/sci/ - Science & Math

It's impossible to tell.

I feel it is 80% coincidental, but 20% exacerbated by humans.

0/10

inb4 200 replies and that guy posting numerous things to read and no one reading them.

>>3143657
This kind of dichotomous thinking is what gets people confused. In this thread there will soon be many graphs posted of past warm periods. Somehow these are supposed to prove that humans can't have an effect on warming, because " Derp, the climate can change without humans, therefore humans can't change the climate"

The Earth's temperature is effected by multiple factors. One of which is the concentration of greenhouse gases which humans are influencing.

>>3143672
My apologies, wise one. My intentions were unclear. I was also looking forward to input that included some mix (as that is where I stand)

great input, too, thank you

>>3143657

Anthropogenic as fuck

Check out these ice ages. The rate of temperature change was about 0.1 degrees Celsius per century. Current global surface temperature change is about 1.0 per century, and assuming business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions this figure will increase dramatically in the twenty-second century. Temperatures are very likely higher than at any point in at least the past 1300 years, and possibly warmer than peak Holocene and peak MIS5 temperatures.

Of course the paleoclimate record is not the only way we can tell, but it's commonly mentioned in mass media and documentaries because of the nice clear graphs you get out of it. People tend to get put off by explanations about the HITRAN molecular spectroscopy database and isotopic ratios of C12/C13 atoms etc etc.

>>3143664

>80% coincidental

pffffffffffft

>>3143670

y u so mad

If it bothers you so much I won't repost them. All the links are in /rs/

In terms of difficulty level, and less math to more: TTC < Houghton = Pittock < IPCC < Archer < Letcher < Hartmann < Pierrehumbert

>>3143723
what's your opinion?

>>3143723

Missed Serreze. Understanding Recent Climate Change. Should be down at the bottom I think.

If winter evolved into summer then why is there still snow?

Checkmate, Buddhists.

>>3143662
>It's impossible to tell [whether global warming is anthropogenic or natural]

lolwhat?

>>3143736

Sorry, that should have been
>it's impossible to tell without expending a minimal amount of effort on research; therefore, I will never know

>>3143723
not mad at the people that post them, just those that don't read them

this has become like religion, people just refuse to change their opinion and won't remove their bias before looking at anything

i even argued with a manager who was interviewing me for a job about it he was an idiot.

>implying anthropogenic climate change is unnatural
The rise and fall of technological civilizations is nature's own thermostat.

>>3143723
where in /rs/?

>>3143726

Climate is affected by a number of different forcings, the most important of them on short timescales (tens or hundreds of years) being volcanic, solar, and greenhouse gas changes. Volcanic and solar forcings have not dramatically changed during the period of fastest warming, and solar forcing has effectively been decoupled from the warming trend since the 1960s. At this point anthropogenic GHG forcing is so strong that even another Pinatubo could only pause the warming temporarily.

I believe that the IPCC is too conservative, and they take their sweet time considering papers and writing their reports (which in all fairness are fucking gigantic), and this leads them to publish slightly outdated findings in their main Assessment Reports. This is a problem because science of climate change moves very quickly, and the IPCC is just too unwieldy to keep up. Consequently, most of the key indicators of global warming, minimum Arctic sea ice extent, carbon dioxide concentrations, number and intensity of extreme weather events, ice sheet wastage, and so on, have all been worse than originally expected.

>>3143760

You can search up those names, or just click /sci/ under the drop-down menu

>>3143768
>>3143764
thank you both. I'll try and give a read with as much time as I have.

Did someone post a global warming thread?

"Global Warming" is synonymous with logical fallacy

Here's what you 99.9% of this debate on the internet falls under:

>Cherry picking (Usually uncited and/or vague graphs made in ms paint)
>Massive amounts of Straw men
>Massive amounts of ad hominem
>False dichotomies
>Weak analogies
>Appeal to authority
>Appeal to ignorance
>Ad populum
>Post hoc
>Generalizations

Repeat for 200 posts and then repeat again until tomorrow.


