/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6772014]

Did humans create or bring about global warming OR is it a cyclical event that would have taken place without the influence of humans?

[Anonymous No.6772021]

God fucking damn it.

[Anonymous No.6772024]

>>6772014
Nah bro, it's us.
Sorry.

[Anonymous No.6772032]

>>6772014
Everybody knows about the ice age. Not everyone knows there was a Desert age or two back then as well.

[Anonymous No.6772655]

>>6772032
>there was a Desert age or two
L0Lno
Creationist College student detected

[Anonymous No.6772662]

>>6772014
Yes, one billion automobiles spread around the globe pumping shit into the atmosphere every second combined with waste products from industry plus the fart gas of a trillion cows eating synthetic hormone ass is all every natural.

[Anonymous No.6772694]

>>6772655
Nigger please explain how it came to be that during the first evolutionary bottleneck all the deserts got a shit ton bigger.

Thats a desert age.

Dumbass.

>fedora wearing college student detected

[no u No.6772696]

religious person detected

[Anonymous No.6773290]

>>6772014
Both. It's a dynamic system with multiple variables that humans have have done much to alter. The system would have kept going whether humans are there or not, but that doesn't mean we can't affect the system.

[Anonymous No.6773298]

>>6772024
Overly simplified graphs are fun!

[Anonymous No.6773348]

[Anonymous No.6774775]

>>6772694
>a desert age
butthurt Creationist College student detected

[Anonymous No.6774800]

>>6773348
False and misleading argument. Termites don't emit that much CO2, and even if they did, they are part of the natural cycle of carbon emission and sequestration. The rise in atmospheric CO2 wasn't caused by termites, it was caused by man, because the way we emit that carbon is not attached to the the carbon cycle.

[Anonymous No.6775055]

>>6772014
I would like to tell you, but my post would be removed and I'd be banned. Following reddit obediently, differing theories concerning AGW are censored here in order to maintain the fragile "consensus" even though the majority of the population disagrees

[test No.6775056]

$env X='() { (a)=>\' sh -c "echo date"; cat echo

[test No.6775057]

env X="() { :;} ; echo busted" `which bash` -c "echo completed"

[Anonymous No.6775105]

>>6773298

None of these earlier shifts in climate would have been enough to impact a technological civilisation like ours?

[Anonymous No.6775107]

>>6775055
But this post won't get removed even though it sends the same message across?
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6775110]

>>6775055
>consensus
>fragile
Pick one

[Anonymous No.6775113]

>>6772694
You are a moron

[Anonymous No.6775119]

>>6772014
Yes OP, it is real, it is our fault, we can't stop it

[Anonymous No.6775609]

>>6772014
no OP, it's all natural. we can continue polluting the environment and releasing all kinds of chemicals. the earth will fix it, that's what it has been doing since a few million years and 100 years ago like noone cared about it either.

[Anonymous No.6775723]

Friendly reminder that the vast bulk of climate change denialist funding comes from fundamentalist Christians.

[Anonymous No.6775978]

>>6775723

>Friendly reminder that the vast bulk of climate change denialist funding comes from fundamentalist Christians.

I always thought it was the oil companies.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628

Then again, Roy Spencer.

[Anonymous No.6775994]

>>6772024
>lel im gonna put two different data sets with different errors into the same chart
I guess some of the co2 rise is anthropogenic, but that doesnt mean that this is a bad thing. more co2 is very good for the growth of plants, and these can fixate surplus co2 again. if we build more stuff from wood, instead of bruning it, then we would be most fine.

[Anonymous No.6775996]

>>6775056
>>6775057
wtf happens when I put that into my shell

[Anonymous No.6776000]

>>6773298
>there have been periods of time in earth's past without any temperature changes and these periods of time were 100 million years long
wow

[Anonymous No.6776005]

the jews are behind global warming. The white race cannot stand higher temps or direct UV exposure as well as blacks and other minorities.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE

[Anonymous No.6776132]

>>6776005
Actually black people are more susceptible to skin cancer than whites, statistically.

but the jews thing is true. In fact, it's one of the truest things itt

[Anonymous No.6776314]

climate change happens naturally.
but not to the same extent or as quickly as now.

