/sci/ - Science & Math

Belief is irrelevant, the planet is warming at a rapid rate, caused almost entirely by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses from human activity. It's simply a fact even if you base your political identity about being wrong.

>>10788905
>climate change
not science or math

>>10788917
>Belief is irrelevant
Wrong, scientific belief is segmented into different sects just like religious belief.

Yes
>>10788917
/thread
>>10788929
Fuck off
>>10788933
Facts are true whether or not you believe them

>>10788938
>Facts are true whether or not you believe them
Science deals in theories, not facts.

>>10788939
your feelings don't change the fact something is either supported by all empirical evidence and can be for all useful non metaphysical masturbatory purposes true, or supported by nothing and therefore easily dismissed as false.

>>10788917
>the planet is warming at a rapid rate,
Relative to the small sample since instrumentation began yes (n=200 for consistent records for most of the world)
>caused almost entirely by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses from human activity. It's simply a fact
No, that's a hypothesis, one supported only by useless proxies as data (held tantamount to thermometer, a joke), and useless ice core samples which reach equilibrium after many decades which is why they remain totally static for tens of millennia. The rest relies on poor statistical models which predict calamity and apocalypse in the near future, always failing. Rather than propose tangible means to reduce green house gas (e.g. nuclearization, car production moratorium, population control) they defer to another useless pseudoscience, economics. A series of taxes and carbon credits is supposed to make everything all better and avert disaster. Face it, climate alarmists are midwits who are incapable of both science and solutions. The insistence on DUDE CONSENSUS and DUDE FACTS shows they have a poor understanding of scientific epistemology and should be operated on to reduce them to the double digit range so they know to listen to their intellectual superiors.

>>10788950
Neither make much sense.

>>10788959
>the fact something is either supported by all empirical evidence and can be for all useful non metaphysical masturbatory purposes true, or supported by nothing and therefore easily dismissed as false.
This is a false dichotomy, feel free to try again without resorting to logical fallacies.

>>10788905
I can’t wait for it to happen

>>10788989
Africa and India are the future.

>>10788950
Left. Those are people who are desperate for recognition and employment opportunities, produce nothing of value and are completely dependent on persuading government to give them prestige jobs.

Oil industry creates and sells in-demand products and is not dependent on persuading government to make a living. It could in fact do better without governments.

>>10788978
>No, that's a hypothesis, one supported only by useless proxies as data (held tantamount to thermometer, a joke)
No it's more than a hypothesis, it's a rigorous theory supported by all experimentation and observations in the fields of physics, chemistry, etc. As well as doing an excellent job of predicting and explaining past and current temperature trends on earth as well as other planets. If you want to dismiss it, you'll have to provide evidence that it fails in some aspects, why it fails and provide a superior model which you can do absolutely none of.
>and useless ice core samples which reach equilibrium after many decades which is why they remain totally static for tens of millennia.
That's a massive fucking citation needed. Provide it or it's obvious you're just lying.

>>10788994
This is your brain on conservatism. It's incapable of logic, only able to repeat breitbart talking points. Damaged beyond any hope of salvation.

>>10789003
>This is your brain on conservatism. It's incapable of logic, only able to repeat breitbart talking points. Damaged beyond any hope of salvation.
Not an argument.

>>10789003
You know I'm right.

>>10789001
>appeal to authority in verbose pseud post.

for every liter of gasoline burned, you take out oxigen from 10m3 of air and by replacing it with co2, this 10m3 now has 500x of the natural co2 content

>>10788929
kek

>>10788905
i do, and it amuses me how people think that anyone with this stance is being "brainwashed" for a illuminati plot. i read papers, articles, etc... nothing refutes it, and the only people telling me what to believe are the deniers. i once even had a retarded teacher tell me (and the class) that "the world is cooling" lmao, i couldn't believe my ears

>>10788905
its happening but its going to be easy to mitigate and reverse for 1st world nations, giving us an advantage over our competitors. also, it will destroy alot of the property and wealth of coastal liberals, reducing their power.

so global warming is a good thing.

>>10789343
i bet none of the papers you read mentioned anything about previous pre-industrial climate fluctuations, or that a lot of atmosphere disappears to space every year, or that plants that get more CO2 grow faster balancing it out. There's a reason you absolue spoons are looked down upon, it doesn't take many objectively true assertions to make you go but but but but if if if if sperg.

>>10789367
>previous pre-industrial climate fluctuations
Climate fluctuations are studied across human history and the geologic record. The changes we're now experiencing are completely unprecedented in their speed, and the only explanation that fits the pattern we've seen while agreeing with the laws of physics is based on greenhouse gas emissions.
>A lot of atmosphere disappears to space every year
Unstudied because it's bullshit. There is nothing to siphon the atmosphere away; gravity keeps it here. If it were disappearing, the atmosphere would have gone away long before human beings got here.
> or that plants that get more CO2 grow faster balancing it out
Changes in the distribution and growth of plant life are already factored into climate models, which you'd know if you actually skimmed any part of the IPCC reports. I'm princople, they could be a negative feedback, but with current land use, they don't come close to balancing out GHG emissions. And the fact that some plants grow more vigorously with more CO2 is a mixed blessing for agriculture by itself because it makes plants more carby and less protein rich.

>>10789382
**In principle, they could be...

>>10788978
>No, that's a hypothesis, one supported only by useless proxies as data (held tantamount to thermometer, a joke),
and a mountain of thermometer measurements for the last 150 years
>and useless ice core samples which reach equilibrium after many decades which is why they remain totally static for tens of millennia.
False. Antarctic ice cores have been taken in several different locations, and produce proxy reconstructions in reasonable agreement with each other.
>The rest relies on poor statistical models which predict calamity and apocalypse in the near future, always failing.
the evidence stands on its own, without even considering computer models
>Rather than propose tangible means to reduce green house gas (e.g. nuclearization, car production moratorium, population control) they defer to another useless pseudoscience, economics. A series of taxes and carbon credits is supposed to make everything all better and avert disaster.
This has nothing to do with science, but for the record I do support using nuclear power and phasing out ICE vehicles, as well as a carbon tax+cap and trade.
>Face it, climate alarmists are midwits who are incapable of both science and solutions. The insistence on DUDE CONSENSUS and DUDE FACTS
there's no consensus or facts supporting your position
>shows they have a poor understanding of scientific epistemology
you're describing yourself

>>10788950
Why bring up community activists when the UN has a big finger in this pie? Or is this some kind of conspiracy stuff?

>>10789445
>brainlet tries to science.

>>10790597
that hurts my feelings, but next time try an argument

>>10788989
>Assumes that the Russian Federation will still exist by 2100

SIBERIA FOREVER BABY!!!

>>10788905
>Does /sci/ believe in climate change?

not enough to give all of our collective countries monies to the global banking cartels....

no.

and certainly not enough to tax exhalation.

>>10788905
Of cause climate is changing, has always and always will.
The discussion about it usually misses critical parts though. While its certainly not helping that we put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the real problem is ecosystem destruction.
We deforested most of the land surface, eroded a good part of the soil, are using groundwater sources that took thousands of years to fill in decades...
All of this feeds into more drought. We turn the places we life in from lush dense forest into deserts with few species inhabiting it.
If we'd reforest enough, that would buffer a LOT of the effects of a hotter climate and maybe make the mass death less bad.
But that would require to fundamentally change how we do things (and who profits from them) and there is a big resistance to that, so it's more convenient to talk about literal hot air all the time. That makes it a global other-peoples-problem, instead of everyones own responsibility to change things at home and try to make sure your grandchildren still are able to survive at that place, or think about what to do when that probably isn't possible.
Good news is, we know how to do fast, large scale ecosystem restauration. The question is only whether it will be used early and widely enough to make a real difference.
it looks pretty bad tbqh. >>10788989 pretty much shows the areas that are drying out now. Now estimate how many people life at those places and where they are gonna go when they don't have anything to eat or drink any more.

>>10788978
There's a point where evidence is so strong, and lack of counter-arguments so total, that a hypothesis becomes a fact.

For example, there are two electrical charges (+ and -) and two magnetic poles. Nobody is going to overthrow this hypothesis. Maybe refine it with a better explanation of why there's two of each, but there will be no other charges and poles, and nobody will stand up and show evidence for only one electrical charge.

The Human-made climate change hypothesis is at that point.

>>10788917

How the fuck is it warming when there were tropical rain forests in the arctic circle less than a few million years ago?

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

My favorite video on the subject because it basically just insults the idiots.

>>10788905
It's probably true but my party's stance is that it's not, and I don't question what my party tells me to believe. Sorry, but my hands are tied.

>>10792742
>The Human-made climate change hypothesis is at that point.
No. It isn't. The case for anthropogenic climate science rests entirely on "soft" evidence, i.e. statistical voo doo. This is conjecture predicated on mostly bad data. Proxies used are notoriously unreliable, and are tree-ring samples for instance are influenced by any number of weather elements, pathogens, insects, surrounding foliage, etc. Soil samples are an even bigger joke for temperature analysis. These pseudoscientists point to the sheer quantity of shit-tier proxies making up for their inherent deficits of +/-50c variations in temperature. While it indeed improves their statistical strength, this does not make the data more reliable, only their statistical models. The only concrete evidence we have that the planet is warming is predicated on instrumentation data, e.g. thermometers. This leaves us with an n=150, which is absolutely insignificant in ascertaining whatever serves as a "normal" climate. Hardly anything is set as fact, it is merely that people arguing for it say it is a fact, and rest their case on fallacious arguments like vox populi (muh consensus) or straw mans as you just did, which is very ironic considering electromagnetic polarity has been affirmed by experimental studies which have been repeated. We can see it for ourselves, repeat it, and devise solid theory around it. We cannot do this with statistics. We extrapolate from these experiments and apply it to the Earth, and further find validation in some geological evidence. Soft vs hard science is apples and oranges. To offer a fair comparison— climate science is better compared to future predictions of pole reversal, which ironically, are held to be to pseudoscience ('cataclysmic polar shift') both in their methodology and future forecast for death, doom and destruction.

You do realise you cant prove global warming. There was a mini ice age in the 1700s. If global warming was heard everyone would blame it. I did a chart on the weather climate in ireland from met eirenn and there was no change apart from that the earth is cooling. The antartic melts and freezes, sometimes more than usual so what do humans do? GlObAl wArMiNg..ahhhhh. like i cant believe the amount of retards who got jobs through this

Global warming is essentially a blank check for environmental research. Its so sensationalized, and there’s many other things that will kill the planet before CO2. Its not even the worse GHG released by pollution. And the evidence for it warming the planet is dubious at best. Overpopulation, China, and the border crisis are all much worse problems.

>>10788980

>>10792865
Okay. No it isn't. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean nobody does.

Quantum mechanics, specifically electron energy levels and electron promotion are so well established facts of science that at this point we simply have to accept them even if our human brains can't make sense of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vK5KPycEvA

This is the start of your understanding of climate change. All elements absorb wavelengths of light, promote the electron, then it gives off energy equal to what it absorbs in a random direction.

