>global warming doesn't exis

File: 131 KB, 1280x720, Rockford_Summary.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed May 18 14:10:16 2022 No.14494138 [Reply] [Original]

>global warming doesn't exis

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 14:11:06 2022 No.14494139 >>14494138 t.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 14:16:19 2022 No.14494147 >>14494138 Please use non meme units next time thanks

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 14:18:36 2022 No.14494152 >>14494138 Doesn't matter AGI will kill us first

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 14:20:12 2022 No.14494156 File: 339 KB, 1439x1432, 6z5d7egcwxc31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >AGI will kill us first The end of humanity will be due to this mongoloidal cult. You heard it here first. Screencap this post.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 14:25:02 2022 No.14494164 >>14494138 use non retarded units

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 15:05:19 2022 No.14494227 >cherry picked four days out of the year in only a small region of the world >GLOBAL WARMING Is this really how climatologists think data analysis works?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 15:15:53 2022 No.14494243 >>14494138 your image out of your ass does exist, climate change doesn't

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 15:23:12 2022 No.14494255 >>14494138 So where in this tiny town did they gather this? In the middle of a parking lot in sunny weater?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 15:37:46 2022 No.14494285 >>14494138 >every heatwave prove global warming >every cold-wave prove climate change >periods of average temperatures don't disprove either It's an unbeatable position.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 15:39:17 2022 No.14494288 >>14494255 Rockford IL

Anonymous Wed May 18 16:04:22 2022 No.14494344

Anons, I don't know shit about this, but if someone is enthusiastic about the topic and claims the global warming is a scam / doesn't exist, I'm very interested in your arguments and sources. No bad faith here, I promise. That's my intuition too, but it's very difficult to find my way around the topic without spending months on learning. Please help me out if you have the knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:06:13 2022 No.14494348 >>14494285 >periods of average temperatures don't disprove either They would, if the trend was longer than a couple months. That's what 'climate' means. Show me a trend of 30+ years and I'll take your position seriously.

Anonymous Wed May 18 16:08:25 2022 No.14494353

>>14494344
On mobile so I'll give you a condensed version. In almost every single plot you are about the dangers of climate change (temperature, sea levels, etc.) pay very, very close attention to the axes. One of two things happen, always. Firstly, if you see only data plotted then the y-axis has very low increase (e.g. low increase in temperature). The second thing you see (and this is typically the catastrophic shit you see) had an x-axis that extrapolates 50 years of data 100 years into the future. In other words, you're not seeing data, just runaway modeling.

The second isn't a problem per se, but it'd be like applying exponential models to population growth instead of logistic functions.

Anonymous Wed May 18 16:12:01 2022 No.14494359

>>14494348
You're a dishonest faggot. What you're demanding is statistically impossible. Roll a 3d6 a thousand times. You expect a normal distribution with a mean of about 11, assuming fair dice. What you're asking is to roll the dice a billion times, and report no events of rolling 18 or 3. Obviously they're going to occur.

Anonymous Wed May 18 16:17:44 2022 No.14494367
File: 110 KB, 101x2048, 1652890641422.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14494353
Alright, thank you for the effort. But I've heard also that the 1-2 °C increase is actually real, but the consequences won't be as grave as are told everywhere. What do you think?
And there are also things like this xkcd that are pretty convincing.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:19:52 2022 No.14494372 >>14494367 fuck https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:20:17 2022 No.14494375 >>14494359 If it's impossible then why have we seen a consistent trend of warming for the last century? You're just mad that the science doesn't back your political opinion.

Anonymous Wed May 18 16:21:54 2022 No.14494381

>>14494367
The increase is real and indisputable. The problem is the consequences use runaway modeling. The problem with Randall's image is twofold: firstly, historical data from thousands of years ago necessarily has large error bars and is smoothed out. There could be dramatic fluctuations on the order of decades, but such fluctuations are entirely smoothed out. If we smoothed out the last 50 years into the previous 500 years, our increase wouldn't look that dramatic. Randall's second problem is the dotted line which is a runaway model. He's at least being a bit honest than the doomsday soothsayers who present plots that don't clearly demarcate the extrapolations from the data.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:23:04 2022 No.14494384 >>14494375 What political opinion are you pretending I have, you fucking retard?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:25:29 2022 No.14494390 >>14494384 The one that convinced you that your ignorance is as good as real science. Probably conservativism.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:26:23 2022 No.14494393 >>14494390 Be specific. What political opinion, specifically, are you claiming I have?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:27:32 2022 No.14494395 >Rockford Hahaha I'm glad I got out of that shit hole

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:28:24 2022 No.14494398 >>14494393 Conservativism. Are you illiterate as well as ignorant?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:45:17 2022 No.14494437 >>14494398 That's not very specific. That's a very broad brush. Name a SPECIFIC opinion you're claiming I have, and I will tell you whether I hold that opinion or not. And please, do try to make sure it's related to the topic of climate change.

Anonymous Wed May 18 16:50:41 2022 No.14494442

>>14494437
>do try to make sure it's related to the topic of climate change
The irony. You're just mad that you've been called out for your ignorance and politic-based beliefs that contradict established science. Why don't you do some reading and come back with a coherent argument?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:51:01 2022 No.14494444 >>14494138 Coincidence, 4 days is literally nothing.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:51:28 2022 No.14494446 >>14494395 You do realize this is happening across the US, right? It's not specific to Rockford, though it is becoming more of a shithole.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:51:58 2022 No.14494449 >>14494442 Already did. You seem to have conveniently ignored them. >>14494353 >>14494381 You're an obvious grifter. Let's play a game. You post a piece of climate data, and I'll analyze it. :)

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 16:57:57 2022 No.14494461 >>14494344 It's now called climate change, because warming apparently was debunked.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 17:00:03 2022 No.14494465 >>14494461 Warming wasn't debunked. It just failed to describe other anomalous weather events like twisters.

Anonymous Wed May 18 17:01:03 2022 No.14494469

>>14494449
Neither of those are coherent arguments. They're based on ignorance and your opinions about the way the data is graphed. Your other argument was based on dice. Again, you should do some reading and come back. Why don't you try the IPCC report for WG1?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 17:02:21 2022 No.14494472 File: 84 KB, 1280x720, Vividred Operation - 05 10.02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14494138 Did you know ice age is unnatural climate for this planet?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 17:02:46 2022 No.14494474 File: 941 KB, 1400x1962, H0landscape2021.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14494469 Yawn. This is your last (you).

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 17:10:24 2022 No.14494487 >>14494474 Are you really asserting that the warming trend we've observed over the past hundred years is due to cosmic radiation? You should try actually learning about the subject instead of grasping at straws.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 17:20:11 2022 No.14494508 >>14494449 >You're an obvious grifter. how is he making money from these posts?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 17:21:08 2022 No.14494512 >>14494487 NTA. Hubble Tension has nothing to do with cosmic radiation, retard. Are you really that desperate to construct strawmen?

Anonymous Wed May 18 17:24:49 2022 No.14494523

>>14494449
>Let's play a game. You post a piece of climate data, and I'll analyze it
Okay
The last time CO2 was this high it was already 3C-4C, the oceans were 60 feet higher, and there were temperate beech forests in Antarctica.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/03/south-pole-tree-fossils-indicate-impact-of-climate-change

https://theconversation.com/why-theres-more-greenhouse-gas-in-the-atmosphere-than-you-may-have-realised-118336

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter10-1.pdf

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2009/01/common-climate-misconceptions-co-equivalence/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QUoN8unzR0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent#Equivalent_carbon_dioxide

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21143597/methane-greenhouse-gas-oil-underestimate-leaks

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606183254.htm

Concurrently, 9 irreversible feedback loops and tipping points have already been activated, with the remaining 6 on the edge.

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-scientists.html

Meanwhile, most natural carbon sinks are now net emitters of CO2, methane, and NO2. Usually from being actively on fire each year.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/tropical-forests-no-longer-carbon-sinks-because-human-activity

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181120073635.htm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-forests-carbon-sink-or-source-1.5011490

https://www.courthousenews.com/deforestation-turned-forests-carbon-sinks-emitters/

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6360/230

Anonymous Wed May 18 17:25:50 2022 No.14494527

>>14494523
Hothouse Earth, an essentially permanent multi-thousand year warming pathway, starts at or close to 2C. Even if the tipping point was higher, we're going to sail past it. Hothouse Earth does not mean 'runaway Venus' scenario. The Earth naturally cycles through Hothouse and Ice Age states over millions of years. Hothouse is simply the combined state or effect of all the tipping points and feedback loops we've activated or are close to activating, when warming becomes self-driving and irreversible.

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

Even if we were to magically stop all emissions tomorrow, CO2 has a multi-decadal lag effect before its full warming effects are ‘felt’ in the atmosphere. We are essentially only feeling the emissions of 1990 today.

https://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001

We have emitted half of all emissions since 1988.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/peter-frumhoff/global-warming-fact-co2-emissions-since-1988-764

It goes on to stay in the atmosphere and continue to act for centuries.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/02/26/ghg_lifetimes/

http://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882

Anonymous Wed May 18 17:27:04 2022 No.14494531

>>14494527
UN says passing 2C will have a 'very high projected risk' of global food supply instabilities:

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/news/climate-change-could-trigger-global-food-crisis-new-u-n-ncna1040236

UN says passing 2C would cause 'multi-breadbasket failure':

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/climate/climate-change-food-supply.html

UN says passing 2C would cause 60% of global wheat to be subjected to 'Severe Water Scarcity (SVS)' drought events:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/26/new-research-warns-severe-climate-related-droughts-could-threaten-60-global-wheat-global-wheat

Study in Nature calculates that the carbon already in the air will push global temperatures to 2.3C: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-targets-1.5861537

17 scientists warn humanity is ‘in denial’ about imminent collapse of civilization: https://www.ecowatch.com/humanity-rapid-loss-of-biodiversity-2649929188.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2

Globe will warm to 2.3C warming if all emissions stop today due to lag effect/ thermal inertia of already released CO2 in system: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/warming-already-baked-will-blow-climate-goals-study-finds-rcna216?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

“As world teeters on brink, over 250 scientists and scholars warn of societal collapse.”: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/07/world-teeters-brink-over-250-scientists-and-scholars-warn-full-fledged-societal

Under current CO2 emissions, 1.5C by 2030 and 2C by 2040. No other GHG’s, feedback effects, or tipping points included: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-when-might-the-world-exceed-1-5c-and-2c-of-global-warming?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+carbonbrief+%28The+Carbon+Brief%29

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 17:27:51 2022 No.14494534 >>14494523 >>14494527 >was asked for a piece of climate data >fetches a copy pasta kek. a literal bot could've written your posts, and nothing would change. you're only hurting your arguments, mate.

Anonymous Wed May 18 17:28:05 2022 No.14494535

>>14494531
‘Past a point of no return,’ according to British Journal Scientific Study on climate change; Reducing greenhouse gas emission to zero still will not stop global warming: https://www.inventiva.co.in/stories/past-a-point-of-no-return-according-to-british-journal-scientific-study-on-climate-change-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emission-to-zero-still-will-not-stop-global-warming-scientists-se-se/

Top climate scientists, “collapse of civilization is the most likely outcome”: https://voiceofaction.org/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/?fbclid=IwAR2-WbfE03VML1UekNF76tLftD-adcv9-FR4RC5DHYXH284B6TWB-e2VbJ8

https://www.sciencealert.com/hundreds-of-top-scientists-warn-combined-environmental-crises-will-cause-global-collapse

Anonymous Wed May 18 17:29:11 2022 No.14494536

>>14494534
>>14494535
>No argument
The very basis of organized human society was only possible in the very rare and very stable climate of the Holocene. Past climate states were characterized by wild swings in temperature, weather, and precipitation too major for any kind of settlement or horticulture.

https://www.intechopen.com/books/climate-change-and-agriculture/climate-stability-and-the-origin-of-agriculture

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0000293549&origin=inward&txGid=ed0df3db2f9674b04bdd16badd99c99d

http://www.dandebat.dk/images/1579p.jpg

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/605359

http://www.dandebat.dk/images/1580p.jpg

Examples of Record-Breaking, Historic Crop Failures Already Happening

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/midwest-rain-climate-change-wrecking-corn-onions-crops/

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/extreme-heat-wave-hits-us-farmers-already-suffering-from-flooding.html

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/15/australia-to-import-wheat-for-first-time-in-12-years-as-drought-eats-into-grain-production

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/20/crop-failure-and-bankruptcy-threaten-farmers-as-drought-grips-europe

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-02/low-rice-crop-leads-to-sunrice-job-losses/11566748?pfmredir=sm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/climate-change-could-cut-fruit-production-almost-third-study/

https://phys.org/news/2019-12-climate-whammy-corn-belt.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/11/17/502349923/climate-change-is-making-greenland-warmer-but-farmers-there-are-struggling

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/12/britain-facing-potato-shortage-failure-dredge-rivers-led-flooding/

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-08-01-drought-dam-drive-mekong-river-to-lowest-level-in-100-years

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-atlantic-circulation-collapse-british-crop.html

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 17:29:28 2022 No.14494537 >>14494523 >>14494527 >>14494531 >>14494535 You realize nobody is going through that pasta, right? What exactly is your goal in posting it?

Anonymous Wed May 18 17:30:13 2022 No.14494539

>>14494536
Scientific Studies Projecting Future Crop Failures

Some of these studies are focusing on linear temperature rise, and some are focusing on climate variability. Both are important factors, and should not be looked at in isolation.

Schlenker and Roberts, 2009. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change. PNAS, 106(37), pp.15594-15598.

https://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594.full

Mora et al, 2015. Suitable days for plant growth disappear under projected climate change: Potential human and biotic vulnerability. PLoS bio, 13(6), p.e1002167.

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167

Schauberger et al, 2017. Consistent negative response of US crops to high temperatures in observations and crop models. Nature Comms, 8, p.13931.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13931

Sakschewski et al, 2014. Feeding 10 billion people under climate change: How large is the production gap of current agricultural systems?. Ecological modelling, 288, pp.103-111.

https://booksc.xyz/book/30274837/03002c

Anonymous Wed May 18 17:31:23 2022 No.14494540

>>14494537
>>14494539
Ecocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_farming#Challenges

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#Dangers_and_effects

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_agriculture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment

https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/endangered-species-animal-population-decline-world-wildlife-fund-new-report/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#Defaunation

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/01/sixth-mass-extinction-of-wildlife-accelerating-scientists-warn

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/humans-destroyed-83-of-wildlife-report/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ele.12144

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/08/wildlife-destruction-not-a-slippery-slope-but-a-series-of-cliff-edges

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/03/climate-crisis-is-about-to-put-humanity-at-risk-un-scientists-warn

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/14/australia-bushfires-harbinger-future-scientists

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24042020/forest-trees-climate-change-deforestation

Anonymous Wed May 18 17:32:46 2022 No.14494542

>>14494540
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-planet-largest-ecosystems-collapse-faster.html

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/climate-change-may-cause-mass-extinctions-new-report-shows

https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/environment/extinction-triggers-co-extinctions-and-further-loss-of-biodiversity/

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaav2539

https://imgur.com/GYQ7pzH

https://imgur.com/sPH3rpj

https://imgur.com/ywpUl0c

Overpopulation/Overconsumption
Essential consumption needed to feed, clothe, house, medicate, and water 8,000,000,000 people make up the bulk of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Globally, the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions are electricity and heat (31%), agriculture (11%), transportation (15%), forestry (6%) and construction/manufacturing (12%). Energy production of all types accounts for 72 percent of all emissions.

https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/

It takes 10kcals of fossil fuels to grow every 1kcal of food you consume.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/10-calories-in-1-calorie-out-the-energy-we-spend-on-food/

Literally half of all the nitrogen in our bodies are made by petrochemical fertilizers. We would have capped out at 4 billion people in the 1970’s food crisis if not for fossil fuels.

https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-people-does-synthetic-fertilizer-feed

https://www.futurefarming.com/Smart-farmers/Articles/2019/10/Fertiliser-feeds-half-of-the-worlds-population-490978E/

A few other examples.

