/ccg/ - Climate Change General

Is it when we reach 600 ppm that shit starts to go down?

File: alley17.jpg (18KB, 400x322px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x322px

>>8976598
I don't think there is such a thing as a sharp boundary of dangerous CO2 concentration

the last time CO2 had the present concentration in the atmosphere was in the middle Miocene, some 12 Million years ago. At that time, temperature were between 3° and 6°C warmer and sea level was between 25 and 40 meters higher than today. That doesn't mean we will get the same conditions (because solar insolation definitely also played a factor besides CO2) but climatologists say that we have already locked in a long-term rise of sea level of between 4 and 9 meters, even with a hypothetical stabilization of GHG concentration at the present level.

>>8976612
Honestly, we're pretty fucked if that is accurate. A 30ft sea level increase is more than enough to destabilize the entirety of global infrastructure and displace hundreds of millions, not to mention the effect on the ocean as it overtakes all of that waste.

File: rignot2014.png (157KB, 930x718px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 930x718px

>>8976642
I should make this clear:
Even though rapid rises of sea level are known in the geologic record (at the end of the Eemian 120,000 years ago, sea level rose 2 to 3 meters "within an ecologic period" and at the termination of the last glaciation, sea level rose at a rate of 5 m/century), climatologists think this process would take place on a century timescale.

In 2014, people at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory used satellited radar altimetry to look at the Amundsen Sea Sector, which is an area in West Antarctica that is drained by 6 giant glaciers (which on their own hold 1.2 meters of SLR). What they found is not only a fast retreat of the glacial grounding line, but also an acceleration of the retreat with time. This is very dangerous because these glaciers lie on a bedrock with a retrograde slope that extend all the way back to the entire West Antarctic ice sheet. The WAIS (which holds a total of 3 to 4 meters SLR) is largely grounded below sea level and is therefore inherently unstable according to the Marine Ice Sheet Instability hypothesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2pYHMx5bN8

File: sun.png (168KB, 750x596px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 750x596px

not man-made

>>8976612
>but climatologists say

What a laughable thing to say

File: TSI17.png (148KB, 671x591px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 671x591px

>>8976677
disregarding for a moment that this graph doesn't seem to come from an actual scientific article, it's actually very easy to show that the sun isn't responsible for the warming of the last decades.

Not only can we measure TSI rather comfortably with satellites (and it doesn't track temperature over that time), but a solar forcing is also fundamentally inconsistent with the temporal and spatial characteristics of the observed warming:

If solar effects were that large on a decade timescale, we should see a huge 11-year signal in the temperature record (we don't)

If solar effects were responsible, we should see a warming of the entire vertical extension of the atmosphere (we don't; the Stratosphere is cooling)

If solar effects were responsible, we should see a concentration of warming in the tropics and decreasing warming with higher latitudes (we don't; the Arctic is warming 2 to 3 times faster than the rest of the planet)

If solar effects were responsible, the diurnal maximum temperature should warm faster than the diurnal minimum temperature (it doesn't; it's actually the other way around)

File: co2.png (174KB, 798x372px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 798x372px

>>8976690
>implying humans fully undertand atmospheric fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, as well as heat transfer processes around the globe
>ignoring the fact the Sun is the only significant source of energy that warms the Earth
>ignoring humans make less 20% the atmospheric CO2

>>8976733
It should be noted first of all that you didn't respond to any of the points I raised.

but let's take that claim that humans don't understand the thermodynamic processes on Earth.
Okay, that's a point of view, but if that's the case, how does that square with your earlier declaration that it's "not man-made" >>8976677

You seem to think that ANYTHING will do, regardless if your arguments are internally inconsistent and mutually exclusive. Just throw everything at the wall, in the hope that some of it may stick with some people.

Call that what you will, but it isn't a real scientific hypothesis and I think it isn't a serious way of arguing either.

>>8976591
Global warming is nothing but spectrum-tier nonsense.

The biggest figure in this scam is Al Gore, who said in 2008 that there would be no ice in the north pole in 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDNkAkl89wA

>>8976756
It was taught as a theory long before Gore and his movie made for money and shock value.

The 'sky is falling' idiocy only made them look like fools and they ended up hurting their own cause in the end.

>>8976733
The proportion of greenhouse gases that humans are responsible for is not constant; it's increasing.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last century is less than the amount humans have added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Nature is a net absorber of CO2. The fact that nature emits AND REABSORBS more CO2 than humans do is of little relevance - what counts is the net increase.

Although water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, it quickly condenses into clouds which have a cooling effect. So the significance of H2O in the atmosphere isn't closely correlated to the amount that goes in; rather it's an amplifying mechanism. More heat retained (which is the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases) means more of the H2O is in the vapour phase (which causes warming) rather than the liquid phase (which mainly causes cooling).

And nobody's ignoring the fact the sun is the only significant source of energy that warms the earth. But denialists tend to wrongly assume that they know something the climate scientists don't.

there is only one thing that truly creeps me out about climate change and that is the poleward shift of the storm tracks

it's creepy for several reasons: it was predicted by modeling efforts several years before it was actually observed. Also the mechanism behind this shift is completely unknown and this may turn out to be a very important cloud-albedo feedback. Lastly this poleward shift is only ever replicated in models that have a climate sensitivity of more than 3°C and that can't be a good sign

>>8976591
Degree is inadequate in the same way as in Raschke, but in other areas there are, although you can understand in it, the unified textbooks from the same office that you need to zadrachivat before blinding, because 99% of all questions of most subjects have in mind precisely direct questions From the textbook. For example, if it is written in the saber book that Aligula Mollamagometov was the greatest bearer of the 17th century, then so, the whore, will be the question - "who was the greatest beast of the 17th century?". And all the options are entirely writers and all of the 17th century. So sit and wonder who in the author's book was honored to be called the greatest. Did not zadrachival this moment, focusing on important historical events and dates? - We fuck, it was necessary. And in general, half of all the delirium of these textbooks are cleanly rolled out of the hottest textbooks of the 90's, apparently because no one in the subject matter understands them. For example, now what the Russian program in Russian calls an "indicative offer" is called "subjective" in Azerbaijan. And fuck that it's already mauva. Also there is an opinion that this is done specifically so that the school buys only textbooks of this same office . And one more haemorrhoids - tests and textbooks are made by different people, and apparently by the end of autism, since they do not enter into contact with each other and understand each other in the matter of each other exactly by fucking. Hence all the problems - the textbooks are written through the ass, if only the tests were coy-like compatible, and the tests themselves are written through another ass, so long as the textbooks were compatible.

>>8976679
>What a laughable thing to say
what a stupid post to make

>>8976756
>Al Gore
>politician
gtfo fgt pls

Will carbon scrubbers ever become feasible?

