/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11873582
Check the archive for the 10,000 shitty climate change threads that get constantly spammed.

There is no universal law that states that the Earth must be comfortable for human existence. There is no mechanism by which the Earth self-regulates back to the "norm" because there is no norm. Any damage we do must be actively undone. "Life finds a way" is a lie. It's shockingly easy to sterilize an environment of all non-trivial lifeforms.

you can kick the can down the road by substituting "today" with "in a few years", but the truth is that our actions today are what determine what happens in a few years.

about the only thing you can really do is go a nihilistic and say it doesn't matter because nothing does. at the end of the day you're a piece of shit

>>11873582
The only arguments you could possibly have are either overpopulation or greed

>>11873582
EZ, dont argue against climate change specifically, instead point to other threats like a pandemic. We are currently going through one so it will hold more weight.

>>11873582
Humans have lived in abject misery for thousands of years. Not letting Africans industrialise is more damaging than stopping climate change. Etc

There’s one thing you can present as the greatest threat to humanity today that will unquestionably beat the climate change argument in any debate forum:

Donald Trump.

Simply argue that his anti environmentalist policies elevate climate change to a much greater threat than it would otherwise be and prevent a solution to the problem, while his mental and emotional instability as commander in chief is a threat to world peace and his racist beliefs are a threat to humanity because racism is bad.

Watch their heads explode as they’re unable to refute or even attempt to counter your argument as it would go against the most basic level of their programming

That or you can actually try and present a scientific argument and they make you look like an idiot and declare you the loser and celebrate how smart and self righteous they all are.

You can win, or you can play into their little game and let them beat you, the choice is yours

>>11873582

I'm putting this here hoping for someone to debunk it.

>>11873582
I'd say that the thread of climate change is nothing compared to our ineffectively organized society. We could tackle climate change if our society could do anything together about it, but as things stand I see little chance that anything beyond market forces from cheaper clean energy will do anything to reduce emissions.

>>11873651

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvjJqIXYT1w&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVLEJjpywllxdsEfJjoOQ3

>>11873659
But in the grand scheme of things it's not really that strange, or am I missing something?

>>11873582
Historical data, people don´t even seem to discuss the fact that the earth has gone through colder and warmer periods for as far back as we know with longer and comparatively shorter ice ages sure humans might have some impact but wouldn´t bet on it being even close to say a large volcanic eruption in let´s say a Yellowstone size, for what it´s worth it doesn´t seem that the planet is going through anything but another cycle.

It´s not like the planet will forever look the same with continents at the same places and in turn the streams in the water will eventually change making some places less inhabitable have people forgotten about Pangea.

Might be kind of a brainlet angle but pushing on historical data (not talking decades here) might make it easier to show a larger picture not to mention how manufacturing new vehicles, batteries/electronics en masse while also going towards inefficient methods of getting power such as windturbines, solar and so on instead on focusing on nuclear power and other alternatives which are being researched likely makes worse of an impact than actually using what we already have, not to mention how basedfarming are destroying huge parts of nature.

There are a lot of arguments that can be made on both sides but pointing out the hypocrisy of some practices which mostly exist as an extra tax to get some more money out of people and companies when in fact people like that couldn´t care less about the enviroment if you look at their actions and not whatever lies they think sounds good at the moment is at least slightly enjoyable.

>>11873595
yeah you only need to montage a rocket on an asteroid, accelerate him to 20% the speed of light and throw him against earth. Sounds izzy.

Oh and is it true that clouds reflect sunlight?
That vapor creates clouds. And that vapor is created by heat?

Is it true that CO2 is heavier as air. And there for it will accumulate with in the earths mantle and most likely get compressed to carbons?

>>11873596
>>11873602
>>11873648

i am stupid plz help me understand, what do we have to do vs what?

also if just agree on your climate thing. why is a 150 meter palm tree worse as an frozen Christmas tree?

also woudnt the air be lesser dense, more moist witch leads to an more even temperature distributions, and that would distribute the total energy of an storm ova a far bigger area?

as you see im very stupid plz help me understand your point.

>>11873692
These changes are over much longer timescales.

>>11873625
this, I'll go with this as my main, maybe include wars too.

>>11873582
We're pretty good at adapting to weather. Even if the farms go, well just make hydroponic ones in skyscrapers. Nature is our bitch.

But we are also pretty good at political unrest and upheaval and are more likely to tear ourselves down from within than an external source tearing us down from without.

>>11873700
>Calls other people stupid every other sentence.
>Can't spell.

>>11873582
Also future climate models are predicted by recursively predicting weather, so you can safely trust the models as much as you trust next Monday's 15% chance of rain

>>11873703
That's literally "the grand scheme of things"

>>11873703
Then its probably not as important as dedicating funding to more important fields of research like reversing desertification.

>>11874171
>reversing desertification.
Stop desertifying in the first place.

The core issue with this assumption is that retroactive analysis of observable data is far, FAR more accurate than predictive modeling. Think about how hard it is to predict a sports game accurately, an election, or a level of economic growth. The climate prediction is similar in complexity to a major national economy, with millions of variables, that cannot be authoritatively "predicted" in that way. They aren't just asserting where the climate will be in the year 2050, they're asserting how that is going to affect EVERYTHING else, another few layers of massive complexity.

We've seen in recent years just how badly the "experts" do when modeling a pandemic, or a Presidential election. The effects of climate change are even more complicated and far off. One can't just assume it's going to be a major threat to humanity just because. These people don't get paid to be right, they're simply paid to have an opinion, and those are worth shit.

>>11874315

If you need an easy to understand example of this concept in action, think of the statement:

>NFL Team X has been averaging an increase of 30 passing yards per game for the past 5 games, therefore they will be throwing 90 more yards per game in 3 games

It's super easy to analyze the historical data and see the team has been averaging 30 more passing yards per game. It's QUITE the leap to state they will be at 90 yards 3 games later, it could be anywhere, and this system is simpler than a climate to boot.