/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5280460]

Is there any actual scientific proof that global warming is happening, and if not is there anyone who has debunked it?

[Anonymous No.5280465]

>>5280460
I wish people would just google stuff before making /sci/ do unwarranted research.

[Anonymous No.5280488]

>>5280465
Well, obviously OP isn't sure if he can trust what the strangers on Google say, so he thought he'd ask the strangers in a different part of the internet instead!

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280495]

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

http://hero.epa.gov/index.cfm?action=reference.details&reference_id=92936

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

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

tl;dr global warming is real, humans are contributing to it, and it is a big problem.

[Anonymous No.5280499]

>global warming
Climate change.

[Anonymous No.5280506]

>implying this isn't a troll thread

[Anonymous No.5280511]

>2012
>4chan
>accepting scientific consensus and not just blaming the Jews

...I might like this board

[Anonymous No.5280513]

>>5280495
>epa.gov
>ipcc
>ncbi

Cool sources.

[Anonymous No.5280522]

Actual scientific consensus is that global warming is happening. There is debate over to what extent it is.

The consensus for AGW is weaker. There is a very organized and influential group of scientists that promote it, and they do so aggressively.

Protip: When scientists start making claims against their detractors about bias and funding, they stop doing science and start engaging in politics.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280536]

>>5280513
>dat ad hominem fallacy
If you don't like my sources - sources which are globally renowned for their scientific rigor - then why not post some of your own?

[Anonymous No.5280534]

>>5280511
Shouting "consensus" when there is self evidently not consensus, should get you beaten for intentionally lying and failing basic logic.

>group a makes claim x is true
>group b makes claim x is false
>group a claims consensus

Self evidently, group a is lying.

[Anonymous No.5280535]

>>5280511
I remember my first day off /pol/

[Anonymous No.5280662]

>>5280534
100% of climate scientists agree climat echange is happening
98% agree that humans are the primary contributor

[Anonymous No.5280665]

>>5280536
The ad hominem fallacy is arguing that an argument is invalid because of its source.

Rejecting an appeal to authority is never an ad hominem fallacy.

This has been our daily reminder for the extremely stupid.

[Anonymous No.5280672]

>>5280662
100% of homeopaths agree that water has a memory.

Therefore, there is a scientific consensus that homeopathy is valid.

If you're not a specialist in the field, you're talking outside of your field of expertise and may be disregarded.

[Anonymous No.5280674]

>>5280460
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

All evidence supports climate change/global warming.

\thread

[Anonymous No.5280676]

homeopathy isn't peer reviewed science try again

your post is insulting

[Anonymous No.5280677]

>>5280672
>homopaths
>scientists

I don't think you know what science is.

[Anonymous No.5280678]

>>5280672
Well, except for the experts in the field who have conducted double-blind studies and found it to be completely ineffective. Plus the basic physics that makes it impossible. But you know, ignoring those....

>>5280511
Ha ha... no you won't.

[Anonymous No.5280679]

>>5280676
>homeopathy isn't peer reviewed science try again
http://homeopathyusa.org/journal
"The American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine (AJHM) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, specifically intended to meet the needs of physicians involved in the specialty of homeopathy."

>your post is insulting
It was meant to be.

[Anonymous No.5280681]

>>5280678
>experts in the field
I think you mean big-pharma shills. Most of them aren't even homeopaths!

[Anonymous No.5280683]

>>5280679
Yeah, just like "creation science".

LMFAO.

[Anonymous No.5280685]

>>5280679
>be homopathy expert

>don't use scientific method

>proclaim to be a scientist

[Anonymous No.5280691]

>>5280685
>be climate expert

>don't use scientific method

>proclaim to be a scientist

[Anonymous No.5280690]

>>5280679
>homopathy
>a science

Are kids really this stupid?

[Anonymous No.5280694]

>>5280691
Lying doesn't become you.

[Anonymous No.5280698]

>>5280694
>make predictions on computer
>tweak model until predictions agree with "consensus"
>further support for consensus position generated

>scientific method

[sage No.5280700]

>>5280691
0/10

[Anonymous No.5280702]

>>5280698
0/10

Try a little harder kid

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280711]

>>5280665
>The ad hominem fallacy is arguing that an argument is invalid because of its source.
which is what you were doing.
>Rejecting an appeal to authority is never an ad hominem fallacy.
I wasn't appealing to authority, I was presenting you with solid data/conclusions and asking you why you didn't agree with it.

[Anonymous No.5280715]

>>5280700
>>5280702

[Anonymous No.5280717]

>>5280683
>>5280685
>>5280690
For the extremely stupid: the point being made here is not that homeopathy works, but that "trust us we're experts" doesn't.

You can wear lab coats, you can throw complicated equations around, you can do peer review, you can build supercomputers, you can get government funding, you can have advanced degree programs and hold prestigious positions in universities, and still just be a bunch of nuts.

The big problem with "a consensus of climate scientists" is that there's no track record of successful consensus predictions. "We're smarter than you and have studied this problem in far more detail than you have." is far from a guarantee of correctness, and acting as if it is is a very strong indicator of a lack of intellectual integrity and scientific discipline.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280726]

>>5280717
>track record of successful consensus predictions
we've only been tracking climate change for ~40yrs, so not that many of our predictions have come to pass yet. But the ones that we've made have been accurate and you'd know that if you read the sources I posted, plus some more:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02791.x/abstract;jsessionid=02AABDF89F34
C02B3FCCFF2792592D18.d02t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02658.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedM
essage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01047.x/full

[Anonymous No.5280732]

>>5280726
Some climate scientists have made predictions that have been accurate. More made predictions that were inaccurate, or had such broad error bars that they could not reasonably be called "predictions".

Neither cherry picking a few lucky guessers, nor lauding the non-predictors, is a valid argument for the predictive power of climate science.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280735]

>>5280732
so are you willing to make the claims and support the arguments (with sources, please) that climate change is not occuring and that anthropogenic emissions are having no effect on the environment? And what do you say to the scientists who have accurately predicted global warming?

[Anonymous No.5280754]

>>5280735
>so are you willing to make the claims and support the arguments (with sources, please) that climate change is not occuring and that anthropogenic emissions are having no effect on the environment?
No, I'm not going to validate your absurd and idiotic strawman.

>And what do you say to the scientists who have accurately predicted global warming?
You mean the scientists who extrapolated a trend that had gone on for decades, and were not immediately humiliated by its sudden dramatic reversal?

Uh... good job on having a ruler? That's some real sophisticated ruler-having?

