/sci/ - Science & Math

global warming is real

"anthropomorphic" global warming is fake

SAGE because pointless.

It's real and could fuck up weather patterns all over the world for hundreds or thousands of years to come.
Droughts, floods, extremely cold winters, extremely hot summers and vice versa. The effects depend on the local particulars and are hard to predict.

Cue 200 posts of denialist propaganda and ad hom.

>>4124583
>Anthropomorphic
>Global warming is now a humanesque character that can be killed
THIS IS WONDERFUL NEWS

>>4124572
No, scientists tend to study imaginary things.

It's just something humans like to do, study pretend things.

>>4124583
The word is anthropogenic and it's not fake. There's actual evidence for it.

>Models are also used to help investigate the causes of recent climate change by comparing the observed changes to those that the models project from various natural and human-derived causes. Although these models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects, they do indicate that the warming since 1970 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-5.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

Cue denialism.

>>4124613
Nope, ice age patterns show it has nothing to do with humans.

What op doesn't want you to see.

>>4124625

Based on the tiny slice that humans have been around? It "averages" to showing no change, yet.

Given us enough time changing the environment, it will.

The argument is if that time scale is going to be shortened by our altering the environment. The answer is yes. Since climate change is directly correlated to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and we are constantly adding more and more and increasing rates, there is not other way to evalute than that we are changing the environment.

>>4124625
With all due respect (ie. not much), that's an outright lie.
The warming period after the last ice age actually ended a long time ago and we should now be in a cooling period.

Hence picture.

>>4124639

Also, "averages" can mean anything (mean, median, mode), and this is why there's always so much varying information in the area. Typically, "mean" is used but not always, and often unethical results are posted without informing the reader of the averaging method used. Especially when outliers are discareded because "they just don't fit" or "they don't make sense."

What op doesn't want you to see.

>>4124659
reported

>Is global oxygenation real?
>if so, is it cyanobacteriogenic? what are its predicted effects?

global oxygen is natural, it's silly to think something as small as cyanobacteria could have any effects on such a huge natural process. Even if they did cause it, it's not a problem since global oxygen will never go high enough to poison anything, no matter how much living things breathe it out. The planet has built-in processes that will deal with excess oxygen, the oxygen level has never gone above 5% and it never will.

get over yourselves cyanobacteria, you aren't important enough to change the atmosphere so that it poisons you. The atmosphere is huge, you are tiny.

>>4124667

Hurr Durr
>implying humans have anywhere close to the amount of biomass produced by cyanobacteria
>freaking 3 billion years is what it took the bacteria

THREE BILLION, not 200 since we started burning coal.

>>4124667
Life is clearly abiogenic.

>>4124681
oh..

What do you thing the biomass we burn everyday is?

...

>>4124667
Bravo. Biting and inventive.

>>4124694

>he thinks the amount that actually got turned into oil encompasses anywhere near the amount of biomass used over 3 billion years
>laughinggirls.jpg

Yeah i have no idea where my laughing girls pic went so have a picture of someone else who doesn't believe in science.

>>4124704
Ron Paul *is* a scientist.

>>4124742

That's why he believes in evolution, amirite?

oh wait...

>>4124751
>implying all scientists believe in evolution

>>4124766

>implying you can be without believing in evolution

>>4124696

The coverage of those email leaks amuses me because it was exactly one scandalous email, and the entire community unloaded on the guy for his lack of integrity in the following emails, which are also part of the leak.

>>4124766

> Implying evolution is a "belief" and not a scientific deduction.

>>4124774

True as that is, people don't read source material but rather parrot the opinions of others who have and want to control them. You know it. I know it. They know it.

>>4124774
you are laughably incorrect. i only hope you catch on one day or keep your mouth shut and avoid looking like an ignoramus.
you too. >>4124782

>>4124916

Yes. Threats. Nice.
I no play your game.

>>4124922
threats?
nowhere was there a threat in my post. veiled or otherwise.
you need to learn to read. or lear why your brain misinterprets...

>>4124934

> keep your mouth shut and avoid looking like an ignoramus
If you open your mouth you'll be stupid.
Veiled threat.

>>4124956
thats actually an accurate prediction, not a threat.
A threat would be: open your mouth and I'll stuff it with climate gate emails.
Or rather that might be a promise ;)

#4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review.

what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.

either way I raff and you roose.

