/sci/ - Science & Math

There is, it just doesn't get as much attention. Many chemists have made artificial ice cores before and compared them, and the data fits what is expected.

why won't /pol/shits just die and instead shit up my planet?

>>10725669
>The CO2 data from the past comes from ice samples. There's no evidence that an ice core sample would reflect the same ppm as the ambient air.
Ice core scientist here, yes it does. CO2 data from the past not only come from ice proper. When snow accumulates it compacts first into firn, equivalent to a porous sponge before further compact into snow (figure on the left).Historical measurements started in 1958. The youngest proper bubble trapped ice in Antarctica is about 1920s. The data gap between 1920 to 1958 can be solved by measuring air in the open porosity of firn (middle figure). The air in firn open porosity is relatively aged to the atmospheric air (due to longer path of mixing). We can splice measurements from modern air to firn air to ice core.

Another reason to believe ice core measurements are real is that there has been about 10 ice cores drilled in antarctica. All ice cores yield the same CO2 values at the same age. If ice cores do not record paleoatmospheric value, then we would expect localized effects to dominate and different ice core would measure different CO2 amount. In fact, this is what we observe in Greenland ice, where CO2 is not preserved due to higher impurity content in Greenland ice. This is why there is no CO2 record from Greenland ice, only Antarctic ice

>>10725669
>There's no evidence that an ice core sample would reflect the same ppm as the ambient air.
well we can easily test whether that's true. expose water to different levels of atmospheric CO2 and then freeze it and see what it reads as.

even a systemic bias is correctable

>>10725772
Thank god for /sci/

>>10725774
This is a good idea in theory, but it doesn't work in practice because artificially frozen ice (left picture) do not have enough air bubble content to be measured with the analytical system compared to natural ice that was compacted from snow and firn over its own weight (right picture).

>>10725772
>The youngest proper bubble trapped ice in Antarctica is about 1920s.

So if it takes a century or more for an air bubble to form, then it follows that any air bubbles in the ice cores would hide any intense short-duration transients.

If the carbon dioxide levels shot up to 20x normal during a span of 30 years, you wouldn't be able to see that in the ice record.

>>10725965
>So if it takes a century or more for an air bubble to form, then it follows that any air bubbles in the ice cores would hide any intense short-duration transients.
Yes (kinda). The firn air is not very well mixed because the long path of mixing, so it's not like they are uniform but each has it's own histogram of age distribution. The signal will still be there but it is smoothed over through diffusion, plus some gravitational fractionation (where heavy gases sink faster), and thermal fractionation. The histogram of age distribution that is site specific. In high accumulation site like greenland and west antarctica the signal is relatively preserved, but in low accumulation site like east antarctica it is smoothed over.

>If the carbon dioxide levels shot up to 20x normal during a span of 30 years, you wouldn't be able to see that in the ice record.
We'll still see it, but not as 20x over 30 years. Maybe like 15x over 50 years. But remember the power of averages. We know the average age, we know the average concentration and their associated uncertainties. It is more likely than not it'll be a fairly accurate representation of the true signal. If you're interested in gas flow in porous media and firn air physics check this paper out
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/4259/2012/acp-12-4259-2012.pdf

>>10725669
>800,000 years of data to explain a 150 year-old phenomenon
GTFO denialfag

>>10725772
>>10726011

Denialfaggots BTFO by actual science.

This shit cracks me up. What makes nutjobs think that they can even understand climate science, without the time and effort to even get the basics of the field?
Do you know what it takes to be a climate scientist?

A double major in math and physics at undergrad level. Then physics with a focus on climate science at graduate level. Minimum 5 years full time study. Even then you will only have a cursory understanding. Then you need to specialize in one aspect which takes further 3 to 4 years and then you are just an expert on one set of data, so not even then are you an expert on the whole picture.

What makes some nutjob think that they can wave away 8 to 9 years of prerequisite education and start having """opinions""" and even DISPUTING expert conclusions?
Literally what the fuck?

>>10726107
>This shit cracks me up. What makes nutjobs think that they can even understand 13th century astronomy, without the time and effort to even get the basics of the field?
Do you know what it takes to be an astronomer in roman catholic church?

>A double major in bible and latin at undergrad level. Then more bibke with a focus on jesus science at theology school. Minimum 5 years full time study. Even then you will only have a cursory understanding. Then you need to specialize in one aspect which takes further 3 to 4 years and then you are just an expert on one set of data, so not even then are you an expert on the whole picture.

>What makes some nutjob think that they can wave away 8 to 9 years of prerequisite education and start having """opinions""" and even DISPUTING expert conclusions THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT?
>Literally what the fuck?

Science doesn't care about your feelings, degree and expert """""(((opinions)))""""". Only when you're right or wrong. Establishment science have been proven wrong countless times, just like when Galileo BTFO the whole church that the earth is round.

>>10726126
>Galileo BTFO the whole church that the earth is round.
T-this is bait right guys?

>>10726126
>Establishment science
Is that an intentional oxymoron, or is it ironic?
Either way, it is moronic.

Is there any chance we will be able to survive the coming destruction in any capacity?

>>10726169
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it's not

>>10726126
Based retard conflates scientific investigation with religious belief. There was literally nothing scientific about the Catholic Church’s belief in egocentrism.

>>10726126
Based retard conflates scientific investigation with religious belief. There was literally nothing scientific about the Catholic Church’s belief in geocentrism.

>>10726107
Smart people make money in wall street or silicon valley. They don't become climate scientists. Screeching SJW environmental marxists pretending to do science do to feel good about themselves

>>10726220
Other way round. The second-rates go on Wall St. Nobody studies math and physics for a decade to then go work on Wall St. The smartest ones get faculty positions in academia. The less smart ones because quants or data scientists.

Am a quant myself btw so speaking from personal experience.

>>10726126
Nutjobs like you try to appropriate the institution of science. You try to pretend like you know the science better without actually putting in the time and effort to even begin to understand it.

>>10726220
There are smart people working in climate science and plenty of resources/benefits to keep them there. A research position at Scripps institute as a professor will net you 150 grand plus a year. That's a fat paycheck for most people

>>10726286
And (((who)))'s paying for them? They're just government propagandist and thugs for one world government

>>10726298
You’re either a troll or schizophrenic.

>>10726220
>SJW

You have to go back to 2015 YouTube.

>>10725772
What do you think of this post:
>>>10726307

>>10726340
>1) It takes the same amount of energy to melt a given volume of ice as it does to raise the temperature of just above freezing water to 79 C
>2) The variation of volume (melting and refreezing) of arctic sea ice is about 15,000 cubic km
>3) The dark ocean absorbs roughly 10 times as much solar energy than the highly reflective ice
>4) The volume of the arctic ocean is roughly 18 million cubic km
These facts are all correct.

>So, once the ice is gone, the arctic ocean will absorb enough energy to be heated 0.59 degrees per year, or 5.9 degrees per decade.
These calculations are overly simplified because it doesn't take into account ocean currents. The ocean water doesn't just sit like a static lake and getting baked under the sun. The Arctic is a prime spot for deepwater formation (where colder water sinks). So the overall effect would be small warming (on the order fraction of degrees) for the deepwater which is already happening. Climate wise "ice-free" Arctic doesn't make that much of a difference from say sea ice patch at 5% cover. It's more a media thing to cover. However ice free Artic is a newsworthy news economically (in terms of shipping route) and for biologists because sea ice changes a lot of ecosystem dynamics.

>>10726126
https://youtu.be/NFPtjXFfczM

>>10726340
>especially considering the amount of methane and CO2 locked up in subsea permafrost, as well as on the land surrounding the arctic

This is a sore point from me. The ice core community has been skeptical about the claim from permafrost people regarding Arctic methane time bomb but the idea just would not go away despite pushback from both ice core and oceanographers.

(1) Unlike CO2, methane is preserved in both Greenland and Antarctic ice. Therefore we can calculate the CH4 interpolar gradient (difference in concentration between Greenland and Antarctica). During the last deglaciation the Earth warmed naturally by 4 degrees C and there were 2 major spikes of methane at Younger Dryas and Preboreal. However the interpolar gradient did not grow significantly, which means that it was driven by tropical sources rather than northern sources.

(2). We also analyzed the methane isotopes during the last deglaciation. Methane hydrate has distinct deuterium ratios (ratio of 2H and 1H in the CH4). We do not see this distinct signature during the CH4 transitions of the last deglaciation.

3. Finally we measured the radiocarbon signature of atmospheric CH4 from ice core (14CH4). Permafrost and hydrates should be depleted in 14C relative to contemporaneous CH4 sources like wetlands and cow farts. Again we do not see any 14C depleted CH4 coming out in the last deglaciation.

Sources
1. E. J. Brook, S. Harder, J. Severinghaus, E. J. Steig, C. M. Sucher, On the origin and timing of rapid changes in atmospheric methane during the Last Glacial Period. Global Biogeochem. Cycles. 14, 559–572 (2000).
2. T. Sowers, Late Quaternary Atmospheric CH4 Isotope Record Suggests Marine Clathrates Are Stable. Science. 311, 838–840 (2006).
3. V. V. Petrenko et al., Minimal geological methane emissions during the Younger Dryas–Preboreal abrupt warming event. Nature. 548, 443–446 (2017).

>>10726107
yeah that math major really helps with climate science.
>is the earth getting warmer?
>lol check this funky triangle

>>10727313
>Deep water formation
And danger of that being slowed (or even stopped), given sufficient warming (I assume the water cooling down causes the sinking)?

> skeptical about the claim from permafrost people regarding Arctic methane time bomb but the idea just would not go away
Is there some way in which the current situation is different enough from previous warming as to cause a mismatch between what you'd expect by looking at history and what the permafrost people are seeing now (besides simply the pace of warming that is)?

When you look at a graph of methane levels ( https://www.methanelevels.org/ ), you see them rising since about 1750. What would be the cause of the early rise, more than 250 years ago?

>However the interpolar gradient did not grow significantly
Wouldn't you expect relatively rapid dispersal of methane across the latitudes?

>>10727313
>Deep water formation
Any danger of that being slowed (or even stopped), given sufficient warming?
I assume the water cooling down and becoming more dense causes the sinking. Does it become more saline as well as sea ice forms or does the sea ice contain salt?

> skeptical about the claim from permafrost people regarding Arctic methane time bomb but the idea just would not go away
Is there some way in which the current situation is different enough from previous warming as to cause a mismatch between what you'd expect by looking at history and what the permafrost people are seeing now (besides simply the pace of warming)?

