/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9185828

>>9185828
At this point, this board needs an eternal climate general thread.

>>9185835
what would that solve

>>9185838
/pol/acks would have to find more creative ways to troll than just the same old falseflagging like this is.

>>9185828

upcoming winter will be brutal

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml?bookmark=nino3.4

no. its why all of their predictions have been wrong, their coveted data was forged, and their propenents outspoken enemys of industrialization which the west has the most advanced of.

Greenland accumulated 500Gt more snow in 2016-17 than 2011-12; this kind of events would have been impossible if global warming was real:

http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

Partly natural, partly human caused.

IMO, climate change < pollution

Life is naturally suited for adaptation, but you can't adapt to the destruction of nature. Climate change issues are likely a red herring for the bigger issue of pollution.

>>9185914
>creative ways to troll
why would that be desirable

>>9185949
Melted seas add moisture which then turns into snow - lack of moisture has been a bottleneck.

>>9186080
Exactly this.

It's important to understand that
a) CO2 does cause the atmospheric temperature to increase (but is the source of carbon for plants and bacteria to photosynthesize).
b) Weather cycles are complex systems which take 10 thousand to hundreds, are even millions of years to complete.
c) We don't fully understand the extent of those systems and what causes them.
d) CO2 isn't the only emission of concern. There are many compounds which ruin ecosystems (from coal combustion, car exhausts, etc.) that don't cause the temperature to increase.
e) CO2 wasn't responsible for the end of the last ice age, and we don't know what caused the global temperature to increase exponentially to end it.

What I have never understood about the whole climate change argument is why do people even care? You're dealing with a population of people who just got scammed into going to college, have bleak and unfulfilling career prospects, little to no money to their name, and are generally unhappy with their financial situation. So instead of campaigning for some sensible economic reforms, they decide to attack the mythical climate change boogeyman and go to bat over a potential 1.5C change in temperature? Yeah, I get it, the earth is important, but you aren't even in a position to care.

I dunno. Maybe I am just old fashioned. But if you're financing a smart phone, you have much bigger problems than worrying about what the planet is going to look like 100 years from now...especially based on something as poorly understood as "man-made climate change"

>>9185949
>this kind of events would have been impossible if global warming was real
Yes clearly warming could not be happening in the Arctic. Just ignore the actual temperature change.

>Same bullshit as last year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEieWJghRNY

You idiots really have no shame.

>>9186080
>Partly natural, partly human caused.
Actually it's practically all human caused. Natural forcings are providing a net cooling which is counteracting some of humanity's net warming.

>IMO, climate change < pollution
What is the difference exactly?

>Life is naturally suited for adaptation, but you can't adapt to the destruction of nature.
Most life can't adapt to rapid changes to the global climate, I agree.

>>9186135
>a) CO2 does cause the atmospheric temperature to increase
So CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? You're going to have to disprove a massive amount of evidence that it is, including fundamental physics and chemistry to argue that.

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

>b) Weather cycles are complex systems which take 10 thousand to hundreds, are even millions of years to complete.
Weather? Sounds more like climate. I know the distinction is hard for you idiots to understand. But please enlighten me about which "weather cycle" is causing current global warming.

>c) We don't fully understand the extent of those systems and what causes them.
We understand enough to know that CO2 is the primary cause of current rapid warming. We don't fully understand much of anything, doesn't mean we know nothing.

>d) CO2 isn't the only emission of concern. There are many compounds which ruin ecosystems (from coal combustion, car exhausts, etc.) that don't cause the temperature to increase.
And?

>>9186135
>e) CO2 wasn't responsible for the end of the last ice age, and we don't know what caused the global temperature to increase exponentially to end it.
Dead wrong, as usual. It certainly was responsible for the end of the last ice age:

"Earth's increased planetary albedo produced by the expanding ice sheets would lead to positive feedback loops, spreading the ice sheets still further, until the process hit limit. Falling global temperatures would eventually limit plant growth, and the rising levels of oxygen would increase the frequency of fire-storms because damp plant matter could burn. Both these effects return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, reversing the "snowball" effect and forcing greenhouse warming, with CO2 levels rising to 300 ppm in the following Permian period. Over a longer period the evolution of termites, whose stomachs provided an anoxic environment for methanogenic lignin-digesting bacteria, prevented further burial of carbon, returning carbon to the air as the greenhouse gas methane.

Once these factors brought a halt and a small reversal in the spread of ice sheets, the lower planetary albedo resulting from the fall in size of the glaciated areas would have been enough for warmer summers and winters and thus limit the depth of snowfields in areas from which the glaciers expanded. Rising sea levels produced by global warming drowned the large areas of flatland where previously anoxic swamps assisted in burial and removal of carbon (as coal). With a smaller area for deposition of carbon, more carbon dioxide was returned to the atmosphere, further warming the planet. By 250 Mya, planet Earth had returned to a percentage of oxygen similar to that found today."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age

it's real but anyone who says they can predict complex trends 100 years out is retarded

>>9186191
Well they've been doing it for 30 years, so I don't see why not.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

>>9186200
i'm not talking about simple warming trends, dipshit
i'm talking about people who say they can tell you a specific location is going to become moister/cooler/warmer/more prone to thunderstorms

>>9186206
That's weather, not climate. This thread is about climate change.

>>9186206
why is it even a topic to talk about? i think we talk here about the climate change and how people still deny it and cherry pick facts

>>9186183
Found the moron who can't think critically. Do you get paid per post to shitpost trying to make 4chan "unusable".

>>9186164
> he believes NOAA
I bet you donate to AL gore

>>9186225
go suck sessions' dick back at /pol/ you worthless elf molester

>>9186227
I don't need to go back to pol. Everybody knows about NOAA whistle blowers unless you live under al gore's cock

>>9186207
oh yeah sorry i forgot local moisture and temperature trends have nothing to do with climate
since i have been so eternally btfo by your superior brain i'll go back to growing palm trees in the atacama desert now

>>9186225
where was the guy in the video wrong? please tell me

>>9186225
>>9186229
>don't use NOAA data
Ok.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1hJYLw7OlM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE4ynZB0Wj0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eFTkeUYpfQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUdd83_pzdE

>>9186243
>oh yeah sorry i forgot local moisture and temperature trends have nothing to do with climate
Nice try at being obtuse. Our ability to predict weather is irrelevant to climate change.

