[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 36 KB, 638x480, CroHightThinking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2298804 No.2298804 [Reply] [Original]

I don't know anything about that "global warming" bullshit. Please educate me good folks, so I can fucking answer back to people where I work that what they say EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY for 10 minutes straight that it's wrong.

>> No.2298814

>>2298804
What if what they're saying is right?

Do you want the fucks, or just some pseudo scientific terms to make you sound right?

>> No.2298824
File: 170 KB, 400x400, what_the_fuck_am_i_reading.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2298824

>>2298814

>Do you want the fucks

>> No.2298830

C02 is an insulator which will heat up the planet as its concentration in the atmosphere increases. Humans are producing about ten times more of it then occurs naturally, enough to heat up the planet.

Planet is getting warmer. Other known factors such as solar cycles cannot account for all of it. We therefore conclude the C02 is heating up the planet.

>> No.2298836

>>2298824
Facts*

Sorry, just got through rubbing one out to some lesbian domination.

>> No.2298840

Just believe Al Gore. That's all you need to know.

>> No.2298846

>>2298830
But some places are getting colder?

>> No.2298849

The global average temperature has an upward trend. There is fear that this will cause disruptive climate change.

>> No.2298855

>>2298849
But no proof, just simulations and models that haven't withstood the test of time. So lets bring down the economy for some projected apocalypse that could have incorrect assumptions.

>> No.2298859

but, in a lot of places it's getting colder. I can get the CO2 because I am in my chemistry books right now, but what about the facts that some places are getting colder?

>> No.2298863

>>2298846
Its not a black and white issue, the global mean temp has gone up, and the causes of it can be speculated or backed up all they want. The real side effects of this are its fucking up our worlds air currents and ocean currents that keep the temp of earth where its at. Sometimes this means places chill.

>> No.2298864

Fact, the numbers are inconclusive for a number of reasons:
the record is incomplete and temps before around 1850 are only available for certain locations.
the recorded temps were not necessarialy accurate because of technical limitations/measurement standardization (like at location a the thermometer was in the sun and read in the evening, location b was in the shade and read randomly when the dude got to it).
even with data available you can show either a cooling or warming trend globally depending on when you start the graph.
Also we really don't know if any of the supposed changes are because of greenhouse gasses or natural cycle or land use (concrete and asphault hold heat a lot better than forrested land).

In short, we probably have altered our environment in some way, but we honestly don't know if it is significant or how we are changing things.

Oh, and all of these models are horseshit. They cannot accurately predict weather for more than a couple of weeks out, why should we believe these same models when run out for longer periods? The planet, as a system, is infinitely complex and we haven't even close to the understanding that we pretend we have of it.

Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.

>> No.2298882

>>2298864
That, sir, explains it. Thanks.

>> No.2298884

>>2298864

Fact: If you think the actual climatologists that work on this shit don't already know all this and account for it - you are a fucking moron.

>> No.2298890

>>2298855
Simulations and models change with time as new data is acquired? You don't say.

What I don't understand is how making industries clean up their act and be more efficient is a bad thing. If anything, higher standards forces them to invest in new technology and increased manpower, which pumps money into the system.

>> No.2298894

>>2298884
Funny how that doesn't stop the carbon tax nazis.

>> No.2298903

>>2298864
>Oh, and all of these models are horseshit. They cannot accurately predict weather for more than a couple of weeks out, why should we believe these same models when run out for longer periods?

Failure to distinguish the difference between weather and climate duly noted.

>> No.2298910

>>2298864
>>temps before around 1850 are only available for certain locations

We have tree ring and ice core data stretching back thoasands of years.

>>models are horseshit. They cannot accurately predict weather for more than a couple of weeks

For the thousandth fucking time: Climatology is not meteorology!!!

>> No.2298915

>>2298890
>What I don't understand is how making industries clean up their act and be more efficient is a bad thing. If anything, higher standards forces them to invest in new technology and increased manpower, which pumps money into the system.
Or if you know a thing or two about economics, tariffs stop interest in corporate expansion and thus go to slow progress. Instead of there being a tax it should be an incentive. If a large corporation is to legitimately use more efficient processes they should be given grants not slapped for not immediately switching to this new manufacturing process.

>> No.2298922

>>2298910
>>2298903
>Climatology and meteorology aren't linked at all.

>> No.2298972

>>2298864

>Fact, the numbers are inconclusive for a number of reasons:

>the record is incomplete
Any historical record is always incomplete, that's why a bunch of different indicators are used. Tree rings, coral growth etc are used to get higher accuracy.

>the recorded temps were not necessarialy accurate
If you honestly think any person with a post college education doesn't know this and take uncertainty into consideration, then you really need to read some journals dealing with these issues.

>even with data available you can show either a cooling or warming trend
Absolute Bullshit from people that are clueless about statistics. Do you also think data shouldn't be trusted because if you turn the graph upside down it shows the opposite? Detecting Manipulated data like that is one of the first things you learn in mathematics&statistics.

>Also we really don't know if any of the supposed changes are because of
Yes, it's caused by greenhouse gasses, this has long been establised. We can measure the heat island effect, we can measure the solar radiation, we can measure the albedo of various materials. All of this shit together does not give the amount of change we see, but if you plug in CO2 it all comes together.

>> No.2298976

>>2298864

>In short, we probably have altered our environment in some way, but we honestly don't know if
Bullshit again. Our environment has been changed so drastically it is insane to claim otherwise. Covering the earth with concrete&bitumen and cutting down forests is a big fucking change, and we have a pretty damn good idea about the physics of the greenhouse effect. Nobodys claiming to know what precise effect will occur in every specific location on a given day, but the basics are pretty concrete.

>Oh, and all of these models are horseshit.
Fucking moron, do you have any idea about claimte science other than what you heard from Fox news & co?

Climate models are completley different beasts from local weather. If you don't know the difference you should shut your damn pie hole till you have even the most basic education on what you're talking about.

>Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.
Running your mouth without having a damn clue what you're talking about makes you a fool.

>> No.2298979

>>2298915
You say carrot. I say stick. I see no reason to leave the choice to their own discretion, especially when it means that can just hoard away their money at times like these.

>> No.2298986

>ITT: people ignore the real issue at hand and argue about weather humans did it or not & not how to fix it.

>> No.2298994

>>2298922
Full of shit.

It's like comparing a model which predicts the precise position and velocity of molecules in a fluid with a model that explains the movement of the fluid as a whole.

'hurr durr they're linked' is full retard, congratulations.

>> No.2298998 [DELETED] 

>>2298979
>implying the IPCC won't hoard away all the carbon tax dollars to themselves and their Swiss bank accounts.

>> No.2299003

>>2298986

What's this bullshit about 'how to fix it'

It's climate. It's not going to be reversed, it's not going to be fixed, and it's most likley not going to get better for tens of thousands of years. We're stuck with it.

As for what *humans* do about it, that's been discussed for a long time, and there are plenty of stratergies around.

The problem is young earth creationist conservatards are holding up the entire process by pretending the warming isn't happening, or if it is it's natural and that somehow makes it all OK.

>> No.2299009

>>2298903
>>2298910
I understand weather and climate are vastly different; however weather is a MAJOR component of climate thus if we cannot model a major hunk of something accurately, how are our models of that thing aaccurate And variations of weather affect average temperature (think of how an unexpected southerly shift in the arctic jet stream or northerly shift of the tropical can affect things such as precipitation, ppressure and humidity -- all of which have an effect on the temperature over time. Especially when you realize that the changes in global temp they are citing are as little as 1 degree.

As for them using tree rings, so yeah, that has been proven to what level of precision?
>>2298884
how do you make up for gaps that are not there and error you cannot know? They essentially pull numbers out of their asses because it is extrapolation. (Don't claim it is interpolation, because that implies we know and understand climatic cycles). Their "adjusting" is the same as if you were to have all of the baseball player's batting averages for the last 30 years, but before that you know some out and out made up numbers and padded stats and others who kept them could't do long division so they stuck to easy numbers. Then you treated these numbers as if they were good by applying some jigger factor you cooked up and tried to use all of that to extrapolate what the number of gold metals the US will win in the 2040 olympics. Be honest with yourselves. No other science would dream to pass this shit off as remotely certain.
>>2298890

Eh, banning freon helps keep africans starving by denying access to cheap refridgeration (after the ban the un and us threatened to stop all aid if they continued to use it)

But for the most part it is not too bad.

>> No.2299010

>>2298979
>implying the IPCC won't hoard away all the carbon tax dollars to themselves in their Swiss bank accounts.

>> No.2299018

>>2299009
>No other science would dream to pass this shit off as remotely certain.
That's because climatology isn't a science anymore, it's politics.