Global levels of mismanaged plastic and river plastic output:

https://imgur.com/a/NxXgMDr

Air pollution:

https://imgur.com/a/7p9xaGn

Environmental Performance Index:

https://imgur.com/a/YXQcDeI

Population growth:

https://imgur.com/a/kjLnR6V

Anonymous Wed May 18 17:34:21 2022 No.14494545

>>14494542
Even a homeless person in the US has double the carbon footprint of the global average, simply because of the services they use. If you use electric lights, refrigeration, and the grocery store, your consumption is in the richest 10% of the planet. There is no way to sustain 8 billion humans without irreversible destruction of the biosphere and rampant consumption of finite natural resources.

https://scienceblog.com/16130/carbon-footprint-of-different-lifestyles-including-homeless/

Collapse
https://www.sciencealert.com/hundreds-of-top-scientists-warn-combined-environmental-crises-will-cause-global-collapse

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/02/04/opinion/246-academics-call-government-act-now-avoid-global-collapse

https://climateandsecurity.org/a-security-threat-assessment-of-global-climate-change/

https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/a-security-threat-assessment-of-climate-change.pdf

https://news.trust.org/item/20191013012429-9u1nq/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1194052/Climate-change-news-no-chance-survival-scientist-global-warming-civilisation-collapse

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/society-will-collapse-by-2040-due-to-catastrophic-food-shortages-says-study-10336406.html

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/09/18/Climate-Crisis-Wipe-Out/

http://climateye.org/compilation-4c-global-temperature-rise-plausible-by-2060s-or-sooner-catastrophic/

https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2012.2845

http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_b2c0c79dc4344b279bcf2365336ff23b.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615

Anonymous Wed May 18 17:35:24 2022 No.14494546

>>14494545
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/10/billions-face-water-food-insecurity/

https://grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse#maincontent

https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/publications/research-papers/is-global-collapse-imminent

Civilization by its very nature and definition requires exploiting the natural world for human uses, in the form of agriculture/livestock, fuel and material needs, etc, and then expanding to conquer and control other areas as they use up their initial resources. Examples of this ecological degradation, even just due to farming alone, are the former breadbaskets of empires and cradles of civilizations; now barren deserts such as Mesopotamia and North Africa, or modern examples like the Midwest United States. The nature of civilization is to expand, overshoot, decline, and collapse. Despite internal myths of eternal supremacy, collapse is the rule rather than the exception, as all civilizations over-exploit the ecological carrying capacity of their relative local environment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml9uJNF_kXk&list=PLcAlqMeyeaW9IM0ePw8i9v8TP9yeZGeEo&index=2

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190218-are-we-on-the-road-to-civilisation-collapse

https://monoskop.org/images/9/92/Catton_Jr_William_R_Overshoot_The_Ecological_Basis_of_Revolutionary_Change.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse

And to be clear, our modernity is no exception. It has only enabled to collapse faster and harder than ever before, and take much more with us as we do so. The Industrial Revolution has only enabled us to conquer, exploit, and destroy nature and each other on a mass global scale.

>>	Sage Wed May 18 17:39:24 2022 No.14494551 Don't respond to bots.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 18:02:08 2022 No.14494580 >>14494546 Why haven't you killed yourself yet?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 18:09:59 2022 No.14494598 >>14494580 >No argument When are you debunking the links like you said you would

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 18:12:11 2022 No.14494606 >>14494598 That was my first post and I don't think there's anything to debunk. But the brownie points you earn by dumping this information on 4chan won't help you when civilization collapses.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 18:13:57 2022 No.14494612 >>14494606 Refer to: >>14494523 >>14494527 >>14494531 >>14494535 >>14494536 >>14494539 >>14494540 >>14494542 >>14494545 >>14494546

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 18:15:22 2022 No.14494615 >>14494612 Non-sequitur answer. Instead of fighting windmills on 4chan you could actually contribute to fighting climate change by turning off your computer.

>>	Sage Wed May 18 18:15:36 2022 No.14494616 >>14494580 Don't respond to bots.

Anonymous Wed May 18 18:22:00 2022 No.14494634

>>14494615
We are already past the point of no return as proven by >>14494523
>>14494527
>>14494531
>>14494535
>>14494536
>>14494539
>>14494540
>>14494542
>>14494545
>>14494546
Civilization is set to collapse around the mid 2040s. The course has been set since around the 1980s. The only thing you can do is prepare for the collapse of civilization.

Anonymous Wed May 18 18:25:48 2022 No.14494647

>>14494527
>Hothouse is simply the combined state or effect of all the tipping points and feedback loops we've activated or are close to activating, when warming becomes self-driving and irreversible.
why does nobody ever consider negative feedback loops?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 18:59:18 2022 No.14494758 >>14494647 >why does nobody ever consider negative feedback loops? How do think we got out of those hothouse conditions?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 19:27:54 2022 No.14494861 >>14494446 Of course I do. I'm just commenting on your situation. Get out while you still can. t. Guilford High, class of '11

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 19:42:31 2022 No.14494905 >>14494138 >In this particular place we detected minor fluctuations over a couple of days never seen since 1959 Statistically irrelevant. Next time post data from the entire planet sustained over a statistically sound sampling time.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 19:44:19 2022 No.14494909 >>14494905 Already did. See >>14494523 >>14494527 >>14494531 >>14494535 >>14494535 >>14494536 >>14494539 >>14494540 >>14494542 >>14494545 >>14494546

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 19:52:57 2022 No.14494930 >>14494909 Not reading your wall f text, kill yourself and dont forget to livestream your suicide

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 20:01:50 2022 No.14494951 >>14494930 Reading is a major part of science. If you can't read then gtfo.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 20:02:50 2022 No.14494956 >>14494951 I have better things to read than your fake data. Kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 21:50:57 2022 No.14495321 >>14494512 You know that CMB stands for Cosmic Microwave Background, right? You're asserting that cosmic radiation is responsible for global warming. Thanks for the (you), by the way.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 21:52:52 2022 No.14495333 >>14494534 >>14494537 >>14494551 >>14494580 >>14494606 >>14494615 >>14494616 >>14494647 >>14494930 >>14494956 Check out all the NPCs who are afraid of reading. Why are you so afraid of data?

Anonymous Wed May 18 21:54:14 2022 No.14495339
File: 1.73 MB, 500x500, 1622728859362.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14494138
>Local cold weather is never evidence against global warming because weather isn't the climate.
>Local hot weather is always evidence for global warming, because... it just is okay???

Anonymous Wed May 18 22:11:08 2022 No.14495391
File: 197 KB, 1841x1150, FD2FKsgUUAE13gt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14494381
>The problem is the consequences use runaway modeling.
What does that even mean?

>There could be dramatic fluctuations on the order of decades, but such fluctuations are entirely smoothed out.
Highly unlikely. Within the uncertainty range, it wouldn't be dramatic at all.

>If we smoothed out the last 50 years into the previous 500 years, our increase wouldn't look that dramatic.
Wrong.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/

>He's at least being a bit honest than the doomsday soothsayers who present plots that don't clearly demarcate the extrapolations from the data.
Example?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 22:13:09 2022 No.14495397 >>14494344 We have these threads like 10 times per day. Just read https://skepticalscience.com, everything you need to is there with citations and in non-meme format.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 22:16:06 2022 No.14495408 >>14495339 Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 22:16:25 2022 No.14495409 >>14495408 You.

Anonymous Wed May 18 22:20:16 2022 No.14495425

>>14494353
>Firstly, if you see only data plotted then the y-axis has very low increase (e.g. low increase in temperature)
Low compared to what? We're currently earning 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming. How is that low?

>The second thing you see (and this is typically the catastrophic shit you see) had an x-axis that extrapolates 50 years of data 100 years into the future.
Projections of future temperature change are the results of modeling the climate, not extrapolating data. These models are based on much more than "50 years of data," which doesn't even cover the temperature record.

>but it'd be like applying exponential models to population growth instead of logistic functions.
How?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 22:21:18 2022 No.14495431 >>14495409 I never said that. Nice lie.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 22:38:34 2022 No.14495475 >>14495391 Mixing linear and log scales. This would get you raked over the coals by a reviewer since it distorts data. >>14495425 >Rate cited without raw numbers 25xsmall = small

Anonymous Wed May 18 23:00:01 2022 No.14495530

>>14495475
>Mixing linear and log scales
There's no log scale on that graph. You just make shit up.

>>Rate cited without raw numbers
Amazing hypocrisy coming from the guy who claims warmimg is "low" without numbers or explanation of what that means.

>25xsmall = small
t. doesn't even know what an interglacial is.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 23:01:58 2022 No.14495534 >>14495475 You can't even explain or defend your idiotic claims.

Anonymous Wed May 18 23:20:29 2022 No.14495578
File: 84 KB, 1024x735, 1650211252008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14494344
I know you're not here anymore but for any anons actually wondering, check out potholer54 on yt
He's debonked basically every retarded half baked argument against global warming that you'll see on here or from dubious sources that have names like "skeptical scientist" or whatever
I used to think it wasn't real as well, problem is no one tries to convince you with well reasoned, well cited, thoughtful evidence it's either TRUST THE SCIENCE or 'hey look at my infographic'

One bit of comfort to your ego, several studies and surveys have been done showing that most people's knowledge of climate change is completely uncorrelated to their "belief" in it
Most of the general public just adhere to it or not based on party lines, aka whatever the jews in the media tell them

>>14495397
>>14494461
>>14494353
You guys are faggots, see above

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 23:22:25 2022 No.14495588 >>14495397 My apologies to you anon, I thought your site was a gay """global warming skeptic""" site

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 23:26:25 2022 No.14495598 >>14494546 >>14494545 >>14494542 >>14494540 >>14494539 >>14494536 >>14494535 >>14494531 >>14494527 >>14494523 BASED Kaczynskian poster

>>	Anonymous Wed May 18 23:34:56 2022 No.14495626 File: 11 KB, 218x187, Log_scale.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14495530 >There's no log scale on that graph. You just make shit up. What do you call pic rel, retard? Learn what data is before pretending to understand it. Just kys, moron.

Anonymous Wed May 18 23:38:12 2022 No.14495635

>>14495578
You and I aren't that dissimilar. I'm this anon, btw.
>>14494353
I argue against the pro-global warming morons here because they're guilty of exactly what you mentioned: being mindless drones citing shit they can't explain. I do the same with flat earth models. I'm one of the strongest defenders of it on this board, because I hate fucking idiots who just regurgitate sound bytes they neither comprehend nor can justify.

Anonymous Wed May 18 23:40:46 2022 No.14495640
File: 573 KB, 200x200, ebc[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14494344
>disprove what was never proven
>No bad faith here, I promise
Yeah no, go flip the record.

>>14494523
>>14494527
>>14494531
>>14494536
>>14494539
>>14494540
>>14494542
>>14494545
>>14494546

Jesus fucking Christ. All those sources when you could have just looked over your refrigerator to prove than an insulator really isn't what's causing the cooling/heating. But then again it's 2020 and the psychosis has probably evolved into blaming something else other than an inert gas right?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 00:09:04 2022 No.14495699 >>14495578 I'm still here. Thanks, will check it out of course. >>14495397 And thank you too. >>14495640 I have no way of convincing you it was a good faith question, of course.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 00:26:10 2022 No.14495736 >>14495635 >I do the same with flat earth models. I'm one of the strongest defenders of it on this board so it's you who floods /x/ and /pol/ with youtube links. faggot.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 00:29:23 2022 No.14495745 >>14495736 You're entitled to your wrong beliefs ;)

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 00:36:31 2022 No.14495761 >>14495745 how much do you make if a few percent click those links nigger?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 00:44:34 2022 No.14495774 File: 57 KB, 728x520, fdg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14494138 >°F

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 01:36:21 2022 No.14495838 >>14495626 >What do you call pic rel, retard? That's called an axis break you utter fucking moron. Had nothing to do with log scale. The scales are linear. >Learn what data is before pretending to understand it. Amazing projection.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 01:38:01 2022 No.14495841 >>14495635 >I argue LOL, no you don't. You just make the same idiotic claims over and over again and then slink away when they get disproven.

Anonymous Thu May 19 01:40:23 2022 No.14495844
File: 53 KB, 403x448, cvbbmwwe4rzz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14495640
>an increase in temperature can't be caused by an increase in insulation because... BECAUSE IT JUST CAN'T OK
Oh look, it's the retard pretending to be even more retarded than he actually is.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 01:42:03 2022 No.14495847 >>14495626 Are you legit retarded or do you just not understand what a logarithm is?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 01:45:16 2022 No.14495850 >>14495847 At first I though he was only pretending to be retarded, now I think there's several layers of actual retardation and fake retardation theyre.

Anonymous Thu May 19 02:07:42 2022 No.14495886

jokes on you, you live in fucking rockford Illinois lol
>live in a flyover state
>a blue flyover state to boot
>and not in the major city that makes it blue to reap any of the few benefits
while still getting the 9000 bad things
flyover liberals aren't people

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 02:58:32 2022 No.14495980 >>14495847 The inverse function of the exponential.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 03:11:35 2022 No.14495998 >>14494138 >since 1905 It's a very short record, and also shows that world was in a warming trend prior to the affects of mass industrialisation pumping out CO2.

Anonymous Thu May 19 03:37:48 2022 No.14496040
File: 89 KB, 504x504, global_warming-coal_powered_charging_stations.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14494138
>when environmentalists insist on replacing fossil fuel powered cars with electric vehicles but oppose nuclear power: coal-powered cars with a lithium battery middle man.

How the hell do you expect people to take climate activism seriously when you pull shit like this?!?

Anonymous Thu May 19 03:44:45 2022 No.14496047
File: 33 KB, 449x345, japanuraniumsea.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14494138
A billion years worth of nuclear fuel in the oceans that will produce no CO2 as it generates power.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=72589f7a159a

This is how you stop anthropogenic global warming.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 04:07:21 2022 No.14496100 >>14495980 And what about that graph lead you to believe it was anything but linear? Are you telling me that you're actually retarded?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 04:08:43 2022 No.14496107 >>14496040 You know that electric cars get twice the equivalent fuel efficiency of ICEs, right? It's better for the environment to have a "coal powered" EV than it is to use any ICE.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 04:09:44 2022 No.14496109 >>14496047 Not economically recoverable. Next.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 04:20:46 2022 No.14496130 >>14496100 Count out the pixels from 3,000 to 2,000. That's 1000 years, and is what we take as linear. Now count the pixels from 2,000 to 750. It's less pixels! That indicates logarithmic plotting. Pseud.

Anonymous Thu May 19 04:26:11 2022 No.14496139

>>14496107
>"radioactive coal dust and toxic fumes are okay because it's slightly less CO2"
>"At least it isn't nooklur!!!!1111"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

It's safe to say nuclear power is to climate change crapitivist what alcohol is to Muslims: an irrational phobia created by religious dogma.

>>14496109
>Antinuke fags
>"Nuclear power is too expensive."
>Sues electric companies in order to delay construction to run up costs and delay construction.
>"See, we told you it's too expensive."

This is like Tonya Harding predicting she would win an ice skating competition and then breaking the knees of her competitors before the match.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 04:34:12 2022 No.14496151 >>14496130 Wow, so you are legit retarded. Have you ever taken a math class outside of highschool?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 04:35:47 2022 No.14496155 >>14496139 Fully half the CO2 if your grid is entirely powered by fossil fuels. The vast majority are not. Why are you being disingenuous?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 04:36:57 2022 No.14496157 >>14496139 Are you really implying that anything is economically recoverable from seawater? Do you even know what "economically recoverable means?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 05:08:15 2022 No.14496204 >>14496151 Yes. I teach college math.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 05:10:54 2022 No.14496211 File: 60 KB, 617x321, trump_climate_chinese_hoax.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14494138 do not panic, it is all chinese hoax trust world's greatest scientist

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 05:12:22 2022 No.14496214 >>14494138 Good, let's get this over with.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 05:22:37 2022 No.14496233 >>14496204 No you don't. If you did you'd understand what a logarithm is.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 05:33:54 2022 No.14496249 >>14496157 Uranium is potent enough that it doesn't take much.