>>9186256
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
>Climate is the statistics of weather over long periods of time.

>>9186263
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather
>Weather refers to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity, whereas climate is the term for the averaging of atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.

Our ability to predict the weather is irrelevant to predicting the climate.

>>9186284
>>9186243
>oh yeah sorry i forgot local moisture and temperature trends have nothing to do with climate
>local moisture and temperature trends
>trends
Trend: the general movement over time of a statistically detectable change; also :a statistical curve reflecting such a change

>>9186291
I don't really see the point here. If he was referring to weather than my point still stands. If he was referring to climate my point still stands.

The forcings that dominate weather are completely different from those that dominate climate, which should be no surprise since this is true in many statistical scenarios. Scale matters and chaotic behavior can be dependent on scale.

>>9185828
This question is irrelevant to me.

The important question is: will lowering the average global temperate by 2 - 3 degrees Celsius actually protect us from natural disasters?

>no, it won't

>>9186304
k tell me whether mean annual precipitation in albany new york will increase or decrease over the next 100 years

>>9186307
Lowering the average global temperature would decrease the risk of droughts, the intensity of storms, and flood levels. This would save hundreds of billions of dollars.

May well be real, but climate science is fake science. See Lawrence Solomon's The Deniers.

>>9186316
Increase.

Source:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/precipitation-change

>>9186080
this 2bh. Even if all the doomsday theories about the oceans rising and eating up land or the massive amounts of land becoming unfarmable turn out to be completely bunk, why the fuck do people take that as justification for allowing corporations to poison local environments by scaling back EXISTING regulations? There are plenty of existing cases of urgent danger caused by pollution, ie. water in Flint, smog in california and china, etc. The excitement trump stirred up about fucking COAL MINING during the last election boggles my mind.

>>9186320
all those natural disasters would still occur

>>9186330
>The Deniers
>A book promoting climate scientists who believe humans are causing global warming
>Proves climate science is fake

>>9186331
lol yeah and this one says it will be a desert
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/24/world/asia/living-in-chinas-expanding-deserts.html

>>9186320
here is my imbecile reply
remember those horrible droughts in ethiopia? occured also when it was colder.
flood levels can easily be maintained with strutural measures. same with droughts btw. storms are storms sorry and they derive from a temperature delta not absolutes. earthquakes will still occur.

>>9186347
I was unaware Albany, New York was in China...

>>9186340
No, there would be less droughts and other natural disasters that would occur would be less intense. So how is that not good? Why is the "important" question how many natural disasters would occur rather than how much damage would be incurred from natural disasters? Do you really think your sophistry is convincing anyone?

>>9186348
>remember those horrible droughts in ethiopia? occured also when it was colder.
And sometimes it snows during warm winters. I am more concerned with the overall causes, effects and trends than outliers.

>flood levels can easily be maintained with strutural measures.
Last I checked those cost money too, especially if you have to build them overt the entire coast.

>same with droughts btw.
The cost of droughts in the first world is moving water to drier areas, which costs billions of dollars.

>storms are storms sorry and they derive from a temperature delta not absolutes.
The intensity of the storm is effected by how much water vapor there is to fuel it, you're just wrong.

>>9186377
>And sometimes it snows during warm winters. I am more concerned with the overall causes, effects and trends than outliers.
but climate scientists insist on weather extremes
>Last I checked those cost money too
they actually _save_ lots of money

>>9186352
you cannot stop a single storm by lowering temperature
I'm convinced of my own opinion, I'm not trying to convince anybody
>more humidity in the atmosphere
>there would be less droughts
you do not convince me

>>9185833
This is extremely dishonest, because we came from a little ice age that ended just when this graph starts.

>>9186388
>but climate scientists insist on weather extremes
I don't know what that refers to. You'll have to be more specific.

>they actually _save_ lots of money
Relative to flooding, not relative to mitigation of climate change. Stop being misleading.

You know what I hate about climate scientists? they all claim 'yada yada global warming hath to be prevented' and then they all rush to Antarctica to do their 'research', fly to conferences, use computers and air condition their institutes, causing even more and serious harm to the ecosystem.

>>9186394
>you cannot stop a single storm by lowering temperature
Again you're being misleading. Why does mitigating climate change need to stop storms if it makes storms less intense?

>I'm convinced of my own opinion, I'm not trying to convince anybody
Good, because you're not.

>>9186402
> Stop being misleading.
so, you don't want to build dikes to protect humans?

>>9186406
>Good, because you're not.
neither are you

>>9186399
Reliable continuous record start around 1850.
that's just the way how history went.
Google it.
Too bad if it doesn't fit your narrative, guess that happens a lot with you and facts.

>>9186399
How does that make it misleading? Are you trying to imply that global warming's speed or magnitude are simply a rebalancing from the ice age? Because it's not.

>>9186407
Stop being misleading.

>>9186411
Anyone reading the thread can see that you are not responding to my arguments honestly.

>>9186394
>>more humidity in the atmosphere
>>there would be less droughts
You are confused about what type of drought is being referred to and which is particularly harmful. Many of the world's agricultural centers depend not simply on the amount of precipitation per year, but the timing of that precipitation. If you are increasing humidity throughout the year, you get lots of rain in the summer and less snow/faster snowmelt in the winter. But farmers want the opposite, since too much rain in the summer causes flooding, and too little snow in the winter reduces the snowpack, which is a big source of water when it's not raining. This is why California and the Southwest US is suffering from more and more flooding and drought. This was predicted several decades ago and now it's coming true.

>>9186404
Personal choices or setting and example aren't going to solve shit at this point. If something is to be done it will have to be with legislation / technology.

human caused climate change? I'm not really sure, desu. who says it couldn't be the sun, or yet another cycle, or another one of the many possibilities potentially causing earth warming?

>>9186404
they are a bunch of hypocrites

>>9186453
>The sun
Solar irradiance is currently decreasing and is not strong enough to cause the observed warming.

>or yet another cycle
If it was merely cyclical, such rapid warming would not be unprecedented, but it is.