>> No.2299047

>>2299009
You've mistaken the trees for the forest. You don't have to be able to model every little detail in order to understand the bulk effects. As an analogy, we have no accurate models of turbulence, but this doesn't mean we can't make good calculations of how it effects flow through a rough pipe.

>> No.2299050

>>2298972
>All of this shit together does not give the amount of change we see, but if you plug in CO2 it all comes together.
Funny how they constantly have to adjust their models to suit CO2.

>> No.2299059

>>2299047
We'll see how good these climate models are in 50 years, until then its just nifty models based on speculation.

>> No.2299071

>>2299059
Models change. This surprises you?

>> No.2299077

>>2298972
>>2298976
Using chemistry, physics, and biology: prove it.

If you don't believe me on being able to show a cooling or warming trend, go survey the data for yourself -- not just the climate change gonna kill us all groups, but all of it.

And any true scientist will gladly say that we do not know the degree significance or kind of change we have caused. Or do you know of one who has created an earth and let it burn through four atmospheres, then replicated it a few dozen times. What you are talking about is the aggregation of extrapolations and correlations -- neither of which can prove causation. I'm just asking for a little intellectual honesty here...

>> No.2299090

>>2298976
Covering the earth with concrete&bitumen
Yep the planet is now gray, just like the recent photos of the planet depict.

>and cutting down forests is a big fucking change
You forgot that they plant several trees for every one they cut down. At least in North America.

>and we have a pretty damn good idea about the physics of the greenhouse effect.
We'll see how models run for the next 50 years. Also there is another major effect you, I'm sure the models do, need to take into account, equilibrium. CO2 will be reabsorbed by the oceans in time. And even if this causes a few species to go extinct, keep in mind more than 90% of the species that ever existed already are extinct.

>> No.2299109

>>2299071
No, in fact its the only thing that gives hope to this IPCC hijacked field. What annoys me is people pushing a ridiculously bad policy based off incomplete models. More taxes are always a bad thing. It stunts economic growth and therefore hinders progress. If the IPCC/Al Gore, sameshit, were pushing for incentives to switch to better energy sources and manufacturing processes then I would have no issue.

>> No.2299110

>>2299050
>>2299059
Nice work getting it 100% backwards. The models don't account for warming if you don't put in co2.

And of course the models will still be renewed and revised in 50 years. My personal prediction is that the warming is vastly underestimated.

The only difference in the future will be the denial crowd sinking into the background like the intelligent design movement.

>> No.2299123
File: 285 KB, 720x720, 1294041317868.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299123

holy fuck there are actually climate change denialists on /sci/??

ive lost all hope for this board.

>> No.2299127

>>2299110
>The models don't account for warming if you don't put in co2.
Don't you see the flaw in this? Solar output should be accounted for far more, and it is. The sun is a bigger driver of climate change than CO2 ever was. You can have a planet of an atmosphere entirely made of CO2 if there is no solar radiation you got no warming whatsoever.
>My personal prediction is that the warming is vastly underestimated.
And mine is the opposite along side these scientists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_glo
bal_warming

>> No.2299128

>>2299123
Don't lost hope yet.

>> No.2299131

>>2299109
>More taxes are always a bad thing.
Cut taxes while fighting two unfunded wars. Great idea.

>It stunts economic growth and therefore hinders progress.
Where has all that economic growth been the last three years while taxes have been so low? Where was it when the so called stimulus was mostly in tax cuts?

>> No.2299142

>>2299047
Since you're being civil,, I'll be the same with you. I am...and I'm not. It's purposeful too.

One of my majors was psychology (math was the other with a minor in ecology, before y'all get too jumpy), so I understand the difference between being able to assess and define trends and how that does not translate to prediction of individual behavior. However, it seems we were taught something climatologists were not: to always remember that just because we can make a pretty model that accounts for past behavior, we cannot extend that forward with ANY degree of certainty. It's all because of how the statistics work...they're great for describing what is, but suck at saying what will be. Now if this is true of human behavior, then when one looks at the world's climate which is orders of magnitude more complex one has to logically assume that this holds true as well.

Hell, I had a friend who went through the climate data for his senior thesis and "proved" it was all due to those thousands of underwater nuclear bomb tests that were performed up until the 70s...think of the megajouls of energy that were released into the oceans and how slow water is to release that temp.

Just because you've made a model that fits the past, it doesn't mean it will fit the future. Were there more rigor to the data, i might change my tune, but until this becomes a scientific issue and not a political one, that won't happen.

>> No.2299144

>>2299131
Oh the US economy is permanently fucked. They have big government spending and small government taxes. Also the carbon tax won't go to helping the US economy much seeing as it will be an added cost to the country which already has a 14 trillion dollar deficit.

>> No.2299145

>>2299077

Already has, read the scientific journals.

Just because you are too lazy doesn't make the evidence go away.

>>2299090
>Yep the planet is now gray, just like the recent photos of the planet depict.
Full retard.


>You forgot that they plant several trees for every one they cut down. At least in North America.
Might want to check your maths buddy. Last time i checked most of the trees were already cut down, forests selectively logged, and even then the USA is only a fraction of the planet.


>We'll see how models run for the next 50 years.
It will be done regardless, 'we'll see' is not an arguement. "We will see if tectonic plate theory is accurate" is a statement as well, does that undermine its credibility?

>Also there is another major effect you, I'm sure the models do, need to take into account, equilibrium. CO2 will be reabsorbed by the oceans in time. And even if this causes a few species to go extinct, keep in mind more than 90% of the species that ever existed already are extinct.

Full retard yet again. Do you think you are the only person on the planet that knows carbon sinks exist? Do you honestly think all these scientists are running around, but they haven't thought of the idea that popped into your head?

Here's news for you - the carbon sinks are fairly well understood and all predictions say they will decrease in effectiveness.

As for the species count, that's so retarded i can't believe i have to respond to it.
The planet was once molten - does that mean humans are now immune to lava?

Global civilisation of 7 billion humans has never seen a major change in climate, let alone a full ice age, let alone an extinction level event. The fact that it has happened in the past isn't even almost approaching an arguement.

>> No.2299149
File: 34 KB, 311x311, 1293824603887.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299149

>>2299131
If government spending stimulates the economy, then shouldn't war spending be bringing a boom?

>> No.2299151
File: 44 KB, 146x223, sbflip.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299151

>>2299128
Oh wait...
>mfw I goof up my typing.

>> No.2299156

>>2299131
The US economy is permanently fucked, they have big government spending with small government taxes. But the carbon tax will only go to add to the already 14 trillion dollar deficit, it wont go to helping that at all.

>> No.2299163

>>2298830

Humans equate for 3.4% to 3.6% of CO2 in our atmosphere...

We are as significant as a single termite in a house.

>> No.2299169

>>2299142

>...they're great for describing what is, but suck at saying what will be. Now if this is true of human behavior, then when one looks at the world's climate which is orders of magnitude more complex one has to logically assume that this holds true as well.

>Hahahah. Oh wow.

The entire function of statistics -and science altogether- is to use it to observe trends and use those trends to make predictions. If a model can't account -or make any prediction whatsoever- in regards to how events will unravel in other places or later into the future, the model is worthless. I'll forgive you because you are a psych major, but that's one of the stupidest things I've heard all day...
here..

>> No.2299170

>>2299145
>Full retard.
You said the planet was covered by concrete, dumbass.
>Might want to check your maths buddy. Last time i checked most of the trees were already cut down, forests selectively logged, and even then the USA is only a fraction of the planet.
Cut-down and regrown, learn about new growth forests.
>It will be done regardless, 'we'll see' is not an arguement. "We will see if tectonic plate theory is accurate" is a statement as well, does that undermine its credibility?
Undermines the credibility behind the carbon tax, no solid proof we need it. Keyword: solid.
>Full retard yet again. Do you think you are the only person on the planet that knows carbon sinks exist? Do you honestly think all these scientists are running around, but they haven't thought of the idea that popped into your head?
Can you learn some reading comprehension? I stated this is understood and is part of the models.
>As for the species count, that's so retarded i can't believe i have to respond to it.
The planet was once molten - does that mean humans are now immune to lava?
Hey Mr. Strawman how are you today?
>lobal civilisation of 7 billion humans has never seen a major change in climate, let alone a full ice age, let alone an extinction level event. The fact that it has happened in the past isn't even almost approaching an arguement.
Climate will change whether or not we influence it, we ought to get prepared for the worst. Or do you believe those prehistoric Ice Ages were our doing and we have full control over it?

>> No.2299183

>>2299127
Oh my fucking god, do you even know what the words you are using mean?

