/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9989216
I wouldn't take the media seriously, lad, especially not a tabloid like that.

>>9989216
>express.co.uk
>asm scientists believe
L0Lno fgt pls

>>9989216
Can we not produce more CO2 to counter that?

>>9989481

this might be helpful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOXVZo7KikE

>>9989216
HELL WILL FREEZE OVER WHEN SUN SHUTS DOWN FOR THE MAJORITY OF 2018
GET YOUR SNUGGIES READY, WE ARE ALL F U C K E D


There you go, a much better title.

>>9989216
Sunspots are correlated with the amount of radiation the sun sends to Earth. But the temperature is currently dominated by greenhouse gases, not soar activity. Solar activity has been decreasing for decades towards the solar minimum while temperatures have risen. The article is clickbait nonsense.

>>9989216
The solar cycle is 11 years. This happens every 11 years.

>>9989216
All of the MOST RELIABLE scientific periodicals use CAPITAL LETTERS to convey DRAMATIC EFFECT, which is an ESSENTIAL PART of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

>>9989951
This guy gets it.

>>9989943
>we went form 300 parts per million to 400 parts per millions of CO2
>we are going to die

lmao no

On the timescale of the solar cycle (11 years), variation in solar output is associated with changes to temperature *in specific regions*. Spotless suns have a lower output, as it turns out.

Now, the mechanism isn't quite direct - although the output is lower, it is mainly the effect on the stratosphere which is thought to cause colder winters, with a particularly pronounced effect on Europe. It makes sudden stratospheric warmings more like (I'm not sure why, and I don't think others have any good reasons yet). The effect of this propagates down to the troposphere and disrupts the jet stream. In Europe, it sends it far south of where it would normally be, leaving the continent exposed to incursions of cold air from the East.

In fact, even during the 'Little Ice Age' in Europe, there were still hot summers - the effect was not just to make winters colder, but generally to make weather more extreme due to the removal of the moderating effect of the jet stream blowing over the Atlantic. In the UK, we have seen precisely this sort of thing this year - high pressure consistently nearby, which brought us frigid temperatures in the winter, and warm temperatures this summer, rather than our typical oceanic climate.

>>9990003
Where did I say we are going to die? You aren't even disagreeing with the post you're responding to.

>>9989216
so... Global warming was an illuminaty plan to save humanity?

>>9990030
I wrongly assumed that poster was an alarmist. What I disagree with is this
>But the temperature is currently dominated by greenhouse gases

an absolutely ridiculous assertion, given how little of our atmosphere is greenhouse gases. Higher CO2 levels area by-product of increased temperature, not a cause. As the oceans warm they release CO2 to the atmosphere.

>>9990071
>an absolutely ridiculous assertion, given how little of our atmosphere is greenhouse gases.
What does the percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere have to do with whether it dominates the temperature? Do you believe that arsenic is harmless if it only composes a little bit of your drinking water?

>Higher CO2 levels area by-product of increased temperature, not a cause.
It's both. Or do you deny the greenhouse effect exists?

>>9990071
Facts are facts, regardless if you agree or not.

Earth temperature is heavily influenced by greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse effect Earth would freeze over.

>>9990140
Not only that, but the change in greenhouse gasses currently dominates the change in temperature. This is the more relevant point.

>>9990127
>It's both. Or do you deny the greenhouse effect exists?

it most definitely exists in labs and conditions of high CO2, but in the atmosphere and at concentration that are less than one part per thousand, such an effect does not exist.

>>9990140
>Earth temperature is heavily influenced by greenhouse gases.

The presence of oceans and water vapor, volcanic activity and supercontinent cycles and milankovitch orbital forcing are much stronger that manmade emissions. I am nto saying natural greenhouse gases are not important, they are and water vapor is one of them, my point is humanity's contribution to the atmosphere is minuscule and irrelevant

>>9990259
>it most definitely exists in labs and conditions of high CO2, but in the atmosphere and at concentration that are less than one part per thousand, such an effect does not exist.
Again, what does the concentration have to whether the effect exists? The greenhouse effect occurs because there are gasses in the atmosphere that absorb heat and radiate some of it back to Earth. So what matters is the absolute amount of such gasses. The same amount of heat is radiated back whether that amount of greenhouse gas composes 100% of the atmosphere or 0.001%. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you know it since you are avoiding the question.

>The presence of oceans and water vapor, volcanic activity and supercontinent cycles and milankovitch orbital forcing are much stronger that manmade emissions.
Wrong. The oceans absorb more GHGs than they release. Supercontinent cycles and Milankovich cycles operate over millions and thousands of years and produce much slower changes than the global warming observed since the Industrial revolution.

