/sci/ - Science & Math

That's a very significant portion. We should be alarmed.

>>4062306

The most important thing to me, is that we are spreading a lot of dangerous particles in the atmosphere by burning coal and oil. Reducing the amount of CO2, will also reduce the amount of micro particles we spread, and it will be better for our health.

It would be nice to see a source or two?

Some people like deluding themselves.

>nurrr, nobody should complain about .005% arsenic in their water supply

"The values are small, thus they must be insignificant"
Logical fallacy

What's with the fossil shills lately?

>>4062306
It's bullshit. The only correct one is the leftmost one. Water in gasious form doesn't have a greenhouse effect. Condensed, suspended, water does.
The rightmost graph makes the least sense.

post lies, label them "truth."

>how do you explain that?

>Fluoride aside, it’s true that most crackpot arguments these days take on the veneer of science. Creationism has become Intelligent Design. Global warming deniers write lengthy statistical critiques of climate change research. Tax cutters produce Greek-letter-laden academic papers…

>…science has become increasingly debased, just another partisan tool that an increasing number of people take no more seriously than advertising claims about who has the best pizza. Scientists have their version of science and everyone else has theirs. And that version is decidedly not the same as the “elitist” version practiced by the guys in white lab coats.

>…crackpots have simply learned that their arguments sound better when they’re wrapped in the language of science. As a result, the public now seems to view science as little more than a flag of convenience for whichever side they sympathize with most.

>>4062326
Why do you sage that comment.
I think its an interesting comment, and choose to bump it.
Deal with it.

>>4062321

>Water in gasious form doesn't have a greenhouse effect
>Specific heat of Water Vapor at 300 K -1.864 kJ/kgK
>Specific heat of Carbon Dioxide gas at 300 K - 0.846 kJ/kgK

You sir are an idiot. Learn some high school level thermodynamics.

>implying volume of a gas relative to volumes of other gases makes any difference in our atmosphere

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

Pretty related.

>>4062371
Yes, pretty related, as in pretty much as bogus as the pic in OP.
http://www.grist.org/article/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle

And yes, that "bogus" goes for both the pic and the site it's from.

>>4062306

This picture is deceptive propaganda (note the lack of references).

- The first two graphs are deceptive because because the gas volume is not proportional to the radiative effects of the gases (see http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=la09300d
for the real job)

- the third graph is simply made up bullshit (see pic)

>>4062326
You seem like an intelligent person.
I'd like to test your "crackpotiness" level with this question:
Who do you think did 9/11?

You aren't allowed to post things like this, guys. Global warming is the hippy liberal version of Original Sin. We should all feel bad about it, whatever the reality or facts might be.

>>4062310
People are living longer and healthier lives than ever before.

>>4062396

You do realize that doesn't contradict what he wrote, right?

E.g. see here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/eu-agency-says-air-pollution-cost-europe-102-billion-169-bill
ion-in-2009/2011/11/24/gIQAiTVhrN_story.html

>>4062306
5 seconds in MS paint

>>4062306

Hey guys, imagine a two story house is being flooded.

The owner of the house goes to the basement, scratches his head and says

"Well! There's nothing that / did to cause this, so there's nothing I can do about it!"

And then his house collapses 6 months later due to mold and hubris.

Fuck the fucking fuckers, if global temperature is increasing, something has to be done regardless of anthropogenic.

First of all, put some fucking source of information on picture, some reliable source(no conspiracy theory website)

Climate change deniers are the creationists of climatology. They will skew data, quote-mine, and ignore the vast majority of voices in the climatology community stating the evidence is there. This has no place on /sci/, short of debunking.

Isn't the carbon tax just about "we need a decent amount of money to spending on the environment so here's a measure we can use to make said money"

>>4062434

No, it's about externality pricing.

This one time I farted and it was the tiniest fart, but I had eaten all sorts of chilli and beans the day before and it cleared the room.

Very low fractions of contaminants can have significant effects in materials.

People who believe in Global Warming have not done the research.

Anthropogenic global warming is fact, but why should we care? Each and every one of us will be dead by century's end, long before any significant climate change occurs.

I refuse to reduce my standard of living for the sake of future generations.

