/sci/ - Science & Math

yes, it's real, and it's being caused by humans

Yes it's real.

Yes, it's anthropogenic.

Watch this playlist if you want to know why the sceptics are full of shit. http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#grid/user/A4F0994AFB057BB8

I'd warm up his globes, if you catch my drift.

Yes it's real. Part of it is probably caused by humans. Everyone claiming to want money to fight it is a scammer.

>>1037301
Your drift is that you want to fondle his testicles, am i correct?

>>1037310

smog keeps in heat from the sun. smog comes from machinery. people make machinery. therefore not only is blobal warming real, but people contribute to it

Yes, it\'s real. Yes, it\'s caused by humans. Yes, Al Gore is a colossal faggot who did about as much for his Peace Prize as Barack Obama.

>>1037336
> implying the peace prize isn't just a way of Norway to give people money, unlike the other Nobel prizes.

>I just want to get both sides of the argument before I make up my mind.

Within the climatologist community, there is only one side of the argument.

Yes, and here's why:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

If you don't know how to science, read this:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

>Sci thread without any trolling

>>1037393
just wait for it, It's only a matter of time before they find it

You better believe it faggot.

>>1037393
a geuss

don't believe it OP. its just a liberal scam to make people pay for perfectly safe carbon

> not a troll
troll detected

>>1037275
OP, i have a little advice for you.

>before I make up my mind

Never 'make up your mind'. Always keep yourself open to new possibilities and always look at new evidence when it is created/discovered.

Back in the 70's all scientists were up in arms over GLOBAL COOLING. Now they've turned 180 and are going on about global warming. If you still believe this shit, you're a sheep

>>1037312

Are you face palming because i'm right and it's obvious or because i am not right and it is obvious?

so you want make up your mind?
and for this purpose you want to get our arguments?
its bad decission, because believe to my experience - most of dudes here on this board is fucking trolls.

>>1037489

This, and the majority of carbon is being generated by animals, naturally, and not by feul emissions

>>1037489
No actually, they weren't. There was one article on it in Time magazine, and of the four scientists referenced in the article, not one of them actually supported the idea that the globe was heading toward an ice age. That idea was just speculation by the reporter. There was simply a decade of falling temperatures, but that was just noise in the overall warming trend that they already knew about.

>>1037495
No, because you are retarded and should be banned from the internet.

CLIMATEGATE [thread]

what does global warming actually do? I mean, is it just droughts in africa or some shit? i couldn't care less about that sort of thing

>>1037577
Rising sea levels is a big one, New York under water and all that.

>>1037577
Rising sea levels
Major ecological fuck ups (birds migrating later, malaria mosquitoes moving further north etc)
Potential shifts in ocean currents

>>1037577
Also yeah, if the currents fuck up we could seriously destabilize the climate and get ourselves an ice age.

yes it's real. we might be to blame, but i think this "humans bad, nature good" bullshit has gone on long enough. i, as a human being in the 21st century cannot walk to class, and i cannot afford a bicycle atm without selling my gas guzzling little plymouth minivan. i think it's time for the green left to pull it's head out of it's ass.

>>1037653
>has watched a bit too much Hollywood...

>>1037702
It's not about good/bad hurr durr you dumb shit.

>>1037489
>>1037517
Here's a video about that myth from the series I already linked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

>>1037539
Ditto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo

>>1037489
>Back in the 00's all scientists were up in arms over LIGHT BEING A WAVE.Later they've turned 180 and are going on about light being a particle. Now they believe it's BOTH. If you still believe this shit, you're a sheep

>>1037741
Great video.

>>1037628
I cannot stress the changes in migration patterns enough, and it's one of the most underplayed facts in the entire debate. There's a tic-borne disease in southern Germany and certain areas of eastern Europe called Tick-borne encephalitis (German: Frühsommer Meningoenzephalitis; FSME for short) that's appearing further and further northwards every year. This is because of changes in the location of the tic population are showing up, and are thought to be driven by large-scale changes in seasonal climate. This is a problem because much more people are immunized against the disease in southern Germany than in northern Germany.

All sorts of animals are showing shifts in migration patterns, and these shifts are consistent with the observations of the climatological community. They're consistent with temperature data from NASA and the NOAA.

>>1037779

>comparing inferred data that has no proper physical numerical explanation to hard observed quantum phenomenon

>>1037711
He's talking about the shut down of the thermohaline circulation.
It's called climate change not global warming. Typically when someone mentions global warming often times the next words out of their mouth are "it's snowed in Antarctica you're argument is moot." The worst offenses are by Hannity & Beck. "oh the ice sheets are expanding during our summer", when it is dead of winter in Antarctica with months of no sun.

