Global warming is influenced by a multitude of contributing gases etc. Some of them can also cause cooling. Weather, being unpredictable of course screws up predictions. Also the oceans are taking a substancial amount of CO2 gases for instances which causes warming delays.
I agree with the error bars but climatology is not exactly a easy science if you have so many variables. Its not that we fully understand "just weather" yet.
Interesting question though, temperatures were constant for more or less 1 Mio. years (thanks ice-core probes for that information). Why suddenly in the last 100 years or so do we see a difference if you look in the timeframe of 1900 to now?
Even if I play your logic and go for a moment on your side and say ok who knows maybe the predictions are wrong. Does it makes sense to drive the Coal/Oil/Gas burning train? There is more waste coming from burning these than just CO2 you know.
"Interesting question though, temperatures were constant for more or less 1 Mio. years (thanks ice-core probes for that information). Why suddenly in the last 100 years or so do we see a difference if you look in the timeframe of 1900 to now?"
While the last decade may have peaked somewhat high, the fact that we are dropping back down would mean that other hypotheses such as "our proxy data isn't as detailed as we like" need to be considered.
"say ok who knows maybe the predictions are wrong."
No. The predictions aren't "maybe" wrong. I'm not hypothesizing. I'm looking out the window. (Metaphorically, that is, I'm looking at real observations.) The predictions are wrong. Right now.
"Does it makes sense to drive the Coal/Oil/Gas burning train? There is more waste coming from burning these than just CO2 you know."
This is terrible science. You're asking me to believe in global warming, because burning gasoline is bad. Why not... explain why burning gasoline is bad, then act on that, instead? Why not talk about ocean pollution or overfishing and act on them directly, instead? While climatologists are distracting us with computer-modeled chimeras, real problems are being neglected.
Start with the truth. Work out from there. That's science.
The graph with the Ice core probes are of course correct. Thanks for that.
"No. The predictions aren't "maybe" wrong. I'm not hypothesizing. I'm looking out the window. (Metaphorically, that is, I'm looking at real observations.) The predictions are wrong. Right now."
Who says that the cycle of change which we can actually see due to a slow response is not based on a window of 5, 10 or 15 years? Right now is an exception to the current trend?
How can we verify this? Wait and do nothing?
"This is terrible science. You're asking me to believe in global warming, because burning gasoline is bad. Why not... explain why burning gasoline is bad, then act on that, instead? Why not talk about ocean pollution or overfishing and act on them directly, instead? While climatologists are distracting us with computer-modeled chimeras, real problems are being neglected."
Sure, but just because I want to state that Global warming is true or not I have to eliminate all the other bad factors which are actually happening?
Give me one environmental benefit why Coal/Oil/Gas burning is good? I am curious. Even if global warming is false, at least helps us to switch to renewable energy which will be better in the long run.
Lets suppose we find out global warming is false. What is the damage done by following ideas to limit CO2 and pushing environmental awareness?
"Start with the truth. Work out from there. That's science."
Good point. Did you see the reasoning of Rahmstorf in the Video? Do you think his reasoning is flawed?
Global warming is influenced by a multitude of contributing gases etc. Some of them can also cause cooling. Weather, being unpredictable of course screws up predictions. Also the oceans are taking a substancial amount of CO2 gases for instances which causes warming delays.
I agree with the error bars but climatology is not exactly a easy science if you have so many variables. Its not that we fully understand "just weather" yet.
Interesting question though, temperatures were constant for more or less 1 Mio. years (thanks ice-core probes for that information). Why suddenly in the last 100 years or so do we see a difference if you look in the timeframe of 1900 to now?
Even if I play your logic and go for a moment on your side and say ok who knows maybe the predictions are wrong. Does it makes sense to drive the Coal/Oil/Gas burning train? There is more waste coming from burning these than just CO2 you know.