/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2077156

Evolution via NS 87%

Human climate change 84%

>>2077167
>2% of scientists agree that humans have existed in their current form since the beginning of time.
mfw

Let me know as soon as science becomes about the popularity of ideas, and I'll give a shit.

>>2077183
I think that's the "scientists" at the Creation Museum and similar organizations.

>>2077183
I'm fairly certain those numbers include people who don't have doctorates in biology. I'd be surprised if they didn't include engineers.

>>2077197

>this is the strawmen science deniers use

>>2077205

These numbers only include chemists, biologists, physicists and geologists.

Biologists were the largest of the same.

Read the study.

>>2077205 >

These numbers only include chemists, biologists, physicists and geologists.

Biologists were the largest of the sample.

Read the study.

climatologyfag reporting in.

let the arguing begin!

>>2077220
As a biologist, I refuse to believe people in my field can be that stu-
>marine biology
>animal psychology
Oh. Right. Shitfuck.

Lots of people are "scientists" nowadays.

Looks like the public is coming to grips with some of these concepts.

I don't care if the number is 100%, I will still believe the world goes through natural changes, and anything less than 1° change per hundred years can be seen as an outlier

>>2077167
>Humans and other living things have evolved over time, guided by a supreme being
>guided by a supreme being
>Scientists: 8%

Yeah, I don't think these guys have a lot of credibility, OP.

As a physicist, I really think we would fit much better under "public" than under "scientists" in a poll about evolution. You don't go around asking biologists about quantum mechanics do you?

>>2077250

>I don't care
>I will still believe

sounds like a creationist.

How many scientists believed in global cooling?

>>2077228
Climate Change occurs naturally (this cannot be debated as it is fact) and has been exacerbated by anthropogenic processes.

Also this is going to piss off most of the board but hardly any of you are qualified to speak about this.

Only chemists studying atmospheric chemistry, physicists studing meteorology and us physical geographers/geologists/climatologists/earth scientists are allowed to speak on this matter.

Anyone elses opinion is not valid because they are not aware of how weather systems works.

>>2077259

Why not? They're "scientists", they're always right about everything

>>2077257

Disagree with the numbers. It's what the data found.

Pic related: atheists make up 17% of scientists.

Rage at those too.

>>2077271
> weather system
> discussion of climate
> laughinggirls.jpg
But of course you're right. People who haven't actually studied climate shouldn't have an opinion, except perhaps to say, "hey, there are these experts who have spent their whole lives studying this... maybe we should listen to them." No one disagrees about the existence of electrons, right?

>>2077197
Consensus. Do you know what it means?
Do you know why it matters?
Do you know why you're metaphorically raped yourself by not providing a reason better than that the consensus isn't absolute truth, when the entire basis of scientific thought is that nothing can be known to be absolutely true?

>>2077277

well all the religious scientists there must be the fake pseudo psychologist ones anyway

>>2077271
You're a climatologist? I'm studying physics, but I don't have any in depth knowledge about climatology. What should I read to get a decent idea about the current consensus and how it's reached? I don't really have the time to read a gazillion page IPCC report...

>>2077313

see

>>2077220

Only chemists, biologists, physicists and geologists were used.

>No one disagrees about the existence of electrons, right?

I wouldn't be surprised if you could find people who disagree. For fucks sake some people still disagree with germ theory and think the earth is hollow.

>>2077317
skepticalscience.blogspot.com is brilliant. I suggest you read trhough whatever in that you object to, and everything else

>>2077322

I've met people who believe that there are no electrons. On the grounds that "we can't see electrons."

>>2077326
scrap that, wrong link.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

i don't deny it
i just deny that humans have done it

>>2077322
No one will debate that they exist, only in what form.
In other words I have been trying to find a way to add the word wavicle to a sentence for a long ass time.
wavile

>>2077355 me again

>>2077355

about as many scientists say global warming is due to natural causes as scientists who say god guides evolution

enjoy being in that minority.

>>2077369
whoa brother...
>implying that i'm incorrect
here is a simple example...
how does winter work where you live?
it is a really simple concept see...

>>2077297
You know what i mean, understanding how weather works i think is the basis of understanding how climate works. Like knowing if the climate does change how is the weather going to differ etc.