>>1037873
>comparing inferred data that has no proper physical numerical explanation
because temperatures rising since 100 years is totally inferred
that the last 20 years had the warmest 14 years on record is also inferred
non of that is observed at all

>>1037845
Oh, you made me realise I linked the second video on the hacked emails and not the first, main one. Here's the main one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

Global warming is absolutely, undeniably real.

The question is how much of an effect human activity has on it.

>>1037913
I wish there really were fema death camps

>>1037895
is this real?
Did Hannity/Beck actually wonder that Ant-fucking-arctica has growing icesheets when it's summer in the northern hemisphere?

>>1037295
FUCK YEAH! I need to show this to my mother who screamed at me that global climate change is a myth and we're headed for an ice age.

Dear God thanks for you.

>>1037275

On scientific issues you should try one of the following (in descending order of feasibility):

a) Get a PhD in atmospheric physics; or
b) Learn enough about the relevant fields before you make your own judgment; or
c) Listen to the statements made by various academies of science and other relevant organizations.

In the case of global warming, it's kind of like the evolution debate or the cigarettes-cause-cancer debate. Shit's real brah, but don't take me word for it:

http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/

I love how everyone is ignoring the only bit of actual scientific content in this thread and is instead focusing on fucking YOUTUBE

>>1038063

We shouldn't dismiss Youtube out-of-hand if the videos themselves have good content. For the guy who wants to convince his mother Youtube is actually a great idea, it's not like she'd sit down and read all 900 pages of WG1 of the IPCC report.

>>1037960

I'm pretty sure this actually happened, but I don't have a source on hand for it.

>>1037980
No problem. They're excellent and I'm spreading them as much as I can.

>>1038063
You can upload whatever you want to YouTube. That includes scientifically valid content.

>>1038089
The problem is that you can't check if the content of the videos is good. There are lots and lots of shit videos (most are from sceptics, true) from both sides. There are other sources like skepticalscience.com that explain things in language for non-scientist but still have checkable sources.

>>1038130
The videos I link are easily checkable. Their sources are of much higher quality than normal journalism: Scientific papers are regularly cited and referred to. Compare that to typical journalism which has statements like "scientists believe [no citation given]" and has citations of blog posts and other media outlets.

I'm sure if you had watched what I've linked before critiquing it you'd be happier with them.

>>1038130
This is true of many of the videos, but potholer54 goes out of his way to explain his sources. He even encourages people to go and look at the fucking data themselves and not take his word for it. Similarly, skepticalscience's articles have links to the abstracts of the scientific papers they cite (and they actually make citations). A thoroughly skeptical customer could go out of their way to get their hands on the source and double-check the writer's facts.

>>1038167
I admit that I haven't watched the videos you linked to, but I thought we people on /sci/ would at least be interested in actual scientific papers.

>>1038184
scientific papers are a bore
especially if you aren't actually studying anything remotely close to the subject of the paper

>>1038184

I've been posting journal issues and single papers every time there's a global warming thread, and very few people download them.

The one paper that people seem to download in large numbers is the one that links homophobia with homosexual arousal.

>>1038242
must be all the engineers that download those

>>1038242
I must have been missing these links, anon. I haven't seen them. Then again, I usually duck out of these threads to avoid brain-crushing ignorance. So what do you normally link to?

Global warming is real.
Happens every summer.
Global cooling is also real.
Happens every winter.
Climate change is also real.
Happens every time I change the setting on my CFC-spewing gasoline-powered air conditioner.

>>1038242
Ironically, I've seen a YouTube video about this and not read the paper or examined the sources.

>>1038184
Scientific papers are simply not meant for communicating science to the public. They serve a different purpose, and the two purposes seem to me to be mutually exclusive. I believe that a non-scientist non-expert will always find a well-written, well-cited science media article to be more informative, more engaging, more pertinent, and more concise than the journal article it might be based on.

>>1038292
>Scientific papers are simply not meant for communicating science to the public. They serve a different purpose, and the two purposes seem to me to be mutually exclusive. I believe that a non-scientist non-expert will always find a well-written, well-cited science media article to be more informative, more engaging, more pertinent, and more concise than the journal article it might be based on.
I totally agree with you, but this is supposed to be a science board. Our first instinct should be to cite primary sources and explain where necessary. I do this when questions about my own field (neuroscience) come up.

articles that are well-written are well-funded to be well-biased

>>1038242
>The one paper that people seem to download in large numbers is the one that links homophobia with homosexual arousal.
post, please
gonna troll /new/ a bit

>>1038292
And see, it is having trouble with technical articles outside my own field that has really pushed me to be a better polymath, because popular science articles suck fucking BALLS.