If you participate in this thread and you are not a climatologist, or without sage, then you are a fucking idiot, no exceptions

>>3143779
>>nice copypasta
now, read the actual posts and realize none of them involve any of that.
fullretard.jpg

because god made it that way

>>3143730

I'm actually not familiar with that paper. I know Serreze is a very capable researcher on Arctic ice. Pasting the paper here if anyone is interested:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01408.x/abstract

Maybe people who would prefer short review articles like that one, instead of the 500-page tomes I've been uploading, would like to read those instead:

Weart - The idea of anthropogenic climate change in the 20th century

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.6/abstract

Houghton - Global warming

http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/68/6/R02

Keller - Global warming: a review of this mostly settled issue

http://www.springerlink.com/content/6801631u70ng0432/

Smith et al. - Assessing dangerous climate change

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.short

Lacis et al. - Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

Also of interest are James Hansen's big review papers on modelling, surface temperature, and energy imbalances

because god made it that way

Natural, just the way God made it!

>>3143764
>>3143693
>>3143657
God Made it taht way man!!

god made it that way

I think God made it that way

>>3143774

Just a word of warning, nearly all those books are academic college textbooks, so they might make for dry reading. Pierrehumbert and Hartmann's books require actual math skills, as do some of the others I haven't mentioned here but are listed in /rs/

It's how god made it.

>>3143831
>>3143829
>>3143819
>>3143812
>>3143810
>>3143801

Oh skeptics, u so silly

I think it was the making of god

Captcha.. Dayona Sci.

There's fucking hidden messages in captchas..

god controls the earth nonbelievers will pay.
global warming is here for a reason, and god knows that reason

What's with all these spammers? I thought /sci/ was better than that

>>3144058
It's a /b/ raid, it will be over in like 10 minutes, and then they'll go post dicks on /s/ or something.

>>3144058
it's just the way god made it

>>3144078

Thank God for the 4chan filter

>>3143923 skeptics

I believe the word you're looking for is denialist. A skeptic is someone who demands to be given evidence. A denialist is someone who avoids and ignores evidence.

>>3144078

Ebaumsworld world is behind this not /b/

>>3144173

God is behind this, not ebaums.

>>3143693
>0.1 degrees Celsius per century
long-term delta
>Current global surface temperature change is about 1.0 per century
short-term delta

Average out current change over 1,000 years, and you'll get the same thing you get with the same measure in the paleo data.

>>3144143

I guess "skeptic" has a better ring to it? If you call people "denialists" then they understand that as an insult and stop listening to you. On the other hand, denial is a pretty accurate description of what they're going through at this point

>Summer 2003: 35,000 people dead across Europe

>August 2005: Hurricane Katrina, 2,000 dead

>July-August 2010: 58,000 people dead in Moscow; 2,000+ dead in Pakistan, crops fail around the world

>December 2010--January 2011: unprecedented flooding in Australia, Argentina, Sri Lanka, etc.

>April-May 2011 wildfires and tornadoes errywhere

All just part of the natural cycle folks, nothing to see here. "Unprecedented" and "never recorded in the instrumental record" and "extremely low probability" are just codewords for raising your taxes and hurting your freedoms

>>3143744
Nope. I devoted myself to reading all the climatology papers and downloading all the ice core data and reproducing the analysis. There is no strong evidence to connect any surface temperature changes to anthropogenic causes, except in urban built up areas. If the fluctuations in the global surface average are significantly correlated to human actions, it is in my opinion far more likely that those actions are urban buildup, deforrestation, and roads, rather than greenhouse gases, based on my analysis of both. But as I said, it is impossible to come to a scientific conclusion to correlate either one to the fluctuations we see in the global temperature, as there are too many variables, and none of the models fit closely enough to the measured data to validate a correlation that way.

