/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14712533
everything gets fat from more food.

>>14712533
Bad for the planet, good for greenhouses.

It's agronomists making those decisions. Economics isn't science.

>>14712533
>hot with lots of co2 is good for plant growth
>droughts followed by flooding followed by drought followed by freak snow storms. Isn't good for plant growth. Or people growth.

>>14712533
If above boiling temperatures are so bad, why do we deliberately create those conditions in ovens?

>>14712533
greenhouses don't have
-excessive heat
-droughts
-wildfires

why is 80% of /sci/ these 80 IQ schizo posts? makes me sad

>>14712788
>It's agronomists making those decisions. Economics isn't science.
Yeah, sorry if the people who actually need to achieve results and deal with reality instead of models aren't agreeing with scientific priesthood

>>14713326
>droughts
Good for agriculture, just redirect it to the soil

>wildfires
Ironically caused by "climate change policy" that probihibits controlled fires that prevent wild widespread season fires.

>>14713406
Maximizing profit has nothing to do with preserving the environment.

Scientists are such hypocrites, they will lie about anything. Scientists have made a living screeching about the danger of other people using CO2 for the past 3+ decades, but they have no misgivings whatsoever about using it themselves.

>>14713553
science has nothing to do with preserving the environment, science only want to destroy it.

>>14713564
Waste management companies have nothing to do with science.

>>14713573
What do these companies have to do with basedence believers leaving their trash everywhere?

>>14713553
>Maximizing profit has nothing to do with preserving the environment
You do realize those companes "maximize profit" by ensuring the world has food to eat, you moron?

Whereas scientists maximize their profit by pandering to politicians desire for control

>>14713620
Those companies dispose of trash improperly. Garbage in the ocean is nothing new and has nothing to do with science.

>>14713632
Your food supply has nothing to do with preserving the environment and science is provable. If a finding is false then it can be falsified.

>>14713634
you're irresponsible and untrustworthy

>>14713646
Do you have any valid criticisms or is this whole thread going to be
>the wind blew a plastic bag into my yard
>how could science do this?!

>>14713640
>Your food supply has nothing to do with preserving the environment
It has to do with CO2 availability which directly contradicts the "science" as it is beneficial for food production, are you that dense to not understand this point? Do I need to draw it out for you?

>>14713670
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the limiting growth factor for plants grown outside of highly controlled conditions.

>>14713677
>Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the limiting growth factor for plants
It evidently is a contributing factor though.

Interestingly enough climate change cultists also seek to ban fertilizers. It's almost as if they want to create a massive famine.

>>14713686
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>14713646
i'd get on the winning side if i were you

>>14713670
Science is precisely the thing telling you CO2 is beneficial for food production.

>>14713345
/pol/ invited all the facebook moms - the sort of person who cures their dumb kid's autism with bleach enemas and thinks there's a conspiracy to hide apple cider vinegar's magical cancer curing properties (but also cancer isn't real and is a big medicine conspiracy)

>>14713690
https://grist.org/food/fertilizer-is-a-major-pollutant-why-doesnt-the-government-regulate-it-as-one/
https://www.ucanews.com/news/sri-lanka-lifts-fertilizer-import-ban-after-outcry/93572
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/fertiliser-ban-decimates-sri-lankan-crops-government-popularity-ebbs-2022-03-03/
https://www.theepochtimes.com/canadian-farmers-cry-foul-as-government-restricts-fertilizers-is-canada-the-next-netherlands_4618486.html

>>14713693
Interesting piece of flying metal you got there, it would be a shame if God decided to help our side a little, even though some stingers are more than enough

>>14713726
Those articles concern the overuse and subsequent runoff of fertilizers into the environment which causes many problems such as groundwater pollution and dead zones in lakes, rivers, and the ocean. Nobody is trying to ban fertilizer.

>>14713709
>bleach enemas
You're a self-admited moron who felt for the media propaganda associating a compound with another for having some of the same molecules.

>>14713734
>Those articles concern the overuse and subsequent runoff of fertilizers into the environment which causes many problems such as groundwater pollution and dead zones in lakes, rivers, and the ocean. Nobody is trying to ban fertilizer
You are a liar, evidently.
>>14713726

Hope the money they're paying you justifies your one way ticket to the lake of fire

>>14713709
imageboard content is created exclusively by the people who post on the board, if you are dissatisfied with the quality of the content you see before you then you have the opportunity to displace the content that makes you angry with your own superior content.
instead of doing that, you choose to cry like a bitch. are you too lazy to produce content superior to what the /pol/ boogeyman brings or are you too stupid to fulfill the task?

>>14713736
An import ban is not the same as banning use. Is English your second language?

>>14713733
shame no god is intervening to help you escape justice when you finally go on a mass shooting you utter bellend

>>14713735
which compounds? if you're talking about sodium hypochlorite vs hydrogen peroxide, no, they don't "share some of the same molecules"

>>14713736
he's right though. where is the suggestion to ban fertiliser?

>>14713739
if you're unhappy with science, just change it

>>14713747
>which compounds?
ClO2, which retards fell for the media propaganda as being equal to bleach even though it has been studied as a viable treatment for malaria for example

>>14713747
>shame no god is intervening to help you escape justice when you finally go on a mass shooting you utter bellend
You talk about justice when your troupe of gangsters are the ones radicalizing mentally ill men into murdering people who have nothing to do with their goals?

If I were to "mass shoot" anything it would be the Rockefeller family or the NASDAQ. Gladly I don't need to do such a thing because I understand how reality operates.

>he's right though. where is the suggestion to ban fertiliser?
You are also a liar, or maybe you're illiterate. I refuse to copy-paste shit from the links I posted.

>>14713762
even worse!

>I refuse
*i cannot

>>14713776
u
>>14713776

you VILL drink blea-- sorry, chlorine sources to own the libs

>>14713782
Retarded niggers like you who mock science that seeks to improve your dumbasses lives and is constantly propaganddized against by the establishment actually deserve to be put in an island where all the food you have are other retarded niggers like you

https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/chlorine-dioxide-clo2-as-a-non-toxic-antimicrobial-agent-for-virus-bacteria-and-yeast-candida-albicans.html

>>14713824
drink some to cure your autism

>>14713824
the n word is racist

>>14713830
I was never vaccinated, I wasnt fed garbage and I don't consume anime so of course I don't have autism

>>14713837
I am racist

>>14713858
drink bleach because The Soience said so to own the libs

>>14712533
Wait until you find out engine NOx is the same as what lightning generates. After reacting with oxygen and water, become a major source of nitrate ion source for plants and their roots have the most receptors for.
They are also responsible for generating ozone for muh ozone layer, in cities they are le harmful smog.

>>14713739

>>14713858
you are b&

>>14716783
I am not, nigger

>>14712961
>(((science))) the truster

>>14713709
>t. Midwit
Is /pol/in the room with you right now?

>>14713326
Wild fires are expontially worse because of logging in most areas. I sent see any of you retards going after the forest service in temperat northwest rainforests that are major co2 capture mechanisms nor telling CA to cut down the invasive eucalyptus which literally burst into flame to propagate.

>>14717633
Yes. /pol/ has been shitting up /sci/ for years.

>>14717631
You are more than welcome to take your own temperature and measure CO2 levels yourself.

>>14712533
Because the biggest lie ever told is that cO2 causes global warming, The main cause is increased sunspot activity.

>>14718237
>Because the biggest lie ever told is that cO2 causes global warming
Proof?

>The main cause is increased sunspot activity.
Solar activity is near a grand minimum. Total nonsense.

>>14718248
Sunspot activity for solar cycle 25 is already at double the predicted numbers, That is why it is so hot in Europe.

>>14718248
The proof is simple. Mars has a CO2 atmosphere with 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area that Earth and Mars no measurable greenhouse effect according to the European Space Agency's measurements.

>>14718253
You can also use mars to prove the sun is causing global warming because guess which planet in the solar system is also getting hotter?
Spoiler alert all of them.

>>14718251
>Sunspot activity for solar cycle 25 is already at double the predicted numbers
OK? What does a cycle of a few years have to do with a trend over 100 years long? That doesn't even say solar activity is strong, it can still be weak yet stronger than expected. And in fact your own image shows at the bottom that it's incredibly weak.

>That is why it is so hot in Europe.
Then we would see Europe this hot about every decade, but it's record setting. Your nonsense is so obvious it refutes itself.

>>14718260
Interesting, this rise in temperature trend you speak of, it seems to align with the solar cycles, how bout that?
See the increase in activity since the little ice age ended?
Or you want to go back to the weather where it was winter for 4 years straight in europe?

When were most of the temperature records set again guys?
Right, 1960?
During solar cycle 19 huh?

>>14718253
>Mars no measurable greenhouse effect
Proof? Your own image says hardly any, not immeasurable. CO2 has a weaker effect on Mars because there is less solar energy to trap and the atmosphere is much thinner so there is no pressure broadening effect. Yet there is still a measurable greenhouse effect from CO2 that matches predictions. So your own argument disproves your claim.

>>14718256
>Spoiler alert all of them.
Source?

>>14717640
Wild fires are exponentially worse because of droughts.

>>14718266
>Or you want to go back to the weather where it was winter for 4 years straight in europe?
that would send their colored cousins home again faster that even hitler could arrange.

>>14718266
>align with the solar cycles, how bout that?
nah

>>14718277

>>14718266
>Interesting, this rise in temperature trend you speak of, it seems to align with the solar cycles, how bout that?
How so? Do you know what actually aligns with the warming? Greenhouse gas emissions.

>See the increase in activity since the little ice age ended?
I see an increase in activity and then a decrease. Solar activity has had very little radiative forcing over that entire time frame. You're just seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest.

>>14718282
Yea, that chart ends in solar cycle 24 which was mild, learn to read.
Charts about to go wayyyy up.

>>14718287
Yeah nah, nah mate, You are simply wrong.
It plays a part but not as much as the sun.

>>14718271
>When were most of the temperature records set again guys?
2016 was the hottest year on record.

>>14718285
Replying to the wrong person?

>>14718293
>Yeah nah, nah mate, You are simply wrong.
Not an argument. Try again. I suggest bringing some data or at least explaining why you think so.

>It plays a part but not as much as the sun.
Wrong. See >>14718287

>>14718294
Amazing huh?
You build all these concrete structures and roads that contain the daytime heat overnight while the sun gets hotter and so does the planet hey?

Funny how that works.

>>14718291
Current cycle is mild so far. You're saying past warming was caused by a solar cycle you predict in the future? And why did you claim they align when they clearly don't? Solar activity has gone up and down, so basically has had null effect over the past 200 years while warming has accelerated.

>>14718299
And why is the urban heat island of every major population centre never factored in when discussing climate change?
Cuz cities bad isn't part of the narrative i guess?

>>14718302
>You build all these concrete structures and roads that contain the daytime heat overnight while the sun gets hotter and so does the planet hey?
The amount of land covered by roads is minisce compared to the amount of land used for agriculture, which increases Earth's albedo, causing cooling. If you take into account all of the land changes produced by man, we have increased Earth's albedo. As I said before, you only see what you want to see and ignore the rest.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL061671

>>14718309
>And why is the urban heat island of every major population centre never factored in when discussing climate change?
Because it's negligible in the temperature record: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509

>>14718325
Anyone who claims urban heat islands have nothing to do with climate change is retarded and pushing an agenda.

>>14718336
Not an argument. Try responding to the paper instead of throwing a tantrum.

Isn't it odd how every time a denier is shown data that proves them wrong, they immediately stop arguing and can only spout childish insults?

>>14718291
>wayyyy
two weeks lol

>>14712533
If water is necessary for human survival, why, if I drown you, I will get tried for murder?

>>14718253
you get btfo every time you make this post

>>14713709
>>14713345
Explain how making more co2 is a good idea faggot leftard
I'll btfo you later but explain or gtfo out of here

>>14718309
>why is the urban heat island of every major population centre never factored in when discussing climate change
They already are factored in. What do you think those "adjustments" deniers spend every afternoon whining about are?

