/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10745415
Denial is one of the 5 stages of coping.

1. Denial - There is no climate change!
Climate may be changing, but we have nothing to do with it.
2. Anger - It's the Jews/liberals/Chinese/third world's fault
3. Bargaining - Climate may be changing, but future tech will take care of it
4. Depression - We're fucked
5. Acceptance

Few people have reached level 5. This is why the GOP have literally run from a cap-and-trade vote.

>>10745415
>climate change
>>>/x/

>>10745453
You didn't see climate change because it's not there!

>>10745415
Greenland is melting slowly and wont affect sea levels in europe all that much, (bigger problem for pacific nations and california faggots.
Antartica is cold as shit and colder than normal.
Trees are growing faster than ever.
Hurricanes are not on the rise.

Anthropogenic warming is most likely saving us from a real catastrophe. Ice age.
Without a bit of global warming, this cycle of ultra low solar activity would have probably started the accumulation of an ice sheet on canada again.
Then we would have been really fucked.
it's been snowing like mental.
Just snowed in Colorado yesterday:
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/summer-snow-where-were-seeing-the-highest-snowfall-estimates-in-colorado

This is because the jet streams are lumpy and are allowing bursts of cold arctic wind to travel deep inland.

Why are the jet streams lumpy? Solar minimum.
Why are there noctilucent clouds over the northern hemisphere?
Solar minimum.
Do these clouds reflect sunlight like normal clouds?
You bet dummy.
Are these effects accurately modeled by super intelligent climate scientist who know it all.
Off course not, moron. Everyone is just pulling shit out of their ass and you just eat it all up.

If global temperature was 1.5 degrees lower right now these kind of things would be even more extreme, there would be larger parts of the northern hemisphere that would still have snow by the time winter arrives and you'd just see snow accumulate, season after season.
Reflecting more and more light and plunging the globe into an ice age, which would only be able to accommodate a couple of hundred million people.

Thank god for CO2 that makes our crops grow faster and is out last line of defense against the ice age that should be coming.

Thank god for global warming.
Climate change is our savior.

>>10745415
it’s real but honestly has more positive effects for civilized world than negatives

disasters are always looming based on who has control of the levers of brainwashing at the time. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

>>10745415
>You opinion about it's deniers?

95% are retarded (they don't know what they are talking about) and 5% are just liars (they know climate change exists but they want money)

>>10745415
My opinion is that climate change is just one piece in a much larger struggle humanity currently faces. The truth is we don't understand it but it is happening.

What I want to talk about is the struggle faced by humanity, which has spawned the climate change agenda.

Humanity now faces a choice. In one hand we have the life of the earth. In the other, we have mars. One of them is going to die. Which one is up to you.

Will you take the blue pill or the red?

>>10745505
Mars is "already" dead

>>10745415
The ice age is nearly over at least

>>10745514
proofs?

>>10745510
The correct choice is clear.

We could technically fix it, but it would require an overhaul of our society and our economy.
I don't see that happening. It's just too big of a change in too little time.
So we are going to suffer through it for centuries and cope with it slowly, all the while incurring huge costs and our standard of living is likely to dip for generations, starting in the near future.

Who says its man-made phenomena?

>>10745502
>everyone who disagrees with me on any issue is stupid and evil and profits from the disagreement in ways I don't care to specify

>>10745502
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmy0tXcNTPs

If there was political will we could do a lot. Technology is not our limitation.
The problem is that our shitty political system is too primitive to cope with something like this. We are not yet evolved enough as a society to be able to recognize and react to problems like this before they turn into catastrophes.

>>10745534
How can we fix this if it's not even man-made process

>>10745534
The perfect post. I never thought I will see it in my life time.

>>10745473
>Greenland is melting slowly
It's not and it's melting is accelerating.

>and wont affect sea levels in europe all that much
False.

>Antartica is cold as shit and colder than normal.
False.

>Trees are growing faster than ever.
And?

>Hurricanes are not on the rise.
Hurricanes are more powerful and more damaging.

>Anthropogenic warming is most likely saving us from a real catastrophe. Ice age.
This is like saying that eating 10000 calories a day is saving you from starving.

>This is because the jet streams are lumpy and are allowing bursts of cold arctic wind to travel deep inland.
>Why are the jet streams lumpy? Solar minimum.
The weakening of the jet stream allowing arctic air to travel south is primarily caused by warming in the Arctic, not by solar minima.

>Why are there noctilucent clouds over the northern hemisphere?
Noctilucent clouds follow the solar cycle but are also increasing over the long term due to methane emissions.

>Are these effects accurately modeled by super intelligent climate scientist who know it all.
Considering you get even the most basic facts wrong, I doubt your opinion is significant.

>If global temperature was 1.5 degrees lower right now these kind of things would be even more extreme
Nope, they are extreme because of the extreme warming.

>there would be larger parts of the northern hemisphere that would still have snow by the time winter arrives and you'd just see snow accumulate, season after season.
You realize glacial cooling would occur very slowly over thousands of years right? As opposed to current incredibly rapid warming. This is a false dichotomy and you know it.