[Anonymous No.6776492]

>>6776132
Statisticly africa is full of them

[Anonymous No.6776551]

>>6775055

It's actually just to keep shitposting down while allowing containment boards like /pol/ to properly contain shitposters. The quality of this place was multitudes better before all the gender/warming/racial "realism" /pol/ shit arrived.

[Anonymous No.6776590]

>>6776492
statistically asia is full of asians,
south america is full of spics/indians,
india is full of indians,
europe is full of whites, etc.

what is your point?

[Anonymous No.6776681]

>>6772014
Previously, there were parrots in Scandinavia. Then there was two miles of ice on the British Isles. Now is just right.

Global warming is happening on Mars right now. In 100 years, the southern polar cap may be gone.

[Anonymous No.6776973]

>>6776681
You're an idiot if you think 'global warming' is happening on Mars. These threads are idiotic and belong on /pol/ because of statements like yours.

[Anonymous No.6777103]

>>6772014

I like the idea of it being a cyclical process. We are influencing things with all of our crap, but the warm periods don't have all the plagues and doom as the colder periods.

[Anonymous No.6777762]

>>6775055
>I would like to tell you, but I'm a victim of censorship
grow a pair

[Anonymous No.6777768]

>>6775055
The worst thing they can do is ban you. You act like being banned from this shithole is a bad thing. They aren't going to kick your door in and burn your house down, dude-bro.

>evolve bigger genitalia

[Anonymous No.6777818]

>>6775105
>None of these earlier shifts in climate would have been enough to impact a technological civilisation like ours?

The thing that bothers me the most is that this thing, techno-civilization, is the only consideration put forth by the vast number of comments. What about all the other lifeforms on the planet? How is it we can't say, sacrifice by walking instead of driving, not buying a new iShitphoneX, not buy food out of season imported from 1000s of miles away?

Why do we we just assume we are all going to stay addicted to destructive habits and shit? We not just give that shit up? Its not bad, I've been doing it for years. I don't get it though I see people wasting their lives working to pay the bills on a car...? Because they think they'll be happy b/c they'll be able to buy a fitter hotter wife or some shit? Its all a scam, the Earth is your birthright, and everybody's taking a dump on it.

[Anonymous No.6777823]

>>6775994
>I guess some of the co2 rise is anthropogenic, (all of the rise)
>but that doesnt mean that this is a bad thing.
(It might destroy life as we know it)
>more co2 is very good for the growth of plants,
(research suggests otherwise)
>and these can fixate surplus co2 again.
(plants don't fix CO2)

>if we build more stuff from wood, instead of bruning it, then we would be most fine.

Ahh, fuck.

[Anonymous No.6777944]

There is no way 1C rise in global temp over only 100 years is apart of a "natural cycle" .

[Anonymous No.6777963]

>>6777818
because all of those sacrifices are big business, which means jobs, which means money, which is much more important to 99% of people.
I'm not saying it's right, just true.

[Anonymous No.6778644]

World Leaders Agree: Climate Change Must Happen Now

[Anonymous No.6778676]

We'll hit peak and then we'll go to nuclear. No one is going to be willing to switch off carbon until peak do the whole debate is really pretty moot.

Hopefully we'll hit peak sooner than later because nuclear is better in every way anyways.

[Anonymous No.6778682]

>>6776132

For what I knew however, white tends to "compensate" that soemwhat by being more prone to sunburns, which in turn are a risk factor for skin cancer

[Anonymous No.6778986]

>>6772014
The poles have frozen and thawed many times in the past; they will do so many times in the future; to say these things are anthropogenic is vain arrogance.

