/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14677375]

uh-oh...

[Anonymous No.14677378]

let's talk about how the ice increased in 2014...

[Anonymous No.14677380]

[Anonymous No.14677631]

What do we need then? Fusion? Global bans on greenhouse gasses? Carbon capture at the source for industry? Panic will solve nothing.

[Anonymous No.14677634]

>>14677631
The things have been clear since the late 70s: emit less CO2

[Anonymous No.14677637]

>>14677631
Fusion. The world needs fusion. ITER is not being publicized enough. The world should be watching with bated breath and putting pressure on those scientists to do their job right. And we need to fund efforts like that more.

[Anonymous No.14677641]

>>14677637
20 more years

[Anonymous No.14677668]

>>14677634
This is a bullshit response.
A. We don’t know the composition and distribution of particulate matter in the atmosphere
B. Particle size determines whether it settles in the troposphere or the stratosphere
C. The troposphere and the stratosphere are not thermally coupled. If a particle settles in the stratosphere it COOLS the troposphere.
>Source: Bohren and Huffman 2004 edition, as well as conversations with many atmospheric scientists who concede these facts
You might as well suggest that we emit more ammonium sulfate into the atmosphere to counter our CO2 production

[Anonymous No.14677698]

>>14677668
>This is a bullshit response.
If you think so, were you trying to one-up me?

[Anonymous No.14677701]

>>14677698
>no refutation of the argument
Thought not.

[Anonymous No.14677708]

>>14677701
Yeah why didn't you refute my argument?

[Anonymous No.14677715]

>>14677708
>>14677668

[Anonymous No.14677733]

>>14677715
You've been spamming this all over this board.

[Anonymous No.14677738]

>>14677733
And still no one can argue against it. Goes to show how dogmatic the climate change community is.

[Anonymous No.14677757]

>>14677668
What does atmospheric particulates have to do with CO2?

[Anonymous No.14677767]

>>14677738
It's a ridiculous idea to combat the environmental destruction from one pollutant with a second pollutant with potentially unforeseeable consequences. Haven't you learnt from Australia and China? We must stop polluting, not trying to find the right mix of pollution.

[Anonymous No.14677774]

>>14677757
>what does a tree have to do with plants?

[Anonymous No.14677789]

>>14677767
Reducing CO2 production could have “potentially unforeseeable consequences” too, smoothbrain. Just because a solution is unpalatable to you doesn’t make it invalid or ridiculous. I happen to agree that we shouldn’t solve the problem by polluting more (on aesthetic grounds which are often discarded in the name of progress, e.g. 5G towers), but that’s assuming that:
A. The problem exists
B. Mankind can have any effect whatsoever on the problem
I have seen sufficient evidence for neither A nor B.

[Anonymous No.14677861]

>>14677789
>Mankind can have any effect whatsoever on the problem
Hmm how about the fact that for the last million years CO2 fluctuated by 100ppm and in the last 100 years we have added 150ppm on top of the interglacial high.

[Anonymous No.14677867]

>>14677789
>Reducing CO2 production could have “potentially unforeseeable consequences” too, smoothbrain.
You mean the stable equilibrium of the last 10,000 years could have surprises?

[Anonymous No.14677895]

>>14677861
Assuming you’re right (show a study), let’s dump some ammonium sulfate in the stratosphere to cool things. Why do we have to reduce CO2?
>>14677867
https://www.rts.com/blog/plastic-eating-bacteria-a-new-solution-for-plastic-waste-or-just-science-fiction/
The earth and its other inhabitants respond very quickly to change. Reducing CO2 could have a dramatic effect on plant life, which requires it to survive. Think of it like this:
>let me feed ducks in my local pond
>more ducks come
>I can’t afford to feed all these ducks!
>Oh well, they have gotten along for millions of years without me feeding them, nothing will happen if I stop

[Anonymous No.14677927]

>>14677895
http://www.jerome-chappellaz.com/files/publications/epica-dome-c-record-of-glacial-and-interglacial-intensities-133.pdf
Geoengineering without stopping the root cause of the problem won't accomplish much

[Anonymous No.14677944]

I think... I think I'm gonna... I think. IM GONNA TROOOOST

[Anonymous No.14677957]

>>14677927
Lots of other factors to consider (pic rel is from the paper you cite).
Questions for you:
A. How do we know these core samples reflect atmospheric CO2 when we don’t have comprehensive in-situ atmospheric surveys?
B. Why does the study only extend 1 million years (a very short time in the Earth’s lifespan)?
C. What evidence is there that the man made CO2 content is sufficient to alter the troposphere’s temperature?
>Geoengineering without stopping the root cause of the problem won't accomplish much
D. Why not? That’s like saying “treating cancer without curing it won’t accomplish much”, when we don’t have a cure.

[Anonymous No.14677959]

>>14677634
>The things have been clear since the late 70s: emit less CO2

You first, KYS.

[Anonymous No.14677963]

>>14677957
Forgot pic.

