/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15077164
>how does it work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

>>15077164
Plass (1956) "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change"
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x

>>15077321 (me)
Above link fucked up.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x

>>15077164
Reminder that all AGW threads are shill threads. Please refrain from keeping greentard doomsdayism at the center of attention and remember to sage.

>>15077323
Also, some background reading on fundamentals of global warming:
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Fundamentals+of+Atmospheric+Radiation%3A+An+Introduction+with+400+Problems-p-9783527405039

>>15077164
>why do i see it shilled everywhere on mainstream media
Should be more than enough to tell you it's a scam.

>>15077164
>is global warming real?
Natural warming is real.
Man-made "anthropogenic" warming, what you usually hear about on corrupt fake-news media, is just a scam by the rich 1% and big corporations to take more money and power from the public in the form of taxes and laws.

>>15077479
>Man-made "anthropogenic" warming, what you usually hear about on corrupt fake-news media, is just a scam by the rich 1% and big corporations to take more money and power from the public in the form of taxes and laws.
Proof?

>>15077549
>Proof?
Scientific evidence proves humans do not contribute or affect it. Why are you against science?

>>15077557
What scientific evidence is that? I can find plenty of evidence that's says the opposite.

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

>>15077164
Yes, it's real. Humans pump a bunch of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, mainly CO2 and methane, but also some other nasty synthetic stuff. They're called greenhouse gasses because they tend to absorb light and re-release a photon, which then adds more thermal energy to the atmosphere. Basically more CO2 means that instead of light getting reflected off the Earth and going into space, it gets absorbed by the CO2 and is "trapped" on Earth, heating it up. This is radiative forcing.

>>15077557
humans contribute plenty

>>15077562
>I can find plenty of evidence that's says the opposite.
Not real scientific evidence, only shill garbage for the rich 1% that push AGW.

>>15077566
>greenhouse gasses
Are good. Without them, too cold for life on Earth.
Only people wanting to reduce greenhouse gasses are the same people that want to depopulate the planet. Geeeeee I wonder WHY they want to reduce the gas that keeps us warm and helps plants we eat to thrive!?!? kek

>>15077853
Unless they are faking the data, which they are.
I notice the Arctic still isn't ice free as of 2008, oops I mean 2013, oops I mean 2017, oops I mean 2020, oops I mean...
Remind me how many times a theory has to completely fail before we can discard it.

>>15077853
Did you put all your thermometers in cities by chance?

>>15077945
to understand the concept of "greenhouse gasses" you first have to understand how a greenhouse works. greenhouses present a rigid, impermeable barrier which stops convention from carrying off rising warm air. how does a gas perform the same function? maybe if it had very low thermal conductivity, CO2 has lower conductivity than N2, but not enough lower that CO2 should have an measurable effect when its in the PPMs range.

>>15077957
>Unless they are faking the data, which they are.
Proof? Why would NOAA reduce the global warming trend if adjustments are fake?

>I notice the Arctic still isn't ice free as of 2008
Who said it would be?

>>15077957
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA

>>15077957
your hero seems convinced the ice is on its way out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbrKLnh8wLA

>>15078018
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#7
https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

There is no globe.

>>15078082
Did you even read your webpage retard?
>Conclusions

>The well-known and widely-cited reconstructions of global temperature, produced by NASA GISS, UEA CRU, and NOAA NCDC, are replicable.

>Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results.

>The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions, and is also a feature found in reconstructions from natural temperature proxy measurements. >This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors.

>>15078504
Nevermind, replied to the wrong guy

>>15077853
>y-axis
Really had to zoom in for that didn't they. Any scientifically flat curve will look like that if you zoom in enough.

>>15077237
>energy (((budget)))
These aren't scientists making these terms. They're politicians. No physicist or chemist discusses energy conservation in terms of "budgets". Pathetic.

>>15078506
lol, such passion then *flop*

>>15078515
budget = An itemized summary
perfectly good word

>>15078536
Why is not used in any other context of physics or chemistry?

>>15078542
lol, is that all you've got?
retard of the week, folks

>>15078547
I accept your concession. Energy balance occurs everywhere in physics and chemistry. Yet an energy "budget" exists only in politicized topics like climate (((science))). Peculiar.

>>15078551
>i have no argument
say something funny again

>>15078542
>DIFFERENT FIELDS OF SCIENCE CAN'T HAVE THEIR OWN TERMINOLOGY FOR BASIC CONCEPTS
>THAT MEANS IT'S FAKE

>>15078555
So climate science is neither chemistry nor physics. Thank you for admitting it's a bunch of politicians who don't understand chemistry or physics.

>>15077164
You don’t need to worry about it ,buddy. People who actually sit at the table and make decisions have been working on solving the issue for decades now and we’ll be mostly on clean energy in the next several years or so. Your peasant input is not relevant.

>>15078566
>So climate science is neither chemistry nor physics
It's an Earth science. Are geology, meterology, hydrology, etc. physics or chemistry?

>Thank you for admitting it's a bunch of politicians who don't understand chemistry or physics.
It's not, and it includes plenty of physics and chemistry.

>today, we're going to learn about the energy budget of the hydrogen atom

>>15077942
Define "real evidence"

>>15078566
>doesn't understand multidisciplinary scientific efforts
Well we got real evidence of you being a retard who gets mad at stuff he can't understand. May as well just tow the party line to get at them libtawrds, right Cletus?

>>15078624
Data from impartial sources that's impossible to explain by any means other than AGW according to a wide consensus of impartial experts. Nothing like that can exist under your corrupt system, unfortunately.

>today, we're going to discuss the helium atom's energy budget

>>15078043
Ironic because that's not how a greenhouse works. They have big vents that are open most of the time for a reason.
A greenhouse works because it lets visible light through, which warms shit up, but doesn't let infrared light back out. This imbalance in ingoing and outflowing energy causes the stable temperature point to increase.

>>15078631
Which sources are not impartial?

>>15077164
I've been felling kinda hot lately, so probably.

>>15078907
All government-funded sources serve as political mouthpieces when it comes to politicized issues.

>>15079075
as opposed to private tobacco firms, their research was really really objective and scientific

>>15079116
What does your bot response have to do with anything I said?

>>15079075
Proof? Show one thing wrong in the research.

>>15079075
Do you have an impartial source for that? You sound biased.

>>15079127
>>15079130
Not an argument.

>>15079121
>big oil shill
lol, go back

>>15079227
Still not an argument. Big oil has been funding your AGW scam for decades.

>>15079127
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-n95-face-masks.html
>“Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” the surgeon general, Jerome M. Adams, said in a tweet on Saturday morning. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus,

Only one of two possible things can be true for why the surgeon general stated this. Either he was stupid and was denying the well known facts that masks worked. Or more nefariously (and more likely to be true) he was actively and knowingly LYING to the public to hoard all the masks for the doctors and nurses.

Given these data, explain again why people should have unabashed, unrestrained trust for these scientists again? On the one hand they're ignorant and on the other hand they have no issues putting the public at risk via lies.

>>15079231
delusional

>>15079252
You are mentally ill.

>>15078063
>Proof? Why would NOAA reduce the global warming trend if adjustments are fake?
Wow they even lie about their adjustments. Fascinating that people still believe NOAA at this point.

>>15079255

>>15079276
>worshipping a pseudointellectual jewish neocon shill
Like clockwork.

>>15079280
>jooos
ok caveman

>>15079285
Back to FB, science-hating, neo-luddite normalgroid.

>>15079291
show your knuckles

>>15079238
they will never acknowledge this argument. it will primarily be ignored, and when you call them out for ignoring it, they'll resort to name-calling or other arguments that aren't a repudiation of it. they refuse to acknowledge that "scientists" are to blame for causing the distrust the laypeople have in what the "scientists" say. if you want people to trust you, maybe you should stop lying to them.

>>15079220
Then neither is >>15079075

>>15079345
Correct. It's a factual statement in response to a question. The argument is that you shouldn't trust politicians because politicians lie.

