/sci/ - Science & Math

>fox news

>>10090820
>fox news

>fox news

>>10090820
>fox news

Forget the climate models, what about ice core data and isotopic evidence and stuff? And if this guy is the director of some major institute why doesn't he just publish some contradictory science in reputable journals and change the academic landscape instead of selling books to laymen?

>f-fox news

JUST

>>10090894
>>10090858
>>10090843
>>10090835
>>10090833
>attacking the source instead of the argument

you are no better than the source you are claiming is bad

>>10090820
The climate is changing just like it has always been and human civilization definitely has an impact. However, is there enough evidence to show that we are headed down a path of total environmental disaster? It seems that the predictions coming from the global warming/climate change community are very sensationalist and never amount to anything really.

Can we even definitively say what the climate was like 100 million years ago let alone know the temperature within 10 degrees C? We are able to monitor everything about the global climate today because we have advanced substantially and satellites designed to track the climate (atmospheric conditions, ocean temperatures, etc) are very reliable but we have only had these for a few decades. Should we completely undo the world economy and our society because of some trends we could extrapolate based on data we collected using satellites and other advanced methods compared to data we think represents the climate of millions or hundreds of millions of years ago when humans didn't even exist.

My point is there are too many unknowns to panic over climate change and the concept of climate change is so large that even if we were able to completely reverse "climate change" it could feasibly have a larger impact on our environment and backfire. No one is going to be able to fix these issues other than human beings, if we shoot ourselves in the feet because we panicked we ensure our own extinction.

>>10090820
>some old guy

>cato institute
L0L
L3L

>>10090907
>The climate is changing just like it has always been and human civilization definitely has an impact.
Stopped reading there. Take your bullshit pseudo-science and shove it up your ass, fucking leftist.

>>10090820
>fox news

>>10090901
it's a meme you dip

>>10090820
>surface temperatures
Um.

>>10090901
My Uni was made a polling station today. Went in this morning and all the republican signs were sandwiched between Democrat signs, by the time I left in the afternoon there were only democratic signs left.
There are people out there with no idea why they're manipulating blocks of numbers (matrices) aside from the prof told them to and they want to vote.

>we had very good data in the 20s
actually we didn't, all this parameterizing goes on because our historical data isn't perfect that's why there's so many different models saying so many different things
That's also why there's next level statistics employed in climate science.

>>10090923
Maybe you shouldn't have because I'm actually being very critical of climate change but the term is so ambiguous denying that the climate is changing would be like denying that there are seasons.

You're absolute toxic cancer and you're why no one takes people who are critical of climate change seriously.

>>10090939
When people colloquially say "climate change" they usually mean "anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change".

>>10090901
>you are no better than the source you are claiming is bad

tbqh i'd watch a show called Liberal Fascism before i'd watch Foxnews

>>10090944
Retards who barely passed algebra 2 and high school biology are the only ones who think that

>>10090939
You call me cancer while you have the nerve to spout your bullshit pseudo science?
>the climate is changing like it always has
Isn't that statement based on geoscience (bullshit pseudo science)? screw you buddy

>>10090961
Well it's useful to make the distinction between pre-industrial climate change and anthropogenic or recent (1800s+) climate change. Because when we talk about pre-industrial climate we could be talking about millions of years ago.

>>10090923
>>10090963
I like this tactic.

>>10090988
Thanks. Trolling is an art.

>>10090963
How is it psuedoscience? Climate change is something that has always happened and will always happen and as long as humans are on this planet we will contribute to it in some way.

The climate will always be changing and no matter what we try to do we will never stop that.

>>10090995

>>10090993
>Trolling is an art.
>>>/ic/

>>10090820
WHAT HAVE I BEEN TELLING YOU, YOU FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE DOOMSDAY AUTISTS.

>>10090820
Ok. I swear to God I will figure all this out and convey the whole fact of the matter to the public. Stay in tuned for a YouTube channel or something in the coming years. As a word of caution I strongly believe in AGW but I'll try to be non-partisan. I'm just (supposed to be) super busy right now. I won't let you down.

>>10091023
>t. desperate climate "scientist"

>>10090820
>Russians don't use parameters
>never show the model which works
>ignore the very real upwards trend
>create a partisan narrative

What a feast for an intellectual audience

>>10091034
just a college drop out actually now I'm a codemonkey
my major was environmental science, I only had one more year to go, so after I go back and finish my degree and whatnot I'm gonna school all you right wingers

>>10090820
>warming of 1 degree in 100 years is not a lot
The fastest global warming in the past 600,000 years is interglacial warming of 5-7 degrees over 5000 years. So we are currently experiencing warming an order of magnitude faster than the warning that took us out of glacial periods. It makes me wonder what exactly Patrick describe as "a lot."

>there were only two periods of warming
Warming has been consistent and exponentially increasing since the industrial revolution. Patrick is perversely attempting to use El Ninos as a "stopping point" for warming when ignoring them gives you an exponential warming trend.

>the stratosphere is not warming
It is warming, he's just averaging unhomogenized data sets that don't agree with each other and outdated satellite records that have been massively corrected since 2015

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta

I'm not going to watch the rest as its a waste of time. Patrick is throwing out a barrage of lies. Who exactly is the shill?

>>10091042
>I'm gonna school all you right wingers
Cringe.

>>10091048
>Climate change shills in full panic mode

>>10090995
>My body is always gaining and burning fat and as long as I'm eating I will always contribute to this in some way.
>My weight will always be changing and no matter what I do I will never stop that.
>Therefore overeating and massive obesity are not worth doing anything about.
This is your brain on Fox News

>>10091048
That’s gonna be a yikes from me dawg

>>10091075
>the models are right!1!11!!

>>10091048
actually the stratosphere is cooling as the troposphere warms. I know physics is hard for you carbon tax shills, but if you should at least try to understand the science before spouting off.

>>10091093
by what mechanism?

>>10091107
its complicated.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/why-does-the-stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/

>>10091093
I meant to write troposphere. But good job refuting none of what I said.

>>10091123
you said the stratosphere was not cooling. I refuted that. stop lying.

not my fault you said the stratosphere was not cooling because you "meant to write troposphere".

don't get nasty now, just admit your mistake and move on.

>>10091115
anyway surface temperature is what really matters when it comes to climate chanr right?

>>10091115
>realclimate dot org
You can fuck right off with that.

>>10091131
>anyway surface temperature is what really matters when it comes to climate chanr right?
wrong. again. changes in weather patterns are affected by changes in temperatures above the surface.

>>10091134
then google it yourself. its a known fact that stratosphere temperature decreases as a result of ghg increase. multiple sources if you don't like that one.

>>10091141
>climate
>weather
most basic mistake possible

So why exactly is global warming even bad? Sacrificing some polar bears to drown California seems worth it

>>10091130
>I refuted a typo, victory!
Again, you refuted nothing that I said.

>>10091159
You wouldn't even drown California tho unlike Florida the coast is relatively steep and unless the weather changes dramatically it will just get hotter and sunnier not wetter.

>>10091162
Please prove that what you typed (and I easily refuted) was a true typo, and not just you claiming it was a typo to avoid looking like an idiot. please show me where in this thread I proclaimed victory? stop with the lies already.

>>10091164
>hotter and sunnier
and this is a bad thing?

>>10091173
>Please prove that what you typed (and I easily refuted) was a true typo

1. I was paraphrasing what Patrick was saying. He said the troposhere isn't warming, not the stratosphere.

2. I refuted the graph he posted which shows tropospheric temperature

3. I posted an article which shows the tropospheric hotspot.

Anytime you would like to refute anything I've said is great. Otherwise, I'll just assume you agree.