When you look at a graph of methane levels ( https://www.methanelevels.org/ ), you see them rising since about 1750. What would be the cause of the early rise, more than 250 years ago?

>However the interpolar gradient did not grow significantly
Wouldn't you expect relatively rapid dispersal of methane across the latitudes?

>>10729068
>Any danger of that being slowed
Deepwater formation is already being slowed
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/slow-motion-ocean-atlantics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/
This would mess up with natural redistribution of heat on Earth, because the ocean caries the most heat capacity of them all (compared to other method of heat distribution - moving air masses)

>Is there some way in which the current situation is different enough from previous warming as to cause a mismatch between what you'd expect by looking at history and what the permafrost people are seeing now (besides simply the pace of warming)?
Clearly that's the elephant in the room and everyone would admit that's the limit of ice core data. Okay so during glacial-interglacial transitions permafrost CH4 were stable. But present day warming is unprecedented, so we're going beyond an already warm interglacial into uncharted territory. Permafrost people would claim that this means paleohistorical data is out of the window. It is up to you whether to decide this argument is fair or not as real scientists don't even agree.

(con'td)

>>10729429
>you see them rising since about 1750. What would be the cause of the early rise, more than 250 years ago?
From 1750-1850 it is the preindustrial farming. Cattles, rice paddies, etc emit CH4 to the atmosphere so the initial rise does not deplete 14CH4 in the atmosphere relative to 14CO2. Because of photosynthesis, rice paddies and wetlands imprint the 14C signature of atmospheric 14CO2. Then they die, rot in anoxic water, become CH4 and got emitted to the atmosphere or got eaten by cows and farted to the atmosphere.

Beyond 1850 is a contribution from fossil fuel from early coal mining (figure on right), natural gas and oil extraction. You can see 14CH4 from firn air started to go dip below the "biogenic" 14CH4 emissions (figure on left).

Sadly from 1950 onwards the interpretation is more complicated. Nuclear bomb testing spiked the atmospheric 14CO2 and furthermore nuclear power plants emit 14C-enriched CH4. As I explain >>10726011 firn air contains a distribution of age, not just single discrete age. When you fuck with the end tail of distribution by spiking the atmospheric 14CO2 and 14CH4 by an order of magnitude, it would significantly affect the results. In our case, this creates an artificial reversal in fossil CH4 emissions around 1940 (because the end tail of "1940" firn air samples contained 14C spiked air from the 1950s).

>Wouldn't you expect relatively rapid dispersal of methane across the latitudes?
Depends on what you mean by rapid. Intrahemispheric mixing is faster than interhemispheric mixing. So an air mass from say somewhere in the 5N latitude (like northern brazil) got mixed into the pole in months. But it takes almost a year for that air mass to reach the south pole. This is because the ITCZ trade winds (strong easterly winds in the equator splitting the hadley cells) and coriolis effect. Because this, the interpolar gradient of CH4 and any other gases with relatively short atmospheric lifetime is maintained.

>>10729498
Based ice core anon.
I just had my first paleoceanography/paleoclimate paper accepted

>>10725772
>Global climate
>Antarctica
Third Assessment Report (IPCC), Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2:
>In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles-will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.

>>10725735
Emotional reaction.
Not an argument.
Do you have proof for the validity of ice core samples?

>>10725772
Fuck you, corporate lobbyist.

>>10725772
CO2 reaches equilibrium in H2O matrices which is why the level remains constant virtually in all old samples.

>>10725772
>the virgin statistician cum pseudoscience proxy measurer hack
vs >>10729561
>the Chad hard scientist

>>10729550
Congrats anon!

>>10729561
CO2 only dissolve and equilibrate with liquid. Otherwise the whole ice sheet in Greenland and Antarctica would have contain/covered in dry ice (frozen CO2)

>>10729561
>CO2 reaches equilibrium in H2O matrices
How come CO2 doesn't reach equilibrium with H2O matrix in my ice cube in my freezer? You would expect all ice cube to be fizzy if that's the case

>>10729551
Antarctic temperature is not global temperature, but Antarctic CO2 is global CO2 because CO2 has longer lifetime than interhemispheric mixing

>>10729605
Post proof.

>>10729667
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_and_south_pole/mauna_loa_and_south_pole

In the 1960s before significant human emissions in the northern hemisphere, mauna loa (hawaii) and south pole measure the same amount of CO2 average. Only in the last couple of decades the interpolar gradient started to grow and even then it's less than 10ppm.

>>10729677
This is meaningless except to disprove the idea that the ice cores in Antarctica represent the co2 of whole earth.

>>10730373
In periods where there is extreme source imbalance between the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere due to anthropogenic emissions, CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere was 407ppm and CO2 in the South pole was 404ppm, yielding (407/404-1)*100=0.74% relative interpolar gradient.

That means ice core measurements from Antarctica, which capture air over the continent is at most 1% off than the true global value at times where there is significant source imbalance from the North.

A more appropriate look is to look at the 1960s before there is relatively significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There you can see there is no rIPD which means that Antarctic measurements are accurate.

The interhemispheric lifetime is about 1yr while CO2 evasion time is about 100-200 years. This means that CO2 is "well mixed" globally.

>>10730614
>A more appropriate look is to look at the 1960s before there is relatively significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions
*less significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions

>>10730614
No that doesn’t mean that it’s “at most.” The visible difference in one year out of billions doesn’t imply an upper limit of error.
It just proves that they are not the same, so Antarctica being representative of world co2 levels is not a credible claim.

