/sci/ - Science & Math

>climate change
not science or math

>>10240209
It's literally atmospheric science, moron

Why not show us CO2 levels before your cute, little, misleading graph?

>>10240589
Because humans didn't exist before then. It's not relevant

Here's the problem: I build models for money. Whatever result you want, I can build a model to "prove" your result by subtle trickery (fudging assumptions, experiment design, output measurements).
For an example of such fudging, see >>10240623

The people who deny climate change live in areas where the seasons don't change. I guarantee, anyone who regularly used to observed cold winters and warm summers agrees that climate is changing RAPIDLY. When I was born, the lake in my town would freeze 4 feet thick and cars could literally drive over it in November. This is the deepest lake in Canada, and one of the largest (Okanagan). 20 years later: it hasn't even SNOWED in 2 years.

Don't believe in climate change? Fucking off yourself.

>>10240652
I miss cold weather. Fall season used to be comfy and cozy where I could wear nice sweaters and cuddle. Now it’s just a fucking mess.

>>10240652
Due to their cliquey nature, virtually all british columbians fall into one of two categories:
1) social justice warrior, blue haired numale mass immigration lets teach toddlers about gender identity
2) full one f350 inbred polygamist hardcore christian alcoholic miners/loggers

reasonable people who fall somewhere in the middle are unwelcome there and if they have principles they simply leave since both sides are equally retarded and equally bloated. I hope they mutually annihilate eachother.

>>10240671
Nobody cares about how you categorize people you don't like. Believe it or not outside of Vancouver most people are neither of those

>>10240671
Also, BC SJWs are much more subtle. They'll disguise themselves as hesh, Viceroy smoking hipsters with trench coats and rolled up pant legs. I went to an AM concert in van and everybody looked like NPCs with the same clothes and hair. Especially the blonde girls. It was actually hilarious. Fucking sheepbrains

>>10240673
I've been all through bc, and the vast majority of people do in fact fall into 1 of those categories. The interior and the island tends to be the f350 resource worker types
And the coast is virtue signaling rich globalist sjw.

>>10240678
if you dont drive a subaru or a tacoma youre nobody to the sjw crowd
likewise if you dont drive a lifted truck in the interior

>>10240678
those people are cliquey as fuck. not sure why but the whole province is definitely a "who you know, not what you know" type place. possibly due to all the corruption.

>>10240686
I live in lake/wine country. Different crowd

>>10240704
nah. you're just like the ones in the lower mainland. the rest of bc is hick country.

>>10240448
>atmospheric science
Climatologists do not use the scientific method.

>>10240711
Everyone from your province is poor

>>10240704
The natives and the original chinks/poos are really the only normal ones left there now. The rest of you are retarded.

>>10240724
You sound non-white

>>10240723
yes, the cliquey consumerist british columbian would say something like that
dont you have some mountain ranges or old growth forests to destroy for foreign investors or something?

>>10240729
BWHAHAHA HAH
fucking hilarious
British columbian = dumb as a fucking stump

>>10240733
t. Absolutely Chinese

>>10240731
Calm down, your allowance is being mailed, lil guy

>>10240630
>I build models for money
Electric trains are not as complicated as climate

>>10240630
Here's double that period from the same source. I'll try to find one that goes back before the Carboniferous Period which is when all of the CO2 we emit was sequestered

>>10240630
>>10240868
Here you go, as you can see atmospheric carbon has been lower than the current levels since the development of hominids of any kind. Humans and every species we depend on have evolved to live at much lower temperatures then Earth has been for most of it's history

>>10240891
When looking to graph, looks like CO2 and temparature aren't strongly correlated.

This compound is not that responsible, water vapor is in combination with other gasses like methane (estimated 4 times to 30 times as potent as CO2).
What has a stronger correlation is the amount of sunlight going to earth, while cosmic rays in atmosphere is negatively correlated to temperature. Depending on the situation itself.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1384107613000341
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117717305380
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-sun-climate.html
http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=2433623&CategoryId=13936

What is notable is that today, most science has been argued with inductive reasoning. This type of reasoning could be misused by charlatans to create false studies.

Here's a stronger argumentation against it as it's notable that some one this board make strawman argument quickly to debunk others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi3pqQbGrkk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epqdW6HQYes
He explains the ideological background.

>>10240920
The average temperature of the Earth is jointly proportional to many factors including atmospheric composition. The composition of the atmosphere has not changed significantly in the history of hominids except in regards to CO2 which is why other periods with different atmospheric proportions are not relevant. Are you denying CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas?

>>10240920
>>10240974
Expanding on this, water vapor stays in the atmosphere for a week on average and is driven by the climate rather then the other way around. Methane is a potential greenhouse gas, but it stays on the atmosphere for 3-5 years on average (I can't remember off hand, nor can I be fucked to look it up), which essentially means that it is no longer an issue as soon as the source is dealt with. CO2 stays in the air for an average of 500-100 years which means it will need to be actively sequestered if it goes above tolerable levels. Here's some data on the effecacy of various gasses as greenhouse gasses for you to ponder

>>10241005
>potential
Should be potent. Autocorrect got me

>>10240652
Fucking this. I miss snow.

>>10240589
Go back 4.5 bn years, and a Mars-sized planet hitting Earth becomes a normal thing to happen.

>>10240623
The planet did exist though and it somehow got from there to gow it is now. This means there's a powerful self-regulation mechanism that can suppress thermal runaway even with co2 levels many times higher than modern ones.

>>10241236
>This means there's a powerful self-regulation mechanism that can suppress thermal runaway even with co2 levels many times higher than modern ones.
...over a timespan of ten of millions of years. If I set your house on fire it would eventual go out. If a volcano destroyed your town it would eventually be rebuilt. Just because the big picture looks different doesn't mean that short timescales don't matter.

>>10241485
You can't tell spikes like the one we have now never happened though. Historic data back from millions of years ago is too low resolution to catch anomalies spanning a mere several hundred or even thousand years.

>>10241564
>You can't tell spikes like the one we have now never happened though.
We can rule them out for quite a few thousand years. Marcott et al could spot them, and that goes back to about 11kya.
Regardless though: We know that a spike like we're seeing is highly destructive, and we know that we're causing this one. If something similar killed a bunch of species two million years ago, that wouldn't make what's happening now any less alarming.

>>10241622
>we have never observed this before
>we know the cause and implications

You only get to pick one. Im not even a climate change denier anymore but this whole 10 year destruction thing got old 20 years ago.

At this point, the only thing I care about in regards to the issue is what action will be taken. So far, all I've seen are lefties bitching and moaning but the best they can come up with is a non binding wealth distribution scheme.

Climate change is a political instrument, nothing more.

There always have been changes.

>society changes and becomes more "progressive"

It's good! If you don't agree you are a racist etc.pp
B-but climate change on the other hand...
Humans are really retarded.

>>10241622
>We know
You can't and you don't. Historic data is too uncertain and direct observations period is too short to make any concrete conclusions on how much of the climate change is caused by human activity or what the consequences will be.

>>10241782
i actually thought there is hope but posts like this make it clear. humans are retarded. abandon all hope.

>>10240127
Youre a fucking moron if you believe its anything other than population. Therfore nearly the entire climate science industry are morons.

All the solar panels, vegan diets and recycling on the planet wont change things.

Quit trying to fix the problem and start looking at solutions to adapt to it.

>>10241780
>You only get to pick one.
Why? It's possible to understand something you've not seen before.
Your house hasn't ever been run flat by a bulldozer, but you have a pretty firm idea of what that would look like and what the consequences would be.

>Im not even a climate change denier anymore but this whole 10 year destruction thing got old 20 years ago.
Stop listening to morons talk about climate change then. No credible scientist is talking about doomsday.

>So far, all I've seen are lefties bitching and moaning but the best they can come up with is a non binding wealth distribution scheme.
Every response to AGW (including doing nothing), by definition, is going to be a "wealth distribution scheme". That's how economics works.

>>10241851
>Historic data is too uncertain and direct observations period is too short to make any concrete conclusions on how much of the climate change is caused by human activity
We can calculate what proportion of the rise in CO2 is due to human activity, and measure it's impact on the climate. Climatologists could have ZERO historical data and they would still be able to determine the source of the current warming.

>or what the consequences will be.
That's more speculative, but also not dependant on historical data. We do know that current agriculture is tightly tied to the existing climate, and that even small changes in temperature and rainfall can have severe impacts on yields. We don't know for sure what will happen, but "everything will turn out fine" is pretty far to one side of the distribution of possibilities.

>>10241969
>Youre a fucking moron if you believe its anything other than population.
Even across countries with similar GDPs there are huge differences in per-capita emissions. Population is clearly not the only factor.

>Quit trying to fix the problem and start looking at solutions to adapt to it.
Adapt to what? So long as we keep making the problem worse, no amount of adaptation will be sufficient.

>>10241979
>calculate what proportion of the rise in CO2 is due to human activity
That you can

>and measure it's impact on the climate
This you can't because you don't know how the two are related. Correlation doesn't imply casuation, anon.

>>10241851
>We can't know nuffin!
You're in denial. We understand more than enough about the climate to be certain that man is the cause of current warming. You don't get to ignore the causative mechanism by saying there might be a correlation millions of years ago that we missed.

>>10241994
>This you can't because you don't know how the two are related.
That's literally the greenhouse effect.
We can measure the amount of downward IR on the band CO2 emits, and we can determine the climate sensitivity through modelling or paleoclimate data.

>>10241994
>This you can't because you don't know how the two are related. Correlation doesn't imply casuation, anon.
LOL we can directly measure the amount of infrared heat being radiated towards the Earth by CO2. The greenhouse effect is completely causative, not correlative. You're talking out of your ass.

>>10242006
You have no valid reasons to rule out the possibility that climate change is caused by natural factors and just happened to coincide with increase in atmospheric co2

>>10242009
>>10242010
Paleoclimate data calls bullshit >>10240891

>>10242029
>You have no valid reasons to rule out the possibility that climate change is caused by natural factors
Do we have any valid reasons to rule out the possibility it's caused by leprechauns? We are able to accurately model the climate based on our current understanding, and that model shows that it's not natural. If you have a better model that says otherwise then present it, otherwise you're just spouting bullshit. You would also need to explain how human emissions are not causing the warming we directly observe them to via radiative spectroscopy, or explain how humans are causing cooling that cancels out that warming. Good luck. Until then, I'll stick with the actual successful models rather than your wishful thinking.

>Paleoclimate data calls bullshit >>10240891 #
Please explain how tyre paleoclimate data contradicts our observations of current radiative forcing. Or just admit you have no idea what you're talking about. This is childish.

>>10242029
>Imagine being this retarded
Direct measurements call bullshit on your bullshit

>>10241005

>>10240127
>It doesn't just go up and down without cause.
Nice strawman. Does the Sun have an up-down activity cycle with polar shifts for no reason too?

