/sci/ - Science & Math

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

>>5257857
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-M
edieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html

>>5257866

...and?

>>5257868
1) What are we looking at? It's low res so I can't make it out well.
2) What's the source? Graphs are fine, but they need to be properly sourced.

>>5257875

Figure TS.23. from the IPCC 2007 report

>(a) Global mean surface temperature anomalies relative to the period 1901 to 1950, as observed (black line) and as obtained from simulations with both anthropogenic and natural forcings. The thick red curve shows the multi-model ensemble mean and the thin lighter red curves show the individual simulations. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic events. (b) As in (a), except that the simulated global mean temperature anomalies are for natural forcings only. The thick blue curve shows the multi-model ensemble mean and the thin lighter blue curves show individual simulations. Each simulation was sampled so that coverage corresponds to that of the observations.

>>5257866
>dailymail

>>5257882
>>5257875

Basically it shows that natural forcings alone can't account for the temperatures that we've seen over the past 100 years, and if you throw human forcings into the models, it fits much much better.

>>5257883
It cites a study

>>5257885

Which is irrelevant to this thread. The medieval warm period does not debunk anthropogenic climate change in any way shape or form.

>I'd like to see peer reviewed science articles from both sides of this debate.
>Implying
>>>/pol/

>>5257885
>It cites a study
And then completely misinterprets it.

>>5257875
There's a label right in the corner of the graph, sheesh. It's figure 9.5 from here: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html

>>5257892
>And then completely misinterprets it.
How?

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

Here's the link to the study itself. Please show me how they "misinterpreted" it.

>>5257897
>There's a label right in the corner of the graph, sheesh
I know, it's just low res so I couldn't read it.

>>5257890
IPCC:
>look at that hockey stick curve, it's evidence of AGW
skeptics:
>but the hockey stick is BS
IPCC:
>yeah whatever it's not related to AGW

Stop being so dense.

Gas molecules absorb only certain frequencies of light that correspond to vibrational or rotational nodes of specific bonds or the molecule itself. Molecules like water vapor, CO2, and methane have peak absorptions in the IR spectrum, but very weak absorption in visible light. Most of the sun's radiation is visible light, so it passes through these gases pretty easily and is absorbed by the earth's surface. The earth then re-emits it based on the surface temperature. The light that is emitted by the earth is in the IR spectrum, as can be predicted by the stephan-boltzmann law. This re-emitted light is then absorbed by CO2, methane, and water vapor in the atmosphere and re-emmited once again in all directions, meaning that a large portion of the IR radiation is directed back towards the earth, which leads to a net warming. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses produce more warming.

>>5257906
>there's always that guy
It's about quantitative, not qualitative.

>>5257905

I never said anything about the hockey stick curve you dunce. And just looking at the curve and then saying that humans are causing global warming is fucking retarded, and no climate scientist ever did that. Look at the graph I actually posted.

>>5257906
>Implying anyone will read this

>>5257907
>doesn't understand that the existence of MWP is a disproof of the hockey stick
Yes, yes they did.
You may be too young to remember, but it was the biggest argument for warming. Just read the previous IPCC report, they removed it in the last.

>>5257912
Why do people like this still exist? Stop priding yourself on being uninformed.

>>5257906
Everyone and their dog knows about this. The atmosphere however is not a isolated glassbulb filled with pure CO2 in a IR photospectrometer experiment.

But I guess that if you're a climate scientist, you're allowed to claim that the differences are neglible and thus that the above mentioned model gives a perfect predictory power.

>>5257912
>but it was the biggest argument for warming
By amateurs, not scientists.

>>5257908

The total greenhouse effect contributes about 33K to the earth's surface temperature at current levels. Humans are dumping about 9.1 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, a number which is rapidly increasing. About 4.1 gigatons of that CO2 remains in the atmosphere longterm.

>>5257916
The models used are a lot more complex than that, and they fit the observations very well, see
>>5257868

>>5257915
So the IPCC used to be amateurs?
Your revisionism is ridiculous.

>>5257912

>but it was the biggest argument for warming.

It really wasn't. It was used as evidence to show that the earth was warming, but no one claimed it was proof that humans were causing that warming. You're reading too much into it.

>>5257916

Get over yourself.

>>5257917
>The total greenhouse effect contributes about 33K to the earth's surface temperature at current levels. Humans are dumping about 9.1 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, a number which is rapidly increasing. About 4.1 gigatons of that CO2 remains in the atmosphere longterm.

And this proves AGW? Do you know what a non-sequitur is?

>>5257924

It proves that we are having at least some forcing effect on global surface temperatures, yes.

>>5257923
>ad hominem!
Wow, you environmentalcases are so good at contributing to arguments!!

>>5257927

Please look up what words mean before you use them. I wasn't making an argument.

>>5257921
Yeah right, where were all of you when it was used in every media, UN resolutions or rallies?

>>5257930

It was used to show that the earth was warming. Other data was used to show that humans were contributing to radiative forcing.

>>5257928
You were contributing to one by throwing ad hominems at the side you don't agree with. Learn to reading comprehension.

>>5257926
No, it proves that CO2 levels are increasing.

>>5257930
>when it was used in every media
Here lies the true problem with climate change, evolution and many other things.
Media creates this "controvercy" out of thin air, while 99% of scientist may agree on certain theory, media still presents it to the public as there was some kind of huge battle going on.

>>5257936

And the strength greenhouse effect is proportional to the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere...

>>5257936
>And the strength of the greenhouse effect is proportional to the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere...

>>5257936

And the strength of the greenhouse effect is proportional to the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere...

>>5257934

No. I wasn't even the one you were responding to. I'm just giving you advice. Get over yourself. You seem to have a real superiority complex.

>>5257938
You can't pin that on the media.
They included it in the group 1 summary for policiymakers.
You can't put that curve as one of the only two graphs in the summary and act surprised when people use it.

>>5257938
What do you mean out of thin air? There was a controversy about Mann's measurements, and he lost it. There's a reason why the IPCC is not using it anymore.

Today's climate models are no different than the geocentric models of old, both can be used to calculate events accurately and both are central the dogma of their respective theocratic organizations.

inb4 "but muh day of environmental reckoning"

>>5257944

You can be surprised when people use it wrongly and make more conclusions from it than can be made. The media doesn't like subtlety. They want one picture which can easily depict the problem and prove it straight up, even if that picture doesn't actually exist.