>>10732017
All observational data fits our understanding of how CO2 is distributed in the atmosphere, and ice core samples. Unless you can provide any evidence that that this isn't the case or shouldn't be the case you're just pulling shit out of your ass, without evidence and can be safely ignored.

>>10725772
>In fact, this is what we observe in Greenland ice, where CO2 is not preserved due to higher impurity content in Greenland ice. This is why there is no CO2 record from Greenland ice, only Antarctic ice
This seems like the perfect excuse to cherry pick data that doesn't fit the narrative. Correlation does not equal causation. Are there no other ice cores except for Antarctica?

>>10732104
>All observational data fits our understanding of how CO2 is distributed
>our understanding of how CO2 is distributed comes form the observational data...
hmmm...

>>10726126
Now we just need an actual scientist giving evidents against global warming and arguments for it instead of faggots on the internet trying to act smart.
And by the way, do you know how many years Galilei obeserved the sky?

>>10729603
It takes hundreds of years.

>>10726220
found the college-dropout

>>10732159
citation needed

>>10729557
are we in the same thread?

>>10732158
>now we just need an actual priest to tell us...
-you
I guess it’s possible you actually do need your hand held. The ‘scientist’ in this thread is humiliated and discredited already.
This is real peer review.
Radiative forcing at 0.04% of any atmosphere is unproven as a hypothesis in the first place. Just because it’s substantial in environments where Co2 is 95% of an atmosphere’s composition doesn’t mean it’s significant at 0.04%.
Co2 at earth atmosphere levels DOEs NOT demonstratively increase heat, and every lab experiment that attempted to prove it does failed to produce the intended result/FALSIFIED the main premise of AGW.
The IPCC itself states that long term climate cannot be predicted, as well, the media just intentionally leaves this out.
Any scientist is free to post here, but they will and do get blown the fuck out every time, which is the real reason they need exclusive hugboxes to bullshit in.

>>10732171
Not him but in this thread only evidence against the premise that the Antarctic ice cores represented the Co2 concentrations across the whole world, and the notion that the Co2 levels are constant across the whole world, has been posted. Peer review determined that we can’t make predictions on the global climate based on it, and the IPCC published as much in section 14.2.2.2 of its report.

I don't understand what you gain from denying climate change, on 4chan of all places, unless you're some oil baron there is literally no reason to, even if you indeed do not believe in climate change, why does it matter whether the govt puts regulations on oil companies or not.
The only reason I can think of is simply opposing things that would affect you personally like a carbon tax, but I mean do you honestly believe all of the people that protested that in France were climate deniars?

>>10732199
>non sequitor
In every controlled experiment, which attempted to determine whether Earth’s atmospheric concentrations of Co2, and variants within +-100% of that current concentration (.02 to .08%), can manipulate the temperature gradient under IR compared to a control.
For some reason, the idea is not falsified in the media despite empirical suggestion that it is.
Radiative forcing from Co2 is being newspeaked to mean something it doesn’t, in order to push an agenda. Yes at thousands of times the concentration of earth atmospheric Co2, radiative forcing is empirically shown. it’s not shown to be relevant at earth’s levels now or even 100 years from now projected.
The IPCC literally summarizes a conclusion which states that while statists analysis should not be abandoned and is useful, the long term states of climate cannot be predicted.
When we start getting times and dates for earthquakes let me know; otherwise ill always call out your fake appeal to the implied omniscience of climate research data.

>>10732336
In every controlled experiment, which attempted to determine whether Earth’s atmospheric concentrations of Co2, and variants within +-100% of that current concentration (.02 to .08%), can manipulate the temperature gradient under IR compared to a control*,
IT HAS FAILED TO SHOW FORCING.

>>10732339
>>10732336
>implying the percent is that high.
Add a zero.
AGW is a big energy oligopoly racket.

>>10732344
>>10732339
>>10732336
Here it is:
There is no rad

>>10732195
>Not him but in this thread only evidence against the premise that the Antarctic ice cores represented the Co2 concentrations across the whole world, and the notion that the Co2 levels are constant across the whole world, has been posted.
So you are moving the goalpost? The subject of the thread is whether CO2 from ice core reconstruction is valid

>>10732156
It's almost if scientists used observational data to postulate a hypothesis.

Hmm.. indeed

>>10732129
>This seems like the perfect excuse to cherry pick data that doesn't fit the narrative. Correlation does not equal causation. Are there no other ice cores except for Antarctica?
We see CO2 is elevated in Greenland ice when there is a localized organic matter (which we can measure). Organic matter decompose into CO2, and that CO2 diffuse out to adjacent sample depths in the firn making the whole Greenland CO2 record unreliable. We see the exact same thing in ice cores from tropical mountain glaciers (Himalayas, Andes, etc). So yeah unfortunately CO2 record can only come from Antarctic ice, which has 2 orders of magnitude lower organic loading. However as I said, there have been >10 ice cores drilled in Antarctica and they all measure more or less the same CO2 levels when their ages happen to overlap.

Furthermore, independent CO2 proxies such as delta Boron-11 in the ocean (which is a function of ocean pH, which is a function of atmospheric CO2) seems to agree with Antarctic CO2 reconstruction. http://www.p-co2.org/boron.. This further validates the Antarctic CO2 measurements from ice cores.

