/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12269386
>Over the period the sun's activity was increasing alarmists would use TSI to imply it wasn't.
What the hell are you talking about?

>Now they say solar activity is decreasing despite level TSI.
Solar activity is decreasing and so is TSI.

>CO2 alarmist hysteria all depends on ignoring what the sun is doing
How is quantifying it ignoring it?

>where the sun can only cool earth but not heat it up.
No one said that.

The retarded pseudoscientific claims and strawmen from deniers just keep getting more bizarre.

obviously we should reduce emissions

>>11600468
>As for your pic - no, of course it's not driven by humans.
Wrong. Pic related.

>Also those percentages ignores thousands of climate scientists who say they don't agree.
Source?

>>11328847
Solar forcing is basically 0.

>>10845794
>ignores that he posted a fucking fossil fuel shill
>posts some irrelevant pseudoscience celeb
This is growing pretty tiresome anon.

>>10751452
>If you don't fully understand how much we are cooling you cannot completely understand the inverse.
Sure. There are uncertainties, and the strength of aerosol cooling is one of the largest ones. That doesn't mean that everything is unknown though, just that our knowledge comes with error bars.

>>10751464
>Urban expansion and deforestation must cause a lot of change in local climate. The urban heat island effect is well documented, and is much stronger an effect in those local areas than the post-industrial amount of warming we've seen.
The UHI is a strong local effect, but the areas it affects (cites etc.) make up a tiny proportion of the Earth's surface. And deforestation seems to cause a local cooling effect. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4839769/))
There's strong reasons to be confident that the rise in global temperatures is due to the greenhouse effect.

>>10751478
>How are carbon emissions taxes on first world nations (who produce way less co2 than manufacturing hubs like india and china) going to fix the problem?
Ideally: by taking CO2 emissions from manufacturing into account.

>Shouldn't there be harsher environmental restrictions and regulations on the countries that cause the most pollution?
Taking about "causing the most pollution" while ignoring the per-capita emissions is nonsense. If I declare myself a country, is it okay for me cook my food over burning oil drums? My total emissions would still be vastly less than even the greenest of existing counties.

>>10741140
>>10741411
>Global warming isn't real because I say so!
And yet you people complain when you get called "deniers".

>>10741409
>What do you think the correlation is between climate alarmism and funding given to alarmist 'scientists'?
Fuck all, because few politicians actually want to address global warming, and the ones that do generally pay it lip-service.
Politicians are one of the least-convinced groups, and climatologists are one of the -most-convinced. Claiming the former are pressuring the latter into being "alarmist" makes no sense.

>>10592246
>but you don't know that there isn't another mechanism responsible for the warming like milankovich cycles etc
We do know that, because we can measure the frequency and intensity of the changes in downward IR: They exactly correspond to the expected changes from the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

>>10459597
>ignoring the role of other greenhouse gases and forcings
But anon CO2 is only 1.68 of total 2.29W of forcing.
So we're already at 460 ppm equivalent.
Therefore you should deduce 1.56 degrees of warming per doubling.

>>10452122
>Link to the natural forcings and how they split it up.
What do you mean? The only natural forcing used by the IPCC is solar forcing. Everything else is calculated in the ECS. The forcing from CO2 is calculated from the changes in concentration, not the changes in human emissions. 280 ppm to 412 ppm is concentration, not emissions.

>>10432199
>To what extent is still a mystery and to what end is still a mystery.
It's not.

>One natural phenomenon could change everything.
Like what?

>And you still aren't providing any solutions other than stop producing carbon dioxide, which isn't happening ever, in fact it's only increased and will continue to because humanities entire way of life relies on it.
What humanity's way of life depends on is energy, not CO2. The only reason CO2 is produced is because fossil fuels are currently the cheapest way of producing power, since the cost of global warming is not reflected by its price. If the price was increased, alternative power sources would be used instead. So your entire argument is nonsense.

>>10288442

>>10267615
>humans have had a negligible affect on the climate
The amount of heat being radiated towards the Earth from CO2 has been directly measured via radiative spectroscopy. The change in CO2 caused by humans has been directly measured via isotope analysis. The change in climate forcing since the industrial revolution is equal to the change in forcing from man's CO2 emissions. The whole effect can hardly be considered "negligible."

>volcanoes have been heating up the earth for hundred of thousands of years
The climate has cycled consistently between glacial and interglacial periods according to the Milankovich cycle for hundreds of thousands of years. It hasn't warmed throughout, just cycled between these two climates, until now when we are rapidly warming out of an interglacial. So if volcanoes were warming the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years, why are we only warming now? Also, volcanoes cause warming by releasing CO2, but humans are rleasing more CO2 in a day than all the volcanoes on Earth do in a year. So this is just nonsense.

>>10267383
They're pretty damn sure.

>>10258897
>So what are the other variables?
Pic related. Now tell me why you are trying to tell me about climate science when you don't know the most basic of aspects of it? Do you always make shit up about scientific topics or just climatology?

>We know that in the paleozoic CO2 changed from 1-50x current levels but temperatures were always stable and bounded within 12-22 degrees.
Who the fuck is "we"? Did you try asking "we" how the Paleozoic was different from now? Or are you just a completely useless fuckwit who will do everything you can to ignore the answer being handed to you on a silver platter by scientists?

>Now 'scientists'are saying another 10% CO2 will use positive feedback to turn the earth into a fireball.
Which scientists?

>Why does anyone think that's not obviously bullshit?
It obviously is bullshit that "scientists" have said this, you pathological liar.

>>10215887
bzzzzzzzt

Wrong answer, try again.

>>9990259
>it most definitely exists in labs and conditions of high CO2, but in the atmosphere and at concentration that are less than one part per thousand, such an effect does not exist.
Again, what does the concentration have to whether the effect exists? The greenhouse effect occurs because there are gasses in the atmosphere that absorb heat and radiate some of it back to Earth. So what matters is the absolute amount of such gasses. The same amount of heat is radiated back whether that amount of greenhouse gas composes 100% of the atmosphere or 0.001%. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you know it since you are avoiding the question.

>The presence of oceans and water vapor, volcanic activity and supercontinent cycles and milankovitch orbital forcing are much stronger that manmade emissions.
Wrong. The oceans absorb more GHGs than they release. Supercontinent cycles and Milankovich cycles operate over millions and thousands of years and produce much slower changes than the global warming observed since the Industrial revolution.

>I am nto saying natural greenhouse gases are not important, they are and water vapor is one of them, my point is humanity's contribution to the atmosphere is minuscule and irrelevant
According to what?

>>9534668
>[citation needed]
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf