Climate change

[Anonymous No.10230542]

Why is such a huge misunderstanding surrounding climate change? Whenever you see some issue related to climate change on 'normie' social media platforms like Facebook, there is a flood of comments making ignorant statements that could be dispelled with 5 minutes of research.

For example

>The climate has always changed

No shit, the problem isn't that the climate is changing, it's the rate at which its changing.

>The earth will be fine

Sure, but humans depend on the earth being the way it is now. Even if you don't think humans are the direct cause for the increased rate in climate change, you can't ignore the impacts it will have in the future.

[Anonymous No.10230552]

Likely because the people who yell loudest on the issue aren't the scientists but crowd pandering politicians and media who actually have little understanding of the phenomenon themselves.

[Anonymous No.10230623]

>>10230552
Do you think anything can be done about this? Often the concerns people have with climate change are so easy to explain.

[Anonymous No.10230635]

>>10230542
>there is a flood of comments making ignorant statements
Shillbots

[Anonymous No.10230638]

>>10230635
I thought about this... it sounds insane though...

[Anonymous No.10230643]

Here are some examples of the sorts of comments I see spammed on any climate change related post on facebook.

[Anonymous No.10230649]

>>10230623
Its gotta get worse on an even bigger scale before anything can be done. Then of course the solution will be far costlier and people who fought against it in the first place will blame something else other than their own ignorance on the matter.

[Anonymous No.10230650]

More

[Anonymous No.10230658]

>>10230649
It makes sense for there to be political divide on what the best way to approach the problem is, but I don't understand how people will believe whether or not its true based on their political position, instead of looking at the science.

[Anonymous No.10230662]

>>10230542
It's just not a very convincing racket, most people can tell when they're being taken for a ride.

[Anonymous No.10230664]

>>10230662
>Implying normies as a collective have ever been right about anything

[Anonymous No.10230667]

>>10230662
I’ll wait for a peer-reviewed paper from you demonstrating that there is no such thing as climate change.

[Anonymous No.10230669]

>>10230667
Shillbots can't write papers, silly Anon

[Anonymous No.10230673]

>>10230669
Did you know that oil companies in Texas are making the state government build them barriers to prevent oil fields being flooded by rising sea levels? Fucking hilarious.

[Anonymous No.10230679]

>>10230658
The desire to make others (i.e liberals) feel worse is more tangible to these people than helping humanity. If they cant live life in a simple stagnant bubble, the ruining the people who you blame for your misery is the next best thing.

[Anonymous No.10230702]

>>10230542
Climate change goes against the short term self interests of many people.

[Anonymous No.10230743]

>>10230702
It also goes against the long term self interest of everyone, so how can we deal with this?

[Anonymous No.10230788]

>>10230743
Dumb retards don’t care what happens to their great grandchildren.

[Anonymous No.10230816]

>>10230702
>>10230743
>>10230788
Lol, harebrained takes.
The problem with climate sciences is the predominant political and cultural importance combined with a wide array of possible ways to interpret the data.

[Anonymous No.10230841]

>>10230542
this goes both ways, i have seen many comments of people believing humanity will go extinct or will go back into the stone age because of climate change
which i just can't image to be anywhere near realistic. feel free to prove me wrong though

[Anonymous No.10230887]

>>10230542
>it's the rate at which it's changing.
The climate has changed at faster rates unless you're going to claim meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions don't do shit.

[Anonymous No.10230890]

>>10230552
The people who yell loudest are those who were told repeatedly by the news media that it's "smart" to support General Electric's climate change scam, useful idiots like the op of this thread.
The billions of money that Exxon Mobile and General Electric spend on pro climate change propaganda yells the loudest.

[Anonymous No.10230892]

>>10230542
>humans depend on the earth being the way it is now.

Third world humans maybe.

[Anonymous No.10230965]

>>10230887
>The climate has changed at faster rates unless you're going to claim meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions don't do shit.
And how did that work out for the dominant species back then?

[Anonymous No.10231001]

>>10230887
Where did I say that the climate had never changed faster? Of course the climate changed faster during an event that possibly wiped out the dinosaurs within 2 hours. This is hardly relevant though...

A good natural extinction event to draw comparisons to would be the Permian–Triassic extinction event though.

>>10230841
At least in the short term (next thousand years or so), of course humanity won't go extinct, I'm not sure who would argue that. I think we've come too far to revert back to the stone ages as well. The rest of the animals though? They won't do so good.

>>10230892
Do you think it's acceptable for the lifestyle of the first world to cause significant misfortune and chaos for the 3rd world? It's not like the first world won't be impacted either.

[Anonymous No.10231010]

>>10230965
The climate isn't changing anywhere near like it did during prehistoric mass extinction events. The belief that humans are ending the world is just the modern version of needing to please the sun god. General Electric and Exxon Mobile spend more money promoting anthropogenic climate change so they can build and research "green" and "energy star" stuff with taxpayer money, making billions in profit every year since they started the campaign.
If the climate was changing exactly like it now, 30 million years ago, from nothing other than the solar cycle, we wouldn't be able to tell because we can't see a 70 year window of the world's climate state from 30 million years ago and anyone who tells you we can is lying. There's no evidence that today's climate is anomalous because there's not enough data to say so, we need to record for at least 1000 years, and that's really not a lot either, and we haven't even got close.
Fuck you and your sky is falling brigade, you should have learned from that children's story.

[Anonymous No.10231014]

>>10231001
>permian-triassic extinction
>comparing a million year timeline with a 70 year timeline and acting like we know the details of it down to the decade.
You're a literal retard.

[Anonymous No.10231020]

>>10231001
>The rest of the animals though? They won't do so good.

so what?

[Anonymous No.10231023]

>>10231001
>Do you think it's acceptable for the lifestyle of the first world to cause significant misfortune and chaos for the 3rd world?
It's literally the other way around though, the third world is responsible for the majority of emissions. Germany for example is only responsible for 2% and yet we have to pay billions to corrupt shitholes because of muh climate.

[Anonymous No.10231026]

>>10231010
>there's not enough data to say so
for you

[Anonymous No.10231027]

>>10231001
>possibly wiped out the dinosaurs within two hours.
The prevalent theory is that volcanic activity created non stop acid rain worldwide, not that it was a meteor, it was "natural global warming," anon, on a scale very unlike today, and due to geological activity with the earth's tectonic plates. Of it if it like today, expect a supervolcano to erupt and everyone to die, but carbon tax that gets your wealth redistributed to General Electric and Exxon Mobile to build a 50 square mile solar plant in a nature preserve sure won't fix it and it sure won't save the animals either.

[Anonymous No.10231029]

>>10231010
The greenhouse effect is very well understood, and we actually have data on the CO2 concentration back as far as 800,000 years from ice cores. Other methods are able to estimate CO2 concentration millions of years into the past.

It's just basic physics. If we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere faster than the planets ecosystems can absorb it, the planet will warm.

What is less understood is the impact this warming will have throughout the world.

[Anonymous No.10231030]

>>10231026
For anyone who believes the scientific method should be used in scientific theory.

[Anonymous No.10231031]

>>10231029
>the greenhouse effect is very well understood.
Only in a small controlled environment that can't replicate earth conditions. It's not "just basic physics," we aren't pumping a significant amount of CO2 into the air compared to all other sources of it. Predictive models for climate change continually fail to predict because they aren't scientific, it's a pseudo science with lots of funding.

[Anonymous No.10231032]

>>10231026
Why don't you just donate some of your paycheck to General Electric while I opt out? Volunteerism is the way.

[Anonymous No.10231034]

>>10230816
>the problem with [insert scientific facts I don't like here] is that it's inconvenient for my political ideology and thus can be misrepresented to affirm my biases
ftfy

[Anonymous No.10231036]

>>10231014
Did you not try to draw comparisons from the current rate of change to catastrophic events like the meteor impact that wiped out the dinosaurs?

>>10231020
They are essential for a human population in the billions?

>>10231023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions

China is the manufacturing superpower for the developed world and also has by far the largest population.

>>10231027
That's why I said possibly. There are a few competing theories that haven't been resolved yet. Also, I'm not here to argue what the solution is, the solution is political. But to deny that the problem even exists...

[Anonymous No.10231039]

Anyone that attempts to bring about change through government fiat should just be outright ignored. If you care about the planet then do what Elon musk is doing in the private sector. Pro tip, you want because you’re a retard armchair invalid

[Anonymous No.10231042]

>>10231036
the permian-triassic extinction event was caused by a sudden increase in volcanic activity on the planet, with four million kilometers of lava flow wreaking havoc and leading to the death of most life on earth.
>that's why I said possibly.
So in other words you're trying to use useless conjecture to prove your point that the climate today is anomalous along our 3.5 billion year history?

[Anonymous No.10231043]

>>10231036
>They are essential for a human population in the billions?

explain

[Anonymous No.10231045]

>>10231031
For hundreds of thousands (possibly millions of years), the concentration of carbon has stayed roughly consistent. This means that the carbon naturally emitted is absorbed at a proportional rate.

It doesn't matter if the carbon humans emit into the atmosphere is small relative to the amount naturally emitted, because this additional carbon is not being absorbed (and we have data to prove this).

From here it is simple physics. We can calculate the additional heat trapped due to the increased concentration of carbon.

[Anonymous No.10231048]

>CO2 emissions warms up the planet
>oxygen cools the planet

why not get more oxygen?

[Anonymous No.10231050]

>>10231042
I'm not saying anything of the sort. Read my comment again.

>>10231043
Agriculture

[Anonymous No.10231054]

>>10231048
>>oxygen cools the planet

wheres the proofs?

