[ 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: 207 KB, 416x273, 800yearlag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2383036 No.2383036 [Reply] [Original]

Explain the 800 year lag, propagandists!

>> No.2383045
File: 229 KB, 479x318, sun.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2383045

It's almost as if the sun drives climate. Herp derp.

>> No.2383052

>my face when op is a conservative

>> No.2383061
File: 265 KB, 481x310, co2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2383061

The two are linked my ass....

>> No.2383073
File: 276 KB, 510x301, sunandtemp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2383073

Now that looks directly related!

>> No.2383076

where are you getting these from op?

>> No.2383083

>>2383076
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhq7Z9zqP80&feature=related

It is a 12 part documentary.

>> No.2383084
File: 27 KB, 262x261, scientists.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2383084

Science is a vast liberal conspiracy.

>> No.2383088

>>2383036

You must be a Republican if you think an 800 year-lag is much when it comes to the fucking planet.

Jesus Christ do you people have no concept of scale?

>> No.2383093

>siting Youtube

>> No.2383096

>>2383083
In the unlikely event you are not trolling, the submitter of that 'documentary' also posted videos on the illuminati and how the moon landing is a hoax.

>> No.2383101

>>2383088

So you're saying CO2 drives climate, when it lags 800 years behind the temperature change.

That is like me saying a nail popped my tire, when my tired pop 800 meters before the tire was on the nail.

>> No.2383107

Good lord /sci/, what have we come to?

>> No.2383109

>>2383088
Butthurt much? An 800 year lag is only important if some asshat is trying to tell you that the thing that happened 800 years later caused the thing that happened 800 years earlier.

>> No.2383110

False dichotomy:

If CO2 causes warming, then warming cannot cause increased CO2.

i.e., if ice is a solid, then water cannot be a liquid.

not sure why people feel qualified to discuss science when they can't think.

>> No.2383113

>>2383096
While the maker of the video did submit those videos (those theories are all a hoax) this one does have legitimate reasons as to why Global Warming isn't Human driven.

>> No.2383122

>>2383110
The graph and data shows that CO2 lags 800 years behind temperature.

Explain that.

>> No.2383129

>>2383122
>can't think AND can't read

>> No.2383138

>>2383129
He's not really implying anything though. I can assume he is saying "but CO2 is causing warming" that or he's agreeing with me.

>> No.2383140

>>2383110
True. The problem is that despite a whole lot of looking, we can't find any sort of statistical evidence that changes in CO2 have affected temperature in the past. Only that temperature has affected CO2.

>> No.2383141

>>2383122
99% certain you're trolling, though there's a 1% chance you're actually retarded. Either way there's no point in trying to explain grade-school logic to you.

read my previous comment over and over again until you recognize that I've already explained it.

>> No.2383145

>my face when /sci/ falls into ad hominem and "he's a republican huuur" talk when they can't argue with facts.

>> No.2383148

OP is a faggot brazillian monkey who watches youtube vids with description that says "truth about the world".

Seriously, how can someone be this stupid?

>> No.2383156

>>2383036
First of all OP read a fucking book.
How can you dicuss climate change if you dont even understand simple concepts such as postive feedback?
Also pretty much all graphs you presented are cherry picked, Attack strawman arguments and lack proper citation

>> No.2383164

>>2383148
>captain butthurt uses sage to try to prevent people from learning about the 800 year lag.

>> No.2383165

>>2383141

CO2 causes the greenhouse affect, although the major contributor is water vapor. While this is true, CO2 doesn't necessarily cause Global Warming.

How about you actually use an argument without calling me a troll. An ad hominem won't get you anywhere.

>> No.2383167

>>2383138
>I can assume he is saying "but CO2 is causing warming" that or he's agreeing with me.

It never crosses your little mind that I'm doing both? you aren't wrong, but that doesn't make others wrong by default. False dichotomy- both processes are known to occur.

>> No.2383171

>>2383156
Read a fucking climatology paper. Every climatologist in the world agrees there is a lag that varies from 400 to 1200 years. No cherry picking necessary. It's how the climate works.

>> No.2383173

I know what causes global warming.
CO2 is a symptom of the real cause.

>> No.2383184

>>2383156
>cherry picked

These are taken by credible organizations such as NASA.

>> No.2383183

OMG DUDE, YOU PROVED SCIENCE WRONG

GO GET THAT NOBEL PRIZE

>> No.2383187

>>2383173
CO2 is neither. The present CO2 levels are not a result of warming, but are put there by fossil fuel combustion. Nor does any increase from present levels increase global heat content. The atmosphere is already opaque at the frequencies absorbed by CO2.

>> No.2383189

>>2383184
>Nasa
>Credible

Pick one

>> No.2383195

>>2383036
Reminds me of creationists who say "radiometric dating gives currently living organisms an age of 300 years!, We can't use radiometric dating!", not realizing how accurate a margin of error of 500 years is when dating 40 million year old fossils.

>> No.2383198

>>2383148

I CAN'T WIN AN ARGUMENT SO I'M GOING TO CALL HIM A BRAZILIAN MONKEY! SURE PROVED HIM WRONG!

>> No.2383203

>>2383045
its almost as if your graph stops 30 years too soon because since 1980 sunspot activity has decreased slightly.
it's almost as if you're just whoring for attention by following unique holier-than-thou theories while actually eating masses of bullshit from people paid by oil companies.

