/sci/ - Science & Math

>global warming
not science or math

There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models."

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

Crickets.

not science or math

>>9758396
>>9758384

Article links to a scientific paper

https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf

I dunno dude I don’t think this is science or math. /pol/ seems to be the correct board for the topic

>>9758383
YEs, kill your planet. It will be easier for us

>>9758407
I dunno dude I think your pathetic posting is just trying to give reason for admin to delete a thread you don't agree with.

>>9758383
Keep fighting the good fight fellow MAGApede.
Shadilay!

The latest april figure show it below 2016 and 2017 temperatures. A big positive sign especially considering the bias at play which undoubtedly effects the numbers.

>>9758383
>it's another denier learns what El Nino/La Nina is episode

>>9758418
>it's another denier doesn't know about Milankovitch cycles

As Lewis explains: "Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and highly unlikely to exceed that level.

How much lower? Lewis and Curry say that their findings show temperature increases will be 30%-45% lower than the climate models say. If they are right, then there's little to worry about, even if we don't drastically reduce CO2 emissions.

>>9758418
>>9758419
If only classical physics fought as hard againt Quantum theory

>>9758421
even if your shitty limited understanding was right, 30-45% less still means that we're fucked

>>9758383
oh look, it's summer idiot time

I love that the earth has been cooling over the past two years. It's a shame some people dispute absolute fact.

>>9758463
>he doens't know that short temperature decreases can actually be explained by the overall temperature increase trend, and that said decreases are actually good indicators that current models are correct

wew

>>9758469
Then why does this trend get ignored but 2016 trend was blasted everywhere? hmm

>>9758471
Because 2016 would have been a record year even without El Nino.

>>9758419
According to the Milankovich cycle, we should be slowly cooling right now.

>>9758485
yeah, not going to happen
https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws?t=25s

>>9758485
>>9758491
What are some examples of natural cooling event that lead to ice ages? I know some eruptions have caused global cooling events in the last hundreds of years.

I wonder how much life loss would happen if glaciation happened again compared to warming.

>>9758383
here is a graph. unfortunately you think its fake because its based on science you dont understand.

>>9758485
you can't just say "according to the Milankovitch cycle". Global climate depends on volcano activity, carbon emissions, forest fire severity, ocean reclamation volume of materialls, sun activity, storm frequency, Milankovitch, all sorts of stuff.

>>9758503
Not a fan of this graph. Relative anomaly is a pretty annoying measure.

>>9758510
well, deviation is an important metric. We're in the 401st straight hotter than *average* month.
There are an infinite number of ways to display climate data. The best ones aren't the easiest for the layman to understand though

>>9758501
>What are some examples of natural cooling event that lead to ice ages?
There are really only two options: decrease in insolation or decrease in greenhouse gasses.

>I wonder how much life loss would happen if glaciation happened again compared to warming.
It's not like you choose one or the other, dumbass. One is occurring right now and the other will occur many thousands of years from now.

>>9758521
It was just obviously chosen to turn a U shape into a / shape

>>9758529
always thought that ocean spiking should be researched more. If you could speed up the carbon capture of the ocean you could bring the resident time down from 150years to 50.

>>9758536
The U shape is where your brain should be.

>>9758539
What if some unknown ocean creature awakens once carbon levels reach a certain tipping point then comes out and eats all of it.

Consensus seems to be, once politics is erased, to be that it's all good. Seems pretty irresponsible to advocate world poverty over this complex issue.

>>9758548
what?

>>9758548
Once politics is erased, you have no reason to make this post.

Doves usually perch on my porch and make a nest every spring to raise some chicks, but since the start of spring there have been two irrational stormfronts bringing in snow and freezing night temperatures a couple weeks apart, each time killing the eggs of two seperate dove nests.

Its been really sad.

>>9758383
Troll post.

>>9758616
So it's not true?

At this point, OP has already lost the battle against science.

>>9758383
>Global average temperature dropped .056C over that period according to the GISS Surface Analysis (GISSTEMP) team at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
>0.056C
Pack it up guys. Global warming is over.

