/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15556814
Under progressive science, humans are collectively but not individually responsible everything bad in happening in reality.

>>15556814
Look up Symbols of an Alien Sky. People do talk about it.

>>15556814
There's people who track this for a living yknow.
Global temperatures have been rising consistently since we've been tracking while solar activity has not shown any abnormal increase during that time period, there is zero correlation between the two.

>>15557076
Isn’t there a correlation with solar magnetic activity and earth climate? I’m pretty sure I remember seeing this at some point.

Yeah by "rarely discussed" i meant that the mainstream paradigm completely excludes talking about it.
Also my bad english made me used "unexplainable" instead of "unexplained". I even surprised myself listening to what one could call "self-made" scientists/archaeologists arguing about what ancient astronomy was probably about. I quickly fall to sleep if it leans towards ETs but stick to paying attention if it comes to our direct environment, aka the solar system.

>>15557076
Judging from the radicality of your tone (which i understand), i assume correcting that i never mentioned our sun's internal behavior won't change your mind. The use of the "zero correlation" term pretty much sums up that you chose the "nothing but us" side, and once again, why not.
Me i was more trying to point at the fact that our universe/galaxy/system are very dynamic environments, and the size of time scales and relative speeds are, imho, a very important factor in the equation.
I find the obvious existence of kinda defined eras like the precession of the equinoxes (and i'm sure other scales can put it in another cycle) very interesting when it comes to discuss climate.

>>15557507

>>15557734
I don't understand. What is this supposed to advocate for?

>>15556814
>Why is climate change so rarely discussed under the spectrum of simple cosmic events?
Because that's dumb.

>>15557750
And what's not dumb? What's the logical explanation?

>>15557749

>>15557776
>no argument but some dumb chart my teacher mailed me
>better roodi poo my way out

>>15557507
>I find the obvious existence of kinda defined eras like the precession of the equinoxes
Orbital mechanics certainly affect climate but not in the timescale we're observing warming in. Additionally both Milankovich and solar forcings are towards cooling, not warming.

>>15557507
You should look into galactic current sheet and solar micronova phenomena. It sounds like that's exactly what you're looking for.

>>15558431
>>15558433
>milankovitch cycles
>galactic current sheet
Both really interesting thanks.
Is there a world where the tide effect created by other bodies could affect our own climate?

>>15558468
Our world is already affected by tidal forces from nearby bodies (hence, tidal) but electromagnetic input is more important and less understood.

>>15558468
Anthropogenic CO2 is demonstrably rapidly warming the climate. Galactic influence is negligible

>>15558529
You are pulling that from your asshole, +1º C is easy to fake.

>>15558552
It’s not. I just showed you how Milankovich cycles are important in long term cycles but not responsible for current warming as their current forcing as well as solar radiative forcing are both for cooling

>>15558552
Additionally do you have any specific arguments about the methodology of the pages 2k study?
You can’t just reject data when it doesn’t conform to your preconceived conclusions.

>>15558529
>>15558552
All hockey stick graphs are bullshit.

>>15558561
>It’s not.
If it's impossible then why do they do it?

>>15558552
This. Climate soientists are constantly being exposed for every different kind of fraud in their attempts to make the past appear cool and the present appear hot. And yet despite all their hard work they have nothing to show for it. Nobody believes their lies anymore.

>>15556814
>The News: climate change is causing the hottest heat wave ever
> Also The News: A giant solar storm will make the Northern Lights visible in Albuquerque tonight.

>>15558675
Funny how this works, huh?

>>15558529
The climate jew fears the Zoom Out button.

>>15557749
It means that the sun is not responsible for modern global warming. If it were then the red and yellow lines would be correlated.

>>15559072
But solar irradiance isn't the only measure of total solar energy output. If you just looked at irradiance then solar output would crater during electromagnetic solar storms except it's actually spiking the energy output that hits Earth.

>>15559077
Solar irradiance is literally the total output, pseud.

>>15558951
>Graph X axis is labelled 2005
>if you zoom in you can actually see the data stops a couple hundred years before (when the ice cores run out)

Absolute Weasel behaviour.
Usually climate skeptics simply hope you don't notice that their graph runs out in 1850, but this is a new level in white lying.

>>15559622
>NOTE: Data obtained from Internet sources
lmao, check out this shitty website:
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/climate.htm
He doesn't even say what temperature this is supposed to be. A global average? A single ice core? What's his baseline?

>>15556814
>globohomo earth model
>random irrelevant timewasting question
The earth is flat and stationary with a dome. They are never ever leaving this enclosed plane alive, and neither are you sciencegoys.
CGI is all you get in this life and if you are vaxxed, I know many of you here are well boosted, then the Mars landings will be livestreamed straight into your vaxxed brain.
Also with the latest Neurolink brain processor you'll be able to watch multiple landings at the same time, with the same bitrate and no loss in quality experience.

>>15559622
>>15559639
This data literally comes from the climate scientists. Ironically they use this graph to support their manmade global warming hypothesis even though what it actually shows is either:
A. Humans have no tangible effect on global temperatures they just fluctuate over time naturally.
or
B. Humans have an effect on global temperatures and it's protecting us from another ice age.

https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-history-uncovered-puts-current-changes-in-context/?expand_article=1

>>15557734
explain this faggot

>>15559960
>This data
Data is a plural word, as the (rarely used) singular is datum. Also, they don't say what the data even show.
>literally comes from the climate scientists.
Which ones? The source I found through google reverse search only says "source: internet"

>>15560036
Nobody uses datum.
It's a data
And the datae

>>15560030
Explanation: you're a cherry picking faggot who thinks that a slice from a cherry-picked model from 10 years ago debunks anything. Look at all the other models for the same time range. Look at the larger time scale. Stop cherry picking data.

>>15560036
>post image
>link the article the image comes from
>retard has to google for the source
You're useless.

>>15559960
Complete nonsense. That's like saying that you're keeping yourself from freezing to death by lighting your pants on fire. It's also important to note that humans and all the organisms humans are dependent on have evolved into their current form over the last million years, so the majority of your graph is irrelevant, and the rate of change is more important than the average global temperature of a given year. Every time we see evidence of rapid climate change in Earth's history it's accompanied by mass extinctions and anthropogenic global warming is the mort rapid the Earth has seen.

>>15556814
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjwcLg4hvs4

>>15560101
Oh, you were talking about your completely irrelevant image in which human societies occupy maybe 30 pixels? Sorry, I must've ignored it. So, your take is that humans reversing a temperature trend of 10,000 years in merely 150 years shows that we don't have no tangible effect? Or that this dangerous trend on the timescale of 10,000 poses an imminent threat of another ice age? I can't decide what would be more retarded.

>>15560168
Either the temperature progression reversed coincidentally or it was going to keep going down into a new ice age until human industry fixed it and saved us. That's what the data shows.

>>15556814
>Why is climate change so rarely discussed under the spectrum of simple cosmic events?
Because none of the cosmic events happen on the timescale of a few centuries.