>>14718346
>Not an argument.
nope

>>14720039
Explain

>>14713659
>soience created billions of tons of plastic waste
>it all blows into the ocean with unknown effects that will persist for dozens of generations at the absolute minimum even if immediately solved via magic
i don't see any problem with this logic, you're just coping

>>14720052
Did you mean factories? Industry is run by capitalists, not scientists.

>>14712533
>CO2 for me, but none for thee

>>14720058
>science is completely immune from criticism as all problems with science are actually problems of application
>i just invented the turbogenocider 9000, it's my fault the military hit the button
>they deserved it anyways
based take, i respect it

>>14720222
Which scientists are responsible for the Kroger's bag in your yard?

>>14717838
what does this /pol/ say to you? does he/she threaten you in any way?

>>14720268
Scientifically illiterate nonsense, mostly, but they do make threats when they realize they have no idea what they're talking about.

>>14718253
Martian atmosphere is also 100x thinner, and ~50% further away from the sun most of the time

>>14720268
No, complaining about /pol/ is an intentional attempt to derail the thread. Shills do it constantly.

>>14712533
they are bigger, but have the same nutrients, this is not an argument against btw

>>14713690
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/20/sri-lanka-fertiliser-ban-president-rajapaksa-farmers-harvests-collapse

>>14712533
clearly then we need a CO2 exchanger to exchange CO2 like how a heat exchanger exchanges heat

>>14712533
carbon negative facilities dont use those

The mediterranean is 30 degrees in many places now.
When will we start massacring climate deniers? I fear it's too late already.
At least we can have our revenge on all the corpo's and their useful idiots before everything collapses.

>>14721535
>revenge
Hahaha, good luck. Those people are planning on maintaining their positions of power no matter the cost, even if that just means being the last to die from hunger.

>>14713553
It would have a lot to do with preserving the environment if maximizing profits were actually the goal. The goal is actually to minmax several factors, of which minimizing time is almost as important as the profits themselves

A true profit maximizing agent would consider long term effects of their decisions.

>>14721898
This is because planning for the long term means that you will be outcompeted and driven out of business in the short term by those who don't.

>>14721535
>The mediterranean is 30 degrees in many places now.
It's call summer, ever heard of it>>14721535
>When will we start massacring climate deniers?
Whay are people like you allowed to use the internet? It is a total waste of energy and contributes to your fake clima fuckup more than the normal summer temperatures in the meds!

>>14712533
>If debt is bad, why does the central banking system accrue more of it?
>If obesity is bad, why do people keep eating food?
>If stealing is bad, why do people keep taking my things?
Do you realise how stupid you sound?

>>14718294
>Global land and ocean temperatures
>purports to account for global temperatures within a fraction of a degree C as far back as 1880
This is the start of the bullshit pile. The temperature record is very disjointed and chaotic between types of instruments, methods of collection, where instruments were sited and how those sites have been encroached by concrete, and particularly for 1880 and much later how much global coverage there actually was. The methods used to homogenize all these different values are at best naive but more likely shaped by confirmation bias. Interpolation is used to fill in data over massive swaths of land even today, and for 1880 interpolated results account for the vast majority of the fucking planet. Or how homogenizing older diurnal low/high temperature records with newer, mostly realtime average temperature records produces a significant warming bias in the "average temperature" trendline. Those datasets are fundamentally incompatible; we have no method of producing average temperature from low/high reading that's consistent from year to year. But there they are squashed together nonetheless. In reality there is only one reliable source of data regarding global temperature trends, and that's the UAH satellite set and it doesn't go back very far.

>>14718325
Forget "urbanization", all you need is a patch of concrete within 100m to bias the results significantly. NOAA has a good temperature record in the Climate Reference Network, and it shows a much lower warming trend than the Historical Climate Network which IS fraught with heat island bias.

>>14722396
>>purports to account for global temperatures within a fraction of a degree C as far back as 1880
Not purported, proven.

>The methods used to homogenize all these different values are at best naive but more likely shaped by confirmation bias.
That's what the founders of Berkeley Earth said too, until they proved themselves wrong.

http://berkeleyearth.org/archive/summary-of-findings/

>Or how homogenizing older diurnal low/high temperature records with newer, mostly realtime average temperature records produces a significant warming bias in the "average temperature" trendline.
Source?

>In reality there is only one reliable source of data regarding global temperature trends, and that's the UAH satellite set and it doesn't go back very far.
LOL, then why have there been numerous corrections to the UAH dataset over time?

https://skepticalscience.com/uah-atmospheric-temperatures-prove-climate-models-and-or-surface-temperature-measurements-are-wrong-intermediate.htm

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998/

You only see what you want to see and ignore the rest.

>>14722409
>Forget "urbanization"
No.

>all you need is a patch of concrete within 100m to bias the results significantly
The best sited stations show the same trend. Homogenization prevents such biases.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

>NOAA has a good temperature record in the Climate Reference Network, and it shows a much lower warming trend than the Historical Climate Network
Source?

>>14718266
The LIA is know to regionally affect the NH and it's not present in global reconstructions
>>14722396
You're grasping for straws here arbitrarily choosing the UAH as the most reliable when surface temperatures from satellite data should be as reliable as UAH according to your reasoning. You're choosing it because it has less warming than the others. As the other anon said the instrumental record is pretty reliable and has great agreement between the agencies and groups that analyze the data.

>>14722796
>>14722809
UAH has used the same instruments calibrated within the closest range, the same measurement technique, and adjustments have been physically grounded and were entirely expected as part of orbital drift and what have you.
USCRN is similarly high quality in its design, where ALL the sites use the same instruments, methods, and are sited well away from heat islands, however it's US-only and even younger than the UAH set going back only to 2005. Pic related.
Your second link about "major corrections" is to the RSS data set.
Moreover, the UAH and surface temperature measurements were very tightly linked up until 2006 or so, and my suspicion is that it's the surface datasets that have gone awry as they've also lost previous correlation with the USCRN.

>>14722939
>the data has gone wrong because it goes against my preconceived notion

>>14722939
You're being completely arbitrary in rejecting instrumental data. Moreover multiple proxy reconstructions of the past thousand years (PAGES 2k, LMR) that overlap with the instrumental record agrees with the magnitude of warming.

>>14722809
the thing about the heat island effect, which you irrationally reject, is that its completely true. urban heat islands exist, theres lots of them and they're all growing and their heat retention impacts all of the surrounding areas as well as the rest of the planet. none of the people within those urban zones do the tiniest little thing to mitigate their impacts, instead they just go inside, turn on the air conditions and go on the internet and loudly complain about how everyone else on the planet is responsible for global warming and that their enemies need to punished for not complying with the demands of the urbanites.
when i see a city with fully landscaped roofs and balconies i might start to take the complaints of urbanites seriously.
why do you think babylon got it's gardens? they were for evaporative cooling and shade, its hot as fuck in that part of the world if you don't have a shady garden

>>14713709
Oh look, straw man arguments ignoring the topic of the thread. Hi shill, you clearly are not a scientist.

>>14713734
Sri lanka banned Nirtogen fertilizer last April and the destroyed the economy and food supply. They reversed the decision 6 months later but it did not help in time. They are starving and will need loans from the IMF to survive. The Netherlands and Canada also have limiting policies they are trying to implement which will have the same effects. Please stop spreading ignorance, people will starve.

>>14718248
Check out this statement by the former Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton and Atmospheric Science professor from MIT. It explains the scientific reasoning behind CO2 not causing warming with sources.

If you respond be sure to respond to the arguments in the paper scientifically and not use ad hominem or strawman attacks. I'll wait.

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Happer-Lindzen-SEC-6-17-22.pdf

>>14723181
They banned fertilizer import. Is English your second language, or are you only semi-literate?

>>14723224
No they didn't, they banned all chemical fertilizers. You are lying, read the link.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/fertiliser-ban-decimates-sri-lankan-crops-government-popularity-ebbs-2022-03-03/

>>14723236
It was an import ban. Your article doesn't specify, but if you look it up the use of fertilizer was not banned, only the importation.

>>14723191
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
>According to an April 30, 2012New York Timesarticle,[71]"Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point 'nutty.' He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate."
I don't need to "refute" anything. The guy agrees climate change is happening, it's just that in his personal opinion it wont be as severe as we believe it will be.

>>14723249
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
>Lindzen was born on February 8, 1940 in Webster, Massachusetts.[1] His father, a shoemaker, had fled Nazi Germany with his mother. He moved to the Bronx soon after his birth and grew up in a Jewish household

>>14723258
I'll take your deflection as a concession of defeat.

>>14723181
>The Netherlands and Canada also have limiting policies they are trying to implement which will have the same effects.
>which will have the same effects.
No. Sri Lanka banned inorganic fertilisers over night without having organic fertilisers. So most of the farmers didn't get any due to the scarcity.
Neither the Netherlands, nor Canada "are trying to implement" something of that sort. Firstly, if you already know now, it won't be over night. Secondly, they won't be as dumb to not secure organic fertilisers before banning the inorganic ones.
Stop fearmongering, please. The plans are entirely different than the rash decision in Sri Lanka.

>>14723181
Rretard they didnt ban fertilizer imports because they had "organic policies". The fertilizer import ban was because the government didn't have enough money to pay for it. The "organics" thing was an extremely shoddy attempt to cover up the fact that the country is basically insolvent.

>>14723191
>Why are the hundreds of millions of years of data on CO2 and temperature always omitted?
Because animals didn't put their first fin on land for half of that graph. The time of 500 Ma BP is gone and comparing today to back then is utterly nonsensical. I can't believe that the author asks this question in good faith. As a physicist, he should know well what the Earth looked like 500 million years ago. There's no point in comparison of today with the Devonian.

>>14722939
>UAH has used the same instruments calibrated within the closest range, the same measurement technique, and adjustments have been physically grounded and were entirely expected as part of orbital drift and what have you.
LOL, a 40% increase in temperature trend is not "expected." And why is there such a large disagreement between the RSS and UAH datasets of they're more accurate? You're getting desperate.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1114772

>Your second link about "major corrections" is to the RSS data set.
It's to both. The same error is in both.

You didn't respond to the homogenization paper I gave you or provide a source for your claim about USCRN and USHCN

>>14723151
>the thing about the heat island effect, which you irrationally reject
Where did I reject it? Did you even read my posts?

>their heat retention impacts all of the surrounding areas as well as the rest of the planet
Not really, no. The surrounding areas are not affected which is why homogenization works.

>>14723191
>Our informed scientific opinion is that doubling CO2 concentrations will cause about 1 C or less of warming.
LOL, so your own source says your claim is wrong. Did you even read it? Of course, no evidence is given for this alleged "informed opinion" so it's rather pointless. The rest is just the same old debunked talking points. I suggest you look them up here before wasting more of your time: https://skepticalscience.com/

>>14713564
>right-wingers caring about the environment is a thing now
Truly interesting times.

>>14723515
If it weren't a lame strawman argument, it would actually make sense. The environment should be important to everyone regardless of political affiliation.

>>14722796
Going by that 95% CI the warming trend in that chart is anywhere from 0.5C to 2.5C over 250 years. Hardly inspiring confidence, and that's assuming the authors are actually treating the magnitude of potential error in their data appropriately which is never wise.

>>14723488
All it says is "We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results." There is no specific discussion of validation that I could find in any of the following links either. Because it's impossible to go back in time and plant realtime temperature monitors that could validate, say, interpolating data in regions that had virtually no ocean coverage and maybe a few stations per continent, or applying some formula to convert low/high temperature points (like were taken by mercury thermometer stations) to average temperature. Rather it merely discusses splicing a weighted average of records right onto each other, and naturally there's no discussion of validating the weighting formula. The authors merely assume that averaging inherently dampens such the range of potential error.
http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-103.pdf

>>14723191
>co2coalition.org
That's literally a corporate PR group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition
You may as well cite ads run on TV.

