/sci/ - Science & Math

Yep.

>>14575820
Where is the scientific proof?

>>14575822
In every paper published on the subject.

>>14575810
Thousands of people live their lives doing government funded research. Every prediction has been false. (Florida should be under water the Arctic ice free) The cure is to pay more taxes so people can fly private jets to talk about raising taxes. That is the cure.

>>14575885
>Florida should be under water the Arctic ice free
No scientist has ever said this

>>14575829
That's not true. All the credible research suggests it is entirely cyclical.

>>14575810
you tell me

>>14575987
Entirely untrue

>>14575987
>That's not true
According to whom?
>the credible research
Which?
it is entirely cyclical
What is?

>>14575987
>That's not true
According to whom?
>the credible research
Which?
>it is entirely cyclical
What is?

>>14575999
Prove it.
>>14576004
The credible researchers and scientists.

>>14576007
>The credible researchers and scientists.
Who?

>>14576010
Take your pick.

No. Everyone is quiet about Earth's M field weakening, which correlates with increases with Earth's temperature. Sadly, there is no solution, therefore no money to be made, so no one talks about. But green energy, which is useless, but would bring trillions in profits and wouldn't solve anything, is important.

What is cloud seeding /sci/?

>>14576007
>>14576013
Prove it

>>14576019
Yeah dude, it's totally the reversal of the geomagnetic poles, which we have zero evidence of it affecting the climate in the past even though it happens once every 200,000 years, and not the increasing concentration of C02 in the atmosphere, which is beyond the shadow of a doubt linked to global warming in the past. You've solved it anon, you absolute genius!

>>14576050
Its basic physics. Sun sends plasma/radiation, the M field deflects it. The weaker the field, the lesser the deflection and more radiation enters the atmosphere. You said it yourself, the field reverses every 200,000 years. Ice ages happen at about that interval. Although we actually have no idea how often either takes place, just estimates.

>>14576059
So why isn't there any evidence of that and why has the warming trend predated the weakening of Earth's magnetic field?

>>14575810
>Is man made climate change real?
No of course not.

>>14576059
Be sure to send the monograph to Nature. I see at least 3 Nobel prizes coming.

>>14576061
Evidence of what exactly? If physics work, then that's what happens. Also not sure how you can make that claim. Show me some data on that.

>>14576048
Read the thread.

>>14575810
>Is man made climate change real?
Yes, we have been ten years from the point of no return since 1989. Here's the father of climate science telling us that by 2009 the West Side Highway would be underwater.
If you don't remember that ever happening, it simply means you are racist.

>>14575993

>>14575993
Actually the trend you're depicting only shows up after climate experts "adjust" the temperature data.
The raw data come from racist thermometers that lie because they are racist.

>>14576086
And that evidence hasn't manifested in any climate reconstruction because...?

Climate change is rea-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Te5al2APrQ

>>14576141
No proof of your claims has been offered in this thread.

>>14576158
Perfect demonstration of Simpson's Paradox.

>>14576164
>coping this hard
Why are climate change schizos so disingenuous?

>>14576177
>Why are climate change schizos so disingenuous?
It's their religion and reason for living. When they get btfo'd and shown it is all a scam, they implode.

What's it called again when you tell the public manmade climate change is real because the glaciers are melting, but you hide the fact that they were melting long before we were significantly changing CO2?
Would that be disinformation or malinformation?

No.
It is a psyop made up by the capitalist cabal for their own economic and energetic interests.

Earth changes due to its pre-programmed pefiodic cycles.

Climate change is real but it is not anthropogenic.

>>14576246
That's just regular old science (lies).

It's real but the Democrat-proposed cures are worse than the disease.
/thread

>>14575810
Nope, Climate Change is not man-made. Stop being so arrogant and deludedly fatalistic!

>>14576246
I mean, the industrial revolution started in about 1850, of course the glaciers were receding before the 20th century, carbon emissions started before it.

>>14576158
>July 3
>average over stations instead of area
>max temperature
>US
LOL, cherrypick much?

>>14576309
>Climate Change is not man-made
Please explain, how do our massive emissions of CO2 not warm the planet?

>>14576341
Please provide credible evidence for your claim that our 'massive' emissions cause significant warming.

Yes but it's not as big a deal as they are making it out to be

Switch to electric for most power and transit and keep using jet fuel, collect methane and burn it, and use diesel for edge cases and there will be no long term problem.

>>14576366
OK.

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

Now please answer my question.

>>14576379
Flawed premise, corrupted data, clear bias, not reproducible, not valid, improper interpretation, correlation is not causation, does not account for extraneous factors and is accordingly worthless. Try again please.

>>14576392
>Flawed premise
How so?

>corrupted data
Proof?

>clear bias
What bias?

>not reproducible
LOL, it's clearly reproducible, they explain how.

>not valid
How so?

>improper interpretation
Where?

>correlation is not causation
What correlation did they claim is causation?

>correlation is not causation, does not account for extraneous factors
Which ones?

You didn't even read the paper.

>>14576408
I did read the paper. I've explained its many shortcomings. If you want to keep pushing this climate change garbage, post a decent source to support your stupid theory, or fuck off. This is a science board.

>>14576341
>how do our massive emissions of CO2 not warm the planet?
1 major eruption = decade of global human activity. There are many eruptions going on at any given time.

CO2 is good, keeps us warm so life can flourish, and is the main source of food for plants.

>>14576379
>.uk/
KEK! government propaganda to take more of your money, like "taxes" will solve some mythical problem.

>>14576412
>I did read the paper
Then why are your criticisms so vague and not even applicable?

>I've explained its many shortcomings.
Where? You clearly have no response to the evidence and can't even explain your own claims. You lose.

>>14576416
See >>14576392

>>14576413
>1 major eruption = decade of global human activity.
Why do you keep repeating this blatant lie? Humans release 40-100 times more than what all volcanic activity combined releases.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/736161

>CO2 is good, keeps us warm so life can flourish, and is the main source of food for plants.
Non sequitur. Food is good and keeps you alive. Yet eating too much food can harm you by making you obese. CO2 simply being in the atmosphere is not the problem, rapid emissions of CO2 is the problem, since this causes rapid warming.

>>14576414
>>.uk/
That's simply a hosting site, it didn't produce the research or even publish it. If you're going to try to ad hominem you should at least attack the right people, moron.

>>14576418
See >>14576408

Your criticisms are vague and not even applicable. You can't explain them or even tell me where you explained them. You constantly lie. Why?

>>14576412
You didn't explain shit, anyone can say an entire study or paper is full of garbage, that's easy for any mindless dumbass, but that something is bullshit you need to provide arguments and evidence...which you didn't, moron.

However i do agree that this is a science board, you got that right. And for that same reason you should the the fuck out.

