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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 33 KB, 445x640, climate-change.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4832063 No.4832063 [Reply] [Original]

With these ridiculous heatwaves all across the planet, I really gotta ask, is there even a theoretical basis for curbing if not reversing climate change?

>> No.4832069

Well typically it self-regulates to an extent, but humans are impacting it pretty badly right now, so it's anyone's guess as to whether the planet will recover.

>> No.4832076

>>4832069

Well, long term, yeah. The planet will eventually be fine, for a few more billion years at least. The question is, can WE do anything to curb or reverse climate change?

>> No.4832073

>>4832069
I claim bullshit. Show me evidence that human impact is significant.

>> No.4832077 [DELETED] 

a

>> No.4832086

>>4832073
>>>/pol/

>> No.4832082

>With these ridiculous heatwaves all across the planet

Britfag here, it hasn't stopped raining in 6 months

So fuck your hypothesis

>> No.4832085

I think it will eventually sort itself out, but as for a time scale, that's anyone's guess, could be 100 years could be 10,000

>> No.4832094

>>4832073
I suggest educating yourself, watch An Inconvenient Truth if you don't want to read.
If we can invent and implement some new technology to absorb atmospheric carbon or at least reflect sunlight more it should make a difference. But its like tossing out buckets from a sinking ship as long as coal-fired power plants are still active.

>> No.4832088

>>4832073

Here. Let Bill Nye explain it for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDv-zgJTLRs

>> No.4832089

>>4832082
this

>> No.4832091

>>4832086
I don't care about politics. That poster is making a weird claim and calls it science. In science you have to back up your shit with evidence.

>> No.4832097
File: 104 KB, 700x348, evidence_CO2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4832097

>>4832073
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>> No.4832099

Just paint the cities pure white and by killing the albedo effect you kill global warming

>> No.4832100

>>4832091
it's not a weird claim, it's the general scientific consensus.

>> No.4832106

>>4832094

Even if we do keep burning fossil fuels while we run whatever it is that will curb or reverse climate change, it will at least give us more time to clean up our act.

>> No.4832105
File: 903 KB, 640x480, Ship_dropping_ice_in_ocean.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4832105

>>4832099
Nonsense. We just gots to cool down the Earf with ice. Pic realted.

>> No.4832109

>>4832094
I did watch "an inconvenient truth" and it's not convincing. He shows a lot of statistics while spouting his claims which are way too far away from the presented data to be backed up by them.

>>4832097
That link doesn't load.

>>4832100
No, it's not.

>> No.4832116

>>4832063

Polar bears deliberately stand on ice floes as a hunting method and they can swim up to 300 miles at once.

Makes for nice propaganda though.

>> No.4832114

>>4832109
>he spouted a lot of statistics
>he spouted a lot of statistics
>he spouted a lot of statistics
Welcome to science, we use data to prove points. If you want baseless arguments and wild claims, head on over to /pol/ or join a debate club.

>> No.4832120

>>4832114

> correlation, causation

learn2difference

>> No.4832119

>>4832109
Link works for me.

The mechanism of anthropogenic global warming is increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has markedly increased in recent history.

Climate change is real.

Deal with it.exe

>> No.4832121

>>4832109
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Human_influences
>The scientific consensus on climate change is "that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities,"

inb4 lol wiki

>> No.4832123

>>4832120
>oh look a direct relationship between increased fossil fuel burning and climate change
>oh look it continues as our fuel burning continues
>oh look the weather's all fucked up now
>clearly the link between these two events is purely coincidental

>> No.4832127

nobody has ever done a scientific study to compare the effects of anthropogenic activity and natural phenomenon, such as sun spot cycles, on global temperatures

to claim that anthropogenic activity is the main cause of global warming is logical bullshit

it is a cause but its not the only cause
it may be a significant cause but its not certain

>> No.4832131

It's the sun, people.

>> No.4832132

>>4832127
You got any spare solar systems for a control group?

