/sci/ - Science & Math

Oh man I really don't think we should get a massive debate on, it will rustle a lot of jimmies.

>>7244188
>I think that's the idea

>>7244188
If short term events(volcanic eruptions) can have short term effects on the environment why cant long term industrial practices have effects on the environment as well

because absorption time constant

>>7244183
It's climate change, not global warming. Global warming is too misleading, and generally what people argue against the most.

Also, within the scientific community, there is no debate about whether or not it exists, or whether or not it is casued by humans. The only scientists that debated it seriously was close to thirty years ago. Hasn't been a big pushback since. Even a year ago the most vocal scientist arguing against climate change was discovered to be taking bribes from oil companies. Kind of ruined everything for him, and made me lose all faith & credence to his words.

The only pushback that can be seen is by the layman and politicians in recent times.

>>7244730
>Also, within the scientific community, there is no debate about whether or not it exists, or whether or not it is casued by humans.

This is true, and here are three peer-reviewed studies that examine the consensus:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

What went wrong?
We peaked with Gore and since then no one cares about the climate anymore.

>>7245740
not much can be done about it.
besides, this year we had the coldest winter :)

>no warming in ~18 years
>record high CO2 levels
>Damage control at all time high
>AGW proponents denying the pause even as their priests recognize it and call it a problem and grasp for straws trying to explain it away.
>IPCC forced to revise their future predictions downwards in every edition
>100% model failure
>Public skepticism at all time high

Watching your faith dissolve under your feet is enormously satisfying. It's like a methaphoric re-enactment of Hitler in his bunker.
And it will get even better when the trials begin.

>>7245751
>no warming in ~18 years

can you people PLEASE stop saying this bullshit?

>>7245754
>Maximum denial
Keep moving your invisible armies little Adolph, reality will not adjust to your F A I T H.

To make the case that the recent change is anthropogenic, three points need to be made: increasing CO2 will significantly increase global temperature, the recent changes in climate can be attributed to CO2, and the increases in CO2 are anthropogenic.

Showing that the recent increase in CO2 is trivial. There are several methods to determine how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to humans, one of which is measuring the Carbon 13 to Carbon 12 ratio. A point of contention with measuring the isotope ratio is that volcanoes also release CO2 with similar ratios. However, the amount of CO2 volcanoes release is well documented: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Consequently, a comparison between volcanic and anthropogenic CO2 has been conducted. Here's the peer-reviewed paper: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.pdf

Thus, the majority of the CO2 contribution in recent years can be attributed to human causes.

Am I really the only person who has just come to the conclusion;
"Putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere seems like a bad idea. Let's stop doing that as soon as it's practical to do so."
and thus doesn't give a flying fuck about some stupid debate about whose responsible for what and why?

>>7245766
that is the general opinion, see >>7245740

>>7245760
Increasing CO2 being attributed to humans(due to change in land use and fossil fuel) is accepted by everyone except some really fringe skeptics.

The big issues are
>Is CO2 really a pivotal driver of temperature and will result in predicted temperature increase?
to which the answer is no, because the predicted temperature overshoots observed temperatures by a very long shot

>Would a warmer planet really be universally bad?
Expanded growth zone and longer growth seasons suggest no.

>Can we feasibly do anything about this?
To which the answer, again, is no. The modern world is highly dependent on fossil fuels and will be for the foreseeable future, the only true alternative, nuclear fuel, is demonized by the same groups that think we can turn carbon neutral just by power of will.

>But we can decrease emissions!
Cut 20% of CO2 emissions, so it takes 12 years instead of 10 to emit the same amount of CO2? At a cost magnitudes larger than what's required to end global poverty? And according to IPCCs own (admittedly highly inaccurate predictions) would result in a temperature difference so small that we literally cannot measure.

>>7245760
>Showing that the recent increase in CO2 is trivial.
Increase in CO2 is anthropogenic is trivial*

>>7245766
That's too simple of an approach, especially considering that CO2 is a natural byproduct of burning fossil fuels, which drastically improves our standards of livings.

On to my next point: showing that the change in climate can be attributed to CO2. This is more complicated because there are a lot of factors in determining climate. In fact, climate variability makes it difficult to detect the overall change in short periods of time.
This also makes cherry picking data very easy, so long as one selects the appropriate years and a short enough time. Posted is a graph of a 44 year period (most climatologists examine trends over 30 years at a minimum). Note the variability vs the overall trend.

>>7245784
>>Is CO2 really a pivotal driver of temperature and will result in predicted temperature increase?
>>to which the answer is no

This is demonstrably untrue. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html

In particular, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-2.html

The previous link compiles various studies that research forcing and condenses them to determine which is the largest contributor. Thus, CO2 is the pivotal force in driving climate change, especially if one is to consider CO2 equilibrium. The following peer-reviewed paper discusses such: http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~earpmf/papers/ForsterandGregory2006.pdf

>>7245784
Also, I didn't respond to your three other points because that's not within the scope of the thread's discussion, which is the following:

>Is the climate changing outside our planet's natural fluctuations?
>If so, are people the cause of climate change?

>>7245784
>takes 12 years instead of 10 to emit the same amount of CO2
You have absolutely no understanding of exponential decay

>>7245810
>demonstrably
It helps if you know what a word means before you post it. That's some text and a graph, nothing demonstrated.

Here's another graph with also demonstrably invalidates everything you say.

Also nice job posting a long term graph to disapprove a short term trend. I see your masters of deception are good teachers.

>>7245784
>would a warmer planet be better
>yes
You must be joking

The final point is arguing if the increases in CO2 are causing significant changes. A lot of organizations and independent researchers like to analyze this, and they ascribe from 0.5C to 10C of added global temperature from doubling CO2. Estimates converge around 3C, and as tools and technology improves, the data is suggesting the higher estimates to be more likely. I will link a chapter from a publication that has an easy to read analysis: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

I will also link the following peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates how more, better data is increasing the predicted forcing: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5_5EM_RnlqLZTcxNjU3NGUtMWQyNS00MThiLWJlZGEtYzNhZGU0NGU4NzQ0/view

>>7245835
I linked you to data and sources from reputable scientists that explicitly disagrees with your statement. The methods are explained in their papers, which is the demonstration.