As for me, i'm throwing my bet in with the 98% of active scientists in the field of climatology.

>> No.2299190

>>2299183
>98%
Think again.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-c
ontribute-to-global-warming/

>> No.2299192

>>2299163

0/10

>> No.2299195

>>2299183
Can't argue rationally, resorts to petty insults.

>> No.2299199

>>2299142
>>2299142

You have absolutely got to be kidding. This is college level stuff you think you and you alone know.

The fact that you think you understand.... and you think the majority of all scientific institutions around the world from dozens of country *don't* is the absolute height of arrogance.

Being skeptical and reserved is one thing. But what i can't stand is people that do things like learn highschool biology then claim to disprove ebolution.

>> No.2299200

>>2299192
That's the amount of CO2 we generate compared to what is already there.

>> No.2299201

>>2299163

source?

>> No.2299204

>>2299163

As significant as a small weight on the edge of a sea-saw (or teeter-totter if you're american)

>> No.2299206

>>2299190
>National Post
Sure is unbiased news source. Also, nice dead link.

>> No.2299208

>>2299201
Source indicating otherwise?

>> No.2299212

>>2299190
>earth scientists

>not climatologists that are currently working and publishing in that field

>nope.avi

>> No.2299216

>>2299206
Beacue the IPCC is so unbiased I thought it would only be fair.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-c
ontribute-to-global-warming/

>> No.2299226

>>2299190

Did you read that article?

"
That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma."

OMG THEY ASKED SCIENTISTS WHO STUDY GEOSYSTEMS OVER ASTRONOMERS AND THUS THE RESULTS MUST BE SKEWED!!@!@

That's the stupidest fucking thing I've seen. But I guess that's what happens when you get your stats from a pundit source.

>> No.2299229

>>2299169
You're approaching climetology like it is a hard science and CAN predict. A good psychologist knows that his duty is to describe what is and that the gulf from is to will be is nigh insurmountable...the same should be true for anyone who works with inferential statistics as their primary tool of analysis. We work in terms of probabilities and only accept results at a minimum of the .05 level of error...i can tell you this, almost none of the data used to create these models is capable of achieving that level. Ever stop and wonder how many hidden averages of averages are contained in that yearly "global average"? Oh but they used [insert method for REDUCING (not eliminating) error for that, but wait, we already had to figure in error for inaccurate measurements...oh damn, and then there was the error we had to correct fortime of day measures were made...so on and so forth. I'd be stripped of my degrees if I were to try that shi, and could prove ANYTHING I wanted to.

>> No.2299230

>>2299195

>Don't you see the flaw in this? Solar output should be accounted for far more, and it is. The sun is a bigger driver of climate change than CO2 ever was. You can have a planet of an atmosphere entirely made of CO2 if there is no solar radiation you got no warming whatsoever.

You post was so full of ass-backwards stupid that i couldn't help but rage. Even looking at it again you have things so 100% wrong it's amazing you allow yourself to blather about this.

SOLAR Radiation is very VERY well understood. We can meausre it very well. We have satellites that measure the entire spectrum, and we have observatories around the planet that look at it pretty much constantly.

We know exactly how much energy is going into our planet from the sun, and we know when it increases and decreases, as well as how much.

The changes in the sun DOES NOT ACCOUNT for the extra warming we see.

This is the most basic shit imaginable, preschool level stuff, and yet you think thousands of scientists haven't cottened on that the sun might warm the planet.

Full. Retard.

>> No.2299234 [DELETED] 

>>2299230
You serious have a reading comprehension issue. Read what I wrote again, full retard.

>> No.2299239 [DELETED] 

>>2299230
You serious have a reading comprehension issue. Read what I wrote again, full retard. I was merely stating that accurate model take solar output and CO2 into account, dumbass. Learn to read, fucking idiot. this is Kindergarten stuff.

>> No.2299241

>>2299230
You seriously have a reading comprehension issue. Read what I wrote again, full retard. I was merely stating that accurate model take solar output and CO2 into account, dumbass. Learn to read, fucking idiot. this is Kindergarten stuff.

>> No.2299242

>>2299234

And the person that complained about someone else not replying to the content, once again doesn't reply to the content.

Well done.

I read what you wrote, and it was stupid bullshit.

>The sun is a bigger driver of climate change than CO2 ever was
Complete missing the point bullshit.

