Quote:
Originally Posted by e90m305
OK it's clear you don't understand it. Please go do some research, perhaps watch the 6 min video I posted and then come back and let's continue the discussion. I say this with Empathy.
|
I'll write a longer response later, but in short... the video basically said celestial mechanics change the climate but not affect the Earth's average temperature. Yet the global warming argument is that a change (rise) in average temperature will affect the climate. The video is full of scientific gaps and is incongruent.
Nice video... for children maybe. It was nice that the video pointed out some of the celestial mechanics at work; real observations of axial precession and orbit permutation, but the video just kind of skipped over the point that both phenomenon do affect and change the climate; only stating the phenomenon (possibly) do not change the mean temperature of the Earth. So that may be possible, but as possible as much as we do not yet have enough real correlative data that show a periodic rise in carbon gas in the atmosphere will affect the mean temperature of the Earth. And this is the point, the climate prediction models are only predictions; there is not yet been one that has been validated. The supposed runaway greenhouse effect and the affect it will have on the climate is still theory. And I will still stand on that a few hundreds of years of haphazardly collected temperature data, mostly collected unscientifically until modern times and at a far greater level of sophistication and consistency than 300 years ago (and not with direct correlation to greenhouse gas presence in the atmosphere), is far too short of a time period to conclusively prove any (detrimental) climate hypothesis. And my point has always been about the concept of the "mean" temperature of the Earth. There is no "mean" temperature of the Earth, as the average always changes.
The globalwarmingclimatechangists have decided to pick an estimated "good" Earth mean temperature (theoretically calculated based on indirectly-observed historical climate data - i.e. air in 10,000 year old ice bubbles) as a starting point. This means the scientists have theoretical "good" mean temperature of the Earth and then apply theoretical climate modeling to it, which results in a theoretical estimation of what the climate will be in the future. And all of this is relative to the human species life span timetable, which is even further truncated when accounting for time past the age of enlightenment and the advent of scientific study. We are merely directly observing the climate today and can only theoretically predict backwards based on indirectly observed historical data (such as the great lakes being formed form during the last ice age glacier movement) and can only predict forward, all based on data correlated in the present (temperature vs. greenhouse gasses). The term "good" I use as that what Earth temperature is determined to support human life. So for me, the scientific study of the Earth's climate I find extremely fascinating, but at the same time I understand the level of precision is at best theoretical and not accurate enough to base political policy from. What is well understood is the fossil record shows that 99% of the species to inhabit the Earth have gone extinct. The geological record shows the Earth's climate changes and has been drastically different on parts of the globe than it is today. There is data correlation between species mass extinctions and geological events. To think that somehow the human species is exempt from or immune to extinction on this planet, that almost all the other species of life have experienced, seems a bit anti-scientific.
To further think that we are above the natural cycle and can alter it to save ourselves from extinction is really the stuff beautiful imagination; we are the natural cycle, what we do to the planet is the natural cycle. What is different is we think we understand the natural cycle, but that doesn't mean if we play with it will change the outcome. My issue is with this thought process we screw the coal miner in West Virginia, which is unfair to him and prevents the creation of his grandchildren; but isn't that the point, to save the planet for the children?