/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2978627]

1. The global average surface temperature of the Earth is rising, and has been rising for the past 150 years. This is what scientists mean by "global warming." All parts of the Earth will not warm equally at all times of the year and continuously warm every year.

2. Thousands of biophysical indicators, such as ice sheet wastage; sea ice extent; glacier wastage; snow cover in winter; sea level rise; timing of the onset of seasons; expansion of the tropical Hadley cell; bird, fish, and mammal migrations; etc., are consistent with global warming.

3. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is now 392 ppmv, 112 ppmv above the preindustrial level (280 ppmv) and 92 ppmv above the maximum concentration over the past million years. This increase is almost entirely due to emissions from anthropogenic sources. Methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, and exotic non-natural compounds have also increased primarily or entirely due to anthropogenic emissions.

4. Laboratory experiments and satellite observation confirm that all these gases are greenhouse gases, and they trap outgoing infrared radiation and re-radiate it in all directions.

5. The C12/13 ratio of atmospheric carbon reveals that excess carbon concentrations arose from human sources. There are no plausible alternatives for the increase in greenhouse gases.

[Anonymous No.2978641]

>>2978627

6. The Sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, and "natural cycles" have been ruled out as cause of recent global warming,

7. Unless there is a massive volcanic eruption, the Earth will continue to warm for centuries, until the radiative balance of the Earth is equal.

8. Beyond a level of warming currently unknown (but increasingly certain at higher levels of warming), tipping points will be reached in which it will be impossible to slow or halt global warming. Early signs of these positive feedbacks are being seen in the methane venting in Siberia, despite the relatively small global warming thus far.

9. The impact of global warming on human lives and well-being be largely negative at modest levels of warming (realized warming to <span class="math">\approx1-1.5[/spoiler] K above preindustrial levels) and almost entirely negative at <span class="math">\approx1.5-4[/spoiler] K above preindustrial level. At the upper end of possible warming, there is a risk of disaggregation of civilization and organized society.

10. There is no conspiracy. There is no massive incompetence on the part of all non-skeptic climate scientists, no widespread attempt to hide or manipulate data to show trends that do not exist.

[Anonymous No.2978666]

>>2978641

11. According to economists, it is possible to prevent the moderate and higher levels of warming by reducing greenhouse emissions, improving energy efficiency, and adopting better land use practices. They say that these changes will likely cost orders of magnitude less than the costs of unmitigated climate change impacts.

If you disagree with any of the above points, I will debate you in a civilized manner and provide sources for every claim I make

Or I will make fun of you and call you names, whatever you prefer

[Anonymous No.2978739]

>>2978666

Recommended reading

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, online at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

PDF available here, in all their 2500-page glory

http://www.mediafire.com/?y6nvtd8i1ym8gp2 (WGI: The Physical Science Basis)

http://www.mediafire.com/?37d61wm7kj3wvj0 (WGII: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabilities)

http://www.mediafire.com/?5dfr9865vbcofu4 (WGIII: Mitigation of Climate Change)

The extraordinarily cautiously-worded, conservative, Synthesis Report for the FAR at

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html

Shorter (but still very comprehensive) works that summarize the science, no math:

http://www.mediafire.com/?px169hvqe603c4o (Houghton)

http://www.mediafire.com/?f9e48o0idwhnyql (Pittock)

Summary-type textbook whose authors are largely unassociated with the IPCC, if you're suspicious of them for whatever reason. Some math, but suitable for lay audiences and very comprehensive.

http://www.mediafire.com/?1wozy30z8co00ab (Letcher)

[Anonymous No.2978763]

>>2978739

The history of climate science

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Undergraduate non-science major textbook, some precalc required, very concise:

http://www.mediafire.com/?a31tiy7cfy2sgde (Archer)

College-level atmospheric physics textbooks:

http://www.mediafire.com/?l9tdc44d9j4ut2m (Hartmann, 1994)

http://www.mediafire.com/?1rmiceqt2jhhy5m (Salby, 1996)

http://www.mediafire.com/?b3c7i6vh0kc8w19 (Marshall and Plumb, 2008)

http://www.mediafire.com/?eenoyepca1pacth (Pierrehumbert, 2011)

Also recommended, but not available to download: Archer and Pierrehumbert's The Warming Papers, Bradley's Paleoclimatology, and Cronin's Paleoclimates

[Anonymous No.2978774]

Unless this is some elaborate trick to get yourself trolled, you're preaching to the choir here.

[Anonymous No.2978779]

>>2978763

Not reccomended reading:

Climate Audit

WattsUpWithThat (or just skeptic blogs in general)

Alex Jones

The Daily Mail

Fox News

[Anonymous No.2978789]

>>2978774

There's waaaay more "skeptics" on /sci/ than you might think, the other day some guy was asking for raw data thinking that "adjusted" data = fraud, and he seemed quite sincere about it

[Anonymous No.2978796]

>>2978641
>10. There is no conspiracy. There is no massive incompetence on the part of all non-skeptic climate scientists, no widespread attempt to hide or manipulate data to show trends that do not exist.

This. People need to realize this.

I think one of the problems is that people are used to people like politicians, who will do anything to get what they want. So the idea of someone doing something purely for the search of truth is completely foreign to them.

[Anonymous No.2978803]

>>2978789
>and he seemed quite sincere about it
That just means he's a decent troll.

Anyway, I admire your willingness to debate this stuff. I am pretty interested in climate science myself actually, but gave up these internet debates because they're pretty much pointless. You're not going to convince anyone who believes in conspiracies.

Like the postmortem salmon reference by the way. I'm a neuroscientist actually, so i know the paper well.

[Anonymous No.2978810]

>>2978779
>Read IPCC, but not climateaudit.
>Claim to be a scientist

[Anonymous No.2978813]

>>2978796

I saw an interesting study the last week, about how conspiracy theorists believed what they believed because they believed other people were exactly like them. If the the conspiracy theorists were in a position of power, they'd engage in conspiracies

Made me lol

[Anonymous No.2978816]

>>2978810
>opinions in greentext
>IT ARE A FACT

[Anonymous No.2978817]

>>2978796
Well, there is actually some of that going on. Most of it is nothing so sinister, just group-think, and getting along, and doing what people need to do to make money. But there is also scheming and blackballing dissenters and controling journals to monopolize the story.

[Anonymous No.2978820]

>>2978803

I love the MRI salmon

And hey, every little bit helps. Even if no sincere skeptics are convinced I hope that my ebook piracy will benefit the denizens of /sci/

[Anonymous No.2978821]

>>2978796
Except for the well documented doctoring of evidence

[Anonymous No.2978829]

>>2978627
> Over the past million years

Why are people stupid enough to believe that one million years is a long period in global climate?

No one disputes temperatures are going up, we are probably leaving the Ice Age, since leaving the ice age is a very long time overdue event.

Carbon Dioxide levels are nowhere near the highest they have ever been, nor are they increasing at the fastest rates they have ever increased.

The sky is not falling.

[Anonymous No.2978838]

>>2978821
As long as you keep saying they are honest it doesn't matter if they've been caught being dishonest multiple times!

[Anonymous No.2978844]

>>2978810

Steve McIntyre is a troll and you know it

He'll "audit" any politically iconic science, like the hockey stick graph. But he'd never think to audit Soon and Balliunas, or Christopher Monckton, or any other 'skeptic.' It's not skepticism if you're only nitpicking one side

[Anonymous No.2978853]

>>2978829
>mfw we start coming out of the last ice age JUST AS we start burning huge amounts of coal.
Intredasting coinkidunce, MIRITE?

[Anonymous No.2978860]

>>2978666
>>2978666
>>according to economists
Which economists. Who?

[Anonymous No.2978870]

>>2978821

By all means, please tell us what science was doctored

Which paper was it? Could you tell us the year, author, title, and the journal it was published in? And could you explain the flaws in that paper's methodology or what evidence you have that paper is a fraud?

Maybe it was a dataset. In that case, could you name the fraudulent dataset? Please provide a link if that's the case.

[Anonymous No.2978873]

>>2978844
You are a disgrace to science, there aren't "sides."

If there is a claim that Humans are warming up the globe, it's not "taking sides" to be skeptical of that claim. Either you are compelled to believe it based on the evidence presented or you aren't.

You are a fucking disgraceful green agenda fag who just bites into propaganda like it's his mom's titty, anyone who dares question your religious belief (because you don't have any real understanding, you just have your websites that preach to the belief you want to hold, you don't really know shit about this except for what you found on google in order to support your already chosen viewpoint) is not being "skeptical of the skeptics!"

"I'm not sure I am compelled to believe that humans are causing the global temperature increase when we're long overdue to leave an ice age, and when ice ages are DEFINED by the ice caps melting." is not "taking sides."

[Anonymous No.2978880]

>>2978829
>>debate singly the impact of excess CO2 in the atmosphere
>>ignore acidification of the oceans, massive deforestation, other gas releases, toxic air quality in cities, etc. etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.2978881]

>>2978627
1. Obviously false from the very graph that accompanies your falsehood.
2. If A is "consistent with" B, that doesn't mean that A supports B or suggests it is true.
3. Yep
4. Nope. Way more complex and two-sided than that.
5. Yep
6. Nope.
7. Complete bullshit
8. Definitively and scientifically proven false, and not believed by even the most pro-IPCC activist scientist.
9. Utter bullshit
10. False.
11. according to ECONOMISTS?

I'm not going to argue with you today. Just setting the record straight.

[Anonymous No.2978886]

>>2978870
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

[Anonymous No.2978888]

>>2978873
correcting myself:

"When Ice Ages are defined by how much ice there is, so when you aren't in an ice age it means a shit ton of the ice is melted and gone."

The fact that carbon dioxide levels are going up to levels that are higher than regular for an ice age period shows that perhaps since this ice age has already lasted significantly longer than ice ages normally have historically, it's finally starting to end.

[Anonymous No.2978894]

>>2978886
>go to link
>"None of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."

[Anonymous No.2978902]

>>2978853

You must also believe that the earthquake in Japan was human caused, since that was the largest Earthquake in Japan's recorded history.

[Anonymous No.2978904]

>>2978829
There's not a single thing to suggest that we are leaving the million-year ice age. We are still several degrees below the typical interglacial global temperature peak between (100ky) ice ages.

[Anonymous No.2978909]

>>2978860

Nicolas Stern
William Nordhaus
Joachim Sleich
Martin Weitzman
J. Scott Holladay
The guys at Munich Re, Swiss Re, The Economist, the Big Four accounting firms, etc.

[Anonymous No.2978914]

>>2978873

He thinks we're in an ice age.

[Anonymous No.2978915]

>>2978844
Wow, so a scientific skeptic has to spend equal time being skeptical of other skeptics as he spends being skeptical of mainstream group-think or he's not credible?

[Anonymous No.2978922]

>>2978909
links will help, si vous plait

[Anonymous No.2978925]

>>2978853
When the fuck do you think we started burning large amounts of coal. We came out of the last ice age 15,000 years ago, moron.

[Anonymous No.2978929]

>>2978904
So are you idiotically suggesting that you don't get "several degrees hotter" by temperature increases below that point?

lol?

So according to you if we were beginning to leave the ice age, instead of a gradual small temperature increase, we would just instantly teleport into temperatures "several degrees" higher?

lmao?

So now we aren't leaving the ice age because temperatures aren't increasing quickly enough?

Nothing to fucking worry about then, stop trying to make me pay taxes for your sky is falling bullshit if temperature increases aren't even enough to suggest we are leaving the ice age, or in the birth pangs of a warm age.

lol.

[Anonymous No.2978938]

Water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, so we must get rid of it.

[Anonymous No.2978944]

>>2978914
The last million years, which is punctuated by ice ages every 100k or 40k years is sometimes collectively referred to as an ice age.

[Anonymous No.2978948]

>>2978925
Are you retarded?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Maybe learn to read before you make absolutely retarded claims like we "came out of the last ice age 15,000 years ago."

Just another example of climate change "scientists" on /sci/ blatantly making shit up to support their agenda.

If we weren't in an ice age, retard, the ice caps would be MELTED. Wow you are stupid.

If continental ice sheets exist = ICE AGE.

Wow you are so fucking stupid I don't even know where to begin.

Wiki's definition of an ice age:
"An "ice age" or, more precisely, "glacial age" is a generic geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. "

lol?

"The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island."

[Anonymous No.2978955]

>>2978922

Sure thing.

Nordhaus's DICE model is used by the IPCC. Look at the IPCC report for more details. He's taken a lot of flak for lowballing his impact cost estimates.

The Stern Review, very prominent economic analysis of climate change:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm

Less well-known economic reports:

http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/11501IIED.pdf

http://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/the-other-side-of-the-coin/

[Anonymous No.2978960]

>>2978929
There is nothing to suggest that we will ever get anywhere near the temperature peak from the last interglacial 100kya. We have like a 40 year trend of extremely slight warming. We'd need to do that for a couple thousand years straight, which isn't how it works.

[Anonymous No.2978970]

>>2978948
Btw, if you recognize that our ice has lasted 2.58 million years and you consider the claim that:

"Carbon dioxide levels haven't been this high for a million years" it is suggested that:

Within the last 2.58 million years (Plioscene Quaternary ICE AGE), Carbon Dioxide levels have been higher (in periods where there was significantly more ice).

Keep throwing your propaganda faggots.

Also, if you consider that there are less ice sheets now than previously, it suggests that indeed we are leaving the Quaternary Ice Age, implying a global temperature increase of, as a previous poster said trying to "refute" me, SEVERAL DEGREES

[Anonymous No.2978973]

>>2978948
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
>The Earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for more than 11,000 years
You are a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.2978982]

Okay, answer me this please. Will I be able to grow bananas in Denmark if the temperature rises to predicted levels? Or if Denmark gets flooded, somewhere else, doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.2978987]

>>2978873

>You are a fucking disgraceful green agenda fag who just bites into propaganda like it's his mom's titty

Wow, someone sounds pretty mad

There's always two "sides" to politically controversial science, e.g., the creationist side vs. the evilutionist side. They are not scientifically defined, but politically defined. When a retired mining engineer -- who would otherwise have no business dicking around a field which he knows nothing about and possesses ties to right-wing think tanks -- criticizes only the extant scientific understanding of climate change, but never the much more retarded "skeptic" side, then he is playing a political game, not a scientific one.

[Anonymous No.2978992]

>>2978960
As if that matters. The massive changes human activity are instigating in ecosystems throughout the planet, in oceans, forests, farmland, everywhere are threatening to completely displace populations and destroy the very system our populations have thrived on. Economically speaking, climate change will be a disaster. Ironically, it's the "conservatives" in American politics who dislike environmental conservation. Who knows what kind of massive upheaval it's likely to cause.

[Anonymous No.2978999]

>>2978960
LMAO, you don't have to reach a "temperature peak" of a warm period to be in a warm period, that is the fucking PEAK of the warm period.

Also, temperature increases over several thousand years only seem unlikely to humans with 80 year lifespans, faggot. Stop being misleading.

