/sci/ - Science & Math

>Prove climate change is man-made
There are no proofs in pseudoscience.

>>10294696
δ18O
>absolutely rekt

>>10294697
kek

>climate relatively stable before Industrial revolution
>Industrial revolution
>Ozone holes are created in Earth's polar regions
> Ice caps are literally BTFO'd
>Climate is now heating up very rapidly

>>10294696

>>10294722
So what. The climate changes everyday, it's called weather.

>>10294696
No

>>10294725

It doesn't

>>10294696
This is the real Lucifer. You can see the light source right there.

>>10295314
such a short time, take 4 billion years and mars-size planetoids hitting earth becomes normal too

>>10295314
"Climate change doesn't real because 10 millions ago it was even hotter", anon says, as his home is melted by nukes launched in the course of war caused by government response to masses of refugees seeking to escape unprecedented famine and drought resulting from desertification brought on by a temperature increase of a couple of degrees, statistically insignificant in the grand scale of things.

>>10295558
>man made climate change isn’t real because it’s been proven to change historically in a similar fashion anyway, says anon
>”HAHA LOL U IDIOT U CANT COMPARE PLANETARY HISTORY AND PLANETARY PATTERNS NOW READ THIS STRAWMAN”
Nice.

>>10295569
>rocks fall all the time in nature, even when humans didn't exist
>therefore rocks never fall due to human activity
Nice.

δ13C(atm)
>thot obliterated

>>10294696
>Prove climate change is man-made
>is doesn't
Real great job answering the question anon.

sorry >>10296082
meant for >>10295314

>>10294696
earth warmer

I'm curious what is considered "rapid increase in average temperature".
Read paper lately where Germanfags compiled some data gathered from various cities over 140 years span. The result was something like 1 degree Celsius increase.
Call me a retard but seeing how much CO2 we pumped into atmo during this time it's low as fuck. What do I miss?

>>10295314
This post was brought to you by Shell™

>>10294696
There isn't any

>>10294696

>>10296183
Most likely the heat islanding effect. Civilization and cities in general produce a lot of heat(from burning wood, human bodies, ect.). The warming is acting the fastest on the coldest regions, the temperature of the arctic is increasing exponentially more than, say Africa. This makes sense, as global warming doesn't increase the max temperature in the summer, it just increases the amount of time the max temperature is at(so 90 degrees for 10 days as opposed to 5), so big cities are affected comparatively less.

>>10294696
The "evidence" of climate change consists of nothing more than bullshit screenshots of propaganda.
If you zoom out further like we have you find that our climate has never been this stable

>>10296183
A single degree on average over the entire world drastically affects the areas where we can grow crops. The proper climate zones for these crops will shift to new places without the necessary soil to support them because they haven't been arable for millennia. A single degree shift is also sufficient to melt huge amounts of polar ice, flooding coastal cities. A lot of the climates we're used to in heavily inhabited areas like western Europe are only possible because of ocean currents like the gulf stream, and that'll be affected to.
Adding energy to a system as chaotic and complex as the entire world's atmosphere doesn't mean it behaves the same way one degree warmer, it means the stable patterns we're used to are no longer the stable patterns we're going to settle into. That's why you see colder winters, warmer summers, and shorter springs/autumns in many places and why people like Trump saying "but it's cold, where's the climate change dumb liberals?" are retards.

>>10296183
>Germany is earth

>>10296206
Don’t forget the cooling effect of certain aerosol pollutants that hang around very developed areas. Sulfur or something

>>10294696
why do you think it's not man-made?

>>10296040
You can't even stick to one argument, can you?
>Rocks fall all the time in nature, even when humans didn't exist
>Therefore rocks falling are heavily caused by humans

>>10294697
Also no experimental control either.

>>10294696
Prove it's not.

If anthropomorphic climate change exists, it's anthropomorphic hence man made.
If anthropomorphic climate change doesn't exist, it's a man-made hoax hence man made.
In all cases, anthropomorphic climate change is man made.

>>10297652
Your IQ is too high for this board, sir. I'm gonna need you to step out.

>>10296203
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=new+york+city+sues+oil+companies

>>10298046
>this is a violation of ExxonMobil’s civil rights
Imagine being such a bootlicker you try to defend multi-billion dollar corporations on anonymous imageboards.

>>10298053
>quoting The Retardian

>>10298056
wrong
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4345487-Exxon-Texas-Petition-Jan-2018.html
they(Exxon) are defending their civil rights, as a person(multi-billion dollar megacorporation-person)

>>10298071
lick on, retardian

>>10298075
funny, corporate bootlicker is telling others "lick on"
also careful with using retarded, if your corporate masters find out you're using that word you're gone

>>10298083
sllllllllllllllllllllluuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp

Climate change happens naturaly and is cyclical. Would it be wrong to assume that we can speed or retardate that process in some way?