>>14723538
Do you have any specific arguments against the methodology of the NASA, NOAA, CRU and BE products? Seems to me you’re just grasping at straws at an extremely robust dataset that also includes satellite data just as UAH. You’re still ignoring the fact that proxy records also agree with the instrumental datasets.

>>14712599
Correct, the problem is both the left and the right have been lying about this problem for 20 years.

>>14723909
wikipedia is a political propaganda outlet, not a legitimate source of information. even the site's founder has completely disavowed it, although he is yet to issue an apology for starting it to begin with.

>>14723181
Sri Lanka is a broke country run by religious retards and owned by China. Their nonsense has nothing to do with efforts to limit fertilizer pollution into our coasts. Both of these are only tangentially related to climate change.

>>14723922
The problem is lack of validation for how these data sets could be mapped together, and if they're fit for purpose for calculating trends within fractions of a C per decade. They are clearly not. Temperature "measurements" of most proxies are very noisy and require tens if not hundreds of years worth of smoothing and there is usually no clear way to homogenize them with thermometer data sets. It's just assumed that the conditions for these proxies which map temperature A at time X will continue to follow for B and Y, C and Z and so on. For example the infamous Mann hockey stick (pic related) was various proxies stitched together, notably ending in tree ring data crossing over to when thermometer records started. The most salient was that the complete tree ring data continued well into when the thermometer data began, and indicated a decline in temperature over the same period the thermometer data was warming. They diverged by at least 0.5C IIRC. Any remotely responsible scientist would not just splice these together because they are not remotely correlated, but that's just what Mann did and that's still how the broad climate "science" community operates.
And RSS satellite data and UAH are still broadly in agreement around 0.18C/decade, which is close to USCRN's average warming since 2005, and very much below the hacked together surface temperature aggregates.

The Earth will continue to modestly warm. It will most likely warm at a similar rate regardless of what we do to our economies, all else remaining equal. CO2 will continue to rise, and the two combined will continue to greening the planet. There will be no catastrophe and the vast majority of people will benefit. Sea levels have risen at basically the same rate for as long as we've had tidal markers. Most islands have gained land mass over the past few decades. We just have to be vigilant and stop greenfuckers from throwing everyone into poverty.

>>14724081
fergot pic

>>14723538
>Going by that 95% CI the warming trend in that chart is anywhere from 0.5C to 2.5C over 250 years
That's not a trend, and an uncertainty range is not a correction.

>Hardly inspiring confidence
What is the uncertainty range for the satellite data over the past 250 years? Infinite. Hardly inspiring confidence. The data is what it is, having limited data doesn't reflect on the methodology.

>assuming the authors are actually treating the magnitude of potential error in their data appropriately which is never wise.
No assumptions needed, Berkeley Earth's analysis is peer reviewed and published. Check it out some time.

>>14724095
peer review doesn't mean shit
the predictions will always be wrong
5L supercharged V8s are good for you
please continue listening to people that play connect the dots with ice cores, tree rings, mercury and thermistors and please eat the bugs so we dont have to

>>14723538
>All it says is "We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results."
You must be joking.

>There is no specific discussion of validation that I could find in any of the following links either.
You're just lying at this point, several validations were shown by comparing with other data sets.

>Because it's impossible to go back in time and plant realtime temperature monitors that could validate, say, interpolating data in regions that had virtually no ocean coverage
No need to plant them, they already exist. They're called climate proxies.

>Rather it merely discusses splicing a weighted average of records right onto each other
So basically you're complaining that a specific paper discussed what it was about and didn't discuss what other papers discussed. This is pathetic.

>The authors merely assume that averaging inherently dampens such the range of potential error.
No they didn't. Read the error analysis section.

>>14724000
>wikipedia is a political propaganda outlet
Pot calling the kettle black.

>>14724081
Again arbitrary complaints and cherry picking datasets that fit your beliefs.
There have been numerous proxy reconstructions of the last millennium and they all agree with Mann’s findings, they’re not haphazardly put together as you think. There’s specifically fast accumulation proxies like corals that even without conversion to temperature anomalies show a rapid change in both oxygen isotopes and trace metal partitions which are controlled by temperature. You’re disregarding surface temperature readings for no reason.

>>14724081
>The problem is lack of validation
The problem is you ignore the validation even though it was spoonfed to you.

>They are clearly not.
Your opinion is worthless. You just ignore all evidence and never present any of your own.

>Temperature "measurements" of most proxies are very noisy and require tens if not hundreds of years worth of smoothing
Is this a statement about the specific proxies used for comparison or a misleading generalization?

>It's just assumed that the conditions for these proxies which map temperature A at time X will continue to follow for B and Y, C and Z and so on.
Wow, how weird that these proxies have no proven connection to temperature yet they all agree on the temperature. What a big coincidence.

>The most salient was that the complete tree ring data continued well into when the thermometer data began, and indicated a decline in temperature over the same period the thermometer data was warming.
But that's wrong. Only tree rings in the Northern hemisphere appeared to show cooling. This is due to tree ring growth decline. Certain factors like water availability can effect the reliability of tree rings as proxies. This is well known. Mann didn't use that data, so you're lying again when you said Mann spliced that data. And the hockey stock has been replicated over and over again with all sorts of data. So again, you need a really big coincidence that the data is unreliable yet they all agree with each other.

>And RSS satellite data and UAH are still broadly in agreement around 0.18C/decade, which is close to USCRN's average warming since 2005
What does this comparison mean? US temperature = global temperature?

>>14724081
>And RSS satellite data and UAH are still broadly in agreement around 0.18C/decade, which is close to USCRN's average warming since 2005, and very much below the hacked together surface temperature aggregates.
Why are you lying about something anyone can look up? RSS is on agreement with the thermometer record. UAH is the outlier because they refuse to correct errors that have been known for years.

>The Earth will continue to modestly warm
25 times faster than the last interglacial warming is not "modest." You're spewing lies and propaganda. Why?

>>14724106
>peer review doesn't mean shit
Then your opinion is even more meaningless. I'll still read your analysis of their papers, for laughs.

>the predictions will always be wrong
Wishful thinking is not an argument.

>please continue listening to people that play connect the dots with ice cores, tree rings, mercury and thermistors
OK, I will. Please stop listening to oil shills and political bloggers who ignore data and have none of their own.

>>14724163
>they’re not haphazardly put together as you think.
You're giving him too much credit. He doesn't think, he just makes whatever claims lead to the conclusion he wants, without any thought to whether they are correct.

>>14725853
label you axes

>>14725871
He just flipped this graph
>>14724222

Just ignore him.

>>14723535
Hitler was a vegetarian environmentalist techno futurist who had no children. He was a transhumanist who committed suicide after trying, to eliminate all lesser mortals using his superior IQ. Hitler failed badly when his visions of the future were put to the test. Empires exist for 250 years, his did not last that many weeks.

>>14726640
Well, some details are a bit wonky (roughly 12 years makes >600 weeks, and they dreamt of 1000 years), but your point is correct. If even literally Hitler could care about the environment, there is absolutely no reason to be against environmental protection.

>>14713709
you will never be a scientist

>>14726765
>literally Hitler
As opposed to figurative Hitler?

>>14712599
But it isn't good for greenhouses because of the 'Greenhouse Effect'. If you read the headline it specifically states that it is used to double planet growth and plants are (so we are continuously told) good for the environment ergo CO2 is also good for the environment.

>>14712599
Oh wait, I missed the fact that there are more idiots in this thread, >>14712961
>>14713316
>>14713326
>>14718740
See >>14729280

These two are just irredeemably stupid. >>14721186
>>14722034

>>14729280
Low quality bait

>>14728005
Well, there is the picoHitler (pH).

>>14729280
>>14729294
Retard take

>>14729294
aww it's retarded

>>14729280
>But it isn't good for greenhouses because of the 'Greenhouse Effect'.
What does this even mean?

>plants are (so we are continuously told) good for the environment ergo CO2 is also good for the environment.
Doesn't follow.

>>14729388
>What does this even mean?
Not him. CO2 fertilisation doesn't exploit the radiative forcing of CO2. The farmers use actual greenhouses for that.

>>14729417
>CO2 fertilisation doesn't exploit the radiative forcing of CO2.
I don't think anyone claimed this.

Not my problem

>>14729429
Of course not, this guy was just trying to build up a retarded point.

>>14723515
There's this guy on /his/ who gets really fucking pissed about this subject and insists that right wingers are the only ones who ever cared about the environment

>>14729509
What's that? I can't hear you over my pick-'im-up truck since I cut the carburetor off

>>14723515
You guys are borderline mentally challenged if you think caring for something equates with rooting for muh candidate. That's like saying only boston celtic fans care about the enviroment. Your arguments in that case are garbage at best.

>>14729294
>These two are just irredeemably stupid
I'm pretty sure that being unable to comprehend the idea that other people make independent choices and prioritise themselves over the collective is a sign of autism. It makes sense why you wouldn't be able to grasp such a basic concept.

>>14718221
The NCDC already has dibs on all of the good heat islands though...

>>14712961
Generally, increasing global temperatures should increase rainfall, and plenty of plants are well-adapted to deal with periods of drought followed by periods of flooding. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot of greening to deal with the increasingly available CO2. Modern trees came into existence when CO2 levels were 10x higher than today. They seem to have no issues thriving with all of these wild weather swings.

Food crops are another story, but people can always migrate farms to the locations that get the best yields. Out of all of the people discussing climate change, the least intelligent are ones that refuse to believe there are any aspects in which nature will benefit from increased global temperatures. Every ounce of CO2 we put in the atmosphere was originally sequestered from it.

>>14730451
>Generally, increasing global temperatures should increase rainfall
"Generally" doesn't help if we see the droughts already. Graphs of such timescales are also extremely misleading. For half of the displayed time there weren't even animals on land.

>>14730461
>doesn't help if we see droughts already
It does actually. Some areas get droughts, some get rain. Climate change means that the areas most conducive to plant life also change. It's a matter of what happens on average that determines whether or not it will be a net benefit or penalty. I never mentioned animals. I'm simply saying that plants are well-prepared for anything we can throw at them.

>>14730476
Not sure why the text didn't come with it, but this is from a NYT article.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/08/24/climate/warmer-wetter-world.html

>>14730476
>Some areas get droughts, some get rain.
That's extremely bad for plants. Those that didn't die in the drought will then die from massive precipitation.
>It's a matter of what happens on average that determines whether or not it will be a net benefit or penalty
No. If I don't feed by dog for a month and then shove 50kg of meat in it, it will on average be well-fed, in real life it will die though.

Global warming affects the poles more than the equatorial region. The temperature gradient between the equator and the poles causes the jet stream. Less gradient, less jet stream, more stable weather. If it rains, you get a flood. If the sun shines, you will get a drought. That's what they mean when they talk about "extreme weather" becoming more common. The average is not the only thing that determines the outcome. Was it last year that Italy had massive problems with flooding because it rained nonstop? Well this year, they don't have enough rain. Both is bad, but on average they have a nice amount of rain, right?

>>14730484
You're objectively wrong, and you seem to be incapable of understanding that human agriculture and plant growth are two separate things. There is already evidence to suggest that climate change is leading to "greening" of the Earth. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming

Plants are adapted to deal with variability in climate. Notice that there are trees that are thousands of years old that have survived literally every ounce of variability the climate has thrown at them in all of modern human history and beyond. They really don't give a fuck if it rains one year and doesn't the next, because that isn't that uncommon of an occurrence for them on millennia timescales. They grow and store resources when they're available and subsist off their stores when they aren't. Grasses and other plants can go dormant when it's dry and grow when it starts to rain again. The concern is not regarding plant life but crop yields. I explicitly made an exception for food crops in my statement. It will become necessary to find better places to concentrate food production.

