Just to be clear I'm not a sceptic..I'm on the fence...I wouldn't be surprised about the final result either way.
The point I am making simply is there are valuable arguments for both ways and both ways can and do shoot down the others counter arguments.
The fact that there is division in the scientific community in itself shows nothing is a proven and us debating it on WOS will as usual go no where and we are not going to convince the other that our 'belief' is the correct one.
We can both throw links and 'facts' at eath other all day and not change a damn thing...I respect your position, you respect mine and the flat world keeps turning.
Fair enough, although I wasn't talking about you when I said "sceptics", I was referring to the person you quoted.
I don't dispute that there is still debate, just that there is overwhelming concensus about certain things amongst experts in the field and that, for me, was enough to stop any fence-sitting. I'm perfectly happy to listen to any new evidence (as are the scientists) but I'm 99% convinced they're got it right as it stands.
I do suggest you read that site I linked to earlier, it goes over a lot of the counter-arguments and explains in detail why they aren't accepted. It's interesting reading.
That's not the dispute, the dispute is, is human climate change responsible for the level of global warming we are seeing...
No, I was pointing out that theories aren't "only theories" (i.e. hunches), but when scientists talk about something being a theory, it's not just a hunch but something that's testable and importantly, disprovable. And demonstrating how some theories are used in every day life (quantum theory -> transistors actually work, even though quantum theory is a theory, and no scientist talks about "fact" except colloquially).
Our change could be as little as a drop of water in the ocean compared with natural CO2 immissions (volcanic activity, plants etc)
Actually, it is. Our CO2 emissions are quite small compared to natural sources (and by the way, plants are CO2 sinks - the carbon that makes up the structure of plants didn't come from the soil, it came from the air. An impressive oak tree, weighing hundreds of tons, took much of that mass from CO2 in the air).
But picture it like this: the huge non-human generated CO2 outputs are over time balanced by CO2 sinks. Imagine it as a funnel through which you can pour a litre of water per second, and have the water level in the neck of the funnel remain level - i.e. an outflow matching this, of one litre per second. Now imagine adding just one extra ml. per second - the level in the funnel will inexorably rise, even though you've only added a drop in the preverbial ocean. Now imagine you also constrict the exit of the funnel, so now it only passes 999ml of water per second... now the level rises just a little bit faster. The end game is that it eventually overflows.
So the observation that human emissions are dwarfed by natural ones does not necessarily mean that the scale is not being tipped.
The argument really now no longer boils to 'is human induced global warming' happening - the evidence is now rather convincing and has been mounting for decades (we actually covered human induced global warming in GSCE Geography classes... in 1986!)
The argument now really boils down to what is the actual impact: is human induced global warming going to be a slight inconvenience or a disaster? If we continue to emit gases at the current rate, is it something that won't really have much of an effect, or will it cause us massive problems? These are the questions that climate scientists are trying to answer using all the data, which yes - includes input from solar scientists, oceanographers and others. Nasa, for instance, which is very close to where you work, is at the forefront of this kind of research - working with climatologists to make the best forecast possible. The press, as I said earlier, as always highlights the sensational disaster because it sells. But it's far from the only outcome being considered by serious climate scientists.
Incidentally, I'll be in Houston in a couple of weeks... fancy discussing this over a cold beer and sushi? :-)
Is it? Tell that to these people. (And yes, some of them claim to be absolutely serious about their belief - they're not just arguing their case as an intellectual exercise, apparently.) Guess it's still fifty-fifty on that question, then.
(Oh, and a pointer to another high-profile "there are two points of view so it must be fifty-fifty, no, wait, 33/33/33" debate: Flying Spaghetti Monster.)
Is it? Tell that to these people. (And yes, some of them claim to be absolutely serious about their belief - they're not just arguing their case as an intellectual exercise, apparently.) Guess it's still fifty-fifty on that question, then.
I assume your joking....there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt about global warming..there is on the shape of the earth. (My Geography teacher was a member of the flat earth society btw)
(Oh, and a pointer to another high-profile "there are two points of view so it must be fifty-fifty, no, wait, 33/33/33" debate: Flying Spaghetti Monster.)
Yes its 50/50....either humans are responsible for the MAJORITY of global warming or not...there is no in between..either they are or they are not....not yes but only on Tuesdays.
Comments
Fair enough, although I wasn't talking about you when I said "sceptics", I was referring to the person you quoted.
I don't dispute that there is still debate, just that there is overwhelming concensus about certain things amongst experts in the field and that, for me, was enough to stop any fence-sitting. I'm perfectly happy to listen to any new evidence (as are the scientists) but I'm 99% convinced they're got it right as it stands.
I do suggest you read that site I linked to earlier, it goes over a lot of the counter-arguments and explains in detail why they aren't accepted. It's interesting reading.
No, I was pointing out that theories aren't "only theories" (i.e. hunches), but when scientists talk about something being a theory, it's not just a hunch but something that's testable and importantly, disprovable. And demonstrating how some theories are used in every day life (quantum theory -> transistors actually work, even though quantum theory is a theory, and no scientist talks about "fact" except colloquially).
Actually, it is. Our CO2 emissions are quite small compared to natural sources (and by the way, plants are CO2 sinks - the carbon that makes up the structure of plants didn't come from the soil, it came from the air. An impressive oak tree, weighing hundreds of tons, took much of that mass from CO2 in the air).
But picture it like this: the huge non-human generated CO2 outputs are over time balanced by CO2 sinks. Imagine it as a funnel through which you can pour a litre of water per second, and have the water level in the neck of the funnel remain level - i.e. an outflow matching this, of one litre per second. Now imagine adding just one extra ml. per second - the level in the funnel will inexorably rise, even though you've only added a drop in the preverbial ocean. Now imagine you also constrict the exit of the funnel, so now it only passes 999ml of water per second... now the level rises just a little bit faster. The end game is that it eventually overflows.
So the observation that human emissions are dwarfed by natural ones does not necessarily mean that the scale is not being tipped.
The argument really now no longer boils to 'is human induced global warming' happening - the evidence is now rather convincing and has been mounting for decades (we actually covered human induced global warming in GSCE Geography classes... in 1986!)
The argument now really boils down to what is the actual impact: is human induced global warming going to be a slight inconvenience or a disaster? If we continue to emit gases at the current rate, is it something that won't really have much of an effect, or will it cause us massive problems? These are the questions that climate scientists are trying to answer using all the data, which yes - includes input from solar scientists, oceanographers and others. Nasa, for instance, which is very close to where you work, is at the forefront of this kind of research - working with climatologists to make the best forecast possible. The press, as I said earlier, as always highlights the sensational disaster because it sells. But it's far from the only outcome being considered by serious climate scientists.
Incidentally, I'll be in Houston in a couple of weeks... fancy discussing this over a cold beer and sushi? :-)
Sure thing though you'll have to go easy on me...I'm just a layman ;)
Is it? Tell that to these people. (And yes, some of them claim to be absolutely serious about their belief - they're not just arguing their case as an intellectual exercise, apparently.) Guess it's still fifty-fifty on that question, then.
(Oh, and a pointer to another high-profile "there are two points of view so it must be fifty-fifty, no, wait, 33/33/33" debate: Flying Spaghetti Monster.)
snigger..........
Yes its 50/50....either humans are responsible for the MAJORITY of global warming or not...there is no in between..either they are or they are not....not yes but only on Tuesdays.