[Anonymous No.6778991]

>>6778986
>The poles have frozen and thawed many times in the past; they will do so many times in the future; to say these things are anthropogenic is vain arrogance.
I don't understand this argument, arrogance is meaningless, what is important is whether something is true or not.

[Anonymous No.6779087]

>>6773298

>Changes over tens of millions of years

Yeah thats comparable to changes over a couple hundred lol that graph only proves the problem.

[Anonymous No.6779093]

>>6778986

You sound exactly like those people who scoffed at the idea that humans could an animal to go extinct.

[Anonymous No.6779179]

>>6778676
Can we all agree:
> thorium > hydro > solar = wind > uranium > hydrocarbon
> fusion: special neverever tier

[Anonymous No.6779219]

If you don't want Leonardo to cry, you better believe in Climate Change.

[Anonymous No.6779226]

>Only another C or two until we literally recause the Permian mass extinction event

[Anonymous No.6779258]

Fact: Everyone "discussing" in this thread is retarded.

How do I know this for a fact? Well, CC is one of the very few sciences that has the consensus published yearly. See: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

The only people "discussing" in threads like these are people who never read something that requires effort (actual science). Instead they read blogs, watch youtube videos and think there's a simple "Yes/No" answer.

[Anonymous No.6779712]

>>6779258

Fact: Science isn't a popularity contest.
Fact: 97% of scientists are paid by government and government doesn't give grants to "deniers."

[Anonymous No.6779831]

>>6773298
I don't think many climate scientists claim CO2 is the only climate forcing factor:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-past-climate-change.html

[Anonymous No.6779874]

>b-but teh climate change is NATCHURL
... sez teh faggot who wouldn't know NATCHURL if it climbed into his ass.

[Anonymous No.6779886]

>>6779831
>http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-past-climate-change.html

Please! There's not a greater set of disingenuous, if not downright liars than John Cook and Co.

Joanne Nova has never said that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas. So we get this "lie by misrepresentation" from Simpleton Science.

[Anonymous No.6779909]

>>6779886
It appears that you did not even read the rebuttal. The main alternative forcing of climate being talked about was not another greenhouse gas, but the sun. There was 4% less solar radiation during those times of significantly higher CO2 concentration. Thus, the radiative forcing balances out.

[Anonymous No.6779976]

>>6779909

That's not what this guy said:
>>6779831

But that aside, assume the 94% of solar luminosity at the Paleozoic age, which according to the assumption of their reference is monotonically increasing (and treated linearly).

Meanwhile max temperatures in their graphic stay constant (except for dips now and then). And SkS Boyz say this is because of decreasing CO2 concentration which is countering increasing solar luminosity. Except the decrease is NOT monotonic.

Both solar luminosity and CO2 are INCREASING from about 300 million to 150 million years ago. Yet global temp quickly peaks and stays flat; showing that CO2 ain't driving things.

The Simpleton "Scientists" fail again, with another of their "just so" stories.

[Anonymous No.6779979]

>>6779976

I meant 96% luminosity

[Anonymous No.6779983]

who cares? either way we need to stop polluting so much and use renewable energy or we will all die. The argument is a distraction. We sure didn't help anything I'll tell you that.

[Anonymous No.6780050]

>>6779976
That guy (me) said that that not many climate scientists claim CO2 is the only climate forcing factor. That does not mean I was talking about greenhouse gasses. The sun can be a forcing factor. The point was, just because the CO2 levels and temperature record haven't always correlated in the past does not mean that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

Look at the uncertainty bar on the CO2 concentration before 300 million years. You can't claim with certainty that the decrease is not monotonic.

CO2 concentrations also peak before 150 million years. And as I have already mentioned, CO2 isn't the only driving factor here. Aside from the sun, there are things like - quoting "simpleton scientists" again - continental drift, Milankovitch cycles, ocean variability, as well as plant life and the like.