>>10242169
The sun does have "an up-down activity" and one of the most alarming things about climate change that the sun is currently in the "down" part of it's cycle but the temperature is still going up

>>10241979
I generally don't repeat myself but for (you), you´re a moron

>>10242203
You realize that the issue is consumption and not the population itself, right? You'd have to be pretty retarded not to understand that there are sustainable ways for any size population to live

>>10242147
>Do we have any valid reasons to rule out the possibility it's caused by leprechauns?
Of course you do, the lack of leprechauns ever being observed in real life for example. While the natural factors are plenty, as well as self-regulation mechanisms that no one ever discusses in these threads.

>please explain how actual paleoclimate data clearly showing little relation between temperature and atmospheric co2 through millions of years of the planet's history contradicts the simulations based on our immature, incomplete and biased understanding of climatic processes that we mostly use as the reason to run around like headless chicken instead of doing something productive
Right

>>10242159
Greenhouse effect is nowhere near the only thing that takes part in thermal regulation of the planet (and co2 isn't even the major greenhouse gas, though that's beside the point). Historic data clearly shows the Earth has ways to successfully deal with co2 concentrations many times higher than the current one and drawing conclusions based on the single part of a complex system you don't even understand is the literal definition of bullshit

>>10242296
>Historic data clearly shows the Earth has ways to successfully deal with co2 concentrations many times higher than the current one and drawing conclusions based on the single part of a complex system you don't even understand is the literal definition of bullshit
The irony in this post. Go read about various climate forcings and come back when you have at least a highschool understand of the subject

>>10242296
>Historic data clearly shows the Earth has ways to successfully deal with co2 concentrations many times higher than the current one and drawing conclusions based on the single part of a complex system you don't even understand is the literal definition of bullshit
The irony in this post. Go read about various climate forcings and come back when you have at least a highschool understanding of the subject

>>10242256
um no it isnt, consumption is a function of a biological organism, the organism needs to exist in the first place for consumption to take place.

theres endless studies of boom and bust cycles of biological populations ranging from the petri dish all the way to complex organsims like humans, and their depletion of resources. the foundation of darwins theory of evolution is built on it.

humans need anywhere between 2000 and 3000 calories a day to thrive our population is growing. it goes without saying that we are thriving. every new human brought online is another 3000 calories not including those spent on manufacture and transport. theres a couple of hundred thousand people born everyday, we could all eat algae from a pond it wont make a difference because they all need that energry, they all need to have that energy transported, they all need water and they all need shelter.

get your 'I learned environmental studies' on buzzfeed out of your ass and go and do a real earth science like geography or biology and get some perspective.

youre a damn fool if you think humans can control (key word control) nature, in your case consumption. this is mathematically proven yet somehow none of you purple headed skivvy wearing morons can work that out.

>>10242321
>Imagine being this retarded
The Earth receives enough energy to power every human activity for a year from the sun every hour. Furthermore there are sustainable agriculture practices with higher yeilds than traditional agriculture that are forsaken in lieu of short term profit. It has been estimated that we could with current technologies support a population of 11 billion people sustainably

>>10242296
>Of course you do, the lack of leprechauns ever being observed in real life for example. While the natural factors are plenty, as well as self-regulation mechanisms that no one ever discusses in these threads.
Which natural factors are causing the current warming?

>>please explain how actual paleoclimate data clearly showing little relation between temperature and atmospheric co2 through millions of years of the planet's history contradicts the simulations based on our immature, incomplete and biased understanding of climatic processes that we mostly use as the reason to run around like headless chicken instead of doing something productive
The paleoclimate data shows that other factors can influence the climate, especially over different timescales. It doesn't show a lack of relation between CO2 and the climate. You can't explain any of the paleoclimate data without taking into account the greenhouse effect. Your argument only works if climatologists believed that CO2 was the only thing that can affect the climate. It's not, it just happens you be the dominant factor currently.

You failed to provide a better model than our current one and failed to explain how our current understanding is wrong. Your argument is bullshit and you know it.

>>10242296
>>10242355
No response... Yet I bet this idiot will say the exact same shit in the next thread.

>>10244177
Did you really need to bump this thread for that?

>>10240127
Yeah but earth cycles may be much longer than the measurements that we just started taking, maybe we're taking measurements at the peak of a long cycle
I even heard about a miniature ice-age that's coming

>>10242355
>Which natural factors are causing the current warming?
Missing the point, as usual. Climatology (the actual science) doesn't have a complete understanding how climate works. If you meet someone claiming he does, punch his face cause he's lying. It's an extremely complex, dynamic, non-linear system, spanning both well beyond the planet itself and over hundreds of thousands of years. Just because a theory happens to fit both the short-term trend (that for some unknown reason never showed up in the long-term historic data) and the current political agenda doesn't somehow prove beyond doubt that it explains what's really going on, nor does it automatically disprove any other possible reasons, as you like to pretend it does.

>>10242318
Don't use words you don't understand.

>>10244177
>imagine being this insecure to need to announce winning an argument on anonymous tibetan sand painting imageboard
I'm sorry to have a life anon. I'm not getting paid to shill crackpot theories 24/7.

>>10244463
>Don't use words you don't understand
The irony is killing me. You're aware that your ignorance is not a suitable replacement for an argument or expertise, right? Why don't you rectify that and come back with a coherent position?

>It's another climate change astroturfing post by (((them)))
still not getting the US to subsidize your third world clean energy transition

>>10244547
>>>/x/

>>10244549
STILL not paying for Poos and Chinks to modernize their factories, Goldstein

>>10244595
>Chinks
China is the world leader in renewable energy. Can you at least try not to be retarded?

>>10244605
>world leader in renewable energy
That's wrong, you retard.

>>10240891
this is meaningless without the scale on CO2. Clearly there's a sliding average on these curves probably on the order of 10s of thousands of years so, without a scale we can't compare this to the modern graphs like >>10240868

>>10244627
Okay, name one country that isn't China with more then 350 GW of renewable energy installed

>>10244647
China is the biggest polluter on the planet, retard

>>10244651
China is the largest producer on the planet in terms of energy and goods which causes them to have the highest emmisions. However they consider fossil fuel dependency to be a weakness which is why they spend the most amount of money on renewable energy in addition to having the most renewable energy installed.

>>10244211
Cycles aren't magic, they have cyclical, observable causes. What is causing current warming and how is our model incorrect?

>>10244605
I proudly present to /sci/ the world's leader in renewable energy

>>10244799
Sounds like #2 is a little salty

>Nobody talking about the massive amounts of greenhouse gasses coming from from cow farts.

>>10244816
Mutts will never subsidize your coal power plants, Chang.

>>10244823
They don't need it

>>10244816
>4 : 1 population ratio between China and the US
>802 : 527 ratio for electricity from renewables
Even your own graph doesn't help your case. The US will never sign the Paris agreement, guess you'll just have to pay for your own shiny new windmills :^]

>>10244833
Does it not occur to you that your infographic does not take into account population numbers?

>>10244833
see:
>>10244843

>>10244843
Are you high? The US is consuming nearly the same amount of electricity with a quarter of the population and has half the renewable energy capacity

>>10244851
Oh so now it's about CONSUMPTION? I could have sworn a minute ago this was about how much China is shitting on the world with its renewable energy production and funding

>>10244463
>Climatology (the actual science) doesn't have a complete understanding how climate works.
No science has a complete understanding of anything. So what? You could literally say this about anything: physics is complex and not completely understood, therefore gravity is a hoax. Your argument is completely arbitrary, because it's not based on reality or data, it's based on your emotional attachment to a political ideology that you feel is threatened by the conclusions of the science. This is the same reasoning as a creationist or anti-vaxxer.

>Just because a theory happens to fit both the short-term trend (that for some unknown reason never showed up in the long-term historic data)
It is in the long term data. Funny how you talk about multivariate systems yet don't understand that multiple correlations can combine.

>nor does it automatically disprove any other possible reasons, as you like to pretend it does.
I'm not, I'm simply asking you to give evidence for these other possibilities. It's entirely possible leprechauns are causing global warming. Until you provide evidence of such, I'll continue to act according to the only model supported by (massive amounts of) evidence. Unless you provide a testable hypothesis, then your position is no different to me than saying leprechauns did it.

>>10244833
>Frankfurt School

>>10244856
It's about TOTAL GENERATION which does not happen per person. If you want to compare these values per capita then the US is ahead of China, but behind shitholes like Malta, Isreal, and Slovenia

>>10244897
What a dumb chart, why not just make it W per capita? How the fuck is MW per million more intuitive. 400W per capita can power about 7 60W lightbulbs.

>>10240652
And yet when a climate change "denier" uses the exact same anecdotal evidence to support their disbelief in the theory, they're chastised.

You climate change alarmists are hypocrites.

>>10240868
Starts the y axis at 150 to make small changes to seem more extreme.

You disingenuous fucks.

>>10245563
>99% of days are warm
>nuh uh I just had a cold day
Yes clearly these are the same argument.

>>10245568
Is this any better, kid?

>>10245568
>truncated graph is disingenuous

>>10245586
When you strawman the shit out of the argument, sure, it's not the same

>>10245588
Actually, yes. Thank you.

>>10245595
Agreed, when you strawmanned the argument by trying to make a false equivalence between the results of a trend and anecdotal evidence against the trend, it's not the same.

>>10240713
Guess astronomy, cosmology and geology aren't sciences either.

>>10245588
>ice age ends
>its getting warmer
"HUMAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL"

>>10240713
I bet you feel very smart now anon.

I always see some idiot going about how co2 levels were higher millions of years ago but never acknowledging it was also warmer, without ice at the poles, and unfit to human civilization as we know it

>>10240127
Earth is flat

>>10240652
>personal observations of local phenomenon
>rhetoric in place of measurement
>/sci/
Go bait /pol/ with your nonsense.

>>10242355
>The paleoclimate data shows that other factors can influence the climate, especially over different timescales. It doesn't show a lack of relation between CO2 and the climate.
The maximum forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 levels, absent feedbacks, is +1.2C. That's straight out of the god damn IPCC reports from the UN.

AGW theory is NOT about CO2. It's about atmospheric H2O's RESPONSE to CO2. AGW theory assumes a large positive water vapor feedback to the forcing provided by CO2, kicking total AGW into the +2 to +6C range. Observation suggests a weak or non-existent one.

AGW scientists refer to the temperature record of the 21st century thus far as being in a global warming "pause." There is no pause. They just assumed a feedback that never existed.

>You failed to provide a better model than our current one
Side note: you do NOT have to provide a better model to rip apart an exiting one. That is NOT how science works.

>>10244823
Almost half of all energy from clean sources vs some 20% in china. Didnt know the US was doing that well.
I guess fracking kinda pushed gas to replace oil, which means its not really perfect with all the negative implications, but since it burns so much cleaner it should be better on a global scale even if some rednecks in the hills cant drink their tap water anymore...

>>10246090
>The maximum forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 levels, absent feedbacks, is +1.2C.
"Absent feedbacks" is a pretty artificial constraint.

>Observation suggests a weak or non-existent one.
It really doesn't. Observation suggests something near +3C.

>AGW scientists refer to the temperature record of the 21st century thus far as being in a global warming "pause."
The entire "pause" boiled down to three things:
1) 1998 was an unusually warm year.
2) 2012 was an unusually cool year.
3) The UAH dataset had a flaw that produced spurious cooling.
In retrospect, and with the flaw removed, the pause clearly was a non-event.

