3 ms·

No, I can imagine there being many reasons for that (I'm no expert, but you have to admit there's quite a leap there between what was observed, and the explanat

No, I can imagine there being many reasons for that (I'm no expert, but you have to admit there's quite a leap there between what was observed, and the explanation).

Tuna-Fish 17y ago
Actually, as a physicist, I see no leap there. We know the absorption spectra of CO2. We measure an increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere. We measure the how well light penetrates the atmosphere, and we find it does so less well at the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. At this point, we have a simple theory that is well supported by direct experimental evidence. What more do you need?
- bumblebird 17y ago
  Well for a start, you need to know absolute numbers. Are the numbers big enough to make a difference.
dejb 17y ago
It is nearly always possible to imagine alternative explanations for observations in complex systems. Sometimes the only way have any high level of confidence in a theory is to spend years studying the area and then more years researching the specifics of the particular theory. If you have a passion for this area then why don't you go down this path. Otherwise, like most people, you will often have to resign yourself to relying on the opinions of 'experts'. Choose your 'experts' wisely.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  True, I don't have a passion for it at all. I find the whole idea that we could be responsible for global warming to be far fetched. The idea that we could do anything to prevent/alter it is also to me, pretty far fetched really. In short I find the whole thing to be mainly a waste of effort. We could be curing diseases or something more useful.
  - thaumaturgy 17y ago
    If you can't be bothered to know anything about it, then you shouldn't be commenting on it. For you, global warming has become a religious belief. So, even if articles existed which laid out and cited the risks and benefits of warmer climate (http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negativ...), or which showed that humans are indeed very capable of altering their environment (http://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm http://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-...), or that debunked the myth that it won't matter anyway (http://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm http://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm), or that global warming can contribute to the spread of diseases (http://www.ebiologynews.com/3137.html http://www.ebiologynews.com/3137.html) ... ...you would still ignore them.
    - bumblebird 17y ago
      3 of those sources are the same (obviously pro-manmade global warming) website. (Probably from people who get government funding to do the research). It doesn't interest me to learn all about the thoery/(At times it seems like a religion), but I don't think that should stop me from commenting on it. The issue is, anyone can pull 'facts' out of the air to support either side of the debate. It's not a clear cut thing, it's a heap of theories about what might be going on. My point was, there's more useful things to investigate/research/worry about.

No, I can imagine there being many reasons for that (I'm no expert, but you have to admit there's quite a leap there between what was observed, and the explanation).

Tuna-Fish 17y ago

Actually, as a physicist, I see no leap there. We know the absorption spectra of CO2. We measure an increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere. We measure the how well light penetrates the atmosphere, and we find it does so less well at the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. At this point, we have a simple theory that is well supported by direct experimental evidence. What more do you need?

bumblebird 17y ago
Well for a start, you need to know absolute numbers. Are the numbers big enough to make a difference.

dejb 17y ago

It is nearly always possible to imagine alternative explanations for observations in complex systems. Sometimes the only way have any high level of confidence in a theory is to spend years studying the area and then more years researching the specifics of the particular theory. If you have a passion for this area then why don't you go down this path. Otherwise, like most people, you will often have to resign yourself to relying on the opinions of 'experts'. Choose your 'experts' wisely.

bumblebird 17y ago
True, I don't have a passion for it at all. I find the whole idea that we could be responsible for global warming to be far fetched. The idea that we could do anything to prevent/alter it is also to me, pretty far fetched really. In short I find the whole thing to be mainly a waste of effort. We could be curing diseases or something more useful.
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  If you can't be bothered to know anything about it, then you shouldn't be commenting on it. For you, global warming has become a religious belief. So, even if articles existed which laid out and cited the risks and benefits of warmer climate (http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negativ...), or which showed that humans are indeed very capable of altering their environment (http://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm http://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-...), or that debunked the myth that it won't matter anyway (http://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm http://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm), or that global warming can contribute to the spread of diseases (http://www.ebiologynews.com/3137.html http://www.ebiologynews.com/3137.html) ... ...you would still ignore them.
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    3 of those sources are the same (obviously pro-manmade global warming) website. (Probably from people who get government funding to do the research). It doesn't interest me to learn all about the thoery/(At times it seems like a religion), but I don't think that should stop me from commenting on it. The issue is, anyone can pull 'facts' out of the air to support either side of the debate. It's not a clear cut thing, it's a heap of theories about what might be going on. My point was, there's more useful things to investigate/research/worry about.