/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11588688
>climate change

Coronachan already fixed that for us. >>>/his/tical_problems

>>11588688
You should remind them that scientific consensus has always been correct in history

>>11588688
Show them accurate predictions that withstand scrutiny and haven't been revised every few years for several decades due to being wrong every time

Homogenization is the hot new thing in climate science. Adjusting the raw data through largley statistical methods and assumptions.
That's definitely good science!

>>11588688
>world uninhabitable in a single decade
Get the fuck out of here.

>>11589069
>Get the fuck out of here.
that's what the scientists say you idiot

>>11589248
lol they've been saying that since the 70s

>>11589255
no.

>>11589273
>9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

>>11589248
proof?

>>11588688
>we only have one (1) decade to act or else the world will be uninhabitable
>>>/x/

>>11588688
Because even if you convince them the only solution is to reduce the number of people drastically, no one will do such a thing because of fear they might end up one of those people themselves.

wanted to check out /sci , apparently its full of climate change deniers? No one is saying anything accurate about the topic, nor grasps the situation or the "debate".

>>11589426
Conflicting messages about the global population are a big reason lots of /pol/ types don't go with the climate change narrative
>we don't have enough people, we need to mass important migrants from the third world who will dramatically and irreversibly change the culture of your country, because they have a constantly growing population due majorly to us feeding them and funding their births
but also
>we have too many people and it's going to lead to catastrophic climate change, so we need less (of you)

>>11589364
Well? Why do you think that we don't have to? Because we exported all our industry to China, they have so much pollution is blocks out the sun from their cities.

>>11589841
The only people responding to this thread are /pol/ retards. The overwhelming majority of the board knows fully well the consequences of climate change, it's old news. At this point trying to convince deniers is pointless, they're either brainwashed or intentionally trying to deceive people, or something in between. These threads ultimately go nowhere.

>>11589870
this is, in fact, not an argument. Please improve your rhetoric for next time.

>>11589426
We don't have to off anyone though, just reduce birth rates and close the borders so that areas of the planet where the birthrate remains high are isolated.

>>11589879
It's not an argument, it's an assessment of the quality of discussion on the board. Somehow I understand what he meant but you can't seem to operate at the level of normal human discourse, so you're stuck operating on retarded rhetoric like "nod an argumend XDDDD" in contexts where that makes no sense.

>>11588780
Only retarded hippies think climate models are accurate predictions. The point is "not numbers but insight". It's their fault /pol/tards exist.

back to /pol/

>>11589364
Have you seen the air in China and India. 2M Chinks and 1M Poos die every year just from air pollution.

>>11589919
climate models are pretty reliable and that has been proven time and time again, if anything they have been pretty conservative... What sort of no true scotsman is that?

I mean youre the retarded one when you are ignorant on facts you are talking about.


as for the basics of science on climate change, as in - warming from co2, ocean acidification, those are scientific facts that dont need any models, its easily verifiable and its simple physics.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/climate-modelling/

>>11589856
>we need to mass important migrants from the third world who will dramatically and irreversibly change the culture of your country
No, the whole point of importing immigrants is because climate change is directly affecting where they live. Their old home becomes uninhabitable, where do they go? The 1st world is literally the only place that can accept them.
>going to lead to catastrophic climate change
Catastrophic climate change is already happening, did you see the fires in Australia?

>>11589957
>No, the whole point of importing immigrants is because climate change is directly affecting where they live
That's not the typical narrative. The usual reason given is that birth rates are too low in western nations (after decades of telling people to stop having children) and so immigration is needed to get more workers to keep the economy going
>climate change is directly affecting where they live. Their old home becomes uninhabitable, where do they go?
It's making their homes uninhabitable, yet their population is expanding rapidly?

>>11589957
>No, the whole point of importing immigrants is because climate change is directly affecting where they live. Their old home becomes uninhabitable, where do they go? The 1st world is literally the only place that can accept them.

So the solution is multiplying their C02 footprint while they are unable to contribute to their new economy due to language barriers and lack of skills?

>did you see the fires in Australia?

Literally been happening for millennia.

You are the reason people don't take climate change seriously, you reek of cognitive dissonance and general lack of awareness. You're actively making climate change proponents look bad.

>>11589986
>Literally been happening for millennia.
Holy fuck you're retarded. Don't you wonder why exactly they were such a big deal? Yes, Australia is not a fire adverse environment, the trees there have become literally impossible to burn under most circumstances, that's why they have tropical rainforest and savannah, rainforest does not burn seasonally. Only this year they did burn, would you look at that? Parts of the world that have never burned in known history have suddenly started burning, it would almost make you think that the world is getting hotter.

>>11590001
>Parts of the world that have never burned in known history

This is your brain on cognitive dissonance.

>>11590009
lmao, good job admitting you're wrong.