>>10245821
>ice ages just end for no reason after millions of years
You're a new level of stupidity.

>>10246090
>AGW theory assumes a large positive water vapor feedback to the forcing provided by CO2, kicking total AGW into the +2 to +6C range. Observation suggests a weak or non-existent one.
First, the water vapor feedback is a response to any warming, not just that caused by CO2. Which observations suggest a weak climate sensitivity?

Again, you cannot explain any part of the paleoclimate data without the greenhouse effect. The water vapor feedback is part of that effect. You seem to be very confused since you continue to argue as if saying CO2 is the dominant forcing now means that it can be the only forcing throughout all time.

>AGW scientists refer to the temperature record of the 21st century thus far as being in a global warming "pause."
They don't, you're confusing scientists with denier blogs from five years ago that checked the start of 1998 El Nino to hide the increase in temperatures. Where is this "pause"?

>Side note: you do NOT have to provide a better model to rip apart an exiting one. That is NOT how science works.
That would be true, if you hadn't started by claiming that natural factors could explain the warming. So you aren't "ripping apart" the current model, you're appealing to an alternative one you refuse to provide.

And I like how you conveniently didn't quote the rest of that sentence, which explains this. You *both* failed to present a better model *and* failed to explain how the current one is wrong.

>>10245821
>the end of an ice age causes warming
>not 'warming causes the end of an ice age'
Awww it's retarded....

>>10245729
You're a fucking retard.

They're both anecdotal evidence in both cases. The only evidence you provided to support your belief in climate alarmism is your own personal experience. Which is as irrelevant as someone on the other side providing theirs.

If you cannot see that, you need to upgrade your hardware, NPC.

No one is denying climate change. Stating that we are fucked in a longer time span now makes you a DENIER. Awesome, this is why no one takes alarmism seriously. Literally modern day witch hunt/Mccarthyism. Yes we will change to green energy once it becomes financially viable, and it will be very soon.

>>10245563
Got em.

>>10246643
>No one is denying climate change.
Lies.

>Stating that we are fucked in a longer time span now makes you a DENIER
Yes, denying science will get you called out as a "science denier". Have a gold star.

>this is why no one takes alarmism seriously
No, I'm pretty sure the reason is the massive propaganda campaign run by groups like Cato and Heartland. Your whining isn't nearly as influential.

>Literally modern day witch hunt/Mccarthyism.
Oh boo-hoo. Every damn time someone disagrees with a denier it's "Mccarthyism". Try visiting Wikipedia and reading what that word actually means.

>>10246331
>we discarded the data that didn't fit our theory, it's all good now
Climate "science", gentlemen

>>10246771
>How dare scientists create accurate datasets! They should always work with whatever number the first instrument gives them, no matter how many known issues it has!
You're an idiot.

>>10246625
That poster was merely pointing out why people don't notice the temperature change in less variable climates.
Nowhere did he say that so and so example proves climate change. You're the one making a strawman.

>>10246826
>accurate dataset: the one that fits our theory
>instrument doesn't give us numbers we want to see: it's broken
I'll put that down to my notebook

>>10246907
Yes, you're an idiot.

>>10246924
it's a denier, didn't they tell you

>>10244542
You see anon, climate is quite a bit more complex than the "SUN OUT ME HOT" you picked somewhere on the internet. It's not a static system that passively heats or cools depending on the radiation balance. It also responds in multiple ways and on very different time scales, and many of those sometimes subtle, but nonetheless important processes are still not quite well understood or even known yet, especially the longer-term ones, despite what some idiots claim.

>>10244871
>physics is complex and not completely understood, therefore gravity is a hoax
Except you're free to jump off the building and investigate the results with the arbitrary precision at any time you want, yet when it comes to the climate you're left with a measly few hundred years of more or less precise observations and only indirect data beyond that gradually descending into pure voodoo magic territory the further you go, leaving you with numbers only certain within like an order of magnitude once you start counting millions of years to build and verify your theories on.

>it's based on your emotional attachment to a political ideology
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/
>>>/out/
When I see at least two threads on /sci/ up at all times with the OP and replies in the same sensationalist shilling style, presenting theories as proven facts, and the witch hunt for "deniers" in general I'm calling bullshit regardless of what I think of the actual climate problem.

>It is in the long term data
>We just don't see it because something else cancelled it to the point of complete irrelevancy
Or actually, wasn't the current rapid rise in CO2 and temperature supposed to be unprecedented in history?

>give me evidence that climate is a complex system we don't completely understand
You're either idiot or trolling
Most likely both

>>10247075
>You see anon, climate is quite a bit more complex than the "SUN OUT ME HOT" you picked somewhere on the internet.
Lol it figures that a science denier can't interpret data

>>10246859
He was saying that anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is an idiot because of <insert his anecdotal experience here>.

You don't know how to read. Off yourself.

>>10247075
That argument from ignorance isn't going to impress anyone.

>>10247100
>>10246859
Sorry, he said that anyone who denies climate change should kill themselves because of his anecdotal experience that confirms for him that it exists.

Hmm, worse than I thought.

>>10247075
>Except you're free to jump off the building and investigate the results with the arbitrary precision at any time you want
You're free to test the current model at any time you want.

>yet when it comes to the climate you're left with a measly few hundred years of more or less precise observations and only indirect data beyond that gradually descending into pure voodoo magic territory the further you go, leaving you with numbers only certain within like an order of magnitude once you start counting millions of years to build and verify your theories on.
Yet we have no evidence of gravity existing millions of years ago, only indirect evidence a hurr durr durr.

Your argument is still just "climate is complex therefore the model is wrong" without telling me a single thing about the model.

>presenting theories as proven facts
It's just a theory, wow where have I heard that before?

>Or actually, wasn't the current rapid rise in CO2 and temperature supposed to be unprecedented in history?
Unprecedented in at least the last 600,000 years.

And yet again you fail to provide any evidence of your natural factors claim nor even a testable hypothesis. So the only conclusion is that there is no reasoning behind your argument, just a fallacious ideology. Feel free to prove that conclusion wrong at any time, until then you will continue to be ridiculed as a hack.

>>10247138
>because of his anecdotal experience that confirms for him that it exists.
Where did he say this?

>>10240127
There's certain topics where the naysayers are so detached from reality that it's not worth anyone's time to convince them they're wrong. You cannot convince certain people that their feelings are not reality. You just have to beat them down on the political stage.

>>10240127
CO2 is literally plant food. The more CO2 that exists in a local space on Earth the more plants that sprout up. Isn’t that a good thing?

>>10248659
No.

>>10245788
>Guess astronomy, cosmology and geology aren't sciences either.
How does that follow?

>>10248728
Because the same strawman definition of "science" which excludes climatology would also exclude those.

>>10240127
I reject the validity of data prior to modern instrumentation. Tree ring samples are unreliable (affected by rainfall, sunshine, and blights) and captured CO2 in ice reaches an equilibrium after so many years which is why it remains stagnate.
The data is what the researchers want it to be. It is open for speculation. Climate science is more pseudoscientific than even phrenology.

Also OP, you're genuinely retarded
>w-why would there be any climate change without humans? T-the earth doesn't go through cycles!
I don't know if this is a joke or what. Volcanic activity can affect the climate substantially.
As can the release of methane stores.
As can sin spot activity.
Get checked for heavy metal exposure. Seems like you are a bit dim.

>>10248752
>I reject the validity of data prior to modern instrumentation.
Based on what?

>Tree ring samples are unreliable (affected by rainfall, sunshine, and blights)
Which is why proxies are combined together.

>captured CO2 in ice reaches an equilibrium after so many years
Do you have any information on that?

>Also OP, you're genuinely retarded
>>w-why would there be any climate change without humans? T-the earth doesn't go through cycles!
Learn to read.

>>10240127
the most brainless "argument" for climate change: "This time it's different because we are here."
A hypothesis passed off as "settled science" based on essentially one data point.

>>10248733
>Because the same strawman definition of "science" which excludes climatology would also exclude those.
Can you elaborate?

>>10249123
Nice strawman

>>10240127
Oh well, I've accepted the fate of the Earth. I'm not going to reproduce and I ride my bike everywhere, so when the time comes I wont have anything to lose.

>>10248659
That's not the way that works

>>10249193
I assume the point of being "green" is to find the most optimal global temperature for biomass. And we aren't hurting on the biomass front right now.

>>10248766
>combining bad data makes it good data!
Brainlet.jpg

>>10249214
You assume wrong.

>>10249219
The real point of being "green" is socialism even if it kills off everything. The rubes will be self satisfied while entering the abyss.

>>10249223
>>>/pol/

>>10247093
Guess how I know you didn't understand a single word of what I said

>>10247186
>You're free to test the current model at any time you want.
Test what exactly? That is fits the known data? Obviously it does. That the rapid heating won't trigger a response that we never seen in historic data because it either never got triggered before or it was too long ago to make out from the noise and that could very well plunge us in an ice age within like next 10 years instead, or make us go full Venus? No, unless you specifically put that in the model. Oh wait, you can't because you don't have a way to know what exactly would happen beyond moderately educated guess.

>Yet we have no evidence of gravity existing millions of years ago
You almost said something profound, too bad you're too busy trolling to realize it.

>"climate is complex therefore the model is wrong"
Not wrong, but limited. If you ever read an actual scientific paper you'd know that models are always built on assumptions to allow for reasonable simplification while imposing the specific limits on where the model is valid at the same time. Then you conveniently "forget" about those assumptions and before long we have brainlets running around with pics like >>10244542 "but muh radiative forcing hurrr", as well as shit like >>10231399 every other week

>yet again you fail to provide any evidence
You don't need a better theory to know the limits of the one you have. Enjoy your ignorance.

>>10249818
>Test what exactly? That is fits the known data? Obviously it does.
And all future data? That's called being correct.

>That the rapid heating won't trigger a response that we never seen in historic data because it either never got triggered before or it was too long ago to make out from the noise and that could very well plunge us in an ice age within like next 10 years instead, or make us go full Venus? No, unless you specifically put that in the model.
Or maybe leprechauns will shit gold. What the fuck are you babbling about?

>Oh wait, you can't because you don't have a way to know what exactly would happen beyond moderately educated guess.
Which could be said about any scientific prediction. Again, you have no argument.

>You almost said something profound, too bad you're too busy trolling to realize it.
The only thing profound here is your stupidity.

>Not wrong, but limited. If you ever read an actual scientific paper you'd know that models are always built on assumptions to allow for reasonable simplification while imposing the specific limits on where the model is valid at the same time.
So what has been said here that the models don't support?

>You don't need a better theory to know the limits of the one you have. Enjoy your ignorance.
Claiming that natural factors could be causing global warming while utterly failing to explain how or even describe what this means so that it can be tested is not a "limit" of the model. It's just you spouting bullshit, realizing you can't back it up, and then trying to revise history. Nice try.

It's obvious you realize your mistake since you refuse to provide any substantive details in your posts. Not only are you wrong, you're knowingly lying about being wrong. Pathetic hack. Keep posting, this is both fun and destroys the credibility of denierfags like you.

