/sci/ - Science & Math

Nope
We're fucked :3

in b4 100+ reply troll shitstorm

>implying it's actually "Global Warming" and not global climate change in general

Shit, niggers. I live in Florida and it's getting cold.

10 000 years ago, there were three kilometres of ice where I am sitting now.

I think its natural.

Global climate change is real, but not manmade.

can really know for sure at this point. wait 15 years and we will know.

Doesnt matter if its happening or not, we have to stop filling the atmosphere with shit

the scientific consensus is toward the "CO2 causes global warming" camp. but it's still kind of fuzzy in academic papers. there's strong evidence but it's far from certain

the problem is the fucking whackjobs on both sides who want to remove the other side entirely, or call it a conspiracy, or want to make everyone live in caves to stop CO2 emissions

as usual, the actual science is ignored and only turned into quick headlines.

The consensus as of now is that man made climate change is probably not what's going on. CO2 is agreed upon to be a greenhouse gas of some significance, but there are tons of other factors regulating temperature and it's doubtful we have the power to disrupt that.

i think people have completely ignored the fact that there are naturally occurring "greenhouse" gasses entering the atmosphere at any given moment around the world.

Volcanoes anyone? Bushfires? Farken ell, the next thing we'll be blaming the fucken abo's for their constant starting of fires to renew the bush.

I knew the abo's were responsible for climate change, they should never have made the Dodo extinct.

very unlikely caused by humans, uncontrollable anyway, not worth worrying about.

Scientific Community: It's happening.
General Populace: We don't know.

There's only a debate because people who don't understand the field think they can undermine those who do. It's like an Aeronautical Engineer trying to lecture a Biochemist on Biochemistry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0

>>1633874
Scientific Community: We aren't sure
General Populace: oh my god we're all going to die//it's a conspiracy nothing's happening

FTFY

looks like someone isn't reading the journals either

>>1633883
No.

>>1633895
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmECHrOcFlc

watch the entire series or you're part of the problem worse than "deniers"

>meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather for next week
>climatologists claim they can accurately predict the weather for the next 500 years

>>1633908
See;
>>1633895

>>1633916
part of the problem; you are exactly what you criticize

>>1633923
Refer to;
>>1633895
Last time I'm going to tell you.

The planet is definitely heating up. The Greenhouse gas effect is real. It's easy enough to replicate this and test it yourself. Or just have a look at Venus.

But will it cause a cataclysmic events to occur on Earth? I don't think so.

>>1633910

>climatologists claim they can accurately predict the weather for the next 500 years

>climatologists

>predict weather

You know why that post was stupid right?

>>1633933
...or what exactly?
do i detect a tough guy?

>>1633603

Extremely robust bullshit supported by multiple independent lines of evidence that corroborate each other and have a sound theoretical basis, yes.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php

its totally fake. The world is so big there is a boatload of data available, so much its hard to process it all into anything cohesive.

Global warming scare-jockies report that Antarctica is thawing, but thats only one small part. The rest of it is actually getting colder.

>>1633940
greenhouse gases aren't making surface temperatures warmer, as they aren't changing enough to do so. The increased el nino effect and increased urban heat island effect and deforestation are in some combination most likely behind the warming.

>>1633954

Uh, I guess someone hasn't noticed the fact that this past spring and summer we've:

1. Possibly had the first ever anthropogenically-attributable extreme weather event (Russian fires)
2. 1-in-1000 year flooding event in Tennessee
3. 1-in-1000 year flooding event in Pakistan
4. Flooding in China and Central Europe
5. 17 national heat records broken

If anything, shit's getting worse way faster than scientists projected.

>>1633940

I guess it depends on if you include "mass extinction event" under the definition of "cataclysmic."

>>1633973
>1. Possibly had the first ever anthropogenically-attributable extreme weather event (Russian fires)
You've GOT to be kidding me.
>2. 1-in-1000 year flooding event in Tennessee
When was the last time they had a 1-in-1000 year flood in that part of Tenn?
>3. 1-in-1000 year flooding event in Pakistan
When was the last time they had a 1-in-1000 year flood in that part of Pakistan?
>4. Flooding in China and Central Europe
They have fucking flooding in China every year.

>If anything, shit's getting worse way faster than scientists projected.

You're a moron.

>>1634004
/thread

>>1633953
Fucking moron - only showing arctic temperatures, thile the antarctic has been getting colder.

Antarctic Sea Ice for March 1980 and 2010

Extent Concentration
2010 4.0 million sq km 2.6 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km 2.0 million sq km

Sea Ice Extent in March 2010 is over 14% greater than in 1980
Sea Ice Concentration in March 2010 is 30% greater than in 1980!

>>1634030
pic related

>>1633940
No one is saying the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. That's a fucking straw man. Also the greenhouse effect doesn't happen on Venus, as the greenhouse effect requires a a transparent atmosphere so that sunlight can strike the surface, get reflected at a different frequency, and THEN absorbed by the atmosphere. That atmosphere of Venus is opaque. All its heat is absorbed directly by the atmosphere without reflecting off the surface.

Almost any time you hear an analogy made with Venus in regard to global warming, it is done fallaciously. Earth and Venus started out the same, with the same CO2 atmosphere. The difference in their evolution was not due to different early atmosphere but different proximity to the sun.

>>1634035

Um, in a greenhouse effect, the atmosphere absorbs IR and increases in heat. Reflection off the surface is irrelevant.

>>1634004

>You've GOT to be kidding me.

"THIS COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE TRUE" is not an valid response

Comments from professionals in the relevant fields have made preliminary statements about the possibility:

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/08/moscow-doesnt-believe-in-this.html
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/11/global-boiling-russia/

And of course we don't have actual dates for the last time in the past thousand years Tennessee had such a flood, but statistical analysis based on proxy records show that the kind of flooding Tennessee had in March should happen once every thousand years.

