/sci/ - Science & Math

>I like to consider myself scientifically literate
We all do that, don't we?

Now, how would a scientifically literate person go about this?

>>6321470
>Or at least, is there a majority consensus among the scientific community that it is occurring.
Overwhelmingly. If you'd like to wait around, I'll post some primary lit for you to read.

>>6321470
Yes, it's happening and very likely caused by humans. You can find scientific studies confirming this everywhere, google, reference links on related wiki articles, etc.
And we don't know what exactly the warming can cause/amplify, see the recent cold-wave. So saying it's not a problem is very ignorant.

>>6321477
Good places to start:

http://hero.epa.gov/index.cfm?action=reference.details&reference_id=92936

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17962418

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.short

And if you'd like to understand why it's such a big problem, I can explain it in terms of several different events which will occur if the current trend continues.

>>6321480
Sorry, I didn't know where to go about finding the raw data on this sort of thing. I get most of my scientific news from magazines and occasionally peer-reviewed journals. I've got plenty of books of physics and shit but I only get my "new" info from these sources, and they usually don't have a great deal of actual numbers and data to peruse.

>>6321484
Thank you, I'll be reading these right away.

>>6321470
>Or at least, is there a majority consensus
Son, scientists have to make a ligin somehow. And if politicians tell me global warming should be real, then fuck it. I'm just trying to get my seed into another round like most of us, capish?

>>6321470

I remain convinced that we need more evidence.

It's a fact that the global temperature is increasing, and the most rigorous explanations suggest that humans are causing it.
Most of the denial comes from politics rather than from science - people think they oppose global warming, but what they actually oppose is global warming tax.

>>6321520
>I remain convinced that we need more evidence.

>I don't care about the environment and don't want to stop raping it, so I'll feign ignorance as a delaying maneuver.

Go back to /pol/.

>>6321528
OP here. Regardless of my decision on whether or not I believe in human climate change, I still remain convinced that we as a species need to invest in cleaner energy. Nuclear fission, solar, and perhaps one day fusion power are among some of my favorite choices for power production. We also need to focus a great deal on better and faster public transportation to cut down on the number of cars.

So really this is just an issue of whether or not I think humans can really produce enough pollutants in only a few centuries to actually affect something as large as a planet.

>>6321528
this. Look at the funding of the "scientist" who oppose it. They are cut from the same cloth as creationist and doctors who denied the health risk of smoking. Not saying global warming is the doomsday scenario the Gore types make it out to be, but its still worth dealing with

Not OP but I share his sentiments somewhat

I just don't think "all scientists agree" is a good reason to believe it, and I believe science explains current and past events.

Speculation about future events is still speculation even with the backing of trend data, and there's nothing falsifiable about it until we actually reach that point in time.
I'm aware of the current effects we can observe and that it's probably caused by man, I just don't believe in the doomsday theories of politicians, and I don't think carbon tax and "reducing CO2 emissions" by political means will achieve anything.

Pretty much.
To be honest, global warming is probably the wrong focus anyway. If we keep burning things at the current rate we'll run out of fossil fuels within decades, perhaps even before we have a chance to affect the environment in a meaningful way. No matter what, we need to move away from non-renewables if we don't want to be sent back to the dark ages in 80 years.

>>6321557
In your mind, what would cause us to move back to the dark ages in 80 years if we do nothing?
Why wouldn't we just adapt to new energy sources with technology we have available to us even today and will still have in 80 years?

Does anyone have any good relatively unbiased looks at climate change? Keep it pleb-tier if you can

>>6321578
http://climatedebatedaily.com/ is pretty unbiased.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ is also a good site to highlight climate change fallacies, though it is biased towards climate change.

>>6321578
http://www.theconsensusproject.com/

>>6321553
Then you don't understand the concept of falsifiability. A model or theory is falsifiable if the predictions it makes can be falsified. So even though you don't know what will happen in 2050 before that year, you can make predictions about, e.g. average temperatures rising, acidification of oceans, ice caps melting, exacerbation of severe weather patterns, etc. If sea levels suddenly fell, ocean acidity decreased, glacial melt reversed permanently, temperatures fell globally for several years running, and so on, those would be data points to support falsification of the standard climate change hypothesis.

