/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9446551
>What happened to the global warming meme?
a small minority of people realized that al gore was running a scam

Why do you keep making this thread? What do you hope to accomplish?

Climatologists pushed glaciers melting/sea levels rising/temps going up and shit too hard. They said in 1998 that in 2018 there would be no more glaciers, all the coastal cities would flooded, and global temps would be way up.

Turns out we are in 2018 now, and there is more ice coverage than then, the sea levels are lower, and the average temp is the same.

So what do you do with a discredited theory that makes only wrong predictions? Make an incremental change to it, and then rename it so you can pretend its new and better.

>>9446560
This is the first time I've ever made this thread.

>>9446565
Why make yet another climate thread? Can’t you just read the archives? Do you honestly believe new information will be unearthed in this thread?

>>9446567
Sorry for triggering you. I sense that you have a now worthless degree in climate science and feel slightly butthurt.

so is there anything other than CO2 that concerns climate change experts right now?
it used to be the CFC craze and the ozone layer, I wonder what happened to all that

>>9446570
No, I’m a PhD student in Computational Science and Engineering.
I’m not triggered, I’m genuinely curious about what you think this thread will accomplish? Do you think actual discussion will occur? Are you even willing to have an actual discussion?

We have this same thread everyday and nothing new is ever said.

>>9446551
the same as the gravity meme
it's a fact, get over it

>>9446551
Lrn2meme fgt pls

>>9446551
Global warming was actually a scam put out by Al Gore. Sadly in science today if you pay "scientists" enough money they get you the results you want.

>>9446570
>gets called out for his shitpost
>"y u so triggered?!"
Honestly, fuck off.

Why can't /pol/ fuck off?

>>9446573
The ozone layer was fixed, that's why. Why are you on /sci/ when you are so uninformed?
Why don't climate change denialists ever bother to actually learn something?

>>9446752
I wrote the second sentence just to bait for a response but I still would like an answer for the first one

>>9446564
>They said in 1998 that in 2018 there would be no more glaciers, all the coastal cities would flooded, and global temps would be way up.
[citation needed]

>>9446551
It stopped being a meme.

Look you can scam some sob by telling him the sky's falling but you gotta change the scams from time to time or at least the wording. No matter how dumb he is it won't work more than few times unless changed a bit. Doesn't mean you gotta keep making stuff up though - the old tricks will work on his kids.

>>9446551
It stopped becoming a meme

>>9446551
It cooled down :^)

THE HURRICANES COOLED THINGS DOWN. HURRICANES WERE CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE. CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING, AND GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE. GET WITH THE PROGRAM.

>>9447080
Fake data. The winters of WW2 were bitter cold.

>>9446564
You know there is, "more ice," because pockets of freshwater trapped under Arctic sea ice (Which has a lot of minerals in it, bringing down its freezing point) that has melted exposed the underlying fresh water (Higher freezing point) , right? This would imply Arctic sea ice has melted.
Also the sea level HAS rose
The ocean is becoming more and more acidic
Consecutive heat record years/months
Greenhouse effect experiments
Fucking Venus

Mind fucking off on to /pol/ or /x/ with your contrarian mindset? They eat up pseudo science and other bullshit ther

>>9446551
science

>>9446564
>more ice coverage than then
That's a complete and utter lie. The republican party folks.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-glaciers

>>9447269
as was every other winter people didn't just have to march through snow when they weren't fighting

>>9446551
Lrn2meme fgt pls

>>9446564
A lot of fake data was pushed or extrapolated to try and fright people into doing something.

Fact is that the data at the time, the measurements at the time, didn't suggest that the glaciers were going to disappear that quickly. The models made 20 years ago weren't perfect, but we are still roughly in line with the predictions from them. More sources of data have been added since then, climate science has improved.

The big problem is that people like to cherry pick one piece of data and use it to "debunk" global warming/climate change when there are many sources of data used in conjunction to support it.

No one gives a shit about your websearches. No one gives a shit that it's the "coldest winter you remember". No one gives a shit that Antarctica is gaining ice (while Greenland loses ice at something like 5x the rate).

The fact is that our species will have to deal with the effects of climate change in the decades to come, and we should start doing things to improve our resilience against it instead of bickering over whether it is happening at all.
As nations we should be working to reduce our emissions, not sweeping cuts within a year but slow reductions by moving to cleaner technologies and less wasteful use of resources. We should be looking at what we can start doing now to mitigate the problems we will have in the future as drought patterns change and more violent storms hit, problems that could cost nations billions of dollars in a year.

Instead a lot of nations are just sitting on their hands because governments can't decide if climate change is even a thing, or people protest against actions they want to take against it.

