/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12112627
Your question doesn't make sense. Do you think all past changes in climate were good for the species living in that climate? They weren't.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes/

>>12112627
Because if climate change weren't an existential threat it would be much harder for me to get grant money

>>12112665
>sci-am
otherwise yeah. climate change is bad enough when it happens over millenia, what happens if it blows up in a century?

but even if it is catastrophic, we'll obviously survive since we're cockroaches. Triassic/jurassic/cretaceous had 1500-2000ppm, devonian/silurian had 2000-4500ppm. life will, like...find a way.
likely it'll be the dark ages though, as hunger hits, kikes dumb down the population and feudal lords take over,

>>12112715
No it wouldn't. Useless research gets funded all the time. For example, the entire field of astrophysics. Climatology is actually important because AGW is a serious threat to humanity.

>>12112742
In 2013 there was at least $359 billion put globally into climate change research and inititives. I don't know the analogous number for astrophysics but there's no way it's that high

>>12112762
"Climate change research" obviously includes a lot more than pure climatology.

>>12112775
And?

>>12112783
...and?

>>12112788
I'm not the one who brought up climatology

>>12112796
Okay?

>>12112801
And the fact? That climate change research? Obviously includes? A lot more? Than pure climatology? Seems irrelevant? To the point? That I was making?

>>12112807
No?

>>12112810
Why not?

>>12112816
Because useless research gets funded all the time and climatology isn't useless?

>>12112822
Climate change research gets funded much more. If this retarded discussion is still referencing >>12112715, note that I did not say it would be impossible for me to get grant money, just that it would be harder. If you were actually in academia you would know that getting grant money is not easy

>>12112627
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

>>12112837
It would actually be easier to get grant money in other fields because less would be going to climate science

>>12112627
Food will run out.

>>12112851
True
>>12112853
Why couldn't the climate change to one that's more amenable to growing food?

>>12112837
>muh scale
How much money is being spent on a general area of research says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the natural science underlying it.

>>12112882
No, but it nicely explains why climate scientists have a financial incentive to make sensational predictions

>>12112860
Because all the food evolved to grow in this climate and it's changing too fast for them to adapt. You could continue to grow some food farther from the equator, but the growing seasons would be shit, most places would either be too wet or too dry for a good yield, and there's a lot less land than most maps imply so total food production goes down either way. Sea life will be completely fucked and we're pretty dependant on the oceans for food.

>>12112888
It doesn't explain why Exxon would have an incentive to make the same predictions. Their climate scientists came to the same conclusions in the 90's which prompted Exxon to launch a massive misinformation campaign. I wonder what their financial motivation might have been...

Because this exinction level event is man made and preventable. Why shoot yourself in the foot just because wars have happened in the past.

Why is covid bad now when diseases have killed people in the past? Because its world wife and no longer someone elses problem.

>>12112910
You're right it doesn't, but I was never claiming to be able to explain those things. Similarly, the fact that Exxon has a financial incentive to downplay climate change risks does not explain why climate scientists have a financial incentive to overstate them. What a productive discussion this is

>>12112906
The climate has changed by a lot in both directions over the long periods of time in which these plants were evolving. Besides, much of our food has been hyper-evolved by man to be grow even more efficiently, I think we could keep doing that

>>12112920
>Exxon has a financial incentive to downplay climate change risks does not explain why climate scientists have a financial incentive to overstate them
No, but their multi-billion dollar cover-up of their own findings is everything you want your imaginary climate change conspiracy to be. Obviously the consequences of climate change must be pretty bad if the oil companies are scared of their own findings.

>>12112936
No, it hasn't. The climate has varied by less than 1 degree celsius since the dawn of man. Current warming shows 1 degree celsius in just the last century. That's too rapid for anything to adapt and will cause ecological collapse if left unchecked.

>>12112918


The reason why... is fear of another spanish flu. Or blue bionic plague.

But I understand your arguement.


Human bodies are complex..
I.E. birthcontrol reduces the chance of pregnancy...

Or depo shot really reduces the chance of pregnancy.

Or really really udi(the little clip in the uterus the stops sperm from reaching the ovaries) stops pregnancy.


