/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10969548]

Please give me the best scientific arguments for and against man made climate change, I have tried to talk about this on /pol/ but it they give me brain damage

[Anonymous No.10969553]

>>10969548
> Scientists who studied climate change say it's man made.
I don't a question my doctor when they give me a diagnosis so i shouldn't question scientists

[Anonymous No.10969558]

>>10969548
Some climate change is due to natural processes, some of it is due to human emissions. You can simply look up how many tons of different emissions we produce yearly and make an educated guess on whether we are having an impact. Personally I think it's very likely we are having an impact, but I won't try to convince anyone. The data is out there and free for you to look at and make your own decision. Anyone trying to convince you one way or another won't have any validity, just do your own research and ignore pundits.

[Anonymous No.10970043]

>>10969548
Did they not tell you about greenhouse effect in school?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTvqIijqvTg

[Anonymous No.10970050]

>>10969553

[Anonymous No.10970055]

>>10969548
Its most definitely us... also we're fucked no matter what we do, just through thermodynamics we're going to heat death the planet no matter what form of energy we use with our current consumption growth. Boiling point of water surface temperatures within a couple hundred years.

[Anonymous No.10970060]

>>10969553
>I don't a question my doctor when they give me a diagnosis
Do you know how many people die in America every year from getting the wrong diagnosis? If scientists are half as retarded as doctors they're a magnitude more retarded than me.

[Anonymous No.10970072]

>>10969548
>/pol/
You can't reason with the braindead.

[Anonymous No.10970075]

>>10969558
Photons and thermodynamics prove climate change, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.10970078]

>>10970060
Well it's not really just one doctor , it's thousands of the best doctors all giving you the same diagnosis.
You do the "bayes theorem" or whatever

[Anonymous No.10970098]

[Anonymous No.10970107]

>>10970098

[Anonymous No.10970111]

It may partially be man made, but even if it is there is nothing we can do. Everything change with time, thousands of animal species went extinct and thousands more will too, the ice at the north pole has not always been there and it will not be there forever.

[Anonymous No.10970122]

>>10969548
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Anonymous No.10970130]

>>10970078
What if all of the doctors say that you have AIDS but Doctor House says you have Lupus??? It's always Lupus.

[Anonymous No.10970137]

>>10970111
curbing emissions and doing nothing is the difference between 2C and 6C over the next 100 years, 2C is still a shit sandwich but it's nothing compared to the ecological apocalypse and resource wars 6C will cause.

[Anonymous No.10970141]

>>10970137
>resource wars
This will happen regardless due to demands for continual economic growth

[Anonymous No.10970143]

>>10970130
House is an unhinged freak on meds ,and there's no way a thousand doctors would fuck up a simple aids test

[Anonymous No.10970149]

>>10970141
nuclear weapons are a strong enough deterrent when people are well fed like they are now. Once the us and china's breadbaskets become deserts nuclear war won't look bad at all compared to starvation.

[Anonymous No.10970154]

>>10970149
so you deny my statement
and you're a big fan of both
a) nuclear weapons
b) economic growth

checks out

[Anonymous No.10970160]

>>10970154
at this point you're just spewing autism and not actually making an argument.

[Anonymous No.10970163]

>>10970149
Adding more deserts can only feed more of us.

[Anonymous No.10970165]

>>10970163
?

[Anonymous No.10970172]

>>10970165
Think he might be a literal retard or an amerifat, likely both and is misreading desert as dessert

[Anonymous No.10970174]

>>10970137
you cant predict that, and we still dont know how much of the climate change is caused by us and how much is the natural variation of the planet, caused by the sun, orbital variations, vulcans, oceanic stream and other shit

[Anonymous No.10970178]

>>10969548
At this point it's easier to just link it since this shit gets asked here so often

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11E3cGmUEFouAEmxoYgd0Nn0unhz9RO6Dybip8Q9Gbew/htmlview

Basics of it is you know it's heating because we have records of this shit. They predicted hurricane severity and water levels would rise and we'd see record heatwaves and reefs dying. Guess what we've been fucking seeing?

We know it's man made because we can measure the increasing co2 and chemically find the source of it to man made shit. And it can't be natural because even going for extreme natural changes wouldn't explain the co2 going up as it has been.

