/sci/ - Science & Math

Actually we can trust scientific data, and that data show it highly unlikely climate change is anything but natural. In fact, for the majority of Earth's history it has been quite a lot warmer, and having any sort of surface ice anywhere on the planet is rare.
Jackass.

climates change op they always have and always will, nobody would deny that.

the problem is first it was global cooling, and then it was global warming, and now its just 'climate change'.

the public has seen predictions of catastrophic cold, nothing happened, catastrophic heat, nothing happened, and now the shift to 'cimate change' just makes it look like 'they are trying to say whatever happens they were right'.

Just a bunch of silly scientists wanting to feel important and political campaigns funded by propaganda to change it.

>>1022854
>>1022851


oh god, i expected more from /sci/. ohwell

>>1022851
>anthropogenic global warming is unlikely

Not only is it likely, it is determined to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" anthropogenic.

Humans do have an effect on global climate. But i really do think pollution itself is worse then making it hotter.

Either way, fossil fuels aren't that great.

>>1022854

>and now the shift to 'cimate change' just makes it look like 'they are trying to say whatever happens they were right

You are now aware that the term "climate change" was coined by Frank Luntz, a Bush administration official and Republican strategist who worked on that administration's environment policy, and thought "climate change" would sound less urgent and threatening than "global warming"

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

>climate change thread
>gonna be back hours later
>581 posts and 98 image replies omitted

Looks guys, NASA has a huge amount of work showing how humans have an effect on global climate.

FUCKING NASA, THEY PUT A MAN ON THE MOON!

>>1022854

there was never a consensus on global cooling, and in fact even during the 70s far more scientists predicted global warming than global cooling.

>>1022851
Link for models encompassing the data without anthropogenic sources which shows that the warming is explicable without those sources of warming?

Or was that an "It was warmer in the past than it is now, so this warming is natural"

>>1022854
So... an Appeal to Motive now disproves the science? Okay then.

>>1022914
that's too obvious =|

>>1022919
What? explain yourself.

>>1022918

appeal to motive disproves shitty science based on unfalsifiable claims due to lack of data and models (namely, ZOMG CO2 IS TEH DEBIL REGULATE REGULATE REGULATE)

If it has no scientific basis, why do nearly 100% of climatologists state that climate change is likely influenced by humans?

so if global warming is true then why is it still freezing in my country we should have already about 40C

you're really just asking to be trolled here OP

>>1022926
>lack of data and models
hahaha

Okay, you trolled me. Hope you're happy.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

>>1022929

>trusting anecdote over statistics

You guys are really gonna make me get the NASA links, aren't you.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=249

If your really gonna try to argue with professional NASA scientists, and years and years of research, your kinda retarded

>>1022949

yes but this blog i read somewhere told me they are wrong so there

>>1022929
OH LOOK, NASA HAS AN ANSWER FOR YOU TOO!

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=270

>>1022949
>impyling those nasa statistics arent rigged so people pay their carbon taxes. gosh people on sci might be smart but the know jackshit about politics

>>1022955
Having fun with your conspiracy theories? say hello to the flat earth society for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuovqFwUtDc&feature=related but lord monckton says something else and he is british and no a stupid amerikuhn

What proof is there that humans have caused the climate change? Some plot showing temperatures for the past however long proves nothing than that the climate changes. What makes you think it's man made? Is it because until people existed the Earth's climate was static?

>>1022966
hes a huge lier and an even bigger idiot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o

>>1022972
>i didn't read any of the article you posted.

>>1022961
what is that flat earth society? anyway lawyer here i already sued some big scientifique companies because of falsefied data, be it medicaments, or global statistic (spoiler: we won)

>>1022972
It might have something to do with the fact that if you build models that don't take anthropogenic sources into account, they don't follow the temperature readings.

>>1022976
>trust me, i'm claiming to be a lawyer on an anonymous image board

And global warming matters why? The earth doesn't care. Life doesn't care. What adapts adapts, what dies out dies out. Its that simple. Shit- the earth has been relativity quiet for some time now, in fact we as a species are incredibility lucky to be around at this time. This planet is violent beyond your imagination. But that belt of calmness doesn't last forever.