>>9758421
>Lewis and Curry say that their findings show temperature increases will be 30%-45% lower than the climate models say. If they are right, then there's little to worry about, even if we don't drastically reduce CO2 emissions.
You have to remember that there is no projected maximum that the temperature will increase to if we continue doing nothing, there's just projections for time periods.
So a 30-45% lower temperature than projected after 10 years will just mean we reach that temperature in 15-20 years instead.

These reports can be dangerous because they can be used to advocate further procrastination.
Let's just do nothing is not a proper response.

>>9758400
>Fake latex with 0 bracket citizations hosted on a private wordpress blog
>5 pages of references to make sure nobody knows which source belongs to which statement
Yeah, sounds "scientific"

>>9758719
they simply took the temperature record in 2016 as their starting point, ignored everything else and omg, wow, it's cooling
when we have a new temperature record they'll take that as the new starting point, and once again we'll have cooling :^)

>>9758540
zoz

>>9758812
>when we have a new temperature record they'll take that as the new starting point, and once again we'll have cooling :^)
That's what they've been doing for years. 1998 was popular for this. But the intervals they can take have gotten shorter, once again proving that the earth is warming up at an accelerated pace.

>>9758940
my earth science prof always said to be skeptical if graphs or charts start later than the data set allows for... it's sneaky stuff

>>9758383
>>>/pol/

>>9758383
sage this retarded shit

>>9758383
>Global Fooling
>thenewamerican.com
>investors.com
GTFO fake newsboi

>>9758400
>a scientific paper
>wordpress.com
L0Lno fgt pls

>>9758416
>below 2016 and 2017 temperatures
>big positive sign
...it's a negative sign, you dimwit.
"below" = "negative", geddit?
...and it's not "big".
How retarded can you be?

>>9758419
>denier doesn't know shit about Milankovitch cycles
Exactly, and that denier is you.
Try to learn something about the topics you shill, retard.

>>9758471
>this two-year trend gets ignored
>therefore the past 35-year trend is false
Top-notch reasoning there, Sherlock.

>>9758388
Sources?

>>9758407
>The theory of global warming is not Science.
Wow.

>>9758400

It looks like an undergrad lab report

>>9758384
>global warming
>not science or math
most have been calling it pseudoscience for years.

>>9758415

>>9758503
global warming alarmism isn't based on science.

>>9758767
>global warming
>science

>>9759925
>The theory of global warming is not Science.
this but unironically

>>9758792
>Pack it up guys. Global warming is over.
It never existed to begin with.

>>9758802
>These reports can be dangerous because they can be used to advocate further procrastination.
>Let's just do nothing is not a proper response.

Do what? How can we do anything if we don't even know for sure there is a problem.

Global warming is repudiated. Get ready for the deep freeze.

>>9758792
>https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/29094-mainstream-media-completely-ignores-global-cooling-data


it's 0.56

>>9760390
it's 56

>>9760156
>>9760158
>>9760162
>>9760164
>>9760173
>>9760175
>>9760378
>samefagging this hard

it's just an event not a trend
extreme weather events are a symptom of global warming
>more energy
>more crazy shit

>>9758383
Cool if true.

>>9760481
>global cooling is global warming
how convenient, the greatest cooling event in 100+ years just reinforced global warming. Its nice to be able to label anything you want as confirmation evidence.

>>9760592
ok but do you agree that it's possible?

>>9760592
So I'm sure two year ago when the temperature spiked, you were making posts about that too, right?

>>9760644
No, I looked at it then under a different time scale which showed it lower than normal.

>>9760662
What relevance does that timescale have? What relevance does the two year timescale have? Why switch between them?

>>9760664
The long time scale shows the "end of all life" is fear mongering.

The short time scale shows they can't predict climate and no one will write about it since it's more dogma than objective.

Whether its warming or cooling is not important. The big deal is that the system is becoming unstable.

>>9760749
No it's not. It's so naturally do what it's always done.

itt: bloated consumers rationalize and froth at the mouth

>>9761174
image

>>9761149
No it isn't, you imbecile. The speed rate of
the warming we are experiencing now is greater than any rate in the geological history of earth. Shove your false narrative up your anus.