>You can have a planet of an atmosphere entirely made of CO2 if there is no solar radiation you got no warming whatsoever.

Congratulations, you have established the sun is hot.

>> No.2299244

>>2299241
>this is Kindergarten stuff.
You mean like capitalization rules?

>> No.2299249

>>2299242
>>2299242
>Look at me I'm a smug prick who can't argue cogently and doesn't know how to read.

>> No.2299250

>>2299244
>implying your grammar is perfect.

>> No.2299253
File: 37 KB, 555x448, cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299253

>> No.2299254

>>2299229

>[insert method for REDUCING (not eliminating) error for that, but wait, we already had to figure in error for inaccurate measurements...oh damn, and then there was the error we had to correct fortime of day measures were made...so on and so forth.

Wow. You think the measurements are innaccurate depending on the time of day?
That's just fucking great.
Stick to psychology, anon

>> No.2299256

i wanted to get to the truth about global warming, so i took a climatology subject at uni last semester. Lecturer was supposedly a well respected climatologist.

It quickly became clear that there are too many things going on that they don't understand well enough, and that the whole thing is a huge mess and nobody really knows what is going on. Also that climatology is fucking boring, so i dropped it quite early. just remembering those lectures is making me bored, i have barely scanned this thread and thats all i can stand.

i do think that pumping our atmosphere full of dirty shit is a bad idea though, regardless of whether its making things warmer or not.

>> No.2299261

>>2299229

Difference between 'hard science' and other is a continuum. Why not just claim anything other than mathematics is useless?

>A good psychologist knows that...
This is the most basic shit covered in Stats 101.

>almost none of the data used to create these models is capable of achieving that level.
Absolute moron. Everything in the models that is used has to pass that level, otherwise it isn't used.

Other shit that isn't that significant is put in the secondary report and itsn't considered with the same level of confidence.

>Ever stop and wonder how many hidden averages of averages are contained in that yearly "global average"?

The Global average is an index, not some magical temperature like so many retards try to say.
An increase of 2 deg C does not mean everywhere will increase by 2 C. There is no benefit to anyone inscrewing with these numbers, seeing as how there are dozens of models and datasets.

Pretending that statisticians don't know what they're doing does not impress.

>> No.2299269

>>2299250
>Implying I'm not just trolling shit in this thread at random
Seriously, you're all the cancer.

>> No.2299274

>>2299199
I don't assume that others don't know this; however, much of the climate change community seems to want to distance themselves from it. Moreover, my only stance is we don't know or uderstand what's happening as well as some claim we do. I figure that a lot of what they believe is correct; however, I just hate seeing people act like it is 100% proven fact. We could be barking up the wrong tree. While the possibility of these climate change theories being incorrect (at least in their generalities) do seem to diminish as time goes on, tthey have not fully proven their case and a lot of junk science and lies damn lies and statistics statistics are thrown up to support them. What I would love more than anything would be to see the scientific community sit down and talk critically and dispassionately and come to a consensus on both what the data CAN say and what it does say.

>> No.2299278 [DELETED] 

>>2299269
That makes sense, so you're not as retarded as initially thought. Or you are and you're trying to defend your mental ineptness.

>> No.2299280

>>2299274
>>2299274
This.

>> No.2299284

>>2299256

See now if more people were like this, everything would be so much better.

.. Why do i feel sad saying that :S

>> No.2299307

Umm, genius, if someone at location a measures in the morning, and someone at location b measures in the evening -- b will trend hotter.

Yes, i know that shit is basic statistics which is why it astounds me that so many of you seem to ignore it. As for the data all being "a certain standard" it's not. You really don't have GOOD numbers from worldwide locations until around the 1930s...yet I seem to see a running ton of data sets that include data from earlier. I'm pretty fucking good with most omnibus statistical analyses but I have never ran across one that fucking can wash data that is that fucked up.

>> No.2299310

We really need to do something about the conservatives. We've lost most of our freedom, we've lost the clean air, we've lost the clean water, we've lost soldiers, and now it's about to be entire planet-wide ecosystem.

You don't deal with a criminal by debunking each of his excuses and waiting for him to come up with new ones. You kill the fucker.

>> No.2299315

>>2299274
Saying any theory is 'proven fact' is just not giving enough information.

Even saying evolution is 100% proven is not the whole story, as we understand it better and better, always increasing our understanding. Some facets of the theory may turn out to be not entirely true, and that's OK.