>>4125000

That's funny, because all of statistics is based on the combination of interpolative and extrapolative data.

Since we can gather information about the CO2 levels of the past, though coring samples, we can in deed accurately predict the temperature. This data is therefor interpolative, and fairly accurate.

>Hide the decline LOL
Tim Osborne #2347

Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible!

>>4124572
>If it isn't, what makes it fake?
The fact that it doesn't exist.
Don't get me wrong - I'm environmentalist myself but I also believe in proofs. For global warming, there are none.

>>4125020
>I also believe in proofs

then you are a mathematician or a lawyer... or a moron.

science doesn't 'prove.'

I prefer to trust the IPCC and not some amateur.

#3234 Richard Alley

Unless the “divergence problem” can be confidently ascribed to some cause that was not active a millennium ago, then the comparison between tree rings from a millennium ago and instrumental records from the last decades does not seem to be justified, and the confidence level in the anomalous nature of the recent warmth is lowered.

>>4125028
How so?
Let's say someone creates theory. Now people, by experiments, either prove or negate theory. How's this not believing in proofs?

#2009 Keith Briffa

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

>>4125028

Statistics are in the realm of mathematics, and therefore support "proofs."

>>4125047
theories are never proven.

they're supported by evidence, never disproven, but also never proven.

learn a bit about science if you like. It is inductive reasoning, it is empirical, it can be demonstrated, it is impossible to prove.

#0300

Bo Christiansen

All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.

>>4125057
our models are math, and thus can be internally proven.

the model is never the same as the reality it describes. Science is both the model and reality, thus it cannot be proven.

>>4125047
No one negated Newton for hundreds of years, but the universe doesn't run on Newtonian mechanics. It's a very good approximation, but we have a better one now.

>>4125069
Yes, but the question is how by how accurate. This is called "deviation" and is already taken into account by statistics.

>>4125047
All scientific theories are models which used to explain and predict facts and data. As a fundamental rule we do not assume any theory represents an absolute truth about how the world works; they are always open to revision and replacement. A theory can be disproven (falsified) when it does not match observations, but they can never be proven at a level beyond "it's right because it works".

>>4125060
>theories are never proven.
>It is inductive reasoning
Nope. Quantum theory was deducted. Scientists had problem, someone had proposed solution and then they've checked if it actually works.

Every theory exist to explain some facts.
You can create theory by observing facts and draw conclusions. Or you can create your own model and see if it fits.
There are two kinds of science - theoretical and experimental. Your problem - you think that only experimental science exists.

>>4125077
absolutely.
however I'm responding to the idea of 'proof,' not 'accuracy.'

science is often accurate, it's never proven. Anyone demanding proof from science is barking up the wrong bathtub.

>>4125070
>No one negated Newton for hundreds of years, but the universe doesn't run on Newtonian mechanics.
Yeah, it does. Relativity just describes our IMAGE of the universe, due to distortions caused by the medium through which we observe it.

>>4125108

Mathematics are a tool of science. Math constantly creates proofs...

How is proofs not a part of science?

>>4125100
no, I'm quite aware of theoretical science. It never describes reality completely accurately.

there is no perfect circle in nature.

I'm a carpenter but cannot drive a nail.
I'm a stock broker but cannot read a chart.
I'm an environmental scientists and cannot use excel - You're Hired!

Phil Jones, one of England's top 100 scientists on his inability to calculate a trend with excel....
#1885
I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.

>>4125112
it is a part of science.

it isn't the product of science.

>>4125111
>Newton is real, it's all our rulers and clocks that are wrong!

Wait, I don't get this line of thinking...

Because it isn't perfect we throw it away? When the fuck in the history of mankind have we done that? It's useful, as accurate as we can make it, therefore we should use it until something better comes along.

It's like arguing whether water is oxygen and hydrogen mixed together or if it's a bunch of molecules under a uniform field. Jesus.

>>4125089
Yes, you're right. But with every succesful experiment, probability of theory being absolutely true in certain conditions is rising. We can never reach 100% but we can get so close to 100% that trying to rebut it is just a waste of time.

>>4125123

Right, and black holes were "prooved" before we had "evidence." Either way, it was science.