>I am nto saying natural greenhouse gases are not important, they are and water vapor is one of them, my point is humanity's contribution to the atmosphere is minuscule and irrelevant
According to what?

>>9990305
>Again, what does the concentration have to whether the effect exists?
Everything, concentration is proportional to the effect.

>The same amount of heat is radiated back whether that amount of greenhouse gas composes 100% of the atmosphere or 0.001%.
completely untrue. If this was the case why worry about CO2 levels at all? Acoording to you 200 ppm of CO2 would be the same effect as 400 ppm.

>The oceans absorb more GHGs than they release.
that is dependent on temperature, heat up the ocean and it outgasses CO2.
>Supercontinent cycles and Milankovich cycles operate over millions and thousands of years and produce much slower changes than the global warming
True. Why did you neglect volcanoes?
>global warming observed since the Industrial revolution.
The climate is highly variable, to think 200 years of data makes a trend is ridiculous. To think mankind's minuscule contribution to the atmosphere makes a difference is equally unscientific. We were warmer for a period in the past when there was no industrial civilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period, in just a short amount of time and then we cooled down. The idea that current warming is the new normal and that humans are behind it is not based on solid evidence.
http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
>The Greenland climate was a bit warmer than it is today.

antarctic sea ice is growing https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

post 1 of 2

>>9990305
>>9990397
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/04/does-global-warming-drive-changes-in-arctic-sea-ice/
>The satellite data also show a long term year to year decline in Arctic sea ice in every season concurrent with global warming. This concurrence has led to the assumption that the observed long term decline in sea ice is a response to global warming. This study is a test of that hypothesis. Arctic sea ice data for each calendar month are tested for the responsiveness of sea ice area to global warming at annual and five-year time scales using detrended correlation analysis. Satellite measurements of lower troposphere temperature over the north polar region are used as the relevant measure of global warming. It is found that of the twelve calendar months only two contain both statistically significant sea ice loss and statistically significant correlation of the rate of sea ice loss with global warming. These results do not constitute convincing evidence of correlation required to support the assumption that sea ice decline is driven by global warming. It is likely that the observed loss in sea ice area is a more complex phenomenon possibly with roles for winds, ocean currents, geothermal heat, and natural multi-decadal variability of lunar nodal cycles and other ocean characteristics not measured and not fully understood. Global warming may play a role in what may be a complex multivariate phenomenon but the data do not show that global warming drives year to year changes in Arctic sea ice area or that the decline can be halted or moderated by taking climate action.

post 2 of 2

Anthropogenic climate change deniers should be banned.

>>9989216
I feel insulted FOR (and by) you when you think express . con . uk is a good source

>>9989943
>the temperature is currently dominated by greenhouse gases, not soar activity

So if the sun goes out completely we'll stay nice and cozy?

Or are you tarded

>>9990408
only if they blather on about Obama and libruls, but they are scientifically legitimate to question anthropogenic global warming.

>>9990408
*imprisoned on Venus

How do these fucking failed journalism and communication majors justify being literal professional LIARS as their life’s work? Do they really feel good waking up in the morning and booting up their laptop to write more fucking lies to deceive people .... not even for some great ulterior motive but just to generate ADVERTISING CLICKS??????

>>9990397
>Everything, concentration is proportional to the effect.
This doesn't answer my question. The effect of the change in concentration from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is the observed warming. How does the concentration of CO2 imply no greenhouse effect?

>completely untrue. If this was the case why worry about CO2 levels at all? Acoording to you 200 ppm of CO2 would be the same effect as 400 ppm.
Because the rest of the atmosphere hasn't changed, so the change in concentration is effectively synonymous with change in the amount of CO2. Are you an idiot or are you being deliberately obtuse?

>that is dependent on temperature, heat up the ocean and it outgasses CO2.
What heated up the ocean? This is a feedback loop, not a forcing.

>True. Why did you neglect volcanoes?
How do you think volcanoes have caused warming?

>The climate is highly variable, to think 200 years of data makes a trend is ridiculous.
The temperature over the last 200 years does have a trend, what exactly are you arguing?

>To think mankind's minuscule contribution to the atmosphere makes a difference is equally unscientific.
No, to continuously ignore the clear scientific analysis that tells us so while not presenting any analysis of your own is unscientific.

>We were warmer for a period in the past when there was no industrial civilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
The article says that we weren't, did you read it? Did you look at that big graph on the right? I can't tell if you're retarded are trolling because most deniers aren't this oblivious.

