/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10772187
>what causes it?
fossil fuel emissions are warming the planet
>what can we do?
stop burning fossil fuels

>>10772190
That simple?

Greenhouse gases trapping more heat from the sun.

Cutting emmisions of those gasses

>>10772191
yeah pretty much

>>10772194
Than why so much useless "debate" about it?

>>10772187
>global warming
not science or math

>>10772196
Denialists pretending there's a debate where there isn't one.
>>10772203
Or like this one. Pretending science they don't like isn't science.

>>10772196
/sci/ isn't scientists. Within the scientific community, the actual debate is nitpicking over relatively minor differences in modeling and estimates of the climatic response to added quantities of gas. The debate isn't nearly at the level /sci/ would have you believe, and the vast majority of the "damning" rebuttals to AGW are either thoroughly debunked or accounted for by climatologists. You can find a rough, easy calculation of the thermodynamics here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw

>>10772214
>Pretending science they don't like isn't science.
Global warmers do not use the scientific method.

>>10772224
Get some new lines you fucking retard. Climatology is indeed a natural science, it's just that it causes you an immense amount of asspain, and that comes out of your empty head as "hurr it's not science."

Why don't we just switch to nuclear?

>>10772230
>Get some new lines you fucking retard.
Do you really need to swear? It really invalidates your post.

>>10772230
>Climatology is indeed a natural science, it's just that it causes you an immense amount of asspain, and that comes out of your empty head as "hurr it's not science."
There's nothing "natural" about climatology. The "theory" of climate change is as artificial as a mathematical theorem.

>>10772271
Does it? Evidence invalidates all denialist posts. Excuse me, "skeptics."

>>10772279
>2.
>Philosophy, an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.
It's actually a pretty accurate description by the philosophical definition.

>>10772277
"Natural" is not the same thing as "natural science." I'm not sure how you convinced yourself such a stupid point was actually an important one.

>>10772294
>"Natural" is not the same thing as "natural science."
What's the relevance of this? I'm not sure how you convinced yourself such a stupid point was actually an important one.

>>10772289
Excuse me again, but "skeptic" in the sense of skepticism, and "climate change skeptic" are two different things as well. When you have to interpret words so literally as to lose the intended meaning to make your arguments, your arguments have become useless pseudointellectual bile. Skepticism in the face of convincing evidence is not a justified position, even though you've cloaked yourself in the mantle of "skepticism."

>>10772298
>What's the relevance of this?
Your worthless post right here >>10772277 , where you conflated "natural" with "natural science."

>>10772187
Greenhouse gasses absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. The sun heats up the earth and the greenhouse gases like CO2 trap infrared radiation in causing an increase in temperature. Some of the CO2 (30%) dissolves in the oceans leading to acidification by forming carbonic acid.

>>10772196
Because fossil fuels are at the heart of our economic system and simply cutting them out would leave masses in abject poverty.

>>10772306
You misunderstood my post friend. Skepticism as a philosophy is utterly useless as it denies even the possibility of knowledge. Exactly like climate deniers. They like describe themselves as skeptics by the more common definition, when the philosophical definition more accurately describes them.

>>10772342
Which is why absolutely no one is suggesting we go cold turkey. However economic incentives like a carbon tax can and will significantly reduce emissions without harming taxpayers.

>>10772342
Some short-term losses are inevitable, whether it's right now with a carbon tax, or a hundred years in the future when millions of acres of arable land have been permanently lost and natural ecosystems have been destroyed. Short-term losses are no excuse to delay the decarbonization of energy sources.

>>10772363
I thought you were the same guy I was arguing with.

>>10772370
>However economic incentives like a carbon tax can and will significantly reduce emissions without harming taxpayers.
?

>>10772373
>fuck the poor

>>10772640
The best way to implement a carbon tax is to have most of the proceeds go back to taxpayers as a rebate.

