SOMEONE TELL ME IF MAN MADE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL OR

real

Yes.

Real

Not real.

>>7668559
We don't actually know. Anyone that tells you otherwise is not a real scientist.

>>7668559
There is a shit ton of CO2 produced by nature (humans just produce a fraction of it) but all of it is used again by nature. So basically there is no net change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, the fraction of CO2 humans produce accumulates in the atmosphere because nature can't take care of all of the extra CO2.

Whatever the consequences of this extra CO2 might me, it probably is a good idea to reduce human CO2 production.

>>7668559
>GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
Real

>MAN MADE
Debatable, but we're certainly not helping the situation.

This is the current scientific consensus. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trolling, uninformed, or from /pol/.

>>7668576

this.

we're not slowing down the process with our machines.

File: confused-science-reader.jpg (19KB, 300x354px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x354px

>>7668573
>We don't actually know
>Anyone that tells you otherwise is not a real scientist
This better be b8

>>7668602
He's completely correct if he's referring to the "man made" part of the question.

I'd love to see some conclusive evidence myself, but afaik it does not exist.

Why is this frogposting tolerated and not shunned by /sci/?

>>7668559
i've heard all the planets in our solar system are experiencing global warming. not sure if its true tho

>>7668602
>>7668610
Our best models are semi-empirical fitted to historical data that has shown no long term predictive power. In fact the utter failure of the models to predict anything was never unexpected as from an epistemological point of view we might as well have been fitting polynomial curves to temperature differentials and calling it a day.

Modelling very large systems in general are problematic. Even more accurate a-priori models such as the Omega equation derivatives only provide short time domain accuracy in simulations. All we know for certain about climate change is based on historical data. Our simulations give us an idea, but to make assertive claims based on long term outputs of the "AGW" input to these semi-empirical models as many climatologists have naively done is frankly laughable.

Of course dumb fucks (like >>7668602) in both political camps argue so vehemently with idiotic assertions about all this because lobbyists rarely have a technical background. The fact that journal editors have taken sides on research they do not fully understand is a disgusting shit stain on "the scientific community" that will take centuries to fully wipe off. Of course, in the mean time Libfucktards think that Nobel prize winning physicists are resigning from societies because of "titanic cold/hot" arguments etc. and not because they have valid reservations about how poor quality science is being politicized. So they make their stupid little jokes on their facebook page which is just as ridiculous as those "titanic cold/hot" arguments and they actually think they are smart and on "the side of science" or whatever stupid fucking self important layman shit they imagined which only serves to frustrate real scientists*.


In any case AGW was never something that should've been presented in school textbooks as fact. In the long term it will only damage the public image of science and what normalfags perceive as "the scientific community".

>>7668646
* (except for the immoral cunts jumping on the green gravy train)

>>7668559
Yes you retarded frog poster

>>7668559
Its real, we may not be the primary cause of it but we're certainly not helping.

We don't know the exact implications of it but they're probably not good.

No matter what is happening to the Earth conservation is probably the best course for us.

do mean global warming? evidence is weak or non-existant. nothing really shows that humans are the most significant and powerful variable contributing to the warming. thats not to say that humans shouldnt change their ways. fossil fuels are disgusting and pollutants and causing nasty changes to the climate. that should be enough to change our ways of generating energy. it would also develop the idea that we maynotbe able to stop the warming and action should be taken now to avoid or deal with the consequences of unstopable warming. if it helps stop warming, great ,no harm no foul. if its unstopable and weve gone with the "we can stop this' mentality, youll be caught unprepared in a shit storm.

>>7669018
And what technology, exactly, do you believe is "cleaner" for the environment than fossil fuel based infrastructure?

I'm an energy engineer and you should consider this a trick question.

>>7669027
nice try, young grasshoppa. i will not say that any of the "green" technologies are clean. solar panels and wind turbine require precious metals that need to be extracted, refined and processed; all of which produces pollution of many sorts. nuclear creates thermal pollution and can result in a radioactive meltdown; theres also nuclear waste. hydroelectic disrupts marine life and land life, and also release co2 and ch4.

the best tech will be blue energy. i just started physics and linear al-gebra, so it will be developed soon. =)

solar thermal is pretty clean, csp etc
wave power is pretty clean if you use salter's duck

>>7668559
It's real.

It's mid/long term effects are unknown however.

It doesn't look like anything will happen in the long run really.

The bigger problem is other forms of pollution like throwing shit in the ocean.

>>7669027
Fusion.

File: Ohwow.jpg (39KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 562x437px

>>7668573
>>7668576
>>7668610
>>7668646
>>7669018
>delusional denial

>>7668620
There is a lack of good content, given how slow /sci/ is, how difficult it is to get a discussion started on "real science", and the abundance of "pop-sci".

If you want to help, find a good topic of discussion which mostly people above entry level university/college would be able to participate in, which is interesting to the layperson (as an auditor), and isn't excessively niche.

>>7669918
>nuclear creates thermal pollution
wat. this is an actual concern people have? or just fissionphobes grasping at straws?