>>15079238
>>“Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” the surgeon general, Jerome M. Adams, said in a tweet on Saturday morning. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus,
What does this have to do with climate research? A tweet is not research and it's not even about the climate.

>Given these data, explain again why people should have unabashed, unrestrained trust for these scientists again?
You didn't even quote a scientist. LOL

I guess you have no proof any of the research is biased since the best you could do is a tweet by a non-scientist that isn't even about climate. Pathetic.

>>15079359
>the best you could do is a tweet by a non-scientist that isn't even about climate.
Literally all global warming shit is this btw

>>15079265
>Wow they even lie about their adjustments.
Proof?

>>15079347
Then you should be able to answer those questions instead of whining about how they aren't arguments.

>>15079360
Nah.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

>>15079361
The data in that graph is clearly false when compared with their actual adjustments from raw to presented, as is shown visually in >>15077957 Though you can find it out yourself by doing the math on the dataset. As a /sci/ poster I assume you have the scientific acumen to do such calculations with a computer program of your choice like so many of us have.

>>15079363
>Then you should be able to answer those questions
Answer what questions? He asked what biased sources I was talking about so I answered him. Case closed.

>>15079369
I guess you have no proof any of the research is trustworthy since the best you could do is a report by a non-scientific body that isn't even presenting original data.

>>15079359
as predicted. it has to do with whether laypeople should trust scientists. are you really about to make the claim that people such as the surgeon general and fauci aren't doctors? somehow i doubt this is the argument you want to make.

>>15079371
>The data in that graph is clearly false when compared with their actual adjustments from raw to presented, as is shown visually in >>15077957 #
Those are claimed to be adjustments to USHCN, although it's not clear that that's even true since the plot should be a lot more scattered than that. You do realize that the US is not the same as the globe, right? Top kek, dumb Amerilard.

>>15079372
>Answer what questions?
Do you have amnesia? These:
>>15079127
>>15079130

>>15079374
>I guess you have no proof any of the research is trustworthy
Here's the proof.

>since the best you could do is a report by a non-scientific body that isn't even presenting original data.
The original data is in the citations. Why did you lie about global warming being only tweets by non-scientists?

>>15079503
so, they're doing horrible kek

>>15079495
Low IQ quips. No substance.

>>15079377
>it has to do with whether laypeople should trust scientists.
What does a tweet by a non- scientist have to do with whether scientists are trustworthy? You just repeated what I asked you to explain. Try again.

>are you really about to make the claim that people such as the surgeon general and fauci aren't doctors?
I didn't say they aren't doctors, I said the surgeon general is not a scientist, not a climatologist, and a tweet isn't research. Nice strawman.

Still no proof any of the research is biased. I guess that claim can go in the trash.

>>15079509
How so?

>>15079511
>surgeon general is not a scientist
so neither is fauci? suppose that implies that those doctors (not scientists, right?) who advocated for mask wearing, lockdowns, etc. weren't promulgating science, but political rhetoric. it's okay buddy, you're among friends on this 4chan shithole. you gonna celebrate jn 6th?

>>15079510
So you can't answer and your claim is not a fact. Thanks for conceding.

>>15079520
>So you can't answer
Answer what? It's just low-IQ rhetoric. A tobacco shill can ask the same questions if I point out that Marlboro-funded studies on why smoking is good for you aren't reliable.

>>15079518
>so neither is fauci?
Where did I say anything about Fauci? Illiterate moron. When are you going to show any climate research is propaganda? You're not going to. Pathetic.

>>15079533
AI is a meme.

>>15079524
>Answer what?
See >>15079495. Thanks for conceding again.

>A tobacco shill can ask the same questions if I point out that Marlboro-funded studies on why smoking is good for you aren't reliable.
You could show me overwhelming evidence it isn't. But retarded deniers like you never have evidence. Sad.

>>15079533
if the surgeon general (epidemiologist) isn't a scientist, neither is fauci. can you provide an explanation for why you think fauci is a scientist but not the surgeon general?

>>15079536
Ukraine asked for it.

>>15077164
right now i wish it was

>>15079545
Overpopulation is fake.

>>15079538
>if the surgeon general (epidemiologist)
He's an anesthesiologist. Retard.

>can you provide an explanation for why you think fauci is a scientist
Where did I say anything about Fauci? Illiterate retard. This is your last resolver until you get back on topic and stop putting words in my mouth.

>>15079565
>Where did I say anything about Fauci?
You're arguing that a statement Fauci made is from a "nonscientist."

>>15079567
Nope, the statement was a tweet from Jerome Adams. Illiterate retard. I'm out, you're way too dumb to have an argument with.

>>15079572
Why is Jerome not a scientist but Fauci is?

>>15079572
A tweet by Jerome Adams repeating advice Fauci gave to the press in an interview. It's funny to watch you flail like this though. You're obviously losing but don't know how to recover.

>>15077164
Natural? Yes, generally over longish time frames (centuries to millions of years). Anthropogenic? No. Absolutely not. I think the facts are pretty clear on that at this point.

>>15077164
>why do i see it shilled everywhere on mainstream media
Are you ready for the truth? It's because global warming alarmism offers "solutions" that do nothing but make private corporations and governments more money and fix nothing. The REAL solutions to the Earth getting fucked up have human costs because humans ARE the problem.

>>15077164
the global land temperature record is not fit for purpose
the highest-quality land temperature record, USCRN (us climate reference network), shows far less warming than the hodgepodge of the global record
satellite records are broadly lower in warming trends than land records, and the most stable (UAH, most similar instruments and methodology across its entire operational period) satellite record shows markedly low warming similarly to the USCRN. trends in the satellite records also diverged from trends in the land records some years ago for reasons unknown.

>>15081402
Probably because grubby geologists have their hands on the land records and are fudging the fuck out of them as usual, but tech nerds tend to be more right leaning and not beholden to college librul brain damage.

>>15081407
i can give reasonable doubt and concede that it's also likely that actual temperatures diverged between surface and lower troposphere, but it's not clear what mechanisms could, let alone would cause this

>>15081418
I honestly think the soientists have just been fudging the numbers. I'm a scientist and STEMfags other than engineers are pretty reliable liberal retards (I'm a heretic). It would be second nature for them to give the data a little "nudge" for a "good cause". Global warming alarmists have already been caught in their emails trying to "upsell" the danger.

>>15081402
us climate =/= global land temperature

>>15077853

>>15081739
the global temperature record is a sloppy mishmash of stations that are poorly sited, have disparate measurement techniques, are grossly interpolated to infill data across regions that are obviously overbroad, etc. USCRN is the ONLY temperature record using close to realtime, high-resolution measurements (as opposed to diurnal high/low), in sites that are 100% attentive to contamination from concrete or otherwise artificial heatsinks (as opposed to networks that are fucking littered with thermometers at airports, parking lots, rooftops etc), where there is zero error potential due to mashing up and homogenizing different measurement instruments and methodologies; i can go on and on.
in fact, USCRN shows dramatically lower warming rates than other US temperature records mashed up from sites with problems like i described above. its sole flaw is it starts in the early 2000s and thus can only record trends since then. the satellite records go a few decades earlier. the longer you examine the global land record, the bigger you see the standard deviation bars, and the less confidence you have that they've been smoothed out.

Climate Change is just a scam.

The rich 1% are getting even richer off of the scam.

>>15079252
Now post the anti-freedom globohomo machine.

>>15077164
>is global warming real?
It was, you could observed that on many indicators (Glaciers, deserts, pole caps, other planets etc.). No it's getting colder, observable too on the same indicators. Political climatology is and was always a scam, i trust them as lang as a rat can spit.

>>15077853
>100 years
>>15077957
>123 years
>>15078063
>140 years
>>15079503
>140 years
>>15081386
>131 years

Why are all these graphs so short? Is the climate system that delicate that just 150 years can completely throw it off? There was a graph that showed like 20,000 years back and still proved man-made effects with better context. Plus wasn't the ozone layer found with a hole that then closed up after we took out one product?