>>14730513
Oh, here's a better one.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

>>14730514
>>14730513
What are you trying to tell me here? Even if a lot of species go extinct due to oceanic acidification, plants will survive and actually thrive?

>>14712533
For the same reason why shit in your toilet is good and shit all over your apartment is bad

>>14730527
Pretty much, though I don't fully agree with the last statement. Any time the climate changes some things thrive and some don't. You can also look at the marine ecosystem and find a lot of the food chain will actually benefit because they are (a) algae (b) eat algae or (c) eat something that eats algae and aren't that sensitive to pH. Coral reefs will get fucked up, but clownfish aren't critical to the survival of life on Earth. My opinion is that nature will respond fairly seamlessly, but humans have to figure out how to thrive in a rapidly shifting landscape.

>>14730551
>My opinion is that nature will respond fairly seamlessly, but humans have to figure out how to thrive in a rapidly shifting landscape.
Yeah... that's kinda the problem.

>>14730556
It's a straightforward point, but if it were universally agreed upon the global climate response wouldn't be angled towards saving nature at the expense of human life. The idea that we should kneecap ourselves to reduce global temperatures in 100 years is absurd if human life is the priority. Certainly we should be using green technology where it's viable, but when the EU and California have rolling brownouts in the summer because of their insufficient energy infrastructure, the priorities are exactly backwards.

>>14730451
You're ignoring that it's not just the amount of CO2 that's the issue, it's the rate that it's changing. Such rapid changes in climate do not give enough time for ecosystems to adapt and tend to cause mass extinctions. And humans adapting to them is also very costly. Nothing you said is particularly wrong, it just misses the point.

>>14730602
>It's a straightforward point, but if it were universally agreed upon the global climate response wouldn't be angled towards saving nature at the expense of human life.
What response does this?

>The idea that we should kneecap ourselves to reduce global temperatures in 100 years is absurd if human life is the priority.
Failing to mitigate global warming would be kneecapping ourselves.

>but when the EU and California have rolling brownouts in the summer because of their insufficient energy infrastructure
LOL, do you realize the irony of saying this while Europe is currently suffering due to their reliance on gas? You only see what you want to see and ignore the rest.

>>14730602
> the global climate response wouldn't be angled towards saving nature at the expense of human life
It isn't.
>The idea that we should kneecap ourselves to reduce global temperatures in 100 years is absurd
Correct. The sooner we start, the less it is going to hurt. Fuck those boomers who caused the shitty position we're in today.
>but when the EU and California have rolling brownouts in the summer
They don't. And currently, nuclear has the bigger problem than renewables with the maintenance and heat waves in France

ITT: Exxon-Mobil glowniggatry

>>14730538
/thread

>>14730874
>the sooner we start the less it is going to hurt
That's an assertion that isn't transparently true. When energy is more expensive cost of production increases and it's reflected in increased prices throughout the economy. Until you have cost parity and a real solution to the duck curve problem, switching infrastructure to wind and solar does nothing other than reduce the capacity of people to deal with the effects of increased temperatures (ac, energy efficient renovations, moving expenses, etc). Also, on what basis are you accusing nuclear power of being the culprit? Yeah, if you don't maintain your nuclear power infrastructure and let it rot away while you appease greenie retards you'll eventually have issues with the reactors. Most of these plants are far past their original lifespan because they refuse to replace them. That's hardly a problem with nuclear energy and more of the exact problem mentioned previously, poor energy policy targeted towards protecting the environment over protecting people.

>>14730667
Europe is dependent on Russian gas because they do not want to produce it on their own. They have shale deposits.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4036239-european-shale-this-is-one-shale-revolution-wont-happen
In the same way that they game emissions numbers by importing goods produced using energy intensive processes, they ban the domestic production of natural gas and oil and import it according to their needs. It's just a carbon budget shell game.

Your point would be compelling if the source of the issue wasn't exactly what I was saying.

>>14730887

>>14731606
>Europe is dependent on Russian gas because they do not want to produce it on their own
Why would they? The pollution is awful and the prices are subject to geopolitics. The only thing you're showing is that they need more nuclear and renewables.

>>14731835
If they extracted the natural gas they needed from their own shale deposits, they wouldn't have to deal with Russians for their basic energy needs. They will burn it anyway for the foreseeable future, because an all-renewable grid won't be able to reliably heat their homes in the winter (at least not with the solar-wind split that countries like France seem to be YOLO'ing into). It isn't any better or worse for the environment to do it domestically. They COULD resolve most of the issues by building a bunch of new nuclear plants, but European climate activists have a disdain for nuclear power because of the potential environmental impact.

My argument isn't that we shouldn't replace fossil fuel infrastructure with green infrastructure, because we should definitely do so everywhere where it is a cost-effective, reliable option. My argument is that there is a meaningful difference between climate policies focused on helping people versus helping the environment, and that many countries are putting policies in place that do the latter at the expense of the former, especially Europe. People were saying it wasn't happening while accidentally providing examples that are direct evidence of it.

>>14731998
>their own shale deposits
Mmm fracking. You even get free natural gas from your faucet.

>>14731998
>If they extracted the natural gas they needed from their own shale deposits, they wouldn't have to deal with Russians for their basic energy needs.
If they built more nuclear and renewable then they wouldn't have to deal with Russians or the negative effects of fossil fuels.

>because an all-renewable grid
Strawman

>My argument is that there is a meaningful difference between climate policies focused on helping people versus helping the environment,
You ignore the effects of pollution and global warming on people, so of course that's your argument. Mitigating global warming is far more beneficial than not.

>>14732006
Any substantive contamination can be avoided with good engineering and even in the worst case, filtering water is better than freezing to death in the winter because Russia decided they didn't like you.

>>14732020
I acknowledged that building more nuclear plants would work, but the issue there is that they don't like nuclear either. You can't just selectively ignore sentences in my post to justify your position. And no, policies that help the environment are not synonymous with the policies that most effectively help people. You can say that without evidence as much as you like, but it isn't going to be true in a lot of cases.

>>14732037
So they don't like gas, Ave that's the problem. They don't like nuclear, and that's just how it is and is why they need more gas. LOL.

Obviously they need one or the other, and nuclear is far less harmful.

>You can't just selectively ignore sentences in my post to justify your position.
Of course I can ignore non sequitur that has nothing to do with my position.

>And no, policies that help the environment are not synonymous with the policies that most effectively help people.
I didn't say they are. I'm waiting for you to give examples of global warming policies that are not beneficial to people.

>>14732050
Carbon taxes or excessive fuel taxes on consumers would be an example of such a policy. It directly contributes to increased cost of goods and in effect makes people poorer. In many cases, the justification is that it will reduce co2 emissions and encourage people to seek out more environmentally friendly means of transportation, but that is generally outweighed by the fact that there are many people that have no other choice and they suddenly got priced out of their existence. All that for an immeasurable impact on global climate.

In general, I think that "carrot"-based climate policy is generally good, where environmentally friendly choices are encouraged while "stick"-based climate policy runs the risk of hurting people more than it helps in the long run.

The previous discussion is also an answer to the question. The fact that they could build nuclear reactors is a potential green solution, but if they refuse to budge on that then the most prudent, short-term action is to try to utilize domestic fossil fuel resources to hold them over rather than banning companies from using them outright.

>>14723993
the what and the what

>>14732089
>Carbon taxes or excessive fuel taxes on consumers would be an example of such a policy.
Which carbon taxes are more harmful to people than beneficial?

>but that is generally outweighed by the fact that there are many people that have no other choice and they suddenly got priced out of their existence.
Who is getting priced out of existence? This is very alarmist.

>All that for an immeasurable impact on global climate.
Source?

>In general, I think that "carrot"-based climate policy is generally good
Such as?

>The fact that they could build nuclear reactors is a potential green solution, but if they refuse to budge on that then the most prudent, short-term action is to try to utilize domestic fossil fuel resources to hold them over rather than banning companies from using them outright.
Short term action is to get fuel elsewhere and build more renewable energy. They are not going to start fracking. In general, these issues are caused by poor planning and not enough infrastructure, not evil renewables replacing fossil fuels.

>>14732119
This is a really pathetic attempt to obfuscate by demanding far more detail than is typical in a 4chan post. If we have to pick one in particular, let's go with fuel taxes on consumers. Particularly France's, https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/04/04/fuel-taxation-the-government-has-failed-to-reconcile-the-end-of-the-month-and-the-end-of-the-world_5979671_19.html .

>who gets priced out of their existence
People who need to drive a long distance to get to their work or perform their work. In the US it isn't uncommon to have to drive 30 miles to a job. If you consume 2 gallons of gas/day (a reasonably fuel-efficient car) you need a tank of fuel per week. If the price of a tank of gasoline goes from $30 to $60, then you've added $120 into your monthly living expenses just in driving to work. Factor in cost of living increases as a consequence of higher fuel prices and people that were on the threshold at the original fuel prices become insolvent at higher fuel prices. Now consider what happens if they get half that gas mileage and can't afford a new car.

>Source
Transportation accounts for ~20% of CO2 emissions with passenger cars making up ~40% of that. If you got every passenger car off of the road you'd save at most 8% of emissions. Carbon taxes on consumer fuel might knock off a couple % from global emissions if universally implemented. I'm just googling these numbers, I trust you can do the same.

>not evil renewables replacing fossil fuels
And you once again demonstrate your lack of comprehension of my argument.

>>14731664
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

>>14729307

fucking amazing

>>14730451

moot argument

Current species (plant, animal, human, etc) evolved to survive in an environment with a certain amount of CO2, not precambrian amounts.

>>14732197
>This is a really pathetic attempt to obfuscate by demanding far more detail
Wah wah.

>If we have to pick one in particular, let's go with fuel taxes on consumers. Particularly France's
This article says promised carbon taxes have not been implemented and Macron has failed to protect the French from rising gas prices due to the war in Ukraine. Exactly the opposite of what you were supposed to show.

>In the US it isn't uncommon to have to drive 30 miles to a job
That's currently about $5. Who is dying over $5? Whether you like it or not, electric cars are going to take over and transportation costs will be cheaper than. No one is dying over it.

>Transportation accounts for ~20% of CO2 emissions
It's more like 27% of GHG emissions.

>If you got every passenger car off of the road you'd save at most 8% of emissions.
Omso not immeasurable at all. And a carbon tax doesn't just affect passenger vehicles. So what is your point again?

>And you once again demonstrate your lack of comprehension of my argument.
It is hard to comprehend when you keep contradicting yourself. Basically you just think fossil fuels are good. On the whole, they aren't.

>>14732197
>30 miles to a job. If you consume 2 gallons of gas/day (a reasonably fuel-efficient car)
30 miles are 50km. So 7.5l/100km is reasonably fuel-efficient?? We are doomed and it's entirely the Americans' fault.
>you need a tank of fuel per week
What the fuck, your tanks only have 10 gallons, so 37 litres? Aren't 50-60 Liters normal?
>If the price of a tank of gasoline goes from $30 to $60, then you've added $120 into your monthly living expenses just in driving to work.
If gasoline costs less than a dollar per liter, then something is extremely wrong. There are no incentives to pollute less, which is shown by your example that people drive 30 miles to work every day. Just work where you live or live where you work.

I'm perfectly content in taxing everyone 90% if it means some obscure frog in the rainforest we haven't discovered yet doesn't go extinct.

>>14733597
>I have no argument left so I'll just strawman
I accept your concession of defeat.

>>14712533
Here's you're empty carbs bro

>>14712533
>Why do factories exist if they dump pollution into the environment
Great question, I'd really love to see the practice of CO2 generators abandoned, but I dont own a greenhouse.

