/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10496375
> Thinks climate has a straight line change.
The climate of the Earth is not like sticking a pot pie in a microwave, Cletus.

do they have a clue whether the globe is heating up because of humans or simply because it's happening naturally and we just happen to be speeding it up?

>>10496460
We are putting almost 50billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. "Nature" puts around 300-500 million tonnes every year in the atmosphere on average. A super volcanoe eruption puts around 2-3 billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. So we are as bad as 20 super volcanoe eruptions every year. Still wondering how much of the global warming is "natural" and how much is man-made?

>>10496375
>one glacier growing
>Big U-turn
L0Lno fgt pls

>>10496471
what's "nature"? how much annual net change in CO2 would there be without humans?

>>10496460
By what magic? We've looked at everything natural and nothing has significantly changed in the past 100 years. Nothing except human industrialization, CO2 levels and global temperatures.
Sun activity has been looked at again and again and there's no correlation. Volcanoes haven't increased in the apocalyptic fashion you'd need for this unprecendented change and so on.
CO2 makes planets warmer, we keep pumping it out, the planet gets warmer. It's not rocket science if you just look at the energy the earth takes in and puts out. Specific details of where it gets hotter and when and how are extremely complicated. But the fundamental mechanic is super fucking easy to understand.

Don't fall for this dumb rhethoric. At first they claim there is no change, then they concede that there is change, but it's not dangerous because change has always happened (before humans ever settled down in cities), then they concede that it is dangerous, but it's not caused by humans and some bullshit instead. Then you go through everything and they concede that it is caused by humans. Then they tell you that there's nothing to be done because otherwise china will take over the world and green tech is a technological dead end that just makes stuff expensive.
Please don't fall for any of these. Just accept that shit has to change for humans to still live comfortably on this planet.

>>10496471
If humanity equals 20 supervolcano eruptions, where is the massive cooling effect?

>>10496507
>nothing has significantly changed
...Northern Hemisphere glacial melt is not a significant change?

>>10496518
The cooling is from dust blocking sunlight, which volcanoes release but not human industry

>>10496375
Global warming is the /sci equivalent of the Russian Collusion crap. Same media, same agenda.

>>10496471
We contribute 2% of a 0.04% trace gas. There is a reason alarmists prefer to use "tons" rather than percentages.

>>10496632
???????????¿??¿???¿???
>Inb4 not an argument
You're talking out of your ass. And from my ass to yours, the cooling effect actually comes from the Suns gamma neutrinos being absorbed by those yum yum lead particle munchies. When a volcano erupts, it's actually Satan sharpening his pencil.

>>10496649
>from my ass to yours

>>10496375
Meteorologists can't even predict accurately the temperature 10 days from now, what makes you thing they can do that for 100 years in the future?

Bunch of pseudo hacks.

>>10496704
>statisticians cant predict accurately with only a couple data points, what make you think they can do it with thousands
???????????????????

>>10496649
>can't refute the point made
>results to typing in autistic mumbo jumbo to quickly spiral argument into chaos
Also, not an argument.

>>10496704
>Economists can't even predict whether or not Joe is going to buy one or two loaves of bread. How can they predict the future of the economy?
Inb4
>Just a bait bro
Bunch of pseudo shit posters

>>10496753
Economists are often wrong. What's your point?

>>10496735
Do you believe predicting what will happen 10 days from now to be harder than predicting what will happen 100 years from now?

>>10496743
There's no point made. Your qualifications are jack. If this was Reddit, sir, I would have the mods revoke your Reddit science practitioners license. But this is 4chan, and you are entitled to your "not an argument" but I will now send the ball into your court.
Not an argument. You can't back up your claims, and your ass is starting to seep.

>>10496786
The original poster made a claim and instead of trying to argue that you just resort to straw manning.
At least humour us with a real response.

>>10496704
Well, it'd be very difficult to predict the actual numbers of soldiers lost in a war on a given battle but it's possible to follow various trends in the respective countries such as economy, production, training, relations, etc that can provide very good insight in which side would win in the end.
In some ways predicting further into the future could potentially be easier as it wouldn't need to take into account every single granular issue, but then again it requires that the current trends remain relatively constant. I'm no specialist.
If your point is that the meteorologists could be wrong, you're totally right. That said, I'm privy to lend an ear to what they're saying but you won't see me latching onto every word they say.
I mean, wasn't California predicted for a devastating earthquake back in the day? Just because it hasn't happened within their given time frame doesn't mean it won't since that's inherent to living on top of a faultline. Same thing here, are we all going to roast to death while NY is submerged within fifty years? Can't say for sure, but surely we can all agree the level of pollution we're at isn't great just for living in, regardless of longevity.