>>5257943
>You seem to have a real superiority complex.
Kettle, meet Pot.

>>5257934
Someone doesn't know what an ad hominem is.

>>5257945

You keep arguing about things that the hockey stick graph doesn't even show or comment on. It just showed the temperatures, it didn't show what caused them.

>>5257936
Increased CO2 Concentration is directly related to an increased greenhouse effect you fucking moron. Anyone who is arguing against global warming is in denial/working for fossil a fuels producer. The media has tried for the last decade to portray the argument is evenly balanced with people for and against, but it really isn't. Global warming is happening.

>inb4 'maybe greenhouse gas concentrations and increased temperature are a coincidence right guiz?'

>>5257854
For the catastrophist side, read the IPCC report.
For the moderated one, read Christy written testimony for the Senate.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b75
0-def3ec74913d

>>5257953
It showed an unusual increase of temperature and CO2 concentration in the same short period of time.
Of course it was evidence.

>>5257951

Where are you getting that from? I'm just telling you that your tone is very offputting and you seem to hold everyone but yourself in low regard. I never said anything about myself or anyone but you.

Today's climate models are no different than the geocentric models of old, both can be used to calculate certain events somewhat accurately and both are central the dogma of their respective theocratic organizations. There is no reason to take these people seriously. The climate changing does not mean there will be a second coming of Al Gore to fight off the evil Satanic industrialist.

inb4 "but muh day of environmental reckoning"

>>5257941
>And the strength of the greenhouse effect is proportional to the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere...
And the actual surface temperatures are dependent on many more factors than a simply greenhouse effect modifier.

>>5257948
Wait is that your point, that it wasn't a definitive proof?
Of course there's no single one definitive proof, but an array of clues. And the stick used to be one of them.

>>5257944
I'm not even talking about one specific example, it's the general case where 100% of atronomers agree that earth has one moon, then one biologist comes around and say that earth might have two moons, media headline: "Earth has two moons, read all about the scientific consipiracy to hide the controvercy"

>>5257961

Correlation does not imply causation. Scientists could not conclude AGW from the hockey stick graph alone.

>>5257966
see
>>5257963

>>5257954
>Increased CO2 Concentration is directly related to an increased greenhouse effect you fucking moron.
Yeah, right, you don't have any idea about the relative variation of the forcing, do you? You know, the numbers.

>>5257954
>Increased CO2 Concentration is directly related to an increased greenhouse effect you fucking moron.
The greenhouse effect is dependent on all greenhouse gases, CO2 is a proportionally very tiny part of these.
The Greenhouse effect is not the sole and only determinant of actual surface temperature.

>>5257960

That's why it's called climate change now. We're contributing to positive radiative forcing of surface temperatures, meaning that they are higher because of us than they would otherwise be, even if the temperatures are going down.

>>5257972

>The Greenhouse effect is not the sole and only determinant of actual surface temperature.

Nobody ever said it was.

>>5257960
Ok, you're right, global warming is wrong. now go away if you aren't actually interested in hearing about the science.

>>5257977
>avoiding the tough, you know, science questions
Come on, give us the answer if you're interested about science.
What is the % of variation of forcing due to human CO2 emissions.

From what I understand there is a strong correlation between CO2 and modern temps.

The problem is correlation doesn't imply causation and we have had warmer periods before. The question is, is this correlation abnormal enough to show a connection between the two.

To this I say who gives a shit.
A) Even if oil cleaned the air, we still only have so much of it left. Maybe we have like 300 years of fossil fuels left. But if we wait 300 years before doing anything we're going to have a major fucking issue on our hand
B) Oil doesn't clean the air. Global warming aside, I like being able to breath, and having a cleaner environment is something we should all want.

So not to go all Pascals Wager here, but we have everything to gain from cleaning up our shit and not much to lose

>>5257984
>B) Oil doesn't clean the air. Global warming aside, I like being able to breath, and having a cleaner environment is something we should all want.
Common misconception. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, not a pollutant. Solutions for reducing CO2 emissions or pollutant emissions are not necessarily the same.

>>5257988
>missing the point
You can argue it's still increasing.
The point is it's increasing less that foreseen by models.
See Christy's testimony.

>>5257992
shut the fuck up you dumb nigger. I'm trying to save the fucking environment so your kids can fucking breath. Why would you argue with that

Guys can we please just get back to posting the scientific evidence?

>>5257999
I did, >>5257956
But no one read it, and it's not going to prevent stupid people from claiming "hurrrr skepticism is only in media and blogs, if you doubt the models viability you are a crackpot hurr durr"

>>5257995
We shouldn't spread untruths just because we think they might be helpful.

>>5257995
>Why would you argue with that
I have no kids and that's an appeal to emotions you fucktarded analretarded gasyassfaggot.

>>5258008
Fact: Temperatures are rising at a faster rate by a thousand-fold than in the past hundreds of thousands of years. Same with CO2.

>>5257985

The difference between concentrations of CO2 now and in 1750 contributes 1.79 W/m^2 of radiative forcing.

>>5258011
>guys guys this argument is totally not a proof
>some guy comes in and present it as a proof
You know, I hope the "hurr durr hockey stick was never a proof" are going to prove they are not hypocritical ASSHOLES and speak out against this guy.

>>5258013
>>5257985

This equates to about .4 degrees Kelvin without considering any feedback mechanisms.

>>5258013
Took you long enough.
But I asked for the percentage, so now you have to google the whole forcing.

>>5258016
I haven't been following the stupidity. Whatever else have you, I posted a demonstrable fact.

The next demonstrable fact is that this is human-caused.

>>5258018
And then positive feedback comes in

>>5258017
No one has to do shit, fuck off, you have your proof crawl back to your hole and die faggot.

>>5257956

>For the catastrophist side, read the IPCC report.

The IPCC is intentionally extremely conservative with all of its estimates.

>>5257854
what about Milankovic's cycles? Don't they account in some part for global warmin?

>>5258022
>I am interested in SCIENCE
>doesn't know the basic numbers
Good job being a dickhead there.

>>5257999
>Guys can we please just get back to posting the scientific evidence?
There is none.
The enviroligious cult tries the Muslim way of arguing, throwing a hissy fit until people go away.

>>5258025

Yeah, but not nearly enough

>>5258023
Not in the executive summary, they're not.