>>10298104
>poor multinational corporation is getting bullied
>they've been lobbying to politicians for so long with millions of dollars
>they could lose 10% of their profits, it's not fair ;_;

>>10298111

>>10298117
your corporate masters took a picture of you in your cubicle? that's adorable

>>10298124
typed that with your tongue? that's adorable

>>10298125
imitation is a form of flattery, so thanks I guess, corporate booklicker

>>10298129
>booklicker
haha misspelled that, guess bootlicker was too much of a tongue twister

>>10294722
Now that is what I call a collection of suspiciously smooth curves. Faked? Frauds have been uncovered by manipulated graphs.

>>10294722
>>10295314

>Believers always post charts going back 100-150 years
>Deniers always post charts going way back up to 100 mil year.

HMMM who is pulling my leg....

>>10298409
turns out proxy reconstructions are shit

>>10294697
fpbp

>>10294725
>climate = weather
This has to be bait

>>10298284
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

>>10294716
NPC brainlet

Human activities are adding a large amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has a role in the atmosphere retaining Heat. Therefore, human activities are causing the planet to become warmer. Can someone please tell me which of these statements is wrong?

>>10298550
No shit, literally estimated from rocks.

>>10298632
>i have no argument

>>10298650
Carbon dioxide is just a communist hologram

>>10298583
Is that the best you can come up with??

>>10298650
You missed one:
>all models based on CO2 being the driver of temperature increase failed to make accurate predictions
and now being a sceptic sounds reasonable.

>>10298409
Anon there's this statistical fallacy called simpson's paradox, basically the more you zoom out on a data-set the less you're able to interpret trends. The denier-anon's argument is basically "well if you zoom out a couple hundred million years, this is all normal", which utterly dissolves when you zoom in. Basically that anon is trying to muddy causation, he's wrong.

>>10299320
Do you have evidence for that claim?

>>10299329
Yup.

>>10299329
Another one. You will find many more easily in simple Internet search.

>>10299646
>>10299649
Why are you using RSS data from 2014? Surely you know that in 2017 a major flaw was found in the satellite record's diurnal correction that caused a large cooling bias in the data? So either you are using old flawed data on purpose or you are posting shit without having a clue what you're doing. Which is it?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

Also, why are you starting the data in the second graph at 1997, the year of a large El Nino temperature spike? Surely you know that choosing that temperature spike as the starting point artificially reduces the trend? Again, are you purposefully being deceptive or are you just scientifically incompetent?

>>10299320
Why are you lying?

>>10299649
RSS is bullshit, it was shown to be so in March 2016.
Only morons like you refer to it anymore.

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s


Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment
Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz
Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California
(Manuscript received 23 October 2015, in final form 22 February 2016)

Literally doesn't matter if it is cased by man. End result is the same, so the only problem is to figure out how to keep the climate stable.

Why not make a lot of floating solar panels that puth the energy into cooling the seas with fridge technology?

>>10300229
good luck with that
https://thinkprogress.org/earths-rate-of-global-warming-is-400-000-hiroshima-bombs-a-day-44689384fef9/

If you took climate science, psychology or sociology you have to leave /sci/.

what if it's the other way around?
what if the raise of the average global temperature increases carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere?

>>10294696
Man made the concept of global warming (whether or not man made an impact).

So yes, it is.

The thing is, we're just speeding up and intensifying an overall natural change. The climate has always been shifting, as the Earth never stops changing. Yes, we're involved, but we're not causing the entire situation in itself.

>>10300474

>>10294716
Forgot
>solar output is stable to dropping
>earth should be in a cooling period

>>10298409
Sometimes you can lose important parts of the data if you look at too long a period.
Human civilization has only been around a handful of thousands of years. So what if the Earth was 10C hotter 10 million years ago? WE weren't alive then.

>>10299649
Just looking at that image I can tell the trend line is false.

>>10298108
>Would it be wrong to assume that we can speed or retardate that process in some way?
No.

>>10294696
It is warm therefore I am
- Climate philosopher Carbonius Malus

>>10295558
Do you think that famines are only caused by desertification and not by negroids fucking everything in sight instead of planting crops?

>>10300601
Famines can be caused by planting crops.
A number of reasons can cause famines, but we certainly shouldn't discount climate change just because there can be other causes.

>>10299947
Nah, I didn't know. I decided to search newest stuff. Pic related, hiatus still seems quite real.

>>10299323
On the other hand if your sample only has a couple of observations and a low effect size your statistical power is dog shit

>>10299323
You don't understand Simpson's paradox, bro. It doesn't apply here because we don't combine different sets of data, we only deal with 1 data set - global average temperature.
"Zooming" in and out doesn't make it harder or easier to read trends, it only tells if you want to focus on short- or long-term trends, respectively.
If short term trend tells us about extremely high and steep rise then no matter how much you "zoom out", it will still stick out like a sore thumb in big data set.
But if after zooming out you will notice that this rapid increase happened many times in the past then it's time to reevaluate the cause of short-term trend.

