>I believe that the climate is changing, but I don't

Only bumping this shit thread because I loved that anime and thought it was grossly underrated.

I dont care what you think

Youre just a brainlet

>>8935849
What's the title?

>>8935880
So Ra No Wo To
(sound of the sky)

>>8935831
why do climate change fags always break down the opposing argument into the most base retard argument

>>8935849
I know right, I already pre-ordered the BDs.
>>8935880
Watch it dude.

>w-we have a bigger impact than the sun

Lol

>i failed stat but still want to larp as scientist
>oh i know, climatology is science, right?
Anno domini 2017, people still take these hacks seriously

>I'll just multiply by 3 the known impact of CO2 in my model without any research to justify this and call it a day.

>>8936260
>>8936561
>>8936581
THYME

>>8936260
I bet I can turn your face red faster than the sun if I slap you in the fucking face.

File: 1485715661810.jpg (93KB, 620x670px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 620x670px

>>8936623
You're a fucking faggot and so is OP and his fucking ilk, we're literally coming out from a fucking ice age and people are running around like headless chicken, because they don't want to be confronted by something that's beyond their control, so they would rather put the blame on two hundred years of carbon emissions done by fucking ants, who are despite all their vast intellect and technology completely fucking helpless, in the face of any kind of large scale natural disaster, most of which completely fucking dwarf anything we could ever hope to do to this bitch, safe maybe for nuclear war, and even that one is nowhere near as fucked up as what cosmos and earth can do to itself, like supervolcanoes, asteroid impacts and global fucking firestorms.
So they plug their holes and go lalalala and wish that, if only we could just lock hands together and sing a song and buy some fucking solar panels, and recycle some plastic, it will go away.
I'll let you in on a secret - it won't.

>>8936643
THIS THIS I FUCKING HATE ANTS REEEEE

>>8935831
#33
#57
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>8936651
Funny how their models are invalidated every year and every year. Lindzen is less wrong.

>"climate change is not man-made"
>when you have a lot of gas it blocks light
>humans put lots of CO2 in the atmosphere
>somehow climate change is not man-made

>>8936643
>we're literally coming out from a fucking ice age
No we're still in an ice age because there is ice at the poles. You meant to say that we're coming out of a glacial period, which is still wrong since we warmed out of the glacial period thousands of years ago. The global temperature was flat for thousands of years and then suddenly we are seeing warming again when the expected natural change would be leaving the interglacial, i.e. cooling.

You fucks are so delusional that you think you know AGW is false when you can't even get the basic facts straight.

>>8936679
Denier "models" have never been correct, I agree.

>>8936260
There's a big problem with that argument. If the sun had a bigger impact we should be cooling right now as solar irradiance is at a minimum. But we're not. Therefore the sun cannot be having a bigger impact.

>>8936789
Neither did alarmist models. Climatology is a joke, but Lindzen is more scientific in his methods

>>8936581
There's a ton of research calculating and explaining climate sensitivity and radiative forcing. Stop lying.

File: Predictions_1024.gif (2MB, 1024x698px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1024x698px

>>8936801
Uhuh...

File: alarming graph.png (17KB, 938x583px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 938x583px

>>8936821

>>8936783
>No we're still in an ice age
>which is still wrong since we warmed out of the glacial period thousands of years ago
>the expected natural change would be leaving the interglacial
this makes zero fucking sense
make up your goddamn mind please

>>8935831
Global warming is real, and it is man made. But i dont care and i know for damn sure that whatever a government would do to try to fix it will just end up fucking people over

>>8935831
>the fact that there is a direct correlation between industrialization and global warming acceleration, and that correlation is explained by the production of GHG means nothing to me

https://xkcd.com/1732/

>>8936842
>hurr basic facts of climatology do not babe sense
How exactly does it not make sense? Look up what an ice age is. Then look up the Milankovich cycle. Then come back here and apologize for pretending to know what you're talking about.

>>8936848
You're in the third stage of retarded denial. Next comes accepting the consequences but denying we can do anything about it. Then comes full acceptance of the fact that mitigation can and will save billions of dollars in future damage.

File: 1492401718729.gif (924KB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

924KB, 245x245px

>>8936857
Shut the fuck up and read your own post. Fucking first sentence says we haven't even left the glacial yet. Then you completely contradict it saying we've "warmed up from glacial thousands of years ago", then you contradict yourself again saying "we should be cooling again" when we haven't even fully thawed out for fuck's sake.

You know damn well there's been periods when there was no arctic ice whatsoever, followed by periods when there was so much of it it drained the fucking oceans and you could walk from Chukotka to Alaska.
This had fuckall to do with human CO2, or solar minmax, but it still happened and will continue to happen.