>>5258016 here
Look like I was right. The "hockey stick was never a proof guy" were indeed a bunch of hypocritical cunt.
Once a warmist actually uses the argument, they just shut up and let him speak his drivel.

>>5257985

>>5258035

I already told him that correlation doesn't imply causation earlier in the thread.

>>5258030

yes, they are

>>5258039
Nope.
If they are moderated, they Christy is an ayatollah of skepticism.
Which he is not.

>>5258036
finally

http://climatedepot.com/
/thread

>>5258035
You need to tell me where you disagree.
1- CO2 levels have risen a thousandfold faster in the last 200 years compared to the hundred thousand before that.
2- Temperature levels have risen a thousandfold faster in the last 200 years compared to the hundred thousand before that.
3- Humans are the cause of the recent drastic increase in CO2 levels.
4- Even minor changes in CO2 levels can have a profound impact on temperature.
5- The temperature increase is caused by the CO2 increase, and thus the temperature increase is human caused.
6- This is a serious problem, and we should do something about it if at all practical.

>>5258074

Not him but probably here:

>5- The temperature increase is caused by the CO2 increase, and thus the temperature increase is human caused.

Temperature is affected by many factors, and it could be that those other factors just happened to increase at the same time as CO2. It's not incredibly likely, but you have to rule out the other factors, you can't just look at the graph and be done with it.

>>5258083
Non-human factors have been ruled out.

http://ncse.com/climate/climate-change-101/how-much-human-responsibility-for-climate-change

>>5258074
>Temperature levels have risen a thousandfold faster in the last 200 years compared to the hundred thousand before that.
For starter, I don't even understand what that means.
Do you mean
delta_200/200 > delta_300000/300000?
If so, that's a pretty stupid comparison. Of course if you take the variation speed on a short period it's gonna be higher than on a long period.

>>5258083
Ok, so, let's start here. I understand you're devil's advocating. How would your devil's advocate reply to this. We know that there is a warming effect of CO2. It's been known for a hundred+ years, and demonstrable for that long too. All other things being equal, we can explain a great portion of that warming on increased CO2 levels.

>>5258090
It means that via various data, we can plot the time derivative of the temperature in the past, and the rate of change of today is far greater than the rate of change in the past. You do know what a derivative is, right? Judging from your earlier comment, it's possible that you don't. In which case, I would suggest you take some basic math before we can continue this conversation.

>>5258087

I'm aware. I was the one who posted the first graph on this thread. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

>>5258093
Let's have a laugh here, smartass.
Explain to me the uncertainty on a derivative value in noisy data depending on the amplitude of the noise.

>>5258093

Don't be so derisive. He had a point. You can't just look at a small peak and extrapolate very far from that. He's saying this could just be a little bump that in a few thousand years will barely be noticeable.

>>5258103
Two can play at this "smartass". What are the units that you expect my answer to be in?

>>5258104
That misses the point. The point is that this is completely unprecedented in the historical record. The default position should be "holy shit!", not "meh, not a big deal".

>>5258091

I would probably do what he did earlier and say that the atmosphere is not an ideal system and that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. I would ask to see evidence directly linking increased CO2 to increased radiative forcing.

Then I would be shown the data and probably shut up.

>>5258095
Well, don't. /sci/ has an abundance of actual devils without pretend ones.

>[citation needed]
This thread and all the others.

>>5258107
°c/year please

>>5258107
are you THAT stupid?
but i have to give you credit, you just made my day

>>5258091
Because saturation.
Total greenhouse effect is 324 W/m²
The doubling of CO2 will add 1 or 2 W/m²
As a comparison, a change of 3% in cloud coverage would make a variation of 2W/m² (you know, more heat, more evaporation, more clouds)
So what, you say? Well, cloud modeling is not included in the models yet, because we don't know how to do it, hence the CLOUD experiment.

>>5258110

You seem to be implying that clouds are not accounted for. Cloud data is parameterized. It's not a part of the model itself, but they are taken into account.

>>5258108
>implying we have any kind of accurate values for temperature DERIVATIVES, of all things
Where the hell have you been fishing that?

>>5258110
Protip: Water is saturated in the atmosphere. That's why we have /clouds/, dumbass. Thus there isn't a significant change in the forcing effects of water vapor over the periods of tens of years.

>>5258111
I post some, they get ignored.

>>5258116
You don't understand, stupid ass-licking dumb redneck.
I'm not talking about water effet as a greenhouse gas, I'm talking about the reflection of clouds.

>>5258115
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

>>5258118
And again, as water is saturated in the atmosphere, one should expect that year over year cloud cover is about the same. Not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

>>5258110
>As a comparison, a change of 3% in cloud coverage would make a variation of 2W/m² (you know, more heat, more evaporation, more clouds)

That's kinda the point though... The forcing form CO2 seems small at first, but there's all sorts of positive feedback mechanisms like the one you just described that amplify the effects.

>>5258119
>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
>nothing to do with your claims of a thousandfold higher derivative

>>5258120
>one should expect that year over year cloud cover is about the same
>laughihng_whores.jpg
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
Read that, you ignoramus, maybe you'll go to bed as a less ignorant person tonight.
There would be no need for such experiments if you were right.

>>5258121
I wish I had a name for this fallacy. If you have a system in equilibrium with huge sinks and huge sources, even the addition of a very small new source can greatly change the equilibrium position, depending on the nature of the system. It is a fallacy to say "oh, it's only 1%, so it can't do anything big".

>>5258122
You see the graph? I see the graph. Seems like we can plot some rate of change from that. While that particular url doesn't seem to have it handy, it's been done. Sorry the precision on the graph is too low to immediately see it. And no, I'm not in the mood to whip up the citation for you right now.

>>5258125
>http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
And so you're positing a change that drastic in cosmic rays to explain the observed data?

Pic related.

>>5258121
You don't understand, cloud formation is a negative feedback mechanism. They reflect light from the sun.

>>5258123
It's not a fallacy when it is used to answer to a pop-sci argument such as "look, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so making more makes more warming, so AGW is correct".
It's all about quantities, you have to SHOW the influence of feedbacks, not just use the pop-sci picture.

>>5258127
>Seems like we can plot some rate of change from that.
>statisticians_screaming_in_horror.gif
You really don't know what noise is, do you?

>>5258137
Whatever it takes to make yourself feel better about your denial of reality. On the statistics, you are wrong. I am not going to debate you on them, because better statisticians than I have looked at this, and this is the consensus of the scientific community.