>>14576004
Planetary orbits have cycles we cant predict (n body problem) therefore theres weather cycles that are longer than recorded human history

>>14575993

>100 years

Kill yourself

>>14576571
>Planetary orbits have cycles we cant predict (n body problem)
No need to predict entire planetary orbits, only the higher order terms are necessary for predicting the necessary orbital parameters.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/35/12/1520-0469_1978_035_2362_ltvodi_2_0_co_2.xml

Also, prediction is not even necessary, since we can simply observe where we are in the cycle right now. We should be slowly cooling but instead we're rapidly warming on top of interglacial warming from 10,000 years ago. Why did you lie about current warming being cyclical?

>>14576341

>>14576452
So what's the solution? More taxes?

>>14576794
absolutely niggerlicious

>>14576456
>>14576559
You're being obtuse. I've gone over the multitude of failures found within your 'evidence'. Post something from a reputable source that doesn't rely on fallacy and we can discuss your theory.

>>14576158
usa =/= global

>>14575810
If global warming was a serious as we think it is, then how come we haven't seen any dramatic or crazy shifts and changes with nature, animals, human survival or ocean levels?
I'm on the side that says it's BS: it's an issue that is manipulated to profit off of concern and fear.
I remember my 4th grade teacher FLIPPING HER SHIT about global warming to all of us children. Going on about how if we don't change that we were going to have 114F summers and -10F winters. I've lived in new mexico my entire life of 30 years: 100F weather is normal here and it's never gone beyond 101F.

>>14575810
Not the climate change the demoralized cultists talk about who want to tax everyone and take away people's rights, but man can affect the weather/climate. It's not going to bring about the end of the world, just higher taxes and dumb brainwashed goycattle who willingly give up their rights.

If the discussion does not include geoengineering, then they're fucking idiots not worth talking to.

>>14575820
>>14575829
>>14575993
Shut the fuck up.

>>14576035
Finally someone with a brain. I swear, most of the idiots on this board just parrot established narratives and think it makes them smart.

>>14576859
Now watch some retard claim Direct Energy or electromagnetic/microwave weapons don't exist

>>14576747
If you refuse to accept the necessary fidelity of planetary orbits required for accurate calculations and predictions, we are done here. I accept your concession of defeat. Climate change is cyclical.

>>14576794
That doesn't answer my question at all. The issue is not the greenhouse effect or temperature of Earth as a whole, it's the *change* in greenhouse gases that produces the *change* in temperature. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by global temperature, so it doesn't explain how changes in temperature come about, it's just a feedback effect. If you're claiming water vapor is to blame, what caused water vapor to change?

>>14576797
So to clarify, you now admit global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and now you want to discuss solutions. You're not going to try argue the science is wrong because it leads to a conclusion you don't like, correct? Because that would be fallacious.

>>14576808
>You're being obtuse
In order for me to be obtuse, there would have to be something for me to understand. You've refused to explain your claims, so there isn't anything for me to understand and I'm not being obtuse.

>I've gone over the multitude of failures found within your 'evidence'.
You've made vague claims that don't even apply to the paper. You haven't shown a single failure except your own failure to read and respond to the evidence.

>Post something from a reputable source that doesn't rely on fallacy and we can discuss your theory.
OK, see >>14576379

>>14576972
We've been over this. You need to provide some quality evidence that isn't easily debunked for your pseud claims.

>>14576888
Not that guy but wow what a pussy you are

>>14576852
>If global warming was a serious as we think it is, then how come we haven't seen any dramatic or crazy shifts and changes with nature, animals, human survival or ocean levels?
We have, you just aren't paying attention or have no sense of scale for determining what's dramatic.

>b-b-but muh teacher said something therefore scientists are wrong
Not an argument.

>>14576996
Ad hominem.

>>14577002
>We have
No, we haven't.

>>14576888
>If you refuse to accept the necessary fidelity of planetary orbits required for accurate calculations and predictions
You're the only one revising to accept it. We've been able to predict Milankovitch cycles since the 70s. Abs prediction is not even necessary, since we can directly observe where we are in the cycle right now. There is nothing cyclical about current warming. It's magnitude, timing, and cause are completely contrary to the natural cycle. You have no argument.

>>14576975
We've been over this. You need to explain how the evidence I gave you is invalid. Otherwise you admit CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

>>14577022
That's incorrect.

>>14577010
Wrong. See >>14576433

>>14577024
Not an explanation. Thanks for admitting CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

>>14577012
Abs is absolutely necessary. Current implications of one snapshot of time do not a pattern make. It's time to get real. There is ZERO evidence that climate change is not cyclical. There is ZERO evidence ruling out 'the natural cycle', because we struggle to even define it owing to scientific limitations. What we do know is that the planet heats up and cools down, regardless of humans. MAYBE we are having a miniscule impact, but it is more than likely explained by orbital anomalies etc.

>>14577030
>>14577028
Nobody is interested in volcanic contributions to the cyclical problem of climate change. Your citation is irrelevant and poorly manifested.
See >>14576392

>>14575810
No. The science is settled.

>>14577038
>volcanic contributions
Negligible. Come up with better lies.

>>14575810
oh, look, another climate change thread
everyone look out for paid posters

>>14577034
>Current implications of one snapshot of time do not a pattern make
The pattern is observable in temperature reconstructions. What are you even talking about?

>There is ZERO evidence that climate change is not cyclical.
The evidence is that current warming is completely contrary to the cycle we've been in for 2.5 million years, and the cause is human emissions, not a cyclical cause.

>There is ZERO evidence ruling out 'the natural cycle', because we struggle to even define it owing to scientific limitations.
It's very well defined, to the point that we can predict it hundreds of thousands of years into the future. Why are you lying?

>What we do know is that the planet heats up and cools down, regardless of humans.
Except for the past 150 years.

>MAYBE we are having a miniscule impact
Our impact is directly observable, it's not miniscule. See >>14576379

Your are just making shit up that you want to be true with no basis.

>>14577038
>Your citation is irrelevant
Wrong again. Look at the image in the post.

>See >>14576392 #
See >>14576408

>>14577038
Not an explanation. Thanks for again admitting CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

>>14575810
>climate change
obviously. climate has been changing for the entire existence of earth. we've gone through countless periods of warming and cooling.
>man made
I haven't seen any compelling evidence for this. Alleged scientists have been doomsaying about it for literally over 60 years yet none of their predictions have ever come true.

And let's assume for a minute that "man" is causing it. Now what? It's 99% industrial and 75% China at this point, so forgive me if I refuse to sacrifice my own creature comforts for them.

>>14577312
>I haven't seen any compelling evidence for this.
Then you haven't looked. See >>14576379

>Alleged scientists have been doomsaying about it for literally over 60 years yet none of their predictions have ever come true.
Example?

>And let's assume for a minute that "man" is causing it.
No need to assume what's already proven.

>Now what? It's 99% industrial and 75% China at this point, so forgive me if I refuse to sacrifice my own creature comforts for them.
If it has nothing to do with you then taxing the industries that pollute should have no effect on you. After all, these industries aren't producing anything for your consumption, right?

>>14577310
are you a climate scientist or a climate science fan?

>>14577547
I don't know what "climate science fan" means. Are you a "round earth science fan" or just a sane person?

