/sci/ - Science & Math

https://www.sealevels.org
Click and drag in the plot area to zoom in

>>14488205
It's been 20 fucking years since I had a proper winter.

>>14488205
You can clearly see the 1917 pic is super zoomed out. Retard

>>14488205
>Gray is data
>Everything else is predictions

>>14488228
how about a bigger chunk of time? say something from before previous ice age?

>whats is low tide and high tide

>>14488236
>This model of sea level rises built off AGW matches data pretty well
>Yeah well what about 100,000 years ago?

>>14488205
ITS NOT FAKE HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT CHUD!!! GO STUDY SOME HECKIN SCIENCE !!!

>>14488239
>it matches pretty well for last 25 years
>on a 4.5 billion year old planet

if people with IQ < 90 were euthanised you wouldn't see these threads anymore

>>14488237
>what is the vegetation line?
If anything, the ocean level has gone down.

>>14488254
Yes. Because it's a model of sea level rises based of the hypothesis of anthropomorphic global warming. If the underlying hypothesis is false, then we shouldn't expect it to match the data. It does match the data, so we can assume the underlying hypothesis isn't "fake". Now there could be other hypotheses that match the same data, sure, but I've not seen one presented that can explain [math]all[/math] the data.

So why does it only stretch back about 30 years? and not 4.5 billion? Because the prediction was made to test the hypothesis. There were no people back then, clearly the hypothesis fails.

>>14488261
If people with IQ < 130 were euthanized, there'd be no reason to have such threads because we'd suddenly stop hearing about global warming.

>>14488267
>It does match the data, so we can assume the underlying hypothesis isn't "fake".
Just how does one become so profoundly retarded as to believe this?

>>14488274
So you have a hypothesis, you test the hypothesis and it matches the data. Do you conclude that
>The hypothesis is likely correct
Or
>The hypothesis is likely incorrect

>>14488283
it's absurdly small time frame

>>14488283
>tweak your retarded model until it matches the data
>your retarded model matches the data
>make incorrect prediction
>tweak your retarded model until it matches the data
>your retarded model matches the data
>make incorrect prediction
>tweak your retarded model until it matches the data
>your retarded model matches the data
>make incorrect prediction

>>14488286
Not the question I asked you. See previous post for that.

>>14488287
Not an answer. Just more pilpul.

>>14488291
Tweaking your retarded model until it matches the data doesn't prove anything or support your hypothesis. Global warming cultists have never made a prediction more accurate than "temperature will rise slightly" while extrapolating from a current trend.

>>14488228
From sattelites, a global average model that has to take in account tide difference up to 14 meters. Show the measurements in RL. Over here, North Sea coast' there is none.

>>14488296
Of course, it has to be some kind of grand conspiracy. When all else fails, just blame it on someone nebulous entity that no one can possibly refute.
>Misogyny
>Systemic racism
>Scientific cover-up of "The Truth"
It's all so pathetic.

>>14488301
Who said anything about any conspiracy or nebulous entities? Your programming is shorting out.

>>14488289
I measured temperature from 9am to 13pm and it kept getting bigger, therfore temperature will just keep going up

>>14488296
>Global warming cultists ..
Methink the warming is obvious. Glaciers get smaller, Wintersport has a lot of problems to make snow, in my branch (road construction) the can work the whole year - which was not possible in the 80ths 90ths- aso. You don't need science for that. But now it's getting colder, ice caps advances, no tourist to North pole with ice breakers, temperature minus records in Antarctica, early snow in Australia aso.

>>14488222
>i had a whole bunch of winters that i liked in the 20th century, but this century has been unsatisfactory so far
go crawl into a grave already

This board gets more retarded by the day

>>14488330
Thermometers didn’t exist thousands of years ago retard

>>14488330
What's the data sampled by in that graph?

>>14488364
>>14488373
cold rocks say weather was hot

>>14488269
This. Ideally keep sub 90 IQs for manual labor and keep 130+ to do the thinking.

>>14488419
you're just making up excuses for your own laziness and lack of productivity. high iqs should do the most labor because high iqs are going to figure out the most efficient ways to do the most annoying jobs, which is how technological progress happens.

>>14488468
Technological progress is a midwit goal.

>>14488286
For what? Meaningless statement.

>>14488296
>Global warming cultists have never made a prediction more accurate than "temperature will rise slightly" while extrapolating from a current trend.
Not extrapolated from a trend, modeled. Just because the trend is continuing doesn't mean predictions are curve fitting. You're basically saying global warming has to stop for our predictions to be taken serially. You're a moron.

>>14488413
>cold rocks

>>14488298
Tide gauges and satellites agree.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/global-and-european-sea-level-rise

>>14488554
ice is a mineral, look it up

>>14488317
>I modeled heat flux and circulation in Earth's atmosphere and the tenets will continue to go up

>>14488561
>Tide gauges and satellites agree.
Also a model, I made tide gauges and I am very aware that there was no rising in the official ones before the take them offline. Simply because I used them for reference. But sure, this an muuuh anomaly and gouverment paid science never ever support political interests.

>>14488576
>Also a model
Everything is a model of you want to be pedantic.

>there was no rising in the official ones before the take them offline
Yeah, sure. All the scientists are lying.

You can deny anything if you're retarded enough.

>>14488576
>asks for measurements
>rejects them when they don't give the answer he wanted

>>14488317
this. Libtards are literally midwits who believe black science man and anything they see on CNN

>>14488538
>Not extrapolated from a trend, modeled
A perfectly consistent track record of modeling it incorrectly. You are a subhuman imbecile and it's clear that your "models" are nothing more than retroactive curve-fitting because they get it wrong every single time.

>>14488298
>he doesn't even know the difference of eustatic sea level and relative sea level
Hint: tectonic uplift is a thing

>>14488629
>A perfectly consistent track record of modeling it incorrectly.
How so?

>it's clear that your "models" are nothing more than retroactive curve-fitting because they get it wrong every single time.
Wrong, and doesn't even follow.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

>>14488564
its water soluble, minerals aren't water soluble

>>14488364
>>14488373
If you don't know the basics of climatology, why post?

>>14488654
Denial is fueled by ignorance.