The fact that there are less ice sheets by a significant margin than there were in the previous periods of the quaternary ice age (from wiki):
"Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island."

Implies that we are either in an interglacial period (ice retreats), or even more significant, that we are (relatively, but nowhere near within our lifetime), leaving the Quaternary Ice age.

I love how just minutes ago you fags acting like you are experts didn't even know that we were in an ice age, but actually think you are are AT ALL able to act like anyone should take you seriously when you throw out propaganda about human caused climate change.

"he thinks we're in an ice age"

LOL?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
"Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, the current ice age or simply the ice age, refers to the period of the last few million years (2.58 Ma to present)[1] in which permanent ice sheets were established in Antarctica and perhaps Greenland, and fluctuating ice sheets have occurred elsewhere (for example, the Laurentide ice sheet). "

Just as a refresher, LMAO

[Anonymous No.2979005]

>>2978960

The last interglacial was about 2-3 K warmer than the preindustrial temperature. We have warmed about 0.7 K over the past 200 years, and about half of that over the past 30 years. Assuming no policy action and business-as-usual carbon emissions, we will see 5 K or more of warming past 1990 levels. That would take us out of the boundary temperature of the past several million years.

[Anonymous No.2979008]

>>2979005

Clarification: 5 K over 1990 levels by the decade of 2090-2100

[Anonymous No.2979016]

>>2978987
Not sure who you were even talking about mr "the last ice age ended 15,000 years ago" implying a complete failure of understanding of what an "ice age" is.

Antarctica is full of ice because we are in an ice age, not because antarctica has always been full of ice.

I think it's interesting that I'm the most educated person on this subject (knew that we were in an ice age, lol high schoolers), and I'm the one saying that skepticism is necessary in claims that significant temperature increases (in the global mean over 50 years) must mean that "humans did it!"

[Anonymous No.2979018]

>>2978999

Just looked outside. It's 85 degrees, no ice. NOPE, you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.2979025]

>>2978915

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

Why wouldn't you be skeptical of a shady motherfucker like Christopher Monckton? Why trust an idiot who makes graphs like this to "prove" there's no sea level rise?

>>2978763

[Anonymous No.2979040]

Pic related, it's a global warming denier.

[Anonymous No.2979045]

>>2979008
This is what's known as a non empirical "prediction" based on a model, based on (mostly) raw data that is not accessible to the public until after it has been "adjusted for bias" (and even then you only see the averages of the data) by a non open source software.

But if the temperature is increasing at a rapid rate, perhaps it has a natural cause, perhaps this ice age which has lasted far longer than most other ice ages in earth history, is finally coming to a close. If it is, certainly people would take advantage of the relatively rapid and significant changes in global climate to make a buck.

These people would then convince you that instead of being a scientist about the subject, you should "take sides."

[Anonymous No.2979053]

So seriously, let's instead debate the costs of inaction and action instead.

[Anonymous No.2979055]

ITT: Cynics and Bias.

[Anonymous No.2979069]

>>2979018
I lold because you are just trolling to cope with the fact that your absolute stupidity and lack of knowledge on the subject of climate change (presuming we weren't even in an Ice Age is a perfect illustration of your level of ignorance) that you shouldn't be posting in this topic pretending to have anything of substance to say.

So now you'll probably just post pictures and one line catch phrases to support your obvious agenda, since there's not much else a retarded person can do.

"herp derp we're not in an ice age, I'm so knowledgeable that I don't even know that ice ages last well over a million years, and that "antarctica full of ice = ICE AGE", not just "thousands" of years, herpaladerpala!"

[Anonymous No.2979070]

>>2978829

>Why are people stupid enough to believe that one million years is a long period in global climate?

In the entire fucking history of the planet, no, it is not a very long period of time. It is an extremely long period of time for us as human beings. After all, we're the stakeholders here, not the rock that we're standing on.

>No one disputes temperatures are going up, we are probably leaving the Ice Age, since leaving the ice age is a very long time overdue event.

We are already in an interglacial, so there's no ice age we should be leaving from. Some idiot has been arguing that an "ice age" should be defined as the existence of ice sheets on Earth. Maybe you could use that ultra-long-view definition scientifically, but it makes no sense to us people: the loss of the Earth's ice sheets would be a VERY BAD THING for humanity, and I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.

>Carbon Dioxide levels are nowhere near the highest they have ever been

Again, if CO2 levels were the same as they were 4 billion years ago, that would mean we'd all be dead.

>nor are they increasing at the fastest rates they have ever increased.

Uh, actually they are. Even during motherfucking mass extinction events CO2 levels didn't increase as fast as they're increasing now.

>The sky is not falling.

Technically speaking, the sky is rising

[Anonymous No.2979074]

#1 climate change is not science. In science, you arrive at equations demonstrating cause and effect between isolated variables. Science is repeatable.

Climate change is not science--it is risk management.

#2 It's an issue of timescales. Anyone who tells you climate change operates on human timescales is lying. The earth takes thousands of years to make big changes, and most of those changes are now locked in.

On the one hand, it takes 2000 or so years for antarcica to melt. On the other hand, we will be living the consequences of today's carbon for thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.2979087]

>>2979069
You're using Ice Age to refer to something different than what people usually use the term to mean. You're the one being a retard. If you're doing it on purpose you're an extreme retard. If you're ignorant that Ice Age usually refers to glaciation cycles, you're an even bigger retard.

[Anonymous No.2979096]

Watch the H+ concentration of the oceans change by 30% in a hundred years, still not give a fuck about how humans affect their environment.

Enjoy your future, denialfags.

[Anonymous No.2979099]

>>2979045
There's nothing to suggest that the climate is fluctuating any faster than it normally fluctuates. There is especially nothing to suggest that we're in a long-term warming trend. On the contrary, we're near the peak of an interglacial.

[Anonymous No.2979109]

>>2979025
Uh, you should be skeptically analyze all claims and data. Sea level rise has been pretty much constant since it slowed down 7 or 8 thousand years ago.

[Anonymous No.2979111]

>>2979045

>This is what's known as a non empirical "prediction" based on a model

Projections =/= predictions. There are a lot of "if-then" assumptions going on. It is a physically possible future, not THE future.

>based on (mostly) raw data that is not accessible to the public until after it has been "adjusted for bias"

Do we really need to go over this again?

Linked below is the GHCN dataset, raw and unadjusted. You can compare it with the adjusted datasets of NASA, NOAA, and the Hadley Centre. If they were systematically fudging data, you would be able to see that all their adjustments are for increased temperature. But that isn't the case. See image.

Also lrn2google

ftp: [removespace] //ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/

>certainly people would take advantage of the relatively rapid and significant changes in global climate to make a buck.

Please explain how scientists can "make a buck" off of this ridiculously convoluted conspiracy that has apparently existed since the 19th century

[Anonymous No.2979114]

>>2979099
lol. Still thinks global warming is JUST about world temperatures.

Stop being a blind dick.

[Anonymous No.2979118]

>ruin planet
>pack up and leave
>settle on another planet

That's my dream.

[Anonymous No.2979124]

>>2979016
Ice Age usually refers to the global glaciation and lowering of temperature that happens every 100ky, and before that every 40ky. This has been happening for a couple million years, which is the period you are erroneously referring to as an ice age. The last ice age ended around 15,000 years ago, although you can't put an exact date on it.

You are not an educated person, or you would know these things.

[Anonymous No.2979126]

>>2979114
Right, because global warming doesn't mean global warming. Priceless.

[Anonymous No.2979130]

>>2978881

Nice total lack of arguments, sources, or explanations buddy

It's kind of like drive-by Youtube comments on evolution videos saying "GOD IS REAL EVOLUTION IS A LIE" and so on

[Anonymous No.2979131]

>>2978803

I bet you're giggling like a girl seeing as how you predicted this.