>>14577312
Build out nuclear energy like France did, resulting in even cheaper rates than Germany.

Fund research into deep drilling technologies like electro pulse boring which will enable geothermal anywhere on earth.

With a vast supply of reliable and clean energy we will naturally transition away from the causes of climate change.

>>14575810
The only "people" that say it doesn't exist are; sub-95 IQ monkeys (contrarians and trolls are in this group), literal bots, paid or unpaid car/oil/coal shills and politicians/businessmen protecting their money and power.

>>14577580
Do you possess higher education in a scientific field, or do you "read" papers and pretend to understand them?

The "round earth science fan" comparison is actually pretty relevant. Almost every person in the world does not and will never understand the scientific reasoning nor evidence behind proving the actual shape of the earth. It doesn't matter to their lives either way. This is why they are susceptible to flat earth arguments. One requires a certain baseline of training in order to discern and understand scientific reasoning. However, what is true remains true regardless of whether they believe it.

This brings us to why I'm asking you about your own background. Your method of communication is wrapped up in your insistence that your interpretation of the data is correct. You are treating this like a debate on a subjective topic that has a winner and a loser, as determined by some subjective panel. When you do this, you galvanize the perception of anthropogenic climate change being purely political, rather than something factual whose truth is independent of whether anyone believes it. This is an unscientific communication style. You're arguing against retards, sure, but do you have to argue LIKE a retard?

And, for the record, the paper you've linked truly is hot garbage. Where did you find it?

>>14577295
>>14577305
>>14577310
>>14577198
It's sad to see /sci/ so overrun with shills. This poster will refuse to admit his source is garbage, because he has the dogmatic nature of someone being paid to spam garbage, even if he knows it is flawed.

>>14575810
bump

>>14577874
>It's sad to see /sci/ so overrun with shills
So why don't you leave, shill? You clearly can't refute anything.

>>14578220
>calls others shills
>is shilling
typical

>>14576079
why does every right-wing conservative christian anti-science meme have spelling mistakes?

son, is that how you dare talk about us rebuplicans?

>>14577629
>Do you possess higher education in a scientific field
Yes, I have two degrees in scientific/mathematical fields

>Almost every person in the world does not and will never understand the scientific reasoning nor evidence behind proving the actual shape of the earth.
And? That's not because it's somehow beyond their reach, it's pretty trivial to prove it.

>Your method of communication is wrapped up in your insistence that your interpretation of the data is correct.
Everyone insists their interpretation is correct. You've given no reason to doubt my interpretation. I can give you many reasons to doubt any contrary interpretation. Try me.

>You are treating this like a debate on a subjective topic that has a winner and a loser, as determined by some subjective panel.
You stopped treating this like a debate when you realized you lost. So now you're desperately trying to reframe the discussion. If you don't want to debate then don't make arguments and false claims. It's that simple.

>When you do this, you galvanize the perception of anthropogenic climate change being purely political
Incredible projection. You're the only one denying scientific facts for political reasons that you can't defend on the science board. That's why you've failed again and again to defend your claims. There's no actual substance behind them.

>And, for the record, the paper you've linked truly is hot garbage
Let me know when you have an actual argument, you're ready to join the adult table. Until then, keep your tantrum to yourself.

>>14577874
>This poster will refuse to admit his source is garbage
Why would I admit to your baseless lie? You're delusional.

>>14578418
I simply ask that you stop trolling this thread. We are trying to find the truth. Post a quality source, make a valid argument steeped in reality, or simply go back to your home board and stop tourist shitting up /sci/.

>>14578428
>I simply ask that you stop trolling this thread
How can I stop when I never started? The only one telling is you, since you just make vague claims and then refuse to explain them.

>Post a quality source
>make a valid argument steeped in reality
Already did both, still waiting for your response. So far you've told me you have none since all you can do is throw a tantrum in which you accuse everyone else of your own mistakes. Cry more.

>>14578457
Just post a source.

>>14578468
Already did. Just explain what's wrong with it. We already know you can't, otherwise you would have done it already.

>>14578475
I already did.

>>14578590
Where?

>>14578597
See >>14576392

>>14576413
That’s demonstrably false

>>14578390
>Can't refute anything
>Everyone else is a shill
Fuck off, shill.

>>14578415
I'm >>14577629 but I'm not the person you were arguing with before, so I'm going to ignore the specific things you said where you assumed I was him.

>Yes, I have two degrees in scientific/mathematical fields
I have a B.Sc and M.Sc in pure mathematics, and my current academic work is in epidemiology. I asked for clarification on where you were coming from because I don't know how you learned to argue the way you do. You are trying to end-run arguments and embarrassing yourself. Hold yourself to a higher standard. The other idiots in these threads are spinning their wheels and trying to offer easy answers to complex systems. They don't know why they're wrong, and you're not helping them figure it out with your strategy. Which brings us to the next point:

>And? That's not because it's somehow beyond their reach, it's pretty trivial to prove it.
It is pretty trivial to prove that the Earth is round. Can you do so? Convincingly enough for this audience? If not, what are you hoping to achieve with your glib "proofs" of anthropogenic climate change, an issue many times more complex?

>Everyone insists their interpretation is correct. You've given no reason to doubt my interpretation.
No, you're supposed to doubt your own fucking interpretation, dumbass. That's basic scientific methodology. Just because no one else here seems to be doing that doesn't mean you shouldn't.

>the paper thing
Once again, how did you find that paper?

>>14578724
He did refute it all though...

>>14578756
He didn't.

>>14578760
Yes he did

>>14578846
He didn't. Try harder.

>>14578902
He did.

>>14578904
Try harder.

>>14578914
>>14578914
huh?

>>14575894
Yes, ignore the alarmism from the past because it's inconvenient to address in the present

>>14578941
Name any scientist who made any claim similar to that

>>14578927
Try harder.

>>14575810
>Is man made climate change real?

"Climate Change" is just another scheme created by Nazi descendants.

A scam by the rich 1% to convince you to give them more money via "taxes" so they can "fix" an imaginary problem that doesn't exist and will never go away, and take away more of your freedom and possessions in the process.

>>14576408
>shotgun posting retardism
People who make posts like this need to be dragged through the streets by horses until they are husks of red goo

>>14576379
Climate alarmists are cult following retards. 75% of entire warming period of the past 150 years falls within our uncertainty of solar forcings. Doing the tiniest bit of thinking for yourself you'd realize the "scientific consensus" for global warming being manmade is as valid as the "scientific consensus" that black's IQ disparity has nothing to do with genetics.

>"Revised historical solar irradiance forcing"
>Egorova, et al 2018 (climate alarmist)
>“There is no consensus on the amplitude of historical solar forcing. The estimated magnitude of the total solar irradiance difference between the Maunder minimum and the present time ranges from 0.1 to 6 W/m2 making the simulation of the past and future climate uncertain”

>>14578948
Not an argument.