>>10772196
Because cutting emissions is not at all easy. Alternative useful clean energy is not powerful enough with current technology and it will be extremely difficult to curb harmful emissions successfully until an appropriate clean energy system is invented without causing serious negative permutations throughout the global economy.

We need more research but often it is is frivolous which causes backlash and legacy energy companies are disruptive to all meaningful research unless they hold the cards in the hope of preserving their existences.

>>10772771
>Alternative useful clean energy is not powerful enough with current technology and it will be extremely difficult to curb harmful emissions successfully until an appropriate clean energy system is invented without causing serious negative permutations throughout the global economy.
It's called nuclear. Also, letting global warming go unmitigated will be far more harmful to the economy.

>>10772695
>fuck the poor for the next 10000 years even more

>>10772222
>he doesn't know "debunked" is a buzzword for ignoring arguments you can't refute

>>10772797
post an argument then cowboy
As a challenge I will respond only with links.

>>10772785
>It's called nuclear. Also, letting global warming go unmitigated will be far more harmful to the economy.

Its kinda weird we are still looking for a solution when we have nuclear. Any civilization in the universe would inevitably move from low energy density fuel(wood, carbon, etc) to high energy density fuel(uranium, plutonium).

>>10773345
Honestly that's not weird at all in the present time. We live in a dystopic society. What's best for everyone is what's best for who decides shit and we are brainwashed useless crap. If you go around asking opinions about nucler, most people only know that our causes the production of bombs and that they might get cancer because of that. Nevermind the hundred of thousands of people that die YEARLY beaches of fossil fuels, who cares, right? Since you can address that to random cancers we are all happy.

>>10772187
>what causes it?
the Sun
>what we can do?
nothing

>>10772187
Well, 70% of greenhouse gases is H2O in the atmosphere, but hey, we should work on the 25% we can somehow partially control i.e. CO2 and CH4

>>10772193
>Greenhouse gases
our emissions of water vapor is very limited compared to natural emissions
>muh CO2
its impact is near zero as a greenhouse gas; considering it's food for plants, it has only beneficial effects

>>10773479
Why are you lying?

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

>>10772224
>Global warmers do not use the scientific method.
this
they manipulate old data until if fits their political agenda, see pic related: the chart will always go up even in case of an Ice Age

>>10773485

>>10773483
Smirnov, 2018
>injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.
Fleming, 2018
>results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate
Liu and Chen, 2018
>Earth’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is too low to drive global temperature change.

every year there are hundreds of skeptic papers about climate change, read them

>>10773487
This proves nothing. There's always been temperature fluctuations. Stop shilling, kike.

>>10773505
every year there are hundreds of masturbators in the subway

>>10773505
>Smirnov, 2018
Junk paper, he calculates the radiative flux at the surface instead of the ToA so of course he gets the wrong answer. Energy changes at the surface is determined by convection, not radiative transfer. The radiative flux occurs in the troposphere. Plus this is not even a valid response. If your model contradicts the data >>10773483 then it's wrong.

I'll read the rest later but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>>10773485
>>10773487
>correct error in satellite's orbit
>IT'S A CONSPIRACY REEEEEEE
www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

>>10773590

yeah keep adjusting my friend, no one will ever notice I promise

https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/25/adjusted-unadjusted-data-nasa-uses-the-magic-wand-of-fudging-produces-warming-where-there-never-was/

>>10772196
Companies that dig up and sell fossil fuels are some of the richest and most powerful entities on the planet, and if we stopped burning fossil fuels they would stop making all that money.
So they paid politicians and think tanks and disinformation groups to pretend that there is no warming problem, and then that fell apart so the story became that the world IS warming but it's not our fault so we shouldn't worry, and then the story became that the world IS warming and it IS our fault but it's a good thing and we shouldn't worry about it, and pretty soon the narrative they peddle is going to get even more ridiculous.

tl;dr fossil fuels make tons of money and the people with that money don't want to stop making more

>>10773754
don't forget Russian shills, trying to secure a sea port that isn't frozen half the year.

