/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15071523
You're correct, it's not real.

There is a story in usa today about approaching cold weather in the US which included a warning not to joke about global warming. Trust the experts and the media.

>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/12/21/winter-storm-warning-forecast-blizzard-frigid-temps/10937260002/

spoopy.

>>15071523

>>15071555

>>15071523
Ask yourself why it cuts off at 800,000 years.
1 possible reason is it is just more of the same pattern before that and so it is redundant.
Another possible reason is it deviates from the pattern and makes what is trying to be illustrated look unexceptional.

You're smart. Figure it out yourself.

>>15072095
yes, the planet has had more CO2 in the atmosphere before. The problem is that humans are changing it way faster than it normally should, in natural history sudden change has usually been accompanied by some serious shit going down

>>15072119
The rate of change is irrelevant.
What is relevant is how high it has gotten before.
If all of the current alarmism is about "muh heckin' runaway greenhouse", clearly we would need to be higher than previous highs since it never ran away before.
Call me about runaway greenhouse when we are over 4-5x the ppm what we are now.
And I doubt there is enough cheap fossil fuel to even get there before scarcity makes green energy the most economical energy option.

>>15072152
i think runaway effects are not as major as people say either, but continuing to use fossil fuels is just going to keep making the problem worse until they run out or we decide to do something else. Last time CO2 was this high, modern humans had not evolved yet, so we would have to contend with a different environment and the adaptation would be more expensive than reducing emissions.

>>15072216
Modern humans evolved in a climate band similar to what the majority of the world was like when CO2 was 4x higher in ppm. That's our natural habitat.

>>15072216
at the very least, some options for reducing emissions such as replacing coal power with nuclear power or reducing oil consumption have proven to be good things to do even without climate change

>>15072239
Which makes it all the more suspect that people claiming to want to solve climate change also oppose those solutions.

>>15072220
That does not sound correct. As far as i know, the world at that time has less deserts, and now it has more, and climate change is accelerating that change. i might be wrong so where can i learn about that

>>15072095
The sun is also 10% brighter than it was a billion years ago.

>>15072243
lol yeah, most of the people who are really panicy over climate change are kind of retarded. I still think its something we should work t

>>15072095
Explain the mechanisms for the recent sharp rise of CO2 and how your proposed cyclical model works in the first place.
>>15072152
>If all of the current alarmism is about "muh heckin' runaway greenhouse", clearly we would need to be higher than previous highs since it never ran away before.
It most likely did at various points (due to special exceptional reasons rather than cycles), though it changed over millions of years and went back to a normal level. Literal Venusification is pretty hard to get. It's predicted that the anthromorphic impact on the planet in the long term will be insignificant.
>ok so life still survived these cases so why should we worry about the one we are causing?
Of course life finds a way. It still exists despite 99% of it dying in the Great Oxygenation Event for example. Still, this sort of shit does lead to extinction events and destroys ecologies & niches around the planet until they get re-developed by evolution. Your problem is the survivorship bias.
Our current civilization is both dependent on:
>the current predictable climate
and
>its various current ecologies
Both of which are going away because of it.
The worry is purely from our relative self-interest (which is good) but you're trying to look at it from the perspective of life as a whole which is missing the point.

>>15072248
*work to avoid

>>15072248
I agree, we need energy independence. I just think it's suspicious that every proposed "solution" to the "climate crisis" involves reducing the quality of life of citizens while indebting them to foreign powers.

>>15072246
Interesting. So it's not fossil fuels afterall! Surprise Surprise.
Nothing can be done about the Sun though.

>>15072095
>Ask yourself why it cuts off at 800,000 years.
Because that is the length of the ice core it's derived from. You could easily have looked that up, instead you made up some shit.

>>15072255
its the goddamn hippies, they probably accelerated climate change by getting nuclear power kneecapped back in the 70's and 80's

>>15072255
>I just think it's suspicious that every proposed "solution" to the "climate crisis" involves reducing the quality of life of citizens while indebting them to foreign powers.
That's the plan.
China isn't going to take over the Western world unless the Western world submits.

>>15072265
>Because that is the length of the ice core it's derived from.
Then it should also cut off after 2000, yet it doesn't because other metrics are added in for context for periods outside the ice core's range.

>>15072270
>China
China is an industrial waste dump that Wall Street rented as a means of escaping environmental and labor laws back home. China is run by the same group of primarily jewish bankers as Wall Street and nearly every country in the world is.

