/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12245413
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6eswiI3KLc

>>12245413
There is none, whenever debating a denier you will eventually reach a conspiracy theory.

>>12245413
>refute climate change
no point in refuting climate change, it is well recorded

of course there is no evidence of climare change being caused by human activities

>>12245442
have you noticed how enviromentalists never talk about China or call for a boycott of chinese imports despite being the world's #1 polluter?

> What is the actual evidence people use to prove climate change?
It was hotter than usual this summer

>>12245413
The lagg of evidence.

>>12245454
>never talk about China or call for a boycott of chinese imports
they do, frequently

>>12245454
Yeah just call the lairs and say they are wrong. They earn it dont pretend as if the dont do this stuff on purpose to enrich theme self.
You shoudnt be so polite if someone talks bullshit on purpose.

>>12245454
>of course there is no evidence of climare change being caused by human activities
Why are you lying? The greenhouse effect is well fundamental physics and has been directly observed:

https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6_noSplash_b5903aebfe105b4071103e11197138f8.pdf

>have you noticed how enviromentalists never talk about China
Are you going to say anything that's not an easily refuted lie?

www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-46310807

>or call for a boycott of chinese imports despite being the world's #1 polluter?
Environmentalists say to buy local and sustainable products all the time.

And why are you attacking environmentalists instead of providing evidence for your claims? Is it because you have no evidence?

>>12245485
>The greenhouse effect
Is older than humans

>instead of providing evidence for your claims
You want me to prove a negative?

>>12245503
>Is older than humans
Yes, and? In order for humans to not be causing climate change the greenhouse effect would have to not exist.

>You want me to prove a negative?
No, I want you to provide evidence for your claims.

>>12245511
Hi im an other annon i would list you the facts why you are bullshit. But you can never know when guys like you start to chance "Facts" ova the net to fit the narrative better.
So instead proofing your bullshit wrong so you know witch data sets you need to "correct" i just can encourage you to research.

>>12245524
>Hi im an other annon i would list you the facts why you are bullshit.
So do it. You're not a liar are you?

>>12245535
No im not but i saw with my own eyes how "facts" get chanced in Wiki.

Notice how the deniers have not offered a single piece of evidence despite this being the entire point of the thread. And they can't even respond to the evidence against them like >>12245485

Yet they constantly claim they have evidence but won't post it because of some weak excuse. Every. Single. Time.

>>12245540
Then post the evidence.

Oh you won't, because you're a liar. So predictable.

>>12245511
>No, I want you to provide evidence for your claims.
My claim is that there is no evidence of climate change being caused by humans, you expect me to prove a lack of evidence?

The paper you linked seems biased, they say they interpreted the data with a model they made to blame everything on co2

>What is the actual evidence people use to refute climate change?

They use plenty of dubious arguments. All of them have been collected and debunked by independent fact checkers. See here:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>12245442
>get asked for scientific evidence to prove climate change
>cite a study
>but anon, the jews/elite/reptilians made this study!
>try to describe the chemical processes behind ocean acidification, in simple terms and without citing any "biased" study
>but anon, the jews/elite/reptilians taught you to say that in university!

>>12245545
Im designer i can fake the evidence. Also i dont screenshot wiki every day...

>>12245556
>fact checkers

>>12245547


>My claim is that there is no evidence of climate change being caused by humans, you expect me to prove a lack of evidence?

Climate change is caused by increasing CO2, which is caused by human fossil fuel emissions. What exactly is your problem with this?

>>12245547
>My claim is that there is no evidence of climate change being caused by humans, you expect me to prove a lack of evidence?
No I expect you to provide evidence for your claims. Why do you keep asking the same stupid question? And why do you continue to fail to respond to the evidence I gave you which shows your baseless claim is wrong? Are you really this delusional?

>The paper you linked seems biased
How so?

>they say they interpreted the data with a model they made to blame everything on co2
Where do they do that?

>>12245413
>No giant ass space mirrors
>No iron fertalisation
>No attempt at millions of other possible solutions

No you have to introduce a carbon tax, and set up our entire economies to be reliant on technologies that dont exist yet, all at the behest of a central power. Its real, but the researchers spouting it don't actually believe it/ use it as a power play. Deniers arent actually engaged in the science- theyre countering the power play.

Links to 'evidence' will change no ones mind, because, suprise, most people give 0 shits about statistics. Most who do don't actually know it that well. Those that know it well don't give a shit what YOU think about them.

I personally don't think its a big deal- it just exists. Deal with it the way we deal with hurricanes, or locusts or our mere mortality- just get on with it. If some animals dying is your no 1 go to problem, and you think someone has all the answers and is just waiting to be employed by a government agency, you have lived a very sheltered life and need to get out more.

>>12245562
Then why did you claim you can list the facts that prove I'm bullshit? You won't even describe what you're talking about. Nice lie.

>>12245566
>Climate change is caused by increasing CO2
Cilmate change was already happening before industrialization, therefore you just enunciated your argument wrong, lol.

But for the sake of argument, let's pretend you wrote "an increase on the rare of climate change in caused by increasing CO2 emissions", then I can still tell you that we don't know what the natural part of the climate change is and how much the rate changed due to human activities, we don't even know in which direction it is.

>>12245454

>>12245566
not anon but doesn't climate sensitivity depend on where the majority of CO2 is in the atmosphere? How is this taken into account in the models?

>>12245582
>>No giant ass space mirrors
We need sunlight.

>>No iron fertalisation
Seems much riskier than simply emmitting less greenhouse gases.

>>No attempt at millions of other possible solutions
But that's a lie. There is plenty of work being done in alternative energy, carbon capture, etc.

>No you have to introduce a carbon tax, and set up our entire economies to be reliant on technologies that dont exist yet, all at the behest of a central power.
Alternative energy sources already exist. How is the economy being reliant on fossil fuels any better?

>Its real, but the researchers spouting it don't actually believe it/ use it as a power play.
Evidence?

>Deniers arent actually engaged in the science- theyre countering the power play.
They invent a conspiracy because they can't engage with the science.

>I personally
No one cares.

The ozone hole is man made. Whats the problem with that?

>>12245579
So, you want me to prove that the claim of climate change being caused by human activities is not backed by evidence?

Look at the pic I took of that paper, it mentions the use of a model to interpret the data, so basically they just guessed what the influence of CO2 is

>>12245595

>we don't know what the natural part of the climate change is and how much the rate changed due to human activities, we don't even know in which direction it is

Wrong:

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

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

https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

We know the direction (its warming) and we know CO2 increase is mostly caused by humans.

>>12245598
>model
sure, these models have never been wrong

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6tEVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RBQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6851,2148654&dq=world-climate-conference+oil+fires&hl=en

>>12245595
>Cilmate change was already happening before industrialization
That doesn't counter anything he said.

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand climate change having different causes at different times?

>But for the sake of argument, let's pretend you wrote "an increase on the rare of climate change in caused by increasing CO2 emissions"
An increase in CO2 causes climate change. A changing rate of climate change would be caused a changing rate of CO2 increases.

>then I can still tell you that we don't know what the natural part of the climate change is and how much the rate changed due to human activities
You could say that, but you would be wrong. The radiative forcing can be directly observed and quantified.

>>12245634
>skepticalscience.com
>

>>12245641
You're a particularly dim one

>>12245605
Climate sensitivity has nothing to do with what is causing the change. Climate sensitivity is the response to the cause.

>>12245642

What is your problem? Cant stomach the fact that your bullshit is proven wrong by independent fact checkers?

>>12245613
>we need sunlight
Doesnt even understand space mirrors- hint you dont have to block all sunlight. actually retarded response.

>Riskier than not emitting co2
Yes. Its also trillions of dollars cheaper, we could do it tomorrow and is not reliant on a future tech.

>Plenty of work is being done
Yes. And its been spectacularly slow considering the amount of money, time, energy invested. Especially since those engaged think this is the problem of the century. Just 10 more years guys!!!

>alt energy exists
Yes. It has been implemented spectacularly badly. Their toxic components have no serious chance of being recycled so instead of killing plankton we'll be killing Bangladeshis instead. Good job- plastic 2.0 but its not an intert substance this time (especially solar).

>Its used as a power play
I cannot give you short evidence for this. I cant be asked. I can't link a study. The same way I cant 'link a study' from the USSR era to prove Lysenkoism was a power play, or provide concrete evidence the development of the nuke was a power play. Its a subject of historical analysis, not tip-for-tat fact checking.

>They invent a conspiracy bc they cant engage with the science.
Well dur. But why do they engage at all? Why aren't they engaged in the intricate policy decisions governing the speed limits of diggers in Kazakhstan? The conspiracy is not about the science (they don't give a rats ass about the wavelength of certain colours of light for example). If you think the IMPULSE of these theorists is about 'engaging with science' you are on crack.

>No one cares
I suggest you re read
"If some animals dying is your no 1 go to problem, and you think someone has all the answers and is just waiting to be employed by a government agency, you have lived a very sheltered life and need to get out more."

>>12245620
>So, you want me to prove
No I want you to provide evidence for your claims. Are you illiterate? ESL?

>Look at the pic I took of that paper, it mentions the use of a model to interpret the data, so basically they just guessed what the influence of CO2 is
Doesn't follow. Everything in physics is a model, that doesn't mean it's just a guess.

>>12245656
climateaudit.org

>What is your problem? Cant stomach the fact that your bullshit is proven wrong by independent fact checkers?

>>12245644
Thanks.

funny how every pro climate activist trys to ignore my post.

>>12245634
>We know the direction (its warming)
Are you a zoomer?
During the decade of the 2000s we had some cold ass winters that made people legit ask wtf happened to global warming.
The enviro-alarmists performed a gaslighting operation of rebranding to "climate change" and claiming it could also cause cooling because disruption of sea currents or whatever

>>12245670

False:

https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

We know its warming. And if we are arguing based on anecdotal evidence, I can also provide some: Snowy winters are much less common today compared to my childhood where I live. It has clearly warmed.

>>12245636
model of past, not a prediction

Climate change deniers remind me of creationists. Similar modes of argumentation, similar ignorance of evidence when presented.

>>12245662
>Everything in physics is a model, that doesn't mean it's just a guess.

Fermi once said that you could fit an elephant on a model with 4 degrees of freedom, lmao at climatological models

>>12245689
>model of the past
are you claiming that model of the present are intrinsically better and failsafe?

>not a prediction
How is that not a prediction?

>>12245657
>Doesnt even understand space mirrors- hint you dont have to block all sunlight.
I didn't say that you would. Actually retarded response.

>Yes. Its also trillions of dollars cheaper, we could do it tomorrow and is not reliant on a future tech.
What is the cost of screwing up the oceans?

>And its been spectacularly slow considering the amount of money, time, energy invested.
How would you know?

>Their toxic components have no serious chance of being recycled so instead of killing plankton we'll be killing Bangladeshis instead.
Weird how you care about toxic electronic components but not air pollution from fossil fuels that kill millions of people every year. It's almost like there is no actual consistency in your arguments and you're just grasping at straws.

>I cannot give you short evidence for this.
Long evidence is fine.

>The same way I cant 'link a study' from the USSR era to prove Lysenkoism was a power play
But you can prove Lysenkoism is a power play, it's a historical fact. Not only that, you can directly refute lysenkoism scientifically. Weird how you can do neither for AGW. You're no diffrent from any other conspiracy theorist. Why don't you go hang out with the flat earthers? They would take your method of argument seriously.

>But why do they engage at all?
Because scientific facts threaten your political dogma.

>If you think the IMPULSE of these theorists is about 'engaging with science' you are on crack.
Are you illiterate? The reason your conspiracy theory exists is because you can't engage with the science.

>I suggest you re read
I suggest you stop bullshiting and get off the science board.

>>12245582
>water and food shortages
>food becoming less nutritious
>arable land shrinking
>oceans becoming infertile
>sea levels rising
>natural disasters occuring more often
>population density rapidly increasing
>"some animals dying"

>>12245663
Too bad MCIntyre is full of shit:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/on-yet-another-false-claim-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=mcintyre&x=0&y=0

Anyway lets assume we are able to warm the climate, would you do it?
I would people could afford more stuff cause they need to play lesser for heat there homes. Agra culture products grow faster and much more.

