not yet.

>>35176
WE KNOW there is global warming, look at the data collected.

in nasa global warming website for example

>>35197
do you know what the word anthropogenic means?

I have my doubts if it is man made, but I think the idea some assholes had to decreace the warmming rate by halting the economical advancement is retarded beyond belief

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

if you watch all his videos and are still not convinced (if you weren't already) that global warming is man-made, then there is no hope for you.

>>35274
Oh you!
Go here http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html and read this, thanks me when you finished reading.

I think the scientific consensus supports some degree of anthropogenic climate change. Whether it's 1% of 99% of the change we're currently experience is up for debate.

>>35274
I don't want to be convinced by nice pictures and interesting persona, I want to be given correct arguments.

>>35176
I neither believe in significant anthropogenic global warming, nor do I deny the possibility.
First off, I think it is pretty arrogant to assume that one single species is able to greatly affect something that has been relatively stable for hundreds of millions of years (ice ages were very gradual).
Before we spend a lot of money on fighting 'the greenhouse effect', we should investigate the impact human behaviour has on the environment, instead of just assuming it must be us.

I believe a small margin of it is man made, but come on, we're still sort of coming out of an ice age, aren't we? The world is in a constant state of fluctuating temperature. It happens.

>>35293

The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution.

CO2 levels raising plus the degredation of the Ozone Layer has cause an increased amount of solar radiation entering the atmosphere and a decreased amount of energy leaving the planet.

The net energy of the planet Earth has shifted, with more of the potential energy becoming kinetic energy. The catalyst of this shift is human activity.

And I slept with your mom.

>>35293
Yes and this is the problem with anthropogenic global warming theory, is not driven by scientific studies but by feelings, something science is NOT about.

Humans? Drastically changing the most volatile and vulnerable aspects of the planet?
Don't be silly.

from the evidence I gather it seems that mankind is responsible to some degree, but we can not say whether this is alot or not very much.

But the very fact that it's impossible to know exactly makes anything but trying to reduce the human influence extremely irresponsible and unwise.
We have no practical ways of getting a second earth (pale blue dot yadda yadda) and that should make us very cautious.


Besides, from my personal moral values I find the concept of being "neutral", leaving no waste behind, and trying to minimize personal influence to the environment desirable. And I like to aspire effectiveness.

So whether it turns out that we experience natural temperature fluctuations or irreversible man-made hell is not actually relevant to the argument as to how we should behave.

Why is everyone so worried about it?
When it happens, it happens.
The Earth doesn't give a fuck (it has had far worse than us), only WE give a fuck, because we face extinction.

>>35469
>Why is everyone so worried
>we face extinction
>herp derp

>>35441

direct aplication of: fuel efficient vehicles, reciclable material goods, power/water efficient houses, clean/less harmful power sources, responsible consuming and garbage disposal, healthier life style, quality products wich last longer don't break often and don't need to be exchanged in a short time, and more efficient industry

this kind of stuff ?

I think it's a fucking retarded argument. Even if we didn't CAUSE IT, it'd be ridiculous to think we have no effect on it whatsoever.

Besides that, even if you think the earth can go fuck itself, I don't think anyone enjoys breathing in the smog on a hot summer day. There's no downside to being a bit more environmentally friendly, while there can be a huge downside to not change our ways.

>>35176

I do not believe I know, you do not.

You use that lack of knowledge add some ignorance and then try to turn your stupidity around so every one else seems wrong.

The wonders of the modern world. Where every retard has a voice.

>>35282
I thank you indeed, for giving me a good laugh

god that article is horrible, it spins ALL the usual climate denier crocks, and then some

>>35297
> I think it is pretty arrogant to assume that one single species is able to greatly affect something that has been relatively stable for hundreds of millions of years
You mean one species with nearly 7billion members that has spread to every part of the globe? Yea, people breathing and shitting might not contribute to global warming more than any other species but it's about the extra things we contribute.
You know I would almost bet that cows and other livestock contribute lots more greenhouse gasses than people as an organism. Oh wait cows are at population levels they would never be without husbandry.

>>35469
>Why is everyone so worried about it?
>because we face extinction
So didn't you just answer your own question?

Man made or not, I'm all for going green.

>>35600
You mean because there's actual science and not some political agenda.

>>35297
>First off, I think it is pretty arrogant to assume that one single species is able to greatly affect something that has been relatively stable for hundreds of millions of years

I really hate this argument. It's not substantial at all. The environment has never had to deal with an industrial species until now, and humanity has already caused plenty of things to happen (pollution, mutations, holes in the ozone layer, species extinction, deforestation, etc.). How is the global temperature immune to tampering?