>>1022998

This is essentially a nihilist stance.

>>1022998
Well, personally speaking, I care if we die out. Makes everything a bit pointless if we're all dead.

>>1023006
>implying it's not pointless if we are alive

>>1022981
Oh okay, because models are never created with a specific result in mind.

>>1022851
Yeah sure it was a lot warmer than it is now, but you forgot to mention that a human would've have been able to survive at those times. How convenient for you.

I'm boggled that people actually use the argument that the climate has been warmer in the past as a justification for inactivity. Yes, it has been, but if you had an understanding of the argument, you'd know that the primary concern is not the ultimate temperature, so much as the effects of a rapid change in temperature.

>>1023006
seems pretty pointless with all of us alive

>>1023011
While I full expected the Nihilist retort, there are other bodies of philosophy in play and I find yours self-centered, pointless, and uninspired. Therefore I shall end this post with a common suggestion for nihilists: If there's no point, why bother with the rest of it and just end it now?

>>1023031
Pleasure is the only thing worth living for, thus i fap 24-7

the bit you quoted is the biggest loaded piece of bullshit i have ever heard.

but to your post i choose a neutral stance, a topic as contriversial as global warming has so much scientific evidence on both sides that you cant really take a proper stand for either one. when two scientists with degrees tells you two opposite stories what one do you believe. you can look at the data but without context it is hard to interpret it unbiasly

>>1023044

Plato would like to have a word with you. If pleasure is the only thing wroth living for then you are no better than a cow in a field eating grass it's whole life.

Humans are on a higher tier of evolution than that.

>>1023044
Then that's hedonism

>>1023054

what about when there are tens of thousands of credible scientists telling you one thing and only 10s of scientists telling you the other?

Do you give equal weight to those portions?

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

The way he put it, everything will become crystal clear.

I think the focus shouldn't be on global temperature but on pollution which affects the earth in numerous other ways than warming.

>>1023057
I was a hedonist, but I developed a severe case of anhedonia. Shit is not cash. :(

>>1023054
>With the release of the revised statement[89] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][3]

You will always get stragglers, individual persons with PHDs, who're willing to dissent with what the majority of the community believes. You will always have think tanks putting out half-truths and putting up these token dissenters on a pedestal to give their position the appearance of professionalism and substance. The beautiful thing about the scientific community is that it welcomes intellectual controversy, so that weaknesses in our understanding and problems with studies can be systematically dealt with. Some people exploit this fact.

You could get individuals on both sides arguing about it, yes. You won't get credible institutions of academia on both sides, though.

OP

it's not that we think there's any conspiracies going on. It's just that climate "science" is more political than scientific. Climate scientists get their funding from the government, and get more funding for finding out more about how warming is man-made. It's a continuous cycle where everyone involved believes it's man-man.

If you really look at the data, however, it's just an upward trend for the past thirty years or so (supposing you only use satellite data, since ground-based data can only cover ~20% of the surface, at most, and if you look at a map the warming is NOT evenly distributed, but mostly on land). And that upward "trend" is not a steady, continuous slope but rather jumpy. The earth's surface temperature is therefore most likely chaotic, and nobody can really predict whether it'll go up or down.

Because the trend for the past 30 years has been upward, yes we have seen "signs" of warming - glaciers melting, rising temps, etc. But this is only temporary.

>>1023057
>Tier of Evolution
>SonIamDisappoint.jpg

i don't deny global warming, but in the 70s or something the shitstorm was about global cooling and ice ages. thats' a pretty big ass jump frmo frozen ice planet to scorching hot planet.

makes me questino things.

>>1023123
>But rather shakey
You... have no idea how global temperature works, do you?

Every scientist knows that the climate is changing, and debate on whether or not it's manmade or not, not whether or not it exists.

The public is just incredibly stupid.

>>1023147
Sulfur Dioxide, while increasing acid rain, has an interesting side effect of notably increasing atmospheric albedo. We restricted it, atmospheric concentrations plummeted, and the albedo dropped with it.

//One effect among many

>>1023123

you're forgetting something.

Hint: Carbon Dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas.