> The idea that current warming is the new normal and that humans are behind it is not based on solid evidence.
If you don't think the massive amount of evidence compiled here is solid, you are delusional: http://www.ipcc.ch/

>The Greenland climate was a bit warmer than it is today.
I didn't know that Greenland was the entire globe.

>antarctic sea ice is growing
I didn't know that antarctic sea ice was the only sea ice.

>>9990527
>The temperature over the last 200 years does have a trend, what exactly are you arguing?

200 years is nothing to the timescales of climate.

>How do you think volcanoes have caused warming?

I didn't say they did, they by and large have a cooling effect due to the aerosols they emit that block the sun.

>How does the concentration of CO2 imply no greenhouse effect?
little concentration equals little effect

>The effect of the change in concentration from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is the observed warming.
This is dubious and has not been established.

>What heated up the ocean?
whatever heated it up in the cretaceous, what heated it up in the medievel warm period, temperatures increase for reason we do not know exactly.

>No, to continuously ignore the clear scientific analysis that tells us so while not presenting any analysis of your own is unscientific.

analysis is not evidence. Science requires skeptic to push for evidence to ensure science advances.

>The article says that we weren't, did you read it? Did you look at that big graph on the right? I can't tell if you're retarded are trolling because most deniers aren't this oblivious.

I saw the chart, but the analysis contradicted the finding of locally grown barley in Greenland. Am I going to trust analysis or evidence. Evidence will BTFO any confidence interval of data. What is used to estimate paleoclimate and temperature isn't good as actual proof of barley growing in the past.

>If you don't think the massive amount of evidence compiled here is solid, you are delusional

it is all analysis conjecture and models. Their models don't even reach the warming that is reported https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171206132220.htm

>>9990476
So you think the Sun's current variability is comparable to it going out?

>>9990402
>This concurrence has led to the assumption that the observed long term decline in sea ice is a response to global warming. This study is a test of that hypothesis.
>Arctic sea ice data for each calendar month are tested for the responsiveness of sea ice area to global warming at annual and five-year time scales using detrended correlation analysis.
LOL so annual and 5 year trends are "long term?" Deniers are retarded and can only attack idiotic strawmen.

>>9989216

>global warming was all part of the plan to see us through the cold times


take that liberals

>>9990602
>200 years is nothing to the timescales of climate.
What the fuck is the "timescale of the climate?" I'm concerned with the timescale of humans. You are a human aren't you?

>I didn't say they did, they by and large have a cooling effect due to the aerosols they emit that block the sun.
So what relevance do they have towards explaining the warming trend? Or are you just spouting irrelevancies as a distraction?

>little concentration equals little effect
This is a meaningless statement. The effect of our emissions is the observed warming. The emissions are massive and the effect is unprecedented in human history.

>This is dubious and has not been established.
It has been established by a massive amount of scientific research which you are deliberately ignoring.

>whatever heated it up in the cretaceous, what heated it up in the medievel warm period, temperatures increase for reason we do not know exactly.
Wrong, we already know it's the greenhouse effect due to human emissions.

>analysis is not evidence. Science requires skeptic to push for evidence to ensure science advances.
Analysis is what the evidence tells us. You are offering nothing but sophistry, not skepticism. A skeptic would look at the evidence instead of ignoring it and would not make patently false claims as you have done.

>I saw the chart, but the analysis contradicted the finding of locally grown barley in Greenland.
How? Greenland is not the entire globe. This is so obtuse you must be trolling.

>Am I going to trust analysis or evidence. Evidence will BTFO any confidence interval of data. What is used to estimate paleoclimate and temperature isn't good as actual proof of barley growing in the past.
You're so delusional that you don't see your own analysis of the evidence makes no sense. Barley growing in Greenland does not mean the globe was warmer in the past. Where is your skepticism?

>it is all analysis conjecture and models.
No it's not. Fake skeptic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEJgy4_3ZYA

>>9990697
> A skeptic would look at the evidence instead of ignoring it and would not make patently false claims as you have done.

There is no evidence establishing higher CO2 levels raise global temperature, during any period of Earth's history.

>What the fuck is the "timescale of the climate?" I'm concerned with the timescale of humans.

It is the timescale with which there can be said that there is a change in the climate. Climate takes a really long time to change. 200 years does not even make a data point.

>So what relevance do they have towards explaining the warming trend?

The disappearance of the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols would be observed as warming.

>Barley growing in Greenland does not mean the globe was warmer in the past.

