Fact: Global Warming Hoax

[Anonymous No.12036962]

Graph of 4.6 billion years of Temperature and CO2; ZERO correlation. Fact: Global Warming is a hoax.

[Anonymous No.12036965]

>>12036962
Sage

[Anonymous No.12036975]

>>12036962
How do we know either of those values from billions of year ago?

[Anonymous No.12036996]

>>12036975
Fossil Evidence

[Anonymous No.12037044]

>>12036962
This is stupid for several reasons:

1. Showing CO2 and temperature on a geological timescale is irrelevant to the timescale of global warming.

2. There is a correlation between CO2 and temperature in the timescale of global warming (and other timescales)

3. A lack of correlation does nothing to disprove the causative mechanism between CO2 and temperature (the greenhouse effect). It merely shows that other factors can dominate on different timescales.

4. The graph is hand drawn, does not match the data, does not show large uncertainties in both temperature and CO2, and both the y-axis and x-axis divisions are not to scale.

5. Global warming is empirically observable regardless of past correlation with CO2

[Anonymous No.12037064]

What is the mathematical form of climate sensitivity?

[Anonymous No.12037074]

>>12037064
What do you mean by mathematical form?

[Anonymous No.12037140]

Your stupid

1. Showing CO2 and temperature on a geological timescale is relevant because it shows the relationship has no correlation.

2. Short term correlations tell us nothing. It's like getting heads on a quarter 8 times in a row and saying durr the chance of heads is 100%

3. A lack of correlation proves there is no relationship between temperature and CO2.

4. The graph is based on fossil evidence

5. Global warming is empirically observable because the UN will only fund scientists who affirm Global Warming. 56 million years ago the earth was 10 degrees Celsius hotter.

6. Earth has been cooling because the Sun is slowly dying. The temperature of Earth shows strong correlations to the solar period.

[Anonymous No.12037152]

Global warming is a hoax so the UN can create a world tax. Here's the source of the graph. Feel free to double check the temperatures and CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

[Anonymous No.12037259]

>>12036962
back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.12037310]

>>12037152
http://www.biocab.org/About_Us.html
looks legit
if you really want to investigate it, why don't you go to the primary sources they listed and find out what this data actually means? or not, you can also continue being a bias confirming, mouthbreathing doofus

[Anonymous No.12037473]

>>12037140
>1. Showing CO2 and temperature on a geological timescale is relevant because it shows the relationship has no correlation.
This doesn't respond to what I said. How is lack of correlation on geological timescales relevant to global warming?

>Short term correlations tell us nothing.
Global warming is a long term trend. Smaller timescale than geological timescale doesn't mean "short term."

>A lack of correlation proves there is no relationship between temperature and CO2.
It doesn't, as I already explained. You haven't controlled for other factors, so this tells you nothing. Not to mention that the greenhouse effect is directly observed.

>The graph is based on fossil evidence
This doesn't respond to anything I said.

>Global warming is empirically observable because the UN will only fund scientists who affirm Global Warming.
The UN doesn't fund thermometers, my special friend.

>56 million years ago the earth was 10 degrees Celsius hotter.
And? 56 million years ago, humans didn't exist.

>Earth has been cooling because the Sun is slowly dying
But that's wrong, retard. The Sun is getting hotter as it ages. And this has no affect on the timescale we're talking about anyway.

>The temperature of Earth shows strong correlations to the solar period.
Pic related.

You have utterly failed to argue against anything I said.

[Anonymous No.12037477]

>>12037152
>Global warming is a hoax so the UN can create a world tax.
So where is the world tax? When can we expect it?

>Feel free to double check the temperatures and CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
I did already, the data is way too sparse to create that graph. It's hand drawn, basically made up. And as I already said, the uncertainty ranges on the data are massive yet the graph doesn't show that.

[Anonymous No.12037489]

can we stop the bullshit here please? at this point climate change is something even hicks in the country can be sure of. it’s hotter, perceptibly, and winters are shorter and less cold. even in New York people have posted Magnolia trees growing there which historically only grew in the South (Virginia or south from there)

it is past the point of the “hoax” debate. you should regroup and try shilling something else. maybe join the old gag arguments like “it won’t be bad, it will be good if warming happens” or “it will cause a massive gentrification since only poorfags will get flooded”

[Anonymous No.12037493]

Its really simple.

Sunlight went up till the 70s explaining warming.

Then cloud cover fell explaining the rest.