CO2 is used by plants/trees. It's a good thing
/thread

>>10249903
>plants are good boys
>they dindu nuffin

>>10249907
I'm being serious though. CO2 levels at here (200-400ppm) are basically the lowest it's ever been.

Take for instance a greenhouse. If you are not a brainlet and know what you're doing you would know that its profitable to pump CO2 into the greenhouse to get concentrations of around 1200-1400ppm as it helps the plants grow fast, and the planet has been at that concentration before and life on earth (not just plants) was teaming with biodiversity and evolutionary expansion during this timeframe.

Ideologically possessed environmentalists and scientific charlatans are telling us that the climate has been stable forever and all of a sudden us evil humans came along and started burning hydrocarbons releasing CO2 and suddenly we're on the onset of a major climactic transformation because of a 2 degree Celsius rise. Yet we have actual evidence of 10+ degree Celsius change in the span of decades during the Younger Dryas a little over 10'000 years ago which has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gasses.

>>10240209
How the fuck is it not science you dumbass?

>>10249930
You right now. CO2 is the lowest its ever been? Where the fuck did you get that from? We are literally using petroleum from the underground that took hundreds of millions of years to form and we are putting megatons of CO2 to the atmosphere. More CO2 than the Earth can absorve. How is that positive in anyway?

>>10249818
>Guess how I know you didn't understand
Guess how I know you have no idea what you're talking about

>>10249990
The chart here explains it pretty well.
>>10240891
The giant carbon sink created by millions of years of peat/coal/oil/gas accumulation has produced a huge reduction in CO2
This CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, and one which has great benefits in that has a direct correlation with plant-tree growth


In general I don't believe there many climate "scientists" actually know what's going on. Many aren't even academics, and most of the dogma has been propagated by people like Al Gore and the UN funded the IPCC in the 1990s to specifically confirm anthropogenic climate change as the overwhelming/only cause for an overestimated warming planet (by about 2x), and using "muh 97%" statistics to bully (not-specified) scientists into acceptance submission.
The modelling from the "mainstream" has been abundantly incorrect.

the TL;DR,
>the climate has been incredibly volatile before, on an unfathomable magnitude to us
>only recently in the Holocene has it been pretty stable
>solar cycles/sunspot activity drives cloud formation and is the leading driver for temperature change

oh and the real killer:
>this is the longest interglacial period in the past 800'000 years

>>10249930
>CO2 levels at here (200-400ppm) are basically the lowest it's ever been.
If it's been around 200 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years and it's only now around 400 ppm, why are you combining them into one range? Hint: because you're a disingenuous faggot.

>If you are not a brainlet and know what you're doing you would know that its profitable to pump CO2 into the greenhouse to get concentrations of around 1200-1400ppm as it helps the plants grow fast, and the planet has been at that concentration before and life on earth (not just plants) was teaming with biodiversity and evolutionary expansion during this timeframe.
It's not simply the level of CO2 that's the problem, it's the rapid change from the climate that current life has adapted to for millions of years, so quickly that it cannot adapt without suffering massive losses. What you're dishonestly failing to mention is that all that life back then evolved to live in that climate for millions of years. When the climate rapidly changes, you get mass extinctions. And none of this says anything about whether it will be good for humans. Gee I wonder why you won't talk about the effect on humans.. is it because you know scientists have already determined it will be extremely harmful? Or are you just completely ignorant of the topic you're trying to talk about? Or are you a troll trying to make deniers look even more retarded than they already are? Please tell me which one it is, I'm ery curious.

>Ideologically possessed environmentalists and scientific charlatans are telling us that the climate has been stable forever
Lie. They explicitly say it hasn't. It has been relatively stable for several thousand years, before that cycling through Milankovich cycles.

>Yet we have actual evidence of 10+ degree Celsius change
Not globally. You're comparing apples to oranges.

>>10249930
>in the span of decades during the Younger Dryas a little over 10'000 years ago which has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gasses.
Again, we have this retarded denier tactic of trying to strawman climatologists by implying that if current global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect then everything has to be caused by the greenhouse effect. Are you braindead or trolling?

>>10250062
>If it's been around 200 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years and it's only now around 400 ppm, why are you combining them into one range?
Hint: because 400 ppm is still low, you faggot.

All you've managed to do is babble about how I think mass extinctions are not possible, or that it will happen because we are emitting CO2. Neither of those are true.

>is it because you know scientists have already determined it will be extremely harmful?
The grand solar minimum, an alignment in planet formation causing increased tectonic>volcanic activity, an asteroid/comet impact would all have a larger effect than the 200>400ppm CO2 emissions we have done.

>Lie. They explicitly say it hasn't.
Okay good, you admit that the climate has changed in the past.Do you think it will never change in the future unless us hedonists have our way and burn some hydrocarbons?

>The most abundant evidence for temperature change is not correlated at all to carbon dioxide levels is apples to oranges
okay lad

>>10250069
The greenhouse effect is a broad and loose concept that has been pushed to solve a question.
It's a convenient short term truth, however there is abundantly no scrutiny on scepticism on correlation, and the data itself is subject the same way most forecasting has been incorrect.

We're currently neutering ourselves with "carbon taxes" with almost no understanding of the irrelevance of our actions to the genuine scale of global climate science, which is practically at its infancy.

>>10250136
I mean in the sense that how much of the temperature rise is a result of urbanisation and building around meteorological sites?

Here is a picture of the recent sunspot activity, which I believe has been the prime driver (with temperature lagging)

>>10250043
CO2 reduction? What? You do know we burn that coal and oil and that generates megatons of CO2 which is not healthy for the environment at all.
Why are you saying that more CO2 is better because the plants grow bigger? Im not sure if thats the case but i think thats not true.
Do you believe that if we had more oxygen in our atmosphere it would be better for us?
Do you actually know the tremendous evidence for climate change?
Sea levels are rising, ice caps are melting. Every year in the summer its a new record for the highest temperature recorded. The heat waves are stonger you can feel it. Idk where u guys are getting the propaganda from. I can see the sea lvl rising. Many houses from my city fell into the sea because the sea is rising at a tremendous rate. Are u a Ben Shapiro fan or supporter?

>>10250092
>Hint: because 400 ppm is still low, you faggot.
What does low mean and why should I care?

>All you've managed to do is babble about how I think mass extinctions are not possible, or that it will happen because we are emitting CO2. Neither of those are true.
It's true according to the scientific evidence. You have none, so your opinion is worthless.

>The grand solar minimum,
Happened around 1900, the temperature barely changed compared to rapid warming now. Why are you lying?

>an alignment in planet formation causing increased tectonic>volcanic activity
Negligible affect. Why are you lying?

>an asteroid/comet impact
LOL is this supposed to be good? Hey it's not as bad as that time an asteroid hit the Earth, blocked out the Sun and caused mass extinctions. Again are you retarded or trolling? Answer the damn question already.

>Okay good, you admit that the climate has changed in the past.
OK good so you admit to lying about climatologists. Now why did you lie?

>The most abundant evidence for temperature change is not correlated at all to carbon dioxide levels is apples to oranges
Why do you assume all temperature changes have to be correlated with CO2? You just described the exact strawman I predicted you were making.

I'm going with troll, no one could be this stupid.

>>10250136
>The greenhouse effect is a broad and loose concept that has been pushed to solve a question.
No, it's not. It's very specifically defined and well understood. Why are you lying?

>It's a convenient short term truth, however there is abundantly no scrutiny on scepticism on correlation, and the data itself is subject the same way most forecasting has been incorrect.
Gibberish.

>We're currently neutering ourselves with "carbon taxes" with almost no understanding of the irrelevance of our actions to the genuine scale of global climate science, which is practically at its infancy.
You're confusing your complete lack of understanding with scientists' understanding.

>>10250162
>I mean in the sense that how much of the temperature rise is a result of urbanisation and building around meteorological sites?
Yeah totally, there has been no analysis of this. Oh wait there has you fucking hack.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/hausfather-etal2013.pdf

>Here is a picture of the recent sunspot activity, which I believe has been the prime driver (with temperature lagging)
The solar forcing is very weak compared to the greenhouse effect, and you have to explain how the temperature has been rising the most rapidly in the current period when solar forcing is decreasing. But you can't because you have literally given zero thought to any of this and are just parroting denier memes that have been debunked for decades. Where is the skepticism of the blogs you read this on? Fucking hypocrite.

>>10240127
You didn't post a temperature graph but a CO2 graph. Nice try.

>>10250231
>Global when it's just Greenland
>Doesn't have modern temperatures
Are deniers incapable of making an argument without lying?

What's the point of even arguing this? Yeah, it's true, that's not going to stop the oil, coal and nat gas companies, that's not going to stop lying politicians. So far the only real discussion was from world governments jerking themselves off at "climate conferences", with side events promoting fossil fuels. Stopping climate change is massive nigh impossible with the trajectory the world is going in, China preaches "we will continue to promote green energy" when they build the most new coal plants of any country. Like European countries are any better, but America so far is the worst. Anons just live your life, if the world burns to the ground, well, I doubt arguing on an anime image board was going to stop it.

>>10250167
>You do know we burn that coal and oil and that generates megatons of CO2 which is not healthy for the environment at all.
Says who?
Plants/Trees need CO2, and apart from "it's a greenhouse gas silly" you basically don't have an argument.
>Why are you saying that more CO2 is better because the plants grow bigger? Im not sure if thats the case but i think thats not true.
There is a clear correlation between plant growth and CO2 levels. Photosynthesis is not a controversial topic.
>Do you believe that if we had more oxygen in our atmosphere it would be better for us?
Why would oxygen levels decrease? The growth of plants would increase oxygen levels.~
>Do you actually know the tremendous evidence for climate change?
None of it is from CO2 emissions.
>Sea levels are rising
Sea levels have risen 400 feet in the last 10'000 years
>ice caps are melting
the greenland has been melting and antarctic has been and still is increasing
>Every year in the summer its a new record for the highest temperature recorded
You mean records that are like 30 years old?
Based on actual isotope data from ice samples the variation is 1/5th of the change that was regularly seen 10-1000'000 years ago, when CO2 levels were 200ppm
>The heat waves are stonger you can feel it
Yes, and it's all been caused by the recent solar maximum.

>>10250254
>It's not warming
>OK, it's warming but it's not us
>OK, it is us but it's not bad
>OK, it's bad but there's nothing we can do
You're in the last stage of denial, don't worry you'll get out eventually.

Reminder the Obama allowed fracking and oil exports.

>>10250254
scratch that *when the world burns to the ground

>>10250258
Reminder to go back to >>>/pol/ if all you can come up with is screech MUH OBAMA MUH AL GORE

>>10250257
>It's warming and it's bad, but there's still hope
>Ok, there's no hope
This was how I reached that conclusion

>>10250263
lmao stay triggered

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QV1zvDN0Hw

>>10250263
I dont see how that is irrelevant. Hypocritical actions can undermine your credibility, and they are some of the most vocal.

>>10250264
It's getting done, most governments are already amenable to mitigation. Just let go of your need to be contrarian to feel smart.