[Anonymous No.2979133]

Because anthropogenic climate change, including global warming, doesn't just affect the temps. Because everything we release into our environment has a multiplier effect and will come back and bite us in the ass ten fold.

[Anonymous No.2979136]

>>2979087
>>2979087

WOW? LOL?

This is /sci/ it's not meant to be "we use common terms incorrectly and then blame the guy who corrected us and call HIM retarded!"

This information is extremely common you jackass, it's on the fucking wikipedia page for the term "ice age."

How difficult is it to know what you are talking about when claiming you know what you are talking about? Apparently for lying retards like you, VERY difficult.

"I don't know what something means so I'll just make shit up about it and hope no one notices, then I'll call anyone who corrects me retarded instead of thanking them for increasing my knowledge base so I don't have to look absolutely idiotic in the future."

[Anonymous No.2979140]

>>2979074
This

Also the main problem with climate change is not the change itself. It's the speed of the change.

Earth has been colder and hotter but because the change of temperature is slow nature has time to adjust.
In the situation when our actions lead to increase of couple degrees in short time span (100 years) then we have problems
1) Nature doesn't have time to change so enviroments just disapear instead of gradually moving
2) People don't have time to change.
Crops will fail, infrastructure is destroyed, people need to emigrate to other regions in mass stuff like that.

Also the problem is that things we do today effect us 50 years from now. So wven if we stopped producing CO2 it would take long time for the nature to balance.
Our actions affect our children, not us.

[Anonymous No.2979142]

>>2979126
hurr durr, the globe is just warming guys. It won't affect anything.

[Anonymous No.2979145]

>>2979133
Oh good, vague philosophical environmental bullshit, shoved under the umbrella of "climate". Just what this thread needed.

[Anonymous No.2979147]

>>2979099

>On the contrary, we're near the peak of an interglacial.

That is complete bullshit

Temperatures were very gradually decreasing over the past 8,000 years, then started increasing again 150 years ago and accelerated 40 years ago.

[Anonymous No.2979159]

>>2978796
Except that's not really true. Scientists want funding and the way to get funding is to perform studies/experiments that are newsworthy.

The earth was much hotter millions of years ago and at the moment is significantly cooler than the average in its history. Humans have adapted to all kinds of harsh weather conditions, and so has life in general, so an increasing temperature won't be a horrible disaster.

And there is definitely a lot to gain from the global warming phenomenon. Many many companies can now make products with a "green" label and make a lot more money by charging more to the people who buy them.

[Anonymous No.2979161]

>>2979145
>>implying that had anything to do with philosophy and not the rapid change we're causing to the systems we rely on to continue living

[Anonymous No.2979163]

>>2978880
How does this propaganda image encourage anyone?

Since when would it be "okay" or "good" for an agenda to 'lie' about climate change if it leads to positive developments in our civilization?

So now science is social management and not about the pursuit of knowledge? Now it's "So what if we're wrong/it's a lie, at least we'll have made improvements to society!"

To me this propaganda and assertion that it's a 'good thing' even if it's not human caused, to pretend it is, is very concerning. Why the fuck does this sort of propaganda exist and why is it being perpetrated by anthro climate change supporters ("We're not in an ice age!" "It's okay if it's a lie because our POLITICAL movement is trying to accomplish good things see these bullet points!")

???

wtf?

[Anonymous No.2979169]

>>2978982

No idea lol

But generally speaking, global warming will have a negative impact on global agriculture. See Chapter 17 of Letcher's book here:

>>2978739

Or check out these papers:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899.abstract

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5911/240.abstract

[Anonymous No.2979171]

>>2979159
lame motivation to commit fraud and conspiracy on a global scale involving an entire science and thousands of scientists independently studying climate data.

[Anonymous No.2979180]

no, fuicktard. Nobody is lying about anything. It's a different perspective on the argument against action to mitigate the effects we have on our environment.

[Anonymous No.2979186]

>>2979136
Give it up, asshat. You're either purposely playing stupid, or are genuinely stupid and an extreme sufferer of asperger's syndrome.

[Anonymous No.2979190]

>>2979111
All of the climate scientists I have talked to so far are outraged or at least moderately upset at the political movements/agendas behind their research. They feel like their work is being turned into a circus by agendas on BOTH sides of the issue.

For instance the people who post up propaganda pictures that say "so what if it's a lie!"

Nice try.

[Anonymous No.2979198]

>>2979140
There's no data for comparing the speed of the change to historical change because historical data before 150 years ago does not have sufficient resolution.

People who claim the rate of change is "fast" are people who simply wish it that way, not because there's evidence for it.

[Anonymous No.2979199]

>>2979159
I never said there was a conspiracy. Just that people are capitalizing on what's going on by blowing things out of proportion. Get your strawmen out of here.

[Anonymous No.2979203]

>>2979186
> I'm mad because I got called out for lying/not knowing the common definition of an ice age in a climate change debate on a science board.

[Anonymous No.2979211]

>>2979147
That shows us being near the peak, you complete retard. It also shows that a 40 year upswing is not relevant to any long-term trends.

[Anonymous No.2979214]

>>2979161
LOL. Moron.

[Anonymous No.2979215]

>>2979159

>Except that's not really true. Scientists want funding and the way to get funding is to perform studies/experiments that are newsworthy.

Scientists working in public research institutions don't get funding based on media coverage, they get funding based on number of publications. A scientist can gain fame, notoriety, and even a Nobel Prize if they overturn the extant scientific paradigm. In other words, there is a very good incentive for anyone who discovers something that could completely disrupt the foundations of the basic facts and theories about atmospheric physics and chemistry.

Or they can work for think tanks and the private sector and make a killing without having to do silly things like research and publication.

>The earth was much hotter millions of years ago and at the moment is significantly cooler than the average in its history.

The conditions that existed hundreds of millions of years ago, when the continents and the biosphere were radically different from the way they are today, is not really relevant. The stegosaurus probably enjoyed those conditions far more than humans (or our current flora and fauna) would.

>Humans have adapted to all kinds of harsh weather conditions, and so has life in general, so an increasing temperature won't be a horrible disaster.

That was when we were hunter-gatherers living in bands of 30 with a life expectancy of 35 or 40 years. Take a look at an atlas. Try to locate all the cities, ports, naval bases, harbours, gas terminals, nuclear power plants, and other types of infrastructures and human dwellings.

Also, you should be aware that large climatic changes in the past have been linked to almost every mass extinction except for the one what took out the dinosaurs.

[Anonymous No.2979219]

>>2979190
>>But what if we do spend enormous amounts of capital and decentralize the energy grid with greener, renewable energy!

Nice try with the "climate scientists I know". Lol. The climate scientists I know are deeply concerned with the growing apathy in the United States.

[Anonymous No.2979222]

>>2979169
That's bullshit. Both higher temps and increased CO2 benefits agriculture,

[Anonymous No.2979230]

>>2979222
lol!
Tell that to Australia. Those massive floods were GREAT for their crop.

[Anonymous No.2979237]

>>2979211

>That shows us being near the peak, you complete retard. It also shows that a 40 year upswing is not relevant to any long-term trends.

I'm sorry? By "peak" I assume you mean something like "the maximum," yes? The maximum temperature of the long-term, multi-millenial trend was 8,000 years ago. A "40-year upswing," rather than being "irrelevant," is timed precisely when mass car ownership spread throughout the industrialized world.

[Anonymous No.2979239]

>>2979230
idiot

[Anonymous No.2979246]

>>2979222

That's exactly why Russia banned wheat exports when fires and drought destroyed their 2010 harvest and the export ban is expected to continue into-

Oh wait.

