/sci/ - Science & Math

Pretty much the same as with all the other climate catastrophies in the past.... nothing

>>4856484

Except this one has happened during the 10,000 or so years humanity has been "active", and even more so since the industrial revolution.

This is vs. the millions of years these events and alterations of +/- 1°C would unfold and stabilize without our involvement...

To suggest that introducing additional carbon and chemicals which deplete ozone into a delicate relationship between the atmosphere and surface of the earth and then claiming it won't have any effects seems ignorant...

well you can start with reading reports by the IPCC and stop reading sensationalist media

>>4856508

>my data is better than your data

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

>>4856516
My data is the de facto scientific consensus on climate change. The PDFs you posted are part of it. It even says so in the papers, Do read and comprehend stuff before you go throwing it around

>2012
>believing in the AGW hoax

>>4856531

I'll admit i acted hastily. Only noticed after i submitted the response.

How credible is http://grist.org/, off hand?
David Roberts?

>>4856531
>consensus
Let me show you a not comprehensive things that where once a scientific consensus.

Geocentricism
Aether
Rain Follows the Plow
Alchemy
California Island
Vitalism
Phlogiston
World Ice Theory
Spontaneous Generation
The Four Humors

>>4856552
If you're evaluating individual sources and/or people you're doing it wrong. You're simply gonna have to suck it up and start reading the papers. Science is pretty much the opposite of "these guys says it so it's gotta be true"

>>4856518
Sorry to burst your bubble but we arent destroying the earth. Do you actually think and earth that has stood hundreds of asteroids impact, wacky climate shifts, volcanos and other shit can be destroyed by us?

>>4856565

>>4856502

yes

also positive feedback

>>4856531
>consensus
Yeah, just like Newtonian physics had absolute consensus, until it was wrong.
You know what else had consensus?

Geocentricism
Aether
Rain Follows the Plow
Alchemy
California Island
Vitalism
Phlogiston
World Ice Theory
Spontaneous Generation
The Four Humors
Evolution

why have not done anything! Well, besides of the polar bears.
The earth is actually cooling down (and nobody knows why btw), the warmest year was 2007 and since then it has been colling down.
People does not understand that species disappear all the time, mama nature is a bitch, there is nothing we can do about it.

>>4856554
It's funny that you list things from before the scientific method was even developed. what most scholars believed before they applied the scientific method is irrelevant.

>>4856568
Sorry but get off your high horse. The planet will be fine. We arent going to destroy it. Worst case scenario is that a couple of specialists get extinct.

>>4856574
>Evolution
0/100

>>4856578
People think that the Earth stays the same. They believe they can control the planet just like they think they control their lives. They are just ivory towered liberals with to big of an ego.

>>4856578
You sound really smart and well-informed. Tell me more.

>>4856574
Newtonian physics, is not wrong, it is still widely used today. It's just less accurate at high energy levels. Also it's not a theory describing why things work as they do, it's simply a collection of observable laws of motion (amongst other) so a "consensus" can't be applied to it, more than that most scientist recognize that the laws are accurately described

>>4856578

And yet, record high temperatures all over the place, summer after summer...

>>4856591
Summer is always the warmest, that point is moot.
The fact is the trend of GW isn't real, temperatures are hitting record lows in several places, and it becomes cooler on average every year.
Do your own research, like i did, and you will find this to be so.

>>4856599

And yet the arctic ice is receding more rapidly and severely seasonally

>>4856599
Show us your research. Enlighten the scientific community.

>>4856605
Ice has a limited life span, contrary to popular belief, it can only last so long.

Beyond that, whales and other animals break the ice apart, as do many ships, causing it to float into warmer waters and melt.

It's obvious NO ONE spouting their opinions in this thread actually reads scientific literature, rather they watch Al gore or Christopher Monckton

>>4856610
I placed thermometers in London, North Scotland, middle France, middle Italy, northern Africa, central Australia among other places, connected them to send temperature to my computer, and i have recorded that the temperature seems to be going down.

>>4856616
Oh, wow! Has your researched been peer-reviewed.

>>4856632
The jew funded universities don't take my work seriously, so sadly no.
All that is proof of, however, is the inability of science to get the truth.

http://www.ipcc.ch
It's right there, It's literally right there. All you need to do is spend a few months reading their publicly available reports and you will be up to speed on what the actual science says. Then you won't have to argue anymore

>>4856616
And if you're this guy you just have to write a paper on your data and method and it will be included in the next report. Assuming you're not just the bloody amateur you seem to be

It makes zero sense that we just shrug off climate change.