>>10250263
Anyway, 90%+ of your posts on this site are
>WAH WAH GO BACK TO POL YOU NAZI

You're fucking useless.

>>10250268
>>10250269
>>10250274

>>10250257
Are you a fucking bot? Serious question.
Posts like this are how memes are born, specifically the NPC meme.

>>10250269
If hypocritical actions can undermine your credibility then deniers have none. Thanks for playing.

>>10250270
Its not getting done until world production of oil starts decreasing, and you know it, you fucking sleazy ambulance chasing political hack.

>>10250280
See >>10250277

>>10250176
>It's true according to the scientific evidence. You have none, so your opinion is worthless.
No, actually. All the "evidence" that CO2 is the prime cause of temperature rise is incorrect. Correlation does not imply causation, and fitting data to match your hypothesis isn't a good approach.
Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, and the fluctuations caused by cosmic rays far outweighs our contribution to CO2.
>The grand solar minimum
>Happened around 1900
>>10250162
>Tectonic activity has no effect http://news.mit.edu/2015/siberian-traps-end-permian-extinction-0916
>asteroids/comets
I'm saying the effect caused by a D=2-10km~ would be orders of magnitude bigger than the like 1%~ of economically extractable fossible fuels going back to CO2.
You all far underestimate the carbon sink caused by the oceans and plant growth. The recent data has way over predicted CO2 levels for precisely this reason.
>OK good so you admit to lying about climatologists. Now why did you lie?
I'm not playing your identity politics, not all "climatologists" are retards, but some genuinely do believe the contributing factor to temperature is anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and they are either not scientists or simply wrong.

>Why do you assume all temperature changes have to be correlated with CO2?
I'm saying all your data that it is correlated is wrong. There may possibly be a minor contribution, but when the evidence is that noisy how are you so sure?

>>10250288
>>>/x/

why does sci deny climate change? is it just to own libtards/because the joos?

>>10250293>>10250289>>10250284
>>10250277>>10250270>>10250263

behold, the truly impressive level of sleaze that this person/people are capable of. I'm inclined to just flat out start denying climate change, even though I know the science is sound just so I don't have to be in the same camp as this scumbag.

>>10250270
Biking is my main form of transportation, I eat meat once a week, my hobbies mainly consist of reading and limited computer use. I probably emit the same amount of carbon you do in a month over the course of a year. When you see people living their lives from a roadside perspective, literally, you understand the innumerable, sheer amount of cars on the road, polluting. When you see hot air radiating off parking lots in December, when I was a child our backyard had snowbanks so high our dog could walk over our fence at that same time. I used to think there was hope, but not anymore, not if we reach 9 billion, which we will.

>>10250304
>why does sci deny climate change?
Why does /x/ promote the climate change myth?

>>10250290
>There may possibly be a minor contribution, but when the evidence is that noisy how are you so sure?
Let me better word that:
Instead of spending "research" time on reducing economic activity, instead spend it on ameliorating draught, food shortages and having basic medicine, early warning systems and infrastructure globally.
>>10250304
>why does sci deny climate change?
Nobody denies that the climate changes.
It's a very low resolution narrative that CO2 emissions are causing temperature fluctuation when we have only realistically been acturatly measuring temperature for a couple hundred years, and actual climate science is usually aged in the thousands.

>>10250290
>No, actually. All the "evidence" that CO2 is the prime cause of temperature rise is incorrect.
How is it incorrect? Be specific.

>Correlation does not imply causation, and fitting data to match your hypothesis isn't a good approach.
Does causation imply causation? The greenhouse effect is completely causative and we can directly measure how much infrared heat is being radiated towards the Earth by CO2. The fact that you think this is somehow based on correlation just shows yet again that you have no fucking clue what you're trying to talk about. It's embarrassing how woefully ignorant you are and how utterly backwards your feeble attempts to criticize the science are. It's laughable. You're an intellectual clown.

>Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas
So? Water vapor is determined by temperature, it's not a forcing.

>and the fluctuations caused by cosmic rays far outweighs our contribution to CO2.
Ah so the lies about the sun and planetary alignment failed so now it's cosmic rays. I can't wait to see what pseudoscience you vomit up to support this. It should be entertaining. That is, if you don't just ignore this and fail yet again to back up your bullshit.

>>The grand solar minimum
>Happened around 1900
>>10250162
Yes that shows a grand solar minimum around 1900. Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the basic terminology you're using, since you're a clown. Honk honk.

>Tectonic activity has no effect
Where did I say tectonic activity has no effect, you liar?

>I'm saying the effect caused by a D=2-10km~ would be orders of magnitude bigger than the like 1%~ of economically extractable fossible fuels going back to CO2.
OK, and? The effect of such an asteroid would be (and has been) devastating for life on Earth. So saying that global warming is not as bad isn't saying much.

>You all far underestimate the carbon sink caused by the oceans and plant growth.
How has it been underestimated? What data tells you this?

>>10250290
>The recent data has way over predicted CO2 levels for precisely this reason.
CO2 levels are measured directly so this makes no sense, even if your lie about underestimating sinks was true.

>I'm not playing your identity politics, not all "climatologists" are retards, but some genuinely do believe the contributing factor to temperature is anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and they are either not scientists or simply wrong.
You said that they said the climate has been stable forever. Why are you trying to move the goalposts? Can you make a single post without lying? Just try really hard next time.

>I'm saying all your data that it is correlated is wrong.
And I'm saying you're wrong and a lying hack who won't back up a single lie with any data. Gee what a coincidence.

>>10250306
Good riddance, schizo.

>>10250338
I think as far as ordinary people are concerned, the anti science guy is winning this debate, unfortunately, mainly because of your nasty tone. I understand your frustration. I do - dealing with these people must get very tedious at times - but for the good of humanity, I think you should take a few months off from this, and when you return you should at least attempt to be more polite.

>>10250325
>Instead of spending "research" time on reducing economic activity
The irony being that you're the one advocating for reduced economic activity by not mitigating global warming.

>instead spend it on ameliorating draught, food shortages and having basic medicine, early warning systems and infrastructure globally.
False dichotomy.

>Nobody denies that the climate changes.
He asked why you deny climate change, not that the climate changes. Climate change refers to the scientific theory of climate change, which includes current warming and it's causes, which you deny.

>It's a very low resolution narrative
Nice meaningless buzzword.

>that CO2 emissions are causing temperature fluctuation when we have only realistically been acturatly measuring temperature for a couple hundred years,
Why would that mean we can't conclude CO2 is causing the temperature fluctuation?

>and actual climate science is usually aged in the thousands.
You mean paleoclimatology. Climatology operates in many different timescales. Not that you'd know that since you know nothing about climatology while trying to criticize it.

I'm getting tired of responding to this deluge of pseudoscientific nonsense. Keep posting though, it's funny.

>>10250354
>I think as far as ordinary people are concerned, the anti science guy is winning this debate, unfortunately, mainly because of your nasty tone.
Do you know where you are?

Nice concern trolling though.

>>10250360
I'm not trolling. (See you're being nasty again.)
I genuinely believe what I just posted. I think you are doing more harm than good at this point.

>>10250360
>Do you know where you are?
I know that you are constantly coming across as very rude, dismissive, and insulting, while the anti-science guy does not. It doesn't matter that this is 4chan.

>>10250370
Your writing style makes me want to puke.

>>10250357
>global warming will reduce economic activity
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.
If you actually look at the evidence from the past few thousand years there is a huge correlation between temperature and economic activity. e.g. the bronze age collapse (1200bc~), rome falling (600ad~), the "mini ice age" (1500ad~)
Conversely, all the biggest booms were when temperatures rise.
>He asked why you deny climate change
I don't deny climate change
I deny your liberal hyper agenda pseudoscience masquerading as conclusive fact based on correlative data.

To be honest I don't want to come accross as some anti-science spoof, I've got 2 degrees and one in renewable energy. I'm mainly focusing on solar collectors at the minute.
I'm just getting kinda ticked off by the carbon taxes and dogma being thrown around. I think the 10%~ of weight of coal that gets turned into ash is a million times bigger issue than CO2 levels producing temperature fluctuation when my reading of the data is its that damn complicated there isn't a consensus on anything other than bully's saying its CO2 emissions.
The variance in solar activity that I've mentioned, volcanic activity and extraterrestrial impacts will all have a categorically larger impact. If we instead used all this focused energy on what I outlined in this post
>>10250325
I think we would have an order of magnitude better impact on the well being of people which is what I believe this knee jerk reaction is intended to do.

>>10250426
>bruh don't try to understand it, it's complicated
literally you right now. But yeah I don't agree with massive carbon taxes. I believe in ground up change, every first worlder would have to drastically alter their lifestyle, but that's not going to happen. So where does that leave us? the populace isn't willing to stop consuming, so it's either a mass die off or taxes. This is the corner we're driven to.

As for climate change, you should start accepting that taking action on it is infinitesimally harder than some coal ash or an eruption. Imagine every economy stretched to it's limit on adapting to climate.

>>10250328
>cosmic rays
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5599/1732
this stuff isn't really contentious. As well as the insolence, sun spot activity and other things.
It IS a multivariate problem.
What exactly is the percentage of the effect caused by all the different factors, and how much of that is anthropogenic CO2 production?

>>10250467
I'm not saying that its to complicated we shouldn't try. I mean seriously go right ahead, you'll find how wildly wrong we are and how the modelling is basically in its infancy.

>mass die off or taxes
No. It's literally decentralisation, distribution transparent open source trading using smart contracts and AI.
Being pro big-government/regulation is chronically retarded.
>Imagine every economy stretched to it's limit on adapting to climate.
I fundamentally believe the stretch on the economy is caused by increasing costs of living. One of the largest problems with energy is that it is an inelastic good, in such that the demand will not change much on price fluctuations. This has allowed racketeering and excessive profiting in many energy markets and high taxes make the cost of electricity one of the biggest outlays for most people. Making things cheaper should be the goal and you wont get that with carbon taxes.

>>10250426
>If you actually look at the evidence from the past few thousand years there is a huge correlation between temperature and economic activity. e.g. the bronze age collapse (1200bc~), rome falling (600ad~), the "mini ice age" (1500ad~)
So fucking stupid. The temperature changes during those periods are not analogous to the global temperature change seen today and the economic infrastructure during those periods are not analogous to the global economic infrastructure today. If you actually look at the evidence right now there are huge economic losses coming, which is why the optimal carbon tax is calculated as a positive number.

>I deny your liberal hyper agenda pseudoscience masquerading as conclusive fact based on correlative data.
Great, so since you're not denying the science you agree that everything you've posted is wrong and/or misleading.

>To be honest I don't want to come accross as some anti-science spoof
Then stop denying science.

>I think the 10%~ of weight of coal that gets turned into ash is a million times bigger issue than CO2 levels producing temperature fluctuation when my reading of the data is its that damn complicated there isn't a consensus on anything other than bully's saying its CO2 emissions.
I'm sure you are going to back up this claim, even though every time I've asked you to give me evidence of your retarded claims you fail. I guess that means you don't really believe them.

