/sci/ - Science & Math

Its a theory. A theory is an idea which explains facts.

The Earth has periods of cooling and warming. That's a fact, now whether we're having an effect on it or not is up to debate.

Look up the definition of science in the dictionary. Does that sound like what "global warming" advocates adhere to?
other relevant terms:
statistically significant
Vostok ice core data
Ice age, mini ice age
warm period

>>2926933

>Look up the definition of science in the dictionary. Does that sound like what "global warming" advocates adhere to?

Which advocates might those be? Both sides of the debate have fucking buffoons, and both have sides with a cogent argument.

>>2926926
Everyone says this.

It just sounds like argument to moderation to me.

the earth is going through a warm up period that has never been seen before
this is a fact

it's probably our fault
but
I don't give a fuck, we'll be fine

>>2926944
>never been seen before

I have some news for you...

It is a blight on mother earth that must be stopped. The only solution is my party's carbon tax.

Vote labor.

Dont mind me

Why is it that the same people who deny global warming deny evolution?

>>2926926

>That's a fact, now whether we're having an effect on it or not is up to debate.

Except that it isn't.

>>2926954

Because you are a faggot who stereotypes everyone you dont like into one big stupid group

It is 99.999% certain that human activity is accelerating the natural process of global warming.

Consequences will never be the same.

Pic related: its what is happening to California's water supply.

>>2926940
I'm serious, you need to look the definition up. ask yourself, is this science or conjecture?

'All you hippies are ****ing idiots. There is no way that humans could be affecting the environment by releasing carbon. It isn't a pollutant. The earth loves carbon! That is why there are dozens of natural processes for sequestering carbon and holding it out of the atmosphere.

The earth loves carbon so much it wants to keep it deep inside to give it a big earth hug. The earth is just being selfish though, so we aren't doing anything bad by digging it up and letting it back out.

Also, we are so small compared to the planet, that the idea of us effecting it is OUTRAGEOUS. Think of it this way, the earth is like a giant body, and humans are the size of like tiny little single celled things. TINY TINY things. Like little tiny bacteria sized ****. Too small to effect anything. Kinda like bacteria is too small to effect humans. You hippie ***s probably wash your hands too don't you?'

>>2926967

>>2926952

>>2926964

Im actually really happy to see the public react like that.

Its very healthy to be skeptical in the face of obvious misrepresentation of the facts.

Do scientists believe it?
Yes
Do I understand it properly?
No
Do I believe it?
No

Good solid intuition.

>>2926964
my god this pisses me off.
such a good troll picture.
>I'll just go ask all the scientists when they're at lunch at the science center

>>2926954
Its the same route organization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsOPXEcXlTA

Its really disturbing how some people can't see the obvious well-pissing techniques they are using to dissuade the acceptance of evolution are identical to those used against climate change.

>>2926964

I love how what the media depicts and what the public depicts is the same.

people just watch fox and shit and think they know all the facts.

>>2926978

I had a more relevant infographic, but it's nowhere to be found ;_;

>>2926989
you see why that claim is ridiculous right?

>>2926981
This.

Retards need to stop falling for the global warming denialist disinformation campaign.

Q1. What % of the air is CO2?

Respondent’s Answers:
nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.
The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)

Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don’t use science in their day to day living, they have forgotten this. Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition

Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?

Respondent’s answers:
All said ’No’.

Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?

Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.

The Correct Answer:
Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.

The only thing that pisses me off about the whole thing;

That the enviro-freaks expect us to be positively orgasmic at the thought of being able to help the environment. Like we should all be falling over ourselves with eagerness to give up fossil fuels and start saving the earth. It's not fun, it sucks.

But the climate skeptics are just as bad. This is serious. If there's even a chance of global warming coming to pass, they should grow up and deal with it.

And it's no coincidence that climate skeptics are mostly conservative, republican sorts. These guys are in bed with big business, who would rather avoid taking responsibility for any pollution they generate, pass the cost on to the tax payer instead, and make laws so they can't get sued. They are also in bed with crazy religion, that believes every crazy apocolyptic theory that comes along, how it's all sign of the end times, but the second you say it's anthropogenic they shut up and stop listening.

>>2927018

Q4. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Respondent’s Answers:
All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

The Correct Answer:
CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant. Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.

>>2927018
Do you have a source for the correct answer to Q3? If there is one, it would look better with it in there.

>>2927031

Im not a super big environmentalist,

but the notion of becoming sustainable gives me a big boner. Its pretty cool. I do honestly think it would be a lot of fun to give up things like gasoline.

>>2927054
Not sure if serious.

>>2927063

I am serious.

>>2927067
To each his own, I suppose.

>>2927043

Q5. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

Respondent’s Answers:
Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer:
There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.

• It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.

• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere.

1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster – heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.

2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable.

>>2927074

3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.

4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.

• Water vapour is 4% of the air and that‘s 100 times as much as CO2. Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as CO2 making CO2’s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by contact (conduction) and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the same temperature.

• The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin so its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270 C). As there is no ‘ceiling’ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The Sun renews warmth every day.

Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling.

>>2927054

Well, you're not most people. Most people, when they have done something stupid and broken something important understand that they they have to fix it, whether they like it or not.

We fucked up. Fossil fuels were great and all, but before we even knew what we were doing we used too much of them. And if we don't quit the consequences could be dire. It's not a matter of saving the environment. Fuck the environment. It's a matter of saving humanity. It's a matter of spending money now so we don't have to spend ten times that to clean it up later.

>>2927079
>>2927074
O GOD MAKE IT STOP PLEASE MAKE IT STOP

WHY

what does /sci/ think of al gore?

>>2927084

Okay.

I dont really differentiate between saving the environment and saving people. I think in a healthy system the objectives of saving ourselves and saving what is around us should align.

>>2927094
I think Al Gore is a pretty cool guy, eh invented the internet and doesn't afraid of anything.

>>2927053

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

How's this?

>>2927018
>>2927043
>>2927074
>>2927079

Bumping this because it needs to be read by everyone.

>>2927096

Certainly. If it were a matter of the Earth or us, I would pick us. I mean, I am one of us. But it just so obviously isn't. If we want to keep humanity safe, we should keep the Earth healthy. Not shit in the cradle, so to speak.

>>2927087
denialism makes people look like they're independent thinkers and won't just take what big gubment tells them to believe

>>2927125

Makes sense.

I wish I had a reaction image of MAKES SENSE.

>>2927124
But it's factually false, it isn't even a highly slanted piece of writing, it's factually incorrect...

>>2927156

Where is it false?

>>2927124
eh?

I'm sure you're too ignorant to understand system dynamics, but keep up your semantic stupidity.

>>2927168

Shut up you rude fuck.

You got a problem with him? That fine, I think thats perfectly acceptable. Frankly I am skeptical of him too, but I value his contribution to this thread. Its people like you who waltz in here just to say "You are so stupid I wont bothered to associate with you beyond my statements demeaning you" that are horrible, and more horrible than the people who might unfortunately be correct.

>>2927158
>There is no proof at all [that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect].
That statement is just so incredibly fucking retarded that, if you don't understand that it's false, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to even offer your opinion on the issue of global warming.

>>2927173

*incorrect

>>2927175

Ok then how about showing us that proof.

>>2927175
>>2927173
>>2927168
>>2927158
>>2927156

>>2927175

He accepted that carbo dioxide retains heat better. He did also state that:

1. The amount of carbon dioxide is negligible.
2. The amount of carbon dixoide produced by human beings is negligible
3. The amount of carbon dioxide relative to more powerful greenhouse grases is insignificant.

saying that carbon dixiode doesnt cause the green house isnt a contradiction of recognizing the heat retaining properties of carbon dioxide.

>>2927173
Did you read and understand that piece of writing? It's not just incorrect or misleading, it's intentionally written by someone who almost certainly understands the subject to direct an ignorant reader to a desired conclusion using just enough subtlety for the reader to believe they're coming to the conclusion themself. That's not ok.

>>2927189

Okay, then how is it false?

Lets worry about correctness rather than anything else.

>>2927189

>it's intentionally written by someone who almost certainly understands the subject to direct an ignorant reader to a desired conclusion using just enough subtlety for the reader to believe they're coming to the conclusion themself.
>using arguments to conclude a statement

Is that not how informative documents work?

>>2927158

Most of it is spurious.

The percentage of CO2 in the air is not relevant by itself. Compare it to normal levels. Include the effect of other pollutants.