It certainly is evidence towards a warmer past. Can you present evidence contrary to that.

>>9990602
>analysis is not evidence. Science requires skeptic to push for evidence to ensure science advances.

Don't argue with a fool who says something this retarded. "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

>>9990763
still searching for that luminous ether?

>>9990738
>There is no evidence establishing higher CO2 levels raise global temperature, during any period of Earth's history.
The greenhouse effect is proven via fundamental physics and directly observed via radiative spectroscopy. The entire history of Earth's climate since the advent of life cannot be explained without it. You are mentally ill if you think you can deny such basic facts as still maintain credibility. Stop posting on the science board, quack.

>It is the timescale with which there can be said that there is a change in the climate.
Then it's 200 years, since the climate had changed rapidly over that timeframe. Current warming is an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming. You have no argument.

>The disappearance of the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols would be observed as warming.
Volcanic activity hasn't changed enough to account for current warming.

>It certainly is evidence towards a warmer past.
In Greenland, yes. It's called the medieval warm period and was a local effect as your link showed.

How do you live with yourself making such dishonest arguments? Do you really believe you're a skeptic or have you realized that you're an ideological hack?

>>9990791
Ether was disproved by science. Not by people denying science.

>>9990794
>The greenhouse effect is proven via fundamental physics and directly observed via radiative spectroscopy
this is the same as saying that science proves it, you can't just say science proves it you have to say how it is proved.

>Then it's 200 years, since the climate had changed rapidly over that timeframe.

you still don't get it. 200 years is not even a data point. That is like saying it rains every day in every year because it rained for an hour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
an interglacial is about 15,000 years, if there is a warm 200 years it can be followed up by a cold 200 years. 200 years is nothing. Have you ever looked at noisy data, do you know the concept of noise, 200 years is insignificant and especially the 80 years of actual data we have taken with instruments and the 50 or so years of satellite data. What we have a is a data point in in of the most variable natural systems know to man.

CO2 is a trace gas and humanity's contribution to it is minimal. To claim that it is the end all be all of human life on earth is ridiculous. does it make sense that a trace gas will determine whether the temperature of the Earth?

>The entire history of Earth's climate since the advent of life cannot be explained without it.

The more pertinent greenhouse effect is not that of CO2 and other things such as methane, but of water and water vapor, and the shielding effect of ozone. Water is what is most important in creating temperature conditions suitable for life.

>>9990798
science advances by skepticism, this is science 101. I am not denying science, I am demanding it from the anthropogenic global warming crowd. Correlation is not causation and that is especially true when past studies have shown CO2 levels increase AFTER warming. This is a website that promotes anthropogenic global warming
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
>This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.

The case that CO2 increases warming is not certain, there are other factors which control temperature more than CO2. For if only CO2 controlled warming the Earth's atmosphere would have been burned away in a a runaway greenhouse effect.

Equating questioning the importance of CO2 in climate to denying science, is either disingenuous or ignorant.

>>9989216
>spotless sun

yeah, no.

https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/reports/sunspot-report

>>9989216
https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

>>9989951
A JOKE of a TABLOID runs a story and IMMEDIATELY the information contained therein is FALSE, and nonexistent.

t. super brainlet

>>9989951
What's the idea with those anyway? Are you supposed to shout them in your mind as you're reading it? Or is it something like the random italics in comic books.

>>9989216
Less TSI slightly reduces global temperatures but it's minor compared to other trends. The big ? is how it interacts with nonlinear factors in the atmos/oceanic circulation.

As a big simplification for non atmos-science peeps
>high pressure over pole = cooling factor
>low pressure overpole = cooling factor
>+ ENSO = warming factor (on human time scales until it burns itself out by way of exhausting oceanic heat content)
>- enso = cooling factor
The interplay of these factors and many many others is what controls temperature, but all of them work by maximizing longwave radiation output to space - solar input, governed by the boltzman equation (Emission ~T^4). This means that the most efficient climate regime for cooling is one with heat concentrated at the equator, with cold poleward regions. So best answer is no one knows.

>t. atmos scientist.

>>9991128
fuck, should be
>low pressure over pole = warming factor
This is also known as a +Arctic oscillation (+AO)

>>9990007
I'd imagine that it influences sudden stat warmings by way of some impact on the photodissociation of O^3 and the Brewer Dobson Circulation.

>>9989216
Good thing we had all this climate change making things warmer so we don't have to worry about this.

>>9990840
>this is the same as saying that science proves it, you can't just say science proves it you have to say how it is proved.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

>you still don't get it. 200 years is not even a data point.
It's several data points, temperature is measured daily.

