/sci/ - Science & Math

Because if anything happens then they could blame the Jews, instead of themselves and their actions.

Because having an opinion on things you don't understand is quite trendy nowadays.

>>6451066
Because we train our children to put ego above inquiry.

>but why do regular people get so fired up insisting that nothing's wrong?

Because their tribe is the one that denies it.

Because nothing's wrong?
Why do people get so fired up when I disagree with their opinion?

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf

TL:DR Climate change yes. Man made No.

Tthe argument that climate change is real, yet man-made carbon emissions aren't to blame gets little attention.

Without the "Co2 isn't to blame" part of it, carbon taxes aren't on the table.

Carbon taxes wouldn't fix anything either. It would just make them more expensive.

The EPA is worried about taking the carbon emissions of wood-burning stoves from 16PPM to 14PPM and they outright ban the production of any that don't qualify.

Yet, carbon taxes are the front runner in combating man-made global warming.

So why don't the non-idiot normal people get fired up OP?

>>6451496
did you even...

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
chapter 10.

Read and face the inconvenient truth, deluded boy.

>>6451942
You can't cite the IPCC.

These people are so deluded they think the IPCC is part of some giant conspiracy to create an authoritarian world government.

And dude, you posted the link to the entire report...
Just post one chapter at a time, like this
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

>>6452825
they can read, they just cite the work of scientists.
It a kind of a giant meta-study.

So if you begin to go against that, it has no sense to post on /sci/

Science and politics make a messy mix.

Scientists tend to think that politics is something that is influenced by scientific knowledge, that politicians would choose common long term good over short term partisan benefits. That is a naive belief.

The politicians on the other hand are quite eager to look for scientists and research that supports their policies. "I have the results, now find me a study to support them."

For politics facts are almost irrelevant, unless they're immediate. The election cycle is 2 years. Companies reveal their results every 3 months. Climate changes over decades. Try telling your constituency that they need to pay extra $20 per tankful of gas now so their grandchildren wouldn't live in a world that is 1.8 degrees warmer.

Now imagine if the threat was immediate and clear. Something that affects their constituencies and bottom lines in a concrete way in not-so-unimaginably-far-away-future.

People would be lining up to pay extra taxes and buy government bonds to fund nuclear rockets and solar sails to thwart a giant meteor impact. Any "meteor sceptic" would be crucified as anti-life. Think GOP would gut NASA funding? They'd be falling over themselves to confiscate CEO wallets.

A more plausible scenario would be an acute military threat like Russia attacking former Soviet NATO members like Latvia and Estonia. Or major pandemic like Ebola. People would be very willing to sacrifice for the common good, even if the scientific basis for the self-sacrificing policies was much more tenuous than climate change.

>>6451066

Probably because it's an unfalsifiable pseudo-science taken over by the UN to further their goal of international governance and wealth redistribution.

But don't listen to me, I'm just an evil denier unlike "scientists" who produce models which invariably create "the sky is falling" scenarios so that they can get more money to keep making more models. Truly a great scam, since you can get a computer program to tell you whatever you want and reality is irrelevant.

PS I guess you don't believe the data since your own graph says the oceans have been rising since 1870. Anthropogenic CO2 didn't really start going up until about 1945.

>>6454436
The problem is you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Once again I'm forced to go into an explanation. Keep in mind I'm just a geology undergraduate student but already the science is so easy to understand even at my level that it is already undeniable.

What you have posted in your graph is well understood basic climate change that happens regularly called the Milankovich Cycle if you ever bothered to study instead of posting about things that you don't understand.

The Milankovich Cycle changes global climate over the course of thousands and tens of thousands of years. It is the primary cause of climate change before humans.

It cannot be responsible for current changes of climate over the last century. We know how the weather should be reacting if the Milankovich Cycle were responsible ... and it's not.

.cont

>>6454484
Another big cause of climate change is the relative positions of continents. Right now North and South America joined at the Isthmus of Panama several million years ago preventing warm tropical currents from going straight through and forcing them to go toward the north and south pole where they cool and bring colder water back to the tropics.

Also Australia broke off of Antarctica about 10 million years ago. This created two effects, 1 warm tropical currents were no longer being deflected by Australia down toward the South Pole and warming Antarctica and allowing the creation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current which is a current of very cold water that prevents warm water from reaching Antarctica thus creating the ice caps and cooling the Earth. This is why we are currently in a global ice age, from a geological perspective. We're in an interglacial period of our current ice age but we're in an ice age.

Forgot my picture of Milankovich Cycles

>>6454491
We cannot blame the relative positions of continents on current climate change, it works over millions of years and as far as I know, the continents have been relatively where they are over the last century.

>>6454496
The next big cause of climate change is the sun. The sun goes through cycles over time relatively quickly. The little ice age was caused by the Maunder Minimum.

The problem is we have a satellite orbiting the sun called the Heliospheric Observatory that tells us EXACTLY how much solar output there is constantly. There is no need to guess. We know its exact values and it's not responsible for current climate change.

Finally the next big change in climate is Carbon Dioxide gas a well known so called 'greenhouse gas'. It is basic physics. We know what it's absorption spectrum is, we know what it's specific heat is, we know that increasing Carbon Dioxide WILL increase temperature.

Since we've knocked out all other known forces of climate change and are left with one which we KNOW is on the rise, guess what's causing modern climate change?

There IS NO DEBATE, THE DEBATE IS OVER. The evidence is clear. Stop denying it. You haven't got a leg to stand on.

>>6454519
Fellow geofag here

Sadly, this subject has just become too politically charged from both sides. There are the deniers and then there are the alarmists who think climate change is an apocalyptic event.

>>6454651
The effects of climate change is not really the arena for geologists, but the specialists at WG2 say that emissions continued at current rates have a significant probability of leading to what they call "catastrophic" climate change. No one except badly misinformed environazis believes that climate change will turn the rivers into blood, raise the dead, and make fire rain from the sky. This is what "apocalyptic" means to me. But consider that the risk of something "catastrophic" is quite great. Also, it will not affect all peoples equally.

>>6451066
I'll prefer to remain skeptic if allowed. Even if ppl gonna hate me for that.
E.g. fishing: Let's say the ocean is overfished. The whole population of fish would easily regrow within two years or so.
And regarding the temperatures, we all know that we simply cannot compare temperatures measured 50 years ago with how we measure today. The methods are just too different.
And btw anyone who isn't prepared for natural disaster simply is an idiot.

>>6451066
>insisting that nothing's wrong
because Murrikan anti-intellectualism compounded with corporation bootlicking
>inb4 muh job

>>6454992
It takes more than 2 years for a fish to reach sexual maturity. They are not flowers...
And if we have a current population of X% of what it used to be, one generation won't go to 100% by magic. (Works with any X below, say, 90%, and we may be close to 10%.) : we'll need several generations.
Also, "2 years" of eating canned tuna and death penalty for any fisher? No, just limiting will be far less effective.

And thermometers always worked the same. We adjust the way we make averages and shit.

>>6454992
>The whole population of fish would easily regrow within two years or so.

what the fuck am i reading

>>6451066
Same reason people believe in Creationism, flat Earth, antivac, etc.

I'd also have to go with another anon in that society tends to value just sitting back and saying "NUH-UH!" rather than admitting one was wrong and getting on with his or her life.

>>6455271
Great appeal to association.

>>6455230
>>6455234
>within two years or so
make it five years then, and it is still a valid point. don't go shitting yourself because of this.
>death penalty for fishers
you just disqualified yourself from serious debates
>thermometers always worked the same
hell no, the instruments got more precise, and the places where the measurements take place have changed during the years. this affects the measurements. just imagine a stationary box next to the uni campus with a thermometer, with constant datalogging during the last hundred years. if the campus facility management cuts down two or three trees next to the thermometer box and if the uni maybe built two new buildings close to, the measurements will definitely change. Even if the lawn is mown or not affects it. If you'd ever done some outdoor temperature datalogging you'd agree with me. I go that far to say that any place where a measurement like that is going on is most likely to get more and more frequented during the years, creating a noticable shift in the measurements. especially important since these measurements are used for predictions involving small splits of degree changes wth high political impact.

>>6455283
Great fallacy fallacy. Legitimate skepticism of climate change is fine, it's outright denial with no concern for compelling evidence where we tread in the realm of pseudoscience.

>>6455319
>Legitimate skepticism of climate change is fine
The closest I've seen to legitimate skepticism of climate change is skepticism of how we deal with it and the cost of dealing with it. The rest is either completely retarded fabrications or pseudo-intellectuals pulling the "of course climate change is real, the climate has been changing throughout all of history" line.

>>6455326
I never said there was much of it. I went to a high school filled with deniers, that was a blast. A bunch of them believed in other stuff like hollow Earth or the whole moon landing hoax thing.

>>6455319
> outright denial with no concern for compelling evidence
Sorry but you need to prove that man made CO2 is the responsible for climate change, but you can't because CO2 plays minor role in climate change, we know that CO2 levels were far bigger without even human influence in the past and we know that volcanic activity and sun activity plays major role in climate change climate changed at much larger degree in the past before industrial age.

>>6454935
>The effects of climate change is not really the arena for geologists
Okay sure fine, it's not like historical climate records are just lying around waiting for us to drill to them or anything.

>>6454935
>The effects of climate change is not really the arena for geologists
Because their findings don't fit your narrative, we should not know about historical decrease of CO2 in atmosphere even accounting the amount of CO2 generated by recent human activity, right?

>>6451066
It's really simple numbnuts. The climate changes. It's obvious, what with the seasons and all. But the climate is going to change no matter what humans do, and human civilization as a whole has approximately absolute zero effect on the climate.

>>6454651
>>6454935
You two numbnuts now know that "apocalypse" is the Greek word for "revelations", not the end of the world, dumbasses.

>>6454992
>E.g. fishing: Let's say the ocean is overfished. The whole population of fish would easily regrow within two years or so.

Even if that were true (it's not) you think the fishing industry would just sit around for two years and not catch a single thing?

>>6455399
>what is a law

>>6451084
Its always been popular. People just have the ability to put it on facebook now

>>6455386
Well ... there _are_ anthropogenic weather changes, even documented ones in history. E.g. when the phoenicians had cut down every cedar tree for their boats, their civilisation died, too. Or look at massive erosion taking place in some places _today_ with its desastrous effects. But still, I would never use the words 'global' or 'climate' or 'heating' to describe anthropogenic mal-influence on the environment.

>>6455391
Thats not how its used now though, you pedant.

>>6455403
Did you know that literally billions of people rely on seafood

>>6455386
I suppose anything looks simple to a person who knows nothing about the subject.

>>6455415
why don't they just like eat burgers mag?

>>6455391
That is the saddest attempt at a counter-argument I have ever seen, and I've been on this site for 7 or 8 years.

>You are now aware that _not_ going fishing once in a while is a main intrinsic factor in any fisherman's business.