[Anonymous No.10231058]

>>10231054
im no scientist, but here you go.
this theory is of course, open to debate

https://phys.org/news/2009-09-oxygen-colder-climate.html

[Anonymous No.10231063]

>>10231045
>carbon naturally emitted is absorbed at a proportional rate.
>roughly constant.
You're drawing a false conclusion from your premise.

[Anonymous No.10231065]

>>10231045
Carbon concentration over time being "roughly constant" doesn't prove that carbon emitted is absorbed at a proportional rate.
>this additional carbon is not being absorbed.
If you seriously think the earth stays in perfect stasis but evil humans killed the world I can't even argue with you, you're delusional.

[Anonymous No.10231066]

>>10230890
>The billions of money that Exxon Mobile and General Electric spend on pro climate change propaganda
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10231069]

>>10231045
>evil humans put a needle on the sky and now it's falling.

[Anonymous No.10231071]

>>10231031
>>the greenhouse effect is very well understood.
>Only in a small controlled environment that can't replicate earth conditions.
The greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is directly measurable.
https :// ams . confex . com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737 . htm

>we aren't pumping a significant amount of CO2 into the air compared to all other sources of it.
That's simply false.
https :// sci-hub . tw/https :// pubs . acs . org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ef200914u
>It can be seen that the net environmental flux, Fi-Fe, is always negative throughout the period covered by the Mauna Loa record and has become more negative as time progressed. This shows beyond a reasonable doubt that, at least for the last 50 years, the natural environment has acted as a net sink, rather than a source of atmospheric CO2.

>Predictive models for climate change continually fail to predict
See picture. Climate models have a fairly good record at forecasting surface temperatures.

[Anonymous No.10231077]

>>10231066
Stay useful, idiot.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december4/gcepsr-124.html

[Anonymous No.10231081]

>>10231066
>ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded petroleum and petrochemical company, plans to contribute up to $100 million; General Electric, the world leader in power generation technology and services, $50 million; and Schlumberger Limited, a global energy services company, $25 million. E.ON, Europe's largest privately owned energy service provider, has signaled its intention to contribute $50 million and join G-CEP, along with other academic and corporate sponsors from Europe. University officials said other automotive and technology industries may join the project as the research progresses.

>Three industry representatives also spoke on Wednesday: Frank Sprow, vice president of ExxonMobil; Sanjay Correa, global technology leader with General Electric; and Philippe Lacour-Gayet, vice president of Schlumberger Limited.

>"Today, the enormous publicity given to climate change makes it possible for critics to misrepresent the oil and gas industry as a sunset energy," Lacour-Gayet said, "but actually we know that the industry will play a crucial role in meeting most of the world's vast need for clean affordable, energy in the next hundred years."

>He said that, because of the size and the complexity of the issue, Schlumberger decided to team up with a leading university and a group of major energy companies.

[Anonymous No.10231084]

>>10231066
General Electric owned MSNBC and the whole peacock network for the last two decades and promoted climate change with it.

[Anonymous No.10231085]

>>10231077
>>10231081
Not seeing any mention of propaganda there.
On the other hand, Exxon's funding of propaganda groups like Heartland is well documented.

[Anonymous No.10231087]

>>10231063
>You're drawing a false conclusion from your premise.

How so? If the carbon emitted is completely absorbed, the concentration would remain constant.

>>10231066
>Carbon concentration over time being "roughly constant" doesn't prove that carbon emitted is absorbed at a proportional rate.

How does it not? If the concentration remains constant, what else could it mean other than the emitted carbon being absorbed?

>If you seriously think the earth stays in perfect stasis but evil humans killed the world I can't even argue with you, you're delusional.

I never said this.

[Anonymous No.10231092]

>it's the end of the world! humans did it humans did it!

lol

[Anonymous No.10231095]

>>10230542

[Anonymous No.10231096]

>>10231092
Common misconception, see >>10231045

[Anonymous No.10231105]

>>10231071
>graphs start at 1900
>at the end of the little ice age
Of course the temperature is rising.

[Anonymous No.10231106]

I'll back climate change solutions when solutions are presented. Carbon taxes are wealth redistribution scam, solar and wind are not viable without storage solutions which do not exist and hydro is nearly maxed out in most viable places. If you want to talk about the environment then talk to me about nuclear and get the rabid greentards out of the dialogue or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10231107]

>Why is such a huge misunderstanding surrounding climate change?

Because the simplest explanations for why normies should care isn't being pushed. Most don't care about the details, hate being blamed for shit and are inherently selfish.

Instead of saying you should care about climate change because it will affect the environment/weather or that a number animals could go extinct. It should be because all current economic systems are dependent on a stable climate/ ecosystem that is familiar to us. And if it changes the cost of revamping those systems or making new ones to a future yet unknown climate/ecosystem could easily outstrip the cost of simply moderating what we have now.

Another reason they should care is because the influx of parasite born diseases are directly tied to climate cycles and any large alterations to those cycles can increase the likelihood of it's spreading to the greater populace.

By presenting the argument this way you give them little to no wiggle room to weasel their way out. Because they can immediately understand that economic uncertainty is bad and that someone close to them has suffered disease or sickness from parasites. Any argument they could provide against it can immediately be answered by grabbing their head and pointing to dust bowl survivors or have them visit the nearest hospital where a person suffering from lyme disease. Then ask them how they would feel about this happening on a massive scale.

[Anonymous No.10231108]

>>10231105
Oops, looks like you missed the point, sweety

[Anonymous No.10231109]

>>10231096
>climate change caused by human activity is a misconception
Correct, the minuscule amount of cO2 added by human activity is and will continue to have a negligible effect on the Earths climate.

Remember to keep in mind the little red square is literally ALL the cO2 human activity has added to the atmosphere over the course of human history.

[Anonymous No.10231110]

>>10231106
I don't claim to know the best political/economical solution, but that's besides the point. The point of this topic is to discuss how it is that people can deny that a problem even exists.

[Anonymous No.10231112]

>>10230542
>>10230643
My questions are:

1) What are you doing in Facebook?
2) Why do you care about what people write in fucking Facebook?

[Anonymous No.10231113]

>>10231109
False. Learn some basic physics
https://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
(Read the entire series before you reply, shill)

[Anonymous No.10231117]

>>10231110
Because the evidence is tenuous (not necessarily false) and there is a massive media spin on both sides.

[Anonymous No.10231118]

>>10231109
Clearly you didn't even read my previous post... it renders your point completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.10231120]

>>10231113
>scienceofdoom.com
That's hilarious, chicken little.
>>10231118
No argument, huh?

Let me know what that changes, ok?

[Anonymous No.10231121]

>>10231120
>I have no argument
Ok. Next

[Anonymous No.10231122]

>>10231108
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10231124]

>>10231121
Like I said, let me know.

[Anonymous No.10231127]

>>10231122
>>10231124
These bots don't pass the turing test. Please fix

[Anonymous No.10231129]

>>10231120
I won't repeat myself, read my previous comment.

[Anonymous No.10231130]

>>10231045
>It doesn't matter if the carbon humans emit into the atmosphere is small relative to the amount naturally emitted
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10231140]

>>10231092
>Greenhouse gasses comprise only 2% of the total atmosphere
That's completely irrelevant.

>3.62% of greenhouse gasses are CO2
Most of the remaining 96.38% is water vapour. Because of rapid evaporation and condensation between the oceans and atmosphere, water vapour in the air is held in very tight equilibrium. This equilibrium is temperature sensitive, and as such water serves as a feedback rather than a forcing for global temperatures.

>3.4% of CO2 is cause by human activity.
No it isn't. That's disgustingly close to being an outright lie.
See: https :// sci-hub . tw/https :// pubs . acs . org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ef200914u
3.4% of CO2 in the atmosphere was DIRECTLY emitted by humans. That number is practically meaningless, because atmospheric carbon is fairly rapidly cycled through the biosphere.
Humans are entirely responsible for the rise of CO2 levels from pre-industrial 280 ppm to current 410 ppm. A contribution of ~30%.

The degree of misunderstanding in your image is so impressive, I struggle to believe it was accidental.
>heritage.org
OH WHAT A SURPRISE.

[Anonymous No.10231145]

>>10231045
>For hundreds of thousands (possibly millions of years), the concentration of carbon has stayed roughly consistent.
>roughly consistent
lmao

Wait, you mean it normally goes up a little and then it goes down a little over time? Like the CLIMATE CHANGES and SHEEEIT?

OH THE HUMANITY WE ALL GONNA DIE

[Anonymous No.10231147]

>>10231140
>That's completely irrelevant.
But the minuscule amount added to that by human activity isn't...

..try again.

[Anonymous No.10231148]

>>10231110

Most people are not detailed oriented. All you need to remember is that the explanation for Cholera spread and Germ Disease Theory was actively fought against authorities until multiple outbreaks happening causing them to desperately ask for help.

[Anonymous No.10231152]

>>10231145
I'm just curious, what's your level of education? This is not a difficult point to grasp.

[Anonymous No.10231153]

>>10231147
>But the minuscule amount added to that by human activity isn't...
In what universe is 30% a minuscule abount?
And really, we should be talking about the CHANGE in atmospheric CO2 levels, not the total fraction. And humans are really responsible for about 100% of the change.
How is 100% irrelevant?

[Anonymous No.10231162]

>>10231153
The slight change is over the entire course of the industrial revolution up until now which is a minuscule amount by any measurement, sorry.

Pro-tip: cO2 dosen't make up that much of the atmosphere and the amount of cO2 added by human activity barely amounts to anything. Nothing you've posted refutes that fact.

