/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8495551
>trying this hard
You're the minority here /x/tard. Fuck off back to your containment board
>>>/x/

>>8495568
So no evidence for global warming being a hoax? Or are you just going to insult my post?

>>8495574
Le xd ur so memy anon xd! Lets go spoop skelebones bak at x/ lmao

something something globalist conspiracy to force us all into tiny apartments with no heating and not allowing us to eat beef because reasons

no seriously that's the most coherent response I get from them when I ask why right wingers deny global warming.

>>8495591
Awwweeeeee ur so hungry for attention!

>>8495551
>>trying this hard
>You're the minority here /x/tard. Fuck off back to your containment board

When the only thing deniers can do is newb level shit posting, i think it is pretty obvious you already have your answer.

>>8495551
biologists have been monitoring real world effects of climate change
>autistic physicists, neckbeard engineers and conservative geologists; "LOL NOPE U IDIET LOL"
4chan is a breeding ground for intelligent idiots
>climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the chinese
>being anti-vax in general because 'MUH COUNTERCULTURE'
>cherrypicking climate data for autistic shitposts
See, the autism was caused by the vaccines, which led to the climate change denial.
OMG its a vicious cycle
>meanwhile all this flouride in the water is poisoning me, it crystallizes in my brain
>>/x/

>>8495591
>le world is ending
>lmao heres some tryhard bullshit about right wingers
Go back to your AGW cultist board to discuss how aliens are silencing the people about global warming
>>>/x/

All (((credible))) climate change information is used to push some kind of doomsday eventuality. Being a former conspiracy theorist, i dont trust anything that threatens me with doomsday scenarios.

Its not "evidence," but I just dont believe CO2 is the leading cause of disasterous pollution that will end human civilization.

>>8495612
>my feelings are more important than facts

>>8495619
>my delusions are facts
omg noes the aliens are coming :o
>>>/x/

>>8495605
>>8495602
>>8495568
>>8494301
>>8494286
>>8494271
>>8494271
>>8493706
>>8493703
>>8493623
>>8493637
>>8493617
>>8493607
>>8493599
>>8485733
>>>>/sci/thread/S8464163#p8465554
>>>>/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470140
>>>>/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470225
>>>>/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470199
>>>>/sci/thread/S8456900#p8459298
>>>>/sci/thread/S8464163#p8465061
>>>>/sci/thread/S8464163#p8465127
>>>>/sci/thread/S8487517#p8487582
>>>>/sci/thread/S8481351#p8481930
>>>>/sci/thread/S8440953#p8450707
>>>>/sci/thread/S8238725#p8238909
>>>>/sci/thread/S8265008#p8265369
>>>>/sci/thread/S8268860#p8275160
>>>>/sci/image/P_Udk5kXvtG5HdQ2lq3vjw
>>>>/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470303
>>>>/sci/thread/S7972081#p7973224
>>>>/sci/thread/S7972081#p7973257
>>>>/sci/thread/S7972081#p7973260
>>>>/sci/thread/S7972081#p7973280
>>>>/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470302
>>>>/sci/thread/S7972081#p7974269
>>>>/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470403
>>>>/sci/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=sjwtard
>>>>/sci/image/O435um6prd2VoH0GM21pjQ
samefag

>>8495619
So, is petrol and coal going to end human civilization?

I don't think it's too outrageous to suggest that it could be a hoax, but that would only work if more people in the scientific community were in on it than I thinks possible.

Unless all of science is a hoax too and we're all living in a simulation.

As people begin to feel insecure about their ideas and beliefs, the personal attacks and the name calling begins.

>>8495628
Duh. we're doomed and were all gonna die due to CO2 emission. and I'm not just saying this because I'm /x/

>>8495634
I think the leading science on climate change are absorbed in confirmation bias.

>the average temperature going up is correlated humans burning gas, it must be the cause! Heres some prophecies.

>>8495628
What's the point in trying to convince you of anything? You already admitted you consider your personal beliefs more important than actual evidence.

>>8495646
I would like to hear about some reasonable outcomes, not some panic driven literature equivalent to the 1950s communism boogyman.

Its not about feelings, I just dont believe its as serious as believers make it out to be.

I was seriously /x/ tier for a long time until i went to uni and came to my senses. Now I take everything with a grain of salt, Is that so hard to believe?

>>8495655
>Its not about feelings, I just dont believe...
hilarious, contradicted yourself within a sentence

What the fuck is going on in this thread?

I mean I don't expect much from 4chan, but jesus Christ, you can't even have any sort of discussion on /sci/ of all fucking places without massive amounts of shitposting.

>>8495655
I'm typing on a laptop at almost 2am so I won't have time for a detailed response, but climate science is just that, a science, not a belief system. There is empirical evidence to support the claims of climatologists and other earth science researchers.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

inb4
>MUH NASA CONSPIRACY

It's a simple and easy to read article that presents where the data that supports the consensus comes from.

>>8495662
>I proved that the climate changes
amazing. I hope you're aware that's not the argument here.

>>8495661
The prophetic results of climate change and climate change causes are more laughable than your weak response

>>8495664
I studied Geology in college, but I also took quite a few environmental and oceanography classes at the same time. I have a pretty detailed understanding of the past climate of the Earth, and yes I know it has gone through many changes. So tired of having to explain this shit to retards, the changes that are occurring now are not on a geological timescale anymore, the changes that are occurring in rates that we can measure directly from year to year, and are correlated to human activity.

Stop being a fucking contrarian. There is ample room for skepticism when it comes to the impacts of climate change, the models themselves, the projections, what's not debated is that it is occurring and anthropogenic causes are leaded to the increased rates of change.

No one denies that the climate has never changed in the past on Earth. In the past we have had sea levels much higher than today, and much lower as well. The problem is what's occurring now can cause things to spiral out of control, and cause extensive damage to our civilization and to species that are critical and unable to adapt to the rapid changes.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The worst part is you can shove all the data, all the support for the models right into people's faces and they refuse to take it seriously because it was snowing outside in winter.

>>8495662
Heres a good reason not to take that website with too much credence: one source per claim. One of the sources states "in light of equipment malfunction."

Now I trust that the climate is changing, there is no doubt about it. However, the extent of human contribution and the disasterous results is what Im highly skeptical about.

>>8495682
Yes, let's not trust NASA, who actually is one of the largest climate research organizations out there. Next you're going to tell me we can't trust NOAA, or any independent researchers collecting data themselves.

I'm posting the NASA links because it's so clear how uneducated the average person is on the mere basics of climate change, especially when the information is freely accessible to anyone with a computer.

>>8495680
Based geology anon is correct
t. Marine biologist

>>8495680
>The problem is what's occurring now can cause things to spiral out of control
According to what? UN computer simulations? You are obviously wrapped up in the climate doom prophecies generated by the climate priests. If you took geology and geological history you would know the prevailing theory is that ice ages are becoming more common, earth is cooling and out gassing is decreasing over geological time. If anything we are preventing another ice age according to the "science" but the only science in the AGW meme is social science as a means to an ends, voluntary energy reduction because if some global totalitarian energy - AGW board just decided to start rationing civilian energy consumption in the oil age some people might have a problem with that. What needed to happen was have a segment enforce it voluntarily under the guise of "saving earth". Your kind will be remembered, after the lights go out, as the kind who enabled the new age dark ages to save earth. The new age fundamentalists propelled by their spoon fed data points and mountains of AGW dogma. I mean what else could you possibly be enabling? There is no such thing as green energy and all energy is renewable over time.

>>8495551
Well obviously they have proved that CO2 doesn't reflect IR radiation.
/s

>>8495719
>ice ages are becoming more common, earth is cooling and out gassing is decreasing over geological time
Source?
Also out gassing decreasing over geological time would mean that atmospheric CO2 should be decreasing, and yet it's increasing rapidly. Why do you think that is?
>science isn't real because it leads to conclusions I don't like
Pretty much sums up all the counterarguments in this thread.

>>8495639
Preach

>>8495719

>blah blah blah I'm not going to discuss real evidence but go on a rant about conspiracy theories blah blah blah

Boy I love how people these days feel that their opinion is the only reality that could be true, simply because they came up with it

>>8495680

>mfw I see the amount of denial and skepticism even when confronted with evidence multiple times.

I remember back in the early 2000s when the polar caps were meant to be all gone by 2012 due to "global warming", then when the predictions never happened (ice levels actually improved) they (((revised))) the numbers and now 2016 is the hottest year ever.

Also
>what evidence do you have for for a global warming being a hoax?

That's not how proving works, anon

>>8496100
That's really interesting, do you have a scientific paper supporting that conclusion? I honestly didn't know this was mentioned in scientific literature.

>>8496100

Yeah man. I remember when cartoons in the 60s used to show man living on the moon. Clearly science is bullshit and we should stop wasting our tax dollars on these eggheads and their obviously stupid predictions.

>>8496102
When Watergate happened they actually had to present evidence to prove it happened. Now all it takes to "prove" a conspiracy is the amount of time to write it out on the computer and upload it online. If there's actually a hoax going on there would be tons of evidence.

>>8495685
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams

I trust this, but I dont trust the equivalent to climate wikipedia (NASA).

>>8495551
>what is the burden of evidence

>>8496214
Same applies when making claims that any scientists presenting evidence you don't like are in on a hoax. Prove it with evidence. If you can't prove that then actually use evidence to explain why the earth is warming and why atmospheric CO2 ppm is increasing.

>>8496226
>correlation is always causation
>there is evidence of human caused global climate change

Great memes pal

>>8496238
So then what is causing the earth to warm? What is causing the rise in CO2 levels? Surely you have answers to these?

When can we expect 800ppm? My plants want to know.

>>8496251
CO2 increases plant growth to an extent but there are more important factors when it comes to crop yield. For one thing CO2 is rarely the limiting factor for growth. And if you studied biology or chemistry at all you'd know that the limiting factor is everything. No water = no growth, too much water = flooding = asphyxiation = death.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378003000827

>>8496241
The earth isnt warming, its climate is changing.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/
People are causing the increase in co2, but theres no evidence that co2 has anything to do with global warming.

>>8496263
>the molecule that plants get all of their carbon from does not seriously limit growth
>b-but m-m-muh red herring-g!!!!

>>8495655
>I would like to hear about some reasonable outcomes, not some panic driven literature equivalent to the 1950s communism boogyman.
Then read the actual papers they cite instead of getting information through the filter of the sensationalist media.

>>8495655


In the 1950s communists weren't 'bogeymen', they were real. McCarthy was basically correct, he lost because ironically he underestimated the influence of what he was up against.

>>8496269
Great non-argument, why don't you try growing some plants in 800 ppm CO2 but no water and tell me how that works out for you.

>>8496315
Nobody was discussing the importance of water in plant growing, you red herring-pointing-to autist.

>>8496263
I control their climate.
I record experimental data.
I want to know when 800ppm.

>>8496265

>The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859.[7] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896

>>8496336

You are because the availability of water is influenced by the climate, and the climate is influenced by the concentration of greenhouse gases.

>>8496265
>the earth isn't warming
Source? What you've given discusses el nino/la nina, it's not discussing global average temperature at all.
Not only is there evidence that CO2 increases temperature, there are clear cut equations that predict the warming effects it has.
http://www.globalwarmingequation.info/calc%20temperature%20increase.pdf

>>8496336
I never said CO2 doesn't increase plant growth when all the other limited factors are satisfied. I was pointing out that increasing a non-limiting nutrient will not increase growth which is what he was implying.

And ... I win

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html

>>8496353
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/argodata.jpg
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Argo_Heat_Content.jpg
https://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/nasa-sea-level-data-satellite2.jpg
http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/content/GMSL_TPJAOS_199209_201206.JPG

Even if there was any form of evidence the earth was warming, you still don't get to magically causate co2 to the temperature change. Stop parroting shit you hear on the news, its not complementing to your aspergers.

>>8496375

>a bunch of unlabelled graphs from denier websites without any explanation whatsoever
>doesn't understand the causal relationship between greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect

You tried

>>8495551
>extrapolating the final 1/20,000,000 of earth's oscillating climate change
Follow real scientists.

>>8496416
>the creator of the graph doesn't know about Milankovitch cycles and feedback loops
top pleb

>>8496420
Makes this point no less valid
>>8496416
>extrapolating the final 1/20,000,000 of earth's oscillating climate change

>>8496391
>>8496420
>being this desperate
How does it feel to spam the same awful meme and be wrong every year for over 25 years schizo ?

>>8496423
And what is his point exactly? What "real scientists" am I supposed to be following? What does ">extrapolating the final 1/20,000,000 of earth's oscillating climate change" even mean? His graph says we don't understand long term climate cycles but we actually do.

>>8495551
climate change denial is a hoax in itself.
More that 90% of all scientists are fucking sure about it. The rest is fucking paid by lobbyist.

>>8496423
>Makes this point no less valid
You're an idiot.

>hay guise i don't know what rectangular form is but you should check out my paper on the riemann hypothesis... its totally legit

>>8496375
>you still don't get to magically causate co2 to the temperature change
Purposefully ignoring the greenhouse effect and all the science that explains how CO2 causes warming is pretty scummy.

>>8496446
reptilian denial is a hoax in itself.
More that 90% of all scientists are fucking sure about it. The rest is fucking paid by lobbyist.

>>8496448
>>8496438
It means you cannot predict the future based on a miniscule snippet of evidence.
Humans have a negligible impact on "global warming". Your trend would've happened with or without humans.

>>8496458
>It means you cannot predict the future based on a miniscule snippet of evidence.
No one is predicting the future on the scale in the graph you posted, so this point is nonsense.

>Humans have a negligible impact on "global warming". Your trend would've happened with or without humans.
Post your evidence for this or fuck off. Humans are responsible for all of the current warming trend observed, and there would be more warming if natural sources didn't have a net cooling effect.

>>8496465
that scale wasn't all-inclusive dumbass. It was a picture to help you brainlets see just how small this "global warming" tend is.
Climate oscillation. Google it. It's more than "just a graph someone posted".

My evidence is the graph (petit et al), among with many others https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation

You'll have to do better than just saying its wrong because "I said so".

>>8496489
What is it being small relative to the timescale of mikankovich cycles supposed to show? If anything the rapidity of the warming is a cause of concern, not a reason to think AGW is insignificant.

And milankovich cycles are not evidence that humans are not causing current warming. Again where is your evidence that contradicts the greenhouse effect and radiative forcing measurements? Mikankovich cycles cannot explain current warming because they are on a completely different timescale, not to mention that we are at the end of an interglacial period, not the beginning when warming occurs. So you are just spouting nonsense and hoping no one will notice.

>>8496391
>muh greenhous effect
>muh illiteracy

why are the oceans cooling and the polar ice caps not melting at an accelerated rate, anon?

>>8496570
Until evidence is provided to support the conjecture that humans influence global climate change, the default position is to believe the climate of earth is natural to earth.
Also, why is the earth significantly cooler than it was millions of years before the first known homo sapiens existed?

>>8496589
>hy is the earth significantly cooler than it was millions of years before the first known homo sapiens existed?
>what are milankovitch cycles
get the fuck off this board

>>8496577
>oceans cooling
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/trend/plot/hadsst3gl

>polar ice caps not melting at accelerated rate
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

Why are you lying?

>>8496603
>straw man XD lol idk how to argue
The earth is literally the coldest its ever been right now, milankovitch cycles have nothing to do with this.

>>8496589
>Until evidence is provided to support the conjecture that humans influence global climate change
I already posted the evidence, the radiative forcing measurements which proves the greenhouse effect from CO2 accounts for all observed warming. You just keep ignoring that the greenhouse effect exists. You have no argument, lose.

