/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12266436
>Nobody
only in america

>>12266467
4chan is world wide. Brilliant minds here don't even talk about it.

>>12266436
Make America Greta Again

>>12266436
Burger elections

>>12266436
>Is it over
lolno

>>12266436
It's a foregone conclusion for anyone who knows about radiative heat transfer, which is the main way energy enters and leaves the Earth's surface. Different atmospheric compositions have different absorptivity spectra, and since the Earth is floating out in space, a fraction of a percent of change actually expresses itself in several degrees because you're measuring the energy in Kelvin (of which Earth typically has almost 300). The problem is what to do about it, not about what is.

Simplified, one camp says do nothing, and the other one says do everything. Neither seems tenable, but each one's existence makes the other a valid option. Doing nothing would result in greater economic growth, meaning better-funded institutions, meaning that clean-energy technologies will improve that much faster, meaning it'll being us our green-energy utopia if the arable land distribution & sea level don't change so much that it fucks up the world economy. Doing everything would result in mobilization and refitting of already-aging infrastructure with the backlash coming in a more direct form and businesses doing what's the most profitable on top of a newly-updated grid.

My impression is that deniers don't know about the base level of energy-in versus energy-out for the planet, and green activists don't know about the Saudi oil embargo of 1973 and how THAT went for the West, leaving out what an even more restrictive energy policy would do to THEM. You can't charge an electric car if the mainly coal-run electrical grid is down.

>>12266610
There's always a bigger nigger.

>>12266436
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaaw1838

I could be wrong but there's a bigger story going on right now.

>>12266866
See, the thing is you are right, but nobody cares for the strategic level thinking. Its beyond the ability of the public, and most of /sci/ for that matter. They would rather quibble endlessly over trivial secondary issues.
My conclusion is that democracy was a mistake. An advanced society capable of taking corrective action on a global scale never evolved.

>>12266474
>brilliant minds
>4chins
I suppose schizophrenia is correlated with creativity.

>>12266866
Heard of horizontal well drilling? The US is a net oil exporter and has been since late 2019, way before covid collapsed oil demand.
The question that really matters:
Will the changes to the ppm of carbon in the atmosphere, the incidence rate of cold weather, the incidence rate of hot weather, the incidence rate of rain, the incidence rate of drought, the incidence rate of tornadoes, the incidence rate of hurricanes, groundwater usage, groundwater availability, fertiliser availability, tractor/truck fuel availability, pest presence, the availability of electrical power, the economy and the availability of raw materials to replace broken equipment cause a famine in the USA?
The CIA and the department of agriculture don't seem worried about this, so why should you be?

In the absolute worst case scenario, we can carry on civilisation in Canada at this level:
https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they-make-it-part-i-farmers/

>>12266436
The world might exhaust all of its fossil fuel that can be burned way before sea levels increase considerably, so there may be chance that this planet could be saved.

>>12267066
holy fuck anon, i liek your analysis

>>12266885
>An advanced society capable of taking corrective action on a global scale never evolved.
because we decided hitler exterminating/torturing everyone standing in the way of that society wasn't worth the utopia. dont worry, mother nature will finish hitler's work.

>>12267066
It's a world situation, not a US & Canada situation. Even so, it's nigh ridiculous to suggest that the CIA would have any jurisdiction or direct stake over it, while the US Department of Agriculture DOES actively host and fund climate science initiatives, you dishonest twat.
>https://www.usda.gov/oce/energy-and-environment/climate
>https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/

>>12267066
Also, the US being a net oil exporter doesn't matter if the policy is to not use oil. You're misinterpreting, hard.

>>12266436
Basically, what happened is that Trump and AOC both agree that the best solution is nuclear energy from the safer, cleaner reactors that don't melt down like the ones built 50 years ago.

They still have to pretend to disagree with each other—because they both need to excite their own base of eternal partisan retards into voting them back into office—but you don't hear as much propaganda about it anymore because no one really disagrees about the solution.
(Except for solar and wind investment funds and the shills they pay to shill for solar and wind.)

>>12266866
My impression is that you can make organic solvent that is suitable as fuel from algae.

Also you don't have to use coal for electricity, surrounding heat in atmosphere or sea water is sufficient.

Problem is that nobody wants to know about this tranformation, because it's expensive and it changes structure of society.

Fuel would be green, but it requires initial investition, but that wouldn't justify oil type of infinite income, because people will realize resource isn't limited.

>>12266436
Their whole publicity stunt and media campaign got disrupted by based corona-chan. They try and start it up every now and then, but nobody really cares.

>>12266436
Media cycle swallowed and spit out a story for as long as it got people to click on links. None of this ever mattered. Nothing will change. We'll all be fine. The planet won't die, but you will. Spend your time on Earth being smart enough to not waste time on garbage.