>>1038292
I sort of half-agree with you, anon. Part of the problem for me is that I have a hell of a time getting my hands on actual journals without having to cough up a few hundred bucks. For something unrelated to my field, that's just... well, just ridiculous.

I would gladly at least attempt to read a paper in a climatological journal about the subject of global warming. Even if my eyes glazed over in the methodology and results sections, I'd hopefully at least be able to glean something of the premise and conclusions.

>>1038258

Usually stuff I find interesting and upload to mediafire. I also made a climate change education package but it was pretty flawed, so I'm working on a new one.

http://www.mediafire.com/?m3yewzevxow

This one's about the link between global warming and fucking earthquakes. More plausible than you might think.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ldzne5hwzge

And another journal, WIRES Climate Change which came out last month with its first volume. Interdisciplinary and a bit more readable for laymen than your normal academic journal.

http://www.mediafire.com/?3mzr3zgm1jw

>>1038343
Oh god THIS. I'm in if you're in.

No, it isn't. The models are all flawed, as is the evidence they are based off of.

>>1038343
>>1038362

lol, go right ahead

>>1038360

I used to make threads on /sci/ and /new/ once in a while with them, but then I realized I could just lie and wait for them like a motherfucking snapping turtle or something.

There is no proof of AGW. None. Period.
The link between CO2 and warming does not exist anywhere.

The theory of global warming is one gigantic misconception that assumes correlation equals causation.

>>1038365
Nice graph brah... pretty up to date and shows the error margin nicely.

Wait...

>>1038374

Sure is the 18th century again here

>>1038365

AHAHAHAH NICE Y-AXIS

>>1038375

>MARS IS WARMING
>THEREFORE AGW IS A SHAM

>SOOOOLAAAAR IIIIIRRADIATIOOOOON
>THEREFORE AGW IS A SHAM

Calling the kettle black I see

>>1038374
>>1038375
gtfo trolls

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

>>1038375
There ISN'T EVEN A CORRELATION.
I challenge ANYONE to provide a graph that aligns CO2 levels in the atmosphere with temperature.
Anyone?
Until you can do that, you're full of shit.

>>1038372

Whoops, forgot my link

http://www.mediafire.com/?yzzgezmdwtn

>>1038323
but this is 4chan
most people here are either undergrads or high school students

>>1038402
Sure is lack of argument in here.
>>1038406
>>IPCC
HAHAHAHAHA.

So, where's the proof of the correlation of CO2 levels and global temperature?

>>1038409

Sup

>>1038375
Not only is there correlation, but it fits in perfectly with everything we know about atmospheric science, physics, and chemistry. We have /reasons/ for believing that CO2 and other gasses cause the greenhouse effect that extend beyond mere correlation.

>>1038431
sauce pls

>>1038409

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

read it fuckface

>>1038372
>Go right ahead
Link to the article, plox? I don't believe either otheranon or I have it.

>>1038425
>HAHAHAHAHA.
>Sure is lack of argument in here.
Fuck it I'm not even gonna argue anymore. Goddamn trolls take up to much of my time anyway. Have a nice day; I'm off to do some acutual science.

>>1038442
>>CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases

WAY TO FALL INTO MY TRAP FAGGOT!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!

>>1038464
>His name is StormTroll.

Come on people. Seriously.

>>1038462
>>can't make any actual argument
>>calls me a troll and leaves
Thanks for backing up my point.

>>1038323
I rewrote my reply to you and forgot to include in the second edition a pre-emptive comment that /sci/ is populated by science fans; not scientists. I think this helps explain the reason we don't so readily resort to scientific papers.

>>1038352
Sometimes they do. The ones I have posted in this thread (videos, not articles, in this case), and the ones that I am willing to defend are obviously the better ones. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

>>1038354
>Refers to me as anon

I'm happy to just this post as a comment. Personally, when I view articles in subjects that I am only casually interested in, reading the abstract (often provided for free) is quite sufficient.

>>1038478
>provide no arguments
>laugh at huge fucking report
>troll in name field
You're damn right I'm leaving. Good day troll.

>>1038425

For the record, I'm responding to you not because you're not obviously a troll, but just in case people like OP stop by and want to learn something.

We know that the sun emits radiation which heats the Earth. However, simply calculating the energy imparted by the Sun on the distance of an object of the Earth leaves us a temperature of -18 C. The actual global average surface temperature is 15 C, which is 33 C higher than expected. How do we account for this discrepancy?

