You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[+]Phoenix_MD0 points3 points3 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]Phoenix_MD0 points
3 points
3 points
(+3|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Not a specific theory but more a principle that weather changes.
Waves are a great example. Not only do waves represent the periodic changing of the water height, but if you watch for a long time you'll note that waves comes in waves (referred to as "sets"). If you carefully watch longer you'll see that sets come in waves, growing more powerful until they reach a peak they grow smaller.
This is the nature of weather. It changes.
Now as to whether humans are "causing climate change", you must realize that correlation does not equal causation. Just because we have millions of cars on the planet, along with factors and the like spewing CO2 in the air, and that during his period the temperatures have risen, doesn't mean the two are related. For example televisions have also grown during this time and yet it is ridiculous to think that TVs cause climate change.
Anyways, it is plausible that humans affect the climate? No doubt we do, possibly for the better and possibly for the worst. But given that humans occupy only a fraction of the earth it seems narcissistic to believe that we humans are the sole reason the changes of the weather of the entire earth. It seems more plausible that this is weather doing what weather does, change (ie periodically alter, ultimately in a cyclical fashion).
"Correlation does not equal causation" is just hand waving. In this case, we have a specific and well-understood causal effect. Saying that "it seems narcissistic" to believe human action can effect the climate is only an ad hominem attack. We could just as easily say that it is naive and short sighted to think that we can't.
Ultimately, none of this addresses the core of my question. If you want to dispute an established theory that explains the existing data you either need to either come up with a new theory that better explains the data or find new data that is not explained by the theory. I will wait patiently for you to do so.
spewing CO2 in the air, and that during his period the temperatures have risen, doesn't mean the two are related
You're right that it doesn't necessarily mean the two are related, just like your example of TVs (or any of the other millions of things that have popped up in the last hundred years). The difference is that there's a clear mechanism for how CO2 affects temperature - specifically that it absorbs and emits infrared radiation that would otherwise escape the planet.
I guess my question to you (or anyone who wants to jump in) would be - what evidence would convince you of anthropogenic climate change? Is there an experiment that would convince you? Are there any gaps or bad assumptions in the theory as you see it? Let's talk specifics.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] joseremarque 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Can you point to any specific theories that better explain the existing weather data?
[–] Phoenix_MD 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
Not a specific theory but more a principle that weather changes.
Waves are a great example. Not only do waves represent the periodic changing of the water height, but if you watch for a long time you'll note that waves comes in waves (referred to as "sets"). If you carefully watch longer you'll see that sets come in waves, growing more powerful until they reach a peak they grow smaller.
This is the nature of weather. It changes.
Now as to whether humans are "causing climate change", you must realize that correlation does not equal causation. Just because we have millions of cars on the planet, along with factors and the like spewing CO2 in the air, and that during his period the temperatures have risen, doesn't mean the two are related. For example televisions have also grown during this time and yet it is ridiculous to think that TVs cause climate change.
Anyways, it is plausible that humans affect the climate? No doubt we do, possibly for the better and possibly for the worst. But given that humans occupy only a fraction of the earth it seems narcissistic to believe that we humans are the sole reason the changes of the weather of the entire earth. It seems more plausible that this is weather doing what weather does, change (ie periodically alter, ultimately in a cyclical fashion).
[–] joseremarque 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
"Correlation does not equal causation" is just hand waving. In this case, we have a specific and well-understood causal effect. Saying that "it seems narcissistic" to believe human action can effect the climate is only an ad hominem attack. We could just as easily say that it is naive and short sighted to think that we can't.
Ultimately, none of this addresses the core of my question. If you want to dispute an established theory that explains the existing data you either need to either come up with a new theory that better explains the data or find new data that is not explained by the theory. I will wait patiently for you to do so.
[–] SixBarns ago
You're right that it doesn't necessarily mean the two are related, just like your example of TVs (or any of the other millions of things that have popped up in the last hundred years). The difference is that there's a clear mechanism for how CO2 affects temperature - specifically that it absorbs and emits infrared radiation that would otherwise escape the planet.
I guess my question to you (or anyone who wants to jump in) would be - what evidence would convince you of anthropogenic climate change? Is there an experiment that would convince you? Are there any gaps or bad assumptions in the theory as you see it? Let's talk specifics.