Climate change cult BTFO. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

File: 30 KB, 450x234, 5445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jul 3 15:57:42 2019 No.10776972 [Reply] [Original]

Climate change cult BTFO.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 16:00:20 2019 No.10776978 And to think that it only took five pages.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 19:35:51 2019 No.10777498 >>10776972 >https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf >no journal name >university of turku

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 19:41:42 2019 No.10777508 >>10777498 So basically they are free to publish the truth

Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:34:40 2019 No.10777629

>>10777498
it seems pretty legit though. their argument is basically “muh clouds” which is pretty lame, sure, but i doubt climate models take into account the (highly turbulent and chaotic) science of clouds

either way their argument is nitpicky and no reasonable person would demand a full model of clouds to go into every climate change study, since clouds are hard as fuck to model. this is why local news weather reports can’t even predict snowstorms reliably more than a couple of days in advance.

overall though, nitpicking is counter-productive and leads to things like “don’t trust weather reports! for all we know it could be 75 degrees fahrenheit tomorrow in antarctica!”

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:37:46 2019 No.10777636 yes, it was always data tampering that's why they intentionally botched the readout from the tropics and ignore urban heat bias

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:38:19 2019 No.10777640 >>10777636 that's not at all what this article says. see: >>10777629

Anonymous Wed Jul 3 22:33:34 2019 No.10777854

>>10777629
Fuck

Is this shit actually real?

I dont want to believe it, but I mean thats just dumb. Obviously you model the cloud stats not the clouds themselves.

Ive thought climate change models might be bad because of a flat earth assumption made but idk

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 07:18:47 2019 No.10778717 >>10777498 >university of turku I'll have you know that that's one of the most prestigious institutions in all of North-Eastern Europe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 07:22:34 2019 No.10778723 >>10777629 >muh clouds Jesus christ I thought you were semi memeing then read it and this is actually their point. I fucking cant with these people.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 14:46:10 2019 No.10779587 >>10778723 They're bringing up a decent point. The impact of clouds is usually mostly ignored.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 14:57:15 2019 No.10779607 isn't this just a rip off of that garbage Lindzen et al 2001 paper?

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 15:13:17 2019 No.10779647

>>10779587
Sort of. Clouds both increase and decrease temperature. The evidence of climate change is so robust though that we don't need climate models to prove it so attacking climate change with clouds is something I would expect from high school students.

>>10779607
The one where he suggested an atmospheric 'Iris" which would allow heat to escape thus cooling the planet?

That one was well researched and got it's facts straight so it passed academic rigor and was put into a scientific journal but unfortunately used cloud cover data from Indonesia and was debunked once the modeling couldn't be used globally. I haven't read this one yet but it looks like I may not have to.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 15:25:25 2019 No.10779670 >>10779647 >The evidence of climate change is so robust ah ah nice try

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 15:27:35 2019 No.10779675 what is albedo sure is full of 12yo little boys here

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 15:34:51 2019 No.10779688 This is pathetic. But why is OP so obsessed with climate change denial? He's on here 24/7 trying to push climate change denial. Why?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 15:36:30 2019 No.10779694 >>10779647 It's not meant for you. The propaganda is meant for stupid people and it will work just fine on them cause it's not like they can understand the science either way.

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 16:17:52 2019 No.10779780

>>10776972
The fact that complexity science is barely a few decades old is proof enough what a crock of shit muh climate change is. We can't even predict 'easy' complexity like traffic patterns or the stock market let alone the entire world's climate.
If anyone stopped and thought for a few seconds they could easily realize its fake.

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 16:25:13 2019 No.10779802

>>10779688
It's the windmill he's chosen to tilt at. Tilting at it makes him feel like the hero, the protagonist, the downtrodden and ignored genius who cracked the code and will be recognized for this brilliance any day now! And respected and loved.

So tell me what his life looks like.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 16:27:17 2019 No.10779806 >>10779780 >I may not be a scientist, but I do trust my intuition a whole lot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 16:53:49 2019 No.10779869 File: 75 KB, 586x470, genius.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10779670

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 16:58:07 2019 No.10779884 >>10777498 based finns destroying the jewish hoax once and for all

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 17:03:13 2019 No.10779893

>>10776972
How can it be that the current models don't account for low cloud cover for variation in global temperature? I could have sworn they already did, although in the paper they substitute humidity for low cloud cover in determining natural temperature anomaly for their models, which I'm skeptical of. The fact that such a small paper concludes that there is no anthropogenic climate change, period, makes me want to discard it, but the primacy of low cloud cover in determining global temperature seems to be solid and if so it may be a fatal error in the current models if it's not taken into account. Anyone else come to conclusions on the paper?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 17:07:03 2019 No.10779905 >>10776972 >Abstract is High-school tier language. >Only one other upload and it's the same topic. Are we sure an actual scientist wrote these?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 17:16:20 2019 No.10779928 >>10776972 based Finns destroying climate hysterics

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 17:22:18 2019 No.10779940

>>10779688
Maybe because there really is a climate cult that advocates a mixture of Ludism and apocalypse.