>>9761200
the consumers are coming the consumers are coming! god have mercy!!

the consumers are gonna eat the dingo AND your fucking baby!!

>>9761217
so bloated. so cool. so fun. the shiny toys. you know you want to be a cool guy consumer. join the consumers or they gonna eat you and your dog and your whole family

>>9761200
>The speed rate of
>the warming we are experiencing now is greater than any rate in the geological history of earth
Can we even measure temperatures at ~50 year intervalls, that happened, say 5 million years ago?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17mKIKGEF5E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUk0tm47yr8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU

air pollution is still harmful for human's health though
and by overexploiting resources, they'll disappear
also CO2 isn't the only warming inducing gas


my point is : there are more environement problem caused by human activities than just global warming

>>9759605
35-yr trend is even more meaningless when you consider the eons the Earth has been around for. It's been hotter and colder than this before, and it'll probably be hotter and colder than this in the future.

>>9762090
>35-yr trend is even more meaningless when you consider the eons the Earth has been around for.
Except we're interested in whether those trends will impact human civilization, not just if they're significant on a timescale of billions of years.

>>9758383
Decreased solar activity
↓
Increase of cosmic rays
↓
Volcanic activity including the ocean floor is activated
↓
Nutrient salt and iron are supplied to the ocean by volcanic ash
↓
Phytoplankton large growth
↓
Cooling

Very simple theory

>>9762090
How many of those times had advanced human civilizations?

>>9758383
>Global warming isn't real!

>>9763992
if you isolated the climate of earth to carbon you might be correct. We don't have enough evidence this is the case and the reliability of prediction due to possible future events puts it even more into question

"Global Warming" is slop for low IQ pigs to gobble on.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/solar_geoengineering_weighing_costs_of_blocking_the_suns_rays

This is all anyone needs to read to understand how insane global warming nuts are.

>that cheap, reliable, and useful geo-engineering technology that cools earth shouldn't be used because it's too easy of a solution.
>we need everyone to starve to death and to step on every poor country's industrialization goals

>there is an easy way to cool the earth that is very cheap if we ever need to use it

Keith has received a couple of death threats from the fringe of the environmentalist community.

Normal intelligent humans looking at a problem.

- What different ways can we fix this problem? How long until we have to fix it? etc
- What about other geo-engineering technologies that could fix it?
- What about future advancements humanity might have access to?

Global Warming nut with 80 IQ in a conforming bubble with no wrongthink allowed
- The only solution is that we whip humanity with barbed coords
- Geoengineering technologies sounds unnatural, I won't look into it
- Humanity sucks anyway, fuck humans, I love animals. we need to all die soon

Here is a "global warming, SCIENCE CONSENSUS" person on geo-engineering.

Okay, so you say there is a well-studied, cheap, efficient solution that cools earth?
Well, I don't believe it. I won't look into it. I will say it's insane. Don't you know the consensus is that we have to sterilize 90% of humans, all whites too, and then plant trees that we kiss each night.

When MIT scientists proposed a geo-engineering solution that was cheap and worked very easily.

The reaction of the environmentalist and global warming people was outright disgust and attempts at censorship. Calling the idea dangerous and destructive to earth because it might hinder their proposed solution of increasing human suffering.

It wasn't "Oh, I will look into that. What an amazing thing to imagine we could fix this possible future problem for a cheap cost"

No. It was revulsion and outright censorship.

>>9764024
Yeah, and we are the first ones.
What's your point?

>>9764018
>>9764020
>>9764024
>>9764028
>>9764030
>All these strawmen
You folks really don't have any solid arguments, do you?

>>9761200
I’ll bet it hurt when you pulled this from your ass

>>9764119
>You folks really don't have any solid arguments, do you?

why argue with someone who cant read a graph >>9758503

Humans have no right to interfere with mother nature. That is all.

>>9764304
That sort of gets at the heart of the issue. The people on the other side of the debate religiously believe that they can do whatever they want, and refuse to even consider the possibility that this way of thinking can be damaging to others. Or if they do, they simply don't care. It really is a religion - the religion of consume. I call it a religion because it's organized around making them feel good, and it ignores genuine concerns.