/sci/ - Science & Math

All the midwestern states voted for Trump. I wouldn't shed a single tear if all of them froze to death.

>>12719087
orange man bad!

>>12719066
The causal mechanism is known to be scattering by CO2. Extra CO2 increases the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared light by a known amount. Blocking infrared light is how you make a greenhouse, hence the 1970s name for the phenomenon “greenhouse effect”.

>>12719087
Stunning and brave

>>12719087
The sheep are not your enemy, the state is your enemy. You are counterproductive.

>>12719066
When you have a breakdown of the vortex the Arctic gets warmer. This is literally the results of climate change

>>12719066
>live in pacific northwest
>no earth quakes
>no super cold days
>no super hot days
>no hurricanes
>no tornadoes
Mild/Mellow weather all around

>>12719142
*rains all the time*

>>12719066
This is caused by the sun's solar minimum.
Do not confuse minimum with cold weather. The minimum will equate to less swings from hot to cold trends. It is highly likely the earth is polarize its temperatures as a result of less swings in influence from the sun, resulting in drastic lines of hot and cold. But mostly cold on land.

>>12719117
That would mean it reflects most heat away. The dumb greenhouse analogy uses ideal gas law in a closed sytem like a bottle or a physical structure to keep the gas from expanding when provided energy. The pull of gravity is not so strong as to mimic an incompressible barrier in which molecules of earths atmosphere continuously build heat.

>>12719161
>The minimum will equate to less swings from hot to cold trends.
Source?

>>12719142
>Pacific Northwest
>volcanoes blow up my yard
yeah, no thanks G

>>12719170
Walter Orr Roberts, The Climate Mandate

>>12719186
Nothing thats too big. Also outside the large mega volcano event area too.

>>12719169
>That would mean it reflects most heat away.
It does.

>The dumb greenhouse analogy uses ideal gas law in a closed sytem like a bottle or a physical structure to keep the gas from expanding when provided energy.
What analogy? The greenhouse effect is not an analogy.

>The pull of gravity is not so strong as to mimic an incompressible barrier in which molecules of earths atmosphere continuously build heat.
The atmosphere expands as it warms, this is a key part of the greenhouse effect. The higher the top of the atmosphere is, the less heat is lost to space. CO2 doesn't hold heat, it scatters it. You have no clue what you're talking about.

>>12719066
I told my mom when I was a kid that I opened the refrigerator door and there was suddenly a blast of cool air. I kept doing it but the refrigerator broke and shit went bad. I imagine this whole polar vortex thing bears some similarity to this childhood story of mine.

>>12719169
>That would mean it reflects most heat away.
LOL what the fuck are you even talking about? I have no clue how you're picturing that working. Did you read that somewhere or is it just that you don't know how to compute things? The CO2 warming calculation is very simple, you just need to know the rate of diffusion of infrared light in the atmosphere based on the CO2 concentration. It doesn’t require a computer, you can see that more CO2 leads to a warmer Earth without any assumptions or reliance on experts, and you can see it’s a significant effect, although you don’t know the feedbacks, so you can’t make a certain prediction without further data. But it’s a very simple effect to understand and predict.

>>12719194
Outdated, not peer reviewed. Try again.

>>12719142
>>live in pacific northwest
>>no earth quakes
???
They're not frequent but it's still an earthquake zone unless you're far inland.

>>12719142
Shame about the awful people, faggy culture, ugly women, and the occasional month without sunshine

>>12719097
This but unironically

>>12719224
>>12719224
>Outdated, not peer reviewed. Try again.

>this is science in 2021

atheist society is fucked

>>12719224
Walter Orr Roberts is actually based as hell, he was testifying before congress back in the 80s to take action to halt GHG emissions.

>>12719142
>no quakes
What is the Juan De Fuca plate?

>>12719097
golden calf holy REEEEEEEE

>>12719066
Globar warming bros.. I thought the science was settled..?

>>12719375
Don't care

>>12719161
>This is caused by the sun's solar minimum.
no it's not
this is literally just weather nothing more nothing less and it has nothing to do with climate change
Texas used to have even colder winters a bunch of times

>>12719138
>the state is your enemy

>>12719142
Juan de Fuca is cooking something up for the PacNW

>>12719066
uhmm sweaty it's called climate change now, global warming is sooo 2010 and not hip anymore uwu

>>12719066
Help me raid >>>/pol/ bros

>>12719169
>That would mean it reflects most heat away.
Yes but the energy from the sun doesn't come as heat (infrared) but instead falls squarely in the visible light spectrum which passes through CO2. After interacting with the earth's surface this changes and most of the light is converted to heat.

>>12719066
> This kills the homeless.

>>12720274
problem solved

>>12720049
Lol that you? In that pic? Are you coming on to me, anon?

>>12719375
There is no respect for Walter Orr Roberts or his collogues that founded the institutions highjacked by CO2 pseuds today.
No one seems to know the history. Langford (collogue at NCAR) wrote a memo once calling the CO2 proponents "Prophets of Doom" in the 70s. As they claimed the Earth to be flooded by 2000.
Its insane that CO2 climatology gets a pass on its repeated failed predictions as if it were free of the same criticism given to Religions that predict the end of the world that never occurs.
In the 80s, ACTORS like Robert Redford, started to appeal to the layman instead of scientific peers for CO2 science. And when LAYMANS were the ones helping to pay for science, the CO2 Doomsayers became the norm.

>>12719991
Your ignorance is the cause of you not caring. You are lazy and don't understand peer review.

>>12720787
>>>/x/

>>12719117
Good thing CO2 is literally the only thing impacting the Earth's climate, otherwise we would have trouble trying to model it.

>>12720793
Faggot you are projecting now. You belong there.

>>12720791
I'm "ignorant" of solar minima reducing variation in temperature because no scientific research has shown it.

Let me guess, peer review is a scam?

>>12720800
You are simply wrong. There is decades of research in support of it. You being unfamiliar with something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your ego centric reasoning is so flawed its laughable.

>>12720797
Nope, we model it just fine.

>>12720811
>There is decades of research in support of it.
Then post it. You've had several opportunities to do so.

>>12720812
Other than the repeatedly wrong predictions of outcomes.

>>12720817
I posted a citation and I bet you didn't bother to read it for FURTHER citations. Did you? No? Yeah you don't know ANYTHING about the founding history of NCAR.

>>12720818
Such as?

>>12720822
>I posted a citation
You posted a book. Where is the research?

>>12720827
https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/2012/11/tpr-1107-Daniel-P-Moynihan-110520-article-memo-on-global-warming-to-Nixon-690917.pdf
>Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has corne along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth' s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.

>>12720833
Did you bother to see what was cited in the book, brainlet? Do you know who Walter Orr Roberts is or the fact you and google scholar him? You are a lazy piece of shit that believes in the religion of co2 climatology.

>>12720812
Too bad the models change like folks change underwear, and a 3 month old model has zero resemblance to a model from 3 years ago.

Let's also completely ignore the elephant in the room. We're at least 150 years into a geomagnetic reversal. That couldn't possibly be a cause, because no "model" has accounted for it.

>>12720840
>Daniel P. Moynihan
Please explain how some politician saying that something might happen has any bearing on the validity of climate science and models.

>>12720840
Climate change is a jewish scam

>>12720844
So since you repeatedly failed to show it, I'll just assume >>12720811 is a lie. Why did you lie about research?

>>12720862
You can remain in your ignorance since I did show it and you are too lazy to read.

>>12720858
You think the politician was saying this on his own? He was repeating CO2 Climatologists of the day in POLICY MAKING. That's been the scam for the past 60 years. Same party pushing climate scare tactic as a political tool. If you fail to learn history you are doomed to repeat it.

>>12719066
>What do you think about global warming?
There's hundreds of thousands of climate scientists and the end result of their work is always pic related.

>>12720874
OMG THIS THIS THIS FUCK KIKES FUCK LIBTARDS 1488 SEIG HEIL

>>12720874
In the memo Bob White is mentioned supporting this position:
https://www.nap.edu/read/23394/chapter/61#367
>first administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

>>12720894
Your sub 85 IQ is showing brainlet

>>12720850
>Too bad the models change like folks change underwear, and a 3 month old model has zero resemblance to a model from 3 years ago.
Source?

>Let's also completely ignore the elephant in the room
No one has ignored it. Earth's magnetic field is changing far too slowly and its effects are far too weak to be implicated in current warming. The Sun's magnetic field is far more important via cosmic ray deflection, but it's still a completely negligible effect.

>>12720868
What research did you show? None.

Why did you lie?

>>12720934
If you are too lazy to open a book, you are too stupid to debate

>>12719066
>croire au réchauffement climatique en 2021
XD

>>12720930
The sun's magnetic field is not negligible lol

>>12720874
>He was repeating CO2 Climatologists of the day
Then cite them.

>>12720945
Robert White of NOAA

>>12720878
Your delusions have nothing to do with climate scientists.

>>>/x/

>>12720897
It says "Bob White knows about this." Basically meaningless. Bob White knew about global warming, sure.

>>12720937
>If you are too lazy to open a book
Why would I need to open a book when it's you who claimed research says something and then failed to present any research? Are you "too lazy" to present the research or are you lying about it? It's the latter isn't it?

>>12720968
See>>12720894

>>12720944
It is. If it were not negligible we would see significant trends in a 22 year cycle.

>>12720947
Where did he say anything like what Moynihan said?

>>12719087
They won't tho

>>12720979
Funny, but not a response.

>>12719117
>Extra CO2 increases the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared light by a known amount. Blocking infrared light is how you make a greenhouse, hence the 1970s name for the phenomenon “greenhouse effect”.
Is that what professor shekelsteinerberg told you?

>>12721003

>>12720930
The source is the fact that there are "29 major climate change models" and none of them share common data or trends.

And 22 years of data from a 4+ billion year old star doesn't show "significance"? Maybe the sciences aren't for your feeble mind. Back to the kiddie pool.

>>12720930
Geomagnetic reversal has had a significant impact on climate throughout history, but your pseudoscience indoctrination camp told you it was insignificant? Or, is that a falsehood you've concocted on your own? Maybe while asking for "sources" from me, you should read and employ what's left of your critical thinking skills.

>>12721003
>>12721013
>>12720797
>Is that what professor shekelsteinerberg told you?
Why the FUCK would I need to be "told" this shit? Are you brain-damaged to where you can't check this shit on your own? LOL. The CO2 warming calculation is fucking simple, you just need to know the rate of diffusion of infrared light in the atmosphere based on the CO2 concentration. It doesn’t even require a computer, you can see that more CO2 leads to a warmer Earth without any assumptions or reliance on "experts", and you can see it’s a significant effect, although you don’t know the feedbacks, so you can’t make a certain prediction without further data. But it’s a very simple effect to understand and predict. If you need someone else to tell you what to think then you do not have the brainpower for /sci/.

