- Jul 30, 2018
No, there's a good point to it, actually.I'm pretty sure you could have easily made this post and your point without all the abuse.
First I was responding to your seeming assumption that all of this started with "that asshole Al Gore".Tyndall had fuck all data or temperature measurement equipment worth talking about at his disposal in 1925 and neither had Lotka the statistician(?!). They also lacked all the satellites we use today and much of the the ice core data. They knew fuck all.
But to repeat, Tyndall in 1859 had the insight, and it has proven correct, that gases present in tiny proportions in the atmosphere were key to maintaining temperature.
Just 30 years later the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius built on his work, coined the term "Greenhouse effect”, and calculated the relationship between changes in CO₂ levels and atmospheric temperature with an accuracy that in retrospect is astonishing (his calculations are thoroughly borne out by the later geological rock data and the six different ice core data of 2009 etc.).
And Lotka was not only a statistician, he was also a mathematician and physical chemist, interested in his world as scientists are, working in fields including population dynamics and energetics.
I mentioned him, because back in 1925 he was talking about industrial exploitation changing the impact of the carbon cycle, releasing in decades carbon which had been laid down over millions of years, seriously disturbing the environmental balance.
Now I know this is hard for a 15 year old know-it-all like yourself to grasp, but these great men of science knew a lot more about their world and its nature than you ever will with all your spreadsheets of inanimate "data" downloaded from climate denier websites, that you don't properly understand the significance of. (And they certainly would not descend on some anomalous data (GISP2) with the kind of sentiment, and intent that you swoop on it. )
And actually the phenomena we want to talk about are not in fact understandable by notions of simple cause and effect, determinism, and reductionist approaches.
Ah, more dastardly conspiracies substituted for adequate understanding of how the world actually works.Even the "climate change" evangelists themselves have dropped the term "global warming" like a hot potato at this stage due to their warming models contradicting actual measured data undermining even that very basic prediction. Get with the program!!
"Climate change" on the other hand can cover a rise or a fall in temperature, it can never be argued with as it is suitably nebulous and a catch all for whatever the climate ever decides to do. Perfect for use in a propaganda campaign.
Ok so the massively overwhelming consensus of peer reviewed scientists is that human activity is accelerating warming. But it is a separate question bringing this scientific knowledge to the layman in a way they can grasp.
Now no real scientist worth their salt thought that the world would linearly heat up. That is not how complex systems behave. Rather, complex systems exhibit unstable behaviour before jumping to a new equilibrium.
The problem is that this type of thinking is beyond the layman. - In climate systems we are in fact dealing with a system that is (a) so complex as to be indescribable, (b) so complex as to be not deterministic but probabilistic, (c) any system that reaches this level of complexity becomes self-organising based on numerous feedbacks.
So linear predictable behaviour goes clean out the window. But this is the way the vast majority of people think, and they are incapable of thinking in other terms that are the terms appropriate to the analysis of climate systems.
Sure the terminology used to communicate with the public may have changed. But this does not change the central theses of warming occurring with rising CO2 levels, and the significance of the human contributions in accelerating this process.
That might well be one of the very dumbest things I have ever encountered in this "debate".The carbon tax is not addressing water vapor which can be up to 4% of the atmosphere it is addressing CO2 which constitutes only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Yeah, your essential instinct is to blame theOh, and if you are really concerned about climate change you'd be better served staunching the greenhouse gases spewing from Israeli F35s attacking Syria or pouring from the mouth of liars like Netanyahu, or working to help prevent an Israel stoked war with Iran (which will definitely produce a huge excess of greenhouse gases as the oil wells burn) rather than backing pointless carbon taxes on impoverished paddies in rural Ireland!