o00scorpion00o said:
You see I avoid these websites like skepticalscience.com a pro man made warming and those that oppose man made warming such as wattsupwith that
The hardest part of understanding any subject is finding trustworthy sources of information - you show good sense being selective.
What you might consider is that if you want a first and second opinion on open heart surgery that you would likely seek cardiac surgeons, not geologists or journalists or paid salespeople from the "anti-heart surgery guild."
Skeptical Science is not a 'pro man made warming' site - it is a science communications site run by actual published scientists that are doing this research. Compare that with Watt's site - a paid denier site run by a former meteorologist with no advanced education.
Here's climate science from climate scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/
o00scorpion00o said:
One has to research themselves and be open minded.
Having an open mind is good - but one cannot get accurate understanding from the science until one learns the language and studies the underpinning science. It CAN be done and IS done and you get plenty of kudos for doing it! But it's not a 'short attention span theatre' by any stretch.
o00scorpion00o said:
I don't disagree with the warming has taken place but I do question that man is responsible, and that man is responsible for the 400 ppm C02.
Here's a specific example of what I meant about understanding the underpinning science. Here's the thumbnail sketch on this subject as I understand it today: - nuclear science brought us understanding of isotopes - elements with different numbers of neutrons in their nucleus. We understand how carbon can gain neutrons and how long it takes for those neutrons to 'bleed off' so that carbon returns to 'normal'. We use that understanding to do carbon dating. We can see that carbon in the atmosphere - carbon bombarded with cosmic rays - is a different isotope than carbon that has been stored underground and out of reach of cosmic rays for millions of years. We can directly examine CO2 in the atmosphere and tell how much of it got there by burning fossil fuels.
- Additionally, the fossil fuel industry keeps decent records of how much they extract and sell, and power generation, steel plants, and fuel companies keep records of what they buy and sell. The second way we can track how much fossil fuel we use is direct accounting.
- The third way to track our input to increased CO2 levels is related to burning - when we burn fossil fuel it uses oxygen from the atmosphere to make CO2 - and we can track the changes in the concentration of atmospheric oxygen.
That's three completely independent ways to track our contribution - no models, no guessing - hard facts.
Here's a summary of how we know it's us from a highly regarded physicist and climate scientist:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXgDrr6qiUk[/youtube]
o00scorpion00o said:
Science can neither confirm or deny anything at this stage, but they do pay too much attention to computer models and we all know the reputation the U.K met have for predicting their warming and drought events in their long term forecast, such that now they don't give any long term forecasts, due to their computer models being very warm biased with too much C02 in the equation.
This is incorrect across the board. Science is in the business of understanding how the world works - that's what they do. There are always questions, yet they know what they know to high certainty levels. As for UK Met and warming/drought events, that's weather, not climate. Weather is outside your window today. Climate is a long term trend of at least 30 years. The UK Met models are only one of thousands of models in use around the planet - NO climate paper or report or position is based on only one model.