>>12721119
>The CO2 warming calculation is fucking simple
stopped reading right there

>>12719142
>>no earth quakes
There are Earthquakes. The infrastructure won't be able to handle a 7.0 so it's going to be fun when the next decent one hits.

>>no super cold days
Lots of snow though =)

>>no super hot days
They happen and when they do the lack of A/C makes it miserable.

>>no hurricanes
Correct. But high winds are common.

>>no tornadoes
False, believe it or not.

>Didn't mention volcanoes
We are at a time of peace, the really active ones right now are off the coast along the Juan De Fuca fault.
The ones in the Cascades will erupt again, and they erupt big.

>>12721003
You can literally test this yourself

in 5 months all of that will be dark red

>>12721148
>Math scares me
We know, anon

>>12719066
In general the climate will get more volatile, allowing more extreme cold and warm weather. Texas will experience worse in the future cold in the future, while the summers will get hotter.

>>12721023
Why do you lie and think no one will call your bullshit?
Even if the models didn't work warming is evident from the instrumental record alone.

>>12721023
>The source is the fact that there are "29 major climate change models" and none of them share common data or trends.
That's not a source, it's another lie you will fail to provide evidence for.

>And 22 years of data from a 4+ billion year old star doesn't show "significance"?
What are you babbling about? There's much more than 22 years of data and the age of the Sun is irrelevant. Everything you say is bullshit that you repeatedly fail to back up.

>>12721041
>Geomagnetic reversal has had a significant impact on climate throughout history
What is the impact specifically? Do you even know? I doubt it. It has nothing to do with current warming, which is on much too short a timescale to be related to geomagnetic reversal and is already explained by the greenhouse effect.

You know that every time you fail to present evidence for your claims you further lose credibility, right?

>>12721148
>stopped reading right there
That's a shame your brain has an instant off switch. Must be tough with so little light up there.

>>12721314
The climate will get hotter
And colder
And wetter
And drier
And more static
And more volatile
That's the effects of climate change.
I've now predicted literally every possibility, therefor I will be right no matter what happens.
What do you mean with falsifiability? This is sCiEnCe you DENIER!!!!1

>>12723896
>And colder
Wrong. Try again.

>>12721233
>>12721262
>With this simple formula, you too can prove the effects of global warming
I have a bridge to sell you too anon

>>12719117
At some point you've blocked all the light in the specific bandwidths CO2 reflects and the effect maxes out, why not push to and reach that limit?

>>12724046
yeah why not it works great for venus

>>12723944
Look a climate change denier, he still believes it's global warming. Go back to /x/ science denier.

>>12724046
>At some point you've blocked all the light in the specific bandwidths CO2 reflects and the effect maxes out
I doubt there is enough carbon on the planet to reach that point. If there was, we would due from heat or asphyxiation before reaching it.

whenever i see /pol/cels speaking about climate i get reminded about the novel Blindsight.

>>12724434
I know it's hard for you to think about two things at the same time, but global warming is climate change. The US having a polar vortex does not mean global warming has stopped.

>>12719066
Post something in real units, europoor

>>12720812
Get back to me when climate models can accurately predict the behavior of water as a greenhouse gas

>>12720878
This graph is the true killshot to the fake climate scam these pencil necked basedentists have been pushing down everyone's throats

>>12724498
how would we falsify AGW hypothesis

>>12727076
How about the planet cools down?

>>12727126
I can think of at least two reasons why that won't do, wait no three

>>12727129
well use your big boy words

>>12719066
The climate changes and has changed since the planet was a planet. "Climate science", on the other hand, is highly politicized and mostly BS and the zealots are functionally retarded

>warmer weather causes cold weather

>>12720878
So true. The tipping point is always in two decades, one decade if you're desperate like Greenpeace were in 2009.

One year past the tipping point.

Thanks Obama.

Can't believe we survived past the tipping point senpai

>>12719066
global warming is a scam designed to push overpriced "clean" (lol) energy and incompetent politicians into office.
t. worked as a nuclear physicist in ex-USSR. (Arkalyk, Kurchatov, Moscow. Left Russia in 2010)

global warming is fake.

>>12719066
It's just another way that the elite will try to control our lives.
They'll get to fly in their private jets, eat expensive steaks, and do whatever the fuck they want. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to get carbon taxes and eat the bugs. Not to mention all the surveillance they'll push to enforce this and the fact that developing countries like China and India will probably get off for free if they do break the rules.
At the end of the day, I'm not going to sit here and get lectured by psychopaths like Bill Gates; they can all go fuck themselves.
I just hope we'll invest more in renewables research and they will eventually phase out fossil fuels and maybe we'll start adopting nuclear a bit more in the mean time.

>>12727021
>Get back to me when climate models can accurately predict the behavior of water as a greenhouse gas
They already do.

>>12727076
>how do I falsify an empirical observation
Show warming is not caused by CO2 emissions. Show cooling despite CO2 emissions. Not that hard, retard.

>>12727233
>The climate changes and has changed since the planet was a planet.
No climate scientist says otherwise.

>"Climate science", on the other hand, is highly politicized and mostly BS
Proof?

>>12727316
>warm air pushes cold air

>>12727327
>The tipping point is always in two decades
Source?

>>12727350
>global warming is a scam designed to push overpriced "clean" (lol) energy and incompetent politicians into office.
Proof?

Required viewing for all the /pol/lutants in this thread:

https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk

>>12727604
literally any doomsday prediction.
do you even read?

>>12727586
Fine tuning.

>>12727734
How is it fine tuned?

>>12727348
>>12727333
>>12727331
>>12727327
But those banners are right.

We are probably past the tipping point which is why Elon Musk just issued a $100 million reward to whoever can improve carbon capture technology. Only carbon capture can save us now, Earth is fucked.

You are literally experiencing a massive freeze spell in the US due to the Arctic Vortex collapsing and you are still denying climate change is happening, it would be funny in another context but it's actually tragic.

And yes, if global WARMING continues, expect the Gulf Stream to dissappear and Northern Europe to FREEZE, I know it sounds counter-intuitive but this is how climate works.

>>12727586
>let us cherrypick the very few models that came close to reality (in hindsight and after numerous corrections along the way) and ignore all the rest

>>12719066
global warming describes the global average temperature year over year not local extremes

>>12727753
>>let us cherrypick the very few models that came close to reality
Source?

>>12727753
The ensemble hasn't changed since the projection began. Why are you lying?

>>12719224
>Fundamental theorem of calculus
>From the 1700s and not in a peer reviewed journal
>Useless try again

>>12719066
never paid any attention to climate science, what are some good resources?

>>12727076
>how would we falsify AGW hypothesis

>CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy.

>Pic: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

So, to sum up:
1. We understand the mechanism through which CO2 warms the atmosphere

2. We have proof of this mechanism in action in the form of pic related. We literally have direct evidence that CO2 is causing more heat to get trapped in the atmosphere.

3. We have measured large increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the late 1800s and understand how these have been caused by Human activity.

4. We have seen global average temperatures increase as predicted.

>>12727076
>CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy.

>Pic: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

To sum up:

1. We understand the mechanism through which CO2 warms the atmosphere

2. We have proof of this mechanism in action in the form of pic related. We literally have direct evidence that CO2 is causing more heat to get trapped in the atmosphere.

3. We have measured large increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the late 1800s and understand how these have been caused by Human activity.

4. We have seen global average temperatures increase as predicted.

>>12727817
>estimated warming per doubling of CO2
>ten years ago it was 1-4°C per doubling
>today it's even greater at 0.5°C-10°C per doubling
>The uncertainty and error bars keep growing every year yet the science is settled and consensused several decades ago

Sure thing Bagdad Bob, whatever your handlers tell you.

>>12727797
Not outdated science. Also I don't even think the book you cited says what you claim it does, since you can't even cite any research to support it.

>>12727844
>>ten years ago it was 1-4°C per doubling
>>today it's even greater at 0.5°C-10°C per doubling
Source?

>>12727844
Even if your claims were correct (not sure where you are getting your figures from), your argument is akin to debating the temperature of a forest fire while its raging.

Experts predicted a forest fire, it's raging as predicted and your argument boils down to "nyuk nyuk it's not as hot as that guy over there said it would be"

>>12719087
People like you are the reason why your country is divided. You are counterproductive to your goal bro

>>12719066 Digits
It's part of a long cycle climate trend influenced little by our actions.
The truth is unknown and the topic requires more long term, non-biased study to be qualified as conclusive.
The potential for there to be corruption and misinformation in these newer paid results is alarming, and the fact said results may be used to help enforce "carbon taxes" which would act as wealth redistribution from the less wealthy to the ruling classes calls the entire modern scientific field relating to climate study into question.

>>12719097
y.. yes
unironically

My basic understanding of extreme weather due to climate change is that weather events are caused by uneven heating of the air, which leads to pressure differentials. More heat trapped by greenhouse gasses leads to more uneven heating and in less predictable patterns, and that causes more extreme weather in places we don't usually see it. That's why we get big swings of temperature, warm weather in the winter/cold weather in the summer, and more violent storms like hurricanes (which are caused by warm and cold air mixing).

Is that anywhere close to what is happening/will happen?

>>12727900
>It's part of a long cycle climate trend
What cycle? Interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago. According to the natural cycle we should be slowly cooling right now, not rapidly warming.

>influenced little by our actions.
Please explain how the greenhouse effect from our emissions have "little influence" when they are directly observed to have a large influence:

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

>The truth is unknown
Denying scientific facts don't make it go away.

>The potential for there to be corruption and misinformation in these newer paid results is alarming
What evidence do you have for your conspiracy theory?

>>12727327
God I wish this bitch would die sooner. She makes me want to genocide.

>>12719066
That local cooling doesn't invalidate global warming.

>>12719097
Simping for politicians bad.

>>12719066
>>12719066
So global warming is actually making the world colder somehow?

>>12729363
Texas is not the world anon, your local congressmen trying to convince you otherwise doesn't make it true

>>12729379
I' am just memeing I don't actually believe in conspiracy theories.