The answer is greenhouse gases. Certain gases like water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane are transparent to shortwave radiation, but block longwave radiation. As solar energy is re-emitted from the ground, it degrades to longwave radiation, and absorption by greenhouse gases creates the additional heat that keeps the planet from freezing.

>>1038500
>>huge fucking report by an organization that has it's reputation in shambles because of numerous factual errors and outright dishonesty

>Name is StormTroll !GnYU8vo7lA
>People get trolled anyway

>>1038514
I know what the greenhouse effect is you twat. Tell me, what is the greenhouse gas that provides for the most amount of warming effect?

>>1038431

http://www.acia.uaf.edu/

>>1038464

Do they not also rise simultaneously? There is no known natural mechanism for rapidly releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere except for certain kinds of volcanism. So climate in the distant past was driven by solar irradiance, continental drift, and the properties of Earth's orbit known as Milankovitch Cycles. However, increased temperatures from these sources would increase CO2, which in turn increases temperatures, and so on and so forth. CO2 causing temperature to increase, and vice versa, are by no means mutually exclusively. As presented in this post >>1038514
we should <span class="math"> expect [/spoiler] an increase in temperature if you artificially increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

>>1038464
>ignores snowball effect

>>1038524
water
the concentration of water in the atmosphere is constant
The concentration of CO" is not constant

>>1038524

Carbon dioxide.

(source: Harries et al. 2001; doi:10.1038/35066553)

>>1038520

It's not for his benefit. We know he's trolling.

>>1038548
>>There is no known natural mechanism for rapidly releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere except for certain kinds of volcanism.
WRONG. It's called plant decomposition.

>>1038565
Try again. Water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect.

>>1038564
And the concentration of Co2 has no significant effect on temperature.
None of you have provided any evidence that Co2 causes increased temperature.

Also lol @ all of you calling me a troll when you can't provide any fucking argument. Fuck off.

>>1038620

The biosphere, left to its own devices, is carbon neutral. For plant decomposition to have a severe impact on atmospheric CO2, a lot of it would have to die all at once. Since this only occurs during certain kinds of mass extinction events, some of which are driven by changes in climate, this does not detract from my (admittedly slightly revised) claim that <span class="math"> under normal circumstances [/spoiler] there is nothing that could cause massive CO2 outgassing except during come kinds of supervolcanism. Nor does it detract from concerns about present-day global warming. In fact, it probably heightens it.

The biosphere, left to its own devices, is carbon neutral. For plant decomposition to have a severe impact on atmospheric CO2, a lot of it would have to die all at once. Since this only occurs during certain kinds of mass extinction events, some of which are driven by changes in climate, this does not detract from my (admittedly slightly revised) claim that <span class="math"> under~normal~circumstances [/spoiler] there is nothing that could cause massive CO2 outgassing except during come kinds of supervolcanism. Nor does it detract from concerns about present-day global warming. In fact, it probably heightens it.

>>1038648
Increased temperature leads to increased rates of plant growth and decomposition. Not the other way around.

Human contributions to Co2 are minuscule compared Co2 contributions to the environment from non-human sources.

The argument that alarmists make is equivalent to saying that if we throw a bucket of water into a river we're going to make it flood and kill us all.

>>1038624
it's fucking hilarious
he has a graph, cites a scientific paper and your answer is "no, it's not"
and then
>all of you calling me a troll when you can't provide any fucking argument
truly a master troll
i salute you

>>1038478
>>1038515
>>1038620
>>1038624
>>1038630
>>1038640
>>1038679

An obvious troll (its in his name), claims that he is winning because noone is bothering with his trolling.

Hes practically trolling himself now..

>>1038679
the volcanoes, right?

>>1038658

Responding to

>>1038620

Moving on...

>>1038624

Oh? Please explain. I was under the impression that water vapour, while essential to maintaining greenhouse warming, is driven by temperature rather than the other way around. When you listen to the weather report and they mention humidity, think about this: doesn't the air have a greater capacity to hold water when the temperature is higher rather than if the temperature is lower?

>>1038630

Tyndall experimentally confirmed CO2 warming properties in 1859, working off of Fourier's hypothesis from a few decades earlier. In the later half of the 19th and early half of the 20th century, scientists such as Arrhenius and Gilbert Plass all but confirmed the warming properties of CO2. This is not an arguable point. It's physics, dude.

>>1038692
He's referencing a graph and source that has nothing to do with his claims.
Are you fucking claiming that most heat trapped in our atmosphere is from Co2 and not water vapor? Because it fucking isn't you goddamn idiot.
>>1038694
Maybe because you don't have any arguments?