>>10301018
>But if after zooming out you will notice that this rapid increase happened many times in the past then it's time to reevaluate the cause of short-term trend.
Which is what we have done and realized that it doesn't match previous trends, but correlates with industrialization.

>>10301064
And correlations don't imply causation

>>10301064
Last time I checked the graphs it matched the long-term trends perfectly.
Care to provide sauce for your claim?

>>10294696
Taking down trees makes the air dry, that's already a chance in the climate

>>10301106
I can only imagine that he means the degree of industrialization. And even then it's okayish I believe

>>10300739
What hiatus? Even if you cherrypick the trend to stay at 1997, you still see the same warming trend as before. Use your brain and try being a little skeptical.

>>10300465
>what if
No need to guess, it's both. Manmade emmissions started the warming though.

>>10301089
Does causation imply causation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

>>10301106

>>10301089
Correlations CAN imply causation.

>>10294696
why was this stickied wtf

>>10301018
You're grouping together different periods from a time-series, at least that's what the anon in the picture is trying to do. He's basically taking temperature data collected from 200 million years and averaging it with current trends and saying "hur dur see this is normal, our Earth's current average temperature is even colder than what it's supposed to be". I was just trying to simplify it for a confused anon.

>>10302221
Wait a second, I thought we were talking about short-term trends here.
Let me return fire with good ol' pic related then.

A. climate change is either manmade or nature made.

B. man is naturemade

B => A

QED

>>10302609
kek

>>10302596
You said the long term trend matches the current trend. This is false.

And your picture doesn't have modern temperatures like mine does. The ice core data stops way before global warming began. Not to mention that a single ice core does not recreate global temperatures.

>>10302669
>November 2015 is not modern data
Do you even know how to read graphs?
Vostok ice core is a proof to two things:
> temperature increase always happened well-before CO2 levels increase in the past
> all man-made CO2 (which is quite a huge amount since Industrial Revolution began) didn't produce significant average temperature increase compared to natural climate changes


Seriously man, look at the numbers. Average CO2 levels pre-Industrial Revolution was about 280 ppm. Now we have above 400 ppm. So almost 43% increase in CO2 levels over 140 years produced less than 1 degree Celsius difference in average global termperature.
Now look back at UAH Satellite-Based Temperature (ver. 6) where you can clearly see that after hot 2016 we had lower temperatures at both 2017 and 2018 - even though CO2 production increased in those years. Forget about causation, first show me where is correlation?

>>10302749
>>November 2015 is not modern data
>Do you even know how to read graphs?
November 2015 refers to the CO2 level at that date, not the temperature. You're the one who doesn't know how to read graphs.

Ice cores don't show modern temperatures because it can take a hundreds of years for the snow to be packed into ice. And depending on where you drill the top layer might not be usable. Wherever you got this graph from is not being very honest, as they appended modern CO2 concentration to the end of the data but did not do the same for temperature.

>temperature increase always happened well-before CO2 levels increase in the past
Yes, but literally no one argued against that, so why make this point? The fastest warming in the ice core record is interglacial warming. Current warming is an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming. Not to mention that we are currently in an interglacial, i.e. interglacial warming occurred 10000 years ago and the next phase should be a slow cooling according to the natural cycle. But instead of slow cooling we are rapidly warming again. This is anything but in line with the long term trend.

>>all man-made CO2 (which is quite a huge amount since Industrial Revolution began) didn't produce significant average temperature increase compared to natural climate changes
This is impossible for the ice core data to show, since it doesn't record any modern temperatures. And as I've already shown here >>10302221 the current temperature increase is quite significant and much more rapid than natural warming seen in the ice core record.

>Seriously man, look at the numbers.
Yes do look at them instead of presenting a graph that's missing modern data.

>>10299323
You could at least admit we can't possibly prove beyond all doubt a warming trend, no one can, there simply can never be sufficient data to make an accurate depiction of long term climate trends within a single lifetime.

>>10302784
>beyond all doubt
it's beyond all REASONABLE doubt
you worthless asswipe

>>10302780
/thread

>>10302749
>Average CO2 levels pre-Industrial Revolution was about 280 ppm. Now we have above 400 ppm. So almost 43% increase in CO2 levels over 140 years produced less than 1 degree Celsius difference in average global termperature.
This is funny. If you look at global temperatures in the last 600,000 years you'll see the fastest warming before now was interglacial warming of 4-7 degrees C over 5000 years or so. Which is faster, 1 degree over 140 years or 4-7 degrees over 5000 years? Did you look at the numbers?