>>14488649
>How so?
Gets it wrong every single time. Literally never made a correct prediction beyond "line goes up". Your pic related is retroactive curvefitting in an Orwellian attempt to rewrite history.

>>14488657
You don't even need modeling to see that increasing greenhouse gasses with measured and known radiative properties will increase global temperature. It's plainly visible in the instrumental record.

>>14488666
>hurrr the models are never right but you don't even need models
>my crackpot theory said line goes up and line went up!
Don't care. Your crackpot theory is based on the line going up in the first place, and it doesn't predict anything successfully except that climate trends don't reverse themselves overnight.

>>14488564
I stand corrected

>>14488657
>Gets it wrong every single time
Nope. See >>14488649

>Literally never made a correct prediction beyond "line goes up".
The main result of the theory doesn't count because...?

How about area level rise? >>14488228. What prediction are you looking for?

>Your pic related is retroactive curvefitting in an Orwellian attempt to rewrite history.
No, it's not. Claiming climatologists have no correct predictions is rewriting history.

>>14488670
It's amazing how deluded climate deniers are that they think making up fake data is somehow an argument.

>>14488666
greenhouses work on the principle of physically restricting warm air from rising, free floating gasses aren't capable of producing a "greenhouse effect"

>>14488678
There's nothing to see there except a combination of wrong predictions and retroactive adjustments to the model in order to rewrite history. Take your meds.

>The main result of the theory doesn't count because...?
Because if the line is going up, it'll probably be going up for a while regardess of what wank theory you invent. When it comes to predicting exactly how it will go up, you have nothing but failure and outright fabrication to show for it.

>>14488674
>Your crackpot theory is based on the line going up in the first place
No, it's based on the greenhouse effect.

>and it doesn't predict anything successfully except that climate trends don't reverse themselves overnight.
Why hasn't the trend reversed in over 100 years? What's causing it?

>>14488691
It's based on your schizophrenic fantasies.

>Why hasn't the trend reversed in over 100 years?
Why would it reverse in over 100 years?

>>14488687
That's not even remotely true. Co2's interactions with infrared light have been known for many many decades

>>14488687
Non sequitur. Greenhouse effect is just a name indicating that heat is being trapped, it's not how greenhouses work. Are you really basing your argument on deliberate misinterpretation of scientific concepts? Why are you making such ridiculous arguments?

>>14488683
thats a 20 year old graph, back in the 20th century "trust the science" was herping and derping about the new ice age and global cooling. they didn't invent the global warming psyop until 10 years ago, then they repurposed the old propaganda by crudely reversing the original that i posted

>>14488689
>There's nothing to see there except a combination of wrong predictions and retroactive adjustments
There's no adjustment to the CMIP3 prediction and it's correct. You're denying what's right in front of your face.

>Because if the line is going up, it'll probably be going up for a while
Doesn't follow. What's causing it to go up?

>When it comes to predicting exactly how it will go up, you have nothing but failure and outright fabrication to show for it.
Wrong. See >>14488649

>>14488696
>It's based on your schizophrenic fantasies.
How is the greenhouse effect a schizophrenic fantasy? It's basic physics.

>Why would it reverse in over 100 years?
Because greenhouse gases or some other forcing was reduced.

>>14488714
Is there a climate denial argument that *isn't* based on a lie?

https://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

>>14488698
co2 doesn't cause "the greenhouse effect" on mars, co2 is not a "greenhouse gas". your high school earth science teacher lied to you

>>14488714
>thats a 20 year old graph
Amazing how a 20 year old graph has data from 2021.

>back in the 20th century "trust the science" was herping and derping about the new ice age and global cooling
Not really, no. Pic related. Your third Time cover is fake and the rest are just about cold weather snaps in the US. You're very gullible.

>>14488714
>they didn't invent the global warming psyop until 10 years ago
your image says they invented it about 35 years ago.

>>14488724
news media lies about absolutely everything for decades on end and then prints and article that says "btw we're not lying" and you believed it

>>14488733
Well, it’s not just the simple quantity or density of CO2 that affects the game.

The main reasons are:

(a) The solar input (586.2 watts per sq meter) is lower than ours (1361 W/m^2)

(b) Hence the expected “black body” temperature is lower (210 K vs 254K)

(c) The “greenhoused” surface temperature is 213 K (versus our 288K).

(d) Energy radiated is a T to the 4th relationship, so Mars only puts out 30% of the earth’s infrared radiation. That alone, even on Earth, would reduce the greenhouse effect to only 10C instead of 33.

>>14488716
>There's no adjustment to the CMIP3 prediction and it's correct.
Liar.

>What's causing it to go up?
Irrelevant. When it goes up or down for any reason, it keeps doing so for quite a while, empirically speaking. You could invent some fairytale about why it goes up or down at any point, predict that it will continue in the same direction and be correct like 95% of the time.

>>14488733
>co2 doesn't cause "the greenhouse effect" on mars
Source?

>the greenhouse effect" on mars, co2 is not a "greenhouse gas"
It absorbs and emits in the infrared range. It's by definition a greenhouse gas. Why are you repeating the same ridiculous lies over and over? Are you trying to make deniers look retarded?

>>14488746
You just got caught lying, not the media. You literally posted a fake cover. LOL. You have zero credibility.

>OH NO, THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!
>I'M GONNA SAVE THE WORLD, IMMA BE A HERO JUST LIKE IN MUH MARVEL COMIX MOVIES
>I'M BATMAN!!!
appealing delusion if you're immature and live in a childish fantasy world. the "end of the world" charade has been effectively employed to manipulate populaces to their detriment throughout history and this time is no different

>>14488761
news media lies about absolutely everything for decades on end and then prints and article that says "btw we're not lying" and you believed it

>>14488746
Right now you seem to be the only one lying - both Time covers and publication dates are fake, at least some of them. Feel free to prove otherwise.

>>14488554
>>14488564
>>14488677

>>14488752
>Liar.
What adjustment was made?

>Irrelevant.
LOL, of course it's relevant, otherwise you have no reason to assume it will continue.

>When it goes up or down for any reason, it keeps doing so for quite a while
What's quite a while? What prevents something else from causing a different change?