>>8976591
climate change =/= global warming

>>8978948
once we have fusion, Yes
it's all a matter of energy, could do it with nuclear, but hippies are too scared of it because they're uneducated shit eaters

>>8979272
Why are we still using fossil fuels if hippies are in charge?

>>8979272
Fusion will never be commercially viable.

>>8976733
>your metabolism is what keeps you warm in winter
>after all, it's the only significant source of energy that warms your viscera!
>wearing a coat has nothing to do with it!

the sad thing is that there are tens of millions of people in the US who are actually this ignorant.

>>8979272
>>8979293
the sad thing is that NIMBYs have enough pull to stymie new projects but not enough to enact their own agenda.
so instead of building newer safer more effective nuclear plants, or denuclearizing entirely, we're left with the objectively shitty middle ground of maintaining reactors that were built in the 70s and never intended to be running today.

File: ehehehe.gif (1MB, 964x912px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 964x912px

Is anyone else here having literal nightmares about climate change?

I am so fucking scared guys. For the last few weeks I keep having a nightmare where I am at a fancy dress party, dressed as the Arctic Sea Ice. Everyone at the party is ignoring me and they seem to be drinking oil. I am fine, at first but then start to feel hot. I look at my sides and I seem to be melting. I feel hot as fuck, and look in the mirror and see my face melting.

Then I try to get help. I grab at people and they ignore me until I pin down a girl and projectile vomit in her face until she dies.

I am so scared.
We are going to be 4 degrees warmer by 2060. Sea levels will rise 3 meters this century. Food production will plummet by 50%. Disease will spread. Storms and flooding will cause nuclear accidents.

We are fucking done. less than 500 million of us will be left by 2200, and we will NEVER reach this level of civilization again.

I have been trying to cope by stealing Scientific Journals from the University and burying them in metal capsules in the woods, hopefully future humans wil dig them up and use them to re-learn lost knowledge

File: sealvl.jpg (72KB, 526x359px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 526x359px

>>8979527
>find a rural place with low population density
>plant fruit and nut trees and many many perennial edibles and other useful plants
>grow a good variety of veggies
>keep animals
>get lots of tools, solar, radio tech, weapons etc.
>make friends with your neighbours
>sit back and watch the world burn (or drown)
>hope there is no nuclear war

Humans in favourable conditions will survive
They will rebuild
The knowledge will not be lost
Our species has survived worse things

>Is It So Bad If the World Gets A Little Hotter?
Yes, it will be.
https://www.wired.com/story/is-it-so-bad-if-the-world-gets-a-little-hotter-uh-yeah/

File: 1490291218719.jpg (12KB, 236x314px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x314px

>>8979527

Buy some stilts hippie, lol.

>>8979832
manlets, when will they learn

File: large_James Hansen.jpg (32KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x480px

*increases your temperature gradient*

>>8979527
jeez dude calm down, were not heading for 4 degrees and instead are trending towards just under 2 degrees. While this is still horrible it is no where 4 degrees will take us.

>climate change

No such thing. Liberals cling to this and seem to love it these days. Face it, not only you lost the election, climate change is also not real.

>>8981699
>Face it, not only you lost the election, climate change is also not real.
Congratulations - You just basically summed up everything wrong with climate change denialism in a singe sentence.
You don't actually care about the climate, you're just here to cheer for your particular political team to "win", even if it involves shitting on actual research.

File: Paris-emission-paths-600x451.jpg (31KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x451px

>>8981688
that's not actually true, if we want to keep temperature under 2°C compared to pre-industrial, emissions would have to peak in 2020 and then decline rapidly. Since that is highly unlikely, we will probably overshoot 2°C

Climate change apocalypse is malthusian meme for self hating autists and opportunists using them. The zealous anti-nuclear crusade by the same circles is related.

File: 1497579964718.jpg (7KB, 192x182px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 192x182px

Gym I go to often has over 550 ppm, am I going to die?

Do you guys remember that Japanese or Asian scientist skeptic that made that really odd prediction in the form of a graph that merely extrapolates the historical pre-industrial trend? Does anyone remember his name?

Whatever happened to Lord Monckton blowing up last year about finding mathematical proof of the exaggeration of feedback mechanisms? That they were actually a rectangular hyperbolic, did he publish yet?

>>8982044
>trusting that Monckton will back his claims up
Anon, I...

>>8982056
He backed the claim in the three part: Feet of Clay , I just have no idea wtf he's on about. Curious after almost 12 months what's come of it.

>>8981955
550 ppm for an indoor gym is extremely well, must have some banging ventilation system.

>>8982059
disregarding everything else, an equilibrium climate sensitivity of "substantially less than 1.6°C" crashes hard against several lines of evidence, ostensibly the paleoclimate record of the entire Cenozoic

File: 1912.jpg (58KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 720x960px

At this moment, the earth is in the middle of an ice age which began around 2.58 million years ago. We are in an interglacial period which started between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago and may last for a further 50,000 years before global glaciation begins again.

>>8982044
I only know that Monckton published a paper in some strange Chinese journal about climate sensitivity, which then went on to get ripped to shreds by actual scientists like Richardson & Hausfather

"In summary, [Monckton 2015] fail to demonstrate that IPCC estimates
of climate sensitivity are overstated. Their alternative
parameterization of a commonly used simple climate
model performs poorly, with a bias 350 % larger and
RMSE 150 % larger than CMIP5 median during
2000–2010. Their low estimates of future warming are due
to assumptions developed using a logically flawed justifi-
cation narrative rather than physical analysis. The key
conclusions are directly contradicted by observations and
cannot be considered credible."

>>8976591
>Chinese Hoax General

New video from Yale Climate Connections

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d8PwPHMKEw

>>8983511
That sums up the "headcount" studies pretty well.

>MONCKTON

File: atomic kiss.jpg (76KB, 420x593px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 420x593px

>>8976591
Quick rule of thumb to determine if somebody is serious about combating Global Warming -- if they are also anti-nuclear energy, they are posers, or adherents of a cult, or are cynically using fears of warming to promote an unrelated political agenda.

IF you accept AGW as a real thing (I do, but I tend to doubt its severity is at Al Gorean levels) and IF you seriously want to do something about it, you need an alternative energy source to burning fossil fuels that is ready to go today.

That's nukes.

>>8976591
I've been looking for evidence for a while but I've never seen any kind of empirical evidence that proves anything about a "climate change debate".

I can acknowledge that the climate is changing, you'd have to be literally retarded to not think there's any climate change. We can see it every day. What I cannot understand or acknowledge is that humans are somehow causing these massive changes in climate. I know that the climate is changing, but is there truly any evidence that HUMANS are the cause?

I've seen numbers as low as 6% up to 40% of total carbon emissions coming from humans, but never have I seen any kind of graph or data showing any kind of correlation to an increase in CO2 from humans leading to an increase in the global "climate".