>>10496812
>Well, it'd be very difficult to predict the actual numbers of soldiers lost in a war on a given battle but it's possible to follow various trends in the respective countries such as economy, production, training, relations, etc that can provide very good insight in which side would win in the end.
>In some ways predicting further into the future could potentially be easier as it wouldn't need to take into account every single granular issue, but then again it requires that the current trends remain relatively constant. I'm no specialist.
This makes no sense. Having less data make predicting something less harder.
>I mean, wasn't California predicted for a devastating earthquake back in the day? Just because it hasn't happened within their given time frame doesn't mean it won't since that's inherent to living on top of a faultline. Same thing here, are we all going to roast to death while NY is submerged within fifty years?
And the same way the guy reading animals guts predicting of a great tempest every morning is bound to eventually get it right.
>Can't say for sure, but surely we can all agree the level of pollution we're at isn't great just for living in, regardless of longevity.
Ok, but that's off-topic.

>>10496422
You mean the earth's core stays cold while the outside gets hot?

>>10496812
You have one good point: that long-term trends can sometimes be treated separately from daily fluctuations and one-time events. But that is a really weak defense of global warming alarmism, which has been consistently deceptive (think: "hockey stick graph") and consistently wrong, again and again, in its long-term predictions for decades.

>>10496834
>This makes no sense. Having less data make predicting something less harder.
Mm, my angle was going for a "seemingly unrelated information could lead to a possible prognosis", but if you're saying just data -- straight, raw data --, yeah, you're right.
>And the same way the guy reading animals guts predicting of a great tempest every morning is bound to eventually get it right.
I can't say for myself how they came up with it, but it wouldn't be as far-fetched as guts-to-weather. It's a faultline that's been halted, we can already glean information from that. If a rubberband is straining to prevent a door from closing, we can take into account the weight of the door, the force exerted, the elasticity of the band, current damage to the band, and how much time has already elapsed to at the very least ballpark when it will eventually snap. Yes, they happened to be wrong, but the point is I wouldn't discount the entirety of what they have to offer when there is in fact information present that made coming to such a conclusion possible in the first place.
>Ok, but that's off-topic.
I was just pointing out even if the meteorologists are wrong about global warming, what's wrong with looking for cleaner alternatives? To be reductionist, I wouldn't want to live in a smoky, ashy house.

>>10496860
>global warming alarmism
Ah, if you're referring specifically for that, I'm not up for that. I personally believe that humans have made an impact that have contributed to our current conditions, but I can't and won't speak for those more well-informed than I that we are on a dead-set path to climate crisis. However, I also believe there's nothing wrong in seeking cleaner sources. No need for a world revolution that will uproot decades of infrastructure, but more groundswell than none would be nice.

global WARMING is a hoax
climate CHANGE is a weaker statement / hypothesis which has yet to be refuted.

>>10496375
But the problems with the ozone were real

>>10496886
Climate change all the time.

CO2 output is a meme, the problem is methane, aerosols and deforestation

Was sci always full of retards straight off the bus from the_donald or is this a post 2016 thing?

>>10496860
It hasn't been wrong in the slightest.

>>10496886
It's the exact same predictions all of which continue to be accurate.

>>10496969
>the_donald
>pre 2016

>>10496981
Retards never change

>>10496900
who knew...

>>10496779
That’s a false equivalence. First off you are comparing weather to climate which is the first mistake every denier makes. Secondly, this isn’t just an issue of “predicting whether or not it will rain on March 3rd, 2025”; this is an issue of analyzing the climate cycle of thousands of years past, and using that data to predict what our climate should be like now and how it should be in the future

You don’t seem to be a very bright person

Increased CO2 output -> greater concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
Scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere -> energy intensive -> chemically non-spontaneous process (only occurs in nature during photosynthesis)
CO2 is a greenhouse gas == absorbs heat from the sun
planet absorbing heat -> global warming

This is very straightforward and easy to understand. Granted, it's more complicated in detail but that's the big picture and the correlation is undeniable. Where's the hoax?

>>10497015
Don't forget CO2 has risen from a previous equilibrium of 280ppm to 410ppm. We know this carbon came from the burning of fossil fuels because of what carbon isotope is present.

>>10497015
CO2 levels lag temperature rather than lead. We are supposed to believe this time is different because humans. The earth is not a simple greenhouse. It's got cycles that are on decadal scales. Interaction with radiation traveling through space (not just from the sun). And that giant hot thing in the sky. Might be why thirty years of alarmist predictions have resulted in observed failure.

