/sci/ - Science & Math

Is that what they're talking about when they say they're trying to "hide the decline"?

>>15897395
Yes, thats what they're talking about.
The current interglacial period is coming to and will eventually give way to the next ice. The whole transition takes about 10000 years and only amounts to a temperature change of about 5-10ºC, so it easy to mask it with data falsification and other propaganda techniques

>>15897395

>>15897393
Because less is more

>>15897393
>October US average maximum temperature at all stations from 1968-2023
>Nevermind the other eleven months
>Nevermind the rest of the world
>Nevermind the average temperature, the maximum temperature, or the minimum temperature
>Nevermind the fact that newer stations tend to be built further North
>Nevermind the last few centuries of the industry revolution
>This is the metric that will disprove that the GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE isn't actually increasing at all.
I genuinely do not believe that you are this stupid.

>>15897996
It's the USHCN scam anyway.
>Average Maximum Temperature
>Not the same number of stations every year
>Over time, have more stations in the North
>While temperature increases, flood the dataset with colder stations, thus keeping the average constant.
>Correct for this statistical artefact
>Chud thinks you're manipulating the data.

>>15898047
I know, I alluded to that in my post. What I don't understand is how anyone can look at that metric and think "yeah, this is a perfectly objective way to measure reality".

>>15898056
No one thinks that. My favourite was
>Percent Of Days Above 90.OF (32.2C) Vs. Year 1895-2022 At AII MN WI IL IN OH PA NY MI USHCN Stations
I think it's someone on twitter working hard to find quantities that confirm his political agenda and some chud then reposts the stuff here. Though it's usually this ugly light-blue plot template currently seen here: >>15880026

>>15898072
Most of them are made by the Heritage Foundation and and similar groups and disseminated through blogs and shit. This one seems to be too new for Google's spiders to have found the source.

>>15898080
The light blue template is from the heritage foundation? Nice, I never found the original source of this garbage.

>OIL SHILLS
>KOCH BROTHERS!
>HERITAGE FOUNDATION!

>>15898116
Are you saying that the Koch brothers aren't real? Or that the Heritage Foundation isn't real?

>>15898097
You can do a reverse image search and usually find the blog it's disseminated from. Then you Google "[blog name] funding" or "[blog author] funding" and if it gets money from a climate change denial organization then you'll usually find something.

>>15898116
You seem to feel threatened by facts. Why don't you start by addressing the cherry picking? Respond to these points >>15897996

>>15897395

>>15897395

>>15898122
Silly cummie, there is plenty of bread to go around. Don't know why you want to wait in the lines.

>>15898749
>climategate

>>15898790
Yes like the Watergate Hotel.

>>15898287
climate change is used by governments to gain more power over the people. Most environmentalists gleefully call for reducing freedom.

>>15897996
>>15898132
In your opinion, how do you think climate change should be addressed?

>>15898080
Not an argument. Every pro or anti AGW graph that gets published and propagated is funded by billionaires

The graph comes from tony heller on youtube. You can go to his website and download the software to make the graphs yourself. I've done it before. You can directly compare the raw data to the adjusted data from NOAA

source of graph
https://youtu.be/T8NHTuzEVBE?si=xn2VEcN0LG75H5Mf

software
https://realclimatescience.com/2023/02/unhiding-the-decline-4-0-for-windows/#gsc.tab=0

>>15898882
tony heller is a massive chad of a science expert

>>15898882
>>15898823
I expect to see pro anthroCC to say that stats can say whatever you want. This is correct, and it is another reason why I do not consider climate change an issue.

To me it is too convenient that the proposed climate change solutions all involve massive state control and further centralization (e.g world wide electrical grids, banning cars, banning meat, energy rationing and so on), and that the people pushing the climate adgenda are all government filth (e.g COPXX, leftists, corporations, blackrock types and so on).

>>15898931
I sympathize with your point while also innately valuing the research of graduate students who just want a better life for themselves. Surely you can see that the people who post on 4chan in favor of AGW are also intentionally stupid af.

>>15898938
Potentially, but that team argues far less for more state control. That's where the majority of my rejection comes from.

If the darkest effects of climate change happen, I think dealing with each one as we come to them will be the most reliable way to solve them.

>>15898792
So you're aware that there was nothing sketchy in any of those emails, right?

>>15898802
With logic instead of denial.

>>15898953
In general, I think predicting the future is gypsy af. For climate science, the "predictions" are also performed in a very asshole way, utterly devoid of any rehabilitative sexual nuance. The vocal facade of climate science is essentially a small, rich clique of sexless gypsy karens

>>15898823
Nonsense.

>>15898917
He really is. I'm glad 4chan is interested in real climate science again.

>>15898982
Not an argument.

>>15898982
How can it be nonsense if it's true?

>>15898965
They're all extremely damning, the climate soientists were caught red handed faking and manipulating data and publishing that fraudulent data as if it were genuine

>>15898882
>Type in ghcn.exe US.list states=ILIN summer
>Please run my executable, it's surely not a virus. Trust Dr. Chud

>>15899571
what kind of paranoid nightmare are you giving yourself, schizo?

>>15898977
so ignore it, and deal with problems as they come.

>>15899044
>>15899185
It's nonsense. If it weren't then you would have some proof of your claim.

>>15900195
That's not logical moron. That's denial.

>>15898882
>tony heller
God not this faggot again. Why do you even try?

>>15898882
>You can directly compare the raw data to the adjusted data from NOAA
Which is completely meaningless if you don't understand the adjustments. I turned you into a meme if this helps you understand it better.

>>15900215
then again i ask how do you think climate change should be addressed?

>>15900333
The IPCC Working Group III has given this more thought than I could in my entire lifetime. I think they're the better people to ask.

>>15900333
With logic instead of denial, retard. Pretending it's not happening and dealing with the consequences is denial. Face the problem instead of hiding from it like a coward.

>>15900350
>>15900341
I've given you leftists a way to deal with the solution, you haven't. Anything you suggest will demand government control. Climate change is only about giving more power to the state. Please fuck off and let us all live in peace.

>>15900232
Sure, the adjustments are intended to cool the past, manufacture a warming trend, and obfuscate large uncertainties (and probable warming biases) around correlating diurnal historical data to realtime averages from modern instruments.

>>15900691
>the adjustments are intended to cool the past
source?
>manufacture a warming trend
source?
>obfuscate large uncertainties
source?

>>15900232
oops they accidentally made it obvious

>>15900761
>>15900350
>>15900232
>>15898965
>>15898287
>>15897996
>>15898132
>>15898097

>>15898998
https://realclimate.science

>>15900806
What makes “raw” the correct one?

>>15900642
Your solution is to bury your head in the sand and pretend it's not happening. That's not a solution, that's denial.

>>15901710
Your position lacks the nuance to realize an honest course of action. That makes you extremely dangerous to everyone around you.