Cloud cover doesnt have that much variance so global warming is about over.

[Anonymous No.12037499]

Agw is silly. It's the difference between wrapping yourself in five feet of blankets vs five miles.

[Anonymous No.12037512]

>>12036962

[Anonymous No.12037518]

>>12037493
>muh clouds
anon, please explain to me how you accurately model clouds. protip: you can’t because Navier-Stokes is hard. nobody knows how NS will come into play on global warming, because the equations are too hard, so stop larping. but on the larger historical data that stuff (like clouds) never made a difference so the safe bet is that clouds will continue to not make a difference
>>12037499
not even coherent enough to warrant a reply. just republishit science denial meme tag lines with nothing behind it

[Anonymous No.12037519]

Global warming fails on every level because it's a troll logic extrapolation.

1. Insulation doesnt work that way. The gain after a small amount is minimal.

2. Solar insolation explains everything.

3. Oil is peaking and the libs will die.

So literally all libs will die within 2 years and they are dependent on civilization.

[Anonymous No.12037521]

>>12037493
>Sunlight went up till the 70s explaining warming.
The increase is way too small to explain the warming. The Sun has cycled up and down in the same range for millenia without creating such massive warming, yet somehow you think it explains it now?

>Then cloud cover fell explaining the rest.
Clouds cause warming by blocking outgoing infrared radiation. Changes in cloud cover have caused cooling overall.

[Anonymous No.12037524]

>>12037518

I don't think your arguments are that good and neither do you. If you actually believed this stuff it would be easy to invest on. Short anything relying on climate.

[Anonymous No.12037529]

>>12037521

1. Actually temperature was going up even before the 20th century due to sunlight at about the same rate.

2. This is gibberish and doenst even dispute what I said.

[Anonymous No.12037534]

>>12037499
Please explain.

[Anonymous No.12037535]

>>12037524
my argument started out with the statement of fact that even hicks in the country can detect that winters are shorter and temperatures are hotter on average. are you going to debate that?

[Anonymous No.12037545]

>>12037534

Imagine wrapping yourself in five feet of blankets versus five miles. That is why there is diminshing returns and agw is asinine.

>>12037535

Your posts are literally gibberish now and you are arguing with no one. Like I said the fact that you aren't even investing on your bullshit shows you are nothing but an annoyance and dont even believe what you are saying.

Libs are unable to farm, civilization will collapse and they will all die.

[Anonymous No.12037550]

>>12037074
Something as simple as the weather should be easily reducible to a mathematical model, no?

[Anonymous No.12037551]

>>12037519
>Insulation doesnt work that way.
What do you mean? Reflecting infrared radiation back towards its source is insulation by definition.

>The gain after a small amount is minimal.
What does that mean? Show your math.

>Solar insolation explains everything.
No it doesn't. The change in solar forcing is only about 2% of the total radiative forcing.

>Oil is peaking and the libs will die.
Non sequitur.

[Anonymous No.12037555]

>>12037550
>weather
>climate
hurr durr

[Anonymous No.12037557]

>>12037551

Everything relevant has been cited, you are simply stalling. There is literally nothing you can do to not lose because I've conclusively proved agw doenst work.

[Anonymous No.12037562]

>>12037545
>Your posts are literally gibberish now
I think they were totally clear. even country people can see the climate has changed. is that gibberish?
>and you are arguing with no one.
says the guy i am arguing with

[Anonymous No.12037571]

>>12037562
Because of sunlight you adhd retard

>>12037499

[Anonymous No.12037573]

>>12037529
>Actually temperature was going up even before the 20th century due to sunlight at about the same rate.
Wrong. Pic related. Show your data.

>This is gibberish and doenst even dispute what I said.
What exactly don't you understand? Clouds insulate the Earth in addition to increasing albedo. Changes in cloud cover have caused cooling, not warming as you claimed. If you can't understand the basics of climatology then don't come onto ghe science board to try to discuss it.

[Anonymous No.12037575]

>>12037573

I trivially refuted you in seconds with a single graph.

[Anonymous No.12037579]

>>12037545
>Imagine wrapping yourself in five feet of blankets versus five miles. That is why there is diminshing returns and agw is asinine.
There are diminishing returns to the greenhouse effect. That is why warming is measured per doubling of CO2, not linearly. Do you think climatologists don't know that? What is your point exactly?

[Anonymous No.12037585]

>>12037579

That you are literally (not figuratively) ignoring the evidence and acting retarded.

