Am I beeing unscientific if I am sceptic of climate change? So

>>7691970
Not being skeptic to some extent or another about everything is unscientific, of course there's a difference between blind critique of something you do not fully understand and real skepticism which is only possible once you fully understand an argument/theory.

Don't let the current tend of scientism cultists convince you otherwise, they are mostly layman anyway. Diax's rake comes to mind; most universities and editorials today are in desperate need of it.

>>7691970
:^)

Because the scientists backed by oil companies are more trustworthy?

>>7691970
>why should I trust them?
because they say so.

The models of scientists claiming there is no new climate change phenomenon tend to be even more wrong. Remember, just because one person's wrong doesn't mean the person you want to be right is right. Both have to be subject to the same rigors of analysis. There is some VERY wrong information perpetuated by global warming alarmists, but every year we're making more and more solid developments in understanding it.

We're observing a rather prominent (in terms of climate) phenomenon and many people are trying (and many are failing), to explain it. I think the important thing to focus on is the extremely real observed phenomenon and not the radical alarmist predictions.

>>7692333
>I think the important thing to focus on is the extremely real observed phenomenon and not the radical alarmist predictions.

you had better clarify what you think those things are before giving advice

>>7692313
No, but I think the burden of proof lies with the ones who claim that climate chance
actually happens
is manmade
can be prevented
is actually a bad thing

>>7692038
:^)

>>7692322
>>why should I trust them?
>because they say so.

True scientists do not ask to be trusted but set forth their theories and ask to have them proven wrong.

global temperatures are rising. this is fact.
carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. this is also fact.

however, when it comes to the important questions, things get much more blurry.
how big exactly is the contribution of the greenhouse effect to earth's temperature?
how much of it is due to carbon dioxide?
how much of that part is due to man-made carbon dioxide?

and, even more complex, but all the more important:
what effects will the warming have on earth?
how will different regions be affected?
how will it impact humanity in those regions?

people usually never really explore these questions, they just jump to the same old fear mongering that they have been fed for decades
>oy vey, glaciers are melting away!
>sahara desert is getting bigger!
>arctic ice getting thinner!

but if you look at the big picture, higher temperature isn't necessarily bad.
maybe a few more degrees is all it takes to make land that used to be lifeless tundra into arable farmland or forest? maybe areas that were previously deemed uninhabitable will become able to sustain a small population? maybe navigating ships around the arctic will become easier and faster because there's much less ice blocking the way?


in my opinion, trying to stop global warming with ridiculous measures aimed at lowering co2 emissions is a waste of time and resources.
we'd be much better off if we used this time and resources to explore and prepare for the inevitable climate change.

>>7692780
>land that used to be lifeless tundra into arable farmland or forest?
Tundra doesn't magically turn into arable land, the soil is most likely very poor and at those latitudes sunlight is too scarce most of the year.

>>7692653
Prove it.

do you burgerfats not get taught about the greenhouse effect in elementary school?

it's really quite simple, desu senpai

>>7692780
>global temperatures are rising. this is fact.

It isn't

>carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. this is also fact.
It isn't

They are theories, and they made predictions based on these theories in models
None of which have come true

>>7692885
They are facts and models have been accurately projecting global surface temperatures for decades now.

>>7692906
global surface temperature record is almost entirely bullshit, familio

>>7692885
>>7692910

[citation needed]

if you dont have one then i suggest you >>>/pol/

One side says its all a rouse. The other side says its undeniable. Both claim their view points are definitive.

I dont believe either side.

File: arctic-sea-ice-spiral.png (646KB, 730x552px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 730x552px

> wrong several times
What do you mean by this? Do you mean that they were found to be incomplete, and needed to account for more factors in order to get the accuracy we desire? Then of course... that is the way science works.

If you think that the models were somehow fundamentally flawed, and that the science behind climate change has some major errors, then you are utterly wrong, and I don't know exactly where you'd get that idea.

Here's the bottom line. The underlying processes of climate change are pretty simple. We know most of the contributing factors in reasonably good detail. The data are not ambiguous, and are confirmed through many independent methods.

In short, it's happening. That's why there are entire journals devoted to it. You don't see journals devoted to unicorns or the study of the luminiferous ether. And the studies published and peer-reviewed in those journals overwhelmingly conclude that the last century's changes have been forced by human emissions.

It's "unambigious", says the government paid shill while he cites to other government paid sources!

Solution? Rape our economies and export all our industries!

>>7692910
Why? Because it goes against your feelings?

>>7692963
Notice how the denier doesn't respond to the science itself and goes straight to the conspiracy and hyperbolic consequences. Thus he can be ignored.

>>7692977
It is natural and normal for the climate to change
It is natural and normal for sea ice to melt

I have seen how they've been bullshitting with the climate record
So I don't trust anything they say.

>>7692920
this. if we treated our environment with most care and responsibility, the climate discussion would be completely unnecessary.

>>7692939
Not gonna lie that's a neat-ass graph you got there.

what is that comic trying to prove

that the evidence of warming exists but can't be explained by carbon, or that the evidence of warming will come crumbling down?

>>7692989
>I have seen how they've been bullshitting with the climate record
Please, enlighten the rest of us.

>>7692989
>It is natural and normal for the climate to change
The way the climate is currently changing is abnormal and caused by man. I mean, the fact that you think such a vague ultimatum is a valid argument here is just stupid. You're doing a disservice to your own position by showing people that an idiot is arguing it. I could do a better job arguing against global warming.

>>7692977
>hyperbolic consequences

As opposed to the other side? Really, who's more into "hyperbolic consequences"?

"All models are wrong but some are useful."
-George E. P. Box

>>7693020
"We took data from various sources. Then we adjusted each data point according to how we "felt" about it. Then we threw out the record of the adjustments we made. Then we lost the original data. Then we published our result, with 95% confidence." Science!

Climate change? Yes.
Human caused climate change? No.

>>7692939
I am not an expert on climate science and I don't care why they were wrong. Weather it was incoplete data or fundamentally wrong model. I just don't trust the climate scientists to be able to accuratly predicte future development.
And until they have proven their ability to do so, I dont think we should invest huge amount of money based on their predictions.

>>7693034
See, he's still doing it.

>>7693086
> I am not an expert
> I don't even understand how science works in general
> but I have an opinion that goes against the carefully formed conclusions of all the experts of a scientific subject
This kind of entertainment is what keeps me coming back to /sci/.

File: 1444931083848.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>7693086
>I don't understand the science, but I know it's wrong!
back to >>>/pol/

>>7693094
>>7693095
True science provides results.
It doesn't need to be understood to prove its efficiency.
That's why natural sicence is true science and economy is not

>drought happens, climate change
>floods happen, climate change
>terrorism happens, climate change
>government deficit happens, climate change
>school shootings happen, climate change

Is there anything not caused by climate change?

>>7693101
>True science provides results.
Climatology has provided results. You either simply ignorant of them or deliberately ignoring them.

>It doesn't need to be understood to prove its efficiency.
I don't even know what you are trying to say here. If you don't understand climatology you are in no position to talk about whether the conclusions of climatologists are accurate or not. I commend you for actually admitting you don't know what you're talking about instead of pretending that you do, but now you need to shut the fuck up.

>>7691970
no. it does however depend on your reason for being a skeptic.

>>7692313
both sides are biased, which is one of the reasons to be skeptical

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

>>7691970
holy shit, the carbon sign changes color slightly when I expand the pic
probably something to do with the pixels

>>7693086
>Weather it was incomplete data
>Weather

clever pun or retarded spelling?

File: Philip K Dick.png (389KB, 535x743px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 535x743px

>>7691970
If 'been wrong several times' is what it takes for you to drop all trust, you better be fully committed to the deep paranoid lifestyle. Construction companies are often wrong about how long projects will take, time to stop building. The FDA has been wrong several times about what's safe to eat, time to stop buying food. The police have been wrong several times about arresting people, time to stop enforcing laws. Etc. etc. If you are treating climate science with exceptional skepticism, ask yourself why you are doing that.

>>7693110
>I don't even know what you are trying to say here.
I don't need to understand how weather forcast works to see that it works: it delivers correct weather prediction every day. Climateologists, on the other hand, have failed to correctly predict the climate change and I have no reason to believe that their current predictions are correct

>>7693208
They do some science that I cant understand and they fail to deliver any results. why exactly should i trust them?

File: lebron-james-michael-jordan-uncle-luke.9787420.87.jpg (53KB, 565x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 565x500px

>>7693289
>Climateologists, on the other hand, have failed to correctly predict the climate change

I'm sure you have some reputable, published sources here and can explain in depth why they evidence the total failure of an entire field of science

>>7693301
The burden of proof lays not with me.
It is a fact that in past they had to correct their predictions several times and it is not my duty to determine why they failed

File: b06493901e26731a44d71a0128e3e61c.jpg (15KB, 236x349px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x349px

>>7693306
>It is a fact that in past they had to correct their predictions several times

If it's a fact, surely you can point to exactly who failed in what predictions and when

>>7693308
I don't need to provide anything.
Basically, scientists what that I, as a taxpayer and voter, give them my money and vote for their plans, so they must be able to make predictions that can persuade me.

>>7693321
>Basically, scientists what that I, as a taxpayer and voter, give them my money and vote for their plans, so they must be able to make predictions that can persuade me.

Which predictions have you not found persuasive?

>>7692340
In Alaska, we have coastal towns sinking into the ocean. A town had to do an evacuation this month because of unexpected flooding. These towns and villages have been in there same place for hundreds of years.

It's a mix between rising ocean levels and melting permafrost layers which hold the land together. Though i am not one to give in to alarmist apocalypse predictions. I don't deny the fact the earth's climate is changing.

>>7693333
coastal towns sinking is not "rising sea levels"....

Climate science is a great example of a "big data" problem, if I'm allowed to use that buzzword. The model required to accurately model global climate is beyond the current ability of statistics/machine learning etc.

