Global Warming

>the /pol/ bogeyman
...

>...
>>>/facebook/

There is a way to distinguish naturally occurring carbon dioxide from fossil fuel carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, we can determine not only the growing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but also how much of it is generated by us.

> bitsofscience.org/natural-anthropogenic-co2-differentiation-monitoring-5732/

Right, the one telling you to study what he was given is the troll. I'm just tried of willful ignorance and am generally pissed at existence.

Telling you to fuck off is satisfying, but probably not healthy.

Climate science noob here, so if I make a mistake, please correct me.

I understand that there is significant scientific evidence to show that humans are a major contributor to the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and I understand that carbon dioxide is capable of trapping heat. Logically, it makes sense that more carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere means a warmer earth. But have there been any scientific studies that directly prove that the increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming of the earth? Logically, it makes sense, but logic is not evidence. The NASA website says "There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response," but it doesn't provide a source for that claim.

Don't get me wrong—I fully believe in climate change, and the logical relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and heat is obvious to me, but are there studies that go further than logic and have data to explain that?

pastebin.com/4x1mkZTU

I compiled this from an old thread
knock yourselves out

Carbon levels are measurable, and the physics of C02 trapping heat are well understood. There is no room for misunderstanding in the basic fact of this.

Thanks, user. I'll read through those studies.
Like I said, logically it makes complete sense, and it's more than enough to convince me. I just want to see experimental evidence that proves this idea.

lets like use electric cars, solar panels and windmills durr ride your bikes not cars durr. Nuclear energy bad, hydro good.

Good god why do global warming people have the stupidest fucking remedies? Get rid of gmos to thin the population and take solar/wind/car subsidies and put it in nuclear.

With the mountain of evidence and continuing increasing average temperatures it is only the stupidest among us who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. Unfortunately for the rest of us, stupidity is obviously a major characteristic of the majority.
youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

This page of evidence proves only that climate change is real, but does not prove that it is due to human activities. Not OP but just saying, if you want to actually refute him provide some actual evidence

skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#33 #57 #73

The evidence that humans are directly responsible for climate change is both environmental pollution which is affecting the water cycle and the increase of particulates and gasses in the atmosphere which are the biproduct of industrialization.

It is both natural changes and man made changes together. If all man made changes are stopped and even reversed it might still continue to warm due to the natural processes occurring, that are not yet fully understood.

If you want to elevate the third world out of it's poverty you have to keep on polluting for another 50 years at a minimum.

A lot of the Global Warming climate change people have a vested interest in not creating behemoth economies and corporations like China. They don't want another China, because they couldn't control world affairs anymore. For many of them, China was a big mistake, and they have realised this and are rapidly mobilizing to head India, Russia, the African nations and Eurasia off at the pass, before they bring their 5 or so billion people up to first world standards and create competition to the established power structure, post WW2 American and German multinational corporations.

See

Prez sez it's a hoax

'nuff said

In very simple terms, you can easily calculate how much sequestered carbon is released into the atmosphere. In lay terms, burning fossil fuels. One contention: how much gets absorbed by the oceans. Also not a good thing, as that changes the pH, and we're starting to see creatures that use calcium to create their shells have problems.

The second part of this is, how much carbon dioxide is needed to trap infrared radiation from escaping into space? Here's where it gets a bit squirrelly, and is one source of debate.

I have no idea what you mean ...
>The ice had already melted long before Humans started even using Fossil Fuels.

If it's a science they should be, in very simple terms, easily be able to calculate the proportion of warming attributable to man. In lay terms, calculate the exact carbon tax applicable to stop or even reverse the warmings.

>I'm just saying where is the proof that humans are too blame.

I'll try to make this as simple as possible.

The endgame of Climate Change policy is not about preventing the planet from suffering extreme heat or cold, that's mostly a meme. The point is prevent the climate from reaching a different paradigm (that we are unfamiliar with) that takes us out of our economically productive comfort zone we have been utilizing for the past several thousand years.