This is typical of how alarmists respond to any debate. "HURRRRRR U R REEETARD TROLL FINANCED BY EVIILLLL KKKORPORATIONS GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL YOU CAN'T DENY IT".

This is why the public has stopped taking you seriously.

>>1037275
yes.

>>1038724
You're name is troll, obviously people are going to call you a troll.

>>1038724
>Are you fucking claiming that most heat trapped in our atmosphere is from Co2 and not water vapor? Because it fucking isn't you goddamn idiot.
well, i'm gonna need a source for that.
peer-reviewed and published in a good journal please.
otherwise, you know
> you don't have any arguments?

>>1038679

>Human contributions to Co2 are minuscule compared Co2 contributions to the environment from non-human sources.

This is untrue. Volcanoes emit CO2 several orders of magnitude less than human sources. Furthermore, they have a net cooling effect on the climate due to sulphate aerosol emissions. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1992, the cooling effect was especially pronounced and contributed greatly to climatology's understanding of the climatic effects of volcanoes. Again, I refer you to Harries 2001. See:

>>1038565

>>1038058
liberal data is liberal

>>1038710

Not arguing global warming here, but I thought it was the other way round. The temperature in the atmosphere is so high because of the amount of humidity...

>>1038710
>>
Tyndall experimentally confirmed CO2 warming properties in 1859, working off of Fourier's hypothesis from a few decades earlier. In the later half of the 19th and early half of the 20th century, scientists such as Arrhenius and Gilbert Plass all but confirmed the warming properties of CO2. This is not an arguable point. It's physics, dude.
You. Are. Fucking. Retarded.
Where in my post did I deny that Co2 provides NO warming effect? The FACT is that Co2's warming effect is not significant compared to water vapor.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

Water vapor provides the majority of greenhouse warming. This is not up for debate.

Of course that article also makes the bullshit "feedback" argument for Co2, which is disproven by the graphs which show the opposite.

>>1038748
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

WRONG again motherfucker.

>>1038754
>The FACT is that Co2's warming effect is not significant compared to water vapor.
That means nothing whatsoever (even though you still didn't source that)
Water concentration doesn't change
CO2 concentration does
The question is how much MORE warming will the additional CO2 cause.

/thread

>>1038724

We are not speaking of what the greenhouse gases are doing at any infinitesimally specific point in time, but rather their effects over a period of time. Water vapour does not drive climate, as explained in an earlier post, and in fact has a small cooling effect due to cloud albedo. Therefore water vapour does not constitute a major driving force behind recent climatic changes. If you don't understand what the Harries paper has to do with our discussion I'm not sure I can help you. I can only suggest that you return to school for adult education classes in high school science.

>alarmists

Lol. I always find it funny when science denialists think what they've heard on Fox is an example of alarmism. Bitches don't know about my hydrogen sulfide kill mechanism for the P-T mass extinction event.

>>1038771
you are stupid, right?
The ADDITIONAL (this is the important word, motherfucker) CO2 almost 100% of human origin
IT SAYS SO RIGHT THERE

>>1038780

Why doesn't the water concentration in the atmosphere change?

>>1038754
>>1038771

>The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

lololololol

Anyway I'm done here, a layperson who reads my posts should be able to get a good grasp of the scientific fundamentals. StormTroll provides good links in a strange turn of events which completely undermines his own arguments. gg

Global warming due to human causes isn't happening. End of debate.

Once someone can conclusively link human activity to rising temps, let me know. Because you haven't.

>>1038771
>>1038754
could you read the shit you fucking post?
because it helps your point in no way whatsoever

>>1038807
>>Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years.

LOLOLOL keep reading the comments where they call that part out as bullshit.

Humans aren't causing global warming. You're all so full of shit it's not even funny.

>>1038805

Water vapour does not drive temperature changes, it is driven by them. Consequently they amplify the warming that is caused originally by anthropogenic CO2.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

>>1038785
>>make assertions without providing any evidence
>>Skeptics: This is wrong because of this, this, and this.
>>Alarmists: LOL NO IT ISNT

>>1038824
Prove that Co2 emissions are the cause of increased temperatures.

Alarmist status: Told.

>>1038844
Troll status: Ignorant faggot.

