/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3609692]

Why did scientists suddenly rename global warming "climate change"?

Seems pretty suspicious to me.

[Anonymous No.3609694]

Because there is no such thing as global warming.

[Anonymous No.3609706]

>>3609692
0/10

also, quit samefagging

[Anonymous No.3609712]

>>3609692
Jews and Illuminati did it.
And remember, always wear your tinfoil hat.

[Anonymous No.3609713]

>>3609706
>can't come up with a response
>get mad
>declare this a troll thread

[Anonymous No.3609724]

>>3609692
More accurate.

[Anonymous No.3609730]

>>3609713
in order to remove the false stigma that is attached to it. The overall trend is global warming, the underlying cause is climate change.

Also, pretty lame that a group often accused of being too "politically correct" is accused of lying for fixing a term to be more technically related.

[Ludwig !9CUY39dDYo No.3609732]

>Why did scientists suddenly rename global warming "climate change"?

>Seems pretty suspicious to me.

>Regards, /x/

[Anonymous No.3609734]

>Colbert Report

[Anonymous No.3609746]

anybody care to give any quantitative evidence that supports the anthropogenic warming hypothesis?

[sage No.3609754]

>>3609746
google it yourself.

[Anonymous No.3609761]

>>3609754
google is in on the scam

[Anonymous No.3609765]

>>3609754
i have; found nothing.

brb google how to sage ya nonce.

[Anonymous No.3609768]

>>3609765
*btw

>:|

[SageQueen !m6up7AsKfA No.3609773]

>>3609761
>>/x/

[SageQueen !m6up7AsKfA No.3609777]

>>3609765
done

[Anonymous No.3609779]

It's not the same thing.

[Anonymous No.3609786]

>op playfully suggests something absurd
>OMG U TROLL I AM TROOLL POLICE

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3609788]

>>3609692
They didn't rename global warming to climate change any more than gasoline was renamed petrol, negatrons were renamed antiprotons, or the Higgs Boson was renamed the God Particle.

We have multiple words for the same thing because it was being discussed independently across the globe. This is very common.

[Anonymous No.3609795]

because Al Gore is full of shit

[Anonymous No.3609802]

carl rove renamed global warming. not scientists

[Anonymous No.3609811]

>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... was first established in 1988...

>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

>Panel on Climate Change

>Climate Change

>1988

idiots

[Anonymous No.3609815]

>>3609788
bullshit. it was global warming until the data said that it wasn't warming, so it changed to climate change

it's a fraud, a hoax, and a $12Trillion al gore wet dream, to charge you to exhale

[Anonymous No.3609826]

so, how's that quantitative evidence coming along?

[Anonymous No.3609882]

Because that way if an area sees unusual snow fall they can claim it's our fault too.

If you just call it climate change you can claim we're killing the planet no matter what happens.

[Anonymous No.3609902]

> been climate change forever by actual scientists
> read popular accounts by journalists
> accuse scientists of being stupid for journalistic failures
cool story, righties

[Anonymous No.3609907]

>>3609826
http://skepticalscience.com/
try that out. See what you find.

>>3609815
>data said it wasn't warming
<-- girls are for you

[Anonymous No.3609910]

>>3609907
fail on pic arrow. Don't care.

[Anonymous No.3609925]

>>3609910
fail on whole thread. don't care.

[Anonymous No.3609941]

>>3609925
expect what you start with.

[Anonymous No.3609953]

>>3609907

There's no meaningful correlation between CO2 and temperature going back 500 million years. This pic destroys you.

And that site is retarded. Much decrying of the Canadian oil sands is a dead give away that the source is ignorant.

CO2 is 0.038% of the atmosphere. Of that 0.038%, after 250 years of industrialization, only 5% is man made. Canada is responsible for 2% of the world's emissions and the oil sands are just 5% of Canada's total emissions. That brings the oil sands' life time contribution to 0.0000019% of an atmosphere's worth of CO2.

And believe it or not there are many legitimate points that have gone unexplained by the AGW side. This site tries to bring down every single one fo them. Whoever is responsible for it is a complete idiot.

[Anonymous No.3609972]

It was an attempt to get tards like you to not be quite so tarded. Clearly, it did not work.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3610103]

>>3609815
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988. We have been using the term Climate change since the 1940s. In the seventies there was a famous paper published in Science which used the term Global Warming. James Hanson of NASA also used this term Global Warming in some reports which is how it came into popular usage.

There are multiple terms for almost everything in Science:
Potentiometer, Rheostat, Variable Resistor

Earthquake, Tremor , Seismic activity.

etc.

Climate deniers turning the multiple terms for climate change into evidence of a conspiracy really shows how paranoid and uneducated they are.

[Anonymous No.3610112]

because melting the ice caps will stop the gulf stream making europe alot colder.

[Anonymous No.3610114]

Liberals just love to be taxed and ass raped by the government that's all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.3610197]

>>3609826

>so, how's that quantitative evidence coming along?

Clearly mass spectrometers are liberal witchcraft and thus incapable of revealing to us the mysteries of the EM spectrum

All those AIM-9 Sidewinders equipped on jet fighters? They're not <span class="math">actually[/spoiler] so-called "heat-seeking" missiles. Calibrating IR sensors to detect the wavelengths of GHGs in the atmosphere? Pfffffffft. Here's the real story: The DOD financed the development of useless missiles because they wanted to perpetrate the fraud of global warming, so that 50 years later, or perhaps never, someone somewhere in the United States will get taxed more than they do now.

It just makes sense.

[Anonymous No.3610228]

>>3609953

>There's no meaningful correlation between CO2 and temperature going back 500 million years. This pic destroys you.

That pic looks suspiciously unprofessional. But at least it's shoddily cited so we can track down those studies. Let's see what Berner, the lead author of the study which which the CO2 line is derived, has to say about the matter:

>over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Oh.

[Anonymous No.3610233]

>>3610228
I lol'd

[Anonymous No.3610242]

>>3610228
OHSNAP

[ ] Told
[ ] Fucking told
[X] Cure for the common told

[Anonymous No.3610254]

In the 1950's it was Climate Change, then changed to global warming during the 60's, with CC and GW being used interchangibly for the rest of the century, then republicans started calling it climate change in the 2000s because it sounded less alarming than "global warming"

[Anonymous No.3610259]

>>3610228
>slow_clap.exe

[Anonymous No.3610265]

>>3610228
>>3610228

A perfect example of what happens when you not only cherry-pick your sources, but cherry-pick what's actually in them.

Told status:
[ ] Told
[ ] Not told
[X] Law Offices of Toldstein and Toldberg

[Anonymous No.3610279]

>>3610228

And to follow up, let's see what other paleoclimatologists have to say. Maybe Berner was a fluke.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/GSA_Today.pdf

>Royer DL, Berner RA, Montanez IP, Tabor NJ, Beerling DJ. 2004. CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate change. GSA Today, 14(3): 4-10.

>CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate change.

No, that can't be right. Okay let's try another one:

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/KurschnerCommentary%282008%29.pdf

>Royer DL, Berner RA, Park J. 2007. Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years. Nature, 446: 530-532.

>Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations

Eh, do over.

>http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Came_et_al_2007.pdf

>Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era

God damn it I can't believe Al Gore managed to control the minds of so many scientists

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

>“The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”

Richard Alley, not you too?!

