At least better than declaring 3 to have the exact value of pi

Then i want to know which kind of evidence would be sufficient, as there is no experiment wich can be done again like in physics with et ceteris paribus.

As an amateur is see circumstancuial evidences. I had two semestres of meteorology, in which we were on the surface of the theme.

So we have the normal Greenhouse effect, mainly produced by water. That one I can calculate myself. (in the meaning of the earths temperature 33° warmer than it should be)
Then i can understand a made-easy-version of the theory why especially three-atomed molecules absorb different radiation in other wavelengths. To doubt that would be nonsense cause it is verified by simple experiments.
The theory that the effect of these gases is the reason for the normal Greenhouse effect seems very likely to me.
Then ondoubtedly we put more of these gases into the atmosphere.
In my noobish mechanical thought model I'd guess that more of the same causality gives more of the same effect.
Further we get the observation that the mean temperature is on an upgoing trend.
For myself I'd believe it very likely to be the gases causing this trend.
And there are theories predominant in the scientific society that go along this way of thoughts.

I'd need a very good reason to believe it was something other that causes the trend, especially as i know no other mechanism that could be responsible.

Things like this always make me think of Canute demonstrating that he couldn't command the tide.

You remind me of Rush Limbaugh a little bit, dude. Same kind if blinders, same kind of arguments.

First you say there is no proof and no data for global warming - but when people produce this proof and this data, all you can produce to counter it are politically-driven and highly biased non-scientific articles from highly politicized sources. And then *you* turn around and accuse others of being 'political' about this issue. Give us one *scientific* study, not only a political propaganda, and we can talk.

Now you seem to have changed your tune from 'there is no global warming' to 'its not human-made' and you say there is no proof. This might be so - but there is a very strong correlation - which is the best we can do, really. Just pull out the numbers - they are freely available, and check for yourself instead of regurgitating political positions somebody else puts in your head.

Well, strong correlation does not seem to be sufficient to you, you insist that if there is no solid proof it must be false. All I can say is - good luck with your math study if this is how your logic goes.

Anyways - you might be willing to stake the lives of your kids and grandkids (if you have any) on the chance that global warming is not human-made or at least human-influenced, or even that it does not exist at all. I am glad so many people here (and not only here) have the brains and the foresight to disagree with you. Including pretty much the whole scientific community around the world.

PS>
There is a *ton* of political and economical interest in denying global warming. There is a lot of money in it - and this is why it is driven so hard. And this is why there is such a strong political push to convince as many simpletons as possible that it is a myth. The ones that have vested interest in such denials are those who care about tomorrow's profit more than about the world they leave behind.

Don't be a simpleton, MW.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

People just loooooooove talking about global warming. I googled "global warming" plus a variety of totally irrelevant keywords and got the following results.


Of course, there are many more online bulletin boards that are strictly dedicated to the discussion of global warming. However, no matter what the online forum is about, there seems to be a good chance that there will be at least one long thread on global warming. For whatever reason, global warming is like catnip for keyboard warriors. Global warming is a very important issue of our times, but it is not the only important issue. However, very few important issues are discussed so ubiquitously.

I don't want to fight that lovable bear called Magicwand, so I won't join the discussion, but I think everyone can see the humor in this thread being one of the longest threads on L19. Even RJ might get jealous if this thread keeps going.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Certainly NPR can be leading far on the opposite side of the political spectrum as Fox News etc, but I listened to this a few weeks ago and found it interesting.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a ... y-backyard

But that would be far more fun in schools with "This is one apple, these are two apples, I'm not sure if these are three apples or not, my weighing scales aren't accurate enough."

global warming trend past century is is a fact that i can not dispute.
scientist prediction used by politicians i dispute.
there are hundreds of different prediction on future global temperature and most of them are wrong.
I dont think it is possible for human being to influence global temperature to significant change.
It is a politicans that uses this scary idea(not a fact) to tax you on fossel fuel left and right.

