/sci/ - Science & Math

>CO2 coalition
lmao

>>16022118
It's a fake graph you found on a blog, what about it?

>>16022206
proofs?

>>16022496
https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiuU_1pi6ozh247Xz7tY5nNF4qKF3MD8NdDJ90LXPHp0Lf4DNKUfkvyOp1X80DIEVMsClSVZFWYJ_1Jh_17JQceTeRbAzXl-vidkTKLzKx16y94hnKNRcuZtaA3K2K_1uMQP76Z8gaM7VAH3njIo-JSqHfna_1yObpapB_1_1KWPVwm6ETf7v5-PtBgkYas7IlthYda3dU_12VQOs0X0TRMbGSo6risp8a6uXeGRyfOIYRb7J6L8kdofiuOxVsbti9vJwAEjlap_19Z5IGrtjKAIODsc-5ujMXYlcOqyAqvLoU4d6cXow3B5LY3he9qFd51mCWQfOWfeXpyUcnebv4EyhDMX2YO5dOm_1w3bl4OmIqgEJKX-dwaOJjVVme2SgKYMAEajcdSTMUMm3F

Besides that the supposed data is from an ice core in Greenland.

>>16022663
OOPS that doesn’t help at all!

>>16022118
>GISP2 Greenland ice core data
use global temperature retard. climate change is about the total effect across the whole of the earth, not in one part of it.
kuso thread

>>16023080
>Noooo, you can't use ice cores if it counters our theories, you need to a time machine to get temperature readings in the middle of the Pacific!
>our greenland ice core readings that support our theories, however, are fine

>>16022124
You're only resorting to attacking the source because you're incapable of refuting the central point of the argument being made

>>16022118
>2004
the global shills will just proclaim that the temperature has risen 3º since then, surprised none them have done so already

>>16023066
That ends in 1850. It doesn't include modern data.

>>16023066
>without immediate and unprecedented levels of global warming, the world will plunge into another hundred thousand years of ice age

why are we NOT pumping as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as possible? Forget CO2, it's time for SF6 and other forever gases.

>>16024124
Because you made that up and there's no truth to it.

>>16024126
but i didn't make that up. all of north america was recently under a mile of ice. and it will happen again. go look at the graph

>>16024145
No, you made it up. The Earth was not in danger of freezing over suddenly. The climate was very stable.

>>16024151
So these lakes just appeared and were not carved out by giant glaciers?

>was not in danger
huh? What do you mean it WAS not in danger. It was and IS in danger. You speak like an ESL.

>>16024162
No it's not. You're still just making shit up. Find me any paper that says that the Earth is going to freeze over.

>>16024162
What giant glaciers? Those lakes are fed by rivers.

>>16024145
global warming is a big lie, so you have to expect the that global warming shills will lie about even the most basic science, they'll even deny that the most recent ice ages took place because they're not here to discuss science, they're here to shill their global warming lies

>>16022118
Apparently they don’t, they just seethe

>>16022118
If global warming is so deadly, how come humanity wasn't wiped out 8000 years ago when it was much warmer than it is currently?

>>16026832
nobody can ever answer this question

>>16024105
Thats because they're all very slow witted.

>>16022118
That really puts things in perspective. Looks more like things are cooling off in the long term than it does like anything is getting warmer

>>16023066
checked
100k years ago it was twice as hot and carbonized than it is now and we're still here and so is the dumbass ice that the dumbass scientists took the core from
also fuck modern science

>>16028402
Because reason and stuff or something

big green will never give this up. they will simply reinterpret the data and call you a science denier even if all the icecaps reformed. they are in too deep

>>16030154
Fuck off, shill.

>>16024120
no, its current. the final data point is at 0 thousands of years ago not 0.17 thousands of years ago

We're in a full blown climate crisis!

>>16026832
wasnt there a huge genetic bottleneck about that long ago

>>16023090
Is this the new cope for ice cores being politically incorrect?

>>16031159
>Imagine being this retarded
Look it up, moron.

>>16026832
>>16028402
>>16030084
The global average temperature was not higher 8,000 years ago. Show me your data. I'm calling it now: You're going to post some local phenomenon and pretend that it's global, or you're going to post a graph that doesn't include modern data, or you're going to post some anecdote about crop yields from some ancient culture.

