@Ponderable saidhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/21/we-teach-kids-only-half-the-scientific-method/
So to clear up a few points:
* a scientific theory is not idle speculation
* a scientific theory needs to explain all (or at leats the vast majority) of observations.
* scientific theory needs to be able to forecast the result of experiments succesfully.
* any scientific theory needs to be formulated thus that it can be falsified.
* nay scientific theory will vanish if a better (simpler, explains also seldom results, ...) theory comes up.
@Metal-Brain
You really know how to pick them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
A blog instigated by a climate change denier, yep, REAL authentic and unbiased.
@sonhouse saidIn other words, you failed to prove it wrong.
@Metal-Brain
You really know how to pick them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
A blog instigated by a climate change denier, yep, REAL authentic and unbiased.
@Metal-Brain saidFairies and elves live at the bottom of the pond in my garden. Prove me wrong.
In other words, you failed to prove it wrong.
@moonbus saidSure, but you have to allow me to follow through with the complete scientific method. Are you willing to live up to that reasonable standard?
Fairies and elves live at the bottom of the pond in my garden. Prove me wrong.
The ice core samples proved that temps cause CO2 levels to rise, not the other way around. Why do you claim CO2 causes warming without evidence? Did you complete the scientific method? Nope.
@sonhouse
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
@Metal-Brain
Here is the answer to that charge: Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/#:~:text=The%20data%2C%20covering%20the%20end,as%20much%20as%201%2C400%20years.
@sonhouse saidAre you claiming the Journal Nature is wrong?
@Metal-Brain
Here is the answer to that charge: Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/#:~:text=The%20data%2C%20covering%20the%20end,as%20much%20as%201%2C400%20years.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
@Metal-Brain
I gather you didn't bother to read the SA article which explains WHY it LOOKED like temp rise came first.
But I have no doubt even if you did read it which I doubt you ever will but suppose by some mysterious chance you do the goalpost will just be moved and a new article by Bratfart of some other ultrarightwingnut job will come out.
@sonhouse saidSo SA trumps the most respected science journal in the world? You are an idiot.
@Metal-Brain
I gather you didn't bother to read the SA article which explains WHY it LOOKED like temp rise came first.
But I have no doubt even if you did read it which I doubt you ever will but suppose by some mysterious chance you do the goalpost will just be moved and a new article by Bratfart of some other ultrarightwingnut job will come out.
You do not respect science. Your political bias rejects science.
@sonhouse saidLooks like some Simple Simons don't realize that Scientific American only prints articles about papers published sometime earlier in peer-reviewed academic journals. In the case of the Scientific American article you link to, I note that it reports on findings published originally in Science, a peer-reviewed academic journal of high repute.
@Metal-Brain
Good luck with your science PHD you must be working on.
This is an interesting bit from the article:
The wide margin of error in the EPICA core data is due to the way air gets trapped in layers of ice. Snowpack becomes progressively denser from the surface down to around 100 meters, where it forms solid ice. Scientists use air trapped in the ice to determine the CO2 levels of past climates, whereas they use the ice itself to determine temperature. But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years.
@Soothfast
Yep, but of course since Metal addled brain is SO smart he will never accept that result. Temperature ALWAYS precedes CO2, never the other way round.
@Metal-Brain saidThe evidence that increased CO2 levels cause warming is enormous and comes from many different disciplines, from geology to physics and astronomy.
Sure, but you have to allow me to follow through with the complete scientific method. Are you willing to live up to that reasonable standard?
The ice core samples proved that temps cause CO2 levels to rise, not the other way around. Why do you claim CO2 causes warming without evidence? Did you complete the scientific method? Nope.
If you want to refute a standard theory, it is not logical to use obscure historical data with multiple possible interpretations. Simple experiments can show that higher concentrations of CO2 trap heat energy from sunlight.
Also, your claim that warming causes CO2 levels to rise does not negate the opposite from also being true.