/sci/ - Science & Math

https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
This is probably the best, most authoritative and up-to-date introduction out there.

>>6837267
>>/sci/?search_op=op&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_del=dontcare&offset=0&ghost=yes&search_res=post&task=search2&search_capcode=all&search_text=climate%20change

>>6837277
>This new professional approach meant that the Society was no longer just a learned society but also de facto an academy of scientists. The Government recognised this in 1850 by giving a grant to the Society of £1,000 to assist scientists in their research and to buy equipment.
>Therefore a Government Grant system was established and a close relationship began
>a close relationship began

Obvious politcial influence from one of the most Leftist governments on the planet is Obvious.

Try again

>>6837292
>Doesn't address the argument

Obvious idiot.

Try again.

>>6837267

I can start off by walking through the mechanism of warming. Many people don't take the time to analyse the processes at work and thus leave it to their values and allegiances to determine truth.

>Carbon dioxide is often blamed as the chief source of global warming.
>Carbon dioxide has likely been a major influence on global climate throughout geologic history. Its absence has been determined to coincide with global glaciation events and its relative abundance coincides with significantly warmer climates than we see today.
>Carbon dioxide is one of many gases that are transparent to incident radiation from the sun but are opaque to lower energy infrared radiation.
>The reason why carbon dioxide is opaque to this reflected radiation is because of the discrete energies of its chemical bonds. Depending on the configuration and composition of a molecule, these bond energies will vary.
>When carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, its kinetic energy increases and it vibrates more rapidly. Since molecules in the atmosphere bump into each other constantly, this energy can be imparted onto surrounding molecules, increasing their kinetic energy.
>Kinetic energy of matter is what defines temperature within a system. Thus, the greater amount of carbon dioxide that exists in a planetary atmosphere, the higher its greenhouse effect will probably be.

Now, there may be some unknown and complex factors such as changes in surface reflectivity, arctic methane release, and the flux of atmospheric water vapor that make climate change much harder to project.

I'd be happy to answer more questions if you have them.

>>6837292
Do you dismiss all research made possible by government funding? You must really be on the edge of modern science then.

Best explanation of the topic I've ever come across:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

It's maybe a bit daunting when you see them all, but you can jump to number 5 for a quick rundown.

If you want raw data, read the scientific literature, find what data you want, and write the authors. They will always be happy to send it your way (and to hear that someone read their paper!).

>>6837267

MIT Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Richard Lindzen discusses Climate Change:

http://youtu.be/-sHg3ZztDAw

>>6837292
>one of the most Leftist governments on the planet

Wut?

>>6837267
>I only hear ... from various media sources
because can't read?

It just seems like G.W is a minor issue that's used to distract folks from other more important science related issues.

Sorta like Abortion in the world of politics.

The Republicans should be obsessing over other issues such as the health of our dollar more so than Abortion,and how women are removing skin from rival Cartel member's faces.

>>6837598
Why does it seem like that?
Do you realize how much damage global warming will do to the world economy?

>>6837634
It's not going to be like the Day After movie.

Instead of spending billions if not trillions of dollars on attempts to correct global warming, we should use that money towards space,and modifying how humans live in the would be affected areas.

>>6837267
Global warming is the only thing that's preventing us from entering another Ice Age cycle. Since I live up north, I fucking love Global Warming!

Global Warming seems to be negatively affecting a bunch of small islands in Pacific the most. Oh well, less than a million people will have to relocate. Big fucking deal.

>>6837661
>It's not going to be like the Day After movie.
Of course it's not, no one's saying that
>>6837661
>Instead of spending billions if not trillions of dollars on attempts to correct global warming
We should spend exactly as much so that the marginal benefit of spending more equals the marginal cost. Econ 101.
>we should use that money towards space
While there are existing markets for renewable energy and green technology, there is no market for space exploration. What you are suggesting would actually involve more government spending.
>modifying how humans live in the would-be affected areas
There is an entire section of the IPCC report dedicated to climate adaptation. Read it.

>>6837661
Moving all the cities of the coast, which accounts to likely more than half of total human infrastructure is guaranteed to be magnitudes more expensive than what ever it would take to stop sea level rise.

>>6837678
>wat is thermohaline circulation
Global warming doesn't imply that all areas on the globe will be warmed equally.

Rising sea levels, on the other hand, will take place globally. If you think jacking up every major seaport a few metres can be done on the cheap, I'd love to see your proposal.

>>6837744
>Rising sea levels

>a few metres

top kek
more like a few centimetres. over the course of a century.

literally not a single port will have problems with that.

>>6837267
The IPCC report is fully online for you to read.

Also, you're sure you want "raw data"? Why the fuck would you do that, are you gonna perform statistical analysis yourself?

>>6837318
you left out
>carbon dioxide is a trace atmospheric gas
>carbon dioxide has an extremely limited absorption spectrum with respect to incident solar radiation

I pointed this out in my quantum chemistry course, and my professor got, quite unprofessionally, pissed off.

The math is quite simple and shows that, given the simplified models of climatologists, the amount of energy that CO2 can trap is insignificant compared to pretty much any other mode of energy loss/gain you can think of. This includes simple black body radiation, or methane pollution (thousands of times more effective than CO2).

>>6838205
>with respect to incident solar radiation
Buddy, it's not about the incident solar radiation, it's about the black body radiation from Earth. You got that backward.

>>6838205
>I pointed this out in my quantum chemistry course, and my professor got, quite unprofessionally, pissed off.

kek

>>6838207
>missing the point completely

black body radiation dwarfs CO2 trapping
incoming radiation dwarfs CO2 trapping
>still arguing that CO2 is a significant player in global temperatures

back to engineering models 101 with you

You will always find arguments for and against global warming. The climate is a hugely complex system, so there's no real way to tell which changes are caused by man-mad influences and which are naturally occurring.

The constant flow of gasses, heavy metals and plastics from humanity will certainly be having some effect through, even if we are unable to gauge it.

>work on optimal (nonlinear) control problems
>even a "simple" problem with can be pretty tough
>the climate is a big fucking nonlinear system that politicians are trying to control by legislating on emissions (and subsidizing shit)

Good luck with that

In the 1950s, brave American scientists shunned by the climate establishment of the day discovered that the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, leading to potentially devastating natural disasters that could destroy American agriculture and flood American cities. As a result, the country mobilized against the threat. Strong government action by the Bush administration outlawed the worst of these gases, and brilliant entrepreneurs were able to discover and manufacture new cleaner energy sources. As a result of these brave decisions, our emissions stabilized and are currently declining.

Unfortunately, even as we do our part, the authoritarian governments of Russia and China continue to industralize and militarize rapidly as part of their bid to challenge American supremacy. As a result, Communist China is now by far the world’s largest greenhouse gas producer, with the Russians close behind. Many analysts believe Putin secretly welcomes global warming as a way to gain access to frozen Siberian resources and weaken the more temperate United States at the same time. These countries blow off huge disgusting globs of toxic gas, which effortlessly cross American borders and disrupt the climate of the United States. Although we have asked them to stop several times, they refuse, perhaps egged on by major oil producers like Iran and Venezuela who have the most to gain by keeping the world dependent on the fossil fuels they produce and sell to prop up their dictatorships.

>>6838260
We need to take immediate action. While we cannot rule out the threat of military force, we should start by using our diplomatic muscle to push for firm action at top-level summits like the Kyoto Protocol. Second, we should fight back against the liberals who are trying to hold up this important work, from big government bureaucrats trying to regulate clean energy to celebrities accusing people who believe in global warming of being ‘racist’. Third, we need to continue working with American industries to set an example for the world by decreasing our own emissions in order to protect ourselves and our allies. Finally, we need to punish people and institutions who, instead of cleaning up their own carbon, try to parasitize off the rest of us and expect the federal government to do it for them.