>>10732358
Right, and it’s been shown in this thread that it’s only valid for antarctica’s regional climate, not the whole of the earth’s.
>>10732398
Yes so they are reliable for Antarctica, though not the whole earth, and so we can’t draw global conclusions from them.
They are still useful for research into Antarctica.

>>10725669
>this exponential, "hockey stick" graph
1) that graph is not exponential
2) neither is it the "hockey stick" graph
3) there is a great deal of evidence about air bubbles in ice being indicative of CO2 in ambient air at the time the ice was formed
4) so far, you are zero-for-three

>>10732411
Are you talking about CO2 concentration or temperature? CO2 is valid over the whole Earth because it is a well mixed gas, as I explain >>10730614. At most Antarctic ice core concentration is 1% off than global average.

With temperature I agree with you that Antarctic local temperature reconstruction doesn't represent global temperature.

>>10732417
We are long past the op.
>Co2 in the ambient air *around where those ice cores were located.
FTFY
Ice cores in Antarctica don’t show you the Co2 concentrations at the cold fronts and the warm fronts and the equator and even vary from the other pole.
Doomsayer climatologists are cancer.

>>10732427
>Ice cores in Antarctica don’t show you the Co2 concentrations at the cold fronts and the warm fronts and the equator and even vary from the other pole.
But it does.

Even today CO2 over south pole are only 0.74% (3 ppm off) than CO2 over Mauna Loa, which represent well mixed Pacific background air and can be considered a global average.

>>10732419
I’m talking about Co2 concentrations, it takes years and years for newly sourced Co2 to “mix” across the whole earth. When we see so little difference between Co2 concentrations it suggests an equatorial and/or global source of co2. Over 90% of human Co2 emissions are northern hemisphere, and yet the southern hemisphere’s Co2 concentrations (in recent history) stay the same, suggesting that anthropogenic releases aren’t causal or even significant.

>>10732441
>it takes years and years for newly sourced Co2 to “mix” across the whole earth
Only one year. Thats the interhemispheric mixing flux.

>When we see so little difference between Co2 concentrations it suggests an equatorial and/or global source of co2. Over 90% of human Co2 emissions are northern hemisphere, and yet the southern hemisphere’s Co2 concentrations (in recent history) stay the same
>yet the southern hemisphere’s Co2 concentrations (in recent history) stay the same
Southern hemisphere CO2 don't stay the same. See >>10730614 they have risen by 100ppm concurrent with global CO2. This suggests that CO2 is a well mixed gas with very little concentration gradient across latitudes and relatively long atmospheric lifetime compared to interhemispheric mixing time.

>>10732339
>>10732336
>In every controlled experiment, which attempted to determine whether Earth’s atmospheric concentrations of Co2, and variants within +-100% of that current concentration (.02 to .08%), can manipulate the temperature gradient under IR compared to a control*,
>IT HAS FAILED TO SHOW FORCING.
Source?

The increased forcing has been shown in many ways and can be directly observed with radiative spectroscopy:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiV_ZP6qPHiAhUFwlkKHbjDCI4QFjABegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw1VTOy1lx3m67N43L4Kx7rJ&cshid=1560802167297

You're approaching flat earth levels of denial.

>>10732161
>found the college-dropout
Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are college dropouts. Find me a climate scientist worth more than Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates

>>10732472
Dropping out of an ivy league because you have a billion dollar business plan to immediately capitalize on and dropping out of a state uni because you're a fucking retard are two very different things. Guess which group you're closer to?

>>10732336
>The IPCC literally summarizes a conclusion which states that while statists analysis should not be abandoned and is useful, the long term states of climate cannot be predicted.
The long term state cannot be predicted, but the probability distribution of states can. So we can't say the temperature will be X but we can say there is a 95% chance the temperature will be between X and Y. You're just taking statements out of context and lying about their meaning.

>>10732510
>>The IPCC literally summarizes a conclusion which states that while statists analysis should not be abandoned and is useful, the long term states of climate cannot be predicted.
I'd never seen this argument until like yesterday now it's in literally every single climate thread repeated like 5 times with the citation they clearly never read. I'm really curious what dumbass blog they got it from.

>>10732441
You're a dumbfuck aren't you? Where do you think the 400ppm CO2 in South Pole come from? CO2 emission from alien colony in Antarctica?

It's clearly from outside Antarctica, hence the argument that CO2 over Antarctica is representative of global CO2. Even today when most CO2 are emitted from the Northern Hemisphere, CO2 in Antarctica still goes up

>>10732464
Your link doesn’t load.
>directly observed with relative spectroscopy.
This isn’t a controlled experiment, by relying on that you prove my point.

>>10732828
>we don’t know where Antarctica Co2 comes from.
>IPCC acknowledges “large sections of the earth” have unknown data.
Co2 in Antarctica goes up because human emissions are the real source of the increase. Increasing global temperatures cause Co2 to rise.

>>10732852
Because humans *are not* the main source of the increase.
Raising global temps are increasing Co2 output of the planet itself.

>>10732828
>if you don’t know what did it, whatever scenario I make up is true.
No, the IPCC says that us not knowing means we can’t make predictions about long-term climate states of the earth; NOT that not knowing is a proof of something.

>>10732854
>Raising global temps are increasing Co2 output of the planet itself.
So it just happens that the d13CO2 (13C/12C ratio) of this new CO2 happens to be exactly the same as d13CO2 signature of fossile fuel. Awfully convenient coincidence don't you think?

