Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
correlations don't count crickster, never have, and is the ongoing argument, so just prove that humans cause warming. That's your challenge you have continuously failed to prove.And... so... human metabolism is responsible for global warming?
because two things exist at the same time is not necessarily correlation. One does not mean it causes the other. Did climate cause humans to exist? Oh wait, evolution, is that climate? hmmmmmm.correlations don't count crickster, never have, and is the ongoing argument, so just prove that humans cause warming. That's your challenge you have continuously failed to prove.And... so... human metabolism is responsible for global warming?
Of course correlations count. How would we know where to look in the first place without them? The problem with climate science is that the agenda has been set according to IPCC who by definition is looking for man-made causes.
The error bars in cloud understanding swamps the tiny contribution of CO2.
What so hard to understand about the addition of a new variable (human emissions, esp. since the Industrial Revolution) having an effect that can't be predicted solely by looking to the past?Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. This is relevant to the discussion of the causes for global warming. As you can see, the Earth went through several warming and cooling cycles even before men were burning fossil fuels. It's a natural consequence of the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere. The Sun is not always the same temperature, so the climate of the Earth will change, too.
correlations don't count crickster, never have, and is the ongoing argument, so just prove that humans cause warming. That's your challenge you have continuously failed to prove.And... so... human metabolism is responsible for global warming?
What did humans do the last time the carbon was at 800 PPM? Oh wait..
I have but one question, can you prove warming is caused by man?As usual.
I butter my toast at 8 AM this morning, 31 Dec 15. At midnight, the night of September 22nd, 1757, the Duchess of Kardashia was thrown from her horse despite its especially accommodating saddle.. Could my toast buttering be responsible? No. Why not? No correlation.
I finish buttering my toast and set it on its plate. At that exact moment, my cat and my dog, laying near each other in the other room, have a short sharp spat. There was a correlation, but all the other evidence suggests there was no cause and effect.
For a cause to have an effect, there must be some form of correlation between them. Cause cannot act to produce effect without it. But meaningless correlations take place all the time. What's a thinking person to do. Listen to Ian. Correlations are where you LOOK for causes. Do you understand?
What so hard to understand about the addition of a new variable (human emissions, esp. since the Industrial Revolution) having an effect that can't be predicted solely by looking to the past?Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. This is relevant to the discussion of the causes for global warming. As you can see, the Earth went through several warming and cooling cycles even before men were burning fossil fuels. It's a natural consequence of the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere. The Sun is not always the same temperature, so the climate of the Earth will change, too.
But when you look into the past and see more of the same that we are seeing today....why would you suddenly ascribe a new cause to the same old thing?
Still stuck on correlation I see.What so hard to understand about the addition of a new variable (human emissions, esp. since the Industrial Revolution) having an effect that can't be predicted solely by looking to the past?Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. This is relevant to the discussion of the causes for global warming. As you can see, the Earth went through several warming and cooling cycles even before men were burning fossil fuels. It's a natural consequence of the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere. The Sun is not always the same temperature, so the climate of the Earth will change, too.
But when you look into the past and see more of the same that we are seeing today....why would you suddenly ascribe a new cause to the same old thing?
Because a new cause is present and those causes we've seen in the past are not?
Because the current change is far more rapid than what is seen in the past and thus begs a different cause?
Because calculations of the forcing effect of the new cause match observations?
Because a forcing effect can be calculated from the new cause and unless it is the cause of the observed warming, our understanding of basic physics needs review.
That's why.
Well that's my empirical evidence. I learned from youStill without an answer - and that's a very general description.
QUOTE="SSDD, post: 13151038, member: 40906"]What so hard to understand about the addition of a new variable (human emissions, esp. since the Industrial Revolution) having an effect that can't be predicted solely by looking to the past?Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. This is relevant to the discussion of the causes for global warming. As you can see, the Earth went through several warming and cooling cycles even before men were burning fossil fuels. It's a natural consequence of the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere. The Sun is not always the same temperature, so the climate of the Earth will change, too.
But when you look into the past and see more of the same that we are seeing today....why would you suddenly ascribe a new cause to the same old thing?
You step away from your admirable intellectual centrism when you characterize the warming observed as "minor".
No one in mainstream science is predicting the death of the human species. There will be deaths, though. They've already happened and they will be increasing as the temperature (and the sea level and the average intensity of storms and the incidence of flooding and drought) increase.
The changes that we face differ in character and magnitude from any that humanity has till now ever faced. There will be a great many more losers than winners.
What I posted.What is your empirical evidence and what contention do you believe it supports?
