/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11134498
>C02

>>11134498
overly simple model which doesn't account for any feedbacks. Climate sensitivity is about 3 degrees C per a doubling of CO2. Oh and warming hasn't slowed down.

>>11134539
nice thumbnail.

>>11134498
>If co2 is logarithmic is the worst of the warming already over? Wouldn't this explain the slow down in temperature increase since 1998?
No and no
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

>>11134498
It's an overly simple model which doesn't take into account any feedbacks.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is aprox 3 degrees per a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Oh and warming hasn't slowed down.

>>11134498
>*Assumes a climate sensitivity of .15C following Linzen and choi 2009
Fuck made me laugh.

>>11134558
Cambrian era had 4000 ppm. It's very easy to see from the Earth's record that there is going to be a saturation point as op points out

>>11134597
Compared to around 400 to 500 ppm of today.
Climate change surrounding co2 is quack science used to extract cash from Rich idiots

>>11134550
Doesn't this explanation mean that we should be looking to the troposphere in order to take temperature measurements as well then since this is the area in which the effect of co2 should be the strongest without all of the noise of other variables? I believe this is the conclusion John Christy came to when he measured tropospheric temperatures with satalites and weather ballooons and compare it to computer model predictions. Climate alarmists seem not to like it very much though.

>>11134657
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

a huge problem is, that as it gets warmer there is also more water in the atmosphere, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2

>>11134772
Which gets absorbed by increased plant life. Which traps more carbon and releases more oxygen. Reducing temps.

>>11134772
Also more water vapor means more clouds which have a net cooling effect

>>11134772
>>11134794
Climate cucks say the sky is falling while ignoring earth science.
Increased CO2 leads to more plant growth. Stabilizing and reducing temperatures.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Its actually really retarded the climate scare tactics have gotten to this point.

>>11134804
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/

>>11134657
>we should be looking to the troposphere in order to take temperature measurements
BRUH you're in the troposphere

>>11134794
So why is the world getting warmer

>>11134794
>https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1
>https://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.full
current evidence strongly suggests it's a net warming effect.

>>11134786
Co2 levels and temperatures keep rising with no breaks, so observational evidence strongly suggests you're full of shit.

>>11134657
We have been looking at the troposphere, it's warming about 80% faster than the surface at the tropics, faster than predicted:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007

>>11134657
>this bullshit graph yet again

>>11134804
I love how people parrot this meme without knowing anything about the carbon cycle

>>11135163
Your sample size is shit for ppm

>>11135592
Over the past million years that we have direct ice core gas data the CO2 has never increased past 300ppm at a rate of 50-70 ppm per 300 years

>>11135163
correlation causation lol

>>11135605
It's funny how you fucks stop your dates right when it's about to disprove your shit. Bigger sample. Most of orgnaic life developed with higher ppm

>>11135622
History shows rapid co2 climbs followed by gradual drop off. Rapid co2 climb is not abnormal even in those projections.

>>11135622
How is that relevant to our current situation? The ecosystems back then developed and evolved to live in the steady state at the time, not to mention the planet had a completely different continental and oceanic configuration.
Our modern ecosystem developed in a steady state where CO2 was never higher than 300 ppm. Creating a rapid upheaval in climate represents a challenge it can't adapt to fat enough. Stop talking as if you knew anything.

>>11134498
Just check out the planet Venus you nimrod.

>>11135635
We have a dying ecosystem with little in terms of diversity in modern era. Look at all the most diverse periods of organic life on Earth and it will be during times of high CO2 PPM. Whatever you're trying to preserve his idiocy and not based on science.

>>11135641
There is no scenario in which birth would have a composition like Venus.

at 800ppm CO2 human cognition begins to be negatively affected

>>11135655
There is no "saturation" point for carbon dioxide, and the effects go up with carbon dioxide concentration.

>>11135650
Again, because you seem to be dense or intentionally being obtuse. We are simply not living in a time where life developed under high CO2. Rapidly raising it will not magically bring back the Cretaceous or the Carboniferous. Stop using the research of deep time paleo people to fuel your bullshit.
If you look at the graph you posted the climate stayed at a steady CO2 level over long periods of time. Rapid changes up or down bring forth extinction where a new ecosystem grows on a new steady state

>>11134498
so you're saying we increase temp by 1/20th of a degree every X amt of time? well, in 10 X amt of times we are fucked.

>>11135679
actually no bc its not about time but X amt of co2 and the thing is accelerating wrp time, shit

>>11135606
too bad CO2's relation with temperature is purely causative.