But it seems reasonable that we should default to the cautious and conservative conclusion in this situation. The stakes are too great to do otherwise. A form of Pascal's wager I suppose.

>>7693041
Oh wow anon, you did all that?
Oh, you mean scientists? which ones? could you point me to them? Get the paper where they say that?
I'll wait.

>>7693382
Even if there is a problem
The solution is not raping our economy with cutting CO2.
It's building big walls to keep out all the shitskin refugees

>>7693381
>coastal towns sinking is not "rising sea levels"....

>>7693333
>Though i am not one to give in to alarmist apocalypse predictions. I don't deny the fact the earth's climate is changing.

Holy shit, forget all that, check out those quads

>>7693390
coastal towns sinking is heavy shit pushing the ground down
Nothing to do with sea levels.

I'm going to break down this series of posts, so that every single other person reading this thread realizes EXACTLY how retarded you are.

>>7693101
You start with something true here: You don't need to understand the theory behind something to understand whether or not it works.

>>7693289
This is the dumbest thing I've read on 4chan today, and makes you think you must be trolling. Not only is weather so unpredictable that IT'S A GODDAMN JOKE YOU MORON.

And let's address this right now: If your only source of climate predictions is the mainstream media and Watt's Up, then you do NOT get to bitch about incorrect predictions. One of those can't report accurately on ANYTHING and the other one has a specific agenda, through which they filter everything. Go to the original sources or GTFO

>>7693306
Then, in a stunning display of rhetorical retardary, you try to justify your laziness. Yes, the reason that you know nothing about climate science is because it's the scientist's job to educate your entitled ass.

>>7693321
And finally, after you made a specific claim about something the climate scientists did, you doubled down on your ignorance.

In these four posts, you've demonstrated a STUNNING ignorance, entitlement, and general laziness that by all rights should ban you from this board in perpetua.

Let me explain to you how this works: When specific claims are made, the PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM NEEDS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE in order to be taken seriously. Climate scientists the planet over have made specific claims regarding the climate, and provided data for those claims. Rather than refute the claims, or dispute the data (which, I feel I should remind you, you have OPENLY ADMITTED YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO UNDERSTAND), you take the most childish possible route and assert that it "doesn't convince you".

THEN, to top it all off, YOU make specific claims ("climate scientists have had to correct their predictions"), which you then refused to provide evidence for.

Cont. for >>7693321
Anon, if you're reading this, I want you to know, YOU and people like you are the reason that /sci/ is such a shithole. Oh, you'll say you like science, maybe you're even an engineer, but you don't understand shit about the method or the philosophy behind it.

The other anon gave you credit for at least admitting you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but I don't. People like you, who feel entitled to bring their ignorant asses into any conversation, proudly clueless the whole time, are a plague on discourse the world over.

Get your head out of your ass, and stop being such a fucking faggot

>>7693411
>Climate scientists the planet over have made specific claims regarding the climate, and provided data for those claims.
And there predictions have been wrong in the past. I don't have to refute their claims, their claims have been refuted by obeservation. So until they make predictions that are actually accurate, I see no reason to trust them

>>7693424
>And there predictions have been wrong in the past. I don't have to refute their claims, their claims have been refuted by obeservation
Which claims?

>>7693396
What part of "These towns and villages have been in there same place for hundreds of years" do you not understand?

>>7693437
Can't find the article now, but I remember about reading on the internet about climate change predictions beeing wrong

File: Out fucking skilled.png (124KB, 5000x2571px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 5000x2571px

>>7693417
>>7693411

File: 556443_10152059337510942_1050323752_n1.jpg (108KB, 720x443px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 720x443px

>>7691970
Does it matter?

What are the consequences of dealing with it, whether or not it exists?

Less pollution? More dynamic energy use? Development of new manufacturing technologies?

This is the first time in history that the general public has sided with the polluters. It kinda sets a bad precedent.

If they'd done that a century or two ago, London would still look like this, as would every other major city. ...and I don't even want to think what China would look like, if not for all the advancements in emission controls.

Really, the only reason you aren't shovelling ash off your driveway like it was snow, is because, in all previous generations, the general public sided against the factory owners, when it came to issues of emissions.

And now, suddenly, we want to turn the progress that's made urban life at least semi-sustainable around, because, why? We don't like democrats?

Neglecting the benefits and consequences, if you just want truth, you know damned well you can't get it, because you have to rely on statistics, and people can gather, filter, and bend statistics any way they want. Whenever there's something controversial like this, that's reliant on statistics, it gets buried underneath all the bias and outright lies to the degree where there's no way to determine the truth.

Though if you really wanna go down that road, it's likely answered most simply by answering the question, "Which bias has more financial motivation."

>>7693440
Oh really? Well I guess that settles it then.

>>7693289
>I don't need to understand how weather forcast works to see that it works: it delivers correct weather prediction every day.
Yeah, because you can go outside and feel what the weather is like, you fucking retard. You can't feel the global climate. You can't feel the average surface temp. You can't feel the ocean heat content. Those are things that have to be measured by climatologists. So again, you don't know shit and you are making a fool of yourself.

>>7693444
The consequences are reductions in productivity, which will have a very real and immediate effect. It'd probably be more efficient to figure out how to counteract, rather than prevent, CO2 emissions.

>>7693444
>What are the consequences of dealing with it, whether or not it exists?
We'd have created a better world for absolutely nothing if this turns out to be a hoax.

you can easily measure climate change as a unit of composition.

Simply take the mass of all the hydrocarbons burnt to date, and divide that by the total mass of the atmosphere and that should tell you what portion of the atmosphere is composed of CO2 and CO resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.

I think its something like a billionth of a percent.

>>7693502
you really only have to accurate within 1 or 2 orders of magnitude

>>7693502
But that neither measures climate nor change...

File: MWOgoVs.jpg (231KB, 728x910px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 728x910px

>>7693440
You read an article on the internet once and now an entire field of research isn't up to your standards?

If you're going to whine about how your tax dollars are spent, it is *your* duty, as a good democratic citizen, to make sure you are well informed.

Where to start with that? Well, it's impractical for anyone to launch into every field of research that might possibly inform one's voting, so you start by identifying reputable authorities

Idk, maybe some scientific societies have stated positions on this subject. Let me google that for you.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

These position statements are mostly freely accessible. They are designed to inform the public, ie you. They are written clearly and accessibly. Most will cite scientific sources, which you can also read yourself if you want more depth. Practice varies between the different societies, but in most cases these statements will have been ratified through a process that ensures the majority of scientists represented are in agreement.

Something the APS statement points out, which I want to draw attention to, is that if you think that the present state of scientific research is incomplete or flawed, the way to correct that is to fund further research instead of whining about it.

>>7693517
you don't think atmospheric composition has anything to with climate?

File: 1446943742512.jpg (112KB, 600x659px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 600x659px

>>7693519
quiet sweety, grownups are talking

>There isn't evidence that Carbon causes warming
>Greenhouse gasses are pretty much the only explanation with no real alternative presented
>It only increases at around the same way the warming has
>Hurr durr we don't think it's Carbon

>>7691970
Until you gain enough knowledge to be able to make such judgements (i.e. an undergraduate degree, PhD and considerable research experience in the field of climate science), then pretty much. There are people that spend their entire lives on this shit, and it's completely okay and sensible to accept that they know more than you about that particular subject.

>>7693486
More efficient to start doing global environmental engineering on a scale never dreamed of in all of human history, than to invent better and more efficient emission controls, or just increase/enforce the use of those we already have.

...Yeah.

File: 1411498018726.gif (68KB, 500x340px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x340px

>They didn't account for all factors and so for some reason I don't in climate change despite the fact that even without future models it's pretty much confirmed

File: t.jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>7693502
>ahem
Are you telling me that there is not one person on sci who knows how to answer this question?

>>7692780
>Maybe the pols melting and temp rising isn't bad
You are an idiot.

File: 1359756654917.png (285KB, 450x375px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 450x375px

>>7692885
>Carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas
Fuck off /pol/.
>>7693086
We know for a fact things are getting fucked. It doesn't matter if we can't exactly say how fucked anon.

>>7693502
>>7693537
I really don't think the debate should continue until you answer this question.

>>7693537
>>7693502
You'll find a thousand different articles on the subject with a thousand different answers, ranging from a billionth of a percent, to twenty percent. And another thousand articles explaining how a billionth of a percent would be catastrophic, and thousand explain that twenty percent would mean nothing at all, each complete with validated scientific references.

It's one of those questions that no one can answer, because too many people have a vested interest in falsifying said answer.

>>7693547
I'll give you a hint, you can find the rough estimates of how much mass the atmosphere contains under the wiki article "atmosphere", and there is some good data on how much petroleum has been consumed to date under the wiki article "petroleum".

File: diane.png (15KB, 75x83px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 75x83px

>>7693502
>>7693537
>implying there are no other sources of carbon dioxide
>implying no carbon dioxide is absorbed ever
>implying there aren't over 9000 other things that neither you nor I have considered
I shiggy diggy doo

>>7693548
thats not actually true.

there is only 1 correct answer, and it can be arrived at with a simple calculator.

>>7693520
Read my post again.

If I am to engage you in debate, I want you to have arrived at a number. It doesn't matter how accurate it is, so long as you can show your work and explain how you arrived at it.

Otherwise, I don't think you are at all qualified to engage in debate regarding climate change.

File: Pickles01.jpg (26KB, 356x269px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 356x269px

I imagine I just gave someone at wikipedia a great big headache.

>>7693411
This post is really autistic, but so fucking right.

>>7693574
The ratio of CO2 to atmosphere is essentially a meaningless figure by itself. If you are trying to argue that adding CO2 has no effect on the climate because it is a small volume of the total atmosphere then you are an idiot.

>>7693581
But the entire theory of the "greenhouse effect" relies strongly upon atmospheric composition, its the basis for all arguments regarding climate change. Without knowing how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, the entire argument falls apart.

