/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10014951
>The biggest scam in America
Capitalism

okay retard

I would say the biggest scam is when bought and paid for politicians take your tax money and start wars to funnel it into their donors corporations.

>>10014961
>calls someone retard
>no proof or evidence
okay retard

>>10014951
Based right wing bro

>>10014988
humans are fucking epic
i\m glad i'm a human.

survival of the fittest

>>10014981
>calls something a scam
>no proof or evidence
okay scammer

>>10015017
You''re the one who needs to present proof because you're the one saying something exists when it clearly doesn't.

>>10014994
>Implying we're going to survive our own mess

>>10015023
CO2 absorbs infrared light emitted by the Earth as thermal radiation while humans release gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere yearly
both of these are undeniable facts

>>10015041
Prove that what you just said is an undeniable fact.

>>10015046
No, you're right, coal and oil are actually made of carbon-free fairy dust.

>>10015046
you can build/buy a spectroscope and see for yourself the CO2 absorption spectra
then make a fire and see what gases get released, most of the CO2 released by us is basically from fires

>>10014988
>author tries to portray human as devil
>i only see his badassness

>>10015072
That's because you are American. You follow the cult of Satan.

>>10015023
Climatology has already produced more than enough evidence. You can find it compiled and summarized here: http://www.ipcc.ch/

The burden of proof is on you to show how this evidence is wrong and provide evidence of your "scam"

If CO2 levels have been higher before in the Earth's history, then why didn't it result in runaway global warming?

Every Ice-Age seems to correct naturally, and so does every heating cycle.

The biggest scam in America.

>>10015725
>If CO2 levels have been higher before in the Earth's history, then why didn't it result in runaway global warming?
Why would it?

>Every Ice-Age seems to correct naturally, and so does every heating cycle.
You mean cyclical causes have cyclical effects? Unfortunately, human greenhouse gas emissions are not cyclical, they are increasing exponentially.

>>10015143
>The debate is over cuz I don't want any more damning evidence coming out against my bullshit doomsday cult.

>>10015764
Oh look it's this idiot who posts this image over and over and never responds to the fact that it has been debunked for years, then posts it the next thread even though he knows it's false.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-choi-2011-party-like-2009.html

Yes, clearly I'm the one in a cult even though you knowingly post false information and ignore the massive amount of evidence that proves you wrong.

>>10015757
because a central tenant of global warming marxists is that at a certain threshold green-house warming becomes "run away" warming

all of the green house effects are not linear by the way

IF run away warming were possible, THEN why haven't we ever seen it?

>>10015833
>because a central tenant of global warming marxists is that at a certain threshold green-house warming becomes "run away" warming
No, that's just a strawman deniers use since they don't have any real arguments against the actual theory:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming-advanced.htm

>all of the green house effects are not linear by the way
Yes, but neither are our emissions.

>IF run away warming were possible, THEN why haven't we ever seen it?
Who said it is possible on Earth? I know it's very confusing to separate your opponents' arguments from the fake arguments you've seen on denier blogs, maybe you should actually read former instead of the latter?

>>10015833
Ah the good old hundreds of millions of years chart, ignoring that humans have only existed for a few hundred thousand years and have always lived in a low CO2 climate we are rapidly destroying.

>>10014988
What if I told you that I'm both right-wing and a radical environmentalist? The reality is not nearly as black-and-white as your assumption that it is so. The environment is being raped to death, and no one seems to care about anything except buying more useless shit and wasting energy resources on frivolities and inefficiency born out of ignorance. And apathy. The situation might not be so grim without the mountains of apathy present in the population.

>>10015886
Slightly more realistic edit.

>>10014951
Reminder that a carbon tax is the only acceptable "solution", because property developers and banks cannot survive without population growth (immigration).

>>10014951
Likely the tamest climate change thread on /sci/ ever.

>>10015790
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-choi-2011-party-like-2009.html
> hurr durr a Psychologist , Cook, "debunks" the world's greatest atmospheric physicist

What does Cook say?
Flaw #1: Comparing Tropical Apples with Global Oranges
Yeah, except the tropics are the largest source of purported positive feedback via the hypothesized increase in water vapor in the upper troposphere.

Flaw #2: Assuming Short-Term Local Feedbacks are Representative of Long-Term Global Feedbacks and Cherrypicking Noisy Data
Translation: Even though we have no evidence for it, there's a giant Long-term feedback hiding there. Therefore climate change is true!

