But we have tests that prove that it IS actually there don't we?
The trick isn't something being invisible. The trick is something being invisible and still being able to prove that it is in fact there.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal
- Thread starter asur
- Start date
But we have tests that prove that it IS actually there don't we?
The trick isn't something being invisible. The trick is something being invisible and still being able to prove that it is in fact there.
Werbung:
But we have tests that prove that it IS actually there don't we?
The trick isn't something being invisible. The trick is something being invisible and still being able to prove that it is in fact there.
It's a little easier to prove than that other invisible entity your sig line refers to, yes.
Still, it does show that a thing being invisible doesn't prove it doesn't exist.
asur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
PLC1 wrote -
Yep, what is more interesting is to answer to the following question.
How much of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man (anthropogenic)?
Wow, the answer really varies depending on where you look.
from 100%
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html
to 43%
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-...f-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html
to 3% elsewhere
Needless to say if this question can't be answered precisely, then Global Warming science is far from settled.
Yep, what is more interesting is to answer to the following question.
How much of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man (anthropogenic)?
Wow, the answer really varies depending on where you look.
from 100%
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html
to 43%
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-...f-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html
to 3% elsewhere
Needless to say if this question can't be answered precisely, then Global Warming science is far from settled.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
That's funny. I will take the brilliant Walter Williams and you get fat Algore.
If they debate, who wins?
asur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
Another Interesting Study was released in November of 2009 by
Dr Korr from the University of Bristol. You won't hear it
mentioned by Al Gore.
He takes another well known approach using ice cores rather than
complex climate models.
If we can believe his study, he found that the airborne fraction of
man made Co2 is not increasing. Apparently mother earth is able to
handle the extra anthropogenic CO2 quite nicely for now.
Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
Dr Korr from the University of Bristol. You won't hear it
mentioned by Al Gore.
He takes another well known approach using ice cores rather than
complex climate models.
If we can believe his study, he found that the airborne fraction of
man made Co2 is not increasing. Apparently mother earth is able to
handle the extra anthropogenic CO2 quite nicely for now.
Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
Since neither of them knows squat about the subject, I suppose it doesn't really matter, does it?
I saw that. Here's another link to the same study.
Now, read them carefully, and see what you think they are saying:
Is the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not changing?
What, exactly, is meant by the "airborne fraction"?
What does this study mean for climate change theory?
asur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
PLC1 wrote -
Airborn fraction is staying the same, but the CO2 level is increasing.
Something is sinking up the extra man made CO2 being produced so that the fraction stays constant.
This study should concern the alarmists.
The complex climate models suggest CO2 is increasing also.
Korr honestly states "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data".
You don't hear that kind of honesty from alarmists.
It's only one study based on ice samples, but why don't we see the alarmists disputing it?
The meaning - climate change science isn't settled with studies like this remaining undebunked.
Airborn fraction is staying the same, but the CO2 level is increasing.
Something is sinking up the extra man made CO2 being produced so that the fraction stays constant.
This study should concern the alarmists.
The complex climate models suggest CO2 is increasing also.
Korr honestly states "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data".
You don't hear that kind of honesty from alarmists.
It's only one study based on ice samples, but why don't we see the alarmists disputing it?
The meaning - climate change science isn't settled with studies like this remaining undebunked.
Why would alarmists want to debunk it? It supports their opinion quite well.
So far, the portion (fraction) of CO2 in the atmosphere, as compared to the portion in the oceans or elsewhere has stayed the same. We know that the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 is finite, so therefore, once they are saturated, we can expect levels in the atmosphere to increase even more quickly than they have been.
Great fodder for alarmists, isn't it? Why would anyone want to debunk it?
Except that what is going to happen to atmospheric levels of carbon in the future is still unknown, and just how fast climate change is going to proceed is also unknown.
What is known is that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, and that said increase is changing climates. What is believed by climatologists is that the increase in temperature is being accelerated by manmade carbon dioxide.
That much is settled. The rest is still being studied.
What we need to be able to do is predict with some reliability just what the effect is going to be on a particular geographic area. That much is far from settled.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
A belief does not make it scientific fact, not even if there is a consensus... That much is settled.
No, it makes it an hypothesis, and one that is generally accepted among scientists.
The Earth's climate is changing as the globe warms (global climate change). That is a scientific theory that has been tested and retested and found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.
The release of CO2 by humans has accelerated that warming is an hypotheses, but one that is based on extensive research. That's why the science community uses words like "probably" or "most likely."
The germ theory of disease is a scientific theory, not a fact. Still, there is no doubt outside of witch doctor circles that human pathogens cause diseases.
Scientific facts are data on which hypothesis and theories are based.
Werbung:
MrSheepish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 137
You are both right. The last decade has been the hottest on record and it has not been warming during that time. The lack of further observable warming during these ~10 years is beyond the level of simple statistical fluctuations, so something fundamentally different is going on now than was going on for the last 30 years when the warming was virtually constant. There is general agreement that this pause is only temporary and the warming will continue in the long term, but it is not currently understood.
