Climate Change

File: 313 KB, 600x398, climate-change.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Climate Change Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:24:23 2018 No.10258658 [Reply] [Original]

What is the /sci/ consensus on climate change?

Is it still happening or not? Are humans to blame or was it the sun's fault all along?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:26:37 2018 No.10258660 File: 427 KB, 800x419, fixed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258658

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:27:25 2018 No.10258662 >>10258658 https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:28:40 2018 No.10258664 >>10258658 How can you release greenhouse gas into the atmosphere constantly for 100 years, all the while removing the organisms that remove said gas from the atmosphere for 100 years, and not expect the greenhouse effect to become greater?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:33:18 2018 No.10258670 File: 55 KB, 526x701, cc_1912.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258658 Sure OP, it's a fucking scientific mystery

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:34:28 2018 No.10258672

>>10258658
The debate isn't about whether or not it's happening the debate is about how big the problem is. Spoiler alert, it's not. Adapt and overcome, don't revert back to the energetic dark ages just because a couple of polar bears are starting to sweat.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:34:56 2018 No.10258674 File: 2.83 MB, 720x775, CC_1850-2016 gtt.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258658

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:36:03 2018 No.10258677 >>10258672 what is positive feedback

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:36:15 2018 No.10258678 File: 70 KB, 800x555, Snow in Los Angeles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258658 It's been 50 years since it last snowed in LA.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:37:48 2018 No.10258684 >>10258672 If only there were a third option where we use an abundant and unending power-source from the gods and stop burning shit down here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:39:44 2018 No.10258686 >>10258674 >I'm retarded Climate change is a non-problem, and the only proposed solutions (to the non-problem) require an upheaval of the entire global energy economy without any guarantee of success

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:40:55 2018 No.10258689 File: 50 KB, 645x729, 1515194851321.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258672 >don't revert to the energetic dark ages by innovating, just stick with ancient energy technology and ignore the massive harms to the economy it causes

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:41:16 2018 No.10258690 >>10258686 >Climate change is a non-problem retard

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:42:58 2018 No.10258694 >>10258658 Humans are causing everyone else is a white-jew or troll. Just admit that you're evil and you don't give a fuck, it's not that hard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:43:48 2018 No.10258695 >>10258684 The unironic, real path forward is contained nuclear fusion.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:44:22 2018 No.10258697

>>10258686
>Climate change is a non-problem
All science and economics disagrees, but I'm sure you have a lot of data and reasoning to back this up and a random anon is going to BTFO all the experts. You wouldn't be lying now would you?

>the only proposed solutions (to the non-problem) require an upheaval of the entire global energy economy without any guarantee of success
Not mitigating global warming would cause far more of an upheaval in the global economy, so don't pretend you actually care about the economy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:44:51 2018 No.10258699 >>10258689 That's not what I said, retard. Solar is cancer. Wind is useless. Nuclear isn't good enough yet. What's left? Fossil fuels.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:45:37 2018 No.10258700 >>10258699 this

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:46:53 2018 No.10258704 File: 510 KB, 1920x1080, co2geotime.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258677 Why didn't positive feedback happen in the past?

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:47:50 2018 No.10258705
File: 30 KB, 850x561, death rates.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258699
>Solar is cancer
>Wind is useless
>Nuclear isn't good enough
Wow what a scientific analysis. Even if you deny the effects of global warming caused by carbon emissions like the retard you are, fossil fuels are still way too dangerous to use.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:48:06 2018 No.10258706

>>10258697
>economics disagrees
its like you dont even know about all the fucking subsidies that green energy got for the 8 years obama was in office AND the massive coal regulations that he tacked on for good measure.

The US isnt even a problem in terms of pollution or global warming, we're post industrial

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:48:07 2018 No.10258707

>>10258697
>t. college freshman
Climate science is corrupt but even if it wasn't, there is no data that suggests that it is bad for the economy. In fact, the data suggests that fossil fuel production/consumption is the fastest and best way to lift a country out of poverty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:48:52 2018 No.10258708 >>10258704 It did. Try explaining any paleoclimate data without the greenhouse effect and collect your Nobel prize.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:49:08 2018 No.10258710 >>10258705 >ignoring the points about utility to complain about totally different numbers fuck yourself

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:52:26 2018 No.10258712 >>10258707 drug addict logic

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:53:00 2018 No.10258714

>>10258705
It's like you were born with rocks for brains. Solar panel efficiencies are in the single digits. The cutting edge solar panel research can only get up to efficiencies of 17%, under ideal conditions. The physics of solar panel production make them a net energy negative 100% of the time while also creating tons of pollution. Wind turbines also take tons of fossil fuels to produce, with very little energy output. Fossil fuels aren't dangerous, they're prosperous. You're a teenager, a shill, and don't have any authority to speak on any scientific topic. Your new years resolution should be to kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:54:10 2018 No.10258716 >>10258658 Marxist and west-communist propaganda engineered to overthrow the western society in favour of the bolsheviks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:56:00 2018 No.10258723 >>10258708 Greenhouse effect occurs but temperatures are stable over a huge CO2 range. CO2's effect can't be positive feedback.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:56:55 2018 No.10258725

>>10258706
>its like you dont even know about all the fucking subsidies that green energy got for the 8 years obama was in office AND the massive coal regulations that he tacked on for good measure.
OK? How does this respond to the fact that scientists and economists agree that climate change is a huge problem? Oh and you forgot that fossil fuels have been subsidized for over a century before green energy even existed.

>The US isnt even a problem in terms of pollution or global warming, we're post industrial
US has some of the highest emmissions per capita, it's a huge part of the problem and has been since the industrial revolution.

>>10258707
>Climate science is corrupt
According to what? And I'm still waiting for all that data and reasoning that told you climate change is not a problem. You do have it and aren't just lying like a fucking moron, right? And you're not just going to ignore this again like a weasel, right?

>there is no data that suggests that it is bad for the economy.
Why are you lying?

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf

>In fact, the data suggests that fossil fuel production/consumption is the fastest and best way to lift a country out of poverty.
So the US is in poverty?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:58:33 2018 No.10258727 File: 640 KB, 4190x2456, efficiency_chart.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258714 >Solar panel efficiencies are in the single digits. The last millennium called and they want their numbers back.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 23:58:56 2018 No.10258728 >>10258710 Where did I ignore any points about utility? The only one ignoring points here is you, since you ignore that utility is diminished by harm and outright lethality.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:03:43 2019 No.10258733
File: 79 KB, 659x495, Sunspot-Number-and-Temperature-Since-1850.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Why does anyone think it's humans/CO2 and not the sun?

>Scientists are increasingly tuning out the claims that the Earth’s temperatures are predominantly shaped by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or that future climate is destined to be alarmingly warm primarily due to the rise in trace atmospheric gases. Instead, solar scientists are continuing to advance our understanding of solar activity and its effect on the Earth system, and their results are progressively suggestive of robust correlations between solar variability and climate changes.

>For example, in 2016 alone, there were at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting a significant solar influence on climate. Among them there were 18 papers that directly connected centennial-scale periods of low solar activity (the Little Ice Age) with cooler climates, and periods of high solar activity (the Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period [20th Century]) with high solar activity levels. Another 10 papers warned of an impending solar minimum and concomitant cooling period in the coming decades.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/12/scientists-find-climates-cause-of-causes-highest-solar-activity-in-4000-years-just-ended-cooling-begins-in-2025/

Are people
a) unaware that the sun is now getting blamed,
b) aware that the sun is getting blamed but don't believe it's true,
c) aware that the sun is to blame but just hate CO2?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:04:15 2019 No.10258735 >>10258727 Misleading graph

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:05:15 2019 No.10258737 >>10258735 unhelpful comment What's misleading about it?

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:05:42 2019 No.10258739

>>10258714
>Solar panel efficiencies are in the single digits.
Why are you lying?

>The cutting edge solar panel research can only get up to efficiencies of 17%, under ideal conditions.
Why does efficiency even matter for renewables? The sun is free. Efficiency matters for energy production where the fuel cost is a significant cost of production. Efficiency in using expensive fuel results in a lower cost. With renewables, the fuel is free so efficiency doesn't effect price as much.

>The physics of solar panel production make them a net energy negative 100% of the time while also creating tons of pollution.
You're lying again and being a hypocrite since you completely ignore the effect of fossil fuel pollution yet want to count the relatively negligible effects of renewables. You know if you do an apples to apples comparison you'll fail hard.

>Fossil fuels aren't dangerous, they're prosperous.
They are the most dangerous form of energy production, you have no answer.

>You're a teenager, a shill, and don't have any authority to speak on any scientific topic.
This delusional projection is staggering.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:05:44 2019 No.10258740 >>10258735 Where's your graph looser?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:07:05 2019 No.10258741 >>10258723 >Greenhouse effect occurs but temperatures are stable over a huge CO2 range. CO2's effect can't be positive feedback. How does that follow? And where is your model without the positive feedback?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:08:08 2019 No.10258744 >>10258739 >This delusional projection is staggering. What's your degree in, faggot?

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:12:33 2019 No.10258752

>>10258725
>OK? How does this respond to the fact that scientists and economists agree that climate change is a huge problem
it wasnt meant to respond to that you shit stain. I fucking replied to the economic point, why in the name of fuck would you bring up something im not even talking about.

>Oh and you forgot that fossil fuels have been subsidized for over a century before green energy even existed.
wow, who woulda thought to compare fossil fuels during the industrial revolution and 2 world wars to green energy leeches that dont turn a profit so they needed the subsidies to survive

>US has some of the highest emmissions per capita
yeah, and china is twice as bad as us, and thats just in co2 emissions, not even talking about other pollution. I fail to see why we have any reason to change our ways until China does, if we do we're still letting the worst problem continue AND are cutting our legs of economically speaking.

>>In fact, the data suggests that fossil fuel production/consumption is the fastest and best way to lift a country out of poverty.
>So the US is in poverty?
literally just not understanding basic logic at all

>>10258728
>Where did I ignore any points about utility?
you ignored it by replying with death tolls, and not fucking mentioning utility in your post at all
its that obvious, why even ask.

>>10258737
the highest efficiency on the market is 22%, thats from november of 2018, happy new year you faggots
so i can only assume none of those are marketable by virtue of being impractical to produce.

>>10258739
>Why does efficiency even matter for renewables?
what is heat and waste energy, and can i also ask about what byproducts making solar panels creates.
not to mention taking up ungodly amounts of space with panels is retarded when we could go with much smaller and better nuclear instead

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:15:42 2019 No.10258756 >>10258741 Positive feedbacks are unstable. Data shows temperatures are stable despite large CO2 changes. Model: dT/dCO2=0 simple but consistent with data

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:15:43 2019 No.10258757
File: 7 KB, 640x480, temp v sunspot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258733
>integral
Why would you integrate sunspot number? This will basically take any data and turn it into a positive trend throughout.

Here's the data represented honestly. Notice how solar activity has been decreasing for 50 years while temperature has been increasing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:16:04 2019 No.10258759 >>10258752 The only other non-brainlet in the thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:17:59 2019 No.10258762 >>10258759 Samefag.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:19:08 2019 No.10258763 >>10258762 Believe whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that you're brainwashed and retarded

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:19:39 2019 No.10258766

>>10258752
>the highest efficiency on the market is 22%, thats from november of 2018, happy new year you faggots
>so i can only assume none of those are marketable by virtue of being impractical to produce.
So what you are saying is that single didgits and theoretical maximums was a blatant fucking lie.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:19:51 2019 No.10258767 >>10258762 no that wasnt actually me, i understand the skepticism tho

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:21:11 2019 No.10258772 >>10258766 i wasnt the one who said single digit, that was some other anon i just saw the post during my big reply and threw it in since the percentages were way too fucking high from what id seen

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:21:34 2019 No.10258773 >>10258763 >>10258767 >two trolls in the thread I recommend bringing actual cited facts to the table because all your words seem to be covered in shit.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:25:15 2019 No.10258778
File: 204 KB, 396x512, 1499177310942.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258773
>>10258773
why do i need to cite the fact that obama subsidized the hell out of green energy and shat on coal, everyone born before 2005 was aware of it when it was happening

and none of what i replied to had sources either you double nigger, fuck off

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:26:33 2019 No.10258780 >>10258704 >Why didn't positive feedback happen in the past? >>10258756 >Positive feedbacks are unstable. Oh god, not you again. Go and read what "feedback" means before shitting up another one of these threads.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:27:01 2019 No.10258783 >>10258778 >NREL isn't a source. Better than your asshole my friend.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:27:20 2019 No.10258785 >>10258744 Biology and math, you fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:27:27 2019 No.10258786 >>10258773 You don't have an education beyond a high school diploma, everything you say is random noise.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:29:30 2019 No.10258790 >>10258785 >biology >math Useless and irrelevant knowledge. Go back to voting for unviable energy sources that are worse for the planet than fossil fuels.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:29:53 2019 No.10258791 >>10258786 Nice projection, you should tell my boss I'm not qualified to be an engineer.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:31:18 2019 No.10258793

>>10258658
Microplastics. Plastic pollution. Oceanic acidification. Deforestation. Extinction. Coral bleaching. Decrease in algal bloom. Other volatiles released by burning hydrocarbons. Methane traps melting. Glaciers receeding faster than they should. Increasing sea level. Increasing natural disasters. Increasing severity of naturally disasters. Oil slicks. Mum, should I go on? Global warming is a real thing, you melt the ice caps, you lower albedo and the Earth heats. But! That certainly isn't our only concern, see above.
Stop focusing on partisan and identity issues, start worrying about your descendants.
Traditionalism won't save you when we have an oceanic anoxic event, and lose our major oxygen source, and food.
Stop being an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:36:59 2019 No.10258813 >>10258793 >Increasing natural disasters. Increasing severity of naturally disasters Why are you lying? http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:37:50 2019 No.10258819
File: 33 KB, 450x300, Murrika.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258658
>What is the /sci/ consensus on climate change?
It's still happening and it'd be ignorant to think humanity has no role in it. Also, as more data arises, models will be tweaked and improved to better fit reality and to create a more acurate forecast.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:39:39 2019 No.10258824

>>10258752
>it wasnt meant to respond to that you shit stain. I fucking replied to the economic point, why in the name of fuck would you bring up something im not even talking about.
Are you really this stupid or just pretending to be retarded? Scientists AND ECONOMISTS agree that climate change is a huge problem.

>wow, who woulda thought to compare fossil fuels during the industrial revolution and 2 world wars to green energy leeches that dont turn a profit so they needed the subsidies to survive
Ah so subsidies are OK for fossil fuels because they turn a profit? Why do they need subsidies if they turn a profit? Or is this a complete non sequitur? It really shouldn't be this hard to fucking explain your argument coherently.

>yeah, and china is twice as bad as us
LOL no, they have less than half the per capita emmissions of the US.

>I fail to see why we have any reason to change our ways until China does
Because the average American emits more than double what the average Chinese does. Why should the Chinese change their ways when the Americans are by comparison gluttons? Not to mention that a huge portion of China's emissions are being done to feed American consumption, not Chinese consumption AND the US has been doing this for a hundred years while China hasn't.

>literally just not understanding basic logic at all
Literally not understanding that saying fossil fuels are good for poor countries doesn't justify their use for rich countries. Fucking moron.

>you ignored it by replying with death tolls, and not fucking mentioning utility in your post at all
Death tolls and harm to the economy are utility, you fucking moron. You're confusing only talking about the benefits of fossil fuels (which is what you do, moron) with talking about its utility.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:41:32 2019 No.10258827 File: 317 KB, 734x599, You brought friends.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258813 Your source.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:42:51 2019 No.10258829 >>10258813 >only focusing on that Partisans get the bullet too, regardless of your leaning. You're a memetic disease. Enjoy eating microplastics, fucking your endocrine system and getting terminal cancer early.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:44:10 2019 No.10258835

>>10258752
>what is heat and waste energy
Yes, that's efficiency you moron, can you answer my question? Heat and waste energy are a significant problem if you need to maximize your efficiency because efficiency effects cost. Efficiency significantly effects cost of fossil fuel energy production because the fuel is expensive. Efficiency does not significantly affect renewable energy production because the fuel is free.

>can i also ask about what byproducts making solar panels creates.
Sure, when you tell me the byproducts produced by fossil fuel production and use and their effects. Don't skip any.

>not to mention taking up ungodly amounts of space with panels is retarded when we could go with much smaller and better nuclear instead
So nuclear is better than solar? How does this vindicate fossil fuels?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:44:20 2019 No.10258836 >>10258827 Oh look, a major increase since we started knocking polluting up a notch!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:46:03 2019 No.10258842 File: 319 KB, 734x599, Why would you shoot a man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258813 Your source(2).

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:46:21 2019 No.10258843

>>10258757
>>10258757
>Why would you integrate sunspot number?
Because you're looking at the cumulative effects relative to long term average solar activity?

>take any data and turn it into a positive trend throughout.
There is an offset done prior to integration, so very low activity would give a negative trend.
It's something like dT/dS=S-c

>data represented honestly. Notice how solar activity has been decreasing for 50 years
Represented differently. Solar activity may be decreasing for 50 years but it's still been at historically high levels for most of 20th century. Reasonable to still expect warming.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:47:41 2019 No.10258849 File: 331 KB, 734x599, Before throwing him out a plane.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258813 Your source(3).

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:48:07 2019 No.10258851 >>10258842 Based anon, who doesn't want to live on a desert dustball.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:49:01 2019 No.10258857

>>10258756
>Positive feedbacks are unstable.
LOL. Ever heard of a logarithmic increase?

>Model:
>dT/dCO2=0
>simple but consistent with data
Not consistent with all data, pic related. Try creating an actual model that takes into account more than one variable instead of arguing against a pathetic strawman. Ah but then you might have to start doing actual climate science which as we all know is corrupt (for some unnamed reason).

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:49:39 2019 No.10258859 >>10258780 How about you just explain how positive feedbacks are stable?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:53:10 2019 No.10258871 >>10258793 Microplastics don't have anything to do with global warming. I'm trying to find out how much humans do. Seems pretty clear that it's mostly the sun doing it.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:53:49 2019 No.10258873

>>10258824
>Are you really this stupid or just pretending to be retarded? Scientists AND ECONOMISTS agree that climate change is a huge problem
hey dip shit, are the economists saying its a problem for ECONOMIC REASONS or ARE THEY SAYING ITS A PROBLEM FOR OTHER REASONS

>Ah so subsidies are OK for fossil fuels because they turn a profit?
thats only half of what i said, fossil fuels got subsidies because energy is really fucking important and we had world wars to fight
there was literally no option to not subsidize fossil fuels.
my complaint was you were acting like subsidizing green energy is comparable to that

>LOL no, they have less than half the per capita emissions of the US.
the atmosphere dsoesnt give a shit about per captia you fuck wit, it cares about total

>Because the average American emits more than double what the average Chinese does.
cool, theres also WAY more chinese than there are americans. theyre still a bigger problem.

>Literally not understanding that saying fossil fuels are good for poor countries doesn't justify their use for rich countries. Fucking moron.
>a country cant justify fossil fuel use if its rich
youre the most tunnel viewed retard ive ever had the displeasure of talking to

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:55:40 2019 No.10258878 >>10258836 You don't understand how to interpret data.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:57:02 2019 No.10258881 >>10258878 Such logic Much burn WOW.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:57:40 2019 No.10258882 >>10258878 Look at the graph, you functional retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:58:52 2019 No.10258886 >>10258871 They're a byproduct of our hydrocarbon obsession, and lack of environmental awareness. So yes, they are.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:58:58 2019 No.10258887

>>10258843
>Because you're looking at the cumulative effects relative to long term average solar activity?
The cumulative effect? So all energy from the Sun accumulates on Earth and never leaves? For fuck's sake just stop posting on the science board already.

>There is an offset done prior to integration, so very low activity would give a negative trend.
This makes even less physical sense. So low solar activity takes energy out of the climate but high solar activity adds to it? Fundamentally, temperature is the balance between energy entering the system and energy exiting the system. Since energy is constantly entering the system from the Sun and constantly being radiated out, the integral is double-counting the energy entering the system over and over again. This is physically meaningless.

>Represented differently. Solar activity may be decreasing for 50 years but it's still been at historically high levels for most of 20th century. Reasonable to still expect warming.
Only reasonable if you have no knowledge of physics and how infrared radiation works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 00:59:56 2019 No.10258891 >>10258882 From 1 to 3 per year over a 170 year period. For total hurricanes it went from 6 to 7. Hardly a "major increase"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:00:14 2019 No.10258892 File: 6 KB, 640x480, offset_-325.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258756 Pic related.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:03:08 2019 No.10258897

>>10258857
>pic related
no pic tho

> logarithmic increase?
yeah but if it takes orders of magnitude changes of CO2 to affect things then 90% of the possible warming has already happened, the world'll run out of CO2 before it can change anything much more.

>more than one variable
So what are the other variables?
We know that in the paleozoic CO2 changed from 1-50x current levels but temperatures were always stable and bounded within 12-22 degrees.
Now 'scientists'are saying another 10% CO2 will use positive feedback to turn the earth into a fireball. Why does anyone think that's not obviously bullshit?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:06:56 2019 No.10258907 >>10258886 I'm talking about the cause of it though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:07:01 2019 No.10258908 >>10258891 >He doesn't know what a season is. Look at the spikes during high risk seasons in the 1800s, then at the same spikes in high risk seasons for the 1900s and 2000s.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:07:18 2019 No.10258909

>>10258672
Real spoiler alert: rather or not global warming is a big problem depends on where you live. If you live in a area where snow and ice need build up and supply water during spring/summer, then things getting hotter may fuck you big time.

stop with the polar bear memes

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:08:03 2019 No.10258911 >>10258907 It's all connected, intersectional, if you like!

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:09:35 2019 No.10258914

>>10258909
>If you live in a area where snow and ice need build up and supply water during spring/summer
dont

>then things getting hotter may fuck you big time.
>may
fucking weasel word bullshit

but honestly, half the people that support getting rid of fossil fuels are doing it because of polar bears, it is fairly prevalent

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:11:27 2019 No.10258917
File: 42 KB, 562x437, haha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258873
>hey dip shit, are the economists saying its a problem for ECONOMIC REASONS or ARE THEY SAYING ITS A PROBLEM FOR OTHER REASONS
So you are trolling right? You think economists are winning Nobel prizes in economics for not talking about economics?

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

>thats only half of what i said, fossil fuels got subsidies because energy is really fucking important and we had world wars to fight
You mean "NON-ECONOMIC" reasons? Jesus fucking Christ, how much nerve do you have to have to be this hypocritical? Are you taking hallucinogenic drugs or are you really this delusional? Do you have any self-awareness at all?

>my complaint was you were acting like subsidizing green energy is comparable to that
So subsidies to create energy and fight wars = GOOD
But subsidies to create energy, save lives, and mitigate massive damage to the economy = BAD

Got it!

>the atmosphere dsoesnt give a shit about per captia you fuck wit, it cares about total
The atmosphere doesn't give a shit about countries either you fucking moron. Is the atmosphere fixing the problem or are people fixing the problem? THINK before typing.

>cool, theres also WAY more chinese than there are americans. theyre still a bigger problem.
This is like saying that China has a bigger obesity problem than America because they have more people and therefore more fat. Yes, the Chinese have to go on a diet while Americans can still stuff their faces until they have as many people as the Chinese.

