/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15994325
Thats interesting, surely they have those articles linked somewhere for their viewers to see, right?

>>15994325
and just like that the global warming hysterics stopped trusting science

>>15994332
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/62/8/JAMC-D-22-0122.1.xml
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179

>>15994325
>alleged
key word, there is no consensus

>>15997022
tsmt

>>15996148
>https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179
good article, i'd repost it here, but the PDF is too big for 4chan's pathetic 4mb size limit

>>15999006
wow they wrote an article more than 4 million characters long? thats crazy

The Truth About Climate Change
https://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
Climatology occupies the intersection of science policy and public understanding of science. In such a prominent position, the wide spectrum of climate opinions is remarkable. Society has achieved a paradigm in which global warming subscribers and non-subscribers are largely segregated by political affiliation. Since science is non-political, only a misunderstanding of the science can facilitate such a segregation. In the first section we analyze a recent study by Cook \emph{et al.} finding overwhelming scientific endorsement for the greenhouse theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). We find the popular reporting on Cook's result is not accurate. The aim of the following section is to clarify the science behind the most popular climate arguments and introduce the reader to some evidence that is not widely publicized. Even the astute non-climatologist should come away from this report with an enhanced understanding of relevant issues in modern climate science.

>>15999025
>Since science is non-political

>>15994325
So what exactly is wrong about the consensus and what's the reality of the situation?

>>16000769
a consensus of retards isn't worth paying attention to
the reality is that global warming is fake and is plainly no occurring, the as it is presently is no different from what it was 40 years ago

>>15999013
PDFs contain formatting instructions and embedded graphics. File size is not directly related to the number of words alone.

>>16000769
>what exactly is wrong about the consensus
The consensus is based on excluding anything that doesn't agree with the self anointed consensus.
>what's the reality
That's to be discovered via science, not ideological consensus.

>>16000769
If you read the articles, the gist of it is the global warming models combine temperature data from thermometers in both urban and rural areas in order to find some kind of mean average temp across all the thermometers. They do some finagling to say that the combined data represents total global warming. What this paper did was separately evaluate rural and urban thermometers, and found that the vast majority of reported global warming is due to the fact that urbanization is causing massive heat islands, but if you go look at the rural thermometers hardly any warming has occurred in comparison.
Something like 0.66C per century for entirely rural thermometers, and something more like 1.5-2C for urban thermometers. They used Japanese Data and USA data. The Japanese data is where that 0.66C came from, and Japan has significant urban development which makes even the 'rural' thermometers suspect there. For the USA its more like 0.4C per century. So basically global warming is way overblown because the urban heat island effect has skewed all the data and existing studies don't accurately account for this effect, and so they report that the 'global warming' is about twice as much as the actual warming occurring in rural areas.
Essentially yes your world is heating up if you live in a city that continues to grow, but if you are in the countryside you aren't really seeing much heating.
The article then states that to mitigate warming seen, more should be done to mitigate urban heat island effect than reduction in carbon emissions.

Coincidentally, this seems to correlate with the political views of the urban/rural divide when it comes to global warming.

>>16002057
>>>/pol/

>>16002057
>mitigate urban heat island effect
how would that solve anything

>>16000769
>the consensus
there was never a consensus outside of institutions funded by people external to the field. I don't think climatologists that undersigned the model ever breached 47%

>>16002057
taking a short term trend and projecting it out linearly for a century is extremely ignorant, its as dumb as recording temperatures between dawn and noon and using that as the basis for a linear temperature projection.
the people who were claiming "the next ice age is upon us in the 60s & 70s did the exact same thing and even though they were proved to be completely wrong, dimwits in the science are still using the same dumb logic to presume recent short term trend will continue as they are forever
>between the end of the last ice age and now sea level rose 40m, so that means that in a billion years sea level will be so high you'll be able to swim to the moon

>>16004131
>in a billion years sea level will be so high you'll be able to swim to the moon
no one says that
if you had an argument you wouldn't have to ridicule and make shit up to compensate

This thread is full of retards.