>>10497040
You are kind of right. IPCC predictions have been proven wrong.

They have all been too conservative. The earth has warmed faster than the IPCC predicted in 2007

>>10496375
>NASA's Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project has revealed Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier, the island’s biggest, is actually growing, at least at its edge. In research published Monday in Nature Geoscience, researchers report that since 2016, Jakobshavn’s ice has thickened slightly, thanks to relatively cool ocean waters at its base—which have caused the glacier to slow down its melt. This reverses the glacier’s 20-year trend of thinning and retreating. But because of what else is happening on the ice sheet, and the overall climate outlook, that’s not necessarily a good thing for global sea level.

>That's because, despite the fact that this particular glacier is growing, the whole Greenland ice sheet is still losing lots and lots of ice. Jakobshavn drains only about seven percent of the entire ice sheet, so even if it were growing robustly, mass loss from the rest of the ice sheet would outweigh its slight expansion.

Why can't deniers ever tell the truth?

>>10497059
>Why can't deniers ever tell the truth?
...bcoz Truth is not part of their Agenda.

>>10496460
It's like pissing into a vat of American beer. You don't know how much of the flavor comes from you, but you know you're helping it along.

>>10496648
On a YEARLY basis. This means DOUBLING it within a few decades.

The often cited "0,04% is the real smoke grenade because 99,9% of the atmosphere aren't greenhouse gases.

>>10496504
Already told you. approx. 1% of the change that is caused by humans under normal circumstance and around 5% when rare things like supervolcanoe eruptions happen.

>>10496375
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

>>10496648

Somebody pls answer me in human lenguage
So is global warming is something we have to be concerned about or is it just a meme and its natural?

>>10497845
Very concerned. Poverty and war coming back - levels of concerned.

>>10497845
GLOBAL WARMING IS A THING, BUT SO IS GLOBAL COOLING, WE ARE STILL COMING OUT OF THE LAST ICE AGE, AND HUMAN MEMORY AND SCIENCE HASN'T BEEN RECORDING LONG ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH A TREND THAT HAPPENS ON A GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE.

>>10496972
>>10496979
>no source
There are dozens of examples of false and falsified predictions from the alarmism community.
>>10497015
>>10497838
>debunked or oversimplified models
This is the kind of guy who will believe a thing simply because it is fashionable. He could be a libertarian, a communist, a Q-fag, a category theorist, without changing his mindset one iota. Don't bother engaging him, just give him a good belly laugh to the face.

>>10496375
Kek

>>10497845
You should be concerned about not fucking up nature because no one wants to live in a dump where the air gives you cancer. Anything else is alarmist bullshit.

Are climate alarmism, evolutionism and gravitationism the holy trifecta of libshit attention whoring?

>>10496375
>So much for global warming... I can't believe I fell for this meme like I did with the "ozone layer hole".
Unfortunately, this meme is for real.

>>10496460
Is it really that important to establish one or the other? We still are going to die regardless if we don't intervene.

>>10496375
>One glacier grows again

>Retarded 4Chan troll starts a bait thread declaring the average temperature of earth to not be increasing

Every time. Please remember to sage this bullshit if you’re going to play with the trolls.

>>10496640
>Everything's fine guise. No need to worry.

>>10496704
Predicting long-term trends is actuslly easier than predicting short-term fluctuations. Are you actually retarded?

For example. We know that there’s a warming trend between February and April, but this does not mean that any specific day between April and March MUST be warmer than the last. This is very often not the case.

>>10497978
This is some top-tier meme posting.

>>10497059
Can the thread close now?

>>10498022
well actually it is important to determine, precisely because if the recent heating was not caused by humans then nothing we do to "cut back" on our carbon output would have any effect on the heating and thus we would either be completely fucked or in need of a radically different approach

however, all of the evidence shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide gas is responsible for the recent heating, and we are dumping incredible quantities into the atmosphere yearly, so intervention in the form of fixing our behaviour and attempting to re-uptake carbon would be effective in slowing the heating

>>10497962
This is the classical example of a bullshitter that does not know what he's talking about, so to prove his point he will just claim the other guy's argument has been debunked or proven wrong without actually showing how or providing competing alternaties.