Anonymous Thu May 19 05:38:35 2022 No.14496257
File: 74 KB, 1024x768, Definition_+Insulation[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14495844
>an increase in temperature can't be caused by an increase in insulation because... BECAUSE IT JUST CAN'T OK
It literally can't, you retard who isn't pretending at all. Add all the r-12 rolls you want to the fridge, it will never go below 0°F(standard for freezers anyway). The ideal insulator does NOTHING, why do you think vacuum panels make the best insulation?

>>14495699
Okay, but explain why that is instead of simply describing the concession of a non-argument.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 07:40:20 2022 No.14496455 is it ok to harass PoC for their carbon emissions or this is another whitr man's burden?

Anonymous Thu May 19 09:19:12 2022 No.14496648

>>14496257
Why I can't convince you? Well, you already assumed my bad faith, so everything I say will be automatically framed in your mind as luring you deeper into my... bait, I guess? It's a point of no return, frankly.
The problem with that is I've done nothing special to earn your distrust. So based on what you did here, you will always have the tendency to see bad faith where only ignorance is - and I think you'll agree that it's not ideal. It does nothing wrong for you in and of itself, of course, but you attack people you could otherwise convince.
Of course, if you always assume good faith, then you'll many times be lured into elaborate baits... But the great thing is that there is always someone lurking. Maybe you'll waste time for the baiter, but there could be someone that will genuinely hold the same position as them and will benefit from your explanation.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 10:10:30 2022 No.14496751 >>14494348 show me a trend of 30 years with year on year data from before the thermometer record.

Anonymous Thu May 19 10:59:41 2022 No.14496827

>>14495998
>It's a very short record
No it's a very long record. Prove me wrong.

>and also shows that world was in a warming trend prior to the affects of mass industrialisation pumping out CO2.
How does a record that starts after industrialization show that? Deniers are Fucking braindead.

Temperature was very stable for about 10000 years prior to industrialization. Prior to that there was interglacial warming. Current warming is about 25 times faster.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 11:02:12 2022 No.14496835 >>14496109 >Not economically recoverable Source? The cost of uranium is a negligible part of the cost of nuclear. Passive harvest from seawater is quickly getting closer to the price of mined uranium.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 11:03:49 2022 No.14496840 >>14496130 >Now count the pixels from 2,000 to 750. There's an axis break in between them. You're pretending to be retarded again, retard.

Anonymous Thu May 19 11:18:25 2022 No.14496868
File: 56 KB, 621x702, ce8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14496257
>It literally can't
It literally can, and it's directly observed:

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>Add all the r-12 rolls you want to the fridge, it will never go below 0°F(standard for freezers anyway).
It would, if it wasn't already maximally insulated. Otherwise fridges don't actually need walls, it will be just as cold in there without them. We should just do away with them, it makes it easier to grab what you need.

>The ideal insulator does NOTHING
Then why do we use insulation, you utter fucking moron? It should have no effect on the temperature.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 11:23:15 2022 No.14496879 >>14496751 >global warming is fake >>show me the temperature trend is not warming >give me temperature data before global warming ???

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 13:46:11 2022 No.14497193 >>14496249 It doesn't matter how much it takes, it's cheaper to mine it from ore. Uranium dissolved in seawater is not economically recoverable. Why don't you look up what that means?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 13:47:49 2022 No.14497197 >>14494138 anthropomorphic global warming doesn't exist the cause is much worse

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 13:50:31 2022 No.14497207 File: 30 KB, 503x384, global_warming-climatesci.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14495391 >Leaving out Roman and Medieval Warm Periods >"Why not trust us? What are you? Anti-science?!?"

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 13:59:25 2022 No.14497247 >>14496835 Seawater contains less uranium than a random patch of soil. That means that it's more economical to pull it out of regular dirt than it is to pull out of seawater, and it's billions of times more economical to mine the ore. Look it up.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 14:04:30 2022 No.14497264 >>14497247 What if you grow a seweed that hyper accumulates it then harvest that?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 14:07:47 2022 No.14497272 >>14494227 Hasn't there a period a few years ago, where every subsequent year was the hottest year in history? No clue if that's still going and can't be fucked to look it up right now

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 14:19:29 2022 No.14497303 >>14497264 That's called phytomining and it's more effective on land than in the ocean because on average there's 1000 times more uranium in a random patch of soil than in seawater.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 14:21:55 2022 No.14497305 >>14496233 I told you what a logarithm is. It's the opposite of the exponential

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 14:23:44 2022 No.14497308 >>14497305 And which part of that graph is logarithmic, retard? This should be trivial for you since you "teach college math".

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 14:24:03 2022 No.14497310 >>14496827 >Makes claim without evidence >Give me evidence I'm wrong ???

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 14:25:46 2022 No.14497313 >>14496827 >25x Wow! Scary! 25xSmall = Small

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 14:26:47 2022 No.14497316 >>14496840 Why an axis break so small? What are they hiding?

Anonymous Thu May 19 14:29:20 2022 No.14497322

>>14495391
>That whole red in is projected 100 years into the future
Malarkey. Only the blue is data and it's a nothing burger. Also why is 2000-750 omitted? They had enough room for thousands of years of data, and chose omit that specific 1000 years. Why?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 14:30:43 2022 No.14497326 >>14495391 1850-2019 heating is no more rapid than the glacial rooms from 10,000 years ago, per your own chart.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 15:04:10 2022 No.14497392 >>14497207 >Leaving out Roman and Medieval Warm Periods What do you mean by "leaving out?" They're there, just not significant compared to current warming and interglacial warming. >WAAAAAH THE DATA DOESN'T GIVE THE ANSWER I WANT Cry more.

Anonymous Thu May 19 15:07:25 2022 No.14497407

>>14497247
>Seawater contains less uranium than a random patch of soil. That means that it's more economical to pull it out of regular dirt than it is to pull out of seawater
Doesn't follow. Seawater can be passively harvested, dirt can't.

>it's billions of times more economical to mine the ore.
Not billions of times, but no one is disputing that mining is more economical, until you run out of mines. The entire point is that you eventually need an undepletable source if you are going to rely on nuclear. That source is seawater.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 15:25:51 2022 No.14497459 >>14497310 >>Makes claim without evidence Yes, your claim that it's a very short record is without evidence or explanation of what "short" means. Good job.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 15:27:13 2022 No.14497466 >>14497313 t. doesn't even know what an interglacial is

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 15:29:06 2022 No.14497471 >>14497316 There's a corresponding break in the data that's clearly visible to anyone. You're desperately grasping at straws.

Anonymous Thu May 19 15:37:20 2022 No.14497488
File: 416 KB, 1841x1150, Global_Warming.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14495391
I've taken the liberty of fixing this fearmongering plot by removing the runaway modeling. Not so scary now, is it? To be clear, I've retained all the data up to 2019, and removed all the speculative drawing up until 2100.

I've also taken the liberty of calculating the slopes of the graphs (using pixels, so you need to rescale to temperature per year). You've mentioned in numerous posts that we're warming 25x faster than the last interglacial warming, see e.g.
>>14495425
>We're currently earning 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming.
>>14496827
>Prior to that there was interglacial warming. Current warming is about 25 times faster.
By my calculations (which you can verify yourself), the rate of warming today compared to 10,000 years ago is at most doubled. If I've made an error in the analysis, please point it out. Also, for completeness: I added a question mark near the axis-break because it's unclear why that narrow window of data is omitted. Do you have an answer?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 15:43:22 2022 No.14497503 >>14497322 >Malarkey Not an argument, try again. >Also why is 2000-750 omitted? It's not. There's data in between those markers. Why are deniers incapable of reading graphs?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 15:44:23 2022 No.14497504 >>14497326 Wrong, look at the axis. Why are deniers incapable of reading graphs?

Anonymous Thu May 19 15:52:39 2022 No.14497520

>>14497488
>I've taken the liberty of fixing this fearmongering plot by removing the runaway modeling. Not so scary now, is it?
25 times faster warming than the last interglacial is scary. Ignoring projections changes nothing.

>By my calculations (which you can verify yourself), the rate of warming today compared to 10,000 years ago is at most doubled.
LOL, you didn't take into account the last 1000 years is stretched out. Why are deniers incapable of reading a graph?

>Also, for completeness: I added a question mark near the axis-break because it's unclear why that narrow window of data is omitted. Do you have an answer?
There's nothing ommitted, it shows the point at which the axis changes.

Anonymous Thu May 19 15:55:59 2022 No.14497528

>>14497520
>the last 1000 years is stretched out
Thank you for FINALLY admitting the graph is nonlinear. It took some good bait to get you to do it, but finally you admitted it.
>>14497520
>There's nothing ommitted,
What do you call that white break in the data? It's no data. Why isn't there data there?
>25 times faster warming than the last interglacial is scary.
Factoring in the stretched time, you get that the 750-0 years is stretched by about a factor of 5 (I'm overestimating, just to make a point), which you can verify yourself. This makes the rate of current warming at most 10x higher than the interglacial warming. Once again, I invite you to point out any errors.

Anonymous Thu May 19 16:15:52 2022 No.14497571

>>14494344
If you're still here, I gave you this answer
>>14494353
If you want an example of how this comes into play, check this original post
>>14495391
And view my deconstruction of here it and forward. Does it finally make sense?
>>14497488
>>14497528

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 16:24:52 2022 No.14497582 >>14497407 You have no idea what you're talking about. You should actually look into the cost of harvesting uranium from seawater instead of making shit up.

Anonymous Thu May 19 16:25:39 2022 No.14497583

>>14496648
>Why I can't convince you?
That an insulator causes heat? Because it doesn't. The source of heat is the cause of heat.

>Well, you already assumed my bad faith
Because your faith is literally having you entertain a psychosis.

>but there could be someone that will genuinely hold the same position as them and will benefit from your explanation.
Because that's been so beneficial to the world, being a groupthink that only elaborates and explains things to those who conform to said belief system.

>>14496868
>It would, if it wasn't already maximally insulated.
You're once again assuming that the insulation is the source of what is causing the heating and cooling. It isn't.

>Otherwise fridges don't actually need walls,
It doesn't "need" walls to produce the temperatures required, all it needs is electricity and a compressor. Refrigerant is your choice because literally everything can act as a refrigerant, even liquid bismuth.
>Then why do we use insulation, you utter fucking moron?
Because I want the "0°F" to remain unchanged while using less energy. It's great for doing that, but it will never make it colder than "0°F". Why? Because it is inert. It does nothing.

>It should have no effect on the temperature.
It doesn't on the CAUSE of said temperature. No matter what type of insulation you use, it will never affect the ability of a refrigerator to produce "0°F" (nominal). If you want it colder, you will have to replace the compressor and the refrigerant actually responsible for producing the temperatures measured. Not the insulation.

Anonymous Thu May 19 16:38:35 2022 No.14497596

>>14497583
>That an insulator causes heat?
I'm not who you think I am, apparently. I'm this anon:
>>14494344
>>14495699
So I didn't say anything about insulators. Read my posts and your posts again, that's just a misunderstanding.

>>14497571
Yes, it does, thank you very much.
So, you think the consequences won't be dramatic. But what do you think will happen?
Also, why not: what do you think of a website from this post?
>>14495397

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 16:50:58 2022 No.14497619 >>14494138 >Global Thawing

Anonymous Thu May 19 16:52:02 2022 No.14497623

>>14497392
>"Hahaha cry over scientists omitting data that doesn't fit their theory!"

Your mocking posts says more about you being a dishonest little shit than it does about me.

A good scientist accepts all data even if some of it doesn't fit their hypothesis and will even rethink their initial beliefs based on new data. Dishonest ones cheery pick theirs.

Anonymous Thu May 19 16:54:30 2022 No.14497626

>>14497596
>I'm not who you think I am, apparently
>but if someone is enthusiastic about the topic and claims the global warming is a scam / doesn't exist, I'm very interested in your arguments and sources

The globe is "warmed" by the sun. This is a self evident fact that doesn't need to be argued over. The argument/accurate description that is "global warming" revolves around that not being the case, allow me to elaborate more:

>So I didn't say anything about insulators.
That is the entire basis of "global warming", the topic you are interested in. I know it might be confusing as I am talking to another anons misunderstanding of how an insulator "works".

>Read my posts and your posts again, that's just a misunderstanding.
Global warming is basically a reified misunderstanding. That's why I call it a psychosis. You basically want to know more about a psychosis and the arguments for/against it.

Anonymous Thu May 19 16:55:38 2022 No.14497629
File: 170 KB, 2838x1899, Logistic vs Exponential.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14497596
>https://skepticalscience.com
Website looks all kinds of kooky.
>John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.
If this web page is what qualifies as "talented", then that's just embarrassing.

I generally avoid any webpages that give encyclopedic lists of arguments. It indicates categorical bad faith, since I prefer dialectics. That's just me though. The page could be good, but I avoid all pages like that. For example, I'm browsing their endorsements
>https://skepticalscience.com/endorsements.shtml
And I have to say... I'm not really impressed. They're almost all in fields tangentially related to climatology, or they're climatologists from trash universities. What this indicates to me is the site attracts a specific kind of non-expert.

As for what I think will happen: nothing catastrophic. My point is all their projections rely on runaway modeling, which is unfounded. For an example, if human population continues to double every 70 years, by the year 3,000 we'll have a population of over 200 trillion people. Assuming the surface area of Earth is about 200 million square miles, we'd find that we need to house at least a million people per square mile (not factoring in the necessity for farming areas, etc.) Clearly there's a problem.

The problem, however, is that I (erroneously) assumed the exponential growth of the population will continue unfettered. In reality, population growth follows logistic curves, meaning the rate of growth will slow considerably. See pic rel. Logistic curves LOOK exponential early on, but are clearly different.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 17:05:48 2022 No.14497646 >>14494138 >weather =/= climate

Anonymous Thu May 19 17:06:24 2022 No.14497648

>>14497582
>durr durr hurr
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280745206_Cost_Estimation_of_Uranium_Recovery_from_Seawater_with_System_of_Braid_Type_Adsorbent

Even if uranium costs 10 times more than it does now, it would barely affect the price of nuclear. Uranium is so cheap compared to the cost of production it doesn't matter.

Anonymous Thu May 19 17:11:21 2022 No.14497656

>>14497583
>That an insulator causes heat?
No one said it "causes heat," it causes an increase in temperature by not allowing heat to escape. That's the definition of an insulator, so it's not even up for debate. Your entire argument is nothing but misrepresenting your opponent.

Anonymous Thu May 19 17:29:35 2022 No.14497689

>>14497583
>You're once again assuming that the insulation is the source of what is causing the heating and cooling.
You're once again playing semantic games. It's very simple: the increase in temperature is caused by the increase in insulation from CO2. This is directly observed. Temperature would not be increasing without that increase in CO2, in fact it would be going down slightly due to the weakening of the Sun. Just because the Sun is the source of heat doesn't mean its the cause of the change in the amount of heat on Earth's atmosphere. It's actually sending less energy to us. The cause is the increase in insulation. You're probably incapable of accepting this so you'll reply again with more obfuscations.

>It doesn't "need" walls to produce the temperatures required
You do if you want to actually reach the proper temperature with the fridge as it's designed. There is no second, stronger Sun you can blame the temperature increase on.

>all it needs is electricity and a compressor.
You get the same compressor and amount of electricity as the refrigerator with walls. Let's see if you can produce the same temperature without walls. Oh you can't? Well that means the walls cause the temperature to decrease.

>Because I want the "0°F" to remain unchanged while using less energy.
Too bad, the Sun delivers a certain amount of energy that doesn't vary by much. You need insulation to cause the temperature to increase.

>but it will never make it colder than "0°F".
It would, if the refrigerator wasn't already maximally insulated. Try making a valid argument, just once.

>It doesn't on the CAUSE of said temperature.
More semantic games. I'm talking about the cause of a temperature *change.* I don't know what "cause of temperature" means. Does it mean that without insulation, the fridge would be at a warmer temperature? Then insulation "causes temperature."