>a country cant justify fossil fuel use if its rich
So do it already you fucking moron. It's somehow my fault that your argument to justify fossil fuel use fails to be applicable to the problem? When you look up Dunning Kruger in the dictionary there's a picture of you, check it out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:11:51 2019 No.10258918 >>10258914 >half the people that support getting rid of fossil fuels are doing it because of polar bears >half the people are china and they are doing it because it is good for business

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:12:27 2019 No.10258919 >>10258914 I think you'll find most people are actually doing it because they enjoy having oxygenic organisms like algae, coral and plants. Oh, and also breathing! That's pretty important.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:12:28 2019 No.10258920 >>10258843 >Because you're looking at the cumulative effects relative to long term average solar activity? That makes no sense at all. The impact of sunspots is going to be proportional to sunspot activity, not its integral.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:13:42 2019 No.10258921 File: 171 KB, 443x485, 1491308175810.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258914 >If you live in a area where snow and ice need build up and supply water during spring/summer >dont Having fun acting like a retard?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:14:31 2019 No.10258922 >>10258917 >When you look up Dunning Kruger in the dictionary there's a picture of you, check it out. >an actual infant on 4channel

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:15:59 2019 No.10258924

>>10258897
>no pic tho
Look up.

>yeah but if it takes orders of magnitude changes of CO2 to affect things then 90% of the possible warming has already happened
Where are you pulling these numbers out of? Emissions have been exponentially increasing. The emissions scenario can create anything from an exponential increase in temperatures, linear increase, or logarithmic increase.

>the world'll run out of CO2 before it can change anything much more.
What is "much more?" Use scientific facts in your answer, not numbers pulled out of your ass. Here's a hint: this has already been done for you by climatologists, and yes it's quite bad.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:20:04 2019 No.10258936
File: 2.12 MB, 2148x1829, SPM-05.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258897
>So what are the other variables?
Pic related. Now tell me why you are trying to tell me about climate science when you don't know the most basic of aspects of it? Do you always make shit up about scientific topics or just climatology?

>We know that in the paleozoic CO2 changed from 1-50x current levels but temperatures were always stable and bounded within 12-22 degrees.
Who the fuck is "we"? Did you try asking "we" how the Paleozoic was different from now? Or are you just a completely useless fuckwit who will do everything you can to ignore the answer being handed to you on a silver platter by scientists?

>Now 'scientists'are saying another 10% CO2 will use positive feedback to turn the earth into a fireball.
Which scientists?

>Why does anyone think that's not obviously bullshit?
It obviously is bullshit that "scientists" have said this, you pathological liar.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:21:14 2019 No.10258940 >>10258922 >I lost the argument before it even began so all I can do is feebly insult my opponent, which only reinforces what an intellectually vacuous fucking loser I am

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:21:16 2019 No.10258941 >>10258897 If there was enough greenhouses gases in the past to make Earth barren, which there was. And Earth still holds most of those gases, which it does. What happens if you release them all again? Pretty basic concepts.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:23:14 2019 No.10258945

>>10258887
>all energy from the Sun accumulates on Earth and never leaves?
Didn't say that did I?
Energy from the sun accumulates on Earth and warms earth up until it's hot enough to radiate it away as fast as it's coming in.

>low solar activity takes energy out of the climate but high solar activity adds to it?
What doesn't make sense about that? 'Takes energy out' = 'puts less in', if it's putting in less than what Earth's radiating there'll be cooling, or more and heating.

>integral is double-counting the energy
Convince me? It's an integral of sunspot number, not energy. Relative to a long term average (the offset) sunspot number will be lower or higher, corresponding to lower or higher solar activity. If earth cools during lower than average activity and warms during higher then the temperature trend will go in the same direction as the integral of the offset sunspot number. Right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:23:21 2019 No.10258946 >>10258940 Why are you quoting yourself?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:24:50 2019 No.10258950 >>10258920 >impact of sunspots is going to be proportional to sunspot activity, not its integral Why?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:27:00 2019 No.10258956 >>10258897 Except the Paleozoic did have huge temperature variation that only further proves the greenhouse effect. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06085

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:30:48 2019 No.10258961 >>10258950 Because sunspots are connected to solar output, which is proportional to solar radiation received on Earth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:31:27 2019 No.10258963 >>10258704 As soon as a person uses this graph you can write them off as an idiot or a troll.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:44:36 2019 No.10258984
File: 5 KB, 640x480, loglinear.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258892
I think that proves my point. dT is not well predicted by dCO2 for that data. dCO2 is about constant, dT is jumping around all over the place.

>Emissions have been exponentially increasing
It's technically exponential but pretty close to linear, pic related, CO2 = k+Aexp(ct) where c is close to 0. A logarithmic response to an almost linear function is going to be almost logarithmic.

>Use scientific facts in your answer
no u
"climatologists say it's bad" is a sociological fact not a scientific one.

>What is "much more?
Orders of magnitude more that what's already in the air per degree of warming, a logarithmic response.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:50:52 2019 No.10258993

>>10258984
>I think that proves my point. dT is not well predicted by dCO2 for that data. dCO2 is about constant, dT is jumping around all over the place.
That's literally the "How is global warming real if it's snowing outside?" argument. CO2 isn't the cause of high-frequency noise on the temperature records, but the doesn't exclude it from being the cause of the longer-term rise in temperatures.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 01:52:15 2019 No.10258995
File: 7 KB, 640x480, normalise.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258945
>Didn't say that did I?
That's the integral of solar activity causing temperature means, moron.

>Energy from the sun accumulates on Earth and warms earth up until it's hot enough to radiate it away as fast as it's coming in.
It already is hot enough, the Earth was slowly cooling before global warming.

Also, total solar irradiance can be directly measured and is far too small to account for the radiation imbalance. The only way to explain the imbalance is via the greenhouse effect.

>'Takes energy out' = 'puts less in', if it's putting in less than what Earth's radiating there'll be cooling, or more and heating.
You just said that it needs to heat up until it's hot enough to radiate energy away fast enough to cool. If it's receiving less energy then it's radiating less too! And you still haven't explained where the value for the offset came from. It's just an arbitrary number to fit the integral to the temperature, not a physical value.

>Convince me? It's an integral of sunspot number, not energy.
That is what an integral is, by definition.

>If earth cools during lower than average activity and warms during higher then the temperature trend will go in the same direction as the integral of the offset sunspot number. Right?
If you look at pic related you can see the temperature was stable when solar activity was below average. Then it warmed when temperature was below average then above average and back to below average. The correlation is merely an artifact of the arbitrary offset. It's pure data-fitting.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:03:49 2019 No.10259015
File: 14 KB, 550x367, change in forcing.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258984
>I think that proves my point. dT is not well predicted by dCO2 for that data.
It clearly is over the long term.

>dCO2 is about constant, dT is jumping around all over the place.
The jumping around is just short term circulation effects. You're missing the forest for the trees. Look at the trend.

>It's technically exponential but pretty close to linear, pic related, CO2 = k+Aexp(ct) where c is close to 0.
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas emission. Look at the total greenhouse forcing.

>"climatologists say it's bad" is a sociological fact not a scientific one.
I already posted a link to the IPCC's report on the impacts, which shows the scientific research. Your attempt to ignore the mountain of evidence does not make it go away.

>Orders of magnitude more that what's already in the air per degree of warming, a logarithmic response.
Where is that ratio coming from? The response is already logarithmic in all climate models. You're just ignoring that emissions are not linear.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:05:47 2019 No.10259019
File: 108 KB, 1440x1080, cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258936
>Pic related. Now tell me why you are trying to tell me about climate science when you don't know the most basic of aspects of it?
Your pic related tells me the only 'natural' factor included in the model was solar irradiance. All the other factors are anthropogenic. If that's what climate models are like they're practically guaranteed to blame all of climate change on anthropogenic factors. If there's a natural factor not included in the model that is contributing then their model will overestimate the amount of warming CO2 (or whatever best correlates with temp) causes. Right?
Observations show the amount of warming CO2 causes was consistently overestimated. Pic related.

>Did you try asking "we" how the Paleozoic was different from now?
Literally what I'm doing in this thread. Literally said "So what are the other variables?" You did give me a pick but that's for modern warming. You didn't explain how the Paleozoic was different. Maybe it just didn't have so many irate hyperventilating climate alarmist blowhards puffing out hot air everywhere?

>Which scientists?
I dunno, climate scientists? Whichever ones have been telling everyone that we need to reduce carbon emissions to 1980 levels within 5 years to save the planet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:09:45 2019 No.10259025 >>10258941 >enough greenhouses gases in the past to make Earth barren When was it barren?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:10:45 2019 No.10259027 >>10259019 >I dunno oh ok

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:13:48 2019 No.10259030 >>10259025 >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth You're welcome.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:16:30 2019 No.10259036
File: 1.30 MB, 2633x1350, fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2018-panela.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10259019
>Your pic related tells me the only 'natural' factor included in the model was solar irradiance.
Not factor, forcing. Please tell me what significant natural forcings there are that the model missed.

>If that's what climate models are like they're practically guaranteed to blame all of climate change on anthropogenic factors.
According to you solar activity is causing everything, so clearly not. Which one is it?

>Observations show the amount of warming CO2 causes was consistently overestimated.
Your graph uses outdated satellite datasets that were found to have huge cooling biases in 2017. It also is about tropical mid-troposphere temperature and not surface temperature. Oh and the data is misaligned with the models. Pretty sneaky.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:16:31 2019 No.10259037 >>10258961 >sunspots are connected to solar output, which is proportional to solar radiation That doesn't sound right. Sunspot numbers vary a lot, from 0-100s. Solar radiation doesn't vary anything like that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:17:45 2019 No.10259040 >>10259019 satellite readings RSS was bullshit before 2016 into the trash it goes

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:19:55 2019 No.10259042 >>10258956 Yeah I'm sure the greenhouse effect exists, that's all that paper says - temperatures aren't independent of CO2. What doesn't exist is a runaway positive feedback effect with CO2 and temperature.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:20:25 2019 No.10259043

>>10259040
https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s

Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment
Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz
Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California
(Manuscript received 23 October 2015, in final form 22 February 2016)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:22:32 2019 No.10259045 >>10258963 uh huh and when people call you an idiot or a troll instead of explaining what's wrong with the graph that's how you know they're a hack

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:23:10 2019 No.10259046

>>10259019
>Literally what I'm doing in this thread. Literally said "So what are the other variables?" You did give me a pick but that's for modern warming. You didn't explain how the Paleozoic was different.
No, you started with the strawman that CO2 is the only thing which affects the temperature. Now you are demanding that I correct this strawman. You are the one who has to accurately represent climatologists if you are going to argue against them. If you don't even know what you're arguing against then leave this thread, pick up a textbook, and learn.

>I dunno
Yes, exactly. So stop lying.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:23:38 2019 No.10259047

>>10259019
>Your pic related tells me the only 'natural' factor included in the model was solar irradiance.
IIRC, changes in solar irradiance are by far the dominant change in natural forcings on human timescales. It's a bit hard for me to collect info right now, since NOAA.org is down.

>If that's what climate models are like they're practically guaranteed to blame all of climate change on anthropogenic factors.
No, why would you assume that? That would only be true if natural forcings were net-positive.

>Observations show the amount of warming CO2 causes was consistently overestimated. Pic related.
That picture is complete bullshit, and it gets pulled apart in probably every second climate thread on /sci/. Here's Gavin's response, though there's also a GIF which gets posted a lot:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:26:59 2019 No.10259051

>>10258993
>CO2 isn't the cause of high-frequency noise on the temperature records, but the doesn't exclude it from being the cause of the longer-term rise in temperatures.
Right so it's involved, but so are other things. Maybe the giant flaming ball in the sky is also involved with temperatures somehow?
People here seem not to be up with the reading on whether it is and how it might be.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:27:18 2019 No.10259053

>>10259042
>What doesn't exist is a runaway positive feedback effect with CO2 and temperature.
The feedback is the greenhouse effect, moron. Warming increases water vapor and CO2 outgassing from the oceans which then causes more warming via the greenhouse effect. Not only is this an undeniable physical fact, it's completely necessary to explain anything about our climate over anything greater than the decadal scale. This is indeed what the paper is about, try reading it this time.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:29:33 2019 No.10259056

>>10259051
>Maybe the giant flaming ball in the sky is also involved with temperatures somehow?
It is, it's just not that significant right now: >>10258936. Pay attention. Everything you've said in this thread is either wrong or trivially in agreement with climatologists.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:37:38 2019 No.10259063

>>10259051
>Right so it's involved, but so are other things.
And they have different strengths on different timescales. The impact of the Sun is tiny compared to the impact of CO2 on the timescale we're concerned about.

