there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent and pace of warming from a particular rise in concentrations of greenhouse gases, and about how fast and far seas will rise as a result.
But all you ever speak in are absolutes. This IS happening this IS the way it will be. You take out the maybe factor which only leaves you with either being 100% right, or 100% wrong.
Except that I don’t speak in absolutes and you view anything that isn’t stated as an absolute as proof that global warming isn’t happening.
Actually not once have I read anything in particular quoted from a published science journal in my local science update. Much of the research written about happens in the actual museum.
If it’s a real science update they will be able to cite published sources. “yet to be published” research in progress can be ok as long as they publish it eventfully. If they can’t cite published sources, or don’t publish their own research at some point you should find a more reliable source of information.
Again you're arguing for the sake of arguing and missing the point entirely. I didn't say global warming isn't going to happen, in fact I promise you it will happen. It's going to happen if we're here or not.
I’m not arguing at all I’m simply answering the questions you ask and stating the prevailing scientific opinion. For me to argue you would have had to produce something more then “science isn’t absolute so it’s wrong”.
For climate to change there needs to be a forcing effects and all current forcing effects are of human origin.
You said there needs to be new CO2 but there isn't any new CO2 other then whats man made. So in turn you just said that without the man made Carbon Dioxide we're left without a warming period. In other words, taking away the man-made Carbon Dioxide would stop the gradual warming correct? But whats the difference of a natural warming period in comparison with our man-made warming period? Biologically made CO2 can be just as much of a cause of global warming as man-made CO2
Perhaps I gave you too much credit. I though it should be obvious that a living organism can only give off carbon (CO2) that they have previously absorbed. At most they can temporarily store carbon they do not produce it. This means existing carbon can only act as a feedback effect, not a forcing effect. (feedback = something that is a function of some other part of the system, forcing = new input. For a more complete description take a few years to study control theory.)
As I've said before, this is argument for the sake of argument. Do you know how the rainforests actually help the worlds ecosystem. Do you know how much life has already changed since the deforestation has started? I mean if you feel like it's not important ,fine, don't do anything about it, you'll get the same kind of treatment about global warming. You think the rainforests are something to scoff at now, but you'll change your tune when a great deal of what absorbs and changes that CO2 you're all on about is gone. Not only is deforestation part of the problem, but it's part of the solution too. You think all will be well once these companies regulate their CO2? You're going to see another thing coming when the regulation goes into effect but nothings been done about underlying problems we've known about for years. Best thing to tell you is just to wait and see.
This is pure distraction. Yes, land use is important in that it accounts for ~30% of climate forcing. Stopping land use changes is not a solution to anything because those rain forests would disappear due to greenhouse warming anyway.
there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent and pace of warming from a particular rise in concentrations of greenhouse gases, and about how fast and far seas will rise as a result.
Very true. This is where a lot of the current debate resides and from what I have seen some of that debate is pretty interesting.
Except that I don’t speak in absolutes and you view anything that isn’t stated as an absolute as proof that global warming isn’t happening.
Show me where I said that global warming isn't or will not happen. On the contrary as you've been doing this whole time, you cut most of my post and comment only on the things you can argue with which, if you read the whole post, is explained in further detail and may answer some of your ridiculous accusations about how I view global warming.
If it’s a real science update they will be able to cite published sources. “yet to be published” research in progress can be ok as long as they publish it eventfully. If they can’t cite published sources, or don’t publish their own research at some point you should find a more reliable source of information
As I said they do not cite published science journals because most of the research is done in the museum itself. I've also been to conferences in the museum with speakers regarding issues such as oil consumption, production, and conservation. You just skirted the subject. It was a simple question that you did not answer. Are there other places to get scientific information other then science journals, yes, or no? You chose to dance around the subject.
Perhaps I gave you too much credit. I though it should be obvious that a living organism can only give off carbon (CO2) that they have previously absorbed. At most they can temporarily store carbon they do not produce it. This means existing carbon can only act as a feedback effect, not a forcing effect. (feedback = something that is a function of some other part of the system, forcing = new input. For a more complete description take a few years to study control theory.)
On the contrary it was I who gave you too little credit. Next time you should actually explain what you mean instead of half-assing your explanation and then try to make it seem like I was the one that didn't get it. I called you out on your poor explanation, lets just leave it at that.
This is pure distraction. Yes, land use is important in that it accounts for ~30% of climate forcing. Stopping land use changes is not a solution to anything because those rain forests would disappear due to greenhouse warming anyway
I see where you can perceive this as a distraction mainly because you refuse to see problems that directly correlate with the same, and also some very different but equally problematic issues regarding the ecosystem. You can go ahead and see what happens when things get regulated, it won't stop warming, and it doesn't matter how much more you try to regulate the temperature, it won't stop another cooling event either.
I only have two things to say here. Firstly some museum doing research and refusing to publish data in a respect scientific journal for peer review is not science. Science is peer review. If any research isnt submitted to ay scientific journal it isnt science, pure and simple. This leads to the question, why arnt they peer reviewing their data, this brings their data into question. No matter who is doing the research there everything about it should be peer reviewed from the validity of the hypothosis to the conduct of the actual experiment. First question i ask when i see some 'evidence' is 'has it been peer reviewed'? Those who do not peer review do so out of fear. Thus quote is slightly out of context here, but still appropriate "Publish or perish". Secondly, the Sun Sol is WELL under the Chandrasekhar limit and WILL NOT at any stage of history ever turn into a black hole. Chances are it will turn into a brown dwarf a couple of million years after the surace of the sun engulfs the Earth.