[Anonymous No.5280759]

>>5280754

[Anonymous No.5280765]

>>5280534
>>5280665
>>5280672
>>5280717
>>5280754
Not that guy, but you can continue to argue your philosophical points forever and they won't mean a thing without you backing them up.

The other side has provided sources, and asked you to do the same. So far, you've only attacked the legitimacy of their sources and tried to undermine the institution of Climate Science. You have done this without providing any relevant sources of your own. You're making yourself look like a moron by doing that.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280766]

>>5280754
>No, I'm not going to validate your absurd and idiotic strawman.
how is asking you to show the sources from which you draw your opinion a strawman?
>>5280754
>You mean the scientists who extrapolated a trend that had gone on for decades, and were not immediately humiliated by its sudden dramatic reversal?
that is hardly a categorical analysis of climate change predictions.

tl;dr show me the body - or, at least, criticize the findings I've posted.

[Anonymous No.5280771]

>>5280766
>>>so are you willing to make the claims and support the arguments (with sources, please) that [absurd and idiotic strawman position]?
>>No, I'm not going to validate your absurd and idiotic strawman.
>how is asking you to show the sources from which you draw your opinion a strawman?
Stupid people go home.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280783]

>>5280771
If I'm strawmanning, then correct me. What exactly is the claim I should be arguing against? Because it seems to be "climate change is not occuring and that anthropogenic emissions are having no effect on the environment".

[Anonymous No.5280781]

>>5280765
#1: That's not all one person.

#2:
>The other side has provided sources, and asked you to do the same.
>The other side has appealed to authority, and asked you to do the same.
>So far, you've only attacked the legitimacy of their sources and tried to undermine the authority they're appealing to.
>You have done this without appealing to an authority of your own. You're making yourself look like a moron by doing that.

[Anonymous No.5280789]

>>5280495
Incorrect, as scientists we can't say for sure if it's caused by humans or not.

>>5280522
Correct, global warming is happening. The debate is NOT to what extent, the debate is are humans causing it. This is the only question that affects emission standards and pollution laws and therefore politics, so it's the only reason anybody really cares, because it effects those with money.

[Anonymous No.5280790]

>>5280781
So what, you think your own opinion is better than their authority? If you're discounting the legitimacy of the very idea of citing relevant sources to support a point, than you are beyond rational argument. If that is the case than this conversation is at a dead end and I will bid you good day.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280796]

>>5280789
The sources I posted point directly towards anthropogenic effects. did you even read them?
>>5280781
I'm not appealing to authority, I'm asking you for some sort of data.

[Anonymous No.5280799]

>>5280789
>Incorrect, as scientists we can't say for sure if it's caused by humans or not.

We can't say for "sure" if evolution happens or that Relativity is a valid model by that logic. Sure it's technically true, but not practically true by any means. The practical part is far more important, especially with an issue like climate change.

[Anonymous No.5280816]

Here's a simple fact that throws a wrench into people on Al Gore's dick:

water vapor (aka clouds) are a greenhouse gas
come at me

[Anonymous No.5280823]

>>5280816
Clouds reflect the sun. They therefore increase Earth's overall albedo and can have a cooling effect.
Come at me.

[Anonymous No.5280825]

>>5280796
What kind of a pseudo-intellectual ass uses words like "anthropogenic"? Are we counting winnie the pooh as a cause as well? And no I didn't, but I am already well versed on the subject. I choose not to recognize tripfags because this is an anonymous imageboard. Try stating facts instead of appealing to yourself as an individual you selfish self-righteous chode.

>>5280799
Now you're catching on. But I was more referring to the fact that real live scientists don't all agree that global warming is caused by humans. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas for christ's sake, the climate changes constantly, even mars is slowly warming and no humans live there.

[Anonymous No.5280830]

>>5280823
Not all water vapor gathers in dense forms as clouds, and just because it reflects some of it doesn't mean it doesn't keep the heat already here inside, despite what little visible light they may reflect. The sun produces more energy than the tiny visible light spectrum and most of it passes right through clouds.
Try talking with Al Gore's dick not in your mouth, you might make more sense.

[Anonymous No.5280832]

>>5280825
Not all physicists agree that The Big Bang happened. There are a few who criticize Relativity or well known Quantum Mechanics. You don't pay them that much mind, do you?

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280837]

>>5280816
anthropogenic water vapor emissions are minimal.
>>5280823
not all water vapor is clouds.
>>5280825
>What kind of a pseudo-intellectual ass uses words like "anthropogenic"?
that's the literature term for human-sourced emissions, dumbass. go read some papers.
> I am already well versed on the subject.
obvious not.
>I choose not to recognize tripfags because this is an anonymous imageboard.
by talking about me, you invalidate this point. also, that's a fallacy.
>Try stating facts instead of appealing to yourself as an individual you selfish self-righteous chode.
I posted seven scientific papers supporting my argument.

>>5280825
>Now you're catching on. But I was more referring to the fact that real live scientists don't all agree that global warming is caused by humans. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas for christ's sake, the climate changes constantly, even mars is slowly warming and no humans live there.
The problem is that the earth isn't warming slowly - it's warming alarmingly rapidly. lrn2radiativeforcing

[Anonymous No.5280838]

>>5280790
>So what, you think your own opinion is better than their authority?
The problem is that the "authority" is, in this case, a group of people more or less defined by being one side of the argument, professionally.

If you don't see pointing that out as productive, I don't know what you would.

>>5280783
Go back. Read what I actually said. Look at what you said you thought my position was. Demonstrate that you're capable of recognizing how ridiculous the difference was.

[Anonymous No.5280842]

>>5280825
> But I was more referring to the fact that real live scientists don't all agree that global warming is caused by humans.

Creationists use the same argument.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280853]

>>5280838
you seem to be claiming that
>>5280717
>You can wear lab coats, you can throw complicated equations around, you can do peer review, you can build supercomputers, you can get government funding, you can have advanced degree programs and hold prestigious positions in universities, and still just be a bunch of nuts.
which is not a valid criticism of my argument, it's an ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.5280855]

>>5280832
>Not all physicists agree that The Big Bang happened.
The Big Bang is deeply speculative.

>There are a few who criticize Relativity or well known Quantum Mechanics.
GR is not self-consistent. QM is not complete. GR and QM together don't explain the universe very well. We've got a long way to go with fundamental physics, probably with changes as big as between pre-Einstein physics and modern physics yet to come.

>You don't pay them that much mind, do you?
It horrifies me that you would say this, expecting agreement.

[Anonymous No.5280864]

>>5280838
>The problem is that the "authority" is, in this case, a group of people more or less defined by being one side of the argument, professionally.