>>10498041
This is the classical example of please wwake up you're in a cycle your mentor died long ago please the culters miss you

>>10498039
>well actually it is important to determine, precisely because if the recent heating was not caused by humans then nothing we do to "cut back" on our carbon output would have any effect on the heating and thus we would either be completely fucked or in need of a radically different approach
I disagree. We cannot go back to a less industrialized society, simply because it would be fucking catastrophic, civilization ending.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that mankind is responsible, but the answer is not so simple as "cut back on carbon emissions" it's way too late for that to be sufficient.

>>10497962
>a category theorist,
motherfucker you had better WATCH IT
category theory is always in fashion

>>10498049
Halting carbon emissions would be sufficient to evade long-term catastrophe. If we don’t, it will get worse at an even higher rate because of the ocean’s limited ability to absorb our CO2.

>>10498049
>I disagree. We cannot go back to a less industrialized society, simply because it would be fucking catastrophic, civilization ending.
who the fuck said anything about deindustrializing
jesus christ what has to be wrong with you to think that advancing technology so that we can accomplish everything we are currently doing and more involves going backwards?

i bet you don't support nuclear energy either because you've been scared by fossil fuels and coal shills into thinking it's "dangerous"

get a grip

>>10498060
>so that we can accomplish everything we are currently doing and more
while reducing carbon emissions and pollution**

>>10497965
>You should be concerned about not fucking up nature because no one wants to live in a dump where the air gives you cancer
based and environationalist-pilled

>>10498060
Fission is comparatively clean to coal and natural gas and its energy can be used to charge electric vehicles. If we figure out fusion, which doesn’t look too far off now, it’s basically coast clear.

>>10498070
>If we figure out fusion, which doesn’t look too far off now, it’s basically coast clear.
if you mean cold fusion you might as well jump off a cliff now because it's not happening ever

>>10498074
No I don’t mean cold fusion nigger. I mean fusion that takes place at thousands of degrees.

>>10498121
why would that be preferable to fission with all of the knowledge and technology we already have for fission?
just start building fucking reactors already and stop wasting time

>>10498060
If you think we can just will into reality better technology to make our current production processes environmentally compatible, you are the one that needs a reality check. And even if that would be a viable strategy, you'd still it to be profitable, otherwise it will never come itno fruition, therefore the likelihood of success if fucking low.
The truth is we will likely need to downgrade our standards of living or radically restructure our society.
>>10498141
You're not really solving that much with fission, anon. Energy production is a big contributor, but not the only one and by far not enough to solve the issue, most industrial processes and (even worse) food produciton require an absurd amount of resourcces and produce an absurd amount of pollution (not only in the form of CO2)

>>10496500
2% vs 0.04% is gigantic

>>10498070
Back to nuclear waste

>>10498141
Fusion doesn’t have radioactive waste products, produces more energy, and doesn’t require you to dig up fissile material to use. Simple hydrogen would do.

>>10498166
Nuclear waste is irrelevant in comparison to CO2. Just toss it in some hole.

>>10498173
>Nuclear waste is irrelevant in comparison to CO2. Just toss it in some hole.
That sounds healthy. Did chickens always had two heads?

>>10498179
>That sounds healthy. Did chickens always had two heads?

Ban chicken ownership except as pets.

>>10498180
That does not solve the issue though.

>>10496518
This is actually a good question. I don't know the answer to this. I study climate science too.

>>10498180
Blacks would riot in the streets without chicken to eat.

>>10498181
There isn’t one.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx

>>10498195
Give them that fake chicken made from tofu or whatever. Average lifespan would increase by a good year or more.

>>10498041
>anthropogenic global warming alarmism and all its bells and whistles are to be believed in by default unless you can provide a competing theory
"To learn who rules over you, only ask who determines the null hypothesis."

>>10498209
Mr. /pol/tard, what’s a greenhouse gas?

>>10498209
>"To learn who rules over you, only ask who determines the null hypothesis."
Do you know who you are half-quoting? Pro-tip, it's not Voltaire.

Also nice dodge there, mr orange man believer. Do you or do you not have an actual argument?

>>10498181
Better to contain it in the ground than release it in the air, like many coal plants
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17777943/

>>10498264
>He doesn’t know he’s quoting a Neo-Nazi pedophile

>>10496471
you do know there are factors other than CO2 right? You can't possibly be THAT dumb

>>10498372
Yeah, like methane and albedo. Oh wait, those are anthropogenic too.

>>10498226
>poisoning the well
>>10498264
>poisoning the well
>le not an argument
The argument is that we won't dance to your tune just because you threw a tantrum. If you want people to take you seriously, the best way to start is by yourself becoming a serious person.

>>10498372
Carbon is by far the most relevant greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for by far the longest time.

>>10498381
You're the idiot so insecure in your own position you can't even engage in an argument.