>or another one of the many possibilities potentially causing earth warming?
See pic.

>>9186469
>If it was merely cyclical, such rapid warming would not be unprecedented, but it is.
Can we really rule that out?
What's the resolution of the data we can gather from ice cores or whatever?

>>9186338
>The excitement trump stirred up about fucking COAL MINING during the last election boggles my mind.
Tens of thousands of people depend on coal mining jobs. For many rural towns, that's all they have. If the coal mine closes, the whole town is fucked, not just the coal miners. You fags go on and on about how fragile the environment is and how killing just one species off can throw the entire thing out of whack, but you don't seem to get that the same thing is happening with the economy.

>>9186477
The resolution of various proxies is comparable to the instrumental record. See >>9186414

Also, cycles don't simply exist, they have to be caused by something cyclical. What major climate forcing are we missing?

>>9186483
>Tens of thousands of people depend on coal mining jobs
>But the economy and everyone in the world doesn't depend on the climate humans evolved in, plus coastal, agricultural, and oceanic infrastructure
>But muh ten thousand!

>>9186497
Do you really expect people in coal mining towns to not vote in their own interest?

>>9186499
Do you really expect that that is a relevant response? How popular climate change mitigation is irrelevant to the fact that it needs to be done to save trillions of dollars in future damages.

>>9186504
Ok Mr. Gore.

It's amazing to me how the same exact misconceptions about global warming pop up every single thread. Always the same old myths and falsehoods such as "climate has always changed," or "It's the sun!" or "It's real but it's not manmade!" or "more atmospheric CO2 is GOOD!"

Time after time all of these claims (and many more) have been debunked, yet another retard comes into the thread spouting them every single time as if they're up for debate.

It just goes to show you how absolutely powerful the misinformation campaign by special interests (fossil fuel corporations, etc.) about climate science has been on the public. The fact that these companies still get away with handing out money in the millions behind closed doors to support "think tanks" that spread this kind of nonsense is despicable. These myths won't die, and they continue to get perpetuated in the same circles of morons that spout anti-science nonsense daily.

>>9186512
Compelling argument, there needs to be a "Godwin's Law" but for Al Gore specifically for these threads.

>>9186515
On the bright side, it makes arguing with deniers and showing onlookers their severe ignorance exceedingly easy. I barely have to think since there are no original arguments, and I can harangue them again and again for not knowing well known, easily available information.

>>9186469
OK, and who says these gasses aren't because of:
- the lots and lots of forests european colonizers burned some 300-100 years ago, and
- more active vulcans
or whatever other reasons?

>>9186515
go do something practical against these interests, then.
find a better, cheaper, less pollutant way to make PV cells and sell them
find a way to get clean water (from the sea, lakes or whatever) from green energy
find a way to make cheaper, better batteries
and so on

>>9185828
Just a bullshit bandwagon for brainlet normies to jump on and pretend to know and care about "science." In reality for them it's just a talking point to signal how virtuous and progressive they are.

These people usually have no idea what they're talking about. If it snows more than a few inches they'll say "CLIMATE CHANGE! We need science!" It's fucking retarded.

>>9186218
Yes. And?

>>9186525
>the lots and lots of forests european colonizers burned some 300-100 years ago
Then why is CO2 rapidly increasing now?

Also, we know it's not from burning plants because the carbon isotope ratio in fossil fuels is different from those in plants. Plants have a low C13/C12 ratio while fossil fuels do not. The C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere is increasing.

>more active vulcans
Humans release 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually.

>>9186256
You're wrong, you know? And I just entered here

>>9186528
We already have clean energy, it's called nuclear. Unfortunately the fossil fuel interests will do everything in their power to stop nuclear and stop mitigation of fossil fuel energy.

>>9186541
How am I wrong?

>>9186534
I don't see you answer the question you're responding to anywhere. Regardless of what normies REEEEEEEEEE do, is climate change real or not according to the science?

>>9186545
It's not fossil fuel interests keeping nuclear down, it's NIMBY faggots who think Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl is a documentary.

>>9186540
>Then why is CO2 rapidly increasing now?
could be an effect of some other shit? what about that hole in the ozone layer, for example?
I mean, do we REALLY know the physics of this planet well enough to pinpoint to and blame climate change on one specific thing?

>>9186545
>add more energy to the system (whole planet)
>clean
yeah...

>>9186587

>>9186444
california drought has something to do with cultivation of almonds and avocado and with swimming pools
if californians weren't morons they would acquire a sustainable lifestyle

>>9186417
stop being your own parrot

>>9186550
fpbp

>>9186422
argumentum ad populum? oh come on

>>9186135
>and we don't know what caused the global temperature to increase exponentially to end it.
Sometimes I cringe when seeing the level of opinionated ignorance that people have. If you don't know shit, it takes 5 seconds to google most correct answers rather than write out your ignorance out in the public.

The last deglaciation, coming from Glacial maximum about 20ka comes naturally as solar insolation (modulated by combination of the tilt of earth's axis and the ellipticity of earth's orbit) increases. The sequence goes:
> NH solar insolation increases (external input)
> Temperature warms in the poles
> CO2 increases
> Global T increases

This is 100% established science. Next time you're thinking of blathing your ignorance take the time to actually look up what you're talking about

>>9186590
oh, another great point... what does this has to do with the fuel oil industry? I mean, obviously they want you to keep buying their oil, but even if they didn't exist, these industries would still contaminate.
if any, we have to blame capitalism itself... how would you produce so much stuff without contaminating so much? how would you stop people from being such mindless consumerists (me and you included)? do you REALLY think the "cleanest" countries don't simply throw their dirt elsewhere? do you think "climate change" on itself isn't a good business?

>>9186587
>could be an effect of some other shit? what about that hole in the ozone layer, for example?
LOL what the fuck are you talking about?

>I mean, do we REALLY know the physics of this planet well enough to pinpoint to and blame climate change on one specific thing?
Yes.

>>add more energy to the system (whole planet)
>clean
Yes.

>>9186145
The economy is transient; climate change is, after a point, irreversible. The climate is a much bigger issue precisely because our actions now will have an impact in a century.

>>9186592
>california drought has something to do with cultivation of almonds and avocado
Yeah, it's called agriculture, it's pretty important.