I don't even pay attention to Hippie shits saying the sea level will rise 1000 metres and we will all suffocate in Co2 in 5 years. Media and sensational bullshit like that doesn't entertain.

The difference in my opinion is the "pro warming" crazies have FAR less influence on reality and laws than the "no warmig" crazies, so i pay the former no attention and forget the exist for the most part.

As for junk science and statistics there's two classes there. Firstly yes, the people claiming the world will end in a decade are full of shit, and i haven't heard anyone who thinks otherwise.

The problem is when good science and scientists are slandered and called liars just because they run afoul of what i'm comfortable calling the republican movement (seeing as they almost unanimously disagree with global warming).

As for the scientific community sitting down and talking critically - That has pretty much been done.

Last time i checked there was not a single scientific institution on earth whose formal position was that global warming was not occuring. Almost all the government's scientific advisors agree, militaries are preparing for climage shift (especially navy in the north) and the IPCC reinforces that.

There is *shitloads* we don't know, for example how much it will warm, how fast, when it will end.

We also don't know for sure which parts of the world will change and how.

But the basic underlying principle that the global average temperature is increasing, and human CO2 emissions account for that is pretty much solid.

>> No.2299316

>>2299310
But conservatives love freedom. Why else would they use the constitution to wipe their asses?

>> No.2299328
File: 35 KB, 500x375, 1277003061695.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299328

>>2299310

>> No.2299333

>>2299310
>implying emancipation wasn't declared by a Republican.

>> No.2299335

>>2299333
that was quite some time ago, kid

>> No.2299337
File: 213 KB, 334x500, 1292821570761.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299337

>>2299333
don't confuse them with facts, it makes them agitated.

>> No.2299342

>>2299307

I agree. But you're making this strange, unwarranted assumption that climatologists not only don't know what they're doing, and that you know more than them, but your criticisms of their "methods" are so outthere that you seem to be suggesting that they don't even have a highschool level understanding of climate systems, data collection and analysis, and basic cause and effect. Taking measurements at different times of the day is obviously going to give different readings and why you think you, a mighty psychology student, have more knowledge of how they get their data than they do a very high caliber of arrogance. It would be like a grade 10 arts kid telling you how to psychology. It's hardly worth responding to.

But why don't we actually look at their measurements. For one, they use satellite systems. Under constant surveillance -often hourly. Not only do they measure the amount of incoming solar radiation, but they also measure the localized and global temperature fluctuation and distribution, and the opacity at the surface. This is how they calibrate for temperature differences on cloudy days, windy days, and sunny days, and alterations through the periphelon and aphelion..

>> No.2299355

>>2299337
not a very recent president. Check out history, and some other elementary subjects

>> No.2299361

>>2299337
Isn't confusion the whole point of 4chan?

>> No.2299372

>>2299342

Nope, it's just an international conspiracy to embezzle research funds.

Have you ever met a climatologist? They are fucking loaded bro.

>> No.2299376
File: 8 KB, 250x250, 1276992491152.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299376

>>2299355
I know that the congressmen who never disavowed or publicly broke their documented ties with the KKK(classically dem.) were all democrats. Read history that wasn’t sanitized and reprocessed for your delicate sensibilities.

>> No.2299381

>>2299342

Continued.

Yes, we do have good readings of temperatures beyond the 1910s. We use ice core sampling. Differences in cores taken from the same area can reveal local wind patterns by showing where the snow drifted. The chemical make-up of the snow itself tells us past temperatures.
To understand why you need nothing more than a 30 second brush-up on your basic chemistry 100. Different isotopes differ in their atomic masses. With this, different isotopes also carry slightly different properties. For example, heavier isotopes more easily condense, and less easily evaporate. Vise-versa with lighter isotopes. And with high precision mass spectroscopes we can measure the relative abundances of different isotopes down to about 1 part in 100,000.
What's important in ice core samples is Oxygen isotope O18. It evaporates more slowly and condenses more quickly than its other nuclide, O16, both as a water molecule and as an oxygen atom. The rate difference is larger at low temperatures, lower at high temperatures. And this is enough to give to moniter over the long term arctic temperature. On its own, it is imprecise, but we can calibrate it with marine carbonate sediments which can in turn be measured for the temperature at the time of their compaction and the date at which they were compacted through radiometric dating.