>>1038808
seriously, you are hilariously retarded.
What you cited undermines your own fucking arguments, you cling to ridiculous points that have no meaning whatsoever (if you spend a 100$ and then get a 100$, have you gained a 0$. the INCREASE in CO2 is almost completely human made. that nature emits AND consumes larger amounts means nothing whatsoever, because the amounts are the same)
>Global warming due to human causes isn't happening. End of debate.
yeah, bro. whatever floats your boat

>Once someone can conclusively link human activity to rising temps, let me know
Co2 warms the planet (you said this was correct). we emit a fuckton of CO2. we raised the Co2 levels in the atmosphere by abou 40% over the last 100 years. conclusion -> the planets getting warmer.
The last decade was the hottest on record. Almost every year that goes by sees temeratures rising.
IT WOULD TAKE AN IDIOT NOT TO SEE THE PATTERN!
But wait, that's exactly what you are
good day sir

>>1038484
asp?

>>1038851
>>we raised the Co2 levels in the atmosphere by about 40% over the last 100 years.
By what percentage has temperature raised in the last 100 years?

This is simple fucking math buddy.

Determine how much Co2 has increased, determine how much temperature has increased within the same time period.

>>1038808

Declining oxygen concentration in sync with rise in CO2, suggesting singlet carbon atoms emitted by human sources bonding with O2 (IPCC 2007)

Isotopic ratios in atmospheric CO2 suggesting anthropogenic emissions (Ghosh 2003)

Increasing tropopause height and cooling stratosphere, ruling out solar or cosmic forcing (US CCSP 2006; Santer et al. 2003)

Anomalously fast rates of change in observed temperature increases and CO2 concentration increases (Mann et al. 2003)

CO2 and temperature rise closely correlated with the Industrial Revolution, with fastest acceleration after 1960s with mass car ownership and catalytic converters removing sulphate aerosol emissions (forgot mah source)

Daily temperature increases rising in sync for both daytime and nighttime measurements, ruling out solar or cosmic forcing (Alexander et al. 2006)

>>1038838
haha, the good old PROVE IT.
reminds me of the creationists.
there is no proof in science, my friend, there is only strong evidence
simple questions: what evidence WOULD a scientist have to present you to believe in global warming (and not some bullshit like "a convincing one", what actual piece of evidence would he ahve to show you?)

>>1038867

Why would increasing CO2 40% increase temperature the exact same percentage? Care to explain?

i agree with global warming. Anybody who doesn't is mental. Im just not sold with the man is the cause of it all shit

>>1038868
>Increasing tropopause height and cooling stratosphere, ruling out solar or cosmic forcing
Why does this rule out solar or cosmic forcing?

Wasn't there a report that the 10 lest years had been a bit cooler?

>>1038871
God forbid somebody wanting someone to prove a large claim that economically and socially affects most of the people on the planet. Science needs proof. In religion, they need a proof of an absence of an event. Asking for proof of Global Warming is proof of the presence of an event. Science NEEDS proof of a presence of an event. I'm not picking a 'side' with this Global Warming bullshit, but you a retard, and you don't deserve to visit /sci/. "Science doesn't need proof". I have never heard something so damn stupid.

>>1038881

If the stratosphere were cooling, and the troposphere was warming, then external sources of radiation would not be causing the increase in surface temperatures.

>>1038867
>This is simple fucking math buddy.
haha, no
1.not all of earths heat comes from greenhouse gases
2.not all greenhouses gases are CO2 (which yourself said. thanks for helping my argument)
increasing Co2 content by 40% will not make the planet 40% warmer.
to claim that would mean you are immensely retarded
it will increase the warming effect the Co2 already had by 40%
also the global temperature will obviously lag behind, since your planet will not get warmer instantly

>>1038892
You didn't even care reading the whole thing did you?

>>1038893
But the external sources of radiation are casuing the temperature increase in both scenarios, just the gases are absoribing more infra red in the Man-made scenario.

>>1038892
>there is no proof in science, my friend, there is only strong evidence
did your parents tell you you are special?

>>1038903
>reminds me of the creationists
>there is no proof in science

>>1038871
They'd have to present a casual link between human Co2 emissions and demonstrates that the increase in human Co2 directly increases temperature AFTER THE FACT.
And it has to be purely HUMAN emissions of Co2. Not Co2 in general.

>>1038905

The stratosphere absorbs short-wavelength solar radiation. If solar radiation was increasing in intensity, the stratosphere would absorb more radiation and respond by increasing its temperature.

It has done the opposite. Ergo, solar radiation not increasing (of course, we have satellites that measure radiation outside earth's atmosphere, and it hasn't changed there besides the 'normal' fluctuations)

>143 posts and 17 image replies omitted.

Don't feel bad /sci/ , it was bound to happen

>>1038923
>And it has to be purely HUMAN emissions of Co2. Not Co2 in general.