>>8936857
Stop responding to him and he'll go away

>>8936865
SHUT YOUR FUCKING HOLE YOU HOOSIER I DIDN'T GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO TALK YOU MOTHERFUCKER STUTTERING LITTLE PRICK

>>8936865
>Fucking first sentence says we haven't even left the glacial yet.
No it says we haven't left the *ice age*, you illiterate baboon. An ice age contains glacial and interglacial periods. We are still in an ice age since there is ice at the poles. There has been ice at the poles for 2.6 million fucking years.

Again try actually looking up the terms you are using, and then come here and apologize for being so stupid and arrogant.

>This had fuckall to do with human CO2, or solar minmax, but it still happened and will continue to happen.
Of course it has everything to do with CO2 and solar irradiance. Changes in solar irradiance due to orbital eccentricity start the interglacial warming which is then amplified by the GHG feedback loop. This is the reason why interglacial warming is so rapid while glacial cooling is slow.

>>8936821
Oh wow, it almost looks like all the models are wrong.

>look ma, we have all these models saying this
If there was a good model, people would settle on using that one. Having all these means that none is good. See string theory. We have around 10^500 models that could describe our universe. Do you see any theoretical physicist screaming how we've solved physics? No. Many models means uncertainity.
Moreover, none of these models quantifies the relative contribution of humans vs nature. In the past, there were many changes in climate, what makes it different this time? Don't conflate models with scientific theory

Don't fall for @8936881's bait

We can fix /sci/, but only if we exercise restraint in our posting

>>8936880
Stop replying to him

>>8936881
It looks like all the ones that predicted long term warming are correct, while those predicting cooling, like Lindzen, are wrong.

>If there was a good model, people would settle on using that one. Having all these means that none is good.
If there are several good models, there is no reason to "settle" on one. Your argument fails.

>Do you see any theoretical physicist screaming how we've solved physics? No. Many models means uncertainity.
Do you see any climatologists saying we've "solved" climatology and there is no uncertainty? This is such an idiotic statement only a child could have devised it.

>Moreover, none of these models quantifies the relative contribution of humans vs nature.
There are plenty that do. You really have no idea what you're talking about.thank you for showing everyone that.

>posting infantile cartoons

>>8936892
You fell for his bait, why would you do this, for what purpose? I wonder...

>>8935831
>>8936880
>>8936881
>>8936885
>>8936892
>>8936895
pls help >>8936845

>>8936898
To educate others on the facts and the intellectual dishonesty of deniers.

>>8936901
Who did you educate? The only people on /sci/ who are both climate change deniers and have at least some idea of what the evidence is are trolls, and you fell for it. You've only made his dick hard, and now he will do it again.

>>8936900
I helped by reporting the thread and not replying to it, you can too!

>>8936905
You're the troll.

>>8936905
Proclaiming you've reported a thread or post is also against the rules :)

>>8936880
>climate cycles can't last more than 2.6 million years.

You're entire model is based on the idea that all unknown variables are negligible but you have no way of actually proving that so all of your "conclusions" are only valid for small transformations of time.

But you decided to set the time frame over a ludicrously long time, so all of those predictions are subject to propagating chaos.

>>8936892
>frenetically mash potatoes
>look ma, these two kinda look like a tiger, no?
Climate "science"
Oh and don't forget about recycling these models whenever they fit the data again. You're just assuming qualitative features of these models or theories and not actually testing or falsifying them. Also forgot to mention how many of these models differ in what they assume to matter. Just moving parts until they somewhat agree with data. Meh

>>8936932
>I'm posting on the same board as these """"""people"""""""

Get the fuck out of here.

>>8936930
What are you talking about moron? Current warming has only been going on for a century or two and we already know what's causing it. Cycles of millions of years are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is on a human timescale. Why you are going on about million year cycles and then accusing me of focusing on "ludicrously long" time frames is baffling. Seek psychiatric help immediately.

Rather than debate people on "muh model is better than your model" why not talk about the underlying facts of anthropogenic global warming?

1. CO2 allow visible light to pass through and absorb infrared, hence the name greenhouse gas. 19th century physics and pretty much undeniable

2. Since the preindustrial revolution, humans have caused CO2 in the atmosphere to go up from fossil fuel combustion. Again undeniable fact.

3. Add 1 and 2 together, you would expect the Earth to warm, hence anthropogenic global warming. This is confirmed by satellite observation, energy in from the sun >> energy out, 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy must be conserved, hence Earth is warming
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

>>8936944
For the same reason everyone else here does. Boredom. And no thanks, i'm having fun here

>>8936932
>wah wah models are unscientific
>but only in climate science
>there is no greenhouse effect or feedback loops wah waaaaaaah

>>8936952
Global warming models also predict that the relation between emission vs. Warming is linear, and it obviously isn't.

When I see a model that accurately predicts warming, I'll buy into it.

Right now, it's just correlation, which doesn't mean anything.