>>16032209
>data is fake if it doesn't agree with me
>t. science denialist

>>16032779
What data? You haven't presented any.

>>16032779
>>16032780
He probably means the data in the OP, which is a Greenland ice core. Clearly not global data.

>>16033105
>data is fake if it doesn't agree with me
>t. science denialist

>>16022118
>How do climate changeoids explain this?
you're not listening!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8AHkAJrpAxd4/

>>16033198
The data isn't fake. It represents Greenland's average temperature very well. Greenland is 0.4% of the Earth. What about the other 99.6%?

>>16022118
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/CO2_Coalition

https://www.desmog.com/co2-coalition/

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/the-co2-coalition/

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/climate-deniers/front-groups/george-c-marshall-institute/

https://www.eenews.net/articles/trump-adviser-created-group-to-defend-co2/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

https://www.desmog.com/george-c-marshall-institute/

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/george-c-marshall-institute/

https://climateinvestigations.org/george-c-marshall/

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_C._Marshall_Institute

https://powerbase.info/index.php/George_C._Marshall_Institute

>>16023066
Zoom out

>>16033306

>>16034388
Not an argument.

>>16032209
>The global average temperature was not higher 8,000 years ago

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3

>>16034737
That graph shows the global average temperature being lower 8,000 years ago. Why don't you know how to read a graph?

>>16034737
>nature.com
>the hockey stick meme
fake af

>>16034750
Take your meds

>>16034747
>That graph shows the global average temperature being lower 8,000 years ago

>>16034785
Why don't you know how to read a graph? First of all, the line you drew starts at 7,000 years ago. Second, you drew the line above the 5 percentile. Above, meaning you're inflating the temperature dishonestly, and 5 percentile meaning that there is a 5% chance that the temperature is that high. Third, the CPS is the only reconstruction method that puts the temperature that high. And finally
>The major differences among the methods is the greater range of temperatures both within and among the latitudinal zones that are reconstructed by PAI and CPS, the two methods that rely on variance scaling. These two methods also generated the most contrasting uncertainty bands, which reflects the different procedures used to calculate them (Methods).

I can't say I expected any different, but I'm still disappointed in you.

>>16034789
Meds bro

>>16024105
They do that, you've just described the hockey stick graph

>>16034811
Finish high school, bro. They'll teach you how to read a graph when you're old enough for your first science class.

>>16034830
Take your meds.

>>16034388

>>16036050
Nobel disease. Everything on Wikipedia is accurate.

>>16022118
>year before present (1950)
>current (2007) temperature
???

>>16022118
They can't

>>16036069
no it isn't

>>16022118
Preaching to the choir stop making these threads

>>16034737
You are legitimately retarded

>>16031810
>mastodon
thats a social network for pedophiles

>>16039906
Those are who is shilling the global warming hoax

>>16022118
bump

>>16022118
Strong cooling trend over the past 3600 or so years

>>16041897
standard fare for the tail end of an interglacial period

>>16032177
just about all honest science is politically incorrect these days

>>16022118
Since atmospheric CO2 levels were lower than they are currently during periods 2, 3, 7 & 8, that pretty much proves that its something other than CO2 which causes global warming

>>16044803
Right, but dumb people aren't able to grasp Milankovitch cycles, so they believe in dumb ideas like CO2 global warming instead

>>16022118
they can't LMAO

>>16022118
Reminder that this board is targeted by WEF info warriors
Not to mention the jidf jews that plague all boards (you are hated because you are a vile race)

>>16044803
We know recent CO2 levels are mostly due to hydrocarbon emissions.

>>16046153
co2 doesn't cause global warming

>>16022118
>-30°C
Wherever that is, it's not global climate.

>>16046894
Yes it does. Go be retarded somewhere else.

>>16047087
co2 doesn't cause global warming

>>16032177
Ice cores are racist, sexist and transphobic

>>16022118
>global warming
>shows only Greenland

The fact that nobody caught this until now shows the sad state of /sci/.

>>16049335
sediment cores from all over the world tell the same tale

>>16048162
tsmt

>>16049792
>He said, with no data or evidence

>>16052269
>Greenland again

It's pretty telling that all the climate change deniers are illiterate.