>>12267265
>>12267267
>It's not real because people stopped talking about it on TV
Are you seriously this dumb?

>>12266436
The sun's cooling down now. They're switching back to new ice age scare mongering.

>>12267380
>The sun's cooling down now.
And yet average temperatures are still climbing.

>They're switching back to new ice age scare mongering.
Who are "they", and why should I care?

>>12267390
Earth's temperature doesn't instantly set to new values. There are feedbacks and delays. It's still catching up to the sun heating up to grand max over the last century.
"they" are the climate cultists. Didn't say you should care, they're what the thread's about.

>>12266866
>Simplified, one camp says do nothing, and the other one says do everything.
Strawman.

>Doing nothing would result in greater economic growth
In the short term, not in the long term.

>meaning better-funded institutions, meaning that clean-energy technologies will improve that much faster
This is based on several false premises. The government primarily funds clean energy research, why do you think funding is tied to economic growth? If you want to make green energy competitive in the market it needs to be subsidized or fossil fuels need to be priced higher. The market by itself cannot reflect the negative externalities that add to the cost of carbon, making fossil fuels seem more advantageous than they are.

>>12267074
Sea levels will increase considerably if that occurs. It's not like warming immediately stops once you burn all your fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The effect will continue for a few hundred years as the carbon cycle slowly absorbs the excess CO2.

>>12267096
>hitler exterminating/torturing everyone standing in the way of that society
OK schizo.

>>12267380
>>12267462
Solar activity has been decreasing for several decades and is now at a grand minimum. Soon it will start increasing again. So when does the "ice age" happen?

It's an idiotic claim for several reasons. We are already in an ice age and have been for millions of years. There is still ice at the poles. If you mean a glacial period, that requires much more than Solar activity decreasing. It requires several factors involving Earth's orbital eccentricity and axial tilt to coincide. The effects of these factors are called the Milankovich cycle. Currently we are in the interglacial period of the cycle, which means we should be slowly cooling over the next few tens of thousands of years into a glacial period. Instead we are warming about 25 times faster than the interglacial warming that occurred 10,000 years ago that brought us out of the previous interglacial. Needless to say, this is worrying.

>Earth's temperature doesn't instantly set to new values. There are feedbacks and delays.
Yes, something climatologists understand much better than you. Pic related.

>It's still catching up to the sun heating up to grand max over the last century.
LOL, then we would see this rapid warming frequently, after every grand maximum but we don't.

>>12267462
fuck off idiot

>>12267356
How did end up you interpreting either of those comments that way?

>>12267467
>Strawman.
That's what the qualifier "Simplified" is for.

>In the short term, not in the long term.
If you mean VERY long term, then sure. The timescale for pollution to make an economic impact is uncertain, as China's gotten away with explosive growth without a pollution-induced turnaround, and we're actually nowhere near depleting our fossil fuels.

>This is based on several false premises
If there's more money in the economy, more is taxable, meaning more money can go into all sectors, including research. A left politician can always flex brownie points on his voter base by putting a few more dollars into a green energy deal, and any grad student knows that there's not always enough money to go around to fund their research. The way things are right now, a lot of work just doesn't get done because projects that are on the table either can't find funding or can only find partial funding. Any true innovation is nearly independent of the economic situation, but for technologies that are already there, incremental improvements come fairly regularly for any technology that has the R&D budget.

That's all pretty-well driven by the fact that green technologies aren't market-competitive without artificial deflation or improvements in tech. In the situation where you do nothing, the ones doing everything will still exist to drive the march forward. That's why I say that each side makes the other side more viable. There is no world where nothing is done, and there's no world where green activists bring the energy economy to a screeching halt.

>>12268315
>That's what the qualifier "Simplified" is for.
No, "simplified" does not mean false.

>If you mean VERY long term, then sure.
I mean long term as in a few decades from now.

> The timescale for pollution to make an economic impact is uncertain, as China's gotten away with explosive growth without a pollution-induced turnaround, and we're actually nowhere near depleting our fossil fuels.
I don't know what you mean by "pollution." I'm talking about the effects of global warming.

>If there's more money in the economy, more is taxable, meaning more money can go into all sectors, including research.
Yes, it can. That doesn't mean it will. You're basically saying that "doing nothing" = funding green energy more. That's not nothing. Plus you're ignoring that if green energy is made competitive with fossil fuels by subsidy/carbon pricing/regulation, the private sector will contribute much more to its development.

>>12267495
lol, fuck off with your computer game predictions

>>12267497
i like you because you actually have the courage to tell idiots to fuck off.

No one's talking about it? It was a pretty prominent portion of the recent presidential debates.

>>12268755
>stop posting scientific projections
>listen to my nonsensical prediction of an "ice age" based on nothing
OK, retard.