>>3144235

So to correctly understand modern day climate change, we need to use 1000-year moving averages? Good lord, philosopher you may be, but statistician and paleoclimatologist you are certainly not

>>3144295
That's what you got out of that? lol. No. To understand climate change you must non abuse statistics in the process.

>>3144271

Isn't that just WattsUpWithThat bullshit? Watts co-authored a paper recently, so the TV weatherman finally gets into the limelight with a peer-reviewed paper, in press at JGR. Turns out that the instrumental record is actually reliable, a finding that is corroborated by Menne et al. 2010 and the satellite record. Or is the satellite record too close to a parking lot to trust?

Besides, the fastest warming is occurring in the Arctic, where there are the fewest permanent weather stations. If anything, the instrumental record underestimated the level of warming so far.

>>3144317

Your words:

>Average out current change over 1,000 years

Gee, I wonder what the fuck you're actually talking about

>>3144323
I don't know what paper you're talking about, as I did my survey a couple years ago and haven't been following it closely since then. You should be aware however, that EVERY averaged global surface temperature dataset you see has the urban areas "corrected" for urban heat islands. It's not the actual global average, which is much hotter than what the numbers show, and is much hotter because of the urban heat islands and no other reason. These are increasing faster than the arctic.

I haven't found any models for how this urban heat is supposed to affect the global system -- it seems to be ignored, and Mann and Hansen et al, rage against talk about it, and IIRC were talking about keeping the discussion of this out of the journals that they control, because it is a distraction from the greenhouse gas theory. This isn't how science should be done.

I'm open to being convinced that the increase of CO2 has caused warming. I tried to convince myself, following ever footnote for the claimed amounts of CO2 radiative forcing, and failing that I've been asking whoever makes the claim online to convince me, and of course they just say I'm stupid and in denial. But I will believe whatever the evidence suggests. If I'm missing something, I'm all ears.

>>3144333
We don't have 100-year resolution deltas in the paleo data, like in the modern data. You have to compare apples to apples.

>>3143657
>Anthropogenic

\thread

>what is the temp supposed to be?

>thermometers recording the WORLDS temp pre 20th century.... lol

Population growth is the problem here, not the climate change. And this does not mean that the population growth = more climate change, or at least that is another argument.

As population grows and people move into less desirable areas to live, we see the effects of climate on the human condition more. So I'm not arguing against climate change I just refuse to point to hurricane katrina and say "LOL see Global warmists told you so..."

cause honestly building a city below sea leval on a coast... something wrong is bound to happen, for that example.

There is more hysteria and politics involved here than actual sci. And its ALL alarmist rantings.

>>3143807
I'd like to read these. Do free versions exist anywhere?

>>3144366
Wait... your argument is that overpopulation forced people to settle into New Orleans because they were crowded out of more desirable (meaning above-sea-level) locales?

>>3144353
>>3144353
Do you have any peer-reviewed publications that claim that global warming does not have anthropogenic causes?

Protip: your answer to this question determines your credibility.

>>3144384
no, but I see how I worded it to sound that way

>>3144385
I didn't make that claim. My claim is that the peer-reviewed publications do not as a whole meet any kind of strong burden of proof that global warming does have an anthropogenic cause. I think there's reasonably strong indication that some global warming my be happening through anthropogenic urban heating effects, but I have NOT seen the same to suggest that the IPCC claim is true that it is anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect.

>>3144353

>I haven't found any models for how this urban heat is supposed to affect the global system -- it seems to be ignored, and Mann and Hansen et al, rage against talk about it, and IIRC were talking about keeping the discussion of this out of the journals that they control, because it is a distraction from the greenhouse gas theory.

You're talking out of your ass. Watt's paper is in press and due to be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Anthony Watts, the guy who made nitpicking climate scientists his life's work, managed to get published in a reputable journal. So has Stephen McIntyre.