>>4062452

The scientists have not done the research?

>>4062463
too many fucktards (aka "environmentalists"), ironically/religiously cling to 'science' as if it were some kind of god. you happen to fall into that category. how do i know? because instead of presenting an intelligent argument, environmentalists typically rest the bulk of their case upon an intangible authoritative fallacy ("those guys over there already proved that thing, therefore anybody who disbelieves them are wackos"). you may as well just say, "global warming must be true because guys wearing white lab coats said so, and i'm too dumb to argue otherwise."

>>4062468

So you have done research on Global warming, then? Could we see it?

>>4062461
and that mindset is why the baby boomers have fucked over the economy for us

>>4062468

Argument to authority is only invalid if the cited authority's expertise isn't relevant. If anyone knows whether or not the Earth's climate is changing and why, it is climate scientists.

>>4062475

Tough luck for us, huh?

I don't expect others to immolate themselves for my good, nor will I sacrifice myself for others.

>>4062478

Who is asking you to immolate yourself?

>>4062473
>>4062476
environmentalists not only fail to acknowledge their errors, fraudulent conclusions and deceptive agenda, they also fail to grasp the extreme irony of their position. since environmentalists rely heavily upon so-called 'scientific' authority to make their case, they should at least have a working knowledge of authority. yet their real life disposition says otherwise.
authority not only creates order, it also attracts those who witness that order. yet the most fanatical environmentalists are typically 50-year-old virgins who have no fucking clue how to attract a woman. normally, a person's lack of sexual prowess would be irrelevant to such a debate, but this distinct lack of personal authority starkly contrasts with their fanatical/religious reliance upon 'scientific' authority.

not to mention the fact that you made your silly declaration in the middle of a totally unrelated thread. you didn't even exercise the common sense to make your own separate thread.


now, i don't want to give the impression that i hate environmentalists or those who are inclined to believe in global warming. but i definitely do oppose the condescending, intellectually vacant manner in which the typical environmentalist attempts to force feed the rest of us this fraudulent theory.

>>4062485

yeah, i hate people who appeal to authority, cause the police are funded by the government. the same government who funded 911 and covered up roswell. you can't trust authority anymore than you can trust hippies.

>>4062485

What you call a "fraudulent theory" has actually existed long before the modern environmentalist movement (see Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground) and is supported by every scientific institution on this planet.

It seems to me that your opinion on global warming is not driven by evidence, but by your political ideology - i.e. the same thing you accuse the environmentalists of.

Of course, you could easily prove me wrong by showing us your research.

>>4062502
>It seems to me that your opinion on global warming is not driven by evidence, but by your political ideology


this is called, "projection."

this is you attempting to project your insecurities onto me--a common chick pastime.

obviously, you're too fucking stupid to read. otherwise, you would've been able to figure out by now that your foolish pride is exactly what we expose on a daily basis--the smug sense of superiority derived from Social Authority. this is the reason why intellectual toddlers like you, tragically nurse on the tits of hipsters your whole life. you're desperately searching for social approval, giving handjobs to those who rule your behavior by the flick of an internet meme.

>>4062476
>Argument to authority is only invalid if the cited authority's expertise isn't relevant. If anyone knows whether or not the Earth's climate is changing and why, it is climate scientists.

notice none of you dumbfucks could even produce ONE SINGLE COHERENT ARGUMENT to support your religious belief in the white lab coat gods.
here let me sum up the gist of your argument: "we're too dumb to come up with anything rational/reasonable ourselves, so we'll just point to the guys in the white lab coats who we blindly put our faith in. of course, we have no idea what the fuck they're talking about... but it sure sounds cool!"

>>4062498
>yeah, i hate people who appeal to authority, cause the police are funded by the government. the same government who funded 911 and covered up roswell. you can't trust authority anymore than you can trust hippies.


like a true mindless hippie, you've declared your feelings while essentially saying NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE. in shorthand, you're what's known as a "fucking moron." you see, fucking morons chronically rely on cliched sophistry--a meaningless recipe of blanket statements that essentially amount to laziness and pseudo-intellectualism. instead of thoughtfully and coherently stating your case, you see fit to rely on silly authority fallacies. this is no different than dumbfucks inserting white lab coats into TV commercials to convince braindead children like you that Suave Shampoo really does produce a silkier shine than the leading brand. i.e., in lieu of making sense, you'd rather make pretense.

how to argue like a little girl:

step 1: make baseless claims

step 2: point to shiny badge and white lab coat.

step 3: express self-righteous indignation.

step 4: employ condescending faggotry.

step 5: repeat ad infinintum.

my reponse to pretentious fucks like you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOphGZZrE44

>implying small input changes to the system can't have dramatic effects

>>4062520

You think this is trolling? Dude, you've seen nothing. This is relatively mild compared to a hardcore "skeptical" website.

>>4062517

Wow. I can't believe you responded to that. First time I've had someone comment on my comment here! Thanks! ^-^

But seriously, policemen are hot and so are labcoats. I think you're just jealous cause all you have are sweat pants you haven't washed for a few weeks and an unopened bottle of meds for whatever is wrong with you. xo

Well, first and foremost, climate change is definitely real because the climate has changed. It's the goal of science to document what causes these changes. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are greenhouse gases and even "climate change skeptics" who actually have the degrees don't deny this. Third, the phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back" can apply to this situation, although, in actuality, we have a lot of phases of its knees bucking, first (it takes time). Lastly, the climate change model isn't some linear model based on one factor (duh). It accounts for insolation, carbon dioxide, particulates, water vapor, and a variety of other things. Lastly, despite not being perfect, the model is actually pretty damn close as far as mathematical modeling or natural phenomena goes.

>>4062512
>kettle was here
>pot is black
>that is all

>>4062315
>nurrr, nobody should complain about .005% arsenic in their water supply
>"The values are small, thus they must be insignificant"
>Logical fallacy
It's not a logical fallacy; You shouldn't complain about .005% arsenic in the water supply when 20% of the aquifer is strychnine. OPs main point is that human carbon contributions to greenhouse gasses are negligible compared to other greenhouse gasses.

I hate how both sides are slinging propaganda now, especially the AGW supporters.

>>4062306
Well, see, pie charts are an ancient expression of data.

If only that data were cited, we could understand wtf delusion drives a person to waste their time to such an extent.

>>4062549

Except that OP is full of crap.
See >>4062381
Next time, you should do more research before you start throwing accusations around.

>>4062549

Natural sources of carbon are balanced by natural drains, the net increase is zero. Human contribution, altrough tiny in absolute flux compared to natural carbon fluxes, is not balanced by any drain, and over time accumulates.

We have been through this shit before:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>4062512
>you are wrong because I'm calling you names and insulting you, instead of even trying to give evidence that refutes the expert opinion, also science is religion and everyone disagreeing with me is a religious nutter

You had your chance of yelling on the soap-box, now let's see that compelling evidence that has convinced you that almost every expert on the topic is wrong and that you are right?

Come on.

>>4062557
>The first two graphs are deceptive because because the gas volume is not proportional to the radiative effects of the gases
Yeah, fuck off if you're implying CO2 is more of a greenhouse gas than the other ones mentioned

>>4062568
Not always true, we could be going through a period of change

>>4062589
>comment
But that's wrong.
http://www.grist.org/article/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect
http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans
http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-evidence

>>4062591
No.
>‘The CO2 rise is natural’—No skeptical argument has been more definitively disproven
http://www.grist.org/article/the-co2-rise-is-natural

>>4062589

I'm not implying anything, NASA does. You should read the referenced paper.

>>4062597
>>4062604
Who cares about some blog?

The scientific evidence is available in the various IPCC reports.
We shouldn't even make science a partisan question.

>>4062452

You really think you know better than people with millions at their disposal, who rigorously test these things day in and day out, using equipment you don't have and years more eduction than you?

You think your basic half conceived fallacious arguments are better research than this?

>>4062617
Those links point to an article that has point-to-point refutations against all climate change-denialists' claims.

Along with references to point-related publications.

I don't trust your picture OP. It's drawn in paint.

>>4062597
Your articles prove you wrong bro, try reading them

>>4062604
That one goes on to be subjective
>Surely it is not so difficult to believe that the CO2 rise is our fault
>Surely it is not difficult to believe that correlation = causation

We have no way to measure if CO2 sequestration rate is dropping

>>4062628
It's still a blog, basically a heavily biased version of wikipedia
Incredibly easy to manipulate

>>4062891

Are you serious? These days, even many of the wackos accept that the Co2 rise man-made.

>>4062910
I guess I'm not a 'wacko' then

>>4062913

So where do you think all of our emitted Co2 goes, then?

>>4062306
total human radiative forcing is still something like 700 TERAWATTS.

>>4062918
It sinks deep into the ground where it nourishes the Reptoids.

>>4062924

Stop with the POE shit, it's not funny.

>>4062918
Doesn't go anywhere, that's the point

>>4062930
are you disputing the existence of the underground civilization of reptiloids which controls all of mankind?

>>4062943
Another victim of Illuminati disinformation.

>>4062943

Well obviously, I mean, if they were really controlling all of mankind, you wouldn't be here telling me about them, right?

>>4062947

HEY GUYS

THIS IS ABOUT TAXES RIGHT?

AND POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS, RIGHT, RIGHT?

THE LEFTISTS AND SOCIALISTS WILL SURELY PROFIT FROM REDUCING POLLUTION

Joking aside, you CANNOT deny that living off oil and polluting our very own planet we all depend on for our survival is unsustainable.

If we don't switch right now, the costs the climate change, the devastation of farmland, the uninhabitability of land, the pollution of the water we drink and the very air we breathe, the extinction of fish in our very own rivers and about 40 species every day around the globe, the water crises in many states that already occur today, the millions of climate refugees, the destruction of our ozon layer, pollution of our air and the greenhouse effect that comes with it and the catastrophes that the rising temperatures bring with them will BY FAR exceed the cost to switch to regenerative energies would be now.

This has NOTHING to do with politics. Nothing. This is about whether you want your grandchildren to be able to live on a clean planet or in a nuclear wasteland.

>>4062549

>OPs main point is that human carbon contributions to greenhouse gasses are negligible compared to other greenhouse gasses.

Couple of problems with this:

1. OP's graph is created by the Heartland Institute and, ad hominem aside, it is actually wrong if you would care to take a trip to Wikipedia or look through any basic atmospheric science textbook. It is irrelevant how much oxygen or nitrogen is in the atmosphere because THEY ARE NOT GREENHOUSE GASES. i.e., N and O do not affect the Earth's surface temperature one way or the other.

2. We actually know that the different greenhouse gases have different physical properties (surprise!) and thus different forcing power. Water vapour is the most abundant, and the most powerful of GHGs, but it has disproportionately low forcing compared to its concentration.

2. If you eliminate all CO2 from the atmosphere, the Earth turns into a frozen iceball. A difference between 100 ppm of CO2 is the difference between New York City as it is now, and New York City under a mile of ice. So yes, increasing CO2 by 30% in a hundred years is very significant.

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

>I hate how both sides are slinging propaganda now, especially the AGW supporters.

>especially the AGW supporters.

Are you shitting me? Pic related

Also see the following:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378010000300

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/1/41.short

>>4062989

>2.

Oops, meant 3.*

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/human-survival-depends-on-space-exploration-say
s-stephen-hawking-134135238.html

It's not the end of the world but you can see it from here.

>>4062996

Ah, yes, the formidable Doctor Inferno...

>>4062996
>libel
This is why no one listens to AGW supporters, because the skeptics sound more reasonable and sane.

>>4063023
you've obviously rationalized your trolling nature.

>>4063023

>As can be *clearly* seen in this thread
i.e. >>4062485

>>4062891
All your arguments sound like this part:
http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-is-a-hoax

Which is in the first stage of denial.

>>4062512

>ONE SINGLE COHERENT ARGUMENT

How about five?

1. The concentration of anthropogenic (yep we know it's definitely from human sources based on isotopic analysis) GHGs is increasing, and we know precisely how much is has increased over the past several hundred thousand years.

2. Based on laboratory experiments and observational data, we know the precise warming power of each GHG. Feedbacks are more uncertain, but at the absolute minimum, business-as-usual emissions will likely to lead to 1000 ppm CO2 by 2100, or 1200 CO2-equivalent. Under this scenario, there is less than 1% chance that warming will be constrained under 3 degrees C. This is a degree higher than the commonly agreed danger threshold for human society.

3. Most likely warming is 5 C, while 7 C has a roughly 9% probability, and virtually guarantees mass extinction. Furthermore, at 7 C of warming, parts of the Earth will be rendered uninhabitable to human beings for the first time in our species history. Warming will continue for centuries more due to the long lag time in geologic uptake of CO2.

4. Even conservative economists agree that global warming imposes enormous externalities on our economies, and a carbon price policy is justifiable no matter how you cut it. Economic damage from global warming will always exceed the cost of policy measures.

5. We are on the verge of peak oil. Coal is also not going to be cheap forever, and all fossil fuel sources imposes costs on society through pollution at all stages of production, as well as various social harms. Even if global warming weren't a problem, we would have to do something about peak oil anyway.

All sources available upon request.

>>4063023

You seriously don't know the difference between satire and libel? Jesus Christ dude. Here, let me help:

Satire is "The Flying Spaghetti Monster dictates that the decline in pirates causes global warming"

Libel is Friedrich Seitz accusing IPCC lead author Ben Santer of intentional fraud and fakery, or similar accusations now being leveled at Mann, Hansen, Briffa and others; or Christopher Monckton calling climate scientists "Nazis"; or declaring that Al Gore is the most evil supervillain the likes of which the DC Universe has never seen; or declaring anyone who ever supported climate science ever is part of a global conspiracy to implement communist world government.

>>4063023

Also

>the skeptics sound more reasonable and sane.

LOL

>>4063065

TILTED GRAPHS

This is our world today:

The greenpeace faggots will issue a research claiming that we are contributing to global warming, and we will all die in 100 years if we burn fossil fuels.

The oil companies issue a research that we have nothing to do with global warming and that it doesn't exist

So wtf? Who to trust? They both have interests in theirs research, they both post research that you one cannot conduct by himself or feel on his own skin.

This goes on for medicine, pharmacy and pretty much everything else. The whole this product is now cancerogen, and so on.

It is a fucking biased world, and i have decided long ago to not give a fuck anymore what anybody tells me and especially when it comes from a tv screen or the paper.

I will do what seems to me to be the most logical and correct thing to do.
Clean energy, wind power, solar power, tide power and so on cannot provide energy needed for the human race. No matter how much the technology developes and the efficency of solar panels and wind turbines goes up, wind and solar energy will always be unreliable due to it's nature. Mass exploatation of geo thermal energy would lead to much greater climate changes than global warming.

The truth is after we lose fossil fuels the majority of the planet will be doomed and only about 10% will be able to produce energy with clean energy

>>4063075

IRON SUN

>>4063080

ACADEMIC FRAUD

>>4063085

CITING BLOGS

>>4063078

post brought to you by General Electrics

>>4063089

Oh yeah, and they're just plain wrong 95% of the time

Why would you every trust them?

>>4063078

"greenpeace faggots" do NOT issue climate research.

Global warming was on the table before Greenpeace even existed.

Come on people, I know it's a difficult and controversial subject, but you should at least put some effort into it and get some credible info about this stuff (e.g. from the National Academy of Sciences or whatever)

>>4063089

Oh yeah, and they're just plain wrong 95% of the time

Why would you ever trust them?

>>4062306

Back in the 1980's the Illuminati noticed there are too many angry working class people, and that if they would rebel on the world they could easily overthrow the regime. They came to the conclusion the world needed more highly educated people. So they invented Enviromental Engineering and Ecology

From wikipedia page

>Ecology is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment.

Ecologists teaching diversity to plants since 1980's

>>4063101

Sure faggot well neither where the researches about global warming being non existant published by the fossil fuel exploators officially.

I've got news for you the world goes deeper than what you see on the front covers of media.

>>4063123

>Ecology is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment.

>>4063133

>the researches about global warming being non existant

You're kidding me right?

http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12781

http://climate.nasa.gov/

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

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

>>4063133

Actually, most people who publish papers against AGW (you can count them on the fingers of your hands these days - Michaels, Spencer, etc.) are connected to/paid by the fossil fuel industry.

>>4063157

Speaking of Spencer:

>I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/fundanomics-the-free-market-simplified/#comment-17613

And Michaels admitting that 40% of his income is from the fossil fuel industry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fguJod_voPc

Willie Soon made over $1 million from such sources of funding:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon

>>4063078
Thank you for your insight, Exxon employee!

>paid by the fossil fuel industry
they pay both sides, and so do the goremons
maybe they also pay the russians who expect a new maunder-type minimum
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

>>4063190
It's a shame we have to pay someone to do this. So what if AGW is true. We're still dependent on fossil fuels.

>>4063280
Not all, and not in the amounts they pay the anti-ACC folks.
Instead, they pay politicians to cut the funding for the people who are trying to actually do the science:

http://planet3.org/2011/11/21/us-house-wants-no-moer-climate-information/

This after some senators bawwwww'd about NOAA telling people that ACC is real, and admonishing them to instead be silent about the whole thing. NOAA, the good folks that they are, basically gave them the finger and published more materials attesting to the fact that ACC is real.

So what do we learn? If you want to keep your job and funding, you shut your mouth about stuff that might hurt the wallets of people that have senators by the balls.

>>4063280

Even a new Grand Solar Minimum would not counteract the effects of man-made greenhouse gases. See:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042710.shtml

(pic related)

ITT: people trying to use statistics to prove causation.

ALL MY FUCKING RAGE

>>4063280

>they pay both sides, and so do the goremons

Citation needed.

>maybe they also pay the russians who expect a new maunder-type minimum

A new Maunder minimum is far from likely:

http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/why-there-is-no-evidence-for-a-new-maunder-minimum-8318340

And if you look at the latest graphs, TSI is increasing as expected. If there is going to be Maunder minimum, it would not affect global temperatures very much in the long run:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042710.shtml

>>4063318

too slow~

Also, it's not the evil religious republicans with the evil plans, I present to you, a post from a republican mormon:
http://planet3.org/2011/11/16/rustlings-from-republican-environmentalists/

>Let’s face it–it’s a bad year for Republican Environmentalists like me. About half of the field of Republican presidential candidates once promoted the idea of addressing climate change in some way, but all but Jon Huntsman have backed off this stance to one extent or another. Even Huntsman hasn’t suggested doing anything about climate change in the near term, and in any case, he’s consistently polled at 1-2%.

Also, a quote withing quote, oh noes:
>Here’s an excerpt.
>>Seiler said: “There needs to be an opportunity for enlightened conservative Republicans to raise their hands and say you can’t deny what the science is telling us. We don’t share the anti-science denial-ism of six and a half of the eight Republican candidates who are in New Hampshire running in the primary.”

So really, the people constantly heaping more sand on their heads in order to drown out any nasty scientifically tested truths are starting to look even more foolish.

>>4063316

Actually, you have no idea. Do you know anything about radiative transfer?

Doesn't mean I want to breathe that crap.

>inb4 live in the forest

>>4063326
too little. care to elaborate?

This thread is a microchosm of why AGW has reversed its support. Do you all know that there was a point where conservatives almost joined with the AGW cause? Conservatives were the ones that designed the carbon tax system. The conservatives gave you an inch and you took a mile. When they don't do what you want you insult them rather than countering their arguments. You have a mountain of scientific papers and understanding on your side. The OP could have been answered with a simple CO2 spectral absorption curve. I see none in this thread. I see plenty of posts insulting those that still do not understand.

Make fun of conservatives all day if it makes you feel better. Just realize this movement isn't going anywhere without them because they make up half the population. Just keep shooting yourself in the foot, over and over and over again.

Changing people's minds requires patience and humility. Something the early AGW supporters had. Those that have jumped on the bandwagon in recent years lack both and have blown decades of work.

>>4063354

Well, if you did, you would know that attribution of climate change is based on measurable radiative properties of greenhouse gases (which have been know for more then a century).

>>4063357

You are spreading disinformation. Please stop.

1. You are confusing carbon taxes with cap-and-trade. Neither of which were invented by conservatives.

2. A spectral absorption curve of Co2 would be useless because OP's lame graph does not deny that Co2 is a greenhouse gas.

