/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm waiting sci

>>10211697

can't really convince someone of something they don't want to believe but ok.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

97% of climate experts agree that climate change is caused by humans.

>>10211720
Yeah of course climate experts would agree. How else would they get their funding?

>>10211720
That doesn't answer my question.

>can't really convince someone of something they don't want to believe but ok.

good little snarl there

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>10211727
you didn't ask a question.

>>10211723

they would get more money working as researchers for oil companies or for supporting oil and fossil fuel industries. they would probably get more funding too.

>>10211723
they could get it by studying other areas of climate science. If it was true that scientists only reported for the sake of funding they would be acting like plate tectonics was a problem. also many scientific institutions get funding regardless of their discoveries. also The process of peer review usually keeps people from publishing bullshit. If you get pseudoscience stricken down from peer review then it helps popularize your individual name , which helps lead to you getting funding.

>>10211739
Yes I did.
Just because 97% of scientists agree it doesn't mean anything, they haven't come to their own conclusion on the matter at all, they are merely taking the current canon given to them by the status quo and taking it as Gospel, it doesn't mean anything, imagine the president says UFOs exist on prime time tv, maybe he has some proof in the form of documents or a grainy photo, but once again, no one has come to that same conclusion independently, they are merely accepting the narrative, 'Climate Change is real'.

This 97% figure is a reflection of the status quo's consensus.

>>10211720
>can't really convince someone of something they don't want to believe but ok.

Why are Climate Change believers so snarky here?

Even if everything is true, climate change is real, sea levels are rising, we will all burn alive or what ever, are world leaders going about it the right way?

For instance, the insurrection in France was caused by a fuel tax as part of climate change policy, pretty much every strategy on climate change involves some form of de-industrialization or constraints on how people live, in Australia, one of the most resource rich nations, aversion to building new coal power plants has led to increasingly expensive electricity rates and power outages because renewable energy generators are so unstable.

We haven't even gone into how coal energy has uplifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty in china and india, what would happen if coal was suddenly cut off? Speaking of China, they are building hundreds more coal fired stations and along with India are producing an order of magnitude more emissions than the west, yet the west seems to be the one taking the brunt of climate change policy?

>The shills are back
How much do you get paid? Please answer me this time

>>10211696
>bad thing for the planet
The planet couldn't give two shits about what happens to it. What it is bad for is many species that currently live on this planet--especially things like coral and much of terrestrial plant life. Humans have built cities on coasts, so although one generation will never see any real difference in weather, it'll be pretty bad down the road when most coastal cities will have to deal with a rising ocean level.

When it comes to whether it exists, simply google the evidence yourself and come to the correct conclusion. You'll never be convinced by someone here online saying "I told you so"

>>10211764
>>10211764

you're asking a science board if climate change exists. 97% of experts in that field of science agree that climate change does exist and has been caused by humans. These are conclusions reached independently.

An analysis was recently done on 12,000 different abstracts from 1991 to 2011. Of those that expressed a position on global warming 97.1% expressed that humans were causing global warming. This is concrete evidence because it is not a single paper. It is the consensus of scientists in this area of research.

If this is not evidence enough for you, then what would it take?

>>10209999

>>10211800

>"An analysis was recently done on 12,000 different abstracts from 1991 to 2011. Of those that expressed a position on global warming 97.1% expressed that humans were causing global warming. This is concrete evidence because it is not a single paper. It is the consensus of scientists in this area of research."


https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#476c98311157


"The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland. Both papers were based on analyses of earlier publications. Other analyses and surveys arrive at different, often lower, numbers depending in part on how support for the concept was defined and on the population surveyed.

This public discussion was started by Oreskes’ brief 2004 article, which included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” The article says “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of anthropogenic global warming. Although this article makes no claim to a specific number, it is routinely described as indicating 100% agreement and used as support for the 97% figure."

Turns out this 97% figure isn't based off some poll, but off some subjective metric in studies conducted by multiple people.

>If this is not evidence enough for you, then what would it take?

Depends if it's actually valid :))

>>10211764
> they are merely taking the current canon given to them by the status quo and taking it as Gospel,
Prove it. Why not apply the same high standards of skepticism to your own claims?

>>10211806
There is no canon on climate skepticism, there are many theories and ideas refuting anthropogenic climate change, some of them bullshit, some in between, some worthy of further study, meanwhile in the Climate Change circle just one dogma, "Climate Change is real and the science is done", i have lost count how many times I've heard this stupid fucking slogan.

>>10211813
>i'm smart because i can't count

>>10211821
Once again, why are climate change proponents here so snarly and vehemently opposed to climate skepticism?

I think it has become clear Climate Change has turned into what can only be described as an entrenched complex on the world stage, you have these established institutions in the UN and world governments peddling the concept of climate change into a seemingly infallible dogma that is immune from challenge and critique, in the developed world's effort to combat this specter of climate change, it is leading to a gradual decline in quality of life in western nations and threatens to keep hundreds of millions in rags or even worse, drag them back into them.

>>10211813
Yet you offer no proof for your claims while expecting very high standards of proof for the claims you disagree with.

>>10211764
>something's a fact
>no, someone payed to change the results
You can apply this retarded logic for literally anything. If you just want to argue go back to /pol/.

>>10211804

Beyond the author's conflict of interest, that's not right. You can read the paper that I'm citing here:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

and look at the methodology but they basically went through 12,000 different abstracts that took a stance on global warming. 97% said that humans are causing global warming.

>Depends if it's actually valid :))

Do you believe a Forbes article is more valid than a research paper when comparing scientific evidence?

>>10211849
>Yet you offer no proof for your claims

What claims specifically?

>while expecting very high standards of proof for the claims you disagree with.

Of fucking course i do, i keep hearing this stupid 97% of climate scientists believe in climate change bs and how climate skepticism is wacko and "the science is done", you'd figure it would be based off a legitimate poll but in reality it is really based off people going through scientific paper abstracts and pressing ctrl+f and extrapolating that onto some bizarre metric stating 97%, and on top of that, there are multiple papers following the same method reaching different results!?!

>>10211696
>Convince me Climate Change exists, it is caused by human activities instead of being natural, and it's a bad thing for the planet.

Why would we? That is completely irrelevant to the problem at hand.

>Climate Change exists

it does.

>it is caused by human activities instead of being natural

It is not. It is being exacerbated by human activity. The nuance is of course lost on OP.

>and it's a bad thing for the planet.

The hunk of molten rock we call earth couldn't give less of a damn. Humans on the other hand are hellbent on shitting where they eat and if we keep it up we'll be dining on our own excrement for generations to come.

>>10211860
> It is being exacerbated by human activity.

To what degree is it?

>The hunk of molten rock we call earth couldn't give less of a damn. Humans on the other hand are hellbent on shitting where they eat and if we keep it up we'll be dining on our own excrement for generations to come.

Fair enough, but i think there are better ways of solving overexertion of Earth's resources (e.g. colonization of space, geoengineering, moving industry into space). The recent protests in France is the first real discontent against climate change policy.

>>10211856
>What claims specifically?
>they are merely taking the current canon given to them by the status quo and taking it as Gospel
How do you know this? How do you know they haven't gone through all the evidence to confirm the conclusions of the orthodoxy?

>>10211869
Because they aren't even directly asking these people their stance, it's been concluded from this >>10211855 paper which basically says they looked for key words to draw a conclusion. Sure these papers are stating their stance, but it's a shaky way of doing it than you know, DOING A REAL POLL.

Well you have to read the scientific literature in order to be convinced, if you don't trust the word of the scientists themselves. If you don't you have no right to question the experts.

>>10211856

>you'd figure it would be based off a legitimate poll

they literally did a survey of the current research on the topic and found that it's 97% in favor of climate change being caused by humans. i don't know how much more i need to boil that down for you. that's scientific consensus.

You're essentially saying that out of a room of 12,000 history textbooks from various colleges if you looked up a random event and 11,640 of the dictionaries said it had occurred you would not believe it?

>>10211878
As i mentioned before this poll in particular is one of many which all come up with varying figures, really, come to me when they do a real poll.

>>10211884
>poll

*paper

>>10211884
so then what is a "real poll" to you?

>>10211887
>so then what is a "real poll" to you?
not the way this 97% figure was determined

Asking scientists upfront, on the record, 'do you believe in anthropogenic climate change yes or no' and publishing the results

>>10211696
>Climate Change
>>>/x/

https://youtu.be/enA0pZrgIZ8?t=500

Dr. John Christy explains why the climate consensus is bs

>>10211889
The 97% result did basically that, except it looked at the studies published by those scientists rather than ask their opinion. If anything this is stronger than what you are suggesting because it show that the data itself supports climate change, rather than asking the subjective opinion of the scientists.