>> No.4832133

>>4832123

If A implies B, the occurrence of B doesn't necessarily implicate A

This is 4th grade logic that you idiots fail to understand

>> No.4832135

>>4832132

no, which means your data is incomplete and your conclusions are skeptical

also, refer to historic data patterns

>> No.4832136

>>4832133
I take a bat to your head. You become brain damaged.

It's just a correlation though. Correlation doesn't imply causation people gawd you guys are so dum.

>> No.4832137
File: 24 KB, 413x395, 1325759524967.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4832137

>>4832132
oh, snap.

>> No.4832141

>>4832136

How old are you, you faggot?

Learn the difference between if statements ( ==> ) and if and only if statements ( <==> )

>> No.4832140

>>4832114
>look at me I can show data and talk about unrelated stuff
>that makes my unrelated claims true
You are so fucking retarded, it hurts.

>>4832119
Climate change is real. Everyone agrees. But it's a natural process and the human impact is insignificant.

>>4832121
I hate breaking it to you, but wikipedia is not a reliable quotation in the scientific context.

>> No.4832143
File: 40 KB, 146x182, 1331669162318.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4832143

>mfw people are seriously trying to argue that humans have not significantly impacted climate change ITT

>> No.4832144

>>4832136
>>4832136
>>4832136
>>4832136
>>4832136

Logic fail.

> basic transposition fallacy
> hurr durr we science now

>> No.4832147

>>4832143
Do you have any arguments or are you just gonna insult others who disagree with your belief?

>> No.4832148

We were headed for an ice age before this climate change, probably saved all our lives is what it did.

>> No.4832149

>>4832140
>Heat rising faster than any other time in history
yeah its totally natural
Its also a coincidence that this happens as we dump more carbon into the atmosphere with all our car exhaust and coal power plants.
It's also a coincidence that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and we put it in the atmosphere at slowly increasing levels reaching 400 PPM.

>> No.4832150

>>4832141
The point is that all causations are also correlations.

We have proven the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Humans have been releasing sequestered CO2, a greenhouse gas, for more than a century. CO2 levels are at historic highs.

It is obvious that the correlation is also a causation.

>> No.4832151

>>4832143

Prove it. Show me ONE study that concludes that human activity has more effect on global temperatures than sun spot activity.

JUST ONE STUDY.

> inb4 war on science

>> No.4832160

>see this thread
>people actually replying to troll

stay classy /sci/

>> No.4832155

I like how this thread is the entire problem with discussing the topic in general. Instead of actually addressing the problem at hand, we bicker and bend over backwards to prove things to people who are worse than Creationists when it comes to denial of reality.

>> No.4832156

>>4832148
Ocean Acidification and wildfires burning all of the western U.S. doesn't sound helpful towards our form of life.

>> No.4832161

>>4832150

> Implying that no other phenomenon other than green house gases can affect global temperatures

FAIL FAIL FAIL

Just leave /sci/ now. You are an insult to even 4th grade logic.

>> No.4832162

>>4832151
Google, you moron.
http://www.cato.org/global-warming
Your willing denial and refusal to accept evidence that goes against your preconceptions makes you a fool.

>> No.4832165

>>4832155
Damn right. These people who believe in human impact are worse than creationists. They call their shit science despite having no convincing evidence and their rhetorics only conists of insults.

>> No.4832167

>>4832150
>>4832150

CO2 is NOT at historic levels.

There was a time when CO2 was much more that today's. It was when life didn't even exist.

> inb4 humans caused it

>> No.4832172

>>4832155
I think its a tactic of propaganda used by oil and coal companies so they can avoid being responsible for their impact on the environment as long as possible. Apparently waiting until things get Venus-level bad doesn't concern them or their supporters.

We might start demanding no more subsidies in oil companies or invest in renewable energy instead and that's bad for their bottom line.

>> No.4832170

>>4832162
We are not arguing about global warming, you fucking retard. Everyone knows about global warming. We are talking about it being a natural process.

