/sci/ - Science & Math

just build nuclear

convert transnational shipping to nuclear

also encourage trannies and homosexuality and Feminism in India and Africa and Asia by way of social engineering to retard population growth

ez pz

>>11589797
Models from 1982 predicted 2019 accurately.
Big oil knew exactly what it was doing.
https://youtu.be/FGVW9vJ773k

>>11590339

>>11589797
What? We've known about the effect of CO2 for over a century

>>11589797
c*Ntservatives will just screech "fake news" and move on

>>11590504
https://i.imgur.com/6rMrTEc.jpg

>>11589797
image source? links?

and? what did you want them to do? just disband and say "sorry no more oil!"? cringe.

>>11589797
The right knows what they are doing. They even got busted now for enticing the Covid Protests for the sake of boosting gun sales
hwww.newsweek.com/facebook-quarantine-protest-groups-dorr-brothers-coronavirus-covid19-social-media-campaign-1499154%3famp=1

>>11590539
>the right

>>11590539
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/facebook-quarantine-protest-groups-dorr-brothers-coronavirus-covid19-social-media-campaign-1499154%3famp=1

>>11590537
Not do this
https://youtu.be/oS9VzE0Kqq0?t=2m

>>11590550
why not? it directly hurts their function. do you think target is going to make a campaign to support walmarts lower price because thats better for the consumer?

>>11590559
>why not just fucking lie
ok retard

just be aware it's all just a con job, this is what they were saying before they got bribed
https://youtu.be/oS9VzE0Kqq0?t=35s

>>11590550
>>11590572
>unironically linking comedy central as a source

>>11590596
it's an actual clip of Pelosi and Gingrich, explain that

>>11590596
>i have no argument

>>11590596
In early 2003, McCain joined with then-Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman to introduce the Climate Stewardship Act, which The New York Times editorial about his death called "the first serious bipartisan bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions by putting a price on carbon."

https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/139

>>11589797
unironically climate change is fake and a political tool they have been regurgitating since the 70s. the same talking points are all the same just the dates changed when its convenient for them to do so. we only have one earth, we have no other point of reference so it's retarded to say for sure we know absolutely whats gonna happen
of course, literally none of that would matter real or not if we did the smart thing and went nuclear since it is clearly safer and many times more efficient. everyone would be happy but for some reason youre not allowed to talk about it in the same way you arent allowed to talk about the holocaust
go nuclear and make everyone happy

>>11590615
>climate change is fake
insurance companies, who have to pay the bills of floods, droughts, fires etc., disagree

>>11590615
>t. exxon executive

>>11590542

>>11590630

>>11590624
>floods, droughts, fires etc.
>all natural occurences on earth
im astonished you even tricked me into replying to your braindead comment. you might actually be intelligent for that reason alone
>>11590630
the fact that there is a vast conservative-democrat dichotomy of cc opinion is enough for me to doubt anything anyone says. politicians lie out of their asses all the time so why would i believe anything any one of those corrupt retards says. i wouldnt even care if we stopped using fossil fuels but when the same people behind targeted attacks on basic constitutional rights are also telling me the sky is gonna fall in 10 years then i have no reason to believe that
note: i can guarantee you are going to say im shilling for conservatives and that is not what i am doing because relying on fossil fuels is a great way to eradicate humanity for the simple fact that we will run out of reserves within the next 400 years easily
use. nuclear.

>>11590624

And they are wrong in doing so because they base their business decisions on falsehoods. Businesses make misguided decisions all the time, the OP being a nonexample of this. Do you know that?

>>11590641
>the fact that there is a vast conservative-democrat dichotomy of cc opinion is enough for me to doubt anything anyone says.
Imagine being so cucked by politics, embarrassing.

>>11590641
there are clear trends that show them increasing
easily searchable
Guess you prefer rubles, Russia is one the few winners of climate change, in the long run.

>>11589797
Since you didn't like this in the last thread:

The Real Metric of Global health:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries

>>11590651
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbrKLnh8wLA

>>11590647
nice try, monica lewinsky
>>11590651
that narrows it down so little that i cannot even comprehend how you got to that point. there are so many other factors involved in increased natural disasters than "oil bad"
and yes oil is bad and again we should stop relying on it and stop giving big oil companies monopolies but its not causing climate change you are delusional

>>11590662
t. source:my ass

>>11590671
>there are multiple factors in earth's climate stability at any given point and that gas is not the only factor
>this is a groundbreaking scientific discovery which needs a source
my ass could probably shit out a better argument than you

>>11590683
>i have no sources

>>11589797
Plants absorb more co2 per unit time when co2 concentrations are higher.
A warmer earth means more clouds since there will be more evaporation and clouds reflect more sunlight.

Why don't climate alarmists ever acknowledge the negative feedback mechanisms that would inhibit a runaway greenhouse effect?

>>11590776
>Plants absorb more co2 per unit time when co2 concentrations are higher.
>A warmer earth means more clouds since there will be more evaporation and clouds reflect more sunlight.

These also help reverse desertification, which is an actual climate problem.

>>11590725
you dont need a source to say that a conclusion cannot be reached based on one factor

>>11590782
because positive feedbacks greatly outweigh negative feedbacks. Land based carbon sinks are becoming less effective, not more due to manmade effects on land useage. The ocean has absorbed more than half of human emitted CO2 but is becoming saturated, and will soon be a net emitter. Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and it's warming effect greatly outweighs albedo changes from cloudcover. Not to mention methane locked up in permafrost, as well as decreased albedo from icemelt. Things aren't looking good.

>>11590794
A storm in Texas really isn't that much affected by a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon.
popsci is for kids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_arithmetic_mean

>>11590803
Sweet lets fix it by growing the energy we expend to create it exponentially.

I vote we rely heavily on mining rare earth metals and not bothering to fix the planned obsolescence to the shit we already throw away.

Just keep buying more copper and REM instead of coal, keep growing your bauxite and lithium ponds, you're fixing the planet all by yourself thanks very much.

No amplitude is what affects feedback, not polarity

>>11590641
This guy gets it
https://youtu.be/4JJ3yeiNjf4
Also listen to based chinkman willie soon instead of al gore and some swedish child

>>11590803
The ocean essentially acts as a giant buffer system. As co2 is absorbed by the ocean it becomes more acidic, the acidic water reacts with naturally occurring and abundant chemicals in the water which reduces the acidity. Essentially it has a self regulating ph level.
>methane
All the radiation wavelengths methane absorbs is also absorbed by water vapor, and water vapor also absorbs much more radiation. There is much more water vapor in the atmosphere.

China also tried to cover up the coronavirus for a short time, but we still knew enough in January to take precautions. I believe that had Exxon been upfront about climate change in the 70s then nothing would be different today. Sure, they're still villains, but I don't think their villainy has any major causal influence on our response to climate change. Malthus was right and we're going to keep growing and growing and taking anything we can get (as all organisms inevitably do) until the ecosystem caves in and most of us die from food shortages. All of our actions and behaviours are as inevitable as the motions of celestial objects in space, blindly and will-lessly pinging off of one another in the endless silent void.

>>11591407
>had Exxon been upfront about climate change in the 70s
they turned into active villains around 1997 when they systematically started attacking the science - until that moment they had merely ignored it, like everyone else.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/steve-coll-how-exxon-shaped-the-climate-debate/

>>11591420
>>11590596

>>11589797
the nuclear cuckolding of the 20th century is the greatest crime against humanity ever committed

>>11590662
oh god sorry i wrote that, i now know im an idiot

>>11590615
>unironically climate change is fake and a political tool they have been regurgitating since the 70s.
Proof?

>>11589801
This but unironically

>>11590641
Holy shit you must be one of the most sanctimonious retards I’ve had the misfortune of seeing on this site.
Natural disasters will become more frequent, not that they didn’t happen before climate change, you absolute disingenuous boob. Everyone around the world, communist/capitalist, public/private, is spazzing about climate change because the effects are real, obvious, and a matter of national security. Are you so worried that you might have to give up on your coomer lifestyle that you’re completely repressing the reality?
Also, are you implying you base your understanding of the physical world around you on the relative bipartisanship of official political opinion? How fucking retarded are you? Do you add extra fluoride to your water?

>>11591992
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>11589797
yeah waste decades we don't have to spend
cool thinking retard

>>11591438
yeah waste decades we don't have to spend
cool thinking retard

>>11590532
not OP but
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
>In the 1980s, oil companies like Exxon and Shell carried out internal assessments of the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels, and forecast the planetary consequences of these emissions. In 1982, for example, Exxon predicted that by about 2060, CO2 levels would reach around 560 parts per million – double the preindustrial level – and that this would push the planet’s average temperatures up by about 2°C over then-current levels (and even more compared to pre-industrial levels).

