[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
/sci/ - Science & Math

Don't ever visit this board, but thought this was the best place to post
Can someone please show me definitive evidence that humans are rapidly accelerating the effects of global warming? I'm a business guy, so I don't really study climate sciences and it's hard for me to understand by looking at the surface. However, I can't ignore so many people saying that humans are exacerbating the effects of global warming. Can you break it down into layman terms for me as to how we are affecting it? I literally never took a single class on climate science or a class beyond basic geology. Just break it down its best for me as you can
Thanks!!
>>
>>9408854
average temperature has been increasing for decades but no one ever likes to talk about the fact that from 1971-1973 the world basically oblitterated the ozone layer, which won't fully heal until 2050 or so.

all these researchers just larp about co2 levels probably just to get funding tbqh.
>>
>>9408869
unless you live in straya or nz i guess?
>>
>>9408872
eh? i'm talking about the temperature metrics that get tossed around all the time. ocean water temperatures or whatever the fuck they use.
>>
File: Global_Warming.jpg (56 KB, 606x400)
56 KB JPG
>>9408854
>>
>>9408873
people living in straya and nz do talk about the ozone hole they live under no?
>>
>>9408883
possibly. the holes are most prevalent near the north/south poles afaik
>>
The absolute simple version:

Earth's atmosphere is like a greenhouse that traps in heat. This fluctuates over time and when it swings one way too hard, mass extinction event occurs which humans almost definitely wouldn't survive.

The evidence: we can and have been measuring CO2 levels and earth temp (among a million other things) both of which are increasing. Higher levels of CO2 will trap more heat in.

Deniers typically claim there is no link between them, that humans aren't causing the CO2 rise or that the evidence is faked and there's a mass conspiracy among scientists all over the world
>>
>>9408869
> no one ever likes to talk about [...] the ozone layer
found the underage faggot
>>
>>9408907
>faggot
Why the homophobia?
>>
>>9408990
Can you please fucking stop? I see you in every other thread with this stupid question.
>>
>>9408990
"faggot" is not homophobic on this site
>>
File: CO2 and temperature.png (70 KB, 457x320)
70 KB PNG
There's a very good correlation between CO2 in the air and the isotope-ratios in animals who lived in the past. The isotope-ratios reflect the temperature of the water they lived in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9418O

We ARE having an effect on the climate despite the deniers. Anyone who starts "Well, I don't know much about Science, but it seems to me..." is a windbag who's not entitled to an opinion. Not that Reality counts heads before acting. The universe is not a democracy.

If you don't come to /sci/ often, you may have been unaware this this is about the LAST place to find informed opinions. Trolls and shitposters delight in mis-informing questioners. Independently check and double-check anything you hear here.
>>
>>9409018
What if rises in temperature cause rises in CO2 ?
>>
>>9409025
A reasonable question. Correlation is not causation.
But humans ARE raising the CO2 level at an unprecedentedly rapid rate, so we ought to be concerned.

Also, as >>9408896 noted, there's a mechanism by which CO2 leads to temperature changes but, SFAIK, no mechanism which works the other way.
In fact, the solubility of gasses in water depends on the temperature. As the oceans warm, dissolved CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere -- raising the concentration there and causing even MORE warming. (Water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, will rise as well.)
This is Positive Feedback. Positive Feedback usually winds up destroying the system.
>>
>>9409018
you're a cool dude, I like you
>>
File: ayyyy.jpg (35 KB, 615x410)
35 KB JPG
>>9409018
>>9409065
good shit anon
>>
>>9408854
DAHNALD?!
>>
>>9408854
Remember when the People's Republic of China volunteered to stop and reverse industrialization, in the name of the environment? Yeah, me neither.
>>
>>9408907
no one talks about the ozone layer lmfao. what year are you living in? 1990?

all the john olivers in the world jerk off to co2 levels which correlate with ocean temperature more loosely than your mum's cavernous vag
>>
>>9410930
No one talks about the ozone layer because no one needs to. It's been taken care of and the hole is constantly shrinking.
>>
>>9410993
AND IT WASNT UNTIL AFTER THE 70S THAT WE PERMANENTLY LEFT THE RANGE OF AVG OCEAN TEMP THAT WE EXPERIENCED IN THE 1800S

GEE I FUCKING WONDER IF THAT THERE HOLE IN THE ATMOPSHERE DONE HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT INSTEAD OF THE SHIT PLANTS BREATHE CAUSING PROBLEMS?
>>
>>9410922
The PRC is instituting a carbon trading setup.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-set-to-debut-the-world-rsquo-s-largest-carbon-market/