There doesn't seem to be anything worthwhile on the other side, or do you care to prove that assertion wrong by citing anything that's not your own opinion? So far it seems that you do not.

[Anonymous No.5280867]

>>5280853
Jesus Christ. Learn what words mean. That's not an ad hominem, it's a general statement about how the world works.

And even if it was meant to say "climate scientists are a bunch of nuts" (and it was not), that STILL wouldn't be an ad hominem argument.

An ad hominem argument is ONLY when you argue that a position is wrong BECAUSE of who argues it. It's not a general term for criticism or abuse.

[sage No.5280870]

sage
ITT: some anon is arguing in bad faith

[Anonymous No.5280873]

>>5280864
>prove that assertion wrong by citing anything that's not your own opinion

>the only valid logic is appeal to authority

Whatever you say, champ.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280876]

>>5280867
>An ad hominem argument is ONLY when you argue that a position is wrong BECAUSE of who argues it
but that's what he's arguing. Well, technically, he's arguing that we shouldn't listen to scientists just because they have more experience in the subject, which is even stupider.

[Anonymous No.5280879]

>>5280876
This is hopeless. You are just too stupid to communicate with.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280886]

>>5280879
okay. post a nice little lucid paragraph summarizing your problem with my claims.

[Anonymous No.5280899]

>>5280873

You've failed entirely at providing any valid criticism yourself other than "appeal to authority is bad". That is your only valid logic.

This isn't a purely logical debate. This isn't a mathematical proof. This is a scientific question. What matters here is the data. I'm appealing to the authority of the data, because that's the best approximation of the truth an imperfect species can obtain in cases like this.I will ask one last time, can you point us to any good sources for basic data that contradict the position we're arguing in support for?

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280903]

>>5280899
>can you point us to any good sources for basic data that contradict the position we're arguing in spoiler: he can't.

[Anonymous No.5280908]

>>5280886
>you don't agree with me?

>read this, and this, and this, and this
>no, I won't summarize it, or even tell you what I'm linking, I expect you to read and carefully study whatever I link, because as some random asshole on 4chan I tell you to
>and if you still don't agree with me, prove that you read it and refute everything it says, with convincing evidence
>and also read this, and this, and this

>you think I'm too stupid to communicate with?
>you think I've demonstrated it repeatedly in this thread?
>okay, smart guy, say everything you've said in this thread to me in one simple, short paragraph

You are just the worst kind of person.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280909]

>>5280899
>can you point us to any good sources for basic data that contradict the position we're arguing in
spoiler: he can't.

[Anonymous No.5280919]

>>5280899
>what matters here is data
>interpretation is nothing
>keep logic out of this

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280920]

>>5280908
This is a science board. It is not unreasonable of me to ask you to read scientific papers. And if you can't understand the papers or provide counterarguments with good evidence, then how can you possibly refute my argument?

take as much space as you need for your rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.5280927]

>>5280908
You're admitting you're just too lazy to actually read his sources? Wow, just...wow.

[Anonymous No.5280936]

>>5280920
dropping cites like little turds isn't an argument

[Anonymous No.5280939]

>>5280665
Appeals to authority are not necessarily fallacious arguments.

An appeal to a specific quote given by a recognized authority in the field who is repeating a claim generally accepted as true within the field is a valid inductive argument.

[Anonymous No.5280942]

>>5280919
I said it isn't "purely" logical. I never said interpretation is nothing, I only said that the base data should be considered the most important element of the debate. Seems you're constructing a strawman. One as well versed in logic as you purport to be should know that such a thing is a fallacy.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280943]

>>5280936
no, but those cites help support my argument. Have you ever written a scientific document?

[Anonymous No.5280948]

>>5280936
Do you even science?

[Anonymous No.5280950]

>what sorcery is this, you are arguing against me and not using a simple paragraph in which you state a claim and provide a source corroborating that claim
>hurrdurr it must be an ad hominem/strawman!

seriously what the fuck is with all the absolutely fucking retarded people on /sci/ who are apparently partly trained as scientists and engineers and have literally never learned the very basics of logical arguments, there are a whole slew of different fucking kinds of logical fallacy and all but 2 of them are not ad hominem/strawman, if youd actually received any fucking education at all other than pissing contests on 4chan youd fucking know this shit and not immediately shout the only two fallacies you know the second you see a claim you cant logically refute

[Anonymous No.5280965]

We know the physics of the thermal absorption of the gases that make up the atmosphere.

We know how much energy is coming into the Earth from the Sun, and we know how much is leaving again, and we can quantify the balance left on Earth.

We can describe all the major climatic and geological cycles that affect long-term temperature trends.

We know the composition of the atmosphere and the relative contributions from human activities.

And, given all that information, the only factor that can explain the increase in heat (barring outright magic or some hitherto-unrealized science fiction radiation) is the increase in GHGs emitted by with human activities. Nothing else lines up, not solar radiation; not Milankovitch cycles; not sunspots; and not local variability. The only factor present to explain the warming we've seen is human-derived.

[Anonymous No.5280975]

>>5280942
>I never said interpretation is nothing, I only said, "What matters here is the data." thereby excluding interpretation as irrelevant.
>I might be a man who is made of straw, but that is no excuse for you to point at my actual argument. You should have made up some fleshman argument for me that actually made the same kind of sense on the screen as it did to me in my straw-stuffed burlap head.

[Anonymous No.5280976]

>>5280975
Oh goddamn it you're trolling.

10/10. This is the longest I've ever been led on.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5280980]

>>5280965
bingo. this is exactly what the scientists I cited determined.

[Anonymous No.5280986]

>>5280676
>>5280677
>>5280672
I wonder if the homeopathic scientists have any solutions for global warming
maybe we will dissolving energy crystals in the ocean will remember the tempurature of the earth once and for all

[Anonymous No.5280994]

>>5280965
>The only factor present to explain the warming we've seen is human-derived.
Or short-term fluctuations.

Since the medieval warm period, the temperature dipped and now came back up to its former peak. How did it get up there before, without the influence of modern human industry?

The farther back you go, the harder it is to see fluctuations, the more vague the data becomes. It should be a surprise that as soon as we start making precise measurements, we observe fast changes in the short term? We have nothing to contrast it with.

If temperatures happened to be diving when we first started looking with good instruments, though we were doing all the same things, we'd probably be in the same situation, with a "consensus of experts" declaring that human activity was causing the cooling, and the supercomputer models to prove it.