[Anonymous No.12037586]

>>12037550
What do you think climate models are?

[Anonymous No.12037594]

>>12037557
>Everything relevant has been cited
Where? You didn't explain anything, you're just avoiding the argument.

[Anonymous No.12037595]

>>12037571
>Because of sunlight you adhd retard
it’s not because of sunlight, it’s because of pollution. and ad-hominems are not good practice

[Anonymous No.12037599]

>>12037571
Sunlight changed very little effect compared to the greenhouse effect. See >>12037521

[Anonymous No.12037601]

>>12037594

You lost immediately, I am simply mocking you. Literally ask for 1 piece of evidence and I will give it.

[Anonymous No.12037607]

>>12037599

Probably the tenth time you posted that bs

>>12037499

You lost here

[Anonymous No.12037608]

>>12037575
Which graph? I gave you a graph that shows the exact opposite of what you claimed, and you have no response.

You also failed to respond to the insulating effect of clouds. So either you don't understand basic physics, or you are avoiding it. Which is it?

[Anonymous No.12037612]

>>12037608
>>12037499

You are legit mentally retarded and cant read

[Anonymous No.12037614]

>>12037585
Which evidence did I ignore exactly? The only one who has done that is you since you have stopped posting anything of substance once your claims were revealed to be false.

[Anonymous No.12037624]

>>12037601
I already did in the past you're avoiding >>12037551

[Anonymous No.12037625]

>>12037614

This graph >>12037499

[Anonymous No.12037629]

>>12037612
How does that graph refute anything I said?

[Anonymous No.12037633]

>>12037624

You never asked for anything and I directly refuted you in >>12037499

I am simply responding to show how patheric

[Anonymous No.12037637]

>>12037629

It shows sunlight determines everything.

Simply learn to read.

[Anonymous No.12037649]

>>12037499
Can you find a smaller image, please?

[Anonymous No.12037653]

>>12037649

Dumb response.

[Anonymous No.12037654]

>>12037633
>You never asked for anything
I did:
>>Insulation doesnt work that way.
>What do you mean?

>>The gain after a small amount is minimal.
>What does that mean? Show your math.

Also here >>12037573
>>Actually temperature was going up even before the 20th century due to sunlight at about the same rate.
>Wrong. Pic related. Show your data.

Lying about posts anyone can read is not going to help you.

>I directly refuted you in >>12037499 #
Then it should be easy for you to explain exactly what you refuted with that graph.

[Anonymous No.12037658]

>>12037654

I refuted your claim that sunlight doenst explain, so, you're screwed.

Literally all you're doing is wasting time.

[Anonymous No.12037660]

>>12037607
>You lost here
did I? please explain

[Anonymous No.12037661]

>>12037653
It's not legible. A source would be nice, too.

[Anonymous No.12037665]

>>12037661

Simply google it.

If that graph is enough then you're screwed.

[Anonymous No.12037667]

>>12037637
>It shows sunlight determines everything.
Your graph doesn't show "everything" let alone a relationship with "everything." A quick reverse image search shows that it is for temperature and irradiance in a few Swedish towns. And it's only for summer temperatures. What's even funnier is I airway have you a graph showing global temperature and irradiance and not over one season: >>12037473. Please tell me again about the correlation.

[Anonymous No.12037669]

>>12037667

Pretty feeble response so I will leave you there.

[Anonymous No.12037675]

>>12037658
>I refuted your claim that sunlight doenst explain, so, you're screwed.
You didn't. Your graph is extremely cherrypicked and does nothing to argue against the data I've already shown you.

[Anonymous No.12037686]

>>12037637
>It shows sunlight determines everything.
From the same place you pulled the other graph from, which contradicts what you just said.

[Anonymous No.12037687]

>>12037675

Its solar insolation vs radiance. Clouds and such affect both. That's why >>12037499 differs from yours.

[Anonymous No.12037688]

>>12037607
>Probably the tenth time you posted that bs
Not an argument, try again. Or don't, it's not like there is any difference between the posts where you try and your shitposts, they are equally incompetent.

[Anonymous No.12037691]

>>12037667
nothing ever convinces anti-science shills. they go on and on denying science as an industry. this is the business model for thunderbolts.info and it will continue as an industry for the foreseeable future

[Anonymous No.12037693]

>>12037686

That does nothing to help you, so by all means use that argument.

Your argument literally hinges on post cooldown time because you fail so easily.