Reducing CO2 emissions serves two purposes. First, it slows a number of trends that seem to threaten ecological stability. Secondly, it serves as a proxy for reducing fossil fuel consumption (plastics, which are also a petroleum product, are a huge part of the technology of our society that would be difficult to replace).

>>6321563
good luck making anything without plastic.

>>6321612
>>6321612
I would love to see Neo-Paultards in the future demand to abolish the Federal Reserve and switch to a plastic-backed currency.

Of course, by then I'll just be an old fart talking about how different it was back in my day.

Bjorn Lomborg has an interesting view on this. The Copenhagen consesus institute is the related research facility

Global warming is real, but there are many more effective ways to enable..

>global temperature is increasing

I sometimes wonder if the same thing happened on Mars, and that's why it doesn't have any water any more.

>>6321470
Global warming is an unfalsifiable pseudo-science. They constantly change their story to cover their failed predictions. Any and all plausible observations a compatible with AGW.

To see that it is a pseudo-science you must check the present against past predictions... ( they change their predictions in an after the fact manner.) For example, here are 73 climate models; all of them failed.

The fact that the global temperature has been rising is indisputable fact. The cause is, like all theories, open to debate, but the widespread consensus *among experts* is that it's largely human-caused.

If you lived in Canada, you'd believe. My hometown has a major food shortage for the ninth time in ten years because we couldn't build an ice bridge. When I was a kid, that never happened.

One day last week, the daytime high was 14 C in Haines Junction, Yukon (warmest city in Canada that day), and only 9 C in Tallahassee, Florida. This is going to happen more often in the future. It means crops won't be able to grow where they used to, costing us a ton to move them. Rivers will change drastically, so water supplies and power generation and fisheries will all have to move. Basically, we've built all our cities and infrastructure assuming a certain way of things... and then it's changing on us. Very bad.

Potholer54's channel on YouTube has some great videos about the science of it all. Also, he rips on Al Gore, which is fun.

>>6323578
> quote taken grossly out of context
> "derived from" as if that implies scientific rigour
> graph clearly increasing anyway

>>6326402
Context is everything. Its been warming ever since the Little Ice Age, about 400 years ago. So pointing out that the global temperature has been rising doesn't prove that it's man made.

>>6324706
Mars has no water because its magnetic field has collapsed, allowing the atmosphere to be stripped away by the solar wind.

There's also a fun idea about the lack of plate tectonics contributing.
> http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/mars_mag/

>>6326408
No, Europe has been warming since then. That is not global, but a highly localized occurrence.

You must also consider rate of change.

>>6321470
>I like to consider myself scientifically literate, and I keep fairly up-to-date with most science related news
Woweee

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&
For your pop-sci addled brain

http://berkeleyearth.org/
If you want to know more.

>>6326416
Cooling has been shown all around the world

>>6326421
This was a publicity stunt. He actually believed in AGW all along. This was demonstrated by his entrepreneuring in a "dealing with climate change" type company (forget the name). That company was founded before his "conversion."

>>6321470
>/k/ here
What does your primarily going to /k/ possibly have to do with your question, and what reason could you possibly have for adding it to your post other than to start shit?

If we all agree that the earth is coming out of an ice age or interglacial period, then one would predict that the average temperature of the Earth would increase, correct? If this is true, then wouldn't it be almost impossible to tell the difference between "manmade" gw and "natural" gw?

if youre looking at a 200 year period, you will see one thing. But the earth is 4.7 billion years old. What is "normal"?

>>6326533
Well there was a way to tell the difference. Its like this. CO2 alone is a weak greenhouse gas. It has a logarithmic response curve which means you have to DOUBLE its concentration in the atmosphere to increase global temperature by a mere 1.2 degrees C. That is why AGW postulates positive feedback from CO2 increase causing an increase pf water vapor.

What is the "signature" of this positive feedback? Well above the equator its very humid. Go high enough into the troposphere and you get water condensing from water vapor; at an increased rate due to CO2 induced climate positive feedback. This creates the so called "hot spot," the basic prediction of AGW.