>>11135556
Why do they assume that all other tropospheric data sets are wrong and there's is right?

>>11135605
Depending on what study you look at for the petm. Some research suggests it rose up to 5 degrees in only 13 years

>>11135635
Most modern plants evolved in higher Co2. Mammals only evolved due to an increase in Co2, I believe this was during the PETM

>>11135658
Don't be retarded. Motorcycle helmets at 8000-10 000 ppm. Inside most work environments ppm is well over 1000

>>11135745
did you read it?

>>11135763
What does any of that have to do with the hit to cognition. Cog is hit in those enviros. and many others. Difference in the global warming future is it will be baseline and dudes will have to go into special rooms just to breathe the fresh air we take for granted and are currently destroying every single day

>>11135763
I mean if you know anyone who rides, you'll absolutely believe CO2 inhibits cognition at high concentrations

>>11135754
sauce plz

>>11135819
You are missing the fact that as co2 increases so does oxygen due to the greening effect it has. I assume any study you mention does not take this into consideration.

>>11135832
>http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/
Interesting claim when in fact the exact opposite trend is observed.

>>11135674
Saturation of CO2 in OUR atmosphere with it's composition has a limit. Venus has 30,000 ppm and it's.water and nitrogen is less than 1 percent.
The highest recorded co2 concentration was 4000 ppm there is a limit to co2 saturation on Earth and it's temperature effects. Comparing to Venus that has a different ratio entirely is retarded.

>>11135675
You cite develop over a million years, you are one thick skulled idiot. You seem to forget that there have been a thinking of species during this million years. There is a direct correlation to carbon ppm to development diversity in the fossil record because co2 increase is conjoined with increased plant growth and oxygen.

>>11135758
Higher o2 may be cause by increase in plant life that is associated with increased co2.

>>11135853
This is like an undergrade site. No citation

>>11135884
>Scripps Institution of Oceanography
>shitty source
>>11135880
The vast majority of O2 is produced in the ocean, just like it is the major reservoir of carbon on ~1000 yr timescales

>>11135874
Pray tell how long will it take the ecosystem will adapt and evolve to thrive on a high CO2 atmosphere again especially with such a dramatic spike in CO2?
I cite a million years because that how far we have direct Ice core CO2 measurements. The planet has developed ice sheets over the last 30+My and things have been getting colder since then, thus life adapted to this status quo.
I don't know why you keep repeating that there was more biodiversity back then as if it was relevant to this time in the planet's history. Rising the CO2 rapidly will not bring back the biodiversity of those times in any relevant time scales.

>>11135934
I mean he's not completely wrong, if global temperature increases bring an end to the Anthropocene, over the course of several million years the ecosystem will recover and new life will evolve. Bringing back biodiversity.

>>11135867
>The highest recorded co2 concentration was 4000 ppm
No. Practically all of Earth's oxygen was bound to carbon at one point. Free oxygen existing at all is entirely due to photosynthesis, see Great Oxygenation event.

>>11135934
"Dramatic" all the spikes of co2 rise have been dramatic. There has been NO casual gains in CO2 preceding evolution events.
You are either a dishonest turd or grade a retard

>>11136647
Also this chart shows that CO2 and Temperature are not historically link. Choosing a small sample to make them look directly linked is a product of coincidence due to a small sampling of modern era.

>>11136647
kek, please learn to read an x axis. first arrow points to a change over a billion years. Second arrow takes place over 50 million years, you covered the third but it looks like around 40 million years 4th looks about the same.

>>11136694
CO2 Is not always the largest factor influencing temperature. It absolutely is today though.

>>11136861
Sorry what you're seeing today is wholly a coincidence based on a number of factors that you have not identified. you are cherry picking temperature relation to CO2 while ignoring the scientific fact of the planet's history.

>>11136857
>>11136857
It's almost like the trends for climate are not accurately depicted in short spaces of time. Because if you collapse the later x-axis you will find the modern climate change is insignificant.

>>11136891
What forcing over the past 100 years is more significant than the large increase in the greenhouse effect from human emitted CO2?

>>11134597
The sun was about 30% less intense way back then.

>>11136902
That is radically false. We are actually in a solar calm right now.

>>11135622
Yet human intelligence has developed and never experienced an atmosphere above 300 ppm. I wonder at what point fetal development will be effected by elevated carbonic acid in the mother's blood.

>>11136899
Mount Saint Helens as one example.
Do you literally just post without looking any numbers up?

