/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10634154
Anything can work as long as you genocide enough of the population. I say leave it to democracy.

Both

The Chinese and the Indians are going to inherit the Earth and they give 0 fucks relative to the west.

>>10634185
thanks. i hope theyll remember you.

>>10634154
The GND wants to replace the highways with light rails, replace fossil fuels and nuclear power with inferior renewables, and get rid of cows because they produce methane and carbon dioxide. It will kill the farming, energy, and automotive industries, and have a startup cost of 79 trillion dollars, plus trillions a year to maintain. You don’t cripple an economy at the same time as increasing costs and expect it to go well.

Fuck the fucking environment. Libtards have there priorities fucked. We moved to cities for a reason. I'll take hotter weather if it means I get my beef (I'm not switching to chicken you fucking soi) and can keep using diesel. I'm not going to be some buscuck or switch to electric anything. I dont want shitty solar or nuclear power, coal has served fucking fine for centuries! Fuck libtards and fuck outside, it never gave a fuck about me

>>10634273
this is what some people really believe

>>10634318
This

>>10634154
Instead of a shitty """"green"""" new deal where you cut off oil and other "not green" things instantly, and then subsidize on tax payer dollars, instead take some of the dividends derived from the gas/etc industry, and pour that money into cost-effective renewable alternatives (like thorium salt reactors, hydros, hybrid nehicles, etc), and then over many years phase out "non green" energy. And DONT punish the average citizen for their choices like that "CO2 tax" in Canada. Keep it business friendly too, incentivise being green rather than forcing it or footing the bill for it.

Why am i not president yet?

>>10634154
Define "work". I think the most likely outcome of embracing the GND as proposed would be akin to national suicide.

>>10634185
>the west who has known about climate change for 60 years and has done literally nothing to even slow it down
>also the same west that has such unsustainable standards of living we would need 4 earths to support it if everyone did the same
>muh indians and chinese!

>>10634154

It's too late. We are doomed. Only nuclear fusion can save us now.

>>10634154
>Can the green new deal actually work /Sci/?
No.

The premise is that all oil, gas and coal is used to make electricity or propulsion. And that premise is seriously b0rken.

Reality, for those of use who still care, is that the world depends on cheap gas for synthetic fertilisers, without which billions will die of starvation. We also depend on oil for synthetic fibres for clothing and the alternatives cannot take up the slack. Cotton farming has even destroyed a once huge lake, the Aral Sea. Sheep for wool was hugely damaging for Scotland and Spain.

Either we cut off a few billion people and leave them to die to save the planet as we know it, or we let the planet run its course and those few billion people die over then next fifty years as their regions become inhabitable.

>>10634154
>>10634219
>>10634415
>a retarded plan that will bankrupt us
>cripple and economy
>national suicide
Do people really not understand that we’re going to have to decide very soon between policies that will drastically impact our economy as it currently functions, and doing nothing which will cost everyone much, much more in the not-so-distant future? Surely, there are smarter ways to do the former and perhaps the GND isn’t even one of them, but the alternative is the end of modern civilization through business-as-usual. Economic impacts, even detrimental ones, are not an argument against the radical green legislation we need to have any sort of significant impact.

>>10634154
Retarded plan.

We can't even get stingy car companies to make flex fuel vehicles.

>>10634334
Was going fine until
>keep it business friendly
The free market’s not gonna save or even help us. Screw over major fossil fuel corporations first.

Your idea about pouring money into renewable energies isn’t a bad one. But we could also accomplish that by diverting some funds from other major spending areas such as, I don’t know, defense.

>>10634154
Renewable energy is a meme.

>>10636223
>solar doesn’t exist
>geothermal doesn’t exist
I’m not even anti-nuclear, but this is retarded.

>>10634154
The goals are noble, the methods are idiotic. AOC is a textbook example of well-intended retard

>>10636229
>renewable is good because you only shit on one aspect of it at a time
im not even not even anti-nuclear, but youre retarded

Capitalism is unsustainable, because it relies on the notion of eternal growth, but we know there is literally no such thing. The Earth has finite resources, and we will eventually run out of things. We're already beginning to see shortages in certain resources that are driving up prices. People won't cry until they see the fucking coffin.

We need to:

-Revoke the "rights" of corporations as people. Corporations are not people, and making as much money as possible at the expense of actual people is immoral.
-Start desalinating ocean water on a massive scale to provide water for arid regions; ship the excess salt byproduct out to the arctic/antarctic regions to balance salinity of the oceans.
-Get a worldwide recycling system going, every nation on board, and ACTUALLY RECYCLE the stuff, not just let it sit around in China until they burn/landfill it. Outlaw landfills entirely; organic waste gets composted, inorganic waste gets recycled. No exceptions.
-So-called "disposable" items need to be made of organic and bio-degradable materials, no exceptions.
-Start mining all the landfills for resources and cleaning them all up to reclaim the land, dig up old railways for the steel, reel in the old underwater cables for copper, etc. How much shit is just sitting around out there unused because "it's too expensive to go reclaim it, we might as well just mine some more shit and make more!"
-Figure out an alternative for sand (or a method of using desert sand for building); we're running out of the type of sand that is required for cement, to the point where gangs of assholes sneak into third world villages to dredge their rivers and streams for sand illegally (seriously, that's fucked up). Society will come to a screeching halt pretty fast without cement.
-Stop overfishing the everliving fuck out of the oceans and driving things to the brink of extinction (I'm looking at you China!)