>>15083053
There's still an ozone hole in Australia. And the human caused co2 emissions were pretty trivial before the industrial revolution. It's true that the Earth has been warmer than it is now in the past, but human society is structured after current temperatures and sea level, not those millions of years ago.

Also data becomes more unreliable the further back you go obviously.

>>15083053
Yeah a tiny amount of perspective tends to fuck up the global warming scam. This is one of the coldest times in Earth's history.

>>15083304
Btw this graph is logorithmic, so the Pliocene and Pleistocene are stretched way the fuck out. They're actually just a little blip. We're currently in an ice age. Most plebs don't get this. Having permanent ice shits at both poles (Antarctica and Greenland) is very unusual in Earth's history. If anything we should be trying to make the Earth hotter. It's dangerously cold for life right now.

>>15083309
*ice sheets

Though honestly, that typo matches how I feel about ice.

>>15083309
>It's dangerously cold for life right now.
Is that why there's more humans alive than at any point in world history?

>>15084078
>what are fertilizer and antibiotics?

>>15084088
Fertilizers and antibiotics protect from cold?
Obviously it's not dangerously cold for life, because most people don't live like Eskimo's but actually live in warm habitable areas, which certainly aren't too cold for life and might in fact become uninhabitable in the coming centuries if temperatures keep increasing.

>>15084078
>Humans are good for life
Did I stutter?

>>15084097
Listen you fucking double digit retard. Life does not mean "human life". A tropical planet is more desirable for the overwhelming majority of species. It's just one stupid monkey and only one race at that that wants the planet locked in ice.

>>15084097
You asked why are more people are alive. I answered. Those two things have kept population numbers down. Whatever the two of you are arguing is it's own issue.

>>15084170
>>15084172
>>15084175
The consensus is that global warming is harmful, not beneficial to ecosystems and overall life, even excluding humans.

>>15084097
>Fertilizers and antibiotics protect from cold?
Yes actually. They allow populations to be insulated from the consequences of a cold earth, such as shorter growing seasons, by increasing yields in those short growing seasons. Ditto antibiotics insulating from the effects of infections caused by cold weather stressing the body.

>>15084181
>depopulation shills say global warming is le bad
That means global warming is good.

>>15084181
The consensus is also that men who chop their penises off are women. It's not worth listening to consensus when you have evidence behind you.

>>15084181
>The consensus is that global warming is harmful
The consensus of what? Frauds and demons? Human filth means nothing. This isn't even debatable. Tropical ecosystems are orders of magnitude more clement and diverse than boreal ones.

>>15084195
Global warmiing and depopulation are two different topics. Also depopulation is already in inevitability. The number of children born per year hasn't increased since 1990.

>>15084196
That's not scientific consensus. The consensus is that hormones and therapy lead to less depressive symptoms. There's a lack of study doing hormones without therapy. Only gender, queer and women's studies disagree, and they're not scientific.

>>15084289
>Tropical ecosystems are orders of magnitude more clement and diverse than boreal ones.
Is global warming going to lead to more tropical zones? Do you have a source on that?

>>15084296
Bro...

Literally the fucking fossil record exists. The answer is an unequivocal YES. You think it's better that half the planet has to experience winter than just growth all year long?

>>15084421
> No sources
Anyway, your argument is just insane. Global warming is bad for humans but that's actually good because humans are bad to other animals and global warming will lead to rain forests which have a lot of species in them? That's an insane very convoluted argument.
Regardless, Humans > non-humans. QED.

>>15084292
>Global warmiing and depopulation are two different topics
They're one and the same topic as far as your operators are concerned.

>>15084484
Not an argument.

>>15084572
No one is arguing with you. Anyway, did you forget your operator's orders to switch up your lines, Schlomo?

>>15083309
>Having humans exist is very unusual in Earth's history. If anything we should be trying to make humans extinct.

>>15081402
>the global land temperature record is not fit for purpose
Proof?

>USCRN (us climate reference network), shows far less warming than the hodgepodge of the global record
This is both nonsensical and a lie. Comparing the US temperature trend to the global temperature trend is meangless. But the USCRN has a warming trend of 0.7 degrees per decade and the global record has a trend of 0.2 degrees per decade over the same time period. Why did you lie?

>satellite records are broadly lower in warming trends than land records
Anther lie, only RSS has a larger warming trend and UAH has a lower one, since UAH has not corrected for several sources of error discovered over the years.

>>15081889
>the global temperature record is a sloppy mishmash of stations that are poorly sited, have disparate measurement techniques, are grossly interpolated to infill data across regions that are obviously overbroad, etc.
Proof? Deniers said the same about the US network and were wrong: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

>>15081889
>USCRN shows dramatically lower warming rates than other US temperature records mashed up from sites with problems like i described above.
It doesn't though, they show the same trend. Why are you lying?

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

>>15083040
>No it's getting colder, observable too on the same indicators.
Proof?

>>15083304
>most rapid warming in millions of years, taking us out of the climate humans evolved in
>this fucks up the global warming scam

>>15084457
Sure let me go ahead and post the entire fossil record.

>>15084484
You faggots need to drop this "muh depopulation" bullshit. The rich have caused a massive overpopulation and overconsumption problem because capitalism requires eternal growth. OH NO! They want to kill billions! Well if they do, humans will still be the most populous large animal the planet has ever seen. The depopulation psyop was planted by economists because they're really pissed off Japan won't collapse like the other countries.

>>15084609

>>15084719
It's not even the most rapid warming in 12,000 years, you retard.

>>15084576
You stopped making an argument because you don't have any research to support your opinions, which is why you quickly stopped talking about the actual subject.

>>15077164
>is global warming real?
Not in the scientific sense.
But it is a real scam yes.

>>15077164
>how does it work?
See picrel.

>>15084726
>It's not even the most rapid warming in 12,000 years, you retard.
It's 25 times faster than the fastest warming in the last 12000 years, moron.

>>15084746
Well let's see, from 20,000 to 8,000 ya ocean levels rose 400 feet. An average of about 0.03333' per year. That would be a 33' sea level rise in a century. I think we'd fucking notice that.

This time ocean levels rose *checks photos* NOT AT ALL in over a century. So you guys are really bad at heating up the planet. And the worst part is, that's the AVERAGE. There were periods where sea levels rose MUCH faster.

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

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

So yes, global warming alarmism is based entirely in fraud and lies, and YES a completely tropical planet is more desirable. If ONLY humans were able to terraform this planet into a jungle. Apparently you're not though.

>>15084797
Do you know what an exponential is?

Not only is it real, its way too late, and all those official people like the ipcc are lying to you about how we still have time to save humanity. Soon humanity will start to war over resources like water and food. Shits going to get real mad max

>>15084822
>Shits going to get real mad max
Cannot fucking wait! Working on killdozer mobiles with spikes right now!

>>15084797
>Well let's see, from 20,000 to 8,000 ya ocean levels rose 400 feet. An average of about 0.03333' per year. That would be a 33' sea level rise in a century. I think we'd fucking notice that.
Yes, when you go from a glacial period to an interglacial, most of the ice on Earth is going to melt and you will get a lot of sea level rise. Now that there's a lot less ice to melt, there's less sea level rise even though the rate of warming is higher. So your argument is based on the flawed assumption that sea level rise is linear with temperature. You will continue to confuse your own stupidity and lack of basic knowledge with "fraud and lies," because you're too dumb to even understand how dumb you are.

>This time ocean levels rose *checks photos* NOT AT ALL in over a century
Another lie. How tiresome.

>>15077164
Global warming isn't real.

Microplastics and pollution are real. Stop worrying about the stupid ass weather.

>>15084807
I'm sure in just 2 more centuries we'll find out.

>>15085092
It actually isn't. And even with your argument, doesn't that just hurt your own global warming alarmism?

>Another lie. How tiresome.
See: >>15081386 you retarded faggot. You can make up terrorist bullshit all you want, but we have the receipts.

>>15084712
>>15084716
>nearby pairs of USHCN and USCRN stations
this is not a comparison of the networks as a whole. why are you lying?