>>15072255
energy independence and reducing CO2 emissions can often be accomplished by doing the same things. I dont know why people tend to disagree so much when we could just compromise and use solutions that help with both

>>15072293
nobody cares about your stupid messiah complex "this is what i'd do if i was in charge" cringe power fantasies because you're an impotent twit who has no influence over anything.

>>15072299
im literally the second coming of christ what are you on about?

>>15072280
>China is an industrial waste dump
Good! Now NUKE the fucking shithole!

CHINA pollutes the world more than every other country combined.

>>15072293
>energy independence and reducing CO2 emissions can often be accomplished by doing the same things.
Wrong.
>>15072293
>I dont know why
Because you are stupid. Accept it.

>>15072216
>contend with a different environment
So slightly warmer and people move away from the equator? You're right, evolution has left us unequipped to deal with that.
>>15072246
>...than it was a billion years ago
Bro that's literally guesswork.
>>15072249
>Explain the mechanisms for the recent sharp rise of CO2
Obviously burning more shit (I never said it wasn't causing it).
>your proposed cyclical model
Are you just inventing shit to argue against? I never said anything about a cyclical model.
My point is nature found a way to stop the runaway greenhouse before.
If I had to guess what stopped it, it could be numerous things: more cloud cover from more evaporation, increased co2 uptake rate by plants at higher ppm, volcanic activity, etc.

>Our current civilization is both dependent on:
>the current predictable climate
>and
>its various current ecologies
This is almost a tautology
>Both of which are going away because of it.
I doubt that.
What are the relevant changes to climate predictability and ecologies?
You can point to minor changes in climate/ecology to suggest both categories are not static but that does not mean you can argue "change is happening therefore assume it is catastrophic change relevant to survivability".

We survived before we could predict the weather. We'll be fine unless seasons get all fucked and we get random cold weather that kills crops (which is unlikely since things are warming)
Droughts can be easily mitigated if we want to do large scale desalination or pumping water from flood zones.
Crops aren't going away. They'll actually thrive at higher ppm.
Also, much of the northern land (canada, russia) will become farm-able if things warm up.
What kind of ecological destruction are you imagining will happen?

>>15072324
reducing oil consumption and nuclear power were always pushed by energy independence fags, and they also reduce CO2 emissions. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels reduces dependence on fossil fuel imports, so the goals are very compatible

>>15072321
>CHINA
You just read before responding who is in charge of China, why are you blaming the Chinese for pollution produced by Wall Street Bankers? Why can't the primarily jewish bankers who instigated all the pollution be held responsible? Is it because you're jewish? I hope for your sake that you're no one of the cripplecocks. Nobody wants to be a cripplecock kike, even the kikes themselves get upset over it.
imagine crippling your own cock and then using that as justification for hating all of the people who weren't stupid enough to become cripplecocks, how stupid is that?

>>15072354
>Are you just inventing shit to argue against? I never said anything about a cyclical model.
>My point is nature found a way to stop the runaway greenhouse before.
>If I had to guess what stopped it, it could be numerous things: more cloud cover from more evaporation, increased co2 uptake rate by plants at higher ppm, volcanic activity, etc.
The actual answer is that a "runaway greenhouse" is literally not possible with an atmospheric volume like the kind we have. CO2 has a very well-known falloff where it takes increasingly higher volumes to get any appreciable change in energy retention, and we're already pretty close to where that is. Doubling the amount in the atmosphere would barely increase the amount of IR energy intercepted, in or out.

This entire silliness involving runaway greenhouse effects is based on cursory observations of Venus, whose climatic history is essentially unknown to modern science. But even on a simple review of the data you can see that their atmosphere is 93 bar (substantially denser) and 96.5% CO2. It's a far cry from the measly 400 ppm on Earth, some 0.04%.

>>15072354
>If I had to guess what stopped it, it could be numerous things: more cloud cover from more evaporation, increased co2 uptake rate by plants at higher ppm, volcanic activity, etc.
Yes, and these take time. That's the point as I already said it takes millions of years to fix.
Also it doesn't help that humans are getting rid of one of the fixers through deforestation.
>This is almost a tautology
What do you mean? Humans have a place in the food chain and if something goes bad with it then they're fucked too. The way our economies work is based on the current conditions so a change in that is also gonna fuck us up.
>What are the relevant changes to climate predictability and ecologies?
Uhhh... desertification? More extreme & variable events? Deglaciation? Ocean acidification? Pollinator decline? The entire Holocene/Anthropocene extinction happening right now?
>"change is happening therefore assume it is catastrophic change relevant to survivability".
It's recent change caused by something we are doing and it doesn't seem to be self-correcting. Regardless of its pace it's gonna fuck us up eventually.