[Anonymous No.2979250]

>>2979222
Because farmers just love increased drought?

[Anonymous No.2979258]

>>2979190

That..... doesn't have anything to do with the quote you linked to

Are you talking to somebody else?

[Anonymous No.2979273]

>>2979237
It's also timed precisely with when we started coordinating global scale efforts to find the global mean temperature.

Not sure if you are aware but carbon dioxide effects have a significant (800 year) lag, and so global warming caused by cars popularity increase would not occur AS cars were getting more popular, but well after.

Japan's record magnitude earthquake (highest ever in all of its recorded history) must also be human caused because japan never saw anything like it before and it happened after the industrial revolution.

"Humans did something, and then something happened that we didn't expect! Correlations must = causation!"

[Anonymous No.2979275]

>>2979239
http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=6568
idiot

[Anonymous No.2979286]

>>2979198
It's fast if the change hapens withing one generation.
If earth warmed 1 C per 1000 year or even more that is fine.
But when we go 1 C per 10 years then we have massive problems
Today people farm in place x, take one or two decades and yields could be cut in half. That is such a massive change in human infrastructure alone when hundreds of millions of people have to relocate.

Also the seas are rising. This would not be a problem in long term change when animals and people move to different places when the enviroment gets less hospitable.
When the change is quick you need action immideadly and you just can't let the nature run it's course.

I'm worrying about the people. Earth is not in any danger, enviroments might suffer but the diversity of animals will eventually return as the millenias pass.
But the cost to humanity will be great withim my life.

[Anonymous No.2979295]

>>2979258
It deals with the fact that he asserted I was claiming that "scientists" were trying to make a buck, and not the corporate and political movement behind changing our way of living based on propaganda.

Maybe be able to read something at a 12th grade reading level before you accuse someone of being off topic.

He was trying to imply that the green movement is analogous with scientists, when instead it's analogous with people with an agenda taking scientific knowledge and trying to bend it to push their own political/corporate agendas.

[Anonymous No.2979301]

>>2978641
>The Sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, and "natural cycles" have been ruled out as cause of recent global warming,

i'd love to read the sources of that.
the cosmic ray seeding hypothesis is actually gaining some ground due to the recent spike in storm intensity/precipitation over the last year, coinciding almost directly with the sun's extremely weak magnetic field (almost no sun spots for several years straight)

the fact you're throwing out all those alternative theories with a single bullet point makes me heavily question the validity of the rest of your claims.

[Anonymous No.2979303]

>>2979215
Scientists need to have the kind of studies other scientists want to read if they want to get published. This issue happens to be very popular right now, so of course scientists will continue to do studies that are very likely to get published.

The conditions of the Earth many millions of years ago is relevant, because it's quite clear that the global climate undergoes massive changes. If humans are to survive for more than a few million years, it's necessary to consider what changes could happen whether or not they are man-made.

Humans have survived plenty of natural disasters before. No mass extinctions, but those usually result from enormous changes. As far as the impact of rising sea levels, humans around the world have faced many natural disasters and few have wiped out a human population. There are many many settlements well above sea level and humans tend to be resourceful, so it's not a stretch that they could build more flexible harbors. Sea level already shifts dramatically due to tides, and that's not too big of a task to handle.

[Anonymous No.2979310]

>>2979295
who is trying to bend it to fit their own political/corporate agendas? Specific examples and proofs how it's been overblown by media

because most of what I read in the media is denial.

[Anonymous No.2979314]

>>2979273
>Not sure if you are aware but carbon dioxide effects have a significant (800 year) lag,
[citation needed]

They have lag in the end of the cycle. As in if we stop now it will be around for your 800 years
But the stuff we put in today effects us today.

[Anonymous No.2979322]

>>2979053

The problem is that it's quite obvious that action will cost far less than inaction. How do you think we'll pay to move half of all infrastructure and hundreds of millions of people around? How will we cope with increasingly unreliable and diminishing food supplies, or the increases in extreme weather events? Home and property insurance will become a thing of the past.

Also see this post:

>>2978955

But alas, no one in this thread will want to discuss the costs. They prefer to argue over semantics and conspiracies, because they desperately want global warming and all its attendant consequences not to be true. Better to relax rather than face the real world

[Anonymous No.2979325]

>>2979301
Not to mention he is ignoring the recent global warming trends on the other planets in our solar system

[Anonymous No.2979327]

>>2979301
>>the cosmic ray seeding hypothesis is actually gaining some ground due to the recent spike in storm intensity/precipitation over the last year, coinciding almost directly with the sun's extremely weak magnetic field (almost no sun spots for several years straight)

No it hasn't been gaining ground.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

[Anonymous No.2979337]

>>2979295
this
remember the day after tomorrow? the whole thing about the ice melt causing the mid atlantic conveyor to shut down?
that was loosely based on a study done back in 2002 or 2003 by a group of british oceanographers. They found some slight indication that that might be happening, and one of the scientists writing the paper mentioned the ice melt causing a shut down as a possibility based on their findings.

of course this conclusion (if you can call it that) was run with for years.

until they did a follow up study, and wouldn't you know it, it was the reverse of their results in the first study. pretty heavily debunked the entire thing.

so it's a self-perpetuating myth that the anti-AGW crowd isn't really aware of, and the AGW crowd wants to pretend doesn't exist so they can keep claiming it as "fact"

i feel bad for climatologists these days. pretty much anything they say turns into a shitstorm or gets slapped on a health food label or used in a commercial.

[Anonymous No.2979340]

>>2979325
>>2979325
see
>>2979327

[Anonymous No.2979343]

>>2979310
GE, for one, so they can sell their softserve ice cream-shaped lightbulbs to dumb people who don't realize
-the mercury inside will do more damage to the environment when they just throw the bulb in the trash
-It's cheaper for them and more energy efficient to buy LED lights

Before you say that they'll dispose of the light bulbs the proper way, no, most people who use the light bulbs won't.

[Anonymous No.2979350]

>>2979337
That movie was buttfuck retarded
>reverse hurricane
>pulling cold air from the upper atmosphere
>cold air
>upper atmosphere

[Anonymous No.2979351]

>>2979310

Take a look at this earlier post from this thread:

>>2978880

When I type "global warming" in google by the way, the agenda I see first is the pro anthro climate change, not the "deniers."

The fact that the pro anthro climate change supporters call people who are still not compelled to believe in significant anthropogenic effect on global climate "deniers" is extremely telling, since this is a method of propaganda in and of itself.

You have people in this thread who don't even know what an Ice Age is screaming that anyone who doesn't agree with their view on anthropogenic climate change is uneducated, and that anyone who dares tell them what an ice age actually is is "retarded" for correcting them.

I mean it's really hard for you to see the fact that people are pushing a movement on both sides of this issue, and that in public debate none of these discussions have anything of substance, but instead just rehashed bullshit from all parties here going on google and finding their respective websites which preach to their respective choirs?

[Anonymous No.2979357]

>>2979337
pretending anybody took that movie serious, or the possible shutdown of the ocean currents as an actual possibility is a really bad argument.
Yes, most people who do believe in AGW realize that what we know is very little, but that we are effecting changes to our environment on a global scale that could deeply impact our economy and way of life.

[Anonymous No.2979360]

>>2979303
>If humans are to survive for more than a few million years
Retard detected
You seem to be unaware that the things that we are interested are hapening now and in coming decades, not millions of years from now.

Also you seem to think that humans will go extinct. We won't unless we kill ourselfs with nukes.