Tell me why you woudnt.

>>12245715
>>water and food shortages
only for shitskins that cannot into infrastructure
>>food becoming less nutritious
its not my fault amerimutts eat so much mcdonalds
>>arable land shrinking
but when someone wants to clear some forest for agriculture you complaint about it too
>>oceans becoming infertile
they arent
>>sea levels rising
we were supposed to be flooded 20 years ago
>>natural disasters occuring more often
no, its just infotsinment covering them harder
>>population density rapidly increasing
actual problem, especially the africans, we should sterilize them

>>12245727

What about air conditioning costs? People would pay less for heating, but more for air conditioning..

>>12245706
the data is known, not predicted
so the model is accurate.
why do you need this spoon-feeding?
>How is that not a prediction
ffs, read the years in the pic
it's from a 2007 report, which also is in the pic
>slop can't even read

Zero evidence

>>12245503

>>12245413
The more important question is why do the political "solutions" to climate change range from useless to iatrogenic? And why aren't climate scientists enraged rather than supportive of such absolute horseshit as, exemplorum gratiae, carbon exchanges and the Paris Accord?

>>12245758
>the data is known, not predicted
>so the model is accurate.
So, they fitted the model to match the data, lmao, that proves nothing

>>12245787

Yup. Until we get climatologists supporting real solutions like thorium energy, I dont care about climate change very much.

>>12245413
Climate change exists it's called the weather. Modern academia has no evidence for man-made climate change because their results can't be replicated by an objective third party. I can tell you that climate change has become another club to beat on white men, who are the only people's on earth who actually care the most about preserving nature.

>>12245879
Imagine being this retarded

>>12245797
low iq post

>>12245905
>fitting a model to old data
>model fails to predict anythibg in the future
>"but trust us, the world is heading for disaster unless you shut down all factories"

>>12245634
Humans have maybe added 100ppm of co2 gasses, earth has been through much higher co2 levels and still thrived soo...

>>12245698
So you reject all models because Fermi supposedly said something about elephants?

>>12245787
The solution is simple and scientists have been telling it to you for decades. A carbon tax and nuclear and renewable energy are easy to implement and will save the economy a lot of damage. But you will ignore this and whine about nothing because you don't actually want solutions.

>>12245811
What a meme. It's not different enough from fission to be worth developing and being made obsolete by fusion anyway.

>>12245879
>Climate change exists it's called the weather
Weather isn't climate. Did you not get past the 6th grade?

>>12245879
>Modern academia has no evidence for man-made climate change because their results can't be replicated by an objective third party.
They already have been replicated by an independent third party:

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

>>12245915
>>model fails to predict anythibg in the future
Source?

>>12245993
>Humans have maybe added 100ppm of co2 gasses,
Yes, which is a huge change. Normally that would take tens of thousands of years to occur but it happened in a hundred years.

>earth has been through much higher co2 levels and still thrived soo...
It's not simply the level of CO2 that's bad, it's the speed of the change, which doesn't allow ecosystems to adapt. Such changes have resulted in mass extinctions in the past, hardly "thriving." Also, talking about the environment of Earth hundreds of millions of years ago, before humans even existed, is hardly relevant to our current environment and how it will affect us, not "the Earth."

>>12246108
Bullshit. You know very well that "carbon tax" doesn't help and can't ever help. Nuclear, maybe, but can you reference any IPCC or GISS or any other propaganda aimed at persuading the public toward embracing nuclear development instead of being afraid of it? I certainly haven't seen any. It would be great if they'd start pushing that, instead of carbon fucking taxes. Renewables? Unfortunately, there's just not enough space to make solar or wind sustainable without shattering other parts of the ecosystem.

>>12245902
Do you still believe in Santa Claus?

>>12246159
Define "weather" and "climate" in your own words without referencing the other and so that they're not similar.

>>12246168
Prove they're an objective third party in your own words.

>>12246171
>>12246188
>>12246092
https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case

>>12246092
>>12246188
>>12246171
>The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two-thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases.

>>12245413
I've noticed that climate change is almost always made in a binary argument, you're either with us or against us essentially. But of course that's not what people believe, when most people say they're against climate change I believe they are saying they are against the politicization of it and alarmists making disastrous claims and we have to do something, while those alarmists propose ineffective and unfeasible solutions.

>>12245656
>independent fact checkers?
is this a meme?

>>12246268
weather is what happens from day to day
climate is the long-time averages associated

>>12246268
Imagine being this retarded

>>12246377
Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. What evidence do you have?

>>12246375
So "climate" is just accumulated and averaged "weather". They sound pretty similar.

>>12246108
>nuclear
that's too fucking late, don't you think? also most of the redditors and climate alarmists are anti-nuclear because muh Japan and Chernobyl disasters

>>12246393
>Imagine being this retarded
You should stop posting, anon. Fictional characters and physical phenomenon are not similar regardless of how little you understand them.

>>12246428
So you can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. And you call me retarded?

>>12245598

>>12246441
>Imagine being this retarded
There is an extensive body of work devoted to the origins of the fictional character Santa Claus, just like there's extensive bodies of work devoted to climate, weather, and climate change. Why don't you read some of it instead of shitposting about how none of it is real because you don't understand it.

>>12246262
>You know very well that "carbon tax" doesn't help and can't ever help.
Wrong and not an argument. More importantly, economists know that carbon taxes do help and that the optimal carbon tax rate determined from cost- benefit analysis is positive.

>Nuclear, maybe, but can you reference any IPCC or GISS or any other propaganda aimed at persuading the public toward embracing nuclear development instead of being afraid of it?
Stupid argument and false premise.

https://www.sfen.org/nuclear4climate/ipcc-report-more-nuclear-power-is-needed-to-meet-the-paris-agreement

>I certainly haven't seen any.
Probably because you never looked.

>Unfortunately, there's just not enough space to make solar or wind sustainable without shattering other parts of the ecosystem.
Says who?

>>12246268
>Prove they're an objective third party in your own words.
The wikipedia article sufficiently explains how they are independent. If you believe otherwise then make an argument. Until then your bullshit is refuted.

>>12246878
>More importantly, economists know that carbon taxes do help and that the optimal carbon tax rate determined from cost- benefit analysis is positive.
To use your own juvenile rhetoric: wrong, and not an argument.

>https://www.sfen.org/nuclear4climate/ipcc-report-more-nuclear-power-is-needed-to-meet-the-paris-agreement
Not responsive to my point. This isn't close to propaganda; it's on the level of a powerpoint presentation, with a single (extremely banal) image. Our sad polar bears should be crying for nuclear energy, not international banking commissions.

>Says who?
Says everyone who isn't an investor or lobbyist for solar and wind. Also, to use your own juvenile rhetoric again, "says who?" is both stupid and not an argument.

>>12246878
>Says who?
basic math. Windmills have very low power density so a large area is required to used them. Paired with the fact that they kill large numbers of birds (not the kind a cat can kill, the kinds that can land you in federal prison), widespread use of them would take up extremely large swaths of land and kill large populations of birds. Then you have the problem where it's too expensive to take down retired windmills so they end up scaring the land, but lets just ignore that.

>>12246977
Statistically speaking windmills don't kill birds when compared to pretty much any human activity. And you could power usa easily with the land area that is devoted to fossil fuels alone so that's not much of an argument either.

>>12245454
>muh china
nice strawman. poltards and are so predictable in their whataboutism.

>>12246447
Your point?

>>12246993
We're talking about different birds. windmills kill birds of prey which is a federal crime. Palo alto kills about 100 golden eagles a year, these are birds with long lifespans and low reproductive
rates. Very impactful, people don't normally kill them. Widespread use of windmills could lead golden eagles to be endangered and extinct.
http://www.greenwichneighborsunited.com/windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought-2/

>And you could power usa easily with the land area that is devoted to fossil fuels alone so that's not much of an argument either.
I saw a figure that basically said it would take 300-400 square miles of wind to match a gigawatt nuclear reactor which is just about 1 square mile. Fossil fuel plants have lower power density than nuclear but it still seems impossible if there is a 300-400:1 ratio on wind/nuclear land use.

So what you said is not an argument.

>>12246377
...it's easy if you try...

>>12246290
>The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas.
Not an assumption or guess, it's fundamental physics and has been directly observed.

>The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.
False. It's not an assumption, the main radiative forcing is from CO2. This is directly measurable. Climate sensitivity is just how much the radiative forcing, from any source, gets amplified.

>The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two-thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.
Anyone can look this up, it's widely publicized and explained.

>The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half.
Too bad the central claim of the "skeptic's argument" is disproven by literally every study calculating climate sensitivity. They literally made up this figure, they cite nothing to support it.

>>12247055
>noooooo the hecking birderinos
Fossil fuelds kill 10 to 100 times as many birds per gigawat. Cats kill 1000 times. Even if you somehow only value eagles (because you have no argument) the mere human human habitation destruction from climate change and shit like roads kills magnitudes more of them than wind power ever could. And if you are extra concerned then don't build them where the eagles live.

>I saw a figure
Using your figure there is space for 1TW using the same amount of land used by fossil fuels which is enough to cover the entire US electricity demand. Obviously it would be really dumb to build that much wind but it's a strawman to ague that there isn't enough space for wind.
Also you don't actually need nearly that much space for obvious reasons.

Like I said not an argument.

>>12247141
>Fossil fuelds kill 10 to 100 times as many birds per gigawat. Cats kill 1000 times.
once again we're talking about different birds. And wind power only accounts for something like 2%, if you were to bump that up to 20% it would be disastrous.
>Even if you somehow only value eagles (because you have no argument)
large migratory birds and birds of prey actually, the type your cat is unable to kill
>Eagles are not the only victims. Smallwood also estimated that Altamont killed an average of 300 red-tailed hawks, 333 American kestrels and 380 burrowing owls annually – plus even more non-raptors, including 2,526 rock doves and 2,557 western meadowlarks.

>Using your figure there is space for 1TW using the same amount of land used by fossil fuels
source? Are these areas even economically suitable for windmills? Fossil fuels don't care where they're put, wind does.
>strawman to ague that there isn't enough space for wind
You said if you were to devote all the land fossil fuels use to wind, you could power the country. Quite frankly this seems impossible considering the much larger land usage of wind compared to fossil fuels. Are you talking out your ass perhaps?

>>12247191
>once again we're talking about different birds
the first number and the last point apply to eagles so again no argument there, and why do only eagle lives matter?
>And wind power only accounts for something like 2%, if you were to bump that up to 20% it would be disastrous.
It's per megawathour, it doesn't matter what the ratio is.

>source?
Your post x area used for fossil fuels in USA

>You said if you were to devote all the land fossil fuels use to wind, you could power the country
Which you trivially can

>Quite frankly this seems impossible
Get educated then

Jannies need to do their job honestly.

>>12247204
>the first number and the last point apply to eagles so again no argument there, and why do only eagle lives matter?
windmills directly kill more eagle than whatever you said.
>and why do only eagle lives matter?
because they're on the top of their respective food chain, have long lives and low reproduction rates? An eagle dying is more impactful than 100 sparrows.

>It's per megawathour, it doesn't matter what the ratio is.
yeah the ratio of megawathours produced genius.

>Your post x area used for fossil fuels in USA
I never said anything about the actual amount of land usage, I gave comparison of wind/nuclear. You've yet to provide any numbers to prove your claim, which once again seems impossible if you were to look at the difference of land usage of each respective power source.

>>12246290
>There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct-warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth's climate is long-lived and stable — it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.
This reveals the author's utter lack of understanding of the basics of climatology. The simple fact that climate sensitivity is given as a constant amount of warming per doubling of CO2 should have clued the author in that the feedbacks it represent can't cause a runaway effect. This is because the feedback loop has diminishing returns as the planet warms and blackbody radiation increases. A feedback loop can amplify warming at each step without creating a runaway effect. Yet the author seems to be completely ignorant of this.

>Figure 3: Hansen's predictions to the US Congress in 1988,6 compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.
This graph incorrectly baselines the data in order to make it seem like the predictions differ more from the data than they actually do. Pic related. More importantly, it lies about scenario A being "CO2 emissions as they actually occurred" when it represents a scenario with 50% more greenhouse forcing than actually occurred. Scenario B is the closest to reality but is about 10% more forcing than what actually occurred.

