/sci/ - Science & Math

One of the videos that made me rethink my standpoint and made me unsure about what I had to this point seen as truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

And it is meant to say "both"

>Is Climate Change happening?
Yes.
>If so, is human action responsible for this?
Yes.
>How is climate change (if it is happening) going to effect us?
We'll probably have to move our major cities inland in a couple centuries. Food might be a lot harder to grow. Probably lots of drought in areas that used to have enough water for the amount of people living there now.
>How can we prevent this from happening?
Short answer: We can't.
Long answer: We'd need to cut all human carbon emissions to near-zero or maybe even negative right fucking now. That ain't happening.

>Is Climate Change happening?
Yes. Irrefutably.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>If so, is human action responsible for this?
Yes. Irrefutably.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=three-quarters-of-climate
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
>How is climate change (if it is happening) going to effect us?
In a myriad different ways, directly and indirectly. In short, living will get more expensive.
>How can we prevent this from happening?
We can't. Not anymore.

>>5424392
Is there a possibility that human carbon emissions, which make up only a small percentage of general carbon emissions, are not responsible for global warming?

It would also be great If you would back your answers up with sources. Not saying this to confront you, but just to be able to follow your argumentation.

>>5424403
>Is there a possibility that human carbon emissions, which make up only a small percentage of general carbon emissions, are not responsible for global warming?
The issue goes beyond just the relative percent of carbon emissions. The carbon cycle WAS a fairly balanced system. The natural carbon sinks in the ecosystem were well equipped to account for natural sources of carbon. You had a constant inflow from decaying plant matter, animal life, and what-not, but you also had a constant outflow into natural reservoirs. It wasn't completely balanced, which is why we had periodic fluctuations back and forth between ice ages and fucking-hotness, but for the most part it was doing fine on its own.

fucking spam filter

>>5424415
The problem with human emissions is that we've added a source without a corresponding sink, and we've pretty much saturated the natural sinks' abilities to compensate for our added load. It's like going up to kids balanced on a seesaw and sitting a cinder block on one side (that's an exaggeration of the scale, but you get the picture). The carbon is going to keep building up.

fuck you antispam systems

>>5424416
As for sources, I really recommend that you read through the IP CC reports. The Skeptical Science site is a pretty good layman's introduction to the topic, but while it covers more recent science than the IP CC reports, the authoritative reviews of the field are still in the IP CC. Just be aware that by our current understanding, the IP CC lowballs pretty much everything.

sorry for breaking it up so much and fucking with the acronyms, i couldn't identify which part the system was objecting to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oUroDPcbYo

>Is Climate Change happening?
Yes. It always has been happening.

>If so, is human action responsible for this?
That claim can't be made conclusively. There are many proponents for this idea, but there is yet to be any sort of link to directly tie human intervention and climate change together.

>How is climate change (if it is happening) going to effect us?
Seasonal changes. Colder at times. Hotter at times. The landscape of areas will change accordingly also. Jungles will grow in places and forests will turn to deserts in others. The "build up" to climate change will probably just be noticed in our bank accounts however.

>How can we prevent this from happening?
We can't stop it. It'll happen regardless of anything we do. It might be possible to slow it down, but without understanding how it works its pretty much a crap shoot. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions might slow it down. Then again it might have no effect at all.

>>5424444
>That claim can't be made conclusively.
How is Hoaxland institute these days? Still full of lies? Okay then.

>>5424444
>There are many proponents for this idea, but there is yet to be any sort of link to directly tie human intervention and climate change together.
This is an impossible standard for science to ever actually meet.

>>5424377
>>5424377
>Is Climate Change happening?
Yes, the globe has already heated by ~ 1 Kelvin from pre-industrial temperatures and we are on track for 4-6 K more

>If so, is human action responsible for this?
Absolutely, there is evidence streching back to the 1970's for this and there is effectively no debate amongst experts. Even traditionally very 'conservative' institutions like the IMF and the Global Bank now agree with this.