>You could invent some fairytale about why it goes up or down at any point, predict that it will continue in the same direction and be correct like 95% of the time.
No, you can't, because the physics of the atmosphere aren't made up, they're observed.

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>>14488787
>you have no reason to assume it will continue.
I've literally just explained to you why it's a good bet to assume it will continue whether or not you know the actual cause, you religious nut.

>>14488767
The internet lies about everything all the time, but you believed a fake cover you found there was real without checking for yourself. LOL, what a retard. Massive cope.

>>14488794
>I've literally just explained to you why it's a good bet to assume it will continue
No, you just said it's a good bet. You didn't explain shit, nor can you. You're truly pathetic. You're either one of the dumbesy people here or pretending to be to make AGW look good.

>>14488814
>You didn't explain shit
I did, right here:
>>14488752
>When it goes up or down for any reason, it keeps doing so for quite a while, empirically speaking. You could invent some fairytale about why it goes up or down at any point, predict that it will continue in the same direction and be correct like 95% of the time.
You're a special combination of brainwashed, deranged and intellectually dishonest.

>>14488854
That's just you rotating what you were supposed to explain:

>When it goes up or down for any reason, it keeps doing so for quite a while, empirically speaking

No the temperature doesn't just go up at an accelerating rate for a hundred years for no reason. Retard. It goes up because some forcing causes it to go up. And the rest is wrong because you can't just make up whatever physics you want for the atmosphere. The warming from greenhouse gases is directly observed. Please keep posting your idiotic nonsense, it really helps convince people AGW is real.

>>14488867
>No the temperature doesn't just go up at an accelerating rate for a hundred years for no reason
No one said it was "for no reason". Notice how you're consistently a lying, subhuman piece of shit.

>>14488651
Nigga what

>>14488877
>No one said it was "for no reason".
Then what's the reason? Hint: greenhouse gases are increasing.

>>14488905
>Then what's the reason?
I don't know and it's irrelevant. How did you become so fucking subhuman?

LET ME TELL YA SOMETHING BROTHERS
ALL THE MILLIONS OF LITTLE HULKAMANIACS OUT THERE KNOW THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS MORE LIKE GLOBAL BORING BROTHER - IT ISNT HAPPENING DUDE.
THATS WHY THEY CHANGED IT TO "CLIMATE CHANGE" BROTHER.

LISTEN UP DUDE, NATURAL DISASTERS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME DUDE. I BEAT EARTHQUAKE AND TYPHOON WITH BROKEN RIBS BROTHER. THOSE WERE REAL NATURAL DISASTERS, NOT THIS KIKE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX BROTHER

SO LISTEN UP LITTLE DUDES, THE NEXT TIME SOME JEW TRYS TO JEW YOU INTO DRVING AN ELECTRICJEW CAR, YOU TELL THAT KIKE THAT THE HULKSTER SHOWED YOU THE COAST LINE ON VENICE BEACH BROTHER, AND AFTER WE FINISHED PUMPING IRON AT THE GOLDS GYM, WE TOOK THE HARLEY TO THE MOUNTAIN TOP DUDE, AND THERE WAS NOTHIN BUT SNOW UP THERE BROTHER
AND ILL TELL YA SOMETHIN ELSE MEAN GENE, I GOT 6 MILLION OTHER REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX BROTHER
-HH

>>14488763
Quote of any scientist saying that "the world is ending"?

>>14488877
>>14488908
meds

>>14488908
>I don't know
Then you have no reason to think it will continue.

So let's see, do you have any actual reasoning behind your claims or at they all just baseless speculation, lies, and misrepresentation?

>>14488205
The difference is still rather small, you can hide it in most places by taking the current photo at a lower tide.

Why can't climate models reproduce the stagnation in global temperature increase between 1950 and 1990? How shit does your model have to be such that not only does it fail to predict future temperatures, it also fails to align with past temperatures.

>>14488991
Meant to say 1980 instead of 1990.

I can't wait for the grand solar minimum to hit and all these white lefty dipshits clamoring about global warming and getting rid of their means to produce power freeze to death, god I can't wait for 2030 to arrive

>>14489012
They'll just manipulate the numbers and freeze to death in "record high temperatures"

>>14488991
>Why can't climate models reproduce the stagnation in global temperature increase between 1950 and 1990?
Which ones can't? Any of that include aerosol effects will do it.

>How shit does your model have to be such that not only does it fail to predict future temperatures, it also fails to align with past temperatures.
Did you actually look at any? LOL.

>>14489012
OH NO NOT THE GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM WE'RE ALL DOOMED

>>14489012
Why haven't we been cooling for the last half a century?

>>14489330
Careful, you're going to summon the schizo who knows there is some feedback system making temperature lag the sun but can't say what it is.

>>14489028

>>14488651
As a geologist this hurts my brain. To be a mineral it must have 4 qualifications. Glacial ice fits all 4

1. It must not be manmade
2. It must be a solid
3. It must be a well defined chemical compound
3. It must have a specific crystal structure and cleavage

>>14488205
Hyping up the whole "muh 3 to 5 feet of sea level rise this century" was a mistake. Charted tides in the SF bay area have been between -1.6 and 7.4 since the 1970s. There were only two 7.1s this year. Last 7.4s I remember were 2004 or 05.

>>14490259
astronomers think oxygen is a metal, are they skizos? seems more skizo than calling ice a rock. ice was mined from natural sources for thousands of years until artificial synthesis was invented relatively recently.

>>14488991
That was nuclear winter.

>>14490358
kinda fits. we tested a lot of nukes in that exact time period

>>14488991

>>14488928
you will own nothing and you will be happy

>>14490466
50% of those are outside the margin of error in modeling past temperatures according to that graphic, given the atrocious data falsification problems in the sciences and especially in climate science, it is safe to assume that they would all be wrong had true to life data had been used.

>>14489330
>source is literally named SATIRE
why did they do that

>>14490487
>source: my ass

>>14490466
how come asians have lower temperature increase compared to europe?

>>14490565
Probably shading of the ground by the Asian brown cloud. Solar energy can't get to the ground level from all of the fine particulates in the air.