The author is either dishonest or doesn't know what he's doing.

>>12247234
>windmills directly kill more eagle than whatever you said.
wrong

>An eagle dying is more impactful than 100 sparrows.
Why?

>yeah the ratio of megawathours produced genius.
Do you not understand what kills per megawat means? Fossil fuels kill more eagles per megawatt than windmills. If you replace the fossil fuels with windmills total amount of eagles killed goes down

>I never said anything about the actual amount of land usage,
You said the number (which is wildly off the scale), take that and combine it with 250m acres of US land that is used for fossil fuels, surely you can do multiplication?

>>12246301
>The missing hotspot
Not missing: https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

>outgoing radiation data
Taken from Lindzen and Choi, which has been debunked for years and contradicts every other study: https://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-choi-2011-party-like-2009.html

>>12246336
You're just at a different stage of denial, it's essentially the same. How is opposing solutions to a problem because the solutions are politically inconvenient for you not "politicization?"

>>12246393
>They sound pretty similar.
Is this supposed to be a scientific argument?

>>12246705
So you don't believe any science, right? It's all like Santa Claus.

>>12247266
>Imagine being this retarded
It looks like instead of educating yourself you've chosen to continue shitposting. Are you sure you've made the right decision?

>>12247251
>wrong
fossil fuel plants don't have towers of spinning blades that are moving at 200mph in the place where birds are prone to fly
also according to the source I provided
>Extrapolating that and similar (little publicized) German and Swedish studies, 39,000 U.S. wind turbines would not be killing “only” 440,000 birds (USFWS, 2009) or “just” 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats (Smallwood, 2013), but 13-39 million birds and bats every year!

>Why?
the placement on the food chain and reproduction rates as I already said.

>You said the number (which is wildly off the scale), take that and combine it with 250m acres of US land that is used for fossil fuels, surely you can do multiplication?
are you accounting for the land use of material mining and energy production of fossil fuels but skipping the mining for wind? That's the only way your argument makes any sense. This source says that wind takes up 5.5 x more land than fossil fuels/nuclear when accounting for everything. So once again seems impossible
>https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwid19DKor_sAhVN-qwKHd8gD6oQFjABegQICRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.strata.org%2Fpdf%2F2017%2Ffootprints-full.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2YbIcUl5dV-COiM4NXZGNp

Why is O2 in the atmosphere falling at the same rate CO2 is rising in the atmosphere?
https://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

Why is C-13 falling in the atmosphere while Carbon Dioxide is rising?
https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Carbon-Isotopes-Prove-Humans-Have-Caused-Global-Warming.html

Please explain these trends.

>>12247260
No the problem is that the proposed solutions to reduce co2 either actually do nothing or are completely unfeasible while actual solutions exist. Nuclear is the obvious one. So it seems like the people pushing it don't actually care about it and are only doing so for political purposes.
A funny thing is that fracking for natural gas in the united states reduced carbon emissions more than any green policy.

>>12247280
>fossil fuel plants don't have towers of spinning blades that are moving at 200mph in the place where birds are prone to fly
They just destroy the habitats, which kills many more birds

>the placement on the food chain and reproduction rates as I already said.
If you worry about them going extinct then you are retarded, and again you can simply not build the windmils where they live if you want to place some random eagles in front of eagles and other animals.

>are you accounting for the land use of material mining and energy production of fossil fuels but skipping the mining for wind?
It's not accounting for mining for the construction of the fossil fuel plants either, simply the area they and their fuel uses.

>So once again seems impossible
According to your first claim it was clearly possible

From your source
>Renewable Energy Laboratory, large wind facilities use between 24.7 and 123.6 acres per megawatt of output
capacity.168 Most of the area is due to necessary spacing between turbines, which is typically five to 10 rotor diameter
lengths.169 According to Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association, the average total land use for wind
is 60 acres per megawatt.
Let's use the highest value your source provides e.g. 125 acres per megawat. That gives 2 million megawats or 2TW of power. I told you first numbers were bullshit but went with those anyways.
It even provides the same reference (1GW nuclear plant) at 133 square miles instead of 300-400 you said earlier.

So not an argument

>>12247304
>They just destroy the habitats, which kills many more birds
so do windmills. The land use of windmills far exceeds fossil fuels so they impact more area of habitat.
>If you worry about them going extinct then you are retarded, and again you can simply not build the windmils where they live if you want to place some random eagles in front of eagles and other animals.
palo alto wind pass kills 100 golden eagles per year. If you were to increase the amount of wind then you would eventually kill more of them.
>According to your first claim it was clearly possible
No I said it took 400 square miles of wind energy to match 1 square mile of nuclear. I don't even know what fucking numbers you're making up.

It says
>The total estimates for land use per megawatt of wind capacity is 70.641 acres per megawatt of electricity produced.
Lets compare that to fossil fuels
>Producing the US’s supply of coal energy in 2015 required approximately 1,885,153 acres of land, or 12.211 acres
per megawatt
>In 2015, the US consumed 376,826.5 megawatts of electricity (3.301 billion megawatt hours).57 Natural gas in the
US used roughly 12.41 acres per megawatt
So comparing the actual land use by megawatt, what you're saying is not possible.
>It even provides the same reference (1GW nuclear plant) at 133 square miles instead of 300-400 you said earlier.
So wind takes up 5.5x more land than fossil fuels, and you're claiming if we were use the land fossil fuels take up, which is lower per megawatt than wind mind you, we can produce the same amount of energy.
And wind takes still 100x more land required in the form of power generation for according to this source, so not looking good for wind.

>>12247373
>so do windmills. The land use of windmills far exceeds fossil fuels so they impact more area of habitat.
And kill less birds

>palo alto wind pass kills 100 golden eagles per year. If you were to increase the amount of wind then you would eventually kill more of them.
And save more thanks to reduced fossil output resulting in net positive eagles

>No I said it took 400 square miles of wind energy to match 1 square mile of nuclear.
Yes and at that value you can easily produce 1TW of energy from the areas occupied by fossil fuels.

>So comparing the actual land use by megawatt, what you're saying is not possible.
Fossil fuel industry uses 250M acres of land, your source says it takes at most 125 acres per megawatt, that is 2TW of power. This isn't hard.

Please stop shitposting.

>>12247396
>And kill less birds
>>Extrapolating that and similar (little publicized) German and Swedish studies, 39,000 U.S. wind turbines would not be killing “only” 440,000 birds (USFWS, 2009) or “just” 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats (Smallwood, 2013), but 13-39 million birds and bats every year!
if this is true then the numbers are off by a factor of 30, and you said fossil fuels kill 10-100x more and have not provided a citation. So really I don't have to take your claim seriously.
>your source says it takes at most 125 acres per megawatt, that is 2TW of power. This isn't hard.
it also says that fossil fuels need about 13 acres per megawatt, so going by that math wind would need 10x more land than fossil fuels according to you. Your numbers are off.

>>12247454
>it also says that fossil fuels need about 13 acres per megawatt
That's because you lack reading comprehension. A fossil fuel power plant might require 13 acres per megawatt but a windmill only needs 1 acre for 10 megawats. When you account for the fuel then you get the numbers that are factual e.g. 250m acres being used by fossil fuel industry and plenty of space around a wind mill for the wind to flow and blades to spin.

Please stop it's really embarrassing when your own source debunks you.

>>12247454
I always think it's funny when anons who don't do any math assert that the numbers are off

>>12247477
>A fossil fuel power plant might require 13 acres per megawatt but a windmill only needs 1 acre for 10 megawats
No you fucking retard. The numbers are total land usage that involves everything. 13 acres per megawatt compared to 70. This is not just the power stations.
>windmill only needs 1 acre for 10 megawats
windmills are less power dense in energy production than literally everything. A fucking train engine produces 5 megawatts and 1 megawatt rated wind mill takes a around 2 acres, and the power output isn't a constant megawatt

>Please stop it's really embarrassing when your own source debunks you.
here's what it says in regards to power plants
>coal: 0.699 acres per megawatt of electricity produced.
>gas: 0.343 acres per megawatt produced.
>wind: large wind facilities use between 24.7 and 123.6 acres per megawatt of output capacity

>>12245556
You sound brainwashed.
As in, anyone or anything positioning agains your religion causes you great pain and needs to be eliminated kind of brainwashed.
Your life must be very toxic.

>>12247553
>the numbers are total land usage that involves everything
The total land use for fossil fuel energy production in USA is 250M acres
If your source doesn't say that it's
1) wrong
2) you are reading it wrong
(hint it's 2)

Really it's just super embarrassing at this point.

>>12247553
>here's what it says in regards to power plants
You do realize that number is literally just the actual power plant (e.g. the building) and doesn't include any of the extraction or other things required. It says that literally in the same paragraph you pulled your number from.
The state of /pol/....

>>12246947
>To use your own juvenile rhetoric: wrong, and not an argument.
Wrong on both counts.

https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/

Do you enjoy constantly getting BTFO?

>Not responsive to my point. This isn't close to propaganda; it's on the level of a powerpoint presentation, with a single (extremely banal) image.
It summarizes their position that nuclear power needs to be increased. You can also see the following:

Multiple options exist to reduce energy supply sector GHG
emissions (robust evidence, high agreement). These include energy
efficiency improvements and fugitive emission reductions in fuel
extraction as well as in energy conversion, transmission, and distribution systems; fossil fuel switching; and low-GHG energy supply technologies such as renewable energy (RE), nuclear power, and carbon
dioxide capture and storage (CCS). [7.5, 7.8.1, 7.11]

Decarbonizing (i.e. reducing the carbon intensity of) electricity generation is a key component of cost-effective mitigation
strategies in achieving low-stabilization levels (430–530ppm
CO2eq); in most integrated modelling scenarios, decarbonization happens more rapidly in electricity generation than in the
industry, buildings and transport sectors (medium evidence, high
agreement). In the majority of low-stabilization scenarios, the share
of low-carbon electricity supply (comprising RE, nuclear and CCS)
increases from the current share of approximately 30% to more than
80% by 2050, and fossil fuel power generation without CCS is phased
out almost entirely by 2100. [7.11]

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf

>Says everyone who isn't an investor or lobbyist for solar and wind.
Like who?

>>12247566
>This report considers the various direct and indirect land requirements for coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar electricity generation in the United States in 2015
> For each source, it approximates the land used during resource production, by energy plants, for transport and transmission, and to store waste materials
>chart 1
>fossil fuels 13 acres per megawatt
>wind 70 acres per megawatt
No I'm thinking you're wrong

>>12247580
No shit which is why I specified, you somehow suggested that somehow wind can produce 10 megawatts per acres which is not possible, and only remotely possible if you only consider the power plant.

>>12246977
>Windmills have very low power density so a large area is required to used them
Great, now show that there isn't enough space for them.

>Paired with the fact that they kill large numbers of birds
LOL, as if you care. Apparently you care even less about the millions of people that die from air pollution from fossil fuels. Hilarious.

>>12247286
>No the problem is that the proposed solutions to reduce co2 either actually do nothing or are completely unfeasible while actual solutions exist.
How is a carbon tax ineffective or unfeasible?


>So it seems like the people pushing it don't actually care about it and are only doing so for political purposes.
The IPCC says that nuclear power should be increased, you're just lying at this point.

>A funny thing is that fracking for natural gas in the united states reduced carbon emissions more than any green policy.
Green policy hasn't been allowed to be implemented because of retards like you politicizing it. The largest contributor to greenhouse gas reductions in the US was not fracking but increased gas prices, which is exactly what a carbon tax would do. You're completely incompetent.

