/sci/ - Science & Math

>Some people say that the Earth revolves around the sun closer in some years and further in other years which explains the increased temperatures.
This is something that is easily measurable. This is not something that is currently happening.
> Others say it's a natural occurrence where the Earth gets too hot, then too cold, then too hot (which makes no sense to me) which causes events such as the Ice Age.
LOL... cmon..

>>6594973
Those are actually legitimate arguments people have used against me, I swear.

Take them to take a university-level Geology and/or Weather & Climate course.

>>6595006
Tell them to take*

Sorry, I don't know what's been going on with me lately.

Let's be clear about something. Gallup, one of the most trusted polling companies in America, does regular surveys on how many people believe in evolution vs. creationism. In the most recent poll this year (2014), 42% believe that God created us 'as-is' within the past 10,000 years. 19% believe in stand-alone evolution without a 'God-guiding' process. The rest believe something in-between.

In my mind, this is a huge red flag. If that many people believe the world is <10,000 yrs, how can we convince them of something much less obvious? Most people can't seem to think on their own. They just go with that their religious leaders, friends, family, politicians, pop stars, etc. tell them to believe.

output from sun

>>6595006

Wow! Nice smoothing. There was a massive increase in CO2 starting in 1945, yet no global warming between 1945 and 1975.

Yes. There's no real debate about it any more.

>>6595105
lrn2forcingmechanismvsfeedbackmechanism

>>6595105
That cherry-picking is pretty spectacular, I must say. Also, the gross misinterpretation of the y axis.

See how the black line basically bounces around zero until the green line starts to go up, and then it goes up and stays up? That's... that's global warming. Right there on your graph which purports to show that there is no global warming, clear as the fucking day.

I thought the conspiracy theorists were banned in the previous global warming thread. Isn't a typical ban like three days? I'm surprised they're back so early.

>>6595105
lol you're an idiot if you think that disproves climate change. Looks like there is a natural cycle of hot, then cold, then all of a sudden CO2 goes up and the cycle shifts up a whole fucking lot

But seriously, no one takes this as evidence either way. What is evidence: using ice samples geologists/climatologists have measured the CO2 concentration for the last fucking million years or something, and it correlates perfectly with the temperature

>>6594861
Currently yes, average global temperatures have increased. The debate is whether or not this global warming is being caused by human activity i.e. pollution. Most of the scientific community agrees that it is. However it is, as you can see in this thread, a hot-button issue, mainly because of the billions of dollars at stake for the energy, agricultural, and chemical industries in the form of government regulations on emissions and spraying practices. But don't just take this on faith. I'm an undergrad, not a priest.

>>6594861
>does global warming really exist
When the planet becomes warmer on average we can call it global warming.

Is it because CO2? Dunno
Is it because human activities? Dunno
Is everything going to hell? As long as we don't shut down all our industries to "save the planet". No, things will be fine.

Please don't listen to the inevitable /pol/ tier discussion that is about to happen
/sci/ is great with science that hasn't been politicised but there are a lot of conservatives/libertarians (and liberals but they don't tend to deny GW specifically) on 4chan that let their political biases affect their judgement here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
There is NO scientific "debate around climate change"
It is a 100% fact that the earth is warming
It is 100% fact that if the earth warms by more than about 2 degrees this is really fucking bad
Scientists are absolutely in consensus that the warming is man made, "95% sure" in the latest IPCC report which is basically as sure as you can get when statistics have to be used

Do you want to gamble on the supposed "5%" or do you want to use measured market based mechanisms like an emissions trading scheme to lower emissions at a relatively small cost now

>>6595176
>"95% sure" in the latest IPCC report which is basically as sure as you can get when statistics have to be used

I want to emphasize that this is a statistical assessment, and has nothing to do with the opinions of various individuals. The "5%" is basically the "correlation doesn't imply causation" part, which is inherent in any statistical analysis.

>>6595176
>There is NO scientific "debate around climate change"
Because the concept isn't scientific. This also makes the rest of your fantastic statements irrelevant(also, the very claim that something is 100% true in a field that works with predictive statistics and computer model is utterly fucking retarded and shows that you're not interested in facts and science, you're interested in selling an opinion.)

>>6594994
>Those are legitimately arguments people have used against me, I swear.
ftfy

>>6595176
>"95% sure" in the latest IPCC report
The latest IPCC report which is following the new IPCC trend of downrating all their previous alarmism. Look at the numbers and IPCC themself says it's essentially cheaper to wait out and adapt than do anything.

Their IPCC-for-dumb people/politicians report still have crazy hype language "world is burning! end civilized society now or the climate will do it for us!oneone!

>>6595151
>it correlates perfectly with the temperature
Yes, CO2 levels are correlated to temperature.

That is, CO2 levels increase after temperatures go up. But putting this on a ten thousand year graph makes them appear to be happening at the same time.

>>6595207
>downrating all their previous alarmism
The 95% is actually up from 90% in the previous report.

Something tells me you don't actually know anything about the IPCC report and you're just spewing bullshit

>>6595217
Why don't you believe the Physics of the greenhouse effect?

>>6595217
you been watching that "great global warming swindle" mockumentary?

Only an idiot would deny global warming, it's almost like creationism

>>6595224
Downrate the predicted value and you can uprate the accuracy.

>"I'm 90% sure that I'll spend $200 this month but i'm 99% sure that I'll spend $20 this month"

>>6595227
>the Physics of the greenhouse effect?
The physics of the greenhouse effect says that ten times the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere would still not cause a warming at the level predicted by the IPCC. You need to add unmotivated positive feedback loops(forcing) to the earth system for that to happen.

Nevermind that systems with positive feedback is inherently unstable and would've long ago escalated to a position where negative feedback keeps things in check. Also never mind that there's nothing observed to support forcing in real life, but it's still added as an arbitrary number to make things more dramatic.

>>6595246
>watching stuff
No, I read, think and observe. And I know crazy when I see it.

And crazy is almost always about the environment, presented as dramatic, and calls for immediate action at unrealistic scales. The action almost always is about sacrificing some part of human well being for immeasurably small gains.

>>6595265
>I don't know science but I know crazy
experience counts

>>6595119

Great non-answer

>>6595123
> The SkS handbook defines any data that doesn't fit our ideology as "cherry-picking"

Spectacular strawman argument. I didn't say that there hadn't been global warming. I said that there was a period of 30 years without warming while there was a huge increase in CO2.

Unpleasant facts really kick in your cognitive dissonance, huh? You're probably not ready for science.

>>6595151

The ice samples certainly show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. CO2 goes up 800 years AFTER temperature goes up.

I'm sure that want alter your belief in the slightest because Climate Change is an unfalsifiable belief system.

>>6595156
>Most of the scientific community agrees that it is.

Its not that simple. The proverbial "97% Consensus" is a strawman argument. Why? Well almost everyone skeptic and believer alike thinks that anthropogenic CO2 increases temperature. And almost all scientists agree that CO2 alone is a weak greenhouse gas. Its concentration has to be DOUBLED to get a mere 1.2 degrees C increase in global temperature. So Climate Change believers assert that there is positive feedback via water vapor. Skeptics believe there is either negative feedback or no feedback.

The signature of positive feedback is the "hot spot" The hot spot is a result of the basic atmospheric physics of the assumed positive feedback due to water vapor (from increased CO2)

The hot spot is created by increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. This demonstrates positive feedback via water vapor.

Anyway, it IS described in UN IPCC AR4 Chapter 8, page 632. So even the UN IPCC believed it was fundamental. See attached graphic with a depiction of the "hot spot" (on the left) and the measurements (on the right) which shows it isn't there.

This is the fundamental prediction of Climate Change theory. Because it demonstrates positive feedback from CO2 increase.

nb4 SkS says "its just stratospheric cooling," Nonsense, see UN IPCC reference above.

>>6596771
>this dense motherfucker with his copypasta again

>>6596772

Its my own stuff, so I don't need to put it in green.

More importantly, your pathetic resort to insults is no substitute for a substantive counter-argument. Don't have one, do you?

See the pyramid pic of argument levels? You're at the bottom. Try to move up a few levels.

>>6596778
>See the pyramid pic of argument levels?
>not knowing that's made by some chantard

>>6596786

No, it was invented by Paul Graham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_%28computer_programmer%29

Yes. The evidence is overwhelming, but few people will have cause/opportunity/care enough to look at it for themselves. And it's a little depressing to feel partially responsible for changing the world, for the worse in the short term at least.

>>6595105
Way too far, and yeah, the troll evidence doesn't even support your pretend point.

>>6595163
This is how it's done.
The 2nd post ("the concept isn't scientific") is pretty great.

[given it's /sci i'll give the benefit of doubt to troll motivation, but they are probably just uninformed/dumb]

>>6595193

Very well said.

>>6596778
There's a reason why you don't bother doing this for evolution or gravity or elvis's death - calling the denier stupid is appropriate if he is stupid.

Now the point of what we should do about climate change and what the effects will be, THAT is wide open to debate and speculation. But ignoring basic physics = stupid. You are a stupid, stupid man.

>>6596808

Damn, please pull your head out of your ass.

CO2 for dummies class is now in session.
Starting with a basic model (no feedbacks).

Imagine or draw a graph. The y-axis is temperature, the x-axis is increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. What is the shape of the graph?

P.S. I can answer this question, and I am a "stupid, stupid man." So you should have no problem with it.

>>6596778
>More importantly, your pathetic resort to insults is no substitute for a substantive counter-argument.
except i never intended to argue with you, just insult you

>>6596816
Honestly I'm more interested in your ideas on how god made evolution.

>>6596820

Don't have an answer do you? Just faith.

>>6596823

Can't answer the question, huh? Let a "stupid, stupid man" answer it for you.

The shape of the graph is logarithmic. That's right, without feedbacks, you need to DOUBLE CO2 concentration to get a mere 1.2 degrees C increase in temperature.

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT CO2 IS NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS. That's just a strawman argument which the warmists spew out. Instead, almost everyone agrees that it is a WEAK greenhouse gas. As said earlier,
>>6596771
the question is whether or not there is positive feedback from CO2 increase. And the answer is that there isn't. No hot spot.

P.S. Not that it matters, but i'm an atheist who believes in evolution. Get past your stereotypes. Mixing the two "evolution and climate change" is just a rhetorical trick.

>>6595105
>climate-corruption.pdf
>western climate establishment
conspiracy-theorist detected

>>6596831

Resort to ad hominem because of no substantive argument detected.

As if there's never been a widely believed theory before that turned out to be false. So every scientific belief that was accepted by authorities and yet turned out to be wrong was a conspiracy, huh?

So the ether theory of light was a big conspiracy?

So the continuous theory of matter (pre-atomic) was a big conspiracy, huh?

Pre-relativistic mechanics, which all the institutions believed in, they were all in on a conspiracy, huh?

Your "reasoning" is painfully specious. Science gets things wrong all the time. And people who make a living off it want to maintain the status quo. That's human nature. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY. Just people acting on their mutual self-interest.

>>6596835
There is no argument about global warming's existence to be had amongst the scientific community.

However, there are a few proponents to climate change who produce scientific papers, but each paper has received adequate scientific rebuttals or have been discarded due to poor practices and/or bad science.

Other than that, there are a -lot- of blogs that take graphs and data out of context, which adds fuel to the debate. This is further perpetuated by media and politics.

If you want to read more about the scientific consensus, here is a peer-reviewed paper that addresses it: Freudenburg, W. R., & Muselli, V. (2013). Reexamining Climate Change Debates: Scientific Disagreement or Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs)?. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 777-795. doi:10.1177/0002764212458274

>>6596835

>ancient greek philosophers were not scientists

>>6596835
>scientific belief
Science is not about belief, faget.
Lrn2science

>>6596835
> thinking there's such thing as "settled science"
Sounds like it was made by someone with absolute belief in an infallible being and has to project that to the rest of the world.

>>6594861
It exists but it's somebody else's problem. Just avoid coastal and tornado regions. The catastrophe is well after your lifetime anyway and it really doesn't matter if the species goes extinct then. What matters is that we get to enjoy life now and not be taxed for every bit of carbon we let off into the atmosphere.

inb4 but muh childrun
Well maybe you shouldn't be so selfish, you don't need kids fuck off. The quality of people's lives right now shouldn't be hampered for your offspring.

>>6596835
>>6596830
>>6596778
>>6596771
>>6596755
>>6595207
>>6595105
Fuck sakes, how far does the coal lobby go? Now they're in my 4chans? Fuck off back to to Rupert for your paycheck mate. You've pissed us off enough to have earnt it.

>>6596906
>the coal industry which provides electricity to millions of people is why i'm a whiner

>>6596912
Maybe in third-world countries.
Real nations are nuclear-powered.

>>6596835
>>Resort to ad hominem because of no substantive argument detected.
you do realize almost nobody considers you worth a serious response, right?

>>6596915
Thanks to the oil and coal that provided the energy during that development. Still the same hippies that rage against coal also impede development of nuclear power since nuclear power is evil according to them.

>>6596891
All i see is you saying you can shit on the sidewalk because others will take care of it. Basically #yolo#idgaf bullshit.

>It exists but it's somebody else's problem
>Well maybe you shouldn't be so selfish

> you don't need kids fuck off
Thanks, i love the fact that you know whats better for me, oh mighty lord of wisdom.
I'll go out of my way with implications and say that you're one of those people who never help anyone in need but get extremely pissed when they don't help you.
This won't change you or matter at all, all i wanted to say is fuck you.

>>6596962
>All i see is you saying you can shit on the sidewalk because others will take care of it.
But others do take care of it, so it's not really bullshit.

>It exists but it's somebody else's problem
Yeah, well it doesn't bother me. Rather what bothers me is you self-righteous assholes taxing the oil I purchase.

>i love the fact that you know whats better for me, oh mighty lord of wisdom.
Well I'm no skywizard but it's obvious that you don't need kids to enjoy life. In fact kids are more of a detriment than anything as such an experience is extremely stressful.

>I'll go out of my way with implications and say that you're one of those people who never help anyone in need but get extremely pissed when they don't help you.
On the contrary, mighty all knowing skywizard. I don't expect anyone to help me but usually do manipulate them into it.

>This won't change you or matter at all, all i wanted to say is fuck you.
Fuck you too. :)

>>6596988
>But others do take care of it, so it's not really bullshit.
But if they had the same mentality as you, you would be swimming in your own shit. You'll probably say that they are not like you, so lets not just go any further than this, if want ofc.


> Rather what bothers me is you self-righteous assholes taxing the oil I purchase.
>I purchase.
If you produced your own oil you'd have all the rights to bitch about the prices, but as it's a product of someone else, you have the choice of not buying it or bending the fuck over. Actually, those people in charge do. like you, what the fuck they want, yet you're bitching that they have their way.

>Well I'm no skywizard but it's obvious that you don't need kids to enjoy life
Yes i fucking do. I take great pleasure in the thought that my genes will pass live on.

>as such an experience is extremely stressful
True that, but nothing worthwhile has ever come without much stress, time and pain prior.

>Fuck you too. :)
Glad the feelings mutual


I dunno man, you are a bastard that doesn't care about anything but self, but if your satisfied with your life and are successful then bravo maestro, even enormous assholes have a place on this realm of hell.


Sorry OP for derailing your thread, not that it's alive.

>>6594861
>There's probably another board dedicated to this, I wouldn't be surprised.
Yes, there are other boards dedicated to AGW debate.
>>>/x/
>>>/pol/

>>6597021
>You'll probably say that they are not like you
Exactly, they want it clean so they do it. I keep my house clean but couldn't care less for the streets, it's not like they're clean anyway seeing the number of hobos they let loiter around.

>If you produced your own oil you'd have all the rights to bitch about the prices
LOL, you assholes are taxing them because their prices are not cheap enough to deter those who buy oil. It's not your product but theirs yet you have the self-righteous smuggery to tell them that their product should be set at a higher price when you probably don't even own a car. LOL LOL LOL

>I take great pleasure in the thought that my genes will pass live on.
Sexual reproduction sucks as far as Darwinian fitness is concerned. Unless you're developing cloning your genes will be a figment of the past eventually anyway much like the thought of you reproducing is a figment of the imagination.

>True that, but nothing worthwhile has ever come without much stress, time and pain prior.
Assuming this is worthwhile, you could stress just as much about cleaning bellybutton fluff.

>have a place on this realm of hell.
If this place is such hell why would you want to bring a child into it? Seems rather selfish.

>How many off-topic posts until the thread gets banned?

Oh, I love this game.

150?
200?

I'm just gonna leave this list of cited facts here...
http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp#global

>>6597041
>LOL, you assholes are taxing them because their prices are not cheap enough to deter those who buy oil. It's not your product but theirs yet you have the self-righteous smuggery to tell them that their product should be set at a higher price when you probably don't even own a car. LOL LOL LOL
Just to stay clear, i'm no way near America so i have zero influence on your gas prices, and i have no idea how i could up the taxes.
> self-righteous smuggery to tell them that their product should be set at a higher price
I'm jew enough morally to never suggest making anything more expensive that does not give me great profit.

>Sexual reproduction sucks as far as Darwinian fitness is concerned. Unless you're developing cloning your genes will be a figment of the past eventually anyway much like the thought of you reproducing is a figment of the
Doesn't really matter to me, i take pleasure in the fact that i might live after death.

>Assuming this is worthwhile, you could stress just as much about cleaning bellybutton fluff.
Of course i could, it's a subjective matter after all, that's why the question of needing and having is like, your own opinion. You don't think someone needs them? Don't have them. You want that someone else shouldn't have them because you think so? Not up to you to decide.

>If this place is such hell why would you want to bring a child into it? Seems rather selfish.
Never said that i'm not selfish, just not entirely self-centered. Also, it's more of an ideology thing, there is no pleasure if there is no pain.
Hell was probably an ill-used word, as both heaven or hell imply eternal suffering/savation etc., basically same thing for eternity, which is not fit for a human. Our realm is perfect because it has infinite fluctuations and mixtures of different emotions/possibilities etc., making infinite possibilities for intensifying happyness through prior anguish and vice versa. But that's like my opinion, feel free to attempt changing it tho

>>6597050
OP got his answer, thread served it's purpose, anyone that finds it in the catalog because he wants to know the answer, will get the answer.
Anyone who wants to stay due to an offtopic discussion can, because it doesn't hurt anyone.
Anyone who wants to bitch that a complete thread is still bumped for the sake of bitching should call the cyber police because he doesn't know what the "x" button on the browser/computer does.

It's like you're implying this board has the catalog full of exceptionally good threads and this one shits it up due to off topic and erases the other epic threads

>>6597090
>Just to stay clear, i'm no way near America so i have zero influence on your gas prices, and i have no idea how i could up the taxes.
It's people with this we need to save mother earth mentality in general.

>I'm jew enough morally to never suggest making anything more expensive that does not give me great profit.
Total revenue is what matters but that would be higher for these companies if their prices weren't artificially high.

>Doesn't really matter to me, i take pleasure in the fact that i might live after death.
You won't, a child doesn't carry your consciousness. When you die your neural correlates of consciousness decays and that's that. If you want to live forever invest in life extension technology. If I had more faith in this developing within our lifetime I'd care more about the environment. Unfortunately we will probably die and there is nothing after that.

>Not up to you to decide.
It isn't up to me like it shouldn't be up to environmentalists to stop me driving. You can have all the kids you want but don't expect me to care about their future. If you're really concerned the environment will be shit in the future it's up to you not to have kids or develop technologies that will fix the amount of carbon in the atmosphere not to force taxation upon others who don't care about life after their death.