>>12720000
checked

>>12729385
Good to hear, I only post on /sci/ to shitpost in obvious /pol/ bait threads and to bully sci-fi idiots in space threads myself

>>12727753
>comparing a model that does surface temperature to high altitude temperatures
Truly amazing skills from the denial tards

There's a significant probability that the models are bullshit.
Models are quite easy to manipulate, intentionally or accidentally.
Models are naturally going to self select to match the recent trend. Meaning, the models being accurate in regards to recent history (say, 1900+) doesn't really tell us whether the model is accurate because it models things well or because of some fluke.
And we have extremely limited data to test the models on, data further back than few centuries aren't very good and the models don't work on that data very well anyway.

Even with the best intentions, models are very difficult to get right (wonder why we still do so much physical prototyping and testing?). Do I have high degree of trust in models that came out of heavily politicized field, have very limited test data, and are significantly affected by the incentive perversions that come with public funding? Nope, I definitely don't.

>>12729568
Not only do models indeed work, but you don't need them to see the rapid warming caused by us dumping CO2 into the atmosphere

>>12719142
Wildfires dumbass

>>12729736
>but you don't need them to see the rapid warming caused by us dumping CO2 into the atmosphere
>I already have my conclusion, I even without the science.
Opinion discarded.

>>12729833
you mean the science that clearly shows the earth rapidly warming?

>>12729838
>>warming because of CO2
>is the same as
>>warming
Just the fact that you'd ever act as if those are equivalent shows have clueless you are.

>>12723987
Ok, what is it?

>>12729869
Why do you ignore that CO2 induced warming has been observed and proven many times?

>>12729869
I mean feel free to provide another possible cause. Just make sure it lines up with stratospheric cooling, and decreased outgoing longwave radiation as measured from satellites.

>>12719066
Shows how much the airlines and roads full of cars do to heat the planet up when they are absent.

>>12719066
Climate denial is denial of personal responsibility.

>>12729917
Warming has been observed, CO2 being the primary cause has been hypothesized, those are two very different things.

>>12729967
>CO2 being the primary cause has been hypothesized, those are two very different things.
Not a mere hypothesis when it's been proven by observation

>>12729917
Why do you ignore Mars’ polar regions melting at the same time as ours?

>>12729967
You can verify that CO2 causes warming using a fucking pen and paper. Stop reading popsci you little fag.

>>12729961
Most pollution is emitted by manufacturers in Asia. The only personal responsibility involved is to buy less stuff. All of the other "Go Green" hoop jumping they advocate is pointless and is meant to both deflect attention away from the manufacturers and to keep you buying their stuff.

>>12729982
They didn't even notice that clouds have net cooling effect until couple years ago
>bro, just trust us, it's pen and paper simple

>>12719066
If just 10% green energy cooled Texas down this much, imagine what 100% green energy will do. It will plunge the world into a nuclear winter. We must not let that happen. Do the needful, burn that coal.

>>12730012
>net cooling
citation needed

>>12729967
>>12729918

>>12720850
I went to go look at the magnetic flippening interval record and this is on the first page. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you're thinking about what they want you to think about. The oldest article looks to be about as old as your post here, so you're pretty close to the tit.

>>12730021
>American enters thread
>finds excuse to have interracial sex

>>12730057
forgot image

>>12729994
Are you replying to the wrong post? Nothing you just said has any relation to the point of the post you're replying to.

I'm just waiting for Florida to disappear. Practically half the state has an elevation of under 10 ft. If global warming can't even take out Florida it's a nothing burger.

>>12719066
Apparently we could use more of it.

>>12720840
>Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.

Sounding better and better,

>>12730088
>I'm just waiting for Florida to disappear.
Floridafag here - I think you will be waiting along time. Lots of smart people who publicly scold about climate change have beachfront property here, and I don't see a sell-off occurring.

>>12730179
thanks to federally subsidized flood insurance you'll be paying to rebuild them every time they flood

>>12730088
It'll happen all at once.
One day a cat 7 hurricane will kill millions, permanently erode the land below sea level, and start a massive internal refugee situation.
and still "florida man" will deny climate change
its some kind of programming bug inherent to the human psyche

>>12724465
seriously, this guy >>12727233 for example, wouldn't pass a turing test.

>>12730219
doomer fanfiction? You might enjoy /qst/. I'm just telling you how it is.

>>12730376
some idiot just like you said new orleans would never be flooded too.
and some other idiot said category 7 hurricanes never happen

>>12730526
Cloud seeding hypothesis.

New York underwater

>>12727604
It's a common theme. 20 years is just far ahead ehough in the future so that the prediction can be forgotten by the time the deadline arrives, but immeadiate enough to still be relevant to people hearing the prediction.

>>12727751
Wow we better engage in a Veblen war against existing energy generators and buy new ones.

Why has nobody mentioned that the white house literally just declared the texas crisis is due to climate change.

>>12730569
They were right about the rioting kek, although the cause in Europe was immigration.

>>12730563
I mean jesus himself say anything in a Salon interview and I wouldn't really care until he actually published it

>>12730569
>secret report ''''leaked''''' the the guardian that that we still have no idea what it actually said
nice source dude my wife's boyfriend also said that an ice age is coming now so I'm going with him

>>12720797
>>12721003
>>12721148
>>12729967
>>12730012
>just trust us
THIS is your problem right here, you brain-damaged imbecile. You're TOO FUCKING STUPID to check shit on your own. You need to TRUST someone to tell you what to think, because you WANT to be retarded. What a stupid goal.

>it's pen and paper simple
The CO2 in the air reflects infrared light, which makes the earth warm up. The CO2 together with H2O (water) going in and out of oceans are the ONLY THING that matter for the temperature of the earth. Since the water goes in and out of oceans, the only stable thing is CO2, therefore, CO2 is the only factor determining the temperature of the atmosphere, and as it goes up, so does the average temperature of the earth. This is obvious to any physicist. Human emissions and deforestation accounts for the EXACT AMOUNT that it is going up, therefore, the CO2 is going up due to human emissions. The amount is such that each decade, we will heat up by a degree.

>They didn't even notice that clouds have net cooling effect until couple years ago
The climate is not chaotic. It's a fucking ONE PARAMETER SYSTEM, and it's completely understood, you drooling chimpanzee. It's not even dynamical!! The ONLY THING that matters for average global temperature is CO2. The CO2 in the air is the complete answer to the question "how hot is the air". It's a braindead simple scientific fact, and if you think it's uncertain, it's because you are scientifically illiterate and have been brainwashed by billionaires. KILL YOURSELF.

>>12729568
>There's a significant probability that the models are bullshit.
Show your math.

>Models are quite easy to manipulate
What does that mean in this context?

>Models are naturally going to self select to match the recent trend.
Why would the current trend continue? You're forgetting that these are not arbitrary models fitting a curve, they are physical models. The data requires a physical explanation, not "a fluke."

>And we have extremely limited data to test the models on
The data we have is enough.

>heavily politicized field
The results being politically inconvenient for you doesn't mean the field is politicized.

>and are significantly affected by the incentive perversions that come with public funding?
What evidence do you have the models are biased?

>>12729869
See >>12728950

It's directly observed.

>>12729967
But that's wrong you fucking retard.

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

>>12729981
Typically intelligent people ignore things which are misleading or not true. The polar ice caps shrink and grow cyclically on Mars.

https://www.msss.com/http/ps/seasons/seasons.html

CO2 has less heat retention than the air mix we breathe

>>12730563
Fake quote.

https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm

>>12730569
Fails to mention the report was describing a "worst case scenario" for military purposes. Nice strawman.

>>12730526
Umm...New Orleans flooded b/c a poorly maintained levee broke. And Category 7 hurricanes aren't an actual thing.

I think temp in the USA is measured in F.

>>12730926
Schizo

>>12731212
>heat retention
This indicates the /pol/tard's lack of understanding. He doesn't understand that the greenhouse effect us not due to CO2 absorbing and holding heat, it's due to CO2 absorbing and re-emmitting heat.

>>12731262
This exposes the reddit tranny for being unaware of the density change of CO2 during it's cooling process

>>12731200
Right i have an iq of 136 from mensa and have a maths degree but you’re programmed to attack me as uninformed and have a link which i am supposed read to change my life and brain. Now you’re going to change loop and attack me as a fkat earther.

>>12731376
>136
midwit

Why does nobody ever talk about ocean acidification when it comes to climate change because that's actually a pretty terrifying prospect that could happen in our grandchildren's life time

>>12731385
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rSaC-YbSDpo

>>12719066
>greenhouse effect
>greenhouses grow stuff
>growing stuff is good and makes O2
>????
>profit!

>>12731256
>that image
>Schizo
Fucking idiot. Learn to read you brain-damaged pseud. Ahahaha!!

>>12731280
Which is completely irrelevant to anything I said.

>>12731376
>gets BTFO
>throws a tantrum
Typical /pol/tard

>>12731209
This to be desu

>>12731429
If you knew how to read you would see that many things affect the climate, CO2 is just the dominant factor currently.

>>12731444
Checked and the point definitely still stands.

>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 !

>>12731584
climate change = extreme weather
we told you it would get weird
not too weird tho, it is winter ffs

>>12731584
>Texas = Globe
The apex of the /pol/tard intellect.

>>12719066
fake and gay

>>12719066
Could be fun, Greenland and Siberia will become more inhabitable and comfy, Also apparently Australia gets an inland ocean because of rising sea temperatures.

Everybody is still wearing sweaters here. When I was younger, it got hot in February.

>>12731421
based

>>12731732
Everything is bigger on Texas idiot

>>12731440
Brainlet confirmed

>>12731451
The dominant factor is the sun, actually.

>>12721444
Why doesn’t this graph extend back to when the Vikings were farming Greenland (before the climate cooled down to where they could no longer), or back to when the miles-thick ice sheets covered Scandinavia and Canada (before the industrial revolution of 16,000 AD).

>>12732541
>source: my ass

>>12732547
Pleas argue that sea levels were at today's levels while half the globe were under kilometers of ice. I desperately want to see that.

>>12732547
>See valid point
>Know premise is true and logic is sound, still disagree, don’t know why
>”Citation needed”
>Argument won!

>>12732547
M8 greenland used to have wine vineyards

>>12724046
>the (((scientific establishment))) will never let us reach CO2-MAX

>>12723987
>oh, you refuted my argument? well here's a tangential allusion to an aphorism
f.. fuck... climatetards btfo again.....

>>12731732
It's not just Texas. Europe is experiencing cold now too.

>>12732469
>can't explain what density of CO2 had to do with anything said
Brainlet confirmed.

>>12732475
The Sun is at a grand minimum, why are we rapidly warming?