[Anonymous No.12037696]

>>12037693
>That does nothing to help you
Then >>12037499 does nothing to help you, yes?

[Anonymous No.12037697]

>>12037669
>get caught posting cherrypicked nonsense
>pretty feeble response
Yeah I'll bet you'll leave.

[Anonymous No.12037700]

>>12037697

Your fails simply make you look worse, so continue.

[Anonymous No.12037718]

>>12037687
No, do a reverse image search and you'll see the graph in >>12037499 is for some Swedish towns. They are for completely diffrent domains. Insolation is interchangeable with solar irradiance and solar activity is a proxy for both.

[Anonymous No.12037725]

>>12037718

Ummm... sounds dumb. Continue

[Anonymous No.12037726]

>>12037693
Didn't you say you were leaving?

[Anonymous No.12037730]

Reminder that literally all of the NOAA data showing warming is an artifact of (((adjustments))). Raw data shows a cooling trend.

[Anonymous No.12037733]

>>12037726
I'm no longer communicating with you in an effective way, simply chugging alcohol.

[Anonymous No.12037737]

>>12037700
Which fails? The only one who has payed false, easily refuted claims in this thread is you. The only one who has failed to provide a response to his claims being refuted is you. The only one who has posted a cherrypicked graph of Sweden and presented it as global is you. The only one who has said they were leaving after getting BTFO and didn't is you.

[Anonymous No.12037750]

>>12037733
But you're just shitposting the same as you were before you said you were leaving me. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough?

[Anonymous No.12037751]

>>12037737

Literally your entire argument is data issues or ignoring that 1 chart.

[Anonymous No.12037756]

>>12037725
Here's his source: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/01/analysis-solar-radiation-cloud-cover.html?m=1

[Anonymous No.12037760]

>>12037751
I have several arguments you failed to even attempt to respond to. Instead you pretend they don't exist. But lying about posts anyone can see just makes you look retarded.

[Anonymous No.12037765]

>>12037760

Because they were really bad arguments and it was really easy to get to the point where you attack data.

[Anonymous No.12037772]

>>12037730
>Reminder that literally all of the NOAA data showing warming is an artifact of (((adjustments))). Raw data shows a cooling trend.
Another easily refuted lie. It's almost like you're trying to make AGW deniers look retarded.

[Anonymous No.12037778]

>>12037772

I dunno dude. You're arguing that my data is cherry pocked. That's all

[Anonymous No.12037790]

>>12037778
I only said one of your graphs was cherrypicked. You haven't even denied it since you didn't even know what the graph was until I told you. The first graph you posted was deficient and irrelevant for several reasons which you have failed to reasons to. But do keep lying and trying to pretend my posts don't exist, it makes this very easy.

[Anonymous No.12037800]

>>12037790
It's just such a generic objection. Anyone can say anything is cherrypciked.

My point is simply that glboal warming is arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.12037802]

>>12037765
>Because they were really bad arguments
How so? Your arguments are really bad but I don't ignore them and lie about them not existing. I really refuted them instead. Sounds like you're incredibly incompetent.

[Anonymous No.12037807]

>>12037802

Eh... ok? What next?

[Anonymous No.12037809]

>>12037778
Is this supposed to explain why you lied about NOAA adjustments?

[Anonymous No.12037817]

does this boil down to two anons arguing? in that case i am inclined to go with the scientific overwhelming consensus

[Anonymous No.12037818]

>>12037809
I guess not? Next?

I mean my post delay is 32s, this is the ultimate time waste. 10s left. 5 seconds.

[Anonymous No.12037822]

>>12037800
>It's just such a generic objection. Anyone can say anything is cherrypciked.
I expanded why it's cherrypicked, it only shows data from a few towns in Sweden, and only for one season. What more do you want?

>My point is simply that glboal warming is arbitrary.
I understand your point, the problem is you have nothing to back it up except for patently false claims and cherrypicked misrepresentations.

[Anonymous No.12037826]

>>12037817

But the scientific consensus is a correlation, or whatever, so its meaningless. They just happen to be political liberals.

[Anonymous No.12037827]

>>12037807
What's next is you make a scientific argument or leave the science board.

[Anonymous No.12037830]

>>12037822

I dont want anything from you. I just got you to the point where you objected to data. I never objected to your data. It simply shows a different thing. Not summer irradiance.

[Anonymous No.12037831]

>>12037817
There's no argument, OP gave up after his few feeble claims were shown to be false.