>>10773611

Americans can push their orange president to sign again the global pact that US renounces the toxic gas production, but that is difficult, he needs the money from the industries and americans will vote him again, so theres is no solution

>>10773487
>RSS
https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s


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

>>10773611
Oh my God look at those adjustments, this is certainly proof that they are adjusting the temperature to get... 0.01 degree difference in trend. Why are deniers are such alarmists?

>>10773611
Literally nothing.

>>10773754
Capitalism=bad

>>10774004
>polluting on other people's property and not paying for it = capitalism
>lying about it and lobbying the government to ignore it = capitalism

>>10774049
The costs can be accounted for within capitalism.
But good lucking finding a capitalist friendly solution to climate change.
Externalities, by definition, are costs/benefits that markets don't incorporate and properly account for and don't know how to deal with.
Even more so if you're the free market kind of capitalist. Then it's fucking impossible to even contemplate a solution.

>>10774063
Ok, if we choose socialism we will lose in long term perspective

>>10774082
How about this: we do what's necessary to fix the climate it, and we call it whatever you like. Happy?

>>10774091
If it would have minimum effect on market freedom, then yes?

>>10774063
A carbon tax would introduce the cost of the externality while preserving market forces.

>>10774100
*there shond't be question

>>10774100
Fuck off.
>>10774101
But very likely won't be enough on its own, especially if the market finds ways to not adhere to the spirit of the law and continues polluting legally through loopholes.

>>10774132
No, you fuck off commie!

>>10774136
Why did you even post that, lol?
You think that somehow implying that I'm a communist is a bad thing?
As if communism is a bad thing?
And I'm somehow supposed to believe that free markets are a good thing?
And such a good important thing that we will literally destroy the climate (i.e. human civilization will perish) forever because of it?
You're a fucking nutjob.
No wonder all Libertarian blogs on the Internet are climate change deniers. Because there is no way to reconcile free markets with climate action. Climate change proves free market fanaticism wrong. It proves you wrong and that stings your ego and you're too much of a brainlet to accept that and move on.

>>10774174
Socialists
>can't handle Chernobyl
Also socialist
>we can "deal with" global warming

>>10774183
Let's keep on topic. Stop skipping around like a giddy girl.

So you are telling me that if it came to choice between free markets and climate action you'd pick free markets?

>>10774174
Prove me what libertarian bloggers don't believe in global warming

>>10774200
CATO and Econlib are just two examples of the top of my head.

>>10774198
Why you give me false choice?

Global warming, if it will go at it goes will damage economy badly

Solution:

Corporation will use enviromentally-frendly sources of energy

>>10774213
*at=as

>>10774213
That's such a stupid response that I'm just going to assume you're some 12 year old kid or something.

>>10774225
Ok, that is your solution?

>>10774230
*What

>>10774230
There is no one solution.
Each market sector has to be catered for, separately, often using different strategies.
For example in the white goods market, we have energy standards which now track how efficient white goods are and eventually the lowest standard will rise to make sure that white goods are less power hungry.
Another example is the switch away from filament bulbs.
The only over arching policy is a carbon tax, but that alone will very likely not be enough.
And then of course big change like the complete overhaul of the power grid is probably going to require significant public funding and direction, even if the grid is privatized.
And then of course there's international binding agreements with other countries and sanctions if they don't abide by said agreements.

That's the general idea but as we start implementing this stuff, we will surely figure out what works and what doesn't and a lot will change.

>>10772187
natural part of earth cycle that humans speed up

>>10774257
Not bad.

>>10774257
I think it is critical and temporal actions, after every think is done correctly, there should be privatization

Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8

>>10774287
*think=thing

>>10774287
I disagree. I don't subscribe to free market philosophy, don't think it is some moral imperative, and don't believe it achieves better outcomes than public run projects.
What I believe is that some markets are naturally competitive and healthy and others just aren't and these properties are intrinsic and therefore immutable.
So if you want to let the market make cars more efficient, I'm 100% for that because I think the market is naturally competitive.
But if you want to let the market handle power utilities I won't agree with that. Utilities are an example of natural monopolies. I have experienced both public and private run utilities and the public option was much better by all metrics.

