/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7621479]

So is global warming real and should we even give a shit if the sun does 90% of the work when it comes to climate? To me the only reason to do anything in a "green" way is merely because its respectful to be gentle.

[Anonymous No.7621483]

>>7621479
There's climate change, no global warming.

[Anonymous No.7621505]

>>7621483
but global warming IS real. The polar ice caps are melting substantially and if we don't avoid this course, a big majority of earth will turn into a huge dry desert.

[Anonymous No.7621506]

>>7621483
Yes but when a sun spot can change the climate so much more than greenhouse gases, why bother?

[Anonymous No.7621510]

>>7621505
Why desert and not epic waterpark?

[Anonymous No.7621515]

>>7621506
>Why bother

Because what you've just posted is often repeated, but not true. Hopefully someone here has that graph/gif that shows the effects of the past x years warming is only successfully modelled when natural and anthropogenic factors are accounted for.

[Anonymous No.7621531]

>>7621515
Im not saying dont treat the earth well im native american and agree that things should be powered by clean energy my problem is I dont see how climate change is in our hands

[Anonymous No.7621578]

>>7621531
Turns out, I had that gif I was talking about. As you can see, it's quite clearly in our hands.

[Anonymous No.7621583]

>>7621505
>more water in the oceans means we'll have less water everywhere
yeah that makes sense

[Anonymous No.7621587]

>>7621578
>greenhouse gases are purely human factor
Spot the fool.

[Anonymous No.7621590]

>>7621578
>>7621587
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

[Anonymous No.7621591]

>>7621587
Weak bait fam. It clearly list greenhouse gases under "human factors", so it'll be the greenhouse gases produced by humanity.

[Anonymous No.7621597]

>>7621587
natural sources of GHGs are almost entirely balanced by natural sinks for GHGs

it's the human contributions that build up and dont have any reasonable sink

[Anonymous No.7621600]

>>7621591
Then where does it list non human factor greenhouse gases?

[Anonymous No.7621604]

>>7621597
>natural sources of GHGs are almost entirely balanced by natural sinks for GHGs
And that's how I know you're full of shit. Enjoy your fear mongering echo chamber.

[Anonymous No.7621606]

>>7621600
I'd imagine under volcanic but then it would be a competition between the cooling effect they can have and the amount of co2 they can produce. Other than that I'd say this >>7621597.

[Anonymous No.7621631]

>>7621604
Not full of shit. Sure, there's catastrophic events like volcanoes and whatnot, but those are rare. Most of the time, there's a balance.

[Anonymous No.7622214]

>>7621578
Ah, yes the great NASA circular argument. We'll assume that little things like the Sun and ocean oscillations have almost no climate effect. Therefore its anthropocentric CO2. In other words, if I assume that most warming was caused by CO2, then most future warming will be cause by anthropogenic CO2. I just proved Climate Change is true!!!!

The climate has been cleanly explained by Solar/Ocean oscillations effects:
Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/data_files/SCC2015_preprint.pdf

>nb4 Evil Exxon person. Prove the theory false with facts and logic.

[Anonymous No.7622228]

>>7621515
As usual, NASA/UN IPCC cherry-picked their data. Pic related. Low solar activity data is on the right; high solar activity data is on the left. That data is completely ignored because it does not fit the narrative.

See: http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/guido/PHY2502/articles/solar-activity/Hoyt-Schatten.pdf

and for a summary: http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Blog-Nicola-Scafetta-def.pdf

[Anonymous No.7622238]

>>7621505
By pure coincidence, 1979 was a year that had very high arctic sea ice. Pic related. Thanks for the cherry-picking!

[Anonymous No.7622243]

>>7622214

I am a pure layman on the subject and I don't know much about climate change, but surely you don't think you've outsmarted the worlds best scientists with your bullshit. Surely you don't think they've failed to consider "sun and ocean oscillations in their calculations. Surely your hubris is not so great.

[Anonymous No.7622245]

>>7622214
>>7622228
>>7622238

Yeah bro, I'm with you on this one, its those scientism faggot's that want to get rich off those sweet government grants falsifying data. 'Cos as we all know there's nothing more lucrative than a life studying climate change.

