How can we debunk the climate change meme?

File: 51 KB, 320x320, 30-304685_pepe-the-frog-l-png-download-pepe-the.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 12:40:57 2019 No.10993879 [Reply] [Original]

How can we debunk the climate change meme?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 12:41:49 2019 No.10993883 >>10993879 >How can we debunk the climate change meme? Ask climate researchers to start using the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 12:42:35 2019 No.10993886 >>10993883 >Scientific method Underage b&

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 12:43:11 2019 No.10993887 >>10993886 Schizoid b&

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 12:43:37 2019 No.10993890 >>10993879 Try /pol/ if you want a climate change denier circlejerk.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 12:44:57 2019 No.10993894 >>10993890 this

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 01:47:40 2019 No.10995749 >>10993883 Correct >>10993886 Explain. Just how many times can we accept the north pole should have been ice free in the past, and they fail their prediction?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:13:38 2019 No.10995787 >>10993879 technically if you stop all GHG emissions climate change will grind to a halt and you can pretend it never existed.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:46:03 2019 No.10995961
File: 23 KB, 675x455, co2vtemp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

In Earth's entire history CO2 and temperature aren't correlated on any time scale.
They happen to both be rising on average since 1900, but only since 1900, which is why climate change alarmists only ever show 20th century data.
Was there a negative concentration of CO2 in the air during the little ice age or the last real ice age? Obviously not, but that's what needs to happen for CO2 driven climate change to be right.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:50:11 2019 No.10996026 >>10993879 Join the conversation. Prepare to be squashed like a bug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLjkLPnIPPw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weQ-N4iymrQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5fncpSikwk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq2Wv2KHGBc

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:51:30 2019 No.10996028 >>10995961 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLjkLPnIPPw

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:32:15 2019 No.10996052
File: 124 KB, 768x1024, 1515683655517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10995749
it sounds like you're confusing what is written in newspapers with what is considered scientific research. media scare-mongering to gain viewers, readers or listeners is not equal to what scientific studies show.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:39:07 2019 No.10996058 >>10996026 Doesn't matter what you post. CO2 and temperature don't correlate. It's debunked.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:44:14 2019 No.10996062 File: 22 KB, 824x408, carbon-dioxide-absorption-spectra.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996058 bullshit spouting retard

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:49:31 2019 No.10996065

>>10993879
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

The climate is changing but the impact by humans isn't as bad as they make it out to be. It's mainly a push to control people and generate money.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:56:55 2019 No.10996072 >>10995961 >earth's entire history >posts last 2 millenials Back to elementary school with you

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:57:15 2019 No.10996073 >>10996065 >It’s a pdf so it’s true Retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:04:03 2019 No.10996079 File: 56 KB, 386x386, 1557155993522.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10993879 What is the motivation for climate change being faked? >>10996072 >millenials

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:09:41 2019 No.10996083 >>10996058 >i have no argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:12:21 2019 No.10996084 >>10996065 "The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed" topkek, in the trash it goes

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:16:42 2019 No.10996091 >>10996062 That's CO2's absorption spectrum, not a correlation with temperature. >>10996072 You can post the other millenials if you have pics of them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:20:56 2019 No.10996093 >>10996091 >absorption has no correlation with temperature you proved my point, retard

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:25:18 2019 No.10996095
File: 46 KB, 705x588, 1520441463428.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10996084
>6 sources including one for a paper not yet published but written by the same authors

>>10996079
>What is the motivation for climate change being faked?
Money apparently, though you'd think the established economic interest in the status quo of the mining and other extraction industry, the agricultural sector, the petrochemical industry and every single manufacturer and construction company on earth would beat a few climate scientists who apparently want funding for their work.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:27:19 2019 No.10996097 We are not stopping the GHG emission anytime soon so just let humans do their thing and pray that spess colony becomes a thing before it’s too late.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:35:04 2019 No.10996099 >>10996093 >temperature and CO2 don't correlate >temperature and CO2's spectrum don't correlate either >this is a point

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:35:58 2019 No.10996101 >>10996099 >Greenhouse effect don’t real >Infrared photons don’t real

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:41:02 2019 No.10996109
File: 208 KB, 768x512, 1567457621125.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10993879
Shift the debate to discussing what should be done to combat climate change.
Let's see how many support higher taxes on fossil products or a ban on meat or imported food.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:45:21 2019 No.10996115 >>10996101 They're real. CO2 and temperature still don't correlate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:49:29 2019 No.10996120 >>10993879 >How can we debunk the climate change meme? Why? So that our corporate overlords can continue to fuck up the planet for 0.3% increase in revenue?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:50:25 2019 No.10996122 >>10996115 >CO2 and temperature still don't correlate. Yes they do. You can observe CO2 causing temperatures to increase in the lab.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:05:29 2019 No.10996136 >>10996122 >in the lab We're talking about Earth's climate though, where CO2 and temperature don't correlate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:06:09 2019 No.10996139 >>10996136 >We're talking about Earth's climate though, where CO2 and temperature don't correlate. They correlate there, too, and there’s no magic physics going on that would prevent such from occurring.

Gauss Mon Sep 23 08:07:07 2019 No.10996141

>>10996084
"The authors argue that the IPCC has used computational results which can not be considered experimental evidence, and site this as the reason for contradictory conclusions."

That's their main point. Honestly that is valid, we have no means of verifying the computational results except waiting and seeing what real life does. In my opinion the errors you get on small scale weather predictions will compound into any calculation of the broader climate.

The same reason ultimately Tao's approach in this paper will fail.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0290
When you average your data like that and place the vectors at nodes you lose turbulence. Turbulence seems to care about the in between the nodes down to arbitrary small scales. So we really need to figure this out first before we can say climate science has provable results.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:12:47 2019 No.10996148 >>10996120 stfu communist

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:16:16 2019 No.10996154 >>10996148 >Don’t criticize my corporate daddies reeeeee

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:19:59 2019 No.10996159 >>10996148 Do you have anything substantial answer to that question?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:23:19 2019 No.10996163 >>10996139 Do you even know what a correlation is? CO2 absorbs IR but still doesn't correlate because temperature isn't driven by CO2.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:26:37 2019 No.10996167 >>10996163 Temperature is driven by solar irradiance and greenhouse gasses. Solar irradiance is not increasing, so it’s greenhouse gasses doing it right now. Pretty simple

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:39:33 2019 No.10996185 File: 555 KB, 1600x1070, 1568232525752.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Sigh... So where is the data? I'll do the analysis myself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:48:46 2019 No.10996196 >>10996185 https://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+data

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:51:33 2019 No.10996202

>>10993879
The climate is always changing and there is nothing Man can do about that its just how the world works.
It used to be called Global Warming but everyone kept pointing out how retarded it was and that there was no proof so they changed it to climate change, you can't deny climate change because the climate is always changing.
Its a bit of trickery by changing the words on their part.
>>10993886
>not using the scientific method

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:53:09 2019 No.10996204

>>10996202
>The climate is always changing and there is nothing Man can do about that its just how the world works.