>>11136909
What are you talkin about according to the anthro schizos human civilization only developed in the last 10000 years. With the last million years of less than 300 parts per million not playing a significant factor. The development of hominids as a dominant species began much earlier when CO2 was higher. It's the fact that hominids are more adaptable than other species during a. Of time during CO2 collapse that has correlated with species and diversity collapse on planet

>>11136895
>if you make the axis so small that you make spans of hundreds of millions of years imperceptible, then it's no longer an issue
This... is bait?

>>11136906
No it isn't false you colossal lying retard.

>>11136911
>mt st Helens released 10 million tons of CO2
Annual co2 released from burning fossil fuels is 35 gigatons. Are you fucking retarded?

>>11136919
It's not a bait you are taking something of a short. Of time and extrapolating as a bigger issue than it really is in the geological time of the Earth. You're the one that's ignoring minut fluctuations that occurred in the past based on other factors. while pretending CO2 magically becomes 100% correlated to temperature when it hasn't been in the past. You are cherry-picking data and combining it without eat model that it's ever work for predicting where temperatures and CO2 are going. That's the biggest sign of your quack science being completely bunk. No accuracy in models.

>>11134597
>Cambrian era had 4000 ppm.
and what was the climate like

hmmmm?

>>11136916
>human civilization only developed in the last 10000 years
No shit, that's cause we had a stable climate since coming out of the last glaciation which allowed for predictable crop growth. What's your point?

>>11136925
Models have proven extremely accurate. Exxon mobile predicted current temperatures in the 80s to within .1 degrees.

>>11136925
>It's not a bait you are taking something of a short. Of time and extrapolating as a bigger issue than it really is in the geological time of the Earth
Nope, I'm not.

>>11136923
https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2019/06/04/sun-reached-solar-minimum-surface-ominously-calm-9805282/amp/

It's almost like you don't know about the Faint young Sun paradox

>>11136932
For some reason these retards fail to comprehend geologic timescales dont apply to individuals or even civilizations.

>>11136933
>sun used to be 30% cooler hundreds of millions of years ago, therefore 4000pmm wouldn't have the same effect as today
>YOU'RE IGNORING THAT THE SUN IS A FRACTION OF A PERCENT COOLER IN THE CURRENT MINIMUM
You're a retard

>>11136931
If you make 100 models predicting 100 different measurements and then cherry pick which model you want to use you're going to eventually find one that fits in short span of time. But I'll humor you how about you site the documents just so that I know that you're not parroting what someone else's said

>>11136929
Temperatures didn't climb significantly past a certain point.

>>11136930
10000 years in geological time is nothing for stability. based on your logic any space of ten thousand years of homo sapiens should have erupted into advanced civilizations comparable to ours today seeveral times already.

>>11136935
Retards like you think humans will die off with climate.

>>11136939
You are citing an open paradox as proof of how much intensity the sun had at that time.

>>11136960
please for the love of god at least read the Wikipedia article. The paradox isn't related to solar intensity, it's related to how there was liquid water on earth when the sun was so much cooler. Surprise surprise the evidence shows it was likely due to the greenhouse effect.
> It is now thought that carbon dioxide was present in higher concentrations during this period of lower solar radiation. It was first proposed and tested as part of Earth's atmospheric evolution in the late 70s. An atmosphere that contained about 1000 times the Present Atmospheric Level (or PAL) was found to be consistent with the evolutionary path of the Earth's carbon cycle and solar evolution.[11][12][13]

>>11136959
considering you've shifted the goalposts all the way to complete extinction of the human race I think you comprehend just how much damage climate change can cause.

>>11136957
Homo sapiens has only existed for about 200k years. As you can see there's only been one period in that timeframe similar to the Holocene though it neither lasted as long or had such consistent climate.

>>11136647
>>11136694
>The debunked chart peddled by the same glyphosate think tank shill
Truly amazing

>>11136647
>Patrick Moores graph

>>11134741
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
even the skeptics revised version shows the models are still way off, it even says in here that the modellers inflated their estimate because they did not account for variables like volcano's ect.

>>11135628
Please show me an example of CO2 rising as rapidly as it is now and the climate being "normal."

>>11135758
Mammals flourished after the drawdown in CO2 that produced fossil fuels. Humans would not exist without the drawdown in CO2.

>>11135884
This is what happens when a denier reaches the end of his script.

>>11136647
The fact that you post this graph by a notorious paid industry shill is mind boggling

>http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2009/110115royer/ndx_royer.pdf
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236004375_CO2_as_a_primary_driver_of_Phanerozoic_climate
>https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05699

>>11136930
primates wouldn't even exist if not for global warming during the petm where co2 went up as well.

