/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3146375]

Hey /sci/ I am hoping you can enlighten me... I am wondering what your views on the following statement are

>Man is having a significant effect on climate change which is cause for alarm.

I want to know how much of this is hype...
My current (very open) stance has been
>Humans are contributing to climate change via greenhouse emissions.
>This will speed up the process though remain insignificant.
>Climate change is normal and no cause for alarm.

Reasons for this current stance include:
-CO2 levels during the Jurassic eras and before were 25 times today's level.
- Polar ice caps are not ordinary in the geological cycle.
- articles spreading fear of highly acidic oceans due to carbonic acid e.g http://www.newscientist[dot]com/article/dn16518-acid-oceans-no-laughing-matter-for-clownfish.html Wouldn't it just be an equilibrium where Co2 is deposited as limestone and why would this be a problem if CO2 levels are thought to be 25 times greater millions of years ago when life was abundant.
-Climate change is a natural process and waters warming releasing CO2 Forrest fires and volcanoes though part of the carbon cycle dwarf human impact.
-Climate change will occur regardless of human actions, human emissions have a negligible effect on the rate.

Please tell me if I am way off and let’s have some kind of debate regarding this. I am very open and the stance is just what I am trying to present. Pic related supposed CO2 levels in Jurassic era etc.

a source
http://www.seafriends[dot]org.nz/issues/global/climate4.htm

[Anonymous No.3146406]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas with logarithmic warming. For every doubling of CO2, the earth will be about 1.1 degrees C warmer.

The debate is about feedbacks. Some people claim there are negative feedbacks that will reduce the CO2 induced warming, other people claim there are positive feedbacks that will increase the CO2 induced warming.

Evidence for a few small feedbacks have been demonstrated. For example, increased CO2 leads to increased plant growth, taking some CO2 out of the atmosphere.

As of yet, no evidence for very large feedbacks have been shown - in fact, the predicted side effects of some of the largest feedbacks have not been observed at all, ruling out some of the mechanisms some of the models are based on.

What it all comes down to is this: if the feedbacks triggered by the small CO2 heating are small, we will run out of fossil fuels before the earth has been heated up catastrophically.

However, if there are large positive feedbacks, we could see catastrophic warming. The models that predict catastrophic warming contain some specific, measurable effects that can be tested through observations. One of those is a "warm zone" in the high atmosphere above the equator. This warm zone has not been observed, so there is empirical evidence against the doomsday models.

The current evidence suggests CO2 is responsible for a small amount of warming.

Most weather related disasters appear to be due to land use. Eg. people deforesting hillsides, causing mudslides to cover villages, or people building houses in flood zones.

Not saying we won't need an alternative to fossil fuels - those will run out at some point, so we need another energy source.

[Anonymous No.3146417]

Its not the change that is the problem it is the rate of the change and this rapid rate of change in global temp/conditions has so far only been adequately explained by the greenhouse effect. All those different research projects may be wrong but the likelihood of all of them been wrong is less than that off them been right.

So from a risk point of view the likelihood of the even occurring is debatable. But the consequences if it does happen are catastrophic, so shouldn't we be alarmed by it and act on it now before we find out the hard way?

http://climatechangeinaustralia.com.au/
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/cryos-p.html

Its 1am here find more sources yourself if you want them lol.

[Anonymous No.3146420]

Your thinking is flawed.

>-CO2 levels during the Jurassic eras and before were 25 times today's level.

The problem is not the absolute level of CO2, but the rate of change.

>Polar ice caps are not ordinary in the geological cycle.

How so? Technically, we are still in the ice age that started in Pleistocene.


>acidification

see #1

>-Climate change is a natural process and waters warming releasing CO2 Forrest fires and volcanoes though part of the carbon cycle dwarf human impact.

Not true. Almost all the extra CO2 is man-made. See here, for example
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm

>Climate change will occur regardless of human actions, human emissions have a negligible effect on the rate.

Not true. Climate doesn't *just* change. There must be a reason (e.g. changes in solar irradiance). Today, the emissions of greenhouse gases dwarf every other influence.

[Anonymous No.3146422]

The point isn't that CO2 levels are going to be so high; It's the fact that it's changing so rapidly. It took millions of years for CO2 levels to build up that high in the carboniferous/whenever else, but in this case we'll be (and already have) releasing a large fraction of all the carbon entombed during the Carboniferous within only a few centuries. That's the blink of an eye in geologic terms. Natural climate change does not occur this rapidly.
At the rate we're going, within the next few decades anyone living on or near the coast will be having a pretty rough time.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

[Anonymous No.3146428]

>>3146406

>The debate is about feedbacks. Some people claim there are negative feedbacks that will reduce the CO2 induced warming, other people claim there are positive feedbacks that will increase the CO2 induced warming.

Wrong. Everybody knows that there are both positive and negative feedbacks. Most scientists agree that the positive feedbacks dominate.

[Anonymous No.3146443]

>>3146406

>Evidence for a few small feedbacks have been demonstrated. For example, increased CO2 leads to increased plant growth, taking some CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Global primary plant productivity has declined over the past 10 years. The relationship between CO2 and plant productivity isn't as simple as increasing CO2 = more plants

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5994/940.abstract
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-is-plant-food-too-simple.html

>As of yet, no evidence for very large feedbacks have been shown - in fact, the predicted side effects of some of the largest feedbacks have not been observed at all, ruling out some of the mechanisms some of the models are based on.

Uh, if we start seeing major evidence of large feedbacks, wouldn't that mean it's too late to stop global warming? And it's not like they haven't existed in the past. The ice ages and the PETM are impossible to explain unless you factor in substantial positive feedbacks.

We also are seeing early signs of positive feedbacks kicking in. Reduction in albedo due to melting ice is the most obvious one. Another major area of concern is methane venting from peatlands and permafrost.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/3/11/2009/tc-3-11-2009.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.abstract

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146451]

>>3146406
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas with logarithmic warming. For every doubling of CO2, the earth will be about 1.1 degrees C warmer.
I don't think that relationship is possible. At low concentrations change has a huge amount. Once the CO2 absorption bands are saturated (as they are now), you only get fringe effects. The effect of CO2 plateaus.

>>3146422
>Natural climate change does not occur this rapidly.
That's just not true. We've had glaciation onset in a single generation. We have the biblical-scale meltwater pulses at the end of every glaciation that envelop entire sections of continents in less than 100 years. Within ever glaciation there are huge sudden changes, an even in the interglacials, this interglacial seems unusually stable with a level average temperature.

[Anonymous No.3146469]

>>3146451

>Once the CO2 absorption bands are saturated

Please learn something about the radiative properties of greenhouse gases before writing nonsense like this. The atmosphere is not saturated with respect to absorption by CO2. This has been known since 1950's.

[Anonymous No.3146481]

>>3146375

First thing's first OP: you should learn to recognize unreliable and/or suspect sources. That website was purportedly designed in 2010, and talks about various topics dating from about 2009, but it looks like some high school html project from the mid-90s. This J. Floor Anthoni guy is purportedly a doctor, but he has no personal website and no apparent credentials. If you're going to talk science, you should stick to scientific sources. Academic monographs and peer-reviewed papers if you can handle them, PhysOrg, ScienceDaily, NASA, IPCC and so on if you can't. In /rs/ there is a bunch of books on climate change, for you I would recommend Houghton's, Archer's, and Pittock's.

Now for the specific issues:

>CO2 levels during the Jurassic eras and before were 25 times today's level.

That was 150 million years ago, and those kinds of lengthy timescales allow flora and fauna to evolve and adapt to their conditions. The biosphere we have now is adapted to our current conditions, and rapid changes like those occurring now are not conducive to flourishing.

>Polar ice caps are not ordinary in the geological cycle.

All all polar ice disappeared, the sea level would rise 80 m. This would be a problem for us. Anyway, with the continents they way they are, and the current phase of the Milankovitch Cycles, the existence of polar is is very normal.

>Wouldn't it just be an equilibrium where Co2 is deposited as limestone

This is a process that takes thousands to millions of years.

>Climate change is a natural process and waters warming releasing CO2 Forrest fires and volcanoes though part of the carbon cycle dwarf human impact.

Human CO2 emissions are about two orders of magnitude greater than volcanic CO2 emissions.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146484]

>>3146406
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas with logarithmic warming. For every doubling of CO2, the earth will be about 1.1 degrees C warmer.
I don't think that relationship is possible. At low concentrations change has a huge amount. Once the CO2 absorption bands are saturated (as they are now), you only get fringe effects. The effect of CO2 plateaus.

>>3146422
>Natural climate change does not occur this rapidly.
That's just not true. We've had glaciation onset in a single generation. We have the biblical-scale meltwater pulses at the end of every glaciation that envelop entire sections of continents in less than 100 years. Within ever glaciation there are huge sudden changes, an even in the interglacials, this interglacial seems unusually stable with a level average temperature.

[Anonymous No.3146485]

>>3146451

Here's the articles you asked for last night. I've included a number of extra papers discussing some of the issues raised in the last thread.

http://www.mediafire.com/?54kuewevinmngk5

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146490]

>>3146481
>That was 150 million years ago, and those kinds of lengthy timescales allow flora and fauna to evolve and adapt to their conditions. The biosphere we have now is adapted to our current conditions, and rapid changes like those occurring now are not conducive to flourishing.
Then why do we grow all kinds of plants in greenhouses with elevated temperatures with CO2 generating machines?

[Anonymous No.3146498]

OP back (posting keeps screwing up)
>>3146420

thank you for posting some interesting points.
>>3146422
Natural climate change could be very rapid under the right conditions unless i am mistaken human emissions are almost acting as a catalyst.
Youtube vid was shit and seemed just like pascals wager.
>>3146443
Your first point of plant numbers reducing does not account for the thousands of phytoplankton that photosynthesize in the ocean. Also plant numbers are likely to be declining due to human influences.

If the positive feedbacks are considered so great would it be fair to think of human induced emissions as a kind of catalyst

[Anonymous No.3146501]

>>3146490

Do you really think that controlled conditions inside a greenhouse are a good approximation for the entire terrestrial ecosystem?

[Anonymous No.3146502]

>>3146451

>I don't think that relationship is possible. At low concentrations change has a huge amount. Once the CO2 absorption bands are saturated (as they are now), you only get fringe effects. The effect of CO2 plateaus.

This is the mistake that Angstrom made in 1900. I recommend this article:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Also, for observational evidence that CO2 is not saturated in Earth's atmosphere, just look at Venus.

>We have the biblical-scale meltwater pulses at the end of every glaciation that envelop entire sections of continents in less than 100 years.

100 years sounds fishy. Are you referring to Meltwater Pulse 1A? That took about 200-500 years to complete. The maximum rate of sea level rise during deglaciations was about 3-4 m/century, but the greater ice extent in past glaciations are easier to melt. Either way, rapid sea level rise is not beneficial to humanity.

>this interglacial seems unusually stable with a level average temperature.

Policy-wise, I would think that most people hope to keep it that way.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146511]

>>3146428
> Most scientists agree that the positive feedbacks dominate.
What would that even mean? If positive feedbacks dominated, you wouldn't have the fluctuating climate system that we have.

[Anonymous No.3146518]

>>3146417

The empirical evidence so far suggests the consequences of increased CO2 in the atmosphere will be small.