>>8496612
>literally the coldest its ever been
You do realize that the earth has been much, much colder than this, right? Or do you think the earth is only 65 million years old?

>>8496589\
>Also, why is the earth significantly cooler than it was millions of years before the first known homo sapiens existed?
It's because of that thing you keep pretending doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Climate

>>8496611
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
You linked the blog of a "British software developer and practically-oriented environmentalist and conservationist".
>muh biased cherry picking

Argo found a rapid decline in ocean temperature after 2003.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027033/abstract

>>8496618
coldest it'sever been during the existence of humans*

>>8496626
So since we're allowed to skip across scales, I'll one up you and disprove your statement by saying that the last two decades have been warmer than the two before that.

Humans have lived in one paleoclimatic period. It makes no sense to say 'the coldest it's ever been' in this context because the scale is arbitrary. Get educated, faggot.

Land surface station data is 100% fake, and thats what they base their global warming meme on

H2O is the dominant heating/albedo effect, and its totally ignored by these warmists because they can't model it

All in all, these are political entities pushing a political goal, science is just a side issue.

>>8496623
>You linked the blog of a "British software developer and practically-oriented environmentalist and conservationist".
Actually I just linked to a graph automatically created from HADRUT data with no input from any blogger. Nice try though.

>muh biased cherry picking
This is hilarious considering the study you posted was corrected a year later by its own authors:
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/heat_2006.pdf

>Two systematic biases have been discovered in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work.

You are a massive hypocrite.

>>8496626
>Why is the earth significantly cooler than it was millions of years before the first known homo sapiens existed?
>coldest it'sever been during the existence of humans*
Watching you lie and contradict what you just said a few posts ago is entertaining. Keep going.

>>8496614
>radiative forcing proves greenhouse effect from co2 accounts for global warming
what warming lmao? you're very dense.
gisp2 found that earth is as cool now as it was during the coldest point of the most recent ice age. your greenhouse gases do not causate global climate change, as is evident.

>>8496626
>coldest it'sever been during the existence of humans*
That was 26,000 years ago, not now.

>>8496647
>government funded studies about a government movement that stands to make hundreds of billions off taxing the flow of energy is 100 percent correct and if they say any scholarly independent body of peer-reviewed research is wrong is must be.

>>8496659
This warming

>>8496666
>ids frum de gubberment
Not an argument. You lose.

>>8496666
Funny how you had no problem posting the (((government))) study when you thought it supported your conclusion (but actually was just incorrect).

>>8496667
>surface station data
>don't even have surface stations over most of the world

Junk graph

>>8496680
Wow, it's like you can't stop lying.

>>8496678
Argo is not government funded.

Anyone notice that all the deniers in this thread have no real argument, but rather resort to attacks or fallacies?

>>8496698
>makes a positive claim
>has no valid evidence to back claim
>hur durr deniers r BRUTES! btfo dummys!!!!

>>8496695
>Argo is not government funded.
Wrong again. ARGO is funded completely by government dollars and is overseen by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Not to mention that the researchers who made the study you posted are employed and funded by NASA and NOAA, you dunce.

>>8496706
http://search.sciencemag.org/?q=Climate%20change

Literally hundreds of studies

>>8496706
You're just pretending the evidence doesn't exist. You keep claiming the globe isn't warming even though all measurements show it is. You keep pretending the greenhouse effect doesn't exist even though basic physics and chemistry show it does. You keep saying the effect is negligible even though direct measurement through radiative spectroscopy shows it is. All of these have been posted in this thread, you liar.

>>8496724
Okay... climate change is happening... nobody is arguing that. You're claiming that the earth is exclusively warming and it is necessarily due to human activity. Where is your evidence supporting your conjecture?

And.. if you take into account the effect of CO2 on the microbes that make rain fall - we may be completely fucking the planet for good - killing them kills us all

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

>>8496742
In the very same link if you would simply look at the the articles.

>>8496742
>nobody is arguing that
People here are arguing exactly that.

>>8496746
show me a scientific paper, not magazine articles. your concern trolling is very weak.

>>8496750
>magazine articles
0/10

>>8496750
>doesn't know Science
What a spectacular way to show that you're not even an undergrad yet

>>8495619
>I believe I can forecast the future, even though I place judgment day anywhere from 2 years away to thousands of years away
>this is fact

>>8495639
And that is why outright deniers exist. They see AGW as a church, and its followers are like extremely hostile and insulting Jehova's Witnesses. Thus people say "fuck them, and fuck what they are peddling".

>>8496765
Just like the Church of Darwinism, the Church of Vaccines, and the Church of Ball Earth. You're so right.

>>8496772
>the Church of Darwinism
Somewhat ironically, there are actually quite a lot of people that think like this

>>8496765
>>8496772
>samefagging this hard
>>>/x/

>>8495634
>would only work if more people in the scientific community were in on it than I thinks possible
Many (weasel word, I don't know the proportion) climate scientists rely on funding from the UN and other interested organizations in order to do their work. If you repeatedly produce studies that don't support the 'consensus within the scientific community', then they aren't going to be interested in funding you any longer, are they? This is a self-reinforcing 'concensus'. Similarly, BP would have no interest in funding a climate scientist whose samples indicate that the sea will probably boil away in 10 years.

>>8496265
>People are causing the increase in co2
What, so all other sources have just stopped?

>>8496772
Funnily enough, the scientific consensus throughout most of Darwin's life was that Darwin's conclusion of the existence of "descent with modification" was bullshit. Similarly, the scientific community rejected the findings of Doppler, Krebs, Mendeleev, Goddard, Tesla, Pasteur, etc.

>>8496778

>>8496782
Natural sources absorb more CO2 than they emit.

>>8496803
Can you give an up-to-date volume of CO2 intake and emission by natural sources?

How can you even measure those, by the way?

>>8496791
Wrong again, there was never a scientific consensus against Darwin. There was vigorous debate and then consensus that Darwin was correct 20 years later. Stop making shit up.

>>8495551
If you were to double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would result in a change of global temperature roughly 1 degree celcius. If you were to double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere a second time, you would've exceeded the total current estimate of existent fossil fuels on earth. This would result in a temperature change of roughly 3 degrees celcius.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-much-will-earth-warm-if-carbon-dioxide-doubles-pre-industrial-levels '

Climate change feedback curve is a rectangular hyperbola, proper calculations of atmospheric CO2 feedback about the origin is less than a quarter of the majority of published calculations that take data from the hyperbola approaching infinity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=gPg68sq4wvIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

There is no causative link between global average temperature change and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/temperature_co2_change_scientific_briefing.pdf

>>8496809
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html

>>8496811
Vigorous debate came shortly before his son died. Before the vigorous debate, his theory was treated as implausible by secular scientists and heretical by the religious ones. Stop making shit up.

Good job ignoring everything else to nitpick the one thing you think is wrong, in typical /sci/ fashion.

>>8496830
Nope.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Early_impact_of_Darwin.27s_theory

>>8496800
>samefagging THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS hard

>>8496847
What the fuck is that?

>>8496851
an image that has been saved, edited, compressed at 75%, then uploaded.
An unedited, uncompressed at 75% image uploaded to 4chan would have a much lower error level (pic related, earth and hand are unedited, fire was added in after).

>>8496818
>If you were to double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would result in a change of global temperature roughly 1 degree celcius
Lie. Most recent estimate is 3 degrees.

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

>If you were to double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere a second time, you would've exceeded the total current estimate of existent fossil fuels on earth.
Lie.

http://www.universetoday.com/11066/what-if-we-burn-everything/

>There is no causative link between global average temperature change and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Purposefully ignoring the greenhouse effect and direct measurements of radiative forcing only signals to people that you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>8496667
>takes 1/20,000,000 of a graph
>extrapolates
This is why no real scientists believe you

>>8496863
The image was print-screened, pasted into MS paint, cropped, and uploaded. The error level is inherent to MS paint's shitty compression. Your analysis doesn't tell you anything, and none can because I didn't post both posts.