Wrong. Man can influence the climate.

>It used to be called Global Warming

No

>but everyone kept pointing out how retarded it was and that there was no proof

No

>so they changed it to climate change

No.

You’re like a boomer stereotype spouting crazy uncle myths

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:55:39 2019 No.10996210 >>10996204 Yeah ok faggot It used to be Global Warming, nobody said Climate Change a few years ago it was always about Global Warming and they only changed it to try to get a new angle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:02:19 2019 No.10996225 >>10996167 um what about albedo? climate = irradiance + co2 is a bit too simple. But the models need to be too simple to blame the change on CO2. It's a conundrum.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:23:07 2019 No.10996251 >>10993890 /thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:40:10 2019 No.10996272 >>10996196 So, did you look at the results? >paywall >only local data >not historical

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:44:22 2019 No.10996279

>>10993879
It's less a climate change meme and more an Anthropogenic Global Warming meme, climates do change, they do so constantly and radically over geological timescales, much more in line with solar maximums and minimums, supervolcanic eruptions, or major asteroid or comet impacts. The AGW conjecture posits that human beings initiated climate change, are the sole primary driving factor of climate change, and at any time can with an expenditure of effort halt climate change. It's about as sound as the flat earth conjecture or the geocentric universe conjecture, and it's only usage is to justify the slow expansion of taxation and central planning. One would have thought that central planning aught to have been discarded in the 1930's-1940's after it's abysmal and bloody failure to create successful societies. The deeper issue underlying this whole retarded movement is one which has existed since at least the 20's, which is the naive desire of some intellectual elite for a tyranny run by supposedly benevolent intellectuals, scientists, engineers, etc, and the various and numerous weak attempts to justify moving society further towards that goal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:47:02 2019 No.10996283 >>10993879 What have you tried?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:49:03 2019 No.10996288
File: 42 KB, 641x345, you_said_what.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/millions-of-times-later-97-percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/

soooo, basically all people who research climate on a professional level agree that man-made global warming is a thing

on the other hand there are people on the internet who don't think that's the case

Really difficult to decide whom to trust here.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:49:40 2019 No.10996289
File: 20 KB, 550x314, CO2-Temperature 420 kyr.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10995961
>In Earth's entire history CO2 and temperature aren't correlated on any time scale.
That's a pretty bold claim considering you contradict it in the very next sentence. Also, pic related. And even if this wasn't contradicted by the evidence, it's irrelevant since the link between CO2 and temperature - the Greenhouse effect - is causative, not correlative.

>Was there a negative concentration of CO2 in the air during the little ice age or the last real ice age? Obviously not, but that's what needs to happen for CO2 driven climate change to be right.
>negative concentration
How can you be this stupid? First of all, a decrease in temperatures would be caused by a decrease in concentration, not "negative concentration" which is mathematically impossible. Second, you fallaciously assume that if CO2 is driving the climate now it must always drive the climate. You are a fucking moron who doesn't belong on the science board.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:50:55 2019 No.10996292
File: 460 KB, 806x564, clim.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10996279
>look at me how smart i am going to outscience the climate science consensus
>muh politics and muh history, socialism bad, conspiracy. QED
gotta love /pol/ intellectuals

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:51:46 2019 No.10996293 >>10993879 You cant because its real

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:54:26 2019 No.10996298 File: 53 KB, 403x448, cvbbmwwe4rzz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996058 >CO2 never correlate >except now >and that disproves causation

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:54:50 2019 No.10996300 >>10996289 Nice fake plot you got there schlomo

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:05:14 2019 No.10996327

>>10996288

>“There is no consensus” has been one of the most popular climate myths and can be traced back to a memo authored circa 2001 by that same Republican political strategist, Frank Luntz, who wrote then: “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”

This should tell you everything you need to know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:08:10 2019 No.10996336 >>10996052 such an ugly whore

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:11:56 2019 No.10996342

>>10996210
>It used to be Global Warming, nobody said Climate Change a few years ago it was always about Global Warming and they only changed it to try to get a new angle.
it was because retarded people ie Republicans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8

Idiots think "global warming" = things get hotter, but are too retarded and obtuse to realize it also means wild weather patterns

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:13:51 2019 No.10996344 >>10996141 IPCC always underestimates CC speed, never overestimates it. https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=8m30s

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:40:15 2019 No.10996382 >>10996065 It's another retarded denier pseudoscience paper https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:49:20 2019 No.10996403 By looking at history and realizing that in the past when the temperature was increased by a few degrees, rather than the world ending, flora flourished and in turn so did fauna. There was much greater biodiversity as well.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:56:30 2019 No.10996414

>>10996292
Holy fuck this is beyond retarded, you pseud. CO2 concentrations have been way higher than they are now and it definitely doesn't follow that equation you pulled out of your ass. You people are honestly disgusting. Fearmongering to this degree is just pathetic and you've just revealed yourself kike.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:02:10 2019 No.10996423 >>10996414 rofl, data and fit functions trigger the poltard’s “you’re a kike” reflex. the absolute state

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:05:22 2019 No.10996433 File: 16 KB, 750x553, 1561008363970.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996423 post nose

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:07:25 2019 No.10996439 >>10996433 no chance, mr. JIDF false flag

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:09:56 2019 No.10996441 File: 137 KB, 500x522, gee.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996439 oy vey!

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:36:00 2019 No.10996496

>>10996403
>By looking at history and realizing that in the past when the temperature was increased by a few degrees, rather than the world ending, flora flourished and in turn so did fauna. There was much greater biodiversity as well.
doesn't mean it wouldn't disrupt the entire human civilization as you know it or that humans could even survive it, retard.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:41:50 2019 No.10996511

>>10996210
>It used to be Global Warming

Wrong.

>nobody said Climate Change a few years ago it was always about Global Warming and they only changed it to try to get a new angle.

