6 ms·
Not trying to argue against manmade climate change here, but the conclusion is inconsistent with the stated point/headline. The main question is whether or not
by curiousgeorgio 11y ago
Not trying to argue against manmade climate change here, but the conclusion is inconsistent with the stated point/headline.
The main question is whether or not humans are the primary driving factor in the changes observed. Graphs show lack of correlation with various manmade causes and some natural causes, but then the conclusion is reached with the graph of "the influence of greenhouse gas emissions." In other words, the "nail in the coffin" evidence is simply showing the effects of the problem graphed against the problem itself; it doesn't prove one way or another whether the cause of the rise in greenhouse gasses is manmade.
Downvote as you will, but that doesn't seem like science to me; it feels like proving a point by simply restating the point.
- Brakenshire 11y ago> it doesn't prove one way or another whether the cause of the rise in greenhouse gasses is manmade. Does anyone seriously doubt that rises in CO2 are not principally driven by human activity? I have never even seen that as a talking point.
- curiousgeorgio 11y agoDoes the popularity of a doubt or idea even matter here when we're supposed to be discussing science?
- 7Z7 11y agoBrakenshire didn't question the popularity of the topic, rather whether it had been convincingly postulated by anyone worth mentioning.
- jonknee 11y agoSure. Michelle Bachmann believes lots of crazy things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ > And yet were being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the earth. Well were told the crux of this problem is human activity. Its humans that are creating more carbon dioxide! > What part of human activity creates carbon dioxide? If carbon dioxide is a negligible gas and its only three percent of Earths atmosphere, what part is human activity?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- pcrh 11y agoThe rise in CO2 is man made, as determined by the isotopes of carbon present in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels contain no C14, and the decrease in the ratio of C14 to C12 in the atmosphere since 1800 corresponds to the rise in fossil fuel consumption. Alternate hypotheses for the modified ratio of C14 to C12 would have to account for this.
- curiousgeorgio 11y ago... which would support my argument that the article misses the point. If the ratio of carbon isotopes is the damning evidence, then perhaps the article could have graphed it or at least mentioned it.
- pcrh 11y agoYou're correct that the article failed to point out that the increase in CO2 was unambiguously man made. Now, is the temperature increase caused by the increase in CO2 - likely so since the correlation is so close. Have they exhaustively excluded other possible causes -- maybe, maybe not...?
- merpnderp 11y agoWhy does everyone ignore the UAH and RSS troposphere data? It's the best data (by far the most accurate) we have on atmospheric temperature, and it shows no warming since 1996. http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html I have a simple R script to find the trend if you want to see it yourself.
- pcrh 11y agoClimate science is not my area, so I wouldn't want to comment on details... The wiki article suggests that earlier discrepancies between tropospheric and ground measurements have been resolved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_data...