This is /sci/, not /pol/

back up your claims, otherwise it's worth nothing

my claims
climate change: yes
man made: yes

meta-study:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

Burden of proof on denial people now

>>6455485
>Burden of proof on denial people now
Believe me, you certainly do not want people like me ask you any tough questions. Your house of cards will crash fast.

>>6455497
>Believe me, you certainly do not want to argue with trolls like me.

Seconded. Let's keep the climate trolls on /pol/.

From what ive gathered on the subject,
We know the main things that drive climate, and we cant possibly account for any of it except with the involvement of anthropogenic Co2, unless theres something completely new besides us we've never seen before. We know that the climate is changing in ways we havnt really seen before, and we're fairly certain people are causing it.
Beyond that, while it seems like bad shit will probably happen due to rapid change with little time for adaptation, but the climate is a very complex system and we're not exactly sure -just- what will happen, or in exactly how long.
The idea that something bad might happen is scary, and even scarier is the idea that we might have to change something we're doing. That we might have to stop endlessly chopping down our lands trees. Or that we might have to stop intensively and disastrously draining the soils. When people see this uncertainty, combined with learning about extant climate cycles we know about that -look- like they could be the cause to someone who doesnt really understand the subject, they latch onto these things so they can insist that nothing is wrong.

>>6455508
>le ebin resopnse

>>6455485
>/sci/
>reading source

You new here?

Where's the study, OP?

>>6455391

Autistic retard detected.

>>6455594
No, I guess I'm too old...

I remember a time when...

Not a problem, there is lebit now

>>6455638
>Where's the study, OP?
IPCC

you obviously didn't read the whole thread

>>6454484

The little ice age occurred 400 years ago, not thousands or 10s of thousands of years ago.

>>6454506

Except you DIDN'T mention exactly how much solar influence occurred back in the Maunder minimum or the Medieval warming period. For that matter, you don't know the exact mechanism of solar influence.

The sunspot activity these days was quite similar to the activity back then.

Here is what scientists say about this solar maximum. Here you are:

>"These records suggest solar activity has returned to Medieval Solar Maximum highs after a prolonged period of reduced solar activity."

A quote from the abstract of "The medieval solar activity maximum", Authors: J. L. Jirikowic, P. E. Damon.

>>6455537

>From what ive gathered on the subject

The problem is we don't, otherwise the models would be much more accurate in their predictions

>>6456173
Better graph

>>6454519

Correlation is no causation

>>6455485

Why has the fundamental prediction of Climate Change theory, the "hot spot" failed?

>>6456191
>800 year resolution
>in a del40Ar and CO2 dataset

you funny.

(A) Is there not overwhelming evidence that the earth goes through ice ages/periods of glaciation?

(B) Is there not overwhelming evidence that the last ice age ended about 150,000 years ago and we are currently in an interglacial period?

(C) If A and B are true, then shouldn't we predict that the earth is on a trend of warming during this interglacial period?

(D) If C is true then wouldn't any sane and rational mind predict that: temperatures on average will rise?

(E) If D is true than would it be likely that due to an increase in average temperature, we should expect the melting of glaciation and thus the rise in sea levels?

what is so fucking hard to understand about this, and how does muh carbon footprint fit into the above predictions?

>>6455415
That would imply more than 2 bilion. I don't think more than 2 billion people "rely" on seafood...

>>6456410

Makes sense to me.

>>6456410
>(A) Is there not overwhelming evidence that the earth goes through ice ages/periods of glaciation?
Yes.
>(B) Is there not overwhelming evidence that the last ice age ended about 150,000 years ago and we are currently in an interglacial period?
Yes.
>(C) If A and B are true, then shouldn't we predict that the earth is on a trend of warming during this interglacial period?
Yes.
>(D) If C is true then wouldn't any sane and rational mind predict that: temperatures on average will rise?
Yes.
>(E) If D is true than would it be likely that due to an increase in average temperature, we should expect the melting of glaciation and thus the rise in sea levels?
Yes.
>what is so fucking hard to understand about this
That's exactly what I ask people who don't understand climate science.
>and how does muh carbon footprint fit into the above predictions?
Because if we know how much carbon exists in natural systems, how much energy is coming in from the sun, how much carbon is absorbing energy at any given time, and where that energy ends up, we can model the expected concentrations of GHGs and the subsequent warming trends. And guess what? Natural carbon cycling alone can't explain what we're seeing in the natural environment, and anthropogenic emissions fill in the hole nicely.

Carbon dioxide promotes life. Have you heard the term 'carbon based lifeform'?
http://co2science.org/

Cold temperatures slow life. That should be obvious. Much less life exists at the poles than in the tropics.

Warm temperatures promote life. Wouldn't it be awesome if the earth were warm enough such that tropical forrests could yield year-round food, at all places on the globe?

The earth has existed with much higher CO2 levels, and higher average temperatures. At some points, like the 'cambrian explosion', CO2 was much higher yet life was MORE abundent and diverse than the present period.

The possible temperatures we're talking about here are +20 degrees at the most, which can be deduced from long history of CO2 and temperature records on earth.

Plenty of places exist, right now, where its 'too hot' outside, yet life abounds. The simple solution is to shade yourself, or the land, such as happens naturally with a forrest/jungle. CO2 greatly promotes forrest growth, as mentioned earlier.

Yes, the icecaps may melt. That would cause some problems for humanity in terms of needing to relocate a lot of houses, but icecap melting is very natural, and life THRIVES in those shallow wet inland type areas. Overall life would benefit.

On the other hand, these very real geoengineering proposals that suggest blocking sunlight with aerosols, are just ridiculously anti-life.

>>6456863
Yes, environmental change is natural, and yes, nature has always adapted. But if you look back through the fossil record, periods when the environment changed as rapidly as it is right now were marked by massive extinctions. And if modern ecological research has anything to say, it's telling us that we're in the middle of an extinction right now. Will the ecosphere adapt? Sure. But evolutionary adaptation and global biogeochemical changes occur on the MYA scale, so we'd be looking at a few million years of lag time on a barren and seriously-fucked-up Earth. And the first thing to fail will be our food sources and natural resources.

Also, CO2 enrichment has only a marginal effect on forest growth because CO2 is rarely the limiting factor for tree growth. You can read about the experiments done in Duke Forest, NC if you want to learn more.

>Catastrophic global warming
Has the Earth been warmer than what it is now and what we anticipate it will be in the near future?
Did everything die? (don't bring up the end of the Permian, that was mega-volcanism and doesn't count)
Do plants and animals in general do better in winter or summer?


I don't deny the reality of a changing climate and I think that pollution should be kept to a minimum but I don't see how evidence for the existence of a thing is reason enough to try to stop it. Saying that we know the best climate for life on this planet is arrogant presumption and crippling our own progress in the hopes of reversing the trend is like trying to put out a fire by not lighting more instead of grabbing an extinguisher.

Aesop told a story that went something like this: A lamb got separated from the flock and a hungry wolf came by. The wolf said to the lamb "You slandered my brother last fall and he was hunted down. Prepare to die!"
The lamb replied "It wasn't me, sir. I was only born this spring!"
The wolf said "You have been eating my grass and drinking from my brook. You will pay for that!"
The lamb replied "It was not I, sir. I am still nursing. I only drink my mother's milk."
The wolf thought about it and said "You are an evil child who contradicts his elders." The lamb was trying to think of a reply when the wolf sprang upon it. A crow, watching in a nearby tree, cawed out "A tyrant always finds an excuse."

Climate science is like Nazi science that proved Jews were inferior and needed to be exterminated.

>>6456908
If things happen too fast, life will not be able to adapt. It would take a long, LONG fucking time for what is left to adapt to the new environment, because evolution takes a long time.
>>6456893
is relevant.

>>6456908
>Has the Earth been warmer than what it is now and what we anticipate it will be in the near future?
Yes.
>Did everything die?
No, because temperature changes were (excepting massive global events) spread out over millions of years. Adaptation kept pace with the changing environment.=
>Do plants and animals in general do better in winter or summer?
That depends entirely on which species you're talking about.
>I don't deny the reality of a changing climate and I think that pollution should be kept to a minimum but I don't see how evidence for the existence of a thing is reason enough to try to stop it.
Because global nutrient cycling and weather patterns are driven by the way in which the earth's atmosphere absorbs solar energy. If you change that absorption, you change weather patterns and nutrient cycles. If you change weather patterns and nutrient cycles without giving the ecosphere a chance to adapt, then massive extinctions happen.
>Saying that we know the best climate for life on this planet is arrogant presumption and crippling our own progress in the hopes of reversing the trend is like trying to put out a fire by not lighting more instead of grabbing an extinguisher.
The "best" climate for life on earth - if there were one "best" climate - is the current, unaffected climate. species have adapted to their current environments for a reason.

>>6456960
> The "best" climate for life on earth - if there were one "best" climate - is the current, unaffected climate. species have adapted to their current environments for a reason.

Youd to better to say that the best climate is whichever one comes slow enough for life to adapt to it.

>>6451066
Large corporations having motives leads directly to ordinary people getting fired up about things, due to money being thrown into propaganda. Things have always been this way.

>>6456893
This period will already be marked as a mass-extinction millions of years from now. Look at what we did.

I just hope it doesn't get worse. I'm going to be really fucking pissed if we venus this place.

>>6456893
http://www.life.illinois.edu/delucia/The_DukeForest_FaceExperiment.pdf
>After 8 years, Photosynthetic rates by canopy foilage have increased up to 50% over controls.
>Basal area increment has been stimulated 13-27% versus that in control plots.
>Biomass increment has increased 27% over that in control plots.

Those increases seems gigantic to me. They mentioned nitrogen as a limiting growth factor, but solving that issue is as simple as planting more nitrogen-fixing plants. Either way, the effects are positive in thise case, which is so different than the ideas I so often hear about CO2 harming life.

>>6452825
>>6452839
I think they deny it based on the fact that its a source specifically made to prove an ecological change caused by us. Proof biasing? Its the same reason why there are groups doing private studies on why bee's are going extinct because big pharma refuses to release non biased studies on the effect of their pesticide on them.

If there's money involved there's a chance biased is the reason behind it.

>>6451066
>doesn't link or name the study
>doesn't link or name any "swarming deniers"
>bitching about unspecified reaction to unspecified publication
Why is anyone responding to this?

>>6456971
Yes, that's true.

>>6456976
More papers:

>Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. Ram Oren

>Forest carbon balance under elevated CO2. Jason G. Hamilton

Nitrogen fixing is very difficult, and the plants that support N-fixers don't do well in forested areas. N-limitation is the major constraint on photosynthetic organisms, and most of the photosynthetic organisms on earth are far more N-limited than the pine trees in Duke Forest (e.g. cyanobacteria, rainforest trees). The growth rates observed in the eCO2 experiments may not last. Also, realize that trees and their root systems do outgass CO2, so increased tree growth doesn't necessarily mean a large drawdown of carbon.

tl;dr CO2 probably won't be a boon for photosynthesis.