Please join our brave men and women in uniform in pushing for an end to climate change now.

Based on my completely unscientific survey, /sci/ is the only board (out of those I've checked) where a (small) majority accepts climate change.

What does that tell us?

>>6838270
>What does that tell us?
That /sci/ is the dumbest board on 4chan, but you probably knew it already.

>>6838270
>Based on my completely unscientific survey, /sci/ is the only board (out of those I've checked) where a (small) majority accepts climate change.
>What does that tell us?

4chan is full of edgelords, what else is new?

It feels better to believe that AGW is a conspiracy theory, then you're one of the cool people who figured out the truth and not one of the sheep who blindly follow wherever the evil liberals are pointing.

It's no possible to have an opinion on global warming or any other scientific topic without putting trust in the experts in the field. Science has always worked this way.

But is it really that hard to get a good idea of what is going on? All you need is a bit of scepticism and a bit of cynicism and you will arrive to the correct conclusion that there's this cabal of climatologists who are bullying worldwide countries, the whole of the manufacturing sector, attacking developing countries and torturing fossil fuel companies worldwide all for the sake of getting grant money from the socialist government.

>>6838297
The thing is, I was briefly considering you were being serious

>people are concerned about little temperature and sea level rises
>in a few hundred years there will be the next ice age anyway that will last for thousand of years

>>6838223
>Venus hotter than Mercury
>farther from Sun
>greater albedo
>b-but it can't be teh CO2 atmosphere
>engineering models 101
go design a bridge

>>6838297
You had me going for a second. 8/10.

Any further questions?

>>6838701
>>6838701
Basically this.

Once you understand the scale of natural climate change and the timescale it happens on, it starts to look pretty fishy that in the hundred or so years since the Industrial Revolution, we have this comparative surge in global temperature that tracks neatly with man-made CO2.

>>6838701
This is a set-up!

>>6837292
The US and UK are notably center right compared to the rest of Western Europe.

Even if they were leftist, that would be the poisoning the well fallacy.

>>6838701
Is there anything significant about the cooling after World War II? Might that have anything to do with the war itself? Reduced agricultural land use causing trees to sequester more carbon? Smoke from firebombings? Nuclear winter?

What causes the ice age cycle? Was The Day After Tomorrow accurate in regards to ice ages being caused by global warming shutting down the oceanic conveyors?

>>6838733
You can't read much causality into short term (less than 20 years) temperature records.
Global average temperaturs are currently increasing at a rate of about 0.1 ° per decade, but from one year to the next, natural random variability can be as high as 0.3 °. There could be a reason, or it could just be random chance. That's the same error that deniers make when they say "the earth hasn't warmed for 20 years", when any given year can vary at 3 decades worth of warming. That obviously doesn't mean the warming isn't there, it just means it's hard to see the trend when it's drowned out by variability at short time scales.

>>6838745
But I really like finding causes.

>>6838740
>was a Holywood movie accuratley portraying science
really?

>>6838726
UK is a very generous spender when it comes to pleasing the masses, but conservative when it comes to actually investing in the masses. The fact that they aren't good in investing into country's well-being doesn't make them right-wing. There are billions (per project) being bled on "greenl", "social",... etc. projects on a regular basis. The fact that a common person doesn't see the effects is due to corruption, not stinginess.

>>6838818
>billions (per project) being bled
[citation needed]

>>6838621
>venus hotter than mercury

>>6838716
Correlation does not equate causation. Although we have data concerning average temperature over the millennia, they could only be measured by proxy, and is thus are much less precise and accurate than more recent records. There might have been huge temperature spikes in the past that we cannot account for, because our ways of measuring temperatures past a few hundred years ago don't regard such extremes.

>>6837678
I would love to get a response about that graph you posted from some global warming cultists

Summary of IPCC's latest report
www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WG1AR5_Headlines.pdf

>>6838977

astrofag here, nice to see someone greentext shit just to tell the whole world they're dumb.

>mfw venus has an atmosphere with a truckload of greenhouse gases and is a few degrees hotter than mercury (470'C-480'C)

>>6839019
As an astrofag, you'll also know that mars has been warming up at the same rate earth has.

>>6838701
>1880 to 2013
Yep, the climate is so simple it can be analyzed completely in a mere 100 years.

>>6839027
is our CO2 leaking to Mars?

>>6838621
>>6838977
>>6839019
>nobody mentions whether they're talking about average temperatures or maximum temperatures
Protip: Mercury goes from -173 to 427 °C from day to night while Venus stays at 460 pretty much all the time

>>6839045
*From night to day, obviously

>>6839027
But there is nothing showing that Mars is warming. The claim that it is is a frequently cited myth that has no factual support.

>>6839045
From no atmosphere at all, to the most dense atmosphere in the solar system.. Is that really much of a difference?

>>6839019
1. mercury has no atmosphere whatsoever, any radiation it receives is not contained by any kind of insulation an atmosphere would provide

2. Atmospheric pressure on surface is 92 bars on Venus. A much, much thicker atmosphere than earth's.

By your logic, Jupiter should be nothing more than one gigantic CO2 molecule.

>>6839049
>mars and earth temperatures are in correlation
>mars isn't warming
Ergo, earth is warming...

>>6839057
Yes? If we want to compare average temperature (and correct me if you have a better source or calculation) by taking the mean of Mercury's high and low, then it's 127°C to 460°C which is a huge difference

>>6839070
That was the point of the post. Ignoring the density while focusing on composition is at best ignorant.

>>6839070
>huge difference
Yeah I know that one number is bigger then the other.
But its no atmosphere vs. densest atmosphere.
Honestly I would expect the difference to be much greater.

>>6839029
>completely
Who said completely and do you have better data?

If it didn't turn into a new religion, I probably would believe in the time frame of the inaccurate models.

>>6839135
This.
I will never be seen dead with global warming cultists.

>>6839131
Well you did post that graph and only that graph so clearly your drawing a lot of conclusions from it.

Yes, there is widely available date over much longer time periods which you have probably already seen.

>>6839018
In case /sci/ is too lazy to read a pdf

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years.

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90 per cent of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0–700 metres) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.
The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia. Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] metres.

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40 per cent since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30 per cent of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.

>>6839135
>>6839162
>basing one's conception of reality on the personalities of those holding each possible conception
How do you sleep at night?

>>6839176
That still doesn't explain why mars is warming up though

>>6839189
Are you saying we shouldn't judge scientology simply because their leaders are embezzlers?

>>6839189
Sorry mate, I just don't care. I use to, but I have a limit.

>>6839199
Yes, because who believes what has nothing to do with what is true. Evidence and logic are what should be used to determine what is true, not popularity contests or politics.

How do you even think that is a reasonable question?

>>6839018
in case /sci/ is too lazy to read a pdf

>Observed Changes in the Climate System
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

>Drivers of Climate Change
Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.

>Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.

>Future Global and Regional Climate Change
Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

>>6839208
because the whole idea of climatology is based on public opinion, not science. As far as science goes, climatology is closer to alchemy than real science.

Tell me, if you say you don't believe in gravity, what will happen? People might laugh at you, some will try and ask you for your opinion and state your reasoning. You will not be persecuted for stating such opinions, you will not be labelled as a "sponsored voice" and if you persist, you will have your questions answered in simple terms.

Now go out and state you don't believe in global warming. A lot of people will flat out hate you and label you as crazy. "Possessed by a demon", if you will. There will be ridicule and which hunting. Not many people will be capable of making sane conversation discussing the topic with you. You will be labelled a dissident, you will be ostracized. Simply for questioning, which is what science is all about.

Climatology isn't science.

>>6839212
You keep on posting the same thing over and over again, ignoring all the replies. How have you not been banned yet?

>>6839226
Dude, I messed up pasting because the pdf was formatted retardedly. So I deleted it, fixed it, and posted again.

Besides, the only reply was some asinine thing about mars warming, which they failed to source or state how it's relevant to the warming of earth

>>6839212
The models contain too much error.
The science is not settled.

>>6839236
Error in what direction?

>>6839237
Too much error to reliably predict future trends.

>>6839225
>climatology is closer to alchemy than real science.
You aren't apparently basing your perspective on the who believes what. You are basing your perspective on your own bold claims. Argue for those claims, not that Sally believes X and that you hate Sally.

And stop being so obsessed with what people think of you. Believe whatever fits the facts and don't be afraid to speak out about it.

>>6839241
Assuming I agreed with everything you are saying, what's wrong with a best guess? After all, nothing is 100% in science.

>>6839241
Like what kind of error?

>>6839244
Speaking out has ended careers for people.

Just like in medieval times.

>>6839259
Are you saying there's nothing wrong with false doomsday predictions?

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

>>6839279
see
>>6838229

>>6839285
that doesn't answer the need for doomsday predictions and fearmongering though.

>>6839019
you forgot to greentext

>>6839018
>IPCC's latest report
b-but teh astroturfers say teh IPCC report is fatally flawed! FATALLY

>>6838229
>>6839285
So your point is that we should recycle because you want us to? Selfish, much?

>>6839260
Clouds, dust and the chemistry and biology of all ecosystems on earth are described poorly.
>>6839259
I will only give up my high standard of living once I feel the era of measurements that took AGW from theory to observational science is settled.
Other than that, integrate the renewable technologies in a timely manner, without collapsing the economy.

>>6839304
One must agitate to affect the change that one wants. If the models didn't indicate it they wouldn't say shit.

>>6839334
>Oh no I can't implement these universally beneficial changes. Who cares that they might improve the environment and create jobs? I want to live as I already do, consequences be damned!
Sure, I'm the selfish one.

>>6839341
>Clouds, dust and the chemistry and biology of all ecosystems on earth are described poorly.
Ok, how exactly are they described, and how can they be described better?

>>6839350
It is not my job to increase the resolution of the models and the technical facts I am not too worried about. It is just that I am not religious.

The IPCC reports are full of "limitations" , "difficult to apply to climate simulations" , satellites demand assumption" , " long-standing source of uncertainty" , "resolution has not increased"
I don't know maybe I'm wrong, but 'climate science' is not really a science yet, just a metadata collection of all the work of all planetary scientists, still in its infancy.
But, like I said I'm not religious.

>>6839341
>I will only give up my high standard of living once I feel the era of measurements that took AGW from theory to observational science is settled.
>Other than that, integrate the renewable technologies in a timely manner, without collapsing the economy.
I on the other hand feel obligated to give up my high standard of living if there is a significant chance that standard of living is harming the long term prospects of humanity. I'd feel like a real asshat if future generations had to suffer because I wanted a bigger television.

>>6838205

Yes, even the UN IPCC has acknowledged that the effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic. Of course they don't talk about that much any because its an inconvenient truth.

>>6839558
So what if it is? CO2 isn't the only factor in AGW.

>>6839573

Its considered the main driving force. Other GHG are being generated at a much smaller rate.

>>6839443
>I on the other hand feel obligated to give up my high standard of living if there is a significant chance that standard of living is harming the long term prospects of humanity. I'd feel like a real asshat if future generations had to suffer because I wanted a bigger television.
You'd better go amish pretty quick then because any time you use plastic products, industrial agricultural products, or anything shipped to where you are using fossil fuels, you're increasing their future scarcity and lowering the standard of living of future generations.

>>6839443
>the long term prospects of humanity
There in lies your problem.
A few hundred million westerners are not and never will be the problem.
Its the billions of shitskins.

>>6839119
You forget that Venus has the illustrious disadvantage of being 35 million miles farther away from the Sun than Mercury.

>>6839225
>because the whole idea of climatology is based on public opinion, not science. As far as science goes, climatology is closer to alchemy than real science.

The flooding of Miami is pretty real.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article2564166.html

>>6839584
Western countries produce a disproportionate amount of CO2.

>>6839616
Top kek, and?

>>6839616
USA is only 50% western so that should be 8%

I would sympathize more with the environmentalists if they weren't basically just disguised Marxists. Every single one of their proposals and "solutions" in one way or another call for more government power and will end up destroying the industrial capacity of a country.

Notice how they always advocate for pussy solar and wind energy sources, instead of nuclear and geothermal. Hell, if they could remove carbon from the periodic table, they would. The overlap between environmentalists with the anti-GMO crowd, vegans, socialists, SJWs and other hipster movements is quite evident, and a secret to nobody.

>>6839650
>will end up destroying the industrial capacity of a country.
Marxists already did that to the West

>>6839578
Don't use such blatant slippery slopes. You are better than that.

>>6839584
Teach me to be as edgy as you.

>>6839687
You do realise the slippery slope is no longer a fallacy, right?

>>6839705
The way it was used was obviously fallacious. I really shouldn't have to say this twice.

>>6839719
Where does the mentality that 'we are the problem' end? Remembering that the mentality itself is removed from global warming and encompasses a very common modern ideology.
It seems to me that global warming is the best vehicle people can find to push this ideology.

>>6839728
It ends when we aren't living in luxury at the expense of our species, simple as that. If the best course is to reduce fossil fuel consumption and create a stable climate in which humanity can further progress technologically then we should reduce fossil fuel consumption. If the best course of action is to consume fossil fuels full steam and establish a self-sustaining foothold in space before Earth civilization collapses then let's consume fossil fuels full steam. In either case one wouldn't want individual humans spending all of humanity's efforts on luxury goods. So, going back to my original statement, I don't want to be such person living at the expense of humanity.

>>6839740
Can you find one example of an ideology which got what it wanted and stopped in contentment?

>>6839752
Wat?

>>6839756
The push behind global warming is not science but ideology.
That same ideology pushes a lot of other things.
It will not stop.
You are not helping your fellow man by submitting to it.

>>6839780
Does that ideology invalidate all research in the area then? What should we do if we want to find out how man-made emissions are affecting the planet?

>>6839780
What the fuck are you talking about? I simply said that I don't want to live at the expense of the species.

Are you trolling me?

>>6839813
Your morality is blinding me

>>6839816
T-Thank you?

>>6839780
This. So much this. This anon gets it.

>>6839950
Go to bed, samefag.

Ocean acidifcation is being intensified by the increased carbon dioxide (If I read right) also. I swear everything comes back to haunt coral.

>>6840018
>I swear everything comes back to haunt coral.
This.

It's like those things were designed to get wiped out... like Pandas. Coral and Pandas piss me off.

>>6838262
>we should fight back against teh Libruls
"Why don't you go back to your double-wide and fry something?!"
— Candice Bergen, "Sweet Home Alabama" (2002)

>>6839003
>Correlation does not equate causation.

Not if there is a confounder that is causing both.

Can you suggest a confounder that is both causing an increase in man-made CO2 and a global rise in temperature?

>>6839135
>If it didn't turn into a new religion, I probably would believe in the time frame of the inaccurate models.
>>6839162
>I will never be seen dead with global warming cultists.

>I would rather the world drowns than agree with my political opponents

You are not everything that is wrong with politics, but you are like 95% of it.

>>6839225
>Tell me, if you say you don't believe in gravity, what will happen? People might laugh at you, some will try and ask you for your opinion and state your reasoning. You will not be persecuted for stating such opinions, you will not be labelled as a "sponsored voice" and if you persist, you will have your questions answered in simple terms.

Nobody is sponsoring gravity denialists, which is why you will not be called a sponsored voice. If you persist, you will get simple answers because nobody has spent decades paying people to obfuscate the issue.