>>11137275
Pointing out your link has no citation is somehow a science denier?

>>11137499
It's literally the organization responsible for making all the measurements. You utter fucking retard.

>>11137269
Incorrect, the warming in the petm changed the earths landscape and allowed mammals and the first primates to flourish.

>>11137269
Animals do better generally when there is more oxygen. However the correlation between CO2 and heat does little to explain Earth's climate for life. It's almost like cherry picking a small segment of the modern era leads to interpretations that don't always align with fossil records.

>>11137508
>Organization in charge of data
>Doesn't provide citations

>>11137235
While troposphere tends to be on the lower end of models predictions, surface, sea surface and global average are all exactly within the highest confidence range. The fact you ignore this just proves you're pushing an agenda and don't care about the truth.

>>11137516
>too retarder to do explore the site or do basic googling
http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/

>>11137521
This is still not a citation for the page you linked idiot. you couldn't even use that webpage on undergraduate work. there's no links to any of the claims made within the document that you linked. posting a link to now a landing page of the organization still does not provide the citation necessary for the claims made within the original link.. the amount of retardation seeping out of your ear holes must be astonishing to see.

>>11137516
It somehow just seems impossible that climate deniers consistently are this stupid. I've met more intelligent flat earthers.

>>11137533
Did you ignore the big PUBLICATIONS section?

>>11137536
>>11137537
you seem to think linking to the publication section is somehow at Citation for the previously linked page is utter nonsense.
this is why academic papers of a higher caliber do inline citations for their claims. what's funny was probably was an undergraduate that wrote that page and did no citations.

>>11137548
>>11137536

>>11137548
It should also be noted that ucsd attempted to link the California Wildland fires to climate change despite California itself be negligent in ground cover cleanup. it's funny how climate change is quickly becoming the scapegoat for bad policy planning.

>>11137548
No you absolute retard. It's a page showing the data graphs. If you want to cite the data then you go to the section on their publications and cite the papers. This is Keeling's group at Scripps, the same people who monitors atmospheric CO2
You are being intentionally stupid.

>>11137558
or he could click the massive data button where all measurements for each station are directly published.

>>11137558
I don't know what kind of retard teachers you have at UCSD but you don't write claims on a page of a website and then put your citations completely disjointed on to another tab and claim that's good enough. That is not an academic paper. That is undergraduate lazy work that seems purposely designed it obfuscate specific claims from citations and data.
Garbage tier website for garbage thinkers

>>11137566
>>11137536

>>11137566
It's not a paper. It's the Lab Group's website where all the data is compiled. You have no Idea what you're talking about god damn.

>>11137572
Your reading comprehension is also terrible. I feel bad that my taxes go towards your shity education at that school.

>>11137556
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001210
interesting claim, do you have citations to back up your claim that increased aridity has no effect on wildfires, or that said aridity does not exist?

>>11137574
So basically you're ssaying its not even fit for publication claiming it's somehow will prove your argument while having no inline citation. Disjointedly connected to a set of raw data with no mention of your methodology or how specific claims are connected to specific sets of data.
now you backtrack saying it's not academic it's a Lab website as if it adds credibility when in essence you just proving the point that it is garbage.

>>11137575
you're the one who can't click the massive data button where direct measurements for every station are published.
By the way can we get back to the fact that you're a retard who claimed oxygen levels are increasing despite the opposite being true?

>>11137579
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/07/30/californias-devastating-fires-are-man-caused-but-not-in-the-way-they-tell-us/

what's funny is that the study that you link actually talks about vegetation density as being a major contributor to the spread of Wildland Fire but seems to shoehorn the idea that summer fires are impacted by climate change while fall fires are not because it doesn't line up with their projected numbers.
It's very clear the biggest contributor has been the growing density of vegetation and fire suppression not only mentioned in his Forbes article but also in the paper you cited. Which I doubt you read and it's full length to see the contradictions that it has. as it acknowledges the main perpetrators of the wild in fighterz well cleaning a degree of summer heat was the leading cause. It's utter nonsense

>>11137582
The lab groups website is not a citation. All the relevant methodology and data is on the published papers which are actually linked in the PUBLICATIONS AND DATA sections. You can't actually be this retarded.