So in this case of climate action, some action might indeed be left to the markets themselves but some action has to be continuously supervised and directed.

>>10774326
Somehow based

>>10772196
Because stopping fossil fuel extraction and usage would completely collapse the economy and lead to widespread poverty and starvation. Which is what global warming is going to do also.

>>10772829
Chaos theory.

>>10774347
What do?

>>10774347
Nobody is saying stop fossil fuels now and then figure out something later.
What the action would be is to build power generation capacity first and then downsize fossil fuel usage as much as possible while still meeting demand.
IF necessary demand itself can be tackled depending on the nature of such demand.

>>10774355
Nothing, we're fucked and there's nothing you or I can do to stop it.
>>10774363
>What the action would be is to build power generation capacity first and then downsize fossil fuel usage as much as possible while still meeting demand.
Politics means that it won't happen until it's too late. The Democrats hate nuclear power, the Republicans don't like spending a bunch of government money on solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power, and even all the industrial processes to create these clean energies release even more greenhouse gasses. To make matters worse, as the Earth heats up the warming will become self-reinforcing, as carbon sinks like the Amazon rainforest will become deserts while glaciers will melt releasing even more greenhouse gasses.

Basically, by the time the politicians get around to taking decisive action, it'll be too late.

>>10774374
>Amazon rainforest will become deserts
plants are growing faster now because CO2 is food for plants

>>10773476
Water vapor content in the atmosphere is primarily determined by troposphere temperatures. Water vapor is not a driver of greenhouse effect, but a feedback tied to it. It has a short residency time in the atmosphere (around one week) because it precipitates out as rain, part of the water cycle. If there were no other greenhouse gases, all of the atmospheric water would eventually precipitate back to the surface. So other greenhouse gases that do not precipitate out, most prominently CO2 and methane, are the gases that drive changes in climate due to greenhouse effect.

>>10774398
Most of those plants are dependent on a very specific temperature and rainfall amount, which will become all fucked up by the changing temperature and melting ice.

>>10774353
https://skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted-intermediate.htm

>>10774374
>and even all the industrial processes to create these clean energies release even more greenhouse gasses
The life-cycle GHG emissions of renewables is only a fraction of the amount of emissions from burning fossil fuels, per unit of energy. All of them except hydroelectric are well below nuclear's carbon footprint also. Hydroelectric and nuclear are comparable in life-cycle emissions.
>>10774398
What happens to places where the weather patterns change and rainfall is reduced in the long term? They dry out from drought and eventually desertify.

>>10772187
The ozone layer is damaged. So more sunlight is coming through.

>>10774427
>another fake chart

>>10774446
>rainfall is reduced
make up your mind: either the ice will melt or the rainfall will reduce; none of what you guys are saying is compatible with dinosaurs' times, when CO2 was high and plants were super abundant allowing large animals to feed themselves with tons of vegs

>>10774657
>either the ice will melt or the rainfall will reduce
More water =/= more rain

>>10774657
>when CO2 was high and plants were super abundant allowing large animals to feed themselves with tons of vegs
Those were different plants and animals than today. Plants today aren't made for these high levels of CO2.

>>10774796
not even >>>/x/ is capable to say such an idiocy

>>10774428
>Skepticalscience
Interesting that you found this, however. I'm aware that there is an equilibrium attraction in some chaotic systems.

Veganism is the only solution. Animal agriculture is more responsible for climate change and pollution than any other source.
>inb4 no, deforestation is
Approximately half of deforestation is for animal agriculture.

