/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15340260

>>10213886
>Human induced climate change is real
>It just doesn't fucking matter in the slightest compared to climate change induced by the Planet itself and the motherfucking sun
Natural forcings take tens of thousands to millions of years to cause major climate changes. We're seeing significant changes in decades. This is like blaming a speeding ticket on continental drift. Also, the evidence connecting human activity to climate change isn't merely correlative - It's possible to determine how much of the change is due to each source.

>>10213888
>Here, have a graph that doesn't use retarded shit like atmospheric temperature readings and that it goes back further than the 1850's
You might want to look a bit more closely at the image.
First, Greenland isn't the whole planet. If you look at any of the proper reconstructions (eg Marcott) they'll use data collected for several different locations.
Second, that graph ends in 1855. All of the warming we're concerned about has happened off the right edge of that graph.

>>10213948
The net increase is one apple.
Mary gave two apples.
Mary is responsible for 2 / 1 = 200% of the increase.

>>10213955
>what you really mean is that human emissions are more than 100% of the recorded rise in co2 levels
That's effectively what I said:
>Humans are responsible for >100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

>>10184827
>The anthropogenics are complex and involve so much more than Co2.
CO2 is by far the dominant forcing. See pic.

>The tracking of Co2 to mean temperature has been shown within this thread to not rely on man caused sources.
What is that even supposed to mean? Of course naturally emitted CO2 impacts the climate in the same way as human-emitted CO2.

>Any model may be biased politically or otherwise.
So you're just going to ignore the models that say things you don't want to hear.

>>10110337
>Climate change is the sum of both global warming effects, such as CO2 increasing the greenhouse effect, and global cooling effects, such as dimming from particulate pollution, and there is a net warming effect.
I'm aware of that, but >>10109119 was pretty obviously referring to the "coming ice age!" news headlines from the 70's, not the existence of negative forcings.

>>10089550
>Another Vostok ice core chart clearly shows that CO2 concentration typically lags temperature in nature, and not the reverse.
Yes, because on the timescale shown in icecores CO2 is a feedback mechanism, and the forcings are things like changes in the Earth's axis and orbit.
On human civilisations timescales the feedback from CO2 is negligible, and it's human emissions which is the dominant forcing.

>If CO2 were as potent a greenhouse gas as the IPCC would have you believe
We can directly resume the strength of the greenhouse effect, and how much of it is due to CO2.

>this in and of itself would have set the Earth on the path to runaway warming long before humanity ever emerged to worry over it - Temperature goes up -> CO2 is released -> Temperature continues to climb -> repeat ad infinitum.
"Positive feedback" doesn't imply >1 gain. Plenty of feedbacks in nature (including climatology) amplify changes without triggering a "runaway".

>>9957024
>Can't we just admit that <absolute horseshit>
No, because that would be dumb.

>Carbon dioxide is not really that bad a greenhouse effect
Where do you even find this crap from? Carbon dioxide is by far the dominant cause of the current warming. The only more effective greenhouse gas is water vapour, which is held in tight equilibrium by the water cycle.

>Does nobody find it odd that both are marked for 100 years
You've got it backwards. People don't predict that X will happen after a hundred years, they use "100 years" as an interval when they make a set of predictions about X in the future. Global warming is a trend, not an event.

>>9957093
>>per capita emissions.
>Cmon son
Per-captita is the obvious metric for discussing emissions. Comparing the total emissions of two countries when one has ten times as meany people as the other is absurd. To put it a different way: do you think that Kuwait is "greener" than France?

>>9681509
>The Earth was warmer before Industrial Revolution.
The Earth's current temperature likely exceeds any temperature reached for several thousand years.

>It's just Earth natural cycle.
The current warming is both much faster than any known natural cycle, and has no visible natural cause. On the other hand, things like stratospheric cooling and atmospheric carbon isotope balance STRONGLY point to human activity as a cause.

>CO2 has nothing to do with it.
We can measure the radiative forcing due to CO2.

>It's just fluctuations of Sun activity.
We can also directly measure the isolation from the Sun.