>>2077317
Climate change is a very complex issue. Even talking about the effects it extends away from the atmosphere and you have to look at various earth processes.

Like i posted earlier physics does play a part in climate change. Now i won't claim to know a huge amount about physics but stuff related to the earth is quite important. I'm sure at some point in a physics degree you study the earth and it's axis. Changes in the earths axis, orbit is very relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Axial_tilt_.28obliquity.29

What i would recommend is you look at simple theory to begin with of how the earth works. I am sure you did geography at school, it's generally taught in it.

Look up stuff like, the earths global energy balance, the effects of latitude, continentality, thermohaline circulation.

You don't have to read deep into alot of theory. They just explain how energy is moved around the Earth.

Contd in next post.

>>2077375

most scientists say humans cause global warming.

you're basically the creationists of climate science.

have a tall glass of shut the fuck up and let the real scientists do their work.

>>2077384
show me where on those graphs that humans came along
then, show me where on those graphs warming has occurred

>>2077386

It's not about "humans coming along" retard. It's about humans releasing vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Beginning right in the middle of the industrial age.

>>2077386

source your graphs. you honestly think an anonymously posted, unsourced picture on 4chan trumps the scientific community?

94% of scientists say global warming is real.

you're gonna go full retard and deny that?

or you're gonna go troll retard and say humans don't contribute.

you should get a hold of kent hovind when he's out of jail. i hear he uses a lot of the same arguments you do to deny science.

>>2077394
you've got to be fucking kidding me...

>>2077398
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#The_long_term_ice_core_record:_the_last_800.2C000_ye
ars

>>2077399

Have you even looked at graphs of global temperatures?

oh, you guys still buy into Al Gore's plan to be a multi-billionaire? you're herping so hard you're derping.

>>2077403

According to that graph, we shouldn't be expecting any sudden increases in temperature.

In fact, we should be expecting an ice age.

>>2077407
yes, in fact i have.
look at where we are on the graphs i have posted, what are we due for if this graph is displaying a defined patter

I don't care anymore. I really don't. All the care's been drained out of me. I couldn't give less of a fuck about it.

>>2077382
I would also look at stuff like climate change through time. If you buy any sort of earth science/geological text book it usually tells you this.

I'm sure since you do physics you obviously have a knowledge of the creation of the planet. Maybe not so about changes through geological time.

I would concentrate mainly on the Tertiary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary

and the Quarternary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarternary

Need to look at stuff sort of like changes in CO2 concentrations in the air - volcanoes etc., glaciations.

Holocene - is pretty what much what we are in now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

Any knowledge of these changes are good because it goes back around 65 million years and it describes changes in the earths climate. Tertiary - volcanoes - very hot, Quarternary - switch to an ice age - then our current climate.

You could also look at ocean currents, atmospheric circulation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

contd again - checking if page has 404d

It doesn't matter whether you're a believer or a denier, the fact is is that you can't do anything about it either way, and we're all doomed.

>>2077414

LOL. Conservafag doesn't know how to read graphs.

>>2077382
>>2077419
Do keep going.

I've followed a course on environmental physics, part of which discussed some very basic (taking complex problems and oversimplifying them is kind of our thing) ways to model energy balances in the atmosphere. Short/long wave absorption and all that.

I'd like to know how for example global temperature measurements are performed. Roughly how it's corrected for stuff like variation in insolation, el nino et cetera. How do we draw conclusions from that w.r.t warming? How can you tell what proportion of that is man-made?

>>2077403

>ask source, hope for science journal

>get wikipedia

pic related, retard.

good to know you have a degree in googling sciences from wikipedia U


while we're sourcing wikipedia, pic related. it shows the data you probably won't post.

>>2077156
Oh look--people still believing in Global Warming.

I know 4chan is liberal as fuck but think once and a while for yourselves--Don't be sheep.

>>2077433

Ken Ham up in this bitch.

>also, denying a huge scientific consensus

Like denying evolution by natural selection.

>>2077439

Because scientific consensus has never been wrong.

Science deniers never address the numbers.

"So what 83/100 scientists say climate change is human made? They can be wrong [fallacious argument inserted]"

If they're wrong and it's easy to show that, then prove them wrong. Get a paper published that refutes the consensus.

What? They won't publish it? Must be a global conspiracy.

