Of course the OP's statement was unfounded speculation with no basis behind it. The papers and researchers in question are all known so it should be possible to determine if he is right but it just sounds like hyperbole to me.
The dominant historical comment on the late 20th century is sure to be "missed opportunities".
Absolutely. And extend that into the early 21st century.
They've been impossible to ignore for decades. But people still somehow ignored them.
Impossible for scientists to ignore, not that tough for the general public to ignore as most of the changes so far have been subtle, especially in the US. But as I said that's changing.
"Come to Jesus" was probably the wrong term to use (obviously it was with you). What I meant was that conditions will change in a way that forces more and more to confront the reality of climate change. Like I say I may be too optimistic about that. We'll see.
Nothing assumed about it, the term Anthropogenic Global Warming asserts that some portion of it is caused by human actions. The estimate is something between 80% and 120% of the warming is caused by human influences.
The question is were the 66% of papers that expressed no opinion on anthropogenic global warming doing so because they are truly neutral or simply because it wasn't germane to the subject of the paper and they weren't just going to add it gratuitously?
I suspect the reason most of those papers didn't take a stance is because it wasn't germane to the science in their paper and they weren't just going to throw it in there gratuitously.
Also I think there are a lot of libertarians here who have a hard time with the implications of global warming as it relates to their economic ideology. They're more likely to rationalize away the science than adjust their ideology.
It's certainly true that natural sources of CO2 each year emit more than human sources but you can't ignore the other side of the equation. The natural sinks that absorb carbon each year absorb more than the natural emissions. We know this because the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from one year to the next is only about 45% of total human emissions so the rest has to go into those natural sinks because there aren't any significant human sinks. What we're doing is increasing the total carbon in the active carbon cycle while the balance between the different sinks remains about the same so it rises in all of them.
The papers they reviewed are listed. It would be some work but if you don't inspect the papers to see who the authors of the papers were and the methods they used you're just making unfounded speculations that don't mean anything.
You may be right but many of the effects of global warming are really starting to manifest themselves. Over the next 5 or 10 years they will be increasingly difficult to ignore. I guess it's the optimist in me thinks more and more people will have their "Come to Jesus" moment over this and the tide will turn.
And that's not even taking into consideration deliberate exclusion or manipulation of data to legitimize theories that are otherwise bunk. On the GW issue researchers have been caught red handed doing just that.
That is just a made up controversy that has no basis in reality. There have been some errors made but I've never seen good evidence for deliberate manipulation of data in climate science.
More clouds does not necessarily imply a colder planet. Current research on clouds indicate they most likely have a slightly positive effect on global warming. While during the day clouds can reflect sunlight they also intercept outgoing infrared radiation from the surface holding in the heat. Ever notice how much warmer it is on a cloudy night than a clear night? Also, near the terminator clouds can actually reflect sunlight toward the surface.
What you say is true however this study covers papers from the past 22 years since 1991. Given the controversy around the subject the fact that no one has been able to come up with a serious challenge to the dominant paradigm in climate science in all that time is telling. Any scientist who was able to come up with something that overturned current climate science would certainly cement their reputation in the annals of history.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm going all MythBusters and mounting the spear on a JATO rocket.
it's not exactly rocket science.
Well actually there are some elements of rocket science in spear throwing. It's just that the method of propelling them has changed.
And idiots like me trying to call them out on it. :)
Of course the OP's statement was unfounded speculation with no basis behind it. The papers and researchers in question are all known so it should be possible to determine if he is right but it just sounds like hyperbole to me.
The article said the plants wouldn't germinate. Light is not required for germination, just water.
The dominant historical comment on the late 20th century is sure to be "missed opportunities".
Absolutely. And extend that into the early 21st century.
They've been impossible to ignore for decades. But people still somehow ignored them.
Impossible for scientists to ignore, not that tough for the general public to ignore as most of the changes so far have been subtle, especially in the US. But as I said that's changing.
"Come to Jesus" was probably the wrong term to use (obviously it was with you). What I meant was that conditions will change in a way that forces more and more to confront the reality of climate change. Like I say I may be too optimistic about that. We'll see.
Nothing assumed about it, the term Anthropogenic Global Warming asserts that some portion of it is caused by human actions. The estimate is something between 80% and 120% of the warming is caused by human influences.
Scientific method has been able to point to data that shows human causation.
FTFY
The question is were the 66% of papers that expressed no opinion on anthropogenic global warming doing so because they are truly neutral or simply because it wasn't germane to the subject of the paper and they weren't just going to add it gratuitously?
I suspect the reason most of those papers didn't take a stance is because it wasn't germane to the science in their paper and they weren't just going to throw it in there gratuitously.
Also I think there are a lot of libertarians here who have a hard time with the implications of global warming as it relates to their economic ideology. They're more likely to rationalize away the science than adjust their ideology.
- climate science is over a hundred years old
If you go back to Fourier's discovery of the greenhouse effect in 1824 it's damn near 200 years old.
Insightful my ass.
It's certainly true that natural sources of CO2 each year emit more than human sources but you can't ignore the other side of the equation. The natural sinks that absorb carbon each year absorb more than the natural emissions. We know this because the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from one year to the next is only about 45% of total human emissions so the rest has to go into those natural sinks because there aren't any significant human sinks. What we're doing is increasing the total carbon in the active carbon cycle while the balance between the different sinks remains about the same so it rises in all of them.
The papers they reviewed are listed. It would be some work but if you don't inspect the papers to see who the authors of the papers were and the methods they used you're just making unfounded speculations that don't mean anything.
Um, that would be anthropogenic. Anthropomorphic means it has a human form.
You may be right but many of the effects of global warming are really starting to manifest themselves. Over the next 5 or 10 years they will be increasingly difficult to ignore. I guess it's the optimist in me thinks more and more people will have their "Come to Jesus" moment over this and the tide will turn.
The causality relationship of CO2 to global warming is the radiative absorption characteristics of CO2.
Showing that humans are the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is rather trivial.
And that's not even taking into consideration deliberate exclusion or manipulation of data to legitimize theories that are otherwise bunk. On the GW issue researchers have been caught red handed doing just that.
That is just a made up controversy that has no basis in reality. There have been some errors made but I've never seen good evidence for deliberate manipulation of data in climate science.
Boy, it sure took a lot of bales to construct that straw man.
More clouds does not necessarily imply a colder planet. Current research on clouds indicate they most likely have a slightly positive effect on global warming. While during the day clouds can reflect sunlight they also intercept outgoing infrared radiation from the surface holding in the heat. Ever notice how much warmer it is on a cloudy night than a clear night? Also, near the terminator clouds can actually reflect sunlight toward the surface.
What you say is true however this study covers papers from the past 22 years since 1991. Given the controversy around the subject the fact that no one has been able to come up with a serious challenge to the dominant paradigm in climate science in all that time is telling. Any scientist who was able to come up with something that overturned current climate science would certainly cement their reputation in the annals of history.
I guess everyone should try to get their first cup of coffee in them before they open up /. in the morning.
The kind of DNA modifications we can do now are on a whole different scale than those we were capable of before the development of gene splicing.
Interestingly enough males can lactate given the proper hormonal stimulation.
I was going to say that but you beat me to it. Maybe that's the source of the lines that Schiaparelli and Lowell saw.