>>8496760
I'm sorry, what's your PhD in? Propaganda and using logical fallacies?

>>8496883
>takes 1/20,000,000 of a graph
>extrapolates
This is so stupid on so many levels. For one, the paleo record can only be explained when you take into account the greenhouse effect which you keep ignoring. And you can't "extrapolate" the modern warming trend from what came before, because the cause is different. Climatologists are not ignoring the paleo record. You're spouting utter nonsense.

>>8496863
What photoshop wizardry is that though

>>8496863
Here do the same thing to the attached and you'll see the same thing.

>>8496803
>Natural sources absorb more CO2 than they emit.
Don't make me laugh.
How do you explain the previous fluctuations of CO2? Or did you mean they absorb more than they emit on a cherry picked fraction of a period?

Daily reminder to not argue with /pol/tards, they don't argue in good faith and they have no intention of changing their opinion if proven incorrect

>>8496913
>poltards
Why do SJWtards love to spam this word in every irrelevant thread?

>>8496901
How does the greenhouse effect have anymore impact today than it did before humans?

>>8496918
> muh persecution complex
>>>/po/

>>8496880
You are entirely ignoring the significance of the hyperbolic climate change feedback loop, the multiplier of CO2 to global average temperature change that LLNL concluded is using data points from the edge of the hyperbolic curve approaching infinity (an incredibly unlikely and patently absurd assertion) whereas it is more likely we will see climate change feedback in accordance to values about the origin, resulting in roughly one quarter of the temperature change predicted by LLNL.

You are also entirely overlooking the other anthropogenic forcings on climate change, the aggregate of which (including CO2) has a slightly net-negative affect on global average temperature.

https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Pic related, projected temperature increase by IPCC (using their wrong extrapolation of climate change feedback curve) vs actual recorded temperature.

>>8496918
Thanks for proving me right on the not arguing in good faith part.

>>8496924
>lmao poltard poltard I win lelelelele xDDDD
If thats the extent of your argumentational skills, it's clear why nobody wants you here.

>>8496913
I don't believe we have enough data to predict the future of our climate from the aftermath of the industrial revolution.
At this rate, we'll find substitutes for energy, even inhabit other celestial bodies before we can prove we have an impact on the climate change of our 4 billion year old rock.

>>8496911
>How do you explain the previous fluctuations of CO2?
CO2 levels in the paleo record were dominated by the effect of Milankovitch cycles. Orbital eccentricity of the earth caused warming, which caused oceans to release water vapor and CO2, which caused more warming via greenhouse gas effect. Then orbital eccentricity would slowly lead to temperature decreasing and oceans absorbing more CO2. This is why you see Ice Ages ending quickly and starting slowly. However this is on a timescale much larger than the one we're talking about, in which humans have rapidly increased CO2 levels over only a few decades.

>Or did you mean they absorb more than they emit on a cherry picked fraction of a period?
No, I mean that if you look at the annual CO2 flux, plantlife has a large net absorption of CO2, oceans have a small net absorption of CO2, and the only net input is the human one. Humans are actually responsible for more CO2 emissions than the net global increase in CO2 emissions. This is all on the standard annual basis. See >>8496823

>>8496920
When did I say it does? The greenhouse effect is exactly the same, what's changed is the source of CO2 and how fast it's being emitted.

>>8495551
What exactly is the argument of the AGW people? Every time I see them, they're totally confused about what theory they should be defending.

>>8496933
>global warming has always historically been caused by natural cycles of the earth
>BUT NOW ITS PEOPLE IM SURE THE NEWS TOLD ME! THE GOVERNMENT TOLD ME! ITS TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE!!!

>>8496938
Humans have a negligibly small impact

>>8496923
Monckton has no idea what he's talking about

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/

>>8496948
>CO2 increases have always increased the temperature from the greenhouse effect
>But human emitted CO2 isn't because that would mean I'm wrong
Moron.

>>8496958
Empirically false. See >>8496465

>>8496923
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q

>>8496990
>No u post evidence
That proves nothing

>>8495568
>You're the minority here
Actually, you're the minority here. I can almost smell the human faeces melting off your skin, stormfag.

>>8497005
>I-I just know your skin color with zero evidence
protip : every dumb racist post you AGWtards shit out hurts your already demolished credibility. not that you ever bothered with evidence and shit

>>8497002
That proves that the human contribution is not only a significant portion of, but is greater than the net forcing on the climate. If you want to argue against it, I suggest you tell me how spectroscopy of infrared radiation is wrong. You know, actually put up an argument instead of "That proves nothing."

>>8497022
See
>>8496489
Your graph has no sources.

>>8497034
>See >>8496489
See >>8496570
There is nothing in this thread that contradicts the radiative forcing measurements and you know it.

>Your graph has no sources.
Read the name of the image

>>8497038
>ipcc_rad_forc_ar5
What is this? APA for cs majors?

>>8497041
No, it's the source.

>>8497013
>He's using the stutter downplay

>>8497069
>racist AGW cultist tears
lmao

>>8497038
>There is nothing in this thread that contradicts the radiative forcing measurements and you know it.

>>8497096
So you admit the anthropogenic forcing is significant. Good.

>>8495551
>trying for for a global warming to be a hoax
>for for a global warming
>a global warming
>a
>global warming
>for for

>>8495551
Fuck off back to >>>/x/ retard

>>8496920
Because today it is impacted by and impacts upon humans. If we don't deny the GHE (we shouldn't, frankly) we have to accept a massive build up of CO2 in earth atmosphere proceeded massive temperature changes, sea levels and biodiversity. Humans live mostly on coastlines, we consume massive amounts of different plants and animals. We remove carbon sinks in the form of forests and tropical rainforests. we put gases into the air that have green house effects(forget the "percentage compared to other sources", we do this). If that satus quo changes, so does human society.

>>8495551
poll-americans-not-concerned-about-climate-change (1 year ago)
Only 3% think climate is a top issue, 97% don't think so. Isn't that funny.

>>8495619
The FACT of the matter, is that a couple hundred million years ago, when the planet was hospitable to multicellular life, there was an entire continent COVERED in lava. CO2 separates from lava as it once was sublimated into the surface rocks. On top of this, every 100,000 years or so a supervolcano erupts, depositing suppsedly catastrophic amounts of CO2, SO2, etc into the atmosphere, in amounts that exceed the entirety of humanity's CO2 emissions since we first burned wood.

See, there will NEVER be a runaway greenhouse effect on this planet, as we are entering a rebound Milankovic cycle, and the amounts of CO2 that are being produced will NEVER be enough to cause runaway greenhouse effects, since there have been far higher CO2 concentrations in the past in the Earth's atmosphere, before oxygen and nitrogen dominated, yet a greenhouse effect never took hold. This is precisely because we are in the "Goldilock's zone".

Now, as a caveat, I am NOT denying anthropomorphic climate change, as it is scientific fact. However, it is hyperbole to assume we can make the Earth inhospitable, simply by burning fossil fuels. The worst case scenario for all models that aren't funded by Gore/Soros/etc all say that ocean levels may rise a fraction of a meter over the course of a few decades, and that at worst, global temperatures will rise a few degrees Centigrade.

It is not far-fetched to look at Gore's hysterical "An Inconvenient 'Truth'" as simply a viral marketing campaign to popularize a massive tax hike on energy, and to put businesses associated with the Republican party, namely coal, gas, and oil companies, out of business. You have to be a fool to think we're all doomed.

Take off the tin foil hat, it is trapping heat in your head, and causing brain damage.

?You evil humans are making goddess mother earth cry with your breathing and industry, you need to absolve yourselves of your sins by giving all of your money to global banks because a global tax on all nations given to unaccountable financial lobbyists is the only way we are going to save the earth from the evil that is humanity!

>GIVES MONEY PLOX, KTHANXBYE!

>>8497210
>You evil humans are making goddess mother earth cry with your breathing and industry, you need to absolve yourselves of your sins by giving all of your money to global banks because a global tax on all nations given to unaccountable financial lobbyists is the only way we are going to save the earth from the evil that is humanity!