>>11137583
It's almost like depletion oxygen has a correlation with species that use it.
Well increases with species that produces it.
Animal population levels are directly tied to oxygen in the atmosphere. But are also offset by increased vegetation.
Increased CO2 with increase plant life increase the amount of oxygen in the air. increase populations of species that use oxygen deplete oxygen in the air.

>>11137602
You must have the memory of a goldfish since it was as page with no citation that I was originally presented they had no inline citation. therefore disconnecting all claims of the page to the citations and data of the website. Don't blame me for your retarded tendency not to properly cite your claims.

>>11137601
a forbes opinion piece isn't a citation.
>fuel accumulation due to wildfire suppression) did not cause a change in the fire‐climate relationship during the study period.

is pretty clear cut, now where's your source demonstrating increased aridity due to climate change does not contribute to wildfires?

>>11137602
>>11137612
ignore him he's a butthurt newfag crying about not being spoonfed everything.

>>11137607
you keep moving the goalposts. you claimed oxygen levels were rising. the opposite is happening due to the burning of fossil fuels. In other words you're completely wrong because you're an ignorant fool who can't even google something before asserting it as fact.

>>11137616
I was on this website while you were in diapers

>>11137624
https://www.livescience.com/56219-earth-atmospheric-oxygen-levels-declining.html
The decline trend of the past 800,000 years is due to oxygen traps unrelated to mans CO2. But very related to CO2 only being under 300 parts per million while oxygen traps in the form of species continue to grow in population on the planet with limited vegetation diversity.

>>11137627
>an actual boomer who can't into basic research or follow a lab's website to where the published works are listed

>>11137627
yet you still expect to be spoonfed everything? it's a mystery how such a venerable oldfag such as yourself acts like a butthurt redditor

>>11137613
Ground fuel is different from vegetation density retard
Your own paper cited vegetation density as part of the major contributing factor.
An industry expert would be a crucial witness instead of you cherry picking your data. Claiming a false correlation between a negligible increase in temperature and growing density Mismanaged Wildland

>>11137631
>>11137633
You inbreds have drink the Kool-Aid of green new deal idiots. while thinking your undergraduate nonsense actually applies to the real world.
you've crafted niche in your new religion of doomsday predictions that will never come true.

>>11137643
It's hilarious, literally everything you've said has been demonstrated to be false yet you think you have any ground left to stand on.

>>11137635
swing and a miss, I'm still waiting for your citations proving aridity has no effect.

and for good measure because you clearly didn't read any of it.

>In this study we evaluated the various possible links between anthropogenic climate change and observed changes in California wildfire activity across seasons, regions, and land cover types since the early 1970s. The clearest link between California wildfire and anthropogenic climate change thus far has been via warming‐driven increases in atmospheric aridity, which works to dry fuels and promote summer forest fire, particularly in the North Coast and Sierra Nevada regions. Warming has been far less influential on summer wildfire in nonforest areas. In fall, the drivers of wildfire are particularly complex, but warming does appear to enhance the probability of large fall wildfires such as those in 2017 and 2018, and this effect is likely to grow in the coming decades.

>Importantly, the effects of anthropogenic warming on California wildfire thus far have arisen from what may someday be viewed as a relatively small amount of warming. According to climate models, anthropogenic warming since the late 1800s has increased the atmospheric vapor‐pressure deficit by approximately 10%, and this increase is projected to double by the 2060s. Given the exponential response of California burned area to aridity, the influence of anthropogenic warming on wildfire activity over the next few decades will likely be larger than the observed influence thus far where fuel abundance is not limiting.

>>11137659
>Ignoring part of paper discussing admission of vegetation density.
>Pretends degree of temperature significantly increases aridity
>Aridity that has been increasing non realitive to increased co2

>>11137649
This is the exact opposite of true. Citing an undergrad lab doesn't make your claims more viable. While refusing to cite specific claims is laughable.

>>11137630
You claim to know
oxygen levels have been decreasing for 800,000 years but >>11135832 claims oxygen is increasing, interesting. Also ignoring the fact that the 800k year trend is much much slower than the recent trend of oxygen depletion, and therefore completely irrelevant.

Based shillbots

>>11137676
>Keeling's group at Scripps
>undergrad lab

http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications.html
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/scientific_literature.html

>>11137680
There is a difference is net change based on source. Increase vegetation will increase oxygen output. increase vegetation will only happen with increased CO2 available in atmosphere released from carbon traps.

>>11137685
Calling these prophets of Doom undergrads was a bit of a compliment. I retract and will simply call them quacks

>>11137687
CO2 is much higher, the planet has greened, why is oxygen continuing to fall? The exact opposite of your claim is occurring, how do you explain this?