I'm sure this kind of post gets posted here all the time, but is there any evidence that WE are making any kind of large difference in the climate itself? I'm not asking if the world is heating up, I'm asking how much of that heat is US.

When people complain about climate change, are they mostly just complaining about polution?

>>8976591
https://youtu.be/7IbyiOoVgnQ
Currently watching this. How can you guys believe in this climate science lie?

>>8977821
What?

File: 1497644969056.jpg (216KB, 709x749px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 709x749px

Human persons are driven by fear.

>>8976642
You know the funny thing about a 30ft sea level rise?
It would render all costal cities uninhabitable.
Just because we'd have to rebuild the entire sewer system.

File: δ13C.png (69KB, 1119x653px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1119x653px

>>8984273
>Anyone who disagrees with my solution isn't taking the problem seriously.
The fuck? That's politician logic.

>>8984725
>I can acknowledge that the climate is changing, you'd have to be literally retarded to not think there's any climate change. We can see it every day. What I cannot understand or acknowledge is that humans are somehow causing these massive changes in climate. I know that the climate is changing, but is there truly any evidence that HUMANS are the cause?
Yes. Go read the IPCC summery for policy makers.

The short version is this:
We know the planet is warming because we can measure it.
We know that the greenhouse effect is responsible, because we can observe stratospheric cooling and a reduction of outgoing IR.
We know that human emissions are responsible, because carbon fossil fuels have a different isotope distribution then carbon that was in the carbon cycle.

File: 679433.png (367KB, 500x1154px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 500x1154px

>>8984725
besides what is already written here >>8985274

I already detailed a few reasons why climatologists think the sun (which is essentially the main alternative hypothesis) isn't the driver of temperature for the last decades.

There is just no other plausible forcing besides increased WMGHGs that could explain the temperature evolution.

>>8985274
>pic
Oh my squiggles on a page! Its happening guys!

>we know that human emissions are responsible, because carbon fossil fuels have a different isotope distribution than carbon that was in the carbon cycle

Neat. Any good studies on this?

>>8976591
What' the threshold at wich point the warming is supposed to kick in ?

File: sato2016.png (124KB, 980x669px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 980x669px

>>8985875
you might have noticed that we're already warming

>>8985845
>Oh my squiggles on a page! Its happening guys!
...what?
Why even bother HAVING an opinion if you're that uninterested in the topic?

File: neil-degrasse-tyson2.jpg (14KB, 400x224px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x224px

>>8985883
I don't have an opinion. I'm here for the boffins to give me one

>>8976598
Oh no, shit hits the wall at 450, at current rate that will happen around 2030.
Nothing will happen immediately, it's just the tipping point - the moment you realize that the river is flowing faster than you can paddle, and there is nothing you can do to avoid falling down the waterfall.

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>>8984273
>Quick rule of thumb to determine if somebody is serious about computing -- if they are also anti-mainframe,
>that is, no PCs, put all the money into mainframes.

this is how stupid you sound

>>8985913
Racist!

>every winter facebook is full of "snow in my backyard where did the climate change go??!! checkmate scientists!"
>eveyry summer they go quiet
Another reason to like summer

>>8984725
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Knock yourself out

>>8985274
>We know that human emissions are responsible, because carbon fossil fuels have a different isotope distribution then carbon that was in the carbon cycle.

How does the fact that the isotope distribution of our fossil fuels being different from the "natural" carbon in the atmosphere mean that that is for sure the cause? Is there any evidence to back up that claim?

It makes sense that it would be different, but I can't see how you can just claim that without any evidence.

>>8986489
I was wondering the same until I read about the greenhouse effect and how CO2 traps heat.

>>8986489
>How does the fact that the isotope distribution of our fossil fuels being different from the "natural" carbon in the atmosphere mean that that is for sure the cause?
That's why I brought up stratospheric cooling and outgoing IR. We can directly measure that the increased heating is due to the CO2-driven greenhouse effect.

Thoughts on this brainlet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

One more, for flavor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs_HZSrkvFY

>>8987968
it really shows that he has no actual expertise in this field
take one of the first claims for example, namely that he doesn't believe one can measure the globally averaged temperature with a precision of a tenth of a degree. That's nothing but an argument from personal incredulity, he could easily just ask one of the big terrestrial temperature monitoring bodies like the Hadley Center or Berkeley Earth how they do it.

If people are so desperate to get the view of highly respected scientists, why not take a look at what the people who actually study this professionally say?

I can't understand the childish mentality of anyone that cares about climate change. Who cares? As a creature you'll be dead in a few more geologic nanoseconds so calm the fuck down. As a species it's the same thing. Life adapts to the earth. That's the natural order. Even if we cause the climate to change it's sheer fantasy at this point in time to think we're advanced enough to fix it. It's up to us to adapt. It's glaringly obvious that everything being sold under climate change is political ideology and isn't being done for science or whatever contrived magnanimous motive it's assigned.

Someone tell Trump to work harder at climate change. This tropical storm sucks its not nearly strong enough for me to get comfy under it.

>>8987968
Weak appeal to authority by the deniers to find literally anyone who they see as "credible" that agrees with their views despite those individuals not being trained scientifically in the earth / climate sciences. But oh no, these guys who never published a single paper on climatology surely know more than the academics who have published hundreds of papers on the subject, look see he has a nobel prize therefore he's super smart and always right! Not like nobel prize winners don't ever have stupid / moronic opinions about scientific subjects outside their fields of expertise!

See also guys like Fred Singer who get paraded around over and over again by climate change deniers.

Anyone like this Brian Cox guy's method of discourse? Really respectful science communicator, let's his opponents speak without interruption and makes a lot of really solid appeals to authority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI7_UAU4T9Q

>>8988298
Syria snapped because drought-driven breaking of food security was the last straw that broke the camels back. Because of the drought, Turkey built 12 dams to keep its irrigation systems going - this of course fucked up Syria and Irak.
Lots of dead french and british from the monsters that brew in that hellhole.
And it's barely begun, by 2030 were going to see a lot more of this in the evening news.

TL:DR;
The politics/terrorism will get you a lot sooner than nature will. The next time you get groped by TSA, think if it might have something to do with this.

>>8988245
So, you counter the appeal to authority with another, not with the independent research that should exist by now backing up climate change?

>>8988528
>not with the independent research that should exist by now backing up climate change?

See, it's shit like this that shows how little you actually know about the science, you are blatantly ignorant, and make the same vague, non-specific statements claiming that there's no independent research available to study. I question if you have ever viewed a single academic paper on the Earth sciences in your life, I'd wager not. Just more of the same shit, talking out your ass, pretending like you know better, but you don't.

You're on the Internet. Thousands upon thousands of academic papers are at your fingertips through search engines like google scholar, but you choose to ignore them and claim they don't exist.