The predictions made by the computer models that predict catastrophic heating have been falsified by empirical observations. For example, there is no upper atmosphere "hot spot" around the equator.

The beauty of scientific theories is that they can be tested, which allows them to be falsified and adjusted if required. There are well over 900 peer reviewed scientific papers out there already suggesting that the global warming computer models need some serious adjusting.

If there is a reason why climate science should be exempt from the normal scientific practice of testing, falsifying and refining theories, I would like to hear it.

[Anonymous No.3146520]

>>3146498

>Your first point of plant numbers reducing does not account for the thousands of phytoplankton that photosynthesize in the ocean.

Phytoplankton has been declining at a rate of about 1% over the past 50 years.

http://www.fmap.ca/ramweb/papers-total/Boyce_etal_2010.pdf

>Also plant numbers are likely to be declining due to human influences.

Yes, you're correct. Deforestation and agricultural activities play a major role in declining plant productivity.

[Anonymous No.3146529]

>unless i am mistaken human emissions are almost acting as a catalyst.

No OP, in the last few decades, there is basically no reason why the planet should warm except for our GHG emissions.

[Anonymous No.3146536]

>>3146511

On the contrary, if the net feedback was negative, there would be only small variations in temperature, i.e. no ice ages etc.

[Anonymous No.3146543]

>>3146518

>The empirical evidence so far suggests the consequences of increased CO2 in the atmosphere will be small.

Lets see the evidence, then.

[Anonymous No.3146548]

>>3146481
nice points

With the source i was just trying to find any online really I am probably not the best to support this claim at all as i have not done to much research on it. thanks for the sources by the way.

>That was 150 million years ago, and those kinds of lengthy timescales allow flora and fauna to evolve and adapt to their conditions. The biosphere we have now is adapted to our current conditions, and rapid changes like those occurring now are not conducive to flourishing.

that is assuming rapid change is occurring and also i think biodiversity is strong enough to cope with a rise in temperature. the most outrageous estimates put the rise at 50% co2 in 3o years I think (I can't remember and i am really tired) and wouldn't CO2 be more prelevent in the upper atmosphere?

>This is a process that takes thousands to millions of years.

That was in response to the notion of ocean acidification not overall CO2 removal, i find it hard to believe that the oceans could become acidic to an extent which is of concern.

It is 3am here and i am really tired with stuff on tomorrow thanks for your post and source suggestions

[Anonymous No.3146559]

>>3146518

The models have been quite accurate actually. Temperature is increasing at the same rate as the A1B-A2 SRES scenarios, and CO2 is increasing at the rate projected by the A1FI (business-as-usual, fossil fuel-intensive) scenario. However, the failed to predict how fast ice sheet wastage and minimum sea extent would occur, both of these turned out worse than expected.

As for the tropospheric hot spot, that would occur with ANY kind of warming, not just anthopogenic warming. It's a pretty minor nitpick compared to the key issue at hand, namely the surface warming of the Earth. In any case, the tropospheric hot spot HAS been detected, except in some dodgy radiosonde measurements.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146572]

>>3146536
What does that even mean? How can you say one dominates over the other. When a given trend is going, positive feedbacks are dominating. When a trend is reversing, negative feedbacks are dominating. It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.3146575]

>>3146548

>That was in response to the notion of ocean acidification not overall CO2 removal, i find it hard to believe that the oceans could become acidic to an extent which is of concern.

Ocean acidification is very much real and a source of concern. It doesn't mean OH GAWD I'M MELTING, but it will inhibit the ability of many organisms to form shells and exoskeletons. Combined with overfishing, expansion of oxygen-free dead zones, and nitrate run-off pollution, this could potentially cause a mass extinction of marine life like during the PETM, or worse, some of the climate-linked mass extinctions of the past. In the mediafire package there is a review article by Hoegh-Guldberg about the impacts of global warming on the oceans. It should help clarify things.

[Anonymous No.3146594]

>>3146572

Ah, now I see the problem. You are confusing "feedback" and "forcing".

See if this helps:

http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Climate+forcing+and+feedback

[Anonymous No.3146599]

>>3146490

The relationship between CO2 and productivity is not that simple.

Chapter 17 in this book discusses the impact of global warming on agriculture. I strongly recommend reading it.

http://www.mediafire.com/?1wozy30z8co00ab

[Anonymous No.3146608]

> dinosaurs had factories too and they turned out just fine, see

Don't worry, guys, we've got *plenty* of time to rebuilt all of our major cities on stilts.

[Anonymous No.3146626]

>>3146575
I understand even a small rise in carbonic acid can be bad for corals etc. but as life was abundant during times when CO2 was high...

I understand it's a whole rate issue i guess i had just assumed the oceans would not become acidic instead forming limestone and other minerals.

I'm a dumbass

[Anonymous No.3146639]

>>3146626

>I'm a dumbass

I don't think so. It's easy to get confused, which is why it's important to search the best scientific sources available, instead of relying on what someone wrote on a website.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146660]

>>3146594
I'm not confusing feedback and forcing. A continuing trend in change is from positive feedback, not forcing, because the various forcings have become unbalanced.

[Anonymous No.3146661]

>>3146626
You seem to be missing the point. People like life *the*way*it*is*. I don't think anyone suggests all life on earth would vanish in the event of massive climate change. But we're utilizing a lot of land which is already marginal. There is a real danger that climate change would bring worldwide disaster.

Life, of course, will go on. You just may not want to live there.

[Anonymous No.3146673]

The problem is always the ridiculous speed at which it is happening
In a mere 200 years, we have increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by around 40%. That's blisteringly fast on a geological scale. Even with all the positive feedbacks and cataclysmic event we know of in the past, similar changes have always taken at least several ten thousand years. CO2 is increasing at a hundred times the "natural" speed.
Think about it, a great part of what we have done in the last hundred years is specifically seek out large deposits of carbon, recover and then burn it. That's literally what is behind a great deal of human activity on this planet. We are pretty fucking good at that.
To some alien species, it would almost look like we are deliberately trying to transform this planet.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146682]

>>3146661
If we like life the way it is, why aren't we figuring out how to stop the next glaciation (ice age) before it starts?

[Anonymous No.3146683]

>>3146660
> A continuing trend in change is from positive feedback, not forcing, because the various forcings have become unbalanced.
Well, then your definition of feedback is different from the way climate scientists use it. Make yourself familiar in how the term is used there, please.

[Anonymous No.3146689]

>>3146682
How did the last ones start?

[Anonymous No.3146692]

>>3146661
If it may well happen anyway regardless of our actions shouldn't we try invest more in "cure" rather than "prevention" How can man chose to govern the climate in such a way.

I think its amazing how anyone cares at all as they are likely to be dead by the time anything is majorly wrong.

[Anonymous No.3146693]

And the scientific consensus is...!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

[Anonymous No.3146694]

>>3146660

Yes, you are. You confused them right here:

>When a given trend is going, positive feedbacks are dominating. When a trend is reversing, negative feedbacks are dominating.

A change in trend is caused by a change in forcing, not feedback. Feedbacks merely amplify the trend change.

[Anonymous No.3146696]

>>3146682
>why aren't we figuring out how to stop the next glaciation (ice age) before it starts?
Pretty sure we have already done that

[Anonymous No.3146700]

>>3146692
You think it is amazing that people care about the future?

[Anonymous No.3146714]

>>3146700

Yes I find most people fairly selfish and can't rationalize an inner motive for them to even attempt to be enviro friendly

[Anonymous No.3146717]

>>3146682
>>3146696

Yeah, we were due for another ice age in a few thousand years. Now it's been postponed for... who knows how long.

[Anonymous No.3146719]

>>3146673
Made me laugh

[Anonymous No.3146727]

could someone post a graph comparing CO2 to temperature?

[Anonymous No.3146730]

>>3146714
Most people aren't.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146737]

>>3146696
>>3146717
That's a nice fantasy. Unfortunately there's no evidence to suggest it's true.

[Anonymous No.3146747]

>>3146737
Evidence that shooting someone can kill them involves someone actually dying. It would be a curious kind of satisfaction derived from proving anthropocentric climate change skeptics wrong.

Hopefully you never get your proof.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146748]

>>3146683
My definition of feedback is the same as every other scientist's definition. I'm not sure why you think it's different.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146751]

>>3146689
No one knows how they start. We know that they correlate to the eccentricity cycle of the earth's orbit. But by our understanding, that should have the LEAST effect of any of the orbital parameters.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146757]

>>3146747
What are you talking about? This science. You're supposed to have evidence before you believe something.

[Anonymous No.3146762]

>>3146737
As you can see from the graphic, the ice age cycles of the last millennium have always been a slow and steady decline of temperature, and a rapid increase.
We just came out of the rapid increase,, if the pattern would have holden true, it would have been 40-60 thousand years till the next ice age anyway.
Seriously though, you can't look at the CO2 and believe it won't affect climate at all.

Also, you have been awfully quite about all the good points brought against your arguments. Nothing to say?

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146763]

>>3146747
>proving anthropocentric climate change skeptics wrong
And it has nothing to do with proving skeptics wrong. I've never heard a single mainstream scientist claim that the next glaciation has been postponed.

[Anonymous No.3146768]

>>3146727

Note that the story is much more complicated than the graph suggests! - http://sks.to/lag

[Anonymous No.3146775]

>I've never heard a single mainstream scientist claim that the next glaciation has been postponed.

Then you haven't been listening.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090903-arctic-warming-ice-age.html

[Anonymous No.3146776]

>>3146768
Note that funding and research is whats attempting to answer the question, not /sci/

[Anonymous No.3146779]

>>3146768
wow thanks i'll read up on it... at first glance it looks like temp falls before CO2??

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146795]

>>3146762
Oh, wow.
1. A millenium is 1,000 years. The graph showing ice age cycles doesn't show anything on the scale of 1,000 years.
2. Neither graph shows temperature. They both only show CO2 concentration.
3. If you're talking about temperature, it's not "slow and steady" but a down-trend with huge fluctuations in it.
4. The ice age starts with the next glaciation. The graph doesn't show temperature or glaciation. Interglacial periods last roughly 15ky on average. It's already been 12ky. No interglacial has ever lasted 40-60ky.

>quite about all the good points
what good points?

[Anonymous No.3146796]

>>3146757
There is plenty of evidence that in micro-environments, like islands, humans can destroy them---to the point where they were practically unusable---by relatively the trivial means available to people without the technology we have.

Even without anthropocentric climate change, there is still plenty of evidence for climate change. Societies unable to prepare for even those eventualities have been destroyed, because how much life of some kind an environment can support will change when the climate does---something else we have evidence for.

So there are two things you'd like evidence for:
1) the extrapolation that what can happen on islands or fragile environments can also happen across the entire planet
2) that humans can cause the climate to change, too

(1) is fairly trivial, as the Earth is just an island in the universe, probably more fragile, relatively speaking, than the most fragile environments humans have had the misfortune of starving to death in.

(2) Seems to be your big problem. But it is a drop in the bucket if you're already admitting that climate change without human causation is already real.

[Anonymous No.3146802]

>>3146779
CO2 is not the cause, but a major feedback system for climate change in the past.
Something (Orbital shift, continental drift, magic) increases earth temperature, causing some CO2 to be released from the oceans. That CO2 warms earth, causing more CO2 to be released, causing more warming, and so on.
This is also the reason, why cooling is always slow, yet warming is very rapid in the graphs. Some initial trend is greatly amplified by the change in greenhouse gases.
Today, the release of CO2 itself could be the trigger of a new warming cycle, since humans have burned so much of it. The point is, CO2 never increases by "itself" (until now) and always needs some former temperature change to start the cycle, that's why temperature always starts to increase before CO2.

[Anonymous No.3146808]

>>3146779

Yep, that's the natural carbon cycle acting up. Now, things are different due to our emissions.

[Anonymous No.3146810]

>>3146795
>Neither graph shows temperature. They both only show CO2 concentration.
Temperature change is more or less identical with CO2 change, at least for the recent geological history

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146828]

>>3146775
I've never heard of Miller before, but that is a fringe belief. I don't think you'd find many mainstream climatologists making such an unsupported claim. (The article doesn't even get the orbital parameters right as to what correlates with glaciation, but I'll give Miller the benefit of the doubt that that's not his doing).

It's basically just extrapolating from some data that suggested that a cooling trend may had been reversed to the idea that if that were true it would indicate that the ice age is delayed, based on the assumption that the cooling trend WAS the beginning of the ice age. But that is what isn't supportable.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146839]

>>3146810
No, it is radically different, especially if you want to even consider the last 1000 years.

Pre-human CO2 levels followed temperature change in the last million years or so, with an average 800 year lag. But not before or after.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146845]

>>3146796
What?! I never asked for evidence about anything remotely like that. I asked for evidence that human actions -- or anything else -- has postponed the next ice age.

[Anonymous No.3146849]

>>3146828

Ha, so first it's nobody, now it's fringe...how do you know? Is there a poll somewhere? I just linked the first article I found with google. Now let's see if you can find climatologists who don't think that we've postponed the next ice age.

[Anonymous No.3146851]

>>3146845
You are mixing up conversations.

[Anonymous No.3146856]

>>3146828
Of course there's no evidence for it one way or another, but if we assume (like a great portion of climate scientists is) that we have greatly altered the climate system of earth, it is reasonable to assume that past patterns, like the ice age cycles, will not continue in the near future, and are maybe replaced by new patterns of long-term climate change, we can't really predict now.
Even more reasonable is, if we assume that Earth will really warm by more than 6°C. That a drop in temperature, like one that is necessary for an ice age, will be significantly less likely to happen.

[Anonymous No.3146861]

>>3146839
>

Pre-human CO2 levels followed temperature change in the last million years or so, with an average 800 year lag. But not before or after.
That's pretty much exactly what i tried to say with "recent".

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146865]

>>3146802
That doesn't work as a reason why cooling would be slower than warming. Lower temps lead to lower CO2 concentrations, which would by the theory lead to lower temps. It's positive feedback both ways.

The likely reason why warming happens so fast is because the ice sheets can be melting for thousands of years, before the ground and folliage underneath them are exposed. Once they are exposed there is a sudden change in global Albedo. It doesn't work that way during cooling, because the ice sheets migrate down from the north.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146869]

>>3146849
>now it's fringe...how do you know? Is there a poll somewhere?
It's fringe because of all the peer-reviewed climatology papers I've read, I've never heard it even suggested. But I don't want to talk about personalities or polls. Evidence is the only thing that matters.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146871]

>>3146851
Follow the links back. Someone else is mixing up conversations.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146875]

>>3146856
In science you don't assume things without evidence. You certainly don't assume wild things on massive scales without evidence. Sure if we warm the earth by 6C, I'll assume that the ice age won't happen. Now show that we're capable of warming the earth by 6C.

[Anonymous No.3146877]

>>3146869

Show me a peer-reviewed paper with evidence that man-made global warming won't have any significant impact on the next ice age.

...oh, look, another of those non-existent scientists, right here. Google, are you a wizard?

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8719.html

[Anonymous No.3146878]

>>3146865
>The likely reason why warming happens so fast is because the ice sheets can be melting for thousands of years, before the ground and folliage underneath them are exposed. Once they are exposed there is a sudden change in global Albedo. It doesn't work that way during cooling, because the ice sheets migrate down from the north.
That wouldn't explain the cause of the warming.
If the ice sheets take long to melt before they are exposed, the warming can't be explained at all.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146883]

>>3146861
>That's pretty much exactly what i tried to say with "recent".
So you "recent" excludes the industrial age? Because we DOUBLED the CO2, and the temps for all intents and purposes didn't budge.

[Anonymous No.3146888]

>Because we DOUBLED the CO2, and the temps for all intents and purposes didn't budge.
Well, we got 1°C in a century, which s again pretty fucking fast on a geological scale.
Also, 2-6 C are still in the making

[Anonymous No.3146900]

>>3146888
Don't worry, when the planet is fucked and millions are starving he'll be satisfied that, finally, there was evidence.

[Anonymous No.3146904]

>>3146883

>DOUBLED the CO2

Co2 pre-industrial 280ppm
Co2 now 392.40ppm

Can you even count?

[Anonymous No.3146905]

>>3146875
>Now show that we're capable of warming the earth by 6C.
Well, all the climate scientists, the models and evidence say so.
Obviously, you don't believe THAT evidence, you have different, better evidence, that somehow all those other scientist conveniently ignore, probably because they are evil.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146906]

>>3146877
Show me a peer-reviewed paper that proves the flying spaghetti monster isn't going to kill you in your sleep tonight. Inability to disprove is not sufficient basis for belief, or to even take a notion seriously.

>posts popular book by Archer -- not a scientific paper.

[Anonymous No.3146907]

>>3146900
I think you're giving him too much credit

[Anonymous No.3146909]

>>3146900
And when, 100 years later, some beaches are underwater but nothing of value is lost, you'll still insist that you're right and it just hasn't happened yet. Fuck, there are still people who think the Rapture happened on the 21st and those of us who are left behind are deceived into denying it by the Antichrist.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146916]

>>3146878
We CAN'T explain the cycles. We know it is NOT initiated by greenhouse gas changes. Those follow temperature, they don't precede it. We know the changes follow orbital parameters, but change in insolation is not even remotely enough to account for the changes. So it remains mostly a mystery.

[Anonymous No.3146925]

>>3146906

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2554.1?journalCode=clim

I'm still waiting for your "evidence".

[Anonymous No.3146926]

>>3146909
> some beaches are underwater
And, you know, massive cities and farmland and other valueless stuff.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146940]

>>3146900
The question is why are you believing something WITHOUT evidence. What made you pick that thing to believe instead of something else equally unsupportable? Because it is popular?

[Anonymous No.3146943]

>>3146926
No, you fucking retard, I mean a few fucking beaches because anthropogenic global warming isn't going to melt the fucking ice caps and you're an idiot for believing it is, more than a few dozen centimetres of rise in sea level is not going to occur.

[Anonymous No.3146949]

>>3146906

This article links to a list of 900 peer reviewed papers that disagree with (and disprove parts of) the theory of catastrophic warming.

http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/2816-900-peer-reviewed-papers-supporting-skepticism-of-qman-made
q-global-warming-agw-alarm.html

[Anonymous No.3146955]

>>3146916

>but change in insolation is not even remotely enough to account for the changes.

Gee, I wonder what would happen if these small changes caused an increase in GHG concentration...

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146964]

>>3146888
It's only 1 degree if you count from the bottom of the "little ice age"

[Anonymous No.3146974]

>>3146949

...and this article shows how the list misrepresents the papers in it...

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-misleading

[Anonymous No.3146975]

>>3146949
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links
Ah, that one
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links
>9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil
Bahahhha.
Yes, those evil AGW-guys are in the pockets of Big Green.
Luckily, we have decent, hard working real scientist, not bought out by some evil company.

[Anonymous No.3146976]

>>3146916

>but change in insolation is not even remotely enough to account for the changes

Yet, when it comes to CO2, we assume that CO2 alone is responsible for ALL THE CHANGE (and then some more claimed but not-measured additional change).

I believe it would be much more realistic to assume that the other climate forcings are still active, and, consequently, CO2 is just one factor out of many.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146982]

>>3146925
I understand neither the significance you are trying to attach to that paper, nor what "evidence" you are awaiting from me.

[Anonymous No.3146993]

>>3146964
>It's only 1 degree if you count from the bottom of the "little ice age"
Well, then it's exactly 0.74 °C in the last 100 years.
Again, 2-6° still coming, and that's only this century.
It certainly won't stop after that.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3146994]

>>3146955
They do, with an 400-1200 year lag after the temperature change, because of 1) change in the ability of the ocean to hold the gases, and 2) lower glaciation means more life, and more co2 and methane. However, claims that these changes in GHG have any consequent impact on the temperature is not very apparent in the data. Temp can spike, causing a GHG spike, but just when the GHG is peaking temps can plummet.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147001]

>>3146975
Right scientists are corrupt when they work for corporations, but they're pure as snow when they're paid for by governments and the UN.

[Anonymous No.3147003]

>>3146982

Huh? You asked for a paper about the effects of AGW on the next ice age, so here it is. You claimed the idea has no scientific support, remember?

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147012]

>>3146976
We KNOW that CO2 and other GHG do not trigger the major historical climate changes. No one argues this. We know that insolation change can't account for it either, unless through some feedback system we can't yet explain. But the orbital prameter that LEAST correlates to insolation change (orbital eccentricity) is the one that has been driving the last many ice ages. There are a couple theories, but nothing solid to go on.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3147015]

>>3147001
We can be friends if you reveal to me what your major is.

[Anonymous No.3147017]

>2) lower glaciation means more life, and more co2 and methane.
That's fucking stupid.
More life always means more plant life, more plants mean less CO2.
Even "animals" (aka, Heterotrophs) decrease CO2 by simply being tehre, thereby fixating at least some (albeit minuscule) amount of CO2
That's probably the single greatest influence of life on earths climate. Hotter -> More Life -> Less CO2 -> Colder.
Life itself is stabilizing the climate.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147024]

>>3146993
>Again, 2-6° still coming, and that's only this century.
>6 deg this century
>more after that
Please, you're killing me. I like how your evidence for supporting your predictions are the predictions themselves.

[Anonymous No.3147026]

>but they're pure as snow when they're paid for by governments and the UN.
They are paid for by their local universities.
The UN only pays the people who put all the papers and evidence together, the consensus was there long before that

[Anonymous No.3147028]

>>3146993

>Again, 2-6° still coming, and that's only this century.

What mechanism is responsible for causing that 2-6° warming, when it takes a doubling of CO2 to cause about 1.1 degree C warming?

The computer models have been predicting all kinds of doomsday scenarios for decades now, yet the predictions do not have seem to come true. Where are the 50 million climate refugees that were predicted for the year 2010?

The world has been warming ever since the coldest point of the little ice age. This makes it a safe assumption that at least some of the warming, including some of the current warming, has natural causes.

Since CO2 is not responsible for all the warming, its influence is easily overestimated.

If you want to know how accurate the climate models are, look at 10-20 year old predictions and see whether they came true.

[Anonymous No.3147035]

>>3147017
> don't worry guys, when there are too many people we'll just starve to death until there aren't too many people

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147046]

>>3147003
How does that paper support the idea that the ice age would be delayed? There are new mechanisms that come into effect when the ice age is triggered. Persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere does not automatically change when those things start.