>C-zero-two

>>11137689
textbook ad hominems, unable to address the facts has to directly attack the source. pathetic.

>>11137673
another strike, you can't ignore the conclusions of a paper based on one line you can't even quote.
>Pretends degree of temperature significantly increases aridity
the paper displays compelling evidence, where is yours which says otherwise?
>>Aridity that has been increasing non realitive to increased co2
only a simpleton would assume everything has a linear relationship

>>11137691
Animal life increasing faster than vegetation. Also same leading to deoxygenation of ocean prior to man's industry.

>>11137704
Linear heat and co2 has been the major argument of climate science today lol

>>11137697
I was quoting NCAR founder about keeling.

>>11137827
you literally don't know the meaning of linear do you?

>>11137831
Walter Orr Roberts? he was a pretty swell guy, and unless you personally attended cocktail parties with him I doubt you can find him randomly insulting respected scientists.

>>11134498
Climate change is a UN scam to consolidate power. ;)

>>11137939
Apparently you don't read. Especially the official memos of ncar during the 1970s when it came to carbon alarmists.

>>11138011
True butt not just un it's a wealth redistribution scheme not really concerned with balancing the climate.

>>11137520
Troposphere is the most important since the effects of green house gasses are theorized to be the strongest in that area with less noise then other measurements.

>>11138022
are you going to cite anything or just keep making shit up?

>>11138276
Not a good argument for ignoring global temperatures, if heat is transferred from the troposphere sea or surface it can't be ignored. Total heat of the system must be considered.

>>11134804
>retarded climate scare tactics...
to what cause? oil and coal industry has far more benefit to curb transitions by denying the existence of climate change or its effects and causes. You can’t seriously be proposing that a few hippies and the ragged renewable sector is so much more successful in buying independent scientists than multibillion companies that try to get their last investments to pay off?

>>11135947
yea, sure, but who will be building furry sex robots?

>>11136895
>the modern climate change is insignificant
you mean the graph where modern change is not included due to resolution problems? love that one!

>>11139342
Climate scare gives established oil and gas a corner of energy market . Vast majority of new businesses in energy enter alt energy field. Artifical scarcity keeps and otherwise cheap energy source expensive for global consumption. Especially as you don't see green energy actually embrace nuclear.

>>11139360
Where modern fluctuation isn't significant to fill a pixel

>>11137510
Warming in the PETM lasted only a few thousand years and started millions of years after primate evolution began. CO2 and temperature have greatly decreased since then, across almost the entire evolution of primates into what they are today.

>>11137512
>Animals do better generally when there is more oxygen.
And your point is? Oxygen concentration has barely changed over the past 100 million years. It's currently decreasing slowly and will continue to do so for millions of years.

>However the correlation between CO2 and heat does little to explain Earth's climate for life.
LOL, right. The carbon cycle and temperature have no effect on life...

https://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/449

>It's almost like cherry picking a small segment of the modern era leads to interpretations that don't always align with fossil records.
What interpretation are you even talking about? There is no contradiction between paleoclimatology and modern climatology, they are two sides of the same coin.

>>11136952
how come most of the models agree with each other?

>>11139372
They don't

>>11137612
if this is all you can actually attack, your statement clearly seems disproven

>>11137676
>Citing an undergrad lab
assuming this is even true, you haven't provided ANY evidence whatsoever

>>11139363
not in the time axis

>>11137818
So now you're saying animal life increases with decreased oxygen? How odd.

>>11139361
didn't you guys start fracking a few years ago and fucked over drinking water? That has to be costly and I wouldn't want that money to be wasted
> Artifical scarcity
they are desparate to keep their exports going for a while at least. Damage control is far more valuable right now, especially considering
>Vast majority of new businesses in energy enter alt energy field

>>11139368
Source talks about flucuations between 300 to 600 ppm.
We are in that range still....

>>11139388
It's true. Garbage undergrads posting to 4chan for credits? Now that's speculation.

>>11139373
false
>https://skepticalscience.com/how-well-have-models-predicted-gw.html
>https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-accurately-predicting-ocean-global-warming.html
>https://skepticalscience.com/2015-global-temps-in-line-climate-models.html
>https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Predictions_150
from
>https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=22&t=1155&&a=15
as response to 1083

>>11139415
still no actual evidence. You are wrong and you know it.