[Anonymous No.12037834]

>>12037831

Basically if everyone sees threads like this they assume libs are time wasters.

[Anonymous No.12037835]

>>12037826
so you deny science because of political leanings? what if i told you most particle physicists are liberals? do you deny the higgs boson then, just because the people who discovered it are mostly liberals?

[Anonymous No.12037839]

>>12037835

Interestingly, no physicist has made a paper in support of gw.

Like youd expect at least one or something. Somewhere.

Climatologists are not science.

[Anonymous No.12037840]

>>12037826
And deniers happen to be conservatives, I guess I can just ignore any evidence they give. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.12037844]

>>12037840

Yes, because liberals make claims and conservatives dont. Any conservative who makes a claim is not a conservative.

[Anonymous No.12037846]

Daily reminder to stop arguing with /pol/ schizos

[Anonymous No.12037848]

>>12037846

Again, pretty speculative and meaningless.

[Anonymous No.12037849]

>>12037839
>Interestingly, no physicist has made a paper in support of gw.
Wrong.

https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/1/pdf/i1052-5173-22-1-44.pdf

Why do you keep lying? It's almost like you want to be caught.

[Anonymous No.12037855]

>>12037849
Not even a real paper. Basically a causal opinion piece.

[Anonymous No.12037856]

>>12037834
The only thing anyone assumes reading this thread is that you are mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.12037859]

>>12037856

Idk, like I said you arent even putting your money where your mouth is.

[Anonymous No.12037866]

>>12037830
>I just got you to the point where you objected to data.
I didn't object to data, I objected to your misrepresentation of data.

>It simply shows a different thing.
Yes, one shows a global lack of correlation in climate and the other shows a local correlation in weather.

[Anonymous No.12037870]

>>12037844
So you are not a conservative? Because you have made plenty of claims in this thread.

[Anonymous No.12037871]

>>12037866

Eh. Like I said your argument is too general. If you think that study is cheery picked are you just waiting for replication?

[Anonymous No.12037873]

>>12037870

But they were troll claims, ie, in opposition to other cliams.

It doesnt matter if I'm right. It simply matters that your thing is made up.

Basically, a rhetorical device. You say things and I say they're made up.

[Anonymous No.12037890]

>>12037855
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.haigh/publications.html

[Anonymous No.12037895]

>>12037859
LOL how would you even know? You have no argument and not even a basis to argue from. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.12037898]

>>12037890
Doesnt seem to help. I would be really impressed by 1 paper by a physicsit- or any scientist, since climatologists are not scientific method- supporting gw.

[Anonymous No.12037902]

>>12037873
>But they were troll claims, ie, in opposition to other cliams.
Every claim is in opposition to a claim. Either you made a bunch of retarded claims, making you a retard, or you aren't actually making any claims, making you a retard.

[Anonymous No.12037907]

>>12037902

It's fine if I'm a retard because you're the only one claiming not to be.

[Anonymous No.12037910]

>>12037898
I gave you several papers from a physicist, Joanna D. Haigh. Your lie has been refuted, move on to the next one.

[Anonymous No.12037921]

>>12037907
I didn't claim not to be, I didn't say anything that would require me to.

[Anonymous No.12037923]

>>12037910

She actually isnt that favorable to your position. Relatively poor choice.

[Anonymous No.12037926]

>>12037923
>She actually isnt that favorable to your position
How so?

[Anonymous No.12037931]

>>12037926

She says different things.

[Anonymous No.12037932]

>>12037931
Different from what?

[Anonymous No.12037937]

>>12037932

All over the place really. Embarrassing fornyou to use her as an example.

[Anonymous No.12037944]

>>12037937
You didn't answer my question, try again. Or just admit you're full of shit, which we already know.

[Anonymous No.12037948]

>>12037944
Ok sure? In fine with saying that if your argument is bad. What next?

[Anonymous No.12037954]

>>12037948
Now the thread ends, since you aren't capable of having a discussion without lying.

[Anonymous No.12037957]

>>12037954
Ok?

[Anonymous No.12038227]

>>12037512
That's awfully generous to Covid

[Anonymous No.12038480]

>>12037839
Anon, who do you think developed the greenhouse effect? Who do you think generates information on the absorbance spectra and their mass action in global eviorments? It's all physical chemists, a type of physicist.

Really this whole thread is a travesty. /poll/ is awfully active here today, must be because it's the weekend and the kids don't have to focus on their zoom classes anymore.

