/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 171 KB, 992x681, hockey-stick.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 17:49:47 2020 No.12437666 [Reply] [Original]

What happened?

We've known about it for 40 years with almost uncountably many studies saying the exact same thing. We know more about the Earth's climate than what happens in the center of the sun for god's sake. Yet half of Americans are still completely scientifically illiterate buffoons, no matter how many kyoto protocols and paris deals we institute, no matter how many protests, IPCC meetings, wildfires and coral bleaching, our emissions keep rising, they haven't even peaked yet. Why? What's so hard to understand? Just don't fucking destroy the Amazon, stop flying to costa rica every year, ect. We've had 40 years to address this and political leaders are promising carbon neutrality by 2050 at the earliest.

Scientists are such autists they can't communicate with the public, that's what.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 17:52:31 2020 No.12437685 >>12437666 Is global warming actually a problem though? When we first started recording temperature accurately werent we still in that mini ice age?

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 17:55:47 2020 No.12437709

>>12437685
>Is global warming actually a problem though?
Yes. This has been established for 40 years. "An inconvenient truth" while off on the time frame, it still inconvenient today.

>When we first started recording temperature accurately werent we still in that mini ice age?
Pure diversion. The earth isn't going through a mini ice age right now is it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 17:57:26 2020 No.12437720 dumb pic the temparature was and will be rising since we are at the end of an ice age, the small time frame between 1600-1800 was an anomaly

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 17:58:21 2020 No.12437729 >>12437666 >hockey stick graph why do retards shill this dishonest graph built by the deceptive liar Michael Mann ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:02:17 2020 No.12437750 >>12437729 Ok well where's the actual graph? Every (reputable) study on climate I can find supports the graph. I just don't see the alternative that's not been pushed out by cranks or intentionally dishonest people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:05:46 2020 No.12437782 File: 15 KB, 899x713, shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12437685 not really no

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:07:29 2020 No.12437797 >>12437720 https://skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm >>12437729 >Michael Mann https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=167&&a=3

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:11:43 2020 No.12437821 >>12437709 >OH NO THE WATER LEVELS MIGHT RISE AND IT MIGHT RAIN MORE :( Okay so we lose Florida and we have more crops Wheres the loss?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:16:31 2020 No.12437856 >>12437821 >>OH NO THE WATER LEVELS MIGHT RISE AND IT MIGHT RAIN MORE :( Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:16:50 2020 No.12437860 >>12437666 >What happened? many things -- greenhouse gasses being one of them, but also increased urbanization + temperatures being measured in/near heat island cities, and surely other reasons. There's no reason to blame it on one thing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:25:45 2020 No.12437934 >>12437860 >temperatures being measured in/near heat island cities Uhh, do you honestly believe scientists are this stupid? There absolutely is a reason to blame it on one thing: humans.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:31:45 2020 No.12437963 >>12437934 This particular branch of science is less dependable than others and has the same misanthropic death cult vibe you're giving off

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:33:03 2020 No.12437971 >>12437963 This thread isn't to debate with deniers anon

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:34:39 2020 No.12437975 File: 15 KB, 405x394, bullshit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Aaaaaaaah! The projeshunz shows a global cooling! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:35:47 2020 No.12437978 >>12437971 There it is again

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:38:01 2020 No.12437987 >>12437975 Oh noes!

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:42:38 2020 No.12438016

>>12437666
>We know more about the Earth's climate than what happens in the center of the sun for god's sake.
We know more about that which surrounds us every day of our lives than we do about the center of a huge nuclear fusion reaction going on 93 million miles away. How is this possible? Are you a seer?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:45:15 2020 No.12438027 >>12437963 >This particular branch of science is less dependable than others regarding who? internet expert who watched too many shitty youtube videos?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:45:28 2020 No.12438029 >>12438016 >Are you a seer? Yes. I see many big and burly black men in your future.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:46:26 2020 No.12438032 >>12437666 Scientists: >Here's a problem and a solution Politicians: >I don't like the problem or the solution and so on until you and I are long gone.

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:48:33 2020 No.12438043

>>12438032
>Here's a problem and a solution

They can't even perform their own experiments right, do you really think they can propose solutions for things? They discover random effects and other people make an actual effort to derive a solution based on the random effects they discovered

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:53:08 2020 No.12438077

>>12438043
I mean, if I would trust any group of people in the world to solve climate change, it's scientists (and economists next to them). If any group of people has a long history of putting out shit solutions: it's politicians. Just look at The Don "just rake it" Trump.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:54:00 2020 No.12438081 >>12438027 What branch of legitimate science do you think is less dependable?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 18:56:35 2020 No.12438095 >>12438081 Anything in the medical field to be sure

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:05:32 2020 No.12438125 >>12437666 Boomers are generation of addicts. More than half of them are drunks. They're also addicted to shiny things and beach vacations. Have you ever tried telling an addict to stop harming themselves and others?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:07:39 2020 No.12438134 >>12438077 >it's scientists Do you know many of them? They're mostly just losers who couldn't get a real job and so resorted to trying to climb up the academic ladders.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:08:28 2020 No.12438137 I want it to get much, much hotter

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:09:47 2020 No.12438148 >>12438095 Fair enough

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:11:16 2020 No.12438155

my god this thread is depressing. just more people saying antropogenic climate change isnt a thing and also is but isnt a big deal. we are so fucked. people wont start actually reacting to the problem until its literaly them suffering from it. and even after that. i mena... people literally cant wera a silghtly unconfortable pice of cloth over their face to save thousands of lives. so what do we expect... there will be fuckers in florida under fucking water gargeling, its not climate change

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:11:37 2020 No.12438159

>>12438134
Mostly just a bunch of nitpicky autists who have to be EXACTLY RIGHT about absolutely everything and love picking apart other peoples life's work for the smallest mistakes. I sure hate being in the same room as them but there's no group of people I'd rather have crunching numbers and publishing boring papers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:12:39 2020 No.12438163 >>12438155 >just two more weeks and florida will be underwater

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:15:54 2020 No.12438173 >>12438134 You don't hide your inferiority well. What group of people do you think made gasoline in the first place? Or the nitrogen that fertilizes literally everything you eat? They gave up the modern world, I just wish they could take it away.

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:17:27 2020 No.12438182

>>12438155
industrial civilization will collapse due to exponential increasing consumption of non-renewable resources and energy long before climate change is a problem. Eventually it'll be ommon that huge groups of people will be completely wiped out by war, famine, and natural disasters and people on the other side of the world won't even hear about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:22:26 2020 No.12438201 >>12438163 Find me a single example of a scientific prediction by climate science that failed. And no something Al gore, or some random scientist said once isn't a scientific prediction.

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:27:13 2020 No.12438218

>>12438201
Well one problem with climate change science is that hypotheses are less falsifiable than in other branches -- at least in popular coverage, if not the papers themselves. Instead of "the earth will be 1.5 degrees warmer by 2020" they would say "the earth could be 1.5 degrees warmer by 2020".

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:32:11 2020 No.12438240

>>12438218
Virtually any field making predictions about complex systems allow a margin of error. This is hardly unique, and it doesn't make these predictions any less useful. I guess you're conceding that you can't find any examples of the science failing? However virtually every "skeptic" has a 100% failure rate.

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:33:01 2020 No.12438244

>>12438182
perhaps, but perhaps not. its not exactly wise to say, dont worry about the thing that will kill us, well be dead by then. it makes a no win situation.
also, even if most of us gets wiped out, it wont 0 human knowledge. we wont start from scratch. well be right back where we are now in a few hundred years. and well be facing the same problem.
but i think whats most likley to happen is we do nothing, making africa and parts of asia less liveable, and than well be shit at dealing with the problems that causes... a headles blunder all the way

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:34:46 2020 No.12438252

>>12438240
Yes, but some fields have larger margins of error than others. Physics generally has small, well-defined margins of error. When I see climate change predictions, the margin of error is implicitly arbitrary. How would the prediction "earth could be 1.5 degrees warmer by 2020" be proven wrong?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:37:47 2020 No.12438266 >>12438252 Find a prediction that actually says that first, chances are there are errors attached to any estimate which in turn allows such estimates to be proven wrong. You are attacking a strawman

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:38:43 2020 No.12438270 >>12438252 Maybe you should read the literature and find out

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:39:23 2020 No.12438273

>>12437666
We will never reach climate goals with the rising demand for meat in the world. Giving up meat is the easiest thing for any common person to do to combat global, yet nobody does. Even leftist politicians distance themselves from veganism. The Earth is fucked.

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:39:45 2020 No.12438274

>>12438252
It's not arbitrary, it's all well defined, you were just too lazy to read that part of the paper.
If the earth was 1.5 degrees cooler by 2020 like many people I could name predicted then it would absolutely be wrong.
I do like the fact you respect physics though as climate science is really just applied physics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:40:04 2020 No.12438276 The only thing I take solace in is that the deniers will be put to death when society collapses

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:42:01 2020 No.12438284 >>12438273 The easiest thing to do is not have more than 1 child, but people fail at that too

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:44:17 2020 No.12438293 >>12438284 do all climate scientists really just want depopulation?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:45:21 2020 No.12438299 >>12438293 Why don't you ask them retard. How would I know?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:45:28 2020 No.12438301 >>12438284 I actually don't agree with this one, if you're an educated person it's going to be your kids who have to fix the world. Because it definitely won't be the psyco evangelical YEC family down the street with 9 kids fixing anything.

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:46:52 2020 No.12438306

>>12438293
The earth has a finite carrying capacity. Having less children will result in way less suffering than just hitting the capacity and seeing what happens.

Like I mentioned before, veganism would increase the capacity as well. Something's gotta break eventually though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:46:53 2020 No.12438307 >>12438301 Well it only works if everyone does it obviously.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:47:59 2020 No.12438313 >>12438301 Why drag some poor non-existent soul from the abyss to deal with this shit?

