/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6483512]

What's the truth about global warming?

I'm sick of hearing people argue about it.

I know very little on the issue myself. But I have the sneaking suspicion it's almost all bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6483517]

Gad damn. People like you are the fucking problem. Instead of going on a feeling or intuition read some fucking research papers on it and draw a conclusion for yourself. You admit you know very little about it, so how the fuck do you think you should draw a conclusion based on a suspicion. Feel less and think more, plebeian.

[Anonymous No.6483519]

>>6483517
I prefer a diversity of opinions on the subject. Of course most of these studies come from lobbies with an agenda and not an interest in pursuing an honest intellectual discourse.

[Anonymous No.6483527]

>>6483519
>People who merely measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations bias the data
Tell me how.

[Anonymous No.6483530]

>>6483519
>Wants to avoid "biased" studies
>Asks for opinions on /sci/
Christ you're pissing me off.

[Anonymous No.6483532]

>Is there global warming?
Not for the last 20 years.

>Is there climate change?
Of course, you moron.

>Is climate change we are currently seeing human caused?
That's the debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

If you believe that modern climate change is human caused, then you must account for the past 20 years of zero temperature increases. If you believe the process is natural, then the recent jump in global temperatures is just an outlier.

People are either in one camp or the other. And the people in the former camp have far more to prove than the skeptics.

[Anonymous No.6483533]

/sci/ is the most anti-environmental, pro-business board on the site.

You're better off asking this question on /g/.

[Anonymous No.6483536]

>I want to believe in CC but muh cognitive dissonance is preventing me

[Anonymous No.6483538]

>>6483517
I got into an argument about this earlier today. Some stoner fucks were complaining that a study about recreational weed use was too biased. They were whining about a conservative bias due to funding. Too bad they hadn't read the actual study which just reported data. I was mad.

[Anonymous No.6483539]

>>6483533
That's because it is full of autistic 12 year olds who are learning about capitalism and hate regulation and facts

[Anonymous No.6483541]

>>6483527
Not OP.
Nothing wrong with noting CO2 levels, but pointing at it and saying "See!? Global warming!" is where the bias comes in.
Hell, first they were worried about global cooling, then they changed it to global warming when that trend didn't hold up, now the warming trend failed and they just call it "Global Climate Change". They keep changing their predictions without acknowledging that their theories were falsified, making them pretty shit-tier scientists.
>>6483512
OP: It's Solar cycles. The temperature keeps switching around due to the Sun. There's very little we can do about it. Still probably a bad idea to put shit in the air due to things like:
>Acid rain
>Smog
>Breathing problems
>Killing various organisms
Not apocalypse-inducing catastrophes, but not desirable, either.

[Anonymous No.6483542]

>>6483538
This this this this this. People need to see that "studies" don't report an opinion, they merely indicate what their data found.

[Anonymous No.6483540]

>>6483539
Facts like how none of the climate change predictions matched reality?

[Anonymous No.6483543]

>>6483542
The problem is that most people never actually read a "study." They read press releases. That isn't bad since a lot of the formal studies are really technical, but they need to realize where the bias is from

[Anonymous No.6483544]

>>6483541
So much this. The enviromental movement is too caught up on reducing carbon emissions and not focusing on things like Chinese pollution.

[Anonymous No.6483548]

>>6483544
If Xi Jinping can't get the population to stop spitting in public, how's he going to stop them from running air conditioning with their windows open and all sorts of other dumb shit?

[Anonymous No.6483560]

>>28933620

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490#

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ?Greatest Scam in History?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history

Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate
http://www.wired.com/2009/11/climate-hack/

Is Climate Change Being Used to Promote Socialism
http://open.salon.com/blog/lastdaysdeceptionnews/2010/07/07/is_climate_change_being_used_to_promote_socialism

Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=622452

Official_ Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7670/Official-Satellite-Failure-Means-Decade-of-Global-Warming-Data-Doubtful--All-data-taken-offline-in-shock-move

Geoengineering could have 'catastrophic consequences', warn scientists
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2568601/Geoengineering-catastrophic-consequences-Schemes-control-Earths-climate-backfire-warn-scientists.html

When you've finished all that, then go watch Ben Stein's documentary, "Expelled". (If you don't tow the line, when it comes to agendas, you don't get hired, you don't get research $$, you don't get tenure.

[Anonymous No.6483572]

>>6483560
I have the strange feeling that with all this "debate" about climate, everybody is just avoiding to treat the real problem: pollution.

Increasing pollution of all types is a fact, is happening now, almost everywhere, and kill more and more people every-year.