(filter didn't like the actual URLs)

>>6456982
So "big pharma" makes pesticides now?

>I really don't understand; why do people so firmly refuse to believe the data?
We don't get the data. We get the conclusions.

>>6456975
>>6456971
>>6456946
/watch?v=RT55V-zlbrM
Please be a little more skeptical.

In other news the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not a solid island of crap but an area of ocean with miniscule but detectable levels of floating degraded plastic particles that centers on Hawaii (skeptoid.com/episodes/4132), Ethanol and certain other biofuels and alternative fuels actually require more energy to produce than they contain (skeptoid.com/episodes/4051), and organic is simply a marketing label for food grown using 1950's techniques and is more harmful to the environment than food produced with modern technology (skeptoid.com/episodes/4019, skeptoid.com/episodes/4112).

We're not killing the planet and when we go extinct places like Chernobyl have shown that nature will reclaim everything we have built. Face it, our entire civilization is destined to be nothing more than a thin layer of broken plastic shards pressed between the Burgess Shale and an eons worth of mud and none that came after will remember or care about us or our plight beyond a general curiosity about the past.

That chart reminds me of an episode of Gilligan's Island. The one where they thought the island was sinking because the professor's tidal measurements were going up. In the end, they found out Gilligan was using the measuring stick to anchor his crab trap and he found out he caught bigger crabs in deeper water. So he was moving it out.

So what do they use to measure tidal heights? Is it ever a pole? Do they ever tighten it up by pounding it deeper? How about a seawall? Do seawalls subside over time?

Satellites' orbits decay. Is GPS accurate to the inch?

Wise up dude. You're being gaslighted.

>>6457076
Is GPS accurate to the inch?
Yeah, about that. The commercial units will only give you a reading to something like a few feet but it can be as precise as a few centimeters. The GPS sats and others have been used to make extremely accurate elevation maps of the world.

>>6457081
Relative positions.
"The precision is phenomenal: even a simple hand-held GPS receiver can determine your absolute position on the surface of the Earth to within 5 to 10 meters in only a few seconds (with differential techniques that compare two nearby receivers, precisions of order centimeters or millimeters in relative position are often obtained in under an hour or so)."
www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

>>6456982
>specifically made to prove an ecological change caused by us

It just collates data that all points to one conclusion.

You're more than welcome to do your own if you can find equally compelling peer reviewed data to do it.

>the globe is warming
No it isn't.

>>6456982
>its a source specifically made to prove an ecological change caused by us


The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for addressing it. The IPCC does not carry out research itself but bases its assessment on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.

The panel is made up of:

2500+ scientific expert reviewers
800+ contributing authors
450+ lead authors
from 130+ countries

--

This is massive bad faith from you.
It's funny how nobody here relates or couter-arguments on the last IPCC report, and prefers to claim "their truth" out of their ass.

Morality: unfortunately, climate-related subjects are condamned to be hijacked by /pol/ traditions.
/sci/ is not prepared to discuss such subjects in an intelligent manner.

>>6457258
>hurr durr I don't even understand the most basic of concepts behind global warning
Why haven't you killed yourself yet?

>All those useless graphs.
I had to post this one, courtesy of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

By the way, greenhouse gas != CO2.
There are some more or less effective, with longer and shorter half life. (By huge power of ten.)

>>6457258
why don't you rebut his graph

>>6457384
Higher temperature melts icecaps faster causing water temperature to drop which makes winds colder as they pass over the ocean. This is a very well documented effect of global warming.

>>6457384
Looking only at ~10 years when trying to discuss a theory that looks at temperature changes over decades and centuries is stupid.
Looking only at a small part of a single continent when the theory concerns global average temperatures is stupid.
Looking at seasonal variation when talking about, again, global, multi-year temperature averages is stupid.
All in all, the graph as literally nothing to prove or disprove about global warming in any way.

How about you all stop arguing out of your asses and posting graphs with no titles or sources and instead talk about actual science, like the most recent IPCC report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

>>6457490
> actual science
> IPCC

You funny guy. The IPCC is full of bureaucrats the final reports are signed of by fucking career politicians. That institution is about as far away from "actual science" as you can possibly get.

The IPCC is politics and nothing else.

>>6457258
>dat 10yr dataset
>>6457076
>Is GPS accurate to the inch?
Yes.
>>6457072
You are correct about the garbage patch and biofuels. However, those have nothing to do with climate change, and Chernobyl is FAR from being "reclaimed". Microbial respiration rates in the soil around the plant are fucked, and that will severely limit the ecosystem for a long time to come. And you seriously underestimate the impact human activity can have on global biogeochemistry. For instance, del15N tracking shows that human activity has doubled the amount of available N in the global N cycle in the last 175 years (thanks Haber). That is a fucking ridiculous number. And given how sensitive most ecosystems are to N availability, you can bet that is having an effect.

>climate change deniers

Infidels, round them up, burn them at the stake!

>>6457490
Some anons already tried. It's hopeless. When you deny, you deny. Dot. You don't bother to look at evidences.

>>6457512
You gigantic piece of shit, >>6457346
2500+ scientific expert reviewers
800+ contributing authors
450+ lead authors
from 130+ countries

So what? Major conspirancy? the 2500 paper-reviewd articles come from nowhere?

You prefer to uhr duhr "IPCC is a political sect" rather than read and discuss (you can disagree) in an scientifical way.

>That institution is about as far away from "actual science" as you can possibly get.
you didn't even try read, did you? It's much more comfortable to react like this, I guess.

But if this is the "bureaucracy part" that bothers you, just feel free to read the original papers. From several different authors, many different countries and numerous journals.

No? You prefer to focus on the claims of 1 guy on 1 obscure website?

...

//I seriously hope you're not the kind of person who mock religious people then. Cause you're acting exactly like them

>>6457633
>When you deny, you deny. Dot. You don't bother to look at evidences.

There's a difference between denial and skepticism.
When I say "what about x, y an z" and you say "lol ur denier!" then you are the one denying things.

When the leader of one of the most powerful countries says global warming is settled science then few professionals who value their carrier are willing to speak out against it. It's like being in Nazi Germany and saying "Jews are not so bad. Some of my friends are Jewish." Most people will say what they think their government wants to hear. See psychology, behavioral modification, positive reinforcement and punishment.

That's not conspiracy. That's governing. Still, some loyal people think their government needs truth more then it needs parrots of propaganda. We call that idealism.

Those of you who don't accept the findings which demonstrate the effect of anthropogenic emissions on global climate, can you please explain to me why the methods used to come to those findings are erroneous? As an environmental microbiologist and chemist, I'm very interested in learning the flaws in my training.

>>6457633
>appeal to authority

>>6457674
What methods? You mean looking at a graph and arbitrarily concluding a causal relationship? That's called a "fallacy".

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

>>6457676
No, I mean methods like
>ice core and geological sampling
>isotope ratios via MS
>ocean current and global weather patterns
>atmospheric chemistry and radiative forcing
>etc

If you can't explain to me why increased atmospheric CO2 will affect the calcium carbonate saturation of the oceans and damage the integrity of calcifying organisms in the Southern Ocean, thereby affecting global ocean productivity by changing nutrient export into Antarctic deep water, then why are you in this thread?

>why the methods .. are erroneous

nothing is more convincing than finding out on your own

>>6457675
yep, authority from thousands of scientists >>>>> anons on 4chan you know...
also
>>6457674
>>6457689

>>6457676
Well, at the most basic level, we know
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas
>an increase in any GHG will increase downward radiative forcing
>an increase in downward radiative forcing will increase temperatures

Therefore we have causal link between increasing CO2 emissions and increasing temperatures

>>6457714
My dog is breathing. Thus he produced CO2. Would you blame all of climate change on my dog? Is my dog responsible for climate change? Would killing my dog stop climate change?

In case you're too autistic to get the analogy: I'm saying human contributions are too insignificantly small to make a difference.

>>6457689
Are you illiterate? I'm not denying climate change. I'm just telling you it's not anthropomorphic. Why are you listing accepted methods of detecting effects of climate change? Of course climate change happens and it is natural. You claimed it was caused by humans. Still waiting for a better argument than a "correlation = causation" fallacy...

>>6457721
>>6457726
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years. (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

>>6457721
>I'm saying human contributions are too insignificantly small to make a difference.
But they aren't at all.
>>6457726
>I'm just telling you it's not anthropomorphic.
Yes it is.

If we know how much carbon is contained within natural cycles, and we use geological traces from the past to determine correlations between biogeochemical activity and atmospheric CO2, we can determine where atmospheric CO2 levels should be today given current conditions. And, surprise, they're considerably higher than they should be. We can also determine anthropogenic carbon input and - surprise again, it explains the surplus.

Not to mention the fact that anthropogenic carbon isn't the only problem - nitrogen, methane, metals, NOx, and their buddies are also changing the face of the earth.

>>6457714
>causal link between increasing CO2 emissions and increasing temperatures

>>6457734
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring . The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

>>6457734
>yfw CO2 is one of the weaker greenhouse gases and contributes almost nothing to climate change
>yfw methane and water vapor are the main causes of climate change and are almost exclusively of natural origin

Please educate yourself on the composition of our atmosphere.

>>6457737
>We can also determine anthropogenic carbon input
Are you mentally retarded or something? I'm not denying that anthropomorphic CO2 emissions happen. I'm saying they are too insignificantly small to make a difference.

>Not to mention the fact that anthropogenic carbon isn't the only problem - nitrogen, methane, metals, NOx, and their buddies are also changing the face of the earth.
Thanks for confirming my point, moron.

>>6457746
>water vapor
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

>>6457753
How does that prove anything? You didn't present a convincing argument. In fact you confirmed that water vapor is the stronger greenhouse gas. The rest of your post is circular reasoning and baseless speculation.

>>6457746
You are correct, but water vapor levels aren't changing, so clearly we can write that factor out. Anthropogenic emission of methane is considerable, and increased surface temperatures will only increase methane release from nutrient-rich permafrost once anaerobic bacteria kickstart their metabolisms. Also, the presence of other GHGs doesn't mean CO2 isn't important.
>>6457749
Are you saying a 30% increase isn't significant? That's enough to affect most marine calcifying organisms.

>>6454436

pretty much this

Remember when geocentric was all the rage? So many papers, that proved that the sun rotated around the earth...

>>6457746
>1393685989462.jpg

Lel, we got a /pol/fag here
http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/27108908

>>6457760
You arent very good at reading, are you?

>>6457760
Since you can't read

>The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

>>6457761
>but water vapor levels aren't changing
The poster >>6457753 explained how they are changing.

>Are you saying a 30% increase isn't significant?
Is this an appeal to emotion or something? That number is meaningless when you consider how small the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is and how weak of a greenhouse gas CO2 is.