>>4125115
>It never describes reality completely accurately
Experimental science never describes reality completely accurately too. Your point?

>>4125129
OP or his sock-puppet demanded proof.

proof is math.
science is more than math.
science provides no proof.

that is all.
the fact that OP isn't aware of this reflects poorly on his knowledge of science and allows me to dismiss his complaints with little regret. If I thought he would understand basic geology I might feel compelled to discuss why he's wrong....

To: >>4125129

>>4125145
is not OP.

Not sure I get you... you're telling me mathematics isn't scientific?

Tell that to Riemann and Einstein.

>>4125159
>Not sure I get you... you're telling me mathematics isn't scientific?

you most certainly don't get me.

>>4125168

No, I get you.

You're trying to argue that mathematics is a subset of science but science isn't a superset of mathematics.

>>4125178
nope.

a hammer is not a subset of a house, and a house is not a subset of a hammer.

>>4125126
Just think about it for a minute.

>>4125186

Right... check this out...

Mathematics is a symbolic way of understanding reality.

Science is a conceptual way of understanding reality.

Both are paths to understand reality.

Get the connection, yet? Symbolism is a concept.

>>4125194
and one provides proof, while the other does not.

Hume's fork all up in this bitch.

>>4125194

Since mathematics is a subset of science as provided by:
>>4125204

Then science must necessarily provide proofs. To say otherwise is to argue about the nature of both science and mathematics.

>>4125211
it isn't a subset of science.

it's a tool of science- inductive observation is the benchmark against which it's judged.

when reality doesn't agree with the model we toss the model, not reality.

math is just a tool, the metric by which we measure and understand reality. Without reality it's just math. With reality ascendent it's unprovable and thus no longer math.

>>4125235

If your argument is going to be that if everything we think is a deviation from reality, then technically all people are wrong, forever. Including yourself about being wrong about everything not being a perfect perception of reality.

Skepticism is nice, but really it gets nobody gets anywhere with it except into a paradox.

>>4125235
So...
science is method of understanding...
math is the method of symoblic understanding...
how not subset?

Global warming is real, the only aspect still debated is how large of an impact humans are having on it

>>4125244
deductive reasoning such as math allows us to be right within the context of the logical construct.

but yes, truth becomes a serious philosophical problem in all cases. This isn't /ep/istemology though, and my only point is that science doesn't provide proof. I feel it's fair to dismiss out of hand anyone demanding of it something it cannot provide.

also derailing a shit thread with philosophy of science.

>>4124625
>>4124631
Ice core drillings /clearly/ show that the CO2 levels have risen at absurdly fast rates in the last 100-200 years, and the only plausible explanation is human industrialization. The levels have risen at a rate far faster than anything seen in the ice cores.

>>4125260

I agree. Also, the other major factor is when will the increase of temperature begin to increase on its own beyond the influence of man. That's when it'll continue to heat up beyond our ability to cut back CO2/other greenhouses gases.

>>4124766
Oh hey, it's you again. Did you ever figure out whether there exists evidence for common ancestry or not?

>>4125270

Bullshit. You're calling mathematics a tool fo science, when reall science is a tool and mathematics is a completely connected part of it is what's derailing this thread. You're the one who keeps bringing up crap that's meant to change the conditions of the argument instead of the actual data, and I intend to continue to correct this path until we get back to it.

>>4124572
Whether or not it is real doesn't really matter. Even if humanity magically disappeared today, temperatures would keep rising for the next hundred years.

Even with all the regulation in place today, CO2 emissions are growing. They will almost certainly keep growing for a long time; the only thing that will stop them is advances in technology. However, these advances can't be brought into existence by legislation or rioting hippies. These only hamper the growth that would be needed to solve the problem indefinitely.

>>4125250
The scientific method requires theories to be tested with empirical observations. Its why we had to build the fucking LHC instead of just concluding our theories were accurate because the logic worked out.

Math is not empirical, it is purely logical. In math you can prove things about the properties of seventy dimensional spheres and other things which can't even exist in the real world.

>>4125100
Full retard.

>>4125293

That's not a gurantee, or even empirically proven.

>>4125286
do you believe the movements of reality can be proven on large scales one way or another before they happen?

can you prove that the sun will rise tomorrow?

>>4125294

I'm sorry... but can you mathematically prove something then find empirical evidence? I think so!