>>10732877
>spikes upward before Inustry started.
Circumstance, not empiricism, is your alarmist bread and butter.
“Climate Scientist” is newspeak for “lobbyist/shill with a title.”

>>10732877
You are separated the new Co2 from the old even though it’s “well mixed,” around the whole globe within a year? Are you going above a silo that’s actively polluting to do it?

>>10725772
>Ice core scientist here, yes it does

Clearly you are biased though.

Ice scientist, show me how to do an experiment in my home, that anyone here can replicate, that empirically shows Co2 radiative forcing at earth’s atmosphereic concentration (.003% aka 3/1000ths).
If you can’t do this you are full of shit.

>>10725772
Where are you getting your graphs? Are you just rolling through a list of talking points for GE? You just have indexed responses with images you post?

>>10725669
405 is still really damn high. It doesn't matter if the past data is bad, idiot

>>10732906
>You are separated the new Co2 from the old even though it’s “well mixed,” around the whole globe within a year?
We don't separate the new and old CO2. We can tell from the isotopes. Fossil fuel carry a more negative d13CO2 signature than atmospheric CO2. d13CO2 starts going negative when CO2 goes up, suggesting fossil fuel contribution. You can math it out to the exact petagram C/yr emissions.

>>10732912
It's gonna be fairly expensive, to do atmospheric control experiment you need a vacuum chamber. Try out some plexiglass sealed with silicone from home depot. Then you'll need some kind of pump to evacuate the inside of the chamber, and air compressor to inject different type of air into the chamber. You can try out the mythbuster experiment here with about $1000 budget, you don't need the fancy Los Gatos instrument (which costs 50k, I just bought one).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

>>10732912
>>10732943
For the control experiment, you can just use ambient outdoor air. If you live in the sticks it'll contain about background CO2 concentration, which is about 415 ppm. If you live in the city it'll be slightly higher, maybe up to 600ppm but that should be close enough.

For the experiment you need CO2 free air. The cheapest one you can find is commercially available pure oxygen tanks
https://www.cpr-savers.com/Oxygen-Tanks_c_504.html
for respirators. Tell us how it goes Mr. Principal Investigators.

>>10732925
>Where are you getting your graphs? Are you just rolling through a list of talking points for GE? You just have indexed responses with images you post?
Maybe I'm just an expert in my own field and it took me seconds to find the appropriate paper in google scholar because I know the authors of each paper.

Call me crazy

>>10732848
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25731165/

>This isn’t a controlled experiment, by relying on that you prove my point.
If you haven't even ready it how do you know it's not controlled?

>>10732901
>Circumstance, not empiricism, is your alarmist bread and butter.
So I found your wife murdered and your hands drenched in her blood. But I'm sure that's a circumstantial evidence, you didn't actually kill your own wife. Correlation does not mean causation, I'm sure.

>>10732971
>it turns out I had been holding her crying and trying to stop the blood from flowing, so it got all over my hands.

>>10733002
After you stabbed her 30 times which makes this a perfect metaphor for AGW.

The absolute state of climate deniers in this thread, can't even win a handicap match against one shitposting anon

>>10733622
it's though debating retards

>>10733643
>it's okay to get our asses kicked in the most humiliating way
#HESPECT

>>10732906
>thinks isotopes is a wet t-shirt contest
>hurr durr i saw tops
topkek

>>10732427
>Ice cores in Antarctica don’t show you the Co2 concentrations at the cold fronts
Those ice cores are from Greenland, denialfag.

Jesus. I'm a just a software engineer (albeit a published one who knows how stats work) and not a climate scientist, but the actual scientists in this thread are so on point as far of bringing in different lines of evidence to explain why we're so sure AGW fits together in the ways that it does, and the denialists are so unbelievably fucking obtuse, in a way that shows because of how out of their depth they are and how many counterfactuals they have to invent to keep their insanity spinning.
>What if CO2 doesn't actually mix on timescales relevant to ice samples despite all the lines of evidence that it does?
> What if the CO2 comes from the warming even though we've known the casual relation goes the other way since the late 1800s and despite carbon dating suggesting it's from fossil fuel burning?
> Non-linearity/chaos means you can't predict anything! (Because apparently Lyapunov times and finite element methods aren't things)
> Show me an experiment I can do!
> Okay, but show me one I can do despite my willful mathematical and scientific illiteracy! You're hiding the truth! You are in the pocket of big...science...academia...SJW... snowflake!

It's so horribly pitiful. If this is what we have to work with in the broader political system, we are totally boned.

>>10732364
Underrated. One can only spend so much time buying and selling faith in institutions thereof, before solipsism ensues. That's the point at which one returns to the condition where why and how to tie one's shoes becomes a matter of great mystery and profound significance, which only taller and otherwise more conspicuous figures can fathom.

>>10725669
I don't believe CO2 causes the greenhouse effect or that any gases can do that.

>>10734264
Then why is the Earth so much warmer than Mars and Venus so much warmer than Mercury?

>>10734418
Because Mercury and Venus are closer to the sun and Mars is further away

>>10734264
See >>10732943 >>10732951
You can do the experiment yourself

>>10734430
>Venus is hotter than Mercury because it's closer to the sun than the Earth

>>10734443
>believing NA(zi)SA

>>10734457
You can actually do this experiment, too. Mercury comes back to the same point/finishes its orbit faster, so by conservation of angular momentum/Kepler's 3rd law, it's closer.