[Anonymous No.10231173]

>>10230892
I wonder where our consumer goods mostly originate from...
Also if you think the current immigrant crisis is bad just you wait.

[Anonymous No.10231174]

>>10231162
>The slight change is over the entire course of the industrial revolution up until now which is a minuscule amount by any measurement, sorry.
CO2 levels have gone from 280ppm to to 410ppm. That is not a small change. We are responsible for that change.

>cO2 dosen't make up that much of the atmosphere
Compared to what? Atmospheric CO2 is responsible for about a 32C rise in Earth's surface temperature. Without it we would all be completely fucked. A 45% increase in that concentration is a REALLY big deal.

>the amount of cO2 added by human activity barely amounts to anything.
It's a 45% increase. By what possible standard does that "barely amount to anything"?

[Anonymous No.10231179]

>>10231174
lmao you understand ppm means parts per million, right? As in its gone from 280 to 410 out of 1,000,000,000?

Which of course, is almost literally nothing ...by your own admission. You sound like a complete fucking idiot, I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your ridiculous screeching.

[Anonymous No.10231184]

>>10231179
>parts per million
>1,000,000,000
Climate change deniers everyone

[Anonymous No.10231186]

>>10231179
You're either trolling or a complete mong. If you're not trolling answer me this, what's your level of education?

[Anonymous No.10231188]

>>10231179
I suggest you drink water containing 410 ppm of lead, it's literally nothing it should do no harm right?

[Anonymous No.10231189]

>>10231140
>Human's are entirely responsible.
Here's that pseudo science creeping in to the argument again.

[Anonymous No.10231191]

>>10231188
But anon you already do drink harmless fluoride at a higher PPM than that.

[Anonymous No.10231196]

>>10231184
>>10231186
>>10231188
Except cO2 isn't lead, sorry.

Do you chicken little's really not have an actual argument against what I said? Because this was too easy, I feel like a bully in a special needs class here.

[Anonymous No.10231197]

>>10230542
Earth will be fine, life won't. Earth is fucking giant ball of rock, and everything we know is a tiny little stain on the surface.

[Anonymous No.10231199]

>>10231179
>lmao you understand ppm means parts per million, right?
Yes.

>Which of course, is almost literally nothing
No.

Would you consider 410ppm potassium cyanide in drinking water "almost literally nothing"? This is why I wrote "compared to what?" - greenhouse gasses don't need to make up a large fraction of the atmosphere to have a significant impact.

>>10231189
>Here's that pseudo science creeping in to the argument again.
What pseudo science? I've already posted this twice, but have it again:
https :// sci-hub . tw/https :// pubs . acs . org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ef200914u

[Anonymous No.10231204]

>>10231199
>greenhouse gasses don't need to make up a large fraction of the atmosphere to have a significant impact.
Very stupid thing to say.

[Anonymous No.10231211]

>>10231199
>now he's pretending he believes a move from 280ppm to 410ppm (a change of 130 out of 1,000,000) is significant

You and I both know you got blown the fuck out here, just thank me for educating you on how ridiculous you sound and move on.

[Anonymous No.10231214]

>>10231204
>>10231211
>Very stupid thing to say.
Just to be clear: Are you claiming that CO2, at the current atmospheric concentration, doesn't have any impact on the Earths climate? That is, if all the CO2 in the air dissipated tomorrow nothing would happen?
If so, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.10231216]

>>10231214
Oh wow, this is so sad..

[Anonymous No.10231219]

>>10231214
No I thought you wrote something else sorry I'm very retarded

[Anonymous No.10231220]

>>10231216
It's a yes-or-no question.
Is your view that CO2, at pre-industrial concentrations, doesn't have any significant impact on the Earth's temperature?

[Anonymous No.10231221]

>>10231199
>https twice in the url
Post your argument here don't give me a link and expect me to now agree with you.

[Anonymous No.10231224]

>>10231220
Not him but I have a question for you. Do you believe that CO2 levels have remained constant through history?

[Anonymous No.10231225]

>>10231220
>co2 levels only ever changed during industrialization.
Can you prove this claim?

[Anonymous No.10231228]

>>10231220
Does the earth go, "well I'm trying to keep co2 at this exact level, or everything falls apart, but those mean humans!"? I mean you unironically believe co2 levels were constant for 3.5 billion years and only now that we're driving cars it is changing?

[Anonymous No.10231229]

>>10231211
CO2 accounts for about 20% of the greenhouse effect. So doubling the amount of it will certainly have a large impact.

[Anonymous No.10231230]

>>10231220
Alright, chicken little. You win, I'm sorry.

I thought I was doing you a favor and now you're slobbering all over yourself and I didn't really intend on having to watch you make a mess of yourself like this. It was all a troll, you're not a retard, blah blah blah..

Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.10231231]

>>10231225
>co2 levels only ever changed during industrialization.
That's not what I said. Stop dodging the question.
Is your view that CO2, at pre-industrial concentrations, doesn't have any significant impact on the Earth's temperature?

>>10231224
>>10231228
>>10231230
What the fuck are you on about?

[Anonymous No.10231232]

>>10231229
That's a false conclusion, you haven't proven that claim, and there is no large impact currently, only a paid media campaign. Hurricanes are still happening as they have for thousands of years, but when the next one hits you'll scream for more taxes so money can be given to general electric and exxon mobile.

[Anonymous No.10231234]

>>10231228
>>10231225
>>10231224

[Anonymous No.10231235]

>>10231231
>the earth's temperature.
The earth's temperature would be measured at its core, its atmosphere doesn't have a set temperature.

[Anonymous No.10231236]

>>10231229
We talkin' total CO2 in the atmosphere or the minuscule amount of CO2 caused by human activity here? Because those are two different things....

[Anonymous No.10231237]

>>10231235
The Earth's average surface temperature.

[Anonymous No.10231243]

>>10231232
This has been mostly proven for decades now. Go look at papers with a high number of citations on google scholar.

[Anonymous No.10231244]

>>10231234
>i'll just post a misleading cherrypicked graph paid for by a propaganda team that supports a pre existing conclusion to obtain funding in a racket.

[Anonymous No.10231246]

>>10231243
>CO2 accounts for about 20%
Ok, and how much of that CO2 is natural vs. the amount created by human activity?

[Anonymous No.10231247]

>>10231243
You sound like the people who imprisoned Galileo for challenging the ivory tower. Vested interests pay for this research and have been shown to lie and mislead on purpose for all of those decades, such as the various misleading graphs posted ITT. You're working to spread propaganda for big energy and you don't even know it.

[Anonymous No.10231249]

>>10231236
Total CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm to 410 ppm (+46.5%). This increase is 100% due to humans. Historically, we would have expected the CO2 to remain roughly level at 280-300ppm before declining again in a few thousand years for the next ice age. This ice age will no longer happen.

[Anonymous No.10231250]

>>10231237
We would need sensors on every square kilometer on the ground's surface.

[Anonymous No.10231252]

>>10231236
>>10231246
Both mass-balance and isotope-balance calculations show that human activity is entirely responsible for the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (280 -> 410 ppm).
https :// sci-hub . tw/https :// pubs . acs . org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ef200914u

[Anonymous No.10231253]

>>10231244
What about this graph is false. Do you deny that current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is ~400 ppm and that historically it fluctuated between ~180 and 280 with the lows corresponding to ice ages?

[Anonymous No.10231255]

>>10231247
Who benefits from climate change existing?

[Anonymous No.10231256]

>>10231249
>this increase is 100% due to humans.
Pure hubris, fake news, and pseudo science. There's plenty of disagreement with your claim throughout the 'scientific community,' please do not speak platitudes here.

[Anonymous No.10231258]

>>10231255
General Electric, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobile, so far have benefited the most.

[Anonymous No.10231259]

>>10231246
100% of the increase from ~280ppm to ~410ppm is from human activity. The reason we know this is because CO2 generated from the burning of fossil fuels has a distinct signature.

[Anonymous No.10231261]

>>10231244
Not liking the authors doesn't make the data wrong.

>>10231250
>We would need sensors on every square kilometer on the ground's surface.
No we wouldn't. You don't need to talk to every person to run a survey.

[Anonymous No.10231263]

>>10231250
Now you're being ridiculous...

[Anonymous No.10231264]

>>10231259
Please illustrate the distinct signature.

[Anonymous No.10231265]

>>10231261
>the data
It presents questions to their interpretation of it, and also as to whether they have a motive to come to a set conclusion. The same argument was made to Galileo.

[Anonymous No.10231266]

>>10231249
>>10231252
>>10231253
>a change of 130 out of 1,000,000 is significant

Nope.

[Anonymous No.10231268]

>>10231261
It's not that the data is wrong it is that it is irrelevant towards proving the argument that the poster who posted it was making.
He thought somehow just posting a graph that doesn't even prove his claim would make him appear credible.

[Anonymous No.10231269]

>>10231264
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.10231270]

>>10231266
I'm not going to stop asking this until a get a yes or a no:
Is your view that CO2, at pre-industrial concentrations, doesn't have any significant impact on the Earth's temperature?

[Anonymous No.10231271]

>>10231252
Seal a jar with each concentration of CO2 and stick them in equivalent conditions and then measure their temperature after, then get back to me.
My hypothesis is that there will be no significant difference.

[Anonymous No.10231272]

>>10231266
Size is relative.
Saying 130 out of 1,000,000 is small depends on the context.
And in the context of atmospheric CO2 increase, it is large.

[Anonymous No.10231274]

>>10231270
Pre industrial concentrations of CO2 were often much higher than they currently are now, to the point that the current shift is non significant except to line General Electric and Big Oil's pockets with no bid contract money and barriers to entry into their market in the name of saving the world.

