/sci/ - Science & Math

watch a documentary about it on netflix and come back with any questions you have after. im serious.

Wikipedia?

>>11313312
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>11313312
We get bigger trees and fish and nothing much else. There's not much you can do except give a hoot, don't pollute.

Temperature has been going down for 5,000,000 years straight if you just zoom out the pitiful little 30 year charts Climate Alarmists always post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

>>11313542
for example this article contains many pitiful alarmist charts that go back at most 140 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
Gee, what were we just coming out of 140 or so years ago? THE LITTLE ICE AGE! how convenient that temperatures began rising right after that ended!

>>11313542
for example this article contains many pitiful alarmist charts that go back at most 140 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
Gee, what were we just coming out of 140 or so years ago? THE LITTLE ICE AGE! how convenient that temperatures began rising right after that period of low unusually low temps!

>>11313554
Posting your shitty non global charts again after you got btfo last time?

>>11313542
>>11313554

>hurr temperatures were low before industrial revolution, therefore manmade CO2 has no warming effect

Is that your argument?

The only thing you have to know is that climate changes. By knowing how it changes we can predict the impact on our lives. For our time we have a general warming(human accelerated or not, we have it) that will cause the icecaps to melt. Combine this with higher crust production rates you get a rising of the sealevel from 100-200m. Now how will the rising impact humans? First world countries probably not much. Maybe in europe coastal countrys like the netherlands will need to build extrem structures to stay over water. But in countries like India? Or generally SEA you will have Millions of actually poor people to loose their home.
So if i was someone who would loose everything i had i honestly would search for the best and safest place on this globe i can access to start over. So my point is climate change wont be that much of a problem by itself but the immigration and culural personal whatever differences you have causing problems/war. Hf stopping literally millions with a wall.

So by actually slowing down the melting of the icecaps we can slow down the process of the world getting into a feedback loop of rising sealevel thus giving us more time to prepare for a political solution of distributing the refugees that will come.

>>11313312
Not really much to talk about, americans got tricked by their corporate masters into thinking climate change was about taking away their trucks or something meanwhile the rest of the world including china (yes you read that right, china) are already trying to reduce pollution

>>11313562
>>11313563
keep being delusional guys

>>11313600
Also i forgot that temperature change in the ocean is way more instabile then on land. So if you take the stopping of the great ocean currents like the gulf stream or the circum polar current into the euquation you get some funny effects. Stopping the circum polar stream would probably cause again a warming of the ocean and less mixing of the ocean. This would cause a big anoxic layer kind of system i imagine.
Thing is, a short term effect of stopping the ocean currents could lead to cooling down of places with warm currents for example europe.

>>11313622
>Not really much to talk about, americans got tricked by their corporate masters into thinking climate change was about taking away their trucks or something meanwhile the rest of the world including china (yes you read that right, china) are already trying to reduce pollution
how delusional can you get? pic related. USA and EU are the only ones reducing emissions. China and India are skyrocketing and are already the BIGGEST carbon emitters on the planet. But activists never say or do shit about China and India. ONLY white countries are forced to follow the agenda which is secretly to revert all of us back to third world lifestyles so The Jews can rule us (whites, their greatest thread) easier.

>>11313622
so we got tricked by our "corporate masters" to not believe in climate change? is that why all mainstream media only pushes that climate change is real? is that why any information saying its not real is purged from the internet/YouTube?

>>11313661
Says the guy denying science

>>11313312
Watch Potholer54

>>11313694
disregard that i suck fuck

>>11313312
people who invested in land next to rivers being fed by mountain glacier melt water will find their land worthless once the
that's the real red pill, it's the oligarchs who want to keep their fortunes
global warming is unironically good