>>8936970
Models by alarmists so far are just data-fitting. They don't describe any law. Models in science describe some law, if it makes successfull predictions in different circumstances, you have a reason to believe the law holds. Not the case in climate science where they "predict" past and change models every few years to fit.

>>8936972
>the relation between emission vs. Warming is linear
No it's logarithmic. How many times are you going to lie about basic climate science you fucking moron?

>>8936985
>Models by alarmists so far are just data-fitting. They don't describe any law.
You're delusional. Nothing you've said in this thread even approaches reality.

>>8936972
>Global warming models also predict that the relation between emission vs. Warming is linear, and it obviously isn't.

No, I dare you to name model that does so. We all know about band saturation, and how you get diminishing return. CO2 only absorb and reemit at certain wavelength window
https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming/lecture/CnAIV/the-band-saturation-effect

>Right now, it's just correlation, which doesn't mean anything.
You clearly don't understand what you're talking about and just repeating the brainlet 'correlation doesn't mean causation' meme to sound smart. I just laid out the 3 causation steps, from 19th century physics to satellite observations all of which are absolute facts that correlates the observation of increasing CO2 with the observation of increasing surface T on Earth

>>8936998
As evidenced by IPCC constantly switching between inequal models according to which better fits current data, while pushing the same narrative and ignoring the inequalities between them. Wew that's some real science there

>>8937013
>As evidenced by IPCC constantly switching between inequal models according to which better fits current data
Yeah that's how science works, moron. I suppose physics is not science since we switched from classical to relativity while still saying masses attract. You caught those lying physicists!

>>8937013
Can you explain how exactly the updating of models invalidates the theory of AGW? Which change disagrees with the theory?

Or are you just spouting nonsense to get attention?

>>8937021
>confusing models testing theory with models trying to fit data
Check Milankovič to see how climate science is done. Compare with the current process of generating models. See the difference? One is scientific method, the other is not.
>>8937022
My problem is this. It hasn't been tested that CO2 may be neglected in physics of climate, it is assumed. See the problem there? It's not the CO2 or anything specific, it's the same for many other qualitative things in these models. How can i believe a model that assumes so much without testing it?

>>8937034
Utterly delusional. You must be a troll.

What about this

>I believe that the climate is changing and that part of that change is man made, BUT I don't believe that the consequences of such change are as grim and drastic as they are presented to us by the media and that there are political and economic interest to exaggerate the man made climate change. I believe that is going to affect us in both positive and negative ways and that we don't know yet the magnitude of these effects.

>>8937061
How about you just listen to what the scientists are saying instead of people who exaggerate or deny what they say? Wow, what a concept.

>>8937077
>how about you abandon critical thinking and blindly appeal to scientific authority?

Quite the concept, Stalin.

File: 45354343435.png (626KB, 1111x980px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 1111x980px

>>8937077

>Wow, what a concept.

That's what I am doing you fucking imbecile.

Do you realize that the media, our politicians and those "scientist" that follow economic interests represent 90% of the information we get about climate change?

We are bombarded with disinformation. Is not easy for the average Joe to get an intellectual honest take on climate change.

>excess CO2/methane
>bacteria in the sky and ocean eats it, shits out oxygen
:thinking:

the solution is to give more money to the third world and import muslims to europe, we can only solve global warming once greater israel is established and white devils are all raped to death.
shitposting aside, i really dont understand the point of climate research. even if everybody agreed it was happening+manmade, what are you going to do about it? do you think the third world cares as much about protecting the environment, as they dump industrial waste into their water, exterminate all life in sight, breed like crazy, and spread diseases constantly

>>8937008
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Hope2/publication/228783460_The_marginal_impact_of_CO2_from_PAGE2002_An_integrated_assessment_model_incorporating_the_IPCC's_five_reasons_for_concern/links/00b495333e8b1172d4000000.pdf

Most models that are created on past data to predict future data are linear.

The right way to study climate change is to make accurate predictions by looking at c02 and stating explicitly how temperature changes then matching to observed changes. In reality, temperature is being fitted to emissions, which only holds temp iff co2 which is obviously not true.
You can literally correlate anything to anything else. That's all you're doing.

>>8937135
>You can literally correlate anything to anything else.
co2 CAUSES the earth to be warmer by refelcting heat back

>>8937094
Yes it is, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEieWJghRNY
This guy manages to debunk a shitty media claim in about 10 minutes by clicking about 5 links
Also media and politicians != scientists, you absolute fucking sped. If you admit you don't have any information on the subject, why are you in this thread trying to convince people climate change is nothing to worry out? Hmm, I wonder, very interesting

File: u_r_a_cunt.png (898KB, 1892x1426px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 1892x1426px

>>8935831
>this time is no different

RESEARCH BOI

>>8937185
When did I say I don't any information or that there is nothing to worry about?

I even showed you an honest source of information are you fucking retarded?