>Now look back at UAH Satellite-Based Temperature (ver. 6) where you can clearly see that after hot 2016 we had lower temperatures at both 2017 and 2018 - even though CO2 production increased in those years.
Why UAH? Because they haven't made the fix to the major error in the diurnal correction yet, unlike RSS. You're blatantly cherrypicking flawed data. But let's ignore all that and focus on your claim. This is a red herring since the temperature change from year to year is largely determined by the stmospheric circulation, not CO2. CO2 dominates the longer term, decadal trend, while atmospheric circulation provides annual variation around that trend. So focusing on changes between a few years completely misses the point.

>Forget about causation, first show me where is correlation?
The correlation is clear as day, but this argument makes no sense anyway. Why is correlation more important than causation when the entire issue is whether CO2 causes global warming? Correlation is merely a proxy for causation, and doesn't necessarily exist when there is causation because other factors can hide the correlation.

You are severely ignorant of the topic you are trying to discuss. Try reading a basic climatology textbook, or at least looking to see if your arguments have been debunked before making them: https://www.skepticalscience.com/

>>10302801
You forgot this >>10302802

>>10302791
That's just adds an unnecessary flavor word to appear humble, something you obviously know a lot about.
Reasonable... Not something to be associated with those who continue to place their faith in the corralled corporate academic "science" system and it's resulting data. As if the energy cartels don't have the resources or motivation to control both sides of the debate, good joke honestly.

NO PHYSICS STOP THAT RIGHT NOW OR U WILL BE KICKED FROM SERVER AND BANNED FOR LIFE

>>10302807
>Hurr any science I don't like is wrong because I can cry conspiracy without proving anything and without actually looking at the science
>>>/x/

>>10302802
> preferring 5000 years of proxy data to 140 years of well-measured and documented data
And you have guts to tell me that I cherrypick the data?
> CO2 dominates the longer term, decadal trend, while atmospheric circulation provides annual variation around that trend. So focusing on changes between a few years completely misses the point.
Again, more than 140 years of CO2 pumping into atmo, over 40% increase in CO2 levels and pathetic 0.8° Celsius increase (sourced by NASA). There's bigger difference in temperature between cloudy and sunny weather in the same area within minutes of the same day than entire industry managed to create over 140 years span.
Don't try to doge it with "muh global climate change is more important" - global climate is an average of all local climate changes.


You still didn't mention why proxy data clearly shows that historically temperature always rose before CO2 levels. Is that what I'll find in "basic climatology textbook"? The info on avoiding problematic topics?

>>10302819
>> preferring 5000 years of proxy data to 140 years of well-measured and documented data
What the fuck are you talking about? Where did I prefer proxy data to instrumental?

>And you have guts to tell me that I cherrypick the data?
Yes, because you clearly cherrypicked the data.

>Again, more than 140 years of CO2 pumping into atmo, over 40% increase in CO2 levels and pathetic 0.8° Celsius increase (sourced by NASA).
So first you said that natural warming occurred in the past, now you refuse to compare that natural warming to present warming. If today's warming is pathetic, what was the warming in past? Non-existent? Negligible?

>There's bigger difference in temperature between cloudy and sunny weather in the same area within minutes of the same day than entire industry managed to create over 140 years span.
Do you not understand how averages work?

>Don't try to doge it with "muh global climate change is more important" - global climate is an average of all local climate changes.
Yes, exactly. This is hilarious, you're debunking yourself. What do you think happens when you average a lot of large positive and negative numbers?

>You still didn't mention why proxy data clearly shows that historically temperature always rose before CO2 levels.
Because historically CO2 levels did not instigate warming, orbital eccentricity did, triggering various feedback loops. One of those feedback loops is between warming and CO2 and water vapor being released from oceans. Today however, manmade emissions are causing the warming which is then triggering the same feedback loops. According to orbital eccentricity, we should be cooling right now, according to the natural cycle. Why are you ignoring this?

>Is that what I'll find in "basic climatology textbook"? The info on avoiding problematic topics?
If you did you would see what you consider a problem is well studied by climatologists. You would also see how current warming is different from natural warming.

>>10302216
I guess posting Wikipedia articles really settles things

>>10302856
So assuming this is correct how much does mankind contribute to this increase in temperature by producing co2?

Stick you in an air tight greenhouse with only artificial light, a cow monitor, and a thermometer.

So you can see the temperature go up as the co2 goes up.

>>10303520
>>10294722

Law of increase of entropy and termodynamic laws show that if you consider the atmosphere as a subsystem introduced particles of any kind and in any quantaty cause increase in thermal capacity.... the rest follows!

>>10294697
t. climate scam pseudoscientist unskeptical "skeptic"

>>10303650
Is earth a closed system?

