12 ms·

I am more interested in a single paper which really proves either point, or at least presents compelling evidence. Im sure there are a bunch out there, so id l

I am more interested in a single paper which really proves either point, or at least presents compelling evidence. Im sure there are a bunch out there, so id like to read some of them.

acqq 10y ago
Note that the natural science doesn't work as "proving the theorems" (mathematics even isn't natural science) but as "establishing the facts." It's like a doing the detective work, collecting "exhibits" and then bringing it to the jury, the jury then can decide which exhibits are valid etc. The jury is the total community of the scientists who devoted their lives to learn as much as possible about the topics they judge. If you ask "as a beginner" you should first learn about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect If it's too hard for you to grasp how it functions, imagine that you cover yourself with the invisible plastic bag. The bag won't produce any heat but it would prevent the heat from your body to dissipate as it would otherwise, effectively warming you up. The same way function the greenhauses. CO2 has that effect for Earth, known since 1824 and elaborated since.
- wtvanhest 10y ago
  Im fine with compelling evidence, but I just want to read something that demonstrates a high likylihood that there is in fact global warming and that it is caused by humans. I figure that there have to be 2-3 solid research papers on the subject.
  - acqq 10y ago
    It's simple: CO2 greenhouse effect is proven, the concentration of CO2 is measured and is increasing, the temperature is measured and is increasing. Clever science can figure out even CO2 concentrations and temperatures of the times when nobody measured. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core The expected rise of CO2 closely matches our fosil fuels consumption. https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natu...
CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
Perhaps The summaries from IPCC ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymakers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymaker... ) is more your thing?
CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
Perhaps The summaries from IPCC ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymakers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymaker... ) is more your thing?

I am more interested in a single paper which really proves either point, or at least presents compelling evidence. Im sure there are a bunch out there, so id like to read some of them.

acqq 10y ago

Note that the natural science doesn't work as "proving the theorems" (mathematics even isn't natural science) but as "establishing the facts." It's like a doing the detective work, collecting "exhibits" and then bringing it to the jury, the jury then can decide which exhibits are valid etc. The jury is the total community of the scientists who devoted their lives to learn as much as possible about the topics they judge. If you ask "as a beginner" you should first learn about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect If it's too hard for you to grasp how it functions, imagine that you cover yourself with the invisible plastic bag. The bag won't produce any heat but it would prevent the heat from your body to dissipate as it would otherwise, effectively warming you up. The same way function the greenhauses. CO2 has that effect for Earth, known since 1824 and elaborated since.

wtvanhest 10y ago
Im fine with compelling evidence, but I just want to read something that demonstrates a high likylihood that there is in fact global warming and that it is caused by humans. I figure that there have to be 2-3 solid research papers on the subject.
- acqq 10y ago
  It's simple: CO2 greenhouse effect is proven, the concentration of CO2 is measured and is increasing, the temperature is measured and is increasing. Clever science can figure out even CO2 concentrations and temperatures of the times when nobody measured. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core The expected rise of CO2 closely matches our fosil fuels consumption. https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natu...

CuriousSkeptic 10y ago

Perhaps The summaries from IPCC ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymakers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymaker... ) is more your thing?

CuriousSkeptic 10y ago

Perhaps The summaries from IPCC ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymakers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymaker... ) is more your thing?