>You're a moron.

Okay. I guess NASA and WMO are filled with idiots then.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/extremeweathersequence_en.html

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010july/

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/A4F0994AFB057BB8/0/52KLGqDSAjo

>>1634093

One more statement about the possible anthropogenic forcing of recent extreme events:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1576

>>1634030

>2010 4.0 million sq km 2.6 million sq km
>1980 3.5 million sq km 2.0 million sq km

TWO data points? Two data points are enough to extract a statistically significant signal? Really? Are you sure this is how you want to frame your argument?

Besides, even if most of Antarctica is not melting, the part that concerns us, the West Antarctic ice sheet, IS melting, and the temperatures above this one region does not automatically invalidate the other dozens of lines of observational data, including globally averaged surface temperatures that includes Antarctica.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

>>1634093
>Okay. I guess NASA and WMO are filled with idiots then.
Hardly. They're filled with very ambitions and activist people who can accomplish a lot because there are plenty of idiots around to whom they can sell bullshit.

>>1634093
>And of course we don't have actual dates for the last time in the past thousand years Tennessee had such a flood, but statistical analysis based on proxy records show that the kind of flooding Tennessee had in March should happen once every thousand years.
Right. So where's your evidence that it's now happening more frequently than once every thousand years?

>>1634126

I bet you're one of those idiots who believe that Climategate revealed some kind of evildoing by climate scientists. You're also probably one of those people that have no idea how the grant system works, and are under the impression that scientists are rolling in mountains of cash. You also probably ignore the fact that "think tanks" funded by oil companies offer cash "prizes" to scientists who publish papers contrary to the consensus position on climate change.

For you, if the data itself is completely useless, and all the professionals in the field are evil or corrupt, then there's no convincing you.

>>1634129

NOAA.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ohx/?n=may2010epicfloodevent

>>1634145
No. For me the data is everything. And the data refutes the IPCC position.

>>1634153
That page does not indicate that the event is happening once more than once every thousand years. It contrasts it with the closest on record which was Katrina which falls short of the amount of rainfall. Reinforcing the fact that the 1000-year-event is not happening more frequently than it should.

>>1634161

How so?

A study looking at thousands of biological indicators, such as animal migrations, flower blooming times, growing seasons, and so forth, found that over 90% are consistent with anthropogenic global warming.

Rosenzweig et al 2008 - "Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html

Some of these papers individually:

Amano et al 2010 - "A 250-year index of first flowering dates and its response to temperature change"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1693/2451.abstract

Bradshaw & Holzapfel 2001 - "Genetic shift in photoperiodic response correlated with global warming"
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/25/14509.full

Lenoir et al 2008 - "A Significant Upward Shift in Plant Species Optimum Elevation During the 20th Century"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5884/1768

Amano et al 2010 - "A 250-year index of first flowering dates and its response to temperature change"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1693/2451.abstract

>>1634178

The three major "reference" datasets from HadCRUT, GISTEMP and NOAA all show an anomalous rise in temperatures since reliable instrumental records began in 1880

Jones & Moberg 2003 - "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001"
http://www.sfu.ca/~jkoch/jones_and_moberg_2003.pdf

Smith et al 2008 - "Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land–Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880–2006)"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Smith-Reynolds-dataset-2005.pdf

Hansen et al 2010 (draft) - "Global surface temperature change"
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0803.pdf

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/

>>1634186

CO2 experimentally confirmed as a greenhouse gas:

Tyndall 1861 - "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction"
http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Article3

Herzberg & Herzberg 1953 - "Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths"
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josa-43-11-1037

Miller & Brown 2004 - "Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK8-4BYJXDN-1&_user=10&_rdoc=
1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_versio
n=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c1996678529fec9805d4a5819324dfee

>>1634178
Really? Does a plant respond differently if there's a 1 degree increase in temperature due to extra CO2 than it does to a 1 degree increase in temperature due to el nino? No it doesn't. Studying the effects of warmer temperatures does not do anything to validate one's conjectures as to the cause.

>>1634191
>Does a plant respond differently if there's a 1 degree increase in temperature due to extra CO2 than it does to a 1 degree increase in temperature due to el nino? No it doesn't.

That's funny, I don't see your experimental evidence saying so. Rather, it sounds rather like your opinion is merely being presented as a fact.

>>1634191

El Nino does not actually increase global temperatures.

CO2 does.

>>1634190

The anthropogenic signature from recent warming from a variety of sources, such as radiative balance measurements from the ground and from satellites, the cooling stratosphere and rising tropopause, changing isotopic ratios in atmospheric carbon, nighttime temperatures warming faster than days, etc.

Ghosh & Brand 2003 - "Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research"
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Santer et al 2003 - "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5632/479
http://www.math.nyu.edu/~gerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf

Manning & Keeling 2006 - "Global oceanic and land biotic carbon sinks from the Scripps atmospheric oxygen flask sampling network"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2006TellB..58...95M

Alexander et al 2006 - "Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation"
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706

Lastovicka et al 2008 - "Emerging pattern of global change in the upper atmosphere and ionosphere"
http://www.ann-geophys.net/26/1255/2008/angeo-26-1255-2008.pdf

>>1634190
And still the CO2 forcing factor used in IPCC reports is pulled straight out of there asses, and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the paleo data.

>>1634198
wrong.

el nino transfers heat from the ocean depths to the surface.

The changes in CO2 we've had are not enough to cause the temperature changes we've seen.

>>1634195
Just trying to clue you in, buddy. You're being taken for a ride.

