Hurricanes

>>9151190
Fuck you Roths. This is all a narrative. A part of your master plan. Fuck your bullshit. I want out of this machine.

THIS IS FAKE

THIS IS FAKE

OUR LIVES ARE ALL FAKE

>>9151205
It's not fake?

This is echoing the scientific community. Science is fact, your opinion can't change that. Sorry!

This is environmental racism. This is Trumps America.

>>9151190
Guys, we have to step up nd admit that this anon is right. There were never any hurricanes before, and certainly never a year with TWO!

File: incredible.jpg (38KB, 565x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 565x600px

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/features/sep13/galveston.html

>But on September 8, 1900, a horrific hurricane slammed into the city. Wind speeds surpassed 135 miles per hour, making it a category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. Storm surges rose 15 feet and, within hours, estimates of 6,000 to 12,000 unwary people were killed and over 3,600 buildings were destroyed. The Galveston Hurricane remains the deadliest natural disaster in United States history.

>September 8, 1900

File: ice.png (469KB, 638x638px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 638x638px

>>9151190
Meteorology can not ever predict the trajectory of the hurricane next week with enough accuracy & precision let alone predict the climate for the next year.
The US Democrat politician Al Gore (former candidate for president in a election against Bush) predicted 10 years ago in his scaremongering documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" that in 2013 the north polar ice would melt completely, submerging underwater Manhattan & every coastal area. It did not happened.

File: 2422_FPT_00051R.jpg (173KB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1440x810px

>>9151980
Chaos Theory thread?

How does it work /sci/?

File: ice.jpg (116KB, 581x577px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 581x577px

>>9151190
Al Gore is a former Vice-president the democrat under Bill Clinton.
Al Gore predicted in 2008 that in 2013 all north pole ice would be melted & all coastal cities like New York Manhattan should be underwater by 2013.
It did not happened.

>>9151986
>Chaos Theory thread?
(Deterministic) Chaos (popularly called Butterfly effect) is when:
Small change in input variables can led to a huge change in the final output leading to unpredictable results.
Even when the initial system is deterministic (not probabilistic), the system outcome become unpredictable.
Chaos Theory is the study of such dynamical systems that have such Chaos.
Called popularly "Butterfly effect" in Pop Science because the PopSci meme "butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas".
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

>>9151986
Chaos shows up in Climate. Climate is Chaotic.
>Initially deterministic but with the outcome cannot be predicted with accuracy after a long time.
Because tiny changes in inputs can generate radically different outputs.

File: 1470848781735.png (3MB, 1090x1074px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1090x1074px

>>9151986 >>9151997 >>9152004
Kek is the God of Chaos
God of Chaos Theory.
Praise Kek.

>>9151980
>>9151987
Al Gore isn't a scientist. He does not speak for science.

>>9151190
Look, when you realize how fake it all is; the football, the basketball, the Lady Gaga, the Justin Bieber—you know, who gives you these carbon tax messages... They tell your kids they gotta love Justin Biebler, and then Biebler says "hand in your guns", "pass the Cyber Security Act", and "the police state is good", and then your children are turned into a mindless vassals—who now, they look up to some twit, instead of looking up to Thomas Jefferson, or looking up to Nikola Tesla, or looking up to Magellan; I mean, kids, Magellan is a lot COOLER than Justin Bieber! He circumnavigated with one ship the entire planet! He was killed by wild natives before they got back to Portugal! And when they got back there was only like eleven people alive of the two hundred and something crew and the entire ship was rotting down to the waterline! That's destiny! That's will! That's striving! That's being a trailblazer and explore! Going into space! Mathematics! Quantum mechanics! The secrets of the universe! It's all there! Life is fiery with its beauty! Its incredible detail! Tuning into it! They wanna shutter your mind, TALKING ABOUT JUSTIN BIEBER!!! IT'S PURE EVIL!!! They're taking your intellect, your soul, and giving you Michael Jordan and Bieber. Unlock your human potential! Defeat the globalists who wanna shutter your mind!—Your doorways to perception!—I wanna see you truly live! I wanna see you truly be who you are!!

>>9152045
I'm gonna steal your pasta, poat it on facebook and get hundreds of likes

>>9151190
>attributes cause to rare event
>uses event as justification to reallocate resources
Better sacrifice some animals to the sea god/invest lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

>>9152004
No, weather is chaotic

>>9151190
>ugh, you're so ignorant, this is a wakeup call!
It is this sort of attitude that generates a knee jerk reaction from people.

I am sure if you did nothing but drop raw facts and logic in a concise well structured manner and addressed common criticisms instead of whine this wouldn't even be an issue. How is an average person supposed to see the connection between increased hurricanes and climate change?

Instead the prevailing view among, dare I say it, leftists is that your emotional wishy washy bullshit is somehow magically better than boring STEMlord nerdy mansplainy science.

>>9151190
By doing some as practise, obviously

>>9152252
Oh totally wrong thread, but fuck you

The climate changes, it has always changed.
No one denies climate change.

>>9152044
I agree. Al Gore ruined the environmental movement. He overly polarized it and generally made any scientist involved in it look like an overly dramatic faggot.

>>9152163
This guy gets it.

You can't offer someone reason in one hand and an insult in the other hand and still expect them to accept your reason.

File: 1489544366665.jpg (145KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1280x720px

>The Climate is changing
Yes
>Climate is changing only because of human activity. Implying that before us climate was static
No
>This change is being accelerated by Human activity
Maybe
>Clean skies and healthy biomes look pretty
Yes

Why doesn't anyone adress the fact that climate has gotten way hotter in the past? I know that it would give ammo to deniers, but misleading people is just wrong

File: 1469222123275.jpg (52KB, 600x334px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x334px

>>9151190
>Humans are the problem
seems like this is a problem that will solve itself

>>9152163

>I am sure if you did nothing but drop raw facts and logic in a concise well structured manner and addressed common criticisms instead of whine this wouldn't even be an issue.

People have tried this in other subjects with far more public credibility than climate change. The truth is, It rarely works without an overabundance of tangible proof or a series of horrific disasters following afterwards.

Black Swan events regardless of subject matter rarely get the needed universal respect it deserves in public or leadership because there either isn't enough demonstrated history or the public/leadership is not well-informed/ will not allow itself to be informed in the matter.

Experts in the fields of science, finance and security have bitched about this for years. It isn't a leftist issue it's an ignorance issue where non-experts reject expert opinions on predicted events and then look dumbfounded when said events come about.

http://www.csoonline.com/article/3211442/security/how-do-you-predict-cyber-attacks-listen-to-your-cassandras.html

http://bigthink.com/videos/richard-a-clarke-how-some-people-predict-disasters-before-they-happen

>>9152462
I'm 20 years and every winter is hotter than the last in Florida

>>9151820
IF I SEE THAT FUCKING CAT DENY CLIMATE CHANGE ONE MORE TIME...

>>9152515
Well, guys, anecdotal subjective evidence is good enough for me! I will freeze to death in the dark from now on.

>>9152669
>Humans have never survived in winter enviroments, especially with the time to adapt long-term

>>9152515
this is true. I live in miami and I remember a few years ago when it used to get cold enough for frost to form on cars. nowadays we get a few days of 70 degree weather and maybe 1 or 2 60s for the whole winter

>>9152462
Your argument is this:
Forest fires existed before humans, therefore it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires.

At no point in time have scientists claimed that it's hotter than it's ever been, or that nature can't alter the climate on its own only that right now climate change is being accelerated by human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere.

>>9152742
I know that, but for a normie the way that the news are given gives the impression of complete global catastrophe. Such a cartoony vision only makes denying a bit more normal.
But maybe that's what normies need to get up their asses

The problem is that Climate Change has poor and tainted marketing.

Politically, ecological policies need to be reframed as economy-driven. People are sick of hippy crap, the faster that association is ditched the easier it goes.

File: 1488549549746.png (272KB, 909x546px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 909x546px

>>9153552

>Wanting to stabilize the environment and maintain low pollution is ""hippie crap""

How is it that only Americans think this way? Is it because they aren't living in a early 1900's smoke filled, water tainted shit hole style similar to Chinese and Indian cities anymore?

It was only a century ago they where choking on their own local air supply. Do the fucks not read their own history books and listen to the documented horror stories of working in sparsely regulated factories? Did Americans forget they use to force their own children to work in dangerous factory/ mining conditions like the African and Chinese kids do for pennies on the dollar?

How is it that Americans need to be tricked into following climate change habits through capitalistic means like some 2 year old kid and a shiny object?

Does the average American even know what an "Okie" is?

File: fresh-clean-air-balloon.jpg (118KB, 600x468px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 600x468px

>>9153724
>It was only a century ago they where choking on their own local air supply. Do the fucks not read their own history books and listen to the documented horror stories of working in sparsely regulated factories? Did Americans forget they use to force their own children to work in dangerous factory/ mining conditions like the African and Chinese kids do for pennies on the dollar?
People were selling fresh air balloons to breathe in back in the 50s

>>9153732

That just makes it worse...I was going to go on another rant but I think enough has been said.

>>9153724
I would contend that issue lies in corporations and conservative deep red states. Right now, most of the climate change policy is being pushed by Democrats, and the Democratic agenda is toxic to Republicans in an increasingly polarized political climate. Corporations are also lining the pockets of politicians (both blue and red) to turn the other way when it comes to passing bills on carbon emissions, etc..

People aren't going to change anytime soon. Humans can be stupidly stubborn and resistant, and also greedy. That isn't new.

And that's why I think the solution is that we reframe the issue.

>>9151210
You don't even know who you just said that to. Science is the shit. Being one of billions manipulated by use of it's raw incredible power is not cool at all dude.

>>9152515
>>9152735
And it doesn't snow in England anymore.

>>9151190
How can you actually call yourself science savy and suggest that Atlantic hurricanes show a clear connection to global warming.

NOAA says: "It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate)."

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

One or two local extreme weather events is not enough to show global warming. What is important is the long term global trends, which in fact show anthropogenic global warming.

>>9151210
>>This is echoing the scientific community.
if it is, then you best post some citations bucko.
here's some of mine:
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/wmo-expert-team-statement-hurricane-harvey
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/09/why-extremes-are-expected-to-change-with-a-global-warming/#more-20607

>>9151997
Somebody better fucking kill that butterfly in Cape Verde then

File: strongest-landfaling-tcs.png (81KB, 576x822px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 576x822px

>>9151190

im sorry, what were you saying?

The real political issue is that people are wasting time trying to mitigate environmental damage when it's too late. We should've done it 20 years ago. Now we need to focus on damage control, alternative farming, refugee preparation, teaching kids to eat bugs etc. I don't see humanity handling the coming crash well. I believe we are truly fucked.

>>9154292
Both of you are wrong. That's not enough data to prove anything, and basing your evidence for climate change happening/or not on the current weather is just as asinine. That said we're all fucked and our children are gonna starve to death.

>>9154298

>wind recorded is not data

>>9151987
Yeah but Terence McKenna predicted the world would end in 2012, and we all still believe that it is going to happen any day now.

Big-business-lobbied politicians deny climate change for the same reason leftists deny racial differences in IQ and aggression: Because it increases their power and pleasure in the short or medium term.

Here is my take on this. I believe in climate change, but I believe humans have extremely small impact on it. The earth heats and cools on its own over hundreds and even thousands of years, sometimes, can be a bit quicker at times. It believe it is natural, but nothing for everyone to scream "apocalypse" about.