I don't fucking care to know if the temperature in 50years will be increased by 2°c.

But I don't want to eat trisomic beef.

[Anonymous No.6483577]

>>6483532
This graph is about as scientific as the inside of my anus. I like how there is almost no patern in the scale on the x axis

[Anonymous No.6483601]

Anyone who says milankovitch cycles are causing us to get warmer is a fucking moron because they are currently in a cooling trend. They also have a greater effect than the variability in the sun's irradiance which is cyclic anyway.

[Anonymous No.6483635]

>>6483512
I'll just give you a little tidbit of information that is essentially the 'source' of all of this, and it's something most non-scientists are probably unaware of.

What you should know is, _theory_ supports the idea of global warming.
and I'm not talking about bullshit climate models, what I mean is that the theory backing it up is so solid that it's used as an example in my undergraduate textbook on thermodynamics.

Particles in the air do reflect light back to Earth and light does carry energy, so it heats the Earth. It's then a simple task to write a differential equation to show the rate at which light enters Earth from space and the rate at which light leaves the Earth (some of it is reflected back down)
the amount of trapped light depends on the composition of the air.

These are not surprising results. It's called the "greenhouse" effect for a reason.. Because _greenhouses_ do this every day, more light is trapped than is allowed to exit the greenhouse and it heats up.

We even have a _physical_ observation to back up the fact that air composition is a factor, just look at the planet Venus.


TL;DR
Theory supports global warming. That still doesn't mean it's right though. But I can tell you that IF global warming is wrong, then there would HAVE to be some other factor that lightens the greenhouse effect.
The burden of finding that missing factor lies with the people who argue against global warming. (is it the ocean absorbing CO2? Well the oceans are actually getting more acidic, so ya that could be it, but they will reach a limit, so this is actually another point in favor of the danger of global warming)

[Anonymous No.6483656]

>>6483635
This is 100% correct.
/thread

[Anonymous No.6483708]

>>6483512
Global warming (they call it "climate change" now) is definitely happening. That is a scientific fact that is supported by data (average global temperature).

The controversy is about if mankind's production of greenhouse gasses (CO2 mainly) is the direct cause, or not. The verdict is still out on this despite the pervasive dogma on either side.

[Anonymous No.6483723]

>>6483512

there will be pros and cons of global warming. and man might be a cause, but not the only cause, and maybe not even a cause.

[Anonymous No.6485276]

>>6483542
The data is always "the data." It gets "corrected," in a way that always makes warming seem more extreme.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.

Documented on the NOAA website with their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

[Anonymous No.6485298]

>>6483723
but the very point should be >>6483572, no?

[Anonymous No.6485314]

>>6485276
so does this just mean that we're getting more accurate at reporting the actual temperature, which was consistently above reported temp, and that the warming trend was just an accuracy correction over the last century?

[Anonymous No.6485487]

>>6485314

It does seem that a lot of the warming trend was created by a "correction" to the data.

[Anonymous No.6485494]

>>6483572
>Increasing pollution of all types
That's not true at all. Of some types. Western big cities are generally much less polluted now than they were 50 years ago. Also CFC pollution was almost stopped.

[Anonymous No.6485495]

>>6483708

What is lost in all this discussion is that most of the added CO2 to the atmosphere comes from the ocean. Warming ocean water is LESS soluble for CO2... Creating a CO2 source from the oceans.

[Anonymous No.6485499]

>>6485495

The oceans are becoming more acidic, dipshit. It's because they were not saturated with CO2, and now more CO2 is dissolving.

[Anonymous No.6485502]

>>6485495

>CO2 coming from the ocean
>not dissolving into the ocean

Back to high school chemistry for you!

[Anonymous No.6485529]

As a proportion of the CO2 in the air near sea level, the oceans are absorbing less because of warming. Do you understand now?

[Anonymous No.6485532]

>>6483512
I agree anon. A lot of people tell me gravity is real, but I don't believe them. I prefer a diversity of opinions.

[Anonymous No.6485537]

>>6485499

Which part of that solubility graph don't you understand? There's a reason why CO2 goes up (in the ice core record) 800 years AFTER temps go up. Fundamentally, a warming ocean is a CO2 source. See

Ocean carbon pumps - Analysis of relative strengths and efficiencies in ocean-driven atmospheric CO2 changes.

Authors: Volk, T.; Hoffert, M. I.