>>10211889

The personal opinion of the scientist is not what we're trying to find out here though. We're trying to find out the facts about the world as found by the scientists. You do that by publishing peer reviewed papers of your findings when you do research. So they evaluated the research and found that conclusion.

Also it's funny that you mention that because they do collect the researchers emails and take a poll them. They used the same rating system as the independent raters used for the paper and found essentially the same statistic. Because that's how big polls work.

>>10211913
Also it's funny that you mention that because they do collect the researchers emails and take a poll them. They used the same rating system as the independent raters used for the paper and found essentially the same statistic. Because that's how big polls work.

Did they do this for all tens of thousands?

>>10211697
>>10211696
What evidence would convince you?

>>10211773
No, our leaders still think they can reverse the effects, we should be bracing for the consequences, building massive aeroponic and hydroponics farms underground, building massive air conditioned structures, negotiating ahead of time with other countries to prevent a war over dwindling food supplies. The UN and major world powers should be working on a rationing plan and setting up triage facilities and camps NOW. But they are failing to do so, and we will suffer a nuclear war within 200 years, I guarantee it.

"How else would they get their funding"
Imagine being this much of a troglodyte.

>>10211920
jesus that's so pessimistic

even if you doubt climate change. oil and coal are not infinite resources and they clearly pollute the air, water etc.

>>10211937
move it to space then

>>10211874
>they are merely taking the current canon given to them by the status quo and taking it as Gospel
>How do you know this? How do you know they haven't gone through all the evidence to confirm the conclusions of the orthodoxy?
>Because they aren't even directly asking these people their stance

Your answer doesn't address the question. You're not just dismissing the claim that "X percent agree," you're making a claim of how climate scientists have arrived at their conclusions.

daily reminder that there are people paid to spread the global warming hoax on the Internet, 4chan included

>>10211822
>why are people on the science board skeptical towards my denial of science?
...

>>10211813
>there are many theories and ideas refuting anthropogenic climate change
Name one.

>>10211920
At this point, it's futile to rely on our leaders. They aren't objective thinkers who are planning for a brighter future. They're ambitious and corrupt machiavellians who want to retain power past their next election. And the anti-climate change propaganda (from palaces like the Heartland Insitue) is effective enough to prevent the voting public from seeing this as the primary issue (apparently forced diversity is much more important than the survival of the human race. All will equal in death I guess).

Nah bro, burning up 300 million years of accumulated, compressed plant life from the Carboniferous period in the span of a century is a good thing.

>>10211696
>Convince me Holocaust exists, it is caused by nazi activities instead of being natural, and it's a bad thing for the planet.
>t. Holocaust denier
>t. Climate change denier
Yeah, no

Honest question, is climate change bad for the wealthy in any way at all? Seems like it helps them out even more for a whole bunch of reasons.

>>10211723
That's like saying "policemen say that criminals exists just because they want funding" because nobody robbed you yet.
I could ask what's the point of funding climatology if you ignore what they have to say?
or to continue with the analogy, why fund police if they were not allowed to arrest any people?
>>10211773
it was a way to increase taxes because France is broke and has nowhere else to take and Macron hoped the "save the planet" will keep the leftards from chimping out (it didn't)
but electric is the way forward even if you are global warming denier, the less we are dependent on sandnigger oil, the better

de-industrialization has more to do with outsourcing due to high wages and lack of workforce in the West rather than environmental policies
as for the China, they are building more renewable power than anyone else on the planet and a third of their power generation capacity is renewable already and the energy generated from coal is actually dropping in favor of renewables and nukes.

>>10212483
They'd be dead before the effects really kick in. So why should they care?

>>10212468
It's not even the most pressing issue. Something like 75% of all insects (in terms of biomass and species) have vanished in the last 25 years or so.

>>10212545
>but electric is the way forward
because batteries and photovoltaic panels grow on trees right? they don't cost energy right?

http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/27/new-study-electric-vehicle-use-does-not-appreciably-reduce-co2-emissions/

https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/global-solar-photovoltaic-industry-likely-now-net-energy-producer-stanford
>The initial step in producing the silicon at the heart of most panels is to melt silica rock at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit using electricity, commonly from coal-fired power plants.
lmao

interestingly, astrophysics is also completely fake for several hundreds of different reasons, I thought global warming was top-tier fake science but no, astrophysicists openly violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics all the time. For example In their star formation model they have systems doing work on themselves, then they invented a new type of thermodynamics to cover it up.

point is, between hubris and careerism science is effectively dead and outside of specific fields can't actually advance human knowledge anymore. But it can advance human politics, oh boy

>>10212925
Literally no one believe that electric vehicles are clean if run off a coal powergrid. Get outta here with these pointless strawmen

>The initial step in producing the silicon at the heart of most panels is to melt silica rock at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit using electricity, commonly from coal-fired power plants.
Right, so the start of switching to solar is dirty. But as you have more solar power being produced, more of that energy required for manufacturing comes from clean sources. It's hilarious that you think this is an argument against solar in any way.

>>10211739
>being this ignorant.
The majority of climate scientists in private industry work for General Electric, Conoco Phillips, and etc. Big Oil and Big Energy profit more from climate change green energy laws and contracts than any other industry, and act as barriers to entry for any competition with them. Your whole world view is distorted from reality, you think you are fighting big energy when you are its biggest supporter. These are the companies that HOST the IPCC meetings and various climate change conferences around the world. These corporations spend billions in propaganda and for example GE has profited over 20 billion a year for thirteen years straight from their ECOMAGINATION project.
I remember reading its proposal in the 90s to use its control of the peacock network on cable TV to push and promote climate change, and seek out resultant no bid contracts for green energy, paid for with taxpayer dollars instead of in a fair competitive market, on the notion that we had to save the planet so in order to do so, fair competition can't be allowed.
That is always the strategy of communism.
Anthropomorphic climate change is big oil's way of banning everyone else from every hoping to join their club.

>>10212964
>These are the companies that HOST the IPCC meetings and various climate change conferences around the world
Sounds like a total lie. Definitely gonna need some sources on this.

>>10212972
Fuck you evil scum, useful idiot, purveyor of the destruction and rape of the free human.
http://files.gecompany.com/ecomagination/progress/ge_2005_ecomagination_report.pdf
>GE has answers that are helping the environment and customers while rewarding shareowners.
Have a good read.

>>10212972
From 2002:
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december4/gcepsr-124.html
>ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded petroleum and petrochemical company, plans to contribute up to $100 million; General Electric, the world leader in power generation technology and services, $50 million; and Schlumberger Limited, a global energy services company, $25 million. E.ON, Europe's largest privately owned energy service provider, has signaled its intention to contribute $50 million and join G-CEP, along with other academic and corporate sponsors from Europe. University officials said other automotive and technology industries may join the project as the research progresses.

You fell for a propaganda campaign that lasted a decade and a half and enriched big oil and big energy and made laws against anyone ever being allowed to compete with them again, fuck you. They were spending 100s of millions on pro climate change propaganda since before it was called "climate change."

>>10212972
>#1 contributor to climate change propaganda and *climate science* is Exxon Mobile and the other *largest corporations in the world*.
>hurrr durrr im fighting big oil!

>>10212972
>Three industry representatives also spoke on Wednesday: Frank Sprow, vice president of ExxonMobil; Sanjay Correa, global technology leader with General Electric; and Philippe Lacour-Gayet, vice president of Schlumberger Limited.

"Today, the enormous publicity given to climate change makes it possible for critics to misrepresent the oil and gas industry as a sunset energy," Lacour-Gayet said, "but actually we know that the industry will play a crucial role in meeting most of the world's vast need for clean affordable, energy in the next hundred years."

Yo, what do you climate deniers think happens to the CO2 emitted by humans? Are you scientifically illiterate enough to believe the trees eat it all?

>>10211696
i think this is an extremely important deabte that does not recieve enough attention and i am very interested in further discussion thankyou for creating this thread

Wish the global warming fools would just simplify and preach and understand we ARE polluting and destroying earths natural state instead of debating if global warming is real or not and THEN to top it off have no fucking good solutions to fix it..... if one of you global warming fags has a solution... lets hear it

>>10213676

>>10213676

>>10213676
Gee, wow, tough question, hmmm..... emit less greenhouse gasses?