>>16004695
yeah and you're probably a racist, so

>>16004131
the reason those short term trends will always reverse is that earth is in dynamic thermodynamic equilibrium with respect to solar energy input

>>16004695
Welcome to /sci/

>>16004695
is that your final argument
it doesn't exactly support climate change

>>15996148
MDPI is a predatory publisher doe

>>16004131
>taking a short term trend and projecting it out linearly for a century is extremely ignorant
White genocide BTFO

>>16004131
They're not extrapolating the "climate" out 100 years. The climate evolves deterministically and predictably. Where the uncertainty (and thus the extrapolation) occurs is humanity's levels of CO2 output. So basically if we assume a business as usual scenario, the climate would warm 4 degrees by 2100.

>>16005871
>line can only go up
B)

>>16005833
>I hate /sci/
why are you here?

>>16006971
Nobody can ever explain why they spend time on a board which they're convinced is full of total morons

>>16004695
Just like the rest of /sci/.
The only consensus we have is that niggers are dumb and violent

>>16002057
walkable city bros, we win again

>>16005871
>Earth's biosphere won't react to an increase in CO2, everything just works like a clockwork machine with no ability to respond
Doesn't the Gaia Hypothesis completely refute this?

>>15994325
>"wide awake media"

>>16004695
>if you dont believe in WEF propaganda and leftist ideology, you're a retard

Time for critical outlook on everything you know about your so called "facts" aka propaganda

>>16007666
It responds, but it will take time to respond, and that time period may be hundreds or thousands of years, in which time we humans will be up shit creek. That being said I suspect the net effects of climate change may actually be positive. Runaway greenhouse warming is impossible and warming will make many areas of the world considerably more livable and arable in the long run - particularly, around Canada and Russia.

>>16005849
Yes I'm sure shitskins will stop coming to white countries by the millions each year so they can rape and murder.

>>15995684
yep, they only "trust the science" when the science is telling them things they like to hear, such as justifying their narcissistic savior complex fantasies

>>15994325
Its nice to see that some scientists are finally figuring out what everyone else already knew decades ago

>>16009808
they sure do seem slow on the uptake

>>15994325
"Climate change" was politicized to slap tariffs and taxes on CO2 and make CO2 swaps tradeable for companies. By doing this you can also raise the price for consumers. There's literally no evidence for either CO2 levels being continually increasing (other than cherrypicked data being in a negligible level of parts per million) nor is there evidence for CO2 as a molecule supposedly trapping heat. Furthermore, an increase in global CO2 levels simply causes more more photosynthesis to happen, it's all an equilibrium.

Everybody in Chemical Engineering knows the partial atmospheric pressure of CO2 is always considered a constant. Discussing this with non-engineering leftists friends used to be impossible causing loads of ridicule when these people lack the understanding of extremely basic concepts in STEM such as photosynthesis or behavior of closed systems

>>16010731
>nor is there evidence for CO2 as a molecule supposedly trapping heat.
There is plenty of evidence which conclusively proves that CO2 is not a "greenhouse gas"

>>16002057
Surely this has been accounted for??? Everyone knows that cities get hot as fuck

>>15994325
Meanwhile no one has ever seen it rain here in January before.
But one has to wonder why it is so important to you that humanity has no effect on the climate.

>>16002312
idiot

>>16011943
>why it is so important to you that humanity has no effect on the climate.
Lol anon is just trying to educate helpless stupid assholes like yourself who believe everything the TV box says. Be grateful, because at this point I legitimately think "people" like you need to be shot. If I was in charge I would mandate a strychnine vaccine, if you don't take it you are racist. Would eliminate all the world's problems, you included. Get fucked.

>>16000769
climate change is old news

scientific funding has been pulled
activist funding has been rerouted
the propaganda has failed

it's over

>>16011915
they intentionally don't account for the urban heat bubble because they can create the false appearance of global warming by neglecting to account for the effect of ever growing urban heat bubbles

>>16013119
just one of the many, many lies used by global warming shills

>>16012098
Why is still 12 years old?

>>16014533
puberty blockers

>>16013119
>Imagine being this retarded

>>15994325
>secondhand source
>makes retarded claim
>"backed by major prestigious scientific journals"
>source?
>no

are you dull

>>16011915
It has.