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:48:41 2020 No.12438314

>>12438274
>climate science is really just applied physics
It's more like absolute butchery of dynamical systems. You'd better go retrain your models again with this year's data, 2022 is coming. Maybe throw in more models into your ensemble just for fun.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:48:46 2020 No.12438315 >>12438307 Which will never ever happen. Don't let the retards win the demographics war.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:49:44 2020 No.12438318 >>12438306 >Having less children will result in way less suffering How about decreasing the life expectancy

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:49:54 2020 No.12438320 >>12438315 It could, if you convince them. Brainwash them. Or force them. Or make them infertile somehow.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:51:30 2020 No.12438325 >>12438318 How would you do that in a way that wouldn't make life hell on earth?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:52:17 2020 No.12438332 >>12438313 Souls come here because they want to anon

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:52:33 2020 No.12438333 >>12438320 Finding a final solution to the retard problem is far harder than fixing AGW.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:56:06 2020 No.12438352 >>12438325 >make life hell on earth? Do you want to know what hell would look like? Imagine a massive make shift nursing home in a huge repurposed warehouse

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:56:58 2020 No.12438356 >>12438306 just you fuckers wait, anti aging tech is cumming along very nicely, germline edditing can get you 5 times normal life expectancy already. id say 2-3 decades and well have tahat cemmercially available.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 19:59:20 2020 No.12438362 >>12438356 Imagine being an incel for 350 years

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 20:00:29 2020 No.12438368 >>12438362 fuck me that sounds depressing. my gf may be a little bat faced, but my god im glad im not an incel

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 20:03:13 2020 No.12438383 >>12438356 >>12438362 Imagine if you were serving consecutive life sentences but the government could force you to live long enough to serve them

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 20:40:09 2020 No.12438524 >>12438314 Can you show us on the doll where the climat scientist touched you anon?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 20:44:25 2020 No.12438544 >>12438524 the climat scientist convined millions of impressionable idiots that humans are bad and need to be culled

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 20:51:20 2020 No.12438580

>>12438544
You obviously don't understand how climate modeling is performed. Every calculation is continuous until the navier-stokes equation needs to be solved to derive surface temperature. Obviously it's not known how to solve it in 3 dimensions currently, so the planet's atmosphere is quantized and numerically solved instead. It's not like a cellular atomata, those have already been known to be flawed for 100s of years. So no, it's not a "butchering of dynamical systems" like you say.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 20:53:36 2020 No.12438587 >>12438544 Climate science says nothing about culling humans. Though you make a pretty good argument for it I'll admit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 20:56:00 2020 No.12438596 >>12437720 >the temparature was and will be rising since we are at the end of an ice age No, the warming that took us out of the last "ice age" ended 10,000 years ago. We are now warming about 25 times faster than that warming. Retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 20:56:35 2020 No.12438600 >>12437666 >Yet half of Americans are still completely scientifically illiterate buffoons "capitalism"+tribalism=stifle competition and make people dependent upon you don't hate the player

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:05:45 2020 No.12438647 >>12437720 Warming after the last ice ended in the mid Holocene about 5k yrs ago though. Anthropogenic warming is clear and evident

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:07:33 2020 No.12438654 >>12438587 well isn't the obvious solution to the climate crisis to curb overpopulation?

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:10:36 2020 No.12438665

>>12437860
Doesn't matter whether you look at rural stations or all stations, the trend is the same:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

UHI is very weak compared to the warming trend and removed by homogenization anyway.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:12:07 2020 No.12438669 >>12437666 Because it's in the best interest of oil and coal companies to lie as much as they can and confuse the public.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:15:08 2020 No.12438684 >>12438043 >They can't even perform their own experiments right Source?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:22:30 2020 No.12438698 >>12438654 Not at all, it's not like CO2 is emitted by humans just existing. For example an American emits as much CO2 as 4 swedes despite having an objectively shitter life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:24:54 2020 No.12438702 >>12438684 inb5 a link about the replication crisis in psychology and nutrition

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:25:41 2020 No.12438704 >>12437860 Warming is readily visible in satellite measurements of the whole planet

Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:27:54 2020 No.12438712

Fact: The most practical way to get "free renewable" energy at a degree efficient enough for all of humanity is to accelerate global warming.

We need giant waves. We need crazy wind. We need solar panels across the whole equator. Any uninhabitable zone is immediately a place to harvest energy from the extreme weather.

Humans being able to live literally anywhere on the planet means shit is so un-chaotic that we will never have free renewable energy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:30:27 2020 No.12438717 >>12438712 We already have all the space we need. Displacing a couple billion people because you want to build solar panels in an area that gets .1% more sunlight is fucking retarded

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:31:57 2020 No.12438725 >>12438717 You are a mega retard. Your brain is so small I am not even motivated to explain why you are so wrong. Someone else will have to step in and motivate an answer from me because you are useless and pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:32:50 2020 No.12438728 >>12438725 Sorry for poking holes in your retarded ideas literally no one agrees with.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 8 21:38:00 2020 No.12438742 >>12438712 Wind is produced by the temperature differential on the planet, so warming the arctic will actually reduce the intensity of wind under normal conditions which allow for turbines to generate power. They can't spin during hurricanes.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 00:09:54 2020 No.12439098

>>12438742
Bitch nigga hyper winds are going to happen you dont know a fucking thing about anything just HANG YOURSELF.

>>12438728
>poking holes

Oh is global warming not going to cause mega weather? Jump off a bridge you fucking retard try to win for once in your life take advantage of a circumstance you career loser

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 00:43:20 2020 No.12439142 >>12438159 ...what about the jews?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 00:51:56 2020 No.12439160 >>12439142 If you've ever met any, jews seem to have more nitpicky autists per capita than any other ethnicity. Probably something to do with being tortured to death by Christians if you made a mistake anywhere in your accounting.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 00:54:56 2020 No.12439163 >>12439160 "Mistake" You coin shaving kike motherfucker

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 00:58:26 2020 No.12439173 >>12439163 See, natural selection at work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:00:01 2020 No.12439180 >>12439163 And the only jews who didn't die horribly were the ones who could prove to a court who all hated them that there was no mistake and it was in fact you who was lying.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:02:32 2020 No.12439185 >>12439180 This has never happened, coin shaver.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:04:25 2020 No.12439193 >>12437685 This it’s sure as hell convenient to me with rising temps. Means smaller utility bills.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:04:51 2020 No.12439195 >>12439185 Which is probably exactly what your butthurt ancestor said

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:07:16 2020 No.12439204 >>12439195 "I can change history by repeating lies" -your tribe

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:08:20 2020 No.12439207 >>12439204 ironic, you should probably read something that isn't a /pol/ infographic. You might learn something.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:10:24 2020 No.12439212 >>12439207 Lol I feel sorry for people like you, no knowledge of history whatsoever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:14:33 2020 No.12439221 >>12439212 au contraire mon frère I don't feel sorry for you however, you've deliberately chosen to remain ignorant, because it makes you feel slightly better about your pathetic existence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:18:04 2020 No.12439228 I really, really fucking hate you people, all of you

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:19:35 2020 No.12439232

>>12439221
I work closely with jews every day and respect jews, but I am aware of their history and so are jews. You are the pathetic one, so intimidated by social stratification that you are forced to deny all wrong doing over the entire course of history. This is not true of any group. Your life is dishonest.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:25:00 2020 No.12439239 >>12439232 >This backpedaling Yikes at least be be honest about what you are.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:26:14 2020 No.12439246 >>12439239 >backpedaling Go die coin shaving kike

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:27:32 2020 No.12439248 >>12439246 That's more like it

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:31:34 2020 No.12439262

>>12437709
>Yes. This has been established for 40 years.
no it hasn't

While we know the climate is changing we know absolutely nothing about the side effects of it. Our best guess it by examining historical records from when the co2 level on earth was higher.

So most likely: Earth will be fine, humans will be fine, a bunch of species will only have a future in zoos but that was/is happening anyway even if the climate didn't change ever at all.

A "great extinction event" but caused more by humans than changing climate to be perfectly honest.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:32:51 2020 No.12439269 >>12438647 no it never ended, we are still in an ice age.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 01:37:32 2020 No.12439282 >>12439269 Only in the most broad sense of the word. Interglacial is more accurate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 02:10:06 2020 No.12439370 >>12437666 The Amazon is carbon neutral your fucking retard. Carbon sequestration happens because of sea algae. Jesus fuck why do morons like your keep saying shit they know nothing about

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 02:13:38 2020 No.12439375 >>12439370 I'm 99% sure chopping down the Amazon is not a carbon neutral action, not at all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 02:18:51 2020 No.12439379 >>12437797 >skepticalscience.com lol you are a literal retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 02:40:58 2020 No.12439416 >>12439379 name calling, the last resort of the weak minded when confronted by uncomfortable truths.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 02:46:36 2020 No.12439430 >>12439416 >a propaganda website made by a psychologist/cartoonist contains truth hearty kek, retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 02:52:02 2020 No.12439443 >>12439430 So instead of whining like a child, why don't you expose the lies? It's a pretty short webpage on a simple topic. It shouldn't be difficult at all.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 03:03:02 2020 No.12439472
File: 119 KB, 754x552, 1607419948077.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12438077
The scientists at Imperial College are the ones who fucked up the covid projections by orders of magnitude, which prompted the current stupid responses by the politicians. A fuck up with the scale of impact of the Imperial College model deserves the death penalty. Instead those fuckers are going to face zero consequences and probably will get showered with a bunch of grants.
Why again should I trust scientists when most of their work is low quality that cannot be replicated?

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 03:18:42 2020 No.12439509

>>12439370
Suppose the Amazon completely burned down tomorrow, at least what's left of it. Take all the emissions humanity had in 2019, multiply that by 9, that's how much CO2 would go into the air *poof* just like that. Now tell me, how is humanity supposed to exist after that? How is literally any ecosystem on the Earth going to exist after that? Let alone humanity. Yeah, the Amazon is carbon neutral *IF YOU DON'T FUCKING BURN IT TO THE GROUND.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 03:26:24 2020 No.12439525

>>12439472
Literally any college can shit out an epidemiological model and call it good, the politicians will circulate the models which gives them the best narrative, that's what you're seeing.