>>7245830
You have no understanding of atmospheric gas dynamics.

>>7245836
Cold weather is associated with higher rate of human deaths.
Cold climate is associated with less plant and animal life. There's a reason why greenland is so sparsely populated and there's a reason why human civilization have risen in an interglacial period.

If you have any argument that's not an appeal to emotion or other fallacy then present it, if not, suck my dick, choke on it.

>>7245810
I almost forgot that 2008 had a major positive spike due to el nino, way to be double-dishonest you cuntfaced liar.

>>7245843
>The methods are explained in their papers

>Radiative forcing time series were obtained from
various sources (Sato et al. 1993; Myhre et al. 2001;
Hansen et al. 2002).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIGO

Also real world observations disagree. If you make a prediction and fail to verify it with an experiment then you're wrong.

>>7245853
>Also real world observations disagree. If you make a prediction and fail to verify it with an experiment then you're wrong.

Do you have peer-reviewed literature claiming such? So far, the crux of your argument is everyone who disagrees with you is a liar, but you have no supporting evidence. Everything I have read suggests that predictions are well within boundaries of error. The following paper agrees: http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

>>7245853
If you're uncomfortable with that data, there are several organizations across the planet who have drawn similar conclusions from the data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

>>7245862
>you have no supporting evidence
18 years of pause:

>charney_report.pdf
>1979

>>7245868
You funny guy.
>If you think that data is garbage, look at this data by the same environmental activist!

>>7245879
>1979
>Predictions are still within boundaries of error in modern data
That's the point.

Also,
>18 years of pause:

This can only seem true to those who examine a particular era, without understanding the science. Here is an analysis: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwdvoC9AeWjUeEV1cnZ6QURVaEE

In particular, page 8.

>>7245904
>Predictions are still within boundaries of error in modern data
It's not.

>This can only seem true to those who examine a particular era
What part of "last 18 years" is so hard to understand to your idiot mind? It's black on white in the satellite record.

>>7245965
>>Predictions are still within boundaries of error in modern data
>It's not.
>>This can only seem true to those who examine a particular era
>What part of "last 18 years" is so hard to understand to your idiot mind? It's black on white in the satellite record.

I am talking about the last 18 years, and I even linked relevant research that explains the past 18 years. However, the same misconception can be applied to different years as well, if you cherry pick.

>>7245965
>>Predictions are still within boundaries of error in modern data
>It's not.
[citation needed]

>>7246020
>I am talking about the last 18 years
Which have showed no warming in both satellite and land recordings. No cherrypicking required. Though you seem to be doing some mental gymnastics and denial exercises to claim otherwise.

>Predictions are still within boundaries of error in modern data
[Citation needed]

>>7246038
I provided citations for both. You have provided nothing.

Global warming is real, but it's also being used by globalist scum as a way of wedging in more world government.

>>7246179
>I provided citations for both.
You linked an unrelated paper that proved nothing about what was discussed.
Here's one that disapproves you: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104390/

>>7244183
This is dumb. Denying climate change is literally the same thing as denying evolution. You said to keep politics out of this, but I have to say that politics creates a safe haven for people to deny science. The mass of evidence supports that climate change due to human activity is real and nothing besides new empirical data should convince you otherwise. If you really want to learn, you should check out nasas climate change page. It's a good introduction.

>>7246278
Either you are being obtuse or disingenuous. When concerning the last 18 years of climate change, I linked you an article from the World Meteorological Organization and referred you to the specific page. This is after explaining climate variability. The information is directly relevant to the subject at hand.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

Video: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html

Don't give it attention and it will go away

>>7245847
What is drought
What is desertification

>>7246038
Apple's stock price has fallen in the past 5 days. Therefore it cannot be increasing.

See how shit your reasoning is?

Real climate /sci/ here,

At the very basic level there are three undeniable simple axioms that suggests climate change is currently happening due to CO2 emission from humans

1. We know from countless controlled laboratory spectroscopy experiment that CO2 has "greenhouse properties; e.g. let visible light pass through but absorb infrared.

2. We know that CO2 rise in the atmosphere is due to mankind. See >>7245760. This is also an undeniable truth. Based on axiom #1, we hypothesize that if you increase CO2, you increase the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere

3. The hypothesis above is proven by radiation measurement from satellite suggests radiative imbalance, e.g. the earth is absorbing more electromagnetic wave (sum of infrared, visible, and ultraviolet energy total from the sun) than re-emiting it back to space. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/)) This measurement from satellite is very simple. (1) you aim the detector towards the sun - there you have total measurement of radiation from the sun. (2) you aim the second detector towards the earth - there you have measurement of Earth reemittance. (3) As the satellite orbits the Earth you integrate over area.

Finally, from conservation of energy law - those extra energy that got absorbed must've increase the temperature of this planet.

From first principles physics, manmade climate change is undeniable. However, we scientists do have a lot of uncertainty with regards to the Earth's sensitivity and how it would respond due to model limitations. A lot of climate scientists unfortunately are unwilling to admit these uncertainties because many of them (including me) believe that the consequences of inaction is so severe that the prudent thing to do is to act even without complete scientific understanding of all the nitty-gritty process.

>>7246496
>I linked you an article about magic heat hiding in the oceans.

You're literally retarded if you buy the heat trap concept.
>hurrr durr it's still getting warmer, it's just that the heat is in hiding due to mysterious mechanisms. Oh it's hiding so well that direct measurements don't support its hidingplace either.
But we're sure of it, because just like our FAITH in the saviour and lord GOD we have FAITH in our destroyer and lord AGW.


>>7246530
71% of the earth surface is water waiting to evaporate and rain down on drough struck areas.

>desertification
something that becomes less of a problem as the earth becomes greener thanks to co2.

>>7246555
cool sticker.
I have one from NASA on the back of my laptop

>>7246555
>there you have measurement of Earth reemittance.
Which only depends on CO2?

>believe that the consequences of inaction is so severe that the prudent thing to do is to act even without complete scientific understanding of all the nitty-gritty process.

Which scares the shit out of me. Because that mentality could lead to catastrophic geoengineering experiments based on what is PURE BELIEF.

