what are your thoughts on global warming is it caused by humans? is it even happening? or does it belong in the tales box together with the boogey man and santa claus?
pic unrelated
>>7675862
I believe it, not by observation but by probability
Probably. I'm hopeful that we'll find a solution before significant damage is done. It's not even that tough to do. Albedo modification isn't that expensive, and although may have side effects, is better than nothing. If not albedo modification, we could use sulfate aerosols. We have many ways we can "buy time" to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, which will naturally occur as prices rise.
>>7675901
It's probably the case but I'm with this anon. Any fans of carbon sequestration in here?
>>7675862
It exists. You can easily see it by looking at the data for heat absorption by the ocean. Global climate shifting isn't a matter of believe. It is a matter of do you deny the truth or accept the truth. It is real and has happened for many cycles throughout history.
>>7676015
He's talking about climate change caused by humans, not the natural climate change that is expected to occur every 80,000 years. But no I doubt it's existence.
>>7675862
earth's climate was changing since its inception so about 4.5 billion years. western civilization exists let's say 250 years? so i'd say probability that these changes are natural is 99.99999% or something like that.
propaganda about human made global warming and CO limits trading has hidden agenda which is to stifle development of 2nd and 3rd world countries, nothing else. it's just yet another form of colonialism.
>>7676924
>stifle development of 2nd and 3rd world countries
they don't need any help with that anon
When you get a virus, you get a fever. That's the human body raising its core temperature to kill the virus. Planet Earth works the same way: Global warming is the fever, mankind is the virus. We're making our planet sick. A cull is our only hope. If we don't reduce our population ourselves, there's only one of two ways this can go: The host kills the virus, or the virus kills the host. Either way the result is the same, the virus dies
>>7676008
I imagine a future where friendly machines make super awesome carbon sequestrators.
Then we wake up one day and find that CO2 is below 100ppm and plantlife is failing on a global scale, and we just handed machinekind victory against mankind.
>>7675862
Global warming is real and caused by humans.
The above doesn't mean much because the real issue is figuring out what the outcome is.
We don't really know what the mid/long term outcomes will be, we could be just fine or we could have some retarded doomsday scenarios.
It's starting to look like we're going to be just fine.
>>7676963
gaia theory is bullshit and kingsman was shit
>>7676971
Is it because it contradicts the principle of natural selection?
>>7676977
No it's because it's dumb as shit.
>>7676979
For you, also you forgot to compliment my dubs
There is really not much to discuss at this point. Whatever we've done will make itself known in about 20-40 years. Its already too late
Obviously we have an effect on the climate.
Shit my 83 year old grandfather can remember when my neighborhood and others like it were massive forests.
>>7675862
Some AGW is happening, but it's too weak to matter.
IPCC-style AGW is not happening.
The IPCC simply decided CO2 was a climatic driver and disaster would ensue, by assuming high climate sensitivity and massive positive feedback based on nothing. In reality, it turns out climate sensitivity is low and there is neutral or negative feedback. CO2, other than being an extremely important plant nutrient, is only a small and weak greenhouse gas, and the more of it we emit, the less of a difference those emissions make. (You need to keep redoubling CO2 levels to get the same effect as the previous doubling.)
There is no looming AGW crisis to avert OP, so you need not worry about AGW, only bad "science". The hotspot doesn't exist and for now the warming has even flattened.
>>7677878
>The IPCC simply decided CO2 was a climatic driver
There's a massive amount of climactic research that proves CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and measures the climate sensitivity. It seems you are just ignoring the science and projecting your dogmatic viewpoint onto climatologists.
>In reality, it turns out climate sensitivity is low and there is neutral or negative feedback
The vast majority of climatologists disagree. Why should anyone believe you over them?
>The hotspot doesn't exist and for now the warming has even flattened.
It's funny that you argue so authoritatively and then spew these incredibly stale, long debunked denier memes at the end. It's like ending your post with "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams".