>Our global warming strategy is to continue denying the existence of global warming while demanding money to mitigate its effects.

http://www.local10.com/news/miami-beach-resident-claims-tides-swept-octopus-into-garage

>>8496667
Wow! A massive rewrite of temperatures in a mere 8 years.

"Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade . The least squares trend for January 1999 to December 2008 calculated from the HadCRUT3 dataset is +0.07±0.07°C decade – much less than the 0.18°C decade – recorded between 1979 and 2005 and the 0.2°C decade – expected in the next decade . This is despite a steady increase in radiative forcing as a result of human activities and has led some to question climate predictions of substantial twenty-first century warming."

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

>>8496667
Its almost as if they forgot that we can look up the old NASA/NOAA temperatures records...

Which get rewritten

Over

and Over

and Over

>>8496667
>>8495551
Wow, why do the Satellite land temperatures show so much less warming than the Urban Heat Island tainted thermometers?

>>8497423
>>8496667
>>8495551
>Wow, why do the Satellite land temperatures show so much less warming than the Urban Heat Island tainted thermometers?

And look how the Satellite troposphere temperatures warm much slower than the Urban Heat Island tainted thermometers. I just don't understand. And notice how the stratosphere temperatures have not cooled in more than 20 years, completely contradicting climate change predictions.

>>8497431
>>8496667


And why is the troposphere warming at a slower rate than the thermometer measurements.
>>8496667
This contradicts Climate Change theory, something Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA GISS admitted, see pic.

>>8496880
>>There is no causative link between global average temperature change and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
>Purposefully ignoring the greenhouse effect and direct measurements of radiative forcing only signals to people that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, that explains why increases in the rate of temperature change happen BEFORE increases in the rate of CO2 concentration change.

>>8496880
>>If you were to double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would result in a change of global temperature roughly 1 degree celcius
>Lie. Most recent estimate is 3 degrees.

> Wikipedia
> Unbiased science
More like about 1 degrees C.

The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye

Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C

Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C

Revised 21st century temperature projections
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

>>8495551
Global warming is real. The problem is all if not 95% of the funding going to politicians pockets and none for science

It's kinda of a meme, but not really, but kinda is

>>8497443
>>8496880
Sensitivity is about 1.0 degrees C buddy. Don't care what Wikipedia says.
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
- Andreas Schmittner et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.6 °C

Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, November 2011)
- Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
- N. P. Gillett et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-1.8 °C

>>8497447
>>8497443
>>8496880
>wikipedia crap
Alarmist sources debunked:

Libardoni and Forest (2013)
This model–observation comparison Bayesian study (actually a corrigendum to a study originally published in 2011) uses an informative ‘expert’ prior distribution for ECS and an inappropriate uniform prior distribution for ocean heat uptake efficiency (the square root of ocean effective diffusivity, Kv). Use of such prior distributions will have biased, most probably upwards, the study’s ECS estimate. Using one surface temperature dataset, Libardoni and Forest find ECS to be lower,Kv
to be completely unconstrained, and aerosol forcing to be more negative, than the other two datasets are used. Yet with green-house gas forcing being offset to a greater extent by negative aerosol cooling and more heat being absorbed by the ocean, energy conservation implies that ECS would need to be significantly higher to match the twentieth-century rise in global temperatures, not lower. Since the Libardoni and Forest results thereby defy conservation of energy, they should be discounted. Although various errors pointed out in Lewis (2013) were addressed in this corrigendum, at least one was incorrectly dealt with, and the unsatisfactory way surface temperature data was used (see Lewis, 2013) was not altered, which may account for these problems.

>>8497447
>>8497443
>>8496880
>wikipedia crap
Alarmist sources debunked:

Olson et al. (2012)
This model–observation comparison Bayesian study estimates ECS, ocean effective diffusivity and an aerosol-forcing scaling factor, using only global temperatures and a wide uniform prior on the aerosol-forcing scaling factor. That is an unsatisfactory method. Since greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing histories are extremely closely correlated (negatively), one can obtain a good match to historical global temperatures with a wide range of suitable combinations of ECS and aerosol forcing strength. That problem results in the study’s estimated PDF for ECS being almost unconstrained when using uniform prior distributions, which biases its ECS estimate upwards. The use of 0–700-m ocean, as well as surface, temperature changes provides only a very weak constraint on what ECS–aerosol-forcing combinations are feasible. Ozone forcing, which is significantly positive, was omitted: that can be expected to have increased the estimate of ECS substantially. Given all these problems, the Olson et al. instrumental ECS estimate cannot be regarded as realistic. Olson’s PDF and range for ECS shown under combination estimates is dominated by a non-uniform prior distribution for ECS that matches high AR4-era estimates for ECS, including from AOGCMs, as represented in Knutti and Hegerl (2008). Since the study’s combination ECS estimate is dominated by an initial distribution based on AR4-era ECS estimates, it should not have been treated in AR5 as if it were an independent observationally-based estimate. The Olson et al. combination estimate for ECS should therefore be disregarded.

>>8497453
>>8497447
>>8497443
>>8496880
>wikipedia crap
Alarmist sources debunked:

Tomassini et al. (2007)
The Tomassini et al. model–observation comparison study involved a complex subjective Bayesian method. For ECS, a set of priors varying between a uniform prior and a deliberately informative lognormal prior with a mean of 3 C, both restricted to the range 1–10 C, were used. A very inappropriate uniform prior was employed for ocean effective diffusivity (Kv) – the square of ocean heat uptake efficiency. The choices of prior for ECS and Kv will both have biased upwards the estimate of ECS. Although the method used encompasses inverse estimation of aerosol forcing via a scaling factor, only global mean observational temperature data is used, so the inverse estimate arrived at will be unreliable. The very high (negative) correlation between the time evolution of greenhouse gas and aerosol forcings on a global scale makes it impossible robustly to distinguish between different combinations of ECS and aerosol forcing values that each satisfy the energy budget constraint. The posterior distribution for Kv is multiply peaked, which should not be the case. The trace plot of the Markov chain Monte Carlo sample used to estimate the parameters reveals instability not only as to what Kv values are favoured but also as to with what combination of ECS and (indirect) aerosol forcing. In some sections of the plot it is not obvious that the combination of Kv, ECS and aerosol forcing values is consistent with conservation-of-energy constraints. In view of all these issues the ECS estimates from this study should be discounted.

>>8497436
>>8496880
And look how tightly global temperatures correlate with the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation. Its almost as if anthropogenic CO2 is nothing but an after-thought...

>>8497446
Don't forget the priests! It's not all politicians. They just installed a devout Roman Catholic to head up the UN but a new age climate priest is still a priest. And there is plenty of science going into the meme, the most powerful science of all, consensus building science or social science, whatever you want to call it.

Just look at the thread, filling up with prophetic mumbo jumbo indecipherable scripture from both sides, the thread itself titled "deniers". Wew, just cut to the chase already, climate heretic is the proper phrase. the only question remaining is what form of torture will the new age heretic face in order to convert them!?

>>8497166

The issue is not that anthropogenic global warming will make the Earth inhospitable. I don't think any reasonable person is making that claim. The issue is that even a small change in mean global temperatures and sea level have massive ripple effects on the most basic aspects of human life: livable land, arable/fertile land, water supplies, etc. And all of those factors massively impact other factors like immigration, food supplies, all of which shape the geopolitical climate i.e. war becomes more likely.

And all of that shit, that's not fun to deal with.

>>8497451
>>8497453
>>8497456

Has anything Nick Lewis published on his website been peer-reviewed?

>>8496105
You're saying living on the moon is ridiculous? Where is your evidence for that?

>>8495551
>>>8495551
>biologists have been monitoring real world effects of climate change
>>autistic physicists, neckbeard engineers and conservative geologists; "LOL NOPE U IDIET LOL"
Any half-decent geologist will tell you that climate change is real and anthropogenic, it's all the petro engineers who get $100k a year from Exxon who deny it.