There's legit reasons to advocate climate science that don't involve the end of the world. LA lives under a cloud of poison that makes it to the morning weather report. People living in low areas where pollution collects have widespread health issues. But, instead the prophets are a 16 year old Autist and a grifter failed Presidential candidate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 17:29:31 2019 No.10779958 >>10779940 There is no scientific support for climate change “ending the world”. You are arguing against no one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 17:35:35 2019 No.10779972 >>10776972 Wow, it seems like you may have gotten lost! Pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, or climate change denial all belong in /x/ or /pol/ Let me help! >>>/x/ >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 17:54:58 2019 No.10780014 >>10776972 I came into this thread expecting another "paper" by Tooker

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 17:59:38 2019 No.10780025 >>10776972 You can always tell that a non-maths paper is shit if it claims to 'prove' something.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:05:02 2019 No.10780043 >>10780014 Pretty much the same quality as his climate change "paper."

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:12:20 2019 No.10780061

>>10779958
>There is no scientific support for climate change “ending the world”. You are arguing against no one.
So why are there all these protests claiming otherwise? If they are spreading lies why aren't climate scientists doing more to correct them?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:14:22 2019 No.10780067 >>10780061 Obviously because it's all a conspiracy. People can't spread nonsense if scientists disagree, it just doesn't happen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:14:46 2019 No.10780069 >>10776972 So we spent all this money to debunk the IPCC and none of those retards figured this out. Then an IPCC scientist debunks them for free. Fuck me. What does one need to do to get good scientists?

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:19:46 2019 No.10780080

>>10780069
one of the authors on this turku paper was on the expert peer review panel for the IPCC report, and he wrote this article because they answered his question and he needed to reeee more about it when he wasn't satisfied with the IPCC authors answer. apparently the rest of the expert peer review board was fine though. this happens a lot in peer-review, one reviewer is more skeptical than the others and he reeees out, and the stuff passes peer review anyway, and then that reviewer writes some reeee-level paper to keep his argument going

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:25:46 2019 No.10780097 >>10780080 Yeah yeah I don’t care about what that means. Prepare to see this article even on the night sky.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:28:52 2019 No.10780104 >>10780097 >Another garbage fringe denier paper I'm quaking in my boots.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:29:58 2019 No.10780108 >>10780104 >fringe >arxiv Nice to see climate cultists willing to throw anyone under the bus.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:32:42 2019 No.10780114 >>10780067 The problem is I don't see them publicly disagreeing with them. They're doing nothing to calm the hysteria.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:33:36 2019 No.10780116 >>10779675 you're not as smart as you think you are

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:40:17 2019 No.10780128 >>10780108 If everything on arxiv was correct we'd have 9999 proofs of the P != NP problem and 100000 proofs of the Riemann Conjecture and about a billion valid Unified Theories of Everything.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:42:28 2019 No.10780133 >>10776972 This paper is poorly written

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:48:22 2019 No.10780142 >>10780128 >comparing the hardest problems in niche fields that no reviewer could possibly comprehend to a paper that just computes a couple of fractions that even a disabled toddler could read. Great point. Upboated.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 18:57:29 2019 No.10780156 Wow another quality /sci/ thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 19:22:19 2019 No.10780200 File: 963 KB, 742x1000, albedo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10779675 >what is albedo sexy

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 19:42:36 2019 No.10780247 >>10779972 *climate change belong in >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 19:45:15 2019 No.10780253 >>10780247 people who post this belong in >>>/hm/

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 19:48:41 2019 No.10780266

>>10780114
>The problem is I don't see them publicly disagreeing with them.
Well that settles it then, if you don't see it it must not exist.

https://grist.org/article/climate-movement-grandpa-james-hansen-says-the-green-new-deal-is-nonsense/

By the way, when are the "skeptics" going to correct all of the crank deniers spouting absolute nonsense?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 19:49:44 2019 No.10780271 >>10780108 Are you trying to imply there is nothing fringe on arxiv? Nice LARP retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 19:51:30 2019 No.10780274 >>10780142 >he thinks the problem is in the (nonexistent) math in the paper Wow you really are incapable of following a logical argument.

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 20:09:01 2019 No.10780313

>>10780266
>https://grist.org/article/climate-movement-grandpa-james-hansen-says-the-green-new-deal-is-nonsense/
This has nothing to do with the science, it's about the politics.