>>11139406
"You guys" who?
Fracking is terrible and creates pressure bearings in rock and slip planes of local fissures. West coast could be energy capital of the world if commies allowed off shore drilling with methane deposits so full they randomly burst off the coast of Washington

>>11139418
Cherry picking models

>>11139423
you guys Americans, this assumption is purely based on user activity

>>11139421
Wrong. Undergrads are retards gullible enough to waste their time shilling for quack Science and post studies they don't read often containing contradicting statements but doesn't matter because you probably don't read past the abstract.

>>11139429
well show me what you got then.

>>11139430
Oh you are not American? I thought you were some west coast retard .
Where are you from, cheif?

>>11139433
contrary to you who doesn't even seem to read the abstracts at all. otherwise you would already have provided evidence to support your claim.

>>11139437
Europe, so I sadly have to agree with
>don't see green energy actually embrace nuclear.

>>11139435
Here is a graphical breakdown of predictions averages that was presented to Congress.
That statement is stored online here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf J.R. Christy 8 Dec 2015 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation U.S. ...

>>11139440
Well that's the tell they are using climate change as a gimmick to augment behavior but not impliment the most obvious solution if it were true

>>11139450
nope, people are just irrational about nuclear because of stigmas and vote like retards on that issue

>>11139450
>The Climate Mandate
Walter Orr Roberts
Henry Lansford
1979
The sad thing is that there are man made contributions to climate. It's just this over focus on co2 that's hampering policy and scientific attention.

>>11139447
some anon already broke that graph down on this thread

>>11139477
When was your most recent vote? I bet your politicans are not even bringing it upnto vote

>>11139479
No he didn't. He literally had to ignore it and say that it wasn't as big of a factor. That's not a break down of the graph that's just ignoring it. Did you read the statement?

>>11139413
So what?

>>11139495
If you see flucuations in tree rings to that degree of change it tells you something about annual fluctuations and rates on a small scale. You don't find it odd that you can look at that data and see we are within that range if normal flucuations?

>>11139477
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

>>11139478 cont.
BTW I should warn you about this book if it comes as a shock
The biggest argument made in the book in terms of climate in human survival is our ability to keep up the pace of food production with human population. It's a bitter pill that's far more significant than CO2. And in fact why I think more CO2 is a better bet in securing a future for a large population of humanity. Because there is a need for increased vegetation growth.
The more oxygen using species continue to grow unabated the less oxygen will be available in the atmosphere. Increasing CO2 allows for more oxygen to be available for plant life to break down the carbon.
Depletion of oxygen also has effects on the ozone which is O3 .

>>11139519
I should also add the type of plants matter because you'll need a lot of nitrogen fixers

>>11139519
agricultural gains from co2 are insignificant compared to increased risk of heat blight, drought, unstable weather patterns, pollinator die off, ocean acidification, etc. Virtually all research is pretty explicit about this. I can cite anywhere in the IPCC reports to back this up, could you provide your source that slightly faster plant growth in very specific latitudes is enough to compensate for all these extremely negative factors?

>>11139503
Normal 23 million years ago, the sun was also cooler then, meaning when we hit similar CO2 levels the planet will be significantly warmer than in was in the Miocene.
You're also ignoring the most important factor, rate of change. the fluctuations you mention took place over periods of 1 to 5 million years, and life had sufficient time to adapt to the huge shifts in climate. We're currently on track to create a shift just as large in under 200 years. That's a shift 5 to 25 thousand times faster than what we're experiencing now.

>>11139638
All of these are an issue of rates. And most of them have to do with deoxidation. This is a rate problem.
Right now the majority of plant life that is scrubbing CO2 is based in the ocean. in terms of land-based plant life that would help is likely the reversal of the desertification of certain areas like the Sahara. Which is also a large he at generator. In terms of Land Based efforts the most impact you can have on climate will be the reversal of desertification of that region.
Especially if we look at lessons from the US Dust Bowl to help solve that issue.
Tell me what's more likely? Reform of how we use CO2 as a global species or making efforts to increase the rate of oxygen producers?
if I were to bet Humanity on it I would definitely side with oxygen producers as being the most viable path unless you want to start some world wars to reduce the human population.

>>11139652
Faint Young Sun paradox is a disputed claim that is an open paradox to this day. If your model relies on a paradox for validity you're going to have a badtime

>>11139488
it's been discussed already, Christy greatly exaggerated the trends, for political reasons, While it's true tropospheric observations have been within the lower range of models, that's only part of the story, surface and sea observations have been higher than predicted and global average temp has been almost exactly within the highest confidence range. It's ironic you accuse us of cherrypicking when you're the one who ignores all datasets except troposphere. Especially as it's arguably the least important in terms of policy, as humans are more effected by surface and sea temperatures.

