ummmm guess what? The research is STILL in it's infancy.
Who are you to say that the research is still in its infancy? You aren't a climatologist. All of the world's major science bodies agree on the evidence and its implications. That should say enough.
Honestly if our knowlege about weather is still so limited that we can't even predict a weather patturn acceratly for a week's time? [how often is your weather man correct?]. Than I can't be expected to beleive that the science we have now is anymore up-to-date than it was all those years ago.
Haha, my 'weather-man' is very accurate. Maybe the
Bureau of Meterology does a better job than whoever is in charge of weather forecasting wherever you are.
Besides, it's
completely beside the point. Climate is not a study of day-to-day weather, it's a study of weather
trends and
characteristics.
If the Bureau of Meterology were to predict a week without rain during an El-Nino Oscillation, and it were to drizzle on one day that week, it wouldn't suddenly mean that all of our knowledge of climate science is wrong. Climate study is a study of weather
trends, and El-Nino conditions produce drier conditions- which Australia is currently suffering. Just because a forecast here and there is inaccurate does not mean that our understanding of these trends is somehow wrong. We have a very good understanding of these trends and the effects that they produce. Daily weather forecasting is a completely different ball game.
Weather prediction involves measuring the state of the atmosphere at a given time and extrapolating on the immediate future using various initial condition models. These models are good for very short ranges, but their accuracy falls quickly after that.
Climate models are the study of
long-term weather trends, and are much more accurate when used for long-term predictions as they incorporate
much more data.
Besides it just seems weird to me that those articals presented such absulute answers when they KNEW the science was incomplete. I quote from the 1975 artical "this famine should accur in the next 10 years?] They predicted their "ice age" to happen by 1985! If they TRULY weren't seeking propaganda and were REALLY trying to inform the people of the truth? they wouldn't put such absulute answers in the artical when the answers really are NOT so absulute!
Yes, they shouldn't have. As you can see, the words of the scientists of the time aren't anything like what is written in that article.
Those articals really remind me of today's message on global warming, and guess what? the science IS still incomplete! What does that mean for us? NOTHING HAS CHANGED!
We have a far better understanding of the evidence and the world's major science bodies
all agree on what this evidence means. Much has changed.
Can you actually prove that?
Yes, carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Half-lives are a constant, they do not vary.
Prove the world it over 4 trillion years old.
And give me good solid facts. Not carbon dated rocks, that are about 3,000 years old, regardless.
Strawman, carbon dating isn't used to date anything older than 50,000 years old.
It's theoretically accurate up to 50,000 years, so in hypothesis, yes. You'd be right.
But this REAL world isn't hypo-theoretical. Just like evolution. It never passed the stage of being a hypothesis, but it went against the Bible so it offered a different view on things.
Out in the real world, the laws of physics don't jump around, change and go haywire. Isotopic decay rates are constant- that's how we can accurately date materials back to those ages.
How?!
How will they rise? It's the same concept, Reanimation.
The only difference is that the ocean is a much bigger cup.
Perhaps you don't understand what an ice sheet is- it rests on
land. The Antartic ice sheet covers 98% of the continent and contains ~61% of the world's fresh water.
Nor have you taken into account the fact that saltwater is far denser than freshwater, i.e. freshwater has a greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when the
freshwater icesheets melt in
saltwater, they contribute a greater volume of meltwater than they originally displaced.