>That is like saying it rains every day in every year because it rained for an hour.
How is it like that at all?

>200 years is nothing. Have you ever looked at noisy data, do you know the concept of noise, 200 years is insignificant and especially the 80 years of actual data we have taken with instruments and the 50 or so years of satellite data.
Noise is unexplained variability in data. Current warming is explained and it is anomalous, not variability in the data. You do not get to arbitrarily dismiss 200 years of unprecedented warming for no reason.

>CO2 is a trace gas
So you would drink a glass of water with 400 ppm arsenic right? It can't possibly have a significant affect.

>and humanity's contribution to it is minimal.
Humanity completely dominates CO2 flux. CO2 in the atmosphere would be decreasing without our contribution. But keep lying and destroying your credibility, this is fun.

>To claim that it is the end all be all of human life on earth is ridiculous.
Where did I claim this?

>does it make sense that a trace gas will determine whether the temperature of the Earth?
Does it make sense that you think repeating "trace gas" over and over somehow disproves the greenhouse effect and the direct observant via radiative spectroscopy of CO2's contribution to radiative forcing? "Trace gas" is not an argument.

>The more pertinent greenhouse effect is not that of CO2 and other things such as methane, but of water and water vapor, and the shielding effect of ozone.
Water vapor is not a radiative forcing, it is an feedback loop. You need to explain why warming is occurring in the first place. Again, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>>9990870
>science advances by skepticism, this is science 101.
You're not a skeptic though. Denying all scientific evidence on a subject and lying about it is not skepticism. You're just a hack. Your position is akin to denying that relativity supplanted ether, not denying ether.

>I am not denying science, I am demanding it from the anthropogenic global warming crowd.
I gave you all the evidence you could possibly want, the IPCC has compiled all of it. You are trying to pretend the evidence doesn't exist. You're not asking for it.

>Correlation is not causation
The greenhouse effect is completely causative.

>and that is especially true when past studies have shown CO2 levels increase AFTER warming.
That's because warming in the past was caused by changes in insolation, not changes in CO2. As I already said, CO2 is both a cause and effect of warming. This time CO2 in the atmosphere increased sure to humans instead of due to warming.

>The case that CO2 increases warming is not certain
It is, try reading.

>there are other factors which control temperature more than CO2.
None of the factors you mentioned can be the cause of current warming. Instead of repeating lies that have already been debunked, why don't you try presenting an argument?

>For if only CO2 controlled warming the Earth's atmosphere would have been burned away in a a runaway greenhouse effect.
First, this is false since the greenhouse effect and its feedback loops on Earth have diminishing returns. Second, it's not the only thing that controls warming, it's the primary cause of current warming.

>Equating questioning the importance of CO2 in climate to denying science, is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Questioning is fine, ignoring the answers and making empirically false claims is not.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong in every single sentence you write? It's time to stop posting, pick up a textbook, and learn about what you're pretending to know about.

>>9990071
>an absolutely ridiculous assertion that Venus
>is hotter than Mercury because of greenhouse gas
Lrn2greenhouse gas fgt pls

>>9991124
It's to make it read like it's being spoken by a mouthy commentator or show host, which tells you something about what their readership feel comfortable with.

funny how coal industry shills use every opportunity to spread their lies.

>>9989216
Varg was right again!

>>9991358
Trace gas is an argument. 200 years does not make a trend in climate science and can easily be a result of an anomaly in the most variable physical systems known to man. termites release more CO2 https://www.iceagenow.info/termites-produce-co2-year-living-combined/ http://science.sciencemag.org/content/218/4572/563


>First, this is false since the greenhouse effect and its feedback loops on Earth have diminishing returns
if that is the case lets pump more CO2 into the atmosphere because there will be diminishing returns. You have not been consistent in your logic.

look at this statement
>The same amount of heat is radiated back whether that amount of greenhouse gas composes 100% of the atmosphere or 0.001%. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you know it since you are avoiding the question.

You display a total lack of knowledge with that one statement. Not only that but according to you lowering atmospheric CO2 would be pointless if it isn't lowered to 0%.

>>9992459
>Trace gas is an argument.
So drink a glass of water with 400 ppm arsenic, it can't have a significant affect, right? Why do you keep ignoring this?

>200 years does not make a trend in climate science
Why not?