>>1023147

Not a single scientist predicted we were about to enter an ice age.

>>1023233
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
wat

>>1023147
You're referring to the Newsweek article in 1974 about global cooling, right? There /was/ a big media scare about it. The fact that it made a magazine as big as Newsweek, as well as the subsequent rise and fall of media chatter, gave a strong impression that scientists were chicken littles in the 1970s, proclaiming the sky to be falling, and have now done a 180.

The problem is that there never was a significant scientific concern about it. The buzz has origins in a few decontextualized quotes and a reporter's poor understanding of ice age cycles. A much better gauge of what the community was saying during this time period would be to look at scientific journals and other peer-reviewed work at the time and see if the articles there are consistent with the idea that they were worrying their asses off about this.

As it turns out, they weren't. Not only that, but you see articles - in the 1970's, in science journals - /predicting/ global warming. That's right, in the middle of the global cooling media frenzy, there were a number of scientists warning about this. As for ice ages? There were a few papers about ice age cycles. Nothing to be alarmed over, nothing saying we were about to crash and freeze.

>>1023221
>greenhouse gas

the entire atmosphere is, i hate that term.

look, global warming is a money scheme. Right now, if global warming were debunked officially, 10,000 people would be out of a job. Al gore was the first one to suggest this, and scientists who have been put on a list to 'confirm' global warming, did it under threat, willingly, or have not even agreed to it. Scientists who have debunked it have been destroyed by the media. the thing is, CO2 is good for our environment as plants need co2 and they give oxygen. water is a greenhouse gas, did you know? Theres nothing wrong with greenhouse gases. And im assuming you think theres a hole over the antarctic, but that's thinning ozone layer. Ozone can regenerate quite easily. the planet just has warming and cooling periods, BECAUSE the SUN is getting warmer, NOT the planet. jupiter has become hotter as well.

>>1023233
we are coming out of an ice age.

>>1023244

I'm glad you posted that, because I have something here you may want to see

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/8/EU_AtHkB4Ms

>>1023251

No it isn't.

>>1023244


Time magazine is just that, a fucking magazine.

>>1023269

>implying the atmosphere is not by definition that which retains the suns heat energy on the planet

>>1023261
Ah, I've seen that video. It's very good. <3

>>1023284

Oh that's exactly what I'm implying.

The main greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone. That does not make up the entire composition of the atmosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

>>1023123 It's not that we think there's any conspiracies going on. It's just that climate "science" is more political than scientific. Climate scientists get their funding from the government, and get more funding for finding out more about how warming is man-made

I'm a geologist, I don't know dick about the climate. What I do know are oil companies, and believe me when I say they fund a metric fuckload of research into anything that might make them look good. If a climatologist went to any oil company and said: "I want to do an experiment that could disprove global warming, gimmie money pls.", he'd be handed a solid gold wheelbarrow full of cash.

The "scientists want funding!" argument is BS, because there's way MORE money in denying global warming.

>>1023252 water is a greenhouse gas, did you know?

There's this magical process called "rain" that takes water out of the atmosphere. It's pretty trippy.

>>1023252 BECAUSE the SUN is getting warmer

The sun's been undergoing a cooling trend for decades. Seriously, you think nobody before you would have thought to fucking check that? Graph is sourced to NASA.

>>102325 IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY FOR SCIENCE FUNDING!!11!!!1

Oh, shut the fuck up, nobody goes into research-heavy fields for the money.

>>1023252
>Ozone can regenerate quite easily

so how about them predictive models that we can apply to our data eh?

>compares doubting man made global warming being as big a threat as it is to holocaust denial

You are a fucking idiot for doing that, really.

Please dont piss on the memory of something like that to give water to an already debunked viewpoint.
Al Gores rich enough already anyway.

>>1023368
you don't know what creates ozone, do you?

>>1023380
How is he getting rich?

I'm just going to post this link:

www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

It's pretty much Snopes except for GW denier arguments. Spoiler: they're all about as scientifically valid as creationist "arguments".

>>1023284
...Whoever drew that must live in some wonderful fantasy land where everyone is a thoughtful, cognizant human being..