File: 1477244914586.png (36KB, 778x512px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 778x512px

>scientist model effects of climate change
>predicts more frequent destructive hurricanes in the caribbean/gulf
>wow how cud this appen

>>9154819
>humans pump billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air that wouldn't naturally be there

>herp derp humans aren't causing global warming because hey yo theres nothing we can do about it

>>9151190
I'll address this obvious fucking bait. Climate is way bigger than humans putting gas into the air. Its global cycles over time, involving Earths rotation and or bit, the sun, the moon, etc etc.

If every fucking car and factory disappeared over night, climate would still be getting messed up. Its long term cycles.

Pleb.

>>9154844
What is happening now is what should be happening over the course off 500 years.

Except somehow we've accelerated it to just 200 years. Please tell me what has changed in the last 200 years that would cause this temperature to increase faster than at any point in history, oh expert climatologist. I mean sure 95% of scientist point to the fact that we've dug up hydrocarbons and polluted the air but surely you and 5% of other scientists know much better

Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750) have produced a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 406 ppm in early 2017.

Read this faggets and get it into your neanderthal brains

>>9154837
Take a look at Dr.Roy Spencer's work on meteorology and his thoughts on global warming. The CO2 we put out is so little compared to the rest of the atmosphere.

>>9151190
>hurricane pass throught the gulf stream
the most heated up place on earth with a constant water temp of 22c
>random anon thinks its climate change the a hurricane literally fuels up because of the gulf stream

>>9154861
the planet itself has produced over 4000 ppm at some point
what is really your point?
if you wanna see what will happen to earth check venus
hint the water vapor cause a lot more problems than any greenhouse gas there it made the atm so dense that the pressure went insanely high causing the planet to create more co2 to balance out but ultimately trapped everything in a china smog look like thing

>>9154941
>the planet itself has produced over 4000 ppm at some point what is really your point?

GHG in the atmosphere has never risen in such rate as the current AGW. Global temperature has never risen in such rate as the current AGW.

>hint the water vapor cause a lot more problems than any greenhouse gas there it made the atm so dense that the pressure went insanely high causing the planet to create more co2 to balance out but ultimately trapped everything in a china smog look like thing

Water vapor is #1 greenhouse gas in term of infrared band reflectance. Your statement imply that water vapor is not a greenhouse gas, and show how ignorant you are. Despite being the most potent greenhouse gas, there's nothing we can do about water vapor because it is a function of temperature only. 80% of Earth's surface is ocean, you can't put a lid over the ocean to stop the ocean from equilibrating with atmosphere and produce water vapor

>>9154947
water vapor is not a greenhouse gas water vapor is worse than every single green house gas

>>9152462
>Why doesn't anyone adress the fact that climate has gotten way hotter in the past?
Because we didn't have to worry about our coastal cities and farming abilities in the past.

No one is saying "hey we need to stop polluting and clean up the climate and then we will have blue skys, calm weather and rain at night and no storms".

We just don't want to be having three concurrent hurricanes landing.

High IQ here (no Freeman Dyson but pretty similar in terms of constitution and reasoning).

We do not deny climate change. Climate changes all the time, and is influenced by too much factors to account for. Because of the nonlinear bahavior and still many unkown coefficients, we would not be able to make a prediction of earth's climate even without human interference.

What we DO deny is the claim that the supposed climate change is entirely caused by human C02 emissions. The most straightforward argument for this arises if you take a look at to what extend C02 makes up the athmosphere (300 ppm), how little effect it has on the warming compared to water vapor (clouds) and how little C02 is emitted by humans compared to natural emissions (iirc it was only around 5% human emissions).

What is undeniable though is the political instrumentalisation of this debate and the deep influence of the outcome on third world industries.

Thus the only answer to human climate change that is grounded in reality is, we know too little but likely humans play only a minor part in it.

>>9155834
>The most straightforward argument for this arises if you take a look at to what extend C02 makes up the athmosphere (300 ppm), how little effect it has on the warming compared to water vapor (clouds) and how little C02 is emitted by humans compared to natural emissions (iirc it was only around 5% human emissions).
...That's not an argument though. An augment needs to actually connect its premise to it's conclusions.
"Look how small X is, it can't possible cause Y" is just intuition-based hand-waving. And in this case, it's wrong.

>>9151190
Do these hurricanes really have anything to do with it? I know global warming is a problem and all, but its effects aren't projected to continue to be this extreme.

The problem is the *climate*, which is a measurement of all weather, everywhere, over a certain period of time.

>>9155834

>Because of the nonlinear bahavior and still many unkown coefficients, we would not be able to make a prediction of earth's climate even without human interference.
>we know too little but likely humans play only a minor part in it.

Your own argument undermines your proposed conclusion. If we are unsure of what the Earth's climate would be without humans then how are you proposing a likelihood of humans only playing a "minor" part in it?

>>9155873
"Global warming" has a wide range of effects.

It can even cause more severe winters in places. It's not just "oh the world is warming so all the seasons will be warmer" which is why they generally use the term "climate change" now, because people are dumb.

>>9155924
But can these hurricanes be attributed to that? I'm thinking we're just having bad luck this year; it'll be a decade before we see another record-breaker.

>>9155980

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

>The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Hurricanes/

>hurricanes (tropical cyclones) have warm air over their centers. To change into a tropical cyclone, the cold air over an extratropical cyclone must change to warm air. This change can happen if thunderstorms occur near the cyclone center. The thunderstorms form along the frontal boundary as warm air rises over the colder air mass. As the air rises, it cools, and water vapor condenses into clouds. The heating released by condensation then helps to warm the air, and eventually the extratropical cyclone transitions into a tropical cyclone.

>>9155802
>vapor
>H2O (g)
not gas

get fucked dumb denier

File: IMG_4333.jpg (151KB, 620x450px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 620x450px

I expected there to be climate change denialists here on /sci/. Is that a bad thing?

>>9155863
Water vapor accounts for most of the greenhouse gas. Have you ever been to a desert at night? It gets chillingly cold, because there are no cloud layers to save the warmth. Allright if you wish, I can structure my sentense to appear more to your understanding of what an argument has to look like:
Carbon dioxide plays only a miniscule part as a driving force behind climate change, and we can attest this by our understanding of the composition of the athmosphere, our observation of water vapor causing a much stronger greenhouse effect and of our understanding of the rations of manmade and natural carbon dioxide emissions.

>>9155922

Well, I just follow the reasoning behing anthrolopologic climate change saying it is caused by a rapid increase of C02 from the first industrial revolutions (mostly due to cumbustion engines) until today. However, if you look at historic data (glacier/arctic drills), both the levels of C02 and the average temperatures have been much higher and much lower during different times of earth's history, and share much stronger correlations with other variables besides greenhouse gas (have a look at Milankovitch cycles). The minor comes from the second part of my comment, referring to around 5 gt of C02 by humans compared to 50 gt natural emissions, iirc.

>>9156621
*greenhouse effect, first sentense

>>9155821
>We just don't want to be having three concurrent hurricanes landing.

There's no way to stop that. You can't seriously believe that anthropogenic climate change is the only reason we have multiple hurricanes at the same time. I get it, we as humans like to think we can play god and should be able to control things like the weather, but that just isn't going to happen anytime soon.

>>9155863
>And in this case, it's wrong.
Wrong is the right word here. It's just as "wrong" as the other side of the arguement. Both rely on "faith", that is, neither has enough proof to believe in what they are believing. What the other anon was trying to say though was that we know for a fact what the one arguement is gaining from "winning" the debate, and that is enough reason to question their position.

>>9156588
>climate change denialists

Is this the new way of making "deniers" sound retarded? "Climate change" isn't the issue. So either you are retarded, or you're doing your part to make "deniers" look bad. Either way you're not helping the debate.

>>9156621
>Carbon dioxide plays only a miniscule part as a driving force behind climate change, and we can attest this by our understanding of the composition of the athmosphere, our observation of water vapor causing a much stronger greenhouse effect and of our understanding of the rations of manmade and natural carbon dioxide emissions.
That's completely wrong. Water vapor gets cycled through the atmosphere quickly and in massive amounts. So without CO2 emissions the amount of warming from water vapor doesn't change much. Any additional warming causes a positive feedback loop, since warming leads to water vapor and CO2 being released from the oceans. So changes in the climate are driven by whatever increases warming to start this feedback loop. in the past, this was initiated by increases in the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth due to orbital eccentricity. This is why interglacial periods begin with rapid warming and end with slow cooling. Today, instead of increased sunlight, we are warming the Earth even faster than interglacial warming by adding massive amounts of CO2. The fact that water vapor provides a large baseline of warmth does not in any way imply that CO2 cannot be the main driver of climate change, and is necessary to understand how it is the primary driver since one of its effects is to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

If CO2 is not driving global warming, what is?

>However, if you look at historic data (glacier/arctic drills), both the levels of C02 and the average temperatures have been much higher and much lower during different times of earth's history, and share much stronger correlations with other variables besides greenhouse gas (have a look at Milankovitch cycles).
The correlations are explained by causation. Why does warming cause CO2 to increase? Why does warming cause water vapor to increase? How does this help your claim?

>>9156621
>The minor comes from the second part of my comment, referring to around 5 gt of C02 by humans compared to 50 gt natural emissions, iirc.
You're forgetting that nature absorbs even more carbon than it emits. Humans do not.

>>9156679
How exactly is the effect of CO2 as determined by climatologists based on "faith"? Your attempt to drag empirical science down to the level of political wishful thinking is rather pathetic.

>>9151986
Chaos theory?
lol wit? The climate is for dynamic systems, and complexity bud

>>9152462
Our current ecological systems are not adapted to the changing climate, adaptation does not happen fast, especially with the state biodiversity is in, it won't happen at all, the parameters that give the world order are eroding and life will continue to disenigrate into entropy.

lel ur gay

>>9156687
>That's completly wrong...
You are following the common reasoning behind the ipcc-approved models, which all fail to make reliable prognoses. The details of why this is so have been discussed countless times, and the general consensus is: because we do not understand climate well enough. What we do understand is CLOUDS have a much stronger effect on average temperature than anything else. Again, have a trip to a desert and observe the rapid difference of not having a layer of clouds...

>If CO2 is not driving global warming, what is?

Some have suggested it is global warming driving CO2 levels. Also solar activity, dust concentration, and again, cloud formation all work together in ways we currently do not understand.

>>9156690
Then why has there been CO2 levels 10x as high compared to today?

>>9156744
>You are following the common reasoning behind the ipcc-approved models, which all fail to make reliable prognoses.
They ALL fail? Can you show me all these failed models?

Then show me the successful models based on your claims.

>The details of why this is so have been discussed countless times, and the general consensus is: because we do not understand climate well enough.
Well it's not so, and the general consensus is described by the IPCC.

>What we do understand is CLOUDS have a much stronger effect on average temperature than anything else.
Clouds are one of the less understood parts of the climate, since they both block sunlight and trap it via the greenhouse effect. You're seriously misinformed.

>Again, have a trip to a desert and observe the rapid difference of not having a layer of clouds...
It has nothing to do with clouds though. It's because (1) dry ground does not retain heat (2) there is less greenhouse effect from water vapor. Do you think water vapor is the same thing as clouds?

So are you arguing that global warming is caused by a global decrease in clouds? Because I have seen no evidence of this.

>Then why has there been CO2 levels 10x as high compared to today?
Such high CO2 levels were caused primarily by extreme volcanic activity and subduction. Unfortunately for your argument, there hasn't been such extreme subduction over the entire course of recorded history. The only source currently increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is humans.