[Anonymous No.10231275]

>>10231272
prove it with a jar experiment.

[Anonymous No.10231276]

>>10231272
>130 out of 1,000,000 is a large change

Nope.

[Anonymous No.10231279]

>>10231274
>Pre industrial concentrations of CO2 were often much higher than they currently are now
I mean immediately pre-industrial. 280 ppm.

[Anonymous No.10231281]

>>10231272
Dude this is testable if we grab air in a jar and make sure it's concentration is 280, and then do it again and make sure it's concentration is 480 or whatever. We can stick them in the sun and measure their greenhouse effect, I'm sure as you suggest the jar with 480 parts out of a million co2 will be 5 degrees hotter than the one with 230 parts per million, right?
Or are you scared of real science?

[Anonymous No.10231283]

>>10231279
I'm doubtful the measurements from then are even accurate. It seems like most of the proof is actually speculation.

[Anonymous No.10231284]

>>10231281
Do it then.
I await the results.

[Anonymous No.10231287]

>>10231281
You don't need the jars, you can use the whole atmosphere:
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

[Anonymous No.10231288]

>>10231264
There are 3 carbon isotopes, C12, C13 and C14. Planets have a preference for C12, and so have a lower C13/C12 ratio. Since fossil fuels are derived largely from ancient plants, the ratio of C13/C12 is about that of plants. The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere is a little higher, but this ratio is decreasing (as would be expected as more plant based CO2 from fossil fuels is emitted.

[Anonymous No.10231290]

>>10231271
What a grand misunderstanding of the science... go read up on how the greenhouse effect works...

[Anonymous No.10231294]

>>10231279
Are you suggesting that CO2 levels could not shift dramatically incidentally at any time? The little ice didn't start because people stopped driving cars.

[Anonymous No.10231295]

>>10231294
>Are you suggesting that CO2 levels could not shift dramatically incidentally at any time?
No, and I don't understand how you could get that from my post.

[Anonymous No.10231297]

>>10231287
>you can use the whole atmosphere.
No you can't, that's pseudo science, but my jar experiment isn't. Your linked paper is literally just a mathematical model that fails to predict accurately and yet demands its own veracity be taken seriously. No experiment is performed as I suggested, proving that you are just a useful idiot for big oil's pro climate change propaganda campaign that's been ongoing since 2000.
>>10231290
It's you who misunderstands science if you think mathematical models are what it is.

[Anonymous No.10231299]

>>10231295
Because you appear to apply causation to the CO2 shift to the industrial revolution, which is really just a correlation = causation claim in spite of more rational alternatives like a natural earth cycle we can't control. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[Anonymous No.10231300]

>>10230542
It's mostly older people who don't buy into it.
I don't blame them tho. Back in the 70s it was global cooling and we were all gonna be under glaciers, and in the 90s it was global warming and the coasts were supposed to be 20ft under by 2010, and now it's just climate change and we're fucked.
I honestly don't blame them for telling the boy who cried wolf to go fuck himself, even if there are wolves this time. He has the same 'muh charts' proof as before.
Not to mention California with all their green laws and practices have the most polluted air in the entire US (from the fires). Almost as if nothing we humans do hold a candle to mother nature.
Personally, I wonder how our weakening magnetic field plays into it. There's almost no info on it. The moon has no shield and the surface gets hotter than ours.

Also the same people telling them climate change sucks are still driving cars instead of riding bikes, contributing more to climate change than any other man made factor. It's almost like they don't really care or don't believe it either.

But honestly, it's not so much the whole climate thing, it's just the overall quality of life I think is worth fighting for. Maybe you can't convince them of excessive climate spikes, but you can convince them China's smog issue is fucked, and we should strive to be as far away from that as possible.

[Anonymous No.10231302]

>>10231290
I should be able to demonstrate it experimentally in my room if it's real, these aren't rare gasses. Why hasn't anyone done it?

[Anonymous No.10231305]

>>10231300
>implying it's not another example of that.
It goes back to Galileo and it never ever stops. Every generation thinks they are the last one being fooled.

[Anonymous No.10231310]

>>10231300
USA has the strictest climate rules in the world, and yet we also have the most propaganda to make them even stricter, so that no one can enter the oil and energy market and the oligopoly maintains almost government entity like power as it currently does.

[Anonymous No.10231311]

18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:
>1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
>2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
>3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
>4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
>5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
>6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
>7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness

[Anonymous No.10231312]

>>10231310
Probably not wrong

[Anonymous No.10231314]

>>10231300
>Back in the 70s it was global cooling and we were all gonna be under glaciers, and in the 90s it was global warming and the coasts were supposed to be 20ft under by 2010, and now it's just climate change and we're fucked.
Do you ever get sick of making things up?

[Anonymous No.10231315]

>>10231311
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
>9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
>10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
>11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.
>12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

[Anonymous No.10231318]

>>10231311
>some people are wrong therefore everyone is wrong
Climate change denial is built on logical fallacies and you're only proving this.

[Anonymous No.10231320]

>>10231315
>13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).
>14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”
>15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
>16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
>17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
>18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

[Anonymous No.10231321]

>>10231255
Big Oil benefits because it establishes a world saving reason that they need to remain monopolistically powerful, instead of being split up again by anti trust laws after they merged together to become more powerful in the mid 90s. Exxon Mobile used to be Exxon and Mobile, two different companies, for example.
With government contracts giving you billions in profit, you're able to get more money without being split apart because you're insane profit is just because you are saving the world one destroyed nature preserve for a solar plant at a time.

[Anonymous No.10231324]

>>10231302
It just wouldn't work, and your lack of understanding of how the greenhouse effect works is showing.

The earth can be thought of as a black body, emitting infrared radiation. Most of this radiation goes straight out into space, but CO2 absorbs infared radiation and remits it in all directions (each CO2 molecule can be thought of as a small black body). You simply can't recreate these conditions properly in a jar.

[Anonymous No.10231327]

>>10231305
Sure, but how many of them past eons were told only one narrative? The guys alive now have seen minimum 3 different narratives in their lifetime. How many times can someone switch their story be you call them a liar? Typically in the court of law it's just once.

[Anonymous No.10231331]

>>10231324
The glass of the jar should easily recreate these conditions, actually, at least enough to see the increase in energy in the jar with 130 parts per million CO2 in it, since it's a substantial change, according to anthro greenhouse argument.
You are dead set on there being no way to perform an experiment to verify your claims because they are false, and therefore you need your hypothesis to be unfalsifiable, the worst enemy of science.

[Anonymous No.10231332]

>>10231331
Hey, it's your idea, why don't you perform the experiment and see if you can publish it in a respectable journal.

[Anonymous No.10231333]

>>10231250
Are you going to pay for that? Last I checked deniers are lobbying hard against studying the climate at all.

[Anonymous No.10231334]

>>10231327
Nah dude they were changing shit up just as much if not more back then too. It's constant, and people are just that stupid that it keeps working.

[Anonymous No.10231335]

>>10231332
Journals seem like a silly place to publish anything, you're limiting the peer review by doing so, it's a good way to hide from scrutiny and obtain credibility without real veracity.

[Anonymous No.10231336]

>>10231332
>it's in a journal so it's true!
And that's why journal's are poison to science.

[Anonymous No.10231337]

>>10231318
>Climate change denial (i.e. m-muh unquestionable dogma!)
lmao
>everyone is wrong
Not everyone, no.

But this is such an obvious pile of horseshit that it would be stupid to believe it just because another set of so called "experts" stepped forward with another imaginary doomsday prediction.

[Anonymous No.10231341]

>>10231299
>Because you appear to apply causation to the CO2 shift to the industrial revolution
That's nowhere in my post.

> which is really just a correlation = causation claim
As several people in this thread have pointed out, both mass-balance and isotope-balance arguments clearly show that the entire rise (since we started keeping records) is anthropogenic.

>in spite of more rational alternatives like a natural earth cycle
Nobody has demonstrated ANY natural cycle that can explain the current rise in CO2 concentrations.

>>10231302
>I should be able to demonstrate it experimentally in my room if it's real
You can. It's harder than it sounds, because your jar isn't equivalent to the whole atmosphere, and because there are a bunch of other effects you would need to consider, but it's definitely possible.

>>10231337
>just because another set of so called "experts" stepped forward with another imaginary doomsday prediction.
It's only deniers are talking about doomsday predictions.

[Anonymous No.10231343]

>>10231318
You were handed a 30,000 page book that the guy who gave it to you knows you'll never read, told what it said, and given some drawings to show people as you proclaim its truth so you wouldn't have time to. If anyone challenges you, you cite your thirty thousand page book which you haven't read, and call them "denialists."

[Anonymous No.10231344]

>>10231341
>It's only deniers are talking about doomsday predictions.
lol

Those heretics, am I right?!?

[Anonymous No.10231347]

>>10231344
>Those heretics, am I right?!?
What the fuck are you on about now?

[Anonymous No.10231348]

>>10231341
>Doomsday denialist
Sorry, I can't take deniers seriously anon.

[Anonymous No.10231349]

>>10231314
Eh, maybe I don't have the exact dates (pretty much just waking up, I didn't brush up on the details before posting) but I do talk to older people and any them will confirm it.
Could be the 60s it was called global cooling, could be 2000 we were supposed to be under water. Fact is, the narrative has changed and so far it hasn't been right in it's extreme predictions.

[Anonymous No.10231354]

>>10231334
Kek

[Anonymous No.10231355]

>>10231341
Cow's farting. I bet New Mexico's temperature rose because they have more farting cows now.

[Anonymous No.10231356]

>>10231336
Never said this. But if other scientists agree with the findings they will do further research in this direction, citing the previous results. If no one cites it, then it's either not a useful result, or people don't agree with it.

