/sci/ - Science & Math

>the science is settled, bigot

Shouldn't the real questionbe, how effectively are we able to modulate the climate on earth, and should we do it?

>>10987745
Holy shit, i am excited

>>10987803
No, just if you're a scientist.

>>10987745
I'm pretty sure I heard something on the radio recently about how we dug up some archaeological samples from around 200,000 years ago and the data suggested that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than right now.

>July 4, 2017

>>10988517
That post is from like 5 weeks ago I just checked his profile.

>>10988500
It is well known that CO2 has been higher than present in the past but that's not really relevant to modern day AGW

>>10988523
Ball's defense is literally "no one took me seriously so I didn't defame anyone."
hilarious.

>>10988500
closer to 5 million years ago

>>10987745
Finally. Can we go back to fighting against pollution for pragmatic, aesthetic and scientific reasons instead of WORLD ENDING IN 12 YEARS UNLESS YOU GIVE ME MONEY ORANGE MAN BAD

>>10988523
>I am diagnosed a Type 2 diabetic controlled by insulin.
Welp, that explains why his retarded chart is all kinds of diabetus.

>>10988521
you right this is more recent

>"Steyn's special motion to dismiss..denied on the grounds that a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of Mann in his defamation lawsuit, Mann's lawsuit against Steyn is far from frivolous or groundless..counterclaims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Judge Jennifer M Anderson"

basically get fucked ball

>>10988547

>The case began with a July 2012 post on CEI’s blog, criticizing climate scientist Michael Mann and the 2010 investigation of his work by Pennsylvania State University, where he teaches.

>Mann demanded a retraction of both the post and of a column excerpting it by then-National Review columnist Mark Steyn.

>His demands were rejected, and Mann sued for libel in D.C. Superior Court in October, 2012. The defendants moved to dismiss Mann’s case, invoking both D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP law and Mann’s status as a public figure.

>Oral argument was held before a three-judge appellate panel in November, 2014. Despite the fast-track status of the case, no ruling was issued until December, 2016. The panel ruled against CEI, but dismissed several of Mann’s counts.

>In January, 2017, the defendants petitioned for rehearing en banc. The panel issued a slightly amended ruling in December, 2018.

>CEI and National Review once again sought rehearing en banc, with support from a wide range of media organizations ranging from the Daily Caller to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Washington Post. Their motions were denied on March 1, setting the stage for their Supreme Court petitions.

Looks like this one is going straight to the top. Can't wait.

Article: https://cei.org/litigation/michael-e-mann-v-national-review-and-cei-et-al

>>10988568
considering how weak the defenses have been so far, I can't wait to see how hard he gets his shit slapped in.

>>10988568
>>10988583
All the oil shills and conservaboomers on reddit are already claiming victory from the case, should be funny seeing them go quiet in a few months

>>10988532
>It is well known that CO2 has been higher than present in the past
>but that's not really relevant to modern day AGW
why is it not relevant?

>>10989058
Temperatures and co2 levels were much higher in the past, but unless you're a dinosaur it doesn't mean much. All of human civilization is based entirely around an agricultural system that has existed for less than 10,000 years.

>>10989065
That's a nonsense argument. The point was there have been periods of elevated CO2 that did not result in a corresponding change in plant growing ranges (which has been observed in the fossil record).

Unrelated, we've had the longest period of minimal solar activity since the Maunder Minimum. It is increasingly likely we are entering another Grand Minimum, which is going to cause entirely new kinds of havoc for modelling because the idiots didn't try to build them with variable solar output.

>>10989090
>That's a nonsense argument. The point was there have been periods of elevated CO2 that did not result in a corresponding change in plant growing ranges (which has been observed in the fossil record).

really? this is the first i've heard of this, provide your source please.

>Unrelated, we've had the longest period of minimal solar activity since the Maunder Minimum. It is increasingly likely we are entering another Grand Minimum, which is going to cause entirely new kinds of havoc for modelling
please reference the significance of the change in TSI this will cause.

>>10989114
>really? this is the first i've heard of this, provide your source please.
I will, but first I'm going to have to ask if you know what the primary greenhouse gas on Earth is?

>Solar Irradiance
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/maunder-minimum
Check out figure 14.10

>>10989128
>The solar irradiance was almost constant during the Maunder minimum and about 0.24% (or about 0.82 W m−2) lower than the present value
Got it, good thing someone has already modeled this effect.

>Muh water vapor
I'm honestly tired of explaining this basic fucking concept in every thread, at least it lets me know when someone is completely ignorant.

>>10988500
we also used to have oceans of sulfuric acid, neither of these things are great for us.

>>10989151
Is there any evidence to suggest that we know what the atmospheric make-up was in the past, before measuring devices were invented? Do we know how much NCG was in the atmosphere as opposed to CG? Plant life? Time frames? Solar influences?

Big think time.

