/sci/ - Science & Math

Here's how it works. You can have oscillatory behavior with error bands, yet still have a constant, predictable growth.

>>12714465
Yes. Weather is chaotic, determined primarily by turbulent movement of energy in the atmosphere and oceans. Long term climate is not chaotic, determined primarily by how much energy there is in the atmosphere and oceans, not how it moves.

>>12714487
prove that weather operates like this

>>12714487
the graph actually refutes your point

>>12714524
What do mean prove? It's trivial. Just look at global temperatures. The global heating of Earth is simply irrefutable.

>>12714465
I'm at Texas A&M and I've had maybe 6 hours of power in the past 2 days. Miserable here bros

>>12714532
>thinking temperature is only caused by CO2 concentration
NGMI

>>12714566
A causes B isn't a claim that ONLY A causes B. Let's try a simple analogy that your brainlet mind can comprehend.
>Guns cause murder
To which you claim
>Lel you think only guns cause murder, NGMI.
Obviously you can murder with other tools, but when you look at the stats, guns are overwhelming the most common tool to use for murder. Likewise, CO2 is the strongest influence on global warming. Yes, other stuff contributes, but not as much as CO2.

>>12714465
California was settled during the wettest period in the last few thousand years, for most of California's history it has been a desert. Because California is no longer in the extreme wet period which was a very rare period for California, there are more forest fires as it goes back to it's natural state of being a fucking DESERT.

People are afraid of this and blaming anything EXCEPT for weather cycles that exist on a much larger time scale.

>>12714465
Long term trends are often far more predictable than short term changes. The Kali Yuga cycle of human societies is more predictable than short term politics. Approximating the outcome of 1000 coin flips is more predictable than the outcome of 10. So true is it for the weather that short term weather interactions are much harder to account for than long term trends.

>>12714631
>Because California is no longer in the extreme wet period which was a very rare period for California, there are more forest fires as it goes back to it's natural state of being a fucking DESERT.
But that's wrong, retard. Precipitation hasn't decreased, the temperature has increased.

>People are afraid of this and blaming anything EXCEPT for weather cycles that exist on a much larger time scale.
Which "weather cycle" explains why the Earth is warming?

>>12714778
He's right. I dont have the graph but long term the 1900s was an atypically wet period in the western us. There have been 30 to 70 year droughts in california that make the dust bowl look like peanuts.

>>12714515
>Long term climate is not chaotic

Imagine believing this.

>>12714639
>Approximating the outcome of 1000 coin flips is more predictable than the outcome of 10

See, but that's only true because each coin flip is independent of the previous coin flips. Climate does not have the same property. Each year's climate effects plant growth, which effects CO2 trapping and sunlight trapping, which effects...

The system has an incredible number of variables and feedback loops. CO2 accelerates plant growth.

>>12714778
>Precipitation hasn't decreased

But that's wrong you retard. They're in a 'drought' (typical rainfall for California over the last two millennia).

>>12714631
The funniest thing about all of this is the government at Lake Tahoe has been pumping out videos for decades documenting the overgrowth taking place due to the prevention of natural fires. The current density of vegetation is completely unnatural and a direct result of no controlled burns and population growth.

>>12714602
How much does CO2 contribute?

>>12714566
yeah methane gets no attention. I support lab meat.

>>12714465
Chaos theory.

>>12714778
I live in Southern California and the rain has noticeably decreased in the past 15 years

>>12714465
like in Las Vegas, roulette's individual spins are hard to predict, but the long-term averages are so predictable that an industry is founded around it.
Weather =/= Climate

>>12715032
>Living in socal
You are an abomination on this earth that should never have existed to begin with.

Kindly,
The rest of California.

>>12714991
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/why-does-co2-get-more-attention-other-gases

>>12715039
ty for your contribution

>>12714778
You just did a lie

>>12714465
Local temperature and global temperature are not the same thing. Look at a map of the arctic and it is way warmer than it has been before. It just so happens that the wind pulled some air from there and put it here.

>>12715109
>i have no argument

>>12715114
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N1/C1.php

Weather has patterns that occur over large time scales and people managed to populate California when it was favorable and it's no longer favorable and you're at the mercy of these longer term cycles deal with it kid

>>12714532
>global temperature anomaly
I'm really skeptical that we have enough data in all those places to go that far back. If you want to argue that co2 is bad, the consequences of lower ph in bodies of water is way less speculative. Global warming is meme and I dont care whether its real or not anymore.

>>12715157
>I dont care whether its real or not anymore.
Great, get the fuck out then.

>>12714465
>don't know what the weather will be
>do know that it will either be average, warmer than average, or colder than average
>if you say its warmer than average, then even if the weather turns out average, no one will notice and you get to promote the idea of (((climate change)))

>>12715161
I will, but I'm curious what defense there is for that early data. Whats the source of this graph?

>>12714465
>that red spot over texas
OH NO NO NO

>>12715168
Thermometers were invented in 1800s. Temperature data has been taken since before 1900.

>>12715168
https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

>>12715276
Imagine thinking that Michael Faraday recording temperatures on his lab window in 1800 is some sort of accurate global temperature study
Likely there were no global studies until the 1960s and even these took decades to work out the kinks, like many weather stations were built in airports and universities. The levels of accuracy currently needed are in the order of fractions of a degree, you cannot trust that some explorer recorded temperatures in central rwanda within 0.1 degrees back in 1920.

>>12714532

A five-year-old could draw a better trend line than that.

A reminder that climate change theory is literally unfalsifiable
>it's warm today
>see, we told you! it's global warming!
>it's cold today
>see, we told you! it's... umm... a consequence of global warming!
>it's just normal weather
>two consequences of global warming cancelled each other!

>>12714465
>Observing what actually happens
>Not repeating the blind and deaf mantra of the globalist priests
Wow I bet you're a triple nazi white supremacist racist shitlord xenophobian!

>>12714487
You get, what your argument boils down too? If I zoom out enough it’s all a flat line. If you can’t model it for the next year you won’t be able to model it for the next fifty. Arbitrary trend lines or corridors don’t mean anything, if there is no predictive value to them.

>>12715526
>Here's a very biased blog
Sorry but all the arguments from that outdated place is debunked at the following url: >>12714465

>>12714566
0.5ml of crude has been deposited to your barrel

>>12715032
Yeah, your state's getting hit hard by global warming, and a population that's generally just way above the land's natural carrying capacity.

But hey it snowed in Texas so I guess California isn't running out of water anymore.

>>12714465
It's going to be hotter in summmer but I have no idea what tomorrow is going to be like.
Long term predictions are often easier.

>>12714916
You don't have the graph because no such data exists. Precipitation records only began around 1900. California is not "going back to being a desert." Precipitation has been largely constant for 120 years while temperature has increased. Something which doesn't exist cannot be a cause of anything.

>>12715133
sure bud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_wildfires#Largest_wildfires

>>12714919
>no argument
Imagine posting this.

>>12715796
awww, it's retarded
the arctic warmth more than overcomes the cold snap

>>12714931
>See, but that's only true because each coin flip is independent of the previous coin flips.
We're not predicting each coin flip, we're predicting the trend. The individual events do not have to be independent to form a limit behavior.

>Each year's climate effects plant growth, which effects CO2 trapping and sunlight trapping, which effects...
Are you trying to imply feedback loops are chaotic?

>The system has an incredible number of variables and feedback loops.
Right, but most variables are not actually relevant.

>CO2 accelerates plant growth.
OK, and?

>>12714602
>Obviously you can murder with other tools, but when you look at the stats, guns are overwhelming the most common tool to use for murder.
Not really, that's an America-only thing and IIRC they count suicides into that statistic so it may noy even be the most common.

>>12715908
>literally the same shit they pulled in the election
Fool me once, shame on you and all that.

>>12714936
Drought trends in California are caused by the snowpack melting too quickly which causes the state to run out of water. Precipitation has been stable for 120 years.

>>12714991

>>12715032
2013 was a particularly bad year, that's about it. See >>12715957

>>12715954
Still no argument. Try again.

