/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14603625]

Climate Change:
How can we tell if it's real?
I'm not asking if it is real or man made, but how one can determine the truth of the matter.
COVID as shown is the insane levels of propaganda and manipulation that are possible at a global level. So how can we tell if the institutions that actually do the climate research are lying to us or not?
If they can't be trusted, is there any other way of determining the truth?

[Anonymous No.14603631]

>an extension of the peer community has taken place in the climate science community, transforming climate scientists into ‘stealth advocates’,
>the extended peer community's use undermines the scientific method's use of empiricism and that its goal would be better addressed by providing greater science education.

[Anonymous No.14603633]

>>14603625
>COVID as shown is the insane levels of propaganda and manipulation that are possible at a global level
You have shown to ignore scientific data, so I'd say that it's impossible to convince you that climate change is real. Believe what you want, but leave the rest of the world alone. Wear your mask and stop burning fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.14603641]

>>14603633
Now low IQ bait please.

[Anonymous No.14603642]

>>14603641
*no

[Anonymous No.14603659]

[Anonymous No.14603680]

>>14603625
Humans are warming the climate and no amount of fossil fuel propaganda will change that fact.

[Anonymous No.14603729]

>>14603631
Assuming the science on this is corrupted, how can you know what the actual state of the climate is?

[Anonymous No.14603734]

>>14603625
>Covid propaganda
You're a lost cause anyway.

[Anonymous No.14603747]

>>14603734
It's amazing that there are still people who don't see through the brainwashing on COVID

[Anonymous No.14603750]

>>14603729
That assumption would require quite the conspiracy. The first person to discover it was a German guy in 1941. Are the nazis behind this? How come, American scientists agree? Ok, they also had other nazi scientists after the war. But today? Are American scientists von Braun's heirs? What about the Russians who see climate change? The Chinese? The neutral Swiss? That conspiracy must be a million times larger than the moon landing conspiracy!

[Anonymous No.14603753]

>>14603625
>higher average highs
>lower average lows
>increase in extreme weather events
>how can we tell the climate is changing
It's a real mystery. Hopefully God opens up the sky and tells us because I am all out of ideas.

[Anonymous No.14603756]

>>14603753
To be fair, if you're a schizo who only trusts his own thermometer, then it's basically impossible to prove. I suppose you haven't been a schizo for 50 years, so if you only record the temperatures on your balcony for a few years, you won't be able to prove climate change.

[Anonymous No.14603757]

>>14603750
It doesn't have to be 100% a conspiracy, it could simply be overstated (or understated).
The fact is, it's a very powerful political tool, if it's true or if it's manipulated. Anything that's politically or financially useful should be questioned, as the COVID narrative has taught us.

[Anonymous No.14603758]

>>14603747
This reaction image is all you deserve.

[Anonymous No.14603763]

>>14603758
>I have no arguments and won't engage with people who disagree with me
That's certainly consistent with cult programming, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.14603764]

>>14603729
That the climate is changing shouldn't be controversial, looking at stuff like average temperatures over extended periods of time makes that pretty obvious. Is the anthropogenic part that people are now losing their minds over.

[Anonymous No.14603766]

>>14603747
I'm a vintage COVID conspiracy guy, I still think China is hiding the numbers.

[Anonymous No.14603767]

>>14603764
I don't really doubt that the climate is changing.
I do however see the narrative that we need to submit to extreme changes to every part of our society to "save the planet."

[Anonymous No.14603769]

>>14603757
>The fact is, it's a very powerful political tool
For whom? The first UN conference on climate change was in the 1970s. Who's behind this? Back then there was no solar industry. There was also no wind turbine industry. Elon Musk was a little kid

[Anonymous No.14603770]

>>14603767
Those sorts of narratives tend to come from politics, not science. Politicians will cling to anything that's a vehicle for pushing their ideas.
Conflating politics, journalism and science is in general where a lot of nonsense about issues like these comes from.
CC is a real issue, but a very solvable one, without any bugs and pods silliness.

[Anonymous No.14603772]

>>14603767
>we need to submit to extreme changes
What extreme changes? You're blowing this completely out of proportion, just like you did with covid.

[Anonymous No.14603778]

>>14603772
They got billions of people to get injected with an experimental, new type of drug before phase 3 trials were completed, using every form of psychological manipulation in the book, all the while safe drugs like Ivermectin were being demonized for off label use for early treatment. If you don't see a major problem here, you're brainwashed. Plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.14603783]

>>14603778
>while safe drugs like Ivermectin were being demonized for off label use
There even were studies on this, how come you're talking about ivermectin and not aspirin? Because it looked promising in labs. In reality that couldn't be confirmed and they said "ok whatever", which you apparently interpret as demonisation.
Also, we're talking about climate change here. What extreme changes are you talking about? That you'll eventually have to replace your gas heating with a heat exchanger?

[Anonymous No.14603785]

>>14603625
> COVID as shown is the insane levels of propaganda and manipulation that are possible at a global level.
>>14603747
>It's amazing that there are still people who don't see through the brainwashing on COVID

You are the ones who were manipulated, you're the result and the new vectors of the insane antivax propaganda.
You ask why we don't see though it ? The reality of the situation is that most antivaxxers are scientifically illiterate and completely retarded when it comes to health and biology. They are the ones unable to see through their delusions.

How is it possible that you're still not realizing how wrong you are after having been wrong for a year and a half ? How many "two more weeks" do you need before you realize nothing that you predicted ever happened ?

As for climate change ? I mean, open your eyes ?

[Anonymous No.14603791]

>>14603783
Doctors have always had discretion to use drugs off-label. Why were drugs like Ivermectin demonized like this? This is completely bizarre and uncharacteristic.

[Anonymous No.14603792]

>>14603791
Hey, we're talking about climate change here.

[Anonymous No.14603793]

>>14603785
>The reality of the situation is that most antivaxxers are scientifically illiterate and completely retarded when it comes to health and biology
I literally have a biology degree. You're just plain wrong.

[Anonymous No.14603794]

>>14603792
The broader topic is institutional corruption and the resulting false or manipulated narratives.

[Anonymous No.14603799]

>>14603791
People doubling down on it harder and harder after no substantial evidence for its efficiency turned up, to the point of ingesting the horse version of it to own the libs, probably had something to do with the "demonisation".

[Anonymous No.14603805]

>>14603794
So you can't name a single change that you have to go through, not even after 81 years of trying? Wow, must be terrifying.
Also, was there ever proof that ivermectin works? Was your doctor ever stopped from prescribing it?

[Anonymous No.14603814]

>>14603799
The libs demonised ivermectin because they knew that's how they get conservatives to take a drug that has no effect on covid, but potential side effects. By demonising it, they even made sure that people used the livestock version, eyeballing the dose and dying from overdose. Damn, those libs are smart

[Anonymous No.14603818]

>>14603805
https://recalls-rappels.canada.ca/en/alert-recall/ivermectin-not-authorized-prevent-or-treat-covid-19-may-cause-serious-health-problems

It's actually an extremely safe drug at therapeutically active doses

[Anonymous No.14603822]

>>14603818
> at therapeutically active doses
Active against what? You know, m&ms are also extremely safe, but likely as ineffective in treating covid as ivermectin. You don't need to convince me that it's safe, you should convince me that it's effective.

[Anonymous No.14603838]

>>14603625
>plastic makes the world.... LE HOT!

I still don't see the correlation here. Sounds like some crazy mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.14603840]

>>14603838
Literally no one says this. Take your strawman elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.14603845]

>>14603840
So no one is saying pollution is causing the climate to change? What am I misunderstanding about the argument in favor of man made climate change?

[Anonymous No.14603864]

>>14603845
You are either trolling or insanely stupid. But let's assume the latter: You do realise, that there is no single "pollution"? That the can be polluted with more than one substance?

[Anonymous No.14603865]

>>14603838
CO2 & methane make the world le hot, plastic is a different issue.

[Anonymous No.14603866]

>>14603845
>pollution is only when plastic
The only brain activity there are your two functioning brain cells huddling together for warmth.