[Anonymous No.12038503]

>>12038227
You're really underestimating global warming.
c19 will kill 5 million, gw billions.

[Anonymous No.12038516]

>>12037140
>Earth has been cooling because the Sun is slowly dying
Fucking retard

[Anonymous No.12038734]

>>12038480

Um... what?

[Anonymous No.12038744]

>>12036962
>2020
>People actually go to a science board to claim that the greenhouse effect isn't real.

Get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.12038780]

>>12037152
>Feel free to double check the temperatures and CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

okay

[Anonymous No.12038792]

>>12038744
Let me guess: you also wear a mask everywhere.

[Anonymous No.12038796]

To anyone out here that still cares about the quality of the posts on this board, remember to apply the I.H.R technique on these threads:
>identify /pol/ threads
>hide /pol/ threads
>report /pol/ threads

For the /sci/ oldfags:
Identifying these bait threads is pretty easy, with just reading the title and the content you can rapidly infer what actual discussion do they want to have and what narrative do they want to push. Do not waste time on arguing, either hide and report or shitpost it into oblivion. We must stop playing naïve; it is not "IQ thread", it is "we want to shit on niggers"; it is not "Climate change", it is "I want to speak pseudoscience". It is obviously common that these threads will relate to some political discussion (mainly those related to sex and race). Again, we are not /pol/ #2, this board should be math and science discussion, not whether or not you think masks are useful based on your dogma. Recognizing these threads and understanding that they are not science is the first step into solving this problem.

For the /pol/acks:
>inb4 boogeyman
You will answer that no matter how many times someone points that out; you will always say it in order to deflect obvious truth: that the post was done without the intention to discuss scientific inquiry and that it aims to uphold racism. Being here, it is not our duty to be against racism, but it is also not our duty to support it, much less dedicate 300 daily bait threads per week.
>"you So y for posting this" [insert wojak]
Dismissible.
>Cringe
Dismissible.
>libtard/leftist/whatever
Dismissible.
>automatic buzzword (rent free, you are not a woman, etc)
Dismissible.

[Anonymous No.12038825]

>>12038796
Why even bother at this point? The ship is sinking, and you're trying to explain to the water why that's undesirable.

[Anonymous No.12038834]

>>12036962
it's not a hoax insofar that it s happening, the hoax is that it's some sort of cataclysmic event.

[Anonymous No.12038835]

>>12038796
Why won't you go to reddit? It does everything as you like.

[Anonymous No.12038892]

>my squiggly line is better then you squiggly line
Climate change is political in origin and nature. This topic is for /pol/ not /sci/ because it has literally nothing to do with science or math.

[Anonymous No.12039296]

>>12037044
so the only conclusion you could possibly make is that global warming is real. Not that it's caused by co2 and definitely not that it's caused by humans.

[Anonymous No.12039307]

>>12037074
It should be pretty obvious, what parameters effect climate sensitivity- how are they modelled and predicted.

Ie if i increase CO2 conc (ie a proxy for back radiation) by x, what is the temperature increase, T

[Anonymous No.12039317]

>>12039307
What is the 'form' of this equation. Is it solvable analytically? etc etc

I only ask this bc every paper ive read on climate modelling presents it as either a linear form, or 1st order DE, which seems hopelessly simplistic

[Anonymous No.12039591]

>>12038892
Nice projection.

[Anonymous No.12039599]

>>12039296
>so the only conclusion you could possibly make is that global warming is real.
Only conclusion from what? An irrelevant graph? There is plenty of evidence that it's caused by human CO2 emissions. You can directly observe the effect of humans on CO2 concentration with isotope analysis and you can directly observe the effect this has on temperature with radiative spectroscopy.

[Anonymous No.12040181]

>>12037730
Go back to /pol/ with your cringespeak

[Anonymous No.12040215]

Wow i voted for trump and was pretty skeptical of global warming, but looking at this thread is starting to change my mind. It's pretty obvious the guy who says it isn't real is just name calling and ignoring every argument. While the other guy has been pretty patient and actually done a good job of explaining things in a way that makes sense. Damn I actually learned something from a /sci/ thread that's pretty strange.

[Anonymous No.12040256]

>>12036962
Oh shit nigga what if we have a cleaner atmosphere for no reason?
We're actually in a small global ice age, but temperature has risen like never before in the history of humans. The human species will survive global warming, but billions will die from displacement from coastal regions and disease.

[Anonymous No.12040315]

>>12039307
>It should be pretty obvious, what parameters effect climate sensitivity- how are they modelled and predicted.
There are many different models, so I still don't know what you want.

