/sci/ - Science & Math

Real

>>10749248
Source? Make an argument, because /pol/ showed me a bunch of infographics showing the change is insignificant over time, all predictions have fallen short, data is sometimes made to fit projections, greenland is barely melting at all etc.

>>10749252
Click on the sticky's link.

>>10749252
It's very real, and scary. According to the IPCC, we basically need to have 0 carbon emission in 2050 to stay below a 2 degrees warming. Wer'e fucked.

>>10749246
how many more global warming threads are you going to create? ffs just stay in one thread, make global warming general or something

>>10749252
>because /pol/ showed me a bunch of infographics
Wew, lad. Look up the source material and read what assumptions they make. None of them account for drought, floods, severe weather, mass migration, or the inevitable extinctions that will threaten entire ecosystems.

>>10749265
Sounds like leftist alarmism, all previous predictions have failed and it seems like an attempt to make solar power more desirable. Soros has literally funded politicians to lie about how extreme it is

>>10749275
>all previous predictions have failed
such as? be specific

>>10749277

>>10749274
See this. I haven't seen anyone refute it

>>10749293
Actually that fish suffocating one is true. We have vast stretches of oxygenless patches in the ocean and it's causing fish to decrease in mass and blood oxygen levels. Also, I doubt most of those predictions were made by actual scientists.

>>10749293
so your source is a facebook meme? that's about the level of discourse I expected from you.

>>10749296
So you haven't been to https://skepticalscience.com/

>>10749293
Literally half of those are true

>>10749312
Nothing there for that particular infographic

>>10749296
That's because it's nonsense

>>10749313
Like global cooling?

>>10749317
Not an argument, all the charts are sourced studies

>>10749296
>>/sci/thread/9299864#p9303365

>>10749321
a handful of papers that were ripped apart by climatologists that the media hyped for ratings.

>>10749321
Global cooling is a very real part of climate change primarily driven by global dimming. It's magnitude is smaller than that of global warming and so we experience a net warming.

>>10749330
Hmm quite a lot of papers about cooling at the beginning there though eh?

>>10749316
Are you being retarded on purpose? The infographic is just a bunch of unrelated points that are all refuted on skeptical science.

>>10749316
Goalposts.

>>10749338
Refute the points directly rather than just stating the opposite

>>10749325
cherrypicking.

>>10749296
>>/sci/thread/9413484#p9414382

>>10749336
two in a year is a lot to you?

>>10749345
See the bigger picture, there is no severe warming

>>10749325
They're cherry picked graphs from dozens of sources with nonsense interpretations tacked on. If this is how you form your opinions then you're in the wrong place and you probably wanted >>>/facebook/ or >>>/reddit/

>>10749342
The site refutes all of those points directly, either counterargue or shut the fuck up.

>>10749272
denialists prefer to make a new thread to spew their lies in, until the /sci/ anons show up and obliterate their arguments, rinse and repeat

>>10749344
Unsourced response

>>10749355
Gish gallop, show me directly or fuck off

>>10749351
How is your graph not just counter cherrypicking?

>>10749293
>anti-environmentalists taking credit for improved air quality
what a joke

>>10749360
What is wrong in the response?

>>10749350

>>10749357
Oh look, (((scientists))) frequently lowering their predictions

>>10749364
>posts a gish gallop and demands a response
>is given a website that responds to every argument in it
>cries gish gallop
You are one hypocritical retard.

>>10749372
>my graph says otherwise so yours' must be wrong
Leftist logic everyone

>>10749325
Now note how entirely inconsistent this graph is with the other one. This graph has more data supporting it, but more importantly, proxy reconstructions have accuracy issues that prevent them from being as informative to understanding the modern warming as denialists want them to be.

>>10749368
Climate alarmists frequently make false predictions

>>10749380
>This graph has more data supporting it
Proof?

>>10749382
And yet the evidence clearly shows that warming is occurring and human activity is the principal cause. Failed prophecy matters less to the understanding than hard evidence, unless you are a climate denialist.

>>10749386
Climate alarmists just can't make good arguments

>>10749386
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

sources listed here

>>10749389
Why should i trust the data when scientists frequently lie

>>10749382
>not a single reference to a study
garbage.

>>10749393
Hmmm leave something out did we?
Perspective

>>10749246
Just wait and see ;^)

>>10749373
Scafetta literally cherry-picked the studies for that one; he chose old studies that came up with high values and new studies that came up with low values. Most importantly, though, the lines drawn on that figure aren't the result of an actual regression.

>>10749402
Nice source

>>10749394
Of course, once empiricism has been asserted as the correct approach to understanding something like climatology, denialists shift from complaining about irrelevant failed prophecy to baselessly asserting that all of the evidence is fraudulent. A frequent favorite are the "climategate " e-mails, where the "scandal" amounts to nothing more than denialists failing to understand what a discussion of corrections to systematic errors look like, as well as not understanding the empirical basis and validity of systematic error adjustment.

>>10749321
>I believe 1970's time magazine over current science

>>10749408
When can we trust (((scientists)))

Polar ice caps melting 70 years sooner than expected

>>10749396
This graph is also entirely consistent with the AGW theory. In fact, the modern temperature anomaly is plotted on that very graph, and the rapid temperature change is readily apparent.

>>10749376
>You are one hypocritical retard.
Or a smart person with malintent.

>>10749412
Uh gore said they would be gone by 2013

>>10749418
>not a scientist said something
Even when denialists don't believe a thing how can they still appeal to authority?

>>10749428

>>10749405
Nice cherrypicking.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3017

>>10749416
If he was smart he would have better arguments so that he wouldn't get constantly BTFO and lose all credibility.

>>10749438
How is your one any better, it's just "nuh uh mine better"

>>10749444
Because it includes studies that Scafetta ignored on purpose. Scafetta has 5 studies between 2000 and 2005. Fucking hilarious.

>>10749444
That's up to the people interested in the facts to read both and decide for themselves. Or, for you two to argue out the details. Not all sources are created equal.

>>10749436

>>10749461
Still no one has directly refuted >>10749296

>>10749367
How about because yours cut off several decades? I call that intellectual dishonesty

>>10749296
>>10749321
>>10749325
>>10749336
>>10749342
>>10749350
>>10749360
>>10749364
>>10749367
>>10749373
>>10749378
>>10749386
>>10749390
>>10749394
>>10749411
>>10749436
>he accuses others of gish gallop

>>10749465
GISH
A
L
L
O
P

Get out of here with your nonsense.

>>10749468
Nice argument

>>10749367
inconfuckingveniencefacts.com

>>10749465
Directly refuted by >>10749312 >>10749327 and >>10749344

You have refuted... none of them. And now you're lying about it.

>>10749470
>>10749364
>It's OK for me to falsely accuse others of gish gallop but when I do it it's fine

>>10749473
I'm not reading all that shit just to find something that refutes every single chart

>>10749465
Refuting that would be pointless makework like refuting creationism

>>10749477
OK,

>>10749465

>Human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
>Ignores that natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, while humans don't.

>CO2 lags temperature by 800-2000 years
Of course it does, if orbital eccentricity causes insolation to increase, then warming starts the feedback loop between warming and CO2 evaporating from the oceans. The climate has never had humans dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus we have never seen CO2 start to increase before temperature, until now! Do you think climatologists don't already know this? Do you not realize that without this feedback loop you cannot explain the Milankovich cycle? No of course not, you have no idea what your idiotic memes are even implying.