>People here seem not to be up with the reading on whether it is and how it might be.
No, you're just ignoring them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:52:19 2019 No.10259081 >that last panel Saved

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:53:42 2019 No.10259083 >>10259051 >giant flaming ball in the sky uhh, sorry to break it to you, it isn't new... and on top of that shocker, it has been in a lull for 50y

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:54:09 2019 No.10259084
File: 49 KB, 255x139, 85d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258658
/sci/ has this same thread every single day. I'm not here to debate, I'm here to call you a retarded faggot for thinking climate change is a hoax and I'm also here to call anyone who came to debate you a retarded faggot for thinking they'll be able to convince your smooth brain otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 02:54:44 2019 No.10259085 File: 65 KB, 759x742, ColdChargerCircuit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258695 "nuclear fusion" is just a red herring for 'etheric' resonance energy technology.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 03:01:04 2019 No.10259093
File: 123 KB, 726x426, Modern-Grand-Maximum-To-2100-Herrera-2015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10258995
>integral of solar activity causing temperature means, moron.
Except you're the moron for thinking integrating sunspot number gives you an energy, moron.

>total solar irradiance can be directly measured and is far too small to account for the radiation imbalance
I know, and this is what people always tell me when I bring this up. Solar irradiance and sunspot number aren't the same thing though,, so it's technically true but irrelevant. The current solar grand maximum refers to solar magnetic activity and solar wind. We know this affects earth eg by auroras, we're trying to work out how much it affects temperatures and weather. There's plenty of evidence that it does substantially, like pic related.

>only way to explain the imbalance is via the greenhouse effect
No it's not.

>If it's receiving less energy then it's radiating less too!
Only assuming constant temperature.

>where the value for the offset came from. It's just an arbitrary number to fit the integral to the temperature
Long term average solar activity corresponding to stable earth temperatures, so that higher than average activity would be positive relative to it and correspond to positive temperature differential, or lower is negative with a negative differential. I did explain this already.

>what an integral is, by definition
??
Integrals are not energy by definition. Some of them might be but it depends on what you integrate. This one definitely isn't.

> pic related you can see the temperature was stable when solar activity was below average
In your pic related solar activity's normalised (average 0) over 1850-present, but that is a period of unusually high activity for the sun, not its long term average.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 03:02:31 2019 No.10259095 >>10259015 >clearly is over the long term Look at the trend. Clearly it isn't over longer terms though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 03:05:03 2019 No.10259101 >>10259030 No really when were you talking about?

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 03:48:35 2019 No.10259140

>>10259093
>Except you're the moron for thinking integrating sunspot number gives you an energy, moron.
What the fuck do you think temperature is? Jesus, you're dumb.

>I know, and this is what people always tell me when I bring this up. Solar irradiance and sunspot number aren't the same thing though,, so it's technically true but irrelevant.
Sunspot number is just a proxy for solar irradiance, it has no significance beyond that.

>The current solar grand maximum refers to solar magnetic activity and solar wind. We know this affects earth eg by auroras, we're trying to work out how much it affects temperatures and weather. There's plenty of evidence that it does substantially, like pic related.
Your pic shows the relation between TSI and climate, not solar magnetic activity. That relationship breaks after the modern maximum. Also, according to the hypothesis, decreased solar magnetic activity means more cosmic rays which seed clouds and cause cooling. Yet we see rapid warming. This means that the effect is at least greatly overtaken by warming from CO2, if not negligible.

>No it's not.
It is. Everything else says we should be cooling right now. Present your model or fuck off.

>Only assuming constant temperature.
Not assumed, it's the Planck Response.

>Long term average solar activity corresponding to stable earth temperatures
Over what term? Show me your math.

>Integrals are not energy by definition.
The integral is simply adding each sample to the cumulative total of the one before. What is accumulating if not energy?

>In your pic related solar activity's normalised (average 0) over 1850-present, but that is a period of unusually high activity for the sun, not its long term average.
Why is its "long term average" which you still haven't defined relevant for this short term?

This is all data-fitting with no physics. TSI has been shown to be way too weak to account for warming. Magnetic activity is going in the wrong direction. Show the model.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 03:49:52 2019 No.10259144 >>10259095 And? Again with this idiotic strawman that CO2 must be the only thing that affects the climate to say that it dominates the climate at this time over this scale. Enough already.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 03:50:01 2019 No.10259145

>>10259036
>what significant natural forcings there are that the model missed.
How about natural cloud cover changes, effects from volcanism? Are they included in 'changes in solar irradiance' or 'anthropogenic', or not included?

>solar activity is causing everything, so clearly not
Solar irradiance=/=activity. You can account for irradiance while missing other activity it does which is at a 10,000+ year high at the moment.

>datasets that were found to have huge cooling biases in 2017
So we all agree these guys are incompetent, we just don't know how incompetent they are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 03:53:03 2019 No.10259150 >>10259046 No I started out asking whether it was anthropogenic or the sun. Saying it wasn't CO2 was about CO2 not having positive feedback.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:01:46 2019 No.10259160

>>10259047
>why would you assume that?
Because the models are being used to work out what the forcings are. If it's not in your model it's not going to get any forcing blamed on it, the effect will just appear in residuals. But if something else is in your model that correlates with temperature then using the model will just say that's what forced it.

>2016
Someone else says the data was declared wrong in 2017 anyway so all realclimate's adjustments were for nothing.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:08:35 2019 No.10259172

>>10259160
>data was declared wrong
Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment
Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz
Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California
(Manuscript received 23 October 2015, in final form 22 February 2016)

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:10:10 2019 No.10259174

>>10259053
>feedback is the greenhouse effect, moron
No moron the greenhouse effect is just the atmosphere trapping heat. A positive feedback effect is where changing something induces more change. Moron.
>Warming increases water vapor and CO2 outgassing from the oceans which then causes more warming
If more CO2 causes more warming which causes more CO2 release and more warming, why wasn't there a runaway greenhouse effect in the past? The magnitude of this effect must be tiny.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:11:18 2019 No.10259176 >>10259056 Wrong how though? Maybe people should start saying how and being right instead of calling me a moron.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:11:29 2019 No.10259177

>>10259145
>How about natural cloud cover changes
Not a forcing.

>effects from volcanism
Too episodic, negligible over this timescale.

>Solar irradiance=/=activity.
Activity is a proxy for irradiance.

>You can account for irradiance while missing other activity it does which is at a 10,000+ year high at the moment.
The other activity you mentioned is solar magnetic, which is going in the wrong direction and negligible anyway. But please explain if you disagree. Otherwise, give it up. Simply repeating the same debunked claims and being purposefully vague is not helping you.

>So we all agree these guys are incompetent, we just don't know how incompetent they are.
Which guys? The satellite dataset run by climate deniers who never correct their data until the actual scientists tell them there's a mistake? Or the guys that fixed the problem?

>>10259150
>No I started out asking whether it was anthropogenic or the sun.
The conversation started here >>10258704.

>Saying it wasn't CO2 was about CO2 not having positive feedback.
You still don't seem to understand that the positive feedback occurs regardless of whether warming is caused by increased CO2 or by the Sun. So the question of whether the feedback exists really has nothing to do with whether global warming is anthropogenic or natural.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:18:02 2019 No.10259183

>>10259174
>No moron the greenhouse effect is just the atmosphere trapping heat. A positive feedback effect is where changing something induces more change.
I already explained this. Maybe I need to dumb it down even further for you. More heat -> more greenhouse gases -> more heat.

>If more CO2 causes more warming which causes more CO2 release and more warming, why wasn't there a runaway greenhouse effect in the past?
Because warming from the greenhouse effect is a logarithmic increase. Why do you ask questions that have already been answered?

>The magnitude of this effect must be tiny.
Whether you arbitrarily consider global warming "tiny" is of no comfort. Its effects are its effects and they are quite harmful.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:20:23 2019 No.10259185

>>10259176
>Wrong how though?
I have explained how in every post. Maybe you should find a point that hasn't been debunked instead of just repeating debunked claims and assuming that you're right. I could find many points you have failed to respond to, because only one of us knows what they're talking about.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:32:14 2019 No.10259203

First time on 4chan. Never really use the internet to talk. But does no one look at the graph of the history of temperature on earth? That shit is so cyclic it's insane, and if we compare our little rise by 1-2 degrees to the grander scheme of things, it looks like we're on another one of those upticks. We're still in an ice age tho.

Also, consider that carbon dioxide has some of the worst heat absorbing properties of all natural gases. Methane, (though it remains in the atmosphere for shorter time), is more than 10 times more powerful. Consider too that almost every living fucking thing on this planet produces methane, most notably wetland bacteria and cows. And we got millions of cows.

The idea that global warming is happening: Fake
Climate change is real, everyone knows even though science isn't a consensus so showing up with shit like, "o dese sciencsits said it was true so it is" is bs.
Anthropomorphic global warming/climate change is also bullshit. The impact we have on the climate with out CO2 gases and such is poultry in comparison to the millions of other factors.
Trying to rip up the entire global energy economy infrastructure for fear of the fakey "global warming" is a ploy by the neo-upper class to line their fucking pockets with money.
Even if we stopped all this production of carbon emissions and such, (which wouldn't happen, you think Africa, China, or India gives two fucks?), the same shit would happen, we'd only be poorer and more miserable.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:33:54 2019 No.10259206

>>10259140
What do YOU think temperature is? How is it the same as a time integral of numbers?
>Sunspot number is just a proxy for solar irradiance, it has no significance beyond that.
See there's your problem. You're assuming sunspot number is nothing but irradiance.
>according to the hypothesis, decreased solar magnetic activity means more cosmic rays which seed clouds and cause cooling
But you're clearly aware it's not just treated as irradiance in the hypothesis so wtf are you doing?
>Present your model or fuck off.
Already did. dT/dS=S-c
>relationship breaks after the modern maximum
We're still in the modern maximum. Activity's decreasing but still higher than the long term average so there's still going to be warming for now. This isn't hard to understand.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:38:39 2019 No.10259211

>>10259174
>10259174
Shut the fuck up faggot, it's called a negative feedback loop, not positive. But you damn straight, there's not going to be a runaway effect. The impact of seasonal change offsets the incredibly small impact it does have. It's like thinking gravity assist off a planet will slow down the planets momentum, causing it to crash into others. It would take billions of fucking assists to cause that, considering the sheer size, and even that wouldn't happen, because of the somewhat self correcting nature of the orbital patterns and impact that other planets/stars have on the effected planet. The earth has some ability because of it's orbit, tilt, wind patterns, etc, to offset those effects. Thinking we're all in one concrete garage with a simple orbit, and no correctional systems is rarted.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:39:37 2019 No.10259212

>>10259203
Well since 80% of this board is probably /pol/ i must voice one of their opinions.

GLOBAL WARMING is hoax to force Europe and convince americans to abandon fossil fuels and get less dependent on oil from the arabs so that we can finally show the finger to oil kings and not having to kiss Saudi and israel ass as much.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:51:47 2019 No.10259231

>>10259212
yo wtf is /pol/ my guy? pollacks or some shit? europe stuff?