>>14490603
most or all of what is displayed as measured global temperature rise is really measured urban heat bubble growth. urban zones are more thermally stable and cool off less swiftly at night than their rural counterparts, the effect is exacerbated on short summer nights. there are very few long term temperature measurements at remote rural locations, the available data history most tracks temperature in the increasingly densely populated urban regions which have ever decreasing tree and plant coverage. the lion's share of the data is sourced from airports, which are typically located at the edge of urban zones and are all tarmac and grass, trees gone because they're obstacles for air navigation.
the data is displayed deceptively and intentionally so, there is not global data set for the overall average temperature for entire continents. real scientists would not misrepresent themselves the way the authors of that graphic did.

>>14488205
I love these so much: Here are two blurry photos of some place taken at unknown types, therefore all the data recorded all over the world of decades is wrong.

>>14488267
Don't bother, you think any of the people replying to you have ever been in the same zip code of a STEM course or a lab?

>>14490655
This just in: scientists have been aware of this for decades.

>Urbanization has long been recognized as having the potential to impact near-surface temperature readings by altering the sensible and latent heat fluxes in affected areas (e.g., Mitchell, 1953; Oke, 1982; Arnfield, 2003).

>[Urban Heat Island] does not appear to represent a significant contributing factor in the homogenized CONUS-average maximum and minimum temperature signal over the past 50–80years

-- Hausfather et al. (2013): Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records

>>14490269
>cherrypicks San Francisco
>doesn't even give the sea level rise
Impressive cope.

https://baykeeper.org/shoreview/california-slr.html

>>14488267
>Global warming has been occurring for the last 12 000 years.
> The question isn't "Is global warming occurring?" , but rather to what degree anthropogenic activities are accelerating it and what, if anything, can or should be done about it.
>Certainly burning a million barrels a day of oil and chopping down forests is not helping.
>Modelling is complex, I honestly have no faith in any of the existing doom and gloom predictions - based upon those that have been made and never materialize.
>Getting rid of fossil fuels is a good thing. I still have find someone who can reasonably argue against this. (They have far better uses than combustion for example)
>Its not that simple to do so, and there is no obvious alternative to a high energy density liquid in any reasonable time frame for all the worlds population.
>realistically, unless population levels drastically drop, there is very little that can be done to arrest global warming.

Its always "two more weeks" before irreversible damage is done. Sickening really.

Arguing the relative merits of climate change while destroying your economy to chase vague scientific predictions that, as of now, have been largely crap, is what this is about.

>>14488205
>global warming is fake
But chemtrails are real

>>14490655
Agreed on all points.

>>14490949
This article is speculative fantasy, matey. Sea level has been static for decades in the bay and along the California coast. Last major flooding event in the bay was the storm of 83.
The real ongoing issue in the bay is sedimentation, the Petaluma River and Corte Madera creek are unavailable without regular dredging. Bahia lagoon filled in completely.

>>14491613
>>Global warming has been occurring for the last 12 000 years.
Rapid global warming has only been occurring for the past 100 years.

>>Modelling is complex, I honestly have no faith in any of the existing doom and gloom predictions - based upon those that have been made and never materialize.
What predictions are you referring to? Why do you think the results of one model reflect on another?

>>Its not that simple to do so, and there is no obvious alternative to a high energy density liquid in any reasonable time frame for all the worlds population.
There is, it's called electricity. No one is saying all fossil fuels have to be replaced immediately.

>>Its always "two more weeks" before irreversible damage is done.
Example?

>Arguing the relative merits of climate change while destroying your economy
Letting global warming go unmitigated has much worse effects on the economy than mitigating it. Nice alarmism.

>vague scientific predictions that, as of now, have been largely crap
I don't think you've actually liked at the predictions. You just seem to be making up excuses based on what's polically convenient for you.

>>14491686
Those are ballast tanks used to move the center of gravity in a test plane.

>>14491971
>This article is speculative fantasy
No, it's measurement and modeling.

>Sea level has been static for decades in the bay and along the California coast.
This is a fantasy, the data says you're wrong.

>>14490949
>don't trust your own eyes goy, trust a bunch of atheistic, amoral, conscienceless "scientists" who have personal financial incentives to exaggerate and lie about the importance of their field of study and who abuse the peer review process to silence anyone who contradicts their self serving propaganda thinly disguised as science
>hey goy, you have to give me all of your money "for science" or the world is gonna come to an end

>>14492310
>"abuse the peer review process"
>not a single example
ngmi

>>14492298
You clearly don't live along the coast or near an estuary. Apart from development SF Bay hasn't changed since the gold rush.

>>14490716
Except those pics are real, if you lived along any coastline, or any bay, and you lived long enough the tidal range would be the same place it was when you were a kid. You'd see people freaking out about a 7.1 tide and you'd have personal memories of 7 plus going back for decades.

If we were getting the 3 to 5 feet of sea level rise promised in the 80s we'd already be seeing 8+ king tides annually and the end of negative tides altogether.

>>14492573
You clearly don't live in reality. Rigorously measured data is not subordinate to your subjective opinion.

>>14492606
>Except those pics are real
No one said they aren't. They're just misleading. Why are you ignoring data? What's your agenda?

>If we were getting the 3 to 5 feet of sea level rise promised in the 80s
Source?

>>14488205
I want a planet where we all have to live like Polynesians did before european contact.

133 replies of 4chan scientists, not a single person figured out one is high tide, one is low tide…

>>14493093
Why are you expectinf others to figure out your headcanon? Psychiatry is not a science.

>>14493093
It's more that nearly any idiot could figure that out and explaining it to the idiots who can't is impossible

>>14488228

how many feet is 8 centimeters? 2-3?

>>14488205
tides are not simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSJRymZ5bJs

why do climatologists harras westerners for global warming when chyna and india are polluting the planet?

>>14493436
Look at the cumulative emissions

Looks fine to me, you might get wet feet otherwise no big deal

>>14493591
>posts pic of flooding
>omg climatechamge
are you a woman?

>>14493596

umm what exactly did you think was causing the flooding?

>>14493662
>umm what exactly did you think was causing the flooding?
Bad weather. Now take your meds.