>>15897395
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
>The most quoted email was one in which Phil Jones said that he had used "Mike's Nature trick" when preparing a graph as a 1999 cover illustration for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in reconstructions based on tree-ring proxy data post-1960, when measured temperatures were actually rising. The "trick" was a technique to combine instrumental temperature record data with long term reconstructions, and "the decline" referred to the tree-ring divergence problem,[33] which had already been openly discussed in scientific papers,[34][35] but these two phrases were taken out of context by commentators promoting climate change denial, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though the phrases referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they came from an email written at a time when temperatures were at a record high.[32]

>>15901800
>wikipedia
thats a propaganda outlet, not a valid source of information

>>15901800
This overlooks the incredible dishonesty of alleged scientists trying to hide the fact that the tree ring data they relied on to create their hockey stick's flat starting line was flat into the modern era when they wanted to claim warming. It puts the entire conclusion into disrepute.

>>15901891
I know all of that, but it's clear from context that this is what he meant. No need to trust Wikipedia, just look at the source (the leaks). I just posted this for ease of mental digestion.
>>15901893
Got a source for that? I'm only aware of their disingenuousness regarding grant farming and abusing the current scare for money.

>>15901710
>Your solution is to bury your head in the sand and pretend it's not happening.
No it's not, I told you that we deal with each element of the problem as it comes. Less rainfall in iowa? Build another dam. Sea level rises 90cm over the next century? Build slightly more in land.

Each little problem is tackled as it comes, let the free market tackle it. Individuals will find a solution to that problem and will speicalize in solving it.
You're way of tackling climate change comes across like a caveman suggesting the tribe try to stop the end of the ice age so they can continue to hunt mammoths, instead of switching food sources.

>>15902029
Forgot to add, the free market is best for facilitating the solving of these problems because each individual is rewarded for solving the problem. This means you don't need selfless people doing things for the betterment of humanity, you can do with anyone, even someone just in it for themselves.

>>15901968
Michael Mann, the guy who is primarily responsible for the hockey stick hoax, is a jew

>>15902137
> widely shown by the BBC, Exinction Rebelion and the IPCC
Your enemies are a really diverse group. A public broadcasting company, an NGO of college dropouts and a panel of international researchers. And for some reason “it’s ze joos”.

>>15902144
All very similar people, G-men.

>>15900806
What does this even mean? It's CO2. If you went out and measured the atmosphere right now the CO2 concentration would be about 430 ppm. Are you saying that that's not true? Because we know that in the past CO2 concentrations were about 250 before the industrial revolution, are you saying that actual physical evidence isn't true?

>>15903013
>What does this even mean?
Apparently that you can't read graphs. It shows a linear relationship between fraud in temperature readings and CO2.

>>15903038
>fraud in temperature readings
Why do you think it's fraud? In my living room, there are two temperature sensors. One shows 21.2°C and the other one shows 19.9°C. Which one is fraudulous?

>>15903047
I don't expect someone who can't spell the word "fraudulent" will understand why artificially ratcheting up the temperatures across all your stations over time is a bad way of seeing what the real change in temperatures is.

>>15903038
>It shows a linear relationship between fraud in temperature readings and CO2.
CO2 increased by a factor 1.5, yet fraud in temperature didn't increase by a factor 1.5. That's not a linear relationship. Did you even finish high school? A linear relationship would satisfy [math]f(a\cdot x) = a\cdot f(x)[/math]

>>15903053
You post in English because it's the only language you know. I post in English because it's the only language you know. We are not the same.

>>15903056
Post hand.

>>15903060
>>>/pol/

>>15902137
Why are you comparing a graph of the global average temperature to a graph of Europe's average temperature?

>>15903013
>what does this mean
Adjusted temperature minus raw temperature just so happens to line up almost linearly with co2 concentration, meaning the raw temperature is adjusted in such a way to where it directly correlates with co2.

>>15903204
>IT WASN'T GLOBAL
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240837

>>15902137
>Tim Ball
Sigh. Dude is a geographer. Not a climate scientist, a GEOGRAPHER. He also receives funding from oil companies.

>>15903614
Climatology is a branch of geography and taught in many geography departments.

Denialniggers the most obnoxious group on the board: change my mind.

>>15903617
Objectively wrong.

>>15903605
It literally says "climate changes in Europe"

>>15903614
>ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23348-paranoid-schizophrenia

>>15897393
>How come the measured temperatures show a declining trend and those temperatures have to adjusted to produce a warming trend?
Sauce of that image, first of all, please.

>>15903605
Europe's climate has never been global. That's why it's called "Europe's climate" and not the "global climate". Why are you comparing a graph of the global average temperature to a graph of Europe's average temperature?

>>15902029
>>15902031
That is exactly denial. That's like saying "I don't need to maintain my vehicle, I'll just deal with issues as they come up" and you refuse to put oil in your car until it's bricked. Ignoring the problem and denying it exists is always the most expensive "solution" to the problem. You should face the problem like a man instead of hiding from it like a coward.

>>15901711
Take your meds.

>>15904348
>Take your meds.
Public announcement to all skeptics: disregard this Anon. It's all he can say in each and every thread. The ideologues deliberately frustrate rational debate to demoralize you. Recommended course of action: just make your argument and let it go. The silent majority can discern for themselves what's more reasonable. Stop wasting time with people who do not want a constructive discussion.

>>15904378
NTA. You sound like someone who should be taking meds but isn't.

>>15897393
>>15904191
Still waiting for that sauce on that image, unless it's a fake.

>>15904486
You just know it's a fake. You can stop holding your breath.

>>15904738

>>15904346
Your analogy is shit, a car is a small & simple enough system that a single person can happily look after. Taking care of an entire planet alone is not possible. This is why your way will fail. You require a borg-like monolith acting as one. Humans are not the borg or ants so stop offering solutions that presuppose they are. The free market is the best meta solution because it lets everyone deal with the problem as it crops up.

It may well be more expensive than if we knew the perfect choice to make at the perfect time. However in order to do that we need have perfect access to information, which is impossible.

Please stop being a dictator and let people get on with it.

>>15904486
Read the thread retard >>15898882

>>15905256
>It may well be more expensive
The cost of inaction is higher than the cost of preemptive action. I'd like to see you prove otherwise.

Denial is the absolute worst response to any problem. Cope harder, retard.

>>15905373
Not him but I'd like to see you prove the converse. (I read his point to be that neither can be proven.)

>>15903603
>Adjusted temperature minus raw temperature just so happens to line up almost linearly with co2 concentration
You're SO CLOSE anon. You would think that, wait for it... CO2 might be increasing the temperature of the planet?

He mostly just plots adjusted vs recorded without trying to address the reasons why the researchers did the adjustment in the first place. You have a fuck ton of variables to account for, measurement error, heat islanding, differences in measurement technology, etc. He also uses TMAX in the graph. Remember climate change is about AVERAGE temperature increasing, not the maximum. You can hide a lot with statistics and Heller is good at it.

>>15905422
>create model establishing how co2 will warm the planet
>use model to inform how to adjust measurements
>use scientific data to build new models predicting warming

>>15905468
Ok then how do you know for sure they're "adjusting" temperature measurements because of a model? I'm sure there are papers out there which explain all the changes they make, this isn't private data.