It has shortcomings but they're not idiots like Trump.
>>
>>9408854
The weather changes will be the least of our worries. The two main issues that we are going to have to deal with are massive infrastructure and real estate destruction leading to mass immigration like nothing we've ever seen. And the food is going to start running out due to arable land loss. These could lead us to the brink of societal collapse.
>>
>>9408995
Can you please stop being homophobic?
>>
>>9408999
>"faggot" is not homophobic on this site
"Faggot" is a homophobic slur.
>>
File: 1474144167868.png (202 KB, 656x332)
202 KB PNG
>>9408854
Hey OP, I took AP Biology, AP Environmental Science, and a college level yearlong Bio course, as well as attending several independent lectures on the subject, so I can enlighten you on the matter since you've yet to reserve a proper reply to the OP. Leaving aside the conspiracy theory about chemtrails and weather control, let's begin.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the molecules known as greenhouse gases. Another greenhouse gas is methane. These gases are really good at trapping heat.

Normally, carbon dioxide is absorbed by plant matter so that they can convert it into useful products for themselves. But because of worldwide destruction of forests, there's less plants to absorb CO2---and when these forests are burned, CO2 gets released.

When released, the greenhouse gases go up into the atmosphere, where they settle in one of the layers of our air. When this happens, the greenhouse gases can absorb the heat from solar radiation both going past the atmosphere, as well as heat that gets reflected off earth's surface (which would otherwise escape the planet).

As the earth becomes hotter thus, the ice caps at the earth's poles start to melt. This is bad because they are white, and white reflects light, so it doesn't become heat energy---so they are necessary to control the earth's climate. As the ice melts, it becomes water, which raises the height of the oceans---and that is bad for a number of reasons, including disappearance of land.

And so on.
>>
File: 1480123028060.gif (15 KB, 440x220)
15 KB GIF
>>9411718
Now, as to humans being the cause of this:

Humans burn forests and destroy habitats which trap CO2. They burn oil and coal, which releases CO2. They raise livestock like cow which release methane from their farts, which is 4 times more powerful at trapping heat than CO2.

That's about it. That's evidence enough.
>>
>>9408869
because international agreements limited the use of the ozone damaging components and as long as we don't throw those agreements out the ozone layer will fix itself.

>>
File: 1514645187261.jpg (291 KB, 500x500)
291 KB JPG
>>9411563
Can you please stop being a faggot?
>>
>>9412180
>faggot
Why the homophobia?
>>
>>9408854
1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.

2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.

3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php On average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.

In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand
>>
>>9411718
>When this happens, the greenhouse gases can absorb the heat from solar radiation both going past the atmosphere, as well as heat that gets reflected off earth's surface (which would otherwise escape the planet).

That's not correct.

>>
>>9411266
You're response seems very educated and insightful. The use of caps lock really helps to solidify yoiur point.

Mongoloid.
>>
>>9408854
>humans are rapidly accelerating the effects of global warming
We aren't rapidly accelerating the effects of global warming, we are causing global warming, which is a rapid increase in global temperatures. We know from chemistry and physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. With radiative spectroscopy we can measure the amount of infrared heat being sent towards the surface by CO2, and with isotope analysis we can see how much of the rapid increase in CO2 is being cause by manmade emissions. Once we combine that with our understanding of other processes that effect the global temperature, we see that the radiative forcing from our emissions is actually responsible for all of the warming seen since the industrial revolution, since natural processes actually take more CO2 out of the air then they emit. In other words, without the human contribution, the climate would have been slowly cooling over that period.
>>
File: Falling.png (59 KB, 750x450)
59 KB PNG
>>9411266
The ozone layer has been increasing since the 90s, yet we still have warming.
>>
>>9412212
Not him, but some solar radiation is thermal.
>>
>>9412254
fair enough

but I dont think the average joe (/OP) really wants to know all about black body radiation.
>>
>>9412261
Yeah, hence why the original poster being corrected is bigly pedantic in this case.
>>
>>9412210
>(pic related)
you didn't post a pic brah
>>
>>9412392
>>9412392
My bad man, wouldn't let me post it as someone else already and "duplicate file"
>>9409018
>>
>>9412276
bigly pedantic huh?

what a gay phrase to use.

you dont need to know about black body radiation to know there is a difference between solar and thermal radiation
/
visible+UV vs infrared
high energy vs low energy
solar vs thermal

this is taught in highschool, retard
>>
>>9412276
also in what asshat world do you live where some who corrects someones factually and scientifically incorrect statement is considered "bigly pedantic".

you're fucking retarded.
>>
>>9412429
You only continue to act as a sub-human and your responses are even less relevant to the OP. Shut the fuck up you retard.
>>
>>9412432
>>9412429
Wow, yo ure retarded and angry, an all too common combination. Just leave dipshit.
>>
>>9412436
OP is trolling anyway.... OPs job depends on him no knowing shit, therefore no amount of education will help.
>>
>>9412441
omg team retard/faggot is getting riled up now

oh no oh noooooeessss
>>
>>9412450
Go back to whatever containment board you came from, you don't belong here.
>>
>>9412441
angry?

what can I say... constantly dealing with literal hordes of utterly retarded trendy group faggots takes a toll.
>>
>>9412458
>>
>>9412462
Hey, I know you don't, but other people watch the thread count. Shut the fuck up and go back to
>>>/pol/
>>
>>9412230
>We know from chemistry and physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. With radiative spectroscopy we can measure the amount of infrared heat being sent towards the surface by CO2

Thems big words. You forgot to mention that CO2's effect on temperature has a logarithmic profile. Its vastly diminished over larger concentrations, so added CO2 has only a small effect.
>>
>>9412485

Just curious.
>>
>>9408990
heh, faggot
>>
File: o2 falling.jpg (59 KB, 539x435)
59 KB JPG
I'm an Earth scientist, I have an undergraduate degree specifically in Geology going in to Planetary Geology.

I've taken classes in Earth science specifically
Historical Geology
Meteorology
Climatology
Oceanography
and Astronomy

Which all directly apply to the question. In addition I've taken all the fundamental Geology courses which don't directly apply such as stratigraphy, Earth materials, geological hazards, general geophysics, remote sensing, and so forth.

>>9412210
This is not incorrect (other than what was already posted about blackbody radiation) and a great post.

Further evidence includes the O2 count in the atmosphere which is falling
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu

This is vital not because we'll ever run out of O2 but because it's part of the signature showing man's involvement in climate change. O2 falling and CO2 rising is clear evidence that the increased CO2 comes from COMBUSTION and not any other form of natural cause.

Further evidence includes the cooling of the stratosphere. This is impossible unless heat is being TRAPPED in the troposphere (where we live). The sun cannot be responsible for heating the troposphere while cooling the stratosphere because the sun heats up all atmosphere the same (Yes I know everyone, I'm simplifying but it's close enough). You can read more about it here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17235.full.pdf

For why this happens you can learn about our atmospheric window here:
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ir_tutorial/irwindows.html
>>
>>9412652
>>9412210
What's was your contribution? I've posted similar information in some other climate threads but I almost never get a response to it.
>>
File: 1474600117394.gif (79 KB, 480x270)
79 KB GIF
>>9412761
>but I almost never get a response to it
4channers only respond to posts they think are wrong or that they didn't fully understand itself or the implications of it
>>
>>9412741
>O2 falling and CO2 rising is clear evidence that the increased CO2 comes from COMBUSTION and not any other form of natural cause.
Can you give a brief explanation of O2's involvement here? Fire takes in oxygen?
>>
>>9412761
these:
>>9412212
>>9412261
>>9412429
>>9412432
>>9412447
>>9412450
>>9412460
>>9412462

Surprised that's yours as you also seem to support people chopping their dicks off.
>>
>>9412771
why is this a gif you fucking brainlet?
KYS
>>
>>9411723
Why is this a gif you fucking brainlet?
KYS
>>
>>9412782
I Do t think I made any posts thatg would support that, but I do feel fo r some small group of people it might actually be beneficial to their mental state more than any drugs or combinations of therapy could, I would assume that would be a very, very, small portion of supposed "transgender" individuals. Do understand though that when you make a post that so clearly and seemingly randomly despariages those people, it makes it seem like you're a typical /pol user.
>>
>>9412644
Soooource I don't think that's true
we're not even close to band saturation even if there were diminishing returns on longwave absorption because there's evidence of past climates with far greater concentrations of CO2 and also far higher temperatures and the sun's only been getting warmer over time
>>
>>9412771
I guess I'm the odd one out, I've had some interesting conversations by just ask people to expound upon their points.
>>
>>9412792
>>9412794
>>
>>9412787

>>9412802

First line should day "dont" but I'm laying down and have to deal with phone keyboard.
>>
>fo r some small group of people it might actually be beneficial to their mental state more than any drugs or combinations of therapy could

(me again) thread drift here, sorry.

I think its all of the above when it comes to trans people: pure profit motivation. same as any drug cartel, right from the psychologists, educators, psychiatrists, researchers, to the drug companies (all making money). but anyway you seem to agree with it. you'll site some genetic research before considering just leaving kids and their mothers alone.

I dont disagree with pol on everything. however, you seem quite polarized.
>>
>>9412843
>>9412802
>>
>>9412843
How so? What about my statement is polarized? As I tried to make clear, though I think some could benefit from such a surgery, I think it would be a very, very, few. I also think that for some people who suffer from bodydysmorphia would be better off to just remove their limb or whatever it is they are hung up on, many more would be left worse off and feeling worse off overall. Is that really all that contrvesial a thought to hold? I think you may be the polarized one, yo ure the reason we are even having this conversation.
>>
>>9412851
would you say more people are becoming trannies than should be the case?
>>
>>9412851
>I think it would be a very, very, few. I also think that for some people who suffer from bodydysmorphia would be better off to just remove their limb or whatever it is they are hung up on, many more would be left worse off and feeling worse off overall.