>>8937135
>Most models that are created on past data to predict future data are linear.
The model you posted doesn't say CO2's radiative forcing is linear. You fail with every fucking post.

>The right way to study climate change is to make accurate predictions by looking at c02 and stating explicitly how temperature changes then matching to observed changes.
Radiative forcing measurements are made directly via radiative spectroscopy. You know nothing.

>>8937202
>I believe that the climate is changing and that part of that change is man made, BUT I don't believe that the consequences of such change are as grim and drastic as they are presented to us by the media and that there are political and economic interest to exaggerate the man made climate change
>BUT I don't believe that the consequences of such change are as grim and drastic as they are presented to us by the media
New scientist isn't an honest source of information, and your highlighting is clearly cherry picking regardless

What you are doing is more insidious than what climate change deniers are doing it, whereas they can be brushed off as retarded, your attitude of "eh, we dont really know, lets leave it a bit and wait, it might be fine" is the current prevailing attitude and the one that will or has probably massively fucked and/or killed us

>>8937175
Prove it. That's the whole discussion here. >>8937216
It does say it's linear. In the appendix, the average warming is predicted by emissions * "an unknown parameter"

It's literally a line. If you want to put down deniers, it's fine. But if you want to deny that you don't know what you're talking about, you should do some serious thinking about where you are in life.

>>8935831
Brainlet here. Why is warming the planet by 1 or 2 degrees that bad?

>>8937303
Because theres a lot of planet and we can't stop or turn back time

File: temperature-shift.jpg (59KB, 750x619px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 750x619px

>>8937303
It's 1-2 degrees average. Temperature follows a gaussian distribution, 1-2 degrees change in the mean temperature translates to exponential-fold increase in extreme weather events at the tail end of the gaussian distribution.

One can argue that this is offset by the decrease in extreme cold events, but the damage are not proportional, because society has safeguards mostly for current climate variability range, and need to adapt for the future.

For example, a lot of cities in the north, like Boston where I live are well equipped infrastructure wise to survive 1-2 ft blizzard, but not well equipped to survive heat waves. A lot of old residential building even in downtown Boston don't have air conditioning. Lack of winter blizzard is neat, but sure it cost the city more to readjust to summer extremes rather than just reusing the infrastructure that they already own to clear up and plow snow.

>>8937380
Hm ok, makes sense. Wouldn't the "thickness" of the gaussian curve come into the picture too? Like if the current probability of extreme hot weather is in the almost flat region, then the shifted curve's probability for extreme hot weather would also be reasonably small for a small average shift at least, right? But I get your point anyway.

Have there been any comparisons of the costs of cutting carbon usage vs improving our current infrastructure? Also, what about the ice caps melting and raising the sea level? Is that a real danger or just a meme?

>>8936892
>If there are several good models, there is no reason to "settle" on one. Your argument fails.

Only one model can be true at a time dumbass

Learn to stat

Global warming is communist propaganda as usual disguised in some science to weaken and preferably destroy the west. That's why these faggots hate nuclear and love offshoring western industry of any kind to spiritual and eco friendly nations like China.
>inb4 im not gommunist top lel :D
Quacks like a duck and all.

>>8938475
this. (((they))) really are trying to push this bs onto us.

File: co2.png (36KB, 662x451px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 662x451px

>>8937198
Hmmm.
>>8937303
It is not bad at all, let alone catastrophic.
>>8937380
Why are you assuming that a higher mean air temperature has spread identical to a lower one?

>>8938515
BTFO

>>8938515
Sauce

hey /sci/ correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't methane worse for the environment than carbon dioxide?
pls no bully I'm a brainlet

>>8938594
it's a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, yes, fat people and their farts have done bigger harm to the environment than industrial revolution

>>8938486
>(((they)))
fuck off back to >>>/pol/

>>8938601
>yes, fat people and their farts have done bigger harm to the environment than industrial revolution
no need to be mean :(
I thought that the endless filling of landfills and the agriculture industry of the US were far worse for the environment, are they not?

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-27 at 12.02.18 PM.png (454KB, 1308x1176px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1308x1176px

>>8938587
Some meme not peer reviewed denier site

>>8938594
Methane molecule by molecule is far worse than CO2, however methane lifetime in the atmosphere is only about 10 years

The atmosphere with 20% oxygen content is a highly oxidizing environment. Any reduced (e.g. containing H's) gas would get oxidized in the atmosphere. Methane get scrubbed via reaction with OH into CO2.

CO2 however, is the most oxidized form of carbon and hence you cannot oxidize it further. Therefore CO2 has no chemical sink in the atmosphere and has much longer atmospheric lifetime. CO2 stays in the atmosphere on average ~120 years, with major current sink of CO2 being the ocean. However once the ocean is fully equilibrated with the atm, it would stop being a sink, and you need to remove CO2 via very slow reaction of silicate rock weathering.