>>10090820
>"only" 0.9C (it's actually over 1C already)
>muh models
>on and on about the models
>CO2 is insignificant
Classic denialtard rhetoric to distract from the temperature measurement evidence and the lines of evidence that justify the conclusion of anthropogenic causes.

>>10090919
genetic fallacy

The Truth About Climate Change
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1309.0069

The holocaust never happened, but it should have. A 1000 year Reich would be able to exert the centralized authority and control over society to effectively control the climate, whatever the influence of CO2 or various other gasses. At this point, all we can do is argue and debate while the timer (presumably) runs out.

>>10091196
And... don't you also need to point out where I proclaimed "victory" (which I did not, and you claimed I did)? Anytime you'd like to stop lying that would be great.

>>10091196
should probably also mention that i never even watch OP's link. waste of time / effort ... no point when you're not paid to argue with climate deniers.

>fox news

why is this thread still going?

>>10091449
because I just bumped it.
suck it.

>>10091432
>>10091445
So you agree, great. Now fuck off since you literally have nothing to say.

The earth is a gravitational mass in space, which has had an good mixture of gasses surrounding it tjat have given life a possibility to evolve. Humans are now changing that mixture of gasses by pumping CO2 and other gasses from the ground via the industry. This causes earth to not be as habitable as before.

>>10090820
>Fox News interviews a Cato Institute spokesperson.
Oh boy, that's not biased at all.

>Climate Change. Global Warming. Global Cooling. We've heard it all.
And we're off to a really good start.

>+0.9F over 100 years is not al lot
Horseshit. That's absurdly fast in comparison to past climate changes.

>Global warming ends in the late 1990's
Are they seriously still pulling the "draw a line from 1998" crap?

>About half of that +0.9F is caused by greenhouse gasses
Where is this even coming from? We can directly measure the radiative forcing components, we KNOW that the rise in temperature is near-entirely due to the greenhouse effect.

>The computer models are making systematic, dramatic errors.
If I had a dollar for every time a denier cries "the models are wrong!", when they can't name which model they're objecting to or what's wrong with it.

>Let me ask you something: who does these computer models?
>Goverments!
That's not at all a politically motivated response. Let's not worry about the distinction between politicians and the research they fund, or that the models come from a bunch of different countries with different goals and motives.

>Shows the Christy mid-troposphere graph.
That thing's been dunked so many times it's embarrassing to see it on /sci/. What the fuck is a "news" agency doing showing it? Also, you were talking about surface temperature predictions 10 seconds ago, not mid-troposphere.

>Russia!!!
What the actual fuck?

I'm 4:20 in an I feel like I've wandered into an entirely fake reality. People watch this shit for information?

>>10091749
>If I had a dollar for every time a denier cries "the models are wrong!", when they can't name which model they're objecting to or what's wrong with it.
Fucking brainlet, slave to fucking "tuned" models. He said 31 of them are fudging the numbers which is painfully obvious when you look at the graphs changing year to year.

>>10091846
>He said 31 of them are fudging the numbers which is painfully obvious when you look at the graphs changing year to year.
Fudging the numbers how, exactly? Updating your predictions regularly is normal, and the old predictions don't disappear.

>>10091855
>Fudging the numbers how, exactly?
By being tuned to show warming that doesn't exist.

>>10090907
12 years to the cliff
and you're still masturbating in the corner
kys

>>10091749
you're so fucking dumb it hurts nigga

Use DuckDuckGo (not Google) to research: MacLean HadCRUT4 audit, Climate Gate and the hacked 2009 East Anglia University emails (data adjustments and extremely discriminatory cherrypicking of proxy data), the newer set soon to be released from University of Arizona, what Ottmar Edenhofer said about the IPCC's role vis a vis science/politics, how 14C decays into Nitrogen and decreases in the ratio of 13C have happened during periods of warming before man (13C depletion is not unique to anthropogenic CO2 so the Suess effect is not a good measure of anthro-CO2), hundreds of thousands of kilometers of active submarine subduction zones that spawn potentially millions of unknown active undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents heating the ocean water and releasing gases, pre-1979 arctic ice cover charts, CO2 logarithmic forcing MODTRAN charts, GISP/Vostok/Antarctica ice cores and sediment proxies showing it's been hotter in the past without that heat triggering additional warming, similar proxies show that in the much more distant past, atmospheric CO2 was much higher (>1000ppm) without triggering the immediate warming you'd expect if CO2 is causing what we see today, global sea level rise myth - land subsidence happens and local sea levels fluctuate, but rapid SLR has not happened even though we are at a low point in the polar ice cycle (see again pre-sat charts of ice extent), younger dryas cooling event, minoan warm period, roman warm period, medieval warm period, little ice age...

I could go on... There are more valid points of contention with this theory than luminiferous aether. The point is Rajendra Pachauri Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, the rest of the IPCC and especially Al Gore are a bunch of parasitic lying shills bent on world communism.

>>10091855
First read the hacked emails from University of East Anglia:
https://archive.org/details/ClimategateEmails/page/n0
Then pay the 8 bucks and read the HadCRUT 4 audit.
https://robert-boyle-publishing.com/product/audit-of-the-hadcrut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/

Don't read some faggot blogger or communist mouthpiece's opinion on these, read them for yourself. Then come back and tell me again about how they don't fuck with the numbers.

>>10090882
>director of some major institute
Cato Institute. It's a libertarian "think-tank" funded by the Koch brothers, big capitalism.

>>10091939
another genetic fallacy - peer review and scientific publishing are a morass of circle-jerking and nepotism. And that's not even getting into the reproducibility crisis:

>>10091868
>By being tuned to show warming that doesn't exist.
But model predictions DO line up with observed trends.

>>10091909
>First read the hacked emails from University of East Anglia:
Jesus Christ, this shit is still alive?
If you search through a large enough pile of private corespondance, you're garunteed to find something that can be taken out-of-context to sound fishy. Not only has there been multiple investigations that cleared the CRU of any wrongdoing, but people have been scrutinising those emails for years - if there was something fishy in there it would have turned up by now.

>HadCRUT 4 audit.
From what I've heard that's pretty boring to non-climatolgoists.
From what I understand: The datasets used in Climatology are made by piecing together large numbers of different records, collected by different groups for different reasons. Obviously those records have incompatible formats, and so data-quality issues are very common. However, so long as there's no systematic bias from the errors they're going to be too small to influence the big picture.

>>10091957
>another genetic fallacy - peer review and scientific publishing are a morass of circle-jerking and nepotism.
And you think a literal propaganda mill is a better source than peer-reviewed journals?

Scientists have to publish to eat. If you want to study moths or soil or something, good luck getting government grants or publishing. But if research how climate change affects moths or soil, there you go!

Do you guys think Dan is just making stuff up about the reactions of the scientists at the poles when he says they laughed about his global warming concerns and told him it was bullshit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0sY2tjmr_Y

>>10091967
The IPCC is also a literal propaganda mill. Ottmar Edenhofer said as much.

>>10091967
Have you read through the hacked emails or the HadCRUT4 audit yourself? Or are you just testing the latest rhetorical update to your programming?

>>10091967
>But model predictions DO line up with observed trends.
Keep telling yourself that, buddy.

>>10091900
(1/2)

>MacLean HadCRUT4 audit
It's too early to see if that amounts to anything. Data quality issues aren't inherently anything to panic over.

>Climate Gate and the hacked 2009 East Anglia University emails
Nothing substantial has come out of that, either from official investigations or public scrutiny. The word "trick" has more than one definition.