This sounds like some thing the marketing team at trannies r'us would come up with.
>>
>>9412862
Yes, easily. I've read about how you can sign an "informed consent" paper and get onto a hormonal replacement therapy which I think is disgusting, how many of these people are hurting themselves in the long term?
>>
>>9412865
Are you serious? You think a marketing team would include phrases such as "many would be worse off and feeling worse off overall" in thier pitch to conivce people to take their product?
>>
>>9412866
probably most...

but the supporters have all kinds of science they cite, and the vast majority don't have the time or knowledge to refute their claims.

plus, I think their victims kind of psychologically convince themselves that it was the right move, even if it wasn't just so they can live with themselves.

anyway sorry for drawing you into the pig pen and ruining the thread.
>>
>>9412868
I hope one day the people pushing this are brought to justice. for suicides. etc. although I dont see that, as the doctors pushing lobotomies never saw any justice.
>>
>>9412871
Its alright i suppose, I must say though the idea that it's a scam seems more than a bit far fetched to me. It might be awful but I think that at least parts of it and those directly involved mean to help those that experience persistent and life ruining compulsions and thoughts that they should be the other gender. If it was a scam entirely they'd sell them some drug that knocks them out or makes them super pliable and sell it for 1200 a pill. For some small number they really need help and this might be the best path foir them. I can only imagine how they suffer. I've read some about those theyh tried to use more traditional forms of therapy on and it's a sad story for those people.
>>
>>9412876
Many lobotomies were truly and honestly well intended though and many also lead tok reasonably successful results. The variance in the procedure partially as well as our lack of understanding of the mind lead to barbaric acts that many would be ashamed of afterwards. They gave the man a Nobel prize for a reason and all.
>>
>>9412871

I went to find the numbers at it was 3200 in 2016 in the US

That is close to $\frac{1}{10^{5}}$

Of course, most of these operations are probably on the ages of 20-40. The chart i found didn't link to additional information so it may not be accurate. it was from American Society of Plastic Surgeons, but i cant find the data.

They claim only 0.5% of the operations were on the genitals. The majority falling on breast augmentation.

Not exactly a number that arises my suspicion of a bad hipster movement.
>>
>>9412891

By the way, why didn't you guys try to find numbers on it?
>>
>>9412880
>>9412885

its a scam in every sense of the word except that its legal.

the scammers are getting paid (and very well in most cases); they've convinced themselves they're helping people. and most of their victims are convinced that it was the right thing to do (a form of stockholm syndrome or something.)

and if the guy who was giving lobotomies got the nobel prize than the nobel prize is a prize for scammers.
>>
>>9412644
>You forgot to mention that CO2's effect on temperature has a logarithmic profile. Its vastly diminished over larger concentrations, so added CO2 has only a small effect.
A logarithmic effect does not mean small effect. Your argument is nothing but a misleading fallacy. It has the effect of the warming we are currently seeing, which is quite large. This warming is linear because GHG emissions have been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution.
>>
>>9412885
That's really fucked up that he got the nobel prize. I didnt know that.

Jesus.
>>
>>9412898
I'm fairly sure, typically, a scam implies that there is someone or some group that understand that they are profiting from a lie, at least to some degree.
>>
>>9409065
>As the oceans warm, dissolved CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere
This statement disproves your original statement, brainlet.
>there's a mechanism by which CO2 leads to temperature changes but, SFAIK, no mechanism which works the other way.
>>
>>9411531
Yeah good luck with that, if climate change is real we are all doomed already as we were continuously told by climate scientists that we passed the point of no return years ago. Also you need a better argument then simply
>Trump an idiots and we're not
to prove that CC is real to begin with.
>>
>>9412186
Why the faggotry?
>>
>>9414080
Why the islamophobia?
>>
File: 1510210435138.jpg (109 KB, 588x823)
109 KB JPG
>>9408854
No. All the scientists are lying. Making things up to steal money from hardworking taxpayers to make funny videos of shrimp running on treadmills.
>>
>>9414098
They are looking to get funding and keep their jobs in most instances. The majority of the 10,000 scientists listed with IPCC were doing random studies like "what is the impact of global warming on squirrel populations". Someone who want to study squirrels would approach their government and receive funding so long as they attempted to show that GW/CC was responsible for "whatever envionmental damage", which in their minds seemed plausible since they aren't climatologists. But, climatology as a science doesn't even exist yet in terms of long term forecasts. The best they can do is a week max, so all this talk about how the climate will look years from now is a joke.
>>
File: 1515089208345.jpg (192 KB, 1520x834)
192 KB JPG
Let's just wait until 2050. If the earth is not a desert then then we will know that global warming was wrong.
>>
>>9414202
No
>>
File: sciPepe.png (318 KB, 447x380)
318 KB PNG
this so called climate change is a result of the increased industrialization around the world; all the metal and electricity is causing the monopoles of the earth to expand
>>
>>9411572
trade you by letting the old definition for "gay" be restored
>>
>>9414203
fairy tales is where we got "the sky is falling". At least in the fairy tale chicken little didn't advise spending trillions to keep it from falling
>>
>>9408869
>ozone layer
>>
File: Atmospheric CO2.jpg (64 KB, 1280x720)
64 KB JPG
>>9412900
>it has the effect of the warming we are currently seeing, which is quite large.
Begging the question