Actions such as farming, industrialization and nuclear testing (bombs not factories) has caused increased land erosion and emissions that alter the constitution atmosphere composition.

xkcd.com/1732/

relevant

Nye is such a fucking jackoff and people like him are the reason so many people distrust climate scientists. You can't run around and claim its all "settled science" and then refuse to answer the perfectly reasonable follow-up of "how much of the climate is affected by humans?" I think at one point he even blurted out that 100% of climate change is caused by humans and then he brings up those grapes as if the climate has changed so much that we're now growing crops in places where we shouldn't. The climate has not changed that much, a much more reasonable explanation for why we're growing grapes in Britain is that we've developed hardier strains that can grow in colder climates.

If you're a climate scientist you should be speaking against Bill Nye being your public face because he's doing you a great disservice.

>people like him are the reason so many people distrust climate scientists

no, we distrust them because it's all been pretty thoroughly debunked by Trump and his team. Liberal shills like Nye are all they have to be their public face, because reputable scientists know it's all bullshit.

>Doesn't adress to anything OP asks
the global warming cultists are back

How will Bill Nye the B.A. in engineering guy recover?

blog.dilbert.com/post/157823678756/tucker-carlson-induces-cognitive-dissonance-in

Shouldn't there be a steady increase in temperature?

Yes we can directly measure the amount of infrared heat coming from CO2. Look it up.

Note the roaring silence when incontrovertible evidence of our actions causing this is brought up.

>The second part of this is, how much carbon dioxide is needed to trap infrared radiation from escaping into space? Here's where it gets a bit squirrelly, and is one source of debate.
Huh? No it's not. Any CO2 molecule absorbs and radiates heat. There is not some threshold amount at which heat is trapped. More CO2 leads to more heat trapped. We have directly measured the radiative forcing, so it's not even a matter of how much heat is trapped.

This has already been done. Look at the IPCC AR5.

Also the optimal carbon tax rate has been formulated by economists.

There is a clear steady increase over the time period of humans emitting significant amounts of CO2. There are other factors that affect the trend in shorter timescales and longer timescales.

If more CO2 means more warming then why hasn't the rate of warming increased from the early 1900's despite burning more coal?

This has been done. There's even a layman article about it
scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/

Here is the primary citation
nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

>Knutti and Huber found that greenhouse gases contributed 0.6–1.1 degrees C to the warming observed since the mid-twentieth century, with the most statistically likely value being a contribution of about 0.85 degree C. Around half of that contribution from greenhouse gases—0.45 degree C—was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols. These directly influence Earth's climate by scattering light; they also have indirect climate effects through their interactions with clouds.
The authors calculated a net warming value of around 0.5 degree C since the 1950s, which is very close to the actual temperature rise of 0.55 degree C observed over that period. Changes in solar radiation—a hypothesis for global warming proffered by many climate skeptics—contributed no more than around 0.07 degree C to the recent warming, the study finds.

Bill Nye happen to not remember this number on top of his head. I know he has done a lot of great job for advocating climate change, but as climate scientist myself I don't think he should be the face of climate change. Most scientist would probably be fine with taking interview on TV, especially outspoken public ones like James Hansen, but most media just want "the science guy" and a TV guy for flash and showmanship, rather than having a real scientist on a panel.

Also a 7-8 minutes shouting match is never enough to explain properly the basis of anthropogenic climate change, and what's left is that you try to take as much potshots as you can against the other talking heads

Thanks for the laff m8

Because latent heat and lag time of the Earth. When you turn on the stove, the water doesn't boil instantly.

kys

I'm not sure if you understand the question. If CO2 is causing the temperature to rise at an observable rate, then why hasn't that rate risen parallel with our increased consumption of coal which is introducing more and more CO2 into the environment?

For the sake of argument think of it this way. Suppose for every 100 tons of coal that we consume, this causes the temperature to rise 10 degrees. Now if we consume 200 tons of coal it should follow that the temperature rises 20 degrees but it's not doing that, and instead the temperature only rises 10 degrees. This is kind of what we're seeing in the real world. The temperature is rising at a steady rate despite the world consuming more coal than it did in the early 1900's. The question I'm asking is how could that be?