>>1634207

El Nino transfers heat from one part of the earth, to another part of the earth, on a local scale.

CO2 absorbs heat from outer space.

>>1634161

>the data is everything

By all means, tell us what the data shows. You're smarter than all those climatologists, right? Analyzing this data should be a piece of cake for you.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php
http://dss.ucar.edu/catalogs/
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/
http://eca.knmi.nl/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/index.php
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

>>1634203

Funny story, the paleoclimate reconstructions show that the forcing effect of CO2 should be even HIGHER than IPCC models! Who would've thunk it?

Another funny story, the IPCC conducts no original research. You do know the dozen or so climate sensitivity studies they cited, right? Why haven't you specifically criticized those?

Yet another funny story, the IPCC was under enormous pressure from the Bush administration, Gulf petrostates, Russia, Australia, Canada, the rest of OPEC, and other stakeholders in the fossil fuel industries, to minimize the underestimate impacts and avoid alarming conclusions.

In fact, they were SO conservative that reality soon matched or exceeded their worst-case scenario projections.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/ippc-sealevel-gate/

>>1634161
> And the data refutes the IPCC position.

[citation needed]

>>1634215
I have all the data on my hard drive already, but thanks anyway.

>>1634203

Funny story, the paleoclimate reconstructions show that the forcing effect of CO2 should be even HIGHER than IPCC models! Who would've thunk it?

Another funny story, the IPCC conducts no original research. You do know the dozen or so climate sensitivity studies they cited, right? Why haven't you specifically criticized those?

Yet another funny story, the IPCC was under enormous pressure from the Bush administration, Gulf petrostates, Russia, Australia, Canada, the rest of OPEC, and other stakeholders in the fossil fuel industries, to minimize the impacts and avoid alarming conclusions.

In fact, they were SO conservative that reality soon matched or exceeded their worst-case scenario projections.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/ippc-sealevel-gate/

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_science_2007.pdf

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-copenhagen-diagnosis-references/

>>1634240

So you have already analyzed the data? Which journal did you publish in? What's the DOI number on your article? Let's see your expert analysis.

>>1634234
I'm not going to take 2 hours to give you a presentation of my analysis. I'm just stating the truth as I have determined it after conducting an objective study from the raw data. I suggest you do the same. Of the few people I know who have, they have all broken out of the current group-think.

>>1634240
> implying that merely storing data in your computer means something

>>1634241

Pardon me, that's the wrong Rahmstorf article. Here's the relevant one.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1

http://www.mediafire.com/?ndmmokiormd

>>1634246
I didn't publish my analysis. Maybe I will if I get the time to prepare it for publication, but that takes a lot of time that I don't have, and I've heard horror stories about the climate journal editorial boards that make me think it's not worth the effort.

>>1634251
Oh, that sounds like the classic "I have a dragon in my garage" story.

>>1634251

So you're not published? Did you submit your article yet? Since you said it would take "2 hours" to present maybe this is a PowerPoint presentation of some kind. Perhaps you're uploading this on Youtube?

Or maybe, you have nothing but the raw data itself, maybe some fiddling on a spreadsheet, but not even notes you could copy and paste here?

>>1634241
>Another funny story, the IPCC conducts no original research. You do know the dozen or so climate sensitivity studies they cited, right? Why haven't you specifically criticized those?

Funny story. I went looking for the source of the 2009 (or 2008 maybe) IPCC CO2 forcing factor. I followed their citation to a paper, which cited a another paper, which cited a third paper, which cited the forcing claim in the 2003 (or thereabouts) IPCC report.

>>1634273
No I haven't published or made a youtube video or anything. I just did my own analysis, so that I could form an informed opinion.

>>1634269
Which is why I encourage you to do your own independent analysis.

>>1634262

Nonsense. McIntyre and McKirtrick have published in Geophysical Research Letters. Spencer, Lindzen, Shaviv, Friis-Christensen and other skeptical scientists have no trouble getting their papers through peer review. If your article is really that amazing, destroying the entire extant paradigm at one swift stroke, any journal would be itching to publish your research.

>>1634279
>>1634284
Ahum, so you have nothing to show.
You're still at the level of Monty Python's Cheese Shop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3KBuQHHKx0

>>1634274

The latest assessment report was published in 2007. The cut-off date for submissions was in 2005. You're talking out of your ass.

By the way, five seconds on Google found this nice list of climate sensitivity estimates:

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/papers-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates/

And this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

>>1634279

Show us your analysis. It'll take 15 minutes, not 2 hours.

I honestly can't say.
I feel there's a fucktonne of misinformation and lies on both sides of the equation, but it does make intuitive sense that dumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would contribute to heating the Earth up.

>>1634314

There is a fuckton more disinformation and lies on one side compared to the other. Can you guess which one it is?

>>1634311

Actually fuck it, I'm going to bed. If this thread's still here in the morning, let's see some fucking analysis. And it better be more robust than Soon and Balliunas's 2003 piece of cock. If your's is any worse than SB2003, I will reach out through your computer monitor and cut your fucking head off.

Dude, you guys wouldn't get trolled by a creationistfag, why get trolled by a denierfag?

>>1634311
STFU. As if you know better than me how long it would take.

>>1634347
> implying you have anything worthy to show

>>1634342

Let's ask denierfag.

Hey, climate change denier, are you trolling us, or do you honestly believe in this shit you're peddling?

>>1634342
Yes, this is what "science" is now. Calling critics of a theory "deniers". Why are there so many religion threads in /sci/? Maybe because that's where you find the best dogmatists.

>>1634356

Global warming deniers are the intellectual equivalent of creationists, holocaust deniers, and flat-earthers.

They should not be taken seriously.