New orleans managed the storm well, they saw it coming and they raised their walls, oh....
We have dramatical changes that will affect the lives of millions. These changes include but are not limited to:
More and more powerfull storms, drought, floods, increase in temperature, sea level rise etc. etc.
We can repair the damage and move the harbours but do you have any idea how much it will cost to move every harbour in the world?

The thing is that the costs will be massive.
I would like to act before we must repair the damage and lives are lost.

[Anonymous No.2979364]

>>2978880
Don't forget the hole in the ozone layer.

[Anonymous No.2979365]

>>2979327
actually their observations are a little flawed. cosmic rays are not causing the cloud seeding directly, i believe the theory goes that the cosmic rays strike bits of the ozone layer, and kick some Compton electrons straight down. So measuring surface cosmic ray intensity wouldn't show any correlation

[Anonymous No.2979367]

>>2979351
That post? The one that claimed the global warming deniers were ignoring a myriad of other climactic effects of human activity? You're a dumbass. So google is in on it, huh? Or is it because it's search algorithm happens to bring up those results first? You're an obvious fucktard.

[Anonymous No.2979385]

>>2979327
Why are you posting skepticalscience as a primary source?

Are you aware that skepticalscience is a mouthpiece website specifically designed to preach to your choir and intentionally designed to DISCOURAGE skepticism regarding their chosen position?

skepticalscience is not a legitimate source for this discussion, and it's proof that you just went on google and typed:
Refuting global warming skeptics
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&biw=1440&bih=682&source=hp&q=refuting+g
lobal+warming+skeptics&aq=1&aqi=g2g-v1g-m2&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_
gc.r_pw.&fp=822bf32b5c0e0691

See the search results for yourself.

[Anonymous No.2979387]

>>2979357
>most people who do believe in AGW realize that what we know is very little
>but that we are effecting changes to our environment on a global scale that could deeply impact our economy and way of life.

your first statement kind of invalidates your second one

[Anonymous No.2979396]

>>2978880
>mfw "it might be wrong and illogical but if we're wrong at least we're doing some good" is identical to the defense of religion

how's it feel to back this up?

[Anonymous No.2979400]

>>2979367
More ad hominem from the pro anthro climate change side, also putting words in people's mouths.

You can't claim "herp derp all the propaganda is against global warming" and then get mad when someone points out that a simple google search on "global warming" will yield, primarily on the front page, results that support the anthro climate change position. It's not that "google" is in on it, it's that there is a shitload of propaganda for pro climate change, and so your claim of being a victim to the anti climate change propaganda is false

You seem very upset that i pointed this out, lol, to the point that you have to start trying to put words in my mouth, lmao.

[Anonymous No.2979406]

>>2979367
you should probably stop talking before you make yourself look like more of an idiot

[Anonymous No.2979414]

>>2979273

Sooo many recycled myths

>Not sure if you are aware but carbon dioxide effects have a significant (800 year) lag

You're talking about the lag between global temperature and CO2 during the ice age cycle. In the past, there were no cars and power plants and factories, obviously. Temperature was observed to increase first, then 800-1000 years later, CO2 and temperature increased simultaneously until an interglacial state was reached. This occurred because Milankovitch Cycles (tiny forcings from changes in Earth's orbit) increased temperatures through insolation by bringing the Earth closer to the Sun. After modest temperature increases, the oceans slowly warm, and eventually begins to emit CO2 (same way a beer goes flat when warm). After the initial lag, however, increasing CO2 concentrations are also driving up temperatures, and combined with melting ice, these positive feedbacks bring the Earth out of an ice age.

This is not relevant to our current situation. Increased CO2 will increase temperatures with no time lag, because we are not waiting for the oceans to saturate and become a net carbon emitter. We cut out the middle man and pipe CO2 directly into the atmosphere.

>Japan's record magnitude earthquake (highest ever in all of its recorded history) must also be human caused because japan never saw anything like it before and it happened after the industrial revolution.

>"Humans did something, and then something happened that we didn't expect! Correlations must = causation!"

That is a straw man and you should already know this

We know that the increased atmospheric CO2 is of anthropogenic origin because of its C12/13 ratio. The C12/13 atom comes from plant respiration, while its heavier isotopes are derived from anthropogenic sources.The C12/13 ratio has been falling, which confirms the human source of excess CO2. These isotopic fingerprint was corroborated by both coral and tree proxies.

[Anonymous No.2979415]

>>2979360
>Retard detected
Name-calling? Great way to open.

>You seem to be unaware that the things that we are interested are hapening now and in coming decades, not millions of years from now.
I didn't post about these imminent problems, I refuted an earlier statement. Maybe you should have read the post I quoted. And if we don't take into account the long-term changes the planet will undergo, we would just be delaying the inevitable.

>Also you seem to think that humans will go extinct. >We won't unless we kill ourselfs with nukes.
Because nothing else could possibly kill us humans.

>New orleans managed the storm well, they saw it coming and they raised their walls, oh....
That change happened in a matter of days. We're talking a matter of years. You already tried to correct me for looking at the problem at the wrong scope.

>We have dramatical changes that will affect the lives of millions. These changes include but are not limited to:
>More and more powerfull storms, drought, floods, increase in temperature, sea level rise etc. etc.
None of those is an insurmountable problem.
>We can repair the damage and move the harbours but do you have any idea how much it will cost to move every harbour in the world?
Yes. It would cost very much, but because the change happens slowly it doesn't need to be done all at once.


>The thing is that the costs will be massive.
Yes, but in the long run, the VERY long run, we have no reason to suspect the global climate is subject to our control and our time would be better spent preparing for what lies ahead than trying to dig in our heels and stop it. Change isn't always bad and Earth won't stay the way it is forever anyway.

>I would like to act before we must repair the damage and lives are lost.
And you finish with an appeal to emotion.

[Anonymous No.2979433]

>>2979414
> Calls arguments recycled.
> Regurgitates arguments from the first web page search result for the search: "refuting global warming skeptics" on google (but doesn't cite it, lol).

[Anonymous No.2979460]

OP, your post is propaganda, not science

[Anonymous No.2979465]

>>2979385

SkepticalScience is quite reliable as a source, and far less error-prone than, say, WattsUpWithThat. They are also quite careful to cite peer-reviewed scientific sources.

Anyway, we can look to the primary literature if you don't believe anyone. After all, you'd be a sucker if you took at face value some asshole said on 4chan.

It's not the Sun

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303.abstract

http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/articles.html?doi=10.1002%2Fwcc.18

It's not cosmic rays

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364682611000691

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041327.shtml

And it's not volcanoes (large eruptions cause global COOLING)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.76/abstract

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6341.abstract

And it's not "natural cycles" -- these (PDO, ENSO, etc.) can redistribute heat in different places, but they cannot warm up the entire planet in a sustained manner. Remember the laws of thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.2979466]

>>2979343
Except that even if the mercury from those bulbs escapes, it's still less mercury than is saved from entering the atmosphere through power plant emissions due to the electricity saved by the bulb. Coal burning produces hella mercury.

[Anonymous No.2979502]

dude, just because your website preaches to your choir and cites some sources does not make it a fair source. It's a biased as fuck source designed specifically to be a place to find arguments to "defeat" skeptics.

When you type "refuting global warming skeptics" in google it doesn't bring up a scientific journal, it brings up skepticalscience.

[Anonymous No.2979512]

>>2979433

What, do you want primary sources too?