How much humans produce? In total? Per year? If we make an extra 3% per year that adds up.

CO2 is a natural component of air. It is not a pollutant in the sense that any quantity is an immediate threat to any individual. But if air contains a very high percentage and you breathe it, you will die.

CO2 does not absorb more heat, it reflects disproportionately more back into the atmosphere than it reflects out.

CO2 is strongly correlated in the fossil record with atmospheric temperature. There is significant evidence to suggest that an increase in one will usually lead to an increase in the other.

The climate of the Earth is in equilibrium - at a local minima if you will, such that a perturbation in some influential factor such as CO2 concentration or solar irradiance will be balanced out by the effects on other factors. The climate change debate in the scientific community has relly focused on whether this is true or if the climate is actually "metastable" and will fly out of control if perturbed by a large addition of CO2 such as the human contribution. This has been proven false - the CO2 may initially cause some slight warming, but the biosphere will adapt and it will ultimately be absorbed by a growth in plant life and compensated for in other ways.

For an easy to read summary, consult David Evans piece: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/0...models-go-cold/

Now what should really bother us all is the fact that this debate has dragged on so long and consumed so much time, it has really drawn attention away from real air pollution issues such as SO2, VOCs, NOx compouns, particulates, Hg, and other combustion or industrial (by-)products, things that kill many year every year. Real progress has been made on curbing their output (google GESi), but no one seems to care.

>>2927209

Thank you,

Im going to go analyze what you said, think about, it, reference wikipedia, and Ill be back.

We do know there is more carbon dioxide than there was 300 years ago. I think on a scale of about 150% more (I need to refer to wikipedia again)

>>2927188
>>2927181
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greenhouse_effect
Read parts 1 and 2. I will then be happy to address any further issues you may have.

>>2927079
>>2927074
>>2927043
>>2927018
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

Watch potholer54's series on Climate Change. It's probably the most accurate series on climate change you'll see.

>There is no proof at all [that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect].

Ugh.....you know what? I'm not even going to start. Just watch the damned videos.

>>2927209
800 years later.

also, much more significant increases in co2 have occurred in the past and more significant temperature increases/decreases have occurred in shorter/the same period of time as what we've been measuring recently.

The sky is not falling Chicken Little, no I don't want to have to pay a tax on every mile I drive because you are scared the world is ending in 2012 due to global warming/niburu/whatever the fuck you think is killing us.

>>2927220
> Using youtube as a source.

I can prove aliens are visiting earth with youtube as well, chicken little.

>>2927226

Cars pollute in more than just CO2. We should tax cars for reasons other than CO2, in my opinion.

I don't even know anymore. I'm inclined to trust the scientists that have worked on this, but so often it seems like they could be driven by political/economical agenda to fudge their data. I just don't know.

>>2927248

Thats how I feel. The confusion is the primary reason I am skeptical about global warming.

>>2927248
You should have started being skeptical when they started using the propaganda of:

"So let's say it's a lie and we improve the whole world and reduce pollution, is that really a bad thing!?"

Once that started being their backup line, you should have been like "wtf? what do they mean "so what if it's a lie, we're making things better!?"

CO2 creates a greenhouse effect: FACT

Humans are responsible: FICTION

>>2927266
Exactly.

Also the title of this topic is misleading as fuck. Most people agree that "Global Warming" occurs, as it has occurred all throughout earth history.

Human caused global climate change is a different beast than "global warming."

>>2927266
Hey, you seem somewhat rational, have any explanation for this >>2927074 gem of brilliance?

>>2927248
As opposed to "skeptics" which aren't lead by political/economic agenda?

You know how wars are fought over oil?

>>2927226

And I think that people should be able to sue companies that pollute. Those tax dollars you don't want to pay are subsidizing companies to employ wasteful practices that damage everybody's property. Nobody should have to pay those taxes, it's retarded. The companies who damage my property should expect me, and everyone else affected, to file a class action. Except we can't until governments admit that they are polluting, and that it affects people that are separated by time and distance from the source. And governments don't want to do that because they are more interested in bribes than votes.

To be frank, I am not invested in the climate debate going one way or the other. If the science shows it's happening and it's anthropogenic, then we all need to sort our shit out before it's too late. If the science shows it's happening and it's not anthropogenic, then we need to get our shit ready. If the science shows it's not happening, then great, but corporations still get their wasteful business practices subsidized, with the tacit blessing of people like you.

But it should be obvious that the big business world IS invested in the climate debate. They want it to not be true, because not only will they have been inadvertently responsible for it before they could have known better, and directly responsible for it after they should have known better, they will also be unable to cut corners, make a mess, and have the taxpayer clean it up in the future. Because we will all know who is responsible.

>>2927277

Corruption exists...

So whatever the corrupt think, I should just think the opposite.

I see that no one will ever be able to manipulate you.

>>2927262
What that means is "anthropogenic global warming is true.. even if you don't believe it, though, is self sustainability and moving off of oil dependence a bad thing?"

>>2927287
Isn't that what you were just saying?

>>2927278
There isn't enough data to say whether or not it's "human caused." We'd need to monitor shit for several hundred years, if not thousands, to be sure.

We've only been recording climate on a global and accurate scale for the past few decades of several billions of years of Earth history. Yes, we have Vostok and other means to look at large scale trend changes of temperature, but by no means is that as accurate as what we do now.

Most of the alarmism occurring is probably because we now record it better than before, similar to how people think that there are more UFO sightings because now it's easier to hear about them than before.

Claiming anthropogenic cause is absurd when there is evidence to suggest that short term spikes are not necessarily indicative of long term spikes, and that even when they are they have occurred naturally millions of times over the ages.

"OMG in 40 years the temperature rose and appears to be rising quicker than we can account for naturally!" does not = "It's humans causing it!" that is a mighty leap of logic.

40 years isn't shit in terms of earth's climate history, and spikes fucking happen.

Okay Im reading some of the wikipedia pages available to me. And I am trying to work from the ground up on this global warming stuff. Also, thank you to the fine individuals who pointed me to the right material.

Here is something I accpet:

There is more carbon dioxide and methane in our atmosphere today, than there was 300 years ago.

My question is:

How do we know carbon dioxide, is capable of increasing the temperature to what it is today?

Sorry if that is a stupid question. I just want to take this slowly.

>>2927291
lol?

No, it's a statement of "Even if we are wrong/deceiving, it's a good thing!"

It's horribly suspicious, especially when you consider the fact that we've only been recording climate date on a globally accurate scale for a few decades.

>>2927301

I was saying there are many things clouding our perception of this issue, so it is best to hold back on judgement until problems like corruption, in the media, the government, business, and the scientific community, are resolved.

Its not "X says Y, and X is bad, so Y must be wrong"

its more like, "A, B, C, and D, are saying either X, or anti-X, and frankly none of them have any clear facts or credibility right now, so I wont believe in X at the moment"

>>2927314
But less Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere than in past periods, such as all previous ages which were not an ice age.

>>2927314
seriously?

Good luck, you can start with daisy world.

>>2927320
Additionally, these propaganda's imply a political agenda, "cleaning up pollution."

Not that this is a bad thing, but it casts a negative light on the science involved if there is an obvious political agenda behind it.

"Even if we're lying, we'll have achieved x political/corporate agenda!"

>>2927333
in other words, "science" should be non political, but the global warming "science" blatantly is.

All of the people claiming they believe in global warming seem to cling to these notions of how GREAT it would be if it were true, since then they could make changes x y and z to the socio-political/economic environment.

>science
>belief
Not mutually exclusive. Belief does not make reality. Reality crushes beliefs.

>>2927348
>>in other words, "science" should be non political, but the global warming "science" blatantly is.

what, and the denialist "science" isn't? seriously?

>>All of the people claiming they believe in global warming seem to cling to these notions of how GREAT it would be if it were true, since then they could make changes x y and z to the socio-political/economic environment.

I think it's pretty obvious why a lot of influential people would stand to gain if global warming wasn't true

political motivation is hardly an accusation you can only level one way

>>2927291
Worded another way:
"What that means is "anthropogenic global warming is true.. even if [it's not], though, is [political agenda] and [corporate/political agenda] a bad thing?""

You lose credibility when you try and tie "science" in with things that you desire, since that's not what science is supposed to be. It's obviously not objective research if the researchers believe that the results being true will "end our dependence on oil" since that implies they have a motivation to find things one way and not the other.