>Convince me Climate Change exists
the temperature record shows warming over the past century at a rate that's usually associated with flood basalt volcanism. study of ice cores going back ~600 ka shows that this rate of warming is unprecedented in recent history
>it is caused by human activities instead of being natural
solar activity is trending neutral/cooling and we're still in the cooling part of the Milankovitch cycle.
meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen precipitously, and the d13C of atmospheric CO2 has been dropping just as fast, indicating a massive influx of organic carbon (i.e. not from volcanism)
>and it's a bad thing for the planet.
ocean warming and acidification are already depleting fisheries.

do you dispute any of those? or do you just not understand them?

>>10214098
The psychology of the climate change denier very much mirrors that of low-tier religious apologists. Debate with them feels exactly like debating a Christian fundamentalist about God or evolution. They use the same kinds of arguments, selective critical thinking, moving of goal-posts, diversion tactics, scattershotting untsourced "facts" and assertions (which usually can be traced back to the most biases sources possible), flat out dismissal of experts in favor of fringe figures, requiring unprecedented levels of global conspiracy and data manipulation etc etc...

>>10214136

https://www.thedailyherald.sx/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/67092-a-new-religion-climate-change

>>10214098
>Milankovitch cycle
pseudo science

>>10214098
this post in pic related is reddit
>sockpuppets
lol yup

also
>eugenics isn't science
ok that's why it was being heavily researched by all socio-biologists on Earth until WW2

>>10211696
>a bad thing for the planet
Oh, the planet does not care. Not at all.
Raising sea levels and a hot climate are just not good for humans. There was a time billions of years ago with such a climate. It was dominated by reptiles. Is this what you want?

>>10214398
It all makes sense now...................

>>10212545
>policemen say that criminals exist because they want funding
You actually aren't far from reality. Just think prisons

>>10211920
>hydroponics farms underground
The state of low IQ

Why plot the anomaly? Why is there a discrepancy between air temp and surface temp? It's because surface data sets are poorly placed, and adjusted to up to perpetuate the myth.

>>10211720
>can't really convince someone of something they don't want to believe but ok.
>i don't have to give an argument because i know you'll reject it
wow you must be too smart for us

>>10212939
>But as you have more solar power being produced, more of that energy required for manufacturing comes from clean sources.

batteries and solar panels must be replaced every few decades; it's a dead end: you'll eventually run out of "clean" energy to replace them

>>10214458
>15% of prisons in the U.S. are for-profit so therefore this applies everywhere.

Sorry, you got brain damage.

CO2 is a thermal insulator. It's like an invisible blanket.

Mankind has more than doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, relative to pre-agricultural and pre-industrial times.

This isn't even debatable, as modern atmospheric CO2 carries an isotopic fingerprint of burning fossil fuels. It also matches known anthropogenic CO2 fluxes.

Meanwhile, decades of satellite measurements show that the solar activity has actually decreased.

Meanwhile, Earth has been rapidly warming.

Denying manmade global warming at this point is like denying that you would get warmer if you wrapped yourself in a blanket. CO2 is just an invisible blanket.

>>10211889
Who gives a fuck about this?
99% believed the earth was flat, it's a meaningless statistic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324035341_An_updated_review_about_carbon_dioxide_and_climate_change
>no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate.

warmists BTFO

>>10214197
>Gérard M. Hunt
Literally some rando. Might as well be a 4chan post.

>>10214990
>batteries and solar panels must be replaced every few decades
Are the old ones simply trash or can the materials be recycled into new ones?

>>10215261
>Rex Fleming
So.. a philosopher wrong a blog post on a social networking site. Real fucking convincing.

>>10214965

>>10211960
>move fossil fuel extraction operations into space

The pure level of implication right here

>climate change being caused by both natural causes and human causes are rising the temperature
>so what?

>>10215838
What natural causes are making the temperature rise?

>>10215879
How about that thing called the fucking sun?

>>10215887
Is solar radiation increasing?

>>10215887
bzzzzzzzt

Wrong answer, try again.

>>10215820
What if there was some sort of nuclear reactor in space that we could use to generate electricity and then somehow beam energy down to earth and collect it for use on our energy grid.

>>10211696
But it is though. All the data fits climate change being anthropogenic and we also have a good mechanism.

>>10215902
You realize the average PPM for CO2 was in the thousands and shit was normal right? You can't even give me that bullshit "but it's happening to fast". The plants are fine.

>>10214990
Motherfucker every goddamn part of all other types of power-plant need to be replaced every few decades. It's like complaining about switching from sugar cereal to whole grain by saying you have to buy it from the store regularly.

>>10215911
>we have a nuclear reactor in space; it's called the Sun

>>10213352
all the figures in your pic are guesstimates

>>10215879
what natural causes brought about the last ice age?
what natural causes made the ice melt?

>>10215943
>You realize the average PPM for CO2 was in the thousands and shit was normal right?
Normal for whom? Certainly not humans.

>You can't even give me that bullshit "but it's happening to fast".
It's is happening too fast.

>MUH PLANT FOOD
Oh good thing the plants are going to save us from pic related.

But thanks for admitting the sun didn't do shit.

>>10211696
>97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

>>10211890
>denialtardism
>>>/kys/

>>10216000
>what natural causes brought about the last ice age?
>what natural causes made the ice melt?
Continental drift blocking/unblocking circulation of warm waters to the poles. Are you implying that continental drift is causing current global warming? Because I can assure you no such movement has been detected or is even possible over such a short timespan.

Now answer my question, what natural causes are making the temperature rise?

>>10214965
>Why plot the anomaly?
Because it's the part we're interested in, and it's significantly more accurate than our knowledge of absolute surface temperature.

>Why is there a discrepancy between air temp and surface temp?
Because they're two different things.

>It's because surface data sets are poorly placed
Why do you believe that's the cause? Station placement is pretty bad, but it's a well-studied problem and it shouldn't have much impact on global anomaly numbers.

>and adjusted to up to perpetuate the myth.
Do you have a single shred of evidence for that?

>>10215902
that chart has been debunked by Nicola Scafetta

>>10212939
>Literally no one believe that electric vehicles are clean if run off a coal powergrid
Surprisingly, they actually are, since electricity has a much higher thermodynamic efficiency than ICE.

>>10216416
>According to Scafetta, who provides no physical explanation of that process, "external forcing of celestial origin simply drives the adjustment of the natural rhythms by letting their own energy flow with the same frequency of the forcing. It just passes to the climatic system the information of how it has to oscillate, not the entire energy to make it oscillate.
>In 2009, Scafetta faced criticism for failing to disclose the computer code required to reproduce his research. Scafetta responded by saying that the code in question had been submitted to a scientific journal and that if "the journal takes its time to publish it, it is not our fault."
lmao

>>10211696
chart seems to do a good job showing a change in global temperature. first papers on the effects of carbon dioxide on atmospheric heating were published decades ago. carbon dioxide is a part of the carbon cycle. Reduce the things that intake carbon dioxide, like plants, and increase the things that output carbon dioxide, like cars, and you get more carbon dioxide in the air. It's not a bad thing for the planet the planet isn't a living thing. It will be a bad thing for all life that isn't able to adapt to the changes including humans.

>>10215764
>>batteries and solar panels must be replaced every few decades
>Are the old ones simply trash or can the materials be recycled into new ones?

Solar panel manufacturers guarantee 90% capacity after 10 years and 80% capacity after 25 years. Meanwhile actual degradation is even lower. You could keep using panels for a century and might still get power.
Panels are mostly made of glass, silicon and metal. All of this can easily be recycled into new panels or whatever.

>>10211696
Its a leftist boogeymab

>>10211696
Let's take another approach. Let's say Climate Change IS bullshit, just for this argument.
What do these scientists propose as a countermeasure against Climate Change and what effects would that have that are external to the issue?
>Proposal one: lower fossil fuel use, preferably to zero
Less reliance on a finite resource, favouring resources that are abundant (solar, wind, the rest of the renewables). At the very least, development and research into renewables provides another source of electricity for us. This should help bring prices of electricity down in the long run, as the supply of electricity increases.

>Proposal two: improve our infrastructure to be more efficient
Overall means we require less energy for the same standard of living in the long run. This means you should be spending less on powering your life, given your electricity/other resource expenditure doesn't increase. It will, in all likelihood, but more efficient infrastructure helps to offset this anyway.

>Proposal three: consume less
As far as I can tell this is the main issue a lot of people have with Climate Change arguments. Telling people to reduce or abolish their consumption of meat, for example, is very likely to cause contention. In this specific example, lab-grown meat that utilises efficient technologies and infrastructure without noticeable (or any) loss in quality of meat (eventually) solves the problem neatly. A lot of the problems in this category can be solved similarly by investment into the research. Reducing current consumption is a short-term solution to a long-term problem, though it could help the overall health of the population if excess consumption is curbed. Think lower obesity rates from eating vastly more than you should be.