And they knew even earlier, there was earlier research in the 50s and 60s even, because the greenhouse gas effect has been known for over a century obviously. But they spent billions suppressing the research and spinning the media instead.

>>11590776
dx/dt = -x^2 + 10*x^3 has negative feedback but still has explosive solutions

>>11590630
All these institutions are "conservative" in name only. They're libertarians and nothing else.

tired: hiding evidence of climate change
wired: arguing climate change is false
inspired: plants need CO2, the global ecosystem is healthier

Explain this.

>>11593540
>RSS
lol, this dead old zombie again

old RSS is bullshit, it was shown to be so in March 2016.
Only morons like you refer to it anymore.

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s


Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment
Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz
Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California
(Manuscript received 23 October 2015, in final form 22 February 2016)

>>11593587
Should I read it like "they corrected these observations, because they used to contradict their agenda"?

>>11593682
>projecting
errytime

>>11593682
>NO THE INSTRUMENTS ARE WRONG!!! THERE'S A GLOBAL CONSPIRACY OF EVERY UNIVERSITY, GOVERNMENT, AND PERSON WITH A THERMOMETER!!!!!! THERE JUST CAN'T BE WARMING THERE CAN'T NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

>>11592030
??? This seems to prove the opposite

>https://www.inverse.com/science/satellites-capture-shocking-quantity-of-greenhouse-gas-leaking-from-permian-basin
>A recent set of data collected by European Space Agency (ESA) satellites revealed just how much damage is being caused by one of the world's largest oil production regions in the United States.

>A team of scientists analyzed the satellite data, and found that around 2.7 teragrams (more than two trillions grams, or a little over 5,952,481,078 pounds) of methane was leaking from Permian Basin each year, which is 60 percent higher than the national average and contributes the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions as all U.S. residences combined.


Scientifically speaking is it too late to destroy America to save the rest of us?

>>11593711
>thatsthepoint
skepticism is good stuff.
deniers are a retard religion or con men, they have no real claim on the word.

>>11593708
>all climate model predictions are incorrect in the same way, probably just a coincidence

>>11593712
right now they're doing a good job on that to themselves

>>11593712
Scientifically speaking, no, and that's why based Xi released the virus.

>>11593707
You suppose I'm climate scientist getting paid by oil companies and falsifying data? If not, how can I be projecting?
>>11593708
Nice strawman, bro.
Google "Climategate" if you want to know how group of malicious people created "scientific" consensus.
You suppose that universities are independent structures, coming to their own conclusions. Instead, they exists inside framework of scientific community.

>>11593782
>You suppose I'm climate scientist getting paid by oil companies and falsifying data? If not, how can I be projecting?
Because nothing you said requires that?

>>11593734
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKh_DBNBsEE
This guy predicted the 2009 Great Depression
Shit will hit the fan, even worse than now.

>>11593747
US military says nope

>>11593782
>Google "Climategate" if you want to know how group of malicious people created "scientific" consensus.
I Googled it and I got a bunch of articles explaining how deniers took a bunch of quotes out of context from hacked emails and completely misrepresented them in order to make up a fake conspiracy. For example: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

>>11593734
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKh_DBNBsEE
This guy predicted the 2008 Great Depression
Shit will hit the fan, even worse than now.

>>11593734
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKh_DBNBsEE
This guy predicted the 2008 Great Recession
Shit will hit the fan, even worse than now.

>>11593801
"skeptical science"
do they have any articles in which they're skeptical about mainstream scientific claims?

>>11593822
I'm sure, but the website isn't about attacking well established and widely confirmed scientific principles now is it?

>>11593827
No it doesn't seem so, which is why they should be called "credulous science" instead of "skeptical science"

>>11593834
true skepticism is about evidence, not doing your best to conceal it like climate deniers.

>>11593851
No, true skepticism is about taking things the majority of people believe and believing them unquestionably

>>11593879
>>11593707

>>11593885
What feeling are you accusing me of projecting, Dr Anon?

>>11593801
What's not surprising since Google openly claimed, that it gives higher priority to sites, which support consensus.
Interesting website anyway, gonna read their articles.
>>11593788
Do you know what projecting is?

>>11593914
>majority of people believe
just add 'stupid', aka your buddies

>>11593937
Sorry anon but this isn't very funny low-effortposting. Talk to me man to man. Is there such a thing as legitimate climate change skepticism?

>>11593951
...aaand RSS again >>11593587

and with fakepic weather stats that insurance companies' stats refute (you know, the ones that actually end up paying for the shit that happened)

>>11593962
Which insurance company's stats are you talking about?

>>11593962
there is zero evidence climate change is happening in an unprecedented manner or in a way attributable to man

>>11593973
>unprecedented manner
speed

>>11593971
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=insurance+company+climate+change

>>11594000
I can't use DDG on this device. And even if I could I'd get different results from you. Link me to the specific page you're talking about.

>>11593996
false >>11593951

>>11594013
you show a happy insurance company to me

>>11594031
I googled
>insurance climate records
and I only got websites showing basically the same data as RSS. I think you've never actually done the research.

>>11590605
Neither do you if you think Comedy Central is one.

>>11594077
>>11590488
>>11590601
>>11590614

>>11594062
>source: my ass

>>11594313
source: https://www.google.com

>>11593540
Do you seriously think that as a way to measure global temperature there are only 4 air-baloon based datasets? No sattelite, no weather station averages? Or maybe it is a cherrypicked observation based on wack method >>11593587


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378?casa_token=Oa8sZlFl9bMAAAAA%3AsM4eI-tr5Q8Za4ByEnddE2u4l3_sCuJmRksB5A18-g96bPRJZtzzW9CIMsEighBzWCJl9AxXMw4

This paper compares the performance of old timey 80s climate model to Berkeley Earth temperature compilation. Pic related specifically is the infamous Hansen et al. 1988 congressional testimony model.

>>11593822
>"skeptical science"
Not an argument. Try again.

>>11593919
>Do you know what projecting is?
Yes, do you?

>>11593951
>Human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
>Ignores that natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, while humans don't.

>CO2 lags temperature by 800-2000 years
Of course it does, if orbital eccentricity causes insolation to increase, then warming starts the feedback loop between warming and CO2 evaporating from the oceans. The climate has never had humans dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus we have never seen CO2 start to increase before temperature, until now! Do you think climatologists don't already know this? Do you not realize that without this feedback loop you cannot explain the Milankovich cycle? No of course not, you have no idea what your idiotic memes are even implying.

>The models are wrong
Actually the data is wrong. Several sources of error were discovered in the satellite techniques since 2009 and they are now much more in line with the instrumental data. To see how well the IPCC is doing I suggest you look at current updates:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
Local samples, not indicative of a global average temperature.

And last but not least another fraudulent graph, using flawed, cherrypicked data and not even showing surface temperature.

climate change is real but ethics is not

>>11593973
>there is zero evidence climate change is happening in an unprecedented manner
The cause is unprecedented and the speed is unprecedented for at least the past million years or so. Beyond that, we don't have high enough resolution in the data to say. We do however see that rapid climate change in the past is correlated with mass extinctions. So saying that the climate may have changed this rapidly in the past does nothing to argue against mitigation. Unless you consider the naturalistic fallacy an argument.

>in a way attributable to man
It's directly observable using radiative spectroscopy that the warming is caused by increasing CO2 levels, and natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit. Thus man is the cause.

>>11594020
false >>11594534

>>11589801
Yup also condoms and degeneracy

>>11594534
>CO2 lags temperature
>CO2 causes temperature
choose one
unironically linking to the data hacking ipcc
provide evidence it does not represent the global temperature
>>11594558
>The cause is unprecedented and the speed is unprecedented for at least the past million years or so.
completely false
>We do however see that rapid climate change in the past is correlated with mass extinctions
no shit. irrelevant to the idea of anthropogenic climate change being true or false.
>So saying that the climate may have changed this rapidly in the past does nothing to argue against mitigation.
there is no evidence reducing human CO2 output will affect naturally occuring climate change
>It's directly observable using radiative spectroscopy that the warming is caused by increasing CO2 levels, and natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit. Thus man is the cause.
completely false

>>11594523
Try what again? I'm just making fun of the name of their website

>>11590654
thank you anon. i wish the climatards could all see this graph and stop being brainwashed.

>>11592311
yeah but when you factor in that clouds account for 99% of greenhouse and 99% of IR reflection too you see that CO2 is a total meme.

>>11592311
a real equation would be something like this:

(1-cloud_reflection_area)*(heat capacity of water * mass of water + heat capacity of CO2. * mass of CO2)

plug in those numbers if youre so frikkin smart.