>This warming is linear because GHG emissions have been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has most definitely not gone up exponentially, not since about 1950.
Instead, it is close to linear. You are making the mistake of confusing anthropogenic production of CO2 with change
in Atmospheric CO2 concentration.
>>
>>9414770
>>9412900

>nb4 the whole graph is exponential
Not talking about the whole graph, the major increase in the production of CO2 correlated to the industrial revolution of about 1945. However that graph shows that atmospheric CO2 has increased only at a linear rate since about 1950.
>>
>>9408854
Global warming or global climate change?
On a somewhat related note, I feel like ocean acidification is underrepresented.
>>
>>9414770
>Begging the question
How the fuck is that begging the question? We can see the direct effect, so saying the effect is small because it's logarithmic is just misleading bullshit.

>The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has most definitely not gone up exponentially, not since about 1950.
First of all you're ignoring other GHGs. Second, you're still wrong. Your graph clearly shows an exponential curve. The Keeling curve accelerates from 1 ppm/year in 1959 to 2ppm/year. Do you understand how an exponential curve works?

>You are making the mistake of confusing anthropogenic production of CO2 with change in Atmospheric CO2 concentration.
No I'm not. Anthropogenic emissions determine currently the long term trend in atmospheric CO2 because it's the only net source over the long term.

>>9414779
>However that graph shows that atmospheric CO2 has increased only at a linear rate since about 1950.
You're blind.
>>
File: change in forcing.gif (14 KB, 550x367)
14 KB GIF
>>9414770
>Hurr durr it's not exponential because it looks linear
Moron, do you not realize exponential curves approach a linear slope? If CO2 concentration is doubling every 25 years, you get exactly the curve in your pic. And if it's not exponential, how is radiative forcing increasing linearly?
>>
>>9414991
It sure as fuck isn't linear, but to be fair its probably not exponential either, at least not in the strictest sense of the word.

For one thing population/emission growth isn't technically exponential. And secondly, sequestration by the biosphere isn't exactly known.
>>
>>9414999
It is clearly exponential.
>>
>>9408854
3*x>x**2 for all x, therefore...
>>
>>9415015
>>
>>9415015
ok, whatever... fuck off

that is even more disturbing, that happy little coincidence. you happy now?
>>
File: 1514068412949.webm (711 KB, 320x240)
711 KB WEBM
>>9408854
The Earth's atmosphere has recently been warming up on average for the most part. There is no direct proof that it's anthropogenically-caused. Faggots will reeee about a scientific consensus but there is no DIRECT PROOF, which is what the OP is asking. All other answers are wrong
>>
>>9415033
What does "direct proof" mean and where did OP ask for it?
>>
>>9415033
I got to the unicycle level on that (level 11?) without game genie, and without any of the portals

I still remember almost every level... brings me back.
>>
>>9411572
What are faggots like you even doing on this site? Did you forget where you're at?
>>
>>9415066
>faggots
Why the homophobia?
>>
>>9415033
I suppose we could attribute this warming to fairy's and leprechauns farting CO2 into the atmosphere.
>>
>>9415040
>What does "direct proof" mean
Definitive evidence
>when did OP ask for it
In the OP, dipshit
>>
>>9415091
Fairy is what?