>Ie if i increase CO2 conc (ie a proxy for back radiation) by x, what is the temperature increase, T
That is climate sensitivity with respect to CO2. Do you want a number???

>I only ask this bc every paper ive read on climate modelling presents it as either a linear form, or 1st order DE, which seems hopelessly simplistic
Then you haven't read any papers calculating climate sensitivity. Do you understand the difference between a model for determining climate sensitivity and a model employing climate sensitivity to predict temperature change?

[Anonymous No.12040408]

>>12039599
>Muh big science words
Yeah whatever the fuck that means, you're just pushing the liberals leftists agenda. My cousin on Facebook sent me a graph from a scientists who the scientific community says is "wrong" (read: the libtards pushed him out for not agreeing with them) and it shows that humans aren't causing global warming. When will you fucking morons learn to think for yourselves and stop being sheeple? None of you can see the bigger picture of what's really going on here

[Anonymous No.12040440]

>>12040408
I can't tell if this is a troll or a legitimate /pol/tard

[Anonymous No.12040475]

>>12040440
Philo protip: if there is no difference, both are the same

[Anonymous No.12040479]

>>12040475
There is a difference, but you can't tell from one shitpost.

[Anonymous No.12040514]

Kek I've read the thread and this /pol/nigger couldn't even do the usual show this time
Based /sci/encebro btfoing smoothbrains

[Anonymous No.12041387]

>>12040514
surprised he's not using the standard issue /pol/ climate denial infographic folder. It never works but it usually wastes enough time to hit the bump limit.

[Anonymous No.12041401]

>>12040440
The cousin part tipped me off.

[Anonymous No.12042417]

>>12040440
you gotta be an aspie to not be able to tell that is satire

[Anonymous No.12042633]

>>12040440
To be fair, /pol/ is by now most likely the lowest intelligence board, and as such trolls and /pol/acks are virtually indistinguishable

[Anonymous No.12042688]

>>12040256
>Oh shit nigga what if we have a cleaner atmosphere for no reason?
kek
This always makes me laugh and fucking angry. Why can't we just stop debating global warming and clean the fucking planet up regardless? What kind of faggot wants filthy water and busted up land instead of beautiful rivers and healthy forests?

[Anonymous No.12042706]

>>12042688
You pay for that.

[Anonymous No.12042716]

>>12037140
>6. Earth has been cooling because the Sun is slowly dying

[Anonymous No.12042732]

What's the blackbody radiation curve of the sun?
What's the blackbody radiation curve of the earth?
What's the absorption spectrum of CO2?
Is CO2 rising in the atmosphere, falling, or stable?
What is Carbon-13's relationship with plant biomass?
Is Carbon-13 rising in the atmosphere, falling, or stable?
What does Carbon-13 in the atmosphere tell us is the origin of atmospheric CO2?

Please answer all these questions OP

[Anonymous No.12042808]

>global warming is a total hoax. This time for real i swear.

why is this not on /x/?

[Anonymous No.12042817]

>>12042808
Because /x/ and /sci/ today mean the same.

[Anonymous No.12042830]

>skim through global worming thread
>apologists get fucking ass destroyed

I dont even read these fully anymore but if you are feeling honest for a change go read the climategate emails its all there. If you still believe in this shit after that then I am sorry - you are retarded

[Anonymous No.12042848]

A reminder that climatists constantly complain about their poor wageslave life under capitalism, but also want to reduce their life quality two times to fight global warning (and then two times to fight the covid). Truly noble people!

[Anonymous No.12042913]

>>12042830
>>>/s4s/

[Anonymous No.12042921]

>>12042830
>>apologists get fucking ass destroyed
Give one example.

>climategate emails
This is just retards taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting them.

[Anonymous No.12042940]

>>12037772
The graph you show says the opposite to your claim. Raw data and adjusted data are basically the same after the 50's

[Anonymous No.12042954]

>>12042848
Not doing anything will reduce life quality more than mitigating global warming.

[Anonymous No.12042956]

>>12042940
>oh no he's retarded...

[Anonymous No.12042968]

>>12042954
-Dad, vodka got more expensive! Will you now drink less?
-No, son, you will now eat less!
Replace dad with elites, vodka with warming (real or not) and the son with you, and you will get the picture.

[Anonymous No.12043045]

>>12042968
The cost of doing nothing is far higher than the cost of change.

