/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11226455
because it's cold out there

>>11226455
/thread

>>>/x/

>>11226455

>>11226473
is this supposed to be scary i don't understand what did they mean by this?

>>11226455
it does, climate isn't a static system.

>>11226455
It does exist.
The claim that is refuted is that men caused most of it with CO2.
The reasons are that CO2 level changes follow temperature changes nit the other way around. This is not surprising since warmer water will cause solids that trap CO2 to dissolve and also cause the water to have lower CO2 saturation point, so the seas release CO2.
Also the global temperature follows solar activity for as long as it has bee recorded. Also the global temperature average went down from about 1950 to 1970 while CO2 levels kept increasing.

Then finally CO2 is good for plants, life can easily tolerate up to 8000 ppm, but dies at 150ppm, so the idea that 200ppm was ideal is retarded. Also global warming is better than global cooling.

Finally the waste, the terrible bitter sheer waste of effort on retarded wind power et when we should be colonizing the galaxy and learning to cure genetic diseases is just so sad. The horrible waste of public money is a crime.

>>11226480
>is this supposed to be scary?
It's just data.

>>11226455
Because the earth has had 5 ice ages, meaning the climate has cycles. The debate is whether humans have sped up the process or not (we probably have, but climate change happens without us)

Ultimately we do need to cut down on pollution. Stop shithole countries from dumping industrial waste into the ocean. Stop companies from releasing harmful chemicals into the air that cause health issues for the local human population (like the neoprene plant in Louisiana). And cut down on plastic (not a fan of killing sea life with plastic bottles.)

>>11226501
>The claim that is refuted is that men caused most of it with CO2.
And here we have another specimen of a liar on the internet.

>>11226501
i liek this anon

>>11226501
I prefer renewable resources (kinetic energy from the wind) over carcinogenic smoke any day.

>>11226513
nuclear is gud?

>>11226513
We dont have storage tech. Turning on a gas plant when the wind stops is horribly expensive. Do you understand this or not?

>>11226501
pseudo-intellectual denialtard babble

>>11226551
Instead of insulting him you should explain why you think he is wrong.

>>11226480
>i don't understand
well, guess someone here is stupid then

>>11226556
Anthropogenic global warming exists.
>Finally the waste, the terrible bitter sheer waste of effort on retarded wind power et when we should be colonizing the galaxy and learning to cure genetic diseases is just so sad. The horrible waste of public money is a crime.
This is a bunch of retarded shit that could be used to justify any position.

>>11226577
The ice record shows that CO2 changes after temperature.
The sea holds less CO2 when warmer. The solids trapping CO2 dissolve in warmer water.
The historical record shows temperature follows solar activity.

>spending public money on curing diseases and exploration is a retarded shit goal just to justify anything

Ok retard.

>>11226556
>expecting a schizo ape psued to have an argument

>>11226584
Yes, spending money on space exploration has fucking nothing to do with addressing warming.

The paleoclimatological record shows, as far as it can reliably be interpreted, that the modern warming trend is extremely rapid compared to natural variations.

I will believe global warming exists when China starts dumping sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere, or India starts building cloud-brightening ships. Both those methods could halt any plausible warming within a short period of time, and have estimated costs of less than $20 billion a year. Do you really think the PRC would be willing to lose all their built up coastal areas if they didn't have too?

Because I have a degree in Earth Science

1. We know what wavelengths of light are absorbed by CO2
2. We know what wavelengths of light are given off by the blackbody radiation curve of the Earth.
3. We know how much the Earth is warmed by existing CO2
4. We know CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere
5. We know by the isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere the source is burning fossil fuels
6. We know how much the Earth will heat up by the increased CO2 created by the burning of fossil fuels

There is absolutely no room for debate. Anyone who says there is is an uneducated moron.

>>11226590
stfu and go to bed Greta

>>11226592
psued niggerdom and bullshit, guess what I am a computer scientist with a background in thermodynamics and know the model they use which has never been correct in 50 years you are either lying or full blown fucking retarded or your professors were and you sucked down all the kool aid fucking hack

>>11226600
>I am a computer scientist with a background in thermodynamics

>>11226584
The best simple models of temperature use a combination of solar activity and CO2. CO2 follows temperature increases but also causes it.

This isn't hard

>>11226600
Get down, he knows the model!

>>11226602

>>11226607
learn to code psued

>>11226455
After decades of the science being all but settled in the field of climate science, 4chan finds the real truth

>>11226610
If you say retard a few more times, the fundamental science will change and you'll suddenly become an expert outside your field of study

>>11226455
For the last 20 years, I've been telling everyone that the world is going to end in a years time. Each year, I have been wrong. But when I say that the world will definitely end next year, you will have to believe me.

>>11226618
>implying anyone thinks you have the first clue wtf you are talking about

Cool LARP bro

>>11226556
He demonstrates that he doesn't even have a basic grasp on the subject. Given the amount he wrote, he's either an ideological believer in his bullshit or he's just lying. Why waste time explaining things to someone who's certainly not going to listen and will just respond with more tiresome bullshit?

>>11226634
Hey anon, do you actually believe that fucking retarded stawman you just posted? Serious question.