>>12268785
This is the least racist post on /sci/

>>12266436

>>12267497
Over the period the sun's activity was increasing alarmists would use TSI to imply it wasn't. Now they say solar activity is decreasing despite level TSI.
CO2 alarmist hysteria all depends on ignoring what the sun is doing or mental gymnastics where the sun can only cool earth but not heat it up.

>>12266436
Fuck global warming, plastics alone are enough to make this planet hell to live on

>>12268315
>If you mean VERY long term
lol it's within our lifetimes you retard

>>12269223
kek

got one with the Swedish girl on a podium as well?

>>12269386
What is "TSI"? And what bullshit are you trying to justify denial exactly? Yes, you do ignore the sun, you take the temperature, control for oscillations in irradiance, measurement site, ect. basically all the unimportant factors, and if there's still a discrepancy compared to past measurements there's something wrong, what's so hard to understand?

>>12269571

what exactly will happen in our lifetimes ?

>>12269592
Total solar irradiance aka the yellow line on that graph.
>you do ignore the sun
That's why no one takes alarmists seriously.

>>12266585
>tfw no more coal burners in the United States

I have given up on this matter completely. No state can control it's population to the level necessary to force a carbon neutral economy.
At best the corporatists will let, too slowly, nuclear solve the problem. So we can only try to predict how close the world will get to the blade runner levels of environmental destruction and what percentage of human diet will be factory made bug meat.

>>12269386
>Over the period the sun's activity was increasing alarmists would use TSI to imply it wasn't.
What the hell are you talking about?

>Now they say solar activity is decreasing despite level TSI.
Solar activity is decreasing and so is TSI.

>CO2 alarmist hysteria all depends on ignoring what the sun is doing
How is quantifying it ignoring it?

>where the sun can only cool earth but not heat it up.
No one said that.

The retarded pseudoscientific claims and strawmen from deniers just keep getting more bizarre.

>>12270086
>What the hell are you talking about?
see >>12267497
>How is quantifying it ignoring it?
Quantifying only one parameter, ignoring all the others.
>pic
Like when you put dozens of anthropogenic factors in your model but include only one single natural parameter, specifically the one that's changed the least. Almost as if AGW's a foregone conclusion you're trying to reach.
Why do climate alarmists always ignore natural factors? Are they dishonest or just incompetent?

>>12269386
>what the sun is doing
it's doing nothing
wobbling between 1360 and 1361 for 140 years
is nothing, 1/1360 is a measly 0.07% variation

>>12270318
Yeah that's exactly what I'm talking about.
>only look at irradiance
>0.07% is literally nothing
meanwhile actual solar variability has been huge: low peak at 80 in 1880 to high of 250 in 1960, 150% higher.
150% change isn't nothing, it's 2000 times bigger than 0.07. If it the solar effect in >>12270086 was 2000x bigger it'd completely dominate all the anthro effects.
You'd think alarmists who say the sun has nothing to do with climate would have to know exactly what it's been doing but they're wrong about its activity by at least 3 orders of magnitude.

>>12266436
China and India slowed down carbon emissions for a while thanks to covid-19 and the ensuing economic stagnation. So the virus actually helped Greta and her fellow cult members. If things ever start going back to normal, she will be back. Or maybe not. She will be too old by then so she will be replaced by some other Scandinavian truant teenager.

>>12266436
You watch the presidential debates it gets brought up. People don’t obsess over it because most people don’t care about it that much.

>>12270449
>only look at irradiance
Irradiance is by far the most important factor here. You're talking about sunspots, but sunspots are mostly interesting as a proxy for irradiance.

I have given up, at this point I just want to observe the horrors that will unfold while munching on popcorn. I mean, I try to limit my own emissions and vote for green parties, but I have no illusions that it will be enough to stop it. If it gets bad enough I can always just kill myself, and that's a comforting thought.

>>12269214
>stop posting scientific projections
>listen to my nonsensical prediction of an "ice age" based on nothing

contrary to your pseudo scientific projections, ice ages are real and have happened many times already. A grand solar minimum wouldn't bring an ice age but a mini ice age, which has also already happened numerous times in the history of the earth, these are actual scientific observations contrary to your biased computer game predictions made by corrupt scientist.

>>12266436
Conservatives won.

>>12270647
>these are actual scientific observations contrary to your biased computer game predictions made by corrupt scientist.
...but you're clearly to busy to post any of them, so we should just take your word for it.

>>12270647
lol schizo, take your meds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6eswiI3KLc

>>12270696
lol, what a noob, there are tons of studies on the last glacial maximum and there are ice core records showing that ice ages are a cyclical phenomenon.