If you want to be spoonfed, go elsewhere, if you're incapable of performing your own research to find the answers yourself, you're clearly a brainlet that's not worth continuing this conversation.

>>8988550
Sorry, I don't think you understood what the words 'independent research' mean, definitely not equivalent with 'academic paper', maybe you were thinking of it's opposite? I understand the confusion, but do try to find some actual independent research rather than getting all flustered over the trust of 'academic authorities' being questioned.

>>8988509
>literally everything bad happening is because you sinned against Gaya
New age cult shit should be persecuted. The Inquisition might have had the right idea all along.

>>8988611
He may have something of a point. The portugal fire may or may not have something to do with the warming.

The north pole is disappearing so fast, ice free north pole in the summer probably within our lifetimes, we've undone cooling that occured the last 10k years in 100 years..
And the warming won't magically stop in 2100.

Aren't you a little worried we might have fucked up here. I'm 22. A large part of the incoming climate trouble is only ahead of us and we'll see it in our lifetimes. And if we don't know, then at least we have some sense that bad things will happen.

>>8988509
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=37m

>>8987968
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

>I spent half a day on Google and I was horrified by what I learned
Oh dear.

>It's a religion.
No.

>You're not allowed to discuss it.
You're doing that right now you stupid fuck.

>The climate has always changed.
>Warming is good for us.
>Cherrypicking extreme years
The whole video is just the same old, dead, denier garbage being trotted out again.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs_HZSrkvFY
Go fuck yourself.

>>8988602
>I don't think you understood what the words 'independent research' mean, definitely not equivalent with 'academic paper', maybe you were thinking of it's opposite?
The fuck?

>>8988905
I didn't actually watch /watch?v=hs_HZSrkvFY when I linked it.
You know, someone can be misled (religious) and yet still be correct about other things?
>al gore is 33rd degree sekrit club member

This is a better video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmpbeNwMwSE

>>8989001
Nice get, vid's top comment:
>Notice that the major statements supporting global warming are NOT coming from scientists, rather, the media, the politically motivated and funded IPCC, Cook and his website, Skeptical Science and other such websites, Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, neither of who are scientists, Obama, also not a scientist, and the list goes on. Look on Amazon for books on climate change / global warming. Most of the books by scientists are about exposing the bullshit and lies that the IPCC, Gore, Obama, Cook, etc. have been peddling.

>>8989001
>I didn't actually watch /watch?v=hs_HZSrkvFY when I linked it.
Then why in that actual fuck did you expect me to watch it?

>This is a better video
Then why didn't you post it first?
I can search youtube for "AGW is a hoax!!1!!one!" just fine by myself.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmpbeNwMwSE
It's 12 minutes of a moron repeating the word "dogma" over and over. Good job finding that, I could never have found that by myself.

>Climategate
There wasn't a conspiracy, and multiple independent investigations cleared everyone involved.
Get over it.

>Rockefellers!
Oh boy.

How about you actually post an argument, and and quit wasting everyone’s time with garbage youtube spam?

>>8989009
>Most of the books by scientists are about exposing the bullshit and lies that the IPCC, Gore, Obama, Cook, etc. have been peddling.
What?
Since when was published books a reasonable measure of scientific consensus?
And what makes you think that claim isn't bullshit anyway?

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

304KB, 527x308px

>>8985845
>I don't know jack shit, therefore it must all be nonsense!
listen here, you two-bit easy bake oven:
there are two stable isotopes of carbon: 12 and 13. most carbon is 12, but there's a little 13 out there. they tend to behave identically except when it comes to biochemistry; living organisms that fix carbon from their surroundings tend to prefer 12C over 13C, so organic carbon is isotopically lighter than inorganic carbon.
what the squiggles on a graph show, to anyone who can find their ass with both hands, is that there's been a steady decline in the proportion of 13C in atmospheric CO2; this means that something is adding in a lot of isotopically light (i.e. organic) carbon to the atmosphere. where could all this organic carbon come from? fossil fuels.
this crucial line of evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the recent increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from the use of fossil fuels. if you're too ignorant to understand how any of this works, that's your problem, you overdraft fee.

>>8988602
>independent research
oh, I see. when we scientists talk about "independent research" we mean "research conducted by a completely different team to either corroborate or refute some other team's results".
and when you say the same phrase, what you mean is "a document formatted to look like a journal paper that doesn't contain original research and wasn't written by anyone educated on the topic, but which supports muh uhpinions".

>>8989033
Nice get
>It's 12 minutes of a moron repeating the word "dogma" over and over
Nice evidence of your advanced comprehension skill and ability to consider other points of view, indicative of extensive indoctrication

>Since when was published books a reasonable measure of scientific consensus? And what makes you think that claim isn't bullshit anyway?
Since the failure to discern that the other side claiming "97% of scientists agree...", actually has monetary interest in pushing these falsehoods.

>>8989212
>there is no monetary incentive whatsoever in defending the meat and fossil fuel industries
These poor innocent multinational corporations, whatever shall we do to defend them? :'^(

File: CC.jpg (316KB, 607x819px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 607x819px

>>8989212

>>8989310
Must be grasping for straws if you consider >but why would big oil be playing both sides?!?
to be a strong argument
Try researching hegelian dielectic for starters

A shill would pretend it's irrelevant

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

216KB, 758x997px

>>8989212
>Nice evidence of your advanced comprehension skill and ability to consider other points of view, indicative of extensive indoctrication
>if you don't like what this guy says than you must be a sheeple or something
you're so wrapped up in your worldview that you refuse to accept that your preferred sources contain no actual evidence and are just a bunch of rhetoric.
do you understand why cranks so ubiquitously prefer the format of a YouTube video to that of a written document? a video cannot be easily skimmed, and its sourcing cannot be easily checked; the video producer controls the pacing, allowing them to gloss over or obfuscate gaps in their argument. it's a more tightly controlled narrative that's harder to check for consistency, and it's deliberately inefficient in actually conveying information.

File: suma this.png (6KB, 336x121px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 336x121px

>>8989328
>Must be grasping for straws if you consider >but why would big oil be playing both sides?!?
>to be a strong argument
must be clinically retarded if you think that's what the infographic was actually alleging.
nice strawman :^)

>>8989328
The synthesis is that money is muddying the truth whatever side you take. Capitalism must be abolished if we wish to discover what's really going on.

Climate change is a hoax.