>>6457765
>can't into relative motion
Did you fail high school physics?

>>6457674
I am sure you are quite competent in your field and I would not presume to fault your education..

As you know, the amount of energy radiated by an object is proportional to the absolute temperature raised to the fourth power. So it takes a very small change in the temperature of the earth to make a big difference in the heat radiating from the earth.

The global warming idea is that we are increasing the insulation provided by the earth's atmosphere. You know the theory. Sunlight gets in and heat has trouble getting out. That is heat in the form of infrared radiation. Fortunately most heat does not leave by radiation from the ground or sea. A good thing, too. The earth would be rather cold if radiation did that. Only a fraction does that, maybe around 17%. More sunlight energy then that gets reflected back into space by the sea and clouds. Most heat goes out by convection to the higher part of the atmosphere from where it radiates into space.

You have seen the graphs of absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapor and you know what they say. Increasing CO2 will increase temperature and that will increase H2O and we all die in a steam bath.

But you know absorptivity equals one minus reflectivity. The absorptivity of window glass is maybe 95% and the absorptivity of aluminum is about 4%. But aluminum would make a poor window. Absorptivity is not the characteristic you need to look at to figure the effect of changing the gas mix in the atmosphere. You need to figure attenuation per unit distance for these gases. If the gases are already attenuating near 100% of a frequency, changing the amount of gas has little effect. Same if they are hardly attenuating at all. It's only when they are near the 50% attenuation that a change in the gas concentration will have any effect. Think of a bunch of dear running through a forest. The trees slow them down but making the trees taller wouldn't have much effect.

>>6457760
So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

>>6457674 (continued)
So if it does have an effect, what would be the effect of reducing the infrared radiation (IR) from the surface? Increased temperature? Increased turbulence of the atmosphere? An increase in water vapor? An increase in cloud cover? Probably all of them. But by how much each?

Water vapor is lighter then dry air. Water vapor tends to rise and radiates heat energy at high altitude into space and becomes clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space. Clouds become rain. Not all rain reaches the ground. Some evaporates on the way down. So, you see, clouds are part of a negative feedback loop regulating the surface temperature of the earth.

Of course global warmists say no to that. They say clouds will trap in the heat. They point to the temperature staying higher on cloudy nights in winter. But cloudy days are also associated with high humidity and it is difficult for the temperature to fall when the air is at the dew point. It's a change of state thing. So too with cool sunny days right after a cold front passes. Most people equate sunny with warm and cloudy with cool.

>>6457770
Nice projection, asshole. Your text does simply not do what you want it to do. It provides no argument against my point. Try again.

>>6457771
>A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.
Again a baseless claim.

>>6457778
Why are you circularly assuming that CO2 is sufficiently significant to be considered a cause? Do you even logic?

>>6457512

I love how this simple truth pisses off the doomsday cultists.

>>6457785
>baseless

www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702872104v1.pdf

Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels. Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system.

Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

>>6457785
>Nice projection, asshole. Your text does simply not do what you want it to do. It provides no argument against my point. Try again.
How fucking stupid are you?
Let me spell it out for you
>Increase in Co2 causes a small temperature increase
>This leads to more water evaporating
>Thus, there is more water vapor in the air
>this makes temperatures even warmer
>etc.

>>6457796
The change in temperature caused by CO2 is insignificant. Thus the multiplication of it through water vapor is insignificant as well. Twice an infinitesimal is still an infinitesimal. Are you mathematically impaired?

>>6457785
>Why are you circularly assuming that CO2 is sufficiently significant to be considered a cause? Do you even logic?
Increase in temperature from ANY source causes a feedback loop dumbfuck.
And since we know Co2 is a greenhosue gas, we can conclude that adding more will result in some kind of temperature increase, yeah?

>>6457804
See
>>6457791

>>6457805
See >>6457804

>>6457810
See
>>6457791

>>6457777
A very productive and informative post. I appreciate it. I come at the problem of climate change from the biogeochemical side more than the physical side - what reading material can you give me on attenuation of solar energy by GHGs?

If you know anything about electronics on a small scale you'd understand how painfully EASY it is to falsify scientific data, even in real time to somebody recording it 'officially'

>>6457819
See
>>6457808

>>6457804
>>6457808
An infintesimal is something that is infinitely small.
Anyhow, care to provide some kind of source for that? Keep in mind, 'small' does not necessarily mean insignificant. A source to back up the claim that the ultimate temperature result of increased Co2 and then the resulting feedback loops would be appreciated.

>>6457822
>It's a conspiracy
>>>/pol/

>>6457827
Why are you shifting the burden of proof? I don't need a source. I'm questioning your claim.

>>6457825
>small numbers means it doesnt matter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA

>>6457753
>The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

Hence the problem climate scientists have struggled with and failed to resolve since the earliest days of their field: why the hell doesn't any minor disturbance of the climate cause runaway warming and render Earth as inhospitable to life as Venus?

As soon as you learn the greenhouse effect, you start seeing the looming menace of runaway warming lurking in every shadow. And yet, as far as we can tell, Earth has never undergone this hypothetical dramatic warming event. We've had terrible cooling which has dramatically reduced Earth's carrying capacity, but hothouse Earth always peaks out at a balmy temperature which is quite friendly to life.

Why?

Well, they have various guesses, but what it comes down to is they don't know, and this bias to assume that they somehow know what's going on despite this lack of a good explanation for a very basic and well-established feature of the subject of interest, has been characteristic of the field for as long as it's been treated as more than an endeavor toward the truth, but as a source of expert recommendations.

>>6457838
No you arent. You're making a different, contradictory claim. There is no reason to treat 'absolutely zero impact none whatsoever' as the ground state for a greenhouse gas, without evidence provided otherwise, as the default. We're making two different and opposed claims about just how much impact it has.

>>6457842
>As soon as you learn the greenhouse effect, you start seeing the looming menace of runaway warming lurking in every shadow.

Or, maybe it's just you who is confused about this.

>>6457844
Can you prove your claim?

>>6457850
So you cant, or you just care more about being an obtuse jackass. Right.

>>6457782
>They say the clouds will trap in the heat

No, they don't. They say that GHGs (ie CO2, Methane, H2O) will trap in heat. Basically, sunlight (shorter wavelengths) enter the atmosphere, the ground absorbs that energy, and that energy is released as infrared heat (longer wavelengths). GHGs absorb some of this heat and reradiate it in all directions. Most of the compounds in the atmosphere ignore this ifrared heat, and thus increasing the concentration of GHGs will increase the amount of heat reradiated back towards the surface.

Your assertion that GHGs basically play no role in increasing temperatures not only flies in the face of commonly-accepted science, but also flies in the face of what we are able to observe in our own solar system, particularly on Venus, where it's abnormally high temperature is generally attributed to it's CO2 atmosphere

>>6457842

>>6457848
>irrelevant image

>vague dismissal without offering any argument

Keep on claiming you're on the side that bases its arguments on facts and good reasoning.

>>6457861
Cool projecting.

>>6457857
Unlike you I'm not here for shit flinging. I want to learn. If you cannot contribute information, then don't reply.

>>6457865
High altitude clouds actually do work to trap heat. The lower, puffy ones usually block it.

>>6457842
Some skeptics ask, "If global warming has a positive feedback effect, then why don't we have runaway warming? The Earth has had high CO2 levels before: Why didn't it turn into an oven at that time?"

Positive feedback happens when the response to some change amplifies that change. For example: The Earth heats up, and some of the sea ice near the poles melts. Now bare water is exposed to the sun's rays, and absorbs more light than did the previous ice cover; so the planet heats up a little more.

Another mechanism for positive feedback: Atmospheric CO2 increases (due to burning of fossil fuels), so the enhanced greenhouse effect heats up the planet. The heating "bakes out" CO2 from the oceans and arctic tundras, so more CO2 is released.

In both of these cases, the "effect" reinforces the "cause", which will increase the "effect", which will reinforce the "cause"... So won't this spin out of control? The answer is, No, it will not, because each subsequent stage of reinforcement & increase will be weaker and weaker. The feedback cycles will go on and on, but there will be a diminishing of returns, so that after just a few cycles, it won't matter anymore.

Picture shows how the temperature increases, when started off by an initial dollop of CO2, followed by many cycles of feedback. We've plotted this with three values of the strength of the feedback, and you can see that in each case, the temperature levels off after several rounds.

So the climatologists are not crazy to say that the positive feedback in the global-warming dynamic can lead to a factor of 3 in the final increase of temperature: That can be true, even though this feedback wasn't able to cook the Earth during previous periods of high CO2.

>>6457872
>Unlike you I'm not here for shit flinging
>repeatedly and deliberately ignoring large portions of other posts and pretending to have no reading comprehension so you can insult them and act like theyre the ones being stupid, instead of just making your claim

>>6457865
Funny you should mention that. The absorption spectrum is much the same as the emission spectrum for GHG's. It's an equilibrium thing.

Do you know that if all the millions and billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere were compressed into a layer of dry ice over the earth, it would only be about 2.75mm thick, less then an eight of an inch thick? Do the math. 400ppm CO2, 101kPA pressure, density of dry ice is about 1.5.

And don't put word into my mouth about what I am saying.

>>6457880
Thank you for the informative post.

>>6457881
Fuck off, shitposter.

>>6457832
No its called hacking, and 12 year olds can do it.
But whatever makes you sleep at night!

THIS Is a conspiracy, and a pretty good one really:
facebook com WhyInTheWorldAreTheySpraying

>>6457891
>Fuck off, shitposter.
Your sudden change of heart to be sensible and calm is a flimsy and blatant facade.
Allow me to provide evidence:
>>6457753
This post obviously states an increase of Co2 causes an increase of water vapor, and a positive feedback loop. You reply with
>>6457760
Instead of just making the claim that the levels of Co2 arent enough to initiate any significant temperature change even with the feedback loop.
You do the exact same thing in the replies between
>>6457778
and
>>6457785
and make a patently stupid statement in reply to
>>6457771
when you say that the statement that a small amount has a much greater long term effect is 'baseless', instead of simply stating your assertion, as it took you so long to do, that that greater long term effect is still insignificant in the end.

>>6457868
>Cool projecting.
Except that's a perfect description of your post: irrelevant image without even an attempt to try and make it relevant, dismissal without argument.

>>6457880
>Some skeptics ask
You mean to say "Any decent scientist or interested layman asks...". Anyone who DOESN'T ask that is some kind of idiot or cultist.

>The answer is, No
You might as well have had said this. You just use a lot of words to say this and repeat it without producing any specific reason for runaway warming to not happen, or for just enough runaway warming to happen that we're going to fuck everything up for ourselves if we don't stop emitting CO2, but not enough so it's consistent with the fact that through the entire history of the Earth it has never had runaway warming severe enough to make the Earth inhospitable to life.