>>11226455
No one believes global warming doesn't exist. this is leftist subversive talking point to make any argument against global warming scam seems unreasonable. Weather it exist or not was never a part of the debate - it's irrelevant. The controversy was always about, if it does exist, how much of it is man-made. Faked research, inconsistent and forced narrative, lack of evidence, targeting only the richest but at the same time countries that pollute the least, constantly being disproven.. All this goes to prove there's something fishy going on. I'll believe in anything as long as it's reasonable, but the whole thing about global warming looks like your basic scam..

>>11226691
>a bunch of denier lies that originate from fossil fuel funded "think tanks"
This is what a useful idiot looks like.

>>11226691
The people you're quoting are politicians, not scientists.

This is the last time I'm going to respond. You are a waste of breathable air and are not worth responding further to. To educate yourself on climate read what SCIENTISTS are saying.
https://www.ipcc.ch/

>>11226604
the models that always make inaccurate predictions?

>>11226663
please explain how we know CO2 isnt released by heat? please explain why temp correlates with solar activity?
i know you are suffocating in your ideology, and incapable of rational thought, but please prove me wrong.

>>11226703
they keep making INCORRECT predictions

>>11226584
CO2 both leads and lags temperature, at different stages in the glacial cycle.
https://youtu.be/WLjkLPnIPPw?t=4m44s

>>11226703
Oh i did, just because you're triggered and you lack the basic social skills does not make your argument right. Narrative changes constantly from ice age to scorched earth, but there is one repeating pattern through both of these opposite fearmongering claims: The climate fearmongers are constantly caught in lies.
>https://newspunch.com/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/
>https://notrickszone.com/2019/09/24/no-climate-emergency-mit-climate-expert-500-prominent-global-scientists-write-in-letter-to-un/

>>11226460
can you explain the meaning of this screencap for all the brainlets here (me)

>>11226755

>>11226592
>degree in Earth Science
wow such a superior human being..

>>11226746
>explain how we know CO2 isnt released by heat?
What do you even mean by this? Your question is nonsensical.

> explain why temp correlates with solar activity?
Is this a serious question?

Your comment is so dumbfoundingly retarded that's it's actually difficult to address. I'm gonna file it under "bait."

even if it is real, the history of life on earth suggests that atmospheric co2 can be at least 400% greater than it is today without any noticeable negative impact on humanity, however there isn't enough carbon stored in fossil fuels on earth available for it to go that level, co2 from fossil fuel sources will run out two or three centuries before a 400% could be seen

>>11226703
it's politicians QUOTING SCIENTISTS genius. i swear the god some people are s full of themselves that they think they''re actually smarter than other people while being on the level of drunk harambe.

>>11226770
How does history suggest that when humanity hasn't existed in anything above 300ppm?

>>11226776
primates thrived for millions of years with atmospheric co2 counts well over 1000, how is it that the same academic establishment which tells us live on earth was just fine for primates in the past with 1000ppm is also telling us that 650ppm is going to end life on earth by the end of this century? only ignorant chicken little tier retards with nothing better to do are concerned about co2 at this time. if you have nothing better to do, why not take a ride on golgafrincham ark fleet ship b?

>>11226770
>posts graph where the smallest unit is 100 million years for a topic where a couple of hundred years are the relevant time span

>>11226798
>small-brained low IQ creatures lived fine! don't worry about it!
Well, it's a red herring anyways. The real issue is that our global food supply is based on a period of relatively stable climate that allowed civilization to emerge via the agricultural revolution. By changing the atmosphere's heat content, we're changing weather and rainfall patters, which is pretty likely to fuck our yields.

The men. In real life. That you have killed. How many are they. In number?

>>11226809
spamming the same in several threads, pathetic

>>11226766
>cellar masturbator
guess who isn't

>>11226805
>co2 isn't the real issue
>its the food supply
so you're just a desperate squirming liar who refuses to admit that you're wrong about the climate change meme and that you're as stupid as greta to have been fooled by it
if you're honestly concerned, although i'm clearly not giving you the benefit of the doubt on that, about the food supply then more co2 and a warmer atmosphere with greater rated of evaporation from the oceans are all your friends
>the end is nigh!
>the sky is falling!

>>11226823
CO2 IS the real issue because of how it's indirectly affect the food supply.
>low reading comprehension
>insults
>baseless claims of dishonesty
>trying to paint the comment as hysterical, a propaganda technique used to make people dismiss it without thinking
Anon, I suggest you take a break form the internet and reevaluate your life. This is pretty sad right here. Think about what you're becoming.

>>11226823
fucking up crop yields is how GW will hit the 1st world.
In the '30s, when we reach 450ppm/+2C,
annual rainfall will fail by 50-75% in the subtropics (lat 23...40).
That is where Earth's breadbaskets are.

>>11226584
Explain then how the physical properties of CO2 don't cause it to act as a greenhouse gas, when experimentally it has been shown to

>>11226823
>Remarkable story of chicken little
>i.e., You'll never guess what this little chicken did!...
Click bait has been with us since before POSIX time 0

>>11226694
The useful idiot calling people an useful idiot, how meta, never change /sci/

>>11226760
He's displaying his schizophrenia.

>>11226663
for the lurkers? im kinda having second thoughts, elaborate for me pls

>>11226770
Only if solar activity and other variables stay the same, and they haven't

You can't really expect to persuade people who reject the overwhelming consensus of anthropogenic climate change because they've already demonstrated they won't engage with the evidence in a reasonable good-faith manner. Trolls who keep posting denialist memes that have been debunked 10 years ago are not worth engaging. People who are actually interested in the science have plenty of material to examine.

