New Proof of Human Effect on Climate Change.

[Agathon]

It certainly is an answer. If the other models don't fit, but one does, what other conclusion is one to make?

That it's a liberal conspiracy and the traitorous scientists are in league with Osama Bin Laden?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


It certainly is an answer. If the other models don't fit, but one does, what other conclusion is one to make?

Only if they can demonstrate they've considered all possible models, which could be tricky.

This is physics, not math. Strict proofs aren't on the menu.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It certainly is an answer. If the other models don't fit, but one does, what other conclusion is one to make?

I was asking how they didn't fit! They're answering me by saying that they don't fit! It's circular reasoning!

I pointed out that the article is short on actual facts - I was hoping someone had a link to the actual scientific publication.

[Fake Boris]

Kuci, that would be surprising, as academic studies are often published in expensive publications.

[Kuciwalker]

If someone has the name of the study, then I can probably access it through my school's subscriptions to various online databases.

EDIT: actually, all I need are the names, which are in the article. w00t

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If someone has the name of the study, then I can probably access it through my school's subscriptions to various online databases.

EDIT: actually, all I need are the names, which are in the article. w00t

You lucky SOB, I wish I had that in my high school.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Kuci, regardless of this particular study, it is well established that humans have had an enormous effect on environmental change in the past 200,000 years.

Look at the midwest. Look at the absense of mega fauna in North America. Look at the Arizona desert. Look at ancient Mesopotamia. If you're not familiar with what has happened in these areas, then clearly you're not up to date on what the ecological and archaeological record has proven humans to be capable of.

This doesn't in itself prove that this study is correct, but in light of history, it sure seems pretty likely... especially now that we've been spewing crap into the atmosphere for about 200 years or so.

[Fake Boris]

I find it funny that some people are still arguing that greenhouse effect gases don't have a greenhouse effect.

[Kuciwalker]

Unfortunately, the most recent publications I can find by a Tim Barnett are from January of 2004

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I find it funny that some people are still arguing that greenhouse effect gases don't have a greenhouse effect.

Again, the only thing in the entire thread that I've said is that the article is very low on facts and justification.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I was asking how they didn't fit! They're answering me by saying that they don't fit! It's circular reasoning!

You were doing so with the tone of "yeah, right." Not very scientifically-minded.

I pointed out that the article is short on actual facts - I was hoping someone had a link to the actual scientific publication.

If you had read the article carefully, you'd see how it said the study has not been published yet.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Kuci, regardless of this particular study, it is well established that humans have had an enormous effect on environmental change in the past 200,000 years.

Look at the midwest. Look at the absense of mega fauna in North America. Look at the Arizona desert. If you're not familiar with what has happened in these areas, then clearly you're not up to date on what the ecological and archaeological record has proven humans to be capable of.

This doesn't in itself prove that this study is correct, but in light of history, it sure seems pretty likely... especially now that we've been spewing crap into the atmosphere for about 200 years or so.

'well established' only extends back a few tens of thousands of years at most. The role of humans in the extinction of mega fauna in north america is still hotly debated.

[Kuciwalker]

btw, that the article comes to what is a correct conclusion does not somehow defend its argument. I could argue that the force of gravity decreases with the square of the distance because 1+1=2, but that would be a rather poor argument despite its correct conclusion.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Geronimo

The role of humans in the extinction of mega fauna in north america is still hotly debated.

The hell if it is; the people who think it was climate need to get a brain, the megafauna survived many previous glacials. that they disappear the same time people arrive is too much to be coincidence. I think these people just don't want to put the myth of the noble savage at one with nature to rest.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Geronimo


'well established' only extends back a few tens of thousands of years at most. The role of humans in the extinction of mega fauna in north america is still hotly debated.

Its hotly debated whether or not humans were solely responsible for it. But its pretty established that we played a huge role in it. The archaeological record supports this.

But as far as the rest, we know that humans drastically alter every ecological niche that we enter. Its not always for the worse, but it certainly doesn't exclude negative changes either.