[Anonymous No.3610296]

>"the temperature is warming! now give me your money."
>"but sir, studies show that it is cooling in some places!"
>"studies also show that this is completely natural!"
>"OOPS, better call it climate change then. Still I need your money"

[Anonymous No.3610297]

>>3610279

I LOVE YOU MAN!

Told status:
[ ] Told
[ ] Not told
[X] Tolden Caulfield

[Anonymous No.3610306]

>>3609746
> anybody care to give any quantitative evidence that supports the anthropogenic warming hypothesis?
Well, there's the part where the earth gets hotter as a result of human emissions.

[Anonymous No.3610316]

>>3609692

1956:

Gilbert Plass publishes his paper, "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of <span class="math">Climatic~Change[/spoiler]"

1975:

Wally Broecker publishes "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced <span class="math">Global~Warming?[/spoiler]" in the journal Science

1988:

The Intergovernmental Panel on <span class="math">Climate~Change[/spoiler] is established

2002:

Frank Luntz, political strategist, says this to George W. Bush in a memo:

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science....Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."

Oh.

[Anonymous No.3610379]

>>3610296

Leaving the aside the obvious absurdity of fucking atmospheric physicists GETTING RICH from their jobs...

>"studies also show that this is completely natural!"

Which studies might those be? Maybe Rosenzweig et al. 2008?

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf

>Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature.

Alright fuck, well Rosenzweig is motherfucking Jewess so we shouldn't listen to her. Maybe some gentile or Aryan scientists who aren't Marxist scum will enlighten us. James Hansen maybe?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010RG000345.shtml

>Contrary to a popular misconception, the rate of warming has not declined. Global temperature is rising as fast in the past decade as in the prior 2 decades, despite year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature. Record high global 12 month running mean temperature for the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010.

Okay fuck motherfucking award-winning ultra-highly-cited fucks like James Hansen. Obviously biased as hell with all his coal-protesting shenanigans. What about someone we can trust, like Anthony Watts? He's been accusing scientists for ages of putting weather stations in hot spots to exaggerate global warming. We can trust a true skeptic like him.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JD015146.shtml

>The opposite‐signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications.

Oh. Well what about Wegman?

>image

Fuck.

[Anonymous No.3610392]

You know, the sad part about this is that it is basically impossible to tell the difference between these so-called skeptics and trolls.

I mean, anyone can figure out that there was no renaming with a few minutes of googling, yet this is apparently a major septical talking point.

Perhaps we are not yet sufficiently evolved to deal with problems of this magnitude.

[Anonymous No.3610404]

>>3610379

[ ] Told
[ ] Not told
[X] MOUNT EVERTOLD

I am requesting this thread for archive status. That way we can refer back to it.

[Anonymous No.3610405]

>>3610316

Yeah, did you know that Luntz was to one who actually pushed republicans to talk about "climate change" instead of "global warming" because he thought that global warming sounded more urgent?

[Anonymous No.3610410]

>>3610392
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201108220024

Fox pushing the "name change" meme last friday

[Anonymous No.3610416]

>>3610392

Have you seen that study where the more people know about global warming (especially Republicans), the less likely they are to believe that it's true?

Also there was another one where, if you show a Republican or other high-RWA-scoring individual a rebuttal to a myth, they will believe that myth even more strongly than before.

We should stop trying to curry their favour and solve global warming with the power of socialism. That'll learn 'em

[Anonymous No.3610426]

>>3610404

We should make a huge copypasta - someone should collect all the nonsense that comes up on /sci/ and then gather up the scientific arguments in response.

[Anonymous No.3610438]

>>3610416
None of the current proposals on the table would actually fix global warming

[Anonymous No.3610443]

>>3610426

That's basically SkepticalScience, but every time you link it none of the denialists are willing to read it. I suppose sarcasm is more helpful in a 4chan-type context.

[Anonymous No.3610450]

>>3610410

I'd seriously hope that nobody who goes on /sci/ would ever get their "science" from there.

[Anonymous No.3610455]

>>3610426
http://chanarchive.org/requests
It's up there for being voted on. You know you want to.

[Anonymous No.3610461]

>>3610438

How do you know? There's quite a lot of them. How much time have you spent studying them?

[Anonymous No.3610469]

>/sci/ denying global warming

Somehow, this doesn`t surprise me at all.

[Anonymous No.3610471]

>>3610443

Maybe we should create something that caters to those with shorter attention spans. At least that way they can't just go TL;DR on you.

[Anonymous No.3610482]

>>3610469

It's not /sci/, it's /new/ and trolls.

[Anonymous No.3610483]

>>3610438

It's technologically possible:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nu354g4p6576l238/fulltext.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0911SIEPR.pdf

It's economically feasible:

http://www.capanddividend.org/

http://www.google.org/energyinnovation/

It'll hurt us way more to do nothing about it than to do something about it:

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

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

And we'll have to do it anyway because of peak oil. The only obstacle are deluded faggots who think science is the enemy of free markets

[Anonymous No.3610484]

>>3610306
>>3610228
>>3610379
May or may not be the same person, but I fucking love you.

[Anonymous No.3610492]

>>3610461
Enough to know that every single one of them is about protecting the capitalist profit system above all else.

[Anonymous No.3610493]

>>3610461
I have studied all of them. They're all focused on reducing the rate of increase of CO2, that won't fix Global Warming, just reduce the rate of temperature increase.

Only way to fix GW is to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.3610518]

>>3610484

Two different people, I posted the longer ones. I love you too!

>>3610484

>I have studied all of them.

That seems unlikely.

>that won't fix Global Warming, just reduce the rate of temperature increase.

Yes, but it's not physically possible (except with an asteroid or a nuclear winter or something) to actually reduce temperatures. Too much inertia in the system. But we can stop things from getting worse, to some extent. We mustn't let "the best" become the enemy of "good enough"

[Anonymous No.3610531]

>>3610493

But after we reach carbon-neutrality, The temperature increase will be too slow to be dangerous.

[Anonymous No.3610538]

>>3610518
I read somewhere people were proposing putting sulfur and other kinds of materials in the air in order to provide temporary relief.

[Anonymous No.3610543]

>>3610531
But the temperature will have already increased

Instead of global warming you'll have global warmed

[Anonymous No.3610555]

>>3610531
A. There's already enough there to make it dangerous, and
B. There is no such thing as a safe increase. Earth's systems are non-continuous states. We could still hit a major devastating tipping point with a slow increase.

[Anonymous No.3610563]

>>3610518
>>3610483
Current estimates of GW cost are up to $10 trillion

For that amount of money we can easily reduce the temperature of earth through geo-engineering and go back to pre-industrial temperatures, lower sea levels, etc

[Anonymous No.3610569]

>>3610563
>easily

such as...?

[Anonymous No.3610607]

>>3610538
>>3610563

Where'd you hear the 10 trillion estimate from? Was it over a period of time?

As for geoengineering, it's potentially helpful but very poorly understood and could backfire. Geoengineering techniques which actually remove CO2 and other GHGs from the atmosphere are preferred over proposals to reflect sunlight (known as solar radiation management or SRM). SRM is particularly problematic because it can't be done permanently, could disrupt weather and agriculture, is just as if not more difficult to get countries to sign a treaty than carbon reductions, may spell disaster if the SRM program terminates for whatever reason, etc. etc. But I believe we should test it just in case we have absolutely no choice and we need that stopgap measure to buy time.

http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf
http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10768

>>3610555

Slow increase > fast increase

We have to work with what we got. It would be great if we could instantly turn off all GHG emissions, but that is obviously not going to happen. The faster we start emissions reductions, the less disruptive those reductions have to be, and the risk of crossing tipping points will be reduced accordingly.