>>15905468

>>15905468
>use model to inform how to adjust measurements
That's not how they explain the adjustments. Also, that would be circular reasoning. Maybe that's popular in your bubble, but no editor would accept an analysis with such a logical fallacy.

>>15905296
>retard
I almost answered you, that's really too bad.

>>15897393
Assuming this is true, why is NOAA altering the data anon? Did you go look for it yourself.

>>15905879
>why is NOAA altering the data
same reason all the other scientists tell lies, because they're sneaky greedy liars

>>15905891
Vague answer, please. I asked a very precise question, I expect a very precise answer.
It's ok if you cannot provide it, but that is what's fundamental here, that answer.

>>15905891
The feel entitled to be like that because they're amoral atheists

>>15906923
Maybe is because they can't meassure again what already happened and this are the data they have

If they gave you fake data at the start of the global warming you will have fake data now

>>15905373
>I'd like to see you prove otherwise.
I'm not interested in proving that my way is cheaper, I'm telling you that your way won't work, and that my way is moral. You require people to operate like a borg drone.

>>15905422
>have temperature data
>adjust temperature data
>adjustments are done in such a way to fit co2 levels increasing
hmmm

>>15906936
Prove it.

>>15905912
you sure do seem to have a massive sense of entitlement, you'll probably do anything to avoid admitting that you were hoodwinked by the global warming hoaxers. admitting that would be too hurtful for you, you'd have to admit that you're dumb enough to have been tricked, which would lead to questioning your self identified status as a super special snowflake soience genius

>>15905912
NOAA scientists are paid by the government to find answers that are favourable to the government. By altering the data so that it appears climate change is occurring at a rate faster than would be expected by nature, this data can be used as evidence to back up the claim that anthropogenic climate change has a significant effect on the world.
If this claim can be accepted by people, the government can then move on to furthering it’s goal of gaining more power. It goes about this by making new laws and regulations that are claimed to prevent or otherwise effect anthropogenic climate change.

in short, by the scientists creating this data, the government can more easily suspend people’s disbelief and so justify more tyranny.

>>15907940
So you don't restrictions to your polluting we got it

Look everybody this anon wants to pollute and disrespect our shared atmosphere

>>15904346
>Ignoring the problem and denying it exists is always the most expensive "solution" to the problem.

>https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus.html
>On the day of the Nobel announcement, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) released a special report1 advising the governments of the world on various steps necessary to limit cumulative global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The major media coverage treated the two events as complementary.2 In fact, they are incompatible. Although Nordhaus favors a carbon tax to slow climate change, his own model shows that the UN’s target would make humanity poorer than doing nothing at all about climate change.
>the UN’s target would make humanity poorer than doing nothing at all about climate change.

>>15907944
>i own the atmosphere!!
>nobody can use it without my permission
>reeeeeeeeee!!!

>>15909000
You don't need to own the pool to tell others to not piss in it. >>15909000

>>15909045
That is an excellent analogy/rebuttal but it will fall on deaf ears because the CONSUUUUUUMERS are exceptionally stupid people with a touch of psychopathy who lie to themselves and others as a matter of routine.

In other words, that repugnant scumbag will continue to piss in the pool and continue to post the same self-serving drivel for as long as he lives.

>>15908429
What do you think that demonstrates? You effectively have the opinions of a single man backed by his own economic model. Did you have a particularly relevant Tarot card reading you wanted to share while you're at it?

>>15909655
He won a nobel prize for modeling the economic effects of climate change.

>>15910602
He won a nobel prize for shilling a vindictive non-solution.

>>15910602
If 'the powers that be' had a shred of honesty humanity's top minds would be paid to work on ways of shifting away from an infinite growth based financial system to something more sustainable. Instead shills like Nordhaus (such a cool name) are paid to shill The Great Ponzi.

>>15907940
It’d be incredibly more convenient for governments and corporations for there not to be climate change. That’s why there’s so much denial and funding towards denial coming from both respectively

>>15910649
That's right.

So you gotta wonder if the 'co2 is plant food' people really are just a bunch of retarded fuckwits, or instead they're part of a well funded and organized deception operation.

>>15910602
Obama won a Nobel prize too. That doesn't mean that "peace" and "economics" are science.

>>15910631
You are a racist that doesn't want to live near blacks. Pathetic. No stars for you ytoid.

>>15898965
Obvious shill
Mfw I'm stuck on earth paying taxes to pedos to fund you cunts

>>15902137
Every
Time

>>15904184
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sluggish-schizophrenia#:~:text=%E2%80%9CSluggish%20schizophrenia%E2%80%9D%20was%20a%20fictional,never%20officially%20recognized%20the%20diagnosis.
KIKE
Just like 90%+ of the original Bolsheviks
Russian "revolution" was a bunch of kikes carrying gold into Russia and murdering the royal family

>>15910617
Global warming doesn't exist, the whole point of the scam is to justify theft in the form of taxation

>>15911234
ok, but do you understand any kind of math that doesn't have a $ sign in front of it?

>>15910617
I don't care. You or someone else in this thread claimed that not dealing with the problem is more expensive than dealing with the problem. Turns out the when someone actually studied it they concluded that dealing with the problem is more expensive than not dealing with the problem.

>>15911327
Do you understand that taxation is functionally identical to theft?

>>15907357
Prove what? You want the government to have even more control over people. You are thus immoral. If you disagree that giving more power to the state is a terrible thing you only prove why its such a stupid thing to do. Giving power to the state is declaring we should go with "one size fits all" for everything. Then you same fools wonder why common core is shit or anything else run by the government is so clumsy.

>>15910631
>infinite growth based financial system
I hope you're not confusing this with a free market. This debt based system requires money printing, something only the government can do. The government makes sure that your not in the big club.

>>15912556
Take your meds. You have failed to prove your argument and have devolved into unhinged blogging.

>>15912556
Governments govern people. It's their job.
>but muh freedumbs
No, we're not going to tolerate you destroying the entire planet just so you can eat yourself to death and get into car crashes. We're going to regulate you, you're going to shut up or go to jail, and your children - which you will likely not be approved for - will thank us and despise you.

>>15912656
>>15912647
Slavemasters drive slaves. It's their job.
It was the camp gaurds job to shoot the jewish mothers baby in front of her.
And so on. I can only hope that in some point in the future you people realize why you're wrong, as I'm not capable of explain why you are. You either get it or you don't.

At least with the smallest possible government, we can agree to disagree. Such coexistence isn't possible with government.

>>15912672
Nobody cares. Pay your taxes, or rather have your mother pay them for you.

>>15912674
I think a lot of people think government is by nature oppressive and criminal. Almost everyone understands this by the time they've been put in a work camp and are starved to death.

>>15912686
You sound jewish. But your real religion is $.

>>15912672
>>15912686
Nobody cares about your blogposts. Fuck off.

>>15912656

>>15898823
i post anti AGW graphs for free. this disproves your claim. why did you lie?