>>10774398
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#44

>>10772187
Lmao water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, global warming my ass

>>10775476
Meaningless conjecture without figures. You're correct in some ways, GHG concentrations and therefore temperature have been in a predictable state of flux based on orbital forcing for the past several million years. Artificially increasing GHG concentrations will never lead to a Venus like runaway effect, but it absolutely will result in temperatures that human agriculture, civilization and the existing ecosystem is not equipped to deal with. Saying the climate will magically stay at the value convenient for humans because it's a chaotic system is a nice story but there's absolutely no evidence for it.

>>10775513
Is this the famous dunning Kruger peak?

>>10775483
Veganism is a retarded consumerist meme. Aquaponics is clearly the superior agricultural method.

>>10772249
Thorium is the answer
>>10772224
Disinfo shill
>>10772222
Some of us are actual scientists

>>10772298
>he doesnt know what natural philosophy is
holy shit stop posting on this board and get a vasectomy

>>10772695
A properly constructed carbon tax benefits the poor, its really hard to have to pay a tax if you cant afford the good in the first place.

>>10774213
>Corporation will use enviromentally-frendly sources of energy
Of course! Everyone knows corporations are the pinnacle of human altruism and just all around wholesome guys!

That people as dumb as you exist makes me want to kill myself because you will inevitably ruin everything.

>>10774398
Honest question here. What goes through your mind to think that your injection of literal grade school knowledge is of any substance? Do you imagine you are the first person to consider an elementary fact that is salient to the discussion?

>>10774657
>the planet used to be like kashyyyk
>more water means more rain!
Why are you so willfully retarded?

>>10774213
all corporations ever do is push for deregulation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl9Y8ZhJP2s

>>10772196
oil lobby

>>10772196
$$$

>>10772187
>what causes it?
>what we can do?
this nice little video might help you to understand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTvqIijqvTg

>>10775838
aka tobacco lobby 2.0

CO2 is sequestered by plant life to grow. It is known as the carbon cycle.
CO2 + H20 = glucose + 02.
Excees 02 is not trapped in the atmosphere, it creates a more favorable environment for plant growth and thus plants sequester the CO2. This is known as a buffer system.
Furthermore, the sun's activities and magnetic effect on the jetstream cause the major climate effects noted today.
Environmentalism and conservation is very important but labeling CO2 as a pollutant is back door world communism.

>>10776090
>Excees 02 is not trapped in the atmosphere, it creates a more favorable environment for plant growth and thus plants sequester the CO2. This is known as a buffer system.
Them why is CO2 concentration rising rapidly?

>Furthermore, the sun's activities and magnetic effect on the jetstream cause the major climate effects noted today.
Incorrect, GHG emissions alone already account for the observed warming. Solar and magnetic activity are going in the wrong direction to explain current warming.

>>10776132
CO2 is rising however the it is not associated with global temperatures rising. It is actually the opposite. As temperature increases then CO2 ppm follows.
Humans account for 1% of carbon emission and CO2 only accounts for 1% of the greenhouse effect.
Water vapor is responsible for 99% of greenhouse effect.

>>10776132
Incorrect, the "global average temperature" is a myth as the data is not accurate.
CO2 follows temperature.

Why are pro-global warming retards so sure they know everything it has to be known and that every argument they make is convincing?

>>10776143
>CO2 is rising however the it is not associated with global temperatures rising.
The greenhouse effect is fundamental physics and can be directly observed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25731165/

>As temperature increases then CO2 ppm follows.
Temperature is currently following CO2. Also we can see via isotope analysis thst the increase in CO2 is wholly due to manmade emissions.

>Humans account for 1% of carbon emission
Natural sources and sinks absorb more than they emit so the percentage of emissions alone tells us nothing. Humans are completely responsible for the increase in CO2 and we would be responsible for even more if natural sinks were not absorbing since of our CO2.

>CO2 only accounts for 1% of the greenhouse effect.
Another misleading percentage. The vast majority of the greenhouse effect keeps the Earth from being a giant ball of ice. It's the *change* in the greenhouse effect from that remote baseline that is the cause of global warming and of concern. Humans are essentially 100% responsible for that change.