>what Ottmar Edenhofer said about the IPCC's role vis a vis science/politics,
Quote-mining from an automatic translation of a speech is dishonest as fuck. If you look at the context it's clear what he's actually talking about: that by requesting developing nations to not take advantage opf their fossil fuel; reserves in the same way developed nations have, we're putting them at an economic disadvantage. The only way to get them to agree to something like that would be for developed nations to accept more of the economic burden of developing non-fossil-fuel energy.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227&xid=17259,15700021,15700124,15700149,15700186,15700190,15700201,15700214,15700230&usg=ALkJrhiE8aB6N6HgZW2bWtjhYr2PC3VE_Q

>how 14C decays into Nitrogen and decreases in the ratio of 13C have happened during periods of warming before man
The decay of 14C is a core assumption of the Suess effect.
I'm not aware of all the events that drive 13C-depeletion, but aren't they still going to be running on a much slower timescale than human activity?

>hundreds of thousands of kilometers of active submarine subduction zones that spawn potentially millions of unknown active undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents heating the ocean water and releasing gases
That sounds irrelevant - I highly doubt volcanic emissions is calculated by counting volcanos. And even if our estimates of volcanic CO2 was off by a factor of ten it'd still be tiny.

>>10091900
(2/2)

>pre-1979 arctic ice cover charts
What about them?

>CO2 logarithmic forcing MODTRAN charts
So what? That's well known to climatologists, and any predictions will already take that into account.

>GISP/Vostok/Antarctica ice cores and sediment proxies showing it's been hotter in the past without that heat triggering additional warming
What? Feedback effects aren't new - what makes you think otherwise?

>similar proxies show that in the much more distant past, atmospheric CO2 was much higher (>1000ppm) without triggering the immediate warming you'd expect if CO2 is causing what we see today,
There are other factors you need to consider besides just CO2 levels, including things like solar intensity. Also we can directly measure the impact of CO2 on the current climate, there's no "if" there.

>global sea level rise myth - land subsidence happens and local sea levels fluctuate, but rapid SLR has not happened
Huh? Rapid sea level rise is happening RIGHT NOW.
These arguments of yours seem to be getting more and more like bald assertions.

>younger dryas cooling event, minoan warm period, roman warm period, medieval warm period, little ice age.
Those are local climate events, not global ones.

>I could go on..
I don't doubt that.

>The point is Rajendra Pachauri Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, the rest of the IPCC and especially Al Gore are a bunch of parasitic lying shills bent on world communism.
And you're a conspiracy theorist who recites assertions off wordpress blogs.

>>10091972
>The IPCC is also a literal propaganda mill.
The IPCC consolidates (and cites) the state of existing scientific research. Cato makes shit up for money - they're not even subtle about that.. The two organisations aren't remotely comparable.

>Ottmar Edenhofer said as much.
That quote is complete bullshit. Cutting sentences out of context to make the appear to say something else is sheer dishonesty.

>>10091974
>Have you read through the hacked emails
Yes. There's nothing remotely interesting in them - it's just academics complaining about each other.

>or the HadCRUT4 audit
Not yet. I'd also like to see what kinds of thoughts climatologists have on it - right now there's nothing but retarded blogs screeching. It would good to hear how this looks to people who actually work with that data.

>Or are you just testing the latest rhetorical update to your programming?
Says the person who still brings up Climategate.

>>10091977
>The Christy graph again
Seriously?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

>>10091226

>grug powerful
>grug make land hot
>nature weak, grug rule everything

>>10091226
>hasn't looked at it
>calls it evidence

>>10091048
>climate deniers are averaging data

>>10092013
>Cato makes shit up for money - they're not even subtle about that.. The two organisations aren't remotely comparable.
And climate activists are funded by Soros, Leftist foundations, the Russians and Chinese. We can trade ad hominems back and forth like this forever but do you see it adding to a discussion?
>That quote is complete bullshit. Cutting sentences out of context to make the appear to say something else is sheer dishonesty.
You can't say that the IPCC and the UN aren't pro-world-government: The UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, said that the best model for combating climate change is Chinese style communism.

>Yes. There's nothing remotely interesting in them - it's just academics complaining about each other.
Did we read the same emails? I see what they did as academic dishonesty at least, and more likely scientific fraud: https://archive.org/details/ClimategateEmails/page/n0

>Not yet.
So do so, then come back and tell me they didn't use fake and/or poorly curated data to draw poorly supported conclusions.

>Says the person who still brings up Climategate.
Obviously we disagree on the definition of academic rigor and dishonesty.

>Seriously?
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to the activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore. You might as well sell me a Perkins Coie dossier paid for by the Clinton foundation. You can have all the data you want, if you're massaging it to power an agenda, what are we supposed to be debating exactly? The science you say?

>>10090901
>my ass is a valid source, and if you attack it you're no better than my ass
we're talking science, not formal debate in a competition

>‘It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.’

>President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.

http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

>>10092033
>And climate activists are funded by Soros, Leftist foundations, the Russians and Chinese.
The IPCCs funding sources are public.
And asserting The Cato Institute and the IPCC are equivalently trustworthy is insane. One is a scientific body that's been split off from the World Metrological Organisation, and the other is a public advocacy group.

>You can't say that the IPCC and the UN aren't pro-world-government
What has the IPCC done that's remotely "pro-world-government"?

>The UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, said that the best model for combating climate change is Chinese style communism
Given the lying about Ottmar Edenhofer, I'm calling bullshit on that too. Do you have a source for that quote?

>I see what they did as academic dishonesty at least, and more likely scientific fraud
Then stop insisting "it's somewhere in the emails" and actually reference a specific piece of evidence for scientific misconduct.

>https://archive.org/details/ClimategateEmails/page/n0
Huh, I had assumed you were linking to a collection of the Climategate emails. Why the hell do you think I would trust some "interpretation" put out by an Australian anti-ETS group?

>RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to the activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore
It's blog run by a bunch of climatologists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
>RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain was hosted by Science Communications Network (and previously Environmental Media Services), and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, none of these organizations were in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor SCN nor EMS ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time.
I don't even know how you got to Al Gore

>>10092033
>Chinese style communism.
The chinese aren't even socialist anymore

>>10090820
>Life, Liberty and Levin
>Levin

>>10092028
>the retarded denier can't respond to a single argument so he removes context and makes one up

Climate change is a scientific fact and no amount of right wing fake news will change that.

>>10092222
this
quads BTFO rightards

>>10092222
This is the only language the poltard understands

This shouldn't be a multinational political issue, people should just go with what the reputable science says like they do for everything else. Do you think scientists haven't tried to consider everything? If the director of a major institute can't change the scientific consensus then he's probably just wrong. Science is done as a community with peer review at the heart of it, this is part of the reason the internet even exists.

Climate change is real but it's okay if nobody believes it because it will make Russia nice and warm.

>>10092246
The moment you try to argue with a poltard you've lost and he's won.

>fox

Facts don't care about your feelings, conservashits.

>>10092308
I'm talking about the sick dubz my man

>>10092316
Unfortunately those conservatives have total control of the entire US government and will continue to control the entire US government. Doesn't matter if their feelings conflict with the facts, they're the ones with the power. It doesn't even matter if most people vote against them, because the US is designed specifically so that a small minority can keep control of the government. So you can have a small number of delusional people whose beliefs are totally divorced from reality, and they'll still control everything.

>>10092441
Are you claiming Dr. Patrick Michaels is wrong?

