/sci/ - Science & Math

Oh look, another one of these retarded threads. Looks like the deniers got BTFO in the last one and decided to try again with the same old arguments that have been refuted time and again. How long before they unironically cite Beck and Jaworowski in here, and start cuntpasting altered quotes from WUWT?

>>8875645
>There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past.
So are you denying that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, or that higher temperatures result in more water vapor in the atmosphere? Because both are easily proven true.
Or are you subscribing to Lindzen's "iris hypothesis" about clouds, which has literally no evidence whatsoever to support it?
>It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.
pls explain Snowball Earth events then.

>>8875714
nice falseflag, falsefag

>>8875708
the consensus isn't the opinions of scientists, but rather the conclusions of studies. deniers seem to be locked in to this false idea that the consensus spoken of is just a popularity contest...which it's not.

>>8754623
>It doesn't matter how much meme science you're able to fund if ISIS can gun you down in the street or run over crowds of people with trucks like they can in Europe.
>implying that the military protects against terrorist attacks

>>8714687
>Beck adamantly stated that there was no such thing as a global "background" CO2 level.
well if he said so and he really meant it, it MUST be true!
don't you think it's at all suspicious that we simply stopped seeing really high CO2 levels right around the same time that we started using reliable measurement techniques instead of open-flask methods that allowed ambient air to freely mix with the sample?

>>8714723
>let's take stomatal density proxies from a bunch of different studies focusing on isolated temperate localities and stitch them together
>and let's compare them to a direct record of Antarctic CO2
it's almost as though CO2 levels are significantly lower over Antarctica than in the temperate zones...
the issue of comparing apples and oranges aside, there's another problem; CO2 concentrations aren't the only factor affecting stomatal density. aridity stress can and does also change stomatal density, but none of the referenced papers account for it.

>>8714753
>I don't understand this therefore it's wrong

>>8714778
>Notice that CO2 has only a couple of narrow bumps. Outside of that range, it is IMPOSSIBLE for CO2 to absorb electromagnetic radiation.
not strictly true.

>>8715182
congratulations, that's the same picture taken by two different satellites. what does that prove? that the planet has clouds on it?

>>8432438
>I'm unfamiliar with the concept of near-equilibrium
okay then buddy

>Wake me up the next time we have an impact that leaves a crater 1/4 the size of the Gulf of Mexico, or we have volcanoes flooding over 10^6 square miles with basalt. Then tell me what you think is causing the warming.
And despite none of those happening, we're seeing the kind of rapid warming that would normally require some major forcing to occur. Which kind of raises the question of what's causing it, if not the sudden increase in atmospheric CO2 etc.
Regardless, your argument was that sudden climatic changes (beyond what the usual negative feedbacks can accommodate) are impossible because they've never happened...and the fact that they HAVE happened kind of throws a wrench into that claim.

>>8124196
>throw chocolate milk into sink
>get b&

>throw mayonnaise into sink
>nobody cares

???

>>7917015
>what is this, a meme graph for ants?
>oh look, another graph showing models overestimating warming starting at 1991
still haven't met a denier, apparently, who's actually heard of Pinatubo

>>7917336
>green energy startup fails
>therefore it's all an alarmist plot to take your shekels
the punch line is that the stimulus program that funded Solyndra has actually been pretty successful, but the deniers love to harp on one startup that kerploded.