/sci/ - Science & Math

We are causing a warming above the natural average, yes. Big enough to seriously fuck with the climate.
If you had a big globe, about half the size of you and then a coat of varnish on it, that coat of varnish would be the approximate thickness of our atmosphere. It's not hard to envision billions of cars, factories and so forth belching out CO2 enough to pump up the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere another 0.1%.

>>1757409
Of course not. Only a very small component of climate change can be attributed to mankind.

>>1757423
which in turn is good for plant growth, they OM NOM NOM NOM NOM on CO2

>>1757423
Really? What's the natural average?

>>1757423
Wouldnt all the cars and factories on a globe the size of a person be like, a grain of sand or less? And how much do volcanos count?

nobody even really knows, it turns out climate change is not really an issue of facts and hard evidence like you would first expect.

it is a more complex issue mostly dealing with slander and deceit and doomsdays and money.

>>1757420
>>1757423
Is our contribution to the total amount of CO2 something to worry about?

>>1757434

Approximately 0.038%
So it would be even less than 0.1% that humanity would have to put up. And deforestation and desertification isn't exactly helping either.

>>1757442
The worst that can happen is mass desertification of equatorial regions, and nearly all ice melted in East Antarctica, with sea levels rising approximately 70 meters.
Up to a billion people if not more could be displaced by a 70m rise in sea level.

>>1757443
>>1757443
GREENPIECE FAGGOT DETECTED!

Inurdaes you had a good thread yesterday, but this greeny faggotry is just plain gay

>>1757431
except nitrogen isn't getting put back into the soil as fast as the bonanaza plants are eating it up

>>1757448
best be trollin' son

>mfw

>>1757453
>greeny faggotry
CO2 absorbs heat more.
We create a lot of CO2.
Less trees means less CO2 being soaked up.
Hurr durr?
I'm in favour of changing to renewable energy sources simply because oil and coal will run out soon, and there's no point using it soon because of price parity levels and so forth. No point in fucking up this planet when we haven't got a backup one anyway.

>>1757443
Approximately 0.038% what? The earth is Approximately 0.038% warmer than last year? Or there is Approximately 0.038% more CO2? or what?

>>1757448
Actually, if we can get CO2 back up to its original 0.5%, we can reverse desertification. Grasses started taking over for trees because of the disappearance of CO2. Trees don't do well with the current low levels.

>>1757467
AH shit, sorry. Carbon dioxide.

Enjoy paying for what you breath out.

>>1757448

>sea levels rise 70 meters
>equal to 230 feet
>look up house elevation, 250 feet
>my face when my house becomes glorious beachfront bachelor pad

>>1757409
Geologyfag here. Yes, man made global warming is very real. It's just that the American right wing put so much money into making it seem as though scientists don't know that in it's created a lot of confusion.

>>1757451
I don't give a shit if all whales are wiped out of existence, as long as we have stored remnants of them for DNA and possible future cloning.

Thanks guys.
And /fit/ is against green peace faggotry anyway.

>>1757443
Um current concentration of CO2 is 0.038%. The "natural" level is 0.028%. That has nothing to do with warming. You don't know what you're talking about.

>>1757472
Think murky lifeless marshes.
>>1757473
I think carbon taxes are the stupidest fucking concept in the universe. You don't tax for a gas, you stop using shit that makes it. IF YOU WANT TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BUILD SOME FUCKING SOLAR PANELS AND GEOTHERMAL PLANTS OR SOME SHIT GODDAMN.

>>1757470
Most geologists disagree. Enjoy your brainwashing.

>>1757480
Besides we're getting stronger storms, heatwaves and all that shit?
I'm sure.

>>1757482
>LOL trying to convince that guy he won't have awesome beachfront property.

>>1757471
>0.5%

Enjoy human race becoming weak and small.

>>1757485
No, we're not getting stronger storms. If anything, storms have been getting weaker.

>>1757485
not so much I'm afraid. Storms just do "more" damage, because there are more people now, with more goods.

>>1757482
>Think murky lifeless marshes.

not at my place, it would definitely be saltwater. and i'm only a mile or two inland as it is, it should be pretty clean.

>>1757489
>>1757493
Well we're definitely seeing an increase in the numbers of major weather catastrophes. And there are an increase in cyclones.

>>1757484
>[Citation needed]
I don't know of any at all. The only question is HOW much effect we are having, not whether we're having any effect at all.

ITT: people still believe Al Gores global warming is real and making carbon taxes solve the problem of CO2...

When will people stop thinking about CO2 and start to see the pollution that is going around and the huge monopolies which live on oil, that don't want to see zero point energy technology coming out to the public?

Solar storms?
Abiogenic petroleum?

>>1757498
CONSPIRACY THEORIES ON MY /sci/!?!?!??

WE ARE SCIENTISTS WE'LL BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT HAS EMPIRICAL PROOF EVEN IF IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY OBVIOUS THE EVIDENCE IS FALSE

WE DO NOT ARGUE WITH WHO WE PERCEIVE AS BETTER SCIENTISTS

>>1757500
lol. bullshit.

>>1757469
You can't clone unless you have a female host to give it birth
Atleast for now
Either way cloning a whale sounds like a massive effort

>>1757499
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5
d-6e2d71db52d9

>>1757527
Didn't know there was a expert on cloning in /sci/.

>>1757409
99,9..% of the scientists agree that "man made global warming" is real.
Some people believe there's still some uncertainty just because the media want to be "fair" and give the same space to pro-warming and anti-warming people.

>>1757500
> increase in the numbers of major weather catastrophes
nobody knows if they're related to "global warming", but people believe so because the media talk about global working in relation to weather catastrophes. Common people need to "feel" things before starting to think about them...
Global warming was well known and with a wide consensus in the scientific community since the 60s, but it only became "famous" in 1988, when we had one of the hottest summer on record, and mainstream media started talking about global warming

>>1757500
Could it be out increased ability to detect them and more media coverage than any other time in history that makes it seem like there are more?

>>1757535
>99.9 %

Okay, I'm outta here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ANL2rvXgg

yes, it is real. Wiki says so

I don't trust scientists with weather predictions.
We may have been able to go to the moon, but we still don't know jack about the climate.

>>1757535
Wow, you're totally out of it. In the 60's and 70's the scientific consensus was for global cooling. There is no consensus currently. There are no more severe storms recently. Just more media to talk about them.

>>1757556
>In the 60's and 70's the scientific consensus was for global cooling
In what fancy article did you read that?
1955 - Roger Revelle alerts the public about reported trends in global warming and testifies before the congress
1957 - Charles Keeling measures C=2 levels and produces the "Keeling Curve", which showed an increase of temperature over time
1963 - first conference on climate change, warning about "potentially dangerous atmospheric increases of carbon dioxide"
>There is no consensus currently
Thankfully there's never a 100% consensus, but the vast majority of people working in this field agree that global warming is real and is related to human activities
>There are no more severe storms recently
Read my post, I never said that

>>1757588
*CO2

How to find out for yourself.
Goto http://scholar.google.com
type in climate change.
Read a few articles.
???
Profit

>>1757588
>the vast majority of people working in this field agree that global warming is real and is related to human activities
source

tl;dr thread

Climategate scientists were found and proven innocent.
Just sayin'

>>1757605
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
?

>>1757618
I didn't even know they were lost!

hyuck hyuck hyuck

>>1757605
Read a few articles on climate from http://scholar.google.com
sage because you are 50center/troll

>>1757556
>There are no more severe storms recently
Wheeerrrrree the fuck do you live?
Wisconsin keeps getting raped with horrible thunderstorms, floods, tornadoes, probably soon to be blizzards. The weather always used to be chaotic, but not batshit insane.

>>1757619
I'm sorry, but the IPCC does not represent all scientists and many of the scientists it represents are not asked whether or not they agree.

>>1757624
Read up on the bullshit that has gone on on the editorial boards of the climate journals over the past 30 years. Institutionalized group-think is a very dangerous thing, and is contrary to the ideals of science.

/thread

>>1757641
Just read the articles. If you don't believe scientists then what the fuck are you doing on /sci/ 50cents per comment or troll so SAGE.

>>1757656
So higher living costs which will stop 3rd world countries from advancing in making a better world? How short sighted.

>>1757659
Scientists aren't to be trusted, many of them barley got their degrees and spend their days breeding flies or measuring rainwater. You can only trust the measurements they hopefully made correctly.

>>1757676
>And I don't wanna talk to a scientist, ya'll motherfuckers lyin', gettin' me pissed.

They call it Organized Skepticism, it means any claim made, and the research is readily available for other's to reproduce. Whether it proves or disproves the claim.
Captcha related, evidence clauding

>>1757676
Why are you here? Just go away to /x/ plenty of nutjobs there who will support your science bashing.

>>1757700
>>1757716