>>7669918
>>7670539
i mean, we clear forests to build cities and grow crops. why cant we heat some lake for our nuclear plant

>>7669940
Sure. The problem is we don't have it yet.

>>7669961
Shhs. Grown ups are talking.

>>7670539
>>7670548
yes, lets keep killing and destroying everything in sight for some humans selfish needs.

>>7668559
It is real.

>>7670555
The why are you here?

>>7669961
How is it denial? Personally I believe it's man made but I'm not a retard or a political mouthpiece so I don't go around spouting shit I have no proof about.

I'd love to see your conclusive evidence if you have any.

>>7669961
>the data demonstrates a correlation so its a known fact

>>7668559
Bio major, v real and our fault. Sucks but yeah

Yes is real and yes human activity is a very significant contributing factor. It is around 99% certain that human activity is the primary factor actually and if you deny that human activity plays a significant role in climate change then you may as well believe the Earth is flat too.

>>7668610
Look at venus being hotter than mercury because of the CO2

Look at humans pumping co2 into atmosphere

Conclude humans will fuck up the atmosphere

Done.

reminder that 1 major eruption can put more green house gasses into the atmosphere that the entire human race could do in 100 years

reminder that this has happened several times and there has been NO run away heating as a result

run away heating is a myth perpetrated by Al Gore to sell his books

Signs point to yes

>>7668575
Human chop tree, human throw smoke, all smoke still suck up by tree.

Long time ago, no human, no chop tree, no smoke. All tree die because all co2 gone! They suck all up and none left! Stupid tree! Smart human!

As real as the dust bowl. But it's certainly no end of the world scenario. And eventually market forces would stabilize emissions just based on their market effects even without environmental concerns. But the market is so short-sighted and it'd do 100 years of economical damage just for 3 years of profit.

File: 1427739380366.png (111KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1440x1080px

>>7669961
>Being skeptical of a scientific theory with extraordinary implications that is largely based on feedback gain factors that climatologists made up
>DENIAL BURN THE DENIER

wow so this is how science works, all this time I've had it completely wrong.
don't forget to pay for a carbon tax, and an evil bad smokey smoke penalty and 10$ kwh solar electricity. Trust me guys I believe science, I watch the big bang theory

"Green energy" is a good idea, but the infrastructure of our civilization would have to be completely rebuilt in order to make it a feasible alternative to current fuels. I'm in the biofuel camp myself.

>breed some microbes that consume waste and produce oil
>rake in some cash
>done

>>7671926
But the data still shows a positive trend. It's not as disastrous as predictions but so what. A rise in the global temperature by 0.5 C is still ridiculous.

Man made or not, Global Warming is real.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 8.50.26 PM.png (45KB, 985x729px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 985x729px

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf

There's nothing even wrong with climate change. We are on the trailing end of an Ice Age. The ice caps are hardly the norm and their disappearance with not end the world.

>but muh third world mudhuts on island
Nobody cares lol.

>>7671899
volcanoes: 0.2 Gigatonnes of CO2 annually,
< 1% of the total,
26.8 Gigatonnes of CO2

>>7671899
>reminder that 1 major eruption can put more green house gasses into the atmosphere that the entire human race could do in 100 years
WOW! That's a great fact! Too bad it's bullshit. Did you even bother to do a google search before you copied it from some retarded website? In reality, humans release hundreds of times more CO2 than volcanoes.

>>7671899
Reminder that you are spouting an old myth with no backing.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

Nobody really knows. better safe then sorry though.

>>7671926
>Being skeptical of a scientific theory with extraordinary implications that is largely based on feedback gain factors that climatologists made up
Except that in order to be an actual "skeptic" you would have to have arguments that carry equal weight against climatology. You don't. You just assume they're wrong because you don't like the conclusion. This is no more "skepticism" than creationists and antivaxxers.

>>7672027
>There's nothing even wrong with climate change. We are on the trailing end of an Ice Age.
The factors that caused the Little Ice Age (mostly solar activity and volcanic activity) have not significantly changed. We are not warming because we are leaving the ice age, we are leaving the ice age because we are warming, and that warming is caused by our addition of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

>The ice caps are hardly the norm and their disappearance with not end the world.
The rapid loss of the icecaps causes sea levels to rise which has many negative consequences on us.

the earth is simply getting closer to the sun. its orbit is changing, as in getting closer.

>>7671899
reminder that shills and trolls open their falseflags with meme myths to trick readers into assuming anything else they say must be too

runaway heating is in fact a myth. CO2 increases have quickly diminishing returns, and the missing hotspot suggests neutral or even negative feedback.

>>7671998
>But the data still shows a positive trend.

Not him, but that is a pretty retarded point to make.

1. Correlation does not imply causation. A positive trend does not suggest it is manmade.

2. If temperature was to remain constant (no further rise), the overall trend would remain positive forever even though it has very obviously flattened. Recently the trend has flattened.

3. The data invalidates their high sensitivity models and instead implies low climate sensitivity. 0.5 C is not disastrous at all. This matters because with low climate sensitivity, the cure is much worse than the disease. Cutting CO2 emissions only makes sense if not cutting indeed would be disastrous.