>>14492606
>Except those pics are real
So? Reread my post. I can also post a real picture of snow in by backyard and say the data we have on increasing global temperature is fake that won't make claiming such a thing any less stupid though.
>If we were getting the 3 to 5 feet of sea level rise promised in the 80s
Oh wow we took some measures to attempt to fix a problem, making the predicted consequences of said problem less severe? What a surprise!
>>14493664
>Bad weather
You're a funny man

>>14493662
PoC shamans dancing

You are now aware the govt is secretly digging a big hole at the bottom of the ocean to offset the sea level rise. Its under water so nobody can see it happening but it most definitely is.
I know a guy who owns a boat and he has heard some weird sounds out in the water lately which is undoubtedly the underwater digging...

>>14493436

>>14491613
Going green is actually very profitiable. It's just that governments don't want to commit.

>>14490655
And urbanisation is dramatically changing the surface of the earth. The urban environment is a SIGNIFICANT geographical feature.

>>14493436
Because we can't control what they do

>>14493717
That still doesn't explain why your handlers pester Westerners when according to their own """science""", it's not going to make a difference.

>>14493678
>t. bankster-controlled scamdrone

>>14493722
How does it not explain it? Realistically (lol) the only government one can even remotely influence is one's own and with it also the rest in one's own country. Also as that other chart indicates, a lot of the stuff China is responsible for is just exports to western nations, so the blame also partly falls to them.
Ideally I would've loved to see my government heavily invest into renewable energy and then also export the technologies for that. Instead they're bought by seemingly every single fossil energy company on earth, so now they have to suddenly find replacements for Russian gas. Imagine trying to be as self-sufficient as possible instead.

>>14493727
Dude I wish I would get money for making fun of idiots.
Unfortunately it's usually the guys who claim global warming is fake that get funded by oil companies.

>>14488747
earth isn't a blackbody radiator, that math doesn't apply to organic systems which can store solar energy in chemical bonds, sometimes for longer than a billion years.

>>14488216
>Dude, the blue line is rising, look!
With posts like these I understand climate change deniers.

>>14496518
heres a picture of the famous glacier park sign, now removed, but it should have been kept as a memorial to the lying, scheming and incompetence of the "scientists".
the glaciers are all still there, only the sign melted away

>>14496518
lrn2read retard

https://www.sealevels.org/#sources

https://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/02/17/1517056113.DCSupplemental/pnas.1517056113.sd03.xls

>>14496685
I'm not reading that

>>14494742
I love how every right wing meme has gone through 3 decades of jpeg corruption in 5 years.

I'm constantly baffled by the polack's complete dismissal of science as a whole and his insistence to still post here and shit up the entire board.

>>14497022
shocker

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

>>14497022
>i can't read
shocker

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

>>14488223
cope.

just zoom out the chart and their lie falls apart. but they'll never show you that, will they, little /sci/cuck? excuse me while i fucking obliterate you with your own charts.

everything you stupid science bitches believe is fake. quick, delete the thread so you don't have to face reality.

did you know that human CO2 emissions is only 4% of the all CO2 on Earth? 96% are natural. And mainstream science says the ocean by itself is capable of absorbing 10x more CO2 than is produced on the entire planet. that's not even counting what the trees can absorb. you're a FOOL if you think CO2 emissions matter. CO2 = Plant Food, they love it.

i'm more worried about the raising co2 levels in the atmosphere as part of what we're breathing

>>14497902
but they wont tell the little /sci/cucks that natural CO2 emissions are 25x higher than man-made will they? they'll only tell you about the man-made emissions.

Still having discussions about this is useless. If you don't believe you don't believe, even if it's already happening. India is simultaneously flooding and drying up, Canada is 50 degrees, Siberia is permanently on fire. My own country just had the biggest drought in 50 years. This is just one of the many weather records that were broken in the recent few years. I live in a developed European county so we'll be fine, we usually are.

On the television they sometimes say "it's not too late", and although technically true, it -is- too late. Human nature won't change this quick. Look at the comments in this post. It's saddening and maddening, I feel like a German in 1930 seeing the enormous amount of suffering & destruction that's on its way. The modernists got punished for their sins and we as capitalists will be punished for ours. And here we are, still arguing if it's even real. I guess Hitler must've seemed like a good idea at the time. I don't think it will be an existential risk for humanity, but enormous food inflation, migratory streams, destruction of eco-systems etc.. It's going to hurt pretty bad. I thought I would be dead before it would kick in but I won't. I'm going to live to see all the pain and it's going to cause. My generation couldn't stop it. May God have mercy on us all.

>>14497917
okay but it's natural climate change not man-made. just like the Sahara used to be a lush forest, did humans do that? nope.

>>14493436

>>14497922
You won't convince me and I won't convince you.

3600 years ago a giant volcanic explosions destroyed the entire Minoan civilization. call me back when anything like that happens today and tell me "THIS IS BECAUSE MUH CLIMATE CHANGE!!"

>>14488223
THIS.

The waves are clearly smaller in the 1917 shot. So actually, the 1917 shot actually does look a bit wider.

Obviously take into account some natural erosion with a vulnerable spot.

But sea rise will be small, so I believe there is some % loss at work here from global warming also involved in the pictures from all the melted glaciers we've had since 1917.

>>14497937
I'll add, yes, not dramatic. Things could get worse?

Still, for me, the poor air quality and ozone destabilisation is also a big problem.

remember, to destroy climate change, just zoom out.

zoomers don't even remember climate change was once called global warming until the globe didnt fucking warm so they ran damage control and renamed it so that whichever way the climate goes they can have you retards freaking out over it. how is that not a blatant scam?

>>14497945
I think a lot of the public concern has not saw a more obvious issue with mass man-made pollutants and that is air quality, especially for those living in towns and cities which accounts for a lot of people who breath that shit in, and potential for the ozone to be disturbed in a way that could make the sun more harsh.

>>14497908
because man-made is the only one that adds carbon
both forests and seas remove it
btfo retard shill

>>14497945
I'm a zoomer and I remembering being taught about global warming in school.

>>14497956
90s science told us the hole in the ozone layer was from man-made climate change and it would eventually get bigger and bigger until it destroys the whole ozone layer.

what really happened? the hole closed up and was never spoken of again.

>>14498096
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

>>14493093
>133 replies of 4chan scientists, not a single person figured out one is high tide, one is low tide…
Maybe because only retarded idiots look at 2 times a day tides instead of resulting washout and plant recession because of the rising salt water?

>>14498169
theres more plants in the bottom half of OP, you can see where they've grown in over the course of the century and how the beach has grown as a result. that whole area left if the curve was barren in the top image, so was the entire foreground.

>>14488205
yep

>>14488373
>>14488413
It measures a ratio of two oxygen isotopes which doesnt have anything to do with global average temperatures.

>>14498273
>bottom half of OP, you can see where they've grown in over the course of the century and how the beach has
Doesn't matter, you can't see long term effects on a sand dune. Thought that was common sense. Veggie too can change due to groundwater salinity etc . Commented the tide, nothing more.

>>14498273
Those two lines arent the same feature of the landscape. The top image is obviously at high tide, while the bottom is low tide. You can tell because the bottom image has exposed sand, the top has barely any.

>>14488205
Plastic/microplastic and soil polution are bigger threats to earth's ecosystem than climate change could ever be.

>>14501307
They're both threats, but the presence of microplastics doesnt somehow make the threat of global warming any less bad.

I would argue that global warming should be the number 1 top priority for humanity, plastics can get solved in 100 years, or immediately, there is no real time limit. Global warming needs to be solved in the next 10 years before the planet become inhospitable.

>>14501185
>The top image is obviously at high tide, while the
No, there are a hundred years between the pics, it's sand and the only thing that is obvious is that you don't now how that works. You can see sea level changes on erosion, such as on the pics of liberty island were is nothing.
t. wet dredging guy

>>14501343
>would argue that global warming should be the number 1 top
It's a good thing, even CO2 is good for vegetation. It needs 1000 of years to melt the massive ice caps and there is no hint that they come above the melting point of water. It's a good thing to be careful about our planet and the environment. But looking at that will mislead you and taxing without compensation has the opposite effect stated.

>>14497935
>Greenland
Oh no, it's retarded

>>14498273
Just to give you more tools to see what happens. The above picture has Kabbelwasser, don't know the English word, on the left means the wind coming from left side. The other side is flat. That means the wind drives the waves and what regard as tide. On the pic there are waves from both sides. Means no wind. Tide is the same if you regard everything else is unchanged. But even a hurricane 50 years ago and 100 of miles away can change everything just because of the waves that, maybe, overrun the narrow.

>>14501507
More CO2 is only good for vegetation in controlled environments like a greenhouse. Increased temperatures reduce the rate of gas exchange through leaves so less CO2 gets absorbed and plant growth is decreased.

>>14501713
>More CO2 is only good for vegetation in controlled environments like a greenhouse. Increased temperatures reduce the rate of gas exchange through leaves so less CO2 gets absorbed and plant growth is decreased
Were did you observe that? Every tree is made out of that trace gas and there is no hint that that will be the road to oblivion. But if you want to cool down the atmosphere, simply make big basins of water in the desert areas. Water has the highest capabiliti on heat transport in practice. The vapour will go to the upper atmosphere and radiate at night and cool down the planet. Where is the problem?

>>14501752
You're a special kind of stupid

>>14501761
>You're a special kind of stupid
Why, enlight me

>>14490565
they don't, holy shit, look at the chart.

A good question though, would be why South America is so moderate.

>>14493705
>>14493436
seething demonic anatolian mutt

>>14488205
>global warming is fake
well duh!

>>14497908
>>14497902
>>14497895
That ice core record for Greenland ends in 1850 but deniers mislabel the graph to say it's global and that it ends in the present

>>14497922
Current warming is 10x + faster than the onset of the interglacial cycles though

>>14497918
How did they get data on the energy output of the Sun during ancient times?

>>14498096
We stopped using CFCs retard.

>>14502216
>Current warming is 10x + faster than the onset of the interglacial cycles though
that's good! Faster warming = Less fossil fuels needed to keep warm in colder areas.

>>14502342
>We stopped using CFCs retard.
No, they just got more expensive. Could still buy Freon for the last 4 decades.

>>14502216
Actual it cools down, you can see it on many long term indicators. maybe a better idea to check If you only with that. But it's not up to me.

>>14502356
>Actual it cools down
global cooling would actually be a disaster to be concerned about.
global warming is good for life, but cold is detrimental.
perhaps the narrative should be flipped.

>>14493705
>but muh per capita
>chinese emissions are actually western emissions!
we need carbon tariffs yesterday

>>14493705
FUCKING CHINA AGAIN ruining the world!

this thread proves science is fake and gay and an easily manipulated tool for political persuasion

>>14502384
>wiggers ruining the world and blaming flavor-of-the-week enemy

>>14502368
>perhaps the narrative should be flipped.
It's known, the moment "science" changed wording from global warming to climate change its become obvious.

Beside the scientific desaster it is way more dangerous than a few degrees a century of an average warming. But usually that turns one or two decades in the other direction. Life exist for longer, I am pretty sure mother earth will feed us and has way more patience with our species as we deserve.

>>14502432
>this thread proves science is fake and gay and an easily manipulated tool for political persuasion
Just avoid mass media, there are only lies in them on important things. I ignore them and eg reading reports of the Shakleton expedition to Antarctica gives me way more info about conditions at that time than this evil fuckups ever can and will do.

>>14497888
Yes, there are two questions:

1.) Is Earth getting warmer?
2.) Are humans responsible?

When people "deny climate change" it's often conflating the two. Actually, there is a third question, which is:

3.) How bad would that be?

https://invidious.sp-codes.de/watch?v=848X64FXGp0

We need to take good arguments on all sides seriously, regardless of what outcome we want or expect.

>>14502500
All boards have become /pol/. Maybe it was inevitable.

>>14488205
Indians are literally larping as popcorn rn, friend. Maybe shut the fuck up is your calling in life. Have you tried that?

>>14503564
You managed to make a post that's worse than OP. Consider taking your own advice.

>>14503528
>We need to take good arguments on all sides seriously, regardless of what outcome we want or expect.
Difficult because you have to check first if the questions. Usually they are unspecific and you unscientific, global warming is an average of what?, and if the scam is obvious the wording changes and the whole thing starts from 0 again.