>>9446578
>>9446740
>>9447510
data scientists btfo! Xdxdxd

Climate only changed when humans appeared! All that climate stuff that happened 4 billion years prior killing dinosaurs mammoths and stuff are FAKE republican drumpf pol news! BTFO XDXD

Pls donate all your US tax monies to China India and other 3rd world countries to combat climate change thank you

>>9446564
>They said in 1998
>They
sigh.

>>9446565

We changed the name because some retarded don't understand the difference between climate and weather

>>9447496 >>9446551 >>9447496
Look at this Weather Channel's Map

Even Florida & Mexico are Cold now

Global Warming is not just a Meme or Hoax, is a Scam.

>>9448529
>look, this portion of the world is cold/colder than usual right now
>global warming is a hoax!
The minds of the mentally ill equipped.

>>9448493

Without helping the developing world there is no hope in combating Climate Change.

>>9448493
>Pls donate all your US tax monies to China
No need to do that cause it's already happening

>>9448529
it's 66 in miami rn tho

>>9448529
Oh wow, that does it! It got cold a few days in winter, that's it! global warming? LOL warming? XD It's over, debunked! We can throw away all the scientific literature now, see guys it got COLD IN WINTER HAHAHAHAHA Fucking liberal lies XD fucking liberal al gore elitists said it wouldn't get cold ever again with warming! Fucking liers fucking liberal lies!

>>9446551
people stopped searching for it because they know what it is now

Mysterious vanishing of climate sensitivity happened.

>>9446551
the truth came out

>>9448992
>certainty improves
>sensitivity goes down
wow what a mystery

>>9448548
>look, this portion of the world is warm/warmer than usual right now
>global warming is real!
The minds of the mentally ill equipped.
Works both ways buddy.

>>9449041
I know it's hard for 56%ers to understand, but America isn't the entire world, and right now the vast majority of the world is experiencing higher than average winter temperatures. Only parts of North America are seeing below average, and that was only for a few days in certain regions of NA alone. In fact, NA has also experienced warmer than average temperatures between the two arctic air infiltration periods. Before the last one we had higher than average temps throughout the southern and Eastern US states. The cold phase ended today anyways, it lasted about three days and now we're back to normal winter temperatures in NA.

>>9449050
How about some data to back that up?
You can't even do that since temperature is a terrible metric for warming.

>>9449071
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201712
January will be available next month.

>>9449071

>>9449154
>>9449162
>>9449165
> noaa
> believing a mouthpiece of the deep state

>>9449299
Oh, see there's the classic mental gymnastics at work. I present evidence to support my claims, and suddenly the evidence doesn't meet your standards because it conflicts with your cognitive biases. Splendid, now I can see that there's no point arguing back and forth with you, take care pal.

>>9446806
Not him but I do have some specific examples.

An Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006, and made a series of very specific predictions that will come to pass "within the next 10 years," as in by the year 2016

1: Mount Kilimanjaro will no longer have snow at its peak
2: The Arctic will no longer have ice
3: There will be a worse heat wave in Europe than the one in 2003 that killed 70,000 people
4: There will be a worse hurricane in the Gulf Coast than Katrina

Did Al Gore actually manage to fuck up the environmentalist movement with his enthusiasm?

>>9449376
1) Al gore definitely made a mistake on Kilimanjaro, and the reduction in its glaciers has been linked to deforestation surrounding the mountain. Again, this doesn't disprove global warming.

2) I think he was wrong about this too, but there has been a large reduction that has been observed in multi-year sea ice, as well as an overall reduction of sea ice during summers in the Arctic, which has led to positive feedback loops of further reduced ice because open ocean absorbs more heat and thus heats up faster in summer, leading to more ice melting and less multi-year ice.

3) I don't remember him making this claim, cite the source because I can't find information about it, but regardless the general hypothesis that there will be worse heat waves in the future is not inaccurate. Extreme weather will become more extreme because it's all driven by heat, and higher average global temps mean warmer summers, meaning more heat, driving more extreme weather.

4) There have been hurricanes worse. Katrina was a bad storm not because of the damage the storm itself did, it was because of the poor quality of the levee system in New Orleans in particular that led to the flooding which caused billions of dollars in damage and all the deaths from the poor governmental response to the disaster. NOLA didn't even receive a direct hit from the storm, and the levee's breach was caused by massive storm surge from lake pontchartrain.

>>9449327
you cant argue with these people anon. they will continue to do what ever the gop and oil lobby's tell them only to just be different. they cant even see how having the worst winter in the us in memory that tells them something strange is going on. you can just tell people facts and if they dont believe them hopefully they will be the first to suffer the consequences

what annoys me is that they probably wont be

>>9449396
India and Africa will be the first to suffer the consequences

So... yawn.

>>9449391
Just after the 27 minute mark in the movie is when the claims about deadlier heat waves and hurricanes in the immediate future are made.

You CAN quite fairly chalk it up to dumb luck instead of science that 2003 to 2006 saw several of the deadliest environmental disasters in history and there hasn't been anything that bad since but that doesn't help the common person lend credence to the guy sounding the alarm

>>9448992
Scafetta literally cherry-picked the studies for that one; he chose old studies that came up with high values and new studies that came up with low values.
most importantly, though, the lines drawn on that figure aren't the result of an actual regression.

>>9449399
First it's all bullshit and it's not real, but when evidence contradicts your argument suddenly it's real but it's not gonna impact me so I don't care if it's real.
Seems like climate change deniers are constantly changing their argument on climate change / global warming to suit their needs.

>>9446564
I'd assume that's because we took precautions to make that not happen during the Clinton, Obama, and even somewhat Bush years, and so the climate change has slowed.

>Turns out we are in 2018 now, and there is more ice coverage than then, the sea levels are lower, and the average temp is the same.
This is not true. Citations for all of these.

>>9449432
It's literally "shitholes btfo"

>>9449442
> Africa, ME, and Commiefornia fucked over
That's the best argument I can think of for speeding up climate change as much as possible.

>>9449442
>>9449463
Climate change is not just desertification, but yes it's a lot easier to rationalize it when you cherry pick the factors that will impact one region more than another, rather than looking at all of the various impacts that will have global repercussions.

>>9446551
"Global Warming" is less accurate to what the individual would experience. The average temperature of the earth would increase, but additionally, the extremes would become far more likely. Hence the rise in the popularity of "climate change".
This is seriously a simple radiative heat transfer problem, you can't dispute the sensitivity of average global temperature to GHG emissions if you've taken a heat transfer class in your life.

>>9446551
global memeing warm?

>>9449071
>temperature is a terrible metric for warming.
Isolated (in position or time) is a terrible metric for warming, you mean.

Stringing together years of record high average temperatures is a reasonable metric for warming.

ITT: climate change denialists deny the collective work of scientists
>inb4 muh appeal to authority

>>9449401
>there hasn't been anything that bad since
Was 2017 not the worst year ever for such disasters?

>>9449041
>Works both ways buddy.
But that's not actually the argument being put forward for AGW. It doesn't matter if newspapers put out shitty "It's hot in summer, so global warming" articles, because we can always point to actual climatologists who can demonstrate humanity's impact on the Earth's climate with real data.
Meanwhile, the "cutting edge" of denial is PR groups like Heartland and Cato, and all they can do is use fancier language to phrase the same retarded arguments that random bloggers use. Which makes sense: they're not actually climatologists, they're marketing and business people.

>>9448529
Seasonal Fires in California
>Global Warming is reeeeeeaaal
>Pay your Carbon Taxes Goyim

Freezing Winter
>Nothing to see here Goyim
>Just ignore it. It will go away.

>>9448548 >>9448976 >>9448977

>>9450693
>But Al Gore!
Stop.

>>9446551
It's about to solve itself with wind and solar becoming ridiculously cheap over the coming years and electric vehicles generally being seen as desirable because of superior acceleration and lack of local exhaust emissions.

>>9446551
The arctic ice does not cooperate.

>>9448977
>HAHAHAHAHA
Mom let the hyaena use her computer again.

>>9450693
>Al Gore
No one cares

>"I predict the ice caps will melt by 2014"
Fake quote.

>2015 NASA report says: more ice than ever
False.

Why do deniers always resort to lying if they actually believe what they're saying?

>>9449376
>Climatologists pushed
>An Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006
Try again.

>Science & Math board
>it's actually full of retarded hicks

It's called climate change now goy

>>9448478
Nothing still equals nothing.

>>9449391
Global Warming is subject to proof, the burden is on commie soyboys such as yourself.

>>9448955
>5 trillion dollars unaccounted for in the Pentagon
>worried about drop in the bucket change being sent to shitholes

glad to see priorities in order

>>9451771

>>9446578
Are you the same idiot that calculate Hilary had 99% chance to win

>>9451036
Putin disagrees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbrKLnh8wLA

>>9451892
Hillary got 3 million more votes

>>9451771
Feel free to read the latest IPCC report yourself, rather than having me spoonfeed you what it says.

>>9451771

>>9450693
>al gore being a lying hypocrite means all the danger is gone

>>9449631
fuck you

>>9451898
with plenty of admissions of voter fraud in an election that is based around winning acres, not people

>>9452062
If the election is about winning acres (land mass?) then why are votes based off of population?

>>9451997
Right? Fuck that guy for making a point. Amirite????