[Anonymous No.3610631]

>>3610607
>The faster we start emissions reductions

Oh, definitely. But to be clear, all the proposals are absurd in that they put the needs of the political-legal-economic system ahead of the needs of the planetary systems.

[Anonymous No.3610645]

because everyone was like "HUR DURR ITS COLDER WHY NO GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE FAGS DURR DURR"

[Anonymous No.3610648]

>liberals claim global warming

>record snowfalls all winter

[Anonymous No.3610650]

>>3610416
Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Just remember that they honestly can't help it. Self-deception is a naturally selected trait.

[Anonymous No.3610659]

>>3610631

I'm sure things will start moving into gear eventually. Hopefully not too late.

In other news, the scientist who found drowning polar bears is being investigated for unspecified "scientific misconduct" by an agency that also forgot to collect tens of billions of dollars in royalties from oil and gas companies:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/02/us-polar-bear-science-oil-row

The transcript of the interview of Monnett (the scientist) by investigator Eric May sounds positively Kafka-esque:

http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Monnett-IG_interview_transcript.pdf

[Anonymous No.3610665]

>>3610648

I'm just gonna leave this here

[Anonymous No.3610670]

>>3610648

See? This is precisely what I was talking about. Troll or not? How can anyone tell?

[Anonymous No.3610676]

To everyone who says global warming doesn't happen, how come Venus is warmer than Mercury?

[Anonymous No.3610684]

>>3610659

That's probably the legacy of the Bush years.

[Anonymous No.3610719]

>>3610676
maybe we lived there millions of years ago then moved to earth while all of the structures disintegrated while an asteroid laughed his ass off while we lost 99% of our civilization and forgot our past on venus. then aliens showed up and helped us out.

[Anonymous No.3610725]

>>3610719
little do we know those aliens were us all along

[Anonymous No.3610773]

>>3610684

I don't think Bush or his administration had a hand in this, although they did try to put a leash on NASA about global warming back then.

My guess is that it's the same deal with the SEC. The reason no one got prosecuted for their involvement in the financial crisis is because working for the SEC means you leave to work for the very financial corporations you were supposed to regulate. Often for very cushy sinecure positions with enormous salaries. BOEMRE, the reorganized successor to the MMS (in case you don't remember, they oversaw the regulations for Deepwater Horizon), is much the same way. Federal regulators work for BOEMRE for a few years, then they will find themselves a nice job at Chevron, Texaco, BP, Shell or what have you.

Keep Eric May in mind. Look him up and 5 years. I bet you a million internet dollars he'll be in the fossil fuel extraction industry.

[Anonymous No.3611356]

>>3610676

>To everyone who says global warming doesn't happen, how come Venus is warmer than Mercury?

Because the atmosphere on Venus is equivalent to 90 Earth atmospheres (so thick a 2km wind will blow small rocks) and over 90% CO2.

Typical uneducated, ignorant envirodumbass.

[Anonymous No.3611377]

>>3610228

"A correlation" =/= "a strong correlation."

[Anonymous No.3611390]

>>3611356

Key words:

>over 90% CO2.

Now before you say

>PRESSURE IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS YOU STUPID COMMIE

Lrn2 fundamentals of atmospheric physics:

http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i1/p33_s1

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Planetary_Greenhouse.html

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/

Also Jupiter and the rest of the gas giants have very low "surface" temperatures despite enormous pressure, your argument is invalid

[Anonymous No.3611402]

>>3611377

Next time, finish reading the thread before posting:

>>3610279

And pay close attention to this video:

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

[Anonymous No.3611406]

>>3610665

>Implying those droughts are unprecedented.

The frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes, cyclones and tropical storms has been decreasing for the last several decades and recently hit a historical low.

Svensson et al shows no change in flood magnitude or number in the last several decades.

There has been virtually no change in the amount of sea ice in the world over the past 30 years.

Eurasian snow cover has shown no trend over the last 40 years.

All of this is while the temperature has been increasing for roughly the past 40 years.

And just for the benefit of the guy who has been samefagging in response to his own posts throughout this entire thread:

Your status:

Not Told [ ]
Told so fucking hard you're bleeding [x]

[Anonymous No.3611415]

>>3611390

>Decry lack of reliance on scientific sources
>Post link to skepticalscience

[Anonymous No.3611423]

>>3611402

Why, so I can read 1 guy making 75% of the posts having a conversation with himself by shouting LOLOLOLOL TOLD TOLD OLOL...?

[JUSTINBIEBER !2DGODF8xik No.3611439]

what if co2-temperature correlation suffers from diminishing returns?

[Anonymous No.3611459]

>>3609692
because people can't into averages.

[Anonymous No.3611468]

>>3611406

>The frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes, cyclones and tropical storms has been decreasing for the last several decades and recently hit a historical low.

This is not what I've gathered from the literature. Kerry Emmanuel published this paper:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/abs/nature03906.html

>Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years

Hmm. Sounds like the complete opposite of what you were saying. Maybe Emmanuel, despite being a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, is really just a communist agitator working for the Soviets. What are the other tropical storm experts saying?

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo779.html

>... models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%... modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre.

Huh. That sounds like an <span class="math">increase[/spoiler] in intensity, not a decrease. Ok, well that's fine! Just a fluke!

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.short

>We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5.

Mm hmm.

>Svensson et al shows no change in flood magnitude or number in the last several decades.

Yeah, I bet he did. I like that you left out information like the publication year and journal name so that makes it harder to track down your citations. Very sneaky.

[Anonymous No.3611474]

>>3611406

There is no point in dealing with any of your other claims because they're either a) obviously untrue, like about Arctic sea ice, wtf dude; b) impossible to verify due to lack of citations; c) obvious cherry-picking, e.g. Eurasian snow-cover as opposed to global snow cover; or d) a combination of a), b) and c)

>Told so fucking hard you're bleeding [x]

Yeah, you're not supposed to use that in the exact same fucking post smart guy. You could have at least samefagged it and saved face, so that it doesn't look like you're patting yourself on the fucking back

[Anonymous No.3611490]

>>3611439
>what if co2-temperature correlation suffers from diminishing returns?

it does

the first 1 degree C of warming was caused by the addition of ~100 ppmv co2.

the next degree will require ~400 ppmv more.

the degree after that will require ~800 ppmv more.

however once the warming starts, the oceans dump their co2 into the atmosphere at faster and faster rates.

but either way, it's doubtful there's enough carbon near the surface of the planet to give us more than about 16 degrees of warming, and there's some good indications that the Earth tends to settle in the 4-6 degree warmer range on its own.

does it matter though? the amount of warming likely won't matter... it's the speed that's going to fuck us up.

[Anonymous No.3611496]

>>3611415

Trust me dude, Chris Colose knows a hell of a lot more than you about atmospheric physics.

I know you're not going to read this, but for people who are actually interested in learning, Pierrehumbert recently published an excellent textbook on the subject. It's included in this educational package as a pdf ebook:

http://www.mediafire.com/?am4chb1ydli36v1

Additional articles:

http://www.mediafire.com/?vsewt7lu0hw85je

[Anonymous No.3611513]

>>3611423

I haven't samefagged once in this thread. Not that you'd believe me.