Also, US produces like 43% of the global oil economy, we're not actually kissing Arab ass, we're just trying to take their 9% so we can further our goals of monopolizing the global oil industry. It would just make US less dependent, and the rest of the world morso. And anyways, Israelis gave up their fucking oil fields to the Palestinians. Also, Saudi prince is selling out, trying to force Saudi into a renewable energy dependent country, not so he can get his dick sucked by the faux-intelligencia, but because he recognizes the value in making his country not dependent on the rest of the world. Plus, he gets big bux selling all the fucking oil companies.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 04:56:51 2019 No.10259235

>>10259177
If cloud cover isn't a forcing why is it included in anthropogenic forcings?
>Activity is a proxy for irradiance
I guess in your limited understanding it is? This insistence that activity=irradiance or irradiance is the only thing the sun does is why I think you guys have no clue.
>other activity you mentioned is solar magnetic, which is going in the wrong direction and negligible anyway. But please explain if you disagree
Okay, the TREND in magnetic activity is currently negative, but this is the end of the Modern Grand Maximum of Solar Activity, the AMOUNT of activity is still historically high. It's like the hottest part of the day usually being around 3pm, the trend of input energy from the sun is negative from midday but the amount is still positive and still heats things up.
The negligibility is what's in dispute. Irradiance changes probably are negligible, activity changes are huge. Correlations between activity and historical temperatures are good (medieval warm period, little ice age) which suggests a non-negligible effect. If there's a non-negligible effect it's pretty reasonable to think the Modern Grand Maximum of Solar Activity would warm things up a bit. Models don't appear to account for this possibility, suggestions that they should seem to get misunderstood as suggestions that irradiance alone should.

>positive feedback occurs regardless of whether warming is caused by increased CO2
If something else causes the warming it's not a CO2 positive feedback, increased CO2 is just a response.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:04:18 2019 No.10259251 How about environmentalists bitch about it to China, Africa and India then? The West isn't the core cause of this sudden shift.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:06:22 2019 No.10259256

>>10259174
>If more CO2 causes more warming which causes more CO2 release and more warming, why wasn't there a runaway greenhouse effect in the past?
Positive feedback amplifies changes, it doesn't necessarily imply a runaway.

>>10259203
>But does no one look at the graph of the history of temperature on earth?
Yes, and they're called climatologists.

>That shit is so cyclic it's insane, and if we compare our little rise by 1-2 degrees to the grander scheme of things, it looks like we're on another one of those upticks.
Actually, we're in one of the downticks. That's why the sudden trend reversal is so alarming.

>Also, consider that carbon dioxide has some of the worst heat absorbing properties of all natural gases. Methane, is more than 10 times more powerful.
CO2 is far more common in the atmosphere than methane, and global methane emissions are dwarfed by CO2 emissions. The contribution of methane to global warming is significant, but not as large as CO2.

>everyone knows even though science isn't a consensus so showing up with shit like, "o dese sciencsits said it was true so it is" is bs.
The process of science isn't a consensus, but the body of scientific knowledge provided to non-experts does come from consensus. Don't confuse the two.

>Even if we stopped all this production of carbon emissions and such, (which wouldn't happen, you think Africa, China, or India gives two fucks?), the same shit would happen, we'd only be poorer and more miserable.
The developed world emits vastly more per-capita than any of those places. You don't get to ignore your large contribution to a problem because other people have small contributions to the same problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:07:54 2019 No.10259259 >>10259251 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:08:46 2019 No.10259261

>>10259183
>More heat -> more greenhouse gases -> more heat.
Except if that was true then it would only ever get hotter and greenhouse gases would only ever increase. In the past there have been times with more heat and greenhouse gases than today and the earth managed to cool down despite this effect so it must be very weak.
>logarithmic increase
Weak like a logarithmic increase.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:09:41 2019 No.10259262 File: 356 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_20190101-153831.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10259251 Oh really?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:11:20 2019 No.10259263 >>10259185 Which posts are yours? Most don't explain anything, or have not been about what I'm talking about.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:15:28 2019 No.10259272 Sad to see /pol/ coming here too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:17:15 2019 No.10259273 >>10259262 Most of Humanity resides in Asia and Africa, now picture those places as developed as we are. Short-sighted idiots.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:18:52 2019 No.10259275

This thread is propaganda.
The aim of the propaganda is not to convince you that there is no climate change. The aim is to make you believe that there is doubt about climate change (there isn't).
Whatever you do. Whatever you say, the shills still win.
You should ignore these threads.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:19:29 2019 No.10259277

>>10259256
Even if that's the case, the potency, so to speak, of methane is 20 plus times greater than CO2, that it "dwarfs" CO2s impact. Also, speaking like there's only CO2, or Methane, when theres plenty of other gasses that have an impact. And can trees recycle methane? Don't think so. The idea that humans, in any manner, have a large impact on climate change is fucking ridiculous. Us starving it out, and not burning fossil fuels isn't just going to stop this current movement upwards. We're going to just fucking suffer while everything goes to shit. It's just like the Soviet's pseudo science that ruined their agriculture. This belief that cobbling together all these foundational principles into one grand unifying movement to produce grain, just resulted in everyone starving. In the same manner, we have these base principles that actually work, but we can't fucking capitalize on them properly, we're not considering all the factors properly, and we're not acting on it right.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:24:40 2019 No.10259285

>>10259275
The actual fuck are you talking about? There is major doubt about climate change. Even Fred Singer, fucking look this Austrian dude up, denies that humans have an impact on climate change. Literally all this FUD about climate change is just corporate kings, corrupt politicians, and the upper class toying with us to ensure power. It's all a big ploy in global politics, different countries putting their eggs in different baskets, trying to place bets on what will succeed in the future. We believe that shit too because we can benefit from it. We've been positioned in society where in our opinion impacts whether we get fucking laid or not, who we're able to network with, and how we're perceived, regardless of actual truths.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:25:15 2019 No.10259286 >>10259273 You are saying only westerners should be developed. How is that fair?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:26:25 2019 No.10259288 >>10259285 Climate Change is a settled matter. Go fuck yourself, Boris. I hope they glass your shithole of a country.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:26:56 2019 No.10259290 >>10259285 >to ensure power Don't you think that applies to the existing large oil companies?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:28:27 2019 No.10259293 >>10259290 When did I say it didn't?

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:31:10 2019 No.10259299

>>10259288
Fuck if it has moron. There is no way climate change has been settled at all, just because everyone agrees on it. You sound like the mf catholic church right now talking about how the sun revolves around the earth. Then you use shitty sources, short-sighted information, and flawed logic to arrive upon conclusions. The only fucking conclusion I'm coming upon is that there's so much shit, we as humans have almost no impact, and Ph.D professors from Princeton proved that, so fuck if I'm wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:31:37 2019 No.10259300 >>10259285 Shill harder

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:31:58 2019 No.10259303
File: 3.78 MB, 4272x2848, 1516608461701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10259256
Developed nations are taking steps to limit their co2 emissions as much as they can, while developing nations in Africa and Asia have no plans on doing so. The vast majority of our impact on this World's climate will in fact, be their fault in the very near future and what we've contributed will seem like nothing by comparison. How do you propose we force countries like China and India to comply to the West's attempt at limiting co2? War? Genocide? Because that will be the only solution to this apparent problem.

We're growing frustrated in Europe in America because we're already limiting our production and now you people want us to do it more, while you ignore these growing garbage dumps in the East. Your preaching and bitching is reaching a point where EVERYONE will ignore you if you in the (((Scientific Community))) continue to push this double standard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:32:49 2019 No.10259305 >>10259299 Source: Your butt

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:33:06 2019 No.10259306 >>10259286 Yes, absolutely and it's fair, because we aren't having 9 fucking kids per family and we have the ability to shift our behavior fast enough for your needs, they do not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:33:29 2019 No.10259308 >>10259285 >Fred Singer >Movies:Teen-Age Strangler Ok

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:33:38 2019 No.10259311 >>10259299 Fuck your whore of a mother.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:33:52 2019 No.10259315

>>10259300
You're the only shill here. Keep re-affirming your flawed perspective and worldview, maybe it will fuel your will to live for the next couple of days. Keep thinking you're going to get laid because you believe in pop-sci and consensus. No one's going to give up their carbon use to a tax, look at France right now, it's in shambles and the leader is kissing German ass.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:34:33 2019 No.10259317 >>10259315 Yes, that's the stuff

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:36:10 2019 No.10259321 >>10259308 tf are you talking about? I'm talking about Fred Singer, the Austrian, Princeton Ph.D physicist and climate scientist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:36:33 2019 No.10259325 So say, if you had total political control (as a thought experiment), what would you do to reverse or contain the effects of climate change? What do we actually do, presuming it's a thing, and a bad thing?

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:36:38 2019 No.10259326

It's always the same fucking bullshit. Smartass OP will probably be making a race baiting thread in a few minutes now. Either one or the other is always on the fucking frontpage. Like some fucking degenerate keeping the anus lubricated so that he can shit more and more crap.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:38:00 2019 No.10259329

>>10259311
You're just jealous us American's are beating out Russia, monopolizing oil, and securing a future that any other "developed" country would claw for via 'renewable energy'. Mk vro, keep eating kelp and living off solar panels that won't pay off in 50 years. That's def not me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:38:17 2019 No.10259330 >>10259315 Fuck you Boris. We are onto you. Open that fucking window and jump out. It's not like you are good for anything, either. Your life is sitting behind that desk shilling for your master Putin.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:38:45 2019 No.10259331 File: 79 KB, 1280x950, historical_emissions.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10259303 Back up your adjectives with numbers

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:39:18 2019 No.10259333 >>10259329 Good that you admit that you're just an oil shill :)

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:40:24 2019 No.10259334

>>10259325
Remove much of the existing structure that limits free enterprise. You'd think giving the government control to limit carbon emissions would be grand, but it just translates to big corporations garnering ridiculous tax cuts, securing their power, and monopolizing industries via lobbying. Only through true chaos can we find efficiency.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:41:36 2019 No.10259338 >>10258670 Based NZ paper

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:41:44 2019 No.10259339 >>10259330 Wait wait. Are you a fucking boomer who think's I'm a Russian? Mk, obvious troll with no sense of position or directive in the conversation, fuck what you think. You're the reall putin shill here lmaooooooo

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:42:04 2019 No.10259340 >>10259306 China : 1.62 births per woman India : 2.33 births per woman Sorry anon this isn't 1950s India anymore.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:42:10 2019 No.10259341 >>10259329 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWTic9btP38 >Richest Oil State >Poorest State PRAISE OIL

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:43:32 2019 No.10259343

>>10259331
You're sticking to models now, what about the ones in the next century, when areas like Africa and Asia catch up? We're talking a good 80% of the Human race reaching our current carbon emissions or exceeding it while the other old, Developed 20% reduce theirs (The West).

Fucking think past a decade, you moron. You do not see where the real calamity coming because you're blindfolded by your own bigotry towards the West. This is what it boils down to.

You liberals don't give two-shits about the environment, you just want to hamstring your own people because you're fucking mental and have a cuckholding fetish. That's the long and short.

I just showed you the real problem and you're choosing to ignore it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:45:18 2019 No.10259351 >>10259341 tf you expect, some utopia where resources and wealth are distributed to everyone? when you start hinting at pinning your logic on the foundation of bizarre and flawed economic systems, tf does your opinion even matter?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:45:30 2019 No.10259353 File: 162 KB, 1045x1567, 1542520735187.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Nuclear is the only answer. Based greens in Germany have actually started to advocate for its use, which is not something I ever thought I would live to see.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:45:39 2019 No.10259354

>>10259340
There's still 3-4 billion people living there, plus the population explosion that'll be coming out of Africa, the SAME Africa you people want to modernize, because you "feel bad". Think rationally for two seconds and you'll get what I'm coming from here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:46:29 2019 No.10259356 >>10259343 Paris agreement is for everyone, not just Western countries.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:49:52 2019 No.10259363 They pollute our air, our waters, our soil, with oil. They cause climate change that will lead to frequent natural disasters and a 10% GDP loss by the end of the century. And we don't even get tax revenue from the billions in profits that they make.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:50:07 2019 No.10259365

>>10259353
We made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear
weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. I think that’s as big a
mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.
Patrick Moore,
former Director of Greenpeace International

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:50:33 2019 No.10259366 >>10259356 Paris agreement is for faggot upper-class shills

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:52:15 2019 No.10259368 >>10259353 As it stands, new nuclear energy is actually really wasteful. Wallenstein 7-x is closer to desirable outputs, but still wastes energy. Hopeful for the future of that tho.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:52:43 2019 No.10259370

>"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
>A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
> It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
>In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
>Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:53:17 2019 No.10259372 >>10259363 The only thing we should actually be worrying about with CO2 emissions, or emissions in general IS the pollution it causes, not greenhouse shits.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:53:17 2019 No.10259373

>>10259356
Only the West will follow the Paris Agreement. Everyone else will not, because they will only look out for themselves and I say, we should strike first before the East gets out of control. I have my solution already, while you lot spend a century trying to figure it out and by then it'll be too late.

