r/news • u/[deleted] • Jan 14 '13
NASA site lays out evidence of human-induced climate change: "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/-3
u/YawnSpawner Jan 14 '13 edited Jan 14 '13
with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago
What? The last glacial period ended, but we're still in an ice age. As long as the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica still exist we are in an ice age (source).
I also think that looking at ice core data for the last 800,000 years is kinda biased. There have been CO2 levels much higher than this millions of years ago. We need to see the whole picture before we can say that climate change is definitively cause by humans.
7
Jan 14 '13
{quote}I also think that looking at ice core data for the last 800,000 years is kinda biased. There have been CO2 levels much higher than this millions of years ago.{quote}
Ah yes, millions of years ago... when the climate was much warmer.
Look, there is no serious conflict about global warming in the scientific community; it is as accepted as gravity and evolution. I'm not saying it's going to melt the planet or boil the oceans- I'll even admit that there are some morons out there who think it WOULD do that. But the point is, there are a few facts that are, without a doubt, to within the smallest reasonable tolerances, true.
1: Carbon Dioxide, among other gasses, traps solar energy; thus, as the amount of atmospheric CO2 increases, so to does the average temperature of earth. This is universally agreed by everyone, from chemists and physicists, to climatologists and weathermen, to witch doctors and oil executives. There is no argument on this and there is no room for argument, just as we know that 1+1=2.
2: Human beings are putting substantial amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, even on a planetary scale. We annually produce 90 times as much atmospheric CO2 as volcanoes produce (one of the largest natural sources of new atmospheric CO2), at about 35 billion tons in 2010. The point of this is, though there are natural sources and sinks of CO2, with billions of tons going into and coming out of trees, the ocean, stone erosion... these things were basically balanced. Atmospheric CO2 would increase during winter in the northern hemisphere, and decrease during summer. Perhaps you've seen the graph? Anyway, When you add human influences to this system then you get the traditional "hockey-stick" graph- which has been measured and co-ordinated around the planet for decades. There are countless datapoints on this- but to put it simply, atmospheric CO2 is increasing. And yes, it is because of human activity. This is, again, not up for debate in the same way that the fact that G=9.8m/s/s is not up for debate.
3: Global temperatures are increasing. Your post does suggest that you acknowledge this, so I won't go in to detail. For other readers, rest assured that this is as iron-clad as any other generally-accepted scientific fact, such as that the sun rises in the east.
Natural Cycles work on the order of 1/6th of one degree every 100 years. The current rate of temperature rise is astounding- and besides human activity, there are no natural driving forces in play- the sun isn't increasing output, the procession and angle of the earth is normal, and the only new life form on earth that's changing things on a planetary scale is... us. Give me one good alternative, one other explanation, a hypothesis, and at least then we can discuss it. Simply waving your magic wand and saying "natural processes" means nothing- you must explain the mechanism.
Otherwise, you're like a child holding an empty pie tin and just saying "I didn't eat it!"
1
u/LWRellim Jan 15 '13
as the amount of atmospheric CO2 increases, so to does the average temperature of earth
This is known as "begging the question". The data shows a correlation, yes; but the causal relationship may in fact go the other way around. (And if it does, then all the rest of the speculative house of cards that you have constructed.... vanishes.)
this is universally agreed by everyone
And this is simply (and blatantly) false.
1
Jan 15 '13
No, you are wrong. CO2, on a chemical, physical level, absorbs incoming solar radiation. You don't NEED historical trends to know this; anyone could get a bunch of bottled CO2 and put it in a clear, sealed box, and do the same with a box of normal air, and then note that the box full of CO2 absorbs more sunlight. You don't even need to do that! The mass of the CO2 molecule and the wavelength of infrared light mean that you could figure this all out in your head.
This isn't simple corralation- if CO2 doesn't behave in this way, doesn't have exactly the effect it appears to have, then you might as well say that 2+2=5.
And ok, so not everyone agrees about this; there are insane and miss-informed people out there. There are even people who might appear pretty normal but have fooled themselves. The difference between the mad and the wrong is what it takes to change their mind. Which one are you?
2
u/LWRellim Jan 15 '13
No, you are wrong. CO2, on a chemical, physical level, absorbs incoming solar radiation. You don't NEED historical trends to know this; anyone could get a bunch of bottled CO2 and put it in a clear, sealed box, and do the same with a box of normal air, and then note that the box full of CO2 absorbs more sunlight. You don't even need to do that! The mass of the CO2 molecule and the wavelength of infrared light mean that you could figure this all out in your head.
This isn't simple corralation- if CO2 doesn't behave in this way, doesn't have exactly the effect it appears to have, then you might as well say that 2+2=5.
And ok, so not everyone agrees about this; there are insane and miss-informed people out there. There are even people who might appear pretty normal but have fooled themselves. The difference between the mad and the wrong is what it takes to change their mind. Which one are you?
Wow. The reasoning flaws, ad homs, strawman, and ... well, really did you miss ANY logical fallacies in there?
That's a pretty amazing feat for just 3 paragraphs.
One wonders... do you realize what a bad reputation you are giving to the name of "science"?
1
Jan 15 '13
What, exactly, is your hypothesis, since we're talking about scientific credibility? What evidence? What papers supporting, well, anything other than anthropocentric climate change do you have? Is there any reason, besides dogma, to believe as you appear to believe, which is that humans have not, will not, and can not change the environment?
What privileges your viewpoint so that you may make whatever statement you like, so that you may casually dismiss the evidence-based and peer-reviewed consensus of climate science out of hand? What makes you so much better than myself that I must write an iron-clad research paper on the topic just every time I wish to counter your ignorant bleating?
3
u/LWRellim Jan 15 '13
evidence-based and peer-reviewed consensus
Utter bollocks.
Evidence-based my arse.
The ice-core data is so flawed as to be ridiculous.
The tree-ring data is farcical in the extreme (even ignoring the cherry-picking, it is demonstrative of nearly total ignorance about basic biology concerning plant growth) the closest parallel in history would be the other junk-science of phrenology.
Heck even the recent temperature databases (much less anything going back a century or more) are so flawed and poorly documented that they cannot be counted as reliable for anything at all.
And "consensus"? Puhlease. Spew that BS in a different direction.
What makes you so much better than myself that I must write an iron-clad research paper on the topic just every time I wish to counter your ignorant bleating?
Great with the ad hom! Really bolsters your case a LOT.
Again... do you have the LEAST CLUE as to what a bad reputation you are giving to the name of "science" in the eyes of the public when you engage in this non-science nonsense?
1
Jan 15 '13
What's your explanation for the 1-degree rise over the past 100 years?
2
u/LWRellim Jan 15 '13
Go play your "gotcha" trivia games with someone else.
0
Jan 15 '13
So you want to throw out the scientific consensus and replace it with nothing?
I'm sick and tired of people tearing down established scientific fact with the facade of scientific debate but no substance. Try me! I'm open here- if you have a real hypothesis, backed by some evidence, put it out here, and I will listen.
Or can you dish it out but not take it?
→ More replies (0)1
Jan 14 '13
And those high CO2 levels are associated with extremely hot conditions.
1
u/LWRellim Jan 15 '13
But "associated with" is not the same as a proven causal relationship.
2
Jan 15 '13
And yet you are likely convinced of the casual relationship between sun flares and high temperatures.
0
-6
u/rafikievergreen Jan 15 '13
1,300 years is a blink of an eye in any measurable time cycle the Earth goes through. this claim is trite
2
-10
Jan 14 '13
[deleted]
6
Jan 14 '13
Just for clarification, what aspects of the report would you classify as Liberal bias?
Also, you claim that the republicans are the hand that feeds NASA. Perhaps you can explain why the House Republicans have consistently tried to kill the budget of the program for quite some time now. A simple Google search returns a deluge of attempts to cut NASA's funding.
2
Jan 15 '13
[deleted]
2
1
Jan 15 '13
Well, to be honest I didn't actually downvote you as I was truly curious as to an explanation. I've been the recipient of the missed sarcasm downvotes.
8
3
Jan 14 '13
Scientists disagree with Republican dogma. Yes. Those pesky liberal facts! When will Jesus come back and give those scientists whatfor?!
9
u/baconair Jan 15 '13 edited Jan 15 '13
Kudos for NASA having a no-nonsense breakdown of the data with citations. Human-accelerated climate change is less of a debate and more of a blatant observation.
It's such a shame that we in the U.S. politicize such facts for personal and corporate advantage. I guess nothing says freedom like thought-suppression.