>>14503590
>You managed to make a post that's worse than OP
Sure, I'll bite. Explain.

>>14503564
>woe is me, muh precious foreigniggers, i am the savior of the precious foreingniggers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex

>>14497945
Fixed. Now it isn't partisan and you wont scare away normies when you post it.

>>14503818
Sorry Phoneposting on the bus to paper recycle station (public transport ;-). if you're interested I repeat.

>>14503877
>whines about global warming
>posts GISP2 graph, with Greenland temperatures
Do global warming "skeptics" have any argument that isn't based on manipulation?

>>14503847
We're on the same planet, retard. Them starting first doesn't mean it ends there.
>>14503882
Not repeat, expand.

>>14503903
>Not repeat, expand.
I try, the question expands to: how much is the effect off a trace gas with ppm concentration on a modeled average temperature when wording -former global warming now climate changes and if yes how much and if that is known how much humans added.
A little polemic but I hope the confused environment in which that question is made comes clear

>>14503894
>Do global warming "skeptics" have any argument that isn't based on manipulation?

>>14504003
I've learned about ocean tides at elementary school. Haven't you?

>>14504022
Posting inna troll thread regardless.

>>14504022
Point is that "skeptics" have been using this image for years. Yes, the tides make it ridiculous to use, but.. when you measure the heights, the water level is actually higher in the second image. So by their own logic, climate change IS happening.

>>14504003
It's funny cause this is a known deliberately misleading image from facebook. Are 4channers so retarded they are posting facebook memes now?
Australia keeps a good record of sea water level throughout the year and has done so for over 100 years. The records very clearly show that the average water line level has risen 7 cm since 1914.
Neither of the images has a verified exact date of when they were taken but based on what is on them they are probably at least 100 years apart. Taking any conclusion from just 2 photos is impossible though because you can't measure the yearly average and compare it. You are a retard if you fall for clickbait facebook memes.

>>14504036
>level has risen 7 cm since 1914
at least 7 cm*

>>14504036
LOL sounds like you're mad because direct visual evidence refutes your pilpul. Pictures speak louder than words, mindlet.

>>14504033
Oh, nice one. I haven't looked at the grid

>>14504033
Low IQ post. It's just a difference in angle and focal length. Both obviously show the same water level and global warming is fake. You just haven't taken all the details into account in your brainlet analysis, :^)

>>14504038
How is using an unverifiable photo taken at an unknown time any refutation? If it's bait it's pretty low quality.

>>14503932
What a cool word salad. Thank you for sharing.
>how much does thing change and if yes how much humans added
Cool.
Here are my exploratory questions.
Why does it matter (in as far as discussing adverse effects on human species) how much humans added to a system whose current conditions are illustrating severe weather effects unwelcoming to human existence in real time? Are you trying to win some dumb fuck rhetoric war? is this some hippie retribution larping where mother earth is fighting back against the infidels? This opposition only stands in the way of doing anything about the fact that people are literally catching ablaze or/ and are carried away in a tornado / flood. Seems unproductive.
2. I am not claiming the able to solve climate change so why are you asking me about a specific variable derived from the average temperature model? What point are you making?

>>14503932
Based on yearly world energy usage sourced from coal alone, quick math says humans emit few dozens of billions of tons of CO2 a year. That amounts to something around 10 ppm of CO2 increase in the atmosphere every year. Some of it will stay, some of it will be absorbed by growing biomass and most of it will get dissolved in the oceans acidifying them. So yes, there is a tangible influence humans have over the CO2 levels.

>>14504063
>What a cool word salad. Thank you for sharing.
Try to better my English that way. This site is optimal for that cause by the ever repeating threads were you can work that out the next one. So sorry it's in progress.

>>14504063
>Are you trying to win some dumb fuck rhetoric war
How can I win a war against anonymous people on a glownigger site?
I do not care of how much is man made much and the disputable outcome of a trace gas. I just check my scientific view because it's part of my work to know that.
Maybe we can agree that pollution on mother earth is way to high and it's a good thing to control that. But the global warming/climate change thing is way to poisoned by political influence and can't be this trace gas for a bunch of reasons. Only is the spectral overlap with water vapour which is a 100 times more in atmosphere.

The global warming alarmist cult has replaced ALL REAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, and that was the plan all along. Instead of any focus being on multinational corporate waste/pollution and government corruption, these useful idiots want to raise taxes on the middle class and take away the people's rights because cows fart.

Some of them even want to have zero CO2 in the atmosphere, they don't even know how photosynthesis works, they want to kill all plantlife and in turn all human life. They regularly talk about mass murdering the population too, they fantasize about "becoming a virus in their next life" to kill millions of people. NOBODY should EVER listen to these greentard PSYCHOPATHS.

>>14504101
>So yes, there is a tangible influence humans have over the CO2 levels
I do not doubt that, it's your impression but there is no reason. Every power plant has up to 2 times the warming what it's produce in electrical energy. Maybe that's contribute way more to warming as an 0,04% trace gas. What if you all look in the wrong direction? Can you exclude that for sure?
Currently it's ge

All of the sea level rise since the industrial revolution are inconsequential amounts that are not even noticeable without directly measuring with a tidal gauge. Not even a foot per century. Why this is even being discussed is beyond me

OP, do rest assured that even though you are incapable of dealing with reality, there are people why are ready to help you out.

>>14504365
>Why this is even being discussed is beyond me
The tide hub of gravitational forces is about 30cm. Everything else is due to a fantastic swinging system which is caused by streams wind aso. That results to a tide hub up to 14 meters where a few cm are negegtable. I kneel to mother earth and it's beauty, that wonderful planet I was on and real science that give me the tools to understand.

>>14488254
>>14488236
I don't get it. Do you not understand what AGW is? Maybe you don't belong on /sci/

>>14504318
>>14504305
As long as we agree that nuclear is the way forward we're all good. Good luck with ESL practice.

why are there so many schizos on this board

>>14504325

>>14488419
sub 90s should be valued for their sanity, their brains aren't capable of thinking up grandiose delusions and conjuring evidence to support their delusions like the higher IQs are capable of.