>Picture shows how the temperature increases, when started off by an initial dollop of CO2, followed by many cycles of feedback. We've plotted this with three values
Three made-up values entered into the same made-up model isn't an argument.

>>6457914
>or for just enough runaway warming to happen that we're going to fuck everything up for ourselves if we don't stop emitting CO2
Nobody ever claimed anything like this. Nobody ever made any claim except that the positive feedback loop that comes from emitting CO2 makes the final temperature gain from emitting that CO2 much greater than the warming caused just by it itself.

>>6457914
One of the problems about understanding the extent of global warming is that the total average temperature increase due to CO2 is greater than the first guess: Climatologists must also take into account "second-order" effects which add to the initial estimate of the warming. It is not easy to calculate these effects, but the general consensus is that, overall, they magnify the temperature increase by about a factor of 3. These second-order effects work as a form of "positive feedback."

Imagine the pre-industrial world, with the Earth, land & sea, in rough thermal balance. Then add a dollop of 35% more CO2 to the atmosphere: Due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (EGE), the outgoing radiation of infrared energy is inhibited, and this reduction in radiative cooling raises the global average temperature. But the increase in temperature has the effect of increasing even further the amount of atmospheric CO2, because the heated ocean will hold less CO2, and the warming Arctic tundra will reveal formerly frozen biomass that will decompose and release more CO2. So you get even more CO2 in the atmosphere, which gives rise to even more warming, which gives rise to even more CO2...

Skeptics ask: "If more CO2 gives rise to higher temperature, and higher temperature gives rise to more CO2, and this additional CO2 gives rise to even higher temperature, doesn't this go on forever? Doesn't that mean that the Earth would turn into an oven? If the greenhouse effect REALLY has positive feedback, why hasn't this happened already? Something is wrong with this picture!"

This line of thought is partly right and partly wrong:

1. Yes, in a sense this cycle does go on forever; but
2. No, the Earth will not turn into an oven!

How can these both be true? Well,

1. The cycle does go on forever, like the reflections between two facing mirrors; but
2. At each step in the cycle, the incremental increase gets smaller and smaller. After a few cycles, the increase is negligible.

I suspect that a lot of the global warming deniers are really shills for the global warmists who are trying to discredit the opposition from within. No proof. Just a thought.

>>6457926
cont.

When does positive feedback lead to a "runaway"?

To understand this, consider first the "classic" example of positive feedback: The output of an amplifier is plugged back into its own input. This can lead to a sustained shriek. How does it work? Starting at input level Io, the output of the amplifier is Io multiplied by the gain factor, g; this gets plugged back into the input, and comes out multiplied by another factor of g; and so on. If we plot the output as a function of the number of cycles of feedback

We have used three different values for g:

- for g < 1, the output fades towards 0;

- for g = 1, the output remains unchanged; and

- for g > 1, the output grows larger and larger

So if the gain factor is > 1, and only in that case, the system is described as "runaway": Any input leads to an output that grows beyond bounds. (In the real world, the system becomes limited by factors not included in the original mathematics, so the output does not really go to infinity, but saturates at a high value. So when an audio amplifier gets into the range of runaway positive feedback, the sound system doesn't explode, it just produces an ear-shattering shriek.)

>>6457931
Why doesn't the enhanced greenhouse effect run away as well?

The nature of the positive feedback is different than for the case of the simple amplifier: In the case of the amplifier, the increase in output is proportional to the input; but in the case of the enhanced greenhouse effect (EGE), the increase in output is less than proportional to the input: It is logarithmic. The result is that when we plot a (highly simplified) model of the temperature increase due to the EGE against the number of feedback cycles, we get pic related >>6457880

In these plots, we use three different values of the feedback parameter, f:

- Due to the feedback, the temperature does indeed rise beyond the initial jump (due to the dollop of 35% more CO2).

- However, after several (3 to 10) iterations, there is no further significant change.

- The terminal value of the temperature increase depends on the value of the feedback parameter f: The stronger the feedback, the larger the terminal value.

Conclusion:

- When you add CO2 to this model system, there is indeed positive feedback, so even more CO2 will end up in the atmosphere than you dumped in from the burning of fossil fuels.

- However, this does not give rise to a runaway scenario: Eventually, the impact of that dollop of CO2 comes to an end.

- Now, in the real world, that end will not be an ultimate end until we stop adding more CO2 ourselves: Every time we add another dollop of CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels, we kick off another round of significant feedback cycles. Currently, we are still adding small dollops all the time...

>>6457928
Off to >>>/pol/ with you

>>6457921
>>or for just enough runaway warming to happen that we're going to fuck everything up for ourselves if we don't stop emitting CO2
>Nobody ever claimed anything like this.
Excuse me, but that is the position called "global warming", or sometimes things like "climate change". People are called "deniers" for disagreeing with any part of it. That's what it means and what we're here arguing about.

If someone says, "there's warming, but it's natural", "there's warming, but it won't be a catastrophe", or "the temperature has always been going up and down, we don't know what's going to happen next, and what's happening now is not really worth calling 'global warming'", those are the people being called "global warming deniers" and denounced as either mindless anti-science rubes or corrupt anti-science propagandists.

>>6457940 Off to >>>/pol/ with you
I was lost and you gave me directions. Thank you.

>>6457942
>Excuse me, but that is the position called "global warming", or sometimes things like "climate change".
No its not, anon. Its not at all.
Let me clarify
>CO2 makes things hotter overall than just the gas itself does because of positive feedback loops
>These dont spiral out of control to infinity, because of diminishing returns, but end up with a much greater gain in temperature than just the CO2 itself adds
>Mankind is releasing lots of CO2
>Mankind is increasing the temperature by a greater factor than purely the CO2 itself is causing
>mankind is thus changing the climate at a rate significantly faster than natural climate processes
>if mankind continues doing this for too long, and things cant adapt, the results will be rather disastrous.

>>6457952
Addendum:
>"But the numbers are small! Parts per million, only little increases!"
>>6457839

>>6457926
>If more CO2 gives rise to higher temperature, and higher temperature gives rise to more CO2, and this additional CO2 gives rise to even higher temperature
Stop dragging this off on random tangents. We were talking about positive feedback from water vapor.

There isn't an ocean of CO2 hanging around to go into the atmosphere. There is, however, ample water to vaporize.

And once again, you're not giving any specific reason for the world to be like this. You're just talking about hypothetical examples of models that might exist where it could work this way, and even demonstrating what a wide variety of such models there are.

To predict the temperature response to CO2 emissions, we need to KNOW which model is the TRUTH.

>>6457956
>>6457952
Addendum 2:
>"But the nature of life is to adapt!"
Adaptations take a long time. If things change too fast, life is unable to adapt quickly enough. Rapid climate changes in the past have resulted in mass extinctions for this reason.

>>6457942
>and denounced as either mindless anti-science rubes or corrupt anti-science propagandists

That's funny, because deniers frequently claim that every scientific organization is filled with corrupt anti-science propagandists.

Because it's been turned into a political issue.

Not denying climate change is a left wing political view. Normally sensible right wing people will deny it just because their opponents support it.

>>6457958
>There isn't an ocean of CO2 hanging around to go into the atmosphere. There is, however, ample water to vaporize.

Already explained here>>6457753

>And once again, you're not giving any specific reason for the world to be like this. You're just talking about hypothetical examples of models that might exist where it could work this way, and even demonstrating what a wide variety of such models there are.

>To predict the temperature response to CO2 emissions, we need to KNOW which model is the TRUTH.

This post is again relevant >>6457881 Dude, you really have trouble with reading comprehension. Or maybe proper science is too hard for you to understand.

>>6457952
>>>>just enough runaway warming to happen that we're going to fuck everything up for ourselves if we don't stop emitting CO2
>>>Nobody ever claimed anything like this.
>>Excuse me, but that is the position called "global warming", or sometimes things like "climate change".
>No its not, anon. Its not at all.

>Let me clarify
>CO2 makes things hotter ... because of positive feedback loops
>Mankind is releasing lots of CO2
>if mankind continues ... the results will be rather disastrous.

Oh yeah, that's COMPLETELY different from "just enough runaway warming to happen that we're going to fuck everything up for ourselves if we don't stop emitting CO2". What was I thinking?

>>6457972
>Already explained here>>6457753
Already replied to here: >>6457842

>>6457973
What the fuck is wrong with you?
>These dont spiral out of control to infinity, because of diminishing returns,
>But DO end up with a much greater gain in temperature than just the CO2 itself adds
>Mankind is increasing the temperature by a greater factor than purely the CO2(we release)itself is causing
>if mankind continues doing this for too long,
>temperatures will rise more, because were adding more things which cause a certain net increase in temp to the atmosphere,
>and things cant adapt in time(because its faster than natural climate processes), the results will be rather disastrous.
Fuck this keeps being relevant:
>>6457881

>>6457981
That post was debunked too.

You're repeating yourself now

>>6457985
It wasn't, though.

You're the one who chose to drag this around in a circle.

>>6457991
Um, no. You're the one with no reading comprehension.

>>6457991
>It wasn't, though.
yes it was.
>>6457880
the positive feedback loops have diminishing returns, so while they amplify the net result of Co2 significantly, they dont spiral out of control until earth is like venus

>>6457983
>What the fuck is wrong with you?
My taste in persons to converse with, apparently.

I have a hard time letting idiots on the internet be idiots on the internet, so I find myself occasionally writing responses to people who lack basic reading comprehension and other such foundational skills to have a productive discussion.

>>6457998
>im better than you why am I talking to you look at how calm and superior I am
This is just getting pathetic.
>just enough runaway warming to happen that we're going to fuck everything up for ourselves if we don't stop emitting CO2
Was never, ever claimed. Yet you continually insisted it was. The claim was that the 'runaway' effects dont run away forever, but make the net gain in temperature from any given Co2 increase greater than just the Co2 would allow. Therefore, releasing Co2 DOES have a significant impact, despite the Co2 ITSELF not directly causing a large increase in temperature. Nobody ever, EVER claimed there would be a runaway effect like on venus, as you blatantly implied they were claiming in
>>6457914
by continuing
> but not enough so it's consistent with the fact that through the entire history of the Earth it has never had runaway warming severe enough to make the Earth inhospitable to life.
Then you utterly fucking omitt large portions of the post you're replying to, IMPORTANT, -CRITICAL- portions. Key fucking facts. And you use the Frankenstein of parts of the opponents argument that can be useful to you to try and make it look like they said something they never did, so you can argue against it. A phantasmal bloody strawman.

Oh god...

I lose my faith into humanity every time I read amerifats.

What is so hard to understand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report#Climate_change_2013:_report_overview

I can't understand why americans are so stupid, really.
In general, in every domains. Hopefully you're more than 300 millions so some exceptions raise up the level but, really that's frightening.

Sincerely,
Norway

>>6458017
Oilway please

>>6454484
>>6454491
>>6454496
>>6454506
>>6454519
Thank you. I have learned something today!