>>12266436
its over , good job this time, however, it will be back on topic after about 6 months

>>12270594
You doomers are so pathetic. Are you posting from Nigeria? Because if you live in Europe or US like 99% of 4chan climate change will be net benefit to us. The only people I could understand being concerned are the ones living in the regions near equator, but we need to drastically cut their numbers anyway

>>12270757
great point. everyone will definitely just sit around and politely wait to die; they certainly wouldn't migrate north

I just dreamed that some countries where throwing a lot of salt in the sea to fight climate change, then suddenly I was in a car with Trump driving it and we were trying to get to my home
What my brain meant by this

>>12270772
great point. everyone up north will definitely just sit around and politely watch them migrate; they certainly wouldn't do anything about it

>>12270590
>proxy for irradiance
no, eg see pic
>Irradiance is by far the most important factor
Based on completely ignoring other factors or underestimating them by 2000x, but why do alarmists do this? Because not doing it destroys the AGW narrative.

>>12270790
sure they will, but it will result in violence. like... a lot of violence.

by the way, this is just one of a host of second order effects that are going to suck for everyone, even if derpa derp it's not that hot in 'murica.

>>12270718
>showing that ice ages are a cyclical phenomenon.
What does that have to do with anything?

>>12270796
>>proxy for irradiance
>no, eg see pic
Cosmic ray intensity hasn't actually been shown to have any significant impact.

>Based on completely ignoring other factors or underestimating them by 2000x
The other factors get ignored because every study on them shows they're too small to matter.

>but why do alarmists do this? Because not doing it destroys the AGW narrative.
Why do you think anyone is going to be impressed by your random assertions of grand, international conspiracies? It doesn't work for the chemtrail people, it doesn't work for the moonhoax people - it's not going to work for you.

>>12270757
Yeah no, climate change has already been a net negative to me and I live in a first world country quite far north. The weather sucks ass now, there has been a significant increase in precipitation, storms and summer heatwaves.

>>12270804
>>showing that ice ages are a cyclical phenomenon.
>What does that have to do with anything?
can't make this stuff up, my god.

>>stop posting scientific projections
>>listen to my nonsensical prediction of an "ice age" based on nothing
>OK, retard.

remember? this is what you wrote.
So i am gonna say it to you again, contrary to your biased computer game predictions made by corrupt scientist ice ages are real and happen cyclically and these are actual scientific observations, it's a fact like it is a fact that it rains on earth.

>>12266436
No we're still talking about it, it's still a problem according to every major scientific organization (especially the IPCC which is made up of the most prominent climate scientists in the UN) and hopefully we get it under control before we're fucked

>>12270892
next one isn't coming for 50,000 years
https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws?t=9m30s

>>12270925
>next one isn't coming for 50,000 years
wait a second, is that a prediction, looks like you are a hypocrite, who would have thought.

We need LFTRs.

>muh sun

Are deniers retarded? We can exactly measure the Sun's output. Its been on a slow decrease since the 50s. It cannot explain the observed warming.

>b-but sunspots and cosmic rays

They are at best an indirect proxy for solar activity (and often poor one at that). We dont need them at all since we can simply measure the solar radiation directly.

>>12266436
we have more important things right now, like the genocide of blacks in america by the police

>>12270803
Conflict was always part of human history, we just deluded ourselves into thinking we are somehow above it. Besides think about advancements ww2 caused in nuclear technology, rocketry, aeronautics, medicine... Maybe the next great crisis will force us to develop technology to colonize Mars or at least something like this >>12270970. Yeah a lot of people will die but this is science and not moralfaggotry board.
>>12270822
You have to look at it objectivly. I understand some like hot summers and some dont, but thats not objective measurment. European countries are going to be more prosperous due to more bountiful harvests, it will be cheaper to stay warm in winters, arctic sea routes will open up, siberia will warm up...
>https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/index.html
I am sad our leaders are trying to prevent this, but glad in knowing they will ultimately fail

>>12271078
>You have to look at it objectivly. I understand some like hot summers and some dont, but thats not objective measurment. European countries are going to be more prosperous due to more bountiful harvests, it will be cheaper to stay warm in winters, arctic sea routes will open up, siberia will warm up...
I AM looking at it objectively. My city will be ass-blasted by climate change, all the studies my government has done says that. "Hot summers" is the least of our problems. We already have too much precipitation, and climate change will double it. Flash floods and destructive wind will be way more commonplace, costing us millions or billions each year. Harvests aren't more bountiful, in fact they are failing, because erratic weather in the spring first causes crops to sprout too early, and then get killed when the weather turns cold again. We've had 20C weather one week and then snow the next week, this was unheard of before. Data backs this up, insurance policies, both for consumers and for agriculture, are paying out way more now due to destructive weather. And food is more expensive (more than just inflation would cause).

Maybe a few areas far inland will be better off, but I don't think there's a single coastal city (and most major cities in the would are coastal) that will not be hurt.

>imagine still thinking humans burning fossil fuels have any significant on the climate
>imagine still following the elite death cult that wants to punish people for respirating, essentially

Kekw

>>12271327
>imagine still denying basic physics and posting debunked talking points

>>12270296
>see >>12267497 #
That shows apart activity increasing and then decreasing. When has anyone used TSI to imply it wasn't? You're spouting nonsense.