[Anonymous No.3147059]

>when it takes a doubling of CO2 to cause about 1.1 degree C warming?
Don't know where you got that number. Please provide sources.
>yet the predictions do not have seem to come true
Climate models have been pretty good. see pic
>Where are the 50 million climate refugees that were predicted for the year 2010?
Not made by scientist, especially not climate scientists
>look at 10-20 year old predictions and see whether they came true.
They did, funnily enough

[Anonymous No.3147067]

>>3147046

How can there be new glaciation if the warming effects of today's emissions last for thousands of years? Have you even read the paper?

[Anonymous No.3147071]

>>3147026

>The UN only pays the people who put all the papers and evidence together, the consensus was there long before that

You are much more right than you think.

The IPCC policy/executive summary was written before the papers and evidence were gathered. The job of each chapter's group of authors was to ensure the gathered evidence did not contradict the executive summary.

Problem, science?

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3147075]

>>3147046
Seriously. What is you major?

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147077]

>>3147015
I'm not in school anymore, but I majored in computer science and minored in physics.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147083]

>>3147026
Their grants come from governments. And these have skyrocketed in accordance along with the global warming scare. There is BIG money at play in this issue.

[Anonymous No.3147089]

>>3147071

Never change, /sci/

[Anonymous No.3147093]

>1930's Germany. The Nazis gather statements from 200 scientists claiming that relativity is wrong (because it was a Jewish science). When questioned, Einstein said: All it takes is ONE of them to PROVE me wrong.

mfw "consensus" is absolutely meaningless in science.

>Only 54% of scientists believe that current climate fluctuations are outside the normal range

>Roy Spencer, Anthony Watt, the list goes on and on and on and on

mfw there isn't a consensus anyway.

[Anonymous No.3147096]

>The IPCC policy/executive summary was written before the papers and evidence were gathered. The job of each chapter's group of authors was to ensure the gathered evidence did not contradict the executive summary.
1. Sauce
2. the conclusion was already there anyway. Even before the IPCC, the vast majority of climate scientist believed the Earth was warming because of humans, all the papers, evidence and models where there beforehand.
It's not cherry picking if you got only cherries in your bowl.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3147100]

>>3147077
i will give you the soundest suggestion you will ever get; Never get into following debates: Communism vs Capitalism, AGP vs Scientific view, Religion vs. Science. In all the three cases there are motivated zealots. They are never going to accept anything you wills say (ok, mostly never). Only go for threads that discuss actual science problems. You will at least learn something new.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147103]

>>3147067
I read the abstract. Why do you assume that today's emissions would some how cancel out the glaciation process?

[Anonymous No.3147116]

>Why do you assume that today's emissions would some how cancel out the glaciation process?
uh, because it's too hot for glaciers to form?
if there's no glacier, how can the albedo decrease, thereby making more glaciers?
You need to be under some "maximum" temperature for your version of the cycle.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147120]

>>3147100
I've tried. I just can't help myself.

[Anonymous No.3147124]

>Their grants come from governments. And these have skyrocketed in accordance along with the global warming scare. There is BIG money at play in this issue.
Assume global warming si real for a moment. Would this be strange at all? No it wouldn't, it would be completely normal for governments to spend money on something that is as important as the global climate.
And, most importantly, why would the climate scientist come to believe in global warming in the first place?
Surely, there was no money to be made back then, just some scientist discovering something.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3147131]

>>3147120
Man the fuck up.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147159]

>>3147124
It was always a valid thing to investigate. But the amount of money up for grabs for studying it -- or moreso, it's anticipated EFFECTS -- motivations behind it became more and more questionable.

[Anonymous No.3147179]

>>3147159
Gosh, it's almost like modern societies require predictable supplies of food grown, without which little would be possible.

[Anonymous No.3147180]

>>3147159
That still doesn't answer why the original viewpoint formed in the first place.
>the amount of money up for grabs for studying it
You are massively overestimating that. A usual climate scientist gets pretty much the same amount of money as any scientist employed by the state.
Is Relativity an evil plot, because the physicists get just as much money as them? Think of Gravity probe B. Almost a billion dollar. You would totally pretend frame dragging was there if it really isn't to get your hands on that money, right?

[Anonymous No.3147238]

>>3147180

Don't bother. These people usually don't even believe that there is a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists.
It's just a talking point they put up when someone mentions that the few remaining "skeptics" with relevant scientific credentials often have links to the fossil fuel industry.

[Anonymous No.3147248]

>>3147096

The summary for policy makers contradicted the conclusion of the scientists reponsible for the first assesment report.

As per the models, if you were to take the HAD3CM and use it to generate a climate and then try to predict climate variations of said climate using that model you would fair poorly, even though it is literally the perfect model.

The 15 models used by the IPCC were used to predict ENSO variations from a doubling of CO2. 7 predicted no change, 5 predicted an increase and 3 a decrease (I might have the 5 and 3 mixed up). This means precisely "don't know."

So the IPCC uses these climate models and proclaims to predict with "over 90% accuracy" the effects of small increases in CO2 on many variables when their models can't even predict the effect on one variable.

Sounds legit.

[Anonymous No.3147253]

>>3147248
Give me a Source for all of that, please

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147275]

>>3147131
They're subjects that interest me. There's nothing I can do about people being zealots, but I do my best to interject reason, or at least some new perspectives.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147298]

>>3147180
Getting grant money is a struggle for most scientists doing research. However, for "studying the effects of global warming" the politicians can't spend enough. Do you remember the study showing that poison ivy will grow faster and be itchier in a warmer, more CO2 rich environment?

[Anonymous No.3147303]

>>3147275

Perhaps you could "interject reason" with links to peer-reviewed science, instead of handwawing and insults.

[Anonymous No.3147305]

>>3147180

Look at how much money was going toward climate science under Bush sr. and look at how much there is now. It's a difference of a piddling few billion versus tens of billions.

If you were a climate scientist, would you really want to go from this period of funding and social importance to pennies and the public going back to not giving two fucks about what you say?

[Anonymous No.3147334]

>>3147305

How much was spend under Bush sr vs. today?

[Anonymous No.3147344]

The reason why I'm a skeptic to begin with is because the political faggotry by members of the American Congress and Al Gore (Who later went to form a "Sustainable Investment" firm with Mr. Blood of CEO of Goldman Sachs Assets Management for green carbon credits). Not to mention the corruption behind the UN's faggotry in this AGW research.

tl;dr - too much of a political agenda and profit motive by the guy who made a documentary to scare everyone about it.

Although Global Warming is occurring at some minute level, human influence is insignificant. Instead of asking a climatologist, ask a astrophysicist about how the sun works in it's relation to climate on earth.

[Anonymous No.3147357]

>>147298
>Getting grant money is a struggle for most scientists doing research.
Obviously.
>However, for "studying the effects of global warming" the politicians can't spend enough.
Numbers, please.
>Do you remember the study showing that poison ivy will grow faster and be itchier in a warmer, more CO2 rich environment?
Nope, yet, i could show you dozens of way more ridiculous and stupid studies from other areas of science.

You are fully aware that no scientist actually gets anything of the "grant money", right? That's money for the project itself, not to pay any scientists.
The scientist are employed by the state anyway, even if the get no grants, they will still get their salaries and they will still would work at the universities or some institute, for example teaching students, or doing research that requires few expenses, EXACTLY like it is done in any other natural science.
Climate scientists are not richer than other scientists, they certainly don't get paid better than scientist in the private industry, it makes no sense to say the people who work there are in it for the money, because the exact same would then need to be said about all other scientist.
And you STILL didn't explain why they would get the idea of AGW long before any money was involved.

[Anonymous No.3147380]

>>3147344

Why do you even care about Gore or the UN? The idea of global warming is older than both, did you know that?

[Anonymous No.3147389]

>>3147253

I gave you names. Do your own fucking work. This is why you're ignorant to begin with.

[Anonymous No.3147408]

>>3147334

Climate science funding in the US jumped from 170 million pre Bush sr to 2 billion years later.

From 1989 to 2009, 79 billion dollars has been spent with the specific aim of proving AGW. (Compare that to 23 million from Exxon Mobil over the same period and you see how ludicrous these paranoid claims of "Big Oil" paying of scientists is)

[Anonymous No.3147411]

>>3147389
So, i'll just assume it's complete bullshit
Thank you very much

[Anonymous No.3147416]

>I don't actually have to back up anything I say.

Nice.

[Anonymous No.3147424]

>>3147408

>specific aim of proving AGW

You actually have no idea how science works, don't you.

[Anonymous No.3147426]

>79 billion dollars has been spent with the specific aim of proving AGW
What?
Is that the stupid calculation that includes stuff like weather satellites?

[Anonymous No.3147436]

I'm a little unclear to all of this. Who predicted the earth to stop getting warmer in the year 2005?
> predictions coming true all over this thread
Also, lets just make one thing clear. Forcing a decision with a statement : "we know all the evidence aren't there and everything doesn't add up but we have to act know" eliminates all posibilities of a true scientific consensus.
There is no scientific consensus regarding global warming and its origins just like there was no scientific consensus regarding saturated fats and heatrh disease.

[Anonymous No.3147453]

>>3147436

>stop getting warmer in the year 2005?

Nonsense. By this reasoning, earth "stops warming" every few years. No one predicts steady increase in temperatures year after year.

[Anonymous No.3147457]

>>3147380

When the main public proponent of the hypothesis of AGW (Gore) buys a house for 8 million dollars that, if he's right about his ramblings, will soon be under water, I find that very telling.

When that same person owns multiple houses and only outfits them with flourescent bulbs, etc when he's criticized for not doing so in the media, I find that very telling.

When I watch his movie and see lie after lie after lie and a graph that's 100% fabricated (the only way you can have regression in a stochastic data set is if your data is made up), I find the notion of AGW very hard to believe.

When I see the IPCC's claims, I find this whole thing very hard to believe. The climate provides 33C of warming and the IPCC projects a 3.5C increase (10%). 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2. After 250 years of industrialization, less than 5% of that 0.038% is man made (US Department of Energy). 80% of the outgoing longwave radiation (what CO2 is supposed to affect) is absorbed by water vapour within the first 30 feet of the surface. Furthermore, CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas to begin with.

Given all these facts, how the fuck is a piddling little bit of nothing, that isn't affecting anything and couldn't absorb much even if there was anything reaching it, supposed to exact a 10% increase in warming?

The answer: IT FUCKING CAN'T, MORONS.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147460]

>>3147357
You're trying to imply that scientists do not care how much money is allocated to them for grants? Do you really believe that?

>And you STILL didn't explain why they would get the idea of AGW long before any money was involved.
The idea first came about from looking at Venus. I have no problems with the idea or investigate the idea. I have problems with exaggerating the relevance of the idea.

[Anonymous No.3147470]

>>3147424

I have some idea how bureaucracy works.

I have some idea how "scientific" journals work.

I know that scientists say they've been denied funding based on the possible conclusions of their work. I know that journals have been sitting on some papers for years because of their findings.

I know how science is SUPPOSED to work. You clearly have your head in the sand and have no idea how it's actually working.