>California drying up(deserving it)
OMG IT'S A GLOBAL DROUGHT!
Lets make local energy very expensive, that'll fix the global problem and give us water
>Texas snowing in
This is just weather.

I'd try to change peoples mind but california dying is never a bad thing so I support a 100% solar powered (attempted) grid for them.

>>12715988
>he said
>while Texas has no power

>>12715133
Your source is a bunch of nonsense. It immediately starts with a giant fallacious argument:

>Was there a Medieval Warm Period anywhere in addition to the area surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean, where its occurrence is uncontested? This question is of utmost importance to the ongoing global warming debate, since if there was, and if the locations where it occurred were as warm then as they are currently, there is no need to consider the temperature increase of the past century or more as anything other than the natural progression of the persistent millennial-scale oscillation of climate that regularly brings the earth several-hundred-year periods of modestly higher temperatures (such as the Medieval Warm Period) and lower temperatures (such as the Little Ice Age) that are unrelated to variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Simply saying that it was warm in the past doesn't somehow invalidate observed warming from CO2 now. If X was caused by Y in the past does that mean there is no need to consider other causes when X occurs again? Even if we also see X being caused by Z in other instances? Are the authors mentally ill?

>Weather has patterns that occur over large time scales
That's called climate.

>people managed to populate California when it was favorable and it's no longer favorable
The question is, why is it unfavorable?

>you're at the mercy of these longer term cycles
Which cycle is causing global warming? I asked this before but no answer was given.

>>12715157
>I'm really skeptical that we have enough data in all those places to go that far back.
So were scientists, they figured out that we do have enough data.

>>12715167
That's an interesting story you made up, but unfortunately for you the average temperature is rapidly increasing.

>>12715766
>weather = climate
Oh no... it's retarded.

Weather over the long term, i.e. the climate, is getting warmer.

>>12715717
>trend line
Typical /pol/tard can't read a graph

>>12715795
>If I zoom out enough it’s all a flat line.
And?

>If you can’t model it for the next year you won’t be able to model it for the next fifty.
You don't understand how timescales work. He's not saying that you can predict specific events farther in the future, he's saying you can predict long term trends.

>>12715796
Not an argument. Try again.

>>12716041
Climate science is politics, everything is an argument.
And because it's politics we know that it's inherently false and just serves someones walled.
QED climate is weather and not real.

>>12716046
>Climate science is politics
You mean your baseless denial of climate science is political.

>everything is an argument.
You're confusing disagreement with argument. You state your disagreement but have no argument to convince anyone you're correct. Because you're incorrect.

>climate is weather
No, it's the long term average of weather. Read a book.

>>12716064
You're so convinced that everything you believe (which is basically just what other people have told you), that you actually don't need anybody to converse with. It seems to be enough for you to have people around you who think exactly the same as you and it seems obvious that this is the wrong place, so i'm wondering why you're still here trying to convince people of something that they don't believe in the first place? Other than that you wouldn't let yourself be convinced of evidence contrary to your believes anyway so any discussion of that matter seem pretty pointless, don't you think?
And if you're seeking admiration or confirmation, why don't you talk to people with the same mindset that you have?
You're not here to argue scientifically, you just wanna tell people that you're right and they're wrong - and that's the kind of discussion they're having over at /b or /pol, but certainly not here.

>>12716064
Not an argument. Try again.

>>12716104
Argument was already given, you failed to respond to it.

>>12716208
Still not an argument, try again

>>12715798
>he thinks the elites support oil with all the electric shilling there is

>>12715717
It's not a trendline. It plots two different phenomena. Early on CO2 and global temperature appear uncorrelated. Once there's a rapid spike in temperature, it perfectly correlates with CO2.

>>12714919
>Long term weather is chaotic
Excellent. So I hope you plan to have a blizzard in July! What's that, you don't expect that? Why not?

>>12715663
>Likely there were no global studies until the 1960s
Wrong. There were global studies circa 1870. Your strawman about Faraday at a window is a fabrication. The point about the invention of thermometers (which occurred decades before global temperature recording) was that tools existed to measure temperature. Have you heard of boats? They measured temperature during international boat trips, during travels, mailed each other findings, and pieced together global temperature records. They're reliable too. Stop talking out of your ass.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

>>12715908
Look. Global warming is irrefutable, but you faggots really need to stop posting shit charts like that. Firstly the temperature data isn't really reliable back before 1800. Secondly, I've circled where the data actually ends. While it's a scary trend, you can't just extrapolate that a 100 years into the future. It's fear mongering. Even I, someone who believes global warming is undeniably true, cannot help but get pissed off at that bullshit plot. Cut that shit out, it's only hurting your case.

>>12714465
>>12716265 >>12716251 >>12716251 >>12716237 >>12716230 >>12716230

Gretatards: "REEE THE PLANET IS GETTING WARMER, IF WE DON'T EAT THE BUGS TEXAS WILL BE A BURNING SAHARA DESERT BY 2020!!!!!"

*Texas freezes*

Gretatards: "ACHSHHUALLY IT'S NOW CALLED CLIMATE CHANGE".

>>12714465
As time passes, I've got a growing suspicion that antivaxxers, climate change deniers, etc. know they're full of shit and are just misanthropes using the opportunity to do harm to humanity. There's no way all of this is sincere.

>>12716251
Suuuuuree... data from some british boat with a crew of 11 year old orphans on a random sea route on a random day is our source for ancestral average global temperatures, accurate to 0.1 degrees and extrapolable to all seas, atmosphere, land and underwater, global average. And this information was all compiled and crosslinked by the UN in 1870, of course, very accurate.

>>12716489
>doesn't know what he's talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meteorological_Organization

>>12715908

>>12716093
You're so convinced that everything you believe (which is basically just what other people have told you), that you actually don't need anybody to converse with. It seems to be enough for you to have people around you who think exactly the same as you and it seems obvious that this is the wrong place, so i'm wondering why you're still here trying to convince people of something that they don't believe in the first place? Other than that you wouldn't let yourself be convinced of evidence contrary to your believes anyway so any discussion of that matter seem pretty pointless, don't you think?
And if you're seeking admiration or confirmation, why don't you talk to people with the same mindset that you have?
You're not here to argue scientifically, you just wanna tell people that you're right and they're wrong - and that's the kind of discussion they're having over at /b or /pol, but certainly not here.

>>12716220
See >>12716208

The state of this board is aids. It's all race and iq, covid deniers, and global warming deniers. It's basically x now. And x has turned into a Christian circle jerk lately.

>>12716626
/thread

>>12716265
>Firstly the temperature data isn't really reliable back before 1800.
The paleo record is reliable.

>Secondly, I've circled where the data actually ends. While it's a scary trend, you can't just extrapolate that a 100 years into the future.
It's not an extrapolation of any trend, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. It's a projection based on a physical model.

>It's fear mongering.
No.

>>12716626
>cherrypicking
How?

>adjusted to show acceleration
False. Pic related.

>projection has much higher rate than temperature record
Doesn't match the graph I posted.

You're pathetic.

>>12716562
And this organization had a global scope and could measure temperatures in central Rwanda with 0.1 degrees of accuracy from a boat manned by 11 year old orphans on the indian ocean controlled from the London office. But of course, the elegant London offices makes it make sense.

>>12716903
>Paleo reliable
What experiments have supported experimental proof of this? Have you ever built an earth and measured the temperatures for a million years and correlated that with geological samples?

>>12715954
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again

>>12717092
See >>12716007

>>12717112
>experimental proof is the only way to prove something

>>12717191
See >>12716626

>>12717234
sorry but whining isn't an argument, if you want to actually prove any of your claims go for it.

>>12717222
The scientific method works with experiments. Whatever non-experimental alternative you have is not scientific. Thats ok, no everything has to be science.

>>12717254
damn we found an actual 8 year old.

>>12717135
better than Biden's speech.