>>11593708
>Our weather stations in Dubai, Delhi, Florida and South Africa have calculated a world temperature of 40 degrees C

Imagine my shock

>>11594337
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

>>11590969
https://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Willie_Soon
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Willie_Soon_arg.htm


Just cuz he seems smart and says what you want to hear cuz you are cuckservative, doesnt make it true. Willie soon is one of the few shills that sold out to fossil fuel industry, he is the kind of person that would tell you Tobacco is healthy.

People , especially republicans, dont know how to separate legitimate from illegitimate sources.

Legitimate - peer reviewed scientific studies, in proper science journals. NASA.
Illegitimate - blogs, unsourced shit, some propagandists on youtube.

>>11595139
Only an idiot would believe temperature is measured this way. The sample size is pretty high, and there are many different reconstructions that all align. The only thing that changes is how accurate it is.

>The most complete assessment ever of statistical uncertainty within the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) data product shows that the annual values are likely accurate to within 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit (0.05 degrees Celsius) in recent decades, and 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit (0.15 degrees C) at the beginning of the nearly 140-year record.

>>11595130
climate scientists have done that long ago, and the data is part of every model.

>>11594612
>CO2 lags temperature
>CO2 causes temperature
>choose one
LOL, both can be true. Ever heard of a feedback loop? And CO2 is not lagging temperature currently so what is your point anyway?

>unironically linking to the data hacking ipcc
What data was "hacked" by the IPCC?

>provide evidence it does not represent the global temperature
The burden of proof is on you to show that the temperature in one arbitrary location is representative of the entire globe. There is no reason it should be. But I will disprove it anyway! See >>11594558 for a reconstruction using multiple temperature proxies instead of just one. Current warming is highly anomalous compared to the last interglacial warming.

>completely false
Too bad all scientific evidence disagrees.

>irrelevant to the idea of anthropogenic climate change being true or false.
It's highly relevant to whether warming being "unorecdented" even matters. But nice try at strawmanning.

>there is no evidence reducing human CO2 output will affect naturally occuring climate change
Of course not, it will affect *unnaturally* occurring climate change, which is the problem. The climate would be slowly cooling naturally if not for human CO2 output. Instead it's rapidly warming.

>completely false
Too bad all scientific evidence disagrees.

>>11595112
>yeah but when you factor in that clouds account for 99% of greenhouse
Clouds do not account for any of the greenhouse effect since they block sunlight.

CO2's contribution to radiative forcing is directly measurable with radiative spectroscopy and is the largest source of change in temperature since the industrial revolution.

>>11595499
im calling bullshit mate. youre a retard.

>>11595619
clouds will absorb some heat, even if they reflect more away that they get. also youre totally wrong. moisture in the air accounts for 99% of greenhouse.

>>11595621
No one cares about your baseless opinion, schizo.

>>11593540
All the models were linear? I smell bullshit

>>11595706
I think it's specifically talking about linear growth models

>>11595636
>clouds will absorb some heat, even if they reflect more away that they get.
Which is not how the greenhouse effect works. So why did you claim clouds account for "99% of the greenhouse" when they account for none of it? Are you in the habit of making claims about topics you lack a basic understanding of?

>moisture in the air accounts for 99% of greenhouse.
Moisture in the air which contributes to the greenhouse effect is water vapor. Clouds are not made of water vapor, they are made of water droplets. Water vapor is invisible while clouds are not. That is exactly the reason clouds do not contribute to the greenhouse effect. Again, you lack basic understanding of this topic, yet you feel confident enough to claim every scientist is wrong. It's funny.

As to water vapor's contribution to the greenhouse effect, what do you think determines the amount of water vapor in the air?

>>11595769
dude you talk like a fag and your shits all retarded.

im willing to concede that clouds are net reflectors of heat but you clearly dont understand physics because what your saying is obviously wrong even to a layman. ill btfo you while steel manning you and also btfo you again.

>so if clouds reflect what about the IR which rises from the earth out to the sky?
guess it has an insulating effect like a greenhouse might aye?

look its as simple as this.

>water = 99% of greenhouse
>CO2 = 1% of greenhouse

variations in global humidity will affect the variance 99:1 compared to CO2. add to that all the escape vectors of CO2 from forests and oceans and you have a nothingburger. gtfo.

>>11596110
>dude you talk like a fag and your shits all retarded.
spoken like a true man of science

>>11594534
>Local samples, not indicative of a global average temperature.
Pray tell, what other sources are there for prehistoric global temperatures?

>>11589797
No shit sherlock, it's almost as if big corps have been paying shills to create controversies about science that hurts their bottom line.
Multi billion dollar companies are not your friend

>>11596110
Predictably you failed to answer my question. I will give you the answer in this post but you get an F.

>guess it has an insulating effect like a greenhouse might aye?
That's no different from any other matter in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is characterized by an assymetric response to incoming energy vs. outgoing energy, producing a higher surface temperature than what would occur without an atmosphere. Clouds are the exact opposite.

Why do you continue to argue as if your ignorance of this topic has not already been revealed? It's pathetic.

>look its as simple as this.
>water = 99% of greenhouse
>CO2 = 1% of greenhouse
It's not that simple. You would know this if you had even the slightest intellectual curiosity in climate science. But you are only interested in lying about it. Two reasons:

1. Water vapor concentration is determined by temperature of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is generally saturated so releasing water vapor into the atmosphere in one place leads to it precipitating out in another. Temperature determines how much water vapor the atmosphere can hold. So water vapor is part of a feedback loop with temperature. It is not a primary cause of temperature change or "radiative forcing." Rather, primary causes change the temperature, which changes water vapor concentration, which changes temperature further.

In other words, saying water vapor is causing warming just begs the question, what is causing water vapor to change? Water vapor will not be a penultimate answer to this question, some other driver of temperature will.

Reason #2 follows.

>>11596110
2. Change in temperature is caused by a change in greenhouse effect, not the greenhouse effect itself. So 99% of the greenhouse effect could be keeping the Earth from being a giant ball of ice, while the remaining 1% fluctuates and creates the variation in temperature from the baseline. This is in fact what occurs, since the warming from man-made emissions is essentially equal to the observed warming. (Actually the man-made warming is larger than the observed warming, since natural carbon sinks absorb more than natural sources emit, meaning natural drinks are mitigating some of our warming).

Once again we see that your attempt to tell people about how "simple" the greenhouse effect is, when you have no clue what you're taking about, backfires.

>>11596296
Why are you asking such basic questions? Did your mother block you from search engines?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)

>>11596333
It's called a rhetorical question, Socrates. Here, check this out:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

>>11595603
>Increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration increases temperature
>CO2 concentration lags temperature
choose one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/

>burden of proof
you are the one claiming that human activity is causing the climate to change which there is no evidence for

>scientific evidence
there is zero evidence showing unprecedented climate change in any characterisitc.
There is zero evidence atmospheric CO2 concentration controls the temperature.
The absurdity claiming the temperature of the globe is a function of 1 gasses concentration is only outweighed by having 17 year old girls who haven't finished high school being the face of the idea

>t's highly relevant to whether warming being "unorecdented" even matters
there is no evidence there is anything we can do to alter natural climate change

>Of course not, it will affect *unnaturally* occurring climate change, which is the problem. The climate would be slowly cooling naturally if not for human CO2 output. Instead it's rapidly warming.
there is no evidence for this

>anthropogenic climate change is proven by radiative spectroscopy
No it isn't.

>>11596333
then provide the evidence that shows many different local samples aren't indicative of global samples

>>11596381
Why would I need to provide evidence for something I never said?

>>11596353
What is the point of the question then?

Anyone who unironically denies climate change or argues that we shouldn't do anything about it, should be shot in the head as an enemy to the human race and the planet. (we should even completely upend our economy in order to stop it if we need to).

>>11596403
To show that actually the global average temperature has been much hotter at many points in the past, and this is a universally acknowledged fact even among the anthropogenic theorists.

>>11596417
standard communist

>>11596419
So?

>>11596428
You seemed to be doubting it a few posts ago.

>>11596431
Where?

>>11596437
>>11594534
>>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
>Local samples, not indicative of a global average temperature.

>>11596417
I can't wait for you to actually go through with this.

>>11596439
What exactly is the conflict between
>temperatures were warmer millions of years ago
and
>ice core samples are local and don't show global temperatures

>>11596447
There isn't one. The real question is, why are you still denouncing that other Anon's evidence as insufficient even though you accept his conclusion?

>>11596447
you are dismissing the evidence that the current climate and its rate of change is not different than normal by saying local samples can't be used to represent global samples.
Provide evidence many different local samples are not sufficiently representative of a global sample.