Every element and chemical compound has its own absorption spectrum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HMMfiyszjo

Every star has a blackbody radiation curve. It's the light curve of that star. Everything that absorbs energy gives off blackbody radiation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hxYGaegxAM

The blackbody radiation curve of the sun peaks in the visible spectrum (gee I wonder why it's the visible spectrum?). Our atmosphere absorbs some of that incoming radiation, heats up the planet, then the planet releases outgoing radiation equal to the amount it absorbs in the infrared.

That infrared light is absorbed by greenhouse gases which heats up the Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIBsjBvRTew

We know how much is in the atmosphere. We know how much light it absorbs. We can easily calculate how much the Earth will heat up if they increase.

Water vapor, unlike CO2 however, has a very very very short residence time in the atmosphere. It cannot drive climate, it only increases if the atmosphere is warmed by some other factor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2wYPjlDxQQ

We know how much CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcmCBetoR18

The science is settled. It's also so simple we've known about it for over a hundred years. Denial is denial. You cannot accept basic science and deny human caused climate change.

Clear?

>>10792942
You're arguing with someone who thinks science is only valid if it happens in a test tube, explaining anything is an utter waste of time to a product of the failed mutt primary education system. Who's incapable of critical thinking, as they've convinced themselves some shitty blog is a reliable source because they like what it says, while peer reviewed journals have all been subverted by the Jews. You would have better luck trying to teach a monkey calculus.

>>10792880
>You do realise you cant prove global warming.
So I guess we're getting the most obvious lies out of the way first. There's a massive amount of evidence supporting it, it's a scientific fact.

>There was a mini ice age in the 1700s.
Moderate cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, so what?

>If global warming was heard everyone would blame it.
???

>I did a chart on the weather climate in ireland from met eirenn and there was no change apart from that the earth is cooling.
So Ireland = Earth? Also, why are you lying about publicly available information? Pic related.

>>10792880
>The antartic melts and freezes, sometimes more than usual so what do humans do?
Yeah, but it's melting more than freezing since global temperatures are increasing. Fucking retard

>>10792908
>[Conclusion I don't like] is essentially a blank check for [science that reaches the conclusion I don't like].
That's convenient, got any evidence?

>Its so sensationalized, and there’s many other things that will kill the planet before CO2.
Like what?

>Its not even the worse GHG released by pollution.
By what metric?

>And the evidence for it warming the planet is dubious at best.
It's fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics, and is directly observed. Why are you lying?

>Overpopulation, China, and the border crisis are all much worse problems.
LOL >>>/pol/

>>10788905
Inevitable just as it always has been in the past with small sharp spikes and large sharp drops punctuated by geologically brief periods of comparative climate stability, the same as has been happening constantly ten thousand years before industrialized civilizations even existed. It's really easy to forget about all of those ice ages and warm climate optimums because 90% of society are already brainlets who never paid attention to whatever level of basic science education they were given, and even more easily forgotten when most all graphs peddled by anthropogenic climate change evangelists completely leave out that portion of the geologic period, as if the minute fraction of time humans have been gathering accurate climate data could possibly be enough to generate worthwhile models above the local scale. I certainly believe in climate change, just not the propaganda version which coincidentally is always used to justify expansion of government power, an endless flow of grant money to ACC evangelists, and media hysterics or political alarmism.

>>10793393
The mythical mount stupid in action truly a beautiful thing.

>>10788994
>Oil industry creates and sells in-demand products and is not dependent on persuading government to make a living. It could in fact do better without governments.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2019/SF0159

>>10793393
Yeah, none of that is true though.

>inb4 REEEEEEEEEEE fake graph

>>10793777
>ignores all the post in this thread.

>>10790179
The UN can't even wipe their own arses without a 500 man committee, what makes you think they could start a global conspiracy?

>>10793777
That graph is not real. You're hiding the resolution of the reconstruction by plotting it as a line. Take it from the authors themselves.

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions

You're splicing a high resolution modern data on top of a data that is averaged over 150 years smoothing. Of course the spike would look dramatic, because it is high resolution. This is the same problem with ice core data. At the bottom the CO2 have 1500 years resolution (which hides any spikes that could have happen) but people add modern measurements on top

>>10789445
>False. Antarctic ice cores have been taken in several different locations, and produce proxy reconstructions in reasonable agreement with each other.
How about Greenland? Ice cores from Greenland exist, but ignored because it doesnt fit the narrative
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/02/resolution-and-hockey-sticks-part-deux-carbon-dioxide/

>>10788905
b-b-but believing in climate change leads to less jobs and believing in atheism and supporting the gays! my mom and dad said so

>>10792148
based

>>10794581
>How about Greenland? Ice cores from Greenland exist, but ignored because it doesnt fit the narrative
Now you're just lying. Greenland is a major source of ice core data.

>>10794644
But not CO2 because warmist dont like it

>>10794661
>Google scholar
>search for greenland co2 ice core
>all those papers

Sure, buddy.

>>10794692
The paper exist, but they are never presented as CO2 data. CO2 data only from Antarctica because Greenland CO2 data shows high variability (which means that recent rise in CO2 was not unprecedented)

>>10794706
I mean the paper exist in obscure journal, and never presented to the public as much as Antarctic CO2 data.

climate change is a scare tool to control the easily led masses
it's true the ice caps are dissapearing but that's because polar ice is a commodity and it's being harvested.
the knock on effect the natural buildup of ice at the poles is slowed and reducing the thermal balancig efficiency of the caps.
also plastic used to be recycleable until china stopped accepting it now they just sail over there and dump it in the sea where it washes up on 3rd world shores.

>>10794581
First off 'Wattsupwiththat'. Sigh, great, thanks for making me read the scientific equivalent of a barrel of dog vomit.

Okay, great, that hardly says what you think it says.

1st, his data does not support his conclusion that 'it could get as high as 400 ppm.' He's using the absolute furthest zone of error bars to jump to that conclusion.

2nd, we know the source of modern CO2 in the atmosphere. It is not natural. The attempt of your .... sigh essay, is trying to cast doubt on the origin of modern CO2 as somehow being 'within the natural variability'. Which it's not. So even if we give his sources the benefit of the doubt that the highest range of error bars of a few measurements out of dozens ... you're still wrong.

You need to learn about Isotopic Fractionation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0dgJ4JMNrE

The source of Carbon in the atmosphere is known. It's coming from humans.
https://www.dummies.com/education/science/environmental-science/isotopes-how-do-scientists-know-that-humans-cause-global-warming/

See my previous post
>>10792942
For why we know an increase of CO2 will increase the temperature. You have not got a single leg to stand on. You're wrong and your denialist blogs are wrong.

>>10794719
>sigh
>resetera

I'm talking about representation. Why do I have to dig to obscure papers with way less citations than Antarctic CO2? Why did Al Gore present antarctic CO2 but not Greenland?

>>10794719

>>10794910
I legitimately do not understand your argument. Why are you bringing up Al Gore? He's not a scientist and as far as I know has never written a scientific paper. Is there a reason you're bringing him up?

Also what are you bringing up Greenland for? At no point in time is anything about Greenland necessary to prove man made climate change.

These are the facts you need to attack to prove that man made climate change is a myth.

1. Fact. Electrons promote due to discrete photons of energy and only those discrete photons of energy dependent on which orbital they are in.

2. Fact. The blackbody radiation curve of the sun lets most visible light in through the atmosphere.

3. Fact. The Earth heats up and radiates at its own blackbody radiation curve in the infrared.

4. Fact. CO2 absorbs energy, because of the electron orbitals it has, in the infrared.

5. Fact. Although Water Vapor absorbs energy in many more bands than CO2 in the infrared and visible spectrum of light its residence time is too short (at about 9 days) to be a driver of climate.

6. Fact. Plants prefer C-12 to C-13 thus fractionating C-12 and C-13 from the atmosphere and therefore contain a higher percentage of C-12 than found in the atmosphere.

7. Fact. The percentage of C-13 in the atmosphere is falling at a rate similar to the rise in overall CO2 showing that the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is not from any natural source but comes FROM BURNING PLANTS.

8. Fact. Coal and oil are made from ancient plants.

Therefore our conclusion is that, because we know the effects of increasing CO2 will have on the atmosphere, because we know the source of CO2 in the atmosphere, we can conclude that humans will cause an increase in temperature between 2-4 degrees before the end of the century.

If you have a problem, please explain which of my points is incorrect. Stop attacking Greenland CO2. Stop discussing Al Gore. Attack the points or admit that climate change is real and caused by humans.

Fuck.

>>10788905
Yes, and four billion people are going to die because of it. Currently teaching myself how to arid-farm.

>>10794038
Which ones?

>>10794562
>You're hiding the resolution of the reconstruction by plotting it as a line.
LOL what does the resolution have to do with plotting as a line? The recinstruction only exists as a smoothed average, not as discrete samples. Are you making things up again? We talked about this.

>Take it from the authors themselves.
This says nothing about the graph I posted, which uses HadCRUT4 data for modern warming.

>You're splicing a high resolution modern data on top of a data that is averaged over 150 years smoothing
Incorrect, all data in the graph I posted have the same resolution.

>Of course the spike would look dramatic, because it is high resolution.
There you go, making shit up again.

>This is the same problem with ice core data. At the bottom the CO2 have 1500 years resolution (which hides any spikes that could have happen) but people add modern measurements on top
LOL please show me who told you the resolution is 1500 years.

>>10794706
>CO2 data only from Antarctica because Greenland CO2 data shows high variability (which means that recent rise in CO2 was not unprecedented)
Another lie. Greenland ice cores are not used for CO2 because they have layers of meltwater which show higher levels of CO2 than what was in the atmosphere since CO2 is soluble in water. The Arctic ice cores are more consistently frozen and also extended much farther back than Greenland ice cores.

>>10794716
>it's true the ice caps are dissapearing but that's because polar ice is a commodity and it's being harvested.

>>10794716
>it's true the ice caps are dissapearing but that's because polar ice is a commodity and it's being harvested
audibly kek'd

>>10789001
>Rigorous
>Statistical extrapolation
Take a step back, you bootlicking cunt.

>>10795963
>take
>a
Behold I have greentexted two words you used. You are defeated.

>>10792742
Dumb motherfucker, magnetic poles and electric charge are testable and you can verify it if you have a lemon, some iron, and a wire. Now try recreating the dynamic system that is earth's atmosphere with your supercomputers (did I mention you have 200 years of data to work with?) And see how that goes.

>>10795968
>You're under 18
>You're retarded
Pick one. Statistical inference has never been rigorous.

>>10795977
What statistical inference?

>>10795972
No need to recreate anything when you can directly observe it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25731165/

Also the greenhouse effect has been experimentally verified many times: https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

>>10794982
Denier cucks have no response to this post probably because they dont have the education to understand half of it.

>>10796032
>Paywall
And now it all makes sense.

>>10796093
Is this your first time on /sci/ little buddy?

>>10796101
Address the paywall or GTFO, Jew. Don't hide behind the curtain. And yes, this is my first time here. Now did you read the article? Tell me what the next sentence is after
>These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

>>10796115
>WAAAAAAH IT'S MY FIRST TIME ON /SCI/ AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ACCESS PAPERS
Read the sticky you moronic /pol/tard

>>10796093
>>10796115
Most of /sci/ either has access to journals through work or school, or knows how to find a paper for free, sorry but if you can't deal with board culture you should just leave.

>>10796129
He hasn't even looked for a pdf on google, it has nothing to do with board culture and everything to do with him being a pathetic denier.

>>10796093
>>10796115
>paywall
use sci-hub

>>10796126
No, I'm not from 4chan ya dingus. I frequent other websites and mediums of communication.

My apologies that I don't appreciate how fucked academia has become. Oh yes, yes, I would like to BUY your information. How much must I PAY for something that should be general knowledge, my good sir?

I don't have even looked at /pol/ yet, but I can already tell you think 4chan is the only world we live in.

>>10796129
>>10796137
If you want to cite something, don't be a prick and use an inaccessible source. That's just common sense. If you have ways of getting the paper, then link it that way.

It's like I'm talking to a bunch of undergrads that just figured out there school has a library that can pay the exorbitant fees so you don't have to. I know there's ways to get papers for free.

So you know what? Fine, if you don't want to provide good sources for me to actually be able to read, I'll leave. Call it an epic ragequit XD or whatever you want. Nice job, trolls, but obviously you don't actually believe the shit you're posting.

>>10796151
>First time on 4chan
>First time reading a published paper
But somehow I have to cater to your needs. LOL fuck off retard.

>If you want to cite something, don't be a prick and use an inaccessible source.
It's not inaccessible to me. If you are unable/unwilling to access scientific research you should not be attempting to debate scientific research.

>>10788905
I believe in climate change!
CLIMATE CHANGIN' DEEZ NUTS!

>>10796261
"IM RIGHT SO LOOK IT UP FOR PROOF"
That's what you sound like 冚家鏟

>>10796151
inaccessible source
>>10796148
now stop being dense and use it

>>10796272
>providing a citation for a claim is the same as denier tier YA GOTTA LOOK INTO IT
I don't know what kind of illiterate shithole you crawled out of but you need to go back.

>>10796034
What gets my panties in a twist most is people that keep saying that Climate Science is based on soft science and is nothing but computer models and manipulating statistics.

Climate Science is based on physics and chemistry and anyone that says otherwise is an uneducated fool.

>>10796305
Better than yours apparently, illiterate gweilo.

>>10796318
Well apparently they don't even have scientific journals where you're from so I'm guessing 12th century India, it's an honor to be in the presence of a time traveler.

Global Cooling will be a disaster
this is why preserving fossil fuels is important

>>10796326
We give our findings to the state, and they let us read for free. You dumb Americans wouldn't understand

>>10796314
>Climate Science is based on physics and chemistry
no, it's a religion and belongs to >>>/x/ at best

>>10793186
Ad hominem. You are putting words in my mouth and are disparaging my character. I never said any of these things.

>>10796034
Unironically true, people dont know what electrons are aside from "idk they are inside atoms right".

>>10796362
If youre talking about the religion of observable reality then yes.

>>10792942
>The science is settled
it's not
there are hundreds of skeptic papers you are ignoring

>>10796389
post some, and I'll post the response letters as to why they're bullshit

>>10796388
>Religion of observable reality
Spotted the edgelord preteen

>>10796398
>response letters
*motu proprio excommunication decrees
which you can shove up your arse

>>10795977
The whole reason statistical inference is used in basically all published science is that it's rigorous. Formal proofs exist that conclusions drawn using correctly applied statistical means are correct with extremely high probability. You're talking out of your ass again.

>>10796423
>denial cuck can't deal with the realities of peer review
what a surprise, don't you have some blog posts to be linking right about now?

>>10796428
>Extremely high probability
With cherry picking methods

>>10796432
>peer review
skeptic papers are peer reviewed too
try again

>>10796437
and promptly thrown in the dumpster by responses poking holes in their poor methodology and general incompetence. If they even managed to get published at all, I notice you haven't posted a single one of your "HUNDREDS!!!!" yet.

>>10796433
Data corroborated by hundreds of monitoring stations run by different governments' labs, academic institutions, and amateur volunteers; many different data sources and lines of evidence, and attested to in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles, papers and scientific books, all of which fits into well established and uncontroversial general explanations about physics and chemistry, is not cherry-picked. Are you also going to claim that the Hall effect or the photoelectric effect that make your phone work are cherry-picked because they were shown using statistical inference and you get different results if you try and replicate them but deliberately fuck up the experiments?

>>10796448
>Photoelectric effect
>Hall effect
First year undergrads can derive this easy.

>>10788929
Very much science

>>10796362
see
>>10794982

>>10796403
you should spot your lack of a sarcasm filter

>>10796508
Spotted the mad boy

>>10796460
Since both phenomena emerge from quantum mechanics, I'm going to say no. Like the greenhouse effect , they're not too difficult to establish experimentally. Is there any reason you're changing the subject?

>>10796590
You changed it first. That's chapter 1 of QM

>>10794982
>its residence time is too short (at about 9 days
Water vapor it's CONSTANTLY present in the atmosphere

>>10794982

Fact: the Sun is the primary climate driver
even NASA said so before being ordered to delete everything

https://web.archive.org/web/20100416015231/http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/

>>10796657
That’s lovely. How weird then that Earth’s temperatures continue to climb while solar radiation has not increased. Almost like there’s a local factor at hand...

>>10796641
Yes, but it's not a driver of climate because its short residency time means it equilibrates in response to changes, including an increase in the amount of water vapor, which causes more water to precipitate out.

>>10796657
>The Sun has been the primary driver of the climate and causes changes large changes over thousands of years
How exactly is this in contradiction with AGW?

>>10792923
Sorry, I meant to post this in response to >>10788950

>>10796615
>You changed it first.
I really didn't. We were talking about the greenhouse effect; I said that it's established about as well as those effects. If you disagree, you should say why because we have similar experimental support for each. If not, then you ascend to the main driver of global warming.
>That's chapter 1 of QM
Chapter 1 is usually about the wave function or eigenstates. Those generally aren't introductory topics at all. Again: why are the pedagogical choices of textbook authors relevant? We were discussing global warming.

>>10796661
>Earth’s temperatures continue to climb
that's not true
stop believing manipulated charts and datasets

>>10796749
>Another baseless claim
Put up well replicated data with methadological detail or GTFO. This isn't a shitty /pol/ race thread.

>>10788939
Scientific theories are as close to what we call 'facts' in everyday speech. Stop pretending you don't know that.

>>10788994
The fossil fuels industry also wants to make profits in the future.

>>10788994
This, fossil fuels have never taken one dollar of subsidies. It's these leftist moochers getting all the government bucks to bankroll their OUTRAGEOUSLY EXPENSIVE scientific studies

>>10794982
I actually disagree with point 5.

Unlike co2, residence time of water vapor is irrelevant because water vapor is constantly being reintroduced to the atmosphere through evaporation. It is always in a state of being recirculated in and out of the atmosphere, and it's concentration is related to temperature - the higher the temperature, the more water vapor, the higher its greenhouse effect. Also, water vapor plays a huge role as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, and without it amplifying the effects of co2 increases, temperature increases would be much smaller.

>>10796781
Joking?
>This, fossil fuels have never taken one dollar of subsidies.
Bullshit:
https://www.iea.org/weo/energysubsidies/
>It's these leftist moochers getting all the government bucks to bankroll their OUTRAGEOUSLY EXPENSIVE scientific studies
Spending for scientific R&D, some of which developed technologies that are responsible for most of the real economic development of the last half century, is still less than fossil fuel subsidies:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending

>>10796781
Nah... more likely its that deniers are actually a bunch of bloated psychotic Consumers, rejecting the idea that their repulsive gluttony may have any negative side effects. Much the same way brain damaged alcoholics rationalize their next drink.

>>10796792
It's not a DRIVER of climate, precisely because of the point you're bringing up. You're agreeing with the post you're saying you disagree with. It amplifies the effects of changes in other GHG concentrations, but it does not drive the change itself because it reaches equilibrium on the order of a week or two.

>>10796869
Ok fine. It's not a "driver of climate", then.
(We could have avoided all this if you simply added the word "change" to the end of the sentence, genius)

>>10796869
And, residence time is still irrelevant.

>>10788905
It's probably happening to an extent by its so heavily politicized and propagandized that it's hard to tell for sure. It's definitely nowhere near as bad as the liberal memes suggest

>>10797172
citation needed*

>>10788994
This triggers the libtard

>>10797314
best way to trigger any libtard is just lie through your teeth.

>>10796903
wrong, that's the key property that makes water vapor concentration a response to climate changes rather than a driver of changes

>>10788989
This is the best depiction of predicted impact of climate change. It isn't going to end the world or destroy humanity, but it'll destroy the economies of the global south.
>>10792148
Honest question what solutions are there besides unironic extoposting? Both you and I know the global economy won't be reconfigured before that graph becomes reality.

No, but Resource abuse is going to create the same effects as """"""""""""""Climate change""""""""""""" at some point

>>10797701
residence time is irrelevant for transient substances/properties like water vapour, clouds, snow cover, ice, vegetation type, glacier cover etc. Quantities of these (excepting the last perhaps) things are all determined by a baseline climate. Their residence time has nothing to do with whether or not they "drivers of climate change".

>>10797754
We were talking about atmospheric water vapor concentration, which is principally a reinforcing feedback to changes in surface temperatures, and therefore changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, because of its short residency time. All the other phases of water you mentioned are either irrelevant to the greenhouse effect of atmospheric water vapor, or in the case of clouds, already fall under the definition.

>>10788929
Is science brainlet

>>10797754
So, what prevents water vapor from being a positive feedback and driving the temperature to infinity?

Political fanatics needs to be slapped across the face.
There's nothing more cringe than a normie on a political crusade.

>>10788905
Yes, everyone on /sci/ agree that climate is changing.

>>10797912
Positive feedback does not mean linear feedback.

>>10788917
/Thread on a serious non-thread /pol/bait garbage shitpost.

It's obviously a real phenomenon, but is there really any reason to care? Is humanity really worth protecting? Why should I give a shit if humanity ceases to exist when I'm already dead?

I'm not gonna quit driving my v8 engine and eating red meat just because some future humans will be in deep shit. Not my problem, faggots.

>>10798250
You have been awarded 18 EDGY points for this post. Congratulations.

>>10798259
Stay mad, whiteknight. Keep on fighting for people that you will never meet, people that will never influence your life in any shape or form. It's not your problem. Join the based side and rev your v12 engine with me!

>>10798158
Okay, look. Water vapor in the atmosphere causes the temperature to rise. Rising temperature causes more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor in the atmosphere causes the temperature to rise, etc.

So, why have the oceans not boiled away?

You're going to have to come to the same conclusion people came to long ago. The reason why is the residence time is too short. You're just saying 'It is because it is' without explaining why. The why is residence time. I hate to use Skeptical Science on someone who's obviously so well educated already but

https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

>The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived.