>>12732790
>still unaware of my point so going to dance around like a retard

In fact I will continue to let you spoil in your foolishness rather than enlighten you

>it's hot today
>see, it's global warming!
>it's cold today
>see, it's global warming!
>weather isn't changing
>see, it's global warming!

>>12732793
>tells a lie

>>12732541
>Why doesn’t this graph extend back to when the Vikings were farming Greenland
We all know Vikings had thermometers, but (((they))) won't allow you to see the data.

Also, sea level rise due to ice sheets melting during interglacial warming must mean that all sea level rise and warming is natural. Just ignore that interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago and residual melting due to that warming ended 2000 years ago. If you don't include modern sea level measurements in the graph then they don't exist.

>>12732584
And?

>>12732773
Texas and Europe =/= the globe.

>>12732773
>It's not just Texas. Europe is experiencing cold now too.
Wow, what an odd coincidence!

It's almost as if there was a strange natural phenomena affecting the Northern Hemisphere around this time of the year. Yup, now I remember, it's called Winter.

Retard.

>>12732795
So you admit you have no point. Thanks, retard.

>>12732797
>it's getting hotter over the long term
>global warming is a hoax!
>warm air hitting the poles can create polar vortexes
>global warming is a hoax!
>weather isn't the same thing as climate
>global warming is a hoax!

>>12732919
Global freezing every year!
Global warming every year!

>>12732800
>gets BTFO

>>12732933
>global
/pol/tards still don't understand what this word means.

>>12732921
The benefit I get from you remaining stupid is a great payment. I don't expect you to understand. I did however give you enough information for you to fix this, but I would find that surprising given your hubris.

>>12732939
>he thinks this was the lie I was referring to

Also
>1880

>>12732933

>>12732951
See >>12732921

>>12732954
I only said two things and that graph proves both.

>>12733127
You seem to not get it

>>12733132
>>12733132
>1880
>proves

>>12733135
There is nothing to get.

>>12733137
Yes.

This thread is terrible, what the fuck do I even come here for

>>12719066
>>12731584
>>12729363
There are more lands beyond Texas /pol/tards

>>12719066
Amazing that it took until the 21st century for humans to realize that the climate is dynamic and changes regularly. Shame that everyone is still blinded and led astray by alarmism though.

>>12733424
I know it's Southern Hemisphere Summer right now but holy shit Australia is melting.

Can /sci/ explain to me how we can know for sure that it is temperature that affects CO2 rather than CO2 that affects temperature? I notice some curious pattern when I compare various historical graphs of temperature and CO2. It only becomes apparent when you insist to put both graphs on top of each other under the same time scale.

For example, let's start with pic related. Source included.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

>>12733808
Graph operation: move one pattern on top of the other.

>>12733808
>Can /sci/ explain to me how we can know for sure that it is temperature that affects CO2 rather than CO2 that affects temperature?
Rephrase this

>>12733814
Now what am I supposed to think of this? Why does CO2 goes down AFTER temperature goes down? Please help me, I don't want to be a climate change denial retard. It feels like I'm taking crazy pill. If something (?) increased CO2 and in return the CO2 increased global temperature, why did temperature drop so often in prediction of CO2 drops that came much, much later? They both increase together at the same time but they clearly do not go down at the same time.

>>12733808
>Can /sci/ explain to me how we can know for sure that it is temperature that affects CO2 rather than CO2 that affects temperature?
Your premise is incorrect. Both are true. An increase in CO2 increases temperature via the greenhouse effect. Increases in temperature increase CO2 via outgassing from the oceans.

>>12733820
Sure. I want to know whether an increase in CO2 increases global temperature or does an increase in temperature increases CO2.

I can provide an example. Fire causes heat and smoke. We can make a graph showing that when fire increases in magnitude, so does the amount heat and smoke. If you extinguish a fire with a bucket of water, the heat and smoke will go down, but not immediately. There is lag. This lag helps us to determine which thing causes the other thing. The heat and smoke is not expected to go down in anticipation because you approach a fire with a bucket of water. This is the equivalent of temperature going down in advance because CO2 will go down later. I hope this was clear and concise enough, I can explain more if necessary.

>>12733824
A regular inter-glacial cycle starts when a cyclical 'wobble' in the earths orbit causes increased sunlight in polar regions, this melts ice, warms the arctic, and increases ocean temperatures. This warmer water raises ocean temperatures globally which decreases the solubility of CO2 in water so the oceans release CO2. This CO2 is a positive feedback which then raises the temperature globally and causes the planet to enter the inter-glacial phase. CO2 lags temperature in polar regions because it's a feedback not what's causing the initial warming.
does this answer your question?

Just remember this is completely natural, don't confuse it with humans raising CO2 levels to the highest point in 5 million years virtually overnight when the planet is already at the warmest point in the interglacial cycle.

That's just what temperature is like. The whole habitability thing is the fluke

Nooooo!!! Earth has to be perfectly room temp at all times!!! Aaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!

>>12733846
>Your premise is incorrect.
There is no premise in that sentence. It is purely a question. You are free to emit the opinion that it is the wrong question to ask, for example if someone pointed at a green object and asked whether the object is red or blue, but it is still a simple question with no previous logical statement that happens to be wrong.

>Both are true
They cannot both be true. If our graph showed temperature and CO2 simultaneously rising and falling together with pixel-perfect precision, we would end up with three propositions.

1: Something increases temperature which increases CO2
2: Something increases CO2 which increases temperature
3: Something increases both and the two don't interact with each other at all

Our goal is to eliminate one or more of these statements. Luckily for us, the graphs do not fit exactly on top of each other with pixel perfect precision. One graph is delayed, the CO2 graph. Temperature goes down in anticipation of CO2 going down, instead of CO2 going down and causing the Earth to cool down. What is your opinion on this?

>>12733853
>I want to know whether an increase in CO2 increases global temperature or does an increase in temperature increases CO2.
Both.

>This lag helps us to determine which thing causes the other thing.
Not really, since heat can also cause a fire.

>>12733875
>A regular inter-glacial cycle starts when a cyclical 'wobble' in the earths orbit causes increased sunlight in polar regions,
I can agree to this proposition.
>This CO2 is a positive feedback which then raises the temperature
Where is the evidence of a positive feedback? All I see is temperature increasing the amount of CO2.

>CO2 lags temperature in polar regions because it's a feedback not what's causing the initial warming.
Lag does not prove the existence of a feedback. Lag can be seen in a large variety of graphs where no feedback involved. It is entirely natural that sometimes two things can increase together but one will go down more slowly, what does that have to do with evidence of a feedback? It seems clear to me that in this conversation all that matters is that temperature goes down preemptively before CO2 goes down, which strongly hints at the relationship of cause and effect.

>>12734003
>Where is the evidence of a positive feedback? All I see is temperature increasing the amount of CO2.
it's pretty obvious when you look at global temperature and not just polar. However the real reason is because of simple physics, we don't think CO2 increases temperatures only because we see it happening in the past (we do) we know CO2 increases temperatures because we can measure the decreased outgoing long wave radiation, reduced temperatures in the stratosphere etc.
When you put a blanket on something you don't look at charts and graphs to try to figure out if heat causes blankets because it's pretty easy to figure out the effect the blanket is having.

>>12733949
>There is no premise in that sentence.
The question assumes that one "rather" than the other is true. But that's false.

>They cannot both be true.
Why? They are both true and this is empirically observable. It's as simple as that.

>If our graph showed temperature and CO2 simultaneously rising and falling together with pixel-perfect precision
More false premises. There would only be a perfectly precise correlation if no other factors affected temperature and CO2. This is false. The correlation would have zero lag only if the causative mechanisms, the greenhouse effect and solubility of CO2 in the oceans, were instantaneous. This is false.

>One graph is delayed, the CO2 graph.
Your graph doesn't even show global temperature, just Antarctic temperature. Globally, warming is preceded by CO2 at certain times:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

>Temperature goes down in anticipation of CO2 going down, instead of CO2 going down and causing the Earth to cool down.
Nope, both occur.

>>12733950
>Both
This is strictly impossible. The Earth would be a ball of fire. There would be no cycle, only temperature going up. When you look at the exact point where a cycle goes, how do you imagine this sequence of event? Something has to cause it. It seems logical to infer that something increased temperature which increased CO2. That something reduced its impact, therefore reducing temperature, therefore reducing CO2. This third thing (earth's orbit? solar flares? something about the ocean?) would be the driving factor of climate change.

>Not really, since heat can also cause a fire.
Heat is a product of fire and doesn't produce fire on its own, it requires other things. Fire is a chemical reaction that goes in one direction. It is a good analogy for cause and effect, you should be able to grasp it. If it proves too difficult to understand, we can use any other chemical reaction. Fire also produces CO2, we can use that if you prefer. Is CO2 combustible? You confused a unit of heat with an entire chemical reaction but I don't think you can confuse an invisible odorless gas with fire. All things consider, I don't think you are all that interested in discussing the subject if you are interested in word games to pretend you don't understand cause and effect.

>>12734091
>There is no premise in that sentence
Asking whether one thing or another is true can be an incorrect question to ask for many reasons but not because of a premise. A premise is a previous logical statement. Please google the definition.

>Why?
Because when two things cause another, we do not observe a cyclical pattern, just a straight line going up. A nuclear reaction is an example of something that causes itself once triggered, the graph is linear and not a wave. If a graph that pertains to a nuclear reaction looks like a wave, it is because an external factor is modifying the perimeters and making it a wave.

>Your graph doesn't even show global temperature, just Antarctic temperature.
Wait. Why have we exchanged so many words until you suddenly disagree with the validity of the data itself instead of the conclusion? It seems that this would be an entirely different conversation if you agreed with everything I said but pointed out that we need a better graph. Is this what you want to do now? Do you agree with everything I say but we just need a better graph? We can look together through other graphs of different sources if you want.

>nope, both occur
The two graphs have lag, only one graph can lag behind the other. Temperature goes down in anticipation of CO2 going down, not the other way around. It's on the graph. I have circled the areas in red.

>>12734105
>This is strictly impossible
Not only is it possible, it's directly observed. The greenhouse effect exists. Solubility of CO2 exists. What is your argument against these facts?

>The Earth would be a ball of fire. There would be no cycle, only temperature going up.
Why?

>When you look at the exact point where a cycle goes, how do you imagine this sequence of event? Something has to cause it.
The cycle you're taking about is the Milankovich cycle. It's caused by the way Earth orbits around the Sun. How does this counter anything I said?