>>2927310

There is more than enough data to show that it is happening, though.

Remember that many of the huge economic and political developments in human history were directly tied to climate fluctuations. The Mongols started horde-ing after they had a few years of bad harvests. Europe's population exploded to unsustainable levels after the Medieval warm period. And none of these developments were as rapid as the one we are now observing.

So anthropogenic or not, it's not something we should take lightly. 40 years isn't shit for the Earth, but it's a long time in political or economic terms.

>>2927230
The creator of the video is a science correspondent for a magazine. He also has a degree in geology. He lists his sources in the video descriptions.

This guy isn't some ranting nutjob, he's giving valid explanations and facts.
And even better, he's given citations in many of his videos. And has even posted corrections when climatologists have pointed out inaccuracies.

>>2927365
Denialist science?

I didn't say either side had credibility, I said that all the talk about anthropogenic climate change is surrounded and innundated with agendas on all sides.

This means that the subject can't be taken seriously at this point and time because everyone's lying.

See, here you attack the other "side" of the argument, thank you for proving my point you dumbass.

THERE SHOULD NOT BE "SIDES"

>>2927381

I agree comrade.

Brofist.

>>2927381
Evolution debate has sides.

>>2927365
I'm leveling it BOTH ways brother.

That's my fucking point, you have to "pick sides," that's not fucking science that's an agenda, that's not objective that's "we are motivated to be right, and "they" are motivated to be right."

Us and Them. Only an idiot would take this shit seriously.

>>2927389
failing to get the point. bravo.

>>2927389

There's evo-devo and... what's the other one called again?

>>2927389

Yes but 2 things:

1. The evolution debate is more obviously between science and religion, and evolution and creationism.

2. Evolution doesnt have economic impacts

>>2927396
My fucking point is science will always have sides when there are people who deny it.

Does it matter if the people who are right have blowhards like Al Gore? No, it doesn't.

Are skeptics right? No, they aren't.

The problem is with agendas. It is not with science. The science is clear cut and is only going to be more so in the future.

>>2927409

Science and agendas are not mutually exclusive.

>>2927404
Don't even respond to that troll, he's fucking daft if he doesn't see the difference between the economically charged "we want to tax you more because the earth is gonna overheat cus of you!" and "herp derp god created the animals!"

He's just grasping at straws so the best solution is to ignore him.

Critical thinking shows that since you shouldn't have to "take sides" in objective research, and since the researchers themselves and the skeptics all have significant economic/social/political interest in being right, and history has shown these factors to severely skewer objective understanding, we can't claim to know whether or not anthropogenic climate change is occurring at this point in time on a significant level.

Not knowing, we can't "support" either side, and we sure as fuck can't support making permanent changes to our lifestyles based on it till we come to such a point that these are no longer hindering.

>>2927420
Agendas destroy and maim science, and it's disgusting that you would suggest that a researcher wanting to be right is a positive part of science. That's the opposite of objective research.

Just more evidence of how charged the motivations for each side wanting to be right are, and exactly why neither "side" can be taken seriously at this point in time.

>>2926944
>never been seen before

I laughed. I actually fucking laughed. Get the fuck out.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>2926967

>It is 99.999% certain that human activity is accelerating the natural process of global warming.

[citation needed]

>>2927324
well, looks like you'll live a life free of judgement.

I don't want Earth to end up like in WALL-E :(

>>2927470
You mean you don't want to live the life of a post-apocalyptic video game protagonist? What's wrong with you?

>>2927470
then gtfo of the internet and excercise.

I think that humanity, like individual people, is quite narcissistic to the point where they believe they can have an impact on something much bigger than them.

This argument only gets stronger when you look at the type of people that believe in human-induced Global Warming.

>>2927422
>>Not knowing, we can't "support" either side, and we sure as fuck can't support making permanent changes to our lifestyles based on it till we come to such a point that these are no longer hindering.

so... what, exactly, is the difference between this "non-partisan" course of action and the course of action that you'd take if man-made global warming was clearly and objectively false?

>>2927470

You have no political power and mean nothing to this discussion. Unless you are a multinational corporation or government.

>>2927513
This is bogus. The technology exists today to create a global nuclear winter. Viruses can kill off entire species.

Small things can affect large things.

>>2927538

>global nuclear winter

there are literally not enough nukes to cause an actual nuclear winter, that shit is scare-mongering

>>2927538

>Viruses can kill off entire species.

examples plox

>>2927513
god you're a moron.

Seriously, if this is your argument, you seriously need to learn system dynamics.

>>2927564
Not the same person, but http://f1000.com/1127780

>>2927360
But all "reality" is is beliefs...

>>2927579

Righto bro, have fun buying into this shit until ten-twenty years from now when temperatures have gone back down.

quick question

global warming has been around since when? because if earth's been getting hot for more than 100 years then its not our fault, people

its easy

>>2927653
Have you heard of the Industrial Revolution?

Disregarding anything really long ago. Let's take a look at the Roman Warming. It got about as hot as the worst outlooks for anthropogenic climate change. There were few anthropogenic carbon emissions at the time. The world didn't end, in fact it was a time of great prosperity with decreased deserts, higher rainfall and the greater crop yield that comes with these things. Who here remembers when we were all worried about global cooling the late 60s?

>>2927692
>Who here remembers when we were all worried about global cooling the late 60s?
Who the fuck was that?

>>2927702
What?

>>2927653
When the industrial revolution came around, mankind started using massive amounts of fossil fuels, sources of carbon that are in a "long" cycle that lasts millions of years.
Before that, we used wood, which is on a "short" cycle that lasts decades or centuries.

After many of the world's nations became industrialized, our usage of fossil fuels increased dramatically. With anthropogenic climate change, the theory is (as far as I've understood it) that this very sudden change in the carbon cycle will bring very sudden and violent changes to our climate.
This has (evidently) happened in the past.

>>2927692
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Keep fucking that chicken.

Climate changes; sometimes it gets warmer, sometimes it gets colder. Humans have a small influence compared to the sun and other factors(some of which humans have yet to discover).
dealwithit.jpg

>>2927744
Wait, "skepticalscience.com"? You mean the one that has the hockey-stick graph as a cornerstone of their argument for anthropogenic climate change? Get the fuck out.

>>2927745
>compared to the sun

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

I know the sun effects the climate (obviously) but the sun alone cannot explain global warming.

>>2927692
You mean the media-hype about a "new ice age".
Within the science community, that wasn't the case.

>>2927768

The sun has a huge effect on climate. Other big contributors are volcanism; cloud levels (long-term); ocean-currents; even our position in the galaxy.

>>2927755
I'll look into that, but the fact is that the whole 70's ice age fears were totally media bullshit.. which kind of matches up with current media portrayal of AGW. I was specifically debunking his (60's) 70's statement.

>>2927773

We're overdue for an ice-age, as I'm sure you know. Also, the world cooled from 1940-1970, which was fucking prime time for carbon emissions.

i'll just leave this here

>>2927784
I'm "him".

>>2927792
Put that next to temperature graph, and also add in a sun activity graph; a volcanism graph; ..

>>2927801
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_awareness

>Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Although there was a cooling trend then, climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[11]). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.

>>2927784
Yes they were media bullshit. That's quite right. I never said they were anything other than that.

this thread clearly shows the kind of people /sci/ is filled with

why the fuck is it called warming? when it's obviously april in the east coast of the usa late april and it feels like december.

i couldn't give a shit. next thing you know it snows in july....i wouldn't be surprised.

>>2927813

∴ World ends in 2012

>>2927813

this is what climate scientists do for a living, they look at all of these factors, you just have to look up what they discuss at conferences

also, check out the levels since the industrial revolution

>>2926905
>>2926905
>>2926905

Op, go learn about equilibrium reactions and there link to global warming then tell me its false.

>>2927822
I'm trying to figure out what your point is, then.

Climate scientists believe there is no evidence for global cooling, but the media does and so the public does.

Now, climate scientists believe there is evidence for global warming, but the media doesn't and the public doesn't.

>>2927842
I don't give a fuck how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. You miss the point entirely. Nobody is debating how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere.

>>2927852
You missed the part of my post about the Roman Warming? My "point" was to illustrate how "mainstream" beliefs are often quite wrong.

>>2927855

are you saying that CO2 levels do not lead to global temperature changes? ever heard of the greenhouse effect?