>The models are wrong
Actually the data is wrong. Several sources of error were discovered in the satellite techniques since 2009 and they are now much more in line with the instrumental data. To see how well the IPCC is doing I suggest you look at current updates:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
And? The problem with global warming is not that it's warm, it's that it's warming very quickly. The rate of warming is unprecedented and the infrastructure and ecosystems we rely on have no time to adapt. Also, you do know that ice cores are proxies for the temperature in a single place, not the global climate right?

And last but not least another fraudulent graph, using flawed, cherrypicked data and not even showing surface temperature.

>>10749477
Your ignorance is your problem. Someone was nice enough to lead you to water, now drink or fuck off.

>>10749479
>only one source

>>10749482
>no sources at all
Good job denialtard.

>>10749477
>I'll post a gish gallop of charts
>but I refuse to look at their refutations
>even though they were given to me in a searchable list AND in posts directly refuting the chart itself.
You are a hypocrite and you lost.

>>10749272
Essentialist shill strategy is to make a thread and then try to flood it to pretend like public opinion is denial even though it obviously isn't.

>>10749386
source of pic? why is it literally impossible to get the data of your graphs?

>>10749490
https://realclimatescience.com/corruption-of-the-us-temperature-record/

>>10749336
>July 3rd
>max temp
>US
A bunch of arbitrary choices that only serve the purpose of cherrypicking a specific result. Why not just show global average annual temperatures? Because it doesn't show what you want it to.

>>10749274
>Look up the source material
>every infograph on this board today about global warming is an unsourced coloring book map as op
>there's like 5 of them
if /pol/ tried to pull this shit you'd rightfully blow your lid. you demand 25 different redundant citations and still just dismiss it but it's okay to post the garbage that is ops pic

>>10749350
>Not global but labeled as global
>x axis labeled incorrectly, data ends at 1855, completely missing modern warming yet labeled as if it shows warming.
The best part is that the poster surely knows this since this graph has been debunked so many times, yet he posts it anyway knowing it's wrong.

>>10749296
Do you know how a line of best fit works? Elementary school stuff.

>>10749498
>it but it's okay to post the garbage that is ops pic
OP is the one spamming this thread.

what warming trend?

>>10749502
Nice unsourced claims

>>10749507
It doesn't take an academic source to apply scientific reasoning to a presented graph.

>>10749506
Now widen that for a million years

>>10749246
has anyone else wonder if Venus once had an advanced civilization on it that brought themselves to extinction by causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

>>10749509
You're making claims that the graph is lying with no proof

>>10749497
so exactly like the unsourced op pic that looks like it was made for a third grade science class?
>here's what happens in a 30 yr span based off another 30 yr span with an 80 year gap in between

>>10749477
>refute this
>meh I don‘t care that you actually refuted it, I believe what I want

how much time left anons?

>>10749514
not the same anon

Compare it with >>10749380 , it's obvious the MWP peak in >>10749350 is exaggerated for Greenland relative to the global mean. The graph is presented as "global" by the denialist markings on it, but clearly says "Greenland" in the original title. That doesn't take a source to point out.

>>10749498
You can search images nowadays and oftentimes the source is in the filenames. When /pol/ posts shit we find the source and point out the flaws. Why is it exactly that you can't do the same?

>>10749364
>percentage of CO2 of total atmospheric gases is somehow relevant
>shows CO2 measurements using flawed methods from the 19th century
Just stop.

>>10749537
Not an argument

>>10749512
If you have a graph you are free to post it and explain to me how you managed to successful argue against the scientific consensus and how you are now a Noble Prize laureate and enjoy a tenure from Princeton for your earth shattering discovery.

>>10749367
>another mislabeled ice core graph
>this time they acknowledge 0 = 1950 but don't realize the data ends before 0
>then adds random greenland temperature without making sure it's from the same site

>>10749545
Appeal to authority fallacy

>>10749537
it also completely ignores things like ice cores, tree rings, sediment deposits etc which all collaborate CO2 as being between 180-280PPM for the last 800k years

>>10749542
Ignoring the argument doesn't make it go away.

>>10749550
It's not a fallacy you complete imbecile. It how science works.

>>10749507
https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

Your next response will be
>I'm not reading that

>>10749492
first sources confirms global warming
>nasa did the obvious thing and altered the data
no shit, the uncertainty decreased, averages remained even on the shitty gif, the site you sourced used different axes limits, the values are up to error margins the same

do I need to go on?

>>10749557
Graph here >>10749325 >>10749336 >>10749342 >>10749350
Climate alarmists still can't directly refute
These infographics with sources

ALL ANY OF YOU ITT HAVE DONE IS MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT HOW THE GRAPHS ARE WRONG
NO ONE HAS YET DIRECTLY REFUTED THEM

Look faggots. I'm sorry about the whole climate change thing, but green politics is for libshits and I'm a Conservative. Ain't gonna happen that I ever side with a libshit. Just being honest.

>>10749560
Hahahahahaha check the comments, your leftist blog post gets utterly BTFO

>>10749518
>so exactly like the unsourced op pic
Hmmm you're going to have to explain that since the pic in OP is global, uses average temperature, and has long spans of time instead of an arbitrary date. Or you could just admit that you're a dumb piece of shit grasping at straws.

>>10749542
yes an argument, 2 actually

>>10749566
You are not intellectually honest so there is no point in engaging with you.

>>10749572
>check the comments
>a handful of deniers posting irrelevant arguments and getting destroyed
OK, thanks for admitting defeat.

>>10749582
Because you've been thoroughly BTFO ITT by the ton of evidence posted and can't argue
All you've done is say "wah that data bad"
Imagine my shock /pol/ was right again

>>10749386
>maximum temperatures
Why? No reason.

>Temperature averaged across stations and not across space
Why? No reason.

>>10749588
See >>10749390

>>10749336
Shows exactly how the data was manipulated by that utter retard tony heller
>https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/

>>10749589
What the fuck are you talking about? If you have counter evidence then why aren't you presenting it in a paper and claiming world fame?

I'm sure the oil companies alone would be paying you billions to publish conclusive disprove of climate change.

You could be a billionaire and attain immortality in the sciences. Go on then, do it.

>>10749342
refutes this idiocy easily
>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

>>10749593
>>10749600
See >>10749390 and >>10749378

>>10749589
>ignores that data could actually be bad

>>10749614
Not relevant to why what I responded to was garbage how about we discuss one thing at a time?

>>10749614
Are you at all concerned about the lack of consistency in your graphs that supposedly "debunk" climate change?

>>10749615
>the jews have taken over every single weather monitoring station on the planet and altered past and present records and murdered anyone who noticed all in order to sell solar panels.

>>10749625
I wonder if they get paid in hours or per post

>>10749411
>UHI is 1-3.5 degrees in NY because I said so
Incorrect of course.
http://www.theurbanclimatologist.com/uploads/4/4/2/5/44250401/gaffinetal2008nycuhiandtemptrends.pdf

>NOAA adjusts the data by cooling the past
Incorrect of course.

Do you enjoy getting completely BTFO?

>>10749632
this kind of stupidity only works for free

>>10749632
I wish they got paid. These morons work for free because their friend shared some "they don't want you to see this" meme on Facebook and that made them an expert.

>>10749628
>Russia wants climate change because it will be a boon for the Siberian agriculture ministry and sends denial shills all over the internet to sow doubt.

>>10749643
or he's just an idiot which by Occam's razor...