[Anonymous No.10231357]

>>10231349
The global cooling fear is a meme.
There were in fact a lot more papers predicting warming than cooling at the time.
The narrative of which you speak is mostly media driven fear mongering rather than actual views of scientists.

[Anonymous No.10231365]

>>10231356
I'm hoping someone here in this thread has the means to put these specific concentrations of co2 in a jar and set them in the sun and record their temperatures every hour from 10am to 3pm for a week, showing the increase of energy in the higher concentration co2 jar, which has a solid glass atmosphere to amplify and make more observable the proposed greenhouse gas effect.
If /sci/ was used as a 'journal' instead of as a place to cite paywall journals and demand that you're right, it'd be the best peer review available in the world.
I don't know a way to measure ppm of co2 let alone manipulate it to that degree of accuracy, so I so far lack the means to do this experiment. if anyone can help me with the method, I will do it and record it though.

[Anonymous No.10231368]

I'm sorry to have to tell you all this but this isn't an America problem!

To all you third worlders: good luck! You're gonna need it!

[Anonymous No.10231369]

>>10231365
For reference, this experiment could be considered literally inside a "greenhouse," if you add moist dirt and some seeds to it.

[Anonymous No.10231378]

>muh rate of change
Literally same argument /pol/yps use against mass immigration. Environmentalists are the new conservatives afraid of any little change at all. The climate changes all the time and the rate of change doesn't actually matter all that much. Life will adapt and humans might go extinct but so what?

[Anonymous No.10231379]

>>10231357
>The narrative of which you speak is mostly media driven fear mongering rather than actual views of scientists.

[Anonymous No.10231381]

>>10231357
This is called arguing from hindsight. At the time, the prevalent theory that the media promoted and promised people was real was global cooling. 50 years later in order to still be able to lie, it's now said that "there's more obscure studies for global warming at the time." 100 years from now when global warming is unpopular again for whatever agenda, and people point this scandal out, the new propaganda will be that there was huge resistance to the global warming claims and that the global warming deniers were the mainstream and always correct.

[Anonymous No.10231385]

>>10231349
>Eh, maybe I don't have the exact dates (pretty much just waking up, I didn't brush up on the details before posting) but I do talk to older people and any them will confirm it.
They may have heard other people talking about it (hell, the media is still full of obviously-wrong claims about AGW), but it was never a dominant position among climatologists.

>Fact is, the narrative has changed
The actual narrative from scientists has been fairly consistent. Global warming emerged as a significant threat in the early 1970's, became the dominant model by the late 1970's, and only the specifics have changed since then. I suspect the change people have seen is (slow) improvements in reporting what scientists are saying, rather than any actual shift in the narrative.

>so far it hasn't been right in it's extreme predictions.
Actually, climate change predictions have done surprisingly well. Even Hansen's models from 1988 hold up pretty well, if you adjust for actual human emissions.

>>10231365
>I'm hoping someone here in this thread has the means to put these specific concentrations of co2 in a jar and set them in the sun and record their temperatures every hour from 10am to 3pm for a week,
That's not how you would need to set it up. To start with, CO2 is basically transparent to sunlight. It's IR from Earth which gets absorbed.

>>10231378
>The climate changes all the time and the rate of change doesn't actually matter all that much.
I'd love to see your citation for that.

>humans might go extinct but so what?
Fuck you too.

[Anonymous No.10231387]

>>10231365
Consider this. If it were possible for such an experiment to disprove the greenhouse effect, it would have been done (it's simple enough). Imagine how much money the fossil fuel companies would throw at you if you disproved the current scientific consensus.

[Anonymous No.10231393]

>>10231385
>I'd love to see your citation for that
I'd like to see you prove that the rate of change actually is important. Things change faster and more things die but you're assuming that life is some sacred magical thing. Even if it is important climate change isn't getting rid of life at all, it will adapt to the new climate when it stabilizes again. Humanity was a nice experiment but it clearly isn't working, not the first species to cause its own extinction and it won't be the last.

[Anonymous No.10231396]

>>10231385
IR from earth would pass into the jar and be absorbed into the co2, and this absorption would raise the energy in each jar respectively, so we could determine if it's a significant change in temperature.
Without this, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable so far, and therefore invalid as a scientific proposal.

[Anonymous No.10231397]

>>10231381
>At the time, the prevalent theory that the media promoted and promised people was real was global cooling.
Right, and the media was full of shit.

>50 years later in order to still be able to lie, it's now said that "there's more obscure studies for global warming at the time."
No, there was just more studies supporting global warming. That's not an "in order to lie", that's just reality.

>100 years from now when global warming is unpopular again for whatever agenda, and people point this scandal out, the new propaganda will be that there was huge resistance to the global warming claims and that the global warming deniers were the mainstream and always correct.
So what your saying is: if you manage kick all the scientists out of climatology then liars will take their place?
Gee, thanks for being honest.

[Anonymous No.10231404]

>>10231393
>Humanity was a nice experiment but it clearly isn't working, not the first species to cause its own extinction and it won't be the last.
Why don't you cut to the chase and jump off a bridge? It would save the rest of us from having to read your drivel.

[Anonymous No.10231407]

>>10231393
Actually, if it changes to fast it can be further amplified by a bunch of different feedback loops.

I'll give an example.

Permafrost (largely in places like Greenland) contains large amounts of frozen carbon in the form of methane. Methane is much more potent than CO2, but quickly decays (in about 10 years) into CO2 and H2O. If the rate of change is slow, the level of methane in the atmosphere will remain relatively low, but if the rate of change is fast, a huge amount of methane could temporarily exist in the atmosphere, greatly accelerating warming even further.

[Anonymous No.10231411]

>>10231387
They would assassinate you, I've already shown in this thread how they invested hundreds of millions into ever since the later 90s. They profit off of it the most out of anyone in the world and it creates barriers to entry into their market.
If such an experiment is not possible, then the claim is not scientific, it is is socio and geopolitical.

[Anonymous No.10231412]

>>10231396
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf

There you go, its been done.

[Anonymous No.10231419]

>>10231412
I'm going to do it and post my results.

[Anonymous No.10231420]

>>10231404
I'm enjoying the show why would I want it to end prematurely? It's hilarious watching people afraid of destruction but doing absolutely nothing about it wasting their time arguing against people who are afraid of lowering their quality of life lying through their teeth when their quality of life is essentially arguing with people online. It's a great show and both sides are highly entertaining.

[Anonymous No.10231429]

>>10231396
>IR from earth would pass into the jar and be absorbed into the co2, and this absorption would raise the energy in each jar respectively, so we could determine if it's a significant change in temperature.
That seems like a really clumsy way of running that experiment. We don't care about the temperature of the CO2 itself, all that really matters is the difference between the (bulk) transparency of CO2 to visible light compared to it's transparency to IR.
Off the top of my head, why not place a target and the end of an enclosure with a bright light at the other end. Changing the gas composition in the enclosure ought to change the temperature of the target. Visable-opaque gasses should cool the target, and IR-opaque gasses ought to warm it.

>Without this, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable so far, and therefore invalid as a scientific proposal.
What? The greenhouse effect has been studied for more than a hundred years. It's far from unfalsifiable.

>>10231412
>https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf
Honestly, that also seems like a really shit way of doing it. The fact that one container is open should be enough on it's own to destroy any effect you wanted to see.

[Anonymous No.10231445]

Biologyfag here, no matter if global warming is man-made or natural we are fucked anyway.
Retards are pumping $$$ into preventing sea level rise while we are polluting sea and freshwater reserves at a rate that will end us faster than any warming.

[Anonymous No.10231457]

>>10231445
Couldn't we genetically engineer aquatic life resistant to pollution? This isn't a life threatening event there are lifeforms capable of thriving in such conditions right?

[Anonymous No.10231471]

>>10231412
>https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf
Reading this study, it doesn't appear to meet the requirement of the experiment, since it's an arbitrary concentration of co2. We aren't testing whether or not warming occurs (i own a literal greenhouse), but rather whether or not the higher concentration of co2 from 130 to 480 ppm makes a significant difference in the amount of heat energy retained. My greenhouse would warm up even if it had no CO2 at all when the sun hits it. We need this specific number of PPM for comparison to see if it matters, because perhaps the greenhouse warming doesn't cascade infinitely and provide free energy. Our hypothesis can be that it will double the temperature increase compared to the lesser PPM jar, though I predict severely diminishing returns rather than ideal conditions for a new type of near free energy power plant. It'd be pretty difficult to boil water by using the greenhouse effect in my greenhouse with just the sun, but if I consistently could do it I would have the steam push a turbine and produce nearly free energy. It takes more extra horsepower to go from 999kph to 1000 than from 1kph to 2.
I'm still going to do this experiment, but I need to find a way to control almost to an exact degree the PPM of co2 in my containers, one needs to be pre industrial revolution, and one current. Can you just order a bag of this stuff with a preset concentration? If so how do they bag it?

[Anonymous No.10231488]

>>10231429
If it shows that the co2 in the composition has no significant affect on temperature in comparison to the low ppm jar, then it would suggest that the greenhouse affect is not significantly increased by that change in the chemical soup, and that an increase of 130 parts out of one million isn't significant toward the increase of temperature on earth compared to what it was already doing when it was lower, because of diminishing returns.
OR
It will show that it does and that even though GE is scamming it, they are still right.

[Anonymous No.10231490]

>>10231106
/thread

[Anonymous No.10231509]

>>10231457
Neat idea but didn't hear about this kind of research so far. It's not as news-friendly as "muh-CO2-rising" shit you see everywhere.