>and can easily be a result of an anomaly in the most variable physical systems known to man.
It is, the anomaly is massive man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

>termites release more CO2
They don't, the article you posted is based on a very small study from 1982 that says that it estimated those emmissions within an order of magnitude. More recent research estimates termite methane emmisions of 20-30 Tg per year while anthropogenic sources emit 300-350 Tg per year: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-4-1.html#table-7-6

So the 1982 study was indeed over-estimating by an order of magnitude.

>if that is the case lets pump more CO2 into the atmosphere because there will be diminishing returns. You have not been consistent in your logic.
So if I told you that the more obese you are the more you need to eat to gain the same amount of weight, that would mean to you that obese people should eat more? How exactly is that logical?

Not to mention that we have been emitting more and more GHGs, which is why the temperature is increasing exponentially instead of increasing logarithmically.

>look at this statement
>The same amount of heat is radiated back whether that amount of greenhouse gas composes 100% of the atmosphere or 0.001%. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you know it since you are avoiding the question.
This says that the same amount of heat is radiated back by the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere regardless of other gases. It doesn't say that an additional amount of CO2 will add the same effect. You fail at basic reading comprehension.

>Not only that but according to you lowering atmospheric CO2 would be pointless if it isn't lowered to 0%.
Where did I say that? Try not to lie so much.

Climate change would have hit us much harder if our Sun would be more active. This gives us une last chance to change our behaviour before it's too late. But we will probably waste it.

that chart has been disproved by Scafetta

>>9992807
was for >>9990305

>>9992807
Where?

>>9992536
if you care so much about CO2, don't have kids, it is literally the worst thing you could do for the environment

>>9992988
I'd rather fix the environment for my kids instead.

Now drink your arsenic water, hack.

>>9992988

>if you care so much about CO2, don't have kids, it is literally the worst thing you could do for the environment

Or have kids, because they may grow up to be future scientists and help solve the CO2 issue.

>>9990003
>>9990071
>an absolutely ridiculous assertion

Earth would be uninhabitable to most life if not for greenhouse gasses. The entire reason Earth has a tolerable climate is because of the greenhouse effect and GHGs.

>>9993009
>>9993013
http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/we-must-preserve-the-earths-dwindling-resources-fo-11239

having kids in today's environment is the most selfish thing you can do, you are condemning them to resource conflict and deprivation.

>>9993013
>>9993009
the truth about the impact of having kids on the environment shut you up real good, didn't it?

>>9989216
y

People talk about CO2 like it was the first massive impact humans had on the circulation, but forget the fucking massive albedo change that came with large scale farming and deforestation from the 16th to 19th centuries. Albedo dropped precipitously in Europe and North America over that period. That has a direct impact that very few people have looked at seriously. The climate in 1800 was far from "natural"

People who fetishize the impact of CO2 have no fucking clue how the climate system actually works with regards to heat ventilation. The global temperature is 100% controlled by greybody emissivity at TOA and boltzmans equation (LW to space ~ T^4) . This means hot equatorial cloudtop temps + cold poles = efficient radiator and cooling, cold equatorial cloudtop temps + warm poles= inefficient radiator and warming. CO2 as a direct forcing would reduce radiative efficiency but direct forcings matter much less than people think. In all likelihood the current warming is mainly natural with some part ascribable to GHG's and human depletion of ozone. Ironically the latter is often ignored by alarmists, yet has been directly linked to warming by way of forcing a +AO tendency, which warms the poles and cools the subtropics leading to radiative inefficiency.

>>9989481
I plan to up my respiration rate by one breath per minute. Suggest you do the same.

>>9990127
>Do you believe that arsenic is harmless if it only composes a little bit of your drinking water?

It's pretty harmless when it composes just a little bit of the apples I eat.

Do I believe that "the dose makes the poison?" Yep. Do you not?

>>9990408
Why? Can you not defend your thesis?

>>9990259
>being this ignorant of science and posting on /sci/
go back to /pol/ you 90 IQ faggot

>>9993054
Or we could just continue the human race while emmiting less CO2.

>>9993484
>replies to a response to the post
>hurr that post must have shut you up
What did the retarded hack mean by this?

>>9993029
you’re wrong and dumb

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

>>9993523
That's completely false. Many studies have looked at albedo change from land use in the past 500 years. The consensus is that land use increased albedo, with an RF of about -0.15 W/m^2. Pretty miniscule compared to the RF from GHGs. See AR5: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

>>9993628
wow that has very little to do with the greenhouse effect

at least try to understand what you're reading before using it in an argument and being spectacularly wrong

>>9993650

yfw solar panels decrease albedo

>>9993535
>CO2 as a direct forcing would reduce radiative efficiency but direct forcings matter much less than people think.
It matters as much as climatologists have determined it matters. If you have a better evidenced model I suggest you present it and win your Nobel prize.