Wrong.
Both terms have been in use for decades, both terms are still in use, and both terms are accurate.
This is a boomer myth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:42:52 2019 No.10996514 >>10996225 Albedo is included in climate modeling. Why are you lying?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:43:52 2019 No.10996516

>>10996279
>The AGW conjecture posits that human beings initiated climate change, are the sole primary driving factor of climate change, and at any time can with an expenditure of effort halt climate change

Three lies. That’s not a new record, unfortunately.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:44:20 2019 No.10996517 >>10996511 Just wait until he brings up global cooling like the net temperature isn't the combined warming and cooling effects

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:45:01 2019 No.10996518 >>10996300 >MUH JEWS I love /pol/ argumentation skills. When the data doesn’t agree with you, it’s a giant Jew conspiracy

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:46:06 2019 No.10996520

>>10996403
>By looking at history and realizing that in the past when the temperature was increased by a few degrees, rather than the world ending, flora flourished and in turn so did fauna.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

Yep

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:52:45 2019 No.10996531 >>10996518 Give source for that pic instead of complaining that he called you fake

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:00:08 2019 No.10996546 >>10996531 Sorry, that’s not me. I’m only commenting on the “Muh jews” line of argumentation. I’d expect more logical rebuttals from the bacterial films that grow in my aquarium.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:00:14 2019 No.10996547 >>10996163 But you already admitted they correlate right now. Also, the fact that CO2 is driving the climate is directly observable: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:02:04 2019 No.10996550 >>10996210 >It used to be Global Warming, nobody said Climate Change a few years ago Wrong again, Retardo. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:05:48 2019 No.10996557 >>10996300 >it's fake because I say so >also I have no response to anything else in the post Oops, looks like the /pol/tard shit himself again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:07:33 2019 No.10996560 >>10996403 >By looking at history and realizing that in the past when the temperature was increased by a few degrees You mean over thousands of years, rather than a hundred? Yeah totally the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:07:49 2019 No.10996562 >>10996546 > I’d expect more logical rebuttals from the bacterial films that grow in my aquarium. kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:08:25 2019 No.10996568 What if the temperature rise causes CO2 increase and not the other way around?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:09:51 2019 No.10996573 >>10996414 By that logic nothing drives the climate since no one factor is always dominant and perfectly correlated with temperature at all times. So the Sun has nothing to do with climate right?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:10:19 2019 No.10996574

>>10996496
humans have been around in one form or another for millions of year you nigger. And every stage has been slow progress forwards. Why should we stop now and choose to stagnate because 'muh civilization as you know it' could change for, what is arguably, better.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:12:02 2019 No.10996579 >>10996568 If only we were't pumping massive amounts CO2 into the atmosphere

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:12:09 2019 No.10996580 File: 56 KB, 621x702, ce8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996531 >he doesn't recognize ice core data but thinks he is qualified to discuss climatology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_Station#Ice_core_drilling

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:13:00 2019 No.10996583 >>10996520 >one extinction event based on an extreme is somehow an argument against plants growing better in CO2 rich environments and animals that eat those plants having more food ok retard

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:13:35 2019 No.10996585 >>10996300 >it's fake because I say so >also I have no response to anything else in the post Oops, looks like the /pol/tard shit himself again.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:14:22 2019 No.10996590

>>10996573
I didn't say that, I said that equation is a joke and they're just trying to fearmonger by having an extremely zoomed in shot of a short time period and then projecting that for 100 fucking years based on a shitty equation they fitted to a couple of data points across millions.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:16:12 2019 No.10996593

>>10996568
>What if the temperature rise causes CO2 increase
It does. Humans also cause CO2 increase with emissions, which warns thr planet and causes more CO2 to out gas from the oceans. But that means the CO2 from the oceans is ultimately the fault of human emissions.

>and not the other way around?
Then what caused the warming?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:17:13 2019 No.10996599 >>10993879 Have sex

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:18:03 2019 No.10996602

>>10996574
>Why should we stop
Who said we should?

The only people arguing against progress are those demanding that we should take the economic damage from global warming in full without mitigating it. I don't understand why they want to harm the economy but they do.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:25:33 2019 No.10996613

>>10996590
>I didn't say that
Yes I know, I said that your logic implies that. You said:

>CO2 concentrations have been way higher than they are now and it definitely doesn't follow that equation you pulled out of your ass.
Now consider that solar activity has been decreasing for decades and the sun is currently in a grand minimum yet warming continues. By your logic this means the sun does not drive the climate, since they are not correlated. Yes or no?

>they're just trying to fearmonger by having an extremely zoomed in shot of a short time period
LOL you mean like your zoomed in shot here >>10995961 which attempted to hide the correlation apparent in ice core data >>10996289. You're a hypocrite.

>then projecting that for 100 fucking years based on a shitty equation they fitted to a couple of data points across millions.
So you will accept predictions based on a causative model instead?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:29:43 2019 No.10996621

>>10996583
>one extinction event based on an extreme is somehow an argument against plants growing better in CO2 rich environments and animals that eat those plants having more food

I never said that higher CO2 concentrations couldn’t increase the amount of active biomass in the ecosphere. I actually agree that such is the case. However, when CO2 concentrations, and thus temperatures, increase very quickly, this is very bad for the environment.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:53:22 2019 No.10996688

>>10996579
>>10996593
>ppmv increase
>massive amounts
there are around 4*10^16 kilograms of CO2 in the atmosphere at 400ppmv, give or take 5%
even if you doubled your CO2 production worldwide to 30 GT/year, it'd take more than a millennium to double the concentration to 800ppmv

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:07:47 2019 No.10996726 >>10996688 https://www.co2.earth/2100-projections If every country follows current climate agreements (they aren't) we'll hit 800 ppm by 2100 Your math is off by a factor of 100.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:10:25 2019 No.10996731

>>10996688
The glacial/ interglacial cycles of the last ~ 1My never saw CO2 concentrations beyond ~290 ppm.
We have raised it by over 100 ppm in one hundred years. Note also that the increase of CO2 when entering an interglacial period was in the order of 30-50 ppm in 200 years.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:10:33 2019 No.10996732 Don't try to convince people to mitigate emissions, it's too late anyway. Convince people they're fucked if they don't start building arcologies NOW. It's good for the economy too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:18:18 2019 No.10996760 >>10996122 That Anon is fucking you up. Also, we use co2 to freeze shit in my lab. But im a dummy who has learned that co2 and temperature do not correlate. >>10996058 Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:18:36 2019 No.10996761 >>10996731 Show your source/studies

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:22:12 2019 No.10996771 >>10996167 >Solar irradiance is not increasing Bullcrap.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:28:50 2019 No.10996787 File: 67 KB, 1435x849, TvsSA.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996771