[Anonymous No.5280996]

The Earth's temperature has risen 6 degrees since the last ice age which happened approx 11,000 years ago. It take roughly the past 10.900 years for the temperature to raise about 3 degrees naturally. Now 1880 is a watershed year for global warming because that's when temperatures began to raise rapidly. 1880 is the beginning of the industrial revolution and the mass burning of fossil fuels for energy. The earths temperature has risen 3 degrees in roughly he past 110 years. And 2 of those 3 degrees have been risen in the past 20-30 years. And temperature will continue to rise exponentially. That leaves strong conclusive evidence suggesting the burning of fossil fuels and global warming.

[Anonymous No.5281000]

>>5280994

I'll bring up the same point that I always bring up in regard to the Medieval Warm Period:

If it was just as intense as now, why is the ice that is melting now melting for the first time in hundreds of thousands of years? We know that the gases trapped in the ice that is melting are that old. If the Medieval Period, or any other warming period in that time was as intense and protracted as this one, the ice would've melted than and the gas ages would reflect that.

[Anonymous No.5281002]

>>5280996
>The earths temperature has risen 3 degrees in roughly he past 110 years. And 2 of those 3 degrees have been risen in the past 20-30 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Observed_temperature_changes
"The Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005."

So, I'm guessing 2 of those 3 degrees must have been in the 1902-1906, during the Coalmine Arson Wars.

[Anonymous No.5281006]

>>5280994
The Medieval Warm Period was only warmer than current temperatures in certain regions. Globally, it was colder than current conditions.

[Anonymous No.5281007]

>>5281000
>why is the ice that is melting now melting for the first time in hundreds of thousands of years?
Because very large amounts of ice take a very long time to melt. You could have asked that same question ten thousand years ago.

[Anonymous No.5281013]

ok i gotta ask, we had a glacial period not long ago, and before that the climate was normal for that time, so what caused it? there where no people around to affect the environment. what caused the last glacial period to recede? since there were no people around the affect the environment with their evil gasguzzling machinery.

[Anonymous No.5281014]

>>5281007
This proves that there has been an overall upward shift in temperature than. That's exactly the point.

[Anonymous No.5281020]

>>5281006
>Globally, it was colder than current conditions.
Not significantly. And it was a period of 200 years. There were most likely peak years that were warmer than this year, for instance.

[Anonymous No.5281023]

>>5281014
The point is that it's warmer now than in the last ice age? That's a strange point to make.

[Anonymous No.5281022]

>>5280816
Water is already saturated in the air. That's why we have clouds. Additional water vapor input quickly leaves via precipitation.

[Anonymous No.5281025]

>>5281020
Peak years don't matter, what matters is the trend, and the trend was cooler.

[Anonymous No.5281024]

>>5280855
>The Big Bang is deeply speculative.
This is what idiots believe.

>GR is not self-consistent.
Oh boy, this should be good. Hit me with your best shot.

[Anonymous No.5281032]

>>5281013
There are natural cycles that affect climate and can cause warm and cool periods.

The point of AGW is that it's A) happening in a time when those natural forcings aren't present and we should actually be in a cooling trend, and B) happening far faster than would happen in nature.

[fgsfds No.5281034]

>>5280855
If you believe in gravity, the big bang is exactly 0 assumptions away.

[Anonymous No.5281038]

>>5280460
nice loaded question. Not biased at all for a troll

[Anonymous No.5281056]

>>5281024
>>The Big Bang is deeply speculative.
>This is what idiots believe.
When more distant objects appear more red-shifted, the Earth's temperature tends to go up.

When more distant objects appear more blue-shifted, the Earth's temperature tends to go down.

Carbon emissions cause universe inflation. If we don't cut back soon, we'll never be able to travel to other galaxies.

[Anonymous No.5281051]

>>5280832
Stop using logical fallacies. You can't compare one subject to another in this way, it's apples and oranges. Try using an argument that actually responds to the point I made.
And yes I pay mind to anyone who has a well structured viewpoint, ESPECIALLY if it contradicts a commonly accepted belief. And you call yourself a scientist.

[Anonymous No.5281060]

>>5281056
>>>/b/
>>>/x/

Oh wait, trolling isn't allowed on any board.

Get out.

[Anonymous No.5281064]

>>5281025
>the trend was cooler
That doesn't even make sense.

[Anonymous No.5281068]

>>5281032

why actually give a shit? even if we weren't affecting the environment, the ice would melt sooner or later. and since the global population is constantly increasing. there would only be more people fighting over whats left once the ice melts.

i say we boil the sea right now and brace for impact. less suffering during the aftermath that way

[Anonymous No.5281071]

>>5281064

Are you serious?

[Anonymous No.5281075]

>>5280837
>anthropogenic water vapor emissions are minimal.
I wasn't talking about human vapor emissions, I was referring to the fact that there is a shit ton of water vapor already in the atmosphere that constantly cycles and moves around completely outside of our control (weather).
>anthropogenic
That's the literature term for someone who can't talk in normalspeak. This isn't a scientific journal this is 4chan, get off your high horse, you're with the peasants now.
>that's a fallacy.
Can you explain how it is a fallacy? The fact is that this is an anonymous imageboard, it is my personal choice to choose to play by the rules set up for it. It was your choice to feel special and prance around with your fancy name. Don't get pissy at me for taking the personal choice not to recognize it. You need to get over yourself, nobody cares who you are.
>I posted seven scientific papers supporting my argument.
That was when you were talking to someone else, your'e talking to me now, the least you could do was link to the others. You can't just start a discussion with someone and cite something you said before they entered the conversation. But I will go through the trouble of going back and looking for your name to find whatever sources you cited, if I feel like it.

>lrn2radiativeforcing
I never implied that the earth was warming slowly. lrn2read

[Anonymous No.5281078]

>>5281051
It's a valid comparison. I could just as well use any science as an example. In every case, there are a few fringe people that are in disagreement with the majority. They only ever get a major voice in issues like Climate Change because in such cases there are interests willing to back their ideas in an effort to muddy the waters.

I'm not saying that disagreement with the majority makes you wrong. I'm saying if you're right, you should be able to provide an alternative and gather evidence until your fringe view becomes the majority. All the great ideas were fringe at fist, but not every fringe idea is great. Don't forget that AGW had to go through the process itself. It was not popular when first proposed. It look a lot of evidence to convince the majority of its validity.

[Anonymous No.5281083]

>>5280842
Who cares? That doesn't make it untrue.

I am a scientist and I do not believe global warming is caused by human activity, though I do believe we should stop polluting and destroying our natural environment for other reasons.
The stuff that comes out of our cars is less of a concern than the rate we are destroying the rainforest.

