/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11065726
lmaoed at turtleman in pic

Please take your schizophrenia meds.

>>11065733
take your ritalin greta

>>11065726
wellaware1 is well aware.

>>11065726
keked and shreked

>>11065726
>>11065731
>>11065733
>>11065737
>>11065767
>>11066820

>>11065726
Greta is adorable. Triggering anti-science retards with political agendas is just icing on the cake.

>>11068453
>implying you can't still agree with climate models but disagree that it's a bigger deal than the authoritarian countermeasures
wew lad

>>11068461
All of the evidence suggests that immediate and strong action is the best response. Much to the chagrin of denialists and economic fetishists.

I wanna munch on her all over

>>11068478
depends where you are globally. i'm in a part of the world which is expected to benefit from climate change.
https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php

>>11068487
Even if you are projected to benefit directly from physical changes, you likely won't benefit from declines in economic activity from affected countries, nor economic sanctions for noncompliance in the case that climate action becomes a mainstream international political agenda. Besides, no one likes Canada and Russia anyway, so economic sanctions or outright conquest seem likely in the long term for high latitude countries.

>>11068498
>countries with failing economies putting sanctions on economies that are growing
If they really wanna an hero go ahead, we'll be fine.

>outright conquest
Not possible without a strong economy to back it.

>>11068507
Even if you want to, you can't stand against the entire world migrating poleward in response to the effects of global warming.

>>11065726
Why would anyone want the climate warmer?

Except, like, Norwegians.

>>11068461
>Dur I haet wen government make me stup doin bad things

>>11068512
>entire world migrating poleward in response to the effects of global warming.
lol ya thats why they're migrating

>>11068512
Not a big deal, I'll be rich from all the cheap land investments I do before that.

>>11068525
Migration is almost entirely due to war and poverty, and both of those things can be expected to increase as a result of climate change.

>>11068520
I like driving sometimes aimlessly on cheap gas, bite me.

>>11068529
>war and poverty, and both of those things can be expected to increase as a result of climate change.
lol ya both of those things are gonna increase "due to climate change"

>>11068533
Yeah.

>>11068537
lol ya its all due to climate change and for no other reason

>>11068547
Nope, didn’t say that.

>>11068549
lol ya you did you said
>the entire world migrating poleward in response to climate change

>>11065726
Is the "scientific consensus" that we're in a "climate emergency" that can be stopped by reducing CO2 emissions?

>>11068558
No. I didn’t. You’re confusing different posters now.
>>11068529
>>11068537
>>11068549

Only these posts are mine.
>>11068512
Is someone else.

>>11068559
"scientific consensus" has nothing to do with catchy phrases politicians like to throw around: "climate emergency"

>>11068568
Science isn't about consensus, however alarmists claim that we should listen to the science which they claim tells us we're on the brink of disaster unless we dramatically start reducing our CO2 emissions.

Is this what scientists are saying?

>>11068581
Science is about evidence. The evidence shows a rapid warming trend most likely caused by human activity. That's pretty strong justification for decarbonization measures.

>>11068581
The problem is the disaster isn't something that is like, reduce carbon output or this year the world will melt.

It's like, reduce carbon output now or in 50 years everything is going to melt.

So everyone goes "Why can't we just do it in 20 years" but the problem is that in 20 years time it will be too late to stop the chain of events we set in motion.

What sucks is the 50 year mark was about 20 years ago.

>>11068588
Can you show me where the scientists are claiming we're in an emergency situation?

>>11068599
A little warming is nothing human industrial power can’t deal with.

>>11068616
Well, that would be scientists advocating for political policy. The academic papers are purely concerned with identifying and quantifying the phenomenon. For political advocacy, James Hansen's work is a good start.

ME REPUBLICAN
POLLUTION GOOD
END OF WORLD GOOD, BIBLE SAYS SO, END TIMES IMMINENT

>>11068599
So they're confident about predicting the state of the climate decades into the future?

>>11068581
>Science isn't about consensus
>Science isn't about what the evidence says

>>11068629
Predicting long term climate trends is much easier than predicting short term fluctuations.

>>11068629
They're confident about predicting a range the climate will be in decades into the future.

>>11068616
See the IPCC's reports.

>>11068619
>a little warming

>>11068640
Pfft. Harmless.
We can purposefully emit aerosol pollution to compensate

>>11068619
The warming isn't the issue. The destabilization of current climate conditions is. We have very specific resources in place to combat specific disasters. If areas that only ever worried about tornadoes get flooded that's a problem. If areas expeting hurricanes get droughts that is a problem. etc. etc. These things will stack up and absolutely wreck economies all over the world as billions of unprepared people have to readapt and our infrastructure has to be retrofitted for disasters that might not evne be the same in 5 years.

This isn't even going into the ocean acidifcation killing off shit loads of marine ecosystems and plankton. Plankton use calcium carbonate as their "shells". If these are destroyed the plankton dies. As the oceans acidify due to increased carbon dioxide the amount of killed plankton increases. Plankton are the majority producer of oxygen and consumer of carbon dioxide on the planet.

This isn't even getting into the rampent plastic, pharmaceutical, industrial, and oil waste being shunted into everything and mucking shit up.

We can surivive if we fucking destroy the planet. But it will not be easy, it will not be comfortable, it will not be healthy, and we may never recover the world as it was. Life will go on, but it will not be life that humans are comfortable dealing with. I don't want to have to go backwards ten steps instead of waiting a couple minutes to take the right next couple steps.

>>11065726
if she has a cool rock? maybe she doesn't

>>11068487
my favourite part about that map is Mongolia surpassing US in GDP/capita

>>11068645
Environmental devastation is tragic and should be prevented, purely as humans to continue enjoying the beauty of nature. Economic activity, not wanting any regulation or any expense restrictions (e.g. cap and trade or carbon usage taxes), wishes to continue not paying a price for externalities polluting the world. Environmental regulations "kill jobs," but they also save lives and enforce long-term outcomes, most importantly survival, preservation of existing nature, and continued economic prosperity relating to improving livelihoods.

>>11068623
But the IPCC is a political organisation who alarmists are crediting for their alarmism. What have these scientists said that's caused such hysteria?

>>11068630
Consensus isn't evidence.

>>11068634
>Predicting long term climate trends
Using what?

>>11068717
>consensus of scientific evidence isn't evidence

>>11065726
Holy shit, whoever took the time to make that image, god damn bro

>>11068722
GCMs

>>11068711
>But the IPCC is a political organisation who alarmists are crediting for their alarmism.

The IPCC actually has a record of underestimating the speed of warming. It’s the other way around

>>11068645
All of those issues can be solved with industrial power. Can’t wait to see the Amazon paved over.

>>11068636
This model uses an accurate amount of CO2 to get these results?

>>11068711
The IPCC is an international commission to collect scientific information and offer political policy options on the basis of that information. What you claim is hysteria is actually an honest need to reduce carbon emissions and anthropogenic warming to a threshold lower than those caused by natural factors.

>>11068638
If this was about real, objective science, then there would be positive effects listed as well.

Are these effects based on models?

>>11068752
See >>11068750

IPCC reports and academic papers serve different purposes.

>>11068732
So the IPCC don't share the alarmism that the media/activists do?

>>11068643
Which would fuck up plants and agriculture, reduce precipitation, deplete the ozone, and does nothing about ocean acidification.

>>11068737
What do you mean?

>>11068752
>If this was about real, objective science, then there would be positive effects listed as well.
But there are. Did you even read it?

>Are these effects based on models?
All science is based on models.

>>11068750
If the models forecasted temperatures dropping in the next few decades, would they publish it and what would happen if they did?

>>11068771
Why wouldn't they publish it?

>>11068771
>If the models forecasted temperatures dropping in the next few decades

That’s a non-possibility.

>>11068765
To get the rising temperatures, do they tweak man-made CO2 emissions to a level consistent with real life?

>>11068763
Oh well. De-acidity the ocean by dumping bases into it. I do that all the time with chemical mixtures

>>11068769
>But there are. Did you even read it?
Where?
>All science is based on models.
I mean computer models.

>>11068775
>Why wouldn't they publish it?
It would be embarrassing.