>>16014639
it isn't accounted for, the climate models all assign similar albedo values to forests and asphalt and make no accounting for the effect of organic life

>>16015370
Nonsense. You shouldn't just make shit up. Why don't you try to find a source to corroborate your claim? You might learn something about climate modeling.

>>15994325
so I'll start by saying I believe in climate change, but yeah there is a dam cracking.
'Peer Reviewed', 'Prestigiuous Scientific Journals', 'Scientific Consensus'. None of this means anything. The whole system has been politicized monetized & ruined. Bankrupt of credibility.

>>16015390
All of the relevant science was developed 50+ years ago, long before science was monetized, politicized and ruined.
I might argue that science being ruined was the response by entrenched centuries old corrupt money to the threat posed to them by science.

>>16015390
>>16015399
Take your meds.

>>15999025
yeah, but on which hemisphere are you on

>>16015390
>The whole system has been politicized monetized & ruined. Bankrupt of credibility.
yet you still insist on believing in their lies, why?

>>16015399
>I might argue that science being ruined was the response by entrenched centuries old corrupt money to the threat posed to them by science.
thats how they play ball

>>16002057
This paper and (you) state that urban heat island effect have not been accounted for when this is blatantly false and has been known for decades. You also seem to state that these temperatures are global when the paper looks at the northern hemisphere only and the rural urban differences are relatively small. Moreover, other methods of measurements agree with the warming trend of land data, including satellite and sea surface temperatures.

>>16018358
this is what they really expect you to believe

>>16004461
>>16005871
>The climate evolves deterministically and predictably
>deterministically
Sure, no-one is alleging supernatural forces control the climate.
>predictably
Lmao prove it

>>16018381
>This paper and (you) state that urban heat island effect have not been accounted for when this is blatantly false
Your reading comprehension needs to improve. That Anon, and the paper, both concede that the urban heat island effect is accounted for, but they contend that the methodology for incorporating UHI is flawed and actually tends to spread the UHI effect farther across the data set, rather than constraining it.

>>16018381
The source paper of your graph
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373444649_The_Detection_and_Attribution_of_Northern_Hemisphere_Land_Surface_Warming_1850-2018_in_Terms_of_Human_and_Natural_Factors_Challenges_of_Inadequate_Data

>A statistical analysis was applied to Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures (1850–2018) to try to identify the main drivers of the observed warming since the mid-19th century.
>Two different temperature estimates were considered—a rural and urban blend (that matches almost exactly with most current estimates) and a rural-only estimate. The rural and urban blend indicates a long-term warming of 0.89 °C/century since 1850, while the rural-only indicates 0.55 °C/century.
>This contradicts a common assumption that current thermometer-based global temperature indices are relatively unaffected by urban warming biases

>Our analysis focused on the Northern Hemispheric land component of global surface temperatures since this is the most data-rich component. It reveals that important challenges remain for the broader detection and attribution problem of global warming:
> (1) urbanization bias remains a substantial problem for the global land temperature data;
> (2) it is still unclear which (if any) of the many TSI time series in the literature are accurate estimates of past TSI;
> (3) the scientific community is not yet in a position to confidently establish whether the warming since 1850 is mostly human-caused, mostly natural, or some combination.

>>16004131
>between the end of the last ice age and now sea level rose 40m, so that means that in a billion years sea level will be so high you'll be able to swim to the moon
this is what global warming faggots actually believe

>>16001969
It was just a sham started to raise money. Got totally out of hand but who's going to bitch when these climate shills literally convinced world governments to give them trillions of dollars. It has been one of the largest wealth transfers in history.

>>16018381
They tried to debunk heat island effect. It was retarded.
They basically said, "does a measured heat island effect explain our fake temperature data created by modeling CO2 warming into a biased model? no, it doesn't, so there's no heat island effect explaining our fake model."
Completely retarded study.

Heat island effect is real.
So you have Roy Spencer who is called a lukewarmist because he pretends to believe in greenhouse theory and CO2 driving temps. He just doesn't think they drive temps that much.
Even HE points out that NASA is biasing the observational data to juice their models.