>By the way, when are the "skeptics" going to correct all of the crank deniers spouting absolute nonsense?
"Skeptics" are considered "deniers". The mainstream media focuses on the alarmists. Why did the media focus on Greta Thunberg so much? Her speech to the UN broadcast for the world to see. School kids have been encouraged to skip school and protest, they're paraded around the media like they're martyrs.

Do you not see an agenda here? No such attention is given to "skeptics", this is not about the science, it never was.

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 20:12:49 2019 No.10780323

>>10780274
> Wow you really are incapable of following a logical argument.
Wow you really do not know the first thing about publishing.

This abstract is completely fake. First, the IPCC report is not citied. No professional journal would allow an uncited source in the very first line.

Second, the abstract reads like an accusatory troll piece. My professor would have flogged me if I ever used a word like "very small". How small? Compared to what? Statistically? By what measurement?

Sorry, Charlie. Take your memes elsewhere.

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 20:17:22 2019 No.10780335

>>10780313
>The mainstream media focuses on the alarmists.
you mean, the consensus of 98+% of actual scientists? with that <2% accounted for by "scientists" employed by oil interests? let me guess, academia and the media are in a giant conspiracy, right? probably tesla was right and the ether is real and nuclear doesn't real, okay
>Why did the media focus on Greta Thunberg so much?
because she's a little girl. little girls are cute and get media attention. oh, and she's white. little white girls make the news all the time, especially if they get kidnapped or killed. making a speech at the UN is super cute. clickbait must-watch TV and great photo ops.
>Her speech to the UN broadcast for the world to see. School kids have been encouraged to skip school and protest, they're paraded around the media like they're martyrs. Do you not see an agenda here?
whose agenda, pray tell? the evil solar energy lobby, with all their bazillions of dollars keeping the coal and oil industry down? or maybe the agenda of the reptilians who control israel? details, please.
>No such attention is given to "skeptics", this is not about the science, it never was.
the skeptics are mostly youtube retards and bought-out political shills like mike pompeo. they don't deserve media attention, because what they say has no authority or credibility. you could pick out maybe a few "contrarians" like Bob Laughlin, but even nobel laureates in physics can be crazy too, like Brian Josephson. just because you have a handful of naysayers doesn't mean that telekinesis is real. same goes for climate denial

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 20:26:20 2019 No.10780353 >>10780323 Replying to the wrong person?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 20:28:59 2019 No.10780363 >>10780313 Hmmm who should I care about more, the people who are getting the right answer for the wrong reasons or the people getting the wrong answer for the wrong reasons?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 23:25:37 2019 No.10780753 >>10780335 don't forget great minds like Willie "the Kochsleeve" Soon, Monkton, Tony Heller, and that divining rod guy

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 23:35:59 2019 No.10780771 >>10780753 Hey they are excuses for more Potholer54 videos

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 23:39:53 2019 No.10780774 >>10780771 A valid point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 23:44:37 2019 No.10780782 >>10780335 >"scientists" employed by oil interests? You know what's funny? A lot big oil companies like Exxon and Shell publicly admit that climate change is real and humans contribute to it, even those guys are on board.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 23:45:39 2019 No.10780785 >>10779802 Here's a (you) for the Don Quixote reference

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 00:56:13 2019 No.10780883

>>10777629
But outside of extremely stable coastal regions, weather reports are for all intents and purposes useless. They don't tell you anything you can't readily observe on your own, i.e. whether it's winter or summer. If reality is so complex and the models so limited that meteorologists can't reliably predict tomorrow's high temperature within a margin of five degrees, why should we believe climatologists who claim to be able to predict global temperature changes on the order of a few degrees over a century? It's one thing to accept climate change as a scientific possibility, it's another entirely to restructure all of human society at unknown cost and consequence because of it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 00:58:02 2019 No.10780888 >>10780335 >academia and the media are in a giant conspiracy, That seems quite likely actually. Not an organized conspiracy, but they have clearly become beholden to a political ideology that borders on religious fanaticism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 01:06:27 2019 No.10780907 >>10776972 >6 citations >4 of them are self citations

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 01:07:52 2019 No.10780910 File: 349 KB, 814x873, tumblr_lqxpuxYWfM1qbz5ydo1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10776972 The climate has been clamped.

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 01:26:43 2019 No.10780941

>>10780782
>A lot big oil companies like Exxon and Shell publicly admit that climate change is real and humans contribute to it, even those guys are on board.
They publicly admit it's real, while paying deniers to say it's not. Taking corporations at their word is unwise.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 01:28:17 2019 No.10780945 >>10780313 >No such attention is given to "skeptics" Doesn't Fox News parade them on air all the time?

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 01:30:02 2019 No.10780947

>>10780945
It's called controlled opposition, you utter tool.