>>16053010
Oh my G-d, the holocaust deniers are illiterate too
Who would have guessed my mensch

>>16053010
>WHAT YOU USED AN ICE CORE? YOU CAN'T USE ICE CORES! NOT UNLESS THEY SUPPORT GLOBAL WARMING!
Where are we supposed to get a temperature reading from the middle of the Pacific circa 10000 BC? A fucking time machine? Ice cores have been good enough for the past 100 years, but suddenly they're no good because people noticed things about them?

the world temperature has always gone up and down
but the CO2 ppm has been climbing fast and i don't want to breath more poison

>>16053287
An ice core from one single location tells you nothing about the global climate. No global temperature reconstruction has ever used a single ice core and very few used ice cores as their only temperature proxy. You should educate yourself on this topic instead of speaking out of your ass.

>>16053308
>has ever used a single ice core
What tell the other cores?

>>16053304
The world is more dangerous if you are short because of methane gas in peoples farts.

>>16053308
>only the ice cores which agree with me are valid

>>16053419
>>16053560
Are either of you literate?

>>16053304
co2 isn't toxic, you would drop dead without it

>>16053910
Are you? Have you read Karl Popper?

changeoids are not explaining, they're cravenly exploiting fear and modeling to promote their ideals of poverty and hegemony

>>16054042
Yeah, he says "trust the science because it's been tested by people much smarter than you"

>>16032209
>You're going to post some local phenomenon and pretend that it's global,
You mean like what climate scientists do? See pic rel

>>16022118
They will say "bUt it'S hAppEniNG fAstER nOW!"
Except if you look at the long term record, it looks like the "climate changed" at increasing speeds throughout history, especially when coming out of or going into a glacial event.
Once the planet starts to go in one direction, it will increase in temperature differences from the main one.
Leftists aren't intelligent enough to understand information that contradicts their worldview. That's why they're leftists to begin with.

>>16053010
Why is Greenland warmer 8k year ago, when global warming supposedly warm the polar regions at a greater pace than the rest?

>>16054600
Actually he says "if someone keeps insisting they're right after being proven wrong and just continuously shuffles around dates for when the world is supposed to end, it's not science"

>>16054611
>the global warming institute
why do you keep on reposting the same trash propaganda here?

>>16055357
You are literally too stupid to understand the point of my post.

>>16055442
why do you keep on reposting the same trash propaganda here?

>>16056007
Explain in your own words the point of my post.

Gee, I wonder where that graph is from
>Alley R.B. 2004
Oh well, might as well check that
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/paleo-search/study/2475
>Data Coverage
>Latitude: 72.583333
>Longitude: -38.466667
>Minimum Elevation: 3200 m
>Maximum Elevation: 3200 m
>Earliest Year: 49981 cal yr BP (-48031 CE)
>Most Recent Year: 95 cal yr BP (1855 CE)
So this is from a single location in Greenland, and the 2007 datapoint is completely made up
I wonder what the author thinks about that fake graph
https://web.archive.org/web/20220104160216/https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/
>First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world
>Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible
Looks like he thinks OP is fake and gay too

>>16054779
Nope, he says "science is repeatedly tested for falseness which means it's the truest source of information" in other words, trust the science because it has survived testing from much smarter people than you.

>>16054747
Because Greenland isn't the globe, retard. This is a pretty simple concept. The Earth can be different temperatures in different places.

>>16054611
Global sea surface temperatures are a global phenomenon, not a local one. That's why we call it "global". How stupid can you be?

>>16056297
Thank you for confirming my point, that climate cultists like you are hypocrites. That plot I posted, which comes from climate cultists says it's global sea temperature. Then in the same fucking title proves it's not global. If you can't tell why it's not global, then all I can say is you're the reason I laugh at climate soientists.

>>16056331
No it doesn't. Go be a retard somewhere else.

>>16056335
What do you think 60°N and 60°S mean?

>>16056340
Between those two latitudes. That does not mean it's not global. You might as well be arguing that it's not global because it doesn't include the land. Go be a retard somewhere else.

>>16056348
Do seas or oceans exist outside their data range?

>>16056392
That's not what global means. Go be a retard somewhere else.

>>16056396
What does global mean?