>>9186594
I'll stop when you stop lying.

>>9186592
Shortage of water is what Californians had, they can blame their wasteful society for that.
Cultivation of almonds however doesn't make the rainfall small.
The drought is real. They have just had a good year, but as coming decades will show, that is just a blip in the radar.

>>9186603
>oh, another great point... what does this has to do with the fuel oil industry?
Burning fossil fuels is the main source of CO2 emissions, which is the cause of current global warming.

>I mean, obviously they want you to keep buying their oil, but even if they didn't exist, these industries would still contaminate.
These industries would not be emitting as much CO2, because they would be getting energy from cleaner sources.

Stop trying to conflate CO2 with consumption.

>>9186603
>weird aimless rambling

wtf are you trying to say exactly?

>>9186612
I did not lie to you. Building dikes and the like is better than forcing people to drive electric cars and banning their diesel engines.

>>9186612
this type of agriculture is neither efficient nor sustainable.
what about the huge waste of water going on in california?

I wonder if the defender of the "man-made climate change" theory here have a physics or related degree, and even read about the problems cause by, say, changes in agriculture, pollution and energy dumped in lakes and oceans by industries, etc., or if they simply blame every environmental problem, and even the "bad" weather on climate change...

>>9186618
when you use up all your water for unneccesary stuff, you gonna end up fucked when a drought comes. it's california's own fault.

>>9186609
>climate change is, after a point, irreversible.
I call bullshit. it could be a pendulum, not a rock rolling down the hill. If all humans died because of climate changes, then their pollution would stop and the system would go back into normal mode.

>>9186629
You lied by twisting my words into something I didn't say. You cannot argue honestly, and your posts are reliant on sophism.

>Building dikes and the like is better than forcing people to drive electric cars and banning their diesel engines.
There is no need to force people to do anything. Simply enacting an optimal carbon tax would save the most money for the least cost. You are also ignoring the other costs of global warming besides flooding that would be mitigated.

Primary literature:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1700906/tab-pdf


tl;dr:

http://news.mit.edu/2017/mathematics-predicts-sixth-mass-extinction-0920


My comment:

No comment. Deniers BTFOed again

>>9186641
the only lie I said was that I'm an imbecile.
and what else is a carbon tax than forcing people?
global warming has no costs to me. I want it warm. I live in a cold place.

>is climate change real?

>normal mode.

You are an idiot

>>9186639
positive feedback @ 450ppm/2C

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>>9186641
a carbon tax would not solve anything.
wealthy companies would continue to destroy environment.
if you really want to do something, ban the use of aluminum, make unnecessary short distance car trips illegal, make car sharing mandatory, make people use small cars, stop rockets, stop wars, stop international cargo ship trade until it's green, kill 90% of the people.

>>9186540
>Also, we know it's not from burning plants because the carbon isotope ratio in fossil fuels is different from those in plants. Plants have a low C13/C12 ratio while fossil fuels do not.

WRONG. They both have the same d13C of -25 as fossil fuels USED to be plants back in the days and 13C is called stable isotopes for a reason. The evidence for fossil fuel being responsible for increasing CO2 is overwhelming and undeniable.

Source for graph, d13CO2 from ice cores
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50668/full

>>9186631
>this type of agriculture is neither efficient nor sustainable.
It's perfectly fine if you have a climate that can support such water usage. Unfortunately California is losing that climate due to global warming. If you actually care about efficiency, and sustainability, why are you arguing against climate change mitigation? Either you agree that we should take the most cost effective action, or you don't. Which is it?

>>9186632
Nice strawman, tell me when you have an actual point.

>>9186662
this

listen to that man and know what to expect for the next few decades.

Heh you guys never learn aren't you?

>>9186639
>it could be a pendulum
Or it could not. Evidence says not.

>If all humans died because of climate changes, then their pollution would stop and the system would go back into normal mode.
This really convinces me climate change is not a problem, good job.

>>9186652
>the only lie I said was that I'm an imbecile.
You forgot when you lied about what I said about dikes. And the countless times you attempted to twist the argument into something it wasn't.

>and what else is a carbon tax than forcing people?
It's people paying for the actual price of their carbon emissions, which have been ignored until now.

>global warming has no costs to me. I want it warm. I live in a cold place.
Yes, clearly global agriculture production has no effect on you. Clearly coastal infrastructure and the global economy has no effect on you. How smart.

>>9186664
>a carbon tax would not solve anything.
It would decrease demand for fossil fuels, reducing the rate of CO2 emissions. The revenue should then be spent on alternative energy research and infrastructure for even more mitigation and savings. It does not make sense to lose more mitigating than you are saving.

>>9186080
>Life is naturally suited for adaptation,
Do you understand how many generations it takes for life to adapt? The great barrier reef is currently going to shit because, get this, 99% of life can't just adapt suddenly over 50 years to completely different conditions.

>>9186587
>increase combustion
>find increase of CO2
>find that increases of CO2 in past align with warming trends

Gets those neurons firing huh?

>>9186678
Not him, I believe in climate change but global warming is doing wonders to my hometown

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/18/maines-lobster-business-is-booming-despite-record-catches.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/climate-change-causing-one-heck-lobster-boom-maine-180963664/

Warm waters = happy lobsters = happy town. Years after years of record catches

Northern New England (same with Scandinavia) will not see any effect of sea level rise, because tectonically we're still rebounding from the last ice age.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/08/why_sea_level_is_falling_in_finland_and_sweden.html

Say what you want about Rwandan Genocide and Syrian war being sparked by climate change induced drought, things are hunky dory up North

>>9186652
Punching you in the face has no costs to me, I like punching faces. So don't complain.

>>9186648
(((Rothman)))

Nice try shill, I won't fall for your jewish tricks!

>>9186685
They adapting ain't they?

>>9186714
fuck off back to >>>/pol/

>>9186668
>Either you agree or you don't.
black and white thinking? you gonna go far.

it's real but making political decisions based on climate change is FUCKING RETARDED

>>9186749
>black and white thinking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_exclusivity

a lot of people want some sort of credit for believing in climate change and being brave enough to vote for liberal politicians. bravo.

>>9186751
I agree, political decisions should be decided by which set of no-education trash living in the sticks gets swayed by whatever emotional arguments the latest snake oil salesman shows up with, rather than policy being decided by science and information.

>>9186751
>making political decisions based on facts is FUCKING RETARDED

>>9186757
>a lot of people want some sort of credit for not believing in climate change and being brave enough to be deny facts. bravo

>>9186761
climate change is a FACT therefore the democrats are exactly capable of solving climate change. this is big thinking conservashits you wouldn't understand.

>>9186759
are we all gonna die because of climate change?

> climate change
> if the climate changes it's all your fault

I hope you smug "it's all peoples fault" carbon taxers realize that this movement only serves to drastically reduce the quality of life of people in 1st world nations. Our electricity/water/travel will be restricted based upon decisions made by a beareaucratic despotism . Do note that the high priests of climate guilt will continue to enjoy decadent gluts of energy consumption, flying around in sky palaces while we bask in our 1 pint ration of synthetic water, bowing before their almighty benevolence.

>>9186770
we're bad people for not sharing more with the poor. and without our rulers who would we have to give credit to for our quality of life? certainly not god because i don't believe in him.

>>9186763
>The Democrats are incapable of enacting a carbon tax and regulations mitigating climate change
Whatever you say, buddy.

>>9186770
Who's the alarmist?

>>9186768
no, just 90-95%

>>9186781
beautiful solution let's just fuck up what the market will do in time
>>9186784
delusional

I hate his discussion. Global warming might be a media hype to scare people, lots of people just use it to tax people or to ban products, the measurements are unreliable, predictions were wrong, there was this email leak thing, I don't believe any of the anthro shit. On the other side, none of the anti climate change proposals actually include serious measures to protect the environment and I hate that.

>>9185828
Climate Change is real, not manmade.
Global Warming is real, completely man-made (mainly China).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS171npQeTM&t=2593

>>9186773
Free market capitalism built all of the creature comforts you take for granted today. Politicians only try to manage it through laws. The concept of a "god" is manifested when people (through legitimate example or manipulating people's fears) come to power and attempt to command the faith of the people. It's up to you whether you allow someone else to manipulate you into hating yourself, Al Gore would love it if you sold all your shit and donated to his jumbo jet fuel fees only because of "muh guilt".

Since when did science stop being a pursuit for truth? Now it's a pursuit of whatever placates people's fears.

>>9186768
There will be a significant drop in populations of many kinds of life, including humans, if the climate changes too much too quickly. Coral reefs are declining severely already, and a great deal of sea life relies on those to continue living, directly or indirectly. We eat fish, with some populations depending heavily on fishing to supply food. Not even considering anything else, like worse droughts and storms reducing the amount of crops we will harvest and the effect that will have on maintaining our livestock, the acidification of the ocean alone will take a massive toll on a big portion of life on Earth, including humans.

>>9186131
if they had to put effort into it they'd be more likely to give up and go jerk off to guro instead. weaponized autism notwithstanding, they tend to be kinda lazy.

>>9186225
>any evidence I don't like must be fake
it's pitiful to watch, really

>>9186763
nice falseflag, but too obvious
2/10 >>>/pol/

>>9186798
>Since when did science stop being a pursuit for truth? Now it's a pursuit of whatever placates people's fears.
i don't doubt there is some truth to the science of climate change. my problem is the al gores and their fucking cult that push the catastrophe angle. the "science" of climate change doesn't seem like much reason to charge consumers for getting to work.

>>9186792
>the measurements are unreliable
Which measurements?

>predictions were wrong
Which predictions?

>there was this email leak thing
I would bet my life that you haven't read or understood a single e-mail from that leak. Stop believing everything you hear.

>>9186804
>will
might* ftfy

>>9186814
Can you point out the specific point at which there is any doubt that the observable acidification of the ocean and observable decline in coral reefs will cause other life to suffer too? Or do you think we're making attempts to save the reefs for no particular reason? Do you also think 1 + 1 'might' equal 2?

>>9186791
>beautiful solution let's just fuck up what the market will do in time
The market does not reflect the cost of fossil fuel in it's price. But go ahead and incur trillions of dollars in future damage because MUH MARKET.

>>9186811
the measurements are flawed imho, e.g. ye olde tyme thermometer measurements are put together with modern day satellite data, and they have different errors, then there is the city pavement effect, that a stationary point of measurements gets hotter not because of climate or weather but because of urbanization of its surrounding, nobody can calculate that out.
all models, all the temp predictions of the last 30 years were proven wrong in retrospect. none of them was accurate.
yes I read some of those emails or excerpts and they said to exaggerate the data so they would generate more media attention.
and don't bet your life for anything anon. it makes you look retarded.

>>9186873
>the measurements are flawed imho, e.g. ye olde tyme thermometer measurements are put together with modern day satellite data
Horseshit, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>then there is the city pavement effect, that a stationary point of measurements gets hotter not because of climate or weather but because of urbanization of its surrounding, nobody can calculate that out.
They can and did, again you have no idea what you're talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

If you remove every urban area from the temperature record, you get the same trend.

>all models, all the temp predictions of the last 30 years were proven wrong in retrospect. none of them was accurate.
Now you're just lying.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

>yes I read some of those emails or excerpts and they said to exaggerate the data so they would generate more media attention.
More lies based on taking quotes out of context. You have no argument.

>>9186873
>imho
unsubstantiated opinion, probably based off guesses instead of actually looking at anything objective

>the city pavement effect
does not
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282003%29016%3C2941%3AAOUVRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
significantly affect the global temperature trend
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3730.1

>nobody can calculate that out.
kek, what the fuck do you think statisticians and researchers have to do when they measure something with a lot of factors contributing to it?

>all models, all the temp predictions of the last 30 years were proven wrong in retrospect. none of them was accurate.
you gave none of these models, or what exactly exactly proposed that they didn't live up to, meanwhile in reality:
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html?foxtrotcallback=true

>or excerpts
kek

>they said to exaggerate the data so they would generate more media attention.
can you quote the part where they said to 'exaggerate' the data? altering the data to 'exaggerate' it would be a very serious problem and I would have to report it to the journals those papers were published in immediately

>>9186889
Why do global warming deniers have to lie in every post? Do they really have no argument?