>>11590036

You're too stupid to realize your ignorance.

>>11590040
You're a caricature, admit it, that's all that /pol/ is. You don't know where you are, I suggest you go back to your containment board and stay there.

>>11590063

I think you have paranoid delusions. Apparently someone calling you out for being a projecting retard on the internet must go to one specific board. You know nothing about me except that I made you feel dumber than you've ever felt and now you're trying to lash out in a shameful display in front of anonymous observers.

>>11590069
>You know nothing about me
Whether you know it or not, even if you've never even been there, /pol/ is where you belong.

>>11590073
Whether you know it or not, even if you've never been there, the grave is where you belong.

>>11589863
>>11589945
>reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half
Has it?

>>11588688
I'll attempt to save this trainwreck of a shill thread into something more productive for the bright minds of this board (that is, the people who are roughly 2 standard deviations above OP).

CO2 is not even close to our most pressing global threat in terms of maintaining a healthy planet. Nitrogen fixing and Phosphorous fixing, as well as loss of biodiversity, are the big three known concerns.

https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/planetary-boundaries/about-the-research/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html

>>11590087
Exactly the problem with climate threads. Somebody posts evidence or observations or whatever, /pol/ retards get fragile, and it devolves into a game of insults while they try to drown out the evidence, like clockwork. But please anon, believe whatever you want, I'm 99% certain you will never be someone of importance, or if you are, you're probably some slave to fossil fuel companies.

>>11590093
Yeah, it does, but only in heavily polluted areas and it's relatively temporary. The sky will clear up in about a couple weeks if you don't keep pumping the pollution into it.

>>11590110
Okay, so the prediction was wrong then. If it reduced the sunlight reaching the entire planet by 50% the smog would literally be visible from space.

>>11590104
>Be OP
>Be retard
>Get called out
>Start insulting
>Blame bogeyman for flame war

You really are a waste of a carbon footprint.

>>11590115
Well, we've cut down on particulate pollution drastically since the 70s. In theory, the prediction was only valid without human intervention or deportation of industry to China. Of course in China pollution does regularly block out the sun.

>>11590118
>Be you
>have no argument
Please tell me anon, is tropical rainforest supposed to burn seasonally? This is your one chance to redeem yourself.

>>11590102
>the three big known concerns
The list is silly and shortsighted if it doesn't include the population explosion, which implies an increase in most types of pollution, deforestation etc.

>>11590126
>burn seasonally?

Has it been happening yearly?

>>11590155

Well, the biggest threats on that list ARE essentially due to land management (largely farming/urbanization). So I would say it probably is pretty accurate. If you assume our future pollution is similar to our present pollution then, yes, even factoring in that population explosion (which probably won't happen) it's accurate.

>>11590168
>that population explosion (which probably won't happen)
It's the UN's prediction. Fun fact, the UN has had to readjust its estimates of the African population explosion every few years... always upwards. Do you like elephants, anon? Do you like giraffes and gorillas? Then maybe you should get serious and recognize the forces about to drive them extinct.

>>11590262
Yes, and they also push propaganda about how Europe needs to 'welcome' 1 billion Africans.

It seems to me the current cultural trends are causing the European immune system to wake up. We'll see, though. Keep fighting to make people see the truth.

>>11590093
You can barely see on bad days in china. Way less than half.

>looks at OP pic
the second death and an eternity of the Lord's wrath burning you undyingly is looking mighty restful there in your imagintation

>>11590262
youre gaslighting. Giraffes , gorillas, polar bears, fuck them. Climate change, co2 is definitely more pressing issue because it affects HUMANS, and im assuming you are one. Human life is priority, no one saying life will go extinct cuz of humans. Its just consequences to human civilization are going to be too great from global warming, mitigating now is objectively cheaper than mitigating consequences later.
People are shortsighted, and gaslight, as poltards have been this whole time.

>>11589986

gaslighting. You are ignorant and dont take it seriously, so you are projecting. You are parroting what people tell you.
Your argument is literally "oh cuz there is snow, that means global warming is fake news"

Yes storms have happened all the time, tornados and shit, draughts also happened. But it's basic physics and a fact that all these events will be stronger and more devastated as consequence of climate change (global warming) because there will be more energy in those systems. Not a theory - fact.

So its not wrong to say "this storm is cuz of climate change", there may have been a storm without it, but at a different time, and smaller scale with lower financial and human cost.

A storm that destroys a house vs one that doesnt, a draught that you can endure and wait out, and one that you cant.

>>11588780
OK.

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

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

>>11591740
I challenge any poltars to actually use a fraction of their brain to try to comprehend and absorb this information. But can they? Or will they continue to just parrot the same talking points that you hear all the time.

>>11588688
You get people to take climate change seriously by taking the solution seriously. When climate alarmists see the solution sitting right in front of their face and they ignore it, they look dishonest.

>>11592534
Youre delusional if you think that's a "solution" or that it's right in front of face. You realize that other first world countries have already taken necessary steps towards a real solution, besides USA? There are many different reactor technologies, they are not renewable, they are expensive and take long time to build. Replacing Big Oil with Big Nuclear isnt a solution - they are alraedy lobbying against renewables and spreading misinformation just like fossil fuel industry, to get subsidies and shit.

Where there is room for failure - there will be, those industries will always try to deregulate, and cut corners with waste disposal, making something that is objectively not dangerous into something that is totally dangerous eventually.

Another idiot wandered in who thinks he has things figured out and a good read on a situation, you dont.

Besides, you shouldnt be telling this to people who are telling you facts, but to other Trumpists who support return of coal and him subsidising oil, and deregulating stuff, lol.

https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-better/

Besides solutions that involve nuclear energy are most actively looked at in countries that already use shitload of renewables, as energy source that can pick up the slack.

But nothing beats a system where you primarily get energy from renewables in cost and efficiency, as well as time to deploy it.

P.S leader in renewables is China.
https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/98708/china-remains-a-leader-in-renewable-energy

>>11592587
also leader for nuclear development is also China.

USA USA. Leader for coronavirus :D

>>11592534
omg i wanna build a nuclear reactor now

>>11588688
The vast majority of "environmentalists" are hypocrites. The animal agriculture industry is the biggest cause of deforestation in the world, yet most "environmentalists" still eat animals. Watch Cowspiracy.

>>11592629
but deforestation isnt biggest issue in the world, forests will grow back. Also there is nuance - fish are also animals. Does eating fish contribute to deforestation? What about chickens?

If you are really talking about climate and environment, you have to be specific, otherwise you are just a vegan faggot. I dont care about animals, i care about humans.

>>11588688
1 decade is commie fear mongering

>>11592617
Is it even clear why the number of people dying from coronavirus per million population is even lower in the US than in backward places like Belgium and Sweden? Are the numbers simply negligible in the US compared to the lethality numbers from kindergarten and church shootings as well as cult mass suicides?

>>11592587
>NOOO!!! you can't solve it, then we won't have global warming as a politcal tool!!

Nuclear has already proven the ability to power entire countries. Modern reactors even solve the safety and storage problems. The fact that you so adamantly oppose the only proven solution is why nobody listens you you.

>>11592675
Yes it's clear, if you didnt know - death toll is highest in USA. The rate of death is lower in USA because of the amount of people who tested positive but hasnt died. It's not a very reliable statistic, it's all in the testing. In the countries with high death rates, people with mild symptoms stay home and dont get tested, so number of people who tested positive is lower, thus death rate higher.

Make no mistake, USA isnt doing anything better.

>>11588780
>
they will just deny it

>>11592722
no one is adamantly opposing anything, republicans are opposing solutions period, denying the problem even exists. What do you do? Gaslighting again.

Youre ignorant on what other countries are actually doing, the potential solutions and challenges, you are not even trying to think about it, it's almost like you are happy to spite people with different views because of your delusions. You are already convinced its political tool, so you think you got "proof".

You are not even trying to intellectually engage with the topic or read about it, so fuck off.

>>11592640
>but deforestation isnt biggest issue in the world, forests will grow back
Retard detected.
>Does eating fish contribute to deforestation?
No, but it contributes to a catastrophic effect on the oceans.
>What about chickens?
Yes.
>If you are really talking about climate and environment, you have to be specific
The animal agriculture industry is the biggest cause of ecological destruction in the world. Not only deforestation, but ecological destruction as a whole, factoring in deforestation, pollution of air, pollution of waterways, pollution of ocean, etc.
>I dont care about animals, i care about humans.
Those two statements are mutually exclusive, faggot.

>No, but it contributes to a catastrophic effect on the oceans.

No, this is false. Overfishing is bad sure, and that is bad for humans as it can cause reduced biodiversity and hurt sustainability and food supply in long term. But as long as food supply from the ocean is secure - it's not a problem. I'm not a fish, i dont care about feelings of fish.
That's a problem that can be resolved and mitigated in many ways.

Only delusional people believe its a realistic goal having people stop using such a major food source and becoming vegan fags.

>Those two statements are mutually exclusive

since you're slow, i'll rephrase. Humans are the only animals species i care about, and really that's the only species that humans ought to feel obligation towards. Your dog is not a person, sorry, and i'd eat it if i was hungry.

>>11592875
besides its about being realistic, it's not hypocrisy.

Caring about climate change isnt necessarily environmentalist either. It's about reality and how it affects human civilization. There are things governments can do and should do to mitigate effects of climate change, to reduce CO2 - this is doable and realistic.

Turning the world vegan - unrealistic, so fuck off.

>>11588780
this
https://extinctionclock.org/