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:29:40 2019 No.10996789

>>10996342
Criminally wrong. Not just wrong but untrue.
>>10996511
Also wrong but semantics. You are obviously not old enough to inow what you are saying and think the internet contains all the wisdom of the universe.
>>10996550
Typical liberal revisionist history. Nice job getting blacks on your team.
>>10996210
Sounds about right.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:31:33 2019 No.10996792 >>10996787 Are you agreeing because the graph is? Or you want to use your authority to deem it insignificant?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:32:00 2019 No.10996794 >>10996688 >even if you doubled your CO2 production worldwide to 30 GT/year CO2 emissions are already at 36 GT/year, where are you getting your data? And how does this respond to >>10996593 ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:35:47 2019 No.10996803 File: 77 KB, 645x729, y2uNb2I.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996760 See >>10996289 and >>10996547 >Also, we use co2 to freeze shit in my lab. Don't breed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:36:48 2019 No.10996807 >>10996792 what have you tried?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:38:37 2019 No.10996811 File: 73 KB, 850x594, Composite-Total-Solar-Irradiance-TSI-at-the-mean-absolute-level-of-DIARAD-SOVIM-and.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996771 Retard. Not only is irradiance decreasing, but we are approaching a grand solar minimum.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:41:46 2019 No.10996818
File: 25 KB, 1413x191, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10996613
That's not even me you retard. Stop trying to act smart when we all know you're a retard. Stop "implying" shit based on what you want people to mean. All I said was their equation is bullshit and they're using manipulative tactics to fear monger. That's it, retard. So fuck off with your sun bullshit. There's obviously a bunch of reason the climate changes, and CO2 is the one that matter the least since it has a positive effect.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:43:21 2019 No.10996822 File: 51 KB, 600x467, 001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996789 >denial >no argument >no evidence The exemplary /pol/tard response.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:44:02 2019 No.10996825 File: 1010 KB, 631x2033, earthsurface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Can somebody please explain to a brainlet like me how pic related is possible?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:45:02 2019 No.10996827 >>10996811 Ive taken shits older than the data here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:50:22 2019 No.10996836 >>10996789 >no sources or evidence >"yOuR wRoNg Im RiGhT cUz I PoSt FrOgS" this shithole was more bearable before /pol/ started to believe their own memes and lies

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:51:54 2019 No.10996839
File: 199 KB, 521x437, figure-spm-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10996818
>All I said was their equation is bullshit
How is it bullshit? Because it doesn't apply to thousand year timescales or the climate millions of years ago? No one said it did, you dense fucking retard.

>There's obviously a bunch of reason the climate changes, and CO2 is the one that matter the least since it has a positive effect.
Yes, just look at all these positives. You're delusional.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:54:42 2019 No.10996845

>>10996822
>pol
How would I know? What anon says is true I didn't deny shit I agree that his life experience and memory is as mine. I was there. In the early 80s the fear was the next ice age. 88 global warming for 15 years. Warming btfod, climate change. Of course "climate change" was words someone may put together but it wasn't used for this kind of dumbfuckery.
>>10996836
Never clicked on pol. Don't watch news. I get my all my news second hand from real conversations because I grew up.
>>10996803
Ever heard of dry ice? What a brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:58:23 2019 No.10996855 >>10993879 >Greta and all the propaganda bullshit are for our best >we should raise taxes, this will surely help yikes in all fields

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:59:35 2019 No.10996860 >>10996855 >m-muh feelings

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:00:58 2019 No.10996862 >>10996836 I don't post frogs either.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:02:27 2019 No.10996867 File: 48 KB, 645x729, 8d6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996827 >the age of the data is somehow relevant to whether irradiance is currently increasing

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:05:18 2019 No.10996872 >>10996196 Fu! Google only tells me what it thinks I want to hear.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:06:20 2019 No.10996875 >>10996867 >currently So now we're moving the goal?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:08:09 2019 No.10996879

>>10996845
It's hard to decipher your incoherent babble but I'll try.

>What anon says is true I didn't deny shit I agree that his life experience and memory is as mine.
No once gives a shit about your anecdotes, get off the science board.

>In the early 80s the fear was the next ice age.
Wrong. https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

>Ever heard of dry ice?
Ever heard of an irrelevancy?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:09:36 2019 No.10996883 >>10996875 >>Solar irradiance is not increasing >Bullcrap. Do you know what the word "is" means?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:11:36 2019 No.10996891
File: 316 KB, 840x578, 1555330981151.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10993879
Climate change exist idiot, for at least 1 billion years on this shithole planet, but we don't know how the climate was 10 million years ago and data about the future changes are just speculation, there are too many variables. But the idiots who constantly talk about it, do not bring solutions on the table, just raise taxes, that will fix the problem.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:19:23 2019 No.10996920

>>10996891
>we don't know how the climate was 10 million years ago
Speak for yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

>data about the future changes are just speculation
Based on our scientific understanding I'd the climate.

>there are too many variables
Only certain variables are significant.

>But the idiots who constantly talk about it, do not bring solutions on the table, just raise taxes, that will fix the problem.
"Give me the solution to 1+1=x but don't give me any of that bullshit about 2"

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:21:25 2019 No.10996928 >>10996883 Does be?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:27:58 2019 No.10996946 >>10996891 >to be or not to be So basically it doesn't matter.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:29:55 2019 No.10996954

>>10996879
Yes, you are linking revisionist history. It is like you younger people think that the internet is god or something. The coming ice ace was preached in schools and written about in the "weekly reader" for children's science classes. There wasn't shit in the media about climate. That was all Russias and inflation. I know what dry ice is and have proven more /sci/ worthy than you. Like this Anon said before. I haven't confirmed or denied anything except what the other guy said was true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:31:52 2019 No.10996959 >>10993879 Dumb goy, crash your economy and infrastructure to so the average temperature doesn't rise by 3 degrees.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:33:25 2019 No.10996968 >>10993879 climate change is real. but the solution isn't trying to fix it but to develop space flight quickly so we all escape earth before serious shit happens

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:37:58 2019 No.10996992 >>10996968 Not many are brave enough to see the elephant in the room.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:44:40 2019 No.10997012 >>10996954 >if I remember it differently it's revisionist >my anecdotal evidence is more valid than written records >REEEEEEEEEEEE Is this a joke? >I know what dry ice is Please explain how dry ice is relevant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:44:51 2019 No.10997014 >>10996959 are you aware of the damage that a rise of 3 degrees will do to the world, ocean levels, climate, crops and so on? >HURR DURR JUST GET AN AC BRO ITS JUST GONNA GET A BIT WARMER THAT'S ALL

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:45:18 2019 No.10997018 >>10996726 >CO2e all emissions != CO2 specific emissions fuck this goddamn mess of a system presented here >>10996731 >The glacial/ interglacial cycles of the last ~ 1My never saw CO2 concentrations beyond ~290 ppm. Post links

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:54:25 2019 No.10997051 >>10997018 >CO2e It says 800 ppm CO2, not CO2e. CO2e ppm is calculated below it. You lose.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:58:02 2019 No.10997061 >>10997012 You're a joke. I gave a ref and a clue if you had brains to find it. There is no science in your post. Give /pol/ my regards.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:00:57 2019 No.10997070 File: 2 KB, 95x81, .png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10997051

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:08:21 2019 No.10997095 File: 38 KB, 582x242, Temperature-change-and-carbon-dioxide-change-measured-from-the-EPICA-Dome-C-ice-core-in-Antarctica-v2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10997018 Every climatologist knows this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:11:09 2019 No.10997098 File: 192 KB, 870x1320, Screenshot_20190923-151011_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10997070 >posting the wrong column Nice try retard, you almost got away with it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:13:20 2019 No.10997102 >>10997095 So do climatologists just not write papers with citations, and just add "All climatologists know this" as needed? >>10997098 a projection based on EQUIVALENT global emissions? or purely of CO2?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:19:18 2019 No.10997117 >>10997102 there are two numbers there for a reason you fucking idiot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:21:36 2019 No.10997127 File: 413 KB, 1500x1110, 1520452592022.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996079

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:23:05 2019 No.10997131

>>10997102
Are /pol/tards unable to read filenames?