>>10798486
I'm going to make an addendum. My Earth Materials professor explained to me this:

There's the 'truth' we teach undergraduates, there's the 'truth' we teach graduate students, there's the 'truth' we learn as researchers, and there's the 'truth' we're searching for.

He said that when he explained to class that the mantel is not liquid and bright orange like we see in movies and documentaries but solid, rigid, and green.

So I only know of what I know from what my climatology textbooks and professors taught me, I am not a climatologist, I am a geologist, if you know more than I do on the subject I am willing to listen but so far the posts I've gotten have been 'Residence time is irrelevant because it's irrelevant'.

I say this all because it's obvious you're well educated and I don't want to act like I know more than you in case I don't. Until then however I'm going to stick to my guns that the reason water vapor is not a driver of climate change is it's residence time is too short.

Cool?

>>10798486
>So, why have the oceans not boiled away?
Because the hotter something is the more black body radiation it gives off. It has nothing to do with residence time of water vapor. Earth's incoming solar radiation is low so it's easy for the outgoing longwave radiation to go above it and reduce temps. If Earth's incoming solar radiation was high the increasing black body radiation might not be able to get high enough, it could plateau below the incoming radiation, creating runaway warming.

>>10798499
The reason water vapor is not a driver is because its concentration in the atmosphere is determined by temperature. So it reacts to primary causes of temperature change and amplifies them. But water vapor doesn't change by itself.

>>10798694
>Because the hotter something is the more black body radiation it gives off. ...Earth's incoming solar radiation is low so it's easy for the outgoing longwave radiation to go above it and reduce temps.
>If Earth's incoming solar radiation was high the increasing black body radiation might not be able to get high enough, it could plateau below the incoming radiation
The Stefan-Boltzmann law suggests this reasoning is incorrect. Black body radiation increases dramatically with temperature, scaling as T^4. If it were hotter, it would emit a lot more radiation. Greenhouse gases are what determine how much of that radiation fails to escape back into space, though. So it's not only black body radiation.

The point anon is making is that the short residency time of water is a negative feedback that tends to stabilize and equilibrate the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere. So while it is a positive feedback with respect to temperature changes, reinforcing and amplifying that temperature change, it is not only a positive feedback, which would cause it to simply amplify continuously until all the water boiled away. The water vapor concentration is limited by the short residency time of water vapor canceling out "most of" the extra evaporation and causing the concentration to equilibrate to the new conditions.
>It has nothing to do with residence time of water vapor.

>>10798694
>>10798742
>it has nothing to do with residence time of water vapor
this statement is still incorrect

>>10798706
Okay I'm done. You're not saying anything that isn't already well known or well understood and you're not making a case for why the residency time of water vapor is the reason it's not a driver of climate. You're just repeating what we already know.

If you have anything else to add that's new go ahead and add it but until then I'm done listening.

>>10798742
>Greenhouse gases are what determine how much of that radiation fails to escape back into space, though. So it's not only black body radiation.
I didn't say it was only black body radiation, I said it's outgoing longwave radiation.

Venus had plenty of greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor, and had runaway warming. The only relevant difference between it and Earth is that it has more incoming solar radiation.

>The point anon is making is that the short residency time of water is a negative feedback that tends to stabilize and equilibrate the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere.
But water vapor produces a very strong positive feedback. If all water vapor was gone from the atmosphere it would be even less likely to see runaway warming. So this makes no sense. If CO2 was 10 times as strong a greenhouse gas you would probably see runaway warming too, does this mean the weakness of CO2 is a "cause" of a lack of runaway warming?

>>10798883
>You're not saying anything that isn't already well known or well understood and you're not making a case for why the residency time of water vapor is the reason it's not a driver of climate. You're just repeating what we already know.
LOL, why would I be telling you something we don't already know to explain something we already know? Water vapor is not a driver of climate because it's a feedback and not a forcing. What more explanation do you need?

>>10799081
>I didn't say it was only black body radiation, I said it's outgoing longwave radiation.
The outgoing radiation IS black body radiation.
>The only relevant difference between it and Earth is that it has more incoming solar radiation.
Completely false. Venus' atmosphere is almost entirely CO2. If there were no other GHGs in the earth's atmosphere, all of the water vapor would eventually precipitate back to Earth. This is thought to have actually occurred on Earth before, although evidence of an ancient process like this is hard to come by.
>But water vapor produces a very strong positive feedback.
With respect to changes and temperatures, and therefore with respect to changes in non-water vapor GHG concentrations. The water cycle/residency time is a negative feedback with respect to changes in atmospheric water vapor concentration.

I feel like you're trolling me at this point. Your statements are specious and ignorant of how atmospheric physics and thermodynamics really work. "Outgoing longwave radiation from thermal heating is not the same thing as black body radiation" is such a stupid distinction to try and make that someone could only either be completely ignorant of the facts, or not serious at all, to say it.

>>10799149
>The outgoing radiation IS black body radiation.
You just said: Greenhouse gases are what determine how much of that radiation fails to escape back into space, though. So it's not only black body radiation.

Are your arguing with yourself?

>Completely false. Venus' atmosphere is almost entirely CO2.
The operative word there being "is." I'm talking about Venus in the past.

>If there were no other GHGs in the earth's atmosphere, all of the water vapor would eventually precipitate back to Earth.
That would require the Sun to not exist too.

>With respect to changes and temperatures, and therefore with respect to changes in non-water vapor GHG concentrations. The water cycle/residency time is a negative feedback with respect to changes in atmospheric water vapor concentration.
That's not what negative feedback means.

>I feel like you're trolling me at this point.
LOL, your entire argument is based on misinterpretations.

>"Outgoing longwave radiation from thermal heating is not the same thing as black body radiation" is such a stupid distinction to try and make
You're the one who made that distinction! First you tried to argue as if I was saying Earth is a perfect black body by making a distinction between total outgoing radiation and perfect black body radiation, then when I agreed with you, you switched to arguing as if I was saying the outgoing radiation is not black body radiation.

>>10799907
>You're the one who made that distinction! First you tried to argue as if I was saying Earth is a perfect black body by making a distinction between total outgoing radiation and perfect black body radiation, then when I agreed with you, you switched to arguing as if I was saying the outgoing radiation is not black body radiation.
Complete lie. You are the one who tried to distinguish between "outgoing longwave radiation" and "black body radiation" right here >>1079908 . You are the one that brought up "black body radiation," here >>10798694 . You made this useless distinction to avoid accepting that the Stefan-Boltzmann law disintegrates your stupid argument that "black body radiation is why there's no runaway greenhouse effect from water vapor," instead of the correct reason of the short residency time of water vapor in the atmosphere. You posted that argument in >>10798694 .

Whether or not the Earth is a "perfect" black body radiator is actually irrelevant to whether or not the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies, because in the case it's not perfect you multiply the formula by a scaling coefficient that is between 0 and 1, while the power radiated is still proportional to T^4. The fact that it is proportional to T^4 is why your black body radiation argument fails.
>You just said: Greenhouse gases are what determine how much of that radiation fails to escape back into space, though. So it's not only black body radiation.
And you're misinterpreting what that means. The oceans would have already boiled off if not for the water cycle removing water vapor from the atmosphere. You say it has nothing to do with the residency time of water vapor, but it really has nothing to do with the change in black body radiation due to a change in temperature.
>That would require the Sun to not exist too.
Wrong again. If you removed the greenhouse gases that aren't water vapor, all of the water vapor would eventually precipitate back.

>>10800084
broken post link is >>10799081

>>10800084
>You are the one who tried to distinguish between "outgoing longwave radiation" and "black body radiation" right here >>1079908 .
I just quoted you doing it in the post before.

>You are the one that brought up "black body radiation," here >>10798694 (You) # .
Yes, because you asked why the positive feedback from water vapor does not imply runaway warming. The reason is that positive feedbacks are fighting against increasing black body radiation. You then interpreted this as meaning that Earth is a perfect black body. All you do is interpret statements in the most favorable way to your argument, even when it contradicts your own usage of those words.

>You made this useless distinction to avoid accepting that the Stefan-Boltzmann law disintegrates your stupid argument that "black body radiation is why there's no runaway greenhouse effect from water vapor,"
You used Stefan-Boltzman to show that Earth was not emmitting as much radiation as a perfect black body. This is irrelevant since I never said it was a perfect black body and the black body radiation of Earth still increases with temperature as I said.

>Whether or not the Earth is a "perfect" black body radiator is actually irrelevant to whether or not the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies, because in the case it's not perfect you multiply the formula by a scaling coefficient that is between 0 and 1
Every planet is an imperfect black body so by this argument runaway warming cannot occur anywhere. A simple scaling does not actually model all imperfect black bodies...

>The fact that it is proportional to T^4 is why your black body radiation argument fails.
My argument was that the Earth's black body radiation increases with temperature, you have completely failed to argue against this and instead went off on this irrelevant tangent.

>>10800084
>And you're misinterpreting what that means.
Well let's see, I'm going to interpret your words in the same way you did mine:

>Greenhouse gases are what determine how much of that radiation fails to escape back into space, though.
But the radiation is black body radiation. But then you say it's not only black body radiation. So you're contradicting yourself.

Odd how when you write the phrase "not only black body radiation" it refers to one thing. Then when I respond to that exact post and use the same phrase to say that I never disagreed, it means something else!

>Wrong again. If you removed the greenhouse gases that aren't water vapor, all of the water vapor would eventually precipitate back.
The Sun makes the Earth warm, warmth keeps water vapor in the air, and water vapor makes the Earth warmer. Most of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor so the temperature would not be drastically different.

Again, Venus had plenty of water vapor but it experienced runaway warming because it recieves more solar radiation than Earth.

>>10797825
it's literal anti-science.

>>10788989
yeah I'm thinkin white people stay winning

>>10788989
Wtf is global warming racist?!

>>10788917
>caused almost entirely by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses from human activity

>>10796769
If scientific theories are close to what we call facts, then it's reasonable to ask whether someone believes or doesn't believe in a particular "fact". In that case, you could say, for example, that "Einstein didn't believe in the fact that there is luminiferous aether".

>>10788905
Climate change is something that is happening, has always been happening, and will always happen for as long as the Earth exists, has existed, and will exist.

The real questions are exactly how the climate is changing, why it is changing the way it is, and what effect those changes will have long term. The first is generally agreed upon with some small amount of debate, as is the second, meanwhile the third is pretty hotly debated between the majority and a smaller minority that points to previous climate change projections that ended up being wildly inaccurate.

Personally all I know for sure is that I'm not a researcher in these fields and haven't looked into the issues enough to have a full opinion about the matters, so I don't think it would be wise for me to have a hard and fast opinion supporting or denying any particular hypothetical model.

>>10800884
A question for you, what's the difference between Tooker or Langan and Einstein?

>>10788905
Yes.