Christ you are insane.

>>10732427
>the cold fronts and the warm fronts
wat

>>10734501
How do you know that Venus is warmer than Mercury? Have you been there? Have anyone been there?

>>10734545
I looked at it in infrared

>>10734545
>Infrared thermography doesn't real.
Yes. We know.

>>10734558
>doesn't real
Learn english you filthy ESL

>>10734562
Why don't you learn middle school science first? Deal?

>>10726220
cope harder nigger, actual smart people have little interest into being a money hoarder

>>10729551
if only you understood what you posted, you would realize how retarded it is to see this as an argument against climate change

>>10734574
This is wrong because it implies that all super rich people are dumb

>>10734583
They're all addicts which is not smart behavior. Are you of the opinion that stupid is as stupid does?

>>10732182
please don't reproduce, this is the level of argument of a creationist who say because we haven't been able to create life in a lab that evolution doesn't exist

>>10734593
>They're all addicts which is not smart behavior
Plenty of things wrong with this. I won't argue with you any further because it's off-topic.

>>10732336
of course, it is so easy to create a column of air the thickness of the atmosphere in a lab, if only you understood what you're implying

>>10734598
>Off-topic
>On /sci/
I'm pretty sure /sci/ has no mods and only like one janitor. It's basically slow /b/

>>10732912
you can't, because radiative atmospheric forcing depends of the thickness of the gas column, so if you had an apparatus of 1 meter, you would get a signal of 0.001% of what is happening to earth, and that's if you can isolate you system to this level of precision for about a decade

>>10734601
Basically
>show me the experiment I can do at home with diet coke and mentos to prove the Higgs boson
>no you need to make your own hadron collider, it'll cost 10 million dollars
>higgs boson doesn't exist then, checkmate physicists you're all frauds

>>10734558
>Implying infrared is real and not a globalist lie to push global warming and homosex

This thread is nice. Is it our treat for suffering through 3 weeks of that 5G-schizo posting 50 threads a day?

>>10734634
Nice in the sense that people off their thorazine who think global warming is a hoax conspiracy by the gay lizard people keep coming back for more despite having their asses handed to them over and over by literally anyone with a modicum of scientific literacy, or nice in the sense of a complete waste of time?

>>10734641
I mean the only reason to come to sci in 2019 is to laugh at schitzos so its pretty good in that regard.

>>10734641
Can it be both? But in a 90/10 kinda way?

>>10734634
5G schizo has been quiet for a few days, might be banned.
Or he got his prescription refilled

>>10734641
I'm sure some people are just pretending to be retarded for fun.

>>10734833
I'm not a 5G poster but my professor tells me to be skeptical of all technology and that corporate agents come after people who try to research the risks

>>10734927
You're cute are you free on Friday

>>10734620
>here is why my hypothesis is unfalsifiable, please excuse that this disqualifies it as a scientific claim.

>>10735935
Have you done the mythbuster experiment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

The total thickness of gas column doesnt matter if you just want to see whether ppm level GHG can cause warming. However, with a closed system like a vacuum chamber you will not get an accurate reading of climate sensitivity. The chamber with GHG will heat up faster than the Earth would, because ideal gas law, and when gas expand temperature increases (so you will get some multiplier effect).

>>10734833
nah, schizo is back in force

>>10732364
>It's almost if scientists used observational data to postulate a hypothesis.
This is a valid way to formulate an new hypothesis, yes, but not verify that hypothesis. A congruence between data and a hypothesis you made from that data doesn't validate the hypothesis until we acquire more categorically distinct data AFTER the hypothesis was formulated and this new data is also congruent. Otherwise it's circular reasoning and it's irrelevant.

Example: Me and all my hundreds of friends (various models) red cars MPG ratings are lower than my hundreds of neighbors white cars. The data formulates my hypothesis that red cars cause low MPG. If I say the observation fits my understanding of MPG, but my understanding of MPG was based off my observations, then that is circular reasoning and meaningless. It turns out red cars are more likely to be sports cars with low MPG and that's why I needed more data after the original hypothesis formed from available data. Or maybe people with red cars hit the gas harder, causing low MPG. Many possibilities exist.

Simply saying >>10732104 "All observational data fits our understanding of how CO2 is distributed in the atmosphere, and ice core samples." is not a scientifically robust statement unless you have valid understanding not based on that same data sets which formed the original hypothesis. It seems your/our understanding merely came from 2 or 3 categorically distinct observational data sets, which is fairly meaningless via the red car example I just made.

>>10732398
>). Organic matter decompose into CO2, and that CO2 diffuse out to adjacent sample depths in the firn making the whole Greenland CO2 record unreliable.
I find this highly suspect. Why would people spend millions drilling in Greenland at all of it's as tainted and unreliable as you say?

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

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

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133612.htm

Like I said this seems like the perfect excuse to cherry pick data you don't like.

>>10737535
Our understanding of why CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere comes from a fundamental understanding of fluid dynamics in a turbulent system like the atmosphere. Our observations confirm this through the fact that CO2 has risen evenly in the entire troposphere even though a vast majority of human emissions come from the northern hemisphere. The physics predict it, the observations confirm it, and there's absolutely no credible reason to claim otherwise. Irrelevant metaphors prove nothing, except you're desperate to believe in a fantasy.