>>8989340
Great projection, btw
>a video cannot be easily skimmed
Pressed for time? Relax, listen to as many unique perspectives you can find
>the video producer controls the pacing
>it's a more tightly controlled narrative that's harder to check for consistency, and it's deliberately inefficient in actually conveying information.
Sorry, thought you wanted to actually discuss the topic, not complain about the downsides of video format

>>8989341
Never said it was alleged, maybe you've heard of implication? Point for effort

>>8989373
Good point, take some time and watch this playlist.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

>>8989373
>Relax, listen to as many unique perspectives you can find
Are you trolling?
There's several lifetimes worth of near-idntical denier videos out there, especially if you include shit like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmpbeNwMwSE that fails to even construct a coherent argument. If you can't be bothered even summarising the point of the video you posted, you have no grounds to expect the people you're arguing with to watch it carefully.

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

169KB, 792x653px

>>8989373
>Pressed for time? Relax, listen to as many unique perspectives you can find
you can keep your special snowflake unique perspectives if you like. I'll stick to sources that can muster a shred of evidence to support their claims rather than dealing in shadowy allegations and innuendo.
being unique doesn't make them worth spending hours on when I could be reading something with actual substance to it.
>Sorry, thought you wanted to actually discuss the topic, not complain about the downsides of video format
it's not a downside, not to the people making the video. like I said, it's a deliberately obtuse format that makes it hard to fact-check. good for entertainment or persuasion, very bad for efficiently exchanging information.
you throw these videos out there and demand that your opponents sit through ten or twenty minutes of a guy making unsupported claims. it's just another form of the Gish Gallop.

>Never said it was alleged, maybe you've heard of implication?
in other words
>let me assume you mean something other than what you actually said, since it suits my argument
like I said, nice strawman :^)

>>8989390
>/watch?v=OmpbeNwMwSE, 11:37
>Everyone believes this lie that big oil is funding all climate denial, when big oil is demonstrably, and on the record, providing hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to the climate alarmist scandal itself
Conclusion, boom... It's ok to start from the end of a video if you wanted this quickly.

>>8989379
Just to be hasty... I'm getting a strong 'shill vibe' immediately from seeing a single youtuber's 36 video playlist on a single subject.
I highly doubt an uncompensated person would ever find the motivation to make this many videos discussing what they've allegedly already concluded, which should by all means, be condensable to a single video.
Some call it paranoia, others call it sense

File: dolphin.jpg (26KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 250x250px

>>8989419
>I highly doubt an uncompensated person would ever find the motivation to make this many videos discussing what they've allegedly already concluded, which should by all means, be condensable to a single video.
>Some call it paranoia, others call it sense
>this person seems generally knowledgeable and made a bunch of videos refuting conspiracy theories
>must be a shill!
by your own """""logic""""", the guy whose video you linked must also be a shill, as he's uploaded 73 videos alleging practically every conspiracy theory in the book.

good to see that rather than take your own advice of "listen to as many unique perspectives you can find", you've written off potholer54 as a shill based solely on the fact that he's...made a lot of these videos. now that's what I call hypocrisy.
By the way, the guy's real name is Peter Hadfield, and he's a fucking JOURNALIST with a geology degree. It's not hard to find background on the guy; he's a pretty well-known figure.

>>8989414
>I'll stick to sources that can muster a shred of evidence
Yes, let's take their climate data on faith, we have to because the asserted consequences of not doing so are catastrophic! Who cares if carbon based warming has been refuted by numerous physicists?

Also...
>allegation - a claim or assertion that someone has done something
>implication - the conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated.

>>8989419
>Conclusion, boom... It's ok to start from the end of a video if you wanted this quickly
That's... not how an argument works. Your premises need to actually relate somehow to your conclusion?

>Some call it paranoia, others call it sense
I think most people would call it "being a hypocritical conspiracy theorist".

>>8989429
>Who cares if carbon based warming has been refuted by numerous physicists?
Shouldn't be too difficult to share scientific articles demonstrating this published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals then right? Go ahead, i'll wait.

>>8989429
>>I'll stick to sources that can muster a shred of evidence
>Yes, let's take their climate data on faith
I don't know about you, but I would have called "expecting souces to provide evidence" pretty much the exact opposite of "taking things on faith".

Who cares if carbon based warming has been refuted by numerous physicists?
The greenhouse effect is pretty basic physics; a refutation of it would be a major revolution. Do you have a source for that?

>>8985881
I'm no denialist but why is the temperature increase linear when CO2 emissions are increasing exponentially?

File: figure-6-2.jpg (97KB, 417x500px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 417x500px

>>8989429
>Who cares if carbon based warming has been refuted by numerous physicists?

You know, controlled experiments normally don't exist in nature, but history was kind enough to set one up for us on this:

About 55 million years ago, an amount of carbon roughly equivalent to all of the world's oil reserves get injected into the atmosphere within a few millennia.
In response, the planet warmed by 5°C or more, there is evidence for ocean acidification, local anoxia, plant genera turnover and local exstirpation, massively increased precipitation, sharply increased insect herbivory, transient dwarfism of mammals and soil fauna, and so on.

It should also be pointed out that the rate of carbon release in this event is still significantly smaller than the rate today (2.7 ppm/year)

>>8989450
>CO2 emissions are increasing exponentially
Source? From what I remember CO2 emissions have been steady or even slightly decreasing due to more efficient technologies.

>>8989445
>>8989449
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=371

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

File: ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg (1MB, 1754x1474px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1754x1474px

>>8989450
First, I'm not sure but I don't think the emissions can be characterized as 'exponential'.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the way CO2 relates to temperature. Not only is the absorption behaviour logarithmic (which means that adding similar increments of concentration will give you an increasingly smaller forcing), but the new equilibrium temperature isn't reached instantaneously because of the inertia of oceans and ice sheets (meaning it takes time until we see the full warming effect of a defined increase in GHGs).
What also has to be mentioned is that CO2 is of course not the only thing that influences temperature. Not only do you have other important GHGs like CH4 and N2O who rise at different rates and have a different forcing efficacy, but you also have a significant cooling effect from aerosols and particulates, whose precise forcing is still very uncertain (aerosols could mask as much as 50% of the warming we would get with GHGs that are already in the atmosphere).

tldr: no one expects the temperature curve to perfectly follow CO2 emissions

>>8989462
I'm sorry, I asked for:
>scientific articles demonstrating this published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals
You've provided:
>a blog and a list of scientists who spout unchecked nonsense in the media
Please try again.

>>8989462
>On the other hand, an increase in CO2 may provide some slight positive feedback (support) to a warming Earth, but the magnitude or even the direction of positive or negative feedback is still being debated.

Now THIS is cancer.
The author is welcome to explain what even caused these massive temperature swings if it's not CO2. The changes in insolation that result from changes in the Earth's orbit are much too small (>0.7 W/m2) to cause warming of that magnitude and when you think the CO2 feedback is negative, the gap between theory and reality becomes even larger.

Also why would you rely on this obscure blog to tell you what scientists think about a CO2-temperature lag in the glacial cycle? They have been discussing this in print for several decades now and their work is easily accessible to read for your own.

