Originally posted by TeinosukeWhat do you mean by the system being "stable"?
The point is, the system was stable until we started pumping man-made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Changes in the sun's intensity might be the main factor in the increases in temperature we've experienced this last few years. However, man-made global warming, even if a minor factor to date, has the potential to destabilise the system so that tempe ...[text shortened]... nhouse gases cause problems. CO2 is just the one we have most chance of doing something about.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat the temperature was experiencing continual natural fluctuation, up and down, around some kind of mean.
What do you mean by the system being "stable"?
Temperature has always varied, but always up and down, without an overall trend in one direction. Adding man-made greehouse gases will disrupt this stability and lead to a gradual but inexorable increase in average temperatures.
Originally posted by zeeblebotNothing to do with faith, and nothing to do with homeopathy. The two cases are utterly different. Homeopathy is discredited on scientific grounds by the fact that the dilutions used are so extreme that not a single molecule of the homeopathic substance remains, ergo, the homeopathic solution is identical to pure water.
so say the faithful. global warming homeopathy.
Global warming is supported on scientific grounds by the fact that the temperature rises if you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in a test tube. If you think the earth's atmosphere will behave any differently, you've parted company with the laws of physics.
not so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Dilutions
X Scale C Scale Ratio Note
Ø Ø 1:1 mother tincture [65] (undiluted)
1X — 1:10 described as low potency
2X 1C 1:100 called higher potency than 1X by homeopaths
6X 3C 10−6
8X 4C 10−8 allowable concentration of arsenic in U.S. drinking water[66]
12X 6C 10−12
Not all homeopaths advocate extremely high dilutions. Many of the early homeopaths were originally doctors and generally used lower dilutions such as "3X" or "6X", rarely going beyond "12X". The split between lower and higher dilutions followed ideological lines. Those favoring low dilutions stressed pathology and a strong link to conventional medicine, while those favoring high dilutions emphasised vital force, miasms and a spiritual interpretation of disease.[76][77] Some products with such relatively lower dilutions continue to be sold, but like their counterparts, they have not been conclusively demonstrated to have any effect beyond the placebo effect.[78][79]
Originally posted by zeeblebotnot so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Dilutions
X Scale C Scale Ratio Note
Ø Ø 1:1 mother tincture [65] (undiluted)
1X — 1:10 described as low potency
2X 1C 1:100 called higher potency than 1X by homeopaths
6X 3C 10−6
8X 4C 10−8 allowable concentration of arsenic in U.S. drinking water[66]
12X 6C 10−12
No ...[text shortened]... e not been conclusively demonstrated to have any effect beyond the placebo effect.[78][79][/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
What is this graph supposed to show? The issue is not the past, but what can be predicted about the future. The scientific logic is as follows:
1) If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in a system, the temperature increases.
2) We are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere.
3) Therefore, it can be predicted that the temperature will increase.
We don't, of course, know how fast.
Originally posted by TeinosukeUninhabitable???
The point is, the system was stable until we started pumping man-made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Changes in the sun's intensity might be the main factor in the increases in temperature we've experienced this last few years. However, man-made global warming, even if a minor factor to date, has the potential to destabilise the system so that tempe ...[text shortened]... nhouse gases cause problems. CO2 is just the one we have most chance of doing something about.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest rising CO2 levels will ever result in the planet becoming uninhabitable. I'm sure a billion years ago CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe article says solar activity has a significant impact on weather patterns, not that man's influence on the climate is insignificant.
This is why.
Small fluctuations in solar activity have a large influence on the climate.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm
Originally posted by KazetNagorraGlobal warming has happened before the industrial revolution. One such event is called the Medieval warm period. Global cooling has happened as well, such as the mini ice age. These were both caused by changes in solar activity.
The article says solar activity has a significant impact on weather patterns, not that man's influence on the climate is insignificant.
Originally posted by Metal BrainHow do you know that? People haven't been recording solar activity for very long.
Global warming has happened before the industrial revolution. One such event is called the Medieval warm period. Global cooling has happened as well, such as the mini ice age. These were both caused by changes in solar activity.
Originally posted by Metal BrainA billion years ago, the planet WAS uninhabitable (by us anyway).
Uninhabitable???
There is no scientific evidence to suggest rising CO2 levels will ever result in the planet becoming uninhabitable. I'm sure a billion years ago CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.
Originally posted by Metal BrainBut see recent article on solar output and sunspots in New Scientist no. 2764, suggesting something unusual is happening inside the sun and that output may in fact be abnormally low of late.
I still think the primary factor is the sun.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm
The medieval warm period was before the industrial revolution