>>14578981
Try harder

>>14576341
please explain how co2 tax removes co2 from existence

>>14579083
I'm trying as hard as I can and I can't find any proof that humans cause climate change

>>14579102
>please explain how co2 tax removes co2 from existence

Well the politicians get to buy more expensive jets that are cleaner burning, and live in better insulated mansions. This reduces CO2 levels.
Don't you want that??

Why can't /sci/ prove this ridiculous climate change theory is a real thing?

>>14579106
How about any proof of your claims?

>>14579102
That's completely unrelated to his post, but if you want a real answer it's a sin tax, just like we put on cigarettes and alcohol. It disincentivizes use be driving up the price.

>>14576158
That's called a low pass filter you scientifically illiterate fuck. It's useful for deseasonalizing a time series so they can be compared on the same scale.

>>14579273
Read the thread.

>>14578638
Not an explanation. See >>14576408

>>14578753
>I'm >>14577629 # but I'm not the person you were arguing with before
Ah, then you must be confused because your criticisms only apply to the person in arguing against. He only makes vague claims, fails to explain them, presents no data, and fails to respond to the data I presented to him. Just like you claim the paper I posted is "hot garbage" without any explanation. You're embarrassing yourself.

>They don't know why they're wrong, and you're not helping them figure it out with your strategy.
I already explained to them why they're wrong. I can't force them to accept those explanations when they're being wilfully ignorant. You assume that the goal is convincing them, implying that they can be convinced in the first place, an often futile effort. If not, it's about refuting them and embarrassing them in public.

>Hold yourself to a higher standard.
I've already met that higher standard by posting actual data, which by the way was directly requested from my opponent. Did you actually read the thread? You seem confused.

>Can you do so?
Yes, the simple fact that two people in different places can look South and see the same stars is proof that the Earth is round. On a flat Earth this would be impossible since South would point outwards to different stars. Trivial.

>Convincingly enough for this audience?
That depends on them. Some people can't be convinced by facts and logic.

>If not, what are you hoping to achieve with your glib "proofs" of anthropogenic climate change, an issue many times more complex?
Which proof is glib? What I hoped to achieve is what I achieved, the inability of my opponent to present a counter-argument.

>No, you're supposed to doubt your own fucking interpretation
Why would when I have no conceivable reason to doubt it? Basic methodology is to find a reason it's false. I have found none.

>>14578753
>Once again, how did you find that paper?
It was big news last year:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3072/direct-observations-confirm-that-humans-are-throwing-earths-energy-budget-off-balance/

And I was already aware of similar research that laid the groundwork for it in 2015:

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>>14578954
>make a list of vague claims
>whine about how long the list is when asked to explain them

>>14578974
>75% of entire warming period of the past 150 years falls within our uncertainty of solar forcings.
Completely ridiculous lie. Here's the latest forcing calculations from AR6.

>>“There is no consensus on the amplitude of historical solar forcing. The estimated magnitude of the total solar irradiance difference between the Maunder minimum and the present time ranges from 0.1 to 6 W/m2 making the simulation of the past and future climate uncertain”
OK, and your point?

>>14579102
I don't know what you mean by "removes CO2 from existence." Do you mean eliminate all CO2 from the atmosphere? Where did I say I wanted to do that? A carbon tax would reduce the rate at which we emit CO2, which would reduce the rate at which we warm. That's not "eliminating CO2," it's simply not putting CO2 into the atmosphere in the first place. The funds could also be used to build nuclear and renewable infrastructure to further reduce emissions. Now please answer my question. How do our massive emissions of CO2 not warm the planet?

>>14579141
Already did. See >>14576379

>>14579106
See >>14579423

>>14576246
>glacier starts receding in 1815
>thats when factories became commonplace
retard

>>14577004
this is so fucking stupid. what a fucking retard you are.

>>14579385
>>14579423
You seem to have .
See >>14576392

>>14579687
See >>14576408

>>14579715
Hello?>>14579715
See
>>14576392

>>14579717
Not a response. See >>14579473

>>14579721
I've already debunked this.
See >>14576392

>>14579724
You made a bunch of vague claims that don't even apply to the paper, and you've repeatedly failed to explain any of them. You're a joke.

What's will all the climate deniers schizos lately?
Discord raid?

>>14579734
They are self explanatory for any quality scientists. Sorry you got filtered.

>>14579756
Not an explanation. Why did you lie?

>>14579765
Not a refutation. Why are you unable to understand basic logic?

>>14579767
>Not a refutation.
Refutation of what? Vague claims don't need to be refuted, you need to explain and prove them. You fail at basic logic.

>>14579774
It's sad to see you broken like this. The papers flaws are enormous and anyone can infer the results are equally misleading.

Tldr: These 2 fags above me are massive bad-faith faggots and no insightful discussion has happened. Whoever reads this sorry that you had to scroll this far. Might as well have a /thread because we of the 2 obtuse garbage men here

The fucking state of /sci/

>>14579798
Contribute to the scientific contestation of ideas found within this thread or get the fuck out.

>>14579802
Contribute what? Nothing insigtfull nor productive has been contributed in here. Just contrarianism.

>>14579814
Read the thread.

>>14579819
I did. That's why I'm so depressed right now. I've wasted my time in this world reading this obtuse garbage.

If you want me to elaborate this >>14576392 is the worst answer I have ever seen and whoever wrote this must be a 12 year old who just learned a few buzzwords. Here's a school assignment, 12 yo. Apply whatever buzzwords that you spewed over there and use them eloquently here and
>>14576379
Please be articulate. This is a "science" board after all. Maybe one day you'll be ready for high school if you practice hard enough

>>14579838
It couldn't be clearer. I'm sorry you fall so short. Maybe science isn't for you?

>>14579844
Lad, a series of buzzwords and a "thank you, try again" is not clear. Normal, actually prductive scientific communities don't accept obtuseness. So I guess you've come to the right place then

>>14579856
Not an argument.

>>14579778
>The papers flaws are enormous
Then it should be trivial for you to show a flaw. But you've repeatedly failed. You lose, retard.

>>14579877
It's been discussed in more detail than it deserves. If you're unable to parse the basic scientific failings of that document, that's not my problem.

>>14579798
>These 2 fags above me are massive bad-faith faggots and no insightful discussion has happened.
LOL, I was asked for evidence and I gave it. How is that bad faith? The retard that demanded it has no response so he repeats the same vague claims over and over and hasn't even read the paper.

>>14579889
Everyone can see you're pearl clutching one flawed paper to protect your shitty idea.

>>14579838
>Please be articulate
Articulate about what? Do you need me to summarize the paper for you? That's what the abstract is for. Do you not understand how it relates to the post I was responding to? Then you don't have basic literacy skills.

>>14579885
>It's been discussed in more detail than it deserves.
Is been discussed in zero detail. You have nothing. You lost and every post just embarrasses yourself further.

>>14579893
Then show the flaws. You can't, all you can do is lie over and over. It's transparent.

>>14579908
>>14579911
I suggest you read the paper, then read the thread, then get an education. He's explained it several times. Also, read >>14576392

>>14579925
>I suggest you read the paper
I read the paper already. Your vague claims don't even apply to it.