[Anonymous No.3611525]

anthropogenic global warming is bullshit.

gtfo.

[Anonymous No.3611534]

In twenty years global cooling will again be the OMG APACALIPSE threat, just like it was 30 years ago.

[Anonymous No.3611569]

>>3611534

You weren't even alive 30 years ago

Also this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

And this:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

>There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

Herpa-derpity-doo

[JUSTINBIEBER !2DGODF8xik No.3611575]

>>3611490
Well... whatever does happen won't be nearly as catastrophic as I am lead to believe then. I feel things like plastic are a much bigger detriment to our environment than CO2 production.

[Anonymous No.3611583]

>>3611575
>won't be nearly as catastrophic as I am lead to believe then.

civilization has about 150 more years of growth without warming. With warming it'll be about half that.

we're fucked either way, the bonus is that you'll probably live to see it fall.

[Anonymous No.3611585]

>>3611569
Wait, wait...so....not being alive during something means it's beyond your understanding?

I was, in fact, alive 30 years ago, but this doesn't really matter. Right?

[Anonymous No.3611595]

>>3611575

Plastic waste is a big problem which we must deal with, but it's probably not as big as altering the fundamental properties of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere

Just sayin'

[Anonymous No.3611603]

>>3611569
Wow, those videos do absolutely nothing except prove that climatologists know absolutely fuck-all about the long-term climate of the Earth.

But yes, let's base our entire lives and societies around their wild speculations about rising sea levels and OMG HURCANES.

[Anonymous No.3611609]

>>3611595
Plastic waste is about as threatening as a case of the clap. Shut the fuck up.

OMG PLASTICS IT NEVAR DEGRADES!!! IT'S RADIOACTIVE!!!

[Anonymous No.3611623]

>>3611585

People say "Remember 30 years ago when those kooky scientists screamed about global cooling?" as if they actually witnessed mass hysteria first-hand thanks to foolish climatologists trying to whip up a storm to get delicious money

It should be pretty obvious that nobody remembers that because it never fucking happened. If you were old enough to comprehend the news in the 1970s then you probably remember the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the end of the Vietnam War, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, stagflation, gas station lineups, and increasing tensions with the Soviet Union way more than that one Newsweek article that said "maybe global cooling will happen according to unnamed-and-probably-nonexistent scientists"

[Anonymous No.3611637]

>>3611623
well, in your own videos, that british cunt cites 7 sources, including the american meteorological whatever, that say global cooling is happening.

[Anonymous No.3611643]

>>3611623
I mostly remember nixon resigning and gas station lines and the hostage crisis.

good times.

I got a geology degree in the early 90's, I remember even then our climatology professor explaining how CO2 drives warming and how combustion of organic fuels produces CO2. Old news, we'd known it for about a century even then.

[Anonymous No.3611646]

Smart folk have been calling it 'climate change' since at least the late 80s. I was a teen when I overheard a guy talking about how the scientists at a conference at MIT were arguing over what to call it. Some wanted to call it global warming because that sounded scarier while others thought climate change was better because it conveyed the wild weather that we are now experiencing. You whippersnappers weren't even born yet.

[Anonymous No.3611649]

>>3611643
>CO2 drives warming and how combustion of organic fuels produces CO2

pffft

>implying a single fucking one of you envriocunts knows what the fuck drives warming

[Anonymous No.3611651]

>>3611609

You seem mad. Maybe you should calm down?

>>3611603

>Wow, those videos do absolutely nothing except prove that climatologists know absolutely fuck-all about the long-term climate of the Earth.

Uh huh. Let's look at some timestamps. First my post:

>Anonymous 08/23/11(Tue)02:15 No.3611569

Then yours:

>Anonymous 08/23/11(Tue)02:21 No.3611603

>>3611569
>Wow, those videos do absolutely nothing blah blah blah

>02:15

>02:21

The first video was seven-and-a-half minutes long. The second video was nine-and-a-half.

Look, if you didn't watch the videos, that's okay, I understand! Things threatening to your worldview must not disrupt your epistemic closure. I get it. But don't pretend to watch the videos in such a way that makes it really fucking obvious that you watched neither

[Anonymous No.3611658]

>>3611651
I've watched the first clip before, and honestly I skipped around the second one. it was silly.

[Anonymous No.3611660]

>>3611649
I'm not an environmentalist, I'm a geologist in mining and energy.

if you're trying to convince people that CO2 doesn't initiate feedbacks in climate as an independent variable you might go somewhere where idiots hang out. facebook maybe. your friends might buy your lies.

[Anonymous No.3611661]

>>3611651
>epistemic closure

the fuck...god I hate this board sometimes. fucking...fucking marxist dialectical asspied cunts abound.

[Anonymous No.3611664]

>>3611637

>that british cunt

lol you think you're a better man than Peter Hadfield

That is as funny as it is sad

>cites 7 sources

Did you miss the part where 40 climatology papers forecasted warming?

Maybe you can't do arithmetic. Fuck if I know.

[Anonymous No.3611667]

>>3611660
>CO2 doesn't initiate feedbacks in climate as an independent variable

Want to show us you know what this means and didn't just copypasta it from somewhere?

[Anonymous No.3611673]

>>3611664
No, I didn't skip that part. OMG 6 TIMES AS MANY GUYS SAY IT'S GLABAL WAMMIN!

Don't start crying because I actually have watched the videos and now you look pretty silly.

[Anonymous No.3611682]

>>3611667
why? if you know what I mean then you know I didn't copy it because it's a simple concept any first year geology student knows.

I'm 40, published, wealthy, retired, drunk and bored. I don't need to teach intro to climatology classes any more than I need to pass quizes offered by high school grads.

[Anonymous No.3611683]

I don't understand how hair spray canisters caused ozone erosion in the Poles, when NO ONE LIVES IN THE POLES.

[Anonymous No.3611685]

>>3611658

Holy fuck you can't even comprehend or watch through an entire sub-10-minute Youtube video

The Peterson et al. 2008 paper was obviously way beyond your ken. This whole exercise is a waste of time.

I know a few websites that might be more appropriate to your level of intelligence:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

http://www.infowars.com/

http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/index.html

>>3611661

>the fuck...god I hate this board sometimes. fucking...fucking marxist dialectical asspied cunts abound.

Chill the fuck out, I'm just messing with you

Do you have any scientific arguments against global warming? Or are you like more of a /new/ kind of guy?

[master sage No.3611698]

>>3611637
I remember the discussion about nuclear winter just swell, thanks. I also recall Carl Sagan being a tad concerned. But that bit of out musing-out-loud was not accompanied by any hysterical shouting and actually passed rather quickly, to be followed by Sagan (among others) saying, "Oops, we were a little too fast on that one. As the supercomputers have come online and we started doing better modeling, it now appears that the overall climate may in fact be warming."
.
Scientists do make mistakes when dealing with insufficient data and bad assumptions. The IPCC was formed in part to rectify that deficiency by collating all the world's data, and all the data shows climate warming paralleling CO2 emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Age (thus validating AGW), with a probability of continued warming of 90%+.

[Anonymous No.3611699]

>>3611682
>why?
Because.

>if you know what I mean then you know I didn't copy it
The fuck.

>because it's a simple concept any first year geology student knows.
Most people have never studied a microsecond of geology, liar.