[Anonymous No.5281079]

>>5281064
The overall temperature for the period was cooler than has been in more recent times.

>>5281068
We should give a shit because the climate could be changing too fast for the biosphere to adapt. Nobody really gives a fuck about the glaciers and about whether the Earth is warmer (well I guess Greenpeace cares but fuck them). What people care about is whether human society can adapt fast enough to cope and if the rest of the biosphere can catch up as well. People worry about what will happen if the major environmental food sources effectively dry up because the local ecosystem collapsed because the primary producing species can't cope with the increase in heat.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5281084]

>>5281075
>This isn't a scientific journal this is 4chan
I expect posters on the science board to have some degree of scientific literacy.
>Can you explain how it is a fallacy?
my identity as a tripfag has no bearing on the quality of my argument.
>the least you could do was link to the others
or you could read the thread?

[sage No.5281085]

>>5281068
>why actually give a shit? even if we weren't affecting the environment, the ice would melt sooner or later.
>i say we boil the sea right now and brace for impact.

Even if I don't have stage 4 cancer today, I'm going to die of something eventually. Might as well shoot myself in the head tonight.

[Anonymous No.5281087]

>>5281083
What's your area of study?

[Anonymous No.5281090]

Honestly, there's a small part of me that wants catastrophic global warming to happen as an "I told you fuckers this would happen," because you just fucking know if we successfully try to mitigate it and nothing happens, people will just say there was never any danger to begin with.

There is literally no winning this.

[Anonymous No.5281092]

>>5281079

thank you for clearing that up, all these time i thought niggas was just bitching about no ice and tropical beaches in Scandinavia (which would be nice)

[Anonymous No.5281095]

>>5281071
Almost by definition, there wasn't a trend to the medieval warm period taken as a whole. It was a peak period. There was a warming trend that led up to it, then a cooling trend that led down from it.

And how would a trend be "cooler"? That's like saying a speed is "closer".

[Anonymous No.5281101]

>>5281095
It was poor choice of words, get over it.

[Anonymous No.5281120]

>>5280965
Umm this is all bullshit. We don't know any of that.
>We know the physics of the thermal absorption of the gases that make up the atmosphere.
The weatherman can't even figure out what a storm cycle is going to do in a few days, what makes you think we are even capable of measuring any of those things? Sure we can speculate with weather balloons and shit but something as complex at the earth's atmosphere isn't something that is easily measured or understood.
We know how much energy is coming into the Earth from the Sun
The amount of radiation the sun emits changes all the time, not just from place to place but from minute to minute. Sunspots and solar flares are a good example. Also the latitude and longitude of each part of earth affect how much heat is absorbed. That's just for energy coming in.
>we know how much is leaving again
whatjesusnohowthefuck?
>We can describe all the major climatic and geological cycles that affect long-term temperature trends.
Not right now we can't, at least not fully. We need more data. Ice cores allow us to see how things went down in history, which we are only just starting to drill up, but it's hard to say what caused any of that.

[Anonymous No.5281123]

>>5281090
welcome to reality, enjoy the rational failure of playing it safe.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5281126]

>>5281092
nope, the main problem is that we could kill the bacteria and phytoplankton that drive the earth's biogeochem cycles.
>>5281120
radiative forcing.

[Anonymous No.5281134]

>>5281075
>This isn't a scientific journal this is 4chan, get off your high horse
>You shouldn't be using big words that I don't understand
>Get off your high horse
>Trying to save face after your lack of knowledge is pointed out
>Science and Mathematics board

How embarrassing. I think you should just leave at this point; there's just much room for coming back after you've just blatantly admitted your own ignorance on the subject.

[Anonymous No.5281133]

>>5281079
>The overall temperature for the period was cooler than has been in more recent times.
The overall temperature for the period is a span of 200 years. If you average the temperature over a similar span, you find a distinctly lower temperature.

Anyway, it was only *slightly* cooler than the past few decades, and that's only an estimate. The best data is from places where it was definitely warmer.

People are screaming about this horribly dangerous unprecedented fast warming trend we're in and how we must DO SOMETHING NOW or these TERRIBLE HIGH TEMPERATURES will RUIN EVERYTHING, and the actual mainstream science is that the best estimate is that it's about 0.1 degree warmer than it was a thousand years ago, and there's a good chance that it's actually a bit cooler than it was.

And we have no idea of how often global temperatures dip and rise this quickly during these natural fluctuations, because global temperature is a problematic concept and a complete bitch to measure even with modern technology, teams of geniuses, and millions of dollars of research money.

Oh, and that the last time it was this warm, it was great for everyone. Life got easier and populations boomed.

[Anonymous No.5281135]

>>5281126
>we could kill the bacteria and phytoplankton that drive the earth's biogeochem cycles.
And thus, the crackpot makes his true nature known.

[Anonymous No.5281136]

>>5281084
>I expect posters on the science board to have some degree of scientific literacy.
lol have you been to this board before? Nobody here is actually well versed in science. Except for me.
>tripfag riff raff
I never said it did, I just said that you being a tripfag doesn't mean I should have to look up everything else you said before. You should be able to form arguments on your own without having to relate to other shit you said earlier. You're actually the one that did this fallacy, not me. But I will read them at some point, maybe.

>>5281087
Biology, that post should explain that. What's your area of study?

[Anonymous No.5281137]

>>5281120
* Weathermen operate on much finer-grained simulations than climate projections. Climate projections can be more accurate over longer time-scales because they're not modelling weather on the scale of single square miles
* We figured out thermal absorption literally centuries ago. Look it the fuck up.
* Yes, the sun's output varies, and we can measure that pretty accurately.
* Sunspots and solar flares are not sufficient to explain the current warming. It just doesn't line up.
* Satellites, bro. We can look at the thermal radiation leaving the planet and we have done for decades.
* Okay, not fully, but well enough to safely conclude it can't explain current warming

[Anonymous No.5281139]

>>5281133
>If you average the temperature over a similar span, you find a distinctly lower temperature.
Sorry, this should read "If you average the CURRENT temperature".

[Anonymous No.5281140]

>>5281126
>radiative forcing.
>non-arguments

[Anonymous No.5281143]

>>5281139
Are you speaking english or some cognitive dissonant dialect?

[Anonymous No.5281147]

>>5281134
haha oh wow

[Anonymous No.5281154]

>>5281137
>we know our shit
>but actually we don't know it fully
>some bullshit that has nothing to do with what I said
>but it doesn't matter cuz ur dumb

Yeah, OK.

[Anonymous No.5281156]

>>5281139
>>If you average the temperature over a similar span, you find a distinctly lower temperature.
>Sorry, this should read "If you average the CURRENT temperature".