>>7246561
You still have not provided any evidence to support your claims nor evidence that dismisses previous evidence as invalid.

>>7246561
Are you trolling? Do you honestly think that increasing CO2 levels will enhance plant growth in arid areas that are now even more arid due to increased temperatures?

>>7246563
Is it better now?

>>7246593
>You still have not provided any evidence to support your claims

My evidence #1 is the countless spectroscopy study of the CO2 radiative properties. Go and check any thermodynamics /atmospheric chemistry/physical atmosphere textbook and go to the radiation section. Evidence #2 is the mauna loa curve posted by >>7245810
Evidence #3 click on the GISS website link I provided. It's the satellite study.

>or evidence that dismisses previous evidence as invalid.
If you're talking about global warming pause, I'm on the camp that we don't know why and we should be open as a scientist why the ECM climate models trails the observation. Oceanographers tend to be sure that the excess heat went to the ocean (ocean warming hasn't stopped despite the plateau in air temperature). Astronomers seem to think it's the minima in solar irradiation. I'm personally not convinced with any of those explanation and under the blessing of this anonymity are willing to admit that the community at large don't know what the fuck is currently happening with regard to the pause. To be honest a lot of the debate is still on even whether it is statistically significant.

But that's science. Sometimes theory doesn't match observation, so we will work harder to make our theory better

>>7246625
Fuck I doxxed myself.

Oh well

>>7246625
>>>7246593 (You)
>>You still have not provided any evidence to support your claims

I was actually referring to the other guy posting. The best he has provided is "you're retarded" or "you're lying."

Sucks about the doxx.

Repostan without me being an idiot and doxxing myself. Goddamn slow satellite Antarctic internet

>>7246563
Is it better now?

>>7246593
>You still have not provided any evidence to support your claims

My evidence #1 is the countless spectroscopy study of the CO2 radiative properties. Go and check any thermodynamics /atmospheric chemistry/physical atmosphere textbook and go to the radiation section. Evidence #2 is the mauna loa curve posted by >>7245810
Evidence #3 click on the GISS website link I provided. It's the satellite study.

>or evidence that dismisses previous evidence as invalid.
If you're talking about global warming pause, I'm on the camp that we don't know why and we should be open as a scientist why the ECM climate models trails the observation. Oceanographers tend to be sure that the excess heat went to the ocean (ocean warming hasn't stopped despite the plateau in air temperature). Astronomers seem to think it's the minima in solar irradiation. I'm personally not convinced with any of those explanation and under the blessing of this anonymity are willing to admit that the community at large don't know what the fuck is currently happening with regard to the pause. To be honest a lot of the debate is still on even whether it is statistically significant.

But that's science. Sometimes theory doesn't match observation, so we will work harder to make our theory better

>>7245847
m8 you cant be serious

>>7246555
do you know james lane

>>7246662
He's not wrong. If you look at it objectively there are both positive and negative effect of climate change.

Opening up the Northwest passage, wiping out the Greenland ice sheet for mining the Greenlandic bedrock and oil, etc will sure create more jobs and stimulate the economy. See pic related. Some benefits of warming planet are also undeniable. Who are we to say that polar bears are more important than the Russian economy

But then at the same time, a lot of people will suffer from rising sea level, flooding, etc - especially the island nations. Problem is that just like air pollution, the negative impact is shared by everyone while the positive impact is concentrated on a handful few (energy companies, mining companies, and maybe several thousands people they employ).

At the end, since we're /sci/ and not /pol/ we should argue on the science rather than the policy and mitigation aspect of climate change

>>7246700
/pol/ does nothing but spew toxic ideologies all day long. There most certainly is a place for policy debates in /sci/ if they pertain to scientific matters.

>>7246712
I think a lot of climate scientists, especially the senior ones with already established careers nothing to lose like James Hansen, Mike Mann and Phil Jones to name a few - were overly aggressive in their policy advocacy to the point of attending Democratic fundraising (for a policy making push), taking picture with politicians who had clear money invested in Green energy like Al Gore (who got a C- in oceanography BTW), John Kerry, etc.

This in turn kind of ruined the entire field in the eyes of conservatives and make the lives of younger climate scientists who is trying to stay objective and not jump in to the policy portion of the debate really hard.

This is also unfortunate because a lot of conservative groups back in the days (and still now) are the strongest advocate for the environment. Let's be honest, a lot of conservatives like hunting, hiking, mountaineering, kayaking etc.

>>7246712
>toxic ideologies
Back to tumblr, there are no toxic ideologies, only weak people.

>>7246729
>strongest advocate for the environment
I'm going to need a source on that.

>>7244183
This is literally comparable to a debate of if gravity really exists.
The only thing truly debatable about climate change is to what effect it will occur and by what timeline.

>>7246744
>I'm going to need a source on that.

http://www.scifirstforhunters.org/membership/conservation

And many many more. If you live in Alaska you might notice that some of the strongest opposition to the Alaksa's oil and gas exploration are local hunters. Latte sipping tree huggers "environmentalists" from San Fransisco and Portland are nowhere to be seen.

>>7245751
A Hitler with Parkinson's disease that can't even hold his pistol straight to his head, and hits just off center, so he jerks and kicks and twitches on the floor of the bunker for hours, seeing the fires of hell getting closer and closer and closer.

>>7245760
You know CO2 is plant food, yes? And that more plant food means more plants, which means more oxygen, which means more people can breathe?

>>7246744
>there are no toxic ideologies

What a stupid thing to say.

>>7245766
You exhale CO2. Why don't you put your own solution into practice and stop exhaling.

>>7244183
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

>>7246800
>http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap6.html#pgfId=111153
Look under the section "Oxygen cycle"

There is 1.2x10^6 Pg Oxygen in the atmosphere. For comparison there is only 800 Pg C in the atmosphere (mostly in CO2), 2000 Pg in soil, 4000 Pg in the biosphere and 1000 Pg in the ocean.

Do you remember back in elementary school what is the stoichiometry of photosynthesis and respiration?