>The variance in solar activity that I've mentioned, volcanic activity and extraterrestrial impacts will all have a categorically larger impact.
Prove it already, you fucking faggot. Not only are all of your claims empirically false, you won't even try to give evidence for them. You have not given anyone a single reason to believe anything you've said. Do you have any self awareness? Do you realize how hypocritical it is to demand skepticism of climatology while spouting a bunch of arbitrary claims with nothing to back them up, you retarded clown?

>>10250370
>>10250372
The denier is getting spanked. No one cares about being polite, and no denier is ever going to be convinced of anything. This is about smacking them into the ground, not about convincing them.

>>10250488
>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5599/1732
This says cosmic rays cause cooling by seeding clouds. Cosmic rays have been increasing over the past 50 years, yet we see rapid warming, not cooling. So how can they have a larger effect than CO2 when they can't even revert the warming? Did you give a single iota of though to this? No, because you have no idea what you're talking about, just parroting talking points. Admit it already.

>What exactly is the percentage of the effect caused by all the different factors, and how much of that is anthropogenic CO2 production?
See >>10244542 which is based on actual data and not your arbitrary opinion.

>>10250490
>which is why the optimal carbon tax is calculated as a positive number.
Which is why you are wrong and retarded, because of what I've posted in >>10250488

I mean seriously, how much of your outlays is connected with fossil fuels? All the ways you and the goods you buy travel. We ARE heavily dependant on fossil fuels, and you think if we make this more expensive that it is a financial positive? Yet I'm just a "denier", nice.
>If you actually look at the evidence right now there are huge economic losses coming
The economic losses coming from the overleverage of most of the markets, the accumulation of debt, dodgy derivatives markets and about a dozen other things are magnitudes more important than 400ppm CO2 levels. What planet are you guys on?

>coal to ash being 10%
TL;DR it varies
https://www.quora.com/If-you-burn-1-kg-of-coal-what-will-be-the-mass-of-the-remaining-ashes
Typical Ash Content in Coal

Anthracite Coal : 9.7 - 20.2 weight %
Bituminous Coal : 3.3-11.7 weight %
Lignite Coal : 4.2 weight %

>>10250490
>Prove it already
What exactly do you want me to prove?
The claims that CO2 increases plant/tree growth
Solar activity/sunspots has temperature effect?
Volcanic activity, cosmic rays or objects impacting will have an effect? All of this is far more understood than CO2 correlation

>>10250517
>Which is why you are wrong and retarded, because of what I've posted in >>10250488
Yeah none of that responds to the fundamental fact that when economists calculate the optimal carbon tax rate they get a positive number. Get fucked, clown.

>The economic losses coming from the overleverage of most of the markets, the accumulation of debt, dodgy derivatives markets and about a dozen other things are magnitudes more important than 400ppm CO2 levels.
Did you spontaneously lose the ability to read? None of this responds to my post.

>>coal to ash being 10%
Nice try you disingenuous fuck. Prove coal ash is a million times bigger issue than global warming. Then explain how you created a false dichotomy between reducing coal ash and mitigating climate change.

>>10250535
>What exactly do you want me to prove?
All of your retarded claims, is that so much to ask?

>The claims that CO2 increases plant/tree growth
You claimed that this is the only effect that matters. It doesn't. Nice try at moving the goalposts.

>Solar activity/sunspots has temperature effect?
You claimed that solar activity has a stronger effect than CO2 emissions. It doesn't. Nice try at moving the goalposts.

>Volcanic activity, cosmic rays or objects impacting will have an effect?
You claimed that volcanic activity and cosmic rays have a stronger effect than CO2 emissions. They don't. Nice try at moving the goalposts.

Gee I wonder why you're not responding to anything I've called you out on. Is it because you're a lying hack who can't back up any of these claims? Worse than simply being a liar, you're also far too stupid to lie convincingly. Your tactics are pathetically transparent.

breaking news... humans are retard

>>10250554

>environmental sciences boy sounding a little upset

>climate change deniers
>on fucking /sci/
Yours it's not science but cognitive dissonance that's the product of decades of oil companies' shilling, you belong to >>>pol and >>>x
/thread

>>10250580
>Iwasonlypretending.jpg

>they calculate the optimal carbon tax rate they get a positive number
I swear you faggots are literally retarded, and clearly never run a business.

As for the coal ash:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2300396017300551
This is a much larger problem than CO2 causing warming temperatures.
What I'm trying to say is "climate deniers" are not denying the climate doesn't change, or that we are causing the environment to go to shit in a million ways from sunday. But the excessive focus on CO2 production is making us lose sight on the actual problems at hand.
Warming temperatures may be inevitable, why aren't we alleviating the problems it will have? Your answer of just imposing taxes which makes the the poorest pay more (because that's basically all that will happen).

All these charts from the IPCC such as this
>>10244542
Are nicely done. (I do like how they've admitted the huge uncertainty in cloud cover).
We're forgetting that the IPCC was, from the very outset, designed with the goal in mind of proving the existence of this narrative. their bias is self evident.

>>10250583
>oil companies' shilling

MUH BIG OIL CONSPIRACY

>because energy companies don't have a stake in promoting alternative sources and boosting their margins

lrn2economics

>>10250608
Also I want to deposit on you guys the radical notion that CO2 is infact a great molecule

>>10250608
>This is a much larger problem than CO2 causing warming temperatures.
Opinion discarded. AGW is the worst problem the world has ever seen and will ever see. Face facts already.

>>10250608
>I swear you faggots are literally retarded, and clearly never run a business.
Not a response, so you agree that global warming will harm the economy, good.

>This is a much larger problem than CO2 causing warming temperatures.
Because...?

>What I'm trying to say is "climate deniers" are not denying the climate doesn't change or that we are causing the environment to go to shit in a million ways from sunday.
No one said they do. You have a nasty habit of making up strawmen and then responding to them. Try reading next time.

>But the excessive focus on CO2 production is making us lose sight on the actual problems at hand.
It is the actual problem at hand.

>Warming temperatures may be inevitable
They're not.

>why aren't we alleviating the problems it will have?
Where did you get the idea we aren't?

>Your answer of just imposing taxes which makes the the poorest pay more (because that's basically all that will happen).
Where did I say it will be a regressive tax?

>We're forgetting that the IPCC was, from the very outset, designed with the goal in mind of proving the existence of this narrative. their bias is self evident.
The IPCC doesn't prove anything, it simply compiles summaries of climate research. Your disingenuous posts on the other hand are designed from the very outset with the goal in mind of denying the existence of that research. Your bias is self evident since you can't provide a single substantive criticism of that research, nor can you back up your own claims with evidence. You are a pathetic, hypocritical clown. Kill yourself already.

>>10250618
>and will ever see.
the sun going supernova, gg nigger

>>10250615
>because energy companies don't have a stake in promoting alternative sources and boosting their margins
But they do have a stake in denying climate science, you dumb faggot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Lobbying

>>10250616
>CO2 is infact a great molecule
>If you ignore all its negative effects

>>10250639
dude, read your fucking source, it says lobbying against regulation.
That doesnt mean they think climate change isnt happening, it only means they think that the US isnt making the problem worse. Theres a reason the US is called "post industrial"

Also, maybe realize that green energy companies also have a stake in promoting the "climate change the worst thing thats ever happened". case in point, your support of them and all the subsidizes they got from obama

>>10250658
>Several large corporations within the fossil fuel industry provide significant funding for attempts to mislead the public about the trustworthiness of climate science.[175] ExxonMobil and the Koch family foundations have been identified as especially influential funders of climate change contrarianism.[176]
You will literally lie about anything won't you, no matter how obvious it is?

>>10250626
you're actually possessed.
Let me get your position straight
>Warming temperatures are not inevitable
Do you seriously believe that if all of us just suddenly died that the climate would stop changing/the temperatures would stop increasing?
>Where did I say it will be a regressive tax?
the poor always dispraportionatly pay more for tax on goods, and especially where the demand is inelastic.
Not only that, but the increase in costs greatly decreases competetive of industry and everything else due to most transportation/energy being produced that way.

I want to phrase my question more carefully. Do you think if there was no industrialisation, that we didn't produce CO2 and create this warming as you call it, that the decreasing temperatures would have no negative effects?
Would the temperature stay an even temperature from here on out if we all conveniently died?

which is the more damaging pseudoscience, psychology or climate "science"?

>>10250670
>decades old exxon mobil controversy is somehow relevant

>>10250687
>Do you seriously believe that if all of us just suddenly died that the climate would stop changing/the temperatures would stop increasing?
There is a certain amount of warming already in the pipeline due to the water vapor feedback loop, about 1.5 degrees C. After this warming the temperature would slowly decrease due to carbon sinks.

>the poor always dispraportionatly pay more for tax on goods, and especially where the demand is inelastic.
Many economists have proposed carbon tax rebates for the poor.

>Not only that, but the increase in costs greatly decreases competetive of industry and everything else due to most transportation/energy being produced that way.
The savings to the economy from mitigating global warming outweigh those loses.

>Do you think if there was no industrialisation, that we didn't produce CO2 and create this warming as you call it, that the decreasing temperatures would have no negative effects?
The temperature would be decreasing slowly over many thousands of years, any negative effects would be negligible compared to the rapid global warming being experienced now.

>Would the temperature stay an even temperature from here on out if we all conveniently died?
It would cool into a glacial period over many thousands of years.

>>10250694
>decades old
>denier shills are being funded by Big Oil as we speak
Why are you lying?

>>10250706
Okay, so if we continued while only removing CO2 production, Ceteris paribus, what would the global temperature models look like under future projections?
Also how do we define "losses" exactly, is it just rising temperatures = economic activity down?
>>10250608
Or is this just because its including projections on the costs of natural disasters?

>>10250498
>The denier is getting spanked.
True but he's not the only one reading this.

>>10250687
Just fucking read the IPCC WG1 SPM already. This is like watching a creationist tell biologists what evolution "really means".

>>10250708
They stopped publicly saying that they're giving money to denier groups, so obviously they've actually stopped. Exxon wouldn't ever try to mislead people, so groups like Heartland must be running their massive propaganda campaigns out of the goodness of their own hearts now.

>>10250742
>the IPCC = climate science
When will this meme die?
Also I don't think it's a coincidence this "Working group" is similar to
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/plunge-protection-team.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Financial_Markets

The direct and obvious fact that the UN has created this group with the objective of proving is pretty shady.

Economical/environmental collapse is coming at some point. There is no doubt about that. To try and suggest the only reason is because we're emitting CO2 is trash

>>10250728
>Okay, so if we continued while only removing CO2 production, Ceteris paribus, what would the global temperature models look like under future projections?
See http://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FAQ12_3.pdf

>Also how do we define "losses" exactly, is it just rising temperatures = economic activity down?
Here's an example from a Nobel prize economist: http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d20/d2057.pdf

>>10250733
Yeah, that's the point.

>>10250767
>dis sound lik dat bad

>>10250773
>http://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FAQ12_3.pdf
Okay, that's 2 degrees by 2100
>http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d20/d2057.pdf
>It is worth emphasizing one further point about the impact of uncertainty on policy.
The future is highly uncertain for virtually all variables, particularly economic variables
such as future emissions, damages, and the social cost of carbon. It might be tempting to
conclude that nations should wait until the uncertainties are resolved, or at least until the
fog has lifted a little. The present study finds the opposite result. When taking
uncertainties into account, the strength of policy (as measured by the social cost of carbon
or the optimal carbon tax) would increase, not decrease.

So let me get this right. You're that convinced on the "costs" of risining temperature that is only from CO2 as being greater than the direct costs to the economy an increase in tax and reduction in productivity energy costs would have?

Again, all of these models have huge assumptions, he's correct in that they are all very uncertain. And we're talking about a 2 degree rise in 50+ years, that is literally nothing when you look at the ice record

>>10250798
>So let me get this right. You're that convinced on the "costs" of risining temperature that is only from CO2 as being greater than the direct costs to the economy an increase in tax and reduction in productivity energy costs would have?
Not me, economists who know their shit.

>Again, all of these models have huge assumptions, he's correct in that they are all very uncertain.
Yeah, he still concludes that carbon tax is beneficial.

>And we're talking about a 2 degree rise in 50+ years, that is literally nothing when you look at the ice record
You mean the ice core record? That's not global temperature. 2 degrees in a century is an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming.

>>10250767
>Also I don't think it's a coincidence this "Working group" is similar to
Beyond the phrase "working group" I don't see the similarities.

>The direct and obvious fact that the UN has created this group with the objective of proving is pretty shady.
That's not a "direct and obvious fact". That's your own speculation.

>>10250798
>You're that convinced on the "costs" of risining temperature that is only from CO2 as being greater than the direct costs to the economy an increase in tax and reduction in productivity energy costs would have?
That seems to be a pretty well agreed on result.

>Again, all of these models have huge assumptions
They can provide decent justification for those assumptions, and their forecasts match pretty closely to observed reality.

>And we're talking about a 2 degree rise in 50+ years, that is literally nothing when you look at the ice record
Bullshit.
Warming of multiple degrees per century is practically unheard of, and the closest known analogous events triggered vast mass-extinctions.

>>10250823
Meant to attach this.

>>10250823
>2 degrees in a century is unheard of
Wrong

>>10250807
Economists can't predict anything from what the stock market will look like tomorrow, next week, next year or when the next financial crisis will hit. Never mind predict the next 80 years, and you're comparing that to a temperature rise and assuming economic downturn? Actual historal data suggests they are correlated, economic slumps have been witnessed when global climates have cooled in the past. None of this is being considered

>>10250868
And again, if you

>>10250658
>Says "read"
>Doesn't read
LMAO IT'S THE FIRST LINE

>Efforts to lobby against environmental regulation have included campaigns to manufacture doubt about the science behind climate change, and to obscure the scientific consensus and data.[164]

MY FUCKING SIDES

>>10250869
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/ross-ice-shelf-bore-antarctica-freezing/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
There are many things not being taken into account, and your "predictions" will be wrong, as will mine most likely

>>10250823
Also, how exactly is it my speculation that the IPCC has connections with the UN?
https://www.ipcc.ch/
>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.
This is quite literally one giant pile of trash and you idiots eat it up like guppies. I'm ashamed of my community

>>10250868
>Economists can't predict anything from what the stock market will look like tomorrow, next week, next year or when the next financial crisis will hit.
And?

>Never mind predict the next 80 years, and you're comparing that to a temperature rise and assuming economic downturn?
The only one comparing them is you moron. Care to point out how Nordhaus' analysis is wrong? No? Then shut the fuck up retard. You literally have said nothing of substance throughout this thread. There is no reason anyone should believe a word you've said.

>Actual historal data suggests they are correlated, economic slumps have been witnessed when global climates have cooled in the past. None of this is being considered
What historical data and how is it relevant?

>>10250883
What isn't being taken into account and why are they relevant?

>>10250897
>Also, how exactly is it my speculation that the IPCC has connections with the UN?
That's not what you said you fucking liar:

>The direct and obvious fact that the UN has created this group with the objective of proving is pretty shady.

There is no reason someone with a valid argument would need to constantly lie and argue in bad faith like this. If you don't apologize for this obvious sophistry in your next post then I'll just take this as a sign that you admit you lost the argument and everything you write will be ignored.

>>10250868
>2 degrees in a century is unheard of
That's not what I wrote. And can you actually point to an event with that rate of change?

>>10250883
>There are many things not being taken into account,
Name some.

>https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/ross-ice-shelf-bore-antarctica-freezing/
It's pretty well well known that global warming is generally north-biased. That's interesting, but not shocking.

>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I legitimately don't understand why you linked this.

>>10250897
>Also, how exactly is it my speculation that the IPCC has connections with the UN?
It's not. It's speculation that the IPCC was created to "prove global warming".
Do you feel like backing up that claim, or are you just going to keep bullshitting?

>>10250908
>Care to point out how Nordhaus' analysis is wrong?
I'm not saying he is wrong, and nobody can. It is modelling and we wont know until time passes.
I'm saying all of these models have been consistently wrong since I started hearing about them back in the 70s.
>What historical data and how is it relevant?
>And?
It's quite clear that you are that convinced with your own uni-dimensional model that there is no point in conversing with you

The general trend of the last 6~ thousand years of recorded human history, there have been peaks and troughs of human accomplishment, and decline has been seen when these dips occur

>>10250927
That's a graph of Greenland's temperature, not the global average

>>10250927
>I'm not saying he is wrong, and nobody can. It is modelling and we wont know until time passes.
Gee, if only there was a system where the collection & study of evidence would allow us to build and evaluate models which can predict the future.

>I'm saying all of these models have been consistently wrong since I started hearing about them back in the 70s.
Even sixty seconds on google would show that surface temperature models have a pretty good track record. Lying isn't going to impress anyone.

>The general trend of the last 6~ thousand years of recorded human history, there have been peaks and troughs of human accomplishment, and decline has been seen when these dips occur
And you feel confident extending the impact of climate on hunter-gather tribes onto a modern industrial civilization?

>pic
Where the fuck did you find that? And "0" is not the "present day".

>>10250927
>>10250927
>I'm not saying he is wrong, and nobody can. It is modelling and we wont know until time passes.
It's not a random model, it's based on his understanding of economics.

>I'm saying all of these models have been consistently wrong since I started hearing about them back in the 70s.
Which ones?

>It's quite clear that you are that convinced with your own uni-dimensional model that there is no point in conversing with you
It's quite clear you can't answer the question because there is no substance behind your claims, just an emotional need to deny scientific facts. That's why you make up strawmen like "uni-dimensional model." There is no point in conversing with a clown like you.

>The general trend of the last 6~ thousand years of recorded human history, there have been peaks and troughs of human accomplishment, and decline has been seen when these dips occur
Where is this data from? It looks fake. At the very leas the x-axis is mislabeled. And where is the correlation with economic accomplishment? How is this even measured? Are you just repeating talking points you've read without looking at the source of the data? Have you thought about exhibiting some skepticism?

>>10250918
Are you seriously suggesting IPCC is an independent unbiased organisation? What proof do you want?
It looks like I hit a nerve.
I see in almost all of the IPCC publications that they are cite similar analysis as causal factors, conveniently downplaying specific other ones (such as cloud cover), or outright omitting others such as solar cycles or anything that doesn't "fit the data".
It mostly reeks of ideological position and it's hard to differentiate the actual science and the nonsense.
Ultimatly I think we can all conclude the costs in the future are going to increase, by laws outwith our control. These contrived metrics to propose restrictive bureaucratic legislation that promotes taxes and other sticks to beat people will only result in impoverishing us.

>>10250969
No apology, so you admit defeat. Thanks.

Well, thread's over guys, the denier admitted he's a fucking hack who can't back up his claims and needs to lie instead.

>>10250977
>Well, thread's over guys, the denier admitted he's a fucking hack who can't back up his claims and needs to lie instead.
I'm not a "he".

>>10250969
>or outright omitting others such as solar cycles
At least put some effort into your lying.

https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Page 19:
>There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance. There is medium confidence that the 11-year cycle of solar variability influences decadal climate fluctuations in some regions. No robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified. {7.4, 10.3, Box 10.2}
Not only do the talk about it, solar cycles even made it into the SPM.

>>10250990
>>>/soc/

>>10250977
Well I'm glad we finaly settled the issue everyone. IPCC is infallible, well played guys. Climate deniers BTFO

>>10241969
how the fuck do solar panels not help, long term you're removing your demand for co2 emitting energy generation

>>10251002
>BUT
>POLISH
>APPLES
You can't even stay on a single topic. You're just spouting wild assertions and changing the subject every time someone points out how full of shit your claims are. Please fuck off.

>>10250927
>last pixel of the graph
>just a straight fucking line up
>this is somehow not a problem when the only comparable angle on the graph is the last fucking ice age

>>10251010
>is the last fucking ice age
End of the last glacial period. We're still in an ice age.

>>10250992
>based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance
absolutely BTFO

climate change is pseudoscience, and the alarmists are some flavor of new age doomsday cult

>>10250990
nobody is meant to care about that shit here so fuck off

>>10251008
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html
>While it appears that the measured solar cycle length tracks the temperature better than the CO2 concentration for the twentieth century up to 1970, this presented data remains quite controversial. When you look at the climate models that seek to show the human influence past 1970, you do see a good correlation of the temperature with the projected CO2 influence included, while the correlation with solar cycle length weakens.
And I would suggest that this is because the hard science has been hijacked by you goons with sticks, and that the real costs of environmental impact are way beyond what the IPCC are approaching this as.

>>10251013
sure thing captain semantics, but you'll notice the graph was labelled ice age which is what i'm referring to here

>>10251016
>the alarmists are some flavor of new age doomsday cult
Then why are deniers the only ones discussing doomsday?

>>10251019
>And I would suggest that this is because the hard science has been hijacked by you goons with sticks,
So you're resorting to conspiracy theories?

>>10251028
The data over the last few decades has been corrupted to a small extent due to the increasing urbanisation of the surrounding areas near the sites.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078133

>>10251036
I only just got to this thread but what the fuck are you even arguing by linking that, all it's talking about is how cold ice sheets can get due to stuff like topology

>>10251047
The link was supposed to be about the urban heat effect

>>10251036
>The data over the last few decades has been corrupted to a small extent due to the increasing urbanisation of the surrounding areas near the sites.
That's the Urban Heat Island effect, and it's a problem that was solved ages ago. It can be removed by homogenising station data.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/mar/31/ipcc-climate-change-impacts-report-history-warnings
/thread

>>10240127
REMINDER: THEY'RE NOT ARGUING IN GOOD FAITH. THEY WANT MONEY AND DON'T LITERALLY DO NOT CARE ABOUT WILDLIFE, OTHER PEOPLE, OR THE ENVIRONMENT.

RESPOND ACCORDINGLY.

>>10252011
>everything bad that happens is CO2 emissions
>lets just tax everything goyim, that will fix it

>>10240127

http://notrickszone.com/2018/12/27/92-new-papers-link-solar-forcing-to-climate-some-predict-a-solar-induced-global-cooling-by-2030/

>>10252024
>buying into the Ron Paul memes

its almost like you are trying to say you are retarded.