>>2927855
Do you seriously think climatologists don't account for solar cycles? Volcanoes? etc.

There is geological evidence for these things.. it's all accounted for.

>>2927852
Also, the public does, and the media does (believe in anthropogenic global warming).

>>2927813
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

>>2927872

CO2 doesn't have a large effect.

>>2927755

>You mean the one that has the hockey-stick graph as a cornerstone of their argument for anthropogenic climate change? Get the fuck out.

SkepticalScience never held up the "hockey stick" as the "cornerstone" for their argument for AGW. Have you ever read any part of that site?

Here's the relevant portion:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-intermediate.htm

Also,

>implying that the hockey stick shape of the temperature curve over the past 1000 years has not been corroborated by at least 15 independent teams outside of Mann et al., replicated separately in both global and regional scales, and affirmed by the National Academy of Science

>>2927880
I never said anything like what the "skeptic argument" on the website says.

>>2927886
>he's defending the hockey-stick

Nobody defends that anymore. You've got quite outdated knowledge, friend.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=hockey+stick+graph

>>2927813

Done and done

As for volcanoes.... well, large eruptions actually cool the Earth by blotting out the Sun with their sulphate particulates, and their CO2 emissions are about 100 times smaller than anthropogenic emissions

ITT: trolls and high school science skeptics

>>2927882
CO2 has a HUGE effect!

CO2 is our primary greenhouse gas and is essential to maintaining the temperature on earth (assuming a balanced level).

>>2927902
Yes, they do cool the earth. At least, the above-water ones. Do you know much about submarine volcanism?

>>2927894

You're going to have to show either a source or an sourced argument explaining why the "hockey stick" type reconstructions are spurious

I don't really see where you could get this impression, unless you learned all your science from political blogs

Here is a collection of about a dozen hockey sticks, only one of with is from the MBH team that "skeptics" love to rail against

>>2927910
CO2 has been much much higher than it is now in the past, in ice ages, for god's sake.

Also, why do people think that global warming is a bad thing?

>>2927915

Well, I think a better question would be, "do I know much about submarine volcanism?"

You seem like a smart guy. Please quantify the contribution of volcanoes to atmospheric greenhouse gases. With numbers.

>>2927916

Newer hockey sticks incoming

>>2927916
>source

http://www.google.com/search?&q=hockey+stick+graph

There's a few hundred.

>>2927920

Because it takes a sledgehammer to global food production?

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19703

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7066/abs/nature04141.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5911/240

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594

>>2927933

I'm sorry, but on /sci/ we hold you to higher standards. Are you so unfamiliar with the literature that you can't even name a single source?

>>2927935
I'll read them, but the truth is that in the past, global warming has _always_ brought prosperity, and global cooling the opposite.

>>2927933
Let's see... first link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
>More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.[6]
It's good to see we agree.

>>2927920
>>2927935
Not only this, it fucks with balanced ecosystems, increased co2 is causing ocean acidification..

The only places that will benefit agriculturally are colder latitudes.

>>2927945

I agree with that.

>>2927946
So lower latitudes will benefit, higher ones won't. Don't they cancel each other out to result in no net loss of food production capacity/arable land?

>>2927918

>the ice ages

During the ice ages, CO2 concentrations did not exceed 300 ppmv. The current CO2 concentration is 390 ppmv.

>>2927957
Lower latitudes have higher surface area. They also have existing infrastructure.

If this were controlled climate engineering it'd be one thing, but it's not. If climate change is happening and it isn't according to past cycles, there's a problem of feedback loops and other problems.

>>2927963
>he thinks we haven't been in an ice age for the last 300 million years

>>2927963
those graphs only go back 400,000 years.

nice try.

>>2927957

2010 was the tied with the hottest year on the instrumental record. In what I assume to be an act of God or pure coincidence, it was also accompanied by major droughts and flooding in many important grain-producing regions, such as Russia, Australia, and Argentina.

So I'm not saying global warming is real or that it could possibly impact food production negatively. But global warming is real and it is impacting food production negatively. Yes, even in northern latitudes.

>>2927950
Wow, I haven't persuaded a climate change skeptic to accept IPCC's opinion on AGW in weeks. Congratulations for seeing reason!

>>2927971

>300 millions years

>ice age the whole time

Are you retarded?

It's all a lie...oh wait...it's completely natural and has happened before, human activity has nothing to do with it! Humans are incapable of altering the planet!

>>2927983

australian here. had a nice cool mild summer and a beautiful rainy winter.


feelsgooooodmannn

>>2927998
Tell that to the tuna near Fukushima.

>>2927989

Call it what you like. A glaciation.

>>2928005
What are you talking about? Please show your work.

>>2927920
Drastic changes in weather patterns. That's for one.

>>2927987
I never said I believed in AGW. I said I agree that temperatures are quite high today.

>>2927941

>I'll read them, but the truth is that in the past, global warming has _always_ brought prosperity, and global cooling the opposite.

ALWAYS?

100% of the time?

That's a pretty bold statement. But during the much-vaunted Medieval Warm Period, civilizations throughout East and Southeast Asia experienced turmoil and collapse.

Example:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5977/486.abstract

And climate changes, whether towards warming or cooling, are linked to unrest and violence throughout human history

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/49/19214.full

>>2928020
So you're saying that anything that happens, that's bad, during a period of warming, is because of that warming? Jesus, you're sinking pretty low man.

>>2928000

You must be living in one of the luckier parts and do not ever read the news

>>2928032
there were floods. there were also worse floods in 1973 when it was much, much colder than now. what's your point?

>>2928027

That is not at all what I'm saying. You should read the links and decide for yourself

>>2927212
>>2927212
>>2927212
>>2927212
>>2927212
>>2927212

>>2928016
But you said you agreed when the pro-AGW IPCC study was mentioned. So you're backpedaling now? Okay.
sadfrog.jpg

I'm amazed at people who claim that people may not be the culprits behind global warming
You'd think hundreds of thousands of factories pumping CO2 in the atmosphere and billions of people driving cars would have an impact on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
Apparently that is hard to believe

>>2928036

You mean 1974?

That killed three times fewer people and caused 30 times less economic damage. Troll harder

Common sense tells me that pumping pollution in the air needs to have some kind of effect.

>>2928043
It's mostly an American phenomenon.
The rest of the world is generally much more sane with scientific issues.

>>2928041
>>2928041

>3 times fewer people

>mfw the recent floods killed about 25 people

>mfw he thinks the 1974 floods killed 8 people

No, you're wrong. 30 times less economic damage? maybe, but it was a bigger flood. less economic damage was caused because brisbane was a much smaller place back then. troll harder.

>>2928040

An opinion piece is not an authoritative scientific source

>>2928060

>but it was a bigger flood.

No it was not. This is pretty clear from the satellite photos. But you can believe what you want

>>2928060
just looked it up. inflationary adjusted "economic damage" is maybe 1/2 of the recent floods.

>>2928066
It was a bigger flood. This is clearly shown by comparing the heights the river reached. Troll harder.

>>2928067

Damages from the 1974 flood was 200 million in 1974 dollars. Damages from the 2010-2011 flood was 30 billion. And what was the 2010 value of the 1974 dollar?

>>2928070

>comparing the heights the river reached.

Before the flood protections were beefed up? In a much smaller geographic area than the 2010-2011 floods? Either you're retarded or you're so committed to the idea that global warming can't hurt your country that you're willing to dismiss evidence that global warming has hurt your country

>>2928088
The 1974 flood killed more people. 200 million wasn't adjusted for inflation. 30 billion is a horribly off estimate, it was more like 5 billion. You have nothing to contribute but random figures you made up yourself? Where do you live?

>>2928088
>Damage initially was estimated at around A$1 billion.

You're talking about GDP damage which is not really fair since the city and country where a lot smaller back then.

>>2928095

I know the figure is not adjusted for inflation. That's why I asked you what the 2010 value of the 1974 dollar is. What is it?

>You have nothing to contribute but random figures you made up yourself?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/18/3115815.htm

Fuck this nitpicking bullshit

People have been asking whether or not global warming could impact agriculture, and if so, what those impacts might be. Here is a textbook covering a wide range of climate change impacts, including a very good chapter on agriculture (Ch. 17). Except for a few chapters it's not too technical and suitable for a lay audience. Also the authors are largely unassociated with the IPCC, so if you're suspicious of the IPCC for whatever reason, this book provides an alternate perspective.

http://www.mediafire.com/?1wozy30z8co00ab

Or hell, you could actually read the IPCC reports. Free online, but all 2500 pages are available here in pdf format if you prefer. They're actually quite conservative, and they underestimated the rate of sea level rise, sea ice decline, rate of emissions, etc. And compared to the Letcher textbook, they have a somewhat rosier view of the impact of climate change on agriculture.

Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

http://www.mediafire.com/?y6nvtd8i1ym8gp2

Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability

http://www.mediafire.com/?37d61wm7kj3wvj0

Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change

http://www.mediafire.com/?5dfr9865vbcofu4

it's a govern façade

>>2928123

Another question that's been asked a lot in this thread is whether or not humanity has contributed to global warming. That question is answered in the first few chapters of Letcher's textbook and in Chapter 9 in the IPCC Working Group I. Apart from that, there's three very basic textbooks covering the fundamentals of scientific understanding behind global warming. Both are suitable for non-science majors, and the last (Archer's) is the shortest and the only one with math.

http://www.mediafire.com/?f9e48o0idwhnyql (Pittock)

http://www.mediafire.com/?px169hvqe603c4o (Houghton)

http://www.mediafire.com/?a31tiy7cfy2sgde (Archer)

>>2928148

Lastly, here's some more advanced textbooks for those proficient at math and science who want to learn more:

Your basic first year meteorology textbook

http://www.mediafire.com/?26hacfo80dbyvbo

Pierrehumbert's Principles of Planetary Climate, which is the shit

http://www.mediafire.com/?eenoyepca1pacth

Marshall and Plumb's Atmospheric, Ocean, and Climate Dynamics, which focuses more on fluid dynamics. It's the textbook for that intro to climatology course on MIT OpenCourseWare.

http://www.mediafire.com/?b3c7i6vh0kc8w19

Another textbook that focuses more on the fluid dynamics aspect:

http://www.mediafire.com/?cc3leoukpcf2nbk

Older foundational textbooks:

http://www.mediafire.com/?l9tdc44d9j4ut2m

http://www.mediafire.com/?1rmiceqt2jhhy5m

Idiots, the lot of you. I ctrl f'd "deforestation" and found not a single mention. That is crucial to any debate: we're not just adding CO2 by burning gasoline in cars and coal in electric power plants, we're also diminishing the planet's capacity to reabsorb that CO2.

Another factor: cattle and corn. Cows produce methane. More cows, more methane. Corn, rather than grass, fattens cows faster. It also makes them burp and fart a lot more. As more and more people in developing classes hanker for meat and milk as they enter the middle class, the demand increases. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and we're making more of it than we used to. It's cumulative.

Even if you "don't believe" in global warming, there's ocean acidification, which is a major threat in it's own right. Yes, there is a difference between climate science and climate politics: cap and trade? Carbon tax? Carbon offsets? Personally, I'd favor drastic government action: requiring all new motor vehicles run on natural gas or hydrogen (if not pure electric), mandate any new car capable of burning gasoline be a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid, end all subsidies for coal, petroleum, corn ethanol, and farm subsidies in general, put all that money into building enough liquid fluoride thorium reactors to replace every coal and light water reactor by 2030, and in the mean time work on carbon sequestration, directly from power plants (using that carbonate rock that absorbs CO2, and/or algae) and from the atmosphere using solar-powered artificial trees. I'm not a big government person at all, but I appreciate the gravity of the situation, and severity of the crisis, the necessity of coordinated action, and the reluctance of business to do something makes this a problem you can't leave to the market to resolve.

>>2928180

A few other books:

Another recent atmospheric physics textbook. Not sure if it's as good as Pierrehumbert's but glancing through it it seems solid

http://www.mediafire.com/?ixq0a557rgb37wd

One specifically about climate change and agriculture, unfortunately slightly outdated but it's the best that I'm aware of

http://www.mediafire.com/?w8ick6o3oqcbd3e

Nonsense on Stilts, includes a chapter on global warming skepticism. Focuses on and eviscerates Bjorn Lomborg, who apparently plagiarized the fuck out of The Skeptical Environmentalist. It's a shame that he can get fame and fortune for something that any undergrad would be crucified for.

http://www.mediafire.com/?jfbb7tm3s33m94m

NIGHTMARE tier

http://www.mediafire.com/?nttym1tjtlg

http://www.mediafire.com/?qekj9270imf90oo

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/climate-wars/index.html

Make-yourself-feel-better-afterwards tier

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

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4

http://www.earth-policy.org/books/wote

>>2928103
>>2928123
>they underestimated the rate of sea level rise, sea ice decline, rate of emissions

Evidence?

>>2928228

Sure.

Rahmstorf et al. 2007 - "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections"

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf

Stroeve et al. 2007 - "Sea ice decline: faster than forecast

http://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Stroeve2007.pdf

Allison et al 2009 - Copenhagen Diagnosis 1st ed.

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/

Ironically, the IPCC which everyone accuses of alarmism was actually very conservative. They ended up being more conservative than reality in many of their projections.

The only metric that isn't close to or exceeding A1FI is temperature rise. I suspect that sulphate aerosols from increased coal burning is actually keeping temperatures lower than they would otherwise be. James Hansen calls this the Faustian bargain of mitigation. If we lower emissions immediately, the temperature will actually increase more rapidly in the short-term due to the coal plants shutting down. But if we wait longer, or people decide after that it was foolish to limit emissions, then we are committing ourselves to much greater future warming. It's a big conundrum

>>2928269

You really helped out the thread.

>>2928269
>mfw he thinks "sea ice" only includes the arctic, and neglects to mention antarctica is actually gaining ice

>>2928201

The problem with that is if a hurricane or a flood or a drought is not fucking up your shit RIGHT THIS INSTANT in the exact place where you live, nobody will think anything of it.

Commodities speculators, high oil prices, and climate-driven drought and floods have ratcheted up global food prices. But the ordinary person doesn't think "damn speculators and oil prices and climate change," they just think "oh it sucks that food is so expensive nowadays"

You can ask them to accept big government fixes, but they will say no. That's why we need the market measures like carbon taxes and cap-and-trade, or even better, cap-and-dividend. Cap-and-dividend is probably the only way to get the ordinary people to accept some measure of climate change mitigation, and cap-and-trade the only way to get rich finance types to accept it. Maybe one day there will be a huge fucking disaster that whips people in shape. But before that happens, the only way forward is market measures.

>>2928269
May I ask what your background is? I'm an aspiring atmospheric scientist although applications to graduate school havent gone so well since I was such a piece of shit for a large part of my undergraduate career. I'm just finishing up my second semester of graduate level atmospheric dynamics though.

>>2928278

No problemo

>>2928309

Assume I have no background, otherwise this thread will get shit up with ad hominem attacks that generally occur when people fling credentials around

But just for your case, I strongly recommend sucking a professor's dick. Not an associate professor or a lecturer, but a tenured professor. Don't make it too obvious though, or else they'll catch on and resent you for it. Unfortunately the only way to get around shit marks in your earlier years is to study hard and get better grades. Whoever said the first year doesn't matter was a fucking liar. On the other hand, my economics-majoring cousin ended up applying to and getting into a Master's program, despite his shit marks, and it happened because it impressed a few professors. However, it was a M.Ed., so it may not be relevant to you.

A caveat: I'm Canadian, so what goes on in universities here I couldn't be sure is the same thing that goes on American or other universities.

>>2928347
>he thinks I wasn't being sarcastic in saying he helped out

>>2928296

That's sort of like saying, to paraphrase the meteorologist Jeff Masters, we should ignore the fire in the attic because the basement is a bit cooler than usual

Anyway, the scientific explanation is that the ozone hole has cooled the Stratosphere over the Antarctic, encouraging the development of cyclonic wind patterns which are conducive to breaking up and swirling the sea ice. This creates small pockets of open sea that freeze over easier. Furthermore, precipitation has increased to to higher specific humidity, freshening the surface waters and stratifying the Southern ocean. With the layers separated, less warm water is transported to the surface even though the oceans are warming on the whole, thus the net effect is increased Antarctic sea ice.

The problem with focusing on this is that the sea ice down there doesn't matter as much to us as the sea ice in the Arctic, since it is the Arctic that produces the short-term positive feedback where albedo decreases when dark ocean replaces reflective ice. The Antarctic on the other hand will remain mostly frozen for thousands of years even in the most extreme global warming scenarios. -80 C warming 20 degrees is still -60 C.