>>11596367
>Increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration increases temperature
>CO2 concentration lags temperature
>choose one
LOL, both can be true. Ever heard of a feedback loop? And CO2 is not lagging temperature currently so what is your point anyway?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Is this supposed to show the IPCC "hacked" data? Because all the scientists were cleared. The only wrongdoing were deniers' misrepresentations of excerpts of emails.

>https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/
Fake news.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science

>you are the one claiming that human activity is causing the climate to change which there is no evidence for
I already gave you evidence: radiative spectroscopy. And this doesn't respond to either of my points. The burden of proof is on you to show that an arbitrary local sample is representative of the globe and you failed to respond to the evidence it's not representative.

>there is zero evidence showing unprecedented climate change in any characterisitc.
I already gave you evidence. See >>11594558

>There is zero evidence atmospheric CO2 concentration controls the temperature.
I already gave you evidence: radiative spectroscopy.

Lying about evidence, denying what's literally in front of your face, is a losing tactic.

>The absurdity claiming the temperature of the globe is a function of 1 gasses concentration
Who claimed this?

>there is no evidence there is anything we can do to alter natural climate change
Of course we can't alter natural climate change, since climate change that we alter is unnatural. Unnatural climate change is the problem, not natural climate change.

It appears you are incapable of adding any additional substance to this discussion. Lies and denial are not an argument.

>>11596458
>There isn't one.
Then your question is pointless.

>The real question is, why are you still denouncing that other Anon's evidence as insufficient even though you accept his conclusion?
Because the claim he made is incorrect? Why do you have a problem with me correcting his claim?

>>11596459
>you are dismissing the evidence that the current climate and its rate of change is not different than normal by saying local samples can't be used to represent global samples.
Please explain how ice cores are evidence of this when they don't even show global temperatures. Hint: they aren't.

As to your claim of normalcy, they certainly aren't normal for humans. If the climate of many millions of years ago is "normal" then humans not existing is "normal" too. If this is your definition of normal then it's certainly irrelevant to whether current climate change is significant.

>Provide evidence many different local samples are not sufficiently representative of a global sample.
See >>11596392

>>11596417
I agree with all of this except the woo woo shit about the planet. Fuck the planet, it exists to serve me. But yes, the life support systems shouldn't be vandalized for short term gains.

>>11596533
if you dismiss all types of local sampling from different sources being sufficiently representative of global temperature then you are saying we have no evidence about past global temperatures in which case there is no evidence for your claim for anthropogenic climate change

normal for humans is irrelevant to whether we are causing it. No one denies changes in climate are bad for life. I am denying there is any evidence that the climate is changing in an unprecedented way or in a way attributable to man.
Then again there is no evidence attempting to change the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can make more favorable climate fro humans while there is definitive evidence denying developing economies the energy densities/cost of fossil fuels and taxing developed economies will kill people and perpetuate suffering.

Climate change is a marketing campaign to prevent the viability of the establishment of petro currencies

>>11596110
>variations in global humidity will affect the variance 99:1 compared to CO2

positive feedbacks from water vapor amplify warming from CO2 significantly meaning an increase in the greenhouse effect from water vapor is a direct result of increasing CO2.

>add to that all the escape vectors of CO2 from forests and oceans and you have a nothingburger
natural sinks have absorbed more than half of human emitted CO2 yet atmospheric co2 levels are close to doubling from pre industrial averages. Natural sinks are becoming saturated and could soon become net emitters. it's pretty much as far from a nothing burger as is physically possible.

>>11596564
ignoring the fact CO2 lags temperature
High CO2 concetrations are correlated with the beginning of decreasing temperature
the break in correlation between CO2 conc and temperature just shows CO2 does not control temp

>>11596586
In natural glacial-interglacial cycles, climate change was driven by changes in Earth's orbital parameter, which changes the amount of insolation the Northern Hemisphere get and melt away ice sheets. Ice sheet melts changes the ocean circulation , allowing more upwelling of C rich deepwater into the surface and increase atm CO2.

But for >90% of the time, CO2 and temperature were rising concurrently, creating feedback for one another. Changes in orbital forcing and insolation alone amount for less than 1W/m2 radiative forcing. CO2 has to do the rest to amplify the changes so you can melt ice sheets the size of Laurentide (North American) ice sheet.

>>11596609
>>11596586
Also the Earth's temperature is not uniform. Check out the "bipolar seesaw" - a conditions in Dansgaard-Oeschger events where NH warms and SH cools because changes in the strength of AMOC - Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation change the amount of heat transport away from Antarctica.

During glacial-interglacial transition CO2 did indeed lead Antarctic temperature, which is the one you plotted - measured from ice core. But how can an Antarctic ice core measure global temperature? The answer is you can't. You need to compile temperature record from all over the world, lake sediments, ocean sediments, tree rings, corals, to get a picture of global temperature, which is exactly what this paper did. They found that global temperature actually LAGS CO2, which makes sense because CO2 is a well-mixed gas and global forcing, while insolation changes from orbital forcing is a local forcing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915?fbclid=IwAR2QHi4BZhC2tr_wp3xR_2dTKk9MOeyR_6TWit3N7H6KUJxgJHMilF2tjJo

>>11596533
>Because the claim he made is incorrect?
So you don't think the global average temperature used to be hotter? I'm confused.

>>11596609
the graph >>11596586 shows co2 can't cause temperature they're not even correlated in the period attributed to man. There is no evidence increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration will increase temperature

>>11596625
>temperature lags CO2 in these simulations we designed under the assumption that temperature should lag CO2
OK

in the last 10,000 years we have had the largest increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations in 800k years and yet pic related

>>11596671
You need to check your eyes. They are 90% correlated but you're focused on the difference in onset of the rise, which I explained mechanistically how it happened. You lost the forest for the trees

>>11596556
>if you dismiss all types of local sampling from different sources being sufficiently representative of global temperature
I didn't. You seem to have trouble reading.

>normal for humans is irrelevant to whether we are causing it.
So? No one claimed it is.

>No one denies changes in climate are bad for life.
That is the primary reason deniers have for saying climate was warmer in the past.

>I am denying there is any evidence that the climate is changing in an unprecedented way or in a way attributable to man.
I already given you evidence. You have yet to respond to it.

>Then again there is no evidence attempting to change the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can make more favorable climate fro humans
So changes in climate are bad for life but mitigating those changes are not good? That doesn't make sense.

>while there is definitive evidence denying developing economies the energy densities/cost of fossil fuels and taxing developed economies will kill people and perpetuate suffering.
Your refusal to look at the cost of the alternative belies your alleged care for economies and people.

>Climate change is a marketing campaign to prevent the viability of the establishment of petro currencies
Then show me where the science is wrong.

>>11596676
>simulations
No they are data from lake, ocean sediments, tree rings and corals. Learn to read

>>11596686
Don't take a meme graph from denial website. Grab the real data - it says right there the source, scihub and read the paper, and finally plot the error bars to see what happens. Do it for your own self-discovery, I won't tell you the answer.

>>11590539
So what`s the consensus, they called it a hoax or they incited protests?
lmao take your fcking meds

>>11596704
>based on lag correlations from 20-10 kyr ago in 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations
>Learn to read

>>11596692
> the primary reason deniers have for saying climate was warmer in the past.
would be that climate was warmer in the past by evidence
>I already given you evidence. You have yet to respond to it.
no you haven't link it
>So changes in climate are bad for life but mitigating those changes are not good?
there is no evidence you can mitigate the changes
>show me where the science is wrong.
there is zero evidence increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will increase temperature there is evidence to the contrary >>11596686

>>11596690
that graph shows a break in a 800,000 year correlation that implies the opposite of what you want it to imply; CO2 concentration is not the temperature dial

>>11596714
Read the paper yotsuba-chan. Each dataset has their own associated age-scale and temperature reconstruction error. So how do you combine tree rings, lake sediments, ocean records from all over the world and account for the uncertainties?

You do it with Monte Carlo method, where each of the datum is perturbed in each simulation within their age and temperature uncertainty.

>>11596671
>the graph >>11596586 shows co2 can't cause temperature they're not even correlated in the period attributed to man
LOL, there's so much wrong here. Your graph is based on a single Antarctic ice core. It doesn't represent global temperature. The graph in >>11596625 shows global temperature reconstructed from several proxies instead of just one ice core. Globally, temperature lagged CO2, the opposite of what occurred in Antarctica. Also, since your graph is based on an ice core, it doesn't show temperatures in the modern period. The ice core temperature data ends in 1855. So your claim that it shows anything about the period attributed to man is simply false. Where the temperature data does exist, it shows a clear correlation between temperature and CO2. Basically everything you wrote is wrong in multiple ways.

