5 ms·
Yes, and absence of edvidence is not edvidence of absence. Which is why you need to posit a causal mechanism. To say current climate models are overly narrowi
by useless999 3y ago
Yes, and absence of edvidence is not edvidence of absence.
Which is why you need to posit a causal mechanism.
To say current climate models are overly narrowing the problem domain as to exclude purely natural factors (assuming humanity is not part of nature, but that’s an ontological discussion) you would need to provide an alternative one which can predict past and future pathways.
It would also need to be at least as good and not rely on improbable assumptions… which is one reason climate scientists favor the anthropogenic models.
- linuxftw 3y ago[flagged]
- ramesh31 3y ago>Prove that the earth has never warmed faster than it has in the last 100 years. Obviously, you cannot, the data lacks that sort of granularity. This is silly. We know the precise chemical makeup of earth's atmosphere, and by extension its' climate, going back hundreds of thousands of years through antarctic ice core samples, which can be dated to a resolution of less than a hundred years. We are in an absolutely unprecedented time of change right now in the entire history of our species existence. https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/ https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-an...
- linuxftw 3y agoThanks for linking that. It entirely disproves the 'unprecedented' warming narrative. Figure 5 indicates there's a 10-15 degree rise in temperature in around 200 years 45k years ago. In any case, the data is not granular enough, nor are the enough samples to make any kind of determination on a global scale.
- Toutouxc 3y agoAbove figure 5: > During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within a few decades. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. So what you're seeing is not a 10-15 degree rise in global temperature, but an oversized effect on Greenland in one direction (while other parts of the world were experiencing different effects in different directions).a