>>6454992
>The whole population of fish would easily regrow within two years or so.
Moron.

>>6458017
Protip: You're never gonna convince others by insulting them as "stupid" or "americans". I'm neither and I'm holding a position of reasonable skepticism. Much better arguments have been posted ITT than your pseudo-authoritative link to wikipedia.

This being said, can someone explain to me how climate cooled down in the past? We had several natural long-term fluctuations of temperature in earth's history. Some anon ITT explained how water vapor forms a positive feedback loop increasing the rise in temperature. What are the possible opposite mechanisms leading to cooling? How could "global warming" possibly end in the future?

>>6458032
From my understanding,
Carbon dioxide naturally gets absorbed by geological processes over longer timescales, volcanism also cools things, as well as periods of lesser solar activity. This causes a number of negative feedback loops as well, such as with water vapor.
Im not certain about any of this, anyway, but I believe thats some of the mechanisms for cooling.

>>6458032
>convince others by insulting them as "stupid" or "americans"
I don't want to convince you, just insulting you.
USfags are the lees of humanity.

> posted ITT than your pseudo-authoritative link to wikipedia.
It's wiki so you didn't clic, did you? The best arguments are those of scientist who published in paper reviewed journals.
Because you know, this is how science works.

And guess what, the link in the wiki page is the most complete work on climate change, a giant meta-study on thousand of articles.

But no, I guess you feel confident enough to find the truth by yourself (the skeptikal magic trick which allows you to trust everything...).

That's why I call you an idiot.

>>6458032
>How could "global warming" possibly end in the future?

When Yellowstone finally erupts.

>>6458034
>>6458044
How can an erupting volcano lead to cooling? Isn't lava and all the shit that gets blown in the air fuckign hot?

>>6458050
Well, I'm no expert, but volcanic eruptions can lead to some serious blockage of sunlight because of the ash

>>6458032
Volcanoes; pollution that that blocks sunlight.
Solar variations.

>>6458050
Ash in the atmosphere. A supervolcano erupted back in the 1800s, and there was a year without summer. Snow, in july.

There may be more negative feedback loops then people realize. More CO2 means more vegetation and plants cool by evaporation.

The average of global temperatures varies with the phase of the moon. Since moon radiation is insignificant, about one millionth that of the sun, this is most likely caused by tides. So if water levels rise as a result of melting ice then the earth may reflect more light back into space causing cooling. The earth's orbit is eccentric, varies by about 3%, closest to the sun near the end of January. So the earth gets about 6% more radiation from the sun in January then in July. Yet the radiation from the earth is about 2% higher in July then January. Air conditioners? I doubt that. Seems to me there are more land masses in the Northern hemisphere and so the earth converts and radiates more heat in July.

>>6458050
Shit hit the fan when Krakatoa erupted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa

>In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).[9] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[9]

>The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[14]

>The eruption darkened the sky worldwide for years afterward, and produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months. British artist William Ashcroft made thousands of colour sketches of the red sunsets half way around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption. The ash caused "such vivid red sunsets that fire engines were called out in New York, Poughkeepsie, and New Haven to quench the apparent conflagration."[15] This eruption also produced a Bishop's Ring around the sun by day, and a volcanic purple light at twilight.

>For several years following the eruption it was reported that the moon appeared to be blue and sometimes green. Blue moons resulted because some of the ash clouds were filled with particles about 1 µm wide—the right size to strongly scatter red light, while allowing other colors to pass. White moonbeams shining through the clouds emerged blue, and sometimes green. People also saw lavender suns and, for the first time, noctilucent clouds

>>6451076
Obligatory.

>>6458061
Yellowstone will make that look pitifully small in comparison.

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

>The last full-scale eruption of the Yellowstone Supervolcano, the Lava Creek eruption which happened nearly 640,000 years ago,[23] ejected approximately 240 cubic miles (1,000 km3) of rock, dust and volcanic ash into the sky.[14]

>>6457934

Could you please give a scholarly reference for this explanation?

>>6451066

What is this thread? People still believe this?

Water actually takes up more space as ice.

So if the icecaps were meltng, you'd expect sealevels to go down, not up.

>>6458246
That would be true if the ice wasn't landlocked. When Ice sheets break off and float they are increasing the water level

>>6451324
>facts backed up by data
>opinion

>>6458259
>facts backed up by data
"please listen to al gore" isn't data
>opinion
yes, that's what you subscribe to. Of course it's "consensus opinion", so just because there's a million morons that belive the same thing as you means it's true.
Which also means that allah is the one and only god and we need to drape women in tents and execute homosexuals and people that listen to music or drink alcohol right now.

>>6458262

We need to unskew all the biased temperature readings.

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

>>6456811

Except your models aren't working
>>6456175

>>6456908

The earth was warmer during the medieval warmng period as well as the Roman warming period. Those times are to recent to allow for significant evolutionary adaptation.

>>6458298
High res please so I can actually read the sources and the graphs properly

Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5957/1256

>>6457258

You are correct. The models predicted warming based on significant increase in CO2
>>6456175

It didn't happen.

>>6457972

The theory of positive feedback can and has been tested. The fundamental prediction is an increase in the moist adiabatic lapse rate (compared to the dry adiabatic lapse rate) in the Hadley Cell. Specifically in the troposphere over the equator. This creates what is commonly called the "hot spot."

This is described in United Nation's IPCC IPCC AR4, Chapter 8, page 632.

That prediction failed, indicating that the positive feedback is not there. See attached graphic.

Everything is fine, keep filling the air with shit.

>>6457749
Holy fuck moving the goal post like a mother fucking bulldozer

>>6458312

See
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

>>6458316

Actually the Medieval warm period is a global phenomena. See
>>6458298

Hi res:
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

>>6457880

You haven't given an actual physical mechanism which would stop run away warming; just a graph without a physical explanation.

Its important to note that the "cycles" description is just a way to motivate understanding. There aren't "cycles" or "time-steps," the process is continuous.

I live 800 miles inland, I don't give a fuck.

I'd actually love to see liberal shitholes like San Fransico and NYC get washed away.

Anything I can do to make this happen? Should I go buy 20 square miles worth of black trash bags and spread them out over the ice in Greenland?

>>6457934

But the positive feedback has been tested for and it isn't there. See
>>6458318

>>6458482

Wrong ref, here it is:
>>6458324

why don't we just pump the atmosphere with small infrared reflecting particles

or how about sending something between us and the sun to act as sunglasses?

would a small object close enough to the sun provide shade for earth, enough to mitigate greenhouse gases? or do shadows not work properly from vast distances, like the light bends right?

>>6458488

>>6458461
We're here to talk about science, not transcribe bumper stickers.

>>6458522
any smart people to answer? it seems like we could just engineer something off-planet to solve our problems at the very least

>>6458374
How about you actually read the paper I posted showing lower temperatures in other egions

>>6458522
>>6458568

I'm not smart. I've heard mentions of using aerosols to combat the warming, should it ever get extremely bad. The issue is cost of distribution and the sheer amount to be distributed.

>>6457749
>Mankind only causes climate change in the ways I want and that somehow makes it okay :^)

Holy autism, batman

Have the trolls left yet? It is my understanding that the serious academic climate change skeptics don't even bother arguing that the climate is changing, and that the change is caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. That battle is over.
However, skeptics seem to be arguing against the positive feedback effect that reinforces warming, i.e., that increased temperatures will lead to a rise in atmospheric water vapour, that will also have a greenhouse effect, and the whole thing runs away. Without positive feedback, apparently, there will still be warming, but the effect will be so small as to not cause significant rise in sea level or deleterious climate change. Could someone who knows the science better than I comment on this?

>every single scientific body of every single nation of the entire fucking world says climate change is real and man made
>my housewife sister denies it because it's a "natural warming period"

I rage so fucking hard at this

>>6451066
Religion, combined with the sheeple status of the standard Republican. Srsly.

>>6458818

I can comment on how none of the so called "serious academics" in the UN and IPCC have never come near a thermometer.

>>6458461
Haha, you mean they'll move inland?

>>6458820
>every single scientific body of every single nation of the entire fucking world says climate change is real and man made
>my housewife sister denies it because it's a "natural warming period"

every single theologic body of every single church of the entire fucking world says god is real and made man
my housewife sister denies it because it's a "natural selection"

And you wonder why everyone avoids you?

>>6458995
>he actually thinks this is a good comparison

>>6458998

You actually believing politicians.
You make a good underling.

>>6459002
You actually trust your gut more than organizations because "muh organizations are evil".

You would make good cannon fodder in the revolution. Just convince you that our side are the underdog rebels and you're good to go.

>>6459021

So, you view your self as part of a greater organization?
And you picture me, the non-believer, as beeing killed by your organization for not believing?

And you still claim the moral high ground?

pic related, the only relevant graph about this whole mess

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html
>A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.
This is proof that science can't be politicized right?
if weren't for corporations/politics against the idea of anthropogenic climate change skepticism about the matter would be crime by now.

>>6451084
This, and btw this applies to ALL you dumb fucks that blindly support climate change as well.

First of all as any scientist should know data by itself doesn't mean anything
>>6451066
> believe the data?
This is exactly what I'm talking about, you are on the exact same level as some fundie going
>why do people so firmly refuse to believe the Gospel?

Temperature differentials and rising sea levels by themselves do not PROVE climate change at all.

If you read the studies you'd know the models used to predict climate change are still extremely shit and have been unable to make any correct predictions.


The only reason I don't speak against climate change is because climatologists say it's so, and because I don't understand their field as well as them I won't comment on it AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.

And for all of you vehemently proclaiming this and that who aren't climatologists, just shut the fuck up please and try to salvage what little intellectual and academic integrity you left...or join Kaku and his ilk and keep doing what you're doing. Don't come crying to me when Diax sticks a rake through your chest.

/rant

>>6459390
But pure water by itself doesn't prevent dehydration...why are people shitting over EUs scientifically sound decision?

Can we stop responding to /pol/tards outside their containment board? It's fucking disgusting how much attention from people who should know better gets sapped away in favor of this, instead of focusing it on a discussion that actually deals with the realities of AGW, like protection, alternative energies, etc.

>>6459426
>Temperature differentials and rising sea levels by themselves do not PROVE climate change at all.
proof is an unnecessary and impossible hurdle when it comes to matters of public benefit

see: the link between smoking and cancer and tobacco legislation

>>6459432
>But pure water by itself doesn't prevent dehydration

>>6459443
>can we please all share the same opinon as I do
no.

>>6459445
No, you did not read what I said at all.

See you're doing it again, thinking you're allowed to opine on something you don't understand.

>>6459454
yes, i read what you said, just because i dont agree with what you wrote doesn't mean i didn't read or understand it

>>6459450
1. Ask an MD what causes dehydration
2. Ask a chemist why drinking pure water isn't healthy
3. Read the first two replies in the article in >>6459390
4. Leave /sci/ and never come back

>>6456410
>what is so fucking hard to understand about this, and how does muh carbon footprint fit into the above predictions?