Well, no shit that'll happen if you average 200 years, the whole theory behind AGW is that temperatures didn't start rising heavily until the last 70-odd years.

[sage No.5281158]

>>5281136
>You should be able to form arguments on your own without having to relate to other shit you said earlier.
>form arguments on your own
>other shit you said

[Anonymous No.5281168]

>>5280460
Why do intelligent people post in troll threads? Is there any evidence that smart people would avoid ignorant discussions such as this?

[Anonymous No.5281169]

>>5281143
I had pointed out that the medieval warm period probably had higher peak years than this year.

He said it didn't matter, only the "trend" matters, then corrected himself to "average".

The MWP was a span of roughly 200 years. If you want to talk about averages rather than peaks, and compare apples to apples, then you have to average the past 200 years, and acknowledge that the MWP was warmer. If you want to talk about how terribly high the latest peak year is, then compare oranges to oranges, and acknowledge that the MWP likely contained a warmer peak year. It's only by comparing apples to oranges that you can seriously argue that the MWP was less warm than the present.

Clear now?

[Anonymous No.5281170]

>>5281134
God damn it you made me actually want to respond.

If you're going to use over-flowery language for something that could be said in much simpler terms I am going to make fun of you. You should expect that. And I never admitted ignorance, I just chose not to respond to obvious logical fallacies and focused on what we were actually talking about. If you read my first response I made it clear I understood the word with my Winnie-the-pooh comment.

I do not get why everyone here thinks they are smarter simply because they post in this board. You are further proving the fact that everyone that posts here is a pseudo-intellectual pleb.

[Anonymous No.5281172]

>>5281158
I don't get it. My grammar is correct.

[sage No.5281180]

>>5281172
>I don't get it. My grammar is correct.
I wasn't criticizing your grammar.

[Anonymous No.5281186]

I'm not sure what's worse; the fact that this thread is thread could become this stupid and worthless, or the fact that it's a pretty accurate microcosm of the overall state of the Climate Debate.

[Anonymous No.5281184]

>>5281169
>The MWP was a span of roughly 200 years. If you want to talk about averages rather than peaks, and compare apples to apples, then you have to average the past 200 years, and acknowledge that the MWP was warmer.
What bizarre world do you live in where the only way to describe time-series data is by either a straight average or the maximum value?

[Anonymous No.5281194]

>>5281186
You must be new hear.

Without any replies to OP's post, it should be clear that OP is trolling.

You need to work on your critical comprehension skill before you go criticizing.

[Anonymous No.5281209]

>>5281170
>God damn it you made me actually want to respond.

You've already lost, son.

>f you're going to use over-flowery language for something that could be said in much simpler terms I am going to make fun of you.
>I make fun of people who use big words that I don't understand
>Please dumb down what you say so I can properly process it but still make a less than adequate response to it

Are you purposefully sabotaging yourself with each post you make?

> If you read my first response I made it clear I understood the word with my Winnie-the-pooh comment.
>Confuses anthropogenic for anthropomorphic
>I understood the word

Clearly.

[Anonymous No.5281221]

>>5281184
Don't be a dick.

The point is, whether you take a recent year, decade, five decades, century, whatever span of time you choose between 1900 and now, you can probably find an equivalent span of time at least as warm between 900 and 1900.

Going back to less than a millennium before this "unprecedented warming" started, you can find similar temperatures. Going back further in time isn't going to help the argument that we're in serious trouble, because you'll find even warmer periods, and when you run out of those you'll find a general long-term warming trend since the last ice age.

We have no sufficiently fine-grained and precise temperature data from the past to say the current speed of temperature change is unprecedented.

We are not at an unprecedented global temperature, even in very recent natural history.

While it would be absurd to assume human activity has no effect on the Earth's climate, we can not conclude that the observed temperature change over the past century isn't a typical fluctuation.

[Anonymous No.5281227]

>>5281209
There are lots of people who believe in anthropomorphic climate change.

Try a survey some time at a global warming protest or rally or whatever, and you'll find lots of people who will readily agree that we will have global warming and floods and storms because our pollution makes Gaia angry.

[Anonymous No.5281233]

>>5281221
>Going back to less than a millennium before this "unprecedented warming" started, you can find similar temperatures.
Yes, and your point is? The reason people are worried is the rate at which warming is occurring, not the temperatures it's going to reach.

Nobody cares if the Earth has been through warmer periods before. It's a giant hunk of rock, it will always be here. That's really not relevant at all to the point at hand. What we care about is whether we'll survive the speed at which it's getting to those warmer periods.

> we can not conclude that the observed temperature change over the past century isn't a typical fluctuation.
So, what, we just conclude that there's some magic force out there that's making the Earth warmer even though we can't identify it and can't explain it, and ignore the entirely reasonable explanation we have sitting in front of us?

Sorry, I'd like to have our scientists do science, not religion.

[Anonymous No.5281249]

>>5281233

Go easy on the lad.
He's part way through his 10th grade geoscience course and he thinks he knows everything there is to know about it.

[Anonymous No.5281250]

>>5281233
>So, what, we just conclude that there's some magic force out there that's making the Earth warmer even though we can't identify it and can't explain it, and ignore the entirely reasonable explanation we have sitting in front of us?
We know that the Earth has gotten warmer (and cooler) in the past without this particular "entirely reasonable explanation" being involved.

And you're saying that you think this happened through some "magic force"?

>The reason people are worried is the rate at which warming is occurring, not the temperatures it's going to reach.
Well no, they're worried about the temperature it might reach because of the rate of warming. The rate of warming isn't going to do anything by itself if it's interrupted by drops of temperature that keep the actual temperature from reaching certain excesses.

And as I previously pointed out, we don't have fine-grained data from the past to tell whether the global temperature spends much of its time rising and dropping this quickly. This could all be completely normal.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5281256]

>>5281135
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02791.x/abstract;jsessionid=02AABDF89F34
C02B3FCCFF2792592D18.d02t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02658.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedM
essage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

I don't make unbacked claims. Phytoplankton are very sensitive to ocean pH, which is rising due to increased dissolution of carbonic acid. Temperature affects them as well.

[Anonymous No.5281267]

>>5281256
Neither of those papers supports "we could kill the bacteria and phytoplankton that drive the earth's biogeochem cycles", you idiot.

[Anonymous No.5281277]

>>5281250
>We know that the Earth has gotten warmer (and cooler) in the past without this particular "entirely reasonable explanation" being involved.
Er, no. The reasonable explanation at hand has very definitely been involved in the past. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that's not arguable. The source of it doesn't particularly matter; the climate doesn't care how the CO2 got into the atmosphere, it will have the same effect no matter what. It just happens to have been humans who put it there this time.