And since all of the above are usually trolls, they should not be fed.

>>1634347

Do you type slow or something? You seem to respond to posts fairly quickly. You know how scientific articles have abstracts, right? An abstract is just a paragraph or two. Surely you could write an abstract in under an hour?

>>1634356

Evolution denier. HIV/AIDS denier. Smoking-causes cancer denier. Climate change denier.

You deny reality, you get called a "denier." Deal with it.

>>1634342
>you guys wouldn't get trolled by a creationistfag
>implying /sci/ doesn't have over 9000 religion vs atheism threads every day that get over 100 posts each

>>1634367
Who's denying climate change? What kind of scientist uses strawmen to bolster their argument?

>>1634372
Professional internet scientists that get paid to respond to threads on /sci/

>>1634372

If there aren't any of these denierfags, then why U mad?

>>1634372

I'm sorry, but anthropogenically-caused-climate-change-isn't-anthropogenicdenier isn't as catchy. Besides, the argument usually goes in this predetermined fashion:

1. Global warming isn't happening
2. It's happening, but it's not caused by man
3. It's caused by man, but it's not dangerous
4. It's dangerous, but it's also good
5. It's not good at all, but it's too late to do anything about it/the free market will fix it
6. Global warming is happening on Mars
7. Global warming isn't happening.

..... ad nasuem. This is denial of science, not science itself.

Of course their's climate change. The notion however that humanity is actually causing it is ridiculous. Earth has gone through numerous changes in climate, without us instigating them. There are things the earth creates its self that are far more destructive volcanoes to name one.

>>1634378

The conspiracy was more nefarious than we realized....

>>1634388

This is why you're a denierfag. Probably a conservafag.

Go back to freerepublic.

>>1634388

Try reading the thread before responding

Also your argument is constantly retrodden yet pathetic. If the climate is sensitive to natural forcings, why can't humans influence it? Do we really want to go back to the Jurassic in the space of 100 years?

>>1634388
>doesn't know that NASA disagrees

>>1634398
How do you suggest we could get back to the Jurassic in 100 years? If you mention CO2, I swear I'll track you down and rip your throat out.

>>1634404
There are plenty of people in NASA who agree with him.

>>1634404
>NASA
OH LOL

>>1634406

CO2 IS PROJECTED TO RISE TO 1000 PPM ON OUR CURRENT EMISSIONS PATH

THE RAPIDITY OF CHANGE IS UNPRECEDENTED IN 65 MILLION YEARS AND OVERWHELMS ANY NATURAL SIGNAL IN THE PALEOCLIMATIC RECORD

Oops, I mentioned it.

>>1634411

>I'm smarter than NASA

>No, really

>>1634382
People who are skeptical of the role of CO2 increase in the average temperature increase over the last hundred years can hardly be said to deny the entire phenomenon of climate change. That's a strawman.

>>1634417
I never claimed that, but it doesn't mean that NASA is the be all and the end of scientific knowledge, especially when it is such a bureaucratic organization.

>>1634421

You people deny the anthropogenic cause of recent global warming. This falls under the term, "climate change deniers" because this is directly contradictory to established science and not backed by credible evidence.

>>1634428

>NASA is bureaucratic

>Therefore, nothing NASA says about climate change is robust

Cool logic bro. I think you should launch and calibrate your own weather satellites, that'll show them who's boss.

>>1634415
In 100 years CO2 has gone from 290 to 390 ppm along a nearly linear curve. Who the fuck predicts getting to 1000 ppm in 100 years? Al Gore? And in the Jurassic we had 2000 ppm. And all the cooling that happened in the cretacious and tertiary happened while CO2 REMAINED at 2000 ppm.

>>1634433
That's complete bullshit. You're implying that people skeptical of a proposed mechanism of climate change are rejecting the entire phenomenon, as a way to disparage people who criticize your theory. You're a 100% bullshitter and have no place in science.

>>1634439
*sigh* fuck it I'm not arguing with a zealot anymore.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_sc/us_sci_declining_plankton

This thread is a massive trainwreak...as expected.

But anyway, a healthy level of skepticism should always be encouraged.

>>1634445

>implying scientists have not thought of that before your balls dropped

A cooler sun had nothing to do with it? No, not at all, so sayeth the deniers.

Recent research shows that CO2 levels may not have been as high is previously suggested, making recent changes in CO2 levels (which took place over decades, not over geologic fucking epochs) appear even more remarkable.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2010-2019/2010/08/nparticle.2010-08-10.2761837445

The 1000 ppm by 2100 was in the IPCC SRES scenario, A1FI (maximum fossil fuel intensive economic growth) as verified by Rahmstorf 2007 (mentioned earlier and linked) and others. As a growing middle class spreads across the world along with massive increases in car ownership, CO2 growth rates won't remain so linear.

Raw data sources: CDIAC and IEA.

>>1634415
Are you claiming CO2 is going to rise to 1000 ppm in 100 years?! or in just some undefined time period. Do you realize that the temperature spike in the Jurasic happened when the CO2 level PLUMMETED from 3000 ppm to 2000 ppm? Do you realize we have no data on the resolution of year to year CO2 or temperature changes and claims about things happening "faster than ever before" are complete bullshit?

>>1634467
I deleted the post you responded to because I screwed up what I was saying about the Jurasic. See the one above.

>>1634448

I assume the skeptics here in this thread are only two or three people. None of you have cited a single scientific source. Not even Scientific American or Science Daily. Meanwhile, back in the real world, Oreskes 2004, Doran & Zimmerman 2009 and Anderegg et al 2010 show that not only is there a near total consensus on the anthropogenic causes of climate change, but there's a considerable gap in expertise between pro-consensus and anti-consensus scientists.