A genocide of Asia and Africa, while recolonizing it to fit US is the only answer to your problem and you lot are to big of pussies to admit it. Choose the West or total extinction of the Human Race, it's your choice.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:53:44 2019 No.10259374

>"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:54:08 2019 No.10259375 >>10259331 >historical lol

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:55:13 2019 No.10259376

>>10259370
1. Isn't Drexel the same people who couldn't fucking vet Sam Hyde? Yea, don't trust them for shit.
2. Traceable cash flow has dissapeared from big oil, because they're more busy lobbying the government and investing in renewable energy, which they can monopolize when shit gets in.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:57:36 2019 No.10259379

>>10259373
Woah buddy, what in the actual fuck are you even getting on about? Dude just musta smacked a couple lines of coke. I think it's important to understand that humans are not borg robots. That even though that method may be the most 'economical', it doesn't fucking account for the human experience, or ethics, or anything for that matter. Is life really worth living if all the good experiences are given up for maximum production output, the amount of oil had, etc? I mean, have some positive outlook on your existence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:57:51 2019 No.10259380 >>10259373 > A genocide of Asia and Africa There are several nations in Asia with nuclear weapons who aren't going to just going to roll over because you want them to.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:59:00 2019 No.10259382

In 2004 Stefan Rahmstorf described how the media gives the misleading impression that climate change was still disputed within the scientific community, attributing this impression to PR efforts of climate change deniers. He identified different positions argued by climate skeptics, which he used as a taxonomy of climate change denial:

>CO2 is not actually increasing.
>Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
>Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
>Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
>Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
>Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it's too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:59:14 2019 No.10259383 >>10259380 They have a couple dozen, we have thousands, I wonder which side will survive the exchange.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 05:59:58 2019 No.10259384

>>10259354
What population explosion? Birth rates decrease with better education.

Agree it could be worrying but why assume everyone will have US per person levels of co2? They are Paris agreement signatories too.
Also, innovation in renewables in Western countries(because of heavy carbon cutting measures) will trickle to these areas too.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:00:03 2019 No.10259385

Denialism in this context has been defined by Chris and Mark Hoofnagle as the use of rhetorical devices "to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists." This process characteristically uses one or more of the following tactics:
>Allegations that scientific consensus involves conspiring to fake data or suppress the truth: a global warming conspiracy theory.
>Fake experts, or individuals with views at odds with established knowledge, at the same time marginalising or denigrating published topic experts. Like the manufactured doubt over smoking and health, a few contrarian scientists oppose the climate consensus, some of them the same individuals.
>Selectivity, such as cherry picking atypical or even obsolete papers, in the same way that the MMR vaccine controversy was based on one paper: examples include discredited ideas of the medieval warm period.[137]
>Unworkable demands of research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the field or exaggerating uncertainty while rejecting probabilities and mathematical models.
>Logical fallacies.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:02:06 2019 No.10259387

>>10259379
Listen, unless you guys can come up with a better solution, then I'm the only one with the rational answer that doesn't require wasting centuries of time. Asians and Africans do not care about the greater whole, only what is for them and them alone and it shows in how they act. The West at least TRIES to help them, but helping them has not yielded anything but mockery and bloodshed from their side.

Reality doesn't have time for liberal platitudes.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:02:19 2019 No.10259389

>>10259353
Greens have never been the thing actually standing in the way of widespread nuclear energy. They have fuck all in terms of power. In reality, the thing stopping widespread adoption of nuclear energy is the fact that it's less profitable for private industry than fossil fuels. The energy industry simply wants to make as much money as possible, and that means that private industry will always favor fossil fuels over nuclear energy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:02:33 2019 No.10259391 File: 18 KB, 352x550, 1544194175133.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10259373 so siege but eco-friendly ok

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:02:38 2019 No.10259393

>>10259385
>"to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."
This is pretty much what shills always do. That is why it is best to ignore them. By engaging with them, you are suddenly acknowledging them and giving the impression to THIRD PARTIES that their (fake) position merits discussion. The THIRD PARTY then gets the idea that both sides have legitimate grievances. This is their goal.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:03:16 2019 No.10259395 >>10259384 You toss me out climate models about co2 emissions, but ignore models showing where the future population explosions are going to be. Kindly fuck off with your hypocrisy.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:03:34 2019 No.10259396

>>10259385
Yes, but couldn't that be said about BOTH positions. I mean, there are those that say some people only believe in global warming conspiracy because of the shit behind it. And those people have their own conspiracy, that these big oil companies pay scientists to deny. They point fingers at those scientists who don't agree 100% with the "consensus", saying they're not real scientists, just at the other side does. So who's right? Those denying or those affirming???

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:03:53 2019 No.10259398 >>10259383 China has hundreds of nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan each have more than a hundred.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:04:34 2019 No.10259399 >>10259391 Pretty much. That's the only practical solution we have and will have for the next two hundred years. We don't have time for this hand holding nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:04:36 2019 No.10259400 >>10259387 I mean. To be honest with you. You're right. But like.... can I PLEASE get some humanity in my mouth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:05:32 2019 No.10259402 >>10259373 > A genocide of Asia and Africa, while recolonizing it to fit US is the only answer to your problem And then the US goes on to fuel climate change all on its own.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:05:32 2019 No.10259403 >>10259375 Why lol? Co2 persists for quite a long time. 80% is absorbed by oceans over a span of 200 years. The rest can last an even longer time. If past emissions are responsible for your well being today, shouldn't you help more?

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:05:50 2019 No.10259404

>>10259393
the problem is this has immediate, direct impact on the lives of your average chucklefuck pleb and the political structure. this is why you guys have to try and take off the autism hat and think from the perspective of normal human beings to try and convince them that changing their entire economic structure is a good idea.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:06:13 2019 No.10259406

...nationalism has no solution to climate change. If you want to be a nationalist in the 21st century, you have to deny the problem. If you accept the reality of the problem, then you must accept that, yes, there is still room in the world for patriotism, there is still room in the world for having special loyalties and obligations towards your own people, towards your own country. I don't think anybody is really thinking of abolishing that. But in order to confront climate change, we need additional loyalties and commitments to a level beyond the nation.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:06:28 2019 No.10259407
File: 2.75 MB, 400x400, kids-who-are-using-none-of-their-limit-brain-power-33-photos-8.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10259368
>really wasteful
?

>>10259389
Greens influence popular views, though. Also, I'm not going to pretend I know exact numbers, but I suspect renewables are also quite profitable. The main problems with nuclear are popular opinion and large fixed costs.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:06:43 2019 No.10259408

>>10259399
I think. I mean. I might be wrong, but I think there's a difference between holding hands and fucking MURDERING LITERALLY EVERYONE IN THE CONTINENT OF ASIA AND AFRICA FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF.....wait, did you say the polar bears won't sweat, and the salmon won't die. Hmmm. this shit sounding good. desu tho, why not just NOT care about global warming, and leave them to their shitholes? Why you gotta conquer them?

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:06:55 2019 No.10259410

>>10259398
Still not enough to fully topple us. Imagine a few thousand nukes shoved up their assholes compared to the few dozen of theirs that'll manage to actually hit us.

I'll take a temporary nuclear winter over a permanent extinction of the only legit intelligent life Earth has.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:07:13 2019 No.10259411

>>10259277
>Even if that's the case, the potency, so to speak, of methane is 20 plus times greater than CO2, that it "dwarfs" CO2s impact.
No, it doesn't. Look at >>10258936, methane is maybe half as significant as CO2.

>Also, speaking like there's only CO2, or Methane, when theres plenty of other gasses that have an impact.
Other gasses have smaller impacts. Again, see >>10258936

>The idea that humans, in any manner, have a large impact on climate change is fucking ridiculous.
Whether or not it seems ridiculous to you personally has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true. Creationists think that evolution is "fucking ridiculous".

>Us starving it out, and not burning fossil fuels isn't just going to stop this current movement upwards.
Actual measurements say otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:07:21 2019 No.10259412 >>10259395 Sure, paste the link here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:07:50 2019 No.10259414 >>10259406 nothing you said is incompatible with nationalism. nationalism is compatible with international agreements. in fact, moreso than 'globalism', because a world of nationalists will not alienate their people by international agreement.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:07:58 2019 No.10259415 >>10259400 The most humane thing to do is to preserve the groups of people who have the Humanity to wish to spread to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:09:09 2019 No.10259421 >>10259402 But not to the extent you're expecting along with an actual possibility of reducing our own emissions. lol Seems fair to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:09:15 2019 No.10259423 >>10259277 We already talk of emissions in co2 equivalent, so methane etc. is already part of established figures.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:09:28 2019 No.10259424

>>10259407
I'm not sure how it all works because not a nuclear energy scientist, and like I said I'm hopeful, but apparently there are energy costs to firing up machines like the Wendelstein 7x, and THEN they produce energy. There's probably energy costs in maintaining the plasma or whatever the shit in the tube is called, since you have to maintain magnetic fields and all the computers. But as it stands, they say the machines can't actually output more power than they take in. wip tho, we'll see.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:10:22 2019 No.10259426

Several large corporations within the fossil fuel industry provide significant funding for attempts to mislead the public about the trustworthiness of climate science. ExxonMobil and the Koch family foundations have been identified as especially influential funders of climate change contrarianism.
After the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American and other scientists $10,000 plus travel expenses to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute had received more than US$1.6 million from Exxon, and its vice-chairman of trustees was former head of Exxon Lee Raymond. Raymond sent letters that alleged the IPCC report was not "supported by the analytical work." More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration. Despite her initial conviction that climate change denial would abate with time, Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, she "realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:10:29 2019 No.10259427 >>10259408 We gotta conquer them to preserve this planet while we take the time to leave it. Countries in Asia and Africa won't preserve life on Earth, only we can.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:11:25 2019 No.10259429

The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."
ExxonMobil denied that it has been trying to mislead the public about global warming. A spokesman, Gantt Walton, said that ExxonMobil's funding of research does not mean that it acts to influence the research, and that ExxonMobil supports taking action to curb the output of greenhouse gasses.[182] Research conducted at an Exxon archival collection at the University of Texas and interviews with former employees by journalists indicate the scientific opinion within the company and their public posture towards climate change was contradictory.[183]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:11:25 2019 No.10259430 Personally I think we should strive to reduce emissions, not energy consumption per person. The average bloke doesn't care what powers his home theatre.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:11:27 2019 No.10259431 >>10259415 But, what is "humanity" tho???