>>10498188
You don't sound very good at your job.

>>10498156
The problem with this is that conservatards read "societal restructuring" as "institute a dictatorship and revoke private property". The likelihood of success is nil at this point.

>>10496518
Dust particles is what leads to cooling, those fall back to the ground very quickly, what remains is a lot of carbon that will keep heating the globe for millenias.

>>10498381
Look anon, you want the scientific consensus and all their arguments? Read the sticky. Go to the "Earth Science" tab, and click on skeptical science. Now go there, and get back to us with your counter claims, supported by your experiments.

>>10498403
>continuing to tantrum

>>10496375
>I can't believe I fell for this meme like I did with the "ozone layer hole".
the ozone hole didn't turn out to be a big problem because we signed international treaties to stop using the main culprits causing the hole.

Measles wasn't real because it got cured.

>all these "people" still arguing against global warming in 2019
Why do I never meet these "people" in real life?
Of course I wouldn't meet them in university. But I grew up in rural agricultural land and even there, nobody was THIS dumb.
Are these "people" real or are they just trolling?
If they are real, who are they, and why are they so dumb?

>>10498452
>still unable to come up with an argument
It sure feels good to be right.

>>10496504
without humans Earth would cool down right now

>>10498488
Not quite true, if all humanity ascended to a higher plane tomorrow, the earth would still experience several decades of warming until the earth's natural carbon sinks restore CO2 to equilibrium.

>>10498482
>claim that the issue is settled
>claim that only a fool or liar could imagine otherwise
>call anyone who questions this a fool
>repeat until tired
>end the day by declaring victory
Why do you think these childish techniques have any power here? What could you possibly be hoping to accomplish?

>>10496797
>Humour us with a real response
Talk retarded get retarded response. Keep going and see if that changes.

>>10496996
What is the climate? A series of weather events. Want to talk about false equivalence? How about hurricanes,tornadoes,drought attributed to climate change. Those are weather events. The hypocrisy of the argument is itself enough to be an obvious leftist narrative.

But you bury your head in the sand because you're not very bright.

Instead of using it as a talking point, why don't you do something about it?

First thing that comes to mind is to stop contributing to emissions by using your phone and internet to post on a Sudanese stitching outlet.

>>10498691
Just interjecting that the hurricanes, droughts and tornadoes aren't directly attributed to climate change, they're just made more intense. For instance, Hurricane Harvey was made about 20% stronger by climate change.

>>10496652
ESS TO ESS

>>10499216
>Hurricane Harvey was made about 20% stronger by climate change
>But when asked how we could possibly know this, we don't have any meaningful answer.
You pulled it out of your cream-filled ass.

>>10498523
>Dur plz sustain a fake controversy about something we figured out decades ago cuz Muh carbon tax

>>10498381
>poisoning the well

You didn’t answer, Mr. /pol/tard.
What’s a greenhouse gas? Why didn’t you answer? Do you not know?

>>10499244
>using fatalities
>not property damage

>>10499244
Were you hoping people wouldn’t read the graph and notice heat is killing more people in recent years? Why do you think hurricane strength must necessarily mean more deaths anyway?

Honestly, the wit of trolls is boundless. Maybe you did that on purpose.

>>10499245
>We figured it out decades ago.
>Except for the making accurate predictions part.
Yes, the theory is right. Reality is simply wrong.

>>10499248
>I've never heard of Google and I'm mad that everyone else has.

>>10497188
What agenda? I mean, big oil tycoons, yes, they have reason enough to deny climate change but /pol/ is just being retarded for the sake of being retarded.

>>10499256
>Yammers about property damage even though the amount of property in coastal regions has increased exponentially.
>Doesn't even provide a fucking graph.
I'm guess you're a liberal.

>>10499261
>Yes, the theory is right

What theory? The prediction that has been made since the late 1800’s is that increasing CO2 concentrations will result in increasing temperatures, and that’s come true and continues to do so.

>Reality is simply wrong.

Nope. Reality confoms quite tightly to the
hypothesis that CO2 will warm earth.

I know you like trolling but could you please stop? It’s sad.

>>10499266
You didn’t answer, again.
What’s a greenhouse gas? Tell the class. We’d love to hear your insight on the topic.

>>10499273
mhmm, yes, tell me more about how you don't have anything to counter with.

>>10499280
>The entirety of climate change theory is that CO2 increases temperature.
I cannot imagine being as uneducated as you are.

>>10499285
>GOOGLE IT FOR ME! GOOGLE IT RIGHT NOW!!!!
Please fuck off, you dumb cunt.