>>12717263
Im 40, and my age is not an argument. Experimentation is a central part of the scientific method, otherwise there is only rethoric. This is a tradition that dates to Galileo.

>>12717239
My claims have never been refuted whereas yours are old repetitions of what were debunked when your parents were young.

>>12717263
An 8 year old debunked your computer models?
Ouch

>>12716626
>my out of ass pulled image without coherent logic has the same value as the one from those damn scientist

>>12717369
NOOO! PLEASE RESPECT MY COMPUTER SIMULATION!!

>>12717342
debunking requires something of substance, whining doesn't cut it even if it works on your mom

>>12717378

please respect my rejection of computer simulations because I don't like them

>>12717339
>temperature reconstructions are cherrypicked
source?
>tempurature reconstructions are 'adjusted to show acceleration'
source?
>climate models haven't proven extremely accurate and in fact have a track record of understating warming
source?
your claims don't even have anything to debunk it's just baseless namecalling.

>>12717404
This is not my first rodeo. You shills eventually show your true form and outright reject science. You are basically saying "my intellectual prowess is enough, i dont need to test anything im sure my thinking is correct, Aristotle was right"

>>12714532
Prove that the data isn't totally fabricated lol.

>>12717378
>model that is fed with actual data =/= model fed with memes from retard without academic background

>>12714524
literally Climate vs Weather you fucking retard

>>12717418
>invest time to convince me otherwise so at the end I can tell you are a shill, fart and walk out of the room
read a paper or let it be.

>>12717414
Its not believable that there were global organizations accurately taking global temperatures even 100 years ago. The effects of the warming are so small they might as well be within error bars. It would be easier to accept informal records of climate change such as "this area used to be wet but now it is dry", such reports are abundant in the middle east, there are many cities in southern jordan and israel that were abandoned centuries ago due to desertification. Or how people used to grow vineyards in England but then it got too cold, much more interesting than "weather is +-0.3 degrees a climate holocaust is on us"

>>12717421
Your data cant be reproduced.

>>12717306
>biology, astronomy, astrophysics, , a huge chunk of physics, geology, etc aren't real sciences because I say so
damn I'll have to let all those scientists know they're out of a job

>>12717439
>look at me pulling another thing out of my arse

>>12717432
You openly reject the experimental method. Just recognize that are demanding me to believe in some data i could never verify and that i need to just believe it and get it over with.

>>12717446
models are based on experimental data

>>12717434
>Its not believable that there were global organizations accurately taking global temperatures even 100 years ago.
why not? the data is all available you can't just disregard it because it doesn't agree with you, actually show me it's inaccurate enough to throw out.

> The effects of the warming are so small they might as well be within error bars.
literally just lying here.

the rest of your post is just meaningless drivel not even worth replying to.

>>12717451
How good are those models?

>>12717444
All these fields have parts that cannot be reproduced, so these parts are not science. Its sad but such is the scientific method Astrophysics? History? You cant verify them its not science. Thats ok, not everything has to be science. Stop labeling everything as science and no one will take issue with it.

>>12717451
But you have no experimental data, you cant make an experiment today and reproduce that data, not you and not a global organization with billions of dollars. You have "a tale from the past".

>>12717457
pretty much dead on actually

>>12717459
damn i'll let all those people producing meaningful useful results their not actually doing science because some 8 year old says if it doesn't fit inside a lab it's not real.

>>12717455
I just dont believe it. I dont think Michael Faraday taking measurements outside his lab window and mailing the results to the London society gives anyone the power to decipher the global weather in 1820. And no, it doesnt matter of some boat also took measurements once during a trip to India. Thats not accurate and its not global.

>>12717112
>What experiments have supported experimental proof of this?
There are many. Every proxy has an experimental basis, and multiple proxy records need to agree to come to a conclusion. A good overview of the field:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter6-1.pdf

>Have you ever built an earth
Why would we need to build an Earth when we already have one to observe? You sound like creationists who claim we need a control Earth to experimentally prove evolution created the diversity of life.

>>12717457
read a paper about the explicit models you referring; everything is there buddy; scihub is your friend.

>>12717470
How is astrophysics useful?

>>12717471
>Thats not accurate and its not global.
again you saying it's not accurate dude trust me isn't an argument. Show me it's not reliable enough to draw conclusions from.

>>12717234
See >>12716918

>>12717472
This conversation is over, by disregarding experiments you are openly rejecting the scientific method.

>>12717479
a huge chunk of our understanding of GR and other mechanics which we use in basically every field of engineering comes from astrophysics.

>>12717464
we have methods to get this data. you have no credibility in this discussion as you dont even know what exactly to critisize.

>>12717419
Prove you exist first.

>>12717439
Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

>>12717480
YOU MUST BELIEVE! HAVE FAITH IN THE SCRIPTURE!

>>12717446
Retard, creating a control Earth is not the "experimental method."

>>12717509
>still no argument
damn that's crazy

>>12717499
Literally your only method is "Here, believe this report from the London meteorological station from March 1840, it equals global weather"

>>12717514
You have no experimental method. You cant have an experimental method. I dont care if the experiment is impossible, you just cant. Accept the limits of science, this is not something that can be tested by science.

>>12717518
does not make any sense; thats not how it works

>>12717525
what do you mean with experimental method?

>>12717464
>But you have no experimental data
Yes we do, the experiment is testing the model. And observations of the past are still data, creationtard.

>>12717471
>I just dont believe it.
Too bad, the data says you're wrong. >>12716007

>>12717488
>This conversation is over, by disregarding experiments
I didn't. I rejected your ridiculous demand for a control Earth. Try again.

>>12717507
Lmao at this point denialist can't be anywhere but at the same level of flatearthers

>>12717525
>You have no experimental method.
Creating a control Earth is not an experimental method.

>You cant have an experimental method.
Because?

>Accept the limits of science, this is not something that can be tested by science.
It already has, you're a bit late.

they have weather machines anon

>>12715903
>>12715995
It is quite literally a basic fact that California has had wetter periods and drier periods and the dry periods and much more common. What is your problem? Mad you settled in a desert?

>>12718463
>It is quite literally a basic fact that California has had wetter periods and drier periods and the dry periods and much more common.
OK, and how does this respond to anything I said?

>What is your problem?
See >>12715995 and >>12714778

>Mad you settled in a desert?
I don't live in California, schizo.

Until you look at causative factors you're not actually saying anything.

>>12714566
>solar output has been stable during the same period
??????

>>12718650
Idk bro you somehow thought I was talking about global warming which I wasnt, I was talking about the fact that california was settled during an abnormally wet period and that period is over

>>12718671
>Idk bro you somehow thought I was talking about global warming which I wasnt
No, read my post again. It's precisely because you ignored global warming that you failed.

>and that period is over
And I'm asking you why? What cycle is this a part of? You can't answer a simple question.

>>12718743
>2500 dry years
>it got wet for 50 years twice
>humans fault it got dry again!!!

You deny the world around you

>>12718743
Anon stop scapegoating humans there are weather patterns that last longer than a day, some planets have storms that last for many many years at a time

>>12718849
Jupiter's Great Red Spot storm have been going on for over 350 years, though I wouldn't really use Jupiter as a model for Earth except in the most abstract planetary sense.
That said, looking at the image you posted, if we do enter a long dry period for California, even if the greens get their wildest policy wishes, the state is still doomed.

>>12714465
No surprise we get a wave of bloated fucking retards from texas making retarded posts about climate change when it gets cold there.

You're fucking fat. And you're all fucking stupid. Just fucking freeze and die. The world won't miss you.

>>12718875
>first 99.98%: no humans
sounds about right

>>12718849
>Anon stop scapegoating humans
I'm not. Stop denying the greenhouse effect.

>there are weather patterns that last longer than a day
Yeah it's called climate. And "pattern" is not an explanation. All patterns have physical causes. You can't even say what your supposed "cycle" is, let alone explain it. Why is California getting more droughts? It's not because precipitation is decreasing, it's because temperature is rapidly increasing. What cycle is this part of? You don't know, because you're spouting bullshit in order to avoid reality.

>>12714540
Move to green renewable energy

>>12714531
u are an utter moron.

>>12714465
Brilliant OP

You should take this insight and not invest in the stock market for retirement. You can't predict of the market will be up or down at the end of this month, so don't even try to predict it in a few decades

>>12714465
learn the difference between climate and weather retard, climate is weather over a long period of time and weather is climate at any moment

>>12714465
>Oh you're freezing? It's actually warmer than average you stupid hick moron, trust science!
I hate the media so very, very much.

>>12720300
The voices in your head are not the media, schizo.

>>12714532
>global temperature anomaly
Yes.
The Earth is meant to forever remain in a cherry picked range of temperatures from a specific t in history. Any deviation is an anomaly and global climate deregulation.

>>12720350
Why do /pol/tards throw a tantrum over arbitrary units that have no effect on the trend? Do you just have nothing else to complain about?

>>12717927
>Because?
ESL as fuck

>>12720350
Oh no, anomalies are all accounted for.

>>12720413
>Fuck
>>>/pol/

>>12720415
zoom out

>>12720413
>can't answer a simple question
>E-E-SL

>>12720425
See >>12715908

>>12720435
zoom out

>>12720425

>>12714465
haven't watched the weather channel in years and the founder is dead now i think so who knows what their stance is on it now but in their defense they don't/didnt promo global warmer. the founder was in record and in countless interviews saying he thought it was a load of shit

>>12720436
Why?

>>12720477
Well that settles it, journalists trump scientists as we all know.

>>12718875
Completely irrelevant to our current situation

>>12714532
>y-axis labeled as an anomaly
Begging the question.

>>12715261
lel

ALL MY EXES LIVE IN TEXAS

>>12718849
>Paleoclimatological studies indicate that the last 150 years of California's history have been unusually wet compared to the previous 2000 years. Tree stumps found at the bottom of lakes and rivers in California indicate that many water features dried up during historical dry periods, allowing trees to grow there while the water was absent. These dry periods were associated with warm periods in Earth's history. During the Medieval Warm Period, there were at least two century-long megadroughts with only 60-70% of modern precipitation levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_California#Paleoclimatological_evidence

>>12721688
>doesn't know what temperature anomaly is
ngmi

>>12721819
>doesn't know what begging the question is

>>12721846
>not even smart enough to google "temperature anomaly to learn why his post was retarded
yikes

>>12721871
>still begging the question

>>12721884
>still failing to hide his ignorance by misusing logical fallacies he's reading off Wikipedia
wow incredible argumentative technique i'm in awe

>>12715039
that's hella mean bro

Are you retarded? Predicing that the stock market will go up in the next week is harder than predicing that it will go up in the next century.

>>12714465
The equations used to predict weather (navier-stokes) are very messy. Turbulent flow is so insanely difficult to get your head around.

>>12716237
>Chaotic behavior cannot have cycles

So you don't expect a damped driven pendulum to swing to and fro? Why not?

>>12715908
>A highly multivariable system with numerous feedback loops is surely not chaotic

>>12715934
>The individual events do not have to be independent to form a limit behavior.

For there to be a single limit behavior they do. Feedback loops create chaos. Imagine if heads made your subsequent flips to be more likely to be heads and tails the same. You could have a limit with 100% rate of heads and another with tails. Which one you arrive at depends on your first few flips.

>most variables are not relevant

Ignoring things does not make your predictions accurate.

>ok, and?

Plants sequester heat and carbon.

You are making it look like those supporting climate change are just blind parrots.

>>12714532
>line go up
>therefore line will continue to go up
very advanced concept

>>12714532
Manipulation of sample size. You fucking pseud climatologist are religious nuts.

>>12724494
Nah man, we just need to look at one variable (CO2) and ignore all the messiness of all the other confounding variables. Very scientific.

Remember that you're a denier if you don't believe in the static truth of unchanging climate science.
Pic related.

>>12724946
spamming the same dude trust me image over and over again doesn't make it true

>>12724975
A single image debunks the entire field of climate change.
As you cannot refute it, I'll keep posting it where it's relevant.

>>12725028
except you haven't provided any evidence for any the claims in your dumbass image
>because I say so
isn't a debunking

>>12725049
>because I say so
isn't a debunking

So show me something that debunks the image. Your empty word is useless by your own admission

>>12725070
your image doesn't contain any substance whatsoever to debunk. It's like saying "Donald trump is a pedophile" then saying that it must be true unless you can provide recorded footage of every second of his life proving he's never engaged in any pedophilia.

That isn't how it fucking works, if you're saying that 200 years of science is a lie, fucking prove it you lazy faggot.

>>12715859
??? If you know it's going to be hot you should know how tomorrow will be

>>12724912
>weather = climate
t. retard

What do we do about the schizo pseud problem?

>>12714532
>irrefutable
lel

>>12714532
Nobody's refuting the reality of temperatures changing, people are refuting the idea that the contribution of human industry to global warming is somehow bad enough that we need to start taxing it. Also, the idea that global warming will cause more storms, tornados etc which just sounds like a doomsday cult.

>>12718912
Anon I never denied anything regarding any understanding of human impact on climate, you however are deeply at your core denying that humans are not necessary for California to be a desert. Your entire post is a major cope. You are like a Christian.

>>12718865
Yes California is a shitty place to live. It was good for a temporary period of time. Humans weren't aware of such long term weather patterns when California was settled.

>>12721761
Yes, and humans are not required for these systems to perpetuate themselves.

>>12714465
>what do you mean we know the average IQ of blacks but not each nig's individual IQ?

>>12724837
Neither imply chaotic behavior. So what is your point?

>>12724872
>For there to be a single limit behavior they do
False and irrelevant.

>Feedback loops create chaos
Wrong.

>Imagine if heads made your subsequent flips to be more likely to be heads and tails the same. You could have a limit with 100% rate of heads and another with tails. Which one you arrive at depends on your first few flips.
That's not chaotic since it's not topologically transitive. Thanks for proving my point.

>Ignoring things does not make your predictions accurate.
Determining that a variable is irrelevant is the opposite of ignoring it.

>Plants sequester heat
Wrong.

>and carbon
OK, and?

>>12724888
Global warming predictions aren't based on statistical extrapolation. Try again.

>>12724888
>Manipulation of sample size.
How?

It seems like deniers are getting dumber since the smarter ones are abandoning ship.

>>12714487
>Here's how it works. You can have oscillatory behavior with error bands, yet still have a constant, predictable growth.
this is engineering in 2021

>>12725783

>>12724946
kek climatechangeletts BTFO

>>12726308
>Nobody's refuting the reality of temperatures changing
There are people trying to do that in this thread, moron.

>people are refuting the idea that the contribution of human industry to global warming is somehow bad enough that we need to start taxing it.
Then do it.

>Also, the idea that global warming will cause more storms, tornados etc which just sounds like a doomsday cult.
Very scientific argument.

Why are you retarded deniers incapable of making a single substantive argument?

>>12726583
>>Plants sequester heat
>Wrong.

You don't even know what photosynthesis is. You think just calling things wrong repeatedly is saying anything. You're a fucking seagull.

>>12726526
Wrong.

>>12726583
>>and carbon
>OK, and?

This proves you are a braindead moron. Your entire premise is the primary variable is CO2, and you have no care that another variable (plant growth) sequesters CO2 and is accelerated by higher CO2.

You don't care that higher CO2 reverses desertification. You are unaware that light captured by photosynthesis and stored as chemical energy does not become heat in the environment. You don't acknowledge how all of these things affect cloud formation (reflects sunlight). So many variables that you dismiss because you are blind to actual thinking.

You are Dunning-Kruger personified.

>>12726337
>Anon I never denied anything regarding any understanding of human impact on climate
Then why are you saying I'm scapegoating humans?

>you however are deeply at your core denying that humans are not necessary for California to be a desert.
No I'm not. You're spouting delusional gibberish. I'm asking you to explain what cycle you think is causing current warming. Doing so does not imply anything about the past. Take your meds.