[Anonymous No.3147475]

>>3147453
Hsve you ever seen a graph of global temperatures vs CO2 that goes beyond 2005?
I mean, of course it's not steady. he climate is allways changing. CO2 is rising like hell and has been for the past years but temperatures don't.

[Anonymous No.3147478]

>>3147411

Don't assume anything. Go forth and learn, child.

[Anonymous No.3147491]

>>3147475
>>3147475
It's me again. The thing is that observing the sun predicted the earth stops getting warmer around then. So, it's kinda like the sceptics can tell what the proIPCC cannot.

[Anonymous No.3147500]

>>3147457
> ad hominem

[Anonymous No.3147514]

>>3147491

There's a natural decadal oscillation. There Earth has been cooling for 10 years and will continue to cool until 2030 at which point it will start to warm again.

I wonder what all these faggots are gunna do until then. Probably start shitting themselves about an ice age. I bet Gore comes out with a new movie and suggests fining people who don't pay membership dues to the fossil fuel industry to support more burning and warming or something.

[Anonymous No.3147520]

>>3147457
>less than 5% of that 0.038% is man made (US Department of Energy).
Simply by the isotopic composition of carbon, we can positively conclude that a vast majority of the 40% increase in CO2 must come from fossil fuels
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases
-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

[Anonymous No.3147521]

>>3147475

You don't get it. There are short-term fluctuations. Always. Because of that, a few years of temperature change tells you nothing about the underlying trend.

[Anonymous No.3147523]

>>3147500

YES HE SAID MORON!!! I CAN DISMISS ALL HIS FACTS NOW!!! :D

Head in the sand, butthurt faggot.

[Anonymous No.3147542]

>>3147491

Actually, watching only solar variation tells you very little about the present climate change.

[Anonymous No.3147546]

>>3147520

>Realclimate.org vs US Department of Energy

cacklingwhores.jpg

Here are the numbers, libfag:

Year: 2000
Pre-industrial level: 288,000
Natural additions: 68,520
Man-made additions: 11,880
Total concentration: 368,400

Percent of CO2 man made in the year 2000: 3.22%

You really should try to inform yourself.

[Anonymous No.3147552]

>>3147460
>You're trying to imply that scientists do not care how much money is allocated to them for grants?
I'm saying that, since climate scientist are rich, they certainly don't do it for the money, therefore, they have exactly as much incentive for lying and skewing their research as other natural scientist, therefore, you would have to be equally skeptical of relativity and Quantum Mechanics as of Global Warming

>The idea first came about from looking at Venus.
Nope, the knowledge of the CO2 absorption bands and their possible effect on the climate was known long before anybody knew how hot Venus was.

[Anonymous No.3147555]

>>3147523

What facts? Gore is irrelevant, and the rest of his post is just unsourced blabbering.

[Anonymous No.3147562]

>>3147542

First of all, you have to look at a larger time frame.

Second, as you'll notice, there's no meaningful correlation between CO2 and temperature, whereas there is a correlation between sun activity and temperature.

[Anonymous No.3147568]

>>3147546
That doesn't even make sense.
Do the numbers even have a fucking unit?
>libfag
Oh, i see, you're a huge fucking idiot who didn't even read the link. It may be hard for a highschool dropout, but try. That the CO2 is from human causes is pretty much undeniable, even all the "septics" dropped that line long ago, after seeing how stupid it was.

[Anonymous No.3147572]

>>3147457

THIS.

Like I said, tons of faggotry evident in AGW theory.

On top of that, what's the notion of this "scientific consensus" bullshit? To me, there is no scientific consensus. Every scientist I've ever met is a skeptic, it's a part of being a scientist, thinking critically, even in the face of public support.

[Anonymous No.3147577]

>>3147546

>numbers

Link?

[Anonymous No.3147580]

>>3147555

>The climate provides 33C of warming and the IPCC projects a 3.5C increase (10%). 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2. After 250 years of industrialization, less than 5% of that 0.038% is man made (US Department of Energy). 80% of the outgoing longwave radiation (what CO2 is supposed to affect) is absorbed by water vapour within the first 30 feet of the surface. Furthermore, CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas to begin with.

Given all these facts, how the fuck is a piddling little bit of nothing, that isn't affecting anything and couldn't absorb much even if there was anything reaching it, supposed to exact a 10% increase in warming?

I feel like I'm arguing with a child. Am I seriously being expected to provide sources proving my contention that the sky is blue? These are the most basic of verifiable facts.

[Anonymous No.3147589]

>>3147562

Haha, do you know whose graph you just posted?

[Anonymous No.3147595]

>>3147577

Couldn't find a direct link on their website but I found one that reference their data.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[Anonymous No.3147596]

>>3147521
Dude, I dont knnow what you study, but it's not like the earth is going to keep it a secret. It gets warmer, because heat accumulates. There is no heat pump.
As I've said. Someone should really look at the temperatues CO2 graph...and as I've said. Observing the sun, that is the way sceptics see it, predicts the heat stops rising.

[Anonymous No.3147606]

>>3147589


Haha. Can you dispute the data? No? Then shut up about the source.

[Anonymous No.3147607]

>>3147580

Well, lets see then

>The climate provides 33C of warming

Wrong. The greenhouse effect provides 33C of warming. You don't even know basic terminology.

[Anonymous No.3147612]

>>3147606

Say the name, say it if you dare.

[Anonymous No.3147620]

>>3147607

Ugh. Without the atmosphere the surface would be 18 below. Fine I used the wrong word. Oh unforgivable trangression.

This is the most pathetic nit-picking I've ever seen. Can't dispute the facts so act like a faggot and change the subject. Lmao, you've basically just conceded defeat.

[Anonymous No.3147627]

>>3147595

No, I want the SOURCE, from DOE

[Anonymous No.3147628]

>>3147612

Not my problem. You're the one disputing the accuracy of the data.

Is it inaccurate? If so, say so and prove it. If not, admit you have nothing but your faith.

[Anonymous No.3147633]

>>3147627

Then stop being a lazy faggot and go find it.

What is with you fucking kids and never doing any research?

[Anonymous No.3147640]

Seriously OP, if you want a real answer go to real climatologists.
This fanciful bunch of dilitants and hobbiests (no offence guys) is not the place.

[Anonymous No.3147645]

>>3147628

Why are you afraid to say the name? How can I dispute the data if I don't know where it came from?

[Anonymous No.3147650]

>>3147633
>Post numbers
>LOLO GO FIND IT YOURSELF
I can do that too.
Here i got this number from [insert reputable website here]
Percentage of Climate change attributed to humans: 100%
And know it's true, because i said so! No need to provide any evidence!

[Anonymous No.3147666]

>>3147645

You clearly already know. You claim it's inaccurate yet refuse to prove it. Prove it or go away.

>>3147650

Not the same thing. Go find it yourself, they have a website, kid.

[Anonymous No.3147686]

>>3147666
>Go find it yourself, they have a website, kid.
So the numbers are complete fabricated bullshit, thanks!

[Anonymous No.3147698]

>>3147645
> dispute data
really, /sci/, is this what you kids know of science nowadays

[Anonymous No.3147702]

>>3147640
That is just it. The climatologists do not agree enirely.

[Anonymous No.3147731]

>>3147686

It's the US Department of Energy. Go to their fucking website, idiot.

[Anonymous No.3147740]

>>3147666

Yeah, it's understandable why you don't want to admit that you get your "science" from a well known conspiracy theorist, but why not at least link the institution where the data came from?

[Anonymous No.3147750]

>>3147731

I can't find it. Can you?

[Anonymous No.3147751]

>>3147645

How exactly does one dispute data? Don't you usually just dispute the conclusions drawn from it?

Unless it's fraudulent. in which case I'd love to see the proof of that. Though, I suspect you don't have any because you've had ample time to provide it and have opted to simply act like a faggot.

[Anonymous No.3147756]

>>3147731
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Awww.energy.gov+%22368%2C400%22
Surprisingly enough, the numbers don't appear fucking anywhere.
Not like i didn't expect that this is total bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3147785]

>>3147750

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057300.pdf

There, found it.

[Anonymous No.3147799]

>>3147756

Please see:

>>3147785

[Anonymous No.3147808]

>>3147785
Your numbers still don't appear anywhere in there.

[Anonymous No.3147809]

>>3147799

>5 mins of research
>waaaah I didn't find it, you're lying

Lmao, owned.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3147812]

>>3147552
If there was some huge boon in funding, prompting governments to make billions of dollars in funding available to string theorists, it would be detrimental to that science, just like it has been detrimental to climate science.

>long before anybody knew how hot Venus was.
Who? The first mentions of GHG-mediated heating I'm aware of happened in response to Venus research.

[Anonymous No.3147820]

>>3147808

That's because it's the next year's analysis. For FUCK"S SAKE you people are so god damned lazy. Page 18.

There's more to doing "research" than ctrl+f.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3147821]

> co2 levels rise last 30 years, temperatures rise
> co2 levels rise 30 years before that, temperatures go down
> man made

NOPE.png

[Anonymous No.3147829]

>>3147821

:3

[Anonymous No.3147830]

>>3147785

LOL, I was just trolling.
>no just kidding, I'm actually not the same person whit which you were having an argument

[Anonymous No.3147846]

Hahahahahhahaahhaha.
Fucking hilarious, seriously.
See the "absorbtion"? See how it is larger than natural emission? See how the annual increase is only HALF of the human released Gas? How the CO2 would actually decrease if we weren't here?
It's so fucking golden to know from the very beginning how someone is obviously bullshitting, and then get to know how exactly he is bullshitting.
Your nice site simply cut off half the graph, to make their point, while in reality this graph says exactly the opposite.
You deniers are fucking hilarious, seriously

[Anonymous No.3147854]

>>3147812
>The first mentions of GHG-mediated heating I'm aware of happened in response to Venus research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#First_calculations_of_human-induced_c
limate_change.2C_late_1800s

[Anonymous No.3147860]

>>3147846
Ah, the good old "lying my ass off to make my point"

[Anonymous No.3147861]

>>3147846

What the graph shows is that man made additions pale in comparison to natural additions, something you lied about when you said isotopic analysis proves the opposite.

It doesn't. You were wrong.

These numbers show that man made additions are only a small part of the increase we've seen in the past 250 years.

It's so sad that you just keep trying to come up with more and more inventive ways to save yourself from embarassment and justify your position.

It's just an anonymous image board, man. You can leave the thread and nobody will ever know you lost an argument.

[Anonymous No.3147867]

>>3147846
>>3147860

Samefag. Try harder.

[Anonymous No.3147875]

>>3147846

Wow, and yet for the vast vast majority of the past 600 million years, CO2 has been higher than today.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3147877]

>>3147846

> mfw this chart proves man-made emissions are absorbed at a lower rate than natural emissions.

[Anonymous No.3147886]

>>3147861

"Most greenhouse gases have both natural and human-
made emission sources. There are, however, significant natural mechanisms (land-based or ocean-based sinks)
for removing them from the atmosphere. However,
increased levels of anthropogenic (human-made) emis-
sions have pushed the total level of greenhouse gas
emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) above the
natural absorption rates for these gases. This positive
imbalance between emissions and absorption has
resulted in the continuing growth in atmospheric con-
centrations of these gases. Table 2 illustrates the relation-
ship between anthropogenic (human-made) and natural
emissions and absorption of the principal greenhouse
gases"

This is what happens when you don't read the text.