You have it wrong, the politicians aren't acting this way because they were handed a shitty model, but because they found some random shitty and incomplete model to excuse their inaction and "save the economy". It just turns out the worst possible model of the pandemic is the best to present a comforting narrative to the public, that's all.

>A fuck up with the scale of impact of the Imperial College model deserves the death penalty.
No they really don't, their projections were corrected coincidentally only after the original got circulated in the public. Like I said, any two bit college can shit out a model in a couple days, that's different than something that's had overwhelming support by literally every academic institution for the past 40 years, thousands of studies confirming it, and so forth.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 03:39:01 2020 No.12439544

>>12439472
>>12439525
I don't even see why you're even talking about COVID, it's completely irrelevant, like comparing apples to oranges. So apparently scientists are supposed to be completely omnipotent and know immediately exactly what's going to happen in the first modern pandemic, is that it? Newsflash, human behavior is complicated, like extremely complicated, you know nothing of how models are created anyways.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 05:33:09 2020 No.12439738

>>12439509
>Now tell me, how is humanity supposed to exist after that?
Short term? Same thing we did last year. Long term, it'll be accelerate climate change. ...How do we live? We deal with the shift and adapt. Hopefully the collapsing biosphere doesn't take us down with it.

>How is literally any ecosystem on the Earth going to exist after that? Let alone humanity.
ooooooh. Ha. No matter what we do to Earth, bacteria and cockroaches will survive. Even if we really try our hardest to pile-drive the entire ecosystem, we're not going to kill everything.

You're just looking at the wrong scale. "life" is in no danger. What we need to worry about is "the bulk of the ecosystem" and "humanity". Even that's on the outside. There is a chance that the impact is not much more than what we've got now: Widespread changes in climates, more turbulent weather, and a mass-extinction event. Which is terrible. But life will certainly go on.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 06:24:36 2020 No.12439821

>>12438173
>What group of people do you think made gasoline in the first place
A bunch of arabs playing with petroleum in the middle ages

>Or the nitrogen that fertilizes literally everything you eat?
Chemical enjuneers

Not scientists publishing "papers" and "peer reviewing" (means: checking the formatting and image placement)

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 06:26:22 2020 No.12439826 OP is exactly the kind of an illiterate buffoon he accuses others of being. Worse, he's a fucking cultist

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 06:27:45 2020 No.12439829 >>12439738 >"life" is in no danger I wouldn't be so sure. If phytoplankton in the oceans goes we're seriously fucked. That shit is the base of literally every food chain and creates 2/3 of our oxygen.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 06:44:51 2020 No.12439859

>>12437666
The problem is not the scientists satan, its the media. Theres misinformatiom between them and the media rips off what the scientists say until theres almost no science in the headlines only what can movilize people. As most people don't have access to a good education, they can only interpret what the media says and antagonize them if it confronts preconcieved ideas.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 06:48:01 2020 No.12439866

>>12437934
Well, most countryside or rural areas temperatures are meassured by satellite with an estimated emission coeficient (which varies during the year with greening and drying) so they may be biased towards hot or cold, so what he says isn't entirely wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 06:55:10 2020 No.12439879 >>12439859 >its the media this. the only reason government/MSM are even talking about this is because it's can be the motivation for another revenue stream, carbon taxes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 06:55:32 2020 No.12439880 >>12437821 florida men will be all over the US

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 08:12:23 2020 No.12439994 >>12439829 >If phytoplankton in the oceans goes we're seriously fucked It won't

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 08:40:21 2020 No.12440052 File: 362 KB, 1510x925, 1607409862574.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12437666 Your graph is wrong

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 09:32:40 2020 No.12440170 >>12437666 Global warming isnt real you schizo jackasses

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 10:23:12 2020 No.12440350

>>12439509
You stupid smoothbrin, that would be about as much carbon released as a major eruption. Also the fact that increased CO2 would increase plant growth because that's where they fucking get their carbon from. Oh, don't like that the third worlders are developing and burning down their forests to the same levels as everyone else? Boo fucking hoo, then start reforesting your own lands at the same rate to compensate. Pine forests are 3x more efficient at sequestrating carbon than jungles anyway. But no, you expect South America to not develop their own fucking lands and foot the bill themselves because your own countries can't be bothered with it. They're expected to keep every square inch of iver 70% of their territory intact because you won't give up your own lands for reforestation. Amazing. And you're probably a lefturd too, holy shit. Hypocritical faggots. If I was a southspic I'd personally go there and start burning the rain forest just to fucking spite your worhless so yfaggots.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 10:26:35 2020 No.12440358 >>12437709 >"An inconvenient truth" while off on the time frame sure, the apocalypse will happen anytime now. we better destroy industry and the economy so it doesn't happen!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 11:06:43 2020 No.12440496 >>12437666 Climate change = global warming The debate is about how exactly higher temps. affect the wider climate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 11:23:19 2020 No.12440542 >>12440350 All of this is spot on, but the Amazon is pretty cool as an end in itself. We shouldn't cut the whole thing down. And pine forests are meh.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 11:35:40 2020 No.12440573 >>12439193 >record number of hurricanes landing on the east coast each year Have fun with those low utility prices, im sure they'll last!

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 11:48:19 2020 No.12440608

>>12440350
I agree with you, but rainforests don't grow overnight, they are the result of long periods of climate stability in a region. So, while its true that the aerosols of burning forests can and will fertilize forests, it doesn't help in the mean time that a lot of CO2 is suddenly released.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 12:01:36 2020 No.12440672

>>12437666
i've completely given up
we're all fucked, there's no beating the insane amount of power the polluting industries have over the political process and people's minds
we're all going to be living in deserts by the 2040's and there'll still be people jammering on about how
>this is just a hot flash
>another ice age will start soon
>this is because of the sun acting up
why did i have to be born.....

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 12:07:13 2020 No.12440684

>>12439994
40% has already died off in 70 years:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128823662#:~:text=The%20Food%20Chain's%20Weak%20Link%3A%20Tiny%20Ocean%20Plants%20Dying%20Microscopic,has%20declined%20by%2040%20percent.
and we're INCREASING the pressure on them!
oh, don't forget the clathrate gun hypothesis, which looks more and more accurate by the second:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
>Climate change is real but the effects aren't as bad as the scientists claim they could be!
I. Fucking. Wish.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 12:13:33 2020 No.12440714 >>12440052 Is central greenland the same as the entire earth?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 12:20:28 2020 No.12440740 >>12440684 >epic fart guns why was the cataclysmic runaway climate change not triggered in dino days?

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 12:21:08 2020 No.12440743

>>12440672
>why did i have to be born.....
My guy, you could have lived in a quiet, boring part of history. Instead you get to live here and now, in one of the most interesting/exciting times in history. There's so many things happening rn that will be read about for centuries to come:
>Will humanity solve climate change, or will we suffer the full effects of the crisis?
>Who will win Cold War II (USA vs China)
>AI/Automation/Robots, how will society change?
>Social tensions in the USA
>Ecological tensions all over the world
We live in a crazy, wild time and you are out here moping. Enjoy the ride. Regardless of what happens, at least you got to see it first-hand.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 12:21:32 2020 No.12440747

>>12440350
What would you define as a major erruption?
The largest erruption in recent history was Mount Pinatubo which released 50 million tons.
The Amazon on the other hand contains about 76 billion tons of carbon total, and is a net sink of about 600 million tons annually.
so basically you're retarded thanks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 12:32:46 2020 No.12440799 >>12440714 >doesn't know what a proxy measure is

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 12:34:15 2020 No.12440803 >>12440052 >one graph shows global average T >other is average T for Greenland yeah ..

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 12:47:08 2020 No.12440859

>>12440803
One of those graphs is real and measuring an actual quantifiable concrete parameter. The other graph is a politically motivated hodge podge that purports to measure a meaningless nonsense and bears as much relationship with reality as a horoscope.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:08:35 2020 No.12440973 >>12440859 Do you have any specific problems with their methods? Or evidence that proves their work is inaccurate?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:09:37 2020 No.12440985 >>12440799 Is central greenland a proxy for the entire planet?

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:15:16 2020 No.12441018

>>12440170
This. It's like fucking COVID19 tests. WHEN YOU START MEASURING THINGS PRECISELY WHEN YOU NEVER MEASURED BEFORE, IT INTRODUCES VARIANCE THAT MAKES ANY CHANGE APPEAR DRASTIC

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LET WOMEN AND ESPECIALLY BLACK WOMEN INTO YOUR UNIVERSITIES. A WHITE MAN UNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF MEASURING THINGS AND KEEPING THOSE MEASUREMENTS IN CONTEXT. UNIS WANT GOVT DIVERSITYBUX SO INVENT FIELDS OF SCIENCE THAT DONT EXIST BUT THEY CAN ARBITRARILY HAND OUT DEGREES

IMAGINE TRYING TO CLAIM YOUR INSTITUTION HAS ANY INTEGRITY WHEN METEOROLOGISTS WHO ACTUALLY STUDY THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE PREDICTION REQUIRE CALC3 MINIMUM BUT ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE DEGREES REQUIRE A SINGLE CALCULUS CLASS THAT ISN'T EVEN CALC1 SO THAT WIMMINS CAN GET JOBS AT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND NGOS AND THINK THEY'RE SMART

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES HAVE BEEN A DISASTER FOR THE HUMAN SPECIES

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:33:44 2020 No.12441152
File: 3 KB, 429x295, fig1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Fact: The best way to reduce CO2 is to clear cut the entire Amazon rainforest roughly every 20 years and replant it. Just don't burn the trees or let fungus break it down. Sink them into the ocean. Drag them to Antarctica.

https://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2001/anwar/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:35:56 2020 No.12441160 >>12437821 Too much water is just as devastating to crops as a drought. There's a reason different locations grow different produce.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:38:22 2020 No.12441167 >>12441160 Lmao cope more faggot the chinks control the rain just fine your entire life is about how much of a loser you can be https://www.businessinsider.com/china-expanding-weather-modification-program-artificial-rain-snow-2025-2020-12

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:40:45 2020 No.12441180 >>12439269 >no it never ended See >>12437782

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:43:18 2020 No.12441192 >>12437782 Lol this graph is just making things up thats actually hilarious wow

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:45:35 2020 No.12441202 >>12440973 These are pretty much my objections >>12441018

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:51:48 2020 No.12441241 >>12439866 No, it is entirely wrong.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:55:02 2020 No.12441258

>>12441018
>IT INTRODUCES VARIANCE THAT MAKES ANY CHANGE APPEAR DRASTIC
What variance was "introduced?" The warming rate is the warming rate. We know it's drastic because we have other methods of determining temperature besides the thermometer record. You're a retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 13:56:04 2020 No.12441261 >>12441192 >Lol this graph is just making things up Like what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:00:26 2020 No.12441284 >>12440799 >proxy reconstruction for a single location is equivalent to global proxy reconstructions using proxies from the entire planet

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:00:54 2020 No.12441286

>>12441261
The entire range from Current Year to 2100 is fake.