>In all likelihood the current warming is mainly natural with some part ascribable to GHG's and human depletion of ozone. Ironically the latter is often ignored by alarmists, yet has been directly linked to warming by way of forcing a +AO tendency, which warms the poles and cools the subtropics leading to radiative inefficiency.
There is no significant trend in the AO, so that doesn't make sense. Where are you getting this crap?

>>9993544
Yup the dose makes the poison. The amount of arsenic in an apple is too small to have an effect. 100 ppm in your drinking water will kill you. So what exactly is telling you that a change of 100 ppm in atmospheric CO2 has no effect?

I don't understand why it has taken so many posts for you to admit that simply saying "trace gas" is not an argument, since you have not told me why you think a trace gas can't have a significant effect.

>>9993687
And a power plant produces heat when it creates electricity, what's your point?

>>9993650
sorry I was on 1 hr of sleep when I wrote that shit. Somehow confused dropped with increased. Goddamnit

>>9993650
also ipcc isn't a respectable source to anyone in the field from what I've seen in grad school, at least give me something from AMS.

>>9993809
>also ipcc isn't a respectable source to anyone in the field
According to who?

>at least give me something from AMS.
Why the AMS?

>>9993809
>also ipcc isn't a respectable source to anyone in the field from what I've seen in grad school, at least give me something from AMS.
Ha, nice LARP.

>>9993803
You were also wrong about "very few people" looking at land use changes since the 1600s and about such land use changes being climatically significant, but OK.

>>9993695
No significant trend since the 70's when reliable data comes up. Modern warming started way before then. AO is a clear mechanism in planetary warming through its limiting of poleward heat transport (AKA making cold regions colder, keeping warm regions warmer). High pressure over pole WILL cause planetary cooling if it stays there long enough, and vice versa, that's just physics.

>>9993845
nothing I said was wrong about that. I never implied it was stronger than GHG's jackass. It is certainly significant, and not well studied ( I don't see more than 2 articles on google scholar which is jack shit).

>>9993840
If you've ever set foot in a geophysics PhD program motherfucker you'd realize the state we're in compared to other fields of STEM. It's a shitshow and the IPCC is a carnival of second and third rate "scientists" fishing for grant money, power and fame. Almost nobody in this field is good at math outside of a few top programs. For fucks sake the people I went to shcool with barely knew fluid dynamics. I have every right to judge the IPCC. GHG's are a real forcing, yes, but people like you who make this into a religious issue have destroyed the field as a whole by pumping it full of ideological dumbasses and keeping away actual talent.

>>9993852
>No significant trend since the 70's when reliable data comes up.
Reliable data for the AO goes all the way back to the 19th century. Try again.

>AO is a clear mechanism in planetary warming through its limiting of poleward heat transport (AKA making cold regions colder, keeping warm regions warmer).
No, it's a clear mechanism in short term weather patterns. If you detrend global temperatures then the correlation between the "noise" in temperature and oscillations like AO, NAO, ENSO, and AMO becomes clear. They have no correlation with the warming trend because they have no trend. You're confusing the noise with the trend.

>>9993874
You fundamentally don't understand how indexes are made first of all, and the concept of integration over a time period. To have a + and a - component a baseline has to be chosen over a record, a record that is mainly warming.

>>9993867
Did you look at the citations in the link in >>9993650?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2007GB003153
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192306002887
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1853/2013/

>It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2, but a net cooling of the surface—accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo—is about as likely as not.

>>9993870
So you have no evidence, and think people will be convinced purely by your assertions?

>>9993870
>If you've ever set foot in a geophysics PhD program motherfucker you'd realize the state we're in compared to other fields of STEM. It's a shitshow and the IPCC is a carnival of second and third rate "scientists" fishing for grant money, power and fame.
Ha, nice LARP.

>GHG's are a real forcing, yes, but people like you who make this into a religious issue have destroyed the field as a whole by pumping it full of ideological dumbasses and keeping away actual talent.
I'm making it a religious issue by stating what the research says, and your attempt to ignore the research for no valid reason is not the ideological cancer, sure.

>>9993883
>To have a + and a - component a baseline has to be chosen over a record, a record that is mainly warming.
That would be an issue if you chose a short baseline over a period with high variability, but climatologists are already aware of this. Are you done LARPing?

>>9993603
>Or we could just continue the human race while emmiting less CO2.
the sun will end the earth if humans do't. midwit breeder doesn't realize it is pointless to continue humanity.