3. Converting someone who believes in vast conspiracies is almost impossible.

>>4063320

Curses, foiled again

>>4063357

>The OP could have been answered with a simple CO2 spectral absorption curve.

>implying that OP was not a troll and this was not a troll thread all along

But here you go.

>Conservatives were the ones that designed the carbon tax system. The conservatives gave you an inch and you took a mile.

Seriously?

Conservatives proposed a cap-and-trade system originally, but when Obama became President they did a complete 180, merely because the Democrats agreed with the bipartisan team that came up with it. Now it's considered verboten for any Republican candidate to even admit that global warming is real, or else they can't win with their base.

The problem isn't trolls on 4chan being condescending. The problem is people who actively seek to poison the well, as they have tried to do since the early 1990s. You can't convince people of the truth by being all nice and understanding when your opponent has no such compulsion against Karl Rove tactics. Now we have people hacking scientists' e-mails and dumpster-diving for compromising quotes, regular death threats directed at scientists, and in Australia some have left dead animals at people's doors. The problem is that we aren't being nice enough? Please.

Serious question.

Has there been any analysis on the effect of airplane travel on the climate? Seems like cloud seeding on a massive scale could have a positive effect on the global temps.

>>4063357
And here's the graph that shows the blackbody emission peak for the mean temperature of earth peaks in one of the broadest absorption lines for CO2.
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/4.shtml

The heat capacity of the CO2 isn't relevant here because it is mixed with the entire atmosphere. The CO2 is like a heating coil under a pot of water. It absorbs the heat and dissipates it into the atmosphere. Its concentration may be small but it doesn't need to store the heat.

Also that graph by the OP is incorrect. Current contributions by humans to CO2 are about a 3rd (AR4). The growth rate is exponential however. The saving grace here is that the atmospheric response to CO2 rise is logarithmic. So an exponential increase and a logarithmic response results in linear growth in CO2 temperature forcing.

>>4063430

Since airplanes consume fuel and emit CO2 and other GHGs, this is probably not such a good idea. You are right though, contrails do change the climate slightly. When it's daytime, contrails reflect sunlight, and cool the surface a little. When it's nighttime, they reflect infrared radiation back to the surface and warm it up.

What you're thinking of is called geoengineering, the proposals which reflect sunlight are called "solar radiation management" (SRM). While it will cost much less than reducing emissions, there are a lot of side-effects (fucking up the Asian monsoon, reducing light reaching plants, increasing respiratory illness) and legal ramifications (treaties against intentional weather modification, stopping SRM for any reason will suddenly increase temperatures drastically) which makes it not such a great idea in the long run,

>>4063430

Yep. But it's still pretty shaky because it's a new area. See here, for example:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1068.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.2392/abstract

You know what I'd like to see?

A comparison of the gross tonnage of anthropogenic CO2 output since the industrial revolution, vs. the increase in atmospheric CO2 over that period (again, in gigatons or whatever).

What's the mass of the atmosphere, anyways?

>>4063449
>>4063456
Gratias

>>4063471

I've seen that comparison somewhere. Basically we emit about twice as much what ends up in the atmosphere (the rest goes into the ocean), I'll see if I can find the ref.

And

"The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480 × 1018 kg with an annual range due to water vapor of 1.2 or 1.5 × 1015 kg depending on whether surface pressure or water vapor data are used."

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-3299.1

>>4063471

According to this source, total cumulative anthropogenic emissions of carbon since 1750 is 500 billion tons. If we assume all additional carbon added to the atmosphere since 1750 is anthropogenic, then 500 billion tons of C will increase the concentration of CO2 by 100 ppm.

http://trillionthtonne.org/questions.html

>>4063413

Thank you for correcting me on the cap and trade vs carbon taxes confusion.

Secondly I should have mentioned attaching an explanation and comparing it with the Planckian emission spectra of the earth. As I did here
>>4063444

Third, conspiracy theorists absolutely can be convinced of reason! I have seen it happen. You will never convert a die hard like Alex Jones of course. The key is that a conspiracy theorists will never be "caught" changing their minds. So you never see them accepting your arguments in the middle of a discussion. The best tactic is to present the counter arguments very humbly and patiently. If you do this they will remember the content of the arguments not the debater.