>>12726608
>You don't even know what photosynthesis is
I clearly know more than you since I know photosynthesis does not sequester heat.

>You think just calling things wrong repeatedly is saying anything.
What you claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is on you. Cry more.

And I guess you finally realized your compete failure to understand what chaos is or how it relates to this discussion. Good.

>Wrong.
Wrong. See your own coin example which fails to show chaotic behavior since the results are not topologically mixed.

Climate """scientists""" are the only scientists whose livelihood depends on stating a specific conclusion

>>12726655
>I clearly know more than you since I know photosynthesis does not sequester heat.

A photon captured as sugar doesn't become heat. You are a moron.

>And I guess you finally realized your compete failure to understand what chaos is or how it relates to this discussion.

No, I understand chaos. I was using some other poster's example of coin flips and showing how flawed it is since coin flips are independent of each other, climate states are not. You (falsely) claimed victory. Topological transitivity is a common ingredient to chaos, but chaos is a pretty loose field.

It wasn't my coin example, I was extending someone else's (probably yours) analogy to show how it's wrong. I was showing feedback means you cannot make an accurate prediction about long-term results. Feedback in coinflips results in 100% heads or tails, rather than 50% of each in the long-term. Showing my point that feedback loops prevent accurate long-term averaging.

>The burden of proof is on you

I'm not the one claiming to know the future. That's you.

>>12726676
>Feedback in coinflips results in 100% heads or tails, rather than 50% of each in the long-term.

I should clarify. Depending on the feedback mechanism it CAN result in 100%. It can also result in wildly different behaviors depending on the feedback loop. All of which will have long-term results that vary on initial conditions and actual flips rather than being a neat 50/50.

>>12726628
>Your entire premise is the primary variable is CO2, and you have no care that another variable (plant growth) sequesters CO2 and is accelerated by higher CO2.
Right, and what is your point? Use your words like a big boy and form a coherent argument. Here, I'll help you: are you trying to say that increased plant growth negates the increase in CO2? Because it doesn't. CO2 concentration has been rapidly increasing despite global greening.

>You are unaware that light captured by photosynthesis and stored as chemical energy does not become heat in the environment.
I'm perfectly aware. I'm also perfectly aware that that's not sequestering heat since the heat never existed in the first place. Does ice "sequester heat" by reflecting sunlight and preventing the Earth from turning it into heat? No.

Once again, you fail to understand that nothing about the climate has been ignored, it's precisely because they are well studied that we know they are not counteracting the warming effect of CO2.

>You are Dunning-Kruger personified.
Oh the irony.

>>12726702
>I'm also perfectly aware that that's not sequestering heat since the heat never existed in the first place.

I apologize that I didn't say, "Plants sequester energy that would have otherwise become heat."

People who are actually arguing for truth don't need to resort to such pedantry.

>despite global greening.

Yet you don't hear that term too often, because it sounds like more CO2 is a good thing...

> nothing about the climate has been ignored

Plenty has. The fact people are more concerned about CO2 instead of all the various industrial waste being put into the environment is clear that it's misdirection.

It's also pretty uncommon for people arguing in favor of climate change to mention we are still in an ice age.

>>12726676
>A photon captured as sugar doesn't become heat.
Right, which means there is no heat to sequester. Fucking moron. By the way, when is photosynthesis going to start counteracting global warming? Any day now?

>No, I understand chaos.
You clearly don't since you fell into the most basic layman fallacy of assuming that sensitivity to initial conditions = chaos. If you ever graduate high school I suggest you take a course on chaos theory instead of pretending you know anything about it.

>I was using some other poster's example of coin flips and showing how flawed it is since coin flips are independent of each other, climate states are not.
You completely failed to show how independence of events is relevant, and then you called your example chaotic when it categorically isn't. You can't weasel out of this, you proved your incompetence directly.

>chaos is a pretty loose field
There is nothing loosely chaotic about your example. It's like saying repeated doubling of a nonzero integer produces chaotic results since it goes to positive infinity or negative infinity depending on initial conditions. This is nothing but a prime example of nonchaotic sensitivity to initial conditions.

> I was showing feedback means you cannot make an accurate prediction about long-term results. Feedback in coinflips results in 100% heads or tails, rather than 50% of each in the long-term.
But that's easily predictable. I only have to know a little information about the initial flip (such as 75% certainty that the initial flip was heads) to predict the outcome. Your pathetic weaseling doesn't even help you.

>I'm not the one claiming to know the future. That's you.
You're the only one who won't provide evidence for his claims. Pathetic weasel.

>>12726757
>Right, which means there is no heat to sequester.

That energy is going to be released as heat sometime, as opposed to your example, which reflects the photon back into space. Hence why I used 'sequester'. But you're more interested in feeding your ego.

>You completely failed to show how independence of events is relevant

No, I showed how feedback loops leads to behavior that won't be easily predicted long-term. I was arguing climate is chaotic, which I have from the start.

By the way, extreme sensitivity to initial conditions is as much as hallmark of chaotic behavior as topological transitivity.

>But that's easily predictable. I only have to know a little information about the initial flip (such as 75% certainty that the initial flip was heads) to predict the outcome.

Wrong. Each trial of the system would be able to end at entirely different end behaviors, different attractors. You could not, with certainty, predict which outcome happens.

>You're the only one who won't provide evidence for his claims.

I'm not the one claiming to know the climate in a century.

>>12726732
>People who are actually arguing for truth don't need to resort to such pedantry.
People who are arguing for truth don't need to have someone else literally write down their argument for them since they are incapable of making a coherent one.

>Yet you don't hear that term too often, because it sounds like more CO2 is a good thing...
So more CO2 is good because it makes more plants which reduce CO2. So reducing CO2 is good? No, that can't be right, it's a contradiction. It must be because plants cause cooling, which is good, right? But more CO2 causes warming, so that's another contradiction. So do you actually have a point or is this more irrelevant babble?

>The fact people are more concerned about CO2 instead of all the various industrial waste being put into the environment is clear that it's misdirection.
This is so stupid I don't even know where to begin. How does industrial waste effect the climate? First you're saying factors effecting the climate are being ignored and your proof of this is industrial waste. Makes no sense. Second, industrial waste isn't ignored, it's heavily regulated. I can only conclude this means you support the same for CO2.

>>12726807
>People who are arguing for truth don't need to have someone else literally write down their argument for them since they are incapable of making a coherent one.

So you admit you are not arguing for truth. =D

>So more CO2 is good because it makes more plants

Which is good for crops, and many other things. These additional plants and greater forestation helps buffer the environment against further changes in the future. Cooling is generally bad, I would prefer leaving the ice age.

>This is so stupid

Yes, your posts are. People's concern for the environment is being misdirected from things that are actually harmful to their biology onto something that is a net positive. There are hosts of environmental concerns that are both more pressing (mercury in the seas, for example) and more local (various invasive populations, regulating pollution in local water supplies). These are real environmental concerns. The Earth leaving an Ice age with a ton of buffers (Cloud formation should increase, plant growth and crop yields will improve) is a good thing and you are fighting it while sucking down industrial pollutants in your food and water and stroking your ego.

>>12726597
think for once brainlet
if you you know different seasons bring different temperatures then you should know what the current season brings

>>12726791
>That energy is going to be released as heat sometime
Right, which is the opposite of heat being sequestered. Just keep digging a deeper hole, you'll get out eventually.

I also find it funny how you accuse me of being pedantic yet continue to defend your incorrect terminology while ignoring the actual point, which is that plants and every other cooling feedback doesn't counter global warming caused by CO2.

>No, I showed how feedback loops leads to behavior that won't be easily predicted long-term
No, you showed the exact opposite, feedback loops creating easily predictable behavior in the long term. Wow, you're stupid.

>By the way, extreme sensitivity to initial conditions is as much as hallmark of chaotic behavior as topological transitivity.
Yes, it's a necessary but insufficient condition as you showed. I already explained this to you several times and now you're repeating it back to me as if you just looked up how chaos theory works. A bit late for that.

