/sci/ - Science & Math

Where did you find that trainwreck of an image? It claims to be global average temperature, doesn't provide an actual data source, and looks like Greenland ice-core data. Also, it says nothing about when the near cut-off date is. I bet it doesn't go to past 1950.

Here's an actual reconstruction, graphed with current surface records. The two data set's aren't completely comparable, but it gives a decent idea of the scale of changes over the last 10k years.

>>8861163
>Is the IPCC really conservative in its estimates?
Quite a bit, though a lot of that is just from the long lag between research and the IPPC reports.

>How close are we to collecting carbon back?
AFAIK, it's still in the "wouldn't it be nice?" basket.

>>8861300
>No. The very existence of the IPCC depends on this alarmism science narrative. Why would they put themselves out of business?
The IPPC isn't a business.

>The plot at then end is telling. It is clearly meant to mislead you into thinking that todays levels of Co2 are immensely out of whack.
They ARE out of whack.

>Zooming out and placing it in a larger context demonstrates how nasty these people are and how abject their modus operandi really is.
Pic related is what the current vs historical temperatures look like. Your graph is on an absurd timescale.

>>8841047
The overwhelming consensus among climate researchers it that AGW is both real and a significant threat. This is independent of any particular country or organisation.

>>8841103
>Climate change has occurred continuously over the course of the Earth's history; it is not a new phenomenon. The earth has gone through at least five ice ages, and before that had very little solid ice even closer to the poles. People always try and push the idea that climate change is bad and we should do everything in our power to keep it the same, when in reality it is an ever-changing environment and will not always be as it is now.
Where do you folks get this retarded shit from?

Firstly, modern human civilization wasn't around the last time it got this warm, so as far as we care this is a new thing. Secondly, the rate of change is highly unusual; we actually have no records of the Earth's climate EVER changing this quickly.
So no, this is absolutely not normal variation.

>The real issue that these activists are pushing is how much regulation should be enforced and how much money should be funneled into trying to arrest this climate change.
No shit. The data and models we have aren't perfect, but they're still good enough to tell us that unless we put the brakes on now, this will NOT be a fun ride. Of course people are going to want to prevent bad things from happening.

>In my humble opinion that is like asking the sun not to rise.
How is reducing human emissions of a pollutant in any way comparable to "asking the sun not to rise"? Environmental regulation is not a new idea.

>>8585404
>so we're basically still below 3.5k years ago-levels...
Maybe - if we are, we won't be for much longer.
Why does that matter? It's the rate of change that's the real issue.

>>8585407
>so the IPCC is a loby. thanks for clarifying that,
It's a body that presents an overview of climatology research to politicians and the general public. The say as much on their website.
http://ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

>which btw climate "science" isn't.
Reality doesn't agree with your political views, so you're throwing a tantrum about it.

>>8585412
>even if they're under pressure to fit the political agenda and under pressure of their peers to not be viewed as skeptical a scientist to have a chance to get published and not see their research thrown in the bin.
Because nothing ruins a scientists life like overturning our current view of the world, right?
I'm yet to actually see any of the supposed witch hunts that were going to hunt down the people who published evidence against AGW (unless you want to try to defend Willie Soon).

>I don't need to know their opinion because they could literally circlejerk anything and call it "consensual"
Ah yes, the "fuck experts, what do they even know?" argument.

>>8585424
>"They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,"
How the fuck would that help?
If you think they're taking bribes, cutting down on the amount of money they';r getting above the table isn't going to prevent that. It's pretty obviously just a "fuck you for disagreeing with me!".

>>8585430
>provide evidence that there's not a global conspiracy
How?
What would that even look like?

>>8585496
Calling yourself a "skeptic" doesn't necessarily mean you're being skeptical.