5 ms·
> under the assumption that correlation == causation Except we do have a pretty good understanding of the chemisty/physics of the greenhouse effect, too. So t
by IvyMike 11y ago
> under the assumption that correlation == causation
Except we do have a pretty good understanding of the chemisty/physics of the greenhouse effect, too. So there's a prediction ("increased CO2 will lead to warming") and a validation. What more do they want?
- npsimons 11y ago> What more do they want? They won't tell you, because then they wouldn't be able to move the goalposts, by "just asking questions".
- sergiosgc 11y agoObviously, an explanation for the break in the causation link that was observed between '96 until '10. CO2 production rose faster than modeled while warming took a break.
- pc2g4d 11y agoIt's just that the presentation overreached. They should at least mention the other inputs to a comprehensive model that were tried but just didn't have a big impact, otherwise it feels like they just decided in advance that CO2 was the answer.
- rza 11y agoIs this increase in CO2 a significant amount on the scale of Earth's history? How much of it was caused by humans vs natural cycles? A cursory search informed me C02 levels and average temperature was much higher during the dinosaur ages[0], what was the cause then? Note I'm playing devil's advocate here and I haven't studied climate much, but my point is the graphic wouldn't persuade someone who is already biased against human-driven climate change, and only encourages equally primitive arguments from their side. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesozoic#Climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesozoic#Climate