>I'm 40
lol on 4chan

>published
prove it

>wealthy
OF COURSE! This just gets better and better.

>retired, drunk and bored
now I'm really jelly

>I don't need to teach intro to climatology classes
because you couldn't

>any more than I need to pass quizes offered by high school grads.
Riiiight.

[Anonymous No.3611700]

>>3611673

Okay there buddy

[Anonymous No.3611708]

>>3611685
>Do you have any scientific arguments against global warming?

Sure. The same argument I have against deities: prove it.

[Anonymous No.3611733]

>>3611708

When dealing with environmental policy, proof isn't necessary by most standards in the political arena.

One must only demonstrate that the likelihood of an event, coupled with the potential ramifications, are high enough to warrant action.

>The link between CFCs and the hole in the o-zone layer was never proven before actions were taken. However, if it was true, it would cause irreversible harm. Furthermore, evidence was beginning to indicate that there was a link. After governments cut back CFC production, the science became more conclusive.

It's pretty standard. Learn2politik.

[Anonymous No.3611744]

>>3611708

Why is this always asked after a fuckload of evidence and links to articles are posted? Whatever, it's a slow night.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This means it absorbs shortwave radiation and re-emits it as longwave radiation in all directions, raising the ambient temperature. This was first discovered by John Tyndall in 1859 and his findings were published 2 years later. Nowadays, any first-year student, using a reasonably-equipped physics lab at a research university, can replicate these kinds of experiments with much greater precision.

Mass spectrometry allows us to know which specific wavelengths of the EM spectrum are absorbed by various greenhouse gases, and we can detect these "bites" taken out of the spectrum by both ground instruments and satellites. So we have more than just laboratory experiments that lets us know about greenhouse gases, but real-world observation. In other words, Arrhenius correctly postulated in 1896 that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions could raise the surface temperature of the Earth.

How do we know these measurements are accurate? If you fire a heat-seeking missile, it generally manages to track and hit hot targets. If the sensor on that missile did not know what infrared wavelengths are absorbed in the atmosphere, they would be useless.

[Anonymous No.3611742]

>>3611733
Dat 1984-speak.

In other words, you can't prove shit, but you want to change the world. Go smoke a nigger's dick, hippy.

[Anonymous No.3611752]

>>3611733

1% Doctrine

The chance that global climate change may adversely affect the United States is ≥ 1%. Therefore we must launch a crusade against it.

[Anonymous No.3611765]

>>3611744
None of this addresses the ridiculous assumption that humans can shit out enough shit to fuck up the planet.

[Anonymous No.3611772]

>>3611742

You spelled "hippie" wrong

Also lrn2risk management, engineers aim to design for a one-in-one million failure rate. Are all engineers 1984 commie hippies? People generally do not get in a car with a drunk driver, even if their chances of dying are only 5%. The probability that global warming is real, increasing, and dangerous, is much higher than that.

[Anonymous No.3611777]

>>3611772
>The probability that global warming is real, increasing, and dangerous, is much higher than that.

Because Al Gore says so?

[Anonymous No.3611786]

>>3611772
I want you to post one example of humans globally effecting the earth in some meaningful way. Not on a global warming scale, something smaller. Anything at all.

[Anonymous No.3611792]

>>3611699
gaze upon my latest monthly paycheck then. I scanned it just for you.

geology, isn't it loverly?

[Anonymous No.3611807]

>>3611786

Dat Columbian Exchange.

[Anonymous No.3611814]

>>3611792
I guess this proves you right, and everyone else wrong. Somehow.

[Anonymous No.3611817]

>>3611792
>be 40
>brag to 20 somethings about income

Lol'd.

[Anonymous No.3611822]

>>3611786

We're massively overfishing the oceans to the effect that there will be barely anything left by 2050.

Europe used to be covered in forests, including places like Britain - have you ever been there recently? Not a tree in sight.

[Anonymous No.3611829]

>>3611814
right about what?

the only claims I've made ITT are that CO2 drives warming as an independent variable, I have a degree in geology, I'm 40 years old, wealthy, retired, bored and drunk.

not sure why anyone would argue any of these points, but some anon did anyways.

[Anonymous No.3611833]

>>3611765

So those measurements can tell us how much global warming is currently realized at a given point of time. But how much global warming is there to come, at a given level of greenhouse gas emissions? There's a lot of inertia in the system and a lot of complicated feedbacks. So there's sorting-out to do.

There are three broad categories of such methods: empirical/laboratory observations, paleoclimate records, and GCMs. When you combine all these methods you get an average of 3 degrees increase in temperature for every doubling of CO2 concentration, with a "fat tail distribution" on higher temperatures. i.e. higher temperature increases are more likely than lower ones.

Assuming we make no changes in policy, we will hit 1000 ppm CO2 by the end of 2100. This will be the highest concentration of CO2 since the dinosaurs died out, and CO2 would have doubled more than twice. At this level of warming, we would eventually return to an ice-free state with sea levels perhaps 80 meters higher than it is now. Perhaps only 1 or 2 metres by the end of the century, but this places a huge amount of infrastructure at risk: nuclear power plants, naval bases, gas terminals, ports, sewage treatment plants, and so on. Large warmings under geologically-speaking extremely fast (but still 10 times slower than today) conditions have historically led to mass extinctions.

[Anonymous No.3611838]

>>3611807
Is that it? Some plants and animals on boats? C'mon. There were fucktons of transference of species and diseases done by humans. The previous ten thousand years in Mesopotamia and African interactions would make your tiny liberal head spin.

What about the thousands of atom bombs that were tested? The tens of thousands of factories pumping out metric tons of poisonous gasses every hour for the past 130 years? The mining, the millions upon millions of commercial airliner flights, the billions of gallons of oil burned every year, the billions of tons of trash thrown into damp holes next to delicate ecosystems...has any of this had any noticeable drastic global effect? Other than "whoops, temp is up about a degree this decade"?

[Anonymous No.3611839]

>CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This means it absorbs shortwave radiation and re-emits it as longwave radiation in all directions, raising the ambient temperature.

Whether or not it actually raises temperature on a global scale is debatable. Its warming power can be calculated theoretically through IR absorption experiments but you can't actually measure a temperature increase with high concentrations of CO2 in a greenhouse or a plastic bottle because CO2 is too weak. Also, 80% of the LWR emitted by the Earth (which is what CO2 is supposed to be absorbing) is absorbed by water vapour within the first 30 feet of the surface. The first 30 fucking feet. The CO2 warming effect is supposed to be pronounced and detectable in the troposphere. Nothing is getting there, kthxbye.

Also, don't forget that jsut 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2 and after 250 years of industrialization just 5% of that 0.038% is man made. That's 0.0019% of an atmosphere's worth of CO2.

Even if you assume that human increases upset the balance such that 10 fucking times more CO2 than that is naturally released as a result of human emissions (according to the US Department of Energy this is not correct) that's still just about 0.02%.

In case you didn't know, our instrumentation and understanding of the climate is not sufficient to determine whether such an amount makes any difference. The climate is simply too fucking complicated.

[Anonymous No.3611848]

>>3611822
>overfishing

Fish grow back. This is not what I'm talking about. Have humans done something that will PREVENT fish from EVER growing back?

>forests
same for forests, but:

I know I can go on google maps and prove you wrong in about thirty seconds.