But human women have still gotten pregnant using these methods. So yes there is no cure all that will prevent disease.

But what confuses me about the covid cure... is the common cold changes by the next year.. that if you made a cure for the 2020 common cold.. it wouldn't be finished until sometime in 2021... and by then it would be useless for the next strain.

And we know covid is already mutating.. so unless your a scientist/biologist who gets two files of the cure to compare that they are indeed the same and that they are more comes then sugar water... how can you tell they are not just giving a placebo cure to pacify the masses.

>>12113281
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

>>12113200
The existence of a conspiracy on one side -- and there definitely is one -- does not disprove the existence of a conspiracy on the other side. In fact it makes it slightly more likely, as it shows it is possible for conspiracies around this issue to take place.

>>12113201
>The climate has varied by less than 1 degree celsius since the dawn of man.
Global average climate, or the climate in any given area?

>>12113296
Wew, lad. It can't be true that climate change is both damaging and harmless. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

>>12113324
Are you retarded? The global average temperature is what we're talking about. Nobody is concerned about day being warmer than night, or one hemisphere being warmer than another. The global average temperature has remained largely unchanged for 100,000 years and any time it has changed as quickly as it is now we see mass extinctions.

>>12113444
It could be true that climate change is harmful to some aspects of life, helpful to others, and neutral to the rest.

>>12113460
We're talking about food crops being are evolutionarily affected by climate, which would be the climate local to the region in which they are growing, not the global climate

>>12113506
I don't think you understand how ecosystems work. Species are interdependent and the loss of a keystone species dooms that ecology. The species "helped" by climate change become invasive and drastically alter the ecology by outcompeting local species which reduces biodiversity and can cause a collapse of that ecosystem, all while bringing other invasive species with them to do the same. As far as the ocean is concerned, only heat tolerant species (tropical mostly) will be able to breed as the water warms because fish eggs require very specific temperatures to develop. The surviving ocean population will not be able to support our needs, assuming we remain dependant on the ocean by the time this happens. No matter how you look at it humans will not be helped by climate change.

>>12113510
Are you trolling? The global average temperature affects local climates. That's why I said you could move food production away from the equators for a time but remember, there's not as much land as the maps imply, and of that land most of it will not be well suited to any crop because it will be too wet, too dry, too rocky, ect. so total food production will decrease. Even if you sink the cost into remediating that land and manage to produce the same amount of food it's unsustainable, because you'll have to move it over and over again until you run out of land. The best case scenario is really expensive groceries, and the worst case is mass starvation and food riots.

>>12113589
Not trolling, just being contrarian. Track through the argument.
>Why couldn't climate change to one that's more amenable to food?
>Food evolved to grow in this climate
>The climate has been changing
>The global climate has only changed by 1 degree celsius
>Plants didn't evolve based on global climate, they evolve based on local climate, and local climate changes by more than 1 degree celsius
And now we're here. Yes, global average temperature affects local climates. Leads right back to the original point. Why must they only affect local climates in ways that are harmful to the plant?

>>12113506
The net losses from AGW far outweigh the alleged positives. Increased flooding, smaller reservoirs of fresh water, changes in precipitation and weather patterns, desertification and a more acidic ocean will do more harm than easier trade routes through the melting Arctic or allowing more bugs to thrive in traditionally cooler climates.

>>12113598
>>Plants didn't evolve based on global climate, they evolve based on local climate, and local climate changes by more than 1 degree celsius
You are a moron. The global average increasing by 1 degree celsius does not mean it will be 1 degree hotter all the time. There will be heat waves and cold snaps and they will become more extreme as the global average temperature continues to rise.

>>12113657
>There will be heat waves and cold snaps and they will become more extreme as the global average temperature continues to rise.
Why couldn't they become less extreme?

>>12113675
Because the energy from the sun isn't collected evenly over the globe. The equator gets more heat than the poles and that heat spreads out. Besides that, the hairy balls theorem guarantees turbulence in the atmosphere and having more energy in the system means more extreme wind storms and cyclones.