>This third thing (earth's orbit? solar flares? something about the ocean?) would be the driving factor of climate change.
It was, until now. According to the Milankovoch cycle, we should be slowly cooling. But instead we are rapidly warming, because CO2 emissions are the dominant factor. See >>12731159

>Heat is a product of fire
Heat is sometimes a product of fire, sometimes not.

>doesn't produce fire on its own, it requires other things
Non sequitur. I didn't say it causes fire on its own, I said it can cause fire.

>It is a good analogy for cause and effect, you should be able to grasp it.
What exactly didn't I grasp?

>You confused a unit of heat with an entire chemical reaction
Where? You're illiterate.

>All things consider, I don't think you are all that interested in discussing the subject if you are interested in word games to pretend you don't understand cause and effect.
What word games? Causative relations between CO2 and temperature are not word games, they are empirically observable facts. The only one that seems to be avoiding discussing them is you.

>>12734105
>This is strictly impossible. The Earth would be a ball of fire.
Only if you assume that there's an unlimited amount of CO2 that can be outgassed, and CO2 has a perfectly linear relationship with temperature. Both of these assumptions are nonsense.

>>12734162
>A premise is a previous logical statement.
That is one possible definition of premise. Another definition is "something assumed or taken for granted." The assumption that only one or the other can be true is a premise of your question. Who exactly is playing word games?

>Because when two things cause another, we do not observe a cyclical pattern, just a straight line going up.
Wrong. It depends on what other factors are involved and what the specifics of the feedback are. In the case of the CO2 and warming feedback on Earth, the process is limited by the diminishing returns of increasing CO2 and by the increased black body radiation of the Earth. A linear increase in CO2 will produce a logarithmic increase in warming. The cycle is only due to a cyclical triggering mechanism: Earth's orbital eccentricity and obliquely not the feedback. Increasing human CO2 emissions, on the other hand, are not cyclical, so neither is current warming.

> A nuclear reaction is an example of something that causes itself once triggered, the graph is linear and not a wave.
Non sequitur. I never claimed feedbacks create a cycle or that all feedbacks behave like the one we're taking about.

>Why have we exchanged so many words until you suddenly disagree with the validity of the data itself instead of the conclusion?
I didn't disagree with the validity of the data. I disagreed with your claim about what the data represented. Learn how to read.

>It seems that this would be an entirely different conversation if you agreed with everything I said but pointed out that we need a better graph.
I disagree of what you said, whether it's based on the graph or not. Have you been paying attention? Because it seems like you instance very little of what we've just discussed.

>The two graphs have lag, only one graph can lag behind the other.
OK, and how does that respond to what I said?

>>12734162
>Temperature goes down in anticipation of CO2 going down
Yes, and CO2 goes down before temperature goes down. What the graph shows is a combination of both effects. Globally, CO2 preceded warming during the last deglaciation. At the poles, warming preceded CO2 because of the Milankovich cycle increasing insulation at the North Pole.

>>12734178
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without this atmosphere.
I do not dispute the concept that radiation warns a planet. Perhaps this means something else to you?

>Why?
Because if CO2 increases temperature and temperature increases CO2, we are discussing a closed loop. There is no reason for temperature to down. Yet it does, there is a cyclical pattern. Something is causing a pattern to start and stop. The lag between the temperature graph and CO2 graph can help us understand the relationship between temperature, CO2 and the third mysterious factor causing a pattern to start and stop. It is possible that the mysterious third factor only directly increases either temperature or CO2, in which case one of the later two causes further changes. Therefore we should play close attention to which graph follows which to determine cause and effect.

>I didn't say it causes fire on its own, I said it can cause fire.
The sentence "heat can cause fire" is just as wrong as the sentence "oxygen can cause fire". Contributing to a sustained reaction doesn't mean causing the reaction to start. Oxygen does not starts fire. You insist to pretend to be unable to understand the concept of cause and effect, I won't reply any further.

>>12734283
>Yes, and CO2 goes down before temperature goes down.
Show it to me. Draw red circles where you see a recurring pattern of CO2 going down before temperature.

>>12720878
Whoever made this graph is good at taking the piss out of things I'll give them that

Lol nobody cares you sperg

>>12727805
alright I'll check them out thanks

>>12734284
>I do not dispute the concept that radiation warns a planet.
Do you dispute that radiation from the atmosphere's radiatively active gases, including CO2, warms the planet? Funny how you accuse me of playing word games and then hide behind vague language.

>Because if CO2 increases temperature and temperature increases CO2, we are discussing a closed loop.
Right, it's a feedback loop. You were supposed to explain why this feedback loop can't exist. Try again.

>There is no reason for temperature to down.
Yes there is, since other factors can affect the temperature. You're making a ton of illogical assumptions, I would suggest you just start from scratch and read a basic climate science textbook.

>Something is causing a pattern to start and stop.
This has already been explained to you several times. It's Earth's orbital parameters. Earth's orbit around the Sun exists. The feedback loop between CO2 and temperature also exists. Understand, or do I need to dumb it down even further for you? I don't know how I can.

>The lag between the temperature graph and CO2 graph can help us understand the relationship between temperature, CO2 and the third mysterious factor causing a pattern to start and stop.
Not if you keep on ignoring what I've already explained to you.

>The sentence "heat can cause fire" is just as wrong as the sentence "oxygen can cause fire". Heat can cause the combustion of oxygen which causes fire. Therefore heat can cause fire. But continue playing word games if it makes you happy.

>Contributing to a sustained reaction doesn't mean causing the reaction to start.
Heat can cause the reaction to start.

>You insist to pretend to be unable to understand the concept of cause and effect
Where?

>I won't reply any further.
You mean you're "interested in discussing the subject?"

I really don't care if you reply or not, you're much too up your own ass to learn anything. Good luck with your stupidity.

>>12734350
It's always annoying when someone pretends like they have a legitimate question, then it turns out it's always a braindead denier blinded by their agenda.

>>12734301
The graph is a combination of both effects. You are still holding on to the false premise that only one or the other can be true, which leads to to the false conclusion that the graph can only be showing the result of one being true. This is especially funny since you were already shown CO2 preceding warming globally, but since that contradicts your entire argument, you just ignore it:

>>12734053
>>12734091

>>12734383
>The graph is a combination of both effects.
Show it to me. Draw red circles on the graph where CO2 goes down before temperature goes down. Temperature is the red line, CO2 is the blue line, the graph is chronologically read from left to right. I don't want to discuss anything else, this post >>12734283 said that the graph shoes CO2 going down before temperature, I want to see red circles around the areas of interest on this graph that we are trying to discuss.

If you are the same person as >>12734284 then I recommend that you identify yourself so I can stop replying.

>>12734611
Your graph shows Antarctic temperatures. You were already explained why CO2 preceding temperatures happens on a global level but not at the poles during a natural Interglacial Cycle. The "oddity" you claim to have spotted has been explained to you.

In addition you were shown a chart of global temperatures, on which CO2 increases precede temperature increases just as you had requested. You were explained how Milankovich Cycles work. You remain obtuse to all the knowledge these patient anons have brought to you.

Frankly they are too patient.
I for one will not play your game and I will simply call you a cunt. You are no different than a Flat Earther. The tactics are the same. The hubris of thinking you are better than the people that researched this their entire lives but not even knowing or bothering to google what a Milankovich Cycle is. And if you are trolling, it's not even funny trolling.

Just a waste of time for everyone involved, the willful spreading of ignorance by a fucking cunt of a person, and proof that humanity does deserve everything that's coming to it.

>>12734611
Your graph shows Antarctic temperatures. You were already explained why CO2 preceding temperatures happens on a global level but not at the poles during a natural Interglacial Cycle. The "oddity" you claim to have spotted has been explained to you.

In addition you were shown a chart of global temperatures, on which CO2 increases precede temperature increases just as you had requested. You were explained how Milankovitch Cycles work. You remain obtuse to all the knowledge these patient anons have brought to you.

Frankly they are too patient.
I for one will not play your game and I will simply call you a cunt. You are no different than a Flat Earther. The tactics are the same. The hubris of thinking you are better than the people that researched this their entire lives but not even knowing or bothering to google what a Milankovitch Cycle is. And if you are trolling, it's not even funny trolling.

Just a waste of time for everyone involved, the willful spreading of ignorance by a fucking cunt of a person, and proof that humanity does deserve everything that's coming to it.

>>12734611
>Draw red circles on the graph where CO2 goes down before temperature goes down.
You are still holding on to the false premise that only one or the other can be true, which leads to to the false conclusion that the graph can only be showing the result of one being true.

>I don't want to discuss anything else
Too bad, you don't get to control what is discussed. You were already shown CO2 preceding warming globally, but since that contradicts your entire argument, you just ignore it:

>>12734053 #
>>12734091 (You) #

>this post >>12734283 (You) # said that the graph shoes CO2 going down before temperature
Illiterate retard. It says the graph is a combination of both effects.

>If you are the same person as >>12734284 #
That's your post, retard.

>>12734722
>Your graph shows Antarctic temperatures. You were already explained why CO2 preceding temperatures happens on a global level but not at the poles.
After which I have explained that it is an entirely different conversation if people agree that all my arguments are safe and sound but the only problem is that the data we are using is wrong. Fair enough. It happens that people can make the right arguments based on the wrong data. It would be unfortunate if it happened to me, I don't want that, therefore let's make sure I'm not making that mistake. Let's discuss the data. Let's compare which source of data is better suited for this conversation. If there is data collected elsewhere in the world than the poles which shows that historically CO2 goes down followed by temperature going down, let's look at it. You have told me that this data exist, may I see it?

Don't get me wrong, I was indeed offered this incorrect link. I assumed was some mistake.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915
We can see from the title alone that it's not what we're looking for. This is a single isolated event. We are discussing the patterns found in multiple cyclical events. The data that we seek inherently comes in the shape of a graph. May I see some graphs?

We are not in an interglacial period. Warming WILL continue until we are.

>>12734964
please do your most basic research before pretending like you know anything. Hint interglacial doesn't mean what you think it does and our current interglacial period began about 12,000 years ago.

>>12734924
>if people agree that all my arguments are safe and sound but the only problem is that the data we are using is wrong.
Basically every part of your argument was wrong. You're completely ignoring causation and arguing based solely on correlation, and you're not even looking at the relevant correlation.

>If there is data collected elsewhere in the world than the poles which shows that historically CO2 goes down followed by temperature going down, let's look at it.
It was already shown to you. You've ignored it several times now:

>>12734053
>>12734091

>This is a single isolated event.
A single isolated event that disproves your claim that temperature changes precede CO2 changes.