>>5258132
>excluding possibilities because you don't like them
/sci/ence for you, misses and gentlemen

>>5258141
Right, this massive unprecedented increase in temperature and CO2 started just when humans started large scale agriculture and cattle raising, burning large amounts of coal and such, and it just happened to coincide with an unrelated drastic unprecedented change in the incoming rate of cosmic rays?

Yea, right.

>>5258142
[citation needed]

>>5258144
So earlier in this thread, at the very beginning, someone mentioned the medieval warm period.
He was shut down, because apparently it has no relation to the topic.
And now you come and deny it again.

>>5258144
>in the 70's
looks like it's getting colder
>in the 90's
looks like it's getting warmer
>today
not so sure
So, did we stop CO2 emissions in the last 15 years?

>>5258153
See:
>>5257988

>>5258145
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/02/359503/victory-michael-mann/

Recent Studies Vindicating the Hockey Stick:

Temperatures of North Atlantic “are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming” — Science (2011)
GRL (2010): “We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.“
JGR (2010): “The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last 1600 years.”
Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds (2009)
Unprecedented warming in Lake Tanganyika and its impact on humanity (2010)

>>5258159
see
>>5257994

>>5258156
A THOUSANDFOLD
I want the THOUSAND you promised me

>>5258164
I don't see how this is disputing that temperature is increasing. Again, please respond to:
>>5258074
Someone did previously, and suggested that we don't have historical records demonstrating this. I did have a mistake. It's like 10,000+ years of CO2 data IIRC, but only 2000~ years for temperature data.

>>5258169
This is an example of someone who won't be convinced even if I shoved the studies up his ass.

>>5258171
I don't need to be convinced of anything.
Stop changing the goalposts.
You said THOUSAND. It's a very strong word. You can't go back now. Give me the THOUSAND

>>5258170
I did, I'm still waiting for my thousand.

>>5258170
You see no problem with models not behing predictive?
Yes that is a problem.

>>5258173
>random all caps
>science denier / reality denier
Sorry, I think I'm done with you. I think I'd better stop before you figure out a way to change font size and color, and stop before I find myself on timecube or something.

I can't be arsed to teach you remedial knowledge on AGW when it's readily available online.

>>5258178
>realized he said too much crap
>start attacking the syntax because he has nothing to say
There is no thousandfold factor. If you were exaggerating, say "I was exaggerating for the sake of being right, and I'm a huge faggot".

>>5258153
Not one scientist said anything about an ice age in the 70's. The whole thing was made up by magazines from a comment like "if A+B then an ice age would be possible".

>>5258185
No, there's no thousandfold increase. He misspoke. The warming trend of the recent decades is roughly a hundred times faster than anything seen before.

And I can understand him not wanting to talk to you anymore. It's extremely taxing to present evidence to people who demand it just to discard it based on feeling.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

I still say Milankovic's cycles are the main raeason, all those graphs in this thread are in just way too small time periods

>>5258259
Nope.

For one. The milankovic cycles show a SLOW warming, followed by a fast drop.

What we have is an immensely fast warming.

For second, there is another direct measurement record available that can tell us things about temperature over the last 500 years, and that is borehole measurements. This involves drilling a deep hole and measuring the temperature of the earth at various depths. It gives us information about century-scale temperature trends, as warmer or cooler pulses from long term surface changes propagate down through the crust.

Using this method we can see that temperatures have not been consistently this high as far back as this method allows us to look.

>>5258263
okay, so milankovic cycles are ruled out as cause

but don't you think concluding what is happening with climate on planet scale by analysing just past 500 years or even just 1000 years is just not good enough?

>>5258264
Yes and no. Yes, because seeing the graph here >>5258216
shooting up like a rocket should sound the alarm bells for anyone.

And no, because that borehole data goes a lot farther back, showing no comparable warming at least since the last ice age.

>>5258216
Misspoking is one thing, not admitting it is another. This is a debate where everything you say will be discarded as a "strawman", so when someone makes an exaggeration, I don't try ti "interpret" it reasonably, because if I do, he will answer "I never said that".

Besides, I have no doubt AGW is happening, but goddamit people, numbers! They matter.

>>5258272
>And no, because that borehole data goes a lot farther back, showing no comparable warming at least since the last ice age.
Wait, why "no" then?

Yes, it's real. Yes, some of it is man-made. We know because from the 1800s onward, temperature has rapidly increased, as well as carbon dioxide emissions. The trick that people are very often missing is that it's the deforestation resultant from industrialization as much as the actual burning of coal. Fewer trees means fewer CO2 scrubbers, which means over time CO2 levels will increase.

It's also incredibly dangerous that the US is still debating whether climate change is real, because without a price on carbon, politicians are allowing inefficient businesses to stay open, and is disallowing green energy to really take root and make use of the US' massive technological base.

>>5258272
>shooting up like a rocket
Wait, I can understand how the fast warming itself is a relevant data, but the fact that it looks like a "shooting rocket" is due to the parabola shape, which starts before significant human CO2 emission.

>>5258325
Uh, I thought deforestation was a one time increase in CO2 concentration, not over time.
Trees turn CO2 into wood, but once a forest is mature and has reached its equilibrium, its CO2 balance sheet is zero.
Am I wrong?

>>5258333

No, you're not wrong, but when you cut trees down you release much of that carbon back into the environment when you make lumber out of it, or worse, burn it.

Also we've been steadily cutting trees for millenia, but only in the last 200 years has it really taken off.

>>5258329
Do note that the beginning of the parabola is the return from the little ice age.

If we hadn't been producing so much CO2, the warming should have stopped when it reached approximately the same level as before the little ice age.

Uh, so, it's not often talked about, but I think it's pretty important for political matters. Obviously not every continent will see the same changes. AFAIK high temperature might be a good thing for some regions like Europe during the medieval optimum.
So, are the models precise enough about that? Who is getting fucked in the arse, and who isn't so much.

>>5258272
but still, what is 10^3 years compared to 4.54 × 10^9 years, how old earth is?

>>5258359
No, it's worth noting that even if the Holocene had been as warm as or warmer than today, it would do nothing to undermine the theories and data that indicate today's warming is rapid and anthropogenic.

The fact that the Earth will be warmer isn't the alarming thing. It's the rate of change, which, as I've said before, is a hundred times faster than any natural occurrence(possibly barring the great extinctions) we know of. This rate of change is causing a huge stress on ecosystems and species. Us included.