[Anonymous No.3147891]

>>3147877

Nothing about that chart proves which kind of emission is being absorbed.

[Anonymous No.3147892]

>>3147861
Jesus, is it hard to be that stupid?
Natural Emission and Adsorption is the same, because Naturally, the CO2 level is more or less constant. Nature is releasing a fuckton of CO2 and getting it back at the same time, no net change.
The ADDITIONAL (see also the "net increase") in your graph, can be entirely attributed to humans (see your own goddamn graph).
>These numbers show that man made additions are only a small part of the increase we've seen in the past 250 years.
No you fucking idiot. Look at your own damn graph. Without humans CO2 levels would have been DECREASED It's simple fucking math

[Anonymous No.3147913]

>>3147886

Nothing about what you said in any way proves that the majority of CO2 emissions are man made, as you've been trying to state.

Also, you seem to fail to realize that sinks don't discriminate between new and old CO2. Man made emissions pushing above natural absorption rates wouldn't prove that the small amount above the absorption rate was the newer CO2. It doesn't even matter if it did anyway.

The only thing that matters is that man made CO2 is an extremely small portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's time to admit that, given the facts.

[Anonymous No.3147917]

>>3147846
Thi is not real info. This is not really calculated and observed. What it tryes to prove is that man made emissions are small. We don't even have enough data of the global forestation and ecosistems to calculate CO2 emissions this accurately. In this case by mistake less that 1%, come on, a lot of countries don't even knos how much biomass regrows in their forests.

[Anonymous No.3147924]

>>3147892

You're applying one year's results to all of geologic history.

CO2 levels have NEVER EVER been constant. You expose yourself as beyond ignorant with that statement.

[Anonymous No.3147937]

>>3147913
wow

[Anonymous No.3147945]

>>3147913
The Absorbed and release CO2 is of the same isotopic composition (enzymes discriminate against C-13, pretty simple), therefore, we can still perfectly fine do the calculations. It's like taking some coins from a purse and then putting the exact same coins back in again. You would still notice if your missing a penny.
Again, see the "net increase" there? That adds up over the years. Again without us, IT WOULD BE DECREASING! It's extremely simple
Seriously, we had thousands of years of near-constant CO2 and JUST when man started burning coal it randomly increased? Fucking coincidence, eh?

[Anonymous No.3147946]

>>3147913
>The only thing that matters is that man made CO2 is an extremely small portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's time to admit that, given the facts.

>implying that anyone that knows how climate works is arguing against this

This little increase causes the big change, that is known as global warming.

Also
>Implying that you are not trolling

[Anonymous No.3147950]

>>3147917

It doesn't really matter. You take many samples of air from different heights and from many places around the country and analyze it. It wouldn't even really be necessary to do this but it adds some professional reliability to the results.

What's wrong with this system?

[Anonymous No.3147955]

>>3147846
Emissions from deforestation in Brasil alone are higher than what American government states here.

[Anonymous No.3147956]

>>3147913

There is nothing in the report that supports anything you wrote. You misrepresented your source, and now you look like a clown. You'll have to do better than that.

[Anonymous No.3147966]

>>3147945

Yeah you would notice if you were missing a penny but you wouldn't know which coins were which unless you had figured out way to check for that and you're not considering that in your analogies.

[Anonymous No.3147975]

>>3147945

We had thousands of years of constant CO2, yeah. But not millions. 1000 years out of 600 million is a useless time frame. Over the past half billion years CO2 has varied WILDLY.

[Anonymous No.3147992]

>>3147946

Prove that the little increase causes a big change. You can't, beyond idiotic speculation that isn't supported by any facts.

[Anonymous No.3147994]

>>3147966
It doesn't matter which coins are which, they are completely identical.
But you are fully aware CO2 would be decreasing without us? Yet you claim we have no responsibility for the net increase in CO2?
Do you realize how monumentally fucking stupid that is?
Seriously, you must realize that your argument is total bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3148013]

>>3147956

You're really not getting it. The only thing those numbers show is that man made contributions to CO2 levels are beyond negligent.

Yeah it pushes us over the natural absorption levels, so fucking what? For the last time, look to paleoclimatology. Your assertion, that CO2 will be harmful for the planet or cause run away warming or whatever it is you're saying is completely unfounded.

Provide me with some PROOF that a run away effect is possible based on climate history and I'll honestly consider it.

[Anonymous No.3148022]

Ok, for the idiots
Assume there's a big pile of money on some table.
Some guy is constantly taking a thousand dollar each day, and puts a thousand dollar in at the same time.
You put in a dollar every day.
After a hundred days, whose money is the additional 100 dollar on the table?

[Anonymous No.3148027]

>Yeah it pushes us over the natural absorption levels, so fucking what?
So, you admit that the increase since the industrial revolution is our doing, yes?

[Anonymous No.3148029]

>>3148013
>>3147994

Both of you should check out the CO2 drain in Biomass.
Let's just start, one cubic meter of wood means one metric ton of CO2 . . . . so, what is the net grosth rate?

[Anonymous No.3148030]

>>3147994

Idiot. I didn't say we're not responsible for any increase. I'm saying we're responsible for only an increadibly small portion of the additions. This is what happens when you can't read properly.

It doesn't matter that we're pushed over the absorption levels because CO2 has been consistently higher for the past half billion years to absolutely NO ill effect.

Here's something to consider. If our emissions are now pushing us over the absorption limit, how is it that the Earth has been cooling for at least the past 10 years? Does this not directly contradict your assertion?

[Anonymous No.3148040]

>>3147975

Make that 600000 years, at least.

[Anonymous No.3148041]

>>3148027

See

>>3148030

[Anonymous No.3148043]

>how is it that the Earth has been cooling for at least the past 10 years?
2005 and 2010 tie for the hottest year on record

[Anonymous No.3148052]

>>3148040

600 million as well.

[Anonymous No.3148053]

>>3147975
Actually it's quite the opposite.

We look at the changes that happen today and how they effect the plants, animals and people living today.
It doesn't matter what the level was 600 million or 1 million years ago. The thing that matter is what it was 1000, 100, 10, 1 years ago, yeasterday and tomorrow and in close future.

If we take the world, we have creatures living in the tundra and in the desert. This clearly proves that life can survive in extreme climates. If we slowly increase the temperature animals will migrate to north and evolution happens.
Now when we just increase the temperature 1 c in the matter of century, that amounts to something like 5 c in the arctic.
What this causes is that in only couple of generations of polar bears there is no summer ice. That puts the bears in deep shit (or water in this case)
There is no time to adapt.
The same thing happens to everything and everywhere. This includes people.
Eg. "When my father farmed this land it could feed the entire willage, today i only can scrape enough food for couple of families"

[Anonymous No.3148064]

>>3148041
So, the we increased CO2 by 40%, yet this will have no ill effects?
what about the obvious correlation of temperature and CO2, as laid out by
>>3146768
>>3146802

[Anonymous No.3148071]

>>3148043

First of all, that has nothing to do with the overall trend.

Second, says who? Do they use sat data?

[Anonymous No.3148075]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
If you don't believe it

[Anonymous No.3148083]

>CO2 has been consistently higher for the past half billion years to absolutely NO ill effect.
Yeah, it just has been way hotter, with plants and animals adapted to that temperature

[Anonymous No.3148099]

>First of all, that has nothing to do with the overall trend.
Glad you realize that
The overall trend is +0.74°C in the last 100 years, btw.

[Anonymous No.3148101]

>It doesn't matter what the level was 600 million or 1 million years ago. The thing that matter is what it was 1000, 100, 10, 1 years ago, yeasterday and tomorrow and in close future.

You're a fucking moron.

>Now when we just increase the temperature 1 c in the matter of century, that amounts to something like 5 c in the arctic.

Prove it. Sat data shows that the Arctic has warmed much faster but in no way does this somehow prove that warming in the tropic is the cause.

>What this causes is that in only couple of generations of polar bears there is no summer ice. That puts the bears in deep shit (or water in this case)
There is no time to adapt.

The polar bears have survived periods of warming more intense than today in the recent past. Population studies show that the overall population of polar bears has increased between 2 and 5 fold over the past 60 years.

You have no data, no facts, no proof. You are a fucking sheep.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3148112]

>>3148064
>what about the obvious correlation of temperature and CO2, as laid out by
Temperature leads and CO2 follows in that graph. In the last 150 years, the CO2 shot off that chart, and temp barely budged.

[Anonymous No.3148118]

>>3148064

First, prove that it's 40% because so far the only data that's been presented proves something different.

Second, that data is only for the past 100 years. Who gives a fuck about that it's too small a time frame. Look at the past million, 10 million, 500 million. If you do, you'll see there's NO correlation between CO2 and temp.

[Anonymous No.3148122]

>>3148053

>Now when we just increase the temperature 1 c in the matter of century, that amounts to something like 5 c in the arctic.
>What this causes is that in only couple of generations of polar bears there is no summer ice. That puts the bears in deep shit (or water in this case)

Around 6000 years ago, there was a period without summer ice in the arctic. The polar bears seem to have survived that period just fine.

The reason is simple. When there is ice, the bears hunt on the ice because seals are resting on the ice. When there is no ice, the seals will have to rest on the rocks, which is where polar bears can hunt them.

I love it when people use the word "unprecedented" for things that have already happened before. Repeatedly.

[Anonymous No.3148131]

>>3148083

Yes it has been hotter, good boy for recognizing that. But you missed the fact that the temperature didn't correlate with CO2 at all. Sorry, kid. Try again.

[Anonymous No.3148153]

>>3148075

>hottest year on record
>on record
>human record goes back 150 years, maybe
>no record of temp in the Southern Hemisphere

pic related

[Anonymous No.3148154]

>If you do, you'll see there's NO correlation between CO2 and temp.
That fucking graph there goes for 400000 years >>3146768
CO2 is almost identical with temperature for a period of 400 thousand fucking years. How dense can you be?

>First, prove that it's 40%
>>3146696
See the spike? It's a 37% increase, to be precise

[Anonymous No.3148169]

>>3148154

CO2 follows temperature in that graph....

[Anonymous No.3148171]

>-CO2 levels during the Jurassic eras and before were 25 times today's level.

the highest CO2 level during the Jurassic occured during the upper Kimmeridgian to Tithonian. It was almost 6 times higher than present according to foram proxies.

Oxygen isotopes ratios compared to VSMOW indicate average temperatures about 3 degrees C warmer than present, +/- ~1 degree.

There were no polar ice caps at this time, but the world was a vastly different place. Greater plant productivity led to nutrient dilution, a situation that would today lead to less capacity for feeding the hordes.

to put it bluntly, if we return to those levels of CO2 concentration, a significant portion of our projected future population would need to die.

[Anonymous No.3148190]

>>3148171

>if we return to those levels of CO2 concentration, a significant portion of our projected future population would need to die.

That's an opinion. Got any numbers to support it?

[Anonymous No.3148192]

>>3148169
Where did you get that anyway?
Looks like someone did it in MSPaint. Got some sources?

[Anonymous No.3148194]

>>3148101
>You're a fucking moron. (I read this as prove it because you seem to be underaged to be here)
Do you know what would happen to a dinosaur today, or generic animal x, lest say a cow in jurassic era? I can tell you that it wouldn't end too good.
We must study what happend to current animals and plants tomorrow, knowing that in some point in earths history climate was hotter doesn't help us too much.