First off, the vast majority of CO2 is going into the oceans. The oceans are also a massive sink for the Earth's heat, and are storing a lot of that energy and heating up in the process (I think almost 1C globally in the past 100 years or so). There is also a lot of physics with atmospheric gasses that you need to understand better:
acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

The media is still talking about cc like this
Jeeezypeats, mass suicide when?

>as climate scientist myself
Very good. I'm writing an essay about the first generation of climate activists where Dr. Hansen played a prominent role. You're probably familiar with his famous CO2 equation. Can you explain to me why this equation was considered to be dimensionally consistent, or was it?

My astronomy professor said that water vapor is the #1 green house gas in out atmosphere. Thoughts? Is this true?

1. A webcomic? That's really all you've got?
2. Even your own shitty comic shows that the Earth's orbit can cause warming AND that it was warmer in 5000 BC than it is today.

I seriously can't wait for the EPA to be abolished

It's true, though water vapor basically just reinforces existing trends. If temperatures are already rising, then you get more evaporation out of the oceans and thus more water vapor in the atmosphere. When other factors increase temperature, you get more water vapor and thus an even bigger increase in temperature. Without something to kickstart the warming process, water vapor will eventually balance out in terms of evaporation vs precipitation as water vapor moves on through the water cycle.

Normally, CO2 is in a similar situation, as in nature there isn't really a way to dump vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere without also throwing up a lot of particulate matter that will have a cooling effect as well. Prior to humanity, CO2 would rise as temperatures rose, reinforcing an existing warming trend. Of course, humanity has "solved" this problem very neatly by burning fossil fuels, releasing large quantities of CO2 and thus kickstarting what would normally be only a reinforcing factor.

Enjoy your "construction dust."

> posts an example of government control leading to awful air quality as an argument for more government control
Liberalism really is a mental disease.

Why are you assuming the increase in warming is proportional to the increase in CO2 if all that was said was more CO2 means more warming?

It's just fox news and daily mail that does this.

Humans also increased aerosol production. There is a bloomberg-hosted NASA visualization that might help you understand.

And? Climatologists know orbital eccentricity causes interglacials and it's been warmer millions of years ago. Neither are relevant to the validity of AGW.

>Liberalism
This word literally means "freedom-al-ism." What you are saying is that the concept of more individual freedom (liberalism) is a disease of the mind.
Contextually, I can tell that you did not mean to say that, so I figured you should know.

Not him, but modern american liberalism has nothing to do with the original meaning and the term has kind of become an ironic name.

>There is an increase in average temperature
>There is an increase in CO2
>We know how the greenhouse effect works.
I don't understand why you think this isn't substantial evidence.

A modern liberal feels entitled to control the liberty of others ('faceless fascism') while a libertarian has no such affliction.

Not sure what you meant by "dimensionally consistent."

I take that's the empirical equation for climate sensitivity used in the GISS GCM model. It is just an empirical fit based on simpler 1D model, described in detail here:
shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/warming_papers/Hansen_etal_1984.pdf

The basic idea is this. Energy in must equal energy out, 2nd law of thermodynamics. In 1984 paper they did a 1D model assuming various CO2 concentration (and other greenhouse gases too), what would happen if you double or triple or quadruple CO2, what change in temperature of earth needed so that the energy equation balances. You received a finite amount of energy from the sun, given at solar constant. This energy is absorbed by earth 100% since earth is essentially a blackbody. Then the energy is re-emitted by the Earth following stephan boltzmann equation energy out = sigma*T^4. T here represent temperature of earth's surface, sigma is stephan boltzman constant. Energy out is simply a single function of Earth's temperature. Now here's the slightly tricky part. A FRACTION of this energy out is reabsorbed in the atmosphere and reflected back to earth. If you increase greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, you're gonna get more IR reflected back to the surface, because your reflectance got "thicker". You basically integrate from bottom to top of atmosphere, assuming every layer of atmosphere absorbs and re-emit infrared radiation continuously based on prescribed concentration gradient (based on partial pressure of said molecules) with infinitesimal dz. In the very top of the atmosphere the energy must balance, energy from the sun = energy leaving the earth. Then you solve for T earth, that's your equilibrium T for a given greenhouse gas concentration.