Asking us to take you seriously is like asking us to take a creationist or flat-earther seriously. Ain't gonna happen unless you start showing that you actually know shit about what's going on in the scientific literature. Hell, the only person in this thread who even mentioned the name of a legit skeptical climatologist was fucking me.

>>1634467
>The 1000 ppm by 2100 was in the IPCC SRES scenario
Oh, okay, well that's definitely going to happen then.

Seriously, that's as out of whack as you can get. The last hundred years has seen it go linearly from 290 to 390.

>>1634484
>>1634484
>>1634484
>>1634484
>>1634484
>>1634484

This.

>>1634471

If we are not aware of precise year-to-year variations in Jurassic climate, this does not in any way affect our understanding of current climate change. "lol we dunno" is just an argument from ignorance -- and it truly is ignorant.

We've observed high-resolution data over the past 800,000 years from the latest ice cores, and the changes humans are putting the climate through are faster than any plausible natural mechanism. It's not enough to say "IT'S NOT HUMANS IT CAN'T BE HUMANS"

You have to actually show us what that forcing is. We can calculate forcings from various sources, and so far the evidence for anthropogenic forcing overwhelming the natural system is beyond reproach.

>>1634484
+1

>>1634484
This win is made of motherfucking TOLD.

>>1634489

I mentioned the cause of accelerating rates of CO2 emissions. Firstly, CO2 is not increasingly exactly linearly in the first place. There is a slight exponential curve. Secondly, mass car ownership is expected to spread as the world's growing middle class balloons in size. That is factored into the SRES models.

IT'S SO ABSURD IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAPPEN is not a robust argument. On the contrary, most post-SRES projections are in rough agreement that CO2 concentrations by 2100 will be 866-1000+ ppm on our current emissions path.

>>1634484
You know, I think you would find religion more suited to you than science. They're all about dogma and consensus.

>>1634500
>>1634496
>>1634494
>>1634484
sure is samefag in here

>>1634511
I was 500, not the others. Likely just samemind.

>>1634507

We have asked you and your fellow deniers to provide evidence and sources, time and time again, yet you continue to resort to bullshit ad hominems and baseless conjecture.

Science is based on standing on the shoulders of giants. If the cumulative body of science shows us this particular conclusion -- global warming is happening, and it's caused by humans -- then this is the extant paradigm we have to work with. It makes no sense to disregard the body of science UNLESS there is evidence that contradicts it. If a scientist really does find this groundbreaking evidence that overturns the whole field, they win a fucking Nobel Prize.

You got evidence that can net you a Nobel Prize? Let's see it. But I'm not holding my breath.

I like how no one in this thread is using the term strawman correctly, and is instead using it to discredit the *kind* of argument against their case rather than defending their own claims.

gonna have to side with, you know, scientists on this one.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-i
n-man-made-climate-change/1

Even if you don't believe that we're fucking up the climate, at least you have to admit that we're making the oceans more acidic, and that's fucking things up royal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
http://www.physorg.com/news189059534.html
http://www.physorg.com/news185444922.html

So, climate change is real, and we're fucking shit up major. So what? Nothing is going to convince companies to halt their practices.Nothing is going to stop undeveloped nations from using CO2 emitting energy sources. NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE.

How about we just hope we run out first...

I love how the deniers always scrabble for every little chance they can to scream their agenda.

GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T REAL!
and uh.. if it is real.. then uh.. IT'S NOT BEING CAUSED BY MAN!
and uh.. if it is being caused by man, then uh well.. IT'S NO BIG DEAL THE EARTH WILL ADAPT

pick a fucking stance and stick to you it, haha

>>1634613

Hmmyes, but you see, major shit is going to the hit fan, old bean, especially if the more dire forecasts are indeed accurate. And the poorer nations, with the larger, younger, faster-growing populations and poor health care and infrastructure, will be hardest hit.
Many millions people now live in poverty and barely manage subsistence! Now imagine the crops failures and skyrocketing food prices which may result from climate change! Tens of millions, if not hundred of millions or even a billion, would die! And, as with all economic crises, there will be war and unrest, resulting in more deaths, again, mostly in the Third World and developing world.

And, out of that, CO2 emissions will be curbed! We'll emerge from the crisis as a glorious, nuclear-powered phoenix! Science will advance at an ever-accelerating pace, and we, or our immediate descendants, will live to see Singularity!

>>1634630
As long as I survive, I fucking hope so. Or, that we get to the singularity first, that would also be cool.

global warming solution:

fill HNLC ocean with Fe3+ --> algal bloom of heavy micro organism --> micro organism die ---> sink to the bottom of a deep ocean -->never to be seen again for 1000 or more years.

>>1634677

Better solution:

>build solar-powered C02 scrubbers

>Generate shit tons of synthetic hydrocarbons, and use remaining CO2 to boost agricultural yields

>Once we have the infrastructure and batteries, switch to electric vehicles, store CO2 in abandoned mines and deep in the ocean. Global C02 levels drop

climate change is real, global warming and cooling happens with or without our help, its how much we contribute too it, how much we are making it better for us or worse for us. either way the world will adapt with or without us.

If CO2 were as potent as the IPCC believes it would be great news indeed. The biggest looming threat to mankind is the next ice age. So even if they're right, the last thing we should be trying to do is "fix" it.

Humans live the wettest rainforests, driest deserts and coldest turndra. I think we can adapt to the small changes compared to moving to a different biome in the 100+ years it is supposed to happen in. A lot of animals and plants will die but nature will always thrive.

I am bitterly surprised & dissapointed /sci/. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept there is increased global warming due to human activity. Go spend 1 hour reading NOAA data.