>>9156695
It's the over-reaching that is "faith" based. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and yes, humans have been releasing ever increasing quantites for over a century now while removing a good amount of the land sinks (forests, wet lands, etc), but the conclusion that our activities are the reason for current weather "problems" isn't justified, and the majority that are so adamant that it is are just as bad as the ones who completely ignore all facts. Worse yet, those who are so willing to believe in "science" are also the ones without any solutions to these "problems", but are willing to try and fuck with our current system because why? Because they are generally terrible human beings without purpose in life and are seeking for purpose by fucking with current establishments that keep people alive and society functioning. If they truely wanted to help reduce our footprint then they'd get involved in an industry/technology that is aiming to do such, and stop whining to people who are just trying to keep the lights on and food in the market.

>>9156816
>but the conclusion that our activities are the reason for current weather "problems" isn't justified
Warmer sea surface temperatures produce more intense hurricanes.

>Worse yet, those who are so willing to believe in "science" are also the ones without any solutions to these "problems", but are willing to try and fuck with our current system because why?
The solution is simple. Limiting greenhouse gas emissions will mitigate future damage and net massive savings. As long as people like you deny the problem exists, this solution will not be carried out.

>>9156805

You are putting words in my digital mouth that i have not spoken and assume things I do not assume.

>They ALL fail? Can you show me all these failed models?

They all expect much higher average temperature increase we have yet to observe.

>Well it's not so, and the general consensus is described by the IPCC.

General consensus betwee IPCC and deniers.

>Clouds are one of the less understood parts of the climate, since they both block sunlight and trap it via the greenhouse effect. You're seriously misinformed.

ALL of climate is not well understood, that's why weather predictions further away than a week tend to almost always we inaccurate. However, the trapping is the important, real world effect, as the swing is increadible and much stronger than some 0.something anomaly.

>It has nothing to do with clouds though. It's because (1) dry ground does not retain heat (2) there is less greenhouse effect from water vapor. Do you think water vapor is the same thing as clouds?

We are talking about air temperature, not ground temperature. Of course, water vapor = clouds. Same molecules, different phases.

>So are you arguing that global warming is caused by a global decrease in clouds? Because I have seen no evidence of this.

I DONT KNOW. It might be the case, it might be because of other factors that I mentioned earlier, to varios certain degree, or something else altogether. The system is too complex to make predictions, but water vapor has a much stronger effect in the greenhouse model, compared to CO2.

>Such high CO2 levels were caused primarily by extreme volcanic activity and subduction. Unfortunately for your argument, there hasn't been such extreme subduction over the entire course of recorded history.

Big vulcanic eruptions have been documented in the last 1000 years, mostly in the 13th/15th century, some even causing small "ice ages" in europe, most likely due to the resulting ash layer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

>>9151190
>I-I'm not pregnant just because a guy came in me! They do it all the time and I never got pregnant before now! You can't say it's the reason!
Any other questions?

>>9156877

>You are putting words in my digital mouth that i have not spoken and assume things I do not assume.
Like what?

>They all expect much higher average temperature increase we have yet to observe.
Again, show me these models. I don't believe you.

>General consensus betwee IPCC and deniers.
That's like saying the general consensus between doctors and homeopaths. That's not how a scientific consensus works. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, it means that there is general agreement in the published research.

>ALL of climate is not well understood, that's why weather predictions further away than a week tend to almost always we inaccurate.
The reason weather predictions are innacurate is because weather is chaotic, while climate is less so, since much of the variation gets averaged out. The study of climate is a completely different field from meteorology. What is understood in meterorology has little to do with what is understood in climatology. Again, you are misinformed.

>However, the trapping is the important, real world effect, as the swing is increadible and much stronger than some 0.something anomaly.
Again, how are clouds causing the trend? Clouds fluctuate randomly due to weather and ENSO. This is a feedback effect, not a forcing, so it can't replace CO2 as a cause even if the effects were massive, which they aren't.

>We are talking about air temperature, not ground temperature.
LOL, ground temperature affects air temperature. If the ground cannot retain heat, there is nothing to warm the air at night. The reason the desert is cold at night is because (1) the dry ground can't retain heat from the day and then emit heat at night and (2) the dry air cannot trap what heat there is in the air during the day into the night.

>Of course, water vapor = clouds. Same molecules, different phases.
>different phases
So then they aren't the same thing...

>>9156877
>I DONT KNOW.
Yes, I realize you don't know, yet you are trying to tell me you know better than climatologists. Yet you keep making false claims, like clouds being the most important factor.

>It might be the case, it might be because of other factors that I mentioned earlier, to varios certain degree, or something else altogether. The system is too complex to make predictions, but water vapor has a much stronger effect in the greenhouse model, compared to CO2.
Again, this doesn't respond to the point being made. The question is not which forcing has the biggest effect, the question is which forcings are to blame for global warming. Has the forcing from water vapor changed? No. So it can't explain the global warming trend. Contrary to your baseless assertions, climatologists do understand the forcings well enough to know that CO2 is the primary cause. There are hundreds of papers proving this. They are readily available. you have no excuse to ignore them.

>Big vulcanic eruptions have been documented in the last 1000 years
Yes, so what? Volcanic activity has not been the source of increasing CO2 throughout the period of global warming. What is your argument here?

File: cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg (168KB, 960x864px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 960x864px

>>9156927
That's not how a scientific consensus works. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, it means that there is general agreement in the published research.

Oh I know that's not how scientific consensus works, but that's how reality works. If you think scientific consensus somehow represents reality, you will be in for a very rude awakening. For example, when all the models fail. Take a look a pic related.

>The reason weather predictions are innacurate is because weather is chaotic, while climate is less so, since...

Where does weather end and where does climate start? They are both the same to me. What use is to make predictions for the next 20 years, if we cannot predict even several months? Maybe there are constant transient effects...

>Again, how are clouds causing the trend

Read about greenhouse effect and water vapor.

>LOL, ground temperature affects air temperature.

Have you ever been to a desert? Can you walk on the sand with your bare feet at midday? What about midnight?

>So then they aren't the same thing...

We are comparing chemical elements, C02 to H20, so they are the same thing, just different phases. Ice is still water, only a different phase of it...

>>9156958
>Where does weather end and where does climate start? They are both the same to me.

Jesus look at this brainlet. Spend 5 seconds googling the difference and get back to me.

>>9156942
You don't know either, and many people much smarter than you and me don't know, and don't pretend otherwise, as this violates academic integrity.

>They are readily available. you have no excuse to ignore them.

Of course I have, imagine me running a country that has to decide to cut thousands of jobs because otherwise the planet will melt down. Now if i look at the data, I see a change of +/- 1 Degree deviation most models propose, and almost no deviation for the past 15 years, with ongoing increase of CO2. The simple suggestion that more CO2 = warmer does not seem to hold, yet critical discussion is not beign published. What are you supposed to conclude from this?

>Yes, so what? Volcanic activity has not been the source of increasing CO2 throughout the period of global warming. What is your argument here?

There are forces on earth that have a much stronger and drastic effect on climate change than CO2, which has a such a low concentration we might aswell forget about it. You seem to quote my lines without understanding what they tell you. Vulcano ash, water wapor, solar activity, sand, glaciers, ocean temperature, streams, wind activity - the climate is too difficult for us to predict.

>>9156970
You live in a world full of definitions, relationships, clear causal chains, and peer review. It might be a cushy world, but you're living in a bubble, and you'll know this when you have to solve real world problems aka "What is the weather going to be six months from now?"

>>9156984
Oh, btw, if you get this wrong, you're fired.

>>9156838
>The solution is simple. Limiting greenhouse gas emissions
But the largest human producers of CO2 are tied to basic power consumption, and we are only getting more and more dependent on electricity. It's not the cars that are the problem; they are a small dent.

>>9156958
>Oh I know that's not how scientific consensus works, but that's how reality works.
Ah so reality is between standard medicine and homeopathy. If you think this is how reality works, you will be in for a very rude awakening.

>For example, when all the models fail. Take a look a pic related.
LOL, you're a bit behind the curve. The temperature data used there has been admitted to be incorrect by the very person who made that chart:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/26/heartlands-6-reasons-to-be-a-climate-change-skeptic-are-six-demonstrable-lies/#57ae454e6189

>Where does weather end and where does climate start?
I don't think anyone except for you has trouble seeing that the average temperature across the entire globe is climate, not weather.

>They are both the same to me.
Then you have no idea what you're talking about, as I've already shown.

>What use is to make predictions for the next 20 years, if we cannot predict even several months?
I don't what's so hard to understand about the fact that different factors dominate different timescales. So far everything you've posted is just an argument based on your confusion of your own lack of understanding for a universal lack of understanding.

>Read about greenhouse effect and water vapor.
I have. Don't be obtuse.

>Have you ever been to a desert? Can you walk on the sand with your bare feet at midday? What about midnight?
I don't see how this responds to what I said. Without moisture and vegetation, the ground retains less heat. Without water vapor, the air traps less heat. Yes or no?

>We are comparing chemical elements, C02 to H20, so they are the same thing, just different phases.
No, we are explaining why hot, dry deserts do not retain heat at night. It's funny that you accuse me of putting words in your mouth while you continuously try to twist the argument. Clouds and water vapor have different effects on the atmosphere, so your argument makes no sense anyway.

One acronym...

HAARP

>>9156978
>You don't know either, and many people much smarter than you and me don't know, and don't pretend otherwise, as this violates academic integrity.
So almost every climatologist, the ones who say CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming, is violating academic integrity? Or are they are just dumber than you? You tell me.

>Of course I have...
I don't see the excuse anywhere, I just see you ignoring the scientific consensus and replacing it with your own fantasy version of reality. It's really pathetic.

>There are forces on earth that have a much stronger and drastic effect on climate change than CO2, which has a such a low concentration we might aswell forget about it.
You just keep repeating the same fallacy. Let me repeat what I've said already since you've conveniently ignored it:

The question is not which forcing has the biggest effect, the question is which forcings are to blame for global warming.

>>9156984
>Weather predictions are a crapshoot
>We've been able to reliably predict climate years into the future for over 2000 years

Really activates those almonds

>>9156992
>But the largest human producers of CO2 are tied to basic power consumption, and we are only getting more and more dependent on electricity.
Then we should use nuclear power and renewable sources. Why is this a problem? Yes it will cost money to replace infrastructure, but much more money will be saved by avoiding future damage from climate change, which threatens our agricultural infrastructure, ecological infrastructure, and coastal infrastructure.

>>9154221
In the past 17 years we've had 10 of the top 15 busiest hurricane seasons ever recorded. It is very difficult to conclude that something as complex and far-reaching as global warming is definitively causing an increase in the number or strength of Atlantic hurricanes, but the data trends show that recent years have had far more hurricanes than what would be considered baseline normal. These are statistical trends, not scientific proof, but they should lead any rational person to conclude that something is having an effect on the number of hurricanes the atlantic is generating every year. The simplest explanation is that it's probably the warming trend that the planet is currently experiencing, but that's a logical conclusion, which is also not scientific proof.

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp

>>9151190
The same way global warming faggs didn't blame the last 10 years of no hurricane hitting the us on global warming

File: heckerino romano.png (550KB, 800x680px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 800x680px

>>9151980
>when you make up a fake quote and attribute it to a politician to convince people on an Estonian stamp-collecting imageboard not to believe scientists

I don't deny climate change I just don't see any point in getting worked up over a self correcting problem.
Humans create to much co2
Earth can't support the human population
Human population declines
Humans generate less co2

>>9152742
>nature vs humans
What an artificial distinction. I might as well blame the early rodents for not doing enough to save their dinosaur brethren.

File: IMG_0145.jpg (17KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x241px

>climate may be changing due to human influence
Except, there is no evidence that this is a bad thing. In fact, until recently scientists used to think that the Medieval Warm Period was a major cause of the European Renaissance. Plus, we don't know how "sensitive" the Earth's atomosphere is to gases, which means that most studies are guesswork, and we have only one Earth and therefore cannot perform any experiments, meaning that climate change is technically unfalsifiable.