>>7693581
Also, I don't think I want to debate someone who insinuates that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot.

>>7693589
Good thing this is an open thread on an anonymous anime message board instead of a one on one debate then

File: Liberal-lies-58036680292.jpg (58KB, 640x553px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x553px

Since the dawn of the industrial age, with few exceptions, we've been continuously making our factories and power sources cleaner and more efficient, abandoning more polluting methods for cleaner ones, and all around, really, reducing our overall environmental impact to such a degree that, if not for the population increasing and more and more of the world industrializing, it'd be almost non-existent today.

Nearly three centuries of cleaner and cleaner factories and energy sources, and hardly anyone batted an eye. It was just considered a natural progression of technology that everything would get cleaner and more efficient.

Now, suddenly, starting in maybe the 80's, if you want to do anything to continue that trend, you're a tree-hugging hippy who's been brainwashed by liberal lies?

Really? Is that what we've come to? We want to stop, and possibly even turn back, the clock on three hundred years of logical, practical, technological progress, of a sort that has made our lives nothing but better, just to avoid looking liberal?

>>7693585
Again it seems you are not understanding my point. Saying that CO2 is "only" a trillionth of a percent of the atmosphere or whatever it is doesn't tell us anything. It's just a misleading argument.

If you want to talk about what effect such levels of CO2 have on the climate, then go ahead.

>>7693594
I thought this was a Nepalese skydiving forum. Am I on the wrong site?

>>7693589
I don't really care who you want to debate, I didn't say that anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot, and if you argue like you are arguing, you are indeed an idiot. This is the third time you've completely misrepresented the point of my posts. Are you just bad at reading comprehension or are you deliberately doing it?

>>7693502
What's your point?

File: 976371.jpg (82KB, 600x815px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 600x815px

Its almost painful watching them think, isn't it?

>>7691970
>So far, the models of climate scientists have been wrong several times, why should I trust them?
What, exactly, do you think a model is? It's not a oujia board for divining the future. We can simulate past, present, and near-future climate conditions with very high accuracy, but the farther into the future you go the number of variables increases exponentially.

>>7693381
>coastal towns sinking is not "rising sea levels"....

>>7693440
this confirms it, it's just someone trolling

>>7692780
>how big exactly is the contribution of the greenhouse effect to earth's temperature?
9 K

The DOD, CIA, and the entire scientific world has articles proving climate change. Especially the DOD. Climate change is creating wars. This is from the DOD as well. These guys don't fuck around when it comes to security.

>>7691974
>blind critique of something you do not fully understand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XrOscFu1y8

>>7693703
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NYSsLJ87UY

>>7693599
Ask china and india if they have adopted your clean energy philosophy.

>>7691970
>So far, the models of climate scientists have been wrong several times, why should I trust them?
The models are actually really good, compared with the level of difficulty that comes with analyzing the entire earth's behavior over centuries.
We understand changes in insolation according to Milankovitch cycles really well, and while there are some big gaps in explaining exactly how the earth goes in and out of periods of glaciation, the debate is primarily about how a known list of factors all interact to accelerate or decelerate changes.
So far, I don't believe anyone has come up with a plausible explanation for the current warming trend that doesn't violate 100 years of research that has otherwise gone uncontested. The models may not be perfected, but they've consistently been good enough that a random 2C+ increase in the next century is inexplicable in purely natural terms.

>>7693735
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/11/china-absolutely-destroying-us-clean-energy

File: climate-comic-53019773885[1].jpg (67KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x400px

Would anyone care to explain why "the man" would want us to consume less of everything and specifically oil? What does he get out of lower productivity and consumption?

>>7691970
if you expect answers from scientists then you`ve come to the wrong place

god dammit, is this a /pol/ thread?
the most important greenhouse gasses are H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O. These are heat-absorbing gasses wich are placed in the ozonlayer and are letting heat from the sun etc onto the earth. Such has it been and such will it always be.
The climate changes are extremely minor and there will be another ice age in a couple of thousand years. This is inevitable. I can explain that in another post if you'd like me to.
(Sorry for my english, i am not so skilled yet :/)

>>7693898
Globalism. That is goal of the Warmists.

>>7693898
there should be less people in the world.

>>7693937
There should be less third world people. If anything, there should be more Western people.

>>7693960
indeed

The primary reason people are so upset about this whole climate thing is because the predicted catastrophic consequences would mean the end of capitalism.

>>7693976
this
>so
>true
>kek
>sides

>>7693599
>continuously making our factories and power sources cleaner
>continuously
No, not even sporadically.
Lrn2history

>>7693289
I feel that today it will be hot
>Science man predicts cold day
>Goes outside and it's cold
Scientists are trustworthy!

I feel that global warming is a myth.
>Science man predicts global warming is real
>Goes outside and it's cold
Scientists are not trustworthy!

>>7692354
>actually happens
>is manmade
>can be prevented
>is actually a bad thing

How certain must we be of these claims before action is warrented?

Suppose we are 90% sure it is happen8ng, 80% sure it is manmade, 60% sure it can be prevented, and 50% sure it is a bad thing.

Is it then foolish to take action? Foolish to fail to take action?

How bad is "bad"? What if we don't agree on the definition, or the percentages?

These issues are what makes climate change a controversial issue. Though we aren't 100% certain of things, it might nevertheless be foolish to delay action further while waiting to obtain higher levels of certainty.

Modelling is one thing, but consider the following indisputable facts:

>the majority of solar radiation hits the earth as yellow light electromagnetic radiation
>CO2 is transparent to these wavelengths
>the Earth radiates this energy back into space in infra-red electromagnetic radiation
>CO2 is opaque to opaque to some of these wavelengths
>increased amounts of CO2 means more of this energy is trapped in the atmosphere
>a warmer atmosphere leads to more water vapour which is extremely opaque to infra-red radiation

These are all indisputable facts. Care to explain how increased CO2 pollution can NOT cause a change in the climate?

>>7693444
>What are the consequences of dealing with it, whether or not it exists?
The Green revolution made it possible to increase world population from 4 to 8 billions. Some is about knowledge but much is about synthetic fertilizers, mechanized tools and cheap transport. ALL of that requires huge amounts of oil and gas.

For the sake of arguments we can assume tech and skills alone make up 50 percent of that enablement. That means we have to calmly decide to murder 2 billion humans through starvation.

>>7693581
>The ratio of CO2 to atmosphere is essentially a meaningless figure by itself.

Not quite. If there is much CO2 then adding more will not change the CO2 window since it is already essentially closed.

That is the very point of the methane window. There is very little free methane naturally so adding a little will have a noticeable impact.

>>7692875
>Don't you get fed the same agenda we do?

No, we get fed different agendas. Fuck off with your pointless comment.

>>7693041
These are just opinions until you link where you found this info.

>>7693041
You show me where a scientist altered facts based on how he "felt" about it, and I'll believe you aren't a /pol/ troll.

>>7693086
>I can't read spanish, but I know that this spanish book is wrong!

>>7694117
>Care to explain how increased CO2 pollution can NOT cause a change in the climate?
Effect size. Feedbacks. Other things happening independently and having the opposite effect.

Ever since scientists started studying the climate, it has been a mystery why runaway warming doesn't happen and turn Earth into Venus. After all, water is a greenhouse gas. Hot temperatures kill things, thaw things, and cause rotting, which releases methane, another greenhouse gas. Once it starts getting hotter, why should it ever stop?

Yet Earth's climate has never run away. It gets hotter and colder, but it never gets hot enough to threaten life. Even in times when there's no ice anywhere on Earth, it's pretty much always on the cool side of optimum.

CO2 is both a trace gas and a weak greenhouse gas. Without feedback, the effect of increasing its concentration should be negligible.

Most pure scientists, motivated by curiosity, look for fields where meaningful progress is likely. Climatology attracts worriers, people who look at the naive analysis with simple positive feedbacks and mysterious negative ones, and are inclined to assume there's some delicate balance, that the Earth's climate has been on a hair trigger for billions of years, just waiting for humans to poke it and start the Venusian death spiral.

That bias was there before government started pouring money into global warming alarmism, to which most climatologists now owe their living.

>>7693299
>They're doing things I don't understand, so I don't trust them!

You understand every aspect of architecture, construction, electricity, combustion engines, jet engines, farming, biology, economics, and government? If not, and you can't trust anything you don't understand, you better crawl back under your rock, and take your invalid argument with you.

This is the problem. People with no understanding of the subject matter feel they just HAVE to throw their opinion into a debate. Fucking educate yourself.

File: tmp_15406-14489140884331951442899.jpg (630KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 1280x1024px

>>7693086

>>7693306
>I don't have to prove anything I say, you should just trust me and not look into it any further.

>>7693527
But when they've spent their life on something, they aren't inclined to go "I've been all wrong!" especially when it would kill their career & livelihood.

>>7693396
So, after sitting firmly, unmoved for centuries, they're just now starting to finally settle? Because architects haven't known how to safely counter act this for millenia, right?

>>7693898
Because economics is not fucking magic, and the alternatives are all an order of magnitude more expensive?

Do ANY of these fucking green marxists want nuclear power?

Livable cities, what a joke, these are the same people who love mass immigration and say #blacklivesmatters.

>>7693424
>That's it, folks! If people occasionally make mistakes, we can never trust anything they say, and by extension, everyone that has ever agreed with them!

What a sad, entitled little idiot you are.

>>7694633
?
What are you talking about?
Massive sky scrapers, paved roads with tons of cars, pumping out all the water for industries/agriculture, etc is a very new thing

>>7693935
>Everyone in the world working together rather than murdering one another in hunger and poverty is a horrible thing! We must ensure that we stand divided!

>>7694661
>everyone working together is our goal!
>That's why we have to murder everyone who disagrees!