>>15914338
dude pissed his pants lmao

>>15914341
Accurate description of a global warming denier ngl

>>15897393
how come all data sets, when """adjusted"" always end up making so-called global warming seem more prevalent and severe? how come the adjustment never goes the other way?

>>15912656
if you were actually worried about temperature rise "destroying the entire planet" you would just put so2 in the upper atmosphere. it's cheap enough that one first world government or sufficiently well-funded NGO could unilaterally do it at a large enough scale to completely negate all predicted warming from the entire world's greenhouse emissions.
global warming hysteria is not about controlling temperatures. we know how to control temperatures. it's about dismantling large-scale industrial civilization.

>>15916142
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

>>15913344
According to the IPCC, in the worst case (RCP 8.5) scenario, we aren't even gonna get a meter of sea level rise by 2100. We're look at 1.6cm a year at most.
The funniest part? Taking the absolute worst case projection and comparing it to the absolute best where we do full china climate communism, shows that the difference in sea level rise wont even be 4 fold. What a nothing burger.

>>15916295
pic got dropped

>>15916252

>>15916306
You are genuinely a retard.

>Why don't we solve our problem by creating a different problem?
Because that's not a solution, retard. It's another problem. Your ignorant ass can look up global dimming from any source you want. We've known about it for decades. I say "we" but I mean the scientific community of which you are clearly not a part.

>>15897996
Having a global average temperature is like having a global average life expectancy. If some regions are getting colder but hot places are getting hotter what's the fucking difference?
Oh, and reminder that we're talking about 0.5 to 1 degrees here. So absurdly small you literally wouldn't even notice it

>>15916455
That's totally within the margin of error for thermal probes. If that's really what they're claiming then the entire thing might be fabricated due to the tendency of thermal probes to calibrate hot (on average).

>>15916347
>YOUR A REEEETARD!!!!11

>>15916455
>>15916458
You two are retards. We're talking about the GLOBAL CLIMATE not the REGIONAL CLIMATE. If one REGION is warming or cooling that doesn't speak to the GLOBAL CLIMATE. You might as well say that the global average temperature is made up because of the medieval warm period in Europe.

>>15916463
You are and you're proving my point for me.

>>15916458
>the margin of error for thermal probes
Did just learn this word in school? I'm proud of you. Although, it might not mean what you think. I have a thermometer, that's pretty bad, it's rated +/- 1°C or something. However, when I read it continuously, it's value is pretty stable. If I open a window, the reading drops by a tenth of a degree, then two, three etc. When I close it again, the reading returns to normal. The change is well within the margin of error, but it's obviously real. I know I opened the window. I felt the cool air. How can this be? How can my thermal probe detect something that's well within its margin of error?

>>15916458
>>15916614
Oh, and 0.5-1°C is the rated accuracy for the cheapest shit thermal probes. The ones that cost a few cents. Fever thermometers have an accuracy rating of 0.1°C and they are relatively cheap, too. You'll hardly find scientific equipment that's only rated +/- 1°C lmao. So not just your underlying understanding of errors is wrong, but also the assumption that the margin of error is so large.

>>15916618
Source?

>>15916618
Show me the calibration paper on your thermometer.

>>15916642
I sourced it from AliExpress.

>>15916654
Calibration? More like manipulation. I'm only reading raw values.

>>15916614
>>15916618
Australian thermal probes over-report temps by 0.7C on average vs. their mercury counterparts in the same measurement station. This has been documented by the Australian government and the records are public due to their freedom of information laws.

>>15916667
If my cheap thermometer over-reports the temperature by 0.7°, I legitimately wouldn't be surprised. It would work as advertised. It can still detect changes of 0.1°C.

>>15916656
>>15916663
>>15916669
So you have nothing. I can't say I'm surprised.

>>15916252
no one was ever concerned about a global dimming apocalypse.
also, if you're doing it on purpose rather than as a byproduct of other activity, you can adjust the amount of material released to suit your needs, so you are at much less risk of catastrophically overshooting.

>>15897393
All fields

global warming is fake and gay

>>15916676
What?

>>15916792
You have no evidence to back your claim. You were asked for evidence and failed to provide it because you have none. Which part of this is difficult?

>>15916707
You might be the dumbest person on this board. If you're dimming the globe to counteract global warming then you have no control over how much dimming you need to counteract global warming. You have to dim the globe enough to balance the energy budget.

Genuinely, how can you be this stupid?

>>15916858
I don't see how providing evidence that a crappy DHT11 sensor is in fact crappy, yet can detect small temperature variations, provides anything in the context of this thread. I am not going to start logging the values, open a window, wait a few minutes, close it again, format the data in a way I can plot, plot them, just to explain to you that an inaccurate sensor can have a reasonable precision and thus be sensitive to temperature variations. You likely know this already, since it's common knowledge and most thermometers for homes have this property.

>>15897393
Anon, you should go ask that question from whom you got the image from, not here.
And if that person is not the source of the image, keep asking. Once you find the source, ask them why the data was altered, not here in /sci/, without sauce, without context, with pretty much nothing in your image for us to even know what that is all about and why.
Play smart, play fair.
Cheers

>>15916858
>>15916860
Not gonna tag the rest of your posts, but Christ almighty man. I've been here on and off for years and no matter when I show up, you're here in these climate threads. You've admitted to being some eurowagie at if I recall a post doc. So, it's rather clear your job is to shill climate change propaganda and to, in your mind or your employers mind, deradicalize the deniers and educate them.

Yet, time and time again. You just insult and berate people, which makes them laugh and shit on you, and will have the opposite of the intended effect by pushing them further into denial. For fucks sake, I was a fence sitter and the more I read your crap the more I started doubting what you had to say because of your aggression in belittling others. The more I questioned the more I noticed things.

Anyhow, just bizarre to me you're still here all these years later, still on payroll to "educate" these people, and having the opposite of the intended effect. Is it you, your employer or both who are tone deaf? I almost suspect it's some cult where you try to radicalize people into emitting more greenhouse gases so you can continue complaining about it to keep having a well paying comfy job.

>>15916892
>>15917128
>Still no evidence
I accept your concession.

>>15917173
Evidence for what?

>>15917128
What do you propose how to deal with "global warming denier" shills/trolls/useful idiots? Ignoring just makes them bump their retarded threads every day or so, so it doesn't keep them away, it just clogs up the board with stale threads. Educating doesn't work, as you probably saw for yourself. Isn't the only thing left insulting them and making fun of them? They are clearly not going to change their mind, because they either don't believe their bullshit in the first place, or they are so severely retarded that they would rather die than admit they were wrong.

Honestly, the only thing that would work would be to ban everyone reposting Tony Heller shit.

>>15917180
Your claims, retard. I know thinking is hard, but try to keep up.