>Thank god for CO2 that makes our crops grow faster
...ignoring the effects of more extreme weather and increased drought.

You are a buffoon.

>>10745473
>>10745473
Man Ohio just had a tornado

>>10745588
Is that supposed to be notable?

>>10745580
you have to provide proof if you're going to say stupid things like hurricanes and droughts are worse.

>>10745524
>on any issue
Who are you quoting?

>>10745528

>>10745523
Why are you pretending to not know?

>>10745415
My opinion is that it's become a political debate and that's not very helpful at all because people are stupid when they polarize into politics.

>>10745415
I hope it's real because I want the world to end

>>10745634
>>>/co/

>>10745619
Sure, as soon as you provide proof for your claims.

>>10745654
>>>/pol/

>>10745675
I didn't make any claims smart guy, you did.

>>10745645
It is inherently a political debate. There is no escaping it.

>>10745680
So this entire post >>10745473 makes no claims? Well then I guess I don't need to debunk it.

>>10745691

>>10745654
>>10745679
Compromise:
>>>/po/

>>10745693
What exactly do you think this shows?

I have one family member who is the poster child for facebook boomers (only IRL).

We've had conversations about a variety of things but she is not swayed by evidence and there is apparently no evidence she will accept to change her mind. She's extremely stubborn.

I don't try to have in-depth conversations with her much, as a result.

>>10745706
Her biases have origins in at least a single peice of "evidence" she came across at one point or another

>>10745706
Her and all those like her will carry us to our graves. Most boomers are stupid and out of what is left most are trapped in their lives and are unable to contribute to the wave.

The swell always begins from the bottom of the ocean for the biggest waves. Change is coming.

>>10745580
>doesnt even understand the change the geoid undergoes if greenland melts.
How does he even breathe?

>>10745580
>Acceleration of melt is defined as...

>>10745580
>>10746331
>two years of significantly above normal ice mass gains.

>>10745580
Most recent data ha Antarctic almost 2 degrees colder than 1981-2010 average.

>>10745580
No distinguishable trend in ACE.

>>10746354
>Using a measurement of 30 days to try to prove anything
>>10746335
It may feel paradoxical, but greenland is actually gaining ice, yet its average temperature is going up, still global warming.

>>10746331
>cherrypicking this hard
Guess what? Global warming is a statistical phenomena, compare the 1950-1980 average to the 1980-2019 average, much higher melt.
>>10746354
What is this supposed to prove? The literal definition of global warming is, on average, higher global temperatures. If you averages every measurement in that picture it would turn out slightly hotter, you don't even understand your own evidence.

>>10746322
>West Antarctica melt is faster than Greenland and fucks Europe
>But just ignore that and only focus on Greenland
Thanks for proving you're a retard.

>>10746322
>West Antarctica melt is faster than Greenland and fucks Europe
>But just ignore that and only focus on Greenland.
Thanks for proving you're a retard.

>>10746331
>>10746335
You are a clown.

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/19/9239

>>10746367
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

>>10745683
How governments should use their money and resources to fight climate change is a political debate. The fact and cause of climate change are not at all a political debate (or even a scientific one at this point), but that doesn't stop millions of extremely braindead Americans from thinking otherwise.

>>10746531
>All statements regarding cyclones use the terminology "likely"
>66% probability
Lmao, thats almost a coin toss.
Into the trash.

>>10746465
Lol, all I'm seeing is Cali is fucked for all type of melting.
Sorry calicucks. LMFAO

>>10746569
We agree, but right-wingers are too intellectually dishonest so the just deny that a problem exists at all because that is the best strategy for them.

>>10745415
Loosing sleep over it, trying to distract myself with hobbies so I dont end up worrying myself to death.

>>10745415
>It's happening
>We're the cause of it
>It will lead to ecological, economic, and political disaster across the world
>No one will make enough meaningful change to stop this disaster until it is too late
>This is God's punishment on mankind

>>10746569
>use their money and resources to fight climate change
the fact that almost no one sees the contradiction in this sentence is why humans are pretty much doomed

>>10745461
>denialist posts this in every climate change thread thinking it will convince someone

>>10745538
it is a man-made process

>>10750223
Is this some libertarian wank about how government money comes from taxes and therefore isn't really their's or are you making an actually substantive point?

>>10745528
>not clear whether it's good or bad
>not clear whether it's going to be come a catastrophe or not
Dyson's laughable brainlet at this point. He's clearly suffering from demtia or something.

>>10745693
This is a pretty stupid comment to be honest. Says a lot about you that you saved it and titled it "smart guy."

>>10745453
You’re an unscientific idiot. Pop science is all that you know. You shallow moron.

>>10745502
Everyone knows climate change itself exists retard. The question is whether it’s human activity that is the major cause. Then there’s the other question of whether or not throwing peoples tax money at it will do anything. Then there’s the other question of why do we bother ourselves when it’s mostly India and China to blame.

Look up Professor Lindzen at MIT. He’ll help you become less ignorant and arrogant. Because to be frank you know fuck all.