The hot spot was searched for/measured in a number of ways around 2001. This is the fundamental prediction of AGW. And it was never found, which is why you probably haven't heard of it.

When people continued to promote AGW, despite the failure of its fundamental prediction, AGW ceased to be a science.

OMG. EAT A DICK ALL OF YOU. ANY SCIENTIST CAN DO THIS IN THEIR HEAD.

HUMAN BEING = CONTINUOUS RUNNING 40W BULB.
MORE HUMANS = MORE BULBS

MORE BULBS REQUIRE BIGGER SYSTEMS WITH LARGER FALLBACKS AND GREATER PROSPECTIVES TO ACCOUNT FOR INCREASES IN ENERGY DEMANDS.

AT SOME POINT THIS WILL BECOME UNTENABLE. WE ARE APPROACHING ANOTHER MALTHUSIAN TRAP.

ALSO. IF 90% OF AN ICEBERG IS UNDERWATER, THEN MORE OF IT WILL BE EXPOSED AS IT MELTS,YIELDING A PERIOD OF DEVASTATING FLOOD RATIOS.

THE DARK AGES ARE COMING.

Also, warming or cooling is not the debate here. Stability, specifically for human habitation of this planet is of prime concern. Vast fluctuations in temperature and unstable seasons are not great for farming, or anything really.

And don't say "measly 1.2 degrees C"; try applying that to your own body and see what happens.

>>6326455
He is implying that this isn't his home board and asked his question on a relevant board.

>>6326559
>The hot spot was searched for/measured in a number of ways around 2001. This is the fundamental prediction of AGW.

You got a citation for this? I have been following this for a long time and I don't recall it. But I do recall a number of other signatures of AGW being found e.g. greater heating in the arctic

>>6321470
Global warming is very real.

The root of the debate about global warming doesn't really concern its existence but the scale of damage we've done thus far and how much time we have left.

The actual debate concerns whether Kansas will be beachfront property in 50 years or 500 years.

>>6326582
But those bulbs are only turned on when they get ideas.

>>6326428
>everyone always posts this graph
>it doesn't even have a labeled y axis

Why are idiots so vocal?

>>6326438
If that's the case then he was convincing enough to get funding from Koch, which is laughable in itself.

>>6314570
yes, it is a fact. It is widely accepted in the scientific community. The 'debate' is imaginary and only exists on murrican telly.

>>6326408
>Context is everything. Its been warming ever since the Little Ice Age
That is correct, context is everything; and our present context is that glacial ice is melting worldwide at an unprecedented rate.

>>6326593
United Nations IPCC AR4 discusses and documents the prediction. See diagram. BTW, there were three basic predictions: Hotspot in the troposphere, warming at the North Pole, Warming at the South Pole.

Two out of three predictions failed. The south pole has gotten colder and Sea Ice has increased; which is why they changed their prediction about the South Pole to be cooling. This kind of after the fact behavior is the hallmark of a pseudo-science.

And arctic melting appears to be cyclical. Its melted before.

>>6326716
>the debate is imaginary

if by 'imaginary' you mean 'lalalalala i cant hear you' which is basically what you are doing here

>only exists on american telly
once again, this is you denying reality

you do the AGW movement a disservice by projecting your obvious denial and self-deception onto others. at the very least, you need to acknowledge that the real people, including many scientists in relative fields, are still debating the interpretation of climate data at a global level. that is reality, after all.

>>6326972
>you need to acknowledge that the real people, including many scientists in relative fields, are still debating the interpretation of climate data at a global level.
I also acknowledge that scientists as still debating details about the evolution of life.
That doesn't mean that I think creationism is tenable.

>>6326972
it's imaginary. I live in Italy (basically third world.) We laugh at you.

We are shocked to be told americans are so fucking retarded to believe a scientific question can be answered by anyone who thinks he's the next einstein. Or how you let politics spray their diarrhea on science.