It doesn't help that researchers are far from unbiased, that even the falsifiability of climate change is not clear, and that alarming/doomsday results get more funding and therefore confer more power than non-alarming results.

But the big point is falsifiablility. We need climate scientists to WANT to be proven wrong, and therefore we need to separate "climate science" from the government. As it stands, climate change is cargo cult science.

>>9157404
>ever recorded
Reminder that most of the areas that get these hurricanes were filled with nativeameriniggers for most of their history, who are not known for their meteorological abilities.

File: birb.gif (4MB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 350x350px

>>9155834
>High IQ here (no Freeman Dyson but pretty similar in terms of constitution and reasoning).
m'lady
>What we DO deny is the claim that the supposed climate change is entirely caused by human C02 emissions.
current warming is ALMOST entirely caused by human CO2 emissions
>to what extend C02 makes up the athmosphere (300 ppm)
just because it's a fairly small component doesn't mean it can't have major effects
>how little effect it has on the warming compared to water vapor (clouds)
water vapor in the atmosphere is in near-equilibrium with the oceans for obvious reasons. thus, the contribution from water vapor remains nearly constant (with a slight positive feedback from temperature increasing pH2O). water vapor doesn't drive warming because its concentration is tightly constrained.
also, clouds are NOT vapor, but rather liquid (or solid in some cases)
>how little C02 is emitted by humans compared to natural emissions (iirc it was only around 5% human emissions)
yes, but natural emissions are nearly constant and balanced out by natural sinks. a balance with 1000 kg on each side can be tipped by a 10g mass. it's important to consider what is in equilibrium and what is not when trying to find the causes of change.
>Thus the only answer to human climate change that is grounded in reality is, we know too little but likely humans play only a minor part in it.
for (You)

despite MUH EYE KYEW, you've managed to be wrong from start to finish. and to people with degrees in earth science (like me) it's embarrassingly obvious. I hope this is b8; otherwise you should probably just neck yourself.

>>9157431
>yes, but natural emissions are nearly constant and balanced out by natural sinks. a balance with 1000 kg on each side can be tipped by a 10g mass. it's important to consider what is in equilibrium and what is not when trying to find the causes of change.
It's almost hilarious how climatefags seem to forget that the Earth's biosphere is constantly changing, and that there is not and never was any "perfect natural equilibrium." If "equilibrium" exists as you say it does, surely humans are not more powerful than nature, and the equilibrium will be reached. The climate ALWAYS changes.

In reality, climate change is just the next imaginary moral panic orchestrated by people with a pathological hatred of their own species.

File: CANCER.jpg (223KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 900x675px

>>9156744
>What we do understand is CLOUDS have a much stronger effect on average temperature than anything else. Again, have a trip to a desert and observe the rapid difference of not having a layer of clouds...
Again, water in the atmosphere is in near-equilibrium with the oceans.
And more to the point, the poles (little cloud cover) are warming faster than the tropics (loads of cloud cover). If cloud cover were indeed driving warming, how would you explain this?

>why has there been CO2 levels 10x as high compared to today?
amazingly enough, the Proterozoic and early Paleozoic had very different atmospheric/ocean chemistry and biogeochemical cycling than our modern state.

>>9156877
>We are talking about air temperature, not ground temperature.
At night, when there's no insolation, a major control of air temperature is how much heat is emitted by the ground. that anon you're replying to is 100% correct.
>Of course, water vapor = clouds. Same molecules, different phases.
by your logic, glaciers = clouds. Same molecules, different phases!
>Big vulcanic eruptions have been documented in the last 1000 years
a supervolcano eruption of extremely gassy lava would still only have the CO2 output of about 4 months of human activity. the kind of flood basalt volcanism (continuing for tens of thousands of years) seen in the deep past simply doesn't happen anymore.

>>9156958
>We are comparing chemical elements, C02 to H20
you seem unclear on the definition of "element", you brainlet.

File: let me Axe (You) a question.png (390KB, 932x817px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 932x817px

>>9157441
>the Earth's biosphere is constantly changing, and that there is not and never was any "perfect natural equilibrium."
it's almost hilarious how denierfags seem to forget the timescales on which the various feedbacks operate, and how slow natural change is by human standards.
(yes, we can count on increased silicate weathering to eventually counteract increased temperature and pCO2. no, it won't happen soon enough to be useful to us.)

google the phrase "near-equilibrium" and get back to me.

>>9151190
I have a theory most deniers know it's real, they just don't care. We value emotion over intelligence, so it is better to appear stupid rather than immoral. You also can see how it plays out geopolitically too in that nations like Russia try to downplay or deny it as much as possible because they have a lot to gain from the Arctic and Siberia thawing.

Why people don't believe in climate change I will never understand.

>>9157502
wtf i love russia now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA5qYrboTUE

233km winds

File: _40843284_hurricane3_history_gra416.gif (9KB, 416x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 416x250px

>>9151190
There were many similar large storms in the last century.
In 1935 Florida was hit by a Storm with the same speed than the Hurricane Irma.
In 1959 there was a Typhoon even Stronger in Asia (Taiwan).
The storms aren't getting stronger.
Hurricanes like Irma happen each decade or so.
Also take a look on >>9154292 's pic.

>>9157518
people dont believe that the climate change is 100% a human cause
everyone knows it is happening but most of the dont buy the whole humans are the only cause of the climate change

>>9157431
>to people with degrees in earth science (like me)

Well here's the problem. You've got a degree in learning by heart, while my degree taught me about system modeling, and the increadibly complex behavior that may arise from even the most simple, linear systems (think of amplifiers, oscillators etc.), and how and under what circumstances the systems might be unstable.

Now the earth's climate physics has both nonlinear components that have no analytic solutions (Naver Stokes equations) as well as factors that have no clear coefficients (biosphere, capacity of heat storage of water and ground, geological anamolies like volcano eruptions etc., solar radiation variation)

You would be delusional if simple cause->effect relationships are enough to derive predictions in a dynamic system, and we are talking about a dynamic system here.

Yet if you are so knowledgable, why not just present your block model of the earth's climate, come up with a mathematical representation in laplace space, and show the calculated predicted behavior?

>>9157450
>water in the atmosphere is in near-equilibrium with the oceans.

What about the melting and freezing of the north pole? How do you refer to this as near-equilibrium?
Are you even able to come up with a reliable model to predict the spatial and temporal changes of arctic ice coverage?

>>9157457
And I never denied it. However, the clouds form a layer that traps the heated air on the ground, so it remains warm at night. No cloud layer -> heat is quickly lost.

>by your logic, glaciers = clouds
>We are comparing chemical elements, C02 to H20

Yes, the glaciers are also formed by H2O, and not carbon dioxide. There are molecules made up of chemical elements, and I only used this destinction to contrast H20 from C02. Don't be silly, and stop insulting people, really makes you look childish.

>>9157623
Can also be time domain for all I care, but I want a mathematical system where every effect that has significant influence on the earth's climate has been accounted for, at least by a first order approximation,

Can you do that?

File: 1504898239368.jpg (24KB, 369x387px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 369x387px

>>9154862
Its called the carbone cycle and its taught in high school, ya dumb fuck. For the past thousands years the co2 levels have been stable because most carbon was reintegrated into the ocean/the earth. Human activity is a surplus that is not accounted for and its accumulating. If I put 20l of water in a buckle and putting out 20l at the same time then nothing happens. If on top of that you're putting in another 0,5l, after a while the bucket is going to overflow, and it doesnt matter that 0,5l is "not a lot" compared to 20l

>>9155834
>its smawl so it cant cause Y
Yeah ozone is useless because its so tiny winny
Swallow a small amount of polonium brainlet

>>9157421
>Humans causing global warming
>nature not
>humans capable of solving the problem
>nature not
Yup, totally "artificial"

>>9157423
>Except, there is no evidence that this is a bad thing.
Why are you lying?

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

>In fact, until recently scientists used to think that the Medieval Warm Period was a major cause of the European Renaissance.
Which is irrelevant since current global warming is much faster than that period's.

>Plus, we don't know how "sensitive" the Earth's atomosphere is to gases, which means that most studies are guesswork, and we have only one Earth and therefore cannot perform any experiments, meaning that climate change is technically unfalsifiable.
Climate sensitivity can be estimated in a number of ways. These calculations show that the sensitivity is most likely between 2 and 4 degrees celsius. We don't need a separate Earth to perform experiments and analysis of the Earth, that's a ridiculous contention. Climate change is based on empirical facts so of course it's falsifiable. Show CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, show it hasn't been warming, show we haven't been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, show sensitivity is not significant, etc. If you can't do that, it just means AGW is a well evidenced theory.

>It doesn't help that researchers are far from unbiased, that even the falsifiability of climate change is not clear, and that alarming/doomsday results get more funding and therefore confer more power than non-alarming results.
Where is the evidence of any of this? Your "arguments" are just baseless claims indistinguishable from any other achieve denier, like a creationist.

>>9157518
Because it's politically inconvenient for them. If the problem doesn't exist then they don't even have to think about solving it.

>>9157534
Rising sea surface temps have a small effect on hurricane intensity but the effect is there. It's just dwarfed by shorter term variability like ENSO.

File: delete your account.png (798KB, 864x432px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 864x432px

>>9157623
>You've got a degree in learning by heart
confirmed for never taking a geoscience course ever
oh also I've got TWO degrees in geo

>my degree taught me about system modeling, and the increadibly complex behavior that may arise from even the most simple, linear systems
>You would be delusional if simple cause->effect relationships are enough to derive predictions in a dynamic system
there are two ways in which you're fucking up:

one, you're talking about predictions without considering the precision, confidence, or intervals of those predictions. YES, it is true that it is nigh-impossible to exactly predict a particular state in such a complex and difficult-to-measure system. BUT, it is entirely possible to make a prediction WITHIN CERTAIN BOUNDS, AT A SPECIFIED LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE. we don't have the ability to say "at X time it will be Y temperature and Z pressure", but we can say "around X time there is a 99% chance that temperature and pressure will be within these ranges". and then you improve your measurements and models to try and shrink those ranges a little.
a marble rolling down a bumpy hillside is hard to model, but any jerk with a decent grasp of Newtonian mechanics can tell you about where it's probably going to end up.

two, you're ignorant of some very basic concepts related to earth science. clouds are made of liquid or solid water, not gaseous water (which is invisible to us). water vapor in the atmosphere is tightly controlled by temperature and pressure, thanks to the oceans. CO2's low concentration doesn't preclude it from driving warming.
you can't claim that you understand this better than the rest of us when you're so obviously wrong on the very basics.

>>9157623
You don't know dick about complexity, or the behavior of the living systems that create the boundary conditions for earths climate.
This problem is a problem about biodiversity loss, shifting baselines and of course anthropogenic entropy ala carbon emissions.

File: stop posting.jpg (31KB, 361x691px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 361x691px

>>9157636
>What about the melting and freezing of the north pole? How do you refer to this as near-equilibrium?
let me repeat this in large friendly letters that you might be able to read:
WATER IN THE ATMOSPHERE
IS IN NEAR-EQUILIBRIUM
WITH THE OCEANS
the Clausius-Clapeyron relation governs the interaction between liquid and gaseous water at the ocean surface. (and since the oceans are so damn big, they dominate the entire lower atmosphere in this regard.) it's strictly a function of temperature and pressure; if more water is put into the atmosphere, it gets rapidly removed through increased precipitation.
this is VERY BASIC STUFF. apparently your response to your ignorance being pointed out is to try and distract from the issue by bringing up sea ice.