>>10092529
See >>10091048

>>10090882
Vostok ice core samples.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

>>10091048
>Warming has been consistent and exponentially increasing since the industrial revolution.

yeah so have the use of digital thermometers and the increase of sample points around the world ranging into the most extreme of climates that are actually natural (or have become natural) to the area. These extremes get factored and averaged into an arbitrary perceived notion of "normal climate".
Can an one of you morons tell me what the optimal temperature of earth should be? The "optimal" amount of carbon? The "optimal" amount of trees and shrubbery? No all you know is "Carbon kills" despite the fact it's the very reason YOUR ASS is here in the first place.
"The Urban Heat Island effect" for instance is a natural occurring phenomena in places like Japan that is so conveniently forgotten about and simply passed of as an excuse for "global warming". No, It's the result of having light reflected/capacitized by the large amount of barren and flat objects such as buildings and cities. I remember earlier this year how you faggots moaned about something that happens every fucking year in Japan, where the fuck is the hot air supposed to go when a cold pacific ocean blocks it and a huge fucking landmass is pushing in more hot air into it?

>>10092847
>Can an one of you morons tell me what the optimal temperature of earth should be? The "optimal" amount of carbon? The "optimal" amount of trees and shrubbery?
somewhere between current levels and the levels around ~1800, probably. the optimal level would be "the level that efficiently sustains human civilization as it stands now". we know that lower levels are fine for us, and we know that higher levels will be disruptive.

>>10091900
>Use DuckDuckGo (not Google) to research:
4chan

try it. seriously.

>>10092942
>>Use DuckDuckGo (not Google) to research:
>4chan
>The NPC meme went viral
kek

>>10090820
>fox news
>some literal politican boomer talking about science

>>10092982
My point was that duckduckgo sensors 4chan results, while google does not, suggesting that his assertion (made on 4chan) that duckduckgo provides unbiased results regarding global warming is bullshit.

>>10092982
>>10092942
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_Database
Don't use duckduckgo it's snakeoil

>>10093020
What sensors?
>>10093026
You mean Gabriel Weinberg?

>>10093070
spelling mistake... I meant censor, as in censorship. I was surprised that duckduckgo omits 4chan for search results.

>>10091059
>eating =/= anthropogenic climate change
>human body =/= earth

Fallacious analogy is fallacious

>>10091059
That explains why Americans are so fat as well

>>10090963
>>10090939
>>10090961
>>10090944
Maybe they start calling it anthropogenic global warming. Since that's what you alarmists are actually talking about. But then your doomsday predictions never came true so you started calling it "climate change". So if someone is a "climate change denier" then they must be so stupid as to think the climate doesn't change.

>>10093194
>Distinction without a difference
Anytime you want to explain why the same logic doesn't apply is fine.

>not agreeing with a retarded "$olution" is denial

when are you alarmists going to admit you don't really know what the fuck is going on? there is one (1) proposed """""""solution"""""""" which is nothing but rent seeking behavior from academics

>>10093232
Trying too hard

>>10093319
The logic doesn't apply in every situation, you can't compare overeating to large scale pollution. Nice job feeding the deniers

>>10092847
https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

>Can an one of you morons tell me what the optimal temperature of earth should be? The "optimal" amount of carbon? The "optimal" amount of trees and shrubbery? No all you know is "Carbon kills" despite the fact it's the very reason YOUR ASS is here in the first place.
Can any of you fatshaming retards tell me what the optimal weight is? The "optimal" amount of body fat? The "optimal" amount of muscle and exercise? No all you know is "Fat kills" despite the fact it's the very reason YOUR ASS is here in the first place.

You're completely right, obesity is not a problem. My mistake.

>"The Urban Heat Island effect" for instance is a natural occurring phenomena in places like Japan that is so conveniently forgotten about and simply passed of as an excuse for "global warming".
So conveniently forgotten about that there's an entire research project designed to figure out if UHI affects the warming trend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

Hint: it has no effect on the warming trend.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

How many times are you going to repeat these long debunked memes that you know are false? Do you have any intellectual integrity?

>>10093352
>you can't compare overeating to large scale pollution.
Why not?

The argument is since X has always changed, we shouldn't worry about X changing now. This fallaciously conflates all forms of change. Even if small changes that occurred in the past are not worth worrying about now, this has no bearing on whether large, unprecedented changes are worrying.

>>10093373
No the argument is "X has changed and we can't be completely sure that it is changing now in a way that is inconsistent with the natural change." Only a fool would think that civilization doesn't impact our environment and climate (Dust Bowl) but only a bigger fool would jump to conclusions from data that is unverified and heavily extrapolated. If climate is changing in a way that requires immediate action we are fucked. If it is changing in a way that will fuck us 100 years from now then we will be fucked unless we have the technology to counter it. If you're so concerned with climate change then turn off your AC, don't drive, don't use plastics, don't buy from corporations that have large carbon footprints, etc otherwise you're just another drone and easily manipulated by someone declaring something as "science" while shooting down anyone who has actual questions about the projected impact of climate change. If you aren't going to do anything to prevent it then you're just another virtue signaling prick trying to scare everyone else into taking action so you don't have to.

>>10093352
Nice job denying the feeders.

>>10093194
actually its a fairly apt analogy from a physics point of view.
-human body and earth are both essentially heat engines, which consume fuel and do work
-eating produces waste as a result of this heat engine, just as ghs which cause climate change are a type of waste.

>>10093020
>duckduckgo sensors 4chan results
>>10093079
>I meant censor, as in censorship. I was surprised that duckduckgo omits 4chan for search results.

Turn off your fucking safe search you absolute fucking moron.

4chan is for 18 and up so duck duck respects it's rules and doesn't direct to it from safe search
>>>/global/rules/2

>>10093438
>Physics
Earth and a human body are substantially different from a physics point of view.

>>10093404
>No the argument is "X has changed and we can't be completely sure that it is changing now in a way that is inconsistent with the natural change."
There was not a single mention of distinguishing between natural and unnatural change in >>10090995. And that's a bunch of bullshit anyway since science doesn't deal in absolute certainties. There is a consensus of evidence that current warming is highly anomalous both in its speed and in its cause.

>Only a fool would think that civilization doesn't impact our environment and climate (Dust Bowl) but only a bigger fool would jump to conclusions from data that is unverified and heavily extrapolated.
Only a fool would like at the massive amount of evidence compiled and verified by climatology and deny it.

>If it is changing in a way that will fuck us 100 years from now then we will be fucked unless we have the technology to counter it.
We already have the technology to counter it, it's called emitting less GHGs.

>If you're so concerned with climate change then turn off your AC, don't drive, don't use plastics, don't buy from corporations that have large carbon footprints, etc otherwise you're just another drone and easily manipulated by someone declaring something as "science" while shooting down anyone who has actual questions about the projected impact of climate change.
No thanks, I'll just continue arguing for the actual solution which requires global action, not just one person doing something. But nice try, you piece of shit. And I'm ready for those hard-hitting questions any time you want to stop making a fool or of yourself and ask them.

Otherwise fuck off back to >>>/pol/

>>10092016
what an idiotic, worthless argument
>>10092025
I have looked actually, your baseless assertions notwithstanding

>>10093452
Still waiting for the relevant difference... I guess it doesn't exist.

>>10090901
>argument
L0Lno fgt pls

>>10093452
its called a carnot cycle / heat engine. add fuel. do work. virtually every dynamic system in the universe (including the universe itself) can be broken down in this way.

obviously you're not qualified to determine what is or is not relevant from a physics point of view.

>>10093692
The Earth is not a Carnot cycle. Full stop. There is no similarity between the Earth and the Carnot cycle. The Earth does not produce work. The Earth is a grey body at a steady state equilibrium with the Sun and CO2 appears to affect that equilibrium.

>>10093717
you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about.

just google 'climate heat engine'

>>10093734
The climate does not produce work. Period.