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 17:34:23 2022 No.14497702 >>14497623 >omitting data Didn't happen. Cry more. The only one ignoring data is you. The global average was barely affected by muh Warm Periods. Get over it.

Anonymous Thu May 19 17:42:31 2022 No.14497716

>>14497626
>The globe is "warmed" by the sun.
It's also warmed by an increase in greenhouse gases, since warming just means an increase in temperature. You're just playing semantic games by conflating "warming" with "being the source of energy." If you want to play games like that then you can just as easily argue that the Big Bang is warming the Earth, not the Sun. Or that the ground is warming the Earth, since that's where most of the heat comes from. Idiotic and completely ignores that we are talking about what causes the change in the amount of heat on Earth, not what causes heat to exist. But that's the point, you want to distract people from reality.

Anonymous Thu May 19 17:53:34 2022 No.14497732

>>14497629
>ad hominem
>attacking the form
>anything to avoid the arguments
Yep, it's denier time!

>My point is all their projections rely on runaway modeling, which is unfounded.
You still haven't exclaimed what you mean by "runaway modeling" or how it's wrong.

>For an example, if human population continues to double every 70 years
Not analogous. Climate models are not extrapolations of a trend, they are physical models. Shouldn't you at least know a little bit about what you're talking about before you start arguing about it? Do you often just assume things based on your superficial first impression and then jump off from there? Maybe you should stop.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 17:58:39 2022 No.14497748 >>14497732 What the fuck are you talking about? Ad hominem and attacking the form arguments are entirely acceptable in the realm of science. How the fuck else do you determine if someone is a peer whose review you should respect?

Anonymous Thu May 19 18:07:52 2022 No.14497762

>>14497748
>Ad hominem and attacking the form arguments are entirely acceptable in the realm of science.
OK, then everything you said can be dismissed since you're just an anonymous 4chan poster.

>How the fuck else do you determine if someone is a peer whose review you should respect?
Maybe by seeing if their argument makes sense? What a concept!

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 18:08:52 2022 No.14497767 >>14497762 >everything you said can be dismissed since you're just an anonymous 4chan poster. Same to you. So why are you posting here again if, by your own argumentation, everyone here should reject what you say?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 18:09:53 2022 No.14497769 >>14497762 >Maybe by seeing if their argument makes sense? What a concept! So everyone is a scientist and can peer review any work? Excellent. Then all the data you provided doesn't make sense. Wow, that was easy.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 18:25:31 2022 No.14497820 >>14497767 >Same to you. Not same to me, you're the only one contending that ad hominem are valid arguments. You're argument is self-refuting.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 18:27:23 2022 No.14497825 >>14497769 >So everyone is a scientist and can peer review any work? No one claimed Cook is a scientist or his website is peer reviewed research. Only you insinuated that you needed to treat his website as such. Moron.

Anonymous Thu May 19 18:29:28 2022 No.14497831

>>14497656
>it causes
>by not
Try again.

>No one said it "causes heat," it causes an increase in temperature
How can it cause an increase in temperature when things that heat are what causes an increase in temperature? It is not a source of heat, it can't increase the temperature it's literally impossible. It's like saying preventing a cause is a cause of that cause in itself. It's contradictory.

>That's the definition of an insulator
>so it's not even up for debate
You have defined what it is not and what it doesn't do. That doesn't tell me tell me anything at all so you're not even wrong. I don't have something to debate here.

>argument
Not arguing

>misrepresenting your opponent
My "opponent" (who is that?) is misinformed/ illinformed. I don't even have the info to layout an elaborate plan to "misguide him". A psychosis? Anything can mislead someone in a psychosis, even the most accurate information on the planet.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 18:30:22 2022 No.14497832 >>14497825 >No one claimed Cook is a scientist or his website is peer reviewed research So why should I take it seriously?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 18:33:05 2022 No.14497836 >>14497820 >>14497825 NTA, but if ad hominem aren't valid arguments, why do you support peer review?

Anonymous Thu May 19 18:41:13 2022 No.14497863

>>14497689
>It's very simple: the increase in temperature is caused by the increase in insulation
It's very simple: a gasoline engine will violate the laws of thermodynamics and give you more energy when you coat the engine in fiberglass and get rid of the radiator.

>Temperature would not be increasing without that increase in CO2
>Temperature will increase in my house if I shut off all the heat sources and cover it in insulation

>You do if you want to actually reach the proper temperature with the fridge as it's designed.
The evaporator is never going to do the magical shit you're implying. It is never going to produce a lower temperature no matter how much insulation you add to it. You will have to get another evaporator engineered to produce lower tempuratures.

>There is no second, stronger Sun you can blame the temperature increase on.
The first one is enough of a cause in my opinion.

>You get the same compressor and amount of electricity as the refrigerator with walls. Let's see if you can produce the same temperature without walls. Oh you can't? Well that means the walls cause the temperature to decrease.
You really don't know how refrigeration works do you? It will always produce the same temperature bro, it's just that the insulation contains a specific area brought down/up to the output of the machine.

>Too bad, the Sun delivers a certain amount of energy that doesn't vary by much
Lolno

>You need insulation to cause the temperature to increase.
So you're telling me that with enough r rating I can heat more than the sun? Someone should invest in this zero-point energy type of meta-material.

>It would,
No it wouldn't. Because then the refrigerant would cause problems and the machine would literally freeze up and cease to work, or the compressor would explode from the disparity of gas pressures.

>More semantic games.
Very difficult to argue semantics over. An ideal insulator does nothing, and is nothing. It is specifically "to not cause".

Anonymous Thu May 19 18:55:33 2022 No.14497901

>>14497716
>It's also warmed by an increase in greenhouse gases,
>since warming just means an increase in temperature
So when it's cooler at night and then warmer in day, has the increase in temperature been caused by the gas? The gas does nothing but insulate, it prevents these disparities, it prevents the changes in temperature.

>You're just playing semantic games by conflating "warming" with "being the source of energy."
What cause the change if not the source? This is literally cause and effect 101 here.

>you can just as easily argue that the Big Bang is warming the Earth, not the Sun
That wouldn't be as easy to argue because the Big Bang is another crackpot theory with no evidence or basis in reality. At least you can see the fucking sun, not that you should go staring at it.

>Or that the ground is warming the Earth, since that's where most of the heat comes from
I mean if you want to get down to brass tacks it's where all the CO2 comes from too.

>Idiotic and completely ignores that we are talking about what causes the change in the amount of heat on Earth
And what I'm saying is that it's patently retarded to assume that an insulator of all the things could possible cause a change in temperature. It's literally contradictory. Insulation prevents change.

Anonymous Thu May 19 19:17:39 2022 No.14497964

>>14497831
>it causes
>by not
>Try again.
Not an argument, try again.

>How can it cause an increase in temperature when things that heat are what causes an increase in temperature?
If things that heat are what cause an increase in temperature, then CO2 is a thing that heats. More semantic games.

>It is not a source of heat, it can't increase the temperature
Doesn't follow. It causes less heat to leave Earth, so it increases the temperature.

>It's like saying preventing a cause is a cause of that cause in itself.
No, it's like saying CO2 blocks heat from leaving, which increases the temperature. No matter how hard you attempt to obfuscate, you can't refute this simple fact.

>You have defined what it is not and what it doesn't do.
That's the dictionary defintion. Get over it.

>That doesn't tell me tell me anything at all
Of course it does. It tells you it increases the temperature by not allowing heat to escape, which is all you need to know. As I predicted, all you can do is impotently whine and attempt to obfuscate the argument.

>Not arguing
Good, then you admit CO2 is causing the temperature increase. That was easy.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 19:26:47 2022 No.14497994 Notice how when the shill got called out on his 25x factor being an overestimate, he shut the fuck up and didn't have a canned response. Wonder why? :)

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 19:29:49 2022 No.14498013 >>14497832 Are you taking anything in this thread seriously? If so, why? If not, why not treat Cook's website the same as anything else you've responded to? It just seems like you're making excuses to avoid the arguments.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 19:31:10 2022 No.14498017 >>14498013 >Are you taking anything in this thread seriously? Insofar that I'm deconstructing and shitting on any claims made in this thread, no I'm not taking anything "seriously".

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 19:31:32 2022 No.14498019 >>14497836 What does peer review have to with ad hominem.

Anonymous Thu May 19 19:35:06 2022 No.14498032

>>14497964
>Not an argument
It literally "is not". What would I argue over?

>If things that heat are what cause an increase in temperature, then CO2 is a thing that heats
No, insulators do not "cause" whatsoever. Ideal ones that is.

>Doesn't follow. It causes less heat to leave Earth, so it increases the temperature.
The condenser will never go below "0°F" until redesigned. The boiler will never go above 210°F. No matter how much insulation you add.

>No, it's like saying CO2 blocks heat from leaving,
>which increases the temperature.
Look you can say that all day long, the sun is only going to put out the tempurature it does. It will PREVENT that from changing perhaps, but insulation literally does not "increase" or "decrease" anything whatsoever. It's inert. It does nothing.

>No matter how hard you attempt to obfuscate, you can't refute this simple fact.
First of all I'm not obfuscating anything. Second there is not even a correlation to CO2 and temperature. All people do is graph the two together and compare the data sets as if that actually means anything.

>It tells you it increases the temperature by not allowing heat to escape
>It does this thing by not doing this thing
It makes no sense, can you please elaborate more?

Anonymous Thu May 19 19:53:52 2022 No.14498084

>>14494461
Popularized by conservative pollster Frank Luntz, also coined "death tax".
"In a confidential memo to the Republican party, Luntz is credited with advising the Bush administration that the phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", which he called a "less frightening" phrase than the former."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language

Anonymous Thu May 19 20:03:42 2022 No.14498116

>>14498032
You’re deny the basic, observed radiative properties of CO2 and how it reacts with infrared radiation. This has been known for 100years at this point. We have been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere this retaining more heat from incoming radiation.

Anonymous Thu May 19 20:13:07 2022 No.14498140

>>14497863
>It's very simple: a gasoline engine will violate the laws of thermodynamics and give you more energy when you coat the engine in fiberglass and get rid of the radiator.
How? More obfuscation. Are you denying that CO2 absorbs and emits in the infrared range? Are you denying that it sends heat back to Earth, which is directly observed? Can you make an actual argument?

>>Temperature will increase in my house if I shut off all the heat sources and cover it in insulation
Please explain, when was the Sun turned off? All you can do is make increasingly insipid and irrelevant analogies.

>The evaporator is never going to do the magical shit you're implying.
I never said the evaporator does it. Can you make a single argument that isn't just an obvious misrepresentation? The evaporator isn't producing the change in temperature, the insulation is, if the refrigerator is already not maximally insulated. If it's not maximally insulated, then it's at a warmer temperature than it would be with maximal insulation. Not hard to understand. A fridge without walls will be warmer than the same fridge with walls. Are you ever going to refute this?

>The first one is enough of a cause in my opinion.
It's not, u already died you the warming from CO2 is directly observed. In your opinion, the fridge doesn't need walls to reach its required temperature. Why are they there? Aesthetics? How are they insulators if they don't do what insulators do? Your argument is nonsense.

>You really don't know how refrigeration works do you?
You're the one saying refrigerators done need walls...

>It will always produce the same temperature
No, it won't. The same refrigerator using the same amount of energy will be warmer without insulation. You must be delusional if you deny this. The Sun does not adjust to make up for changes in Earth's insulation.

>Lolno
Not an argument. If the Sun varied by a lot, then according to you we should be cooling, since the Sun is currently weak.

Anonymous Thu May 19 20:37:51 2022 No.14498206

>>14497863
>So you're telling me that with enough r rating I can heat more than the sun?
I don't know what "heat more than the Sun" means. The temperature with greenhouse gases is more than without greenhouse gases. Not exactly a controversial statement but you need to give yet another obfuscation instead of admitting the obvious.

>Because then the refrigerant would cause problems
Or the refrigerant and compressor would be fine and it would get colder. LOL, thanks for admitting I'm right.

>Very difficult to argue semantics over.
Your arguments are literally just semantics, misrepresentations, and irrelevant analogies. How is a refrigerant freezing or compressor freezing analogous to the Sun?

Anonymous Thu May 19 20:57:41 2022 No.14498272
File: 156 KB, 1600x907, voidcat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14498140
>How?
I'm being rhetorical. It wouldn't, just like adding insulation will never make heat violate the laws of thermodynamics.

>Are you denying that CO2 absorbs and emits in the infrared range?
Accurately describing an insulator has nothing to do with the thermostat or the heat source.

>Are you denying that it sends heat back to Earth, which is directly observed?
I'm denying that it somehow raises the heat more than the million degree ball of fire is capable of.

>Please explain, when was the Sun turned off?
Please explain how the insulation will heat my house. Explain how it will on earth if the sun turned off?

>I never said the evaporator does it
Well that's where the frigid air comes from. It's never going below 0, no matter how much irrelevant shit you throw in the fridge.

>A fridge without walls will be warmer than the same fridge with walls
If both are the same model, both condensers will out put the same temperature. The walls maintain said temperature over their volume.

>It's not
Well an insulator is never going to heat or warm more than the sun. Again, because it does nothing. You're equating a vacuum to a cause more or less.

>In your opinion, the fridge doesn't need walls to reach its required temperature.
>It's not my opinion, it's how they actually function. The same parts produce the same temperature of frigid air.

>How are they insulators if they don't do what insulators do?
What does a vacuum (the best insulator) do?

>Your argument
What argument?

>No, it won't. The same refrigerator using the same amount of energy will be warmer without insulation
"What" will be warmer? The absent volume you can't quantify because you removed the fucking walls containing the insulation? The same refrigerator, the actual components responsible for causing the frigid air will produce the same temperature. No matter what. The only thing that changes is the rate of loss of that temperature.

>Not an argument.
I'm not arguing

Anonymous Thu May 19 21:03:11 2022 No.14498303
File: 857 KB, 300x169, dudewhat.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14498206
>I don't know what "heat more than the Sun" means.
>The temperature with greenhouse gases is more than without greenhouse gases.
I think you're smoking something.

>Or the refrigerant and compressor would be fine and it would get colder.
You really have no clue how a refrigerator/air conditioning works. Please google it.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 19 21:07:41 2022 No.14498321 >>14494381 Ice core data has cadence of like a year. Much shorter than decades.

Anonymous Thu May 19 22:07:48 2022 No.14498513

>>14498303
>I think you're smoking something.
So you can't even explain what you mean or dispute what I said. I don't think you even know, you're just posting to post.

>You really have no clue how a refrigerator/air conditioning works.
You really have no idea how the climate or basic logic works.

Anonymous Thu May 19 22:25:46 2022 No.14498550

>>14497901
>So when it's cooler at night and then warmer in day, has the increase in temperature been caused by the gas?
Day and night have no relevance to global temperature. Half of the globe is in day and half is in night at all times. Also, I'm talking about the trend over multiple decades, not within 24 hours.

>The gas does nothing but insulate
Yes, which increases the temperature. I'm glad you agree.

>What cause the change if not the source?
CO2. Have you not been paying attention?

>That wouldn't be as easy to argue because the Big Bang is another crackpot theory with no evidence or basis in reality.
The Sun is a crackpot theory, it doesn't do anything. Only the Big Bang does things.

>And what I'm saying is that it's patently retarded to assume that an insulator of all the things could possible cause a change in temperature.
Why? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over even though I've shown you in several different ways that you're wrong. Insulators cause warming by definition, your refrigerator analogy failed, and CO2 is directly observed to be causing warming. You have no argument.

>Insulation prevents change.
It prevents heat from leaving, which is a change. This causes the temperature to go up, which is a change. There is no contradiction, you're just equivocating.

Anonymous Thu May 19 22:29:02 2022 No.14498559

>>14497994
>Notice how when the shill got called out on his 25x factor being an overestimate, he shut the fuck up and didn't have a canned response.
You must be confused, the shill claimed 25x was an overestimation because he can't read a simple graph. He had no response. See >>14497520

Anonymous Thu May 19 22:34:34 2022 No.14498577

>>14498559
see
>>14497528
>25 times faster warming than the last interglacial is scary.
Factoring in the stretched time, you get that the 750-0 years is stretched by about a factor of 5 (I'm overestimating, just to make a point), which you can verify yourself. This makes the rate of current warming at most 10x higher than the interglacial warming. Once again, I invite you to point out any errors.

Anonymous Thu May 19 22:56:49 2022 No.14498671
File: 194 KB, 1080x765, Screenshot_20220519-184242_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14497520
>>14497528
>Thank you for FINALLY admitting the graph is nonlinear.
LOL, it's completely linear. How retarded do you have to be to still not understand how to read a graph after its been explained to you several times?

>It took some good bait
Right, you were only pretending to be retarded. Sure.

>What do you call that white break in the data?
That's called an axis break.

>Why isn't there data there?
To indicate the axis break. There's no data there because there's no axis underneath it. But there's literally no data omitted, the axis break starts and ends at year 1000. It's really not that hard to understand but you're making it so difficult by being a complete retard.

>Factoring in the stretched time, you get that the 750-0 years is stretched by about a factor of 5
Wrong.

>This makes the rate of current warming at most 10x higher than the interglacial warming.
It makes you bad at math. Interglacial warming was 6 degrees over 7500 years. Current warming rate is 0.2 degrees per decade. (0.2/10)/(6/2500) = 25

Anonymous Thu May 19 23:22:40 2022 No.14498797
File: 431 KB, 1841x1150, Global_Warming.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14498671
You yourself said the time-axis was stretched in one region, and not stretched in another region. That's de facto a nonlinear graph.
>>What do you call that white break in the data?
>That's called an axis break.
No. The axis break exists on the axis. I'm talking about the gap where data is not reported. Either the data doesn't exist (doubtful), or the data isn't included (omitted). It's data that is omitted.
>There's no data there because there's no axis underneath it. But there's literally no data omitted
What kind of retard are you? If you're selectively not showing data that exists, that means per definition you've omitted the data.
>>Factoring in the stretched time, you get that the 750-0 years is stretched by about a factor of 5
>Wrong.
Track the pixels of the time axes. Here, I'll go first.
>20,000 occurs at about (365,950)
>18,000 occurs at about (470, 950)
This means about 100 pixels corresponds to 2,000 years.
>750 occurs at about (1440,950)
>250 occurs at about (1565,950)
So about 100 pixels corresponds to about 500 years.

The actual stretching is about a factor of 4. How is this wrong?
> Interglacial warming was 6 degrees over 7500 years.
Does not follow from the graph we've been discussing.
>Current warming rate is 0.2 degrees per decade.
Does not follow from the graph we've been discussing. I even drew the slopes for you.

Anonymous Fri May 20 00:02:11 2022 No.14498894

>>14498577
>Factoring in the stretched time, you get that the 750-0 years is stretched by about a factor of 5
No, the area that's stretched is 1000 years and is 3 times longer than the 2000 year unit in the other part of the graph. That means 6 times longer.

>This makes the rate of current warming
You don't even know what the current rate of warming is.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 00:05:55 2022 No.14498898 >>14498894 >3 times longer than the 2000 year unit in the other part of the graph How did you arrive at that? Quantify your assertion, like I did here. >>14498797

Anonymous Fri May 20 00:28:08 2022 No.14498935

>>14498797
>You yourself said the time-axis was stretched in one region, and not stretched in another region. That's de facto a nonlinear graph.
How? Amazingly, you still don't seem to understand what linear and logarithmic mean after all this time. Linear scale means that the distance between two values a and b is proportional to b-a. Logarithmic means the distance between a and b is proportional to b/a. Both parts of the axis are linear.

>No. The axis break exists on the axis.
It's on the graph too, so that's is obvious for people like you. But you still didn't get it.

>Either the data doesn't exist (doubtful), or the data isn't included (omitted).
The data exists and is all there. Maybe I need to use language even a toddler could understand: If I cur your stretchy candy into two pieces and stretch one part and leave the parts next to each other, is any of your candy missing?

>If you're selectively not showing data that exists
What data is not being shown??? You must be pretending to be retarded, no one can be this dumb.

>Track the pixels
I used a ruler, you're wrong. It's 6.

>Does not follow from the graph we've been discussing.
It does, too bad you can't read a graph.

>Does not follow from the graph we've been discussing
It's not my fault you were under the mistaken impression that you could calculate the current warming rate from a few pixels. It's not my fault you're ignorant of basic facts about the climate.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 00:29:09 2022 No.14498937 >>14498898 I used a ruler.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 00:32:30 2022 No.14498948 >>14497648 Did you read that paper? The cost of extracting uranium from seawater is already ten times as expensive as what power plants pay for it and that's before anyone tacks on any profit.

Anonymous Fri May 20 00:37:21 2022 No.14498959

>>14498948
Did you read my post? It doesn't matter if it's ten times more expensive. So little uranium is used that is a negligible part of the cost. So let's review:

1. Passive harvesting is quickly becoming viable
2. It doesn't matter if uranium is 10 times more expensive
3. Passive harvesting will be used when mines are depleted

What's the fucking issue?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 00:40:26 2022 No.14498962 >>14498959 Your paper doesn't even include wages. How do you like 20 or 30 times the price?

Anonymous Fri May 20 00:41:20 2022 No.14498965

>>14494288
Yeah. Where...exactly? Every time one of these retards post some shit like this it end up being bullshit. Like the thread a few weeks ago about the ground temp being 140 in India (insert onions face). No shit the ground temp is 140. It's fucking normal that the ground temp is tens of degrees above ambient air.

Anonymous Fri May 20 00:42:24 2022 No.14498970
File: 91 KB, 474x342, argument[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14498513
>So you can't even explain what you mean or dispute what I said.
Because it's a psychosis, yes.

>>14498550

>Day and night have no relevance to global temperature.
Tell that to Mercury.

>Half of the globe is in day and half is in night at all times.
What a coincidence, the accurate description "climate change" exists at all times too.

>Yes, which increases the temperature.
No as elaborated in previous posts.

>CO2. Have you not been paying attention?
Have they finally correlated that or do they still do the graph comparison disingenuous showboating?

>The Sun is a crackpot theory
You're not even wrong. We have no clue how it works, we can't even differentiate light from illumination.

>Why? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over even though I've shown you in several different ways that you're wrong
All you do is keep insisting the contradictory idea that an insulator causes a change, when it does nothing of the sort. It prevents change, it's literally the opposite of what you think it is. I keep having to repeat myself because you keep insisting on repeating yourself.

>Insulators cause warming by definition,
No they don't. You're pulling this cherry picked definition because it supports what you're saying. Fantastic, and yet demonstrably the opposite is true and insulators are use in both heating and cooling applications. Right now my thermos is keeping my drink cold. It it were warming it, I would have just put it in a regular glass.

>and CO2 is directly observed to be causing warming.
Without the sun, there is no warming.

>It prevents heat from leaving, which is a change.
>preventing change is change
Non-sequitur

>This causes the temperature to go up,
The sun is the cause of the temperature. Adding gas is never going to magically make it hotter than what the sun outputs. Mercury is an example of the disparity of temperature and it has almost no atmosphere. The gas is what stabilizes that large difference.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 00:48:09 2022 No.14498985 >>14498962 Oh so we can just make up numbers? How about 2 or 3? The cost will go down as better techniques are discovered. You have no point.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 00:57:00 2022 No.14499012 >>14498970 The sun is pretty much constant at our timescales, the thing that’s changing is the CO2 content of the atmosphere. You’re still unable to accept this simple fact

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 01:01:46 2022 No.14499030 >>14498985 Everything is cheap when you pretend the costs don't exist.

Anonymous Fri May 20 01:04:45 2022 No.14499034
File: 15 KB, 196x159, Omitted Data.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14498937
I cannot verify that. Use pixels. Do you know how to count pixels on paint or photoshop?
>>14498935
>>You yourself said the time-axis was stretched in one region, and not stretched in another region. That's de facto a nonlinear graph.
>How? Amazingly, you still don't seem to understand what linear and logarithmic mean after all this time.
My mans, what are you talking about? I said it's nonlinear. You're the one saying it's logarithmic.
>Both parts of the axis are linear.
The fact that the parts have different slopes indicate the entire plot is nonlinear.
>The data exists and is all there.
>What data is not being shown???
That part right below the question mark. Here, I'll box it this time. If, as you claim, such data exists, and if such data is not present... then it is omitted. By definition.
>I used a ruler, you're wrong. It's 6.
Again, cannot verify. I listed my exact steps that even a toddler can replicate. Any anon can open up the image in any image editor they want (I used paint), and track the pixels and replicate what I did. Saying "I used a ruler." isn't replicable. But given how retarded you are, I'm not surprised you don't understand how science works. :)
>It's not my fault you were under the mistaken impression that you could calculate the current warming rate from a few pixels.
You can. Here, I'll even lay it out in more detail for any anon to independently verify.
>100 pixels = 2 degrees
Before the axis break
>100 pixels = 2,000 years
After the axis break
>100 pixels = 500 years
Given the slopes of the curves we have
>First interglacial warming is 1 pixel per pixel
>2 degrees / 2000 years
>Second interglacial warming is 1.25 pixels per pixel
>2.5 degrees / 2000 degrees
>Current warming is 2 pixels / pixel
>4 degrees / 500 years
>16 degrees / 2000 years
>0.08 degrees / 10 years
This is much lower than your reported value of 0.2 degrees per decade. Furthermore, it's only 8x faster rate of warming than the interglacial periods.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 01:05:30 2022 No.14499037 File: 60 KB, 750x462, C54F0FE5-E2DD-4B37-ADA8-02E90EB7F8BD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14498970 Without extra CO2 there’s no extra warming

Anonymous Fri May 20 01:07:15 2022 No.14499044
File: 119 KB, 2080x820, 2[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14499012
>There he goes again accurately describing the CO2 changing with no evidence correlating it to the tempurature.
You forgot your graph though. I'm working on some damning evidence myself as clearly illustrated with the numbers and lines on this png file that contains absolutely no explanation.
Now, lets see Paul Allen's graph.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 01:13:05 2022 No.14499071 File: 439 KB, 240x138, DelightfulSmugBufflehead-max-1mb[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14499037 >>14499044 Paul Allen knew before I even asked for one. >Oh my God, it even has two y-axes and "0" excluded

Anonymous Fri May 20 01:15:32 2022 No.14499080
File: 238 KB, 840x679, 33E3F351-3CF1-4EA1-A0DB-4AAE258BB40A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14498970
>Have they finally correlated that or do they still do the graph comparison disingenuous showboating?
The radiative properties co2 are directly measured and are directly measured in the climate system

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 01:17:06 2022 No.14499086 >>14499071 Of you can’t figure out that graph then you have no business discussing any of this

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 01:18:23 2022 No.14499089 >>14499044 correlation coefficient is about r = 0.66, which is pretty strong!

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 01:23:21 2022 No.14499110 File: 259 KB, 1284x1077, 4274B556-6F14-43EF-AA56-F598F3C58AD3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14499044 How do you explain this? Or are you denying simple physical measurements?

Anonymous Fri May 20 01:27:28 2022 No.14499125

>>14499080
>The radiative properties co2
What is it radiating? It's own heat right? Because it's causing the heat right?

>are directly measured and are directly measured in the climate system
Neat another graph. Where's the source and explanation? Is this worldwide or specific areas that are higher in the atmosphere that would cause this effect to present itself?

Anonymous Fri May 20 01:32:29 2022 No.14499136
File: 44 KB, 1024x739, shadowrealm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14499086
>Of you can’t figure out that graph then you have no business discussing any of this
Well shit if you can't figure out this graph >>14499044 then you don't have any business discussing murderers in hollywood.

>>14499110
>How do you explain this?
This is post on an anonymous imageboard that contains a graph with numbers, lines and descriptions with no explanation as to how those descriptions were conjured.

>Or are you denying simple physical measurements?
I am not denying that a shadow can be measured, I can measure them afterall so that must make them real.

Anonymous Fri May 20 01:35:20 2022 No.14499144

>>14499125
I already explained it. The energy from the sun comes in but if there’s more CO2 more infrared radiation is trapped in the atmosphere due to its intrinsic and quantified properties. It’s not rocket science yet you keep arguing about semantics

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 01:56:45 2022 No.14499223 Literally all you have to do to combat climate change is turn off all of the electronics in your house right now. >B-but everyone else is still using theirs so it won't make a difference! t. Everyone

Anonymous Fri May 20 02:16:45 2022 No.14499274

>>14499144
>The energy from the sun comes in
>but if there’s more CO2 more infrared radiation is trapped in the atmosphere due to its intrinsic and quantified properties.
Congrats, it took you up to this point to figure out we're actually in agreement. What can I say other than words get in the way? It only took a redescription of more or less what I've been saying for the point to get there. An insulator does indeed insulate. Does only infared matter because last time I checked there's more energy in UV and higher frequency. What does CO2 do to that? Wouldn't it be ironic if it blocked those UV rays coming from the sun and by proxy is preventing temperatures from rising even more?

>you keep arguing about semantics
Cause and effect. Of which the sun causes the heat.

So now that you understand what actually causes the heat, we can go back to the analogy of insulators and heat/cold sources. If my boiler is only going to go up to 212, then there's no possible way my house is going past 212 no matter how much insulation I add, correct? All it's going to do is keep it maintained anywhere just under 212.

Anonymous Fri May 20 03:51:44 2022 No.14499481

>>14498970
>Because it's a psychosis, yes.
Yes, you're suffering from some kind of delusional state, which is why you can't even explain what you mean.

>Tell that to Mercury.
We're on Earth, schizo. And it doesn't matter what planet you're on. The global temperature doesn't change from night to day, because there is no such thing as global night and day. Moron.

>What a coincidence, the accurate description "climate change" exists at all times too.
And? Your weight always exists, but not everyone is obese.

>No as elaborated in previous posts.
Where? There's zero elaboration, just repeating the same refuted point over and over.

>Have they finally correlated that or do they still do the graph comparison disingenuous showboating?
I already gave to direct observation that CO2 is causing the warming. No correlation needed.

>We have no clue how it works
No need to know how it works to measure the energy it sends to Earth and see its weakening, not causing warming.

>All you do is keep insisting the contradictory idea that an insulator causes a change,
By defintion it does. How is it contradictory?

>It prevents change
It prevents a type of change, which causes a different type of change. You're equivocating.

>You're pulling this cherry picked definition
LOL, it's literally the only definition related to heat you will find in any dictionary. You're desperately grasping at straws. Moron.

>because it supports what you're saying
Oh, thanks for finally admitting I'm right.

>Fantastic, and yet demonstrably the opposite is true and insulators are use in both heating and cooling applications.
The opposite would be that insulators can't cause heating, not that they can cause cooling. More idiotic semantic games.

>Without the sun, there is no warming.
Non sequitur. The Sun exists and CO2 is causing warming.

Anonymous Fri May 20 04:00:31 2022 No.14499493

>>14498970
>preventing change is change
Yes, it is in this case. It changes the temperature by making it higher than it would be. Your just equivocating by making it seem like two different types of change are the same.

>Non-sequitur
How? You don't even understand what non sequitur means.

>The sun is the cause of the temperature.
Another meaningless statement. Do you mean temperature needs the Sun to exist? No, without the Sun the Earth would still be at a particular temperature, it would just be colder. Does the Sun alone cause the temperature of the Earth to be at its current level? No, the greenhouse effect also determines the temperature. There's no way of getting around this, no matter how much you obfuscate and whine.

>Adding gas is never going to magically make it hotter than what the sun outputs.
The sun does not output a temperature, moron. It outputs energy, and how much of that energy flows into and out of Earth's atmosphere determines the temperature. And guess what effects how much energy goes into and out of Earth's atmosphere? Gases. You drooling reality-denying schizo. Nothing you ever say will change this basic fact. You lose.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 04:02:00 2022 No.14499495 >>14499030 Everything is expensive when you pretend the costs are high. I'm not saying the costs don't exist, I'm saying they're low enough to be irrelevant. I'm using numbers that scientists have actually calculated. You're not.

Anonymous Fri May 20 04:18:34 2022 No.14499528

>>14499481
>which is why you can't even explain what you mean.
The meaning of what's being discussed was never there in the first place. I have no choice but to be rhetorical.

>We're on Earth, schizo.
So does that mean the gas is reducing the temperature unlike mercury or?

>The global temperature doesn't change from night to day, because there is no such thing as global night and day. Moron.
Demonstrably false, now goodnight.

>Your weight always exists, but not everyone is obese.
Even then insulated fat man is more prone to being unchanged.

>Where?
read

>No correlation needed.
This is why I'm not arguing by the way. You actually believe you don't have to prove two data sets are related. So in other words you're basically saying you don't have to find the dependence at all which is patently absurd. Wh

>It prevents a type of change, which causes a different type of change
Then prove it!

>LOL, it's literally the only definition related to heat you will find in any dictionary
Now you're the one playing semantics and relying a dictionary definition of something.

>Oh, thanks for finally admitting I'm right.
You think you're right because of pure logomachy.

>The opposite would be that insulators can't cause heating, not that they can cause cooling.
They don't cause either, they prevent the loss of both.

>The Sun exists and CO2 is causing warming.
>shadow chasing

>>14499493
>No, without the Sun the Earth would still be at a particular temperature
What would perturb the atoms into existence?

>The sun does not output a temperature, moron
Semantics again? The measuring device puts out the "temperature".

>It outputs energy, and how much of that energy flows into and out of Earth's atmosphere determines the temperature
How much is blocked/absorbed by CO2?

>And guess what effects how much energy goes into and out of Earth's atmosphere?
The sun. It
>outputs energy
after all.

>Nothing you ever say will change this basic fact
You said it for me.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 04:20:05 2022 No.14499529 >>14499495 >I'm not saying the costs don't exist Are you legit retarded? That's exactly what you're saying when you link a paper that excludes costs and assert that that's the price.

Anonymous Fri May 20 04:21:52 2022 No.14499532

>>14499034
>I cannot verify that
I don't need you to verify it, only you're concerned with multiplying made up slopes by made up ratios. The number is 25x.

>I said it's nonlinear.
And you're wrong.

>You're the one saying it's logarithmic.
You're deranged. Only you said it was logarithmic:

>>14495475
>>14495626
>>14496130

>The fact that the parts have different slopes indicate the entire plot is nonlinear.
What? What the fuck? What slopes? There are two scales on the axis. Both are linear. Fucking hell, this is kindergarten shit.

>That part right below the question mark
No, I didn't ask you for a part of the graph, I asked you what data is missing. What years are missing? Oh you can't tell me? Because you're an illiterate retard that can't read a graph. Even though I explained it to you like you were a little baby, you're still crying about the missing candy that isn't missing.

>You can.
No, you can't. I already showed you, using a real linear trend over real data, that it's 0.2 degrees per decade. I don't really care where your idiotic pixel counting method went wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 09:24:26 2022 No.14499995 >>14494861 I'm not in it, but I live close enough to the hole to smell the shit. Worried that Roscoe/Rockton will be niggerized soon, must escape but where to? t. Hononegah, '14

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 11:59:25 2022 No.14500181 CO2 isn't going to keep giving the same amount of heating effect. It's pretty much done as much as it will, and any extra will require massive increases in atmospheric concentration for very slight and decreasing returns. Look up saturation effect.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 20 20:09:49 2022 No.14501214 >>14500181 Typical example of twisting a real phenomenon to suit deniers' purpose. Show actual numbers from peer-reviewed literature.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 00:58:29 2022 No.14502084 >>14501214 >deniers bullshit. it's not going to run away and fry the world, never has never will, no matter how much you'd like it too. just doesn't work like that.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 01:05:35 2022 No.14502097 >>14499529 No costs were excluded. You can't deal with the fact that you're wrong So you're making up excuses.

Anonymous Sat May 21 01:41:09 2022 No.14502146

>>14499274
>Does only infared matter
Infrared is absorbed and emitted by greenhouse gases. UV passes through them. You didn't even understand the greenhouse effect after all this time? LOL.

>Cause and effect.
The greenhouse effect is cause abs effect. CO2 causes the temperature to increase by sending heat back to Earth.

>Of which the sun causes the heat.
Causes the heat to do what? The Sun is causing the amount of heat on Earth to decrease right now, since it's weakening. It's not causing the increase in heat. Why do you keep trying to avoid that the increase in heat is what you need to explain, not "heat existing" or whatever you're trying to talk about?

Anonymous Sat May 21 01:51:44 2022 No.14502164

>>14499274
>If my boiler is only going to go up to 212, then there's no possible way my house is going past 212 no matter how much insulation I add, correct?
This is gibberish. Are you talking about the temperature of your boiler or the temperature of your house? Choose one. If your house is not already maximally insulated then adding more insulation will increase its temperature. Insulation of your house is hardly relevant to the temperature of your boiler, unless your house being cold reduces the maximum temperature of your boiler. The Sun sends a fairly constant amount of energy to the Earth. It doesn't "send a temperature" to Earth. The temperature is determined by how much energy gets into and out of the Earth's atmosphere, which is dependent on... insulation. Earth is not maximally insulated, just like your house is not maximally insulated. It's not that hard to understand but somehow you come up with increasingly nonsensical analogies to avoid this fact.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 02:04:09 2022 No.14502192 >>14494138 It's going to be hilarious when 95 percent gets culled and the planet explodes in heat

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 02:06:26 2022 No.14502200 File: 30 KB, 500x500, NPC's.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14494138 >>global warming doesn't exist No fucking shit. You just now finally wake up?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 02:11:08 2022 No.14502209 >>14502192 don't tease me with a good time and dream come true.

Anonymous Sat May 21 02:11:58 2022 No.14502212

>>14499528
>The meaning of what's being discussed was never there in the first place.
It was, I can explain whatever you don't understand, unlike you. Just ask. Thanks for admitting your claims are meaningless.

>So does that mean the gas is reducing the temperature unlike mercury or?
Which gas?

>Demonstrably false
If it was demonstrably false, you could demonstrate it's false. But you can't. You're mentally ill if you don't understand that a planet is always in night and day simultaneously. You probably think seasons are global too. LOL.

>Even then insulated fat man is more prone to being unchanged.
Non sequitur.

>read
So you can't even provide one example.
Thanks for admitting you lied.

>This is why I'm not arguing by the way.
Oh, Ok. Thanks for admitting CO2 is causing the warming.

>You actually believe you don't have to prove two data sets are related.
LOL, you're so deluded that you don't even realize I gave you exactly what you're asking for. Correlation doesn't prove a relationship between the data, direct observation of one causing the other does! Take your meds, your brain is broken.

>Then prove it!
I did already. Read the paper I gave you.

>Now you're the one playing semantics and relying a dictionary definition of something.
The only reason I have to rely on a dictionary definition is because you're in denial of what insulation means. That's not semantics, it's just you being retarded.

>You think you're right because of pure logomachy.
Nope, just data and basic logic. You lack both, so all you can do is rely on fallacious semantics, misinterpretation, and false analogies. It's incredibly pathetic how deluded you are.

>They don't cause either, they prevent the loss of both.
"Loss of heating" is gibberish. They cause heating or cooling by preventing loss or gain of heat. Two sides of the same coin.

>>shadow chasing
Not an argument, try again.

Anonymous Sat May 21 02:14:34 2022 No.14502219

>>14494138
Are you telling us to shut up and go back to CONSOOOOOOOOING the fossil fuels from THE GOOD GOYS over at Koch, ExxonMobil, General motors, etc.!?!? Those billionaire GOOD GUYS would never lobby, spread mis/disinfo, fund bad science, and pay actors on social media!

D-D-DONT QUESTION THINGS! GO BACK TO CONSOOMING YOUR FOSSIL FUELS!

Anonymous Sat May 21 02:19:35 2022 No.14502225

>>14499528
>You actually believe you don't have to prove two data sets are related
There is a measured, casual relationship between CO2 and temperature based on the intrinsic properties of the gas. You are still refusing to read any of the publications posted.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 02:22:01 2022 No.14502231 >>14499136 >I refuse to accept basic measurements on the properties of a gas

Anonymous Sat May 21 08:00:42 2022 No.14502712

>>14502084
I don't recall any peer-reviewed study that predicted "frying the world" or "boiling the oceans" etc. due to anthropogenic global warming. We're not going to see Venus-like conditions on Earth. Please stop arguing with a straw man.

Besides,
>frying the world
is quite a change of narrative. The last post was about
>any extra will require massive increases in atmospheric concentration [of CO2] for very slight and decreasing returns

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 09:31:36 2022 No.14502877 >>14494353 CO2 concentration in air has raised exponentially from the 1800s from historical data though. Unless you are trying to say that Hawaii stations are a scam

Anonymous Sat May 21 23:14:35 2022 No.14504489
File: 97 KB, 900x900, 1650554550095.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14494138
i don't consider myself a climate change denier or advocate/alarmist - but I seem to have found myself going down a rabbit hole to further and further doomsday posts/articles. i want to move to australia. will my children/grandchildren be cooked alive/underwater in 50-100 years? How close are we to mitigating all out catastrophe as opposed to a slight, minorly obtrusive, hiccup before correcting back? What about DACs? Renewables? Fusion power (though far off)? Is there anything promising that will mitigate all of the "worst" possible outcome(s)?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 06:18:54 2022 No.14505158 >>14502097 Read the paper you posted, retard. They list the costs they've factored in. Nothing else has been considered.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 12:26:33 2022 No.14505684 >>14505158 I did, you're just making up things they didn't include.

Anonymous Sun May 22 13:36:28 2022 No.14505777

>>14499528
>What would perturb the atoms into existence?
Which atoms don't exist? Of course atoms exist without the Sun.

>Semantics again?
No, just correcting your gibberish. Temperature is not determined by the Sun alone.

>How much is blocked/absorbed by CO2?
Do you want the radiative forcing of CO2? The energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere? Over what time period?

>The sun.
And greenhouse gases. You have no argument.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 13:45:38 2022 No.14505790 >>14498017 >Insofar that I'm deconstructing and shitting on any claims made in this thread Where? You haven't made a single successful argument. Why haven't you deconstructed anything on the skeptical science website?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 14:14:02 2022 No.14505821 >>14504489 they can just move back

Anonymous Sun May 22 14:17:02 2022 No.14505827

>>14498032
>What would I argue over?
So you agree CO2 is causing warming. OK, thanks.

>No, insulators do not "cause" whatsoever.
Why not? CO2 causes heat that was leaving Earth's atmosphere to be sent back towards the Earth. How is this not causing warming?

>The condenser will never go below "0°F" until redesigned. The boiler will never go above 210°F.
This is gibberish. The condenser doesn't output a temperature of the fridge. The boiler doesn't output a temperature of the house. A fridge with walls and a fridge without walls will be at different temperatures with the same condenser operating with the same power. A house with insulation and a house without insulation will be at different temperatures with the same boiler operating at the same power. You lose.

>the sun is only going to put out the tempurature it does.
The sun doesn't put out a temperature, lying retard. It puts out energy, which enters and leaves the atmosphere in amounts dependent on the atmosphere's composition. You lose.

>It's inert. It does nothing.
CO2 absorbs and emits heat. It does something. Thanks for admitting CO2 causes warming.

>First of all I'm not obfuscating anything
That's literally all you've done. That's why you keep repeating nonsense like the Sun outputting a temperature even though you know it's nonsense.

>Second there is not even a correlation to CO2 and temperature.
But there is. CO2 is going up and temperature is going up, delusional moron.

>>It does this thing by not doing this thing
>It makes no sense, can you please elaborate more?
How does it not make sense? Can you please elaborate more? CO2 absorbs heat that was leaving the atmosphere and sends some of it back towards Earth. That makes the Earth warmer, by not allowing heat to escape. What is hard to understand about this?

Anonymous Sun May 22 14:18:04 2022 No.14505828

>>14498032
>All people do is graph the two together and compare the data sets as if that actually means anything.
That's how correlations are found... it's amazing how retarded you are. You demand something and then refuse to accept it when it's right in front of your face. Further, that's not all people do, the causation is directly observed, as I already showed you and you continuously ignore:

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 14:42:27 2022 No.14505854 >>14494138 I can't tell if this is hot or not, why don't use celsius insted? >>14494444 Checked

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 14:56:19 2022 No.14505876 >>14494535 Your first two links there are dead. From this accurate sampling, I can deduce that 2/3 of your other spammed links are also dead and made up.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 15:05:42 2022 No.14505895 >>14505684 If it's not 'included' it's 'excluded'. How retarded can you be?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 15:16:30 2022 No.14505902 >>14505876 Of course they're dead. He's not arguing in good faith. He's just copy pasting from a Bible.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 15:22:04 2022 No.14505909 In 1989, they say climate change is going to melt himalaya mount. Lmao. Guys. Climate change is a hustle for money.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 15:43:11 2022 No.14505937 >>14505909 >a random tabloid made a claim Oh no, how will the science recover

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 15:44:26 2022 No.14505938 >>14495578 >potholer54 >the man who never strays away from mainstream opinion while pretending to be impartial >also blocks dissenters that his goons can't argue against big yikes from me

Anonymous Sun May 22 17:51:32 2022 No.14506131

>>14498272
>It wouldn't, just like adding insulation will never make heat violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Noon sequitur, no one said it would. The laws of physics state that less heat leaving the system = an increase in temperature.

>Accurately describing an insulator has nothing to do with the thermostat or the heat source.
Right, it has to do with the temperature of the thing being insulated. Are you denying that CO2 absorbs and emits in the infrared range? If course not, so you admit that CO2 causes the temperature of the Earth to go up by serving heat back to Earth.

>I'm denying that it somehow raises the heat more than the million degree ball of fire is capable of.
All the heat being trapped on Earth by the greenhouse effect comes from the Sun, so no one is claiming it's increasing heat by more than the Sun gives. It changes how much of the Sun's energy the Earth holds onto. How do you still not get this? It's been explained to you many times.

>Please explain how the insulation will heat my house.
I already did. Adding it prevents heat from leaving, which increases the temperature of your house. If by "heat my house" you mean something other than increasing its temperature, then your analogy has no relevance to global warming.

>Explain how it will on earth if the sun turned off?
When did the Sun turn off?

>Well that's where the frigid air comes from. It's never going below 0
Of course the fridge is going below 0 if the fridge is not already maximally insulated then heat is entering the fridge and making it warmer than it would be with more insulation. You have no argument, just obfuscation.

>If both are the same model, both condensers will out put the same temperature.
Gibberish. The condenser doesn't put out a temperature. The temperature is determined by how much energy enters and leaves the fridge. Energy leaving the fridge is determined by the condenser and energy entering the fridge is determined by its insulation. You lose.

Anonymous Sun May 22 18:23:18 2022 No.14506192

>>14498272
>Well an insulator is never going to heat or warm more than the sun.
Do you mean an insulator cannot cause a change in temperature more than the Sun? Of course it can. The Sun is currently causing the temperature to decrease since it's weakening. So any insulation is currently causing an increase in temperature higher than the Sun.

>The same parts produce the same temperature of frigid air.
But that's wrong. If energy is allowed to enter the system then the air won't be frigid.

>The walls maintain said temperature over their volume.
So now you're admitting the temperature would be different without walls. Wow.

>What does a vacuum (the best insulator) do?
Prevents heat from escaping.

>What argument?
Your argument.

>"What" will be warmer?
The refrigerator.

>The absent volume you can't quantify because you removed the fucking walls containing the insulation?
The same volume as before, just without walls. Fucking retard. What don't you understand about removing walls?

>The same refrigerator, the actual components responsible for causing the frigid air will produce the same temperature.
Wrong. The walls keep energy from entering the refrigerator, so they are also responsible for the temperature. Dumb schizo.

>The only thing that changes is the rate of loss of that temperature.
What loss of temperature? When the fridge reaches a steady state, the temperature will be warmer than it was with walls. Moron.

>I'm not arguing
Good, then you admit CO2 causes warming.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 18:29:22 2022 No.14506203 >>14500181 >It's pretty much done as much as it will Proof? >Look up saturation effect. It's not saturated

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 18:33:19 2022 No.14506209 >>14505895 >If it's not 'included' it's 'excluded'. You didn't show it's not included, you just assumed it isn't.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 18:36:21 2022 No.14506216 >>14505938 >>the man who never strays away from mainstream opinion while pretending to be impartial Not an argument. What has he said that's wrong? >>also blocks dissenters that his goons can't argue against Proof?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 21:05:11 2022 No.14506568 >>14506216 he shilled for WHO see https://youtu.be/V747bEvcRbA?t=292 as for the proof you'd have to read through thousands of comments.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 21:11:55 2022 No.14506588 >>14494227 Yeah, don't forget to buy GreenProduct™, give up your rights, and ask for higher taxes.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 21:18:16 2022 No.14506601 >>14506588 You know if they could make green energy powered by human sacrifice they would do it.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 21:56:11 2022 No.14506685 >>14506601 well they do burn babies to make electricity. im sure they'll be torching the elderly and those who choose to be euthanized soon too.

Anonymous Sun May 22 22:33:39 2022 No.14506776
File: 26 KB, 320x336, When you base reality off pure descriptions.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14502225
>There is a measured, casual relationship between CO2 and temperature based on the intrinsic properties of the gas
Well then stop being a casual and post it instead of all the useless irrelevant info. Explain how that is important information in order for your belief system to be taken seriously. It is rather too late at this point though, a fool is easier to fool than convince he was fooled.

>>14502231
>I am not denying that a shadow can be measured, I can measure them afterall so that must make them real.

Tell me what the numbers mean, Mason. Otherwise you're just a numerologist to me.

>>14502212
>If it was demonstrably false, you could demonstrate it's false.
I don't make the sun and moon rise, sorry.

>Non sequitur. What do I care?

>Not an argument,
What am I arguing?

>>14505777
>Which atoms don't exist? Of course atoms exist without the Sun.
I'm sorry you deny basic physics. Where would those atoms get the energy?

>Temperature is not determined by the Sun alone.
It's determined by a human language of quantification, it ultimately is a description.

>Do you want the radiative forcing of CO2? You don't look into what else the gas does that may be beneficial. You only compare two data point that were never actually correlated with evidence. It's delusional.

>And greenhouse gases.
>and and and
No, the fucking sun caused it all. The change in temperature and the fucking gas in the first place. The only thing that changed was that humans displaced it at a different rate.

>>14505827
>So you agree
I'm not arguing.
>Why not?
They insulate the cause. It's like saying the glass around a lightbulb is what causes the light. It does nothing of the sort, it only insulates so the reaction can last longer.
>The condenser doesn't output a temperature of the fridge.
It is the only reason the fridge changes temperature.

>CO2 is going up and temperature is going up,
"CO2 is rising because the temperature going up". Now what?

Anonymous Sun May 22 22:45:19 2022 No.14506796

>>14506131
>Noon sequitur, no one said it would
Whoever implies that an insulator does anything is literally implying a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. It doesn't change anything, it insulates. It prevents change.

>The laws of physics state that less heat leaving the system = an increase in temperature.
And if there is no fucking heat whatsoever actually supplying the system then what happens? Does the insulation pull the heat from a vacuum?

>Are you denying that CO2 absorbs and emits in the infrared range?
>Absorbs and emits
>you admit that CO2 causes the temperature of the Earth to go up by serving heat back to Earth.
Lol, but that still is all sourced from "the sun". Furthermore it doesn't tell me what else it does, it only focuses on the lowest form of energy provided by the sun.

>it prevents heat from leaving
Correct. It will never generate more heat than the sun will. In fact, it won't generate anything because it's preventing.

>which increases the temperature of your house.
Which will never go about 212 if you're using a boiler.

>When did the Sun turn off?
Technically it's both "on and off" all the time which is why waves and frequencies are created in the first place. So "yes".

>Of course the fridge is going below 0 if the fridge is not already maximally insulated then heat is entering the fridge and making it warmer than it would be with more insulation.
How? It can't because the device responsible can't make a noble gas do the insane shit you're implying.

>The temperature is determined by how much energy enters and leaves the fridge.
So like I said, if you want the fridge to ever be colder, you will have to reinvent the device responsible for that (the condenser). Not "Add more insulation".

Anonymous Sun May 22 23:06:58 2022 No.14506833

>>14506192
>Do you mean an insulator cannot cause a change in temperature more than the Sun? Of course it can.
No it can't, it prevents cause. It does nothing.

>The Sun is currently causing the temperature to decrease since it's weakening. So any insulation is currently causing an increase in temperature higher than the Sun.
So now it's a good thing CO2 is warming us or?

>If energy is allowed to enter the system then the air won't be frigid.
What's being compared is an open and closed system, no shit the closed system will provide you a better condition for measuring the quantity you're looking for. That has nothing to do with the actual operation of it.

>The same parts produce the same temperature of frigid air.
>But that's wrong.
They are factory standard and use the same parts. They will produce the same output, the amount of science put into that process to make it reproducible is beyond your comprehension. It's never going to have the ability to "make the air colder" until you re-engineer it to be capable of doing so.

>Prevents heat from escaping.
By doing what? Simply being unchanged. It's not a cause.

>Your argument.
Which is what exactly? I'm not arguing.

>The same volume as before
The volume is now infinite because you removed the walls you dipshit. You don't have a quantity to give me, the system is now open so the point is lost

>so they are also responsible for the temperature
A probe in infinite volume and quantifying that change in numerical values is "responsible". If you probe the source it will still be doing the same thing and outputting the same thing.

>So now you're admitting the temperature would be different without walls.
Lol you're taking the analogy too far at this point. You're comparing an open and closed system to one another.

>The walls keep energy from entering the refrigerator,
>The CO2 keeps energy from entering the earth.

>you admit
but I'm not arguing.

Anonymous Sun May 22 23:21:35 2022 No.14506857

>>14504489
>will my children/grandchildren be cooked alive/underwater in 50-100 years?
yes

the remaining refugees of the world will live in a multikultur shithole at the north pole and everywhere else will be a wasteland, and they will go back to being hunter gatherers
funny that the media is silent about this reality

>Is there anything promising that will mitigate all of the "worst" possible outcome(s)?
maybe if covid killed off 99% of the population

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 23:23:58 2022 No.14506863 >>14506833 >Imagine being this retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 00:02:30 2022 No.14506946 >>14506568 >he shilled for WHO see And what did he say that's wrong? >as for the proof you'd have to read through thousands of comments. How do comments prove anyone is blocked?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 00:05:50 2022 No.14506959 >>14506776 >Well then stop being a casual and post it instead of all the useless irrelevant info. Are your seriously this ignorant? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Anonymous Mon May 23 00:18:26 2022 No.14506993
File: 35 KB, 1710x283, TakeWikias SeriouslyasWiki.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14506959
>Are your seriously this ignorant?
Yes. I literally have no info to base an argument off of. I hear this "Co2" is concerning because (quantitative measure of CO2), but that isn't a reason. It's pure measurement. You're basically implying a measurement is the cause itself.

>Wiki article
Neat. Check out mine, it's the most important one because it points out the flaws in the foundation of the service you're passing off as a "source". It's not a source, in their own words.

>>14506863
>Imagine
Indeed, again it has to be rhetorical because what's being discussed has no basis in reality (yet).

Anonymous Mon May 23 00:34:31 2022 No.14507036

>>14506776
>I don't make the sun and moon rise, sorry.
What does that have to do with demonstrating that there is a global day and night? This is flat Earth-tier nonsense. You're mentally ill.

>What do I care?
I don't think you care, I think you just say things without any reasoning behind them in order to protect your delusions from reality.

>What am I arguing?
Several things, mainly that CO2 is not causing warming. Read your own posts if you forgot.

Anonymous Mon May 23 00:46:13 2022 No.14507065

>>14506776
>I'm sorry you deny basic physics.
What basic physics did I deny?

>Where would those atoms get the energy?
Which energy? You think the Sun created Earth's atoms? No. Where do you think the atoms in the Sun come from?

>It's determined by a human language of quantification, it ultimately is a description.
No, it's determined by the amount of energy entering and leaving the system. More obfuscation.

>You don't look into what else the gas does that may be beneficial.
Non sequitur. Are you now admitting that CO2 causes warming, so you want to move on to whether CO2 is beneficial?

>You only compare two data point that were never actually correlated with evidence.
What two data points? There are many data points, correlation between CO2 and temperature is observed, and more importantly the causation between them is observed. You have nothing but lies.

>No, the fucking sun caused it all.
How does the weakening Sun cause warming? You're delusional. Greenhouse gases send heat back towards Earth. That causes warming. Get over it, schizo.

Anonymous Mon May 23 00:46:43 2022 No.14507068
File: 2.36 MB, 320x310, 1616652562977.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14507036
>I don't make the sun and moon rise, sorry.
>What does that have to do with demonstrating that there is a global day and night?
I can't demonstrate it because I don't make it happen. You'll have to use your own two eyes to make that conclusion.

>I don't think you care, I think you just say things without any reasoning

Do you "think" that or do you "know" that because I actually explained in full detail why I'm not arguing and am rather being rhetorical? I can say whatever I want without any reasoning, what's being discussed is fantasy. You're just expressing your rage and incessant need to argue because...well I guess that's all you know how to do I guess?
If you knew how to provide a source and explain how it is the way it is, you wouldn't be relying on pure descriptions of correlations and implying a causation from that. There's no reasoning or logic in that so I'm not going to be arguing over it, carry on with your numerology.

>Several things, mainly that CO2 is not causing warming
Arguing? No. It literally doesn't cause warming. It's not even combustible you absolute mongrel,, quite the opposite. Why the fuck do you think they put it in fire extinguishers? It's the sun that causes the warming, the gas insulates it. It's not an argument, it's a fact and you're trying to argue over it like a clueless moron straw grasping at the psychosis that it does cause warming. I'm just telling you you're misinformed/illinformed.

Anonymous Mon May 23 00:54:39 2022 No.14507099

>>14506776
>I'm not arguing.
Good, then you admit CO2 causes warming.

>They insulate the cause.
What cause do they insulate? The Sun? You're contradicting yourself. If insulation didn't cause warming or cooling, it would be useless. Why do we have it? Why do we need to "insulate the cause?" Should "the cause" be already causing warming with our without some useless insulation? Dumb schizo.

>It's like saying the glass around a lightbulb is what causes the light.
No, it's more like saying the glass around the lightbulb changes the amount of light that gets out. Dumb schizo.

>It is the only reason the fridge changes temperature.
Then opening the fridge doesn't change its temperature. But it does. Dumb schizo.

>"CO2 is rising because the temperature going up".
That's true too, because warmer oceans outgas more CO2. Both are directly observed, separate effects. See https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

I'm glad you finally admitted CO2 is correlated with temperature. Now what?

Anonymous Mon May 23 01:00:29 2022 No.14507115

>>14507065
>What basic physics did I deny?
The conservation of energy.

>Which energy?
The energy that perturbed them into existence in the first place and continues to keep them that way. Electromagnetic radiation, light.

>You think the Sun created Earth's atoms? No.
Okay so now we have a new theory here.

>No. Where do you think the atoms in the Sun come from?
Another source I presume, it's not going to violate the laws of physics and create its own energy/heat now is it? So why do you think Co2 does?

>it's determined by the amount of energy entering and leaving the system.
>amount
>quantity
Like I said, determined by the human language of quantification.

>More obfuscation.
You're literally saying the same thing I am with the exclusion of an explanation.

>Non sequitur.
>No we really don't care about what else the CO2 is doing, only the stuff we care about measuring.

>Are you now admitting that CO2 causes warming, so you want to move on to whether CO2 is beneficial?
Even if that were true, is that a problem?

>What two data points? There are many data points, correlation between CO2 and temperature is observed,

Those are the ones. I too observe a correlation with Nicholas cage drowning people. He must bea murderer right? See look >>14499044 I have the data alone to "prove" it.

>and more importantly the causation between them is observed.
I indeed observe how the temperature is getting hotter and how that is causing the c02 to rise...

>You have nothing but lies.
And you have nothing but descriptions. The sky is just blue to you. Cool story bro.

>How does the weakening Sun cause warming?
How does an insulator provide more warmth than the heat source? It makes no sense.

>Greenhouse gases send heat back towards Earth.
The heat that comes from the sun lol. It also insulates the cold areas too, insulators insulate cold things too as we've elaborated.

>That causes warming.
And that is "because of the sun". Fucking shadow chasers I swear.

Anonymous Mon May 23 01:06:54 2022 No.14507129
File: 40 KB, 693x777, smilez.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14494138
>>global warming doesn't exist

Then it needs to exist. Fucking shit is too cold right now!

Colder weather = more fuel burned to stay warm and survive.

The planet needs to warm up more back to the normal warmer temperature.

Anonymous Mon May 23 01:10:06 2022 No.14507134

>>14506796
>Whoever implies that an insulator does anything is literally implying a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
How so? By definition they do something. Whoever says they aren't is a dumb schizo who can't follow basic logic.

>It doesn't change anything, it insulates.
Insulating changes the temperature. Dumb schizo.

>And if there is no fucking heat whatsoever actually supplying the system then what happens?
There is heat, the Sun hasn't turned off. Dumb schizo.

>Lol, but that still is all sourced from "the sun".
And?

>Furthermore it doesn't tell me what else it does, it only focuses on the lowest form of energy provided by the sun.
What else do you think it does that's relevant? So you think it does something that negates the warming from the greenhouse effect? I'm all ears.

>It will never generate more heat than the sun will.
No one said it generates heat. You don't have to generate heat to warm something, you can just send heat that already existed and was leaving the system back into the system. This is basic physics you can't seem to grasp.

>Which will never go about 212 if you're using a boiler.
Of course it will if your house is at 212 and isn't already maximally insulated. That means some energy is leaving your house that could have been stopped. So adding more insulation will increase the temperature. Dumb schizo.

>Technically it's both "on and off" all the time which is why waves and frequencies are created in the first place.
More semantic games. The Syn has not stopped sending energy to Earth. Dumb schizo.

>How?
What didn't you understand about my explanation? Not maximally insulated = heat is entering the system that could be prevented. Maximally insulated = less heat entering the system = colder temperature. Children can understand this, why can't you? Try leaving your freezer door open overnight and see what happens. Dumb schizo.

Anonymous Mon May 23 01:11:21 2022 No.14507138

>>14506796
>It can't because the device responsible can't make a noble gas do the insane shit you're implying.
What are you talking about, dumb schizo? The gas does nothing new when you add insulation. Only you're deranged worldview demands that the gas magically adjusts itself when insulation is added or taken away.

>So like I said, if you want the fridge to ever be colder, you will have to reinvent the device responsible for that (the condenser).
Or you could just add more insulation, which is also responsible for the temperature. Dumb schizo.

Anonymous Mon May 23 01:23:35 2022 No.14507165

>>14507134
>Insulating changes
No
>There is heat, the Sun hasn't turned off.
Correct. It really doesn't come from the CO2
>And?
And that's not COI2.
>What else do you think it does that's relevant?
That is the question you should be asking ,yeah. But you don't care, noone does because it's an agenda with money and power behind it. Why do you think the oil companies run the green industry? It's not because they want to destroy or save the planet, all they want is your money.

>So you think it does something that negates the warming from the greenhouse effect? I'm all ears
Me too, someone please step up to give a shit instead of describing temperature and CO2 like a broken record.

>No one said it generates heat. You don't have to generate heat to warm something, you can just send heat that already existed and was leaving the system back into the system.
Go take an HVAC course. You can do all of that shit indeed but it's not going to magically make the temp rise.

>hurr if I add 70 degree air to 70 degree air, it will somehow get hotter.
It doesn't happen, and that's why CO2 doesn't have the capability of "raising the temperature".

