[ 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: 12 KB, 426x364, 1348197695605.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5275607 No.5275607 [Reply] [Original]

Is global warming inherently bad? Humans live artificially outside of the tropics.

>> No.5275613

>>5275607
No. Some places will become warmer while other places become hotter. It all balances out. Global warming is nothing but fear mongering for the benefit of researchers and their universities.

>> No.5275617

>>5275613
Because of the carbon cycle right?

People keep forgetting that it's a regulating force and use computer models that create unrealistic scenarios of heating based on water vapour, to the best of my understanding.

>> No.5275614

>>5275613
right, and sea levels arn't going to rise, and the majority of the population centers arn't along coasts.

Right. Gotcha, keep on beliebering.

>> No.5275623

>>5275614
Didn't Antarctic ice levels increase when Arctic ice levels decreased?

>> No.5275624

>anything
>inherently bad

>> No.5275627

>>5275617
yes, problem is your understanding isn't phd level, so, i'll weight your opinion as zero.

>> No.5275629

>>5275624
Well, the attacks against skeptics are usually ad hominem attacks or based on 'general consensus' as if that means anything in science.

>> No.5275634

>>5275629
You mean to say:

I perceive the attacks against skeptics as ad hominem because I don't understand the evidence presented by the majority of scientists.

ftfy

>> No.5275632

>>5275627
Well, how isn't it a a regulating force then?

>> No.5275640

>>5275613
0/10 apply yourself

>> No.5275641

>>5275632
first demonstrate you know what you're discussing. Then you can discuss it.

Thanks.

>> No.5275649

>>5275634
But the evidence is a computer simulation that discards the carbon cycle.

>> No.5275659

>>5275641
I'm sorry?

Why does the notion that I didn't go through a specific program exclude me from a conversation?

Scientists were often philosophers in Newton's day.

I'm just wondering how the reconcile their gross water vapour greenhouse simulations with reality.

>> No.5275660

>>5275649
Uh, show me which model disregards the carbon cycle.

>> No.5275666

The majority of global warming scientists are under the employ of public universities which get their funding from the government, commercial, and private sources. If they explain global warming as being a minor problem, their department would receive less publicity and funding. But if they exaggerate the problem, outsiders would donate more money for further research and to find ways to solve the non-existent problem. This would enable the scientists to secure their careers and for the universities to get even more subsidies.

>> No.5275667

>>5275659
Ok. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld

Is there anything about the daisy world model you dispute?

>> No.5275672

>>5275666
Ah, yes, is a conspiracy. go back to /pol/

>> No.5275686

>>5275682
IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MODEL YOU DISPUTE?

>> No.5275682

>>5275667

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld

>Because Daisyworld is so simplistic, having for example, no atmosphere, no animals, only one species of plant life, and only the most basic population growth and death models, it should not be directly compared to Earth.

>> No.5275690

>>5275686
lmao
this guy

>> No.5275688

>>5275667
That's a model that assumes its happening as a pre-condition.

It tells you nothing about what is actually happening with respect to the carbon cycle.

>> No.5275691

>>5275607
for true changes in average world temperatures? sure, agriculture. although warmer centuries tend to produce more food for the world's population, so probably not a big deal.

>iamnotanagriculturalmajoretc

>> No.5275704

>>5275614

Sea levels will rise on the order of inches per century.

Just look at it this way. Al Gore recently bought an 8.2 million dollar villa in Montecito which, if his own predictions (which are dire) are correct, will soon be under water.

Feel better?

>> No.5275700

>>5275688
Is there anything about the model you dispute?

ie albedo, dynamic environment, etc?

Or, do you not even understand the simplest climate model?

>> No.5275706

>>5275691
Yeah, problem being that changing the distribution of heat, changes with the distribution of water, leading to droughts, so, again, lets get back to first confirming or denying the lack of a basic understanding of dynamic modelling.

>> No.5275705

>ITT:

People don't understand the scientific method and think that "professionals" thinking it, makes it so.

>> No.5275709

>>5275623

Yes.

They've tried to cover this up by claiming the Antarctic is warming but they did it by smoothing out data from 3 temperature stations across the entire continent.

>> No.5275710

>>5275700
It's irrelevant when asking if global warming is a significant problem or as severe as you're projecting it is.

>> No.5275711

>>5275705
I actually see very few people even contemplating the simplest model.

So uh, go ahead, please present to the class you understanding of daisyworld

>> No.5275715

>>5275711
Read my post again.

>> No.5275716

>>5275706
i'm not really interested in disputing whether it is or isn't happening, I don't care either way.

but if it [is|does] [happening|happen] I'm curious as to what the consequences are.

>> No.5275720

>>5275710
No, it's relevent when someone claims to be skeptical and they can't understand the basic model.