>>10989164
Which is why I asked the initial question: >>10987803

>>10989065
>you're not a dinosaur
You haven't exactly explained why past atmospheric conditions and not relevant to current climate observations when making models etc.

Please try to explain this point, as it is quite the elephant in the room;


>Non-condensable gases and water vapour in the atmosphere were much higher in the past, where life FLOURISHED, why is this not relevant to current climate modelling?

^^

>>10989178
Ice core samples provide extremely accurate records of atmospheric composition, as well as surprisingly accurate temperature records. going back millions of years. Fossil records give us a good idea of ranges of plants and animals. Solar influences are a little tricky, though we do know some basic things like the sun was 5% cooler a few million years back, and effects of orbit on climate can be derived from orbital mechanics.

>>10989208
>Ice core samples provide extremely accurate records of atmospheric composition
how do we know?

>>10989194
>Non-condensable gases and water vapour in the atmosphere were much higher in the past, where life FLOURISHED, why is this not relevant to current climate modelling?

Are you a dinosaur? Do you somehow think fields of corn and basedbeans were around millions of years ago? Do you even have any idea what the optimal temperature range of the 10 staple crops the feed virtually all of humanity are, and how an increase of 6C global mean temperature will have on them? hint it's not good.

>>10989215
ice cores are consistent with current measurements, older samples are consistent with proxies like tree rings, and fossils. It's proven that as long as the ice remains frozen (we can tell if it melts like it did in greenland) the gasses trapped inside remain unchanged.

>>10989208
>sun was 5% cooler a few million years ago
This seems significant; what if it's moving to +5% now?, -5(past) 0(present), +5(future).

How fucct would we be?

>>10989222
Wait a minute..
Are you saying..
Are you saying that we are living in and making use of a very tiny range of "acceptable climate conditions", which just happen to be coming to an end, as these stable periods always have done in the past?

Wouldn't that lead us straight back to this question? >>10987803

>>10989246
It took literally millions of years to change, so if you're planning that far ahead it'll be a problem.

>>10989251
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015RG000482 Based on model experiments, the glaciation threshold depends not only on insolation but also on the atmospheric CO2 content [Archer and Ganopolski, 2005]. Models of different complexity and time series analyses of proxy data have been used to investigate the response to orbital forcing in the future for a range of atmospheric CO2 levels. These results show consistently, that a glacial inception is unlikely to happen within the next approximate 50ka (when the next strong drop in Northern Hemisphere summer insolation occurs) if either atmospheric CO2 concentration remains above 300ppm or cumulative carbon emissions exceed 1000PgC [Loutre and Berger, 2000; Archer and Ganopolski, 2005; Cochelin et al., 2006]. Only for an atmospheric CO2 content below the preindustrial level may a glaciation occur within the next 10ka [Loutre and Berger, 2000; Cochelin et al., 2006; Kutzbach et al., 2011; Vettoretti and Peltier, 2011; Tzedakis et al., 2012a].

without the industrial revolution the current inter glacial would last a minimum of another 10k years, if we ceased all co2 emissions today, we're looking at more like 50k years.

as for >>10987803 that's actually what the entire AGW debate revolves around. We ARE modulating the climate on earth by burning fossil fuels, and we should really really stop.

>>10989273
Based information poster, thank you.
I personally think we should dominate the environment like we've done with everything else, control it precisely for optimal conditions.

Do we know what the optimal climate conditions for human evolution are?

>>10988540
This. The fact that environmentalism has been co-opted by opportunistic partisans is what i find the most sad. Unfortunately you can't get anyone advocating for green tech without some socialist or woke identitarian policy added to the mix.

>>10989151
Except we've proven time and time again to be absolute shit at modelling water vapor and its various interactions.

>>10989455
post proofs

>>10989455
We're certainly close enough to be able to provide a decent range for climate sensitivity to CO2, it's why models that don't account for human CO2 emissions absolutely suck, and models that do provide quite accurate hind and forcasts.

>>10989455

>>10988540

Yes, that has achieved so much.

>>10989334
Socialism is good

>>10989569
National Socialism is good I agree

Best book for learning data science/data mining? Preferred if it has less to none business bullshit and tools shilling

>>10990493
I meant to ask this on /sqt/. Sorry

>>10988533
Underrated. Equivocation is the meta of all deception. My favorite modern case: "I am an entertainer, therefore not a lying sack of shit." Nice work, for those who can stomach doing it. I can't, so muckraking journalism remains my favorite form of glee.

>>10989194
observation 1: sea levels have been higher in the past
observation 2: there was still life on the planet when sea levels where higher
conclusion: sea levels rising is not a problem for the 40% of the world population that lives near the coast, nor will it affect the agricultural production of farmland located near the coast or on floodplains.

do you see the spurious logic? yes, life will continue to exist, that still doesn't mean climate change won't affect the lives, health and prosperity of millions of people.