>>11596743
>>11596686

>>11596745
You realize that graph ends 95 years before 1950, right? It shows exactly what I said.

>>11589797
The power structure intends to sterilize as many people as possible anyway. I would say anyone <5-8 is already very likely sterile. If not, they will be by the time they're of childbearing age. Women are mostly the target, males are targeted intellectually.

>>11596748
>10,000 years.
>largest increase in CO2 concentration known.
>decreasing temperature trend
kys

>>11596667
>So you don't think the global average temperature used to be hotter? I'm confused.
His claim was not that the global average temperature used to be hotter, his claim was that ice cores show global average temperature used to be hotter. I even quoted this claim for you here >>11594534 so you really have no excuse for misrepresenting what I argued against.

>>11596765
it's not about hotter. it's about CO2 concentration being causal which there is no evidence for only evidence against

>>11596735
>that graph shows a break in a 800,000 year correlation
You are confusing missing data for a break. The ice core data ends in 1855.

>>11596759
>If I ignore current warming it doesn't exist, thus proving warming is not correlated with CO2

>>11596759
>decreasing temperature trend
Why are you lying? >>11594558

>>11596774
>it's not about hotter.
Then why are you saying that's his claim and defending it???

>it's about CO2 concentration being causal which there is no evidence for only evidence against
I already gave you evidence. You just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist in every post. You're literally in denial of reality. You lost.

>>11596710
>they called it a hoax or they incited protests?
How exactly are these in conflict?

Why are /pol/tards incapable of basic logic?

>>11596739
>Read the paper yotsuba-chan.
Your paper is behind a paywall brah, and what you just posted is a whole paragraph of them describing different ways they adjusted the data before making their simulation. Maybe they did it all impartially and in good faith. But maybe they didn't.

>>11596765
>His claim was not that the global average temperature used to be hotter, his claim was that ice cores show global average temperature used to be hotter.
So you're just splitting hairs, gotcha.

>>11596782
that data still breaks the correlation massively

>>11596786
>if i ignore everything before 200 years ago

>>11596790
>posts model projection as evidence.
kys

>>11590642
No doubt your research is more exhaustive than that of billion dollar multinationals. Godtard?

https://tradingeconomics.com/greenland/temperature

>>11589801
Nuclear is an adjective, not a noun, you mouth-breathing boomer.

>>11596812
>Your paper is behind a paywall brah
Why are you on the science board if you can't even get an article?
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

>what you just posted is a whole paragraph of them describing different ways they adjusted the data before making their simulation.
Oh right, because ice cores have little thermometers frozen inside them. Every temperature record from a proxy is "adjusted." Why are you cherrypicking this one?

>Maybe they did it all impartially and in good faith. But maybe they didn't.
The same could be said of any scientific result. Why are you cherrypicking this one?

>So you're just splitting hairs, gotcha.
So you're just equivocating, gotcha. I mean, I don't know how much clearer my critique could be since I simply said the ice cores are local and not global. But you responded as if I said something else. Learn how to read buddy.

>>11596831
>>11596782
>inb4 proxies with 2 data points over 200 years are more accurate than direct measurement

>>11596816
>that data still breaks the correlation massively
How? You also yet again failed to respond to the fact that the ice core data is not global.

>>if i ignore everything before 200 years ago
Where have I ignored anything?

>>posts model projection as evidence.
>he thinks ice core temperature is not a model projection
How much more hypocritical can you get? I'm sure the next post will show us.

>>11596862
Huh? The proxy data doesn't overlap with >>11596831
and the two data points are direct measurements. That graph is useless since it shows monthly temperatures instead of annual temperatures. You don't even know if it conflicts with the two data points.

>>11596816
>>11596812
>this reconstruction based on one proxy is accurate
>but obviously a reconstruction based on many proxies can't be trusted

>>11596831
>>11596862

>>11596864
>how
you would need about a 10C change to maintain the correlation. not to mention the two data points added here >>11596782 are contrary to >>11596831
>failed to respond to the fact that the ice core data is not global.
so you deny the last 10000 years have had the largest increase in CO2 concentration?
>where have i ignored
this >>11596686 + >>11596831
shows no warming despite the largest increase in CO2 atmospheric concetration

>>11596864
>>11596882
did i post any temperatures of ice cores in 2100?

>>11596892
proves my point. clearly flat trend. Why don't you post the graph up to 2020

>>11596894
>so you deny the last 10000 years have had the largest increase in CO2 concentration?
Only the last 100 due to anthropogenic activity

>>11596909
CO2 is not aware if it is made by man or nature.
the question is does higher CO2 concentrations cause higher temperatures.
The answer is no >>11596686 (You) + >>11596831 (You)

>>11596924
>he question is does higher CO2 concentrations cause higher temperatures.
Yes

>>11596855
>Why are you on the science board if you can't even get an article?
I ain't got time for that shit. So thanks for the link.

>Oh right, because ice cores have little thermometers frozen inside them. Every temperature record from a proxy is "adjusted." Why are you cherrypicking this one?
>The same could be said of any scientific result. Why are you cherrypicking this one?
Because the burden of proof isn't on me, and frankly I have plenty of unrelated reasons to doubt you.

>But you responded as if I said something else.
The only reason I even started posting in this thread was to explain that your point is utterly moot. I see my efforts have been fruitless.

>>11596882
This but unironically. More different types of data = more possibility for methodical error.

>>11596929

>>11596894
>you would need about a 10C change to maintain the correlation.
Based on what math? Climate sensitivity is about 3 degrees per doubling of CO2. The transient increase is about 1.8 degrees.

>not to mention the two data points added here >>11596782 (You) are contrary to >>11596831
LOL, how can you tell? There's no annual average or trendline.

>so you deny the last 10000 years have had the largest increase in CO2 concentration?
10000 years ago was about 265 ppm while today it's 415 ppm. Why would I deny that the last 10000 years have had the largest increase in CO2? How does this respond to the fact the ice core data isn't global?

>this >>11596686 + >>11596831
>shows no warming
The first trivially shows no warming because it has no data over that period! The second has no trend line and no annual averages. You're literally arguing from ignorance. Pic related shows Greenland warmed.

>did i post any temperatures of ice cores in 2100?
Not an argument, try again.

>>11596924
>CO2 is not aware if it is made by man or nature.
No one said it was.

>the question is does higher CO2 concentrations cause higher temperatures.
>The answer is no >>11596686 (You) + >>11596831 (You)
Non sequitur. Here is more evidence you claim doesn't exist. http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

When you get tired of denying reality, just tell me so we can have a real discussion.

>>11596930
>I ain't got time for that shit.
Took me literally 3 seconds.

>Because the burden of proof isn't on me, and frankly I have plenty of unrelated reasons to doubt you.
Please explain what proof you want beyond scientific research in a peer reviewed paper published in the highest impact journal. The burden of proof has been more than met and you have no argument against it. You have no argument. You lose.

>The only reason I even started posting in this thread was to explain that your point is utterly moot.
Clearly it's not moot since you still claim, despite all evidence, that ice cores are global proxies for temperature.

>I see my efforts have been fruitless.
We couldn't agree more.

>More different types of data = more possibility for methodical error.
Do you think methodological error is the only source of error? Ever heard of sampling error? Your grasp of scientific methodology is as pathetically paltry as your grasp of climate science. Why are you even here?

>>11596934
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

>>11596929
>correlation equals causation
the correlation doesn't even exist anymore >>11596586
>>11596686
>>11596831

>>11596936
based on regression of this graph>>11596586

you must have a strange way of calculating averages. I could draw a trend line from the low of the first year and the high of the last year and would not present sufficient warming

because there the temperature has not followed the co2

it is an argument you're just to retarded to understand what I'm saying; I made no projections you did

>>11596940
that paper does not prove the temperature is controlled by the concentration of CO2.

>>11590615
This, its a tax fraud scam and authoritarian tactic to give the government control over public domains such as lakes or forest so they can sell it to the highest bidder or sell it under the table to embezzle. See bottled water as a example, along with the RICO Act or imminent domain.

>>11596894
>you would need about a 10C change to maintain the correlation.
This would only be true if several wrong assumptions were made:

1. The correlation is linear despite CO2 increase having a logarithmic effect

2. Interglacial warming should have the same correlation with CO2 as current warming despite interglacial warming being caused by orbital eccentricity while current warming is caused by CO2 emissions.

>>11596961
>>correlation equals causation
Causation equals causation. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

>the correlation doesn't even exist anymore
Nothing you've shown removes the correlation.