>However, the clouds form a layer that traps the heated air on the ground, so it remains warm at night. No cloud layer -> heat is quickly lost.
if you were right, forests would see the same precipitous drop in temperature on cloudless nights as deserts do. (and in reality the difference between cloudy and cloudless nights is not that big.) what makes deserts cold at night is the inability of the terrain to retain heat, not an absence of cloud cover.

>There are molecules made up of chemical elements
...which is different from actually being elements.
are hematite and magnetite the same thing? after all, they're made of the same chemical elements. hell, what about red phosphorus and white phosphorus? they've got the same damn formula, so they MUST be the same according to you!

did your parents have any children that lived?

>Can't even predict a hurricane path 48 hours out.
>Claim the earth is going to end due to cows farting and doesn't understand why nobody believes them
Hmm...really makes me think.

And what, do you think carbon taxes and regulations would have made this hurricane smaller?

Well, brainlet?

>>9158214
You are cherrypicking instead of having a proper discussion. And if you think you can derive complex real-world behavior from a simple, laboratory equation, you must have never worked on anything besides simple, laboratory problems, which is still pretty great, but just the beginning of your career. Now if you are so sure that Clausius-Clapeyor governs the formation of water in the athmosphere, it must be fairly easy for you to predict the formation of cloud fronts for the next week, or months. But in practice, it is not.

You are sidestepping this relevant issue: to what extend are we able to make predictions, and how accurate are they?

>if you were right, forests would see the same precipitous drop in temperature on cloudless nights as deserts do. (and in reality the difference between cloudy and cloudless nights is not that big.)

Desert soil is some of the most firtile soil on earth, the reason why they are deserts and not forests is due to the fact that for an extended period of time, NO clouds and NO precipitation occurs, thus the area dries out.

See, our discussion does not lead anywhere. I have an engineering background, and in engineering, understanding basic physics is NOT enough to build a working structure, because reality imposes boundaries and even simple behavior can lead to unforseen consequences. Have you ever heard of the term "resonance catastrophy"? What looks impossible from a static analysis (payload is supported) becomes possible in terms of dynamics, ie. periodic motion. This can be modeled in frequency space, as is usually the case with any dynamic system. So having a static analysis is simply not enough for even the most basic things (bridge), then why is it enough to describe the climate of earth?

The causal chain human CO2 emission -> climate change -> hurricane formation is simply not explained by ANY mathematic model at all, at least non that I am aware of. Maybe you can enlight me?

File: 1024px-Elmer-pump-heatequation.png (853KB, 1024x801px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 1024x801px

>>9158214
>>9158435

I just wanted to add that in engineering, structural analysis in the frequency domain is usually done with numerical discretisation of the differential equations (FEM, MoM) and performed by muliphysical simulations. The general idea being that knowing the governing physical laws, we can approximate realworld behavior by solving a set of coupled equations for each structural element. This approach is often able to give realistic results.

Has such a technique been applied on predicting climate change? If not, for what reason?

File: please do not.jpg (115KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 500x750px

>>9158435
>You are cherrypicking instead of having a proper discussion.
in other words, I spotted the boneheaded mistakes you made and pointed them out to everyone rather than pretending like you knew what you're talking about. stop whining and actually build an argument that holds water.

>And if you think you can derive complex real-world behavior from a simple, laboratory equation
go anywhere over a body of water and the partial pressure of water vapor in the air will be very near the predicted value derived from temperature and atmospheric pressure. map out pH2O, patm, and temperature over the entire globe, and the same relationship will hold true.
we know this because it's been done. sometimes the large-scale behavior even of complex systems follows simple rules.

>Desert soil is some of the most firtile soil on earth
this is actually 100% a lie. soils in hot deserts are poor in organic material (humus) and usually lacking in nitrate and phosphate as well. you can take a bucket of sand from the Sahara and drench it, and you still won't be able to grow anything but the occasional ephemeral xerophyte.
>the reason why they are deserts and not forests is due to the fact that for an extended period of time, NO clouds and NO precipitation occurs, thus the area dries out.
tell that to the Namib. it's one of the world's driest deserts, and yet part of it gets ~180 cloudy days out of the year. (it's just that the physiography doesn't cause those clouds to actually rain much.)

of course, the real issue you're trying to avoid is that your theory of why deserts are cold at night isn't borne out by the facts. forests frequently have cloudless nights. so why don't they get cold at night the way deserts do? it's LITTLE to do with cloud cover and VERY MUCH about heat retention by the landscape.
PROTIP: if you're going to try and distract from something you were embarrassingly wrong about, try not to be even more embarrassingly wrong about something else in the process.

File: smug replicant face.jpg (60KB, 782x788px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 782x788px

>>9158435
>in engineering, understanding basic physics is NOT enough to build a working structure
good thing you don't understand basic physics then.
>So having a static analysis is simply not enough for even the most basic things (bridge), then why is it enough to describe the climate of earth?
what makes you think that whole-planet climate models are static? given the complexity of the feedbacks involved, why would climatologists ever do such a thing?

>The causal chain human CO2 emission -> climate change -> hurricane formation is simply not explained by ANY mathematic model at all, at least non that I am aware of.
okay, which of the following facts are you contesting?

>1. Human activity has caused the pCO2 of the atmosphere to increase.
>2. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, causing a significant elevation of Earth's surface temperature.
>3. Surface temperatures of tropical waters are positively correlated with globally averaged surface temperature.
>4. Hurricane strength is positively correlated with surface temperatures of the water over which it forms.

because if all 4 of those are true, human activity has caused an increase in the severity of hurricanes.

File: Double Line Symbol.png (441KB, 1775x971px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1775x971px

>>9158469
look at this kid suggesting we apply finite element analysis to a fluid dynamics problem.

not only are you a shit geoscientist, you're a shit engineer. probably some second or third year undergrad who took one course in a specialized kind of modeling and thinks he's hot shit.

>>9153732
this image is fake. Their positions don't line up with the horizon....

File: 14375268523980.jpg (45KB, 640x428px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x428px

>>9158469
>Werner Heisenberg was asked what he would ask God, given the opportunity. His reply was: "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first."

>>9158435
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo

>>9157502
u wot
russia is actually very climate conscious nation, check your facts

>>9158583
Putin denies climate change is caused by humans or can be stopped. The only reason he signed the Paris Accord is because Russia didn't have to do anything since they lost economic production already.

>>9158609
>Putin denies climate change is caused by humans or can be stopped.
oh my god, so you're one of the dumb cancer faggots who take their newsfeed too seriously
look at the actions and the stats, not at the words, especially not at the propaganda aimed at destabilizing US
also your remark about thawing siberia is beyond dumb

>>9152515
to add onto this anecdote, in virginia it used to snow much more in the winters, now i'd be surprised if it snowed more than 2 times in a winter.

>>9158627
>look at the actions and the stats, not at the words
Words are actions, especially when you're a world leader.

>especially not at the propaganda aimed at destabilizing US
LOL

>also your remark about thawing siberia is beyond dumb
Not me, dumbass. But it's 100% correct.

>>9151190
I might take you more serious if you knew how to spell savvy...

>>9151190
Humans are not the problem.

The problem is that oligarchs, who owe their fortunes to fossil fuels, will do anything to maintain their powers over humanity by holding a monopoly on energy. That's why think tanks, like the Heartland Institute, are created to dicredit both the competitors and environmentalists that threatens their stranglehold on the energy market.

>>9158546
They're fossil fuel shills, don't listen to them.

File: before.jpg (253KB, 662x449px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 662x449px

>>9151190
I think you want to post this on /pol/. Most of /sci/ is pretty knowledgeable about climate change, we just choose not to get into pointless dick measuring contests with mouthbreathers and deniers.

Anyway, here's a cool hurricane effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwOQbMcXtfU

>>9154298
That's not even counting the ecological damage we're suffering because of the mass extinction event related to the sudden and rapid pace of this current climate shift. Organisms need to time to struggle, adjust and adapt. We're not giving it enough time, and as apex predators (approaching 8 billion in number, mind you) it's going to hit us the hardest.

I honestly think that climate change does exist but everyone is over hyping it because doomsaying is the only way to get people to care about the environment

>>9159038
I don't even know why it needs to be overhyped, ESPECIALLY to conservatives. Teddy Roosevelt pushed for the national park system, Richard Nixon helped establish the EPA, Ronald Reagan coordinated bipartisan support to deal with banning CFCs to repair our ozone layer. What the fuck happened to Republicans that they no longer care about their own backyard?

>>9152045
Is Justin Bieber even still popular?

>>9159043
>implying that the US goverment gets better over time
They suffer from decay cycles, hopefully this one will change soon.

>>9159038
And honestly all the groups tampering with data to push their own views isn't helping shit.
Thanks EPA, doctoring your fucking numbers is really helping people believe that climate change is real, GG faggots.

>>9159062
>>>/x/

>>9159093
>Groups get openly caught falsifying data
>This is somehow /x/

Admit it, if we went an entire year without a single named hurricane you'd blame THAT on Global Warming.

If it's unfalsifiable then you're not doing science.

>>9159127
>Poster openly gets caught making up shitty conspiracy theories
>>>/x/

>>9159140
"Media overblowing >thing and effects of >thing" doesnt mean ">thing isnt real or has any effect".
Theres no logical follow-up between these two statement.
If you bothered to read actual papers about effect of AWG on hurricanes, they woule tell you we dont much so far but can assume that in the future rise of temperature will mean more violent hurricanes.

>>9159155
Indeed, there is no logical link. So why are you assuming one?

But thank you for providing examples of why climate science is bullshit and not science. "It global warming is true, you should expect to probably see more strong hurricanes, but if you don't we're still right." That is the definition of unfalsifiable.

>>9159164
Nothing in this post seems to relate to any of the things I've said.

>>9159164
>Indeed, there is no logical link. So why are you assuming one?
Where did he assume one? Are you illiterate, faggot?

> "It global warming is true, you should expect to probably see more strong hurricanes, but if you don't we're still right." That is the definition of unfalsifiable.
Global warming is neither proven nor disproven by hurricanes. It's proven by the basic empirical facts that humans are rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 warms the Earth via the greenhouse effect, and the Earth is indeed warming as we would expect from this effect. If it's unfalsifiable, then you must admit all these are incontrovertible. If these are controvertible, then it's falsifiable.

>>9159176
He assumed that I implied that Global Warming is not real or that it has no effect. Something I neither implied nor believed. The connection was entirely of his invention.

>Global warming is neither proven nor disproven by hurricanes
Which is my point entirely.

>>9159062
Source??

>>9159179
>He assumed that I implied that Global Warming is not real or that it has no effect.
Yes, so how does that imply that he assumed a logical link between "Media overblowing >thing and effects of >thing" and ">thing isnt real or has any effect?"

He specifically stated there is no link.

>Which is my point entirely.
Your point appeared to be that AGW is unfalsifiable, which is false.

>>9154159
We had bits of snow near Birmingham this past winter pal

>>9151190
While climate change is real it is unclear of whether or not it creates worse hurricane seasons. Regardless hurricane activity goes in cycles and we've been in active since 1994 besides 2005 or whatever it hasn't actually been that much worse.

File: Come on now.jpg (79KB, 499x498px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 499x498px

>>9159144
>Facts aren't real if I ignore them

>>9159294
>Facts aren't real if I say its a conspiracy
>>>/x/

File: tenor-1.gif (498KB, 500x236px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 500x236px

>>9151190
I've been meaning to say the same for a couple of days.... Thanks for beating me to it

File: 1502910363716.jpg (21KB, 298x403px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 298x403px

>>9157412
>implying he even knew it was a fake quote.
>>9152004
>>9151997
>>9152010
>>9156699
>>9151986
Here is chaos theory for you
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/937/607/301.png
>>9152045
>>9159048
Bieber is a Christian now. He has found the error in his ways. The toxicity is too deeply ingrained in the masses for anyone to see it's meaning and implications.

