/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14673816
Statistics is an exact science, so you can give a margin of error. Which is what they did.

>>14576794
That doesn't answer my question at all. The issue is not the greenhouse effect or temperature of Earth as a whole, it's the *change* in greenhouse gases that produces the *change* in temperature. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by global temperature, so it doesn't explain how changes in temperature come about, it's just a feedback effect. If you're claiming water vapor is to blame, what caused water vapor to change?

>>12720797
Nope, we model it just fine.

>>12714991

>>12670182
You have it right.

>>12152073
>Dumb anime poster no one is denying, what people deny is that HUMAN ACTION is the greatest cause for climate change.
So you are denying the basic science of climate change. We can directly observe the human effect on greenhouse gases and their effect on temperature with radiative spectroscopy.

>To know for certain that human action is the greatest cause of climate change we would need 2 Earths.
There is no certainty in science. Two Earths is not necessary for an empirical understanding of the climate and would not give you a perfect understanding anyway. Go back to >>>/pol/.

>>12076183
>the problem is that we don't know whether the amount produced by humans would be sufficient to trigger it
We do though. We can directly observe it and other factors and compare them. If you had done even the most basic research on the topic you're trying to discuss you would not be spouting such nonsense.

>>12037493
>Sunlight went up till the 70s explaining warming.
The increase is way too small to explain the warming. The Sun has cycled up and down in the same range for millenia without creating such massive warming, yet somehow you think it explains it now?

>Then cloud cover fell explaining the rest.
Clouds cause warming by blocking outgoing infrared radiation. Changes in cloud cover have caused cooling overall.

>>11928200
You can directly observe the warming contribution from each gas with radiative spectroscopy. Methane is a significant contributor to the warming. Your argument is empirically disproven.

>haven't read my arguments
I did. Methane emissions cause warming which increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. You are a human, so human timescales are highly significant to you.

>>11774751
>I'm another Anon who wanted an answer on why the current models, at least those who have more press, are based on CO2 instead of CH4
Huh? As far as I'm aware models take into account all greenhouse gas forcings. CO2 just happens to be the most significant at this time. This is not based on historical correlations but on actual causative mechanisms.

>>11616318
>Not including changes in the sun
Which models don't include changes in the sun?

>(by far the most important factor)
Wrong. Pic related.

>Because we are living in an unusually warm period (since before modernity) and it makes sense it'll get cold again like usual.
The warm period before modernity is called an interglacial, which began 10,000 years ago. The climate has cycled between warm interglacial and cold glacial periods for about a million years. According to this natural cycle, we should be cooling over the next tens of thousands of years into a glacial period. Instead we are rapidly warming on top of the interglacial warming, an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming. Arguing that global warming will reverse because of the natural cycle when global warming completely violates the natural cycle is idiotic.

Instead of using non-reasoning, why don't you look at what causes the natural cycle and what causes current global warming?
Here, I'll help you get started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

>Europe is where the Europeans lived and recorded things. Monkey people in other places didn't really record much.
The LIA is not known from contemporary records, which are anecdotal. It is known from various proxy records such as radiocarbon dating of plant matter.

>No.
Then your claims can be dismissed as easily as you made them.

>>11595112
>yeah but when you factor in that clouds account for 99% of greenhouse
Clouds do not account for any of the greenhouse effect since they block sunlight.

CO2's contribution to radiative forcing is directly measurable with radiative spectroscopy and is the largest source of change in temperature since the industrial revolution.

>>11325334
It's physics and chemistry, not history.
It's the good old greenhouse effect you probably already heard of.

>>11226455
you can not escape science, even if you pretend you don't believe in gravity you still can not fly by waving with your arms
greenhouse gasses just heat up the planet, it's simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTvqIijqvTg

>>11217617
methane is a greenhouse gas so yes, it is a problem

>>11184874
I hop you are getting paid for spreading this nonsense.

- deforestation means uncontrolled logging and burning forests, actually we would need to plant trees like crazy to save climate
- to stop burning coal, oil and gas is easy, just use renewable energy instead, of course it got the largest impact on climate, that' just physics and chemistry, it's undeniable
- of course you can eat vegan, you don't have to wait until everybody does

>>10776090
>Excees 02 is not trapped in the atmosphere, it creates a more favorable environment for plant growth and thus plants sequester the CO2. This is known as a buffer system.
Them why is CO2 concentration rising rapidly?

>Furthermore, the sun's activities and magnetic effect on the jetstream cause the major climate effects noted today.
Incorrect, GHG emissions alone already account for the observed warming. Solar and magnetic activity are going in the wrong direction to explain current warming.

>>10445239
>So what is the real affect of co2 increase?
You act like having things that do the same thing can't possibly mean that changing one of those things has an effect. Probably water vapor has a hard cap in the PPM and once above that cap it just rains.

>>10395483
>What percentage is caused by people?

>>8989450
First, I'm not sure but I don't think the emissions can be characterized as 'exponential'.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the way CO2 relates to temperature. Not only is the absorption behaviour logarithmic (which means that adding similar increments of concentration will give you an increasingly smaller forcing), but the new equilibrium temperature isn't reached instantaneously because of the inertia of oceans and ice sheets (meaning it takes time until we see the full warming effect of a defined increase in GHGs).
What also has to be mentioned is that CO2 is of course not the only thing that influences temperature. Not only do you have other important GHGs like CH4 and N2O who rise at different rates and have a different forcing efficacy, but you also have a significant cooling effect from aerosols and particulates, whose precise forcing is still very uncertain (aerosols could mask as much as 50% of the warming we would get with GHGs that are already in the atmosphere).

tldr: no one expects the temperature curve to perfectly follow CO2 emissions

>>8523669
>and blindly linking something and saying it says something without quoting or citing is not an argument either.
Yeah, you're so "objective" that you asked for evidence and then complained when it was presented to you, in an easily digestible form, because I didn't "cite" it. If you won't read a summary of the primary literature, why do you want it cited? So you can ignore the cite? Yes, you truly care about the facts and are not defending your insecure ideology at all!

>Can you quantify the effects of this?
Yes, see pic from AR5.

>How much faster is the climate changing? How bad would the consequences be? how fast would it increase (or not increase) if humans contributed no greenhouse gasses?
Read the report. Or just google it. If you seriously never looked for the answers to these questions by what right do you have to claim an opinion about climatology?

>>8496458
>It means you cannot predict the future based on a miniscule snippet of evidence.
No one is predicting the future on the scale in the graph you posted, so this point is nonsense.

>Humans have a negligible impact on "global warming". Your trend would've happened with or without humans.
Post your evidence for this or fuck off. Humans are responsible for all of the current warming trend observed, and there would be more warming if natural sources didn't have a net cooling effect.

>>8470191
They weren't ignored though. There are many other variables that affect the climate and they have all been studied and cannot account for the warming trend. If I'm mistaken then show me something that has been ignored by climatologists.

You keep coming up with these ridiculous caricatures of climatology. First you said it's all correlation, now you're saying it's all just a single causation. You have no idea what you're talking about. Stop posting.