>>8497447
>Sensitivity is about 1.0 degrees C buddy. Don't care what Wikipedia says.
>Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
>(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
>- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

>Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C

http://www.leif.org/EOS/LimitCO2Forcing.pdf

>Abstract

>The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years.

It's so nice when a research paper can be wrong in the first sentence. It saves me so much time.

>>8497456

Why won't you post the links?

What are you trying to hide?

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/A-Sensitive-Matter-Foreword-inc.pdf

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

>>8497729
>It saves me so much time.
Use it wisely, learn how to count to ten.

Can any of you denialist geniouses explain to me why the fuck the average temperature of Venus exceeds that of Mercury, even though the latter is closer to the sun?

>>8496899
My PhD is in Neuroscience.

I think I'll just leave this here. Stop saying there's no evidence for anthropocentric climate change. This took like five minutes to find, and it's all recent evidence and in the best scientific journals.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/465
science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1517
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1784.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate1963.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2397.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

>>8496750
>show me a scientific paper
Here are 16: >>8497955

>>8497464
See >>8497955

>>8497955
Saved for future awesome.

>>8497955
let's see them weasel their way out of this one

>>8497955
>science journals
I'll only believe it when 'conspiracy theory website' tells me to believe it or whatever.

What's that famous one, the one with the radio personality on it?

>>8496809
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

193 climate myths

see #33

>>8497955
>anthropocentric
*anthropogenic

>>8497955
saved.

thanks bro

>>8495551
>what evidence
The strongest evidence is the kind of language and arguments the global warmists make when confronted with skeptics. The language of the global warming establishment is one of dogma and divisiveness, labeling people heretics (deniers) if they question the validity, and resorting to immediate insult and personal attack in the face of inquiry. The most open proponents of the assertion are not themselves qualified to truly discuss it, and public popularity has soared, both indicative of an attractive cult mentality. Indeed global warming has the appearance of a doomsday cult with its constantly pushed back deadlines and predictions, stringing along the belief in some cataclysm. It is therefore reasonable to at first suspect the entire thing is just a new religion pushed in to fill the gap of western atheism.

>>8498237
Here's the science. We can calmly go through each paper if you'd like. I have the time.


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/465
science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1517
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1784.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate1963.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2397.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

>>8498237
so the strongest evidence you have has to do with the personality of proponents of anthropogenic climate change? That's the best you can do?

>>8498263
You asked for the evidence. This is the most apparent thing reasonable people see when they observe a group of hysterics. This is evidence sufficient to cast doubt, and when that doubt is met with more evidence to cast doubt its even stronger evidence.

That sensation predictions (will never snow in britain again!) keep not coming true is, also, evidence to the casual observer that something bullshit is going on here.

If it is true then anyone who understood it and did actually care about it would start harshly condemning these things to make clear there are more than just crazy people with their doomsday cult.

The whole reversal from 'global cooling' to 'global warming' also seems quite orwellian to anyone old enough to remember the former.

The added outrage when the very same 'kinds' of people who keep pushing this will use this exact reasoning to criticize other ideas (predictions keep not coming true) with out apparently seeing the hypocracy further reinforces the idea people have built up that its a bunch of backwards cultists at best simply caught up in a 'movement', and at worst being manipulated by the powers at be for their own political gain - an idea which itself has supporting evidence such as the whole climategate thing.

This board is so fucking cringy theres no point in even coming here anymore. Between the greentext arguments and fallacies being thrown around as facts, one anon posts some "evidence" and 20 like-minded anons cling to it. There is no open-mindedness or scientific discussion here just two circle jerks by two groups of people. Its obvious that true academics abandoned this shithole long ago, enjoy your shitposts, barnacles of society..

>>8498283
That's a rather elaborate way of simply affirming the ad hominem.

Also, it seems to me you are conflating predictions by media and predictions by scientists. For example, here's a pretty clear example of prospective predictions that turned out completely accurate:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html

>>8498292
>"evidence"
Why the quote marks? It's a pretty long list of actual scientific papers in literally the three most acclaimed scientific journals.

>>8498295
So when they start censoring people with the fake news excuse make noise about it and demand the mainstream media cleans up its fake news as well.

>>8498300
Scientists bitch about inaccurate media reporting all the time. What on earth gave you the idea that we don't?

>>8498304
the lack of the media covering it :^)

better start a hashtag or something. climb on the fake news bandwagon. It will be lots of fun.

>>8498309
>covering it
Covering what, exactly? Climate change?

>>8498311
covering how all the media coverage of climate change is sensational bullshit

>>8498299
Glad thats all you could gather from that. Are they LITERALLY the most esteemed, are you sure do you know what the .org and .com extensions stand for? And surely they have no bias whatever, eith a name like nature.com why would you

>>8498315
>LITERALLY the most esteemed,
Yes, literally. Look up the Google scholar metrics for journal impact.

>>8498315
>doesn't know Nature
What you are even doing here

>>8498313
That's not part of our job description. We do the science, and we stick to the science.

>>8498315
>a name like nature.com
honestly...
>Nature is a British interdisciplinary scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869.[1] It was ranked the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports, is ascribed an impact factor of approximately 38.1, and is widely regarded as one of the few remaining academic journals that publishes original research across a wide range of scientific fields.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)

>>8497400
>>8497423
>>8497431
>the earth never warmed! It's all a hoax! give me my PhD!

>>8498315
.com sites are all trash, that's why I only get my information from reliable .org websites like 4chan.org.

>>8497406
I don't even need graphs.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110121/full/news.2011.33.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140725-climate-change-tropical-fish-animals-ocean-science/
http://www.seeker.com/animals-moving-more-quickly-from-warming-1765376377.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-7.html#.WDm_I-Y2uM8

I love arguing with man made climate change deniers. You're so easy to debunk.

>>8498362
The .org stands for organized.

>>8498370
I'm not a denier, but bro, at least stick to actual peer-reviewed papers when posting a bunch of links like that.

Like these: >>8497955

>>8495551
Not our job to prove something doesn't exist, you're the one making the claim prove your side. Also don't use the hockey stick graph.

>>8498377
>nature

>>8498386
Yes, but you linked to a news article. They have a news section too, besides the actual papers.

>>8498382

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/465
science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1517
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1784.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate1963.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2397.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

>>8498395
Well that shut them up pretty good.

>>8497423
Wow, nice try but what's labeled "NASA Land Temperatures" is actually global temps. So you're comparing apples to oranges while claiming they should be the same thing. Not to mention that you cherrypicked the start of the graph to coincide with the 1997 El Nino to make the trend appear smaller.

>>8498392
News articles can also be useful when the information is easily available.

>>8498470
Why not link to the primary information directly?

>>8497464
>non-detrended AMO contains global warming trend
>look AMO correlates with the global warming trend!
Wow you're dumb.

>>8497910
>Use it wisely, learn how to count to ten.

>Christy and Spencer in full damage-control mode

>>8497436
How many times are you going to repeat this stale meme when you already know that milankovitch cycles begin with warming that triggers the positive feedback loop between warming and greenhouse gas evaporation? You know this is why yet you keep lying by pretending this is evidence against the greenhouse effect. You are scum.

>>8498480
I fail to understand why

>>8498530
Because this is the science board, not the journalism board.

>>8496339
>I want to know when 800ppm.
two centuries downstream at the current rate for adding 4 out of 10,000 molecules

So it seems that the deniers gave up. Good job, /sci/.

>>8498560
how long until the deserts start receding

>>8498582
If by receding you mean expanding, then the answer is that they already are.

Schlesinger WH, Reynolds JF, Cunningham GL, Huenneke LF, Jarrell WH, Virginia RA, Whitford WG. 1990. Biological feedbacks to global desertification. Science 247:1043-1048.
Gibbens RP, McNeely RP, Havstad KM, Beck RF, Nolen B. 2005. Vegetation change in the Jornada Basin from 1858 to 1998. Journal of Arid Environments 61: 651-668.

