/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8864875
Global climate is much less chaotic than weather.

>>8864875
Stop denying climate change.

>>8864878
Stop denying that the weather is merely a spectrum, from cold to hot.

>>8864875
Look at how the global warming predictions made 20 years ago turned out? The ice caps are gone and I walk around with swim fins. Mainly due to a swim fin fetish but also because I expect to be covered in 20ft of water any day now.

Long term averages are easier to predict than individual data

LOLN and CLT.

>>8864981
Where did you get those predictions from?

>>8865003

https://www.niwa.co.nz/education-and-training/schools/students/climate-change-global-warming-and-greenhouse-gases

https://fee.org/articles/global-warming-hot-problem-or-hot-air/

https://fee.org/articles/global-politics-political-warming/

http://peabody.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/education/Global%20Warming%20In%20A%20Jar.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-5.html#.WQJ5k_nyh1s

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1998-03-01/toward-real-global-warming-treaty

http://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/health-effects-of-global-warming-could-be-devastating-wwf-report-finds

https://www.pulseplanet.com/dailyprogram/dailies.php?POP=1564

And literally hundreds more.

>>8864981
>>8865014

>>8864875
climate and weather
there is a difference

>5/10 for making me respond to your troll post

>>8865241

There is a difference between climate and weather

That's why CO2 toll

Also,

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_03/

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/29/us/autos-converters-cut-smog-but-add-to-global-warming.html

http://faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/global_warmingNASA.pdf

http://thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(05)77777-1.pdf

https://www.pop.org/global-warming-not-health-threat-2/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/a-better-way-to-slow-global-climate-change/

http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html

>>8865014
>https://www.niwa.co.nz/education-and-training/schools/students/climate-change-global-warming-and-greenhouse-gases
I didn't see any of those predictions here

>https://fee.org/articles/global-warming-hot-problem-or-hot-air/
I still don't see any of the predictions mentioned. Also, you should know Adler is now convinced AGW is a serious problem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/14/what-does-it-take-to-convince-libertarians-and-conservatives-that-climate-change-is-a-problem/?utm_term=.4f78c988b9aa

>https://fee.org/articles/global-politics-political-warming/
And again, not a single mention.

I thought it odd that you would need more than three links to source a few predictions. Now I'm beginning to think you just posted a bunch of random links in the hope that I wouldn't actually check them to see that they supported your argument.

Question: Why do you feel the need to lie about it if you actually believe that AGW isn't correct?

All right.

A long, long time ago, Europeans decides to force the local Jewish population into ghettos, and that made the Jews very, very mad....

>>8864875
>we can't predict how weather will be like
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>>8865528
This.

>>8865520
“Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” - June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor

“It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.” - 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist
“In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.” - March 29, 2001, CNN

“The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.” - October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan

“Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.” - July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post

“I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.” - April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet

If you can't find this shit on your own, you aren't even trying.

>>8866756
>Christian Science Monitor
>Fucking Lubos
>CNN
>Some pop-sci faggot
>The Birmingham Post
>ABC

Not a single credible source, scientific """"""""""communication"""""""""" is not a credible source of information, it never has been and it (probably) never will be.

>>8864875
>t. retard with less brain cells than pubes on my dick
>HURR DURR why do explosions kill people and create physical damage to the ground and nearby man-made structures?
>how can we know that if we can't model the exact movement of every particle affected by an explosion?

I'm 1.90m tall you stupid dumb pig, if I meet you IRL I would fucking kill you with my fist I would punch your stupid ass cretinous head until nothing remains i would destroy I would punch you to death you fucking pig

>>8864875
nigga why do u exist if we can't model ur dad's sperm interacting with your mom's pussy? hoooow?

t. retort

>>8864875
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>8866764

>Carl Sagan
>Some pop-sci faggot

kys.

Also,

>Not a single credible source

1) https://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoFactSheet.html
>The IPCC: A View From the Inside," by John W. Zillman, August 1997
>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change

2) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html
>Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
June 10, 1997

3) https://worldhistoryproject.org/topics/global-warming/page/1
>United Nations
>2009

>>8866764

>Carl Sagan
>Some pop-sci faggot

kys.

Also,

>Not a single credible source

1) https://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoFactSheet.html
>The IPCC: A View From the Inside," by John W. Zillman, August 1997
>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change

2) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html
>Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
>June 10, 1997

3) https://worldhistoryproject.org/topics/global-warming/page/1
>United Nations
>2009

>>8866810
>He thinks Sagan isn't a pop-sci faggot.

Fucking kek, and you expect me to continue reading your post after that?

>>8866764
Who do you think the masses get their news from? This is the media the alarmist have used to promote this crap. Alarmist say stupid shit and everyone applauds until it just becomes painfully obvious they are talking out their ass. Then the next group of alarmists simply throws that group under the bus yet repeats the same shit claiming more certainty. Rinse, wash, repeat. Literally the problem with popsci and popularizer as a whole. They offer no room for skepticism when they make such pronouncements. No admission to the limits of their knowledge. So where were the "real" scientists telling them they were wrong and cut that shit out? Same place they are now, not given a voice. Same shit, different day.

>>8866810
>>8866756
>>8865298
>>8865014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4G2dvtgVaY

>>8866796
>https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
You know what really grinds my gears? People who will make ad hominem attacks against every conceivable source that is against their argument yet will post a source that is literally a cartoonist who didn't graduate. Who removed his accurate biography out of embarrassment and have since had it burnished by some bullshit artists so he wouldn't look like a complete train wreck. That source you'll run with.