The "anomaly" is arbitrary completely and meant to make it appear as if the temp was always relatively stable(until the next 100 years lmfao). This graph gives you no hints of the major temp shifts throughout history. It's just funny math to confirm biases.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:07:03 2020 No.12441313

>>12441286
>The entire range from Current Year to 2100 is fake.
No, it's a projection.

>The "anomaly" is arbitrary completely
Why does the unit matter?

>meant to make it appear as if the temp was always relatively stable
How the hell would it do that?

>This graph gives you no hints of the major temp shifts throughout history.
Like what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:08:20 2020 No.12441316 >>12441313 Use your eyes can you even read a graph wow

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:09:50 2020 No.12441329 >>12441316 not an argument sadly.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:16:43 2020 No.12441352

>>12441329
No, it's a projection.
>yes, based on funny math and therefore fake

Why does the unit matter?
>if you had any capacity to work with data you would know you can make anything look like anything

How the hell would it do that?
>quite literally the arc of the graph you mongrel

Like what?
>literally denying climate has had major shifts throughout history, you can google this if you claim you need specifically me to show you this then you know you are full of shit and just wasting time

Your 45 IQ questions either mean you have a 45 IQ or are a bad actor in regard to honesty

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:27:54 2020 No.12441381

>>12441352
>yes, based on funny math and therefore fake
how is the math funny? they've been dead on for the past 40+ years.
>if you had any capacity to work with data you would know you can make anything look like anything
again not an argument the choice of baseline doesn't change anything when looking at historical changes from that baseline.
>quite literally the arc of the graph you mongrel
you mean the fact that climate has been quite stable for the past 10,000 years?
>literally denying climate has had major shifts throughout history, you can google this if you claim you need specifically me to show you this then you know you are full of shit and just wasting time
again like what?

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:33:41 2020 No.12441401

>>12441381
Ok you seem to have a major cognitive disability. This is a graph of temperature difference that is outside of their prediction. It is meaningless. Literally. It just means "we were this far outside of our expectations".

>temp has been stable the last 10,000 years

No. This is a bold faced lie.

>like what?
See above, use google, then suck start a shotgun.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:34:15 2020 No.12441405 >>12441381 >they've been dead on for the past 40+ years. That's why they've readjusted the data on a bi-annual basis for the last 10 years? Also 100% error rate in previous predictions for last 50 years. It's gaslighting for political purposes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:36:52 2020 No.12441416 >>12441152 Can somebody please debunk this im having a panic attack please make this not real please :(

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:38:00 2020 No.12441418

>>12441401
>This is a graph of temperature difference that is outside of their prediction
so you actually don't know what temperature anomaly is. Thanks for admitting it so I can set you straight.
From NOAA
>What is a temperature anomaly? The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.
>No. This is a bold faced lie.
I have used google, every source shows that global climate has been quite stable for the past 10,000 years. I'm afraid you just don't know what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:39:59 2020 No.12441424 >>12441418 Fucktard that is indeed exactly what I was referring to, it is completely meaningless. >10,000 years Lol anon you are a very dishonest person and it's a shame you live your life like this

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:40:19 2020 No.12441427

>>12441405
>That's why they've readjusted the data on a bi-annual basis for the last 10 years?
adjusted what data? Why is improving models wrong?
>Also 100% error rate in previous predictions for last 50 years.
The challenge here >>12438201 still stands.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:41:01 2020 No.12441431 >>12441427 >improving models So the data prior to 10 years ago was wrong? Lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:42:17 2020 No.12441434 >>12441431 Did I claim they were infallible and perfect?

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:43:53 2020 No.12441441

>>12441424
You actually can't read.
>departure from a reference value or long-term average
Is entirely different from
>This is a graph of temperature difference that is outside of their prediction.
If you think these two sentences say the same thing I think every poster in here can agree you have brain damage.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:43:58 2020 No.12441442 File: 146 KB, 800x575, 713753b5527235682097277063ae7ebe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Oh no no no

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:45:49 2020 No.12441448 File: 34 KB, 615x462, soyouresaying.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12441434 so you're saying climate models are usually fallible?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:48:18 2020 No.12441460 >>12441434 >>12441441 No it is the same. You are sitting here, pretending they know the average as a fact. Not true. The average is also a prediction, you idiot. Their prediction is "this far" outside of their prediction. You have brain cancer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:49:29 2020 No.12441465 File: 250 KB, 1271x961, 1_yxHTQxm6jG52N6EbqLkSQQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Uh oh

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:50:50 2020 No.12441471 >>12441442 nice Y axis

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:51:48 2020 No.12441477 >>12441471 The data provided allows you to infer the Y axis if you wish to debunk, please, please do so.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:55:13 2020 No.12441493

>>12441448
If I were claiming they were incapable of being improved that wouldn't be scientific in the least. However given their track record it's easy to conclude they've been more than accurate enough to make meaningful predictions about the trend of earths climate and the impact of human activity.
Especially compared with the competition who actually have a 100% failure rate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:56:19 2020 No.12441499 >>12441493 >Especially compared with the competition who actually have a 100% failure rate. "Florida will NOT be underwater by 2020"

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:56:33 2020 No.12441501 >>12441465 Could you mark on the graph the time period we have been discussing? the past 10,000 years or so should be sufficient.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:57:28 2020 No.12441505 >>12441501 Again with the poor eyesight, you sad little loser.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 14:57:35 2020 No.12441506 >>12441499 >every year since 1960 >GLOBAL COOLING WILL KICK IN THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:00:40 2020 No.12441522 File: 208 B, 9x6, 50,000.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12441505 of course my mistake here I've cropped it to the past 50,000 years or so. Could you please point out the shifts in climate you've mentioned?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:02:19 2020 No.12441531 >>12441522 >still pretending to be ignorant There was a graph above with a different time scale, you are being intellectually dishonest as acutely as anyone can be.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:06:55 2020 No.12441559 Ok? And why should I personally give a fuck if earth warms for few degrees?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:08:29 2020 No.12441568 >>12441506 "sea levels will rise at all"

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:13:24 2020 No.12441598 >>12441460 I predict this is what normal is and furthermore I predict that we will depart from normal by an abnormal amount. Also normal changes, but it shouldn't change abnormally.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:13:44 2020 No.12441604 File: 12 KB, 450x317, SLR_models_obs.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12441568 yeah

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:14:20 2020 No.12441605 >>12441598 Correct, and this is why it is meaningless. Compounded predictions x10

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:15:07 2020 No.12441608 >>12441460 >Their prediction is "this far" outside of their prediction. you actually have no idea what you're talking about. Did you drop out of middle school?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:15:37 2020 No.12441609 >>12441608 >taking predictions as fact Criminal

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:20:24 2020 No.12441631

>>12437666

If you actually give a shit about the climate you'd advocate trade regulations against countries like china and India who produce the lions share of pollution. No, I don't give a shit about per capita, if they instituted just a minimal amount of regulations in regards to coal plants and industrial manufacturing that would help a hell of a lot more than even more extensive draconian legislation in the west.

China builds 3 coal plants every couple of weeks that have zero emissions standards. What are you going to do about it?

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:21:13 2020 No.12441638

>>12441609
It's a reconstruction. Not a prediction is English your 18th language or something? The error ranges are provided as well, so you having a mental breakdown while providing an unsourced graph without a Y axis from some random guy who uses the power of jesus to predict the weather just makes you look like you need mental help.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:21:35 2020 No.12441643 >>12441152 YOU ARE EVIL!!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:23:08 2020 No.12441652 >>12441638 Anon, the initial prediction cannot possess any errors at all. It's fundamentally impossible. I'm sorry for your loss.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:24:28 2020 No.12441662

>>12441631

Also, Cargo ships produce a shit load of pollution and whats more we have the technology to completely eliminate it AND lead a resurgence in US global trade. Yes, I'm talking about nuclear cargo ships. Zero emissions and a lifetime of power generation. One cargo ship will burn through around 2.1 million gallons of fuel in a round trip from china to the US and back, and there is little reason for it.

Are you going to start advocating for less global trade and domestic manufacturing, or a new nuclear cargo fleet?

Nah I thought not, because the motives of climatologists are not to solve the problem, it's to control and regulate westerners into obsoleteness while china and india shovel billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and build a staggeringly huge economy as a result.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:26:01 2020 No.12441672 >>12441604 >don't trust your experience living by a coastline, the satellite says it's rising

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:28:30 2020 No.12441689 File: 94 KB, 970x1455, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I can make predictions to. How do you like my model?

