/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14581074
>there was an astrophysicist in Canada that found that his measurements of solar irradiance much more closely modeled and predicted global temperatures than the CO2 model.
Who?

>Indeed, without the historical adjustment method
No such thing.

>CO2 is an extremely poor measure of global temperature
You're an idiot. Pic related.

>>14565184
>weather and climate are chaotic
No, climate is not chaotic. Weather is chaotic because it depends on the flow of energy, which is dependent on the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere. Climate does not depend on how energy moves, but how much energy is on the atmosphere.

>how did you predict droughts?
See >>14564032

>total biomass and co2 are inversely correlated
Source? Temperature and CO2 are correlated, so what's your point?

>during ice ages co2 increases
If by "ice age" you mean glacial period then you're dead wrong. CO2 reaches its lowest point during glacial periods and highest during interglacials. The correlation is exact.

>everyone
I didn't, so you're wrong. You can't even provide a single example.

I want to see an experiment of temperature differences between two closed air systems of different C02 concentrations after a period sun / full spectrum light exposure. None of the closed system should be pure CO2 as that is not a realistic value. I want the result to show the difference in equilibrium temperature values between the two systems.

Does anybody have the results of such an experiment or a video?

>>12037152
>Feel free to double check the temperatures and CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

okay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM

>>10985371
your manipulation is not the problem

>>10763361
We really just got out of an ice age 10,000 years ago and you want to try and decrease the temperature of the planet because it is too hot?

Explain for a dummie like me why is CO2 the cause rather than the consequence

>>10332887
Surprised no has mentioned the direction of causation yet. Are gases causing the Earth to warm or is the warming Earth causing more gases to be released (since higher temperature leads to lower solubility of gases)? Pic related, CO2 usually rises AFTER temperature (I'm aware that it doesn't always, so need to give me the skepticalscience page or whatever, CO2 rise USUALLY follows temperature rise). While the order of causation probably goes both ways, with warming causing release of gases, some of these gases causing further warming, there are many other factors contributing to a warming planet. Changes in ocean circulation have been known to change temperatures drastically, it is well known that Northern hemisphere temperatures changed by between 8-12 °C during the Young Dryas. The change in Albedo (which has decreased massively in the last 12,000yr) is probably also a contributing factor.

I'm entirely for cutting emissions, fighting deforestation and ecosystem collapse, developing more renewable energy sources, and encouraging sustainable practices worldwide. What I don't like is the idea that governments should be giving a bunch of money and power to international agencies who claim they will use their power to help the world fight climate change. The very fact that they focus on CO2 emissions should be off-putting, considering the massive amounts of plastic in the ocean and deforestation worldwide are having much more disastrous effects. Focusing on CO2 allows them to control wealthy coutries primarily, while the 3rd worlders causing the brunt of ecological damage have harldy any reprecussions.

>>10118503

It doesn't even need to go that far. Once the community determined temperature tracks C02 emissions the real battle was over. Now comes the tedious and bloody process of mopping up the stragglers.

>>9889765
>Now show the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature on 10^5 - 10^6 years scale
t.brainlet
The earth's natural Milankovitch cycles kick-start a feedback loop.
It does this first by cyclically warming oceans in the southern hemisphere, which begins a feedback loop that even you've probably heard of called "the greenhouse effect."

>>9413194
nice unsourced chart, check out my unsourced chart

>>9159585

Here's the picture.

>>8675572
>pic related of graph CO2 has always come after temperature changes.

I'm mentioning Antarctica because the ice core data is from Antarctica, and thus only makes sense to compare the PPM levels in Antarctica to past PPM levels in Antarctica.

>not understanding Climate change models

In the same graph look at the temperature changes, ours has been the most stable in terms of an averaged derivate of ANY past cycle. Climate science relies on this and claims that because it's so slow now, it means that it's going to reach a much greater peak.

The homosphere isn't uniformly distributed look at NASA CO2 distribution level surface maps. If no one claims that gas isn't uniformly mixed, then how can the temperature increase of CO2 cause a global warming effect? Thus it's a necessary condition for the blanket model, which is more or less bunk consider CO2 is more dense than air.