Why do global warming deniers have to lie in every post? Do they really have no valid argument?

>>9186889
>Climate "scientists" go on and on about albedo
>but somehow covering more and more of the world in dark-as-shit asphalt won't do anything

>>9186685
you sure it isn't because of pollution?

Energetically, capturing, converting, and storing carbon while liberating oxygen is possible.

However, if you don't STOP polluting carbon in the first place its like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom.

And people don't realize that most if not all of the pollution comes from THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD who believe only a political decision can solve this.

Therefore, everyone is on their own to STOP polluting because COAL and OIL and GAS produce most of the world's electricity

And of course

ALL OF THE INEFFICIENT (-70%!!!!!!) BURNING OF GASOLINE AND DIESEL IN COMBUSTION ENGINES

(burns doesn't it)

>>9186889
>>9186888
100 year old measurements and satellite data are put into the same graph, to produce the hockey stick, do you want to pull my penis?

the pavement effect works also on rural measurements

>statisticians
most well known for accuracy, and not for attention whoring, yes

>If you remove every urban area from the temperature record, you get the same trend.
it should be smaller, shouldn it?

and read the NOAA leaks yourself and the articles about them

>>9186913
>dark as shit asphalt
You must live in a very gloomy place if the architects decided to put dark asphalt on all the surfaces. Where I come from most buildings tend to be made a bright gray or some pastel color, and roads are also a pleasing bright, slightly blueish gray

it's shit like this that causes the temperature anomalies
and nobody has ever proposed to do something against it
because they all benefit from it

>>9186926

>http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming.html
inb4 foxnews

>>9186927
https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/content/group/2c084cc1-8f08-442b-80e8-ed89faa22c33/book/chapter_3/albedo.htm
Forests have 15-20% albedo, grassland has 10-25%, asphalt has 5-10%.

Stand in a parking lot during the summer for once instead of your air-conditioned NOAA office. You will see just how much hotter it is.

>>9186926
>100 year old measurements and satellite data are put into the same graph, to produce the hockey stick
Where is this graph you fucking liar? Two posts and still haven't backed up your shitty dumb lie.

>the pavement effect works also on rural measurements
Prove it.

>it should be smaller, shouldn it?
The effect is so insignificant there is no noticeable difference.

>and read the NOAA leaks yourself and the articles about them
Ah, so you lied and can't back it up. Thanks, liar.

>>9186932
and this won't be stopped by a fucking tax. the tax will make politicians rich. the planet will be killed and retards like those pretenders and knowitalls ITT will have made nothing but repeated the spectre, to scare the public and to make money with the scary story. the denialists and the sensationalizers are just the two sides of the same cancer.

>>9186926
>100 year old measurements and satellite data are put into the same graph, to produce the hockey stick
are you even aware that we take ground measurements

>the pavement effect works also on rural measurements
you don't understand what you're talking about, at all

>most well known for accuracy, and not for attention whoring, yes
not an argument

>it should be smaller, shouldn it?
no you fucking idiot, the urban heat island effect does not contribute to the trend significantly, why would it go down if you remove it when it isn't contributing anything? do you even think before posting?

>and read the NOAA leaks yourself and the articles about them
i did, you failed to answer any of my questions, you've struck out

>>9186936
that article cites a blog, are you brain damaged? the evidence for it is piling up it seems

>>9186943
>Where is this graph
don't tell me you dont know the hockey stick graphs

>>9186936
The chart is incorrectly baselined, this is old fake news.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html

>>9186939
According to your own source concrete has an albedo of 15-25%, and guess what material is most commonly used in paving roads and in urban structures. Is it asphalt or concrete? No prize for guessing correctly.

>>9186948
Show me a hockey stick combining thermometer and satellite data you hack. Oh you can't? Then why are you lying about it retard?

>>9186947
what's wrong with blogs, and why do you call me names? why do you accuse me of lying, I am stating my personal opinion.

>>9186954
Asphalt's pretty common. It's also very commonly used on rooftops.

>>9186961
>why do you accuse me of lying, I am stating my personal opinion.
Hmm maybe because you make claims that are contrary to well known facts? Which makes your opinions worth shit.

>>9186960
not sure if hockey stick is the right name for it, but all graphs that depict global warming combine 100 yo data with new data and stop calling me names

>>9186963
answer to this >>9186945
why do you use aluminum? justify yourself. why do you use electricity, if you you are so concerned with earth, why do you still do that

>>9186964
They combine thermometer data with thermometer data, not satellite data. If you can't even get basic details like this right, you have no validity in this discussion.

I'll stop calling you names when you stop misrepresenting climate science, how about that?

>>9186963
you can't handle them because they go against your agenda and your prefab doctrine
if you had good reason you would explain carefully and convince rationally, but you dont

>>9186969
those are two different things.
you will stop calling people names on the internet. no matter what.
the curve in the graphs I talk about goes from 1900 to 2010 or so, how do they do that if not by combining

>>9186968
>why do you use aluminum?
PFCs have been under regulation for decades that limits emissions. So let's do the same for CO2. Great fucking argument dumbass

>why do you use electricity
Electricity does not have to be from fossil fuels, surely you know this.

Now answer my question, why do you lie about climate science?

>>9186947
>when it isn't contributing anything?
wow first you told me about statistics and now that. it doesnt contribute TO THE STATISTICS, because it is filtered out on purpose by humans, but it does contribute to REALITY

REALITY that's the thing some people have a problem with

>>9186972
>you can't handle them because they go against your agenda and your prefab doctrine
I know it's really hard for you distinguish between dogma and simple facts, but what you lied about are basic facts.

>if you had good reason you would explain carefully and convince rationally, but you dont
There is nothing more to explain, you lied. The sources proving you wrong were provided. Now stop lying.

>>9186983
no you retard I made fun of you for not understanding what accounting for a variable is, separately from the fact that it doesn't contribute to it, go back to elementary school so you can learn to read

>>9186976
PFC is not aluminum why do you evade my question

>Electricity does not have to be from fossil fuels, surely you know this.
yours is probably from uranium that is another thing that creates huge deforested wastelands that raise the temperature

>>9186985
I will not stop 'lying' because I am not lying.

the pavement effect cannot be let out because it is global.

each thermometer station that is requested more and more often falls to that effect.