>then read the thread
I did. That's how I know you're lying.

>then get an education
I guarantee you I'm more educated than you.

>Also, read >>14576392 #
I did. Now answer these questions: >>14576408

>>14579936
Those claims apply to that paper... Your disingenuous dogma is plain for all to see. I find it hard to believe you are educated if you cannot critically assess a paper just because you happen to agree with it. Hell, I intuitively believe that human caused climate heating is occurring, but there is simply no credible evidence for it, so I don't make bogus claims about it.

>>14579955
>Those claims apply to that paper
How? You're a liar and you know it.

>>14579964
It's been explained to you.

>>14579970
Then show where. You can't, because you know you didn't. You're next post will fail to show it and confirm you lied.

>>14579978
Scroll up, read the thread.

>>14579982
You failed to show it. You lied.

>>14579990
I showed you it.

>>14580006
Where? You lied.

>>14580014
I urge you to read the thread.

>>14580027
I did, that's how I know you lied. Everyone else knows you lied because you've repeatedly failed to prove your claim, when it should be trivial to prove it true.

>>14580041
You clearly didn't read the thread if you don't understand. See >>14576392

>>14579404
You are low IQ disengenous annoying retard if you shotgun post half a dozen one word responses that have a question mark after them. Every single person who exhibits that posting style is exactly the same way in any topic (ROFL or maybe it's always you) It's just that simple. I don't even care what the "vague claims" other anon made were, I didn't bother to read them. I guarantee from your posting style you are a dishonest weasel and misrepresenting them and your one word responses are just childish immaturity since his context already answered them (in fact he probably verbatim answered many already and you are just being a little shit asking "duuuur WHERE??")

Thus, you should be dragged through the streets like I said. You are not worth engaging.

>>14579417
>Completely ridiculous lie. Here's the latest forcing calculations from AR6.
That isn't forcings you retard that is temperature "contributions"...obviously the bottom is in units of C, not W m^-2
>OK, and your point?
Are you huffing paint? The IPCC uses the 0.1 W/m2 propaganda number for solar irradiance (the absolute lowest cherry picked number among all calculations) but the paper says the uncertainty goes up to 6 W/m2. If you had posted the correct chart you would see that's 3x larger than C02, meaning up to 3/4 parts is due to natural solar, ie up to 75% of the warming falls under uncertainty exactly like I said. If I cherry pick the 75% like alarmists cherry pick the 1% then global warming is a nothing burger. Why do they get to cherry pick but I don't?

>>14580056
You probably should't engage that retard I'm almost 100% certain I've seen him in many other threads on multiple topics from that unique posting style... stuff like calling you a liar just for not answer his loaded questions, then declaring he's won, saying thanks for proving him right, empty one word responses to a whole sentence etc. People do these things on occasion but there is one poster here who does all of these in every other post like he has an autistic tic. A complete dishonest weasel who just takes a paragraph of yours and cuts up each sentence into 2-3 parts and gives empty one word responses to them or empty one word questions you've already answered that he dishonestly pretends you didn't. I call him the shotgun poster since his posts figuratively are like a person with a blindfold and a shotgun who gives quick bursts of complete misses again and again.

>>14576392
also
>Ad Hominem
>Strawman Argument
>Appeal to Ignorance
>False Dilemma
>Slippery Slope Fallacy
>Circular Argument
>Hasty Generalization
>Red Herring Fallacy
>Appeal to Hypocrisy
>Causal Fallacy
>Fallacy of Sunk Costs
>Appeal to Authority
>Equivocation
>Appeal to Pity
>Bandwagon Fallacy

>>14580115
Yeah, it's some kind of weird fallacy ridden mindset where he demands endless detail in proof, has zero ability to suspend his own biases, looks at data he disagrees with in the least generous way possible. If all else fails he will point out that you can't prove that there isn't a confounding variable unaccounted for, thus he rejects whatever study/data, no matter how sound the methodology. As you say, a weasel.

Thermometers and tropic hurricanes are all fake.
We who are sensible and critical and have IQ > 200 demand to be flown out to live on Venus,
where it is actually pleasant to live, contrary to the belief systems of the "scientists".

Exxon and Shell shills are getting desperate lately.

>>14580077
>You are low IQ disengenous annoying retard if you shotgun post half a dozen one word responses that have a question mark after them.
Doesn't follow. It's not my fault I was given a list of vague claims that all require clarification and justification.

>I don't even care what the "vague claims" other anon made were
Then nothing you say has any weight, since you're ignoring context and making sweeping generalizations.

>I didn't bother to read them
>his context already answered them
LOL, you accuse me off being dishonest? You just make shit up.

>>14580077
>That isn't forcings you retard that is temperature "contributions".
Same thing, different units.

>The IPCC uses the 0.1 W/m2 propaganda number for solar irradiance (the absolute lowest cherry picked number among all calculations)
Source?

>but the paper says the uncertainty goes up to 6 W/m2
You're incredibly confused. That paper didn't calculate the forcing from 1750 to the present. It calculated the difference in total solar irradiance between the Maunder minimum and the present. TSI is much larger than solar forcing because it doesn't take into account the curve of the Earth and albedo. And TSI in 1750 was much closer to today's the Maunder minimum's. Further, it calculated the TSI difference in the range 3.7 and 4.5 W/m^2, not 0.1 to 6. So basically everything you said is wrong.

>>14580120
>Yeah, it's some kind of weird fallacy ridden mindset where he demands endless detail in proof
How about any detail?

>has zero ability to suspend his own biases
What is my bias?

>looks at data he disagrees with in the least generous way possible
You've presented zero data for me to disagree with.

>If all else fails he will point out that you can't prove that there isn't a confounding variable unaccounted for, thus he rejects whatever study/data
Pure projection.

>>14575810
Man made? No.

We would need to learn how to do geoengineering or we'll always be at the whims of the weather.

>>14579426
If glaciers are sensitive to the insignificant amount of CO2 produced by factories in 1815 then scaling it the glaciers should be gone by now.

>>14580523
>Man made? No.
Wrong. See >>14576379

>>14580554
Show your math.

>>14580115
>stuff like calling you a liar just for not answer his loaded questions
What loaded questions. Asking you to explain or provide evidence for your claim is not a loaded question.

>empty one word responses to a whole sentence etc.
Not everything you say deserves a lengthy response. Get over it and stop whining about it.

>empty one word questions you've already answered that he dishonestly pretends you didn't
Show one example.

>>14580569
Okay, go yell at China, Africa and Indian to stop industrializing then.

>>14580635
>Okay
Thanks for admitting global warming is man made. That was easy.

>>14575810
global warming is fake

>>14580641
Now what?

>>14580659
https://www.sealevels.org
Click and drag in the plot area to zoom in

>>14580659
this

>>14580659
who to believe
>a global consensus amongst hundreds of scientists
or
>facebook collage made a 3rd world schizo shitskin that shits in a corner

>>14580778
Scientists told me the vaccine was safe. I got hurt by it and so did several other people I know.

>>14580778
>i come to 4chan.org to aggressively defend the MSM conventional wisdom. my high school science class was 100% true, dammit!!!
i'll go the the option which doesn't involve placing my trust in a group of people who have financial motive to lie to me and who have demonstrated in the recent past a willingness to spend lies in order to personally profit.
if yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal, then so is yelling "global warming" in stable climatological conditions. the people who self-identify as scientists and who then spend their careers circulating lies in exchange for cash, are now on the hook for literal trillions in potential fraud damage claims.

>>14580778
The problem is institutions have every incentive to lie and have done so in the past.
A random person with zero trust is much more trust worthy than someone with negative trust.

>>14580778
>facebook collage made a 3rd world schizo shitskin that shits in a corner

Yeah retard, your own lying eyes that instantly destroy the propaganda narrative or words and statistics from (((verified))) sources

It's not like it's just one photo, you can look up locations from around the globe showing literally nothing has changed on a macro level.

Meanwhile, the same (((verified))) sources will show pictures like this house from Chesapeake Bay bay as proof that the oceans have raised. The Chesapeake bay is sinking because the plate it's on has been sinking since the ice age.

Take your meds if you think mankind impacts this.

>>14580826
>if yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal
it's not. stop believing bullshit on the internet.

>>14580835
>Imagine being so retarded you didn't understand tides

No.

"Green industry" isn't 'passing on' costs, they are inventing new money making endeavors and attempting to market it as some kind of collective effort to save the world. It's the same way the medical industry presents itself as selflessly saving lives, when they would never save a life for free, or even a small discount.

I am all in favor of making money. It's obviously the only incentive anyone has to do anything in a relatively free market. But don't be explicitly disingenuous and claim you are only doing what 'has to be done' while making millions and billions.

"Come on, Team! Let's all buy my electric cars which I sell at a profit - for the Environment! Go Team Environment!"

It's amazing people still believe in this climate change shit.

>>14578945
Faggot

>>14581127
given how much money is being giveaway to green energy evangelists like musk and paul pelosi jr., there is a huge profit motive for the green energy grifters to employ paid shills.
if musk has enough money to buy twitter then he has enough to control the narrative on other outlets too

>>14580671
Now you can go back to /pol/

>>14580826
>HURR conventional bad!
Anti-intellectualism at its finest. If that word is too big for you, replace with "being stupid on purpose." Go back to your containment board.

>>14580830
The problem is that you have zero evidence for your schizo conspiracy theory, just wishful thinking.

>>14580491
>Same thing, different units.
I lost braincells reading this stupidity. They are different fundamental units and one is even a derived unit. It's not like flipping between fucking Fahrenheit and Celsius and thus in absolutely no way is it the "same thing"
>Sourc
You are confirmed huffing paint. You literally just posted it. Look at the bottom bar in your picture.
>TSI is much larger than solar forcing because it doesn't take into account the curve of the Earth and albedo
HAHA WOW you have no idea what these terms mean. SF is the CHANGE in flux and TSI is the QUANTITY of flux going in. Of course the latter will be insanely higher and it has nothing to do with your unrelated nonsense that's "not taken into account", but if TSI goes up in means SF must go up too bc it's literally a measure of what TSI is doing.
>That paper didn't calculate the forcing from 1750 to the present. It calculated the difference in total solar irradiance between the Maunder minimum and the present
It's a 35 year difference. The Maunder min ended in 1715. I knew you would be desperate enough to point that out ROFL.
>closer to today's the Maunder minimum
Maunder minimum ended in 1715. There is no such thing as "today's the maunder minimum's"
Do you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
>Further, it calculated the TSI difference in the range 3.7 and 4.5 W/m^2, not 0.1 to 6
So the range is still 0.1 to 6 like I fucking said, this is just another paper the ends up in the middle, which the IPCC still wildly ignores. 3.7 and 4.5 still outpaces the alleged anthropogenic change in RF since 1750
>basically everything you said is wrong.
Please. Not a single thing I said was wrong and you are making up insane delusional bullshit about "today's maunder minimum's" and pretending temperature and energy flux are the same thing with different units etc.
You are also being a dishonest weasel like I said, asking for "DUUUR SOURCE??" when you fucking literally posted a pic of it

>>14580838
Mankind impacts that. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're emitting a lot of it. Try making an actual argument.

>>14581365
I just stated why people wouldn't believe in institution over memes.

>>14581087
>No.
Proof?

>>14580597
>>14580413
>don't engage this weasel retard
>b-b-b-b-but p-p-p-please engage meee!!!!
Sigh, I made a mistake

>>14581343
That doesn't answer my question.

What are the consequences of man made global warming? Do we deindustrialize and force austerity on countries?

>>14581377
Read the thread

>>14581369
>They are different fundamental units
Yes, that's why I said "different units." Good job at reading, retard.

>It's not like flipping between fucking Fahrenheit and Celsius and thus in absolutely no way is it the "same thing"
It actually is exactly like that, since each forcing just gets multiplied by the same constant to get the temperature contribution. So either graph refutes your ridiculous lie that ">75% of entire warming period of the past 150 years falls within our uncertainty of solar forcings." You're sperging out over nothing.

>You literally just posted it. Look at the bottom bar in your picture.
Oh no... it's retarded. That bar is radiative forcing from 1750 to present, not the difference in TSI from Maunder minimum to present. Thanks for confirming you have no clue what you're talking about.

>SF is the CHANGE in flux and TSI is the QUANTITY of flux going in.
We're talking about the DIFFERENCE in TSI. That's a CHANGE, moron. You convert the the DIFFERENCE in TSI to radiative forcing by dividing by a factor of 4 to account for the spherical geometry of the Earth and reduce by 30% to account for albedo to get the radiative forcing.

>It's a 35 year difference
Yes, 35 years in which TSI went from an extreme minimum back to a level comparable to today. Thanks for agreeing with me. You really are retarded if you thought "ONLY 35 YEARS!!!" was somehow a response.

>There is no such thing as "today's the maunder minimum's"
Missed a word. That sentence should have read "And TSI in 1750 was much closer to today's than the Maunder minimum's."

>You are also being a dishonest weasel like I said, asking for "DUUUR SOURCE??" when you fucking literally posted a pic of it
I literally didn't, you just don't understand the difference between TSI and radiative forcing.

>>14581375
You just stated a schizo conspiracy theory with no evidence. Most people aren't schizos like you.

>>14581458
Ok bot I didn't even post anything lol

>>14581378
>>don't engage this weasel retard
>>b-b-b-b-but p-p-p-please engage meee!!!!
Who are you quoting? I would prefer you not engage me since all you've done is lie and whine about nonsense, and I couldn't care less who else you engage with. Retard.

>>14581398
>That doesn't answer my question.
It clearly does.

>What are the consequences of man made global warming?
See image in >>14576433

>Do we deindustrialize and force austerity on countries?
Do you think that's going to happen? Quit being an alarmist.