>>10499297
>posts a blurry shot of some climate model from the 70s

>>10499297
>The entirety of climate change theory is that CO2 increases temperature.

Nope. Climate change is just the fact that the climate changes over time. Anthropogenic climate change could be called a theory if you’d really like to, and the primary forcing of anthropogenic climate change is CO2, a greenhouse gas that we expect to raise temperature, and it does.

>I cannot imagine being as uneducated as you are.

Always back to the ad homs when you lack a rebuttal. Do you deny that the earth’s average temperature has increased since 1900, yes or no?

>>10499315
>2006 is 1970
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI3761.1

BTFO!

>>10499303
Why are you getting so angry, Mr?

What’s a greenhouse gas? What effect do greenhouse gasses have on the system they are in? Do they cause warming? If so, would we expect higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses to cause earth to get hotter?

>GOOGLE IT FOR ME! GOOGLE IT RIGHT NOW!!!!

We’d both find NASA and NOAA telling us that anthropogenic CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is causing a warming trend.

>>10499322
>I don't know anything about feedback in the models because I'm a fucking brainlet that learned about global warming from an after school special.

>>10499335
>You can't go to NASA or NOAA web pages. Only I can do that.
Are you 8 years old?

>>10498475
i find myself wondering the same thing sometimes. never actually met anyone like this except literal boomers. are there literal boomers on 4chan? i don't find that likely. probably just a bunch of young adults and kids that took 4chan and Reddit seriously, the way boomers took television news outlets like fox news seriously. it's the zoomer version of boomer propaganda, welcome to the internet age.

>>10499350

>>10499342
Oooh, getting really salty.

>I don't know anything about feedback in the models because I'm a fucking brainlet that learned about global warming from an after school special.

The models aren’t important to whether or not increasing CO2 concentrations are causing warming, and where that CO2 is from. I’ll ask again, so you can avoid again. Has Earth gotten warmer on average since 1900?

>>10499345
>Are you 8 years old?

How funny. I don’t ever recall saying that you can’t go to the NASA and NOAA websites. Please quote me saying so to, as you say, “BTFO” me.

>>10499350
Shh anon, these threads are fun

>>10499361
>Has Earth gotten warmer on average since 1900?

>>10499361

>>10499361
What's the matter, bitch? You don't like hard data?

>>10499361
>We need to adjust thermometer readings because thermometers are racist!

>>10499368
>>10499376

Oh boy unsourced graphs. I love those!

>>10499361
>It's all about CO2.
Do you literally eat handfuls of your own shit? You seem like someone who would do that.

>>10498496
>restore CO2 to equilibrium
This triggers me.

>>10499384
>I can just choose not to accept data that doesn't fit my RELIGION!

>>10499382
How dare we improve our models. ;-)

>>10499379
I love out-of-context emails, too!

>>10499398
No, silly. I can choose to “not accept” data you won’t source.

>>10499391
>Do you literally eat handfuls of your own shit? You seem like someone who would do that.

Edgy. Care to explain why you shared a graph showing CO2 correlating with temperature?

>>10499413
>CO2
>correlating with
>temperature

>>10499416
Enough. Let it go. You made your point. He's retarded and will never admit he lost.

>>10499416
>Dur y dunt grauf always go up in strait lines

>>10499421
Utterly bizarre to talk to yourself.

>>10499421
He's an annoying little brainlet douche.

>>10499424
Have you met a leftist who isn't?

>>10498022
Yes, because science isn't about shoehorning data to fit your model that you revise every year. The act of reducing pollution isn't synonymous with agreeing and proving that the flawed models are correct.

>>10499391
>>10499416
Are you fucking retarded? The graph clearly shows that with increasing CO2 emissions the warming periods are longer and the cooling periods shorter, nitpicking 3 lines just because they have the same slope doesn't invalidate that.

>>10499539
It’s a troll. Please sage if you want to play their games.

>>10499244
Holy shit what the fuck used to be up with lightning? Also I'd expect a new spike in cold deaths after that polar vortex.

>>10496375
Tip for the future OP, any time a hysterical doomsday prediction's solution is "more taxes" it's a meme.

>>10498209
he's fucking that kid, right?

>>10499539
>th-th-the graph clearly shows
Where's your source for that claim? Have you run a statistical analysis on the data? Or are you just another science denier?