>>4125307

And now where right back to the philosophical bullshit skepticism I keep trying to undo. Nice. I turn it right back on you. Can you? Please tell me why it's impossible, even though it plainly is predictible.

>>4125277

You assume that just because C02 is rising (if cores are even accurate) that it has something to do with global warming.
First there is no warming
Second you disregard the MWP completely - how could there be a MWP without SUVs?
Third you assume that C02 traps heat linearly, rather than logarithmically. An easy mistake.

>>4125314
evidence- yes
proof- no

>>4125320

> First there is no warming
Provide empiricial evidence.

>>4125307
can you prove your next post won't destroy the universe?

no? good. as that's your criterion for knowledge, please now shut the fuck up and go away.

>>4125320
><trolling>
Let me know when you're going to be serious.

>>4125327

That wasn't even a coherent answer to the question. Can you make a mathematical proof then find empicial evidence to support said proof? There's only one of two answers possible. Yes or no.

>>4125324
it is impossible because variables exist which my models cannot take into account.

chaos and stochastic processes are easy enough to describe with math, but generally won't conform exactly to the description.

causality is the problem, or lack of it.

>>4125293
>the only thing that will stop them is advances in technology.
Or peak-fossilfuel.

>>4125293
>
Even with all the regulation in place today, CO2 emissions are growing. They will almost certainly keep growing for a long time; the only thing that will stop them is advances in technology. However, these advances can't be brought into existence by legislation or rioting hippies. These only hamper the growth that would be needed to solve the problem indefinitely.
Look at LFTR. It's the third way out.
http://energyfromthorium.com/

>>4125332
why demand proof where none can exist?

a thing may be known and unproven. Probably everything we know is unprovable in the larger context of existence.

Hey
Hey guys
If we suddenly stop producing CO2 somehow, how long will it take to go back to 'normal?' I can only presume that it will, but our ever-increasing output rates is shoving the equilibrium CO2 concentration up...

>>4125337

No, skepticism is the problem. You believe nothing is knowable. This is the problem.

The use science or mathematics, you have to assert that things are knowable. Since this is both a science and mathematics discussion then you have already implied such.

Causality is another form of scientific understanding, as well. By saying it's the problem you, again, imply that something is therefore knowable.

Skepticism will constantly lead to debate derailing paradoxes. The point is the data. It shows increased CO2, increased heat, and increased human activity.

This entire thread summed up.

1> You can prove things in science.
2> Nu uh. You can't prove things beyond all doubt with science.
1> That's not what prove means. You can prove things beyond all reasonable doubt.
2> My definition is the right definition.
1> No mine is.

>>4125354

It depends if we passed the point where the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can be processed by plants and returned to normal, or if it gets too hot for most animals/plants to survive until some adapt.

>>4125361

Yeah, and this always happens when the actual data can't be argued.

>>4125355
history is knowable.

math is knowable.

the future is unknowable a priori.

science deals in history, math, and the future. By having just one of these unknowable the entire construct becomes incapable of proof.

if it was merely descriptive rather than attempting prediction we'd have scientific proofs. But that wouldn't be science anymore...

>>4125305
>Not empirical
Yes. Because it's in the future. Do you even know what empirical means?

Study in case anyone wants to read it:
>http://staff.washington.edu/karmour/ArmourRoe_GRL2011.pdf
Summary of study
>http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-greenhouse-gas-emissions-earth-warmer.html

>>4125373
Fully disagreed. Obviously you disagree with the fundamental tenants of science. That's nice. Can you go somewhere else besides the science board please?

>>4125373

Science: understand, model, predict, control...
> Predict!

Whao... you telling me that predicting nature isn't part of science anymore? What's the point of injecting medicine to stop a disease, then? Or setting a bone, you can never know if it'll help! Or, you know, living in a house. It might never rain again, you never know.

Yeah, because you can predict. Proofs --> Predicit.

>>4125329
LOL
How about I provide one of the climate scientists stating it?

Would that be good enough for you?

>>4125393
Nope. You see, there is no authority in science. In science, there is evidence and logical reasoning, not authority and fiat. Doesn't matter what one dude says when the evidence says something else.

If you had some good peer reviewed stuff, we'd be interested, or a technical discussion of how the evidence is either forged or doesn't indicate the conclusions.