>Each trial of the system would be able to end at entirely different end behaviors
You could not, with certainty, predict which outcome happens.
It's not about certainty. Fucking hell. Just stop posting.

>I'm not the one claiming to know the climate in a century.
You're the only one who won't provide evidence for his claims.

Good night retard, I'm done schooling you for tonight.

>>12726833
>which is the opposite of heat being sequestered

How so? I didn't say permanently nor did I say when it would be released. Coal is sequestered energy that would have and will be heat. You just want to feel superior by being a pedant.

>Wow, you're stupid

Right back at you.

>Yes, it's a necessary but insufficient condition as you showed

Just like topological transitivity. My, my, you are fighting your reflection!

>It's not about certainty.
>I only have to know a little information about the initial flip (such as 75% certainty that the initial flip was heads) to predict the outcome

Contradicting yourself.

You have only schooled yourself and made climate defenders look like angry pedants that have nothing of substance to their claims.

>>12726664
Funny how any ''''scientist'''' with a degree even remotely related to climatology who says AGW isn't a problem is instantly showered in millions of dollars in funding from oil companies or gets hired for a 500k salary consulting for the heartland foundation. While the thousands of actual scientists not willing to sell out are battling to the death for the few tenured positions.

>>12726853
damn it's pretty rare to see someone get wrecked that hard in a climate thread, you should just admit you have no idea what you're talking about and let that anon educate you.

>>12726817
>So you admit you are not arguing for truth. =D
No.

>Which is good for crops
Is drought good for crops?

>These additional plants and greater forestation helps buffer the environment against further changes in the future.
Insignificant effect compared to global warming. I like ice cream. Does that mean being in a car crash and going to the hospital where they have ice cream is good?

>Cooling is generally bad, I would prefer leaving the ice age.
Sure, leave the climate man has evolved in and always existed in, what could possibly go wrong? You're also ignoring that the issue isn't necessarily the temperature, it's the rate of change in temperature.

>People's concern for the environment is being misdirected from things that are actually harmful to their biology
Again, concern for the environment is not limited to one thing.

>onto something that is a net positive.
The totality of scientific and economic evidence points to it being a net negative, but I'm sure you have a fantastic argument against all of it. Can't wait.

>>12726832
Both today and tomorrow are in the current season and seasonal shifts are not noticeable on such a short timescale. How do you retards not understand this? Different timescales have different determining factors and therefore can have different levels of predictability.

>>12726853
>How so?
Heat being created and emitted is the opposite of heat being absorbed and held.

>I didn't say permanently nor did I say when it would be released.
I didn't say you did.

>Coal is sequestered energy that would have and will be heat.
Right, coal doesn't sequester heat.

I also find it funny how you accuse me of being pedantic yet continue to defend your incorrect terminology while ignoring the actual point, which is that plants and every other cooling feedback doesn't counter global warming caused by CO2.

>Just like topological transitivity. My, my, you are fighting your reflection!
You truly are retarded. Pointing out that your example lacks topological transitivity is saying topological transitivity is necessary. It doesn't imply it's sufficient. You're the only one who confused a necessary trait for a sufficient one. How do you still not understand this?

I'm only going to explain this one more time for you. In your example, a little information about the initial condition gives me a little information about the outcome. In a chaotic system, that would be impossible, since topological mixing makes it so that I would have to know the initial conditions very specifically to have some information about the outcome. Hence why chaotic systems have the appearance of randomness.

>Contradicting yourself.
There is no contradiction there. You confused prediction with certainty about the outcome.

>>12716626
lol this
it's all in the name of money power and control over your life

>>12714532
this is like looking at price graphs, you can try to "predict" what will happen next based on previous trends but you can never know what will actually happen

>>12714602
guns don't cause murder

>>12726631
>delusional
>take your meds

Stop projecting, and accept that California regularly has long term droughts without human behavior being involved

>>12714919
well climate science is the refuge of the dreamer midwit

>>12714532
/sci/ in 2021, everyone.

>mfw they changed it from "global warming" o "climate change" so they could never be wrong again

>>12727957
No one is predicting based on trends, it's based on understanding of the physical mechanisms underlying the climate.

>>12728098
Where did I deny it? Your delusions are not reality. Take your meds.

>>12728729
>>mfw they changed it from "global warming" o "climate change"
Global warming is climate change, retard.

>>12714602
You really shouldn't try to jump even further to conclusions and reveal you're a hardcore leftist by using a bait analogy like that. You cannot expect people to take you seriously speaking like this.

>>12715908
Great, now post the part you cut off on the left before the ice age.

>>12728911
If you didn't deny it then why even bother with any of your posts cupcake? It takes a very small person to reply the way you do.

>>12716265

CO2 is directly offset by plant biomass. We are terraforming the planet.

>>12726628
You're retarded all the way down. CO2 is not the only thing that controls plant growth. That's only applicable to controlled scenarios. Also the carbon cycle tells us that the residence time of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere is about 20 years. Higher temperature ls lead to changes in things like hydrological patterns and desertification that affect plants much more than having higher CO2

>>12726817
>These additional plants and greater forestation helps buffer the environment against further changes in the future.
This does not happen. The ocean is the greatest mediator of carbon in the glacial interglacial cycles

>>12714919
He is right, the majority of earth’s energy household is determined by the sun and the earth’s blackbody radiation. Make the atmosphere more absorbing of light, the temperature will increase. Change a system that is largely in equilibrium, it will become more chaotic. This is thermodynamics 101.

CO2 has inferior heat retention to the air mix we breathe

Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious that all these climate graphs only show at most a few thousand years, when Earth has been around for a few billion?

Imagine having a huge graph and then zooming in on a small spike and then presenting that as data.

>>12715961
huh, I thought methane was worse due to its higher photoactivity. I guess CO2 is sufficiently more, then.

>>12729599
It's a religion of self hate, after the point of human self-awareness, humans instantly become responsible for all problems.

>>12729599
What happened tens of millions of years is irrelevant to what's happening now. The planet was in a completely different oceanic and continental configuration and the carbon cycle operated differently. That life developed and evolved in its respective climate. Taking our ecosystem and cranking up the heat and CO2 won't return the planet to the carboniferous. The timescales of ecosystem adjustment is on the order of tens of thousands of years and longer.
We know that for the last million years there have not been such rapid temperature increases. not even in the ramp up of past interglacial cycle do we observe warming this fast.

>>12729649
And your religion is one of denial of personal responsibility, superstition, laziness, and foremost of all, self-indulgence/gluttony.

You're the cancerous tumour/genetic dead end that, incapable of curiosity or any level of understanding beyond your own bloated sphere, and the proliferation of your specific kind of psychotic "growth" guarantees humanity's fate of a slow and pitiful extinction. You fucking disgust me.

>>12729706
>he throttles his boogeymen at me

Lol'd

>>12729599
>when Earth has been around for a few billion?
You know the Earth didn't host multicellular life until 600M years ago right?

>>12729753
Eat more.
Drool more.
Cry more.
Fucking Retard

>>12729788
You genuinely know nothing about me, yet you use these boogeymen. Take your meds.

>>12729810
climate denial is denial of personal responsibility
labeling people with concerns is next level
the rest just fits the profile.
the chances that you're a) a fat fuck or b) have a carbon footprint the size of puerto rico, or c) both are pretty good

>>12729827
I denied nothing, however your emotional instability is rendering delusions in your mind. Goodluck.

>>12729830
>I denied nothing
ya just go ahead and lie now
you called people with concerns about climate change "a religion of self hate"

It's all good though. I think it's a natural for retards like you to proliferate and turn the world into a shit hole. the social form of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

but don't you dare deny me the right to grieve.

>>12714532
Zoom out

>>12729880
Still unprecedented zooming out a million years

>>12728975
No part was cut off, schizo. See >>12729619
It is worse pound for pound but a lot more CO2 is emitted.