File: Climate_science_opinion2.png (140KB, 810x606px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 810x606px

>>8989462
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Do you have a point?

>http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=371
>CO2 isn't bad, because an organisation literally owned and run by fossil fuel company CEOs says so.
Wow. Want to try again?

>>8989465
>I won't read anything that isn't "peer reviewed" by a trusted field of indoctrinees who are experts on their subject because they have diplomas from accredited institutions
Suit yourself

>>8989470
>who cares if science is replicable, I can tell the press that clouds are made of cotton candy and you have to believe me because I published articles about rainbows in peer reviewed scientific journals

>>8989469
>Several hundred prominent scientists and/or science professors that have no ties to the petroleum industry have stated publicly that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming. Over 30,000 more, including 9,000 PhDs have stated man-made CO2 is not expected to cause catastrophic warming.

Weird, does your page read completely different?

>>8989453
link, name of era, wikipedia page?

>>8989476
with that we're back to the beginning:
If there really is such a groundswell of scientists who CO2 doesn't cause warming, why don't you post some of their published work that supports this?

>>8989483
the event I refer to here is called the "Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum" (or "PETM" for short)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

>>8989476
Great! You should convince them to write papers on it so that it can be tested by other scientists and after it passes peer review it can be published.

>>8989485
“I don’t recall,” “I don’t recollect,” or “I don’t remember.”

>>8989487
ty!

>>8989470
>>I won't read anything that isn't "peer reviewed" by a trusted field of indoctrinees who are experts on their subject because they have diplomas from accredited institutions
Are you actually trying to claim that climatologists are equally as credible about climatology as a coal company CEO?

>>8989476
>Weird, does your page read completely different?
No. Do you have an actual argument, or are you just going to list off unconnected statements?

>>8989464
#ipcc

File: Butthurt.jpg (150KB, 1074x925px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1074x925px

>>8989429
>we can't trust the evidence
>better only believe claims that aren't supported by any!
this is what deniers unironically believe. assuming that all the evidence proving you wrong must have been systematically faked is literally one step up from saying that the Devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to ruse us.

>>8989470
>>8989990
>complains that people aren't taking claims seriously because of the authors' associations
>dismisses out-of-hand any information from the IPCC
I can't get enough of this delusional brand of argumentum ad hominem

>>8990090
>IPCC
is way too timid and cautious, for systematic reasons:
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=10m

Friendly reminder that space exploration and Venus alerted us to the dangers of GHG. Gib more money to NASA plz.

File: chun.jpg (75KB, 737x758px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 737x758px

I am skeptical of climate science because there are 2 or 3 easy solutions to atmospheric CO2. If it was a problem we'd have taken care of it by now

1. The atmosphere can only hold so much gasses. If we just pumped a bunch of Oxygen the CO2 would get displaced

2. CO2 can be stored within fire extinguishers. If we built reverse fire extinguishers we could remove most CO2

3. CO2 can be transported by human blood. If we flew planes and sprayed blood into the atmosphere the CO2 would be soaked up and rain to earth.

I have never heard an argument that beats these techniques

>>8990378
>bunch of Oxygen the CO2 would get displaced
ooooh good one
tell us oh wise one, where does the co2 go?

>>8991078
Pretty sure that post was a joke, I chuckled sensibly.

To all the people who know their shit and give precise and relevant informatio about this
Thanks a lot. I lurk /pol/ too much and it's genuinely painful at times, the ignorance and malice displayed in the denialists' threads

>>8990378
>If we flew planes and sprayed
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=56m55s

File: RSS.png (27KB, 835x552px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 835x552px

>>8991238
The more you know:


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

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

>>8991256
Classic situation:
Look at the top text at the top of the chart, 13 sec into the video - RSS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCSnKNoyWtw

File: Kahan.png (121KB, 977x428px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 977x428px

why are conservatives so fucking stupid

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources.html

>>8976612

>the last time CO2 had the present concentration in the atmosphere was in the middle Miocene, some 12 Million years ago.

According to what, a couple of ice core samples from the same area?

The fuck outta here with that bullshit.

File: lesbian physics.gif (3MB, 638x357px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 638x357px

>>8992433
oh look, it's Watts's little charade again. a few things to bear in mind:
>stations that were resited from high- to low-quality locations sometimes saw a brief excursion, but not a change in trend
>homogenization effectively removes UHI bias; homogenized temperature trends more closely resemble rural data than urban data
>Watts is a notorious climate denier who is literally funded by the Heartland Institute, but holds no college degree whatsoever

>>8992460
>I don't understand ice core analysis
>therefore it's all bullshit
there's an actual ice core researcher who hangs around here sometimes. maybe he'll drop in and enlighten you...

Conservatism should be illegal.

>>8992465
That's taking it too far.

>>8992460
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

>>8992460
no, because there are no ice core records of that age (the oldest ice so far is ~800.000 years old)

the research I refer to used boron/calcium ratios in forams recovered from ocean core sediment samples

>>8992465
One would expect conservatives would want to, you know, conserve the environment. But American conservatives are basically economic libertarians afflicted with particularly cancerous strains of Christianity.

>>8976733
Geologist here
>ignoring the fact the Sun is the only significant source of energy that warms the Earth
Yes actually it is. The crust of the Earth is actually a very good insulator. This is why at just below the surface of the Earth the ground feels cool, we've even used it to store food for thousands of years because of this property. The Earth's core only contributes less than .1 watts per meter squared over the whole surface of the Earth. While the Sun contributes 1380 watts per meter squared a difference of well over 10,000 times.

The only other source of energy on the Earth is intergalactic rays from other stars and bodies and the cosmic background radiation of the universe.

You're screwed.

>>8981699

we lost the election, but we're all going to lose if climate change denialism is still so widespread

>>8988509
Pretty sure shit in the Middle East has always been shit well before we started changing the climate

Thanks for proving anons point about AGW being a hack political tool

File: download (4).jpg (112KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1000x662px

>>8976591
I'm fucking tired of this god dammed ice age. Here's my plan. Culture a shitload of spores from this red ice algae and freeze dry them. Get weather balloons and electrostatically disperse the spores over Greenland. Then do the same for Antarctica and each year over the arctic ocean ice.

Unfortunately this will sequester megatons of carbon but it should decrease earths albedo measurably and hopefully help melt those fucking ice sheets once and for all.

>>8991256
The RSS dataset is the only dataset that was being honest, at least until the jews got to them.

>>8979527
I'm on the same boat, although rather than nightmares I get periods of despair. I get over it by realizing how insignificant humanity is and by thinking about how shit humanity is.

This is a good thread.

File: hi.jpg (63KB, 841x832px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 841x832px

>>8978948

Every refinery and chemical plant with a hydrogen reformer already scrubs CO2 out of the raw hydrogen stream using monoethanolamine or proprietary solvents based on potassium carbonate. These remove CO2 from the process gas and can be regenerated by steam stripping.

