[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 69 KB, 600x400, global-warming-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889443 No.9889443 [Reply] [Original]

is global warming man-made /sci/? or is it natural?

>> No.9889450
File: 65 KB, 468x435, polarbearclingingtoiceberg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889450

>>9889443

>> No.9889452

>>9889450
This is a serious question and a serious thread. if it is man-made could you provide sources and explain it too me?

>> No.9889461
File: 47 KB, 490x391, modeled_and_observed_temperature.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889461

>>9889452
The ultimate evidence

>> No.9889464
File: 91 KB, 350x420, 1517966352032.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889464

>>9889461
How does this prove that it's man-made though? could you explain it? brainlet here.

>> No.9889476

>>9889464
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/anthropogenic

>> No.9889479

>>9889464
Red line: predicted model including greenhouse gases
Blue line: predicted model without additional anthropogenic greenhouse gases
Black line: Observed data

>> No.9889486

>>9889479
>predicted
>paper published in 2004
>"prediction" goes to 2000
Really makes you think. If only there was a word for "predicting" past data...

>> No.9889488

>>9889486
>What is a scientific model and how does it work, the post

>> No.9889500
File: 23 KB, 328x499, Climate-Hoax-Exposed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889500

>>9889443
Liars are easy to expose.
[1] The truth is the opposite of what a liar says it is.
[2] The truth cannot support a lie. Only another lie can make the lie before it seem believable.

>> No.9889504

>>9889488
Are you asking me? It's weird that this is something that needs to be explained but a model fitted on already seen data does not provide any new evidence unless that model has been also validated on unseen data - in case of time series that would usually be future data. So how is the model on your picture doing if you extend it past 2000?

>> No.9889525

>>9889504
You really don't understand what is a model in science.

>> No.9889526

>>9889500
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>> No.9889528
File: 54 KB, 625x325, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889528

>>9889504

>> No.9889592
File: 323 KB, 593x352, consumer15.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889592

>>9889443
Bloated consumers don't want to believe they have a problem.

For example, try telling this fat fuck he needs to eat less. I bet he calls you a liar, lol. I bet he calls you every nasty name he can think of. I bet if he was capable of getting his greasy lard ass off of his cot, he'd even get violent.

>>9889500
You people are a fucking joke.

>> No.9889599
File: 33 KB, 400x296, 1284737295978.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889599

>>9889443

It's man-made. Al Gore made this shit up.

>> No.9889624

>>9889443
>is global warming man-made /sci/?
Man can't make something that doesn't exist.

>> No.9889686

>>9889461
Correlation != Causation
Doesn't feel good when it's used on you, does it? *dabs*

>> No.9889715
File: 422 KB, 1520x1230, CC_trends_anthro.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889715

>> No.9889756

>>9889488
>>9889525
and how does this model work? how accurately does it take water vapor, the most influential greenhouse gas, into account?

Models can change their outcome significantly every time you vary parameters.

>> No.9889765

>>9889715
>here, look, I made some subjective additions into a climate model that show temperature increasing more! Your farts totally heat the planet!

Now show the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature on 10^5 - 10^6 years scale. Oh, right, there is not one.

>> No.9889767

>>9889765
who cares

>> No.9889770
File: 1.03 MB, 1337x693, t_co2_2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889770

>>9889765
I actually have the graphs right now, conveniently.

>> No.9889772
File: 28 KB, 488x463, retardClap.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889772

>>9889770
>no source reference

into the trash it goes

>> No.9889775

natural, but humans speed up the process

>> No.9889776
File: 778 KB, 1157x707, t_co2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889776

>>9889772
You're right, my bad.
See the reference in the bottom left corner of another slide.

>> No.9889780
File: 15 KB, 500x221, 77849234987239487372894.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889780

>>9889765
>Now show the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature on 10^5 - 10^6 years scale
t.brainlet
The earth's natural Milankovitch cycles kick-start a feedback loop.
It does this first by cyclically warming oceans in the southern hemisphere, which begins a feedback loop that even you've probably heard of called "the greenhouse effect."

>> No.9889794

>>9889780
On this pic, T does a trend first, then CO2 follows. I am hoping your goal was to demonstrate that CO2 levels do not influence T, but vise versa.

>> No.9889891

>>9889794
>On this pic, T does a trend first, then CO2 follows.
So when you claimed there was no correlation between the two, were you just misinformed or were you lying?

>I am hoping your goal was to demonstrate that CO2 levels do not influence T, but vise versa.
The goal was to demonstrate a correlation between the two, since you claimed there was none. We already know that CO2 influences temperature via the greenhouse effect.

>> No.9889913

>>9889592
>I bet
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa

>> No.9889915

>>9889624
What is "plutonium", the post.

>> No.9889916

>>9889686
Did someone hurt you, Anon?

>> No.9889917

For people who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, which part of the hypothesis do you dispute?

>> No.9889918

>>9889756
and how does one Lrn2model

>> No.9889922

>>9889443
IT'S HAPPENING, IT'S MAN-MADE AND YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED

>> No.9889926

>>9889765
>10^5 - 10^6 years scale
>to explain global warming due to industrial CO2
>on a hundred-year scale
Seems legit.

>> No.9889941
File: 19 KB, 500x374, aura.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889941

oh boy, time for /pol/ to get embarrassed again

>>9889486
get a load of this fuckwit who complains that a study comparing modeled to observed temperatures was published after the interval it models.
if you're comparing anything to observations, you have to wait to get those observations, you brainlet.

>>9889756
>I don't like this model so I'm gonna JAQ off about whether it takes into account water vapor
water vapor in the atmosphere exists in near-equilibrium with the oceans, dickhead. it's strictly controlled by temperature.

>> No.9889954
File: 17 KB, 480x354, crab.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889954

>>9889770
>>9889776
hey retard, you don't understand how correlation works.
given that variables OTHER than CO2 affect global temperature, there's no reason to expect the two to track exactly. taking two 15 million year trends and just comparing the average slopes is babby-tier stats, and it's telling that that's the kind of stupid bullshit that deniers have to resort to.
so if CO2 is just one of several controls on temperature, how might that be reflected in the Ma scale? well, you'd expect to see sudden CHANGES in CO2 (happening too fast for other factors to change appreciably) to be reflected as sudden changes in the temperature record. and indeed this is the case if you actually LOOK at figure 6 in Royer (2014).
>http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Royer_2014_Treatise.pdf

bonus points:
>hey this CO2 record is derived from a bunch of different proxies with significant variability in both values at a given time and density of measurements in time
>let's just squash it down to a single average value

apparently you can think CO2 can't drive climate change, or you can have some idea of how stats work, but you can't do both.

>> No.9889965
File: 72 KB, 360x245, Beard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9889965

>>9889794
>On this pic, T does a trend first, then CO2 follows.
maybe you didn't read the part where anon said:
>The earth's natural Milankovitch cycles kick-start a feedback loop.
>It does this first by cyclically warming oceans in the southern hemisphere, which begins a feedback loop that even you've probably heard of called "the greenhouse effect."

don't just look at the pretty pictures; read the words too.