One final note: the ice sheets on the Antarctic land mass are rapidly losing mass, and the West Antarctic ice sheet is particularly vulnerable to collapse due to its situation on the sea bed. It isn't anchored by anything except gravity, and unlike Greenland, it's melt rate is not constrained by ice flow dynamics. It can melt as fast as the sea can remove its iceberg wastage. This is another example of the IPCC being too conservative, as the both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets were not supposed to melt at all this century according to their models.

>>2928368

You didn't say that cuntface, I did. And I'm serious. This thread was a fucking train wreck of bullshit.

THIS IS WHAT "SKEPTICS" ACTUALLY BELIEVE

>>2928426

I'm afraid I've killed the thread.

Serious discussion is not allowed, only trolling

>>2928482

Fuck, I forgot.

alright, I have a question then

if anthropogenic global warming has been more or less correctly ascertaintaned by the IPCC (as I personally am inclined to believe)

is there actually anything that can practically be done? will cutting gas emissions drastically make much of a difference at this point? (as opposed to just gradually switching over to renewable energies anyway as oil prices go up)

anyone know about this aspect of the topic?

>>2928569

See Lester Brown's books and the Scientific American article linked in this post, at the bottom:

>>2928215

A carbon neutral economy is completely technologically and economically feasible. In nearly every economic study comparing the cost of mitigation vs. the unmitigated impacts of global warming, the latter is usually far more expensive. Other greenhouse gases are easier to limit, but CO2 is the one with the most staying power in the atmosphere, so it makes more sense to limit CO2 first then attack the others when the opportunity arises (or if we fuck up bad and we need a quick fix to buy time)

However, good economic sense and high oil prices will not automatically favour renewable energy in economic terms, and it definitely will not favour nuclear energy (unfortunately)

We basically have two choices: go down the decarbonization path, or spend more and more effort trying to extract every last drop of oil: tar sands, oil shale, coal gasification, you name it. Eventually, renewables will be cost competitive with any fossil fuel energy source, but we already have this deeply ingrained infrastructure (mines, pipelines, gas stations, car culture, etc.) and powerful political interest in keeping the money flowing towards fossil fuel industries. What's more, China and India's growing middle class will demand the right to own their own cars and eat as much meat as westerners do, and in the short run these demands can only be satisfied with fossil fuels, even though both are expending a lot of money on green energy. So it comes down to a matter of politics and of international relations. There might be like a culture shift where suddenly everyone realizes we have a big problem on our hands that needs fixing, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Doesn't matter. I'm not going to support a carbon tax, eat a dick.

>>2928603

Also see:

http://www.capanddividend.org/

This is the best market measure I've seen that would be politically feasible and attractive to voters who aren't Tea Party fags

>>2928207
>ignoring negative economic effects

DERP.

>>2928613

gb2 /new/

>>2928615
Eat shit. Fuck over the poor a bit more and you'll face revolution.

>>2928616

>>2928617
Make me faggit.

>>2928619

>implying that the poor won't be hurt the most by global warming

>implying you actually give a shit about the poor

>implying you understand economics or science at all

Implying implications

>>2928620
Cool source bro.

If renewables can't compete economically with fossil fuels then they CANNOT BE USED without lowering standards of living globally. This is economic FACT and if you argue otherwise you're a creationist.

>>2928626
>implying you aren't a faggot libturd

>>2928616
That was the fucking cartoon that was mentioned earlier. It has no bearing whatsoever on the science.

>>2928628
FREE MARKET SOLVES EVERYTHING~!!!

>>2928628

Have you noticed the gas price lately? Renewable energy WILL be less expensive than fossil fuel energy; it's only a matter of time. Hell, take out the subsidies and add in the health costs, and coal is already out-competed by wind. What matters is whether the politics supports expansion of renewables or whether it goes towards unconventional fossil fuels.

Sources for that graph:

http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43084.de/diw_wr_2005-12.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/studies/package/docs/final_report2.pdf

And for a really massive estimate of the costs of unmitigated climate change (1.28 quadrillion USD), see:

http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=11501IIED

resource depletion will automatically counter it, who cares

incidentally if there is anything worth getting hysterical about it's the inevitable malthusian catastrophe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZAQOPp6340&feature=fvst

the world is fucking beautiful, we should stop fucking it up.

>>2928632

By all means, I'd rather be a liberal who knows what my own interests are than a conservative who blindly follows Monckton and the Kochs off a cliff

>>2928664
>it's only a matter of time.

Now, is that before or after it's too late?

>>2928674

1. Let women work for equal wages
2. Make contraception available
3. Legalize abortion
4. Offer family planning services
5. Promote small family sizes
6. Sex ed in schools

Problem solved, and it even works in very poor places like that pilot project to reduce birth rates in India

>>2928676
>Liberal
>Self-interest
lol

>>2928684
7. In countries with unsustainable birth rates.
8. Ban immigration from these countries until their birth rates are sane.

yep yep yep

>>2928677

I can't answer that question. It depends on the collective will.

It's possible that it's already too late, but quick action can limit the damage.

>>2928645
GOVERNMENT SOLVES EVERYTHING!!!111

>>2928676
>HERPDERP KOCH BROTHERS

Keep sucking that propaganda cock.

Doesn't matter. No new taxes will be imposed in the US. Period.

>>2928706

Holy shit dude

Even athens is better than you

At least he's somewhat intelligent and knows when to duck out of argument when he's out of his element

>>2928717
Let's just ignore him.

There's no useful discussion there.

>>2928675

I think so too

But as an argument it doesn't sway most people, and it earns disrespect from those who respect only instrumental value, so I can't use it as much as I like

>>2928684

Also this:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

>>2927521
While I agree with what you are saying in one sense, my position cannot be "I'm going to pretend it's real because while there's no way to make sense of the clusterfuck right now, what if the sky really is falling!?"

Similarly, a Christian once asked me the same question about God, I explained to him that the evidence for God did not seem "credible," because there are agendas behind it. Oddly, the anthro climate change destroying the Earth belief is very similar in this regard, and for instance you just tried to argue that we should assume it's real "in case" it is. "Don't want to be on the wrong side of the gamble and go to hell!" after all.

Now you sound like a Christian apologist.

>>2928645
The Market is nowhere near close to "free" and has not been for at least a century, any issues with the modern market system cannot be attributed to it being "free," but rather can be attributed to the Plutocratic nature of our market and how it is so difficult to find a dividing line between our largest corporations and the government itself.

It could be argued that a free market leads to a plutocracy though, and so a free market is unsustainable because once the right people get enough money, they inevitably embed themselves with the state in order to end the free market (because they do not want to lose their positions on the top).

Blaming everything that's happening now on a "free market" is patently absurd when we have official government policies of "Too Big To Fail." And when the FBI refuses to prosecute people if they are high up in the Financial Corporate Ladder, like this guy who ran over a bicyclist in Nov 2010, then drove away without getting help, but the prosecutors decided that it would "harm his career" if they pressed charges.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/08/wealthy-fund-manager-avoids-felony-charges-running-cyclist/

It's not a "free market."

I say it every time one of these threads comes up. The issue is not climate change. Most people can accept that the climate is changing because that is what climate does. The issue is AGW. And without raw data observed by people with a scientific background other than the climatologists that have been stirring up this shitstorm, I personally cannot blindly accept their potentially spurious claims.

And since those same climatologists have destroyed data and refused to give out data to people they disagree with, I just cannot in any kind of reasonable frame of mind accept what they are saying.

BTW, the scientists they ask about AGW in the image in >>2926964
are climatologists. The very people that have been screaming bloody murder about this and then refusing to share data.

>>2929030
As a climatology student, your claims are somewhat on the mark. It's true that the general public does not have access to the data from climate science. But the reality is that the data is in print. You just have to buy the journals to get access to do that.

But climatologists are scientists too. I should note that the IPCC is probably one of the most deliberate and peer reviewed organizations. Only recently (the 2007 publication) have they shown that global warming PROBABLY exists.

The release document is on their website (http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html#6-6-1).). It's a pretty wordy, boring article honestly.

From a climate scientists perspective, we think that we have found a trend that may be global warming. The problem is that this trend may have great implications to society. So, should we ignore that possibility and possibly be fucked, or try to change society for the better and be safer (even if we're wrong!)