>How is climate change (if it is happening) going to effect us?
More extreme weather events, Climate refugees, decreased food production

>How can we prevent this from happening?
By pricing carbon, most efficiently through a carbon credits system like there is currently in the EU

>>5424377
>Is Climate Change happening?
SAGE WITH THE FORCE OF 300 BILLION SUNS

>implying anthropogenic global warming hasn't been a reality known for over 60 years now

>>5424482
Just give it time. After all, most conservatives are still finding the bible a new and interesting fad.
They'll wake up to the climate change in about 1700 years.

Climate change is just a symptom of the much larger issue of overpopulation.

Solve overpopulation and you will solve climate change.

>>5424490
>overpopulation
>there is that word again and i don't think you know what it means
>implying overpopulation
>overpopulation ISHYGDDT

>>5424490
It's not really overpopulated, just very badly managed.

>>5424488
You know, scientists are so fucking modest when it comes to politics, but how could anything be worse with scientists in charge? Fuck all politicians, charlatans, all of them!

>>5424490

The entire human race could be placed in South Africa and would have a lower population density than Tokyo.

>>5424510
The thing is, scientists would, on the whole, expect people to behave summat logically.

We'd need a Hari Seldon and the Foundation project to swing it.

>>5424513
>>5424506

>hurr durr

>>5424510
the reason for this, as I have come to realize, is that many politicians try and bring god into the equation. Scientists are able to separate themselves, sometimes completely, from the thought that a god exists, therefore letting them make decisions based on logic, rather than ethics and morals. The government is currently trying to "play god", so to speak, by watching us. Obamacare, from what i have heard, requires chips to be installed in you. therefore making you able to be tracked, like a fucking Dog

>>5424510
Politicians are trained policy analysts, and their expertise is in managing the different priorities of social groups. They are supposed to be diplomats and compromisers.

Those are all things scientists would be terrible at.

>>5424388
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8&index=1&feature=plpp_video

>>5424733
>Obamacare, from what I have heard, requires chips to be installed in you.

>>5424757
How so? Scientests are analysts

>Implying politicians are actually good at doing those things anyway

> Is Climate Change happening?
yes

> If so, is human action responsible for this?
if at all, to some negligible amount

> How is climate change (if it is happening) going to effect us?
randomly. But more people will certainly amplify the effect.

> How can we prevent this from happening?
Why? And no, we can't. Probably not in the next couple thousand years.

>>5424898
>if at all, to some negligible amount
Science says bullshit.

>>5424935
Shhhhhh, don't worry, the free market will take care of it all.

>Is Climate Change happening?

see right there is lays the problem to this entire discussion. The weather is different now than it was earlier today. Today's weather is different than yesterdays. That was different than last month, last year, last decade, last century, last millenia. Sure if you look at the last 10 years or even last 100 you'd say "OMGG look at all the climate change lollll" but try expanding your fucking sample.

the earth has been around for something like 4.5 BILLION years. we've been around (and writing things down) for like 20,000 tops. Thats like a small thousandth of 0.1% of Earth's lifespan. But we burned some fossilized plants starting 30 years ago and oh god we're all gonna die in a fiery apocalypse because al gore said so. How are those tinfoil hats fitting your hydroencephaletic skulls, faggots?

>>5424949
>see right there is lays the problem to this entire discussion.
The problem right there is that you fundamentally misunderstand the argument scientists are making.

Nobody gives a single flying fuck about the planet itself. Nobody is saying the planet itself is going to be destroyed. Nobody gives a shit about the Earth's lifespan. (well, maybe geologists care)

What people care about is the conditions that human society developed in, and whether the new conditions we're heading towards are conducive to life as we know it. The age of the Earth is irrelevant. The absolute extremes of temperature the Earth has experience are irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the alterations we make to the climate will produce livable conditions in the next several centuries and beyond, such that we can maintain our current way of life.

>>5424377
>How can we prevent this from happening?

hah, i love how people are so fucking stupid that they think you can stop shit like this.
you cant, at the very best, you can only slightly postpone it.

even if you can magically convince everybody to cut emissions by half (you cant), then in twenty years time conditions will be exactly the same as they would have been 10 years ago, without the cut.

all you'd have bought is a little bit more time.
and it aint even significant.

in reality, all the whiny faggots who complain about global warming only reduce shit by such a pathetically puny amount that they barely postpone it at all.
they're just basically pissing on a forest fire.
dont even bother, just accept the fucking inevitable

>>5424960
You're not EK at all.