>>11226501
>The reasons are that CO2 level changes follow temperature changes nit the other way around.
Incorrect. Both are true. CO2 causes warming via the greenhouse effect, and warming causes CO2 to outgas from the oceans. We can directly measure the greenhouse effect from CO2 via radiative spectroscopy, and it matches the observed radiative forcing. We can see whether man or the oceans are causing the increase in CO2 which is causing that radiative forcing by looking at the carbon isotope ratio. It shows that the increase in CO2 is wholly due to man. In fact, natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, so the effect of our emissions should be even worse than what we observe.

>Also the global temperature follows solar activity for as long as it has bee recorded.
Wrong. Pic related.

>Also the global temperature average went down from about 1950 to 1970 while CO2 levels kept increasing.
Because of aerosol emissions causing cooling.

>Then finally CO2 is good for plants
Are droughts good for plants?

>life can easily tolerate up to 8000 ppm, but dies at 150ppm, so the idea that 200ppm was ideal is retarded.
Who said 200 ppm is ideal? Also, at 8000 ppm humans would be severely cognitively impaired, even if you ignore the utter devastation global warming would cause at that level.

>Also global warming is better than global cooling.
This is like saying "being obese is better than starving" in order to avoid going on a diet.

>>11226590
Oh yes we can spend unlimited time and ressources doing both retarded energy transition and actual useful science and technology and exploration! Why was that not obvious to me?

>>11226505
>Because the earth has had 5 ice ages, meaning the climate has cycles.
Ice ages occur over millions of years. Please explain how rapid global warming over only a few hundred is a part of that cycle. Also please explain how the greenhouse effect isn't real and man's massive greenhouse gas emissions are having no effect.

>>11226539
More expensive than there costs of respiratory illnesses that kill millions annually from fossil fuel burning? More expensive than the costs of global warming? Actually you're right, it is too expensive to turn on gas plants, which is why they should be replaced by nuclear.

>>11226874
It does. But the effect is small, and to increase the temperature buy a certain increment you need to double the CO2 level. So if from 200 to 400 ppm increased by .8 degrees, to increase by 1.6 degrees would take 800ppm, 2.4 degrees 1600 ppm etc.
And then the grand solar minimum will cause cooling till about 2050 no matter what.
If CO2 was the only cause, how did the temperature drop in the past? Seriously think about that.

>>11226584
>The ice record shows that CO2 changes after temperature.
The ice core record only shows temperature and CO2 at the poles, where there was ice. If you look at a global reconstruction, you can see temperature changing after CO2:

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

Also, climate change in the past when man was not dumping massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere does not somehow preclude man from affecting the climate now. So this entire line of argument is irrelevant.

>The sea holds less CO2 when warmer.
And CO2 causes temperature to increase via the greenhouse effect. What is your point?

>The historical record shows temperature follows solar activity.
Except when it doesn't.

>>11226591
>needs China to dump aerosols
>can't just read a graph

>>11227086
true believe here

kys psued your bs has been debunked on this board a 1000 times the shills just keep posting it to try to stir the retards like you into a frenzy with meme magic

>>11226600
Which "model" do "they" use?

>>11226732
>the models always make inaccurate predictions
>I know this because my denier blog told me so
>no need to actually check them

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

>>11227101
I explain it in detail in this thread
>>/sci/thread/S11180515#p11186317

>>11227103
>there is a 1 to one relationship between and climate change

>We can predict he future of non-linear chaotic systems like climate with a 1 to 1 relationship linear model based on assumptions about Venus' atmosphere

>>11227008
>NO U!
Nice.. that's some real high IQ stuff coming from you.

>>11227107

*carbon and climate

>>11227116
>the no u, no u

Wow triple meta what are you like your fav comic character Deadpool bro? Go to sleep little dude you have to cut your mom's grass tomorrow

>>11226691
>No one believes global warming doesn't exist.
Except for the people who posted above you.

>The controversy was always about, if it does exist, how much of it is man-made.
You mean retards like you denied it was manmade despite mountains of evidence, radiative spectroscopy, isotope analysis, fundamental physics and chemistry, etc.

>Faked research
Like what?

>targeting only the richest but at the same time countries that pollute the least
So you think the US pollutes the least?

>constantly being disproven
Examples?

>>11227122
I didn't say anything amounting to "no u" in that comment. Jesus you're retarded.

>>11227124
no u

>>11227123

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFkN5H4CCY0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAUT8vz35lQ

stfu and go to bed Greta

>>11227126
Is this really the best you can do anon?
Common, give me something better. Really put some effort into it this time.

>>11226758
>Narrative changes constantly from ice age to scorched earth
It hasn't:

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Please tell me more about these unexplained lies while lying.

>>11227058
Yes, lets go nuclear. Fuck meme energy.

>>11226770
>life on Earth
Weird how deniers always talk about "life" and how great CO2 is for plants but seem to have forgotten they are humans.

Also, it's not simply the level of CI2 that's the problem, it's how fast it changes. You are looking at graphs showing changes over millions of years and trying to say that the same changes over a few hundred are fine. Life has time to adapt to the former but not the latter.

>>11226775
>it's politicians QUOTING SCIENTISTS genius.
Which scientists? You wouldn't be lying would you?

