This is one of the questions I never wanna know the answer to
This is one of the questions I never wanna know the answer to
the "it's just a natural cycle" claim has been refuted, definitively, a million times in every thread on global warming (this thread included) and any serious scientific response to those that oppose the theory of anthropogenic climate change. if you had read even a single one of those then you wouldn't have come in and posted that because it's wrong wrong wrong
and if my memory isn't failing me i'm virtually certain that you've posted that claim in at least one thread in the past and it was shot down then too but apparently you didn't read those responses back then, either
just take a pause. just realize that you don't have to "be on the fence" because you have access to ~the internet~ and all the knowledge of the world is at yr. fingertips, and that a modicum of exertion on your part would provide you with all of the knowledge, true or false, to push you in one direction
just take a moment to, not even searching out other sources, read the responses made to the "it's just a natural cycle" in this very thread, right now, at this exact moment, or you will forever be damned to repeat the same claim in every thread on global warming, from now until the end of time, as a sisyphean torment that you have rightfully brought down upon yourself
you can use this very same argument of "we don't understand it 100 percent" to refute any theory, no matter how sound, like germ theory or the theory of evolution. you are deeply (depressingly) misguided if you think science is based around knowing things with complete, irrefutable certainty. science is based around creating the theories which best explain a phenomena, and even the soundest theories in the world are not perfect like you'd expect them to be, because we do not have a direct line to god with which he might verify our conjectures.
in asking for 100 percent certainty you are literally asking for a. the impossible and b. something so profoundly out of line with what science is that you've made me bother typing all these words. it is a garbage argument
Gravity greatly effects our environment - it powers our ocean's tides (and that itself effects things like air pressure and temperature). In our passage through the galaxy the strength of gravitational fields that we pass through isn't constant. While the amount external gravitational fields affect us may be incredibly small, they still will effect us, and it's possible that those individually, negligible effects may total up to something more.
Hell, everyone only seems to consider the moon's effect on our tides, but the sun also has a small, contributing effect to tidal activity despite being so distant by comparison.
And again, like I stated on the prior page, there are LEGITIMATE scientists who work for bodies that do work on Atmospheric Science who have come forward (like some here in Australia at the CSIRO) who have said that their findings and explanations to said findings have been twisted by the media a lot.
I'm not saying pollution isn't bad, of course it is! And if there's a cleaner, safer way of achieving an identical end then it should be taken. But what I'm saying is I think people should be more critical of global warming as a theory because it ISN'T perfect, graphs ARE open to interpretation.
Like was posted a while back there's a huge graph that shows how temperatures on Earth have fluctuated and it's COLDER now than it was in many period in the past - which is saying something considering the sun is bigger and hotter today than it was during those periods. Sure, temperature is on an upwards trend at the moment, but it's still nowhere near how hot it was getting at some points in the past.
what i'm saying is that the theory of anthropogenic global climate change is better than your theory of extrasolar gravity because there is vastly more evidence supporting the former theory than the latter. that's how science works; you go with the theory which is best supported by evidence until you or someone else can come up with a better supported theory with new data or by reinterpreting existing data. you don't have to bow down to orthodoxy but you do have to at least respect the scientific foundations of observable evidence (of which you have none to support your theory) and repeatable experiments (of whose likes you certainly have not devised)
your theory is decidedly un-scientific because you are favoriting a theory which is vastly less-supported than the one you are trying to dethrone. that's not how science works.
just because you can make a comparison between two things doesn't mean the comparison is sound, especially when your comparison is so vague and all-inclusive as "they're both systems which affect things, bro"
this is the problem, people get caught up in the (mostly fabricated) "global warming debate." it's not about the existence of controversy, because there will always be controversy related to everything; it's about the science which should stand self-evident.
stop talking about how "hey there are some scientists who disagree, take my word for it" and start talking with charts and climate data
I gave a fucking chart a while back which got the response, "lol you're not a climate scientist so you can't possibly draw any conclusions from that."
Graphs aren't fucking hard to read. If you do basic maths you get taught how to analyse trends in data, and I'll tell you that the trends were god damn cyclic and fluctuating. Temperatures in the past have been EIGHT degrees Celsius below what's been taken as the 'average' temperature, and something like 12 degrees HOTTER. At the moment I don't think temperatures have exceeded even ONE degree above or below the average temperature of Earth, which is saying a lot.
And, like I said, try to remember that the sun is something like 10% hotter and bigger now than it was when the dinosaurs were around, yet it's, on average, COLDER now than it was then (and it has been like this for the past several thousand years).