Photosynthesis
6H2O + 6CO2 ---> C6H12O6 + 6O2

Respiration
C6H12O6 + 6 O2 → 6 CO2 + 6 H2O

Both are 1:1 CO2:O2 ratio reaction molecule wise. Do you think the 800 Pg C in the atmosphere and the entire 4000 Pg C in the biosphere could affect the 1.2x10^6 Pg O burden in the atmosphere?

To quote the free textbook that I linked above,
>Simple comparison of these inventories tells us that cycling with the biosphere cannot control the abundance of O2 in the atmosphere, because the inventory of O2 is considerably larger than that of either CO2 or organic carbon. If photosynthesis were for some reason to stop, oxidation of the entire organic carbon reservoir would consume less than 1% of O2 presently in the atmosphere and there would be no further O2 loss (since there would be no organic carbon left to be oxidized). Conversely, if respiration and decay were to stop, conversion of all atmospheric CO2 to O2 by photosynthesis would increase O2 levels by only 0.2%.

This is /sci/ you can't expect to spout bullshit and not being called out. Go back to /pol/ and cry more about multiculturalism

>>7246841
This is /sci/, but remember that it's still 4chan.org/sci/. There will always be trolls and sincere idiots who genuinely believe in the bullshit they spout. My only regret is that the public sphere lends equal weight to their voices as it does to the voices of qualified individuals.

>>7246598
>More evaporation, more rain, less arid areas.
Very straight forward and historically proven, then again you believe in experimentally falsified models over real world observation.

>Stop CO2 emissions!
Modern society collapses because energy starvation, we all die.
>Sequester CO2!
levels drop below what trees need to live, massive plantlife dieoff, we all die.
>Sulphite particles in atmosphere!
Snowball earth. Life have to start over from hydrothermal vent survivors.

I think adapt to changes, as we and all other life have done for hundreds of millions of years is the best and cheapest option.

I feel sorry for you folks that need a death cult in 2015 to spice up your life.

>stop exhaling
No, don't.

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study[1]. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts.

The satellite data show plant life in the United States has especially benefited from rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and gradually warming temperatures. Satellite data show foliage has increased in the vast majority of the United States since 1982, with the western U.S. benefiting the most. Indeed, many western regions experienced a greater than 30 percent increase in foliage since 1982.

Other regions showing particularly strong increases in foliage include the Sahel region of Africa, the Horn of Africa, southern Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and nearly all of Europe.

www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening

[1] Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract

>see this thread

>uh oh, I know how this goes

>ctrl+f 'scientific consensus' 0/0

>ctrl+f 'alarmist'0/0

>ctrl+f 'denier' 0/0

I am proud /sci/, you've avoided the most common fallacious buzzwords employed by both sides of this debate and may in fact be acting scientific, good job!

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in regards to anthropocentric climate change is what effects it may have on the long term glacial cycles, ie is the effect that humans have enough to prevent a future ice age? If so then could that be considered a benefit that may out weigh the medium-term effects of AGW?

>>7244183
The fundamental problem with Climate Change is that it is not a science. As the philosopher of science, Karl Popper pointed out, in order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. And he meant this in a very real way; not just an abstraction (see the quote below). He said, essentially, "every experiment is a falsifiability test." If negative results of experiments do not falsify a theory it's an unscientific testing of the theory.
But all plausible observations are compatible with Climate Change. Whether snow becomes rare, or snow becomes more common; it's all good. Troposphere temperatures go up significantly or they don't, either way, it's OK. If the "hot spot" signature is found, that's proof of climate change, but if it's not found, no problem. Or if the Antarctic sea ice melts or it grows either is compatible with Climate Change. Extreme weather increases or it doesn't increase, well that's OK too.
There is no plausible observation that can falsify Climate Change theory and that is why it is not science.

PS, Here is Popper in his own words: From Karl Popper, "Science and Falsification" published in Conjectures and Refutations (1963).
"Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory"

PPS Originally Antarctic sea ice was predicted to melt.
1. 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
2. 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

>>7246905
>>7246882
If you guys are specifically talking about biosphere expansion, then you guys are absolutely correct. The biosphere is taking up about half of the total carbon emission to the atmosphere, and act as net sink. These effects are well studied and incorporated into the IPCC models. Every single model in CMIP5 (Climate Model Intercomparison Project) shows net increase in "global greening"

To quote a study published in Nature Climate Change,

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n7/full/nclimate2253.html
>We observe a strong trend of earlier spring and later autumn. In contrast to previous suggestions4, 9 we show that carbon uptake through photosynthesis increased considerably more than carbon release through respiration for both an earlier spring and later autumn. The terrestrial biosphere models tested misrepresent the temperature sensitivity of phenology, and thus the effect on carbon uptake. Our analysis of the temperature–phenology–carbon coupling suggests a current and possible future enhancement of forest carbon uptake due to changes in phenology. This constitutes a negative feedback to climate change, and is serving to slow the rate of warming.

As I mention before, there is no shame in admitting that climate change might benefit some regions at the cost of other region. However, think about this - how long can these plants take up the extra carbon? At some point one imagine there is a threshold on plant uptake, just like any other biological process (similar to algae bloom). Also another thing to consider is that would the new shrub and tundra ecosystem in the Arctic region say if we completely melt off Greenland offset all the kms thick worth of melted permafrost methane and CO2 to the atmosphere?

I don't know any of the answer to these questions, but global greening might not be 100% a positive impact on the planet and there is a lot of nuance associated with system as complex as Earth biogeochemistry

>>7246940
So, let me ask you this. Do you think there's a vast conspiracy amongst climate scientists? We need thousands, if not more, scientists around the world to be engaging in the same conspiracy. That is the most "plausible" explanation I can think of to explain the fact that the 99% consensus of experts disagree with your assessment of their models, the predictions of their models, how the facts fit their models, and how their models are falsifiable. I'm really curious. What do you think is going on? How do you explain that? Do you have any sort of scientific training? Engineering doesn't count.

>>7246940
Also, required linking:
https://xkcd.com/675/

>>7246965
Not him but do you have any scientific training in climate modeling?

I'm the USAP guy, a climate modeler and I can say that most climate models, past the basic fundamental physics of conservation of energy, momentum, and mass is full of parameterization to match observation.