>>2077439
>denying a huge scientific consensus

As I said before, think for yourself. It was once held that the world was flat or that there were only 12 elements or that the Earth was in the center of the Universe.

To believe because one tells you such is about as far from the principles of science as can be.

>>2077461
Eocene Optimum, Fuck Yeah!

>>2077450

Yeah, because there was a peer reviewed scientific community that published its findings when people thought the earth was flat.

Just stop.

And I'm still waiting on a better argument to a massive scientific agreement that "THEY CAN ALL BE WRONG".

Puerile at best, trolling at worst.

Also, I'd like to add that invoking the entire climatic history of Earth in threads like this is pointless. What we should really be concerned with is the climate since we developed agriculture. Think about that. Look at the chart again. Agriculture is ~10-15 thousand years ago (rough estimate)

>>2077419

Plate tectonics as well!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

Very useful in considering past climates.

I'll dump some more links that may be of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITCZ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderstorm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation

You may find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_earth

It's a scenario where at one point the whole earth was frozen over. If you've seen the Day After Tomorrow - that sort of scenario.

Knowledge of supercontinents is useful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent

Anything else you really need to know is linked to in those articles.

I didn't really talk about human impacts - basically if you understand the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere you will understand how humans are effecting the environment.

Oh yes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

It would be useful! Alot of stuff i have mentioned is talked about in there. There's a section sort of on proofs - that's palaecology or look up palaeoclimate if you are interested in past climate.

contd again to conclude.

>>2077448
Why have a need to ostentatiously exert your opinion with research and essay when you could hold your own truths to be self-evident.

Personally, if I came upon a large scientific discovery I would covet it--not preach it to the world for ignorant ears hear but do not listen.

Why fervently defend my opinion in front of an assembly of condescending scientists? To waste my time? To prove something to them? If they cannot figure it out for themselves--or will not listen then they are as counterproductive as those that accept everything that scientists say.

>>2077475
How about this:
Scientific consensus has no relevance.

Not to mention that it doesn't say if the people listed as "scientist" had any professional involvement in the study of global warming.

>>2077481
I will give a quick scenario here based on what i've said and linked to as an example of how climate change can negatively effect the earth and why an appreciation of theory is needed:

The ice at the poles is generally fresh water. Thermohaline circulation is related to the salinity of the oceans/heat/freshwater. If ice melts it is adding more freshwater into the oceans. This means the way in which heat is transferred around the oceans is effected (see El Nino for the effects that the heating of water can have, as well as air masses, tropical cyclones) - salt water is denser and can hold heat for longer.
This effects the global energy balance. Heat causes air to rise and form clouds, and rain etc.

The balance between the oceans and atmosphere is then altered and you get different weather cropping up.

All because you added more water to the oceans.

You can now appreciate how delicate the earths system is.

Yeah that's all if you have any other questions post in the thread.

>>2077441

Science had advanced so far that yes, even though it was sometimes wrong in the past, it's pretty much foolproof now, at least in something as heavily researched as this.

Denying the fact that is global warming will only destroy the world you live on even more. And that'll be on you.

Jesus christ how hard is it to understand. We have contributed (probably greatly) to climate change AND it is happening naturally. Both points of view are correct. You cannot deny that it happens naturally and that if we were not here, it would still happen. And you can't really deny that we are speeding it up. The only question is by how much we are speeding it up.

We contribute to climate change, and nature contributes to climate change.

>>2077450

This is such a tired argument. An honest scientists at the time would have told you that he had no means to distinguish between a flat earth and a spheroid with large enough radius. Flat earth is a proper approximation at small scales. Newton had every reason to believe that an inverse square law correctly described gravity. The rational thing at the time was to accept the consensus (even though it wasn't correct) while continuing to do research and challenging it. ULG is an excellent approximation to the latest theories for small gravitational fields, distances and velocities.

ITT: PEOPLE ARGUING OVER WARMING AFTER AN ICE AGE

>>2077487

>condescending scientists

stopped reading there

>>2077493
>Denying the fact that is global warming will only destroy the world you live on even more
Unlikely.

>>2077448
if they're right, what's up with the scientists that don't agree with them?

>>2077475
I'm sure you think Albert Einstein was never wrong then huh?

So much for a "peer review community."

Pathetic.