>>4125393
And if I can provide one of the climate scientists stating that there is?

Arguments from authority are fallacies.

Goddamn it... I feel trolled by retards.

I can verbally express it...
I can draw a diagram...
I can write symbolic interactions...

I can spend all day explaining this shit and it'll always be answered by the bland:

"Well, you can't know anything because it's impossible! Skepticism wins again!"

Jesus. I'm out. You want to wallow in ignorance in lack the capability of controlling your environment (or yourself for that matter), feel free. I wash my hands of your self-induced ignorance.

>>4125398
Just ignore the post modernists / nihilists / trolls.

Yes, it's real.
Yes, It's caused by humans.
If we're lucky it will end this accursed ice age.
(If we're unlucky at least it should forestall the next glacial period.)

>>4125379
>http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-greenhouse-gas-emissions-earth-warmer.html
Keep ignoring MWP

>>4125382
>disagree with the fundamental tenants of science

lol
those damn tenants!

I'm one of three anons on this board with a science degree, and the only one with a degree relevant to this thread. I'm going away, mostly because you guys generally don't understand science on your science board.

>>4125389
I said it IS used to predict, lrn2read.

just because it predicts doesn't mean it proves.

c-ya, have fun.

>>4125365
>It depends if we passed the point where the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can be processed by plants and returned to normal, or if it gets too hot for most animals/plants to survive until some adapt.
On what grounds do you believe such a point exists? After all, the biosphere managed to turn the atmosphere from one ALMOST ENTIRELY of CO2 to one with a fraction of a percent CO2... I have a hard time believing there's a point where it can't be brought back from.

>>4125402
dataset please

>>4125405
see:
>>4125361

You are a retard for claiming that the kind of knowledge we have concerning the past is qualitatively different than the knowledge we have concerning the future. This is fundamentally wrong. We use the same methods for discovering both, the methods of science.

This kind of reasoning is sometimes used to argue that evolution isn't science. It is science, even if we can't do experiments in a lab.

>>4125338
Depends which comes first. The ever growing price of oil is a motivator though.

>>4125344
Very cool. Thorium reactors seem to have the potential to make nuclear power generation cheaper. The main problem is the anti-nuclear sentiment among many in the public, which has only become worse after the issue in Japan.

>>4125418
>Very cool. Thorium reactors seem to have the potential to make nuclear power generation cheaper. The main problem is the anti-nuclear sentiment among many in the public, which has only become worse after the issue in Japan.
Unfortunately, correct.

>>4125418
Also, I want to emphasize LFTR, not merely thorium reactors. LFTR is the one with the potential to greatly decrease costs. India is going ahead with "thorium reactors", but they are just throwing some thorium at existing light water reactors.

if human's really could effect the climate like how "global warming" suggests) it would be a good thing, because it would save the earth when the colder section of this ice age begins.

>>4125404
>Aerosols would necessarily immediately stop the instant anthropogenic CO2 production is somehow instantaneously neutralized
That's pretty much what that whole scenario hinges on, and it's incorrect. Aerosols will NEVER completely just fucking disappear like that, as long as we have an atmosphere.

>>4125421
The only exception is China, they're going full-throttle with nuclear power. Just saw this today:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/12/10/bill-gatess-nuke-startup-flirting-with-more-than-
just-china/

Fuck yeah, TWRs!

>>4125395
>>4125395
>>4125395
>>4125395
>Nope. You see, there is no authority in science. In science, there is evidence and logical reasoning, not authority and fiat. Doesn't matter what one dude says when the evidence says something else.

The evidence is cooked, or haven't you kept up?

>If you had some good peer reviewed stuff, we'd be interested, or a technical discussion of how the evidence is either forged or doesn't indicate the conclusions.

As was the peer review process.

>>4125454
So, the ice core samples that show a marked rise in CO2 during the last 200 years is cooked? If that is true, the only plausible explanation is human activity.

>>4125447
Sadly, TWRs are even more retarded than light water reactors. I don't even know what is going through Bill Gates's head. The guys on energyfromthorium.com are similarly confused. The thing is vaporware.

>>4125474
*If the ice core data is true, then the only plausible explanation is human activity.