Milankovitch Cycles and the 800-year lag

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5849/435.abstract

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/abs/412523a0.html

C12/13 ratios

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5725/abs/280826a0.html

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/volltexte/2006/6862/pdf/LevinRAD2000.pdf

http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

[Anonymous No.2979540]

>>2979502

>implying you do not look for websites that specifically refute the extant scientific understanding of climate change

>implying whatever blogs you go to for your info on climate change are totally unbiased

>implying that you will refuse to ever look at any of the books that OP posted because they're all "biased"

>implying that a single skeptic thus far has posted anything resembling a reputable scientific source

>implying your first reactions won't be BUT BUT BUT BURDEN OF PROOF and CONSPIRACY KEEP OUT THE SKEPTIC PAPERS

Implying implications

[Anonymous No.2979548]

>>2979415
>And if we don't take into account the long-term changes the planet will undergo, we would just be delaying the inevitable.
We don't need to worry about these "long term changes" there are more important matters at hand currently

>Because nothing else could possibly kill us humans.
Basically yes. Global warming will not make humans go extinct (unless it goes absolutely over the board venus like shit).
Nukes are basically the only thing in human controll that has the power to absolutely destroy us.
Then there are things that are currently out of our controll like asteroids or gamma bursts.
If these things hapen then we can't do much so i'm not too worried about them.

>That change happened in a matter of days. We're talking a matter of years. You already tried to correct me for looking at the problem at the wrong scope.
Decade is really short time to do any big changes to our infrastructure. At least without goverment taking massive role in that. Also when do you think we will star to move our harbours to inland? Today? Tomorrow? Year from now? Day before the last harbour sinks?
My comparison was perfectly walid. We had all the resources to move entire new orleans or at least build better walls. We didn't because we didn't avt in time. Correct time to act would have been years ago.

>None of those is an insurmountable problem.
So increase in costs of food and other products, massive imigration to your country, massive goverment spending to fix the infreastructure and increased amount of new orleansses is somehow a good thing to you. I rather not have shit like that hapen, but what ever works for you.

>Yes. It would cost very much, but because the change happens slowly it doesn't need to be done all at once.

decade or two is not slowly, even 50 years is relatively short time to act in these issues. Again you seem to prefer the ignore now, spend later tactic while i would fix this now to avoid these things in the future.

[Anonymous No.2979557]

>>2979548
Cont:

>Yes, but in the long run, the VERY long run
There is no reason to think much further than 100-300 years into the future.
>Change isn't always bad and Earth won't stay the way it is forever anyway.
No the speed of the change is the bad thing. Also change into less food production and inceased exteme weather is not too good thing if you are human and wan't to have some money.

>And you finish with an appeal to emotion.
No. This is easy to fix today, hard to fix couple decades later. I would do it today before the shit hits the fan.

[Anonymous No.2979576]

>>2979502
What >>2979540 said. My diagnosis for you? Buttaggrieved.

[Anonymous No.2979582]

>>2979548

To support your points:

Whatever changes happen now, will be committed to for several thousand years. Even if all CO2 emissions stopped completely, today, the Earth will continue to warm for a few decades, and the sea level would rise for centuries. Under a business-as-usual scenario, temperatures would continue to increase for centuries. Beyond +5 C of global warming, large parts of the Earth would be rendered unsuitable for year-round habitation as it would surpass the capacity for mammals to endure heat stress.

Sauce:

http://physics.open.ac.uk/~nedwards/millennials_rev.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

[Anonymous No.2979608]

>>2979557

>No. This is easy to fix today, hard to fix couple decades later.

Machiavelli was a smart guy:

For the Romans did in these instances what all wise princes must do: they must be on their guard not only against existing dangers but also against future disturbances, and try diligently to prevent them. Once evils are recognized ahead of time, they may be easily cured; but if you wait for them to come upon you, the medicine will be too late, because the disease will have become incurable. And what physicians say about consumptive illnesses is applicable here: that at the beginning, such an illness is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; but as time passes, not having been recognized or treated at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. The same thing occurs in affairs of state; by recognizing evils in advance (a gift granted only to the prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognized and are left to grow to such an extent that everyone recognizes them, there is no longer any remedy.

[Anonymous No.2979620]

>>2979540
It wasn't, you are using ad hominems and assumptions.

I verified that he just went on google by typing "refuting global warming skeptics" by actually typing it in google to see if that's what he did.

I don't deny anthropogenic climate change, I just also don't believe it to be the case. It may very well be happening, but I'm just not convinced that it is.

Your unwillingness to accept that this is possible without me fervently running around searching for things to "support" my view (which is simply that I haven't been convinced yet, based on what I have seen and read, which is quite a lot, and probably more than most in this thread, like those who didn't know that we were still an ice age) is disheartening.

It's interesting, really, you guys keep reacting with a great amount of venom toward anyone who dares to be "not convinced." I'm not sure why you are so reactionary on this subject, but assume it's because you've been trolled many times in the past and are tired of it. I'm sorry for you, but I'm here for legitimate understanding and it's very difficult to come by in these threads on /sci/ which are full of propaganda from both "sides," and where skepticism is openly discouraged with ad hominem and assumption about the credentials and/or motivations of those who happen to not hold the same view as you on a subject.

I actually feel sorry for you, you are so blinded by your own views (on both sides) that you cannot accept the reality that intelligent and educated people who know more than you do on this subject disagree with your view (and there are a great number who agree with you, as well, but that is not my point).

[Anonymous No.2979636]

>>2979557
>No the speed of the change is the bad thing. Also change into less food production and inceased exteme weather is not too good thing if you are human and wan't to have some money.
There is no change in the speed of change.
There is no adverse effect of increased CO2 and increased temperature on food production. Both greatly increase food production.
There is no evidence of increase in extreme weather with increase of average global temperature.

[Anonymous No.2979644]

>>2979582
There's no evidence that there is any measurable warming effect at all from the elevation of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels. The things you're saying were pulled from someone's ass.

[Anonymous No.2979648]

I disagree with your point 11 because the only way the "solution" proposed by "economists" can be achieved is to take away everyone's freedom to the point that there is no longer any "economy" to speak-of. When the government forcibly dictates land-use, that is a fundamentally uneconomic process.

>They say that these changes will likely cost orders of magnitude less than the costs of unmitigated climate change impacts.

It is impossible to weigh the "cost" of lost freedom or of government oppression in a simple economic calculus. The enjoyment of freedom is a non-economic benefit that accrues from the respect of individual rights in an enlightened society and the brutalization that results both to the oppressor and the oppressed when the government dictates every part of private life in order to achieve some overall agenda is a detriment that does not figure in the calculation.

It may be that when we reject this abominable "solution" other alternatives rise to the fore. There are available technological strategies for enhancing the overall albedo of the earth through the introduction of solid aerosols into the atmosphere. These do not require the abandonment of hard-fought and precious ideals of liberty secured to us through many centuries by our forefathers.

[Anonymous No.2979686]

>>2979620

>I verified that he just went on google by typing "refuting global warming skeptics" by actually typing it in google to see if that's what he did.

Of course, after I posted primary sources you STILL wouldn't read them. I happen to be aware of the literature, which lets me quickly use Google Scholar to quickly bring up the necessary source. But if it makes you feel better to think that I'm using SkepticalScience for <span class="math">everything,[/spoiler] then clap your hands and believe.

>Your unwillingness to accept that this is possible without me fervently running around searching for things to "support" my view (which is simply that I haven't been convinced yet, based on what I have seen and read, which is quite a lot

>quite a lot

Popular books and websites don't count

>and probably more than most in this thread, like those who didn't know that we were still an ice age) is disheartening.