>>10499599
What’s it matter? The graph is unsourced and includes only air temperature for some reason. A linear increase is not expected. Try a different trolling tactic .

the whole apocalyptic shitshow about muh climate change is retarded because the actual science is extremely interesting.
just a few days ago I read a paper about how they tried to approximate the co2 billions of years ago by micro organisms that already lived back then. or geocarb where they try to fit the few data points we have from chemical analysis with a sophisticated model. interesting enough both came to absolutely varying results. but shows the problem
>spatial and temporal empirical data from the past are hard to come by
>good measurements of the whole planet only for a few decades
>a system the size of a planet with billions if not trillions of sub systems and variables

basically our knowledge is minuscule and still people are talking about causality like its fucking law handed down by God. it's beyond me how you could possible make policies based on this. and it distract from the actual thing we could do: clean and save the environment. stop the chinese from eating everything single animal they can get their hands on, etc etc.

like those faggy kids that were "striking for climate". why didnt they go to the local river and gathered all the trash and removed invasive species? planted some trees? or built habitats for wild bees and bird? anything useful, but no they stood around for 2 hours and then went to mc donalds.

>>10499651
>It's beyond me how you could make policies based on this.
PHD's need to justify getting their next government grant, and the government wants to justify stealing 5% more of the money you rightfully earned busting your ass.

>>10499651
Cool graph, it really does a good job of explaining how powerful the greenhouse effect is considering how much cooler the sun was hundreds of millions of years ago.

>>10499723
nice hot take there, bruv

>>10499617
Oh no! Don't call me a troll! I promise, the emperor has clothes on now!!

You really need to find some new rhetorical tricks, buddy, or better yet, learn some science

>>10496640
>same agenda
>global warming is a myth invented by cnn to depose president trump

>>10499792
Sad troll. Your thread’s dead. Please don’t start another.

>learn some science

https://climate.nasa.gov/

Go learn

>>10498632
>hurrr durrr I'm only retard because you made me act retarded

>the absolute state of /sci/
The maximum forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 is +1.2C. That's stated right in the fucking IPCC reports.

The only way you can get +2-6C forcing is with a strong water vapor feedback.

Take a guess as to whether or not there's a strong water vapor feedback from this graph.

Anthropogenic CO2 has an effect but it's not one worth worrying about.

>>10499368
>Average temperature at all US climatology stations
Jesus Christ, do you actually believe the shit you're posting or is this some kind of act?
Changes to climatology stations are obviously not going to be uniformly distributed across the US. And the US isn't global.

>>10499376
HadCRUT doesn't just measure the temprature of Greenland, you can't slap the two of them together. Also, that y-axis looks fucked.

>>10500078
>Posting Christy's graph.
How many times does that thing need to get refuted before deniers stop posting it?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

>>10500083
Like clockwork, clueless denier cuck posts a smug graph while attempting to hide the source and then gets BTFO instantly.

>>10500078
>Anthropogenic CO2 has an effect but it's not one worth worrying about.
>The trigger has an effect, but is meaningless when you consider it is the bullet that does the damage.
Don't pull the trigger.
Whoops.

>>10496375
Define "growing"

Uncle Pentti exposed this trick by finnish foresters long ago

>>10496551
>Northern Hemisphere glacial melt is not a significant change
Normal we are still coming out of the last ice age.

>>10496375
>it's global warming
>it's global cooling
>it's climate change
It's the weather

>>10496640
>National Security Adviser lied about Russian sanctions and got fired
>nothing was happening

>>10500044
Ya

>>10500177
These shitty graphs get reposted by blogs so much that it’s hard to find the original for me.

>>10498179
How would waste in a hole be unhealthy?

Why would you feel the need to go sit in the hole?

>>10500672
Superpowers

>>10500672
I don't know... What could possibly happen if something leaked out? Because that totally has not happened before and does not keep happening.

>>>/pol/207925479

>>10500699
http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Geological_Repositories.htm

Nothing.

>"We had pretty much assumed that Jakobshavn would just keep going on as it had over the last 20 years." But the cold water isn't a one-off. Data from OMG shows that the water has been cold now for three years in a row.

>It appears that the cold water is the result of a climate pattern known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which makes the northern Atlantic Ocean slowly switch between warm and cold water about once every 20 years, the researchers said.

who else /scam/ general?

How much of global warming is due to actual warming?

>>10500470
Is there a word for weather trends over longer periods of time? And possible changes in these trends?

>>10501128
>how much of higher average global temperature is due to higher average global temperature?

>>10501553
About 3% my dude

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED. GIVE ME YOUR MONEY.

>>10500699
Meanwhile coal plants keep shitting out incredible amounts of radioactive isotopes on top of the CO2 emissions

>>10498159
>2% vs 0.04% is gigantic
WTF you talking about, Fool?