What you are missing here is the rate at which temperatures respond to "forcings". Eg, we are in a warming trend but the drivers of those trends don't add up to observed warming rate.

CO2 is the missing element in your analysis. It drives up temps by trapping infared radiation from leaking into space.

What about this don't you understand?

Pic related, its an underground cave which is where all the survivors will likely be living by 2300

>why do people so firmly refuse to believe the data?

This is more easily explained. Everything in modern life is designed around cheap energy. Food, transport, you name it. The cheapest energy is the dirtiest. In terms of immediate incentive, its in these people's short term interest to use as much of this cheap energy as possible. It gets you to the short term goals in your life. For example, the big heavy car that gets bad mileage gives its owner a sense of being invulnerable. Also, the enormous expense of the thing gives the owner a sense of incentive. Even though a vehicle is not an investment but a liability, strictly speaking, once "owned" it increases in relative value in a perfectly subjective sense. And either way in America, such a device is something that they cannot replace any other way with any ease. So they have every incentive to defend this choice and no incentive to not do it.

Climate change aggravates these basic incentives by presenting a problem for which solutions, as such, present as sacrifices to people whose prior investments amount to part of the problem.

The system, as such, of modern life based on oil is unsustainable, everyone knows that. But gradually, people have adopted the easiest way of life as it was the most efficient. So they've bought in, to the tune of much of their net worth. If you are making payments on your car and your house, if your investments in the house and technology is what keeps other things dependent on you (kids, family, ability to attract females) the value of those things personally goes ever higher. The value of sacrifice for future generations, or far-flung realities, just don't figure into a person's very limited view of the world.

The other grounds for refusal of the data, in large part, are by people who don't respect the scientific method, ie, pure ideology. Or, people who don't understand the nature of reality. (They're still holding out for the Bible's version)

>>6459457
No, you did not read what I said, you quoted the line about data and then said "proof is an unnecessary and impossible hurdle"

Epistemologically and statistically speaking raw data has jack shit to do with proof

A proof for future climate change would be a scientifically sound model that can predict future events (example: Newton's laws of motion is a good model for predicting the motion of bodies in Newtonian space, again knowing past position data points without a predictive model does not mean anything by itself), does not exist for Earth's climate yet, so why are you being allowed to make predictions again? But again I'm not a climatologists so I won't say anything about it and trust that peer reviewers are right about it.


Then you said something that's in the unrigorous field of medicine and again is a more complicated matter than the public thinks it is.

>>6456976
biodiversity > biomass. Look up what happened to the Gros Michel banana, then imagine the same thing happening to other plants. Even though warming may increase biomass in this case, or even overall, it's roasting a lot of more sensitive species and reducing biodiversity.

>>6459473
>No, you did not read what I said, you quoted the line about data and then said "proof is an unnecessary and impossible hurdle"
thanks for telling me what I wrote, i completely forgot already

and you can say i didn't read your post all you like, that doesn't make it true. i read your post.

if i only responded to part of it, that's because it was the only part i wanted to respond to. if i did not interpret your post in the way you intended, then next time be more clear with what you write.

>>6459460
You've never taken a upper level heat transfer course have you?

>>6459475
>i did not interpret your post
Yes you did not interpret my post.

(see what happens when you "only respond to part of it", things get taken out of context and the original meaning is lost)

>>6459479
i excerpted a single, complete thought and responded to it. you excerpted a portion of a complete thought.

i would hope that even you can see the difference between the two.

also, you just admitted that i read your post. at least be consistent.

>Man made global warming debate summary
>Q: How do we know AGW is real?
>A: Complex computer models suggest it
>Q: Are those models verified to work?
>A: No, they've all failed to accurately predict anything.
>Q: So how do we know AGW is real?
>A: All the models say so!

>>6459482
>i excerpted a single, complete thought and responded to it

You didn't, I dare say I'm an authority on this because it was my thought.

>also, you just admitted that i read your post. at least
Ok I'm done, enjoy bitching with all the other redditors and all the other science fanboys, you people aren't worth trying to reason with.

>>6459443

Even though much of modern life is made possible for everyone because of science, few give it any credit. Rather, they take credit for it themselves. When "we" put a man on the moon, they feel proud. When they get a fantastic new medicine that cures them, they thank themselves. And when Apple puts a gadget in their pocket, they figure they earned it. When they burn the equivalent of a million years of stored solar energy in their cars, to provide them with some fleeting moments of pure enjoyment, they take all the pleasure and believe their debt has been paid in the price of the gallon at the pump. They believe they live in a democracy because they harangue their neighbors to vote in rigged elections. They believe they are informed because they know all the talking points in the radio programmes they patronize while getting their biases confirmed. They "hold no thought for the morrow" as the bible says, and sin freely and frequently. They hold no sense of responsibility to the future and have every reason to believe that "efficient markets" will deliver solutions to every problem.

They are patrons, in other words, of a system which has effectively taken the fruits of science and used them to massively distribute natural resources to populations who turn those resources into garbage. And the economy is something that merely accelerates this cycle, from pure, low-entropy substance, to high-entropy garbage. At every step in the process chemical energy conversions result in waste heat and high entropy products like CO2. Its not such a big deal until you realize its impact is magnified by multipliers like affluence, technology, and population... to the current moment where we are producing enough metabolic waste product to effectively poison the environment, like an overgrown bacterial culture. We're at a critical threshold, using between 25-40% of the net primary productivity of the entire planet, vastly outweighing, in biomass, all other land mammals.

>>6459483
Models are not theories, they are applications of theories.

Climate theory is the only available theory which makes any sense. The fact the models don't work doesn't mean the theory is wrong.

>>6459485
>You didn't, I dare say I'm an authority on this because it was my thought.
i thought you said earlier that we shouldn't just trust experts because they say they're right?

should i start accepting that climate scientists now too?

>>6459487
>Geocentric theory
>trying to model solar system to fit it
>doesn't match observations
>The fact the models don't work doesn't mean the theory is wrong!

>>6459487
>Climate theory is the only available theory
you mean it is the only available hypothesis right?

>>6459458
>dehydration
Hypovolemia is specifically a decrease in volume of blood plasma.[6][7] and dehydration is specifically a decrease in total body water, that for the most part spares blood plasma volume. Humans can lose water from the body — of any aetiology — but that loss can only occur in two distinct patterns with separate mechanisms:
Loss of blood volume
Loss of tissue water
Not only do both have different manifestations, the mechanism of the water loss that leads to a) or b) is distinct. a) can only occur if sodium is lost and the water loss is secondary to this sodium loss and mainly blood plasma water. b) can only occur if pure water loss is independent of sodium loss and mainly derived from intracellular water. Both can co-exist i.e. sodium and water loss that is not balanced i.e. more water loss than expected for sodium loss. Dehydration then refers to pure (tissue) water loss and hypovolemia to sodium loss and thus loss of blood volume. This is the correct and pure definition[8] but unfortunately gets wildly mixed up. Very interestingly the opposite can also occur i.e. overhydration as well as hypervolemia. Finally they do not need to move in the same direction i.e. a person can be hypervolemic and dehydrated at the same time and any combination of these six states can coexist — if we count euvolemia and normal hydration.

>>6459493
geocentric theory is just as valid as heliocentric theory.

in fact, neither heliocentric nor geocentric theory is correct, as the center of the solar system is the gravitational center of mass of the whole system, not the center of the sun.

we only say heliocentrism is more correct than geocentrism because it makes the math a lot easier

>>6459492
No, I meant what I wrote.

Hypotheses are predictions. Theories are frameworks used for reasoning and producing hypotheses.

Climate science is a theory.

>>6459498
>geocentric theory is just as valid as heliocentric theory.
I knew I just had to keep you posting and you'd declare yourself an idiot sooner or later.

>>6459503
whether or not i'm an idiot is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

we're discussing ideas, not the people presenting the ideas.

>>6459506
>we're discussing ideas, not the people presenting the ideas.
Idiot people support idiot ideas.

>>6459516
idiotic people also support smart ideas

we cannot know if an idea is idiotic without examining the idea itself.

>>6451066
>why do people so firmly refuse to believe the data?

because they keep fabricating it.

>>6452825
>These people are so deluded they think the IPCC is part of some giant conspiracy to create an authoritarian world government.

Then why are the carbon taxes paid directly tot he IMF and World bank?

Isn't a global tax sort of nessecary for a global government?

With all that you know of human nature, science-fags...

You really think that someone isn't out there trying to make a global government?

Really?

Climate change is real, but how do we know it is not just a natural cycle that we have no effect on?

>>6451066
>why do people so firmly refuse to believe the data?

What data?

all I see is a graph, with no mention of how the graph was derived.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4

>>6459747
Also, no mention of how the sea level on the graph was measured, prior to the launch of the first GPS satellites in the late seventies.

So, the entire graph is sort of suspect.

>>6458642

How about you read all the papers I cited in the graphic?

>>6458818

Not sure what you're talking about. The lynch-pin of Climate Change theory -- positive feedback from CO2 increase has been tested.

The results are negative.

>>6458324

>>6459487
Models do work to extremely high precision you ignorant cunt

>>6458998

Its an excellent comparison

>>6459739
>IPCC
>a group that summarizes major scientific findings in relation to climate change
>attempting to institute a world government
wat

>carbon taxes paid directly tot he IMF and World bank
this is simply not true

>>6459458

Ask a Lysenkoist "heritability scientist" about genetics. Science can definitely be politicized and subverted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

"'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

-- Upton Sinclair

>>6459460

The assumption of the relevance of CO2 as a missing part of the analysis has lead to spectacular failures in modeling. This makes that assumption suspect.

>>6456175

>>6459474

This is the gaping hole. Climate models do not actually get deep into the physical details. Instead they just assume "forcings" especially CO2 "forcings" to explain the past...

Then this "proves" that we're going to have catastrophic warming. When their prediction fails, they still claim that their failed models prove Global Warming/Climate Change.

>>6459487

No, they are the theory. The DO NOT incorporate the deep physical details of heat transfer, weather, convection, moisture transfer etc.

They just assume "forcings." And they have truckloads of assumptions and parameters, which can be tweaked to get the desired result.

>>6459502

An unfalsifiable theory.

>>6459858
This entire thing is some assholes with a boring shitty major trying to feel relevant and then politicians and armchair scientists alike eat it up

>>6459733

Like here.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.


See Check the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6459875

You are completely correct. People don't know that the IPCC is run by political types.

>>6459834

Note for making predictions.
>>6456175

>>6459876
You know why all this shit is happening?

Politicization of pseudo/pop-science, every jackass in this thread is vehemently defending something they've never read real studies on because it was forced into high-school and even primary school textbooks and a thing about textbooks; I have an old 20th century German textbook that still shows negative charges in atom cores

>>6459886

Yeah, I used to teach stats and couldn't resist a statistical analysis of Global Warming theory -- discussing how the statistics were nonsense.