>>10795779
Cope

>>10800652
>I just quoted you doing it in the post before.
Go ahead and link to that post, faggot. You can't find me making a useless distinction about "outgoing" vs "black body" radiation, because it didn't fucking happen. Meanwhile your post doing exactly that in the first paragraph is right here >>10799081 for everyone to see. The statement "So it's not only black body radiation" I made here >>10798742 is not making a distinction between "black body" and "longwave," it's explaining there's more than one cause to the stability of atmospheric water vapor, namely the other greenhouse gases besides water vapor. You'd know that if you could read instead of just making shit up that didn't happen to respond to. Your black body radiation argument doesn't explain it.
>You then interpreted this as meaning that Earth is a perfect black body.
>You used Stefan-Boltzman to show that Earth was not emmitting as much radiation as a perfect black body.
You are incapable of reading. I didn't argue that the Earth is perfect or imperfect black body, because it doesn't matter to observe that in both cases, power emitted scales as T^4. In the equation [math]P = \epsilon \sigma T^4 [/math] , it doesn't matter if [math] \epsilon [/math] is 1 (perfect) or, say, 0.2 (imperfect) to observe that the scaling is still T^4. Which is exactly what I said, here >>10798742 .
>Every planet is an imperfect black body so by this argument runaway warming cannot occur anywhere. A simple scaling does not actually model all imperfect black bodies...
What argument, yours or mine? You're wrong in either case, because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

>>10800673
>But the radiation is black body radiation. But then you say it's not only black body radiation.
Learn to fucking read. It's "not only black body radiation," as in that's not the only cause, as in the other greenhouse gases that aren't water vapor are the more important factor that causes the stability of atmospheric water vapor, along with short residency time/precipitation.

>>10801248
Cope

>>10800910
>meanwhile the third is pretty hotly debated between the majority and a smaller minority
And the facts of the matter are firmly on the side of the majority. The cause is human activity. This can be seen from the isotope analysis of carbon, where atmospheric C-13 and C-14 are both decreasing, due to being diluted down by fossil fuel plant carbon that is almost exclusively C-12.
>and a smaller minority that points to previous climate change projections that ended up being wildly inaccurate.
Computer models and projections are not empirical evidence. They are not evidence disproving AGW. They can aid the overall understanding, but that's all.

>>10801251
>Go ahead and link to that post, faggot.
I already quoted it, moron: >>10798742

>Greenhouse gases are what determine how much of that radiation fails to escape back into space, though. So it's not only black body radiation.

>The statement "So it's not only black body radiation" I made here >>10798742 # is not making a distinction between "black body" and "longwave," it's explaining there's more than one cause to the stability of atmospheric water vapor, namely the other greenhouse gases besides water vapor.
We were not talking about the stability of water vapor, we were talking about how much energy leaves the earth. I said the amount of outgoing longwave radiation increases with temperature since black body radiation increases with temperature. You then argued as if I said outgoing longwave radiation is proportional to T^4, when I never said that. To support this you pointed out that the greenhouse effect and associated feedbacks result in less OLR than a perfect black body. Which I then agreed with by pointing out that I was talking OLR, not "only black body radiation" WHICH IS THE PHRASE YOU USED TO DESCRIBE BLACK BODY RADIATION UNMEDIATED BY OTHER EFFECTS.

So not only is this entire line of argument based on your misinterpretations, you even misinterpreted your own phrase.

>You are incapable of reading. I didn't argue that the Earth is perfect or imperfect black body, because it doesn't matter to observe that in both cases, power emitted scales as T^4. In the equation P=ϵσT4 , it doesn't matter if ϵ is 1 (perfect) or, say, 0.2 (imperfect) to observe that the scaling is still T^4.
This ignores the greenhouse effect, as you already know, so it's useless. You're not calculating OLR, which is what I'm talking about. Get it yet?

>What argument, yours or mine?
Your strawman argument. Does OLR increase with temperature? It's a very simple question that you refuse to answer.

>>10801261
>Learn to fucking read.
This is ironic considering I am simply reading your words as you read mine. Do you realize you're insulting yourself?

>It's "not only black body radiation," as in that's not the only cause,
Which is what I said and you refused to read.

>as in the other greenhouse gases that aren't water vapor are the more important factor that causes the stability of atmospheric water vapor, along with short residency time/precipitation.
This makes no sense since we were not talking about the stability of water vapor. What you actually mean is that they affect the amount of radiation leaving Earth, which effects temperature, which effects water vapor. Saying that this is due to water vapor's residence time is ass backwards, it's putting the cart before the horse. The only reason you are phrasing it this way is to shoehorn in your argument, which was already disproved by the fact that water vapor is controlled by temperature, and by looking at what separates Earth and Venus before its runaway warming. Of course you ignored all that.

>>10801104
I'm not comparing anyone to Einstein, I'm saying that calling scientific theories "facts" is misleading. Scientific theories can change or be replaced by better theories, facts don't.

>>10801373
>We were not talking about the stability of water vapor
This literally is what the conversation was about. Sorry you're too much of a fucking retard to remember what you were discussing. Or maybe just dishonest enough to resort to every kind of sophistry imaginable rather than admit defeat. Change the subject again, or pretend I said something besides what I said, you faggot.
>To support this you pointed out that the greenhouse effect and associated feedbacks result in less OLR than a perfect black body.
That wasn't the point at all. I can't help it if you don't know how to read and understand words and context.
>Which I then agreed with by pointing out that I was talking OLR, not "only black body radiation" WHICH IS THE PHRASE YOU USED TO DESCRIBE BLACK BODY RADIATION UNMEDIATED BY OTHER EFFECTS.
Learn to read. "Not only black body radiation" meant that the non-water vapor greenhouse gases are the more important factor. As in, black body radiation is "not" the "only" factor that needs to be considered.

>>10801446
I'm not calling them facts. They are the closest thing we have in science, as there are no absolute facts in science.
But a theory is as good as it gets. And if you don't understand the nomenclature, you don't belong on this board.

>>10801416
>This makes no sense since we were not talking about the stability of water vapor. What you actually mean is that they affect the amount of radiation leaving Earth, which effects temperature, which effects water vapor.
>Saying that this is due to water vapor's residence time is ass backwards
Saying that what's due to water vapor's residence time? The stability of water vapor in the atmosphere is due to evaporation caused by the greenhouse effect, minus the negative feedback of precipitation/short residency time. Before you pretend otherwise like you did here >>10799907 that is exactly what a negative feedback is, and it's a negative feedback stabilizing the water vapor concentration. The presence of water vapor in the atmosphere is only sustained by the presence of other GHGs that aren't water vapor. The fact that I'm quoting your post some 20 posts ago about negative feedback of water vapor concentration should clue you in that that's what the conversation was about the entire time, despite you now pretending otherwise.

>>10801524
>This literally is what the conversation was about.
This literally is not what we were talking about in that specific point. Here is the conversation:

>Okay, look. Water vapor in the atmosphere causes the temperature to rise. Rising temperature causes more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor in the atmosphere causes the temperature to rise, etc.
>So, why have the oceans not boiled away?
>>Because the hotter something is the more black body radiation it gives off.
>The Stefan-Boltzmann law suggests this reasoning is incorrect. Black body radiation increases dramatically with temperature, scaling as T^4. If it were hotter, it would emit a lot more radiation. Greenhouse gases are what determine how much of that radiation fails to escape back into space, though. So it's not only black body radiation.
>>I didn't say it was only black body radiation, I said it's outgoing longwave radiation.

Notice how the Stefan Boltzman equation does not actually counter my point that the hotter something is, the more black body radiation it gives off. What you did is assume that I was saying OLR scales with T^4 and then argue against that strawman. You then said it doesn't scale with T^4 because of the greenhouse effect. When I pointed this out by agreeing with the last claim, you again argued against a strawman that OLR is not black body radiation. None of this is about stability of water vapor.

>>>To support this you pointed out that the greenhouse effect and associated feedbacks result in less OLR than a perfect black body.
>That wasn't the point at all.
Stop lying, this is exactly what you said here: "Black body radiation increases dramatically with temperature, scaling as T^4. If it were hotter, it would emit a lot more radiation. Greenhouse gases are what determine how much of that radiation fails to escape back into space, though. So it's not only black body radiation." You didn't even mention the stability of water vapor.

>>10801524
>"Not only black body radiation" meant that the non-water vapor greenhouse gases are the more important factor.
This doesn't even counter what I said. And you didn't say anything about water vapor or importance. By only black body radiation you meant outgoing black body radiation that scales with T^4, which does not take into account the greenhouse effect. This is the exact same meaning as when I used the phrase in the next post, because I was agreeing with you that OLR does not scale with T^4. That is a strawman you made up, which you have yet to justify.

>>10801571
>Saying that what's due to water vapor's residence time?
The inability of the water vapor feedback loop to produce runaway warming.

>that is exactly what a negative feedback is
Please explain how.

>The presence of water vapor in the atmosphere is only sustained by the presence of other GHGs that aren't water vapor.
Of course that's false, it's also sustained by the Sun and by its own warming effect.

>The fact that I'm quoting your post some 20 posts ago about negative feedback of water vapor concentration
But you're not.

>>10801308
Why the fuck are you (You)ing me my dude?

>>10801822
>But you're not.
Here's the post >>10799907 , specifically:
>That's not what negative feedback means.
In response to my comment:
>With respect to changes and temperatures, and therefore with respect to changes in non-water vapor GHG concentrations. The water cycle/residency time is a negative feedback with respect to changes in atmospheric water vapor concentration.
Please explain how that's not about negative feedback of water vapor concentration so that I can laugh at your pointless sophistry some more. The topic was about residency time of water vapor in the atmosphere the entire time, no matter how much you lie and claim otherwise.

>>10801774
>What you did is assume that I was saying OLR scales with T^4 and then argue against that strawman. You then said it doesn't scale with T^4 because of the greenhouse effect.
I didn't assume the former or state the latter.

Notice how you're the one who brought up "perfect" or "imperfect" black body radiator, and I have repeatedly pointed out that in either case, power is proportional to T^4. The scaling was the only part relevant to my argument, so it would have been pointless to discuss whether or not it was perfect or imperfect. You can stop saying I brought it up or assumed it or whatever, because you were the first to mention it.
>>10801822
>that is exactly what a negative feedback is
>Please explain how.
More thermal energy from increased greenhouse effect increases evaporation, which increases water vapor concentration. Since there is more water vapor in the air, there is more of it to condense into rain or snow and precipitate out. The loss of water vapor due to precipitation cancels out part of the increase from precipitation, and the two mechanisms reach an equilibrium, the point of that equilibrium being determined by other parameters like temperature changes. That is a negative feedback. Negative feedbacks tend to stabilize signals toward an equilibrium point.

>>10802754
>The loss of water vapor due to precipitation cancels out part of the increase from precipitation
cancels out part of the increase from higher evaporation*

>>10801524
Can I make a suggestion? Stop responding to him. It's obvious that he either:
1. Has some education in physics
or
2. Has some education in chemistry
and has no training at all in climatology. He's completely confused and because of his physics or chemistry background hasn't been properly trained in feedbacks, reservoirs, or residence and thinks that his qualifications in physics or chemistry qualify him to understand something which he doesn't understand. He may even think that all you need is physics or chemistry and you're automatically an expert in whatever is derived from it.


And to the other guy. Let me make something very clear. An education in one field does qualify you or help you understand another, even if that field is physics or chemistry which too many people on this board and elsewhere (college students) think is some hot shit because other fields derive from them.

I can guarantee you that you don't know jack shit about things in climatology like cyclonicity (or why the gulf stream is deep and narrow while the Canary current is shallow and wide) or Ekman transport will just go right over your head and it's obvious that although you know some of the physics terms we use you haven't got the basics of earth science that would help you understand it.

I'm going to suggest, if you're actually interested, to start with Daisy World. It will at least introduce you to feedbacks that you legitimately obviously do not understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCxIqgZA7ag

I said I was done with you already. I hope my poor hopeless partner is too and am only responding for their sake. You are saying nothing and obviously don't get what you don't understand.

>>10788905
I believe in clamping the general population's umbilical cords early to lower their IQ, and make the cattle easier to control. I also believe in circumcising them, fully. None of this "just the tip" nonsense of the old world Jews, it's not done properly unless you tear it off the glans and get the whole thing. Then vaccinating to destroy their health and lower their general intelligence further, reducing their awareness and ability to reason and inducing long term neurodegeneration. I believe in vitamin K. The neonate's blood should be more viscous. I believe in irradiating the infant.

>>10802737
>Please explain how that's not about negative feedback of water vapor concentration so that I can laugh at your pointless sophistry some more.
It is indeed a post where you call the water cycle a negative feedback even though it isn't, which has nothing to do with the specific point we are talking about. It's a response to a point from a separate paragraph. Again, the short residency time of water does not explain why Earth doesn't experience runaway warming. That can only be explained by the amount of solar radiation Earth receives. The residency time of water is a secondary effect of that cause and its primary effects, not a cause itself. The reason the water vapor feedback loop specifically does not produce runaway warming is because it has diminishing returns due to Earth's black body radiation increasing with temperature.

>I didn't assume the former or state the latter.
You did by saying that the Stefan-Boltzmann law disproves my argument. How does it do this? Please explain it or admit you were arguing against a strawman.

>Notice how you're the one who brought up "perfect" or "imperfect" black body radiator, and I have repeatedly pointed out that in either case, power is proportional to T^4.
Which is irrelevant since this does not argue against the fact that black body radiation increases with temperature. It only argues against the strawman that OLR scales with T^4. Regardless of whether you described a perfect or imperfect black body radiator, your argument still fails. Nice try at trying to distract from that.

>More thermal energy from increased greenhouse effect increases evaporation, which increases water vapor concentration. Since there is more water vapor in the air, there is more of it to condense into rain or snow and precipitate out.
That's not a negative feedback. More thermal energy means that it is less likely for precipitation to occur, so the net result is that less precipitation occurs, not more.

>>10802762
All you've done is claim vaguely that I don't understand instead of actually backing up your argument.

Please tell me why Venus experienced runaway warming while Earth has not. Hint: it has nothing to do with the residency time of water vapor.

Saying that the residency time of water vapor is a negative feedback loop is like saying CO2 being a "weak" greenhouse gas is a negative feedback loop. All you're saying is that if these things were chemically different then they would produce more warming. That has nothing to do with feedback loops.

Regarding not understanding climatology, the other poster has argued in this thread that

1. Water vapor is a forcing
2. Increased water vapor increases the concentration of other GHGs but not itself
3. All water vapor would precipitate without other GHGs

>>10803508
That’s a lot of dopamine you got there
If only it were in the right places

>>10803575
>Please tell me why Venus experienced runaway warming while Earth has not.
Because it's atmosphere became mostly CO2? That has nothing to do with residency time of water vapor, or the Earth's climate system because the conditions are dramatically different. It also has nothing to do with the difference in incident solar irradiation. The greenhouse gases are just as important, which is why Mercury has a large temperature difference between the day and night sides of its surface. There's no atmosphere regulating the temperature or trapping heat.
>Saying that the residency time of water vapor is a negative feedback loop is like saying CO2 being a "weak" greenhouse gas is a negative feedback loop.
No it isn't. The amount of CO2 isn't changing by precipitation. Carbon sinks are decreasing in flux into them. The ocean holds less carbon as it warms, and the biosphere is being destroyed faster than it is being replenished.
>All you're saying is that if these things were chemically different then they would produce more warming.
Holy shit, what a retard. What does precipitation have to do with water's greenhouse effect? We're talking about the properties of actual water, not hypothetically different water. Keep making stupid shit up.
>That has nothing to do with feedback loops.
Precipitation reduces the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Considering the global mean water vapor concentration as a signal, or the land mean or ocean mean separately, precipitation constitutes a negative feedback acting on the signal. You don't understand signals or feedback.
>Increased water vapor increases the concentration of other GHGs but not itself.
I never argued this, you just willfully misinterpreted that I did so. Concerning the other two points: 1 is a verified fact of climatology, and 3 is what would actually occur in that hypothetical scenario.

>>10803556
>More thermal energy means that it is less likely for precipitation to occur, so the net result is that less precipitation occurs, not more.
Maybe you should study the topic and defer to experts a little more, because you are flat out fucking wrong about this. More heat, more evaporation, more precipitation.

>>10788917
based

>>10788905

Is it important? No. Once you've lived through a few of these Malthusian memes, you begin to wisen up. Remember peak oil? They always dredge that up, whenever the price rises and forget about when it falls. Same with climate change, whenever there's a natural disaster or a heatwave. Climate change is better because there's no proof against it, no way to show the opposite.

Have a look at natural disaster damage by year, adjusted for gdp growth. We're not suffering proportionately more than our ancestors. We're not starving more than our ancestors. We're not poorer than our ancestors. This is the opposite of the End Times by every economic measurement.

Climate change is fear and fear sells newspapers. It gives the priesthood something to proselytise about, it justifies pre-existing hatred of large and successful corporations. People want an apocalypse, so apocalypses are confected to meet demand.

>>10804813
>Climate change is better because there's no proof against it, no way to show the opposite.
Of course there is. The measurement evidence could show that the warming isn't occurring, or that the cause is natural rather than anthropogenic. Neither is the case, of course, but it is a falsifiable claim.

>>10789003
leftists are incapable of logic with their open border bullshit and insistence that islam is a feminist religion

>>10803825
realistically one could harness the power of quantum computing and internet vis a vis to do things like make coffee taste better, or cancel out the effects of smoking. Even improving the strength of cardboard boxes for logistics industry or having better graphics on your gaming pc.

Why on fucking Earth is this a motherfucking partisan issue? how fucking retarded are you fucking people? Jesus Christ I am so fucking beyond angry with the absolute fucking state of all you braindamaged fucks treating this as if its a fucking left vs right issue. Pull your heads out of your goddamn asses. Jesus Christ

>>10788905
Possible but not certain, the sample size is just to small to be certain, which is why I cannot take any politician seriously when they start shaking their apocalyptic prophecy of the week, climate change may be real but.
Weather or not it is manmade is still in question.
The actions required to remedy the problem if it was manmade would be an order of magnitude higher than the vodoo bullshit that passes as the current "ecologic" policy.
If actual policies where to be suggested then no-one would elect them, peoples wont follow you if you take their car, IPhone, red meat and plentiful electricity away, and I'm not even talking about China and the rest of the world, it would also imply a fundamental change in the structure of society and how it depends on economic growth.

>>10805696
Because the solutions put forth by the left are often tinged by eco-radicalism instead of a sincere interest in stopping climate change. Can't build nuclear power because that's mean to Gaia, can't drill for gas that is less pollutant than coal because that's mean to gaia. Then there's the fact that advocates who demand sacrifice on the rest of us will not sacrifice themselves. How often do we hear 'do as I say, not as I do' from limousine liberals who live in pharaonic luxury? And we're supposed to give up our AC, give up our cars, give up our diets in exchange for eating bugs? Fuck you and fuck them, the rest of the first world isn't going to be the sacrifice to appease their mother earth goddess while they continue to live in obscene decadence. Fucking Streisand flies her goddamn dogs 10,000 miles to her concert and I'm supposed to give up AC fuck you.

Instead of
>Climate change is happening, we need to prepare for it, be able to adapt, do reasonable infrastructural changes and start to try and pursue cleaner energy but not shoot ourselves in the foot and destroy our modern economies/way of life
We get shrill, screaming Gaiaist fanatics who say in 13 years we are going to be thunderdome apocalypse.

>>10800747
Can be explained by knowing literally the bases of Chemistry. Is science, you uneducated mongoloid.

>>10805974
>But ALLL GOOOOREE
Whine harder, that will surely make radiative physics change to suit you.

>>10788917
That human activity is chemtrails and geonegineering.

>>10788950
Order from chaos. Agenda 21.

>>10805956
>Weather or not it is manmade is still in question.
no it isn't
>The actions required to remedy the problem if it was manmade would be an order of magnitude higher than the vodoo bullshit that passes as the current "ecologic" policy.
better get started then

>>10792148
>where they are gonna go when they don't have anything to eat or drink any more
Away

>>10797731
>It isn't going to end the world or destroy humanity, but it'll destroy the economies of the global south.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>10805956
>>10805974
>NO NO NO YOU CAN'T TELL ME TO CONSUME LESS!!!! MY ENTIRE IDENTITY IS BASED AROUND MINDLESS CONSUMPTION WITHOUT IT I WOULD HAVE NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>10806877
They clamp.
They vaccinate.
They circumcise.

How the fuck is climate change real

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Climate Change Real Hahahaha Nigga Turn Up Your AC

>>10788905
yes

>>10788905
Question is when to start to care.

Worst case scenario is big "mars" colony on earth. Wrongier scenario is big war there, and other thing is that on mars there can be a colony on that cold point if they are using leftover heat from atmosphere, I saw just ice there.

Also there is possibility that we reverse it with simillar technology instead of hiding.

Important info and news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1RxwWO1xM

>>10788905
We’re heading straight for a yeast styled population reduction and a possible hothouse earth scenario where only the poles are livable. Biodiversity loss would still be happening even without climate change.

>>10788959
Because crapitivists are propped up as modern day saints because they do the will of the far left establishment.

>>10806877
HOW DARE THESE MIDDLE CLASS PEASANTS REFUSE TO LIVE IN THIRD WORLD POVERTY

>>10806877
Not only are you an elilist shit but >>10805974 didn't even deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming and you torn into him like he was fucking Ken Ham. People like you will be the reason why climate change will never be averted. Yes, you. It's your way or the highway. Zero tolerance to any alternative other than poverty and top down socialists control of our lives by elites who will be exempt from their own Draconian rules, which may explain why you're so gung ho for them: you *think* those rules will never apply to you.

>>10808755
Driving a car rather than a coal-rolling ocean liner with wheels isn't "third world poverty".

>>10808764
>Not only are you an elilist shit but >>10805974 didn't even deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming and you torn into him like he was fucking Ken Ham.
Yes, I'm sure the thousandth person this week to beat the "global warming is real, but it's too expensive to fix" horse is OBVIOUSLY arguing in good faith. It's not like that's been a canned talking point among deniers for decades or anything,

>>10806877
From http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/16/new-form-climate-denialism-dont-celebrate-yet-cop-21

"After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.

But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.

Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power. Just this past week, as negotiators were closing in on the Paris agreement, four climate scientists held an off-site session insisting that the only way we can solve the coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power. More than that, they are blaming environmentalists, suggesting that the opposition to nuclear power stands between all of us and a two-degree world."

When someone like James Hansen can be labeled a climate change denier for stating the obvious that nuclear power can help solve the problem of global warming, you know there is an element of the environmentalist movement that is occupied by dogmatic, closed-minded purists and making legitimate climate science look like a religion.

>>10808786
>Yes, I'm sure the thousandth person this week to beat the "global warming is real, but it's too expensive to fix".

Oh lawdy! There should is sum strawmanning goin on over here.

>>10805974 #
>Because the solutions put forth by the left are often tinged by eco-radicalism instead of a sincere interest in stopping climate change. Can't build nuclear power because that's mean to Gaia, can't drill for gas that is less pollutant than coal because that's mean to gaia.

Someone rightfully pointing out that valid solutions to global warming are being dismissed for purely ideological reasons isn't saying the problem isn't too expensive to fix.

>>10808786 #
>Yes, I'm sure the thousandth person this week to beat the "global warming is real, but it's too expensive to fix".

Oh lawdy! There sho is sum strawmanning goin on over here.

>>10805974 #
>Because the solutions put forth by the left are often tinged by eco-radicalism instead of a sincere interest in stopping climate change. Can't build nuclear power because that's mean to Gaia, can't drill for gas that is less pollutant than coal because that's mean to gaia.

Someone rightfully pointing out that valid solutions to global warming are being dismissed for purely ideological reasons isn't saying the problem isn't too expensive to fix.

>>10808772
reducing car size aint going to put a real dent in climate change, energy efficiency is a mere cherry on top, not a solution, actual solution will consist of generating massive amounts of carbon neutral energy

>>10808772
My old Chevy Cobalt, which had a mileage rating of 36 mph highway, was labeled a coal-burning ocean liner on wheels by the far leftists on an environment thread. For some environmentalists, the CO2 emissions from your lungs as you peddle a bicycle is too high.

>>10808830
You tell that anon hes strawmanning but you instantly equated consuming less with poverty. People using a clothesline, washing their dishes by hand, and keeping their homes closer to ambient temperature is trivial to implement and will foster a better mindset in addition to reducing their footprint.

Youre mentally challenged.

>>10805974
>other people are garbage
>that means I should be garbage too

Brilliant.

>>10793233
>it's a scientific fact.
Said no real scientist, ever. Real science is about proposing hypotheses that can be subjected to attempts to falsify these, and then do all that is possible to disprove these.

>>10809263
>what are physical laws
Stop larping like you know anything about the culture of academia.

>>10808801
>When someone like James Hansen can be labeled a climate change denier for stating the obvious that nuclear power can help solve the problem of global warming, you know there is an element of the environmentalist movement that is occupied by dogmatic, closed-minded purists and making legitimate climate science look like a religion.

This is actually right. There are dogmatic people who are more concerned with forcing other people to give up on clean, comfortable living than actually solving this problem. They're a blight on the movement and making addressing it harder.

Their existence is not an argument against the gravity of the problem or for not doing something about it.

>>10797776
The definition known as "residence time" can be applied to various properties or things that exist in Earth's atmosphere.

Do try not to read too much into it.

>>10798499
(Those other posts are not mine. I just got back to this thread after several days.)
Again, the definition known as "residence time" can be applied to various properties or things that exist in Earth's atmosphere.

Do try not to read too much into it.

>>10797754
>>10797912
This:>>10798706
Thank you
/conversation

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/melting-glaciers-will-release-tons-human-waste-denali-180971852/
This article pretty much sums the whole thing up.

>>10798499
>mantle is green
uhm sweety, just because olivine is green doesn't mean the mantle is green

>>10788917
>I am human
>I make the weather

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/6c2b440b-1491-409a-8a50-42756a25bf06

>>10798158
>Positive feedback does not mean linear feedback.
Nobody claimed that. The question still stands.

>>10788905
yes

>>10809729
Irony?

>>10795972
>200 yrs of data
More like 20 years of good data, 50 years of so so data, and the rest shit data that needs “interpretation”.

>>10798706
And yet normies on twitter will continue to pasta this with out even editing #5, cuz its good enough for government work
>>10794982

>>10794982
Clamped, VAXXED, cird'd.

>>10788905
To a certain degree though with the caveat that climatology isnt as hard of a science that some would like to believe albeit they are more undermined by being deeply entwined with political environmentalism and other ideolgical bed fellows then flaws inherent with model measure science

>>10815366
this

>>10788905
>Does /sci/ believe in climate change?
Yes. Without reservation.

However (We) can't do shit about it because (We) are just Commoners and no one listens to us; we're *irrelevant* because we don't have money, power, or influence. (We) can all scream at the top of our lungs to our respective national leaders, and they might listen and nod their heads politely, make placating noises, but the people and corporations with all the money and power and influence are the ones who decide if anything can be done or not. Sadly, they'll all just plan on hanging on, using their wealth to stay comfortable, until they die, and meanwhile the rest of us will swelter in the sauna the Earth will become, along with all the other disastrous effects, and they won't give a shit. Anybodys' guess whether or not the planet will be habitable 100 years from now.
As irresponsible as it may sound I'm not even going to worry or seethe over it very much because all I have the resources to do is *talk* about it and keep telling people it's for real. Otherwise I have to try to sustain myself just like everyone else. Sacrificing myself for the 'cause' isn't going to change anything. There has to be a sea change from the top down in order for anything to get done. Start by not re-electing that orange-haired motherfucking bastard, he's been dismantling the EPA and ordering climate change data *destroyed*.

Sure

But
> HUMANITY ONLY HAS X YEARS TO CHANGE BEFORE EVERYONE DIES
Alarmists make me not believe anything posted by anyone ever regarding the subject.

Is climate change real? Yeah, do humans play a factor? Probably, can we as a corrective species combat it? Fuck no, we can hardly cooperate enough just to not shoot eachother so what makes you think we can control the climate?

>>10815066
Not another one.

Water vapor is determined by temperature. Great. This is known and provides nothing new to the discussion.

Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. So the temperature rises, the atmosphere holds more water vapor. The atmosphere holds more water vapor the temperature rises. The temperature rises the atmosphere holds more water vapor. The atmosphere holds more water vapor the temperature rises.

Please explain why the oceans have not yet boiled away.

>>10809502

>their existence is not an argument not to do something about it

But it is.

If you give me a doom and gloom scenario if we don't change and THEN become picky about the methods by which we achieve that change, it REALLY buys back your assertion about why we need that change.

And nuclear power is just that. World is uninhabitable if we don't decarbonize?

Here you go. All the energy we need to power the economic development we've been showing can pull people from poverty and proven reduction in carbon versus other green sources like wind and solar. Proven safety track record compared to other sources even with TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

And all the waste can fit in a building the size of a walmart.

But NOOOOOO, I can only abide by fighting climate change if we either A.) Doom all of the third world to abject poverty of 30 years ago or B.) Push for other sources of energy that have always led to increased carbon emissions to make up for latency.

>>10815823
Its already been answered.
>positive feedback is not linear feedback

Look buddy, (again) the definition known as "residence time" can be applied to certain substances/properties which occur in Earth's atmosphere/oceans/surface.

Try not to read too much into that. It has little or nothing to do with whether or not something is a "driver of climate change".

>>10815833
It's not so much the meltdowns or the radioactive fallout that people are afraid of, its really just the tumors.
Also, more children are suffering from malnutrition now, than at any other point in human history, and you're fine with that.

>>10809502
>>10815833
And to think... we wouldn't even need to be worrying about climate change or the 6th mass extinction; digging up oil, using dangerous nuclear power - we could be providing all of our liquid fuel and energy needs through ethanol, if it weren't for the extremely dangerous and misguided pseudoreligious infinite economic/population growth consumerist cult that has contaminated the minds of so many of you over the last few hundred years.

>>10815862

Total number? Sure.

And I'm not OK with that. Because I see the WHO report showing that abject poverty is down 50% in the last 25 years and I see nuclear power as the key method to keep that up while simultaneously lowering emissions.

Miss me with that anti humanism shit.

>>10815862
Not them but don't move the goal posts you fucking faggot.

Anon never said anything about being fine with malnourished children and that didn't relate to his argument

>>10815862

Which is worse because nuke powers radiation release is DWARFED by the thorium and uranium released in fly ash from fossil fuels that we have no way to economically prevent from being released into the environment.

>>10815886
Oh that sweet
You're ok with the fact that more children are suffering from malnutrition now than at any other point in human history
because
>the WHO report showing that "abject poverty" is down 50% in the last 25 years

lol. you're a real piece of work, pal

>>10815878

Ethanol is still a hydrocarbon.

Is it cleaner than coal? Sure. It's also debatable how effective it is at producing power considering it burns cooler than other hydrocarbons limiting its use in boilers and its lower energy density in engines.

>>10815850
Explain linear feedback then if you would please. Somewhere we're getting lost.

>>10815896

>malnutrition
>people become richer which is followed by obesity

It comes.

Or do you think it's odd that Mexico is now one of the world's fattest countries?

>>10815886
>Total number?
It's probably close to 1 billion, you absolute piece of fucking shit. Not like you give a damn though. It could be 3 billion and it would be ok because
> see the WHO report showing that abject poverty is down 50% in the last 25 years

oh and the status quo means you get to live the good life
>NOM NOM NOM NOM

you fucking bloated psychopath

>>10815896

>I'd rather children starve and keep starving, won't someone think of the children

That's what you sound like.

>>10815906
malnutrition is not even related to obesity

>>10815908

>calls others pieces of shit

What would you do?

Pray?
Give 50 cents a month to some charity?

Economic development in poor people's native countries is the #1 reduce in poverty the world over.

The middle class of the first world live lives that the wealthy aristocracy could only dream about 100 years ago and I WANT THAT FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD.

Fuck you. You "care" about the poor only so much that you can pay yourself on the back for your intentions.

Ghandi would spit on you.

>>10815896
>>10815908

We should adopt nuclear power
> BUT THE CHILDREN
The WHO says it's better tho?
> LOL ARE YOU JUST GONNA BELIEVE SOME AUTHORITY? Hold on a sec let me read this article talking about how bad climate change is and how we're all gonna die in ten years.

>>10815913

So what is it?

People are no longer dying from net calorie deficit and now have to deal with overcoming lack of essential amino acids?

Good. Let's keep them out of energy poverty so they can grow more food using less land with more energy intensive methods of farming for better food now that we've finally answered the question of enough food.

>>10815918
And you care about the poor only in so much that you can profit nicely by using up non-renewable resources helping them "develop". Ultimately its selfishness and really its downright racist, because you truly believe they are incapable of developing with your help.