The specific matter of urban heat island analysis isn't being kept out of peer-reviewed literature. Look up those terms on Google Scholar and you get 159,000 hits. Mann and Hansen aren't journal editors, and even if they were, they couldn't keep out legit papers on UHI even if they wanted to.

Also, if UHI falsifies the warming prognosis, how could it possibly force species habitats upwards and polewards, melt glaciers and ice sheets, or cause the sea level to rise?

>>3144406
> Mann and Hansen aren't journal editors, and even if they were, they couldn't keep out legit papers on UHI even if they wanted to.
You haven't read the leaked emails, have you?

>Also, if UHI falsifies the warming prognosis, how could it possibly force species habitats upwards and polewards, melt glaciers and ice sheets, or cause the sea level to rise?
It's a more likely cause of warming, not a non-warming prognosis.

>>3144422

Do you really buy into all that Climategate bullshit? They've been investigated by PSU, by UEA, by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, by the Independent Climate Change E-Mail Inquiry, and by Associated Press. None of them found any evidence for unduly pressuring the peer review process, or of faking the science. You've been deceived.

>>3144422

UHI causes warming, globally? How? And how do you explain UHI warming the abyssal depths of the deep ocean?

>>3144450
>UHI causes warming, globally? How?
Uh, convection?
>And how do you explain UHI warming the abyssal depths of the deep ocean?
I'm sorry, do you have abyssal depths temperature data you'd like to share?

>>3144366

>cause honestly building a city below sea leval on a coast... something wrong is bound to happen, for that example.

This is argument is a little bit silly.

Just look at any world map or atlas, or Google Earth. Where are all the major cities located? The ports and gas terminals and navy bases and nuclear power plants and desalinization plants? Infrastructure needs water to function well, and thus the majority of it is located near rivers and coastlines. It isn't stupidity, it's necessity.

>>3144444
Read the emails.

>>3144477

I did. Jones said something along the lines of "we'll keep those papers out, even if we have to redefine peer review" yes?

Did he redefine the peer review process?

Did he even have the power to redefine the peer review process?

The person he was e-mailing. How did he respond?

I'm going to bug out for a bit. I'll check back in an hour or two to see if anyone has links to free versions of those papers.

Don't trust experts. Trust evidence.

>>3144467

Can you quantify the radiative forcing caused by convection from cities?

Papers on abyssal warming:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3682.1

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008JCLI2384.1

http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/3/032006/pdf/1755-1315_6_3_032006.pdf

Not even gonna bother to read this thread, anthropogenic global warming denial is on the level of evolution denial. Yes, the theory and all its projections are that solid.

>>3144498

Uploading to mediafire. This will take about 20 minutes

>>3144532

Whoops it's taking way longer than 20 minutes

Damn it mediafire

>>3144368
>>3144498
>>3144532

You say, "don't trust experts," but I'm not sure how much utility these kinds of large review papers will have for you.

They're named according to lead author and publication year. I've included a bunch of extras. Papers on various salient topics on climate change, including those touched upon in this thread, are included which you can choose to read or ignore.

Upload will finish in about 15 minutes

>>3144873

Okay, here it is:

http://www.mediafire.com/?54kuewevinmngk5

Enjoy

97% of co2 production is done naturally

3% is done by humans

best solution is to adapt

>>3145000

Bitches don't know about my carbon cycle

bump

>>3144873
>You say, "don't trust experts," but I'm not sure how much utility these kinds of large review papers will have for you.
Maybe so. Thanks for uploading anyway. I've downloaded and will read them all. I've read the older ones. The papers about consensus are meaningless to me. I've actually talked to a climatologist who complained that the journal inserted language into his conclusions to indicate support for the consensus although it had nothing to do with his paper. There's a lot of bullshit going on. That's why it's important to only draw conclusions from the evidence.

>>3146496
>journal inserted language into his conclusions to indicate support for the consensus although it had nothing to do with his paper

This journal wouldn't be able to publish anything without his approval. Also, if it were true, he could have asked for a retraction, as any self-respecting scientist would do