So, I'm pretty much done here. Enjoy.

>> No.5275724

>>5275627

His understanding doesn't have to be PhD level to understand two things:

1) Programming has 1 commandment: Garbage in, garbage out.

Models do what you tell them to do, nothing more.

2) If the planet has such sensitive positive feedback mechanisms that runaway global warming is caused by a fractional increase in CO2, which currently makes up only 0.039% of the atmosphere, how the hell have we not burned to a crisp right now?

Shouldn't a 0.01% change in global cloud cover then send us over the edge toward exponentially increasing temperatures?

>> No.5275730

>>5275634

>I perceive the attacks against skeptics as ad hominem because I don't understand the evidence presented by the majority of scientists.

https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann

My god this "evidence".

>> No.5275732

>>5275720
Again, the model is irrelevant, because it describes what happens GIVEN global warming exists.

You can't deduct a real truth from a theoretical scenario, when that real truth was given without proof.

The model doesn't even assume an atmosphere.

>> No.5275733

hey guys i can measure temperature increases 1000 years ago to +/- 0.01 degrees by counting tree rings see my computer model says so give me grant money lol

>> No.5275734

>>5275724
Buffers.

Game over. Debate done. Your battleship sunk.

Have a nice troll.

>> No.5275744

>>5275672

You don't need a conspiracy when interests converge.

As late as the 1980's, climate scientists toiled away in relative obscurity and funding was practically nonexistent. Over a roughly 20 year period since Hansen's senate testimony in 1988, the US government alone has provided 80 billion dollars for climate research. Major news networks seek interviews with these scientists. Universities and NGO will pay thousands in speaking fees for some of them to give lectures. People actually care about what they have to say.

Now, who the hell would trade what they have now for what they had then? Nobody.

>> No.5275742

>>5275732
uh. It models empirical temperatures.

EMPIRICISM. Sorry. Still not troll enough 4 u

>> No.5275743

>>5275733
This.

Public academia is truly the worst institution ever created.

>> No.5275747

>>5275743
indeed, look at it's products, right here on /sci/!

>> No.5275748

>>5275742
Yes, it takes in temperature increases and spits out results.

That has nothing to do with the carbon cycle which is the supposed cause of runaway temperature increase.

>> No.5275746

>>5275733
Heh. Another failure to educate one's skepticism. Thats called ignorance guys.

do u evn daisyworld?

>> No.5275753

>>5275744
yes yes, so conspiracy! do u evn breathe?

>> No.5275755

>>5275748
please present this model that doesn't account for the carbon cycle.

>> No.5275757

>>5275755
The one you presented.

It assumes no atmosphere.

>> No.5275762

>>5275716

Warming will undoubtedly be good for the planet.

Storms are occurring slightly less frequently, lasting for less time and are less intense.

Papers show no increase in flood magnitude or number.

The sea level is rising on the order of inches per century.

And warmth and/or CO2 are beneficial to life on Earth. Life has a difficult time existing in cold temperatures. Just look at the poles vs the equator. It's not some coincidence that most of the life on Earth lives within some distance of the latter and the former are near barren.

>> No.5275763

ITT:

Global warming gets shit on and its defenders confirmed for indoctrinated alarmists.

>> No.5275767

>>5275762
troll.

Feel free 2 cite

>> No.5275771

>>5275757
wait, do you seriously interpret what was said as the empirical model climatologists use to understand earth's global climate?

I'd like to believe theres just one troll in here, but that's just a vane attempt to make myself feel better.

>> No.5275772

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v4Q9Wv10Ho

>tfw all that Environmental asspain

>> No.5275773

>>5275771
Then why did you cite it?

>> No.5275778

>>5275773
I cited it to gauge the fundamental understanding of this forum.

Which, according to my analysis, is zero.

So uh..feel free to enjoy your creative expression of teenage libertarian angst.

>> No.5275777

>>5275734

Um no. Buffer trends are at least linear near the middle, if not detectably exponential.

The rate of warming is currently decreasing.

And "Game over. Debate done." is not science. You need to learn this before you can join the community.

>> No.5275780

>>5275753

>You don't need a conspiracy when interests converge.

It was the first line of my post. Do you even read?

>> No.5275782

>>5275777
This. I don't want to say it, but ever since this flood of redditors, we've been flooded with Kaku and Tyson fans, who just repeat awesome science-related products without knowing why science is awesome.

>> No.5275783

>>5275767

Feel free to do your own research. I'm not your dad.

Or at least, the test hasn't confirmed it yet.

>> No.5275788

>>5275778
But you're not even arguing what I'm arguing.

The model is self-admittedly poor, and it argues something completely different from the argument at hand.

How is the understanding of the forum poor, when all we did was use what information you gave us to refute your claims?