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:29:37 2020 No.12441697

>>12441652
>prediction
again you keep using this word when it doesn't even apply.
Now on a more serious note, I've shown that every claim of yours is factually incorrect. You've also demonstrated you don't even understand basic terminology. At this point a rational human being would probably realize they have no idea what they are talking about and should probably do some research. Are you going to do that or keep crying?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:30:40 2020 No.12441703 >>12441689 same source and methodology as >>12441442 I like it

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:32:02 2020 No.12441712 >>12441697 You have not shown anything. And YES IT IS A PREDICTION. You absolutely must stop pretending they know the exact historical range of climate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:32:27 2020 No.12441715 Fake graph. No thermometers existed in 1100. This is theory for an agenda that failed. Here is some actual evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:34:17 2020 No.12441724 File: 69 KB, 720x468, 415k-year-temp-graph.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Oops

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:35:35 2020 No.12441729 File: 102 KB, 480x360, unnamed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Lol

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:36:09 2020 No.12441734

>>12441712
I've shown earths climate has been stable over the past 10,000 years here>>12437782

I've shown you don't understand what temperature anomaly is >>12441418
unfortunately you're still playing dumb
I've shown sea level rise has matched predictions >>12441604

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:37:36 2020 No.12441740 >>12441734 Lmao that is not what that graph says you monkey You just fundamentally dont understand words. Or graphs. Or logic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:40:08 2020 No.12441751 File: 90 KB, 970x919, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12441703 to be fair i should include this

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:40:50 2020 No.12441755 >>12441724 nice source >>12441729 Is greenland the same as the entire planet? I too confuse the two sometimes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:41:18 2020 No.12441757 >>12441755 Cope

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:41:51 2020 No.12441759 >>12441740 the level of projection is painful

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:42:53 2020 No.12441766 File: 68 KB, 445x318, Screenshot_2020-12-09 Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12441715 >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period is this what you wanted me to read from that link?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:43:54 2020 No.12441773 >>12441757 so they are the same?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:44:55 2020 No.12441779 >>12441751 same source as >>12441724 nice

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:45:45 2020 No.12441784

>>12441759
I really need you to understand that predicted variance is invalid if you base the variance on a flawed model. The initial model is flawed because it is literally impossible for it not to be, and the secondary model they apply to the initial model is now flawed too. It's okay for the secondary model to have flaws in this kind of graph, and you can deal with an amount of error here, but if the initial model isn't perfect it becomes totally invalid.

Please read a book.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:47:58 2020 No.12441796 >>12441784 what you don't understand is there aren't two models. There's only one and that's the temperature reconstruction. I actually don't understand how you STILL don't understand this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:48:00 2020 No.12441797 >>12441773 You seem unaware that greenland is one of the only places where you can get this data in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:49:02 2020 No.12441803 >>12441796 Anon, the reconstruction is different than the predicted variance of the reconstruction. It is two models. Wow. You poor bastard. I feel bad for you.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:50:04 2020 No.12441806

>>12441766
They have edited it. There used to be more info there:

"During the Medieval Warm Period, wine grapes were grown as far north as England, where growing grapes is now not feasible and about 300 miles (500 km) north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 1800 ft (560 m), but from about 1100 to 1300 AD, vineyards extended up to about 2500 ft (780 m), implying that temperatures were warmer by about 2–2.5°F (1–1.4°C). Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting that the climate was about 2°F (1°C) warmer than present (Fagan, 2007)."

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:50:17 2020 No.12441808 >>12441803 >the predicted variance of the reconstruction that's not a thing, the entire graph is organized on the same baseline. HOW CAN I BE MORE CLEAR.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:52:19 2020 No.12441828 >>12441152 The jungle ecosystem is what induces the high amount of rains in south America. You remove the Jungle and it will all dry up, you wont be able to plant trees in place of it, it'll become dry savanna.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:52:28 2020 No.12441832 >>12441808 You are literally wrong I'm sorry. It is not just a prediction of rate of change. It is a prediction of rate of change based on a prediction of what they think was occuring at the time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:52:53 2020 No.12441836 >>12441806 does that contradict this? >global average temperatures show that the medieval war period was not a planet wide phenomenon

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:56:17 2020 No.12441870

>>12441832
actual schitzo nonsense at this point. I feel like I'm trying to explain counting to a fucking dog.
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235885717_A_Reconstruction_of_Regional_and_Global_Temperature_for_the_Past_11300_Years
there's marcott et al. AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE IT'S ALL ORGANIZED ON THE SAME 1961-1990 BASELINE YOU FUCKING RETARD.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 15:58:04 2020 No.12441891 >>12437666 >1000 years How about you show me the data from the past 15 million years before you say any stupid shit. 1000 years is literal nothing for a system as gigantic as the climate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:01:11 2020 No.12441934 >>12441891 We're mainly worried about the effect of climate on human civilization, why would I care about the climate before humans even existed?

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:02:04 2020 No.12441951

>>12441870
I will make this easy for you

90(+1) 90(+1.1) 90(+1.2) <-- 2 tiers of prediction, where the initial prediction is slightly wrong but the secondary is correct. The outcome is invalid. In the case of your graph, both are likely wrong but I don't need to take it that far.

89.9(+1) 90.1(+1.2) 90(+1.2) <-- 2 tiers of prediction, the initial prediction is correct, the secondary prediction is incorrect, this means the outcome is not invalid in conjunction with an implied margin of error. This is NOT the case for your graph.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:03:44 2020 No.12442010 >>12441951 There is only one tier, the temperature reconstruction.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:04:25 2020 No.12442026 >>12442010 You have a blatant misunderstanding of the data.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:05:18 2020 No.12442043 >>12442026 Not at all, read it again. Because you have actually no idea what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:06:27 2020 No.12442063 >>12442043 I'm glad I'm not you. You did manage to distract me from how ludacris the future predictive element of the graph is, though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:10:41 2020 No.12442152 >>12442063 So no argument again. Here lets break it down barney style. In your own words what does >>12437782 show. lets focus on just Marcott et al for now.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:13:43 2020 No.12442192

>>12442152
Anon I'm done with you, I doubt I can help you understand what an assumption means, or what a fact is. For whatever reason, you seem to truly believe only the final variables instituted unto the model can be flawed. I do not think I can help you understand why this is retarded.

Goodluck out there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:15:07 2020 No.12442212 >>12442192 Again thanks for once again utterly failing to demonstrate you have any idea whatsoever is going on. I'll accept your concession.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:16:22 2020 No.12442228 >>12442192 >I'm done with you >while replying if you were truly done with him you wouldn't have replied at all

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:18:43 2020 No.12442257 >>12442192 bummer, I was looking forward to you debunking the entire field of climate reconstructions in a 3 sentence 4chan post.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:19:27 2020 No.12442266 >>12442228 That would be the case if I was upset. You can only repeat yourself so many times to a person that refuses to comprehend data methodology, so I will peace out. I think it's clear for any lurkers, though. It's just tragic for that fella.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 16:22:45 2020 No.12442325

>>12442266
I think it's clear to the lurkers that all you've been repeating is the fact that you have no fundamental understanding of what the data is, how it's gathered, what it's measuring, and how it's displayed on a graph posted on 4chan. Despite the fact that it was repeatedly pointed out to you.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 17:12:14 2020 No.12442766

>>12441258
>We know it's drastic because we have other methods of determining temperature besides the thermometer record.

You are a BA-Environmental Studies-tier brainlet regurgitating talking points some fag-enabling eco-dyke gave you gold stars for in exchange for thousands of dollars.

You can not infer the external validity of a measurement tool in ANY field of research by citing its reliability, and you're actually citing a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOOL'S RELIABILITY TO DO IT. Which is what every one of you doomsday climate jews do. Unless you have completed a meteorology degree you deserve to be laughed out of academia and mocked in public for trying to defend absolutely indefensible research methods that underlie your """field""".

TELL ME HOW YOU CAN ESTABLISH A CONTROL FOR ISOTOPIC GEOCORE SAMPLING THAT ALSO RELATES IT TO SURFACE TEMPERATURE. YOU FUCKING CAN'T.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 18:21:55 2020 No.12443974

>>12442766
>TELL ME HOW YOU CAN ESTABLISH A CONTROL FOR ISOTOPIC GEOCORE SAMPLING THAT ALSO RELATES IT TO SURFACE TEMPERATURE. YOU FUCKING CAN'T.
>https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/oxygen_balance.php
like this?
please provide a better response than
>IT'S WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO
Or
>BUT WHAT IF OXYGEN ISOTOPES JUST RANDOMLY BEHAVED DIFFERENTLY IN THE PAST

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 20:00:35 2020 No.12444883

>>12443974
>thermometers invented the last 500 years
>measure current temperatures with thermometers
>bro trust me oxygen molecules do this, that's why you should give us your money and leave cheap energy that feeds the planet in the ground

get vaccinated, tranny

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 21:13:14 2020 No.12445271

>>12440350
Pretty much this, climate will be used as yet another a reason to overthrow third world leaders that go against the US. Once someone like Bolsonaro is replaced with a stooge DC will magically forget about climate and we'll cut down the rainforests ourselves

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 21:16:52 2020 No.12445289 >>12442325 Dawg you a just religious

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 21:20:39 2020 No.12445315 >>12442325 Dawg you are just religious. It's okay. It's a longstanding trait for humans to maintain momentum. It"s okay that you're wrong.

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 21:24:55 2020 No.12445338
File: 387 KB, 595x344, consumer9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12445315
You're the religious wacko. The religion of CONSUUUUUUUUUME. That's why you can't understand ridiculously simple concepts. Go have another treat, fatty. Or maybe you're just dumb.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 21:31:51 2020 No.12445380 >>12445338 Gtfo schizo

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 21:47:53 2020 No.12445477

>>12437666
>What happened?
All proposals to combat are schemes to extract wealth thar will have no impact. That combined with continued decades of deception, fraud, and politicization resulting in a cult like belief of bad theories has resulted in "I don't care about this propaganda.".

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 21:52:47 2020 No.12445504 >>12445315 >repeating the same thing over and over again without being able to provide evidence, or even explain why you think you're right Sounds like exactly what you've done this entire thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 21:54:20 2020 No.12445512 >>12444883 >I DON'T TRUST DA SCIENCE MAN Not an argument in the least. Please provide evidence for why you think temperature reconstructions are inaccurate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 21:59:53 2020 No.12445551 >>12445512 you're the one proposing the bullshit. explain it

Anonymous Wed Dec 9 22:02:13 2020 No.12445563

Bros its really simple. There is no such thing a man made global warming. The extremely strong electro-magnetic relationship between the sun and Earth is what dictates climate forces, not our miniscule amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere. Pollution effects us locally, not globally.

https://youtu.be/rEWoPzaDmOA

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 9 22:46:54 2020 No.12445815 >>12445563 >EU schitzo shit take your meds

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:06:53 2020 No.12446175

>>12441352
>>yes, based on funny math
Like what?

>>if you had any capacity to work with data you would know you can make anything look like anything
Temperature anomaly doesn't change how anything looks. You're not actually saying anything.

>>quite literally the arc of the graph you mongrel
How does temperature anomaly create an arc?

>>literally denying climate has had major shifts throughout history
No, I'm asking you what major shifts are not shown in the graph. Either the graph is missing major shifts or what you consider major shifts are incredibly small compared to interglacial warming and current warming. It would be nice if you had any substance behind your claims but we both know you don't.

>you can google this
It's not my job to make your argument.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:14:28 2020 No.12446202 >>12441460 You're spouting bizarre nonsense. What evidence do you have that paleoclimate proxies are false?

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:15:31 2020 No.12446209

>>12445551
I'm not proposing anything. If you want to debunk some reconstructions here you go.
>Pollack and Smerdon (2004)
>Moberg et al. (2005)
>D'Arrigo, Wilson & Jacoby (2006)
>Frank, Esper & Cook (2007) "Adjustment for proxy number and coherence in a large-scale temperature reconstruction".
>Hegerl et al. (2007) "Detection of human influence on a new, validated 1500–year temperature reconstruction".
>Juckes et al. 2007 "Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation".
>Loehle & McCulloch (2008) "Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies".
>Mann et al. 2008 "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia".
>Mann et al. 2009 "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly".
>Ljungqvist 2010 "A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-Tropical Northern Hemisphere During the Last Two Millennia".
>Christiansen & Ljungqvist 2012 "The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: Reconstructions of low-frequency variability".
>Leclercq & Oerlemans (2012) "Global and Hemispheric temperature reconstruction from glacier length fluctuations".
>Shi et al. 2013 "Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction during the last millennium using multiple annual proxies".
Have fun, if you get anywhere strongly consider publishing your work. It'll no doubt revolutionize the field.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:17:24 2020 No.12446217 >>12441477 There is no data provided, it's literally a hand-drawn curve.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:19:27 2020 No.12446224 >>12441531 You criticized that graph for not showing "major shifts" in climate and then showed a graph that doesn't show major shifts in climate, specifically the one this thread is about.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:20:29 2020 No.12446229 >>12441559 Why should I personally give a fuck about what you personally give a fuck about? Enjoy your carbon taxes, retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:21:32 2020 No.12446234 File: 101 KB, 785x731, k0IGUXx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12441598 >Reality is just stupid scientist predictions

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:22:41 2020 No.12446241 >>12441631 Dictionary definition of Whataboutism right here

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:25:08 2020 No.12446253 File: 83 KB, 900x900, dxl2ui5v2r611.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12441672 >my anecdotal evidence trumps a global data set

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:27:05 2020 No.12446260 >>12441797 It's one of two places where you can get good ice core data. Ice core data is not the only data. Why do retards post when they have no clue what they're talking about?

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:32:43 2020 No.12446285

>>12442766
>You can not infer the external validity of a measurement tool in ANY field of research by citing its reliability
Where did I do that?

>and you're actually citing a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOOL'S RELIABILITY TO DO IT.
Right, good job at reading. When two different methods reach the same conclusion, that lends validity to the conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:33:44 2020 No.12446292 >>12444883 Where is your argument exactly?

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:41:06 2020 No.12446323

I've come to realize that there is an evolutionary process occurring among climate deniers. Deniers are becoming dumber. All the smart ones have eventually realized through logical argument that their position is wrong. The only ones still denying the science are those too stupid to argue coherently, stuck in a perpetual loop of repeating the same debunked taking points and then failing to defend them, but not realizing that they've failed. It's fascinating.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 00:44:18 2020 No.12446339

>>12446323
yeah the latest crop has been pretty frustrating with how dumb they are. For some reason they don't even have the usual Gish Gallop of /pol/ info graphics to spam. Did you see the guy claiming that CO2 was dramatically cooling the earth because of it's slightly lower specific heat capacity than air? I'm honestly still not sure If I wasn't just getting trolled.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 03:58:06 2020 No.12446937

So let's just summarize the whole climate change topic.
>Is climate change real?
>Is climate change a bad thing?
>Is climate change attributable to human activities (min. 50%, or the largest factor out of all)?
>Are we capable of mitigating/countering it?
>Are we going to do something to mitigate/counter it?
>Are we certain that our actions will actually mitigate/counter it?

So, even if we presume that most of these questions are answered by a 'yes', I doubt that the last 2-3 questions can get a 'yes'. Even if we have a theoretical solution, it doesn't mean that it'll happen, nor does it mean that it'll be successful. We couldn't stop/mitigate a minor pandemic with our current level of technology. Nor can we stop wars on the planet, among many things, so why would we be able to stop/reverse something so massive? I'm pretty pessimistic about the future.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 04:52:06 2020 No.12447089 >>12439262 This.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 04:58:23 2020 No.12447112 >>12446937 yeah yeah yeah yeah Some nations have taken initial steps, in countries where corruption is more widespread like the united states action is far less likely. yeah

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 06:25:12 2020 No.12447376

>>12446937
We can find a way to escape this problem all together. So what if we're causing the Earth to warm up? We'll just build dams around the most valuable cities, and people living in smaller and less-developed cities that will be prone to flooding will move out over the course of many decades. Laws aimed at stopping CO2 pollution overwhelmingly harm working families. The best example of this is carbon emissions taxes. Wealthy people spend a much smaller portion of their income on gas, while it's a very significant fraction for people in working families. We could also develop more efficient ways of generating energy that doesn't cause as much CO2 pollution. If the "experts" who pedal these climate catastrophe stories are correct, we still have many decades to prepare.
https://youtu.be/1xO723gH7Go

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 07:25:52 2020 No.12447572 >>12441465 >leaving out solar output out of your graph Hi Chris, still on the grift? https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?t=219

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 07:28:13 2020 No.12447582 >>12447572 Not that anon, but thanks for the link, anon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 07:28:56 2020 No.12447584 File: 136 KB, 640x512, NASA-US-1999-2016-2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12437666 Bunch of low quality data that's been manipulated bro

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 07:38:08 2020 No.12447599 >>12447584 >two different data sets are different Shocking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 07:40:17 2020 No.12447604 >>12447582 No worries, you should check out a few of Potholer's videos, he's a skeptic in the true sense of the word, not the warped-contrarian style of "skeptic" that has plagued YouTube lately

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 07:41:20 2020 No.12447607 >>12447599 U right, they went back in time & took new measurements and realised their mistake

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 07:41:22 2020 No.12447608 File: 324 KB, 800x533, WadiSuraSwimmers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12437666 Global warming has happened before and would happen even if we didn't release CO2.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 07:47:03 2020 No.12447618 >>12447607 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q215

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 07:53:15 2020 No.12447628

>>12447608
I really don't understand why liberals think that educating the world will help people stop denying climate change. We've educated the shit out of people in the west and there are still millions of people who deny that their activities have any drawbacks whatsoever. Fat chance getting "educated" backwater primitives to accept unpleasant truths.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 07:53:47 2020 No.12447631 >>12438654 >well isn't the obvious solution to the climate crisis to curb overpopulation? Are you insane? The obvious solution is to reduce pollution you fucking psycho

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 08:00:26 2020 No.12447643 >>12447618 Reads like they have a bunch of low quality data that's massively manipulated numerous times

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 08:42:13 2020 No.12447752

>>12447628
There is very little actual education going on. Mostly daycare and indoctrination. Half the population probably isn't capable of critical thinking anyway so whatever. When people say we need more education what they mean is people need to be told what I want them to believe more often and from a younger age for a longer time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 10:12:22 2020 No.12447992 >>12437666 We replaced thermometers with digital, slowly one by one, and they measure different temperature because they aren't calibrated. But please plant trees anyway.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 10:47:08 2020 No.12448102
File: 18 KB, 745x224, Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The same group that tells you climate change is man made atand with those who try to force their reality denying pronouns, one race exactly equal in capabilities among groups that evolved continents apart - the human race dogma, and structural racism conspiracy theory on everyone.

Look at the variance in the geological record compare it to CO2 levels mya (thosands of times higher btw) and you will see a smaller correlation than most no-replicating social science studies.

An inconvenient truth claimed no snow on Kilimanjaro by now, there still is.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 11:07:22 2020 No.12448185

>>12440985
>>12441284
>The most common method for measuring temperatures of ancient Earth uses naturally occurring isotopes. Isotopes are atoms of the same element that are heavier or lighter depending on how many neutrons are in its nucleus. Even molecules of water, composed of one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms, can have different weights depending on what isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen are bonded together. The two most common isotopes of oxygen in nature are oxygen-16 (8 neutrons) and oxygen-18 (10 neutrons). When the Earth cools down, the lighter, oxygen-16 found in seawater is locked away in the ice of high latitude glaciers due to evaporative processes, leaving behind relatively more oxygen-18 in the oceans. During warm global climates, melted ice returns oxygen-16-rich waters to the oceans. So the proportion of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 in the ocean reflects the Earth’s climate even if we can’t see the ice. Earth Scientists recognize this oxygen isotope pattern between glaciated and ice-free climates, referring to it as the “ice volume effect”, and have since used it to reconstruct ancient Earth climates.
Did you think ancient temperatures were measured with a thermostat and a time-machine?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 13:38:05 2020 No.12448800 >>12448185 You are legitimately retarded. A proxy reconstruction from a single location is not representative of global temperature like an ensemble proxy reconstruction like PAGES 2K and Marcott are.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 16:47:57 2020 No.12449823 >>12447643 Reads like you have no argument.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 16:56:34 2020 No.12449865

>>12448102
>The same group that tells you climate change is man made
Not an argument.