>We are discussing the patterns found in multiple cyclical events.
No, we're discussing the relationship between CO2 and temperature. The cycle you're referring to is caused by Earth's orbit, not that relationship.

>The data that we seek inherently comes in the shape of a graph. May I see some graphs?
You were already given a graph >>12734053. May I see a response?

>>12735131
>You were already given a graph. May I see a response?
My mistake, I should have answered it already. What is the time scale of this graph? This graph doesn't seem to go to 800 000 years ago. Am I seeing wrong? I posted a graph that go back 800 000 years ago which shows multiple cyclical events that I would like to discuss. If I consulted the wrong data then so be it, I would like to see at the proper graph that goes to 800 000 with the same cyclical events that I wish to discuss. I would also like to know how your data was obtained. If my graph is wrong for using ice core data, what is your source of information that isn't ice cores?

>>12734964
>We are not in an interglacial period.
Retard.

>>12735184
>What is the time scale of this graph?
It's on the graph. Having trouble reading?

>This graph doesn't seem to go to 800 000 years ago.
And?

>I posted a graph that go back 800 000 years ago which shows multiple cyclical events that I would like to discuss.
It's already been discussed. The cyclical events are Milankovich cycles. What else do you want to discuss?

>I would like to see at the proper graph that goes to 800 000 with the same cyclical events that I wish to discuss.
Too bad.

>I would also like to know how your data was obtained.
You were already given the paper it comes from. Too bad you didn't read it.

>>12735233
I will accept the answer "too bad". However I really wanted to know why I'm wrong. If I may, you didn't answer one question: where was the data collected to create this graph >>12734053? It should not be collected from the poles, I hope, this has clearly misled me. It would be weird if I was corrected with a small segment of data that comes from the same source. I hope it isn't the case.

Global warming religious zealots would be more likely to get their fake bullshit proopaganda points across if they possessed social skills but that just isnt the case

>>12735316
source is shakun et al (2013)
Red is arctic so yes near the poles (mostly icecores) blue is global temperature from several different proxies, yellow is CO2

Fact: extreme weather means more energy generated from renewable sources like wind, waves, thermal

Cant fucking wait to turn the sahara into the global battery

>>12735316
>However I really wanted to know why I'm wrong.
You are wrong about several things, you'll have to be more specific than that. Whatever it is, I'm sure it's already been explained to you.

> If I may, you didn't answer one question: where was the data collected to create this graph >>12734053?
I told you, it's in the paper you were given.

>>12719151
>rains all the time
Only in the Western part. Eastern Oregon and Washington are deserts. I should know...

>>12719186
>volcanoes blow up my yard
Mount St. Helens? Already happened, decades ago. Don't hold your breath waiting for the next one.

>>12735102
>>12735186
I repeat, we are not in an interglacial period or barely into it. The current warming that the human race has enjoyed the last 12k years is from the Younger Dryas impact. If anything the little ice age was the last gasp of the cooling trend where the warming from the impact and ice sheet vaporization wore off right before the global warming cycle began.

>>12719226
In thirty years of living here, I have only felt one very mild earthquake. They are rare in the part I live in.

>>12735407
>mt.st.helens
>posts crater lake

Weird

>>12719305
>awful people, faggy culture, ugly women, and the occasional month without sunshine
More displays of ignorance by people who do not live here. That might describe Portland or Seattle. Not where I live.

>>12735434
I lived in Oregon for 4 years and no you cannot escape their cancerous mindset no matter how far out Eugene you go even Pendleton is full of fags

>>12719412
"Average quake is every 246 years". Like I said, I have only felt one very mild earthquake here over the last 30 years. What part of that is not clear?

>>12735415
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51201168
>Earth's oldest asteroid impact 'may have ended ice age'
>The timing of the impact could also explain why the world warmed around this time, according to the researchers.

>Scientists believe the planet was previously in one of its "Snowball Earth" periods, when it was largely covered in ice. At some point, the ice sheets melted and the planet began to rapidly warm.

>>12735454
>natural state of earth is frozen as fuck
>usually meteors save the day
>now humans can do it by revving up their diesel trucks

Its like cyberpunk in a way

>>12735379
The "warming alarmist" nuclear energy chad
The "warming is fine" solar energy virgin

I want my portable fusion reactors anon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYClniDFkM

>>12735469
I didnt shill for solar in the post

I want to harness giant waves and 200 mph wind and hot as fuck regions for thermal energy

>>12735415
>I repeat, we are not in an interglacial period or barely into it.
Too bad the data says you're wrong.

>The current warming that the human race has enjoyed the last 12k years is from the Younger Dryas impact.
If the YD impact actually existed (very little evidence for it) it would have caused cooling, not warming. And the temperature was stable for 10000 years after the YD, so how is it causing warming now? You're spouting nonsense.

>>12735478
Whatever, wind, solar, tidal and geothermal are stopgaps. Eventually there's a hard limit of what you can do with them as you run out of suitable spots.

Fusion is the future. It's limitless.

>>12735480
>the global warming shill is an asteroid denier

Oh I am laffin

>>12735433
Yes, St. Helens is the one that erupted. I believe I said that. The (obviously labeled) Crater Lake pic I posted because it is near where I live. And yes, it is both weird (unique, actually) and beautiful. Do I really have to explain all these things? I am twelve and what is this?

>>12735487
I am not against nuclear either but I have a boner for mega weather

>>12735489
It just seems like you should have posted a pic of mt.st.helens

>>12735439
>you cannot escape their cancerous mindset
I dunno, it doesn't bother me at all. I don't live in Pendleton, either, but everywhere you go on Earth you will find some "fags".

>>12735510
I moved back to Appalachia, have up a great career. Couldn't fucking stand you people.

>>12735480
>Too bad the data says you're wrong.
Too bad the data doesn't say anything and nothing but interpretations exist.

>If the YD impact actually existed (very little evidence for it) it would have caused cooling, not warming.
It would not have, it would have released millions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere, which is also a greenhouse gas. Not to mention the heat energy from the impact itself, and the friction energy from the mass of water draining through NA.

>so how is it causing warming now?
I didn't say it was causing warming now. I said the warming effect from the impact wore of after the Medieval warming period. And that the Little Ice age was the end of the actual global cooling cycle and the warming after that was the non-influenced global warming cycle.

>>12735521
Gave*

>>12735504
>It just seems like you should have posted a pic of mt.st.helens
Which I just did. Am I performing up to your expectations yet? I am sad. I will keep trying, tho. Have fun.

>>12735521
>you people
Funny, I don't remember ever meeting you. You do sound a little rude, tho, so probably for the better. Take care.

>>12735537
Fight me faggot

>>12735488
Please explain how an asteroid impact 12000 years ago causes warming after 10000 years of stable temperatures.

>>12735546
I challenge you to a game of human shoes!

>>12735552
Please explain where you got this argument from, that's not what I said.

>Ice age whistling along happily
>muffuggin asteroid-chan NOT EVEN MY FINAL FORMS into meteor-chan and vaporizes half of the glacial sheets, "artificially" starting a warm period
>10,000 years later Ice Age cuck recovers, has his little ice age, then Global Warming chad shows up on time and is all "I don't give a fuck you didn't have your turn" and makes him move along

Is that better? Do you understand now?

>>12735523
>Too bad the data doesn't say anything and nothing but interpretations exist.
Your interpretation bears no relation to the data and doesn't make sense.

>It would not have
Wrong. https://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.abstract


>it would have released millions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere
How does releasing millions of tons of water vapor cause temperatures to be stable for 10000 years and then rapidly increase? It's a very simple question that you can't answer because your bullshit makes no sense.

>I didn't say it was causing warming now.
>The current warming that the human race has enjoyed the last 12k years is from the Younger Dryas impact.
Why are you lying?

>I said the warming effect from the impact wore of after the Medieval warming period.
Global temperatures were stable before, after and during the MWP. Warming at the end of the YD ended 10000 years ago. So really what you're telling me is that the supposed YD impact caused interglacial warming, not current warming, which would require the Milankovich cycle to for some reason not be causing the interglacial warming even though that is exactly what it should have been doing at that point in the cycle. Pure nonsense.

>>12735588
do you know what triggers a 'normal' inter-glacial? hint the answer is above.

>>12735588
>Please explain where you got this argument from, that's not what I said.
>The current warming that the human race has enjoyed the last 12k years is from the Younger Dryas impact.

>>muffuggin asteroid-chan NOT EVEN MY FINAL FORMS into meteor-chan and vaporizes half of the glacial sheets, "artificially" starting a warm period
The warm period is already known to have been interglacial warming. You not only have to explain how the supposed impact caused warming, you also have to explain how the Milankovich cycle suddenly stopped working during that time, even though all evidence shows that it was.

>>10,000 years later Ice Age cuck recovers, has his little ice age
The LIA and MWP are irrelevant, they are on an order of magnitude lower than the YD cooling and interglacial warming.

>>12735370
Thank you very much. I'm looking up the exact publication, however I'm still quite sure I understand what the blue line represents. I don't quite recognize this sentence as meaning simply "global temperature".
>The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5–6.5 kyr ago) mean
It seems to be related to a conjecture the article is discussing that isn't entirely related to my request for graphs comparing only temperature and CO2 levels. On the other hand, the red line and the yellow dots are simple to understand, they are labelled temperature and CO2. Am I mistaken to assume I should ignore the blue line and focus only on the red line and the yellow dots?

>>12735370
>>12735642
In other words, am I making any mistake by simplifying the information in the following manner for the sake of readibility?

>>12735647
Global temperature is exactly what it sounds like global average temperature, red is temperature in arctic regions only. Ignoring the blue line is ignoring basically the entire point of the paper. That temperature increases in poles first, then CO2 spikes, then global temperature increases. Does this answer your question?

>>12735647
For the sake of completion, here's the source showing the graph data comes from ice cores. Am I to understand that I asked a question concerning ice core data and I was told I was wrong for using ice core data and when I asked for a better source I was pointed toward a smaller segment of ice core data that is too small to show what I want to discuss, and when I asked for a bigger graph I was told "too bad"? Is this what happened in this thread? I want to make sure I'm not making any mistake here.

>>12735659
Correction Antarctic not Arctic.

>>12735642
>I'm looking up the exact publication
Dude, it was given to you many posts ago. You even said you read the title: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

>It seems to be related to a conjecture the article is discussing that isn't entirely related to my request for graphs comparing only temperature and CO2 levels.
It seems like you have no clue what you're talking about. It's very odd how you fail to understand and seek to ignore anything that contradicts what you already believe. What a coincidence.