>>16056415
It means that the temperature is representative of the global average. The oceans are 70% of the globe and 60 N to 60 S is 2/3 of the globe so roughly 67% of the worlds oceans and 47% of the entire area of the Earth are represented. That is a fine sample group. You're trying to compare that to a single ice core from Greenland, which is 0.4% of the area of the Earth. See the difference, retard?

>>16023066
Imagine looking at this graph and thinking that global warming would be a bad thing. If the pattern continues, there is a few thousand more years before the temperature drops off a cliff and we're plunged into another hundred thousand years of ice age. If anything, we should be pumping SF6 into the atmosphere like mad before it's too late.

>>16056426
>60 N to 60 S is 2/3 of the globe so roughly 67% of the worlds oceans and 47% of the entire area of the Earth are represented. That is a fine sample group.
>That is a fine sample group.
LMFAO

>>16056471
Cope harder and go be a retard somewhere else.

>>16056455
t. Simpleton

>>16056472
Everyone knows regions near the equator are warming while regions near the poles are cooling. When you omit half the data that exists, all of which is centralized to the poles, you're biasing your data toward equatorial warming. Yet you somehow think this accurately reflects global sea temperature? You're either a troll or an idiot.

>>16056490
Complete nonsense that you just made up.

>>16056555
I accept your concession.

>>16056455
global warming is fake and gay tho

>>16054622
I guess this Anon is right.
I hope others start to use this exact phrasing everyone WEF shills or climate change losers bring up this question.

>>16052269
Global warming is so fake, only a moron could believe in it

>>16056490
>>16056628
I'll bite. What's your source?

>>16059272
IPCC

Data from 20 ice cores compared with modern temperatures for Greenland looks like this. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05517-z

>>16059763
Be specific.

>>16060306
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

>>16060386
Be specific.

>>16056490
Not even remotely true

>>16060487
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

>>16060562
>Regions near the pole are not cooling
>Posts image proving regions near the pole are cooling
>Said cooling regions are not included in alleged "global" sea water temperature
Man you retards really make my life easy lol. Btw I bet you're so mathematically illiterate you don't recognize 60°S - 60°N is only half the earths surface area.

>>16060702
Are you blind?

>>16060698
Be specific.

>>16060702
>you're so mathematically illiterate you don't recognize 60°S - 60°N is only half the earths surface area.
Are you saying that 120 is half of 180?

>>16060717
Not my problem if you don't recognize the color blue when you see it.
>>16060721
Lmao I rest my case. This is simple introductory calculus lil bro.

>>16060723
Lol, ok retard. You have to be a troll to be as stupid as you are.

>>16060723
>This is simple introductory calculus lil bro.
Are you confusing surface area with volume?

>>16060733
Nope. Set up the integral.

>>16060736
Why don't you do it and I'll point out your mistakes?

>>16060780
You're the one who thinks 60°S — 60°N encompasses 120/180 of the earths surface area lmfao.

>>16060786
It does. Do you just not understand how latitude works? You said that you could easily show that it's 1/2 and not 2/3 so do it and I'll point out your error.

Can you shizos post a source other than Greenland ice core data that has been heavily critisized?
Even the researchers who compiled that data noted that it probably predicted climate at too coarse and localized of a scale to make meaningful conclusions without a secondary source confirming.

>>16060828
Ayo dis idiot thinks the earth is flat lmfao
The euclidean norm isn't what you use here kiddo

>>16061174
So you realized that you're wrong and now you're trying to save face? Sad.

>>16061392
Do the integral. You do know how to do simple calculus taught to freshmen, right?

>>16061394
You don't even need calculus, retard. Here, why don't you try the calculation yourself.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/maillists/tmap/ferret_users/fu_2004/msg00023.html

>>16060702
>t. i can't do math

>>16062080
Inability to do math is necessary to believe in global warming

>>16063687
The fact that none of them can do even basic math also explains why none of them have ever passed the basic physics classes which would allow them to realize that the global warming hype is all fake

>>16063687
>>16064487
>They said, still assured that 60N to 60S is half of the Earth

>global warming believers have difficulty with simple jr high school level geometry

>>16065644
>>16065014

>>16065644
Thats why they can't pass basic physics courses too

>>16066197
ignorance of physics is a prerequisite for belief in global warming