>>7676924
>earth's biosphere had been changing since its inception, so about 3.5 billion years. that asteroid impacted in less than a second? so I'd say probability that the K-T extinction was terrestrial in origin is 99.99999% or something like that
never doubt the capacity of brief but extreme (even if relatively small in immediate scope) events to cause drastic change.
>>7676963
Kingsman was shit from beginning to end.
>hey maybe if we put English accents and monocles on a trashy spy movie it'll seem sophisticated and interesting
>>7676977
>baiting this hard
>>7677878
>The hotspot doesn't exist
Spotted the denier. You realize that only people who read WUWT care about this imagined lack of a hotspot, right? Anyone with any actual understanding of the science doesn't make that line of argument.
OP, for your reference: the missing hotspot he refers to is the result of deniers comparing a model to readings and looking at the difference. The only problem is, the model doesn't describe the same thing as the measurements. Also, the hot spot that deniers inexplicably think should exist is not nearly as important as changes in the lapse rate. Complaining about the missing hotspot is roughly equivalent to using the word "chemtrail".
>>7677907
Semantics. You're not actually challenging anything said, merely repeating some of it.
Ad populum. (And [citation needed], I think you've forgotten what was polled.) You should disbelieve them because their assertions, models, and "projections" have been invalidated by new data. Their models have zero predictive value. And they don't even believe in them themselves going by the leaked correspondence. In short: Fool me once...
Ad hominem. Oh, atmospheric sciences are now debunked. It's hard to keep up with the debunked meme these days. Let me recap for you.
CO2 on its own is too weak of a ghg for the emissions to be an issue. So how did the IPCC come up with their doomsday projections? By assuming shit tons of positive water vapor feedback. Minor warming from CO2 would then result in massive warming from additional H2O also producing the tropospheric hotspot. Thankfully the hotspot is MIA along with the projected warming. How are you not happy about this?
Yeah, probably to some degree.
It doesn't matter of course. Humans come from nature, and use Natural processes in everything we do.
There is nothing morally incorrect about humans affecting their ecosystem in the pursuit of survival and reproduction, nor is there anything wrong with other, less fit species being edged out as a result.
Because that is how evolution works.
>>7677976
Hey lets take that further then. It wouldn't be immoral for humans to kill off all non-domesticated life on the planet either. Whether that would be in our best interests is another matter.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ecosystem+service
I absolutely think its possible, just horrendously overblown for political purposes.
If you've ever been to a warzone you can see the smoke pollution affect the local weather. Wildfire areas might notice similar.
But I think other forms of air pollution and water pollution are orders of magmimagmi more important to human health.
Finally,once practical fusion power arrives we won't use fossil fuels at all. Global warming is political and its solutions don't solve anything.
>>7677994
It'd be irrational to do that, it'd expend a great deal of effort at no gain, indeed at negative gain, as you pointed out.
That being said, we should not restrict the industry that has made us so fit, so advanced, and raised our standard of life so greatly, to prevent the "destruction" of a retardedly romanticized and unscientific concept of "nature."
I'm not opposed to conservation, I think the world is more interesting with a lot of stuff in it. But I will not support attempts by idiots in government and private life who seek to undermine all we've built.
>>7677960
>Semantics
it's what distinguishes you from the other apes
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf
>>7675862
>boogey man and santa claus?
No, realpolitik.
>>7676967
If (co2 > 120ppm) {
do cool stuff
} else {
please don't Mr robot I like air
}
>Guys I finally found out that global climate change isn't caused by humans now we can all be boiled alive guilt free!
>>7677914
>Also, the hot spot that deniers inexplicably think should exist is not nearly as important as changes in the lapse rate.
>Warmist shill detected.