You're using a red herring. The common usage of the term "ice age" refers to large-scale glaciations that cover large parts of currently inhabited land. The periods in between ice ages are referred to as interglacials. For some reason you pretend that there's no distinction between an ice age and an interglacial, but rather use a far broader definition that is mostly irrelevant from a policy perspective. Then you fling around this herring as if it made you smarter than the average /sci/ denizen. Protip: it doesn't

>It's interesting, really, you guys keep reacting with a great amount blah blah blah blah

Cool tone trolling there bro

"I CARE about the science i really do! It's YOU who's the crazy one! I'm just going to ignore this mountainous pile of evidence because it doesn't convince me enough and never will!"

>you cannot accept the reality that intelligent and educated people who know more than you do on this subject

This is you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Anonymous No.2979707]

>>2979686
> More assumptions about what I have read.

I've already read everything on skepticalscience and everything it sources, friend.

Again, it's really interesting that you believe it's impossible for someone to legitimately hold a different position on a subject than you. You probably won't do well in grad school if you keep that mindset.

[Anonymous No.2979722]

>>2979636
>There is no change in the speed of change.
No, the absolute speed is the thing that matters. The speed of the change of temperature. If temperature jums 10000 C today we will die, if it jums that amount in 1000000000 years then there is no problem
>There is no adverse effect of increased CO2
increased temperature on food production. Both greatly increase food production.
I thought that you were serious, but then i realized you were trolling. Drought thends to lead to less food, hotter summer leads to more fires (russia) try growing pine trees in tropics etc etc.
>There is no evidence of increase in extreme weather with increase of average global temperature.
Yes there is.
Try this to star with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Effects_on_weather

The whole article is something you should read.

Your trolling is so bad that i'm getting tired with you. Will still stay in this thread if something interesting comes up but for me this has turned into pointless trolling like these usually do

[Anonymous No.2979738]

>>2979644

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

http://www.jstor.org/pss/108724

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922ApJ....55..391B

http://www.stormingmedia.us/49/4989/0498907.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x324801281540j8u/

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

Also see:

>>2978739
>>2978763
>>2979465

[Anonymous No.2979745]

>>2979722
>implying we could survive 10,000K temperatures so long as it took 1 billion years to reach that.
Clearly, then, life on Earth will persist even once we're drifting through the outer atmosphere of the Sun in its red giant phase, since it'll take 5 billion years to reach that. Enjoy!

[Anonymous No.2979758]

>>2979707

If you demonstrated knowledge of the literature then I'd believe you. But you don't and therefore I do not believe that you have read much of anything. In fact, you don't really make any arguments either, just "I need to see more evidence before I'm convinced." You could deny ANY fact with that sort of trolling. Bravo.

[Anonymous No.2979763]

>>2979745
Dude I can't wait for that, I won't even have to start up a fire to make smores.

[Anonymous No.2979789]

>>2979745
Well i was thinking that we will survive tomorrow but what ever, there is time to figure out a solution if you like to be a dick.
I really don't give a shit about million years from now, you do realize that humanity has been around for what? 10k-10m years, depending how you count it. We were in stone age 10k years ago. In the last 20 years....
Was going to finish this post but then i decided not to do so because you are just trolling.

I will correct my post to:
Nigger_please.jpg

[Anonymous No.2979828]

>>2979648

Don't know if troll

I disagree with your point 11 because the only way the "solution" proposed by "economists" can be achieved is to take away everyone's freedom to the point that there is no longer any "economy" to speak-of.

What if the government imposed a revenue-neutral carbon tax, where each business and individual would be refunded the value of the carbon tax, or receive tax cuts equal in value? Or cap-and-dividend, which distributes the revenue to every citizen? Is this an intolerable infringement of your liberties? Or do you believe this would destroy the economy for some reason? If so, why?

>There are available technological strategies for enhancing the overall albedo of the earth through the introduction of solid aerosols into the atmosphere. These do not require the abandonment of hard-fought and precious ideals of liberty secured to us through many centuries by our forefathers.

a) This infringes on the right of every individual, every business, and every nation that refused to subscribe to a geoengineering program, and

b) Has many potential technical drawbacks.

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf

And greenhouse emissions are already an infringement of property rights. I'll let Milton Friedman explain:

"A second general class of cases in which strictly voluntary exchange is impossible arises when actions of individuals have effects on other individuals for which it is not feasible to charge or recompense them. This is the problem of ‘neighborhood effects’. An obvious example is the pollution of a stream. The man who pollutes a stream is in effect forcing others to exchange good water for bad. These others might be willing to make the exchange at a price. But it is not feasible for them, acting individually, to avoid the exchange or to enforce appropriate compensation."

[Anonymous No.2979829]

>>2979789
co ja kurwa czytam?

[Anonymous No.2980119]

FROM THE TWILIT DEPTHS OF PAGE FOUR, I SUMMON THIS SHITSTORM.

[Anonymous No.2980230]

[Anonymous No.2980508]

OP here, reviving the shitstorm

>>2978881

>1. Obviously false from the very graph that accompanies your falsehood.

lolwat

>2. If A is "consistent with" B, that doesn't mean that A supports B or suggests it is true.

But if you have many thousands of As, and each of these As point to B, then you have a much stronger case. Also see point 5, which you agreed with.

>4. Nope. Way more complex and two-sided than that.

Increasing CO2 will increase temperatures. This has been seen in laboratory experiments, direct observation, and paleoclimate records. Not sure what the second side might be

>6. Nope.

See:

>>2979465

[Anonymous No.2980520]

>>2980508

>7. Complete bullshit

Explain why.

>8. Definitively and scientifically proven false, and not believed by even the most pro-IPCC activist scientist.

This is extremely well-established in science and the fact that you believe that positive feedbacks are a myth shows you to be a dupe

Search "climate" and "positive" and "feedback" on Google Scholar brings up 793,000 hits. Here is a small sample of relevant papers:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.81.2210&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095808

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JC005602.shtml

9. Utter bullshit

Explain why.

10. False.

Explain how.

11. according to ECONOMISTS?

Yes, apparently people ask ECONOMISTS! questions about the economy. Who would've thunkit?

>I'm not going to argue with you today. Just setting the record straight.

But now you can't set the record "straight." Ah well.

[Anonymous No.2980560]

>>2979828

What the fuck are you talking about?

>Gov. take away our freedom, econonomists

WTf?? This isn't a sci-fi novel, REALITY is a great thing to embrace /b/ro. Although I realize American conservatives don't do the whole ''reality'' thing, too busy worrying about Jesus and Armageddon..

[Anonymous No.2980584]

>>2980560

The line, "I disagree with your point 11 because the only way the "solution" proposed by "economists" can be achieved is to take away everyone's freedom to the point that there is no longer any "economy" to speak-of." should have been greentexted, it was as snippet from the post it linked to (apparently written by a Mises/Hayek type)

[Anonymous No.2980595]

>>2980508

Do you not see the graph? I don't understand how the graph is false..

Why do people have to be so partisan? This isn't politics this is science.. GET WITH THE FUCKING PROGRAM AMERICANS, your country is shit..

[Anonymous No.2980623]

Americans are obviously too stupid to know what Astro-turfing is.. Or that Exxon mobile's ''scientists'' have been trying to frame global warming as though it's ''pseudo-science''. That there is a ''debate'' as to the ''scientific validity'' of the claims..

Americans continually remind me why I left that fucked up country for Europe.. Why they are so stupid? No one knows the answers..

[Anonymous No.2980625]

>>2980595

I do understand the graph I posted. I'm not sure the "Obviously false from the very graph that accompanies your falsehood" understood it.

[Anonymous No.2980634]

>>2980623

Obligatory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNGGNomLx_c

Fast forward to 1:52 for the most horrible thing ever

[Anonymous No.2980653]

>>2980623

fuck year astro-turfing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGB8Uuffi4M