>>15917128
>You just insult and berate people
https://youtu.be/5BRc5zV4YKU?si=x6mJLo5vpt3Mjcbd

>>15917190
What claims do you think I made? That accuracy is not precision? That systematical errors are not the same as statistical errors? The anecdote about my temperature sensor, while true, doesn't matter for such fundamental principles. You or some other midwit claimed (without source)
>[the observed global warming is] totally within the margin of error for thermal probes.
a) I doubt the truth of that sentence, since every temperature sensor that isn't chink shit will be better than 1°C
b) It does not imply what he thinks it implies, because see above. Accuracy vs. precision. But I am not surprised that people whose education ends in 7th grade only vaguely know the term "margin of errors" and misuse that concept.

>>15917204
>Still no evidence
Pitiful.

>>15917209
You know, I appreciate bringing this thread closer to its bump limit, but could you not try being at least a little bit creative?

>>15917214
Could you at least bring a bit of evidence? No? Big surprise.

>>15917225
From my previous replies you know that I still don't know what kind of evidence you want. I can ask again "Evidence for what?" to which you'll say "your claims". I'll go "what claims?" and you go back to step 1 and say ">still no evidence". If it makes you happy, here I go again:
Evidence for what?

>>15917229
Start with these claims, retard >>15917204

We'll work backwards from there, assuming you can back up literally anything you say.

>>15917234
Point out the claim you want sourced.

>>15917239
All of them, retard. That's what it means to provide evidence for your claims. It doesn't mean "provide evidence for some of your claims if you feel like it maybe."

>>15917248
I am not sure what you categorize as "claims". To me, textbook knowledge from some undergrad course is not a claim. Do you want me to prove the "claim" that the words accuracy and precision have different meanings? Is the concept of a systematic uncertainty a claim to you?

>>15917260
>Still no evidence
>Too retarded to know what a claim is
How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

Trust the authorities. They are smarter than you.

>>15916602
As I already said, global climate is fucking meaningless. You can’t claim that all parts of the globe are warming, because they’re not. Many are cooling.
If you average it all out and can barely scrape a degree of difference, then I figure you’re full of shit.

>>15917399
Wrong. The whole world is on fire, it is estimated there won't even be a winter this year and likely never will be again. You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem - and pretty soon people who are part of the problem will be facing the wrath of those who are part of the solution.

>>15917438
Yeah pretty much how climate cultists talk.
What drives me utterly insane is all the zoomers and millennials who go around saying that they won’t grow old because of climate change, like it’s going to wipe out all life on the planet. Even the worst predictions suggest a couple degree temp increase and minor sea level rise. The supposed catastrophe will be the displacement of people, and considering how many millions of migrants already come to my country I fail to see the difference

>>15917399
You are legit retarded. Why don't you start here. Read the whole thing start to finish. Even the big words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

>>15917516
I’m going to edit that article to call you a faggot.

>>15917523
I really don't care. Make sure you read it while you're there. You may be a retard now, but with effort and determination I'm sure you can push that IQ all the way up to 75 or even 80.

>>15917532
>talking about IQ while citing Wikipedia

>>15917543
>Complaining about wikipedia while being completely unable to formulate a rebuttal

>>15917545
What is there to rebut?
>the concept of a global temperature is retarded
>oh yeah? Well how bout you read this article on energy exchange bucko?
The concept of a global temperature is retarded.

>>15917564
The entire article that you should have been reading, retard. How about we start here:

>Earth's energy budget (or Earth's energy balance) accounts for the balance between the energy that Earth receives from the Sun and the energy the Earth loses back into outer space. Smaller energy sources, such as Earth's internal heat, are taken into consideration, but make a tiny contribution compared to solar energy. The energy budget also accounts for how energy moves through the climate system.[2]:2227 Because the Sun heats the equatorial tropics more than the polar regions, received solar irradiance is unevenly distributed. As the energy seeks equilibrium across the planet, it drives interactions in Earth's climate system, i.e., Earth's water, ice, atmosphere, rocky crust, and all living things.[2]:2224 The result is Earth's climate.

>>15917570
Very cool anon. I’m glad you’ve just learned about the water cycle and weather systems, but nothing in the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article you just pasted says anything that makes a global average temperature not retarded

>b-b-but it says that energy moves about in an attempt to equalize!!!!
That’s just what energy does anon. I know you feel big-brained for reading about this in the context of climate, but even middle schoolers know about entropy.
The bottom line is that the Earth isn’t a single temperature. In some regions it’s cold and in others it’s hot. In some places the average regional temperature is going down, and in others it is going up. Trying to average that out and saying it means anything is retarded, especially when you can barely scrape a single degree of difference in doing so.

Think of it this way. Your internal body temperature likes to be about 36-37C. Your extremities will be much colder, probably in the high 20s to low 30s. If your internal temperature rises, but your extremities temp lowers, and that averages out to +0.5C, what have you actually learned? Fucking nothing because an average temperature of a system as small as your body is not useful. So why do you think it would be useful on a much bigger and more complex system like a planet?

>>15917599
Your entire post is retarded and irrelevant. Which part of this are you having trouble with?

>The sun adds energy to the Earth
>The Earth loses energy to space
>The difference is an imbalance in the system

Surely you can do this. I've made it very simple for you. Rub those two brain cells together and really try to put some thought into it.

>>15917608
Faggot, at what point does the Earth gaining and losing energy make an average global temperature in any way useful information?

>>15917625
Don't run before you can walk. You're mentally handicapped, remember? So you accept that the Earth can only lose heat to space and that the sun is the primary source of energy on Earth. That's good. That's progress. Now try this part

>If there is no energy imbalance then the total energy of the Earth is constant
>If there is an imbalance then energy will either accumulate or be lost until a new equilibrium is reached

>>15917642
Christ even you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

>>15917658
You mean you don't know what I'm talking about, retard. Which part of that is giving you trouble? Use your words like a big boy.

>>15917663
I asked you a really simple question. What use is an average global temperature? Your response was to talk - no, paste snippets- about whether the energy system of the Earth is net positive or negative
I don’t think you understand that an average global temperature doesn’t tell you that information. But then, it’s hard to tell what you do or don’t understand because you’re not actually making any points you’re just insisting that I read Wikipedia

>>15917670
>paste snippets
So you still haven't read that page at all. That's okay, retard. We're still making progress without the article. Which premise is giving you trouble?

>If there is no energy imbalance then the total energy of the Earth is constant
>If there is an imbalance then energy will either accumulate or be lost until a new equilibrium is reached

>>15917683
>get called on not saying anything, just copy pasting irrelevant excerpts
>acknowledge it
>do it again

Let’s me ask you one more time.
What use is there in an average global temperature?
If you cannot answer this in your own words, you get no more (You)s

>>15917716
>copy pasting
Go ahead and use ctrl+f and find these "snippets" retard. They aren't in the article. I decided it was too advanced for someone with such a severe learning disability.

>What use is there in an average global temperature?
You aren't there yet, my impatient retard. I told you you'd have to put in work and effort if you don't want to stay retarded for the rest of your life. Now which of these premises are you having trouble with?

>If there is no energy imbalance then the total energy of the Earth is constant
>If there is an imbalance then energy will either accumulate or be lost until a new equilibrium is reached

Aw that’s too bad.