>>11227130
>common
no u

>>11227141
>>11226775
https://soundcloud.com/user-209448905/rip-harambe1

>>11227147

>>11227074
>But the effect is small
What does "small" mean? It matches the observed radiative forcing. What other forcing is larger?

>and to increase the temperature buy a certain increment you need to double the CO2 level.
CO2 emissions have been increasing exponentially.

>And then the grand solar minimum will cause cooling till about 2050 no matter what.
Wrong, it has a minuscule effect compared to CO2 emissions. Pic related.
Solar forcing has been dropping for decades while ther temperature continues to increase. Where are you getting this nonsense?

>If CO2 was the only cause, how did the temperature drop in the past?
I know it's very hard for you to keep track of two things in your head, but multiple things can effect the temperature at different times. Greenhouse gases have always had an effect on Earth's temperature and always will. This does not mean they are the only thing that effects the temperature or must always be the dominant cause of changes. But they are right now. Seriously think about that.

>>11227099
So no argument then? Thanks for admitting global warming exists and us caused primarily by man.

>>11226760
jewgle is awesome as long as you aren't looking for political truth, try it bro

>>11227153
>>11227161
Go to sleep Greta

>>11227107
I don't see anywhere in that thread where you name the model or even describe it any technical detail. What you do describe is patently false. Try again, this time without lying.

>>11227169
I literally described it in detail you must be stupid so kys

>>11227168
No need to post that selfie, we already knew what you are.

>>11227113
>>there is a 1 to one relationship between and climate change
Who are you quoting?

>>We can predict he future of non-linear chaotic systems like climate
We can make projections of the probabily distribution of outcomes based on emission scenarios. Global temperature is primarily determined by Earth's energy balance and is only chaotic in smaller scales.

>with a 1 to 1 relationship linear model based on assumptions about Venus' atmosphere
OK so you have no familiarity with the models used, nor do you have a response to their accuracy demonstrated in the paper. Good to know.

>>11227185
>>11227189
kys psued hacks your last you

https://principia-scientific.org

git gud faggots or perish idgaf

>>11227128
>video about Extinction Rebellion
Irrelevant trash

>video about Joe Postma
Retarded trash that even deniers think is retarded:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/04/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/

https://skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm

>>11227195
HAHAHAHA he just jewgles any rebuttal from some (((mainstream))) hack hit job without even reading the work for 5 seconds. ROFL Fuck outta here commie scum neck yourself

>>11226460
Your post is still up and you're getting thoroughly blown the fuck off. Screencapping it to post it somewhere else isn't gonna change that, schizo.

>>11227204
>you won't hold the hands of a bunch of retards that can't even use jewgle and personally tutor them = you are getting blown out

lol why are people this stupid on a /sci/ board? Go back to pleebit donkey hack. Better yet go to bed so you can be up for cartoons in th morning

>>11227178
You describe it as

a. Based on a comparison with Venus
This is not a description and not true of any model.

b. Based on a 1 to 1 correlation between CO2 and climate
This is so vague as to be meaningless. Does this mean 1 unit of CO2 produces 1 unit of warming? Does it mean CO2 is the only variable affecting climate? Neither describe any actual model.

And you yet again fail to name a single model, further indicating you have no idea what you're talking about. And you yet again have no response to the paper I posted showing actual models are accurate.

So basically you're a liar and a pathetic clown. Thank you, it really makes it easy to argue against deniers and embarrass them publicly when they are this stupid.

>>11227194
>READ MUH BLOG!!!
kek

>>11227194
No argument yet again. I accept your admission that global warming is real and manmade. Thank you. Please keep pursuing and proving yourself wrong.

>>11227203
>reading the work
>YouTube videos

>>11227215
>>11227218
>>11227226

I'm gonna eat a nice fat steak 3 times a week fart every hour and enjoy my jaguar and jet skis every day while you seeth like a whiny bitch on 4chinz. I am gonna fuck some nic warm poontang tonight while you argue with retards. I love climate change I have money invested in big oil and deforestation. Feels good man, I love commie tears, gonna light my cigar with a 100 dollar bill real quick. Have sex incels, oh you can't because your broke because of your gender studies degree, sorry bout your luck discord trannies

>>11227227
Imagine typing all this out only to have it serve the purpose of further cementing your lack of knowledge in the topic you're trying to discuss and your inability to form an argument. What a waste of electrons.

Please keep posting and proving deniers to be utter retards over and over again.

>>11227227
>he thinks individual actions matter
>he thinks anyone who believes in climate change is a libtard commie
I've never seen anyone be so wrong about literally everything. That shouldn't even be statistically possible.

>>11227232
>reeeeeeee

personified, nini discord trannie

>>11227237

>>11227096
Anyone can make a graph; it isn't possible for the average person to verify the numbers behind it is correct. A major country starting a geoengineering project (and if global warming is half as bad as the predictions coming out, it would be hard to argue against doing such projects) would be something anyone could verify, and also a major case of money being put where people's mouths are. It would also fix the worst issues related to global warming in a relatively cheap manner than doesn't need any overbearing government oversight; perhaps that is the real reason it doesn't seem to get brought up much.