>>10303637
Now provide actual data and not models?
I could create a fancy looking graph proving that you will suck fat dick daily at increasing rate until year 2020, based on model I created ad hoc.

>>10303773
>actual data
what is "-------observations"

>>10303433
I guess ignoring that causation is already proven therefore correlation is unnecessary settles things.

>>10303520
The contribution from man is more than 100% of the warming, since we would be cooling without our contribution. Note that the radiative forcing from CO2 is not based on modeling but on direct observation via radiative spectroscopy of the amount of heat being radiated towards earth from CO2.

#('10303694') any system can be considered as a closed system in regards to some bigger system for sufficent periods of times related to a bigger sistem...
If you are interested in this subject i recomend that you read some statistical termodynamics book cause it will be easier to understand than quantum level termodynamics.
Taylor did an ok job on this cheers.

>>10303834
Anon, don't play stupid. I asked where the hard data for "models using only natural forcings" were taken from.
"Temperature should be lower, trust me bro" is not useful.

>>10299320
Yeah, the actual rise has been ever higher than the IPCC predictions

>>10303650
Lmao okay Ben Shapiro. It's not like the atmosphere retains heat from the Sun.

>>10304015
IPCC 2007 report, do your own homework

>>10304210
IPCC has a systematically underestimating bias, here's why
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=8m30s

>>10304327
>journalist
No.

>>10302216
But warmer temps CAUSE the ocean to release CO2

http://notrickszone.com/2019/01/17/new-science-89-of-the-globes-islands-and-100-of-large-islands-have-stable-or-growing-coasts/

lmao

https://electroverse.net/total-snow-mass-for-the-northern-hemisphere-well-above-the-30-year-average-1982-2012/

https://www.ccin.ca/ccw/snow/current

>>10305135
>>10305107
Well duh, the glaciers are actually increasing currently, what none of this takes into account is average temperature. See, climate isn't so simple as "the temperature increases, everything melts", things such as water evaporation, cloud formation, strength of the polar vortex all play a part. What happens is more water evaporates, more clouds get formed, and it actually snows more; however the average temperature is still going up, that's global warming. Pic related is from my home state, this is a clear example of what we call climate change.

>>10304999
And? Are you denying that man has put massive amounts of CO2 into the air? Because this is directly observable via isotope analysis.

>>10304999
Yes. That’s called positive feedback.

>>10294696
Man created language, climate change is words, man created climate change.

>>10305324
*nature created man

>>10296040
If humans ceased to exist, rocks would still fall. You haven't proved that humans are the primary cause of rocks falling, or that humans paying taxes to big mining companies and not being allowed to pick up rocks anymore (while the mining company can because they are professional certified rock picker uppers) will help solve the problem of rockfall.

>>10305298
This is where the science goes bonkers, the idea that this is doing anything of significance is unproven and unsupported in any experiment, and just pure headmath that some intern trying to get a grant or trying to get a promotion at general electric came up with.

>>10302216
The greenhouse affect is water moisture anon, co2 is a "positive feedback" because it's actually insignificant.
If you get a jar and fill it with co2 it wont be warmer than a jar with no co2 in it in the morning.

>>10302216
>fill greenhouse with co2
>freezing temperatures arrive, my plants die and get frost damage.

>fill greenhouse with water vapor
>freezing temperatures arrive, greenhouse stays above freezing until morning anyway.

Your co2 shit is a scam. No matter how I try, I cannot get a positive feedback loop to increase the temperature of my greenhouse using carbon dioxide.

>>10294696
The fact you can't do a home experiment and demonstrate the feedback loop that they allege with co2, using a mason jar, really throws a wrench into their claim that their bullshit money racket is "science."

the best for the planet would be a severe reduction of the population. we could cull 95% of africa for a start

>>10305474
If the elite were serious about AGW, they would do this. But it is a scam, so...

>>10305452
>If humans ceased to exist, rocks would still fall.
Not like they're falling now.

>You haven't proved that humans are the primary cause of rocks falling
Yes we have, you moronic denier. The greenhouse effect is proven. The amount of CO2 being emitted by humans and by nature is proven. Nothing else explains the warming. You lost, get over it.

>or that humans paying taxes to big mining companies and not being allowed to pick up rocks anymore (while the mining company can because they are professional certified rock picker uppers) will help solve the problem of rockfall.
So carbon taxes are being paid to oil companies? And oil companies don't have to pay carbon taxes? Wow, you're dumb.

>>10305455
>This is where the science goes bonkers
You have zero knowledge of the science.

>the idea that this is doing anything of significance is unproven and unsupported in any experiment
It's proven and supported by every relevant experiment.

>and just pure headmath that some intern trying to get a grant or trying to get a promotion at general electric came up with.
You're projecting your baseless speculation onto scientists.

>>10305458
>The greenhouse affect is water moisture anon
It's also CO2.