>>15917734
For you, retard. You have chosen to remain a retard by refusing to learn. You were only a few steps away from finding out what use the global average temperature is and the significance of 1 degree. That's okay though. I really doubt you would have been capable of getting there since you had so much trouble with the second set of premises.

Gee whiz, I have all these (You)s and no one to give them to. If only someone could articulate their answer to a very simple question using their own words instead of acting like a smug retard and constantly referring to an irrelevant Wikipedia article. Oh well…

>>15917749
How ironic. Just tell me which premise is giving you trouble, my wayward retard, and we'll get there. This is the intellectual work you need to put in.

>If there is no energy imbalance then the total energy of the Earth is constant
>If there is an imbalance then energy will either accumulate or be lost until a new equilibrium is reached

>>15917185
So you're just here to troll?

>>15916860
>You have to dim the globe enough to balance the energy budget.
yes, which is almost tautologically not enough to be a problem. what bad outcome are you imagining from maintaining that balance? if you find that you're overshooting and cooling the climate too much, you put less so2 in the air, which you would not be able to do so easily if it were coming from industrial activity, which was what my last post was about.

>>15917828
Nonsense. Look at the issues that were caused by global dimming before it was reversed. That dimming was not enough to counteract global warming. Now imagine how much worse it will have to be in order to counteract the ever increasing temperature of the Earth.

>>15917128
Have you seen NATO propaganda lately? They're trying to sell democracy to hyper-conservative Orthodox Christian Slavs and Muslim Bosniaks by saying it will make their country gayer and more transgender. Tone deaf is a given when it comes to their campaigns.

>>15917812
Why else would redditiers be on 4chan?

>>15917214
Composition of the Air is 0.04% CO2.
Is there any experiment that confirms that a doubling of that (0.08%) would induce a greenhouse effect of any significance?

Also since CO2 is havier than nitrogen and oxygen, it has a tendency to accumulate lower in rather than in the upper atmosphere.
There is no scientific demonstration of the so called "greenhouse" effect caused by CO2 relatable to the concentraion of it in our air in real life.
The assumed causality is a nice trick to excuse getting people to live in ze pod and 15 minute walkable cities with constant survailance and "optimized" food.

>Only paying CO2 tax could save us.
And living in ze pod
And living in 15 minute walkable cities.
And drinking Cockroach milk based soilent and YFOOD and this one brand that sound like your were puking : HUEL

>>15917267
The people who are dumber than authorities are unfortunately too dumb to trust them.

>>15918764
> Composition of the Air is 0.04% CO2.
>Is there any experiment that confirms that a doubling of that (0.08%) would induce a greenhouse effect of any significance?
if you look at the recent past, increasing the concentration by a factor 1.5 from 0.28 to 0.42% has caused a warming of about 1°C already.

Your question sounds like “is there any experiment that confirms that touching the hot plate again would burn my hand again?” - well yes. You can try it out, but then you burn your hand again. Normal children only touch the hot plate once and then stop.

>>15918764
> And living in 15 minute walkable cities.
That sounds unironically nice. Why do reactionaries want to live in cities they can’t even walk in?

>>15917880
Kek, I unironically believe that.

>>15918924
>I want to live in a city

>>15918924
The name of a program isn't always related to the actual program itself. You're not gullible enough to only read the title of a proposal are you?

>>15918924
I want to live in a city that isn't an absurd amount of humans packed in to an unreasonably tiny area that demands excessive wasteful infrastructure to support. You would call it a small town or suburb and be terrified of it for some unfathomable reason

>>15917438
>two more weeks
snowing here btw.

>>15897996
/thread
Heller doesn't show the average US temperature graph.

>>15897996
>>15920484
>choosing a single time of the year and area to sample from makes the data less valid
why?

>>15920524
Because any data that debunks their alarmist cult is bad data.

>>15920524
>>15920526
Because it's a GLOBAL event. How can you be this retarded?

>>15903614
>climate change
>geography
>unrelated

>>15920617
Describe the relationship between climate and geography.

>>15920617
Him not understanding global warming should be proof that he has no idea what he is talking about.

>>15917438
see >>15913283

>>15897996
Oh, yes, because using average global temperature as a justification to tax your car more is perfectly valid and not stupid at all, all that matter is to save a planet that will be fine anyways

>>15912570
Explain how free market forbids infinite rent seeking shareholders

>>15920397
I actually do. Why not?

>>15922685
I genuinely do not believe that you are this stupid.

>>15920608
If it's a GLOBAL phenomenon (not event, climate change isn't just something that started happening one day) than measuring the same place at the same time every year to minimize LOCAL variation is obviously best practice

>>15923229
That would not minimize local variation. Are you retarded? I'm certain you don't have a degree, but did you even finish high school?

>>15923306
It would if the one place is a whole country that takes up most of a continent, which is true in this case. Why are you so incapable of honest argument? Why do you just want to scream that all dissenters are retards? I think you need help for your mental instability.

>>15922685
>justification to tax your car
And yet oil and gas infrastructure and mining continues to grow exponentially as does emissions of co2, despite the science.
Maybe you should ask yourself what the true purpose of the tax is, because clearly it has nothing to do with preventing climate change. Maybe someone other than climate scientists should be the target of your vitriol.

>>15923415
> oil and gas infrastructure and mining continues to grow exponentially as does emissions of co2
None of that is true.

>>15923229
That's exactly how you maximize local variation.

Protip: if a graph is unusually specific for no reason, like if it looks at the number of chocolate cookies sold in the month of july at Wal mart but only on a tuesday, then the graph is probably cherrypicked.

You can come to any conclusion whatsoever if you just look at random noise. Adjustments exist for a reason.

>>15923428
Isn't it wonderful when the left lies just as much as the right, only about different things.
https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/global-carbon-emissions-fossil-fuels-reached-record-high-2023

>>15923550
From the website you linked. That’s not exponential growth.
> the left lies
Pure projection. Being so far right that everyone else is “the left” and then accusing them of what you’re doing (lying).

>>15923550
>>15923561

>>15923510
see >>15923343

>>15918919
>has caused a warming of about 1°C already.
>caused

You apperently do not understand my post.
Causality is what I want to have proven.
Because it more likely appears to correlate and there is not a clue of CO2 concentration in that range does anything to to the temperature.
It appears to be the other way arround.
If it gets warmer, higher CO2.

And if that is not the case:
Please provide a scientific proof that demonstrates what I asked for.
Show me a study in which they demonstrated that any CO2 concentration in the air causes greenhouse effects.
>with 0% CO2
>with 0.02% CO2
>with 0.05% CO2
etc.

>>15923561
The only reason it's not exponential in some places is because oil reserves are being depleted. It has absolutely nothing to do with the carbon tax, as intended - we wouldn't want to interfere with our sacred growth now would we even if it does depend on continuing to spew ghgs.
The carbon tax is a vindictive non-solution and economic growth is a ponzi.