>Look at the variance in the geological record
What relevance does the timescale of the geological record have to human civilization? In the geological record, human existence is not even noticeable. So from that perspective, why should we care about its existence at all?

>and you will see a smaller correlation than most no-replicating social science studies.
Lack of correlation on one scale is irrelevant to correlation on another scale. Also, correlation is not even relevant since we have direct causation.

>An inconvenient truth claimed
Who cares?

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 17:04:18 2020 No.12449889

>>12437666
It's not necessarily an education thing. It might just be simple nihilism and misanthropy: despite what people say out loud, they really can't give enough of a damn about their descendants and mankind as a whole. Most studies project the worst effects of climate change to happen after most people die and many don't feel like they have any moral duty to anyone but themselves, so they don't want to inconvenience themselves in any way for someone else's benefit.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 17:12:11 2020 No.12449928
File: 44 KB, 602x395, EA-EHqQWsAASIQM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12440052
Hadcrut is a global dataset, those icecores are specific to Greenland.
This is important because Greenland temperatures have risen at twice the rate of Global temperatures since 1850 (the end of the ice core records), 3-4 degrees acording to this graph.
This implies a temperature higher than any point on your graph.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 17:17:27 2020 No.12449949 >>12441729 That ice core ends in 1850 and Easterbrook being the lying shill he is says it ends in modern day. When you actually look at the temperature in Greenland now it's way hotter than anytime in the record.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 17:39:24 2020 No.12450051 Do any of you fags deny that a. the world has been much hotter than today b. the world has been much colder than today c. the world has experienced rapid changes in temperature from warmer to colder and vice versa d. life has gone on regardless

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 18:41:03 2020 No.12450340 >>12450051 That is a response to an argument no one made. A lot of bad shit can happen with life still going on. Rapid changes in climate have resulted in mass extinctions in the past and should be avoided.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 19:24:18 2020 No.12450520 >>12437666 Just put a low pass filter on that shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 20:43:22 2020 No.12450881 >>12437666 Intersectionalism happenes, I’d rather see the planet become inhospitable than be ruled by left wingers

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:03:51 2020 No.12450950

>>12450051
>a. the world has been much hotter than today
not since humans have existed
>b. the world has been much colder than today
true
>c. the world has experienced rapid changes in temperature from warmer to colder and vice versa
not since humans have existed
>d. life has gone on regardless
"life existing" is a pretty low bar.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:17:40 2020 No.12451005

>>12448102
It's true. Ironically the left has gone full retard with science. Don't forget CO2 is literally plant food and a little more heat and Carbon in our atmosphere will massively increase plant growth and general fecundity across the entire planet. Quelle catastrophe!

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:21:02 2020 No.12451016

>>12450950
Humans have also historically thrived in warmer temperatures. Assuming a little more warmth will be apocalyptic is utterly nonsense, it's unscientific and not born out by any statistics.
>muh models
Cherry picked. Any modeling (especially from universities and government orgs) without transparent methodology should be instantly discarded for liberal bias.
>b-but Earth will turn into Venus and all life will die if we pass a tipping point
A completely unfounded scaremongering bullshit apocalypse cult delusion..

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:24:43 2020 No.12451026

>>12437821
There will be also increased drought in some areas, resulting in massive crops loss overall.
Also
>Florida is the only place in the world near sea level
You can't possibly be this ignorant. We're in for the most massive waves of immigration in recorded history.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:26:10 2020 No.12451033

>>12437666
We probably wouldn't be in this situation if people had be educated on the meaning of:
[math]{{dP}/{dt}}=KP[/math]
instead of fucking shakespeare and the holocaust.
The number of absolute retards who haven't got even a single concept of scarcity or entropy is frightening.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:37:28 2020 No.12451076

>>12451016
>Humans have also historically thrived in warmer temperatures.
simply not true
> without transparent methodology should be instantly discarded for liberal bias.
just read the papers you schizo
>b-but Earth will turn into Venus and all life will die if we pass a tipping point
pure straw man, literally no one of consequence says this.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:43:03 2020 No.12451089

>>12440350
They can go ahead and chop it all down, after a certain percentage of it is removed the land will completely deforest itself naturally anyway. France is already looking to sanction the shit out of Brazil's ass, the US will probably join them once Biden's in office as well. Some land just shouldn't be developed, that's just the way it is. Brazil can't manage their agriculture sustainably, then they can't have a position on the world stage.

If they want to throw global warming ahead of schedule 10 years with some choppy choppy they can go ahead, but after it's all gone and over I absolutely guarantee their country's food and water security will get btfo by climate change. That's the problem, everything is short term, they're not thinking 10, 20 years ahead by doing this shit, they've already chopped 10% of the Amazon, that's a fucking big amount of land, but it's never enough, and it wont be enough when the forest is completely gone either.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:45:20 2020 No.12451097 >>12451089 >their country's food and water security will get btfo by climate change so are you going to be one of the people advocating for allowing brazilian refugees in once that happens?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:47:20 2020 No.12451105 >>12451097 Uh no. It was their decision to chop, they should pay for it. I absolutely hope our president at that time will agree.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:49:23 2020 No.12451113 >>12451105 honestly the idea that civilian populations can't be held responsible for the actions of their democratically elected leaders is fucking stupid.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:51:21 2020 No.12451115

>>12451105
i wouldn't either. but you can bet lawyers will be having a field day arguing for and against
>you forced us to because of your emissions and competition bla bla bla
>not everyone here voted for this bla bla bla
>we had to do it to alleviate poverty bla bla bla

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:52:03 2020 No.12451117 >>12451113 Yeah well who do you think is doing the illegal deforesting in the first place? It certainly isn't government officials.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 21:55:10 2020 No.12451130 >>12451117 ahh the baby boomers. so wise. they saved so much money buying all their cheap shit from china.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 22:24:48 2020 No.12451190

>>12451076
>simply not true
ok tard
>pure straw man, literally no one of consequence says this.
It's alluded to constantly even if rarely said directly. I guess the enviro nuts just want to shut down the entire global oil sector for economic efficiency's sake right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 22:26:05 2020 No.12451193 >>12451089 Yes their food and and water security will be btfo by widespread development of new dams and farms. Holy fuck you tards are retarded. Get out of the upside down and start using your damn head for once.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 22:34:20 2020 No.12451215

>>12451193
>>12451193
After the Amazon is gone rain will reduce by about 80% in the region, give or take, and the topsoil will just be gone, not like the soil there has any nutrients in the first place. So yeah, arid savannas are definitely great places for farming, but just wait until the dust-bowls start.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 22:46:55 2020 No.12451247

>>12451215
Just like the dust bowls of Europe? There are things called dams and artificial waterworks you know.
>NOOOOO THE BROWN MONKEYS CAN'T DEVELOP THEIR NATION, THEY HAVE TO STAY PERPETUALLY POOR SO THAT I DON'T FEEL BAD ABOUT SOME TREES BEING CUT DOWN

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 22:49:36 2020 No.12451257 >>12451247 >the dust bowls of Europe um... "the dust bowl"s happened in the U.S. midwest, sweety

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 22:52:46 2020 No.12451264 >>12451215 Lol nigga just invade a place with water and run a pipeline

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 22:53:17 2020 No.12451266 >>12451247 um... "the dust bowl"s happened in places that have never been forest, sweety.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 22:54:20 2020 No.12451268 >>12451247 um, what does artificial waterworks have to do with deforestation, sweety?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 22:55:37 2020 No.12451270 >>12451247 um... what does waterworks have to do with "the dust bowl", sweety? the dustbowl was caused by working the land too hard, not lack of water. working the land too hard is exactly what deforestation of the amazon is, sweety.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 22:57:27 2020 No.12451273 >>12451247 nice implication that it's only white people who hate brown people concerned about deforestation in the amazon. >WHYUM DA RAYCISS STOP MUH CLEERCUTS?? DAM RAYCISS!!! LOL, you're a real sweetheart. real cute!

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:00:16 2020 No.12451281

>>12451270
The great midwestern dustbowls were due to soil erosion from destroying the natural vegetation in the area. Prairie grasses have extremely deep roots which crop plants do not have, so the topsoil just sort of vanished.

The dense vegetation of the Amazon is the only thing keeping the whole continent's topsoil from disappearing into the ocean.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:03:11 2020 No.12451288

>>12437666
we dont stop emissions because the cost of doing so is hundreds if not thousands of times greater than the cost of adapting to a minimally warmer climate, which has also many benefits. if anything, the problem is that most implemented policies are ineffective, destructive or even backfire. if you were serious about stopping co2 emissions, youd go all out for technological progress, instead of doing dumb shit like replacing nuclear with fossil, or disrupting the power grid with sporadic solar and wind and balancing with fossil, or giving trillions to poor countries so they increase their emissions and populations, or redistributing trillions to poor people in rich countries so they can engage in incessant consumerism

if anything, you should blame scientists for greatly exaggerating, fearmongering, sabotaging their own credibility and not supporting practical solutions

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:03:59 2020 No.12451293 >>12451281 Tell that to this fucking knob>>12451247 Watch out he might call you a racist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:05:54 2020 No.12451301 >>12451257 >>12451266 >>12451268 >>12451270 >>12451273 Low effort samefag

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:08:27 2020 No.12451306

>>12451288
I still think climate change is a serious issue, but I will admit the response of corporations, countries such as China which don't depend on voters to set policy, etc, as been lacking to the point it seems likes they just don't care. Why don't they care? The only explanation is that it's not that big of a deal, but I disagree with that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:10:08 2020 No.12451313 >>12451288 how about the one where you cut down forests to generate power from burning woodchips because muh renewables muh biofuels

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:12:44 2020 No.12451318 >>12451301 wow, good call detective. you're so smart, to have seen through my best efforts of trying to make it look like multiple people think you're retarded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:19:43 2020 No.12451344 >>12451318 i said it was low effort