The evidence is clear: there is global warming, and it's man-made. It's been known for ages. I don't give a shit (and actual scientist don't give a shit too) if you have collected gigabytes of meaningless charts from your local conservative party "science publication". Other countries are accepting responsibilities. Some are doing something, some just don't care. Americans are the only ones so deluded as to convince themselves that the problem doesn't exist or is not confirmed, so they can delay responsibility.

The 'debates' (global warming, evolution etc) are nonexistent in the scientific community. They only, I repeat, and you can check this, exist in American television. I'm not even talking conspiracy: check on any non-US website: you will find NO information on the subject (with the exception of countries like Saudi Arabia, Brasil and similar). Because it is not an actual subject.

>>6327004
Actually, global warming denial is really common here in Australia.
Given our economy is built on mining coal though...

>>6327004
>there is global warming
It is called "climate change" now.

>and it's man-made
This has never been proven. The anthropomorphic contributions are insignificantly small. While they certainly exist, CC is still mainly a natural phenomenon.

>global warming denial

Who invented this 'denial, denialist' type of rethoric?
It sounds like some quasi-religious newspeak.
Is 'CO2 did it' the new 'God did it'?

If you look at the data there's not much left to deny.

>>6326980
Every substantive prediction of AGW has failed. The basic climate models have failed, see >>6326362

Prediction: Hot spot in troposphere - Reality: None
Prediction: Warming and melting of sea ice in antarctic - Reality: Cooling and more sea ice
Prediction - "Snow will become a thing of the past" - Reality: some of the snowiest winters ever
Prediction - Massive hurricane increase - Reality: very low hurricane season
Prediction: Accelerated warming of ocean surface - Reality: none.

The list goes on and on. And yes I know the arctic has partially melted, but its done that before. And yes, I know that now they say that Antarctica is supposed to be cold; after their prediction failed.

>>6321470
Global warming is warming on average. What warmth really means is agitation. So cold places might get colder, warm places might get wetter, etc. The way that those changes manifest is what's particularly alarming: things like the polar vortex hitting America, or the increasing intensity and rate of hurricanes. It also has a lot of weirder side effects, like jellyfish blooms. And of course, the melting ice caps are no good news either.

So don't think about it as "EVERYTHING WILL GET HOTTER," because that makes you a retard.

>>6328876
The polar vortex is not a new phenomena. In the past, Global COOLING was blamed for causing the Polar Vortex.

>>6328934
>Global COOLING was blamed for causing the Polar Vortex.
It still is, by retards. You think that wasn't misinfo even back in the 70s?

>>6327053
But man-made sources of greenhouse gases are demonstrably the primary contribution to such gases in the atmosphere. It is a simple comparison since we have figures on CO2 and other greenhouse gases from natural sources as well as from man made sources and the man made sources win, hand down. When we move on to gases which are not naturally occurring that we pump into the atmosphere, we find them to be the most powerful greenhouse gases [upwards of 1000 times more powerful than any natural greenhouse gas] and are only put there by us. Thus, it is fairly easy to show that humans contribute significantly to climate change.

[And the reason that it has been changed to climate change largely deals with people complaining that global warming obviously is fake because winter is cold, even though winters are currently significantly warmer than they have been in the past.]

>>6328937
Its sad that you quickly resort to Ad Hominem instead of using specific scientific arguments. Please demonstrate that the Polar Vortex is only caused by Global Warming/Climate Change or whatever scientific viewpoint you are defending.

>>6326585
This.

Daily highs and nightly lows have increased. There are more extremes. Weather and climate will become more and more volatile.

>>6328951
You may have your rhetoric confused. Currently, the global warming deniers say that the polar vortex is a fabrication by climatologists to explain why it is cold during the winter. This aside, a single weather pattern does not prove nor disprove anything about global warming as global warming deals with trends on a global scale. Even with this and taking into account the polar vortex, winters in the northern US are demonstrably warmer than they have been in the past.

>>6328876
The rate of hurricanes is down dramatically.

They have also been smaller.

>>6328963
Only if you use the 2013 season as the only season in modern times, which is dishonest given that one data point does not make a trend and that the prior several seasons set records for storm strength and number of storms.