[Anonymous No.14603919]

>>14603838
>>14603818
Interesting how the schizos just vanish when they run out of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14603934]

>>14603625
You can get a degree in climate science, become a researcher, and prove it yourself. Too hard? Too bad. The burden of proof has an already been met in peer reviewed research. No one owes conspiracy theorists extra proof, which they can always find an excuse to ignore.

[Anonymous No.14603977]

Not op but anons how likely is society to collapse from global warming?

[Anonymous No.14603987]

>>14603977
Which society? Any? Just look at Syria what a few years of drought can do. Look at Nauru while it's still above water

[Anonymous No.14603992]

>>14603625
Doesn't really matter if it's real or not; fossil fuels are all running out so we need to build out alternatives like renewables and nuclear to survive.

[Anonymous No.14604002]

>>14603987
The USA

[Anonymous No.14604007]

>>14604002
If climate change denying morons get a say, I'd say chances are pretty good that you're unprepared. Drought, bad harvest, rising food prices etc. are not easy for a society that's already this divided

[Anonymous No.14604049]

when are the greedy liars on of the scientific community going to be held responsible for all of the harm they cause the rest of us?

[Anonymous No.14604060]

>>14603625
hypochondriac mass hysteria group think epidemiologists
and selfish rationalization economists
posing as "scientists"
have discredited actual science in the eyes of the public

[Anonymous No.14604072]

>>14604060
not to mention the lgbt cult (supported by "scientists") preying on children

its unfortunate the climate science, which actually has the potential to improve the human condition unlike all that other bullshit has to be thrown on the crap heap with the rest

[Anonymous No.14604077]

>>14604072
You're drawing connections where there are none. What has science to do with homosexuality? What has homosexuality to do with pedophilia? Take your meds

[Anonymous No.14604087]

>>14604077
>What has science to do with homosexuality? >What has homosexuality to do with pedophilia?
Take your kids to the parade then, faggot to "teach them inclusivity" or whatever

There may be no connection, but in the eyes of your regular normy retard all of science is discredited when authority figures lap up the rotten putrid filth posing as science

[Anonymous No.14604098]

>>14604087
>There may be no connection
Then why bring it up? Also, don't gay men just like other men? They like little boys as much as you like little girls.

[Anonymous No.14604117]

>>14604098
>Then why bring it up?
OP made the connection
>don't gay men just like other men?
i dont really have a problem with the lgb part, but the t and the entire industry from big pharma to the psychologists to the surgeons it supports.. using retarded impressionable mothers to convince CHILDREN they could be happier drugged up and mutilated is sick, and so are you for supporting it

this alone has not only discredited science in the eyes of normies but the entire west in the eyes of the rest of the world

GO FUCK YOURSELF

[Anonymous No.14604122]

>>14604117
>to convince CHILDREN they could be happier drugged up and mutilated is sick
This only happens in your head, schizo

[Anonymous No.14604132]

i thought sci was the intellectual board

[Anonymous No.14604135]

>>14604072
>unfortunate the climate science, which actually has the potential to improve the human condition
climate scientists are every bit as toxic and harmful as the trannys and pedos. climate scientists do the exact same incessant sadistic lying and crying in order to justify theft and waste of other people resources that the /lgbt pedos do.

[Anonymous No.14604138]

>>14604122
It's happening irl as we speak, retard. Simply searching "trans children" in google should give you an idea of how mainstream it is.

[Anonymous No.14604141]

not a single source in this thread

[Anonymous No.14604143]

>>14604135
Oh really? Climate science which advocates for leaving oil in the ground is somehow "waste of other people's resources" is it?
Please explain how that works

[Anonymous No.14604298]

>>14603822
Against COVID you disingenuous retard.

[Anonymous No.14604321]

>>14604143
appropriating other people's resources and then failing to make use them is waste
>you're not allowed to use your own property, you must leave it buried in the ground and let it go to waste

[Anonymous No.14604328]

>>14604298
There is no dose at which it works against Covid you clown

[Anonymous No.14604332]

>>14604328
Doctors have always been free to try drugs off-label in safe doses. How are you not understanding this point?

[Anonymous No.14604337]

>>14604328
>There is no dose at which it works against Covid you clown
Not the anon you're talking to, but IVM lowers viral load significantly after a single standard dose.

[Anonymous No.14604348]

>>14604332
Yes. So what's the problem? They have also been free to do that in the past 2 years. So literally nothing changed. Is this the kind of change you fear due to climate change?
>>14604337
Only if you have worms and kill those worms with ivermectin. Then your immune system has more capacity to tackle covid.

[Anonymous No.14604360]

>>14604348
>Only if you have worms and kill those worms with ivermectin
Ah yes, those damn experimental mice with their burdensome worm infections...

[Anonymous No.14604365]

>>14604321
thats absurd.
"failing to make use of something" is not even remotely the same thing as waste.

next time try making an argument that doesn't literally change the meaning of words to suite your ridiculous rationalizations

[Anonymous No.14604385]

>>14604348
> They have also been free to do that in the past 2 years
Have they? Which western counties have allowed unrestricted use of Ivermectin for COVID?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/10/australian-drug-regulator-bans-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-after-sharp-rise-in-prescriptions

[Anonymous No.14604410]

>>14604360
Oh i thought you were talking about humans. You know, since we're talking about humans.
>>14604385
This is still a climate change Thread and the question was what kind of extreme change you fear. If you only fear that doctors can't prescribe medication that has been proven to be ineffective, then we have nothing to fear at all.

[Anonymous No.14604494]

>>14604410
Are you going to admit that you were shown to be incorrect about doctors being able to freely prescribe Ivermectin?
If not, what's the point of discussing anything with someone so intellectually dishonest?

[Anonymous No.14604502]

>>14604494
Yes, but who cares? It's ineffective and there are over 180 countries in the world. So what if one of them bans an ineffective drug?

[Anonymous No.14604535]

>>14604410
>Oh i thought you were talking about humans. You know, since we're talking about humans.
It also reduces viral load in humans, but since you're convinced it's down to the worms, then I thought it relevant to point out that it also works in lab animals that have never been exposed to worms. In fact, viral load reduction in humans (worms or no worms) is greater than the viral load reduction via vaccination. Is every population overridden with worms do you think?

[Anonymous No.14604538]

>>14604502
So you think it's just one then?

About climate change, what do we have to do to combat it effectively?
Can we really sustain the world's population (let alone the economy) while going to net zero CO2 (or even negative, as it's likely needed)?

[Anonymous No.14604555]

>>14604535
>It also reduces viral load in humans
Sauce?
>>14604538
Most car manufacturers have already announced they'll stop producing new cars that rely on oil. What's so bad about electric vehicles? Less nitrous oxide, less particulate matter. Less noise...

[Anonymous No.14604563]

>>14604538
>log scale
>has zero
This is /sci/, not /facebook/

[Anonymous No.14604569]

>>14604555
What parts of the car manufacturing processes are free of oil and natural gas? What parts of cars are physically made of oil derivatives and can be changed to not be?
How about something simple like the fabrics of car seats? What can we make those out of other than oil? Or does it not matter since we don't burn them?

[Anonymous No.14604576]

>>14604555
>Sauce?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext

[Anonymous No.14604587]

>>14604538
>what do we have to do to combat it effectively
>we
what do you mean we? i'm not lifting a finger until after you've demonstrated in good faith that your "the sky is falling" story isn't just another greedy excuse to demand gibes.
your grandiose attempts to claim you speak for the entirety of humanity is a tipoff of your greedy manipulative scheming personality which you are too dumb to keep hidden.

[Anonymous No.14604590]

>>14604569
What makes you so worried that by the end of the decade we will have to reduce our carbon output to zero? That is not going to happen.

[Anonymous No.14604591]

>>14604555
>Most car manufacturers have already announced they'll stop producing new cars that rely on oil.
Oh and a major issue is the amount of raw materials needed to electrify all vehicles. What do you think would happen to the prices of raw materials (like copper, nickel, lithium etc)? Cars would likely become quite unaffordable.
We would also have to vastly upgrade all our electric grids and power generating infrastructure, assuming we could all have care in this future.

[Anonymous No.14604600]

>>14604576
Oops. You accidentally posted a study that did not find a reduction in viral load. How embarrassing

[Anonymous No.14604604]

>>14604590
I'm worried about the power grab that this narrative enables. If your narrative is "saving the planet" or something equivalent, then we have a situation where "the ends justify the means" that exceeds any in history. There's nothing at all that isn't justified when it's in service of saving humanity and nature.
Governments and corporations don't have a great track record on this kind of thing.

[Anonymous No.14604606]

>>14604591
Well maybe not everyone needs a car. In rural areas, the grid is less of a problem because the density is lower.

[Anonymous No.14604607]

>>14604538
For one, renewables are very cheap energy sources. Onshore wind and solar are the cheapest electricity sources, even without subsidies. They're not perfect, but they can at the very least heavily cut into global carbon emissions so we don't get the worst of it. Improvements in batteries, energy storage, and grid design will help reduce the costs further and we could eventually see a world where wind and solar provide the majority of power while supplementary sources like nuclear and hydro help keep the grid running and geothermal is used for certain regions. Oil might still need to be extracted (we currently can't make some fuel types out of synthetic oil, only fossil) and for that we could use CCUS technologies to produce net-0 carbon oil.

[Anonymous No.14604612]

>>14604607
Well that's the big question really: will technology enable us to actually do it without basically impoverishing the world?
Germany hasn't exactly done a good job, has it?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/20/ukraine-war-germany-turns-to-coal-as-russia-throttles-gas-supplies.html

[Anonymous No.14604621]

>>14604365
you wish to use you "i am the savior of mother earth" larp as a means to justify appropriating other people's resources for yourself because you are unwilling to earn your own resources legitimately.
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/SD3/

[Anonymous No.14604633]

>>14604612
Sure, look at the Great Plains states where wind power is absolutely booming. Heck, look at France: they are mostly operating nuke plants and their carbon footprint is tiny compared to the Germans. The problem with Germany wasn't decarbonization but unilaterally giving the reins of their energy sector over to the tinpot dictatorship of Russia.

[Anonymous No.14604641]

>>14604633
Can't blame climate scientists for Schröder

[Anonymous No.14604652]

>>14604633
The percentage of global renewable power generation is still tiny. Getting to this point is relatively easy because we haven't put that huge of a demand on the required materials, the way we would if we were to actually go net zero.
Here's a popsci explanation. I've seen some more serious reports on this as well, but that was a while ago and I don't remember the sources.

[Anonymous No.14604654]

>>14604652
>>14604633
Forgot link:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25576543/renewable-limits-materials-dutch-ministry-infrastructure/

[Anonymous No.14604659]

>>14604654
So what? If they don't manage, why do you care? You don't want to save the planet anyway, do you?

[Anonymous No.14604662]

>>14604654

[Anonymous No.14604675]

>>14604662
I never cared much for the sea level narrative. Pic related is more more interesting. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, yet civilization (at least at large scales) as only been around since that uncharacteristically stable temperature of the last ~10k years.
That's really the danger of climate change, that that stability which allows easy farming is lost.

[Anonymous No.14604682]

>>14604652
>>14604654
>i think MSM popsci news is real and not pure propaganda
low IQ useful idiot or glownigger?

[Anonymous No.14604684]

>>14604682
Post something to refute it then.

[Anonymous No.14604710]

>>14604684
>popular mechanics in 1991: flying cars will be available in two weeks
turned out mr. moller was a swindler who was using an old buck rogers prop to trick idiots out of $40 million, he paid a popsci editor a few thousand to get on the cover.
looking at popsci shit and then saying to yourself "now i understand science" is dunning krueger at play, only low iqs fall for it.

[Anonymous No.14604721]

>>14604710
So the source that article reported on is full of shit?
And we DON'T need way more materials to build all that stuff we apparently need to built? Amazing!

[Anonymous No.14604727]

>>14604710
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAVwYIvmNEM

[Anonymous No.14604747]

>>14604727
>two weeks
fuck off you stupid twat

[Anonymous No.14604750]

>>14604747
>the only thing i have to offer is impotent anger

[Anonymous No.14605453]

>>14603625

[Anonymous No.14605721]

>>14604049
Everything politicians say is correct and guaranteed and they never lie and if you say they do I'll browbeat you into submission with PEER-PRESSURE OOOOooOoooOOOO
Vaccinate yourself buddy.

[Anonymous No.14605742]

>>14605453
Name one climate scientist who invested millions of dollars in coastal property.

[Anonymous No.14605766]

I hope they will make you all eat onions and insects

[Anonymous No.14605768]

>Check historic temps for today just for fun
>The new record high was set today
>The previous record high was set last year

[Anonymous No.14605905]

>>14604132
Not since about 2015

[Anonymous No.14605933]

>>14605905
What's the intellectual board now? Seems like everywhere people are just seething about trannies instead of talking about the topic of the board

[Anonymous No.14605937]

>>14605933
There isn't one. /pol/tards have ruined 4chan.

[Anonymous No.14605941]

>>14603625
I'm not a particularly smart person, but here's my take:
>I've lived in the same house for 6 years
>Every single summer has been hotter than the one before it
>Every single winter has been more tolerable than the one before it
>NeuronAftivation.jpg
I believe it tbqh.

[Anonymous No.14606048]

>>14605937
>REEEEEEE
If you were actually intelligent, you'd entertain a different possibility. I won't elaborate because you don't deserve it. But I'll give you a hint: we're not from /pol/.

[Anonymous No.14606138]

>>14603625
I think global warming is simply a consequence of the sun heating up.

[Anonymous No.14606164]

>>14606138
I think your retardation is simply a consequence of the lack of oxygen during your birth.

[Anonymous No.14606276]

>>14606138
And you think that climate scientists haven't looked at this and other possible explanations? What a strange, child-like view of the topic.

[Anonymous No.14606281]

>>14606276
There are even politicians claiming that. Goes well together with "The air is only 0.04% CO2"

[Anonymous No.14606323]

>>14605768
What site did you use to check it?

[Anonymous No.14606338]

>>14606281
And 1.5 degrees C is only 0.5% of the global average temperature in Kelvins.

[Anonymous No.14606433]

>>14606338
Did you know that 50 years ago the Earth was 10 degrees warmer than today? And the Earth still exists.

[Anonymous No.14606720]

>>14606138
We checked and that's not the case

[Anonymous No.14606726]

>>14606433
Incorrect

[Anonymous No.14606805]

picrel is how people who claim that they are environmentalists treat their irl environments. putting self-proclaimed environmentalists in charge of the environment is surely the fastest way to ruin it for everyone.

[Anonymous No.14607180]

>>14606433
You can't just make shit up like that anon. That's not how this works.

[Anonymous No.14607183]

>>14606805
>low IQ NPCs do low IQ NPC things
What a bunch of retard activists do has no bearing on the truth proposition at hand. This is a bad argument.

[Anonymous No.14607204]

>>14603625
Climates do change. That is no question. The question is, does this need to be addressed with such hysteria and alarmism?

[Anonymous No.14607205]

>>14604675
Your pic shows temperature in one location in Greenland. Global temperature is much different.

[Anonymous No.14607208]

>>14603977
Society won't collapse from global warming, but from mass hysteria and media alarmism.

[Anonymous No.14607213]

>>14607205
Again, a graph that puts into one curve different types and methods of measurements. That is not correct.

[Anonymous No.14607222]

>>14607204
>Climates do change
The climate doesn't normally change this rapidly, and when it does it leads to mass extinctions. Deniers are alarmist about the solutions to global warming and so hysterical about it that they need to deny basic facts.

[Anonymous No.14607228]

>>14607205
very last bit of the spike in the end of your graph is accounted for by the "data correction" which was described in the climategate emails.
furthermore, the use of very small error ranges in the latest sage of that data is blatantly erroneous, also as dictated by the climatgate emails.