>Quantifying only one parameter, ignoring all the others.
Which parameter has been ignored? What evidence do you have it's significant?

>Like when you put dozens of anthropogenic factors in your model but include only one single natural parameter, specifically the one that's changed the least.
There's only one natural forcing that's significant over this time frame. You're free to explain what others have been missed, but instead you just whine.

>Almost as if AGW's a foregone conclusion you're trying to reach.
Then why would negative anthropogenic forcing be included?

>Why do climate alarmists always ignore natural factors?
You're the one ignoring them since you won't even name one.

>>12270647
>contrary to your pseudo scientific projections, ice ages are real and have happened many times already.
Where did I say anything to the contrary? I said your prediction of an ice age is nonsense, not ice ages in general.

>A grand solar minimum wouldn't bring an ice age but a mini ice age
It would be nice if you could present evidence for that or eviscerated against the projection I posted. Too bad you won't and your claims can be dismissed as bullshit.

By the way, the most significant "mini ice age" in human history was barely a blip compared to current warming. So even if your bullshit was correct, it would still be irrelevant.

>>12270718
>there are tons of studies on the last glacial maximum
What does that have to do with grand solar minima? Do you think there hasn't been one in 10000 years? You're laughably out of your depth.

>and there are ice core records showing that ice ages are a cyclical phenomenon
You just said you're talking about "mini ice ages" not ice ages. Apparently glacial periods, ice ages, and mini ice ages are the same thing when it suits your argument but different when it doesn't.

>>12271452
>>stop posting scientific projections
>>listen to my nonsensical prediction of an "ice age" based on nothing
this is what i responded to, you can clearly see he referred to the ice age, but since you don't really have arguments you have to misrepresent things.

>>12266436
The vast majority of the world's population is stupid. They have short attention spans. They exist not for substance and facts, but for image and fashions, all of which have expiry dates, and which are replaced by whatever new in-group fad appears. Greta and CC are out of fashion. Replaced by Corona and BLM.

>>12271401
we were literally taught that shit in schools, stop trying to change history. global warming is politics, not science.

>>12271465
So you agree democracy was a mistake?

>>12270892
You're not even contradicting anything anyone has said at this point. Presumably by "ice age" you mean glacial periods. Ice ages are caused by continental drift blocking the flow of warm water to the polar regions, they aren't cyclical. Glacial periods are part of the Milankovich cycle, which is caused by Earth's orbital eccentricity and axial tilt. We are in the slow cooling phase of that cycle, and another glacial period won't occur for several tens of thousands of years. Instead, we are warming about 25 times faster than interglacial warming. What is your explanation? You have none.

>>12270941
>wait a second, is that a prediction
Yes.

>looks like you are a hypocrite
How so?

>>12271461
>this is what i responded to
Yes, and you responded to that with this:

>A grand solar minimum wouldn't bring an ice age but a mini ice age

So first you say "ice age" then you say "mini ice age" and now you're taking about glacial periods. Can you just choose one?

>you can clearly see he referred to the ice age
Who?

>>12271465
>we were literally taught that shit in schools
I don't believe you but let's just assume that you're telling the truth. The caption of the cartoon says pronouncements by scientists. Were your teachers scientists?

>>12266436
>I am gone
good riddance.

>>12271479
listen i don't care about your mumbo jumbo about ice ages, you clearly don't even know what you are talking about.

>Instead, we are warming about 25 times faster than interglacial warming. What is your explanation? You have none.

that is your assumption and not a fact.

>>12271490
>So first you say "ice age" then you say "mini ice age" and now you're taking about glacial periods. Can you just choose one?

making an issue about about nothing, you are just a sophist.

>>12271505
>listen i don't care about your mumbo jumbo about ice ages
LOL, you're the one that brought them up. Nice projection.

>that is your assumption and not a fact.
It is a scientific fact. You have no argument.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

>>12271515
It's hardly nothing when you not only confuse three different things but also confuse what causes them and thus incorrectly predict them.

Do you deny that the next glacial period should not occur until tens of thousands of years from now according to the Milankovich cycle? If not, why are you talking about it as if it supports your claim that the solar minimum will cause an "ice age???" This isn't sophistry, it's your argument not making any sense whatsoever.

>A grand solar minimum wouldn't bring an ice age but a mini ice age
Why are you making an issue about nothing?

>>12271444
>I said your prediction of an ice age is nonsense, not ice ages in general.

i never made prediction, the point is ice ages are real, making a prediction about a coming ice age has more legitimacy than your biased computer predictions made by corrupt scientist.

>Too bad you won't and your claims can be dismissed as bullshit.

lol, your whole field of climate fraud can be dismissed as bullshit.

hockey stick graph has been debunked.