Think of it like this, you can model an air mass with certain density and weight moving and hitting together with exact equation of motion. How about plant response to increase CO2? Can you model every single cellular response? Of course not. So climate modelers use parameterized equations to match the observation. For example, terrestrial vegetation reconstruction from Ice Age from fossil is like this when CO2 is half preindustrial, now when CO2 is doubled we have that. Let's write a non-physical parameter saying that plant area =x times CO2 to match observation where x is just a "fudge factor."

If you read the IPCC report, every climate scientists admit that we don't have high certainty with regards to biological response to climate change, how wetland, permafrost, and the forest would respond - because all of these are very hard to parameterize.

I'm totally on the side of AGW, but I also cringe everytime I see people just read that "scientists 95% confident that climate is manmade" and translate that to "scientists 95% confident of their climate models and projections." The scientists themselves never said so, even the most outspoken ones like Mike Mann would admit that we don't know shit with regards to these processes.

So just try to argue with the physical basis of climate change using first principles of physics. Models are just models, they're there because we don't have second earth as control experiment. Everyone, both pro and anti AGW who reads to much into model without taking into account the fucking gigantic error bars we put on them are idiots

>>7246964
>At some point one imagine there is a threshold on plant uptake
I assume you take all your papers from from pre-compiled 'zealots guide to defending AGW' document as while you link some unrelated publication in every fucking post you make you're incapable of googling the optimal plant growth CO2 levels.

>kms thick worth of melted permafrost methane
there's no km thick permafrost methane reserviours and geologic methane will take a very long time to release in the absence of space events that causes the atmopshere to heat up severely.

>>7246965
>What do you think is going on?
Alarmism sells, the old climate scientists that made their fame and fortune of doomspeaking want to cover their asses.

>>7246997
I don't think I committed the faults you attribute to me. I defended the falsifiability of the models, and that the models fit the data (approx). I agree that your method of argument may be superior.

>>7246999
So, I ask again - where are the brave scientists who are publishing papers against the consensus and getting famous? Real scientists get famous by bucking the consensus and showing the consensus is wrong.

So, do you think there's an explicit conspiracy amongst thousands of leading climate scientists? When do they meet? Who is their leader? This is just as foolish as saying evolutionists are engaging in a similar conspiracy against the truth of young earth creationism.

>>7244183
OP here, really enjoying the responses to this thread. Thanks everyone, keep up with the good work!

So as someone neutral on the subject let me ask this, what would be the effect if all of the methane trapped in the polar regions of earth were released?

>>7247029
Methane is a greenhouse gas. Look up some things on permafrost releasing methane. I don't know whether it has the exact same effects as CO2, but from what I've heard, it forms a positive feedback loop.

>>7247029
Maybe another Great Dying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
Maybe.

>>7247010
>where are the brave scientists who are publishing papers against the consensus and getting famous?

Ending your career is stupid not brave. Research depends on grant money and you're not getting any if you're "that denier". You can't make a career out of being climate skeptic because it ends after your first paper that is rejected.

>Real scientists get famous by bucking the consensus and showing the consensus is wrong.
And real knights were gentlement in well polished armor that foughts with honor to protect the poor.

>do you think
After your previous sentence the only thing I think is that you're a colossal idiot that lives in a fantasy world of ideology and zealotry.

>>7247043
It was casused by
>biological factors that act MUCH faster than geological factors.
>appearance of novel highly efficient genes
>ocean conditions where rich organic sediment accumulated in large amounts
>large scale ocean fertilization by mass-volcanic eruptions.
There was NO CLIMATE WARMING LOOP involved to trigger it.

I told you this last time but your faith blinds you to anything resembling common sense.

You might as well claim impact events were caused by CO2 you first rate fucking idiot.

>>7247060
>common sense
>science
Please try again.

>faith
>trusting in the community of established scientists based on past experience
I don't think you know what that word means.

>There was NO CLIMATE WARMING LOOP involved to trigger it.
>[Implying that there is only one possible cause for an effect, and no other cause can have the same effect]
Yep...

>Ending your career is stupid not brave.
This is exactly what the young earth creationists say. And it's just as fallacious now.

>>7247029
A giant methane release would be very bad. Methane itself is stronger than CO2, its lifetime is about a decade IIRC, and it decays into CO2. So you get very warm because of a shit ton of methane, and when it goes away you still have a shit ton of CO2 that still needs to decay, and CO2 has a long lifetime (100 years? I don't remember).

>>7247060
So, I'm curious which stage of denial you have reached. Which of the following do you agree to?

In lab experiments, we have observe that CO2 absorbs infra-red but not visible light.

Barring other factors, increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will raise temperatures by some amount.

There has been a massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last few centuries.

Human activity is the cause of the massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last few centuries.

Now, I hope you're with me thus far. None of this should be controversial, and it's easily sourced. At this point, perhaps you might argue over the severity of the increase of CO2, the negative and positive impacts of warming, and the timeline until we start seeing certain negative and positive effects. Before we get there, I want to make sure we agree to at least these basics.

>>7247073
I expected you to be able to defend your faith but instead you folded with some pathethic whimpers right away.

Oh well, next cultist please.

>>7244730
>Even a year ago the most vocal scientist arguing against climate change was discovered to be taking bribes from oil companies.
This.
Same thing happens with creationists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPyKaH09lpc

Why don't a bunch of skeptics make their own model that addresses their problems with other models and show that climate change isn't happening? Oh wait that did happen and they were in agreement with the current IPCC consensus.

>>7247086
>Buzzwords
>Name calling
>No sources cited
>No evidence at all
>Conspiracy theories
>Ignores posts with credible sources and scientific explanations

You're on the wrong board, m8.
>>>/pol/

I honestly don't mind if you disagree, but you have to bring some science to the table -- some source. Anything, really.

>>7247080
>In lab experiments, we have observe that CO2 absorbs infra-red but not visible light.
It's colorless and it's a greenhouse gas. Yes.
>Barring other factors, increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will raise temperatures by some amount.
Yes. But not according to the models which have a 100% failure rate.
>There has been a massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last few centuries.
In relative terms. In absolute terms it's nothing.
>Human activity is the cause of the massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last few centuries.
Yes, changing land use and fossil fuel use.

