/sci/ - Science & Math

Responding to an obvious troll thread, but:

It's not the Sun.

>>4351424

Do you know that professor's name?

The sun is very unlikely to be causing global warming. Over the past 40 years, where we've seen the fastest rate of warming, solar output has not increased or decreased noticeably. 2010 was the hottest year on record for many different datasets, yet during that time there was a lull in solar activity.

See:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract

>>4310361

>If the sun

It isn't

>>4151101

How about measuring solar irradiance FROM THE SUN? Fuck, these deniers get stupider by the day.

>graphs are bullshit, lrn2EastAngliaCRU

Apparently you either did not read the filename, or you are unable to tell the difference between two different organizations or countries.

>>3959406

>Follow the money, fool.

The starting salary for atmospheric scientists is somewhere around 50k.

>Global warming shills constantly ignore past warming trends

Isn't that the whole point of the "hockey stick"? I can't even think of a single paleoclimatologist who tells us the past shows us that there's nothing to worry about.

>ignore solar cycles

See image.

>ignore the marginal to negligable effect of Total CO2 (of which anthro-based is an even smaller portion)

Lol recycled Heartland talking points. BTW 40% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, and overall CO2 is a powerful GHG, despite relatively small concentrations, due to it's long residency time in the atmosphere (whereas H2O rains out, CH4 breaks down, etc.), and being well-mixed throughout the atmosphere:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

>ignores the shoddy and manipulative use of surface stations & temperature proxies in their cherrypicked datasets
>Climategate

See these posts:

>>3958225
>>3958241
>>3958255
>>3958472

>ignores FOIA requests to data

I'd ignore them from these assholes too. You know McIntyre could have just e-mailed Environment Canada and asked them for the data right? Or he could compare the unadjusted and adjusted data for the GHCN and various other datasets using the magic of Google?

>>3498860

Sunspots

>>3059678

>If something about to happen for the first time ever, how can "evidence" exist that it can happen? Only mathematical and computer models.

You make a good point with the analogy to nuclear testing. We know the physical properties of greenhouse gases, and we have tested them in laboratory experiments. We know that increasing the concentration of those gases will increase the global temperature if no other forcing balances it equally. But the thing is, rapid global warming has already happened in the past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event

And of course, we are seeing global warming now, which coincides with a large increase in CO2 and other gases. We know from emissions accounting and isotopic analysis that those gases came from human sources. There is a load of other evidence that I won't get into unless someone asks.

Also the video is obviously pure bullshit. He lost credibility right at the very beginning when he cited the Oregon Petition. He cherry picks a single fucking season, the winter of 2007-2008, to show that the warming trend doesn't exist. After the video was posted, 2009 was one of the top ten hottest years in the instrumental record, and 2010 was tied with the hottest year on record. Etc etc.

>>2997761

There's no empirical evidence that the Sun is contributing to global warming significantly.

>>2979385

SkepticalScience is quite reliable as a source, and far less error-prone than, say, WattsUpWithThat. They are also quite careful to cite peer-reviewed scientific sources.

Anyway, we can look to the primary literature if you don't believe anyone. After all, you'd be a sucker if you took at face value some asshole said on 4chan.

It's not the Sun

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303.abstract

http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/articles.html?doi=10.1002%2Fwcc.18

It's not cosmic rays

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364682611000691

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041327.shtml

And it's not volcanoes (large eruptions cause global COOLING)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.76/abstract

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6341.abstract

And it's not "natural cycles" -- these (PDO, ENSO, etc.) can redistribute heat in different places, but they cannot warm up the entire planet in a sustained manner. Remember the laws of thermodynamics.

>>2966088

The C12/13 ratio of atmospheric carbon points out humanity as the emitter of excess CO2. It's us.

http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

And it wasn't volcanoes or the Sun either

>>2937215

On the contrary, it's not the mere "process of elimination." How do we know it's greenhouse gases causing global warming? For one, the measurements of outgoing longwave and downward longwave radiation, which provides direct experimental evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect. The other is the isotopic ratios of atmospheric CO2, which point to anthropogenic origin. The stratosphere is cooling, the tropopause is rising, and the ionosphere is expanding. All these are consistent with an increased greenhouse effect and inconsistent with solar or cosmic forcings.

Then after that, we take a look at the other possible forcings, and attempt to quantify them. This has been exhaustively looked at by scientists, and we haven't found anything that could match the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases that could adequately explain modern global warming.

>>2927813

Done and done

As for volcanoes.... well, large eruptions actually cool the Earth by blotting out the Sun with their sulphate particulates, and their CO2 emissions are about 100 times smaller than anthropogenic emissions

>>2595471

>As it turns out, the sun does have MUCH more of an impact on our planet than we can even dream of making

lol wat

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014006

>>2454125

>solar activity

Nope.tar.gz

>>1327793
>>1327784

Okay, returning to the subject of paleoclimate, there are a few things that stand out compared to recent trends. Based on the ice age cycles, we should be continuing a period of slight cooling followed by an ice age after a few thousand more years.

Needless to say, this trend has been interrupted. We are unable to locate a non-anthropogenic driver of this change. Not solar irradiance, or cosmic rays, or ENSO shift, or any other signal of non-anthropogenic forcings.

>>1220556

Whatever mang, just use the greasemonkey filter

>>1220565

And in return for you comments, I offer you the following:

The Fourth IPCC WG I report, in one convenient download location:

http://www.mediafire.com/?zgx0zzmizk0

An extremely frightening Scientific American article:

http://www.mediafire.com/?nttym1tjtlg

Lastly, a package of articles and other materials you can use to respond against bullshit denialist claims. The EPA report is the first thing you should look at, it's comprehensive as all fuck. Anything you've ever heard spoutted about global warming denial is rebutted in this massive report. There's also a section on Climategate which contains three of the four investigation reports and some other commentary.

http://www.mediafire.com/?0iewjqwthnj

On that note, if you find the topic of this thread too boring, I'm more than happy to reply to sincere skeptics and troll skeptics alike. BRING IT ON