>Of course it will if your house is at 212 and isn't already maximally insulated
It is never going past 212 because that is the boiling point of water you massive retard. You don't even know how a boiler works, how the fuck do you even manage to cook your meals?

>What didn't you understand about my explanation?
What explanation? All you're doing is posting description after description.

>Maximally insulated = less heat entering the system = colder temperature
Insulation stabilizes temperature, it is not a causal link in a change of it.

>Try leaving your freezer door open overnight and see what happens.
It's still going to produce the same temperature of air because the condenser hasn't been re-engineered to produce a lower one.

Anonymous Mon May 23 01:26:06 2022 No.14507170
File: 988 KB, 1558x1536, 1643928208758.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14507138
>The gas does nothing new when you add insulation
So therefore: it is never going to cause a higher/lower temperature when you add insulation.

>Only you're deranged worldview demands that the gas magically adjusts itself when insulation is added or taken away.
It does you fucking retard, it's called "compression".

>Or you could just add more insulation, which is also responsible for the temperature
How can it when you just said the gas does nothing new when you add insulation?

Anonymous Mon May 23 01:30:42 2022 No.14507186
File: 97 KB, 1024x768, Grand_Solar_Min_1024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14506833
>it prevents cause. It does nothing.
You're contradicting yourself one sentence after the other. Dumb schizo.

>So now it's a good thing CO2 is warming us or?
No, the warming from CO2 is much more rapid than the cooling from the Sun. The cooling from the Sun is barely noticeable.

>What's being compared is an open and closed system
LOL, no. Your fridge is not a closed system. It's not maximally insulated, which is why adding more insulation decreases is temperature. No shit. What a fucking moron.

>They are factory standard and use the same parts.
And insulation is definitely factory standard because it makes your fridge cold.

>They will produce the same output
Exactly, they will take the same energy out of the system, not affecting the energy going into the system. So they don't determine the determine by themselves. Dumb schizo.

>By doing what?
By existing as a vacuum. It's difficult for heat to pass through a vacuum, it can only radiate through it instead of conducting or convecting.

>Simply being unchanged. It's not a cause.
So when CO2 changes by absorbing and emitting heat, it is a cause of warming. Thanks for admitting that.

>Which is what exactly?
That CO2 doesn't cause warming, among other silly positions.

>I'm not arguing.
Good, then you admit CO2 causes warming.

>The volume is now infinite because you removed the walls you dipshit.
No, I'm taking about the same volume, The same fridge, just without walls. Try a different excuse.

>>The CO2 keeps energy from entering space
ftfy

>but I'm not arguing.
Good, then you admit CO2 causes warming.

Anonymous Mon May 23 01:42:17 2022 No.14507209

>>14506993
>I literally have no info to base an argument off of.
Yes, because of your wilful ignorance or delusion.

>I hear this "Co2" is concerning because (quantitative measure of CO2), but that isn't a reason.
The article I gave you has plenty of non-quantitave explanation. Did you not read it or are you just ignoring it on purpose?

>Check out mine, it's the most important one because it points out the flaws in the foundation of the service you're passing off as a "source". It's not a source, in their own words.
Where does it say it's not a source? It simply says the host is not responsible for the content. The same is true for everything you read on this website, but I don't hear you complaining about it. Should I now ask you for a source for all of your idiotic claims? I doubt you would have any. Regardless, if you are skeptical of anything in the article, I suggest you check the sources it cites. Otherwise, attacking the source is not an excuse for remaining ignorant of basic physics.

Anonymous Mon May 23 01:52:24 2022 No.14507225

>>14507186
You're contradicting yourself one sentence after the other.
Rhetoric for the formless I guess. There's still no point to this conversation.

Your fridge is not a closed system.
The way you're making a comparison of how it funtions with an without the component that doesn't actually generate the cool air, wh

>It's not maximally insulated, which is why adding more insulation decreases is temperature
But will never cause it to PRODUCE a lower tempurature it's capable of. All it's doing is realizing the potential it already has.

>And insulation is definitely factory standard because it makes your fridge cold.
So why put electrics in it then? Give me a foam box and leave it at that.

>Exactly, they will take the same energy out of the system,
So the insulation has nothing to do with the function of how it generates coolness.

>By existing
>as a vacuum.
I can't even be rhetorical here. You're on your own.

>So when CO2 changes by absorbing and emitting heat, it is a cause of warming.
>so a net 0 because it emits what it was given in the first place from the actual cause
>this is a cause.
Most matter fits this description by the way.

>That CO2 doesn't cause warming
It doesn't and you already stated as such when you admitted the sun is the source of the warming. You and I aren't wrong on this.

>you admit
I'm not arguing.

>No, I'm taking about the same volume,
There is no "same volume". One has walls, dimensions, actual volume. The other doesn't

> The same fridge, just without walls.
How else are you defining the volume? The "volume" is now "earths atmosphere" because you're running the electrics literally in the open air. All to prove some point that doesn't matter because both units if they're similar and use the same amount of energy and mechanics are going to output the same temperature at the source.
You measuring at "not the source" doesn't matter. Like measuring a shadow and saying that's all that matters when measuring light.

Anonymous Mon May 23 01:55:54 2022 No.14507235

>>14507068
>I can't demonstrate it
You said that what I said was "demonstrably false." Why did you lie?

>because I don't make it happen.
Make what happen? Global day and night doesn't happen at all, so of course you can't demonstrate it.

>Do you "think" that or do you "know" that because I actually explained in full detail why I'm not arguing and am rather being rhetorical?
I know that because what you're saying makes no sense and you don't even attempt to defend it when challenged. Just like you claim to not be making an argument when your argument is shown to be fallacious.

>If you knew how to provide a source and explain how it is the way it is
I did, several times. You ignore it each time. Pathetic. Here let's do it again:

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>It literally doesn't cause warming.
It literally does, it's directly observed, and you're now impotently arguing against reality. So you lied about not arguing in order to avoid defending the many fallacies you made.

>It's not even combustible
Doesn't have to be to cause warming. Dumb schizo.

>It's the sun that causes the warming
Nope, the Sun is sending less energy to Earth, but greenhouse gases are letting even less energy leave. It's the greenhouse gases, not the Sun. Read the paper, dumb schizo.

Anonymous Mon May 23 02:05:07 2022 No.14507250
File: 55 KB, 800x450, cbs[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14507209
>Yes, because of your wilful ignorance or delusion.
"CO2 rises due to temperature according to the same graphs posted saying the opposite". Prove me wrong.

>The article I gave you has plenty of non-quantitave explanation. Did you not read it or are you just ignoring it on purpose?
I'm ignoring it because of the reasons Wikipedia has explained in their terms of use.

>Where does it say it's not a source?
I screencapped it, but you can read it yourself on their terms of service. I wouldn't want to use only my self as a source after all.

>It simply says the host is not responsible for the content.
Which means I can make it up as I go along and have no accountability for it.

>The same is true for everything you read on this website,
Or any other that isn't an actual scientific experiment/reputable source. Ultimately these sources are just academic groupthink, but it's at least a starting point for investigation. Wikipedia is literally mostly one random schmoe. It's kind of funny actually, it reminds me of that twilight zone episode "Hocus Pocus and Frisby" where a bunch of aliens abduct a spastic moron country boy because he lies about wealths of knowledge he claims to know. They believe all thebullshit stories because he's "genuine" when telling them and because they don't understand the concept of yarnspinning/lie-story telling.
He even looks like him.

>Otherwise, attacking the source is not an excuse for remaining ignorant of basic physics
I'm not attack a source because wikipedia is not a source, at least in their own words.

Anonymous Mon May 23 02:16:24 2022 No.14507268

>>14507115
>The conservation of energy.
Nothing I said violated conservation of energy.

>The energy that perturbed them into existence in the first place
That was the Big Bang, not the Sun.

>it's not going to violate the laws of physics and create its own energy/heat now is it? So why do you think Co2 does?
More misrepresentation. Where did I say CO2 creates energy?

>Like I said, determined by the human language of quantification.
More obfuscation. Human language is just describing what already exists. More vs. less energy is not determined by language, dumb schizo. It's determined by the Sun and the composition of Earth.

>You're literally saying the same thing I am with the exclusion of an explanation.
You're literally delusional.

>>No we really don't care about what else the CO2 is doing, only the stuff we care about measuring.
I really don't care, unless you can tell me how it's relevant. But you won't, because this is just another dead-end schizo obfuscation.

>Even if that were true, is that a problem?
It's only a problem in that you've continously repeated the opposite over and over like some kind of religious dogma throughout this thread. And now you seem to abandon it for some other argument. Which indicates that you will simply say anything that leads to your preferred conclusion.

>Those are the ones.
That's what you claimed didn't exist. Now you're criticizing me for your mistake? Dumb schizo.

>He must bea murderer right?
No, since correlation doesn't prove causation. Only you were focused on correlation. I already gave you causation and you ignored it. Dumb schizo.

>I indeed observe how the temperature is getting hotter and how that is causing the c02 to rise...
And?

>And you have nothing but descriptions.
That's fine, since they're accurate. Thanks for admitting you lied.

Anonymous Mon May 23 02:24:30 2022 No.14507277

>>14507115
>How does an insulator provide more warmth than the heat source?
By sending heat back to the Earth, making it warmer than it would be with just the heat without insulation. I've already explained this several times. It doesn't provide more heat than the heat source, it keeps that heat from leaving. Warmth is not just about how much heat is provided, it's also about how much leaves. Dumb schizo.

>The heat that comes from the sun lol.
Yes. Thanks for admitting greenhouse gases warm the planet.

>It also insulates the cold areas too
It let's non-infrared radiation pass through it, which is then converted to heat when it hits the Earth. And then CO2 sends that heat back. So no, it doesn't insulate cold areas. Congratulations, you just learned how the greenhouse effect works.

>And that is "because of the sun".
It's actually in spite of the Sun which is sending less energy to Earth. Thanks for admitting CO2 causes warming by sending energy back to Earth.

Anonymous Mon May 23 02:24:37 2022 No.14507278

>>14507235
>You said that what I said was "demonstrably false."
It's demonstrable but I'm not the demonstrator. It's demonstrated literally everyday with the sun and moon rising, which I can't cause.

>Why did you lie?
I accurately described.

>Global day and night doesn't happen at all, so of course you can't demonstrate it.
Whatever bro.

>I know that because what you're saying makes no sense and you don't even attempt to defend it when challenged. Just like you claim to not be making an argument when your argument is shown to be fallacious.
I already told you I'm not arguing. I'm being rhetorical. Get over yourself you weenie.

>https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/
I'll humor your little article and give it a read tonight but:
>This fundamental metric has not been directly observed globally and previous estimates have come from models. In part, this is because current space-based instruments cannot distinguish the instantaneous radiative forcing from the climate’s radiative response.
Doesn't have my hopes up. It almost makes me not want to read it at all really.

>It literally does,
No the sun does silly, you said so yourself.

>Doesn't have to be to cause warming.
Is it radioactive then?

Nope, the Sun is sending less energy to Earth, but greenhouse gases are letting even less energy leave.
...So is it cause and effect then? Is the CO2 rising because the sun is causing that? What?

>It's the greenhouse gases, not the Sun.
Do greenhouse gasses become more abundant when there is "less energy" from the sun to influence them? I still have no causal link here.

Anonymous Mon May 23 02:46:53 2022 No.14507316
File: 5 KB, 398x217, 1F9045DA-EC02-4970-9FC5-C6394B1E55C8.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14507278
>the denier will argue about semantics and go in circles without reading any sources and denying observational empirical evidence of gas properties

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 02:49:56 2022 No.14507319 >>14507277 I applaud you for arguing with that disingenuous retard. I don't have the energy for this kind of shit anymore.

Anonymous Mon May 23 03:54:08 2022 No.14507417
File: 43 KB, 470x355, 8dd189e2ac53385929e4911cb0891013[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14507316
>the denier will argue
"No", lol. We deny, sometimes we don't mention the reason for your own benefit (how nice of us)

>denying observational empirical evidence of gas properties
And magically emitting heat with no other source isn't one of them. Long story short it "emits heat" because the sun gives it the energy, the actual heat to be re-emitted. And if it keeps giving it less and less and less then what is the problem exactly? We need more insulation.

Also that's a correlation, less sun=more CO2. Must be the cause amiright? The data only agrees with me because I can plot the two together on a graph and show how they're correlated to each other.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 05:00:13 2022 No.14507521 >>14507417 >Imagine being this retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 06:30:01 2022 No.14507645 >>14494227 Record temperatures have occured all over the world (India, Europe, Australia, Americas) in the last 5-10 years... google it you fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 06:31:54 2022 No.14507647 >>14494537 And this is why humanity is fucked.

Anonymous Mon May 23 19:01:36 2022 No.14508838

>>14507165
>No
Not an argument.

>It really doesn't come from the CO2
No one said it comes from CO2, it comes from the Earth after absorbing every from the Sun. CO2 sends it back to Earth, which causes warming. Dumb schizo.

>And that's not COI2.
And? We are talking about the cause of a tenperature change, not the ultimate source of energy invoiced in that temperature change, which isn't even the Sun. Dumb schizo.

>That is the question you should be asking
Asking whom? There's nothing else CO2 does that's relevant to this discussion. If I'm wrong, let's hear it.

>But you don't care
I would, if you would give me a reason to care. But you won't, you're just off on another schizo tangent.

>Why do you think the oil companies run the green industry?
I don't.

>Me too, someone please step up to give a shit instead of describing temperature and CO2 like a broken record.
Exactly as I predicted, you just want someone to give you the answer you want instead of finding out what the actual answer is. Rapid CO2 emissions are harmful to us and our environment. Get over it.

>Go take an HVAC course.
Go take a basic physics course.

>You can do all of that shit indeed but it's not going to magically make the temp rise.
Right, it's just going to happen according to basic physics, not magically.

>>hurr if I add 70 degree air to 70 degree air, it will somehow get hotter.
Who are you quoting? Dumb schizo. If you add insulation then less heat leaves the system and the temperature increases.

>It is never going past 212 because that is the boiling point of water you massive retard
Your house is not filled with water dumb schizo. You're conflating the temperature of the boiler with the temperature of the house, even though this idiotic mistake has been pointed out to you many times. The boiler adds heat to the house at a constant rate, at whatever temperature you like. If the heat doesn't leave the house at the same rate then the temperature of the house goes up.

Anonymous Mon May 23 23:30:21 2022 No.14509495

>>14506946
See timestamp in the link. He was shilling for them by defending their statement of "there is no evidence of human to human transmisson" by pretending they never said anything like that. Absolutely greasy.

>How do comments prove anyone is blocked?
idk man the fact that I've seen so many people claim they were blocked by him sets off a red flag alarm. Also he eternally lurks in his comment section along with his goons, very creepy and obsessive. You can see the same guys sucking his cock for the past few years.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 23:32:09 2022 No.14509499 >>14494147 >>14494164 there aren't any. you got filtered by a simple conversion.

Anonymous Tue May 24 01:53:37 2022 No.14509756
File: 341 KB, 444x444, 1607227071733.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14508838
>Not an argument.
exactly.
>We are talking about the cause of a tenperature change, not the ultimate source of energy invoiced in that temperature change
Well, "you are" which is part of your psychosis. Stop doing that. Look for the cause you dipshit.

>The boiler adds heat to the house at a constant rate, at whatever temperature you like.
>Your house is not filled with water dumb schizo.
The boiler is full of water you imbecile. That's what it's "boiling", that's why it's called a fucking "boiler". Fucks sake man. Unless water now boils at a different temperature in your deluded mind, it's never going past 212.

>You're conflating the temperature of the boiler with the temperature of the house,
No you are, because you're insinuating that the insulation will somehow "increase the temperature" more than the boiler will. It will never ever ever go above 212 unless you light the house itself on fire.

>If you add insulation then less heat leaves the system and the temperature increases.
And it will never increase above what the boiler is capable of. It will never go past 212.

>If the heat doesn't leave the house at the same rate then the temperature of the house goes up.
Tell me what happens when you keep adding 212 degree air into the house? Is it ever going to go past that?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math