>>10093740
it obviously does. 'doing work' is simply defined as moving stuff around. did you even google my suggestion? multiple recent papers. even youtube links.

earth is a heat engine. the human body is a heat engine.

>>10093740
Wind.

>>10093344
not an argument

>>10091970
>If you want to study moths or soil or something, good luck getting government grants or publishing.
t. guy who has no idea how researchers get grants

imagine being so retarded that you think the only way to get funding to study fucking SOIL of all things is to tie it to climate change.
just imagine.

>>10093453
>Being this assblasted

>>10094104
>being this BTFO

>>10090907
Im gonna give you this that its a well and balanced thought about the issue.

But, ofc its a but, here is the thing. The issue isnt really as hard as it appears. The climate isnt chaotic, weather is. So unknown factors doesnt bother us when we look at macro-scales like the entire climate on earth. Just like quantum physics ends up newtonian. We have a much more predictable system to work with. And this model is on contrary to belief, downplaying the seriousness.

The models when calculating costs end such not are not all encompassing as people might wanna see. One insurance report i read estimated the cost, PER PERSON per YEAR! To be about 150.000$. In todays currencies to give a damage perspective. They looked at just how much capital is inside certain ”danger-zones” at made a couple of other factors be playing in. But the gist of it was just public data and used estimates on effects by climate change. That money will go to rebuilding, loss of productivity, urban areas that need to be walled of from rising water etc etc.

They also took a low estimate to end up with this cost. Also, note they did not do any estimate on the cost of disasters, like hurricanes, that will surely increase more and more.

So its a serious issue. When we are there, the problem will not be solvable and our hospitability here will be severly downgraded.

With stress comes increased conflict. And conflicts give rise to more conflicts that coalescence into war.

Lets stay chill and have a calm weather. Lets not fuck it up ourselfs untill nature does it for us in some other way.

>>10093956
Don’t be fucking obtuse.

>>10093956
Blame capitalism.

>>10094130
One thing that came out of climate change shit is that people have learnt how to calculate resource consumption and resource conservation.
I don't know why the conservitards can't see this. Saving resources for later is always good

>>10094178
>saving anything
>conservatives
Pick one.

>>10094180
But they called CONSERVatives

>>10093194
>earth is exempt from the laws of physics because reasons

Believe in the holoc.. I mean, climate change, Goy! You wouldn't want to be an anti-Semite, would you? http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html

>>10094545
>kids these days actually think the holocaust was a hoax
haha

>>10094552
It didn't happen, but it should have.

>>10094555
If it had happened we'd be in 1940s tier technology even now. Jews contribute the most to science as a percentage of the world's population.

>>10094607
So a world without single use disposable plastics or nuclear weapons? Sounds like Hitler had the right idea... Or at least someone did: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt-1.5411578

>>10090820
>fox news
jesus christ

>>10090820
What the fuck is wrong with americans

>>10094727
The Holocaust never happened, and we want you to take back your Jews.

>>10094748
What does that have to do with AGW?
>nothing

>>10094751
It does, because the Holocaust and AGW are part of the same pseudo-religious mythos.

>>10094727
climate change here is seen as a left right issue and that "them climatologists" are trying to destroy jobs and institute a one world gov't
americans are just subhumans desu

>>10094755
No they aren't.

>>10094759
Convincing argument.

>>10094758
This is because Abraham Lincoln didn't kill all the Confederates. They're here and still trying to undermine civilization.

>>10094788
You need to be convinced that AGW and the holocaust have nothing to do with each other? You might be retarded.

Someone tell me how long we got till mass immigration to areas above sea level.
I'm thinking of working hard to buy lots of cheap land in the cold wastelands and building cheap apartment buildings there for the poor retards who didn't see the floods coming.
Everyone will have to pay my family rent and I'll join the Jews as the elites.

>>10094788
No-one is going to put the effort into convincing you that the moon is not made of cheese either.

>>10094866
He thinks the earth is flat

>israel news

>>10095176
Because it actually is.

Wow - what a scam these warmists are running. There is no such thing as 'consensus' in Science! I am a qualified Earth Scientist and the Anthropogenic Global Warming argument is so FALSE!! I cannot believe that most of the world was stupid enough to fall for this SCAM!!

Your carbon footprints are miniscule and are no cause for alarm.

(1) Amount of CO2 in the atmosphere = 0.04% which = 0.0004 of the atmosphere.
(2) Man-made CO2 is 3% of that which = 0.0004×0.03 = 0.0012% or 0.000012.
(3) Burning fossil fuels is about 50% of that.

Therefore: The amount of man-made CO2 from burning fossil fuels is about 0.000006 (0.0006%) of the atmosphere. If you are telling me that this miniscule amount of CO2 can cause ice ages and catastrophic global warming then you are either pushing the Alarmist’s political agenda and/or you are intellectually dishonest.

>>10095309
What he said! Fuckers!

>>10095309
So many cases!

>>10095482
What are you gonna do it about it, you global faggot? You warm and cold blooded snake? You tree ringed fucknut? You pseudo-hippy? You atheist preacher? You CO2 gobbling cretin shitting out warm gases into the holy computer models, just barely missing the potty of space-time freak?

>>10095309
>Man-made CO2 is 3% of that which = 0.0004×0.03 = 0.0012% or 0.000012.
Wrong. Anthropogenic CO2 contribution is at least 100 ppm since the industrial revolution. That's 25% of the total and a 45% increase since the early 1800s. And that's only CO2, so not including the methane, nitrous oxide and fluorine gases that are also significant to the greenhouse effect.
>(3) Burning fossil fuels is about 50% of that.
The other 50% is mostly from industrial processes, agriculture, deforestation, and cement use. None of these things will be good for us if they continue, so maybe we can start making headway on addressing all of them?

>>10095610
>That's 25% of the total
Total of what please?

>>10091238
why do you do these things

>>10095626
of 100%

>>10095661
The 100% being?

>>10095689
410 ppm of CO2 currently in the atmosphere

>>10095751
What was the CO2 ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution?

>>10095783
something around 280 ppm

>>10095610
So. Are you anti progressive or just trying th pump the capitalist global warming industry? Are you homogenicidal? What are all the fuck nuggets doing except putting money in the pockets of dickheads and preaching doom and gloom. Everyone one agrees. "Give a hoot, don't pollute." You gotta make up some pseudoscience and give it a label. Cause division. And become part of the problem by producing more disposable garbage.

>>10095801
>baseless projection
>by advocating against high resource consumption you're actually helping the capitalists
>science I don't like is made up
irrational babble

>>10095792
So you mean 130 ppm as being the total. It is 25% of 130 = 32.5 ppm. Then "fossil" fuels = 32.5 / 2 = 16.25 ppm. How much does an average month of man made CO2 emissions change the ppm?

>>10094727
Its just our way of life anon.

>>10095856
No, I mean humans are responsible for >100 ppm of that added amount, so about 25% of the total 410 ppm CO2.
>fossil fuels are half of that
Fossil fuels are well over half of that, because CO2 is not the only GHG humans emit. Fossil fuels are about 50-60% of all GHG emissions, but are virtually 100% CO2 byproduct unless you count fugitive methane from fracking, which is not actually combusted.
>how much per month
the current rate is about +2 ppm per year, so around +0.2 ppm per month

Rounding the math like warmers do

How much do oil companies pay for 4chan shills? How do I get in on it? I'm willing to shill for money

>>10095874
>No, I mean humans are responsible for >100 ppm of that added amount, so about 25% of the total 410 ppm CO2.
It's 25% of 410 but it's also nearly 100% of CO2 emitted from the industrial age to today. Are you seriously claiming that man produces more CO2 than anything else on earth?
>Fossil fuels are well over half of that, because CO2 is not the only GHG humans emit. Fossil fuels are about 50-60% of all GHG emissions, but are virtually 100% CO2 byproduct unless you count fugitive methane from fracking, which is not actually combusted.
If I owned a green energy company, or had shares in one, would that make me want global warming to be true even if it isn't? Are climate scientists allowed to have shares in green energy? Would that be an incentive to deceive the public?
>the current rate is about +2 ppm per year, so around +0.2 ppm per month
10 months in a year? Interesting. How many years did it take from the beginning of the industrial age to get to 0.1 ppm per month?