>co2 is a "positive feedback" because it's actually insignificant.
Positive feedback doesn't imply insignificance and CO2 released by humans is by definition a radiative forcing, not a feedback. Why are you making claims about what you clearly have no knowledge in? Are you really this delusional or are you just lying?

>If you get a jar and fill it with co2 it wont be warmer than a jar with no co2 in it in the morning.
Of course not moron, because greenhouse gasses are invisible to sunlight. You need a source of infrared heat to have a greenhouse effect. In the real world that source is the Earth radiating energy absorbed from sunlight in the form of infrared heat.

Fucking hell, Dunning Kruger is no longer theoretical, it's all around us.

>>10305504
Everyone here is an expert climate scientist anon, you must be new. So far you have't made any compelling argument which answers the op in this thread, meaning so far you still can't provide compelling evidence that mankind is ending the world with Co2.
You can't even provide an experiment that will warm my greenhouse more than just water vapor, or where my greenouse will get hotter if I pump Co2 into it, because your "theory" is a scam.
I know 'more' about this subject than you, and when I say that big oil like exxon mobil, conoco shell phillips, royal dutch shell, BP, etc, all spearheaded the anthropogenic climate change movement that popularized starting in the early 2000s them fucking selves.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december4/gcepsr-124.html
You are an NPC who's entire mindset was drawn for you by big oil simultaneous as you thought you were combating them and they were the only thing stopping your green energy future.
It's the opposite brainlet; the green energy future is their trillion dollar windfall.

>>10305462
You missed the part where you need an ocean that contains CO2 to outgas, you fucking moron.

And you don't seem to understand what a feedback loop is. Any CO2 released into the atmosphere warms via the greenhouse effect. The feedback loop is simply that more warming causes even more CO2 to be released.

>>10305515
Can you formulate an experiment which can be repeated with similar or identical results, in which by increasing the co2 concentration in my greenhouse, I can increase the overall temperature in a causal way?
Because I've been trying for a while and so far I can't. I'm going to have to wager that you've NEVER looked into climate change in a scientific way, and instead have formed an opinion based on popular media.

>>10305465

>>10305521
>here's the excuses for why my pseudoscience is non falsifiable and therefore not science.

>>10305525
You know that education in the US is bad now when a firm belief in the scientific method is frowned on, and media sensationalism is instead the new word of god.
Huxley and Orwell did predict it though. Times never change.

>>10305518
>So far you have't made any compelling argument which answers the op in this thread
I have, try reading.

>You can't even provide an experiment that will warm my greenhouse more than just water vapor
Why would I?

>or where my greenouse will get hotter if I pump Co2 into it
I did already, you need something that can absorb sunlight like the Earth does, you pathetic retard.

>I know 'more' about this subject than you,
You clearly don't but keep making a fool of yourself.

>when I say that big oil like exxon mobil, conoco shell phillips, royal dutch shell, BP, etc, all spearheaded the anthropogenic climate change movement that popularized starting in the early 2000s them fucking selves.
The movement existed long before then.

You have no ability to contend with the science, so you revert to pathetic conspiracy theories that make no sense. You lost before you even started.

>>10305526
>here's my non-response
I accept your admission of defeat.

>>10305530
>a firm belief in the scientific method
This is funny coming from the guy who doesn't understand the simplest thing about the science he's criticizing, stuff which elementary school students readily understand, like the fact that greenhouse gases don't absorb sunlight and require a source of infrared heat, or what a feedback loop means.

>>10305544
You haven't demonstrated any knowledge of this science, whereas I've cited sources about where its financing comes from and asked you to provide an experiment that supports your claim which follows the scientific method (is falsifiable).

Your immediate response is to throw insult after insult with no substance, because my posts challenged your pre-existing belief.

>>10305544
Greenhouses have a source of infrared heat, mine has infrared heat lamps and sunlight, you grasping retard.
You can't replicate your claim using the scientific method because your claim is just a media lie purported by the people who profit off of it.

>>10305577
>You haven't demonstrated any knowledge of this science
How would you know?

>whereas I've cited sources about where its financing comes from
You demonstrated the funding of one project which develops renewable energy. This tells us nothing about climatology or the vast majority of renewable energy research. What it does show is that you are mentally ill.

>asked you to provide an experiment that supports your claim which follows the scientific method (is falsifiable).
I've given you one and you've ignored it several times, apparently because you have zero, zilch, none ability to understand the simplest scientific concepts. Here is a youtube video of such an experiment since you are too stupid to think for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

>Your immediate response is to throw insult after insult with no substance, because my posts challenged your pre-existing belief.
Wow, such projection.

>>10305581
>Greenhouses have a source of infrared heat, mine has infrared heat lamps and sunlight, you grasping retard.
So pump more CO2 into it and see what happens to the temperature.