>>6328951
>Its sad that you quickly resort to Ad Hominem instead of using specific scientific arguments

it's sad that you don't know what Ad Hominem is.

everything is fine, keep filling the air we breathe with shit

>>6327080
>Every substantive prediction of AGW has failed.

Everything you wrote is complete bullshit.

>Is global warming a fact?

Yes. Even if you don't believe humans are causing it. The Earth is getting warmer.

>>6326362
>>6326402
>>6326559
>>6326972
>>6328876
>>6328934
>>6328946 (aka as the bulk of posters ITT that aren't complete jackasses)

You know every time AGW comes up it's always just a bunch of idiot science fan bougs going TEAM SCIENCE, like these retards >>6326716>>6327004>>6327077, who post global temperature that are basically the most irrelevant thing ever (actually if you were real scientists you'd know just how meaningless those little charts are) or just shout IT'S BEEN PROVEN and cite studies that are about as rigorous as 20th century psychology papers.

Now I'm the first to admit it, I'm not a meteorologist, I know very little about the field. So could anyone reference me a proper study that has actually modeled the problem using heat transfer and thermo-|fluid-dynamics principles? Often "greenhouse effect" is just cited, however most literature on it has a very incomplete mechanism for more complex systems, not to mention something as complex as the entire planet (especially disconcerting is how often literature on the matter doesn't even account for non-negligible HT like increased (^4 remember) radiation HT from the gasses itself). We have the computational power to simulate and find numerical solutions to these problems, so shouldn't someone have done it by now? Of course the predictions will be far from reality, but solutions will clearly show how AGW affect the climate based on sound scientific principles rather than >muh data and >muh random weather phenomenon.

tl;dr: Someone post a proper study please.


>>6321612
We can make plastics from almost anything using bio-tech, hell we can make petroleum as well, it's all a matter of energy requirements rather than material. With cheap energy you can do virtually anything, which is actually one of the reasons poor efficiency is acceptable in so many industries since we've had very cheap energy up to now.

>>6329305
>It still is, by retards.

Which part of dismissing Scientists' theories by calling them "retards" is not Ad Hominem?

And look at this CIA report on Global Cooling:

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

I guess those guys are retarded, huh?

>>6329935
Lol didn't they compared the photographs of earth over the years and observed that there is a larger ice layer ?

Climate change is a fact, but the influence Humans are having and what the effects will be (if any) are not known. Most of it is just propaganda to get people to invest in pyramid scheme "green technology" and get more funding for scientists.

>>6321536

Government regulation is helping polluters.

>>6329364
Wow great counter argument, you discussed all my statements in a scientific fashion. BTW, Hansen's 1981 Prediction is wrong. The data overlay in your graph is incorrect.

>>6330002
Your statements were based on news headlines and did not reflect the actual range of predictions from models. Unsurprisingly if you pull "predictions" out of your ass you can make a convincing list. They aren't scientific statements so there is no scientific response.

And where did you get that data? The fit in it is very bold, not at all convincing the variation.

>>6330009
>>6330002
Also simply producing another graph doesn't invalidate another, you have to show it's flawed not just in disagreement.

>>6329595

This is very tricky, because the devil is in the details. And certain, important things can't be measured directly. But I'll give you my moderately technical understanding.

First, due to quantum mechanics, CO2 can only absorb certain wavelengths of light. Once they are absorbed, there nothing more CO2 can do. At a macro level, this means that atmospheric CO2 absorption and re-radiation of light energy follows a law of diminishing returns. Quantitatively, this means that the effect on temperature of CO2 increase is logarithmic. A linear increase in CO2 concentration only leads to a logarithmic increase in temperature. In inverse terms, CO2 concentration must be exponentially increased to linearly increase global temperature.

Specifically, the CO2 concentration has to be doubled to only increase global temperature by 1.2 degrees C.

Now the naming/details of "feedbacks" which might increase or decrease this temperature increase are what all the arguing is about. The fact that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas is agreed upon by essentially all scientists. Only naive laypeople are unaware of this.