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:20:52 2020 No.12451350

>>12451306
>Why don't they care? The only explanation is that it's not that big of a deal
Ehh, you know China doesn't have the most stellar record when it comes to the environment, more like the opposite. You could go to rural chinese villages and find their blood laced with lead levels straight out of the time when we put it in gasoline. If they don't give a shit about those people, I doubt they'd give a shit about global warming, nowhere does that imply it's not a big deal.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:21:18 2020 No.12451351 >>12451344 it was zero effort i.e. not samefagging dumbass

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:23:28 2020 No.12451361

>>12451350
Pollution is one thing but I imagine global warming, with the sea level rise and mass migration it will cause, is a massive, massive security risk to all the countries in the world. I get frustrated that no government seems to care beyond signing loose agreements.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:23:51 2020 No.12451364

>>12451306
>I still think climate change is a serious issue
and you are right to think so. it is a serious issue and causes uncertainty. but it is not nearly as serious as many people claim. climate across the globe varies a lot more than the proven changes from anthropogenic co2 emissions, yet we managed to adapt to all those different climates. it's called housing, heating, AC, clothes and so on. some people have genuine panic about it, thinking the world is going to end. but overall, we have much more serious problems that we should prioritize

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:25:05 2020 No.12451370 >>12451350 China is making great progress in their environmentalism though. smog and pollution greatly reduced. people are no longer dying by the millions per year because of it, more like in the hundreds of thousands now

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:25:32 2020 No.12451372 File: 53 KB, 403x448, cvbbmwwe4rzz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12451005 >Ironically the left has gone full retard with science.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:30:57 2020 No.12451386 >>12451288 >we dont stop emissions because the cost of doing so is hundreds if not thousands of times greater than the cost of adapting to a minimally warmer climate Source?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:31:02 2020 No.12451387 >>12439472 >>12439525 >Imperial College sorry what did they do exactly? UK news doesn't really hit here where I'm from.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:32:58 2020 No.12451390 >>12438306 >>12438318 just get overpopulated third world scum to stop mass reproducing. give out unlimited free condoms.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:36:06 2020 No.12451399

>>12451364
>climate across the globe varies a lot more than the proven changes from anthropogenic co2 emissions
Over what timeframe? Human civilization has never seen change this rapid or global temperatures this high.

>yet we managed to adapt to all those different climates
Yes, we will adapt to the climate rapidly changing globally, it will just cost a lot. You're not actually saying anything.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:38:32 2020 No.12451409 >>12446937 >We couldn't stop/mitigate a minor pandemic with our current level of technology Politics nigger. The technology was/is available. It's not even a question of technology, simple policy and transparency could've prevented this.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:38:39 2020 No.12451410
File: 81 KB, 700x707, SteveHarveyWhite.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12451281
We have modern methods to prevent that from happening. Note how the US dustbowl has since recovered and that shit hasn't happened again.
>>12451372
>confused over number of sexes, which has been known since ancient times and is deeply corroborated by genomics and all physiological studies
>climate alarmist cult
>denying human races for entirely political reasons, as if humans can't be taxonified as all other animals are
>denying IQ because it hurts their feelings and cuts against egalitarian ideology
The left has gone full ideological contra rationality and science.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:45:11 2020 No.12451437

>>12451387
>https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/5/2/21241261/coronavirus-modeling-us-deaths-ihme-pandemic
>hur dur vox dats libural propoganda
Oh the IHME in America did basically the same thing as the college in the UK. They essentially made a model with no epidemiological basis, it was purely statistical, but it foretasted a peak in the number of cases extremely early, so the governments latched onto it and models similar to it to give the impression we had things under control. We didn't. The vast majority of models were based on actual epidemiological assumptions, but nobody cared about them.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:52:53 2020 No.12451466

>>12451361
>sea level rise
you are aware that the mean projected sea level rise according to the ICCP is less than 0.5m for this century, even for RCP6.0 right? RCP6.0 is that emissions peak only in 2080. you are also aware that this sea level rise has been going on for millenia, right? it HAS accelerated recently, not to a degree where it isn't manageable.
>migration it will cause
there already is and has been massive primarily economic migration, much larger scale than expected from climate change, for centuries. that has nothing to do with science or climate change but with politics. its your choice whether you let people in your country or not.

>>12451399
>Over what timeframe
I mean right now, across the globe. the globe does not have a homogenous climate. we live in deserts and in tundras. the climate changes across the year. the point is we already adapted to much larger variance
>it will just cost a lot
not even 0.1% of what it would cost to stop all emissions now. nobody knows the exact cost but I've heard one projection, pointing it at about 1% of our GDP by the end of the century. I see no evidence that it will be so large, but just the sacrificed growth right now by measures is much larger. stopping emissions now could impact our economy by the end of the century more than tenfold, even if it affected growth by less than 3%, which it wouldn't.

Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:57:00 2020 No.12451474

>>12451410
>We have modern methods to prevent that
No we don't.

>the US dustbowl has since recovered and that shit hasn't happened again.
Yes because all the topsoil went away, after 10 years all there was left was bare clay which was too dense to leave. We never really "recovered" in any way. Besides, the amazon is different, its topsoil layer is several feet of what is essentially dead animal/vegetal matter lightly packed. Even if we could have hypothetically controlled the Midwest bowl in the 1930s with crops with deeper roots, evenly spaced rows of corn wont prevent anything in South America, it requires the constant pressure of the tightly packed foliage.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 10 23:59:17 2020 No.12451478 >>12451410 Calling climate science a cult sure is a funny way of showing how scientific you are. It's like creationists calling evolution a religion.

Anonymous Fri Dec 11 00:04:10 2020 No.12451489

>>12451474
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryland_farming
At least do a basic search before you pretend to know anything. Agriculture productivity in every region has massively increased, saying they haven't really recovered from a draught almost 100 years ago is pure retardation.
>but my university prof never talked about that
Makes you think...
>>12451478
I called climate doomsday alarmists a cult, which they are.

Anonymous Fri Dec 11 00:08:30 2020 No.12451498

>>12451466
>you are aware that the mean projected sea level rise according to the ICCP is less than 0.5m for this century
Source?

>you are also aware that this sea level rise has been going on for millenia, right? it HAS accelerated recently
So rapid sea level rise has not been occurring for millenia, got it.

>not to a degree where it isn't manageable.
You keep saying this like it means something. Everything is manageable for a price.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 11 00:09:10 2020 No.12451499 >>12451489 You think this is going to be implemented by Paco who just manually and illegally chopped and burned a few hectares in the middle of nowhere?

Anonymous Fri Dec 11 00:17:23 2020 No.12451525

>>12451466
>I mean right now, across the globe. the globe does not have a homogenous climate.
So you're equating a climate to a change in climate. No wonder you have no clue what you're talking about.

>we live in deserts and in tundras.
Right, and what happens when those environments rapidly change? Hint: the answer is not "nothing."

>the climate changes across the year
Yes, in a cycle. Not in one continuous direction for years.

>the point is we already adapted to much larger variance
No, we haven't. You don't understand timeframe, speed, or duration.

>not even 0.1% of what it would cost to stop all emissions now
No one thinks it's even possible to stop all emissions now. Do you have anything besides these pathetic strawman?

>I see no evidence that it will be so large
It's hard to see when you never looked in the first place.

Anonymous Fri Dec 11 00:18:55 2020 No.12451531

>>12451498
>Source?
the IPCC report https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
>You keep saying this like it means something. Everything is manageable for a price.
ok, so what is YOUR point then? what are you even trying to argue about? what would you want them to do, specifically? how much do you think it will cost? and how much do you think would it cost to adapt to maybe 0.4-0.5m mean sea level increase over the span of 100 years?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 11 00:19:02 2020 No.12451534 >>12451489 >I called climate doomsday alarmists a cult, which they are. So saying climate change is man made is doomsday alarmism? Or are you just spouting non sequitur?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 11 00:22:26 2020 No.12451544 >>12451525 your post doesnt contain a single argument, just petty insults. stop wasting my time

Anonymous Fri Dec 11 00:27:18 2020 No.12451556
File: 209 KB, 1000x709, WGI_AR5_Fig13-10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12451531
Incorrect. Figure 13.10 clearly shows greater than 0.5m is within the range of RCP 6.0

>ok, so what is YOUR point then?
My point is that you don't have a point. "We will survive, we will manage" is not an argument against mitigating AGW.

>what would you want them to do, specifically?
Institute an optimal carbon tax and replace fossil fuels with nuclear and renewables.

>and how much do you think would it cost to adapt to maybe 0.4-0.5m mean sea level increase over the span of 100 years?
You're the one who claims to know what it will cost.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 11 00:29:35 2020 No.12451561 >>12451544 >your post doesnt contain a single argument You're illiterate.

Anonymous Fri Dec 11 00:34:15 2020 No.12451575
File: 118 KB, 1000x709, 1603418524319.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12451556
>Incorrect. Figure 13.10 clearly shows greater than 0.5m is within the range of RCP 6.0
I talked about the mean, not the range.
>the mean projected sea level rise
>the mean projected sea level rise

the rest of your post is even dumber and you don't give any specifics. I cant tell if you people are trolling, I guess I have to stop feeding (you)

Anonymous Fri Dec 11 00:39:59 2020 No.12451588

>>12451575
>I talked about the mean, not the range.
The mean is higher for A1B and RCP8.5. How does the "mean projected sea level rise" only apply to certain scenarios? It doesn't, the IPCC doesn't have one mean projected sea level rise.

>the rest of your post is even dumber and you don't give any specifics.
I accept your admittal of defeat.

Anonymous Fri Dec 11 02:46:39 2020 No.12451825

>>12451499
You're fucking retarded. Over 80% of agriculture in Brazil is carried out by rich agribusiness tycoons with several large scale farms to their name and who earn in a month more than you make in a decade. Morons like you always have such strong opinions on shit they know nothing about, and the less they know, the more condescending and confident they are when expressing them. Walking Dunning-Kruger examples rolf

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 ]