Durban Climate Change Conference 2011
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Temperature leads CO2 in the Vostok ice core because the orbital parameters change first, and then the carbon cycle feeds back amplifying the climate change signal initiated by the orbital perturbation.
I don't claim it's always the other way around, but it is right now. Now temperature is responding to carbon dioxide, instead of the other way around. What could possibly be different now that we would see the familiar cycle breakdown?
Read and learn:
http://www-atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/people/mem/co2-main-ct-knob-lacis-sci10.pdf
Orbit changes? How did we change the orbit? If you're out of balance I know a machinist who can set you up with some lead weights in the right places.
Who said we did? Who taught you to read anyways? You should ask for a refund. You got ripped off by crooks.
You were calling for this earlier, Ton.. I figured I'd save it for the inevitable...
You were calling for this earlier, Ton.. I figured I'd save it for the inevitable...
Pointing out naturally occuring prehistoric increases in greenhouse gas is moving goal posts? The Permian Extinction was caused by increased CO2 and not a human was there to blame.
Carry on you two.
I found something you might like:
You know, science is a well-established set of procedures and it has produced a well-established body of knowledge, so any new theory, any new notion, especially if it is contrary to what science has accepted up to that point, ought to be received and is, in fact received by scientists with skepticism. That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t change their mind. It doesn’t mean the new theories are not eventually accepted if in fact they are good theories; they are sound theories.
But the initial reaction is always one of—when you write a scientific paper, which I’ve done several times in my career–when you write a scientific paper, the first thing that the editor does, or the journal where you submit the paper does, is to send it to two, three, or four people to criticize it. The first reaction is one of skepticism. People want to make sure that what you write is sound, that it makes sense that your conclusions are congruent with the data that you have and so on and so forth.
So I disagree that the stance of science is not one of skepticism. Of course it is. But it is of skepticism in the positive sense; it’s not skepticism in the sense of ‘I don’t believe it not matter what,’ it’s skepticism in the sense of ‘Okay, let’s see what you claim is and if the evidence that you put forth is proportional to the claim.’
Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point » Blog Archive » 107. Massimo Pigliucci on How to Tell Science From Bunk
I think this one is a better analogy:
:lol:
LOL
Something tells me they take turns biting the same pillow and you know what that means right?
Darkbeaver should be gagged that scientists already agree that climate change is linked to cosmic rays.
So?
Both these posts are perfect examples of how this issue is misunderstood by a lot of people.
We already mentioned that natural factors can influence climate change.
You think this caused this:
That's a piss poor correlation.
At least you take stabs at it Beav.
We are not gods, and nothing we do short of a miracle will change Earth's future. We do have the power to destroy the Earth and all life, but it is not by creating CO2.