If we do something about it the penalty is hurting the economy somewhat making it harder for people to drive Porsches.

If we do nothing, and climate change is human caused, then we have destroyed ourselves.

Yes, global warming is real and we have been accelerating the natural warming trend that started since the end of the last ice age. Is it going to destroy the planet and have apocalyptic consequences as Al Gore and the media says? No.

How are there so many global warming skeptics on /sci/??

CO2 was recently measured at 400 ppm (parts per million) in the Arctic. This is mostly a psychological milestone as a reminder that atmospheric CO2 levels are presently higher than they have been in AT LEAST 500,000 years as shown by multiple, ice core project datasets from Greenland and Antarctica (they don’t go any further back than ~420 kyr). (Petit et al, 1999)

As for the “missing energy” argument that we’ve all been hearing for years, it has been solved by NASA’s CERES team this winter! The “missing energy” we thought should be somewhere in the earth-atmosphere system is being stored as heat in the OCEAN. In fact, about 90% of the heat that is a result of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations is currently being stored in the ocean, and, when this heat released to the atmosphere, it has the potential to warm the atmosphere by .5 degree C. See this NASA article:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-029

There IS excess energy in the ocean-atmoshpere system, and it IS caused by human emissions of GHGs. The current radiative forcing estimates of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, etc) are right around +2 W/m^2, counteracted by about -1 W/m^2 due to aerosol radiative forcing, which leaves the NET anthropogenic radiative forcing (i.e. global WARMing magnitude) of approximately +1 W/m^2 (IPCC, 2007). It may not sound considerable, but over time, this figure alone has the potential to significantly change the planet as we know it.

tl;dr come on guys...we are all scientists here

>>4856642
Climate change won't destroy the Eath or humanity. The earth and life has survived much worse events than an accelerated warming.

>>4856652

Thankyou

>>4856658
I don't believe it will wipe humans out, but it's gonna be shitty. Our way of life will be completely altered and future generations will marvel at how easily we lived today.

>>4856611
>penguins caused global warming

>>4856660

For climate science, anytime.

My post was actually a partial repost of my comment over this B/S article I found on reddit (before my 4chan days) that pissed me off enough to respond:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cool
ing/

Fuck you if you believe this article and get off /sci/ ^

Now that we discovered the Higgs boson and it's only a matter time before we manipulate it. Can't we just find a better planet with no life and move all the humans over there?

>>4856652

I keep getting the numbers for GHG forcing wrong.

Probably because I can't believe they are so high.

+3 W/m^2 for GHGs - 1 W/m^2 for aerosols = +2 W/m^2 net radiative forcing caused by humans.

Should have been obvious if you opened the figure, but I couldn't just leave it be.

>>4856665
>implying people will be going outside when technology becomes more advance

People will be fat and have neckbeards. This is the future of all.

>>4856652
>>4856652
>>4856652
I'll never understand climate change deniers. Even if AGW wasn't true (which it is) there is absolutely nothing to lose by pursuing sustainability, clean technology and environmental stewardship, aside from some minor "quality of life" changes.

And in response to OP, I think it's worth noting that a lot of businesses are turning their attention to sustainability pretty seriously. Not only because of environmental concerns, but because they've noticed that lowering energy consumption, emissions and environmental impact saves them a shit ton of money. Larger companies have saved hundreds of millions of dollars because of "green" initiatives, and consumers love it. too. So, while US politicians and fossil fuel companies are busy having dick measuring competitions and wasting our time, the reasonable private sector and the rest of the world will be working towards a solution. Yeah, it's gonna get pretty uncomfortable, people will die, and our world will change, but I don't think it means the destruction of the earth.

>>4856724

I agree, we are taking some big steps towards sustainability as a planet. There is still a lot of work to be done though. Finally we are at the tipping point where it's starting to make more sense to go with solar or wind.

>>4856766
Using solar and wind makes sense where the geography allows and they work as complementary energy sources, but they cannot replace a source like oil, nuclear or coal. Nuclear together with renewables are the bes bet, but nuclear energy is blasphemy in many circles.

>>4856724
>there is absolutely nothing to lose by pursuing sustainability, clean technology and environmental stewardship, aside from some minor "quality of life" changes

There is research going in on it, but the technology is very expensive then what we already use. Either way, it comes down to money.