>>8864981
>>8865014
you need to understand that the people who report this to the public are trained (often not even) in journalism and that some journalistic norms is to exaggerate things scientists tell them for viewership. on top of this you have the fact that they don't understand any science and they don't properly weigh the things that come from journals.

>>8866845

>>8866810
>No journalist people

>>8866810
The first link you posted does not support your position that
predictions were 'the ice caps will melt and we'll all be wearing swim fins'

The second link you posted is Dr Lindzen ... sigh. You should become better informed of your sources
http://planetsave.com/2012/03/08/how-richard-lindzen-screws-up-climate-science/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/climate-nexus/lindzen-cites-debunked-science_b_6812356.html
https://thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6

The third appears to be a report on what was known in 1995, that was 22 years ago friend, we've learned a lot since then. It also fails to support your position about predictions

Enjoy my response
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox5hbkg34Ow

>>8864877
This
OP is mixing up climate and weather

>>8866845
No shit, Sherlock. And because alarmists exploit this fact, each generation needs even more extreme levels of shocking bullshit fed into the popsci machine. Governments exploit this too and incentivize it. Which is one of the key criticisms against the alarmists. They tend to be on the government tit and governments think like this:
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” - Mikhail Gorbachev, 1996
“A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.” - Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.” - Maurice Strong 1992

These are ideologies pursuing "Science™" as a means to an end. To make an appeal to authority based on the reputation of science that they are then willing to risk ruining.

>>8866882

>The third appears to be a report on what was known in 1995, that was 22 years ago friend, we've learned a lot since then.

>>8864981


>tfw 'it was like twenty years ago man we learned much since then'
>every time
>each 20 years in a loop
>impossible to fail
>if you don't remember what they said, great, we can continue saying
>if you do remember, great too, we learned a lot since
>so anyway we spread bullshit no matter what
>you stupid no matter what
>stupid now if you believed them then
>stupid forever if you didn't and you don't
>smart now if you spread shit because who cares
>you can learn a lot too from now to twenty years

>>8866835
https://skepticalscience.com/fixednum.php

>>8864875
Climate and weather are two different things, moron.

The weather everyday has a much wider spectrum than climate does over time.

>>8864875
Climate=average.
Weather is like one spin of roulette,
climate is the essential probabilities of the game.
And now the game is changing.

>>8866940
nice cartoonist you got there. Bet he doesn't explain why they reinterpreted past data. Which was good enough to form the hypothesis but apparently not good enough to maintain it.

>>8866960
Nature doesn't conform to the theories of probability because randomness lie on a spectrum.

>>8866976

>>8867000
You just proved my point by using all colors of the spectrum.

>>8866975
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#123

>>8867000

Nice trips, but
>pic related

>>8867022

>>8867119
Because jurassic climates are what humans thrive in best.

>>8867000

Sorry, but no, more like >>8867119

>>8867000

Absolutely wrong, as >>8867119 and >>8867142
point well.

>>8867119

>cherry picking an ice age before animals walked on land on a scale of millions of years ago to disprove a trend in the past few hundred years

btfo climate shills

>>8867142

"In summary, 'C3' is an anonymous, opinionated average person-pundit who primarily reports on, and sometimes analyzes/investigates (see examples here), climate science issues that the traditional mainstream press fails to report on or misrepresents. 'C3' personally funds the blog's operating expenses (damn, no outside funding sources - c'mon Exxon, cough some moola up!)."

>>8867155
I can barely read this image

>>8867142
The deniers always use the RSS dataset, its old version which was admitted to be false in march 2016.

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m55s

>>8864875
This is simply how statistics work.
You can't predict if a coin will come up heads or tails, but if you flip your coin a million times you can predict with great accuracy how often you will get heads and tails.

>>8866756
So CNN predicted in 2001 what the earth will look like in 2000?

>>8867248
Never mind I misread that.

>>8865528
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319

>b-but t-they did it for no reason!

>>8864875
>>climate change in about 20 years
Stupid nigger, it's not in 20 years, it's all the time

>>8867190

Ahem.

C3 comes from NASA.

fyi

>>8866910
But again, nowhere in the paper does it say

'the ice caps will be melted and we'll all be wearing swim fins'

If you can please show me where your prediction comes from.

Climate Change is real.
Climate Alarmism isn't and should be a criminal offense.

>>8867417

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/20/global-warming-mario-molina-extreme-weather_n_1811204.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/javier-sierra/mario-molina-climate-change_b_5882172.html

>This optimism in part stems from the recent announcement that the ozone layer is recovering in a satisfactory manner thanks to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which mandated a worldwide ban on the chemicals that were causing the depletion.
>Thanks to the Montreal Protocol

*facepalm*

http://www.petitionproject.org/

>>8867444

"The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler#

1. The Climategate scandal proved that key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated. In 2009, the public discovered emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit exposing how scientists who have been enormously influential in promoting the concept of man-made climate change actually attempted to cook the books to obtain results that served their narrative that the planet was heating at a dangerous trend due to higher levels of carbon dioxide.

One of these scientists included Dr. James Hansen, a former NASA climatologist who is known by some as the "father" or "grandfather" of the climate change myth, as it was his "Model Zero" that first introduced the concept of global warming. Hansen, Philip Jones, Michael Mann, et al. were all involved in trying "to lower past temperatures and to 'adjust' recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming," according to the leaked emails. The emails also revealed how this cabal of scientists would discuss various ways to stonewall the public from seeing the "background data on which their findings and temperature records were based," even going as far as deleting significant amounts of data. They would engage in efforts to smear "any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work."

(Cont.)

>>8867488


3. NASA may have also been involved in manipulating data to serve the narrative of man-made climate change. The Washington Times reported in 2009: "Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler."

Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted "that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit," reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.

>>8867491 (Cont.)

4. NASA also declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it. The latter fact was left out of their press release at the time, as well as the fact that 2014 was supposedly hotter than the previous hottest year, 2010, by 0.02C – well within the margin of error of 0.1C that scientists tend to adhere by. The Washington Post attempted to spin in favor of NASA by arguing that NASA simply said that 2014 was the most likely hottest year on record – but their press release unequivocally stated that "2014 was the warmest year on record" and leaving out the aforementioned key facts makes such a declaration seem misleading, as it's clearly not a guarantee that 2014 was even likely the hottest year on record.

5. There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years. As The Daily Caller highlights, a recent peer-reviewed study concluded that when accounting for El Ninos and La Ninas – which are the "the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific" that "occur on average every two to seven years," according to NOAA – there has been a flat-line temperature trend since 1997. In fact, the study found that the El Ninos and La Ninas disproved the existence of the Tropical Hot Spot, which the Environmental Protection Agency claimed as evidence of carbon dioxide supposedly warming the atmosphere.

>>8867496 (Cont.)

6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It's likely closer to 43 percent. The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies, as the Daily Wire explained here. On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus.

7. The amount of Arctic sea ice has become quite high. Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute shows that the "average [ice] extent over the month [of September] is one of the highest in the last decade," according to Paul Homewood. This runs directly counter to the predictions of the climate change models.

>>8867500 (Cont.)

8. Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists. Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry. All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009, far more than any research funded by the oil industry.

Mann, one of the scientists mentioned earlier for his role in the Climategate scandal, received nearly $6 million in grants from the federal government. The sources of funding for scientists like Hansen are unknown, the federal government has been resisting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to reveal them.

9. It is patently absurd to link Hurricane Matthew to climate change. Not just because of the aforementioned reasons, but because as Marco Morano points out at Climate Depot, "The data show for the last 10 years we have had an unusual drought of landfalling major hurricanes (Category 3 and higher) on the continental U.S."

>>8867444
>>8867455
>>8867488
>>8867491
>>8867496
>>8867500
>>8867504
but what about the ice caps and the swim fins?

>>8867423
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-just-breached-the-410-ppm-threshold-for-co2/

If we don't completely stop using fossil fuels and switch to renewables in the coming years we are doomed. Venus is a planet caught in runway greenhouse effect. This picture doesn't do it justice, but it's hell and worse one than what the christiantards imagine.

>>8867507

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/06/29/the-catastrophist

(SCENE PREMIÈRE)

"A few months ago, James Hansen, the director of nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in Manhattan, took a day off from work to join a protest in Washington, D.C. The immediate target of the protest was the Capitol Power Plant, which supplies steam and chilled water to congressional offices, but more generally its object was coal, which is the world’s leading source of greenhouse-gas emissions. As it happened, on the day of the protest it snowed. Hansen was wearing a trench coat and a wide-brimmed canvas boater. He had forgotten to bring gloves. His sister, who lives in D.C. and had come along to watch over him, told him that he looked like Indiana Jones.

The march to the power plant was to begin on Capitol Hill, at the Spirit of Justice Park. By the time Hansen arrived, thousands of protesters were already milling around, wearing green hard hats and carrying posters with messages like “Power Past Coal” and “Clean Coal Is Like Dry Water.” Hansen was immediately surrounded by TV cameras.

“You are one of the preëminent climatologists in the world,” one television reporter said. “How does this square with your science?”

“I’m trying to make clear what the connection is between the science and the policy,” Hansen responded. “Somebody has to do it.”

The reporter wasn’t satisfied. “Civil disobedience?” he asked, in a tone of mock incredulity. Hansen said that he couldn’t let young people put themselves on the line, “and then I stand back behind them.”

The reporter still hadn’t got what he wanted: “We’ve heard that you all are planning, even hoping, to get arrested today. Is that true?”

“I wouldn’t hope,” Hansen said. “But I do want to draw attention to the issue, whatever is necessary to do that.”

>>8867525 (Cont.)

(SCENE DEUXIÈME)

Hansen has now concluded, partly on the basis of his latest modelling efforts and partly on the basis of observations made by other scientists, that the threat of global warming is far greater than even he had suspected. Carbon dioxide isn’t just approaching dangerous levels; it is already there. Unless immediate action is taken—including the shutdown of all the world’s coal plants within the next two decades—the planet will be committed to change on a scale society won’t be able to cope with. “This particular problem has become an emergency,” Hansen said.

Hansen’s revised calculations have prompted him to engage in activities—like marching on Washington—that aging government scientists don’t usually go in for. Last September, he travelled to England to testify on behalf of anti-coal activists who were arrested while climbing the smokestack of a power station to spray-paint a message to the Prime Minister. (They were acquitted.) Speaking before a congressional special committee last year, Hansen asserted that fossil-fuel companies were knowingly spreading misinformation about global warming and that their chairmen “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” He has compared freight trains carrying coal to “death trains,” and wrote to the head of the National Mining Association, who sent him a letter of complaint, that if the comparison “makes you uncomfortable, well, perhaps it should.”

Hansen insists that his intent is not to be provocative but conservative: his only aim is to preserve the world as we know it. “The science is clear,” he said, when it was his turn to address the protesters blocking the entrance to the Capitol Power Plant. “This is our one chance.”

>>8867520
If it comes to this we can just nuke the shit out of third world countries and have us a nuclear winter.

>>8867488
>>8867491
>>8867496
>>8867500
>>8867504

>>8866756
>Bernt Balchen (23 October 1899 – 17 October 1973) was a Norwegian pioneer polar aviator, navigator, aircraft mechanical engineer and military leader.
>It's another "don't trust scientists because look at what this non-scientist said episode"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

>1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist
Is this a joke? Lubos Motl did not even exist in 1969, and the guy is a climate change denying crank. You are so woefully misinformed you can't even source your bullshit ad hoc properly.

>CNN
Fake quote, non-scientist

>“The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.” - October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan
Fake quote. The only part he said is the part in the middle. The rest is an incorrect paraphrase.

Again, why do you feel the need to lie and use fake quotes if you actually believe you're right?

>>8864875
Average behavior vs local behavior

>>8866900
>No shit, Sherlock. And because alarmists exploit this fact, each generation needs even more extreme levels of shocking bullshit fed into the popsci machine.
The massive irony being that the only one exploiting this fact is you in order to claim that scientists predictions are inaccurate. You haven't accurately represented a single climate scientist's predictions. You are scum.

>>8867488
Stop lying scum.

https://youtu.be/7nnVQ2fROOg

>>8867534
If climate change wasn't real then a carbon tax would be objectively bad for society and the economy.

>>8867643

>2009


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-05/climategate-2-noaa-whistleblower-claims-world-leaders-fooled-fake-global-warming-dat

>2017
>But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an IMPECCABLE REPUTATION, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

>pic related

>>8867728
You are so fucking gullible to believe a tabloid. Literally everything you post is a long debunked meme.

https://youtu.be/kQph_5eZsGs

>>8867625
Who were the scientists that were telling the media they were wrong or overhyping? How were they treated for saying so? Are they given more credibility now that they turned out to be right about the overhype? Who were the ones that sat on their hands and said nothing or even encouraged the overhype? Do people still listen to them? I know Hansen was sabotaging congresses air conditioning in 1988 to get the room hotter for his presentation. I'm guessing he wasn't standing up to the media or attempting to put anything in perspective. Climatology just isn't on par with real established sciences.

>>8867520
>If we don't completely stop using fossil fuels and switch to renewables in the coming years we are doomed. Venus is a planet caught in runway greenhouse effect.

I only hope you're trolling. That's not how Venus's atmosphere got that way, fool, and that's not what humanity is at risk for.

>>8867766
>baaww tabloid
>posts a youtube video

lmao

>>8867780
not him but how did venus' atmosphere get that way

>>8867789

>...Early Venus may have had a global ocean. As the brightness of the early Sun increased, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increased, increasing the temperature and consequently increasing the evaporation of the ocean, leading eventually to the situation in which the oceans boiled, and all of the water vapor entered the atmosphere. On Venus today there is little water vapor in the atmosphere. If water vapor did contribute to the warmth of Venus at one time, this water is thought to have escaped to space. Some evidence for this scenario comes from the extremely high deuterium to hydrogen ratio in Venus' atmosphere, roughly 150 times that of Earth, since light hydrogen would escape from the atmosphere more readily than its heavier isotope, deuterium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

tl;dr: the sun did it.

>>8867728
Oh look, another gulluble retard believes anything he reads on TDM and doesn't bother to fact check it.

Another dumb """""skeptic""""" who fails at being a real skeptic in every single way.

Your news is months old and was debunked the same day that Bates made his claims. By the way, direct quote from your "IMPECCABLE REPUTATION" Bates.
>The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.
>I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.

Blown the FUCK out yet again by your own previous sources. I don't expect you to reply to this after getting annihilated yet again, go ahead and leave the thread in embarrassment, and fuck off back to your echo chamber at >>>/pol/ where you can post things like this and all the gullible idiots lap it right up without question.

The absolute best part about that shitty TDM article is that they don't even understand what a baseline is, and compared two datasets on two different baselines to manipulate the graph, typical climate change denier tactics (see pic related).

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/major-global-warming-study-questioned-defended-45328903
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

>>8867786
Maybe if you actually bothered to watch the video, in which the author provides sources for all of his claims, you would realize what a stupid gullible idiot you are.

>>8867909
>youtube video
>sources
ayy lmao

>>8867916
Do you need to be spoonfed, or are you genuinely an autistic retard?

Nice job ignoring
>>8867905
as well since you have no rebuttal to your stupidity.

>>8867928
>DUDE MUH YOUTUBE VIDEOS ARE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Go to a university research department and tell them that.

>List of climate-skeptic people disappeared in very strange circumstances

>John Daly
>Michael Crichton (whom also attacked genetic studies in his book "Next" and "Fear State")
https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/michael-crichton-dies/?_r=1
>Thomas Landscheidt

>List of people who believes in global warming that got killed to not letting your suspect about the death of above people and whom Peter Wadhams says they died in 'strange circumstances because they know too much too' (lol)

>Seymour Laxon (died by stairs)
>Katherine Giles (died by truck)
>Tim Boyd (died by lighting ray)

>List of people that left IPCC due to alleged inside-fraud and malpractising

>Zbgniew Jawaroski
>Hal Lewis
>Vicent Gray
>Mohaf Latif

>>8867935
Completely missing the point, and moving the goalposts I see. What does this have anything to do with the John Bates story, or TDM article?