>>4125409
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
540 - 65 Myr BP : Royer, Dana L. and Robert A. Berner, Isabel P. Montañez, Neil J. Tabor, David J. Beerling (2004) CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate GSA Today July 2004, volume 14, number 3, pages 4-10, doi:10.1130/1052-5173(2004)014<4:CAAPDO>2.0.CO;2

65 - 5.5 Myr BP : Zachos, James, Mark Pagani, Lisa Sloan, Ellen Thomas, and Katharina Billups (2001). "Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present". Science 292 (5517): 686–693. doi:10.1126/science.1059412

5.5 Myr - 420 kyr BP : Lisiecki, L. E., and M. E. Raymo (2005), A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic δ18O records, Paleoceanography, 20, PA1003, doi:10.1029/2004PA001071. [1]

420 kyr - 12 kyr BP : Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I., Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999) Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica, Nature, 399, pp.429-436, doi:10.1038/20859

12 kyr - 2000 yr BP : Image:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - various; the thick black average line is Rohde's.

2000 yr - 150 yr Before 2000 : Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - various

150 - 0 yr Before 2000 : Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png, using data from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set HadCRUT3.

>>4125485
It is by far the most logical explanation. I mean, fuck, you can even SEE the jump in CO2 from ramped-up WWII industrial output in ice core data. It just fits far too well to conceivably be anything else.

>>4125474
>So, the ice core samples that show a marked rise in CO2 during the last 200 years is cooked? If that is true, the only plausible explanation is human activity.

nice but no. big things, like for example, oceans give off c02, forrest fires give off c02, vol-fuking-canos give off, um, oh yeah, c02
of course that isn't plausible though right?

>>4125522
Oh wikipedia, the foremost authority, and peer reviewed publication. I stand corrected.

>>4125537
Our industrial output of CO2 is literally nearly DOUBLE the increase in CO2 present in the atmosphere over the same period. If anything, environmental factors such as oceanic dissolution are DAMPENING our CO2 production.

You, my friend, have a very poor sense of scale.

>>4125365
> if it gets too hot for most . . .plants to survive until some adapt.

A.)As long as it's not cold/freezing Plantae gives close to zero fucks about temperature.
B.)Warming is/will happen disproportionately at the poles, warming won't cause a mass extinction any more then the start of the current interglacial caused a mass extinction.

>>4125563
we're in the middle of a mass extinction, though you're right warming wasn't the cause.

>>4125543
It's a fucking agglomeration of data, scientists are generally don't have time to make pretty graphs

>>4125562
actually no, you have a poor sense of delineating truth.

>>4125562
>environmental factors such as oceanic dissolution are DAMPENING our CO2 production.

Indeed, one can only hope some positive feedback cycle kicks in soon.

(winter is coming)

>>4125584
What is so hard to understand about human output dwarfing that of volcanos and forest fires and whatnot?

Volcanos emit CO2 on the order of tens of millions of tons annually. Humans produce tens of BILLIONS of tons (that's A THOUSAND TIMES MORE) from fossil-fuels alone.

I repeat, you have a very poor sense of scale. It would literally take you about twenty minutes on google to determine that your supposed natural sources are dwarfed by anthropogenic ones, yet you let your opinions get in the way because you're afraid that what you find will destroy your silly little beliefs.

>>4125537
vol-fucking-canoes.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
the people who actually study this stuff have looked into that for you.

>>4125584
It's all irrelevant. If you look at the past CO2 data, and look at the past 10,000 years vs just the last 200, you seen an /insanely/ steep rate of change of CO2 in the past 200 years, unprecedented in the data. Volcanoes and such have always been here. The only explanation for this anomaly is human activity.

I don't give a fuck if the planet is getting warmer, in fact I want it to. I hate the cold. So does basically everything alive. In retrospect to the disastrous climate change in the past I don't think humans could cause lasting damage.

>>4125679
enjoy your billion newly displaced bengladeshi/african neighbors.

>>4125832
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
>"Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back,"

>mfw we're going to end the ice age

Is this thread STILL going?
Sage..

>>4126244
>thinks sage pushes threads down

but wont we eventually run out of oxygen?

>>4126431
Wha--?

Oxygen? The element?

You sure you're getting enough?

>>4126238
see >>4124647
The ice age ended eight thousand years ago.

>>4126452
>Doesn't know the difference between an ice age and a glacial period