>Prove it. Sat data shows that the Arctic has warmed much faster but in no way does this somehow prove that warming in the tropic is the cause.
My god you are stupid. The warming in the tropic is not the cause and no one said anything about this.
I just stated that earth on average is warming with x speed, arctic is warming with speed 5*x. This is basic math (Averages, do you know them?)

You just proved my point there


Polar bear were just an example that i used. The point was to get you to understan that sudden changes such as your habitat dissapearing can have significant effect in the enviroment.

You seriously need to study few more years before you try to troll in here.

[Anonymous No.3148219]

>oh you guys

[Anonymous No.3148222]

>>3148169
Oh, and just so you know, accurately judging CO2 from that period is hard as fuck
They are more lucky guesses than have any real bearing, we only get good CO2 from the time we still have Ice cores from, and that's not very long

[Anonymous No.3148223]

>>3148194

>Do you know what would happen to a dinosaur today, or generic animal x, lest say a cow in jurassic era? I can tell you that it wouldn't end too good.

Um, ok... What exactly would happen, Dr. Anon?

>The warming in the tropic is not the cause and no one said anything about this.
I just stated that earth on average is warming with x speed, arctic is warming with speed 5*x. This is basic math (Averages, do you know them?)

Idiot. I want to know what proves that this is always the case. You stated that x temp increase causes 5x increase in the Arctic. Prove it.

[Anonymous No.3148225]

>>3148190
see Malthus.

or google.

or any of the hundreds of studies such as this-

http://www4.nau.edu/direnet/publications/publications_j/files/DW_Johnson1.pdf

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3148227]

>>3148154
Temperature doesn't follow CO2 during the spike. The reason for the difference is that for 400000 the variations in CO2 were temperature-caused. For the last 150, the variations (the spike) were human-caused. There's no time where temperature is being CO2-caused.

[Anonymous No.3148244]

>>3148194

>Polar bear were just an example that i used. The point was to get you to understan that sudden changes such as your habitat dissapearing can have significant effect in the enviroment.

LOL. All the evidence we have suggests that for the polar bears, the warming had NO effect whatsoever and that their population has been increasing for the past 60 years (between 2 and 5 fold total).

I've PROVED you wrong about that. You need to have actual evidence if you want to counter, not just the exact same incorrect opinion stated slightly differently.

Your use of polar bears, as an example, didn't show what you're implying it did. It showed the opposite.

[Anonymous No.3148256]

>>3148225

Cool. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Also, thank you for actual evidence and backing up your claims. I appreciate it.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3148265]

>>3148192
That's a very common graph. The citation is:
Temperatures after C,R, Scotese, 2002. Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras.
CO2 after Berner, R.A., Kothavala Z., 2001. GEOCARB III: a revised model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic times. American Journal of Science 301, 182-204

[Anonymous No.3148271]

>>3148223
>Copy a line, don't read it
Nigger_plese.jpg

I'm not going to bother with you if you are not reading what i say.
Read this and the links it provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Come back if you have something interesting to say. If you respond anything within the next 30 min i will disregard that because you din't study the material provided.
0/10

[Anonymous No.3148278]

>>3148256

Ok so right away this is what I see:

>The few studies which have addressed the effects
of elevated CO2 on soils have produced conflicting
results. Some investigators have found that elevated
CO2 causes a reduction in soil C, presumably because
of stimulated decomposition through increased root
exudation (K¨orner and Arnone, 1992; Zak et al., 1993)
whereas others have found either no change or a net
gain (Johnson et al., 1994b). Some investigators report
that elevated CO2 causes increased soil N availability
(K¨orner and Arnone, 1992; Zak et al., 1993) whereas
others report decreased N availability (Diaz et al.,
1993) or no effect (Randlett et al., 1996). Norby et al.
(1986a) found an increase in soil extractable P with
elevated CO2 whereas Johnson et al. (1994a) found no
effect. Norby et al. (1986a) found no effect of elevated
CO2 on exchangeable K+, but a downward trend
which could be attributed to increased uptake, whereas
Johnson et al. (1995b) found decreases in exchangeableK
+, Ca2+, andMg2+ with elevated CO2 in excess
of that which could be accounted for by plant uptake.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3148283]

>>3148194
There are plenty of studies that show what happens to todays plants when you increase the heat and CO2. That's what they do in greenhouses. I'll give you a hint, it doesn't harm them.

[Anonymous No.3148285]

>>3148256
yw.

CO2 isn't itself a problem, as you know.

warmth isn't much of a problem either.

it's change that's the problem, but only because we expand our populations to the point where any loss of food productivity will have to decimate us.

this loss of population is distasteful to those that value human life over all life, but it's also probably quite unavoidable. If it isn't global warming it'll just be something else eventually. We can't sustain exponential growth for another century no matter how you look at it.

[Anonymous No.3148293]

>>3148244
Then it clearly had an effect.
Also
>Implying you sited sources

[Anonymous No.3148295]

>>3148271

>fails to provide proof
>bitches someone out for being dumb
>links to wikipedia

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Go away, kid. There are adults here trying to have a discussion using evidence from reliable sources.

[Anonymous No.3148299]

>>3148283
it harms their value as food.

larger plants are less nutritious as a function of weight.

[Anonymous No.3148303]

op, the problem is when CO2 levels rise at such a rapid pace, that life cannot adapt fast enough

[Anonymous No.3148309]

>>3148293

It had an effect that was the exact fucking opposite of what you're implying but that's IF you assume that the increase in popluation can be attributed to increased CO2 which you can't prove.

>implying it's spelled "sited" and not "cited."
>implying you're not still in high school

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3148311]

>>3148299
Then why do commercial growers often have CO2 generators to make plants grow larger?

[Anonymous No.3148315]

>>3148311
we sell plants by the pound, not by the nutrient value.

[Anonymous No.3148325]

>>3148299

Please See

>>3148278

(Because I found a passage that suggests otherwise within the first couple of pages)

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3148331]

>>3148303
When I put my bamboo seedlings directly from normal conditions into 50% CO2 and doubled their grow lights, and they "adapted" just fine. I have timelapse video if you want to see.

[Anonymous No.3148343]

>>3148331

Sounds awesome. I'd love to see it if it's not too much trouble to you.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3148359]

>>3148343
Let me dig it up (no pun intended)...

[Anonymous No.3148364]

>>3148331
again, read up on nutrient dilution.

bigger plants are less nutritious per weight.

your bamboo will grow bigger, but contain less vitamins and minerals. Same is true of any plant we eat.

more CO2->bigger plants->we have to eat more plants to get the same nutrition.

[Anonymous No.3148370]

>>3148364

>>>The few studies which have addressed the effects
of elevated CO2 on soils have produced conflicting
results. Some investigators have found that elevated
CO2 causes a reduction in soil C, presumably because
of stimulated decomposition through increased root
exudation (K¨orner and Arnone, 1992; Zak et al., 1993)
whereas others have found either no change or a net
gain (Johnson et al., 1994b). Some investigators report
that elevated CO2 causes increased soil N availability
(K¨orner and Arnone, 1992; Zak et al., 1993) whereas
others report decreased N availability (Diaz et al.,
1993) or no effect (Randlett et al., 1996). Norby et al.
(1986a) found an increase in soil extractable P with
elevated CO2 whereas Johnson et al. (1994a) found no
effect. Norby et al. (1986a) found no effect of elevated
CO2 on exchangeable K+, but a downward trend
which could be attributed to increased uptake, whereas
Johnson et al. (1995b) found decreases in exchangeableK
+, Ca2+, andMg2+ with elevated CO2 in excess
of that which could be accounted for by plant uptake.

[Anonymous No.3148386]

>>3148370
I cited Johnson et al just a few posts back.

I've read it, have you?
I've read most of those.
Have you?

more importantly, have you read any recent studies? like since 2000 or so?

I didn't think so.

[Anonymous No.3148402]

>>3148386

I'm not getting mad at you but can you comment further, other than just saying you've read them?

How exactly do these conflicting studies prove that increases in CO2 cause decreases in nutrient concentration. Again, not trying to be argumentative, I'd really like to know.

[Anonymous No.3148407]

>>3148370
tl;dr zZZzz

[Anonymous No.3148420]

>>3148407

And that's why you don't know anything.

[Anonymous No.3148436]

>>3148402
these studies are old.

seriously, I know it sucks trying to keep up with developments in multiple fields of study, but that shit is simply outdated. Recent studies largely agree on nutrient dilution, though they look at many variables and none of them are aimed at supporting or denying climate change theories.

I don't expect you have time to update yourself on this topic, and it really doesn't matter. However it's of vast interest if we're going to compare dinosaurs to modern fauna. It is the reason dinosaurs got so fuckhuge, and contributed to their vulnerability to change, and to their eventual extinction.

It isn't a problem for people yet, we mostly produce more food than we need. At double our current populations it will be a problem though.

[Anonymous No.3148447]

I can't believe this ..

Christianity is the only thruth .. believe in god!!

[Anonymous No.3148450]

>>3148436

Good points.

About the theory though. What exactly is the main argument? How does CO2 reduce nutrient content and why did these "old" studies fail to show that?

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3148468]

>>3148343
Here's the best one:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24206310/bamboo1.avi

[Anonymous No.3148475]

>>3148450
CO2 increases plant growth rates. this is fact.

nutrient uptake increases as a function of growth. this is a fact.

nutrient uptake occurs primarily in the roots, which do not increase in surface area at the same rate that the plant increases in mass. this is also a fact.

the result is that soil conditions being equal with the exception of CO2 pressure and concentration, the plant with greater environmental CO2 will be larger, and contain less nutrients/gram of mass.

[Anonymous No.3148490]

>>3148475
as for why the older studies disagree, most don't address CO2 alone, but look at its role in metabolism. These metabolic functions certainly affect nutrient uptake, but not to the extent that growth does.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3148517]

>>3148468
Here's another good one, though this isn't in the CO2 enhanced environment. It's after I repotted them.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24206310/bamboo3.avi

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3148524]

>>3148517
Going to picnic now... I'll look for more good ones later.

[Anonymous No.3148603]

>>3148101
>Population studies show that the overall population of polar bears has increased between 2 and 5 fold over the past 60 years.

Source?

[Anonymous No.3150183]

>>3147083

>Their grants come from governments. And these have skyrocketed in accordance along with the global warming scare. There is BIG money at play in this issue.

>publicly-funded grants

>skyrocketing

Are you shitting me?

Besides the obvious absurdity of a Republican Congress applying strong pressure to defund NASA, NOAA, and public research, on top of 8 years of the Bush administration obstruction of climate science, take a look at the other side. The fossil fuel industry is heavily subsidized, and they have a long history of funding and organizing anti-science think tanks. I needn't tell you that they have a vested interest in people not believing scientists about global warming, as well as significant financial resources in sowing that kind of confusion.

A good book about it is Oreskes and Conway, Merchants of Doubt. It's available as a .djvu file from library.nu.