>>15084706
and christ, if you're going to lie so brazenly at least do it about something that can't be checked in 20 seconds. USCRN has zero plausible warming trend in the US across its operational period.

>>15085200
>It actually isn't
What isn't what?

>And even with your argument, doesn't that just hurt your own global warming alarmism?
What alarmism? Scientific facts are not alarmism, you massive retard.

>See: >>15081386 #
I see you not understanding what tides are or what global means. Are you trying to make deniers look stupid?

You have no argument. Thanks for conceding current warming is 25 times faster than any in the last 12000 years. Thanks for conceding sea level is rising.

>>15085573
I love it when deniers lie about scientific research anyone can read. The comparison between the networks as a whole is literally the first thing discussed in the results section.

>The CONUS-averaged USCRN and both USHCN series are largely indistinguishable for both minimum and mean temperatures. These results are similar to those of Menne et al. [2010] and Diamond et al. [2013], who also found little distinguishable differences between average USCRN and USHCN temperatures.

Why did you lie? Don't you have any shame?

>>15085580
Why are you lying? It's 0.7 degrees per decade.

>>15085580
Thanks for admitting you lied when you said "USCRN shows dramatically lower warming rates than other US temperature records mashed up from sites with problems like i described above." Your graph shows they are indistinguishable.

>>15085605
Most of the ice on Earth is not going to melt. You're nuts. And I thought the reason we all had to be terrified of global warming 24/7 was because of catastrophic sea level rise, yet there's been no actual sea level change in over 100 years, which is also the time frame of your precious made up hockey stick graph.

>What alarmism? Scientific facts are not alarmism, you massive retard.
Global warming alarmism isn't science.

THIS: >>15081389 is science. You are all lying. You keep claiming things that aren't happening like sea level rise or appreciable rise in global temperature (which literally nobody on the planet is experiencing for some reason - keep getting record low winters in the north for example). Instead of acknowledging that freshwater runoff is causing massive COASTAL ocean acifification you make up stories about mysterious CO2 upwellings. Instead of rightly blaming the same freshwater pollution for smothering and burning corals, you blame "above average ocean temps", despite the fact that TWO DIFFERENT STUDIES have shown that reefs located far from humans recover from bleaching events almost immediately, as nature intended.

You keep just saying "TRUST THE SCIENCE", then when people actually check the science, it doesn't match reality and we find you're leaving out MASSIVE parts of the equation such as the massive degree of freshwater pollution, or the fact that there haven't actually been any measurable rises in ocean temperatures or that winters in the north have only gotten LONGER and more severe in the north for decades, because it doesn't match your propaganda.

>I see you not understanding what tides are
So what you're saying is that ocean level rises are so low they can be mistaken for tides? And we're supposed to give you freaks more money and power over this? We've already seen what your kind do with it. If anything you need ALL of it stripped away.

>>15085617
>>15085636
Why do you think anyone should listen to sample sizes of global temperature changes of 15 years? Is your IQ this low? You could stretch that to 100 years and it would fall within normal temperature fluctuations.

>>15085775
*haven't actually been any measurable rises in sea levels

I meant.

>>15085092
>(mm)
it's a nothingburger

>>15085092
>>15085788
If this chart is correct (and that's a big if the way soientists fudge stats these days, especially the cult of GW) that means sea levels have supposedly risen 10 inches in 140 years. That's enough it SHOULD be noticeable, though over that long of a time frame (from human standards), it's doubtful anyone was measuring this shit down to the grain of sand like GW microbrains think they can do these days. I'm not convinced there's even been that much of a change in sea level. It's also so little that it could be accounted for by literally anything even if it was real. Again, during the late Pleistocene, the average was about 33' a year, not less than a foot over a century and a half. This is so little it amounts to noise. All the GW shit is. That's why they're always measuring fractions of degrees and millimeters. There's no way you can come to meaningful conclusions about sea level alone measuring in mm, let alone to extrapolate WHY any hypothetical rise of so little occurred.

The entire cult of GW revolves around plausible deniability. If you look at these measurements and this chart sideways and squint you COULD read it the way we demand you read it. Of course, then we look at a photograph from the same period and the ocean level looks exactly the same and emperor's new clothes are exposed for what they are. The GW mythos is a carefully constructed garment of lies. The photographic evidence is a big mallet.

>>15085775
>Most of the ice on Earth is not going to melt
LOL, most of it already did 10000 years ago. Do you know what a glacial period is?

>And I thought the reason we all had to be terrified of global warming 24/7 was because of catastrophic sea level rise
That's one reason.

>yet there's been no actual sea level change in over 100 years
Why are you repeatedly lying? There has. See >>15085092

>which is also the time frame of your precious made up hockey stick graph.
What made up graph are you referring to? The one that has been replicated dozens of times? LOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

>Global warming alarmism isn't science.
Thanks for admitting my posts are not alarmism then. I'm simply posting scientific facts that prove you're lying. So far you have completely failed to defend your lies. Please explain why.

>>15085799
Again, do you know what an exponential is? It's the difference between velocity and acceleration.

>>15085833
>exponential is the difference between velocity and acceleration
this is the level of physics knowledge of the climate soientists. acceleration is derivative of velocity. exponential has nothing to do with it.

>>15085775
>You keep claiming things that aren't happening like sea level rise
Why are you lying? Sea level rise has been measured.

>or appreciable rise in global temperature
Why are you lying? Global warming has been measured.

>keep getting record low winters in the north for example
Winters have been getting warmer. What data are you relying on to make these claims? (none)

>Instead of acknowledging that freshwater runoff is causing massive COASTAL ocean acifification you make up stories about mysterious CO2 upwellings
Another lie. Ocean acidification is primarily caused by the oceans absorbing about a quarter of human CO2 emissions from the atmosphere, not upwelling.

>TWO DIFFERENT STUDIES have shown that reefs located far from humans recover from bleaching events almost immediately, as nature intended.
And? Some coral species are not as sensitive to acidification as others. Try looking at all the data instead of cherrypicking.

>You keep just saying "TRUST THE SCIENCE"
Another lie. I'm asking for evidence climate science isn't trustworthy and so far you've failed to provide any. You've provided plenty of evidence you're not trustworthy since you continuously lie.

>when people actually check the science, it doesn't match reality
I'm waiting for you to show a single example of this. Why haven't you?

>So what you're saying is that ocean level rises are so low they can be mistaken for tides?
So you're admitting that pictures of a place at different times is not a measure of sea level rise? Why did you lie and say they show sea level hasn't risen?

Why do you keep lying? What is your agenda here? Is it too make deniers look incredibly retarded and dishonest? Because that's the only rational explanation I can cone up with.

>>15085849
I'll make it very simple for you then. If you drop a penny from the eiffel tower the velocity of the first meter is much slower than the velocity from the last, because the penny will start to accelerate for the first few meters. You can measure the average velocity, but that will be a different number than the velocity of the first meter and the last meter.

Similarly, the sea level rise of the last 100 years has been around 6-8 inches. Half of that has been in the last 30 years, namely the speed of the sea level rise is accelerating, not static. Sea level rise predictions are based on this acceleration, which is why you can't use the overall sea level rise of a previous period (which included the accelerated parts) and compare it with today unaccelerated parts.

Do you get it know or do I need to throw in a few wacky sound effects?

>>15085876
acceleration is the derivative of velocity. what do you not understand about this? they are not related to each other by exponential growth, retard.

>>15085781
>Why do you think anyone should listen to sample sizes of global temperature changes of 15 years?
Lmao. I'm not the one who brought up the USCRN trend in the first place. One of you retarded deniers did because he thought for some reason the trend was lower than the global trend and the US trend. That was a lie too. But now suddenly it's meaningless after that lie got disproven. The hypocrisy and retardation of deniers is staggering.

>>15085788
Because?

>>15077164
You should have added that only posters who know the relationships between plancks law, stefen-boltzmann law, and wiens law should post, I am getting a headache with these replies.