It's some super basic shit. That a lot of scientists and weather fuckers study. Mostly in the hope of seeing it decrease but nope.

I'm not sure why repubs and pol deny it besides it happened that al gore made a movie and he represented everything they hate about dems so now they hate nature too even though nature is some political neutral shit. That and some companies feel it'd be a pain in the ass to change now so fuck us all I guess.

[Anonymous No.10970196]

>>10970174
Virtually everything you've stated is just plain untrue. We know exactly how much of warming is caused by the sun because we've been closely tracking solar irradiance, we know it's not orbital variations because we know exactly the timescales they occur on and there has been no shift in orbital eccentricity over the period of warming. Volcanoes certainly aren't the cause as they emit an entirely different carbon ratio than fossil fuels so we can track their emissions. Oceanic streams certainly aren't to blame as they don't effect the total energy balance of the planet, only how it's distributed.

However what we do know is Greenhouse gases have risen massively over the last century, we know humans are entirely the cause by examining the ratio of carbon isotopes now in the atmosphere, we know the greenhouse effect has increased because we can measure to total outgoing long wave radiation into space. As well as measure the cooling in the stratosphere as more heat is trapped in the troposphere.
tldr; cope harder

[Anonymous No.10970198]

>>10970178
>why repubs and pol deny
same reason coke heads deny that their noses are imploding. they live to do coke.

and The Consumers live to CONSUUUUUUUUUUME

[Anonymous No.10970209]

>>10970174
We fucking do though dude. We got some damn fine estimate on what co2 is created by us vs nature due to carbon isotopes.

And you can predict that with less resources and farmable/livable land that mass immigration and fighting over resources is likely to increase. It's not exactly a scientific statement to make but look around you and damn shit ton of immigration going on from some hot ass places that were once perfectly fine just farming before and now all anyone can be assed to do there is fight.

[Anonymous No.10970216]

>>10970209
>shit ton of immigration going on from some hot ass places
where people have like 6 kids per woman

not at all surprising even without the effects of climate change

[Anonymous No.10970237]

>>10970216
Ok but they still aren't exactly reaching overpopulation based on land mass. And considering they have a higher death rate too.

Either way you're still picking one thing to argue about cause all poltards know is bring it back to hating brown and jews. Can't bring it to science.

Honest reason, side note, that I'd never be a nazi is same reason I hate vegans. Talking to a vegan it's like every damn problem in the world, no matter how complex, must come down to meat eating. Knew a vegan girl who, for some bs project about Utopias, legit believed every issue in the world from depression to poverty to pollution and elderly abuse would be solved by mandatory veganism. That's poltards. Doesn't matter the topic. You can't get them to figure out a solution besides get rid of jews and minorities.

[Anonymous No.10970259]

>>10970237
>they still aren't exactly reaching overpopulation
The absolutely are. It's not like their country's population is decreasing, which is what you'd expect if it was due to climate change alone.
And without globalized trade (a MAJOR cause of global warming) they are far FAR beyond carrying capacity. Everyone in the world is.

Now call me a bigot again and don't try too hard to talk your son out of having his dick chopped off.

[Anonymous No.10970274]

>>10969548
>opening with complaining about /pol/
This is going to be a productive thread. Anyway, it doesn't matter either way because the only solutions we can seem to come up with is taxing everything under the sun and buying African dictators APCs. Start coming up with actual game plans for climate change and you might have less people suspecting you of nigerian princedom

[Anonymous No.10970321]

>>10970196
what an uninspiring graph
>it keeps going up really bad and then levels off
>it goes up a bit less than the other line before leveling off
>this is the middle of our predictions, my favorite line
>it goes up for a little bit longer and then slowly goes down again
>also the margins of error overlap so we literally can't be wrong
>give us money plox

Also never forget their solution to global warming is to take more money from poor people and give it to people who are already disgustingly rich.

[Anonymous No.10970327]

>>10970259
Why would people reproduce less due to climate change? Literally no one predicts that there's no logic to it. If anything it's a found pattern that in dire climates people reproduce more to increase the chance of having surviving offspring and reproduce less when things are fine.

Most people that study the shit and collect data on resources and global population show we have enough and aren't near overpopulation it's just the goddamn fossil fuels and co2. Humanity has always had global trading we only started releasing co2 post industrial revolution.