>>5424960
> that pic
> "proving" a camel can carry infinite bales of hay if we only add it one piece of straw at a time

>>5424966
It can. The problem is that infinite bales of hay require infinite rope, which obviously a camel cannot support.

>>5424959
America represents less than 1/5 of the world's greenhouse emissions. So even if we cut ours by 100%, the effect on "livable conditions in the next several centuries" would be negligable. the american environment isn't a closed system lol the earth is a single planet with global systems and forces at play

>>5424969
>The straw(man) that broke the camel's back
nice!

>>5424970
> less than 1/5
> negligible
Please give me such a portion of your salary for the rest of your life, since it is "negligible."

>>5424960
>that pic
>That's like saying an internal temperature of 94 degrees Fahrenheit is fine because it's close to the normal 98 degrees

>>5425007
>for a human, that is

>>5425007
it aint the same
CO2 levels vary loads throughout history.
supervolcanoes an shit make a huge difference.

shit sorts itself out eventually.

nature works in cycles.
if co2 is high, plants prosper coz they eat that shit.
if its low, plants suffer a population dip, and levels will rise again.

dont sweat it, hun

>>5425003

negligible if you consider how massive a system the Earth is, how much it changes, how small of a time span we have been observing such and recording the data, etc.

I never said climate change is impossible or not real or whatever. I guess I'm an 'agnostic'...I don't trust anyone to tell me a simple answer and I'm too lazy to actually pour through data and analysis myself. While we have to try and use science to understand the world, we can't listen to politicians and social figures with things to gain and votes to sell or base our understanding off of incomplete data.

You are claiming that mans actions in the very recent past (~100 years) are going to have a significantly disturbing effect on the ecosystems and living conditions of mankind. The burden of proof, then, is upon you.

>>5425030
>The burden of proof, then, is upon you.
OK.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

>>5425039
>http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Can't open the link. Since you seem to be so knowledgeable about the subject of Climate Change, and have sources to support the theory so readily available, why don't you 'tell me in your own words' what it says?

>>5425030
> the burden of proof is on you
> I don't trust anyone to tell me a simply answer
ya blew it

>>5425045
>they type in their on words, you ask for citations
>they provide
>you then ask for them to put the citation in their own words

>>5425049
doyouevenintowhat? The burden of proof, as I understand it, lies with one making a claim. I am questioning both the claim itself (wedidit) and the evidence (i havent read it, and I'm questioning if anon has either).

There are many facets to the science of "climate change", no? It is not a simple or singular topic, therefore it does not have a simple answer. That is a logical statement.

>>5425050
>>5425050
>>5425050
>>5425050
>>5425050
>>5425050

>>5425050
Actually you are misconstruing my words in a way that makes them sounds utterly ridiculous, and then attacking that idea. Anon typed in his own words an assertion "humans did climate change and its gonna be bad in the future". I asked for his sources/citations on that, as anyone logically would if they are inquiring into a subject. He provided a source I cannot access, and I am simply asking for him to tell me what the sources said, briefly, since I can't read them myself. Anyone providing a scholarly or scientific and peer-reviewed source used in meaningful discussion should be able to form and articulate a brief summary of its contents, that is if they have actually read and do understand it themselves.

>>5425050
denialists in a nutshell, on all topics, for all times

never was there a better post on the subject

I wish we could just sticky this post, so we could refer to it every time some fucking idiot shows up (which is hourly)

>>5425065
Indeed the burden of proof lies with those making the claims. And climate scientists have amassed an enormous amount of scientific proof. Which you stated, quite plainly, you weren't going to read.

Go fuck yourself.

>>5425065
....What the fuck is that picture?

>>5425070
>>5425075

Here is a picture of the temperature of the Earth over the last 12,000 years. A tiny glimpse of a speck of the Earth's long life, which you seem to be blissfully ignorant of. I got it from Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

Now tell me that there is some sort of non-predictable trend (gods and al gore magic aside) with global temperatures, and at the helm of that ship barreling out of control is our "carbon footprint".

You know your theory is shit when it crumbles under the slightest critical inquiry.