If you are very forceful with conspiracy theorists they see confirmation of their paranoia. They will just remember the force and reinforce their beliefs that opponents of their beliefs are people to be feared.

Conspiracy theorists take anywhere from months to years to drop their ideas. The reason is that they need to "forget" they were wrong. This time can be shortened by reducing the "cost" of being wrong. If you make it a big deal about how mistaken they are, the harder it is to admit fault.

I know you can say "but we don't have time to wait!" well they won't convert any faster I'm sorry to say. You either have to ignore them or convince them. Antagonizing conspiracy theorists is very bad because it gives them evidence they use to convert more people. "If we weren't right why would they be fighting us so hard?"

>>4063558

>You either have to ignore them or convince them.

Option A sounds a lot less time-consuming. And even dyed-in-the-wool climate skeptics (especially people like Roy Spencer or Fred Singer who stake their reputation and livelihood on this sort of thing) will never be convinced, even if they are not conspiracy theorists at all.

>>4063558

Re: The OP's pic, it seems to me you're still not getting the point. It is not "incorrect". The numbers are represented correctly, but their meaning is hidden. It is designed to minimize the human contribution to the greenhouse effect - in other words, to deceive people.

Whoever made this knew very well what he was doing. There is no real "debate" to be had here. It is a sham.

>>4063558

>conspiracy theorists absolutely
>conspiracy theorists will never
>conspiracy theorists they see
>Conspiracy theorists take
>conspiracy theorists is

well done
repeat once per paragraph says the manual

do they pay well?

>>4063558
>>4063627

That's exactly what I was talking about. Now, lets see you take a crack at the crackpot.

>>4063627

>Accuse your opponents of doing what you're doing

Straight out of the Karl Rove playbook.

Just to clarify, I don't think YOU'VE been paid to say things on the internet, although such sockpuppets definitely exist. But "skeptics" are no stranger to accepting bribes. See:

>>4063190

On the other hand, an atmospheric scientist who doesn't shill for fossil fuel interests makes about 50k starting. You don't get into the hard sciences if you expect to get rich.

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/taking-the-money-for-granted-%E2%80%93-part-i/

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/taking-the-money-for-granted-%E2%80%93-part-ii/

Also, a fun fact: the salary of an IPCC author is $0.

>>4063558
Am I the only one who enjoy going along the conspiracy theorists when they troll themselves?
I mean, I've seen a guy claim that plants will fix the climate because they absorb CO2, blatantly ignoring that they respire as well and the output is about null.
He said he had a degree in chemistry and that CO2 doesn't have the needed properties to be a greenhouse gas.
It was fun telling him that indeed he was true, plants do not respire and that's why global warming is a lie. Trees will save us.
Also exaggerating his own thoughts to make him look silly to whoever else could have been in the known while reading those messages.

I'm a bad person.

>>4063646
That post is essentially asserting that I am a globalist agent that has read some kind of manual on how to counter people who know "the truth". Under such a scenario I'm either a cointel-pro agent or some kind of paid social engineer's technician.

Your best bet is to ignore it unless you honestly feel you are prepared to counter such a belief.

Let it die like a fire without fuel. Arguments like what the OP made can at least be countered since they are based on a more tangible (although faulty) premise where a large body of counter evidence exists. Stick to that.

>>4063776

Eh, it's not like you can be a 4chan regular and not troll

When in Rome, throw Christians to the lions and whatnot

>>4063793
What about the orgies?
Don't forget about the orgies.

Fuck off

>>4062306
>Greenhouse Gases
>Methane not labeled a greenhouse gas yet being the single largest contributer to the greenhouse effect.
>wtf

Pie charts are fucked up, man. Science is about factual information, and that image is not factual.

>>4064157
It's factual, but excluding facts that support your perspective.

how do you explain this

>>4062363
Holy shit. You are the retarded one. The greenhouse effect has everything to do with how gases interact with electromagnetic radiation and nothing to do with specific heat.

The same shit was tried in the 70s. This 'impending environmental disaster' stuff is more than likely a play on traditional western culture for political gain.

Bump to counter climategate faggotry