>>2077489

Good you should say that. Pic related: the people who study climate science have a higher acceptance rate.

>>2077498
>repeating shit I heard like I know its true
I'd like to know the α-level on those statements.

>>2077519
THEN WHY ARE WE GETTING OUR UNDIES IN A BUNCH?

>>2077511

You can say the same thing about evolution. 3/100 say it isn't real. Oh no, there isn't a 100% consensus!

>>2077507
Ignorant ears hear but do not listen.

>>2077499
>This is such a tired argument
Phenomenal way to start your argument.

Your post is full of fallacy and hindsight bias.

It's not much to debate when the other person merely scratches the surface of your argument rather than getting to the central point.

Even if we didn't affect the earth climate-wise in all our years here, the earth would still throw a giant warming or ice age our way, and we'd still be royally fucked. The only reason it is a 'crisis' is because it's bad for humans, but the earth doesn't care about humans. Sooner or later it will go through a natural change that no human could survive and that will be the end of it, forever.

Unless we create a magical climate ray to control the entire earth's climate and keep it stable so all humans could live on it for all eternity, there is no point to any of this.

>>2077538

pic related.

go finish your super dooper hard AP homework.

>>2077501

That's what I always heard & suspected.

Does anyone have any experience with this? I've read that we are actually at a cold point in history since we are not fully 'warmed' after the past ice age. Is this correct? And if so, how correct is this?

>>2077533
i in fact would same the same about the bullshit theory of spontaneous creation/evolution

>>2077549
Giving up that easily? Why am I not surprised.

Maybe one day you will see rather than just perceive.

>>2077555
wat

>>2077561

You keep on trollin, Duane Gish.

>>2077553

Dude see the posts below:

>>2077382
>>2077419
>>2077481
>>2077490

I wrote this out and none of the people in this thread have bothered to read them or at least reply about it and continue to argue in their uneducated ways.

Yes we are in the Holocene, which is the end of the Quaternary which was the ice age period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

There have also been ice ages in the last few hundred years - though not drastic ones:

Wikipedia - Little Ice Age.

>>2077490

Thanks, that'll keep me busy. I have a rudimentary understanding of most of these things, but it's all very basic.

I'm guessing that a large part of our policy making is based on predictions for future climate made by simulations that combine all these effects. I'm wondering how accurate these are (I've seen first hand how much can go wrong modeling airflow across a simple car door, it's scary). If we use our current models on 40 year old data, can we predict today's climate, for example?

>>2077593

No problem. I'll see if i can find some diagrams on the predictions for the reduction in emissions etc.

>>2077461
Notice that we are not at the interglacial peak temperature yet that should be expected before the descent into the next ice age.

If science has any interest in preserving human civilization, it should be figuring out how to stop the next ice age from coming.

>>2077490
I'm pretty sure that hypothesis has been debunked.

>>2077619
suddenly an outbreak of common sense

>>2077626
Debunked eh?

Here's a page on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation#Bryden_measurements_reported_late_
2005

It couldn't be debunked lol, it's basic theory and makes perfect sense.

>>2077593
I can't really find any good diagrams at the moment. Here's stuff about modelling though:

Climate Change Experiments
Climate change experiments performed with GCMs can be split into two generic types:

Equilibrium Climate change experiments
The first generation of climate change experiments were performed with atmosphere only GCMs. These were used to simulate the equilibrium response of the climate system to an instantaneous increase (usually a doubling) of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Because of the absence of an ocean component, and because only slow computers were available, these experiments could only be performed to simulate short periods (e.g. 10 years) and their results could not be fixed to calendar years.
Transient Climate change
With the advent of more powerful computers, climate change experiments could be performed with coupled ocean-atmosphere and, more recently, coupled ocean-atmosphere-biosphere GCMs. The most recent climate change experiments have consisted of multi-century ensembles of integrations which have been used to investigate the response of the climate system to different scenarios of radiative forcing. One of the major implications of these experiments was that results could be fixed to calender years.
Results and Application of the results from GCM Climate Change Experiments
The results of climate change experiments have been used widely to investigate how ecosystems and / or socio-economic systems will respond to an evolving climate. The spatial resolution of GCMs is relatively coarse, of the order of 2.5 latitude x 3.75 degrees longitude. This often leads to a mismatch, as the majority of impacts assessments are carried out at resolutions of 50km or less. To overcome this difference in scales (as indicated by Figure 2) there is a need to construct scenarios.