>>15923343
>>15923641
Nope. You are wrong.

>>15923851
Nonsense.

>>15923858
Go back and get your GED.

>>15918919
don't care
The only thing you communist scum can claim with any believability is the rate of change in various climate effects could result in the extinction of a few species. This is of course of zero concern to anyone in the long term. To nature it doesn't matter, new animals will evolve to fill niches. To humans it doesn't matter as if it did we'd expend energy to save the ones we cared about, cows bees and corn will never go extinct, if people like rhinos enough they will pay to keep them as pets and so on.

In summary, subhuman statist vermin like yourself are just using climate change as an excuse to tyrannize people.

>>15924017
>we'd expend energy to blah blah blah
Unfortunately, energy will be in very short supply soon due to consumerism and the whackjob delusional infinite growther cult.
You know nothing about science and the only math you understand is the kind that has a $ sign in front of it; your entire world view is nothing more than a complex rationalization for what feels good, gluttony.
The arrogance/ slimey god complex to think humans can simply "human" themselves a way out of declining EROEI.

Absolutely laughable. Reproduce and multiply like bacteria, drown in your own waste like bacteria.

>>15924048
>muh peak oil
>muh malthusianism
Okay, Grandpa. That's enough internet for today.

>>15924126
There have been many ponzi and pyramid schemes through history, "economic growth" is just another ponzi in a long list of ponzis, and you're just another sucker among a long list of suckers.

>>15924048
this is what you look like

>>15924148
consumerism and any kind of retarded rationalization for gluttony is more a right wing kind of thing

>>15924156
sure it is, thats why the world's most famous global warming promoter is tub of lard

>>15924142
Sure old timer. I bet you remember all those stories about "peak oil" in the 1970s.

>>15898749
Oh wow, this guy is very obviously biased. He then goes on to take things out of context and make mountains out of molehills.

I can't believe this is your evidence of wrongdoing. It's pretty pathetic to say the least.

>>15898122
Are you saying that there is a conspiracy? You think that the rich and the powerful just get together in a room to conspire against the public interest?

Take your meds.

>>15923690
> Show me a study in which they demonstrated that any CO2 concentration in the air causes greenhouse effects.
If I bother and link the latest IPCC report, will you spaz out and claim that they don’t “demonstrate” anything because historical studies + lab studies + computer models are not what you mean by “demonstrate” or are you rather going to claim that it’s all lies and they are shilling propaganda?

>>15924308
>Are you saying that there is a conspiracy?
Yes. Companies like Exxon, Chevron and others doing their own research, finding that CO2 causes global warming and then conspiring to spread misinformation is a well-documented fact.
>You think that the rich and the powerful just get together in a room to conspire against the public interest?
Remove the "in a room" and replace "against the public interest" to "for their financial interest", and it's not unreasonable at all. And again, proven by countless documents.

>>15923210
>proceeds to gaslighting instead of arguing
Your spells have no power over me, bootlicker. You can say all you want you serve "science" with your flimsy math that don't resist the minor scrutiny and convince the gullable populace all you want, but not me.

>>15923415
>oil and gas infrastructure and mining continues to grow exponentially
Source: party lines

>you should ask yourself what the true purpose of the tax is
Oh, it is not to enrich politicians and their cronies? Golly gee, I sure hope they don't spend it all on training killers to police me to see if I'm putting my trash in the correct bins, eh?

>someone other than climate scientists should be the target of your vitriol
Environmental fascists get it too, don't worry. You're not less of a bootlicking drone because it's for the trees.

>but I'm right and you're wrong because of [insert plausible demand here]!
Aren't we all? But you're with the government, so you're righter than I am, right?

Get fucking bent.

>>15924413
>Oh, it is not to enrich politicians and their cronies?
Only a marginally small amount of taxpayer money goes to politicians.

>>15924426
Yes, and all the rest go to their cronies, and barely any go to the actual development of infrastructure and public services, just enough to shill you into vote for them. You're starting to understand

>>15924436
>their cronies
You mean in the military industrial complex, the police and the energy sector? You're right, the government should stop funding these.

>>15924490
I meant Blackrock and subsidiaries, you twerp. And you wish you had all the money that goest o the police and energy sector would be actually used to enforce the law (it isn't) or to cheapen energy production (lol no). The military industrial complex seems fine for some reason, maybe because it's managed by some investment fund that enjoy very much blowing up brown people on the other side of the world. Or the next country, in the case of the russians. What are you going to say next, cheese subsidies?

>>15924504
>I meant Blackrock and subsidiaries
How does the government give money to asset managers?
>The military industrial complex seems fine for some reason
Do you have brain damage?
>What are you going to say next, cheese subsidies?
I wish cheese got as much subsidies as bombs. But then again. I'd get very very fat. So I prefer less money for bombs and lower taxes for the middle class.

>>15924308
>Take your meds.
Projection

>>15924508
>How does the government give money to asset managers?
Stealthily. Of course Biden will not write a check to Larry Fink. They'll hire one local subsidiary or another to do a "development" for double the price spending half the money and pocket the rest. Even when the judges allowed to investigate this kind of "privileged forum" crime are all in lockstep, they know they have to keep a farce to keep going.

Also, "but there's no evidence" is one of the most partisan collaborator line I can think of. There is, but your judge will handwave it because justice standards are corrupted and moot.

>military industrial complex
I agree there are problems. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel of human resources, pax americana consensus is leaning for a stop and the whole infrastructure is riddled with the same kind of corruption of corporate echelons rigged for" investment as the paycheck" instead of actually delivering valuable goods.

>I prefer less money for bombs and lower taxes for the middle class
How about only subsidizing bombs only and lower taxes for everyone? The idea that "the rich"'s taxpayer pool is anything closer to the middle class and below taxpayer pool is at best sophomoric and more probable because you know you can't have what the rich have and you want to fuck them over, it's laughable

>>15924533
>Stealthily
So, they're moving trillions but no one can see it?

>>15924533
>How about only subsidizing bombs only and lower taxes for everyone?
Why subsidize bombs in the first place? Why lower taxes for the rich?

>>15924517
The people who are addicted to the pharmaceutical industry's addictive feel good pills always accuse others of being drug addicts like they are

>>15924551
>they're moving trillions but no one can see it
They can. It's not that hard. It isn't about "hiding it from the public", it's about doing it in a way that there's no legal precedence to prosecute by churning it differently. And considering your justice system effectively installed redistribution by capping theft value you're very far from justice-based justice, you're peaking partisan-based justice, here we are

>>15924552
>Why subsidize bombs in the first place?
If you don't now what the pax americana is for, I don't think explaining it would convince you that if you don't you'll not have nice cheap stuff for it was developed in germany and manufactured in China, you'll have to deal with Ohio steel forever

>Why lower taxes for the rich?
I don't care for the rich, steal all their money for all I care. Watch how they will react, and watch what happens to society next.
My problem is "tax the rich" is a partisan line to buy votes moved by resentment. Taxing the rich more will solve none of the problems society have, and since it will just be giving more money to politicians it's plausible it will just exarcebate it more and ram society into crisis. Money, after all, is a fickle gnostic spell that depends on things happening a certain way, and when it doesn't it's never fun.

>>15924142
>any day now the world will end
>any day now
>any second now...

>>15926028
>it will just be giving more money to politicians it's plausible it will just exarcebate it more and ram society into crisis.
Thats a guarantee, politicians only exist to create problems and then exploit those same problems. Even when things are at their best, you will never see a politician saying "everythings fine, theres no use for me right now"

>>15926876
Now tell this to all those ideological cultists that went to "college" ( which is a weird way to spell "seminar") that they're all just useful idiots and collaborators to mobsters

>>15900350
>how should climate change be addressed
>with logic
>but how should we specifically address it
>we should face it instead of pretend it isn't happening
>but specifically what should we do
>we should stop denying it
motherfucker what kind of concrete action do you think the world should take

>>15927020
You should give all your money to the government, cut off your duck, eat they bugs and live in the pod in a 15 minute city

>>15927905
If you’re a chud, you actually should do that, yes. Apart from living in a 15-minute city, that would ruin the cities, if all the chuds moved there.

So whats the deal with ir feedback loops remeitting heat. Wouldnt the ir be blocked on the path entering the atmosphere as well? How exactly does the heat het trapped again?

>>15928284
It doesn't enter as IR, other wavelengths are absorbed and emitted as IR

>>15928284
The surface temperatures of the sun and earth are quite different. Therefore, the emission spectra are quite different as well.

>>15928284
>How exactly does the heat het trapped again?
it doesn't, global warming is fake news. thats why they need to invent fake data as displayed in OP pic

>>15928365
Yes but wouldn't the percentage of ir that was entering the atmosphere be absorbed and remitted at higher altitudes? I am not trying to be ignorant here just a genuine question. I think a lot of the oil companies are trying to cash in on solar, wind etc. not saying it's useless or cc is fake, but I have my doubts. Also what do you think of the effect regulation would have on 3rd world population?

>>15922715
Too environmentally friendly and resistant to sieges and artillery strikes

>>15928661
>Yes but wouldn't the percentage of ir that was entering the atmosphere be absorbed and remitted at higher altitudes?
Sure, but the IR part of solar insolation isn't what's driving global warming. The rest of the spectrum is converted to IR when it's absorbed and re-radiated by the Earth.

>I think a lot of the oil companies are trying to cash in on solar, wind etc.
Their "green" initiatives are primarily based around biofuels and natural gas.

>Also what do you think of the effect regulation would have on 3rd world population?
3rd world countries tend to adopt the most current form of technology. For example, Africa has never had landlines but now most Africans have cell phones. If there were some regulation that required green energy then the 3rd world would just adopt green energy technologies.

>>15928684
suburban households have children and families, the ones in town are mostly single occupancy

>>15929968
What if there was some method of stacking dwellings on top of each other to maximize the number of people per unit of area?

>>15930119
You "walkable cities" sound like a lovely way to keep pushing the economic/population growth ponzi a little while longer, and a recipe for human misery.
Also, carbon taxes are a vindictive non-solution.

>>15928684
People don't want to live in New York because its filthy crime ridden hellhole.

>>15922715
crime, the stench, etc.

>>15897393
>How come the measured temperatures show a declining trend and those temperatures have to adjusted to produce a warming trend?
Because the person whom you git that chart fro is full of shit, and he doesn't go into any deep explanation why the data was (supposedly) altered, nor does he explain why he thinks the data should not be adjusted. Full of shit indeed.

https://phys.org/news/2023-12-extreme-storms-wildfires-broke-recordsa.html

>>15931906

>>15931917
I'm sure, some oil shill will soon explain why these costs should be socialised while profits shouldn't be.

>>15931901
If that person would explain anything. It would be much easier to expose his nonsense. By keeping it vague, he minimises the attack surface. Detailed explanations are dangerous to grifters.

>>15931890
Sounds like a skull issue. I live in Zurich and it's pretty clean, walkable and generally nice.

>>15931906
Well, shit.

>>15930825
Why do people live in New York then?

>>15932395
most of the people who live in new york collect welfare

>>15932448
That's not true if you look at the numbers. Here's a challenge for you: write one (1) comment without a lie, insult or deflection.

>>15932448
This, most people live in NY because they can collect gibes while leading a life of crime. Whores and drug dealers have no offical income so they can get gibes and still work their criminal schemes and the two streams of income combine to makes them quite wealthy, definitely more wealthy than the average phd collecting a 5 figure income. welfare in NY pays about $45,000 a year and its untaxed so thats the equivalent of earning about $70k

>>15933819
>welfare in NY pays about $45,000 a year and its untaxed so thats the equivalent of earning about $70k
imagine going to school for over a decade just so you can "earn" what others get for free.

>>15897393
Because global warming is yet another fake soiyence hoax

>>15931917
how do we know this increased spending isn’t a consequence of disaster aid becoming a voting issue and thus gaining attention from politicians? That’s to say, it’s not the increase in storms, but the increase in care for those in need.

Perhaps you could correlate an increase in “severe weather” along side an increase in “severe weather damage spending”.

Of course another confounding factor could be not an increase in “severe storms”, but a higher prevalence for new houses etc to be built on sub par land e.g flood plains. This would be a result of population rise, not climate change, but still cause a rise in “severe storm damage spending”.

>>15931922
>these costs should be socialised
Simply because it’s your property getting destroyed by the weather. You idiotic socialists can’t tell the difference between a man locking another man in a dungeon and starving him death, and a man refusing to donate food to a starving man on the street. You believe both are equally responsible because you fail to recognise that things like a need for food and shelter are a product of nature, not of other men.

>>15931901
>why the data was (supposedly) altered,
because the government and corporations will gain more power by creating more regulations over society, all justified by lying data.

>>15935202
>all justified by lying data
the data has nothing to do with it.
if it weren't climate change they'd use something else to justify it and people would go along just the same.

>>15935264
>if it weren't climate change they'd use something else to justify it and people would go along just the same.
I agree, climate change is not a vital instrument, but it’s available so they are using it. We need to reduce the size of government not increase it.

>>15935278
Then you could just as well criticize their fake solutions instead of criticizing the science. Wouldn't be easier to prove to that their solutions are ineffective than to prove that the scientists are lying?

>>15935300
The general public aren’t concerned with reviewing the science themselves. All the government needs to do is have enough smart looking people declare a crisis exists and that we must enlarge the state or else. Frankly I don’t see a realistic chance of reducing the state in this civilisational cycle. Judging by the past 150 years I don’t see us reversing the trend of government expansion. We’ve got the wrong genetics now.

>>15935300
What would be the strategic benefit of ignoring that the entire debate is based on false premises? It seems like that would make any argument more difficult.

>>15935320
Because the vast majority of people aren't retarded enough to ignore their very own eyes, and the vast majority of people aren't averse to simple science and their own senses.

>>15935332
Did you respond to the wrong post?