>>12113703
So if global temperatures went down on average, there would be fewer cold snaps and heat waves?

>>12113709
Not necessarily. There's an "optimum" where the temperature variation would be minimized, but if the global average temperature decreases beyond that point then the temperature would stratify longitudinally and windstorms and cyclones would be common where the warm fronts meet the cold fronts. That "optimum" might not be ideal for human life which is why I put it in quotes.

brainlet here, how exactly does climate change result in forest fires and hurricanes?

>>12113723
The only way it wouldn't happen is if the optimum is exactly where we're at right now
Basically notice the fact that every climate change prediction is "thing will get worse". Not once do people raise the very real possibility that anything could get better

>>12113727
>The only way it wouldn't happen is if the optimum is exactly where we're at right now
We're probably not, but I have no idea. That's why I covered my bases.

>Not once do people raise the very real possibility that anything could get better
That's because no part of it is good. Best I can give you is "at least most people won't notice how quickly species are dying off because food will be so expensive that they won't have time for anything but work".

>>12113724
hot water = hurricanes
hot air temps = easier fires

>>12113675
Hey anon don't worry about that other guy name calling you. Food will run out not just because of wildly fluctuating temperatures, but also to due to socioeconomic issues. Another reason will be ecological failures, mass dieoff of small baseline animals like insects will cause food chain issues. There's the additional problem of long standing contaminants getting into the ground and water, like microplastics, and heavy metals. Temperature isn't the only failure point. Not trying to be alarmist or anything, but preparations will need to be made.

>>12113811
so colder water would mean fewer hurricanes?

>>12113296
>ah yes the scientists making $80k a year if that are equal to a trillion dollar industry that has been caught hiding the fact that their business is directly related to climate change

Maybe twenty years ago, a lot of scientists spend time to detect whether climate change exist, after twenty years, all most of biologist accept climate changing had influenced a lot of creature which they rrsearch

>>12112627
global warming is brilliant if you are cockroach or a lizard, if you are a ice age species like humans it's deadly

>>12112627
ain't nothing bad about it. climate always changes lifes always dies and grows. it currently just threatens the human invironment and therefore the ego of humanity. we fucked it up, deal with eat. and by that i mean it literally. deal with the climate right now^^ just normal as usuall some of you might say and thats true, but just for this huge wet rock we're on. for humanity it's going to become apocalyptic. sit back and relax and hope you die more peacefully than those scenarios in your head.

>>12113937
Climate change research is a trillion dollar industry as well

>>12114957
Source?

>>12114982
https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/press-release/climate-change-investment-totals-usd-359-billion-worldwide/
Total amount invested in climate change research in 2012 was $359 billion -- significantly less than a trillion, but that's only investments, I don't think it counts things like academic salaries, speaking engagements, media/book sales, etc. They also want to bump that up to $5 trillion by 2020 -- I don't have a source on whether or not they have achieved this.

>>12115179
>academic salaries, speaking engagements, media/book sales, etc
I don't think you understand how much money $650 billion dollars is.

>>12115188
What's your estimate for how much money is in the climate change industry in 2020?

>>12115217
You could maybe argue another billion from all of that so $360 billion at most

>>12115281
That would be in 2012. Like the article says, they wanted to bump that investment up to $5 trillion by 2020. Don't you think they put any effort into making that happen?

Source from 2015 valuating the climate change industry at $1.5 trillion:
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm

>>12112627
Why is fire bad. If fire has happened all through history why is it bad now? Just stick your hand it it bro.

>>12112843
irrelevant to the discussion

>>12115299
>>12115333
I sure hope they did, but it's hardly a conspiracy. The alternative is immensely more expensive.

>>12112627
Because economic inequality >:^(

>>12115706
The whole point of bringing up that link was as a rebuttal to this guy >>12113937
Now that he knows that climate change is a trillion dollar industry as well I wonder if it changes his mind a little

>>12117152
>I wonder if it changes his mind a little
It shouldn't. Amazon is a trillion dollar industry, but it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy to deliver packages.