Also lol you got feeling hurt by being called a bigot. Had to threaten me with some boogey man doing some shit to my hypothetical child. Not everyone is afraid of the people you are.

[Anonymous No.10970337]

>>10970321
In Canada wasnt their method to carbon tax rich and give that money to the poor?

Shit sounds sweet. Too bad poor in America are cucked by the rich to think that'd be bad for them somehow.

[Anonymous No.10970340]

the solution to human overpopulation in the 3rd world is to airdrop porn and video games
we need to make them so comfy that sex feels like an unnecessary distraction

[Anonymous No.10970345]

>>10970327
>Why would people reproduce less due to climate change?
Um, because there are less resources for them? You do realize that everyone requires a minimal amount of resources.

>boogey man doing some shit to my hypothetical child
If your child is trans who are we to question? Or maybe you're the actual bigot here.

[Anonymous No.10970363]

>>10970327
>If anything it's a found pattern that in dire climates people reproduce more to increase the chance of having surviving offspring and reproduce less when things are fine.

This is such nonsense. Explain why the industrial revolution saw such a massive increase in population. It freed up more resources for people, and they reproduced more.

Or do you actually buy into the commonly touted economics religious COPE that unlike virtually every other living creature on Earth, humans do not reproduce to fill every available niche, and that when new niches become available their population actually decreases?

[Anonymous No.10970387]

>>10970327
>Why would people reproduce less due to climate change?

That you would even ask that means you are irredeemably brainwashed.

[Anonymous No.10970475]

>>10970363
Increased and leveled off. Everyone in the habit of having fuckton of kids, suddenly industrialization and lower child mortality. Next gens produces less kids like now.

In fact they're noticing same patterns in the next generation of industrializing african countries. But again, unrelated topic to climate change.

>>10970345
Again all you can do is attack some hypothetical child like I give a fuck. Poltards give a lot of fucks about their progeny like they're some game of thrones character that has to care about the family line. Nobody is all that important guy.

>>10970387
Why the focus on population in climate change like the main problem isn't constantly noted as co2 released by large companies? No scientist or data has linked it to population.

Anyway y'all lmk when you get some links or research or say data to prove a point.

[Anonymous No.10970486]

>>10970475
>ndustrializing african countries
>unrelated topic to climate change.
whatever you say, buddy...
>Why the focus on population in climate change
you're a massively retarded fuck. the chasms in your knowledge are far too massive to even bother trying to fill

[Anonymous No.10970519]

>>10969548
If it puts you at an ease, there's not a single good and clean identification strategy to test if it's actually manmade. All we have up to now are correlations.

[Anonymous No.10970525]

>>10969548
If it puts you at ease, there's not a single good and clean identification strategy to test if it's actually manmade. All we have up to now are correlations.

[Anonymous No.10970556]

>>10969548
Build a greenhouse.

[Anonymous No.10970568]

>>10970486
Dang that's some correlation. Maybe industrializion caused both increasing population and climate change as a lot of science can explain or maybe population directly caused climate change because what? Humans farting releasing co2. Makes sense. Surely not corps releasing co2 in mass as we can directly measure being the cause. Human farts makes more sense. I wonder what poltard would have us do to solve this.

[Anonymous No.10970576]

It's real because LITERALLY every single relevant scientist agrees it's real and 100% caused by us. Climate change is one of the most tested, documented and agreed on fact that exists in human history, but for some retarded reason people go full flat earth on it. I guess the overlords really need to wank out the last few drops of coal and oil first.

[Anonymous No.10970577]

>>10970525
Carbon isotopes.

Ya know there's truthfully a lot of info on this. Books collecting and explaining the data. Whole ass documentaries by not al gore that will dumb it down for you too. YouTube videos even with sources if you only got 10 minutes. It's really not that complicated.

[Anonymous No.10970868]

>>10970568
You are really pretty dumb, man.
What kind of drugs are you on anyway? I'm asking because I'm not sure how one could be so fucking stupid, yet actually know how to read and write at the same time.

Here let me spell it out for you.

Each human eats.
he more humans the more they eat.
Humans eat food.
FOOD is produced with fossil fuels.
The more FOOD THE MORE FUCKING FOSSIL FUELS.