Explain with specificity, which part of Atmospheric Physics is false:
1. There are high water vapor levels above the equator.
2. The Hadley Cell above the equator features upward wind currents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
3. The moist adiabatic lapse rate has decreased.
4. A decreased lapse rate means that water vapor will go higher into the troposphere above the equator.
5. At this new height, the water vapor will be sufficiently cooled to make it condense.
6. Water vapor condensation is an exothermic reaction.
>>7678236
The IPCC is a political organization, that determines "suggestions for politicians" first, then thinks about science second.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005UEVB8Q?*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Leaving this here
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>>7679868
Leaving this here
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
>>7679868
I like the canned scientific rebuttal. Ran across this paper today as a matter of fact - pic related.
>>7679877
>99% of climate papers did not say C02 caused most global warming
Jesus Fucking Christ, if you really have no interesting in being honest just piss off.
Of course they didn't say that, because it's downright false: Feedbacks like watervapor are the largest direct cause of warming. CO2 is the largest root cause, not the direct one.
>>7679904
And the water vapor feedback is not there.
>nb4 but muh papers!
Those paper are about the lower troposphere which isn't positive feedback, just an evaporative type of heat transfer. The upper troposphere increased water vapor is the real feedback because it would block outgoing infrared. And that didn't happen.
>T-the Earth's climate changes naturally
The "subtle" and cyclical natural shifts are never quite this pronounced
The drastic shifts that match or far exceed this are almost all correlated with major events that initiate or feed them.
Last I checked we had no major active flood basalts on the scale of the Siberian or Decan traps, no asteriods of significant size impacted the earth, no supervolcanos event up, etc.
Human activity is the only "new" factor in this scenario
>>7679857
>argumentum non sequitur
please explain how any of those facts contradict the idea that warming has occurred. in fact, the decrease in the adiabatic lapse rate is evidence IN FAVOR of warming, as warmer oceans result in more evaporation blah blah blah like you said.
not going to get me that easily, nutbar
>>7679877
ah yes, the ol' impossibly high standard for what constitutes supporting the theory of AGW
note for a second that there are literally hundreds of climatology papers published every year that don't say anything about global climate or CO2 levels because that's not what they're looking at. it's like saying that 99% of biology papers don't explicitly say that evolution by natural selection is real: arguably technically true, but completely fuckstupid.
>>7679925
oh look, another graph showing models overestimating warming starting right there at 1991. why could that possibly be???
PINATUBO
INATUBO
NATUBO
ATUBO
TUBO
UBO
BO
O
>>7679925
...Why are you comparing watervapor measurements to temperature predications, rather than actual temperature measurements?
>the lower troposphere isn't positive feedback, just an evaporative type of heat transfer. The upper troposphere increased water vapor is the real feedback
Do you have an actual source for that?
>>7677960
>You're not actually challenging anything said, merely repeating some of it.
When did I repeat anything you said? I simply pointed out that what you said is contradicted by the science. This is the science board. If you can't handle that argument you should probably just leave.
And besides, you're not actually challenging global warming or climatology, just repeating arguments that others made up and that others have responded to. So it seems a wholly equitable and appropriate response.
>Ad populum.
Ridiculous. I am not appealing to the opinions of the masses, I am appealing to the findings of scientists. This is how science works.
>(And [citation needed], I think you've forgotten what was polled.)
What poll? The groups that study this issue in order to create a consensus estimate have consistently found sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
>You should disbelieve them because their assertions, models, and "projections" have been invalidated by new data.
I should disbelieve you since you have presented zero data while the IPCC's data is available to anyone with an internet connection.
>Their models have zero predictive value.
They've been able to accurately project global temps for decades now. Clearly this is not about the facts for you. You want them to be wrong and thus they are wrong, no scientific evidence needed. Pathetic.
>Ad hominem.
No one gives a fuck. You're posts are idiotic and I will point out that you are an idiot.
>CO2 on its own is too weak of a ghg for the emissions to be an issue.
So prove it! Again: Why should anyone believe you over climatologists with published studies? You have given no reason for anyone to do this, yet you continue to post. It's pointless.
>So how did the IPCC come up with their doomsday projections? By assuming shit tons of positive water vapor feedback.
OK, so prove their analysis of water vapor feedback is wrong. Do it.