>>15085900
Also see here for a more dumbed down explanation…https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI

>>15085799
When are you going to explain why you repeatedly lied and scientifically verifiable facts?

>>15085883
Linear = /
Exponential = ツ
I can't believe I have to explain 4th grade math...

>>15085911
They never try to reason with actual proven facts or provide more than a surface level argument, I would just give up. It’s all pointless.

>>15085914
is this what you said or is it not?
>do you know what an exponential is? It's the difference between velocity and acceleration.
acceleration and velocity are not linked together by an exponential function, retard. they're linked together by a derivative or an integral.

>>15085914
NTA but it really is funny how mentally deficient AGW cultists are.

>>15085921
Thanks for admitting I'm right. Acceleration means exponential. Why did you lie?

>>15085921
I think the mongoloidal animal was trying to imply that acceleration means an exponential growth of a variable. The mongoloidal animal can't fathom the difference between "exponential" and "quadratic".

>>15085924
>Acceleration means exponential.

>>15085799
>its a cult!
>the chart is wrong because if you squint!
Do you realize how utterly brain dead you sound? If you actually made arguments on methodology or something relevant I would respect it.

>>15085928
>Acceleration means exponential.

>>15085921
It's telling how quick you are to jump off the global warming topic, presumably because you know you're talking shit?
I'll humor you. Acceleration is an exponential curve because of inertia. Average velocity is linear, because it's an average. Average velocity isn't precise because it's an accurate. You're using an average of sea level rise and comparing to another average, but it's inaccurate because sea level rise is an exponential curve. Do you get the argument now?

>>15085925
Quadratic is one type of exponential curves it's not the only one.

>>15085934
>quadratic growth is exponential
I wonder if anon is just trolling to make AGW lunatics look truly delusional.

>>15085934
>Acceleration is an exponential curve because of inertia
>Average velocity is linear, because it's an average
>Quadratic is one type of exponential curve

>>15078542
It is, idk why those anons don't point it out. We have a budget and we mention it in our discussion
Althought you are into something...climate change scholars (biologists, chemists, env engineers and archeologists...in that order) don't occupy the highest ranks in climate change stuff, lawmakers and politican scientists do

>>15085940
Shut up, chud. Line curve up mean exponential growth. New York will be underwater in two more weeks.

>>15085944
And unfortunately, the LEADING researchers are excluded (Atmospheric scientists, Planetary Scientists, and Physics Phds). The media is too influential on people (one side saying it is just a hoax while on the other end you have reporters saying new york will be underwater in the 2000s…). It is a problem but just isn’t discussed in a respectable manner anymore.

>>15085816
Do you know what an ice age is? I'm guessing you don't, or you'd realize we're still in one. There has never been a moment in the entire Pleistocene when both ice sheets melted. That hasn't happened in 35 million years.

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

And the Greenland Ice sheet exists now also. That's been the case for about 3 million years, which is pretty new and rare in geological terms.

What you are referring to are glaciations and interglacials. We are in an interglacial now. And frankly, this is a rather cold one compared to the last about 4. 125,000 years ago there were Hippos in London. I hope it DOES warm up. The part you retards miss is that global warming would be desirable. Too bad it's not actually happening.

>That's one reason.
Yet it's clearly not happening. If you think an imperceptible sea level change over 150 years is "catastrophic" I would think you were a drama major.

>Why are you repeatedly lying?
We already covered this. Everything you post is plausibly deniable. And we know from the replication crisis you faggots are fudging your data anyway.

So what do you think happened 125,000 years ago? Did the planet die? What was the negative outcome (aside from humans hunting all the megafauna)?

>>15085859
>Sea level rise has been measured.
In mm. You're clearly not even reading the posts you're replying to, so you're wasting everyone's time making people repeat themselves.

>>15085889
Neither am I. I don't need to quibble about your short term fudged measurements. I have a longer time view than you're capable of. And I'm aware of the paleontological record, which you're not. Somehow we had a global paradise 125,000 years ago with elephants and rhinos (not woolly rhinos) in Europe, but now life "can't survive" 0.00001 degrees of warming. Your entire world view lacks perspective because you're humanist dogs.

>>15085937
Do we need them to try?

>>15078542
Because global warming alarmism is an economic field, not a scientific one.

>>15086007
>Do we need them to try?
Well, usually they are reasonable and well-rounded fellows educated in the methodology of expert trust and trained in quoting bankster-funded government thinktanks.

>>15085989
>I'm guessing you don't, or you'd realize we're still in one.
Please explain, what part of what I said indicated I don't know what an ice age is? You're just spouting irrelevant gibberish.

>There has never been a moment in the entire Pleistocene when both ice sheets melted.
Where did I say anything to the contrary? Learn how to read.

>What you are referring to are glaciations and interglacials.
I'm not just referring to them, I literally said glacial and interglacial. Wow, you must be some kind of detective. You figured out I was referring to what I directly talked about. Did you do that all on your own or did you need someone to read those big words for you and explain what they mean? lmao

>The part you retards miss is that global warming would be desirable.
Because...? Another retarded claim you will never provide any evidence for. How tiresome.

>Yet it's clearly not happening.
It clearly is, since it's measured. Why do you continuously lie?

>If you think an imperceptible sea level change over 150 years is "catastrophic"
Where did I say this? You're the only one who described it as catastrophic. LOL

>We already covered this.
Where? I don't see you explaining why you repeatedly lied anywhere. Please explain in response to this post. An apology would be nice too.

>Everything you post is plausibly deniable.
Your denial of scientific facts isn't plausible, it's either delusional or fraudulent. Which is it?

>So what do you think happened 125,000 years ago?
Interglacial warming. We're warming much faster.

>>15085995
>In mm.
And? Thanks for admitting sea level has risen.

>>15086121
>We're warming much faster.
how quickly is your body warming? or do you mean the planet is warming? you aren't earth, narcissist

>>15086121
Thanks for admitting that you lied.

>>15086007
>I don't need to quibble about your short term fudged measurements
Then don't enter the conversation. Retard.

>And I'm aware of the paleontological record, which you're not.
You don't even know what else I've posted in this thread, let alone what I'm aware of.

>Somehow we had a global paradise 125,000 years ago
The rate of warming is not even close to 125,000 years ago. The issue is not simply how hot it is but how fast the temperature changes. Rapid temperature changes don't allow ecosystems to adapt and are correlated with mass extinctions in the past. But you're obviously already aware of that. Retard.

>>15086126
Not an argument. Try responding to what I actually said.

>>15086128
Where?

>>15086145
>Then don't enter the conversation.
Thanks for admitting you lied.

>You don't even know what else I've posted in this thread,
Not an argument.

>The rate of warming is not even close to 125,000 years ago
Source?

>>15086149
>Where?
>>15086121

>>15086151
>Thanks for admitting you lied.
Where?

>Not an argument.
It is. And it's a fact. Why did you lie about what I'm aware of?

>Source?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

>>15086149
did you post this?
>We're warming much faster.
who is "we"?

>>15086154
I didn't lie or admit I lied anywhere in that post. Why did you lie?

>>15086158
>dot gov website
Not an argument until you provide proof that the US government is a trustworthy entity.

>>15086161
Human civilization, planet Earth. Are you unable to determine the meaning of words from context or are you just pretending to be retarded?

>>15086161
>I didn't admit I lied
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>15086167
planet Earth is not a person, and should never be identified via the pronoun "we". furthermore, at what temperature is "human civilization" right now?

>>15086165
>Not an argument
It is. Thanks for conceding.

>>15086158
>it's a fact
proof? why did you lie?

>>15086168
>Not an argument.
It is. Why did you lie?

Russia's special operation in Ukraine is legal.

>>15086169
>planet Earth is not a person
I didn't say it was. Are you going to respond to >>15086121 or are you just going to pretend to be retarded? If the latter, we're done here. Thanks for conceding.

>>15086178
thanks for admitting you lied

>>15086172
>proof?
You have no way to determine what I'm aware of. Why did you lie?