I remember reading somewhere that research suggests that majority of O2 we breathe is actually made by ocean algae, not tropical forests. If these algae die due to the stuff we dump into oceans then we might get fucked within one generation.

[Anonymous No.10231520]

>>10231509
These algae are being killed off by increasing ocean acidity (which is a byproduct of increased CO2 in the atmosphere). I suppose it's possible that they will adapt before being completely wiped out, but is it worth the risk?

[Anonymous No.10231526]

>>10231520
>this apocalyptic claim.
We need to take a jar with pre industrial co2 levels, and a jar with current, and compare how much of the water is converted to carbonic acid over a set period of time, before anything really can be concluded about this idea of yours.

[Anonymous No.10231527]

>>10231526
Also we should put some of that algae in there to see if a 130 part per million increase in co2 levels in the air creates enough carbonic acid to start killing it.

[Anonymous No.10231530]

>>10231520
>algae being wiped out.
Delusion, consider what it already survived.

[Anonymous No.10231535]

>>10231526
What are you even talking about? We know that oceans are more acidic now than they were pre industrial revolution, and we also know it's not due to pollution since tidal current currents would take thousands of years to dissipate pollutants.

[Anonymous No.10231546]

>>10231535
Define pollutant, how does one thing fall under that category and yet CO2 does not? Again, you can say "we know it's not this or that," but that isn't the same as proving that it's the extremely tiny increase in CO2 in the air over the last hundred years.
Either it can be done in a way that others can replicate and get the same results easily or it can't and it's not scientific it's political.

[Anonymous No.10231551]

>>10231546
Irrelevant, it doesn't matter what it is, it will take thousands of years to spread throughout the ocean. On the other hand, we find that oceans are increasing in acidity everywhere we look.

[Anonymous No.10231558]

>>10231429
>greenhouse effect is well understood
So is Einstein's theory of relativity. Doesnt mean the sun is going to collide with the earth.

[Anonymous No.10231561]

>>10231558
No, but it does mean we can confidently predict how much downward IR we should see for a given atmospheric CO2 level.

[Anonymous No.10231567]

>>10231558
What a ridiculously stupid statement... we can be absolutely certain that the sun won't collide with the earth BECAUSE of our understanding of einstein's relativity (actually, Newton's theory of gravity is enough in this case).

[Anonymous No.10231572]

>>10231106
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=D99qI42KGB0
Watch this, solar and wind are already viable and batteries are being worked on and there's even been success with aluminum batteries instead of lithium. You're just living under a rock.

[Anonymous No.10231729]

>>10231420

[Anonymous No.10231738]

>>10231729
Because it's so important that people think I'm smart on an anonymous website right? Oh noes someone thinks a post I made anonymously is dumb it's the end of the world! I'm not a fence sitter either I'm firmly in favor of watching the world burn. I've got front row seats to the best show around it's great.

[Anonymous No.10231793]

>>10231010
>The climate isn't changing anywhere near like it did during prehistoric mass extinction events.
Incorrect. Warming during the Great Dying was a few degrees C per century. Warming currently is a few degrees C per century.

>If the climate was changing exactly like it now, 30 million years ago, from nothing other than the solar cycle, we wouldn't be able to tell because we can't see a 70 year window of the world's climate state from 30 million years ago and anyone who tells you we can is lying.
The solar cycle is very predictable and observable. It's causing cooling right now, not warming.

>There's no evidence that today's climate is anomalous because there's not enough data to say so, we need to record for at least 1000 years, and that's really not a lot either, and we haven't even got close.
We have paleoclimate data, but even if we didn't, we can still see such rapid warming will have negative effects.

[Anonymous No.10231906]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7y-IvvmcE8

[Anonymous No.10231913]

>>10231906
>Shaviv
Nice try

[Anonymous No.10231917]

>>10231913
?

[Anonymous No.10231940]

>>10231357
So you're agreeing global cooling was a thing? Whether it was the main point or not, you do see that many people were told this?
There are in fact many older people today who remember it as global cooling and all I'm saying is I don't blame them for calling out the boy who cried wolf.

OP asked why is there any confusion on the topic. Here's a damn good reason why.

[Anonymous No.10231972]

>>10231551
What makes you think one has no correlation with the other? And even then, does it really matter, this is a world level catastrophe waiting to happen and there is barely anything people is doing to solve it.

[Anonymous No.10231978]

>>10231793
>>ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded petroleum and petrochemical company, plans to contribute up to $100 million; General Electric, the world leader in power generation technology and services, $50 million; and Schlumberger Limited, a global energy services company, $25 million. E.ON, Europe's largest privately owned energy service provider, has signaled its intention to contribute $50 million and join G-CEP, along with other academic and corporate sponsors from Europe. University officials said other automotive and technology industries may join the project as the research progresses.
>>Three industry representatives also spoke on Wednesday: Frank Sprow, vice president of ExxonMobil; Sanjay Correa, global technology leader with General Electric; and Philippe Lacour-Gayet, vice president of Schlumberger Limited.
>>"Today, the enormous publicity given to climate change makes it possible for critics to misrepresent the oil and gas industry as a sunset energy," Lacour-Gayet said, "but actually we know that the industry will play a crucial role in meeting most of the world's vast need for clean affordable, energy in the next hundred years."
>>He said that, because of the size and the complexity of the issue, Schlumberger decided to team up with a leading university and a group of major energy companies.
>warming during the great dying was a few degrees C per century.
Wrong, we cannot measure how fast the temperature changed on a 100 year scale millions of years ago. That's pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10231981]

>>10231972
A meteor will eventually hit us, as confirmed by the newfound possibility for intergalactic meteors (first one was recently observed), it's a human extinction level event. Everyone should be paying the meteor deterrent tax.

[Anonymous No.10231983]

>>10231981
That was a spaceship retard

[Anonymous No.10231990]

I think it might be lead poisoning or something similar that happened in America. They used to lead the world in scientific progress and now they can't even transition to the metric system ffs. Climate change denial is uniquely American so something has to have happened regionally to make them dumb as shit. It's kind of sad really they used to be so cool too.

[Anonymous No.10231992]

>>10231983
I can't say that because while it seems like it may have been one, there's no way for me to verify it. The easiest solution to me is that it is a meteor with gas jets.

[Anonymous No.10231996]

>>10231990
>a change in 100ppm of CO2 in the open air will kill the ocean.
>forcibly tripling the fluoride content of the water across the whole of the US will have no ill effects, we tested pigs first don't worry!

[Anonymous No.10232000]

>>10231981
It's been known decades big metherorites are a danger to life on Earth, that also is something that should be addressed by the governments. I don't see how the fact there is more than one leak to patch in this boat makes you reach the conclusion we should work on none of them at all.

[Anonymous No.10232010]

>>10231561
Wheres this model you speak of?

[Anonymous No.10232017]

>>10232000
Bullshit, it was never known that meteors could come from other galaxies and smash us until this year. I suppose it's been known about local ones, but I remember reading how this was incredibly unlikely this late in the game, since large objects have mostly already struck what they will strike in their paths.
Intergalactic meteors is a game change, because we can't predict them at all which means one can just come and slam us and it won't necessarily come from where we expect it to. Even detection is rarer, i don't think the intergalactic one was detected until it was really close to earth, and it was mostly watched as it sped away from us.

[Anonymous No.10232353]

>>10231084
You mean a company they own reported the news? You're a baldfaced liar.

[Anonymous No.10232370]

>>10231978
Where is the "billions in propaganda" liar?

>Wrong, we cannot measure how fast the temperature changed on a 100 year scale millions of years ago. That's pseudoscience.
Incorrect again, ocean sediments and continental coastal sediments have century scale resolutions and go back millions of years. Why are you lying?

[Anonymous No.10232381]

>>10231030
Where is there a lack of scientific method?

[Anonymous No.10232386]

>>10231032
>why don't you just let my pollution wreck your shit without me paying for it hurr durr

[Anonymous No.10232398]

>>10231106
>give me a solution to too much GHG emmisions
>ok emit less GHGs
>no that's a scam, give me the solution

[Anonymous No.10232405]

>>10231117
It's not tenuous. One side is doing way more spin to deny scientific facts (hint: you).

[Anonymous No.10232407]

>>10231130
How much is absorbed by nature vs man?

[Anonymous No.10232417]

>>10231162
Compare the "slight change" in temperature over a hundred years to interglacial warming over 1000s of years. Which one is faster?

[Anonymous No.10232418]

>>10231191
Yup, concentration alone tells you nothing about effect.

[Anonymous No.10232425]

>>10231196
>Except cO2 isn't lead, sorry.
Do y you understand how an analogy works? Are you five years old?

If you want to say that 410 ppm is miniscule for CO2 but not lead then tell me why that amount is miniscule for CO2 specifically, otherwise your argument is garbage.

[Anonymous No.10232426]

>>10230552
/thread

[Anonymous No.10232428]

>>10230542
>implying CO2 exists

[Anonymous No.10232442]

The is no global warming and no significant climate change. All these statistics are falsified.

Just look how they keep correcting historical data

[Anonymous No.10232476]

>>10231256
Source?

[Anonymous No.10232480]

>>10231981
>Everyone should be paying the meteor deterrent tax.

Not him but the irony is that the Meteor impact itself isn't what causes the extinction threat. Obviously what ever continent gets hit will be fucked but the rest of the world is only in danger by the fallout. Similar to the super volcano threat the real danger lies in the altered atmosphere. Advance understanding and funding of atmosphere science would reduce the effects of that fallout. Guess what subject matter also utilizes atmosphere science? Yup, it's climate change.