Those are basically the main three issues, with many others able to be grouped under the whole "increasing efficiency" section.

Even if it was bullshit, the steps we want to take are beneficial to all.

>>10216692
>Even if it was bullshit, the steps we want to take are beneficial to all.
And that's not my criticism. I am not in favour of fossil fuel. But the way that climate changed is pushed for with that sense of urgency results in everyone getting fucked so you can scam people for money. If my fucking government wanted clean energy they should not phase out all the nuclear power plants.

>>10211720
Lol I came to see what sci had to offer in terms of raw brain power and this is what i get? Low iq pleb.

>>10216696
>But the way that climate changed is pushed for with that sense of urgency results in everyone getting fucked so you can scam people for money
Could you please elaborate on this? As it stands, I can only tell you that it's basic economics that you have to create demand for a business to survive. The higher the demand, the more companies are created to provide the supply, which should result in competition that expedites the advent of suitably efficient technologies (e.g. solar that is actually worth using for economic reasons, such as being cheaper).
I only agree that the fear-mongering angle is overplayed, though if the information we are given turns out true, said fear-mongering would simply be wise warnings executed in unwise ways.

>>10216696
>I am not in favour of fossil fuel.
But you keep shilling for the fossil fuel lobby. I hope at least you get paid.

>>10216801
I am not the one he was replying to, shill.

>>10216755
I can only speak for Germany. We contribute very little CO2(if it has any effect) and we spend billions to reduce emission. As a result our emissions even increased, we wasted tons of tax payers' money and we pay the hight electricity costs in Europe. It's huge money sink and now the future of our economy.

>manipulate the charts every few years
>suddenly the charts show a warming instead of a cooling

lmao

>Average ppm levels of CO2 throughout Past few hundred million years
3000 ppm
>average global temp over past few hundred million years
22 C
>people crying over 400 ppm
This place is fucking gay.

>>10215987
>guesstimates
Wew, lad. What would some more accurate numbers be?

>>10217058
Wow you really cracked the case on that one. They almost got away with manipulating the temperature record for no reason and not telling anyone about it.

Oh wait it was actually completely explained and public knowledge that a major source of error was found as corrected in 2017:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

Fucking moron.

>>10217294
>past hundred million years
You realize that homo sapiens have only been around for about 200,000 years right? The average climate of the Earth over the past hundreds of millions of years has absolutely nothing to do with what climate is good for humans. So what exactly is your point?

>>10217363
What did Homo sapiens evolve from you dip?

>>10216755
>I can only tell you that it's basic economics that you have to create demand for a business to survive.

It's also basic economics that enterprises that creates a demand can have extraordinary profits, and if they have the political power to maintain an oligopoly, they can assure that margin of profit for a long period of time.

>>10217394
Again, what is your point? Depending on what timeframe you look at, we either evolved from some species adapted to the same climate as we did or to some other climate. If the former then so what? If the latter then we are not adapted to that climate.

Not only are humans not adapted to the climate we are creating, but we are shifting it so rapidly that we and the ecosystems we rely on don't have enough time to adapt without suffering immense harm. If you want to look in the past, why don't you look at the effects of rapid shifts in climate? You might find a few mass extinctions, but I'm sure we'll be fine.

>>10217499
One time, I touched myself where I pee and this clear sticky stuff came out. What’s up with that?

>>10211765
If you are a better human and not snarky, why did you reply?

>>10211773
>one order of magnitude
>taking the brung of climate change policy
lmao

collection of the failed global warming predictions and other funny articles about it:

http://climatechangepredictions.org/

>>10211804
despite >>10211855, "below 97%" is literally 0.97*n possible numbers.
By the way, shouln't you also lose a few words those "97% of all scientists are money-grabbers"? I mean, they are discrediting your point of view.

>>10211833
>immune to challenge because they didn't ask what I think about this

>>10217607
YOU WILL DIE

>>10211867
If there would be any cost efficient ways to support economic growth, some one knowing twice as much about them then all of the wisecracks on obscure sites would be hauling in the cash already

>>10211894
Shit, scientist should've just asked that one guy who has hot wire to the earth and knows that theres nothing bad going on. ty anon

Ice core samples correlate higher CO2 with higher temperature.
>but CO2 cycles are natural!
Only to an extent, the rest is caused by humans.
In the past, people though they could shit in rivers with no consequences, every year billions of tons of CO2 are released, it's retarded to think that there'd be no consequences.

>>10212925
Yeah, so after 15 minutes you are an dielectric-expert?

>>10212935
name one field not sharing with physics, chemistry and biology

>>10213304
>next hundred years
must be a quote of some retarded economist believing in the invisble hand and the next quartary growth

>>10214242
both things you said are wrong and or unrelated

>>10215911
all I'm hearing is what if; what if; star trek was real?

>>10217685
Where are the failed predictions?

Why are americans so fucking stupid? 90% these retards are either from USA or some deranged shithole in eastern Europe

>>10217981
there are few tags to help navigating; it could have be done better tho; try this:

http://climatechangepredictions.org/doomsday

http://climatechangepredictions.org/doomsday/1309
>Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012.
ah ah

>>10218039
>Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012.
Which scientist predicted this?

>>10218039
>ah ah
AYE AYE

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W43aQxzjyeM

>>10211937
I don't understand what the problem is. Yes, oil and coal are not infinite resources. So what?
They clearly pollute the air, water, etc. So what?

>>10211696
it was way 2 cold today for climate change to be real

my sugar daddy's dick got froze in my ass and it made me late for my sociology seminar

>>10211773

If only Australia could lift its ban on nuclear power.

>>10218354
>So what?
so we should invest in other forms of energy, as protested by global warming deniers

>>10211901
97% indicated that humans have an effect on the climate. These 97% do not agree on the extent to which human activity does or will ultimately affect the climate. A lot of the scientists in the skeptic community (including those whose work is counted in that 97% number) believe the impact humans have is around 1C and disagree with the Chicken Little prophecies the alarmists are stating.

Climate change is undeniably happening, but the man made impact is much smaller than what is proposed.

>>10211696
>I am currently not seeing something or experiencing it, so it must not exist.
also Burden of Proof fallacy

>>10218470
Climate change is undeniably happening, and the man made impact is larger than the effect of natural variations.

>>10218468
>97% indicated that humans have an effect on the climate. These 97% do not agree on the extent to which human activity does or will ultimately affect the climate.
Incorrect. Any study that minimizes the human contribution was counted as a rejection of the consensus by Cook's study that found 97% consensus. The studies that actually look at the levels of contribution agree that humans are the main cause.

>A lot of the scientists in the skeptic community (including those whose work is counted in that 97% number) believe the impact humans have is around 1C and disagree with the Chicken Little prophecies the alarmists are stating.
The same study asked scientists to self rate their own papers. 97% of the self-ratings said that their papers supported the consensus. It's one thing to make incorrect claims about the study, it's another to make claims that were anticipated and directly refuted in the study itself. Did you read it before trying to tell people what's in it? Or do you just make shit up?

>>10218470
How so?

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta
>The contribution to the global temperature change due to anthropogenic injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, i.e. resulted from combustion of fossil fuels, is approximately 0.02 K now.

ZERO POINT ZERO TWO
lmao

>>10219815
Oh wow, that small of a number can't possibly be anything significant, climate scientists btfo.

without greenhouse effect earth would freeze over

>Convince me Climate Change exists, it is caused by human activities instead of being natural, and it's a bad thing for the planet.

Climate scientists say so.
>inb4 not a valid enough evidence
The whole of society works like this. Climate change is no exception. You actually have less evidence for quantum mechanics than for climate change, yet you find no reason to doubt QM. Climate change you can actually observe. I'm 25 and I can see it happen. Yet somehow you feel like you have to create intricate arguments and conspiracy theories to disregard the obvious.

>>10211723
>Yeah of course climate experts would agree. How else would they get their funding?
IF some scientist had a reasonable theory to disprove climate change they would get billions in funding from all those who stand to profit from climate change getting disproven.

>>10211773
They will when it gets bad enough. But by then it lots of damage will have already been done. But it won't be long now. 15 years tops.