>You can't replicate your claim using the scientific method
I can and I have. Not only is the greenhouse effect from CO2 proven in countless experiments, it's also directly observed via radiative spectroscopy. You can literally see heat being radiated back towards the Earth in the range of absorption of CO2. You lost, get over it.

>>10305589
Because no one arguing in favor of anthropogenic climate change in this thread has so far, they have only demonstrated the ability to browse "skepticalscience.com," and regurgitate talking points like a video game character.
Anon that was big oil and google investing into climate change, and there's more information than that out there.
The experiment you showed does not demonstrate Co2's significant affect on temperature, it demonstrates a blatant hardcore chemical reaction in a sealed container building pressure is warmer than a bottle of water in a state of equilibreum.
This experiment has no controls and is invalid propaganda.
This guy is dishonest for not allowing the alkaseltzer reaction to finish and go to equilibreum before starting the experiment. This is like setting off a bomb in one jar and not another, and then wondering why the bombed jar reached a higher temperature. The fact you'd even post this suggests you have no understanding of science or that you are a shill.

>>10305596
Regardless of the level of co2 in my greenhouse (i meter), the affect of my heat lamps remains constant. Things like humidity have a noticeable affect, other things like co2 simply don't.

What does it feel like being a denier and knowing you're behind the curve and can't stop the world embracing true science?

>>10305596
Heat being radiated back toward earth is part of a normal process, Water vapor is visible and you can witness its effect of storing warmth just by going outside.
Literally any molecule absorbs and re-emits radiation, it's not a special property to do so, it's a basic behavior from physical law.
Carbon Dioxide is not a significant factor in the atmosphere, it is 0.04% of it. Water Vapor creates the greenhouse affect and it doesn't even need co2 to do it.

>>10305628
It seems like there's literally revolutions starting against it in Europe, so I'd say your assessment is very inaccurate.

>>10305628
>How does it feel like being a heretic and knowing you're behind the curve and can't stop the world embracing the true savior Allah.

>>10305640
*Vishnu
ftfy

>>10305615
>Because no one arguing in favor of anthropogenic climate change in this thread has so far
They have, you're just in denial.

>Anon that was big oil and google investing into climate change, and there's more information than that out there.
So you agree that this tells us nothing about climatology or the vast majority of renewable energy research? Because I don't see any counterargument.

>The experiment you showed does not demonstrate Co2's significant affect on temperature, it demonstrates a blatant hardcore chemical reaction in a sealed container building pressure is warmer than a bottle of water in a state of equilibreum.
Wrong, retard. The reaction absorbs heat to occur, it doesn't release heat. Yet again you show your complete ignorance of elementary school science.

>>10305634
Saying that gilets jaunes are "anti climate change revolutions" is massively oversimplifying it. They just don't like the financial burden falling on the poor, and it goes way beyond gas taxes.

>>10305465
That's been done since the 1890s

>>10305667
Where is it?
You need to get a container with 0.04% co2, and then double that to 0.08% co2, and then show how that's a significant greenhouse factor.
Filling up a bottle literally to almost 100% co2 and comparing it to earth air is retarded and clearly a means of propaganda.

We are talking about four hundreths of a percent, from two hundredths of a percent 100 years ago.

Show me an experiment with these kinds of Co2 numbers that creates a "runaway greenhouse affect" in comparison to a bottle that has 0.01% Co2, or 0.0000001% co2.
You can't because there will be no fucking difference.

>>10305667
>if the earth becomes 70% co2 we'll have a problem, it's been proven since the 1800s!
No shit, the question is if we have 0.002% vs 0.003% co2 in the air, will it end the world.
The answer is no it fucking won't.

>>10305620
Where's the data?

>>10305633
>Heat being radiated back toward earth is part of a normal process, Water vapor is visible and you can witness its effect of storing warmth just by going outside.
OK, and what is your point?

>Literally any molecule absorbs and re-emits radiation, it's not a special property to do so, it's a basic behavior from physical law.
Wow you're dumb. The whole point is that greenhouse gases don't absorb sunlight, allowing it to pass through the atmosphere and be absorbed by the Earth. The infrared heat radiated by the Earth on the other hand is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gasses. So it let's energy enter the system but keeps some of it from leaving. This increases the temperature. Please tell me why you continue to post when you haven't grasped such basic concepts? Are you mentally ill?

>Carbon Dioxide is not a significant factor in the atmosphere, it is 0.04% of it.
It is quite significant, without it the temperature would be decreasing instead of rising rapidly. The concentration in the atmosphere tells you nothing of its affect. It's the number of molecules of CO2 that determines the effect.

>Water Vapor creates the greenhouse affect and it doesn't even need co2 to do it.
Wow you're dumb. They both create a greenhouse effect regardless of each other.