>>10749632
>he thinks /pol/tards get paid for it
I fear that he's really just that stupid. I don't even think he's looked at these graphs he's copy-pasted from /pol/, because they all contradict eachother.
Plus all the proper arguments are on >>/sci/thread/9299864#p9303365

HEY /POL/TARD; POSTING FANCY GRAPHS DOES NOT MEAN YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY CORRECT.
COMPILE ALL YOUR STOLEN CLIMATE DENIAL GENERAL-GRAPHS INTO A REPORT AND YOUR NOBEL PRIZE SHOULD BE RIPE FOR THE TAKING, RIGHT?

>>10749592
>HURR data coverage can't improve over time
>DURR just ignore how the result was created and only look at one source
>HUUURRRRRRR compare Northern Hemisphere temperature to global

>>10749628
oh vey

>>10749592
I like how you have not responded to a single argument in this thread. Apparently you are only capable of copying and pasting images you don't even understand.

>>10749246

I hope it's real. I hate humanity.

Ok leftist shills, debunk this then

>>10749680
the final graph shows the anomalously rapid rate of warming compared to the natural rates of variation

>>10749680
Why? You've only responded to our arguments with "I don't trust your source" and more unrelated crummy graphs. Why should we keep entertaining you?
You can't argue with a /pol/tard because you end up with situations like this thread
Also
>debunk this then leftist shills
>leftists
>on 4chan
Just people with common sense and knowledge of how the world works. Back to you containment board now faggot, it was created for a reason.
>>>/pol/

>>10749684
No it doesn't and it doesn't compare to earlier periods

>>10749697
Nice refutation pal

>>10749680
>who cares about worldwide scientific consensus when you can have some screenshots from /pol/

>>10749704
What implied that I wanted to "refute" your copy-pasted lies?
The fact that you have posed not a single argument yourself in this entire thread, just copy-pasting questionable graphs, is a good indication that you haven't really thought about climate change yourself. You're just blindly following whatever /pol/ throws at you, while willfully ignoring all the evidence ITT and linked ITT.

>>10749708
Appeal to authority
Directly refute all the evidence or fuck off

>>10749728
I don't think you know what that means. You have been appealing to authority this entire thread

>>10749680
1. Tell me what's the average rate of change for this graph? Compare it to current warming.
2.too low resolution to draw any meaningful conclusions. Once again what is the average rate of change in the graph? Compared to current change.
3.comparing current sea levels to glacial sea levels is meaningless. When when billions in property damage can occur from only a few meters. Notice the scale is in intervals of 20m to hide current change.
4.I love this one, It's comparing models predicting blended mean land sea temp globally vs reading in the mid troposphere only in the tropics, utterly meaningless.
5. The Earth was steadily cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase estimated to to occur in about 1500 years instead we're warming at an unprecedented rate.
7.Once again another average rate of change problem.

>>10749728
>blind copy paste from a board with a history of faking all kinds on things, on a subject you have no personal experience with is ok!
>when you tell me to release these dumb infographics to the scientific community that's appeal to authority, not ok!
>>>/pol/ tards really have a hard time arguing outside their echo chamber, it appears. Read your own board's sticky for Christ's sake.

>>10749732
The sea levels have been rising for thousands of years

>>10749477
holy shit
typical conspiracy faggot

>>10749680
>But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever
We know humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere via isotope analysis and we can directly observe the warming from this increase in CO2 via radiative spectroscopy. It's not simply that there is evidence of it, it's well proven in a variety of ways. The fact that this image is begun with such a baldfaced lie means that the rest is not even worth responding to. Either defend your lies or fuck off.

>>10749745
Nice source

>>10749728
In this thread alone, you're guilty of appeal to authority, ambiguity, the fallacy fallacy, texas sharpshooter fallacy, anecdotal fallacy and false cause
That's just from skimming the /pol/ sticky image, which a newfag like you has obviously never read

Alarmist claims debunked

>>10749752
Forgot pic

>>10749738
That's all you have to say? LOL
See end of ice age

Why is the poltard asking for source while presenting none and outright ignoring sourcelinks?
cause he is baiting everyone here

>>10749760
Wow fuck off

>>10749749
>https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
>https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

>>10749759
>>10749749

>>10749763
All of my graphs are sourced

>>10749759
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

>>10749766
That's like the third time you post these exaxt graphs, all of which have been already been debunked or linked to a debunking.
Find some better material or go BACK to your containment >>>/pol/

>>10749775
See pic

>>10749780
Where has it been debunked?

>>10749774
>my

>>10749763
He might be affraid and just praying someone in this threads says theres still hope.

>>10749774
you not even clicked one link in this thread and I bet my arsehole that the same goes for ""your"" graph sources

>>10749785
ITT, or better yet, you can google it! Arguments for days
>>10749781
Literally not an argument

>>10749781
>no source
and ignored
>>10749372
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

>>10749781
Where the fuck is the Y axis?

>>10749781
>that pic
>no y axis
Google the names on that pic to find out how much of a fucking retard you are for posting this

Wow, I'm the only one who has post copious amounts of graphs all concurring that climate change isn't real
Must be a shock for you to have your first debate with a conservative who doesn't fit your redneck stereotype and uses irrefutable facts based on scientific meta analyses

>>10749781
Look up those "climatologists" if you want a good laugh. Even /x/ wouldn't want them.
for the graph:no Y-axis and graph filled with unconnected data, who knows if the temperature data is even correct.

>>10749818
>those fags don't even know what IPCC stands for
let that sink in

>>10749823
oh look, greenland is stable

>>10749822
it exactly fits with my view of conservatives that you're regurgitating shitty info graphics from facebook and /pol/ and are completely unable to argue any points on your own, read citations easily proving how your copy pasted info graphics are pure fraud or even notice that there's absolutely no consistency in any 'data' you've shat out all over the thread.

>>10749822
OH NO NO NO HE ACTUALLY SAID IT LOOK AT THIS DUDE AHAHAHAHA
fyi the image of the typical /pol/tard isn't a dumb redneck, but a suburban cringy virgin who's been brainwashed by shitty /pol/ memes. Only to then get into debates where they ignore all the evidence posted while spamming faulty graphs made in MsWord.
USE GOOGLE
/POL/ GRAPHS ARE NOT A REAL SOURCE
CHECK YOUR SOURCES
this is exactly the reason why Moot made /pol/, so you cringelords would stop shitting up every other board.

>>10749836
>non-whites have the most polluted air
Imagine my shock that (((they))) push alarmism so much in white countries

>>10749831
>>10749798

>>10749839
nice red herring what does this have to do with climate change?

>>10749831
Debunked here https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
Actually properly read it this time okay?
Afterwards you can ask questions

>>10749839
>industrialising countries pollute more than post-industrial countries
Image my shock. Why's this relevant to the discussion again?

>>10749246
>There are /pol/tards that unironically believing global warming is fake
Humans deserve to be extinct

>>10749842
>>10749843
See pic
I've posted so much that debunks yoir alarmism and all you have are unsourced two sentence replies
And wtf, why is every poster here shilling climate change

>>10749839
Now post per capita

>>10749857
Fuck off kike

>>10749853
Did you read https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm though? What'd you think of it? Doesn't this debunking seriously diminish the believability of your graphs from here on?
For your shitty graph, see https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1736
It's all lies and deception hiding behind fun lines and colours.

>>10749839
Oh yeah all that industry going on in the middle of the goddamn Sahara.