>> No.2383212

>>2383171
Oh, I didnt realise you read cliamatolgy papers OP. Then you must know why that lag exists right? Or do you want me too spell it out to you?

I am pretty certain that OP has never read a single paper in any field of study.

>> No.2383229

>>2383189

There is also another organization based in America, I forgot the name so you might as well discredit it for the sake of the argument.

>>2383195
There have been many ice core surveys all coming up with the same data. Now unless you can prove to me that there is some distortion in the data, I don't see why I should believe you.

>> No.2383230

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

I know you're a bit special OP, so there's a basic page at this url you can look at too. I think it probably has pretty pictures

>> No.2383231
File: 381 KB, 940x3963, climate_change.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2383231

Presenting sourceless data is worse than presenting no data at all. That puts the OP's position in the negative.

>> No.2383236

>>2383212

The major contributor to CO2 are our oceans. The oceans are warmed up over hundreds of years by the temperature differences caused by the sun and we see the effects in CO2 levels.

>> No.2383239

>>2383212
1. I'm not OP
2. I've read many climatology papers.
3. You've read no climatology papers.
4. I know why that lag exists.
5. You do not know why that lag exists.
6. If you knew a fucking thing, you would have said it instead of saying "do you need me to spell it for you" with the possible alternate explanation of you being 12 years old.
...therefore...
7. Leave /sci/ plox

>> No.2383258

>>2383230
I fucking love me some pictures.

>> No.2383264

>>2383231

That is a nice picture, thanks for it!

>> No.2383279

>>2383239
Brofist.jpg

>> No.2383281

>>2383230
There are some nice graphs on that page. However, people who haven't done any actual research in this field should be warned against the graph towards the bottom of the page that attempts to combine measured temperatures with temperatures inferred from tree ring data. Tree ring temperature data isn't worth shit.

>> No.2383285

>>2383187
The present CO2 levels are not affected much by human "pollution" of CO2. The largest CO2 producer is the ocean.

>> No.2383290

>>2383281
How come?

>> No.2383293

>>2383239
1)If you are not OP then why are you defending His copy paste graphs from the great swindle?
2) Facepalm, if you know why the lag exists.
Then whats the problem bro.?
3) I am grad student granted not in climatology but I read climatolgy papers whenever I get a chance.

>> No.2383301

>>2383285
I disagee. The CO2 levels do not follow ocean temperatures closely on the large scale, apart from their seasonal fluctuation. Since the dawn of the industrial age, CO2 levels have been increasing year-to-year almost linearly. Ocean temperatures have certainly not.

>> No.2383302

>>2383293
There is no problem, but Al Gore and other environmentalists want to make it a problem.

This is OP.

>> No.2383317

>>2383302
This is why moot shouldnt have shut down /new/.

>> No.2383340

>>2383290
Because tree growth is more more strongly affected by precipitation than by temperature. By the time you try to adjust precipitation estimates, it has lost a lot of reliability. Added to that, it relies on averaging together lots and lots of highly divergent local data from different regions. What you get is an average that might have something in common with temperature fluctuations, but it's almost impossible to say how much. What you can guarantee, is that since it is the product of so much averaging, that any actual peaks and valleys in temperature are smoothed out. So it is useless for supporting the statement "there were no temperature peaks during that time higher than the current temperature peak", which is what it ends up getting used for.

If they wanted to give evidence that the current climate changes were significant different than the changes over the past 2000 years, they would make a graph based ENTIRELY on the same tree ring methodology. Although recent deforestation makes that difficult as well. But it would be a more honest approach than trying to mix modern measurements with the old tree ring data.

>> No.2383342
File: 12 KB, 400x222, co2emissions.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2383342

>>2383301
Human pollution (you can find this in any text book) of CO2 is only in the single digits of CO2 emissions, while the Ocean is the biggest (that or vegetation) contributor.

CO2 emissions also dropped in the 1945 economic boom. Why is that? Then it rose in the depression of 1973 I believe.

>> No.2383346

see now this isn't even trolling it's just being a faggot

new theory, the amount of faggots directly contributes to the warming of earth.

>> No.2383350

>>2383293
His graphs are representations of ice core data. They look just like the graphs that are in the actual climatology papers that discuss the average 800 year lag. I don't care where the graphs are from, as they look perfectly legitimate to me.

>> No.2383364

I've read into this stuff before. We know that water vapor is orders of magnitude stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and there's orders of magnitude more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2. Also the water vapor fluctuates like crazy. It just seems like a bit of a stretch to claim that CO2 is driving the increase in temperature.

I'm not saying that the Earth hasn't been warming, or that we haven't been releasing CO2 consistently for the past 100 years. Just that drawing a causal conclusion between the two seems somewhat all guesswork and not science.

>> No.2383386
File: 15 KB, 390x306, 080728farley-chart1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2383386

>>2383342
If you take another look at your pic, you'll see it shows the ocean to be a net carbon sink, rather than a carbon source.

pic related, it's the CO2 concentration in ppm in the last 50 years or so. You'll notice that it is extremely close to linear, whereas ocean temperature, and therefore ocean absorption is obviously not.

>> No.2383425

>>2383342
this just in, 6 is greater than 29

>> No.2383459

>>2383317
This.

Rule #1 of /new/ is that /new/ is wrong 100% of the time. Now that /new/ is gone the wrong has diffused across every other board.