So the argument of believers vs. skeptics is actually quite simple. Believers say "positive feedback," and skeptics say "negative feedback or no feedback." And in larger terms, believers assert that CO2 is a driver of climate, while skeptics says it is a secondary effect.

Now really, it comes down to observational data because, adding up/guessing feedbacks is just that. This is why the failure of climate models is so damning... as in >>6328934 its as close as you can get to an experiment say, "if there is positive feedback we'll get this." But we didn't so there isn't positive feedback.

Aside from the logarithmic response curve of CO2 concentration to temperature, the most rigorous accounting of AGW is the hot spot theory.

The prediction of the hot spot in the troposphere is hard science:
http://www.sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

>>6330053
>"if there is positive feedback we'll get this." But we didn't so there isn't positive feedback.

You said it yourself the mechanism of feedback have to be modeled so you can never declare something like this. It's logically unsound. The best you can do is state the models of feedback you have are not the full picture or a wrong. This doesn't make failures damning.

Secondly you people always point to the failures of predictions without actually referencing them.

>>6330062
OK, I should have spoke more carefully. There are many details that are not specifically known. However basics are agreed upon. Besides the logarithmic response curve, the big one is the basic form of positive feedback.

Positive feedback in the form of increased water vapor. And the atmospheric physics leads to a hot spot. The specific size etc. of the hotspot is debatable. Its purported existence is not.

So the details are vague, but any positive feedback prediction is going to predict an above 1.2 degrees C (relative to doubling of CO2) global temp increase. That is what those models said, and they all failed.

>>6330062

And it looks like I owe you some references... The basic climate models and there lack of accuracy is graphed in >>632894

Here are references for Warming and melting Sea Ice in the Antarctic:

Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268

Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(1992)005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

I've attached a graph of Antarctic Sea Ice changes from 1992. New ice is in green, missing ice is in red.

>>6330072
Again making logically unsound statements

>Positive feedback in the form of increased water vapor. And the atmospheric physics leads to a hot spot.
Only given the parameters of the models.

>any positive feedback prediction is going to predict an above 1.2 degrees C
This is where you go very wrong. For a start the 1.2 degrees cannot uniquely be attributed to CO2, you cannot prove that was only due to CO2.
Secondly there is the possibility of multiple feedback mechanisms, for example to take a strawman case of two opposed mechanisms. For a time a linear feedback could negate the effects of a quadratic feedback mechanism for a time if they have opposite effects. They would however diverge over time hence simply working on the basis of now does not prove nothing else is at work.

Again referencing to "all the models failing" without referencing anything. It's difficult to have a serious discussion if you leave out key evidence.

>>6330076
You're referencing a dead post.

As for your references I have no idea what you are citing with them.

>>6330076
OK, now the snow contradictions:

"Milder temperatures will decrease heavy snow storms"
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/569.htm

And Dr. Dr David Viner of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the year 2000, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

Check graph for reality. Years are number according to heaviest level of snowfall.

>>6330086
Please read the abstracts etc.

>>6330098
I'm capable of reading but I need to know what you are trying to show with them.

>>6330082
The 1.2 degrees increase is unique to CO2. It is the "all other things being equal" argument.

You are correct that there can be multiple feedbacks. However, Water Vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas found in nature. It is standard for scientists to believe that water vapor is the big one. You can say that's illogical, but that's how most (believer and skeptic alike) do it.

>>6330086
The post with the graph, >>6326362

>>6330096
>"Milder temperatures will decrease heavy snow storms"
Not contradicted by your graph as this is a very vague statement. What does they mean do they mean less snow overall? Do they simply mean fewer fever snow storms or do they mean the magnitude of the worst storms will be less?
>"a very rare and exciting event".
Not contradicted by your graph as it's a statement about frequency.

Note also that these are soft statements, not hard predictions.

>>6330102
The predicting increased Antarctic temperature and melting Antarctic sea ice.

>>6330105
>The 1.2 degrees increase is unique to CO2.
No, you cannot uniquely establish that all of the warming is due to CO2.

>However, Water Vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas found in nature. It is standard for scientists to believe that water vapor is the big one.
This doesn't invalidate what I said though. Your model is not all encompassing so you really cannot rule out feedback as you claim.