>>8498582
part of global greening

>>8498640
lolwhat? greening has very little to do with desertification, because you're talking about changes in radically different ecological sub regions.

>>8498648
Disregard that comment. I did some reading.

>desertification

What is that caused by? Global warming, or global cooling? CO2? Coal?

>>8498675
Loss of vegetation. This in turn is driven by a number of factors, alone or in combination, such as drought, climatic shifts, tillage for agriculture, overgrazing and deforestation.

>>8498685
>Loss of vegetation
That doesn't sound like something people are responsible for.

>>8498702
Then you didn't read my previous post all the way through to the end.

>>8498708
Most of the areas that are experiencing desertification were never appropriate for agriculture, overgrazing and deforestation.

>>8498715
Drought and climate shifts are both to a large extent anthropogenic too, in recent history.

>>8498715
It's actually the opposite. Many agricultural areas are being encroached on by desertification.

>>8498726
>>8498729

The climate may be changing, but I don't see that humans are responsible.

>>8498739
Refer to >>8497955 for the scientific evidence.

>>8498739
Good for you. Must be fun not to have to deal with problems when you can just ignore them.

>>8498746
I don't see anything that people are doing that influence climate chance one way or the other. You might as well complain that the sun is too bright.

>>8498745
Reading...

>>8498745
>Free with registration

Sell your advertising elsewhere, jerk.

>>8498759
How new are you?

>>8498754
Humans emit more CO2 than they absorb, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans warm the planet. Whay about this is hard?

>>8498764
And there has been way more c02 in the atmosphere before humanity, and there will be way more in the air after humanity.

I don't see that going from 800ppm to 801ppm over the past 200 years as a contributor to 100 miles of atmosphere.

>>8498772
Refer to >>8497955 (You) for the scientific evidence. Use sci hub if you don't have access to the full papers.

>>8498772
>me again

If anything, we have to make the air a lot warmer so it holds more water so that the desertification can be reversed with rain.

>>8496098
It's all about comfort and fear of change. People are comfortable with life as it is now, powered largely by fossil fuels. Shifting away from fossil fuels is going to take a certain level of investment in the form of effort and money in unfamiliar things; it means buying a used EV instead of a used ICE car, it means equipping their house with solar panels and a battery for emergencies instead of keeping a gas generator. It means considering environmental implications before making purchases. That's a lot of change to swallow at once, which makes people unwilling to accept facts and evidence no matter the quantity and quality.

To make matters worse, big oil has strong links with the republicans and has cuddled up with the right to twist a purely scientific issue into a political and socio-economic one, giving it a free army of voracious defenders that will fight renewable energy in the name of preserving conservative values and defeating The Liberal Menace™.

>>8498783 (cont)
I'm all for humanity becoming more ecologically conscious and hope we can get away from fossil fuels as soon as possible, but I can see why anti-environmentalists think the way they do.

>>8498776
sell your magazines to people that will buy them, or copy-paste the articles somewhere I don't have to pay for them. Don't reference that money-grubbing post again.

>>8498791
You don't have to pay for shit you mongoloid. Use sci hub to circumvent the paywall. If you willfully ignore the evidence then I can't help you and you'd be better off just fucking off somewhere else.

>>8498791
>magazines
Kek, welcome to board newfriend.

>>8498800
>sci hub
what is that?

BTW, insults are not arguments, they just make you look stupid and childish with your tantrum.

>>8498772
>And there has been way more c02 in the atmosphere before humanity, and there will be way more in the air after humanity.
It has never happened while humans have been alive, and it has never happened so rapidly. This is a non-sequitur.

>I don't see that going from 800ppm to 801ppm over the past 200 years as a contributor to 100 miles of atmosphere.
What the fuck? Over the past 50 years the concentration of CO2 has increased from 300 ppm to 400 ppm. Stop pretending to be retarded.

>>8498807
Good thing that insult wasn't meant as an argument. I'm sorry it triggered you, but speech isn't like in your safe space here.

>>8498807
You're really gonna need me to hold you hand, aren't you? Google it. First result is what you need. Paste any link to any article in that website and it'll give you the pdf of the full article.

>>8495551

>>8498810
>humans have been alive
>100,000 years, MAYBE

That is like a nanosecond in the life of the earth.

>the concentration of CO2 has increased from 300 ppm to 400 ppm

Oh, good. That means more water will evaporate from the oceans and fall on land. Lets go for 600.

>>8498820
>That means more water will evaporate from the oceans and fall on land.
In the form of hurricanes.

>>8498812
I have a pretty thick skin. That's why I didn't insult you back.

>>8498823
A 2 for 1!

More rain AND fewer humans.

>>8498820
>That is like a nanosecond in the life of the earth.
The "life of the Earth" is not in danger, it's humans that will suffer. Stop pretending to be retarded.

>That means more water will evaporate from the oceans and fall on land.
Yay, more flooding!

Just keep ignoring the warming and fact that the effects are overwhelmingly negative.

>>8498820
>That is like a nanosecond in the life of the earth.
Which is why such a fast increase in CO2 concentration and temperature is extremely worrying.

There's been changes like that before, but it took thousands of years, not around a century.

>>8498827
So did you figure out how to use sci hub yet?

>>8498827
And way higher taxes to pay for disaster funds numbnuts.

>>8498830
>humans that will suffer

I doubt anyone is going to be able to do much about that, ever. It's nice that you think you can, but you can't.

> the effects are overwhelmingly negative

The effects have yet to be adequately observed, never mind accurately hypothesized.

>>8498844
>never mind accurately hypothesized
refer to >>8497955 for predictions about the impact

>>8498833
>but it took thousands of years, not around a century.


No, there have been many examples where the changes took less than a year, a couple even happened in the age of humanity before industrialization.

>>8498852
[citation needed]

>>8498850
>sci hub
Tell me what is that?

I'm not paying to look at articles.

>>8498857
I already did. Refer to >>8498815

>>8498854
Super volcanoes, a few regular volcanoes, meteor impacts, a few other events that are similar.

>>8498844
>I doubt anyone is going to be able to do much about that, ever.
Well at least you have switched from denying basic scientific facts to admitting harm is being caused.

A simple tax on CO2 emissions would slow the rate of emissions and save trillions of dollars in economic damage. Ideally the tax would pay for research and technology that further mitigates the effects.

>>8498862
That's not a citation. Besides, volcanic eruptions have a negative net effect on global temperature due to albedo.

>>8498844
>The effects have yet to be adequately observed, never mind accurately hypothesized.

Uh

>>8498861
Okay.

I have to start dinner, so I'll read them after that.

AFK for 4 hours.

>>8498867
>>8498868
>>8498871

sorry, gtg.

>>8498844
>The effects have yet to be adequately observed
Massive droughts in large portions of the world at this very instant
Extinction of many species
Increased acidity in the ocean
Increase in sea levels

How is that not adequately observed ? Are you expecting those changes to just stop before they become even more of a problem ? Are you saying that those events are not related to climate change ? If so, what's their cause ? Are you saying we should just ignore those changes, because we're not responsible, even if they will definitely affect us (they already are) ? Are you saying we can't do anything about it anyway ? Or are you just denying they occur at all.

>>8498873
>AFK for 4 hours.
I'm not gonna be around. Read the papers anyway.

>>8498862
-none of which have occurred in great enough abundance to reasonably explain rapid atmospheric flux over the last 70 years

What baffles me is that even if you set aside the whole climate change issue, petroleum powered machines are horrendously dirty and inefficient. Batteries and solar panels have their own issues, but as a whole, considering the entire chain from manufacturing to daily usage, electric vehicles are so much more clean and efficient it's kind of silly. Is that not desirable on its own? If the purchase price and driving range were the same between EVs and ICE vehicles, why wouldn't you buy the EV? Isn't cleanliness and efficiency something we want to move towards anyway? Why is it OK for this one narrow segment of technology to stagnate while everything else whizzes past it?

