thats an absolute fact.
dynamiteReady wrote:I'm sorry on this one, Yoss. The only constant here, is that the people who actually do the science have learnt a lot, but cannot claim absolute surety.Yossarian wrote:Thats an absolute fact.
Capitalised for Maximum Impact.Brooks wrote:I kinda hope Griff's Hot Space has staying power.
Fermented soybeans, dig in. Also peanuts are about 28% protein.Brooks wrote:Guys I eat a lot of protein every day, where am I supposed to get this from without meat. Chicken and tuna are like a quarter or more of protein per gram.
Lord_Griff wrote:"Hot Space: The Invisible Radiator" - by Lord_Griff (c) 2015. In all good book stores. Also Cock's graph implies that the Earth should on average be c3 degrees cooler than it is now (over 450k years)
dynamiteReady wrote:Well...Funkstain wrote:You never know, it could turn out to be an invisible radiator somewhere.Science is a search for facts... The truth, actually. @Vela - That's better. No recourse to a character assasination, no name calling, some facts, and some sources to follow...Funkstain wrote:The point of science is to find the best theory to fit the facts.
Skerret wrote:Fermented soybeans, dig in. Also peanuts are about 28% protein.Brooks wrote:Guys I eat a lot of protein every day, where am I supposed to get this from without meat. Chicken and tuna are like a quarter or more of protein per gram.
dynamiteReady wrote:The levels of sensationalism out there... It's nuts. http://iceagenow.info/2014/01/bbc-daily-mail-warn-mini-ice-age/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!