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

>a projection based on EQUIVALENT global emissions? or purely of CO2?
Seriously are you blind? The projected CO2 concentration is in blue (800 ppm) and the CO2 equivalent is below it in gray (1060 ppm)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:23:07 2019 No.10997132 >>10997117 releasing methane increases CO2e emissions, but doesn't contribute by itself to CO2 emissions what exactly is the projection of CO2 ppmv based on?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:26:42 2019 No.10997151 if you engage in a debate with denialists you have already lost.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:30:24 2019 No.10997164 >>10996185 https://web.archive.org/web/20100224025212/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:35:12 2019 No.10997180 >>10997151 What a puss thing to say. I'm becoming more of a warmer everyday. How would I change if people don't change me?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:41:32 2019 No.10997194 >>10997132 The source is below the chart, see for yourself.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:01:40 2019 No.10997242

>>10997180
have you seen anyone seriously discussing whether the earth is round or flat? What's the result of that? It only creates false impression that there is something to discuss and bystaners retards will fall for that. If denialists were treated properly since day one, that bullshit would've died already.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:07:40 2019 No.10997252

>>10997242
I see your point but do not think the analogy is accurate. There are few stuffing their coffers with the money from the flat earth industry. Green is huge biz and that's confusing a lot of thinking individuals. It is assumed that the grain of truth is as bullshit as the rest of it. Not a lot of people actually think, "fuck the environment." It is just seen as a way to wrench freedom, elect politicians, and keep stocks heading in the right direction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:09:37 2019 No.10997254 >>10993879 What are some good sources on feedback cycles regarding increased evaporation of water and methane?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:12:32 2019 No.10997263

>>10997194
The source is a bunch of scores run on a simulation software produced by MIT, on a model "reviewed and endorsed" by IPCC chairman
https://www.climateinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/C-ROADS-Scientific-Review-Summary.pdf
this is the summary statement
http://www.climateinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Ref_Scenario_Default_v5.doc
This is the scenario references, which link to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Fsr/?src=/climate/ipcc/emission/
which returns 404

In summary, fuck off

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:13:16 2019 No.10997266 File: 119 KB, 583x482, 1561930048676.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >another climate change thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:16:20 2019 No.10997272 >>10997242 My analogy: The health food fad gave rise to fatties. I fear that we are screwing up the environment by trying to protect it. There needs to be a rational middle ground and there won't be so long as there are too many brainwashed parrots.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:26:18 2019 No.10997297 >>10997263 And your point is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:28:21 2019 No.10997302 >>10997297 there's no actual fucking access to the review that is being made, and only the summary is in public view the point is fuck off

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:31:41 2019 No.10997311 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrejG-WI3U

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:36:50 2019 No.10997324
File: 237 KB, 2256x1126, Screen Shot 2019-09-23 at 4.35.16 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10997102
Seeing the graph was already posted in the thread, I didn't see the need to repeat it.
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
Play with the data and observe how the increase of CO2 in the last interglacials behaved and how it's doing today. It took about 10k years for CO2 to rise 100 ppm and we've achieved 100 ppm+ over the maximum of the interglacials in less than 100 years

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:41:51 2019 No.10997335 >>10997311 >willie soon holy shit he's still around? i figured the koch brothers made him take a swim with concrete shoes after he took millions from them to publish a trash paper no one took seriously.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:48:24 2019 No.10997350 muh climitz

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:50:50 2019 No.10997352

>>10997263
>>10997302
holy fucking shit you're like a child i need to spoonfeed everything, was it really too difficult to read the fucking linked website?

>What data does C-ROADS use?
>All data sources can be reviewed in the C-ROADS Reference Guide.
Sources of historical data are:
Historical FF CO2 Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-FILES/
Historical Population Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Calculated by dividing FF emissions by FF emissions per capita.
Historical GDP Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration.
Historical CO2 Atmospheric Concentrations Mauna Loa – National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Siple Ice – Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. 1994. Historical CO2 Record from the Siple Station Ice Core http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.html
Historical Temperature Changes HADCRUT3, Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office. National Climatic Data Center, NCDC.
CFC Forcing Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/
Other Forcings GISS. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
Sources of projected data are:
Projected FF CO2 Emissions, Atmospheric Concentrations,
and Temperature BAU:
US MiniCAM EMF Standard Reference
Europe AIM96 Standard Reference
China MiniCAM EMF Standard Reference
India MERGE 3.0 Ref
World MiniCAM EMF14 Standard Reference
World CETA EMF14 Standard Reference
World AIM EMF14 Standard Reference
World ASF SRES A1 ScenarioReduction:
World MiniCAM EMF14 Accelerated Technology
World CETA EMF14 Accelerated Technology
Projected N2O and CH4 Atmospheric Concentrations IPCC Third Assessment Report. 2001. Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change. P.358.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:52:12 2019 No.10997354

>>10997352
>You can set whether the emissions controls are controlling “CO2 equivalents” or controlling “CO2 only” in the NON-CO2 GHGs portion of the “Settings” pane. When ‘Set controls to regulate “CO2 equivalents”’ is selected, user inputs are in the form of CO2 equivalents. If you select 50% below a reference point (Ref year or Ref scenario) The 50% reduction will be applied across the GHG gases according to their prevalence at the Reference time.

>If you choose Set controls to regulate “CO2 only”, a 50% reduction will be applied only to CO2. All the other greenhouse gases will continue to grow according to the reference scenario.

for those of you who clearly can't understand basic English:
The CO2 readout only utilizes CO2 inputs, CO2e measures all GHGs. They are computed separately.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:34:35 2019 No.10997423 >>10997311 Damn! That's like two hours Anon. I can't stop watching but I have to continue later. That dude is fucking warmers up!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:41:04 2019 No.10997446 >>10996789 >Also wrong but semantics. Nope. Just read the NASA website or something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:47:15 2019 No.10997456 >>10997272 > I fear that we are screwing up the environment by trying to protect it. You’re retarded. >There needs to be a rational middle ground Basic logical fallacy

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:19:05 2019 No.10997513 >>10997456 I'll give you the second one. And return the first. You are retarded if you think that I am retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:20:33 2019 No.10997517 >>10997446 Read a book nigger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:18:46 2019 No.10997657 >>10995961 Lol wtf kind of retardation is this

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:20:51 2019 No.10997660 >>10996789 >think the internet contains all the wisdom >>10997446 >read the NASA website Seems you agree.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:51:52 2019 No.10997897 >>10997517 And what book would that be?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:04:11 2019 No.10997917 REEEE muh trump denies the chinese hoax so i follow him since he is a stable genius

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:10:34 2019 No.10997939 Climate change is real and we are doing basically nothing about it. Globalised society will collapse within 50 years and most people will die. I hope it happens quickly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:13:18 2019 No.10997949 >>10997939 no, they won’t just die. mass migration is what will happen. and even though that is a /pol/ meme i think it is more likely than people choosing to drown in their shitty homelands

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:19:08 2019 No.10997962

>>10997939
>we are doing basically nothing about it
Au contraire. We are worsening it each and every day. First derivation is positive and we don´t have a chance in hell of going to zero or below. Second derivation is in our control however.
>>10997949
Once powers that be decide they have enough cheap labour and more will just wreak havoc for no profit, they will close the border. The refugees are unarmed and at mercy of the importers, they aren´t Vandals.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:19:16 2019 No.10997964 >>10997949 Obviously mass migration will happen. Dying will also occur before, during and after.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:19:45 2019 No.10997966

>>10996109

You mean a carbon tax? It was actually kinda working for here with emissions starting to go down. The only downside was that people had to pay an extra 20 cents on their electric bills. But the energy companies didn't like it so it got removed and now we're paying even more for electricity than we did 7 years ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:33:32 2019 No.10998166 >>10993879 We don't need to. Just propagandize until the cows come home.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:39:32 2019 No.10998173 >>10997966 Aren't utility companies great? Blocking cheap sources of energy from being hooked up to the grid and lobbying to keep the laws working for them. Thank God that we have this legal monopoly controlling our resources.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 23:22:20 2019 No.10998273 How dare you!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 00:00:37 2019 No.10998362 >>10996109 This interlocutor makes too much sense. I deny but I'm cool with doing things to reduce pollution and save resources. A lot of this can keep money in the pockets of consumers. What's all the screaming about?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 00:01:40 2019 No.10998365 >>10996120 No. So the can't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 00:30:51 2019 No.10998457 >>10997164 Yeah, I remember that. Found out through Wikileaks back then.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:16:12 2019 No.10998591

Brainlets don't believe the climate is changing
Brainlet normies believe that this will end in an apocalypse
Brainlets believe that humans are mostly responsible for it, when it literally cannot be proven that CO2 is the main culprit for the shift in climate. The IPCC state that CO2 emissions contribute over 50% of the shift in climate as if there isn't a huge difference between 51% and 99%.
Actual rational people who do their research know that the warming of the west Antarctic ice sheet is the real threat in sea level rise and that there are geological variables you need to take into consideration like volcanoes etc.
Oh btw if you were to cut out all CO2 emissions now you still wouldn't be able to "reverse" the change in climate. That is laughable

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:17:35 2019 No.10998594 >>10993879 >meme It's not a meme when people start actually believing it Save the people

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:38:16 2019 No.10998635 >>10998591 > using words like brainlet and normie. Ok

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:40:49 2019 No.10998642 >>10998273 (You) as in biaetch!!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 02:39:12 2019 No.10998757 I miss the times when "meme" was used correctly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 02:47:44 2019 No.10998771 >>10998757 Elaborate. I hate the misuse of shit like unironically, acronym, adicting. I battle the common usage. It is static vs dynamic quality.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 02:58:13 2019 No.10998787

>>10998771
Me too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
>A meme (/miːm/ MEEM[1][2][3]) is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture—often with the aim of conveying a particular phenomenon, theme, or meaning represented by the meme.[4] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.[5]

tl;dr: meme doesn't mean joke. Funny videos aren't memes, slapping words on random pictures aren't memes. If certain pictures are reposted again and again, that is a meme. BTFO is a meme. Calling people faggot on 4chan is a meme.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 03:06:34 2019 No.10998794 >>10998787 Muh brother. Now I can sleep. I comprende. And will recognize your guidance in the future. Nanoo nanoo and perspire.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 05:44:17 2019 No.10999019 >>10997335 Can't debunk him can you?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 06:10:19 2019 No.10999052 >>10996789 FUCK OFF BOOMER

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:32:05 2019 No.11000334 >>10999052 Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 01:17:48 2019 No.11001735 >>10996185 On a bunch of publicly accessibly FTP servers. Did you even bother to try Google searching for the name of one of the datasets?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 04:46:25 2019 No.11002045 >>11001735 See >>10996272

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 04:57:59 2019 No.11002056 >>10993879 >debunk Why? What is it to you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 04:59:44 2019 No.11002058 >>10996414 >CO2 concentrations have been way higher It also used to be a lot warmer on Earth. Except us humans didn't exist back then.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:01:43 2019 No.11002061 >>10996568 What if wet pavements caused rain?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:02:47 2019 No.11002063 Global warmcunts are liars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmtytPiTZAo

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:23:02 2019 No.11002074 >>10996789 >the intergovernmental panel on CLIMATE CHANGE >founded 1988

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:25:26 2019 No.11002077 >>11002063 This just in: Netflix documentaries are shit. Therefore, decades of scientific research are nothing but lies

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:30:12 2019 No.11002083 >>11002045 So that's a "no" then.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:31:35 2019 No.11002085 >>11002077 Where are the scientists condemning these shit documentaries?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:33:11 2019 No.11002087 >>10993879 just wait another decade or so for industrial countries to quit industrial era, start major war and make climate change into a minor problem

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:37:09 2019 No.11002091

>>11002085
"The scientists". Like the great council of scientists has to condemn every stupid documentary that's at least in parts incorrect? Are you retarded? A single scientists drives to work, sits in his lab or in front of his pc and works. Why is it their responsibility to fact check every single piece of shit on the internet?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:42:45 2019 No.11002097 >>11002063 i saw exact same post before, how it's not a spam?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:43:08 2019 No.11002100 >>11002091 Yeah who cares if people are being brainwashed with pseudo-science? I can't wait for the next bullshit documentary to come out now!

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:46:40 2019 No.11002106 >>11002083 They should require an IQ test before allowing people on /sci/. Or at least basic literacy. You didn't even read the answers to my post and my response to them and just enjoy being a dipshit.

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:49:05 2019 No.11002108

>>11002100
Not scientists because it's not their job to write reviews on every documentary on the internet. There are so many shit documentaries about CERN, yet I don't feel the obligation to address every single mistake in any of them even though I work there.

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:55:27 2019 No.11002111

>>11002085
Here they are, you can calm down:
>For instance, Dr. Susan Crockford went public this week saying the walruses filmed for this scene were falling off the cliff to escape polar bears ... not because climate change is reducing their natural icy habitat. Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, backed that up too.
https://www.tmz.com/2019/04/09/netflix-defends-walrus-fall-scene-our-planet-docuseries-climate-change/
https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1114721636794667009

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 05:59:29 2019 No.11002115 >>11002108 And it's that attitude that means the global voice of climate scientists is a 16 year old autistic girl who claims to be able to actually see CO2 in the air.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 06:01:12 2019 No.11002117 >>11002111 Why did the documentary claim such a falsehood in the first place? What was the aim?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 06:19:56 2019 No.11002137 Sea levels are NOT rising due to AGW: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/SeaLevelRiseCCRII.pdf

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 07:06:59 2019 No.11002218

>>11002117
You can't be happy, can you?
>Hurrdurr why don't scientists say something
But they do
>hurrrrr why do some film producers say incorrect things

Well, three possibilities:
1. it was an honest mistake. When people work, mistakes happen
2. they wanted to boost their sales
3. they wanted to piss (You) off

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 07:31:42 2019 No.11002258

>>11002218
If there is a documentary being made regarding a scientific subject, don't you think it should be mandatory that the documentary has been verified by climate scientists before being published to the unwashed masses?