>>12117175
He's the one who brought up something being a trillion dollar industry and therefore more likely to engage in conspiracy, maybe he'll change his mind on that

>>12117180
I mean the petroleum industry is one of the largest and most profitable industries on the planet, and they've been caught repeatedly engaging in conspiracies to suppress information on climate change. So much so they stopped even trying to hide it, they openly fund as much propaganda against climate science as possible, as well as openly backing politicians who deny it. What they're doing isn't even a conspiracy anymore it's just business as usual, and people are either dumb enough to buy it (half this thread) or too afraid that taking action will result in slowing short term economic growth resulting in an instant loss in the next election.

>>12112627
MUH COASTLINES FLOODING WAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH

>>12117200
Still, you don't think a trillion dollar industry like climate change activism/research might have ever fudged the science to get some more cash? People are people. It's not like working for an oil company makes you fundamentally evil and working for a university makes you fundamentally good. I've never disagreed that oil companies have fucked with the science. Saying it "isn't a conspiracy anymore" doesn't really mean anything to me -- was it ever a conspiracy to begin with?
"Climategate" isn't just a meaningless buzzword, it's a name for something that actually happened

>>12112627
Bad isn't a scientific term.
>>12112665
>good
also not a scientific term.
>>12112715
>existential threat
also not a science term.
>>12112715
>grant money
AHHHHHH
FUCKFUCK FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK
>>12112724
then it's a self solving problem.
good. nothing to worry about.
>>12112742
kek
based post
>>12112843
and what's his degree in?
>>12112853
false
>>12114017
Africans survive in Africa just fine.
They'll just move north. And the destruction of European infrastructure and society would stop excess emissions, and those African will live there until other parts of earth are habitable again.
maybe the jews wanted to destroy european society faster for a reason.

>>12117232
we have literal documented proof of a conspiracy within a few corporations to hide climate science, there is absolutely no evidence of any kind which suggests the entire international scientific community has been lying for over a century. And yes if you had actually done any research whatsoever you would know climate gate was absolutely a buzzword. Actually it was more than that, it was a very deliberate media effort to discredit legitimate science, how odd.

>>12117252
What makes it a conspiracy in a way that climategate was not? It wasn't the case that the entire global petroleom industry got together and planned out a series of lies, either. Real-world conspiracies are way more complicated than that. In climategate, shitty data was being promoted and contrary data was being hidden. Science is not an inherently uncorrupt institution.

>>12117262
conspiracy
>a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
since when does a conspiracy have to be the entire petroleum industry? what we do know is that exxon investigated climate change, made very accurate predictions, knew the harm it would cause and then suppressed the information, and made very specific plans to attempt to deny and discredit climate science. And that's only the official documents that were leaked from one company, if you think that isn't just the tip of the iceberg I have a bridge to sell you.

>In climategate, shitty data was being promoted and contrary data was being hidden.
literally never happened, why can you never question the narrative you've been fed and actually find out what actually happened?

I'm still waiting for even a SMIDGEN of proof of an international conspiracy among every climate research institution on the planet spanning an entire century.

>>12117288
Since when does a conspiracy need to be the entire international scientific community? I guarantee you that there are practicing scientists who have doubts about mainstream climate change science and are in the closet about it.
When you say "actually find out what actually happened" you mean go swallow somebody else's narrative about the incident. I know what happened to you, you went to a search engine to look up climategate and the vast majority of results were debunking it, and you conclude that it's debunked. That's just the nature of scientific consensus. Consensus is not always correct (this is not me saying consensus is always wrong).
Here's one sympathetic take on Climategate, it'd be good for you to read it
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/climategate/Climategate.10YearsAfter.pdf

>>12117303
yeah I've read it before, it's the same baseless schitzo shit trying to dupe gullible rubes it always was. Mann and every other scientist mentioned work has only been repeatedly vindicated, by other independent reconstructions as well as current day instrumental data. Meanwhile those two retards (a mining consultant and an economist) fail at every accusation and prediction they make. It's sad really.

>>12112627
This summarizes it quite well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYMC8X1K3hk
Released 13 hours ago, all recent information.

Tldr were about 30 years too late to reverse climate change, but can still mitigate some of the worst effects.