This >100yr lifetime and long impact consequence is why most climate mitigation policy focus on CO2, but this doesn't mean that CH4 is not important

>>8938646
>CH4 is not important
Are you sure about that, anon?

File: cc3.png (821KB, 865x807px) Image search: [Google]

821KB, 865x807px

>>8937135
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Hope2/publication/228783460_The_marginal_impact_of_CO2_from_PAGE2002_An_integrated_assessment_model_incorporating_the_IPCC's_five_reasons_for_concern/links/00b495333e8b1172d4000000.pdf

So I finally got a chance to read your paper.
>The author is a professor in business school, not atmospheric science
>Research was funded by GB Office of Gas and Electricity Markets on the Acknowledgement section
>Published on IAJ, shit tier journal with 1.5 impact factor and shoddy peer review (Nature for example is 38 and Science is 34).

Even despite all that, it doesn't say that "most model that are created on past data to predict future data are linear."

What it says is that
>PAGE2002 (this study) allows the marginal impacts of any gas to be found, provided only that its concentration is low enough that its radiative forcing effect is linear in its concentration

Which ironically goes against your own point, only dumb denier hack climate model assumes radiative forcing to be linearly correlated with GHG.

All legitimate climate model worth a damn would have an integrated atmospheric optical depth, radiative transfer function and will take into account such obvious first order effect like band saturation.

Why are you keep embarrassing yourself denier-kun are you a masochist?

>>8938665
I said it DOESN'T MEAN that CH4 is not important

Which means that CH4 IS important

What is double negative and reading comprehension

File: almonds.png (21KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 900x900px

>>8938665
...

>>8938636
Did it ever occur to you that someone may have made that graph by himself based on true data even though it never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal?

>>8938688
>even though it never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal?

Peer review is the cornerstone of modern science. That's like the minimum bar, and even then like the penis social construct peer reviewed paper, peer review is not end all be all and could still be wrong.

Even the sketchiest denier argument could get published in a peer review journal, usually Energy & Environment (a meme denier journal that have been denounced by even one of climate skeptic Roger Pielke as having incredibly lax peer review). If your buddy cannot get his shit plot on a peer review journal, and showed a plot without any error bar in it then I don't know what to say other than your source is shit and not worth addressing

>>8938694
I dont even understand what you are saying. Is peer review in your opinion deeply flawed yet a necessary evil or something?

>>8938709
It's the minimum bar for some dataset to be worth addressing.

Even then, it might still be wrong. What's so hard to understand

>>8938711
For one, it has nothing to do with critical thinking. For another, it is seriously vulnerable to scientists networking. That is just naming a couple of heavy shortcomings without even trying. You yourself admitted it has its problems.

>It's the minimum bar for some dataset to be worth addressing.
This is just asking to be played like a fiddle. How about using some critical thinking and common sense? In this case, the plot could have easily be checked by comparisons with other temperature/co2 plots.

>What's so hard to understand
I find it hard to grasp why peer review should be the golden standard in any case you encounter even after realizing it may not always be the superior approach.

>>8938732
I only trust people that agree with me on a fundamental level, sorry.

File: sci climate thread simulator.png (169KB, 792x653px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 792x653px

>>8938694
>Energy & Environment
fun fact: they literally published a crank article claiming that the sun is a ball of iron, even after it got trashed by reviewers.
>https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf
the author is a real piece of work.
>http://www.thesunisiron.com/

The Guardian had a good piece about how E&E has become a dumping ground for pseudoscience.
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat

>>8938741
Stop being a falseflagger dipshit

>>8938732
>For another, it is seriously vulnerable to scientists networking.
Peer review in legitimate journals like Nature, Science, Earth Planetary Science Letters, Geology, etc are usually single blinded, so the author cannot tell who's the reviewer, but the reviewer can tell who's the author is.

I'm not saying that this is the best way that it could be possibly done. A single blind still allow for reviewer to play favorite, and pander to the legitimacy of research institution as opposed to the merit of the scientific argument by its own merit.

Another way to do it is by having an open access review/discussion like in Climate of the Past/Biogeochemistry journal. In this case the peer reviewer are public, and had to release a public review. This makes for better scrutiny and for the peer reviewer to be public allow the peer reviewer's reputation to be put on the line too (for example in case of the penis social construct paper, none of the peer reviewer suffer the consequences because they were anonymous), unlike anonymous single blind review. I think this is a slightly better method.