>>14488330
100m sea level rise = natural process, nature totally happy.
1m sea level rise = the shoah, we will all be dead

>>14506100
You don't really think that's a graph of sea level, do you? Do you at least understand the difference in timescale?

>>14506108
You didn't sincerely ask that question did you? You're just pretending to misunderstand as a meaningless debate tactic right?

>>14506136
Bruh, it's a graph of the global average temperature in degrees Celsius, not sea level. How can you be this scientifically illiterate?

>>14488205
You should take a look at the nordics the water level is actually decreasing if you look at the coast line! As a Finn I hate this as it means that sweden is ~1-2cm closer every year.

>>14506474

>>14506511
We put them into their own group for their own good.

>>14488651
Salt is a mineral

>>14502211
So the latest ice cores we have are 170 years out of date and are reliable bases for public policy?

>>14506532
>for their own good.
they're separate for the convenience of marching them into a russian mine field, but thats fine, nobody wanted them in their home country to begin with, nobody in finland wants them their either. some people are unwanted, thats why abortion was invented to begin with.

>>14488205
cool story bro

>>14488928
This is so reddit I actually died of cringe.

>>14488205
Same thing with the Statue of Liberty, water levels on the wall surrounding the island haven't changed in a 136 years.

>>14507163
Your statement has been deemed false by DHS fact checkers and goes against Party narratives.
That is very dangerous for the rigged democracy.

>>14507167

>>14488364
>he doesn't know about the time portals

>>14488269

Why does /sci not know the definition of IQ?

> IQ is defined so that it has a normal distribution with mean 100 and sd 15
> 97% of the population will have an IQ less than 130 because definition, and thus euthanized
> now everybody has a lower IQ score because IQ always has the same mean and sd
> kill another 97% of people
> repeat until everyones dead

seriously fags who set a minimum IQ don't meet their own requirements

>>14492096
>There is, it's called electricity.
You are an idiot. Where is the electricity going to materialize from?

Diesel fuel powers road transport of all you food and most of your consumer foods. Where is the energy going to come from to replace the weight efficient fossil fuel. Havent you noticed the lack of practical electric transport trucks and semis yet?

There isnt enough "spare" grid power to replace the oil equivalent energy used.

It takes 10-15 years to build a hydro plant, similar time frame for nuclear and not only does solar not work at night, but it is extremely unreliable and there is still no sign of a sustainable, cost effective battery to store the fluid commodity called electricity.

>No one is saying all fossil fuels have to be replaced immediately.
Getting rid of all fossil fuel cars (ie 0) by 2035 is just the same as immediately.

Jesus, how can you be so gullible? Cant you even think things through? Do the math moron. You are the problem.

>>14504063
>Why does it matter (in as far as discussing adverse effects on human species) how much humans added to a system whose current conditions are illustrating severe weather effects unwelcoming to human existence in real time?
It matters if you want to something about it. You can possibly make things worse by failing to understand whether the change you are effecting will actually help, or not.

Its like believing that because MSNBC told me that organic food will save the planet, I must now only buy/grow organic food and lobby for a ban on pesticides,

If you believe that, fuck off to SriLanka and tell us how it works. Anyone who gives these wacky green ideas ideas a little rational thought will realize that the majority are simply virtue signalling for prestige points (tm).

>>14496530
>only the sign melted away
yeah, from the 2021 heat dome

>>14488714
>1973 december
About an oil embargo blocking fuel imports namely for heating houses in the winter.
>1977 january
Same as above cold oil/gas shortages and winter.
>1977 april
Fake cover made from a 2007 cover ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.
>1979 December
Mostly about oil again also in the middle of winter.

>>14508566
>Getting rid of all fossil fuel cars (ie 0) by 2035 is just the same as immediately.
Except that's not what it says in your image it says new cars you're straw-manning.

>>14500786
actually it does, but the link is extremely sketchy. Warmer temperatures mean a higher proportion of heavier oxygen isotope to lighter oxygen isotope

>>14509607

>>14509341
When is the Inland Northwest going to warm up?

https://www.kxly.com/when-is-the-inland-northwest-going-to-warm-up/

SPOKANE, Wash.– If you feel like it hasn’t warmed up much during the month of May, you’d be right. Spokane is on pace to have the coldest month of May since the early 2010s and is close to assuring a spot in the top 10 for coldest Mays on record. Remember, April was the 9th coldest on record.

Spring as a whole in the Inland Northwest will be the coldest since 2011. It’s a dramatic twist from the upper 60s that paid the region a visit in late March. Instead of a sign of impending doom, that warm spell has become the exception to the rule in 2022. Spokane will set a new record for the latest 70-degree day on record once we pass the old record on Saturday. The Lilac City will also fall behind the average this year of the first average 80-degree day, which was back on May 12th.

We might be waiting on that first 80 for a long time. Climate models are showing a strong signal that the last few days of May will be cold and wet again after a notable warmup heading into the middle of next week. June doesn’t look frigid on these computer simulations, but it certainly doesn’t look warm either.
In weather forecasting, the first rule is that it’s a good assumption that the weather pattern happening right now will persist. In other words, the weather will keep going the way it has been until there’s some compelling evidence to suggest a change. So far, this cool, wet pattern has stayed persistent since early April with only a day or three of breaks for sun and warmth.

>>14509973
didn't read that, deniertard.
110 in forks last year (Average high 63 in June)

>>14488330
Ive seen less acronyms in a fucking glossary of acronyms.

>>14509973
>GLOBAL warming
>one place gets 10 degrees colder
>500 places get 10 degrees warmer
ITS A HOAX, ITS A HOAX ALL RIGHT

>>14488724
>2007

>>14489330
>TSI
>Watts with no time
>Disagreement among overlapping observations indicates unresolved drifts that suggest the TSI record is not sufficiently stable to discern solar changes on decadal time scales. Only the ACRIM composite shows irradiance increasing by ∼1 W/m2 between 1986 and 1996; this change is also absent in the model.[26]
kek

>>14504036
You are saying there is more variation in a day and/or year than 100 years of man's influence.
You are the retarded one.

>>14511009
Correct: both cover image and publication date are fake in this case.