>>15086182
You've already admitted you aren't aware of it. Why did you lie?

>>15086189
>You've already admitted you aren't aware of it.
Where? I'm not responding to any more of your posts until you answer my questions. You're a retarded troll.

>>15086182
>You have no way to determine what I'm aware of.
proof? post timestamped nose

>>15086190
>I'm not responding to any more of your posts
Thanks for conceding.

>>15077237
>citing something from 1912

>>15086178
>>planet Earth is not a person
>I didn't say it was.
so who is "we" referring to here?
>We're warming much faster.

>>15086015
Lel

>>15086125
I'm not admitting anything other than you're using faulty metrics. You can't fucking measure mm of sea level rise. That's totally within the margin of error.

>>15086293
>You can't fucking measure mm of sea level rise.
We can measure whatever the IPCC says we can measure. Thanks for admitting that you lied.

>>15086293
>You can't fucking measure mm of sea level rise. That's totally within the margin of error.
Proof?

>>15086306
>We can measure whatever the IPCC says we can measure.
kek!

>>15086293
>I'm not admitting anything other than you're using faulty metrics.
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>15086145
>The rate of warming is not even close to 125,000 years ago.
You moron. Nobody is talking about the "rate" of warming 125,000 years ago. You clearly don't know the subject material you're arguing. The mention of 125kya is about the TEMPERATURE. It was quite a bit warmer then. It wasn't "warming". That was the peak. The more significant warming was from 20kya to 8kya. And you know how we know it was ACTUALLY warming? Because the biomes changed and coastlines flooded. Nobody was measuring sea level rise with toothpicks laid on their sides.

The problem is you have ABSOLUTE FAITH in faulty methodology from soientists who are actively chasing a pre-determined outcome. The reality doesn't match the data. You can't change that. The biggest lie about "global warming" consequences is that almost all of them are caused by destruction of the environment, not the burning of fossil fuels. Why are there more droughts and catestrophic floods? Because that's what happens when you remove all the vegetation that sponges up the extra water and slowly releases it during dry periods. It's also why all the rivers in America have dropped. No global warming alarmist wants to talk about that though. Why are coral reefs dying? Is it global warming? Nope. It's because they're being smothered with agricultural runoff and literal human sewage. Are the ice sheets actually receding? Not really. So what about the ocean levels? Maybe? But only entirely within the margin of error and historical documentation doesn't support any claim they have to any significant degree.

Global warming is a distraction from fixing the real problem: human overpopulation which causes sprawl and the clear-cutting of all vegetation. You can't have a planet without vegetation. Not one with life still on it.

>>15086312
And? Sea level has risen. Thanks for admitting it.

>>15086317
Are you a bot?

>>15086315
>You moron.
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

>Nobody is talking about the "rate" of warming 125,000 years ago.
Why did you lie?

>The problem is you have ABSOLUTE FAITH in faulty methodology from soientists
Proof?

>Global warming is a distraction
Wrong. See https://www.ipcc.ch/news/

>>15086320
Not an argument. Why did you lie?

>>15086203
The theory of relativity, published in 1905 and 1915

>>15086326
At least you're not trying to hide that your "science" and supposed understanding of the climate hasn't advanced one bit since the inception of the AGW scam.

>>15086315
The reason is because if you look at it as a problem of environmental degradation and overpopulation you have to primarily deal with third worlders. If you instead claim that it's caused by industry, you can only attack industrial (White) societies.

Once you see how the enemy is narrowed, you can begin to understand that the purpose is not to help Earth or any nonhuman species but to craft a Malthusian narrative that only blames one specific subspecies of humans despite it having the lowest rates of water pollution and overpopulation.

>>15086332
>The reason is because if you look at it as a problem of environmental degradation and overpopulation you have to primarily deal with third worlders.
Source?

>Once you see how the enemy is narrowed, you can begin to understand that the purpose is not to help Earth or any nonhuman species but to craft a Malthusian narrative
Proof?

>>15086326
you're a brainlet. relativity was published back in the 1600s with Galileo. you're thinking of the theories of special relativity and general relativity.

>>15086332
>The reason is because if you look at it as a problem of environmental degradation and overpopulation you have to primarily deal with third worlders.
Oh I know why. But it's not just that. It's also the consumption of the first world, and we can't really curb that and please the billionaires either. All the actual solutions require scaling back human activity and WE CAN NOT HAVE THAT because all liberals are humanists. They worship mankind. It must be at the center of all creation. That's why only the material concerns of the current generation of humans ever factors in to the "dangers" of global warming and the GW alarmists can NEVER admit that a tropical world would generally be more desirable for most life (obviously the small number of boreal forms would suffer).

>>15086337
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>15086332
Don't invoke Malthus. There are objectively too many humans on this planet for it to be a functional biosphere.

>>15086315
>Nobody is talking about the "rate" of warming 125,000 years ago.
I am. Retard.

>The mention of 125kya is about the TEMPERATURE.
The TEMPERATURE alone is not relevant, no matter how many capital letters you use. Any ecosystem can adapt to any temperature given enough time to do so.

>It was quite a bit warmer then
Proof?

>It wasn't "warming".
How do you think we got to that peak? It's called interglacial warming. Retard.

>The more significant warming was from 20kya to 8kya.
How is it "more significant?" It's just interglacial warming. Current warming is 25 times faster.

>Nobody was measuring sea level rise with toothpicks laid on their sides.
And? More irrelevant ranting that doesn't respond to anything I said.

>The problem is you have ABSOLUTE FAITH in faulty methodology from soientists who are actively chasing a pre-determined outcome.
No, the problem is you have zero evidence for your conspiracy theory. If you were so sure that this is all fraud, why can't you provide a single example of fraud? You're a liar.

>The reality doesn't match the data.
How? You're a liar.

>>15086345
>Don't invoke Malthus. There are objectively too many humans on this planet
Why shouldn't he invoke your cult leader if you are literally and directly shitting out Malthusian propaganda?

>>15086345
An honest Malthusian argument would require attention towards the Third World, where all the extreme excess births occur. My point is that the rulers of your economic zone have wrapped their ethnic hatred in the trappings of Malthus in order to justify exterminationist doomsaying, but only blaming the most sustainable and eugenic populations.

>>15086346
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>15086348
>>15086350
Nobody is basing anything on Malthus. This is a brainlet take to try to discredit real concerns about human overpopulation. Agriculture alone is taking up about half of the land area of this planet. But that's fine, ignore it. Because Malthus.

>>15086378
The founder of the AGW scam, Michael Mann's mentor, proclaimed himself a Malthusian back when that wasn't a dirty word. His protégé has had to tone down the associations but he still uses the language.

>>15086352
I accept your concession of defeat.

>>15086382
Hitler was a vegetarian

>>15086393
The relevant comparison is Hitler saying he learned a lot about the benefits of eugenics from Margaret Sanger and the American Birth Control League.

>>15086397
You haven't shown that Mann is Malthusian let alone he learned it from his mentor. Pure guilt by association.

>>15086382
NOBODY FUCKING CARES. Stop using genetic fallacies like a creationist brainlet. You can say "Malthus" as much as you want. It has no bearing on anything.

>>15086378
>Nobody is basing anything on Malthus.
Your social programmers base everything on Malthus which is why you spout textbook Malthusian talking points without being aware of it.

>>15086421
The internet really was a mistake, wasn't it? People here aren't capable of any degree of critical thought.

>>15086421
>>15086430
The rhetoric has never changed since the inception of the climate scare in the 70s (when it was an ice age instead of warming), they just don't use his name anymore because it's too blatantly exterminationist. All the arguments about carrying capacity and the need to reduce the quality of life and birthrate of Whites are identical to what Malthus prescribes for everyone.

>>15086436
Look, how about you cut it out with your antisemitic drivel and have a rational discussion?

>>15086436
These are not the same issue retard.

>>15086489
One is used as an excuse to enact the other. They are intrinsically related in how the West is propagandized.

>>15086489
Same "intellectuals", same financiers, same marketers, same implications, same agenda. Same thing. Same denial. Same shills.