Which of the following do you DENY.
18 year pause according to satellite and land records.
Pre-industrial warmer periods.
Pre-historical periods of 2000+ppm CO2

>>7247098

>18 year pause according to satellite and land records.
Your sample size is insufficient.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Your argument is fallacious.

>Pre-industrial warmer periods.
>Pre-historical periods of 2000+ppm CO2
Can you be more specific please what I should be confirming or denying?

>>7247102
Further, your choice of 18 years is cherry picking data. IIRC, it matches up with 1998, which IIRC is one of the high points on the graph in the above link. Choosing that year in particular is cherry picking. It's not even bad sample sizes. It's a dishonest sampling method.

>>7247102
>cherry picks the only land record that doesn't show the pause and claims the opposition is using insufficient data
A true classic. Draw your own graph the next time denier.

>>7247112
The first graph has the title "land-ocean". I don't know what you're talking about.

>>7247119
>I don't know what you're talking about.
Not even he knows what he's talking about.

>>7247105
Not cherry picking. Climate scientists said that 17 years was enough. Specifically, Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models. (2.5% chance to one side of the interval)."Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature." Paper: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105

The NOAA said 15 years is enough:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Paper: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

15 years is long enough for climate scientist Phil Jones of Hadley Climate Research Unit:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Source: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4199.txt

And here is the statistical study showing that the temperatures have flatlined: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

>>7247121
You need to take an intro to statistics course.

>>7247102
>>7247105
The pause is not worth defending m8, especially with respect to models. You're falling into the trap that I mentioned, defending other people's code that you never see/use yourself and have to take it at their words. The golden rule is that if it's not your code, it's not your problem. There is nothing wrong with admitting we don't know and are working on it.

With respect to the pause could be statistically insignificant, could be ENSO (El Nino La Nina) decadal variability, could be solar minima, and could very well be a honest mistake on the modeling community part of wrong parameterization of Earth's sensitivity.

>Pre-industrial warmer periods.
Citation? Are you talking about Medieval warm period (1200BC), Holocene (10ka), MIS5 (52ka) or the Eeemian (130ka)? Each periods had different story to it. None of those periods have been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they're "warmer"

>Pre-historical periods of 2000+ppm CO2
You're talking about Cretaceous?

>>7247119
>"land-ocean"
Call it whatever you want, it's made by a well known climate activist that frequently participate in environut protests and have been arrested several times for it.

GISS also uses notorious smoothing techniques that essentially use urban stations as their gold standard and smear the UHI all over rural areas that lack stations. If they have 3 stations installed next to AC outlets and nothing inbetween for 1000 km they'll smear those 3 stations all over the empty space and call it a good job. Which is how the entire arctic have a giant heat anomality over it in GISS maps despite not having any stations to sample data from.

Of course you wouldn't know anything about the numerous fault because like the people that cook the data for GISS they don't give a fuck about technical correctness as long as the graph shows a cold past and warm present. Of course they're not happy with technical errors and engage in fraudulent corrections too.

GISS is the shit standard of temperature recordings and that you ignore 2 satellite records and several land records in favour of it quite clearly shows your true colors, those of an oblivious or willfully ignorant zealot.

>>7247129
I don't understand. I'm sorry. I think I'm agreeing with you. I must be doing a poor job explaining myself. I'm not saying that there is no "pause". I'm trying to argue that trying to extrapolate from a 18 year pause to conclude "human-caused global warming via CO2 is false" is bad statistics.

>>7247134
>well known climate activist that frequently participate in environut protests and have been arrested several times for it.
What's ad hom have to do with this discussion?

>GISS is the shit standard of temperature recordings and that you ignore 2 satellite records and several land records in favour of it quite clearly shows your true colors, those of an oblivious or willfully ignorant zealot.

Ok. Can you provide a link to your sources (again?) please. However, if it shows a mere 18 year pause preceded by a century of clear warming, I will again have to call you out on your bad statistics and bad extrapolations.

>>7247135
Except climate scientists said that this was a correct extrapolation.
>>7247121

>>7247134
GISS has rewritten the temperature record.

>>7247129
>defending other people's code that you never see/use yourself

You talk about like Manns magic hockey stick generator that always output the same shape no matter the input data?

>None of those periods have been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they're "warmer"
Agriculture and various temperature sensitive insect species aren't enough?
Your argument swings both ways also. There's no proof, not even unreasonable proof, that human influence have done something to climate that natural variation couldn't have done just as well.

>>7247138
>What's ad hom have to do with this discussion?
It's not an ad hominem, it's simply truth about his personal history of being extremely partial.

>a mere 18 year
Enough to falsify the theories. Ironically that use the name scientist when you reject the most fundamental part of science. Of course young earth 'scientists' use the same delusional labeling trick.

>sources
Burden of proof is yours.

>>7247141
>GISS has rewritten the temperature record.
Yes. Several times.

>>7247139
Ok. So some of the models are wrong. Or most of the models. I still don't see how this addresses the basic conclusion of human-caused global warming. CO2 levels are still increasing, and the increase is human-caused. Global temperatures are still increasing on the time scale of centuries - or are you going to dispute that too? Further, we know that CO2 in the atmosphere will have a warming effect. The question for me is merely how much and how soon.

Please try to distinguish the "alarmism" from this basic global warming position. It would help the discussion immensely if you could do that.

>>7247141

>>7247141
Nothing wrong here

>>7247141
Just rewriting history, don't mind me.

>>7247141
>How dare this temperature disagree with my faith?

I could literally keep posting these until the thread limit.

IN 2001 YOU ASTROLOGISTS SAID DARK ENERGY DENSITY WAS 0.72 +/- 0.028, BUT IN 2013 YOU SAY IT IS 0.692±0.010? WHAT IS IT FORTUNE TELLER? COULDN'T LOOK INTO YOUR WMAP BALL CLOSE ENOUGH?

>>7247167
>I could literally keep posting these until the thread limit.
Which will do nothing to convince me. Data dropping unsourced anecdotal data - which is basically what this is to me - will do nothing. I have no idea by what method you chose this graphs over other graphs. You're basically trying to do a metastudy without explaining your methods. Again, your apparent knowledge of statistical is quite bad.