To add to that, since there is a certain delay in how the climate changes to what we do, even if we stopped producing CO2 right this minute, the climate would still get a lot warmer before the rate would start to drop. And since we're very obviously not about to do that, the rate of change is just going to climb, making the temperature change faster and faster.

>>5258379
>making the temperature change faster and faster.
Not really, it's pretty much linear from now on. Of course that's still pretty fast.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-5-3.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-3-3.html

>>5257927
Generalisation!

>>5258216
The latest reconstruction in
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html
doesn't really show a particularly fast warming.

>>5258379
All that in spite of the fact that the average global surface temperature in declining.

Try again, algorefag.

>>5258442
Citation fucking needed.
The last report I saw that claimed that was exposed as a rather blatant and unapologetic lie, as can be read here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlights-heartlands-selective-nipcc-science.html

If you want to call yourself skeptic, why aren't you skeptical about your sources?

>>5258390
Here's hoping that it's a permanent thing and not caused by variation. Because if it is, the rate is going to jump again in a few years.

>>5258505
>Here's hoping that it's a permanent thing and not caused by variation.
What? I was talking about the projections, not the recent record.

>>5258541
The predictions are usually conservative. So-called best-case scenario.

In other words, the best-case scenario is that things will continue to get worse.

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/10/climate-alarmism

>>5258541
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/07/climate-models-unable-to-predict-abrubt-changes/

Seems the predictions may be too optimistic.

>>5258546
I don't see the relation with what you said. What do you mean "variation"?

>>5258553
There are ups and downs caused by weather every year. Then there are variations caused by El Nino and La Nina. Also variation caused by the sunspot cycle.

>>5258564
Now I understand that, but what do you mean by "Here's hoping that it's a permanent thing and not caused by variation." What are you talking about?

>>5258565
I though he was saying that the rate of warming had stopped rising. I was hoping that if that had been the case that it would have been a permanent thing.

Unfortunately he was talking about predictions.

>>5257887

BAHAHAHAHA

Models only do what you tell them to do. Remember the first law of programming? Garbage in, garbage out.

The models are saying CO2 = a certain a mount of warming because people are telling them to. It's not magic, they only tell you what you tell them to tel you.

The fact that these idiots are saying warming will accelerate should be a dead give away. Every bit of kinetic energy you add to a system makes it more difficult to add the next bit of kinetic energy, not less.

And most importantly, ALL the models predicted temperatures would continue to rise over the past 15 years. They have not done so. ALL the models failed.

Add that to the growing list of seemingly perpetual failed predictions and you have a question: Just how many times must you dipshits be wrong before we can finally ignore you?

>>5258595
>The models are saying CO2 = a certain a mount of warming because people are telling them to. It's not magic, they only tell you what you tell them to tel you.
Yes. I cannot believe how many people naively think climate models are ab initio.

>>5258595
>>5258600
There are global temperature predictions that have been validated. We can start with one of the pioneers in climate science. Over 100 years ago, in 1896, Svante Arrhenius predicted that human emissions of CO2 would warm the climate. Obviously he used a much simpler model than current Ocean Atmosphere Coupled Global Climate models, which run on super computers.

Running the clock forward: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official “coming out” to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Also
>perpetual failed predictions
Citation?
And
>ALL the models predicted temperatures would continue to rise over the past 15 years. They have not done so.
Citation?

Do be careful and don't quote bogus shit as explained here >>5258505
Because if you do, you might be an unthinking denialist.

>>5258595
>>5258600
It is only long-term predictions that need the passage of time to prove or disprove them, but we don’t have that time at our disposal. Action is required in the very near term. We must take the many successes of climate models as strong validation that their long-term predictions, which forecast dire consequences, are accurate.

If we seek even more confidence, there is another way to test a model’s predictive power over long time periods: hindcasting. By starting the model at some point in the past — say, the turn of the 20th century — and running it forward, feeding it confirmed observational data on GHG, aerosol, solar, volcanic, and albedo forcing, we can directly compare modeled behavior with the actual, observed course of events.

Of course, this has been done many times. Have a look at this page and judge for yourself how the models held up.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Science up in this bitch.

Have the thermal properties of carbon dioxide been known about since the turn of the century?

Yes

Have they been refined and improved on by the Air Force within the last decade?

Yes, they like their heat seeking missiles to behave.

What are those properties?

Well the C=O double bond absorbs infrared light as most bonds do, the C=O double bond is a really nice intense peak in IR spectra, I use it to identify Ketones and Aldehydes.

Does carbon have a handy built in way of aging it?

Yes carbon dating.

What would happen if you burnt an old source of carbon such as a fossil fuel?

You would release decayed CO2.

Can we measure an increase in the ratio of decayed CO2 to nondecayed CO2?

Yes we can, to such an extent that carbon dating is now unusable for future generations as there is now a spike starting around 1890 and still climbing.

Is this just happening because the undecayed CO2 is magically dissapearing?

No, total CO2 concentration has and is going up.

What would the expected effects of an increase in CO2 concentration be?

A warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere as the the heat is prevented from reaching higher atmosphere due to the CO2.

Is this seen?

Yes.

What would the affects of a rising temperature in the troposphere be?

An increase in moisture content of the air. A depletion of heat sinks such as ocean expansion and phase system changes (e.g. Ice caps)

Are the thermal properties of water well known?

Yes, again see IR spectra.

What would increase moisture in the air do?

Trap more heat in the troposphere causing a feedback loop.

What does a feedback loop do?

Cause more heating, which causes more feedback such as freeze trapped methane in the northern hemisphere.

Time to drop my basics of climate change pasta...

Are the thermal properties of methane understood?

Yes, yet again see IR spectra. Methane is actually a much more effective GHG as it has an effective duration in the atmosphere of 15 years.

Has the concentration of Methane in the atmosphere increased and what has changed to cause this?

Yes, an increasing concentration of methane producing livestock, gas pocket release and the defrosting of trapped methane.

Surely the planet has mechanisms for dealing with raised CO2, temperature and methane levels?

Yes, the ocean acts as the buffer solution of the planet absorbing CO2 and expanding in increased temperatures. The ecosystem enhances this affect via photosynthesis, organisms in the ocean dying and then being stored in the crust.

So there's no problem right?