>>15086436
>The rhetoric has never changed since the inception of the climate scare in the 70s (when it was an ice age instead of warming)
The only one spouting false narratives is you. Stop lying.

>>15086495
Proof?

>>15086492
I'm the one who's been posting anti-GW alarmist facts. The planet is overpopulated by useless double digit IQ eaters like you. Cope.

>>15086496
See >>15086495

>>15086498
>an unsourced picture some jew made in excel
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>15086497
>alarmist facts
LOL, so now the truth is "alarmist." Deniers are retarded.

>>15086503
>it's the truth because talking heads on TV said so
Get your 5th booster.

>>15086501
>unsorced REEEEEE
This is hilarious coming from a retarded denier who never provides any sources or data.

https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-I.html

>>15086507
>source to a literal AGW paranoia blogpost
Anything published and peer-reviwed? No? Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>15086505
Who are you quoting? You just called them facts.

>>15086510
I never called your lies "facts". Why did you lie again?

>>15086509
>source to a source that proves me wrong REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Thanks for conceding.

>Anything published and peer-reviwed?
Are you illiterate? It was literally published and peer reviewed.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml

>>15086515
>It was literally published and peer reviewed.
It was a link to an AGW paranoia blog post. Why did you lie?

>>15086512
>anti-GW alarmist facts
>I never called your lies "facts"
Deniers are compulsive liars. Their brains are broken.

>>15086518
Who are you quoting, schizo?

>bot thread

>>15086520
All global warming threads are bot threads.

>>15086517
It was a link to a blog discussing the source of the image. You didn't even read the first line. You have no credibility. Now that you have exactly what you asked for, I'm sure you'll apologize for lying about the 70s.

>>15086519
You

>>15086522
So you have no evidence. Why did you lie? I accept your concession.

>every major prediction made by global warming scientists in the last 50 years has been wrong
hm...

>>15077945
>Are good. Without them, too cold for life on Earth.
>Only people wanting to reduce greenhouse gasses are the same people that want to depopulate the planet. Geeeeee I wonder WHY they want to reduce the gas that keeps us warm and helps plants we eat to thrive!?!? kek
holy shit this makes so much sense now. always was skeptical about the whole co2 thing but this explains it!

>>15086523
>It was a link to a blog
Thanks for conceding.

>>15086532
The burden of proof is on AGW psychotics making extraordinary claims. The default position is that the world isn't ending in two more weeks.

>>15086921
Nooo that isn't how the hecking science works! You must believe in the theory first! First! And theories need lots of tax money!

>>15086921
>extraordinary claims
>two more weeks
Agree, but this still doesn’t mean people shouldn’t advocate for action. Solutions such as improving energy storage and making the electrical grid more resilient should be talked about more imo. Bottom line is to accept it is happening and actually work towards meaningful solutions.

>>15087064
>making the electrical grid more resilient
compartmentalize it.

>>15087225
>t. Texan genius

>>15087064
>Agree, but this still doesn’t mean people shouldn’t advocate for action
People should advocate for physical action against climate doomsday shills. I'm not saying it should be legal to lynch you, but the police should turn a blind eye.

>>15088288
based. most people are tired of the climate cult also.

>>15077945
It seems to me life was doing pretty good before we introduced greenhouse gases. That said, we're in the middle of an ice age

>>15088288
oc you say that

>>15086917
To what? Thanks for admitting you lied about the 70s.

>>15086542
Name one.

>>15086921
The burden of proof has been more than met: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

Where's your proof?

>>15089350
>before we introduced greenhouse gases
>water vapor and CO2 and methane never existed until recently.
KEK!
The state of humanity today. Pure stupidity. All those gasses were once in the atmosphere, over and over again. Carbon Cycle.

money scam

>>15091256
It took millions of years to sequester the carbon we released in a hundred. You're incredibly dumb.

>>15088288
This poster brought to you by Shell and ExxonMobil

>>15091606
>It took millions of years to sequester the carbon we released in a hundred.
A lie. It happens very very fast.

Also, even if we released it ALL, it would just return Earth to the proper temperatures, a little warmer than now, and better for life overall.

Dumbass shills.

>>15077945
I wonder what Yuval Harari's ethnic background is?

>>15093699
>It happens very very fast.
Why are you lying? Fossil fuels were created over various periods from 500 to 20 million years ago.

>Also, even if we released it ALL, it would just return Earth to the proper temperatures
Proper temperatures for whom? You didn't evolve in the Jurassic. Retarded denier.

>>15093965
>Proper temperatures for whom?
All life. Humans evolved in the tropics. If more of the world is tropical that's better for human health.

>>15093981
>All life
Nonsense. One species climate is another's extinction.

>Humans evolved in the tropics
Global warming is not making the world tropical.

>>15077945
>>15086914
This is wrong though. I want to depopulate the filthy humans and I also want the planet a lot hotter.

>>15091606
Well apparently you haven't released enough yet, so get back to work.

>>15093965
>Proper temperatures for whom?
For all life that isn't you. I don't give a shit about you. I hope you die. I want reptiles and tree ferns in charge again.

>>15093999
You do realize the polar regions represent an insignificant fraction of Earth's biomass and biodiversity, right? Or is that fact too "-ist" for you?

>>15093999
>image for ants
i see you still haven't found a high res version. bot post perhaps?

>>15095672
>durr I need reading glasses
>durr bot post
Why do you feel the need to tell everyone how retarded you are?

>>15093699
>Also, even if we released it ALL, it would just return Earth to the proper temperatures, a little warmer than now, and better for life overall.
True

>>15086343
>the GW alarmists can NEVER admit that a tropical world would generally be more desirable for most life
Correct

>>15085989
Good post!

>>15095673
>For all life that isn't you
You didn't evolve in the Jurassic, retard.

>You do realize the polar regions represent an insignificant fraction of Earth's biomass and biodiversity, right?
Where did I say anything about polar regions? Learn how to read.

>>15096251
>You didn't evolve in the Jurassic
Bitch, I wish I did. But it's funny you phrase it that way. Take a wild fucking guess which animal DID evolve during one of the hottest times since terrestrial life existed?

CORALS.

Yep. Global warming is the least of their problems. See: >>15081389

>Where did I say anything about polar regions?
It's implicit in the fearmongering about GW. Nobody gives a shit about polar bears. I want more Kapoks.

>>15097254
>>Where did I say anything about polar regions?
>It's implicit in the fearmongering about GW.
>Nobody gives a shit about polar bears.
>I want more Kapoks.
This is your brain on pop-sci garbage. Rise above. Study real science from an actual textbook.

>>15097254
>CORALS.
So you think currently existing corals are not adapted to the climate of the past 3 million years? Please just stop posting, you're only embarrassing yourself.

>Global warming is the least of their problems. See: >>15081389 #
Your schizo connect the dots collage is meaningless. Try https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-CCboxes_FINAL.pdf

>ipcc.ch
They're not even trying anymore.

>>15097672
The sole AGW shill here is literally from a Chinese bot farm.

>>15095731
nobody can read that, even with a magnifying glass. bot doesn't know what pixelation is, kek

>>15097254
>It's implicit in the fearmongering about GW
Ah, so when are you going to respond to what I actually said?

>>15097672
>IPCC REEEEEEE
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>15097747
I can read it easily, nice cope.

>>15097797
More of a heuristic, really. When someone sends you a link to marlboro.com/smoking-healthy and tells you about all the studies they cite to prove that you should smoke, you know you're dealing with the Marlboro marketing department. Same thing here.

>>15097797
>.ch
如果你做得更好,你明天可能就不会去工作营了。

>>15097799
proof?

>>15097801
It's more someone citing the massive amounts of data showing smoking causes cancer, from research funded by the government as most research is, and then a denier whining that the government has a vested interest in regulating the tobacco industry so all the evidence should be ignored.

>>15097867
When someone sends you a link to marlboro.com/smoking-healthy and tells you about all the studies they cite to prove that you should smoke, you know you're dealing with the Marlboro marketing department. Same thing here.

>>15097807

>>15097869
When you post a link to all the evidence smoking causes cancer, and someone whines that the source is the FDA, you know you're dealing with a retarded denier who can't deal with reality. Same thing here.

>>15097878
You're clearly mentally ill. Why are you talking about smoking and the FDA? We're talking about interested parties shilling their own interests. Claiming that the IPCC has no vested interest in shilling AGW is a direct confirmation that you're a paid shill, so go ahead and discredit yourself.

>>15097884
>You're clearly mentally ill. Why are you talking about smoking and the FDA?
LOL you're the one who brought up the analogy. You're a complete hypocrite.

>We're talking about interested parties shilling their own interests.
We're taking about retarded deniers who can't respond to evidence.

>Claiming that the IPCC has no vested interest in shilling AGW
You have a vested interest in denying reality in order to do nothing. So everything you say can be dismissed. If you want to play this game then follow your own rules.

>>15077164
Climate change is real but it is not a bad thing. I don't pay attention to my carbon footprint, I usually travel by plane. When I travel by road I use my personal car, I hate public transportation because it is used by plebs. I eat meat, I am unvaccinated, fuck your politics.

>>15097955
>Climate change is real but it is not a bad thing
Proof?

>>15097950
>you're the one who brought up the analogy
I didn't bring up any analogy with the FDA. Why did you lie about taking your meds? I know you're not taking them.

>>15097978
>I didn't bring up any analogy with the FDA
You brought up the analogy with smoking. Your the one denying massive amounts of scientific evidence. You're Marlboro. Destroyed by your own analogy.

>>15097985
>Your the one

Another thread in which the deniers are reduced to whining and insults. How predictable.

>>15098102
he says, as he's whining and insulting.

>>15097659
Oh we're doing papers? Read these:

"Recovery of an Isolated Coral Reef System Following Severe Disturbance"

"Early successional trajectory of benthic community in an uninhabited reef system three years after mass coral bleaching"

Warm water doesn't kill coral reefs. Pollution does. And yes, the genus that came into being during one of the hottest times in life on Earth's history will be just fine with hot water. But they DON'T do so hot when subjected to agricultural runoff.

Exactly what I said already. The NPC will never actually read, he will only make a person repeat himself endlessly.

>>15097867
Oh you mean like the belief that every redditor has that "moderate drinking is best" that comes from a national health organization's efforts funded by alcohol companies?

>>15098225
Was meant for this moron: >>15097878

>>15077164
>why do i see it shilled everywhere on mainstream media
Because for some reason it became a deeply politicized issue. So instead of figuring out what to do about it some people prefer to just deny it.
Also big petrol companies would prefer if nobody talked about it for no discernible reason whatsoever

>>15097955
I wish it were happening. I see no progress in the the entire industrial era.

>>15098102
Funny, I'm posting papers. You're just repeating your same lies again and again and ignoring anything your opponents say. All your bullshit has been exposed. All your far-fetched explanations for things like ocean acidification have much more direct and concrete explanations. Nobody supports your fucking lies anymore. You lost. NPC world will end in flames.

>>15098106
Where?

>>15098220
>Warm water doesn't kill coral reefs.
It does, the report I posted gives mountains of evidence for bleaching and mortality caused by warming. That some species are not as sensitive to warming or that some coral survived bleaching events is not a refutation of this.

>>15098225
>>15098230
I have no idea what you're sperging out about. I'm talking about evidence, not beliefs.

>>15098282
here
>>15098102

>>15098236
>Funny, I'm posting papers.
Are you posting relevant papers that prove your point? Or just posting papers?

>You're just repeating your same lies again and again
Where? Prove a single thing I've said is a lie. (You won't)

>All your far-fetched explanations for things like ocean acidification have much more direct and concrete explanations.
How exactly is CO2 dissolving into the oceans far fetched? This is basic chemistry. LMAO

>>15098301
There's no whining or insults there.

>>15098305
wrong.

>>15098306
How so?

>>15098308
if you can't tell without an explanation, an explanation won't help.

>>15098309
So you can't explain your claim. Why did you lie?

>>15098327
wrong. i can explain. i refuse to explain.

>>15098303
I don't know, are you even reading the posts you're autistically replying to?

>>15098328
If you could explain you would have done it already. Why did you lie?

>>15098371
>I don't know
I know you don't. Why did you prerend to?

So this is the power of the typical reddit liberal, huh? I'm not impressed.

>>15077164
IS STRAWMAN REAL?

>>15098298
Are you? Because it really seems like you're anti-science.

>>15100441
How so?

>>15077479
>to take more money and power
and how are they doing this by demonizing fossil fuels?

>>15102020
Getting rid of fossil fuels, which are a convenient, portable, and easily accessible source of energy, and replacing them with batteries and unreliable grid sources like wind and solar, destroys personal independence and hooks people into the machine.

>>15102236
>gas that has to be extracted, processed, and shipped is more accessible than solar power

>>15102393
Yes.

Climate always changes, the first written evidence of climate change is in the bible in the book of Genesis when the son of Israel migrated to Egypt for food.

>>15102396
You're completely dependent on oil companies, instead of having a machine that gives you energy from sunlight. You're hooked on gas.

>>15102450
Nope. The process to make diesel-equivalent fuel is practicable within an average household. Wood gasification can be done in poverty conditions with minimal resources.

Meanwhile, solar cells and high-density batteries require incredibly wasteful, high energy, high tech industries and noxious chemicals.

>>15102236
do you really think you are not already hooked into the "machine?" you're on the grid, if not the electric grid than the net, if not that then reliant on the same groundwater that everyone else is. rugged independence is a myth. grow up

>>15102456
Good luck creating a wood gas system on your own, they aren't very commercially accessible.

>>15102520
You can fabricate one in your back yard with no more than sheet metal. Also they're quite commonly available for purchase in home heating as stationary units so I'm not sure where you got that idea.

NO

>>15078043
Completely false lol.
Greenhouses work through light-energy conversion.
Visible light (red blue yellow etc) pierces through the glass, like a knife through butter.
It hits the inside space and gets absorbed as energy. (The efficiency of light absorption depends on the material.)
This energy is then looks for a way to escape on the path of least resistance, as energy does.
So (a portion) transfers into infrared and a portion as heat.
The infrared is then bounced back to the glass, but the glass doesn’t let infrared through as easily as visible light, so the path of least resistance is to convert the remaining infrared to heat.

Basically it filters down the ways energy can try to escape until it all arrives at heat and stays contained.
>What about infrared from the sun?
You already have that outside the greenhouse, you’re trying to collect and store a bunch (more) with the greenhouse.

>>15078542
It is. What are you jabbering about?
>Using a three-dimensional (3-D) particle-tracking velocimeter, detailed turbulent flow measurements were made in a plane channel with a one-sided 50% abrupt expansion, which acted as a backward-facing step. The turbulent channel flow reached a fully developed state well upstream of the step. The Reynolds number based on the upstream centerline velocity and the step height H was 5540. With the mean reattachment point located at 6.51H downstream of the step, the measurement region ranged from −2H upstream to 12H downstream of the step. Various turbulent statistics and the energy budget were calculated from numerous instantaneous vector distributions. As in previous experimental investigations, the Reynolds normal and shear stresses had maximum values upstream of the reattachment. The stress anisotropy tensor revealed a peculiar phenomenon near the reattachment wall, wherein the spanwise normal stress was the largest among the three normal stresses. The triple velocity correlations indicated large values in the separating shear layer, and hence the turbulent diffusion was a major term in the energy budget. Comparison was made between the present results and those of the direct numerical simulation (DNS) of Le et al. (1993), and it was found that the mean and fluctuating velocities, the Reynolds shear stress, and the turbulent energy budget were in excellent agreement, although there was a considerable difference in the inflow conditions.

>dig up and burn carbon which has been under the ground for 300 million years

Surely this won't change anything, matter just disappears after I'm done with it, like my garbage.