They then take an empirical relationship for a given concentration range from this 1D model and use it in the 3D GISS model as climate sensitivity parameter

Just to add, it's called 1D model because it doesn't have spatial nor time component in it. It treats the earth as a single blackbody and solves for equilibrium thermodynamics, so it doesn't really know HOW FAST would the of the Earth temperature respond, just how hot it would get eventually if there's a black ball in space at the same distance from the sun with earth, and same radius as earth, that is blanketed with atmosphere containing various greenhouse gases.

How often do people have to post this garbage where they tack on high frequency instrumental data, to low-frequency, low-accuracy data? Instant hockey stick. What crap.

Here's an apples to apples graph, pic related.

Source
Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

>climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
NASA is an agency of the U.S. Federal Government. $Carbon $Taxes will make FedGov $Billions.

In related news, Phillip-Morris Scientists have proven that tobacco is safe. Of course, Phillip-Morris will make $Billions
off tobacco.

Thank you. I'm aware of how energy balance models work. What I meant is that the left side of the equation has the dimension of a temperature while the right side is dimensionless. In physics, dimensional consistency is a basic requirement. This was later covered by the introduction of alpha (implicit dimension Wm-2), which of course needs another factor (K/Wm-2) to arrive at ∆T.

Sun is rising soon here, good night and thanks again.

>I understand that there is significant scientific evidence to show that humans are a major contributor to the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and I understand that carbon dioxide is capable of trapping heat.

Actually there is not significant evidence that humans are a major contributor to the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The correlation between anthropogenic CO2 flux and the change in atmospheric CO2 is almost non-existent. Pic related. Source, Jaworowski (1997)

Also see:
Jaworowski, Zbigniew. "Ice core data show no carbon dioxide increase." 21st Century Science and Technology 10.1 (1997): 42-52.

And see Selegstad (1998)

Concerning the CO2 "Hockeystick," Selegstad said:
"A false representation of the CO2 atmospheric concentration trend scientific scandal of our time.
over the past 10,000 years. Values before 1958 do not represent the atmospheric concentrations, but the artifacts caused by depletion of CO2 from ice, and by arbitrarily changing the age of
samples."

Segalstad, Tom V. "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the" Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma." Global Warming the Continuing Debate. Cambridge, UK. European Science and Environmental Forum. 1998.

>
>Carbon levels are measurable, and the physics of C02 trapping heat are well understood. There is no room for misunderstanding in the basic fact of this.

Why did you forget to mention that the "heat trapping" effect of CO2 decreases at a logarithmic rate, making additional CO2 have a negligible effect? It seems that you are not being forthright about the physics of CO2. It comes down to Quantum Mechanics. There are only certain wavelengths that CO2 can absorb. When those wavelengths are absorbed, there is nothing more that CO2 can do. Yeah, that's a part of the physics of CO2 you really should mention.

>What is the evidence that humans are directly responsible for climate change?
DELET THIS EARTHLING

Usually, when there's not a steady increase in temperature, NASA "scientists" change the graph.

>nb4 hurr, durr, only delusional people distrust "new climate information"
There is no new temperature data for that time period. The only delusional fool is the one who sees altered data, and goes "of course its true, there were no graphs of global cooling in the past!"

>here are other factors that affect the trend in shorter timescales and longer timescales.
Factors such as rewriting the temperature history of the globe, and then shouting, "Hurr, durr if you don't believe rewritten data, you're just delusional."

>
>Because latent heat and lag time of the Earth. When you turn on the stove, the water doesn't boil instantly.

Except climate change theory says that the troposphere will warm faster than the Earth's surface, and that isn't happening.