>>10095934
>Are you seriously claiming that man produces more CO2 than anything else on earth?
Nobody would even have to claim that since we're talking about what is basically a balance sheet. Just that man is what's making the input exceed the output. Kinda like how one bad employee can be responsible for putting your company into the red even if he's not the biggest expense overall.

>>10095309
>I am a qualified Earth Scientist
Bitch, pls

>>10095934
>Are you seriously claiming that man produces more CO2 than anything else on earth?
It's sources minus sinks, and yes, man is responsible for the biggest increase in sources of emissions.
>If I owned a green energy company, or had shares in one, would that make me want global warming to be true even if it isn't? Are climate scientists allowed to have shares in green energy? Would that be an incentive to deceive the public?
Well, AGW is fact, so it would be companies with a financial interest in suppressing acceptance of/public interest in combating AGW that are doing the deceiving.
>10 months in a year? Interesting.
>hurr why'd you divide by 10 instead of 12
lazy math, and these figures are empirical anyway
>How many years did it take from the beginning of the industrial age to get to 0.1 ppm per month?
idk my bff jill

I can't wait for the black man to hold down and breed these climate denying white racists into oblivion.

>>10096028
>black man to hold down and breed
ya, that will surely solve the ghg problem

>>10096028
Sweden, is that you?

>>10095309
Excellent post, thank you. What is your main discipline and level of recognition?

oh wow it didn't take long for the /pol/esmokers to show up and start yammering about their favorite topic of discussion. I mean, no matter what's being discussed, to them the answer must be holocaust denial.
discussion of domestic terrorism? holocaust denial. evolutionary biology? holocaust denial. relativity? holocaust denial.
it would be kind of amusing if it weren't so appallingly pathetic.

>>10094807
edgy but not wrong
pic related, do it again uncle billy.

>>10096247
DO IT AGAIN, UNCLE BILLY

>>10095309
>I am a qualified Earth Scientist
no, you're not.
t. actual geoscientist with two actual degrees in this shit from actual American universities

>>10091977
>rcp85
You should really go down to Miami and tell the King Tides that they're just being used by Al Gore.

>>10096254
>An atmospheric physicist with a PhD in molecular chemistry just flew over my house!

>>10096305
>What is subsidence
>Seas have been rising slowly but steadily since the end of the last major glacial melt.

And it's worth noting that people were around 8000 years ago for the HUGE sea level rise that happened at that point, and yet we're still here.

>>10096305
And the rate hasn't changed since before the industrial revolution.

>>10090820
>faux news

>>10096305
>>10096317
>>10096320
Here's an updated sea level rise chart.

>>10096317
>>10091977
>>10096320
Notice how these other infographs have sources?

>>10092222
You could've used those quads to stop it. Instead you've doomed us all.

>>10095309
>I am a qualified Earth Scientist
>Trace gasses can't impact the climate
If you're going to lie, at least put some effort into it,

>>10096481
you overestimate the quality of education many people throughout the world are receiving from post secondary institutions these days in calling this person a liar.

>>10091159
What is it with paleocons and wanting to gouge out the most successful parts of their countries? Are they that evil and stupid?

>>10091177
droughts are typically bad yes

>>10097673
>droughts are bad
ask me how i know you're a brainlet

>>10090820
>we'd be sweating bullets

>>10090993
You misspelled “a art”, dumbo. Or would “newfag” be more appropriate?

>>10094130
If these risks and costs are so well-established, why does any financial institution offer >30 year loans such as mortgages?

>>10098918
low iq post

>>10098884
you don't
you don't know anything

>>10098962
>NO U
Slow clap ...

>>10096323
https://youtu.be/vqmCu854rHc?t=2m13s

>>10098966
slowers will slow

>>10098969
Why are coastlines almost exactly the same as they were 150 years ago then. Hell, there are structures and plinths from 500 years ago on some coastlines

>>10098984
exactly the same as they were 150 years ago
[citation needed]

Climate change is real but a "real" solution does not involve slapping a 2% tax on fuel and banning plastic straws. A "real" solution would involve the mass sterilisation of regions and nations that have an x2 replacement level.

We're creating a million new people every month in developing regions that don't need more people, and as those nations continue to develop they'll become mini-chinas which are mass polluters who won't even try to change the situation unlike (most) western nations and who cannot be bargained with.

This is never proposed, so I question how serious these people actually are about fixing the problem, and it's naturally going to lead some people to think that the problem doesn't exist at all. Fine, the IPCC says we need "radical action", I agree, let's actually have radical action.

>>10099013
the current situation is still unsustainable
the masses of poorfags are just another threat

>>10099013
But china is trying. They're trying to achieve the goals set for them by the United Nations.
Pakistan also planted a billion trees to combat climate change and are gonna plant many more.
I think you're a criminal who wants everyone else to die and depopulate so that you racists can steal all the earths resources with no competition and leave it as a husk of its former self.
These third world countries are trying to consume way less resources per capita than the average subhuman Americunt.

>>10099013
>Other people are the issue, not me

>>10099052
What do you expect of the average Amerimutt?

>>10099050
So China is "trying" (read: not reporting their strip mining), so therefore they're justified in making shitloads of more people.

>>10099050
>These third world countries are trying to consume way less resources per capita than the average subhuman Americunt.

They are not trying to do shit, they consume less resources simply because their economy is not as developed. Now either it will never develop, in which case they will live in poverty, or it will and they will and their per-capita emissions will increase significantly.

>>10099063
>China
>One Child Policy that just recently got relaxed to two child
>making a shitload more people

>>10099063
>they're justified in making shitloads of more people
Their fertility rates are below sustaining levels, you absolute mongoloid. They could be having zero children whatsoever and you mouthbreathers would still complain because they’re not actively genociding their population.

How about you fat, overconsuming fucks lead by example before bitching and moaning about other nations?

>>10091977
The observed data is still warming and on track for a 1c bump by 2100ish. Our civilization deserves to get btfo if people are still unwilling to accept basic facts of semi black body radiation.

>>10094755
Must be nice being an edgy teenager in 2018 conveniently after everyone who survived genocidal purges is long past their prime and so are incapable of punching you in the face. Why stop at the holocaust? Deny every other genocide and large scale crime on humanity as well.

>>10099100
"people" are not the ones who should decide
I mean personally I don't know shit about the actual facts of global warming, I'm just regurgitating what the experts say. I don't have the time, energy or expertise to gain a comprehensive understanding, and I am still a nerd and engineering student. Car mechanics and HR ladies are even less inclined to educate themselves, and there's nothing wrong with that, civilization was built on specialization. The problem is democracy.

>>10099100
>on track for

thinks it's linear, brainlet detected
>what is tipping point

>>10099181
Trending to 1c by 2100. If you werent an absolute cretin you would realize my point was that even in the best case scenario(re: denial interpretation) of observable data the climate is still warming very quickly. Try to be less of a pedantic illiterate ape in the future.

