/sci/ - Science & Math

Heat is the main cause of climate change.

every single one of my farts drowns over 100 niggers

Literally no evidence to suggest humans aren't the cause. Only lack of significant evidence to suggest it is.

>>6530080
No evidence except that fact that it existed for 4 billion years before humans existed... which is to say unassailable evidence.

>>6530084
>No evidence except that fact that it existed for 4 billion years before humans existed...

If you're bad at reading graphs, scientific papers, and scientific consensus, then yes.

>>6530066
Yes, humans are the primary cause. Humans and the insane increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result as of human industry is causing heat to be trapped in the atmosphere.

>>6530066
And remember kids, when 97 people think one thing and 3 people think something else, the 3 people are always wrong.

>>6530085
>obvious creationist who doesn't think the climate has existed for 4.5 billion years, or just general retard who thinks the climate hasn't been continuously changing during that time.

>>6530066
>Are humans the main cause of climate change?

Apparently yes.

>>6530091
I understand the climate has existed for 4.5 billion years, and that it has changed.

That's not the point, and pretending it is is sophistry.

The point is that the climate has been changing extremely significantly in the last two centuries in a way that is entirely exceptional compared to the "baseline" climate swings that have occurred previously.

And that's because of humans.

No, most climate change happened before humans even existed, and therefore couldn't have been affected by human activity.

>>6530098
>this is an argument that some people actually use

Climate changes...not a big deal.

As humans we have modified the Earth to fit our needs. There is not doubt that our actions have killed many organisms already, but is it a big deal? Species come and go regardless of human activities, and as long as we are capable of adapting, there shouldn't be any worry about how we are affecting ourselves.

>>6530097
>The point is that the climate has been changing extremely significantly in the last two centuries in a way that is entirely exceptional compared to the "baseline" climate swings that have occurred previously.
That is complete bullshit. There is literally no evidence to support that claim.

>>6530105
>There is literally no evidence to support that claim.

If you're bad at reading scientific papers, graphs, and information collected from over 11,000 scientific papers demonstrating otherwise, then yes, you're right.

>>6530105
Furthermore, if you actually think that, you have no comprehension of the data that you are looking at.

>>6530107
There are no scientific papers demonstrating otherwise. You are full of shit.

>>6530110
Are we talking about the same thing?

There are tons of papers demonstrating that climate change is because of humans.

>>6530087
Especially when they're experts. That's how we know God exists, because 97 out of 100 priests says he does. If anyone should know it should be priests. Fuck evidence, you gotta trust the experts.

>>6530114
There are no papers that demonstrate the the climate change happening right now is any more significant or extreme than the climate change happening in the 1400s or in the 1200s or in the 400s. There are no papers because that data does not exist. The temperature data from tree rings does not have the resolution capable of showing it, and the ice core data from those eras does no show anything less extreme than current ice core data.

>>6530102

This is incredibly short sighted. Causing a mass extinction event is "not a big deal" because you personally can't see any negative consequences for yourself?

>>6530119
That's not even all that relevant, because the major changes have all occurred in the last ~100 years or so, and there *is* data for that.

>>6530122
That's the whole argument... that the changes in the last 100 years are anomalous. There isn't the data to show that the data is anomalous. If it is anomalous, then it is reasonable to look for man-made causes, including CO2. But you can't just assume it is anomalous.

>>6530127
>That's the whole argument... that the changes in the last 100 years are anomalous

They are, because the data for the last 100 years is completely different in ways that have never been demonstrated by literally any other source of data that we have from any of the past.

>>6530121

Global temperatures have risen a few degrees, hardly a mass extinction event.

If everyone is so worried about how much CO2 there is, go plant a shitload of trees. problem solved.

If we were putting truly harmful chemicals into the air, I would worry, but that simply isn't the case.

>>6530132
>these kind of people are on /sci/

>mfw people on /sci/ are discussing the authenticity of climate change

>>6530129
If you look at a graph that shows the last 1000 years of temperatures, the last 150 will be thermometer readings where as the 850 before that will be huge averages from tree ring data. The data will look much different, because the sources and methods are much different, not because the temperature fluctuations were necessarily much different.