>>12735664
>For the sake of completion, here's the source showing the graph data comes from ice cores.
It comes from many different proxies, not one source. See >>12735380

>I was pointed toward a smaller segment of ice core data that is too small to show what I want to discuss
No, you were pointed to a compilation of over 80 proxies, much bigger than a few ice cores.

>I want to make sure I'm not making any mistake here.
I don't believe you do.

>>12735659
>The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5–6.5 kyr ago) mean
Does this says global temperature? English is my second language, I mean no harm. When I see "stack" and "deviation", I assume these numbers are obtained through some mathematical operation unrelated to my request. The red line is described as temperature record. This sounds like exactly what I want. My understanding is that scientists drilled polar ice, obtained ice core segment, analyzed the data for temperature and used it to create the red line. That makes me want to compare the red line with the yellow dots, which are also clearly identified as CO2. Am I mistaken somewhere? I simply would like to see a graph with two lines: global CO2 level and global temperature. This graph has three lines. What operation should I perform to obtain the graph that I want?

>>12735605
>Wrong. https://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.abstract
Well, thanks for proving there was an impact.
Blue dot - When they think the impact occurred
Purple Dot - When I think the impact occurred, When they think global warming started
Red Dot - When I think the warming effect from the impact ended
Green Dot - When the global warming cycle actually started.

>How does releasing millions of tons of water vapor cause temperatures to be stable for 10000 years and then rapidly increase
Because the heat increase was above what the low activity cooling could counteract, and because the starting point of the warming phase was at an already high temperature point.

>Why are you lying?
I'm not, you're just arguing semantics. I'm arguing the space between the purple and red dots was warming caused by the YDI, not global warming from the Milankovitch cycle. The space after the green dot is the warming cycle we're in now, and is less then a few hundred years old which is relatively nothing in planetary timescales.

>Pure nonsense, the science is settled.
Well ok, you sound like a 18th century geocentric zealot just fyi. Showing me how the milankovish cycle lines up with the end of the last ice age would really btfo me instead of being insulting.

>https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
>But Milankovitch cycles can’t explain all climate change that’s occurred over the past 2.5 million years or so. And more importantly, they cannot account for the current period of rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the period between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th Century. Scientists are confident Earth’s recent warming is primarily due to human activities — specifically, the direct input of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.

>>12735701
>stack
Yes both the red and blue lines are reconstructions, it's not just 'global temperature' because no one was around with a thermometer writing down the temperature. >>12735380 shows the locations of the individual proxies, the blue line is all the data combined and averaged to give a global average temperature. The red line is ONLY data from the 4 dots located on Antarctica.

>deviation
this refers to what it's actually a graph of, it's not a specific temperature, it's taking the average over a period of time (early holocene) and setting that as the baseline. This represents the 0 point on the scale, the graph then shows us neatly how temperatures deviate from that baseline

If you ONLY want global temperature and CO2 then ignore the red line and only look at blue and yellow.

>>12735447
>like I said
Not in your original, broad-generalizing post.
Minor quakes are rare here indeed, in the manner which Californians experience frequently.

It has been 321 years since the last mega thrust quake and the next one is going to put us in our place if unprepared.

>>12735720
>Well, thanks for proving there was an impact.
Evidence =/= proof

>Purple Dot - When I think the impact occurred
No one cares.

>Red Dot - When I think the warming effect from the impact ended
Why is that where the warming effect ended when the temperature was stable before during and after that point? The warming ended 10000 years ago. Get over it.

>Green Dot - When the global warming cycle actually started.
What is this cycle and what causes it?

>Because the heat increase was above what the low activity cooling could counteract
What heat increase? What low activity cooling?

>and because the starting point of the warming phase was at an already high temperature point.
Doesn't explain shit.

>I'm not, you're just arguing semantics
Oh wow, very convenient how contradicting yourself is just semantics.

>I'm arguing the space between the purple and red dots was warming caused by the YDI
Most of that space isn't even warming, so again, you're spouting nonsense. And the starting point is just a spot you arbitrarily chose with no evidence. No one cares.

>not global warming from the Milankovitch cycle
Then go ahead and disprove the Milankovitch cycle.


>Showing me how the milankovish cycle lines up with the end of the last ice age would really btfo me instead of being insulting.
Pic related. Thanks for admitting you're BTFO.

>>But Milankovitch cycles can’t explain all climate change that’s occurred over the past 2.5 million years or so. And more importantly, they cannot account for the current period of rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the period between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th Century.
Is this supposed to support your contention that Milankovitch cycles didn't cause the last interglacial? Current warming =/= warming 10000 years ago. What are you trying to say?

>>12735695
>Dude, it was given to you many posts ago. You even said you read the title
I think I see the source of confusion. Earlier in the thread I asked for graphs and I was provided a link that contains no graph. It also asked for money. I was confused. This wasn't what I asked. I requested a graph, if you had graphs to share you simply had to post them, this is an image board after all. I promptly ignored the paid site and for good reason. It purely and honestly wasn't what I requested at the time.

Later in the thread I asked for the source of a graph. I was given the keyword "shakun et al (2013)". I am not lazy. With a quick googling, I located the document (without paying for it).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223987444_Global_Warming_Preceded_by_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentrations_during_the_Last_Deglaciation
I could now view the graph with explanation and sources. It just occurred to me now that I went on my own to find a document that I previously rejected, due to the strange situation of being directed to a paysite when I request a simple picture. In the future, if I request another graph and you link a paysite, I will most likely ignore it again.

>>12735827
so do you finally have something to add to the conversation or are you just going to whine?

>>12735827
>Earlier in the thread I asked for graphs and I was provided a link that contains no graph.
Where?

>It also asked for money
Not for me. Maybe you shouldn't be on the science board if reading papers is too much for you.

>I requested a graph, if you had graphs to share you simply had to post them
You were given Shakun's graph too. No one is falling for this act, so just stop.

> I promptly ignored the paid site and for good reason.
Your reason was "this paper refutes everything I just said," which is not a good reason to ignore it.

>It purely and honestly wasn't what I requested at the time.
It was.

>>12719066
BENIS :DDDD

>>12735910

>>12735811
>Why is that where the warming effect ended when the temperature was stable before during and after that point?
Because the temperature was higher then the cooling effect from the milankovich cycle could counteract, until it was overwhelmed in the little ice age

>Doesn't explain shit.
You have 2 cups of ice cold water, you place them on a refrigerated surface that can keep them the same temperature. You drop a hot rock in one. After an hour, you turn off the refrigerant and begin slowly turning on the heat, 1 degree increase at a time.

Which cup of water is warmer after 15 minutes?

>Oh wow, very convenient how contradicting yourself is just semantics.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say or not, even if my original statement was not 100% precise to what I meant.

>Then go ahead and disprove the Milankovitch cycle.
Except that the Milankovich cycle is not about global climate, its about the movement of the earth around the sun. It does have an effect on the climate but other factors have overridden it many times. There is no unified theory on what the effect of the cycles is, because other things muddle the data.

>Pic related. Thanks for admitting you're BTFO.
Did you really just copy the picture from the wiki and think that shows me anything? I read through that already, and at different times in our history we have had cycles that match different parts of the Milankovitch cycles (120k vs 41k length cycles) and times where it doesn't match at all.

>Is this supposed to support your contention that Milankovitch cycles didn't cause the last interglacial?
Yes, why are you being so thickheaded? You could just disagree with me but you seem to be strawmanning my argument in order to make it absurd, and then going "Lmao your absurd" while not acknowledging what I'm actually saying.

I am saying "Interglacial" warming was caused by the YDI, not global warming from the milankovitch cycles. The MC is currently on a warming trend, the current GW.

>>12719066
It's cool (hot!) Because it prevented the next ice age at crucial moment in the development of human civilization.

>>12735927
>Because the temperature was higher then the cooling effect from the milankovich cycle
This is basically meaningless and doesn't answer my question. You just chose a random point, there is no reason to call that the end of the warming.

>Which cup of water is warmer after 15 minutes?
What does this have to do with the question?

>Do you understand what I'm trying to say or not
Not really, you're not making much sense and what your describing doesn't even seem to have relevance to this thread, except for the incorrect claim that current warming is "a cycle."

>Except that the Milankovich cycle is not about global climate, its about the movement of the earth around the sun.
Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
>Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements on its climate over thousands of years.

>It does have an effect on the climate but other factors have overridden it many times.
So what overrode it? I can't wait for more baseless speculation.

>There is no unified theory on what the effect of the cycles is, because other things muddle the data.
Apparently the irony of saying this while making a bunch of claims that don't even qualify as a theory was lost on you.

>Did you really just copy the picture from the wiki and think that shows me anything?
It shows you are BTFO.

>I read through that already, and at different times in our history we have had cycles that match different parts of the Milankovitch cycles (120k vs 41k length cycles) and times where it doesn't match at all.
OK, and? I'm talking about Milankovitch cycles, not other cycles.

>Yes
How?

>I am saying "Interglacial" warming was caused by the YDI
That is not supported by the article you posted.

>The MC is currently on a warming trend, the current GW.
No, the MC is on the slow cooling phase of the interglacial. And again, the article you posted doesn't support your claim. In fact it contradicts it.

>>12735952
>Because it prevented the next ice age
The next "ice age" wouldn't occur for tens of thousands of year. One has nothing to do with the other. It's like saying you ate 4000 calories a day to prevent starving.

>>12735759
I understand that they are reconstructions and I understand that people weren't around to write down temperature. My only desire is to use the most relevant and secure information. I can see both lines represent temperature and each model is constructed using different data from different sources.

Blue line: Data is gathered from several areas around the world with several different methods and then combined
Red line: Data is gathered from ice cores

>If you ONLY want global temperature and CO2 then ignore the red line and only look at blue and yellow.
Why? I can see that, for example, microfossils and pollen are listed as proxies involved in the data for the blue line. Why is looking at microfossils better than ice cores? Why is looking a pollen better than ice cores? I need to consider these sources of information to be better than looking at ice cores to decide I should combine them to create an average and then trust that number instead of going by ice cores. The red line uses data gathered from roughly the same location and with the same method, this seems very good for studying a cyclical pattern spread over a long period of time.

>>12736044
>Why is looking at microfossils better than ice cores?
Because there are microfossils in places other than Antarctica and greenland
>Why is looking a pollen better than ice cores?
Because there is pollen in places other than Antarctica and greenland
>this seems very good for studying a cyclical pattern spread over a long period of time.
if you only care about temperature in one place, if you're interested in the rest of the planet you'll need other sources.