The models are calibrated to 1980, so the more time passes since then, it has to get hotter and hotter. At some point, the observational regional data, even though its normalized, homogenized and calibrated into fake global data, that regional data will start pulling down the warming signal because the two are so fucking divergent. So NASA in 2016 had to start juicing the observational data.

What they did was find the hottest reading in a region, and then say "oh the other readings are much colder, so we're just going to assume they're wrong and make them match the hot one". So they calibrate data to fit a regional test case, which inevitably is urban with the "cold" temps being rural
>but they didn't measure accurately with consistent procedures.
Bruh, then you have to adjust according to that premise, not use it as an excuse to just make all the cold readings match the one hot reading, WTF.

The whole science is full of absolute shit it's embarrassing.

>>16020230
Take your meds

>>16020232
>No argument
I accept your concession, monkey.

>>16020256
Take your meds

>>16020268
>No argument
I accept your concession, monkey.

>>16020232
Is that your response to the authors of the paper? That they are delusional schizophrenics? Or just people who agree with their findings?
How does it feel knowing that your grip on the collective consciousness is slipping? That you are losing influence? That people are waking up to the lies?
The truth will out.

>>16020365
Meds. Nobody cares about your oil shilling or your mental illness.

>>16020381
>everyone that disagrees with me is insane or a paid shill
I accept your concession

>>16020289
Take your meds

>>16020365
You didn't post a paper. You made vague allusions and unhinged assertions. Take your meds.

>>16020365
/polfags trying to debooooonk everything in existence.

>>16020230
>The whole science is full of absolute shit it's embarrassing.
people who study "climate science" don't learn math or physics, keeping them in the dark about the basics is what it takes to get them to believe in global warming

>>16020912
>No argument
I accept your concession, monkey.

>>16021923
Take your meds.

>>16022248
>No argument
I accept your concession, monkey.

Even when science finally admits that global warming is completely fake, the messiah complex hysterics who fell for the hoax will never admit that they were tricked because doing that would be too big of a blow to their fragile, oversized egos.

>>16023152
Oh no, we'll have created a cleaner better world. What a nightmare.

>>16021649
In order for you to put such a bald faced lie into writing you'd have to be completely illiterate at not only climate science but also math and physics.

climate science is almost entirely applied physics and math.

>>16023162
>Oh no, we'll have created a cleaner better world. What a nightmare

>>16023162
>Oh no, we'll have created a cleaner better world. What a nightmare.

>>16023162
> Oh no, we'll have created a cleaner better world. What a nightmare.

>>16023181
Windmill storage preparing to be installed.
>>16023184
Russian bauxite mine.
>>16023186
Was determined to have died from old age.

>>16023162
> Oh no, we'll have created a cleaner better world. What a nightmare

>>16023162

>>16023152
speaking from experience?

>>16023181
>>16023184
>>16023186
>>16023188
It's cute when chuds suddenly pretend to care about the environment when they see a chance to own the libs, getting all giddy about their gotcha moment. Like a child at play...

>>16023256
I accept your concession

>>16023256
>the rape and pillage and despoiling of the Earth is OK when it's for wind, solar and batteries
Weird double standard but OK

>>16023279
Just don't use energy then bro. Better yet, don't breathe.

>>16023288
Using energy is fine.
Using energy that is more damaging to the environment, less reliable, and more expensive, is insane.

>>16023410
That's why we're switching to renewables.

>>16023414
>That's why we're switching to renewables
Less reliable
More expensive
Worse for the environment

>>16023579
You're confusing renewables for fossil fuels.

>>16023610
Lmao what a dishonest report. They've listed "Intermittent" as if it is desirable, so they can list a nice green checkmark beside all of the renewables, instead of heading the column as "reliable" and having to give all the renewables a red cross.
Also what is the base load in your renewable fantasy?

>>16023636
>This report is dishonest because I'm illiterate and don't understand the concept of a checkmark
Lol ok.

>>16023637
Why you think they have listed "Intermittent" as a positive? Intermittent in your energy is not desirable.

>>16023641
It's it a positive, retard. The checkmark indicated that the source is intermittent. It doesn't mean good. Are you an actual child?