>based on regression of this graph
See >>11596973

>that paper does not prove the temperature is controlled by the concentration of CO2.
>A direct observation of X is not proof of X
Please explain. Or just admit you have no clue what you're talking about, as I've shown many times throughout this thread.

>>11596973
>The correlation is linear despite CO2 increase having a logarithmic effect
when you reveal you didn't even get out of high school

>>11596973
>>11596979
how much do they pay you for this shit

>>11596981
Please explain what you learned in high school that I didn't. Also, why didn't you respond to the second wrong assumption.

>>11596972
>>11589797
Ya many feudalistic Kings were "environmentalist" and would ban the general public from the best hunting grounds or fishing rivers which became all rural areas when it continued. Yet the same Kings just wanted to ravage the royal forest themselves and kill any commoner spotted in the forest.

>>11596984
The same amount they pay you to shitpost.

>>11596955
>Took me literally 3 seconds.
So you know how to copy and paste, congrats.

>Please explain what proof you want beyond scientific research in a peer reviewed paper published in the highest impact journal.
If you want to change my mind about anything relevant, forget about it and tell me what governmental actions can stop global warming at this point.

>Clearly it's not moot since you still claim, despite all evidence, that ice cores are global proxies for temperature.
That was never my point nor anyone else's. You don't even seem to know what the term "moot point" means, maybe I'm wasting my time here.

>Do you think methodological error is the only source of error? Ever heard of sampling error?
Oh yes there are in fact even more ways they could've fucked up, thanks for strengthening my point.

>>11596994
>So you know how to copy and paste, congrats.
So you don't know how to Google?

>If you want to change my mind about anything relevant, forget about it and tell me what governmental actions can stop global warming at this point.
You can't stop it, you can mitigate it. You won't accept any proof, so what's the point of this discussion?

>That was never my point nor anyone else's
>>11593951
>>11596296
>>11596381
>>11596419
>>11596459
>>11596556
>>11596894
Count the (You)s

>You don't even seem to know what the term "moot point" means, maybe I'm wasting my time here.
Apparently to you it means a point you spent several posts defending.

>Oh yes there are in fact even more ways they could've fucked up, thanks for strengthening my point.
Please explain how one sample has less sampling error than several samples.

>>11597038
>So you don't know how to Google?
I tried Googling it. Why do you care so much?

>You can't stop it, you can mitigate it. You won't accept any proof, so what's the point of this discussion?
Well, you're still talking to me, so...

>Count the (You)s
OK. Maybe I was wrong when I said that wasn't anyone's point, fuck me for not having time to read through this whole damn thread.

>Please explain how one sample has less sampling error than several samples.
Less possibility son, less possibility.

>>11590641
>The fact that stupid people are arguing about this means that the world's climate scientists are wrong.
You are a moron

>>11597069
>I tried Googling it.
Then why didn't you find it?

>Well, you're still talking to me, so...
You're still making shit up.

>Less possibility son, less possibility.
Wrong. Do you even understand what sampling error is?

>>11597099
>Then why didn't you find it?
Because it wasn't in the results and it wasn't worth my time to try again.

>You're still making shit up.
Yes, the notion that the earth was once hotter than it is now is a product of my imagination, and though my sheer cunning and mirth I managed to convince a grandiose number of scientists, even ones who would disagree with me about other climate related subjects, that it's true. You've gotta admit I'm pretty fucken awesome for that.

>Wrong. Do you even understand what sampling error is?
I understand what errors are. Are you more likely to break a yolk if you fry 2 eggs or 1?

>>11597114
>>11597114
>Because it wasn't in the results
Bullshit.

>Yes, the notion that the earth was once hotter than it is now is a product of my imagination
No one said it was. There you go making shit up again.

>I understand what errors are.
Apparently not, since you don't seem to realize that using one local proxy to represent the globe will have much greater error than multiple proxies. Better tell all those scientists with n>1 they're doing it wrong.

>>11597126
>Bullshit.
Good thing it's of absolutely no consequence whether or not you believe me. This is what the term "moot point" means, in case you're still not clear.

>No one said it was. There you go making shit up again.
A self-justifying strawman argument, well played.

>>11597126
>using one local proxy to represent the globe will have much greater error than multiple proxies
You sure about that?

>>11597141
>Good thing it's of absolutely no consequence whether or not you believe me.
You're right, all that matters is the truth, which is that you lie.

>A self-justifying strawman argument, well played.
>Yes, the notion that the earth was once hotter than it is now is a product of my imagination
Please post more hypocrisy.

>You sure about that?
Yes. Again, why aren't you telling every scientist that their sample size should be 1?

>>11597196
>You're right, all that matters is the truth, which is that you lie.
I seem to have trolled you without even trying. Go me.

>Please post more hypocrisy.
I'm not sure how this all sounds in your head, but here's what everyone else is hearing:
You: *accuses me of making shit up*
Me: *sarcastically suggest that I did*
You: Your sarcastic statement is factually false, ha ha you're making shit up!

That was extremely sophomoric, but I have to admit it was clever.

>>11597196
>Yes. Again, why aren't you telling every scientist that their sample size should be 1?
Uh, maybe you should go back and reread that definition of the word "error" I just posted, slowly.

>>11594527
No.

>>11590488
1982 models got EVERYTHING wrong. Even now most of the warming happens in signals on EL NINO years.

>>11596803
>Why are /pol/tards incapable of basic logic?
Weights and measures cause them even more trouble. Too bad the captchas don't filter out those with no sense of proportion.

>>11597790
hurr durr lazy troll

>>11597919
It is less lazy trolling than
>burrr EXON knew and did nuthing

when people intentionally screw things up they buy land in NEW ZELAND like the Zuck is doing because it has no extradition treaty. instead of buying houses in the beach that is suppose to dissapear.

Those doucments show that EXON was aware that
>1 scientist were obsesed about it.
>2 scientist were biassed.

These are the most High IQ comments in this thread:
>>11596924
>>11596894

everything else is trolling and Gretarded

>it's another climate change thread.
The point here is that the powers that be will just use it as a means to control the population just like everything else.
Why do you think they're so against nuclear? It's not because it's unsafe (that's the fearmongering they use), but it's because it would be a legitimate stopgap solution while we get even more sustainable technologies online.
Part of that is definitely due to big oil, but the even bigger priority here is population replacement. Corporations just want a cheap source of labor and an easily controllable population.
Climate change is a perfect vehicle for this since large increases in global temperature will displace billions of people in third world countries who they want to use as labor in first world countries.
Simultaneously, they also feed to you that the earth's population is growing out of control and it's good for the environment for you to not have kids. While theoretically true, they are also pro-immigration (due to a declining population in first world countries for some reason...) and ignore the fact that bringing someone from the third to the first world will also lead to an increased carbon footprint.
I'm perfectly fine with helping the environment and doing my part to limit my carbon footprint, but when I know that it's just being used to control and replace me, why the fuck would I go along with it?

>>11597950
shut up, you are retarded and dont understand any part of what you mentioned.
1970 model is still good even though it underestimates things.

HOW do you know anything? Because nothing you know is from legitimate scientific sources. Stop listening to propaganda.

>>11596548
you exist to serve the planet
You are nothing and you never will be, accept your position in reality

>>11596710
Both. Righties are risking getting Corona because some gun group brainwashed boomers trapped in their group

>>11597964
>the earth's population is growing out of control
it is, we're well above carrying capacity

>>11597279
>I seem to have trolled you without even trying.
Is this supposed to be a justification for lying?

>You: *accuses me of making shit up*
>Me: *sarcastically suggest that I did*
You suggested that I claimed you imagined the notion the earth was once hotter than it is. The admittal you imagined it is sarcasm. The suggestion I claimed it is a lie. Nice try at equivocation.

>Uh, maybe you should go back and reread that definition of the word "error" I just posted, slowly.
I did. Why aren't you telling every scientist that their sample size should be 1?

>>11597790
>1982 models got EVERYTHING wrong.
They slightly underestimated warming. Pic related.

>Even now most of the warming happens in signals on EL NINO years.
El Nino has no effect on the long term trend.

https://skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm

>>11598413
according to the same reports that couldn't predict current weather patterns.
>They slightly underestimated warming. Pic related.
they didn't underestimated anything. They overestimated to push degeneracy on schools under the banner of science.
And the picture Actually say the opposite of what you claim it does

>>11598381
>>the earth's population is growing out of control
it is, we're well above carrying capacity
Not in the west. Only 3rd world countries

>>11596924

>>11598607
>according to the same reports that couldn't predict current weather patterns.
What reports? According to temperature measurement. And climate is not as chaotic as weather.

>they didn't underestimated anything.
It's unfortunate you don't know how to read a simple graph but it's not my fault.

>And the picture Actually say the opposite of what you claim it does
How?

>>11598607
you dont know what youre talking about and you have no sources. You literally arent willing to try to understand anything you are saying.

Climate isnt weather, non-sequitur. The garbage that comes out of your mouth is based on propaganda you've been eating up and fearmongering you've bought into, it's so obvious with everything you say "push degeneracy" "banner of science". Damn flat earther, who thinks evolution is "just a theory".

Hansens model in 1981 has stood the test of time and aligns really well, only slightly underpredicted.

First climate model from 1967 is also pretty accurate.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/12/how-good-have-climate-models-been-at-truly-predicting-the-future/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/climate-modelling/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

These are the facts, if you cant comprehend any of this, you should excuse yourself.

>>11595106
If only you knew how to actually interpret anything there. Samefag.

>>11598629
>posts an image with no link
>2007
I don't deny that man made climate change is happening but this is not proof of anything. In fact morons like you actually delegitimize your own arguments by just repeating what you're told Is right.

How is it proved that climate change is caused by atmospheric changes and not changes in solar activity?

>>11598744

lrn2read
ipcc 2007 report

>>11598799
you'd know if you actually at any point in your life looked into it in any serious way. Climatologists model ALL physics of earth you could think of, sun being first one of them, and every model has that accounted for.

Sun activity has been DECREASING for quite a while now, See - https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm - you can find pretty much every "skeptic" argument you can find here.

>>11598799
Several ways.

Direct observation that the warming is from CO2: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

Incoming solar radiation has been decreasing for decades and we are close to a grand solar minimum, while temperature has increased faster than ever. Pic related.

Comparison of radiative forcing: >>11595619

>>11598744
You morons dont accept any sort of proof. Either it's too little and too much your pea brain cant comprehend, or its liars cuz grants, lol.

What proof you need?

Arrhenius discovered CO2 raises temperature in 1896, his study was never debunked, overthrown or whatever. Greenhouse effect is a fact, and CO2 being a greenhouse gas is also a fact. Kids in science class do the experiment.

So why do you think there is going to be a recent study that "proves" greenhouse effect? You dont need to study to prove that Newton or Einstein was right anymore. People are so ignorant.

It's like trying to prove flat or round earth. Ah ye i was just told earth is round, i wont believe it until Nasa takes me to space themselves.

Google CO2 greenhouse experiment, and dont waste people's time.

>>11596823

Charade you are, I'm an atheist. I'm just right about everything all the time, is how it works.

>>11598406
There is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion any further. Here, have a picture of a sea urchin.

>>11589801
Holy based

>>11599382
See you in the next thread where you repeat the same bullshit.

>>11599653
Can't wait to see you either.
>Let me tell you when you're being sarcastic
>You're lying because I disagree with you
>Whether or not you googled the article I just fucking linked is equally important to the basic premise of my argument

>>11596725
Anon problem is you dont really understand what you consider evidence and refuse to seriously look at all evidence presented or to research for more.

Greenhouse effect is a scientific fact, CO2 is a greenhouse gas a fact.

Your graph that you kept posting >>11596686 doesnt say what you think it does. TEMPERATURE in ONE PLACE on earth doesnt necessarily correlate to GLOBAL AVERAGE. Your graph shows Icecore temperature in one place.

Here's the actual graph of average temperature, shitty science denier. And im sure you a reposting shit from some denier blog.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Co2+greenhouse+experiment

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

Its simple physics. Stop pretending to be an idiot, there is nothing valuable in your denier blogs. Study proper sources for a little.

>>11599665
>>Let me tell you when you're being sarcastic
Please explain how your continuous suggestion that I claimed something I didn't claim is sarcasm. Hint: if you actually believe it, you're not being sarcastic.

>>You're lying because I disagree with you
Where did I say that?

>>Whether or not you googled the article I just fucking linked is equally important to the basic premise of my argument
Where did I say that? You haven't even tried to respond to my arguments. You've lost on every single point of factual contention.

>>11596725
>would be that climate was warmer in the past by evidence
How is that relevant?

>no you haven't link it
Wrong, see >>11596512

>there is no evidence you can mitigate the changes
The evidence is the same as above.

>there is zero evidence increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will increase temperature
Repeating your pathetic denial of reality doesn't make it true. I've already given you the evidence.

>there is evidence to the contrary >>11596686 #
How is that evidence to the contrary?

>>11599750
Here, have another sea urchin. This one is Evechinus chloroticus, very highly esteemed in the seafood market.

>>11596848
seethe more tranny, your entire existence is nothing more than a depopulation scheme

>>11599788
>can't support any of his bullshit
>shitposts

>>11589801
First post best post.

>>11600527
>if I pass English class, I'm a tranny
hmm

>>11590339
and 10 years before
>>omfg new ice age coming then peak oil arrrgh!

>>11601246
>and 10 years before
>>>omfg new ice age coming then peak oil arrrgh!
Stale Denier Meme BTFO Episode #2458723905702952947509347

no evidence of unprecedented change of temperature
no evidence of unprecedented change in rate of change of temperature
no evidence man is contributing to the change in temperature

>>11590641
>implying many dems aren't on oil payroll

>2020
>not believing in climate change
>believing humans influence it
both sides of the argument are retarded

>>11589797
>climate change
Its fake

>>11601475
>no evidence
>thread is full of evidence
Keep on proving deniers are dishonest retards.

>>11601792
>humans influence >>11598629

>>11595425
You are for some reason thinking, that peer review procedure magically makes source reliable.
In reality, it doesn't. Moreover it supports corruption since you are depending on other scientists even to publish your work.

>>11603036
yes, only 4chan schizo shitposters are reliable
topkek

>>11603042
I am not.

>>11589797
Everyone already knows this.

>>11601475
>Greenland is global
Kek

>>11604121
if you want to make people believe humans are causing the climate to change in a unprecedented way you would have to provide evidence of it

>>11604176
OK, here you go:
>>11594558
>>11595619
>>11596940

>>11590547
>https://www.google.com/amp
What do you think you are doing?

>>11604176
>>11604558
*crickets chirping*

>>11596848
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization

>clouds arent insulators

this climate scientist clearly has never been in any desert areas, or he would know how the clouds keep the heat in. thats the thing. these people have no common sense. they cant see the bad faith actors in their field, and so they end up citing bogus shit and scare mongering. all in all. they cant see how they are tools, yet its exactly what they claim critics are of their pet doomsday cult are.

>>11604176
>>11598629

>>11589801
incredibly misguided post. sounds nosey. i wouldnt wish that on my worst enemy. why fuck them over that bad when you can just close the border and stop subsidising them? if the west took borders seriously there wouldnt be a white genocide.

>>11608184
clouds are insulators that's why water vapor is such a strong positive feedback. Warming initially caused by increasing CO2 levels is amplified even more, increasing climate sensitivity.
Your image is so stupid i won't even attempt to respond.

>>11589797
They couldn't model fluid turbulence in the 70s and they can't today. Turbulence diffuses heat much faster, making warming overall much slower.

>>11608488
Yet models seem to be underestimating the rate of warming, do you have any evidence which explains this?

>>11608488
could you explain how this applies to radiative heat transfer? It obviously applies in conductive and convective systems, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it applies to radiative systems.

>>11608485
>insulator between heat source and object makes object hotter
This i always put my beer in a koozie when i want it to warm up quicker

>>11608505
am i really going to have to explain the greenhouse effect to you?

>>11608505
lol, your stupidity really shines, you don't have a clue do you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

>>11608519
>>11608520
Tfw no petro yuan

>>11608491
>>11608497
Here's how I know we can't model atmospheric turbulence.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1986)043%3C0857%3ASPODT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

This does not slow radiative heat transfer directly, but because heat gets spread out much more quickly than models predict due to turbulence. The heating rate slows, slowing overall warming.

>>11608520
This would mean net cooling unless you have evidence the insulation factor is larger for in than out

>>11608536
wouldn't you expect the stratosphere to warm if this is the case?

>>11608537
>>11602322

>>11608485
No, water vapour is a green house gas like CO2. It lets through short wave radiation while blocking long wave radiation if I'm correct. Clouds over all have a negative feedback effect on climate change as they increase the albedo of the Earth. Remember they consist of water droplets, not vapour. Not that it does us much favours as the ice caps will melt as well (albeit slowly) if CO2 levels rise, leading to an net decrease in albedo. I agree with you that the image is retarded though, I had to read it like five times and I'm still not sure what it is trying to say.