>>12271527
>LOL, you're the one that brought them up. Nice projection.

lol, i don't care about your mumbo jumbo, if i want to educate myself about ice ages, i read the scientific research, a book or a blog about paleoclimatology.

>https://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

sorry, but the greenland ice core records disagree, it was warmer in the past.

>>12271570
>i never made prediction
Then why are you talking about ice ages?

>the point is ice ages are real
I never said they weren't. So what is your point?

>making a prediction about a coming ice age has more legitimacy than your biased computer predictions made by corrupt scientist.
How is it biased? How are the scientists corrupt? What ice age prediction are you even talking about?

>lol, your whole field of climate fraud can be dismissed as bullshit.
Then show it's fraud.

>hockey stick graph has been debunked.
Where?

>>12271603
>lol, i don't care about your mumbo jumbo, if i want to educate myself about ice ages, i read the scientific research, a book or a blog about paleoclimatology.
If you had you would not be so confused and spouting nonsense.

>sorry, but the greenland ice core records disagree
How so?

>>12266436
it has changed.

>>12271527
>post graph with a computer simulation to the year 2100

Why not just draw it freehand in mspaint? It'll be 100% inaccurate in both cases.

>>12266610
>Stolen faggot
By me of course

>>12271549
>It's hardly nothing when you not only confuse three different things
as i said a sophist, i didn't confuse anything in fact i was the one who made the distinction between ice ages and mini ice ages.

>If not, why are you talking about it as if it supports your claim that the solar minimum will cause an "ice age???"

I never talked about the milankovich cycle and i never said a solar minimum will cause an ice age, a grand solar minimum will cause a little ice age.

>>12271672
>I never said they weren't. So what is your point?

i am gonna repeat this until you get the point: making a prediction about a coming ice age has more legitimacy than your biased computer predictions made by corrupt scientist since ice ages are fact.

>How is it biased? How are the scientists corrupt?

my god, we have sweet summer child here.

>What ice age prediction are you even talking about?

i never made any.

>>12271675
>If you had you would not be so confused and spouting nonsense.

yes saying ice ages have occurred cyclically is nonsense, lol, that's why i don't care about your mumbo jumbo.

>>12271327

>>12271703
Why do you think it will be inaccurate?

>>12271801
>i didn't confuse anything in fact i was the one who made the distinction between ice ages and mini ice ages.
Yes, after I pointed out that a solar minimum causing an ice age was nonsensical.

>I never talked about the milankovich cycle
I didn't say you did. I doubt you even had heard of it before I told you about them. I'm asking you why you are talking about glacial periods and apparently you can't give me a straight answer.

>and i never said a solar minimum will cause an ice age
You did, you just clarified your incorrect terminology once it was explained to you.

>a grand solar minimum will cause a little ice age.
What evidence do you have for that?

>>12271822
>making a prediction about a coming ice age has more legitimacy
Why?

>your biased computer predictions made by corrupt scientist
How are they biased and corrupt?

>since ice ages are fact.
Warming is a fact too, so any predictions of warming are legitimate? You're not actually making an argument.

>my god, we have sweet summer child here.
OK then, you're biased and corrupt and I don't have to show how.

>i never made any.
That's not what I asked. What ice age predictions are you talking about?

>>12271834
>yes saying ice ages have occurred cyclically is nonsense
It is. Glacial periods are cyclical due to Earth's orbit, ice ages are not cyclical due to continental drift. It would be nice if you could make a substantive argument but I guess that's too much to ask from a retarded denier.

>>12272333
>Yes, after I pointed out that a solar minimum causing an ice age was nonsensical.

no, i never said that, i said grand solar minima cause little ice ages.

>How are they biased and corrupt?

lol, not only are we talking here about a computer simulation trying to emulate something as complex as reality but they are mostly based on the hoax that co2 causes warming. Ipcc models overestimate co2 climate sensitivity. And as already said are made by the fucking ipcc run by the UN and a clique of scientists and politicians, literally run by globalists.

>You did, you just clarified your incorrect terminology once it was explained to you.

i didn't, i wrote this you fucking sophist:

>contrary to your pseudo scientific projections, ice ages are real and have happened many times already. A grand solar minimum wouldn't bring an ice age but a mini ice age, which has also already happened numerous times in the history of the earth, these are actual scientific observations contrary to your biased computer game predictions made by corrupt scientist.

>>12272477
>no, i never said that, i said grand solar minima cause little ice ages.
The Earth will continue warming, the effects of the grand solar minima are much too small compared to the increasing greenhouse effect.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

>lol, not only are we talking here about a computer simulation trying to emulate something as complex as reality
Reality is simulated all the time. Complex does not mean unpredictable.