>>6330107
That graph cannot be used as evidence because it has no source(that I can decypher at least). Without a source we have no idea what the dataset the observations came out of. Without that we have no idea if they were cherry picked or if they were simply incomparable with the predictions made (measuring different things).

The question quickly arises of why the observations show no warming when many others do. Where did they come from?

Just because you like a graph doesn't mean you can trust it.

Gotta love the American hate. Completely neglects the fact that both Europe and the United States are fixing carbon by implementing sustainable forest harvesting techniques.

If you want to point a finger, Take a peak at Asia, South America, or Africa.

The biggest problem is that the EU/North America can really do very little directly to a farmer in South America that is harvesting wood too cook food or heat his home. Solve that problem, and you MAY be able to do something about the carbon issue. But squabbling over U.S. Carbon policy and the minority of Climate Change hold outs is completely ignoring the elephant in the room.

>>6330117

Sorry, forgot image

>>6330108
Why a/m I beginning to sense a "Faux Scientific Interest" Instead, I see massive nit-picking and some an attempt at a "death by a thousand cuts by weasel words" like "its not logical," a painfully vague statement pretending to be rigorous.

OK, if you want to discuss science, we'll do. If you want to do weasel words + pointing that nothing is exact. I'm not going to waste my time.

Do I smell a rat?

So please start defending your ideology.

First. Give me a specific paper/experiment/data which casually connects anthropogenic CO2 to catastrophic Greenhouse effect/Global Warming/Climate Change (or whatever you want to call it).

Second: For a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable. Give me a plausible falsification scenario for AGW/Climate change.

It is now your turn to answer my questions. Put up or shut up.

>>6330117
well, yeah, Europeans industrialized before Asia and South America.
the rest of the world feels like Europeans did whatever they pleased and are now pleading with the rest of the developing world to curb rate of economic growth.

>>6330127
The paper must be applied to the REAL WORLD. Computer models don't count.

>>6330135
And it must be a quantitative prediction.

>>6330132

You can't really take that bullet back. And even if the EU and America were to say go to the extreme and pay the world reparations for their carbon indiscretions, it still comes back to the problem that you can't stop the farmer in South America from burning wood as a fuel source.

>>6330127
It's not nit picking. You're trying to judge the predictions of theory not based on numbers with confidence intervals but based on soundbites.
Choosing to do it this way leaves the door open to misinterpretation.


>So please start defending your ideology.
You're confused. You made bold statements which weren't supported by your evidence. I'm demonstrating you're full of shit, nothing else. This is about your claims, I haven't made any.

>if you want to discuss science
I don't want to discuss science I want to do it, this is peer review. If you can't stand my level of questioning then you really haven't got a clue.

>>6330141

Sorry, forgot to quantify again.

2010 FAO report showing fuel source types. Remember, wood is a carbon fixer, so it's arguably twice as detrimental to burn since you remove the future potential of carbon fixing,

>>6330149
Your failure to back up AGW shows your true colors. And your inability to defend your beliefs.

On top of that, you resort to Ad Hominem. "You're full of shit," you said. To hide the failure of your beliefs.

This ain't peer review. I've been through peer review (successfully) several times. This is an ideologically motivated individual trying to protect an unfalsifiable belief system.

I'm giving you one last time to demonstrate that AGW is not a quasi-religion. Answer my two questions.

You won't because you can't, so you hide your failure by never discussing your theory.

Let me make this perfectly clear. Natural climate variability is the normal theory. AGW is the alternative theory. You have the burden of proof.

>>6330141
>You can't really take that bullet back.

can't, but if you want developing nations to pull their fair share, there's a lot that can be done now to curb fossil fuels in nations that are in a better position to afford to do so, and are certainly not being done in the US.

>>6330132
Now we know better, and they were too late to industrialize. Just because they missed the chance to pollute to their heart's desire during economic growth doesn't mean that they still have that right today.

>>6330184
Add moron to full of shit. It's only a logical fallacy if I use an insult to show you are wrong (e.g. you are wrong because your mother smells of cod). Insulting you however is not Ad Hominem because it's not part of the argument, it's just a statement.