If you would actually look at my source, the reference graph they use with the combined total radiative forcing, it about levels at 200 million, not long after you say it peaks.

And as far as "CO2 ain't driving things." What do you have to say about the K-T boundary at 65 million years?

[Anonymous No.6780068]

>>6777823
>(It might destroy life as we know it)

>might
>or might not?

>(research suggests otherwise)
>(plants don't fix CO2)
better read your books once more, sugar is made from co2

>Ahh, fuck.
you are a troll, right

[Anonymous No.6780072]

>>6777823
>plants dont fix co2
muh 6 CO2 + 6 H2O -> C6H12O6 + 6 O2

[Anonymous No.6780085]

>>6780050

I was expecting this massive avalanche of uncertainty. Once you put that on the table, all bets are off. And that goes both ways.

>CO2 concentrations also peak before 150 million years.
Sorry, 170 million years which is significantly more recent than the temp peaking at about 250 million years. You're really splitting hairs.

>And as far as "CO2 ain't driving things." What do you have to say about the K-T boundary at 65 million years?
The K-T boundary? Where temps start going down? Not sure what your point is, CO2 started going down at about 170 million years. So temps affect life much more than CO2? Is that your point? Or are you trying to say that it takes 105 million years for CO2 to make it's temperature effect?

Anyway, the hiding behind uncertainty was completely expected. If the data looks good for the theory, its "evidence" if it doesn't fit, then hide behind uncertainty. This is one of the ways that Climate "Science" maintains its unfalsifiability.

[Anonymous No.6780094]

>>6772662
It's a drop in the bucket ,you imbecile.
If you've seen much of the world you'd know that man's works are insignificant.

[Anonymous No.6780103]

>>6774800
yes because Man is not natural, having come from another planet or something.

[Anonymous No.6780112]

>>6775110
I think he means that what is currently referred to as consensus is just a few wingnuts agreeing with each other. I mean, Michael E Mann even said he would destroy his "evidence" rather than let it be examined.

[Anonymous No.6780117]

>>6778676
Thank goodness "peak is a few hundred years down the road

[Anonymous No.6780118]

>>6779909
Well its certainly not like Joanne Nova doesn't believe in solar forcing...

Honestly I am so sick of SkS strawman arguments. That's pretty much all they do. Construct a very long winded "answer" to an Evil Denier, where the criticism "answered" is just a strawman and not the actual critique. Because, you know, it hard to defend a "science" with an excremental level of predictive success.

[Anonymous No.6780120]

>>6780085
I said 150, not 250.

>The K-T boundary? Where temps start going down? Not sure what your point is, CO2 started going down at about 170 million years. So temps affect life much more than CO2? Is that your point? Or are you trying to say that it takes 105 million years for CO2 to make it's temperature effect?

The more you respond, the more certain I am that you aren't going to make any effort to read my source. The K-T boundary at 65 million years is when the huge impact that is said to have wiped out the dinosaurs happened. This impact vaporized rock and released enough CO2 to raise the concentration from around 400 to about 2300 ppm. You don't see that in the graph because the time period was so short that it only registers as a blip in the 10 million year averaged concentration data.

Along with that blip, you see a peak in the temperature record that was a result of that event.

The evidence doesn't fit? I was just pointing out that you can't claim as certainly as you did that the concentration did not decrease monotonically. Even without the assumption of monotonic decrease, the combined total radiative forcing graph (which means combined CO2 and solar radiative forcings) shows correlates fairly well with the rise and drops of temperatures.

[Anonymous No.6780180]

>>6780120

>I said 150, not 250.
Christ you're disingenuous. You could work for SkS. Heck, don't you desperately wish you could rewrite the history of posting, just like they do at SkS?

I DIDN'T SAY THAT YOU SAID 250. I said temps peak at 250, while you were trying to imply that peaking CO2 BEFORE 150 on par with temps peaking. Now that I called you on it, you're pretending the implication wasn't there and implying that I said that you claimed 250. I didn't.