>>10751340
OMG the signs were there guys!
35 years ago!
And here we are now, every last one of us dying. DYING!

>>10745415
Lemme borrow the thread with some climate questions:

How can the populating in Beijing triple (40 million people -> 120 million people), while introducing infrastructure, cars, and a much higher energy use/person, coal power plants to fuel it all, and so on, while having a temperature which is somewhat unaffected by it?

Surely, if global warming is a thing, shouldn't it apply first and foremost on a local level? Beijing SHOULD be the prime example of increasing temperatures. But it's not really. How is this explained?

Sources (shitty, ofc, but as rough estimates they should get my point across):
>https://books.mongabay.com/population_estimates/full/Beijing-China.html
>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa68e8/pdf

We live in a changing climate. Some days its hot, some days its cold. Can't explain that.

>>10745415
>deniers?
outright deniers are creationist tier idiots.

then you have your flock-of-sheep tunnel-visionists that only pay attention to the global climate in the context of the last century or so because it'll fit in a facebook meme and think that we're all going to drown at whatever time is convenient in the future to make their fears seem plausible, also muh carbon tax

then you have the realists that understand that the climate is an ever evolving system that has never once in 4,000,000,000 years been stable or unchanging and is at the whims of forces far outside of anything that human activity could influence and has gone outside of the modern maximums time and time again and will continue to do so until the planet is absorbed by the sun in another 4,000,000,000 years.

>>10751609
Then you have the complete and utter retards who equate changes over tens of thousands of years with rapid changes in decades. And say they'll have the same effect.

>>10751609
>don't pay attention to the current, very rapid change mainly caused by humans! Look, it's always been changing! Nothing to see here!

>muh carbon tax
What politicians want to do with the reality we face has no bearing on said reality

>>10751614
more rapid changes have happened in a matter of hours causing mass extinctions and geological changes we can only imagine, and the biosphere recovered (did not stabilize, mind you) in only a couple of centuries. relax.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

I'm becoming a heretic/climate change denier aaaahh..!! Please disprove this video by the nobel prize winner Ivar Giaever, I can't stand this sin..! Haram.. HARAAAM!

>>10751637
WITCH!!!!! BURN HIM!!!

>>10745415
I think they're retarded

>>10751637
Okay, what papers has he published that shows climate change to be wrong? Cause all you have here is some guy talking about a subject outside his area of expertise.

>>10751648
scientist:
>these methods are unscientific
you:
>he doesn't know what he's talking about

>>10751637
Congratulations on being a useful idiot.

> Ivar Giaever
Literally a paid shill

>Affiliations
>Heartland Institute — “Global warming Expert.” [22]
>Cato Institute — Endorser of Cato Institute's global warming advertisement

Heartland Institute, an organization who's business model is to lie about science in order to help companies dump their externalities onto society without paying any costs
>In the 1990s, Heartland worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health regulations

Cato Institute -nothing but a fossil fuel propaganda organisation
>The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries

>>10751657
>don't pay attention to the science
>listen to this paid shill instead, he's a REAL scientist. Just ignore that he has nothing to do with the field, has zero published research in the field and is payed by two big corporate propaganda groups

>>10745415
literally no one cares about 'climate change' but some hippies and 4channelers.

>>10751675
B-but you're doing nothing but Ad Hominem.. /sci/ has told me not to take that as arguments

>>10751688
The taxes in my country cares.

>>10751708
>living in a 3rd world country

>>10751697
>don't pay attention to the fact that I'm pushing a paid shill for the fossil fuel companies!!!
Why don't you try making your own argument instead of posting You Tube videos? You've made none at all.

>>10751697
this. make your own conclusions.
you might as well be arguing with a christian about biological evolution. don't bother.

>>10751757
This guy posted a YouTube video of done by a paid shill for two oil company funded "think tanks," one of which has a long history of lying about the link between tobacco and cancer.
He thing screams
>AD HOMINEM!!
when you point this out.
Do you not think that it's relevant that he's literally a paid shill?
>make your own conclusions
Do you not think that people should actually post their own arguments instead of posting YT videos in the place of an argument?

>>10751757
This guy posted a YouTube video of done by a paid shill for two oil company funded "think tanks," one of which has a long history of lying about the link between tobacco and cancer.
He then screams
>AD HOMINEM!!
when you point this out.
Do you not think that it's relevant that he's literally a paid shill?
>make your own conclusions
Do you not think that people should actually post their own arguments instead of posting YT videos in the place of an argument?

>>10751719
Let's just assume i have all arguments he has in the video

>>10751807
Then make one. Present it in your own words.

>>10751648
How are you supposed to get any papers posted if the scientific community at large believes evidence is incontrovertible..?

Can you name a single published study which is questioning global warming?

>>10751827
So.. the real scientists all think it's an open and shut issue, but this LITERAL PAID SHILL says that the real scientists are all full of crap and that it's all a big lie?

Let me ask you this anon: are you for real?

>>10751841
All I'm asking for is a published study which is arguing against climate change. Is that so odd to ask for?