>>12247624
>Great, now show that there isn't enough space for them
there's enough space for them but you'd have to set aside thousands of square miles of land to install windmills that will last for 15 years and won't be replaced
>Apparently you care even less about the millions of people that die from air pollution from fossil fuels.
I do which is why I want to kill coal and switch to natural gas and nuclear

>>12247276
>shitposting
>science is like Santa Claus because I say so

>>12247631
I'm not talking about carbon taxes. The push for wind and solar is what's unfeasible and ineffective and use billions of dollars of subsidies for something like 5% of energy production.
>The IPCC says that nuclear power should be increased, you're just lying at this point.
great how many politicians are saying that
>Green policy hasn't been allowed to be implemented because of retards like you politicizing it
I would have no problem if the push was toward effective solutions. Solutions that will reduce the quality of electricity and increase the price are not effective.
>The largest contributor to greenhouse gas reductions in the US was not fracking but increased gas prices
unlikely, the petrol consumption has been increasing. the reason why fracking reduced it is because it produces half as much co2 than coal and is replacing coal as an energy source.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40013

>>12247631
No its fracking.
Look at the elasticity curve of fossile fuels. There's no correlation between price and usage

I saw this on /pol/, now I'm willing to admit I'm not knowledgeable enough but I'm willing to learn, is this guy a crook?
https://youtu.be/gRC5-hAbUGA
He says the dwingling of energy supply and the rising temperatures will cause global wars and kill hundreds of millions. Is this just alarmist talk?

>>12247645
Are you high? History and folklore not science and I never said otherwise. Did you learn the difference between climate and weather or did you waste you time with poor life decisions again?

>>12247738
Depends on how bad it gets. Best case things become much more expensive, worst case is societal collapse. Wars killing hundreds of millions is somewhere in between.

>>12247738
Its a possibility, depending when and how sharply oil+(other real economic output) production declines, plus how bad climate change happens. Worst case is yuge societal unrest + economic decline + millions of refugees = collapse

>>12247632
>there's enough space for them but you'd have to set aside thousands of square miles of land to install windmills that will last for 15 years and won't be replaced
They last 20 years and will be replaced.

>I do which is why I want to kill coal and switch to natural gas and nuclear
Natural gas leaks directly into the atmosphere during extraction as well as during burning. Once this is taken into account, it at best breaks even with other fossil fuels.

>>12247654
>No the problem is that the proposed solutions to reduce co2 either actually do nothing or are completely unfeasible while actual solutions exist.
>I'm not talking about carbon taxes.

>>12247816
it's too expensive to tear down and replace windmills, they just build new ones.

methane only lasts a few decades in the atmosphere and all the radiation bands it absorbs overlaps with water vapor so its effect as a greenhouse gas is extremely limited. The water vapor has essentially already absorbed most of the radiation methane is able to and the amount of methane in the atmosphere is ridiculously small because it decays quickly.. The reason why co2 is impactful is because it lasts a long time and has bands that do not ovelap with water

>>12247666
>No its fracking.
Wrong.

>Look at the elasticity curve of fossile fuels. There's no correlation between price and usage
If that were true then Nobel prize winning economists would not say that a carbon tax can affect CO2 emissions. You're simply wrong.

https://econpapers.repec.org/article/aenjournl/1996v17-03-a04.htm

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/182480/1/1031760938.pdf

Not only are gas prices elastic, they become more elastic as more substitutions for fossil fuels become available.

>great how many politicians are saying that
The current leader of the Democratic Party says that.

>I would have no problem if the push was toward effective solutions. Solutions that will reduce the quality of electricity and increase the price are not effective.
LOL, just as I predicted, you don't care about the problem or effective solutions, you just don't like solutions that are politically inconvenient for you.

>unlikely, the petrol consumption has been increasing.
Motor gas peaked in the mid 2000s.

>the reason why fracking reduced it is because it produces half as much co2 than coal and is replacing coal as an energy source.
It creates more methane though.

>>12247926
>Wrong.
fossil fuel usage is up but emissions are down. The only explanation is the increased use of natural gas.
>The current leader of the Democratic Party says that.
great can't wait to listen to all the democrats actively pushing for it then. Oh wait.
>LOL, just as I predicted, you don't care about the problem or effective solutions, you just don't like solutions that are politically inconvenient for you.
Yeah I don't want to pay 10x for electricity and have to deal with blackouts while you can push foe nuclear and have none of that
>Motor gas peaked in the mid 2000s.
petroleum use is going up, doesn't matter.
>It creates more methane though.
see above post

>>12247916
>it's too expensive to tear down and replace windmills, they just build new ones.
Source?

>methane only lasts a few decades in the atmosphere
Yes, it eventually turns into CO2.

>and all the radiation bands it absorbs overlaps with water vapor so its effect as a greenhouse gas is extremely limited.
Incorrect, it is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. The only reason CO2 is a bigger problem is because CO2 emissions are much larger than methane emissions. If you are just going to spout bullshit then stop posting.

>>12245413
you can't refute cc, that much is true but it's the biggest non-problem around. some countries will have hits to dp but that is far smaller than closing down industry. meanwhile other countries stand to benefit from cc.

>>12247916
>methane
[math] \displaystyle
CH_4 + 2 \, O_2 \; \rightarrow \; CO_2 + 2 \, H_2O
[/math]

>>12247989
Post the whole picture

>>12245413

>>12245685
climate = / = weather
"it felt hotter or snowed less where i live" = not evidence

>>12247584
>Wrong on both counts.
Wrong, and not an argument

>It summarizes their position
Which, again, has nothing to do with I wrote about the complete lack of propaganda devoted to assuaging public fear of nuclear energy.

>Do you enjoy constantly getting BTFO?
Oh... I get it now. You're one of those...

You don't actually read anything, do you?
You just type out random non sequiturs like a monkey with a typewriter, and punctuate your nonsense with stale, 10-year old internet acronyms. Good luck with that.

>>12248473

How do you explain the little ice age, humanity didnt have industrial machines and we still had radical climate change that affected humanity

>>12248382
Is this supposed to refute climate change?

>>12248597
>Wrong, and not an argument
I provided you with proof that economists support a carbon tax. Did you not read it or were you hoping that you could just pretend it doesn't exist?

>Which, again, has nothing to do with I wrote about the complete lack of propaganda devoted to assuaging public fear of nuclear energy.
What you wrote is irrelevant. The IPCC supports real solutions, including nuclear. You have failed on every point.

>You don't actually read anything, do you?
Nice projection.

>>12248852
None of what you've written here is either responsive or an argument.

>>12247966
The reason why it’s “stronger”
Is because they directly compare it to co2 in radiation absorption. It’s basic physics that methane’s effect as a green house gas is limited, it’s also basic physics that I absorbs more radiation than co2. But it’s not basic physics to assume it is more impactful than co2 when you consider water vapor

>>12248045
Methane is something like 2 or 4 parts per billion, co2 is measured in parts per million

>>12248852
>The IPCC supports real solutions, including nuclear
They say a lot of things, actions speak louder. Where are all the people pushing for it?

>>12245442
>There is none, whenever debating a denier I will ad hoc insert and group them with some more easily defeated conspitard group and claim victory
FTFY.

>>12248623
>How do you explain the little ice age
Volcanic eruptions and low solar activity.

>humanity didnt have industrial machines and we still had radical climate change that affected humanity
Hardly radical compared to current warming. And what is your point? You seem to be arguing that in order for humanity to be causing the current change it must be the cause of all changes. Are you retarded?

>>12248884
Ignoring the evidence I gave you doesn't make them it away. Thanks for admitting you have no response.

>>12246447
>Look how little global warming there was before 1855!
Uh, okay then?

>>12245728
>Oceans not becoming infertile
Ok retard, then explain coral bleaching of reefs over 1000 years old and how it definitely isn't the increasing carbon levels in the ocean

>>12248909
>They say a lot of things, actions speak louder
LOL then why did you ask for "propaganda?"

The action has to be taken by politicians, which is who the IPCC is speaking to. Unfortunately, a lot of politicians are cowardly or stupid and make retarded excuses like yours for why nothing should be done.

>>12245879
>Climate = weather
Please get off /sci/. You obviously don't belong here if you can't even comprehend a concept taught in middle school.

>>12248920
So what's your evidence?

>>12245598
Wtf happened in 1950

>>12248473
He said it was meant to be anecdotal you no fun poopypants

>>12246977
You know what else kills lots of animals every year? Burning fossil fuels. Quit getting your info from JewsCorp outlets and Toilet Paper USA.

>>12248953
Let's see how many different catch phrases you can type out without actually writing anything of coherent semantic value.

>>12248995
WW2 ended

>>12249001
See >>12248953

>>12245413
global warming isn't caused by co2 or methane but, by increased heat flux in water or air

>>12245598
shouldn't "anomaly" be an absolute value?

>>12249036
That's another; any more?

>>12247954
You conviniently ignored the articles he posted you fucking retard.

>>12246886
Prove Wikipedia is an objective third party. Also, look up burden of proof.

>>12246705
Can you prove to me Santa Claus isn't somewhere in the North Pole we haven't discovered yet?

>>12249339
The North Pole is in the middle of the Article Ocean so unless Santa has an underwater base then he can't be there.

>>12249339
>Imagine being this retarded
So you wasted your time again. No surprise there.

>>12247590
Thank you for your service!

>>12248991
*Climate change = weather
Fixed that for ya.

>>12249344
>>12249348
Prove to me Santa's secret base doesn't exist.

Just delete China and India and the planet will heal.

>>12245413
Obviously humans are affecting the climate. But the climate has always changed - it's never constant. And some of the climate activists go way too far

>>12245605
I'm not sure about the word "sensitivity", but humans are quite good at injecting GHGs at very high altitudes with special machines called airplanes.
And yes, it is modelled.

>>12249420
well, not entirely, because the industries outsourced to China and India would have to be moved back and they'll keep going.

>>12247055
And how land efficient is strip-mining tar sands and oil shale?

>>12249591
The "industries" that produce plastic bullshit that just litter store shelves and nobody buys?

>>12248904
>The reason why it’s “stronger” Is because they directly compare it to co2 in radiation absorption.
Yes, which means it's much stronger in causing global warming than CO2, molecule for molecule. No need for scare quotes.

>It’s basic physics that methane’s effect as a green house gas is limited
Yes, it's limited at 86 times as powerful as CO2 over 20 years and 34 times as powerful over 100 years.

>But it’s not basic physics to assume it is more impactful than co2 when you consider water vapor
What does "considering water vapor" even mean in this context? Are you talking about feedback loops? Because that makes methane stronger.

The GWP is what it is, you're not even making an argument.

>>12247235
>A feedback loop can amplify warming at each step without creating a runaway effect.
It also doesn't have to run away to fuck us over.
The Earth doesn't have to be a hellish 400 degree firestorm of sulfuric acid at 100 atm pressure to kill you, just adding a few degrees will kill billions. All you need to do is get the wet bulb temps over 37 and people die.

>>12249640
If no one buys it, why is it imported?

>>12249652
Money laundering and graft

>>12249653
And the reason this is China's fault is?

>>12249671
Their whole culture is built around cheating and corruption

>>12249673
I think you need to explain more carefully how plastic junk ends up on US store shelves due to Chinese corruption.

>>12249055
>global warming isn't caused by co2 or methane but, by increased heat flux in water or air
The total amount of heat in the atmosphere and oceans are increasing. Heat flux in air and water can't explain that.

>>12249333
>Prove Wikipedia is an objective third party.
Why?

>Also, look up burden of proof.
How is giving you exactly what you asked for not meeting the burden of proof? Look up how to make an argument.

>>12249055
>shouldn't "anomaly" be an absolute value?
no, because 35 + 1 and -15 + 1 is still an anomaly of 1.

>>12249397
Go learn something instead of shitposting

>>12249889
it's not shitposting
it's logic 101
retard

>>12245728
>its not my fault amerimutts eat so much mcdonalds
Fucking retard.

>>12245413
primary secondary and tertiary cycles aswell as sun cycles and natural planetary, solar and galactic cycles. every year we discover more and more complex mechanisms that spread energy and power the earths climate and biosphere

a good point would be secondary cycles which are mini ice ages, no-one knows how they are triggered and can plunge average temperatures to 5 to 10 degrees lower, in London during the mini ice age the Thames completly froze over, thousands of people would skate, eat and play on the surface, the temprtures dropped within a matter of years, these mimi ice ages come in cycles, primary cycles are major ice ages and tertiary are daily weekly fluctuations in average temperature.

I find the subject of ice ages fascinating as they happen so suddenly and can snap out very suddenly aswell

>>12249713
Because if Wikipedia is not an objective third party, nothing it says can be trusted. This is bad for you because you're trying to claim the results of climate change alarmists have been verified by objective third parties by citing Wikipedia, who may or may may not be an objective third party itself.