>> No.2299382

>>2299376

>implying the KKK would still support the Democratic Party
>implying what happened 80 years ago is still relevant
>implying the Republican or Democratic parties aren't entirely shit
>implying Republicans are not what is generally known as "socially conservative"

>> No.2299406

>>2299376
I could explain how time periods work but you'll just get mad. See, we're only going to spend so long debunking your lunacy before we take action to prevent you from hurting yourself and others.

>> No.2299417

>>2299406
Because tearing down the economy for some liburl ideology isn't lunacy and won't hurt anyone. Both libtards and conservitards need to be jailed.

>> No.2299428

>>2299382
>implying the KKK would still support the Democratic Party
still much stronger than with republicans, the currant ranting are still very government interventionist in terms of economics.
>implying what happened 80 years ago is still relevant
40 years ago, and congressmen from that time are still active.
>implying the Republican or Democratic parties aren't entirely shit
of course they are shit! but you are trying to shift your self mid game, u mad?
>implying Republicans are not what is generally known as "socially conservative"
the dem. base is has a massive "socially conservative" component why do you think Obama is anti gay marriage? (he is) and remember the "socially conservative" component of the republican party knocks heads hard with the "financial conservative" part, that’s why the tea party is a discrete political identity rather than a party branded and packaged drive.

Really kid go read from more than one place, read from bunches of places, then compare, particularly what they say about things they think they don’t care about.

"to know a thing is to know why it needs to burn"

>> No.2299437

>>2299417
Hell, let's just kill all of humanity. It's just faster that way.

>> No.2299441

>>2299437
>This is what liburls really want.
Kill humanity, save the whales.

>> No.2299447

>>2299441
>Implying I think the whales should be spared
I'm pro nuclear holocaust, or some other means by which we can utterly obliterate the planet. We should go out with a goddamn bang.

>> No.2299453

>>2298804
>Oh, and all of these models are horseshit. They cannot accurately predict weather for more than a couple of weeks out, why should we believe these same models when run out for longer periods? The planet, as a system, is infinitely complex and we haven't even close to the understanding that we pretend we have of it.

>Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.

You sir need some basic education in science and modeling stable complex systems. Predicting if it will rain on Monday or not is ridiculously harder than predicting the average temperature for this year, and the next, and so on. Each day is chaotic, but the overall trend is quite predicable, with great accuracy, which the models do (supposedly).

>> No.2299457

>>2299447
That's not what the T-shirt you're wearing states - Save the Owls.

>> No.2299460

>>2299453
Err, quoted wrong post number. My bad.

>> No.2299473

>>2299457
>Implying I'm wearing a t-shirt

>> No.2299476
File: 85 KB, 870x650, 1268788878711.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299476

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8
This is what you want, OP. A good series explaning the science and data behind why we believe in AGW, debunking common miconceptions from both supporters and opponents of AGW, complete with (gasp!) sources. It's 13 videos of about 10 minutes each, but when you think about it, you wasted more time than that watching Tin Cup for the fifteenth time last weekend.

Part 2 of the series even discusses why a very small number of climate scientists don't believe the current models are correct, and what their work has shown. (Basically, the scientists who disagree with current models are all looking at 10000 year trends, not 100 year trends, and AGW-deniers tend to take their work grossly out of context... but that's simplified, so you should watch the video.)

>> No.2299477

>>2299473
Oh that's a tattoo. OK.

>> No.2299481

>>2299381
if you haven't noticed, i've not once taken issue with modern methods of data collection. I only have issue with the older data and its continued use. II like how you keep throwing up the psych thing like it doesn't mean that I don't use the same type of data and analyses that they use. Q-meth is the same no matter what field your in.
>>2299342
Those methods are correlative which presuppose the possibility of an unknown cause. It's hidden in the "calibration" word there. Also, there are so many possible localized confounding issues it is not even funny (say the possibility that the examined samples from a certain time period primarialy were say under water, or some other thing that could alter their temp).

>> No.2299491

>>2299477
Which would be a really clever insult if I gave a shit about the environment.

Or was liberal.

>> No.2299513

arguing doesn't stop them

>> No.2299516

>>2298830

Plant moar trees

>> No.2299553

>>2299481

>I have no response and can't succinctly point out any flaws in your argument so I'm just going to keep saying the data is wrong because psychology bare assertions are what construct strong arguments.

Didn't they teach you defence mechanisms in first year?

>> No.2299666

>>2299226 OMG

You have read the article even less than him. The entire survey sounds shit.