I mean how do you explain the ice caps melting? That’s been extremely well documented as have other effects on the Earth. We’ve studied the effects of greenhouse gases since the 1970’s and the science has been proven repeatedly in the decades. Despite how many people have tried to disprove it.
We know for a fact that CO 2 traps solar heat and we know that the global temperature has started rising since the widespread use of those gases. It’s not a coincidence that the global temperature has risen since we started using these gases that trap solar heat. That’s not nature doing its normal cycle, that’s manmade acceleration. Pumping out excess amounts of gases that don’t belong in our atmosphere.
The last time the Earth had an ice age, the global temperature only had to fluctuate 5 degrees Celsius. This fluctuation in temperature happened over the course of thousands upon thousands of years. Our current global temperature has fluctuated 1.5 degrees Celsius in just over a hundred years. If the implications of that don’t concern you, I don’t know what will. A century from now? It’s likely we will be at or very near 3 degrees Celsius. More then halfway in temperature fluctuations then what the last ice age was in just 200 years.
Of course some people make money off a of climate change or being environmentally friendly. Capitalism turns everything into a commodity to be sold. So If you’re against that, then be against it. But I hate to break this to you but people make money from being anti climate change as well. So your opinion about money cuts both ways. Conservative politicians are not exempt from that. Does the media overreact and over sensationalize? Sometimes yes, because they’re chasing headlines and ratings as usual.
Don’t let your cynicism of people distract you from scientific fact. At this point denying climate change is denying decades of peer reviewed scientific consensus. To deny climate change, is to deny science. You owe it to your children and your grandchildren to leave them a better world than the one you grow up in. Because as it stands now, things are going to get far, far worse.
SW-User
@QueenOfZaun They also tell you that earth spins lol 😆
And people believe that too, they’ve lied about so much. 🤥
@wildbill83 I never understand this type of argumentation; of using an old outdated theory to criticize a newer one. Science evolves and becomes more accurate as time goes on. Do you not believe in the theory of gravitational relativity just because we once used the concept of Ether to explain it? The more time goes on, the more technology evolves, the more we can test these theories and our knowledge expands. To throwaway modern science, is to throwaway decades and centuries of experiments and observable data. The best ideas and concepts that we’ve had in human history.
@QueenOfZaun which contradicts your original statement...
That’s been extremely well documented as have other effects on the Earth. We’ve studied the effects of greenhouse gases since the 1970’s and the science has been proven repeatedly in the decades.
So which is it? Is it proven to be getting colder or hotter?
Science "evolves"? Basically a fancy way of saying "we have no idea, and just make shit up as we go along"... 🤔
The only thing well documented and proven time and time again is so called science and self proclaimed experts propensity for being proven wrong, especially when it's politically motivated & funded...
"good science" is about discovery, right or wrong, and isn't beheld to any political or philosophical agenda
Science doesn't "evolve", Science (real science) just is; the only thing that changes is our understanding of it. The biggest mistake a scientist can make is in believing that their theory is infallible...
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein
@QueenOfZaun Call me old fashioned, but it seems counterproductive to completely change our society (or possibly even destroy it) based on "scientific" assumptions that may very well be proven wrong (again) in the future. Who knows, we may be back to the "another ice age" theory in another 10-15 years.
And the climate could very well cool down on it's own (as it's undoubtedly done numerous times before), I'm no climatologist, but I'm pretty sure the world hasn't maintained a perfect room temperature during any point in it's lifetime...
Over the course of human history we have learned more and more about the world we live in. Do you not believe in earthquakes being caused by tectonic plates? Should you not believe in tectonic plates because people used to think that earthquakes were caused by God? Or, perhaps the fact that the ancient Greeks used to think that stars were droplets from the breastmilk of gods?
It’s bizarre to me that you find people developing more accurate explanations for the phenomenon in this world as a concerning and mistrustful thing. The real concern would be the scenario that science refused to change. If we still believed in those old beliefs, we would be a far more unintelligent society.