Once you strip the solvent all that remains is to compress and liquefy the CO2 for injection into stable geological formations, like salt domes.

Trick is - where to get the energy to absorb, strip, compress, and inject the CO2 so that the entire process is carbon-negative.

When we reach the point of no return in 2030, is there anyway to stop it?

>>8996234
Maybe if we leave the earth alone for a couple hundred thousand years.

2030 doesn't mean game over; at that point we'll simply have a rough deadline we'll need to meet. Probably a few centuries of time--that's plenty. We'll need to make sacrifices and toil with our lives on the line with nothing to spare but our singular vision but I believe, anon, I believe. We'll make it to the space-faring age. We will.

File: Storms_Fig.18.gif (5KB, 500x222px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 500x222px

daily reminder that when you look back at the climate history of the Cenozoic, you find that there is no ice on Earth for times at which CO2 concentration was >450ppm

>>8988550
Ad Hominem: The Post

>>8997338
>Probably a few centuries
bullshit, if we go thru 450ppm then by 2060 the temp rise is 4C which will already be a fucking disaster - there will be war and terrorism like you've never seen before, by 2100 the temperature rise is 6C which is genocide - from hunger.

here we gooo... already, way below the 450ppm/2C line

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/climate/carbon-in-atmosphere-is-rising-even-as-emissions-stabilize.html

>>8976591
chilly 60 F when I woke up this morning, desu.

could you global warm california a tad for me? Its been chilly these last 2 years

>>8997995
the consequences will never be the same, eh?

>>8998008
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m50s

>>8998010
california =/= global
this morning =/= climate

>>8998018
I agree with anon. When I woke up this morning it was pretty cold outside, way colder than normal for June..

I ended up ejecting the last 3 bottles of freon I had sitting around into the atmosphere to warm things up.

File: 1478474891126.jpg (129KB, 696x704px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 696x704px

>>8997995
how can 4C cause terrorism and war?
Literally 4C can't cause that

File: jew.gif (8KB, 256x264px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 256x264px

>>8998031
4C will cause your mother to die in her sleep tonight, goy

the only way you can avoid it is by purchasing my carbon credits

>>8998013
It looks like they picked up a homeless man from the streets to give a lecture.

>>8998065
that's what all professors look like

>can't optimize home planet's climate
>expect to be able to terraform other planets
Why is /sci/ so dumb?

I wanted to have more information on this subject and found myself a pdf of "Climate ‘code red’
The case for a sustainability emergency".
Sadly it's the 2008 version. Is it still ok to read for the general knowledge and arguments? There were a lot of prediction that 2012-2013 would be the year when the arctic sea ice decline would reach almost zero, so no ice at all. Was that a miscalculation?

>>8998065
>>8998150
not a professor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer

>>8998031
food crops will collapse
4C will cause a 75% drop in subtropics rain, this includes all of the worlds bread baskets

food security will collapse worldwide

>>8998542
how can 4c do that?

>>8999675
probably because by then the upper troposphere will be saturated with moisture, inundating the land with sea water, tsunamis, earthquakes

File: cycle_1783.png (379KB, 1300x900px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1300x900px

ye we've done goofed, just so everyone can have bmws

File: CC_hadleyCell.jpg (52KB, 960x680px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 960x680px

>>8998542
deserts are not randomly sprinkled

they are at the edge of the hadley cell

higher average temperature will expand the HC,
pushing deserts over the current bread baskets.

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=24m

>>8985026
India would be fine then.

>>8984273
>you need an alternative energy source to burning fossil fuels that is ready to go today.
>That's nukes.

Sounds like another political agenda to me

>>8976598
Already going down desu senpai.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Only question now is how long we mess around before we start reversing the change.

>>8999860
leftist media even decided to put it in the colours of the LGBTQWERTY+ flag

File: CC_ice_water_albedo.jpg (32KB, 855x475px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 855x475px

>>8999933
>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

And that doesn't even take into account how thick the ice is.
Once the ice disappears, the heat equation changes radically.

>>8999937

Deniers won't be given a place on the 'lifeboat', just let that sink in.

>>8999675

>>8999883

>>8999933
>how long we mess around before we start reversing the change.
when it's too late by the looks of it

the mechanisms have been known for over a century and our current predicament since the 60's

Everyone knows, except idiots

Ocean dissolved oxygen concentration declines, ozone concentration rises,
carbon dioxide concentration rises, El Niño / La Niña phenomenon becomes extreme,
the whole earth is suffering from extreme weather.

These are all caused by marine phytoplankton bloom
NASA and USGS also noticed it and began to fix past misdeeds

That logic is very simple and clear
Suppose that nutrient salt is intermittently supplied to the surface of the sea

And it comes from submarine volcanoes
Yes, from the submarine volcano that was activated by the decline in solar activity

>>8989465
“Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature series” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Energy & Environment Vol. 14 (2003) p. 751-777

“Reconstructing past climate from noisy data” H von Storch et al Science Vol. 306 (2004) p. 679- 682

“Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32 (2005) L03710

“Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data” A Moberg et al Nature Vol. 433 (2005) p. 613 -617

Wegman Edward, Scott D W and Said Yasmin H 2006: Ad Hoc Committee Report to Chairman of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House sub-committee on Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick global climate reconstructions. US House of Representatives, Washington USA. Available for download from ITTP://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006 Wegman Report.pdf

“Reconstruction of temperature in the central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a delta18O stalamite record” A Mangini, C Spotl & P Verdes Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 235 (2005)p. 741-751

>>8989465
“Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview” George Reid Space Science
Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11
Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little
Ice Age as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the
solar/climate link.
b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review
Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007
Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how
this in turn would impact the mean temperature.
c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?” Wibjorn Karlen Ambio,
Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350
Argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2°C than the previous ones
during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was
100 ppmv less than at present.
d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677
Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little
Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the
solar/climate link.
e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584
North Atlantic oscillation is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as
identified through sunspot cycles.

>>8989465
The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye

Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C

Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C

Revised 21st century temperature projections
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system"
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

>>8989465
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
- Andreas Schmittner et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.6 °C

Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, November 2011)
- Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
- N. P. Gillett et al.