>>14730513
>Notice that there are trees that are thousands of years old that have survived literally every ounce of variability the climate has thrown at them in all of modern human history and beyond.
Most to all of the biggest trees are from mountainous areas or areas closest to the poles. These are areas which have experienced the least amount of climate deviations over the past 200k years.

Elsewhere the problem is that climate change is stoking hotter and hotter wildfires. Normally trees are green and wildfires pierce into them only slightly, just enough to scorch them a little. Now we're seeing mega fires which start because forestry dries out from drought and it burns so intensely the tree just gets incinerated. This is partially what the wildfires in Australia were from.

Also realize that at 1000 rpm life was radically different from what it was now. Vascular plants didnt even exist, our current iteration of life is absolutely unprepared for warming. In fact rapid, unexpected warming is correlated with mass extinction. Maybe over periods of hundreds of thousands of years it might be good, but not now.

>>14713709
Go fuck off with your baloney

>>14736056
>t. Facebook mom
/sci/ wasnt created for the likes of you.

>>14729509
Roosevelt was republican no, I think national parks?
EPA was made by Nixon...
yeah, I'd say that checks out...

>>14712533
Because it isn't bad. It is good for the plants and it's good for you. Climatology is just subverted to distract your attention from actual environmental problems.

>>14736804
Proof?

>>14736921
If it wasn't good for plants, greenhouse growers wouldn't buy CO2 generators.

>>14736951
So you have no proof CO2 isn't bad for humans.

>>14737209
> what is carbonated water
before asking stupid questions, try to answer them yourself

>>14737217
I honestly can't tell if you're serious or pretending to be retarded.

>>14736951
Get a CO2 generator for your bedroom. Make sure you seal up all the cracks so you don't lose any.

>>14737256
>>14737285
CO2 is absolutely not toxic. But it's what factory owners would counter your demand of reducing the pollution: "shut your mouth and stop polluting yourself first". You're the carbon they want to reduce.

>>14737508
You are a moron. The carbon dioxide in your breath cannot increase atmospheric carbon dioxide because it comes from plants which get it from the atmosphere. Have you set up that generator yet?

>>14737516
By your logic burning down a forest doesn't increase carbon dioxide, because trees took it from the atmosphere. I probably will set such generator within my grow box. But I don't want to get asphyxated by it.

>>14737508
Your own image says it's harmful. Also you keep ignoring that it causes global warming, the only thing relevant to this thread.

>>14737647
>By your logic burning down a forest doesn't increase carbon dioxide, because trees took it from the atmosphere.
Correct. The only relevant effect burning trees has is that they will no longer sequester small amounts of carbon in the soil.

>>14737936
But forests are bound CO2 themselves. If you turn a forest into a savannah, then you have additional CO2 in the atmosphere that won't go anywhere

If it's good for water to go in my stomach, why is it bad for water to go in my lungs?

explain that with your so-called "science"

>>14737931
>Your own image says it's harmful
Only if it reduces the concentration of oxygen.
CO2 is less harmful than nitrogen.
> you keep ignoring that it causes global warming
Because it doesn't.

>>14737948
>But forests are bound CO2 themselves.
Which they got from the air. It's not like burning fossil fuels, which were sequestered millions of years ago under a completely different climate. I suppose you could argue firsts as a whole are a continuous process of sequestration, but humans aren't. They don't last nearly as long as trees and they're weren't so many until recently.

>>14737967
>Only if it reduces the concentration of oxygen.
Of course it does. Where do you think the oxygen in CO2 comes from? Also, the higher the CO2 concentration, the less oxygen in the bloodstream, which makes you dumber.

>Because it doesn't.
I've asked you for proof several times and you've deflected. The greenhouse effect is proven and CO2 being the cause of warming is directly observed.

>>14737979
>CO2 being the cause of warming is directly observed.
demonstrate

>>14737972
>Which they got from the air.
So what? Where else would it come from? The carbon in fossil fuels was also in the air millions of years ago. That doesn't mean we should put it back in the air.

>>14737999
Pick one. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

>>14737999
Sure, immediately after you post proof it isn't.

>>14738001
>Where else would it come from?
Fossil fuels sequestered millions of years ago. That's the whole point.

>The carbon in fossil fuels was also in the air millions of years ago.
Right, under a competent different climate. A tree grows and dies in the blink of a second compared to millions of years, it releases the same carbon it absorbed as it decays minus a little bit that went into the soil. So the net effect over a few hundred years is minimal. Fossil fuels on the other hand have basically doubled the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

>>14738030
Cancelling of the opposition indicates conspiracy.

>>14738053
What canceling? Are flat earthers canceled?

>>14738116
Is any scientist a flat-earther? I thought only glowies are. But there are climatologists who dare to doubt the narrative of global warming, and they are.

>>14738149
>Is any scientist a flat-earther?
They were, until the conspiracy canceled them and made flat Earth a taboo for a hundred years until no scientists were flat Earthers. The lack of flat Earth scientists is just more proof of the conspiracy.

Now do you have any proof CO2 doesn't cause global warming? Why did you make that claim of you have zero evidence and can only speculate about conspiracies? I can give you plenty of proof for the greenhouse effect and CO2 being the cause of current warming. Why is it so difficult for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>>14738030
The proof is simple. Mars has a CO2 atmosphere with 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth and Mars no measurable greenhouse effect according to the European Space Agency's measurements.

>>14738445
Wrong

>>14723993

So what is the truth then?

>>14736035
We don't have to wait for well-adapted plants to proliferate. Many of today's plants are very similar to ones that were present in the mesozoic when co2 levels were highly elevated. Ferns, for instance. Humans are capable of planting trees and crops that are well-adapted to the changing environment. Artificial selection will always be more responsive than natural selection and it provides another mechanism if coping with the changing environment.

>>14738445
>Mars no measurable greenhouse effect according to the European Space Agency's measurements.
Source?

>>14733045
I did 7 days/week. I figure that would be a decent ballpark since I omitted all other reasons for driving. And yes, practically speaking 30mpg is good when it's a mix of highway and city driving. Even the shitty Euro wind up toys like the Fiat 500 only get 33 on the highway. Hybrids advertise closer to 50 mpg, but I'm basing my numbers on what people currently have and could reasonably afford in the near future. The day where we all drive 100% electric cars is still at least 20 years away.

The issue with pumping up fuel prices to incentivize people to pollute less is that that they are polluting as much as they have to in order to continue their existence. They can't choose to not drive to work or choose to have a more fuel efficient car (at least not in the short term). Your solution is to have them go bankrupt so they can live in a pod and eat bugs because you've decided that you know what's best for them in the long run. Humanity is better off collapsing under its own weight than it is being micromanaged by sociopaths.

That's why I'm firmly against carbon taxes and other punitive "incentives." If you want people to burn less gas, heavily subsidize trading a gas car for a hybrid. It will be far more effective and far less damaging than arbitrarily deciding that $1/L is far too cheap and we should tax the fuck out of gas until people stop driving.

>>14738698
>You will eat the ferns
Based retard

>>14732849
The argument was never fossil fuels were good, hence me continuing to assert that you don't understand my argument. The original discussion is that increasing co2 levels will likely lead to greening of the earth. The implication was that it means that our primary concern should be designing policy to mitigate the impact on human life, since nature would likely be able to cope higher co2 levels (in my opinion, it's obviously a point that's still being argued). Someone then asserted that no climate policy prioritized nature over human life, hence the discussion about carbon taxes. Not once did I say that we should be increasing co2 emissions, I simply stated that being overly aggressive on the transition can do more harm than good when the outcome is gimped power infrastructure and people being financially ruined because of increased costs. The only time I said anything close to "fossil fuels good" was saying that euros should probably use their own fossil fuel resources in lieu of importing them, because then they wouldn't be beholden to Russia. And that rolling brownouts are probably worse than just burning fuel to meet energy needs until green solutions can be built.

>>14738787
>The original discussion is that increasing co2 levels will likely lead to greening of the earth
Nope. Can't grow plants in drought or flood. See >>14732020

>>14738766
We were specifically talking about trees and other non food crops. Read the reply chain, illiterate. To answer the question though, drought resistant gmo's are already a thing and will likely get more common in the future. Otherwise, food crops can be grown using a green house, hydroponics, or by moving farmland to less arid locations.

>>14738787
>The argument was never fossil fuels were good
Then why did you describe mitigation as kneecapping?

>The original discussion is that increasing co2 levels will likely lead to greening of the earth.
It already has, no one gives a shit. The negative effects far outway greening. Why do you think greening is relevant?

>>14738796
I cited a couple of articles suggesting that the higher co2 levels were already leading to observable greening. >>14730514

I explicitly omitted food crops because it's a far more nuanced discussion. Certainly a lot of farms will lose productivity, but increasing temperatures will also shift breadbaskets northward. There's a lot of land in Canada and Russia that might become more temperate and be able to alleviate lost productivity elsewhere (it's even mentioned in the little image you referenced). Not to mention the impact that technology has had on crop hardiness and yield. There's plenty of additional bad as well, so I don't know how well we will be able to meet future food demands with a warming climate. However, I don't blindly ascribe to the idea that we'll be SOL.

>>14738809
>Otherwise, food crops can be grown using a green house, hydroponics, or by moving farmland to less arid locations.
You're going to pay for that?

>>14723515
First off:
Ever since i was a kid I've been hearing shit like in X years we wont have water, in Y years we will live in a world filled with trash.
There are scientists who are wrong and then there are the politicians that use the latest buzz to get elected.(god i hope democracy dies because everyone voting is what got us into this infighting)
Second:
While nuclear is not really green it is a great stopgap until we actually make the green solutions more efficient(Or find better ones). Most of these green solutions are endorsed by oil and gas companies to make us use them. Problem is they are not efficient enough at the scale of a nation. A solar panel is great for a house but not so much an entire nation or state. The result is we go back to oil and also pay a premium in desperation.
Third:
We as countries in the west are doing pretty fucking good. We are not doing perfect when it comes to emissions but there is no reason to blame us when the chink neighbor outputs fucking EVERYTHING with no regard.
Fourth:
I have seen a lot of lefties, a LOT of FUCKING LEFTISTS. Live a life of waste as kings of the modern world(i believe its called champagne socialism). To them its all about renting services, getting the newest iphone, paying for takeout food, never getting their hands dirty.
NO if you want to be more environmentally conscious you need to:
1. stop wasting money
2. repair what you have whether its a phone or car
3. grow your own food

>>14713726
>https://www.ucanews.com/news/sri-lanka-lifts-fertilizer-import-ban-after-outcry/93572
OHHH I remember that
Food production went to shit afterwards. One of the things that lead to shit right now.

>>14738826
I described some mitigation as kneecapping, conditional upon it negatively affecting people more than it might benefit people in the long term. Hence the mention of grids that aren't able to provide stable power because they decided that they didn't want any energy solutions that can deal with the duck curve problem. I also mentioned that I thought carbon taxes hurt lower class people who might rely on cheap fossil fuels to be financially solvent without sufficient upside in terms of reduced emissions. I'm not opposed to most mitigation efforts, I just think that it often times the effect that it has on people isn't properly considered.

>>14738828
I'm not making a list of things that I want to happen, I'm just saying we have a fighting chance. I'm pretty sure by the end of the century we'll be eating ultra-high yield Monsanto brand tomatoes that can grow on volcanic vents without sunlight with the only downside being that it turns you gay.

>>14738836
I think it's the same psycho grifter that keeps repeating that lie over and over again. Do you think few actually believes that
1. climate activists to ban all fertilizers
2. they want to do it in the same fashion Sri Lanka banned inorganic fertilizers (over night, with no alternatives and insufficient foreign currency to import more
3. Sri Lanka had no other problems like losing most of their tourist industry to terror attacks and the Covid pandemic

Or is it just some /pol/ troll that takes his agenda and bends a real story (crisis in Sri Lanka) to support his twisted views?

The world isn't greening as long as we keep cutting trees.