Adaption > prevention. Don't even try to prove me wrong, you can't. But of course humans are too lazy to adapt and will bankrupt half the world trying to stop it.

>>5425100
You know your position is shitty when you're using a graph that doesn't even concern the era under discussion.

>>5425100
Humans were not building large cities on the coastline in the last 12,000 years. Temperature change is going to be a MAJOR problem in the future.

Similarly there is very little problem in nature with climate change, animals go through it frequently in their timelines. However, we've already beaten the ever living shit out of most species on earth due to habitat loss which means those species, which are already threatened, will most likely be lost.

We very well ought to take climate change seriously especially if we're currently at the root of it's cause, which we are.

>>5424400
>http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>That chart
Not insulting you, but everyone forgets that we are leaving a period of cooling.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
It's not shocking. After the UN's Climate Change committee got hacked, the public learned they lied and hid facts.
Despite the fact that Climate Change is founded on misinformation (of all boards, /sci/ should know the world naturally has periods of warming and cooling), we are still destroying our environment.

>>5425094
dead baby

>>5425150
> the public learned they lied and hid facts.
are you talking about that climategate leak where actually nothing at all of nefarious import was revealed?

>>>/pol/

>>5425133
oh yes in the past decade things have gotten so bad. better repent of your sins now before hell comes to earth and jeebus raptures us.

heres one dating back 800,000 years and recent as of 2010 [which by the way I would bet money is more recent data than your shit web link] which further confirms patterns in global temperature from successive ice ages and warmings

the temperature changes, humanity needs to fucking get used to this shit and stop thinking we live in a fairy tale garde. man-made global warming is a hoax. still waiting on your evidence

>>5425160
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

link sry

>MAJOR problem in the future

indeed, global cooling, less food

>>5425160
>which further confirms patterns in global temperature from successive ice ages and warmings
Implying anyone is arguin against that
Do you even know what climate change is all about?

>>5425176

nice shit-tier graphic stew ya got there bro. Did ya make that all by yourself?

>>5425150
Will you kindly stop shoveling all that bullshit out of your mouth.
After careful scrutiny, the courts decided that there was no 'climategate' or 'climategate2'. What there was, was idiots misinterpreting scientific jargon in the most malicious way. So you can keep your Misinformation-tag to yourself.

Also, WE SHOULD BE IN A COOLING TREND UNTIL THE END OF THE NEXT ICE AGE.

I fucking hate you and all the little fuckheads like you who keep spouting the same heartland propaganda, WHICH WAS DENOUNCED AS HOAXES MONTHS OR YEARS AGO.

So fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you.

With a telephone pole wrapped in razor wire and dipped in ebola.

>>5425178

No. I asked the person claiming to know about climate change what information could be gleaned from his sources and have yet to hear anything. perhaps you could tell me?

>>5425189
> the courts decided
Bet if the courts decided the earth is flat and the colour red doesn't exist you'd buy it too.

Also, courts are not staffed by scientists.
And even if they were, majority argument is uselss.

Just shut the fuck up and wait for a decade.

>>5425189
without even examining anything science related. Just realize that there is no reason for anyone to "want to lie" about global warming. Scientists and governments have more motivation to reject global warming than accept it. That is why it is a heated issue, because people to not want to sacrifice money and resources to combat climate change.

>>5425218
>>5425216

the earth, among other things, is subject to ice ages and warmings every 100,000 years or so. we cannot stop this. we cannot affect this. Sometimes climactic shit goes down, like mega fucking volcanoes and meteors and shit. we have no control. reliable evidence, like ice cores (see vostok) give us this information. take you magic and hoax theories to /x/

>>5425189
>Will you kindly stop shoveling all that bullshit out of your mouth.
>Implying I could fit a shovel in my mouth
Maybe I've read articles that embellish the facts of the Climate hack. I'll admit that. Still, scientists haven't been tracking this all long enough to assume that we are the cause. Is such a thing possible? Yes, we could be the cause. But scientists and researchers cannot say that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that humanity is the cause of the (more than likely natural) problem.

Does anyone have that comic where it says "But what if we make the world better for no reason?"

>>5425176
Time Magazine is not a science journal

>>5425278

It would appear we don't need to

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