>>4856788
>nuclear is blasphemy

I always rage when I hear hippydippy faggotlords bashing nuclear for no fucking reason other than the fact that they don't understand it. I'm all for sustainability and using wind and solar where applicable, but there is no way in hell we're gonna get anywhere without nuclear power.

>>4856798
That's true, but those investments are negligible compared to the widespread economic and environmental damage likely to be caused by global warming.

>>4856798

it was expensive like 10 years ago

it's cheaper now, and the only reason it's not making a big impact on the market is the billions of dollars oil and coal companies that keep it down

Nuclear is only as good as the companies and engineers, precautions, etc. running it.

Subsequently, it's good in theory, because people are fucking lazy and greedy at the same time, and will cut corners to save a nickel, even if it means a higher potential for meltdown...

I don't think there is really any dispute over the fact that climate change is occurring, I think the dispute is over the severity.

What are the effects of man on Earth and does it pose a significant threat to all life on Earth or will the Earth be able to regulate itself to take into account human impact?

tl;dr
Will Earth look like Venus in 200 years?

>>4856836
Highly unlikely. The majority of the carbon in the earth is not found in fossil fuels, it's found on carbonate rocks.

>>4856836

Clearly you didn't read some of the previous posts. A bunch of people were still trying to say the earth is cooling hurr durr weather and climate are the same thing.

As for severity? We have climate models and pretty decent guesses for how things will be in the next 100 years or so. And fairly exact figures for the damage that we have already done.

Earth will be ok in 200 years even if we make no changes. Different, but liveable.

I'm not against nuclear by any means, I just don't think a lot of people realize this isn't a "renewable" resource either and there is a finite amount of Ur and Pl we can mine from Earth or reprocess from previous plants.

>Gather all our knowledge in an encyclopedia.
>Move to an island far away to keep it and the work on it
>Initiate the foundation

>>4856836
I always thought it was just that one alarmist who thought runaway climate change could turn the earth into Venus. I'm pretty skeptical of that. Humans would have to go out of their way to produce extra GHGs to cause that. Ocean acidification, on the other hand, is very likely in 200 years if we don't shape up our act.

>>4856554
>World Ice Theory
>Ever taken seriously by anyone outside of Nazi Germany

Next you'll say that Orgone theory was once scientific consensus.

>>4856578
>The earth is actually cooling down

They said the same thing 1998, and every year following that.

>>4856868

Even if that were true (which it is definitely not), you need to have 30 year averages showing a clear trend to say anything about climate change. Otherwise, you can attribute it to the random forcing of weather and decadal variations of things like El Nino, sunspot activity, PDO, AMO, etc.

>>4856877

30 years from now, they'll probably say what you just said...

I heard an interesting tidbit on a documentary, grain of salt, but this guy suggested that humans haven't evolved to handle non-immediate threats, such as climate change. If we see something in front of us that we can work on now, hooray, though when it comes to foresight and longterm planning, goals, etc, we're evolutionarily fucked...

>>4856903
To many people, climate change IS an immediate threat.

>>4856903

I totally agree, no one has a fucking clue how to understand or react to long-term cause and effect things like climate change. Part of the reason scientists know we are so fucked.

CO2 emmisions are still rising and there is very little hope for change in near future, because developing countries will keep to industrialise rapidly. Fighting basic desire of people to live better, which includes high-energy lifestyle, is next to impossible.

I think the problem of climate change will be solved by adaptation to higher temperatures, not by lowering our emmisions.

Phase 1: There's no such thing as Global Warming!
Phase 2: There is, but we're not responsible, so we don't have to do anything!
Phase 3: There is, and we may be partially to blame, but volcanoes are worse!
Phase 4: There is, and we caused it, but it's not like the Earth will change all that much!
Phase 5: *cough* where did all the animals go? And the crops? And the ice?

> Recently heard that we're likely going to go past 2°C
Oh no call the cops, my ice cream is going to melt a minute quicker.

>>4856990

I feel sorry for the south where it's already 110~ degrees.

bump for more denial and noscience

>>4856836
No, Venus has about 93 times the atmospheric mass of the Earth. We couldn't make the Earth like Venus if we set an army of super villians to work on the problem.

>>4856854

>nasafag

do you work at nasa?