[Anonymous No.14607233]

>>14607228
>"climategate": 2009-2011
>source of the graph: Nature article from 2021
Try again

[Anonymous No.14607257]

>>14607205
Interesting, do you have a 50 year version?

[Anonymous No.14607260]

>>14607257
50k year*

[Anonymous No.14607264]

>>14607213
The methodology is peer reviewed and published in Nature:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34759364/

Let me know when you get your brilliant critique published and have the paper retracted.

[Anonymous No.14607285]

>>14607257
>>14607260
There aren't enough high resolution proxy records to go back that far in comparable detail. Anything you see will just be ice core records which don't represent global temperature.

[Anonymous No.14607290]

>>14607233
climate scientist have demonstrated their willingness to "adjust" their results in order to suit their budgetary and career goals, they will cast aside data accuracy in favor of other goals, not taking that into consideration in the data analysis is fundamentally bad science, the false data ranges in the original graph are extremely misleading.
ignoring the human element in science with a known human element involved in creating the data guarantees inaccuracy.

[Anonymous No.14607293]

>>14607228
>very last bit of the spike in the end of your graph is accounted for by the "data correction" which was described in the climategate emails.
Source? Amazing how the climategate emails predicted the future.

>furthermore, the use of very small error ranges in the latest sage of that data is blatantly erroneous, also as dictated by the climatgate emails.
How so?

[Anonymous No.14607297]

>>14607290
>climate scientist have demonstrated their willingness to "adjust" their results in order to suit their budgetary and career goals
Where?

>the false data ranges in the original graph are extremely misleading.
Which false data ranges?

Take your own advise and evaluate whether you are just parroting crap you want to be true when you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14607336]

>>14607257

[Anonymous No.14607363]

>>14607297
are you willfully ignoring the history of fraud in the climate science community in order to protect your imaginary end-of-world messiah complex scenario or is the gates foundation paying you to regurgitate their propaganda?

[Anonymous No.14607369]

>>14607363
>are you willfully ignoring the history of fraud in the climate science community
Are you wilfully refusing to prove your claims or are you just lying?

[Anonymous No.14607375]

>>14607228
There are 4 independent instrumental record data products and they all agree

[Anonymous No.14607378]

>>14603625
>spider glacier has completely melted
>milk lake glacier has completely melted
These things are millions of years old, and had persisted throughout multiple natural climate change events. People who say climate change is just natural fail to realise that what we're seeing is well beyond the natural rate, yes the climate changes naturally but that doesn't mean it hasn't been accelerated.

[Anonymous No.14607382]

>>14607369
the history of fraud amongst climate scientists is already well documented, that was already discussed earlier in this thread

[Anonymous No.14607388]

>>14607382
Don't regurgitate blog posts. Do your own research and send us the evidence of the fraud.

[Anonymous No.14607390]

>>14607382
So you're just lying. Glad we cleared that up.

[Anonymous No.14607393]

You can tell it is fake because we could fix it in a month or two with a few million but won't. That means it must not be that urgent then.

[Anonymous No.14607399]

>>14603625
>started as climate change doesn't exist
>then became climate change isn't caused by people
>then became climate change might be caused by people but its not an issue

[Anonymous No.14607404]

>>14607399
Then became climate change hurr durr hurr durr looool dumb dumb durr

[Anonymous No.14607407]

Climate change debates are just scientists wanking each other off so they can feel superior to others. FAAAAAAGS

[Anonymous No.14607414]

>>14607388
>Do your own research
t. determined reposter of gates foundation propaganda

[Anonymous No.14607418]

>>14603625
>>14603625
Ozone layer.

[Anonymous No.14607440]

>>14604132
it was before chuds took over around 2016 elections. They ruined almost every board on this site.

[nutrek No.14607443]

climate change is real. the push for a better energy source is good but there are some advocates that show they have no idea what they're talking about when they push very drastic changes like getting rid of fossil fuel immediately when it can be improved. Diversifying it and continuous improvement of every industry is the answer. It's not like one source is better than the other lithium batteries are also flattening mountains. The idea that one thing is a be all end all solution is what's wrong. Condemning an entire industry that employs millions, produces byproducts we still use today, etc. is very dangerous. What matters is what we're doing, research can always be manipulates or misinterpreted to push something but that's not where the problem lies.

[Anonymous No.14607445]

>>14606138
>I think global warming is simply a consequence of the sun heating up.
>i bet those smartass scientists forgot about the sun

[Anonymous No.14607461]

>>14607445
you have no idea how lacking the average climate scientists' approach to thermodynamics is, most of them operate at no higher than a high school level, they routinely apply boltzmann formulas to organic systems where random walks and the like plainly do not apply.

[Anonymous No.14607473]

>>14607461
so they forgot about the sun or not?

[Anonymous No.14607503]

>>14607382
>the history of fraud amongst climate scientists is already well documented
Where? Why are you having such trouble proving your claims? Is it because you lied?

[Anonymous No.14607507]

>>14607393
>You can tell it is fake because we could fix it in a month or two with a few million
We've got some kind of genius here

[Anonymous No.14607516]

>>14607440
>i hate 4chan.org
why are you here?
also how have you gone 6years of suffering without recognizing that "the chuds" are able to easily dominate any board or conversation on 4chan because of your own unwillingness and inability to produce original content of any sort?

[Anonymous No.14607522]

>>14607503
the history of fraud amongst climate scientists is already well documented, that was already discussed earlier in this thread

[Anonymous No.14607582]

>>14603785
>most antivaxxers are scientifically illiterate and completely retarded when it comes to health and biology
desu most provaxxers are too, neither group really understands biology, chemistry, and immunology cause that shit is confusing

[Anonymous No.14607692]

>>14607522
>the history of fraud amongst climate scientists is already well documented
Where? Why are you having such trouble proving your claims? Is it because you lied?

[Anonymous No.14607849]

>>14607461
See
>>14606720

[Anonymous No.14607864]

>>14607849
Every time I read this type of post from you, I go out of my way to fuck the environment. Even if it's small. For example, I'm outside right now and just threw an open plastic bag full of other garbage (egg carton, plastic wrappings, empty water bottles, etc.) onto the side of the road. It will blow into the surrounding forests. Fuck you nigger, you made me do this. Keep going you piece of shit. The more I see your grifting comments, the more I'm going out of my way to fuck the environment. Prick.

[Anonymous No.14607870]

>>14607864
>Reality disagrees with muh feelings? TANTRUM TIME
lol

[Anonymous No.14607875]

>>14607870
Don't test me faggot. If I check this thread 24 hours from now, and you're still being a grifter or shill or whatever the fuck you are, I swear to god grab bags of trash from a local dumpster, drive to a desolate rural area, and dump it all on the side of the road.

[Anonymous No.14607882]

>>14607875
take pics, could end up being legendary repost fodder.

[Anonymous No.14607883]

>>14607875
Do it, waste your time on a meaningless gesture I'll never see and post proof or you're a massive bitch, I'm waiting

>drive to a desolate rural area
Surprise surprise, the raging sperg is an urb*noite

[Anonymous No.14607891]

>>14607883
>waste your time on a meaningless gesture
So you agree that there is no climate crisis. Great. I'll check back tomorrow. Don't test me.

[Anonymous No.14607902]

>>14607891
>So you agree that there is no climate crisis
Cute, but even you aren't retarded enough to think I said that
>Don't test me
Or what, you'll dig through more trash for me? If I don't see proof by tomorrow you have no balls

[Anonymous No.14607954]

>>14607378
Decent argument, thanks anon

[Anonymous No.14608062]

>>14607864
You know, since you don't live where I live, I don't give a fuck if you pollute your local environment. Go ahead

[Anonymous No.14608187]

>>14607882
I remember there was a guy who rolled coal when I was in high school. He got caught sucking another guys cock in the bathroom during geometry. Indiana really is nothing but closeted fags

[Anonymous No.14608368]

meanwhile on /o/ there some dude with a trunk full of gasoline in plastic bags

[Anonymous No.14608405]

>>14608368
If he manages to not kill himself or cause extreme damage to his property, he can consider himself lucky.

[Anonymous No.14608429]

>>14607440
You literally have to go back

[Anonymous No.14608459]

>>14608429
Back in 2008, 4chan helped me accept that I was weird. There were other weirdos. We shared funny anime pictures, did some harmless pranks like closing the pool on habbo hotel or vote moot person of the year. Part of that was politically incorrect. Everything was a fag. Even the homosexuals were called gayfag. Everything was a nigger and we posted some edgy memes, including, but not limited to, nazi stuff. Some was harmless "Christmas sucks when you come back from the bathroom and Hitler has stolen your seat", others were just edgy "what's the difference between a Jew and a pizza?" etc.
But some retards took this seriously. They say "hey they post pictures of Hitler, they must really like this guy. Everything negative is a fag? Yeah, I also think that god hates fags and they should be killed". More and more of them kept coming. 4chan tried to contain them in their own board, /pol/. After that didn't work, they tried to save the SFW boards, called them 4channel and banned racism in those boards. But the unironical 65iq Neonazis could not be contained. They're like a cancer. 4chan was never good, and /b/ was always cancer, but it has suffered severely from the altright/maga crowd.

[Anonymous No.14608590]

>>14607522
Still no documented history presented. When are you going to find it?

[Anonymous No.14608599]

>>14608459
Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by *actual idiots* who mistakenly believe that they're in good company.

[Anonymous No.14608607]

>>14608590
The history of false claims of fraud on the other hand...

[Anonymous No.14608620]

>>14607440
The great shitting up of the internet actually took place in 2017 when stormfront was briefly shut down. Without a designated containment forum, the refugees spilled out into polite society and we're still dealing with the aftermath.

[Anonymous No.14608637]

>>14608620
I remember retards like me "supporting" Trump just for the absurdity.
>Can you imagine this guy in the preelections? There's like the politically incorrect uncle that always ruins family reunions by talking about immigrants shooting our jobs. It would be so funny if actual politicians had to debate him. Oh shit he's gaining support roflmao, what an epic troll it would be if this misogynistic fattie became the Republican candidate. Ok, the competition is Hillary, she sucks, but it's not like any US president was better. Wait, are people unironically demanding that wall? It's a meme guys. Are they unironically cheering for him? He's terrible, that's why it's funny. He's a clown, an endless source for memes. You can't seriously want him with access to nuclear bombs. Wait, are you all for real?

[Anonymous No.14608723]

>>14608062
>I don't give a fuck if you pollute your local environment
So I don't need to bother reducing my carbon emissions? Thx anon

[Anonymous No.14608733]

>>14603750
>The neutral Swiss?
Switzerland stopped being neutral when it sanctioned Russia over the conflict in Ukraine (if it ever was neutral).

[Anonymous No.14608749]

>>14608733
They were fighting climate change for decades before that.

[Anonymous No.14608751]

>>14608723
>So I don't need to bother reducing my carbon emissions?
If you live in a glass dome and the CO2 stays with you, I don't give a shit. But don't pollute the atmosphere of the rest of the world

[Anonymous No.14608786]

Honestly capitalism has already solved climate change. You can buy an electric car like a Tesla or you can keep buying gasoline and pay extra to drive.

If a guy doesn't want to buy an electric car he can keep paying 7 dollars a gallon. If he wants to "drive more to get back at the environmentalists" he'll have to burn more of his own money to do that.

[Anonymous No.14608799]

What I don’t get is how CO2 is supposed to be the second highest contributor to heat in the atmosphere.
CO2 is a linear molecule, which means structurally should have less ways to absorb radiation under a Hamilton effect right? It’s very stable.
Water for example is non linear and is rated higher in terms of its events on atmospheric temperature, as well as being able to absorb more radiation overall due to its structure.
But like every other green house after H20 and CO2 also has a nonlinear structure.
From methane, to Ozone, to the very non linear Sulfur hexafloride.

So why does CO2 absorb so much even when it’s linear?
Also there’s not even that much CO2 in the atmosphere overall so how does it contribute so much with so little volume?
Even if it had a similar heat absorption to water, (which we know it doesn’t) it shouldn’t have this much effect due to its lack of presence.

[Anonymous No.14608804]

>>14608799
> in terms of its events on atmospheric temperature
*effects

[Anonymous No.14608809]

>>14608786
California has rolling blackouts "just go electric, bro"
How do you make the electricity?

[Anonymous No.14608828]

>>14606720
That’s a really weird squeeze from the 40’s to the 60’s
How could solar activity shoot up while temperature dropped off and then flatlined?
Everything before that flows in sync which is also weird, as this would be during WW1 and WW2 when industrial production was at its height for the time.

[Anonymous No.14608848]

>>14608786
not sure if trolling

[Anonymous No.14608866]

>>14608809
>California has rolling blackouts
Funny way to spell Texas
>>14608828
You know that nature does not care about "for the time"? First of all, production did not significantly change for the war, and second of all, it was pretty low compared to today.

[Anonymous No.14608874]

>>14605453
The flooded coastal property was the most idiotic idea proposed.
When temperature rises in increases evaporation, which isn’t going to make the sea rise.
>But the ice caps.
The ice caps are minuscule in volume compared to the ocean, which will also be under evaporation pressure as the temperature rises.
The only thing heating would cause is an increase in the velocity of the water cycle, (rain, flooding, etc) not shift the equilibrium (the Ocean) or at least not shift it to be bigger.
It’s more likely your mountainside or riverside home gets flooded than a seaside property getting flooded.
Media parroted this bs because most coastal homes on the west coast are on cliff sides (immune to the sea level scare) and they were jealous of the housing market in on the east coast, particularly Florida.

[Anonymous No.14608890]

>>14608866
Yeah but solar irradiance went above average temperature, and the temperature was unchanged by it.
The temp also flatlined until 1980 which was 20 billion tons per year at that point.
It’s just weird data.

[Anonymous No.14608918]

>>14608890
Wrong. See
>>14606720

[Anonymous No.14609000]

>>14604612
>>14604633
Germany has been using lignite for ages.
In the 90s it was basically 30% nuclear 30% coal, and 30% lignite for electricity. (and 10% from oil and others)
It’s just that around the time they started to activate their big green energy buildout they also decided shutting down nuclear plants is more important.
So they built it out so that now like 40% wind/solar, 30% coal, and 30% lignite.
So they’re still burning the same fucking amount of coal even after spending so much money.
They basically just played musical chairs between wind/solar and nuclear.
This is the big German fuck up.

If they had kept nuclear alive it would today have been at least 40% wind/solar, 30% nuclear and 30% of coal, and they could have completely phased out lignite.

The petrochemicals Russia ships in are used for plastics and HEAT generation in industrial processes, different from electricity generation.
Which is why the Germans are so pants shittingly paralyzed by the Russia situation because their industries are being put in major jeopardy.

[Anonymous No.14609005]

>>14608890
The influence of the sun is pretty small
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL015345
>For a change ΔI ≈1 W/m2 (comparable to estimates of the amplitude of the ‘11 year’ sunspot period and the secular change in I since 1900) one estimates ΔT ≈ 288(1/4 * 1365) ≈ 0.05C. Our measurements yield a value of about twice this.
Ok, whatever model they improve, the impact is 0.05 - 0.1 °C per W/m^2. That means that the temperature variation cannot be only explained with the solar variation. Volcanic activity etc. also play a role. So you will never find a "strict correlation"
The atmosphere is a complex, chaotic system and taking the surface into account doesn't help. If it gets a bit warmer and glaciers melt a bit, you have less ice and more dark rock exposed. If you have sat in a white and in a black car in summer, you know that reflective/white things don't heat up as much as dark things. With more heat and therefore warmer air, the air contains more water vapor. Water vapor again is a greenhouse gas. There are a lot of self-amplifying processes and a lot of them are rather slow. Comparing CO2 levels or solar irradiance with some temperature will never be a clear correlation.