You could engage, and maybe we could make progress, and even change my mind. What do you think about the earth's surface temperature over the last 200 years or so? Has there been an overall warming trend? Are you claiming that the purported warming trend over the last 200 years is a fiction?

>>7247155
The issue is this is another example of unfalsifiability:
>>7246940
If the models worked, this would be "proof" of climate change. But they didn't, but according to you that doesn't matter. This means the models are meaningless; yet the models are instantiations of the theory. And that makes the theory meaningless.

>>7244730
>It's climate change, not global warming

No, global warming is more accurate. Two thirds of the earth is covered in ocean and the oceans are constantly rising in temperature. That's global warming. Because some areas of the land mass are receiving usual weather patters that might be colder than normal for that region is a minor incidental detail. The problem is politicians don't live in the fucking ocean so they don't give 2 shits about it. I say the solution to our problem is relocate all politicians to the bottom of the ocean. Then they'll fucking care what temperature it is...or they'll drown. It's a win win.

>>7247178
The source is NASA. Specifically, former head of NASA GISS, Hansen (1981) and up to date
GISS data which can be found on their website.

>>7247233
So, the source is just some guy? Great. Have you ever read a real academic paper? Do you even understand what it means when I talk about the methods section of a metastudy and the selection criteria and method?

>>7247277
>the source is just some guy?
Yes the source of Giss is just some guy called Hansen. Which is why it's so shit and highly manipulated.

>>7247178
Still waiting on answers.

>>7247277
From reverse image searching and searching quotes, everything seems to be pulled from www.wattsupwiththat.com

For example: >>7247121
and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/

>>7247277
James Hansen was the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS) for many years. He is considered one of the foremost climate scientists in the world. The data in the temperature graphs here:
>>7247141
>>7247156
>>7247167
>>7247233
are sourced.

>>7247314
So no, you don't know the first thing about statistics and methods.

Still waiting for a response to this:
>>7247178

>>7247293
References to the actual papers are given in
>>7247121

>>7247317
So you distrust NASA GISS?

>>7246744
> no toxic ideologies
islam

>>7246802
> reading comprehension

>>7247124
>tripfag got #REKT with academic citations disproving his ignorant nonsense
>resorts to ad hominem

My sides are in orbit.

>Is the climate changing outside our planet's natural fluctuations?
No, there are no supernatural events involved in climate change.

>If so, are people the cause of climate change?
No, greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change.

>this one nigga dropping mad citations
>all them other deniers getting BTFO

This is one of the best threads I've seen in months on /sci/ none of the trending wikipedia /sci/entists bullshit

I'm glad I was able to shitpost in such a great thread

>>7247346
You don't know what "ad hom" means.

>>7245751
>no warming in -18 years

What that really means is

>we had super duper hot year 18 years ago and things haven't been quite that hot since.

That would be fine if climate change meant "every year is hotter than the last"

Looking beyond the issue of climate itself, which has already been beaten to death in this thread and elsewhere, it seems to me an overlooked danger of the climate change issue is the negative effect on the perceptions of science as a whole in the public eye, caused by the politicization of this issue. For example, when the disbelieving public hears the exaggerated claims of human-caused climate armageddon and is doubful of these claims, they may either turn a blind eye to the issue entirely, or make up their mind that its false then search out 'evidence' to support their already established view. 'Evidence' which often comes in the form of a conservative blog which tells them 'those science men are just trying to get your money, don't listen to them!' Seeing science as a thought process as something to be distrusted is obviously not something most of us want in an age of already-low scientific literacy.

On the other hand, a method often used by teachers and public proponents of to convince people of the truth of AGW is this dangerous concept of a 'scientific consensus.' While scientists can certainly form a consensus by evaluating the evidence and coming to the same conclusion, it's important we don't give the impression that science is done BY consensus. At its core, science is about skepticism; ideas need evidence that is proportional to their claims, and drawn from repeatable and independently verifiable experiments and observations. Teaching the public to accept an idea because there's a consensus is anathema to science itself, and would lead to even more pseudoscience and scientific illiteracy in this already demon-haunted world.

>>7247449
Yes.

We also need to teach people that if they are not experts, and if they have not spent a significant amount of time educating themselves, then they need to shut up and listen to the respectable, trustworthy consensus of the proven reliable experts.

Again:
https://xkcd.com/675/

Part of the problem of lack of respect for science is the lack of respect of the scientific establishment.

I agree we need to teach science better. Science is not about listening to the consensus of the experts because we attach the label "experts". We should listen to the consensus because we can look at them, and they have done their work, and they have done the experiments, and they have analyzed the experiments, and most of us here are not properly trained to analyze their results.

In particular, we need to teach people about basic cognitive biases, especially relating to numbers and statistics. One sees a lot of of those cognitive biases and innumeracy in this thread.

>>7247455
Also, we need to teach everyone the principles and lessons found here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/5553

>>7247449
nice

>>7247455
I agree, even exposure to something as simple as the ideas in Sagan's baloney detection kit would be an improvement.

>>7247478
Yepyep.

>>7247233
>>7247285

I believe I found the source. It comes from the following blog: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/motherlode-part-iii/

>>7247756
To supplement this post, all of the changes to GISS are heavily documented: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/

>>7246913
Scientific consensus is not a buzzword.

>>7247756
>>7247779
Steven Goddard is delusional and not a proper source for anything. Just look at him conspiracy mongering by taking phrases from "climategate" emails completely out of context and connecting them to whatever he is talking about.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

>>7247807
It is used as such by people ignorant of the scientific method, or those who wish to decieve people into thinking science is done by consensus. Consensus is irrelevant to the scientific method; facts and evidence matter, opinions don't.

>>7247849
In context, it's useful. When you have a community of scientists who continuously and independently draw the same conclusions from different sets of data from multiple fields, it's a strong implication.

>>7247849
Science IS done by consensus. Any field involving interpretation of data will be argued over and eventually a standard theory will be accepted based on the evidence. This is exactly what happens in climatology, biology, physics, etc. It's ironic that you complain of people being ignorant of the scientific method when you obviously don't know how it works.