>>11068776
>That’s a non-possibility.
How so?

>>11068778
I still don't get it, when would they be tweaking it? The projection is for an emissions scenario called SRES A1B. The point is not to predict emissions, the point is to predict the response to whatever emissions occur.

>>11068780
It's much easier to just not emit massive amounts of CO2 than to constantly have to produce ever greater amounts of aerosols and minerals indefinitely.

>>11068782
>increased water availability in moist tropics and high latitudes
>tendencies for some cereal productivity to increase at mid-to high latitudes
Again, did you even read it?

>I mean computer models.
What's the difference?

>>11068786
Embarrassing to whom? It would be a relief and whoever discovered it would win awards.

>>11068799
Do the models accurately simulate the effect of greenhouse emissions on temperature? Or is the effect too overblown in favour of warming?

>>11068838
Well, warming is actually happening according to measurements, so any upward trend would seem to agree with the evidence. Projections are hard because of what is unknown.

>>11068731
So GCMs factor in everything that could change climate and temperatures?

>>11068818
>Again, did you even read it?
So those are the only positives?
>What's the difference?
It's not natural science.

>>11068838
Isn't that what I already showed you?

>>11068852
>So GCMs factor in everything that could change climate and temperatures?
No, just to the best of our ability. And we are confident that they reproduce the general features that determine the temperature.

>>11068734
You keep using that word but I'm not convinced you know what it means

>>11068864
>So those are the only positives?
Those are the main positives that can be predicted.

>It's not natural science.
How?

"Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation."

>>11068864
>So those are the only positives?
Yes.
>It's not natural science.
I get the feeling that the only thing that would satisfy you is if we had an extra earth that was magically exactly the same as ours but without the increased CO2 as a control?

>>11065726
Reverse psychology, kid. Ever heard about it?

>>11068895
That still wouldn't satisfy him, since it would still lead to the conclusion he doesn't like.

>>11068822
It's embarrassing to use computers to model "the climate" and use the results to base policies on.

>>11068946
It's embarrassing to deny massive amounts of scientific evidence because you don't like the result and your only "argument" is

>durr compooterz bad hurrrr

Is she a reptilian?

>>11068955
How much coal has burned for shitposting about climate change?

>>11068531
what an utterly pointless reason to doom future generations. We honestly deserve whatever we get, nuclear annihilation once the Midwest's crops fail and the US goes full expansionist is my bet.

>>11068780
remind me again how big is the ocean? quick do the math how much material would you need to dump in to offset increased carbonation?

>>11069439
stay mad. driving is relaxing af. what have future generations ever done for me? nothing. i owe them nothing.

>>11069456
I guess this is a good argument for the extermination of incels.

>>11069486
heh, guess it's a good thing i fucked girls in my car then.

>>11069439
>doom future generations

>>11065726
Isn't she getting paid by Soros and used by her mom as advertisement for her book?

>>11068638
Why are they always talking about latitude but never elevation? If people near the equator move up in elevation it gets colder too. Ah right, because we need to import as much "climate refugees" to higher latitudes as possible because mostly western countries are there, better not talk about elevation.

>>11068790
No process exists to reverse the current warming trend barring chemical weathering, which would take thousands of years, Milankovich cycles, which aren’t going to cause another glaciation for tens of thousands of years. or some kind of cataclysm like a super volcanic eruption, asteroid impact, or nuclear war that’s largely unpredictable and a much bigger issue anyway.

>>11065726
she is brainwashed

>>11065726
jaimey pull up that video

>>11065726
reverse psy ops

If global warming is real then why hasn't the sea level rose yet?

>>11071309
explain this picture then

>>11065726
why is this thread on this board

>>11069880
>The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

yes good serf, ignore the evidence, the only truth is what we tell you.

>>11071506
First day?
Why are half of the retard offtopic threads on /sci/?

>>11071506
Extensive brainwashing.

how can climate be real if your eyes arent real

>>11069444
>>11069155
>>11068955
>>11068844
>>11068822
>>11068799
>>11068722
>>11068711
>>11068599
>>11068533
>>11065733
checked

>>11065726
no u

>>11065726
Imagine spending time making that pic