>>9446806
http://www.slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/ann-curry-not-surprised-matt-lauer-sexual-misconduct-allegations.html

Hansen

>>9452062
>voter fraud
Trump is that you? Are you really so insecure about your small election weewee that you need to lie about shit that doesn't even matter?

>>9452128
>http://www.slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/ann-curry-not-surprised-matt-lauer-sexual-misconduct-allegations.html
Try again.

>>9451997
come get some, faggot

>>9451771
>spoonfeed me the evidence
>I can't into Google

>>9452160
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html

>>9452643
>They said in 1998 that...
>Discussion paper (published on 23 Jul 2015)
What?

>>9452650
You can't dismiss that some wild claims have been made by some climatologists

>>9446564
I remember watching a show on discovery channel when I was little talking about how NYC would be completely submerged by 2030, empire state building becomes a reef.

>>9452669
No, I can't deny your incredibly vague, non-specific allegation.

>>9452643
So this:

>They said in 1998 that in 2018 there would be no more glaciers, all the coastal cities would flooded, and global temps would be way up.

was just some bullshit you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for playing and we'll see you next time on Can Deniers Post Without Lying?, the hardest game show on /sci/.

>>9452690
Not my post you dumb dumb. But alarmist climatologists are a thing

>>9452728
So are denier climatologists. What's your point? There will always be a handful of contrarians on the fringes of any field.

>>9452728
>Not my post you dumb dumb.
So... you responded to someone's request for a source on a claim by posting something completely irreverent?

>>9452762
>irreverent
I don't think what I posted was irreverent, maybe the word you were looking for was irrelevant as in your contribution to this thread. I wouldn't call a 3 meter sea level rise in 50 year irrelevant, maybe irreverent. I strongly suggest you take into consideration not replying anymore, illiterate dumb dumb.

There's no way to measure sea levels

Global warming is the secular version of Armageddon. Donate now to ensure your place in heaven. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit anymore about these hysterical women running around worrying about 100 years in the future when they can't even sort out their present. Invaders pour over the borders, suck my tax dollars dry, bring down the quality of life for literally everyone except themselves, and then I'm told that I'm racist for not welcoming them into my home--all while these true believers wring their hands over the fate of polar bears.

I'm only 1 person, but that's why my "interest declined", and I imagine there are others who feel similarly.

>>9452793
>There's no way to measure sea levels
Yes there is.

>>9452795
>Fuck other people, what's in it for me?
Real classy.

>>9448478
Not to mention NOAA was fudging temperatures

>>9452793
tidal gauges have been in use for >100 years
the hard part is tweaking the dataset to be accurate

Ok, let's implied that global warming is a fact. Then, why it had to be the human's CO2 emissions the cause? Earth had experienced a lot of climate changes during time.

>>9452803
>>9452821
The moon, the period of the day and the season of the year change the sea level constantly.

You can't possibly do that because to measure the sea levels of a single city would require several meditions on different periods of the day on dozens of different points for a whole year.

You need to do that on thousands of seas all over the planet and take an average. This does not happen and all data in regards to it is fake. Because the technology for this is literally not there yet.

>>9452823
Why do you write so bad?

We know because all other hypotheses on why the temperature is increasing has been proven wrong.

>>9452819
>Not to mention NOAA was fudging temperatures
Do you have a source for that?

>>9452823
>why it had to be the human's CO2 emissions the cause
Because we can measure that.
Specifically, we know that the greenhouse effect is warming the Earth because the stratosphere is cooling. We know that CO2 is the cause by looking at the spectrum of outgoing IR. We can trace the carbon in the CO2 back to fossil fuels by looking at the ratio of isotopes.

>Earth had experienced a lot of climate changes during time.
They don't generally happen this fast, and when they do they tend to cause mass extinctions.

>>9452833
>The moon, the period of the day and the season of the year change the sea level constantly.
All of which is measurable. If the tide goes down here it's going up somewhere else.

>You need to do that on thousands of seas all over the planet and take an average.
NOAA runs about 240 tide stations. Plus there's satellite observations.

>This does not happen and all data in regards to it is fake.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's fake.

>>9452835
>We know because all other hypotheses on why the temperature is increasing has been proven wrong.
We have far better reasons than that.