>>12729856
Asserting that a behavior is similar to a religion is not a denial of the target of said behavior.

Your IQ is low.

>>12727690
>you accuse me of being pedantic

Because you are. You picked on one usage of a word that clearly conveys the meaning to anyone who isn't a pedant. It sequesters 'energy that would have and will be' heat is much longer and anyone who isn't high on his own farts can interpret it what I said without the added verbiage.

> is saying topological transitivity is necessary

Except not all definitions of chaos include it, it's just common. Additionally you insulted my usage of sensitivity to initial conditions as if that weren't the very trademark of chaos that initiated its research as a field.

>every other cooling feedback doesn't counter global warming caused by CO2

It buffers it in the long-term and makes it so the doomsday predictions are fearmongering.

> In your example, a little information about the initial condition gives me a little information about the outcome

Baseless assertion. You don't even know what the feedback loop is. You don't think I can tailor a feedback loop on coinflips to make it behave in almost anyway? Additionally your weaselly with your words. This is an extremely simple system so 'a little' information is almost all the information of the initial conditions. It's not as if we're dealing with multiple continuous variables. We have a single binary.

You should just realize your egotistically defending a poor example of, "we cannot predict a single coin flip but we can predict the long-term average' which is completely irrelevant to the climate.

>>12729552
>desertification

Not caused by CO2 or higher temperatures. It's primarily driven by other human activities like land use and urbanization.

>>12729578
>CO2 won't affect plant growth in the ocean.

>>12729586
>a system that is largely in equilibrium

When has the climate been in equilibrium? Just over the last 2,000 years we've had hot periods and cold periods.

>>12729978
>It buffers it in the long-term and makes it so the doomsday predictions are fearmongering.
Not how it works. The ocean is the main driver. Carbon trapped by vegetation is released in a couple of decades.

>>12729992
Changing hydrologic patterns are caused by temperature changes. We are also observing the weakening of the thermohaline circulation that transports carbon into the deep ocean, and ocean acidification is on the way to cripple the ocean's ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere. The ocean can adapt but not at these rates.

>>12729992
>It's primarily driven by other human activities like land use and urbanization.
The desertification of the Sahara disagrees. It can absolutely be affected by climate.

>>12730028
I apologize, I meant modern day desertification is primarily driven by human land use. I think we can agree the Sahara is not a desert owing to Anthropogenic climate change.

>>12730099
We see changes in the monsoon with climate change which just makes the deforestation we're doing even worse.

Chaos theory, weather is a system with a fuck ton of variables and sometimes a very small minor thing can flip the entire system. this doesn't mean that there isn't any patterns but it means that it's much harder to accurately predict especially in short intervals. it' easier to say what's the weather is going to be for 10 years than what's the weather going to be tomorrow, sort of.

>>12729777
> The first evidence of multicellularity is from cyanobacteria-like organisms that lived 3–3.5 billion years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism

>>12729599
The earth has never heated up this rapidly before. Changes in the orders of 100 thousands to millions of years are different to the same increase in 200.

>>12730155
im glad this analogy is getting out there now.
but if humans were swayed by common sense logic and strong ethics then we wouldn't have these threads any more.
a dark future beckons.

>>12729992
>When has the climate been in equilibrium? Just over the last 2,000 years we've had hot periods and cold periods.
I’m talking the span of civilization. Before industrialization, the global thermodynamic system was mostly in equilibrium. And don’t fucking come to me with seasons or daily changes. I also used the qualifier “largely” for a reason.

>>12730180
Source

>>12730180
Source me up nigga.

>>12729992
>>12715908

>>12729705
WOW 700,000 years ago! So what does this prove again? Show me that CO2 wasn't higher hundreds of millions of years ago.

I'm gonna reveal something that might blow your mind: all the carbon that we're burning now, was at some point in the atmosphere from previous lifeforms.

Wow.

Or did it just magically show up? Well, I guess according to you it did kek. All the carbon teleported from somewhere to Earth, because how else would you explain all that organic matter suddenly coming into the atmosphere, if it hadn't been there previously?

>>12730775
>Climate that was fine for the dinosaurs is fine for us.
This is your mind on denialism.

>>12714465
when I throw a ball down a flight of stairs, I can tell you it will end up at the bottom, but not what steps it will hit on the way down.

>>12730826
Implying we cannot adapt

>>12730855
another good analogy. that should work if climate deniers were not intellectually dishonest psychopaths. pro tip: they are

>>12730877
>humans
Minor part of climate
>rest of earth and solar system
Major part of climate

You're intellectually dishonest every time you place man above nature, like right now.

>>12731085
>humans Minor part of climate
pic related certainly isn't a minor change
>rest of earth and solar system
what major changes have there been in this period, you seem confident so you have an answer right?

>>12714465
I can predict the stock market 20 years from now much more reliably than I can predict the stock market tomorrow...

>>12731093
>doubles down on intellectual dishonesty

I shouldn't have to explain that humans are not the entirety of reality, and I won't.

>>12731093
CO2 levels used to be 5 times higher and the earth was fine. humans might change the climate but they will most likely not end life on the planet

>>12731198
>but they will most likely not end life on the planet
the fact you've moved the goalposts all the way here should be a red flag

>>12731093
Hey lets see the rest of that map or do you prefer to mislead people

>>12731093
Pls post the rest of the graph thx

>>12731233
sure here you go bud

>>12731240
Oh wow I didnt know the Earth was 420k years old thanks! Super cool!

>>12731243
sorry I didn't realize Tiktaalik was posting on 4chan.

>>12731251
Tiktaalik is eternal

>>12731257
makes sense, he's trying to get the earth back to a climate he'd be more comfortable in

>>12731263
You should join "I hate megaflora anonymous"

>>12731231
many people think we should stop reproducing because they think all life on earth will end because of global warming. Im just trying to say human life will live on regardless

>>12731276
wow good job you sure destroyed that straw-man that's awesome!

>>12714465
I can't predict with good accuracy how likely i am to be alive in 50 years but i can predict with certainty if I'll be alive in ten thousand years. Quit being retarded anon

It would be better for the earth if humans died out, humans seek to preserve their aesthetic view of earth it has nothing to do with the health of the planet, they determine what is "healthy" for the planet. Let me repeat myself, they seek to maintain norms that are aesthetically appealing to humans. The earth dont give a damn. Global warming activists are just human activitists.

>>12715954
/sci/ really is populated by fucking retards

>>12731198
End life? absolutely not.

End comfortable life for the majority of humans? Possible.

>>12731310
>the decadence of man should be perpetuated at all costs

The sooner we die the better fuck you

>>12730163
>>12731243
Cyanobacteria don't need oxygen to live, retard.
There was no oxygen until the Great Oxydation.

Why would you need to compare temperature from the time of the cyanobacteria (when there was no oxygen) or from the time of the dinosaurs (when there was twice the oxygen and it was inhospitable to Humans as well) instead of comparing temperature since Humans exist which is what scientists are doing?

>>12731359
>the great oxydation

lmfao

>>12731359
Human-like bipeds did quite fine during the Pliocene

>>12731359
>great oxidation event
I bet you wish there were humans around back then to bitch and moan and blame themselves over it

>>12731384
yeah they were legendary for their industrial agriculture and coastal cities,

>>12731378
Yeah I realized the spelling is oxidation after posting it, bite me and I'm ESL and I speak three languages which is two more than you do.

>>12731384
Different diet, no modern agricultural sector built on crops, more retarded comparisons.

>>12731384
We're actually currently at higher CO2 levels than any point in the Pliocene.

>>12731399
>>12731396
>agriculture is a good thing
Silly
>>12731401
Would you mind posting that graph I know you prefer to keep the graphs as small as possible

>>12731406
>agriculture is a good thing
Non sequitur.
We are not arguing if agriculture is a good thing or isn't, the fact is that today we depend on it and early hominids in the Pliocene did not.

Unless you are fine with the Human population falling from 7 billion to 20,000 and a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle I don't see what's your point.