[Anonymous No.7622250]

>>7622243
>but surely you don't think you've outsmarted the worlds best scientists with your bullshit.

He does.

>Surely you don't think they've failed to consider "sun and ocean oscillations in their calculations.

He does

>Surely your hubris is not so great.

It is

[Anonymous No.7622261]

>>7622243
You've got to come up with something better than swear words and appeals to authority. How do you know they are the world's best scientists? And think how many times the "world's best" have failed.

Continents don't move
Atoms are the smallest piece of matter
Space and time are fixed (not relative)
Phologiston explains fire
Light goes through ether

You're going to have to do better than appeals to authority. What you're being incredibly naive about is the concept that these "scientists" are neutral. They are not. Their livelihood depends on getting the right answer. 97% of climate scientists are funded directly or indirectly by government. If a (non-tenured) climate scientist (or meteorologist) publicly denies climate change, they lose their job.

A french meteorologist gets put on leave:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/21766-top-meteorologist-persecuted-for-debunking-climate-hysteria

It all about power and (tax) money. Never forget that.

[Anonymous No.7622269]

>>7622261
>Science was wrong before

Kek, literally a creationist argument. Wow.

[Anonymous No.7622274]

>>7622245
Its a hell of a lot more lucrative that publishing evil denier research.

You guys have nothing but ad hominem and appeals to authority. Its pathetic, you can't mount single, substantive counter-argument based on logic and facts.

[Anonymous No.7622284]

>>7622269
As if there wasn't a boundless lust for money at the U.N.
>>7622274
As if national governments won't make gigantic amounts of money of $$carbon_taxes. As if a untenured government paid "scientist" wouldn't lost his job if he was an evil denier.

[Anonymous No.7622617]

>>7621479

Actually informed guy here to save this thread:

Global warming is real but it's not this ultimate nuketown that the liberal arts leftists are trying to make it look like.

The world is at the end of an ice age and therefore losing it's permafrozen regions. The thing is, we are accelerating the process to a speed never seen before in the Earth's history.

That being said, this means that most living things on earth will not have enough time to adapt and we might see a very powerful extinction event happening soon. This, coupled with the destruction of natural habitat and the pollution of the ocean could make the Permian–Triassic extinction event look like nothing.

So, basically, we might be triggering a new Great Dying, one that we might become victims of.

Also, this quick transformation might also bring very strong storms, floodings, drought and shit, but this will only really hit poor countries so whatever.

So, anyway, hold on to your butts but don't brace yourselves too much, pic related might happen before that anyway.

[Anonymous No.7622622]

>>7621505
Antarctica has much more ice now than before. That picture proves nothing.

[Anonymous No.7622656]

>>7622617
>don't get too worried or anything, but most life on Earth might go extinct

[Anonymous No.7622669]

>>7622656

I think that his point is that we might all die of nuclear wars or car accidents anyway so who cares.

[Anonymous No.7622728]

>>7622656
Y'say 'most life' like it implies earthw ill be more barren and lifeless-like.
It just means most species. The things that do adapt in time or will just naturally be able to survive will have massive population booms.

[Anonymous No.7622775]

>>7621479
>should we even give a shit
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

[Anonymous No.7622799]

>>7622214
>http://globalwarmingsolved.com

Clearly people can't be this retarded. So clear bias sites like this are the complete truth but the over 200 scientific organizations of the world are all wrong on the idea that humans accelerate climate change.

Do deniers ever realize how fucking retarded they are? Do they just ever step back and think to themselves that maybe there's more than what right-wing politicians say?

Source : http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

[Anonymous No.7622825]

Climate negotiator.
Climate agenda.
Climate change...
Look at the words and who they're coming from.

[Anonymous No.7622878]

>>7622622
Antarctica has much less land ice than before. The melting of land ice increases global sea levels.

[Anonymous No.7622888]

>>7622274
>You guys have nothing but ad hominem and appeals to authority.
LOL says the guy who only has a conspiracy theory as an argument. Yup vaccines, GMOs, and evolution are just big 'ol conspiracies as well right? And it's called an appeal to expertise not authority. You would do it too if you had any actual science to back your arguments up.