>>10776150
>Incorrect, the "global average temperature" is a myth as the data is not accurate.
How inaccurate is the data?

>>10776132
Solar activity fluctuates and has to do with procession, lunar phases etc. It is a sloping sine wave. We are "entering" a solar slowdown.
As a scientist, I would like to introduce debate. There is certainly enough evidence to doubt "anthropomorphic global warming". Especially given the politicians answers to "fix" it.
Do not listen to authority for certainity.
Research is only published if it fits dogma. This is the case across all science.

>>10776176
Think about it. How accurate is the third world to monitor temperature especially over the last 100 years.
Go back and look at Al Gore's original predictions and where are we now.

>>10776143
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

>>10776166
Probably because they have mountains of scientific evidence while deniers only have rehashed talking points that have been debunked for decades: https://skepticalscience.com/

>>10776177
>We are "entering" a solar slowdown.
Solar activity has been decreasing for decades yet warming continues. Also even when it was increasing the radiative forcing was far too small to explain the warming, see >>10776132.

>As a scientist, I would like to introduce debate.
Yet you are ignoring massive amounts of scientific evidence. The only one following dogma here is you.

>>10776181
>How accurate is the third world to monitor temperature especially over the last 100 years.
Thermometers are not that complex. We have had a solid global record for over a hundred years. You haven't even looked at the data yet you claim it's inaccurate. Not very scientific.

>Go back and look at Al Gore's original predictions and where are we now.
So Al Gore is a climate scientist? I thought we were debating the science, not celebrities.

>>10772187
Climately speaking,
Will washington become the next California? Will California become the next Mexico?

>>10776166
>Why are pro-global warming retards so sure they know everything it has to be known and that every argument they make is convincing?
Practice.
Deniers have posted the exact same "arguments" in so many climate threads that most people here could debunk them in their sleep. For instance: how many times do you think >>10776202 has had to explain that whatever Al Gore said is irrelevant?

The real reason global warming exists is that there were like, 11 versions of Humanity and society before us who nuked themselves to shit. Why do you think the Mayan calendar ended in 2012? Because that's how long it took them to nuke their shit.

>>10772187
>global warming
It is called climate change now.
Nothing you can do about it since the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning.

>>10778106
This must be a troll, no one could be this aggressively stupid.

>>10774374
>Democrats and Republicans
America is not the entire world. Nothing we do in the west will matter when the likes of China and India pollute the hell out of the environment.

>>10778115

>>10775533
I never said it would. Did you read the article? I'm in agreement with it, for the most part. We don't completely know our system's initial conditions for determining the next state of our system. That's my argument, and I agree that climate, as shown for the most part by the graph, follows a trajectory with strange attractors. However, that data gives you a reasonable statistical guess, which is correct on average. Hint: check the sample size of our climate data.

>>10776143
Imagine arguing against experimentally verified science that is, collectively, over a century old. You may as well say that electricity and magnetism are unrelated.

>>10778115
>Oh hey its this retarded demonstrably false argument again
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
Hilariously after adjusting for population Americans are still the worst emitters. They emit 55% of Chinas output with 1/4 the population.
https://www.census.gov/popclock/
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/

You idiots arent even trying anymore, youre just full on believe whatever makes you feel better about yourselves.

>>10776177
The precession of Earth's rotation has a period of 26000 years. The "fluctuation" due to solar activity is correspondingly very slow on human timescales.
>lunar phases
Just no. Stop spewing your shit right now. The moon has nothing to do with incident solar radiation except on the uncommon occasions that it moves in between the Sun and the Earth, which has fuck all to do with climate warming. It's the greenhouse gases doing it.

>>10778441
>We don't completely know our system's initial conditions for determining the next state of our system.
Why would we need to completely know it when the long term trend is mostly determined by solar forcing and greenhouse gas forcings, both of which are easily observable?

>>10778635
The fluctuation OF solar RADIATION, not "due to solar activity."