In all, peer review is still the cornerstone of modern science. A lot of scientific papers are incredibly technical, and only talks to 20-30 people audience in a specific field. A journal editor is not a newspaper editor, and cannot be an expert in every single aspect of the field possible. Peer review allow for much better quality control, by expert colleagues compared to any other editorial method

File: figure-6-3-l.png (143KB, 700x443px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 700x443px

>>8938515
>>8938636

The graph itself is based on two real datasets, but without sourcing we can't tell what's what. This version of of it tends to be reposted as a skeptic meme, which leads us to think it may be inappropriately splicing the two things that aren't comparable. If you talk an actual paleoclimate expert who deals in these extremely long time scales, they'd actually disagree that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2. Indeed, CO2 is probably the main deciding factor on why our planet looks the way it looks today, and how some of the large-scale shifts occurred in the distant past. Leaving out CO2 as a factor means we can't account for shit and nothing makes sense; factoring it in puts the puzzle pieces together:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/abs/nature05699.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060457/full

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/tellusb.v65i0.19734

And of course, I'm sure you've all seen graphs very similar to this before. (source: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-3.html)

1/2

File: 4_5_degrees.png (95KB, 664x476px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 664x476px

>>8938894

So why is this a problem? Well, the issue isn't that other temperature states have existed before. I mean, that's pretty obvious.

But do we want to replicate the climate of the Hadean period, where the ozone layer didn't exist and the ground was molten lava? Thankfully we can only destroy the ozone layer through nuclear weapons, but we can't actually turn the surface into lava.

Do we want to replicate the climate of the time of the Stegosaurus? Well, I dunno about you but I'm not a Stegosaurus. As a large mammal that evolved in a certain way, I would die of heatstroke in a matter of hours if I was exposed to the climate of the Stegosaurus. Something slightly less extreme than that would still be lethal.

Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.abstract

Okay so those are out. What if we just warm the Earth by, say 4 C, the high end estimate for the Eemian period during the last interglacial. Well that's fine and dandy, we wouldn't be killed from the heat, but the sea levels were scores of meters higher, and forcing hundreds of millions of people to migrate from coastal cities. Also it might cause the giant super-hurricanes that were the subject of The Day After Tomorrow. Yes that movie is silly as hell and nothing depicted there is possible, but like so many things it's based on a kernel of truth.

Sources:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/nature08686.html
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

The World Bank, which historically was much more interested in funding coal plants than mitigating climate change, released a report that 4 C of warming "must be avoided," and that's without the controversial superstorm theory:

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/11860

2/2

>>8936741
If it blocks light (I'm amusing you mean all electromagnetic waves, not just visible light) then the earth would be cooling

File: 1_EemianSeaLevelEstimate.jpg (166KB, 570x556px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 570x556px

>>8938922

To sum up (tl;dr):

- We're damn sure greenhouse gases, and therefore all the CO2 and methane emitted by humans, has a very important effect on climate.

- Yes, even a "small" amount of warming like +2C or +4C is extremely concerning if you care at all about living in a stable prosperous human civilization

- You cannot prove me wrong with the available evidence and expert opinion

Endnotes
1. The Sun's output is too stable to change climate dramatically, and is not correlated to any recent warming. The Milankovitch cycles alone can't explain the ice age cycles either, at least not without factoring strong positive feedbacks from greenhouse gases, especially CO2.
2. You may have heard of a time when "Snowball Earth" states prevailed and the ice sheets reached the tropics. This occurred when CO2 concentrations were on the order of 4000ppm, four times higher than that of today's! How is that possible? Well, ice sheets reflect nearly all solar energy back into space, and the Sun was ~30% weaker in those days. Overall, scientists are able to account for all these factors. See Lacis et al. 2010, linked above.
3. The Eemian sea level was up (or even more than 9m) higher than today's, but thankfully, those changes prooobably do not occur very rapidly. By 2100, we may see a maximum of 2m of sea level rise, but this is complicated by various factors like local variations in gravity, isostatic rebound, coastal erosion, groundwater depletion, and the like. Overall though, this poses an enormous challenge for cities to adapt to, or otherwise be forced to move.

File: rebuttal.jpg (216KB, 758x997px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 758x997px

>>8938926
the sun radiates in the visible range
the earth is cooler and therefore radiates in the infrared and microwave range
CO2 is transparent to visible light, but absorbs strongly in longwave bands
thus, incoming solar radiation passes through, but outgoing terrestrial radiation is trapped.

deniers still can't refute this fairly simple principle, though they've tried. some claim that CO2 doesn't actually absorb infrared light, based on its linear, symmetrical structure, despite
a) the belief that linear symmetrical molecules can't be IR-active is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how absorption and molecular excitation work, and
b) laboratory experiments universally confirm that CO2 absorbs IR

>>8938987
>the sun radiates in the visible range
sun radiates every single wavelength you fucking faggot

>>8938987
>>8938994

Anon was incorrect about the Sun [only] radiating in the visible wavelengths, but the general thrust of it is correct. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, period. We know exactly what wavelengths it absorbs and how much of a warming impact it has on its own. The only real debate is the long-term climate sensitivity to CO2, i.e., what happens when you throw in all the other factors like ice sheet melt and permafrost melt and so on.