>>9452866
>We have far better reasons than that.
Like what

>>9449299
>climate change is only promoted for financial gain
what is the fossil fuel industry

>>9450272
>Meanwhile, the "cutting edge" of denial is PR groups like Heartland and Cato, and all they can do is use fancier language to phrase the same retarded arguments that random bloggers use.
they sent out pic related to a bunch of academics, including my master's advisor. I read it. it's hilarious.

first off, it claims to be a publication of the "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change", which is basically just a case of "I'll make my own IPCC, with blackjack and hookers!" because they felt left out.
secondly, they use literally the same poorly sourced meme graphs that the average /pol/ack does, massive jpeg compression artifacts and all. I'm pretty sure there's literally stuff with WUWT watermarks on it in there.
thirdly, as expected, it's absolute trash. it includes the infamous Lappi figure that claims to show negligible manmade warming...except that it's got a mislabeled x-axis and actually ends in 1855, conveniently leaving out almost the entire post-Industrial Revolution time period. it contains a figure claiming to prove that climate change will actually be good for agriculture. how is this demonstrated? literally by pointing out that grain production worldwide has risen over the past half a century or so.

it's comedically nonsensical. at that point you don't even need a background in geoscience to know how shit it is; you literally just need to be capable of independent thought. just goes to show how mentally deficient the average denier is, that they actually fall for it.

>>9447086
Underrated

>>9452833
lolno

>>9452866
You need to measure the sea levels all over the world several times, you fucking brainlet
That's too many measurements and it can't be done

>>9453098
what is satellite altimetry

>>9451580
Yeah it is false, in reality Al gore said Bangladesh would be underwater by 2011.

It's been 7 years, how long will you continue to except this abuse of the scientific method climatologists put up?

>>9452793
Gimme 6 rulers and I'll measure my cock

>>9453098
are you the same guy who also said we can't model how the atmosphere behaves because we can't track each molecule individually?
LOL U CANT KNO NUFFIN

>>9453145
Yeah just keep lying instead of defending your claims, that will help.

>>9447487
>Also the sea level HAS rose
Thats not what the latest news says, the even retconned the model to make global warming to 'actually' cause the sea level to drop.

>>9453231
>the even retconned the model to make global warming to 'actually' cause the sea level to drop.

A 5 seconds search on Google easily proves your meme and narrative wrong dumb denier.

Here is the actual study by the authors regarding seafloor deformation due to increased ocean volume
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075419/abstract

They explicitly said that
>Over the altimetry domain, the difference is about 5%, and due to this effect, barystatic sea level rise will be underestimated by more than 0.1 mm/yr over 1993–2014.
which means for brainlet translation means that recent sea level rise estimates of 2.8-3.6mm per year according to IPCC might be off by 0.1mm per year if they don't take into accound ocean floor deformation.

Nowhere on the study did the authors mentioned anything about sea level dropping. Stop spreading misinformation and chugging WUWT and Breitbart propaganda like an absolute dumbtard.

>>9453098
>You need to measure the sea levels all over the world several times
Yes, and?

>That's too many measurements and it can't be done
Why? How did you work out the number of measurements that would be required? Do you know how many measurements actual sea-level records are made from?

>>9453145
>Al gore said...
>...this abuse of the scientific method climatologists put up?
Al Gore isn't a climatologist. Stop pretending he is one.

>>9453231
>Thats not what the latest news says,
What kind of retarded fantasy-land news are you reading?

>>9453307
>>9454170
Its been dropping for 2 years now retard. And unless there's a sudden increase in the next couple of months it will be the longest decrease in sea level since we started recording it.

>>9454302
Take that exact same graph and expand it out to twenty years. It's like you want to be wrong.

>>9454322
So the sea level hasn't been dropping the past 2 years, because before that it increased? This is exactly the type of logic im talking about. you just pick a timespan that confirmed its rising and fuck the rest. Why stop at 20 years? go back even further to thousands of years and sea level was over 200m, (thats meters, not this pussy as mm shit) higher than now. Both short and long term its falling, only for some time periods in the middle is it rising.

>>9454357

You are so wrong it hurts.

Too much church too little thinking.

>>9454363
which part? each fact i mentioned is easily checkable. if you cant even say which part is wrong ill just assume you are a troll.

>>9454302
>climate data
>2 year trend
Wow.

>>9454367
>climate data
>20 year trend
Wow.

>>9449463

It just means that all those people will become refugees

>>9453170
nice strawman

>>9454170
I've seen videos of a guy who studied this his whole life and he said it's impossible to measure sea levels, it's in portuguese tho

>>9448478
>to cleaner technologies
Careful with that. We can't really expect technological advances to do much to reduce CO2 emissions.
This is mostly due to the well-known Jevons effect, or Jevons paradox: when a technological innovation is introduced that makes more efficient use of a resource, that resource consumption rises instead of diminishing. When Watt introduced his steam engine that was way more coal-efficient than the old ones, coal consumption skyrocketed.

We can't really expect efficiency technologies to do much there. Only replacement technologies (nuclear, etc.) can have an effect.
But more importantly it's gonna be about changing our lifestyles and consumption patterns. Telecommuting, not going abroad on holidays, eating local, and so on.

>>9454480
the same idiot that drowned at the beach

>>9454504
what???

>>9447510
>The republican party folks.
Fucking Americans ruined politics for everyone. Now you apparently can't acknowledge some scientific data about the climate unless you also think that all humans are equal, big government will save you and trannies are anything but mentally defective individuals.

>>9448529
Gotta love how many redditors fell for your shitty reddit-tier bait, bugman

>>9446551

>>9454536
hey man I might be working for exxon but I have to tell you I am phd and completely unbiased and that gif is fake and even if were true wouldnt be implying we should stop buying oil from exxon hehe pls bui more oils

>>9446557
>>9446652
>>9448977
>>9450693
>>9453145
>Al Gore
fgt pls

>>9448478
>our species
fucking globalist piece of shit
You want to destroy the industries and economies of the west while noone else changes a thing
Hell you want to PAY THEM to commit fraud like pretending to plant trees

>>9454699
(((economies)))

>>9454699
AND THEY WANT TO TURN THE FRIGGIN FROGS GAY REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>9454699
>the industries
found the corporate bootlicker

>>9447269
>Hurr durr hurr data is fake because I read in my college history book that in ww2 the winters were snowy

>>9454694
>fgt pls
Why the homophobia?

>>9454302
>graph starts January 2016, ends April 2017
>dropping for 2 years!
yeah no

>>9454357
>you just pick a timespan that confirmed its rising and fuck the rest. Why stop at 20 years? go back even further to thousands of years
There's a very good reason we'd only expand that particular graph to ~20 years. Ready for it?
THE SATELLITE ALTIMETRY RECORD FOR SEA LEVEL ONLY GOES BACK TO 1993 BECAUSE SATELLITES ARE A RECENT TECHNOLOGY, MORON.

it's always amusing to watch /pol/ retards begin to crack when confronted by people who actually know what they are talking about

So who's buying me my tesla and building le desert super solar farm

>>9455166
Check the graph on nasas site, the trend continues till today retard.

>>9455174
Ok, let's ignore that fact that we intact do have measurements from before 20 years ago, according to you we have no evidence that sea level has ever decreased or remain stable, it's only been increasing since we started measuring it, and somehow that shows its out of the ordinary and due to global warming?

What really amazes me is when climate "skeptics" actually start to use ozone depletion as if it proved their hysterical case.

Here you have a natural gas that's occurring in concentrations that are much smaller than that of CO2 (less than 1ppm). Geoscientists - many of whom like Susan Solomon and Paul Crutzen later started forking on CO2 emissions - then identified a potential threat by human emissions of ozone depleting substances. After a lot of push-back by the responsible industries, scientists (i.e. the British Antarctic survey) found the first signs of human impact in the form of a giant ozone hole that formed over much of Antarctica during the austral summers. Governments then got together to form a binding international treaty, the Montreal Protocol, to phase out the relevant substances. The treaty also allowed India and China to phase out their CFC production later than the developed Western countries.

Yet, climate skeptics sometimes cite the fact that we don't have to worry about ozone depletion anymore as evidence that global warming is just another environmentalist fad. I'm sure if they had live in the 70s and 80s, we would have heard from them about how Joseph Farman faked his data, how the ozone hole is completely normal and how the Montreal Protocol is a plot to hamstring Western industry and bring about white genocide or something.

>>9455418
Ultimately though, what makes Montreal Protocol successful and Kyoto Protocol unsuccessful is that the air conditioning companies were on board for Montreal Protocol.

CFC's were bad, but they easily found a substitute with simple substitution, HFC's did not cause catalytic destruction of stratospheric ozone as CFC's did. In the mid and late 90's environmentally friendly AC's that doesn't use CFC's were the fad that AC companies are pushing towards consumer, trying to guilt them to get a new AC because of the ozone hole scare (justifiably so).

With Kyoto Protocol and CO2 cuts, the car companies, food companies and oil companies were opposing CO2 reduction all the way

Climate change is real, the problem is most "Environmentalists" Still believe solar energy, wind turbines and tidal turbines are "clean energy", we now know solar panel production causes 300 times more waste than a nuclear power plant, wind turbines destroy the ecology of a whole geographic location due to the decimation of bird populations and tidal turbines destroy the ecology of the ocean due to the slaughter of sea creatures.

Unfortunately, the same people who care so much about the environment vehemently denounce the use of nuclear energy, despite it being proven time and time again to be the cleanest energy on this planet, even cleaner than hydroelectric when gathered through a dam.

More to the point, if a person cares more about the environment than the threat of Islamic terror, they aren't worth talking to.

Test

>>9453170
Turbulence is a bitch though and long term predictions are super difficult to obtain with a high reliability.

Not saying it isn't possible but the the basics of nonlinear dynamics tell us that lon term deterministic calculations (like the atmospheric fluid dynamics) are increadibly difficult to calculate on the long term. Not saying that climate change isn't real, just saying that fluid dynamic models are very difficult.

>also I don't want to be there when the climate undergoes a subcritical bifurcation and we get slung into a new equilibrium state

>>9455406
>Ok, let's ignore that fact that we intact do have measurements from before 20 years ago
They're significantly lower-quality.

>according to you we have no evidence that sea level has ever decreased or remain stable
Over what timecale?
Sea levels have been fairly stable for the last few thousand years. They stated rising as the temperature began to rise.

>that shows its out of the ordinary and due to global warming?
Yes.

>>9449631
So BOTH drought AND flooding is due to global warming? You can't lose with that logic.

>>9448548
>The minds of the mentally ill equipped.
Because insulting your opponents is always the ticket to success, right?

>>9455434
>if a person cares more about the environment than the threat of Islamic terror, they aren't worth talking to.

way to end an intelligent post with pure concentrated retardation.

back to /pol/, kid.

>>9455479
Why not? We've tried everything else and they still won't listen.

>>9454699
>globalists REEEEEEE

>>9455406
>Check the graph on nasas site, the trend continues till today retard.
Funny you say that! According to the graph on NASA's site, sea level actually rose noticeably since February 2017. Dickhead.
Do you always make false claims and tell people exactly where to look to disprove them?

>according to you we have no evidence that sea level has ever decreased or remain stable
You think satellite altimetry is the only line of evidence we have? How little you know! Tide gauge data goes back about 150 years, and it shows an increasing trend accelerating rapidly starting in the early 1900s. Additionally, the very existence of coastal terraces (erosional landforms around the waterline) show that sea level had indeed remained stable for quite a while before humans started fucking around with things.

>>9455450
fluid dynamics is difficult, but some /pol/ack (not sure if it's the same guy in this thread or not) kept popping up in a bunch of climate threads repeatedly claiming that accurately modeling the atmosphere is literally impossible without tracking each individual molecule.

>>9455477
>So BOTH drought AND flooding is due to global warming? You can't lose with that logic.
Climate change messes with patterns of atmospheric circulation. This means that rain falls in different places. Some areas get more rain than they're used to, some areas get less.

>>9455743
>You think satellite altimetry is the only line of evidence we have? How little you know!
>what is reading comprehension

>>9455750
>Some areas get more rain than they're used to, some areas get less.
So whats the crises? literally just go live where the climate is now how it used to be where you are from, or learn to live like the people who used to live where the climate was the way it is where you are now. Next thing people are going to reee about how all the land and oceans are all disappearing due to continental drift.

>>9455477
>So BOTH drought AND flooding is due to global warming?
Not at the same time, moron. Hotter summers means drier conditions and water getting depleted faster. Hotter winters means you get rain instead of snow, causing flooding. And the reduction of the snowpack decreases water reserves for the summer. Climatologists have been predicting this for decades.

>>9455839
Ah yes because moving entire populations, infrastructure, and industries has no cost...

>>9448493
The pre-human climate changes also all had a specific impulse, for example the eruption of super vocanoes, or something similar. The climate doesn't change randomly.

What is different though, pre-human the climate changed over millennias or even millions of years. So the earth had a lot of time to "self-regulate", if that makes sense.

Now, we can see significant change within decades, and it is a gamble to just assume earth will self-regulate.

>>9455879
It happens all the time, look at all the towns that used to be expanding until for some reason no one wanted to be there anymore, look at some Arab countries and how fast they built up entire cities. Its not like it will be an artificial move for the entire population in a year, as less people want to live in the are starting to turn to desert they will slowly migrate to areas becoming more to their liking. This pattern has been going on for thousands of years.

>>9455750
>>9455869
>different places get floods or drought
>the same places get floods and droughts, but at different times
How are people supposed to trust climate 'scientists' when they cant even tell time from space?

>>9455898
>It happens all the time,
Normal migration happens all the time, the current change in climate is very abnormal. But do go ahead and ignore what every scientist who studies the climate, ecosystems, or the economy have to say about it, because people have moved before, moron.

>>9455898
>different places get floods or drought
>the same places get floods and droughts, but at different times
I know it's really hard for your small brain to pay attention to two distinct but compatible ideas at the same time, but do try.

Reminder that global warming will become a non issue when we can create large scale industry in space, and thus creat solar shades using slag or other waste material

>>9446551
Why in the fuck aren't we mining the Sun? Fucking retards.