Didn't anyone ever tell you this stuff? The whole red vs blue is a phony thing to maintain equilibrium. There is no fight. The agenda is preordained. They're all under the same control structure.

JUST

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 03:15:53 2019 No.10781117

>>10776972
This is pretty much the crappiest paper I've ever read. It starts off by simply putting low cloud cover anomlies against delta T and completely ignoring any feedback between warming and clouds themselves. Most (probably all) models usind in various IPCC exercises have cloud physics in them obviously. We also know and model the effects from various anthropogenic aerosol sources on cloud cover (airplane traffic-induced cirrus etc.), black carbon, ..

What a load of shite.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 05:13:08 2019 No.10781340 >>10779972 >>https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf reddit spacing. trying to censor and contain an idea he doesn't like. uses an exclamation point like a fag. Plebbit is that-a-way! Let me help!!!!!

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 05:19:19 2019 No.10781349

>>10780335
>the consensus of 98+% of actual scientists?
there is ZERO consensus on the degree of sensitivity to c02 emissions in the climate. The thesis of this paper is that the lack of consensus is due to improper modelling. This paper does not claim that climate change does not exist. Simply that it is being modelled in such a way that alarmists cannot be disproved.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 05:27:21 2019 No.10781359 >>10780247 >>>/x/ does it work like this

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 05:46:36 2019 No.10781378 >>10780753 >that divining rod guy the what now?

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 06:12:07 2019 No.10781409

>>10780883
>why should we believe climatologists who claim to be able to predict global temperature changes on the order of a few degrees over a century?
Because it's harder to model the short term of the Earth climate system than the long term. Not that models are required to interpret evidence. The evidence for mean temperature warming is clear.

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 08:44:57 2019 No.10781612

>>10781349
>there is ZERO consensus on the degree of sensitivity to c02 emissions in the climate.
There is consensus on the range it lies in. The paper cites fringe and low quality papers as evidence, without any minimum standards. The same faulty argument would lead one to the conclusion that there is no consensus that evolution is real since there are many low quality papers denying it.

>The thesis of this paper is that the lack of consensus is due to improper modelling.
This is technically correct but not in the way you think. The "lack of consensus" they found is due to improper or nonexistent modelling on the part of fringe low quality papers. And this paper is one of them.

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 08:55:45 2019 No.10781636

>>10776972
If there's no experimental evidence, explain THIS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&feature=youtu.be

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 10:36:02 2019 No.10781814

>>10779893
>anyone else read the paper objectively?
No need, for deniers the title is proof enough, for the other side heresy is simply dismissed.
Climate change has become deeply political, and when that happens science becomes zero-sum-game “science”.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 10:40:36 2019 No.10781825 >>10779972 >I'm like so smart guys :}}}

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 10:42:46 2019 No.10781833 >>10780363 >thinks “we have 12 years or we’re ruined” is the right answer Science is not a zero sum game.

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 10:59:48 2019 No.10781878

>>10781814
>for the other side heresy is simply dismissed.
Not quite. The proper way, is to wait to see what the scientific reaction will be. A publication by itself has no standing. It only gains standing after it is scrutinized by experts in the field.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 11:12:52 2019 No.10781904 >>10776972 Toilet paper.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 14:29:49 2019 No.10782374 >>10781904 Like your degree in sociology?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 15:20:50 2019 No.10782533 >>10782374 How come all deniers bring to the table is total bullshit that's no better than some random blog or nonense that's provably connected to big oil money?

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 15:27:22 2019 No.10782553

>>10782533
Because the scientific INDUSTRY is BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by poor third world people who are INVESTED in not having their countries rendered INHOSPITABLE.
The scientific INDUSTRY cannot be TRUSTED to protect the POOR DEFENSELESS billionaires. They are too INVESTED in doing (((good))) (<-- note the Jew quotes, please) and (((helping))) normal people. Somebody has to fight for the interests of the POOR DEFENSELESS COAL and OIL TYCOONS.
You people have NO EMPATHY. You are so SELFISH. You only think about yourselves, and common people like you and your future, and your children's future, BUT YOU NEVER EVER think about the PORTFOLIO investments of these POOR DEFENSELESS BILLIONAIRES.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 15:29:36 2019 No.10782560 >>10781833 >>thinks “we have 12 years or we’re ruined” is the right answer That's the argument, not the answer. >Science is not a zero sum game. Never said it was.

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 15:43:56 2019 No.10782611

>>10782553
>don't listen to the real scientists, pay attention to these corporate shills instead
fucking kek anon. how can you be THIS much of a useful idiot?

>You people have NO EMPATHY. You are so SELFISH
You're literally as divorced from reality as the insane leftist who will scream at you for suggesting that men and women are different.