>>10788905

The only real response regardless of political party:

The earth is NOT getting hotter, rather, the CLIMATE is changing so the seasons are getting PUSHED BACK/FORWARD

This results in: extremely hot summers, extremely cold winters, extremely strong hurricanes, extremely strong blizzards

>>10815906
>do you think it's odd that Mexico is now one of the world's fattest countries
It's really hard to believe that a culture that cooks everything in lard would be overweight.

>>10815925

>non-renewable
>push for nuclear power so we can get a few hundred years of emissions free energy until fusion becomes viable on an industrial scale

Get bent.
Gaiafags have always only been able to sleep soundly on their beds if the poor died in theirs.

>>10815930

Because before their children and people died from hunger and diseases that hunger exacerbated.

That change happened in our lifetime without Barbara Streisand getting on TV to beg for donations.

>>10815934
It's super convenient for you to lack any understanding or respect for the Earth system because
>NOM NOM NOM NOM

>>10815941

>respect for the Earth system.

Tell me about how you feel about vaccines, GMOs, and irrigation.

All things that have drastically increased the global standard of living, especially among the poor.

>>10815934
It all bullshit virtue signalling
If you couldn't make yourself a nice career and a handsome living selling "development for the poor"
you'd be doing something else that enabled your NOM NOM NOM like selling encyclopedias or vacuum cleaners, or nuclear power and electric cars to countries that have fertility rates north of 6 children per woman.
Fucking idiot.

>>10815953

>stop helping those poor people, you're only doing it because it's profitable for you.

Stop me if I'm getting this wrong.

>>10815965
The thing is. You aren't even really helping them. You think you are, but really you're insulting them by insinuating that they can't develop or be anything without your gracious help. (Racist)
In addition you're basically giving them a fish rather than teaching them how to fish. Welfare handouts.
And yes, you are profiting nicely off of it, and if they weren't experiencing a ridiculous population growth boom (probably in part due to constant interference in their society), they wouldn't even be living in poverty, and your raison d'etre would cease to exist.

>>10815973

>you're not helping them, you're providing them the means of bettering themselves and their economic development to escape poverty that has followed them into the 21st century

Again. How do you feel about vaccines, GMOs, and irrigation?

How do you feel about not buying their goods? Let them pick themselves up by their boot straps and become wealthy powers entirely within their own country?

Newsflash. No country has done that, not even the US. International trade has been the biggest economic boon to the world.

>>10815973

>poor people have population explosion because of outside meddling

Kinda.

Poor people have lots of kids because there is no opportunity cost. If you can't feed one child, you also can't feed 20. Also poor people use large families to overcome high child mortality and to have some children that make it to adulthood and can care for them in old age.

As countries get healthier and wealthier, infant mortality goes down causing a spike in population growth. However, this is eventually overcome when nations become super rich and now the opportunity cost of having one child heavily invested in overcomes more children less heavily. Also because wealth and health leads to education and women's rights which also leads to lower birth rates.

And these declining birth rates are now starting to be seen in countries like Iran and India.

You are categorically wrong on almost every facet of how nations develop and become not-shitholes and you loudly proclaim your ignorance while trying to shout down people who would actually decrease human suffering.

Get fucked.

>>10815991
Another money priest from the infinite economic/population growth religion weighs in...
How nice.

You and your buddy just want to sell debt slavery in the form of nuclear energy and electric cars to 3rd world shit holes while taxing people's mobility and don't see how anything could possibly go wrong...

>>10815833
I am very concerned about climate change and ardently pro-nuclear. They are not disjoint. Yes: the existence of a few crazies is not an argument not to do something about it.

>>10815988
>>10815991
The arrogance of these posts... you people really believe that humans are god's gift to the Earth. I doubt that such a toxic mindset could develop in someone with heavyjudeo-christian/evangelical indoctrination in your youth.

>>10816199
ya... pretty much the most vocal climate change advocates are literal nuclear shills.

in the end, you people really could give a rats ass about some fucking useless endangered species. what the fuck have endangered species ever done for you anyway?

As far as you're concerned every spare microJoule of available energy provided by the biosphere is utterly wasted if it can't be repurposed for some fat fuck to wipe his ass with.

>>10816194
>>10816201

>muh human scum

So that's the fall back?

Once you get BTFO over ending human suffering you turn around like a petulant child and say, "humans are bad, I don't see why you'd allow them to live anyways."

Or worse, prescribe motives that increasing human wealth, health, and standard of living in real, tried and true ways, as secretly evil somehow in intent because all you have is empty feelings of would be niceness.

You're worse than the positive vibe Hope's and prayer crowd. At least they have the sense to get out of the way when others better than themselves do the hard work of making a better world.

>>10816199

Again.

Being picky about the methods undersell the urgency of the message.

If you're telling people you're starving and turn your nose up at eating at a soup kitchen, you've PROVEN your starvation is a lifestyle choice. Beggars cannot be choosers.

>>10816224
And you're obviously not interested in anything Malthus has to say. lol
>people have been warning us for hundreds of years about the end and it has never come
>So they must be WRONG for ever
Have fun in your career virtue signaling about saving humans from horrible poverty. Awesome career choice. Bold stance. lol

>>10816213

>I don't like people taking me seriously: the post

>>10816231

>I don't know what virtue signaling is, I don't know what many words mean, but I've never let that stop me from inflicting my ignorance on others before and I'm not about to start now!

Did I get that right? I don't want to paint your thoughtless unfairly.

The real shame is that fossil-fuel shills always derail any good-faith discussion of global-warming/climate-change with endless smoke and copypasta bs in threads like this. But that's their job, pathetic as it may be. So I'm done, and I'll just let them get back to work.

>>10816224
>consumers has no negative side effects whatsoever
>future generations lives will not be negatively affected by the gluttony of choices we make today

fuck off

>>10816238

You still haven't answered the question about vaccination programs, GMOs, and irrigation.

Could it be that you hate poor people not dying of horrible, preventable causes?

Do you get off knowing that your smug self satisfaction would come at the cost of literally millions of lives and billions of dollars caring for people dying of what should be dead diseases?

>>10816230

I'm the opposite of picky. If nuclear, or solar, or nat-gas with carbon capture or storage is the best way to get to zero-carbon, I am for it, as long as the safety of the generation is not seriously compromised. I'm just very skeptical that it will be possible to get there while meeting society's essential needs at all economically without nuclear.

>>10816194

>infinite population growth

The world won't see 11 billion people.

If we can keep making poor countries wealthier we can turn birthrates as is already happening in India, Iran, and other parts of the developing world.

The key is doing it quick enough. Grow wealth too slow and the generational lag between wealth and birthrates will overshoot that projected world population.

>>10816213
>You don't really care about climate change or you'd be okay with nuclear.
> ...You're okay with nuclear? You must actually HATE the environment!
>Another non-argument.
My primary concern is indeed human beings and their welfare. That much of the biosphere will be preserved intact by more effective decarbonization is certainly a nice effect. But nuclear, when done properly, produces minimal waste and little environmental impact, even compared with wood fuel, is scalable and economical.

>>10816201
Problems exist at the societal level that make people's lives substantially worse. Those problems show signs of being soluble once understood. Therefore, we should seek to understand the problems so they can be solved.

How is that arrogant? The arrogant thing would be to assume that we should settle for dysfunction, corruption, and the degradation of our societies and the condition of human thriving rather than at least making an effort at addressing obvious problems.

>>10816262

Agreed. We are not at odds about the means. We are at odds about the vocal minority that push a political narrative over real solutions and whether or not the fact they do so publicly and obviously effects the normies they try and sway on urgency of the message alone.

>>10816271
Glad we're on the same page about what the problem is and what solutions we can avail ourselves of. I just don't see how some people sharing the concern but having other strange beliefs is germane to the problem being real or the importance of caring about it.

>>10816302

And again.
They argue on the urgency of the need for change but only want change that supports their political ends.

And people don't take kindly to tyrants and kings. Few of them died of old age in the last 400 years.>>10816302


Why anyone would expect others to put on their own shackles is beyond me.

>>10816269

Wait, you mean you dont think we should have spent trillions on a War on Terror that could have been solved with a single line of code preventing aircraft from veering off course without air traffic control approval? Fyi, that tech was possible before you know when. Dont think too deeply about it, it will send you into a rage spiral.

>>10816329
The waste of money that the War on Terror constituted is outrageous by itself. I doubt this "single line of code" would be a solution in and of itself. What if sensors malfunction? What if ATC is compromised by terrorists, turning all planes into kamikaze machines? It's hard enough to build a well-working fly-by-wire system without the safety nightmare of networking it, and in 2001, a lot of commercial aircraft lacked them. The best thing that happened as a result of the War on Terror was hardening the cabin against forced entry.

>>10816329

I'd prefer to have been on a all nuclear baseload system for the last 73 years so that the cost of oil would be driven through the floor and the US would not have had to court and support backwards, fundamentalist royal families with money and military support while said family pays under the table support to their most rabid zealots to stave off their ire at US military support and bases on their country.

Just a crazy kid with a dream.

>>10816333
"What if sensors malfunction? What if ATC is compromised by terrorists, turning all planes into kamikaze machines?"

Pilor override code and remind pilots that terrorists will kill them anyway if they give the code away.

Seriously. SERIOUSLY. dont think too hard about this. Just understand the deeper truth here. What is going on in this world is not good. It is not right. It is not just.

We can do so much better than this.

>>10816333

And i only say to not think too deeply about it because I dont know if you have sworn off violence like I have... because understanding what is happening here
..


Jesus forgive us. All of us

>>10816352
Okay dude. Take care of yourself.

>>10789382
>which you'd know if you actually skimmed any part of the IPCC reports

that whole website is a big mirage, and anyone that spends 10 minutes poking around for any reports whatsoever finds nothing but reports detailing how reports were authored and outlined and prepared but not one word about climate data whatsoever, none

>>10817074
Sorry I forgot some people can only consume information in the form of an unsourced infographic

>>10817074
at least an infographic would have info at all

>>10816265
>>10816266
>>10816269
Rationalizing more and more consumption is the neoliberal globalist mental illness. This will lead to destruction of the biosphere and "human beings and their welfare" will be the next casualty, probably leading to eventual extinction in fact.

>>10817389

You still haven't answered the vaccine, gmo, or irrigation question because you actually hate poor people and anyone who would propose solutions that doesn't have them and their children living in squalor.

>>10788917
You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?

>>10815878
Fuck you commie shitstain. You fuckers are the reason why climate change denial is taken seriously. You and the sensationalists in the mainstream media have done more to hurt the credibility of climate science than Fox News and Rush Limbaugh ever could, especially when viable solution to global warming are bitterly opposed since that destroys your false narrative that bowing down to Karl Marx and accepting the shared misery of communism can save the world. As for the media, they publish wild speculation on the effects of climate change. When the dire predictions published by the press doesn't come true, it hurts the credibility of actual scientists.

>>10815893
>Which is worse because nuke powers radiation release is DWARFED by the thorium and uranium released in fly ash from fossil fuels that we have no way to economically prevent from being released into the environment