[Anonymous No.10232486]

>>10231112
>What are you doing in Facebook
Literally everyone who's not anti-social uses Facebook
>Why do you care about what people write in fucking Facebook?
They comments are clearly representative of the opinions of the some of the general populace, and they are alarming stupid

[Anonymous No.10232514]

>>10231300
>Personally, I wonder how our weakening magnetic field plays into it. There's almost no info on it. The moon has no shield and the surface gets hotter than ours
The Moon's lack of atmosphere is why it has such extreme variation between very hot and cold patches, an atmosphere helps trap some of the energy and redistributes more evenly

[Anonymous No.10232595]

>>10230552
This is a myth, the people funding the 'science' are the same people funding the media and big oil.

[Anonymous No.10232605]

>>10232480
>the real danger lies in our altered atmosphere.
We already know that the supervolcano will cause acid rain across the whole world, because the trace carbon dioxide will mix with the super abundant water vapor. There will be exponentially more water vapor, and that will warm the surface temperature of the earth, like the difference of being in Florida and the dry desert at night.
CO2 in the air won't keep you warm at night, but water in the air will. This is easily observable.
The climate can be treated scientifically, but it has not been for a long time, instead all research needs to be 'mainstream' and in order to be so, it must be accepted by an oligopoly of journals. It is directed 'science' aimed at reinforcing political agendas, funding for professors, funding for Monsanto, funding for GE, et al; at the end of the day entropy is the only absolute so far.
A meteor impact could shatter the earth. Since intergalactic meteors are still traveling the cosmos, objects the size and speed of the one that created our moon could still hit us. That's what last year's discovery really means. The impact itself would most likely kill everyone in the time it took to reverberate across the planet a huge section of terra is literally ripped from its face. I mean look at Mars' scar. It would have healed if the planet didn't die.

[Anonymous No.10232617]

>>10230552
The people with the most money have the loudest voices.
General Electric, Exxon Mobile, Conoco Phillips, et al, are all big supporters of anthropogenic climate change. So it's they who are the loudest, and they have an army of media, an army of idiots, and lots of scientists.

[Anonymous No.10232635]

>>10230552
GE, Exxon Mobile, and Conoco Phillips have invested in Climate Change propaganda and science for 20+ years. They have the loudest voices and that's why there's a cult surrounding it, as a means of political manipulation and toward the redistribution of wealth ongoing.
This really applies in all fields of market that are controlled by an oligopoly. Keep in mind that in the early 90s the three companies I listed were five.

[Anonymous No.10232790]

>>10231265
OK, what is the question? You haven't made a single substantive argument, just said "hurr durr this could be a conspiracy, this could be wrong durr."

[Anonymous No.10232794]

>>10231268
What was his claim?

[Anonymous No.10232801]

>>10232635
>GE, Exxon Mobile, and Conoco Phillips have invested in Climate Change propaganda and science for 20+ years.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10232810]

>>10232605
>>the real danger lies in our altered atmosphere.
>We already know that the supervolcano will cause acid rain across the whole world, because the trace carbon dioxide will mix with the super abundant water vapor
Yeah that's not how that works. Volcanic acid rain is caused by sulfur emissions which actually have a cooling effect. Why are you spouting nonsense and retarded conspiracy theories on /sci/? Are you confused? /pol/ is that way >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10232820]

>>10232442
>Just look at how they keep making the record better by adding more coverage and eliminating errors
You're dumber than the average denier.

[Anonymous No.10232857]

>>10232010
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

[Anonymous No.10233101]

>>10232857
>trash with no substance that directly violates the second law of thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.10233221]

>>10233101
If you don't understand how the greenhouse effect works, why are you posting in a climate change thread?

[Anonymous No.10233387]

>>10233101
Mind explaining how it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

[Anonymous No.10233691]

>>10233387

[Anonymous No.10233798]

>>10233101

[Anonymous No.10233841]

>>10233798

[Anonymous No.10233931]

>>10233101
No one says the atmosphere is transparent to solar radiation, it's greenhouse gases that are transparent to solar radiation.

As to the calculations you reference, it's not clear what exactly you're saying. If a planet retains all the energy the Sun sends to it then its temperature will rise indefinitely. The temperature is essentially the difference between how much energy the planet receives and how much it emits to space. Planets with greenhouse gases in their atmospheres will retain more heat since these gases bounce IR being emitted by the planet back towards it. So the answer to why the Earth and Venus are warmer than they should be is precisely the effect you are denying. You appear to have no grasp of the topic at hand and should stop posting.

[Anonymous No.10233938]

>>10233691
>>10233798
Does a blanket violate the second law?

[El Arcón No.10233950]

I think the main misunderstanding about climate change is that some large group of people thinks the term refers to the meteorological climate and some other large group of total asshole use it to refer to the changing political climate except they use meme language that fully abets the changing political climate and serves the aims of those who are seeking to change the political climate, namely: they are keeping it a secret for those whose only hope at changing the climate is for their actions to remain secret.
>The Truth About Climate Change
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1309.0069

[Anonymous No.10233955]

>>10233938
No.

[Anonymous No.10234097]

>>10233955
Greenhouse gases operate in the same way a blanket does.

[Anonymous No.10234114]

>>10234097
No shit, but how does this violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

[Anonymous No.10234131]

>>10234114
It doesn't...?

[Anonymous No.10234138]

>>10234131
Well.. I was responding to this comment. I just wanted this anon to explain.

>>10233101
>>trash with no substance that directly violates the second law of thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.10234173]

>>10233950
Just had a look at Tooker's "The Truth About Climate Change" and it's a little suspect

There is a section talking about how previous studies of ice cores have suggested that a rise in CO2 occurs a few hundred years after a rise in temperature, but a 2005 paper revised this view and Tooker criticises it

"...this is precisely the adjustment needed to make an argument that, due to uncertainty in the data, there is no clear chronological precedence in the CO2 and temperature spikes. If the adjustment was slightly smaller, the data would still dispute the models. If it was any larger, Parrenin et al. would directly contradict the results of all others who worked on the cores. One possibility is that GISS and the ice core data were properly corrected. The other possibility is there have been no recent breakthroughs in our understanding of thermometers and ice. Since the relevant physical properties are exceedingly simple and not amenable to large errors, by principle of sufficient reason, this writer is drawn toward the latter"

The wording by Tooker suggests that the latter is more likely because surely something we can't learn more about things so basic as ice and thermometers. This is in contrast to the actual content of the 2005 paper which talks about the uncertainties in ice core measurements and how they were able to improve upon them. Tooker is being misleading.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060?hwshib2=authn%3A1545584503%3A20181222%253Aabaf1f4c-72ca-4f4e-9cb6-7f595945cb55%3A0%3A0%3A0%3Acu5RzDMzjpDLv9UVeGGaCQ%3D%3D

I'm also suspect to Tooker's Truth about climate change given his reported institution "Occupy Academia" in Georgia doesn't exist, and he has a paper where he tells us "the truth about evolution"
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

Maybe he made that "truth about climate change" with a particular agenda in mind?

[Anonymous No.10234186]

>>10234173
Oh, I've just done a little more investigating

Remeber that 'proof' of the negation of the Riemann hypothesis that was getting spammed around on /sci/ for a while? Tooker
http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1811.0180v1.pdf

There's some more suspect work in there
http://www.vixra.org/author/jonathan_w_tooker

[Anonymous No.10234325]

>>10233950
>there's been no warming since 1998
1998 was the year of a massive Else Nino spike. The choice to start measuring the trend from this year is a clear example of cherrypicking, which is ironic considering in the same paragraph you accuse proponents of cherrypicking. Also, you chose to illustrate this with UAH data which was later found to have a large error in its diurnal correction and now shows a clear warming trend throughout.

>the 97% consensus
This entire section confuses no position on AGW with the position that the evidence is inconclusive, a distinction explicitly explained in Cook's paper. Less than 1% of papers claimed that the evidence was inconclusive. The large proportion that took no position are simply irrelevant to the question of consensus. The rest speculates about possible biases of the authors, without evidence, and ignores numerous other analyses that come to the same result. It's clear that there is a consensus in climatology for AGW.

>The UAH is nearly a pure measurement
This is incredibly false. The satellite data is a combination of data sets from non-uniform sensors. The satellite data is heavily corrected for biases. The satellites are not measuring temperature, they're measuring radiance and different groups have different methods for calculating temperature from radiance.

>The only adjustments
to UAH come in the form of averaging between individual satellites.
Completely wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made

Your paper is riddled with false claims that form the basis of your argument. You should do some basic research on the topic and revise it.

[Anonymous No.10234354]

>>10232635

Also the Koch brothers. One of the chief reasons why they setup their think tanks in the first place was to spread anti-climate change propaganda.

[Anonymous No.10234657]

>>10230890
How exactly.is it that you've found out these companies are putting money into this? Ut very clearly directly comes into conflict with the way they make money. It just doesnt make any sense and seems to be an extraordinary claim, so I'd like to see your evidence.

[Anonymous No.10234663]

>>10231010
>General Electric and Exxon Mobile spend more money promoting anthropogenic climate change
Assertion.

[Anonymous No.10234666]

>>10231010
If a system receives more energy than it outputs what heppens?

[Anonymous No.10234672]

>>10231027
>it sure won't save the animals either.
happens? your previous posts you claimed thay we dont have enough data to make those claims, how is it that you do have enough data to make similiar claims?

[Anonymous No.10234679]

>>10231031
How is it that your position became "your info cant tell you about climate change but I know what's up"

[Anonymous No.10236050]

>>10230542
What you're seeing is humanity heading for a great filter. A species issmart enough to get advanced technology, but too stupid to understand and preempt the consequences. This is why the universe is silent.