>>14738917
Forgot picrel

>>14712533
It's called PPM.

Our population is exploding, and it's more important ("morality speaking") that we are able to provide food to that population, rather than be "eco friendly"

>>14738917
The West is greening for sure. Shame about the Amazon. But it is a tad bit hypocritical since across NA and Europe vast swathes of old forests were destroyed for good in the past hundred years. Even earlier in many parts of Europe.

>>14738844
>Hence the mention of grids that aren't able to provide stable power
No you didn't, you mentioned grids that had brownouts during peak demand. That's not a stability problem, it's a variability problem. And not having enough power is not a mitigation strategy, it's just improper planning.

>I also mentioned that I thought carbon taxes hurt lower class people who might rely on cheap fossil fuels to be financially solvent
You claimed people were being priced out of existence and failed to show the cost is more than the benefit. But of you really care about poor purple then I'm sure you'll support subsidies for them to offset the cost.

>>14739245
False dichotomy.

>>14730646
>it's the rate that it's changing.
You do realize humanity have evolved through literally different climates throughout history right?

>>14732646
>not precambrian amounts.
So we'll literally be fine then since we will never reach those amounts. Why are all leftist retarded like this?

>>14738919
>Forgot picrel
you made a mental error because you're low iq

>>14739362
>You do realize humanity have evolved through literally different climates throughout history right?
Is this supposed to respond to what you quoted? The problem is not just "different climates," it's the rate of change between them. You don't evolve in a few hundred years.

We are doomed. I just hope it comes after I’m already dead.

>>14713862
>>14713782
Why are all leftist retarded like this?

>>14720319
So you throw an unscientific temper tantrum because you got btfo by science used by intelligent /pol/chad. Understood

>>14723248
>The dramatic fall in yields follows a decision last April by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to ban all chemical fertilisers in Sri Lanka - a move that risks undermining support among rural voters who are key to his family's grip on Sri Lankan politics.

>Although the ban was rolled back after widespread protests, only a trickle of chemical fertilisers made it to farms, which will likely lead to an annual drop of at least 30% in paddy yields nationwide, according to agricultural experts.
Why are leftist itt retarded to the very core and can't read?

>>14739333
>grid
So your position is that if the grid is only intermittent when demand is high then it isn't really unstable? Obviously the rolling brownouts are not a climate change mitigation strategy, but they are a natural consequence of decommissioning stable power sources and replacing them with wind and solar energy. It's an especially dishonest position to argue that the issues with haphazard green energy adoption can't be considered issues because if they were planned better they wouldn't have occurred.

>jump through increasingly high hoops until I'm satisfied
Prove the benefits of carbon taxes on fuel outweigh the costs.

>>14724232
>>14724163
>>14724211

Why are both of you severely retarded and didn't even look at the data?
>>14724085

>>14739851
>So your position is that if the grid is only intermittent when demand is high then it isn't really unstable?
Power system stability is defined as the property of a power system that enables it to remain in a state of operating equilibrium under normal operating conditions and to regain an acceptable state of equilibrium after being subjected to a disturbance.

>Obviously the rolling brownouts are not a climate change mitigation strategy, but they are a natural consequence of decommissioning stable power sources and replacing them with wind and solar energy.
No they aren't. They are a natural consequence of not planning for peak demand or fluctuations in price/supply, whether with renewables, fossil fuels or both.

>It's an especially dishonest position to argue that the issues with haphazard green energy adoption can't be considered issues because if they were planned better they wouldn't have occurred.
Complete misrepresentation. I didn't say they aren't issues, I said they aren't mitigation strategies. They are the result of poor planning, not a feature of renewables.

>>14738826
>Then why did you describe mitigation as kneecapping?
Because you're too severely retarded to understand how fucking massive our whole fucking earth relies on oil.

>>14739851
>Prove the benefits of carbon taxes on fuel outweigh the costs.
OK.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069621000875

>>14739864
What are you chimping out about? Where does anything in those posts contradict the data?

>>14739404
>The problem is not just "different climates," it's the rate of change between them.
Why are leftist THIS turbo retarded? Pic related, humanity have been through numerous different climates and have evolved all the time between them.

>>14739899
It does, that doesn't mean it has to.

>>14739931
You again missed the point. See >>14739404

>>14739893
>No they aren't. They are a natural consequence of not planning for peak demand or fluctuations in price/supply, whether with renewables, fossil fuels or both.
This is where you've gone full retards since you literally don't have any source for this.

>They are the result of poor planning, not a feature of renewables.
renewables ARE poor planning you severe retard. The fact that you think replacing our whole fucking transportation infrastructure with an unfeasible energy source in just 5 decade is turbo retarded to the core.

>>14739950
That's proving my point even fucking harder. Pic related is when haplogroup R was born, a relatively recent ethnic group that would later on go to create numerous great civilizations and societies. Did the rapid change in temperature even once decimate the entire population of previous humans that existed before? No. Did evolution still existed. Yes.

Again, human will survive and your insane rhetoric will always fade into nothingness.

>>14740008
shit, wrong pic

>>14739931
>humanity have been through numerous different climates and have evolved all the time between them.
But the planet hasn't. Not at this rate. Or when temperatures changed fast, it led to mass extinction.

>>14739905
Be honest, did you get past the abstract in that paper? I only see a handful of citations, and they aren't exactly assertive on their policy conclusions. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that I'm going to be able to pick apart their methodology to figure out which parts of the model are reliable or unreliable, but in general policy modeling is at best an educated guess.

>>14740029
>But the planet hasn't. Not at this rate.
Not denying that, still the planet have been through worse period of changes before and it will survive thereafter.

>Or when temperatures changed fast, it led to mass extinction.
Mass extinction of various land and aquatic life but not as a whole and especially not humanity. You have no idea how fucking flexible and adaptable humans and other life have been throughout history. While it is unfortunate that those species who got wiped out by climate change has been lost forever but life will continue to evolve into the foreseeable future as always.

>>14740086
>and especially not humanity.
What percentage will survive in your opinion?

>>14740116
bout 3 fiddy

>>14739969
>This is where you've gone full retards since you literally don't have any source for this.
Here you go: https://www.niskanencenter.org/preliminary-analysis-points-to-climate-change-and-poor-planning-not-renewables-as-the-cause-of-california-blackouts/

>The fact that you think replacing our whole fucking transportation infrastructure with an unfeasible energy source in just 5 decade is turbo retarded to the core.
Where did I say that?

>>14740008
>Did the rapid change in temperature even once decimate the entire population of previous humans that existed before?
What rapid change in temperature? That's a few degrees over thousands of years. Current warming is about 25 times faster than that. You just proved my point.

>>14740077
>Be honest, did you get past the abstract in that paper?
I'm sure you can find something written for laymen if you want. There's plenty of research on optimal carbon pricing. If you were right, it would be negative.

>>14739819
Stop mistaking Evil for retardation.

>>14712599

>>14740284
Wrong.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

>>14740284
Nonsense

>>14740291
>https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
so trust the experts?

>>14740235
>Current warming is about 25 times faster than that. You just proved my point.
How the fuck are you THIS retarded? 25 five time faster then previous climate and we went to the fucking moon with the earth looking like pic related. If anything hotter climate and energy consumption = tremendous human advancement and growth. This put huge HUGE hole in your mass human extinction narrative and supports my point even harder that humanity will always adapt.

>>14740319
Pic related

>>14740318
So you have no argument?

>>14740335
>So you have no argument?
yes, C02 is good for earth and plant life

>>14740284
>>14740318
Demonstrably wrong as evidenced by isotopic values

>>14740340
It's not good for either unless you're growing plants in highly controlled conditions like greenhouses.

>>14740318
So trust a random picture instead of data? LOL

>>14740319
>25 five time faster then previous climate and we went to the fucking moon
What does one have to do with the other? The moon landing is not an effect of warming. Pic related in >>14732020 is.

>This put huge HUGE hole in your mass human extinction narrative
LOL, you only see what you want to see and ignore the rest.

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

>humanity will always adapt.
Of course humanity will adapt. You'll adapt if I punch you in the face. So why avoid getting punched in the face?

>>14740340
>C02 is good for earth and plant life
What about CO2?

>>14740348
>So trust a random picture instead of data?
not random, shows how many times experts got it wrong and still do

>>14740376
Please tell me you're an unironic /pol/tard pretending to be a green activist to provide subtle redpill because your counterargument just proved my point even fucking harder than it already is.

>What does one have to do with the other? The moon landing is not an effect of warming.
My point was that despite the rapidliy changing climate, we as a species experienced tremendous amount of growth in terms of population and technology. Again, putting a huge hole in your retarded narrative that somehow a rise in temperature will cripple humanity.

>LOL, you only see what you want to see and ignore the rest.
And you didn't even fucking read the articles you've posted as expected of a green retard. Pic related btfo your whole argument out of the water entirely
>However, the annual mean temperature of the current interglacial period for the last 10,000 years is no higher than that of previous interglacial periods, yet some of the same megafauna survived similar temperature increases.[106][107][108][109][110][111][excessive citations] In the Americas, a controversial explanation for the shift in climate is presented under the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, which states that the impact of comets cooled global temperatures.[112][113]
>A 2020 study published in Science Advances found that human population size and/or specific human activities, not climate change, caused rapidly rising global mammal extinction rates during the past 126,000 years.
All of these findings proved my point here >>14740086
>>14739931

>Of course humanity will adapt.
Then why the bitching and crying of climate change in the 1st place when
>>14739969
>>14739899
is the reason why humanity advanced in the 1sty place?

>>14740411
FFS why is 4chan not posting my images?

>>14740229
Told you you have no source:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-blackouts-a-warning-for-states-ramping-up-green-power-11597706934

>>14740245
Everyone is a layman with respect to numerical modeling work except the ones doing it. The relevant phrase is "garbage in, garbage out." The issue is these models make predictions based on what components the authors elect to add. If you look through the paper, they essentially linearize every dependence according to [insert citation here], which unless you spend a while reading through whichever paper they reference you have no idea how reasonable those assumptions are. It doesn't matter what they predict if the reason why isn't apparent. Moreover, when you consider how stochastic climate, economics, and politics are, these kinds of modeling approaches would have error bars that go to the moon.

>>14740390
>not random
I was referring to >>14740284. Why do you trust it?

>shows how many times experts got it wrong and still do
Wait, how do you know they got it wrong? Because the current experts told you they're wrong? How can you trust them? Maybe everything in that picture is correct.

>>14739893
I think the technical definition of "unstable" is secondary to grandma's life support going out because the 5 people in France that own an AC decided to turn them on at the same time.

>>14740229
That is an opinion article on the website of a left-wing think tank.

>>14740411
>My point was that despite the rapidliy changing climate, we as a species experienced tremendous amount of growth in terms of population and technology.
The climate has only been rapidly changing recently as warming has accelerated. We haven't experienced the worst effects yet. See >>14732020

>Again, putting a huge hole in your retarded narrative that somehow a rise in temperature will cripple humanity.
There's no hole, you're just ignoring the argument. You're pointing to a lack of effect in the past when it's in the future.

>>However, the annual mean temperature of the current interglacial period for the last 10,000 years is no higher than that of previous interglacial periods
Because global warming didn't occur for the vast majority of the past 10,000 years. Do you know how averages work?

>>A 2020 study published in Science Advances found that human population size and/or specific human activities, not climate change, caused rapidly rising global mammal extinction rates during the past 126,000 years.
LOL, past 126,000 years. Meanwhile:

>The 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services lists the primary causes of contemporary extinctions in descending order: (1) changes in land and sea use (primarily agriculture and overfishing respectively); (2) direct exploitation of organisms such as hunting; (3) anthropogenic climate change; (4) pollution and (5) invasive alien species spread by human trade.[22] This report, along with the 2020 Living Planet Report by the WWF, both project that climate change will be the leading cause in the next several decades.[22][70]

You only see what you want to see and ignore the rest.