Clouds play a part in the Earth's radiation balance because they reflect some of the incident radiation from the Sun but they also absorb and emit thermal radiation and have the same winter-coat insulating effect as greenhouse gases. In addition the presence of water vapour plays an important role as a greenhouse gas. Furthermore, as the atmosphere heats up so it can hold more water vapour before it begins to condense out as liquid droplets. This increased capacity further increases the winter-coat effect. The increasing presence of CO2 in the atmosphere thus gives rise to a positive feedback mechanism: as the global temperature rises the atmosphere can hold a greater amount of H2O before saturation and precipitation is reached. This leads to an even larger greenhouse effect from atmospheric H2O.
These and other feedback effects will influence the future of this planet. THere is a competition between positive feedback and negative feedback effects but it seems that the positive feedback effects have a much greater effect.
Positive feedback effects : warming triggering further warming, as ice cover on the planet is reduced more hland is exposed that being less reflective absorbs heat more quickly.
Negative feedback effects : higher temperatures will tend to promote the growth rate of plants and trees which will increase their intake of CO2.

>>11313680
>what is PragerU
>what is the Heartland Institute
>what is the Cato Institute
>who funds these organisations
>who are the Koch Brothers
>who are the Wilks Brothers
>who is Patrick Moore

>>11313767

>>11313773
so that chart shows $680,000,000 in funds. quite a pittance i would say. do you really believe no less than BILLIONS are going into PUSHING climate change? (probably 10b+ minimum)

>>11313827
>what is PragerU
>what is the Heartland Institute
>what is the Cato Institute
>who funds these organisations
>who are the Koch Brothers
>who are the Wilks Brothers
>who is Patrick Moore

>>11313773
yeah lets just ignore the $80 BILLION per year going into climate change and talk about the $80 million against it.
source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#5d02861e7ebb

>>11313827
>that chart shows $680,000,000 in funds
From 2003-2010. It's been a decade since that chart was made.
>probably 10b+ minimum
Nice ass-pulled figure.

>>11313842
source on billions: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#5d02861e7ebb
oh so the $680 million is divided over 7 years? thanks for proving my point even harder then.

>>11313847
>source on billions
That doesn't say anything about money going into "pushing" climate change. Try again.

>>11313847
>>11313841
This is /sci/, what does the science say about AGW?

Can we all agree that anybody who talks about """preventing""" climate change is just a scam artist, right?
>emission laws are just an assault on small business, and in fact just make global emissions worse by pushing production overseas
>various green energy scams that prey on people who don't understand the current state of the technology(solar roads being the big example)
>the chinese guy who keeps trying to sell bugs

>>11313914
No
https://youtu.be/D99qI42KGB0

>>11313312
first you need to learn greenhouse effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTvqIijqvTg

Results depend on how fast we can stop it. If we don't do anything reptiles will rule the world again.

>>11313914
Its really about weakening white countries (only white people are a threat to The Jews) so The Jews can rule us easier.
...Meanwhile they ignore that China and India produce like 10x more emissions than EU and USA and are skyrocketing higher.

>1970: we only have 10 years to stop climate change!
>1980: we only have 10 years to stop climate change!
>1990: we only have 10 years to stop climate change!
>2000: we only have 10 years to stop climate change!
>2010: we only have 10 years to stop climate change!
>2020: we only have 10 years to stop climate change!
I know you literal children are too young to remember long enough to know this.

>>11314024
There is no way to disprove your conspiracy theory, therefore it can't be true.

>>11314043
All of those people were just scam artists trying to push the issue for personal gain. This time, the issue is real.

>>11314045
The part about China producing more than us and skyrocketing higher is fact.
See: >>11313675

>>11314050
Give your money to make sky happy goy.

>>11314050
>All of those people were just scam artists trying to push the issue for personal gain. This time, the issue is real.
Meanwhile USA in 1991 was producing more carbon emissions than now.
Meanwhile EU in 1969 was producing more carbon emissions than now.

>>11314055
You didn't even read my post. Typical of a schizoposter.

>>11313312
Global warming is a thing and it's something that needs to be taken seriously, but at the same time it's not nearly as dramatic or urgent as activists would make it seem.

>>11314043
Important words CAPITALIZED. Exclamation marks!

Also, what the fuck are the eruptions supposed to say? I have no doubt that they're cherrypicked like all hell, but what trend is that supposed to establish since there seems to be very little association between end or onset of warming and eruptions. WHY?

>>11314043
https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

>>11313542
>Temperature has been going down for 5,000,000 years straight
What is your point?

>>11313554
>Gee, what were we just coming out of 140 or so years ago? THE LITTLE ICE AGE! how convenient that temperatures began rising right after that period of low unusually low temps!
Your own graph shows temperatures returning to normal 200 years ago, then a flat period for 100 years abc.d then warming. So how is this related to the LIA?

>>11313675
>Americans have not increased their massive caloric intake while the Chinese and Indians approach a small fraction of the Americans'
>Fat American: "see the Chinese and Indians have the obesity problem, not me.
They need to go on a diet."

Tony Heller demonstrates with data and historical articles that the climate is cyclical. The alarmist want you to only concentrate on the last 40 to 50 years. If you go back further in time, you see that the recent warming is hardly "unprecedented"; in fact, it is pretty much a yawner.

https://realclimatescience.com/

>>11314105
>normal
That's only when you look at such a small timeframe.
There's no "normal" temperature for Earth.
Some species will be fucked up if it goes up or down.
It's the circle of life.
Get over it.

Here is Heller's You Tube channel. Good videos.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1

>>11314129
Hi Tony, just reminding you that you still haven't responded to Potholer's rebuttal of your latest debate video from over four months ago. Might want to address this soon so people don't think you're a complete idiot
https://youtu.be/Tq2Wv2KHGBc

>>11313841
>money going to scientific research, technology, infrastructure and aid is the same as money going to propaganda organizations

>>11314043
Fake graph and fake quotes

>>11314055
>claims the graph showed modern warm period not exceptional
>does the opposite

There are 4 types of people involved in Climate Change.

1. The Earth Scientists. These are the people who know what Climate Change is and will do. They do research. They get together and compile things like this:
https://www.ipcc.ch/
They are the most trustworthy, not just because they do the actual research and know what they're talking about but because when they're in groups an individual's personal opinion doesn't matter. Only the data and science is important.

2. The well meaning activist. These are people that read what #1 has to say and believe them. They don't understand the science, they don't have the education or do the research. They just realize that the people most likely to be correct are those who study the problem.

3. The paid for deniers. These are the people who are invested in businesses that will be hurt if #1 is correct. These are the people who hire PR firms to try and come up with ways to deny there's a problem and try and convince you that there is no climate change or that climate change won't be so bad, or even that it's good for the environment. They are desperate to save their profits and the very real possibility that they could go to prison for their actions in hiding the truth. They include those who are bribed to lie in any way they can, to obfuscate the truth, to hope that they can bend public opinion to their side, despite the fact that 99% of the researchers are in group 1.

4. Well meaning but uninformed people who listen to #3. These are the people who's lives will be affected if #1 is right. Who realize that it means they'll have to drive their cars less, turn the heater off and wear a sweater, maybe even move out of their middle class neighborhood and into apartments because suburbia is a failure. Their lives are threatened by #1 so they will deny, deny, deny, and hold on to whatever bad science they can get their hands on which #3 hands out like drowning rats grasping straws.

>>11314173
>Who realize that it means they'll have to drive their cars less, turn the heater off and wear a sweater, maybe even move out of their middle class neighborhood and into apartments because suburbia is a failure.
What is tragedy of the commons.

>>11314135
>That's only when you look at such a small timeframe.
>There's no "normal" temperature for Earth.
Then why would temperatures naturally return from the LIA (and the MWP)? You just contradicted your own argument.

>Some species will be fucked up if it goes up or down.
>It's the circle of life.
The circle of life has never included humans dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. We will prevent that from screwing up our ecosystems, because humans solve problems instead of just letting them happen. Get over it.

>>11314173
/thread

>>11314129
>Tony Heller demonstrates with data and historical articles that the climate is cyclical.
Climatologists already showed that long before Tony Heller. The issue is, current warming is completely outside of the cycle.

What Tony actually does is cherrypick data sets and claim any difference between them is due to a conspiracy and not the fact that they represent different things or are from different sources of data or have correction procedures that are well explained by climatologists.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/hosted-by-former-australian-senator-tony-heller-repeats-false-claim-that-scientists-fake-the-warming-trend/

>>11314194
>Then why would temperatures naturally return from the LIA (and the MWP)? You just contradicted your own argument.
So every warming period on Earth was caused by humans?
Oh, it wasn't?
It can just get warmer without us?
>The circle of life has never included humans dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. We will prevent that from screwing up our ecosystems, because humans solve problems instead of just letting them happen. Get over it.
Give them your money if you want, I'm gonna burn the coal and drive a diesel until you people come up with cheaper alternatives that don't require charging a car for a few hours after driving a hundred kilometers or some other bullshit.

>>11314256
>So every warming period on Earth was caused by humans?
Where did you get that from my post? Are you illiterate?

>Give them your money if you want, I'm gonna burn the coal and drive a diesel
Enjoy your carbon tax then, fag.

>>11314267
>Enjoy your carbon tax then, fag.
Enjoy getting hanged when the people will have enough.

>>11314346
>The people will hang those who supported solutions that saved them from harm rather than those who would subject them to that harm
I don't get it, if you claim to support the economy, why do you want to harm it?

>>11314392
>The people will hang those who supported solutions that saved them from harm rather than those who would subject them to that harm
>Implying that the first group doesn't work for the second

>>11313312
The most pressing matter on earth is 6 billion shit skins with sub 100 iqs. Everyone knows this fact.

>>11313312
Climate change has existed for millions of years before mankind, and it will be when humanity is no longer on this planet. We were just accelerating the process, that's all.Mankind will adapt to the new climate or die. In theory you can go full
>green
with solar/wind and nuclear until Fusion, but it will take time, you can't do it in 5-10 years, you need to change the entire World system.
No one comes up with real solutions that can be implemented without crashing the Economy and the world system . All i can see are just more taxes, give more power to the Gouvernement and some things should be forbidden.
What we need now is the brightest minds in the world in economics, science, social, climate etc. to gather in a room and make a real plan which EU, USA and China agree, but that's not going to happen right.

climate will change. the problem with that is that people are very attached to their homes, so it will cause a lot of emotional distress + the current liberal-capitalist society is absolutely unprepared to resettle millions of refugees

>>11314173
The only people getting paid are the ones promoting climate change. There's no "paid for" deniers (mostly)

>>11313600
>Hf stopping literally millions with a wall
dont worry, there will be m50's and whatever else badass fancy shmancy gatling gun technology we got these days. fuck it, are the lasers ready yet?

>>11314256
This is warming at an unprecedented rate for the past million years where we have direct measurements of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The rate of CO2 release at the end of the glacial periods were on the order of 50-70 ppm per several thousand years. We have increased it by more then 100 in the last 100 years

>>11313971
>If we don't do anything reptiles will rule the world again.
Good. The Arctic circle has been crocodile free for far too long.

>>11314705
>This is warming at an unprecedented rate for the past million years where we have direct measurements of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The rate of CO2 release at the end of the glacial periods were on the order of 50-70 ppm per several thousand years. We have increased it by more then 100 in the last 100 years

>>11314751
If you had anything intelligent to say, why did you chose to go for a wojack instead?

>>11314525
well maybe you frogs should hurry up and get that ITER meme finished then huh?

>>11314679
>There's no "paid for" deniers
>what is PragerU
>what is the Heartland Institute
>what is the Cato Institute
>who funds these organisations
>who are the Koch Brothers
>who are the Wilks Brothers
>who is Patrick Moore

>>11314751
Not an argument.

>>11313312
It's bollocks. The average temperature has increased for only 1.5 degrees celsius in the past 200 years, and they claim every bad thing caused by climate nowadays as a result to that. We have no way of knowing the temperature did not vary by that much in a 200 years period a few thousands of years ago. It could be a normal thing. It could be a random thing. We have no fucking idea. The only reason this shit is pushed so much is because it gives more power to politicians enforcing the rules, i.e. friendly firms get to build the wind mills, solar panels, w/e.

>>11314867
If you want to talk about funding there is much more going towards pushing climate change than against it. It's more profitable to be for it than against it.

>>11315972
Read the post I was replying to. He stated "The only people getting paid are the ones promoting climate change". This is blatantly false, stop trying to shift the goalposts.