No

>>6530136
I agree. It's obvious to anyone with at least one brain cell that climate change is inauthentic.

>>6530145
But wouldn't authentic climate change be natural climate change, and inauthentic climate change be man-made climate change?

>>6530100
The question was, "Are humans the main cause of climate change?" not, "Are humans the main cause of current unusual trends in climate change on Earth?"

Even if you don't account for all of the time on Earth without humans, the vast majority of planets are outside of the light cone of even theoretically-possible human influence.

>>6530156
If humans are not creating any unusual trends then what is it you think they are doing? We know that there have been dozens of glacial cycles in the last couple million years, during each of which the oceans fall by a couple hundred feet and ice sheets cover half of the US, separated by intergalactic periods in which all ice on the planet except on greenland and antarctica melts. We know that these are not cause by humans, because they are synchronized with earth's orbital parameters, and because they started happening before humans existed. We know that the changes that have happened since the industrial revolution are insignificant in scale compared to these changes. We do not know if those changes are at all unusual in the context of the last 20,000 years of relatively small climate change. So in what way could you possibly answer "yes" to "are humans the main cause of climate change"?

>>6530173
Please read what you're replying to.

>>6530156
>thinking only planets have climate

>>6530150
It's not legitimate climate rape unless mother earth gets pregnant.

>>6531365
This was on page 7, why did you resurrect it

>>6530114

Since you believe climate change is so proven, name a paper with a substantive prediction that has come true for climate change. (name the second, confirming paper).

Substantive = based on a causal connection to anthropogenic CO2 and clearly distinguished from normal climate.

Prediction = before-the-fact, not hindsight or after-the fact.

>>6532491
This is an old bumped thread anon, the anon you are responding to is probably long gone.

Yes. Here's proof.
http://theconsensusproject.com/

I saw a talk of an independent group of researchers who claimed that the climate of the entire solar system was changing.

I am not sure if /sci/ has watched it.

I would not claim doubt that humans have a major responsibility for climate change. However, the role of the sun's behavior and the extent of it's impact on us must be dealt with deeply. I wonder if, so far, the sun's importance has been underappreciated.

>>6532520
>go to solutions
>no mention of thorium or geothermic energy
How am I expected to take it seriously when their largest argument is "muh consensus"?

It is a fact that less than 1% of the 97% scientist from which they take that "consensus" are climate scientists.

>>6532532
>thorium
Welcome to 4chan everyone - wouldn't be a /sci/ thread without it

>>6532520

Science is NOT settled by consensus. Otherwise, the sun would have orbited around the earth for a long time... That said, the consensus is bogus:

>"The Cook "consensus" study looked at about 12,000 publication abstracts. Of nearly 12,000 abstracts

>>6532697

finishing...

>"The Cook "consensus" study looked at about 12,000 publication abstracts. Of nearly 12,000 abstracts analyzed, there were only 64 papers in category 1 (which explicitly endorsed man-made global warming). Of those only 41 (0.3%) actually endorsed the quantitative hypothesis as defined by Cook in the introduction. A third of the 64 papers did not belong. None of the categories endorsed catastrophic” warming — a warming severe enough to warrant action — though this was assumed in the introduction, discussion and publicity material. That's right, a 0.3% "consensus."

>>6532532
>thorium

holy shit, stfu

>>6532697
I always considered climate change to be caused by humans and natural processes.

One thing I do not like is the level of air pollution in places like LA, Shanghai, Paris, etc. I live in Miami and I hate the smell of the place (no racism, just crowded).

I also watched the episode of The Walking Dead when they were in the CDC and Dr. Jenner says the place is going to explode because there is no more fossil fuel left to keep the computers running, which to me suggests that if that power grid can no longer be sustained by renewable energy, then it is destined to be destroyed. Back-up generators are good temporarily, but if there is no more oil, then shouldn't there also be back-up generators that run on renewables?

>>6530143
Can you link us the paper this came from, or at least provide a name?

>Are humans the main cause of climate change?
It's possible. Until we know for sure, might as well be smart about it.

>>6532722
It's from creationist society
How new are you seriously? This gets spammed in every one of these threads.

>>6532742

B.S. Roy Spencer is a Professor at UAH, former NASA scientist and co-inventor of the satellite method of measuring temperature. One of the best climate scientists in the world

>>6532770
He also says this:
>Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, 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"

Arguing whether humans are the main cause or not is irelevant .Industry pollutes ; technological progress requires the use of industry ; technology opens up new possibilities which means we don't have to worry about climate change & it's not like climate change can pose immediate threat to us.

>>6530066
Nah man, it's the bees.

>>6532775

His personal belief in creationism doesn't change anything about the demonstration of failed climate models shown here:
>>6532770
That classic ad hominem. How come that graph looks at lot like this graph from U.N. IPCC AR4, with updated temperatures. They both show that the models are way off, except at the lowest temps, leaving two choices:

1) Climate models have failed
2) Climate models do not distinguish from normal climate and so have no predictive meaning.

>>6532842
>it's not going to kill us as fast as they said it was, therefore it's not a problem

All the climate change deniers I know are libertarians who find themselves unable to admit that letting companies do as they wish has played a part in destroying the planet. This one's a creationist. Do you have anything I can take seriously?

>>6530139
I find it funny that nobody has responded to this.

It's a pretty important point.

>>6532814
shooped as fuck

>>6532842

https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html

On the plus side, climate change will at least kill lots of Floridians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/florida-finds-itself-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-on-climate-change.html

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/188.php

Humans annually burning gigatons of fossil fuel, and deforesting gigahectares of land, has had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVARR because teh oil/lumbar cartels say so.

>>6532954
but... burning fuel itself is an effect... i- isn't it?

>>6532907
This is so wrong. It's "Floridans".

>>6532907

The graphic from the left side is from the UNITED NATIONS International Panel on Climate Change. The true believers... Sheesh.

BTW, pseudo-skepticalscience is run by John Cook, a psych grad student and man who is well documented in distorting, prevaricating, being disingenuous and flat-out lying... There is no reason to assume that what he says is accurate so you need to address primary sources, not his "explanations."

>>6532996

Examples of SkS/John Cook lies

>hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/john-cook-is-a-filthy-liar/
>www.forbes.com/ sites/ jamestaylor/ 2013/ 05/ 30/ global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims /
>wattsupwiththat .com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/

>>6530080
solar activity suggests that humans arent the cause

making sweeping statements like that is just bad practice

>>6530066
The ice age that is about to happen has nothing to do with human activities

>>6533000

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/88901033/agnotology-scientific-consensus-teaching-learning-climate-change-response-legates-soon-briggs

>“Leading climatologist” Dr. David Legates is also a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation’s “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” which states, in part:

Special guest appearance by our good friend Roy Spencer.

>“We believe 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, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”

Crank magnetism in action, folks.

>>6530069
oh

>>6530066
No, but humans work as a sort of catalyst.

>>6530074
I think someone needs to be challenged to a chilli eating contest.

The Earth is a closed system. We are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide/other shit in the system by a factor of so fucking much. It would make an extreme amount of sense to say that this would cause some form of, possibly detrimental, change and you would have to be brainwashed or functionally retarded to fail to see this.

Also we are selfish creatures whose society depends on outdated technology and we will ignore this for the sake of our convenience, and money.

We can't burn fossil fuels at a high enough rate to change the climate much anyway, especially for an extended length of time. Fossil fuels are simply too expensive.

>>6531388
You posted this 7 minutes after he did and you're a tripfag

Why don't you kill yourself.

>>6533148

Good old ad hominem. Doesn't change the fact that the models have failed leaving an unfalsifiable pseudo-science

>>6530143
>>6532842

Model works => Climate Change is True!
Model fails => model needs to be tweaked, Climate Change is True!