>>12117352
What's a specific passage from the document which is incorrect?

>>12117371
the entire last section is nothing but Unsourced opinions which basically boil down to "no you can't do any temperature reconstructions and your methodology is wrong because I say so trust me." It's clear the authors have no knowledge of the subject and either just don't understand anything about the topic or are just skimmed the paper picked a couple data points at random that "looked weird" to a layman and called it a day. The accusations are serious enough that if they actually knew what they were talking the journals would have been forced to retract them but clearly that didn't happen instead they took this groundbreaking information and posted it on a blog, sure dude.

that's really all I care about but it's worth noting they only mention 4 of the 8 investigations, which exonerated everyone involved in "climategate" and even the ones mentioned have idiotic superficial complaints which basically boil down to "he didn't interview the hacker and the person harrassing them with hundreds of FOI requests so the conclusions are totally invalid trust me dude." to summarize a blog post reads like a blog post, not a serious document with serious evidence.

>>12117446
Still waiting for you to quote an incorrect statement

>>12117453
are you retarded? I told you, the entire last section is bullshit. Do you want me to just paste thing whole thing?

>>12117463
What last section, the four-paragraph conclusion? It cites two sources and then, yeah, makes some subjective high-level claims like many papers do in conclusion sections.

>why is it bad now?

The basic bitch answer for smoothbrains and selfish narcissist is that human infrastructure exist now. Thus food, animal husbandry, disease/pest control and property insurance habits will all need to change.

Which means shit either needs to be refortified or relocated. That costs money and that cost will pass on to the average person because the private sector and government aren't going to eat those costs for free.

>>12117465
the entire
>MYTH #3: MANN HOCKEYSTICK “CONFIRMED”
section you dense idiot, and if you had actually read the citations given they're nothing but the papers they're attempting to criticize (very poorly) it's fucking impossible to publish anything with your entire argument being "dude trust us" like this shit.

>>12117478
Let's narrow in on the Industrialized Cherry Picking in PAGES2K (2019) subsection. What are the authors saying here that is incorrect? I don't understand why you have an issue with them only citing the papers they're criticizing. This isn't a survey paper.

>>12112627
It's evil. It needs to be abolished.

>>12117488
Not the guy you’re talking to just letting you know you’re an absolute retard

>>12117516
What did I say that's retarded?
>everything lol

>>12117488
>PAGES2K (2019) carried out even more ruthless ex post screeningof the PAGES2K (2017)proxy network. When examined in detail, the decision-making consistently lacked ex ante justification. A few examples will be shown.
They then shows one example out of 692 (while ironically whining about cherrypicking.) What's important to understand here is the pre 1960s data is pretty much the exact same in both samples, this is a textbook example of divergence which is a problem exclusive to high latitudes after 1960 (this is has been discussed to death and there are several possible causes but that's another story) The issue here IS THAT THERE ARE INSTRUMENTAL RECORDS FOR THIS PERIOD! THE RECORD THAT MORE CLOSELY MATCHES THE INSTRUMENTAL RECORD WAS THE ONE SELECTED! YOU CAN'T JUST CLAIM CHERRYPICKING WHEN THEY WENT WITH THE ONE THAT MATCHES THE INSTRUMENTAL RECORD! THAT'S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS FUCKING WORKS!

>One of the most dramatic individual hockey stick shaped series in PAGES2K (2019) resulted from manipulation (ex post screening) of data at a site level to manufacture a hockey stick shape4. In this study, the authors constructed a “divergence-free” chronology in which they manually excluded individual trees which had decreasing ring widths in the 20thcentury, leaving only trees with increasing ring widths (“positive responders”). Unsurprisingly, the composite, laterused by PAGES2K,had a hockey stick shapethat was not present in the overall data.'
this section has the same problem, maybe even worse though because the north American instrumental record is even better, so trying to claim tree rings are somehow better that direct measurements is even stupider. They also ignored all the very good reasons for why specific trees were selected, and instead went with the classic IT'S CHERRYPICKING DUDE TRUST US!!!!!! this whole section is a complete joke and I feel dumber for actually going to the trouble of spelling it out for you.