The rest Cook's of "rebuttal" has been addressed in the follow up paper:
Lindzen, R. S., & Choi, Y. S. (2011). On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 47(4), 377.

>>10014951
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/

>>10016234
>Assuming Short-Term Local Feedbacks are Representative of Long-Term Global Feedbacks and Cherrypicking Noisy Data
There is no distinction between "short-term" and "long-term" feedbacks, except that a supposed "short-term" mechanism might only exist under specific circumstances which are easily altered, disrupting and suppressing the mechanism. If it is a robust mechanism, it will persist, and a positive feedback would drive the overall response to one of the two extremes, up or down. Labeling it "short-term" without the specific justification of how it could easily be suppressed by a change in conditions is disingenuous at best.

>>10015764
You people trigger the fucking shit out of me. I like that you think the upending of the earth’s ecology is a funny maymay to own the libs with. You right wing shit heads are a bottomless, echoless black pit of degenerate fleshy waste.

>>10014951
sage this garbage

>>10016234
>hurr durr a Psychologist , Cook, "debunks" the world's greatest atmospheric physicist
Actually it was the reviewers of the paper that debunked it.

>Yeah, except the tropics are the largest source of purported positive feedback via the hypothesized increase in water vapor in the upper troposphere.
And? The tropics are not representative of global climate sensitivity. See

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2010GL043051

Lindzen and Choi completely ignore that the tropics are dominated by ENSO and treat any change as a result of forcing. This alone makes their analysis irrelevant.

>Translation: Even though we have no evidence for it, there's a giant Long-term feedback hiding there. Therefore climate change is true!
There is plenty of evidence. Every study that didn't make all these mistakes has found positive feedback, the only one who doesn't have evidence is Lindzen and Choi for their assumption that they could cherrypick the data in order to ignore what everyone else found.

>The rest Cook's of "rebuttal" has been addressed in the follow up paper:
>Lindzen, R. S., & Choi, Y. S. (2011). On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 47(4), 377.
The rebuttal is to that paper, you illiterate buffoon. No they didn't address it. Maybe try reading next time instead of making a fool of yourself.

>>10016337
>STOP SHOWING ME THE TRUTH! IT'S BLINDING! PLEASE... STOP!

>>10014951
Imagine unironically believing climate change is a scam and thinking people make money off of this

>I can't handle the truth that everything is shittier than I want to believe!
>I want the world to remain a cozy wonderland in my mind; were everything will be okay even if nothing changes
>I want my mind to be at piece, in my resource intensive, outsourced, developed country, surrounded by air-conditioned walls and surplus in powdered donuts

>>10014951

God, sometimes I want to stab America's tradition of anti-Intellectualism in the heart.

>>10016354
literally me

>>10015041
I'm denying it right now you absolute brainlet

>>10016398
So you're a delusional retard.

>>10015790
As someone who believes anthropogenic climate change is real and a long term problem, fuck skepticalscience and all of its smug, condescending, scientist larping douche team of total douche bag writers.

>>10016397
People make plenty of money off of the status quo that denies the severity of anthropogenic global warming, and industrial and agricultural pollution generally.

>>10016417
Funny, since these flaws were pointed out by the reviewers of the paper:

http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Attach3.pdf

>>10016397
literally you:
>>10016360

>>10016363
>A nation that began as the most intellectual on earth degraded into the least intellectual
Where did it go all wrong?

>>10016468
>being historically retarded
kill yourself

>volcanoes spew out CO2 for ages and at enormous rates
>But it's the human emissions that are the problems get rid of cars and industry

>>10016587
Anthropogenic emissions dwarf average annual volcanic emissions by about 120× for just CO2, and more like 210× if you include the other GHGs as "CO2 equivalent."

>ignore anything that isn't CO2
>ignore water molecules
>ignore natural climate cycles
>nope it's all human emissions nothing else pay carbon taxes now thanks
It's a very narcissistic ideology, very human centred. It's all about us

Remember: if a religious person claims the world is ending soon, he's a crazy nutter. But if an atheist does it, he's a deeply concerned environmentalist that we all need to listen to

>>10014951
You mean the holocaust industry?

>>10016611
>I clearly have never looked at a single thing climatologists have done but I'm going to lie and say they ignored things and no one will notice because I'm super smart
It's a very narcissistic ideology, very self centred. It's all about the denier.

>>10016611
>literally attempt to account for every natural variation possible
>still find a large discrepancy that can only be attributed to humans
You're completely wrong.