File: 1446870080495.gif (237KB, 276x268px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 276x268px

>>7694636
>tfw lefty friends all hate coal/gas/etc but use it all the time
>tfw they also hate nuclear and would oppose any attempts to open nuclear plants nearby
>tfw wind and solar are inefficient and cost more than they're worth but they want government to always pay the cost, continuously bumping the price of these technologies up as government always helps pick up the tab
>tfw they only screech about it until it hurts their feelings or their personal finances then they shut up

L-let's fight climate change guys!

>>7694555
>thinking the greenhouse effect is a political agenda
what a waste of trips

>>7694594
>Yet Earth's climate has never run away.
read about Snowball Earth fgt

>>7694709
>tfw he doesn't know that fossil fuels are heavily subsidized

>>7694482
I wasn't aware anyone in charge was considering globally banning fertilizer and transportation.

Last I heard it was "Plz reduce your emissions 20% over the next 20 years.", which I dun think would require a global ban on transportation and fertilizer.

Especially given that, assuming we don't roll back technological progress, that's about the same rate we've been reducing emissions all along.

>>7692340
Not him but we've got record after record of high temperatures every year around here, we've even got to 54 celsius last year.

>>7694757
You know what I meant. It has never run away in the hot direction.

>>7693417
i.e. he's a perfect example of someone stuck on mount stupid

File: 1448301048506.jpg (38KB, 337x322px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 337x322px

>>7693440
This must b bait.

>>7693502
>implying it's possible to know how much was burnt up to date

>>7693160
Do any models include the suns activity?

File: 1448551022808s.jpg (2KB, 125x101px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x101px

>>7693717
At 32 seconds I had to pause the video to calm down. These people are allowed to vote, holy shit.

>>7693976
We don't even live on a pure capitalism, we live in corporativism.

>>7694661
Don't remember how international communism has worked out so far?

>>7693717
Poor Dawkins. The world did this to him.

>>7693028
Can you prove that it's abnormal

>>7693999
Yes they, they're a lot cleaner

>>7695133
>>7693519

>>7694647
>Massive sky scrapers, paved roads with tons of cars, pumping out all the water for industries/agriculture, etc is a very new thing

Because these things are applicable in Alaskan coastal cities apparently. Erosion is a very real, measured and documented phenomena Yes all coastal towns will eventually sink, no they won't suddenly start sinking.

>>7692780
>we'd be much better off if we used this time and resources to explore and prepare for the inevitable climate change.

I agree with this statement, I think that given the possibility that some of the change is due to natural causes (with human contribution exacerbating the changes possibly) the idea of 'fixing the problem' rather than 'adapting to the future' is laughable. It shows the inherent nature of our institutions to try to hold a status quo even when the very Earth is against them, rather than to adapt and evolve.

That being said I think what we should do what is reasonable to reduce our influence on a system that is still beyond our ability to fully control and predict when there is a large body of evidence that suggests that influence will have a negative result.

>>7694482
>The Green revolution made it possible to increase world population from 4 to 8 billions

>Doubling the population is inherently good
>Now there are even more people starving people then before

>>7694636
>economics is not fucking magic
It is a religion though.

>>7695142
It did take a few rivers catching fire to get things into gear in the US though.

China also didn't take kindly to having 2 suns.

>>7694615
The irony of that quote. Hildern was one of them. But he's right.

>>7695297
Bingo. Having studied both macroeconomics and divination in Imperial China, the two have a remarkably similar role in their respective societies.

>"What now?"
>*decision is made by closed committee*
>"Well, the magic bones [that I doctored] have spoken..."
>"Well, these indicators [that we cherry-picked] have spoken..."

The college football playoff committee operates on the same principle, come to think of it.

>>7695242
Anyone pushing AGW-based policy needs to have good answers to these two questions:

>What if it turns out that some or most of the warming is natural and even completely eliminating carbon emissions and capturing all previously-released carbon won't stop it?

>What if we come up with a good way to capture atmospheric carbon that's much cheaper than cutting emissions?

They never do. They're always pushing some kind of global restrictions on industry.

>>7694594

Nice handwave, but no cigar. You cannot refute irrefutable science.

>>7694709

>shilling for fossil fuel

>>7694886

That's a total strawman argument; moving the goalposts to an irrelevant position and implying that only that worst-case runaway scenario is what we should be concerned of.

And for what it's worth, we DO have a case of runaway greenhouse effect: Venus.

>>7695354
>What if it turns out that some or most of the warming is natural and even completely eliminating carbon emissions and capturing all previously-released carbon won't stop it?
That's extraordinarily unlikely, as other posters have at least tried to demonstrate, but assuming it became the case, it would take a lot less effort to undo the change that it takes to come up with it in the first place.
Seriously, here's a fun design problem for anyone: how difficult would it be to revert the United States to, say, 1950's era technology? Strip away laws and attachment to modernity, and it physically wouldn't be all that difficult to revert society to a less efficient, less complex state.

>What if we come up with a good way to capture atmospheric carbon that's much cheaper than cutting emissions?
What you're talking about exists, in its nacency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
And many countries are supporting it, including through the US Department of Energy. It's not super-promising at this stage.

>>7695367
>>What if it turns out that some or most of the warming is natural and even completely eliminating carbon emissions and capturing all previously-released carbon won't stop it?
>assuming it became the case, it would take a lot less effort to undo the change that it takes to come up with it in the first place.
Wow, this took a sharp left turn into gibberishland. I can't even guess what you're trying to say.

>Seriously, here's a fun design problem for anyone: how difficult would it be to revert the United States to, say, 1950's era technology? Strip away laws and attachment to modernity, and it physically wouldn't be all that difficult to revert society to a less efficient, less complex state.
What the flying fuck has this got to do with a scenario in which the warming is natural?

File: 1MNbLkz.png (18KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 625x626px

>>7692885

>>7691970
>le science is sometimes wrong so never trust anything meme

File: halfalife.jpg (18KB, 503x411px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 503x411px

>>7694709
>tfw i'm a pro-nuclear left-wing green
>twf i get shat on either way

>>7693545
prove co2 is a greenhouse gas. Find me a research paper proving it.

File: 1445804255937.png (29KB, 591x422px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 591x422px

>>7695400
>tfw iktf

>>7695345
>95
Economics has always been coined voodoo "science". There is a reason why a lot STEM folk don't like Economists.

>>7695398
climatoloogy is a joke though. Models haven't changed in decades, only "constants" have,

>>7695400
>I'm pro nuclear
Anon you're way ahead of you time. Being pro-nuclear is seen as being a pedophile these days. Its a shame nuclear power is the cleanest source of energy we have. Generation IV fission technology is super safe. It can even use nuclear waste as fuel. There is also poop power.

>>7695419
I'm in the UK, public opinion is split pretty evenly here but nuclear power isn't particularly controversial. I specialised in nuclear engineering at university, so I'm hoping to get into the industry

>>7695434
>UK
China is going to own your energy sector. They're going to open new nuclear power plants. My guess this is how China is going to save the world. Exporting mass produced, cheap nuclear designs. Their designs are pretty good and rival Russian designs. Russia has some of the most advanced reactor designs in the world. UK has some too, but its been lagging due to the "greens". I want to do nuclear engineering but the US has a problem with nuclear because of the coal and oil/gas industry. China will change this.

>>7695390
You asked why we're investing so much in changing our patterns of behavior, if we assume, as you do, the possibility exists that we are not the cause of the problem.
My response is that most of the changes being sought are reversible if they prove unnecessary. Going backwards technologically isn't that unthinkable of a task.

>>7695312
Dude, London used to be buried in 7 feet of ash on a daily basis. There was a whole industry centered around people being paid to shovel it off roofs and shit.

If we were still using that technology on the current scale... Well... Every river would be on fire, and we'd all be long dead. Nearly everything is several times cleaner and more efficient than it's ever been. Hell, even more recently, even in shitholes like Los Angeles, which was averaging five Stave III smog alerts per year through the 70's and 80's, hasn't had one since 91.

But some folks seem to think that's a bad thing and want to turn that trend around.

>>7694793
>>7695360
I didn't say it was great, I said my friends all hated it but used it all the time while opposing nuclear, the best energy option in terms of cost and output and pollution produced. Storing radioactive waste > shittons of CO2 in the air.

Automatically assuming I liked fossil fuels just because I made fun of my lefty friends, how retarded are you guys?

>>7695449
>My response is that most of the changes being sought are reversible if they prove unnecessary. Going backwards technologically isn't that unthinkable of a task.
Okay, so I had trouble making sense of what you were saying because it was completely insane.

In the scenario that we spend decades wrecking our economy, setting up an intrusive system of international monitoring and regulation, and likely going to war with non-compliant countries, all to drastically cut carbon emissions, and it turns out cutting carbon emissions actually wasn't important so the temperature just rises anyway, the problem wouldn't be about how hard it would be to "go backwards technologically" and start burning carbon fuels again.

The problem would be everything bad happening that's supposed to happen if we don't stop global warming, on top of having accepted all of these costs.

>>7695354
>What if it turns out that some or most of the warming is natural and even completely eliminating carbon emissions and capturing all previously-released carbon won't stop it?
That... would be unlikely in the extreme. But if that WAS the case, then we would have wasted a lot of time and money.

I feel I should hedge here by emphasizing that what we're experiencing is not natural. Climatic shifts take place on thousands or millions of years, not hundreds of years or a couple of decades.

>>What if we come up with a good way to capture atmospheric carbon that's much cheaper than cutting emissions?
Then we should use that to the extent that it's helpful. There's no way to say without knowing what type of technology we're talking about.

Let me make two predictions about this hypothetical technology though. If it did come about, it would be A) a temporary bandaid (I'm reminded of the solution used in Futurama to stop Global warming) and B) the right would bitch about it every bit as much if not more. imho, it's better to just get off the poison so that the free market can work with something new, rather than trying to have twenty trillion regulations in place
>inb4 socialized climate control

>>7694594
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never met any actual climate scientists?

>>7692885
>carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. this is also fact.
>it isnt
are you clincally retarded.

a 12 year old can plan and execute an experiment to prove that it is

>>7695661
>...never met any actual scientists?
ftfy

>>7694594
>Yet Earth's climate has never run away. It gets hotter and colder, but it never gets hot enough to threaten life.
Four global extinction events, any one of which woulda killed us a thousand times over, say otherwise.

One of those started with a simple five degree rise in ocean temperatures, precipitating a series of events than compounded the effect, and wiped out about 75% of life on the planet.

Granted, that's not what the climate changers are predicting, discounting the fringe - they are simply saying it's gonna make life more difficult. Easier for a few, but more difficult for most. Relocating all our coastal cities and agricultural centers ain't gonna be fun. Even if it's over centuries, it's going to involve fundamental shifts in power, and wars, followed by more wars.

>>7695434

Nuclear isn't economically viable. Fact.

>>7695656
>Let me make two predictions about this hypothetical technology though. If it did come about, it would be A) a temporary bandaid
Why would atmospheric (or aquatic) carbon capture be a temporary bandaid? The biosphere all runs on captured carbon.

Hydrogen's density is a problem, anhydrous ammonia's too toxic for routine handling, metals are too heavy and give solid waste products which are inconvenient to handle. Synthetic carbon fuels make sense. Carbon is also valuable, of course, for durable materials.

Aside from cycling the carbon, disposing of it permanently isn't much of a problem. The Earth is rich in metal oxides that react readily with carbonic acid to form carbonates. This is a major weathering mechanism on the surface. However, there's no benefit to this but reducing atmospheric CO2.

Rather than being a "bandaid", atmospheric carbon capture is the ideal long-term solution, if atmospheric CO2 elevated above pre-industrial levels continues to be regarded as a problem as science marches on. It lets us not just offset our carbon emissions, but reverse them, and it doesn't require global cooperation.

>B) the right would bitch about it every bit as much if not more.
That doesn't make any sense, and you haven't given any reason why they would.

>>7695406

Absorption spectroscopy is a well understood phenomenon. If you are unaware of this effect, you have no business chiming in on this subject let alone any science.

>>7691974
>Diax's rake
That was a good book.

>>7695829
This. Especially learn infrared spectroscopy and CO2 and H2O's absorption frequencies and how they relate to frequencies of radiation from space.

>>7692885
get the fuck out of here faggot.

temperatures fluctuate and the earth is supposed to heat and cool, depending on the amount of greenhouse gases the atmosphere contains. since we are now at like 400 ppm compared to 180ppm way back, the earth is heating, undoubtedly. learn how CO2 and other GG's affect the heat by studying infrared and absorption spectroscopy.

don't need citation, it's widely supported just fucking google it

>>7691970
Do you share similar opinions on different topics with others who deny climate change, and are thus possibly suffering from conformation bias in an attempt to fit in?

>>7692989
Source

-or-

>//pol/

>>7693727
That was a very informative watch. Gwynne Dyer is a great public speaker, and he seems very knowledgeable.

I never really considered what governments might be thinking/planning behind closed doors in regards to climate change, but it's very telling when governments all over the world start making plans for a climate apocalypse.

Also, at 44:30 he addresses the kind of idiocy that started this thread; I think his analysis is spot on.

>>7696052
Climate wars are occurring now. Israel beef with Palestine is water. Syria had a severe drought and helped form ISIS and get new recruit because of no job opportunities. Oil and Gas companies know Climate change is occurring and they're only prolonging their denial as long they can until they're "forced" to change their stance. Arctic will be a major geopolitical tool for world powers. It may create the third world war. Political extremism is going to rise outside of religion. Just like what happen in the 60-80s. Political terrorism in the name of ideology.

File: f99ece7429b26e127cbab8c4686f1b00.jpg (53KB, 736x402px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 736x402px

>>7695367
>Seriously, here's a fun design problem for anyone: how difficult would it be to revert the United States to, say, 1950's era technology?
You'd have an easier time taking their guns...

Further, it'd be the opposite of what you'd want to do, as 1950's technology is a hell of a lot dirtier than the modern stuff.

True though, it's more fun to drive. (Provided you don't have to parallel park.)

Climate changes. That is what climate fucking does. So, of course, climate change is real. The question is: have the actions of mankind caused it to change? There is damn little evidence that CO2 emissions produced by humanity have any significant influence on the total temperature of the planet.

File: warm weather causes fascism.jpg (223KB, 1276x826px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1276x826px

>>7696229

>>7692354
There is no such thing as "burden of proof" in science, it's a juridical term.

>>7693011
There's always going to be some faggot that wants more to be done.

The western world treats our environments well enough for now.

>>7696229
You should be a standup comedian. Your explanations are hilarious.

>>7693041
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Oh anon, I haven't laughed this hard in ages. Thank you!

>>7695367
>That's extraordinarily unlikely
CO2 have kept climbing but temperatures haven't for the last 18 years. Seems like a huge and glaring disconnect to me.

>>7695826
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cjx4gJFME0

Carbon capture is a bandaid because it's essentially a more sophisticated version of this solution. Every year as the economy expands, you're going to have to remove more and more carbon

>can't imagine the right bitching about something that works
Why doesn't this make sense? Think about it like this? Who's going to pay for it? The government? Then we'll get
>wah, the goburnment shouldn't be in the business of regulating climate

If we make industries pay for it then it's essentially the same as a carbon tax, which corporations (and their mouthpieces on the right) will bitch about that too.

Carbon capture doesn't solve the problem because every year it will get more expensive to capture all the carbon and nobody will want to pay for it. It's better to just rip the bandaid off quickly imho

>People still argue against climate change

Jesus Christ all mighty, even flat earthers have better arguments than this. How is this still even a debate?

>>7691970
Well the truth is there is an insane amount of easily observable evidence in many places of the world. The odd part is how you can't see it either because you don't quite understand what is really going on or you aren't able to properly compare patterns from some time ago to today.

Alaskan and Siberian permafrosts are melting which in itself shows you crazy danger. Water levels are rising along the coasts and flooding areas in Georgia (US), and some other stuff. If you aren't in that field I suppose I can understand a lack of knowledge but being openly skeptical is sort of the equivalent of saying evolution isn't a thing.

>>7696363
The temperature has been steadily rising. However, the bulk of this temperature increase is being loaded into the oceans and not the air. However, saying the temperature hasn't been steadily increasing shows your lack of knowledge on the subject because it actually has.

>People still believe in climate change
Jesus christ all mighty, even vaccine deniers have better arguments than these people. How is it still a debate after they've been provably wrong on every single claim?

File: lol cluesless.png (190KB, 1051x460px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1051x460px

>>7696443
Temperatures stopped rising 18 years ago, ocean data probes doesn't agree that they've been stealing your warmings.

Your argument that "oceans steal our heats" and "temperatures are still rising" are self-contraditionary, but logic consistency isn't expected from a climate zealot so please get out your next bullshit argument.

>>7693502
Eh, let's do a shitty lower bound estimate. US burns a million tonnes of coal a day apparently, or roughly 10^9kg, the atmosphere is something like 5x10^18kg. 30 years of days is about 10^4, so that's 10^13kg of coal burnt assuming the average hasn't changed much, or about 10ppm.

CO2 is I think .03 of the atmosphere? Which is 300ppm.

>>7696449
>rising graph
>write "no rise" underneath it

wat

>>7696478
Try brushing up the reading comprehension and give it another try

>>7696478
>no rise last in 18a
The english is broken but you shouldn't have a problem undestanding it if you have IQ over 85.

It's a 35 year graph and there's no rise in it for the last 18 years. Simple? Simple!

>>7696478
He's using that old denier gem of saying the temperature was higher during the 97-98 El Nino therefore the temperature isn't rising. Yet I have never seen anyone stupid enough to post a graph that clearly shows the difference between the warming trend and drawing a line between a cherrypicked outlier and the present while doing just that.

>>7696500
>>7696494
But there is rise in it. See that trendline thingy that's going up? That's what we call "the rise in warming".

>>7696500
But it is rising. I can see it's rising.

Is this just a troll? If so, ya got me good.

>>7696500
>>7696449
>>7696494
>Ignoring the increasing average that is literally printed on the graph.
>Expecting a system as vast as the Earth to respond instantaneously to changes in it's parameters, much less ones that have occurred in basically a geological instant.
Kill yourself retard.

>>7696512
There's a rise in the graph as a whole but there's no rise during the last 18 years, which happens to be enough time to falsify AGW as a theory.

File: evol.jpg (30KB, 678x332px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 678x332px

>>7696512
>>7696513
>>7696533
Jesus christ, I expected you to be idiots but this is beyond my wildest dreams.

I guess I'll use this graph the next time I'm here to argue because nuances are lost on you.

>>7692989

Ebola is natural you faggot

>>7696500
>you shouldn't have a problem undestanding it if you have IQ over 85.

>everyone fails to understand it.

good job sci, just as expected.

>>7696561
Do you honestly just not understand how graphs work, or is this supposed to be some clever tactic? Did you think US birth rate had gone into reverse because the population briefly went down after 9/11?

You don't get to just pick two points you like the look of and draw a line between them. Anyone can cherry pick points. Look, the temperature graph goes up from 2000 to today. And from 2005 to today. And from 2008. And from basically every year after that one obvious anomalous one.

>>7696545
There is a rise in the last 18 years, as much as there was before it.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

Im not sure what to believe anymore. Just in this thread allone there's people defending both sides, one side, no sides, east side, west side, dark side.

Im a layman on the subject, so I have to defer to the experts. But when theyre not making much sense, I stop caring about the subject.

File: hurr-durr-hurrdurr-graph.png (11KB, 634x571px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 634x571px

>>7696599
>Linking highly manipulated NOAA data based on UHI cooked spot measurements extrapolated to cover huge expanses of wilderness and unmetered areas instead of gold standard global satellite measurements.

Here's another graph with data of the same quality as NOAA one.

>>7696619
Protip: don't pick the side that thinks it's all a conspiracy by Big Tumblr to make an evil utopia.

>>7696580
Your own high priests said that the AGW models are falsified after 16 years of no warming.

We're at 18 and you're still stuck in damage control mode.

>>7696657
I bet you think we've never been to the moon and chemtrails did 9/11. Have you ever talked to a psychiatrist? You might have paranoia.

>>7696657
>>7696661
>posting a bunch of nonsense because you can't deal with scientific facts
OK.

>>7696671
I bet you're a vegan and chain yourself to trees every weekend.

>>7696682
>can't make a real argumet so here's a strawman.
Cute, how long are you going to deny reality?

>>7696684
I think vegans are retards actually.

>>7696671
>ad hominem
thanks for handing me the victory.
>Me: 1
>You: MAD

Honestly the thing that confuses me most about you denier guys is that you're obviously smart enough to see how much people are motivated by money and their own ideologies, and you've seen how much it's happened over and over again in history. But why of all things do you believe that this huge, complicated subject is the one place that the hippies have somehow managed to be better funded and more well organised in their deception?

Surely the energy companies should be thrashing them six ways on Sunday with PR and lobbying.

>>7696713
Yeah, you guys HAVE won, but I'm mostly just sad. I hope one day you understand.

And you don't have to reply "I hope someday YOU understand", you always just repeat stuff back, I'll save you the time and pretend I read it.

>>7695821
Isn't ocean temperatures harder to change than land temperatures? Wouldn't the land be suffering a more significant change the oceans simply because water is such a strong heat sync?

>>7695824
> Source: my ass

>>7693384
>>7694576
>>7694582
>>7696361

Here you go...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records/faq

"It is important to distinguish between the data released by the NMSs and the truly raw data, e.g. the temperature readings noted by the observer. The data may have been adjusted to take account of non-climatic influences, for example changes in observing methods, and in some cases this adjustment may not have been recorded, so it may not be possible to recreate the original data as recorded by the observer."

"3. Why is there no comprehensive copy of the underlying data?
The data set of temperatures, which are provided as a gridded product back to 1850, was largely compiled in the 1980s and 1990s when it was technically difficult and expensive to keep multiple copies of the database."

>>7696785
Holy shit, we don't have old doctor who episodes either. He must be part of the conspiracy!

>>7696714
Mostly because the goal posts keep being moved.
First it was global warming. Then they said global cooling. Then climate change, which is like calling atmosphere "air." Yes, the climate changes. That's nature, it does that a lot, in fact. Things change into cooling or heating periods. Sure, science changes depending on new evidence but they seem so desperate to screech that big companies causing weather change is more dangerous than whatever else is going on in the world. I've heard that other planets in the solar system are also going through warming periods and that the sun itself is due for a period of increased activity and output. These, if true, I think would be more tied to climate change than most man-made operations.

I figure that if it is a human cause and things get bad enough, it'll be fixed. That's what we, as a species capable of making tools, are supposed to do. We already have lots of ideas on ways to reverse any alteration to the climate and if it is man-made, then obviously we have the means to reverse it, likely even easier than it was to change it in the first place because we will have a direct goal and effort because the alternative would be extinction, and I'm fairly sure we don't want that outcome.

I really don't see the point in sweating about it. We just need to make sure that the culture that will be around at the time, will be the stable sort that would take a look at it and actually bother to fix it. Current political climates are kind of caustic and we have a group whose self-proclaimed objective is to eradicate all other groups. This group likely does not prioritize or think about climate change at all whatsoever. I am more worried about them becoming powerful enough to have a say in climate change talks than I am about climate change itself. Either it is a natural process and we cannot change it, or it is unnatural and we can. Either result is fine to me, but neither are okay to me if we won't be around to fix it.

>>7696805
>Then climate change, which is like calling atmosphere "air." Yes, the climate changes. That's nature, it does that a lot, in fact. Things change into cooling or heating periods.
>>7691578

>>7696805
From where I'm standing, it mostly seems like a bunch of socially awkward nerds desperately trying to bring attention to it and fucking up hard. The few climate scientists I've encountered are all crazy morbid. Like, they tried to sugar the pill because they thought it would help, but they know how wrong it might really go.

>>7696373
>Carbon capture is a bandaid because it's essentially a more sophisticated version of this solution.
Uh... atmospheric carbon capture is actually removing greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. It's directly addressing the issue in a way that cutting emissions isn't.

You honestly can't recognize how insane the mental gymnastics you've gone through here, to try and call it a "bandaid"?

This is what gets me about people who use AGW alarmism to try and push policy. Their policy position never rationally follows from the scenario they claim is real. They always want to cut industry, to diminish human influence, to require a global regulatory regime restricting individual economic activity, even though this would have terrible costs and be only a partial solution at best.

Every fucking time, they're watermelon leftists: green on the outside, red in the middle.

>>7696845
Hey, if I could get put in charge I'd launch a giant fuck off array of solar sail satellites at the L1 point and block out some of the sun.

>>7695824
Boy, thanks for that, you've changed my mind on the whole thing.

>>7695829
>>7695856
Numbers, boys. I want numbers.
I'm well aware what absorption spectroscopy is. I want some experimental data showing how much of an effect CO2 actually has.

>>7696894
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Calculations_of_CO2_sensitivity_from_observational_data

>>7696845
First of all, ACC as it exists is not practical or scale-able enough to do much of anything. Second, saying it's better than cutting emissions is just stupid. It requires energy to work, meaning you need to power it by a clean power source. But then if you are creating new clean power sources why not just replace the source of emission you are trying to capture with that clean source? Cutting emissions is always going to be far more efficient than capturing them because it does not require additional energy production.

>>7693611
It's a Cambodian Christmas Rapping Forum you twat.

>>7696449
bait

>>7696619
Fuck the sith and jedi.

>>7696352
Whoever taught you that is wrong and retarded. If you thought if it yourself, double that.

>>7696360
You need a brain because what I wrote weren't my opinions but facts given by scientists, DOD, and CIA.
>Inb4 hurr durrr CIA overthrown gubmermint, mind control, typical /x/ crap.

>>7696845
Ok, I'm going to try one more time, still operating under the assumption that you want to actually understand my position and not just accuse me of being a secret communist or whatever the fuck a 'watermelon leftist' is.

To the first thing: In my very first response to you, I said that we should use the technology to the extent that it's useful. I'm not convinced that the technology would be useful for a few reasons.

1) Even though carbon would be getting removed from the atmosphere, carbon would still be getting put into it. I'm not sure how you aren't getting this. If you're trying to fill a hole, and someone at the bottom keeps shoveling dirt out, then it seems to me like the first step should be to tell them to get the fuck out, not to try to fill faster than they dig.

2) You still haven't addressed who's going to pay for this expensive, complex process, which I think is quite important. If it's the government, then we get a tragedy of the commons scenario where government has to foot an increasingly large bill for all the carbon that's being released by industry. If it's the industries themselves, then this is functionally no different than cap and trade, where the opportunity cost of using fossil fuels is artificially limited.

Ultimately, it doesn't solve the root of the problem, which is that at the end of the day, we're still putting shit tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Trying to remove atmospheric carbon artificially (especially when there's already a natural carbon cycle) would be clumsy and difficult, and only make the problem worse.

>>7697106
>facts
Opinions you mean.

>CIA
lets trust the agency that murders people to left and right and fed LSD to minors. Also an inumerable other amount of atrocities and lies.

>>7696504
this is a true fact

>>7697310
>>>/x/ is that way. They're offering the Tinfoil hat Mk.V.

>>7693417
>but you don't understand shit about the method or the philosophy behind it.
I'm a fucking physicist that's sceptical of man made climate change and I understand that you are really fucking up here. You have the burden of proof mate and when other people find it inadequate you literally act like it's an ad hominem, like we're somehow attacking your noble and honorable field directly and thus devaulating your work. We aren't, you are subjected to scientific process, your methods, your top ideas must be mocked and subjected to every bullshit imaginable and must stand against it. One single person in your field's early history that falsified data (not unheard of in literally any discipline, happens even today) could change the entire course of it.
>hurr durr temperature measurement from 80s are just like doctor who episodes :^) they get lost
That's why I can't find 16th century astronomers exact measurements in a book amirite :^)

Fuck, I'm usually the guy to call /pol/, but climate change is the Jews of the scientific world; God forbid you have a legitimate criticism, you are suddenly reduced to a redneck, Bible thumping southerner.

>>7696944
Please explain what those numbers mean, I'm slow, as it turns out.

Are telling me it doesn't matter how much CO2 there is, it only matters how wide of an area it covers? How else would you interpret w/m^2?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that observational data from simulations, not actual experiments, as explained on the very first line?
>Rahmstorf (2008)[12] provides an informal example of how climate sensitivity might be estimated empirically, from which the following is modified

>>7697403
>physicist that's sceptical of man made climate change

Not much of a physicist then? Explain >>7694117

>>7697672
please explain how CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and by how much. I want actual numbers and research papers.

>>7697403
>physicist
riiiight ;)

>>7697675
correction, the how was explained in >>7694117

>>7697675
> http://ipcc.ch/

>>7697106
Not in the denier camp, nor denying that climate change of any sort will of course result in resource conflicts, but if the CIA really thinks the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is all about water, we're seriously fucked.

>>7697306
>2) You still haven't addressed who's going to pay for this expensive, complex process
There's going to be a point where atmospheric/aquatic carbon capture becomes more cost-effective than fossil fuel extraction as a way to get dense, storable fuels and feedstocks for the chemical industry, and that's the point at which the market will naturally switch to a closed carbon cycle.

It'll be a race between easily-extracted fossil fuels running out and advancing technology making simple, predictable, low-labor systems more cost-effective. A stationary solar-powered carbon capture facility can just sit there and make valuable fuel forever, without anyone having to explore, or do environmental impact studies, or buy extraction rights on new land, or deal with geological complications that arise at the extraction site, or any of that hassle. You just have to maintain that facility, which is a problem more amenable than fossil fuel extraction to technological improvement by its consistency, predictability, and the fact of it being a purely technical challenge.

This is how it actually ends. This is the permanent solution. The key policy question is whether we can simply wait for the market to work it out, or if there needs to be some temporary solution until it's ready.

>>7692653
a teapot comes to mind.

>>7697682

Ok so now your argument isn't that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, but how bad it is? Did you ignore the part about water vapour? Just keep moving those goalposts, just like the emperor fiddles while Rome burns.

>>7692354
>No, but I think the burden of proof lies with the ones who claim that climate chance
>actually happens
If you're going to go up against a half-billion years of geological and biological evidence, then I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you. The evidence that happens is pretty solid, and it's going to continue to happen, no matter what we do.
>is manmade
That's more questionable, but there's no doubt that man has an extreme impact on his local environments, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that all environments are connected in various ways, so one would have derive to the conclusion that man would have to have some impact on the environment, globally, even if what or exactly how could be disputed.
>can be prevented
We're certainly technologically capable of globally changing the environment one way or the other by choice. Whether we have the will, or even if it's a good idea, is another thing. But we've been constantly reducing emissions and improving efficiency of every piece of technology we use for hundreds of years now, and since that's all that the politicians are currently calling for, that should happen almost on its own, provided there's no sudden backlash against the technological progress that, until recently, has been not only standard fare, but assumed.
>is actually a bad thing
I dunno - I suppose one could argue that coastal cities flooding and populated islands vanishing might be a good thing, if you're the sort of hippy who thinks civilization is a blight to be wiped from the world. Nearly all our agricultural and population centers are where they are because the climate favors them being there. They are largely dependant on water sources and food supplies remaining where they are. Moving them is a pain. Sure, climate change will be beneficial for a few folks, but the majority of the populous and industry gathers in ideal locations, so the majority of the populous and industry will suffer when those ideal locations move.

>>7696805
>First it was global warming. Then they said global cooling.
I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post, but I just wanted to let you know this was bullshit.

The vast majority of climate scientists never advocated global cooling, that was the media.
aerosol.ucsd.edu/classes/sio217a/sio217afall08-myth1970.pdf

This is why it's important to not let the media be your source of scientific information. They never know what the fuck they're talking about

>>7695406
Nigga, I've seen the absorption spectra of CO2 in my biochemistry course at a community college. Try again.

File: 0803 - L0sj23T.jpg (32KB, 312x247px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 312x247px

>>7696641
Holy kek

>>7692780
>but if you look at the big picture, higher temperature isn't necessarily bad.
No, but climate change is. An unstable climate means an unstable food supply and economy. Unstable food supplies and economies is historically very very bad for humans.

>>7698708
Increased CO2 increases plant growth, this is beneficial to us.

Increasing temperatures lengthens growth seasons which also is beneficial.

It's a win-win situation to emit more CO2, the only real problem is particulate air pollution if you go all in on coal power.

>>7697669
>Are telling me it doesn't matter how much CO2 there is, it only matters how wide of an area it covers? How else would you interpret w/m^2?
Are you telling me you didn't read the article?

"Although climate sensitivity is usually used in the context of radiative forcing by carbon dioxide (CO2), it is thought of as a general property of the climate system: the change in surface air temperature (ΔTs) following a unit change in radiative forcing (RF), and thus is expressed in units of °C/(W/m2)"

Climate sensitivity to CO2 specifically is either described as the temperature change in °C from doubling CO2 concentration OR as equivalent units of radiative forcing (which is independent of the source of the forcing). It is simply an equivalence, like saying 3 pounds of flour is equivalent to 2 units of shelf space.

>And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that observational data from simulations, not actual experiments, as explained on the very first line?
Huh? Where does it say this? The line you quote simply tells us that Rahmstorf describes how to calculate sensitivity from empirical data. Read the rest of the section instead of just jumping to the conclusion you want.

>>7698748
Yeah, we just have to abandon all our coastal cities and low island nations, move all our current agricultural strongholds and fresh water supplies, and hope we just don't end up with more desert that doesn't grow much of anything, all while dealing with hundreds of more resource wars and migration. It's win-win.

>>7698790
Cities and islands sinking will happen regardless, because it's the weight of the city pushing the land down
Or because they live in a subduction zone

Either way, if you believe that the ocean rising a couple inchs somehow causes people to "abandon coastal cities & islands", you are fucking delusional.

>>7698790
>we just have to abandon all our coastal cities
In five hundred years perhaps. Sea level change is so creepingly slow that it's easy to engineer it away before it becomes a problem.

>move all our current agricultural strongholds and fresh water supplies

Will never be needed, if you check elevation maps you'll realize that sea level rise will only nibble away a tiny bit of coastline.

All your arguments are unfounded.
>B-b-b-b-but I'm sure somethign bad will happen, Al Gore said so on tv!

File: Screen-Shot-2012-11-25-at-3.41.44-PM-351x500.jpg (43KB, 351x500px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 351x500px

>>7698853
>>7698838
Even the most conservative estimates are talking feet, not inches, and some island nations have already vanished, while others continue to do so.

It is true, it'll happen slowly enough that we can deal with it, but it'll still be an epic pain, both economically and logistically. Agricultural is already being moved about at an unprecedented pace. Mass migrations and wars as favorable areas change also tend to suck.

Whether or not it's something we can avoid, that's another question. But, meh, given the "demands" being set forth, not really gonna hurt to try, really, it's something we were going to do anyways, if the previous trends continued, and the worst case scenario is we cut down on some pollution for nothing (save for all those other problems pollution causes).

>>7698895
3mm per year have been the rate since we started measuring it. Sure it'll be almost a feet after 100 years.

Is it going to stop rising if we do anything? Well, no, because there's no such thing as a static sea level, come the next ice age and it'll drop again as water is sequestered in glaciers.

Anyway I live in a region where interglacial rebound is faster than the rise so lol fuck you I'm safe.

>>7698748
Yeah, maybe it'll be good, once the climate stabalizes. Until then the places where we have all the rich farmland may end up having droughts and the places with no good soil and farms may get all the rain.

A different climate might not be bad but climate CHANGE is bad.

>>7698895
>not really gonna hurt to try
Going by IPCCs own numbers nothing save for nuking every population center is going to to make a difference.

So you'll burn a lot of money and see no results. Take those monies and build sea walls and other flood protection infrastructure in at risk areas if you want the money being used for something good. By the time a region is at risk for sea level rise it'll also suffer regular flooding due to normal weather driving the local sea levels higher.

>>7698949
But climate isn't destabilizing, weather have always been unpredictable and there's no observed change that it would be more so today.

>climate CHANGE is bad.
Only if the change is to colder weather.

We can actually mechanically lower the sea level. The way to do this is to move material, either solid or liquid, from under the ocean to sitting above it on solid ground.

One of the reasons the sea level has gone up is that we've drained so much wetland and groundwater. We can replenish this, for starters. We've also lowered lakes for flood control purposes.

We can trap more fresh water on land by digging out reservoirs, dredging lakes to be deeper, and building more dams. This would give us larger reserves for times of drought. Fresh water has value, and letting so much of it run out to the ocean unused is wasteful.

We can also lower the sea level by building artificial islands or peninsulas in shallow oceans, as in the example of the Palm Jumeirah. These can serve as hurricane baffles or land for agriculture or habitation.

The glaciers were going to continue melting and raising sea level with or without global warming. They're still in general retreat from the last glacial period. We shouldn't plan on being able to prevent them from melting.

>>7698976
It's probably more cost effective to build seawalls, drainage and pump infrastructure than trying to lower sea level by depositing in reserviors. Or simply relocate.

Our society changes faster than ever before and people still think in static ways, "well this city have been here as long as I can remember(20 years) so clearly it have always been and should always be here and there's no reason for it to disappear unless evil mankind have destroyed something!"

>>7698960
Climate is not weather.

>Only if the change is to colder weather.
I'm not going to repeat my explanation why shifts in climate can be bad.

>>7698995
>Climate is not weather.
Which is why it cannot be destabilized. Climate is the average of weather.

>I'm not going to repeat my explanation why shifts in climate can be bad.
It was a terrible explanation and wrong anyway.

>>7692507
:^)

>>7692653
>TRUE SCIENTISTS
>as spoken by Anon, a part time laborer who reads about science off of tabloid articles

>>7699003
>seasonal precipitation averages cannot be changed by changes in climate
That is what you are in effect saying by saying that current agricultural zones will cannot possibly be effected by climate change. It is a dumb claim.

It would be bad if the Australian outback or the Mojave desert starts getting more rainfall while Ukraine or the bread basket states of America get less.

>>7699037
>>seasonal precipitation averages cannot be changed by changes in climate
Seasonal precipitation averages are the climate.

>It would be bad if the Australian outback or the Mojave desert starts getting more rainfall while Ukraine or the bread basket states of America get less.
That's not going to happen though. Climate isn't a vengeful god that decides to things according to whims. The local geography have a lot to say about where it rains and not and a shifting temperature isn't going to remodel the landscape.

You attempt to attribute divine powers to CO2 as some sole controller of the weather, the climate and the faith of all life.

>>7697715
There is nothing really explaining CO2 there. They used to have a paper there from the early 20th century that discussed, among other things, carbon monoxide, not dioxide and they used that as numbers for CO2. Two different gasses.
Not very scientific, is that?

>>7697864
The guy gave the how, which I was willing to forego temporarily, to focus on one thing at a time. But then, I can tell you how the Big Bad Wolf ate the Red Riding Hood.

I'm not ignoring water, but let me tell you what you can extract from that part.

Water trumps CO2 when it comes to greenhouse effect, according to people who have actually managed to release some numbers. By quite a lot, in fact. If CO2 is bad, then water is really, really bad.
Taking ALL the CO2 out of the atmosphere in that case would mean nothing, and all we would need to do is shoot something in the atmosphere to allow clouds to form, rain to fall and thus removing water from the atmosphere, no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail#Suppression_and_prevention

In short, water feedback only strengthens the point that climatology is not science, but instead a bunch of alarmist nonsense, if a proposal like that can not be given serious thought. Throughout history, humanity has managed to mitigate it's impact and that is considered normal. With farming, we invented fertilizing. Settlements are built next to flooding rivers, but locals keep the streams clean to prevent flooding. Venice has not been abandoned to be flooded due to sinking wood pylons, instead, protective barriers have been erected. Surely a constructive, rather than a destructive solution would be better accepted?

I would still appreciate a scientific paper proving CO2 is a greenhouse gas though.

>>7699053
>says that rainfall averages are part of climate and that the climate changes but claims that rainfall cannot be changed by changes in the climate
>uses a ridiculous strawman that bears no resemblance to the original post
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to continue this as a civil discussion.

>>7698954
Makes one wonder why they are only demanding a 20% emissions reduction over 20 years then.

Nevermind the environmental impact of nuking every population center in existence.

>>7699065
>claims that rainfall cannot be changed by changes in the climate
Nice strawman.

>difficult to continue
Then don't, your arguments are shit anyway.

>>7699067
>Makes one wonder why they are only demanding a 20% emissions reduction over 20 years then.

A symbolic gesture and a bait to gain political power to enforce more restrictions.

>>7699077
>Nice strawman.
Don't try to turn that around on me. I'm saying exactly what you were saying and you know very well that you were using a strawman with that whole "vengeful god" spiel.

You have so far stated:
A) Rainfall averages are climate.
B) Climate can change.
C) Agricultural output will not be effected by climate change.

About the only missing link in what I previously stated was my assumption that you believe rainfall affects agriculture. Or are you now going to claim that less rainfall doesn't affect agricultural output?

>>7699062
>scientific paper proving CO2 is a greenhouse gas
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/
Here's a dozen, but it won't matter, because anything that conflicts with your point of view will be "manipulated bias data".

...and the other side will say the same of any counter.

Again, this is one of those controversial proofs through statistics where the truth is forever buried through lies told by both sides. Science fails where humans fail, which tends to be wherever more than one powerful entity has a vested interest in the altering the truth.

Let's not forget that slowing the burning of fossil fuels doesn't just help slow climate change, it helps humanity adjust to the post peak oil era. The more time humanity has to wean itself off of cheaply accessible oil the better.

>>7699082
Oh, I see, so any effort to reduce pollution is part of a slippery slope effort to enslave us all.

Including all the technological progress that has brought us increasingly cleaner technologies for the past three hundred some years, I suppose.

Well golly, we should just undo all that and go back to burning open coal pits to free ourselves from tyranny, I suppose. I mean, hell, digging London out from under tons of ash during the industrial revolution was employing a lot of people, afterall.

>>7693999

It's interesting, my Dad works in the fertilizer business. He once told me they have to add stuff in to fertilizer that plants used to get from the environment, because pollution scrubbers on plants and factories have gotten very effective.

>>7699085
>I'm saying exactly what you were saying
:^)

>>7698976

Jesus, do you have any idea of the volume of the oceans? That shit doesn't even qualify as a drop in the bucket.

>>7698776
You either haven't read the bit you posted, or you just didn't understand it. It's a bit annoying how climate believers arrogantly believe they're the only ones that can read at all, to the point they flat out assume you must be a moron.

Let me sum it up for you how the process works.

>Temperature changes.
>CO2 changes.
>Let's plug the numbers in the model that has not actually been proven to work yet.
>calculate fudge factor called "radiative forcing".
>Use this "radiative forcing" fudge factor, which varies quite considerably (numbers range from 10 to about 1000 for CO2).
>use fudge factor to predict current temperatures.

Bam! Model proven, right? If you did something like that in a real scientific field it would be considered a career suicide. You stand no chance with that kind of research in physics, in climatology, that's part of the course.

You yourself state RF fudge factor is an equivalence, which means you do seem to understand what it might be. Using your analogy, RF would be how many shelves are filled out. I do not care about that, that is a fudge factor. I want to know how much shelf space each pound of flour takes. I want to be able to go through those calculations and experiments myself, not rely on authority to spoonfeed me information, be it correct, or false.

In short, that wikipedia link was nowhere near what I was asking. I would like something, that can tell me how "greenhousey" one molecule of CO2 is (absorption coefficient maybe and how it ACTUALLY affects things?), how it was obtained, how I could obtain it myself, some corroborating evidence from other researchers.

I would actually expect a unit along the lines of kg^(-1), or [math]W_i\over W_o * m[/math], where Wi is incident light from the sun (and earth), Wo is essentially energy retained on earth and m is mass of greenhouse element. You'd think information like that would be readily available, considering how evil CO2 is, right?

>>7699033
you have no understanding of what scientific method or scientific research is. Are you a climatologist?

>>7699111
It's not the volume of the oceans that concerns us. It's the area of the oceans that determines the volume which must be accumulated above sea level to lower it a certain distance.

>>7699087
I can see maybe one or two "publications" on that page, and they only discuss concentrations of CO2 levels, not the correlation between CO2 and temperature, the rest is blogs and self-serving websites. Sciam is not scientific, it's pop-science.

All the figures are barely readable, and graph interpretation is a joke.

I am not afraid of having my opinion overturned, in fact, I honestly hope it happens, as the alternative is actually worse than earth getting a bit warmer.

Try again, this time go through some scientific literature that actually tries to show their data, not some tabloids that try to hide it.

>>7699143
>You stand no chance with that kind of research in physics
You mean dark matter was a career suicide?:^)

>>7699107
If you don't want to continue the discussion then I'm okay with calling it quits. I should be doing other stuff anyway. Have a good one.

>>7699202
>If you don't want to continue the discussion then I'm okay with calling it quits.

This discussion will never lead anywhere, especially not on 4chan. The sensible approach is to never start or join it here, and usually not in real life either, I've had multiple 3-hour sessions with friends over this and it just leads to exhaustion after rehashing similar arguments that are mostly forgotten for the next standoff.

Your cool headed exit is commendable, I didn't expect this on /sci/.

>>7699158
>>7699111
...and yes, I have done the math. It's costly, but not to an insurmountable degree, and as I've previously pointed out, there could be significant local benefits.

As in the example of the Palm Jumeira, large areas of highly desirable oceanfront property can be created.

>>7699199
Ever so slightly different.
Not believing in dark matter is a legitimate stance, it will not get you ostracized by the scientific community and it will not exclude you from working with dark matter non-believers.

Dark matter is not a proven fact, it is, however, a very strong theory, that seems to explain some holes in our understanding of the universe. An educated fudge factor, if you will, that seems to be holding out for now.

Dark matter, on the other hand, would be a career suicide, if people were unwilling to show their equations and instead operated with "blackness" fudge factors.

And you seriously wouldn't get a lot of unbiased support from scientists if you got politics involved.

File: sci-OP.png (87KB, 661x953px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 661x953px

>>7699214
Odd. When I used to frequent /sci/ years ago level headedness was fairly common relative to other boards.

I guess that time hasn't been kind to /sci/. I blame the anons that shat on speculative discussion. They killed the post rate and with it the community.

>>7693045
That's what I'm saying

Fuck al gore

>>7698748
>Increased CO2 increases plant growth, this is beneficial to us.
Remind me again anon, how much deforestations is happening around the world each year?

>>7699790
Why is that relevant? We were talking about agricultural output.

>>7699790
Not as much as you think.
Europe has been getting greener for decades now.
But forests do shit to absorb CO2, it's the plankton that does most of the magic anyway.

>>7699097
the progress was made by free enterprise not by bureaucracy.

Is this how it looks like when a thread on 4chins gets shadowbanned nowadays?

Is 4chan the new reddit?

Discuss

File: Predict vs Measure.png (108KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1440x1080px

>>7693332
The pause in the troposphere

guys
global warming = more oceans = more plankton = more oxygen = global cooling = ice age
stop global warming before we cause another mass glaciation

File: Cooling is the New Warming.jpg (11KB, 258x195px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 258x195px

>>7693417
>>7693411
Wah, wah, wah...
This list of failures of climate "science" is a mile long. So they just keep changing their krap:

"Antarctic sea ice will melt!" => Doesn't melt
"We meant land ice!" => NASA admits Antarctic land ice/snow is growing; local melting is happening by volcanoes.

"Hot spot in the troposphere over the equator" => no hot spot
"satellite/balloon data is really noisy there!" => that's funny the error is 0.1 degrees
"we meant the lapse rate has decreased" => the water vapor will go up higher in the Hadley cell, condensing in an exothermic reaction
"don't confuse us with atmospheric physics!"

"Stratosphere will cool!" => no cooling for 20 years, and previous cooling comes from volcanic eruptions.
"Oooops that's why we draw a diagonal line through the data, starting 40 years ago!"

"Snow will become very rare, a thing of the past" => Europe and North America set snowfall records
"We meant AGW causes more snow!"

"The arctic will be melted by 2014!" => didn't happen, no arctic warming for 10 years.
"Hurr durr, we meant if will fully melt some day after we retire."

"Extreme weather will increase!" => no increase in rate of class 3-5 tornadoes or hurricanes
"We'll fudge the numbers, that was a huge hurricane near Mexico." => those numbers were guesstimates, actual measurements were much lower.
"but it just feels more extreme."

Seriously, you guys getting high and mighty about the scientific method, while defending an unfalsifiable dogma.
The only thing you've done is beclown yourselves.

What's the falsifiability criterion for Climate Change "Science?" Be specific, it must be plausible, testable and clearly distinguishing from normal weather/climate.

>>7699909
I suspect that 4chan is under tremendous pressure to block threads filled with evil climate thought-criminals. After all, the Paris talks are going on and one doesn't want to get in the way of good old fashioned international money and power mongering.

>>7699987
>thinking anybody gives a fuck about this shithole of a website
the only powers that be that monitor 4chan are FBI's pedo and bomb threat divisions