>> No.5275803

Aren't trees starved for CO2?

>> No.5275809
File: 105 KB, 570x364, The-Big-Lebowski.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5275809

HOLY FUCK YOU GUYS
I post articles describing in great detail the mechanisms and observed effects of global warming with strong supporting data.
yet you all continue to argue random bulllshit without backing up any of your statements and you start countless threads on this topic every day.

http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Hansen_20120119_Temperature.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17962418

http://quercus.igpp.ucla.edu/teaching/papers_to_read/cox_etal_nat_00.pdf

>> No.5275812

>>5275788
Don't argue about poetry if you can't demonstrate a simple grasp of rhyming.

Everyone in thread denies global warming, clearly, anyone not is a troll

>> No.5275816

>>5275809
>http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Hansen_20120119_Temperature.pdf
>dat data selection bias

>> No.5275817

>>5275809
As you may have noticed, the trolls won't even accept a generic model as being relatable.

They're pretty hopeless (except for troll bait)

>> No.5275824

>>5275816
Fine, ignore that one source and deal with the other four. It's the least important one I posted anyway.

>> No.5275829

>>5275824
I'm in the middle of skimming through them, calm down.

>> No.5275827

>>5275812
Nobody is arguing that average temperatures haven't increased over the past few years. That's not even what this thread is about.

I just reject your simplistic view of climatology. We've hit peak temperatures and are starting to cool down. There's this thing called the atmosphere that regulates water vapour levels (Which are the primary greenhouse gas)

Are you a climatologist?

No? Then don't ask for my credentials.

>> No.5275832
File: 28 KB, 361x400, 4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5275832

>>5275824
Heh. Man, you must actually understand this shit if you wanna go on the illogical troll ride.

Did you hear, they reject the daisy model in the first place.

They won't even accept that the temperature can be controlled by albedo. Theres no hope here.

Walk away my friend, walk away.

>> No.5275840

>>5275832
>muh fundamentally flawed daisy model

>> No.5275849

>>5275840
uh, the point was to determine whether you understood the first basic principle of modeling a dynamic system.

You failed, suggesting either A, high grade plutonium type stupidity, or B, low grade trollish reality.

A or B, don't give a damn to me, all the same.

>> No.5275855
File: 32 KB, 615x456, 1350765536377.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5275855

>>5275849
This fucking guy.

>> No.5275853 [DELETED] 

>>5275829
There was a thread about this a few hours ago. I get tired of posting the same articles and refuting the same stupid arguments over and over.
>>5275762
except for the part where we fuck up biogeochemical cycles by acidifing the oceans past the tolerance limit of coral reefs, phytoplankton, etc. Not to mention the extinction of heat-sensitive species.
>>5275827
>We've hit peak temperatures and are starting to cool down.
[citation needed]
>There's this thing called the atmosphere that regulates water vapour levels (Which are the primary greenhouse gas)
Anthropogenic effects on water vapor are minimal. It's the other shit - methane, co2, weird halide shit -that we need to worry about.
ihttp://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/image?c=03AHJ_Vusq9RJRiwWfNzlaqPDeEs7JyYBUX8g2Egy3myvdetejw3kVk
pduMb5rElyC4_DxPS6QJ0Y0MMFVmqHoBMmT4qImiin40FxB6t4CQcI1bgLoenqd0S6ahbWAhGGmX4fpDPyQt6sIFDr4zmnMM_wPU
0F7G-C3IwPZPoBBwkAQxmNmW0grtxk

>> No.5275857

>>5275829
There was a thread about this a few hours ago. I get tired of posting the same articles and refuting the same stupid arguments over and over.
>>5275762
except for the part where we fuck up biogeochemical cycles by acidifing the oceans past the tolerance limit of coral reefs, phytoplankton, etc. Not to mention the extinction of heat-sensitive species.
>>5275827
>We've hit peak temperatures and are starting to cool down.
[citation needed]
>There's this thing called the atmosphere that regulates water vapour levels (Which are the primary greenhouse gas)
Anthropogenic effects on water vapor are minimal. It's the other shit - methane, co2, weird halide shit -that we need to worry about.

>> No.5275858

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5275853[/spoiler]
>biogeochemical

da fuk

>> No.5275860

>>5275858
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19971910079.html;jsessionid=27F37FDC7807F130C12E7331F4943B18

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030442039290096S

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1988/GB002i004p00299.shtml

>> No.5275862
File: 42 KB, 411x650, cognitive-dissonance 1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5275862

>>5275855
YEAH FUCK HIM. HE DONT WANNA BE TROLLED ! SKEPTIC UNITARIANS UNITE!

>> No.5275890
File: 21 KB, 461x295, extrapolating.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5275890

>>5275860
facts come out, trolls disappear. Funny how correlation is not equal to causation.