>And as I previously pointed out, we don't have fine-grained data from the past to tell whether the global temperature spends much of its time rising and dropping this quickly. This could all be completely normal.
We don't need data that fine to give us the information we need to answer this question. We can pretty easily determine the effect of rapid climate shifts without referencing paleoclimate proxies. That's why we have experimentation, after all.

And the experimentation we've already done has suggested that it will go quite badly for us.

[Anonymous No.5281280]

Fuck it anyway, I need sleep, I'm out. Just fucking read the IPCC reports, they literally answer every question that's been asked in this thread already and with data to actually back it up instead of imageboard circlejerking.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5281282]

>>5281267
did you even read them? why don't you pull some quotes for me and prove me wrong.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1439.013/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&a
mp;userIsAuthenticated=false

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/305/1124/451.short

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749198000281

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/3/414.short

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5281288]

>>5281280
I posted the IPCC reports earlier in this thread, but no one bothers to read the primary literature.

[Anonymous No.5281301]

>>5281277
I see the problem here.

You somehow have formed the mistaken impression that CO2 has been the dominant factor in global temperature in the past. You perhaps even think that CO2 was about equally high during the medieval warm period, and this caused it to be about as warm as it is now.

There is a definite link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature in the natural record: CO2 rises and falls AFTER temperature does. When the water of the ocean warms, CO2 is released from it. When it cools, it absorbs more CO2 into it.

The greatest cooling trends thus commonly start when the CO2 is at its peak, and the atmospheric CO2 levels don't come back down until the Earth has cooled considerably. And the greatest cooling trends thus commonly start when the CO2 is at a minimum.

This has notably been presented in complete reverse of the actual science in that particularly ridiculous bit of propaganda, "An Inconvenient Truth". So it's a common misconception that CO2 levels have been the major determinant of global temperature in the past.

Now, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but a very minor one, which is why low levels of CO2 haven't stopped warming trends before, and high levels haven't stopped cooling trends.

[Anonymous No.5281311]

>>5281282
>>this doesn't support your claim
>why don't you pull some quotes for me and prove me wrong.

>pull some quotes from a paper to prove that it doesn't support a specific position

Jesus fuck, what is wrong with your brain?

[Anonymous No.5281314]

>>5281301
>And the greatest cooling trends thus commonly start when the CO2 is at a minimum.
>And the greatest WARMING trends thus commonly start when the CO2 is at a minimum.
Sorry, that was a bad mistake.

[Anonymous No.5281316]

Hey I'm wondering if there are actually any climatologists here.
There is a little-discussed effect of CO2 levels on plant growth. Basically plants need less water to grow because they lose less absorbing CO2 when concentrations are higher. But because it's never discussed with global warming I'm wondering if climatologist include it in there models. It should have a huge effect on whether an area of land becomes desert.

A hand-wavey argument is that In the carboniferous era the equator was mostly lush vegetation while [CO2] was something like double, unlike now. (of course there are other reasons the sahara is desert).

Also in general how many biological effects do climatologists take into account? Is it mostly meteorological models?

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5281328]

>>5281311
Those papers are expressly written with the intent of showing how temperature and pH negatively affect marine microflora. Yet you claim that
>>5281267
>Neither of those papers supports "we could kill the bacteria and phytoplankton that drive the earth's biogeochem cycles", you idiot.
So I'm asking you to textually back up that claim by quoting the parts of the papers that don't support me.

[Anonymous No.5281335]

>>5281311
>Incapable of reading the post properly
>What is wrong with your brain?
>Irony

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5281342]

>>5281316
what exactly do you want to know? rising CO2 levels will boost plant growth to some degree, but not by a ton because plants are optimized to take in a certain amount of CO2 and because their growth is also limited by the presence of N and P sources in the soil. There was a big study done at Duke (right down the road from me) a few years ago on this. I'll try to dig it up. Biological effects are certainly taken into account - check out the sources I posted above in >>5280495

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5281345]

>>5281342
(and other sources as well; I don't remember how well those cover biological effects)

[Anonymous No.5281351]

>>5281328
>temperature and pH negatively affect [certain specific] marine microflora
>we could kill the bacteria and phytoplankton that drive the earth's biogeochem cycles

>totally equivalent

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5281360]

>>5281351
you don't know much about the role of marine microflora in the global ecosystem, huh?

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5281367]

>>5281316
found it:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6836/abs/411469a0.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1993.tb00508.x/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-3040.1999.00433.x/full

[Anonymous No.5281382]

>>5281360
What I know about the marine microflora is that it's diverse, robust, and highly adaptable, moreso than any other subset of life on Earth, and therefore there is a very big difference between harmful effects to certain species, and wiping it all out or otherwise rendering it unable to play its role in the greater ecosystem.

If conditions change to be unfavorable to some species, particularly through processes as generally beneficial as warmer temperatures and greater CO2 availability, other species will thrive in their place.

If you're going to make a dramatic claim like, "we could kill the bacteria and phytoplankton that drive the earth's biogeochem cycles", you need to back that up with something more than references that show "we could inconvenience some species of bacteria and phytoplankton in a way that doesn't significantly affect the earth's biogeochem cycles".

[Anonymous No.5281385]

>>5281342
It wouldn't directly boost plant growth, but it has a dramatic effect on how much water intake a plant needs to survive (something to the order of half the water with double [CO2].

Well I'm mostly curious how much research has gone into the actual effects of global warming and CO2 concentrations on the biosphere. Like I often hear tied in with the idea of global warming that there will be increased desertification. To actually prove that scientifically would be an immense undertaking.
It's clear that the earth is warming, and a little unclear why. Humans most likely have a part.
But at this point does anyone think we can change anything? And from some evolutionary perspectives 100 years isn't too different from 1000 years, so is there any point in slowing it? It seems the most useful research would be in studying the biology and figuring out whether there is anything to worry about, and what we can do to help. At this point the actual climate science seems less useful.

[Anonymous No.5281393]

>>5281385
It boosts growth, too. CO2 is commonly the limiting factor even when water is plentiful.

They often enrich the atmosphere in greenhouses with CO2. In extreme cases, this can increase crop yield tenfold.

[Anonymous No.5281417]

>>5281367
The last source was relevant, but it was investigating the effect on pine needles, which are designed to conserve water already, so there wasn't a reduction of water use. There was still an increase in growth though.