>>8675811
>>8675709

I can't understand how you can claim to be interested in science yet so parsimonious. Going as far to claim that the cycles I mentioned don't exist, which could've been resolved with a quick google search. You've demonstrated that you don't care about truth and have no curiosity. You just care about protecting your old ideas.

You clearly don't think it's fine to question science.

>>8675482
Yeah it's bullshit. Notice how CO2 always follows temperature change, it can't be responsible.

>>8669995
I think there's something telling considering that CO2 always lags temperature changes. In that Temperature changes first, and then CO2 correlates as what appears as a response.
>pic related

All climate theories are busted when you consider they rely on "uniformly mixed gas" (known to be false by NASA studies and that CO2 is denser than air), the current predictions rely on a constant (taken from Svante Arrhenius original study) from the 1750s that assumes all CO2 from the 1750s was human produced. Not to mention that his prediction should only work for the temperature of CO2 not all air. CO2 releases energy in 5ms, and is not an insulator. This and that we're in the natural CO2 PPM levels as shown by the antarctic ice cores (Look at the current CO2 levels of Antarctica) in the past. Additionally, compared to 800,000 years of ice core data, the world temperatures have become much more stable.

>tl;dr i'm not saying don't believe in climate change, I'm just saying to question data and all climate science is shit.

>>7916111
>http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf
Taking the average of models with different randomized parameters just proves that most random parameters are wrong, not that the model is wrong. This is a very dishonest way of arguing your point. The point of climate models is not to guess how much CO2 is going to be emitted in the future or to guess natural ocean cycle variation, it's to predict the effect of these factors. If you look at projections that use correct parameters you will see that they are very accurate.

>On the ice age question, it is still heavily debated what period we are in
No, it really isn't. See pic.

>"The period we're living in is the Ice Age, basically," said geologist Philip Gibbard of the University of Cambridge in the U.K. "There is no reason to think it has finished," if history is any guide.
You must be confused, this contradicts your point, not mine.

>That factcheck.org article only refers to the emails hacked in 2009. There were more in 2010 and 2011
I don't see anything that indicates fudging of temperature data. But keep plugging away at this desperate conspiracy theory, it sure doesn't undermine your credibility.

>>7916118
>I'm arguing that man caused climate change is blown way out of proportion
Then I suggest you stop making so many false statements and learn some science before you try to argue against it.

>>7484617
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

>that chart does not correlate with temperature charts either
That depends what you mean by correlate. There are many factors that can effect temperature. In the past, changes in the Earth's orbit caused the temperature to rise, raising sea levels and releasing CO2 from the ocean, which then led to a positive feedback of warming and CO2 release. But now instead of this occurring naturally, we have rapidly releasing CO2 into the atmosphere without absorbing any. So the CO2 levels are correlated with temperature. Just not in a simple way.

>>7484636
>today methods of measuring are almost perfect, but their methods of measuring the sea level had a margin of error of up to 200mm in 1870.
I'd like to see where you got that info from. I find it hard to believe that in 1870 they had problems measuring the sea level to within half a foot.

>>7484646
The first chart spans 400,000 years while the second only spans 100 years. How do you know they don't match up?

Here watch this if you want to understand better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kcdTZ2qcB8

>>5754734
well than this graph must also be true, please take a look.

>>3146727

Note that the story is much more complicated than the graph suggests! - http://sks.to/lag

Op, have you looked at the actual data?
Well look at this graph. Notice how nicely the trends fit...except that the temperature rises before the CO2. So if you did year 10 science you would know that gases are less soluble in in warmer water, and you might come to the conclusion that perhaps the global warming causes increased CO2, not the other way around.
Look at the graph again. Notice how the temperature rises every ~100 000 years, a common occurrence perhaps??
Scientists have a lot to gain! Perhaps increased funding, (which has happened), increased interest (which has again happened)...
I would recommend you watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
That is why I am a denier of anthropogenic climate change