>This is an ideologically motivated individual trying to protect an unfalsifiable belief system.
You obliviously failed to grasp the process. If you cannot respond to the flaws I point out in your argument it is flawed, my motivations are irreverent. Bringing motivation into this is Ad Hominem, it doesn't affect the merit the points I raise.

>Natural climate variability is the normal theory.
More nonsense. There is no such thing as normal theory, it is not the null hypothesis. You are making the positive claim that it is due to natural forcings, this is just as much as a positive claim as ACC.

>Your failure to back up AGW shows your true colors.
What have we seen here. You made very positive claims about the nature of climate change. I attacked your argument. You have since abandoned attempts to defend your argument and are attempting to shift the burden of proof. What we were debating was your claims, I haven't made any claims.

Your points didn't hold up logically so you abandoned that. Your claims of failed predictions were simply vague quotes, you abandoned that. And now you demand I prove something? I don't think so.

Guise! What if we like, move the excess CO2 on Earth to Mars!? Global warming solved, unless there's a positive feedback loop, then we still fucked.

>>6330207

Wow! A complete failure to defend your Climate Fundamentalism.

And saying that I'm a Moron and "full of shit" is not Ad Hominem. Yup, I seem to remember Aristotle discussing Plato as being "full of shit."

Great stuff there. And enjoy your neo- Lysenkoism, pity that history won't be kind to this latest trip in politicized, unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

Falsifiability criterion??? Why so quiet? Your silence on this subject damns your belief system.

>>6330223
You completely gave up on your claims because they were nonsense, and now you attack me. You call me a fundamentalist but not once have I made any claims about the nature of climate change, I've simply destroyed yours.

Again, it's not Ad Hominem, you should really look that up because it makes you look like a moron.

But you try to switch this around as if it excuses your stream of pure nonsense. You have no understanding of debate, logic or science.

>>6330241
Falsifiability Criterion? Quantitative prediction on the real world?

Why so quiet?

>>6330223

The total balance of carbon was sinking, now we are burning the stored carbon of the geological sinks and releasing into the atmosphere. We've increases atmospheric greenhouse gases by about 30%.

Thermodynamics dictates that higher concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to a higher infrared storage capacity for the atmosphere. IE. Global Warming

The amount of C02 in the atmosphere exceeds ice core records for the last 800,000 years. Models using this radiative forcing by greenhouse gas correlate our current observations, those models that do not account for C02 show no warming trend, and are thus not accurately depicting climate factors.

>>6330249
What is the falsifiability criterion on the claim that this is natural variation?

>>6330258
I will happily answer the question after you answer it first...

But actually this discussion is over and yes I can answer the question... When someone resorts to insulting me and then says they aren't being offensive. That's it.

Work on your social skills.

Alright
Everybody has decided that it is real
What do we do to make it so it doesn't get any worse?

>>6330280

Fund me so I can start working on graphene synthesis techniques so we can make supercapacitors and just store all our energy in powercubes.

>>6330273
If you can answer my question then you have your answer. It's been fun playing.

>When someone resorts to insulting me and then says they aren't being offensive.
Apparently you can add illiterate to full of shit and a moron. Ad Hominem is not any insult, it is a logical fallacy whereby you base the argument on an insult (for example). Calling you a moron is not, saying you're wrong because of that is. Not hard, I've explained it twice but there we go.

>>6330280
Create a 20-30 year plan that involves gradually investing in better energy sources while simultaneously restricts methods that yield severe pollution.

>>6321470
Here's a really good study that does not rely on a computer model: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf

>>6330223
>I seem to remember Aristotle discussing Plato as being "full of shit."

I remember seeing this as well, right after he said that he grabbed nutsacks and thrust his hips thus disproving Plato's arguments.

>>6330252
>C02
>0

I'm going to murder you for this

>>6330315
>does not rely on a computer model

If you can't model something it's usually because you don't understand it.

>>6330186

Again, the US is carbon fixing. See >>6330119

You are missing the elephant in the room