>>9415041
Lying bitch, no one beat turbo tunnel
>>
>>9415215
>Definitive evidence
>>
>>9415789
No one believes this fake science anymore. Scientists these days alter data to suit their political viewpoints and goals.
>>
>>9414206
are you just meming or do have an actual legitimately sourced argument to go along with this? If you do post it. Don't have me chasing you up for things that you should be actively bringing to the table, you fucking dipshit.
>>
>>9414202
Your line of thinking is a joke.
>>
>>9415033
See
>>9412210
>>
>>9416736
Where is the definitive evidence of this conspiracy?
>>
>>9416736
Go look up a book called "The death of expertise"
>>
>>9416738
>are you just meming or do have an actual legitimately sourced argument to go along with this?
Meamwhile you have no legitimate argument to back up what you say .
>>
>>9416748
>23andme adding 3% sub-saharan Africa to everyones results
>race does not exist
>race is a social construct
>there are more than two genders
>there's no difference between the brains of men and women
I could go on and on, but these are ones which are most obviously false and reveal the way in which academic research can be dragged in any direction simply by political pressure.
>>
File: 1515194851321.png (50 KB, 645x729)
50 KB PNG
>>9416770
>23andme adding 3% sub-saharan Africa to everyones results
>>
>>9416741
>>9416752
I know I'm probably arguing with two 14 year olds (or maybe just one) and you either weren't alive or don't remember what was going on back in the early 2000s when this debate was raging, but those of us that do recall that nearly all the research that was being done at the time was being done to assess the effects of climate change and the funding for this was coming from agencies with a vested interest in proving that GW was in fact real. This in itself creates a conflict of interest and virtually disproves the whole project, especially since the solution to GW is and was taxation i.e. it is a huge cash cow.
>>
>>9416770
>>23andme adding 3% sub-saharan Africa to everyones results
Thats not a conspiracy but a demonstrable fact or nearly so
>>race does not exist
Define race in purely genetic terms Pro tip, you cant
>>race is a social construct
Aspects of race are a social construct but who the hell is making these blunt claims the way you say they are? Seems like a straw man
>>there are more than two genders
Gender typically refers to the way we think of the chracteristics of men and women not biology, so more accurately thier are no genders
>>there's no difference between the brains of men and women
Again, whok makes this claim? Seriously? Many people have defended transgender people by stating that the brains of some biological men who are transgender are more similiar to what wed see in a typical womans brain. There are diffrences, they just dont justify your viewpoints so you ignore the things that dont support your narrative.

Go back to
>>>/pol/
>>
>>9416787
*0.3%
Either way, whether it is .3% or 3 it is clear that companies like this are happy to falsify scientific results for political reasons. And you didn't even touch the rest of my examples, just post that shit meme, which says a lot about you and your argument I think.
>>
>>9416789
Thats an entirely flawed arguemnt, provide some form of evidence for your claims.
>>
>>9416800
Where is your proof that 23andme is lying?
>>
>>9409065
>A reasonable question. Correlation is not causation.
That's not what >>9409025 is asking. Nice dodging
>>
>>9416797
>Thats not a conspiracy but a demonstrable fact or nearly so
I'm confused as to what you are saying here. Are you saying that it is demonstrably true that everyone has .3% admixture or what?
I'm not a geneticist but you asking me to define race on those terms is kind of my point. It is obvious that there are different races on the planet and that there are differences between those races, but if you weren't such a newfag you would know that literally everyone was preaching against the idea of race in favour of it being a social construct several years back. This in itself shows how science can be manipulated by and for political ends and if you don't understand this then you are either disingenuous or a complete retard. Either way you have no business being on this board
>>>/mlp/
>>
>>9415218
>Lying bitch, no one beat turbo tunnel

That level wasn't too hard, actually. Its the ones after that that take all your lives. Especially the space ship one, and swimming one with the vacuums, gears and sharks.

The trick is to stock up on lives in the bird hole (level 2), by continually kicking them up against the wall on your way down.
>>
>>9416770
>Gets list of tinfoil /pol/tard memes
>>
>>9415218
sorry spaceship level should be flying level (level 7)
>>
>>9416802
This has got to be a troll.
>>9416807
Think about what you are saying? How can everyone of European decent have .3% Subsaharan African DNA? It is a little too neat don't you think?
>>
>>9416827
So youre telling me that you have so little of an understanding of genetics that you dont even know how to respond yet at the same time you sight it as evidence toward one of your claims? Youre a mongoloid and you clearly dont belong on a science and math board. Try a board more approprtaite for someone like yourself rather than continuing to sound like a fucking retard.
>>
>>9416838
No, its not a troll, you made significant number of assertions as if they were fact when they are not. If you want to claim s9mething as true you need to provide evidence for the claim.
>>
>>9416833
>>9416807
>>
>>9415218
>>
>>9416838
No, at that scale its perfectly reasonable, they also have a similarily exact margin for how similiar any given persons dna is to that of a bananana. Do you also think that are genetic similarity to them is false? You clearly havent put much thought into this.
>>
>>9416818
>>
>>9416843
Holy shit, an attempt at actual evidence, I figured that was beyond you.
>>
>>9416840
>>9416842
I don't think either of you clearly understand my argument. It isn't about knowing genetics or any other field. The point I am making is that people can and do claim that science is on their side when making political arguments and scientists themselves who share those biases go out and find results which match those biases. It is well known and well understood and arguing against it just makes you look like idiots.
>>9416848
Look, it is right there.
>>9416843
>>
>>9416843
>>9416855
Did you just read the name of the link or actually the content?
>>
>>9416855
Not only were the claims unvetted, but they are only alleged to have affected a sum total of two customers. The items referenced 23AndMe specifically, but the source material only claimed the person worked for “one of the major ancestry testing companies.”