>>10099070
If they will never develop then how will their per capita emissions increase significantly?
You can have maybe 2 billion more pajeets in India and they still wouldn't emit as much pollution or consume as many resources as America. See your hypocrisy?
Your logic makes no sense.

>"national" "socialists"
>Flat earthers
>Climate change deniers
It would be funny if all three of these people weren't actually the same person

>>10099479
Ther's a part of me that always wonders if /sci/ has just two or three shitposters, and they're really dedicated.

>>10099089
t. not actually serious about tackling climate change

>BUT CHINA

>>10099508
R9K just had 3 shitposters and we got them worked up.

>>10099607
America proves you can consume all the world's resources even with only 150 million white people. Their billion chinks don't even come close per capita.

>"facts don't care about your feelings"
>climate change isn't real because it feels like it's made up

>>10099998
Clearly the solution is to make more chinks

>>10100052
I agree, we must destroy america

I cant believe we're going to have a scorched earth with flooded conteninents and all we will have are these youtube videos of these idiots

>>10099195
even your orange ape admits it's 4C
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Trump+administration+7-degree

>>10100828
>your orange ape
cringe.

>>10090820
>fox news

>>10102243
You know what is the cringiest thing that has ever happened on god's green earth? A reality tv star leading the world's most powerful nation. If you don't cringe at this very notion, you're the worst scum of the earth, just like that orangutan, and you deserve everything that is surely coming to you as a result.

I shouldve made this thread here instead of a new thread >>10102914

What will Brazil electing Jair Bolsonaro, who essentially will let the Amazon get ass raped from here to the moon and back by loggers and mining companies, have an impact on our climate?

>>10093353
>Can any of you fatshaming retards tell me what the optimal weight is? The "optimal" amount of body fat? The "optimal" amount of muscle and exercise? No all you know is "Fat kills" despite the fact it's the very reason YOUR ASS is here in the first place.

>You're completely right, obesity is not a problem. My mistake.

Still using this false equivalency argument. Lol. What part of "CO2 lags behind temperature" aren't you getting?

>Hint: it has no effect on the warming trend.

>thinking that adding electricity and millions of human beings which produce 300 BTU's of heat per head will result in the cooling of an already warm area.

Correlation=/=causation. I don't give a fuck whether they're burning coal or using straight up nuclear power (which also produces heat but whatever). More people using power=more heat. Crowd them really close together and make their entire fucking existence centered around work and you get even more heat and electricity being used. And if the wind is not there to blow the heat out then surprise! It gets more fucking hot.

>>10102981
>false equivalency argument
just calling it that doesn't make it true, lad.
>"CO2 lags behind temperature"
during past cycles driven by Milankovitch forcing this is true. for current warming, it isn't.

>More people using power=more heat. Crowd them really close together and make their entire fucking existence centered around work and you get even more heat and electricity being used. And if the wind is not there to blow the heat out then surprise! It gets more fucking hot.
you don't know what the UHI effect is or how it works.

>>10090923
I bet we’re changing it in some way but by how much? Probably so small it doesn’t fucking matter. There’s some data charts to show what scientists predict the temperature was 100,000 years ago and a timeline. They use the dates of fossils and match them with what type of enivonment the animal lived in and also the rock sedimentary rock layers.

>>10102243
>i have no argument

>>10102931
look at this picture, guess which arrow will be affected
>>10099181

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

>>10103031
>just calling it that doesn't make it true, lad.

You're right. Please locate the planets "fat" or any other human organ equivalents that it possesses since comparing the earth and a human body can indicate climate change.
If the above made absolutely no sense whatsoever then congratulations. This is your argument.

>during past cycles driven by Milankovitch forcing this is true. for current warming, it isn't.
Because why? Because CO2? No, CO2 Lags behind temperature. Argument, please.

>you don't know what the UHI effect is or how it works.
I just told you exactly how it fucking works you retard. You know, electricity? The phenomena that causes things to move and heat up? I wonder what would happen if you made millions of buildings, filled them with power hungery air conditioners (cold air doesn't come out of the outside unit now does it?) and things that use this magical electricity. Also lets fill every store with neon signs and human beings and get rid all the things that cause shade.

"BTU"- British thermal unit. The human body produced 300 "BTU's" of heat.

"no wind"-no circulation, no dissipation, insulation. No way to move the hot air being capacitized by the fucking giant slabs of rock and asphalt.

How dumbed down do I have to make this for you?

>>10103891
>Please locate the planets "fat" or any other human organ equivalents that it possesses since comparing the earth and a human body can indicate climate change.
it's real simple, anon. some amount of CO2, just like some amount of body fat, is necessary to sustain the biosphere/human body. there's no set amount that's The Best, because conditions vary, but there's a range of reasonable amounts. however, if you get too much of it too quickly, it causes a bunch of problems unrelated to its sustaining function.
if you can't make sense of that, you have my sympathy for being unable to understand simple analogies.
teal deer: there can be too much of a good thing.

>No, CO2 Lags behind temperature.
not currently.

>I wonder what would happen if you made millions of buildings, filled them with power hungery air conditioners (cold air doesn't come out of the outside unit now does it?) and things that use this magical electricity. Also lets fill every store with neon signs and human beings and get rid all the things that cause shade.
>"no wind"-no circulation, no dissipation, insulation. No way to move the hot air being capacitized by the fucking giant slabs of rock and asphalt.
waste heat from electricity is a small contributor. the UHI effect is driven NOT by the heat given off by machines or humans, but rather by the replacement of soil and plant materials with paved surfaces that retain heat better.
put another way: you could build a city and then abandon it, so that it held no people and drew no power, and it would STILL act as an urban heat island.
>neon signs produce heat
lmao you're retarded.

>>10100828
>my orange ape
Are you really so retarded you dont understand what devils advocate is even after I clarified that was my point? No wonder agw is only disputed in america.

>>10090907
>The climate is changing just like it has always been
This is wrong though. The climate is changing in ways that it has never done before.

>>10104013
>it's real simple

Yeah it really is simple. Planet=/=human body. Stop equating it to it. If you can't understand that and have to rely on analogies to explain your "theories" then I suggest you start getting good at using a shovel and a tractor.
>waste heat from electricity is a small contributor. the UHI effect is driven NOT by the heat given off by machines or humans, but rather by the replacement of soil and plant materials with paved surfaces that retain heat better.
>>10103891
>"no wind"-no circulation, no dissipation, insulation. No way to move the hot air being capacitized by the fucking giant slabs of rock and asphalt.
> Also lets fill every store with neon signs and human beings and get rid all the things that cause shade.
>"BTU"- British thermal unit. The human body produced 300 "BTU's" of heat.

>put another way: you could build a city and then abandon it, so that it held no people and drew no power, and it would STILL act as an urban heat island.
Oh so it isn't because of the CO2 then? I'm glad you clarified that for me.

"Teal deer": Don't "teal deer", dear. Learn to read please. Also anything that uses electricity produces heat you knuckle dragging moron. It take heat to produce electricity to begin with, jackass.

>>10099630
>he doesn't roll coal to show those people who think they can help fix things that hope is meaningless

>>10090820
>Nine tenths of a degree
He clearly practiced that line to make it sound less significant.

>>10103891
>CO2 Lags behind temperature.
No. CO2 sometimes leads temperature, sometimes lags temperature, and sometimes is uncorrelated. The actual relationship depends on the timescale and circumstances.
On the short timescale we live in CO2 can be treated as a simple forcing, with the temperature having negligible on CO2 flow.

>>10104079
>Planet=/=human body. Stop equating it to it
An analogy is not "equating".

>Oh so it isn't because of the CO2 then? I'm glad you clarified that for me.
CO2 has nothing to do with the UHI.

