Global warming is a fact!

Quote from dcraig:

You misunderstand the nature of science. Science does not depend on proof. Mathematics depends on proof. Science depends on evidence. And the evidence for AGW is overwhelming. It ranges from the basic physics of GHGs, the measured radiative imbalance of the earth (more energy in than out), the statistically significant trend in global surface temperature, the statistically significant trend of increasing ocean heat content, the shrinking glaciers, polar ice and Greenland ice sheet, the compelling evidence of the major role of CO2 in regulating temperature from studies of the earths past climate, the highly accurate measurement of the increase of atmospheric CO2 and the isotopic studies showing the increase to be of human origin.

Most of all, there is no other feasible explanation for the rapid rise in temperature. And other possible causes have been exhaustively examined. It's not the sun - it's the coolest in a century. It's not cosmic rays. It's not ENSO. etc etc.

You can choose to assert that the evidence is not convincing, but that is not the conclusion of expert scientific opinion. Any rational person will go with the science, especially when the risk is so high.
More...

Ok mayne, here is my abbreviated argument. Descriptive stats applied correctly are a useful tool, and when using a fully parametric model, statistical inference makes sense as it will be accurate as long as the model isn't flawed. I am ASSUMING (as I have never seen the models) that in the "science" of gw, they are using semi-parametric models at best (as not all variables are known/or fully understood), and using a a very tiny % of actual data from the total population because they don't have it, meaning that it is NOT statistically significant. "Inferring" anything from this type of model is nothing more than a guess, because the model is flawed going in. If this is not the case then your best bud Hansen should be able to tell us, with a very high degree of accuracy, what the temp will be at certain dates in the future. If his models can predict out to 50-100 years then he can predict next year 5, 10 years out etc, and if he coulda he woulda. If I am wrong about this make sure u provide a link to these models.

All that aside, you suggesting that there are not any other feasible explanations is a pretty arrogant assumption IMO. We don't even know that this temp increase is out of the norm, because we don't know what the norm is. We don't know what the avg temp on this planet has been over the last 100k years or mil years or bil years, so how do we know that we are even on the high side of the Earth's natural range? And what about claims that carbon in the atmosphere lags temp?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top