>here's technology to make your stuff cleaner and more efficent
vs
>hey guys you cant refute this now pay my environmental organizations thousands of dollars to get our certified label stamp on your products or we will call you out and make you lose customers
Not saying it's made up, but it is so blantly abused and it's the reason most blue collar workers voted Trump instead of Clinton. Literally destroyed any profitability of the paper (and many other industries) in the U.S. and caused us to rely on getting it all from cheap labor in China and Mexico, where the pollutants are unascertainably more polluting and devastating to the environment then they were with regulations in the U.S.

>Changes in solar radiation—a hypothesis for global warming proffered by many climate skeptics—contributed no more than around 0.07 degree C to the recent warming, the study finds.

If you use the cherry-picked studies (like NASA) that show weak solar variance. There are studies that show significant solar variance, Pic related. And this argument also pretends that solar modulated cosmic rays have no effect. But they do, see below:

Kirkby, Jasper, et al. "Ion-induced nucleation of pure biogenic particles." Nature 533.7604 (2016): 521-526.

Bianchi, F., et al. "New particle formation in the free troposphere: A question of chemistry and timing." Science 352.6289 (2016): 1109-1112.

See Yndestad, Harald, and Jan-Erik Solheim. "The influence of solar system oscillation on the variability of the total solar irradiance." New Astronomy 51 (2017): 135-152.

I'm waiting for someone to address this. Also couldn't watch the Bill Nye interview cause I got embarrassed for him.

>Add 10 trillion tons of co2 to atmosphere every year

>hey guys, that co2 doesn't do anything. It just disappears and doesn't count for anything.

Do you have a source for this supposed effect?

...

I like the source, but who is to say that all carbon dioxide released in the last 15,000 years is "man made", is there not at least the potential explanation that the shifting polar ice caps and general temperature increase seen over this period could be both causing this abundance of green-house gasses, and being worsened by it?

Not to scream that humans are in no way responsible for global warming, as in my mind we fundamentally must be, as for 2 unprecedented events (civilisation, global warming) to occur concurrently in such a vast timeline seem far more likely to be cause and effect than pure coincidence.

There is also a possible explanation that in fact it is rising temperatures out of the previous ice-age that have caused increased human development, rather than the other way around.

I can see correlation, I just have yet to see solid evidence of causation.

you know what? it doesn't even matter
the consequences are the same
if the trend continues, we'll suffer the consequences
who is to blame isn't even relevant at that point

so, regardless of whether humans are causing the warming or not, humans need to do something to stop it

The denialism comes down to the fact that there are three responses to our increasingly shitty planet:
>Mobilize everything to preserve the Earth--think WW2 but victory is saving the environment. We're late enough that some things will still go extinct, but it'll mean that 100 years from now living standards and the biosphere will be quite nice.
>Shift resources to fight climate change, but don't make it the defining struggle of humanity. Many species will go extinct, there will be a ton of refugees, but we can still ensure that 100 years from now our grandchildren can have decent lives.
>Do jack shit, or actively encourage burning fossil fuels. If this happens, well, try not to have children.
In short, nobody wants to be the guy that goes "yes, Earth is fucked, but gas is so cheap right now." It's so much easier to throw doubt and confusion into the air so you can live with yourself. Folks who rely on inconvenient trades such as all the coal miners up in the Appalachians will be forced to choose between crushing poverty or a better life for people who aren't even born yet. If you repeat a lie often enough, you don't just convince other people. You convince yourself.

We are going to run out of Earth long before we run out of fossil fuels. This comes down to our self control as a species.

>This comes down to our self control as a species.
we're fucked

I don't believe that picture at all and the reasons why are very simple.

