muso wrote on Sep 26
th, 2013 at 8:56pm:
Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26
th, 2013 at 2:48pm:
Funny thing, I read sometime ago now that the second point (basically it is just natural and has happened for eons) is quite easily dismissed because the actual science about climate coined the term climate change to directly articulate or describe effects on climate based solely on human interaction with the environment. Whereas the naturally occurring climate fluctuations are described as climate variation.
This may be a small point, but it is IMHO at least, an important one. The definitions are important to have a reasonable debate.
By the way, just those two terms would seemingly suggest that the scientific community already acknowledge that climate naturally has some variance, however, what seems to have been the trend has been systemic changes occurring specifically since we (human's) became industrialised.
Whether it is proved or not is beyond my knowledge base and skill set to understand, but, it is concerning that the language used is not accurate at times.
You are correct. The carbon signal really only became dominant during the last 50-60 years.
There is a strong correlation (coeff. 0.86) for CO2 against temperature for that period.
The problem is that those who read the blogs seem incapable of thinking for themselves and just recite the mantra that
climate change is natural as it was in the beginning, both now, and always, world without end. Amen. (or something similar)
Dead horse - Please behave.
I've nailed this a few times but I will have to nail it again.
In the last 15 years from the 1998 more than one third of ALL that's ALL human emissions of CO2 have gone up into the atmosphere that's (440 giga tonnes).
And temperatures remain flat............?????
There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature, for those interested look at our history and you will find that CO2 and temperature have never correlated.
Forum
Pages: 