I told you to look up burden of proof because the burden is on you to make an infallible argument beyond doubt that what the climate change alarmists are saying is true, or at least more likely to be true than not. I'm not making an argument, I'm dismissing yours. The burden of proof for me is not as strict as it is for you; I simply have to poke even a single hole.

For example, what's more believable, that the planet is going to implode in the next ~100 years because of carbon emissions from humans, or that the planet by itself is more robust than what humans have been doing for only the last ~200 years? Do the people who want to prevent "climate change" habe no ulterior motive whatsoever? If you want to impose a burden on average, bystanding humans to heavily change and regulate their behavior, you being burdened with proof is the least you can do.

>>12249889
So you still believe in Santa, huh?

>>12248904
>Methane is something like 2 or 4 parts per billion, co2 is measured in parts per million
the permafrost melting in canada & russia is changing that

>>12250007

>hurr durr we cannot trust science

Get off /sci/ then.

>>12245413
Everything is an error + scientific consensus isn't valid. These two things make it impossible to refute climate change denial.

200 posts of s0yb0ys wanking each other but here I come with a scientific deconstruction of this entire hoax

https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

If you read this and you still believe we are causing global warming you are a braindead faggot leftard. P.S - people who wrote this are more accomplished scientists than you ever will be

>>12250028
>smoking doesn't cause cancer
>margarine is healthier than butter
>europeans and africans are a different race
You get off /sci/ fucking dipshit groupie

>>12245413
climate change has been debunked

>>12250126

>hurr durr muh emails prove climate change false

Debunked by independent fact checkers:
https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

>>12250147
>independent fact checkers

>>12250028
Do you still believe in Santa Claus? If science told you to jump off a bridge would you do it? The onus isn't on us to appeal to science, it's science's job to appeal to us.

>>12245413
>What is the actual evidence people use to refute climate change?
most people do not refute climate change, lefties think we do but we don't.
We're just not sure about giving up all rights to international authoreties who are constantly lobbied by oil and gas companies and refuse to introduce effective climate change regulation outside of the european bubble.

Putting all of the blame from overseas production and industries on the (western) consumers does absolutly nothing.

>>12249951
>primary secondary and tertiary cycles aswell as sun cycles and natural planetary, solar and galactic cycles. every year we discover more and more complex mechanisms that spread energy and power the earths climate and biosphere
Like what? It would certainly be big news if anything was discovered that affected the primary causality of greenhouse gasses. The most powerful natural cycles are currently working against global warming, not powering it. Your post is pure wishful thinking.

>a good point would be secondary cycles which are mini ice ages, no-one knows how they are triggered and can plunge average temperatures to 5 to 10 degrees lower
Not global averages, you're confusing local changes with global changes.

>the temprtures dropped within a matter of years
Incorrect, during the LIA temperatures dropped and rebounded very slowly, over 300 years.

>>12249685
where is most of the plastic produced?

>>12250466
Thank you for your service!

>>12250007
>Because if Wikipedia is not an objective third party
Wikipedia is not a party at all, it is a collection of cited statements.

>nothing it says can be trusted.
So nothing you say can be trusted?

>This is bad for you because you're trying to claim the results of climate change alarmists have been verified by objective third parties by citing Wikipedia, who may or may may not be an objective third party itself.
I don't see how it's bad for me that you refuse to make any substantive argument and instead attack the source. It's good for me, since it shows you have no argument.

>I told you to look up burden of proof because the burden is on you to make an infallible argument beyond doubt that what the climate change alarmists are saying is true
Berkeley Earth has already made that argument. You are pentecostal the argument doesn't exist instead of countering it. Try reading: http://berkeleyearth.org/

>I'm not making an argument, I'm dismissing yours.
Yes, and I'm dismissing your dismissal.

>The burden of proof for me is not as strict as it is for you; I simply have to poke even a single hole.
I've met the burden of proof and you haven't even looked at it.

>For example, what's more believable, that the planet is going to implode in the next ~100 years because of carbon emissions from humans, or that the planet by itself is more robust than what humans have been doing for only the last ~200 years?
What is this supposed to be an example of? Stupidity? The planet is not in danger of imploding. The planet doesn't care if the temperature rapidly changes. Living things do. If you want to talk about how robust living things are then look at mass extinctions caused by rapid changes in the environment. If you want to talk about what's believable then look at the scientific evidence instead of denying it exists.

>Do the people who want to prevent "climate change" habe no ulterior motive whatsoever?
Do the people who don't want to prevent it have a motive?

>>12250021
And leaks from extraction of natural gas.

>>12249644
>What does "considering water vapor" even mean in this context? Are you talking about feedback loops? Because that makes methane stronger.
>The GWP is what it is, you're not even making an argument.
You didn't even read what I said.

>>12250129
>>smoking doesn't cause cancer
How do you know it does? Oh it's because you trust the scientists that told you so. You immediately destroyed your own argument.

>>12250257
>IPCC compiled mountains of scientific evidence and summarizes it for retards
>>science hasn't appealed to me, there is no evidence, the burden of proof hasn't been met
This is why you are called a denier.

>>12249597
I dunno but I can't see how you could beat pic related in land efficiency

>>12250567
I did. Please explain what "considering water vapor" means and how it counters the GWP of methane.

>>12250624
>methane only lasts a few decades in the atmosphere and all the radiation bands it absorbs overlaps with water vapor so its effect as a greenhouse gas is extremely limited. The water vapor has essentially already absorbed most of the radiation methane is able to and the amount of methane in the atmosphere is ridiculously small because it decays quickly.. The reason why co2 is impactful is because it lasts a long time and has bands that do not ovelap with water
you didn't read what I said

>>12250631
pic related

>>12250631
I did, everything you said is already taken into account in calculating the GWP. Nothing you said contradicts the fact that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Done with your tantrum yet?

>>12250638
Great, now calculate the GWP from that picture.

>>12250648
The way they calculate GWP is based on co2 absorption then adjust by how long it stays in the atmosphere
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
>Global warming potential (GWP) is the heat absorbed by any greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, as a multiple of the heat that would be absorbed by the same mass of carbon dioxide (CO2). GWP is 1 for CO2. For other gases it depends on the gas and the time frame.

>Nothing you said contradicts the fact that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
except it does and you're ignoring what I'm saying instead of providing an argument.

>>12250655
>The way they calculate GWP is based on co2 absorption then adjust by how long it stays in the atmosphere
If by "based on CO2 absorption" you mean divided by it to get the ratio, then yes. What is your point? No it is not "adjusted by how long it stays in the atmosphere," it is the ratio of how much heat is absorbed by the based over a certain time frame.

When you're ready to make coherent arguments instead of throwing out vague statements like a baby throwing a tantrum, tell me.

>except it does and you're ignoring what I'm saying instead of providing an argument.
Amazing levels of projection. What have I ignored? What you're saying is either wrong or not even contradicting the simple fact that methane is more powerful.

>>12250681
>What is your point?
You said it has a higher GWP therefor more impactful greenhouse gas, I said while that may be true, as in it absorbs 20x more radiation than co2, it doesn't mean it's 20x more power. Why? Because water vapor absorbs all the radiation methane does, and after water vapor is done there is very little left for methane. The amount of methane in the atmosphere is very small and the amount of water vapor is obviously huge. If you had actually read what I said you would understand this.

>No it is not "adjusted by how long it stays in the atmosphere,"
the wikipedia article literally says this
>, including the radiative efficiency (infrared-absorbing ability) of each gas relative to that of carbon dioxide, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years) relative to that of carbon dioxide

>>12250573
Logic doesn't seem to be your forte

>>12248608
exavtly, saying GW caused it to feel hotter is the exact same as doing this

>>12248985
infertile oceans = / = coral bleaching
seperate issue

>>12250700
>I said while that may be true, as in it absorbs 20x more radiation than co2, it doesn't mean it's 20x more power.
That is exactly what it means though. It means you would have to replace one molecule of methane with 34 molecules of CO2 to get the same amount of warming.

>Because water vapor absorbs all the radiation methane does, and after water vapor is done there is very little left for methane.
Yes, and as I already said, that is already taken into account. You said it yourself, methane absorbs more radiation than CO2. This is not absorption in a vacuum, it's in the atmosphere, with all of its water vapor. So nothing you're saying is relevant, it's already built in to GWP.

>the wikipedia article literally says this
No, it literally says that the decay rate of greenhouse gas is a factor GWP is based on, which just means the decay rate affects the GWP. It doesn't say anything is adjusted according to the decay rate. You selectively removed the first part of the sentence. And then it literally tells you how is calculated, with no adjustment for decay rate. Retard.

You should just kill yourself if you make yet another post utterly failing to grasp what you're trying to discuss.

>>12250716
Says the guy who made a self contradicting argument.

>>12250530
Then source the citations themselves, then construct an argument from them using your own words that makes me want to believe you and that the sources themselves are objective third parties.

I'm not making an argument, I'm making a dismissal. I'm not trying to appeal to anyone; there's not much to trust or not trust.

Yes, I don't have an argument. I'm not making one. I'm making a dismissal of yours. The work I have to do is much easier.

You realize just because Berkeley Earth says they're an independent, unbiased third party doesn't mean they are, right? Do you still believe in Santa Claus? But sure, I can give them the benefit of doubt. I took a look at your Berkeley Earth's: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/skeptics-guide-to-climate-change.pdf and everything it says there I can tentatively agree with. It seems like it even agrees with me. I'm left wondering what your point is.
>When the independent study corrected for all of these issues, it confirmed that the world has warmed 1.5C, or 2.8F, over the past 250 years
>Stay skeptical: statements should be backed up by data and published research
>Recognize that most future emissions will come from China and the developing world

You can dismiss my dismissal, but that just makes your job harder and becomes quicksand for both of us. However, you being the one trying to make a positive claim to try to change minds stand more to lose than I, who is just trying to poke holes in your arguments. I think you should seriously look up how burden of proof works.

Part 1.

>>12250764
>That is exactly what it means though
what it means is it absorbs 20x more radiation in a spectrometer, not in the atmoshpere. It only makes sense if you take out water vapor from the atmosphere. Refer to >>12250638, see how the methane absorbs the same radiation water vapor does? That means methane cannot absorb very much radiation because water vapor has already done so. You can make a simple analogy that after how many coats of paint is it redundant to add anymore.


>that is already taken into account
>The GWP depends on the following factors:
>the absorption of infrared radiation by a given gas
>the atmospheric lifetime of the gas
it's not. It only takes co2 into account.

>No, it literally says that the decay rate of greenhouse gas is a factor GWP is based on
holy fucking shit batman that's what I'm saying. They take a relative amount of radiation absorption then adjust for how long it stays in the atmoshpere to get GWP

>which just means the decay rate affects the GWP
> It doesn't say anything is adjusted according to the decay rate
these two sentences are contradictions, you say the rate of decay adjusts the GWP then say rate of decay adjust nothing.

>>12250530
Meeting the burden of proof also means explaining in your own words why your (presumably objective) sources substantiate whatever your arguments you're trying to make. It does not mean just linking to random websites, even though I know that's probably how you were "taught" after spending so much time on anonymous imageboards.

It's an example of an appeal to the hearts of common people. Galileo was forced to recant saying the Earth revolved around the Sun, even though he was (obviously, you might say) correct. Why couldn't the Pope just listen to him even though Galileo was correct? Were Galileo's proofs not good enough? Was the Pope and everyone around him just bigoted retards? I'm sorry your dad never taught you this, but the point is, an untalented guy you can trust with your life is better than an extremely competent person you can't trust at all. Okay, now you're talking about wanting to preserve animals. Sure, okay. I also want to cure cancer and end world hunger; what's your point? Do you want me to support nuking China and other developing countries to help preserve animals? Do you want me to support more nuclear power plants to put less of a burden on the environment? If so, then I can readily acquiesce.

Again, please seriously look up burden of proof. The two "teams" are not equal. They do not have equal obligations or duties. To answer your question, the people who don't want to prevent "climate change" may or may not have a motive, but it doesn't matter. They could secretly want to destroy the planet or something. Does that make your argument by itself *correct*, that therefore man-made climate change IS happening and we MUST prevent it? No, it just means that guy's insane. On the other hand, if for example, one of the data collectors on your side is discovered to drink heavily and beats his wife at home every other night, does that strictly mean the data he's collected is faulty? No. But something is still lost.