Wrong, we dug that stored carbon up and pumped it into the atmosphere, the ocean has expanded massively already and become acidic, killing off micro organisms responsible for trapping carbon. We forced an equilibrium, it balanced out as long as it could and now it has gone past critical point. The system is now feeding back on itself, any small increase in forcing is now pushing harder and faster.

Are you saying we can't do anything?

We can stop making it worse.

So are you saying that people that don't 'believe' in anthropogenic climate change as bad as people that don't 'believe' in evolution?

Pretty much, and like evolution it happens whether you believe it or not. There are books for people like you, here's the link.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-the-effects-of-climate-change-and-gl.html


Sources and some light reading to let you barely scratch the surface:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR_spectroscopy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

>>5258634
And yet people still are opposed to geoengineering.
If it's too late to just reduce emission and hope it stabilizes, why the fuck would you oppose taking the matter into our own hands and take control of our environment.

>>5258633
>>5258634
Thank you. I'll leave this thread to your tender cares and go to sleep.

>>5258643
Because of unforeseen consequences.

No, really.

Having said that, there is a growing group of people[including scientists(yes, climatologists too) ] who say "fuck it, people seem hell-bent on breaking it, so we might as well try extreme measures in trying to fix it".

>>5258651
Well yeah, sure there are unforeseen consequences. But there are just as many unforeseen consequences in doing nothing.
To me, it seems very similar to what Zizek calls hypocrisy in politics (liberal politicians have left ideas, but always seem to have in the back of their mind that "it doesn't really work").
Being against geoengineering strikes me as the same kind of thing: "yeah, we think AGW will have dire consequences, but really we don't believe in it so we would rather do nothing."

I mean it's not like CO2 emissions are going to diminish anyway, it's pretty obvious now.

>>5257995
>using a think of the kids argument

>>5258663
Sure. But by unforeseen consequences people mean things like "causing an anoxic zone a thousand miles across".

But there's also the psychological factor.
If we find a band-aid solution that is capable of reversing the warming trend for a decade or two, people will see it as a permission to continue as they are. And when the limits of the band-aid solution are reached, things will be a lot worse.

>>5258687
How so? Creating CO2 sinks is a pretty good solution.
Besides, whatever happens, we are not going to emit CO2 eternally, since fossile fuels will run out soon enough.
All that's required is for the solution to last long enough.

>>5258663
>it's not like CO2 emissions are going to diminish

CO2 emissions are down 8% in the US over the last 6 years.

>>5258739
>exporting heavy industry
>how quaint, we aren't emitting as much as before
What you should look is the CO2 footprint of an american consumer (so including imported goods).
And unless the rich countries voluntarily keep emerging countries head under the water, they are going to cause a massive increase in CO2 emission.

>>5258133

Cloud formation is a net positive feedback mechanism.

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

>>5258634
>The system is now feeding back on itself, any small increase in forcing is now pushing harder and faster.
There is no evidence for positive feedback. All available evidence inclines toward the model that burning all available carbon will have only a small, slow warming effect, much like the distinctly non-disastrous effects we've experienced thus far.

>>5258806
>distinctly non-disastrous
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1095643310000887
In both species, a 3 °C rise in water temperature caused increased oxygen consumption and reduced hypoxia tolerance, changes that were not reduced by acclimation to the higher temperature for 7 to 22 days. Critical [O2] increased by 71% in the cardinalfish and by 23% in the damselfish at 32 °C compared to 29 °C. The higher oxygen needs are likely to reduce the aerobic scope, which could negatively affect the capacity for feeding, growth and reproduction.

http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20093271652.html;jsessionid=16EA920FDCB4B5C55085EAFCEFB89EA9
>The capacity for aerobic activity (aerobic scope) declined at temperatures above the summer average (29°C) and in CO2-acidified water (pH 7.8 and ~1000 ppm CO2) compared to control water (pH 8.15). Aerobic scope declined by 36 and 32% for O. doederleini and O. cyanosoma at temperatures between 29 to 32°C... Mortality rate increased sharply at 33°C, indicating that this temperature is close to the lethal thermal limit for both species.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029535
>During the bleaching episodes of 1998 and 2005, five out of seven species that were exposed to unusually high temperatures exhibited significant decreases in symbiotic algae that, in certain cases, preceded further decreases in tissue biomass. Following bleaching, Montastraea spp. colonies with low relative biomass levels died, whereas colonies with higher biomass levels survived.

>>5258824
tl;dr small slow warming effects can really fuck shit up

>>5258827
>tl;dr small slow warming effects can cause minor changes in wildlife populations

>>5258829
>can't into ecological indicators

>>5258829

>grasping at straws

How this ever became a political debate astounds me.

When I was a kid in the early 90's going to elementary school, we did Earth Day projects, we learned about global warming, we recycled as a class etc.

Then it became a hotly political issue once environmentalists threatened to actually impose various limitations and regulations on corporations.

The reaction has been to call the whole thing into question.

Global Warming is hardly what I'm most concerned about anyway.

Humans are clearly having an extremely destructive impact on the environmental status quo.

You don't need to pull out ice sheet records, ice-age evidence or decry hokey-stick graphs to debate environmentalism. You only need to drive to a mountaintop removal site in West Virginia, or take a trip through the Amazon, or have a look at any of the millions of mines and landfills around the world.

>>5258806
>much like the distinctly non-disastrous effects we've experienced thus far.
Nearly all of the warming we've experience so far has gone straight into the oceans. It's really only just started hitting the land.

>>5258836
Everyone and their dog in science knows that suggesting and promoting links between what they want to research and global warming is an easy way to get funding, especially if they can generate some ominous-sounding speculation.

Thing is, you can look at just about any system and see potential impending doom if you want to, human influence or not. There aren't a lot of populations of anything that stay static. Something's always dying off, while something else is undergoing unsustainable population growth. It's just how nature is: a great big fight all the time.

>If the water gets warmer, some kinds of fish might have to move to cooler water.
>If the water gets warmer, some coral might die back in places and grow out in others.
>Therefore, the sky is falling, and we should all live like Tibetan monks.

>>5258842
>implying you didn't propagandized in school for polical reasons

>>5258866

But guess what happens when things change too rapidly?

>>5258873
Hippies panic that we're not cavemen anymore, and demand that this be corrected.