>>7247853
It is, but what's relevant truly in that situation is the strength of the evidence that convinced those scientists, not the consensus in and of it self. Also keep in mind I'm stating this as someone fully convinced of the validity of anthropogenic climate change, I just view the way consensus in science is popularly portrayed as dangerous to scientific literacy, as this anon said: >>7247449

>>7247880
You're confused on the chronology though; evidence and experimentation is how science is conducted, if a body of scientists later evaluate and test that evidence themselves and come to the same conclusion as the original party then that's well and good, but such a situation draws validity from obviously well conducted experiments or set of experiments, not from the opinions of the humans involved.
Science is not a democracy, and it is especially not an absolute democracy; it's a dictatorship where the evidence rules with an iron fist and nothing else matters.

>>7246584
>Which scares the shit out of me. Because that mentality could lead to catastrophic geoengineering experiments based on what is PURE BELIEF.

the earth is being geo engineered as we speak, the climate scientists actually want to reduce the scope of this "experiment".

/sci/ let me tell you a story from the olden days. When I was a child, growing up in the 80's/90's, we liked to use hair spray. A butt load of hairspray. Then a bunch of whiny liberal scientists decided that this was a bad thing, so they got everyone to believe that there was a big whole in the ozone. They said in 20 years (why is the BS always 20 years??), by 2010, we wouldn't be able to go out into the sun without a hazmat suit on.

Point is, it's 2015, it's a beautiful day, and I'm about to go lay in the sun. Also environmental "scientists" whine and lie to get attention and make themselves feel important.

>>7246965
large groups of people have been wrong before.

not saying they are all wrong, just saying ad populum is really dumb argument to make.

>>7247928
>You're confused on the chronology though; evidence and experimentation is how science is conducted, if a body of scientists later evaluate and test that evidence themselves and come to the same conclusion as the original party then that's well and good,
I never said evidence and experiment doesn't come first. So no, I'm not "confused". Read what I wrote again, because you clearly don't understand it. You can't interpret data without data.

>but such a situation draws validity from obviously well conducted experiments or set of experiments, not from the opinions of the humans involved.
What does this have to do with what I said? Obviously, the validity of the conclusion is based both on the accuracy of the data and the reasoning for the interpretation.

>Science is not a democracy, and it is especially not an absolute democracy; it's a dictatorship where the evidence rules with an iron fist and nothing else matters.
Again, if you actually worked as a scientist or understood science you would know this is simply not true. It's a fantasy. Evidence by itself is silent. No theory exists solely as data. The standard theory of a field is created from data AND interpretations argued by scientists.

The argument that only the data matters is simply a way to make fringe interpretations and preconceived notions seem equally valid to scientific consensus, which deniers need to do because they can't overcome the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is based on a full account of the data and the expertise of scientists in the field. So they make believe the consensus does not exist or is unimportant, and then slide in their pet argument ignoring all other data and expertise. There is a reason why climatologists have a different view of climate change than deniers, and it's not because of a vast conspiracy. This debate is not a debate.

>>7247967
Not sure if troll but you forgot to mention the problem went away because CFCs are banned.

>>7248218
>the problem went away because CFCs are banned.
CFCs are still in limited use and their atmospheric concentrations are high.

>>7248246
ozone layer is still depleted and there are many ozone holes. but hey at least we haven't destroyed the atmosphere so much in the last 40 years that it's already impacting me when I go out into the sun!

CFC and Ozone holes was an alarmist success story. A call to action was made. Media latched on. Politicians latched on. DuPont latched on and earned a shitload of money off their novel patented gases.

There's no solid data to support it though. Yeah you can react ozone with chlorine compounds in a glass tube but that says nothing about the real world conditions.

We found an ozone hole over the polar regions, not very surprising given that ozone is formed from a photochemical reaction. And this was used as a scapegoat

"Look what we humans have done to the atmosphere! thanks god we found it in time or this would've crept up/down to the equator!"

Real world upper atmosphere measurements don't actually support the depletion hypothesis.

But damn it feels good that we got rid of cheap and nontoxic gases, especially if you hold stock in industrial gas suppliers.

>>>7248282
>ozone layer is still depleted
UV light both forms ozone and destroys ozone. As long as there's oxygen in the atmosphere's there will be massive generation of ozone from UV light. CFC concentrations would need to increase by magnitudes to have a change to overtake this process to any significant degree.
>there are many ozone holes.
2, probably always was and always will be.

>>7248303
>There's no solid data to support it though.
Masses of evidence. The chemical models are based on rock solid catalytic chemistry and correspond very well to observations. You're no different from people who deny evolution because "there's no evidence". Get the fuck out.

>>7248329
>chemical models are based on rock solid catalytic chemistry
The ozone-chlorine reaction happens in vitro as suggested but real world measurements in situ does not agree with the doomsday global ozone depletion scenario.

If one link of your hypothesis fails then the hypothesis is wrong and to be discarded even if the other links are correct.

>>7247756
The source of the data is the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science:

pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

and

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

>>7248720
Right. I was linking to the image source, as to hopefully having the author explain the methodology and reasoning.

What is there to debate? Humans are causing climate change with all of our pollution from cars and other stuff. End of story.

>>7247233
Specific source is NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science:
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
and
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

>>7248728
Check the paper and GISS documentation from here:
>>7248720

>>7244183
what the fuck is that picture???? ive see it everywhere and have no idea what it is...
im very curious. can someone please tell... please

>>7248745
What the inside of your moms anus looks like. The small dot is my dick.

>>7248745
It's a picture of Earth through the rings of Saturn.

>>7248745
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot

>>7248742
I know. However, the original data/graph was altered for comparison. This is not explained in either of your linked the sources, although they are the data the author used. Consequently, it is explained in the blog. He also linked to the papers for the original data.

tldr; the source for the image and explanation of its creation is the blog, not the data links. The data links is the source for the data.

>>7245740
Gore was discovered to be making millions off selling carbon offsets and people stopped listening

>>7247849
Consensus isn't irrelevant to science, but it's just optional icing on the cake of science; it makes it better but it's not a necessary ingredient.