File: TX-major-hurricanes-vs-Gulf-SSTs.jpg (418KB, 3000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 3000x2250px

>>9158534
Are you really this retarted? Me making mistakes? What, did you assign a test to me? The only mistake I see is the FICTICIOUS claim of manmade climate change that is backed up by faulty models. That's it.

And please stop googling info to appear smart. DRY AIR = NO HEAT CAPACITY, some MOISTURE = LOTS OF HEAT CAPACITY, C02 in hundreds ppm concentration = HARDLY MATTERS.

Come on, find that brain.exe,

>>9158546
I am contesting the causal chain being unsupported by any mathematic model, mainly the link from 1 f(manmade actifity) and 2 to 3,4.

>>9158549
You do know it is common practice to do just that?

See, this is why noone takes you seriously and likes to hire you, you appear to be knowledgable without actually doing JACK at helping people solve problems. Pic related, someone pointing out correlation =/= causality. I do not know why that is so difficult a concept to grasp. (link: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/texas-major-hurricane-intensity-not-related-to-gulf-water-temperatures/)

>>9159062
>implying

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climategate-was-manufactured/

To get a little bit more substance into the discussion, here are the controversial findings of Vostok ice core drilling, showing CO2 concentration lagging behind arctic temperature by 200 - 1000 years, suggesting there to be a dynamic previously unnoticed, that governs both CO2 as well as temperature differences.

The cycles are known as Milankovic cycles, he has published work in 1920 claiming that solar activity alone could explain the formation of ice ages, and predicted cycles in temperature roughly 40 years before they were discovered by the soviet Vostok ice core drillings, among others.

The modern jerk about CO2 driving climate change was completety unreasonable at that time.

File: Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif (15KB, 500x221px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x221px

>>9159585

Here's the picture.

>>9159551
>C02 in hundreds ppm concentration = HARDLY MATTERS.
Are you completely delusional?

>>9159585
>To get a little bit more substance into the discussion, here are the controversial findings of Vostok ice core drilling, showing CO2 concentration lagging behind arctic temperature by 200 - 1000 years
That's not news. Over long timescales CO2 concentration is a feedback, just like water vapour is on short timescales.

>>9159588
>ad hominem when running out of buzzwords to google

This is why Trump doesn't take earthhuggers serious.

>>9151190
a once in 100 years hurricane means it happens every 100 years

>>9151190
>we can cause entire planet to heat up but we can't stop some shitty hurricane

Yep totally makes sense.

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

169KB, 792x653px

>>9159551
>please stop googling info to appear smart
yes, how DARE I back up my arguments with actual evidence!
does it occur to you that after earning two degrees in geoscience, I might just know this stuff without needing to look it up?
> DRY AIR = NO HEAT CAPACITY, some MOISTURE = LOTS OF HEAT CAPACITY
air has very low heat capacity regardless of the humidity, mainly because its density is incredibly low. good God you are ignorant.
deserts getting cold at night is (as has been explained to your moronic self) mostly just a function of the ground having low heat capacity due to the lack of organic material etc.
>C02 in hundreds ppm concentration = HARDLY MATTERS
I like how you've been talking about small changes causing massive unpredictable effects in complex systems, but when it comes to CO2 (which apparently you can't spell properly?) apparently if it's little it must have little effects. moron.
DNA in the human body is also on the order of hundreds of ppm, and yet it dominates our biochemistry.

>>9159551
>I am contesting the causal chain being unsupported by any mathematic model
It's supported by thousands of separate lines of evidence. Oh, and there's been plenty of modeling done describing how higher global temperatures affect hurricane intensity and frequency:
>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JCLI3049.1
>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00313.1
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027969/epdf
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006EO240001/pdf


>You do know it is common practice to do just that?
finite element methods are easy to fuck up when it comes to fluids. SMART engineers use finite volume methods.

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

216KB, 758x997px

>>9159551
>this is why noone takes you seriously and likes to hire you
dude, I'm employed in my field and I'm presenting some of my research at GSA Seattle this fall.
>you appear to be knowledgable without actually doing JACK at helping people solve problems
you appear to be ignorant, and you don't solve problems either. (ironic, since you're allegedly an engineer. you have any industry experience? shit, do you even have your degree?)

>le Roy Spencer memegraph
a few problems with the graph are immediately apparent:

one, he's declared that there's no correlation between hurricane intensity and temperature by just looking at the graph, not by doing any sort of actual statistical test. (given all the blathering you've done about how things must be supported by mathematical models, I'd have thought this might have bothered you.)

two, he's only counting hurricanes that made landfall, completely ignoring the ones that dissipated over the Gulf. and for that matter, he's only counting hurricanes that made landfall in Texas, not those that hit Florida or Mississippi or the Carolinas. what's with the arbitrary exclusion of all those?

three, he's only looking at sea surface temperatures in the western Gulf of Mexico, despite the fact that hurricanes that hit Texas generally form over the eastern Gulf, Caribbean, or North Atlantic.

four, his metric is number of storms with a given arbitrary wind speed, not accumulated cyclone energy.


you know, maybe if you had any idea what you were talking about you might have noticed those issues. but then again you also think Spencer is claiming that correlation in this case doesn't lead to causality, when he's actually claiming that there's no correlation. hot damn, are you even able to read?

>>9159899
>I like how you've been talking about small changes causing massive unpredictable effects in complex systems, but when it comes to CO2 (which apparently you can't spell properly?) apparently if it's little it must have little effects. moron.
Rekt

If alarmists can use the weather today to "prove" their theory, then the skeptics can do the same -- and the weather is pretty good, most of the time.

Arguing the condition of the climate from one data point is fucking retarded, whoever does it.

>>9157706
>Human activity is a surplus that is not accounted for and its accumulating
Human activity is like 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, rest is natural, humans have no impact on weather or planet ecosystem.

>>9159969
>If alarmists can use the weather today to "prove" their theory
But they don't.

>>9159989
They do when they say "See! Look at these hurricanes! This proves we're right!"

>>9152044
>Al Gore isn't a scientist. He does not speak for science.
I cannot remember any climate scientists speaking out about this back then.

>>9159989
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-06/hurricane-irma-was-made-worse-by-climate-change-scientists-say

File: bowlbugs.jpg (52KB, 396x478px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 396x478px

>>9151190
ITT: underage neets who have never seen a hurricane before and think the world is ending.

cut the alarmist, bull shit. I'm so sick of this. Irma is a bad storm, but it has nothing to do with how much hairspray people are using. the world has endured FAR worse before modern civilization.

yes, climate change is real, but it's a shot in the dark to suggest it's man's fault.

>>9160001
https://thinkprogress.org/category-six-hurricane-irma-62cfdfdd93cb/

>>9159989
>but they don't

where have you been? Ever since Houston, the anti-right outlets have been printing "THIS IS WHAT CLIMATe cHANGE LooKS LYKE" articles with zero citations.

>>9159979
Factually wrong.

File: 354deaa3770912621bb816da070346ab.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>9159899
Oh snap buddy, no amount of degrees and no online research skills can substitute a working brain.

>air has very low heat capacity regardless of the humidity

You are just being an idiot at this point. This is the whole point of the greenhouse effect: Electromagnetic radiation is converted to molecular motion, which we measure as heat. The extra heat keeps us cushy so we don't freeze, because the heatball in our core is not enough to keep us warm. So the more molecules you have in the air, the more heat is being trapped. Now you have around 400 ppm of Carbon dioxide max, and around 1-5 % water vapor. Which means athmospheric H2O outweights CO2 by at least a factor of 25 - 125. CO2 might support additional vibrational states, so even if we allow it to trap 2x the energy of H2O (blind guess), water vapor is still 12 - 60 times as effective at trapping heat in the athmosphere, again due to the concentration. Couple this with the fact that only 5% of the carbon concentration is manmade (what, 20 ppm ?) and that most heat is trapped by the oceans anyway, and you see why climate "scientists" are ridiculed and looked down by other academics if they try to use pointless alarmism in order to stay relevant.

> DNA in the human body is also on the order of hundreds of ppm, and yet it dominates our biochemistry.
> finite element methods are easy to fuck up when it comes to fluids. SMART engineers use finite volume methods.

You just gotta be kidding me at this point...

>>9159924
> confusing PDE's which discribe the underlying physics in an analytically closed expression with statistical tests.
> one, two, three, four

Dude, you are pointing out flaws with one graph showing reality, while it is actually up to you to back up your claim of manmade carbon emission causing additional hurricanes. And you can see a correlation if you just look at the past 20 years, same with the hockeystick figure. But looking at a short span is not enough to derive any conclusions of causality, and this is what you are claiming is happening.

>>9159924
>and I'm presenting some of my research at GSA Seattle this fall

Still wish you all the best, didnt mean to make this so heated...

>>9160070
Factually vacuous

File: brainlet.jpg (305KB, 1500x1100px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1500x1100px

>>9160077
>This is the whole point of the greenhouse effect: Electromagnetic radiation is converted to molecular motion, which we measure as heat. The extra heat keeps us cushy so we don't freeze, because the heatball in our core is not enough to keep us warm. So the more molecules you have in the air, the more heat is being trapped.
a laughable misconception :^)
the greenhouse effect is not the conversion of radiation to heat in the atmosphere, but rather the ABSORPTION AND IMMEDIATE RE-EMISSION of infrared (terrestrial) radiation. since the re-emission is in a random direction, half goes up and half goes down. the thicker the atmosphere is (or rather the IR-active part of it) the greater the expected number of times an individual upwelling photon is absorbed, with each expected absorption halving the total radiation escaping to space.
this is a fairly basic concept in atmospheric science and yet you've gotten it ass-backwards.

>athmospheric H2O outweights CO2 by at least a factor of 25 - 125
>water vapor is still 12 - 60 times as effective at trapping heat in the athmosphere, again due to the concentration
except that water vapor is rapidly controlled by temperature (again, following the Clausius-Clapeyron relation) and can only act as a feedback, not a driver.
and of course you're 100% wrong about the relative contributions of H2O and CO2
>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078%3C0197%3AEAGMEB%3E2.0.CO%3B2
water is responsible for 60% of warming, compared to CO2's 26% of the total. you're off by an order of magnitude.

>Couple this with the fact that only 5% of the carbon concentration is manmade (what, 20 ppm ?)
preindustrial CO2 was 280 ppm. now it's 410 ppm.
that's a difference of 130 ppm, or 32%. why must you continue to pull numbers out of your ass?

File: clown.jpg (47KB, 612x431px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 612x431px

>>9160077
>most heat is trapped by the oceans anyway
not only does this have no relation to the greenhouse effect, it's untenable.
as temperature rises, gas solubility decreases. (remember this from genchem?) this means that CO2 dissolved in the oceans (a major sink of CO2) will at some point start to come out of solution, exacerbating warming.

>You just gotta be kidding me at this point...
in other words, you don't have anything to say

>>9160095
>you are pointing out flaws with one graph showing reality, while it is actually up to you to back up your claim of manmade carbon emission causing additional hurricanes
in other words, you're upset that I'm talking about how shitty your argument is and would rather change the subject.
(also, my claim is not that anthropogenic CO2 causes MORE hurricanes, only that it causes MORE SEVERE hurricanes. and I backed that up >>9158546)

>you can see a correlation if you just look
this shit is what I'm talking about. we don't ASSUME correlations just by LOOKING at graphs. there are statistical tests for correlation that we can make.
besides, Spencer's argument is that there ISN'T a correlation. did you read the page you linked?

