11 ms·

Were these the graphs you were looking at? global temperature anomaly since 1880 -- http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist

Were these the graphs you were looking at? global temperature anomaly since 1880 -- http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ carbon dioxide for last 400k years -- http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ One person I met seemed to think that CO2 would be balanced by algae blooms in the oceans, but he wasn't a climate scientist. Nonetheless, if the ice caps melt enough before CO2 is compensated for, they'll release tons of methane which is an order of magnitude more potent than CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions Here's NASA's site on the evidence for global warming: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Here's a site that discusses the evidence that humans are at fault: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...

EGreg 10y ago
See my reply to a sister comment for the data I am speaking of. I agree that currently we have some correlation of global warming and CO2 increase, but this doesn't prove causation esp considering the 70s experienced global cooling. https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enha... AND the main point is that there is a limit on how much more Co2 can be released: roughly the same amount that already has, if we reached peak fossil fuels. To put things in perspective, that's going from 0.03% to max 0.06% concentration. CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas should be measured as a function of its concentration relative to the TOTAL atmosphere. Maybe it rises exponentially, but maybe not. Like putting layers of paint on a window. We'd need hard numbers. Meanwhile... no matter what you do, carbon credits or not, eventually ALL the fossil fuels WILL be burned up so it's only a matter of time. Better to learn to build artificial carbon sinks and methane sinks to capture the CO2 back underground. It's called forests and algae. Want to save the world? Plant forests! http://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/north-american-forests-in-the-age-of-man/ http://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/north-americ... On the other hand we CAN reduce the amount of methane by reducing the amount of cows we raise for hamburgers etc.
- wahern 10y ago
  I presume you're trolling, but I still think it worth pointing out that no science proves causation. The scientific method, for example, only rejects null hypotheses--that is, alternative explanations. Scientists and society writ large come to tentative, qualified conclusions about causation by assessing, among other things, 1) consistency with observed phenomena, especially consistent, multi-dimensional correlations 2) predictive strength, including accurate and precise predictions (direct or indirect) coming to pass that demonstrate the explanatory power of a theory 3) lack of alternative, more persuasive theories None are necessary and none are always sufficient to cause us to tentatively adopt a theory of causation. But the stronger the evidence the better. Note that all three are, strictly speaking, categories of correlation; all are circumstantial. Therefore all science is fundamentally based on correlation. There's always the possibility of some kind of hidden structure or alternative explanation; you cannot rule out all such possibilities, only a subset. You select a working theory, if at all, from among the remaining, proposed explanations by heuristic and probabilistic methodologies. If you reject climate change because it doesn't prove causation, then you're literally rejecting all of science. There is no scientific theory nor any kind of empirical "fact" that you cannot cast doubt upon in such a manner. I won't even touch your other points.
  - EGreg 10y ago
    "I won't even touch your other points." That's too bad. As for your comments I just refer you to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
    - wahern 10y ago
      So you dispute that the scientific method only rejects null hypotheses, as opposed to proving a hypothesis? I left unstated that you can also reject the hypothesis, but that's implied from what I've said--you can only reject, not prove, any particular theory of causation. But we now live in bizarro world, where people who don't actually understand science or logic rationalize their conclusions by redefining the very methodologies modern society has used to pull itself out of the swamp. In bizarro world there's "real" science that unveils the "truth", like Moses coming down from the mountain. And then there's all this messy business, dependent on process, contingent on qualitative and quantitative factors, that can be dismissed out of the hand. No matter that the former never existed, that everything we know comes from the latter. No matter that science is fundamentally a _process_, not a product.

EGreg 10y ago

See my reply to a sister comment for the data I am speaking of. I agree that currently we have some correlation of global warming and CO2 increase, but this doesn't prove causation esp considering the 70s experienced global cooling. https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enha... AND the main point is that there is a limit on how much more Co2 can be released: roughly the same amount that already has, if we reached peak fossil fuels. To put things in perspective, that's going from 0.03% to max 0.06% concentration. CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas should be measured as a function of its concentration relative to the TOTAL atmosphere. Maybe it rises exponentially, but maybe not. Like putting layers of paint on a window. We'd need hard numbers. Meanwhile... no matter what you do, carbon credits or not, eventually ALL the fossil fuels WILL be burned up so it's only a matter of time. Better to learn to build artificial carbon sinks and methane sinks to capture the CO2 back underground. It's called forests and algae. Want to save the world? Plant forests! http://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/north-american-forests-in-the-age-of-man/ http://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/north-americ... On the other hand we CAN reduce the amount of methane by reducing the amount of cows we raise for hamburgers etc.

wahern 10y ago
I presume you're trolling, but I still think it worth pointing out that no science proves causation. The scientific method, for example, only rejects null hypotheses--that is, alternative explanations. Scientists and society writ large come to tentative, qualified conclusions about causation by assessing, among other things, 1) consistency with observed phenomena, especially consistent, multi-dimensional correlations 2) predictive strength, including accurate and precise predictions (direct or indirect) coming to pass that demonstrate the explanatory power of a theory 3) lack of alternative, more persuasive theories None are necessary and none are always sufficient to cause us to tentatively adopt a theory of causation. But the stronger the evidence the better. Note that all three are, strictly speaking, categories of correlation; all are circumstantial. Therefore all science is fundamentally based on correlation. There's always the possibility of some kind of hidden structure or alternative explanation; you cannot rule out all such possibilities, only a subset. You select a working theory, if at all, from among the remaining, proposed explanations by heuristic and probabilistic methodologies. If you reject climate change because it doesn't prove causation, then you're literally rejecting all of science. There is no scientific theory nor any kind of empirical "fact" that you cannot cast doubt upon in such a manner. I won't even touch your other points.
- EGreg 10y ago
  "I won't even touch your other points." That's too bad. As for your comments I just refer you to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
  - wahern 10y ago
    So you dispute that the scientific method only rejects null hypotheses, as opposed to proving a hypothesis? I left unstated that you can also reject the hypothesis, but that's implied from what I've said--you can only reject, not prove, any particular theory of causation. But we now live in bizarro world, where people who don't actually understand science or logic rationalize their conclusions by redefining the very methodologies modern society has used to pull itself out of the swamp. In bizarro world there's "real" science that unveils the "truth", like Moses coming down from the mountain. And then there's all this messy business, dependent on process, contingent on qualitative and quantitative factors, that can be dismissed out of the hand. No matter that the former never existed, that everything we know comes from the latter. No matter that science is fundamentally a _process_, not a product.