To name just one of the MANY things humans consume that requires FOSSIL FUCKING FUELS.

HOLY FUCK I AM IN AWE AT YOUR MASSIVE LEVELS OF STUPIDITY.

[Anonymous No.10971077]

>>10969548
I have no faith in the ability of people to predict the interplay of almost a countless number of dynamic chaotic systems over long periods of time. People who are confident in what the climate will look like decades from now are the same as astrologers, cult leaders and psychics.

[Anonymous No.10971118]

>>10969548
It’s not climate change I’m arguing against. It’s the proposed “solutions” that I find repugnant.

[Anonymous No.10971122]

>>10971118
I already have a solution for climate change. We develop a method to change the trajectory of the Earth's orbit so that it flies into the Sun. If the Earth doesn't exist... the problem is solved.

[Anonymous No.10971523]

The sun caused all the warming up to about 1980 and half the warming since.
Man has caused some but way less than alarmists claim.
They will tell you this is wrong but to attribute all the warming to man they have to leave the sun out of their climate models entirely or only include it as a constant heat source.

[Anonymous No.10971530]

>>10971523
why not measure actual solar irradiance?

[Anonymous No.10971536]

>>10971077
We get it cletus, anyone with more than a highschool education makes you feel inadequate and afraid, now stay in your trailer park, and let the adults talk.

[Anonymous No.10971551]

>>10971077
Nobody knows exactly what will happen, only that it will get hotter, which is indisputable. Obviously that's a bad thing

[Anonymous No.10971552]

>>10971530
>the sun is a constant heat source with no other properties
What did I just say?

[Anonymous No.10971557]

>>10971552
>4 year interval

[Anonymous No.10971559]

>>10969548
Its bs

[Anonymous No.10971560]

>>10971552
So you're saying the sun is transferring heat to the earth through means other than radiation?

[Anonymous No.10971563]

>>10971552
Why has there been a significant cooling trend in the stratosphere if it's the sun?

[Anonymous No.10971575]

>>10970340
what is no pension system

[Anonymous No.10971578]

>>10971523

[Anonymous No.10971579]

>>10969548
We know the Earth is warming because we can measure it.
We know the warming is due to the greenhouse effect because ofthe increase in downward IR.
We know that the downward IR is being emitted from CO2 because of it's spectra.
We know that atmospheric CO2 is rising because we can measure it.
We know tat additional CO2 is from human activity because of the change in carbon isotope ratios.

The Earth is warming, and we are responsible.

>>10969558
>Some climate change is due to natural processes, some of it is due to human emissions.
Humans are responsible for between 80% and 120% of observed warming. That's a little bit more than "some".

>>10971077
You ignorance of what climatology is isn't a terribly convincing argument.

[Anonymous No.10971598]

>>10971557
>solar weather parameter changes 18% in 4 years
>lets model it as a constant heat source
>t. settled science of man made global warming
The sun is more active now than any point in the previous 10,000 years.
Climate alarmism depends on the poor BUT POSITIVE correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature during the industrial era (therefore MAN MADE CO2 caused ALL the increase) and responding to any mention of the increase in solar activity during the same period from historically low Maunder minimum activity to the modern maximum with
>b-but muh constant irradiance
because if the sun isn't a constant heat source with no other properties the case for man made global warming falls apart.
>>10971560
>>10971563
>the sun is a constant heat source with no other properties
QED

[Anonymous No.10971609]

>>10971598
You're still positing sunspot counts, and not actual irradiance. Are you trying to do physics or astrology?

[Anonymous No.10971612]

>>10971598
Average annual solar irradiance is how you measure how much energy the sun is outputting, i'm still confused are you once again saying the sun is somehow transferring heat to the earth without radiation? you do know there's no such thing as aether right?

[Anonymous No.10971730]

>>10969553
doctors are fucking fools though. terrible analogy

[Anonymous No.10971763]

>>10971598
So why doesn't CO2 in the atmosphere affect temperature?

[Anonymous No.10971824]

>>10969553
250k people died only in USA because medical errors retard. and millions died worldwide because of that.

[Anonymous No.10971840]

>>10971598
solar activity in the 2010s was not higher than in the 1950s, whereas global warming had risen markedly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#Climate

[Anonymous No.10971855]

>>10969548
CO2 cause warming.
Humans make lots of CO2.
So humans cause warming

It’s that simple.

[Anonymous No.10971865]

>>10971118
>Dur fixing the world is gross to me

[Anonymous No.10972097]

>>10971840
Non-linearity, time lags, likely even a small contribution from CO2 but judging by >>10971609 >>10971612 climate 'science' hasn't even heard of solar wind so no reason to think its numbers are right.

>hotter upper layers of the Sun's atmosphere (chromosphere and corona) emit more short-wavelength radiation. Since the upper atmosphere is not homogeneous and contains significant magnetic structure, the solar ultraviolet (UV), EUV and X-ray flux varies markedly over the cycle.
>Even though it only accounts for a minuscule fraction of total solar radiation, the impact of solar UV, EUV and X-ray radiation on the Earth's upper atmosphere is profound. Solar UV flux is a major driver of stratospheric chemistry, and increases in ionizing radiation significantly affect ionosphere-influenced temperature and electrical conductivity.
This is why everyone who thinks the sun is only its average annual irradiance should be ignored.

[Anonymous No.10972122]

>>10972097
>[HAND WAVING INTENSIFIES]

[Anonymous No.10972156]

>>10972097
The upper atmospher is not where we live. Also UV radiation peaks with solar maxima, so if UV was a large factor in global surface temperature it would be causing cooling right now. Pointing to other factors without even looking at what their effect is is dumb.

[Anonymous No.10972208]

>>10972097
sounds like you're just taking data and physical processes out of context and using them to justify your position

[Anonymous No.10972224]

>>10969548
>correlation = causation
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.10972244]

>>10970122

This.

[Anonymous No.10972249]

>>10972224
>Yes, my grandmother smoked a pack a day, but she only got cancer because of HAARP

[Anonymous No.10972272]

>>10972097
at this point i'm convinced you literally just don't know what an average is and why it's useful, stay in school kids.

[Anonymous No.10972312]

>>10972224
>i suck BCC but i am not gay

[Anonymous No.10974037]

Global warming claims are predicated on the greenhouse effect. In a greenhouse, the highest area gets hot first. FINALLY the lowest area of the greenhouse feels an increase in temperature. However, this is easily proven NOT be happening with earths's climate. If it were, the upper atmosphere would be hot before we felt anything on the surface. Cirrus clouds, which are made of ice crystals, would disappear. They haven't. Temperatures at 5 miles up where airplanes fly would have increased above -30° F. They haven't. The global Warming cultists have only two options: 1) admit the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with their global warming claims, or 2) admit there is no increased temperature due to the greenhouse effect.

[Anonymous No.10974044]

>>10970154
>not a fan of economic growth
Literally a fucking commie

[Anonymous No.10974048]

>>10974037
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-global-warming-and-vs-greenhouse-effect/

[Anonymous No.10974056]

>>10971579
>80% and 120%
>120%
Yeah, you're just fucking insane

[Anonymous No.10974147]

>>10970196

To be fair the effect of solar warming is likely understated. This is for model simplifications, since the scope is not relevant for their task, but it's relevant for actual discussion. It appears that our sun is becoming more active, and the consequences of climate forcing due to solar events should be a problem to seriously discuss because we depend on a number of very delicate processes and supply chains and we don't want shit to go violent.

https://youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo

[Anonymous No.10974152]

>>10974147
Well yes, we know that the sun is slowly getting hotter, but that's on the timescale of millions, if not billions of years. No, it's not relevant for actual discussion because it clouds the actual problem that's immediately destroying us. The effects of solar warming are not "understated", they're just used by deniers like you to try to obscure past and future temperature measurements.

[Anonymous No.10974155]

>spurious correlations
>relationship between warming due to radiative forcing and CO2 is logarithmic, not linear
>climate sensitivity coefficient is unknowable
>earth's CO2 levels were 10 times higher than they are today in the eocene period and normal biological sequestration sorted it out

just some of the reasons why AGW is a meme and the product of a positive feedback loop of propaganda -> votes -> money + power, by the regulatory state to vote itself more resources and prestige

[Anonymous No.10974174]

>>10974044
since when do commies not love economic growth too, you fucking "literal" retarded sack of shit?

[Anonymous No.10974176]

>>10974155
seek help

[Anonymous No.10974180]

>>10970149
Please tell me nuclear proliferation isn't a key part of your plan for holding it all together under perpetual economic growth?

[Anonymous No.10974186]

>>10974176
>this is the best argument that AGW babbies have

[Anonymous No.10974197]

>>10974186
No argument or data or information will ever sink into the head of some fucking whacko cultist. That's what you are. A fucking whacko cultist that really really really likes to CONSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUME.
The cult of CONSUUUUUUME. The market worshiper. The ones who likes to get diddled by the money priests.

[Anonymous No.10974200]

>>10974197
this is absolutely embarrassing.
please show me the data and information you have which disproves the agw null hypothesis

[Anonymous No.10974205]

>>10974200
I'm not gonna even fucking bother. That's like some fucking crack whore telling me to show here the data that sucking dick for crack and snorting coke is gonna result in her fucking nose imploding and her teeth rotting out.

This is embarrassing. For the human race to have such outright retards like you as members.

[Anonymous No.10974207]

>>10974205
>we have the scientific method on our side
>okay, show me it
>...no!

[Anonymous No.10974208]

>>10974207
Dude. You like to eat. We get it.

[Anonymous No.10974255]

>>10974155
>it's fine because in 20 million years after humanity is extinct and no longer burn fossil fuels the earth will finally return to normal.
yeah that sounds horrible I think we should avoid this solution.

[Anonymous No.10974257]

>>10974255
If humanity goes extinct at any point what difference does it make when they go extinct? 0.000...1=0

[Anonymous No.10974261]

>>10974155
>relationship between warming due to radiative forcing and CO2 is logarithmic, not linear

sort of true, if you're a simpleton who ignores absolutely every factor except CO2 fortunately climatologists aren't that stupid. positive feedback mechanisms are why we've already experienced significant warming that is accelerating you can't just handwave this away.

>climate sensitivity coefficient is unknowable
citation fucking needed, we've narrowed it down to a range of values that produces very accurate models, far better than any retard who claims AGW isn't possible can produce.

>climate sensitivity coefficient is unknowable

[Anonymous No.10974262]

>>10974257
good point, we should have just nuked the entire planet during the cold war. no use prolonging the inevitable. 50 years ago, or the heat death of the universe it's all the same.

[Anonymous No.10974264]

>>10974255
>the temperature increased unfathomably slowly and getting slower with each new increase due to the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing
>this will lead to the destructive of humanity for some reason despite historical precedents demonstrating its reversal

[Anonymous No.10974266]

>>10974261
>you can't just handwave this away.
but Anon, the IPCC can..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Earth
>The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has also stated that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."[27]

>citation fucking needed
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

[Anonymous No.10974272]

>>10974266
No the oceans won't boil and sterilize all life with temperatures exceeding 400C, that's a pretty low bar to shoot for though.

as for that paper I've read it, it's a fucking joke he doesn't even understand carbon flux, claims with 0 data cloudcover provides a negative feedback stronger than the greenhouse effect and completely ignores all warming. There's a fucking reason this garbage was never published.

[Anonymous No.10974300]

>>10969548
https://www.globalwarmingprimer.com/primer/
pretty basic middle school level explanation which i think will be perfect for you.

[Anonymous No.10974307]

>>10974272
>that paper that disagrees with me? a joke, a fraud, a piece of garbage
>that paper that agrees with me? simply the highest science known to man and the fulfilment of 2000 years of human reasoning

[Anonymous No.10974311]

>>10974307
congratulations you completely missed the point. He 4/6 citations in the paper are himself, and he doesn't even list his data for his cloud calculations. I could write a more scientifically accurate paper in 15 minutes and cite myself in this thread and it would be more accurate that that arxiv garbage. but by all means ignore the facts and just strawman every argument because you have no clue what's even going on anymore.

[Anonymous No.10974312]

>>10974311
>I'm on the payroll of the warmists

[Anonymous No.10974317]

>>10974312
>i'm fucking retarded have am unable to discuss anything beyond the 3 canned statements I copy and pasted

[Anonymous No.10974319]

>>10969548
Why doesn't someone bomb these coal plants?
Would it really be that hard to incapacitate these extinction machines?