>>10252083
It's almost like you don't understand free markets

>>10249869
Damn anon, you have no idea how pathetic you sound. I'm not even telling anything hard, you only need a general understanding of dynamical systems as well as some basic school level knowledge, that's absolutelly essential to any researcher in the field of natural science before he even touches the more specialised subjects, yet even this level of reasoning completely goes over your head. Is this the power of modern education?

>Claiming that natural factors could be causing global warming while utterly failing to explain how or even describe what this means
This is just another piece of mumbo jumbo to you since you lack the required knowledge to put 2+2 by yourself, but our planet runs a vast amount of physical, chemical, biological, geological, etc. processes all the way up to a global scale, tightly interacting with each other and releasing or consuming energy as they do, starting from the basic absorption/desorption of gases and growth or shrinkage of biomass in response to changing conditions to much more complex processes that can also dampen or amplify each other, as well as excite oscillations in the system. Some of them run for ages and without any notable change making it tempting to assume in the model they will continue doing so in the future as well. But the interesting feature of nonlinear processes is that they can drastically change their behaviour once reaching a certain critical point in parameter space. And figuring out that point for natural processes is hard since they interact with each other and are often hidden from direct observation. One easy example of this is volcano that can be silently brewing under the lid for thousands of years then fuck your shit in a single day, and another notable one is the thermal runaway itself.

>>10252366
(cont-d)
This is what makes modeling such processes a major pain in the ass, since they can be extremely sensitive to both the model variables and initial parameters even if you know exactly what's going on (and you don't more often than not). It is literally one of the reasons butterfly effect exists. And also why ridiculous statements like >>10240623 would obviously get you called out for ignorance in any proper scientific community.

>stop arguing or I will laugh at you!
This is mildly amusing at most, coming from you.

>It's obvious you realize your mistake since you refuse to provide any substantive details in your posts. Not only are you wrong, you're knowingly lying about being wrong.
>(translated: baww I've wasted so much time studying the latest climate research to troll the internet yet get no chance to use it in the argument and too ignorant of everything else)
Stay mad anon. Borrowed knowledge can only get you so far. Should've studied non-meme field of science properly instead.

Ridiculous statements like >>10252366
>>10252373 would obviously get you called out for ignorance in any proper scientific community.

>>10240652
I live in Albert and it still gets freezing in the winter time, and hot as fuck in the summer. There has been no change in the weather whatsoever. That doesn't disprove climate change; all I'm trying to say is fuck off with your personal anecdote.

>>10252405
>Ridiculous statements like >>10252366
>>>10252373 would obviously get you called out for ignorance in any proper scientific community.
Not an argument.

>>10252426
Alright, let's investigate your argument and therefore measure your ignorance

>>10252366
>our planet runs a vast amount of physical, chemical, biological, geological, etc. processes all the way up to a global scale
This is called "climate science" and you should look into it. Furthermore the planet doesn't "run" these processes like a computer, which seems to be a distinction that you don't grasp

>releasing or consuming energy as they do
All of which comes from the sun or is stored solar energy

>starting from the basic absorption/desorption of gases
Which changes the concentrations of the atmosphere and therefore the albedo of the Earth

>growth or shrinkage of biomass in response to changing conditions
Mass extinctions and desertification are the most notable such shrinkages and both are strongly correlated with rapid changes to Earth's climate.

>to much more complex processes that can also dampen or amplify each other
These are called "feedback loops" they are a long-established feature of climate science models

>But the interesting feature of nonlinear processes is that they can drastically change their behaviour once reaching a certain critical point in parameter space
Key words "critical point in parameter space". Drastic changes don't just spontaneously happen and they have measurable causes

>And figuring out that point for natural processes is hard since they interact with each other and are often hidden from direct observation
This is the creed of climate science and exactly why the models are so robust

>volcano
Volcanic activity is taken into account in the climate model

>the thermal runaway itself
Again, see the current climate model

Some other winners
>I'm not even telling anything hard
>dynamical systems
>some basic school level knowledge
>specialised subjects
>Is this the power of modern education?
>This is just another piece of mumbo jumbo to you since you lack the required knowledge to put 2+2 by yourself

>>10252508
We can predict volcanoes now? Neat.

>>10252508
weak...
just as expected from a (lawyer/economist/politician?? what exactly) larping as a scientist

If you want to mitigate any risk of climate change then stop printing money, it's literally that easy

>>10252508
Wew anon
Repeating words you read somewhere will only trick brainlets like yourself. You didn't even manage to really refute anything I said.

>Volcanic activity is taken into account in the climate model
Yeah like the last time they went "sorry, it seems volcanic activity actually contributed more to ozone depletion than we thought"

>>10252565
>>10252574
>>10252599
Literal retard replies not addressing 90% of the argument

Based /sci/

>>10252594
This. If we destroy the economy completely now then there wont be an economy for the climate to destroy later, it's genius.

>>10252609
im just commenting on the obvious layman-ness of the post

>>10252648
>destroy the economy
can we do away with the growth without destroying the economy? if so, then that would be a good middle ground I think

>>10252565
>>10252599
Get you some learnin'

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http://aos.wisc.edu/~aos915/Robock_2000.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm082iDW4DP70AMH5bflns6cV4pbvw&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

>>10252648
overconsumption is driven by fiat currency and debt

we don't have to have an economy based on the creation of unpayable debts

Nearly this entire thread has been two sides calling each other retarded. Every time I wonder if I can get swayed towards either sides of this debate, but every time I'm left apathetic as always.

Can't you guys argue without insulting each other? Even if you hold the truth in one hand and a knife in the other, no one's ever going to give a shit about the truth if you're too busy stabbing them.

>>10252960
I hope this centrist meme does soon

>>10252960
Can I give my opinion as someone in the middle.

I am intensely against the carbon tax initiative here in my country (Canada) and oppose all environmental regulations. I'm also very conservative.

And yet despite this, being an engineer, I acknowledge that climate change is a fact and that humans are fucking up the climate. Do I care thought? Absolutely not. There are only 2 countries on the Earth that will be positively affected by climate change, those two countries are Canada and Russia. As a Canadian, I know that climate change will speed up the melting of the Arctic, freeing up the Northwest Passage (a soon-to-be crucial trading passage between China and Europe) while also creating vast new amounts of green fertile lands in the north AND making our fresh water supplies (the largest in the world) more valuable.

However, what I don't understand is people from other countries that refuse to believe in climate change. Due to AGW accelerating climate change, the US government predicts that climate change will cost the US economy several trillion dollars while drowning a lot of important coastal cities like Miami due to ocean levels rising, and climate change will also cause more frequent natural disasters like hurricanes costing the US countless trillions.

It's pretty obvious to see that climate change is a threat to mankind. But the only 2 countries that can afford to not do anything about it are Canada and Russia. Every single other country on the planet better bust it's ass off because climate change-related disasters are going to kill tens of millions within this century while costing the global economy a lot of trillions of dollars in damages.

>>10252654
utterly contrary to whatever an economist will ever tell you. It's in essence neoliberal thought that condones overpopulation, because if population isn't growing then the elite don't get their shekels and that's bad. You would be labeled a communist.

>>10253194
The vast majority of the canadian north has about half an inch of topsoil. You won't be growing anything in that.

If people on Wall Street, who have access to some of the most sophisticated modelling technology ever created, cannot consistently figure out which direction stocks are going to go, then why should I believe that "climate scientists" can do the same with the weather?

>>10253265
Our overall green fertile pastures will still grow even though most of the melted Arctic won't have fertile land beneath it.

Again, that's just a small pro. Canada already has a lot of unused fertile land. In my opinion the biggest pro will be the opening up of the Northwest Passage, which will link China and Europe. Canada can put fees on crossing the NWT while still making it more profitable than the Panama canal. It's gonna make us rich. Plus our freshwater supplies (again, largest in the world), will become even more valuable.

But despite me opposing climate change regulations here, I don't understand why there's such a large number of climate change deniers in the US, considering how dangerous climate change will be to US hegemony worldwide. Guess it's not any different from flat earthers or creationists ultimately.

>>10250249
>temperature records from glaciers in Greenland don't accurately reflect the whole planet's atmosphere but CO2 records from there totally do
Okie dokie

>>10253289
Because climate is changing, we have the proof of that we just don't know why it's happening, the only thing we know is that it is strongly, really strongly correlated to human industrial activities and no other possible cause was ever discovered or theorized.

>>10253324
>the only thing we know is that it is strongly, really strongly correlated to human industrial activities and no other possible cause was ever discovered or theorized
Doubtful
Also, why do the climate models keep getting it wrong? Miami was supposed to be underwater by now.
My dad has a beach house on the coast of NC. The sea level has not risen a single inch in thirty years.

>>10253289
because stock markets are nothing like the climate and one person can’t dramatically change the climate single handedly the way Soros has done in third world nations.

>>10253375
>what are volcanos

>>10253359
>Doubtful
Of what, what you quoted is indeed a fact, so speak of what's making you doubtful so I can help.
>Also, why do the climate models keep getting it wrong?
Because allarmism, scaremongering, sells. Though the Average Sea Level did rise in the last 30 year, of about 3.0 inches, I would link an interesting NOAA article but the shutdown killed the website.

>>10240713
If your only qualification for something to be science is "does it use the scientific method" almost anything can be said to be a science. For example my coffee often tastes better in a ceramic mug rather than aluminum. I have performed this test thousands of times, ergo aluminum causes coffee to taste better.

I know you are on christmas break but try to look less underage.

>>10253474
Not him, but personally I think that is the reasonable definition of Science and you did perform it.

Whether or climate change scientists are routinely starting from conclusions and working their way back up is still up for debate, but I'm not the one to take sides on something so annoyingly contentious.

>>10253377
See
>>10252669

>>10253289
Because (((they))) control the stocks but not the weather, you can't make good models when something is being directly manipulated by a malicious force and you don't know it.

>>10253359
Because these climate models of which you speak do not exist, no reputable scientist has ever said this, if anything most scientists have much more conservative estimates than what's recognized in the mainstream. You're talking about Al Gore and he lied about climate science to sell tickets to his movie.

Thanks for the chuckles, guys (and that one "I'm not a he"). Either Musk gets solar shields up in his lifetime, or you're not going to be able to argue about who can shill harder on a vietnamese finger painting gallery after another coronal mass ejection hits earth.

>almost 2019
>people still believe the climate Jew
Let's get a new boogeyman next year. How about overpopulation ?

bump

>>10240127
But are there any good arguments against climate change ?

>>10240127
>starting with the presupposition that atmospheric CO2 equates to warming

eugh! such a brilliant Scienceism®

>>10257824
It's not a presupposition. We can measure the radiative forcing due to CO2.

>>10257168
>But are there any good arguments against climate change ?
The absence of evidence in support of climate change is enough to discard it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

>>10259612
>The absence of evidence in support of climate change
Did you even bother looking?

>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
How's is climate change an "extraordinary claim"? The Earth's climate isn't a complete mystery. We know that it changes in response to particular forcings, and we know how much we're changing those forcings.