>>12736044
>Why is looking at microfossils better than ice cores?
No one said it was. Data from all over the world is better for determining global temperature than data from only a few places in the world.

>I need to consider these sources of information to be better than looking at ice cores to decide I should combine them to create an average and then trust that number instead of going by ice cores.
No you don't. Making up fake rules just makes you look incredibly desperate to deny reality. And it doesn't matter how much you trust ice cores since they don't represent global temperature.

>The red line uses data gathered from roughly the same location and with the same method
No.

This is clearly a waste of time. You're just going to make up bullshit and turn a blind eye to anything that contradicts your misinformed opinions. Grow up.

>>12735759
>>12736044
(cont)

This entire argument is bizarre because ice cores show temperature and CO2 rising together at the same time with near perfection. Only the downward slope shows the "lag". If I simply edit all the downward slope (picture related) and if we pretend this is the only information we can obtain from the ice cores, is the result still controversial? I don't think so. This confuses me deeply. I'm trying to see reality other people's eyes. Do you trust that this modified graph consisting of upward slopes probably shows the truth, but if we add the downward slope it suddenly shows lies? Only because you really wish the two lines would always match and they don't? Why isn't the graph showing the truth all the way, and thus temperature indeed does fall before CO2? The ice cores can correctly predict many aspects of the cyclical events, this method of data acquisition has proven itself. What about the other methods of data collection? What have microfossils predicted, what has pollen predicted? Why should I discard the ice core data in the favor of these strangers that have not proven themselves, because of one very limited graph of a single slope?

>>12736043
Analogy is not an argument.

>>12736088
>Data from all over the world is better
I disagree. Data can come from all over the world and still be terrible data. It can be flawed due to the method of data collection and interpretation. I need to be given a reason to believe why this data is better. I was told to disregard one graph because that other graph is better, but when I ask why, I hear silence.

>>12736066
>Because there are microfossils in places other than Antarctica and greenland
>Because there is pollen in places other than Antarctica and greenland
I will place my trust in what microfossils and pollens say when I am shown what they can predict. The ice core data show temperature and CO2 rising together on many occasions, the spikes are too perfect to be a coincidence, therefore the data looks trusworthy. I am struggling to find the reason why I should discard this data when I pay attention to only one specific part, the "lag" between temperature and CO2. The ice core data appears quite trusted when it comes to climate science, I have never seen someone ask me to disregard it until I pointed a curious finger at the "lag". Only now I am told to look away.

>>12736180
The analogy is explaining the argument in the rest of the post, which you ignored. Try again.

>>12736032
>there is no reason to call that the end of the warming.
Thats the end of the medieval warm period and beginning of the little ice age.

>What does this have to do with the question?
It explains why the temperature was warm and stable, and why its heating up quickly.

>except for the incorrect claim that current warming is "a cycle."
>https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
>The amount of incoming solar radiation has increased only slightly over the past century and is therefore not a driver of Earth’s current climate warming.

>Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.
>Fact: we are in a increasing period of solar radiation, the milankovitch orbital cycle integer, we are also in a warming trend
>Opinion: we are in a phase where the milankovitch cycle should be cooling, global warming is anthropomorphic

>So what overrode it?
Geological activity, Solar activity, Earth impacts, starting temperatures, polar shifts, planetary alignments, Moon interference etc. I don't know everything.

>BTFO
>Can you show me what ranges in the MC cause warming, and where that lines up with 12000 years ago?
>Heres this 100,000 year range chart have fun
>o...ok

>I'm talking about Milankovitch cycles, not other cycles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Theory_constraints
>eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession
>Transition changes

>In fact, from 1–3 million years ago, climate cycles did match the 41,000-year cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, the Mid-Pleistocene Transition (MPT) occurred with switch to the 100,000-year cycle matching eccentricity. The transition problem refers to the need to explain what changed 1 million years ago.

>That is not supported by the article you posted.
I didn't post that one.

>>12736209
>>Data from all over the world is better
What I actually said was "Data from all over the world is better for determining global temperature than data from only a few places in the world."
I hope you are disagreeing with a strawman side disagreeing with what I actually said means you are idiot.

>Data can come from all over the world and still be terrible data. It can be flawed due to the method of data collection and interpretation.
So are you claiming the data is flawed or are you just baselessly speculating?

>I need to be given a reason to believe why this data is better
No, you need to give a reason why the data should be ignored. The data being "better" than ice cores is irrelevant because that is not a pre-requisite for the data to be used.

>I was told to disregard one graph because that other graph is better, but when I ask why, I hear silence.
You're a fucking liar. You were told from the start that one graph only represents the temperature in one place while the other represents the global temperature.

>>12736282
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Theory_constraints
>Interpretation of unsplit peak variances

>Even the well-dated climate records of the last million years do not exactly match the shape of the eccentricity curve. Eccentricity has component cycles of 95,000 and 125,000 years. However, some researchers say the records do not show these peaks, but only show a single cycle of 100,000 years.[24] However, the split between the two eccentricity components is observed at least ones in a drill core from the 500 million years old Scandinavian Alum Shale.[25]

>Unsynced stage 5 observation

>Deep-sea core samples show that the interglacial interval known as marine isotope stage 5 began 130,000 years ago. This is 10,000 years before the solar forcing that the Milankovitch hypothesis predicts. (This is also known as the causality problem, because the effect precedes the putative cause.)[26]

>Predicted effects mystery

>Physical evidence shows that the variation in Earth's climate is much more extreme than the variation in the intensity of solar radiation calculated as the Earth's orbit evolves. If orbital forcing causes climate change, science needs to explain why the observed effect is amplified out of linear proportion to the theoretical cause.

Some climate systems exhibit amplification (positive feedback) and others exhibit damping responses (negative feedback). As an illustration, if during an ice age the northern land masses were covered in year-round ice, solar energy would be reflected away, counteracting the eventual warming effect from orbital forcing and extending the ice age.

>>12736245
>I will place my trust in what microfossils and pollens say when I am shown what they can predict.
The citations are there for you to follow, no one owes you anything.

>the spikes are too perfect to be a coincidence
No one said they are.

> I am struggling to find the reason why I should discard this data
No one said you should. You're the only one attempting to discard data. Misrepresenting the argument doesn't work. You're not smart enough to pull it off.

>when I pay attention to only one specific part, the "lag" between temperature and CO2.
Paying attention to only one specific part is a good way to miss the big picture. You confuse a local correlation for a global causation. It seems like you're doing this on purpose.

>>12736282
>Thats the end of the medieval warm period and beginning of the little ice age.
Both are irrelevant. They have nothing to do with interglacial warming 10000 years ago. Spouting some names of periods is not an argument.

>It explains why the temperature was warm and stable, and why its heating up quickly.
How?

>>The amount of incoming solar radiation has increased only slightly over the past century and is therefore not a driver of Earth’s current climate warming.
How does this show current warming is a "cycle?"

>>Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.
How does this show current warming is a "cycle?"

>>Fact: we are in a increasing period of solar radiation, the milankovitch orbital cycle integer
Wrong. The Milankovitch cycle is not about total insolation increasing, it's about insolation at the polar regions. It also operates much too slowly to produce the warming we're observing, which is about 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming.

>we are in a phase where the milankovitch cycle should be cooling, global warming is anthropomorphic
Those are facts. Get over it.

>Geological activity, Solar activity, Earth impacts, starting temperatures, polar shifts, planetary alignments, Moon interference etc.
Any evidence? No, just a bunch of baseless speculation like the rest of your bullshit.

>I don't know everything.
Everything includes anything, so that's accurate.

>>Can you show me what ranges in the MC cause warming, and where that lines up with 12000 years ago?
I already did, now you're shifting the goalposts to explaining the transition problem. Too bad, you already got BTFO.

>I didn't post that one.
You did, there is only one schizo in this thread.

>>12736296
>What I actually said was "Data from all over the world is better for determining global temperature than data from only a few places in the world."
In that case I agree. My apologies. In the context of the conversation I read your sentence as "THIS data from all over the world is better". I wanted to disagree with that. I have no reason to disagree with your platitude, which is indeed always true. However that platitude isn't all that useful to the conversation if you didn't meant to communicate that it is an argument in favor of the Shakun graph.

>So are you claiming the data is flawed or are you just baselessly speculating?
I am baselessly speculating yes, if that's what I must do in order to ask why I should believe graph over another.

>You were told from the start that one graph only represents the temperature in one place while the other represents the global temperature.
I think there is some confusion here. I wished to refer to this graph>>12733808 and this graph >>12735642. The first graph leads me to believe that temperature falls before CO2, I have entered this thread to discuss that. I was directed to a different graph where temperature reacts after CO2, which means I should conclude that I should ignore what I believe I can see in the first graph. Hence, I am arriving at the point where I must ask "give me a reason to believe this data over the other data".

I am not sure how I can be lying in the way you imply. I think you read graph as line and thus went back to thinking of the red line and blue line.

>>12736322
>show me interglacial warming correlates with Milankovich cycles and I will be BTFO
>OK
>well... uh... Milankovitch cycles aren't fully understood even though the interglacial correlates
BTFO

>>12736444
>Paying attention to only one specific part is a good way to miss the big picture.
I am paying attention to the whole picture. That is precisely the situation I am describing. I look at the big picture of the entire ice core graph showing temperature and CO2. I notice the upward slopes which give me reason to believe that this graph reflects reality truthfully. In that case I cannot argue to myself in good faith "well these downward slopes are weird, there's some lag, maybe this model is bad after all".

How do YOU look at the picture and rationalize that the upward slopes reflect reality but the downward slopes don't?

>>12736508
>They have nothing to do with interglacial warming 10000 years ago.
Whatever man, thats just like, your opinion man.

>How does this show current warming is a "cycle?"
>>12736322
>Physical evidence shows that the variation in Earth's climate is much more extreme than the variation in the intensity of solar radiation calculated as the Earth's orbit evolves.

>It also operates much too slowly to produce the warming we're observing, which is about 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming.
>>12736322
>>Deep-sea core samples show that the interglacial interval known as marine isotope stage 5 began 130,000 years ago. This is 10,000 years before the solar forcing that the Milankovitch hypothesis predicts.
The last interglacial was also not caused by the milankovitch cycle.

>Those are facts. Get over it.
Milankovitch theory says we're in cooling. Can't even predict the last interglacial. Doesn't align with this warming period. Solar radiation is actually increasing

>now you're shifting the goalposts to explaining the transition problem.
>>12735720
>Showing me how the milankovish cycle lines up with the end of the last ice age would really btfo me instead of being insulting