>>12731415
>20,000

You managed to guess my ideal human population I'm impressed

>>12731424
Great, now do you want me to calculate your odds of survival in this hypothetical event on which 6,999,980,000 people die?

You are better off playing the lottery.

>>12731415
a nutrient rich layer is deepening on the abyssal plain

>>12731406
we're at 417 ppm as of today, so look back about 16 million years

>Freezing Temperatures / Record Cold
>Global Warming

>Severe Snowstorm / Blizzard
>Global Warming

>Frozen Texas
>Global Warming

Global Warming, Santa Klaus and the Tooth Fairy are indeed real!

>>12729978
>You picked on one usage of a word that clearly conveys the meaning to anyone who isn't a pedant.
It's not clear since you can't even explain how photosynthesis is even relevant to anything we were discussing. Without meaningful context, there is no way to determine what your incorrect statements are trying to refer to.

I also find it funny how you accuse me of being pedantic yet continue to defend your incorrect terminology while ignoring the actual point, which is that plants and every other cooling feedback doesn't counter global warming caused by CO2.

>Except not all definitions of chaos include it
Any definition applicable to your example includes it. It's one thing for you to be an idiot who makes mistakes, it's another for you to be an arrogant idiot who can't admit you made a mistake and further cements your stupidity with dumber and dumber justifications.

>Additionally you insulted my usage of sensitivity to initial conditions as if that weren't the very trademark of chaos that initiated its research as a field.
I "insulted" your confusion of sensitivity to initial conditions with chaos. It has nothing to do with "trademarks." You don't understand what chaos means. Get over it. If you have any self respect left, I suggest you stop this pathetic weaseling.

>It buffers it in the long-term
In the long term... after global warming has already occurred. What a retard. You still fail to realize that relevant feedbacks are already in the model.

>and makes it so the doomsday predictions are fearmongering.
Which predictions?

>Baseless assertion. You don't even know what the feedback loop is.
You already described it, retard.

>This is an extremely simple system so 'a little' information is almost all the information of the initial conditions.
One has nothing to do with the other. A little information about the first flip would mean your expectation of the first flip being heads is a little less or more than 50%. Just stop posting retard.

>>12729978
>You should just realize your egotistically defending a poor example of, "we cannot predict a single coin flip but we can predict the long-term average' which is completely irrelevant to the climate.
Climate is the long-term average of weather, it's a very good analogy. Too bad retards like you can't understand analogies, physics, or basic math.

>>12730775
>all the carbon that we're burning now, was at some point in the atmosphere from previous lifeforms.
Right, all the CO2 that was drawn out of the atmosphere over millions of years is now being released in a few hundred. Perfectly normal.

>>12730865
You can adapt to having your arms and legs amputated. What is your point?

>>12731106
>humans have a significant effect on the atmosphere = humans are the entirety of reality
Do you actually believe your own lies?

>>12731198
>CO2 levels used to be 5 times higher
The CO2 level is not the issue, it's the rate of change that's the issue. High CO2 levels are fine for ecosystems that had enough time to evolve to live in them. Rapid changes on the other hand result in mass extinctions.

>the earth was fine
Humans are not the Earth.

>but they will most likely not end life on the planet
No one said they would.

Why do deniers repeat the same nonsense over and over again? Is there a script that gets passed around?

>>12731576
>Texas = Globe
The apex of the /pol/tard intellect.

>>12731596
>Without meaningful context, there is no way to determine what your incorrect statements are trying to refer to.

Except you were completely able to interpret it. You even complained about it.

> that plants and every other cooling feedback doesn't counter global warming caused by CO2.

Not in the short term. But in the 100+ year predictions compounding plant growth (both land and sea) will have an ever greater mass effect.

>Any definition applicable to your example includes it.

Wrong. Provide evidence of this. You're just pulling shit out of your ass to be angry on the internet.

>be an arrogant idiot

Projection.

>You already described it

I never defined it. I gave the briefest of examples that it could lead to two completely different attractors based entirely on the specific flips that occur. I could easily rigorously define a more complex one, you arrogant moron.

>A little information about the first flip would mean your expectation of the first flip being heads is a little less or more than 50%.

Which does not tell you what the flip actually happens (even if it were at 1%, the specific scenario could occur and change the end result) completely refuting your point about being able to predict the outcome.

You backpedal and contradict yourself constantly.

You're just a poor troll.

>>12731652
>The long-term average of independent events is entirely the same as the long-term average of inter-dependent events.

Poker is a far better analogy in that early bets will determine the possible bets of future hands. It's a terrible analogy meant to placate dullards like you.

>>12731528
Anon why is your map all weird? What could possibly be the reason for squishing and stretching the time scale that badly? I'm not debating the 417 ppm measurement, just to be clear, I'm strictly looking at the graph design. If I didn't know better, I'd say it almost looks like it was intentionally designed to make the cyclical patterns harder to notice.

>>12732041
multiple reasons, one more recent data is far higher resolution, two it's far more relevant for us because civilization doesn't even go back 10,000 years and humans didn't even exist 200,000 years ago.
>designed to make the cyclical patterns harder to notice.
you mean the regular cycle which makes it look like CO2 should have been stable at about 280PPM for about another 10,000 years then fall to below 200 PPM as we enter the glacial period?

>>12732224
>one more recent data is far higher resolution
The fuck does that mean.
>two it's far more relevant for us because civilization doesn't go back 10,000 years
Which is precisely the reason why your graphic is not optimal. When people look at your graphic, they want to know whether there is strong evidence that global climate changed abruptly at the beginning of the industrial revolution. They want to know whether this fact is true and they want to know whether no discernible patterns could get in the way of an explanation centered on anthropogenic climate change. It turns out there are other patterns involved, cyclical climate change was scheduled to start. We don't exactly understand why or how but the pattern is there and it's relevant information. How will someone obtain this relevant information from your graphic when it intentionally obfuscates cyclical climate change with a wonky timeline?

>>12731310
The majority of humans are in Africa and south Asia. Who cares

>>12731925
>Except you were completely able to interpret it.
No, I still have no idea what you were trying to say since you don't even care about temperature. Apparently industrial waste means that global warming is not a problem. Please tell me what this has to do with plants.

>Not in the short term. But in the 100+ year predictions compounding plant growth (both land and sea) will have an ever greater mass effect.
Wrong, the fertilization effect diminishes over time.

>Wrong. Provide evidence of this.
I already did. A small amount of information about the initial conditions leads to information about the results. This is fundamentally non-chaotic. Pay attention and you might actually learn something.

>Projection.
You're defending freshmen level mistakes. Get over yourself.

>Imagine if heads made your subsequent flips to be more likely to be heads and tails the same.
>I never defined it.
Why are you lying?

>I gave the briefest of examples that it could lead to two completely different attractors based entirely on the specific flips that occur.
Right, and that example is non-chaotic and disproves exactly what you were trying to argue. Your bloated ego doesn't let you see what's right in front of your face. You get BTFO with every post.

>Which does not tell you what the flip actually happens
A little information is not total information. Wow, amazing observation. Fucking retard.

>completely refuting your point about being able to predict the outcome.
You think prediction is the same as determination. What a retard.

>You backpedal and contradict yourself constantly.
Where?

>>12731932
>>The long-term average of independent events is entirely the same as the long-term average of inter-dependent events.
Who are you quoting?

>>12732313
>The fuck does that mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor#Resolution

>Which is precisely the reason why your graphic is not optimal.
Optimal for what?

>When people look at your graphic, they want to know whether there is strong evidence that global climate changed abruptly at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
There are multiple reasons to look at a graph.

>It turns out there are other patterns involved, cyclical climate change was scheduled to start.
Incorrect. Interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago. We should be slowly cooling according to the natural cycle but instead we are rapidly warming.

>We don't exactly understand why or how but the pattern is there and it's relevant information.
We do though. It's not merely a statistical pattern, it's due to the orbital parameters of the Earth influencing the timing and intensity of insolation on certain areas.