[Anonymous No.3611857]

>>3611777

No, because James Hansen, Richard Alley, Cynthia Rosenzweig, James Annan, Hargreaves, Pierrehumbert, Roe, Schmidt, Thomas, Tripati, Broecker, the German investment giant Munich Re, the Swiss investment giant Swiss Re, all four of the Big Four accounting firms, the Pentagon, the CIA, the UK MOD, and every single National Academy of Science on Earth says so.

Al Gore is the lamest fucking use of a straw-man ever. Protip: to normal people, Al Gore does not look like some kind of all-powerful ultra-corrupt supervillain with mind-control powers

[Anonymous No.3611865]

>>3611857
>a liberal cites the CIA and economic powerhouses as sources

You fucks will go to any lengths, won't ya?

[Anonymous No.3611869]

>>3611848

>Have humans done something that will PREVENT fish from EVER growing back?

You've never heard of the collapse of the Atlantic Cod fisheries? There's been a moratorium on fishing in that region for more than a decade and the populations still haven't recovered.

[Anonymous No.3611870]

>>3611857
Hey. All those people are wrong. How does that make you feel?

[Anonymous No.3611874]

>>3611865

confirmedfortroll.jpg

[Anonymous No.3611875]

>>3611869
>You've never heard of the collapse of the Atlantic Cod fisheries

what am I, a marine biologist?

[Anonymous No.3611877]

>>3611865

>a liberal cites the CIA and economic powerhouses as sources

When did I say I was a liberal?

Is Kerry Immanuel a liberal? Is Margaret fucking Thatcher a liberal? Thought we were on /sci/ here

And yes, if the CIA perceives climate change as a risk to US national security, I bet they honestly think it's a fucking threat to US national security

Or when you saw "liberals would go to any lengths," you don't mean liberals have brainwashed and taken control of the CIA? I hope that's not what you mean.

[Anonymous No.3611879]

>>3611848

You've never even been out of America, why don't you shut your mouth and go back to sleep.

[Anonymous No.3611880]

>>3611875

No, you're someone who's trying to debate a topic without putting enough research into it.

[Anonymous No.3611883]

>>3611865

Why do you accuse anybody who disagrees with you of being a "liberal"?

[Anonymous No.3611890]

>>3611879
I can guarantee I've been to more countries and continents than you.

And I'm not American. But nice detecting, Detective Fuckface.

[Anonymous No.3611894]

>>3611890

>I can guarantee I've been to more countries and continents than you.

Well you've obviously never been to fucking Europe if you think they still have anywhere near the level of forests they did before Man.

[Anonymous No.3611898]

>>3611870

0.00001/10

I responded.

>>3611839

>CO2 is too weak.

Can you quantify that? If you try to calculate the Earth's temperature with zero CO2 concentration, for some reason the Earth plunges below freezing. Might have something to do with the fact that CO2 is a fairly powerful greenhouse gas, I dunno

>The CO2 warming effect is supposed to be pronounced and detectable in the troposphere. Nothing is getting there, kthxbye.

You do realize that CO2 is well-mixed all the way up to the tropopause right? Like the Troposphere is the lowest level of atmosphere.

>The climate is simply too fucking complicated.

Creationist bullshit. You hear it all the time from Bible-thumpers: biology is just too complicated! How the hell could anyone ever prove something as ridiculous as evolution?

[Anonymous No.3611901]

>>3611894
what the...who the fuck said it did? you child.

>Italy for a year
>germany for three years


From Germany I visited all the major euro-cuntries, as well. misspelling intentional.

[Anonymous No.3611903]

>>3611901
army brat detected.
lol rednecks

[Anonymous No.3611904]

>>3611901

>what the...who the fuck said it did? you child.

>"I know I can go on google maps and prove you wrong in about thirty seconds."

You disagreed with my point about the forests in Europe.

[Anonymous No.3611906]

>>3611903
No. Actual armyfag.

:)

[Anonymous No.3611907]

>>3611833

>Assuming we make no changes in policy, we will hit 1000 ppm CO2 by the end of 2100.

Do you honestly think we'll still be burning fossil fuels 90 years from now... Even 50 years from now...? Do you honestly think emissions won't even change? If not, what's the fucking point of this statement?

>This will be the highest concentration of CO2 since the dinosaurs died out, and CO2 would have doubled more than twice.

So fucking what, kid. It's been way higher and the minimum necessary for functioning plant life is 150. We're living on a razor's edge, we should be happy the tiny buffer zone is growing a little bit.

>At this level of warming, we would eventually return to an ice-free state with sea levels perhaps 80 meters higher than it is now.

LOL

>Perhaps only 1 or 2 metres by the end of the century,

No. Nobody says this. Even the IPCC says 7-15 inches.

>but this places a huge amount of infrastructure at risk: nuclear power plants, naval bases, gas terminals, ports, sewage treatment plants, and so on.

Well you didn't even know by how much the sea level was supposed to rise, am I to take your word for what infrastructure is a risk now too?

>Large warmings under geologically-speaking extremely fast (but still 10 times slower than today) conditions have historically led to mass extinctions.

Pretty sure the dinosaurs weren't killed by warming. Marine life, specifically coral, which many people claim is at risk due to warming, flourished when temperatures and CO2 concentrations were higher. Will the speed of increase hurt us? Probably not. This pic shows just how fast temperature has changed of the past 50,000 years.

[Anonymous No.3611911]

>>3611906
sure...

dd214 or it didn't happen

[Anonymous No.3611915]

>>3611904
You didn't say anything about forest levels prior to the existence of MANKIND, you fucknut.

People require food. Most of our food = vegetation. Our most efficient method of growing vegetation = farming. Farming = less natural-growth forestation. And I am absolutely fine with this.

[Anonymous No.3611918]

>>3611839

>Also, don't forget that jsut 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2 and after 250 years of industrialization just 5% of that 0.038% is man made. That's 0.0019% of an atmosphere's worth of CO2.

Absolute concentration =/= warming power

Two things:

1) CO2 is far stronger than H2O in terms of trapping heat, and

2) CO2 is well-mixed in the troposphere, whereas H2O only exists in high concentration near the ground, where it precipitates upon saturation (i.e. at 100% relative humidity it rains/snows)

Also preindustrial CO2 levels were 280 ppmv, while today's is 393 ppmv. Don't know where you got "5%" from.

[Anonymous No.3611919]

>>3611848
>fish grows back
Yes, fish multiply and will return to their previous numbers.
IF overfishing stops
IF their breeding cycle isn't disturbed

And even then it will take decades. Small comfort for those people that are suffering now because of bad fishing practices.

[Anonymous No.3611924]

>>3611915

I think you're really confused.

[Anonymous No.3611927]

>>3611919

>Small comfort for those people that are suffering now because of bad fishing practices.

What about the fish, you FAGGOT?

[Anonymous No.3611928]

>>3611807

[Anonymous No.3611929]

>>3611911
>implying I have a scanner

Ask me anything about being a US Army infantryman between 1999 and 2006.

Wait, wait...I don't actually give two fucks if you believe what I say. Just know that I have actually been to Europe, a lot of it, inf act, and there's trees everywhere. People need to stop acting like it looks like fucking Chernobyl everywur.

[Anonymous No.3611932]

>>3611929

>I WENT TO GERMANY, AND I SAW TREES EVERYWHERE. THEREFORE, MANKIND HAS NOT EFFECTED ANY FORESTS ANYWHERE IN EUROPE, EVER.

[Anonymous No.3611937]

>>3611924

this is what you originally said

>>3611822
>Europe used to be covered in forests, including places like Britain - have you ever been there recently? Not a tree in sight.

>there are no trees in Europe, because of men, derpity derp


You do realize that your post is still quite visible, right?

[Anonymous No.3611942]

>>3611932
As stated, I went all over Europe. And, sorry to break your heart, but I did see plenty of old-growth forests, everywhere. I saw a lot of farmlands, too, but honestly I don't give a fuck if some buck-toothed weevil has a nice old pine tree to chill in if it means humans need food.

[Anonymous No.3611944]

>>3611937

Yes, that's what I said. I thought, since you could see the post I was responding to mentioned what MAN had done to the environment, that even a massive fucking retard could put two and two together and figure out that I was saying that Man had caused the deforestation.

I was wrong.

[Anonymous No.3611947]

>>3611898

>If you try to calculate the Earth's temperature with zero CO2 concentration, for some reason the Earth plunges below freezing. Might have something to do with the fact that CO2 is a fairly powerful greenhouse gas, I dunno

LOL. No it doesn't. And I could just as easily say warmist bullshit but that's not a real argument now is it, kid? Water vapour is 26 times more prevalent and almost twice as powerful but the Earth goes into a deep freeze without 0.038% of its atmosphere? 2/10 for getting me to answer. I lol'd though.

>Creationist bullshit. You hear it all the time from Bible-thumpers: biology is just too complicated! How the hell could anyone ever prove something as ridiculous as evolution?

First of all, what they actually teach you if you study science at a university level, like I did, is that this kind of argument is a logical fallacy. The question of whether human activity influences climate is separate and different from the question of whether or not evolution is real.

[Anonymous No.3611952]

>>3611944
US army remember?
infantry even.

code for retard.

[Anonymous No.3611953]

>>3611944
So the deforestation that happened 2000 years ago, when men first populated places like Germania and Alba, is what wrecked the Earth?

[Anonymous No.3611957]

>>3611952
>durf durf

[Anonymous No.3611958]

>>3611953

When did I say that it wrecked the Earth?

You're either trolling me, or you're a massive fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.3611961]

>>3611958
You said there were no trees in Europe! You literally fucking said it! lol

[Anonymous No.3611962]

>>3611907

>Do you honestly think we'll still be burning fossil fuels 90 years from now... Even 50 years from now...?

Coal is quite plentiful. Even oil, if you're willing to waste money spending all your capital on expensive oil shale and tar sands.

>It's been way higher and the minimum necessary for functioning plant life is 150. We're living on a razor's edge, we should be happy the tiny buffer zone is growing a little bit.

What buffer zone are you even talking about? That whole sentence makes no fucking sense

>LOL

Why do you find really basic common-sense facts to be ridiculous? Sea levels were 80 metres higher when all ice sheets are wasted. Ice sheets did not exist at temperatures we're expecting to reach.

>No. Nobody says this. Even the IPCC says 7-15 inches.

The IPCC specifically excluded ice sheet wastage which is expected to contribute the most to sea level rise.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7240/full/nature07933.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5825/709.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.full

>Well you didn't even know by how much the sea level was supposed to rise, am I to take your word for what infrastructure is a risk now too?

The sea level will rise, and at the very unlikely extreme minimum this will be half a metre. My apologies for not specifying the lower bound.

>Pretty sure the dinosaurs weren't killed by warming.

Didn't say that they were. Asteroid probably fucked up the atmosphere some though.

Look up the PETM and the P-T event.

[Anonymous No.3611968]

>>3611962
>Didn't say that they were. Asteroid probably
fucked up the atmosphere some though.


No way, bro. Dinosaurs used hairspray. Hairspray caused global dino-warming. The Erf got like, a whole 4 DEGREES!!! warmer, and the dinosaurs were like, "fuck this yo, let's go die and junk."

[Anonymous No.3611971]

>>3611918

>1) CO2 is far stronger than H2O in terms of trapping heat

The warming power of water vapour in watts per m^2 is much higher than CO2.

>2) CO2 is well-mixed in the troposphere, whereas H2O only exists in high concentration near the ground, where it precipitates upon saturation (i.e. at 100% relative humidity it rains/snows)

80% of the LWR emitted by the surface is absorbed by water vapour within the first 30 feet. Exactly how is CO2, which is next to nothing, trapping LWR, which is next to nothing, and having a profound effect on the Earth's temperature?

>Also preindustrial CO2 levels were 280 ppmv, while today's is 393 ppmv. Don't know where you got "5%" from.

According to the US Department of Energy, natural emissions since pre-industrial times have outpaced man made emissions by approxiamtely 7 times.

393-280 = 113

113 / 8 = 14.125

14.125 / 393 x 100% = 3.6%

So 3.6% but I was willing to assume 5% just because it's generous and it doesn't even matter.

[Anonymous No.3611973]

The climate changes - get over it. There's nothing we or anyone else in the world can do about it. I, for one, look forward to increased rainfall that global warming will bring.

[Anonymous No.3611974]

>>3611927
None of this is about kindness, dear anon.
Some people would have it dressed out as saving "the nature", or "the planet", or life".
But what it really is about is saving ourselves.

The nature, the planet and life on it can survive anything and everything we can do to it.

What will be in trouble is our civilization. In the short term the climate change and other effects will wreck havoc on our infrastructure, especially on our means of food production.

Trying to save "the nature" is about preserving fisheries and farmland.
It's about saving US.

None of this is about kindness. Just pure self-preservation.

[Anonymous No.3611979]

Isn't a ice age a climate change ?
so the earth is always changing right ?

[Anonymous No.3611986]

>>3611947

>LOL. No it doesn't.

That's not an argument. Look, I've posted two massive collections of books and articles. We've pointed out potholer54's channel and SkepticalScience. But we didn't even need to do this, you could have looked it up and read about it for yourself.

But you chose not to.

I can't convince you because you really really don't like reading. What am I supposed to do? I'll try one more time. If you refuse again, then there's nothing else I can do to help. The following articles explain the various forcing powers of the greenhouse gases. CO2, due to well-mixing in the atmosphere, moderate warming power, and moderate residence time, is the single biggest factors in changing temperatures. H20 is not well-mixed. The other gases are too small in concentration or have short residency times.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf

>The question of whether human activity influences climate is separate and different from the question of whether or not evolution is real.

You missed the point. I'm not saying you're wrong because you're a creationist. I'm saying you're wrong for the same reasons creationists are wrong: you use a logical fallacy yourself, which could be used to automatically discredit any piece of science you disagree with.

>It's just too complicated.

[Anonymous No.3611989]

>>3611962

>What buffer zone are you even talking about? That whole sentence makes no fucking sense

Read it again a few times then. I don't know how else I can say that all life on Earth dies if CO2 drops below 150ppm to make it more understandable to you than "all life on Earth dies if CO2 drops below 150ppm."

So as CO2 is 393ppm, the buffer zone between current levels and 150ppm is very small. Certainly much smaller than it was when CO2 was 1000, 2000, 3000ppm. Life during those times, by the way, was flourishing.