>>9186974
>those are two different things.
Yes, thermometer data is different from satellite data.

>you will stop calling people names on the internet. no matter what.
You will stop lying first, liar.

>the curve in the graphs I talk about goes from 1900 to 2010 or so, how do they do that if not by combining
Combining what? Any instrumental temperature record is a combination of thermometer stations from all over the world and from different times. Around 1850 is when thermometers became standardized enough and coverage was large enough to include them in the temperature record.

>>9186992
>PFC is not aluminum why do you evade my question
PFCs are the harmful emissions that result from aluminum smelting. I can't make your argument for you retard, you'll just have to use your words.

>yours is probably from uranium that is another thing that creates huge deforested wastelands that raise the temperature
OK, how much does it raise the temperature? Enlighten me. Oh you don't know? Then shut the fuck up with your idiotic red herrings.

>>9186994
>I will not stop 'lying' because I am not lying.
Let's count the lies:

1. Instrumental data is combined with satellite data

2. The UHI effect cannot be calculated, but somehow I know it causes global warming and not CO2

3. All models, all the temp predictions of the last 30 years were proven wrong in retrospect.

4. Climategate emails show climatologists exaggerated data

5. The IPCC overestimated warming in this graph

All of these are demonstrable lies, admit it.

>>9186994
>the pavement effect cannot be let out because it is global.
So rural areas have as much pavement as urban areas? No, you retard. If this effect was at all significant, the trend should be changed by removing the areas with the most pavement, but that doesn't happen. The burden of proof is on you. Good luck, since you have not backed up a single on your laughable claims with any evidence.

Define "real"

>>9187033
>the trend should be changed by removing the areas with the most pavement
Why? Is heat somehow trapped in cities?

>>9187042
Because urban areas have more pavement. More pavement = more UHI. Or does pavement have nothing to do with it now?

Jesus you are a dishonest little fuck aren't you?

>>9187047
>Cities have more pavement
>cities heat up faster
>wind blows heat to rural areas
>now rural areas are hotter too

>>9187051
Then there should be a difference between windy nights and calm nights. The paper showing that there isn't was already given to you and you just ignored it and made a fool of yourself

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3730.1

>>9187071
I'm not the same guy, fag.

>>9187077
Them read the thread instead of repeating the same shit, fag.

>>9186873
>muh UHI
>not reading Hausfather et al. 2013
pleb
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509/full

>>9187080
No.

>>9187094
>They all shitpost down here

>>9185828
isn't the more important question that we should see if whatever is going on to our planet dangerous and reversible?

>>9186080
all the people bitching about climate change never seem to ever want to touch on stuff like this, much less offer actual solutions.

reminder: carbon credits are a (very profitable,for some people) thing with which 1st world countries can cheat and lie

>>9187650
>much less offer actual solutions.
no, they would never offer solutions. but they do need the IRS to collect your money in order to be able to work on them. we'll have it solved in 10-15 years now elect another democrat.

>>9185828
Climate change exists, it's a natural process that would be occurring even if humanity didn't exist

>>9187650
Touch on what? All pollutants aren't co2 and won't affect the climate like it does. The climate change issue is about a specific greenhouse gas that we are pumping into the atmosphere. We already have enacted laws to reduce other pollution in the states, particularly aerosols, and we have conservation efforts to reduce the effect of pollutants and other human activity on the environment.

>much less offer actual solutions.
It is a matter of policy, which is definitely not science, so why would they when talking about science? Reduce emissions across the globe. That's the solution.

>>9186483
>You fags go on and on about how fragile the environment is and how killing just one species off can throw the entire thing out of whack, but you don't seem to get that the same thing is happening with the economy.

It's mechanization and fracking that's destroying coal jobs, not the environmentalists.

>>9186187
Thats entirely speculation though.

>>9185838
it would solve your mom's problem of
"why is my son such a retard?"

>>9185945
>all of their predictions have been wrong
>their coveted data was forged
Your claims are false.

>>9186080
>a red herring
Lrn2red-herring fgt pls

>>9186135
>Weather cycles
Climate changes over the past few decades
are not the result of "weather cycles", retard.

>>9186145
>I don't fucking care, so why do people even care?
Some people, unlike you, actually fucking care
about the future of their descendants.

>>9186225
>NOAA
>Al Gore
No connection, just as the neurons in your so-called "brain".

>>9186229
>I don't need to go back to pol.
Yes, you do.
You have no place here in /sci/

>>9186245
He can't tell you, bcoz he doesn't fckn know.

>>9186256
>Our ability
What do you mean by "our", Peasant?

>>9187967
>more people than ever
>more habitable land than ever
>more food production than ever before
>no observable difference in the Earth's climate
I am right

>>9186791
Free market is a meme whenever politicians can be bought and sold on it.

>>9185833
Is there any reliable info source that proves climate change is real?

And not just some gifs and false statistics everyone photoshopped together?

>>9188270
well if you don't have access to like science shit you're gonna have to listen to NASA, NOAA etc
And if you trust random niggers over them then idk what to tell you

>>9188281
Why would I trust the NASA?
Is it in their interest to tell the truth about this?
Aren't they a US institution with interests of the US big corporates and their elites in mind?

>>9188308
Well they're the best you got if you don't have access to up-to-date journal articles on climate change
I'd say they're pretty credible cause they send shit to space, landed on the moon etc

>>9186145
I'm a brainlet: the post

>>9188314
Everyone has access to journals thanks to scihub.

>>9188308
>Aren't they a US institution with interests of the US big corporates and their elites in mind?

yeah because the US elites sure love to push climate change!

>>9188308
>Aren't they a US institution with interests of the US big corporates and their elites in mind?
If this is your concern, wouldn't it have clued you in the moment the Trump administration took control and they started shitting all over the EPA, removing documents related to climate change, and making researchers not use the terms 'climate change' or 'global warming' in their papers? The elites don't want global warming to be happening or for you to know that it is, that's bad for their profits.

>>9188434
Drumpf is right, fuck the environment. We need big business to grow our economy. Its gonna be fucked when the environment is retarded though.