>>9994920
>we will be stuck on Earth for billions of years

>>9989481
Maybe we already are. Remembering those graphs from school we could be falling back into a cold stage already.

>>9995099
>humanity will see other star systems or even meaningfully colonize other planets in our own solar system

Why would that happen? We don't even have settlements in the ocean or in the arctic yet. An overpopulated hellscape of the Earth a la Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? would still be more habitable than the moon or Mars.

>>9995099
don't forget about entropy killing all life in the future

>>9995385
Humanity hasn't even existed for half a million years, yet you think our current technological state has any bearing on where we will be billions of years from now? Fuck off retard.

>>9995393
So?

>>9995394
Technology isn't the problem, we could have that already.

>>9995405
So what is the problem?

>inbf cost, because technology does not determine the cost

>>9995394
>doubting a physical law of the universe
lmao. You are nto a scientist, you have faith, faith in technology and humanity and that is the most dangerous because it will feed your hubris.

>>9995427
No necessity or extrinsic reward

>>9995475
Which physical law prevents humanity from leaving Earth?

>>9995485
You just said it's necessary since the Sun will eventually make the Earth uninhabitable.

>>9995489
leaving earth doesn't solve the entropy problem.

>>9995575
So?

>>9995586
>So?

The universe will be uninhabitable and yet you choose to breed. Foresight much?

>>9995612
So?

>>9995612
Yes, is there supposed to be a contradiction there?

>>9995650
spinning your wheels, wasting your one life on Earth making crotch spawn, crotch spawn that are literally one of the worse things you can do for the environment. You obviously have no foresight. You are a cancer, reproduction for reproduction's sake.

>>9995650
Do you expect thanks from your descendants for bringing them to existence into a cold dead universe that will erase everything, and doing it on a planet that you know has chemicals that fuck with hormones, a collapsing ecosystem and dwindling resources

>>9995707
Why would I care about the environment except in its relation to the welfare of humans? You're not making much sense, is there a point you're trying to make here?

>>9995712
Why would I care about heat death when there is nothing I can do about it and it's unimaginably far in the future? I can only care about what I can affect, like my offspring and their environment.

>>9995806
>unimaginably far
lol brainlet
>Why would I care
typical human cancer reply
>I can only care about what I can affect
doesn't say too much about your cognition

>>9995924
Why do you care if humanity reproduces or not, why do you care about anything?

>>9990408
>Anthropogenic climate change deniers should be banned.
only then could we have a proper discussion about stuff we disagree about.

>>9995806
read
http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism_writings/translations/voisikoelamavoittaa_translation/VI%20-%20The%20World%20And%20We/

and take the econazi-pill

>>9995941
because I would like to spend my golden years in a less populated Earth surrounded by an awoken humanity, instead of a bunch of fucking breeders screeching about how they need a better future while refusing to actually think about the future.
>let's plan for future generations
>let's ignore the second law of thermodynamics on the sole """""""reason"""""" it's too far in the future.

>>9996513
No thanks.

>>9997089
My kids aren't going to experience heat death, so what relevance does it have? You're not making any sense.

>>9997510
No your kids will experience war, famine, drought, environmental toxins, mcjobs, high rent, overpopulation. And all for what? Your selfish desires?

>>9997510
What about your children's children's.... etc? You created their creators so they would exist because of you

>>9995385
>tfw we havent used our nukes to heat up mars's core and heat it up, make it rotate and naturally develop an atmosphere

>>9997544
They won't if we do what should be done.

>>9997545
That's their decision to make.

>>9989216
Astonishing how you people can hold the thought that the sun and earth are billions of years old, yet at the same time contemplate that the sun quickly changing a little bit will end life on earth. The cognitive dissonance is deafening.

>>9997807
>They won't if we do what should be done.
then they most certainly will suffer the listed hardships.
>That's their decision to make.
They didn't decide to be born, or for their parents to be born, you did.

https://www.alamogordonews.com/story/news/local/2018/09/07/sunspot-observatory-south-cloudcroft-closed-due-security-issue/1227788002/

https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexico/closure-of-national-solar-observatory-puzzles-local-community/1435481116

>FBI Suspiciously Locks Down, Evacuates Solar Observatory in New Mexico

WTF is going on!!
Is this like that movie "The Core" only we're going to have to send the Rock into space to restart the sun?

>>9997928
>then they most certainly will suffer the listed hardships.
If you keep being a defeatist faggot, sure.

>They didn't decide to be born, or for their parents to be born, you did.
So?