>>15072152
>The rate of change is irrelevant.
It's highly relevant to ecosystems' abilities to adapt to environmental change.

>What is relevant is how high it has gotten before.
Because...?

>If all of the current alarmism is about "muh heckin' runaway greenhouse"
Strawman.

>>15072220
>Modern humans evolved in a climate band similar to what the majority of the world was like when CO2 was 4x higher in ppm.
Humans evolved in the current ice age, current CO2 concentration exceeds any in the ice age. Stop making shit up.

>>15072478
I hope you figure out what climates are one day so you can stop being full of shit.

>>15072275
So? You're not going to get comparable resolution to ice core or thermometer data beyond 800,000 years.

>>15072482
And yet you had no complaints with low resolution ice core data and fraudulent non-measured interpolations being used to suggest the modern era is suffering from unprecedented warming.

>>15072481
Not an argument. Humans evolved in the current ice age. If you actually cared about what climate humans evolved in you would support us reopening to that climate. Instead you make shit up to obfuscate the obvious.

>>15072478
how come CO2 doesn't cause global warming on mars, especially given that mars has more than 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area than earth?
the european space agency says that CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect on mars, so why does it on earth? do physics and chemistry conveniently work differently on different planets? that that the new normal? maybe physics works differently in different areas, yeah, thats the ticket

>>15072489
Anatomically modern humans evolved in tropical and temperate climates over the last few million years and managed to maintain a population in the equatorial regions in spite of the pressure of the Younger Dryas. These climates will become more prevalent if the Earth is warmer, meaning more of the world will be livable without significant input in energy and resources.

>>15072485
>And yet you had no complaints with low resolution ice core data and fraudulent non-measured interpolations
I don't see any.

>the modern era is suffering from unprecedented warming.
The modern era is suffering from a rate of warming unprecedented in the past 3 million years. Rapid warming in the past is associated with mass extinctions

>>15072492
>how come CO2 doesn't cause global warming on mars
It does. Your own image says that. LMAO

>the european space agency says that CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect on mars
Why are you lying? Is this a false flag? No one could actually be stupid enough to post an image that directly refutes the very same post, could they?

>>15072498
>I don't see any.
Of course you don't. Because you're not a scientist or a serious person. Come back when you've done some research in the field and we might take you more seriously.

>>15072152
>The rate of change is irrelevant.
If you increase poison concentration over generations, animals would develop poison resistance. If you just dump maximum concentration of poison from the start, animals would working die, retard.

>>15072495
How are mass extinctions, droughts, floods, etc. more livable? What a bunch of nonsense. All scientific evidence says the opposite.

>>15072510
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting you lied about low resolution data and fraud.

>>15072517
>How are mass extinctions, droughts, floods, etc. more livable? What a bunch of nonsense. All scientific evidence says the opposite.
You're gullible enough to believe anything except what's in front of your eyes.

>>15072523
You know so little about climatology that even if I explain it to you you won't understand it. You didn't even know that most of the data included in modern temperature averages is generated from models rather than readings.

Look, there are two options here. Either you're so uneducated it will never penetrate your skull whatever I do, or you're a shill who won't listen no matter what evidence I provide. If you want me to work you'll need to quote me for my hourly.

>>15072513
I didn't know that a change from 0.03% to 0.04% was a large and rapid change. Sorry Mr. Science man.

>>15072524
You're the one gullible enough to believe rapid warming is making more livable conditions when it's killing and destroying more and more every year. Again, all the scientific evidence says you're wrong. You're deluded.

>>15072527
>You know so little about climatology that even if I explain it to you you won't understand it.
Again, not an argument. Thanks for admitting you lied.

>You didn't even know that most of the data included in modern temperature averages is generated from models rather than readings.
Proof?

>>15072529
>when it's killing and destroying more and more every year.
Show it to me. Where are people dying? What is being destroyed? Show me. Where is your apocalypse? Because it's not playing out on the Earth I live on.

>>15072533
>Proof?
If you knew anything about climatology you would know exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>15072528
>0.03%
Why does the rest of the atmosphere matter?

>>15072537
Is the Earth a closed system with only one gas involved?

>>15072534
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

>What is being destroyed?
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

>Because it's not playing out on the Earth I live on.
It is, you just refuse to look at the evidence.

>>15072535
I know much more than you about climatology, that's how I know you lied. I can provide proof of any claim I make. You can't do the same because you're lying, and you know it. Pathetic.

>>15072538
No. Why does the rest of the atmosphere matter to the effect of a change in CO2? Why are you avoiding the question?

>>15072547
>www.who.int
>www.ipcc.ch
Can I get something from a real source please?