>looking at a short span is not enough to derive any conclusions of causality
luckily we've got more lines of evidence than Spencer has.
>this is what you are claiming is happening
nice strawman

File: Solo.jpg (72KB, 323x323px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 323x323px

>>9159979
>>9160251
>Human activity is like 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
this corresponds to 2.996x10^-41 kg of CO2 in the atmosphere attributable to human activity, or less than a billionth of the mass of an electron
when you pull numbers out of your ass, you get ridiculous results.

talk about vacuous...

Holy shit hurricanes have fucking happened before asshole. I remember years when they reached Wilma with the names, and sometimes even had to restart the alphabet. Look up hurricane Andrew of 1992. And to compare sizes of storm, because Andrew was smaller than Irma is, look up hurricane Floyd 1999. That one was absolutely massive. Your popsci theories are crap and everyone realizes it. These are the first landfalling storms after an unprecedented 11 or so year drought of them. Shut the fuck up. You are full of shit.

>>9160001
Who are you quoting?

>>9160009
>Hurricanes are made worse by climate change
How is this saying climate change is proven by hurricanes?

>>9160005
Speaking out about what? A fake quote?

>>9160017
How is that saying this proves climate change?

>>9160077
> Now you have around 400 ppm of Carbon dioxide max, and around 1-5 % water vapor. Which means athmospheric H2O outweights CO2 by at least a factor of 25 - 125.
>Couple this with the fact that only 5% of the carbon concentration is manmade (what, 20 ppm ?)
Neither of which have much to do with answering the question "what forcings are causing global warming?" The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere hasn't increased by itself and the amount of non-manmade CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't increased by itself. You continue to post these meaningless statistics when they have nothing to do with the fact that the rapid increase in CO2 is caused completely by manmade emissions, and the rapid warming observed is caused primarily by this rapid increase. Explain how anything you've said controverts this, or admit you are a dishonest hack.

>>9160294
>preindustrial CO2 was 280 ppm. now it's 410 ppm.
>that's a difference of 130 ppm, or 32%. why must you continue to pull numbers out of your ass?
He's being misleading by talking about the source of carbon rather than the causes of it's increase. This allows him to ignore that nature is absorbing more carbon than its emitting, and some of that carbon its absorbing is manmade. Just typical denier sophistry.

>>9160407
>hurricanes happened in the past
>therefore global warming can't be increasing the probability of more intense hurricanes
Shut the fuck up already, faggot. Not only is your post idiotic there are already 50 other maggots saying the exact same thing. Go back to facebook.

>2017
>falling for the carbon jew hoax

All that matters is that Fossil Fuels should be abolished and the Producers of said Fuels should be in Prison.

Fuck drumpf and fuck white people, this is your fault.

File: Hey stormfront.jpg (154KB, 500x678px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 500x678px

>>9160577
>t. /pol/

File: UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2017_v6.jpg (332KB, 2340x1350px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 2340x1350px

>>9160469
> the rapid warming observed

There is no rapid global warming observed, that's the whole point.

Yes, climate changes. No, we cannot predict man's influence on this change. No, climate would still change regardless of man's interference.

Both posters arguing with me, you're nitpicking and arguing insignificant details without ever looking at the big picture. Look at the temperature data. Look at the Vostok ice core drillings. Stop thinking in terms of explainations, causalities, formulas and papers. Just accept reality as it is. If tomorrow yellowstone would errupt, chances are, all your alarmist "wow +1°C will roast us by the end of this century" will be obsolete because we would be suffocationg in a cloud of sulfur, carbon monoxide and ash withhin months. This is why you are not being taken seriously by grownups.

>>9160644
>There is no rapid global warming observed, that's the whole point.
Your graph shows very rapid warming, unprecedented in human history.

>Yes, climate changes. No, we cannot predict man's influence on this change.
Yes we can you fucking liar.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm

>Both posters arguing with me, you're nitpicking and arguing insignificant details without ever looking at the big picture.
You mean we are debunking your posts filled with lies and red herrings. Pathetic.

>Stop thinking in terms of explainations, causalities, formulas and papers.
Kill yourself.

>Just accept reality as it is
Take your own advice, science-denying shit.

>If tomorrow yellowstone would errupt, chances are, all your alarmist "wow +1°C will roast us by the end of this century" will be obsolete because we would be suffocationg in a cloud of sulfur, carbon monoxide and ash withhin months.
Kill yourself. Your blatant sophistry is pathetic.

>>9160644
But for the sake of it, I'll go one more time.

>>9160294
I do quite frankly not care about definitions, but i know what makes a greenhouse warm, and it is not IR radiation bouncing between ground and air ;). Electromagnetic radiation cannot be measured by a thermometer, only the conversion of em-radiation into kinetic motion. Maybe, if you are so smart, you could derive the various energetic states of rotation and vibration of the CO2 or H2O molecules, maybe using a Drude-Lorentz-like classical approach with an added term to account for the EM-Force, or a purely quantum-mechanical description? Can you do that? Maybe you can then show me why gasous CO2 is able to convert more radiation into heat, compared to gasous H2O?

>except that water vapor is rapidly controlled by temperature (again, following the Clausius-Clapeyron relation) and can only act as a feedback, not a driver.

Not a driver? Explain how this is the case, when you simultaniously state that
>water is responsible for 60% of warming, compared to CO2's 26% of the total. you're off by an order of magnitude.

I was unsure about the relative absorbance of CO2 compared to water vapor and assumed a factor of 2. Maybe its 5, I don't know. It was just a quick estimation, I am not being paid 50$/hour.

>and of course you're 100% wrong about the relative contributions of H2O and CO2

Where is my mistake and what is the "right" contribution? Again show me a physically meaningful calculation so we don't have to guess.

>preindustrial CO2 was 280 ppm. now it's 410 ppm.

Which doesn't make my statement any less true. This is an IPCC figure, and I do not like to use those because they are misleading, but still this is 29 gT compared to natural 771 gT. So even if we assume this "equilibrium" (there is none), that is still a whooping 4 % of human influece.
Manmade influences 4 % of the gas that is resposible for 25 % of the supposed increase of less than 1°C average temp.

File: Faggot.gif (498KB, 405x228px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 405x228px

>>9160644
>There is no rapid global warming observed, that's the whole point.
like the previous poster said, your own graph contradicts you. 1.5 C per century is HUGE compared to historical trends in temperature.

>No, we cannot predict man's influence on this change.
maybe YOU can't. don't project your ignorance and incompetence onto actual climatologists.

>climate would still change regardless of man's interference.
yes, but it would change DIFFERENTLY and in less damaging ways.

>you're nitpicking and arguing insignificant details
we're calling you out on bullshit fabrications. if you blatantly lie, don't whine about that being pointed out.

>Look at the temperature data. Look at the Vostok ice core drillings.
those show that temperature has risen sharply in the past ~150 years, compared to the previous baseline.

>Stop thinking in terms of explainations, causalities, formulas and papers.
in other words, you want us to stop trying to explain the world and just throw our hands in the air and scream "WE CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN"

>Just accept reality as it is.
says the kiddie insisting there's no rapid warming while posting a picture showing that there is.

>If tomorrow yellowstone would errupt, chances are, all your alarmist "wow +1°C will roast us by the end of this century" will be obsolete
"wow, better not do anything about these termites, because it would all be pointless if my house gets hit by a meteorite tomorrow."
--(You)

>grownups
did you even finish undergrad? you sound like some sophomore That Kid who took one class for his major and thinks he's hot shit.
neck yourself, my man :^)

The existence of anthropogenic climate change is not debatable.

>>9160324
>not only does this have no relation to the greenhouse effect

It does have a major influence on our climate though.

>in other words, you don't have anything to say

Do you REALLY want to discuss the differences between FEM and FVM? DNA in the human body? Really?

>in other words, you're upset that I'm talking about how shitty your argument is and would rather change the subject.

it's not shitty. The whole point of this thread, as started by OP, is the premise of "humans cause hurricanes to be so bad". And I'm arguing that this is nonsense, and showing you how there is no clear, established link whatsoever. No working model, no plausible prediction, even no rough estimate of when and how the next hurricane will form. It's your job as a (supposed) climate scientist to do just that, yet it's ME who has nothing to say?

>I backed that up

You backed up jackshit. Go ahead, show us your calculation on the formation and the intensity of future hurricanes. You're so full of shit at this moment.

>>9160703
>Which doesn't make my statement any less true.
But it does make your statement irrelevant. See >>9160469 and >>9160477 which you have failed to respond to throughout this thread.

File: joke_400x400.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

>>9160716
Huge maybe if you're a pretty snowflake, but take a look at >>9159586 again. Now tell me, did cavemen start climate change 400.000 BCE?

"The fires were unnatural, they disturbed the natural balance"

0 arguments, 0 times brain activated, ad hominem everytime.

This is why noone likes threehuggers, and why Trump has personally decided to BTFO climate hoaxers in front of the whole world stage.

Are there any good youtube channels about the environment (in general, I guess)? Pretty manchildish, but if someone did stuff like what Scott Manley does for physics/math/space/etc for the environment and weather and that I bet it would go pretty well. At least may educate some people.

File: dimma delet this.jpg (20KB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x358px

>>9160703
>i know what makes a greenhouse warm, and it is not IR radiation bouncing between ground and air
apparently you DON'T know what makes a greenhouse warm. upwelling IR radiation is not absorbed and converted to heat in the atmosphere, but rather at the surface (after being reemitted downwards by IR-active gases in the atmosphere).
this can be experimentally verified very easily. if you shine an IR beam through a container of methane or CO2, the beam will be strongly diffused, but the gas won't warm appreciably. shine the same beam at a piece of rock, and you'll warm the rock.

>if you are so smart, you could derive the various energetic states of rotation and vibration of the CO2 or H2O molecules
>show me why gasous CO2 is able to convert more radiation into heat, compared to gasous H2O
I don't need to derive the physics underpinning WHY that is. to demonstrate how the greenhouse effect works, it is enough to know the absorption/emission curves of the gases in question.
funny that the guy demanding that we "Stop thinking in terms of...formulas" and "Just accept reality as it is" is demanding that we throw aside measured results and try to derive everything from theory.

>Not a driver? Explain how this is the case
apologies, should have said "temperature elevation relative to blackbody", not "warming". it's a difference, not a rate, that I'm talking about.

>assumed a factor of 2. Maybe its 5, I don't know. It was just a quick estimation
an estimation is an educated guess, not a number arbitrarily pulled out of your ass.
>I am not being paid 50$/hour
buddy you're not worth minimum wage.

>Where is my mistake
in making up numbers rather than referring to published experimental results
>what is the "right" contribution?
water vapor contributes 60/26≈2.3 times as much as CO2 to the total greenhouse effect.
>so we don't have to guess
said the guy who makes shit up, to the guy who cites published results to support his claims.

File: starship_troopers.jpg (35KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 650x366px

>>9160735
"meaningless statistics" compared to statements that have no basis in either data, nor reasoning, nor models. Yeah I'm impressed at your scientific reasoning.

I'm still waiting for a >dynamic model of earth's climate that takes into account the ocean's and natural absorbtion of both temperature and carbon dioxide, as well as the fluctuation of solar radiation intensity.

>>9160739
Maybe YOU should take a look at >>9159586 again. It shows interglacial warming of about 10 degrees over tens of thousands of years. Current warming is at least an order of magnitude faster than that.