>>10737566
>Why would people spend millions drilling in Greenland at all of it's as tainted and unreliable as you say?

CO2 is just one among many tracers you can measure in ice core. In gas phase you can also measure
1. CH4, CH4 isotopes (dD, d13C, C14), 2nd most important GHG
2. N2O, N2O isotopes, N2O position dependent isotopes. 3rd most important GHG
3. Noble gases. d15N of N2, important for calculating gravitational fractionation. d18O of O2 proxy of oxygenation region on earth. Xe/Kr, proxy of mean ocean temperature.
4.. clumped isotopes of O2 proxy of tropospheric ozone and oxidative capacity of the atm.
5. Ethane, propane, acetylene (proxy of biomass burning)

On ice phase you can also measure water isotopes (the classic) for T proxy, dust (and different dust isotopes), organics biomarkers, Lead (also the classic, you can actually date the rise and fall or roman empire from greenland lead content), and others (you might notice I know more about gases than ice chemistry because I'm an ice bubble person).

Finally after drilling is done you can measure borehole temperature and do temperature reconstruction. Ice core is not only for CO2 measurements, there's a whole field and analytical technique for a whole lot of things

So climate scientists would be jobless without AGW?

>>10737566
>>10737879
Here's another thing that is not preserved in Greenland ice, carbon monoxide. This is why there is paper about Antarctic carbon monoxide, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1663 but not from Greenland.

If you move down the crud levels into mountain ice cores like the one from Andes and Himalayas, less gas is preserved. CH4, N2O, ethane, propane, acetylene, anything containing carbon is not preserved in mountain glaciers due to so much organic junk. Some people have found dead crickets in their mountain ice core and used it to better constrain the age scale with C14 dating. However it doesn't mean the whole endeavor is useless, you still get water isotopes, which is proxy for local temperature, dust chemistry proxy for local atmospheric circulation, lead, heavy metals, black carbon - proxy for biomass burning, etc.

>>10737566
>>10737879
How many times are you niggas gonna get BTFO. It's getting embarassing mang

>>10738165
It's fun to watch desu. Based ice core scientist anon

>another climate change negacionism thread

>>10725772
>Another reason to believe ice core measurements are real is that there has been about 10 ice cores drilled in antarctica. All ice cores yield the same CO2 values at the same age.

I believe in man-made global warming, but that is not how causation works.

>>10738403
That's not how causation on manmade climate change works. But that's how we know that ice cores in antarctica preserve a global CO2 signal.

>>10738428
I would say 10 samples from a very localized sport on earth is very sparse data.

Nonetheless, you can build a model from that. I would further question how the CO2 got into the ice. Is there strong evidence for atmospheric CO2?

>>10738548
Just read the thread carefully, I already explained everything you asked for. Also it is not 10 piece samples, each ice core is 2-3km deep and worth hundreds or thousands of data points

>>10738049
Does the top part that's unlabeled go into the margarita machine?

>>10738930
Asking the real question here

what is the bigger problem on /sci/ 2019? /x/izophrenia or /pol/ution?

>>10725774
>freeze water to make snow

making realistic artificial snow is pretty frickin complicated, anon, and making ice from compacted artificial snow to replicate conditions that occurred over several decades is probably even harder.

>>10726126
What a fucking retard. I can't believe in what i just read.

>>10728278
Can u just get the fuck out of this board? We have enough retards here already.
>>>/b/ awaits you

>>10729677
Dude you are ruthless to these idiots. They are so uneducated. Im loving reading this. Also learning a lot i really like climate science.
Im in environmental/energy engineering which is not even close to what you do. But hey... it's something.

>>10739422
They're usually the same people.

>>10729498
I know this is pretty after the fact, but I'm very curious about
>and furthermore nuclear power plants emit 14C-enriched CH4.
I couldn't find anything about this and it comes as quite a surprise

>>10738930
>>10739247
No, sadly not.

Below 300m we need a drilling fluid. Without drilling fluid, the open borehole collapsed and close (think about how much weight and shear of ice happen at 1000m depth or below. Drilling fluid also prevent ice core from deep from exploding in the surface. The gases inside the ice usually equilibrate with the overburden pressure. If you quickly bring ice from deep to the surface, atmospheric pressure is way less than the pressure of the ice sheet at depth, so the gases would want to explode out.

In short we use a fluid with similar density as the ice to substitute and trick both the borehole and the ice core into thinking they're still in their element. This technique is stolen from rock drilling techs. Because of the drilling fluid, the outside of deep ice cores are usually laced with pretty nasty organic solvents used as the drill fluid.

>>10740071
Lassey, K. R., D. C. Lowe, and A. M. Smith. "The atmospheric cycling of radiomethane and the" fossil fraction" of the methane source." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 7.8 (2007): 2141-2149.

Zazzeri, G., E. Acuña Yeomans, and H. D. Graven. "Global and Regional Emissions of Radiocarbon from Nuclear Power Plants from 1972 to 2016." Radiocarbon 60.4 (2018): 1067-1081.

>>10725772
Based and redpilled.
>>10726107
>What makes some nutjob think that they can wave away 8 to 9 years of prerequisite education and start having """opinions""" and even DISPUTING expert conclusions?
The same thing that makes moms and retards that can barely speak question the medical profession, vaccines and years of engineering. Duning-Kruger.