But of course, it doesn't fucking matter what evidence I present because I'm not a climate scientist, so it means nothing. Oh, and if I DO point to climate scientists who point this out... well, apparently they don't fucking count because they're in the minority. Hardly seems like a fair debate, does it? I can't point to evidence, because I'm not an authority to do so. And if I point to an authority, you instantly shrug them off.
And before you tell me that Wikipedia is an invalid source, studies by Nature I believe (I'll try and find a source for that) have shown that Wikipedia is on average AS reliable, if not MORE SO than Encyclopedia Britannica.
i'm not going to argue the validity of wikipedia (here at least), but wikipedia, to my knowledge, does not gather climate data and create it's own graphs
"it was hotter a long time ago, and there is a natural cycle" isn't really an argument against anthropogenic climate change because
A: it doesn't disprove the claim that increased co2 causes rises in temperatures
B: it doesn't disprove the claim that humans are adding environmentally significant amounts of co2 into the atmosphere
the mere existence of a natural cycle does not preclude the possibility of humans affecting the environment
I've checked sources  and , they're legit. Scientific American and BBC. Check the wikipedia page on 'Sun' and look at the sources yourself.
Then you might want to say, "well the sun is more luminous now, so less CO2 would be needed to achieve the same global temperature", and you'd be right to think that. But the thing is, a 10% increase in luminosity is not so great that a 200% or even 500% increase in current CO2 levels could come close to causing the same global temperature. It doesn't add up mathematically.
You can check the sourcing yourself. If you have any problems with it, we can discuss them (I've not checked them yet because I'm slightly tipsy at the moment - I'll check them in a few hours (or tomorrow, whenever).
yes, anyone can read a graph, but you have to have a decent understanding of the context and all the variables
how high was water vapor levels? oxygen? what about compounds which cause an anti-greenhouse effect? what was the planet's orbit like? is the graph's time progression lack of linearity going to distort my understanding?
I don't know, because I'm not a climate scientist.
Cite those studies and I'll read those though
I think, instead of trying to slow down global warming (since stopping or reversign its pretty much impossible now without huge changes to the world), we should change the world to accommodate it
you can't say "everything was fine back then, we'll be fine now" because that's junk. because the life existing back then was so vastly different and alien from the human society that we live in now that little comfort can be drawn from it's perseverance
it seems that you think that the supposed consequences of climate change are all life being wiped out, but no one is saying that that is what will happen. life, and even humans, will almost certainly survive even the worst possible scenario. but what climate change means is vast, global hardship caused by rising sea levels and a more hostile environment; that's what's at stake.
"life existed pretty easily" isn't even true because the history of the earth is marked with mass extinction after mass extinction, with life persevering, not "pretty easily" but barely, with vast swaths of the evolutionary tree being wiped out time and again, which, if anything, speaks to the ultimate fragility of the earth's environment.
i don't think you understand the scales we're talking about here
I agree with your claims entirely, though.
But yeah a billion years ago things on earth were entirely different then they are now. Life was primitive, at best.
you're primitive at best, douchebag!!
If I remember there was a video of a lecturer about Global Warming and about the same evidence the GW advocates use also discredits them. He said that by analyzing graphs from a global climate organization you find that humans over the past 100 years have only contributed to 0.1 degrees celsius of the total increase in temperature over that period of time.
Just my belief on the matter that there is no doubt the world is shifting it's temperature, that is with out a doubt, but I don't believe that humans have a significant impact on the result, therefore there is little we can do to combat it.
There may be a general scientific consensus , but that consensus is about whether it is real or not. Many research teams that albeit are part of the consensus are also disputing over how it came to be, rather.
So it's fair to say any data provided or scientific proof provided isn't necessarily the end all be all answer to the question: "why is climate change occurring". as it is only one person's or team's research, not the results of the scientific community's general consensus.
Like you said, don't believe everything anyone tells you. Especially if there is more than one side to the argument who also displays irrefutable proof that determines otherwise.
If you believe there was an ice age, and if you believe that we are currrently not in the ice age, then I guess the earth is warming up. Probably silly to say the Earth would ever be at a specific temperature. Hard to tell if humans are affecting the earth's clilmate.
Global warming is a political issue not a scientific issue.
I don't care what the thread says. And yes, i've read it all the way through.
The damn thread still doesn't represent the entire scientific community involved in this matter.
There is NOT a general consensus on WHY this is happening. This means that as of now, there is NO truth so there is no point in debating who is right and who's wrong.
"Global Warming Hoax" = Title
Not a hoax... it's happening, and its man-made
I love the fact most of these Hoax websites claim that Global Warming is a hoax because winters are getting colder, when surely it should be getting HOTTER!?!!?!!? Ultimate fucking herp derp