/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7281995]

CO2 induced Global Warming is impossible.
The infrared emission spectrum of CO2 is 100% saturated adding more doesn't make a difference.

Adding Methane to the atmosphere yes, adding Sulfur yes, but adding CO2 is inconsequential.

[Anonymous No.7281996]

>>7281995
u some kinda chemist?

[Anonymous No.7281998]

>inb4 ocean acidification
Acid can't melt ice faggots.

[Anonymous No.7281999]

>>7281998
but it can steel beams

sike

[Anonymous No.7282000]

>>7281998
The Henry constant of CO2 in water is too low to make a tangible difference for minute concentration increases, unless the pressure in the atmosphere magically increased 10 fold that's the biggest bullshit non-issue currently purported in all of greenfaggotry.

[Anonymous No.7282044]

>>7281995
CO2 goes into the clouds which then reflects more sunlight. After that the earth gets more heat up, what's there more to understand?

[Anonymous No.7282049]

>The infrared emission spectrum of CO2 is 100% saturated adding more doesn't make a difference.

The line is saturated but absorption lines aren't delta functions, they have voigt like wings of absorption which can absorb far away from their central wavelength. It's a curve of growth and just one of the reasons CO2 isn't linear with the temperature forcing.

[Anonymous No.7282062]

stop making terms up lad

temperature isn't the only concern either

[Anonymous No.7282090]

>>7281995

Highly disingenuous. F) do not see me after class.

[Anonymous No.7284017]

>>7282000
>minute concentration increases
>minute
pre-industrial: 280ppm
now: 400ppm
43% increase is not "minute", fgt

[Anonymous No.7284044]

>>7284017
>ppm

[Anonymous No.7284107]

>>7284044
>special pleading

[Anonymous No.7284123]

pro do you even quant?
H2O vapor is the primary insulator of solar radiation, but CO2 allows more H2O to vaporize and stay in the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.7284507]

Not all of the CO2 is in one shell of infinitesimal thickness. Adding CO2 is analogous to putting more blankets on somebody who already has some. Heat isn't able to escape through many layers well.

[Anonymous No.7284548]

>>7284123
>CO2 allows more H2O to vaporize and stay in the atmosphere.
An unproven hypothesis that's conjured out of thin air to support the case of alarmism and calls for immediate action.

It's fundemental to all the climate models and surprisingly they all all overshoot observation.

[Anonymous No.7284561]

>>7284548
Don't clouds cause cooling because they cause reflection?

[Anonymous No.7284568]

>>7284561
In all IPCC models it's considered a positive feedback which is why their predictions ends up like picrelated.

[Anonymous No.7284592]

>>7284568
>That graph

What kind of turbo retard would graph that many climate models and not group them by assumptions? Moreover who would produce a graph like that and then not include error bars on the average, it's like someone produced it to be purposely misleading.

[Anonymous No.7284597]

>>7284592
>Damage control
Feel free to replot it with your dear error bars. At the end of the day it makes its case very well; all models are overshooting.

[Anonymous No.7284605]

>>7284597
>all models are overshooting on surface and air temperatures
it's honestly not surprising the models that predict only about 5% of the heat content gained by the planet are performing poorly

the other 95% is going into the oceans and that's tracking well with predictions

[Anonymous No.7284610]

>>7284605
>the heat is hiding in the ocean
And there you have it.

[Anonymous No.7284622]

>>7284568
That's mid-troposphere data. Shouldn't we judge based on the ability to predict surface temperature?

[Anonymous No.7284639]

>>7284622
>lets keep searching until we find a datasources that's agreeably corrupted and supports our Grand Cause.

Or lets not, your Faith is already well past expiry and it's time for real science to step onto the scene.

[Anonymous No.7284656]

>>7284639
It's a reasonable distinction to make. We know we don't understand certain parts of the system such as the effects of aerosols. Basically every section in chapter 7 of AR5 on clouds and aerosols starts with subsection titled something like "progress toward understanding this subtopic." Using mid atmosphere data will exaggerate our error.

[Anonymous No.7284770]

>>7284639
did you know that when you correct for poorly maintained temperature monitoring stations, the temperature trend actually goes up?

besides, using the appropriate dataset isn't fishing, it's just good science.

[Anonymous No.7284792]

>>7284610
It's not hiding. It's measurably there and retards like you love to deny it

[Anonymous No.7284798]

>>7284770
>when you correct for poorly maintained temperature monitoring stations, the temperature trend actually goes up?

Yes. because you smooth away pristine stations by using UHI warmed stations as gold standard.