>>10751864
The request is laughable.
Only total nutcases believe that there's no climate change.
Only fringe figures believe that humans aren't the cause of the current warming.
This is on the same level as asking for papers about how evolution isn't true, germs don't cause disease and the Earth is flat.

>>10745453
You know what will fix all this denial? Thirty more years of alarmists predictions that will have no chance of coming true.

>>10751864
Nobody argues against "climate change" because climate always changing. There is much debate over the extent to which humans are involved and if their involvement is good or bad. Yet all but outright denial is used to claim "consensus" which is then used by alarmists to promote the most extreme position.

>>10751630
>a Km radius meteor or basalt flood is worse so AGW isnt a problem is this really your argument?
As for the biosphere recovering a couple centuries after an extinction event I'll need a citation

>>10751891
>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Criteria is stricter than that.

>>10751877
Link one climate prediction published in a scientific journal that hasn't come true.
And not one with 50 letters criticizing it.

>>10751869
>The request is laughable.
Ad hominem
>Only total nutcases believe that there's no climate change.
Ad hominem
>Only fringe figures believe that humans aren't the cause of the current warming.
Ad hominem
>This is on the same level as asking for papers about how evolution isn't true
http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/jenkins.html
Criticism of The Origin of Species by Fleeming Jenkin

>germs don't cause disease
Can't find anything cuz what does this even mean?

>and the Earth is flat
This "theory" is over 2000 years old. If it's been proven for that long, it might be assumed as truth. Global warming though? That's what,100 years old? Where's the critical studies?

I tried to find the 3% which are against listed here https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html but I couldn't really find it and their arguments. I'm guessing that's intentional.

the only reason the ((scientists)) are finding evidence of ((climate change)) is that if they came out and told us the truth they would lose their funding. This whole myth is propagated so they can keep their jobs and eliminate american manufacturing power.

>>10751993
It's hard to fathom just how much of a retard you must be to actually believe this.

>>10752011
There's alternative facts all over the place that showing global warming is nothing more than Chinese propaganda to eliminate their competition.

>>10752028
>alternative facts
AKA lies.

>>10752028
Fuckin-ing kek

>>10745415
I just checked this:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publication/implications-of-proposed-co2-emissions-limitations/

And the temperature predictions seem accurate at least

>>10752028
>Influential Chinese commentators called efforts to limit emissions “a conspiracy by developed nations” to contain the Middle Kingdom’s development
lmao

>>10751899
>pretending public perception isn't the real target.

>>10752157
>well uh... you see I wasn't TALKING about what the SCIENCE says you see the media is more important

>>10751896
>Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al.
This is a circle jerk of self referential bullshit. Cook isn't even a scientist and only went back to get a degree in psychology after his climate crusade. He copied the work of another hack and all these hacks point to each others work as to why their bullshit must be correct.

>>10751877
Anon, oh, anon, they make predictions 100 years in the future, not 30. By then all the ones criticizing them will probably be dead by old age or simply won't care anymore cuz they're about to die of old age. It's perfect!

>>10752164
Nobody is talking about what the SCIENCE says. The alarmists run out to the media, the media reports whatever bullshit they say, then when a skeptic says "but that was bullshit" then the alarmists fall back on "well... but the SCIENCE never claimed it was true". No shit, Sherlock.

>>10745415
No matter what the temperature trends may be everyones going to be choking on microplastics and cancer soon enough.
>plastic was only invented in 1907
>oceans already contain more plastic than fish
>Yikes

>>10752273
>http://fortune.com/2016/03/14/plastic-eating-bacteria/

It's fine, calm down

>>10752281
Thats pretty neat but
>311 million tons of plastic/year
Those little fuckers better get to work

Qualitative chemistry on this subject is rarely if ever discussed simply because it is wrong. All mathematical models are thus invalid since premises are wrong. It is great for STEM employment, science funding and supercomputing so I pretend to be true believer anyways.

>>10751600
>global warming
>main impact on a local level
surely this has to be bait?

>>10752176
keep shifting those goalposts
we're on a science board we're talking about science not what your mom thinks about AGW

>>10752170
>ad hominem
>unable to refute any part of the paper
>similar studies reaching similar results as you would expect is somehow proof it's a lie
0/10 please try again.

>>10745453
Wrong. There are no stages. It's points 1-3 simultaneously in every adult conversation:
"There is no climate change, actual science does not support it. However if there were such an issue, contribution of rapid population growth and rising living standards in industrialising third world countries would make any effort west does alone futile. There is also that technological advances solve pollution issues, in regards to atmosphere ban on freons made possible by discovering their alternative for use in vital cold chain."

>>10752560
>There is no climate change, actual science does not support it.
literally a lie
> contribution of rapid population growth and rising living standards in industrialising third world countries would make any effort west does alone futile.
The west releases considerably more greenhouse gasses than third world nations right now which is what matters. It's incredibly important that we make non polluting technologies available and affordable to developing nations to ensure they can improve their standard of living without increasing emissions.
>There is also that technological advances solve pollution issues.
We have the technology, we just need economic incentives to make polluting options less attractive.
>in regards to atmosphere ban on freons made possible by discovering their alternative for use in vital cold chain.
We have all the technology we need to massively reduce emissions. The Montreal protocol is proof international regulations work, and are necessary.