>Before we spend a lot of money on fighting 'the greenhouse effect', we should investigate the impact human behaviour has on the environment, instead of just assuming it must be us.

Scientists are not retarded, they HAVE studied it and continue to do so.

The earth goes in cycles.

It's been extrapolated that in the middle ages CO2 levels were much higher than they are today.
High level air streams roll over each other and bring about different weather systems.

Also, you are saying in the short 100 or less years we've been measuring global weather we can already predict that we're on a 'warming streak'? Come back in another 100 when you've gathered conclusive data.

Plus we don't know shit about our oceans and those are the biggest factors in weather. So how can we predict anything besides the weekend forecast?

>Teacher bear teaches us things.

>>35608
How about ants. They're everywhere, they greatly outnumber us (even measured in biomass). They 'terraform' (alter the surroundings to their needs). They use tools, and they herd other animals. Some even use fire as a tool.
ANTS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING HURR DURR

>>35649
Implying science isn't driven by political and profit based agendas, and is instead done for the sake of science

>>35649
could you post the link to an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal that says man made climate change is a farce? thx

>>35660
>>Teacher bear goes extinct because of not enough polar ice

ftfy

>>35659
No scientific study has confirmed that human behavior has a significant impact on the climate.
I'm not saying that we don't have a significant impact, just that it hasn't been shown yet.

>>35669
You realized that journals like Science and Nature are filled with politically driven liberals and block any article regarding AGW that is against there interests.

>>35718
you realize there are more than just two scientific magazines out there...right?

>>35712
And if it has not been scientifically showed then scientifically AGW is not true scientifically.

>>35724
That is called an example.

>>35608
>cows are at population levels they would never be without husbandry

>>35738
so then what you're telling me is that you can't find even one magazine that isn't "politically driven by liberals?"

>>35550
yes, also less procreating. Actually that's probably the most important aspect.

>>35718
>liberals
HURRR DURRR

>>35764
So what you're trying to tell me is that without people the cattle population would be greater than 1billion?

>>35659
>>35608
>First off, I think it is pretty arrogant to assume that one single species is able to greatly affect something that has been relatively stable for hundreds of millions of years

if you hate this idiotic argument, next time you hear it, just remind them that the oxygen they breathe was ALL created as a byproduct of the first aquatic unicellular organisms that developed photosysthesis.

>>35718
There's a reason moot made /new/

Bitch about it there.

Also, global warming is real.

I believe in gravity

>>35248
>halting the economical advancement

yeah it is obvious that alternatives to depletable energy sources will make us all poor

>>35812
well gravity believes you can do anything you set your mind to. Don't disappoint it.

>>35381
I thought we had done some serious progress on that matter since late 90s... :(

>>35665
well, ants do in fact have a great impact on their environment.
read something from B. Holldöbler and E.O Wilson, you'll be surprised how big the influence of some ant species are.
Mankind's influence is even greater because we influence the earth's environment on a lot of different levels in extremely complex ways.

>>35274

naw man, who you really want is

www.youtube.com/potholer54

the legend that is

>>35795

Cows are the dominant lifeform, you fool. Or should I say, SHEEP.

It seems logical that the burning of fossil fuels releases CO2, that this CO2 goes into the atmosphere and that this CO2 absorbs and emits infrared energy emitted by the earth that's originally from the Sun, causing global warming.

I don't see how something logically true can be the result of "the fabrikashun of lieberals", as one facebook user so eloquently put it.

>>35718
>like Science and Nature are filled with politically driven liberals
>maybe it is somehow related with the fact that conservatives outside the army do not make any credible research

>>35878
well, I doubt the "the fabrikashun of lieberals", but a planet's climate isn't as ridiculously simple and one dimensional as

>burning of fossil fuels releases CO2, that this CO2 goes into the atmosphere and that this CO2 absorbs and emits infrared energy emitted by the earth that's originally from the Sun, causing global warming.

To be honest, I'm quite amazed that you believe that that's it.
In either case I can see how, given the complexity of the subject, one can doubt the amount of influence one species can have.

>>35862
I don't think you understand ... anything.

also, I noticed that due to the less internet-ish subjects, I am much more prone to trolling on this board.

>>35933

I understand the planet's climate isn't exactly 2+2=4, but what then happens to the CO2 released? Surely not all of it gets trapped in a sink somewhere.
I admit that climate change activists do seem to overreact to various statistics, and that there may be a natural cause to an effect that some would call global warming, but surely we have -some- effect?

>>35933

Why is venus so damn hot?

>>36078
It came with the name

>>36102

>>35176
When I get a job with Exxon I won't believe in it.

>>35347
>>35659


Let's look at it like this.