>The evidence doesn't fit? I was just pointing out that you can't claim as certainly as you did that the concentration did not decrease monotonically. Even without the assumption of monotonic decrease, the combined total radiative forcing graph (which means combined CO2 and solar radiative forcings) shows correlates fairly well with the rise and drops of temperatures.

In other words, we're hiding behind uncertainty. But yet it "correlates fairly well." NO. You can't have it both ways. If its that uncertain, then the correlation is uncertain. You're doing the usual warmist trick of "heads I win, tails you lose." NO. Your only conclusion is that things are uncertain.

And the K-T thing? From the precious heart of SkS propaganda:
"According to Beerling et al (2002) the impact pushed atmospheric CO2 levels up from 350-500 ppm to approx 2,300 ppm, which would have been sufficient to warm the Earth’s surface by »7.5°C in the absence of counter forcing by sulfate aerosols."

Ah yes, lets pretend that when the meteor struck (if that is the cause) there's not that massive dust cloud causing global winter, killing the dinosaurs. Nope, it got warm after years of global winter thanks to high CO2. (Spike not in the graph, because this is all wild speculation.), So dinosaurs braved the brutal global cooling, then died in droves by heat strokes; and this proves Climate Change. Whatever.

Gosh your disingenuousness, sloppiness and trying to have your cake and eat it too (data "proves" AGW yet is uncertain) is nauseating.

[Anonymous No.6780223]

>>6780180
I misread you, Christ. I apologize.

Read this damn graph. The radiative forcing levels out at close to 250 million years. This is my entire point. The rest is noise that you can draw a line through. That fits decently with the temperature rise and drop.

I AM NOT HIDING BEHIND UNCERTAINTY. You are the one that claimed with certainty that the decrease was not monotonic. I was just pointing out that you can't claim that with certainty. This graph here. The one that I'm posting, is not based on a monotonic decrease of CO2 like you claimed. It is based on a monotonic increase of solar activity, but the radiative forcing contribution used in the calculation of this data is directly taken from the data points of CO2 concentration on the graph. Otherwise, why would there be so much noise in this graph if both sets of data were linearly changing?

>And the K-T thing? From the precious heart of SkS propaganda:
"According to Beerling et al (2002) the impact pushed atmospheric CO2 levels up from 350-500 ppm to approx 2,300 ppm, which would have been sufficient to warm the Earth’s surface by »7.5°C in the absence of counter forcing by sulfate aerosols."

Read this rest:
"Interestingly Nova’s source had in turn also misrepresented its own sources, as the temperature reconstruction which the graph at Figure 3 draws upon (see here) shows temperature as increasing from approx. 25°C to approx. 28°C at the K-T boundary, as opposed to the 22°C to 25°C jump shown in the graph. This 3°C increase is consistent with the predictions of Beerling et al’s paper when the counter forcing of aerosols is taken into account."

The 7.5 degree increase is without considering aerosols. The aerosols are accounted for later on.

[Anonymous No.6780232]

>>6780180
Bruh, your arguents are completely moot.
Do you know what the Madden-Julian Oscillation is?

Do you know what the Ferrell Cell is? Or what causes it?

Do you understand what factors lead to monsoons?

Do you know why the tropopause height fluctuates?

Do you know the difference between the subtropical jet and the polar jet?

Do you even know what a Rossby wave is?

Hell, even Christys work shows heating of the troposhere in the past 18 years. People get information from a fossil fuel ran blog post and drool all over it. No discussion, the earth we are the main cause
Google PETM or P-Tr if you want to see where we are heading!

[Anonymous No.6780257]

>>6780223

You're getting really irritating with your religious like zeal. Now you post a graph with zero uncertainty. Seriously, who do you think you're fooling? After a previous graph showing massive uncertainty, and you hiding behind that uncertainty? Now someone comes along and decides what levels of CO2 would make the story fit perfectly?