See christian brothers, all scientists are liars sent from Satan to spread their lies and remove us from the divine truth!

>>2077619
>it should be figuring out how to stop the next ice age from coming.

But don't ice ages need to happen?

>>2077649
>shouldn't warmings happen?

>>2077649
You can't stop an ice age you can only help reduce the effects by preparing for it.

To say you can stop an ice age is like saying you can stop the atmosphere from working.

Right here we go guys:

The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2006. The year 2006 was sixth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002 and 2004. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. The record is being continually up-dated and improved (see Brohan et al., 2006). This paper includes a new and more thorough assessment of errors, recognizing that these differ on annual and decadal timescales. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.

Also since you all beg for sources so much:

• Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106.

>>2077636
LMAO... the paragraph you linked me to links the papers that debunked it.

>>2077665
The 1990s were the warmest decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Eleven of the twelve warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past twelve years (1995-2006). The only year in the last twelve not among the warmest twelve is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990).
Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and historical records) show that the 1990s is the warmest decade of the millennium and the 20th century the warmest century. The warmest year of the millennium was likely 1998, and the coldest was probably (but with much greater uncertainty) 1601.

'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.'
'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns'

Source: Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia

>>2077665
>thinks a mere 150 years means anything whatsoever

>>2077555
well, i'd say that right about sums it up

>>2077665
And what to you attempt to infer from a combined averaged temperature of the lowest layer of the atmosphere and the highest layer of the ocean? (Adjusted to attempt to eliminate the effects of urban heat islands)

What makes you think this is some kind of magical number of special import to the climate system -- or that it is somehow a stand-in for the total heat content of the climate system?

Processes that shift the systems heat into or out of that cross-section, such as El Nino and La Nina, change that number without changing the heat content of the system.

>>2077658

That's exactly what I meant. We should be preparing for the next ice age that will inevitably occur no matter what, but we're too busy being distracted by other shit.

>>2077666
lol no.

If you read that properly and actually understood any of it you would notice that circulation would not be effected in where? The Gulf Stream.

Also did you miss out this:
However, a thermohaline circulation shutdown could have other major consequences apart from cooling of Europe, such as an increase in major floods and storms, a collapse of plankton stocks, warming or rainfall changes in the tropics or Alaska and Antarctica (including those from intensified El Niño effect), more frequent and intense El Niño events, or an oceanic anoxic event (oxygen (O2) below surface levels of the stagnant oceans becomes completely depleted - a probable cause of past mass extinction events).

I never specifically stated that it was the gulf stream, i was talking generally. It is still valid but not for the Gulf Stream.

>>2077658
>You can't stop an ice age
Prove it. If Gore/Mann/Hansen were right about the greenhouse potency of CO2 (they're not), you could stop an ice age.

>you can only help reduce the effects by preparing for it.
Nothing significant you can do to prepare for it. The world won't produce enough food or especially fresh water to sustain 99% of us.

Even if you could stop an ice age, should you?

>>2077649
>>2077656
>>2077658

No, we cannot stop global warming and we cannot stop an ice age. This species is fucking narcissistic for believing that we can. The whole reason we are are who we are and are as successful of a species is because we ADAPT. Which is what we need to prepare to do, not to try to stop it from happening. THAT is what is going to fuck everything up. Let nature do what nature does, and adapt. That's nature, dumbfucks. Someone needs to kick Al Gore in the dick and tell him this.

>>2077714
It could lead to the extinction of the human race. It would definitely lead to unprecedented wars over food and water, and livable areas, and as a result, possibly the loss of culture, science and technology. Of course you should.

>>2077679
I did not infer anything. I pasted it here for the guy/girl who is interested in climate change. The work is written by the University of East Anglia.

What is getting inferred? Well obviously they aren't going to measure temperature up in the stratosphere because it's not relevant. Temperature in the lower atmosphere and at the marine level is what effects us and weather in general. Yes there are certain weather phenomena related to higher up in the atmosphere but it's usually related to cooling and not warming.

These figures where taken in the UK i believe and therefore any effects of El Nino will not be accounted for - like i said i didn't write this i'm just providing information.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by total heat content of the climate system. Heat isn't really relevant to the graph. Heating of different parts of the world will determine how energy moves like around the equator where it's warmest etc.