There will never be a point history where we will know everything and thus it’s important to discover new methods of explaining what we see around us, especially as technology grows. As technology grows, and as time goes on, we get closer and closer to discovering the truth around us. That is what science is. Taking things we observe and using experimentation to confirm those observations. Obviously in the early 20th century people did not grasp climate science the way they do now almost 100 years later. I don’t think science is infallible and science itself doesn’t believe it is infallible. That is the entire point of science. The point of science is to continuously reach new conclusions that improve upon the old ones. Always change and evolve with every new experiment and every new piece of evidence discovered. In the decades, since the origins of climate change, global warming, has developed as the leading explanation for the rising global temperature.
The Earth is getting warmer. We have consistently recorded temperature since the 1880’s. Whether you want to believe carbon gases are the root cause or not. The fact remains that the global temperature is rising and at a far faster rate than it should be. That is an undisputed fact.
The beginnings of science understanding the nature of climate change start in 1955 with Hans Suess's carbon-14 isotope analysis showed that CO2 released from fossil fuels was not immediately absorbed by the ocean. In 1957, better understanding of ocean chemistry led Roger Revelle to a realization that the ocean surface layer had limited ability to absorb carbon dioxide, also predicting the rise in levels of CO2 and later being proven by Charles David Keeling.
By the late 1950s, more scientists were arguing that carbon dioxide emissions could be a problem, with some projecting in 1959 that CO2 would rise 25% by the year 2000, with potentially "radical" effects on climate.
The thing that I find interesting about people who deny science is that they actually believe in scientific concepts themselves. But they don’t want to believe in specific science that contradicts their worldview.
People like creationists for example, who find wild excuses for the fact that the world is much older than the Bible says it. Or people who believe in flat earth, and want to believe in some massive global conspiracy involving NASA on the scientific community.
It’s the same thing with climate change. We have accumulated data about this for many decades and as time goes on it has become an accepted fact in the scientific community. And yet people want to turn a blind eye to the massive amount of observable evidence.
@QueenOfZaun 1 - we're talking about "climate change", not earthquakes.
2 - The Earth didn't begin in 1880, It has experienced periods of hot & cold temperatures for thousands of years. So it's naive to base predictions on such a limited time frame. I mean, I'm pretty sure the last major ice age didn't end due to cave man coal plants...
3 - We didn't start measuring global atmospheric concentrations of co2 until 1958. Coincidentally, it was the same then as it is now; 0.04% (400ppm), any figure beyond that is purely assumption, and we know what they say about assumptions... It's "estimated" that humans contribute less than 10% of that 0.04% (majority is created naturally). It's not a pollutant, it's essential to life. without it, there would be no photosynthesis, no "green" plant life. No plants to absorb co2 and produce oxygen... And here's the real kicker, that 0.04% is 1/3rd of the ideal co2 required for flora growth/survival.
To claim that there's too much co2 would be akin to depriving you of oxygen to the point of asphyxiation, near death, then arguing that you're using too much oxygen...
The climate is an ever changing process/cycle based on numerous factors, well beyond our control or understanding. It will always find a balance to suit itself (not us). So it seems a bit presumptuous to think we as mankind, with our limited presence, limited understanding, and limited impact, can have any major negative impact on a world that has survived far worse than than us...
4 - creationism/Bible? are we discussing science or religion now? While the two aren't mutually exclusive as some would claim, that is an entirely different topic/debate. Attempting to use one to disprove and/or criticize the other is, quite frankly, a waste of time and nothing more than a means to twist a logical argument into an emotional one...
5 - Popularity/more advocation of an idea doesn't make it right (a problem people are becoming acutely aware of in modern society), is just make a whole lotta people wrong... And while in itself, that's not a problem, and is to be expected (as history has proven on numerous occasions), If does become a problem when those ideals are forced on a society
forced acceptance of ideas impedes science and discovery. For hundreds of years the idea that the world was flat was a "popular" idea, and anyone who dared to challenge it was considered an outcast. In other words, society and science was limited by that false idea.
and indeed, many of our greatest achievements/discoveries; powered/heavier than air flight, breaking the sound barrier, space flight, etc. were not achieved by mainstream science, but by "outcasts", who dared to challenge popular belief...
In conclusion, perhaps people should quit wasting effort on trying to change the universe to suit us, and instead learn how to adapt to it...
1. I am using earthquakes as an analogy to demonstrate how counterproductive it is to cling to old outdated beliefs. I'm not sure why this is even a point your criticizing.
2. We don't just know what the world temperature was like during the 19th century. That was simply the time people actually collected that data in real time as it was happening. We know what the Earth's temperature was like millions of years ago. By studying the chemical and structural signatures of rocks, fossils, and crystals, ocean sediments, fossilized reefs, tree rings, and ice cores. Based on all the archeological evidence, it took around 5,000 years for the year to heat up to 5 degrees Celsius. This event happened about 12,000 years ago. From the 20th century to the 21st century, the Earth has warmed up 1.5 degrees Celsius. What should take more then a thousand years, we did that in only a hundred years. That is not normal, that is not as you put it a "ever changing process/cycle based on numerous factors, well beyond our control or understanding. It will always find a balance to suit itself". The Earth had thousand of years to adapt to the previous climate fluctuations. This is not the case now and that is why you are seeing so many ecosystems dying out. The Earth doesn't have enough time to adapt to it's hotter temperature.
3. Just several months ago in May of this year (during one of the hottest Summers in observable human history) an instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii recorded the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there has exceeded 400 ppm for the first time in 55 years of measurement and more than 3 million years of Earth history. The sea level also rose 0.11 inches this year and the Antarctic sea ice extent for fell below the previous record low for this date by nearly twice the size of Texas.
4. Again, I am using creationism as an analogy to demonstrate the folly in clinging to old outdated beliefs despite the observable evidence right in front of them proving them wrong. I find it interesting that you think you're arguing logically when your denying decades worth of science. I think you're arguing emotionally, as the older generation usually does. They tend to cling to their beliefs and refuse to accept newer and better ideas based on emotion, based on a misplaced fondness for the past. The desire for things to be the way they were and stay that way forever. Despite time marching forward.
5. Popularity isn't the appropriate word to describe it. It is a consensus. Consensus is what scientific agreement is based on. It's not enough to simply conduct one experiment and come to a hard conclusion. For something to become a consensus, it has to be the theory that has the most observable evidence backing it up. Science is not based on popularity, it's based on physical evidence that we can see with our own eyes and gathering data from it. The science of climate change has withstood the test of time and all the criticism it's gotten in the decades since it's been theorized. And since both the late 20th century and early 21st it's become undeniable. We know for a fact that the Earth's temperature is rising at an abnormally accelerated rate. That's not even up for debate anymore. To deny that is to deny all logic and reason. Denying almost a hundred years worth of data.
Your flat Earth analogy doesn't hold much water considering that science as we know it today didn't even exist during the era of widespread Flat Earth beliefs. In actuality, the advent of scientific methods is what disproved flat Earth theory and other incorrect geological and astronomical beliefs. It was the religious conservatives who valued feudalism and theocracy who were a part of the Reformation movement that pushed flat Earth beliefs on the populace and cast out astronomers like Galileo. Who by the way, is considered to be the father of the modern scientific method along with Sir Francis Bacon.
Nobody is forcing acceptance on you. If time proves climate change wrong then it will. Simultaneously, we can't ignore what we do know to be true right now as of today. We can't ignore the data that we've collected. You obviously don't think that CO 2 is the cause of climate change. Fine, believe what you want. However their is undeniably, some sort of problem with Earth's climate. It has been getting warmer in an unprecedented, alarming rate that we have never seen before in both observable human history and geological history. That is a problem and it needs to be addressed. Denying it is 100% counterproductive and illogical.
Reformation movement that pushed flat Earth beliefs on the populace and cast out astronomers like Galileo. Who by the way, is considered to be the father of the modern scientific method along with Sir Francis Bacon.
And both devout Christians as well
So much for your anti-religious (clinging on to old beliefs) sentiments... 🤔
an instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii recorded the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there has exceeded 400 ppm
Carbon dioxide concentrations are higher above an active volcano? gee... who woulda thunk? Being that the 1980 Mount St Helens eruption produced an estimated 10,000,000 tons of co2, I'm sure there is no correlation between volcanos and co2 emissions... 🤔
By studying the chemical and structural signatures of rocks, fossils, and crystals, ocean sediments, fossilized reefs, tree rings, and ice cores
actually, according to ice cores. Co2 levels have fallen in; there is less oxygen in the atmosphere than there was in the past.
Dendrochronology only dates back about 6,000 (coincidentally, about the same time of the Biblical flood, but we won't go there...), and it tells us there have been numerous periods of both increased growth and reduced growth in the past, they don't however, record temperatures... As far as dating things, Dendrochronology is the only somewhat accurate method.
On the other hand, carbon dating only works when age is "assumed", and is contingent on consistent atmospheric conditions (carbon14 is created via reactions between solar radiation and nitrogen). So using carbon dating to "prove" global warming is basically a catch 22...
miniscule fluctuations in temperature could more likely be attributed to solar activity, to which, according to all those satellites we have floating around, has been burning "hotter" in recent decades. I'm not one of those greenies that are so naive to think a big ball of burning fusion a million times the size of Earth has no impact on the temperature... 🤔
Hypothetically speaking, we could be on the verge of decreased solar activity and/or increased volcanic activity, both of which are known to happen and could potentially drastically reduce global temperatures for several years; and neither of which we have any control over.
Such an event would surely put a wrinkle in the current global warming model... 🤔
@wildbill83 Yes they were Christians....who were publicly shamed and humiliated by other Christians in higher places of power for thinking outside of conservative values. I fail to see your point and I'm not even sure why you continue to discuss religion.
I see that you're assuming this instrument must be literally hanging over an active volcano. If volcano disruption has skewed the readings then how is it that we haven't gotten a measurement like this in 55 years? That's a lot of time for volcanos to skew our readings isn't it? It's almost like scientists takes these kinds of things into account when they record their data. Because they do.
Your cherry picking ice core data to push your narrative. The amount of CO 2 and oxygen varies specifically on what the actual date is and geological era the sample is taken from. The levels of oxygen and carbon go up and down based on the era. Here is a chart depicting the measurement of ice core data that comes from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center measuring emissions across a timespan of 8000,000 years. This by the way, includes the last ice age we had in it's data. You will note how fast and quickly the emissions rise as soon as we hit the modern era. At a rate NEVER seen before in the geological timeline.
To say that "miniscule fluctuations in temperature could more likely be attributed to solar activity" is completely your own conjecture. You don't know that at all whatsoever. Scientists again, have taken this into account already when they record their data. You seem to think that you're the only one in the room who has thought of this being a variable in the data collection process.
Those radiological assumptions are based on physical and observable evidence. If you're so skeptical of it then what is your alternative to modern day advances in Radiology and Dendrochronology? Do you have a better solution? The Bible perhaps? Please don't ignore this point, tell me what your better alternative to these methods are. The so called inaccuracies of radiogeneic dating don’t discredit the technique itself because every technique we use was calibrated against each other and found to be acceptable within statistical error under the best of given circumstances. The margin of error is minor. We have tested this again and again on objects that WE DO KNOW THE DATE OF. We know for a fact that the calibration error is minor because we have tested it again and again and again. Which is why we still use it. And as time goes on and has gone on, the margin of error becomes smaller and smaller as technology advances.
You seem to think that because science isn't perfect 100% of time. It isn't reliable at all whatsoever and use that way of thinking to justify your own worldview. The scientific consensus is....that climate change is very real. To go against global warming is to go against over half a century of data and experiments involving observable evidence. Climate change deniers have no peer reviewed academic evidence from the scientific community itself. It's all hearsay and only relies on emotion instead of facts. You're not much better then a conspiracy theorist. It's good to be skeptical but there's a difference between skepticism and downright denying what you're seeing in front of you because it doesn't fit your worldview.