>but they are mostly based on the hoax that co2 causes warming.
How is the greenhouse effect a hoax? It's basic physics and can be directly observed with radiative spectroscopy:

https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6_noSplash_b5903aebfe105b4071103e11197138f8.pdf

>Ipcc models overestimate co2 climate sensitivity.
What evidence do you have that they overestimate it?

>And as already said are made by the fucking ipcc run by the UN and a clique of scientists and politicians, literally run by globalists.
The models aren't made by the IPCC, the IPCC simply aggregates already published science and model runs.

>i didn't, i wrote this you fucking sophist:
Yes, that's exactly what I said you did. Are you illiterate?

>You did, you just clarified your incorrect terminology once it was explained to you.

>>12266436
>Is it over?
more or less, the latest data is showing there's nothing we can really do anymore due to lag effects, policy changes and the like had to be implemented in the 70s and 80s for it to really stop or minimize damage. At this stage we've driven off the cliff and we're waiting to hit the ground, mass die off of humanity this century senpai

>>12272655
>>i didn't, i wrote this you fucking sophist:
>Yes, that's exactly what I said you did. Are you illiterate?

i don't see any further point in talking to someone that disagrees even on something as basic as what has been written, you just have to look but you'd rather misrepresent things. A typical sophist. anyways i will say this, who is Maurice Strong?

The IPCC was created in 1988 largely due to the efforts of Maurice Strong, a billionaire and self-confessed socialist, as part of a larger campaign to justify giving the United Nations the authority to tax businesses in developed countries and redistribute trillions of dollars a year to developing nations.

As a Rockefeller asset Maurice Strong (1929-2015) was a major force behind both the global warming narrative and the linking of that narrative with an argument for ever greater powers for the corporate-owned United Nations bureaucracy. His crowning achievement was the 2nd Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero in 1992.

>>12272655
>>12272967
Strong met David Rockefeller at the age of 18, and under Rockefeller’s patronage was given a minor, temporary position with the United Nations. Thereafter continuing sponsorship by Rockefeller led to a career in oil, and in parallel one as a mover and shaker in Canadian politics, including heading the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

It was David Rockefeller who, ably assisted by Maurice Strong, created and drove the wildly successful ‘Global Warming’ strategy.

David Rockefeller (1915-2017) was the youngest of John D. Rockefeller Jr.’s six children, and a grandson of John D. Rockefeller. He was well known as chairman and chief executive of Chase Manhattan Corporation and in the words of the obituary published by Rockefeller University, ‘one of the greatest philanthropists of our time’. He is viewed in a somwhat different light by his critics, e.g. David Rockefeller: An Immoral Life of Evil and Treason.

David Rockefeller was heir to the Rockefeller ambition to create global governance by an elite. This almost certainly goes back to the confidential meeting between Alphonse de Rothschild and either John Rockefeller or his agents in 1892, and before that to Cecil Rhodes’ founding of a secret society, the Round Table, of which Nathaniel Rothschild was a member. The purpose of the society was to ‘bring the whole of the civilised world’ under one rulership. To that end, i.e. of creating one-world government, David’s father John D. Rockefeller, Jr, together with Rothschild agents, engineered the creation of first the League of Nations and then, after that project failed due to United States scepticism, of the United Nations.
David Rockefeller in his turn acted to strengthen, expand and control through generous funding the role of the United Nations.

>>12272655
>>12272967
>>12272975

David Rockefeller was the common denominator amongst the groups descended from Rhodes original secret society, the groups of the Round Table, whose function is to plan and achieve global governance by an elite, as intended by Cecil Rhodes.

1921 - His father John D. Rockefeller, Jr, founded the Council on Foreign Relations and David Rockefeller was chairman of CFR from 1970 until 1985. At the same time,John D. Rockefeller, Jr founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs, aka Chatham House. Chatham House has continued to receive funding from the Rockefeller Foundation from inception, and is still listed by the Foundation as a grantee today.

1954 - David Rockefeller was a founding member of Bilderberg, whose primary function is to oversee the ‘European project’. He served on the advisory board and was a regular attendee at its meetings, even at the age of 98.

1968 - He founded the Club of Rome, the ‘apex of the New World Order’.

1973 - He founded the Trilateral Commission to bring together high ranking people politicians and business people from the US, Western Europe and Japan to plan one-world government.

>>12272655
>>12272967
>>12272975
>>12272994

Strong and his allies at the UN gave the IPCC a very narrow brief by defining climate change in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 1.2, as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” IPCC’s mandate is not to study climate change “in the round,” or to look at natural as well as man-made influences on climate. It is to specifically find and report a human impact on climate, and thereby make a scientific case for the adoption of national and international policies that would supposedly reduce that impact.

The IPCC is also designed to put political leaders and bureaucrats rather than scientists in control of the research project. It is a membership organization composed of governments, not scientists. The governments that created the IPCC fund it, staff it, select the scientists who get to participate, and revise and rewrite the reports after the scientists have concluded their work. Obviously, this is not how a real scientific organization operates.