>>8498862
Right, so the fact that humans may be causing changes akin to super volcanoes and meteor impacts is not a problem. Keep in mind that super volcano eruptions and meteor impacts, while natural, aren't standard climate events, and neither is anthropogenic climate change. They have massive impact on the climate of the planet and since they happen in such short order, the biosphere doesn't have the time to adjust to it, hence why they're such a problem.

>>8498878
Just local pollution diminution is desirable on its own. Look at Beijing if you want to see what local pollution caused by coal and other fossil fuel is doing. The only thing we need to keep in check is toxic by-products of solar panel manufacturing and we're good.

Thankfully, diminishing local pollution and global pollution are pretty much both done with the same method, if you don't simply move the pollution producing machines around that is.

>>8498702
>loss of vegetation

>>8498874
>>8498877
>>8498883
>>8498891
You vultures come screaming at me after I say I have to cook dinner!

FUCK YOU! NEVER MIND! YOU'RE JUST A BUNCH OF FAGGOTS THAT HAD YOUR BELIEFS CHALLENGED, AND NOW YOU'RE ALL RELIGION-HURT!

Fuck this place, I'm gone.

>>8498928

>>8498928

>>8498928
0/10

But enjoy your dinner.

>>8498928
Clearly, this response was driven by unfettered emotion rather than any manner of rational thought or logic.

>>8498928
>never looked at the evidence
>replies in all caps
yeah you sure showed us! you almost won me over there!

>>8495551
>what evidence do you have for for a global warming being a hoax?
The claim of a "scientific consensus".

There are two parts to a genuine scientific consensus:
1) The relevant specialists almost universally agree on the claim in question.
2) The general scientific community considers the relevant specialists to know what they're talking about.

It fails in the second part. The general scientific community is split over whether global climatology is mature enough to make useful predictions about the effects of CO2 emissions.

>>8498852
>>8498854
I'm no denialists, but one of the classic examples of volcanism causing climate change comes from the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991 had a global impact.

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

Krakatoa in the 1800s also had a global impact.

Another volcanic eruption that may have caused humans to nearly go extinct 77,000 years ago, Toba, was a supervolcanic eruption.

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

>>8498976
>The general scientific community is split over whether global climatology is mature enough to make useful predictions about the effects of CO2 emissions.

Even if it's not mature, wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution? By the time we know for sure that it's mature and it turns out they're right it will have been too late, barring record-breaking world-class expenditures on greenhouse gas sequestering technology, and even that won't do anything to repair much of the damage (extinct species, wrecked ecosystems, etc).

>>8498977
Another example is the 1815 eruption of Mr. Tambora, also in Indonesia.

We are actually over-due for another enormous volcanis eruption like the ones mentioned above. It will happen, and it may have large consequences on our civilization when it does. These massive, Toba type eruptions are common in Earth history, and Earth is still highly geologically active. Nothing you can do to stop a volcanic eruption either, they're going to continue to happen. You may be able to stop meteors and comets from causing bolide impacts, but you can't stop Earth's volcanism, and volcanism is linked to many mass and smaller extinction events in the Earth's past.

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

>>8498986
>We are actually over-due for another enormous volcanic eruption like the ones mentioned above.
Can you clarify? As far as I know volcanoes do not have a return period like flooding or wildfire events where the longer they go without the more severe they will be. Either there's enough pressure for a volcano to erupt and it does, or there isn't enough pressure to erupt an it's not due yet. Neither case means we're due for a volcanic event.

>>8498928
>rectum: prolapsed

>>8498977
>>8498986
Of course volcanoes change the climate. But they do so through the vast amounts of dust particles that are released with an eruption. Those happen to have a negative net effect on global temperature due to albedo.

>>8498976
No it isn't, both the specific and general scientific community absolutely agree that climate change is definitely happening because of human emission of CO2.

tfw terraforming is possible and no one debates that
tfw people can't believe we're slowly over time terraforming our planet

>>8498976
Name one, single accredited scientific organization that denies AGW. Go ahead, name one.

All you will find is a small amount of independent scientists, many with links to so called conservative "think tanks" that receive funding from the petroleum industry, as well as scientists who aren't even in the field of climatology / earth sciences. These independent researchers vary from either questioning the models themselves, while not denying human involvement, to all-out denial that humans have ANYTHING to do with climate whatsoever. Those people are the true retards because we have the evidence right in front of our faces. Most of them believe "only god" can change climate and other such nonsense.

>>8498999
What I mean is that if you look at Earth history, you will see millions upon millions of volcanic eruption that is found in the rock record, worldwide. Large-scale volcanic events are likely going to be easier to predict, especially since our capability to monitor volcanoes has increased dramatically with technology, but massive eruptions like Toba, Yellowstone, etc. can and will happen again in the future. Yellowstone actually isn't as dangerous as people portray though, it's a continental hotspot but it's not as dangerous as massive stratovolcanoes like in Indonesia with very high explosive indexes. Like I said, no matter what volcanic eruptions are going to continue to occur, but the most massive ones are much more rare, so it's hard to look at this from a geological perspective of hundreds of thousands / millions of years when we barely live a century.

>>8499003
Yes, I know this. I was not arguing that AGW isn't real, I was presenting examples of volcanic eruptions causing rapid climate change.

>>8499010
Terraforming is easy when you have a magnetic field and atmosphere already in place. It's starting from scratch that is difficult / nearly impossible (ie Mars).

>>8498976
>It fails in the second part.
It does not.
> The general scientific community is split over whether global climatology is mature enough to make useful predictions about the effects of CO2 emissions.
Where are you getting this nonsense? Even if it were true, branches of science don't 'judge' the worth of other branches. If suddenly biologists and chemists decided that physicists are wrong about the standard model, that still wouldn't fucking change the fact that the standard model is the currently accepted theory because it best explains the available evidence. Every scientist knows that's how it works.

>>8498976
>There are two parts to a genuine scientific consensus:
>2) The general scientific community considers the relevant specialists to know what they're talking about.
Nice try. General acceptance of climatology by the scientific community has nothing to do with consensus, since non-experts cannot determine whether the experts "know what they're talking about". No one has ever conducted such a study because it is irrelevant.

>>8499016
I think the point he's making is that everyone is fine with the concept of terraforming, but as soon as you bring up the idea that we're currently terraforming our own planet (for the worse) suddenly there's a huge debate.

>>8499016
exactly, so global warming is happening because we've been inadvertently terrforming the earth with CO2

>>8499016
Thickening Mars' atmosphere is difficult but certainly not impossible. It erodes incredibly slowly, so much so that anything we'd be adding would outpace it significantly. There's a lot of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen on Mars in nongaseous forms, so much of the material needed to accomplish the task is already there. It's really all just a matter of time. Given a century or two of pumping up the atmosphere, the climate could warm up enough to cause a runaway effect and finish the job. After that we'd just need to top it off every thousand years or so to make up for erosion (which might happen naturally as a result of hosting an industrial society).

>>8499027
And then there's this this faggot.

>>8495680
concur, geology anon hits the nail on the head
t. paleofag

>>8495719
>ice ages are becoming more common
not actually true

>>8496269
you get all your carbon from the food you eat. but if you were locked in an airtight room with a year's supply of beans and milk, food would not be the limiting factor. (protip: plants require more than just carbon.)
(also protip: limiting factor is usually iron, phosphate, or fixed nitrogen)

>>8496647
BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

>>8496899
m'lady

>>8497400
>>8497406
>they're ADJUSTING the readings? that's FRAUD!
>>8497423
>can't trust the raw measurements, gotta correct for UHI effect
/pol/esmokers will see no inherent contradiction in this.

>>8497556
no, of course not.
deniers engage in cargo-cult science; if it's formatted like a journal paper and it agrees with them, it must be true, regardless of whether it contains any actual research or has been peer-reviewed.

>>8497955
o shit waddup

>>8498640
>no source
>no reference
>no title
>no labels on legend
what are you trying to say, Lassie?

>>8498928
Buttmad