>>11608553
Thus high co2 is correlated with the beginning of cooling

>>11608537
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Rossow_ro07500u.pdf
read the conclusion basically clouds net effect on radiative balance is very weak. Another important thing to note is that increasing atmospheric temperatures increases the saturation point of the atmosphere, (most of the water vapor in the atmosphere isn't in the form of clouds, clouds only form when there's more water vapor than the air can hold, only once it's saturated will clouds actually form.) so while increased temperatures will result in more evaporation, they also increase the threshold for cloud formation. So the total number of clouds will change less than you'd think even though water vapor concentrations will increase quite a bit.

>>11608561
This is irrelevant to this >>11608537
As it makes no comment on there being a difference of insulation in vs insulation out

>>11608560
it's not though

>>11608568
>Post graph with no cooling period.
Nice one zhang

How bout you zoom out>>11601475

>>11596848
wow kys

>>11608568
>high co2 correlated with lowest temperature gradient

>>11589801
fpbp

>>11608560
Nah, the effect of clouds is very small. It might seem that way if you look at the climate in the past 2.5 million years, but that has more to do with the way orbital forcing works. You gotta realise that the atmosphere is also influenced by the rest of the climate system.

>>11608579
Yeah the last 10,000 years is clear evidence the co2 is a trivial variable in the temperature function

>>11608564
>clouds have almost no net effect on the global mea (2) Clouds have
almost no net effect on the global mean amount of SW radiation
absorbed by the atmosphere, but they do redistribute the absorption.
Rather they enhance the latitudinal gradient in the LW cooling,
thereby reinforcing the general radiative forcing for the atmospheric
general circulation. This effect arises from a delicate interplay
between water vapor and clouds that varies with latitude and season
(at higher latitudes)

right there playing dumb isn't an argument. clouds have almost no net effect, while water vapor has a massive effect.

>>11608589
>stable co2 stable climate
>rapid increase in co2 rapid increase in tempurature
>>11594558

>>11608592
Im not talking about clouds you dumb faggot im talking about there being no evidence of a difference in insulating factor depending on the direction of the energy.
Given that, this retard >>11608520
posting the earths energy balance is making the opposite point he intends too

>>11608573
>what is equilibrium
at this point I'm pretty sure i'm just being trolled

>>11608596
Global warming is the idea high concentrations of co2 cause warming not the rate of change of co2 causes warming
High concentrations of co2 are however correlated with the begining of cooling periods

>>11608597
YOU DUMB FUCK GOOGLE THE FUCKING GREENHOUSE EFFECT HOW ARE YOU EVEN ARGUING THIS WHEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING SO FUCKING BASIC

LONG WAVE RADIATION IS ABSORBED BY DIFFERENT MOLECULES THEN SHORT WAVE RADIATION

THIS IS FUCKING MIDDLE SCHOOL MATERIAL

FUCK

>>11608600
If co2 causes temperature what is the opposing force it is equilibrium with

>>11608605
you've misunderstood the argument, in a typical glacial cycle orbital forcings change the amount of energy absorbed from the sun at the poles, melting ice and releasing freshwater which disrupt ocean currents causing the oceans to warms and release CO2. The CO2 then warms the rest of the planet through the greenhouse effect. Equilibrium is reached because there's a limit to how much warming small changes in orbital forgings can cause, and the oceans can only release so much CO2. This is a fundamentally different situation from warming due to human activity, as we can keep releasing CO2 indefinitely

>>11608615
And yet>>11608573

>>11608603
still waiting on your source, I'm guessing you're just mistaking cause and effect from milankovitch cycles like every zero effort youtube video made by deniers.

>>11608619
>equilibrium is reached because there's a limit to how much warming small changes in orbital forgings can cause, and the oceans can only release so much CO2. This is a fundamentally different situation from warming due to human activity, as we can keep releasing CO2 indefinitely

>>11608622
Despite the largest increase of co2 recorded in the past 10k years theres been no unprecedented increase in temperature. Highest co2 concentrations in 800k years and temperature is no different the other times co2 went over 260ppm

>>11608634
>>11594558
highest temperatures in 20k years, and an absolutely ludicrous rate of change, with absolutely no signs of slowing down. You've straight up just got your head in the sand at this point.

>>11608589
We have high resolution records extending back 100 million years that show CO2 is an important driver of temperature. Now, you can't just project climate change at those time scales to human ones, but there is no doubt that CO2 plays a major role in the climate system.

>>11608642
>Posts climate model as evidence
Ridiculous
>>11608643
Co2 and temperature correlation is completely broken over the past 12000 years its not significantly causitive

We have co2 levels more than double the previous highs and our temperature is lower than those highs. It's prepostorous

>>11608651
it's only a model past the present which if you can read surpasses any recent peak with an absurd rate of change.

>>11608655
Theres no evidence that model is correct, its not science its like fucking string theory.
Even more madness that a politician would make a decision based on that nonsense

>>11608651
it's entirely causative, recent warming is entirely due to a measurable change in the planets energy budget, this is easily measured by outgoing long wave radiation, and stratospheric cooling. You can't debate any of these facts.

>>11608651
12000 years ago is like the geologic equivalent of yesterday. The vast majority of processes that release CO2 at that timescale are rare so no wonder that we're not seeing that much of them for most of that period and the climate was dominated by orbital forcing. Also, the largest increase in CO2 only took place this century, the climate system needs time to react.

>>11608661
they've made accurate predictions for 50 years as shown by the OP. The science is clearly sound >>11608664 what's the issue?

>>11608666
not going to lie, i'm pretty frustrated we've been arguing with someone who doesn't understand the basics of the greenhouse effect for like 20+ posts now.

>>11608664
None of that is true theres been no change in temperature that has been unprecedented in speed or degree.
>>11608666
And you base your theory on 200 years
>>11608671
>>11593951 wrong. 50 years ago they were talking about an ice age ffs.

>>11608674
The fact he's just picking arbitrary time scales and pulling conclusions from that pisses me off way more though. The green house effect isn't easy for people to really, quantitatively understand without a solid basis in statistical physics/quantum mechanics, picking arbitrary timescales is just dumb.
>>11608681
No, I'm basing my opinion on the high resolution part of the climate record that extends back a 100 MILLION years and some statistical physics that we have known for more than a century.

>>11608686
That data cant provide evidence for anthropogenic warming.
All that data shows is high co2 concentration is correlated with the begining of cooling and co2 and temperature are correlated until man shows up where they pump co2 above 400ppm but temperature is lower than the last highs
The data shows the opposit of what you want it to

>>11608695
Not at the long time scales, there it is showing exactly what I want it to show. And the temperature drops at the time scales you're talking about we have a satisfactory explanation that doesn't imply high CO2-levels cause temperature drops. Correlation isn't causation and you'd need to explain how high CO2-levels cause cooling, which quite frankly I doubt you can.

>>11608702
>correlation doesnt equal causation
No shit thats my point.

And now that the co2 temperature correlation has broken by a huge increase in co2 iver the past 12000 years despite no increase in temp you can see the idea that co2 concentration controls the temperature is wrong

>>11608702
Also i dont think co2 causes cooling i think heat causes co2

>>11608603
>Global warming is the idea high concentrations of co2 cause warming not the rate of change of co2 causes warming
That's dead wrong. High concentration of CO2 causes high temperatures. If CO2 remains stable after increasing then temperature will remain stable after a small lag time. A change in temperature requires a change in radiative forcing. Are you capable of arguing without misrepresenting what you're arguing against?

>High concentrations of co2 are however correlated with the begining of cooling periods
So where is the cooling period? CO2 is much higher than what it was before glacial cooling. But there is no glacial cooling. Your claim is immediately falsified.

>>11608651
>>Posts climate model as evidence
So a model isn't evidence? You clearly have no argument. What evidence did you post which is not a model?

>Co2 and temperature correlation is completely broken over the past 12000 years its not significantly causitive
>We have co2 levels more than double the previous highs and our temperature is lower than those highs.
Surely you have evidence for this which is not a model.

>>11608661
It agrees with all other evidence, unlike all of your claims.

>>11608681
>None of that is true theres been no change in temperature that has been unprecedented in speed or degree.
You've already been shown that and you had no response.

>wrong. 50 years ago they were talking about an ice age ffs.
Wrong again, delusional retard. See >>11601311

>>11608705
>No shit thats my point.
The greenhouse effect is causative.

>And now that the co2 temperature correlation has broken by a huge increase in co2
It hasn't, stop lying.

>>11608712
Heat does cause CO2, what is your point?

>>11608681
>None of that is true theres been no change in temperature that has been unprecedented in speed or degree.
literally just a lie what caused has caused anomalous warming in the 20th and 21st century?

>>11589801
Classic misdirection. Except you left out the part where you associate the Democrats with socialism. Really amateur desu