>>12272655
>>12272967
>>12272975
>>12272994
>>12273000

The IPCC’s first report, released in 1990, admitted that observed climate change was probably due to natural rather than human causes. However, every report since then has claimed with rising certainty that there is a “discernable human impact” on the climate and that steps must be taken to avoid a global climate crisis. There is ample evidence that this level of alarmism and asserted confidence is fueled by political considerations rather than actual science.

For example, in 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of the world’s most prominent and respected physicists, wrote in the Wall Street Journal:“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

>>12272655
>>12272967
>>12272975
>>12272994
>>12273000
>>12273005

Numerous authors have observed a growing disconnect between the “Summaries for Policymakers,” which are designed to be read and used by political leaders and the media, and the reports themselves. The former systematically remove the expressions of scientific uncertainty and alternative explanations of climate phenomena that were abundantly present in the first three reports, with the obvious intention of misrepresenting the science and fueling unnecessary alarm. By the fourth and fifth assessment reports, even the underlying reports were being purged of ideas and evidence that contradicted the IPCC’s political agenda.

No, it didn't go away yet.

>>12272967
>>12272975
>>12272994
>>12273000
>>12273005
>>12273018
>Lose argument
>Write conspiracy theory wall-of-text with no sources attempting to rewrite history.
Every time.

>>12272967
>i don't see any further point in talking to someone that disagrees even on something as basic as what has been written, you just have to look but you'd rather misrepresent things.
I didn't misrepresent anything you said. And you still have no explained why you are talking about glacial periods. Do you not understand the difference or are you just deliberately confusing "mini ice ages" with glacial periods? Predictably, you completely fail to respond to any scientific evidence that you're wrong and can't provide any evidence of your own.

>The IPCC was created in 1988 largely due to the efforts of Maurice Strong
Source? This would be an impressive achievement considering Strong left UNEP in the 70s. In reality, the US government was the one who primarily lobbied the UN to create the IPCC.

https://history.aip.org/history/climate/internat.htm#S9

>>12273000
>IPCC’s mandate is not to study climate change “in the round,” or to look at natural as well as man-made influences on climate.
The IPCC doesn't study climate change, it aggregates already existing research. The claim that they ignore natural variability is empirically false, since they have said plenty about it. Take your retarded conspiracy logic to >>>/x/

>>12273005
>The IPCC’s first report, released in 1990, admitted that observed climate change was probably due to natural rather than human causes.
Incorrect, they said it may be largely due to natural causes.

>However, every report since then has claimed with rising certainty that there is a “discernable human impact” on the climate and that steps must be taken to avoid a global climate crisis.
Yes, it would be nice if you could provide even a sliver of evidence that they're wrong, instead of vomiting a bunch of conspiratorial speculation.

>There is ample evidence that this level of alarmism and asserted confidence is fueled by political considerations rather than actual science.
Then post the evidence.

>For example, in 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of the world’s most prominent and respected physicists, wrote in the Wall Street Journal:“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”
He also said that smoking doesn't cause cancer. It's an uninformed opinion, nothing more.

>>12270804
>hasn't actually been shown
Yeah that's bound to happen when you leave them out of the models.
Just put them in and let the models spit out zeroes if they really don't do anything. Then at least we can move on from "models ignore most solar activity" to "solar activity is modelled poorly." There is absolutely no scientifically legitimate reason not to do this.
>grand, international conspiracies?
Unlike chemtrails and moonhoax the AGW train is hauling a lot of gravy. Whole budgets and voting blocs depend on it.

>>12273671
>Yeah that's bound to happen when you leave them out of the models.
They haven't been left out of the models, they have been modeled and shown to be insiginificant: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022/pdf

Not only are you spouting pseudoscience, you can't even be bothered to look for evidence for your claims. If you had, you would have found the evidence to the contrary.

>>12266436
Oh, we don't need it anymore. We tried using climate change to trigger our great reset and finally get rid of white people. Shit didn't work. Whites were just smart enough to know that destroying their own energy sectors would just make them vulnerable for invation and genocide. Luckily for us, COVID-19 was the right replacement. With COVID-19 whites decided to not only destroy their energy sector but their ENTIRE ECONOMY. This was a miracle for us.

Now climate change is not needed. You may forget about it. Please shill for lockdowns now. To recognize your efforts you have been deposited 0.001 cents one last time but from now on climate change posts will no be paid.

>>12273061
i didn't lose the argument, it is pointless to talk to someone that isn't interested in truth and uses sophistry in every argument. And now i am just showing another aspect to the whole AGW scam.
This is just a change of strategy, a change that you hate, why should i keep arguing with you guys about scientific research and concepts, when you believe that the science is settled, as if that was ever the case in science.

https://youtu.be/huKY5DzrcLI