>>15072551
>I can provide proof of any claim I make.
Thanks for more proof of your lies. Show me exactly how that data was collected. Tell me which climatological stations were polled for the global average and which, if any, were interpolated.

>>15072553
Why would the starting conditions of the system be irrelevant to a question about changes within that system? Why did you avoid mentioning that your criminal gas is only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the gas involved in the greenhouse effect? It sounds like you might be concocting a story here.

>>15072547
>int
>ch
Chinese, huh?

>>15072562

>>15072557
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>15072559
>Show me exactly how that data was collected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

>Tell me which climatological stations were polled for the global average and which, if any, were interpolated.
https://berkeleyearth.org/data/
Kriging can be considered a form of interpolation. How else would you get a spatial average of temperature? It's the optimal way.

>>15072560
>Why would the starting conditions of the system be irrelevant to a question about changes within that system?
What's did I say the starting conditions are irrelevant? I asked how the rest of the atmosphere is relevant, not the starting conditions for CO2. I guess you're not going to answer the question.

>Why did you avoid mentioning that your criminal gas is only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the gas involved in the greenhouse effect?
Another irrelevancy. The *change* in greenhouse effect is what's causing warming. The vast majority of the greenhouse effect keeps the planet from being a giant ice ball. What's the cause of the change in greenhouse effect? Hint: CO2 emmissions.

>>15071523
"""Climate change""" is a known, documented and officially acknowledged globalist scammer agenda. On that account, it is nonscientific by default and there is no need to consider any "scientific" evidence establishment shills put forward.

>>15073012
Proof?

>>15073019
Rationally speaking, dealing with your likes should be the same as dealing with propagandist infiltrators of an enemy. You need to be silenced or executed.

>>15073026
based

>>15073010
Source?

>>15072513
>If you increase poison concentration over generations, animals would develop poison resistance. If you just dump maximum concentration of poison from the start, animals would working die, retard.

>C02
>poison

/sci we heckin luv soience

>>15073026
So you have no proof. Why did you lie?

>>15073026
>same as dealing with propagandist infiltrators of an enemy
yuropoor greentards are and always were agents of kremlin

>>15073050
I know you get paid to camp this board 24/7 and shit out the exact same responses in every AGW shill thread. There is only one rational way to deal with your likes and it doesn't involve responding to your preprogrammed talking points.

>>15072246
Oh fuck that rate of brightening is scary. In a hundred years the sun will be twice as bright, blinding us all. Fuck man.

>>15073052
>t. AGW shills changing tactic.
Climate change isn't real. COVID isn't real. Russia/China/Iran/war on terror isn't real. Ukraine is irrelevant. You will be dealt with.

>>15073026
>>15073054
schizophrenia is a terrible disease

>>15073061
>>15073052
Sameshill. >>15073058 confirmed.

>>15072498
>Image without source
Kys. What's the confidence interval of that band?

>>15072485
>the data is fake just because I say so

>>15073062
meds

>>15073012
>he can’t find scientific articles so he posts some graphic some intern masa at a park

>>15073039
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

>>15073049
>t. doesn't know what an analogy is or how to spell CO2
I heckin love retards.

>>15073054
Not an argument. If you don't like being asked for proof of your claims then you probably shouldn't lie.

>>15072498
What's the confidence interval of that band? Surely you wouldn't post a graph without knowing something so basic about it

>>15073063
The source is actually in the image, it's from Nature, but /sci/ does not allow links to Nature.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34759360/

>What's the confidence interval of that band?
The band is the confidence interval. lmao

>>15073103
>What's the confidence interval of the confidence interval?
Dios mio...

>>15071523
It's the same shit the government has been peddling since the 60s. Just give politicians more money, power, and that'll solve all our issues.

>>15073113
>/sci/ does not allow links to Nature.
Based.
>>15073113
>>15073119
So just to be clear. You don't understand what a confidence interval is. If I draw a band around that curve that's 10x thicker, that's a confidence interval. CI is CI is CI, therefore the margin of error for the ice cores is so large that it's irrelevant.

Let me rephrase since you're an idiot. why did they draw the band with that size and not a different size? Go ahead, I'm sure you read the paper. Share what the authors said. You wouldn't post something from a paper you didn't read, would you?

>>15073102
Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>15073128
>You don't understand what a confidence interval is.
You're clearly the one who doesn't understand, side you asked for the confidence interval of a confidence interval. Are you really going to ignore your own idiocy and project or onto me? You're pathetic.

>If I draw a band around that curve that's 10x thicker, that's a confidence interval.
OK. And?