>>14581423
I did, there's no proof of your claim and in fact quite a lot of proof against it. For example: >>14576379. Where do you think the proof is?

>>14581464
You posted >>14580830 and >>14581375, and now you're doubling down on your schizo nonsense by calling me a bot. Please tell me more of your mentally ill delusions.

>>14581480
OH you think that an institution 'lying' is conspiracy theory.

Do you believe everything every institution puts out like an autistic child? For real?

>>14581473
It's been covered. Read the thread.

>>14581497
>someone somewhere did X
>therefore you did X
>and anyone who asks for evidence thinks no one has ever done X
Schizo logic. Many such cases. Sad.

>>14581518
No proof shown. Thanks for admitting you lied.

I assume based on nothing that emissions probably do raise the temperature but my question is: why haven't billionaires, hedge funds etc. been dumping all their commercial real estate and properties when every coast is supposed to be underwater within what? Current year +20 years? I've been hearing that everything is going to be underwater imminently for over 20 years now and it isn't happening, plus people that stand to lose trillions of dollars from rising sea levels don't seem to take it seriously

>>14581369
>So the range is still 0.1 to 6
So you cited a paper that concluded the 0.1 to 6 range is wrong and then you reject it once you realize it doesn't support what you claimed. Dishonest weasel.

>3.7 and 4.5 still outpaces the alleged anthropogenic change in RF since 1750
Utter nonsense. It's not RF and not even over the same time frame, yet you think you can compare them. BTFO.

>>14581786
>when every coast is supposed to be underwater within what? Current year +20 years?
Source?

>>14581753
Incorrect.

>>14581794
That's a meme because climate people are always saying that the world is going to be destroyed by climate change within 5-20 years and continue to say it despite time passing. It seems like scientists are saying that shit will go down around 2100 in terms of cities actually going under? I'm wondering if/when people will actually start abandoning New York and such

>>14581811
>climate people
Who? Can you be specific

>>14581815
>>14581815
All you climate change believing schizos are always making ridiculous claims about how the world will end by x date. It never happens.

>>14581836
Well surely you can then actually point out to a single paper, preferably several of course.

>>14581840
>>14581840
Take any climate paper from the last 40 years and you will find unfounded fearmongering

>>14581847
Well can you point out a single one? This mystery schizo source seems pretty elusive.

>>14581848
Just look at any of them.

>>14581865
Well I did and it says here you were just schizo babbling all this time, who could have predicted such a turn of events

>>14579102
It depends on if it's only on corporations or citizens. If you live in the country you have no choice but to use a car, and in that case, it's more a case of letting no tragedy go to waste.

>>14581871
Fine, suit yourself. I don't really mind, if you want to try and prove me wrong, you can. Clearly you can't, so it's a moot point.

>>14581885
I just did though, using your own criteria no less.

>>14581890
No you didn't.

>>14581808
Where's the proof then? You'll fail again on your next post. You lied.

>>14582351
Read the thread.

>>14582355
You failed again. Thanks due admitting you lied.

>>14582392
Wrong

>>14582539
Wrong, you failed to show proof.

>>14582552
Wrong. It is in this very thread.

>>14582596
It's not, I've read the entire thread. You can't show it because it doesn't exist and you continuously lie about it.

>>14582804
I've pointed it out to you numerous times.

>>14582857
Then link to one of those posts in your next post. Otherwise you admit you lied.

>>14581452
>Yes, that's why I said "different units."
HAHA so "same thing, different fundamental units" makes sense in your head?? You are the dumbest person on this board.
>It actually is exactly like that, since each forcing just gets multiplied by the same constant to get the temperature contribution
You are actually stupid enough to think flipping between C and F is just multiplying it by a consant??? HAHAHAHA! You have proven you haven't completed high school.
>So either graph refutes your ridiculous lie
Neither does. You've proven you are too stupid to understand any of this.
>That bar is radiative forcing from 1750 to present, not the difference in TSI from Maunder minimum to present
So it's a 35 year difference like I said. Meaningless.
>Yes, 35 years in which TSI went from an extreme minimum back to a level comparable to today
A blatant lie, it's both not comparable and not extreme, it was just a dip for the most part.
>We're talking about the DIFFERENCE in TSI. That's a CHANGE, moron
Difference = change. You can't be this stupid can you? HAHA of course you are.
>You convert the the DIFFERENCE in TSI to radiative forcing by dividing by a factor of 4 to account for the spherical geometry of the Earth and reduce by 30%
If you "unconvert" the difference the TSI would still be vastly larger than RF anyway so what you said made no sense: you implied TSI is much larger than RF BECAUSE it doesn't apply 2 multiplication steps when in reality it's still 2 orders of magnitude larger even if you did apply them. It remains a fact you have no idea what you are talking about.
Further, prove IPCC AR5 used this methodology to arrive at their RF. Their figure shows 0.09 W/m2 TSI difference from 1750 to 2012 (ch8 supplementary material pg 7) but they claim only 0.05 RF difference so obviously they are not applying your 1/4 * 70% you pulled out of your ass
>I didnt
You did, as I show above
>thought "ONLY 35 YEARS!!!" was somehow a response
It is given your lies

>>14581792
>So you cited a paper that concluded the 0.1 to 6 range is wrong and then you reject it once you realize it doesn't support what you claimed. Dishonest weasel.
Stop projecting I"m the weasel here, that is you and everyone here know it.
What you are currently lying about is me rejecting the paper, the paper making the outright claim the 0.1 to 0.6 is wrong, and me thinking it "doesn't support" what I said. One sentence 4x lies, unbelievable.
Debunking your lie #1: Papers can disagree, it doesn't mean one should be rejected, I don't reject it, I'm simply showing it is among a litany of disagreeing papers showing there is huge uncertainty yet IPCC only uses what supports their narrative the most
Debukning your lie lie #2: the paper is not saying others are wrong, it's saying they think they might have found a better methodology (I guarantee IPCC will disagree and not use their numbers, they've rejected these authors before),
Debunking your lie #3: of course it supports what I said because the range of estimates remains between 0.1 to 0.6,
Debunking your lie #4: of course you are the weasel.
>Utter nonsense. It's not RF and not even over the same time frame, yet you think you can compare them. BTFO.
You are an ignorant delusional lying child and what you have said is easily proven wrong. IPCC obviously and provably didn't use your bullshit conversion to "convert" change in TSI to RF

>>14576035
A forbidden technique of a forbidden branch of earth science, i think some retards (95% chance of being americans) were doing it.
>>14575810
Yes
The earth is crazy but we just added a new flavor.
Acidification, floods, famine and methane are "common" and can cause massive extinctions btw
>>14575885
Nah, ((libtards)) are just riding the wave. I'm related to "climate change sciences" and i'll ride the wave too...i won't get pozzed though, ill do the right thing but with some extra benefits

>>14575810
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR58heUGkNA

Might as well dump this

>>14583093
>HAHA so "same thing, different fundamental units" makes sense in your head??
Yeah, they are showing the same thing. Solar forcing is a negligible component of total forcing over that timeframe.

>You are actually stupid enough to think flipping between C and F is just multiplying it by a consant???
Where did I say that? Learn how to read.

>Neither does
They clearly do. It shows that solar forcing is at most 3% of the total forcing. You claimed >75%. A ridiculous lie.

>So it's a 35 year difference like I said. Meaningless
The number of years is meaningless, only the TSI difference is meaningful. Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the TSI 35 years after the Maunder minimum was similar. But it wasn't.

>A blatant lie, it's both not comparable and not extreme, it was just a dip for the most part.
It's comparable and the Maunder minimum is not. You've been BTFO.

>Difference = change.
Exactly, thanks for admitting you were wrong. The TSI difference between two time periods corresponds to a radiative forcing over that timeframe.

>If you "unconvert" the difference the TSI would still be vastly larger than RF anyway
What are you talking about? I explained to you how to convert the TSI difference to RF. Unconverting gives you the TSI again. You thought the RF in the graph was the TSI used because you have no clue what you're talking about. RF is not TSI and they aren't even over the same time frame anyway.

>you implied TSI is much larger than RF BECAUSE it doesn't apply 2 multiplication steps when in reality it's still 2 orders of magnitude larger even if you did apply them.
Based on what? Your confusion of two different time frames that was already pointed out to you? LOL. No, that's not how that works. The conversion is the conversion. Solar forcing = TSI anomaly *4*0.7. This is basic physics you're in denial of because you can't accept you made a trivial mistake. You're pathetic.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, more CO2 = more greenhouse gases. More greenhouse gases = more light not escaping from the sun = More energy trapped = higher temperature = global warming. The logic makes complete sense. Even data shows that there is an abnormal change since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

>>14583483
>everything is a conspiracy
whats wrong kid, don't you trust the science?

>>14583093
>Further, prove IPCC AR5 used this methodology to arrive at their RF.
Why would I have to prove something I never claimed? Just because I explained how to convert TSI to RF doesn't somehow mean that's the method the IPCC used. Delusional moron. You're the one who claimed the IPCC chose a TSI value without actually knowing what you were talking about. Go read AR6 methodology instead of making shit up. What a concept.

>Their figure shows 0.09 W/m2 TSI difference from 1750 to 2012 (ch8 supplementary material pg 7)
Wrong, it's 0.42. You can't even subtract two numbers correctly.

>You did, as I show above
LOL, you showed the opposite. You had to go the supplement to find the TSI difference and it's not any number that was given in anything I posted. Thanks for admitting you lied.

>It is given your lies
Not an explanation of how "35 years" is a response. You have none.

all i know is that CO2 levels are rising
not sure if it works as a greenhouse effect
but CO2 is not good to breathe so hope we stop pumping it out into the atmosphere soon

>>14583114
>Stop projecting I"m the weasel here
You literally tried to cite a source that said the opposite of what you cited it for. You're a dishonest weasel.

You claimed:

>The IPCC uses the 0.1 W/m2 propaganda number for solar irradiance (the absolute lowest cherry picked number among all calculations) but the paper says the uncertainty goes up to 6 W/m2.

But the paper says the uncertainty goes up to 4.5. You lied because you wanted the range to be as big as possible so that you could argue apart during could be a large component of total forcing. But the paper says that range is false.

>IPCC only uses what supports their narrative the most
Considering you lied about them choosing 0.1, you have no credibility left to make this statement. And you have no evidence of course.

>You are an ignorant delusional lying child and what you have said is easily proven wrong
Then do it, weasel.

>>14582934
Read the thread.

>>14583970
Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>14583681
you're illiterate

>>14584024
I didn't.

>>14584077
You did since you didn't link to a post that proves your claim. It should be trivial but you constantly fail to do it. Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>14584109
Read the thread.

>>14584156
And again you fail to link to the alleged post. Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>14584181
I suggest you scroll up. If you cannot prove to me that you have scrolled up, then I think it is fair to say that you concede that I am right.

>>14584192
Scroll up to where? You again failed to link to the alleged post. Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>14584200
Scroll up to find the answers you seek.

>>14575810
Climate change is not caused by humans, but it is real.

>>14584287
truth

>>14584230
Scroll up to where? Which post? You again failed to link to the alleged post. Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>14584287
>Climate change is not caused by humans
Wrong. See >>14576379

>>14584364
Read the thread.

>>14584384
I did. Which post proves your claim? You can't tell me. Why did you lie?

>>14584420
If you had read the thread you would know.

>>14583711
>not sure if it works as a greenhouse effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote#Circumstances_affecting_the_Heat_of_the_Sun's_Rays

>>14579356
what does that have to do with the graph?

>>14584472
If you actually made such a post you would have linked it. But you can't, because you lied.

>>14585041
That's incorrect.

>>14585190
Then link the post and prove it. You can't, because you lied.

>>14585195
Scroll up.

>>14585206
Scroll up to where? Which post? You again failed to link to the alleged post. Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>14585210
To the post that answers your question.

>>14585226
Doesn't exist. Why did you lie?

>>14585228
It does exist.

>>14585240
Then link to it. You can't, because you lied.

>>14585241
It's not that I can't, it's that I won't.

It is undeniable that the bi-products of the existence of humanity cause changes in the environment.

These changes are not significant. They are not dire.

>>14585249
It's not just that you won't, it's that you can't.

>>14585036
>Eunice
she licked many a penis in order to get her fake science published

>>14585562
Incorrect.

>>14575822
in your anus. hold still, i'll fish it out of you

>>14575810
yes

>>14585585

>>14583705
>>14583591
>>14583723
>Why would I have to prove something I never claimed? Just because I explained how to convert TSI to RF doesn't somehow mean that's the method the IPCC used.
Thanks for saying I'm right.You use their propaganda pictures as "proof" I'm wrong yet pretend it doesn't matter if they used your methodology that is supposedly NEEDED to prove I'm wrong. HAHAHAHA PATHETIC!!!!!

You are truly a lying, ignorant, clueless shotgun posting weasel retard who has to bloviate a simple post into 3 because you have no substance. I didn't bother reading anything else you wrote after skimming through to find this one response. I BTFO'd all your nonsense once and if this is the level of dishonesty I get for the most important aspect of these back and forth posts where I btfo you then clearly its not worth anyone's time.

>>14575810
Yep

>>14585741
Medication?

>>14575822
The degradation of quality for ingredients to make beer or wine with. Long dry periods and then too much rain, or no rain at all are damaging crops. Over the last years it has gotten worse. Some grain can't even be malted properly anymore. Lots of fungal growth (weakening of the grain during droughts, then high humidity = fungal on the grain, making it unsuitable for brewing).
When beer becomes extinct know this: It is the fault of climate change deniers and politicians/corporations alike, who did not do enough to prevent it in order to acquire even more profits.

t. brewer

>>14585953
There isn't any medication that cures a weasel retard like you except pic related.

>>14586075
That isn't man made, but it is a good thing.

This shit fake as fuck fr fr