>Now go out and state you don't believe in global warming. A lot of people will flat out hate you and label you as crazy. "Possessed by a demon", if you will. There will be ridicule and which hunting. Not many people will be capable of making sane conversation discussing the topic with you. You will be labelled a dissident, you will be ostracized. Simply for questioning, which is what science is all about.

>Climate Science is political, and people who disagree with politics are treated as enemies

Jesus, what a fucking mystery. Next you'll tell me that people who advocate for less gun control are called nuts, or people who want abortion to be easier to obtain are called baby-killers.

Doesn't change the fact that there is a scientific consensus on the subject.

Also, protip: If there was money to be made in the Gravity Denialists business and large think tanks funded by let's say aeroplane companies, you would find Gravity Denialists everywhere, and they would be ridiculed and "witch hunted" out of the physics department.

Nobody real gets hurt for "questioning," what you get hurt for is "deliberately pissing in the pool of truth for your own material gain and/or ideological reasons."

>>6839279
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult

>I cannot tell the difference between somebody making shit up to start a cult and a scientific trend that indicates shit might be going down

Son, Science never gives perfect models. It will ALWAYS be possible to say "Too much error to reliably predict future trends." But at the end of the day, you have to decide what policies to pursue and if you pick wrong, you WILL get fucked.

Pic Related are your choices. Doing nothing is, effectively, choosing the bottom row.

>>6839409
>But, like I said I'm not religious.

>Basically all climate scientists agree that the models show we're changing climate
>I don't agree with them
>It's not because I'm religious though

I don't care what reasons you have for not disagreeing with those scientists interpretation of the data, I care what reasons you DO have.

>>6839616

Jesus Christ China are fucking us in the ass. I get that they don't want to cut emissions until we do and we don't want to cut until they do but for fucks sake. Can't we just nuke Beijing or something? I'm sure we could sneak a nuke in there so it wouldn't be obvious from an ICMB that we were the ones who did it.

>>6839650
>Notice how they always advocate for pussy solar and wind energy sources

>They

Your political enemies are not one uniform blob, son.

>>6839728
>Where does the mentality that 'we are the problem' end?

If there is a problem, it is always my responsibility and nobody else's. I can change my own behavior, not yours.

>>6840108

Please, tell me which sentence in that is wrong. I can cite chapter and verse for every accusation.

>>6840164
this image is shit
how can one just imply that spending billions of $$$ is a solution to climate change

>>6840171
Yeah but your happy to get the government to force me to change my behavior.

Fuse the Atoms, Energy War Now!

>>6840270
>how can one just imply that spending billions of $$$ is a solution to climate change

>Implying that solving the challenges of global climate change won't cost billions of dollars

>>6840168
Your edginess makes my panties wet.

>>6840318
>Your edginess makes my panties wet.
<Liberals>
>Complain about Global Warming
>No real solutions
</Liberals>

Can man made climate change be reduced to harmless levels if we replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy? Or do we need to replace cars with Teslas and whatnot?
>inb4 Tesla shill

>>6840400
Also is recycling really effective? Don't paper manufacturers have their own self made tree farms and doesn't the man power and energy needed to recycle things like plastic take up as much as general manufacturing

>>6840408

For biodegradable stuff such a paper, it's not so much of an issue (although we could better than just piling it onto a landfill). The main problems are with things like plastics and electronics that are made of things that don't sink back into the environment well.

Recycling is certainly more expensive than just hacking more stuff out the ground, but it results in less waste. It also tends to be more localised, helping keep production nearby rather than outsourcing it half way round the world.

>>6840165
The predictive power of the models are what I am skeptical of. The highest resolution models interpret our planet as grids, each cell of the grid is around 2000 square kilometers.

S.A. of earth is 510million kilometers squared. So, this implies there are around 255000 cells in the grid each with their own parameterizations.

The models in no way represent the world we live in and because they require all sorts of initial and boundary variables there is too much error.

>>6839605
>Flooding
> never happened b4 gw

>>6839344
>One must agitate to affect the change that one wants.

>If the models didn't indicate it they wouldn't say shit.

Spoken like a true cult follower.

>>6839605
>picking one specific example that proves nothing

Forests around europe (and remainder of the western world) are growing, southern pole is getting more ice, etc, etc. See how easy this is? The difference is, the article you post, is sensationalist and ignores the fact floods happen on a regular basis.

>>6840147
One example would be the sun, for instance. Just as it has been in the past.
There does not have to be a cofounder though, it's just one way of disproving supposed correlations.

>>6840152
Spoken like a true cult follower. "believe what I believe, or you're stupid".

>>6840158

>>6837292
>UK
>left wing

this is how retarded ameriburgers are

>>6840158
>>6840158
>implying majority of rich people would rather fuck up the whole world for their descendants than give up a luxury or two.

Kid, you're so deep into the cult it hurts. Not saying there's no sponsoring going on, but majority of money is going for promoting global warming, not skepticism. In fact, a lot of skeptics do it for free (same as with promoters, but you already believe that bit).

>Jesus, what a fucking mystery. Next you'll tell me that people who advocate for less gun control are called nuts, or people who want abortion to be easier to obtain are called baby-killers.

Labels like that happen when indoctrination happens. "gun nut", "baby killer" are negative catch-phrases. Catchy, so people remember them quickly. Just because you come from environment where abortion and gun control has been heavily politicized, doesn't mean those topics are so controversial around the rest of the world.

>Doesn't change the fact that there is a scientific consensus on the subject.

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

What exatcly do you mean by "consensus on the subject" though? Are we talking about the fact earth is warming up? That earth alone is warming up? That the major contributor to it is CO2? The only consensus is among certain media stations, not among actual scientists.

>implying again people are evil and stupid
There actually is money to be made by denying gravity. Sell people strings to attach themselves to earth, or even special expensive magnets. Shittonnes of money, seriously. Do it, faggot, prove me wrong.

>Nobody real gets hurt for "questioning"

Tell that to bertrand russel for opposing involvement in the first world war, tell that to alan turing for admitting he was a fag, etc, etc...

>what you get hurt for is "deliberately pissing in the pool of truth for your own material gain and/or ideological reasons."

Spoken like a true cult follower

>>6840810
>One example would be the sun
Solar output is incredibly easy to measure and it hasn't changed enough to cause what is happening.

>southern pole is getting more ice, forests are growing
Not according to Nasa they aren't

>000 and 2012 was 888,000 square miles (2.3 million square kilometers), while 309,000 square miles (800,000 square kilometers) regrew during that period,

>he continent of Antarctica has been losing about 147 billion tons of ice per year since 2003, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 258 billion tons per year.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

>>6840164
Kid, stop using mspaint and actually read some of the publications.
I know how science works, I see it from the inside. Science does get shit wrong, but science also tries to incorporate new facts when it can. Climatology isn't science.

And your pic is another example of how a doomsday cultist operates.

>>6840828
>Global forest loss between the years 2000 and 2012
and
>the continent
paste errors

>>6840828
>Solar output is incredibly easy to measure and it hasn't changed enough to cause what is happening.
CO2 effects are incredibly easy to measure and it hasn't changed enough to cause what is happening.

>>6840828
>Not according to Nasa they aren't
>Forests
Forests are always growing, and direct interaction by man(chopping down the fucking trees) is several magnitudes larger than any climate induced forest changes.

Ironically a lot of that rainforest chopping is for biofuel oils "to save the planet".

>Antarctic ice
http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234
Highest level in satellite record.

>>6840840
:^)

CO2 is perfectly valid reason why climate would be changing, because it demonstratively increases the temperature with what is known as green house effect. CO2 has also massively increased in the atmosphere

Solar irradiation has been measured for a long time and it's stable withing reasonable limits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
>Changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change.[11]

Solar variation and earths orbital cycles are reasons why large time scale changes happen but they don't explain fast changes at all.


Also
>call you out on your bullshit
>proceed to meme posts like a child
:^)

>>6840820
>Tell that to bertrand russel for opposing involvement in the first world war, tell that to alan turing for admitting he was a fag, etc, etc...

Interesting. Do you have other, equally clear, examples of somebody getting hurt for denying scientific orthodoxy, or is your list, as I suspect, only for political issues?

>Do it faggot, prove me wrong
>"Start a business and lose money to prove me wrong"

Yeah no.

>>6840840
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-3/
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-4/

>>6840846
Total forest area is going down as per previous link
Sure forests might be increasing in some parts (as per previous post) but they are going down faster in others
Just because you cherry pick a portion that is experiencing growth doesn't mean the total area isn't going down.


>sea ice
>vs total ice mass
Yes sea ice is increasing and volume is going down just as you would expect from a melting glazier. The mainland ice melts and falls to the ocean at increasingly rapid rate decreasing the total ice mass on the continent.
Again as per previous source the total ice in Antarctica is going down rapidly unlike your cherry picked portion of it

>>6840855
>Yes sea ice is increasing and volume is going down just as you would expect from a melting glazier.

So from a non melting glacier you'd expect shrinking area? Or is this yet another case of the data being irrelevant because you can handwave it away as AGW support in all cases with some mental gymnastics and non-modeled, non-peer-reviewed unlikely explanations.

Also I don't really think you thought this through all that much, explain how melting glaciers causes a noticeable increase in sea ice countless miles away from the supposedly melting glaciers. You're grasping for straws because you refuses to admit your faith in AGW could be misguided.

>>6840840
>>Solar output is incredibly easy to measure and it hasn't changed enough to cause what is happening.
>CO2 effects are incredibly easy to measure and it hasn't changed enough to cause what is happening.

You are the densest motherfucker, CO2 release has increased by, lets say a factor of two to be generous to your argument, since, let's say 1800 to be generous to your argument.

Clearly solar output has also increased by at least a factor of 2 over the same period, right.

>>6840855
>Sure forests might be increasing in some parts
Forests are always growing.
>but they are going down faster in others
Because we chop them down. If I drop a nuke on the middle east, can we blame the millions of dead humans on global warming or should we attribute it to direct human influences instead?

>>6840864
>So from a non melting glacier you'd expect shrinking area?

An area that grows and/or shrinks at a far slower rate.

Out of honest curiosity: What would you expect melting glaciers moving out into the ocean to look like if NOT increased ice coverage?

>>6840868
>Thinks CO2 doubling have the same effect as solar irradiation doubling
You calling me dense is a compliment given your demonstrated catastrophic failure in thinking.

>>6840864
From a melting glazier I would expect the total mass of ice to go down, which it is clearly doing, which btw you totally ignored.
I would also expect the resulting pile of less stable ice to spread out more, which it's also doing.

I don't understand how you don't get something so simple.

You can test this at home, make a bunch of icecubes (the more the better) then layer them into a big block and pour water on top of them and freeze the resulting mega block
Once done put the resulting big block it on a leaning surface and let it melt
Watch as as time goes by, parts of of block break loose and spread out and at the same time the total mass of the ice is obviously decreasing as it's melting yet miraculously the area is also expanding.
Same thing is happening on Antarctica but in larger scale, ice gets slippery when wet and rushes towards the seas with higher speed resulting in more sea ice as the center gets thinner.

Also that
>>6840873

>>6840849
>Do you have other, equally clear, examples of somebody getting hurt for denying scientific orthodoxy, or is your list, as I suspect, only for political issues?

>Eppur' si muove.

History is full of them. But, as you've correctly identified it, actions regarding climate are of political nature, not scientific.

>>6840880
And how do you know mass of glaciers is going down? Is that just another statement to fit the models?

>>6840873
>What would you expect melting glaciers moving out into the ocean to look like if NOT increased ice coverage?
So a glacier rapidly disgorging itself 1 mile out into the ocean(it doesn't happen like this but pretend it does) Will result in the peak winter sea ice border(that's located 100+ miles away) to move several miles further out too given no change in temperature or weather conditions?

You're taking two separate data points and claim they're related while not having a causal link or mechanism between them, I might as well post the inverse relationship between pirates and global warming joke and claim it's serious if this is the level your capability of reasoning works at.

>>6840868
Clearly, temperatures have also increased by a factor of at least 2, to be generous to your argument.

>>6840890
I already linked you the source but here it is again since you continue to ignore it:
>Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 147 billion tons of ice per year since 2003, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 258 billion tons per year.

>>6840899
>greenland becoming green again
Awesome.

>>6840904
Will still take a long ass time with the current trend so not like we will ever see that day unless we make it happen intentionally, which I don't see why we would.

>>6840899
>provides a shitty link to play on retards.
nice graphics, where's science?

>get's upset I asked a question, like a retard.
stay pleb.

>>6840913
epic
I thought it was just right for your age
:^)

Probably needed a bit simpler since you couldn't find the science though

>>6840918
Also
>get's upset I asked a question, like a retard.
>can't follow a 3 post link chain
>calls other people retarded

double epic

>>6840920
No link in the chain. The only link to nasa has some hand-wavy info. Any link to a scientific paper perhaps? Stay pleb, if you insist.

And yeah, I'm fucking angry. Every other monday, same time, same topic, same comments for about 8 hours. This shit is clearly someone's day job. This is either shilling, or someone's about to lose their day job.

>>6840945
Well I assume you got paid to post the same image of artic sea ice getting bigger and use it to justify climate change being false but I guess you draw the short stick there too and do it for free

>>6840952
>artic sea ice getting bigger
>can't discern the south from the north pole
>probably thinks thee's only one pole
You really are mentally retarded.
The average /pol/ poster is more intelligent than you so I think I'll go there instead.

>>6840974
I just typed wrong, it's not called that in my language.
Only average /pol/ posted thinks sea ice is relevant when land ice is melting like mad.

Not to mention these threads are made by /pol/ posters pretty much every time

>>6840952
My first post was a question about the nasa link

>>6840979
O well can't really know that.
The points I replied to you still stand.

>>6840977
>threads made by /pol posters
>first 10 comments say we should convert to communism to repent for our sins.
Every fucking time.

>>6840911
because we're gonna be fucking rich bro

>>6837267
>Is there any evidence that human activity is significant factor in global warming?
I always shake my head when this is brought up. How stupid is everyone. Do you know how many environmental issues people bring up to sway popular opinion in their favor. Remember the OZone Layer? I wish nothing would be done and just pour some money into R&D. This carbon credits or whatever is so obvious bs and only hurts progress. Fucking pisses me off. Stop being so stupid everyone.

>>6840147
Or you know, it could be a separate cause for each phenomena.

>>6838701
>Any further questions?
Yes, how has the temperature varied since, say, 1 million years back?

>>6841053
>Remember the OZone Layer?
We fixed the hole in the ozone layer by stopping using CFCs and shit and allowing nature to take its course.

If people hadn't bitched about it and forced governments to ban such harmful chemicals you'd be getting lethal levels of UV radiation in much of the southern hemisphere and a significant portion of antarctic ice would have melted causing much worse problems than modern global warming.

>>6841331

thiss

>>6841313

Humans don't live for a million years. So your question is kind of stupid.

Global surface temperature variation over the past million years has pretty much stayed within about +/-3 degrees Celsius. During the coolest times, i.e. during the Ice Ages, the Earth's surface was 5 degrees Celsius cooler than it is now.

If the median projection holds true, by 2100 the Earth will be 3-4 degrees warmer than it is today (and higher amounts of warming cannot be ruled out). So in the space of one hundred years, the Earth will have warmed the same extent as glacial cycles that normally take tens of thousands of years, and of course warming wouldn't stop at 2100. These rates of change are orders of magnitude faster than anything experienced on Earth in the past million years.

Sources

Projections of global warming over the 21st century:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

Exceptional rate of warming in present/near future climate change:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12540.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/486

Among others. Have you done the required reading?

>>6841589
>seriously responding to a hour old shitpost

Just let it die dude

>>6841589
Thanks.
>>6841612
I'm still here. It was a legit question though, and I don't see what's wrong with it. If I worded it strangely it's because I'm not a native speaker.

>>6841612

Sorry.

itt: ultra edgy science 'skeptics' with double standards claiming everyone who disagrees is doing so out of political persuasion

>>6841620
Well it's cool if it was a legit question, but you see anon for every 1 legit question we have about 100 shitposts with those exact same words

>muh Carboniferous temperature was 3 higher so it's totally ok if temperatures rise by that much now in like hundred years :^)
>I'm totally not trolling and comparing temperature changes millions of years ago that were gradual to changes today that are fast
>Just honestly asking ::^^)) and not baiting at all

But yea the other anon is pretty much right if you actually were unsure. It's been hotter and it's been colder but 2 major differences are with those eras and today:
1) speed - nature can adapt to different conditions very well, but when the change is too aggressive and fast they don't necessarily have the time to adapt and migrate and many ecological niches are in danger
2) humans exist and we have already built our shit according to how things are now - sure from a perspective of a Civilization or other strategy games technically sacrificing coastlines for more grasslands in Russia and Canada seems like a good deal, but in the real world it means billions of people needing to be relocated from rising water and spreading desserts and all that precious infrastructure worth hundreds of trillions needs to be built again, not to mention millions of niggers and mexicans flooding to Europe and America when living conditions worsen there.

>>6841668
>if you actually were unsure.
I wasn't unsure, I was completely ignorant. It just seemed that to guage the importance of a temperature change the last 100 years you'd have to look at the last million years too. Now I know (more).

It's a shame this debate is so highly politicized.

>>6841668
Oh, and as a reply to your second point (and to the issue overall) the root cause of an unfathomable amount of problems is human overpopulation. Which is a very touchy subject.

>>6841685

Just remember that the whole obfuscation process is driven by think tanks led or inspired by Fred Singer, Friedrich Seitz, and other Cold Warriors who believed that ideology was always more important than the science. More recently, an array of astroturfing and advocacy groups funded by fossil fuel interests and teabagging millionaires.

Yes, sometimes hippies and libruls get shit wrong. But at least they're not wrong in the complete opposite direction of reality.

>>6841688
Overpopulation is a myth, if there were overpopulation, how would they not starve?
If they aren't starving fast enough, how is there overpopulation?

Besides birth rates are already dropping fast, dangerously so in some countries, practically speaking only area where people are over the self sustaining limit are in Africa and India and even there the rates are systematically falling with the advent of education.

>>6841697
Both liberals (as in the popular u.s. understanding of the word) and conservatives are wrong on some issues and right on others. I identify just as little with each of those groups.

>>6841688

I think we're often too quick to blame overpopulation. Canada and Australia and the US, which are not densely populated, have the highest per capita GHG emissions. And in cumulative terms, the UK and the US constitute more than half of the current enhanced greenhouse effect.

Consumption matters. If we had 7 billion people and we all lived like Somalians, climate change would scarcely matter. This is the other, much more uncomfortable truth, because you cannot tell people not to buy the things they want to buy, and people cannot stop wanting things that society tells them they want.

By admitting to this, we find that the only solution without radically changing society is to control GHG emissions through treaties, regulation, market mechanisms, technology subsidies, and so on. This is why so many people would rather believe that the science is wrong.

>>6840147

Ocean outgassing. Somewhat counter-intuitively, warmer water is LESS soluble to CO2. That is why as the globe (and oceans) warm they emit CO2. Its also why CO2 output comes 800 years AFTER temperatures go up.

>>6841697
Explain again, why would a millionaire care more about his shitty million if the world were to end?
I keep hearing claims that "it's the evil rich".
Are you honestly implying that every single person willing to fund the opposite side of a debate is doing so only to drill oil for another year or so?

>>6840158

Love that "scientific consensus" cause you know popularity is the royal road to truth.

>>6841723
World isn't ending, not bu a long shot, that is actually a denier strawman. but their millions might get tiny bit smaller if they put higher taxes on oil drilling or something.

>>6840164

The problem is your best models suck. Yet despite their abject failures, "Climate Change is a Consensus TRUTH!"

Funny how predictive failure has no effect on the "science." If the prediction works, the Climate Change is true. if the prediction fails, then "its just a model," we're trying to make it better. In reality, this means that if a model works, maybe they just got lucky; after all, they get to try over and over again.

>>6841737
>don't trust literally all the scientist
>instead trust a guy from a blog that literally supports creationism
>:^)

>>6841622
>/pol/ squad is back now
Thanks m8

>>6841729
Ok, then tell me again why I should care about the situation? Is it dire enough to warrant action, or is it negligible enough enough not to care about?

If it's dire, then all those people are psychopaths, according to you, if it's not, then it's nothing to give a fuck about, is it?

>>6841723

Well, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea among the rich that they pay too much in taxes, and that taxing their income is completely unfair. They believe that, because of their charitable giving and philanthropy, that absolves them of the moral obligation to be "forced" to provide extra to the state, or to their fellow citizens. So the more Republican-minded American rich will object to fixing climate change because it will increase their taxes, and it's easier to say the science is wrong than to say you don't want to chip in.

As for oil executives, some may even be very concerned about climate change, but they'll twist themselves in knots to convince themselves that what they're doing is right. Or they might not care at all, which is what I'm imagining. These guys are mostly what? 60 or 70 years old? They won't live to see the worst of it, and their descendents will be rich enough to avoid the consequences. Either way, the shareholder demands that fossil fuels continue to be extracted. Remember that in US law, if the shareholders believe a particular oil company has not done everything in their power to confuse the science about climate change, they have the right to sue those companies.

>>6841747
It will cost shitloads of money in the future, if you are rich white guy you can pretty much bypass all the negative effects by moving to different villa from the seashore one.
If you are an average guy, enjoy niggers and higher taxes in the future

unless you live in desertification zone

>>6841697

Documentation please. As opposed to the richest organization in the world, the Federal Government. Which funds 97% of climate research. I guess its a pure coincidence that politicians and bureaucrats that stand to gain enormous regulatory power and spending power (pay off that constituency!) from $carbon $taxes.

That fact that you can only understand $for $profit corporations and are completely ignorant of FOR POWER government says you've been way too exposed to teachers and professors who are dependent on government for their salaries.

>>6841739

Wow ad hominem. Pity you lack data to defend the failed models.

>>6841765
:^)

It's not an ad hominem, I didn't call you a retard even though I should

>>6841737

Climate change is measured over decades and centuries, not >5 years. And if you wanted to, you could pick a period like 1945-1955, and say that well, looks like global cooling is occurring. But that doesn't mean you know that the cooling will continue from 1956-2014.

What about the skeptics? How have their predictions fared? Well, not too well. In fact, they're all much worse than the IPCC.

>>6841751
Why are you bringing politics into this?
I'm asking you about the facts. Are you telling me that a person is willing to deny supposed facts of earth entering catastrophic temperatures (taken from the news) solely to pay less tax? You are honestly telling me their only motivation in hiding something that could potentially fuck up their descendants as well, regardless of how rich they are, is solely the fact they would pay slightly less tax?

Honestly now, wouldn't it be easier to just go and live in a tax heaven? How is this not a conspiracy theory?

>>6841756
See comment above

>>6841771
All of them?

>>6841771

Their prediction was quite good. They said that there wouldn't be a "hot spot" over the equator in the troposphere. That's the hall mark of positive feedback ... Something skeptics say isn't occurring.

>>6841771

Global Sea ice not melting away. Yup the skeptics were right about that.

>>6841802
>the epic sea ice argument second time on the thread
:^)

>>6841760

What about when the Bush administration was in power? What were their actions then? They torpedoed each major climate conference, they sent a non-scientist to be the administrator of NASA, who then told scientists to stop talking to the media about climate change and to stop doing research. The release of the CCSP report was delayed by the Bush administration until after 2008, as long as they could have managed. And I'm sure you're aware of all the Republican politicians who, then as now, tried to throw up a cloud of confusion over climate science. There was also the case of the state legislature of South Carolina, which recently tried to outlaw any mention of sea level rise and any funding for research on sea level rise for government-funded scientists.

Was this all a big joke? Did they secretly believe the science and support them from behind the scenes? That sounds ridiculous to me. Your theory only works if the government-in-power always wants to support climate science. That obviously isn't the case.

For the documentation, it's piss easy to find on Google. Let's start with just one sample. Remember Willie Soon, the astrophysicist who claimed to have a landmark paper disproving all mainstream climate science? The paper turned out to be pure shit, which even a college freshman could poke a million holes through. But blogs and sympathetic news editorials trumpeted it, saying he destroyed over 150 years of science that came before. But Soon didn't earn a normal salary. He made at least one million extra dollars over ten years.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon

>>6841771

Climate being largely driven my solar activity and ocean cycles. Yup pretty much correct.

>not supporting global warming
What do you have against Canada and Siberia? Some sunniggers don't matter.

>>6841808

Still correct.

What happened to the OMFG its going to melt and we'll drown!

>>6841820
It's literally melting and expanding sea ice is the consequence
Source is in the thread previous time that argument was pisted

>>6841812

YES YES!!!! Anyone who is a denier is a member of a secret conspiratorial cabal.

Oh my GOD! We've been discovered. Now I won't get my $millions from the Koch brothers.

>meanwhile fedgov will make $billions of carbon taxes. But politicians never lie.

>>6841828
:^)

EPIIIICCCC

>>6841823

melting ice is called water.

>nb4 but Antarctica! You guys will believe anything, Antarctica which is almost always below freezing is having melting ice.

>>6841836
:^)
You are even more retarded then the previous guy

>>6841812
Who the fuck is willie soon? Never heard of him

>>6841785

All of them.

>>6841772

Politics was brought in by Seitz, Singer and all those other guys. Look at the rest of this thread. /pol/ (or sympathetic trolls) are chomping at the bit to talk about how wrong climate change is. That isn't a coincidence.

Paying a slightly lower tax is an enormous deal for the ultra wealthy. We have no idea what massive amount of wealth is hidden away in secret banks and tax havens. Anywhere between 1-10% of global GDP is hidden away, uselessly. But a few thousand people sleep better at night, knowing that their electronic accounts are than other people's.

BTW, I'm not saying that every rich person thinks like this. Warren Buffet thinks this is a huge problem, but without doing anything special, pays a lower tax rate than the average middle class American. Specifically, it is the kind of rich person who believes in Friedmanite capitalism, or he might be an American conservative. Europeans who grew up during the Cold War, who are extremely mistrustful of communism, are also often in this group.

It is not a conspiracy theory because there is detailed evidence of these organizations and their funders. We don't know the full story, but we know enough. The Heartland Institute, Friends of Science, The Heritage Foundation, etc. etc. -- just look them up. Also ask yourself what business these activist groups have in talking so much about their opinions on science.

>>6841842

This was one of two nearly-identical papers published in 2003:

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf

At the time, it was reported on widely, and news sources often presented Soon and co-author Balliunas as heroes:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/25/20030825-090130-5881r/

I won't bother digging up recent stuff, but for years after, "skeptics" milked shit out of those papers, saying that "Look! The science is wrong, because Soon and Balliunas disproved it!" Same with the Oregon Petition and other assorted bullshit. You'll notice that every graphic posted by a skeptic in this thread has been reposted thousands of times in the past. The goal is not to have a real debate, the goal is to introduce seeds of doubt among regular people.

>>6841828

You're a random asshole, and not a guy with a fancy title like "P.h.D. Astrophysicist"

>>6841816

That graph looks weird. And for such a simple graphic, what's with all those JPG artifacts?

I could find for you, twenty sources that say you're wrong about the correlation between solar irradiance and temperature. But I won't post them because you won't read them. Have this easy-to-digest graphic instead.

>>6841836

The Antarctic ice sheet is lose billions of tons of ice every year.

>>6841796

Let's be honest.

You have no idea what a "tropospheric hot spot is."

You have no idea why a tropospheric hot spot might preclude an human cause of climate change.

You've never even heard of the concept, before some "skeptic" told you about it.

You don't know about the massive amounts of evidence for human activity causing climate change, despite it being piss-easy to look up. You don't know about the rising tropopause, the cooling stratosphere, the carbon isotope signatures of fossil fuel combustion, the changes in day-night temperature differential, or the measurement of absorption wavelengths in greenhouse gases.

Until you know about half of these things, do yourself a favour and kindly remove yourself from conversations about climate science.

>>6841771
skeptical science is ran by a nazi cartoonist
just saying
>>6841737
Too bad Spencer is a creationist, no one takes him serious for it. But him and Christy did receive that medal from NASA though....

Something that I'm confused about, global warming is supposed to be caused by CO2 molecules collecting in the atmosphere.

But the Ozone layer is damn near destroyed under Antarctica because of the freon bullshit in the 70's and 80's.

Wouldn't those two fight each other off? I thought Antarctica was gaining ice because of lolnoozone

>>6841890

Read the graph more carefully. Its time-integrated sunspots. The effect is not straight-up linear.

The fact that CO2 goes up AFTER temperatures goes up is a huge hole in the AGW theory.

>>6841882

I take it that you're a non-random asshole. Perhaps just a sphincter. But all this name-calling is irrelevant. The bottom-line is that there is no plausible observation which could falsify Climate Change theory. That means its not science.

>nb4 CO2 not causing warming if all other things are constant. Nobody is saying that CO2 isn't a GHG. It is a weak GHG, and all other things are never equal.

>>6841905

Funny how they didn't include snow mass; which has vastly increased. And very funny how they didn't mention that Antarctic sea ice reached a new world record; contradicting predictions. (which they now pretend they never made.)

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

Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model
G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

>>6842105
>Surely the sea ice argument is good if I just post it third time in the thread
:^)

In the models we trust forever and always
science is only the absolute truth forever unchanging
Hail Science.

>>6841828

>Oh my GOD! We've been discovered. Now I won't get my $millions from the Koch brothers.

>>6841842

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628

>WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - Willie Soon, a U.S. climate change skeptic who has also discounted the health risks of mercury emissions from coal, has received more than $1 million in funding in recent years from large energy companies and an oil industry group, according to Greenpeace.

>>6842069

I like that you need to customize your scale in "WoodForTrees.org" instead of just quoting a good source. It's almost as if you don't know anything about climate science, but would like to pretend to.

>is a huge hole in the AGW theory.

Of course. Everything is a huge hole in AGW theory, the "tropospheric hot spot," the fact that you really really hate Al Gore, and now this fiddling around with sliders.

>>6841940

Unlike you, I do know what the hot spot is about. It is the fundamental signature of positive feedback via water vapor; water vapor being highest over the tropics. The Hadley Cell over the equator causes essentially vertical upward wind currents.

Thus the prediction is that there will be more water vapor (a strong GHG) which will be manifested by the moist adiabatic lapse rate being decreased by increased water vapor in the Hadley cell. The condensation of the water vapor moving up the near vertical (Hadley cell) wind currents happens in roughly the mid-troposphere. It is an exothermic reaction which creates the so-called hot spot.

>>6842140

Wow, great come back. Can't address actual data which contradicts a secular religion.

>>6842113

I'm not the one who did a "look over here" red herring argument about the Antarctic
>>6841905

Pity that the Antarctic sea ice is at a world record level. It would be nice if you could have the intellectual honesty to admit the failed prediction.

Then again: Climate Change = Secular Religion

>>6842105

You're telling me that hundreds of gigatons of snow has magically appeared, more than the ice sheet wastage? And furthermore, these hundreds of gigatons of snow cannot be detected by GRACE, so that the gravitic measurement of Antarctica continues to show up as mass loss? Interesting magic. Maybe snow drawn in from the "accio" spell has no mass.

>And very funny how they didn't mention that Antarctic sea ice

What's with the fixation on Antarctic (as opposed to Arctic) sea ice? Could it be that you don't understand the difference between sea ice in the Arctic ocean surrounded by land, versus the land ice of Antarctic surrounded by ocean?

>contradicting predictions. (which they now pretend they never made.)

What predictions? Who made them? Based on what theory? Where and when were the predictions and theories published?

Do you even know?

>>6842140

The hot spot prediction is fundamental to AGW because it is the signature of positive feedback from increased CO2. Otherwise, you have the weak logarithmic effect which is nothing to worry about.
>>6839558

>>6842141

>It is the fundamental signature of positive feedback via water vapor

What about a fundamental signature of positive feedback via water vapor, as measured by the water vapor concentration? Did you know we could measure water vapor directly with different instruments? Did you also know that the weather balloon measurements, once recalibrated, "found" the "missing" hotspot and put those measurements in line with satellite observations?

> It is an exothermic reaction

Why would you have to mention "exothermic reaction," unless you're trying to sound smart but have no idea what you're really talking about?

>>6842069
>The fact that CO2 goes up AFTER temperatures goes up is a huge hole in the AGW theory.
You mean the fact that CO2 is part of a positive feedback loop? That's elementary climate science.

>>6842161

Snow is not magic. Its snows in the Antarctic. Meanwhile ice mass changes are measured by miniscule changes in gravity. Those tiny changes make no account of changes in land mass (there had been volcanic activity) etc.

You're basically measuring error.

Meanwhile E. Antarctic snow is at its highest level in 900 years.

High-resolution 900 year volcanic and climatic record from the Vostok area, East Antarctica


E. Y. Osipov1, T. V. Khodzher1, L. P. Golobokova1, N. A. Onischuk1, V. Y. Lipenkov2, A. A. Ekaykin2, Y. A. Shibaev2, and O. P. Osipova3

>>6842163

Oh, so the effect of CO2 is weak? Because it's logarithmic?

So Venus must not have a hellish 400-degree surface temperature with its 96% CO2 atmosphere. Because the effect of CO2 is so minimal. Right?

>The hot spot prediction is fundamental to AGW

Just because you keep repeating bullshit over and over again, does not magically make you right.

>>6842161

>What predictions? Who made them? Based on what theory?

Did you even read?
right here:
>>6842105

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

Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model
G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

>>6842161
>>6842176
>still responding
Just report and move on

>>6842182
>comparing earth with venus

>>6842182

Sheesh research it for yourself. Yes its week, you have to DOUBLE the concentration of CO2 to get a mere 1.2 degrees temperature increase.

Yes, you have to EXPONENTIALLY increase CO2 to get a mere linear effect on temperature.

>>6842177

No. They check that theory by looking at CO2 levels and temps in the ice core record. If there was positive feedback, there would be a non-linearity in the temperature record. Didn't find it.

>>6842179

So 500 gigatons of mass is so minuscule, NASA's primitive GRACE satellite could not possibly detect such changes? 500 gigatons amounts to a measurement error?

How do you know this?

And did you know how cold Antarctica is? Did you know how much precipitation is to be expected, if global warming was not happening? You won't get much evaporation when the temperature is -80 degrees Celsius.

Did you know that higher temperatures increases precipitation, because parts of the ice sheet would begin to melt? By fixating on Antarctica, you haven't managed to prove anything about what causes climate change. If anything, higher precipitation demonstrates that global warming is occurring.

In b4
>But I don't deny that global warming is occurring, it's just that humans don't-

Then why are you talking about Antarctica, which is irrelevant to that discussion?

>>6842198
It's a bait dude

>>6842176

Your pathetic resorts to ad hominem are a sad substitute for cogent argument:
>Why would you have to mention "exothermic reaction,"
I said exothermic because the reaction gives off heat, as in HOT SPOT. Sheesh. U sound very insecure.

And yes water vapor has been measured, and no it didn't increase as predicted.

How many failed predictions do you need before you admit yours beliefs are unfalsifiable - a secular religion.

Face it, you have failed in your defense of a secular dogma.

>>6842184

Sorry, just one more.

>>6842189

1.2 degrees? Where did you get that ridiculous, unphysical figure for climate sensitivity? Did you know that if climate sensitivity were only 1.2 degrees Celsius, the Earth's surface would be completely and permanently frozen?

>>6842198

Tiny compared to the ice mass of antarctic which is 24.5 x 10^18 KG.

As a fraction, it is:
0.0000205
Comparatively, it is nothing but noise.

http://www.willstegerfoundation.org/arcticantarctic-resources/antarctic-resources/item/113-how-much-ice-is-on-antarctica

>>6842208

Without feedback, yup, only 1.2 degrees.

Judith Curry says it:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/

And even SkS:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-climate-sensitivity.html

I'm not worried about global warming at all. Humans are absolutely terrible at predicting future crisis. For all of our history we've lamented the lack of farmland and predicted eventual widespread famine and the end of civilization. Every time this happens we pull a rabbit out of our hat and we fix it.

I was in Atlanta last week. I noticed a distinct absence of horseshit on the roads there. This was predicted to be one of the huge problems of the 20th century. Why isn't it piled to the rooflines? Because we invented steam power and internal combustion engines. We don't have to worry about horseshit in the streets any more.

Give us another couple of decades. We'll surprise you. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to tend to my oxen.

>>6839344
>Sure, I'm the selfish one.
carbon taxes will destroy economies. they are already squeezing the fuck out of the US economy, and thats with minimum taxes

>>6841940
you are such a scrub it physically pains me.

>>6842275
>carbon taxes will destroy economies
Completely false.
a carbon tax is a Pigouvian tax, so it is economically efficient.
An economy without a carbon tax has a negative externality, so it is economically inefficient.
So a carbon tax will actually benefit the economy.

Back to ECON 101 with ye

>>6842459
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-liberals-pull-plug-on-key-part-of-climate-change-strategy/article21250599/

A carbon tax is idiotic.

>>6842484
Not sure if you actually read the article

>>6842275
>carbon taxes will destroy economies
That's bullshit.

From European countries that have had long established carbon taxes: Finland and Sweden compensated households with reduced income tax, leaving their economies with slight inflationary pressure, UK and Denmark, and the Dutch somewhat, these countries compensated reduced payroll tax, negating inflationary impacts. In good practice, carbon taxes are meant to be revenue neutral, designed to shift the tax burden of companies to give incentive for them to clean up. Any net profits made by the levying of a tax are fed back into investment programs and incentives so that the government does not find itself relying on the revenue. There's both the threat of a tax, and subsidies for good practice. Denmark is probably best practice with a reduction on payroll tax, building of low carbon power generation and a revenue neutral tax. They've had positive macroeconomic effects in terms of GDP and jobs growth, they remain a highly competitive market.

Carbon-Energy Taxation: Lessons from Europe
OUP

>>6841737
>>6842026
>Too bad Spencer is a creationist, no one takes him serious for it.

Yeah. It's creationism that's hurting his credibility.