/sci/ - Science & Math

Pick any https://skepticalscience.com/

>>14748715
There are no "hard science facts".

>>14748715

>>14748734
That website is too convoluted. This is a fucking imageboard.

>>14748765
Then give me the sufficiently scientific ones.

>>14748826
There are no scientific facts related to "man-made climate change".

>>14748826

>>14748844

>>14748844
>>14748848
>>14748820
That's some good >>>/pol/ material.

>>14748861
It's literally objective plots that can be reproduced by basically any chemistry lab on earth... provided with no comment.

>>14748864
>It's literally objective plots
Pertaining to what?

>>14748867
CO2 concentration and absorption spectrum. This forms the crux of greenhouse gas theory, along with methane gas, I suppose.

Anyone then trying to predict/extrapolate the future from these two facts can be questioned and doubted, but we understand the behavior of greenhouse gases and their (manmade) increasing concentrations pretty accurately.
The question is how the biosphere, oceans, and atmosphere will respond, and what feedback/feedforward mechanisms will occur.

>>14748879
>CO2 concentration and absorption spectrum.
But he asked you for "hard science facts that could be used as an argument" in favor of "man-made climate change". Climate change "facts" go on /pol/.

>>14748888
How is CO2 concentration or absorption spectrum subjective?

>>14748890
I didn't say it's subject. I said that if you are posting hard science poop pellets to try to push the AGW narrative, >>>/pol/ is the board for you.

>Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

>>14748904
>triggered /pol/tard

>more co2 causes higher temperature
i sleep
>more co2 means more poison for us to breathe
>air quality will drop and it will get harder to concentrate until we all die in our sleep
real shit

>>14748904
I'm not pushing any narrative. Just answering OP's question as accurately as I can. On a personal level I'm mostly ambivalent towards climate change, as the evidence that it is harmful is relatively poor. And there are numerous cases of exaggeration for funding. As well it is a field with deeply entrenched geopolitics, especially considering some countries may benefit from climate change as others lose from it. As the US will likely not be significantly impacted, I don't care as much.

>>14748928
To the contrary, I'm tired of /pol/-tier discussions on /sci/. Go back.

>>14748933
Humans get on fine with far worse oxygen conditions than we'll ever see with climate change (high carbon dioxide greenhouses, high altitude, mild cases of cystic fibrosis, etc).

>>14748941
Yes but human societies are loosing their shit because of a few hundred thousand refugees each year, now imagine half a billion due to climate change making more of the earth uninhabitable

>>14748936
Then don't pretend that this is a narrative that's pushed. It's our CO2.

>>14748979
AGW is a political narrative. No two ways about that. The degree of your sentience is inversely proportional to the level of disagreement you are currently experiencing.

>>14748984
Let's see what we know, hard scientific facts.

>>14748848
CO2 leads contributes to the greenhouse effect.

>>14748922
The contribution was not saturated in 1970 as the contribution increased over the years between 1970 and 1996.

>>14748844
The CO2 concentration is increasing.

>>14748979
The change coincides with our emissions.

Picrel: the increase in CO2 coincides with a reduction of O2. This suggests that CO2 does not stem from a CO2 reservoir, but from combustion C + O2 -> CO2

>>14749076
None of these factoids validate your AGW politics.

Another fact:
The increase in CO2 coincides with a reduction of the ratio of C-13 to C-12 in the atmosphere.
The ratio of C-13 to C-12 in fossil fuels is lower than in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels creates CO2 that has less C-13 than the atmosphere.
Any explanation that the increase is not caused by humans burning fossil fuels would need to explain that observation.

>>14749085
If it looks like AGW and it walks like AGW...

Do you even have any arguments, logic-wise or better, backed by data, that contradict the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions cause global warming?

>>14749101
>If it looks like AGW and it walks like AGW...
If you want to talk about what things "look like" to you, try >>>/pol/.

>>14749110
If you don't have any scientific arguments >>>/pol/
But it looks like you don't have any arguments at all, so better >>>/b/

>>14749114
You can't have "scientific arguments" about politics.

>>14749117
What's political here?

>>14749134
AGW. Anon, you're slow today.

>>14749110
That would be a violation of board rule number 1 of /pol/. Chemical and physical processes are not political. An effect that was known in 1912 is hardly a current event.

>>14749146
We're just discussing physical chemistry here. Nothing describing AGW theories.

>>14749146
What about anthropogenic global warming is political?

>>14749155

>>14749117
>>14749146
Come on polturd do something funny

>>14748979
That political discourse has arisen surrounding a certain topic is irrelevant. That you wish to stop objective scientific facts from being promulgated is, on the contrary, entirely relevant; to say, you are the /pol/fag. It's quite obvious.

>>14750249
Meant to quote
>>14748984
>>14749085

>>14749982
Why a logarithmic fit?

climate is a figment of the liberal media and the green energy industry used to scare you into buying useless appliances and cars. now, i’ve read the arguments on both sides, and i haven’t found any evidence yet to support the need to go green, ever.

>>14748715
>It is irrefutable
You have to actually make a testable claim before anyone can refute it. Fuck off.

I don't give a fuck about Earth. I often burn things outside, so I hope I can help increase CO2.

I work with livestock, I often eat meat. Fuck, all of you.

>>14752178
Burning stuff hurts you most of all. So does your meat consumption. Enjoy your gout.