>cherrypicking is good science

[Anonymous No.7284800]

>>7284792
>It's measurably there
It's not. It's an artifact from switching datasets

Don't worry though, just go to this page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/11/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/ and pick another magic reason.

[Anonymous No.7284808]

>>7284800
>It's not. It's an artifact from switching datasets

Care to actually back up any of your arguments, or just post conspiracy theory websites?

[Anonymous No.7284825]

>>7284808
Just google it.

Also I just need to wait while you scramble and do damage control. Time have done a splendid job in debunking your cult.

[Anonymous No.7284829]

>>7284798
no, that's the opposite of what I said.

correcting for poorly maintained stations should decrease the trend, because you're correcting the putatively UHI warmed stations. that's not the case.

[Anonymous No.7284861]

>>7284829
>correcting for poorly maintained stations
There's no system for quality control of station siting.

The correction simply picks nearby stations and forces all deviants to fall in line. If UHI stations were rare this could work, but there's a major siting problem so instead of correcting away UHI it applies UHI to all prisitine stations. You're buffing the entire temperature record with UHI effects.

The secratrians at GISS loves these result so they don't just plug their ears, apply even further alarmist adjustments and present they new doomsday data each year.

pic related, cooling the past in service of Muh Warming.

[Anonymous No.7284906]

>>7284861
>There's no system for quality control of station siting.
bullshit and wrong, there are several systems for assessing the quality of station citing

and when you look at the temperature records from high quality stations and compare it to poor quality stations, the poor quality (close to buildings/pavement/etc, ostensibly subject to UHI) stations are cooling the overall trend, not heating it up
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15373071
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

[Anonymous No.7284909]

>>7284906
>there are several systems for assessing the quality of station citing.
There's none.
The surfacestations projects is a crowdsourced one to highlight how shit the data is and something the GISS ignores.

GISS only cares about their alarmist agenda, to call it science is a joke.

[Anonymous No.7284912]

>>7284909
>a system exists
>but i dont like it so it doesnt count!

[Anonymous No.7284922]

>>7284912
>There's a system callled "Lie through your teeth" it's very efficient and universally appliable.

>>7284906
>UHI stations make things cooler!
This is a straight out of 1984, take your doublespeak and scurry away to /cult/

[Anonymous No.7286122]

>>7284906
Its important to understand that the people who control the data, like NASA GISS, would NEVER engage is suspect methods of data altering to fit an alarmist agenda. Remember how the credit rating agencies gave great ratings to crappy bonds, back in 2008? Just because the banks were paying them doesn't mean they had a conflict of interest. And here, just because NASA GISS and Co. gets a lot of money by climate alarmism, doesn't mean that would do anything fishy with temperature data. Seriously, nobody has ever fudged that facts to get money.

[Anonymous No.7286168]

>this UHI faggot
Ocean surface temperatures have similar trends to land surface temperatures.

[Anonymous No.7286383]

>>7286168
The deep ocean really does contribute a big heat sink. They do try to account for it in the models.

[Anonymous No.7286810]

>>7286122
>the people who control the data
>suspect methods of data altering
>an alarmist agenda
>the banks were paying them
>conflict of interest
>a lot of money by climate alarmism
... this month's foilhat-award nominee?

[Anonymous No.7287094]

>>7286122

>"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

[Anonymous No.7287098]

>>7284568

>RCP 8.5

[Anonymous No.7287109]

>>7284568
>positive feedback
positive means what (mathematically and on the level of the interpretation) ?

[Anonymous No.7287160]

>>7287098
>made by xXxClimateZealot420xXx
Oh wait, it's actually entirely sourceless

>>7287109
It means you're clueless and just come here to argue definitions.

[Anonymous No.7287173]

>>7284592
It's a meme graph made by some creationist organisation member.

Posted here every day.

[Anonymous No.7287192]

>>7287160
>It means you're clueless and just come here to argue definitions.
poor bait

[Anonymous No.7287224]

>>7287192
bait means what( mathematically and on the level of the interpretation)?

[Anonymous No.7287230]

>>7287224
you are really not good at this

[Anonymous No.7287259]

>>7287230
>you are really not good at this
poor bait

[Anonymous No.7288708]

>>7286810
You've lost the reading comprehension award. The banks paid the Credit Rating companies. Its called analogous reasoning. Look it up.

[Anonymous No.7288715]

>>7287098
>I always get my science from a psychology graduate student.
You mean "realigned' AKA shifted, to hide the abject failure of the models.

[Anonymous No.7288725]

>>7287094
Why do you post a picture of Anthony Watts while quoting fake skeptic Muller?

In 2004, Muller said, "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do),..."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/page/2/