>Also anything that uses electricity produces heat you knuckle dragging moron. It take heat to produce electricity to begin with, jackass.
The Earth is in tight radiative equilibrium, so human heat emissions have a no significant impact on global temperatures. No amount of heat we could produce would compare with the Sun.

Please read Wikipedia or something, so you have at least a bare-minimum grasp of the subjects you're trying to discuss.

>>10099013
>a "real" solution does not involve slapping a 2% tax on fuel
The actual workable "carbon tax" isn't just "everything costs more". It's the fee and dividend system. Then it can double as a welfare system that encourages sustainability at the same time.

>>10104106
>An analogy is not "equating".
Oh excuse me, you're "comparing" two dissimilar things that somehow have similarities and differences between each other. If there is nothing that "equates" these two dissimilar things then allow me to change my previous statement "false equivalency" to "non sequitur".

>CO2 has nothing to do with the UHI.
If only the media understood and reported that instead of linking it to climate change bullshit.

>The Earth is in tight radiative equilibrium, so human heat emissions have a no significant impact on global temperatures
I'm not talking about global temperatures.

>No amount of heat we could produce would compare with the Sun.
The sun doesn't produce anything. It's a transformer.

>>10104158
>Oh excuse me, you're "comparing" two dissimilar things that somehow have similarities and differences between each other.
That is how an analogy works. You draw parallels between two distinct things, and use those parallels to transfer conclusions about one thing to the other.

>If only the media understood and reported that instead of linking it to climate change bullshit.
I'm not aware of any case where the media has claimed that climate change is responsible for the UHI.

>The sun doesn't produce anything. It's a transformer.
No. The sun is a source of heat.

>>10104220
>That is how an analogy works. You draw parallels between two distinct things, and use those parallels to transfer conclusions about one thing to the other.
Non-Sequitur

>No. The sun is a source of heat.
A transformer is not a source of anything, it's a "transformer".

It's okay because Jesus will just come down and save us all since that's what it says in the bible.

>>10091233
fallacy fallacy

>>10091248
>tfw ecofacism never ever

>>10104158
>The sun doesn't produce anything. It's a transformer.

What?

>>10104329
It's a positive electrical anode.

>that guy who argues with you about taking the bus until you miss the bus

>>10090907

let me explain something to you, because this is a very simple concept that more people really need to realize

there are 7 billion humans and growing. our planet is only so big, and the current trend is that as humanity expands and advances, we unabashedly consume more and more resources.

"resources" in this case, refers to anything we use, from land to water to food.

eventually, the earth reaches a limit. it's not hard to understand this with simple common-sense. just in the developed countries around the globe, we use such an incredible amount of land for mass-farming. "nature," or the natural processes of the Earth, don't calculate for this. when you take literally billions of animals that you factory-farm, shove them into as tight a space as their needs feasibly allow for, and then try to "grow" them by interrupting countless natural cycles that the area you landscaped for this purpose had been relying on for thousands of years, YOU FUCK SHIT UP.

this is simple. the earth cannot support 7b+ humans and their incredible excesses. anybody who tells you otherwise is an idiot and a fraud. the more resources we use, the sources for them we are going to deplete & pollute until they are no longer a viable for a few hundred years at least. Go look up some info on the underground aquifers in the U.S, or the incredible land-mass drops (because i've forgotten the proper term) out in california from their farming programs. anybody with a brain can see what is about to happen.

TL;DR: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FUCKING TEMPERATURE YOU BUMBLEFUCK BABOONS

>>10104333
fuck of with electric universe pseudoscience, >>>/x/ is that way

>>10104346
>IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FUCKING TEMPERATURE YOU BUMBLEFUCK BABOONS
This is a big thing in general. For some reason we've allowed it to become a debate over "are we raising the temperature" instead of realizing that we're not doing things sustainably and we'd want to greatly reduce co2 emissions even if they somehow weren't changing the climate.

>>10090833
>>10090835
>>10090843
>>10090858
>>10090894

>>10104356
you need plentiful energy if you want to do things sustainably

it always boils down to what energy source we are using to power the civilization, and currently it is fossil fuels, that is what needs to change

>>10104351
>>>/x/ is that way bitch, we don't want climate change pseudo-science here.

>>10104367
>fossil fuels
You realise oil isn't actually made from fossils, right?

>>10104333

lmao

>>10104356

i blame it on

>global warming

because that was the first anyone started to hear of this (other than the whole ozone-layer depleting thing).

the change in temp is a big deal, but it's just a byproduct of a much larger issue that too many people seem to not fully grasp.

>>10104079
>Planet=/=human body. Stop equating it to it.
>If you can't understand that and have to rely on analogies to explain your "theories"
so...you CAN'T understand analogies then. well, I hate to break it to you, but analogies and models are pretty much everywhere in the sciences.
turns out that sometimes different things have useful similarities.

>Oh so it isn't because of the CO2 then?
listen here, you Durex poster child:
temperatures GLOBALLY are rising because of CO2. the UHI effect is a separate LOCAL effect that causes cities to be warmer (especially at night) than the surrounding countryside. this can MAKE IT SEEM like temperatures are rising faster than they are when only considering weather stations in built-up areas. however, there's a technique called homogenization (basically, comparing trends of urban/suburban weather stations to trends from nearby rural ones) that allows the UHI effect to be quantified and adjusted out of the overall land temperature trend. and comparison of homogenized to rural-only trends shows that homogenization effectively removes UHI bias.
read Hausfather et al. (2013, 2016) if you're confused.
>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012JD018509
>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015GL067640

>Also anything that uses electricity produces heat you knuckle dragging moron.
the point is that the heat produced by cities is small in comparison to the extra heat retained by metal, asphalt, and concrete. like I said, but which you were apparently unable to read:
>waste heat from electricity is a small contributor.
don't believe me? try heating your basement with an LED lightbulb.
>It take heat to produce electricity to begin with, jackass.
you're gonna be really surprised when you learn about electrochemical potential. shocked, even.

>>10104346
>7 billion humans
we're actually about to break 8

>>10104079
> It take heat to produce electricity to begin with
Here we see the product of typical american public education. Sorry lads but as long as people like this can vote your democracy is fucked.

>>10097643
No, just jealous and moronic

>>10091456
lmao this fagggot lost hard

>>10091909
Foolish nonsense. Hacked emails my puckered asshole do you know how easy it is to fake these things. Why are you playing into the hands of corporate bastards who only want to make a buck off of retards not regulating their businesses for the environmental damage they cause. And even then, even if you still deny climate change is happening, ask yourself this, why wouldn't you still want measures to be taken to use cleaner forms of energy? Because you'll accidentally make the world a better place?

>>10106239
>Hacked emails my puckered asshole do you know how easy it is to fake these things.
The emails are real, they're just taken massively out of context by people who don't understand the subject but are desperate to find anything which makes climatologists sound bad.

>>10106239
>>10106435
Have you read them personally?

>>10106239
>why wouldn't you still want measures to be taken to use cleaner forms of energy?
Can you name any forms of energy that are actually undeniably cleaner over the course of their manufacture, useful life and disposal?

>>10091141
>weather
one spin of roulette

>climate
the longtime averages of the game

Las Vegas and Nevada are based on understanding the difference, and also on a constant flow of idiots like you, who obviously don't.

https://youtu.be/6VUPIX7yEOM?t=1m30s

More people make more resources. Plenty for everyone. Don't get so upset brainlets. You are powerless to do anything except clean up after yourself

>>10107610
Not those guys but I have. What about them?

>>10107610
Some of them. None of the emails that deniers have pointed out to me seemed to be concerning.