/sci/ - Science & Math

Why are you on the science [and math] board?
>>>/x/
>>>/pol/

>>11342215
Because this is the place where people may actually talk back on this in a normal manner

This garbage is harshly debated on /pol/

>>11342206
>>11342215
>i wanna discuss this controversial topic and even wrote a semi effortpost and provided something to visialise my descepancy with the current state of science
>REEE LEAVE! LET US CIRCLEJERK IN PEACE!

yea classic /sci/

imo its probably a scam and they overplayed their hand by justifying the refugee stuff with it. The /pol/ autists and the new right rising in europe will clean this out of science forever in a few years mark my words.

a shame tho, good justification to make people live healthy and look after the enviroment

>>11342206
check how earth looked like when last time it has CO2 levels observed today.

>Im not buying it go fuck youself you self absorbed autists
you don't have to, nobody cares, go fuck yourself you paranoid schizo.

>>11342257
The last time CO2 was at 0.04 was during the Sturtian glaciation, average temperature was -18 degrees

>>11342254
>Convince me again to vote in people that flood my country with niggers, introduce x×10^9999 new "genders" to the law, destory academia with their neomarxist bs
truly a post that doesn't belong on /pol/

>>11342263
well, that's a lie

>>11342254
>This scares the CO2 jew
>onvince me again to vote in people that flood my country with niggers, introduce x×10^9999 new "genders" to the law, destory academia with their neomarxist bs and will cut all funding in "evil nuclear stuff" like fusion or thorium DESPITE that being the best solution to the supposed problem
>>i wanna discuss this controversial topic and even wrote a semi effortpost and provided something to visialise my descepancy with the current state of science
You can't make this shit up!

>>11342206
2 + 2 = 4 + {}

>>11342293
If it pleases you autism we can move the thread to there but i have a Feeling that you wont be able to sort out those problems with your climate Religion no Matter where the thread is posted

>>11342328
(citation needed)

>>11342341
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/7/graphic-carbon-dioxide-hits-new-high/

>>11342223
go back

>>11342359
>"back then it was much different"
>shows out of proportion CO2 graph starting in 1960 to make it seem like unprecedented growth
>"major and lasting impacts on the planet."

Yea fuck off

It was way warmer in the past earth wasnt "mich different" during the middleages or the bronze age

>>11342419
you claimed that last time C02 reached 400ppm was during Sturtian glaciation, which is not true.

It is not certain what other factors might influenced the Pliocene climate (simulations were inconclusive), obviously problem is not 1-dimensional due to inherent nature of climate numerical simulations.

That's not changing the fact that you answered simple question with obvious lie, which means you are extremely misinformed and have no saying in the matter.

Stop posting graphs you don't understand to prove point you have 0 knowledge off based on your limited information that is (as proved above) wrong.

>>11342508
The Hubris in this post is enough for 5 regular people Jesus Christ

Also i didnt count the pliocene because ever since then co2 has remained inbetween 0.02 and 0.04, which in miniscule compared to the changes before the glacial cycles started.

The Sturtian Around 700 Ma was the last time (excluding today) that co2 stopped into 3 digit PPM territory

By your logic i could have answered with pliocebe and you would have screeched about the end of the last ice age being also ~400ppm

There is no winning or debating with you idiots. Its like debating a muslim on their holy scripture. This Religion Trope also fits your behaviour in other place desu. Climate doomsday was 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020 and now the 2030s UNLESS we do exactly what your corporate Masters want and ONLY in western countrys obviously

History wont be Kind i promise you that

>>11342615
Fuck phoneposting im not gonna correct all that
This board is claiming to be smart you will figure it out

>>11342615
so you can't answer a simple question without lying? Clearly you have an agenda.
>1990, 2000, 2010, 2020 and now the 2030s
according to what? please cite sources.

>>11342206
>>11342223
>>11342254
>>11342337
>>11342419
>>11342615
Familiarise yourself with each of these links and don't attempt to post here again until you do.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg

https://youtu.be/9XIpTqbLR5Y

https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk

>>11342641
>picture
Noone doubts temperature increases in the last 150 years you fucking mong
Also
>Skepticalscience
I know that site
They argue like this
Evil deniers: Hockeystick is wrong
Holy facts: its warm

Evil deniers: Temperature rises before CO2 does
Holy facts: yes but that doesnt Matter lol

Evil deniers: Past predictions were wrong
Holy facts: yes but this time they are right

Take your meme sites somewhere else

>>11342635
I am not gonna crawl trough 50 years of scientific papers and news articles just so you can give me the "so what?" And jerk off to you immense ego
You know this is true

>>11342663
>Hockeystick is wrong
It isn't.
>yes but that doesnt Matter lol
That's not what it says. It acknowledges that solar irradiance plays a role in temperature changes, something deniers conveniently forget about when trying to disprove the link between CO2 and temperature.
>Past predictions were wrong
>Holy facts: yes but this time they are right
Past predictions haven't been wrong. Watch the video I linked titled "How accurate are scientific predictions about climate?". I specifically included it because I knew you'd attempt to make this argument.