[Anonymous No.3611994]

>>3611979
nope, ice ages are relatively recent events with one or two notable exceptions.

they're caused by a lack of CO2.

adding CO2 to the atmosphere will make it much more seasonably stable, as it has been throughout most of the history of life.

stable, warm environments are AWESOME so long as we don't have 12 billion people trying to live on a planet that can support 2 billion once warmed, and so long as we have a civilization that can lose 10 billion citizens in a few years without collapsing.

[Anonymous No.3611999]

>>3611989

Oh, it's THAT argument again.

The difference between life thriving at 3000 ppm 200 million years ago, and life at 3000 ppm today, is the rate of change.

You can have life at very high concentrations of CO2, true. But it also took tens of millions of years for evolution to adapt life to those conditions.

Climate change today is measured on a decadal scale. This is at the very least 10 times faster than the fastest change ever recorded on the paleoclimate record, the PETM. In the paleoclimate record, such geologicall rapid changes have been associated with mass extinctions. Not for the dinosaurs, true, but there is no impact crater for any of the other major events, but there is evidence of rapid climate change.

[Anonymous No.3612005]

>>3611994

>they're caused by a lack of CO2.

No, ice ages are caused by the Milankovitch Cycles

[Anonymous No.3612008]

Why did religious people rename Creation to "Intelligent Design"?

Same reason. They figured their opponents were stupid and think that a different name meant a different idea, so it wouldn't be rejected out of hand.

[Anonymous No.3612013]

>>3611986

I'm not using any logical fallacy, stop trying to save face. I'm simply trying to explain to you that CO2 cannot be a more important GHG if only 20% of the outgoing LWR is available for it to absorb, it's 25 times less prevalent than water vapour, it's almost half as powerful in watts per m^2 as water vapour, it's a trace gas at 0.038% of the atmosphere and its supposed warming is not even fucking observed in greenhouses where the concentration of CO2 is artificially increased.

potholer54's channel (whoever the fuck that might be) is not a scientific source.

Skepticalscience is not a scientific source.

Articles by known alarmists like Gavin Schmidt do not impress me.

You keep thinking I'm not reading it. I don't avoid evidence that conflicts with my point of view. I do my own research, I don't need garbage from some random anon.

[Anonymous No.3612014]

>>3612005
both.

the milankovitch cycles certainly existed throughout the entire Mesozoic, but there wasn't a single ice age for ~185,000,000 years.

Milankovitch cycles are a constant, CO2 is the significant variable.

[Anonymous No.3612017]

>>3611994

>so long as we have a civilization that can lose 10 billion citizens in a few years without collapsing.

You can lose 83% of your population in a few years (i guess 10 years?) and have you civilization NOT collapse?

The Black Death and the 30 Years War had perhaps 30% of the Europe's population killed off. So what we should do is kill so many people that it's more than twice as bad as the Black Death. In a few years.

Gotcha

[Anonymous No.3612019]

WHY FOR FUCKS SAKE ARE YOU STILL RESPONDING. YOU KNOW VERY WELL THE PERSON YOU ARE ARGUING IS, IS EITHER A TROLL OR REALLY STUPID. IF YOU CONSIDER YOURELF A MAN OF SCIENCE YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING THIS. LET IT GO. THERE IS NO USE. IT IS ILLOGICAL TO TRY AND DEBATE THEM. IT IS A FUTILE WASTE OF TIME.

[Anonymous No.3612023]

>>3611999

>You can have life at very high concentrations of CO2, true. But it also took tens of millions of years for evolution to adapt life to those conditions.

See this is the difference between a person who argues with logic and a person who argues with facts. You might think what you said is right because it makes sense to you logically (as it should). That doesn't mean it's actually right though.

You think 3000ppm is high? Actual experiment and theory has determined that levels safe for permanent exposure are much higher. That's a fact, I'm not saying it thinking it's right just because it makes sense to me. I actually verify things, you see.

You should try fact checking, too.

[Anonymous No.3612032]

Both terms have been used in the scientific literature for decades. As others have pointed out, it’s just another weak denier argument to try to discredit global warming/climate change without evidence. Pretty stock standard for the deniers, really.

Troll OP is troll.

[Anonymous No.3612033]

>>3612023
I don't think anyone's ever argued that we'd hit atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that'd be intrinsically dangerous to life. I'm going to call strawman.

you can't be stupid enough to think it's the CO2 we're worried about rather than the warming it causes.

nor can you believe that your opponents consider the correlation between warming and CO2 to be linear.

[Anonymous No.3612045]

>>3612023
Increased CO2 also leads to ocean acidification, which is, in the short term, a more serious concern.

As the acidity increases, surface biota will experience difficulties with shell calcification, leading to more brittle or even malformed shells.

It's not even theoretical, the calcification rates have already dropped noticeably.

[Anonymous No.3612048]

>>3612033

The statement was that the life in question had time to evolve and adapt to the level of CO2 in question so whether or not he or she was talking about CO2 or the temperature it supposedly causes is up to him or her to clarify.

When someone tries to assert that an increase of 0.0152% (0.0019% plus the natural additions it supposedly causes, I'm assuming it does to be generous) of an atmosphere's worth of CO2 is causing 0.6 degrees celsius of warming you have to assume they mean the relationship is pretty strong and linear. If it weren't, minute fluctuations wouldn't so dependably cause warming or cooling, as they claim.

[Anonymous No.3612054]

>>3612045
not disagreeing with you, just curious.

modern corals evolved in the Tethys Sea of the Jurassic, at CO2 levels some 3 times current levels. Most shelled marine organisms likewise survived periods of presumed acidification of the photic zone.

why do we assume they won't survive this time around? Have they become too specialized? The shell chemistry of modern bivalves for instance varies little from that of Jurassic specimens...

[Anonymous No.3612055]

>>3612045

I'm sorry but you realize that CO2 levels have been much higher for most of our recent geologic history and marine life has persisted, right?

[Anonymous No.3612057]

>>3612048
no, the relationship is far more pronounced and sensitive at much lower levels. this is basic stuff.

[Anonymous No.3612058]

GORE IS SHIT AND YOU IDIOTS MADE HIM RICH FROM BULLSHITTING

WHO'S SMUG NOW?

[Anonymous No.3612071]

>>3612054
>>3612055
Yes. Ocean acidity has changed and corals and bivalves are still here.

But were not talking about life surviving a million years from now.

The impact of rapid acidification is in the short term, which will again have a negative effect on fisheries.

You care about a burn because of the instantaneous damage, you don't ignore it just because it will heal over time.

[Anonymous No.3612072]

>>3612057

No, what you're referring to is heat saturation. It doesn't mean that the relationship is more linear at lower levels, it means that CO2 becomes less effective at helping retain heat as the concentration increases. This is basic stuff. So is grammar, you should learn it.

[Anonymous No.3612083]

>>3612072
you don't like my grammar but you still understood what I meant.

congratulations. as I've mentioned thrice now the correlation isn't linear and I don't think anyone itt said it is.

[Anonymous No.3612091]

<span class="math">\underline{\bf ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Troll~line~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~}[/spoiler]

Go ahead. Post below the line. You can do it. All you'll lose is your dignity.

[Anonymous No.3612097]

>>3612091
We're anonymous, we have no dignity.

[Anonymous No.3612104]

>>3612071
fair enough. I'd agree that sessile inverts aren't going to have time to move.

[Anonymous No.3612289]

>>3611994

>ice ages are relatively recent events

HAHAHAHAHAA

No.

[Anonymous No.3613558]

sage