/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10786332
They don't include particle forcing in their models.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYoOcaqCzxo&list=LLnCx3zR48jTM0LkyBNwcThA

Their models don’t accurately predict reality

>>10786332
People who are worried about climate change neglect 3 facts.

>1. Humans are predisposed to self importance, and even the nuke hailed to be the most dangerous weapon not long ago had little lasting effect on nature long term. (Though humans did not adapt to radiation well, animals did with faster living and dying)
>2.There was a great deal more carbon in the air and it was a hotter climate in prehistoric times
>3. The earth is not static and is constantly undergoing a state of change, often times easily observable.

>>10786800
Care to provide sources for points 2 and 3?

>>10786332
It's caused by geoengineering. We need to acknowledge ALL relevant factors, not just the popular and officially sanctioned ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT_Mp1ND6gU

"Climate change" is actually the result of government experiments at HAARP.

>>10786858
HAARP is one of many ionosphere heaters, It can also alter electron precipitation, and likely alter human brain activity.

>>10786858
>"Climate change" is actually the result of government experiments at HAARP.
And CERN

>>10786812
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/26/7909

As for point 3, I'll give examples of what I mean.
>tectonic plates
>continental structuring
>Ocean Levels
>Ice Age
>Genetic Evolution
>4.54 billion year old earth
>etc...

>>10786812
>>10786910
Here's a source for point 3
>http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

>>10786800
These are facts, but they don't mean much once you consider the rates of preindustrial vs current climate change. One of the quickest and most drastic climate shifts on record - the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum - involved a carbon injection of about 0.2 gigatonnes per year for no more than 2000 years, peaking at 0.58 gigatonnes. Current human injection is over 10 gigatonnes/year.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/new-study-were-outpacing-the-most-radical-climate-event-we-know-of

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/aug/30/volcanic-eruptions-triggered-global-warming-56m-years-ago-study-reveals

>>10786790
>They don't include particle forcing in their models.
Wat? Which GCM doesn't have some sort of MS radiative transfer that propagates light through aerosol-laden model atmospheres? Every GCM I've ever used had it, they differ in implementation (some are lazy and do two stream discrete ordinate only) and choice of phase function generation, but there's not a single one I know of that simply skips them.

>>10786792
Which models?

>>1078689
>>"Climate change" is actually the result of government experiments at HAARP.
>And CERN
And Area 51.

>>10786896
>>"Climate change" is actually the result of government experiments at HAARP.
>And CERN
And Area 51.

>>10786800
>durrr weather changes so its totally normal that 60% of all the mammals, fish, birds and insects are dead

>duuuuuuuur, earth was gonna have an extinction party anyway durrrrr

climate change hasn't even really gotten underway and we are well on our way to decimating the planet.

stop using pseudo science and logical fallacies to push a business as usual apathetic agenda.

>>10786910
oh durrrr

Did you know the earth moves and shit? That means humans can't hurt it.

>>10786800
1.
not actually an argument
2.
And human agriculture, economies, or any of the living biosphere didn't exist then. It's great if you're a dinosaur but I don't really know any still around.
3. True, but shifts in climate considerably slower than currently observed usually result in planet wide extinction events. Something most of us would like to avoid. Some homework for you, compare any previous shift in climate's rate of change to changes observed today.

>>10787013
The models you posted except before the data manipulation that was needed to avoid showing the temperatures careening strait towards the outside of the 95% confidence interval zone, and even exiting it. Remember, this was an aggregate of about 90 models too, all wrong, until they had to go back and change the data to fit the narrative...

Honest question did you know they changed your graph after it started being wrong or did you just copy it from a twitter blue check or facebook?

>>10787062
>The models you posted
Wrong, I posted CMIP3, not CMIP5.

>except before the data manipulation
There is no data manipulation, all that was done was to show the forcing from emissions that actually occurred. The point of these models is not to predict how much GHGs man will emit, it's to predict the effect of those emissions.

>Honest question did you know they changed your graph after it started being wrong or did you just copy it from a twitter blue check or facebook?
Do you know the difference between 3 and 5?

>>10787072
>There is no data manipulation, all that was done was to show the forcing from emissions that actually occurred.
Daily reminder there are people who ACTUALLY think this way. They're not like us at all. Remember that when/if you try to engage with them.

>>10787023
>durrr weather changes so its totally normal that 60% of all the mammals, fish, birds and insects are dead
yes?
are you fucking retarded?
99% of everything that has ever lived is fucking dead
250 million years ago a basalt flow volcano in Siberia flooded the land with molten rock for 350,000 years straight, creating decades of volcanic winter and acid rains at times, and afterwards, when the solidified volcanic rock covered the area of modern USA and towered 10 km high and magma forced its way laterally, it heated up and released 100,000 Gigatonnes of co2 in one go
200 times more than estimated cumulative total anthropogenic co2 emissions for the past 250 years
co2 release raised the global average temp by 5°C and triggered oceanic methane release, which raised it by another 5°C to 10°C , bringing the grand total up to ~15°C
95% of all oceanic life, 75% of land life and 96% of all remaining biomass died out in a literal instant on geologic scale.
biosphere took 10 million years to recover.
all of this before humans were even on the fucking shopping list

>>10787082
>lies about the models not predicting reality
>lies about one data set being turned into another when they have no connection to each other
>lies about data being manipulated
Yeah clearly I'm the one to not engage with.

>>10787160
>has to go back hundreds of millions of years to show that mass extinction is "normal"
Gee it sounds awesome, can't wait.

>>10787651
>>lies
What do you mean?

>>10787160
So wait you're saying massively increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere caused mass extinctions? Big If true, I sure hope nobody would ever do that on purpose.