>>5258866
the problem is that species can expand into new distros or develop new traits to deal with shit - if you give them time to adapt. Humans are causing the environment to change at a ridiculous rate and it has quickly outstripped the ability of organisms to evolve in many instances. We're in the middle of the most rapid extinction in history - man has killed off more species in 500yrs than any other event has in 100,000. At some point, we're going to kill off a major ecological crux like oceanic phytoplankton (which are notoriously sensitive to the introduction of excess carbonic acid into oceans) and cripple ourselves. And even if humans aren't causing global warming - we obviously have the power to fuck up the environment without thinking. look at the ozone hole. look at the devastation that occurs every time a chemical plant accidentally floods a river with waste.

tl;dr you'll see it my way at some point.

>>5258894

he probably won't

>>5258888
God dammit! Quads was wasted on this horrible thread?

>>5258216
If you notice that the lines draw closer together the nearer to the present you get, you can extrapolate that anything that wasn't directly observed is hypothetical bullshit.

>>5258894
>We're in the middle of the most rapid extinction in history - man has killed off more species in 500yrs than any other event has in 100,000.
In the last 100,000? Sure.

In any 100,000 years? I don't think you've been reading your natural history textbook.

>At some point, we're going to kill off a major ecological crux like oceanic phytoplankton ... and cripple ourselves
That's just ridiculously stupid. Do you have any idea how diverse oceanic phytoplankton is?

It's far more likely that we'll vastly increase oceanic phytoplankton by farming the oceanic deserts for oil and fertilizer. We've already seen how sprinkling some cheap minerals can create huge blooms in the deadest parts of the ocean, it's only a matter of time before people figure out a cost-effective way to scoop it all up and stew it into a slurry of valuable industrial chemicals.

>>5258916
>natural history
Species are dropping off the face of the earth at rates comparable to the extinction rates of the other Big Five extinctions.

>plankton
Phytoplankton drive earth's biogeochem cycles. Change the species distro of phytoplankton and you change nearly every ecosystem on the planet. one mistake and you have a serious global problem on your hands.

In other news: that's a terrible way to make industrial chemicals.

>>5258916

>wanting to live during a mass extinction event

The holocene could get pretty nasty.

>>5258842
That's a fallacy, general pollution problems won't simply be solved by CO2-related solutions.
Unless you count "let's reduce economic activity and population" as a solution.

>>5258894
>And even if humans aren't causing global warming - we obviously have the power to fuck up the environment without thinking.
Yes, and? What are you getting at?

>>5258916
I don't think you understand how long extinction events usually take. For example, the Permian-Triassic extinction likely took millions of years, and even the Cretaceous-Paleogene event probably took several million years at least. On a human time scale, you could say that the rate of warming or loss in biodiversity is slow, but on a geologic timescale the rate for both of those is unprecedented, especially when they are caused by a single species.

>>5258959
>Change the species distro of phytoplankton and you change nearly every ecosystem on the planet. one mistake and you have a serious global problem on your hands.
I'm sure we're all terribly worried about your kooky fantasy disaster scenario.

>In other news: that's a terrible way to make industrial chemicals.
Sure, just like soy, corn, and canola are.

The phosphate mines are running low. Oil's getting harder to find and extract. Stuff's growing faster because of the increased atmospheric carbon. There are huge areas of the ocean where you can sprinkle small amounts of very inexpensive minerals, and produce vast quantities of living matter full of stored energy from the sun and less inexpensive minerals from seawater. I'm not seeing how this is a bad option.

>>5258993
Because all they care about is attacking capitalism.

>>5258993

Now find one ecologist who agrees with you.

>>5258972
The "mass extinction event" we're living in is the one where stuff is dying out because we're taking over its habitat and making it from what was comfortable for it into what is comfortable for us. And killing off anything that's too dangerous or delicious.

That's not the kind of mass extinction event I'm too worried about humanity coping with.

>>5259005

You are hilariously uninformed when it comes to ecology.

>>5258993
Find one marine biologist that agrees with you, even.

>>5259004
>>5259020
About what? That phytoplankton has an extremely diverse and robust population?

>>5259005
Our fertilizers and our pesticides kill beneficial insects, our production plants kill fish, our carbon outpouring kills/forces Aprocita to relocate... Aprocita are the main 'control-system' the insect world has.

And the creatures that feed on them start going extinct, too. Why do you think Japan's staple seafood dishes have been replaced in the past thirty years? Not because they're going extinct from over-fishing, but because their food sources have gone extinct.

>>5259029
>kooky fantasy disaster scenario

That part. Most would agree that disturbing one of the most important low-level foodchains in the world's distribution is going to have climactic results upon the upper levels.

>>5257854
>climate change debate

What debate? Climate change is real dumbfuck. There are a shit ton of scientific papers on the matter. There are none against it.

\thread

>>5259053
Unfortunately, the US government disagrees. Which has lead to volatility in mainstream opinion of climate-change.

>>5259037
>Why do you think Japan's staple seafood dishes have been replaced in the past thirty years?
Because the Japanese have been able to afford to, duh. It's not exactly the world's largest expanse of spectacular agricultural land that they live on. Before they got seriously rich, they had no choice but to depend on the ocean.

I don't know if you've noticed, but we've got more food than ever. Yes, a lot of our production kills stuff locally around it. Yes, some people are making more of a mess than they should be. No, it's not already a disaster and steadily getting worse.

>>5259051
>Most would agree that disturbing one of the most important low-level foodchains in the world's distribution is going to have climactic results upon the upper levels.
I didn't say that fucking up the phytoplankton wouldn't make a big mess, I said that fucking up the phytoplankton is a kooky fantasy disaster scenario.

It's like saying, "If we're not careful, someday we'll accidentally kill all of the grasses and trees!" only about ten times as stupid.

>>5259053
Of course climate change is real. We all know. The problem is some pseudoscience crackpots claiming it's man made.

>>5259057
>more food than ever
Maybe in production animals? The nutritional content of vegetables has been markedly decreasing just over the past decade. And toxin content in fish has increased. Our food is literally becoming worse for us.

Also, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Squid population drops cause tuna population drops, which in turn causes shark population drops. When the predators(shark and tuna) roam less area, schooling fish such as hake, mackerel, and herring proliferate. This reduces other food sources. It does increase killer whale survival rate, though. So I suppose it's a plus for Free Willy fans.

>>5259095
I'm not going to take someone seriously who disputes that food is becoming more abundantly available in higher quality.

If vegetables are becoming less nutritious, it's only because of a lack of market sensitivity to nutritional content. It's certainly not some general environmental thing.