>>10219815
This is hilarious. It's essentially saying doubling of CO2 gives 0.4 degrees of warming. This by itself is false since the actual value as determined by hundreds of different studies is about 3 degrees. Then it claims that the human contribution to CO2 is 5% and simply takes 5% of 0.4 degrees as the human contribution. 5% is not the human contribution to the *change* in CO2, it's the human percent of CO2 that's emitted into the atmosphere while ignoring CO2 that's absorbed out of it. So the author is multiplying the change in temperature by a non-change in CO2 and then claiming this is the human CO2's contribution to the change. In reality, natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, while humans do not. Humans are wholly responsible for the change in CO2, not 5% of it.

>>10219862
>citation needed
World governments aren't exactly known for handling crisis well, especially when people like Trump are on the stage.

>>10219864
K is for Kelvins, that's enough for me

>>10219852
>You actually have less evidence for quantum mechanics than for climate change
You know that QM is the most precisely tested theory we have, right?

>>10219846
>hey you should go on a diet, you're rapidly gaining weight from eating too much
>>without eating I'd die
Deniertards really are this stupid.

>>10219878
A change of 3 degrees kelvin is the same as a change of 3 degrees C, you know that right?

Let me put it into terms deniertards can understand:

Let's say you normally eat 2000 calories a day and burn 2000 calories a day. You start eating a snack of 100 calories after lunch. So now you have 100 excess calories a day and you're gaining weight. What percentage of that weight gain is caused by the snack? Is it 5% since 100/2000 = 5%? Or is it 100% since 100/100 = 100%?

The amount of methane coming from this thread is threatening the climate. I ran a few simulations, we have about a week left.
The disdain of any who question the "unfaltering consensus" is exactly the problem. Weather science is known for being a little imprecise, we make fun of weathermen for this all the time, it doesn't mean we hate them or think we are more knowledgeable. Of course climate isn't weather but it has the same chaotic property, and chaos fucks with the kind of science we know, love, and can believe in.

>>10219921
>chaos fucks with the kind of science we know, love, and can believe in
Bullshit

>>10219935
Hubris

>>10219921
Climate science is more reliable than meteorology and meteorology these days is actually really reliable except for when something crazy happens (due to climate change) they're always right. What makes climate science reliable is that they use lots of different sources of evidence. We're not just looking at ice cores or just looking at instrumental data. We're looking at everything, and overwhelmingly the conclusion is AGW is real.

>>10218481
>ignore maajority of scientist
>"give proof"

>>10219921
It doesn't have the same chaotic property, when you average over time and solace you remove local and short term effects. If global temperature was chaotic then we would not be able to predict it, but we can.

>>10219977
>we're looking at everything, and overwhelmingly the conclusion is we're right
Yes sir I believe you.

>>10220071
20 years is nothing in climate science this is like predicting it's going to rain when clouds are over your head. The disputes have to do with the long term.

>>10220071
>we can
You can't even predict the weather 5 days in advance; not to mention that there are still doubts reconstructing the climate OF THE PAST based on evidence.
We have no clue about the climate of the future: just one large eruption for example and all your predictions go into the recycle bin. Moreover, we can't predict the next solar cycle, which will start in a few years, let alone the subsequent solar cycles until the end of the century.

>>10220274
>solar cycle
Bro they happen every 11 years like clockwork. All you you have to do I look at sunspots, Galileo figured this out while you were sleep dawg.

>>10220283
the intensity bro, the intensity

>>10220153
>20 years is nothing in climate science this is like predicting it's going to rain when clouds are over your head. The disputes have to do with the long term.
So first you said it's too chaotic to predict like weather, now you say it can be predicted over 20 years.

>The disputes have to do with the long term.
What disputes?

>>10220297
It's still looking at the number of sunspots. The maunder minimum and stuff. I'm pretty sure the medieval warm period is myth propagated by climate change deniers, in any case climate science has considered sunspot intensity in the models. Thats like trivial.
Next youre gonna say global warming is because the earth gets closer to sun during equinoxes.

>>10220274
>You can't even predict the weather 5 days in advance
So you think weather is the same as climate? As I already showed. We can predict the global temperature many years in advance, so what exactly are you basing these claims on?

>not to mention that there are still doubts reconstructing the climate OF THE PAST based on evidence.
The problem in reconstructing the temperature is in finding the data from which hindcasts can be made, not in predicting from the data.

>We have no clue about the climate of the future: just one large eruption for example and all your predictions go into the recycle bin.
The effect of our emissions dwarf large volcanic eruptions and solar forcings. The point is not to predict random forcings, the point is to say that if we emit X amount of GHGs then we will get Y amount of warming.

>>10220362
The thing with metaphors is they are really good at comparing one similar factor but not all of them. Meteorology runs on a different scale, so 20 years in climate terms is like 20 seconds for the regular weather. The chaotic elements take longer to manifest.

>>10220382
>So you think weather is the same as climate?
I didn't say that

>The effect of our emissions dwarf large volcanic eruptions and solar forcings.
it's about 50/50 according to Scafetta and others; we simply don't know exactly the proportions; the only sure thing is that the IPCC is absolutely wrong on this point

>We can predict the global temperature many years in advance
no you can't; can you predict El Nino 3 years in advance? no you can't; effects of other variables like the Atlantic oscillation (AMO) are still far to be understood in full; and so on and on

>>10220417
>Scafetta
>>10216452
pfff

>>10220393
>he thing with metaphors is they are really good at comparing one similar factor but not all of them. Meteorology runs on a different scale, so 20 years in climate terms is like 20 seconds for the regular weather.
Where did this scale come from?

>>10220417
>I didn't say that
Then what is your point?

>it's about 50/50 according to Scafetta and others;
Scafetta just fitted curves without any physical explanation, while misrepresenting and ignoring data. He's been debunked and none of the contrarian models have successfully predicted global temperature either by hindcasting or forecasting. Scafetta's model requires climate sensitivity to be even higher than it is, but then ignores that this would increase the effect of the directly observed radiative forcing from CO2.

>the only sure thing is that the IPCC is absolutely wrong on this point
How so?

>no you can't; can you predict El Nino 3 years in advance?
El Nino doesn't effect the temperature trend, it's a short term spike. Not to mention that if your argument is that we can't predict that our emissions will cause rapid warming, predicting random natural forcings is irrelevant.

>effects of other variables like the Atlantic oscillation (AMO) are still far to be understood in full;
The effects On the trend are very well understood, regardless of predicting them. The AMO is essentially randok fluctuation around the trend. It doesn't effect the trend itself.

>>10218470
>the man made impact is much smaller than what is proposed.
>>10218485
>the man made impact is larger than the effect of natural variations.

let's do a poll about it:

https://www.strawpoll.me/17057186

>>10220558
>Is human impact larger than the effect of natural variations, smaller or the same?
The question makes no sense. Natural variation runs on a bunch of different timescales, but is only greater than human activity on some of those timescales.

>>10211696
Anthropogenic emission from burning fossil fuel and dumping CO2 to the atmosphere drives the current unprecedented climate change

1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.

2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.

3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA.https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.phpOn average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.
In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand

>>10215902
>>10215899

http://www.sciencebits.com/bundestag

http://notrickszone.com/2018/12/15/climate-of-confusion-nasa-pik-scientist-confirm-global-temperature-has-fallen-0-2c-since-1850/

>>10222107
>blog posts.

>>10222107
>Cutting out the counter arguments
>We win xD
Where's the full video?

>>10216422
That perceived high efficiency is actually in the range of 40%, once you factor in losses at the power plant; losses from transferring power to the charging pole; losses from charging the battery; losses from the battery de-charging itself continuously, and, as a final nail in the coffin, the massive losses of scarce resources (cobalt and lithium) caused by the need to renew the battery pack once every few years.

Electric (personal) vehicles will never be a form of transportation available to the masses, due to the limited availability of minerals needed to produce battery packs.

>>10216664
>Meanwhile actual degradation is even lower.
Source?
>Panels are mostly made of glass, silicon and metal.
You forget to mention what metals - I take it you do so out of ignorance, or in a deliberate attempt to mask the fact that solar panels require extremely scarce metals, such as cobalt or lithium.

>>10215764
>>10216664

https://energypost.eu/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/

https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1002631/the-dark-side-of-chinas-solar-boom-

>>10222136
Lithium is not "scarce" at all, it's one of the most common elements in the universe, and on earth, there is more then enough to build a dozen Teslas for everybody.
If you get energy for charging from solar panels on your roof there are almost no losses. Also energy from the sun is for free and solar panels pay off within a few years.

>>10222150
If you are concerned about pollution in China you can buy from American or European manufacturers. Environmental standards are very high there so you are on the safe side.