>Troll detec...ohyournamelol

If there was a graph that looked like THIS. I might be convinced.
Red = temperature
Yellow = HUMAN generated Co2

Scale independent, only needs to show that A. temperature remained stable before human release of Co2 increased.
And B. Increased human Co2 emissions lead to increased temperature in direct proportion, AFTER human Co2 increase.

>>1038953
forgot pic

>>1038942
HOW THE FUCK IS THAT A TROLL? fuck you, you dumb fucking retard. this shit is obviously a religion to you people.

>>1038890

No. Last 18 of the past 20 years (as of 2008) were the warmest on the instrumental record and likely warmest in 2000 years. Since 2009 was beat the previous records (2005 and 1998) and 2010 is projected to smash the 2009 record, by 2011 that would make it 20 out of 20 years of anomalous warmth. In any case, 10 years is too short to extrapolate a meaningful trend.

>>1038892

What are you doing on /sci/ then? There's no proving anything in science, not even relativity or gravity. There is only the best possible current understanding. Right now, we can be >99% sure that the Earth is warming, >95% sure that humans are causing it and 90-95% sure that the effects will be overwhelmingly negative. Would you get into a car that had a 99% chance of exploding when you keyed the ignition, because you weren't totally sure?

Furthermore, the economic damage from global warming is projected to be up to 20% of global GDP under optimistic Business-As-Usual scenarios. Implementing mitigation solutions would not be as expensive, and in fact a few of them (like energy efficiency) <span class="math"> saves [/spoiler] individuals, businesses and governments money (see image). What sense is there in handing China the number one position in renewable energy R&D, and buying a fuckload of oil from Saudi Arabia, or getting that oil from rigs like the Deep Horizons, or getting it from cancerous blights like the Alberta Tar Sands?

How do alarmists explain similar increases in temperatures of other planets?

Of course it's real. We are the cause and the victims of it at the same time. The thing I hate about it is that the government is always telling us how to stop it and soon, but they're the firsts who improve it, GOD SHIT!

>>1038964
>>Right now, we can be >99% sure that the Earth is warming, >95% sure that humans are causing it and 90-95% sure that the effects will be overwhelmingly negative.

Again, alarmists making claims not backed up by any evidence or arguments.

>>1038953

Guys, don't mind me, I'm just assuming that thermal equilibrium in a system with thermal inertia happens immediately.

>>1038965
Some planets take centuries to orbit the sun. It doesn't surprise astronomers that, since their orbits are also elliptical, they experience changes in average planetary emission temperatures over the course of their orbit.

Not all planets are 'heating' up either - I guess the sun is selectively choosing who gets its extra radiation? We have instruments that track the solar constant at earth's orbit - it isn't increasing.

>>1038965

>implying that climate on any of the other planets are analogous to Earth's

>implying none of the planets are cooling

>implying you can claim that our understanding of Earth's climate is insufficient to draw conclusions yet we can make solid conclusions about Jupiter and Mars

Speaking of Mars, dust storms decrease albedo and absorbs more solar radiation. It has a pretty big effect on a planet with barely any atmosphere and whose climate is driven primarily by dust.

>>1038974

Clearly all of the scientific academies and major research institutions, and the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field, have accepted global warming without merit.

>>1038974

For the 99% figure, it's based on Oreskes' meta-studies of climatology literature. It's actually in 100% agreement, a stunning figure compared to what goes on in other scientific fields. However there is always uncertainty in science so I pared it down to greater then 99 but less than 100.

The 95% figure for negative impacts is from here:

http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2010/webprogram/Paper1639.html

>New scientific findings are found to be more than twenty times as likely to indicate that global climate disruption is "worse than previously expected," rather than "not as bad as previously expected," strongly supporting the ASC perspective rather than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media.

Climate change is real.
In part of the Earths natural cycles that we can't stop.
In part because of us.
Who gives a shit, adapt.

/sci/ I am impressed. Not much raging, answering questions well with appropriate images (mostly).

Good work friends.

>>1039044

>implying you can adapt to breathing battery acid

>>1038792

http://www.mediafire.com/?nttym1tjtlg

Granted, it won't be us but our grandchildren or some other future generation, but whatever, who gives a shit about them.

Worst-case scenario, we "only" have to deal with shit like famine, mass refugee movements and war.

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/climate-wars/index.html

>>1037909
they're either rising or falling, derp

look. it's a natural cycle. we're headed for an ice age, it's going to happen whether or not we want it to. we need to develop technology to cope with it rather than trying to delay the inevitable.