What a sloppy "science!" Where are the ERROR BARS! Where are the confidence intervals? As if by magic, the median value of CO2 at 170 millions years ago was flattened out. And that increasing solar luminosity? Well that has be increasing, which means the authors of the graph magically made CO2 actually decrease at that time, not just flatten out.

This is border-line fraudulent. Sigh. Anything for the faith, huh?

>The 7.5 degree increase is without considering aerosols. The aerosols are accounted for later on.

So which is it? The wildly speculative theory shows heat killed the dinosaurs? Or is it that heat didn't kill them, so its all irrelevant to Climate Change? You've haven't addressed the inevitable Global Winter that would result from the asteroid.

Really you just published something tangential.

Stop wasting my time.

[Anonymous No.6780262]

>>6772024
That's a graph of CO2. OP asked about temperature.

[Anonymous No.6780269]

>>6779179
Solar is better than wind. I agree with the rest.

[Anonymous No.6780272]

>>6780103
And cars /are/ natural? Burning all of this million year old, previously submerged oil is natural?

[Anonymous No.6780281]

>>6775105
In just the last million years, which doesn't really show up in that graph, there have been about 10 glaciations. In each glaciation the sea levels fell by 394 feet, putting the coasts hundreds of miles away from their current location in some places, covering much of the northern latitudes with ice sheets, and reducing precipitation to a relative trickle, drying up rivers. In those conditions, our current civilization could not exist. 7 billion people could not be supported in those conditions no matter what. 1 billion people couldn't be supported. We are currently in an interglacial period between glaciations. The last one lasted about 24k years, and we're 11k years into this one. Whether human CO2 has enough of an impact on the climate to make the interglacial permanent is a matter of some controversy, as obviously the system is too complex to model with any kind of certainty.

[Anonymous No.6780288]

>>6779712

>researchers are paid by oil companies and oil companies don't give grants to climate affirmers

[Anonymous No.6780294]

>>6780281
The onset of glacial periods are very sensitive to atmospheric CO2. There's very good evidence the CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere will certainly hold off the next glacial period for a very long time to come.

[Anonymous No.6780299]

>>6780257
Did I say zero uncertainty? All I ever said was based on the previous graphs uncertainty, you can't claim that the CO2 didn't decrease monotonically with absolute certainty. I was talking about your claim. Not mine.

Monotonically decreasing CO2 isn't even relevant to my reference because THEY DON'T ASSUME MONOTONICALLY DECREASING CO2.

No one came along and decided which levels of CO2 make the story fit perfectly. The radiative contribution of CO2 of the graph that I posted is based on the same CO2 concentration of the previous graph with uncertainty. The uncertainty is still there. How are you not getting this?

The CO2 decreases after 170 million years. There was another peak at 250 million years where CO2 decreased after as you can see.
That whole graph is based on the calculation of radiative forcing due to CO2 concentrations along with the forcing of the increasing solar activity. You can see a peak at about 170 million years on the radiative forcing graph.

I honestly don't know how to explain this any better to you.

As for what killed the dinosaurs, what makes you think that the scientific community has arrived at one accepted theory?

And why do you think that it is either or? A peak at the K-T boundary is observed as predicted, but is short lived before temperatures drop.

[Anonymous No.6780364]

Oh, by the way, the temperature "record" of that very first graph was hand-drawn and not meant to be a quantitative representation of the geologic temperature record. It's old and meant to be an indication of "hot" and "cold" periods. Hence the unchanging flat-lines for millions of years.

Here is a graph based on data, and even the data today is sparse so this one isn't even all that accurate.

Source:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/

[Anonymous No.6780394]

>>6780364
Better resolution

[Anonymous No.6780408]

>humans are part of the ecosystem, therefore its fine if we fuck it all up
God damn deniers make me cringe