Granted, some countries have spent some major funds on renewable energy projects, but it is hard to tell whether they are doing it for the environmental reasons, or because it is a good way to pass kick-backs to their supporters. In most places all that renewable spending has only made a minor dent in CO2 reduction for a lot of money. And then there is Germany, willing to spend hundreds of billions of euros on wind & solar, only to pretty much completely erase any CO2 reduction gains by shutting down their nuclear plants early. Which means that the leadership of Germany (which is in a much better position than me to verify the data behind global warming predictions) either doesn't actually believe in global warming themselves, or are just really fucking stupid. I am not sure at this point.

>>11227270
>Anyone can make a graph; it isn't possible for the average person to verify the numbers behind it is correct.
Then how will you know China has actually dumped aerosols? They could be lying to you as part of the conspiracy. The problem with conspiracy logic is that once you accept once conspiracy without evidence you might as well accept them all.

>A major country starting a geoengineering project (and if global warming is half as bad as the predictions coming out, it would be hard to argue against doing such projects) would be something anyone could verify
How?

>It would also fix the worst issues related to global warming in a relatively cheap manner than doesn't need any overbearing government oversight; perhaps that is the real reason it doesn't seem to get brought up much.
The side effects are too risky (heavily effects agriculture) and CO2 needs to be drawn down anyway to prevent ocean acidification and air pollution deaths.

>Which means that the leadership of Germany (which is in a much better position than me to verify the data behind global warming predictions)
So you think politicians can verify the data but you ignore the conclusions of scientists, the ones actually verifying the data. It sounds like you are just making excuses for your denial.

https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/

50 reasons right here.

>>11227161
https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/

>>11227160
https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/

>>11227295
>>11227297
>>11227298
>Smirnov 2018
Junk paper, he calculates the radiative flux at the surface instead of the top of the atmosphe so of course he gets the wrong answer. Energy changes at the surface is determined by convection, not radiative transfer. The radiative flux occurs in the troposphere. He also makes completely unrealistic assumptions like water vapor concentration being constant, and bizarrely attributes warming from CO2 to an exothermic reaction with CaO. The author clearly has no knowledge of the topic he's trying to discuss. There is no point in wasting time reviewing the rest since the first "paper" destroys the credibility of your shitty little denier blog.

Meanwhile actual papers with a variety of methodologies agree on the real ECS.

>>11226473
why is the radius fucked up?

i feel like after so many years of reading climate-deniers get anally ravaged over and over i would be bored of it, but no.

>>11226694

>>11226455
you can not escape science, even if you pretend you don't believe in gravity you still can not fly by waving with your arms
greenhouse gasses just heat up the planet, it's simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTvqIijqvTg

It's not that it isn't a real thing, it's that the "solutions" are rather Jewish to say the least.
>eat bugs goy
>go vegan goy
>kill your babies and fill your land with niggers goy
>no goy don't think about china, india, and Africa's pollution

>>11226455
Global warming is real but it's because of the sun and the end of the ice age, not because of CO2.

>>11227103
IPCC predictions are always wrong.
Most predictions are.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=global+warming+models+vs+actual&id=0FC890394B7D3893C33A4ACE0142CFD4255EDD39&FORM=IQFRBA

>>11227330
there are 50 papers there, are you retarded?

>>11227402
>because of the sun
nope

>>11226455
it exist for Millions of years or more, but humans only speeds up the process in around 100 years or more. You can not change the climate at the moment, we do not have the necessary technology and the damage is done.
What politicians and corporations are doing right now is just a theater, they want from us more money, more taxes, but in the same time they let China/India and Africa fuck the World.
But there are some solutions, you can find a new energy source and make it work ( fusion for example) , finding a replacement for the plastic, change humans mentality over consumerism( you can't do it overnight). Scientists must find some solutions and be practicable, not just talk that the world will end in 20-30 years from now and everything is fucked, that's a loser mentality.

>>11227212
>on a science board doesn't know what a 1 to 1 mathematical relationship is

Could you be anymore obvious you don't belong on this board? Go back to discord tranny

>>11227482
they're too optimistic, not a reason to do nothing
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=8m30s

>>11226455
/pol/ says it doesn't exist, therefore it exists

>>11227392
Oh no, God forbid da joos make you live a healthy lifestyle.

>>11226455
"Global" "Warming" exists because we see lava.

>>11227227
>>11227194
fuck I’m laughing. Your penis might be tiny but you’re a funny based retard. You may keep posting itt

>>11226473
There's a video of a finnish lecture where the lecturer shows how IPCC manipulates data by claiming a lot of colder measured days as errors or invalid, thereby raising the average temperature.

>>11227650
Ah yes, "healthy"

>>11227402
>end of the ice age
Interglacial warming was 10000 years ago, buffoon.

>>11227848
>There's a video of a stammering autist
ohhhhh wow guess that settles it then

>>11226455
Eva green makes me horny

>>11226602
this.

>>11227392
Why are /pol/tards so afraid that they won't even mention actual solutions like carbon tax and nuclear power, and instead have to rely on strawmen and "goy goy goy"?

>>>/pol/

>>11227482
Nice fake graphs. Pic related.

The models are accurate and you have no response to >>11227103

>>11226600
> t. retard larping as a computer "scientist"
everything he said is true and scientifically verified, and he didn't even mention anything about a model. He just mentioned a series of facts, which are all obviously true, that should lead you to the conclusion that global warming is real and man-made. If you want to make a model to calculate the effects of all of these factors and make an exact prediction of how bad the result will be over a given timescale, of course that will be difficult, because the system is extremely complex.

>>11226691
if it's not man made, what made it? It happened over the last 100 years and the rate of change exceeds natural trends by several orders of magnitude

>>11226691
the US of A and Canada have the highest per capita pollution. How are we supposed to target the chinks anyways?

>>11227486
There are hundreds of real papers showing sensitivity in the consensus range, are you retarded?

If you are going to demand that I read through every single junk paper on your shitty blog that couldn't even make sure the first paper on its list was real, then it's only fair you should explain how every paper on the graph in >>11227330 is wrong.

Your turn.

>>11228028

>Why are /pol/tards so afraid that they won't even mention actual solutions like carbon tax and nuclear power

Because the left does not mention them. Instead we hear shit like renewables and "have less kids, goy".

>>11227008
A quick google of the Kissenger quote leads to this: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Misattributed
Wikipedia says that nobody has ever heard the recording. You can find the quote recycled in such shitty sources as "libertytree.ca" and the book "exceptional profile of courage", google's "featured snippets" feature, but nowhere can you find the recording or any evidence of its existence.

>>11228059

Lol, another science denier shown to be a victim of fake news. How typical.

>>11227533
It describes a function but you won't explain which function you're talking about.

For example, you could be talking about a function between amount of CO2 and warming, in which case a 1 to 1 relationship would mean that each unique amount of CO2 corresponds to a unique amount of warming. This bears no relationship to actual models, which are based on a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming, meaning that the same amount of CO2 produces different amounts of warming. That's not a 1 to 1 relationship.

Or you could be talking about a function between multiple variables and climate, in which case a 1 to 1 relationship would mean that CO2 is the only variable affecting the climate, which again bears no resemblance to models, which take into account many variables like solar irradiance, aerosols, albedo, etc.

And you yet again fail to name a single model, further indicating you have no idea what you're talking about. And you yet again have no response to the paper I posted showing actual models are accurate.

So basically you're a liar and a pathetic clown. Thank you, it really makes it easy to argue against deniers and embarrass them publicly when they are this stupid.

Obviously you won't explain it because you have no clue what you're talking about and have been lying this entire thread.

>>11228054
>Because the left does not mention them.
That's a lie and irrelevant. Why are you so afraid to argue against the solutions that you lie and make up excuses to avoid them? Can any /pol/tard explain this to me?

>>11226460
>hutchison effect

Do people still buy his bullshit?

>>11228054
>renewables are a bad a thing

Begone Jew.

>>11228079
>Obviously you won't explain it because you have no clue what you're talking about and have been lying this entire thread.
he could explain, but you would understand his advanced C++-based thermodynamics reasoning

>>11228018
How old are you? If you're young enough, you might be in with a chance. You can tell by the way she represents herself as a mommy that she's into ss. Circumstantial evidence:
>E. Green is single because she prefers reading to a man.
Translation: she keeps underage boys in her cellar.

>>11226505
>Stop shithole countries from dumping industrial waste into the ocean.
Like the US?

>>11228018
same

>>11228054
HOLY SHIT, THIS.
>>11228088
The left is largely responsible for the "FISSION POWER = BOMB!" stigma.
What moronic normalfags fail to realize is that fission power is literally just using dissolving metal to boil water for turbine power. That's it. The exhaust from cooling towers isn't even really toxic, just common clouds that could perhaps turn into nimbostratus clouds or something.
>>11228137
We're not saying their existence is bad, schlomo. We're saying that these solutions are quite impractical. I could see solar power for like cars, robots, free charging stations, or off grid households.

>>11228693
No, China, India, and Africa.

Its a scam perpetuated by """""""scientists"""""""" to generate funding for their irrelevant field.

>>11228741
>DUH LEFT DUH LEFT DUH LEFT
This is what the /pol/tard says when he has no response.

>>11228746
And the moon is made of cheese

https://youtu.be/GXHNzNxV6RM

>>11228752
And this is what the average reddit nigger says when he thinks mocking the opposing party makes up for the lack of an actual rebuttal.
Though perhaps it's just jewish media altogether and not just one party.
You can cry "/POL/ /POL/ /POL/ /POL/" all day, but it doesn't refute the reality, which is that while climate change is a real thing, the solutions are pure bogus.

>>11228746
No, it's a scam by jewish merchants using the scientists and botching their research to profit off the gullible masses. There's a reason why most environmentalist ads and shit back then were pathological, to basically numb the thinking part of the normalfag's brain with cutesy "SAYVE DUH POLAR BEARS MAN" nonsense.

>>11227486
>This paper is bullshit
>IGNORE IT!! DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THAT!!! LOOK AT THE OTHERS ON THIS BULLSHIT QUACK WEBSITE!!!
Do you actually believe that you aren't a retard?

>>11227052
Calling the energy transition proposal retarded doesn't negate the mountain of evidence showing AGW is happening and what the negative consequences will be. Baseless techno-futurist optimism is not an excuse to delay action on greenhouse emissions, although denialists seem to think it is. Techno-futurist hypotheticals are far more speculative than how AGW will affect the troposphere and biosphere, although denialists will imply climate science is equally or even more speculative for obfuscation purposes.

>>11228041
Why do people keep going on about per capita when only absolute values count for a physical system?

>>11227338
because seasons

Not trolling, but who cares? The worst offenders are China and India and until they stop it's pointless to piss a bunch of money away on doing some crazy overhaul to the US while we wait on the third world to pick up.

>>11228863
Not trolling, just shilling.

>>11228811
Because there is a great deal of money to be made in "sustainable development"

>>11228880
yep, gonna collect my big payday after this thread

>>11226501
wow, you are literally retarded.

>>11228768
>when he thinks mocking the opposing party makes up for the lack of an actual rebuttal.
That's exactly what you did, you retarded hypocrite. This is pure protection. I'm still waiting for that explanation of how carbon taxes and nuclear are "bogus."

>>11226798
>earth was just fine for primates in the past with 1000ppm is also telling us that 650ppm is going to end life

It's not the speed that kills you, it is the sudden stop. Life can adapt to changes over millions of years, but not dozens.

Why don't we just let general AI handle this one

>>11228811
>only absolute values count
But you're the one arguing that the amount of CO2 emissions you make should be determined by what country you're in...

In other words, according to you, someone in Monaco can emit millions of times more CO2 than someone in China, because Monaco is a small country.

>>11228921
Wait the fuck? I never said there was anything wrong with nuclear.

>>11226501
based mentally impaired poster

>>11226501
Interesting that every response so far is either a non answer or is totally factually wrong (radiative spectroscopy). Lots of brain washed pseuds around hear.

>>11226592
I could tell from your first 4 you literally have no fucking clue what your talking about.
Think about that for a second.

>>11229231
>says the guy defending denialtardism
lmao

The anthropogenic cause of modern warming is well established by this point.

>>11229169
>solutions are pure bogus

>>11229231
>totally factually wrong (radiative spectroscopy)
Nice non-answer.

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>>11227381
>muh mass media
Read the fucking science, not the media's (or some fossil fuel think-tank's) interpretation of it.

>>11228943
This is objectively true. A tiny country with huge per capita emissions isn't as relevant as a country of 1.2 billion MORE people who each emit very little.

>>11226501
/thread

>>11229310
A person with fewer emissions isn't as relevant as a person with more emissions. You still haven't explained how ordering by countries is "objective."

>>11229341
This is true, but you're ignoring the fact that it simply takes more resources to live in a country where the cost of living is higher. An African villager isn't forced to commute two hours to and from work every day just to put food on the table.
The point is that a given country, the way it's economy works, the transportation system, cost of living etc etc etc determines what the person living the average life-style will emit.
It's the country that's the relevant unit here. And a tiny country that has no global relevance has no real influence on the climate. The country that BY FAR emits the most (China) has a huge influence.
Solutions require changes on the national level. Individuals can only do so much the nation doesn't provide them with options.

>>11228028
Right-wingers, due to their either win-lose or lose-lose mindset are nearly incapable of coming up with a plan that isn't "kill the opposition".

>>11229446
whereas convention introductory game theory treats individuals like identical quanta, the ideas encompass break down when the quanta aren't all identical. if you happen to have been lucky enough to be born with advantages then wiping out the parasites and leeches who would otherwise be demanding handouts from you for you entire life is a completely valid winning strategy. manlets, brainlets and women should learn to fend for themselves, it isn't hard to do, the rest of use have been doing it successfully since before the dawn of history.

>>11229456
>https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/SharetheWealth.pdf
>http://davidalbouy.net/federaltaxes.pdf
>https://www.frac.org/wp-content/uploads/SNAP-Maps-Meta-analysis.pdf
>https://www.ustelecom.org/research/rural-broadband-economics-a-review-of-rural-subsidies/
Then by your logic, the cities should kill the rural population since its their tax dollars constantly giving handouts to the rural population but we both know that since the population of the rurals are right-wing they'll immediately abandon their zero-sum mindset when it turns out that they are the incapable ones and not their enemies.

>>11229402
>The point is that a given country, the way it's economy works, the transportation system, cost of living etc etc etc determines what the person living the average life-style will emit.
Regions in the same country have different lifestyles, transportation, etc. People in the same region have different lifestyles, transportation, etc. You're not making a meaningful distinction, you're just arbitrarily choosing to focus on one thing so that you can avoid responsibility.

And this isn't even relevant since any country would have to change their infrastructure in order to reduce emissions. It's not like the infrastructure of the US is set in stone while China's can revert at will. If anything, the US has more opportunities to cut unnecessary emissions.

>It's the country that's the relevant unit here. And a tiny country that has no global relevance has no real influence on the climate.
This is just repetition of the same fallacy. An African has no real influence on the climate. Your dissection of blame is arbitrary. It's also unnecessary. All that needs to be done to fairly curb emissions is a carbon tax.

>>11228744
Plastic bottles aren't industrial waste

>>11229456
>manlets
the tree nigger FEARS the ambitious stocky warriors in the dark

>>11229341
>A person with fewer emissions isn't as relevant as a person with more emissions.
What you are not getting here is that the person who emits more depends indirectly on the existence of the person who emits less.

The two are not independent of eachother. Your plan will only change the number of people in each group, not the total emissions.

Because of how varied and chaotic the perspective of the many contributions humans gift to its narrative.

>The thread that solved world orgy peace

>>11226455
name?

>>11229668
>What you are not getting here is that the person who emits more depends indirectly on the existence of the person who emits less.
How so?

