/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15770076
>Indicating solar shenanigans
That's easy to check. It's not solar shenanigans.

>>15755821
>The planet warms and cools when we get more or less energy from the Sun.
Explain this

>>15004019
>the Sun
How many times are you going to repeat the same bullshit?

>>14669965
Does the sun getting dimmer naturally make the planet warmer?

>>12712128
what did he mean by this?

>>12157108
*down

I have stumbled into people that eat the shit they read on social more in this last 6 months that I think should have in two lifetimes.

I know much of it is trollbots from Russia and China starting a snowball on social media nevertheless I want to find easy ways to break down shit to normies without triggering a backfire effect or a boomerang one.

So I want to dedicate this thread to sharing easy to digest evidence of things like:

* flat earth
* global warming
* antivaxx
* White supremacist cops
* wage gap
* Covid not existing/no mask

I'm really interested rn in trying to prove the existence of Covid to a friend of mine but I don't know how the fuck to do that.

I do know that every conspiracy theorist has the exact same old points and his reasoning has to be linear x->y->z->.... And sometimes relying in a "mysterious entity". Or else it breaks down unlike a guy that knows his shit.

Eg, flat earthers: Earth is a disc
If it was the case people closer to (pole that has the wall) would be tossed into space if buildings weren't built almost horizontally

>>11720631
>Earth’s average surface temperature and man’s CO2 emissions have both risen since 1850, so CO2 must have caused the warming
Strawman argument. The greenhouse effect is causative, not correlative.

>This mismatch is simply due to the oceanic time-lag, currently about 60 years.
This doesn't explain anything. Solar forcing was flat 60 years ago yet warming is faster than ever. The lag caused by ocean heat uptake is already taken into account by climate models: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327

>Sea level (SL) for the last few thousand years varied less than 25cm, so the 30cm SL rise since 1850 proves abnormal warming by CO2
An even more ridiculous strawman. Who said this?

>That’s it. That’s all they have. Be surprised.
LOL, so not only did he make up strawmen, he claims those fake arguments are all that exist. He utterly fails to mention the greenhouse effect which is the most important part of the argument he claims to have completely described. Pathetic.

>>11656501
>solar activity is driving the climate
He uses an unsourced graph which shows solar activity increasing, but it's been decreasing for several decades and we are now near a grand solar minimum, while temperature is increasing faster than ever.

>>11437378
solar activity and temperature are currently anti correlated despite the fact they are usually very strongly correlated. Clearly something else is at work here.

>>11306388
sorry to burst your bubble TSI and global temp have actually been moving in complete opposite directions that temp graph also looks doctored as fuck, it looks suspiciously like north America only

>>11288668
>climate change is caused by the ever-changing Solar Constant (pic related), that we cannot and never will control.
Incorrect, irradiance has been going in the opposite direction of warming for two decades now, which is why you used a graph cut off 20 years ago. Also, even if it were increasing, the increase is too small (less than 15%) to cause the observed warming.

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

>Whether we have an effect on the temperature trend of our planet or not is incredibly hard to determine scientifically.
Yes, and that's why it took over a hundred years of scientific research to determine the answer.

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>Yes, of course, but whoever tries to sell you the climate emergency assuming that all climate change is man made is trying to sell you something or to get your vote.
No on me said all climate change is manmade. Do toy have anything else besides lies and strawmen?

>>11226501
>The reasons are that CO2 level changes follow temperature changes nit the other way around.
Incorrect. Both are true. CO2 causes warming via the greenhouse effect, and warming causes CO2 to outgas from the oceans. We can directly measure the greenhouse effect from CO2 via radiative spectroscopy, and it matches the observed radiative forcing. We can see whether man or the oceans are causing the increase in CO2 which is causing that radiative forcing by looking at the carbon isotope ratio. It shows that the increase in CO2 is wholly due to man. In fact, natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, so the effect of our emissions should be even worse than what we observe.

>Also the global temperature follows solar activity for as long as it has bee recorded.
Wrong. Pic related.

>Also the global temperature average went down from about 1950 to 1970 while CO2 levels kept increasing.
Because of aerosol emissions causing cooling.

>Then finally CO2 is good for plants
Are droughts good for plants?

>life can easily tolerate up to 8000 ppm, but dies at 150ppm, so the idea that 200ppm was ideal is retarded.
Who said 200 ppm is ideal? Also, at 8000 ppm humans would be severely cognitively impaired, even if you ignore the utter devastation global warming would cause at that level.

>Also global warming is better than global cooling.
This is like saying "being obese is better than starving" in order to avoid going on a diet.

>>11186261
>The sun is what controls climate
Ruh-roh, I'm guessing the kekistani cringefag left this graph out of his presentation, right?

>>11179880

>1. CO2 has never been a driver of climate change
completely false, virtually all of climate science directly disputes this idiocy
>2. Human production of CO2 is so laughably small compared to natural forces that it would be irrelevant anyway
We're the only significant contributors currently human activity is responsible for 100% of the increase of atmospheric CO2 to the highest levels in 5 million + years
>3. Far and away, the primary greenhouse gas is, by far, WATER VAPOR, which humans also are not responsible for its increase
water vapor is a feedback mechanism which cannot on it's own cause any temperature changes, CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere which increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. Water vapor amplifies the warming effect of CO2.
>4. Solar cycles are closely correlated with global temp cycles in the longer term of things
TSI and recent warming have been anti correlated. The increased warming from the greenhouse effect has been warming the planet at unprecedented rates even though solar activity has been decreasing throughout the period of most warming.
>5. I'm tired of arguing with climate-tards. G'nite all.
Tired of utterly failing at making an argument because all your points are easily dismantled by anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject.

TSI and current warming are actually anticorrelated

>>11150162
i'm pretty sure this is satire but just in case

>>11101066
>it's the sun
try again boomer

>>11093788
why is there no trend in TSI?

>>11042339
Reflects that light back down to the Earth where it's reabsorbed rather than leaving as blackbody radiation. That's whats being measured in the graph in this post >>11042290

Let me guess, this whole thing has been a rigamarole so that you can claim that it's just the sun getting hotter, right? See pic related

>>11000022

>>10989090
>That's a nonsense argument. The point was there have been periods of elevated CO2 that did not result in a corresponding change in plant growing ranges (which has been observed in the fossil record).

really? this is the first i've heard of this, provide your source please.

>Unrelated, we've had the longest period of minimal solar activity since the Maunder Minimum. It is increasingly likely we are entering another Grand Minimum, which is going to cause entirely new kinds of havoc for modelling
please reference the significance of the change in TSI this will cause.

>>10973260
i'm still waiting for someone to explain how the sun is transferring heat into the troposphere by a means other than radiation

>>10971523
why not measure actual solar irradiance?