>>10305695
>You need to get a container with 0.04% co2, and then double that to 0.08% co2, and then show how that's a significant greenhouse factor.
So do the experiment then. The greenhouse effect has already been proven directly via radiative spectroscopy so this is pointless.

>Filling up a bottle literally to almost 100% co2 and comparing it to earth air is retarded and clearly a means of propaganda.
So you admit CO2 does have a greenhouse effect, finally. Now what is the actual effect?

Its radiative forcing is approximately 5.35*ln(x) W/m^2 where x is the change in concentration. This means that a doubling of CO2 gives about 3.7 W/m^2 of radiative forcing, which is quite significant. 3.7 W/m^2 of radiative forcing results in about 3.5 degrees C of warming.

>>10305465
>The fact you can't
How is this a fact?
Have you tried?

>>10304382
Retard

>>10305740
>Its radiative forcing is approximately 5.35*ln(x) W/m^2 where x is the change in concentration. This means that a doubling of CO2 gives about 3.7 W/m^2 of radiative forcing, which is quite significant. 3.7 W/m^2 of radiative forcing results in about 3.5 degrees C of warming.
If that's correct then why the increase in CO2 levels of over 40% resulted in only 0.8 degree C increase over long period of time?

>>10306475
Because the system hasn't reached steady state yet, there is still warming that will occur in the future due to emissions from the past. If we stopped all emissions immediately, we would still experience about 0.6 degrees C of warming.

>>10306467
Go back to Guy McPherson's blog, retard.

>>10306600

>>10304327 is IPCC mainstream stuff
and Military's point of view

so you're the one full of bs

>>10306630
>mainstream
>military's point of view
>therefore BS
Wow, what a cogent argument, tell me more.

>>10294716
>>10294722
>>10295569
>>10302216
>>10302749
I agree, we must genocide nearly all of China, India , and Africa, because that is where roughly 95% of the world's pollution comes from combined. Whites are the only race with the empathy and altruism to save the earth.

>>10306597
Ummm, let me get this straight:
> when Industrial Revolution started, temperatures started rising immediately, even with pitful amounts of CO2 released
> nowadays we pump shitton of CO2 yearly, old CO2 is still circulating as well but the temperature increase slowed down due to "muh steady state not reached yet"
What.


There's no way to prove you guys wrong, at all.
If temperatures rise, you will cry that greehouse effect works as predicted.
If temperatures reach plateu, you will say that it's due to some BS natural mechanics which you didn't take into account in earlier models but temperatures will start rising soon again
If temperatures go down you will say that carbon tax started to work or that glaciation started but temperatures will go back up anyway.


All while carbon tax means more expensive fuel and electricity for everyone, resulting in increasing life cost. And that tax money just goes back to government instead of funding "green" technologies. This is stupid.

>>10307010
This is like saying Africans weigh more than Americans because the sum weight of all Africans is greater than all Americans. The average white person pollutes several times more than the average non-white.

>>10307048
>when Industrial Revolution started, temperatures started rising immediately, even with pitful amounts of CO2 released
The temperature increase was essentially proportional to the amount of CO2 released.

>>nowadays we pump shitton of CO2 yearly, old CO2 is still circulating as well but the temperature increase slowed down due to "muh steady state not reached yet"
The temperature increase never slowed down, you drooling moron. The rate of warming is almost double what it was 50 years ago. Saying that there is future warming in the pipeline has nothing to do with current rate. It mostly has to do with the oceans acting as a heat pump.

You're so dumb that not only do you not understand the basic scientific concepts you're discussing, you've also tricked yourself into thinking that you're making logical arguments when really you're just building towers of gibberish.

>There's no way to prove you guys wrong, at all.
Just show that CO2 does not significant radiate heat towards the Earth, moron. All of this is based on empirical observation, it's always falsifiable.

>Durrr you explain observations with falsifiable models, that's not science
Why are you on the science board again?

>All while carbon tax means more expensive fuel and electricity for everyone, resulting in increasing life cost. And that tax money just goes back to government instead of funding "green" technologies. This is stupid.
All while allowing global warming to occur unmitigated will cost even more. Please explain why people paying for their own pollution is bad but people paying for the pollution of others is good. This is stupid.

>>10307187
Don't move the goalposts. Everything I said was true. Per capita is a cope, it doesn't change that the vast majority of pollution is overseas and out of our hands and we need to physically move across the planet to solve it.

>>10307268
>Everything I said was true.
Everything you said was false actually. China, India, and Africa combined don't even account for half of the world's emmissions let alone 95%. But they have more than half the world's population. If you want to eliminate people to reduce emissions then the most efficient way is to kill whitey first.

Nothing you said was correct, neither in detail nor in broad strokes.

>>10307268
China, India and Africa combined produce 37% of emissions but have 55% of the population.