[Anonymous No.14609012]

>>14609000
>now like 40% wind/solar, 30% coal, and 30% lignite.
It's actually 20% lignite and 10% coal. In 2020 it was even less

[Anonymous No.14609016]

>>14608918
Read your own graph you moron.
There is a clear huge spike in solar irradiance just before 1960.
Not the 11 year average line, the yearly average line.
See >>14606720
The temperature change is basically flat during that spike until 1970-1980.
See >>14606720
There is also a bump to the temperature in 1940 with two extremely hot years while the solar irradiance falls out the bottom
See >>14606720
But then temperature falls downward through the 1950s
See >>14606720
Ands stays low at that point, effectively flatlining, until at least 1970
See >>14606720

Your graph is weird, full of anomalies, and shitty.
Tongue my anus.

[Anonymous No.14609028]

>>14609016
>weird, full of anomalies, and shitty.
Look at >>14609005
Solar irradiance went up by about 1 W/m2 and then down again around 1960. That correspons to 0.05 to 0.1°C. At the same time, the average temperature jumps by 0.2°C. This shows that the solar irradiance is by far not the only, or even driving cause of temperature variations. It is a factor, but not THE factor.
You see the anomaly around 1940? Look at this to get a feeling of why it is this chaotic: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1256/wea.248.04
You're right. It's weird. But that's nature for you. Shitty is only your monkey brain expecting something that is easy to understand and getting upset when it's hard.

[Anonymous No.14609055]

>>14609028
So which is it, can you tell what effects the atmosphere or not?
The sun doesn’t effect the atmosphere, but the particles which trap its radiation as a greenhouse effect do?
That doesn’t seem quite right.

>Shitty is only your monkey brain expecting something that is easy to understand and getting upset when it's hard.
That’s a little dishonest when the solution being proposed is simple.
“Just make less CO2 dude”
Oh so the causes of the problem is super duper complex but the solution is simple.
How convenient.

[Anonymous No.14609077]

>>14609055
>can you tell what effects the atmosphere or not?
A lot of things are known to affect the temperature. But keep in mind that temperature is only a secondary quantity. You know how much energy you get and lose. For temperature, you need the heat capacity. If you have drought, it can get a lot hotter, because the ground cannot absorb as much heat.
>The sun doesn’t effect the atmosphere, but the particles which trap its radiation as a greenhouse effect do?
The sun does affect the temperature. It's obviously the main source of energy by far. But we are talking about variations. And the sun is incredibly stable, in the order of 0.1%. And those variations do affect the temperature, but only by about 0.05 to 0.1°C. "The particles" on the other hand are not stable. We have increased the concentration from 280ppm to over 420ppm (blaze it, quite literally). Unlike the sun, it's not a tiny fluctuation around a mean value, it keeps rising. So you don't just have to understand the effect of small pertubations, but the really complex system of our planet. That's what they publish in the IPCC reports. The models get better, the computation power increases and the error bars from the predictions decrease.
>“Just make less CO2 dude”
>Oh so the causes of the problem is super duper complex but the solution is simple.
The cause broken down is extremely simple. CO2 is transparent for visible light. So sunlight passes through, heats up the Earth. The Earth emits infrared light and cools radiatively. That IR light is absorbed by CO2, which in turn heats up. That CO2 then also cools down radiatively by emitting IR light. Half of it into the void of the universe, and the other half right back to us. So more CO2 means less energy that the Earth loses. More energy means warmer.
Just if you ask what the impact of an increase by 10ppm is, it gets complex. And the answer will different if you go from 300 to 310ppm or 500 to 510ppm
>How convenient.
What's that supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.14609198]

>>14608809
>California
California is a leftist government. Not capitalism.

[Anonymous No.14609204]

>>14609198
>Not capitalism.
You have no idea what capitalism means

[Anonymous No.14609232]

>>14609077
>muh CO2
just plant moar trees

[Anonymous No.14609260]

I’m gonna be real with you senpai.
I went on wattsupwiththat for 20 mins and they explained the greenhouse effect better and in more detail than anyone in this thread.
Or anyone in my life ever did.
It’s so weird how nobody ever goes into the process in detail.

[Anonymous No.14609269]

>>14609232
trees aren't magic
Trees start to be CO2 sinks only after they are 20 years old.[**]
Also, trees need water, soil nutrients etc. to grow.
This isn't as ubiquitous as you'd think, the good places are already used.

[**]
https://youtu.be/LDdKOmvIKyg?t=2m

[Anonymous No.14609270]

>>14609260
>wattsupwiththat
Because the climate shills just recite talking points that they themselves don't even understand.

[Anonymous No.14609273]

>>14609260
Let me guess, they explained that nothing is real and the Earth has no climate?

[Anonymous No.14609280]

>>14609260
>Watts assisted with the setup of a radio program for his high school in Indiana,[14] and later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.
Yeah, trust the university dropout loser because he says things that make you feel better

[Anonymous No.14609281]

>>14609232
trees aren't magic
Trees start to be CO2 sinks only after they are 20 years old.[**]
Also, trees need water, soil nutrients etc. to grow.
This isn't as ubiquitous as you'd think, the good places are already used.

[**]
https://youtu.be/LDdKOmvIKyg?t=4m15s

[Anonymous No.14609284]

>>14609269
You cant do nuffin, solar panels cause global warming and windmill gens cause climate change. You think its concidence GW started being real once green illness kicked in goyim?

[Anonymous No.14609313]

>>14609273
No they explained how IR radiation is emitted from the ground
And how it’s different between different parts of the ground.
Like how the Sahara has a different IR output than the Mediterranean.
And how Antarctica produces almost no IR.
And how IR only is produced from the ground trying to expel stored energy.
And IR is only a portion of that process.
So IR that is “trapped” just gets converted into a different energy form over time.
And how the ocean handles IR and energy dissipation completely differently.

Basically the only attempt I’ve seen of anyone actually TRYING to explain the thermodynamics behind it.

[Anonymous No.14609322]

>>14609313
>the thermodynamics behind it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

[Anonymous No.14609339]

>>14609322
>Earth's energy "budget"
These kikes are so obsessed with money they can't even understand energy without money analogies fucking kek

[Anonymous No.14609342]

>>14609322
That article only has 2 short paragraphs about OLR and gives you nothing on the mechanics behind it.
The watts article is still better imo.

[Anonymous No.14609345]

>>14609339
you sound upset.
is your tinfoil hat giving you a rash?

[Anonymous No.14609351]

>>14609313
Where is the catch? Where do they drift of into telling us that climate change doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.14609367]

>>14608799
>CO2 is a linear molecule, which means structurally should have less ways to absorb radiation under a Hamilton effect right?
It has assymetrical vibrational modes that absorb and emit in the infrared range.

>Also there’s not even that much CO2 in the atmosphere overall so how does it contribute so much with so little volume?
Not much compared to what? The amount of other gasses in the atmosphere relative to CO2 is irrelevant. The same amount of CO2 would have the same effect regardless of what else is in the atmosphere.

>Even if it had a similar heat absorption to water, (which we know it doesn’t) it shouldn’t have this much effect due to its lack of presence.
Show your math.

[Anonymous No.14609373]

>>14608828
>How could solar activity shoot up while temperature dropped off and then flatlined?
Aerosols.

>Everything before that flows in sync which is also weird
Not really.

[Anonymous No.14609375]

>>14609351
Well the article was primarily about them debooonking that “Heat gets trapped by CO2”
So they went into the thermodynamics to explain that it eventually gets converted into a different energy form that CO2 doesn’t trap.
It was the first article I saw on their site so I’m guessing it’s the newest one?
I’ve never visited their site before btw.

I’m sure their attempt at explaining the thermodynamics has flaws in it.
But it’s far better than everyone else I’ve seen talk about the climate, who almost always avoid discussion of the thermodynamics outright.

[Anonymous No.14609383]

>>14608828
>during WW1 and WW2
only 2.5 bn people, anon.
compared to 8 bn now

[Anonymous No.14609388]

>>14608874
>When temperature rises in increases evaporation, which isn’t going to make the sea rise.
Negligible effect compared to melting ice and thermal expansion of water.

>The ice caps are minuscule in volume compared to the ocean
The entire ocean is evaporating? Wow, we're in trouble.

>The only thing heating would cause is an increase in the velocity of the water cycle
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.14609407]

>>14605941
Same, but exact opposite experience.

Maybe now you see why this way of forming beliefs is not reliable.

[Anonymous No.14609409]

>>14609016
>anomalies
You mean that it's clear that the global average temperature is not well correlated to the variation in solar irradiance. Would you like to take a guess as to that it is well correlated with?

[Anonymous No.14609410]

>>14609375
>debooonking that “Heat gets trapped by CO2”
Although simplified, that's true though. Heat that would normally leave the Earth by IR radiation is absorbed and partially re-emitted back to us. To be fair, "trapping" is a pretty retarded way to express that. If it were truly trapped, the heat could stay trapped for all we care about.
>It was the first article I saw on their site so I’m guessing it’s the newest one?
In case you're not trolling, that blog is a known climate change denier blog by a guy who normally bends the truth and facts in a way that fits in his agenda.

[Anonymous No.14609451]

>>14609232
You'd need about three times the land area of Earth completely planted with trees to sequester the carbon we've produced. Instead we should be producing biochar and using it to enrich agricultural soil.

[Anonymous No.14609454]

>>14609284
>Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.14609460]

>>14609409
Correlated with chronological year. If we reset the calendar, global warming will reverse.

[Anonymous No.14609465]

>>14609451
You mean like the algae in the oceans?

[Anonymous No.14609482]

>>14609465
Except not in the oceans

[Anonymous No.14609483]

>>14609465
No, there's not enough nutrients to support that much algae. If we attempted to correct that with iron fertilization or some other scheme then the algae would grow to it's limit, die, and then absorb all the oxygen through decomposition which would cause massive dead zones.

[Anonymous No.14609488]

>>14609460
Delusional

[Anonymous No.14609526]

>>14609410
> In case you're not trolling, that blog is a known climate change denier blog by a guy who normally bends the truth and facts in a way that fits in his agenda.
I know, that’s why I found him.

I looked up “climate skeptic blog” because I wanted to see what kind of stuff they had to offer.
Instead all I got was about 15 hits for this site “Skeptical Science” which was apparently started by some Australian Cartoonist and Psychologist John Cook.
Who’s site was actually anti-skeptic, so not what I was looking for.
Then I got about 30 hits of variations of:
“How we can combat disinformation”
“How to talk to a climate skeptic”
All .edu and .gov domains.

Since this was getting me nowhere so I decided to look up “most infamous climate skeptic sites” because surely globohomo would talk about the thing I’m trying to find, in a negative context.
And sure enough there was watt’s site.
Looking up the site also brings up wottsupwiththat dot com, which is an anti-skeptic site. So I guess they really must hate him if they’re making a spoof site lol.

Anyways I looked at that article again and it was by a guest writer so I guess they don’t talk about thermodynamics that often on the site, which is disappointing.
Looking through their site, most of their articles are political blurbs about how (x) government regulation is doing (y) which isn’t interesting.
I guess it was just random chance the first article I found was somewhat interesting.

[Anonymous No.14609530]

global warming is fake

[Anonymous No.14609531]

>>14609526
That's impressive effort just to be wrong

[Anonymous No.14609533]

>>14609530
>Imagine being so retarded you didn't know what tides are

[Anonymous No.14609537]

>>14609531
The thermodynamics are wrong?

[Anonymous No.14609542]

>>14609526
Yeah, I didn't see anything blatantly wrong about it either. Then again, it's the greenhouse effect. You can calculate on the back of an envelope that without any greenhouse effect, our Earth would be cold as fuck. So I don't think anyone would actually deny that. They lie in the details, not in the fundamentals.

[Anonymous No.14609546]

>>14609530
>>14609533
Or expecting to see a rise of 25cm in such a picture

[Anonymous No.14609550]

>>14609530
https://www.sealevels.org
Click and drag in the plot area to zoom in

[Anonymous No.14609553]

>>14609537
As presented, yes.

[Anonymous No.14609555]

>>14609375
The article is just a bunch of strawmen. CO2 trapping heat means that it sends some heat back towards Earth instead of it escaping to space. But they keep talking about CO2 not being able to absorb and hold onto heat. They claim that an image showing heat being sent back to Earth means "no energy escapes." It's silly.

[Anonymous No.14609586]

>>14609555
Even if it was a strawman article I thought it was cool it talked about thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics is cool af.

[Anonymous No.14609657]

>>14603625
>Climate Change:
>How can we tell if it's real?
>I'm not asking if it is real or man made, but how one can determine the truth of the matter.
>t. uneducated poltard moron

Go back to your containment board, you fucking incel.

[Anonymous No.14609701]

>>14609657
>MY IMPOTENT RAGE WILL SHOW YOU
kek..

[Anonymous No.14609706]

>>14609530
The picture on the right actually has a higher water level. This must be rather embarrassing for you.

[Anonymous No.14609752]

>>14609553
>>14609375
>>14609410
The increased radiative forcing due to CO2 levels has been monitored and measured for 10+ years, so I don't know what you're suggesting with your denier blog shit

[Anonymous No.14609757]

>>14609752
Hey, >>14609410 is me. No denier shit here. That's just what I remember from environmental physics lecture in simple words.

[Anonymous No.14609764]

>>14609555
>CO2 not being able to absorb and hold onto heat.
1856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote#Circumstances_affecting_the_Heat_of_the_Sun's_Rays

[Anonymous No.14609780]

>>14609657
>Muh pol bad
There's nothing wrong with people from pol coming here and asking questions about climate change. If they post conspiracy theories we can debunk them and make them understand how the climate works.

[Anonymous No.14609808]

>>14609780
Sure thing. Look at the catalog.
>Hurrdurr trannies, climate change, vaccines bad
You cannot debunk them. I mean, of course you can, they spew out completely absurd schizo shit. But you won't convince them. The more facts you deliver, the more they hide in their world.
>Oh, scientists from all those countries? Well they all sent someone to Davos. What? Since 50 years? Well that one scientist is Israeli

[Anonymous No.14609812]

>>14603785
>most antivaxxers are scientifically illiterate and completely retarded when it comes to health and biology.
>it's known by science (literally taught in uni) that microorganisms tend to live in a place where they can reproduce and release their siblings to the environment
>it happens with bacteria, fungi, virus, parasites
>scientists detect a SARS
>you can see on the internet chinese people in goofy plastic suits
>le scientists do nothing
Who are the brainlets?
>>14603625
It's real, ok, Now what?
Sterilize Africa, Haiti and central america if you care

[Anonymous No.14609821]

>>14609752
You have poor reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.14609824]

>>14609812
>>it's known by science (literally taught in uni) that microorganisms tend to live in a place where they can reproduce and release their siblings to the environment
Just like /pol/tards

[Anonymous No.14609842]

>>14609752
You are a dumb faggot who replied to three different people and doesn’t understand thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.14609845]

>>14609842
You have yet to post why you think the thermodynamics are wrong other than linking to a denier blog

[Anonymous No.14609848]

>>14609808
>You cannot debunk them.
Just try harder anon, I believe in you.

[Anonymous No.14609854]

>>14609848
It's easier to piss them off. That doesn't help decrease the decision, but at least it's fun

[Anonymous No.14609897]

>>14609845
I never said the thermodynamics (I’m assuming we’re talking about the ones you have in your head?) were wrong.
Never said that.

What I said is this random article I found on that skeptic blog explained the properties of the thermodynamics better than any of the bickering homos on here ever did.
And the point I’m making is that they only barely explained parts of it, because it’s just a shitty blog I found at random.
That’s how low the bar is, and you’re all still worse than that.

Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go back to learning about thermodynamic kino on different websites.

[Anonymous No.14609928]

>>14609897
You know you can easily Google and find the scientific literature right?
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6.pdf

[Anonymous No.14609939]

>>14609897
>Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.14609959]

>>14609928
This link sucks.
>>14609939
No u.

Enjoy the thermodynamics of this cigarette losers.

[Anonymous No.14610391]

>>14608874
When temperature rises water also expands. The idea melting ice caps would significantly increase sea level was not exactly taken seriously by scientists

[Anonymous No.14610511]

>Be Australia
>Literal prison island
>Vax mandate
>Booster mandate
>Just opened for winter
>Omicron through the roof
>Emergency services strained
Yeah, should have got the inactivated virus vaccine

[Anonymous No.14610513]

Fuck the planet

[Anonymous No.14610978]

>>14609764
That's near-infrared sunlight, not heat from Earth. It actually has the opposite effect of the greenhouse effect, since its absorption at the top of the atmosphere prevents that energy from passing through and reaching Earth.

[Anonymous No.14610987]

>>14610391
>When temperature rises water also expands. The idea melting ice caps would significantly increase sea level was not exactly taken seriously by scientists
???

[Anonymous No.14611364]

>OP asks about climate change
>thread devolves into people arguing about how evaporation would affect sea levels
I think the only real answer here is not to get your answer from /sci/.

[Anonymous No.14611581]

Deserts spreading everywhere

All regions of europe get drier

Where I live, our whole local culture was based upon snow, and we have barely seen any for over 10 years

If you think climate change isnt real you are almost as delusional as a flattard

[Anonymous No.14611685]

>>14610978
>prevents that energy from passing through
sure bud, the glass cylinder was in orbit, in 1856.
your Nobel is in the mail

[Anonymous No.14611733]

>>14609764
>Eunice Newton Foote was an American scientist, inventor, and women's rights campaigner.
Rightoids must be seething

[Anonymous No.14611823]

>>14603769
Back then they also said that global cooling will be a problem, so...

[Anonymous No.14611827]

>>14611823
The did not

[Anonymous No.14611832]

>>14603659
>>14604049
>>14608848
>>>/wsg/4596882

[Anonymous No.14611833]

>>14611827
They did though? Why even bother lying?

[Anonymous No.14611839]

>>14611833
Why do you bother lying?

[Anonymous No.14611841]

>>14611839
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[Anonymous No.14611851]

>>14611685
No glass cylinder required. After it absorbs sunlight, it re-radiates it in all directions. So some of it is sent back to space. Same way greenhouse effect works but opposite direction.

[Anonymous No.14611858]

>>14611841
>Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.14611860]

>>14611841
Did you read that page?

[Anonymous No.14611862]

>>14611841
How embarrassing, you accidentally BTFO yourself, liar
>Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1]

[Anonymous No.14611864]

>>14611858
You talked about the UN and I told you what was advanced by political institutions and not by scientists

[Anonymous No.14611868]

>>14611823
This is the only real form of global cooling and it's magnitude was not sufficient to overpower anthropogenic global warming.

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

[Anonymous No.14611871]

>>14611864
The UN is not mentioned on that page, retard. Try reading next time.

[Anonymous No.14611873]

>>14611871
Club of Rome

[Anonymous No.14611875]

>>14611851
>source: my ass

[Anonymous No.14611881]

>>14611873
The Club of Rome is not the UN
>The Club of Rome is a nonprofit, informal organization of intellectuals and business leaders whose goal is a critical discussion of pressing global issues.

[Anonymous No.14611889]

>>14611881
>The Club of Rome is a nonprofit, informal organization of intellectuals and business leaders whose goal is a critical discussion of pressing global issues
You believe that shitty categorization? Do you believe every institution just exists in a vacuum?

[Anonymous No.14611893]

>>14611889
How far are you going to move the goalpost before you admit that you lied?

[Anonymous No.14611895]

>>14611823
You're replying to a post referencing the World Climate Conference in 1979. That makes your comment not only wrong, but maliciously so. Read the proceedings:
https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6319
Everything is in there: CO2 causes global warming, man-made climate change through burning fossil fuels. Why do retards still deny what was common knowledge in the 1970s? How deep must the fossil fuel dicks be in your anus to spew such bullshit 43 years after this conference?

[Anonymous No.14611900]

>>14608874
>>14610391
The formation and melting of icecaps can alter sea level by hundreds of meters

[Anonymous No.14611901]

>>14611889
Let me guess, you think that they sit together with Soros, Gates and the Bilderberg group in Davos, scheming how their chemtrails can vaccinate you through your tinfoil hat? Did I forget something?

[Anonymous No.14611903]

>>14611893
I didn't lie intentionally. I just repeated something, that somebody told me that I didn't bother checking the facts. Guess I can't trust nobody no more
>>14611895
>That makes your comment not only wrong, but maliciously so
Oh stop it you drama queen. Fossil fuel sucks alright. I just don't support some malthusian cry for hardcore austerity, which will be most likely be imposed on negros and poor people in general

[Anonymous No.14611907]

>>14611901
If you think that wealthy individuals don't have atleast some influence on policy, you are plain retarded or have some other intentions

[Anonymous No.14611908]

>>14611903
>I just repeated something, that somebody told me that I didn't bother checking the facts
Ah, so you're retarded. That explains why you're illiterate.

[Anonymous No.14611912]

>>14611908
>Ah, so you're retarded
Is that an issue nowadays?

[Anonymous No.14611930]

>>14611912
Yes.

[Anonymous No.14611936]

>>14611907
I wish, the Club of Rome or the climate conferences would have had a bigger influence. Had we started decades earlier, we would have more time now and better technologies. The last US president was talking about "clean coal" that the miners dig out and clean. Not that I like Biden, but such idiocy 40 years after this was already at the UN level kinda hurts. Not 40 years after the discovery of man-made climate change, but 80 years after that. Imagine destroying the planet to own the libs.

[Anonymous No.14611972]

>>14611930
Why?

[Anonymous No.14612010]

>CO2 doesn't cause "the greenhouse effect" on Mars, but here on Earth, physics works completely differently and CO2 causes a fukken hueg greenhouse effect on Earth
as if

[Anonymous No.14612023]

>>14612010
>doesn't believe in greenhouse effect
>ignores Venus conveniently

[Anonymous No.14612170]

>>14611875
Are you OK? That graph shows the near- infrared (0.8 to 3 μm) absorption. Notice how it overlaps with incoming radiation rather than outgoing.

[Anonymous No.14612179]

>>14611936
>I wish, the Club of Rome or the climate conferences would have had a bigger influence.
You don't know what you're asking for.

[Anonymous No.14612184]

>>14612010
>Atmosphere of Mars: 100 Pa
>Atmosphere of Earth: 100000Pa
gee I wonder how come Earth has more noticeable greenhouse effect

[Anonymous No.14612195]

>>14612010
>CO2 doesn't cause "the greenhouse effect" on Mars
Source?

[Anonymous No.14612259]

>>14612184
>i'm a sjw "internet activist", i don't understand even basic high school math or physics

[Anonymous No.14612484]

>>14612259
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/pressure-broadening

[Anonymous No.14612623]

>>14603680
Who told you that? CNN?

[Anonymous No.14612636]

>>14612623
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

[Anonymous No.14612656]

>>14612636
>people who get paid to detect global warming and who would lose their jobs if it turned out that global warming is fake say global warming is real.
bill cosby likes pudding pops

[Anonymous No.14612664]

>>14612656
Conspiracy theories with no evidence are not an argument. You would win a Nobel prize if you could determine that global warming is not occurring. Are physicists paid to say gravity is real? Are geographers paid to say the Earth is round?

[Anonymous No.14612832]

>>14612664
>with no evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

[Anonymous No.14613310]

>>14612832
>Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Thanks for agreeing with me.

[Anonymous No.14613362]

>>14612832
>>14613310
I love when climate change deniers BTFO themselves with sources they clearly haven't read

[Anonymous No.14614177]

>>14612832

[Anonymous No.14614781]

>>14614177
Show one scientific paper that was rejected just because it was against anthropogenic global warming.

Hint: you can't.

[Anonymous No.14615115]

>>14614781
You seem to be replying to the wrong person. Take a closer look at my pic.