[Anonymous No.5281421]

As much as I hate the politicization of a scientific issue, Al Gore summed it up quite nicely recently:

"There are at least 15 deeply researched separate lines of evidence that all confirm man-made global warming. They are all consistent, each with the others. Every National Academy of Science on the planet agrees with the consensus. The Academies describe the evidence as “indisputable”. Every professional scientific society in every field related to climate science and earth science also agree. And 97-98% of climate scientists worldwide most actively publishing also agree. Animals and plants also agree — in that they are moving their ranges by latitude and altitude to find climate niches similar to the ones in which they evolved. Even if you leave climate science completely out of it and just measure extreme temperatures, the statistical record of global temperatures shows that three-standard deviation events have increased from 0.25% of the time (from 1951-1980) to 10% of the time now. There is as strong a consensus as you will find in science, with the possible exception of the existence of gravity."

[Anonymous No.5281434]

>>5281421
Sorry, but I don't agree that's a nice summation. Mostly because he never cited any proof of MAN-made global warming, and he mostly appealed to authority (not that it invalidates them, but it invalidates him). And the hyperbole.

[Anonymous No.5281443]

>>5281434

Don't be deliberately obtuse, he's trying to convey information to the masses. The hyperbole was just a little humor to illustrate his point.

And this "appeal to authority" shit is reductio ad absurdum. Since you yourself didn't derive the calculus, do you then not believe it because trusting Newton and all the other people that say it works would be an "appeal to authority"?

[Anonymous No.5281452]

>>5281443
If it's an appeal to the masses why are you posting it on a science board? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, it's not a nice summary.

[Anonymous No.5281455]

>>5281443
>he's trying to convey information to the masses.
No, he's trying to manipulate the masses with misleading information.

What he's trying to sell is a professional consensus among climate scientists that we're on the brink of disaster and need to take dramatic action immediately. The actual "consensus" is more along the lines that the global temperature has increased slightly in the last century and human activity has contributed some non-zero amount.

For a guy who claims to hate "politicization of a science issue", you pick a strange guy to quote.

[Anonymous No.5281457]

>>5281455

There is nothing in that paragraph that hints at "brink of disaster." And the information is not misleading, he is stating verifiable facts.

[Anonymous No.5281472]

>>5281457
>There are at least 15 deeply researched separate lines of evidence that all confirm man-made global warming.
That's a pretty soft "fact".

>Every National Academy of Science on the planet agrees with the consensus.
Note that he doesn't specify what consensus.

>The Academies describe the evidence as “indisputable”.
...or what evidence.

>And 97-98% of climate scientists worldwide most actively publishing also agree.
What does this even mean? Of those "most actively publishing", 97-98% also agree? Agree with what?

>three-standard deviation events have increased from 0.25% of the time (from 1951-1980) to 10% of the time now.
From vagueness to technobabble. "he's trying to convey information to the masses."

>There is as strong a consensus as you will find in science, with the possible exception of the existence of gravity.
Again, what consensus? And you can call this a joke, but let's be honest that it's a mischaracterization.

[Anonymous No.5281486]

>>5281472
>there's this consensus that man-made global warming is real and bad
>what consensus, I demand to see this consensu
Are you really that dense or are you really that dishonest?

[Anonymous No.5281493]

It's so tiresome seeing threads full of teenagers acting pseudo-intellectual. First, someone brings up a topic (like climate change) that has already been discussed to death. There are a trillion published papers on the subject, all just waiting for your stupid, lazy asses to find and read them. Second, the thread gets about three posts long before it devolves completely into semantics and basically two of the loudest and dumbest of the bunch arguing over what "ad hominem" means because one of them just saw that phrase in another thread two days ago and thought it was edgy. How stupid do you have to be to think that anyone even moderately educated gives two shits what you say here? Oh no, that anonymous guy just accused you of using an "ad hominem" argument -- QUICK, you'd better defend yourself before you look dumb in front of all the other fucking stupid teenagers jerking off in this thread.

[sage No.5281494]

sage
>>5281486
>are you really that dishonest?
of course he is

[Anonymous No.5281503]

>>5281494
I know, I'm just perversely interested in seeing what mealy-mouthed denialist dogma he's willing to drag out next.

[Anonymous No.5281515]

>>5281472

>>evidence that all confirms man-made global warming
>>man-made global warming
>>academies of science agree with this consensus
>HURR WHAT CONSENSUS
>not knowing what standard deviation means or the relevance of something that is "three-standard deviations" from the norm (a very very basic statistical measure)

Why are you here? Holy fuck you are retarded.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5281540]

>>5281493
looks like we just got told

[Anonymous No.5281921]

>>5281493
b-but muh /sci/ culture

[Anonymous No.5282000]

>>5280460
>Is there any actual scientific proof that global warming is happening
There's scientific proof of very low quality. This is to be discarded due to confirmation bias and polarisation/politicalization of the scientific process in climate studies.

We have definite proof that CO2 is increasing but we need a lot more studies and a lot more observation to determine that it's the magic disaster causer. Most likely it's not, given that CO2 levels in prehistoric times have been extremely much higher and still the temperatures were not rampantly runaway and at the same time histotric(medival warmth period) was very warm without any notable CO2 release.

The scientific process when it comes to climate change is poisoned and corrupt. Stay out of it because both sides are filled with ideologically aligned persons that will not listen to any form of reason.

[Anonymous No.5282007]

>>5282000
and your evidence that an entire field of scientists have been bought and are engaging in a massive world-wide conspiracy is...

[Anonymous No.5282064]

>>5282000
>Stay out of it
No thanks. It's important. So is the prospect of global cooling: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1739596655001/greenpeace-co-founder-dont-worry-about-global-warming/

[Anonymous No.5282085]

>>5282000
Medieval warm period has been discounted, since it wasn't a global phenomenon.

Also, saying that prehistoric warm periods with CO2 disqualify our current worries is like saying that an apartment fire is nothing to worry about since the sun is very hot.

>>5282064
And Greenpeace has a very poor track record as to their connection with the real world.

[Anonymous No.5282108]

>>5282000
How is it of low quality? Have you read any of it? All of it? The thousands of easily accessible peer-reviewed articles?

[Anonymous No.5282110]

>>5280781
authority ≠ a bunch of people with the data to back up their authority

[Anonymous No.5282114]

>>5282000
Increased CO2 leads to ocean acidification. Even if you don't believe in global warming, if the oceans continue to acidify we're fucked.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5282297]

>>5282108
I posted multiple high-quality sources above, but n one will read them.
>>5282114
yes, but no one here seems to accept that.
despite my extensive evidence.