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:11:47 2019 No.10259432 >>10259412 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:12:33 2019 No.10259434

Between 1989 and 2002 the Global Climate Coalition, a group of mainly United States businesses, used aggressive lobbying and public relations tactics to oppose action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight the Kyoto Protocol. The coalition was financed by large corporations and trade groups from the oil, coal and auto industries. The New York Times reported that "even as the coalition worked to sway opinion [towards skepticism], its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted." In 2000, Ford Motor Company was the first company to leave the coalition as a result of pressure from environmentalists, followed by Daimler-Chrysler, Texaco, the Southern Company and General Motors subsequently left to GCC. The organization closed in 2002.
From January 2009 through June 2010, the oil, coal and utility industries spent $500 million in lobby expenditures in opposition to legislation to address climate change.
In early 2015, several media reports emerged saying that Willie Soon, a popular scientist among climate change deniers, had failed to disclose conflicts of interest in at least 11 scientific papers published since 2008. They reported that he received a total of $1.25m from ExxonMobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute and a foundation run by the Koch brothers. Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where Soon was based, said that allowing funders of Soon's work to prohibit disclosure of funding sources was a mistake, which will not be permitted in future grant agreements.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:13:01 2019 No.10259436 >>10259431 What the West represents. Rationality, generosity, Law and Order. We're not perfect, but, I mean what the fuck do you call Asia and Africa?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:14:53 2019 No.10259439 >>10259432 No, the future emissions model

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:15:05 2019 No.10259440 File: 49 KB, 600x617, 2723408-13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10259424 I was talking about fission, not fusion, ya dingus. For all intensive purposes, fusion is vaporware.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:16:10 2019 No.10259442 >>10259440 Breeder reactors ftw

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:16:39 2019 No.10259444 >>10259439 I just showed you it basically.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:19:24 2019 No.10259447 >>10259434 >They reported that he received a total of $1.25m Man, I should've gone into climate science

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:20:23 2019 No.10259449 >>10259444 >Also, innovation in renewables in Western countries(because of heavy carbon cutting measures) will trickle to these areas too. More population need not mean we would be worse of than today if we make renewables/nuclear cheaper than today.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:22:36 2019 No.10259452

Manufactured uncertainty over climate change, the fundamental strategy of climate change denial, has been very effective, particularly in the US. It has contributed to low levels of public concern and to government inaction worldwide. An Angus Reid poll released in 2010 indicates that global warming skepticism in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom has been rising. There may be multiple causes of this trend, including a focus on economic rather than environmental issues, and a negative perception of the United Nations and its role in discussing climate change.
Another cause may be weariness from overexposure to the topic: secondary polls suggest that the public may have been discouraged by extremism when discussing the topic, while other polls show 54% of U.S. voters believe that "the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is." A poll in 2009 regarding the issue of whether "some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming" showed that 59% of Americans believed it "at least somewhat likely", with 35% believing it was "very likely".
According to Tim Wirth, "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry. […] Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress." This approach has been propagated by the US media, presenting a false balance between climate science and climate skeptics. Newsweek reports that the majority of Europe and Japan accept the consensus on scientific climate change, but only one third of Americans considered human activity to play a major role in climate change in 2006; 64% believed that scientists disagreed about it "a lot." A 2007 Newsweek poll found these numbers were declining, although majorities of Americans still believed that scientists were uncertain about climate change and its causes.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:25:07 2019 No.10259455

>>10259449
How do we stop run-away c02/methane emissions when 20% of the World's population (The West) goes green, when the rest of the 80% reaches our current stage of development and doesn't go green?

How do we force them to comply? Unless you plan on nuking them into oblivion, then, I mean come on, you're not living in a practical reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:25:28 2019 No.10259456 >>10259452 You would expect these executives from "Christian" countries to have more morals.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:27:50 2019 No.10259461 If you want to have a laugh go read the TALK section of the climate change articles on Wikipedia. Bunch of climate denier shills desperately screeching to be allowed to edit the article to include their lies.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:28:36 2019 No.10259463

>>10259449
Listen, we all know the solution and the majority of us do not to follow through, because of some naive, hand holding bullshit we were (((taught))) through television.

There's a time to be generous and there's a time to take action for the greater good to preserve more than just a temporary present. We have the tools to preserve a permanent future if we cut out the problem now, rather than leave it in for what little comfort the patient has now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:28:44 2019 No.10259464 >>10259455 If you make it cheap, everyone will go green. All I'm saying is these carbon budgets will force us to come up with cheaper solutions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:31:22 2019 No.10259466 >>10259440 It's not vaporwave, it's just too fucking hard and needs more money.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:31:54 2019 No.10259468

>>10259464
No, it will not because people will not choose to just change their ways because these green alternatives will never be cheap enough to be practical, or they won't change because they like their way of life now and are comfortable.

Humans are stubborn-ass animals and will not do much to change unless there is a gun to their head.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:34:16 2019 No.10259469 File: 70 KB, 500x774, 6n30dvuirn721.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10259456 >America >Christian Pic related is the only Gospel they follow.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:35:49 2019 No.10259472 >>10259468 >these green alternatives will never be cheap enough to be practical Let's say we disagree on that one. Anyway, what do you believe is the best way to stop climate change?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:38:13 2019 No.10259475 >>10259466 It's been like that for ~60 years now. Fission actually works. You can keep hoping for fusion, but there's no reason not to invest in a few more fission plants.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:39:17 2019 No.10259478 >>10259469 I was taught something like 80% of American were Christians. When I first got internet 5 years ago I realised they weren't so pious and "moral". So what do religious heads there say about climate change?

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:39:37 2019 No.10259479

>>10259464
Anyway, I said my peace on this issue, I'm going to head out for now. However, I will say that, life is cruel and we will all be expected to make harsh choices that will ultimately benefit one party while hurting the other, that is how we survived this long as a species and the sooner you guys realize that, the sooner we can find actual, practical solutions. The only debate now, is whether or not we take harsh action to preserve life on Earth, or ignore the issue entirely and leave it up to nature. Personally? I don't fucking trust nature and would rather deal with the problem myself, rather than wait until I die of old age and let nature choose for me.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:45:04 2019 No.10259486

>>10259472
>>10259479

That comment and this one are my answer: Depopulation of Asia and Africa while allowing Western values and peoples to recover those lands. We have the answers already, we're just choosing not to use said answer because of liberal platitudes and emotional baggage.

We're wasting time hesitating, pull the trigger now, the peoples of Asia and Africa are holding us back. Get through the guilt and pain now so we can be much more comfortable later. It's the only way. Or, you can just ignore the problem and choose suicide for the sake of hand holding with people who don't care about you. Your choice.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:45:16 2019 No.10259487 >>10259475 Also "fission plants take 10 years to build" is a wrong way to look at it. In 1985 our rate peaked at 30 1-GW reactors per year. We could do much better now with more at stake.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 06:48:43 2019 No.10259492 >>10259486 Developing fusion power is far more realistic than your personal fantasy, and it's a chance in a million at this point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 07:13:40 2019 No.10259521 >>10259475 Hey I'm not saying no to fission all for it actually, just saying that you shouldn't forget that fusion research is still moving on.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 10:37:20 2019 No.10259851

>>10259206
>What do YOU think temperature is? How is it the same as a time integral of numbers?
Are you being purposefully obtuse?
Explain to me right now what the integral of solar magnetic activity represents and has to do with temperature. You can't, because you're just curve-fitting with no physical basis.

>See there's your problem. You're assuming sunspot number is nothing but irradiance.
No, I said sunspot number has no significance beyond irradiance. Learn how to read. You are welcome to prove me wrong but so far all you've done is referred to solar magnetic activity which can't explain shit.

>But you're clearly aware it's not just treated as irradiance in the hypothesis so wtf are you doing?
Solar magnetic activity is insignificant. Get it through your thick skull already.

>Already did. dT/dS=S-c
Physically meaningless, try again.

>We're still in the modern maximum.
We're not. Solar activity is back down to the level it was at 1900 pre-modern maximum. See >>10258995. According to the correlation in >>10259093 this should mean cooling. Overlay a 1000 year temp reconstruction over that graph and see for yourself.

>Activity's decreasing but still higher than the long term average so there's still going to be warming for now.
You still haven't defined "long term average" and you still haven't explained how it's significant. This argument also contradicts the correlation in >>10259093 which shows cooling even in "above" average solar activity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 10:44:47 2019 No.10259876 >>10259486 >nuclear winter is better than global warming ok...

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:00:45 2019 No.10259906

>>10259235
>If cloud cover isn't a forcing why is it included in anthropogenic forcings?
*Natural* cloud cover is not a forcing, pay attention. Natural cloud cover is determined by temperature. And if you actually look at the forcing chart you'll see the anthropogenic cloud forcing is from the effect of aerosols, not temperature.

>I guess in your limited understanding it is? This insistence that activity=irradiance or irradiance is the only thing the sun does is why I think you guys have no clue.
Your constant misrepresentation of the argument by omitting specific words, like "natural" and "significant" is why I think you have no clue. Also the fact that everything you've said is either wrong or trivial.

>Okay, the TREND in magnetic activity is currently negative, but this is the end of the Modern Grand Maximum of Solar Activity, the AMOUNT of activity is still historically high.
No, it's not. It's at the same historical level when the climate was cooling. You keep switching between two arguments that contradict each other.

>The negligibility is what's in dispute. Irradiance changes probably are negligible, activity changes are huge.
If activity changes were huge then we would be cooling right now.

>Correlations between activity and historical temperatures are good (medieval warm period, little ice age) which suggests a non-negligible effect.
It suggest a non-negligible effect until the modern period when warming from CO2 blows it out of the water. Again, overlay a 1000 year reconstruction on the solar activity graph you posted. You'll see a good correlation until the end when the temperature shoots up even though the correlation says it's a cooling phase. Your argument is self defeating.

>If something else causes the warming it's not a CO2 positive feedback, increased CO2 is just a response.
What exactly is your point? This is just semantics. The feedback loop exists and depends on the greenhouse effect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:14:34 2019 No.10259945 >>10258658 Humans are to blame and everyone from 3rd world countries is going to die while rich countries will have better climates. Stop making this thread every day.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:23:05 2019 No.10259972

>>10259261
>Except if that was true then it would only ever get hotter and greenhouse gases would only ever increase.
They would, but the increase would get smaller and smaller until the effect levels off. Then when you take into account that the process which started the feedback loop is often a cyclical forcing, you see how that forcing cycling down overtakes the small increases in warming and stops the feedback loop. On planets that are closer to the Sun, don't have CO2 sinks, and have low albedo, the feedback effect is too strong and runaway warming does occur. This is thought to have occurred on Venus.

>In the past there have been times with more heat and greenhouse gases than today and the earth managed to cool down despite this effect so it must be very weak.
The effect would be weaker at higher temperatures, that doesn't mean the effect is "weak" to us. And again, in the past man was not exponentially pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere instead of cyclic forcings.

>Weak like a logarithmic increase.
Arbitrarily calling it weak has no bearing on its effects, which are quite devastating.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:29:21 2019 No.10259992

>>10259263
Why are you lying?

>>10259256
>>10259185
>>10259183
>>10259177
>>10259140
>>10259056
>>10259053
>>10259046
>>10259036
>>10259015
>>10258995
>>10258956
>>10258936
>>10258924
>>10258917
>>10258892
>>10258887
>>10258857
>>10258835
>>10258824
>>10258757
>>10258741
>>10258739
>>10258728
>>10258725
>>10258708
>>10258705
>>10258697
>>10258660

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:34:35 2019 No.10260019
File: 56 KB, 645x729, d27.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10259303
>Developed nations are taking steps to limit obesity while developing nation in Africa and Asia have no plans on doing so. The vast majority of our impact on this World's fat content will in fact, be their fault in the very near future and what we've contributed will seem like nothing by comparison. How do you propose we force countries like China and India to comply to the West's attempt at limiting obesity? Rations? Forced starvation? Because that will be the only solution to this apparent problem.

>We're growing frustrated in Europe in America because we're already dieting and now you people want us to do it more, while you ignore these growing fatties in the East. Your preaching and bitching is reaching a point where EVERYONE will ignore you if you in the (((Scientific Community))) continue to push this double standard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:38:26 2019 No.10260040 friendly reminders that a) correlation does not imply causation b) consensus is not scientific evidence

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:39:28 2019 No.10260045 >>10259356 >Paris agreement is for everyone, not just Western countries. non-binding

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:43:46 2019 No.10260061

>>10260040
>a) correlation does not imply causation
Causation implies causation. The greenhouse effect is completely causative and infrared heat from CO2 is directly measured.

