Except it is unusual. The rate we've had for the last 200 years is much greater than the normal changes caused by the Milankovitch cycle. The point of this graph is to show the match with greenhouse gases. Do you really think the match is a coincidence?
Correlation does not imply causation. Any scientist will tell you that.
A greenhouse is one thing and a planet is quite another. If any branch of science is struggling with AGW...it's the physicists.By definition, greenhouse gases retain heat. You can test that property in a lab, or even in your kitchen. It's physically impossible to increase CO2 concentration without increasing heat retention. The amount of heating you'd expect based on those physical properties "happens" to be what we've observed.
By definition, greenhouse gases retain heat. You can test that property in a lab, or even in your kitchen. It's physically impossible to increase CO2 concentration without increasing heat retention. The amount of heating you'd expect based on those physical properties "happens" to be what we've observed.
This all makes sense unless the majority is overly biased by something else such as research/grant money. Still, for MMGW most of the scientific does agree it's happening, enough that a normal person ought to agree with them. Still, what to do with that information is another matter altogether.
A greenhouse is one thing and a planet is quite another. If any branch of science is struggling with AGW...it's the physicists.
I have no argument with the obvious.An actual greenhouse doesn't behave anything like the atmosphere, so the term "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer, but the fact that they do retain heat is indisputable.
And that doesn't mean it will scale on a worldwide level. Again, correlation does not imply causation. Just because CO2 has increase doesn't mean that is the primary cause behind global warming. Climate is not a simple science. There are many factors going into what drives the climate.
Listen, I sit on the fence. From the evidence I have seen, I don't see how people can conclusively say humans are the DRIVING factor. A factor? Sure. The primary factor? I have doubts. I don't see how the evidence supports it.
I believe in common sense moves. Lets build some Nuke Plants. Lets get rid of coal. Those types of things are only beneficial and useful as a society.
Maybe yes...maybe no....and therein lies the rub.Why would it NOT scale on a worldwide level? There are feedbacks that make climate science complicated, but the independent variable and driving factor is GG emission.
Maybe yes...maybe no....and therein lies the rub.
Well there is always grant money, and money on the other side. The parallelism with tobacco is pretty striking in this case. For years researchers with government grants were claiming that tobacco kills/global warming is real, with tobacco/oil companies pouring money into creating the oppposite impression. My point is that there is money on both sides. And that science has produced tremendous material results, with grant money and all. I guess each person has to ask the question - would they prefer to trust the scientific community with its government grant money, or Exxon mobile with its profits at stake. In theory, scientists are experts at uncovering scientific truths, while corporations are experts at making money. These are generalizations, of course. In a given case the counter-intuitive answer - that Exxon is right and the Nobel Laureates are wrong - could be correct. However, for me at least, I need compelling evidence to favor the counter-intuitive position.
- wolf
By definition, greenhouse gases retain heat. You can test that property in a lab, or even in your kitchen. It's physically impossible to increase CO2 concentration without increasing heat retention. The amount of heating you'd expect based on those physical properties "happens" to be what we've observed.
The only way for correlation to not imply causation in this case is for the physical properties of CO2 and other GGs to be changed by some force of magic. Is that what you believe?
Ironically, if GCC had simply been accepted and we all started reducing CO2 and other GHGs way back when, there would be far less $ going into the Research involved. Simply because there would be less need to "Prove" that it's actually occurring. Research wouldn't end on the subject, but it wouldn't be as necessary as it has become.
nothing wrong with 'going green'..saves money, and it DOES impact the environment less.
The problem there is the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming want to force us to spend not just millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars, but TRILLIONS of dollars on doubtful, unproven science. We should at least make them prove their case before dumping that kind of money into a bottomless hole.
Why would it NOT scale on a worldwide level? There are feedbacks that make climate science complicated, but the independent variable and driving factor is GG emission.
Here is another analogy. Health is complicated. Cigarettes are known to increase the risk of lung cancer, but not everyone who smokes gets cancer, and it's impossible to predict whether someone will get lung cancer with 100% certainty. Does that mean smoking doesn't cause cancer? That's exactly what the tobacco companies argued, through the same public relations firms currently spreading the "anti global warming" nonsense.
Sorry but in science the burden is not on me to disprove your idea. The burden is on science to prove it.
It is the same with the antivaxxers. It is their job to prove vaccines cause autism.
It is the job of science to prove conclusively that CO2 is the driving force behind global warming. You won't hear me argue that Global Warming isn't happening. I believe the earth is warming. I just think the science behind man made global warming isn't as strong as you portray it.
I follow the science, not the scientists. Science will ultimately prevail on this issue and I will follow behind it. I just don't think that MMGW is settled. Just because scientists buy into it doesn't mean the science behind it is solid.
Sorry but in science the burden is not on me to disprove your idea. The burden is on science to prove it.
It is the same with the antivaxxers. It is their job to prove vaccines cause autism.
It is the job of science to prove conclusively that CO2 is the driving force behind global warming. You won't hear me argue that Global Warming isn't happening. I believe the earth is warming. I just think the science behind man made global warming isn't as strong as you portray it.
I follow the science, not the scientists. Science will ultimately prevail on this issue and I will follow behind it. I just don't think that MMGW is settled. Just because scientists buy into it doesn't mean the science behind it is solid.
Yes but CO2 and other green house gasses can only retain so much heat until the bonds break down. That's what shattered the methane and cow thing that was going around for a little while. Not to mention all green house gasses have a different level of retention. For instance water vapor can retain much more heat than methane.
You're using the same Tactics a Creationist uses against Evolution. That is, if there are any Gaps or lack of Understandings, then it didn't happen. The Evidence is mountainous for both, but that doesn't matter because there is some unknown.
As an atheist, I find that hilarious. Since you went there, with evolution we have DNA, fossil, and direct and indirect observational evidence.
When it comes to global warming, we have evidence that it is occurring. Where have you seen me deny that global warming is occurring? There is a mountain of evidence to support global warming is occurring.
However there is not a mountain of evidence to support man as the primary cause of global warming. Once again, it isn't my job to prove your hypothesis.
I will also point out that you are starting to quickly go down the route of ad hominem attacks and strawman.
Oh yes there is.
Ad Hominem and Strawman? No.
An actual greenhouse doesn't behave anything like the atmosphere, so the term "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer, but the fact that "greenhouse gases" do retain heat is indisputable.