Toxins in fish are definitely an issue, but it's one of those local short-term things, where people aren't paying attention to "don't eat where you shit" common sense principles.

CLIMATE CHANGE DOESN'T EXIST!
>Climate change can now be observed with current technology
>The huge majority of scientists now acknowledge the fact that it exists

CLIMATE CHANGE ISN'T A BAD THING!!
>More frequent and intense weather hazards such as typhoons, floods etc.
>Studies show that the rise of water level will be absolutely destructive for populated islands and coasts

CLIMATE CHANGE ISN'T MAN MADE!
>Climate change's beginning curiously coincides with the golden age of the industrial revolution and the second billion of humans living on earth
>Millions, if not billions of vehicles burn tons and tons of gas every days
>You can even observe the emission of CO2 from outer space
> ???

Well, at least we make progress every 10 years...

>>5259063
> It's like saying, "If we're not careful, someday we'll accidentally kill all of the grasses and trees!" only about ten times as stupid.

Careful with what you THINK we can or cannot do.
Google 'klebsiella planticola'.
Enjoy.

>>5259171
>>You can even observe the emission of CO2 from outer space
[citation needed]

Even if it happened to be true, there aren't even any humans in outer space to observe it.

>>5259175
One good example:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL052395.shtml

>Even if it happened to be true, there aren't even any humans in outer space to observe it.
>What are satellites

I've experienced quite a lot of floods in recent years.

>2009
>2010
>2012

Before '09, there were none major ones. The minor ones did not cause damage in the millions. It didn't even exceed hundred thousand euros.

Don't know how to interpret it.

On topic: Global warming is real, man made or otherwise.

>>5259183
>my ~18 years of experience on this Earth is enough data to formulate an opinion upon the climate of the Earth which has existed for billions of years.

>>5259172
Interesting story, but it's awfully unlikely that a plant symbiote that reliably kills its partners would flourish in the wild.

This is a, "Oh shit... we were thinking of using something for fertilizer that had something in it that would kill the crop!" story, not a "Oh shit... we almost let a genetically engineered superbug into the wild that would make the whole Earth barren!" story.

>>5259214
>Interesting story, but it's awfully unlikely that a plant symbiote that reliably kills its partners would flourish in the wild.
>mfw

>>5259220
Oh, what a surprise. The kook is back to support other people's kookery.

>>5259231
Hello again.

So this is what the thread has devolved into?

One side posts facts along with sources, while the denialists respond bu staring into their own navels and claiming the other side is kooks and hippies.

Not that I'm terribly surprised, but I am rather underwhelmed about you denialists.

>>5259427
I mean over the next 100 years.

>>5259171
>More frequent and intense weather hazards such as typhoons, floods etc.
You went full pleb there buddy.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo779.html
It's a decrease of 6-34% in frequency and an increase of 2-11% in intensity.

>>5259183
>Christy and Knutson clearly state current streak cannot be linked to climate change
>people still use it as an argument

>>5259427
Yes, that's the tropical cyclone-part down.
There are other extreme weather phenomena, like the floods that he mentioned, but also drought, heat waves and so on.

As habitats are disrupted, we could also see a resurgence of vermin in developed countries.

>>5259439
>There are other extreme weather phenomena
Then mention the other one, god fucking dammit.
Why would you want to appear as an uneducated plebeian?

Here's a bright spot:
http://planet3.org/2012/11/15/bp-cops-a-plea/
>BP has agreed to a plead guilty to 14 criminal counts, including manslaughter, and will pay $4 billion over five years in a settlement with the Justice Department over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the company and Justice Department announced Thursday.

>In addition, the London-based oil giant will pay $525 million over three years to settle claims with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which said the company concealed information from investors.

>Individuals working for BP will also be prosecuted. This is quite correct. BP was always considered criminally negligent by the oil industry. This may well also have been the single largest incidence of criminal negligence in history.

While it's not about climate change, it IS a case where it was decided that being willfully ignorant is no defense if your actions cause untold havoc.

Now to wait for the first case against AGW-denialists.

>>5259454
Yeah I can't wait for chicken politicians to blame some scientists for their lack of action.
Oh wait, Italy already did it.

Yes, OP, global warming is certainly real and is almost certainly man made. Temperatures have been rising very, very consistently over several decades and have not indication of cooling. In spite of what this idiot (>>5258993) thinks the future is probably going to be catastrophic on a large scale, and in a few decades there will be annual droughts, mass extinctions, far more extreme, erratic weather and many people (overwhelmingly in the third world) dying.

I wonder, how is there even a debate about this? Shouldn't the data speak for itself?

>>5259753
It does. However, there are people who will lose profits if policies are put in place to combat the climate change.

These unscrupulous people have spread money far and wide in an effort to spread misinformation and to make people question legitimate scientists.

Unfortunately, the campaign has caused even otherwise smart people to think "Hmm, there must be something wrong since there's so much controversy."

It's rather sad, really.

>>5259146
Holy shit, heaviest case of denial I've ever seen on /sci/.

Here's what you need to know OP. It's real, and it's going to do a lot of damage. Not all at once mind you, progressively. It's also too late to stop it, but that doesn't mean we can't mitigate some of the damage.

lol@/sci/tards who actually think there is a controversy over the issue.

>>5259846
>there must be something wrong
with the uniform faith and worship of a UN computer simulation of earths climate. The earth is still warming from the last mini ice age but cooling overall as the molten core cools.
Obviously fossil fuels are running out and carbon tax is emission tax. Any scientist who doesn't mumble and bumble along with this giant turd of consensus science is risking their career.. Shiat, you can even pretend to be a "climate" scientist! Meteorologists were respected once upon a time.

>>5259880
Do you not watch TV? Things like this happen all the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8tcf6exeDw

>>5259890
>as the molten core cools
What. You do realize we're likely to have another dozen ice ages before this has any noticeable effect, right? In fact, the core's cooling is so slow to effect the earth's ambient temperature that the sun's extremely slow increase in output heat negates it.

>>5259890
Actually no. The Earth was in a cooling trend. The warming-up from the last ice age had already ended some thousands of years ago.

As can be seen from this graph, for instance >>5258272

And yes, that's official.

And viewing the increasing agreement among climate models and climate scientists as collusion instead of consensus is a rather conspiratorial take on the normal course of scientific investigation. I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, but you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer.