/sci/ - Science & Math

Nah man.....

anything.. Bio-Geo-Chem cycles, alternative energy, current global plans, impacts to your area, tipping points, black body radiation, evolution and visible wavelengths.. photosynthesis efficiency, sustainability, common ancestors... anything you ever wanted to know on this topic.

Why can't we fight global warming with global cooling?

>>1919339
Are you a wizard?

how bad is it? have the doomsday scenario the greens paint up anything to do with reality at all?

and how much is humanity involved?

>>1919339
OP would you do me? I love boys in CC&S and I'm a Jap who's just WET n' MOIST for you!!! \(^o^)/

Why are more and more roads in America being made out of blacktop/asphalt despite all the Climate scare?

>>1919355

It requires energy input to displace thermal energy. And because of carnot efficiency Eff = 1+ Tlow/Thigh it would require more energy than total thermal energy we are trying to displace. Also because 70% of the energy we produce as a planet comes from fossil fuels this would require us to release more Carbon into the air which would trap more heat making it less efficient. :P

>>1919366
All of the Doomsday scenarios are over played to some extent.. but most are entirely possible. The big problems are tipping points.. For example the Boreal Forests are 750m deep with plant material that has not been able to decompose yet because of the low temperatures, they cover 38% of earths forests. If temperatures in the boreal forests raise to the point where bacteria can start decomposing them and releasing CO2 they hold more carbon than all the carbon in our atmosphere at the moment.. This temperature change is not so drastic either, we could see this happen within 50 years at current rate. After one of these tipping points is triggered we are fucked.. their is no way we can put that much carbon back into the ground. Other tipping points are: Glacier melt (less reflecting -> more heat -> more melting), Ocean saturation (the ocean is almost at this maximum point for carbon saturation, after it is fully saturated we will have all the carbon that normal can be sequestered in the deep stuck in the atmosphere (a sizable amount).

>>1919372
Don't have to know much to answer this one. Their is not enough public interest or financial benefit to companies to come up with an alternative which states will feel comfortable using. Also any spending that can be seen publicly (every time you go to work) often comes under more flak.

>>1919366
For the humanity part.. Very much so. Take a look at the Keeling curve. It is a measuring of CO2 levels from a mountain in Hawaii from 1960-2000. We know what the normal trends are for CO2 flux and change. You can pair up the graphs for predicted CO2 levels and actual CO2 levels for 1960-2000 and see the difference. There is no way that we could achieve CO2 levels of today without anthropogenic (human) factors. Our main problem is Fossil Fuels, the thing is that we are releasing carbon that was sequestered for millions of years underground over a course of 10's of millions of years in a matter of 100 years. Humans occupy 15% of the land mass, we have built dams to capture 15% of all runoff and 20-40% of all plant activity on the earth is for human use. It is ridiculous to try to say that humans are not mainly responsible for the climate change we are experiencing today. From 1750 to 2000 our population has raised from 1 billion to 8.5 billion, it is estimated that the carrying capacity of the earth is 10billion. Soon we will experience mass disease and water shortages that will slow us down to the carrying capacity.
In short your answer is yes.. absolutely.. infallibly, yes but people still try to say otherwise >.<

going to eat soon, any last questions

pic of the keeling curve

population growth

keeling curve and core samples compared to predictions

K got to go eat, hope I answered your questions well.

I can't fucking believe in the hockey-stick hoax.
This is full of wannabe scientists just parroting Al Gore and his unscientific friends.

>mfw realizing what a hypocritical board /sci/ is...

>>1919456
*people

>blinded by righteous fury

>>1919456

Wait..... wat

Al Gore took his hockey stick from IPCC 2001, which in turn took it's hockey stick from about six or seven different reconstruction teams. One of which was Michael Mann's MBH1998/1999, pictured here (along with temperature and CO2 concentration trends). His findings weren't wrong, they were independently reconstructed God knows how many times from Wahl and Ammann, Clear Climate Code, even skeptic blogs like The Blackboard. Climategate turned out to be a fraud itself, a bunch of out-of-context cherrypicked e-mails that proved nothing.

Anyway, while paleoclimate reconstructions are an important part of the puzzle, they are not actually crucial to our basic understanding of global warming. Really, they are only attacked because of it's striking visuals and political value. The crux of the matter is that If there is more energy entering the system than leaving it, the system will heat up. Period.

>>1919456
>hockey-stick hoax.
>parroting Al Gore
0/10. at least put some effort into it, lazy troll.

>>1919500

Here is eleven different reconstructions all showing that there has been an anomalous spike in temperatures since the industrial revolution. Are you going to tell me they're all faked? Add to this four more recently published over the past two years:

Kaufmann et al 2009 - "Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5945/1236

Tierney et al 2010 - "Late-twentieth-century warming in Lake Tanganyika unprecedented since AD 500"
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/abs/ngeo865.html

Kellerhals et al 2010 - "Ammonium concentration in ice cores: A new proxy for regional temperature reconstruction?"

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012603.shtml
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JD012603.pdf
Thibodeau et al 2010 - "Twentieth century warming in deep waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence: A unique feature of the last millennium"

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044771.shtml

So that's fifteen different temperature reconstructions showing similar results.

BUMP im back I think i did quite well :)

Ill take questions again for a bit but i have some other things to study for also.