>>10496375
paleoclimate graph.. we are about to go down, gsm is upon us.

>>10496375
BUT MUH. GLOBAL WARMING

>>10503250
>we are about to go down
Evidence?
Earth has changed quite a bit in the past 120,000 years, Friendo.

>>10503257
History never repeats but it sure rhymes Friendo.

>>10503267
Temperature up, or temperature down?
Call it.

>>10503274
.

>>10496375
Who cares just be nice to the planet, all of the things they say cause global warming are just things to avoid doing in general even if it doesn't, the glaciers might grow back but people are still dying of smog in China, keeping green things at the back of your mind in general is never a bad thing.

>>10503329
Yes, regardless if it's the sun (we don't live in a close system) we have to take care of our home and stop polluting and stop behaving like a cancer that destroys it's host. We need to live in balance with nature and realize that infinite growth on a finite planet is the wrong path. ..

>>10503305
>AHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Mom let the hyaena use her computer again.

>>10496845
That's why you poke holes (geo-fissures).

>>10500452
>the last ice age
...ended 13,000 years ago. Try to keep up, Anon.

>>10503777
We are in the so called interglacial period, in the past one without human influence it was even hotter than current one in the past every ice cap in earth melted.

>>10496518
A super volcano also releases high altitude dust and sulfur dioxide gas, both of which reflect visible and infrared light before it reaches the ground, resulting in cooling. Humans on the other hand emit mostly CO2 and only a very very tiny amount of SO2 relative to the CO2 release, meaning the warming effect of CO2 completely overwhelms the relatively small release of SO2 most of which never even gets high enough in the atmosphere to be effective at reflecting heat anyway.

>>10496996
>Analyzing 1000's of years
>Only ever uses 100 years of data points
> Never mentions aleged 4.5 billions years.
>Always forgets Earth was inhospitable and changed climate through natural physical means to harbor life
>Thinks this is any different.

Let's say manmade climate change is real, what's your goal or plan to change it?

>>10505174
babies. trillions of babies to innovate n'sheit.

>>10505174
Kill india, china, and brazil, america should be castrated, and latin america too, just to be sure.

>>10505183
This. More people means more minds working on the problem.

>>10505212
Out of all the "minds" in the world, how many of them do you think are working on "the problem"?

also, you are aware that people are actually what is causing the problem, right?

They don't even know if the Earth is warming up or cooling down, but they KNOW FOR SURE that it's our fault and we have to PAY (them) to fix it!!

Global warming is the biggest fraud perpetrated on the western world since Christianity.

>omg global warming isn't dooming everyone in 100 years as the models predicted
Good because then we still have time to move over to green energy.

It's really just a tool for enacting economic reforms. Why? I don't know, a lot of what the sociopathic reptile overclass does seems pointless.

>>10505378
you know buying less (or used) stuff reduces your carbon footprint?

>>10505378
Christianity makes more sense than the Universalist meme-complex that global warming hucksterism is a part of.

>>10505212
More like dumb people breed more and try to get on the welfare gravy train and become dead weight.

We need that space base, my dude.

>>10505602
>Universalist meme-complex
this is literally what christianity is though

>>10496648
What the fuck kind of dishonest statement is this shit? How can you even possibly ignore the fact that that compounds making up the atmosphere clearly affect it by different magnitudes?

>>10496375
>one twitter post
>sufficient evidence
choose one

>>10496375
daily reminder that climate change is good for white countries

wouldn't it grow because northern hemisphere had record breaking snowstorms same time Australia had record breaking heatwaves?

>>10496786
Just go back. No one wants your culture here except the expats like you who venture for no reason other than to complain

>>10505990
Enjoy all the people from the red areas moving to the green ones.

>>10496375
I fell for it too, I feel like a fucking moron, I feel like the retards who were convinced Trump colluded with Russia.

>>10496375
I think it's not so much that we're spewing CO2 and other gases as much as it is we're chopping down the trees and other things that used to absorb and convert said gases.
We've chopped down something like 50% of the earths forestry in the last 100 years, and are actively killing the sea algea too. We're going to kill ourselves unless we can CRISPR those algae into being more productive and trees to produce more lichen. Also godamn just plant more trees anyway.

>>10506467
>Releasing modified biological entities into the wild
If we ever do that it will be out of desperation, history has shown us that introducing new species to the environment can be catastrophical, even getting rid of some species could also damage the environmental equilibrium

>>10503250
People always make this prediction but it never happens

>>10506445
<Implying I'm from Reddit.
/thread