>>10222160
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves
"Opinions differ about potential growth. A 2008 study concluded that "realistically achievable lithium carbonate production will be sufficient for only a small fraction of future PHEV and EV global market requirements", that "demand from the portable electronics sector will absorb much of the planned production increases in the next decade", and that "mass production of lithium carbonate is not environmentally sound, it will cause irreparable ecological damage to ecosystems that should be protected and that LiIon propulsion is incompatible with the notion of the 'Green Car'".[50]"

You must´ve confused lithium with deuterium, brainlet.
> and on earth, there is more then enough to build a dozen Teslas for everybody.
There is not enough cobalt to build even a fraction of the current worldwide car-park.
>Also energy from the sun is for free and solar panels pay off within a few years.
They only "pay off" (i.e. become economically viable from the perspective of a single household) areas with high solar exposure; i.e. not in European countries or the northern parts of the US.

Furthermore, solar power captured with solar panels must be used immediately to maintain any semblance of efficiency, due to the efficiency-related issues in storing large amounts of electricity in battery packs.

>>10222136
>That perceived high efficiency is actually in the range of 40%, once you factor in losses at the power plant; losses from transferring power to the charging pole; losses from charging the battery; losses from the battery de-charging itself continuously, and, as a final nail in the coffin, the massive losses of scarce resources (cobalt and lithium) caused by the need to renew the battery pack once every few years.
40% is pretty good. Most petrol vehicles don't make that, especially once you take the the energy required to make liquid fuels into account.

>>10222202
>Most petrol vehicles don't make that
You´re right - they hover around the 30% mark. However, they last longer, require fewer scarce minerals to produce, and have a much longer working range (1000 kilometers or more for an SUV; 700-1000km for an average diesel/petrol car).

>>10211696
I'm not going to deny climate change or its human causations. If the world's top climate scientists say it's true then they're probably right. But I don't see why I should care about it, and I don't think my country (the UK) should use taxpayers' money to try and solve somebody else's problem. Look at picture related, from National Geographic, which shows changes in crop yield by the year 2050, using climate projections.

Source is here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/crops.html

As you can see, Europe's crops will do BETTER due to climate change. So why the fuck should I care about climate change? It's a good thing for Europe. If Africa or India wants climate change to stop then that's their fucking problem, not ours.

>>10222433
>BUT
>POLISH
>APPLES

>>10222107
>We know from the climate-gate e-mails that the hockey stick was an example of shady science.
This alone shows your source has no idea what he's taking about.

>The medieval warm period and little ice ages were in fact global and real.
They don't appear in the global reconstructions.

>Published already in 2008, you can see a very clear correlation between sea level change rate from tide gauges, and solar activity. This proves beyond any doubt that the sun has a large effect on climate. But it is ignored.
This is a ridiculous strawman. The IPCC does not claim the Sun has no affect on the climate, it claims it has little to no affect on the current trend in temperature over the long term. By plotting change rate rather than sea level the author attempts to hide the lack of the sun's correlation with the trend: Sea surface levels are increasing over the long term while solar forcing is decreasing.

>In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar).
Here the author unequivocally proves his lack of intellectual integrity by arbitrarily choosing to start calculating the solar forcing from the Maunder minimum even though the other forcings he's comparing soar forcing to began long after that. The sole purpose of this choice is to exaggerate the solar forcing by starting at the point at which it was lowest. But this has no affect on the argument since the vast majority of this forcing occurred in the bounce back from the Launder minimum and ended long before the current period, so it does not explain current warming. The sophistry being employed here is shocking.

>The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models
It hasn't. This appears to be a reference to the long debunked "pause" meme.

>>10222178
worldwide lithium production is 43 thousand tonnes
worldwide lithium reserves are 53 million tonnes and millions of tonnes of reserves are discovered every year.
production is increasing by 10% every year but we will not run out of it for centuries.

We will certainly run out of fossil fuel much earlier.
Also we are not stuck with current battery technology forever. We can build even better batteries with Fluorid. At least in labs, it may take a decade before it will be mass produced.

Solar panels pay off in Germany and Canada and even in Alaska. You don't need high solar exposure, this is a myth. You can feed electricity in the grid or in the battery of your electric car. Today battery storage about to become cheap enough to be economic viable. Costs for solar panels and energy storage are going down even further.

>>10222107
>I should also add that science is not a democracy. The majority is not necessarily right!
And the minority is not necessarily right either, so what? The consensus of published research says that global warming is happening, caused by humans, and harmful. If you disagree with the consensus then disprove it, instead of whining about it and making fallacious rhetoric.

>You should also be careful and make the distinction between evidence for warming and evidence for warming by humans. There is in fact no evidence for the latter.
LOL so the greenhouse effect doesn't exist? This guy is a fraud.

>However, if the underlying climate model is fundamentally wrong, all the ensuing predictions are irrelevant.
I look forward to this hack proving the model is fundamentally wrong instead of showing his ignorance of the science. Really laughable that anyone would take this guy seriously after the amount of lies and misrepresentations he packed into a three minute speech.

>>10222433
this map is wrong, seasons in Europe are already getting unpredictable and switching between drought and extreme heavy rain, this is already reducing agricultural output and will become worse with climate change

>>10222952
What about the longevity of solar panels and batteries? Is it really viable to have a largely solar powered grid if you have to replace the infrastructure every 20 years or so?

>>10222996
You think power plants don't require comstant labor and maintenance? Not to mention that you are completely ignoring coal mining and oil extraction and production.

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/48/13797
>Temperature response of soil respiration largely unaltered with experimental warming
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130140004.htm
>Earth's soil is releasing roughly nine times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activities combined.

lmao

>>10211696
I am but a humble EE. I don’t know a thing about climate science.

But I absolutely do not believe that 7 billion people can live in a closed system without having any effect on it.

>>10223341
if you put 7 billion people in one place, like in a concert, that place it'll be smaller that the Canton of Zürich; if they fart altogether the smell will reach the adjacent cantons, and that's it; the planet is huge

>>10211696
I was a weather technician for a while. One of the things you learn from school, training and observations is that concrete and urban areas slightly increase the local year-round temperature of an area (and some other effects). With how complex weather systems are, the smallest changes can play roles in events, especially as time progresses and those small changes compound. Even if the atmospheric makeup stayed absolutely the same and we didn't influence the water cycle in any way, humanity would still have a non-zero influence on weather patterns.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>10223336
fuckin kek. I just read the second source you posted and it's a naked propaganda piece that's purposefully misleading the readers. Well done, you're quite the useful idiot.

>>10223378
what are you smoking? it's the same thing
the "second source" presents the paper linked, where you can read:
>Compared with anthropogenic emissions, roughly nine times more carbon dioxide (CO2) is released from soils to the atmosphere via soil respiration on an annual basis (1).

>>10213352
The more CO2 the better for plants -- you know the stuff we need to eat to survive. Also they grow better in temperate climate, kind of like "green houses". But oh no, let's ban CO2, we have to do it to survive and it needs to be cold too. This is the only way and it must be taxed, that's how important it is.

>>10211720
*in part caused by humans

Which says nothing. It's like 1%.

>>10213352
The large majority of it is absorbed by the oceans. What's your point? The oceans absorb 100x what we put out.

>>10211727
>>10211765
>>10214973
>>10216698
>vast majority of experts agree
>mountains of evidence and research support going back decades, only reaffirmed more and more as time goes on
>the majority of nation states combating it, even fucking China
>the only opposition is "PROVE TO ME IT EXISTS" and/or "PROVE IT ISNT A NATURAL PHENOMENA"

Show me your evidence for why you believe it does not exist or why you believe it is only a natural cycle, so I can identify what you've misinterpreted, and show you where you went wrong.

>>10215150
>Mankind has more than doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
The CO2 was much higher before the last ice age.
CO2 is a very weak insulator.
No one is denying humans have contributed. To what extent is the question (small) and to what extent does it matter (unanswerable).

>>10223470
>the ocean absorbs 100x what we put out
>the ocean absorbs
>absorbs
Please define for me exactly what you believe is happening when the ocean "absorbs" the CO2?

>>10223479
The preponderance of collected and accepted evidence disagrees entirely. Please cite the sources you've read that has arrived at this conclusion that the CO2 isn't higher now than it used to be, and that its function as an "insulator" being "weak" disproves the physically provable, observable result that more of it in the atmosphere traps more heat energy in the atmosphere.

>>10223488
>The preponderance of collected and accepted evidence disagrees entirely
No it doesn't. It's ambiguous. The models are a joke.