Ahhh are you asking about the effect of incoming solar radiation and the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere? Heat will be retained in the atmosphere then but like i said only at the lower atmosphere is it significant to us and the formation of weather really.

>>2077728

Personally, I see it as natural selection. A species comes up on earth, and either 1. They get their shit straight and survive, or 2. They're flawed and unable to do this, so they die. Opening the way for the next species to come around and have a chance to do it right. Or maybe not the next species, but another wave of humans to not fuck up. With our capitalism, genocidal, dumbfuck world culture & rich bastards like the world bank taking advantage of everyone, I say wipe this shit away and let someone try it fresh.

>>2077728

But what if stopping an ice age does just as much damage to the earth as stopping global warming? Wouldn't doing that be the exact same selfish, irresponsible "We humans control the earth!!!" behavior that caused this apparent warming anyways?

>>2077665
i don't see any trends in this graph, your data is irrelevant to my god.

>>2077718
I assume you think it's impossible to terraform Mars as well? Prehistoric man would say most of what we're doing is impossible. Just because we've never done something before, doesn't mean it's impossible.

No adaptation is really required. We've been through a couple ice ages already. Primitive living on the African continent will continue just fine... except that now everyone in areas that will become glaciated is going to know exactly where to go for a livable environment, and you'll have billions of people fighting over small areas of land, and small quantities of food and water. Most of what we've achieved since the last ice age would not survive that, and the species might not either.

>>2077697
Okay it's really late so i'm going to sleep soon.

First off if they aren't right why did you even bother mentioning them. What you are suggesting is the manipulation of earth processes like weather which i would say is near enough impossible. I haven't read that paper that you mentioned so i don't know what it entails. If it is suggesting somehow anything to do with changing the amounts of CO2 then it's just a recipe for disaster. I will also point out that the atmosphere is not the only which can cause an ice age. A change in the earths axis could cause glaciation as well as the movement of the continents - you at no point stated what time period we are talking on here so this theory is therefore valid.

In terms of the second part. Yeah well i am supplying a reasonable solution of what you should do and not one of "fuck it, we can't do anything about it."

I am saying that in practice that is the ONLY thing you can do about it.

>>2077763

Sorry, not Stopping global warming, but just "global warming."

But you get my point.

>>2077763
What do you mean "damage the earth"? We should try to keep the earth a habitable place for human beings. It's pretty simple. The story of technological advance is the story of moving towards just that ability. Humans survive because they can adapt the earth to themselves just as much as they themselves are adapting to the earth.

>>2077718

Stop ice age: dump tonnes of soot on the poles.

Problem, other species?

>>2077763

because climate change is about saving humans
We must keep the earth's climate stable for human living for all eternity, even if it fucks over the ecosystem

>>2077766
I'll point out that - the guy who is generally talking about theory, that is not my reply lol.

Terraforming a planet is an interesting topic. How you would do it, like the physical process of doing it - i have no idea.

Of course i think it's possible. Look at the work of Lovelock. If you change the composition of the planets atmosphere it should be able to sustain life.

>>2077765
lol i never said there was trends.

i never said anything about it, it's down to your interpretation.

>>2077730
That graph shows a global average. It is not local to the UK. The El Nina and La Nina DOES affect it. Heat drive climate. Global warming is the idea that the climate system is gaining more heat than it is losing. This cannot be shown by only looking at one layer of temperature, which is a fallacy a lot of people run into by looking at that number.

mfw op presented skewed data from biased statisticists

>>2077787
Well, if it's possible to terraform another planet, it's sure as fuck possible to alter the climate of our own.

Please bear in mind, the next ice age is at LEAST a few thousand years out. We're not talking about necessarily doing it with today's technology.

>>2077806

mfw you can't read or troll too much

>>2077803
To the best of my knowledge and where i obtained it, the data used in that graph is based in the UK. Maybe it's not but if you are taking data from a number of different sources to represent a global average it's obviously going to very bias.

I am totally aware of how El Nino works - what i was stating is if the data is collected in the UK it will have no effect - because El Nino does not operate anywhere near the UK.

I am aware of what global warming is lol, i just didn't understand your post.