Reality, convieniently or not, happens to have a liberal bias. By calling yourself a climate skeptic you are highjacking the noble pursuit of skepticism with some bullshit agenda of your own. We are all the benefactors of scientific skepticism and peer analysis. By denying human induced warming you & religious fundamentalists are denying the beacon of progress that is objective scientific enquiry.

Carl Sagan would be rolling in his grave

>>1633628
It's both real and manmade. Learn to evidence.

We didn't cause it, but we do slightly contribute to it. Yes, humans are fucked, but we're useless. If you're "worried about the planet", don't worry. It's going to be here for a long time. Just without us.

people should know that there is alot we don't know about climate change, alot we ignore, and alot we don't do. we shouldn't be tearing people up about it untill we understand it better and let the scientific community actually sort their shit out.

the world is doing fuck all about global warming anyway... the small amount we are doing are things we should be doing anyway regardless of global warming...

people on boards like this shouldn't sit around speculating and throwing bullshit at each other. something isn't true because you get more than one person to agree on it, the fact we know so little about this should tell you that

>>1634730
Sure we can. Unfortunately the species we currently depend upon for our living mostly can't.

See, the fisheries that huge amount of people depend on directly or indirectly are in turn dependent on the whole marine ecosystem, which has already taken a huge hit from different human activities. Now there's evidence that global warming will have adverse effect on many of the base biota that our prey fish feed on.

And then there's the uncontrolled and uncontrollable spread of warmer-climate pests northward, which has already caused some small level of famine.

Not to mention that we're also seeing a shift in the rain patterns, meaning that many currently fertile areas will need to be watered with water imported from ways off while other areas will become difficult to farm because of EXCESS rain or rain in all the wrong times.

I'm not saying we're up shit creek without a paddle, but the water IS turning suspiciously brown and smelly and some assholes seem hell-bent on using the paddle haft for whittling.

>>1634754
I'm a skeptic because I looked at the data myself and tried to reproduce what the IPCC is trying to push. The evidence is simply not there. The claims of consensus fall through on closer inspection as well. But we shouldn't argue about the consensus, we should argue about the data. The CO2 bit has become nothing but dogma. Carl Segan would look at the data himself, as would any serious scientist, before coming to ANY conclusion. Anyone posting ITT without analyzing the data for themselves is a giant ASSHAT with no place in science and no claims to skepticism.

>>1634840
>Not to mention that we're also seeing a shift in the rain patterns, meaning that many currently fertile areas will need to be watered with water imported from ways off while other areas will become difficult to farm because of EXCESS rain or rain in all the wrong times.

Inevitably people will start talking about dryness in Australia or wetness in southeast asia. unfortunately these are extremely well-established effects of the increased el nino and have absolutely nothing to do with CO2.

>>1634826

but see, that's the thing dumbass, we DO know a lot about it. Like evolution. Sure, there are holes in the theory, but it is fundamentally sound. Are you going to succomb to creationism because you find it difficult to understand that we came from a common ancestor? No? Then why apply that denial to human induced global warming? There is sound acceptance in the scientific community that it exists and the rate of warming will continue to increase. Sure, there are a vocal minority of scientists who dispute the link to human activity but more often than not they are lobbied by corporate capital who have something to lose.

Deal with it

>>1634855
Oh? They don't?
Then of course there hasn't been anomalous activity of El Nino or La Nina in the past decades. Oh there HAS!?!

Imagine that...
/sarcasm

Just to make sure you understand, your comment was bullshit.

>>1634905
Yes, el nino has been getting more and more powerful over the last several decades. It is the cause of the drought in australia and the extended monsoons in se asia. Do you have reading comprehension difficulties?

>>1634879
Because there is no evidence behind the CO2 theory for the warming of the last 100 years. Everyone who has investigated this without an agenda knows this. You don't believe something just because it's popular. You're supposed to require evidence.

>>1634921
I see you're one of these people that are not worth talking to.
Why on earth do you come to /sci/ to troll?

Don't answer, really. Any comments you have made and can make are less than worthless. They are beneath despicable.

What is the contribution factor of winter heating towards the global warming?

>>1634946
I see you try to make up for your lack of intellect with insults and avoiding the subject. How unusual.

>>1634948
Probably less than summer cooling.

>>1634960
See? This is what I meant.

I have an aversion to futile discourse with people that have settled down into dogma.
Which is why I will ignore you. Have a happy rest of your life.

>>1634931

3/10, almost replied

>>1634972
You're the one with the dogma, fuckwit.

>>1634948
Lower albedo for a shorter time, causing more heat to be absorbed by ground and water.

In more northern climes this will cause the permafrost to melt, releasing more wonderful and interesting gases into the atmosphere. Lesser effects include toppling and sinking of structures built on the permafrost and increasing difficulty of transport as roads tend to get damaged also.

>>1635025
>Lower albedo for a shorter time
meant of course that the time of high albedo is shorter

>>1635025
we dont know enough about how cloud cover will change or even how clouds contribute to the climate to make any predictions on how the albedo will change

>>1635033
Do you know these funky substances known as "snow" and "ice"?

They have a high albedo, meaning that they reflect radiation back into space.

When they melt, the ground and waters underneath will then proceed to absorb radiation and in turn heat up.

Cloud cover might reflect some radiation, but it is by no means complete enough to counteract the shortened time of ice and snow.

I think hippiefags are overhyping it as "world destroying" when it's more just going to effect crop cycles etc and fuck as over.

>>1633603
The event itself isn't bullshit.
But the hype and mass hysteria around it IS absolute fucking bullshit.

>>1635099
So we're going to be screwed, but not as directly as they claim? I'm all for coating roads and rooftops with solar panels, and having VAWTs on the tops of tall buildings.