>>11342663
>I'm not going to produce any evidence for the claim I pulled out of my ass
Thanks for conceding.

>>11342635
>Clearly you have an agenda.
Overread this whilst answering but seriously?
I am just a 25 year old math soon PhD who is fed up with my government taxing me out of having kids and a car over this wacky garbage

Why does everyone always has to be funded by "da ebil copearstins" if he disagrees with you. Its literally like the catholic Church saying everyone who disagrees is send by satan. You are cultists!

>>11342681
>i tired out my opponent by being a knobhead, therefore i am right

Yea keep telling yourself that

>>11342701
>reeeee he asked me to cite my sources!!!
Remember where you are, swine. This is /sci/, not /pol/. You're not going to get away with your unfounded shit arguments here.

>>11342680
>>11342681
>Past predictions haven't been wrong
>Thanks for conceding.

Not OP but are you spergs seriously insisting that when they first brought this to the public in 1980 they werent going
>we have until 2000 yadda yadda
You tards really claim back in 1998 al gore went like
>yea we need to act until 2035 or changes will be irreversible, maybe i guess
You can always say that in your opinion the evidence for co2 overweights the counterarguments but do you really have lie and argue in bad faith WHILST ACCUSING YOUR OPPONENT OF THE SAME ?

>>11342708
Well i am not going to do the work of another PhD just to prove some random sperg on the Internet wrong, who is gonna brush it down anyways

If you wanna count this as a victory the congrats but 80% of my arguments remain unadressed

Also if you guy want to make me watch yt as proof i can do the same

https://youtu.be/Q1OreyX0-fw

Tell me again that shit corrolates the way to claim it does and write a bachelors Thesis about why the past temperatures and co2 amounts do not Show this at all if we go by that shit

>>11342684
normal people don't just go around intentionally telling lies. There's clearly something wrong with you.

>>11342730
Seems like everything has been addressed, is there anything left which isn't either a misrepresentation or outright fabrication?

>>11342719
>muh Al Gore
There it is. Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Post predictions by climate scientists based on actual climate data that were shown to be wrong.
>>11342730
Again, no actual climate scientist ever claimed that CO2 is the only forcing. Solar irradiance is accounted for in climate models, however it is currently on a downward trend, i.e. it is not responsible for the CURRENT warming.

>>11342719
>Not OP but are you spergs seriously insisting that when they first brought this to the public in 1980 they werent going
>>we have until 2000 yadda yadda
Was it because they didn't foresee the fall of Soviet Union and the start of unfettered capitalism which made emissions rise more than predicted. The models themselves where right but they didn't have the correct numbers because full blown capitalism didn't start before 90s.

>>11342206
3 + 3 = 33

>>11342742
>anything left which isn't either a misrepresentation or outright fabrication?
Only the fucking core of my argument formulated in the first admittedly baity post

For the 500Ma our CO2/O2 based ecosystem in its current form existed CO2 was ~0.4% of the atmosphere, rarely falling in the 3 digit PPM area

During that time tempersture fluctuated between -24-30°C, today we have 400ppm with around 14-17°C depending in how you calculate global average

In the last 150 years we had an increase from around 360 to 400 PPM and temperature rose by about 0.8°C

Now yes, this corrolates but how on earth do those scales fit into the scheme of historical Pattern of climate change if you assume CO2 does as much as you spergs say it does

And since yt evidence is enough apperently go watch this
https://youtu.be/Q1OreyX0-fw

It even has calming music, you söyboys must really like this

>>11342206
>Convince me again to vote in people that flood my country with niggers, introduce x×10^9999 new "genders" to the law, destory academia with their neomarxist bs
I think Climate Change is real but I'd rather be fucked by Climate Change than see this getting worse

>>11342615
who said I support the idea that we have to combat current global warming?

Anyway!
Lets fact check your new pile of stories!:
>By your logic i could have answered with pliocebe and you would have screeched about the end of the last ice age being also ~400ppm

nope, max year average ppm in last glacial period was never higher than today (300 is not ~400)

>The Sturtian Around 700 Ma was the last time (excluding today) that co2 stopped into 3 digit PPM territory
what? Watch your video again (and learn decimal points and % before you do)


>There is no winning or debating with you idiots.
>idiots

Woah, /pol/ really can melt one's brain.

>>11342814
0.04 is 400 ppm are you retarded

>Talking to /pol/tard trolls

C’mon guys.

>>11342834
>Intense volcanism and tectonic activity continued during the Cryogenian Period, and most climatologists suggest that the release of tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide from volcanic outgassing ended each glacial episode. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations trapped heat near Earth’s surface, which warmed the air and caused the ice sheets to retreat. Some studies suggest that carbon dioxide levels during the Marinoan increased to perhaps as much as 350 times present-day levels.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Cryogenian-Period
>Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide. Earth was very different back then: the Sun was cooler, our planet was in a different phase of its orbital cycles, and the continents were lumped together differently, changing ocean currents and the amount of ice on land. The planet was maybe as much as 10 degrees C (18°F) warmer than today, which might seem surprisingly cool for that level of greenhouse gas; with so many factors at play, the link between CO2 and temperature isn’t always easy to see. But researchers have confirmed that CO2 was indeed a major driver of the planet’s thermostat over the past 500 million years: large continental ice sheets formed and sea levels dropped when the atmosphere was low in CO2, for example.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters

CO2 levels oscilated in carbon cycles orders of magnitude higher during Cryogen, before and after Sturtian

which your movie shows.

So the The Sturtian was by no means first or last event reaching any comparable to today's co2 threshold

meltbrain.

>>11343007
>CO2 levels oscilated in carbon cycles orders of magnitude higher during Cryogen, before and after Sturtian
>which your movie shows.
>So the The Sturtian was by no means first or last event reaching any comparable to today's co2 threshold

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING
how on earth do you think you can turn this into a pro co2 argument

Especially with that hyporisy of a citation
Basically this
>well yes back then solar activity, volcanos and orbital cycles played a huge role, which made temperature fluctuate greatly within a ~40°C range
>today they are irrelevant tho and 40 PPM more will destory the earth

This board should be renamed to /sòy/

>>11343110
Dude just leave this board
Its nice here for math and some STEM collage insider humor but discussing serious topics always ends up a giant gaslighting content.
Why do you still reply these retards? I see your point and everyone who lurks here did as well and may or may not overthink the co2 shit but listen
YOU CANNOT CONVINCE SOMEONE WHO ARGUES IN BAD FAITH

LET
THE
THREAD
DIE

>>11343110
>how on earth do you think you can turn this into a pro co2 argument

why huge glacial period ages in Cryogen ended?
jesus fucking christ, you are slow...

>>11343126
Bump

>>11342397
This isn't reddit

>>11343362
>why huge glacial period ages in Cryogen ended?
Nice we have come full circle
Back at the "temperature rises First, co2 follows"
>>11342747
Wouldnt more Emissions move the date closer and not further away?
Like you literally said
>soviet union fell which made "ebil cabitalims" produce MORE emissions
>therefore the climate doomsday was pushed futher away?!?

Your brain on /sòy/

>>11343558
>Back at the "temperature rises First, co2 follows"
oof, anoter lie

Damn I'm patient!, maybe I will volunteer in mentally disabled kids learning facility!

>>11343643
>oof, anoter lie
Do you have anything to back that up?
Even your holy skepticalscience memesite admits this
Argument Nr. 12 i even made a Screenshot for you lazy dickhead
Also cut it with the Hubris it or you will die a friendless virgin

>>11343665
Also just notice how they almost always dodge the core of the arguments, which gets even sadder considering they even got to pick how they were worded and all

>>11343643
i was really rooting for you mate but you just got fucked in the ass
>>11343671
>>11343665
almost always is a bit harsh but yes they do a poor job at debunking stuff and force a draw most of the time

>>11343691
to clarify i still belive >>11343665 is wrong, but i couldnt make a case against him and you cant either as it seems

still im no climatologist and you arent one either so whatever this proves nothing
its like beating a fish in a sprint

>>11343691
>>11343704
>i am wrong because i know nothing about the subject therefore i am right
>/sóy/

>>11343707
go fuck yourself

>mfw OP is retarded but a lot of people think like him and we will probably witness the collapse of our civilization because of them

>>11343749
you used the wrong pic mate

FTFY

>>11343749
Nice argument dude are you a basedentist?

>>11343749
>we will probably witness the collapse of our civilization because of them
haha if you only knew

>>11343665
Do you understand what Milankovitch cycles are?

>>11343814
Yes i do
But according to most climattards they are baseless beyond statistical analysis, which is kinda right, so i stopped bringing them up in arguments

If you can tell me about a less "data says so"-ish explaination for them please do

>>11343819
not the guy you answered but look up henrik svensmark or svensmark effect hes controversial but what he says fits perfectly into the milankovitch cycles

beyond that i dont know either

>>11343823
I know Svensmark and Shaviv (Israeli who successfully replicated his "gammaray-aerosol-clouds in big tank" Experiment)

Not sure if you can pin the Milankovitc cycles on the Sun alone but yes it might fit. These guys need more funding