>CI is CI is CI, therefore the margin of error for the ice cores is so large that it's irrelevant.
That doesn't follow. Is your brain broken?

>why did they draw the band with that size and not a different size?
It's a standard 95% confidence level. What are you sperging out about?

>>15073141
I didn't. Why did you lie?

>>15073179
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>15073188
There's no argument to respond to. You never provided proof of your original claim. Why did you lie?

>>15073192
Source?

>>15073194
>>15073012

>>15073205
Thanks for providing a source on why the climate hoax is fake.

>>15073050
The burden of proof is on the alarmists. They don't have any proofs.

>>15071523
>climate change
>sometimes theres hotty, coldy, rainy and stormy
wow the jew invented the ultimate buzzword!

>>15073213
>posting antisemitism unironically
Thanks for discrediting yourself. Also, why did you lie?

>>15073206
It's the source of your lie, which you still have not provided proof for despite having ample opportunity to do so. Why did you lie?

>>15072270
>climate lockdown 2024
are these goverment clowns really not afraid to be shot with bow in minecraft?

>>15073216
>you're lying because I said so
Proof?

>>15073208
The burden of proof has been more than met: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

Now where is your proof of fraud?

>>15073221
>The burden of proof has been more than met:
Source?

>>15073219
>you're lying because you refuse to provide proof for your claim.
ftfy

>>15073222
See >>15073221

>>15073228
>politics-drivel intergovernmental panels are reliable
Source?

>>15073233
They are just citing published research. When are you going to prove that they are unreliable or fraudulent? Why did you lie?

>>15073238
>They are just citing published research.
And I assume you've read all the papers they're citing to verify the validity of the IPCC narrative. Oh, you didn't? Why did you lie, then?

>>15073242
>And I assume you've read all the papers they're citing to verify the validity of the IPCC narrative
I've read enough to see they are correct. What papers did you read to determine unreliability or fraud? Why did you lie?

>>15071523
That graph seems to demonstrate that rapid jumps up and down in CO2 are common.

Does it have the time resolution to show a large jump in a matter of years? (Say from a supervolcanic eruption or something).

>>15073245
>I've read enough
Proof?

>>15073254
pretty much

>>15073247
See >>15073075

>121 replies
>25 posters
LMAO schizos

>>15073215
>antisemitism is with me in my room right now
turn off the oven, fixed

>>15073282
I don't see any proof in there of your knowledge. Why did you lie?

>>15073472
You asked for what I've read. It's clear you have no argument and you're not going to provide proof of your claims. Thanks for conceding.

>>15073513
>You asked for what I've read.
I asked for proof of this statement:
>I've read enough
Why did you lie? It's clear you have no argument.

>>15073515
>I asked for proof of this statement:
>I've read enough
Which would be what I've read. Thanks for conceding.

>>15073572
I accept your concession.

>>15073572
>I've read it b-b-because I said so
Proof?

>>15073604
Of what? You repeatedly failed to provide proof of your claim. Why did you lie?

>>15073613
Ask me whatever you want about it.

>>15073714
You claim I made a claim when no such thing occurred. Why are you lying?

>>15073737
If you made no claim then there's nothing for me to concede to. Thanks for conceding.

OH NO NO OIL RABBI BROS WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?!

>>15073726
I'm asking for a peer-reviewed source that you possess the knowledge you claim to have, but you can't provide it. Why did you lie?

>>15073748
not an argument. thanks for admitting that i'm right

>>15072354
What do you mean that's literally guesswork? That's how stars function.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/533207/why-do-main-sequence-stars-get-bigger-and-more-luminous-as-they-age

>>15073819
Why would there be such a thing? You're demanding nonsense in order to distract from your lie. This is my last post until you provice proof. Until you do that, you concede.

>>15073819
There's no argument to respond to. Thanks for conceding.

>>15071523
The government doesn't give a shit about you and never will as long as they can continue to line their pockets full of money from big corpoil
It's not easy trying to convince those with the power to intitiate a serious response to such a distant looming threat like climate change when all of them benefit from a population of ignorant bystanders
the narrative of
>muh carbon footprint!
is all just a bunch of bullshit propaganda dreamt up by big corpoil to try and minimize, deflect, redirect, and scapegoat blame onto working class people.
Once all the immigrants come flooding into their countries to escape worsening conditions in their home countries in a few decades from now thats when all these corpoil shills will have to confront the reality they live in and hysteria will set in.
but by then they'll all be senile and dead to reap the rewards for their inactivity.

>>15073912
>Why would there be such a thing?
So there's no evidence for your claim. Why did you lie?