>Now tell me, did cavemen start climate change 400.000 BCE?
No, increased insolation due to the Earth's orbital eccentricity did. We are not experiencing an increase in solar insolation, and the change is much too fast to be explained by orbital eccentricity anyway. Are you capable of understanding that changes in the past were different and caused by different things?

The only thing worse than an idiot spreading misinformation is an idiot too stupid to see how stupid he is even after his misinformation gets debunked over and over again.

>>9160756
I'm still waiting for a response to my explanation of how your arguments are misleading. Instead you are just trying to deflect with baseless "comparisons" and feeble demands. Embarrassing.

>>9151987
Yeah just wait.

>>9160751
Published results are wrong all the time, and if you're such an expert, then please show how

>water vapor contributes 60/26≈2.3 times as much as CO2 to the total greenhouse effect.

Explain why this is the case?

>apparently you DON'T know what makes a greenhouse warm. upwelling IR radiation is not absorbed and converted to heat in the atmosphere, but rather at the surface (after being reemitted downwards by IR-active gases in the atmosphere).

IR-Active gases means we have photon -> phonon transition, or the molecules pick up the wavelength and start jiggeling. And greenhouses do not get warm because glass blocks IR, but because the heat is trapped inside and cannot be given away by convection.

Brainlet. This is why noone takes your branch of "science" any seriously and you have to fabricate fake hysteria for securing grants.

All I hear is:

>muh Fossil Fuel
>muh Prediction

File: literal autism.jpg (115KB, 750x537px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 750x537px

>>9160703
>This is an IPCC figure, and I do not like to use those because they are misleading
yes yes, deniers don't like actual evidence, and think everything that contradicts them is a hoax. we already know this.
>29 gT compared to natural 771 gT
you're neglecting the natural sinks, which account for 788 GT CO2 removed per year
like >>9160477 predicted you would, you're ignoring how NET natural increases (negative, in fact) compare to NET anthropogenic increases.
again, adding a 10g weight will tip a balance with 10 tonnes on each side.

File: thismuch.png (296KB, 510x429px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 510x429px

>>9160760
>what is averaging, how does a lowpass filter work and what are appropriate time filters for comparison?

Or do you have the exact data from 400.000 BCE? Care to show me? Show a slope calculation if you claim that
>Current warming is at least an order of magnitude faster than that
And then again, show me why humans are responsible for it.

> Instead you are just trying to ...

Blah blah ad hominem as much as you want, you can afford to because I'm anon, but try that with someone like this man.
Pic related, how much he cares about your hoax.

File: reedus.png (3MB, 903x1880px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 903x1880px

>>9160722
>It does have a major influence on our climate though.
so? you're trying to change the subject to distract from how ignorant you are of the greenhouse effect. stay on topic, you nitwit.
>Do you REALLY want to discuss the differences between FEM and FVM? DNA in the human body?
come at me, bro. nothing I said about either of those is wrong.
FVM is objectively superior to FEM for modeling fluid systems; it runs faster and has fewer constraints.
and the example of DNA proves that your """"logic"""" of "if it's a small component it must not be important" doesn't hold up.

>showing you how there is no clear, established link whatsoever
you're not actually showing anything, except that you're ignorant of some grade school-level concepts in earth science.

>No working model, no plausible prediction, even no rough estimate of when and how the next hurricane will form.
read my fucking posts, you moron: >>9159899
also, predicting that accumulated cyclone energy will increase, or that average hurricane intensity will change, is much easier than predicting the next hurricane's characteristics. aggregate behavior is more predictable in complex systems than individual events. you should know this.

>It's your job as a (supposed) climate scientist
never claimed I was one. I'm just a geoscientist who happens to know enough geoscience to have a basic-to-intermediate understanding of climatology (because climatology strongly informs my field).

>>9160739
>did cavemen start climate change 400.000 BCE?
>HURR climate changed naturally in the past therefore it can't be anthropogenic today
look, that graph shows an increase of ~8.8 C over ~5,750 years, or ~0.153 C per century.
current warming is literally TEN TIMES THAT. so when we're causing warming that's 10x as fast as a Milankovitch-driven deglaciation, you'll forgive me if I call that huge.

>>9156877
>>9156744
>>9156958

The chart you posted is outdated.

mainstream climate models are actually pretty accurate. Much better than the models by "skeptics" which have failed spectacularly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

>>9160793
>Or do you have the exact data from 400.000 BCE? Care to show me?
Then why are you demanding that people look at the graph moron? Typical denier, only accepts the data if it agrees with your conclusion.

>Show a slope calculation if you claim that
>Current warming is at least an order of magnitude faster than that
LOL do it yourself, you're the expert on low pass filters after all (is that supposed to impress anyone?).

>And then again, show me why humans are responsible for it.
See >>9160663

>Blah blah
And again you utterly fail to respond. Well I guess that means you're admitting that your arguments are shit. Good job retard.

File: Asparagus.jpg (55KB, 480x376px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 480x376px

>>9160776
>Published results are wrong all the time
>hurr I don't like this evidence, therefore it's wrong!
yeah how about before you decide that the evidence MUST be wrong, how about you read Kiehl and Trenberth's methodology? they explain JUST HOW they arrived at those results.
are you able to read? your statements here raise some questions about that.

>IR-Active gases means we have photon -> phonon transition, or the molecules pick up the wavelength and start jiggeling
...except that there's electron excitation to consider as well, and CO2 is linear and therefore its molecular motion excitation states are quite limited.
absorption of a photon by a molecule of CO2 is typically followed by reemission. this can be verified experimentally

>greenhouses do not get warm because glass blocks IR
>oops, he pointed out that I don't know what I'm talking about! better change the topic and pretend I was talking about literal greenhouses!
we're talking about the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. the fact that terrestrial radiation is reemitted downwards by greenhouse gases can be easily verified by pointing a good IR camera at the night sky.

File: duke.png (684KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1280x720px

>>9160809
> mainstream climate models are actually pretty accurate

> take the ones that show some resemblance to measured data
> leave the ones showing absolutly no resemblance to measured data
> see, we're scientists aswell

Pathethic. I'm done here, Be thankful you had someone to talk to outside your echo chamber.

>>9160828
>> leave the ones showing absolutly no resemblance to measured data
Such as?

File: salt.png (372KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 600x480px

>>9160722
>You backed up jackshit.
so which of the four points >>9158546 are you contesting? if all of those are true, then human activity is causing hurricanes to become stronger.

>>9160793
>show me why humans are responsible for it.
like the other anon said, see >>9160663

>ad hominem
he's literally attacking your argument, you brainlet

>hurr Orange Daddy is too stupid to understand this therefore it's fake
dude that guy stared into the sun even after everyone told him it was bad for his eyes. he's a moron.

File: Jedi.png (583KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 600x450px

>>9160828
>this doesn't make sense
>how could those models possibly be right?
>better just pretend that there are a bunch of theoretical "dark models" out there that are really inaccurate
you've been hanging around with the physicists too long desu senpai

>Be thankful you had someone to talk to outside your echo chamber.
I'm quite thankful to have been reminded just how stupid most people are. being surrounded by people with two brain cells to rub together (even the undergraduates, bless their little hearts) has caused me to forget this.
by the way, you never answered >>9160716. did you ever finish undergrad?

>>9160839
>dude that guy stared into the sun even after everyone told him it was bad for his eyes. he's a moron

So did I nearly 16 years ago when i didn't have enough money to buy this faggot glasses. I'm well off today, and my eyesight is still almost perfect.

>>9160488
I don't deny climate change, but Hurricane Harvey was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the US in twelve fucking years. 2005 was the last really big hurricane season like what we're having now. If we we get another hurricane season like this again next year, THEN you might have a point. Until then you're just speculating.

File: foolish samurai.jpg (93KB, 791x722px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 791x722px

>>9160979
>Hurricane Harvey was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the US in twelve fucking years
>to make landfall
the problem with this metric is it ignores storm activity that stays out over the ocean
the most energetic hurricane ever recorded (in terms of accumulated cyclone energy), Ioke, got almost no press because it stayed out over the Pacific and didn't hit any populated areas.

>>9151190
The Hurricane downgraded to Cathegory 3 now.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

>In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. One modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century.

>Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

>>9151190
t. Climate Science
Predicts that Cat 5 Hurricane will devast Florida with Huge damage.
>Then turns out that:
Hurricane downgrade to a very Weak Cat 3 Breeze causing very little damage.
t. Climate Science

>>9161438
That's not Climate Science; that's Climate Alarmism.

I'm in South Florida, by a private airport. Minutes ago the sky was suddenly pulsing green for about a minute . What is life, what are these fuckers doing.

>>9161503

That's probably transformers exploding.

File: Climate.png (669KB, 680x926px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 680x926px

>>9151190
>He doesn't know

Fuck off, do you know how much fuel this gives deniers?

File: shiggy diggylicious.jpg (30KB, 475x533px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 475x533px

>>9161438
>enormous hurricane devastates a bunch of islands, kills a bunch of people in the caribbean
>hurricane veers away from Florida
>manages to clip Florida with its edge because it's just so damn big
>record flooding, 10+ million people without electricity, thousands left homeless

meanwhile on a Nigerien pole-dancing imageboard:
>b-b-but it weakened to Cat 3 after it flattened all those towns!
>it must not really have been that strong!
>somebody pls take me seriously, t. /pol/

>>9151190
Weather and climate are different things. This hurricane season """""proves""""" global warming just as readily as a snowy winter """""disproves""""" it.

>>9162235
Wish that were the case, finally be rid of those subhuman idiots

>>9160663
>half a kelvin global mean over 30 years
>rapid
>data at all useful considering global climate time scales
>look at me mom I'm parroting what I was taught to say arent you proud?

> ozone layer scare lead to global warming scare lead to climate change scare
> change is inevitable

So if the climate "changes" it's our fucking fault and we need to pay taxes for existing

This new age left-wing theocracy is no different from the papacy. There's no fucking way I'm going to feel guilty when dickbags like al gore get to ride around in jumbo jets preaching down to me that it's my fault.

Ha looks like it was rather overhyped! Does global warming or climate change or whatever the fuck you pseudoscientists called it now for PR only create cat 3 storms? Pretty lucky down there for the FIRST HURRICANE EVER!

Every dumbfuck al gore sucking loser here needs to research hurricane Camille right now, then shut the fuck up forever and go back to getting answers off of chegg.

>>9162343
>>9162343
Your stupidity is boundless. Hurricanes do just that EVERY FUCKING YEAR. In fact we have had suspiciously few of them for the last decade. I hope you are not actually a scientist. We always need more janitors in this world.

WHY DIDNT YOU PAY YOUR FUCKING CARBON CREDITS?????

>>9162466
>half a kelvin global mean over 30 years
>not rapid
Can you show me global warming in the past even close to this rate?

>data at all useful considering global climate time scales
How about timescales that humans care about? You are a human aren't you?

>look at me mom I'm parroting what I was taught to say arent you proud?
Says the guy parroting what every idiot denier says in every thread...

>>9151190
It is hurricane season...

>Chattel not realizing the combined gravitational pull of the moon and the sun during the eclipse caused the hurricanes

File: DAMAGE CONTROL.jpg (79KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 650x650px

>>9162711
>oh no I got caught making up stupid bullshit
>time to try and change the subject!

>>9151190
Climate changes
It's hurricane season, not having hurricanes would be alarming

>>9156683
I don't get what you're trying to say.

>>9162684
We are not trying to convince you, we are dismantling your arguments so other, more reasonable people over the fence read the answers and can be convinced.

If you want to see reason then by all means you are welcomed, but your presence is not required, as we know you are not the majority of people.

You are a tough nut, and all in all there are greener pastures. Just so you know.