>Your plan will only change the number of people in each group, not the total emissions.
My plan is an optimal carbon tax. Please explain how this would not reduce emissions/change distribution of emitters.

>>11226455
Fuck if I know. How am I supposed to know? Just look at this thread, everyone is saying different things.
>90% of scientists agree
yeah okay cool so i'm gonna base my beliefs on appeal to the masses
not to mention this shit is political now.

and i'm supposed to believe all those climate kids have made a sound decision somehow? that they aren't just following whatever shit they hear like sheep. great.

>>11229471
>>11229456
you guys are arguing like you're on completely different sides of the political spectrum, but you probably agree on 99% of issues.

and yes, of course peasants are opportunistic and can't be relied on, that's why china and russia became such corrupt hellholes.

>>11226455
idgaf

>>11226455
It exists, there's strong precedent for it demonstrable in ice cores, the only part that I question is the absurd assertion that humans are exclusively responsible for it. Sharp warming and cooling trends are recorded in ice cores tens of thousands of years before the human species even existed to walk this Earth, and the pattern of warming and cooling since the end of the last Ice Age has been short sharp spikes in temperature and CO2 followed by longer and greater cold periods that could be characterized as mini-ice ages followed by a period of relative temperature stability. The overall trend from the earliest available core data to now indicates a geologically gradual global cooling in line with the planet very slowly shedding the heat of it's original formation, and the decay and exhaustion of radioactive isotopes within it.
>>11230260
Not to mention that that 90% figure often quoted is extraordinarily disingenuous, drawing it's number by including literally any published work that even mentions the word Earth, climate, temperature, carbon, etc, completely ignoring whether or not that material is actually in a relevant field. Less than half of the figure is actually accredited climatologists and while the majority do believe some form of AGW is occurring it's more like 60-70%, so still hotly contested. Would be more accurate to say that 60% of 47% of scientists quoted in the figure agree.

>>11230352
>Sharp warming and cooling trends are recorded in ice cores tens of thousands of years before the human species even existed to walk this Earth
They are an order of magnitude slower than current warming. They are also part of a predictable pattern called Milankovitch cycles caused by Earth's orbital eccentricity. Current warming is completely against the natural cycle. Simply pointing at past climate change without any reference to its attributes and causes is not an argument against current warming being caused by man.

>Not to mention that that 90% figure often quoted is extraordinarily disingenuous, drawing it's number by including literally any published work that even mentions the word Earth, climate, temperature, carbon, etc, completely ignoring whether or not that material is actually in a relevant field.
False. The only papers represented in that percentage are climate science papers that express a position on AGW. Did you even read it before making shit up?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

>Less than half of the figure is actually accredited climatologists and while the majority do believe some form of AGW is occurring it's more like 60-70%, so still hotly contested.
False. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Examining-the-Scientific-Consensus-on-Climate-Doran-Zimmerman/c9c80585cb18c23c1eb604659501fa95c6b7564e

>>11230226
>>What you are not getting here is that the person who emits more depends indirectly on the existence of the person who emits less.
>How so?

You present yourself as a smart guy.... I'm sure you could figure it out if you actually gave a rats ass.

>>11227227
kek

>>11230226
>My plan is an optimal carbon tax.
Yes we know. And at the same time you are happy to encourage any and all new development of fossil fuels, which, incidentally is set to completely blow through the current carbon budget (carbon tax or no carbon tax).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/23/existing-coal-oil-and-gas-fields-will-blow-carbon-budget-study
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/oil-firms-barrels-markets

This is because you're a repulsive psychopath, who knows full well you can pay any carbon tax with the proceeds from your investments, and will tolerate no disruption to the growth economy you require to continue your disgusting, bloated, earth destroying activities, all the while shifting the responsibility and blame to people who emit a tiny fraction of what you contribute.

>>11227227
Hey, man. Just so you know this carbon tax shill (>>11230226) is cool with everything you do, as long as you pay your carbon tax (which I'm sure you will have absolutely no problem doing).

I really am not sure which out of the two of you is the bigger sack of shit...

>>11231119
So you can't even explain your own argument?

>>11231150
Take your meds, your delusions are showing again.

Are the mods going to do anything about all these IQ and climate change threads? This is obviously a tranny discord raid.

>>11230226
>My plan is an optimal carbon tax

This retard again

>Just pay your carbon taxes and eat the bugs

>>11226473
Way to manipulate the masses by using the Little Ice Age, when the glaciers were at their greatest extent since the end of the last Great Ice Age, as a baseline.

>>11226455
>Explain to me why you believe that Global Warming exists/doesn't exist.

the entire debate is irrelivant.

Some fools want to tax the entire world, payable to the IMF and world bank, and they want to do it by *LITERALLY* taxing the air that you breathe.

>>11232814
1850 is the beginning of the thermometer record, retard. Also the choice of baseline has no relevance since data sets aren't being compared. Also the Little Ice Age was slow and minuscule compared to current warming. Also there is no such thing as "the last Great Ice Age." Are you done making shit up yet?

>>11231579
Not an argument, try again.

>>11232864
>the entire debate is irrelevant
>the reason for the tax is irrelevant because I don't like tax

>taxing pollution is *LITERALLY* taxing the air you breath
>how dare they stop pollution, you should be breathing that pollution, it's your God-given right as an American

An eagle just shed a tear.