>>10749866
Post the carbon footprint per capita graph, incel. Cmon, I know you can do it. Carbon footprint is the reason why "tha jooz r targeting muh aryan white countries"

>>10749870
Ok, play time's over
>The Approaching New Grand Solar Minimum and Little Ice Age Climate Conditions
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284205134_The_Approaching_New_Grand_Solar_Minimum_and_Little_Ice_Age_Climate_Conditions
>Relationship between major geophysical events and the planetary magnetic Ap index, from 1844 to the present
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288835601_Relationship_between_major_geophysical_events_and_the_planetary_magnetic_Ap_index_from_1844_to_the_present
>On a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316950696_On_a_role_of_quadruple_component_of_magnetic_field_in_defining_solar_activity_in_grand_cycles
>Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
https://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
>Cosmic Rays Increasing for the 4th Year in a Row
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2019/02/21/cosmic-rays-increasing-for-the-4th-year-in-a-row/
>Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234022172_Explosive_volcanic_eruptions_triggered_by_cosmic_rays_Volcano_as_a_bubble_chamber
>New volcano right on a 5000 year old dormant caldera, it's a coincidence goy
https://www.livescience.com/65545-largest-underwater-volcano-seismic-hum.html
Now FUCK OFF BACK TO LEFTYPOL

>>10749698
It literally does. Look again and notice the almost vertical spike at the end, which is plotted over the smallest time interval of any of the plots.

>>10749246
all the deniers are Canadian/Russians shilling for their economies and retard burgers that eat it up
t. Canadian

>>10749880
See >>10749874
Ultimate debunking of leftist alarmism

>>10749874
1. Solar minimum
solar minimum has little influence on earth's temperatures. Why have the last 4+ years all been record breakers in terms of temperatures?
>source: going outside in the summer, unlike you
2. Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
Then why does your previous link say we're approaching little ice age conditions? Right when this year is the solar minimum?
3. Cosmic rays cause volcanic eruption
Your link gives no actual proof that's the case.
What were you even trying to convey with this post? Are you alright?
>>10749871
Lmao all your shitty graphs are crumbling one by one

>>10749843
>>10749852
See >>10749874 and >>10749853

>>10749853
because you're on /sci/ where we actually account for the science and don't fall for graphs made by coal/petrol shills. you're acting like you're trying to fight (((them))) but (((they))) are the exact same ones (literally the same PR firm) that were hired to cause doubt about lead and cigarette toxicity.

>>10749436
lmao at plotting time logarithmically

>>10749874
Grand solar min will barely slow down current warming caused by increased CO2

>>10749913
>>10749853 debunked in >>10749870
What is >>10749874 even supposed to say? Absolute disaster of a post. Can you say it in your own words? Because this does not make sense. What relates to what and how?
You still haven't told me thoughts on https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

>>10749905
>ultimate debuting of coal-sycophantic autism

>>10749905
I'm not a leftist.

>>10749935
I don't think many of us are, but just let him live his heroic fantasies out in his head, alright? I'm sure he doesn't get any other chances to shine irl.

>>10749935
Then stop believing in flat earth tier pseudoscience about global warming

>>10749935
Yeah, these idiots just the right wing reflections of leftists when they create strawmen of their opponents to knock down.

>>10749943
Are you out of graphs yet? We've debunked them all so far, i'm getting bored.

>>10749949
See >>10749296

>>10749943
If you're a /pol/ack but don't believe in climate change, then what are your political views?
I know all the fascist/natsoc types are big into deep ecology and self-sustaining living with minimal waste. Are you in favour of soulless consumerist society then, where nature and community are less important than mass produced consumer garbage? Sounds pretty jewed to me, if I'm honest. What about local craftsmen, grocers, entertainers? They're all being put out of business by wasteful multinationals (you know who owns those)

>>10749943
this is /sci/ not /pol/, I think the majority of us here think both the left and right are mostly retards. I swing more right but if you fall for the "climate change is fake" meme you're obviously a brainlet.

>>10749953
White separatist/nationalist

>>10749943
What does political affiliation have to do with scientific reasoning and empirical evidence? The evidence shows warming.

>>10749951
>accuses others of gish gallop
yes all those ones that you posted individually as well, debunked, are we missing something?

>>10749961
If you're a United Statian a white ethnostate will never ever happen. Accept it and evolve into an ecofascist. >>>/pol/217206891

>>10749961
Science denying idiots have no place in the ethnostate.

>>10749997
literally lower than niggers and jews

>>10749479
>Do you not realize that without this feedback loop you cannot explain the Milankovich cycle? No of course not, you have no idea what your idiotic memes are even implying.
What an absolute retard you are.
>A Milankovitch cycle is a cyclical movement related to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. There are three of them: eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession

>>10750006
Congratulations you completely missed the point

>>10750006
>A Milankovitch cycle is a cyclical movement related to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. There are three of them: eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession
Why did I even bother to check... why would I ever think you'd do anything other than copy/paste...

>>10750006
Why do you have such strong opinions on topics you know almost zero about? You're not even at the Dunning-Kruger peak yet.

>>10749246
So Canada's going to be fucking paradise, am I right? We're going to have decent summers, bearable winters, and the northern half of the country will still have all the fresh water you could shake a stick at. We'll allow the US admission to the Commonwealth for their sustenance, convert the western American desert into one giant solar farm, and train up our war beavers for the imminent Sino-Russian joint invasion.

Also, apparently get fucked Brazil. What the fuck is up with that?

>>10750074
>decent summers
Toronto is always too fucking hot in the summer.

>>10750080
It hits maybe 33 at the worst, at noon in the middle of a heat wave down town. Record high of 38, ever. Compare that to Australian and Indian heat waves at literally 50 degrees. It's one of the southernmost cities in the country, so it is already worst case scenario. Toronto +6 degrees will still be just fine. They're just going to push hard for heat exchange with the deeper parts of the lake and build another goddamn highway around the perimeter of the city all fucking ready. Build some more subways in dat dere limestone, eh bud and we can hit peak Cyberpunk just in time to actualize the 2077 timeline.

>>10750103
38 high is without humidity, is that the same for the 50 degree Australian temp?
Also Ontario is the only province (maybe Quebec, haven't looked it up in awhile) expected to have a lower GDP from climate change by 2100.

>>10750131
Is that before or after '''''equalization payments''''' are considered?

But in all seriousness, and I really am not joking here, the entire province, north of Highway 7, is going to be absolutely prime agricultural space in a world with that much heating. The growing season is going to be much longer than it already is, and it is one of the areas of North America that is likely to have sufficient water to be able to grow anything outside of the land west of the rockies, which is pathetically small compared to all of Ontario plus Quebec. New bread basket/corn belt of North America, and likely the only decent source of food. Strawberries will be imported form South Carolina lul. Tropical fruit from Florida.

>>10750139
Hm.. thanks ontaribro. positivity-pilled me, hopefully I'll be alive in 58 years to see the cyberpunk actualization.

>>10749766
>Myth #1: This is the warmest year on record
>This is the coldest period in the past 65 million years
Wrong, your own graph shows that the LGM was colder. This is also not a response to the claim since the warmest year on record refers to the thermometer record. It also is a non sequitur since the problem is the rate of warming and not just the level of warmth. Saying "life" thrived millions of years ago says nothing about whether this will be good or bad for humans.

>Myth #2: The globe is warming at an alarming rate
>Temperatures are not abnormally high, nor is the rate of warming unusual.
This is simply a lie.

>For example, the Marcott data set applies smothing effects to past temperature data, which hides the variation
No it doesn't. The Marcott data is high enough resolution to show century scale changes like current global warming. The instrumental data appended to it is made to have the same resolution.

>This gives the impression that modern temperatures are "spiking," when the reality is that other data sets (such as Vostok ice core data) show immendse natural variation, and that modern temperatures are well withing the range of that variation.
This shows the author has no idea what he's talking about. The Vostok ice core data is data from one location, it is not a global reconstruction so it's not comparable to the Marcott data and doesn't show global variation. The global temperature is going to have less variation than local temperature because the former is determined by Earth's energy balance while the latter is heavily effected by the local movements of energy across the Earth.