>>10752632
>literally a lie
Nope. Qualitatively valid in vitro reproductible chemical model simply does not exist like it existed for interaction between freons and ozone which made rapid unanimous global action to ban those possible.

>west releases considerably more greenhouse gasses than third world nations right now
Correct because I forgot China is technically part of second world, wrong otherwise. Combined pollution of non-west 2nd+3rd world is bigger than 1st world west.

Rest we agree on.

>>10745415
It's nice that we're killing ourselves in order to post shit on 4chan or play videoshit.

>>10752679
>Nope. Qualitatively valid in vitro reproductible chemical model simply does not exist like it existed for interaction between freons and ozone which made rapid unanimous global action to ban those possible.
Oh great another idiot that thinks it's not science because he can't fit a 20Km gas column in his lab.

>Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
>https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

>Comparisons are made of the average spectrum of clear sky outgoing longwave radiation over the oceans in the months of April, May and June. Difference spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate.
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31589444_Comparison_of_spectrally_resolved_outgoing_longwave_data_between_1970_and_present

>Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes.
>http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.3867&rep=rep1&type=pdf

If climate change continues to be a problem. Deniers and malthusians ought to be the first ones to be sacrificed in downsizing efforts for being obstructionists.

>>10751477
> DYING!
What is your argument here? People literally have died due to climate change very recently as a result of the arab spring. To say nothing of all the other climate related deaths through humanities history.

>>10751688
Literally everyone cares, its the single biggest international political platform currently.

>>10752722
>Oh great another idiot that thinks it's not science because he can't fit a 20Km gas column in his lab.
Do you understand that it's daily routine to perform chemical in vitro experiments using small amount of reagents? Nothing you posted was relevant to this.

>>10751891
>et all but outright denial is used to claim "consensus"
This is untrue, the consensus figure doesnt include papers with no position which includes all papers that arent directly related to agw. There is a thread up about it right now.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Skeptical Chaos Theorist here, ready to debunk your myths. Ask me anything.

>>10752028
>chEYENAAA

>>10752170
So youre argument boils down to
>((((they))))
Glad we got that out in the open so that everyone knows to simply ignore you.

>>10752738
Oh great another idiot that thinks it's not science because he can't fit a 20Km gas column in his lab.

>>10752758
Hey schlomo, he didn't mention Jews. Glad we got that out in the open so that everyone can see through the psyops you're spamming on this board.

>>10752738
based denier stuck in the 1800s scientifically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Molecular_physics_of_radiant_heat

>>10752776
If I'm stuck in 1800s then are climate alarmists stuck in 1700s because that very basic in vitro chemistry study claimed climate change causes is nowhere to be found? I think they are. Perhaps even medieval. Anti-intellectual pseudo-scientific human trash, all of you.

>>10752775
i tend to use ((((they)))) as a catch all for conspiracy retards

>>10745415
my views?

Theres people who want to be extremely overpaid to study climate change.

Humans are increasing Co2


I'm all for going green, creating clean energy. its a must. I've got a question for /sci/. Say in the future, as 3rd world countries develop. Is it worth going to war with these countries if they don't follow guide-lines for being green? What do we do if they dont behave?


Theres always gonna be human nature to milk government funds or tax cuts, ask for more time.

Personality, i'd just set a challenge for everyone to compete, X-amount of reward for the winner in 2 years. Then everyone trys in the fastest amount of time, Public does the research and invest according as theres something to be loss.

>>10752783
empirical experimental evidence for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Including CO2, humans have massively increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Observations observe reduced outgoing radiation at exactly the absorption spike in CO2. This correlates exactly with increased global temperature. What's your malfunction?

>>10752842
Why can't you climate clowns read? I've said it at least five times now that basic reproducible routine in vitro chemistry experiment qualitatively proving any of that does not exist.

>>10752851
To clarify you are saying that no experiment exists that proves that CO2 molecules absorb more IR radiation than visible radiation?

Climate change isn’t real.
The world is just getting hotter because we are descending further into hell. The only solution is for everyone to become good white Christians.

>>10752875
a better argument than any other climate denier in the thread desu

>>10752851
Yes, you've repeated the same arbitrary demand for an impractical experiment without explaining why it's necessary, while ignoring the massive amount of evidence already proving what you claim hasn't been proven. For your persistence you win an all expenses paid trip back to where you belong >>>/x/.

>>10752868
That, plus the claimed effect of deflecting radiation to one direction only (back to planet surface) after bounce-from-surface while mysteriously letting it all in if no bounce-from-surface. Where are the basic reproducible in vitro lab experiments on that?

>>10752891
I assume none of those chemistry terms register in your brains at this point because you still don't understand what is asked there.

If you can’t prove to ME that climate change is real, then you can’t claim its real, as it is still unreal from my equivalent point of view, and therefore your claim must be false.

>>10752905
>https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2013/cp/c3cp50279a?page=search
one of hundreds of experiments empirically proving the absorption spectrum of CO2. Why do you pretend to be an expert when you've clearly never even googled this?
> the claimed effect of deflecting radiation to one direction only (back to planet surface) after bounce-from-surface while mysteriously letting it all in if no bounce-from-surface.
This is just a complete misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. That displays your incredible ignorance of the whole topic. At this point I'm not sure if I should spoonfeed you like a fucking child. Or tell you to google it yourself and stop wasting my time.

>>10745415
>not believing in complete catastrophic scenarios makes you a denier

>>10752919
Is this the millennial snowflake I'm special worldview I've heard so much?

>>10750232
>>denialist posts this in every climate change thread thinking it will convince someone
I'm a skeptic, not a "denialist".

>>10752943
maybe by the philosophical definition

>>10745415
>What do you think about climate change?
proof that terraforming is not only possible but it's easy
>You opinion about it's deniers?
I think the nuclear power deniers that have been around for the past 50 years are sad and pathetic, and borderline criminals.

>>10752928
What you now presented is just a novel method for study of CO2 phases. What part of my request is unclear? No need to get angry, I know it's frustrating when what you assume is basic bitch science all the rest is built on simply does not exist, don't take it on me.

>>10752910
Oh wow CHEMISTRY TERMS. Well this changes everything.

>>10752967
it's an experiment measuring the absorption spectrum of CO2 at different pressures and temperatures you have the fucking reading comprehension of a fucking 1st grader and you expect me to take you seriously?

>>10752967
>i can't read so you're wrong

>climate change
because it never changed before, right?
>no longer global warming
how convenient

>>10752943
You're denying the conclusions of the science, aren't you? A real skeptic would say that he doesn't know and would actually look at the evidence instead of what you're doing.

Reminder that if climate change is false we get to laugh at liberals.
And if climate change is true we get to roast liberals.
Literally cannot lose this one maga.

>>10753033
This level of retardation is amazing. Are you a literal child?
Nobody has ever claimed that the climate doesn't naturally change. You completely missed the point and built yourself an absurd strawman to knock down so you can congratulate yourself for knocking down your own fiction.

>>10753037
>You're denying the conclusions of the science, aren't you?
Climatologists do not use the scientific method.

>>10753250

>>10745580
>>10746489
>It's not and it's melting is accelerating.

>>10745453
I deny (1), (2) and (3), but accept (4). I also accept 'acceptance'. Rate me on a scale of 1-10 as you would your Tinder date.

>>10745415
>You opinion about it's deniers?
deniers =retards and coal/oil industry shills

>>10746322
these geoid changes will also trigger strong earthquakes in areas where people are not used to earthquakes

The ultimate end of this climate change argument is whether or not to hand out gibs. It’s literally all about the gibs.

>>10753012
No need to get angry for your own double failure of first not providing what was requested and then failing to read abstract of your own proofs. Chill. I'll be waiting for that research that never existed.

>>10755509
This is correct, there is entire cottage industry that has spawned around this, and if research gibs are not given to third-rate academic failures who can't get employed on private sector, they start campaigning like "whyy dont u care about mother earth this is super cereal :'("

I'd be okay with that as a STEM myself but this prank has gone too far now that they are beginning to justify infinite rapid population replacement in white countries by guilt tripping west with this "there will be beeellion climate refugeees by next week and its your fault white people take them all in and gib infinite gibs" which has made it dangerous and needs to be ended.

>>10753250
>Climatologists do not use the scientific method.

>>10752905
>That, plus the claimed effect of deflecting radiation to one direction only (back to planet surface) after bounce-from-surface while mysteriously letting it all in if no bounce-from-surface. Where are the basic reproducible in vitro lab experiments on that?

>Lmao how can the sky be blue when the light that comes from the Sun is YELLOW DURRR

that's what you sound like

>>10755153
Wow look one year of increased ice! That'll surely convince everyone!

Tax scam that preys on recency bias. Earth’s climatic cycles are more influenced by cosmological and terrestrial processes and are certainly not able to be determined by the 100-200 years of data that we have. In typical human hubris we believe that we are the apex of everything and can drastically sway natural phenomomena.

At the same time warmer climate will only mean more prosperity for man. I don’t know how you fathom that it is better to be colder than warmer considering how much we rely on certain crops to maintain our existence. That said I am all for cracking down on pollution for the health of the biosphere. Honestly that means the eradication of India and Africa but that’s ok with me.

>>10755546
Not an answer to question.

>>10755595
You literally want people to articulate the basic concept behind the greenhouse effect to you, I doubt any answer I could give you would be sufficient. That said, here's the explanation:

>the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.

>Where are the basic reproducible in vitro lab experiments on that?
It's called a FUCKING GREENHOUSE.

>>10755522
This was actually my mistake as I assumed I was talking to someone with at least a junior high school understanding of chemistry. As you're clearly ignorant we'll have to establish what exactly you know and don't know in order to have a productive conversation. So in your own words please explain what the absorption spectrum of a gas represents. Then what the greenhouse effect is, and finally how the two relate directly to each other. If you honestly don't know that's fine but please take the 5 minutes to google it and get back to me. Once we've established exactly what you do and don't know of elementary concepts we can get back to the topic of experimental evidence.