Probably other shit I'm forgetting, but all that shit needs to get done.

>>10636229
Geothermal is the only non-meme renewable. Solar occupies nearly as much space as wind and also suffers terribly from intermittency

>>10636229
And you think solar is land efficient?

>>10636324
it is if you don't set out the panels retardedly.

>>10634154
Climate scientists know it's nonsense and it only serves as a strawman for deniers.

https://grist.org/article/climate-movement-grandpa-james-hansen-says-the-green-new-deal-is-nonsense/

>>10636311
Geothermal is a fucking terrible idea. On a small scale, it's great. But on a larger scale, it's a recipe for disaster. It might seem like there's infinite energy down there, but just like everything else, there's a limit. Removing heat from the Earth's mantle on a massive scale will disrupt the tectonic system and possibly even the magnetic field (which is a literal death sentence for all life, except perhaps ourselves if we build big shielded domes or emit artificial magnetic fields over our cities). Sure, it might take a few thousand years or something, but do we really want to be energy vampires slowly sucking the life from our own planet?

IMO, solar is fine, but photovoltaics should be restricted to buildings. You're not taking up any extra space anywhere; they are absolutely perfect for just slapping onto buildings which get sun all day; walls, roof, etc. Coat every surface with them for all I care. For actual power plants, we should be building molten salt solar plants. They use an array of thousands of mirrors to focus sunlight onto a central tower which contains a mixture of molten salts; the heat energy of the sunlight is absorbed by the molten salt and it can be heated to around 1000 degrees Celsius, no problem. They simply use the heat to boil water and spin turbines. It can generate electricity 24/7 because the storage tanks for the molten salt are insulated, which overcomes the main drawback of solar power. China just built one this year that outputs 100MW. The only thing you need to worry about is cloudy days, but ideally you build these things in arid regions anyway.

>>10636367
genuine question: how much heat would humans have to appropriate from the mantle in order to have an impact on tectonics? Some reading on this would be greatly appreciated.

>>10634154
Money is literally irrelevant. What’s relevant is not all dying.

>>10634219
All animal agriculture should be banned, since it’s wrong.

>>10636223
>Ignore the nuclear waste lol that’s not real

Temperature creates co2, not the other way around. Anthropogenic climate change is a scam for "green energy" companies to make obscene amounts of money.

>>10636394
>Temperature creates co2, not the other way around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

>>10636385
Nuclear waste is easy to store.

>>10636394
I really hope a fossil fuel corp is paying you a fraction of their billions to be retarded on their behalf. Otherwise, consider dying.

>>10636367

Assuming even only a 10% efficiency, the thought that human energy use for electricity could ever deplete the heat of the earth is preposterous. On the scale of planetary temperature differentials, the entire human use of energy of all kinds - biological and industrial - is a rounding error.

>>10636383
Bullshit. There's nothing wrong with eating animals. I do think that large mammals shouldn't be farmed on a massive scale though. Cattle require far too much of everything (land, food, water, time, etc.) to serve as an efficient protein source. Poultry and fish are far more suitable. Our oceans take up most of the planet, so if we were to properly manage our fisheries and stop dumping our waste in the ocean, it can provide all the food we'll ever need.

We've been genetically modifying our crops for a while now, I say we should genetically modify some algae, plankton, fish, and maybe some predators while we're at it. The existing ones are all probably going to go extinct because of our actions, so we might as well create our own artificial food chain for the ocean to replace the old one. One that works more efficiently and won't collapse after minor environmental changes. Imagine if we made an invasive fish that can survive in all water conditions, likes to group up in giant super schools, and has a great taste. Wouldn't that be ideal? Any native species that manage to survive alongside our additions will be that much stronger for the ordeal.

>>10636411
For now. There's no telling how much energy we'll be using 100, 200, 1000, or more years down the road. Once we start using geothermal on a global scale, we'll never want to stop, since it's so awesome. We'll just continue sucking more and more heat out of the planet. I guarantee that we'll drain the earth dry hundreds of millions of years before the sun starts to wane. Of course it might not matter by that point. We might already be in a position to build a dyson sphere in 1000 years.

>>10636401
Man made CO2 has no affect on the temperature, the majority of CO2 is released from the ocean caused by the sun heating it up.

>>10636407
Oil companies are the ones funding pro man-made climate change research you monumental brainlet because they're the ones making money from it. They are invested in green energy companies, as well as making money from the increasing price of oil.

>>10636422
>Man made CO2 has no affect on the temperature
See >>10636401

>the majority of CO2 is released from the ocean
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

>caused by the sun heating it up.
The sun has been cooling for decades and is now close to a grand minimum, yet CO2 concentration has been rising exponentially throughout.

Are your actually this retarded or are you you just pretending?

>>10636394
Wrong. CO2 creates temperature and is created by it.

>>10636444
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
There is not one peer reviewed paper showing that man-made CO2 has any affect on the climate whatsoever. The majority of real climate scientists reject man-made climate change.

>The sun has been cooling for decades and is now close to a grand minimum, yet CO2 concentration has been rising exponentially throughout.
This is because there is a natural delay in what the sun does and its affect on CO2 production. The increase in CO2 production is due to the sun's activity in the medieval warm period. CO2 lags behind temperature, not the other way around.

>>10636413
>Bullshit. There's nothing wrong with eating animals.

It requires killing them, so yes there is. Sorry sociopath.

>>10636461
>The majority of real climate scientists reject man-made climate change.

Let’s see the poll you’re citing.
:)

>>10636457
The sun creates temperature, which in turn produces CO2. The sun drives the climate, not CO2.

>>10636426
>>10636444
>Are you actually this retarded or are you you just pretending?

>>10636467
>The sun creates temperature, which in turn produces CO2.

Yep, and the CO2 released by warmer temperatures causes a further increase.

>The sun drives the climate, not CO2.

Both the energy of the Sun and the Earth’s ability to absorb that heat drive the climate

>>10636466
Out of the 12,000 papers published on climate change, only 0.3% of the authors have thrown their support for the current theory of anthropogenic global warming.

>>10634219
>>10636223
Ah, point your fingers at these status quo goons and laugh, kids.

>>10636469
Are you claiming that oil companies deny man-made climate change? And that they don't fund research that supports it?

>>10636479
Why did you refuse to cite a poll?

:)

>>10636471
>Yep, and the CO2 released by warmer temperatures causes a further increase.
Water vapour has a much greater affect in temperature than CO2.
>Both the energy of the Sun and the Earth’s ability to absorb that heat drive the climate
Man-made CO2 plays no part in this.

>>10636461
>There is not one peer reviewed paper showing that man-made CO2 has any affect on the climate whatsoever.
You must be trolling. There are several cited in the Wikipedia article.

>The majority of real climate scientists reject man-made climate change.
Ah so you are trolling.

>This is because there is a natural delay in what the sun does and its affect on CO2 production. The increase in CO2 production is due to the sun's activity in the medieval warm period.
Based on what peer reviewed research? Why would there be a large delay in CO2 evaporating from the oceans?

>CO2 lags behind temperature, not the other way around.
I've already shown you this is false. The greenhouse effect is based on fundamental thermodynamics and chemistry, and is directly observed via radiative spectroscopy.

>>10636485
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

>>10636484
I deny that they're doing so out of some agenda to make something up that's 1) empirically real and 2) implicates them negatively in the big picture.

>>10636479
That's false and irrelevant to your claim that the majority of scientists reject AGW.

>boo hoo it hurts the economy
Thats the point numbnuts. Capitalism fucked us. It led to growth beyond our wildest dreams but the cost was ruining the ecosystem beyond repair. If we are ever going to survive the changing climate it will require a drastic restructuring of economy and society. Any kind of business-as-usual strategy means our doom.

>>10636491
>Water vapour has a much greater affect in temperature than CO2.

Yep, water vapor is the stronger greenhouse gas, and the amount of it in the atmosphere is increased by warmer temperatures. Thus, water vapor is positive feedback to CO2.

>Man-made CO2 plays no part in this.

Nope. CO2 is a greehouse gas, this has been known since the 1800’s. Humans are creating excess CO2 in the carbon cycle, so it is affecting the climate.

>>10636497
Nowhere does this say the majority of papers rejected manmade global warming. Why are you lying?

>>10636497
>Citing a debunked liar

Lmao

>>10636495
>You must be trolling. There are several cited in the Wikipedia article.
Papers will claim that CO2 will have some affect on climate, but not that man-made CO2 does.
>Ah so you are trolling.
See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
>Based on what peer reviewed research? Why would there be a large delay in CO2 evaporating from the oceans?
There's a delayed process because the circulation of the seas very complicated and slow.
>I've already shown you this is false. The greenhouse effect is based on fundamental thermodynamics and chemistry, and is directly observed via radiative spectroscopy.
There's no scientific paper in existence which produces evidence that carbon dioxide levels change climate.

>>10636500
Do you trust a scientific paper that is pro man-made climate change funded by an oil company?

>>10636501
See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

>>10636506
>Yep, water vapor is the stronger greenhouse gas, and the amount of it in the atmosphere is increased by warmer temperatures. Thus, water vapor is positive feedback to CO2.
Reducing water vapour won't make people nearly as much money as trying to reduce CO2, funny that...
>Nope. CO2 is a greehouse gas, this has been known since the 1800’s. Humans are creating excess CO2 in the carbon cycle, so it is affecting the climate.
Zero scientific papers showing man-made CO2 changing the climate.

>>10636532
>Papers will claim that CO2 will have some affect on climate, but not that man-made CO2 does.
Manmade CO2 is CO2 so you just admitted I'm right. Also, man is the source of the increasing CO2 concentration, as determined by isotope analysis. See >>10636444

>See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
This doesn't say the majority of papers reject AGW. Why are you lying? It says the majority of papers state no position. Only papers that state a position are relevant towards determining what percentage of scientists support vs. reject AGW.

>>10636532
>Papers will claim that CO2 will have some affect on climate, but not that man-made CO2 does.

Humans are producing too much for the environment to absorb, so.....therefore....

>>10636532
>See

See: https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

Mockton is a liar.

>>10636532
>There's a delayed process because the circulation of the seas very complicated and slow.
What does the circulation of the seas have to do with evaporation of CO2? And where are the peer reviewed papers showing this lag?

>There's no scientific paper in existence which produces evidence that carbon dioxide levels change climate.
The wikipedia article cites several. Why are you lying?

>>10636509
>>10636516
Show me 97% of climate scientists agreeing that man-made climate change is real. Where are all these scientists anyway? Shouldn't they be out protesting, or do they need some brainwashed girl called Greta to do the work for them? OH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! You know you have strong scientific evidence when you wheel out the kids.

>>10636548
>Reducing water vapour won't make people nearly as much money as trying to reduce CO2, funny that...

But cutting CO2 emissions would shrink the economy. Are you dumb?

>Zero scientific papers showing man-made CO2 changing the climate.

https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

>>10636555
>Show me 97% of climate scientists agreeing that man-made climate change is real.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

>Where are all these scientists anyway?

Working, presumably.

>Shouldn't they be out protesting

Scientists do better work doing science instead of protesting.

>>10636463
You're fucking stupid.

>>10636549
>Manmade CO2 is CO2 so you just admitted I'm right. Also, man is the source of the increasing CO2 concentration, as determined by isotope analysis. See >>10636444
A paper can claim that CO2 affects the climate, but it cannot be conclusive, but they will push the narrative depending on who is funding them. The truth is that CO2 is an effect of the climate, not the other way around.
>This doesn't say the majority of papers reject AGW. Why are you lying? It says the majority of papers state no position. Only papers that state a position are relevant towards determining what percentage of scientists support vs. reject AGW.
So you believe that 97% of climate scientists endorse AGW? How many is that?

>>10636539
This is irrelevant to your claim. Only 3% of the papers that stated a position rejected AGW. If we used the same method as the blog in your link then that means only 0.009% of papers reject AGW. So you either have to admit your claim that the majority rejects AGW is false, or argue against the blog you linked to.

The 97% consensus has been confirmed in various ways: https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

>>10636555
See >>10636571

And why did you lie about the majority of scientists rejecting AGW? I'm assuming you've given up this claim since you did not respond to the posts you're replying to

>>10636566
Not an argument.

>>10636578
Keep eating grass, retard.

>>10636567
>A paper can claim that CO2 affects the climate, but it cannot be conclusive

It is pretty conclusive that CO2 has a greenhouse effect. You are a bad troll.

>>10636583
Not an argument.
Since you’re simply a sociopath and fine with mass murder, there’s nothing for us to discuss. Bye.

>>10634154
Probably not, but even a half-assed desperate plan to get us on track is better than doing nothing at this point.

I also doubt it would bankrupt us - although it's hard to say since I didn't read all of the provisions in the Green New Deal. Something /like/ it definitely wouldn't though.

>>10636567
>A paper can claim that CO2 affects the climate, but it cannot be conclusive
It's been conclusively proven for a century. You can in fact directly observe the amount of heat being sent towards Earth by CO2 at any point in time: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

I don't know what other evidence you could possibly need.

>So you believe that 97% of climate scientists endorse AGW? How many is that?
Several tens of thousands.

>>10636589
>Ignoring the fact that you are a human being and need a proper nutrition.
Yep, bye bye brainlet.

>>10636551
>Humans are producing too much for the environment to absorb, so.....therefore....
I had no idea the environment had a limit - did it tell you this? Humans are the problem, right? What's the solution? Money. Money for green energy. When does green energy need the money? NOW!
>See: https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
Can you tell me how many people 97% is?

>>10636597
>proper nutrition

Humans are better off eating only plants and fungi.

>>10636567
>A paper can claim that CO2 affects the climate, but it cannot be conclusive

The same can be said about literally any other well-substantiated scientific theory. Individual research papers fail to reject the hypothesis over and over, and on average that allows us to be more and more confident that it is true. Harping on whether a paper is 'conclusive' is missing the point and not in the spirit of how science actually works.

>The truth is that CO2 is an effect of the climate, not the other way around.

The truth is that CO2 is both a cause and effect of the climate. There are periodic fluctuations but even the most generous models show that natural variation cannot explain the patterns that have arose in the past century.

>>10636598
>I had no idea the environment had a limit - did it tell you this?

https://ib.bioninja.com.au/standard-level/topic-4-ecology/43-carbon-cycling/carbon-fluxes.html

>>10636553
>What does the circulation of the seas have to do with evaporation of CO2? And where are the peer reviewed papers showing this lag?
Circulation of temperature. Heat causes CO2 to leave the ocean, but that heat must circulate. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
>The wikipedia article cites several. Why are you lying?
Post one.

>>10636610
>Heat causes CO2 to leave the ocean

Why do you keep bringing up positive feedback and then pretending it’s not real?

>>10636557
>But cutting CO2 emissions would shrink the economy.
For who?

https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
>Major future challenges are to improve inter-laboratory precision of isotopic measurements in or-der to compare results from different laboratories on a very high level of precision. In addition, the isotopic connection of different chemical species or different types of archives needs further improvement, and the(isotopic) fractionation between compartments is not established well enough to allow conclusions to be drawn unequivocally. Models require experimental input of roughly equivalent quality and a high spa-tial density which is difficult to get for the present and impossible to provide for the past. For reducing the uncertainty of our understanding of the Earth’s climate system, the puzzle needs more pieces.

Oh dear...

>>10636564
>https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
>https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Can you just provide a list of names? Why is everything hidden behind complicated studies that don't really say anything?
>Working, presumably.
Doing what? AGW is fact, right? What do they do now?

>>10634154
No but it's kind of cute. I just hope that Chinese isn't too hard to learn and they don't treat the West like it treated niggers

>>10636571
>>10636576
How many people is 97%?

If there are more climate scientists who have no position that those who agree with it, then that is the same as rejecting it without having to do it officially.

Denying climate change as a climate scientist could be career suicide because it's not about science any more, it's politics, so the next best thing is to not have a position on it.

>>10636588
Not when it comes to the climate.

>>10636594
>It's been conclusively proven for a century. You can in fact directly observe the amount of heat being sent towards Earth by CO2 at any point in time: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
CO2 is an effect of heat, not the cause. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
>Several tens of thousands.
Names please.

>>10636629
>Can you just provide a list of names? Why is everything hidden behind complicated studies that don't really say anything?

Alright troll confirmed.

Stop biting guys

>>10636604
>The same can be said about literally any other well-substantiated scientific theory. Individual research papers fail to reject the hypothesis over and over, and on average that allows us to be more and more confident that it is true. Harping on whether a paper is 'conclusive' is missing the point and not in the spirit of how science actually works.
So why are people treating AGW as if it was conclusive, when the papers themselves are not? Why are papers and scientists that challenge the hypothesis ignored by the media? Why are alternative hypothesis not allowed? That is not science. Computer models are not science. Altering temperature data graphs to fit a warming narrative is not science. Propaganda films and TV shows are not science. Can you not see something fishy is going on here?

>The truth is that CO2 is both a cause and effect of the climate. There are periodic fluctuations but even the most generous models show that natural variation cannot explain the patterns that have arose in the past century
All of the models are wrong and have failed to predict anything.

>>10636610
>Circulation of temperature. Heat causes CO2 to leave the ocean, but that heat must circulate.
That would be necessary for outgassing of CO2 from the deep oceans. There is an immediate effect when the atmosphere above the oceans is warmed. This allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor and causes water vapor and CO2 to evaporate from the oceans.

>http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
This is not simply a lag between warming and CO2. The Milankovich cycle doesn't actually increase the total insolation, it only increases insolation in certain areas which then effects the coverage of ice which then affects ocean circulation which then effects temperature. The chaining of various feedbacks and the hemispheric nature of these effects is why you see such a large lag in the past. But today we see an essentially immediate change in water vapor with temperature change.

>Post one.
See >>10636594

And I'm still waiting for a peer reviewed paper showing that the increased CO2 is the result of solar activity in the medieval warming period. You won't provide one because every climatologist knows that isotope analysis shows the change in CO2 is not natural.

>>10636606
Having a limit implies a conscious entity made one. Do you believe in a climate God? Did your climate God tell you to stop producing CO2 or we'll die? Were you born a climate sinner?

Green New Deal can work but 10 years let alone a 100 years is pie in the sky thinking.

That being said I'm really surprised how hard conservatives fight against the general idea since it would mean less dependecy and money going to foreign powers. Either way Solar technology ultimately are going to have to develop eventually. The Sun is way too much of an energy boon to just ignore.

>>10636664

>>10636646
/pol/ >>>> fuck off retard. We could provide all the prove in the world and it wouldn't be enough for you.

>>10636634
>How many people is 97%?
Several tens of thousands.

>If there are more climate scientists who have no position that those who agree with it, then that is the same as rejecting it without having to do it officially.
A paper not stating a position is not the same as the scientist having no position. Most physics papers don't state that the Earth is round. But apparently, not only does that mean to you that most physicists have no position on whether the Earth is round, it also means they reject that the Earth is round!

>Denying climate change as a climate scientist could be career suicide because it's not about science any more, it's politics, so the next best thing is to not have a position on it.
Denying round Earth as a scientist could be career suicide because it's not about science any more, it's politics, so the next best thing is to not have a position on it.

>>10636636
It's directly observed. You took an absurd position and immediately lost because of it.

>>10636664
>Having a limit implies a conscious entity made one.

.......No. It implies that the systems on Earth can only absorb so much CO2 so quickly for purely physical reasons. Plants can only trap so much carbon as they grow. The ocean can only absorb so much. Chemical weathering can only eat away at CO2 over thousands of years.

>>10636619
Do you know what else leaves the ocean? Water vapour. That is what traps the heat, CO2 has a very minimal effect on temperature and climate in general, it is simply an effect of heat from the sun.

>>10636655
Can't provide any names so resorts to "troll!11!" instead.

>>10636646
>CO2 is an effect of heat, not the cause. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
I'm sorry you're too ignorant to understand the paper but radiative spectroscopy does not measure correlation. It's a completely causative connection. Also the greenhouse effect is itself a causative mechanism, not correlative.

>Names please.
You were already provided with several studies and surveys showing the majority agrees with AGW. Either prove the studies wrong or admit you lied.

>>10636659
So why are people treating Round Earth as if it was conclusive, when the papers themselves are not? Why are papers and scientists that challenge the hypothesis ignored by the media? Why are alternative hypothesis not allowed? That is not science. Computer models are not science. Altering data graphs to fit a round earth narrative is not science. Propaganda films and TV shows are not science. Can you not see something fishy is going on here?

All of the round earth models are wrong and have failed to predict anything.

>>10636706

>>10636710
Can't provide proof of a round Earth so resorts to bait!!11 instead

>>10636717
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0

>>10636660
>That would be necessary for outgassing of CO2 from the deep oceans. There is an immediate effect when the atmosphere above the oceans is warmed. This allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor and causes water vapor and CO2 to evaporate from the oceans.
Yes. Water vapour. That is what warms the climate, not CO2.
>ut today we see an essentially immediate change in water vapor with temperature change.
Yes, water vapour, not CO2.
>And I'm still waiting for a peer reviewed paper showing that the increased CO2 is the result of solar activity in the medieval warming period. You won't provide one because every climatologist knows that isotope analysis shows the change in CO2 is not natural.
It accounts for a lot of it. I'm not denying that we as humans are releasing some more CO2 into the atmosphere, I'm denying that CO2 is the cause of any warming or other climate changes.

>>10636672
Just pointing out the religious nature of AGW - it uses exactly the same tactics as religions.

>>10636741

>>10636673
>fuck off retard
>provide all the prove
Don't worry, Greta Thunberg has convinced me. I'm a believer now.

>>10636726
Fake data

>>10636681
>Several tens of thousands.
Proof? Let's see some names.
>A paper not stating a position is not the same as the scientist having no position. Most physics papers don't state that the Earth is round. But apparently, not only does that mean to you that most physicists have no position on whether the Earth is round, it also means they reject that the Earth is round!
So why include them in the survey if their paper has nothing to do with AGW? How many papers were about AGW but concluded with no position?
>Denying round Earth as a scientist could be career suicide because it's not about science any more, it's politics, so the next best thing is to not have a position on it.
I had no idea the governments of the world were making policy on the shape of the earth.

>>10636739
>Yes. Water vapour. That is what warms the climate, not CO2.
What causes water vapor to rise?

>Yes, water vapour, not CO2.
Water vapor and CO2. But the human contribution dwarfs the contribution from the oceans, and the contribution from the increas is caused by the human contribution.

>It accounts for a lot of it. I'm not denying that we as humans are releasing some more CO2 into the atmosphere, I'm denying that CO2 is the cause of any warming or other climate changes.
I've already shown you that it does with multiple lines of evidence. You've provided none. You lose.

>>10636684
What is directly observed? Is it CO2 causing the greenhouse effect in the climate, or in fact water vapour?

>>10636754
>dude the sky isn't real lmao

>>10636687
CO2 doesn't have to be absorbed into everything, that would be terrible.

>>10634273
There won't be any beef in 100 years.

>>10636703
>I'm sorry you're too ignorant to understand the paper but radiative spectroscopy does not measure correlation. It's a completely causative connection. Also the greenhouse effect is itself a causative mechanism, not correlative.
What do you believe the paper actually showed? Absolutely nothing that favours AGW.
>You were already provided with several studies and surveys showing the majority agrees with AGW. Either prove the studies wrong or admit you lied.
Names. NOW. Stop hiding behind deceptive "studies". I can get you a list of 30,000 scientists who disagree with AGW.

>>10636761
>Proof? Let's see some names.
Your were already provided the proof in the form of several studies and surveys. I'm not obligated to provide the proof in the exact form you want like a list of names. You're also a massive hypocrite since you consistently fail to provide proof for your claims like the majority of climate scientists rejecting AGW. I'll just assume you've abandoned such ridiculous claims.

>So why include them in the survey if their paper has nothing to do with AGW?
Huh? Your blog it's the only one who included those papers in the calculation. Obviously you have to read papers to find out if they have a position. I know reading papers is a foreign concept to you, but even you should be able to understand this.

>How many papers were about AGW but concluded with no position?
What does no position mean? A paper can either support, reject, say that the analysis is inconclusive, or not have an analysis on this particular question at all. Most papers are not going to have an analysis on this particular question because their scope is narrower or because it's already well supported by research that has already been done.

>I had no idea the governments of the world were making policy on the shape of the earth.
Of course they are. The government has been lying to you this whole time, why do you think they need to pay all these scientists to act as if the earth is round and to fake GPS to make it seem like planes are circling "the globe."

>>10636706
I don't disagree with that, although round earth models have predicted things. But I have no issue with people challenging things like the shape of the earth. None of us have been to space to observe the earth as a singular spherical entity, humans have been fooled before and we will be fooled again.

If there is evidence against a round earth it should be taken seriously, that is true science.

>>10636784
(You)

>>10636659
>So why are people treating AGW as if it was conclusive, when the papers themselves are not?

Because while one paper is not conclusive,
it is conclusive when thousands of studies performed over decades and across seven continents show the same result.

>>10636765
>What is directly observed? Is it CO2 causing the greenhouse effect in the climate, or in fact water vapour?
Heat from water vapor has a different signature than heat from CO2. Also, water vapor concentration is completely determined by temperature, so it's not a radiative forcing, it's a feedback loop that requires an initial cause. You claim the cause is solar forcing from centuries ago but fail to provide any evidence of this and completely ignore the CO2 we know is emitted by man and that we know causes warming. Your position makes no sense and if you demanded the same level of proof for yourself as you do for others you would reject it. It's only maintained through a hypocritical lack of self awareness.

>>10636767
Now you're thinking like a climate denier.

>>10636791
>Your were already provided the proof in the form of several studies and surveys. I'm not obligated to provide the proof in the exact form you want like a list of names. You're also a massive hypocrite since you consistently fail to provide proof for your claims like the majority of climate scientists rejecting AGW. I'll just assume you've abandoned such ridiculous claims.
I've asked how many people 97% is and people have answered "several thousand". Prove it.
>Huh? Your blog it's the only one who included those papers in the calculation. Obviously you have to read papers to find out if they have a position. I know reading papers is a foreign concept to you, but even you should be able to understand this.
Doesn't that seem like a colossal waste of time to you? Why not just email all the climate scientists a poll so they can select their position? The reason they've done it in this weird way is so they don't have to include all climate scientists into the total.
>What does no position mean? A paper can either support, reject, say that the analysis is inconclusive, or not have an analysis on this particular question at all. Most papers are not going to have an analysis on this particular question because their scope is narrower or because it's already well supported by research that has already been done.
A paper that concludes that the cause of global warming is not known yet, it could be man-made CO2, it could not be.
>Of course they are. The government has been lying to you this whole time, why do you think they need to pay all these scientists to act as if the earth is round and to fake GPS to make it seem like planes are circling "the globe."
Didn't think you had an argument for that one.

>>10636807
>it is conclusive when thousands of studies performed over decades and across seven continents show the same result.
So why have temperature graphs been altered to show more warming than there's actually been?

>>10636784
>What do you believe the paper actually showed?
It shows directly that CO2 warms the climate, that thing you kept denying and said no paper showed.

>Absolutely nothing that favours AGW.
Again it's unfortunate you're incapable of understanding it and thus make such patently absurd statements. Maybe you should understand what you're arguing against before doing so.

>Names. NOW.
This is not your mother's basement, you don't just get things by stomping your feet and shouting. I've already given you sufficient evidence, you have not.
Paper showing that CO2 increase is caused by medieval warming. NOW. Or you can just admit that you're a pathetic little hypocrite. This is already obvious to everyone reading but it's very important that you admit this to yourself.

>I can get you a list of 30,000 scientists who disagree with AGW.
"Scientists," not climate scientists. Nice try, but your pathetic little goalpost shifts won't work outside of /pol/. And I know most are not even scientists.

How do you live with yourself? I can't imagine the massive delusions needed to preserve such dishonesty and hypocrisy.

>>10636794
There is no evidence though, just a bunch of mentally I'll people denying reality because it makes them feel smart.

>>10636846
denying reality cannot make you feel smart

>>10636826
>I've asked how many people 97% is and people have answered "several thousand". Prove it.
There are several thousand climate scientists and 97% of them agree with the consensus position, as shown by multiple studies. Since this post yet again fails to provide any proof that the majority rejects it I'll take it as yet another admiral that you lied. Thanks for admitting that, it takes a big man to do so.

>Doesn't that seem like a colossal waste of time to you? Why not just email all the climate scientists a poll so they can select their position?
They did that too, which you would know if you bothered to read what you're trying to argue against. But you won't even do that much, which makes your constant arbitrary demands even more laughable.

>A paper that concludes that the cause of global warming is not known yet, it could be man-made CO2, it could not be.
Those papers were included in the reject pile, which according to you consists of 0.009% of the papers. And apparently 0.009% is a majority.

>>10636848
Denying that is denying reality. You either haven't spent much time on the internet or are so deluded you can't see what's all around you.

>>10636836
They haven't been altered. Data is always normalized in scientific studies (even outside of climatology) and they always disclose their methodology.

If you have a legitimate methodological reason to say that data normalization is fraudulent, you can write to the journal editor and force a redaction.

>>10636808
>Heat from water vapor has a different signature than heat from CO2.
So what? The CO2 will cool down the heat passing through it from the water vapour, not trap it. Water vapour traps the heat and releases CO2 from within the water droplets, which cools things down.

>>10634527
Want to compare the air/water quality of China with western countries? Honestly, the Chinese have so much to be proud of but don't pretend like they have western values (there have been a lot of people lately memeing them as environmentalists, humanists, egalitarians). It's just silly.

>>10636881
>The CO2 will cool down the heat passing through it from the water vapour, not trap it.
How does it cool down heat? That's gibberish. Infrared heat in the atmosphere is absorbed and re-radiated by CO2. This means that some of the heat radiating off the Earth is going to be sent back towards it instead of leaving Earth's atmosphere. But since some of that heat entered Earth's atmosphere as light which CO2 does not absorb, CO2 sends more heat towards Earth than it sends out.

>>10636881
>The CO2 will cool down the heat passing through it

what is your maximum level of physics education?

Any solution that doesn't include eugenics is pointless. Any gains made will be quickly absorbed by the reproducing hordes.

>>10636844
>It shows directly that CO2 warms the climate, that thing you kept denying and said no paper showed.
No it doesn't. It's like saying that smoke creates the heat for a fire, the smoke is a by-product, an effect. CO2 is an effect of heat and actually cools rather than warms.
>Again it's unfortunate you're incapable of understanding it and thus make such patently absurd statements. Maybe you should understand what you're arguing against before doing so.
I wish I was as smart as your climate Goddess Greta Thunberg, she understands it, doesn't she? Maybe you could marry her when she's old enough, that is if the earth is even here any more.
>This is not your mother's basement, you don't just get things by stomping your feet and shouting. I've already given you sufficient evidence, you have not.
Names. NOW. Who are these mysterious 97%?
>Paper showing that CO2 increase is caused by medieval warming. NOW. Or you can just admit that you're a pathetic little hypocrite. This is already obvious to everyone reading but it's very important that you admit this to yourself.
It's called the "ocean conveyor belt" and takes around 500 years to complete - a time that coincides with the medieval warm period.
>"Scientists," not climate scientists. Nice try, but your pathetic little goalpost shifts won't work outside of /pol/. And I know most are not even scientists.
Scientists who can deny it without fear of losing their job unlike climate scientists. But yes, just ignore it, they're all funded by big oil, right?

>How do you live with yourself? I can't imagine the massive delusions needed to preserve such dishonesty and hypocrisy.
This is a classic case of projection. Everyone in the climate doom cult are contributing to their doomsday fantasy simply by using electricity and existing in mainstream society. If you truly believed it you would move off grid. Instead you become a pseudo-hippy atheist who suddenly wants to save the planet without actually doing anything.

>>10634154
MIT scientist here. No it's not possible.

>>10636949

>>10636953
>MIT scientist here

t. undergrad researcher at MIT

>>10636846
>There is no evidence though
Yes there is - if there wasn't then the debate wouldn't have ever existed. Doesn't mean it's true, but there is definitely evidence.
>a bunch of mentally I'll people denying reality because it makes them feel smart.
Plenty of mentally ill people believe the globe because it makes them feel smart.

>>10636964
Yeah and? I publish as well.

>>10636866
>There are several thousand climate scientists and 97% of them agree with the consensus position, as shown by multiple studies. Since this post yet again fails to provide any proof that the majority rejects it I'll take it as yet another admiral that you lied. Thanks for admitting that, it takes a big man to do so.
So "several thousand" climate scientists published papers in favour of AGW being true?
>They did that too, which you would know if you bothered to read what you're trying to argue against. But you won't even do that much, which makes your constant arbitrary demands even more laughable.
Can I see this poll published?
>Those papers were included in the reject pile, which according to you consists of 0.009% of the papers. And apparently 0.009% is a majority.
No one has been able to provide an actual number to 97%. What is the actual number of climate scientists that percentage refers to?

>>10636974
doesn't count

>>10636949
>No it doesn't. It's like saying that smoke creates the heat for a fire, the smoke is a by-product, an effect. CO2 is an effect of heat and actually cools rather than warms.
You're not saying anything about the paper. You lost and you know it.

>MOM Chicken Tendies. NOW.
LOL

>It's called the "ocean conveyor belt" and takes around 500 years to complete - a time that coincides with the medieval warm period.
Yet you still fail to provide a single paper showing that this explains any warming or any CO2 increase. Meanwhile, I provided plenty of evidence the warming and CO2 increase is caused by man. Sad!

>Scientists who can deny it without fear of losing their job unlike climate scientists. But yes, just ignore it, they're all funded by big oil, right?
So now you're claiming no climate scientists reject AGW because they would lose their job, when before you claimed the majority of climate scientists reject AGW? I'm so confused. And no, the opinions of random people with bachelor degrees is not relevant.

>This is a classic case of projection.
Then why have you yet again failed to provide any evidence for your claims while demanding the same of others, you delusional fraud? Time for mommy to change your diaper, you made a big mess.

>>10636973
>Yes there is - if there wasn't then the debate wouldn't have ever existed.
We are truly blessed to have a denier so dumb they stand in solidarity with their fellow mentally ill flat earthers.

>>10636706
>Guaranteed replies

>>10636993
>So "several thousand" climate scientists published papers in favour of AGW being true?
I know science isn't your strong suit but your should at least understand how sampling works.

>Can I see this poll published?
You would have if you read anything. See >>10636551

>No one has been able to provide an actual number to 97%. What is the actual number of climate scientists that percentage refers to?
Because no one has counted exactly how many climate scientists there are in the world you fucking retard.

>>10634154
Is there something particularly wrong with America that it can't meet the challenge of moving away from coal at least? It seems the country is comically stubborn or inept in its ability to adapt.

>>10636776
>local idiot doesn't understand fluxes and that anon didn't mean "absorb all of it" but actually "have production meet consumption with enough existing reserve overhead to maintain the system as is

>>10636973
That post is the single dumbest thing I've read in a while. I hope it was a joke.

Retarded plan. Any plan that will dig into the masses their pockets and into consumerism without a very good justification will lose. America has consumerism as its value. Europe as well. The primary value of western liberal democracies is consumerism and the fact it provided the masses with a better quality of life over time compared to pre 1900's. If you're attacking consumerism you're at the same time attacking the liberal democratic system.

>>10636196
They're arguments, you propose social change but population will only request social change if they see immediate results of this. Population never thinks long term. Actually even politicians refuse to think long term which is why countless problems are troubling Europe, which the EU does not fix (and will not fix either). Only giving people extra costs on a lot of things will just make them pissed considering financially Europe is set up for a chain of recessions that are incoming.

The first New Deal couldn't even survive, what makes you think a new one could? The original ND only existed due to the support of rural people, which the GND lacks. It's stuck in neutral.

>>10637036

the pissing match over coal is fake as shit since the oil industry killed coal decades ago, the remaining plants exist because utilities in those places can't afford any new equipment (in many places, the plants are WPA projects from the first New Deal and never upgraded due to the ND ending and a lack of money)

the TVA is the only exception and it's little surprise that the TVA is also home to America's newest nuclear raector

>>10637117
>Population never thinks long term.
They're gonna have to start if they don't want to get screwed by the business-as-usual scenario within the next 50 years (probably less.) And in America at least, the government definitely has enough money that average citizens shouldn't have to see worry about substantial costs while society gets restructured to be less unsustainable. The government makes a conscious choice to care more about the corporations and the 1% than the average people and the people who need help the most; that also needs to change.

>>10636887
>Want to compare the air/water quality of China with western countries?
I want to compare the air/water quality of the earth without white people. We would never have this many problems