>>11139659
educate yourself, the fact that the sun was cooler is not disputed period. The question is how was the earth not an icecube. and most research suggests it was due to a stronger greenhouse effect.

>>11139669
It's a paradox because the idea the sun was fainter doesn't match Earth's behavior and Mars which had liquid water. Educate yourself in why it's called a paradox.

>>11139342
Government agencies, retard.
Large portions of the beaurocratic appararus are all-in on climate change as:
a) an excuse for migration
b) an excuse to consolidate power

Ever been in academia? 99% of what professors do is beg for money through grants. Most of those are government-funded. You bet your ass they'll be kow-towing to what the eminence-grise wants.

>>11139657
I definitely agree fighting deforestation, and desertification is absolutely a good thing it's absolutely not enough to offset human emissions. We have the technology to greatly reduce emissions without significantly harming standard of living. we just have chosen not to because it doesn't make the right people money.

>>11139666
Bullshit. Now you fucks are just lying. They were not exaggerated. Changing models of climate change have been there norm for the past 50 years. You virgin undergrads only get part of the data and call it gospel. You're a cult

>Have the technology
yeah a lot of that technology that requires exotic chemicals to produce that are more effective greenhouse gases than CO2 without a cycle.
for example have you ever looked into the chemical makeup of what how to make a solar cell especially in a factory in China?
If you want to reduce CO2 war is inevitable. Good-looking people to sign on.

>>11139681
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/
a good summary of exactly how the charts were manipulated
There's a reason Christy never submitted any for peer review and has only used them for political grandstanding.

>>11139694
>Cherry picking a few studies that were closer to the low average.
>Political conspiracy theory
Ok cult

>>11139673
It's consistent with our knowledge that mars had an atmosphere in the past. It's also extremely consistent with venus having large seas before it experienced a runaway greenhouse effect. Absolutely no one disputes the fact that the sun was cooler in the past. stop making shit up.

>>11139701
Oh I guess you solved the open paradox!
Or oh wait, your tiny undergraduate brain just thinks he did because dunning krugger effect

>>11139704
The paradox comes from us not having a complete history of the exact atmospheric conditions of every planet. The sun was cooler earlier in it's lifespan this IS NOT DISPUTED to claim otherwise requires re writing everything we know about the life cycles of stars. Now shut the fuck up if you're incapable of doing anything but talking out of your ass.

>>11139715
>Retard mad
>Cult programming inefficient

>>11139722
glad you've run out of arguments.

>>11139722
>basic astrophysics is a cult
next you're going to tell me the earth is flat or some shit. You ever stop and think maybe if literally everything you say is provably false you should stop and seriously reevaluate literally everything about your beliefs which you can't defend?

>>11139728
If you understand Lanes law then you'd know that Luminosity based on diameter of the sun decreasing over time is based on a turn-of-the-century idea that the sun is only comprised of noble gas. Which modern astrophysicists already know is not the case. Using 19th century conjecture in order to support another conjecture is the reason why you guys are a cult.
Spreading terms like "settled science"when all you do is just ignore other scientist that they disagree. well other scientists implies that you're a scientist with you're probably not your an undergrad at the most.

I think this blog: https://scienceofdoom.com/about/ does a good job of explaining climate modeling, atmospheric physics and such. Worth checking out both if you're skeptical or if you wanna learn more about it.

>>11139742
Literally everything you said is simultaneously wrong and fucking retarded, where do you make this shit up?

>>11139447
See >>11134741

The graph is fraudulent.

>>11139756
It's called having an education not being a victim of propaganda. You are aware of your are a real scientist you need to be at least aware of competing expansions when Experiment supports different conclusions? Creating models in conjecture and then saying others are wrong is retarded.

>>11139674
>ids a gubmint cunspeerazee
Any evidence? No? OK then shut the fuck up.

>>11139826
education in what?

>>11139700
>Cherry picking a few studies that were closer to the low average.
Where? Are you capable of actually responding to an argument?

>>11139742
>>11139826
A faint young sun is expected due to the higher ratio of hydrogen to helium in the core, i.e. reduced nuclear fusion from hydrogen to helium. Since hydrogen is not a noble gas, your contention that it's based on the idea that the Sun is only comprised of noble gases is not simply wrong, it's the complete opposite of reality.

>>11139519
Take a look at the carbon cycle reservoir sizes and residence time and reassess that statement