[Anonymous No.10236604]

>>10234666
It's probability distribution shifts to higher and higher energy states.

[Anonymous No.10237976]

>>10230542
Probably because people would rather use propaganda then actually engage with their opposition. For example, Polar Bear populations have been increasing for the past 30 years, and you cannot imagine the shucking and jiving articles do to try and make out that it isn't really the case, for appearances sake. When you're that unapologetically steadfast not to give in a inch because somebody somewhere decided this is a good tatic for our mission, then those who find out will be suspicious of whatever else is told to them by said position.

[Anonymous No.10238206]

>>10237976
I heard this argument a lot, and it's breathtakingly stupid.
Do you doubt astronomers, because some guy told you the moon is made of blue cheese?
Does the ranting of "racial purity" morons make biology less credible?
Wrongness is not symmetric.

[Anonymous No.10238407]

>>10238206
See. If you are willing to excuse blatantly false rhetoric because the means justify the ends or "idiots should know better", don't be surprised when people don't trust a over arching narrative. One apple ruins the barrel and nobody, NOBODY, has the time to read filing cabinets full of papers on climate change between a job, family and life.

Anthropomorphic climate change already happened when man killed off the Mammoths in Siberian great forests turned plains. When 75% of North America was deforestated in the 1600s and wild fires run amok today. Who, of anybody, can be trusted on the actual conquences of Global Warming? Well according to this logic that's irrelevant since we can just expect people to read through a couple thousand graphs....

[Anonymous No.10238473]

>>10238407
>One apple ruins the barrel
Ah, great so I can just ignore everything else you wrote since deniers constantly say stupid shit. Great strategy moron.

If you can't tell me how the science is wrong then shut the fuck up about it already.

[Anonymous No.10238490]

>>10232486
I hope you enjoy Nark Suckerberg harvesting and selling all your personal info including your taste in porn my man.

[Anonymous No.10238491]

>>10232486
no, most people with a good social life use IG and Snapchat not Facebook, its really common with boring normies but everyone who was getting laid extensively in college is just on the gram now because their parents and employers don’t know where to find their accounts on there. If you think facebook presence is the same as having an acct you’re stupid, almost everyone i know deleted the messenger app and hasn’t posted on their profile in a few years.

[Anonymous No.10238499]

>>10230542
Bro AGW is real. Why do people deny it?

[Anonymous No.10238602]

>>10238407
>If you are willing to excuse blatantly false rhetoric because the means justify the ends or "idiots should know better", don't be surprised when people don't trust a over arching narrative.
Nobody here has done that. Stop making shit up and attributing it to other people.

>Who, of anybody, can be trusted on the actual consequences of Global Warming?
Climatologists. It's literally part of their job.

>Well according to this logic that's irrelevant since we can just expect people to read through a couple thousand graphs....
"This logic" is entirely your own construction.

[Anonymous No.10238636]

>>10230650
are those emojis sorted by most common to least, or are they always in that order ?

[Anonymous No.10238731]

>>10230887
>The climate has changed at faster rates unless you're going to claim meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions don't do shit.

Do you want to tell us humans are as bad as a global killer asteroid?

[Anonymous No.10238742]

>>10230658
People have become emotionally invested in the issue. Nobody wants to be the guy responsible for the world ending, so they just double down on it.

[Anonymous No.10238800]

>>10231048
expensive dude
it's cheaper to cut holes in the CO2 blanket

[Anonymous No.10238879]

>>10231071
>Climate models have a fairly good record at forecasting surface temperatures.
Only after you criminal fucks continually "adjust" the raw data. Apparently we plebs are to understand that thermometers are racist or something and can't be trusted to state the actual fucking temperature.

[Anonymous No.10238896]

>>10238879
Here's a cold hard truth. Nobody in the insurance industry is a climate change denier. Nobody in the world miltary is a climate change denier. People who deal with real consequences know it's a real thing and plan accordingly.

[Anonymous No.10238918]

>>10238896
>I just made up some bullshit and spouted it at you.
Faggot, if insurance agencies believed in climate change, they would never sell anyone, anywhere any kind of weather/storm insurance. They do.

We're back to the question of how many times a theory has to be shown to give false predictions before we admit it is simply wrong. IPCC told us arctic would be completely ice free by 2013, then 2016. It isn't. Hanson told us West Side Highway would be under water by now. It isn't. They said Kilamanjaro would be completely melted by now. It isn't.

Have you ever fucking looked at how many times your side has said, "This is our very last chance to stop climate change!" or "A crucial tipping point has been reached!"? Either your side is lying over and over and over, or it's already too late and there's nothing at all to be done.

[Anonymous No.10238923]

>>10238918
>Faggot, if insurance agencies believed in climate change, they would never sell anyone, anywhere any kind of weather/storm insurance. They do.

They still sell, but they just jack the price.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/how-climate-change-is-changing-your-insurance
>In fact, home insurance rates already increased more than 50 percent from 2005 to 2015, the year with the latest available data. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners attributes the increase to natural disasters, inflation, rising real estate values and construction costs.

>IPCC told us arctic would be completely ice free by 2013, then 2016
You're misquoting IPCC. Al Gore said that and I'll be the first to admit that private jet taking, burger eating Al Gore causes more harm than good to the advocacy.

>Hanson told us West Side Highway would be under water by now. It isn't. They said Kilamanjaro would be completely melted by now.
Gotta provide me with some spaghetti sauce on those

[Anonymous No.10238942]

Every thread

[Anonymous No.10238950]

>>10238923
>They still sell, but they just jack the price.
This doesn't sound like an EXCUSE to you? Since the frequency of hurricanes has not changed (despite IPCC saying it would), and since the rate of human death to weather events continues to drop instead of rise (despite IPCC saying it would rise), I'd say all you've shown is that exploitative parasites take advantage of the climate-change meme to get $$$.

[Anonymous No.10238956]

>>10238923
>You're misquoting IPCC.
You lying cocksucker. It's not from Al Gore; it's from your own beloved Hansen. Let me guess; you've disavowed the Father of Climate Science?

[Anonymous No.10238957]

>>10238923
>I-I just refuse to believe (admit) it!!!!!
Read it and weep, bitch.

[Anonymous No.10238958]

>>10238942
>My flowchart was real in my mind.

[Anonymous No.10239139]

>>10238879
Have you ever bothered to look into WHY climatologists adjust data? It's not a big conspiracy, they're actually very public about what they do and why.

>>10238950
>This doesn't sound like an EXCUSE to you?
Insurance companies don't need an excuse to make a profit, they can already set their prices in order to do that.

>Since the frequency of hurricanes has not changed (despite IPCC saying it would)
The IPCC said that the SEVERITY of hurricanes would increase, which it has. The impact on the frequency is still uncertain.

>the rate of human death to weather events
There are an enormous number of different things which would influence that.

>I'd say all you've shown is that exploitative parasites take advantage of the climate-change meme to get $$$.
Exploitive parasites don't need to crate fraudulent scientific research, they can just lie about it. See for example: Heartland.

[Anonymous No.10239144]

deniers fail to understand basic physics and chemistry

[Anonymous No.10239148]

>>10239144
Saying that they fail to understand requires that they're trying to understand and falling short of that. That's not true. They are actively attempting to not understand in order to reinforce their tribal identity.

[Anonymous No.10239152]

>>10238957
This image is wrong: Hansen's prediction was for 40 years, not 20, and was contingent on atmospheric CO2 levels doubling.

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf
>Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question." So give Michaels a pass on this one -- assume that he reads Salon, but he did not check the original source, Reiss' book.

[Anonymous No.10239257]

>>10239144
How do they get to the anthropogenic bar? I cant find any reliable website that compares human caused CO2 with natural production from generic chemical reactions like in forest fires and volcano eruptions.

[Anonymous No.10239505]

>>10239257
https :// sci-hub . tw/https :// pubs . acs . org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ef200914u

[Anonymous No.10240564]

The thing is, we are at the point where we need to take control of our climate, regardless of its natural changes. Otherwise we might perish.

[Anonymous No.10240568]

>>10239257
Just think about it logically.
>Earth is warming when it's supposed to be cooling
>only thing that's new is man-made CO2 (among other man-made things)
The overarchig conclusions of environmental science are easy to arrive at, it's just the nitty gritty that's hard.

[Anonymous No.10240836]

>>10230658
What Science? Falsification? Experimental results? Changing Goalposts? Catostrophic Predictions that never come true? Ignoring anything that contradicts pre-conceived notions? Neck yourself you commie puke.

[Anonymous No.10241102]

>>10240836
>all this denial and projection

[Anonymous No.10241139]

>>10230542
Here, let me explain the public perception of climate change. It doesn't have anything to do with specific fallacies though. Those are just symptoms.

It's easier to convince someone that people are trying to fool them, than it is to convince them that they have already been fooled.

Next time convince the public that industries will try to maintain the status quo, before those industries can convince the public you have an agenda.

[Anonymous No.10241334]

>>10230623
Nukes. Not only will man-made climate change be undeniable now, but probably some of the people on "'normie' social media" might die.

[Anonymous No.10241753]

>>10230552
>crowd pandering politicians
Politicians love climate change because they can raise taxes and still look good.

[Anonymous No.10241815]

>>10241753
>Politicians love climate change because they can raise taxes and still look good.
What planet do you live on?
Most politicians are downright desperate to avoid even acknowledging climate change. Even the ones who do mention it generally onl play lip-service. It's been 25 fucking years since the IPCC started presenting AGW as a serious issue for non-climatologists to worry about, and even the strongest political responses have been piss-weak carbon taxes at a fraction of the true emissions cost.