I remember 20+ years ago i heard that if polar icecap melt then all harbor cities will be submurged.
This idea was introduced by scientists who studied many years.

now 20+ years has passed... there were summer where polar ice was record low.
did it change sea level by any significant amount?
answer is NO! and it is facts that nobody can dispute.
scientist make dumb predictions and call it a science.
If they are the only one who make right prediction then they will be famous.
they have incentive to menupulate data to their constiuent's liking.

that is my point!!!!
increase of few degree will not harm anyone.
because of global warming scientist clame that hurricane season will be awful but wrong prediction.

we have better ways to spend our tax money than throw away on dumb program that is not even necessary.
Liberals introduced 10% etheonal claiming it will be cleaner fuel. fact is that more CO2 was emmitted.
you think they were after clean air? NO. it was because they get support and kickback from farmer's union.
they are trying carbon tax in the name of clean air..
i for one think that is wrong in so many ways.
but 90% of ppl from here will agree that it will help stop global warming.
That is pityful how they menipulate voters and fool everyone.

enough said..

P.S. Yes i support everything ruhs rimbuh say.
sorry for many misspelled word.

Roger / out

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

So, basically what you are saying, you rather listen to a known political propagandist like Rush Limbaugh, famous for pushing political agendas and in one direction only, than to organizations and panels composed of scientists and backed up by actual data? Why?!?

You keep saying what you 'believe' or 'dont believe' - but what we are talking about here is not a matter of faith - just look at the darned numbers.

Or look at Rush... here is one 'sample' of his work:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/ ... p_the_left

He cites *one* source for all that nonsense, an article by Steven Goddard on a blog called, ironically, Real Science - while at the same time bashing all those who rely on 'blogs' for their climate change info. And the article he cites has absolutely nothing to do with average temperatures or warming or globality - but deals with frequency of record highs for some very selected locations... so AT BEST it can prove that temperature becomes less 'jumpy' at those particular spots, but says absolutely nothing about increase or decrease or anything like that. This is Rush's "evidence", this is his "proof" - this is his base for rejecting all the science and pushing politics instead. You have a scientific mind - tell me, does this make sense to you?

To give you some counter examples - look at all the numbers and data on such sites as:
NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence (if you're busy, just look at the graph and read the right-side gray box contents)
EPA: http://epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html (check the first tab - about scientific consensus, but also other tabs)
And so on, the list is long.

Look at all the actual data yourself, or if you are too busy, at the actual temperature increase graphs over the past 100 years or so... Just google and look at 'images', only takes a minute.

Now back to Rush. Even you have to admit there is an overall warming of global temperatures. Rush Limbaugh denies all of that ever happened, and says it is a 'politically motivated hoax'. How can you seriously support such drivel? Even if not all of the climate change predictions came true - and some of them did not because we *did* take *some* steps - this does not mean that the overall idea is wrong.

Again - just look at the numbers rather than listening to morons like Rush Limbaugh. Really... Even the republican friends I have all admit Rush is an idiot preaching to the lowest common denominator and contradicting himself every few sentences. Think for yourself, dude.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Want some Guardian?

What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints


<edit>

And Rush Limbaugh? Please … that guy’s such a dipshit. And you’re probably one of the many people he’d rather see shot or in jail or expelled from the US.

</edit>

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Could you guys at least contain this bs to a single thread?

Ach, »geh doch rüber!«

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

This is pointless. Pointless to argue about believe. Scientific disscussions are about proof and reasoning. Not about believing.

I believe you're correct.

And it was misinterpreted by you or whoever told you about it. If the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it has no effect on sea level, just as ice melting in a glass of water has no effect on the level of the water. OTOH, if the Antarctic Ice Sheet melts, since most of it is over land, the melting ice will add water to the ocean and sea level will rise. The same is true for the ice on Greenland.



Now we are talking about ice in the Arctic Ocean.



Of course not. Why would it?



No scientist made any such dumb prediction. Anybody who tells you that they did is lying or mistaken.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

It will however dramatically screw with salinity levels in the ocean, the effects of which could prove rather unpleasant yet annoyingly are extremely difficult to model.

Not to mention that replacing white ice with dark ocean causes the Earth's reflectivity to drop and absorb more heat, making things even worse. Unless you also got more white clouds...

_________________
Poka King of the south east.

While there’s a break for everybody to go to the loo and get some more popcorn and beverages, here’s a little entertainment for you. Push up the volume, watch it fullscreen! (For fullscreen, I think, you’ll have to click the “Watch on YouTube” link—the YT logo at T1—and watch it there.)




Enjoy, Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?