>> No.4832175

>>4832162
>>4832162
>>4832162
>>4832162

Sorry mate, I worked with Andrew Hoffman at UMich and even he admits that there is no conclusive proof that global warming is mostly due to anthropogenic factors. It is certainly a factor, but it is impossible to prove it, with today's models, that it is the main cause simply because there are no models which can capture other natural phenomenon like sun spot activity.

>> No.4832173

>>4832162

...you DO know that the CATO Institute receives a large amount of funding from oil companies, don't you? And that they're basically a Big Business think tank?

Going to CATO for anything related to environmental concerns is like asking a cigarette executive if smoking is bad for your health.

>> No.4832179

>>4832161
>Insinuating that the proven phenomenon of greenhouse gases don't affect global temperatures.

You seem quite emotional bro. Maybe /sci/ isn't for you.

>> No.4832180

>>4832161
its pretty much proven that greenhouse gases have an effect, now please prove that other thing have a much greater effect as you claim

>hurr durr it could be unicorn farts warming the planet, you never know

>> No.4832184

>>4832180
>>4832180
>>4832180

This is the classic switch that retards do by shifting the burden of proof on the other side.

YOU are the one CLAIMING that human activity is the MAIN cause of global warming.

I have nothing to prove. YOU need to PROVE that human activity has MORE effect than ANY OTHER phenomenon.

>> No.4832185

>That feel when 40 years in the future there's no more ice left on the poles
>things are iraq-level hot everywhere
>Assholes in this thread will be okay with the extinction of nearly all life because "hey according to CATO its not our fault so oh well!"

It must be quite a trip thinking scientists are out to get you while oil executives are honest hardworking folk.

>> No.4832186

>>4832172

Basically, yeah. The longer we argue about it, the longer we devote time to so-called skeptics, the less time we devote to doing anything about the problem. The natural gas companies are basically doing the same thing when it comes to fracking. They even hired the exact same group that worked with big tobacco when the studies on smoking and lung cancer were coming out.

>> No.4832197

Guys, you can't PROVE that global warming is caused by humans. You can't PROVE that lung cancer is caused by smoking. You can't PROVE that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. You can't PROVE there is no afterlife. You can't PROVE that I'm intentionally being an idiot.

>> No.4832199

>>4832197
>>4832197
>>4832197
>>4832197

Strawman

>> No.4832201

>>4832184
it's been proven by the IPCC
all the science is there
if you still can't connect the dots you're being intentionally ignorant just like every other stooge for the oil companies.

>> No.4832211

>>4832201

[citation needed]

> Makes claims
> Fails to find scientific journals to support his claim
> Appeals to authority

I honestly find your appeal to authority disgusting. Go read some journal papers. If you find even ONE single paper that claims anthropogenic factors to be the MAIN cause of global warming, please share it with us.

Until then, you can shove it up your ass.

>> No.4832208

>>4832197
>my beliefs = truth
>your beliefs = retarded

Yeah, nah, you're a hypocritical piece of shit.

>> No.4832228

Really /sci/ you disappoint me.

You have failed to provide me with even one scientific paper that concludes that anthropogenic factors are the main cause for rising global temperatures.

And yet, you keep chanting the AGW mantra. And yet you dare call yourselves /sci/.

You are fucking idiots. Or you are all 14 year olds.

>> No.4832222

>>4832186
It's baffling that people would sacrifice the future habitability of this planet with some vague concern about the economy or some scientist dictatorship.
As if any attempt to adapt to fix a problem is too much for people to bear.
Sadly it's too much for oil executives to bear because it means actually having to answer for their pollution.

>> No.4832224

Can we all please stop talking to Kirk Cameron? You aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't want to believe something. It's just confirmation bias at this point with folks like this.