>Myth #3: Sea levels are rising at an alarming rate.
>Sea levels have been rising at a steady and predictable rate since the end of the last glacial period 8k-10k years ago. The Another lie, sea level rise has been rapidly accelerating.

>>10750155
No worries, man. Remember, humans are stubborn as fuck and we like not dying. As long as we don't get cobalt-nuked by Russia, we're gonna be just fine.

The other major alternative here is that carbon capture actually takes off and we reverse the worst of global warming, in which case we'll be back at the current status quo, which isn't so bad. And we'll still be able to visit Algonquin Park without it being one big corn field.

>>10749766
>Myth #4: CO2 predicts global temperatures.
>The overwhelming majority of models have consistently over predicted global temperatures.
Lie. Pic related.

>Realize that it is only a hypothesis that CO2 is a major driver of global temperatures
Another lie. It's a well proven theory that is necessary to explain essentially anything in our past and present climate.

>The problem is that the climate of an entire planet behaves differently than a sample of CO2 in a controlled lab environment.
This is a non sequitur. You can directly observe the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere with radiative spectroscopy. Our understanding of the greenhouse effect was formed and experimentally verified in numerous ways, not just by looking at CO2 in a lab. Again, we can see the author is completely ignorant of the topic he's discussing.

>>10749774
All of your graphs are either fake or not supporting your claims. None of your actual arguments are sourced. Not that they're your arguments, since you are just regurgitating nonsense with no understanding.

>>10749853
>Temperature is not rising as fast as predicted.
Same graph that has been debunked in this thread already >>10750190


>Sea-level rise is not accelerating
This is a graph of sea level in Honololu. Why not show global average sea level? Oh wait it's already been done >>10750175

>There is no increase in extreme weather
Tropical cyclone intensity will likely increase: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

>Increased CO2 is greening the earth
Greening has very little impact on humans.

>>10749912
>Lmao all your shitty graphs are crumbling one by one
Can you explain why a place that nobody lives or works has terrible "pollution". You can't because your dumb fucking map also measures dust in the air.

>>10750006
The Milankovich cycle also refers to the effects of the Earth's orbital eccentricity on the climate, which includes the glacial-interglacial cycle. You cannot explain the glacial-interglacial cycle without including the effect of various feedbacks involving, ice, albedo, greenhouse gases, etc. in amplifying changes in insolation on various parts of the Earth.

>>10750190
>i'm gonna post the same debunked bullshit graph that's been posted over and over and over again cause I don't give two shits about what's true

>>10750237
that graph is debunking your denialtard memes by showing the original denialist's underhanded tricks used to obtain a skewed result, try again sweetie

>>10749350
Those are ice core temperatures, not global ones you dense fuck. It says it right on the graph

>>10749246
>The Amazon will warm by 8°C
What absolute fucking nonsense.

>>10749246
>/Sci/fags are grasping at straws
I thought you guys were the smartest board on 4channel.

>>10749839
>>10749871
This. This is just a map of particulates, isn't it? Which includes fucking sand and dust.

>>10750219
Who gives a flying shit about humans?

>>10749296
>>10749367
>>10749436
Nice data you got there, let me check the primary source. I wonder why there is no error bar.

Hmm... what's that? +-3C error bar on borehole T reconstruction bootstraped onto water isotopes? Who would've thunk??

I can kind of understand people screeching about fearmongering. In the early 90s I had like 20 children's encyclopedias and in most of them they were citing dates like polar caps melting and coastal cities sinking by 2030, running out of oil in 2010 and coal in 2020 and shit like that. It can become hard to take some of these things seriously when all these dates are clearly bullshit.

>>10749293
wew lad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

>>10750649
Did you even read the thread? Evidence has been posted in multiple places.

>>10750690
>kids, the caps melted a decade later than predicted so I decided to vote to fuck your future up totally
kys

>>10750718
What made you think I'm a blobal warming denier in that post? I'm not. I was merely stating that the way it was presented in the early 90s was legitimately stupid and while I don't agree with them I understand people that may have an issue with some of the ideological twists put on this subject.
Ecology should have never been political in any way in the first place because it's the best way to make sure a huge amount of people will disregard it with no consideration.

>>10749246

It's real but humans contribute 2-3 % at best. Even if we stopped all emissions today it's barely going to change.

Sun is getting hotter with time and we are not even living in the hottest period in Earth's history. It's going to get much "worse".

>>10749246

"Dude think about global warming!" crowd almost completely ruined any chance to actually stop it. Retards were screaming how we are all going to die and how our cities will be flooded by 2000 yet none of this shit happened. I remember Discovery documentaries from the 90's about people buying houses in high places to survive the incoming floods.

None of this shit happened. Barely anyone believes scientists these days due to constant bullshit they read on the internet. You have "scientists" claiming how ancient Europeans were black, how we should accept refugees and other 100% political bullcrap. Meanwhile West is going more and more right wing and right wing politicians deny all this because it's what their voters want.

>>10749822
>imagine taking /pol seriously on not just shitposting there for the lulz

>>10749321
That shit is so stale that even Time have written articles about how deniers are lying about their own covers.
Get some new material, please.

>>10749853
don‘t you want your home country to be as prosperous as possible for your children and race? As an actual natsoc I would be alarmed about any threat to my people

>>10750826
>It's real but humans contribute 2-3 % at best.
Do you have a source for that, or is it just what you want to be true?
All of the attribution studies I've seen put human activity as responsible for between roughly 80% and 120% of the observed warming. A list of studies is here:
https://skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

>Sun is getting hotter with time
The sun is currently cooling.

>and we are not even living in the hottest period in Earth's history.
How is that remotely relevant?

>>10750836
>Science isn't real because a hippy said something dumb on Facebook.
Do you deniers even listen to yourselves anymore?

>>10749915
cigarettes are fine though... right?

>>10750005
they are racetraitors

>>10750074
trade economy will still be fucked... if you can self-sustain you should be ok

>>10749246
Happening

>>10750673
most humans, i'd think

>>10750905
>Do you deniers even listen to yourselves anymore?

I'm not a denier you dumb shit, I'm saying how normal people see this crap.

After all the dumb crap leftist scientists said online most people see scientists as idiots with zero credibility.

This is also why crap like anti vaccines movements are growing so much in the West.

>>10750977
>After all the dumb crap leftist scientists said online
redditors are not generally scientists.
What scientists say in their respective sciences is in their papers. If they are bs you are more than welcome in the scientific community to point out why.

>>10749246
Bump

>>10751141
>the same fake graph
>look ma I posted it again

>>10751153
>hehe i called it fake so i win

>>10751162
See >>10749560 and >>10749502

>>10751141
Imagine being this retarded

>>10751173
Get fucked

>>10749246
>Global warming
real
>Catastrophic
fake

>>10751166
"Climate change" is very real and has been happening for millions of years. There's nothing humans can do to stop the sun from following its cyclical nature. We have been in MUCH warmer periods before and we will return to them, along with a ice ages. We are in an INTERGLACIAL PERIOD after all.

>>10749382
>Written by Alex Newman
>He has a degree in journalism
L0Lno fgt pls
https://www.crisismagazine.com/author/newman

>>10751204
Ad hom see >>10751192

>>10751192
>"Climate change" ... has been happening for millions of years
Global Warming has been happening for about 150 years. Try to keep up.