[Anonymous No.7622909]

We are already in the middle of the most rapid extinction event in the history of the planet, and it's primarily due to human-induced climate change (and a little bit to do with urbanization/spread of humanity... though those are the highly visible cases). Species are going extinct at a rate that something like 1000 times greater than the background rate. A child born today will see more species vanish in his life time than happened during the millions of years that comprised the Devonian extinction.

Of course we should do something about it.

[Anonymous No.7622932]

Friendly reminder there's nothing any western country can do to stop global warming
Friendly reminder that even if western Europe and the United States went back to a 1700s style economy with zero emissions The People's Republic of China would still pump out enough pollution to literally choke its citizens and block out the sun
Friendly reminder that the Republic of India is only two steps behind the People's Republic of China
Friendly reminder there is no point in throwing yourself on this economic sword to "try to save the planet"

[Anonymous No.7622937]

>>7621631

Do you have any info on volcano frequency? Just interested, I suppose I could not be lazy and research for myself but... Lazy.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.7622948]

>>7622228
Serious question. Do you accept the figure that 99% of practicing scientists in the relevant fields believe that global warming and climate change is 1- real (roughly corresponding to often stated proportions)? and 2- manmade?

If no, do you think that there's a massive conspiracy? For what motive? If Nixon couldn't even keep Watergate under wraps, how do you think that no one has blown the cover on what must be the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.7622954]

>>7622932
>Friendly reminder there's nothing any western country can do to stop global warming

Nuclear power, specifically conventional plants like the AP-1000 for the shortterm, and in the midterm something like IFR and maybe a LFTR variant. Plus if we can get synthetic gasoline from seawater at acceptable costs (some US Navy research into the matter looks promising, but still new), then we'll have basically the entire problem solved.

>Friendly reminder that even if western Europe and the United States went back to a 1700s style economy with zero emissions The People's Republic of China would still pump out enough pollution to literally choke its citizens and block out the sun

Indeed. It's gotta be cheaper than coal. IFR and LFTR have that possibility.

[Anonymous No.7622959]

>>7622954
I feel like you glossed over a substantial part of my post and mist my main idea

[Anonymous No.7622972]

On /sci/
>this thread
>expect informed consensus
>ultracrepidarians spraying cherrypicked data to support half-baked narratives from both sides
>you've failed me /sci/

Challenge: Go read the IPCC fifth assessment. Find, collect, and document empirical evidence proving more or less all of modern science wrong. Collect your Nobel prize(s), your mindboggling research grants, your infinite prestige, your laurels and your decorations. Then come back to /sci/ and claim anthropomorphic climate change isn't happening. I'm looking forward to it.

[Anonymous No.7623011]

>>7622972

lol no go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.7623031]

>>7622656
THere is a big study on the matter. I believe if you google the great sixth extinction. We're in the middle of it right now, by the way.

[Anonymous No.7623035]

>/sci/
>Arguing global warming doesn't exist
/pol/ needs to get out of this board. Stay in your containment cave. Inb4 ad homo attacks. Inb4 cherrypick data. Inb4 strawman. Inb4 /pol/ starts using the joos or some race baited argument.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.7623175]

>>7622959
Ok. I still have no idea what your main point was. Do you want to explain?

[Anonymous No.7625040]

>>7622888
>LOL says the guy who only has a conspiracy theory as an argument.
More ad hominem. You're so painfully lacking in facts and logic.

I'm sorry that reality doesn't conform to your unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

[Anonymous No.7625057]

>>7622972
Silly man, there is nothing in the U.N. IPCC AR5 which demonstrates an accurate prediction based on anthropogenic CO2 causing CAGW.

That's why you don't actually give the science. Because you don't have it.
>nb4 hurr durr models.
Models prove nothing.
>nb4 we tweaked the past and got accurate hindsight!
Anyone can do that. I can predict yesterdays stock market perfectly.

You don't actually show anything, instead appeal to authority. That doesn't change the fact that Climate Change is unfalsifiable.

Look at the pic. Ooops. Global temperatures go up BEFORE Global CO2 concentrations go up. Gosh, last time I checked, causes must precede effects.