/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10348336
There's no incentive to prove to you anything. Theres nothing to gain even in the long term. Its not like you are someone important with influence. You're just an undereducated commoner.

>>10348440
>There's no incentive to prove to you anything.
Go back to your laboratory work, science nerd.

>>10348440 >>10348444
Opinion is silenced by Lack of funding & persecution.

(((Elites))) fund global warmers & persecute "infidels"

>>10348460
>Opinion is silenced by Lack of funding & persecution.
Yes and yes. Corporations have been funding literally billions for research into proving carbon emissions are the leading cause of climate change.

>>10348336
Also the easiest way to prove that climate change is not being caused by the "shifting of the poles" is to use a compass. The Earth's magnetic field originates from the poles. If there was "shifting of the poles" occurring, then your compass wouldn't be point north anymore. There would be a "new" north.

>>10348444
You're absolutely right. I should get back to my research work and stop wasting my time on /pol/tards.

> Prove to me that negligible carbon emissions from the human population (compared to sea pockets and volcanoes) is the reason for climate change instead of a shifting of the poles.

First, prove that you are a climate change denier. I'm not convinced that you are not a troll.

>>10348460
back to >>>/pol/

>>10348486
>Also the easiest way to prove that climate change is not being caused by the "shifting of the poles" is to use a compass. The Earth's magnetic field originates from the poles. If there was "shifting of the poles" occurring, then your compass wouldn't be point north anymore. There would be a "new" north.

https://gizmodo.com/models-cant-keep-up-with-migrating-magnetic-north-pole-1831737779

>"The magnetic north pole is shifting at an unprecedented rate. Over the last 30 years, the rate of distance that the magnetic north pole moves per year has sped up, around 15 kilometers (9.3 miles) per year to around 55 kilometers (34 miles) per year, according to Nature. Unlike the static geographic north pole, the north magnetic pole is in constant flux, influenced by the movements of iron-rich fluids deep below the Earth’s crust. Or at least that’s the theory—the whole thing is still somewhat of a scientific mystery."

Even then the magnetic North Pole is not the same as the geologic North Pole.

>>10348494
>First, prove that you are a climate change denier.
Climate change is real -- but, human contribution is negligible.

There is no significant climate change.

Simply forget about those pseudoscientists who suck government's money

>>10348501
I think OP is referencing to large scale shifting of the poles unlike the one described in the article. As in the Eastern Hemisphere becomes the North Hemisphere.

It’s important to point out that, the farther you are from the north magnetic pole, the less of an issue this becomes. Arnaud Chulliat, a geomagnetist at the University of Colorado and NOAA, told Nature that the rapid movements of the north magnetic pole makes navigational systems in the Arctic “more prone to large errors.” Unless you live way up north or work for any of the defense agencies listed above, you likely have nothing to worry about.

Even then the scientists are saying that the subtle changes occurring won't affect us much unless you live near the poles.

>>10348336
>"negligible"
nice loaded wording
>suggests something else that's fucking retarded
it's not the magnetic field

>>10348503
so, you're a denialist

>>10348336
>negligible carbon emissions from the human population

>>10348336

Imagine a spigot of water was allowing water to flow out and fall. In the water's path is a bucket with a hole at the bottom. The hole is big enough that the amount of water leaving is exactly the same as the amount of water flowing into the bucket from above.

Now imagine someone comes along and lets a tiny stream of water fall into the bucket, alongside what's coming from the spigot. It's a teeny amount compared to the spigot, but since it was balanced before, this tiny amount still pushes it over the edge, and water starts to accumulate.

That's atmospheric carbon.

>>10348336
>instead of a shifting of the poles.
Prove to me that the shifting of the magnetic poles has any affect on climate.

>>10348440
fpbp

>>10348336
Humans release more CO2 in a day than all volcanoes release in a year.

>>10348600
>When you can't prove your premise with any experiments using the scientific method and have to use ad hominems to le epic win the debate

>>10349515
>when you provide no experimental proof of your premise using the scientific method and expect people to take you seriously

>>10349449
>bucket with a hole
>overflow is apparently bad for this bucket
Terrible analogy.

>>10349531
You're just bad at grasping analogies.

>>10348336
Humans outproduce all natural sources of CO2. Why are you lying?

>>10349629
>Humans outproduce all natural sources of CO2.
No, that's dumb.

>>10349681
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

Go to school.

>>10348336
Prove to me that carbon emissions from the human population are negligible.
Protip: you can't.

>>10349681
Most natural sources are a net carbon negative, and the amount that volcanoes release is paltry in comparison to our emissions.

>>10349529
> when you’ve wasted at least 4 years in uni on something less scientific than sociology
Yikes

Humans emit so much CO2 that a massive volcanic eruption can cause a net reduction in carbon emissions due to flight cancellation.

https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/

>>10348336
most poles are still in Poland
/thread

>>10348440
Sounds like a deflection. Why reply at all?

>>10348499
>everything I don't like is nahtzees
Don't you have anything original?

>>10349629
Where is the evidence for this?

>>10349629
CO2 is a small fraction of the planet's greenhouse gas sources.

>>10349857
Volcanoes are not the totality of CO2 emissions. Lol

>>10351559
>>10351412
You thought the second time would be the charm huh?

Your question is kinda loaded, since CO isn't the only greenhouse gas and we're also destroying carbon sinks such as forests.
Also, how are poles shifts supposed to cause the climate change we experience? Never heard of that before, but I'm kind of curious on how the position of the magnetic poles affects the climate overall

>>10351559
>anthropomorphic
point and laugh at the denialtard

>>10349434
what happened in 1600?

>>10352721
The current theory is that the discovery of America triggered large scale changes in the ecosystem there, including increased vegetation due to depopulation of the natives.

>>10348336
>Here is a bunch of stupid assertions.
>Disprove them or I'm right!
Fuck off.

>>10351559
Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing. And human activity have raised CO2 levels by 50%, which by your own image is a serious concern.

>>10348521
>pseudoscientists who suck government's money
trump

>>10349434
>instead of 280/1'000'000 we have now 400/1'000'000
impressive