>>4856476
Why would that make you depressed? We are the gods now.

http://www.chicagocleanpower.org/ward.pdf

what is the consensus on anthropogenic cc leading to something like this (H2S upwelling)?

i remember reading this a few years ago, shitting a basketball-sized brick, and then never hearing anything about it again.

It's going to fuck the third world in the ass, but aside from price hikes on food and anything produced in third world countries if you live in a first world country you'll be pretty insulated from the worst (economic) effects of it.

Disregarding worst case scenarios (as climate science has a sketchy history of failed worst case predictions) using past climate shift events as a basis, we can expect the worst effects to include mass dieoff of edible fish (which, again, mainly impacts the poor in asian nations who get all of their protein from seafood) due to ocean acidifcation, and mass algal blooming + methane release due to melting seafloor methane hydrate + hydrogen sulfide release.

It'll be tropical outdoors in regions that are now merely temperate, and the air will smell like rotten eggs most of the time, with the greatest intensity on the coast.

The Earth has been here before, millions of years ago. It didn't kill off animal life, rather it thrived but in different forms. One of the predicted effects of a warmer and more acidic ocean for example is the takeover of large jellyfish like echizen.

It'll be a very different world, and hard to live in for a time, but ultimately we'll be okay so long as we don't keep feeding into the process.

>>4856476
Dont worry. The planet will survive. And it will fix itself and all of its problems.
It'll fix us right up, it will. On a related note.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz2NYs3XzLqZMzhmMkdMb2dRZkU/edit?pli=1

Look on the bright side. No one would have ever allowed scientists to test what happens to planets when significant amounts of greenhouse gasses are released into the planets atmosphere, but we get to observe it anyway.

Dear global warming fags. They changed it to rapid climate change. There are also so many variables involved with the earths temperature and we are trying to figure it out with 100 years of data? Our atmosphere changes composition has changed over the life time of the earth. We are just beginning to attempt to understand the suns weather which greatly impacts our own. I live in the desert and the passed few years have actually been lower than average. Each major earthquake actually changes the earths axis of rotation. We aren't in the location we were 50 -75 years ago... Also for global warming enthusiasts at least you have snowball earth to look forward too if you are right.

>>4857794
>sticks head out window
>colder than usual
>climate change is a lie
Good golly you are stupid.

>>4857794

>Dear global warming fags. They changed it to rapid climate change.

I hear this a lot, and want to understand why you think it means something. Is your belief that they are sneaky, and were caught in a lie, and changed it to "climate change" because the warming aspect was disproven and they are covering their asses?

That's not the case, it was intended to resolve confusion where people say "How come there was an unusually harsh snowstorm here if the planet is warming?" Basically, the difference between regional weather and global climate was lost on the public, the new term was intended to communicate that better.

>>4857732

Yes I do. So listen to what I say about climate and most things in general.

>>4857806
Well said

To continue where you left off, global warming may permanently DECREASE the temperature in some locations. The warming of the atmosphere and oceans can cause changes in current. Northern regions that once received warm winds and currents from the equator may witness a significant decrease in temperature.

>>4857823

True. Parts of interior Antarctica were actually "cooling down" for several years and gaining ice at an impressive rate. The global warming skeptics had fun with this fact, until the ice melted again and everyone who really understood climate knew all along it was just an anomaly and nothing of global significance.

>>4857845
I just hope the Northern Atlantic current doesn't shut down. Europe would become as cold as Canada.

>>4857817

The night before my Nasa symposium i had to go to the dinner with the key note speaker trying to force global warming down everyone's throat. I'll give you the CO2 and warming trend. But don't say with our little amount of data on a 4.5 billion year old constantly changing planet that you understand it. Also i don't think you can use ice core samples to say how the entire earth's climate was at a point in time or the fact that you can't compare global averages until about 100 years ago.

The green initiative is fine as long as it is economical and the science is at a point where it can replace mainstream needs. Saying an electric car with a battery that costs more than the car itself is practical. It is only mainstream with government subsidies. Also only being able to drive 100 miles is not practical.

>>4857800

and did i say it is fake or that you don't have enough data to prove it? As far as i can tell you are just illiterate.

'Skepticism' over climate change would be a lot easier to take seriously if it didn't overlap perfectly with 'skepticism' over whether Obama is an American citizen.

>>4857885
It does seem more cultural than rational, doesn't it.

>>4857876
You implied you don't believe it is an extant phenomena.

>>4857853

Glad to hear you don't believe the science in "The Day After Tomorrow", because it's an extreme exaggeration, even though based on a true phenomenon.

A climate model (HadCM3) have simulated what would happen if the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) came to a stop by imposing the IS92a emissions scenario, which at about 4x the current CO2 by 2050, would essentially shut down the THC, at least temporarily. The Northern Hemisphere would cool on average by 1.7 C in this simulation, with locally much higher changes. (Vellinga, 2008)

>>4857876

So i point out what concerns i have with a new field of science that wants to completely overhaul society and your only argument is he doesn't like Obama.

Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly 1979-present...who can explain this graph who doesn't believe in global warming??

>>4857923

As horrible as this sounds i would love to see all the data on a hypercane hypothesis

The loss of Arctic sea ice volume…..trend line is -3.0 +/- 1.0 [1000 km***3/decade]…..speaks "volumes" about the accelerating ice volume melt. As of 29 June 2012, the Arctic sea ice volume was the lowest on record (1979-2012) with ~ 2.5 months to go in the annual melt season.

The impact of this accelerating Arctic sea ice volume loss on polar-midlatitude and tropospheric-stratospheric interaction remains to be understood and quantified, but will likely hold a number of interesting scientific surprises, and could represent an example of a nonlinear tipping point in ongoing climate change.

>>4857953
so you want to claim your info on 0.0000000000072% of the earths history and in a single region?

>>4857964
You use your keyboard perdy like.

>mfw finally a thread with so many non-acc-deniers

>>4857976

The Arctic is a great place to study human induced climate change because of it's remote location and relatively negligible local effects of pollution transport. And 1979-present represents about 10% of the time since the Industrial Revolution (1750ish), since we are talking about anthropogenic global warming here.

Also look at this figure of surface global temperature anomalies for the past 30 years, hopefully it can stir up some discussion. Major climate events are coded above the x axis for your reference.

>>4856575
>implying the scientific method is a recent development.

Protip, the people backing Geocentrism weren't a bunch of backwards retards who just assumed the earth was the center because "hurr that's what god intended."

The Ptolemaic system worked. The predictions made by that model aligned perfectly with what we observed in reality.

The problem wasn't the model, it was our methods of observation.

Today, with the climate change question, our tools for observation are not particularly good, and our models are comically inaccurate.

In short, you'd be more justified in believing in geocentrism than AGW.

>>4858023
>justified
lrn2lesswrong

>>4856857
The only solution

>>4858020
>30 years
That's the fucking problem. It's a miniscule amount of time. You may as well be measuring it over a millisecond.

>>4858038
Cool counter argument bro.

>>4858036

Too bad ice core data has no prior records of human induced climate change so we can only speculate how bad things will get. Top graph is a proxy for temperature. From Vostok, Antarctica ice core, 420,000 years of data.

this is the solution
if you're too squeamish to use it, it's because you do not understand it

The AGW hypothesis is the new lipid hypothesis. In about 50 years, a new era of scientists will start looking back at old research and come to the conclusion that it was all a sham.

I think everyone in this thread should watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0&feature=plcp

Learn what good science is, and learn not to get eaten up by shit.

>>4858398
Probability is the language of science. There is no proof; there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving. Consequently, it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one’s findings as unassailable.

But in general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new finding will drastically change things. Even the huge revolution in physics brought on by Einstein’s theory of relativity did not render Newton’s theories of classical mechanics useless. Classical mechanics is still used all the time; it is, quite simply, good enough for most purposes.

Greenhouse effect theory is over 100 years old. The first predictions of anthropogenic global warming came in 1896. Time has only strengthened and refined those groundbreaking conclusions. We now have decades of very detailed and sophisticated climate observations, and super computers crunching numbers in one second it would have taken a million 19th century scientists years with a slide rule to match. Even so, you will never ever get a purely scientific source saying “the future is certain.”

>>4858412
>cont'd
But what certainty there is about the basic issue is close enough to 100 percent that for all practical purposes it should be taken as 100 percent. Don’t wait any longer for scientific certainty; we are there. Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the “very likely” and “strongly indicated” qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.

The rest of the issue — how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be — is much less certain. But no rational human being rushes headlong into an unknown when there is even a 10 percent chance of death or serious injury. Why should we demand 100 percent certainty before avoiding this danger? Science has given the human race a dire warning with all the urgency and certainty we should need to prompt action.

>>4858412
I don't think anyone here denies the greenhouse effect theory.