>>1038960
>>1038992
OH SHI-

Bump for educational value

fake

yea ive heard so much scientific evidence for both sides that I dont care any more. the fact of the matter is you can't deny climate change, the climate changes without human intervention therefore their will always be periods of cooling and warming ice ages hot periods etc, they do cycle and there are quite a few cycles, kinda like the tides how their are neep tides and big tides etc.

but it is ignorant to think that the human race cannot influence the earth, the debate of global warming isn't if it happens it is how much of it is humans fault

if a significant amount is the fault of us, then governments will make a big deal over it, everyone will blame everyone else and tax will go up without anything ever changing.

if it is shown that humans havent influenced the climate by much (relative to what though) , then everybody will yell at everybody else for kicking up a fuss

the thing is that everybody on each side always says that their evidence for or against global warming is correct, everybody elses is either wrong, doesn't get it, insignificant etc unless they agree with me

saying it is 100% caused by humans is retarted. anyone who says that it is has no grip on reality whatsoever.

>>1041817

why not blame ourselves for the problems? we're the one who conceived it, and we're the only ones who can put an end to it.

What does the scientific community think:

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

inb4 hurr wiki durr - everything is well sourced.

>>1041841
I never said anything about blaming anyone, I just stated that only an idiot would say that global warming is 100% our fault as it implies that the environment of the earth never changes without human intervention

what pisses me off is our government (nz) has done nothing except put taxes up, but haven't actually done anything constructive to lower CO2 emissions

here is an opposing view to global warming
i dont deny it is happening, i have seen statistics suggesting both sides, however the fact is that because the earth heats up it warms the ocean producing co2 which brings up the phrase correlation doesnt mean causation. another example of this is that people make the argument that paying people more gets them to work harder however they actually work harder first.

It's absolutely real, and it's very probably caused by humans.

>>1041863
>but haven't actually done anything constructive to lower CO2 emissions

this.

scientists: hey guys this co2 shit is getting the planet all warm and shit

government: hey another reason for tax yay!

scientist: but theyre still dumping co2, how does this help exactly?

govenrment: buying government employees bigger air conditioners

>>1037851
YES, good job and thank you.
cicadas especially I have noticed. I used to live in Austin and I swore to shit, they got bigger and louder every year. Now I have escaped them (thank god, those fuckers were annoying) but it is freaky how all sorts of animals are moving further north.

anyway... OP: yes it is very very real and has happened several times in earth's history. however this time part of it is caused by mankind. the thought that we are insignificant and have no effect is a very irresponsible one, and disproven immediately if you just look around you. many of the environmental problems' causes are our own selves. however, I am not an environmentalist, super liberal, humans-are-evilhurrdurr type. i simply believe in facts.

Saying global warming is caused by humans is incorrect, as there was global cooling and global warming before humans existed.
(if your religeous god created it because you touch yourself at night)
It is more about how much we effect the balance of the earths climate.

>>1041921
thats like pushing a rock off of a cliff onto somebody and then saying

'WELP, IM NOT THAT ONE THAT PUT THAT ROCK ON THE EDGE OF THE CLIFF, HERPY DERP DOO'

>>1041863
While the NZ ETS is a joke, NZ has been the driving force for global co-operation on research to reduce agricultural emissions, which make up NZs largest component.
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/global-agricultural-alliance-sets-its-research-agenda.html

>>1041930
saying global warming is caused by humans is like saying global warming will never happen without humans you troll, thats all im saying

>>1041942
>yeah, i shot the guy, but im not the one that loaded the gun

>>1041921
global warming before humans was caused by things like massive amounts of volcanic explosions, causing large amounts of CO2 to rise into the atmosphere.

Today we lack those massive amounts of volcanic explosions. However, we burn away CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases easily. global warming always has a CAUSE. And evidence points that we are part of that cause, if not all of it.

Take a look around you. Go to goddamned Los Angeles. Ever fly in a plane over LA? I have. That shit looks like cancer. If you can look at that and honestly say to yourself that has zero effect on the environment, then shit are you goddamn stupid.

>>1041940
cheers for link to article
its about time nz actually sereously tried to do something

>>1037272

vjf uq a v zqy qbzl e tqgrrkkbcCHRISjTOPHER POObLEq (AKA MOOTg, AKA TbHEm ADMIN OFe 4CHAqN) IS A DANGEgROUzS,m MENTALLY ILLu TaHIgEF.e REfAD ALL ABOUT IT HERdEq:a HzTTPv://88.80.21.1a2/ OR HTToP:e//tWWW.ANONTALlKq.SE/ OR HTTP:/c/AT.KIfMjMOA.SE/wuy lmrir ga j g p mpl y a cnwn ke t sa n

There is warming caused by both humans and solar cycles.

The debate is which matters more. The warming caused by humans could be a drop in the ocean compared to the warming caused by solar cycles.