>>9000675
>>>8989465
Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
- Magne Aldrin et. al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Ring, Michael J., et al. "Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century." Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2.04 (2012): 401.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.8 °C


Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
(Climate Dynamics, April 2013)
- Troy Masters

Climate Sensitivity: +1.98 °C

A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 40, Issue 11-12,pp. 2651-2670, June 2013)
- J. H. van Hateren

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.3 °C

An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
(Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp. 7414-7429, October 2013)
- Nicholas Lewis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

The Potency of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse Gas
(Development in Earth Science, Volume 2, pp. 20-30, 2014)
- Antero Ollila

Climate Sensitivity: +0.6 °C

>>9000678
The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp. 229-237, February 2014)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3 °C

Otto, Alexander, et al. "Energy budget constraints on climate response." Nature Geoscience 6.6 (2013): 415-416.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °

A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 276, pp. 80-84, March 2014)
- Craig Loehle

Climate Sensitivity: +1.99 °

>>8989465
Reference Lists of Skeptical Papers
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/peer-reviewed-research-studies-climate-change-related-other.html
http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html
http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/
http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/
http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/

>>8989465
a. “Reconciling observations of global temperature change” Richard Lindzen & Constantine Giannitsis
Geophysical Research Letters V 29 (2002) No 12 10.1029/2001GL014074
Analyzes the discrepancy between global mean temperature trends, obtained by satellite
microwave data, and surface temperature measurements.
b. “Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs
climate reality” Robert Balling Jr & Randall Cerveny Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 103-112
Documents the mismatch between popular perceptions, as created by media reports, and
climate reality, which does not show extreme weather as increasing in the USA.

d. “Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the Unites States: a result of societal
changes, not global warming” Stanley Changnon Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 273-290
Documents that increasing economic impacts of extreme weather events in the USA is a
result of societal change and NOT global warming.
e. “The global warming debate: A review of the present state of science” M L Khandekar T S Murty &
P Chittibabu Pure & Applied Geophysics V 162 (2005) p. 1557-1586
Concludes that the recent warming of the earth’s surface is primarily due to urbanization,
land-use change, etc. and not due to increasing green house gas in the atmosphere.
f. “Extreme weather trends vs dangerous climate change: A need for a critical reassessment” M L
Khandekar Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p.327-331
Shows that extreme weather events like heat waves, winter blizzards, rainstorms, droughts
etc are not increasing anywhere in Canada, USA or elsewhere, where sufficient data are
available for adequate analysis.

File: I SHIGGY DIGGY.jpg (270KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 600x600px

>>9000671
>>9000678
>>9000696
>unironically posting articles published in E&E
remember, this is the ""journal"" that published a manuscript alleging that the Sun is a giant ball of iron that was literally written by a child molester.
>https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf
it's a clearinghouse for conspiracy theories.

>>9000678
>Climate Sensitivity: +0.7°C

lol, the 4 W/m2 from 2xCO2 forcing ALONE gets you above 1°C already

stop spamming this garbage

its been fucking cold here in california

the last few days when I woke up I had to eject a couple bottles of r-12 freon into the atmosphere just to warm up

that shits getting expensive now, hard to find.

global warming is stupid. Ignore it morons. Look up historical carbon levels. All they can do is cherry pick short term, muh 400 carbon,

File: CC_paris.jpg (9KB, 359x181px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 359x181px

>>9001139

>>>9000000

File: 2008-06-12-ABC-GMA-globalwarming3.jpg (12KB, 410x236px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 410x236px

>>8976591 >>8999702 >>9001657

http://youtu.be/9_WHQkPrhjg
Global Warming alarmists from abc News predicted in 2008 that in 2015 we would have
(1) Coastal Cities like New York & San Francisco underwater in 2015
(2) Most of USA, Europe & Amazon Rain forest would become Deserts like Arizona in 2015.
(3) All North Pole Ice would melt in 2015.
(4) Hurricanes, Droughts, Fires....

The only thing Global Warming alarmists """predicted""" right is the Famines in Africa which happens everyday since Centuries ago.

THAT MAKES YOU THINK.

>>9001994
The media =/= climate scientists

File: attention.jpg (8KB, 480x314px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 480x314px

>>9001994

>>9001994
It's difficult to comprehend how desperate deniers are, if THIS is the best argument they can come up with.

>>9001994
>the popular media gets things wrong
woopty fucking doo

>>9001994
>abc News
L0Lno fgt pls
>THAT MAKES YOU THINK
...makes me think you're a retard

>big oil isn't actively trying to stifle sol-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YO2sXa8wU

>>9002928
abc news is probably one of the most reliable and unbiased big networks alongside reuters

>>9003262
but what it ISN'T is any sort of research organization. it's a news network, and science reporting is generally pretty terrible at actually representing what the scientific community is saying.

>>8976612
Not understanding the inertia effect in climate change, the post.

>>9003474
explain

>>8979310
How can you say that for sure? I'd say it's comparable to the idea of putting a man into space, which was considered impossible centuries ago.

>>9003474
CO2 concentration X doesn't imply Y temperature.
There's a lot to be said about that.
The climate is a balance of feedback loops, both positive and negative.
What we're witnessing is positive (as in higher temperature) loops getting stronger and negative getting saturated.
Most of them having inertia of their own, meaning we could stop existing now, and it would still affect the climate 100 years or more down the line.
It also means that for now, temperatures will stay relatively stable, as it's not yet apparent the negatives loops are yet at capacity.
What's probably gonna happen in the next century is all these feedback loops getting saturated one after the other, resulting in sharp increases in temperature.

TL;DR Mankind could stop emitting CO2 right now, and still witness 6°C increase in temperature by next century.

>>9003695
fug bad link
>>9003640

>>8989341
User was... triple integrated for this post?

>>9003695
>CO2 concentration X doesn't imply Y temperature
true but that's not what we're talking about is it (and it's also not what I said in my post, as I also pointed out that differences in insolation need to be taken into account).
What is however the case is a change in forcing F results in a change in equilibrium temperature T, which can be calculated/estimated by various lines of evidence.

>The climate is a balance of feedback loops, both positive and negative ... Mankind could stop emitting CO2 right now and temperature would still rise

I'm more than aware of that and tried to make that clear in my post. I explicitly said that a sea level rise of several meters is already unavoidable with the concentration of gases already in the atmosphere, as ice sheets continue to respond to the initial forcing. That's pretty much exactly what you wrote here, so I don't see how you can accuse me of not understanding this.

>still witness 6°C increase in temperature by next century

I'm going to nitpick here and tell you that a 6°C rise would require you to cherry-pick the extreme high end of the ECS estimate, for which there is no reason. The actual temperature anomaly (compared to 1880-1920) would be around 2, not 6°C

>>9003803
Well yeah, I read it too quickly and somehow came to the conclusion you were saying CO2 is totally disconnected to climate.
My bad, I'm pretty tired right now, but that's no excuse.
As for my 6°C nightmare "prediction", I factor in greenhouse gas sources not even factored in ECS estimates.
I'll let you guess what. It's related to deep sea temperatures and bubbles.

File: sci mods exist.jpg (18KB, 890x112px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 890x112px

>>9003701

File: 1404536865917.jpg (40KB, 535x577px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 535x577px

>409.65 ppm

Since when are political topics allowed to have a general on /sci/?

>>9005248
Just because a political group is upset by reality doesn't make reality political.