[Anonymous No.3150199]

>>3148331
>>3148468
>>3148517

Did you read Chapter 17 in the Letcher book? Greenhouse conditions are obviously not representative of real life field conditions. 2010 was the first or second warmest year on record in nearly every instrumental dataset, and also a year of worldwide crop failures. Pests, extreme weather, and drought must be factored in, not just higher CO2 levels (along with controlled increases in light and water, again not representative of field conditions). Furthermore, as a previous anon explained, crops that do increase in productivity also have poorer nutrition value.

[Anonymous No.3150209]

My views is that i never collaborate with anyone that denies global warming. It's a sign of incompetence for me.

[Anonymous No.3150223]

One thing Philosopher's Scone and others have said in this thread is that the ice ages are completely inexplicable, and that CO2 plays no role at all in the ice ages due to the lag between CO2 and temperature. This is false.

The best current explanation for the ice ages is the Milankovitch Cycles. Small changes in the orbital characteristics of the Earth bring the planet closer or further to the Sun, which changes the level of solar irradiance that reaches the Earth's surface. These originally small forcings cannot explain the large shifts in Earth's climate, true. But these small forcings are amplified by positive feedbacks. Small increases in temperature erode the ice sheets a little bit, which releases a little CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere. This warms up the planet further, which erodes the ice sheets a little more, and so on. After about 800-1000 years, the oceans begin emitting CO2, much like how a warm beer goes flat. Afterwards, deglaciation is adequately explained by a combination of ice albedo feedback and CO2 feedback.

CO2 increasing after temperature during the ice ages is not mutually exclusive with CO2 causing present-day warming. We have established in laboratory experiments that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and quantified its radiative forcing with direct measurements. Increase CO2, and without an equal or greater opposed forcing, temperature will increase.

All told, the 800-year lag is a very common red herring, but it seems to be quite effective at confusing people. Which is probably why it's used so much by climate change skeptics.

[Anonymous No.3150250]

>>3146906

David Archer is one of the biggest names in paleoclimate. Even if you discount his popular book, just look his name up on Google Scholar, and you get a load of papers on the geologic lifetime of anthropogenic CO2. This paper is the one most commonly cited for establishing the 100,000-year timescale of CO2 weathering.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf

[Anonymous No.3150255]

>>3148169

>posting a graph from Christopher Monckton's slideshow

>mfw you trust a journalism major hereditary peer who claims to have cured AIDS and single-handedly won the Falkland Islands war

Also, the "it was warmer in the past" argument has been addressed in the thread many times already:

>>3146420
>>3146422
>>3146481
>>3148171

etc.

[Anonymous No.3150307]

It's true that things had been very different and there never was any good reason to believe the climate ought to stay the way it does at any given time, regardless of human activity.

Independant of that is the inconveince and trouble that climate change will create for modern civilization - probably nothing disatrous for the first world, but enough to create a strain on the less well equipped of us.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150361]

>>3150223
That sounds nice, but it's not true. There's no signs of CO2 feedback in the paleo data (despite some efforts to find it anyway). We know the milankovitch cycles correlate to the changes but we don't yet know why or how. The idea that it just makes it a little warmer and feedback does the rest is wrong. The most pronounced effect is from the eccentricity cycle which makes almost zero difference in insolation. The much larger insolation drivers have much less effect on glaciation.

>CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and quantified its radiative forcing with direct measurements
Bullshit. By all means, show me how to directly measure the forcing of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's a number that the entire IPCC argument rests on, but when you follow their citations for it, they just seem to lead in circles.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150369]

>>3150199
Global warming doesn't cause drought. Warmer global climate means a wetter global climate.

[Anonymous No.3150402]

>>3150369
I think monsoonal is the word. Not just wetter, but seasonably wetter. It was also significantly drier for portions of the year.

I'm only talking Mesozoic paleoclimates though, since those are the only ones I'm familiar with.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150403]

>>3150199
>crops that do increase in productivity also have poorer nutrition value.
This is hilarious. You people are a self-parody.

[Anonymous No.3150414]

>>3150403
and you still aren't reading or discussing science.

we're both trolls, paid by the same people. You just get paid less.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150419]

>>3150402
The droughts you're talking were because it's an el nino period. The droughts that people disingenuously try to blame on global warming are almost always el nino droughts.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150425]

>>3150414
>and you still aren't reading or discussing science.
I've read the paper you're referring to.
>we're both trolls, paid by the same people. You just get paid less
huh?

[Anonymous No.3150426]

>>3150419
there was no el nino during the Kimmeridgian.

whole different topography, unless you also deny plate tectonics.

[Anonymous No.3150427]

>>3150419
Nice canned response having NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the post you were referencing. Confirmed for troll.

[Anonymous No.3150430]

>>3150425
I haven't mentioned any papers.

perhaps you think I'm one of the other anons itt.

if you aren't getting paid you should look into it. I can put you in touch with my employers, they hire people like you... and me.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150437]

>>3150426
Last I checked, the Kimmerigian didn't happen in 2010.

[Anonymous No.3150449]

>>3150437
never said it did.

again, because you're slow...

you are confusing me with some other anon.

when I said that climate was monsoonal in the Mesozoic I clearly wasn't speaking of 2010.

[Anonymous No.3150450]

>>3150419
>The droughts that people disingenuously try to blame on global warming are almost always el nino droughts.
That's real funny, see, because under the current theory describing global warming, one of the major effects would be a more severe El Nino/La Nina cycle.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150452]

>>3150430
You obliquely referenced the study about CO2-fertilized potatoes having less protein. I read the paper.

Paid to post on 4chan? Not sure why someone would pay for that, but sure, why not?

[Anonymous No.3150459]

>>3150452
Kind of new to this thread, but your post just then was the only one, at that point, to have mentioned protein or potatoes. (Ctrl-F like a baws.)

[Anonymous No.3150460]

>>3150452
I'm not the same anon you responded to.

you responded to somebody, I stepped in and corrected your dumb ass a little. that doesn't mean I'm the person you responded to originally.

it's not a private thread. People can and will wander in, make comments, and then leave.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150461]

>>3150449
You mentioned the mesozoic at the end, but your response was in response to my response to global warming being blamed for 2010 droughts.

[Anonymous No.3150469]

OP is back on

Thanks for the points for and against man induced global warming I'll look into some of these sources.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150476]

>>3150450
Sure, there's a good dozen random-ass models to try to tie in El Nino with the whole GHG ideology. If they could figure out a passable model to tie it to 9/11, they'd probably do that too.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150478]

>>3150459
Try nutrients in crops. I was just being more specific about what the paper actually said.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150482]

>>3150460
You "corrected" me? I don't see how. Feel free to respond to any post, but the context of the thread is the context of the thread whether you are the same anon or a different one.

[Anonymous No.3150491]

>>3150482
you said warming causes wetter climate. True, but not complete. historically warming causes overall wetter climate punctuated by seasonal drought. Or in the Mesozoic it did. A small point perhaps, but not to a farmer.

out of curiosity, what about the nutrient dilution argument did you find funny? do you view it as a contradiction of some sort, or do you have a valid criticism of the idea or methods used to support it?

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3150503]

>>3150491
I find it funny how they manage to cherry pick mostly obscure reasons for more CO2 to be a bad thing, like certain species like potatoes where (though they grow a lot faster) they develop with 14% less protein. And like the study that found that poison ivy grows faster and is ITCHIER grown in CO2, and then they splashed that over headlines all over the US. Well, duh, pretty much every plant does better in higher CO2 (especially trees). It's downright funny to be searching for negatives and ignoring the positives of that.

[Anonymous No.3150520]

>>3150503
ah.

I think most scientists would agree with you on that. the media fuck things up and blow shit out of proportion to sell papers all the time. Not just climate science, but all science.

most people here are pretty good at seeing through the bullshit. Nutrient dilution isn't a problem at all, and won't be until our population at least doubles, or we run out of natural gas for fertilizers.

it's a pretty small argument in the grand scheme of things. interesting, but not as important as other problems.

[Anonymous No.3151058]

>>3150361

>We know the milankovitch cycles correlate to the changes but we don't yet know why or how.

I explained to you know. Do you need sources for credibility's sake?

http://www.ajsonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/6/770
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.abstract
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc589/2009/readings/Roe.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5517/686
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/194/4270/1121

>The most pronounced effect is from the eccentricity cycle which makes almost zero difference in insolation.

But it does make a difference. It provides the initial nudge which is amplified by positive feedbacks, as outlined above. This argument is a little bit silly, it's like arguing macroevolution can't be possible because it's so ridiculous that lifeforms can change so drastically and therefore we know nothing about fossils.

>Bullshit. By all means, show me how to directly measure the forcing of CO2 in the atmosphere.

With spectral analysis? The U.S. Air Force figured this out in the 1960s to calibrate their infrared/heat-seeking air-to-air missiles. A heat-seeking missile that cannot see through the "fog" of greenhouse gases is a missile that doesn't strike its target. The very existence of such missiles, and their record of use in combat invalidates your claim of the impossibility of analyzing greenhouse gases. This is probably the silliest argument you've made thus far in this thread. Nevertheless, sources for backup:

http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407307003512
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-1-3-359
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4204.1
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

[Anonymous No.3151066]

>>3150361

>We know the milankovitch cycles correlate to the changes but we don't yet know why or how.

I explained it to you in the post you linked. Do you need sources for credibility's sake?

http://www.ajsonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/6/770
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.abstract
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc589/2009/readings/Roe.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5517/686
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/194/4270/1121

>The most pronounced effect is from the eccentricity cycle which makes almost zero difference in insolation.

But it does make a difference. It provides the initial nudge which is amplified by positive feedbacks, as outlined above. This argument is a little bit silly, it's like arguing macroevolution can't be possible because it's so ridiculous that lifeforms can change so drastically and therefore we know nothing about fossils.

>Bullshit. By all means, show me how to directly measure the forcing of CO2 in the atmosphere.

With spectral analysis? The U.S. Air Force figured this out in the 1960s to calibrate their infrared/heat-seeking air-to-air missiles. A heat-seeking missile that cannot see through the "fog" of greenhouse gases is a missile that doesn't strike its target. The very existence of such missiles, and their record of use in combat invalidates your claim of the impossibility of analyzing greenhouse gases. This is probably the silliest argument you've made thus far in this thread. Nevertheless, sources for backup:

http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407307003512
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-1-3-359
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4204.1
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

[Anonymous No.3151088]

>>3150369

>Global warming doesn't cause drought. Warmer global climate means a wetter global climate.

Where do you think the wetter climate comes from? Higher specific humidity requires higher levels of evaporation. In some places, drought will occur or be extended and worsened. How can there be more precipitation without more drought?

In any case, the crux of the matter is that CO2 is not the only determinant of plant productivity. That is why your greenhouse experiments are a very flawed representation of the real world, when you've isolated your plants from pests and given it more light and water.

>>3150403

Laughing it off isn't an argument. There exists a broad literature on the impacts of global warming on agriculture. Why does this strike you as ridiculous? Why do you refuse to read?

[Anonymous No.3151395]

>>3151088
Well yes, warmer air absorbs more water vapour and water vapour is the main greenhouse gas as you can see by the image in this post. >>3151066
It's generally acepted that water is more efficient as a ghg than CO2 is.

So, warmer air means more water vapur means more ghg, means more warmth.....we don't even need anthropogenic co2 globalwarming to conlclude were fucked.

[Anonymous No.3151446]

bampem