>>12250582
Meeting the burden of proof doesn't just mean linking to random "sources", it means trying to use them to substantiate an argument in your own words. Yes, your job is harder than mine.

>>12248833
It is commonly cited by people refuting climate change.
They say it shows that temperature drives CO2 rather than the opposite, especially if you look at 100 000 ya.

>>12250784
>Then source the citations themselves
Why? I'm not your compiler. The burden of proof has been more than met and all you can do is whine about the format. Do you think these pathetic stalling tactics are working for you?

>I'm not making an argument, I'm making a dismissal.
And you can't even do that correctly.

>You realize just because Berkeley Earth says they're an independent, unbiased third party doesn't mean they are, right?
Where did I say that?

>and everything it says there I can tentatively agree with.
Then why are you trying to dismiss it? But thanks for admitting there is plenty of echoed for man-made climate change.

>You can dismiss my dismissal, but that just makes your job harder and becomes quicksand for both of us.
No it makes my job easier. It's the easiest thing in the world to dismiss retards with no argument. The burden of proof has been more than met with mountains of replicated achieving research. Your only response is to deny reality.

>>12251010
Do you literally think just linking a random website counts as "meeting" the burden of proof? Why don't lawyers just throw books at jurors or judges? Why don't politicians just make their speeches, "Please go to website X, Y, and Z!"?

You've already been dismissed multiple times.

>Modern academia has no evidence for man-made climate change because their results can't be replicated by an objective third party.
>They already have been replicated by an independent third party:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
>Prove they're an objective third party in your own words.
>The wikipedia article sufficiently explains how they are independent.
Is this you?

Because the people who want to "prevent" climate change usually means they want to change and regulate my behavior when I inherently owe them nothing. I also haven't admitted there is man-made climate change. I said I tentatively agree that the planet is warming up and is caused by man-made CO2. Or not. It might not be caused by man, it might be caused by volcanoes. The planet might also cool down in the future. I could also say the planet warms up all the time - it's called a sunny day.

Please refer back to my first statement. And then please look up how burden of proof works.

>>12250808
>what it means is it absorbs 20x more radiation in a spectrometer, not in the atmoshpere.
>Global warming potential (GWP) is the heat absorbed by any greenhouse gas in the atmosphere
It's literally the definition of GWP, you massive retard. Just end your pathetic LARP already. You're way out of your depth, which is not saying much.

>it's not. It only takes co2 into account.
It doesn't, the only relevance CO2 has is as a comparative baseline. Stop talking out of your ass.

>holy fucking shit batman that's what I'm saying.
No, what you're saying is a bunch of made up nonsense you thought would fool people into thinking you know what you're talking about. Here is exactly what you said:

>The way they calculate GWP is based on co2 absorption then adjust by how long it stays in the atmosphere
Where is the adjustment for decay rate after the calculation based on CO2 absorption? There is none.

> you say the rate of decay adjusts the GWP
No, I wouldn't say that because it's false. Rate of decay affects GWP, it doesn't "adjust" it.

Kill yourself, you pathetic LARPer.

>>12250828
>Meeting the burden of proof also means explaining in your own words
No it doesn't. But nice try at stalling your inevitable failure to provide any semblance of justification for your denial with arbitrary rules.

>It's an example of an appeal to the hearts of common people.
So it is an example of your stupidity.

>Do you want me to support more nuclear power plants to put less of a burden on the environment?
Yes, I see no issue with that.

>Again, please seriously look up burden of proof.
Again, look at the proof I gave you instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

>The two "teams" are not equal.
Yes, one has mountains of scientific evidence and the other has pathetic sophistry.

>They do not have equal obligations or duties.
I never said they did. I'm saying the unequal burden of has been more than met and now it's your turn to counter. But you won't, because you are incapable of doing so. So instead you deny reality. How many times do I have to keep pointing this out? Your tactic isn't working.

>On the other hand, if for example, one of the data collectors on your side is discovered to drink heavily and beats his wife at home every other night, does that strictly mean the data he's collected is faulty? No. But something is still lost.
No, nothing is lost because the data still stands. Are you blind? Your example of an asymmetric burden utterly fails.

>>12250850
>Meeting the burden of proof doesn't just mean linking to random "sources"
I didn't link to random sources, I linked to exactly what you asked for.

>it means trying to use them to substantiate an argument in your own words.
No it doesn't. Learn English.

>Yes, your job is harder than mine.
Yes, my job is much much harder than yours. Yet I still do it better than you do yours because you're just that pathetically retarded.

>>12250950
Temperature drives CO2 and CO2 drives temperature. Temperature can change before CO2 due to non-CO2 factors and it can change after CO2 due to the greenhouse effect. So what they think this graph shows is not even relevant.

Not to mention that the graph shows temperature from one ice core in Antarctica, so it isn't even capable of showing a relation between CO2 and global temperature. Unfortunately you can't expect a denier to actually read labels.

>>12245413
>What is the actual evidence people use to refute climate change?
Most don't really have any at all, just uninformed opinions; "if global warming is real then why is there a blizzard where I live?".
Even the so-called 'educated opinions' can only talk in terms of hypotheses based on what little historical and archaeological data exists.
To be fair about it, even with all the 'evidence' that we all accept as proof enough, human-caused global warming is still just a theory. The problem is proving that 'theory' is true would mean the eventual end of life on this planet.
What the deniers can't accept is that they can't continue to consume, consume, consume, at the rate and of the substances they've spent the last 100+ years using. They don't want to change.

>>12245454
reductionist poltard, climate change didnt start 10 years ago with the industrialization of china

>>12251121
Oh and by the way I support the idea that human-caused global warming is for real, and see no reason why we don't do what it takes to mitigate and reverse the damage regardless of whether the theory is correct or not. We are wasteful, and we are using up things that were always limited resources in the first place, so why not arrange a controlled stoppage of the use of those things (fossil fuels) now, rather than have to do so in a panic when they're all gone?

>>12251092
>>12251098
We're quickly getting nowhere fast and we keep going back to the same fundamental issue - you don't understand what burden of proof is, so I'm gonna bounce. I'll just give one more piece of advice - having a "mountain of scientific evidence" doesn't matter if you can't substantiate that it's legitimate, which is part of your burden of proof. All the "evidence" in the world doesn't matter if you can't show that it's legitimate. So you haven't actually presented ANY evidence AT ALL because you refuse to LEGITIMIZE it in your own words. Okay, peace.

>>12251121
>would mean the eventual end of life on this planet.
No scientist or peer reviewed study supports the conclusion of human extinction. Stop fearmongering and getting in the way of actual progress on the issue.

>>12251062
>It's literally the definition of GWP, you massive retard
and the way they calculate it does not give a full picture on the actual affects. As I mentioned a million times the fact that water vapor is abundant in the atmosphere reduces the potential of methane being a green house gas. Nothing on that wikipedia article says they account for the effect of water vapor absorbing radiation which leaves little for methane to absorb.

>It doesn't, the only relevance CO2 has is as a comparative baseline. Stop talking out of your ass.
wrong! They account for co2 saturation but say nothing for water vapor saturation.

>Rate of decay affects GWP, it doesn't "adjust" it.
Literally the same thing. GWP is a calculation. They base it on relative radiation absorption and rate of decay. Rate of decay adjusts the final outcome. At this point you're just arguing on the basis of semantics.

>>12251042
>Do you literally think just linking a random website counts as "meeting" the burden of proof?
No, I think giving you exactly what you asked for meets the burden of proof.

>Why don't lawyers just throw books at jurors or judges?
Once again you defeat yourself with your own argument. A lawyer does not present scientific evidence, they have an expert witness do it for them. A lawyer does not ignore scientific evidence because it would take too long to read, they admit it into evidence and have the expert witness explain it. More importantly, I am neither a lawyer nor a politician, nor will I accept your pathetic excuses to deny the evidence given to you.

>You've already been dismissed multiple times.
You mean you've tried multiple times with these pathetic excuses and failed.

>Is this you?
I know English is not your strong suit but can you point out exactly where in this quote I said or implied anything about Berkeley Earth calling themselves an independent, unbiased third meaning that they are right? Seriously, how illiterate are you?

>Because the people who want to "prevent" climate change usually means they want to change and regulate my behavior when I inherently owe them nothing.
So you're going to deny reality because it's inconvenient for you? Do I need to say anything more? You've destroyed your own credibility far better than I could have. You've admitted the scientists are right and that you're just spouting sophistry.

>It might not be caused by man, it might be caused by volcanoes.
And Santa Claus might exist.

>The planet might also cool down in the future.
It definitely will, a few hundred years after we run out of fossil fuels.

>I could also say the planet warms up all the time - it's called a sunny day.
Which is weather, not climate. The problem is not simply that the planet warms up sometimes. The problem is that the planet is in a very rapid warming trend. If you're done with hackery I will be happy to educate you.

>>12251152
You'll note I said:
>the EVENTUAL end of life on this planet
I did not put that in a time context, so you can retract your claim that I'm spreading FUD.
FWIW I was thinking on the scale of milennia.
Humans will completely panic long before then, when things get inconvenient enough, and everyone will scurry around 'fixing' things at the last moment. That's the way shit generally works.

>>12251137
>We're quickly getting nowhere fast
Of course someone who never started moving would say that. I got somewhere, you didn't follow.

>you don't understand what burden of proof is
You're projecting.

>I'll just give one more piece of advice - having a "mountain of scientific evidence" doesn't matter if you can't substantiate that it's legitimate
It's peer reviewed and the state of the art in the field. The burden of proof is on you to show it's illegitimate. Welcome to the science board.

>All the "evidence" in the world doesn't matter if you can't show that it's legitimate.
You will never accept anything as legitimate because that's the only tactic you have. If you can't parse scientific evidence then get off the science board, you pathetic mongoloid.

>>12251177
>and the way they calculate it does not give a full picture on the actual affects.
How so? You clearly have no idea how they calculate it.

>As I mentioned a million times the fact that water vapor is abundant in the atmosphere reduces the potential of methane being a green house gas.
And as I mentioned every time you spouted this garbage, this is already taken into account in calculating the absorption in the atmosphere. Repeating irrelevancies over and over again doesn't somehow make them relevant.

>Nothing on that wikipedia article says they account for the effect of water vapor absorbing radiation which leaves little for methane to absorb.
It does in the first sentence, when it says GWP is the heat absorbed by any greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Does the wikipedia article have to state that the atmosphere is not a vacuum too? You're truly pathetic.

>wrong! They account for co2 saturation but say nothing for water vapor saturation.
WRONG! It says it accounts for both:

>A high GWP correlates with a large infrared absorption and a long atmospheric lifetime. The dependence of GWP on the wavelength of absorption is more complicated. Even if a gas absorbs radiation efficiently at a certain wavelength, this may not affect its GWP much if the atmosphere already absorbs most radiation at that wavelength. A gas has the most effect if it absorbs in a "window" of wavelengths where the atmosphere is fairly transparent. The dependence of GWP as a function of wavelength has been found empirically and published as a graph.

IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU DUMB LYING ASSHOLE, THE THING YOU'VE SAID THEY'VE IGNORED

Let's look at that again:

>Even if a gas absorbs radiation efficiently at a certain wavelength, this may not affect its GWP much if the atmosphere already absorbs most radiation at that wavelength.

>Literally the same thing.
Literally not, learn English.

>>12250808
>Even if a gas absorbs radiation efficiently at a certain wavelength, this may not affect its GWP much if the atmosphere already absorbs most radiation at that wavelength.

>>12250700
>>Even if a gas absorbs radiation efficiently at a certain wavelength, this may not affect its GWP much if the atmosphere already absorbs most radiation at that wavelength.

>>12250655
>>>Even if a gas absorbs radiation efficiently at a certain wavelength, this may not affect its GWP much if the atmosphere already absorbs most radiation at that wavelength.

>>12245413
For me it's the non-scientific way of discussion which global warming alarmists are using.
Just exactly the way it is with the pastors: you don't even need to know that their book is lying, because you can see clear as day that they are.

>>12251256
You really convinced me with that non-scientific way of discussion.