>Well, three possibilities:
>1. it was an honest mistake. When people work, mistakes happen
>2. they wanted to boost their sales
>3. they wanted to piss (You) off
I think it was an honest mistake obviously.

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 07:48:39 2019 No.11002292

>>11002258
But the documentary's focus doesn't even lie on climate change. And no, I don't think that every documentary should have to be approved by a ministry of truth. Mistakes can happen and it's embarrassing for the producer, but it's not something we need regulation for. Other scientists (see above) are free criticise.

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 07:53:33 2019 No.11002299

>>11002137
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
>In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans
>Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Institute, including $736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[83][117] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[54] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that it would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate change, including Heartland.[117][118][119][failed verification] Joseph Bast, president of the Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[117]
>As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.[122] The St. Petersburg Times described the Institute as "particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart."[122] Heartland has stated that its authors were not "paid to defend Wal-Mart" and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the approximately $300,000 received from the Walton Family Foundation.[122]

If this shilltank supports something, I will support the opposite.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 08:04:00 2019 No.11002314 >>11002299 You can't attack the paper so you have to focus on their funding history. If fossil fuels are not going to end the world why wouldn't they fund science that supports this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 08:07:35 2019 No.11002322 >>11002292 Is there any common belief among the public regarding AGW that is incorrect?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 08:10:31 2019 No.11002328 >>11002314 >cherry picking three locations SEE IT GO UP IN 2 AND DOWN IN 1 You should look at a global scale. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 08:16:57 2019 No.11002336

>>10995787
you joke but this is literally what /pol/ does with the ozone layer. Humans started making changes in the 80s, the hole peaked in 2006, and now /pol/ pretends the hole wasn't real and mocks scientists for fearmongering over it. In global warming debates they use the hole in the ozone layer as evidence that scientists just make things up, when really it's just evidence that when we listen to science we can fix these problems.
>>10995961
>CO2 is not the sole determinant of temperature therefore it has no effect on temperature
when did you idiots start posting on /sci/ anyway? And this is what we mean when we say you don't understand science itself. Nobody who is scientifically literate would say something as profoundly stupid as that.

And on longer scales CO2 does correlate pretty well with temperature.

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 08:21:33 2019 No.11002342

>>11002137
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/
An independent council as a collaboration of 195 governments producing reports based on the findings of several thousands of scientists from all around the world
vs
A conservative thinktank that has not only a very clear political agenda, but that has a history of lies and shilling.

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 08:22:06 2019 No.11002343

>>10993879
All you need is a small government low tax “solution” to the “problem”. Then the socialists will bail instantly. And we actually have that. Despite all the finger wagging, the US reduced it’s CO2 more than any other country. And the kicker? They weren’t even trying to. All those signed up for shitty Paris Accords and pushing high taxes? They increased their output. Except for the UK. They dropped a little. So nobody actually cares about CO2 output. They care about slowing down the US economy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 08:24:33 2019 No.11002348 >>10997061 Why are you lying?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 08:43:32 2019 No.11002374 >>11002348 Why would I? Why are you? Who has something to gain or protect? Not me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 08:53:09 2019 No.11002383 >>11002328 The current rate of rise is little different to the period between 1920 and 1950, a fact that even the IPCC have accepted.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 08:53:36 2019 No.11002384 >>11002348 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmtytPiTZAo

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:01:53 2019 No.11002395 >>11002137 >posting HI unironically Keep huffing second-hand cigarette smoke, it's good for you!

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:02:12 2019 No.11002396 >>11002342 Any human fingerprint on sea level rise is debatable, but probably small in any event, given the natural forces in play since the mid 19thC.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:05:41 2019 No.11002401 >>11002396 >Any human fingerprint on sea level rise is debatable It's a direct consequence of global heating.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:09:58 2019 No.11002406 >>11002401 Global heating caused by "man-made" CO2 is miniscule and not worth talking about. Also, if temperatures are rising, then so would evaporation rates, therefore reducing sea levels.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:12:23 2019 No.11002407 >>11002406 >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:14:26 2019 No.11002411 >>11002406 >Global heating caused by "man-made" CO2 is miniscule and not worth talking about. Prove it >Also, if temperatures are rising, then so would evaporation rates, therefore reducing sea levels. No

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:15:12 2019 No.11002413 >>11002407 >>>/ClubOfRome/

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:19:37 2019 No.11002417

>>11002411
>Global heating caused by "man-made" CO2 is miniscule and not worth talking about.
I know that this part is bullshit but
>Also, if temperatures are rising, then so would evaporation rates, therefore reducing sea levels.
Why isn't this happening? Does it just rain more to offset the evaporation?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:21:39 2019 No.11002422 >>11002411 >Prove it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE2x0c1QB2M >No OK.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:25:09 2019 No.11002428 >>11002422 >This title does not seem to reflect the content, or the description.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:25:45 2019 No.11002430 Climate Models are Like Ouija Boards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5JlPBOo9ag

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:26:47 2019 No.11002432 >>11002428 >nicely addressing the content

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:29:11 2019 No.11002440 >>11002422 >YouTube video Lol

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:30:40 2019 No.11002443

>>11002417
>Why isn't this happening? Does it just rain more to offset the evaporation?

Warmer temperatures increase the amount of water vapor
BUT
Warmer water has more volume than colder water, and the warmer temperatures release millions of tons of freshwater from the ice caps

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:30:54 2019 No.11002444 >>11002440 But your climate Goddess Greta is all over youtube so why you hatin'?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:32:08 2019 No.11002448 >>11002444 >Muh celebrities Don’t care.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 09:36:11 2019 No.11002455 >>11002448 You don't care about Greta? You piece of shit.

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 11:48:55 2019 No.11002751

>>11002417
>>11002411
Who's who. More temp, more melt, more melt, more vapor, more vapor, more clouds, more clouds, more rain, more rain, more snow, more snow, more snow, more snow, more time to melt snow, more time to melt snow, more time to melt snow, snow doesn't melt in time, more snow on ground, so on and so on, next ice age. Enjoy your btfo.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:19:02 2019 No.11002949 >>11002751 please provide your citations for the change in the planet's albedo during the current warm period, as if you're predictions are true it should already be very apparent.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:20:46 2019 No.11002954 >>11002949 Think for yourself fag... sorry, no homophobia... dummy!

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:22:15 2019 No.11002956 >>11002954 So you can't provide any data that collaborates your claims? interesting...

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:24:32 2019 No.11002961 >>11002956 I could. Are you paying?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:26:56 2019 No.11002963 >>11002961 You made a claim, support that claim or I'm afraid I'll just have to assume you're just another retard posting made up bullshit. Which is exactly what I want as my sole goal in this thread is to make denierfags look stupid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:27:58 2019 No.11002968 >>10993879 Doesnt theybeill never listen time will prove us rite

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:28:54 2019 No.11002971 >>11002963 I already said to think for yourself. Go ahead and debunk my flawless logic experiment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:30:38 2019 No.11002976 >>11002968 It already has. Time and time again. We should of been out of fuel by now according to what they said when I was a kid. Nebraska should be frozen.

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:34:18 2019 No.11002987

>>11002971
logic is meaningless, you need to show the magnitude of effects. Without real world data confirming your claims I can just laugh at you.
for example, I can just say (without evidence as you didn't provide any either) that the total change in albedo from this effect is +.000000000000000000000001% which is imperceptible compared to the increase in the greenhouse effect. How do you prove I'm wrong?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:40:11 2019 No.11003003 >>11002987 >logic is meaningless Im not even gonna say anything.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:41:26 2019 No.11003007 >>11003003 So no argument, no proof. Another denier WHACKED.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:43:45 2019 No.11003010 >>11003003 This is why we make fun of humanities majors on /sci/

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 13:48:52 2019 No.11003030 >>11003007 Oh!! The whacker. Don't yu have anything else to do? Is this like your full time job? >>11003010 Good to see you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 14:04:32 2019 No.11003066 >>11003007 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUmxlBJofU

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 14:11:56 2019 No.11003080 >>11003003 Logical conclusions are no good. We use empiricism in the field of science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 14:15:29 2019 No.11003086 >>11003080 That makes my interlocutor even more retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 14:30:19 2019 No.11003132 >>11003007 Gomen nasai. I look at you and I see a mirror. Faggot!

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 14:39:45 2019 No.11003151 >>11003007 Based WHACKer

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 14:44:39 2019 No.11003161

>>11002336
The ozone hole is still there and will always be there. It’s a product of geometry and radiation. Last year it was one of the largest and the blame was placed on China, this year it is very small and “We did it, Reddit!”. And next year we will blame China again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 14:45:29 2019 No.11003164 >>11003151 Based lemming.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 14:56:40 2019 No.11003201 >>11003161 Source: My ass

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 15:01:21 2019 No.11003213 >>11003164 wouldn't believing something you can't defend with evidence be the very definition of being a lemming?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 15:04:24 2019 No.11003227 >>11003030 Yeah George Soros pays me by the post.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 15:05:59 2019 No.11003233 >>11003213 Admittedly samefagging. And: Yes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 17:21:09 2019 No.11003643 >>11003233 so we can agree >>11002751 is by definition a lemming?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 17:27:22 2019 No.11003666 >>10996109 i use public transportation mostly, so I would profit. I don’t eat meat so I don’t care if it’s banned, I‘d actually support banning meat

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 17:30:06 2019 No.11003677 >>11003643 I don't think you understand the symbolic definition of a lemming. I only say that most of the effort on your side of this argument is you alone and most here disagree. That's ok. Most people are dumb.

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 18:15:55 2019 No.11003860

>>10993879
You should stop denying it and start encouraging it. The world is becoming less white than the peak of whiteness (1914), so you should encourage it's destruction. Also it's far easier to prove that the people who want to prevent climate change are stupidly bad at actually encouraging policies that would reduce it. For instance all those idiots in Germany who think solar power is good for the environment in Germany.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 19:09:26 2019 No.11004006 >>11003164 cringe retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 19:43:01 2019 No.11004124 >>10993879 Why are you so in love with burning fossil fuels? Is your entire investment portfolio just oil companies?

Anonymous Thu Sep 26 00:04:20 2019 No.11004859
File: 131 KB, 658x669, Screenshot from 2019-09-25 22-01-59.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10996210
>It used to be Global Warming, nobody said Climate Change a few years ago it was always about Global Warming
Hey can you answer something for me please? Why do idiots like you always come into these threads spouting this instead of spending 5 seconds searching
>difference between global warming and climate change
?

Anonymous Thu Sep 26 00:09:38 2019 No.11004867
File: 44 KB, 636x299, Screenshot from 2019-09-25 22-05-55.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10996845
>In the early 80s the fear was the next ice age.
Hey can you answer something for me please? Why do idiots like you always come into these threads spouting this instead of spending 5 seconds searching
>global cooling
?

And if you spent more than 5 seconds, you might even learn some additional information such as:
>SO2 has a cooling effect
>SO2 has a much shorter half-life than CO2 and other GHGs, so it was always anticipated that GHG emissions would overtake SO2
>SO2 causes many health problems, so beginning in the 70s nations around the world drastically reduced their SO2 emissions
I'm just wondering why you didn't bother to look any of this up before you come to a science board and make yourself look like an idiot.
>>10997517
>be white supremacist
>be retarded
yikes! Are you the same idiot from above? That would certainly answer my question.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 00:11:28 2019 No.11004872 >>10993879 Wait.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 00:36:09 2019 No.11004921 I'm confused. Is climate change is real or fake? If it's real then why we don't do anything? If it's fake then why so many people make fuss about it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 00:39:04 2019 No.11004927 https://motls.blogspot.com/search?q=climate He's a Harvard professor, quantum physicist, and he tears apart puny climate ''scientists'' as a hobby, and makes fun of them for not being able to do basic math

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 00:53:22 2019 No.11004949 >>11004921 Either way. We should do stuff and not make a fuss. Some people are just dumb.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 01:19:30 2019 No.11004994 >>10993879 This guy's bait got y'all really good. Nobody is retarded enough to come to /sci/ and argue against climate change unless they're a category 5 shit stirrer.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 01:22:22 2019 No.11004998 >>11004994 Which logical fallacy is this one?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 01:25:20 2019 No.11005004 >>11004998 whichever one assumes there aren't loads of complete retards everywhere especially on 4chan

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 01:31:19 2019 No.11005009 >>11005004 No. It is like: "No scientist would blah blah." "How about so and so?" "Well, he isn't a true scientist." Even though he is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 07:07:23 2019 No.11005442 >>10996827 >>10996771 gotta be the dumbest retard in this thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 11:23:46 2019 No.11005967 >>10993879 you're on /sci/, not on /pol/ here it's about science, not about some bullshit some delusional retards come up with

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 11:24:49 2019 No.11005971 >>10996065 you fell for the conspiracy theory meme anon don't fall for that

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 26 11:30:29 2019 No.11005981 >>10993879 >tfw mortally hates kids and womyn >fuck future generations >global warming won't affect me why the fuck do i even care

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