>>16023645
Why have they listed an undesirable/negative trait shares by the renewables with an affirmative statement, but listed an undesirable trait shares by fossil fuels (carbon neutrality) with a negative statement?

>>16023652
Are you stupid? It's because wind IS intermittent and fossil fuels ARE NOT carbon neutral. I've known 4 years olds who understand the concept of a checkmark, so why don't you?

Once nuclear fusion takes off this entire debate will be obsolete. We should spend the trillions wasted on bogus wind and solar solutions on developing large scale technical capability for nuclear fusion plants before anyone else does.

>>16023656
Nuclear fusion will never happen. It will be just 10 years away for the next 1,000 years at least.

>>16023654
You're the retard. Since Intermittency in power generation is the inverse of baseload (constant/reliable).
They could simply have left out the Intermittent column, as it is made redundant by having a baseload column.
But then they wouldn't have all the nice looking green check marks.
Or, God forbid, they could have entitled that column "reliable", but then they would have to give green checks to the fossil fuels and red crosses to the renewables.

>>16023658
Oh alright then. Pack it in everyone, Anon said it's not happening.

>>16023659
The only thing I can conclude from your posts is that you are an actual child. You must be 18 to post here.

>>16023662
We can keep trying. Fusion research yields some interesting results, just not any energy.

>>16023664
Net energy gain is already being achieved despite an overwhelming lack of funding. Only 6 billion invested in it globally and it's already possible to gain energy. Imagine if we'd spent serious sums of money on it.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/nuclear-fusion-science-explained/

>>16023676
>Net energy gain is already being achieved
Only with some very creative accounting.

>Only 6 billion
With that kind of money we could switch to renewables globally and produce actual net energy gains.

So far the fusion research results that I think are most worthwhile is that plastic substrate that can be flash fused with a laser. It has high potential to yield medical applications but as far as I'm aware it hasn't yet.

>>16023679
Global investment in renewable energy was up to $358 billion last year, and its output is a drop in the ocean of energy requirements.

My take it that nuclear fusion is underinvested in because it will actually solve a problem, and the renewables lobby would cease to exist.

>>16023683
That's also the reason cars don't run on hydrogen yet, while it's already technologically possible.

>>16023683
>>16023685
>My take it that nuclear fusion is underinvested in because it will actually solve a problem, and the renewables lobby would cease to exist.
You should talk to a mental health care professional.

>>16023689
Well I'd love to hear your counterarguments. Not seen too many of them so far.

>>16023692
Fusion is expensive and hasn't yielded anything relevant to energy. It was 10 years away 30 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 10 years ago, and it's still 10 years away. Want to take a guess where we'll be in 10 more years?

>>16023679
>>Only 6 billion
>With that kind of money we could switch to renewables globally
>6 billion to completely replace the entire global fossil fuel energy infrastructure
delusional

>>16023699
I wouldn't call 2% of current renewables investment expensive at all. Imagine scaling that up 50-fold.

I think we'll get there, and it will be the game-changer we need as humankind.

>>16023800
It is when you compare the output. Take the output of renewables and divide it by the output of fusion and we see that the difference is infinite.

>I think we'll get there, and it will be the game-changer we need as humankind.
Of course we will. Just another 10 years, forever.

>>16023808
I'm really not sure why you're so against a extraordinarily powerful, infinite source of energy. It's had very little investment yet already produces net energy gain. The more scientific research is done, the quicker we'll achieve meaningful output.

>>16023818
>I'm really not sure why you're so against a extraordinarily powerful, infinite source of energy.
Few things about that. It's not extraordinary, it's not powerful, and even if it were both of those things, it's not at all infinite.

>It's had very little investment yet already produces net energy gain*
*As long as you don't look at the accounting too closely

>The more scientific research is done, the quicker we'll achieve meaningful output.
Yep. We'll have fusion in ten years. And ten years from now we'll have fusion in ten years. And twenty years from now we'll have fusion in ten years. Noticing a pattern?