>>10014951
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

So if carbon emissions are such a huge deal all you retards should be supporting massive nuclear expansion right?

>>10015046
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Atmosfaerisk_spredning.png

blue = transparency
low value = greenhouse effect

light gets thru, loses energy when reflected off earth/sea, turns into heat (IR) which the atmosphere then blankets.

>>10016807
but muh chernobyl

>>10014961
>the climate changes
No shit, but historically c02 has never directly correlated.

>>10016845
you dont need a direct correlation to recognize its effect on the climate

>>10016857
With what you're attempting to imply, yeah, you kind of do.

>>10014951
Climate change exists, but the scam is being told that America is most responsible for it, and should thus shoulder the greatest guilt & burden in combating it.

>>10014981
okay retard

>>10014951
The biggest scam *is* america

show me some concrete proof that america's real, fucking sheeple.

>>10016884
That's still half of chinkland being 1/4th of the population and a "first world" country that should have entered post industrial stage. India and rest of developing countries could follow China before settling unless there is transfer of know how and skill from-to them to get them up to speed with the world.
Japan 4% is crazy considering it's as big as Italy with the population of Italy and France combined. Is that chart from a safe source?

>>10015886
we're not talking about whether we caused it, we're talking about if its real

to be fair, i guess its pretty hard to read when your head is so fucking far up your ass

>>10016798

>>10014951
>The biggest scam in America
...is that it's a "democracy".

>>10016807
Yup

>>10017077
getting there...
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

>>10016845
Do you ever get tired of lying?

>>10016860

>>10016282
fyi, x and pol married and move into sci. they are here to stay

>>10016611
I'd wager I'm far more concerned with Nature herself being raped to death by human activity than humanity itself, which is the only thing denialtards ascribe any value to. You want to exploit nature to the fullest extent possible, ignore the consequences of it, and then mock anyone who says anything about for being a "hippy."
>>10016618
The world is ending only in the sense that processes are underway to destroy vital resources that humans depend on at a quick pace, that will take nature 10× - 10000x as long to "fix" through natural processes. Bad news for humans.
>>10016807
correct, I do support nuclear power
>>10016884
All developed countries are culpable in the problem. Scapegoating will just maintain the status quo, which is the cause of the problem.

>>10016611
I'd wager I'm far more concerned with Nature herself being raped to death by human activity than you; humanity itself is the only thing denialtards ascribe any value to. You want to exploit nature to the fullest extent possible, ignore the consequences of it, and then mock anyone who says anything about for being a "hippy."
>>10016618 #
The world is ending only in the sense that processes are underway to destroy vital resources that humans depend on at a quick pace, that will take nature 10× - 10000x as long to "fix" through natural processes. Bad news for humans.
>>10016807 #
correct, I do support nuclear power
>>10016884 #
All developed countries are culpable in the problem. Scapegoating will just maintain the status quo, which is the cause of the problem.

>>10016298
And they say the right is intolerant!

>>10016884
The US has the highest per capita emissions and was emitting more than China for hundreds of years.

>>10016904
LOL you still don't get it. That post isn't talking about what caused it, it's saying that current CO2 level rise is unprecedented in human history, which has little to do with the geologic record.

>>10017400
>hundreds of years
>didn't become fully industrialized until the 20th century
I think you meant to say Great Britain there, friend.

>>10017431
No.

>>10017517
Takes a long long time to replenish the oil layer again.

>>10016884
America is a richest country on earth and therefore it's supposed to do something.

>>10017922
Ok, how about forcing the other retards to slow down.

>>10017120
Im gonna need sources on this data.

>>10017924
You do realize that probably over half of China's emissions is due to production that was OUTSOURCED from the US and EU in the first place?

>>10017960
>anything that doesn't fit my preconceived narrative is a hoax

>>10017980
Who said anything about a hoax. I wanna see where this data is from, and what methods they used to collect it

>>10017984
If you really want to debate this seriously, you should have seen many graphs similar to this one from many different sources already. Anybody who has spent more than a couple of minutes looking into climate research has seen many graphs similar to that one before. So asking for "muh source" means you are either uninformed or a hoaxer.

>>10017991
This is the reply of a bitch who cant back his shit up. Which is immeasurably unscientific.

>>10017999
>do my homework for me
do your own homework you lazy bastard
>>10017984
the source is apparently columbia university

>>10014951
>>10014981
>>10014988
At least put in an actual effort.

>>10017960
Found it.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/07/07/does-temperature-control-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/
The graph posted in this thread is a simplified version of the same graph seen here (the graph in this link/the graph I posted with this post). The person who created the simplified graph was citing this page.
>One thing is certain: varying the amount of gases absorbed by the ocean due to changes in its average temperature played a minor role in regulating the observed changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. The leading actors involved physical, chemical and biological processes in the ocean.
Temperatures did not fall first, causing carbon to fall. You could still argue something ELSE must have caused the carbon to fall (but if you claim this, the burden of proof is on you, and there is no proof of that) but you CANNOT say that falling temperatures CAUSED carbon to fall.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06949
>High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000years before present
>The Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 650,000years1,2,3,4. Here we present results of the lowest 200m of the Dome C ice core, extending the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by two complete glacial cycles to 800,000yr before present.
And this is the actual source of the data.

>>10018048
>someone actually confronts the [citation needed] hoaxers with the sources they supposedly wanted
>*circkets*

>>10017120
>da lines match up!!1

>>10018064
Fucking read the thread you retard
>>10018048

>>10014951
Nah, it seems pretty legit.
>http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/climate-change/
>https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
>https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change
For some of this stuff you can literally look up data yourself.
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/reports/all?dataTypeId=7&search=true
If you looked, you could find zillions of publications on the subject. (some behind paywalls)

If you have doubt. Go become a researcher in the field.
Side note: No matter the issue, if there is any sort of notable conflict, some one is bound to find a way to make a profit from it. No matter which side they're on.

>>10014959
fpbp

>>10018064
>demands correlation
>dismisses correlation

>>10018162
not the same guy

>>10018171
Then what is your point?

>>10017158
>Nature herself being raped to death by human activity
Cringe, reeks of r*ddit

>>10018084
>go become a researcher in the field
>the same field that denies funding to and shames any dissenters that dare question the doctrine of climate change
Shame

>>10014951
>volcanoes erupt
>the sun is slowly dying causing it to send things like solar flares sporadically throughout the solar system
>we put retards in power in 3rd world African countries where they have no clue how to farm so everything dries up expanding preexisting desert which causes things to get hotter and dry up faster

It's clearly those evil coal miners in West Virginia who are the reason the world is getting hotter, if we ban the burning of coal it'll solve all of our problems!

>>10018417
But Nature is being raped to death by humans. It's an appropriate amount of emphasis. Even more so with the army of denialtards downplaying the severity of the problem at the same time they deny its existence.
>>10018437
It actually is coal-fired power plants that are some of the worst offenders in terms of GHG emissions, though. We need to quit using coal, oil/petrol, and LNG. Corn ethanol is dogshit too. Solar/wind/nuclear is the grid of the future.

>>10018422
Replace "climate change" with evolution, vaccines, round earth, etc. and you'll understand why no one cares about your opinion.

>>10018437
Volcanoes, solar activity, and land use changes have been thoroughly studied and aren't strong enough to explain the warming observed. Why do you think they are the explanation and not the greenhouse effect that has been directly measured?

>>10018466
>question everything
>except our doctrines, don't you dare touch those
>don't even entertain their arguments, no matter how well thought out
>ours is the only correct way of thinking and anyone else needs to shut up and stay out of the way

>>10018488
No one cares if you question climate change, it's your misrepresentation and denial of scientific evidence that is retarded. You have no well thought out arguments, show me a single example. You won't, because you have nothing behind your position.

>>10018480
Because otherwise they couldn't raise our taxes so much.

>>10018518
>politics mean science isn't true
maybe if you are a brainlet with no clue

>>10018488

>don't even entertain their arguments, no matter how well thought out

Their arguments are shit though. An example of a well thought out argument that competes with established science would be something like nonlocality. Since it blows a big hole in local realism by providing evidence that can't be resolved by traditional mechanics "yet".

Provide an argument against climate change that is akin to nonlocality vs local realism then we can talk.

>>10018545
Just ignore him, his post is the predictable last gasp of the retarded crank: "You're censoring my brilliant arguments that don't exist!"

>>10018545
>>10018550
You're right guys I'm sorry, I guess I should just accept that 97% of all climate scientists agree on climate change and that the science is settled... wait a minute...

>>10018567
So, you can't even give one example of these "well thought arguments" you claim exist. Exactly as I predicted. Your posts are a waste of electrons.

>>10016611
>hurr muh water vapor
water vapor in the atmosphere is in near-equilibrium with the oceans, you peanut. it can't drive changes in temperature, just amplify them.