Again, not arguing the point that science journals aren't a good source of information. I'm just speaking in regards that there are other ways to obtain information in this world.
" it is generally possible to publish results somewhere, in order for scientists in many fields to attract and maintain funding it is necessary to publish in elite, prestigious journals. Such journals are generally identified by theirimpact factor. The small number of high-impact journals is susceptible to control by an elite group of anonymous reviewers.[citation needed] Results published in low-impact journals are usually ignored by most scientists in any field. This has led to calls for the removal of reviewer anonymity (especially at high-impact journals) and for the introduction of author anonymity (so that reviewers cannot tell whether the author is a member of any elite)."
The museum self publishes their findings but are in league with other museums around the country and possibly a panel, that I don't know. The articles I get aren't published in any well-to-do mainstream journals, at least not initially, and as I don't read the mainstream ones often enough I wouldn't be able to tell you. There are also other ways to view information not yet to be published as sometimes science journals can take a while before it goes through a peer-reviewed panel. A good example are preprints. This isn't to say the articles won't get published in said journals, it's just to say that they haven't yet, or are pending such.
On your second point, yes indeedly, you are more assuredly right then I am, the point of the comment was more for effect, either way our sun will die and with it, the earth as well. Thank you for correcting me though
Comments
there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent and pace of warming from a particular rise in concentrations of greenhouse gases, and about how fast and far seas will rise as a result.
Except that I don’t speak in absolutes and you view anything that isn’t stated as an absolute as proof that global warming isn’t happening.
If it’s a real science update they will be able to cite published sources. “yet to be published” research in progress can be ok as long as they publish it eventfully. If they can’t cite published sources, or don’t publish their own research at some point you should find a more reliable source of information.
For climate to change there needs to be a forcing effects and all current forcing effects are of human origin.
Perhaps I gave you too much credit. I though it should be obvious that a living organism can only give off carbon (CO2) that they have previously absorbed. At most they can temporarily store carbon they do not produce it. This means existing carbon can only act as a feedback effect, not a forcing effect. (feedback = something that is a function of some other part of the system, forcing = new input. For a more complete description take a few years to study control theory.)
Except that I don’t speak in absolutes and you view anything that isn’t stated as an absolute as proof that global warming isn’t happening.
Show me where I said that global warming isn't or will not happen. On the contrary as you've been doing this whole time, you cut most of my post and comment only on the things you can argue with which, if you read the whole post, is explained in further detail and may answer some of your ridiculous accusations about how I view global warming.
If it’s a real science update they will be able to cite published sources. “yet to be published” research in progress can be ok as long as they publish it eventfully. If they can’t cite published sources, or don’t publish their own research at some point you should find a more reliable source of information
As I said they do not cite published science journals because most of the research is done in the museum itself. I've also been to conferences in the museum with speakers regarding issues such as oil consumption, production, and conservation. You just skirted the subject. It was a simple question that you did not answer. Are there other places to get scientific information other then science journals, yes, or no? You chose to dance around the subject.
Perhaps I gave you too much credit. I though it should be obvious that a living organism can only give off carbon (CO2) that they have previously absorbed. At most they can temporarily store carbon they do not produce it. This means existing carbon can only act as a feedback effect, not a forcing effect. (feedback = something that is a function of some other part of the system, forcing = new input. For a more complete description take a few years to study control theory.)
On the contrary it was I who gave you too little credit. Next time you should actually explain what you mean instead of half-assing your explanation and then try to make it seem like I was the one that didn't get it. I called you out on your poor explanation, lets just leave it at that.
This is pure distraction. Yes, land use is important in that it accounts for ~30% of climate forcing. Stopping land use changes is not a solution to anything because those rain forests would disappear due to greenhouse warming anyway
I see where you can perceive this as a distraction mainly because you refuse to see problems that directly correlate with the same, and also some very different but equally problematic issues regarding the ecosystem. You can go ahead and see what happens when things get regulated, it won't stop warming, and it doesn't matter how much more you try to regulate the temperature, it won't stop another cooling event either.
" it is generally possible to publish results somewhere, in order for scientists in many fields to attract and maintain funding it is necessary to publish in elite, prestigious journals. Such journals are generally identified by their impact factor. The small number of high-impact journals is susceptible to control by an elite group of anonymous reviewers.[citation needed] Results published in low-impact journals are usually ignored by most scientists in any field. This has led to calls for the removal of reviewer anonymity (especially at high-impact journals) and for the introduction of author anonymity (so that reviewers cannot tell whether the author is a member of any elite)."
The museum self publishes their findings but are in league with other museums around the country and possibly a panel, that I don't know. The articles I get aren't published in any well-to-do mainstream journals, at least not initially, and as I don't read the mainstream ones often enough I wouldn't be able to tell you. There are also other ways to view information not yet to be published as sometimes science journals can take a while before it goes through a peer-reviewed panel. A good example are preprints. This isn't to say the articles won't get published in said journals, it's just to say that they haven't yet, or are pending such.
On your second point, yes indeedly, you are more assuredly right then I am, the point of the comment was more for effect, either way our sun will die and with it, the earth as well. Thank you for correcting me though