We can't accurately predict the forecast for a small city for more than a week and even then landing it within +-2 degrees is awesome. So how are we going to predict the temperature of the GLOBE averaged a dozen sites, in fucking 50 years to a claimed accuracy of 0.01 degrees.

Computer models just aren't accurate... at all. There's a reason why they don't just make computer models and then predict the daily weather off of that... because its WRONG.

More CO2 is released from volcanic events and other natural events than by all of mankind... and it's an order of magnitude difference. If a single volcanic event can equal us, then why the fuck are we concerned about what we're doing.

TL;DR anthropogenic climate change fails in the logic dept before they even make it to the data dept.
that said im all for decreasing pollution and riding bikes, just don't fucking cram it down my throat that every time i cut my lawn im kill us all.

>Humans are incapable of having major influence on earth's climate or natural balance
>9.2 million ha average annual deforestation at a pan-tropical level in the 20th century
>durr
>hurr

Eh, in the Global scale of things, we really are in a warm period, and sure, it seems to be getting warmer, but we will hit that Iceage in about ten thousand years and it just won't fucking matter anymore.

However, despite whether or not global warming is accurate, the greenmovement that it has led too, for the most part, is a good option that we should be considering. Clean energy is clean.

>>36127

Something interesting I read today, they've made a quantum computer that precisely predicts the activity of a hydrogen atom. Maybe something so complex can one day be used in meterology. Or maybe it only works with quantum things. I dunno. I should've paid more attention in physics.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100110151331.htm

>>36007
>but surely we have -some- effect?
Yes, yes of course, I never questioned that, I merely said that it's not very simple. And I certainly don't know very much about it. I mean I know more than your average High school kid, but It's not my subject of study.

as for the carbon cycle, I'd start at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Also there's more to climate change than CO2 in the atmosphere.

For example seemingly unimportant things like overfishing and deforestation aren't just criticized because of all the poor species that go extinct, but because the rain forest and different species play major roles in earth's climate. And they are all connected by a food chain. And since we can't overview that, we should handle our planet with care.

>>36127
Volcanic CO2 presently represents only 0.22 percent of anthropogenic emissions.
go suck a dick
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992GeCoA..56.1765W

When I read that moot created a /sci/ board I was excited and thought that finally there was a place for people who aren't dumbfucking idiots on 4chan.
Then I stumbled upon this thread.

>>36207

Sorry, before that I should have said "For example", I do realise that carbon emissions aren't the only cause of climate change, just the one I remember most from last year's textbook :P

>>36127
I don't think you can compare macroscopic with tendencies with microscopic weather just like that. I mean, I agree with you, the influence of man is questionable, but I don't think you can compare that. I mean, we are on /sci/, after all.

>>36229

innactive or active volcanoes ?

>>36127
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Volcano eruptions also lead to short term cooling due to reflection of solar radiation by the ash in the atmosphere.

The Earth has natural cold and warm cycles which can be influenced by volcanos.

Carbon Dioxide emissions can have similar effects, however, it won't be apparent for a while, until around 2030ish, when the next hot cycle kicks in.

The CO2 emissions will make Hot cycles hotter, and cold cycles less cold. We are in one of these, "cold" cycles, wait till the hot cycle comes around.

>Also I am unclear that I may or may not have used the correct terminology when I said "hot/cold" cycle, if there is a technical name for anything that I have said please correct me.

>>35660
When using a baseline that includes the years you're measuring, the integral over that area will be zero when measuring anomaly. l2statistics. Who said it wasn't raining? Also, the remarkable period of the sunspot cycle is contributing to cooler than normal temperatures in the last 4 years. This is not normal. When the sunspots return, it will be warmer.

>>36127
You are completely ignorant. The major difference between weather and climate are the temporal scales. Weather models predict small-scale oscillations in specific sites. Climate models are generated on a coarser resolution and over longer time scales with less sensitivity to initial conditions. The major problem with most climate models is the coarseness of the gridded data. Please stop talking like you know how this process works.

Love, your in-house meteorologist.

>>36078
>>36102
>>36120
God I lol'd

Research into whether or not global warming is real or not is going to have to be funded by a source. And guess what the research guys are going to say when their pockets are stuffed with money? Whatever the money wants.

>>38120
Fuck off, faggot. Science does not work that way.

>>38087

op of all three images.

>>38184
Science does not. But people do. And guess what? People are doing the 'research'.

>>38120
Logically, that's not true. They would say whatever requires more research into the issue, if their only goal was making money. However, there are altruistic scientists that actually want to use their intelligence to ::GASP:: better humanity.

>>35282
nice journal/blog fuck face [citation needed]
why would I read that shit? this isn't /b/ you retard, give us a study or gb2/rk9/