Or why not just kill the CEOs who are running everything. Its such a simpler solution.
If I had Death Note, this whole world would be running so much smoother.

(Notice to FBI: this post is entirely satirical and "Death Note" is a fictitious japanese cartoon)

[Anonymous No.10974338]

>>10969548
just go outside, leave your basement and walk the street in summer and you will literally feel the heat.

[Anonymous No.10974349]

>>10974056
>Yeah, you're just fucking insane
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_number
I know it's a really difficult concept, but you'll need to wrap your head around it for this discussion.

[Anonymous No.10974350]

How can anyone give a scientific argument against man made climate change? I can't read all this crap but I'll take some pointers. I am a denier but how could I provide evidence of nonexistents? All I can do is point out that things always change and politics mongers fear and science does what it is paid to do.

[Anonymous No.10974351]

Don't listen to anyone in this thread, first off.
Humans probably have an impact, not sure how much, definitely not none and definitely not all. It's mostly irrelevant. All the data on this, literally all of it, is terrible because atmospheres are really hard to model, not to mention the enormous bias. Read the recent anti-human-cause papers and some more trustworthy ones from the other side, answer is probably somewhere in the range between.
Climate change is inevitable, reducing emissions is good in the long run but not a magic bullet for anything, wind and solar energy will help us up production in the future.

[Anonymous No.10974388]

>>10974350
Just keep on drinking out of the toilet.

[Anonymous No.10974402]

>>10974388
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.10974749]

[Anonymous No.10974787]

>>10969548
Anthropogenic emission from burning fossil fuel and dumping CO2 to the atmosphere drives the current unprecedented climate change

1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.

2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.

3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA.https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.phpOn average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.
In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand

[Anonymous No.10974844]

Just a PSA sudden stratospheric warming in the southern pole means that the ozone heals itself. The colder airs at that height retain nitrates which damage the ozone. Basically the earth does what it wants and we won’t change shit. What I reallly don’t get is that we ignore the fact that there were plenty of volcanoes erupting for thousands of years. The levels of toxic gases in that past scenario outweighs the current CO2 emissions. But nobody wants to talk about that.

[Anonymous No.10974852]

So don’t believe the fucking socialist crap they teach you at school!

[Anonymous No.10974933]

>>10974844
>Just a PSA sudden stratospheric warming in the southern pole means that the ozone heals itself.
How so?

>What I reallly don’t get is that we ignore the fact that there were plenty of volcanoes erupting for thousands of years. The levels of toxic gases in that past scenario outweighs the current CO2 emissions.
Huh? What do toxic gases have top dip with anything? And why are you comparing thousands of years to a hundred?

[Anonymous No.10974946]

>>10974351
The percentage of change caused by humans has nothing to do with modeling, it can be directly measured via radiative spectroscopy and isotope analysis. The former tells us rising CO2 levels are to blame and the latter tells us humans are the cause of the rising CO2 levels.

>Read the recent anti-human-cause papers
They're uniformly crap published in fake journals.

>muh bias
Please show me an example of bias that isn't just in your imagination.

[Anonymous No.10974956]

>>10974933
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/the-air-above-antarctica-is-suddenly-getting-warmer-heres-what-it-means-for-australia-123080
Scroll down to subtitle “Effects on the Ozone and Antarctic Sea Ice”

And because for thousands of years volcanoes erupted. Thousands all at once, non stop. Volcanoes are much more polluting than industrial activity. Hearing about a brooding cataclysm is farcical. The news is a farce. Don’t let this global malingering continue.

[Anonymous No.10974990]

>>10974266
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

[Anonymous No.10974997]

>>10974956
>Scroll down to subtitle “Effects on the Ozone and Antarctic Sea Ice”
This is just a seasonal effect, what is your point? That we don't effect the size of the ozone hole?

>And because for thousands of years volcanoes erupted. Thousands all at once, non stop. Volcanoes are much more polluting than industrial activity.
Industrial activity has not been going on for thousands of years so it's an idiotic comparison. A 40 year old fit man has eaten many more calories than an obese 8 year old. What does this comparison tell you?

[Anonymous No.10974998]

>>10970075
I don't know what part of my post you're replying to buddy. I think climate change is real.