>>10745453
completely retarded statement. So I could claim: "People of this color are not as smart as people of this color" and whoever says otherwise is in a state of denial. No way I'm wrong, he's just in this first stage of coping

>>10755675
You can actually see people go through 1-3 in virtually every climate thread on /sci/ it's super entertaining.

>>10755680
you could do that with any stupid statement. Like the one that I laid in the previous post.
First reaction is always: "no they're not less intelligent" and if i say "yeah they are" second is always "you're a racist pig, fuck off". After you lay down some "iq statistics" people will go "so what, those tests are geared towards that way of thinking"
you could literally see stages 1-3 in any argument and doesn't prove anything

>>10755675
Well you are forgetting that we have scientific evidence that guarantees that one side is right and one side is wrong. It's black on white. There's no question that denialists are wrong.

>>10755736
oh I'm not getting into climate change as such, just the fact that "if you deny something you're wrong" is not a valid statement

>>10745415
I like it
I love it
I want some more of it

>>10755745
If you deny something that is true you're wrong though and that's a completely valid statement.

How is climate change even a problem hahaha
just move inland faggot, the coasts will follow you and winter sucks less. I'm gonna go outside and vent some greenhouse gasses right now to help speed this shit up, I'm sick of snow and polar bears can get fucked.

>>10755755
if I deny it'll make any difference you can not prove me wrong. Since no one actually knows what will happen. You can guess and have a high probability something will happen, but that's it. If we're going to claim "something is OBVIOUSLY right because it's most probable" then we wouldn't exist. How probable is it really that some random non-living things would combine and produce a living thing that would evolve over a loooong period of time to become sentient. YEAAAAAH RIGHT that's probable! Remember, you can not PROVE things will happen, just give the most probable outcomes. If I'm not wrong in 0,000001 % of times, I might just not be wrong, we'll see

>>10746331
The 3rd derivative

>>10755781
>increasing the percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere significantly will increase the average temperature of the planet.
>YOU CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE WHAT IF A GIANT ALIEN SPACE SHIP PARKS IN FRONT OF THE SUN, OR A MEGAVOLCANOE ERUPTS BLOTTING OUT THE SUN WITH ASH, OR THE SUN WERE TO COLLAPSE INTO A BLACK HOLE FOR NO DISCERNIBLE REASON ALL THESE THINGS ARE TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE SO YOU CAN'T PROVE THE EARTH WILL WARM!!!!! SCIENCEKEK DESTROYED!!!!!

>>10755807
Define "significant"

>>10755813

>>10755813
Before you post something really stupid I'll just leave this here to save you the embarrassment.

>>10755807
you're not just saying that. give me the whole thought process. that's just the first step. now go from there to the fact we're all extinct. It's not really that direct of a line.

>>10755814
>>10755818
Why so hostile? I just got here.
I HOPE the climate is warming, I only get like 4 warm months a year. I'm perfectly happy with coasties getting btfo if it gives me an extra month of summer, get fucked florida.

>>10755614
Greenhouses are confined spaces with transparent glass or plastic panels covering all of it. Surely even you understand that is not the case for our atmosphere.

>>10755671
>what the absorption spectrum of a gas represents
I don't know how that works on atomic level.

>what the greenhouse effect is
Hypothesis that atmosphere works like greenhouse.

>how the two relate directly to each other
Further hypothesis that radiation makes some atoms do greenhouse.

>>10755954
How does that change anything at all? We basically DO have a cover over our planet's atmosphere - gravity. It can only reach so far and as such there is a GREENHOUSE effect produced. Air confined around a planet because of its gravity is basically the same as being contained within glass, as it cannot travel anywhere else, almost in the same fashion as inside a greenhouse. Maybe that's why it's called the greenhouse effect..?

With that now in your thick skull, perhaps you can understand why an amount of air billions of times larger than that of a greenhouse can create the same effect, on a much larger scale.

>>10755954
>I don't know how that works on atomic level.
This is the part you have to know, by the way. Different gases are better at storing IR (heat) than others, which is why the greenhouse gases (such as CO2, abundantly produced by humans around the world) are the ones we need to cut down on.

Think about how many planes, cars, boats, rockets, and buses actually exist on Earth. Think about how much they get used, every day, and they basically have been since they were invented. For the longest time, we had no idea there was a problem with the waste emissions (or didn't care). That's going to build up. We know that the Earth is normally a slow motherfucker. Ice ages last thousands of years and tectonic plates move one centimetre every year. Glaciers move ever so slowly, as well. The planet usually isn't rushed when it comes to this kind of thing - which is exactly why we believe life could exist here in the first place, because of the right conditions forming ever so gradually over time. The Earth has been around for a long time. This much of a change this quickly cannot simply be "the Earth changing how the Earth changes". It isn't a coincidence that the gas that holds a lot of heat, which is produced as a waste product by 7.5 billion individuals on a large scale every day for decades, is warming the planet's atmosphere. Neither is it a huge leap to then investigate and discover that this has affected the planet's natural climate pattern (since even children know that warm air rises and this is partly the cause of storms). Now that we have overwhelming evidence this is true, why are you so resistant to understanding that?
Warming can positively affect crop growth in some places, but in others, this is detrimental. The only place that benefits from these warming changes are... oh dear.
Russia.