I don't need climate data to prove warming. I have explained this again, and again, and again, and again, and again. You're either willfully ignorant or lying. I imagine it's lying but it's probably a bit of both.

washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/up-and-up-plants-and-animals-migrating-as-climate-changes/2011/08/18/gIQAzlTxNJ_story.html?utm_term=.939795d3ea94

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140725-climate-change-tropical-fish-animals-ocean-science/

youtube.com/watch?v=ur4I8tYnxP4

youtube.com/watch?v=Za5wpCo0Sqg

epa.gov/climate-indicators/snow-ice

nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=126692

What's your response sir?

biomind.de/treibhaus/180CO2/author_reply9-2.pdf

I agree, but by this reckoning we need to be very careful that we are not going to slow down our progress through carbon taxs and the like, when we may actually need technology we are currently on the cusp of to save ourselves from an "unavoidable" atmospheric fuckup.

If you see what I'm saying, we need to know more about what is causing the issue for sure, as otherwise we are wasting valuable time on bandaid solutions.

so maybe we should seed clouds right? with planes? maybe with reflective particles like metallic ones?

does anyone else feel global warming is comfy? More sunny days, less rain, more time at the beach. Fuck the third world and animals.

Would it be possible to halt or stall global warming by sending up a solar shade to block out some of the light coming from the Sun?

Greenhouse gas emissions are the cause. Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions is the solution. If we eliminate greenhouse gas emissions we can take millenia to figure out the climate completely. Otherwise we aren't going to make it to even 2100 considering wars are soon and we won't have the luxury of scientific progress when we're busy dealing with famine.

>famine
Pipe down with that and enjoy your Soycaf omae.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378003000827

>it was warmer in 5000 BC than it is today
I Can't Read Graphs: The Post

oh look, you posted Beck 2007 again
>better CO2 measurement methods invented in ~1855
>insanely high reported values for CO2 drop to levels consistent with the following century or so, almost overnight
>physically impossible for those amounts of CO2 to be emitted in the absence of major flood basalt eruptions
>physically impossible for those amounts of CO2 to suddenly disappear without massive changes in ocean chemistry
>no biological signals of such enormous swings in CO2 concentration
surely this couldn't be the result of instrumental error, could it?
>published in E&E
zozzle
>rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/found-in-margins-recently-eli-has-been.html

Yes, because Donald Trump and the Republican party are well-known advocates for carbon taxes.
Fucking moron.

>21st Century Science and Technology 10.1 (1997): 42-52.
>Global Warming the Continuing Debate. Cambridge, UK. European Science and Environmental Forum. 1998.
What the hell are you citing?

Just because you huff and cry doesn't make it a conspiracy. Refining and reconstructing old data is a pretty normal part of climatology.

A 3,4% increase in something that's a big part of the greenhouse effect of our planet is a pretty big deal. And you're ignoring the fact the water vapour is held in pretty tight equilibrium, so it's purely a feedback - putting it on the chart is entirely misleading.

Also, did you just cite the fucking Heritage Foundation?

>who is to say that all carbon dioxide released in the last 15,000 years is "man made"
No-one says that, where are you getting your info from?

>I can see correlation, I just have yet to see solid evidence of causation.
C12/C13 ratios. The carbon buried in fossil fuels is measurably different to the carbon dioxide in circulation.

E&E is a bullshit journal. You may as well link to Answers in Genesis.

Not with the resources and tech we currently have.

Yes, but if we are not yet absolutely 100% certain that the correlation of higher abundance of greenhouse gasses and human development is a causal link, then should we really be jamming the breaks on further development?
We may need to advance our space programs fast, what if it is actually the Earth's core dumping superhot green-house gasses at never before seen rates through deep-sea vents?

Just saying senpai, I read through the evidence posted so far, and this level of correlation is no mere chance I agree, but we need to be sure that it is about future emission reduction before we put all of our eggs in that basket imo.

>15,000 years
>wut
>goes on to describe exactly why I (and the cited study) used 15,000 due to carbon isotope decay

XD first year geographist here XD

Heh
I know these feels
It's painful to love this place
Like eating sunflower seeds shell and all

Big Oil checking in just to remind you that we paid good money to some people with PHDs to try to convince you there was a chance that anthropogenic climate change isn't caused by humans and might not be a big deal.

Go on about your lives, buying oil and coal. Don't pressure your congressmen to change anything.

Thank-you for your cooperation in our record quarterly profits.