/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9505973]

How much would the climate be changing without humans around?

[Anonymous No.9506073]

>>9505973
Just look at the rate of change in climate in the past. Nothing like what's happening now.

[Anonymous No.9506100]

>>9505973
>without humans around
• no gigatons of fossil fuel burning
• no mass deforestation
• no drivers of climate change
This is not rocket surgery, Anon.

[Anonymous No.9506104]

The question is does it really matter? Fake science out of 10. No testable hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.9506111]

>>9506104
t. republican
t. oil tycoon PR
t. young earther

[Anonymous No.9506119]

>>9506111
What's the testable hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.9506124]

>>9506111
t. climate (((science))) meme degree

[Anonymous No.9506125]

>>9505973

[Anonymous No.9506133]

>>9506073

Sometime during the lateish cretaceous period global temperatures increased as a result of volcanically attributable co2 emissions. The tropics became much wetter. Here is australia the high rainfall washed the soft soils off all the slopes and buried huge forests in the process.

There was a climate crash as a result.

A) More trees wont save us when the shit hits the fan
B) Whether or not we are responsible is futile to argue. Climate stabilisation should be a priority.

[Anonymous No.9506137]

>>9506119
There isn’t one, unless you count their computer models which are inherently biased and cannot account for the absurd number of confounding variables present. Just used to steal funding from real science.

[Anonymous No.9506152]

>>9506119
>The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist.

>It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

-IPCC AR5

[Anonymous No.9506159]

I've yet to see anyone publish a definitive list of climate austerity measures that everyone should take. Nothing as definite as "Stop driving, stop using AC, become vegan immediately, etc." it's always in the vaguest possible terms.

[Anonymous No.9506164]

>>9506159
Pretty much convinced its a cash grab. I just need to find a way to relate climate change to artificial habitats in space and profit...

[Anonymous No.9506167]

>>9506159
Optimal carbon tax, with revenue invested in nuclear and renewable energy research and infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.9506180]

>>9506133
The magnitude of change in the Cretaceous was certainly extraordinary, but the rate was not. Keep in mind that that warming happened over tens of millions of years, meaning today's warming rate is several orders of magnitude faster. But it's not a very fair comparison since we don't know the shorter term stability of the climate during that period.

[Anonymous No.9506297]

>>9506159
Literally reduce, reuse, recycle you 0-IQ brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9506347]

Climate change isn't a human issue though, fuck off with this shill thread shit

[Anonymous No.9506358]

>>9506180
>It's warming faster and more than every before.
Not according to science, but climate alarmists want to silence science that disagrees with the agenda.

[Anonymous No.9506363]

>>9506125
Daily reminder that the climate change models are wrong. In real science, we call that a FAILED THEORY.

[Anonymous No.9506371]

>>9505973
It wouldn't be changing at all since no humans would be able to collapse the wavefunction to observe it

[Anonymous No.9506392]

>>9506358
The source of the data in your graph is here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

The latest data point in this data is 0.0951409 thousand years before 1950, which is 1855, not 2000. So while claiming to have identified global warming as a small increase, your graph doesn't even show global warming at all. What's even worse than the lie in this graph is the fact that this has been pointed out to you multiple times, but you still post it!

>>/sci/thread/9381797#p9391023
>>/sci/thread/9299864#p9303125

This really convinces people that deniers should be listened to, when not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you knowingly repeat that bullshit in order to lie to people.

[Anonymous No.9506395]

>>9506358
>Not according to science
According to the science, we are warming an order of magnitude faster than the fastest warming in at least the past 800,000 years.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

[Anonymous No.9506447]

>>9506358
>Greenland Ice core temperature

Scientists are not freaking about greenland's temperatures. They are freaking about GLOBAL temperatures.
See that +4°C surge on your graph around 6000 BCE ?
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf
There's no such thing when you look at global temperatures.

[Anonymous No.9506495]

>>9506363
Daily reminder that you can prove anything wrong if you get to argue both sides of the issue.

[Anonymous No.9506530]

>>9506363
>Loehle 2007
Really amateur attempt full of mistakes, which is why it was never published by a reputable journal: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

>Monckton graph
This is pure bullshit as is everything that comes out of Monckton's brain. The IPCC never projected 1.67 degrees per century over that time frame.

>The total amount the oceans have risen is a few centimeters
It's rising a centimeter every 3-4 years now, which is unprecedented in human history.

>The observed temperature increase so far amounts to less than a fiftieth of a degree
This is a laughable lie. It's a fiftieth of a degree PER YEAR, which is again unprecedented in human history.

>Climate scientists pressured science journals to stop publishing articles contradicting them.
Another filthy lie. It's not climate scientists' fault that deniers are so fucking retarded they can't create a scientific paper.

>Polar bears have increased
No one actually figured out how many polar bears there were globally until a few years ago, so this is another lie.

>Antarctica has gained ice.
Another lie. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30880

>The arctic would be ice-free by 2013
No climate scientist said this, liar.

>NOAA was caught skewing data to support the climate change agenda
I don't see how NOAA's adjustments support the "climate change agenda" when they actually decrease the gloabl warming trend. Pic related, liar.

>Actual consensus is 0.3%
Another lie, that's just counting papers which did not give an opinion as not part of the consensus, even though the research agrees with the consensus. See the following for proof of the 97% consensus:

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,”

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,"

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,”

Why are deniers such laughable retarded liars?

[Anonymous No.9506531]

>>9506530
Forgot to attach NOAA data.

[Anonymous No.9506533]

>>9505973
It would be getting colder, and approaching an Iceage

[Anonymous No.9506746]

>>9506363
Isn't it weird that when you actually look at the data, it shows a temperature increase of 2°C/century, which is actually higher than the 1.67°C which Monckton claims was predicted by the IPCC?

[Anonymous No.9506753]

>>9505973
The last time CO2 shot up "incredibly fast" was 700x slower than today.

[Anonymous No.9506765]

>>9506363
And yet again a drooling retard still using old RSS data.

RSS is bullshit, it was shown to be so in March 2016.
Only morons like you refer to it anymore.

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


Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment
Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz
Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California
(Manuscript received 23 October 2015, in final form 22 February 2016)

[Anonymous No.9506775]

I just want to say high to all those people in the future visiting this archived thread from the many inevitable future threads in which this asshole posts the same debunked disinfographics: >>9506358 >>9506363 even though he knows they're false!

HI ASSHOLE

[Anonymous No.9506778]

>>9506073
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.9506783]

>>9505973
ask venus

[Anonymous No.9506829]

>>9506125
Is there a picture that explains everything at once?
Like a nice, graphic summary of the most important causes for climate warming or cooling (CO2, Plants&corals, Oceans, Albedo, Milancovic, etc), how the correlate with the data we have about the far past and how the on that basis predicted graph differs from what actually happend in recent years?

[Anonymous No.9506840]

>>9506829

[Anonymous No.9506846]

>>9506829
>how the correlate with the data we have about the far past and how the on that basis predicted graph differs from what actually happend in recent years?
I suggest you look at the AR5 for that.

[Anonymous No.9507792]

>>9505973
The same as it ever was

[Anonymous No.9507796]

The same as it ever was

[Anonymous No.9507917]

>>9507796
greenland =/= global

[Anonymous No.9507922]

>>9507796
greenland =/= global

[Anonymous No.9507925]

>>9507796
See >>9506392

[Anonymous No.9507927]

>>9505973
approximately 1 or 2

[Geometric Unity No.9507929]

would the universe exist if there weren't humans?

[Anonymous No.9508007]

>>9507929
Would you still post here if you took your meds?