>>9185828
It depends

Why do people think only species will die and with a 2 degrees celcius increase we might see some mew life and different mutations throughout earth that might change how we all do things a d might even propel humanity further?

>>9185828
Real

>>9186658
Damn i'd like to visit that sunken Europe, my ancestors probably did.

Read this

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1702362#t=article

Please

>>9185828
saged

>>9188945
>Whether it’s the science of vaccines, climate change, or gun control
>tfw majoring in gun control science

>>9189009
>saged
>Doesn't sage
Saged

>>9187948
Yeah, just like evolution.

>>9187881
this is 100% true.
the natural gas boom is the major reason for coal's decline, and natgas is quite clean as far as fossil fuels go.

>>9188037
>more people than ever
>more habitable land than ever
>more food production than ever before
When did climatologists make predictions against this?

>no observable difference in the Earth's climate
Why are you lying?

>>9189049
coal climatologists and people against the pollution caused by industrialization claimed that the Earth would become a wasteland if we continued to industrialize. It started the noble savage myth of 'living in harmony' with nature.
>why are you lying
if you want to fling shit know that you're a braindead moron with no education in the matter and that machines have never caused any problem in the history of mankind, which is what alarmists who like changing their name claim.
>some graph
doesn't prove anything, just a shred of evidence lost in hundreds of other cooked-up numbers

>>9189068
>coal climatologists and people against the pollution caused by industrialization claimed that the Earth would become a wasteland if we continued to industrialize.
I've never heard of a coal climatologist. Surely you can point me to one of them claiming this and are not just making shit up.

>if you want to fling shit know that you're a braindead moron with no education in the matter and that machines have never caused any problem in the history of mankind, which is what alarmists who like changing their name claim.
Take your meds, Billy. Also, stop lying.

>Claims there is no observable change in Earth's climate
>Given data showing change in Earth's climate
>Immediately dismisses it as cooked with no evidence or argument
Retard alert.

>>9189102
>makes wild claims and then talks shit to everyone who disagrees
I bet you're one of those "97% of scientists" who like using faulty polls.
In any case, all of the literature of the victorian age regarding machinery like adam smith who wrote about the wealth of nations was a proponent of slowing down the growth of industrialization to reduce coal emissions, along with other proto-enviornmentalist policies

>>9189126
>makes wild claims
Which ones were those exactly?

I'm still waiting for you to back up even just one of your idiotic lies.

>In any case, all of the literature of the victorian age regarding machinery like adam smith who wrote about the wealth of nations was a proponent of slowing down the growth of industrialization to reduce coal emissions, along with other proto-enviornmentalist policies
Wow, you really BTFO those imaginary Victorian-era climatologists. Well I guess climate change is fake. You win.

Seriously, take your meds Billy.

>>9189136
>we-we-were different! times have changed! oil is totally different from coal!
nothing has changed, just more socialists and primitives calling for a literal global revolution.
>liar!
keep clutching pearls you whiny bitch, no one beileves in your stupid trumped-up justifications for starting another cultural revolution
>take your meds
I should just be sent to some camp, huh? for disagreeing with the holy prophet of science, bill nye. Get real

In any case, Al Gore was wrong about all of his predictions as well, and bill nye himself has stated that the predictions of climate change were wrong, but that he still beileves during his debate with a physicst professor from an ivy leauge school.

>>9189143
>MUH KULTRAL MARXIM
Dude, this thread is about whether climate change is real or not, back up your lies with scientific evidence or get the fuck out. This isn't /pol/.

>MUH AL GORE SAID
>MUH BILL NYE SAID
Are either of these guys climatologists? Who gives a fuck what they say?

You truly are scum, all you do is devolve into dribbling nonsense when someone points out that you're lying.

>>9189156
>climatologists
some cult, there is no degree in climatology. Al Gore literally said hes a climatologist whereas Bill Nye said he was a supporter of their ideas.
>me asnwering your stupid questions isn't scientific enough
you didn't like some of the biggest names in science either so I don't think anything less of cowtowing to your bullying would appease you

stop eating the /pol/ bait scianon

>>9189169
>stay in the hugbox when presented with factual economics, political science, and machinery concepts
this is why socrates disliked empiricism, its too easy to just ignore that a picture is a fact

>>9189175
okay buddy

>>9189175
>political ""science""
>machinery concepts
>factual

LOL none of these are facts. /pol/ is just as much of an easily triggered ideology hugbox like the SJWs

>>9189189
do economics now

>>9189188
>smug liberal turns his nose at fields that actually exist, unlike climatology
not suprised

>>9185833
This is fucking terrifying. We are doomed.

>>9189211
>alarmist has decided that it is atheiest armageddon
don't worry, you can just pay leonardo dicaprio for carbon credits

>>9186413

>nothing of interest happened climate-wise before 1850

>>9189214
Who are you quoting? Not me.

>>9185945
You're right, all of their predictions have been wrong. They've underestimated how stupid the general public is, so climate change has been worse than expected

>>9186133
Less Arctic ice => Climate Change is TRUE!
More Arctic Ice => Climate Change is TRUE!

>>9186164
The NOAA; when you need extra data tampering!

>>9186658
>ywn live in Doggerland as a proud Dogger

>>9189410
source or get the fuck out

>>9189410
I wonder if you even know what raw data is.

>>9189416
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/
Compare raw data to processed data.

>>9189220
>Reliable instrumental record didn't start until 1850
>nothing of interest happened climate-wise before 1850
Can you read? Or are you just deliberately misrepresenting what others are saying?

>>9189406
>More Arctic Ice
You really can't make a single post without misrepresenting the science huh?

>>9189410
>NOAA
You mean the organization whose adjustments actually decrease the global warming trend? Surely you don't think USHCN stations are the only sources of data?

>data tampering
Time to educate yourself!

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

>>9189406
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/wildfire-still-burning-greenland-tundra-mid-august-2017

>>9189406

>>9189167
>there is no degree in climatology
better tell that to schools like NYU and Texas Tech and U of Miami and FSU.
>Al Gore literally said hes a climatologist
[citation fukken needed] like on all your bullshit claims
>biggest names in science are Al Gore and Bill Nye
confirmed for popsci brainlet who's never willingly cracked a textbook in his life.