>>2929162
All I want is raw data. I'm a physics student. I'm accustomed to looking at complex systems. But if your professors even think I might be a "denier" they will refuse to give me their data.

REAL scientists want skeptics looking at their data. If I claim to have found a quark star, I would expect every scientist with an interest to demand my data. Which I would happily provide if I was sure of my findings.

Also, the IPCC is not a group of scientists, its bureaucrats.

>>2929162
"
From a climate scientists perspective, we think that we have found a trend that may be global warming. The problem is that this trend may have great implications to society. So, should we ignore that possibility and possibly be fucked, or try to change society for the better and be safer (even if we're wrong!)"

In other words, you have a vested interest in your position on anthro climate change. Coming straight from the horse's mouth, this is why it can't be taken seriously.

They want to be right and believe action should be taken even if they are wrong, and the data is not available to the public unless they "pay" for it.

Additionally, the data that is available is not the raw data, but "adjusted" data that they consider the same as raw because it supports their agenda.

Nevermind that a 100 year spike in temperature doesn't even guarantee that temperatures won't start dropping the very next century, since climate change is a long term affair rather.

From the horse's mouth:
"The problem is that this trend may have great implications to society. So, should we ignore that possibility and possibly be fucked, or try to change society for the better and be safer (even if we're wrong!)"

Climate "science" is an agenda.

>>2929205
>>2929205
im pretty sure you just made that shit up also considering i can access papers in climate change in my uni with no difficulty at all

>>2929422
While that guy may have been bullshitting and have access through his university, the vast majority of the population isn't currently in University, they are either graduated, dropped out, or never went in the first place.

This data is restricted because you either have to pay for it or be a special class of citizen (University Student) to look at it, it's very similar to how the scribes of the catholic church way back when were the only ones allowed to read the bible.

>>2929573

The data isn't restricted faggots, it's plastered all over the internet and you don't even need a university subscription to access 99.9% of it

These guys:

>>2929162
>>2929205

Are either trolls or they fail a Google, because this took me 10 seconds to find:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/
http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/
http://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/
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.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html

etc etc.

>>2929573

So there's the data, but apparently university students and researchers are part of some Catholic Church, not actually doing any research or learning any science but dispensing knowledge on the masses

To that I say: go fuck yourself

As you can see the data is available to all. The question is, do you have the expertise necessary to analyze it? For that you'll probably have to learn from a university, but I've given you the option to teach it to yourself:

>>2928123
>>2928148
>>2928180
>>2928215

Use your brain for once, not everything's a god damn conspiracy

>>2928919

>Oddly, the anthro climate change destroying the Earth belief is very similar in this regard, and for instance you just tried to argue that we should assume it's real "in case" it is.

Belief in the Bible based on God and the Church isn't the same thing as knowledge that global warming is happening due to an energy imbalance caused by excess radiative forcing shown by physical evidence. And Pascal's Wager is not the same thing as professional risk management.

I sense that perhaps textbooks aren't the best place to start learning.

Here is Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming, available online in a series of hyperlinked articles. Covers everything from the late 18th century to the very recent past on the history of climate science. He also has it in paper book format which I strongly recommend.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

If you want to see the primary documents, I reccommend Archer and Pierrehumbert's (Eds.) collection, The Warming Papers. Unfortunately I don't have a pdf here. This website provides a fair substitute:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

READ THESE FIRST before you open your mouth about "global warming = religion" bullshit

>>2929223

The enormous wad of bullshit in the rest of your post was covered by my last few posts. As for this:

>Nevermind that a 100 year spike in temperature doesn't even guarantee that temperatures won't start dropping the very next century, since climate change is a long term affair rather.

You don't realize HOW we know the temperature will increase? Satellites have detected increasing outgoing longwave radiation from the Earth, and the physics dictate that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, more energy will be trapped in the system. This creates an energy imbalance, which can only be removed by heating the Earth or eliminating the forcing. Long-term cooling at this point is physically impossible, even if all anthropogenic CO2 magically disappeared tomorrow.

>>2926964
>are not convinced

I'd be in that group despite the fact I think it's probably happening and that measures against it should definitely be put into place. This data is useless.

>>2929693
How did the Earth cool previously when it had higher concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere than it does now?

The Earth has gone through periods with significantly higher co2 concentrations than we are experiencing now, so your fear mongering is hilarious.

>>2926953
LMAO

>>2929682
I like how you assume that because I disagree with you, and because I've called anthro climate change out for the religious hackery it is, I haven't read a massive amount of information on both sides.

My argument is that both sides are too politically/emotionally/financially/socially charged to take seriously. I do not believe either "side" is credible, precisely because they are "sides," which is contradictory to the purpose of scientific pursuit.

You don't know anything about me, and I'm not going to sit here and discuss my credentials, but you are certainly mongering religiously and reactively. You are getting angry and upset and making assumptions about the knowledge of the people who disagree with or question you.

You also use misleading phrases such as "global warming" when the real debate is not about whether or not the climate on Earth goes through changes over time, but whether or not man is the primary culprit behind it or whether or not we have any control over the "global" climate.

Unfortunately our data for climate change world wide more than five decades ago is severely compromised especially when trying to make judgments about short term temperature drops and spikes. We can look back at a 1000 year change in climate, but it is more difficult for us to say that "a temperature increase over 40 years did not occur" because we were not recording in a way that makes this possible 100,000 years ago.

It is absolutely a religious venture, and religious people tell me that god is a "fact" too, oddly, they have a very similar attitude to yours about their own faith.

http://www.skepticalscience.com

Lubos Motl believes in global warming

>>2930039
This is an example of a propaganda website which supports one "side" of the argument.

"skepticalscience" is asking us not to be skeptical at all, it's doublespeak.

>>2930004

1. Weaker solar irradiance. The Sun has been very gradually warming. During "snowball Earth" conditions, the Sun was 30% weaker than it is now.

2. Continental drift was favourable towards the existence of large, stable ice sheets

3. Once they existed, high albedo across the whole Earth was an extremely strong negative forcing

4. What do you think brought the Earth OUT of snowball Earth conditions? The only plausible explanation is high enough CO2 levels that accumulated due to the lack of rock weathering and ocean uptake, in sufficient quantity to overcome the negative feedbacks of strong albedo and the weak Sun.

It's like you really believe that scientists don't think about these questions and have never seriously analyzed them

Protip: someone analyzed paleoclimate and told you how high those CO2 concentrations were in the distant past. Can you guess who they are?

Hints: a) it wasn't you; and b) it rhymes with "blimatologist" and are coincidentally the exact same people you believe are lying about climate change to you

>>2930033

>I do not believe either "side" is credible, precisely because they are "sides,"

That's retarded. C'mon, this is /sci/ you should know that the existence of "sides" does not make everything equally valid, CNN-style. There's a vaccines-causes-autism side. There's a flat-Earth side. And you must certainly know that there is a creationism side. These "sides" exist, but in what way are they of equally validity to established scientific evidence?

>It is absolutely a religious venture, and religious people tell me that god is a "fact" too, oddly, they have a very similar attitude to yours about their own faith.

That's just tone trolling. Have you demonstrated knowledge of evidence or arguments that disproves global warming, or that humanity is not driving modern climate change? I haven't seen it. Yet you are willing to dismiss the vast body of evidence in favour of real scientific understanding because it all seems vaguely distasteful to you.

You have claimed that you've read a lot. Okay, sure. Doesn't seem like it. But there's a few places that I'm quite sure you haven't been to. Read The Warming Papers and read The Discovery of Global Warming FIRST.

Then read this:

http://www.mediafire.com/?a31tiy7cfy2sgde

http://www.mediafire.com/?1wozy30z8co00ab

And if you've got the skill in math and physics, read these:

http://www.mediafire.com/?b3c7i6vh0kc8w19

http://www.mediafire.com/?eenoyepca1pacth

THEN I'll believe that you've adequately read and understood "both sides"

>>2926944
errmmm. the 1600's would like to have a word with you...

Is it worth destroying our economy to 'fix' a problem that may or may not have any significant impact on us in the foresable future?

>>2930171

The 1600s was the coldest part of the Little Ice Age

>>2930160
Not buying the claim that anthro climate change is the primary culprit for the climate change we are experiencing is not the same type of argument as "Did a magic sky god create everything!?"