Both Ancestry.com and 23AndMe firmly denied any such action occurred at their respective testing facilities.

Whats your point? That article specifiacally stares the claim is false. Did you vene read the article or what is your point?
>>
>>9416857
Are they falsifying the results or not?
>>
File: dna_testing.png (30 KB, 863x402)
30 KB PNG
>>9416862
You tell me.
>>
>>9416862
According to the article, all the research they have done would indicate that they are not changing results.
>>
>>9416843
So your definitive evidence that global warming is fake is an interview on Cracked.com where someone claims they worked for 23andMe and added "<1 percent African" to someone's results?

Jesus Christ you people are delusional hypocrites.
>>
File: 001.jpg (48 KB, 600x467)
48 KB JPG
>>9416855
>All climatologists are lying because some guy at a genetic testing company claims to have pranked two people
>>
>>9416892
You clearly can't trust scientists when there's politics involved! Just trust your favorite politician instead.
>>
File: 1484253682473.jpg (160 KB, 792x653)
160 KB JPG
Hey OP, just a quick advice.

If you're in a climate change thread, ignore everything related to /pol/. You'll just waste your brain cells.

Pic related.
>>
>>9416869
>>9416881
There was evidence of falsifying climate data in 2009 from an email hack. This was a big deal back then;
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/ipcc-climate-report-wildlife-impact
I'm not sure how I can prove that the IPCC funds and publishes scientific data about wildlife that fits its agenda without that merely seeming completely superfluous or self-evident. So, I'm not really sure what you are asking or what you would constitute as proof, in this regard. But if you are contesting the fact that these studies are carried out here's something;
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/ipcc-climate-report-wildlife-impact
Also I don't know how I can prove that confirmation bias is a thing and I'm not sure I have to;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
The point I'm making is that science and politics are interlinked at this time and anyone arguing otherwise is a moron.

>>9416892
I think you've missed the thread of the argument. Don't worry it happens from time to time.
>>
>>9416938
the first link here was copied wrong
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
>>
>>9416846
What a boring, retarded level
>>
Science costs money, money is given to scientists via politics. Whether its at the local, state, or national level, your funding as a researcher comes from somebody else, and it is their bidding you have to do to get it. If you are not delivering what is expected and desired by the institution, you no longer get paid. If your results are unsatisfactory or even worse, contradictory, you are no longer getting paid.

Climate research is not creating new technology, it is not saving lives, it is not groundbreaking, or the foundation of something greater. It literally exists to sell itself. You are an absolute fool if you think politics doesn't have a hand here, and in many other areas of academics.
>>
>>9416978
>If your results are unsatisfactory or even worse, contradictory, you are no longer getting paid.
Thats bullshit though, retard.
>>
>>9416938
>There was evidence of falsifying climate data in 2009 from an email hack.
No there wasn't, just a few quotes taken out of context and then grossly misrepresented by deniers:

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/climategate

>The point I'm making is that science and politics are interlinked at this time and anyone arguing otherwise is a moron.
Denial of AGW is politically motivated, so I guess you must reject that as well? Either reject all science funded by governments and go live in a cave, or provide evidence that climatology is corrupt. Your "argument" can essentially be applied to any facts anyone wants to deny, without any effort made to actually convince anyone that they're wrong.
>>
>>9416977
ya - the other ones were good. its a pretty hard one though. youtube guy makes it look easy. that damn ball thing took all 5 of my lives the one time I got to that level.
>>
>>9408854
Explain to me again why Chinese and Indian pollution doesn't count? They got them a separate atmosphere? Big glass dome or something?
>>
>>9417429
No one claims that it doesnt. Not a very good strawman.
>>
>>9408854
>Don't ever visit this board, but thought this was the best place to post
It must be nice being a brainlet who makes decisions without evidence.
>>
>>9417088
>Denial of AGW is politically motivated
You have just proved my point. Proponents of GW have for years stated that all anti-GW claims were funded by Big Oil companies. None of you screamed for hard evidence of this, you just take it as a given.
The fact that you can on the one hand easily accept that conspiracies are afoot in your opponents team and then deny furiously any accusation of conspiracy on your own side is further evidence of your lack of objectivity on this stance and why your opinion can't be trusted.
It also proves that science can come to different conclusions based on which side of the fence you are on, which means that the viewpoint that wins out in this debate is simply the one that can scream the loudest (not very scientific, imo). Perhaps we should debate the actual research...
Need I remind you that GW was popularised as a debate by Al Gore, who is (.... drum roll) a politician. Not a scientist, not a climatologists, a fucking politician.
>>
>>9418100
>Proponents of GW have for years stated that all anti-GW claims were funded by Big Oil companies
Strawman.