>All of these findings proved my point here
>>14740086 #
>>14739931 #
How?

>Then why the bitching and crying of climate change in the 1st place
See >>14732020

Why are you batching about getting punched in the face? You'll survive.

>is the reason why humanity advanced in the 1sty place?
Proof?

>>14740471
>Told you you have no source
I have you a source. I guess you have no argument against it since you're just going to ignore it.

>https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-blackouts-a-warning-for-states-ramping-up-green-power-11597706934
I don't have a subscription.

>>14740487
I don't see any actual proof that anything they input is "garbage." Your wishful thinking is not scientific. And you can find plenty more research about optimal carbon pricing if this paper isn't good enough for you. You asked for proof and then reject it because it leads to the conclusion you don't like.

>>14740522
>founded by former Cato Institute members
>left wing
You're grasping at straws.

>>14740553
>The climate has only been rapidly changing recently as warming has accelerated. We haven't experienced the worst effects yet.
And you point to a retarded debunked image that has literally never been true. Cute.

>There's no hole, you're just ignoring the argument. You're pointing to a lack of effect in the past when it's in the future.
Because the future is nowhere near the past where it is severe magnitude more worse than what it will be in the picture.

>Because global warming didn't occur for the vast majority of the past 10,000 years. Do you know how averages work?
Are you fucking retarded? It happened 100,000 thousand year ago when extreme climate change happened and guess what? It did jackshit towards human since we evolve to be more advanced.

>LOL, past 126,000 years. Meanwhile:
I accept your retarded concession. Also nice job dodging this bit that btfo your retarded narrative
>Some have suggested that anthropogenic extinctions may have begun as early as when the first modern humans spread out of Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago; this is supported by rapid megafaunal extinction following recent human colonisation in Australia, New Zealand and Madagascar

>You only see what you want to see and ignore the rest.
Oof that irony coming from a retard who literally linked articles that proved my point even further

>How?
That human evolution, mass growth and adaptive ability are not endangered at all by rising temperature. We simply adapt and evolve as evident that we literally live thought one of the hottest period on Earth.

>See >>14732020
>Why are you batching about getting punched in the face? You'll survive.
See>>14739969
Are you one of those faggot retard that likes to make made up fantasy about your bully punching you?

>is the reason why humanity advanced in the 1sty place?
Proof?
https://www.courthousenews.com/evolution-of-human-body-size-directly-related-to-climate-study-finds/

>>14740651
pic related

>>14740582
I assume they're former Cato institute for a reason. Read the platform, it reads exactly like a Democrat candidate. Regardless, opinion pieces from think tanks are not reputable sources.

>Climate Policy
The risks of climate change demand rapid decarbonization. We believe two interlocking reform areas for U.S. climate and environmental policy can have synergistic benefits: targeted governmental interventions to accelerate the pace of change by removing barriers to permitting, siting, building, and deploying low-carbon technologies and practices, and a border-adjusted carbon tax that pushes investments towards clean options and away from fossil fuels.
>Democracy and Election Security
Over the past two years, the foundations of U.S. democracy and election security were tested like never before. As free, fair, and secure elections are the cornerstone of a healthy democracy, the perpetuation of the myths of voter fraud and a stolen election undermine the credibility of the electoral system and voting. This swell of misinformation culminated in the events of January 6, 2021, a day that visibly and violently shook the seat of the U.S. government...
>Poverty
From classical liberalism we take the idea that a commercial, cosmopolitan social order is unrivaled at promoting tolerance, innovation, cooperation, and prosperity. Accordingly, we believe a “presumption of liberty” ought to apply to basic economic activity. At the same time, modern liberal thought has established that justice requires robust social insurance systems that guarantee to all the dignity and autonomy of broadly shared prosperity. Our view is that these two traditions were never in tension, and indeed combine to form a more coherent theory of a free and just society.

>>14740668
>I assume they're former Cato institute for a reason.
From when the Koch brothers took over.

>Regardless, opinion pieces from think tanks are not reputable sources
I haven't seen you point out a single thing wrong with the analysis. Sounds like it's reportable and you have no argument, so you're attacking the source.

>>14740651
>And you point to a retarded debunked image that has literally never been true.
Where?

>Because the future is nowhere near the past where it is severe magnitude more worse than what it will be in the picture.
But that's wrong. Similar rates of warming in the past also coincide with mass extinctions. Must be a coincidence.

>It happened 100,000 thousand year ago when extreme climate change happened and guess what?
Unreliability warming is not nearly as extreme as current warming. How many times are you going to make this faulty comparison?

>I accept your retarded concession.
Of what? You're saying climate change wasn't a factor when there was no extreme climate change. Completely missing the point, again.

>Also nice job dodging this bit that btfo your retarded narrative
How does it btfo anything I said? Use your words like a big boy. And you just dodged the part that proves I'm right. Current warming is a big factor and will become the biggest factor in extinctions.

>Oof that irony coming from a retard who literally linked articles that proved my point even further
Incorrect. See >>14740553

>That human evolution, mass growth and adaptive ability are not endangered at all by rising temperature.
It's impossible to determine that from periods that didn't have extremely rapid warming. How do you keep missing this? It's like saying dogs can't be larger than 20 pounds because there are no dogs larger than 20 pounds... in the part of the dog park only for dogs under 20 pounds.

>See>>14739969
How does this respond to what you quoted? You still can't tell me why want to you avoid getting punched in the face. Maybe you enjoy it.

>https://www.courthousenews.com/evolution-of-human-body-size-directly-related-to-climate-study-finds/
So you think humans advanced because they had bigger bodies to adapt to cold? LOL. I guess you have no proof humans advanced due to climate change.

>>14740653
See >>14730646

>>14740843
>Where?
>>14732020
citing an imgae that literally have never had its prediction came true has always got to be the most retarded proof ever.

>But that's wrong. Similar rates of warming in the past also coincide with mass extinctions. Must be a coincidence.
I just showed you an image compiled by one of the best source of climate information and your retarded response is simply no? How convenient.

>Unreliability warming is not nearly as extreme as current warming. How many times are you going to make this faulty comparison?
Yep you're now purely retarded, I'll post the image again. Look at the Cretaceous hot Greenhouse period. That's when fucking Neanderthals and homo sapiens thrived despite living a temperature that's magnitude more hotter than our current and future climate. Again putting a large gaping hole in your retarded narrative that it will lead to crippling human lives.

>Of what? You're saying climate change wasn't a factor when there was no extreme climate change.
You continuing top deny them doesn't make them non-existent as evident by your complete and lack of evidence to the contrary.

>How does it btfo anything I said? Use your words like a big boy. And you just dodged the part that proves I'm right.
And again, I accept your retarded concession because you literally are running out of argument now. Not only are you ignoring the last 300,000 year of human evolution and cause of mass extinction but you also think that some retarded image of a retarded prediction is some concrete evidence that we will be heading to a climate worse than what our forebearers have gone through which is evidently false.

>Incorrect. See >>14740553
Likewise, see>>14740651

>It's impossible to determine that from periods that didn't have extremely rapid warming.
See above. Again, you keep repeating it doesn't mean it's not real.

>How does this respond to what you quoted?
You tell me, you ask the retarded question in the 1st place

>>14740843
>So you think humans advanced because they had bigger bodies to adapt to cold? LOL. I guess you have no proof humans advanced due to climate change.
>You, a few post ago:
>"hurr durr human will probably go extinct and face disastrous consequence from le climate le change because muh retard ass said sp"
>no human will evolve, thrive and advance through rapidly changing environment as we've done before
>"hurr durr you only le big bone from snow durr"
Why are you people so retarded and disingenuous?

>>14740851
see>>14740086

>>14740962
Doesn't respond to what I said. No one is claiming everything will die. Just because you'll survive a punch to the face doesn't mean you don't want to avoid it.

>>14740924
>citing an imgae that literally have never had its prediction came true
Which predictions haven't come true? You said it was "debunked." How?

>I just showed you an image compiled by one of the best source of climate information and your retarded response is simply no?
No, I didn't respond to your image by saying no. Stop making shit up. I responded to your claim that the future is nowhere near the past. Your image is on a scale of millions of years, so it doesn't have the resolution to show similar warming to current warming. Let's try again: Similar rates of warming in the past also coincide with mass extinctions. Do you agree or disagree?

>Look at the Cretaceous hot Greenhouse period. That's when fucking Neanderthals and homo sapiens thrived despite living a temperature that's magnitude more hotter than our current and future climate.
Oh no... it's retarded. Do you actually think Neanderthals or homo sapiens lived 90 million years ago? They didn't even exist 1 million years ago. You just make shit up and hope no one will know better. Stop posting.

>You continuing top deny them doesn't make them non-existent
Right, the fact that there was no similar warming in the past 3.5 million years at least makes it non-existent.

>evident by your complete and lack of evidence to the contrary.
Your own graphs are sufficient evidence. It's a shame you don't understand them and made a fool of yourself.

>And again, I accept your retarded concession
Of what?

>Not only are you ignoring the last 300,000 year of human evolution and cause of mass extinction
What relevant part have I ignored? Use your words like a big boy. Make a coherent argument with premises and a conclusion.

>>14740924
>you also think that some retarded image of a retarded prediction is some concrete evidence that we will be heading to a climate worse than what our forebearers have gone through which is evidently false.
It's evidently true that current warming is much faster than anything humans have experienced so far. If you want the evidence for those predictions read AR4. And you once again ignored the part of the Wikipedia article that proves you wron,, even though you were five writing other parts you erroneously thought proved you right. I accept your concession.

>Likewise, see>>14740651 #
See >>14740843

>See above.
How does that explain how you determined the effect of extreme warming from periods that don't have extreme warming? Another nonsensical attempt to dodge the argument. Why don't you start by telling me where in the past 10,000 or 126,000 years you see extreme warming?

>You tell me
No, that's not how this works, you're the one respinsible for making sure your responses make sense. Apparently you failed.

>>14740935
>>"hurr durr human will probably go extinct and face disastrous consequence from le climate le change because muh retard ass said sp"
Who are you quoting?

>>no human will evolve
Humans will not evolve in a few hundred years, no. You do understand that adapting to come with bigger bodies took hundreds of thousands of years, right?

And you failed again to answer the question. Where's your proof humans advanced due to climate change?

>>14740564
The default position on simulation work is garbage in. If neither you nor I understand whether or not anything is the paper is meaningful, why are you pretending that a literal who policy modeling article is proof that carbon taxes are beneficial? If I were to point out the garbage, I would say that linearizing every relationship from co2 output to reduced gdp is an oversimplification of the extremely noisy ties between those things. It implicitly assumes that climate projections are correct and that the government policies don't have a massive cooling effect (or at least not one that extends past whatever linear relationship the author decided to use). The burden of proof is on you to explain why the assumptions made in the article are reasonable.

>>14741475
>The default position on simulation work is garbage in.
Nah. The default position is you have no argument against peer reviewed research that has been replicated over and over again.

>If neither you nor I understand whether or not anything is the paper is meaningful
If you don't understand the paper then your opinion is irrelevant. Don't ask for proof of you don't want it.

>I would say that linearizing every relationship from co2 output to reduced gdp is an oversimplification of the extremely noisy ties between those things.
Your opinion is irrelevant.

>It implicitly assumes that climate projections are correct
They have been so far. We can only act based on the knowledge we have, not on your wishful thinking that all the knowledge we have is wrong.

>The burden of proof is on you to explain why the assumptions made in the article are reasonable.
The article does that. Try reading it instead of making yourself irrelevant by dismissing it with no basis other than wishful thinking.

>>14741418
>Which predictions haven't come true? You said it was "debunked." How?
The water stress alone is false since both water consumption and water storage has increased since 2 decades ago

>I responded to your claim that the future is nowhere near the past.
And you haven't even refuted it once.