>>1635133
More or less.

Solar panels aren't that great yet, by the way, most require more energy to build than they produce in their standard lifetime if I recall correctly.

>>1634847
> Carl Segan
> Segan
That's enough to qualify you as a troll. Seriously. It's like saying "a geuss".

Let's analyze these statements I keep seeing repeatedly in this thread. We'll go through it logically.

>Earth has experience climate changes in the past
>Therefore the current climate change isn't caused by humans

It feels like a logical jump to me.

>People have died before
>Therefore homicides are not caused by humans

The first strong hint that I had that global warming was real was when I was watching a TV magazine show and they were talking to an astrologer. The astrologer was ranting about how scientists were in a giant conspiracy and that global warming was a fraud.
I had a private rage then spent a morning reading journals, blogs, book reviews.
My brief research showed me the global climate change deniers were miners, christian fundamentalists, astrologers and other such unqualified people. The people who said climate change was real were climate scientists. I decided that I would defer to the experts not the retards and reached the conclusion that human induced climate change is real.
tl:dr climate change deniers are retards.

A dismantlement of a 'renowned' climate change denialist:
>A detailed list of the errors in Monckton's July 2008 Physics and Society article
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

Google that Monckton guy. Reading about all the other hoaxes he's done is hilarious.

Lord Monckton. A denialist.

I couldn't make up shit like this if I wanted to

But to suggest that there is anything we can do to stop it is like me saying I will warm up Lake Kariba by pissing over Victoria Falls.

Mankind's efforts would be better expended in planning for the ice age to come. If you are in any doubt about that prediction have a look at this and you will see a cycle that has repeated for over 400,000 years and is about to plunge the temperature of this planet once more.

>>1635885

>about to plunge the temperature of this planet once more.

>about to

Moar like, extend the interglacial a few extra hundred thousand years

>>1635885
Defeatism is not my way. There are some simple things that can help the most important of which is voting. The power of an individual to change the shape of humanity is small but that does not mean you should give up. The fact that you bother to post implies that you do care at least a bit.
Bringing a little enlightenment (even in a chan) and discrediting the deniers is another small but worthy effort.

and more Monckton:
>Monckton suggested it might be a good idea to require scientists to have some kind of religious certification before being allowed to practice in a field like climatology.

>Monckton claimed that, as a member of Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit, he suggested spiking the Argentines’ water supplies with a “mild bacillus” so the British troops could more easily win the Falklands War. He said he believed Thatcher had followed his advice, even though this would clearly have been a violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.

Historical evidence dictates that there is a temperature maxima which the ecosystem can sustain before it tips over into a 'cool' period. We are at that maxima now. So either we are a bout to tip and should be worried about that rather than trying to stop it. Or we have changed the ecosystem to such an extent that we are not about to tip and therefore all historical data and current argument is moot.

>>1635933

The climate won't "tip" on its own without something that kicks off the cooling in the first place. Over the past million years or so, it was Milankovitch cycles. These forcings are relatively tiny compared to anthropogenic forcings. The research I've seen shows that the current interglacial could be extended tens of thousands of years.

After trying my best to find the information I've finally given up. Call me ignorate or a denialist or whatever, I don't care. I know I'm neither, I just want to LEARN so I can make an informed decision.

Anyway, from the information I can see (by googling away) it seems that deforistation is a much much much bigger issue than co2 emissions. Anthropogenic co2 emissions are fuck all of the total co2 emissions. The argument is that although they are tiny, the natural ability of plants to counteract this is thrown off by the added co2. So isn't deforestation the bigger issue? Shouldn't we stop worrying so much about co2 emissions and worry MORE about deforestation, because less forests means less 'sinks' to 'absorb' co2? And furthermore, isn't the deforestation issue an issue of economy, since its the poor nations which have positive net deforestation, and developed nations have net forest regeneration?

So correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't we stop with all this 'emission trading scheme' nonsense and I don't know, help poor nations get on their feet so that they can regenerate their forests because the reason they don't is that they can't afford to?

>>1636088
I hope I can help you in your research. Here is one thing I did that helped convince me that global warming was real. I read book reviews for Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer. He is a prominent global warming denier. Ian Plimer is often cited by deniers because he has a real qualification (as a geologist). I found this review.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/an_astronomer_reviews_ian_plim.php
It is by an astronomer. He talks about the claims made by global warming denier Ian Plimer as they relate to astronomy. Essentially the review says Ian Plimer is either totally ignorant or a lying fraud.

>>1636088
Forests are generally not good carbon sinks. They decompose when they die with the carbon released back into the biosphere.

bump

>>1636088

>help poor nations get on their feet

Here's the problem:

Imagine you are the elected President of the United States. To your left, your science advisers are telling you that climate change is a big fucking problem, and something needs to be done about starting yesterday. But standing to your right are economic advisers, and they tell you the only economically feasible way to combat global warming is through market mechanisms: feed-in tariffs, carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and so forth.

And then there's the American people. You will not survive the election if you do the following:

1. Transfer billions to Third World countries in technology grants and technical assistance to boost their economy without relying of fossil fuels
2. Transfer billions to major forest exporters as a fee for not clear-cutting their forests
3. Eliminate tax cuts or subsidies for the the fossil fuel industries, because higher energy prices make Americans cry.
4. Encourage energy efficiency. Consuming energy in as wasteful a manner as physically possible is the birthright of the American people. Carter learned this the hard way.

For Americans to accept the role of the US as the leader in fighting climate change, and be willing to pay out of their pockets for it, something horrifying must happen to the US. Like what happened to Russia this summer, for instance.

>>1636088
>>1637227

Now to answer your first question, yes, natural carbon fluxes are fucking enormous. And yes, they dwarf the few gigatons we inject into the atmosphere annually. However, the difference is that no matter how vast the natural output of carbon is from natural sources, carbon UPTAKE by the same natural sources is always roughly equal. Anthropogenic emissions occur IN ADDITION to natural processes, and thus the carbon budget is unbalanced. Think of it as accumulating credit card debt slightly faster than you can afford to pay it off.

Deforestation is making things much worse, but the problem in the first place was always the carbon. One proposed solution to deforestation is tree farms, where fast-growing softwood is farmed for toilet paper and other consumables, and primeval forest only chopped down at the rate it can be naturally be replenished.

Fun fact: at the current rate of deforestation, Canada will have no boreal forest left in 140 years.

Bump with the following news:

The NW Passage (and the NE Passage) are now clear of ice. A Russian tanker has successfully navigated the NE Passage en route to China.

Oh lawdy, /new/ is at it again:

>>>/new/2080696

This time with 10 times more conspiracy theorists

>>1637252
>Deforestation is making things much worse, but the problem in the first place was always the carbon. One proposed solution to deforestation is tree farms, where fast-growing softwood is farmed for toilet paper and other consumables, and primeval forest only chopped down at the rate it can be naturally be replenished.

One answer to deforestations is to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere. Even before humans came allong, the great forests started being choked out by the falling CO2 concentrations due to rock weathering. This is why grasses evolved and became dominant in many places, as grasses use CO2 more efficiently than trees. Studies prove that trees need significantly less water, nutrients, and even sunshine to survive in an doubled CO2 environment.

>>1638541

Increased CO2 will, in isolation, increase productivity in SOME plants. However, combined with drought and heat....

>>1638563
Doubling CO2 won't create drought or more heat. You'd need to increase it by a lot more than doubt to notice more heat. And even then, it doesn't create drought, it increases precipitation.

>>1638571

Haven't we already created noticeable changes in temperature? That was what this thread was all about in the beginning. This is with not a doubling of CO2, but only a 30% increase.

Drought AND precipitation have increased, by the way. See: Pakistan right now

>>1638475
half of /new/ is just trolls

or at least i tell myself that to mitigate my pessimism

>>1638847

On the bright side, vocal skeptics are much more common on the internet than IRL

On the other hand, there's a reason why no one votes for climate legislation....

>>1638563
A major point and crucial disaster that could strike when global warming has already caused natural phenomena, like that of the Pakistani floods. Is yeoma, which is frozen methane gas that has been locked away for 750,000 odd years. all of which is in siberia, canada and the artic circle. They fear if the yeoma melts, it will release the pockets of methane trapped inside causing a massive rise in temperature which then acts as the butterfly effect and continue to melt the rest of the ice caps as the heat continues. Logic really.

Btw methane is 27 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, this is what scientists are fearing.

But the good news is that studies have been carried out in the last 250,000 years or so, we've had influctuations in temperature too which hasn't led to the melting of all the yeoma. But with the added co2 from our factories, cars, mass livestock etc. it could lead on to higher temperatures than before.

all in all, global warming worries me a bit :V.

>>1638886

We already have higher temperatures than before. Given the tremendous inertia in climate systems, another 1.4 C of warming is pretty much "locked in." We might have to bust out the geoengineering, but lately I've seen research showing that it's not going to work as well as advertised.

I wonder how bad it has to get before people start getting serious about this shit.

>>1638571
Why wouldn't an increase in co2 affect the amount of radiation reflected back to the earths surface?

If you look at something that's been logically proven and accepted by everyone. The ozone layer; the thicker it is, the less radiation passes through, the thinner, more radiation can transmit.

Turn this around and you have a thinner concentration of co2 will let more radiation transmit instead of reflect back in, keeping the Earth at a lower temperature. But a higher, thicker, concentration of co2 was in the atmosphere it would reflect back the radiation to the earth, heating it up, exactly like the ozone and UV rays.

Just so you know, all wave frequencies have the same principles. Also ozone and co2 work in a corresponding way in their own right.

>>1638923
Soon the richest and most omnipotent continent of all, Europe, will be stuck in a miniature ice age, at least that's a theory laid down by geoscientists. As a result there would be a massive disruption in crops, economy and health due to the massive snow storms blocking roads which then have to be dealt with by an unequipped force of salters and snow ploughs. Last christmas England experience a snow storm which flooded and made snow dams across England, limited number of snow ploughs were available and they were having to mass buy in table salt from recently shipped in salt containers to cope for 4 days.

the ice age could possibly be caused by a rapid melting of the cold waters of the artic will come flooding down disrupting the gulf stream, part of The great conveyor belt, this cools down the gulf stream. As a direct result of this, the natural flow of ocean currents will be mildly disrupted as well as the warmth we obtain from the stream.

But it won't be permanent because the gulf stream as mentioned before is part of The great conveyor belt, so warmer waters will flow in through, warming and restoring current conditions. I say not permanent but it will be maybe a few decades of snow and ice in England, france, scandinavia etc. In the summer, due to the fact that diffusion of heat in oceans won't be rapid enough.

Whatever that geoengineering is would have to be something rather miraculous to stop something worldwide, especially ocean wide >_>.

btw it's Yedoma, not yeoma, sorry D:.

>>1638993

I'm not too sure about the whole ocean conveyer shutting down thing. It would take hundreds of years before it had noticeable effect. Then again, that's what we've been saying about all sorts of climate indicators that ended up going faster than projected.

In the near term, Europe's probably going to see hotter-than-average summers, and colder-than-average winters.

And yeah, geoengineering is such a messy solution that it's almost not worth bothering with.