>The fact that you can on the one hand easily accept that conspiracies are afoot in your opponents team
It's not a conspiracy that Big Oil companies fund lobbyists and think tanks that deny AGW. It's simply a fact. But no one has ever said ALL denial is funded by Big Oil. Why do you have to resort to constant lying and misrepresentation to make your case?

>It also proves that science can come to different conclusions based on which side of the fence you are on
You have not presented any science, just posited a conspiracy with zero evidence. It's quite pathetic.

>Perhaps we should debate the actual research...
The moment I tried to discuss scientific research you claimed it couldn't be trusted because it came from scientists.

>Need I remind you that GW was popularised as a debate by Al Gore, who is (.... drum roll) a politician. Not a scientist, not a climatologists, a fucking politician.
And? What the fuck are you even trying to say here?
>>
>>9418275
He's not saying anything, he's just dumb.
>>
>>9414991
>Moron, do you not realize exponential curves approach a linear slope? If CO2 concentration is doubling every 25 years, you get exactly the curve in your pic. And if it's not exponential, how is radiative forcing increasing linearly?

Dumb shit. Did you ever take calculus? The derivative of an exponential is an exponential! That means it NEVER approaches linear. Instead it moves farther and farther from linear.

Now lets look at the actual graph here:
>>9414779
A linear function will show the same amount of change in two intervals of the same length.
Compare 1950 to 1977 and 1977 to 2004; 27 year intervals.
Rise of total emissions in the first interval: 3400 million metric tons
Rise of total emissions in the second interval: 3200 million metric tons

Almost exactly linear. Go back to middle school algebra.

>>9415015
Idiot. I said 1950, not 1880! The rate of increase in the past 27 years is actually a bit less that the previous 27 years. That's NOT exponential.

Sorry that SimpletonPseudoScience gave you a bogus argument.
>>
>>9415015
>>9414981

>He said 1950!, because I referred to the industrial revolution which started in about 1945. But I'm just going to ignore that because that fact makes me look stupid so I'll draw a graph that starts in 1800.

Clearly your strawman argument shows that you've gone to the John Cook school of Fallacies to Help Gore Get Even Richer.

And again, you are confusing change in Atmospheric CO2 concentration with anthropogenic CO2 (and other GHGs) flux. The change in anthropogenic CO2 (and other GHGs) flux as shown here
>>9414779
is clearly linear for more than 50 years. That means that a linear (or greater) temperature increase can not be explained by anthropogenic CO2 and other GHGs.
>>
>>9419894
>Dumb shit. Did you ever take calculus? The derivative of an exponential is an exponential!
You are dumb as fuck. I'm not talking about the limit of the function. What you are trying to do is "zoom in" on the data at a certain timescale and saying it's linear not exponential. But scaling an exponential function that way just makes it look more linear.

>Almost exactly linear.
So by your own logic, it's not linear, thanks. Only looking at two arbitrary intervals proves nothing you massive tard.

>Idiot. I said 1950, not 1880!
Idiot, that graph has the interval you are talking about perfectly well modeled. The fact that you only want to look at one arbitrary interval does not even help your argument, since an exponential function models that interval fine.

>The rate of increase in the past 27 years is actually a bit less that the previous 27 years. That's NOT exponential.
And that change of rate is NOT linear either. You dumb fuck. Try being consistent. Of course any model will have some error compared to real data, the question is which model explains the data the best.

You are so fucking stupid, that not only can't you see the forest for the trees, you think a rock is a tree! Your original claim was that the effect of CO2 is negligible since it's logarithmic. This is both illogical and empirically false, as I've already shown you that radiative forcing from CO2 has increased linearly >>9414991. So the entire time you spent arguing that CO2 has only increased linearly from some arbitrary date is a complete waste of time, since the actual effect is linear.
>>
>>9419919
>And again, you are confusing change in Atmospheric CO2 concentration with anthropogenic CO2 (and other GHGs) flux.
So you can't read. >>9415015 is atmospheric CO2.

>is clearly linear for more than 50 years.
You just said that it's not linear, since the change was not constant over two intervals of equal length. Thanks for playing.
>>
>>9419919
>That means that a linear (or greater) temperature increase can not be explained by anthropogenic CO2 and other GHGs.
Wrong.
>>
>>9419919
>>9420780
Source of model: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2014/2014_Miller_mi08910y_corrected.pdf

Delete Post: [File Only] Style: