/sci/ - Science & Math

>source: the global warming institute
why do you online climate activists keep on spamming this board with such blatant propaganda? are you too low iq for subtlety?

>>15849708
Dunno but I don't remember EVER going outside in a T-shirt in the middle of October and sweating like a motherfucker

>>15849714
Give an unbiased source then. inb4 funding by the Koch Brothers

Tipping point

>>15849708
>Solar maximum
>El Nino
>Reduced aerosol masking from shipping
>Tonga erruption
>Higher CO2 and CH4 emissions

>>15849708
more sunlight is hitting the earth’s surface

>>15849747
The modern maximum ended in 2008. The next short-term maximum is expected for October 2024.

>>15849718
No. You're making a claim, you must provide valid supporting data. That's the foundation of science. "You can't prove to God DON'T exist" is not the type of faulty argument that's welcome here.

>>15849714
Science cannot be propaganda by definition. Only oil shills like you spread propaganda and denialism.

>>15849906
you mean actual old school pre 20th century science?
Or peer reviewed science by consensus post modernist science?

>>15849882
>show me data on the climate
>but not from people who study the climate

>>15849911
The "actual old school pre 20th century science" says that global warming is real. Take your meds.

>>15849932
That's yellow journalist scaremongering, not science. In the 1970s they were claiming that the Earth was going to freeze by the year 2000 and it would be the start of a new ice age.

>>15849938
>NOOO! Don't post data from people who study the climate
>NOOO! Don't post anything modern science
>NOOO! Don't post old news articles
Why do you think that everything that says you're wrong is a conspiracy? You know that's a sign of mental illness, right?

>In the 1970s they were claiming that the Earth was going to freeze by the year 2000 and it would be the start of a new ice age.
No, they didn't. You're talking about a fake cover for nature magazine.

>>15849948
>No, they didn't. You're talking about a fake cover for nature magazine.
Where do you come up with lies this silly?

>>15849950
I got them from climate change deniers. I was wrong about it being nature, though. It's actually time. Wake me up when you and your friends get new material.

https://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cover-hoax/

>>15849959
Did you guys just invent a fake scandal with a made up picture to bury the actual ice age claims? I've never even seen anyone talking about this nonsense except on 4chan. Meanwhile there are many genuine articles about global cooling and the global ice age from the 1970s. Newsweek had the most famous one titled "The Cooling World" in 1975.

>>15849959
This is pretty shameless lol. Even wikipedia has an article about the massive prevalence of global cooling media in the 1970s.

>>15849972
>Did you guys just invent a fake scandal with a made up picture
Yeah, climate change deniers do very silly things.

>bury the actual ice age claims
Never happened. If you can find a source you claim makes the claim I'll check it out and explain how exactly you misread it or how it conflicted with actual science at the time.

>Meanwhile there are many genuine articles about global cooling and the global ice age from the 1970s. Newsweek had the most famous one titled "The Cooling World" in 1975.
Nonsense. Newsweek says the author basically made it up. It's not backed by any real science and their source was meteorologists who study weather, not climate.
https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326

>>15849978
This one that says it was made up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1]

>>15849982
Yep! Just like wikipedia in the 2040s will say global warming was made up. Hindsight is 20/20.

Low sulfur marine fuel

>>15849984
Lol ok, retard. It literally says that it was journalists misunderstanding and sensationalizing a minor cooling effect from aerosols and that it conflicted with the actual science which supported the current view. You are going to be very disappointed in 2040.

>>15849988
Lol ok, retard. It literally says that it was journalists misunderstanding and sensationalizing a minor warming effect from water vapor and that it conflicted with the actual science which supported the current view. You are going to be very disappointed in 2060.

>>15850012
It's sad that you think this is any kind of rebuttal.

>>15849882
I'm not making a claim, I'm citing data. You're claiming that the data is false. Is your claim baseless than?

>>15849959
>I was wrong about it being one of the most prestigious scientific journals publishing peer-reviewed articles, though. It's actually a news magazine.
Shows how little you understand. But kudos for admitting your mistake.

>>15849972
>Meanwhile there are many genuine articles about global cooling and the global ice age from the 1970s
News articles by journalists or peer-reviewed articles by scientists?

>>15850028
>being one of the most prestigious scientific journals publishing peer-reviewed articles,
Nature is not prestigious, not a scientific paper, and is not peer reviewed. You have outed yourself, pseud.

>>15850048
>Nature is a British weekly scientific journal founded and based in London, England. As a multidisciplinary publication, Nature features peer-reviewed research from a variety of academic disciplines, mainly in science and technology.
What was that? You have outed yourself, pseud.

>>15849708
Urban heat island effect.

>>15849708
It isn't.

>>15850412
What "urban heat island" heats the oceans? Atlantis?

>>15850030
Both. Just like global warming propaganda is a combination of fringe science and sensational journalism, so was global cooling.

>>15850542
Prove it.

>>15850545
If you're asking in good faith then you can put in a little legwork for yourself.

>>15850551
That's not how the burden of proof works. You made the claim so you have to back it.

>>15850569
I pointed you towards a fun fact which you can look into if you're interested. I'm not making any formal logical argument, only alerting you to something interesting that's true about our history.

>>15849708
It's the niño

>>15850575
I accept your concession. I'll be back if you want to evidence your claims later.

>>15850705
It's instrument change.

>>15850879
Nonsense.

>>15850889
It was proven to be the cause of the apparent warming trend in Australia.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/04/australia-wide-assessment-climate-change-or-instrument-change/

>>15850892
>Jennifer Marohasy
It's really sad that you think this is a valid source for anything. She is a biologist who is paid by oil companies to maintain their propaganda in her blog. I can't imagine a worse source.

>>15850911
All major oil companies pride themselves on their green energy initiatives. This conspiracy theory is wearing thin.

>>15850569
>That's not how the burden of proof works.
Yes it is, prove me wrong

>>15850911
Is the Australian government paid by oil companies? It's all their data.

>>15851164
This looks like something a boomer would post to facebook in 2014 lmao

>>15851275
Boomers in 2014 sound based. What happened since then?

>>15851277
They won Herman Cain awards.

>>15851039
Why do you link to an oil shill and not to the publication by the Australian government then?

>>15850892
>Average annual number and temperature of days within 90th percentile of RAW
What in the look-elsewhere effect?

>>15851292
It's a statistic that was touted by the government as allegedly proving that Australian heatwaves were more frequent.

>>15849754
read what i said again and reply when you understand it

>>15851313
>touted by the government
Why don't you link to the government website than? Primary sources are always better.

We've probably reached one of the major tipping points. Before the planet was recieving a substantial amount of cooling due to sea ice extent and clouds. Not anymore. Tbh I didn't think we'd immediately jump into the 4/5/6 sigma heatwave events, I thought it would be gradual, but apparently that's not true. It's the new normal, get used to it.

>>15851352
How can we 'get used to it'? If global boiling continues, the whole planet will end up like Venus.

>>15851352
if your so fucking concerned, tell that to china india and other polluting 3rd world shitholes

>>15851421
What are they supposed to do? Each of them already emits much less than the average American?

>>15849708
The earth atmosphere ocean system is like an engine. cyclical. the suns energy does work.
this is a bad sign. it means something has broken.
it's like when your engine starts make a ticking noise. except the problem can't be fixed by simply changing valve clearance.

>>15849708
It’s not even warmer today than it was in the 1930s
That’s why your dumb chart stops at 1980.

>>15851363
>How can we 'get used to it'?
Just can.

>If global boiling continues, the whole planet will end up like Venus.
No. From about 2018-2022 it seemed like warming was stalling there for a while, probably due to some effects of feedback loops. We might already be past the 1.5C threshold, or next year might be slightly cooler, hard to tell.

Basically, humans never live in a vacuum. Climate change will introduce other bottlenecks into society, such as involving water availability. Basically, expect crickets on the issue by most everybody in power.

>>15851478
This.

>>15851492
You can't get used to it. By 2050, the planet will be too hot for photosynthesis in most regions and we'll be in a never ending global famine. By 2500, the seas will begin to boil off, completely ending any surviving life on Earth.
Our only possible solutions are to build a massive solar shade to cool the Earth, which is really just a bandaid at the end of the day since the warming will still be exponential; or carbon capture at a massive scale.

>>15851512
This is master-level. Posters here could learn from artistry like this.

>>15851512
We must give politicians more money so they can build new lines of mansions further from the beach front just in case and equip them with megawatts of cooling systems. At least they will survive.

>>15851478
Post proof or gtfo

>>15851512
No. On the warmer Earth, my people will have completed our takeover of Canada, which with the help of global warming, turned have turned into a climate more suitable for our comfort. The Age of the Brahmin is upon us. Call us poos all you want but those are Shudras, whose population we will control in ways you people are too scared to even contemplate. We drove the Bnei Menashe out of Antwerp, and we will drive all who are not Brahmin or servants off of our planet.

>>15851003
Oil companies' "green initiatives" are just greenwashing to get idiots like you to defend them.

>>15851003
Oil companies benefit from reduced volume of sales (see OPEC oil embargo) - their profits are higher than ever. No gaberment policy can harm the bottom line of the highest bidders. It is to dupe and exploit plebs only - and ever.
Good luck surviving their new "environmental policies" - you're gonna need it.

>>15849906
>Science cannot be propaganda by definition
It absolutely can be propaganda by definition you non english speaking chuddy
>science
>noun
>sci·ence
>: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
>propaganda
>noun
>pro·pa·gan·da
>3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause
The fact you said it cannot be propaganda is proof you are a zealot who treats science like a religion.

>>15852027
>he had to scroll down to number 3

>>15849708
The global temperature is increasing due to a larger population of humans. The more people there are, the more body heat they will generate which in turn will heat up the planet

>>15852128
>Definition 1
>1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
>Definition 2
>2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
2 also works. Honestly it seems like the dictionary is stupidly redundant. "One's own" and "deliberately" are the only real differences. Science can be propaganda under definitions 2 and 3.
ITT is seemed like anons were talking about each other at the individual level so definition 3 would be better.

join the official /sci/ community
https://discord.gg/TwnEaNU5

>>15852875
Cope and seethe

>>15854308
Did you reply to the wrong post?

>>15854317
Are you asking because the comment is superfluous, since that anon is already visibly coping and seething and therefore does not require encouragement to cope and seethe?

>>15854326
Oh I guess you're just schizophrenic nevermind.

>>15849714
>no a website that graphs satellite datasets is fake because I say so

>>15849714
fpbp