>>1023380

Al Gore is not a scientist.

Global warming denial is actually much more dangerous than holocaust denial.

Whereas the holocaust has already occurred and the damage has been done, the dire consequences of global warming are yet to take root, but if/when they do the damage will be 100 times that of the holocaust, and so denying that to prevent anything being done about it is more morally bankrupt.

>>1023390
gore has signifigant investments in companies that sell "green technology"
if shit like cap and trade passed or people were forced en-masse to buy into the whole green scheme gore would make billions

>>1023425

yer assuming with the holocaust denying is people ignoring the fact that a lot of people died in prison camps, when holocaust deniers are denying the fact that six million jews were not killed. the holocaust did happen, but it wasn't jew murdering. argument fail.

>>1023428

And you have a problem with this? Why?

Al Gore may have a vested interest in renewables but his investment decisions have absolutely nothing to do with the science.

>>1023431 I am a holocaust denier.

>>1023433
because it's obvious to anybody with a working brain that he'd lie through his teeth to get people to believe this shit he peddles?

cant blame him really, anybody would do a similar thing in his position

if you really, actually, seriously believe that the earth is going to turn into an oven within the next 100 or even 500 years you are a fucking idiot

>>1023428
If you believed that the world was going to start heavily using the products from an industry, you'd be an idiot to not invest some spare cash into them. Al Gore believes that green technology is the future, so he puts money into companies that sell green technology. Do you call out the advocates of fusion power for putting their money into fusion research?

>>1023452
Given that's tenfold worse then the doomsday level predictions? Yes, you would be.

>>1023452

But Al Gore doesn't do the research on global warming, he merely uses the research that climatologists have done.

You can question his motives, sure, but as he is not the one who does the research, it has absolutely no impact on that research.

It also begs the question about why you are not equally skeptical of the denialists who are often in the pocket of those with a vested interest in fossil fuels, such as Ian Plimer, a prominent skeptic and the head of two mining corporations.

Nobody is claiming the Earth will turn into an oven, just that the increase in temperature will be great enough to vastly effect our ecosystem and thus us humans who rely on it.

anyone who thinks you can lower CO2 levels by lowering CO2 emissions without some method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a fucking idiot

>>1023452

no wai the ice caps will melt and we will all freeze! DOOMSDAY IN 2012!!!

>>1023484

Nobody is talking about removing Co2 from the atmosphere because we have no mechanism to do it (yet), it's all about stopping the levels from increasing further so it doesn't get any worse than it is already going to be.

If we had a way to take Co2 out of the atmosphere then there would be no problem in pumping it.

Climate changes five million times since the earth was formed, many of them far more extreme than what's happening now.

Only reason this one is "bad" is because we're here, we think we can destroy the world and we're a panicky species.

Remember climategate?

>>1023510 Nobody is talking about removing Co2 from the atmosphere because we have no mechanism to do it (yet)

Actually we do; by carbon sequestration or by artificially induced algal blooms, but the first is absurdly expensive and the second is risky - we don't actually know what effect that'll have on ecosystems.

>>1023526

Yes.

But do you remember anything about it that disproves global warming?

Simply invoking "climategate" is not enough I'm afraid.

>>1023538

Well yes, I should say there is no plausible mechanism.

If we planted a shit ton of trees to soak it all up then I guess that could help, but It would still take a very long time and is impractical.

>>1023521

And the whole bloody point is that this time it is not natural.

>>1023521

>Implying we couldn't destroy the world if we wanted to

>>1023538
Isolate a large area of coastal water or big a huge container in an ideal place and fill it with water. Get algae to start growing. Leave for a year and measure results. If it works, leave it going and do the same in other places.

PETA and environmentalists complain, tell them it's better to have a few square hundreds of miles as algae ponds instead of an entire planet of whatever temperature-based disaster you want to use.

>>1023526
Yes! Because one or two people getting fired at a single research university in London means that the past 30 years of climate research is a fabrication, NASA and the NOAA have been making up data for even longer, and the basic mechanics of global warming don't reflect physical reality.

Obviously.