>b) consensus is not scientific evidence
The consensus is a consensus OF scientific evidence. It literally is scientific evidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:50:05 2019 No.10260080 >>10260061 >Causation implies causation. Meaningless tautology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:52:49 2019 No.10260086 >>10260080 >Meaningless tautology. Meaningless response.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:55:13 2019 No.10260097 >>10260086 like yours?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 11:57:19 2019 No.10260107 >>10260097 No, mine refuted both points. Yours is a just a non-sequitur.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 12:04:42 2019 No.10260129 >it's a dumb anglos demonstrating their bad food has deteriorated their brains episode

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 12:39:31 2019 No.10260229 File: 106 KB, 300x409, limits to growth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10258672 I'm begging you, please read a book

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 12:54:15 2019 No.10260250

>>10260229
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth#Criticism
> Peter Passell and two co-authors published a 2 April 1972 article in the New York Times describing LTG as "...an empty and misleading work .... best summarized ... as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out." Passell found the study's simulations to be simplistic, while assigning little value to the role of technological progress in solving the problems of resource depletion, pollution, and food production. They charged that all LTG simulations ended in collapse, predicted the imminent end of irreplaceable resources, and, finally, that the entire endeavor was motivated by a hidden agenda: to halt growth in its tracks.[17]

>In 1973, a group of researchers at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, published Models of Doom; A Critique of The Limits to Growth. The Sussex group examined the structure and assumptions of the MIT models. They concluded that the simulations were very sensitive to a few key assumptions and suggest that the MIT assumptions were unduly pessimistic. The Sussex scientists concluded that the MIT methodology, data, and projections were faulty and do not accurately reflect reality.[18]

>The report has been criticized by academics, economists and businessmen.[20][21] Critics claimed that history proved the projections to be incorrect, which was specifically based on the popular belief that The Limits to Growth predicted resource depletion and associated economic collapse by the end of the 20th century.[22]:23 The Limits to Growth faced ridicule as early as the 1970s.[23][24

>By "...the 1990s LTG had become everyone's laughing stock....In short, Chicken Little with a computer."[29]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 12:58:14 2019 No.10260256 >>10260250 >states that the study must be wrong because it predicts that the future looks bleak >same as above >quote literally states why this criticism is false >ad hominem Wow bulletproof argument

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 13:13:55 2019 No.10260298 >>10258658 We're so fucked.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 14:21:27 2019 No.10260438 >>10258707 how about: countries that are currently in "poverty" deserve it and should just be nuked to orbit so that the truly civilized world can push humanity forward and clean the environment at the same time

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 16:23:25 2019 No.10260816

>>10258658
fact: altering the chemical composition of a gas changes is thermodynamic properties. For example, if you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, you should not assume it will have the same thermodynamic properties as before.

fact: weather systems are more complicated than can be reliably modeled. this means making predictions about specific consequences of altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere is extremely difficult.

tldr; humans are altering the climate. it is not possible to model the exact consequences. however assuming the status quo will continue is folly, since changing the chemical composition of a gas changes its thermodynamic properties.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 22:25:23 2019 No.10261644

>>10260438
>The people making less emissions should all die, so that the people making more emissions can increase their emissions.
I guess that's TECHNICALLY a plan, but really?

>>10260816
>fact: weather systems are more complicated than can be reliably modeled. this means making predictions about specific consequences of altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere is extremely difficult.
The greenhouse effect isn't weather.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 22:36:13 2019 No.10261669 >>10261644 >so that the people making more emissions can increase their emissions. that's an odd straw-man, why would you assume that technological and social progress implies increased emissions?

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 22:40:04 2019 No.10261679

>>10260816
>fact: altering the chemical composition of a gas changes is thermodynamic properties. For example, if you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, you should not assume it will have the same thermodynamic properties as before.
The radiative forcing of CO2 is very well understood. The formula is

dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

Where C is the current concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Co is the original concentration.

>fact: weather systems are more complicated than can be reliably modeled.
The climate is not weather, it's long term trend is determined by the energy balance of the Earth and not chaotic turbulent flow of the atmosphere.

>tldr; humans are altering the climate. it is not possible to model the exact consequences.
It's not possible to model anything exactly, that doesn't mean we can't model it successfully. We already are.

>however assuming the status quo will continue is folly, since changing the chemical composition of a gas changes its thermodynamic properties.
That is already taken into account in all climate models, as I've already shown.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 23:06:57 2019 No.10261737 >>10259992 Half of those aren't responses to me and most of the ones that are literally explain nothing or are 'activity=irradiance' level tardery.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 23:12:48 2019 No.10261745 >>10261737 So since you refuse to provide a single point of yours I haven't debunked, I guess that means they aren't any.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 23:33:17 2019 No.10261791

>>10259906
>Natural cloud cover is determined by temperature. And if you actually look at the forcing chart you'll see the anthropogenic cloud forcing is from the effect of aerosols, not temperature.
So if humans release aerosols that cause cloud formation that is a forcing, and if the sun deflects cosmic rays and affects cloud formation that's not a forcing? Temperature is the only factor relevant to natural cloud cover. Sounds like some kind of moronic overly simplistic model that ignores natural factors to me.
>same historical level when the climate was cooling
When was the climate cooling and what level of activity did the sun have at the time?
>If activity changes were huge then we would be cooling right now
Not if it's still above what's needed to warm it up. Remember 3pm vs midday? Not hard to understand but apparently hard to address except by moronic oversimplification.
>warming from CO2 blows
Except warming from CO2 is overestimated because all the models ignore the sun.
>just semantics
And there you were whining about me leaving words out a minute ago.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 23:35:27 2019 No.10261795 >>10261745 You can just read the thread, every single point I've made remains undebunked by anyone. Except for one, positive feedback doesn't have to runaway.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 23:39:04 2019 No.10261804 >>10259036 >The satellites were lying! They are climate deniers. Or a much simpler explanation is that your model is wrong. Thermometers don't lie, anon. They don't have a political agenda. YOU DO.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 23:43:49 2019 No.10261813 >>10261804 >no u

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 23:47:44 2019 No.10261823 File: 504 KB, 1024x941, AGW actual temperature raw data.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10261813 >Those fucking lying thermometers! They must work for big oil!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 1 23:54:42 2019 No.10261838 >>10258670 As fake as my middle nut.

Anonymous Tue Jan 1 23:57:04 2019 No.10261845
File: 502 KB, 1680x961, Warming and solar activity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10261791
>So if humans release aerosols that cause cloud formation that is a forcing
Yes.

>and if the sun deflects cosmic rays and affects cloud formation that's not a forcing?
It is, it's just way too weak an effect to be significant. And as I've already pointed out, since solar magnetic activity is decreasing, this means that cloud formation would be increasing, so how do you expect this to explain warming?

>When was the climate cooling and what level of activity did the sun have at the time?
Look at your own graph >>10259093. Now look at what happens when it's overlayed over the temperature record.

>Not if it's still above what's needed to warm it up.
Again, you're flipping between two contradictory arguments. On the one hand you say that solar activity and climate are correlated over the past 1000 years. This includes both cooling and warming periods where solar activity was similar to where it is now. But now that that correlation fails you switch to the integral of solar activity correlating with temperature, which ignores that there was a cooling period when solar activity was at the same level it is now. Not to mention that yet again you have failed to define what "average solar activity" means, probably because you have no clue and you're just making shit up.

>Except warming from CO2 is overestimated because all the models ignore the sun.
They don't, why are you lying? And solar forcing from CO2 is directly measured via radiative spectroscopy, so this is not only a lie, it's a non-sequitur.

>And there you were whining about me leaving words out a minute ago.
Yeah, leaving words out in order to change the meaning of what I said. Do you understand what semantics is? What relevance does calling the feedback loop a "CO2 feedback loop" have?

>>10261795
>You can just read the thread, every single point I've made remains undebunked by anyone.
I debunked every single point you made. You have not responded to my replies.

Anonymous Wed Jan 2 00:01:53 2019 No.10261854

>>10261804
>Or a much simpler explanation is that your model is wrong.
The reason for the bias in the satellite record was found and fully explained. See >>10259043. The model is irrelevant to this fact and has already been shown to be successful. Your posts are devolving into nonsense.

>Thermometers don't lie, anon.
Oh the irony. The thermometer record and the satellite record are two different things and diverged before this error was found. Now they are in agreement. So saying the thermometers don't lie is exactly what I'm telling you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 00:04:11 2019 No.10261860 >>10261823 >If I cut up the data I can find any trend I want! >See, global warming is a hoax because the average maximum July 3 in the US... Wow you're aggressively moronic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 00:12:43 2019 No.10261877 >>10261860 Where can I get raw data of the temperatures? I want to try plotting different dates. July 3 seems oddly specific and misleading.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 00:14:57 2019 No.10261881 >>10261877 esri I think

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 00:31:22 2019 No.10261908 >>10261877 NOAA Climate at a Glance Good luck accessing the site during Trump's glorious government shutdown though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 00:33:37 2019 No.10261916 >>10261791 >warming from CO2 is overestimated because all the models ignore the sun. Do you have an actually source for that? Because that sounds completely made up.

Anonymous Wed Jan 2 00:37:39 2019 No.10261923

>>10261845
>I debunked every single point you made
Well you just admitted that natural cloud cover was a forcing like I said it was, so no you didn't.
>way too weak an effect to be significant
Maybe include it in the models before deciding that?
> ignores that there was a cooling period when solar activity was at the same level it is now
are you talking about the end of the medieval warm period? The Modern Grand Maximum is higher than that.
>They don't, why are you lying?
You just admitted they did. Stop calling me a liar just because you don't want to accept it.
>You have not responded to my replies
Your replies are retarded and I have responded to most of them.
>yet again you have failed to define what "average solar activity" means
I've explained what that means several times.
>solar magnetic activity is decreasing, this means that cloud formation would be increasing, so how do you expect this to explain warming?
Also this a few times now, 12-3pm. Do you not believe that things can still warm up while the sun's going down?

Anonymous Wed Jan 2 00:56:56 2019 No.10261964

>>10261923
>Well you just admitted that natural cloud cover was a forcing like I said it was, so no you didn't.
I did not. Natural cloud cover changes are caused by temperature changes and aren't a forcing. Hypothetical cloud cover change from magnetic activity would be a forcing, but is negligible. I don't know why I have to repeat everything I've said to you multiple times.

>Maybe include it in the models before deciding that?
Why?

>are you talking about the end of the medieval warm period? The Modern Grand Maximum is higher than that.
Again, look at your own graph >>10259093. We are at the solar minimum forecast, not the modern maximum.

>You just admitted they did.
Where? The models take into account solar irradiance, which is the only significant solar forcing on this timescale. So it's simply a lie that the models ignore the sun.

>Your replies are retarded and I have responded to most of them.
So not every single point you've made remains undebunked and you haven't responded to some of them being debunked.

>I've explained what that means several times.
I asked you what timescale the average is calculated from. It's a very simple question you should be able to answer if you aren't making shit up. I can only conclude that a) you don't know or b) you do know but don't want to say since it would invalidate your argument. Which is it?

>Also this a few times now, 12-3pm. Do you not believe that things can still warm up while the sun's going down?
As I already said, this argument fails since the temperature followed solar activity in the past, not the integral of solar activity. Cooling started when solar activity started to decrease, not when solar activity goes below average. Warming started when solar activity started to increase, not when solar activity was above average. You can't have it both ways.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 03:38:06 2019 No.10262211 >>10261838 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1912-article-global-warming/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 03:39:09 2019 No.10262213 >>10261838 https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 03:40:19 2019 No.10262215 >>10261838 also in Australia https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/100645214

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 03:40:30 2019 No.10262216 >>10258658 Just put less carbon into the air

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 14:18:53 2019 No.10263240 >>10258859 How about the fact that this isn't a linear system and has negative feedbacks that aren't always in play?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 14:31:13 2019 No.10263269 >>10259275 What do you think they get out of it? Are they paid actors? Trolls? Are they themselves brainwashed and trying to own the libs?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 14:35:31 2019 No.10263279 >>10258695 Only 20 years away amiright?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 2 15:00:02 2019 No.10263365 >>10258859 >please explain how a monotonically increasing function can have a limit Hello brainlet.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math