Oh, I see, you've just been BTFO yet again and continue to deflect and try to obfuscate your stupidity.

By the way, I do read the literature, and this is the paper that the Bates story is based on, which passed peer review, and was reviewed for 2 months longer than the typical paper published in Science, a thorough vetting process.
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf

Bates claims that the paper was "rushed" to influence Paris 2015, but that is simply not the case and is not based in any EVIDENCE, you know, the same evidence that you apparently care so deeply about. Funny enough, climate change denial itself has no basis in the scientific literature or evidence either. For example, all the projections made by climate change deniers have been wrong, meanwhile the actual projections in the literature have proven to be quite robust compared to the observations:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

You care so much about evidence, but you, much like Bates, fails to bring a single shred of credible evidence to support your story.

By the way, for someone that cares so deeply about the credibility of the scientific establishment, you sure do seem to be a massive hypocrite, considering your autistic screeching over a youtube video that is well sourced, while posting a link to TDM that is riddled with errors such as a failure to understand what a baseline is in statistical analysis of climate data.

Go on, continue to reply and show what an illiterate imbecile you are.


>>8867947
>>>/x/

Shoo shoo, back to your conspiracy echo chamber.

CO2 DOESN'T CAUSE HEAT; IT'S HEAT WHAT CAUSES THE INCREASE OF CO2

>>8867935
>potholer54 is an unreliable second hand source
???

do you have downs?

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/0707.1161

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Institut f¨ur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universit¨at Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstraße 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany

Predicting the temperature of next year from last 50 years is like predicting tomorrow's weather from last 50 hours.

>>8867965
>>8867967
>youtube video """""""""""""""""""""""science"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


lmao how stupid can one man POSSIBLY be?

>>8867980
Again, failing to respond to a single point I made here
>>8867965
or here
>>8867905

>The Daily Mail Article """""""""""""""""""""""science"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

lmao how stupid can one man POSSIBLY be?

>>8864875
Climate change is a hoax.

>>8867991
t. autistic /pol/ crossposter that has never read a single piece of climate science literature / research (or any other scientific paper for that matter) in their life.

>>8867991
this

Ice started melting much before use of oils

>>8867988
>Again, failing to respond to a single point I made here
>dude YOUTUBE VIDEOS count as points and arguments

my sides

>>8867767
First of all, there are plenty of scientists who the the media to tall for misrepresentation, even though is not their job. Second, this has nothing to do with whether climatology is a science. Third, your entire movement is based on misrepresentation, as you've illustrated in this thread.

Increase of temperatures is dependant of Sun activity
>>8867966

and not on use of hydrocarbon products

>>8868012
>>8868022
Oh wow, you mean to tell me that the Earth WARMED after we came out of a glacial phase into an interglacial, and that ice sheets receded worldwide?! WHOA, REALLY MAKES ME THINK!

But oh my shitty inforgraphic that I got from some shitty source says the slopes are similar, therefore CORRELATION EQUALS CAUSATION! YAY SCIENCE! Learn to be a skeptic of the things you read from questionable sources you dolt.

By the way, the relationship between interglacials, ice ages and Milankovitch cycles is well understood, the current warming trend IS NOT A PART OF THIS CYCLE, and there is an immensely high degree of certainty that it is almost entirely anthropogenic. Back to /pol/ with your shitty arguments, unless you actually want to stay here and get educated kid.

>>8868024
t. autistic sperg who cannot see the hypocrisy in using a DAILY MAIL article as a "scientific" source, while sperging out when someone posts a youtube video that is WELL SOURCED with sources for everything the guy states, including PEER REVIEWED PAPERS inside the video description.

You genuinely have autism, seek psychiatric help.

>>8868022
>oils
the point is it coincides with the industrial revolution

climatologists 100 years ago already suspected that this would happen

>>8867786
>baaaaw I have no response to the argument
You lose again.

>>8868031
At this point I believe he is just trolling.

>>8868031
>>8868028
Man holy fuck trolling you was so incredibly easy. I believe in climate change.

My god I made you write out so much long butthurt posts.

I could have kept going too

lmao

>>8868027
Wrong kiddo, you want me to debunk every stupid shitpost you make?
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Benestad_be02100q.pdf
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-easterbrook.pdf
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00622.1


tl;dr - the current trend is unrelated to solar activity or TSI. It has everything to do with the burning of fossil fuels and increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm.

>>8868040
>I believe in climate change.
CO2 is proven to be unable to cause warming of the planet.

>>8868040
>LOL EBIC! I WUZ JUST PRETENDING 2 B RETARDED XD EBIC FOR THE WIN GUISE.

aka - I've had my shitty arguments blown the fuck out so I'll just pretend like I was kidding, yeah that will get him...

>>8868040

>>8868044
>>8868045
>trying to save face
aaannnddd here we go again.

>>8867801
So you agree that Venus was in a runaway greenhouse effect that destroyed its climate?

>>8868043
Yeah, the sun causes the warming. But without CO[math]_2[/math], more heat would escape.

I'm an outsider. I've been on the fence about climate change for like 10 fucking years now.

I know a carbon tax would be destructive to the economy and our living standards, but I also don't want to get fucked over by environmental destruction.

I see all of these conflicting graphs that seem to all make sense.

What the fuck do I do?

>>8868056
>But without CO2, more heat would escape.
Lies.
CO2 is only a small part of the air, isn't well mixed and doesn't contribute to the warming.

I agree with you that it is the sun, but globalists need an agenda.

>>8868064
>isn't well mixed
It is.

>doesn't contribute to the warming
It does. It absorbs the infrared light emitted by earth and then re-emits it in a random direction. Meaning that it sends ~50 % back at earth.

>>8868064
kek, the amount of willful ignorance from the likes of you is astounding. Dunning-Kruger in effect, you have zero evidence to back up a single claim, and no basis in scientific literature, but you are so confident in your bullshit. Astounding.

Here, have a basic introduction to radiative forcings and why we know that CO2 is the cause of the current trend, and fuck off. Of course you won't read any of it, because you're deluded into "MUH GLOBALISTS," or "MUH SOROS" or whatever other mental gymnastics excuses you tell yourself to maintain your blissful ignorance and ignore the empirical evidence.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

>>8868060
I was just an INNOCENT, confused naive outsider too. I didn't know what to believe at all.
Until I watched actual scientists talk about things.
Here's climate summit 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dn1zKe6P3c&list=PLhRxxCqlepFJa1oUI1mW76t0XALgzJzQH

Surely, you'll be able to also find the official IPCC report from 2014.

>a country is more than an economy, donald
Yeah, right, only when /they/ find it convenient.

I'm sure you know what I mean.

>>8868051

Yeah, but triggered by changes in the sun itself, and not CO2 emissions of any sort, with the chief greenhouse component being water vapor.

Saying Venus's greenhouse experience bares any resemblance to any possible on Earth in the present era is full retard.

>>8868084
>bares any resemblance
Well an eventual runaway greenhouse effect on Earth (a possibility) will bare resemblance to what happened on Venus.

Same physical mechanisms, since water vapor will be involved too.

>>8868081
>Surely, you'll be able to also find the official IPCC report from 2014.
Yeah but I heard that was an extremely biased source and they got caught faking data.

>Yeah, right, only when /they/ find it convenient.
What are you talking about?

>>8868089
IPCC is basically perpetuating white genocide, though it's not the politically correct thing to say.

You are right to distrust them.

>>8868088
>an eventual runaway greenhouse effect on Earth (a possibility) will bare resemblance to what happened on Venus

What part of "the fucking sun vaporized the fucking Venusian oceans" did you miss while reading, Einstein?

>>8868105
1. CO2 warms up earth
2. more water vapor
3. more water vapor leads to warming leading to 2

the 1. point is the different thing, the rest is the same as venus
hence, there is some resemblance

>>8868089
Oh, because you "heard" some hearsay about the IPCC it must be true right?

The IPCC is not perfect, and it doesn't do its own scientific research, what the IPCC is designed to do is deliver information about climate science to policy makers and summarize the current scientific understanding of climate change with each report. That's pretty much it. They have climate scientists from all over the world contribute to the assessment reports. They are by no means a perfect resource for up to date information on climate change, as they tend to be slightly outdated, even at the time they are published as climate data is constantly being collected and interpreted worldwide, and there is a massive amount of climate data.

That said, it is a valuable resource for the basics of climate change, but if you really want to dig into the specifics you should read the scientific literature on climate change.
This is a good starting point, it's a blog, but it is run and contributed by from climate scientists who are actively publishing.
http://www.realclimate.org/

This website looks at arguments from climate change deniers and debunks them:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/

Potholer54 is a youtuber who has a video series on Youtube that is well sourced in which he debunks climate change denier claims and talks about climate change:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

All that said, what I posted above is a starting point, if you really want to get into climate science the best way is to read climate science literature.

>>8868103
>>>/x/

>>8868120
Climate change doesn't real.

>>8868114

>The upside of the new study is that even though a climate runaway may be possible in theory, it remains very difficult to cause in practice through human greenhouse gas emissions.

>“We’ve estimated how much carbon dioxide would be required to get this steamy atmosphere, and the answer is about 30,000 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is actually good news in terms of anthropogenic climate change,” Goldblatt says. Thirty thousand ppm is about 10 times more carbon dioxide than most experts estimate could be released from burning all available fossil fuels, he notes, although such high values could in theory be reached by releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide from the Earth’s vast deposits of limestone and other carbonate rocks.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-runaway-greenhouse/

The globe is currently just over 400 ppm.

>>8865014
>asked for source of predictions
>posts a bunch of links that don't make those predictions

>>8868040
>lol i trol u
>I was only pretending to be retarded!

>>8868202
see:
>>8868049

:^)

>>8868224
>if i post a frog and accuse others of doing what i am doing they might actually believe me
if you pretend to be retarded and then get mistaken as being retarded, you're not "le epic trole xD", you're just an idiot.

>>8868040
get a load of this idiot. he believes in climate change

>>8868240
Man I had that other guy going for like 30 minutes, it was hilarious lmao

>>8868264

>>8868272
see:
>>8868049

>>8868279
>I'M NOT DOING DAMAGE CONTROL
>YOU'RE THE ONE DOING DAMAGE CONTROL
holy shit dude go outside and get a little fresh air or something

>>8868290
see:
>>8868049
:^)

>>8867966
It's both you ignorant fuckhead.

>>8867975
Weather is not climate and neither are predicted solely based on past weather. Stop talking out of your ass.

>>8868027
>arctic air temperature
You little shit

>>8868084
Why does the source of heat matter? You already admitted both are a runaway greenhouse effect, so you agreed with the post you thought you were disagreeing with.

>>8864877
Modelling climate however means modelling not just a small amount of weather, but a fucktonne over a huge amount of time. Anyway you look at it, when you run your model to predict what the overall climate will look on this day 19 years from now, your model will output data which necessarily correspond to weathersystems. If it doesn't it is dogshit. And because weather forecasting is rubbish your model is equally fukt.

>>8868516

LOL
FINALLY
AFTER A GIGATTRON OF SHITPOSTS
FINALLY
THE FINAL ANSWER
shit!
shit!
SHIT
FUCK
>>8864875

>>8868516

This.

>>8868516
t. I have no idea what climate modeling entails

>>8864878
climate, like sex, is on a spectrum, and is also a social construct.

>>8866882
>The first link you posted does not support your position that
>predictions were 'the ice caps will melt and we'll all be wearing swim fins'
>The second link you posted is Dr Lindzen ... sigh. You should become better informed of your sources
>http://planetsave.com/2012/03/08/how-richard-lindzen-screws-up-climate-science/
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/climate-nexus/lindzen-cites-debunked-science_b_6812356.html
>https://thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6

Attack of the Soros shill!!!

Prof. Lindzen, former MIT professor and the best Atmospheric Physicist in the world was "debunked" by Soros funded ThinkProgress. Yup, they all have Ph.D.s in Atmospheric Physics at thinkprogress. As does AriannaHuffinigton.

Why is it that no matter how many time Climate PseudoScience is debunked, you feel the need to shill?

>>8866882
>Enjoy my response
Hansen? The guy whose 1988 predictions utterly failed?

>>8867192
>>>8867142
>The deniers always use the RSS dataset, its old version which was admitted to be false in march 2016.
> which was heavily tampered to get politically expedient results
ftfy

>>8867534
Oh look! John Cook drew a diagram, Therefore its TRUE!

>>8867905
>Oh look, another gulluble retard believes anything he reads on TDM and doesn't bother to fact check it.
>Another dumb """""skeptic""""" who fails at being a real skeptic in every single way.
Another stupid '''''''pseudoscientist'''''' who thinks that adding bad data (data altered to fit overly warm ship intake data) is good science.

Seriously, you have exactly ZERO credibility. If you believe that bad data makes good science, then you really are a pseudoscientist.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

>>8866835
Learn to attack the argument, not the source. But whatever, deniers like yourself can never think critically and examine the evidence, you always rely on logical fallacies to make up your arguments.

>>8867129
>LOL a guy made cartoons, haha now I don't have to actually find a way to refute any of the evidence! See look I highlighted it XD lol cartoons I'm totally not going to actually address the arguments or debunk anything that the website has to say with my own evidence, haha
When you don't have any actual argument, and cannot refute something, you again rely on ad homs instead of actually attacking the argument. You're the most pathetic type of person.

>>8867965
>Bates claims that the paper was "rushed" to influence Paris 2015, but that is simply not the case and is not based in any EVIDENCE, you know, the same evidence that you apparently care so deeply about. Funny enough, climate change denial itself has no basis in the scientific literature or evidence either. For example, all the projections made by climate change deniers have been wrong, meanwhile the actual projections in the literature have proven to be quite robust compared to the observations:

You're not fooling anyone by trying to defend the indefensible. Adding bad data (data that was "corrected" to warmed ship intake data) is terrible science. Funny how they "lost" the exact data used for the "study."

You're an obvious shill buddy.

>>8868649

>>8868664
>Calls others an obvious shill
>Is the same faggot that comes into these threads every single time they're created with his pathetic, fallacy ridden pre-typed responses.
>Literally posts the same images over and over again every thread, without even changing the filename

You are so desperate, that you post this much in these threads, using the same arguments every single time that never change, and call others shills. How fucking sad and pathetic. You are simply projecting your own delusions and insecurities onto others, deep down you know it's you that's the real shill here pal.

You must have some form of Autism, there's no other explanation for how deluded you are.

>>8868029

That's not the point and I'll tell you why: industrial revolution was not the point from which CO2 emissions started increasing since the amount of industries emitting CO2 wasn't so big to be considered pollutant enough. The truth is, besides Germany, France, Great Britain and many very few other capitals, almost nobody could afford the machines they needed to produce so much to be called 'revolutionary productions'.

The main source of energy continued being the human employees, which conditions worsened as a try to compete with the recently created machines.

Source: 'International industrialization levels from 1750 to 1980', The Journal of European Economic History, nº 11, 2 (1982)

>>8868640
>Hansen? The guy whose 1988 predictions utterly failed?
Looks like the projection is pretty accurate to me. Of course, this image is attempting to say that the most extreme scenario is the norm, whereas the more conservative scenarios aren't far off. Hilarious how all you can do is go back into the 1980s every single time to say "LOL SEE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DECADES AGO WERE KINDA OFF, HAHA CLIMATE SCIENCE BTFO!" So sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

Amazing how wrong you are about Hansen 1988.

Meanwhile, you're pal's Lindzen, Spencer / Christy, Easterbrock and Akasofu have all made projections that have utterly failed, but it's completely OK when the climate contrarians have models that fail, right? Better keep propping up their shitty results because you are so desperate for some kind of authority to validate your stupidity.

But go on, keep on proving to everyone in this thread what an absolute shill you yourself are. Look at pic related, how can you be this delusional? It's almost as if someone is paying you to post here this much. Hmmm. really makes me think.

>>8868640
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

>>8868635
>Attack of the Soros shill!!!
Lindzen and Choi (2009) was debunked by Dr. John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth (National Center for Atmospheric Research) and Chris O'Dell (Colorado State University). ThinkProgress did not fund their work or associate with them in any way. All they did was report on the debunking.
>actual climatologists debunk sloppy paper written by deniers
>librul website mentions this turn of events
>OMG SOROS SHILL

>>8868660
>bad data (data altered to fit overly warm ship intake data)
I know you're not interested in actually looking at the methodology, but the measurement effect of ship bucket and engine intake versus buoy sensors is known and corrected for. as is explained in the screencap >>8867928, they factor out the instrument effect when combining different types of data.
a clock that is always exactly two minutes fast is just as useful as a clock that is always on time, when it comes to measuring how much time has passed. similarly, a thermometer that reads 0.5C too high is just as useful as a thermometer that gives a perfect reading, when it comes to measuring warming.

>>8864875
> Says it will be cold in winter
> Can't predict weather next week

OK, Won't anybody debunk these primary sources? :^)

>>8867119 (Cambric CO2 levels were about 7000 ppm according to this study... and not a single living being seemed to die, on the contrary, evolutionary explosions came from there)

>>8866756 (Alarmist that were wrong)

>>8866810 (Very serious scientific people that were WRONG but earned a lot of emoneh in the meantime).

>>8867947 (Don't know what is more /x/ material, if a random guy from /sci/ telling me 'shoo shoo' like if I was a sheep when real data is presented to him >>8867965 , or the professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics from University of Cambridge convincing people that his 'climate defenders' died 'in strange conditions' and because 'they knew too much' when their conditions were extremely well known and categorized as barely 'common' and they didn't know much besides what they were told to know x') )

>>8867971 (Don't you have anything to say about this study?)

>>8868022 (Ice melting that started much before industrial pollutants reached considerable levels all around the globe, besides some spreaded european capitals as they were located in mid XIX century (as pointed here >>8868684) and more linked to Sun activity >>8868027

>>8868147 (We would need 10 times more CO2 than the amount that could be released by burning all hydrocarbon fuels to get the increasing temperatures: that would be 30,000 ppm; we are only around the 400; at Cambric we had 7000 and not a single entity died of that)

Hundreds more on the way. This is a good start to talk about.

>>8868721

[math]p.s.:[/math]
[math]wooooo[/math]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4G2dvtgVaY

>>8868516
No lol. It's understandable to think this but it's absolutely wrong. You can relatively accurately account for long term effects of certain chronic factors on an entire system without considering local acute effects within it.

#8868721
#8868741
>sperg literally just shitposts random garbage
>No one bites the bait because everything he says is retarded
>Replies to himself in a desperate bid to get replies, still no one gives a shit

Wow, big fucking surprise. No one gives a shit about your retarded ramblings.

Not even going to give you your (you).

>>8868763

At least, learn to link properly.

8868774
At least learn to read properly, I intentionally deprived you of your (you)s

>>8868786

HOW YOU DARE YOU BRAINIAC VILLAIN

>>8868516
>Modelling climate however means modelling not just a small amount of weather, but a fucktonne over a huge amount of time.
No it does not mean that at all you lying piece of shit. That's like saying a random number generator means modelling the physical interactions between all the molecules in a dice and board. No climate model operates on the level of weather events, precisely because they don't need to.

>>8868516
Sigh ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

>8868721
>primary sources
you seem to be unaware of what a primary source is. a single isolated, entirely uncited figure is not one.

>>8867971
Utter trash. Embarassing.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/04/die-fachbegutachtung-below-is-elis.html

>>8868647
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M

>reading the whole post
>not a single spectrum

climate change and all that shit is like NASA making a big announcement, you know it's irrelevant but the goverment is going to keep throwing money at it

bump

who cares though about climate change?

just find a place to live that has a good elevation so you don't end up under water

once all the ice melts it'll be mostly Louisiana and Holland that will be under water...

I don't understand why the rest of the world even cares about climate change

>>8864875
If I have a set of spring-loaded knives pointed at me, all with random timers, I can't be certain which body parts I'll have been stabbed in within a given time frame

But I can be pretty sure that in the long term that I'll be dead

>>8870174
I honestly couldn't think of a weaker and more obscure analogy if I tried, congratulations.

There's a real simple solution to stop climate change, nuke the developing world.

the average temperature will go down by probably more than 5°C and it won't go up again.

but of course that's not something that will ever be accepted.

Even though climate change is now due to developing countries like china and india

>>8870176
Short term predictability has almost no bearing on long term predictability

See also: atomic decay

>>8870201

>>8870183
Yeah, due to developing countries like china and india making just about everything you buy and consume

Good luck clothing, feeding and supplying the developed world without the palm oil and rare earths farmed and mined by the people you so easily cast aside

>>8868666
NOT GOOD SATAN

>>8870211
then don't complain about climate change

>>8870206
>“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” says Gore.
ftfy

Meanwhile, this year sees the record lowest March arctic ice extent, narrowly beating 2015's record low, both of which are several million square kilometers below the average since satellite records began.

>>8870217
Fine, provided you don't complain about the increasing droughts and flooding, leading to widespread crop failure and famine, leading to increased global instability, leading to lowered quality of life across the planet

And don't for a second think you get to escape any of this, because wherever you live all of your economic apparatus is inextricably dependent on the fortune of other nations - no matter how much the naive and ignorant might want to blow the trumpet of isolationism

>>8870235
but... muh out of context made up quotes... muh al gore boogeyman...