>>10749839

>sahara desert

lolwaht

>>10751185
no u >>10750190
>no error bar on model projection
>no error bar on "sattelite" or "baloon" dataset
Pretty boring, everytime people get BTFO, start a new thread and pretend nothing happens. Do you mind going to original data source and grab the error bar for us? Of course not, you're recycling stale debunked graphs made by smear merchants "scientist" for hire who used to lobby for cigarretes company

>>10751173
Whats the temporal resolution of ice cores anyway?

>>10749265
>IPCC

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=W1PS9-oOfRw

>global warming
Fake, the entirety of the globe is not getting warmer. They're are parts that are on average colder than 50 years ago.
>climate change
Real, there is no debating this. The debate lies in how much is caused by human intervention. Anyone who doesn't understand this is fucking dumb.

>>10751249
>how much is caused by human intervention
...has been closely determined by actual scientists.

>>10751254
Source?

>>10751238
>What is Google anyway?

>>10751249
>Fake, the entirety of the globe is not getting warmer. They're are parts that are on average colder than 50 years ago.
The average temperature is going up.

>The debate lies in how much is caused by human intervention. Anyone who doesn't understand this is fucking dumb.
What debate? The vast majority of scientists believe it is by far mostly human intervention causing the current global warming.
The majority of those who disagree with this aren't scientists.

>>10751249
>no debating
>The debate
Lrn2debate fgt pls

>>10751260
Humans have both caused warming and cooling on Earth. If you release aerosol (smoke) pollution that blot out the sun, you will cause cooling. Therefore the answer temperature wise is >100% of T change beyond preindustrial is anthropogenic.

This is a very trite and tired argument regurtitated by people who just wanted to delay policy on climate change and sit on the fence all day.

>>10751192
This is nearly incoherent. I actually can't refute most of it, because I can't understand what it's even trying to say.
The parts I can make sense of are:

>Global warming isn't real because the UHI exists
The UHI is removed from datasets. That's part of the "adjustments" deniers like to cry about. Also, global warming is clearly present even in rural-only data.

>Sea level isn't rising because Antarctica something?
Sea level rise is mostly due to thermal expansion, not melting ice. And while the contribution from Antarctica is neutral to slightly-negative, Greenland has a significant positive contribution. See:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1500515113

>Sea level is rising, but the current rate is small (0.41 mm/yr)
The current rate of seal level rise is eight times larger than that: 3.3 mm/yr
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
And as anybody who's ever held an ice cube could guess, all projections show that seal level rise will accelerate as surface temperatures (especially in the Arctic) warm.

>Al Gore is still alive!!1!
Nobody cares.

>We're heading for a grand solar minimum
Probably not - there doesn't seem to be any solid evidence for this.

>CO2 might be a greenhouse gas, but there's no way to know how much impact human activity has on the climate
Gee, if only there were a bunch of scientists who studied things like that. The number is pretty close to 100%, most studies fit in somewhere between 80% to 120%.
For a list, see: https://skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Also:
>I don't pretend to know all the factors, so I'll tell you which factors do and don't matter!
What a fuckwidget.

>>10751324
>>We're heading for a grand solar minimum
>Probably not - there doesn't seem to be any solid evidence for this.
There is in fact much solid evidence that we are currently in a Grand Solar Minimum.

>>10751264
>google it
>high
>excellent
wow, that almost answered my question, cunt

>>10751355
>cunt
Descending to the last resort already?

>>10751192
Continuing from >>10751324

>Magnetic Fields
This is just throwing shit at the wall and hoping come of the doubt sticks. The quoted paragraph doesn't even mention the climate.

>Complex systems
Huh? Was there a copy-paste error here or something?
Anyway, "X is difficult to understand, so my understanding of it is correct" really doesn't pass muster as a coherent argument.

>Cosmic-ray clouds
I though this crap died when CERN did a bunch of studies on cloud formation? IIRC: The amount of radiation available is already in excess for what's needed for cloud formation, so changes in cosmic ray intensity can't significantly influence cloud cover.
https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions
>The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.

>The climate is always changing!!1
Not like it currently is, and not for the current reasons. This is like appealing to tectonic drift to try and get out of a speeding ticket. See: practically any reconstruction, but especially Marcott's.

>CO2 might have nothing to do with global temperature! it might be a coincidence
I feel like this "article" is getting dumber the further I read. The greenhouse effect is well-established science. The radiative forcing from the greenhouse effect can be directly measured. This is not a coincidence.

>I'm the real environmentalist, your just an alarmist!
Go fuck yourself.

>>10749655
I dunno, ask James Watson about how Nobel prizes are ripe for the taking when you challenge political consensus.

Wow, every /pol/ climate change denial argument refuted in one thread
This'll be good for the archive

>>10751185
>doesn't respond to anything
>posts another fake graph
See >>10750190

Aside from the climate change denial, who does it benefit it it was a lie? The ones who are affected are big oil companies with tons of money who have used their power before, paying """scientists""" that denied lead contamination, and they of course got btfo.

Isn't it the case that CO2 forcing is logarithmic? You need to keep doubling the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere to get the same amount of warming/radiative forcing?
If that is the case, wouldn't we need to get to 800ppm to get double the amount of post-industrial warming that we already have?
Isn't it true that the rate of rise in CO2 is slowing?

>>10750905
From your first source
> However, because aerosols have a number of different effects (including directly by blocking sunlight, aincluding directly by blocking sunlight, and indirectly by seeding clouds, which both block sunlight and increase the greenhouse effect), the magnitude of their cooling effect is one of the biggest remaining uncertainties in climate science.


If you don't fully understand how much we are cooling you cannot completely understand the inverse.

>>10751192
>>>10751166 (You) #
>"Climate change" is very real and has been happening for millions of years.
>There's nothing humans can do to stop the sun from following its cyclical nature.
Who is this supposed to be arguing with?

>We have been in MUCH warmer periods before
Source? Also, the problem is not simply how warm it is, the problem is how fast it's warming. This does not give enough time for ecosystems to adapt without suffering widespread damage. Rapid changes in climate are correlated with mass extinctions.

>and we will return to them, along with a ice ages.
This doesn't tell us that current climate change is fine for us.

>We are in an INTERGLACIAL PERIOD after all.
Yes, we had interglacial warming 10,000 years ago and are in the warm phase of the glacial cycle. This makes it even more concerning that instead of slowly cooling as we should be according to the natural cycle, we are warming even more rapidly. So I don't really understand what you're trying to argue or how it justifies your use of fake graphs.

Isn't it the case that land use changes have a huge impact on surface temperatures?
Urban expansion and deforestation must cause a lot of change in local climate. The urban heat island effect is well documented, and is much stronger an effect in those local areas than the post-industrial amount of warming we've seen.

What if we drastically alter the global economy, transform industry, carry out geoengineering attempts, etc, and the climate keeps changing?

>>10749929

The links in >>10749874 are a direct response to >>10749870, why are you being obtuse anon?

Legit question for sci-fags:

Let's say the doomer predictions for climate change will come true. How are carbon emissions taxes on first world nations (who produce way less co2 than manufacturing hubs like india and china) going to fix the problem? Shouldn't there be harsher environmental restrictions and regulations on the countries that cause the most pollution? Wouldn't things like economic sanctions if they don't clean up their processes by 5 years from now be far more effective?

How do you stop climate change?
If the climate changes naturally, how do you determine what is "natural change" versus "unnatural change" when you don't have a human-less Earth to compare against?
How do you decide as a planet which "climate target" is desirable? How do you get the planet to that level without a totalitarian world government which controls all human activity?
How do you keep it stable once you achieve it?

Wouldn't it be easier (and actually POSSIBLE) to just adopt new technologies as they become economically feasible (I'm not opposed to subsidising novel technology to achieve feasibility), to adapt to changes as they happen and to focus on cleaning oceanic pollution and restoring natural habitat, reclaiming desert, rewilding, etc?

>>10751244
>Morner
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818106002049?via%3Dihub

You probably believe in dowsing too, right?

>>10751478
>b-b-but muh Chinese & American PER CAPITA emissions!!
>conveniently ignores the slowing rate of CO2 emissions in USA

>>10751354
Dan and we're still warming rapidly? Does this mean we're completely fucked when the sun starts to return to normal levels of activity?

Do /sci/ really consider the IPCC a trustworthy organization despite climategate and concluding that CO2 equals warmer temperatures based on a study of a specific ten year period?

>>10749655
That thread is as inconclusive as this one to the scientifically illiterate like me.

Who to trust...

>>10751033
>you are more than welcome in the scientific community to point out why
[X] Doubt
This is never the case for politically relevant sciences.

>>10751484
Yeah because some states like California and New York are actually being responsible and pushing for emission reductions despite the federal government doing nothing.

>>10751491
>I dont know anything so I can't decide who's right
You know there's an easy fix for that right?

>>10751492
If you're right and can prove it they'll absolutely listen. If you're talking out of your ass and your work is shoddy you'll be ignored and laughed at.

Real, but we are able to postpone it, buying time for magnitude. Good luck humanity, I'm going back to Vega.

>>10751484
Per capita means a lot when you compare 2x nations with 1 billion+ people to nations with ~350 million. Is your argument that china and india pollute less than western nations? Because thats wrong.

>>10749246
fake and gay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntv3gaduGRM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZKI40d5YHs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3biTbgx_l3c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y_n283fYbc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNEQo6lk9ko

>>10751509
>If you're right and can prove it they'll absolutely listen
People within your own field? Maybe. Probably.
The academic community as a whole? No way. I've talked with two Prof. Emeritus who researched meteorological data relating to climate change, and intelligence in different races and genders respectively. Both have had trouble with the directors of the universities in which they taught and while one got out relatively easily the other faced harassment and was attempted fired.

>>10751452
>If you don't fully understand how much we are cooling you cannot completely understand the inverse.
Sure. There are uncertainties, and the strength of aerosol cooling is one of the largest ones. That doesn't mean that everything is unknown though, just that our knowledge comes with error bars.

>>10751464
>Urban expansion and deforestation must cause a lot of change in local climate. The urban heat island effect is well documented, and is much stronger an effect in those local areas than the post-industrial amount of warming we've seen.
The UHI is a strong local effect, but the areas it affects (cites etc.) make up a tiny proportion of the Earth's surface. And deforestation seems to cause a local cooling effect. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4839769/))
There's strong reasons to be confident that the rise in global temperatures is due to the greenhouse effect.

>>10751478
>How are carbon emissions taxes on first world nations (who produce way less co2 than manufacturing hubs like india and china) going to fix the problem?
Ideally: by taking CO2 emissions from manufacturing into account.

>Shouldn't there be harsher environmental restrictions and regulations on the countries that cause the most pollution?
Taking about "causing the most pollution" while ignoring the per-capita emissions is nonsense. If I declare myself a country, is it okay for me cook my food over burning oil drums? My total emissions would still be vastly less than even the greenest of existing counties.

>>10751446
>If that is the case, wouldn't we need to get to 800ppm to get double the amount of post-industrial warming that we already have?
No, because the warming we have experienced is not the total effect of all past emissions. Due to various feedback loops there is warming in the pipeline. If we stopped all emmissions immediately we would continue to warm for decades.

>>10751486
>Do /sci/ really consider the IPCC a trustworthy organization despite climategate
Yes.
Climategate was an enormous nothing of a scandal. No "smoking gun" email was ever found, and all of the quotes deniers wave around required you to ignore context and assume the worst possible interpretations to sound even vaguely suspicious. They're still ranting about the word "trick" for fuck's sake. There was multiple (eight?) independent investigations, and none of them found shit either.
Also: Climategate was the CRU, not the IPCC. They're two different organisations.

>and concluding that CO2 equals warmer temperatures based on a study of a specific ten year period?
What the fuck? The connection between global temperatures and CO2 is basic, established science. It's been around for more than a hundred years.

>>10751452
No one said we completely understand anything, just that we have enough of an understanding to say that humans are causing rapid warming.

>>10751464
>Isn't it the case that land use changes have a huge impact on surface temperatures?
Yes, climatologists have known this for a century.

>The urban heat island effect is well documented, and is much stronger an effect in those local areas than the post-industrial amount of warming we've seen.
False.

>What if we drastically alter the global economy, transform industry, carry out geoengineering attempts, etc, and the climate keeps changing?
The point is not to stop the climate from changing, it's to mitigate extreme changes that will be harmful. What if doing nothing hurts the economy more than a carbon tax, as economists say?

>>10751475
>direct response
I don't think you understand what this phrase means. Make a coherent argument or leave.

>>10751556
>The connection between global temperatures and CO2 is basic, established science. It's been around for more than a hundred years
"Based on the previous 10 years of concurrent
temperature- and CO2-increase, many climate
scientists in 1988 presumably felt that their
understanding of climate dynamics was enough to conclude about the importance of CO2 for global temperature changes. From this it may safely be concluded that 10 years was considered a period long enough to demonstrate the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 on global temperatures."
A quote referring to the IPCC's conclusion after researching data that streched for 10 years.
It is included in every release of the monthly temperature newsletter. See pages 43-46.
https://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_May_2019.pdf

>>10751580
Shit, didn't remove all the line breaks from the quote. Oh well.

>>10751238
>Whats the temporal resolution of ice cores anyway?
Ice core scientist here, the answer is actually tricker than a single number because it depends on what analyte you're trying to measure (some require more sample than others) and depend on which ice core you're talking about.

There's about a dozen and a half major ice cores drilled total, from Greenland and Antarctica. Ice core resolution depends on site temperature and accumulation rate. Sometimes we aim for the oldest ice possible (which means low T and acc) and get not as good as a resolution, like EPICA Dome C (the European project) and sometimes we go for high res ice core with high T and acc site like Law Dome (Australian side) and WAIS Divide (American side). If you're looking for temporal resolutions it is also tricky because as you go deeper (older) ice thins and compact further. So if you have a system that measure say water isotopes d18O of H2O(ice) every 2 cm then your temporal resolution would go more coarse as you go older. Also as analytical systems get better, we can measure stuff with less samples. So the older ice cores like Camp Century and Byrd have less resolution than new cores like WAIS and NEEM.

See pic attached. On the left is continuous flow analysis for water isotopes. Since ice core are made of ice (duh) there's plenty to be measured and we can measure samples continuously, at sub mm resolution. On the right is state of the art system for C14 in gas analysis (14CH4, 14CO). Since C14 is 10^-12 natural abundance, plus the trace amount (ppb) level of gas, we need about 300kg per sample, with resolution of every couple decades or more.

Also shout out to all the good /sci/anons in this thread arguing with deniers. You guys are doing fantastic holding the fort.

>>10751580
I really have no idea what you are trying to claim. Is there a specific study the IPCC referenced that you're objecting to?

>>10751478
>How are carbon emissions taxes on first world nations (who produce way less co2 than manufacturing hubs like india and china) going to fix the problem?
I don't understand, are you asking how disincentivizing carbon emissions will fix the problem or why first world countries would be taxed?

>>10751539
Who is ignoring per capita emissions? Even if the chinese and the indians produce less per capita, they have 4x the population of the US each. Are you implying that doesn't do far more harm than than the us and the eu combined? How will taxing countries that aren't high impact CO2 producers affect nations that do produce high quantities? "Here's your free money, please pollute less?" That's a recipie for failure.

>>10751608
>Even if the chinese and the indians produce less per capita, they have 4x the population of the US each. Are you implying that doesn't do far more harm than than the us and the eu combined?
Expecting India to produce less CO2 than New Zealand is not going to work. Countries with more people are always going to to more harm to the environment.

>How will taxing countries that aren't high impact CO2 producers affect nations that do produce high quantities?
"Taxing Countries"?
What?

>>10751599
I can't find the study by name right now, but they conclude with certainty in their 1990 that CO2 has a very large responsibility for global warming, despite there not being adequate proof of this at the time (and not today either). I'd say to give me more time, but the thread is already way past the bump limit.

The real problem is that the IPCC is an organization that NEEDS global warming and climate change to be real, dangerous and constantly getting worse in order to keep getting funded. Worse still is that they're an international authority so they have presented their biased views as a fact, which is accepted by governments around the world.

>>10751607
Primarily the taxation issue. How will taxing first world countries force the big polluters to stop polluting? China and India don't exactly have a good track record of listening to western nations telling them what to do as long as they maintain their sovereignty. I know the intent of taxation is to facilitate the creation of disposal sites / chimney scrubbers etc. for manufacturing facilities, but how will this be enforced? You think China will let the UN or some other body into its borders to make sure they're doing what they're supposed to?

>>10751478
>Shouldn't there be harsher environmental restrictions and regulations on the countries that cause the most pollution?
Yes, and first world countries have caused the most ghg emissions.

>>10751479
>How do you stop climate change?
Stopping coverage change is a red herring, we can mitigate extreme changes caused by our extreme emissions by emitting less.

>If the climate changes naturally, how do you determine what is "natural change" versus "unnatural change" when you don't have a human-less Earth to compare against?
We do have a human-less earth, the paleo climate record. We can also see how much the composition of the atmosphere is changing due to man through isotope analysis and we can directly observe the effect of these changes with radiative spectroscopy.

>How do you decide as a planet which "climate target" is desirable?
The world has already agreed to limit warming to 1.5 degrees from the pre-industrial climate.

>How do you get the planet to that level without a totalitarian world government which controls all human activity?
What makes you think this is necessary? Why are you being an alarmist?

>Wouldn't it be easier (and actually POSSIBLE) to just adopt new technologies as they become economically feasible (I'm not opposed to subsidising novel technology to achieve feasibility), to adapt to changes as they happen and to focus on cleaning oceanic pollution and restoring natural habitat, reclaiming desert, rewilding, etc?
No, that would be too slow. Why are toy afraid of a carbon tax?

>>10751621
>despite there not being adequate proof of this at the time
You could actually read the IPCC First Assessment Report, rather than posting your own guesses about what you think they did and didn't know.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
They didn't have access to modern information, and their conclusions were still pretty speculative, but 1990 isn't exactly the dark ages. And where did that crap about only having ten years of data come from?

>and not today either
Bullshit.

>Worse still is that they're an international authority so they have presented their biased views as a fact, which is accepted by governments around the world.
What the IPCC "wants" doesn't matter - they depend on the scientific community for their credibility. If climatologists internationality started withdrawing their support from the IPCC, then those opposed to taking action against AGW would have a field day. Global warming would become politically dead almost overnight.

>>10751520
>49 vaguely titled "scientists" and astronauts, plus a blogger who constantly lies about climate scientists
>versus thousands of actual experts on the climate
Hmmm, who to believe...

>>10751520
>With hundreds of well-known climate scientists...
There are dozens of us! Dozens!

>>10751580
>climate scientists said something about a 10 year period
>therefore everything is based on a 10 year period, just ignore everything else the IPCC said
Do you actually believe this retarded strawman? I don't think anyone could be this stupid.

>>10751621
>I can't find the study by name right now, but they conclude with certainty in their 1990 that CO2 has a very large responsibility for global warming, despite there not being adequate proof of this at the time (and not today either).
You don't even know what the proof is but you claim it's inadequate.

>The real problem is that the IPCC is an organization that NEEDS global warming and climate change to be real, dangerous and constantly getting worse in order to keep getting funded.
Yes, yes, and doctors need vaccines to work and biologists need evolution to be real and geographers need the earth to be round. The IPCC is simply compiling the current published research of climatologis, but I guess they're in on it too. Any proof of your conspiracy theory? No? Then go back to >>>/x/.

>>10751622
>How will taxing first world countries force the big polluters to stop polluting?
Taxing everyone will mitigate emissions. You're asking loaded questions because you have no valid argument.

>China and India don't exactly have a good track record of listening to western nations telling them what to do as long as they maintain their sovereignty.
Trump, Russia and Saudi Arabia addre the only ones pulling out of international agreements on climate change yet its somehow China and India you're worried about?

>>10751693
>>10751699

>>10751693
>>10751699
>>10751788

>>10751788
>>10751693
>>10751699

>>10751693
>>10751699
>>10751788
Dr. Morner

>>10751788
>>10751693
>>10751699
Dr. Scafetta

>>10751788
>>10751693
>>10751699
Dr. Shaviv

>>10751788
>>10751693
>>10751699
Dr. Soon

>>10751788
>>10751693
>>10751699
Dr. Tol

>>10751788
I'm sure that partially-obscured "of climate papers stating a position on" section can't possible be important.
On a completely unrelated note: I wonder what proportion of meteorology papers explicitly say that the sky is blue?

>>10751824
>Dr. Soon
What an own goal.

>>10751800 >>10751803
>>10751811 >>10751818
>>10751822 >>10751829
Gee, I wonder if anybody ever did a study of what proportion of scientists felt that Cook's 2013 paper accurately reflected their views. Oh wait, the study did that itself!
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
>We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

Maybe try reading a paper before copy-pasting someone else's criticism of it? And don't spam the thread, that would be nice too.

4 years old and 6 minutes long yet it still refutes most denial arguments ITT
https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU

>>10751788
>99.7% of 11,944 climate scientists did not say
This repeats the common denier fallacy of including irrelevant information in a percentage to make it arbitrarily small, like "CO2 is only 0.03% of the atmosphere" when the amount of other gases in the atmosphere are irrelevant.

>>10751800
What did Carlin say?
>In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration.
So Carlin did endorse the position that humans ate causing global warming.

Was Carlin included in the 97% figure? No, only those who quantified their position were included: https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

>>10751509
This is one of the biggest lies that people tell about the scientific world. There's a repeatability crisis in science right now and yet everyone fucking ignores that the scientific community is just humans. They there not more objective than anyone else. They push what they want pushed and they ignore what they want ignored literally like every other community on Earth. And just like every other community on Earth they harass and try to destroy anyone who preaches heresy.

>>10751445
Those who wish to push "Green" (black) Technology. Don't forget "people" like Elon Musk are billionaires. And carbon taxation would be a huge windfall for governments around the world. They're shit tons of money to be made on global warming alarmism.

Skeptical Chaos Theory expert here. AMA

Here is a list of all the climate prediction models that were proven accurate:

>>10752005
Whoops, forgot to attach my image.

>>10752005
>>10752103
Ah dammit I keep hitting Post prematurely. Here's the list:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.213.4511.957

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341

https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcm-cmip/wgcm-cmip3

https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcm-cmip/wgcm-cmip5

>>10752138
And here's some more:

https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf