Then what is?
... Well?
And don't go "natural cycles". We know what the natural cycles are trying to do right now, and it's not what is happening.
It's not the sun either. It's been lowering it's intensity for the last 3 decades.
No cosmic radiation either. Constantly monitored, and no significant changes.
So?
That's what I thought. The opponents of AGW never have an explanation to offer, they just don't want to believe that it is AGW.
That still makes AGW the best available explanation, if nothing else.
We are emitting CO2.
CO2 heats the earth.
Heating the earth releases more greenhouse gasses.
More greenhouse gasses heats the earth further.
It is not a natural warming. It is a warming that is happening 8 times faster than the natural warmings after the ice ages.
Source: NASA
As always shown by another, your wrong. Water does indeed release CO2 based on temperature. Also, how would scientist be able to gather CO2 concentration from the past by studying ice, if it contained nothing?
---------- Post added 2012-05-19 at 05:34 PM ----------
Actually we are experiencing a peak on solar radiation, so it might very well be that.
Al Gore is not a scientist nor is anything he made scientific evidence. Actual scientific graphs and figures are not "random", they are supported by comprehensive peer reviewed work. The fact that you think attacking Al Gore disproves anything just shows how detached you are from real science.
And if you actually tried to understand the issue, instead of mindlessly parroting propagandic lies fed to you by skeptics, you'll know it used to happen much more slowly. In the last 100 years we have increased the CO2 level by the same magnitude that would have taken nature 5000 years. And remember CO2 levels are at a 15-20 million year high.And if you would have done your research you would see that CO2 levels also has risen in the past, where man wasn't capable of having the same influence as now.
I just explained the "proof" to you. Simply brainlessly claiming that there is no proof doesn't change the fact that we do, in fact, have overwhelming evidence. Global warming isn't going to go away all by itself if you just stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la I don't see the evidnece right in front of me la la la".No, but you if you know much about science you would know that theories aren't disregarded or helt higher than others until proof is gathered to place it in such position. No such proof has been gathered, which in any event would make the CO2 theory as irrelevant as all others.
Funny, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.You can't eliminate certain factors to get the result you want, you make a model and try until it fits.
Did I ever accuse you of saying that? No, so stop trying to deflect questions you can't answer by pretending you're being straw maned when you're not. I'll ask you again: what evidence do you have that it is not the historically high CO2 levels that is causing this warming?Have i ever mentioned that CO2 isn't at historically high levels? No, then stop putting words in my mouth.
No they can't. Again, what possible explaination is there that increased temperature caused the increase in CO2? Either you have a plausible working theory that can explain the facts, or stop pretending that your unjustified, groundless and unscientific opinion has the same wieght as the opinion of actual scientists.Each can by fault of the other, but that is a simplification of a much larger multifactor eco-system.
Are you aware of this thing called Statistics?You really think that the entire worlds scientist were involved in the survey?
---------- Post added 2012-05-19 at 05:39 PM ----------
Except we aren't.
Last edited by semaphore; 2012-05-19 at 05:42 PM.
The reason i mention Al Gore as i do, is he is the front figure of this Global Warming debate, or was atleast. Also, his film is the one that many probrably saw to be turned into belivers and i chose to mention his work as it is as unscientific as it can be. Whatever he is a scientist or not doesn't mean that he can't explain other peoples work, but when he deliberately choses to show graphs that is inconclusive then you'd wonder why? If the proof were solid enough why wouldn't he show that instead?
First of all being skeptic is what makes one smarter, if you just agree with every sentiment you'd never be any wiser.
The thing is, i never ruled out humans as a contributer to the increased levels of CO2, i just said that the whole deal about a man made global warming is part BS. We alone can't have caused that increase, our CO2 emissions are just not big enough to increase the concentration by however percent it is in such a short period. Are we a part of it? Surely. But our part may be negligible or irrelevant in the bigger picture. This has not been concluded. This is why before we scream bloody murder on ourselfes we can't dismiss the many other factors that is at play.
The difference between being ignorant or gullible isn't really that big. Two sides of the same coin. Whatever proof you have told me, is nothing that clearly proves a direct relation between us and the global warming, it at most shows that we have a part in it.
From where do i dismiss other factors, i for one seem to consider the alternatives instead of blindly following what those who earn big on this say.
If you read my previous posts you'd see me say that i'm not against the part of CO2 increasing our temperature, i'm against the part where it is our fault alone. The increase of CO2 could be cause of many things, and yes the increase of CO2 does partly increase our temperature.
Hopefully you agree on that an increase in temperature can increase the CO2 emission, as well as an increase in CO2 can increase the temperature, if not you just learned something. What causes an increased temperature? Well there could be plentiful of things, of course nothing is certain.
It's not my unjustified, goundless and unscientific opinion only, its a gathering of information that seems least as likely as the CO2 Theory. Obviously these results arent as obvious since they don't have a big can of government funding to help them.
Yea.. 8 out 10 dentist recommends colgate pro-active! Never believe statistics coming from someone whos trying to take your money. Or atleast take it with a grain of salt.
As mentioned i partly agree that CO2 increases our temperature, but i do not believe that the CO2 emissions that a man made is the biggest contributor towards our global warming. If this were the case why would there be several other meassurable activities that closely follows the earths temperature as well? Why is there a lag between the increased temperature and increased levels of CO2, where the temperature rises before CO2 levels?
Global Warming was a hot topic at my university a few years back, and i talked with professors which had (and still do) worked on different thesis about the global warming. When so many things fit together, you just cant single one out and say thats the thing.
Great read, Laize. Even if the majority of climatologists agree about anthropogenic climate change , the suspicions hold out that there is a lot of information we don't have regarding an issue that is extremely variable.
I see no one who does that except on fox news which I refuse to watch. I've never denied global warming's existence. The only question I'd ever had was whether humans were really the cause of it.
---------- Post added 2012-05-20 at 03:23 PM ----------
What does the US get out of these agreements? Nothing? Theres a compelling reason to sign.
Even less since most other economically strong countries have signed. Let them shackle themselves and their industry trying to prevent a catastrophy that's not 99% proven. Meanwhile the US of A can soar unrestrained. They are after all an island and nothing that happens on the globe will have influence on this mightiest nation on Earth.
Believe Global Warming or not, I've played enough Fallout that I'll be the one eating all of you should the world go to hell.