>>10755570
>Earth’s climatic cycles are more influenced by cosmological and terrestrial processes and are certainly not able to be determined by the 100-200 years of data that we have.
Then how do you know it's far more influenced by cosmological and terrestrial processes?

>In typical human hubris we believe that we are the apex of everything and can drastically sway natural phenomomena.
It's directly observed. The only hubris here is your own in thinking you can ignore all evidence.

>At the same time warmer climate will only mean more prosperity for man. I don’t know how you fathom that it is better to be colder than warmer considering how much we rely on certain crops to maintain our existence.
This is like saying that eating more food can't be bad because we rely on food to live. This is not aresponse to the fact that eating too much too quickly can be bad, can have other effects besides nutrition, and can harm one's health.

>>10755595
>answer my loaded questions and defend my strawmen NOW REEEEEEEEE

>>10745502
On this board, more like 90% are contrarians and 10% are retarded enough to believe the contrarians

>>10756006
Well it's not exactly the same since a greenhouse works by blocking heat from traveling via convection. It stops the air containing heat from flowing out. The greenhouse effect on the other hand stops heat from escaping via radiation, not by the movement of air out of the atmosphere. They are only vaguely analogous.

>>10752905
>That, plus the claimed effect of deflecting radiation to one direction only
This is a strawman. Greenhouse gases reflect heat in every direction. Since heat originates from the Earth and travels away from it, reflecting it in every direction sends some of it back towards the Earth when otherwise it would all have escaped. Before it was heat radiating from Earth it was visible light from the Sun, which greenhouse gases don't reflect. So yes, greenhouse gases let energy come in to the atmosphere but keep some of it from leaving. This is all based on fundamental chemistry, proven in lab experiments and directly observed in the atmosphere. The fact that you don't understand the most basic concepts of what you are discussing shows how dishonest you're being. Get off this board.

Climate change, how humans call it, existed for how long this planet exist, but humans accelerate the process, that's it. We can't do shit right now to change it, we don't have the technnology. And until some 200 IQ guy come with a new Source of energy, people are just talking. And the people who protest in the streets are just idiots who waste time. We can't change an entire country over 10 years if we don't have some alternatives to Energy for example, and people are afraid of Nuclear because reasons.
Lastly, climate change is being used by smart guys to make money and the government to raise taxes or add new taxes.

>>10755814
why aren't we seeing a 6 Celsius rise in temperature with that amount of co2. the climate must not be that sensitive to carbon.

>>10756075
We already have the solution: carbon tax + nuclear and renewables

>hurr tax bad
>hurr nuclear bad
Not an excuse if you don't compare it to the effects of unmitigated global warming.

>>10756077
>why aren't we seeing a 6 Celsius rise in temperature with that amount of co2.
Why would we? All you have are straw men and red herrings, you're a pathetic retard.

>>10745415
it's happening, we're at fault, but i don't care and politicians and so-called "activists" don't care either. what I know also is that somewhere someone is making boatloads of money off the hype for the upcoming apocalypse.

>>10756243
t. snake oil salvation salesman

>>10756281
straight to meaningless namecalling, typical.

>>10756285
meh. thats what you are though...
just another scumball seeing a lucrative opportunity for yourself, claiming to be some kind of saviour, while you dig us all into a deeper

>>10756075
we >had< nuclear

>>10756247
don't be mean

>>10756300
Free market killed that off pretty well didn't it?

>>10745415
deniers are like anti-vaxxers. they're what happens when the public loses trust in it's political caste because its obviously gone completely bonkers.

>>10753033
It is still global warming. Both terms are applicable to the modern warming trend. Yet another denialist canard.

>>10745782
oh i guess that makes it ok then

>>10756387
I think climate denialism is really more of a stunning example of how effective piggybacking on tribalist partisanship is. Trying to convince people of an idea that directly contradicts strong evidence would normally be very difficult, but when you attach that idea to their political identity then they'll happily abandon reason to defend it.

>>10747360
>66% probability
>thats almost a coin toss
Protip: don't ever gamble, Anon.

>>10757114
Shhhhh I'm trying to take him to vegas

>>10752788
Backpedaling Moshe

>>10757527
How is that backpedaling?

>>10756549
Yep, there were many studies that showed that linking ideas to politics immediately leads to heavy bias.

>>10752965
>proof that terraforming is not only possible but it's easy
I like the way you think! goddamn why isnt this a reason to bombard mars with ice comets?

>>10752749
Okay, explain how climate change relates to chaos theory.

>>10756294
>majority school of economic thought is that carbon taxes are the way to go
>nuclear energy provides large scale power generation with no intermittency issues

Snakeoil doesnt mean what you think it means. Additionally, that you dont understand something doesnt make it false, my toddler nephew has superior reasoning skills.