First of all, creationists are the ones asserting that "god did it!," in this case, you are asserting that "Man is changing the climate!!"

I'm saying that I'm not convinced, and you are calling me a creationist.

"Have you demonstrated knowledge of evidence or arguments that disproves global warming"

vis a vis:

"Have you demonstrated knowledge of evidence or arguments that disproves God created the Universe?"

I will check out your sources, but please do not assume that just because I am not convinced it must mean I am less educated or informed than you are. That is idiocy. Someone who is just as informed and just as educated and just as intelligent as you can disagree with you on something you believe to be self evident. Deal with it.

>>2930174

See:

>>2927983

>>2928020
>>2928215
>>2928603
>>2928615
>>2928620
>>2928664

Please read the thread before posting

ITT: the precautionary principle dies a slow death
but hey fuck it, I can't wait for this shit to really snowball, it'll be entertaining as all hell to watch

>>2926944
No it isn't, they are PREDICTING a warm period that the world has never seen before. We are currently in a significantly colder climate than what has been experienced prior in Earth history, please do not blatantly make shit up to support your religious belief.

Did you know that the ice caps mean we are in an ice age (Quaternary period), and that the end of an ice age is DEFINED by the melting of the ice caps?

We are in nowhere near as warm a "warm period" as we have been in the past, you are making some absurd fucking claims, we are in a goddamn ICE AGE.

>>2930174
>>Is it worth destroying our economy to 'fix' a problem that may or may not have any significant impact on us in the foresable future?

yes, since that's hyperbole
and "significant" is pretty damn significant in this case

>>2928207
> The idea that it's cool if the whole thing is a lie.

Propaganda, and exactly why it can't be taken seriously.

"Hey guys, if it's not anthro caused, we'll still have improved the world so it's okay! Science is about social norms not the scientific method and objective research!"

The fact that these arguments that "it's still good if it's a lie" are given so much credence as to get their own propaganda cartoons is an overwhelming suggestion of the political motivation behind "humans are making the sky fall!"

where's that blog that had all the photos of the climate data sensors that didn't comply with regulations? (by air conditioners, in the middle of parking lots, by car parks, etc.)

>>2930182

I'm sure you're quite intelligent, and I'm very grateful and glad that you're willing to check out the sources. I don't assume for a second that you're less intelligent than me. But you clearly haven't been following the literature (except the skeptic literature I guess).

At one point I believed global warming was exaggerated too. But then all these contradictions added up, while the scientific evidence for it only grew stronger. Examples:

>Lol there's no such thing as a global average temperature and NASA is fudging their weather records

>Look! NASA has shown that Mars is cooling! Isn't it interesting that we can know Mars's global surface temperature better than Earth's?

And

>I'm a poor skeptic scientist who can't get published or find any grants because of the ingrained orthodoxy =(

>HEY GUISE LOOK I GOT PUBLISHED IN GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS LOOKS LIKE SKEPTIC SCIENCE IS PRO

Etc.

>>2930198
If god is real you are going to hell!

>>2930213

It was WattsUpWithThat. But it turned out that, when they eliminated all the bad stations from the record, the record barely changed. In fact, the bad stations had a slight COOLING bias.

Ultimately as a source of science it's two steps above TimeCube

>>2930213

asked too soon

found:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

>>2930223
source?

>>2930217
I can't respond to you until I've finished reading your sources, but I think your post is silly, I've read an assload on this subject.

By the way I am well aware and do not deny that the climate changes, that's not what I'm skeptical of at all. I'm skeptical of the idea that short term accurate recording demonstrating a spike in temperatures is even an anomaly in the first place, it seems incredibly more likely that short term spikes and drops can occur while the overall 10,000 year average maintains its course.

Much of what I have read suggests this to be the case, but again, I need to read what you've presented as well since I said I would.

Unfortunately this thread may be 404d/auto saged before I finish, but know that I did at least read the material.

>>2930223
How do we know those were the only bad stations? You mean "all the bad stations that got caught?"

When you remove a bunch of stations does it imply that those stations were not needed in the first place? Regardless of which way the 'bias' went, bad science is bad science.

Don't forget the "lost" raw data:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Climate Change is just a natural alteration of weather patterns that makes it inconvenient for certain demographics of people settled in specific parts of the world to continue the lifestyle their ancestors once had.

On the one hand Africa receives less rainfall, but other regions will get more, and the Northwest Passage will finally be open year round.

>>2930238

What you're saying is tantamount to a conspiracy of thermometer-makers

Anyway, the raw data. Yeah. What's with people flooding in without reading the thread?

Here you go:

>>2929646

Anyway I must be heading off. If this thread is alive when I get back I'm happy to answer more questions.

I looked at those sources, most of them do not supply "raw data." Instead they supply propaganda bar graphs and the like.

Maybe instead of telling others to read sources you should first read them yourself instead of just assuming they provide what the post claimed they provided?

ITT: a bunch of fags that aren't thinking of the polar bears

>>2928919
>>Oddly, the anthro climate change destroying the Earth belief is very similar in this regard, and for instance you just tried to argue that we should assume it's real "in case" it is. "Don't want to be on the wrong side of the gamble and go to hell!" after all.

hey, hey now
I didn't say that at all

I just pointed out, accurately, that with this position there's no difference, in effect, between siding with skeptics or assuming neither side is credible

so even if you don't trust the politics of either side, there could perhaps be a better stance than this?

Climate change is a left-winged conspiracy that gives my money out to fucking polar bears

>>2930263
Polar Bears are not a necessary component of the Human Biosphere, we dont really need them.

>>2930255
> implying adjusted data converted into means is "raw data."

Nice fucking try. This is all data which is adjusted and then averaged. They even have a name for their software that adjusts it, it's called:
"Version 2 Bias Correction Software

The automated bias correction software (Peterson and Easterling, 1994; Easterling and Peterson, 1995) used to detect and adjust for documented and undocumented inhomogeneities in the GHCN-Monthly version 2 monthly temperature dataset is available via ftp at:"

Us proles don't get to see the raw unadjusted data, instead we get to see data that is adjusted for "bias."

That's on the sources listed that actually provide data, the other sources just give us pretty graphs to look at and more propaganda.

Again, it's really pathetic that you guys googled this shit, posted it for us to read, and didn't even check for yourselves whether or not it provided what you claimed it provided, and then ridiculed others for not reading it.

>>2930266
If someone walks up to you and claims "God exists."

Another man walks up to you and claims "God does not exist."

Do you take the default position of "Well, neither are trustworthy, but I don't want to side with that "skeptic!" so I'll just pretend God exists until it's proven he doesn't!"
???

Raw data sets still haven't been provided in this thread, the closest we've got so far is mean averages of data which were also adjusted by "Version 2 Bias Correction Software" of the NOIAA ( ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/source/inhomog/README.homogeneity )

"The following programs (pe.f, ep.f, adj.mon.f) were written by
Dr. Thomas Peterson and Dr. David Easterling and were used to adjust
Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v2 data. The pe.f program
used a proprietary sort routine and thus it has not been redistributed
with the source code file, so users will need to introduce their
own sort routine.

Current homogenization is done with the Pairwise Homogeneity Algorithm
used in the US Historical Climate Network. Information and code may be
found at:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/software/"

The bias adjustment software routines are also not open source.

Fucking laughable.

Hey end of the world fags, how many of the models are not diverging from reality right now?

>>2930291
>>If someone walks up to you and claims "God exists."

>>Another man walks up to you and claims "God does not exist."

>>Do you take the default position of "Well, neither are trustworthy, but I don't want to side with that "skeptic!" so I'll just pretend God exists until it's proven he doesn't!"
???

considering the first man presented absolutely no evidence for his case, no I would not

AGW has evidence for it, even if you may not consider it sufficient or entirely reliable evidence

however my actual point here was not disagreeing with the sentiment of trusting neither side (which I can somewhat understand), but rather the position of then recommending the same damn course of action AGW skeptics would have you take anyway

ugh... it's just way too damn easy to engineer "controversy" these days

>>2930347
When someone says "the sky is falling! Change your way of life and pay me taxes on every mile you drive your car, so if you're poor you have an additional burden on travel!" I'm not going to default to the position that harms me unless I believe it's really necessary.

It's not about "siding" with the skeptics at all, I think that big oil is shady as fuck and I don't trust them for a flying second, and while I don't mean to "agree" with their stance, I need to actually believe something before I support legislation because of it.