>cite the sources you've read that has arrived at this conclusion that the CO2 isn't higher now than it used to be
it's common knowledge that it was in the multiple thousands ppm before it dropped to current levels during the epoch

co2 is weak and its insulating effect is logarithmic. hence why 3000ppm isn't much different from 500ppm.

>do humans contribute
of course
>what are the effects?
who knows?? Not you and not them.

also we've been in a climate scare for 30 years now and nothing has changed. our carbon output has increased, the average carbon footprint has increase. no one changes their lives to any measurable affect. as the majority of the planet continues to enter the industrial age it will only get worse. there's literally nothing you can do.

>>10211696
>instead of being natural
What natural reasons do deniers have?

>inb4 processes that take 10,000 years

>>10223507
>it's common knowledge...
Claiming something is "common knowledge" is not proof. Where is the data?

>co2 is weak and its insulating effect is logarithmic.
Again, prove these claims. I can say it's cubic and able to bench 300lb, but that doesn't make it true.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/

>>10211696
It's caused by humans because it never happened so fast and the difference is that we are throwing CH4 and CO2 in the air. It's a bad thing because everyone that lives in a shithole will die or dominate rich areas.

>>10223336
What you don't seem to realize is that soil respiration is completely neutralized by photosynthesis. They're almost perfectly matched, but photosynthesis absorbs 400 million tons of carbon more than soil respiration releases.

>>10223430
>We need food to survive, therefore there is no such thing as too much food. Obesity is a hoax.
Sure thing, fatty.

>>10223460
Whoops made a mistake, I meant to write 100%

>>10223479
>The CO2 was much higher before the last ice age.
You mean when humans didn't exist? Oh that's comforting.

>CO2 is a very weak insulator.
OK, and?

>No one is denying humans have contributed.
Yes they are.

>To what extent is the question (small) and to what extent does it matter (unanswerable).
The research says the opposite, why should I believe you?

>>10211720
Do you have anything I can look at in a more standard journal format? This web 3.0 is such trash and not how scientists publish

>>10223857
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

>>10223689
and plants are growing faster now due to CO2; even deserts are greening!

http://notrickszone.com/2018/12/17/termites-emit-2xs-more-co2-than-humans-soil-emits-9xs-more-termite-numbers-soil-area-are-growing/

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

http://timechronicle.blogspot.com/2014/10/positive-side-of-global-warming-sahara.html

http://archive.is/OmmTx

>>10222138
>>Meanwhile actual degradation is even lower.
>Source?
Just try to use your brain, if you are a manufacturer and give a warranty you make sure you are on the safe side.
according to https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf
average annual degradation is at 0.8% which means you still got 82.5% capacity after 25 years
better panels got 0.5% degradation and end up with 87.5% capacity after 25 years.
this is from data measured from older panels, meanwhile quality and technology improved and you can expect panels to last even longer.

>>Panels are mostly made of glass, silicon and metal.
>You forget to mention what metals - I take it you do so out of ignorance, or in a deliberate attempt to mask the fact that solar panels require extremely scarce metals, such as cobalt or lithium.

there is no lithium and no cobalt, you obviously got no idea how solar cells work or what materials are used. You mainly need aluminium for the frame and you need some metal to conduct electricity. silver is perfect but expensive alternatively you can use copper or aluminium

>>10223520
>as the majority of the planet continues to enter the industrial age it will only get worse. there's literally nothing you can do.

There is something you can do. Just end burning coal and use wind and solar instead. Guess what, we already started to do this.

>>10224408
>end burning coal and use wind and solar instead

they are using coal to produce photovoltaic panels, see >>10212925

>>10212480
>Convince me Holocaust exists,
It didn't, at least not in the way it's presented today.
>it is caused by nazi activities instead of being natural
The Nazis did it, but they weren't the first by any means.

>and it's a bad thing for the planet
Only in the sense that it didn't happen and allowed the Jews to gain even more control than before.

>>10211960
This is a troll thread.

>>10211696
Damn, is there an ETF that tracks temperature? I want to go long that.

>>10224444
even then, the net gain is much higher than burning it
but yeah, nukes are much better and biomass energy is cancer

>>10224353
>MUH
>PLANT
>FOOD
And? >>10216012

It's weird how most of the time a denier posts and then gets BTFO, they never reply and a new retarded post pops up instead.

>>10224714
we are busy laughing at their religion
fortunately COP24 was a failure, so the whole thing is harmless at the moment; let them believe what they want, same with flat-earthers

>>10224714
As if there is an infinite supply of retarded deniers. Maybe we should burn warming deniers for energy?

>>10224895
>can't respond to basic criticism
>but my opponent is the religious one
Really makes you think, senpai.

>>10211720
>10,000 surveys sent out
>3,000 received
>75 from climatologists
>73 agree
>HURRR 97% 24/7/365 coverage

>study saying it's full of shit
>signed by 9,000phds
>ignored entirely

>climate is changing
>No it's not
>Climate is changing
>Ok well if the climate is changing it's not our fault
>Climate is changing
>It's all a conspiracy to raise taxes
>Climate keeps changing
>Greenpeace fags thing we can reverse it if we cripple our industrial prowess
>Rightwings think we can ignore it
>Nobody thinks we should be subsidizing desert farming techniques RIGHT NOW
>Nobody thinks we should be building camps and massive climate controlled shelters RIGHT NOW
>Nobody thinks we should be building thousands of fission plants RIGHT NOW
We're fucked...

>>10225000
>the consensus is a survey of climatologists and not the published research
Why do deniers constantly lie if they are just "skeptics"?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

>>10225027
This, not to mension the sheer amount of polution in our oceans and waters. Sad indeed all the talk comes down to CO2.

>>10224714
It's weird when we show satelite observations, that prove we aren't headed for disaster in the near future, you guys go on a spree of "oh that data didn't account for this or that component." Only ones in denial and suffering cognitive dissonance are you.

>>10225100
>It's weird when we show satelite observations, that prove we aren't headed for disaster in the near future
Please post them, I can't wait to see the inevitable pre-2017 data that suffers from major errors in the diurnal correction. You hacks are so fucking predictable.

>>10225027
>Nobody thinks we should be subsidizing desert farming techniques RIGHT NOW
You're damn right, that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard
>Nobody thinks we should be building thousands of fission plants RIGHT NOW
Now yes we should be building these though

Also threadly reminder that habitat destruction is a greater threat than global warming

>>10225147
Global warming is habitat destruction.

>>10225027
>we should be subsidizing desert farming techniques
That's something we need to be careful with. If you made the Sahara green, for example, it could kill the Amazon. The rainforest is fertilized by dust that blows across the ocean.

>we should be building camps
Hmmmm....

>we should be building thousands of fission plants
This is what we need really, but people are too afraid of nuclear.

>>10225096
CO2 is part of the pollution. For some reason, we have allowed the discussion to be about climate change rather than "should industry just be allowed to pollute as much as they want?".

>>10223430
>Imagine being this retarded
Plants don't consume enough CO2 to change the concentration of the atmosphere and when they die they release everything they've stored. Please at least graduate highschool before pretending to be knowledgeable

>>10223470
>Let's acidify the largest source of food on the planet to the point that it's no longer a food source

>>10225168
>he doesn't want his fish and chips to come with vinegar already in it

>>10224714
>>10225100
>>10225145
And... no answer just as predicted. Deniers are such scum.

If any of this actual cancer needs to be talked about, check out nuclear fusion

> 7 reactors can power whole planet and pump gasoline out of air

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_j_48G2L_o

>>10214098

> rules out other possible explanation
Is this the main argument in the literature?
I don't understand how you can draw causal conclusions from these statements. It all sounds like correlations. Like what techniques do climate scientists use for causal inference?
As a disclaimer, I have a few good friends in Geoscience. Based on my experience, their training doesn't involve much of statistics (maybe an advanced undergrad course). Perhaps this is not representative?

More importantly...
>depleting fisheries.
We nearly hunted the atlantic cod to extinction
In the scheme of things, why does it matter that fossil fuels might indirectly be killing fishes? Industrial society is built on fossil fuels. Switching will be incredibly painful.

>>10224353
Kill all termites. Problem solved.
You can thank me later

>>10217601
> You might find a few mass extinctions, but I'm sure we'll be fine.
This is why I don't trust climate science. Claiming that a mass extinction is coming based on correlation evidence about carbon in the atmosphere does not pass the smell test.
Global warming is real. But, I have yet to be convinced that I should really care about it.

>>10225333
>I don't understand how you can draw causal conclusions from these statements. It all sounds like correlations.
Ever heard of the greenhouse effect?

>We nearly hunted the atlantic cod to extinction
What stopped us from doing so?