[Anonymous No.12043048]

>>12042830
answer these questions
>>12042732

[Anonymous No.12043071]

>>12042940
>The graph you show says the opposite to your claim.
??? It shows adjustments decreased the warming trend. As opposed to "creating the warming."

[Anonymous No.12043081]

>>12042968
So if I understand your extremely tortured analogy, you're saying that decreasing CO2 emissions won't decrease warming?

[Anonymous No.12043105]

>>12043081
He's saying that if we force laws to affect climate change we, the working class, will be the ones to pay for it so we should just shut up and enjoy our lives.

He's ignoring the fact that doing nothing will affect the working class far worse than doing something.

[Anonymous No.12043252]

>>12043105
it's always funny when conservatives unintentionally say woke shit.
He's correctly identified that under capitalism the working class always gets fucked, but he's somehow using this to justify doing nothing so the workers can get railed even harder. In fact as far as the rich are concerned, the best strategy is to do everything possible to accumulate as much wealth as possible before everything collapses so their power will be absolute.

[Anonymous No.12043270]

>>12043252
Wealth isn't what matters in a collapse. Power does. Land ownership, supply chains, and many other aspects of wealth and creating wealth vanish. They are an illusory gambit taken to trade blood and force for law and cash.

[Anonymous No.12043273]

You are an idiot, Michigan had less than 5 days of snow last winter. Stop being a nigger any history more than 1000 years old is compromised.

[Anonymous No.12043279]

>>12043270
And what's the easiest way to secure power?

[Anonymous No.12043308]

>>12043270
Since the dawn of time it has always been the rich vs poor. Money is nothing but cotton paper. Yet many needed it to survive, some democracy, huh? No. Its a bureaucracy .. Basically communism with extra steps. A utopian America awaits as soon as the people wake up from this "The American Dream" bullshit. Take Trump's ideals and combine them with the ideals from the song john lennon imagine. Get rid of left and the right and we can all live in peace in The New America.. Maybe im just a dreamer kekekek

[Anonymous No.12043320]

>>12043308
Dreamers go to the gulag.

[Anonymous No.12043332]

>>12042968
This but unironically. In order to not go extinct, on average every human will have to reduce their current standard of living by a factor of 12. Trust me, the ruling class is not gonna do this. All humans are going to have to reduce their standard of living by a factor of 24 in order to prop up the status quo, billions will die, the economy will self delete basically, and it'll revert to feudalism with cruise missiles.

[Anonymous No.12043339]

>>12043308
can someone translate this post? What the fuck are trumps ideals? being a wealthy new york socialite?

[Anonymous No.12043352]

>>12036962

First you haven't factored in long term, solar changes - the sun was much cooler in the distant geological past. The strength of the solar output depends (among other things) on the ratio of helium to hydrogen and that has changed over time as the fuel has been consumed. There is nothing controversial about this - it is well understood physics. Fortunately in the geological past CO2 was much higher. If CO2 had not been far higher we would have had ice at the equator. That was exactly what happened when CO2 dropped - the so called 'snowball Earth'. If you wanted to do it really well you'd also have to factor in different day length, continental drift, evolutionary differences in flora, volcanic eruptions, orbital changes, Earth moon distance was less than half what it is today during the Ordovician, continental weathering. etc. However when you start to add some of those back in the correlation between predicted temperature based on CO2 and actual global temperature is very impressive. You can even get a value for the climate sensitivity (2.8) which turns out to be in very good agreement with current estimates.
https://youtu.be/3UVb--2-PBg?t=131

So lets add some of that back in (pic related)

[Anonymous No.12043384]

The Achilles heel of the Left is the identity politics of the SJW.
The Achilles heel of the Right is global warming denialism - it really is stupid. They claim to be pro-science then go and undermine it all by denying the laws of physics.

[Anonymous No.12043402]

>>12043332
Nice dystopian teen scifi.

[Anonymous No.12043800]

>>12043402
Won't be nearly as fun as hunger games.

[Anonymous No.12043830]

[Anonymous No.12043946]

>>12043402
Dystopias are pretty silly. Remember the dystopia where everyone was forced under house arrest and to get permissions to exit their home? Totally implausible.

[Anonymous No.12044247]

>>12043830
>Dumb reporter is dumb
>therefore science is a hoax

[Anonymous No.12044951]

>>12042848
Look beyond your mirror. It's ecofascists like Ted who are firmly on the right that advocate for a mass reduction in the quality of life.