>>16023821
>literally powers the sun
>not powerful

You keep repeating we've said it's 10 years away. I've looked but have not found a single source from 2004 saying we'll have commercially viable nuclear fusion by 2014, nor one from 2014 saying all of the world's problems will be solved by 2024. In fact, I don't even see credible claims saying that now for 2034. Fact is though that it's theoretically possible and it has now been proven to work in practice. Bit odd therefore to shut it down entirely as 'will never work' before it's had even 10% of investment in renewables that aren't really renewables.

>>16023833
Humans don't power the sun, retard, and the sun is bigger than the Earth and any fusion plant that has been, or will be, built. Let's reconvene in 2034 when we still don't have viable fusion plants and won't for another 10 years. Then let's reconvene again in 2044 when we still don't have fusion and won't for another 10 years.

>>16023833
>>16023842
One final thought: we do actually have viable fusion energy. It's called solar power and it actually works.

>>16023842
Sure thing brother. All I would say is that with naysayers like yourself we'd all still live in a cave, sat eating freshly skinned raw mammoth steak.

>>16023846
Lol ok, retard.

>>16023850
Unnecessary. I thought we were having a good conversation.

>>16023856
No, you were comparing a tokamak to the sun and pretending that shoveling money into a pit was more worthwhile than installing real power sources. You have retarded opinions, probably because you're retarded. Fusion research is like particle accelerators. They're only real use is to advance physics.

if global warming isnt real why is sicily facing drought?

>>16023883
NTA but you're a bitter cunt and your shit stinks. Solar is nice but its not enough.

>>16023893
If global warming is real, explain why it snowed today where I live?
>WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE
Ah, I forgot. Weather is only climate when it is hot or dry. Cold and wet? That's never climate.

>>16024292
Do you really not understand the difference between weather and climate or is this bait?

>>16024293
>hot and dry = proof of global warming
>cold and wet = cannot disprove global warming
I understand it perfectly. Do you?

>>16024294
No. Both of those are examples of weather. Climate is a long average of weather.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
>Climate is the long-term weather pattern in a region, typically averaged over 30 years.[1][2] More rigorously, it is the mean and variability of meteorological variables over a time spanning from months to millions of years. Some of the meteorological variables that are commonly measured are temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, and precipitation. In a broader sense, climate is the state of the components of the climate system, including the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere and biosphere and the interactions between them.[1]

>>16024298
>drought isn't a long average of weather
Hey, you said it, not me.

>>16024300
You are correct. A single drought is not climate. A long term drought where the precipitation of an area drops below the average for a long period of time is climate.

>>16024298
>Both of those are examples of weather
Great, can you please tell all the media, climate activists, politicians, etc who use attribute every example of hot, dry, weather to climate change?

If global warming isn't real, why do oil companies spend so much money on propaganda?

>>16024307
I'm pretty sure you're just misunderstanding what you're reading.

>>16024308
Yeah I wish oil companies would stop funding climate change propaganda too
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/getting-to-net-zero.html

>>16024315
>>16024306
>translation: "Weather only counts as climate when I say so"
We get it. Heads you win, tails everyone else loses.

>>16024345
Are you trolling or do you really just not get it? Try reading that wikipedia article and come back when you're less ignorant.

>>16024356
Do you not get it? ALL droughts are when "the precipitation of an area drops below the average for a long period of time". All of them. Every. Single. One.
>a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall, leading to a shortage of water.
But, as you said, it's not 'climate' unless it serves the narrative.

>>16024371
When it doesn't rain for a month that is a drought and it's weather. When the average precipitation drops and stays low for years that is climate. The problem here is your ignorance. Stop foaming at the mouth and read that wikipedia page.

>>16024307
I'll never understand why certain types of people are willing to lie to themselves and others and vociferously convince themselves that 8 billion humans don't have any negative affects on anything.

My theory is it's the same way addicts like crack heads lie to themselves about how crack cocaine isn't ruining their brains and making their teeth fall out.

>>16023162
>better
If your kids having a reduced quality of life because you agreed to make retarded compromises that didn't need to be made is better, then yes absolutely

>>16000769
Not worth looking into. Just schizo chuds trying to deny the climate as usual.