>In the scheme of things, why does it matter that fossil fuels might indirectly be killing fishes?
Why would it matter that fossil fuel emissions harm the infrastructure and ecosystems we rely on... Gee tough question.

>Industrial society is built on fossil fuels. Switching will be incredibly painful.
Not switching will be much more painful.

>>10225356
>Claiming that a mass extinction is coming
LOL It's not coming, it's already here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

>based on correlation evidence about carbon in the atmosphere does not pass the smell test.
Please explain what is "correlative" about the greenhouse effect causing rapid warming and that rapid warming pushing species out of their adapted niches too quickly for them to readapt and survive.

>Global warming is real. But, I have yet to be convinced that I should really care about it.
That's because you're in denial. I have yet to be convinced by the deniers' arguments but at least I debunk them instead of misrepresenting and ignoring them. Until you do so don't call yourself a skeptic.

>>10225405

>Ever heard of the greenhouse effect?
Obviously, this is the leading explanation. However, not rejecting an explanation is different than an experiment that confirms its existence. This is an important distinction especially in a complicated system like the earth.
>What stopped us from doing so?
We only stopped hunting the cod, when things got catastrophic. Even at that point, there was a lot of push back and lives were ruined. I suspect (just a gut feeling), we could add a lot more carbon to the atmosphere before things get catastrophic. People are really adaptable.
>Not switching will be much more painful.
This is what it comes down to. This is an economic question, not a question about earth systems. When climate scientists try to answer, I can't help but call bullshit. They have very limited understanding of the economy.

>>10225420
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
I've heard this is a hot take, but this not my field so i'll accept it is true
>"correlative" about the greenhouse effect causing rapid warming
It would be "causal" if you ran a true experiment (i.e. some how held everything about the earth fixed and only changed atmospheric carbon).
correlational is not a bad thing, its just weaker in causal. In a lot of cases (like this one), you have to settle for a correlation. It is important to recognize that it is weaker
> deniers' arguments
There is an 'expected' cost carbon. And, an expected benefit. The benefits are huge and probably outweigh the costs.
I also think estimates of the costs are higher than they should be because of academia (but, this point is less important)

>>10225441
I'm confused. You think there is no experiment confirming the existence of the greenhouse effect? It's directly observed via radiative spectroscopy.

>We only stopped hunting the cod, when things got catastrophic.
And that's a good thing to you? We could avoid catastrophe by listening to scientists and minimize the damage to civilization or we could suffer the consequences. Why do you automatically choose the latter?

>This is what it comes down to. This is an economic question, not a question about earth systems.
It's both. And it's already been answered, you're just not willing to listen to the answer.

>When climate scientists try to answer, I can't help but call bullshit.
They aren't, economists are.

>>10211800
15/16 secret agencies agree russia hacked the election...not saying your 97% sounds like a fucking lie, but it does sound like complete fucking bullshit because it is complete fucking bullshit no matter how many times you repeat it...bullshit

>>10225453
>It would be "causal" if you ran a true experiment (i.e. some how held everything about the earth fixed and only changed atmospheric carbon).
There's no need, we can directly measure the radiative forcing from CO2. Demanding ridiculous unnecessary experiments is a common tactic of science deniers.

>There is an 'expected' cost carbon. And, an expected benefit. The benefits are huge and probably outweigh the costs.
If that were true economists calculating the optimal carbon tax rate would get a negative number. They don't.

>>10225492
>science is bullshit because I say it is
Are you on the wrong board? This isn't /pol/.

>>10225503
This seems legit. How accurate are the magnitudes on something like this?
> would get a negative number
Not exactly. Obviously, we shouldn't dump infinite carbon into the atmosphere. The question is how much is right. I think there is tons of disagreement over the optimal magnitude.
It depends on the estimated costs. As far as I can tell, no one agrees on the costs. It is a hard question to answer -- because it doesn't just depend on earth systems. it depends on people and how we change.
More importantly, a lot of the policy around climate change involves subsidizing tesla's and solar panels -- not solar panels -- which is a waste of time and money.

>>10225589
>This seems legit. How accurate are the magnitudes on something like this?
The error on the radiative forcing calculation is about 0.2 W/m^2, very accurate.

>Not exactly. Obviously, we shouldn't dump infinite carbon into the atmosphere.
The optimal rate changes according to emmission levels, so this is irrelevant. It's saying that at our current levels the cost of emissions outweighs the benefit from not taxing them.

> I think there is tons of disagreement over the optimal magnitude.
There is disagreement over the magnitude, not over it being positive.

>More importantly, a lot of the policy around climate change involves subsidizing tesla's and solar panels -- not solar panels -- which is a waste of time and money.
It's not a waste, it saves much more than it costs.

Saving climate is not this hard, you can start wit putting some solar panels on your roof, it's even a good investment, what are you waiting for?

>>10222433
How can Netherland have increased crops underwater?

>>10223477
Even if it's a natural cycle doesn't mean it's not bad for us as a species.

>>10226363
it's a miracle

>Proof that climate change is happening

>>10211937
That's a different subject, you and every other "climate change" advocate try to conflate the two.

>>10213225
Thanks anon, your getting to the root of the hoaxes, always follow the money.

Totalitarianism is the only way to save humanity at this point. The problem lies in finding the right Emporer to lead us through the great filter.

>>10218354
>They clearly pollute the air, water
>So what

So you need relatively clean air and water to fucking live you stupid cunt.

If global warming is real then why aren't people investing in real estate in Canada, Scandinavia, Russia, etc?

>>10229618
maybe because climate change hit's Arctic real estate first?
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/03/02/analysis/melting-roof-world-climate-change-comes-knocking-again-louder

>>10212434
Not for much longer, Israel is fucked.

>>10212887
Do you have a source for this? I wasn't aware we'd catalogued even close to that amount to know they had gone extinct.

>>10213352
>>10223470
Guarantee his response will be
>something something, 13-C isotopes
What this faggot doesn't know is that in the past, naturally occurring warm spells have correlated with 13-C depletion in the atmosphere because certain soils (Yucatan Peninsula, I forgot the type of rock, not a dirt scientist) absorb more 13-C when it is warmer.

>>10217731
Zoom out to a hundred million years or so.

>>10230768
Why do you think that would help?

>>10220433
Straight from his ass

>>10225279
No way some soulless insectoids could ever fuck that up and kill us all...

>>10230772
Perspective. Mammals first came to prevalence after the dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago. The first primates appeared about 10-15 million years later. What were the CO2 levels and temperatures during that time period?

There’s literally no point in talking to climate change deniers. They believe in giant conspiracies, so that’s the end of the discussion. Don’t waste your time.

>>10230802
>Perspective.
Looking back further can rob you of perspective as easily as it can grant it.
What we're interested in is how the change in conditions compares to our species' past, not what early mammals lived in.

>>10211720
>97% of climate experts agree that climate change is caused by humans.
This insanity must end.

>>10211765
For lack of scientific methodology, intimidation will always be a substitute.

>>10211855
>http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta
>and look at the methodology but they basically went through 12,000 different abstracts that took a stance on global warming. 97% said that humans are causing global warming.
Garbage. Utter and complete garbage. Is this the norm for warmers to lie about papers?

Let us read what the article DOES state:
>We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
First off we see that 2/3 do NOT state such a claim.

>Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
That is 97.1 % of 32.6% which for anyone not scared of a calculator is significantly below 97%.

Also, when you write about AWG you are already introducing a massive selection bias. It is disturbing how warmers can be such truthers.

>>10222138
>the fact that solar panels require extremely scarce metals, such as cobalt or lithium
That is news to me. Cite? And since when was lithium used in solar panels or even scarce? Vast salt lakes are full of lithium.

>>10216692
>Even if it was bullshit, the steps we want to take are beneficial to all.
No.

Billions of lives depend of cheap synthetic fertilizers and these are made from gas. Stop gas and you will kill more than the worst genocidal maniacs in human history. Same with fuel for transport, absolutely essential for farm engines. You try going back to plowing with oxen and see agricultural production plummet.

People do not burn quantities of oil just for fun.

>>10211720
>can't really convince someone of something they don't want to believe but ok.
>https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
>97% of climate experts agree that climate change is caused by humans.
30 years ago 98% of climate scientists thought the only thing effecting climate was orbital mechanics and solar radiation, and they manipulated their experimental results to make them conform to their models.

>>10232123
>30 years ago 98% of climate scientists thought the only thing effecting climate was orbital mechanics and solar radiation,
Do you have a source for that?

>and they manipulated their experimental results to make them conform to their models.
I'm not even going to bother asking for a source.