Most of these diner arguments, petitions and "dissenting scientists" can be traced back to organisations like the Cato Institute and the Hearland Institute, "think tanks" that are literally corporate shill propaganda outlets (the Heartland Institute was even deep into denying the link between smoking and cancer. Lying about science for big companies is literally their business model).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 15:54:52 2019 No.10782639 >>10779587 No it isn't. It's difficult to model the impact of clouds, but it's something that a lot of people work on. In fact, it's pretty much the biggest challenge in climate modelling.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 15:56:08 2019 No.10782641 >>10782611 He's being sarcastic, you autistic baffoon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 16:00:50 2019 No.10782654 >>10782641 Serves me right for just skimming the comment and assuming it's the same old denier drivel I've seen posted a thousand times.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 18:05:15 2019 No.10782944 >>10779972 >Pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, or climate change denial all belong in /x/ or /pol/ You belong anywhere else but a science discussion forum my dogmatic friend

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 18:15:31 2019 No.10782965 >>10780907 Heres your (you) for appealing to fallacies

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 18:51:05 2019 No.10783074 >>10780883 holy fucking shit this is a dumb post if we can't trust a physicist to calculate the minute fluctuations of a stick you drop a foot over the ground how can we trust him to tell you it will fall a foot? are you retarded?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 19:11:28 2019 No.10783116 muh European heat wave... https://electroverse.net/multiple-all-time-low-temperature-records-set-across-germany/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 19:34:52 2019 No.10783168 >>10783116 That's funny, I just looked up the actual weather for Rothenburg and it turns out that website is lying.

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 19:38:59 2019 No.10783180

>>10781636
Reynolds number in the greenhouse models is approximately zero. Reynolds number for the earth's atmosphere is really high. By Buckingham's Pi theorem we know that if one of the Pi terms are different in the model vs the real thing, our model is not representative. Re is a pi term in this system we want to analyze.

http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/weather/turbul.htm

http://www.astro.yale.edu/coppi/astro520/buckingham_pi/Buckinghamforlect1.pdf

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 22:43:10 2019 No.10783599 >>10780335 I know you're trolling but this kind of cancer is just painful to look at, please kill yourself at the next available opportunity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 22:46:38 2019 No.10783615 File: 9 KB, 400x400, 1413236968051.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10780910

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 22:58:16 2019 No.10783643 >>10783180 >Reynolds number in the greenhouse models is approximately zero. Source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model Also, the long term global trend is primarily determined by Earth's energy budget, not by turbulent flow.

Anonymous Fri Jul 5 23:07:04 2019 No.10783671
File: 10 KB, 400x350, 1414623682055.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10776972
Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

>The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:
[chart]
>Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 23:43:08 2019 No.10783741 File: 604 KB, 868x509, boot licker.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mmm yes bill nye would never lie and I love the taste of leather

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 5 23:45:03 2019 No.10783747 File: 488 KB, 853x480, VTS_01_6.VOB_snapshot_06.03_[2014.04.03_22.17.24].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10783615 Asuka was not clamped. Shinji is jealous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 00:24:54 2019 No.10783826 >>10781878 And in this case, of course, that means scrutinized by experts in a field that would be 10% of the size and receive 100x less funding if this issue didn't exist. Hmmm....

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 00:30:31 2019 No.10783837

>>10783826
Not to mention, since this issue is a couple decades old at this point, the younger end of those in the field already consists mostly of people who probably only even got into it because of this in the first place. Imagine any other field of science being so irrelevant and useless aside from one issue. If chemistry was so useless outside of one single thing you bet I would do my best to keep that on life support as long as I could.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 00:59:46 2019 No.10783893 >>10777508 >my source is valid because it's shitty We've reached levels of retardness never seen before

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 02:39:13 2019 No.10784099
File: 17 KB, 710x532, nseqs.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10783643
By greenhouse model I meant the mythbusters video I responded to. I'm sure the pro's model it correctly. The GCM you posted the wiki for is built on the Navier Stokes Equations - Turbulence is built into the Navier Stokes equations. Note the Reynolds number on the shear terms.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 02:45:35 2019 No.10784112 >>10783671 How much of that CO2 is "man made"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 07:56:13 2019 No.10784408 >>10783741 Tell me about the taste of leather.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 08:29:10 2019 No.10784431 >>10783826 >>10783837 You're grasping at straws to try to argue for the most banal climate change denial position ever. Just, simply, pathetic.

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 08:34:25 2019 No.10784438

>>10783826
>>10783837
If climate science was compromised, all the most powerful entities on earth including the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the rest of OPEC and all the coal and oil tycoon would have no trouble at all funding a whole new team of climate scientists to show conclusively that the other climate scientists are compromised.
But they cannot do that, because not even a trillion dollars can buy you false scientific results.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 08:40:39 2019 No.10784445 >>10784438 No, OBVIOUSLY, they are all getting bullied by the POWERFUL AND EBIL, climate science lobby, OBVIOUSLY.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 08:55:41 2019 No.10784459 >>10784438 they don't need to. all it takes is paying a couple of forum and image board seeders and then tons of sceptics with a lot of time at their hands hop on board. the best is >they are doing it for free

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 09:21:57 2019 No.10784492 >>10779972 Do you know what arxiv is..?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 09:37:24 2019 No.10784523 >>10784112 Man is the only source of CO2 that does not absorb more than it emits. If we were not emmitting CO2 the concentration would actually be going down.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 10:43:14 2019 No.10784689 >>10784438 Not saying it doesn't exist. But it is exaggerated for political gain, which is what actually matters. Muh 12 years.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 12:06:29 2019 No.10784864 File: 33 KB, 500x376, Complete_Carbon_Cycle_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10784112

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 12:18:56 2019 No.10784897 File: 422 KB, 1520x1230, CC_trends_anthro.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10776972

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 16:48:39 2019 No.10785671 >>10784112 The extra.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 16:51:28 2019 No.10785682 >>10783893 This isn't never-seen-before to anyone who's ever engaged in a debate with /pol/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 16:53:59 2019 No.10785686 >>10776972 Anyone who thinks climate change is a hoax should be summarily executed. You do not deserve to breath the same air as the rest of us.

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 17:00:38 2019 No.10785704

>>10785686
What if I believe that climate change is occurring, and is in large part related to the activities of man, but instead think that chemtrails, ecological collapse, deforestation, etc are the primary causative factors? That the CO2 thing would essentially fix itself if the planet was allowed to function properly?

Honestly, maybe anyone who doesn't believe in chemtrails should be summarily executed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 17:09:27 2019 No.10785727 >>10776972 They can smell and sense light, but in a way that bacteria do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 17:20:25 2019 No.10785758 File: 77 KB, 645x729, y2uNb2I.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10784689 >the scientists just want grant money >the scientists are incompetent >the proof of this is something a celebrity said

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 17:22:02 2019 No.10785761 File: 321 KB, 546x697, 1552021481118.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10785704 Yes you know better than every climatologist. You're just that intelligent. You can go back now thst you've set everything straight.

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 17:25:53 2019 No.10785772

>>10781636
>If there's no experimental evidence, explain THIS

PV=nRT, ideal gas law.

The mythbusters made a mistake conducting the experiment in vacuum chamber. The chamber with methane and CO2 will expand faster, and gain temperature when heated compared to the one without.

Also they didn't mention how much CO2/CH4 they injected into the experiment. To properly replicate earth's condition it has to be less than 400ppm CO2, and 1.8 ppm methane.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 17:29:08 2019 No.10785786 >>10785761 Where are they getting their data. Glad to help you get closer to the truth. I could use your help.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 17:49:24 2019 No.10785840 >>10785772 >The mythbusters made a mistake conducting the experiment in vacuum chamber. They didn't though, did you watch the video? Another fucking lying denier.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 17:52:40 2019 No.10785846 >>10785786 >Where are they getting their data Look at any published research and it will tell you. Where are you getting your data?

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 17:56:27 2019 No.10785854

>>10785846
Everywhere. That's what you don't get, I look at everything. I don't put myself in tribes, and bubbles, or camps. I look at all of it, and likely have a wider scope I'm willing to consider and evaluate than many others. And it bears provable fruits.

Rotten, bitter fruits, but fruit nonetheless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 17:59:11 2019 No.10785861 >>10785854 >Everywhere. That's not an answer. Show me the data that specifically proves your claims.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 18:03:01 2019 No.10785867 >>10785861 Start here. I'm busy and that's asking for a lot. https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ and check out: https://climateviewer.com/ I just found the latter a few days ago, but it seems useful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 18:09:51 2019 No.10785887 >>10785867 There's no data behind these claims, just baseless conspiracy theories. Just give me one example if you're "too busy."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 18:19:24 2019 No.10785912 >>10785887 Data was provided. Rest is up to you. What year were you born, by the way? Just look up. You know damn well the sky isn't supposed to be a haze due to "increased air travel".

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 18:47:17 2019 No.10785988

>>10785912
>Data was provided.
No it wasn't. You can't even give me one example, because it doesn't exist. You know it and I know it.

>What year were you born, by the way? Just look up. You know damn well the sky isn't supposed to be a haze due to "increased air travel".
You mean contrails you dumb fuck?

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 18:53:13 2019 No.10786006

>>10785988
Chemtrails.