>>1023563
>implying we have anywhere near the nuclear arsenal to take out every inch of land and affect the entire ocean

>>1023563
If by "destroy the world" you mean "kill every human on it" then yes.

>>1023538 Actually we do; by carbon sequestration or by artificially induced algal blooms

OR just by planting some goddamn trees, that'd work too.

>>1023526 Remember climategate?

I remember deniers taking a half-dozen or so out-of-context sentences out of thousands of emails, then claiming that because they looked suspicious, global warming was fake. I then remember the scientists being investigated by an ethics board, who cleared them of any wrongdoing.

I also remember laughing at the douchebags who fell for such an obvious piece of manufactured propaganda.

>>1023587
The ocean is the most efficient CO2 converter, not land-based plants. Best thing to do is set up ocean algae farms that grow square miles of algae mats or something.

>>1023585

Well yes, the planet isn't going to blow up or anything, but humans certainly have the potential to radically alter it's current state to our own detriment.

>>1023599 The ocean is the most efficient CO2 converter, not land-based plants. Best thing to do is set up ocean algae farms that grow square miles of algae mats or something.

Nah, that's an inefficient way to do it. Look up Iron fertilization:

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

>Iron fertilization is the intentional introduction of iron to the upper ocean to stimulate a phytoplankton bloom. This is intended to enhance biological productivity, which can benefit the marine food chain and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Iron is a trace element necessary for photosynthesis in all plants, however it is highly insoluble in sea water and is often the limiting nutrient for phytoplankton growth. Large phytoplankton blooms can be created by supplying iron to iron-deficient ocean waters. A number of ocean labs, scientists and businesses are exploring it as a means to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the deep ocean, and to increase marine biological productivity which is likely in decline as a result of climate change. Since 1993, thirteen international research teams have completed ocean trials demonstrating that phytoplankton blooms can be stimulated by iron addition[1].

>>1023615
And after we fuck up and act as our own limiting method, the earth will recover, new species will evolve to replace the ones lost, and if mankind survives maybe he won't be so damn retarded.

>>1023645
Interesting. How do they make the iron soluble so algae can use it?

>>1023654

Yes but we're not particularly concerned with the fate of species that may or may not evolve in millions of years, we are concerned with human civilization on it right here right now.

>>1023671
Which will end one way or another, and rebuild if there are survivors. Catastrophic disaster provides myriad opportunities for better growth.

>>1023685

No it doesn't.

>>1023580
>>1023539
Actually it was scientists admitting in e-mails that they were making shit up and having a laugh about it.

To which you reply.

>while you found things which undermine what I have to say, i will just ignore it and use the appeal to ridicule fallacy

Face it.
Just about everything surrounding *man-made* is a bunch of bullshit.

>>1023685
Let me provide your asshole with myriad opportunities for growth.

>>1023702
Asteroid hits earth, wipes out 75% of life. This allows the mammals to become the dominant life.

>>1023716
Already have the Jeff Stryker dildo, it's perfect.

>>1023713

>Actually it was scientists admitting in e-mails that they were making shit up and having a laugh about it.

No it wasn't, try again.

>>1023718

yeah, hundreds of millions of years later.

If you're a nihilist who doesn't really care what happens to the human race and civilization then there's no point arguing for action with you, but you could at least accept the science.

If you are a denialist who has run out of arguments you are taking things to the extreme here.

>>1023776
>hundreds of millions of years later
>65 million years ago
>already a myriad of mammalian species along with giant flightless birds less than 10 million years after Cretaceous extinction

oh u

>>1023716
there HAS to be at least ONE video of some porn actress getting that all the way up her arse

>>1023761
>i didnt read the emails in full

Oh well.

>1023808

Actually I did. Did you?

>>1023816
PROTIPS: ITS A TROLL

CHRIST

>>1023599
>>1023645
pretty sure oceans are carbon sinks mostly because of co2 dissolving into ocean water, not uptake by algae. its a le chatelier's principle thing. co2 dissolves and its sinking to the depths and sequestration as carbonate ions both keep it out of the atmosphere.

>>1023816
>>1023828
>lose arguement

>cry troll

>>1023257
really? are we? not trolling you btw