>>9455839
>So whats the crises?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6370/1610

Asylum applications respond to temperature fluctuations

Weather-induced conflicts in developing countries spill over to developed countries through asylum applications. One approach to estimating the future impacts of climate change is to look at the effects of weather fluctuations. These transient shocks can be interpreted analytically as randomly distributed treatments applied to countries around the world. Missirian and Schlenker analyzed the relation between these localized shocks to agriculture and applications by that country's migrants for asylum in the European Union. When temperatures in the source country deviated from a moderate optimum around 20°C that is best for agriculture, asylum applications increased. Thus, the net forecast is for asylum applications to increase as global temperatures rise.

>>9456195
>solar shades
Goodbye agricultural production kek.

>>9448478
>The models made 20 years ago weren't perfect, but we are still roughly in line with the predictions from them.
You mean, in hindsight you are able to select models that happened to hold up and pretend all the models that failed never happened in order to conclude that AGW is real. It's like retards that say multiplication isn't repeated addition because "you can't multiply e by pi like that dude lol".

>>9456250
Where are these failed models from 20 years ago that show AGW isn't real you keep yapping about? Oh you mean you were just making shit up and have no idea what you're talking about.

>>9453145
>except
Kek, republicans can't spell.

>>9446551
Easy, because everyone knows that climate change and global warming is happening and most people have already accepted it. So there's no point in talking about it. Only idiots like you are still debating about it.

>>9456280
Probably just making shit up, or probably just misread some dumb outdated graph on the internet that he thinks somehow makes him smarter than all of the world's climatologists. But if you actually look at the models and recent changes in climate...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

contrarian models failed horribly in predicting the climate compared to more mainstream models.

>>9456732
>everyone knows that climate change and global warming is happening and most people have already accepted it.
I wish.

>So there's no point in talking about it.
If you don't talk about a problem how can you hope to solve it?

>>9456777
Well, outside of America at the at least.

>>9455834
(You) posted a graph of satellite altimetry data for global sea level from 2016 to 2017 and questioned why it would only be expanded back to 20 years.
I said that that specific graph could only go back 20 or so years because the satellite altimetry record only goes back to 1993.
(You) claimed I had said the entire sea level record only goes back that far, indicating that you either didn't actually read what I posted or actually think there's no other record of sea level.

It's okay, reading comprehension is hard. Don't get salty just because you got b8ed.

>>9455839
>what's the problem with climatic regions shifting? people should just go where the habitable climates go.
>waaah I don't want brown refugees in America!

>>9456919
>waaah I don't want brown refugees in America!
im not even american, and there's literately nothing wrong with accepting migrants/'refugees'. You seem to think every person who questions ACC is a drumflet.

>>9457108
>I don't think anthropogenic climate change is real
>but also the refugee crisis caused by climate change isn't a bad thing

>>9457267
not that guy but you're kinda slow

>>9456250
>all the models that failed
"all" one or two of them?

>>9455743
>make false claims and tell people exactly where to look to disprove them
He seems to be very helpful that way.

>>9446551
I don't even debate if it's real or not.

I just point out that no matter what we (the west) does China, India, South America, and Southeast Asia, will not do anything about "global warming". We will economically cripple ourselves and it won't change anything anyway.

IF the weather changes, then it will change. People in third wold shit holes who are one extra rainfall away from being killed will die by the millions. But is that really OUR fault or THEIR fault for being so poor that ANY change in the weather kills them? Is the problem that the weather MIGHT change or that billions of people can be killed by even slight weather modifications?

Perhaps the problem isn't "global warming", but rather, "global poverty"?

>>9457581
You realize the effects are going to be more drastic than that, no? There are lots of sea level and near sea level cities in 1st world countries, and delicate ecosystems that are already strained by human development will be further strained.

>>9457581
>Third world countries use lots of oil and poor peoplecan't be saved so let's just give up and die
You are a pathetic human

>>9449442
Two small red dots in Poland
Literally where my family lives.

>>9457581
>People in third wold shit holes who are one extra rainfall away from being killed will die by the millions.
And this will keep happening until the climate stabilizes

>>9457581
>China won't do anything
Have you been living under a rock for the last year?

>>9457630
yuo must into space

>>9457591
You can't even prove it's happening at all, let alone it will be DRASTIC. If ALL ice on earth melted sea levels would rise by a MAXIUM of 200 feet. A lot rich douche bags with beach houses and also Bangladeshis would lose their homes but 98% of the earth's landmass would be unaffected.

>>9457625
I'm not saying give up. I'm just saying that nothing WE do will make a difference when 2.5 billion people will cheat on any agreements. If someone develops solar, wind, or nuclear that is CHEAPER than coal, oil, and gas then they will use it because it is in THEIR interest to switch (not ours, or the world's).

>>9457673
China is desperately trying to switch off of coal because of pollution NOT greenhouse gasses. If their coal wasn't so naturally dirty they would build even more coal plants. BTW their coal is so dirty that the mercury it emits can be detected Pacific Northwest America rainfall.