/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9347400
>Science is observable, testable and repeatable. Climate change falls under none of these categories.
This alone just shows how you are not arguing from a position of good standing, you're just regurgitating whatever the parrots in your partisan bubble themselves parrot from articles in breitbart or shitty climate denier blogs. If you actually, unironically believe that climate science is not testable or observable, you have your head so far up your own ass there's no point in continuing this conversation, because that's one of the most incorrect things you've said in this entire thread.
It's absolutely astounding the level of cognitive dissonance we're witnessing here. You're so profoundly ignorant and you actually believe that your inane ramblings are correct.

Pro-tip, if you're going to disparage an entire scientific field with no hmmm. evidence to back up your arguments, you will never win.

>What's the objective difference between the atmosphere and weather?
Jesus Christ, it just gets worse and worse. There's NO ONE to blame but yourself for being so goddamn ignorant about the basic scientific concepts related to climate change. Fucking educate yourself before you shitpost here again you illiterate pleb. Read a text book on climate science, read some scientific literature, do ANYTHING that will maybe help you be any less of a retarded fuck.

What I find so hilarious about you climate change deniers is how you hold climate science to such a high standard, yet you don't have ANY standards for climate contrarian """science.""" You just automatically believe an entire field of study is inaccurate and not following the scientific method, while simultaneously propping up all the contrarian non-climate science ramblings that aren't based in evidence or observations as legitimate.

>>8961148
>Posts the maximum extent (which is still a historically low extent)
>Fails to mention the drastic loss in arctic ice thickness
>Fails to mention the drastic reduction in multi-year ice
>Fails to mention that less ice in summer means increased water temps (because water absorbs more energy than ice, thus warming the arctic more), meaning more ice melt in summer.

There's always going to be arctic sea ice in winter because it's pretty much going to get cold enough for sea ice to form in the arctic even with a 2°C+ average global temperature increase, thus this really means nothing. What's important is that in summer the amount of sea ice present has rapidly decreased each year and the oldest, multi-year sea-ice has declined drastically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0rp6-BEur8

>>8765698
But we're already doing that, kinda. Look at the pacific / atlantic garbage gyres.

>>8765669
Yes, and the most important thing about sea ice loss is the loss of multi-year thick sea ice. pic related.

>>8765674
I think there's a lot of speculation to be had about the clathrate hypothesis. There definitely needs to be a lot more research on the subject, because if it can occur, we could be dealing with rapid climate change to the point of mass extinctions globally.

http://74.91.188.122/earths-climate/ewExternalFiles/Shakhova%202010.pdf
>Here, we show that
more than 5000 at-sea observations of dissolved methane demonstrates that greater than 80% of
ESAS bottom waters and greater than 50% of surface waters are supersaturated with methane
regarding to the atmosphere

So there's not just methane in clathrates, it;s dissolved in arctic waters as well, and as they warm more of it will escape.

>>8748160

As for paleoclimate data, I love how denialists love to harp on about paleoclimate. I thought all climate scientists were involved in a conspiracy to commit data fraud, and produce inaccurate models of climate? Wouldn't paleoclimatologists be included in that conspiracy? It's funny how they trust the paleoclimate data 100% despite the analysis and collection of that data all being done by the same Earth scientists that collaborate with the climate modelers studying today's data.

Anyways, onto the second chart showing phanerozoic climate change.
He talks about the ice cap melting being not a big deal, and how glaciations and deglaciations have happened in the past. No fucking shit, but human civilization didn't exist on coastal zones at that time, there weren't cities and ports and agriculture in those coastal regions, there wasn't 70% of the human population within 120 miles of the coast at that time.

Second, the rate of sea ice decline is unprecedented, meltwater from sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets in greenland has the potential to shut down ocean circulation, something that has happened in the past during warm periods. This is something that will have a massive impact on the Atlantic ocean, and could lead to superstorm systems that toss fucking boulders off the sea floor like you can find in the Bahamas.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6292/1377
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183

The oldest ice, the multi-season ice is practically all gone by now. We still have sea ice every year and likely will for decades, but every year the extent is less and less, and during the summer months without as much sea ice, glaciers in Greenland melt and retreat faster, decreasing the volume of the Greenland ice sheet faster.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/