>>8938646
>methane lifetime in the atmosphere is only about 10 years
too bad it breaks down to co2 + h2o

File: main-qimg-f9bc312e4d114e9e32a62714c36580aa[1].png (39KB, 599x395px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 599x395px

>>8938994
>>8939014
the sun radiates MOSTLY in the visible range, you expired coupons. I didn't say it radiates ONLY in the visible range.
if I said the sun contains hydrogen and helium, would you start bitching about all the sodium and oxygen that I didn't mention?

>>8938936
>- You cannot prove me wrong with the available evidence and expert opinion

Climate scientist here, great post anon I'm obviously on your side but to nitpick you meme'd it up too much on the "giant super hurricanes" part. That part is not backed up by solid evidence, it's more likely that storm systems are stronger in glacial period, due to higher temperature gradient from tropics-poles than in interglacials.

Another nitpick is that the name ''Eemian'' is based on pollen record for Northern/Western Europe. It is meant to represent regional climate change. The eemian is equivalent to Sangamonian in North America, Ipswichian in England, etc. Greenland would be appropriate for the "Eemian" but globally it should be called "The Last Interglacial" or "Marine Isotope Stage 5e" rather than the Eemian. The regional phasing of the Last Interglacial is not synchronous throughout different regions, and you're doing the climate phase a disservice by calling it the Eemian as an umbrella term

>>8937249
>omg the oceans rising will kill us all!!!!

I wonder how our human ancestors managed 100,000 years ago when the global temperature was 5c hotter with incomprehensibly inferior technology.

>>8939321
Its because a melting ice cube doesn't change the water level of the glass.

>>8935853
This.

And a weeb (I know it is redundant).

Worst case scenario:
>We can't grow food on the scale we've been growing.
molten salt loops, leds, and tunnel borers totally wouldn't ensure our survival... (they would)

>massive decrease in biodiversity
Sea single cell lads are fine, things that eat them are fine, things that eat them are fine. Only thing that gets fucked are things with shells.
We can catalog the genomes of animals for use in genetic engineering, no biggie.
There would be terrestrial impacts, but they would be manageable.

>Feedback circuit
This is the only real threat, but we've been hotter before with more water and carbon in the air, so we're definitely fine until we get to that point.

>polar bears
The ice had to melt sometime. They're basically just arctic black bears.

>bees
This is possibly an issue, but we could solve it with genetic engineering.


tl;dr
No matter what, humanity (probably) be fine.

The real solution is to:
orbital colonies
kill shitskins
only use as much energy as we receive from the sun

>>8936156
that's how liberals in general make their case

>>8939561
>We can't grow food on the scale we've been growing
I would say two largest countires on earth finally becoming largely livable kinda moots this one

>>8939321
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man

Nobody is saying mankind will dissappear. But there will be undeniable human and economic costs which will be magnified by not taking action to curb emissions.

>>8939561
You forgot flooding. Lots of it.

>>8939321
Because when your a pseudo ape living in a fucking tent, picking up the ~2kg tent and moving it a few meters inland every year is not a big fucking concern when you have to move it every fucking week to follow your future hamburgers.

>>8939958
>You forgot flooding. Lots of it.
We've got enough concrete to solve that.

>>8939561
>he fell for the bee meme

LOL

>>8940942
LMAO FUCKING HILARIOUS

>>8940939
do you have any idea how much work it takes just to maintain levees and floodwalls?
this is the kind of bright thinking that leads to people combating beach erosion by just dumping more sand on it. (and then of course it's all gone in five years because it's the wrong kind of sand.)

>>8940964
I meant making two fuck huge mega super "dam"
Basically two massive artificial foothills.

>>8940973
I'm referencing the alleged inland american sea.

>>8939516
Try holding the ice cube above the glass.

>>8935831
>CO2 levels dropped precipitously in the past
>without Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lecturing all life on earth
how???? I don't think science can explain this.

>>8941030
something something geography, something something oil.
If it weren't for the industrial revolution, all life on earth would die out.

>>8936260
This is dumb. The Sun has a massive impact which transforms this from an icy rocks into a flourishing ecosystem. Not a 2-3 degree impact.

>>8938444
What is true and what is knowable are two different things moron.

>>8937290
No it specifically says it's logarithmic you lying sack of shit

"The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is high enough (hundreds of
parts per million) that the extra radiative forcing is a logarithmic function of
concentration."

>>8937086
>responding to what scientists are saying about global warming instead of Al Gore is abandoning critical thinking
Whatever you say Retardo.

>>8937086
critical thinking == shit I made up

>>8941030
God did it obviously. Just pray the gay away.

>>8941326
Does Al Gore have a time machine?

First poster here
Just wanted to apoloogize for bumping this thread before the mods could get to it ):

>>8941498
Should've saged. This thread is gonna die soon anyways

>>8941498
why can't you faggots learn to sage?

I love global warming, the weather is so nice.

Its not that humans arent contributing to climate change in a measurable way.
Its that switching to solar or taxing carbon emmisions in your country will not help reduce the impact at all, and that such programmes are just cashgrabs.
We are speeding it up
But we cant help slow it down.

That is why I will always oppose policies that *protect the planet and its climate*

Why is this so hard to understand?

Im not exactly an expert but wouldnt a large temperature increase, ivrease rainfall and green surfaces anyways that will in turn reduce the weight of our influence anyways?

>>8942572
>Why is this so hard to understand?
It isn't to me. All proposed "solutions" so far have been obvious bullshit to steal tax dollars. Carbon tax is of course another way for big businesses to prevent competition so they're all for it.

>>8936651
>https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Paid shills. Stop referencing that dishonest clod John Crook. He has no credibility

JOHN COOK DEBUNKED:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

JOHN COOK LIES
hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/john-cook-is-a-filthy-liar/
www.forbes.com/ sites/ jamestaylor/ 2013/ 05/ 30/ global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims /
wattsupwiththat .com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/
http://impactofcc.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-cook-et-al-willfully-lie.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

File: Capture.png (166KB, 826x355px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 826x355px

>>8943855
John Cook's derivation of 97% BTFO right here. He discarded 99% of the non-agreeing scientists from his sample. No shit.

>The Truth About Climate Change
>http://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069

File: 1490993169941.jpg (12KB, 261x196px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 261x196px

>>8941314
>using AL Gore as an example of someone not to trust when he more or less shared the same view of climate change with most climate scientists of the time.

Want to think of a substaintial counter-example?

>most pop culture celebrities more or less share the same views of climate change with climate scientists of the time

Glad we cleared that up.

File: welcome to sci.png (304KB, 527x308px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 527x308px

>>8943855
>Paid shills. Stop referencing that dishonest clod John Crook. He has no credibility
nice ad hom. by your standards, I can ignore anything written by Watts, Motl, Monckton, etc., since they're dishonest, not credible, and (literal) paid shills.

>>8943867
>John Cook's derivation of 97% BTFO right here. He discarded 99% of the non-agreeing scientists from his sample
A complete refutation of this trash is found in the very first comment on the vixra link you posted:
>False dichotomy: "Either an individual chose to endorse or they didn't. No other possibilities exist." is a fallacy. An individual or abstract could endorse, reject, or say nothing about the consensus, and as clearly stated in the Cook et al paper the percentages were derived _from those that expressed an opinion_.
>Cook et al stated they emailed _all_ authors whose emails they could find - 14% is a very reasonable response rate for surveys from an unrelated institution by all standards (5-20% expected).
This tired old argument claims that if a paper doesn't say anything about the consensus position, it should be treated as rejecting the it. By this """"logic"""" I could """"prove"""" that biologists reject evolution, since most papers don't explicitly mention evolution.

>>8943880
>Al Gore has similar views to climatologists
>therefore everything he says about climate is an accurate representation of what he thinks!
are you really this stupid?

>>8944257
>of what they think
pardon me, fixed.

>>8944257
>Monckton
The deniers always use the RSS dataset, its old version which was admitted to be false in march 2016.

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m55s

>>8935880
Noel is best girl

File: 1494707423271.jpg (37KB, 448x513px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 448x513px

>>8941030
Maybe it was a little thing called the beginning of life, when cyanobacteria started to create massive amounts of oxygen through photosynthesis, leading to the Great Oxygenation Event and the appearance of aerobic life?

Because, you see, science HAS studied these previous CO2 spikes and falls, but they happened over millions of years. The current situation is unprecedented for the speed at which we are changing the environment to what may be an irreversible state if things like the Clathrate Gun hypothesis are correct.

>>8942572
>Im not exactly an expert but wouldnt a large temperature increase, ivrease rainfall and green surfaces anyways that will in turn reduce the weight of our influence anyways?
Yeah no, it doesn't work that way. The reduction in albedo due to smaller reflective surfaces from the Arctic and Antarctic ice dissapearing would counteract any large gains from your hypothetical increase in plant life. In addition, many of today's prime farming areas would be threatened by desertification, once again counteracting gains.

>>8942915
All the solutions so far have been bandaids for a mankind-threatening global disease.

The problem is that the real solutions are not compatible with namby-pamby liberal democracy: Parenting licences to stop people from breeding out of control, massive research into thorium nuclear reactors, and the outright banning of some energy and industrial production methods to radically curtail carbon emissions before its too late.

>>8939580
thats not fair. Have you ever really tried to argue with a creationist, or somebody who thinks theres a globalist conspiracy to destroy national sovereignty? Its literally impossible. its like have a rational discussion about the causes of the great recession with a hamster. You're better off just making fun of them.