>>11313563
I think the point is to say that the temperatures we are experiencing are still not that high even within the small timeframe of human civilization overall.

>>11316044
That point is false.

>>11316020
Actually read what he said.
>There's no "paid for" deniers (mostly)

He is not saying that there is absolutely no money that goes towards people who deny climate change you fucking autistic mongoloid.

>>11315644
>We have no way of knowing the temperature did not vary by that much in a 200 years period a few thousands of years ago.
Totally false, most proxies that extend back a few thousand years have decadal scale resolutions. Pic related and see >>11314211 for proxy reconstructions of the past 2000 years. Nothing even comes close to current warming.

>I have no fucking idea.
ftfy


Also the climate is not magic. Such large and rapid temperature variations have causes. What do you propose is the cause of these invisible temperature swings of the past?

>>11316488
There is not one single group or organization on the planet which denies climate change and isn't paid to do so.

The reason why we know this is because the last organization of scientists which accepted climate change was the Union of Petroleum Geologists back around 2005. There is now none. In order to make up for the loss of every single scientific organization on the planet that goes against them the oil, coal, and gas companies were forced to invent their own.

See
>>11314867

Seriously, the evidence against man made climate change is so bad that they've been forced to create their own anti-scientific organizations to keep the denial going.

CC is just the icing on top of a cake full of ecological damage.

There are a whole host of man made problems which have been around for many decades. To name just a few: Soil degradation, micro-plastics, habitat destruction, declining water quality, over fishing, atmospheric pollution. CC just happens to be the latest thing to get popular media attention. At best it could just result in a J-curve to human population. At worse it could lead to human extinction along with many other species.

You will note two things about most CC discussion. The lack of mentioning human population as the core problem. Then the lack of using extreme measures to combat CC. By failing to address those two issues in any rational or pragmatic manner Humanity has effectively sealed the outcome in favour of the J-curve or the extinction event.

I would leave it there, but this is /sci/, so some fuck nugget will come inevitably come along and deny population is the problem or jibber about technological solutions. So in anticipation of that I say this to them: I sincerely hope you get to experience wet bulb temperatures.

>>11316518
And once again much more money goes toward pushing climate change than money goes towards pushing against it. I don't understand how you could deny that.

>>11314043
Sure, I will trust a chart that doesn't include a y-axis scale.

>>11316627
If human population is the core problem then replacing fossil fuels with nuclear and renewables should do nothing to mitigate global warming. How does that work?

>>11316636
How much money goes toward pushing climate change?

>inb4 funding for research and infrastructure is "pushing climate change"

>>11316648
It looks hand drawn too, it's pretty great.

>>11313542
>5,000,000
thats really not a relevant scale
its been going up since the little ice age

>>11316627
>population
first world countries already experience a collapse in birthrates

>>11316636
>much more money goes toward pushing climate change than money goes towards pushing against it
Wrong, retard. If you cite figures on how much is spent on renewables overall like I know you will, I'll cite right back at you the money that's spent on fossil fuels yearly (hint: it's in the trillions) (hint: trillion is bigger than billion)

>>11316491
>What do you propose is the cause of these invisible temperature swings of the past?
Not man-made climate change that's for fucking sure. Because it's been swinging back and forth like near clockwork for 100,000+ years.

>>11316997
>back and forth like near clockwork
And yet the current warming doesn't align with that cycle and is far more rapid than a cyclical change should be.

>>11316798
> 60 percent of total energy production costs more than less than 10 percent of total energy production this is a conspiracy.
OK.

>>11317170
>this is a conspiracy
Who are you quoting?

>>11313675
China and India pollute a lot but that's only because Americans and europeans are consuming their product and services and we out source stuff. Also, If you compare carbon footprint per capita, Americans and europeans are way more waistfull than the average chinese or an indian.

>>11316469
But its statistically true.

>>11318514
How?

>>11314043
I remember the teachers in middle school kept scaring us saying we'll run out of water by 2012 and showing us videos about how we're all gonna die. Thanks for making everyone shit ourselves in math class, Ms Graham.