>>12249925
>"weather is climate"
>"it's logic 101"
At least you tried

>>12250011
The fictional character? Of course, he generates millions of dollars for businesses every winter. Did you ever learn the difference between weather and climate, or did you continue wasting your time with poor decisions?

>>12251546
>At least you tried
Prove to me Santa's secret base doesn't exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
read a book

>>12245454
>have you noticed how enviromentalists never talk about China or call for a boycott of chinese imports despite being the world's #1 polluter?
because they aren't retarded enough to do crash the world economy and recognize that technology starts watering down (no pun intended) from the west to the east. They are unironically more capitalist and western-centric than right wing conspiritards.

>>12247989
I'm assuming you posted this image because you agree more or less with its prediction? Disregarding entirely the effects of drastic negative GDP growth on the inhabitants of the modeled nations (which constitute the vast majority of the world population), you must realize that economic stagnation and regression of this kind has enormous knock-on effects to the rest of the world? Refugee crises that absolutely dwarf the current ones faced by the developed world, loss of entire markets and industries, the social unrest that will follow from these factors, etc. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.

>>12250126
>lmao John Costella took 14 years to get his PhD (in theoretical physics btw), has never taught as a professor at the university level, and is most well-known for his writings on the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination but thanks

>>12251561
That's like proving there's not an invisible elephant in your bathroom. There just isn't one, for any number of reasons that make the statement absurd.

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

I hope the irony of telling me to read a book when you don't understand the difference between "climate" and "weather", or even "philosophy" and "science", is not lost on you

>>12245695
Correct, and just like the creationist debates it brought out all subculture of retarded christians and athiests to repeat talking points that were already said by smarter individuals. Each camp ignoring the minutia of the others system, portraying each other as militant retards.

>>12245442
Thats the same kind of shit people say about being Republican.

>>12250770
Reading doesn’t seem to be your forte either

>>12250530
>Wikipedia is not a party at all, it is a collection of cited statements.

>>12251927
Shocking

>>12252137
Then please explain how your argument works.

>>12245645
I know but thats the important bit right. If i said CO2 doubling will cause a 8 degree increase in warming or a 0.8 increase in warming the fundamental mechanism is just that...global warming is an indirect effect of the gaseous composition of the atmosphere (plus other stuff). Obviously CO2 will warm the planet- but where it is in the atmosphere will affect how much warming occurs.

>>12245413
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2391

Its not refuting climate change- just the % of CO2 in circulation that has its origin in fossil fuels. This article argues, by ice core data, 14C concentrations etc that about 10% of the CO2 in our atmosphere has a fossil fuel basis- significantly less than the 40% reported by the IPCC. ie 75% of the carbon increase in the previous century was a natural result of the break from the mini ice age in 1700.

>>12252448
Learn what an argument is, weirdo. I'm not making an argument, I'm making fun of your faith.

>>12251128
Damn, it's our fault, looks like the right thing to do is to deindustrialize and let China take over the world.

>>12251208
USSR had science board verify Lysenkoism. Catholic church had priests verify Christs body is in fact there in the Eucharist. USA today has civil servants that believe the holiest of duties is to open the border with Mexico. People calling themselves right is not a standard- thats how peer review functionally works, its a club where you scratch backs to get into nature. That doesn't mean there isnt good science in 'peer reviewed journals', there was good science from the alchemist and biblical creationist Newton aswell.

Clubs tend to do things to advance the interest of the club/ group/ company/ peer review board...If science/ peer review is completely detatched from the power process this is not a problem. Hint- science, universities etc are the centre of political power in this regime (eg this is why all unis adopt the same positions, at the same time, and are generally indicative of the culture 30 years from now. What are common talking points today are just the 'hip' talking points of Brown/ Harvard/ Yale in the 80s)) (social justice, racism, socialist economy...). There is no internal mechanism by which this power checks itself (maybe not in the hard, non statistical sciences- but the soviet union also had very good chemists and rocket engineers). Maybe all these institutions have a very cool intrinsic collective wisdom and just know what needs doing (shut down STEM anyone?), then again...maybe not.

>>12252479
Then explain the isotope ratios

>>12252474
>Obviously CO2 will warm the planet- but where it is in the atmosphere will affect how much warming occurs.
The atmosphere is well mixed, CO2 is everywhere in the atmosphere. And this is irrelevant anyway since radiative forcing is measured directly.

>>12252479
>Its not refuting climate change- just the % of CO2 in circulation that has its origin in fossil fuels.
It doesn't refute anything. The author confuses CO2 emitted by man with CO2 emitted *due to* man. Since warming caused by man-made emissions produces warming and warming causes CO2 to outgas from the oceans, not all CO2 in the atmosphere caused by man is emitted by man. Yet he argued as if only CO2 derived from fossil fuels can be blamed on man. He also ignores that the climate should be slowly cooling and the environment should be absorbing more CO2 than it emits according to the Milankovich cycle, and posits some unexplained natural warming with no evidence.

>>12252490
Please explain how espousing accepted scientific facts is making fun of them.

>>12253240
English clearly isn't your first language. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you.

>>12253522
You lose.

>>12253821
Oh fun, let's see how many more quips and drollities you can come up with.

>>12252514
>USSR had science board verify Lysenkoism
How do you know Lysenkoism is wrong? The problem with never actually presenting any substantive argument is that you can apply your arbitrary dismissals to anything. It's a useless dismissal because it's nonselective.

>People calling themselves right is not a standard- thats how peer review functionally works, its a club where you scratch backs to get into nature.
Nice conspiracy theist, it's a shame you have no evidence for it and peer reviewed science keeps working regardless of your baseless opinion. Even you rely on it, hypocrite.

>That doesn't mean there isnt good science in 'peer reviewed journals',
So what is good science? What are the standards? Oh it's just whatever doesn't conflict with your political ideology. You are a dumb hack, you've admitted the science is right and that you are arguing dishonestly. So what else is there to discuss? No one cares about your conspiracy theories, which you probably don't even believe yourself.

Climate change happens, does not need to be refuted.

What I refute is "omg apocalypse is upon us, you have to vote this and political guy that will solve it". Fuck you.

Climate change happens, and its a good thing, warmer earth, entering new waters - going where no body has gone before.

It will never be apocalypse for all life on earth or even for majority of humans. Maybe disaster on the scale of a world war, still OK.

Extinction level events, humans have been doing that for past 11 000 years. None of the alarmists climate change fuckers would ask for return to HunterGatherer nomad lifestyle and ditch agriculture. Since its not such a huge change and disaster.

I refuse to believe humans of any kind on local or global power can influence their environment by their free will alone. They influence it like a wasp is influencing a bee hive, its just programmed to do it. Political wills always end up wrong compared to what was talked and promised. See Communism, capitalism, or any other political party.

>>12256049
>Climate change happens, and its a good thing
Source?

>Maybe disaster on the scale of a world war, still OK.
You don't mind if I punch you in the face right? You'll survive, so it's OK.

>Extinction level events, humans have been doing that for past 11 000 years
And that somehow makes global warming OK? How?

>Since its not such a huge change and disaster.
Source?

>I refuse to believe humans of any kind on local or global power can influence their environment by their free will alone.
Who said anything about free will? It's irrelevant.

>>12256341
>Source?
You don't believe the climate changes? Lmao.

>You don't mind if I punch you in the face right? You'll survive, so it's OK.
There, there, sweetie. Show us on the doll where the climate punched you.

>And that somehow makes global warming OK? How?
I see. Just a wild guess, but I'm guessing you're the same poster who has been continuously mocked, all thread long, for poor logic and reading comprehension.

>Source?
Source?

>Who said anything about free will? It's irrelevant.
Holy shit you're dumb. If there's no free will to alter our behavior, what's the point of complaining about climate change in the first place? Are you just whining for the sake of whining? Lmao, dumb motherfucker.

>>12256360
>You don't believe the climate changes?
That's not what I asked for a source on.

>There, there, sweetie.
So you don't mind?

>Just a wild guess, but I'm guessing you're the same poster who has been continuously mocked, all thread long, for poor logic and reading comprehension.
Can you give an example of my poor logic and reading comprehension?

>Source?
Of what?

>If there's no free will to alter our behavior, what's the point of complaining about climate change in the first place?
Holy shit you're dumb. If there's no free will then whatever people do has to be done, including complaining about climate change. But that doesn't affect lines of thought being logical or illogical. Now answer the question.

No evidence for your claims and can't even answer simple questions, typical retard.

>>12256395
>Can you give an example of my poor logic and reading comprehension?
>>12256395
>>12256341

>Now answer the question.
Try writing a question that makes sense and follows logically from the quotes you're replying to. I bet you'd get better answers.

>>12256395
>>12256360
>>12256341

The question is, in your calculation of the future (what you expect tomorrow to be like) how many "tomorrows" are you counting? 1? 10? 10^10?

I think you're retarded, but let's find out.

>>12256416
>1? 10? 10^10?
Your question doesn't even make sense. It's like asking "when you calculate the alphabet, do you count A? D? P?"

Can you write even one single question that isn't completely dumb and illogical?

>>12256412
Can you give an example of my poor logic and reading comprehension?

>Try writing a question that makes sense and follows logically from the quotes you're replying to. I bet you'd get better answers.
You can't even explain what's wrong with the questions, nice cope.

Retarded deniers immediately resort to substanceless shitposting whenever their bizarre claims and fallacious reasoning get questioned. The more you question them, the more vague they get. It's really quite pathetic.

>>12256460
I just explained, dumbfuck.>>12256450
Are you having internet problems?

You can't even write one single question that makes sense, can you?

I'm not this guy, by the way.>>12256049
The only one of us who is making bizarre and illogical statements is you. If you don't want to be called out on the dumb shit you post, don't post in public. Fucking imbecile.

The problem with this retard is that there is an expectation that the surface of the Earth can remain static into the future.

Because this is not going to happen, climate change is inevitable. Therefore, talking about climate change in the negative or pejorative is a waste of energy.

The best way to fight climate change is to kill yourself. It is the only non-hypocritical way to lower the future entropy of the Earth's surface.

Thus, "how many 'tomorrows' are you counting on". If you want to maximize the number of tomorrows for everyone, you need to reduce the number of tomorrows for yourself. KILL YOURSELF IMMEDIATELY.

>>12256463
>I just explained, dumbfuck.>>12256450 #
That's not me, retard. Try again.

>>12256471
No one even knows who you're replying to. Fucking imbecile.

>>12256527
>>12256523
I reply to the posts I quote. If you don't even understand how that works, it's no wonder you can't write out a single coherent question.

>>12256492
>The problem with this retard is that there is an expectation that the surface of the Earth can remain static into the future.
No there isn't. Try a diffrent strawman.

>Because this is not going to happen, climate change is inevitable. Therefore, talking about climate change in the negative or pejorative is a waste of energy.
This is just illogical nonsense. Not all climate changes are the same. Saying climate change is inevitable doesn't tell us what effects are inevitable. It's pure equivocation.

>The best way to fight climate change is to kill yourself.
Killing you would be better. We would be increasing global average IQ as well, two birds with one stone.

>If you want to maximize the number of tomorrows for everyone, you need to reduce the number of tomorrows for yourself.
It's not a matter of maximizing time, it's a matter of mitigating damage optimally.

>KILL YOURSELF IMMEDIATELY.
Sure, right after you.

>>12246999
It is not a whataboutism in that case but only point out an important action the US could take against climate change

>>12256541
You replied to my post and then gave another poster's post as an example of you explaining what's wrong with my questions. You fucking retard. And now instead of admitting the mistake and moving on you're going to double down and make a fool of yourself.

>>12256548
Even if it were whataboutism, what even is the problem with whataboutism?

>>12256543

Your denial of thermodynamics impresses me.

>Killing you would be better

Yes, yes it would! Come find me and murder me, and I won't call you a hypocrite.

>Sure, right after you.

But I want Earth's climate to change, so...no? You have to kill *yourself* or murder *others* to stop climate change. Achieving equilibrium is the only way to stop "stuff" from "happening", so you cannot allow living things to fuck with that equilibrium. Otherwise it's a non-equilibrium state, which implies change.

Are you retarded? Do you understand stuff?

Still think you should kill yourself, but murdering others does achieve the same effect. Hi, NSA.