>> No.4832233

>>4832222
>>4832222
>>4832222

> Cannot conclusively prove that the problem exists
> Hurr durr people are anti-science
> conspiracy theorists !!!11!eleven!!11

>> No.4832234

>>4832211
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.short
There you go.

>> No.4832241

>>4832211
http://www.nature.com/news/at-least-three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538#b1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html

>> No.4832244

>>4832211
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html
There. You're not even going to read it though, so shut the fuck up.

>> No.4832247

>>4832234
>>4832234
>>4832234

Are you fucking blind or just plain retarded?

Read the abstract.

> Policy-makers and the public who are not members of the relevant research community have had to form opinions about the reality of global climate change on the basis of often conflicting descriptions provided by the media regarding the level of scientific certainty attached to studies of climate. In this Essay, Oreskes analyzes the existing scientific literature to show that there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. Thus, despite claims sometimes made by some groups that there is not good evidence that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities, the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that such evidence is clear and persuasive.

Nobody in this thread is claiming that anthropogenic global warming doesn't occur. Nobody is claiming that the Earth's climate isn't affected by human activity. These are the only two issues the paper addresses.

The issue at hand, however, is whether anthropogenic global warming is the MAIN component of the entire global warming phenomenon.

Did you retards fail reading comprehension?

>> No.4832249

>>4832228

Really /sci/ you disappoint me.

You have failed to provide me with even one scientific paper that concludes that life started from lightning striking a mud puddle is the main cause for life existing.

And yet, you keep chanting the Evolutionist mantra. And yet you dare call yourselves /sci/.

You are fucking idiots. Or you are all 14 year olds.

>> No.4832262
File: 51 KB, 448x330, thats_the_joke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4832262

>>4832255

>> No.4832264
File: 372 KB, 475x346, successfulumad.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4832264

>>4832247
Oh, I see. 10/10, you had me going for most of the thread.

>> No.4832255

>>4832249
evolution =/= abiogenesis

>> No.4832270

>>4832247
you upset?
>>4832241

>> No.4832271

>>4832262
Posting something retarded is not a joke.

>> No.4832284

>>4832271
>>4832264

You guys aren't really that familiar with Creationists, are you? Most, if not all, of them think that abiogenesis is evolution, or they're not even aware of what abiogenesis is. Ben Stein said the whole lightning hitting a muddle puddle thing is evolution.

>> No.4832295

>>4832284
This thread is not about creationism, although most of the AGW believers behave like creationtards.

>> No.4832299

>>4832141
he's not making that mistake though. to work out the example further, he could hit you on the head and then claim that you were suffering from some sort of heretofore undiscovered degenerative brain disease. as was mentioned, A => B doesn't mean B => A.

>> No.4832311

We seem to have data showing a positive correlation between certain anthropomorphic activity in the latest period of history (post industrial revolution). Coincidentally we have only gathered this data during that same exact period, effectively eschewing the data.

>> No.4832321

>>4832311
>we have successfully recorded data of two unrelated processes and now we have to make up a causation

>> No.4832319

>>4832311
this is what ice core samples can help with.

>> No.4832331

How about this? Global warming caused anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

>> No.4832346

Well, the political factors really seem to block any possible change of methods in energy production etc, so I guess the only option is to adjust our economies to growing temperatures and extreme weathers in time. Even the worst scenarios of global warming aren't end of the world, but it's worrisome if global warming becomes self-maintaing (methane release).

>> No.4832353

>>4832346
>implying there's anything we can do about it

>> No.4832354

>>4832319
The point exactly is skepticism regarding the method of samples like this: If it is not perfect (which it probably is not) we don't have data gathered and analyzed X thousand years ago to compare with the data of today but rather data gathered and analyzed today inferring conditions about the climate X thousand years ago and then comparing it to conditions of today which is inferred by data gathered and analyzed during that very same time period (and not X thousands of years later).

>> No.4832787

So if I'm not mistaken..
Wasn't the oceans (and by a great advantage) the principal emisors of co2?
I believed that human emisions in comparison were negligible