Abstract: The carbonate, soft tissue, and solubility 'pump' processes by which the steady state distribution of CO2 at the ocean surface is depleted relative to that at depth are treated. While the first two result from the biological flux of organic and CaCO3 detritus at the ocean's surface, the third is due to the increased CO2 solubility in downwelling cold water. Using alkalinity, nitrate, and steady state CO2 to remove the carbonate pump signal from ocean or model data, the individual working strengths of the soft tissue and solubility pumps can be calculated by an upscaling of soft tissue's Delta-CO2 distribution to the surface-to-deep Delta-PO4. Analysis of global ocean data indicates a positive solubility pump signal.

http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v032/GM032p0099/GM032p0099.pdf

[Anonymous No.6485616]

>>6485537
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A

[Anonymous No.6485624]

>fact: the ratio of climate scientists who believe global warming is a real phenomenon caused by humans to the number of climate scientists who don't is the same as the ratio of doctors who believe smoking contributes to lung cancer to those who don't
Basically, if you're not a doctor but believe smoking can give you lung cancer, but aren't a climatologist and don't believe global warming is a human-caused problem, you are dumb.

[Anonymous No.6485979]

Caution: Image contains text.

[Anonymous No.6485981]

>>6483519
>I prefer a diversity of opinions on the subject. Of course most of these studies come from lobbies with an agenda and not an interest in pursuing an honest intellectual discourse.

The rage... The rage my god.....

[Anonymous No.6485982]

>>6483560
You cited the daily fucking mail. Your argument means nothing.

[Anonymous No.6485985]

>>6483532
this graph has been fabricated i know that for a fact.

[Anonymous No.6485987]

The truth is we don't fucking knows, people are predicting things that matter in a hundred years, but people can adapt changes with technology.

Trolls tend to troll on things that we don't fucking know, just like what they derp about God in the past. For example, some trolls use findings on global warming (which consists of mostly wildass guesses, because we don't fucking know how/when will global warming happens and its impact) and claim that "science is based on consensus of scientific community" and there are god words like "scientific consensus".

[Anonymous No.6485988]

>>6483708
>The verdict is still out on this despite the pervasive dogma on either side.

Fucking idiots all over this fucking thread thinking they know shit my God.

http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

No the verdict is not out on this, this is coming from someone who is involved on a day to day basis with these kind of researchers.

[Anonymous No.6485991]

>>6485987
and these "who knows?" areas are the most attractive to the trolls, they make oxymorons and misuse our language as if they are babies (like, use "scientific" on pretty much anything), they do these so they can slowly destroy ideas/culture.

[Anonymous No.6486007]

>>6483512
>I know very little on the issue myself. But I have the sneaking suspicion it's almost all bullshit.
Really? So what physical process do you believe is responsible for what the greenhouse effect explains? Or do you believe that greenhouse gases can disappear from the atmosphere faster than they physically can?
>>6483541
Actually, "climate change" gained popularity as a term when denialists started using it the same way you seem to be. It has nothing to do with the global warming phenomenon, which is an increased greenhouse effect. Of course temperature changes are generally dictated by the sun, but global warming means warm days are warmer and cool days aren't as cool.

[Anonymous No.6486520]

>>6485494
nitpicking...
yes, of some types.
Several, numerous types.
Enough to feel concerned.

[Anonymous No.6486598]

Panic has started to set in among the denialist crowd as events in the real world have started to shift public opinion against them.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/when-the-west-side-highway-was-underwater/

[Anonymous No.6486602]

>>6483512
>sick of people arguing about it
>so i'll make a thread about it on 4chan

You're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.6486638]

>>6483532
>And the people in the former camp have far more to prove than the skeptics.
I don't think they do. The thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies that support human-induced climate change compared to the handful that don't would suggest that there is quantitatively more scientific proof for it than against it.

Ethically speaking, the skeptics are the ones who hold the burden of proof, as per the precautionary principle, that is if an action (like emitting greenhouse gases in this case) is suspected of causing harm, it us up to those claiming it does not to prove so, basically a "better safe than sorry" approach to the situation.

[Anonymous No.6486659]

I don't understand the "must...maintain...status...quo" mentality, personally.

You see it in a lot more places that climate debates, too.

Academic and science fields included...

[Anonymous No.6486673]

>>6486638
>Ethically speaking, the skeptics are the ones who hold the burden of proof, as per the precautionary principle, that is if an action (like emitting greenhouse gases in this case) is suspected of causing harm, it us up to those claiming it does not to prove so, basically a "better safe than sorry" approach to the situation.
please don't mix ethics and logic like that

your use of "burden of proof" depends on whether everyone involved signs on to a "better safe than sorry" approach - assuming that to be the case hurts you more than it helps