>>12256553
>explaining what's wrong with my questions
Do you even know what a question is? So far everything you claim to have written in a statement, not a question. You sound like you're even dumber than the first guy, which is quite an achievement.

>>12256553
Do you even know what a question is? So far everything you claim to have written is a statement, not a question. You sound like you're even dumber than the first guy, which is quite an achievement.

What can I do to help stop climate change? Please don't spoon me bullshit like eating onions. I mean actually actionable things that will make an impact instead of trying to put out a fire with a squirt gun. Thanks.

>>12256598
>this heat wave is norma-
Seriously though. What the fuck is up with Europeans destroying the planet with carbon warming, and how can we stop them?

I suggest missile strikes on all their major manufacturing plants, and higher gas taxes enforced by NATO.

>>12256561
>Your denial of thermodynamics impresses me.
How did I deny thermodynamics?

>You have to kill *yourself* or murder *others* to stop climate change.
I'm not trying to stop climate change, I'm trying to mitigate damage. The idea that either all climate change must be stopped or all climate change must continue is nothing but a pathetic strawman.

>Achieving equilibrium is the only way to stop "stuff" from "happening"
More idiotic nonsense. When the climate warms it stops getting colder, and vice versa. The climate doesn't have to stop changing in order for it to stop doing a specific thing.

Also, the climate is never in equilibrium but it can reach a steady state. Fucking retard.

>>12256586
>Do you even know what a question is?
Yes, can you answer a simple question without this pathetic stalling?

>So far everything you claim to have written is a statement, not a question.
Learn how to read, retard. I'll help you out, the squiggly lines with the dots on the bottom mark questions in these posts:

>>12256341
>>12256395
>>12256460

>>12256598
Vote for Biden

>>12256598
>I mean actually actionable things that will make an impact instead of trying to put out a fire with a squirt gun
Any individual action is like trying to put out a fire with a squirt gun. It basically boils down to reducing your emissions and non-recyclable/compostable trash. You can reduce emissions by switching to an electric vehicle or public transportation, installing solar/wind and 12 hours of storage, buying products that are more permanent or require less energy to produce, or sequestering carbon by using charcoal as a soil amendment. The goal with your trash is to ensure that as much metal and plastic is recycled as possible and to compost most of the rest.

>>12256785
I'm still waiting for you to write a logical question, you illiterate ass.
>can you answer a simple question without this pathetic stalling?This is just rhetorical nonsense. Adding an interrogation mark to a line of nonsense doesn't magically turn it into a logical question.

>>12256785
I'm still waiting for you to write a logical question, you illiterate ass.
>can you answer a simple question without this pathetic stalling?
This is just rhetorical nonsense. Adding an interrogation mark to a line of nonsense doesn't magically turn it into a logical question.

>>12256829
What's your take on the argument that the energy used to create the electric vehicle offsets the reduction in emissions

>>12256761

Eh. All polar bears are going to eventually go extinct and there's nothing you can do about it.

You see, you're the kind of retard that looks at the fossil record and doesn't have an existential crisis because he doesn't understand what he's really looking at.

Eventually, your body will achieve equilibrium with the local environment, and when that happens your stupid thoughts will no longer be. Such knowledge calms me.

Mitigate away, boyo

>>12256851
It's not an argument since it's clearly false.

>>12256863
How is it clearly false?

>>12256865
it's wrong? electric vehicles require less co2 in their lifetimes than a internal combustion car.

>>12256851
Irrelevant. They have easily double or triple the energy efficiency of ICE vehicles and the emissions are easier to clean, sequester, or offset because they come from a few large power plants instead of a million tiny engines. Plus as the technology matures the energy required to produce them will decrease or their lifespan will increase, and as power generation is replaced by renewables/nuclear the energy required to produce them will be cleaner and less impactful.

To my mind the best argument against getting an electric vehicle is the price and the fact that most people cannot install a charging station where they live, either because they're a renter or have a restrictive HOA.

>>12256867
the argument is that the components of the electric car such as the rechargeable battery are more environmentally costly to create than in a standard car. Electric vehicles require less hydrocarbons internally but they require more hydrocarbons from the electric grid than a regular car does.
>>12256873
decent counterargument although it relies heavily on predictions about future technology rather than what currently exists

>>12256885
Yes I can read, and the argument is wrong because it's false. Electric vehicles require massively less co2 to move a mile even if all of the energy in the grid was made with fossil fuels (which it's not)
Please stop pretending to be retarded.

>>12256889
are you disagreeing that the manufacturing process for electric vehicles is more environmentally harmful than the manufacturing process for normiecars?

>>12256885
>relies heavily on predictions about future technology
It really doesn't. Cleaning power plant emissions has been around for decades and in some places is required and they're already better than ICEs. Besides that, electric vehicles use the same energy source as the grid. Change the proportions of power sources feeding the grid and you change the fuel that electric vehicles use. You could covert a city full of EVs to use nuclear just by building a nuclear power plant, doing the same with ICEs would be impossible or incredibly expensive.

>>12256899
I'm disagreeing with what you actually wrote.
Electric vehicles reduce co2 emissions full stop. Stop pretending to be retarded.

>>12256899
>>12256904
Neither of you are the prettiest. ICEs can produce more toxic waste in their manufacture and still produce less CO2 in their lifetime. Of course, producing fossil fuels also produces quite a bit of toxic waste and I've never seen the figures compared when this claim comes up.

>>12256904
Source?
>>12256889
Source?

>>12256917
>ICEs
I mean EVs

>>12256845
>I'm still waiting for you to write a logical question
There are several in the posts I showed you. Do you still not know what a question is?

>This is just rhetorical nonsense.
Explain how anything I wrote is nonsense.

Every post is just a continuation of the retarded denier method of argument I described here. >>12256460

>>12256930
You can compare the energy efficiency for yourself by comparing the range divided by the battery capacity of an EV to the mpg divided by the energy density of gasoline or diesel of an ICE. The EV should be 2-3 times as efficient in pretty much every case. I'm sure there's studies comparing them in more depth, but I'm not the one who made the claim and those studies should be really easy to find with a google search. Plus it's better to do math for yourself when you can.

>>12256904
>the argument is that the components of the electric car such as the rechargeable battery are more environmentally costly to create than in a standard car.
you are disagreeing with this?

>>12256947
>Do you still not know what a question is?
This is more rhetorical nonsense, not a logical question. You're not really asking anything.

Will you ever reply directly with a real question before the thread archives? I'm guessing you're afraid to, but I can't figure out why. Imposter syndrome?

>>12256862
>Eh. All polar bears are going to eventually go extinct and there's nothing you can do about it.
Maybe, what is your point?

>You see, you're the kind of retard that looks at the fossil record and doesn't have an existential crisis because he doesn't understand what he's really looking at.
Please explain what I'm looking at.

>>12256971
>This is more rhetorical nonsense, not a logical question.
The logical questions are in the posts I showed you. Rhetorical questions are not nonsense, they are a reasons to the utter lack of substance in your posts and your failure to accurately describe mine.

>Will you ever reply directly with a real question before the thread archives?
I have, will you ever respond to them?

>>12257087
No, you still haven't. Go ahead and reply to this post with one logical question that follows from anything I've said. If you've already written a bunch, it should be easy to cut and paste one of them. 5 seconds max?

>>12257137
>Go ahead and reply to this post with one logical question that follows from anything I've said.
I already gave you the questions I asked and you're completely ignoring them because you have no answer. You just make shit up and immediately fail to justify your claims when asked simple questions.

>If you've already written a bunch, it should be easy to cut and paste one of them.
You'll just ignore them again but here they are:

>>Climate change happens, and its a good thing
>Source?

>>Extinction level events, humans have been doing that for past 11 000 years
>And that somehow makes global warming OK? How?

>>Since its not such a huge change and disaster.
>Source?

>>I refuse to believe humans of any kind on local or global power can influence their environment by their free will alone.
>Who said anything about free will? It's irrelevant.

>>Just a wild guess, but I'm guessing you're the same poster who has been continuously mocked, all thread long, for poor logic and reading comprehension.
>Can you give an example of my poor logic and reading comprehension?

>>Source?
>Of what?

>>12257466
>Source?
Your idea of a logical question is asking for a "source" for someone's claim that climate change happens and/or that it's a good thing?

That's not a logical question, that's one of the dumbest nonsense questions I've ever seen. Whether something is good or bad is a subjective opinion—i.e., someone talking out of their ass—it's not "sourceable." And the only other possible interpretation of your question is that you're asking for a "source" to prove that climate change happens. Fucking idiot.

>>12245560
>cite a study
study is not evidence. The books I grew up with in elementary and high school predicted that in the year 2020, my whole city would be under water. There were pannels in national parks that claimed that in the year 2020, the whole park would turn into a desert, the ice would melt, or other bs like that. 2020 came and none of those predictions happened. All those books cited studies as well, all were wrong. And this isn't the first time. In the 1970s, it was the end of the world in the 1990s. in the 1980s, it became the 2000s. in the 1990s, it became 2010s, in the year 2000, it became 2020. Now in 2020, it's 2040, see the pattern? We're constantly 10-20 years away from irreversible damage due to climate change, the same way that Iran is 6 monts-2 years away from nukes since the 1980s. It's all BS.

>>12257508
>Your idea of a logical question is asking for a "source" for someone's claim that climate change happens and/or that it's a good thing?
Yes, how is that an illogical question?

>Whether something is good or bad is a subjective opinion
Are you saying your subjective opinion has no factual support? OK, then it's useless.

>>12257596
>study is not evidence
It is not only evidence, it's the best evidence one can get. Get off the science board if you can't handle reality.

>The books I grew up with in elementary and high school predicted that in the year 2020, my whole city would be under water.
I doubt it, but how does this support your claim that a scientific study is not evidence?

>There were pannels in national parks that claimed that in the year 2020, the whole park would turn into a desert, the ice would melt, or other bs like that.
I doubt it, but how does this support your claim that a scientific study is not evidence?

>All those books cited studies as well, all were wrong.
Which books and what studies did they cite? This would be very interesting to know. Of course, it would also be very interesting if you were just making shit up.

>In the 1970s, it was the end of the world in the 1990s. in the 1980s, it became the 2000s. in the 1990s, it became 2010s, in the year 2000, it became 2020. Now in 2020, it's 2040, see the pattern?
In order to see the pattern you would have to first show that what you're taking about exists.

>>12257914
>Yes, how is that an illogical question?
Because whether something is good or bad is a subjective opinion—i.e., someone talking out of their ass—it's not "sourceable." And the only other possible interpretation of your question is that you're asking for a "source" to prove that climate change happens. Fucking idiot.

>Are you saying your subjective opinion has no factual support? OK, then it's useless.
It’s not my subjective opinion, and yes, it’s a useless opinion. That doesn’t change the fact that your follow-up question is even dumber and more illogical than the opinion itself.

>>12258066
>Because whether something is good or bad is a subjective opinion—i.e., someone talking out of their ass—it's not "sourceable."
I can give you plenty of evidence that it will be harmful, but you won't give me any evidence that it's beneficial. These are not simply matters of opinion, you're just being obtuse.

>It’s not my subjective opinion
Then why are you responding to my post?

>That doesn’t change the fact that your follow-up question is even dumber and more illogical than the opinion itself.
Is that a "subjective opinion" too or are you going to make an actual argument?

>>12258148
>Then why are you responding to my post?
Because you're dumb and obnoxious. You accuse others of not making a proper argument while not making a proper argument yourself. If you were just dumb, I wouldn't feel compelled to pick on you.

>>12251242
>>12251245
>>12251250
That totally agrees with my argument that methane is not a potent greenhouse gas. The presence of water vapor in the atmosphere completely saturates the bands of radiation which methane can absorb which means. It can only have a gwp of 80 or whatever it was if you do not account for water vapor.

>>12251121
>eventual end of life on this planet

fucking kek
humans will die out but earth will very much be full of life
look at the temperature and CO2 levels during the prehistoric era

jfl this board is schizo as fuck when it comes to climate change
the solution is to master fusion energy and only use fossil fuels to launch shit into space until you figure out how to make fusion engines, then stop those africans and indians from breeding so much and within a century everything will be okay again

fuck you faggots

>>12258482
It literally says the opposite, retard