Refer to the links. Lot of history, lot of hard data. Since apparently you can't be tasked with thinking and investigating, and prefer to just argue with me (as though it changes anything), the conversation might as well just end.

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 18:56:53 2019 No.10786020

>>10786006
>Chemtrails.
No such thing.

>Refer to the links.
I did, nothing but conspiracy trash. And you won't even give me a single example of your "data" because it doesn't exist. Please post again without any data while expecting everyone to believe you, it's hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 19:08:49 2019 No.10786056 >>10785772 It's also not a gas column 12 miles high

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 19:13:37 2019 No.10786075

>>10786056
>It's also not a gas column 12 miles high
This is why a garage experiment proving the greenhouse effect is all moot. A proper gas in an unconstrained volume would just expand when heated, bringing temperature back to normal.

The greenhouse effect cannot be proven experimentally and hence climate science belong in /x/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 19:25:54 2019 No.10786113 >>10786075 >unconstrained volume our atmosphere kek >thinking this is at all relevant when all thermal energy has to be radiated into space. Burger education everyone!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 19:28:08 2019 No.10786120 >>10786075 >doesn't even know the difference between thermal energy and temperature. yikes

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 19:55:10 2019 No.10786186 This thread is why they clamp.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 19:56:11 2019 No.10786190 >>10786186 They want to keep us fighting each other, therefore, they clamp. This is part of why they clamp.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 19:57:25 2019 No.10786193 >>10786075 >A proper gas in an unconstrained volume would just expand when heated, bringing temperature back to normal Which is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25731165/

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 20:04:46 2019 No.10786218

>>10786193
>satallitte data
>experimental
They can be fudged with fancy math that nobody, not even peer-reviewers can understand. Also notice that satellite studies never share or made their data public, unlike climate data from ice cores which disproves global warming

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 20:27:35 2019 No.10786281 >>10786218 When your entire argument is "I don't understand it but I don't like it so it must be a lie" is where anyone with a functioning brain takes a step back and considers the possibility they're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 20:53:59 2019 No.10786320 >>10786281 Satelite data is observation, not experimental In any observation, causation does not mean correlation. The greenhouse effect still cannot be proven experimentally

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 21:19:07 2019 No.10786380

>>10786281
>I don't understand it
Neither do you. You're placing faith (belief without evidence) on the so-called scientist and modern peer review process which has proven to have holes in it (just look up feminist glaciology, that paper passes ""peer review""")

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 21:56:54 2019 No.10786497

>>10786380
Wrong, I know enough of physics, chemistry and astronomy, to understand that the conclusions of the climatology papers I've read are soundly based in the physical sciences and all conclusions agree with other scientific observations and experimentation. While deniers of AGW are consistently unable to make coherent arguments, consistently fake data cherrypick appeal to ignorance. And generally resemble young earth creationists or flat earthers in their behavior.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 22:01:07 2019 No.10786505 >>10786320 >I have a middle school level understanding of the scientific method so you're WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 22:20:26 2019 No.10786549 File: 2 KB, 300x168, images12.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10785704 >chemtrails >ecological collapse affecting the climate

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 22:24:40 2019 No.10786560 >>10786497 I just listen to Greta Thunberg.

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 22:52:53 2019 No.10786610

>>10786218
>satallitte data
Did you read the study? They don't use satellite data.

>They can be fudged with fancy math that nobody, not even peer-reviewers can understand.
Then how do you know they're fudged?

>Also notice that satellite studies never share or made their data public
Which ones?

>unlike climate data from ice cores which disproves global warming
How?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 23:13:38 2019 No.10786647 >>10776972 >literally thousands of papers supporting anthropocentric climate change >no conclusive evidence hurr durr >one paper opposing anthropocentric climate change >Climate change cult BTFO!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 23:16:37 2019 No.10786652 File: 110 KB, 1200x1056, D05-x-eVYAA0UYq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10786610 >>unlike climate data from ice cores which disproves global warming https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08355

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 23:23:29 2019 No.10786666
File: 16 KB, 275x183, politics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The very same people who were responsible for the flourishing of Western capitalism, are now clamoring for the protection of the planet, the only planet we have. How can right-wing individuals in this country, the same individuals who have historically championed capitalism, go against the very people who created capitalism in the first place?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 6 23:37:35 2019 No.10786695 >>10786666 oh, devil. the answer is simple. they manipulated the average person's mind, and now they must suffer the consequence of doing so

Anonymous Sat Jul 6 23:50:11 2019 No.10786715

>>10786666

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The market doesn't like wind/solar as they're costly and inefficient compared to natural gas and nuclear. It isn't even a matter of propaganda, it's a simple truth, ignore the profiteers for a second and realize that it isn't as simple as "durr switch to solar it's just as efficient/reliable and it surely won't be an economic drag once the grid is entirely reliant on it."

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 00:40:51 2019 No.10786791 >Temperature increases >Water evaporation increases >More clouds >Higher albedo reducing temperature >Cloud cover reducing ground temperature and increasing rainfall Nice cult bro, can't wait for taxation, austerity and bug burgers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 00:48:57 2019 No.10786802 >>10786020 >>10786549 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT_Mp1ND6gU

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 01:28:26 2019 No.10786856 >>10786715 You, the average person, don't know ANYTHING about the market. That's all I'm saying. You just make yourself seem like you do.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 02:44:59 2019 No.10786971 >>10786320 >Satelite data is observation, not experimental So what? >The greenhouse effect still cannot be proven experimentally Wrong. https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 02:47:53 2019 No.10786972 >>10776972 BASED

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 02:52:50 2019 No.10786975 >>10783893 No one would give Einstein a position in a university, he had to submit his thesis while working as a clerk.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 02:56:23 2019 No.10786979 >>10786652 ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 02:56:55 2019 No.10786980 >>10786971 Wasn't the greenhouse effect proven like 100 years ago?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 03:10:37 2019 No.10786996 >>10786980 Almost 200 years ago.

Anonymous Sun Jul 7 03:27:04 2019 No.10787014
File: 94 KB, 1200x630, AAD4d75.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10786979
Greenland temperature today is not even out of natural variability compared to the last 10ky. Also it is not outside natural variability, as T jump up and down in decadal timescale.

So all the pictures with doggos sledding on melted ice sheet were sensationalism because there were noone to take picture 10000 years ago

Anonymous Sun Jul 7 03:40:14 2019 No.10787027

>>10787014
Greenland is not the globe. Also you said the ice core data disproves global warming. How does it do that when it shows Greenland temperature suddenly spiking, in contradiction to the natural cooling seen during an interglacial?

>Also it is not outside natural variability, as T jump up and down in decadal timescale
We already know the cause of the warming is not natural and will continue as long as massive emissions continue, so this is irrelevant.

>So all the pictures with doggos sledding on melted ice sheet were sensationalism because there were noone to take picture 10000 years ago
How is showing the effects of global warming sensationalism?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 03:42:35 2019 No.10787030 >>10786715 the market fucking hates nuclear lol it's complete garbage from an investment perspective, only governments bother.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 16:32:39 2019 No.10788505 Jyrki is a 75 years old physics professor who has been a molecular spectroscopist for quite some time, that's his hammer and he has started seeing nails

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 16:34:46 2019 No.10788511 >>10787030 And solar is fairly attractive right now. This boomer is living in fucking 1965 or something.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 7 16:36:37 2019 No.10788518 >>10786975 because he didn't attend class and his professors thought he didn't give a shit; what does this have to do with anything? nothing

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 06:29:10 2019 No.10790178 >>10788505 >that's his hammer and he has started seeing nails What does that mean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 12:21:03 2019 No.10790654 >>10787014 >Greenland temperature today That is weather. It is not climate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 14:18:18 2019 No.10790854 >>10779958 >here is no scientific support for climate change “ending the world” >what is an extinction event Why are you so fucking retarded?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 14:47:38 2019 No.10790897 >>10780114 arguing with morons makes you a moron

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 14:53:20 2019 No.10790904 >>10780888 >being confident in experimental data is religious fanaticism yeah they are right up there with the crazy evolutionists and people who think c is a universal constant

Anonymous Mon Jul 8 15:10:38 2019 No.10790931

We are are on track to exceed 1.5C by 2030.
We know that at some point above that target, natural GHG emissions will get triggered and we know that in such a scenario we would be unable to stop a run-off global warming effect.
This is "alarmism" according to the shills.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 15:24:01 2019 No.10790954 >>10785704 >you think chemtrails are real Youre retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 15:46:17 2019 No.10790993 >>10790931 even the alarmists at the ipcc don't think that's going to happen

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 15:51:32 2019 No.10791002 >>10790993 Literally everything I said is parroting the IPCC and they are the most conservative people in climate science. Please stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 15:54:03 2019 No.10791006 >>10791002 show some papers then

Anonymous Mon Jul 8 17:07:29 2019 No.10791137

>>10791006
>any recent IPCC report
>CTRL-F feedback
>paper is cited in brackets at the end of the sentence
>discard it and post some bullshit excuse to keep denying reality

Also the paper that you'd have undoubtedly already come across if you dared to do a cursory check.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 17:18:30 2019 No.10791155 >>10791137 fair enough but why is that theoretical shit not in the general findings that they put out, is it because they know it's very specious?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 9 02:23:11 2019 No.10792328 >>10791155 People are too dumb to understand it anyway.

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