>>16023663
While he is retarded for not arguing that all of those blank spots should have red X's, you are far worse and either being disingenuous or are a mental midget

>>16024427
You must be 18 to post here.

>>16024375
No, when it doesn't rain for a month that's called "no rain in month". When the average precipitation drops, that's the fucking drought. Droughts throughout history usually last for years.

>>16024461
What do you call it when it rains less for >30 years? Typically, the weather averaged over 30 years is referred to as climate. If the precipitation changes on that timescale, you call it climate change.

>>16024468
Climate is more nuanced than just "average it over 30 years". You really should read that page. It discusses this very question.

>>16024470
Also meant for >>16024461

>>16024446
You must have an IQ over 18 to post here.

>>16024461
>Droughts throughout history usually last for years.
source?

>>16026921
i just made it up because it fits the doomsday scenario mythology that television and public schooling has taught me to believe in

>>16026921
Do you imply droughts like the Dust Bowl did not last for years?

>>16028440
>my one atypical example means "usually"

>>16029613
>gives example
>"actually that doesn't count"
Funny how any time prior to 1950 doesn't count.

>>16029616
>usually

>>16030811
You are a nigger.

>>16007965
I hadn't thought of that. Like 80% of all land is north of the tropics and chilly, maybe warming is a good thing.

>>16023821
>Nuclear fusion
>it's not extraordinary, it's not powerful
Anon's i'm scared, do oil shills actually post here? Even fission is extraordinary and powerful

>>16031042
The n word is racist

>>16031305
https://www.psycom.net/paranoid-schizophrenia

>>16025825
How do lolbergs respond to this?

>>16009005

>>15994325
>the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming
no such consensus exists

>>16023162
>>16023197
>>16023658
>>16023893
>>16026921
Smooth as butter.

>>16034951
>reeeeeeee!!!
>your dum!!!

>>16024332
They're not "oil companies" anymore, they're now "energy companies" and they make bigger profits from selling boutique energy at 10x the cost than they do from oil.
Trump had them pumping oil basically at cost and that pissed them off massively, their present profits are currently massive since they participated in the "regime change" to get a government more favorable to their cause. If Trump get reelected then we'll all be looking at $1.50/gallon gas again and zero profits for Exxon et al.

>>16018381
>the hockey stick meme
fake and gay

>>15994325
Preaching to the choir on /sci/, this is the home of chud science

>>16038656
if only it were true

>>15994325
bump

>>16026921
most droughts are like a month without rain in the summer, long-lasting droughts are extremely unusual

>>16025825
>MUH ROADS

>>16036515
They have climate activists who are pretty much publicly lobbying for massive profits for oil companies

>>16002512
This, if anything urbanites should suffer more

>>16028436
OK, thanks for being so honest about that

>>16028440
if global warming causes droughts then why was "le dust bowel" in the 1930 and nothing of that magnitude has occurred since?
also explain why all the locations on the planet with the highest rainfall totals are in or near the tropics if warm weather causes droughts

>>16045660
Global Warming should cause increased rainfall at the atmosphere's ability to hold moisture increases. The Antarctic is the driest place on the planet in terms of total precipitation.

Climate change is like the Ozone Zone Hole or AIDS. It goes away when you stop talking about it.

>>16002057
wait until you remember wind turbines also heat the enviroment on top of being non-recyclable.
The Industry has always contaminated the enviroment. All the concrete in the roads, all the tall buildings, etc. We knew that prior to WW2.

>>16031305
>do oil shills actually post here
this isn't a hidden website.
If the question is, do x shills post here? the answer can be found when accounting the company's marketing expenses
70% chance when articles like this get traction. A favorable yes to your question

>>16037622
Its their only meme so they have to keep on shilling it incessantly, they're too dumb to invent new memes and too committed to their scam to admit that their only meme is fake

>>16048197
Everyone knows the hockey stick meme is fake

>>16049384
More people need to know that Michael Mann is jewish. It that were common knowledge then nobody would lend credence to the hockey stick meme

>>16036046
i look like this and i say this

>>16002312
>oy vey don't deny climate change or the holocaust (hallowed by thy name)

>>16015399
hm what happened 50+ years ago...
I wonder