>Similar rates of warming in the past also coincide with mass extinctions. Do you agree or disagree?
I've already made my point here>>14740086
and yet like an obvious retard you continue to ignore it. Mass extinction have existed as long as modern humanities exist as proven by the same articles you've just linked. And yet humanity continued to evolve and survived.

>Do you actually think Neanderthals or homo sapiens lived 90 million years ago
I might've made a mistake on the period of global temperatures but nonetheless, this >>14740016
also prove my point

>Right, the fact that there was no similar warming
>no similar warming
Of course there's no similar warming because the fucking past is much worse than that
>>14740016
That is a not an insignificant change and what do you know, humans survived well before and after that period

>Your own graphs are sufficient evidence.
>lol no u
typical

>Of what?
That humanity will survive. And again I accept your concession

>What relevant part have I ignored? Use your words like a big boy.
Are you THAT retarded. I've already presented it to you countless of times. The fact that you won't accept it doesn't it's not true.

>It's evidently true that current warming is much faster than anything humans
Yeah and it coincide and correlates greatly with human growth and technological advancement since we made significant use of high CO2 emission fuel
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
It's not going to change much for the foreseeable future

>See >>14740843
lol here we go
>>14740924

>>14741431
>How does that explain how you determined the effect of extreme warming from periods that don't have extreme warming?
But we did, you ignoring them doesn't mean they don't exist.

>No, that's not how this works, you're the one respinsible for making sure your responses make sense.
I'm still waiting g on that irrefutable proof that humanity will be crippled or have a hard time in this new environment.

>Who are you quoting?
(You)

>Humans will not evolve in a few hundred years, no.
>Contrary to popular belief, not only are humans still evolving, their evolution since the dawn of agriculture is faster than ever before.[1][2][3]
Y>ou do understand that adapting to come with bigger bodies took hundreds of thousands of years
For our ancestors thousand of years ago, not for us and many fuckload of species evolving still today. Again, don't be a retard and claim something that you don't even have any clue about.

>Where's your proof humans advanced due to climate change?
see above

>>14741527
>Nah. The default position is you have no argument against peer reviewed research that has been replicated over and over again.
And yet you failed to even provide peer reviewed research which has failed worldwide

>If you don't understand the paper then your opinion is irrelevant.
Oh the fucking irony

>Your opinion is irrelevant.
AKA you literally have no argument

>They have been so far. We can only act based on the knowledge we have
Yeah and their assessment is faulty as fuck since we're now in a middle of an energy crisis because of these retarded green think-tank

>The article does that.
Literally not as evident by all the failings of retarded green people

>>14741527
That's not how scientific communication works, dumbass. The more likely explanation is that you just didn't read the paper and are relying on blind appeal to authority. You will find publications espousing all kinds of bullshit; the act of peer review does nothing to guarantee the results are correct, just that the steps taken in the research were reasonable according to a set of individuals whose choice the author has some influence over. When the cartoon assumptions prove to be insufficient then the model breaks down. For that reason, the author does not make any bold claims as to the particular policy solutions that should be used, just that this type of modeling can be helpful in guiding decisions.

>>14713709
I bet you believed that slice of chorrizo was red giant

>>14741779
>The water stress alone is false since both water consumption and water storage has increased since 2 decades ago
Non sequitur, global consumption is not a measure of water stress.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4758739/
>At the global level and on an annual basis, enough freshwater is available to meet such demand, but spatial and temporal variations of water demand and availability are large, leading to water scarcity in several parts of the world during specific times of the year. The essence of global water scarcity is the geographic and temporal mismatch between freshwater demand and availability (4, 5), which can be measured in physical terms or in terms of social or economic implications based on adaptation capability (6, 7).

>And you haven't even refuted it once.
Another pathetic lie. I immediately refuted it, and you didn't even deny it: >>14740235
>but what about muh moon landing.

>I've already made my point here>>14740086 #
So you agree that similar rates of warming have caused mass extinctions in the past. Thanks for conceding. Now please answer the question: why don't you want to avoid getting punched in the face?

>Mass extinction have existed as long as modern humanities exist
So adding on more via extreme climate change is OK? LOL.

>this >>14740016 # also prove my point
How?

>Of course there's no similar warming because the fucking past is much worse than that
>>14740016 #
How is warming 1/25 as fast as current warming much worse? How is rapid warming on top of interglacial warming better? You're delusional.

>humans survived
The same non sequitur over and over. Sideboard is not the issue. We've lived in the same interglacial-glacial climate for our entire existence. We're evolved for it. We are not evolved to go outside of that range, nor will we evolve in a few hundred years. Why do you want to get punched in the face?

>>lol no u
>typical
Not an argument. Your own graphs show slow warming, not extreme warming.

>>14741779
>That humanity will survive. And again I accept your concession
In order to concede I would have had to have first denied it. Another pathetic lie.

>I've already presented it to you countless of times.
And I've already refuted your arguments countless times. Answer the question.

>Yeah and it coincide and correlates greatly with human growth and technological advancement since we made significant use of high CO2 emission fuel
Why are you talking about coincidence and correlation when we already know causation has nothing to do with CO2 emissions and everything to do with power production. One is no longer necessary for the other, so what is your point?

>lol here we go
>>14740924 #
See >>14741418 and >>14741431

>>14741789
>But we did
Where?

>I'm still waiting g on that irrefutable proof that humanity will be crippled or have a hard time in this new environment.
I already told you to read AR4. I guess you don't actually want proof and you're just going to deflect again. Here maybe you'll read AR6: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/

Now why do you want to get punched in the face?

>(You)
No, I never said humans will go extinct. Another pathetic lie.

>For our ancestors thousand of years ago, not for us and many fuckload of species evolving still today.
Another misrepresentation of a source. Every species is evolving, that doesn't mean they can evolve adaptions to any change over a few hundred years. And the rate of evolution doesn't change so drastically that our ancestors couldnt adapt but we will.

>see above
Another deflection. You've presented nothing that shows humans advanced due to climate change and you can't even point to it.

>>14741830
>And yet you failed to even provide peer reviewed research which has failed worldwide
Why would I provide research that has failed?

>AKA you literally have no argument
Your opinion being irrelevant is an argument. You already admitted you have no clue what you're talking about.

>Yeah and their assessment is faulty as fuck since we're now in a middle of an energy crisis because of these retarded green think-tank
Faulty premise and the conclusion doesn't even follow from that premise. Energy crisis is due to poor planning, not green energy. You have no argument.

>>14741840
>That's not how scientific communication works, dumbass.
What scientific communication? 4chan posts are not scientific communication, especially when the author asks he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about but goes ahead and talks anyway, because he wants something to be true. That's the opposite of scientific communication.

>The more likely explanation is that you just didn't read the paper and are relying on blind appeal to authority.
Appeal to scientific research is not an appeal to authority.

>the act of peer review does nothing to guarantee the results are correct
Where did I say it did?

>When the cartoon assumptions prove to be insufficient then the model breaks down.
I'm waiting for you to do that or show someone else who has.

>For that reason, the author does not make any bold claims as to the particular policy solutions that should be used
You didn't read the paper then.

>>14742047
>Non sequitur, global consumption is not a measure of water stress.
But following with your retarded non-sequitur is A-OK
https://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/CABI_Publications/CA_CABI_Series/Water_Productivity/Unprotected/0851996698ch10.pdf
> It is found that the water productivity of rice ranged from 0.15 to 0.60 kg m3, while
that of other cereals ranged from 0.2 to 2.4 kg m3 in 1995. From 1995 to 2025, water productivity will increase. The global average water productivity of rice and other cereals will increase from 0.39 kg m3 to 0.52 kg m3 and from 0.67 kg m3 to 1.01 kg m3, respectively. Both the increase in crop yield and improvement in basin efficiency contribute to the increase in water productivity

>Another pathetic lie. I immediately refuted it, and you didn't even deny it
>hurr durr I said a few degrees even though that's a rapid change in temperature but you're still lying because uhh uhh
>you lie
Pathetic

>So you agree that similar rates of warming have caused mass extinctions in the past.
Your own fucking link have already explained that humanities have gone through numerous mass extinction event, some even cause by human and you know what happened after that? Human thrived and human biodiversity increased even more, thus putting a huge hole in your narrative.
>Extinction of animals, plants, and other organisms caused by human actions may go as far back as the late Pleistocene, over 12,000 years ago.[39] There is a correlation between megafaunal extinction and the arrival of humans.[91][92][93]

>So adding on more via extreme climate change is OK?
I don't see why not, you're comfortably sitting your ass on your computer doing absolutely fuckall while billions of other human did the same without any problem whatsoever. Tell me, are you willing to let go of this luxury? No? Then why the bitching?

>>14742047
>How?
>rapid changes in temperature
>hurr durr we gonna go extinct
In reality human population exploded and thrived even harder than previous epoch.

>How is warming 1/25 as fast as current warming much worse? How is rapid warming on top of interglacial warming better?
You've yet to explain why it's worse. All you can point out to is a hypothetical mass extinction event in which even fucking life thrived without any sort of problem whatsoever.

>We are not evolved to go outside of that range, nor will we evolve in a few hundred years
I just posted a link entirely refuting your retarded delusion and your major response is to conjure a made up retardation that we are not currently evolving at a faster rate than our ancestor does. Again, don't be turbo retarded and make claims that you literally don't have any clue.

>Not an argument. Your own graphs show slow warming, not extreme warming.
My own graph shows that we've had unprecedented warming and that's when haplogroup R was born, an ethnic group that literally prepped up numerous ancient societies and civilization that you see today. Again, putting a large gaping hole in your retarded narrative.

>In order to concede I would have had to have first denied it. Another pathetic lie.
>I would have to denied it
There you go lad. Now you understand your won concession.

>And I've already refuted your arguments countless times
>n-n-n-n-no u!
Pathetic

>has nothing to do with CO2 emissions and everything to do with power production.
The fact that you don't even think that fossil fuel power production correlates with highly with human technologies and current society shows how far you've gone down the green retard rabbit hole.

>See >>14741418 and >>14741431
lol we can do this all day anon
>>14741789
>>14741779

>>14742095
>Where?
Pic related, massive change in climate and environment and yet here we are

>>14742188
>But following with your retarded non-sequitur is A-OK
Please explain how a paper explaining the difference between water stress and global consumption is a non sequitur.

>>14742095
>I already told you to read AR4
You've linked me to a website made by retarded green policy maker who are unironically responsible for our current energy crisis and to refute their website entirely without making your own retarded point. Which part do you want me to refute here, the water stress part where I've already debunked it here? >>14742188

>No, I never said humans will go extinct. Another pathetic lie.
>hurr durr muh mass extinction event
>w-w-w-well i never said we gon be dem extinct
Pathetic

>Another misrepresentation of a source. Every species is evolving, that doesn't mean they can evolve adaptions to any change over a few hundred years.
Did you even read what I wrote? This is in line with my previous argument here>>14740086

>Another deflection.
The irony of you talking about deflection is sweet.
>You've presented nothing that shows humans advanced due to climate change
Again, just because your retarded ass doesn't want to accept reality doesn't mean it's not true.

>>14742109
>>14742104
> Energy crisis is due to poor planning, not
green energy. You have no argument.
The cope is real

>What scientific communication? 4chan posts are not scientific communication
Neither is posting a link to a Green think-tank which fail to even predict or offer a solution our current energy crisis.

>Appeal to scientific research is not an appeal to authority.
Then show us this scientific research that would lead to your conclusion...Oh wait! Germany is now going all in on coal instead of renewables to save their asses lmao such retard you are.

>I'm waiting for you to do that or show someone else who has.
The burden of proof is on you lad.

>You didn't read the paper then.
Neither did the think-tank since renewable all failed to save us and make life harder for the average people.

>>14742207
Reminder that the sahara is a desert only because of niggers, same as australia because of abos.
>inb4 haiti isn't proof
It is tho