Inevitably a student would become enraged -- so I just challenged them to a bet, "there's been no warming in a decade," put your money where your mouth is... Most would back down. One didn't, so I proved it, but she "forgot to bring her money."

It really does come from early brainwashing.

>>6459901

Now that there's been no warming for 17.5 years, they've probably heard of it and will "explain" the "pause."

At the time, no one, except a few people like me who actually carefully followed the data had any idea what was going on...

This illustrates the unfalsifiability of the subject. When their prediction fails -- they are "shocked, shocked I tell you." Then they fabricate an explanation and pretend that it was always good.

>>6459484
We've gone from wild animals to tyrannical hunter-gather tribes to monarchical civilizations to democratic civilizations in a period of less than 200,000 years and you're bitching about it? Until very recently, really the last hundred to a hundred fifty years or so, starvation and disease were the primary killers and the average lifetime was a scant 30 years.

Do you not get that you are right now using the products of this progress to bitch about it? Do you not see how you only have time to bitch because you are being sustained and protected by people and technology? Do you not understand that those people and the technology they invented and built only exists because those people were driven to help you largely for their own benefit?

What a blind, narrow view you have. What an arrogant child you are.

>>6460536
Dude, I dont think any of what you just said has anything to do with what he was saying.
Youd do well to actually try to read and understand what someone says instead of simply declaring them to be one particular kind of person or to be making one particular kind of argument youve seen before. The only thing which he talked about, and portrayed as bad, was the short sightedness and wastefulness of the society we've ended up with.
also
>Tyranny-monarchy-democracy march of progress view
>im-necrophillic goat fucking-plying

>>6460550
I stand by what I said. We are not a blight on this planet and we're getting better and smarter e'ry day. Also, we've only barely scratched the surface of this planet and it's resources. It is possible though not yet economically justified or feasible to tap the mantle for energy and materials.

>>6460579
>I stand by what I said
If you stand by your 'march of progress' view of changing political systems you are -full- fucking retard.
You're still a retard anyway though. You're not arguing against that poster, you're arguing against an archetype of hippie jackass who you decided that poster fits into from a superficial and incomplete reading of their post.
Really, as someone who likes to study history I am holding back from a full on tirade about that fucking
>We've gone from wild animals to tyrannical hunter-gather tribes to monarchical civilizations to democratic civilizations in a period of less than 200,000 years
Line.
Regardless, please go read his post again. And hit yourself on the head with a mallet beforehand, so you can forget about interpreting it in a constructed context of anarchoprimitivism misanthropy vs techno-idealism. He said that modern culture feels entitled to and takes credit for things -other- people(scientists, here) do and that the structure of our society is highly wasteful(Absolutely true whether you think this is bad or for now neutral) and shortsighted. But nothing, absolutely nothing he said implies primitivsm inclinations, considering the extent of human influence and presence to be inherently bad, or any other such nonsense.
PS, I dont really share his views on this, although I am more agnostic on the subject, it not being one ive dedicated alot of time to considering, Im soley attacking your own response to it.

>>6459443

It is not a reality. It is an unfalsifiable pseudo-science. See, for example:
>>6458324

At the practical level, it works like this. Either:

1. Climate Change model prediction is correct => Climate Change is TRUE!
2. Climate Change model prediction is wrong => model needs to be tweaked, Climate Change theory is still TRUE!

Its heads you win, tails we lose. The essence of unfalsifiability.

>>6461469
You don't understand science.

>The essence of unfalsifiability.
What's the criteria for falsifying the theory that humans are not driving this change?

There isn't one, it's unfalsifiable. In science we often can't falsify ideas like this, that doesn't make is pseudoscience.

>>6461496

Clever. Inverting the burden of proof to natural climate which has been the accepted climatological science for centuries.

Sorry, you have the alternative hypothesis and a long history of failed substantive predictions. You have the burden of falsifiability.

In any case, provide me with a substantive
falsifiability criterion for Climate Change/Global Warming theory.

BTW, I have the courage to point out that if the "hot spot," as predicted was found (not by after-the-fact data correcting and/or screaming "noisy data" or falsely claiming that a cooling stratosphere is like the "hot spot") that natural climate variance theory is well on its way to being falsified. But that fundamental prediction didn't work, did it? So climate change "scientists" ignored it and/or said "noise!" etc.
>>6458324

Your turn to provide a substantive and predictive falsifiability criterion.

'Substantive' = clearly distinguishes from natural climate variance and is tested against real world data
'predictive' = before-the-fact and casually connected to anthropogenic CO2

>>6460579
>We are not a blight on this planet
>we're not, we're not, we're not
"Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet." — Agent Smith, "The Matrix" (1999)

>>6451066
Quantitative chemical analysis 8th ed by Harris

>>6461618

Remember when the denialists mocked James Hansen prediction about the West Side Highway being underwater?

And then the West Side Highway was underwater?

>>6462171

Remember when the denialists mocked James Hansen's 1988 prediction of catastrophic warming?

And then the catastrophic warming didn't happen?

How biased is the IPCC report?

One of my university courses in 'Professional Engineering' had a guest lecturer present about climate change and mentioned that lobbying groups had information removed from the most recent reports. The guest lecturer also mentioned that it takes years to compile these reports, so they are outdated when published and should not be trusted. Is there any truth to these claims?

As a side note, I just finished downloading the whole thing, so I'll spend tonight reading through it.

>>6462171
>the denialists mocked James Hansen
... and they're still mocking others who discover evidence of AGW, merely shifting their focus away from Hansen. They are a shifty, cunning crew, those bought-and-paid-for shills of the "energy" industry (selling fuels) but I still can't imagine the motive of their unpaid lackeys, the citizen denialists. Hoping for a job? Pavlovian reflex to lick corporate boots?

>>6462198
>lobbying groups
... bought-and-paid-for by whom?

>>6462192
>the catastrophic warming hasn't happened yet
... therefore it never shall?

>>6458568
The problem with alternate solutions like block out the sun is that we would like the entire earth to stay the same, temperature is important if we are looking at overall climate and keeping sea levels constant, but it won't do anything about things like ocean acidification. Putting shit in space is either going to be practically permanent or we would have to regularly put it up and have it come down/decay (using something like SO2 that wouldn't cause other environmental problems).

>>6461618
Oh look, when faced with a difficult question you worm out of it and ignore the question.

>You have the burden of falsifiability.

Nope, there is no such "burden". You rightly claim that any theory must be falsifiable but then demand a concept be falsifiable. It isn't. Just the same as your natural climate variability isn't. There is no burden of falsifiability, only your hypocrisy and logical failings.

>>6457410
So anthropogenic global warming causes global cooling? If it is a "very well documented effect", why didn't their models (>>6456175) predict this cooling? How do you falsify this AGW hypothesis exactly?

Who gives a shit

after all, if climate change is man made, then we cant do anything against it, because we cant change the habits of billions of people

>>6462280
Temperatures have been rising for the past 20 years and show no sign of stopping. The image >>6456175 posted is unsourced copypasta. No one knows where these come from, but most of them look like they were made in MS Paint. Why would you trust copypasta over the data given in the IPCC reports? That's insane! If you want hard data, go to the NASA site, they have satellites that measure temperature. I think the raw data might be given in the IPCC reports as well, but you might consider NASA more reliable, idk

>>6462294
The source is climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer (who was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA).

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

>>6459426
>The only reason I don't speak against climate change is because climatologists say it's so, and because I don't understand their field as well as them

That's exactly why you should support it

>>6462287
>because we cant change the habits of billions of people

That's the whole point of discussion, dude...

>>6462311
>Dr. Roy W. Spencer

quote from wiki
"Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

Into the trash...

>>6462475
>Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[25][26] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".[27] He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of long-term changes in the Earth's albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average cloud cover.[28]

Holy shit it's true! Fucking Christfags should be banned from uni until they renounce their faith.

>>6462475
>>6462493
Ad hominem.

So no rebuttals then?

>>6462553
"created by God's intelligent design"

If you accept that...

There is nothing to discuss.

>>6459498
>geocentric theory is just as valid as heliocentric theory.
I'm getting too old for this shit.

>>6462553
'God did it' isn't a scientific argument bro.

>>6462641

This is ad hominem to the evidence presented in the graph here:
>>6462311

Note that this graph is very similar to the graph from the U.N. IPCC AR 4 with updated temperatures. See attached.

Only at the lowest levels, the levels where there is no difference between normal climate variance and the models is there any kind of possible fit. This leaves two choices:

1) the climate models failed
2) the climate models do not distinguish from natural climate, so they have no predictive meaning

>>6462493

Government worshiping Progressives should be banned from uni until they renounce their faith.

>>6462280

The theory of AGW is unfalsifiable. It is a secular religion.

>>6457410

Warm weather is evidence of global warming
Cold weather is evidence of global warming

Is there anything that isn't evidence of global warming?

>>6462312
Would you support all Sigmund Freud's theories just because you don't have a psychology degree?

Don't be an idiot, you can only trust the hard fields like Physics, Chemistry and Engineering, people outside those fields don't know the meaning of rigour.

>>6457778
>>6459832
>>6457753
>>6457791

The only well documented positive feedback effect is the government-funded-green-lobbyists-IPCC-circle-jerk.
But hey! a lot of people got stinking rich.
Don't mind the dead victims of "green" fuel!
They will be eco friendly decomposed.

>>6463767
Is it really in the interest of governents that man-made climate-change becomes an actual fact?

I mean, every state need energy (oil, gaz, ...). That's the nerve of the war, of the geopolitics. Ecologists are just troublesome people for governments, no?

>>6463786

Here in europe the situation has become increasingly ridiculous.
The government throws HUGE amounts of tax money at totally inefficient solar- and wind energy farms.
Rich land owners are lining up to get a piece of the subsidy cake, all the while the energy grid has becoming more and more unstable and prices are through the roof.
This lead to 50 year old coal plants beeing fired up again (happend last winter in Germany) wich are now declared "green".

People are seriously pissed.

>>6463786
>Is it really in the interest of governents that man-made climate-change becomes an actual fact?

Carbon taxes certainly are. Where I live gas is $8.5/gallon of which roughly 60% is taxes.

It also makes "concerned" established politicians look good as well as provides an entry opportunity for "green" politicians and parties. It's very easy to be generous with other people's (tax) money (especially when you're a high-earner yourself).

Furthermore, it provides a distraction. When their other policies fail, they can choose to push global warming/climate change instead. It's basically easy mode.

The lobbyists/"scientists" secure their livelihoods and promotions.

Considering this and that it's a hundred billion dollar industry yearly[1] I'd say, yes, I think it's safe to assume that there are some highly motivated players involved.

[1] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/buried-un-report-100-billion-more-needed-adapt-global-warming