[Anonymous No.14677968]

>>14677959
I'm biking to work, haven't flown in 10 years, buy most things second-hand and I'm virtually vegan (sometimes I sneak a piece of cake if a colleague brings it).
Now you.

[Anonymous No.14677970]

>>14677968
You're a malnourished lanky faggot with a BMI of 19. Lmfao these are the faggots who are climate shills

[Anonymous No.14677981]

>>14677968
>I'm biking to work, haven't flown in 10 years, buy most things second-hand and I'm virtually vegan (sometimes I sneak a piece of cake if a colleague brings it).
>Now you.

You're still producing more CO2 than if you were dead. Is this a crisis or is it not a crisis?

Or are you a 'special person' who will, like a little climate-reducing transistor, get other people to give up their lifestyle to "offset" your CO2 emission?

[Anonymous No.14677987]

>>14677957
A: air doesn't travel through ice. So the air bubbles can be correlated with the time they were encapsulated.
B: that's how old the ice at the bottom of the longest ice cores is. To get to a 800ka, you need to drill over 3km deep.
C: has nothing to do with ice cores and is so vague that I'd like you to be more precise with your question. Otherwise I'll probably answer a question you didn't mean to ask.
D: the cure is stopping. If someone is throwing pebbles at you the best solution is to make him stop and not think about throwing snowballs at you hoping that they absorb the pebbles

[Anonymous No.14677991]

>>14677970
Actually I just passed 24 because I've neglected my workout for work, but what's it to you?

>>14677981
Well the planet would obviously save more if you killed yourself. So why don't you start? You're obviously the lower hanging fruit.

[Anonymous No.14678002]

>>14677987
A. Doesn’t answer my question. How do we know that the quantities settling on the ground reflect what remains in the atmosphere without seeing in-situ studies confirming that hypothesis?
B. How have we found 500million year old fossils, if that’s the case?
C. Okay, I’ll be more specific: What evidence is there that the man made CO2 content in the atmosphere is sufficient to alter the troposphere’s temperature?
D. Without answering C you cannot make that assertion convincingly.

[Anonymous No.14678019]

>>14677957
>A. How do we know these core samples reflect atmospheric CO2 when we don’t have comprehensive in-situ atmospheric surveys?
There are studies that have historical in situ readings from the core location and from the ice core below and they overlap.
>B. Why does the study only extend 1 million years (a very short time in the Earth’s lifespan)?
That's the depth of the antarctic ice cap where we can get direct CO2 from
>C. What evidence is there that the man made CO2 content is sufficient to alter the troposphere’s temperature?
Satellite and in ground measurements of oncoming and outgoing radiation together with spectrographic reading showing the CO2 signature

[Anonymous No.14678031]

>>14678019
None of these constitute an in-situ measurement, and satellite studies of albedo are notoriously poor.

[Anonymous No.14678036]

>>14678002
I really don't get your question A. An air bubble that was trapped x years ago obviously consists of the air that was there x years ago.
B: they were not in ice
C: the CO2 content has increased by 50% over the past 150-200 years. At the same time, the ratio of C13 to C12 in the atmosphere has decreased. Plants have less C13 than the atmosphere, so this is in good agreement with us burning liquefied plants/fossil fuel. Additionally, the oxygen concentration has decreased matching exactly what's needed to get the increase of CO2 from burning and not from a volcano or something. And the additional amount in the atmosphere is pretty much exactly the same as our emissions. So yeah, we can be sure that the CO2 is ours. And that an increase of 50% has a measurable effect can be seen in the change in the infrared spectrum emitted by CO2 in our atmosphere

[Anonymous No.14678043]

>>14678031
>None of these constitute an in-situ measurement,
What do you define as in-situ? That a scientist travels back 800,000 years in time?

[Anonymous No.14678044]

>>14678019
There are in situ records of the overlap of CO2 in the air and in the core.

[Anonymous No.14678049]

>>14678043
No, I want to see a study where we send a fleet of balloons up with CO2 counters, which is something the atmospheric science community has been begging for for a long time. It would go a long way to supporting climate science claims, so why isn’t it funded by climate change alarmists?

[Anonymous No.14678053]

>>14678044
Instrumental where? How many? Is it representative of the global levels? You are measuring CO2 in a region where there are no plants to consume it!

[Anonymous No.14678057]

>>14678053
CO2 is rapidly well mixed in the atmosphere. This has been known for decades

[Anonymous No.14678058]

>>14678049
What the fuck would those balloons prove or even measure? That at a certain height we have the same CO2 concentration as on the ground?

[Anonymous No.14678062]

>>14678058
>>14678057
WHERE the CO2 settles is an extremely relevant question as my first post showed: >>14677668
The distribution determines the thermal effect. If the CO2 settles in the stratosphere, the effect is the complete opposite of that which it would have settling in the troposphere. The two are not thermally coupled!

[Anonymous No.14678065]

>>14677991
Kek faggot. Imagine being overweight on a vegan diet! You definitely engorge on processed foods, and yet you're climate shill. Ahahahahahahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.14678070]

>>14678062
>WHERE the CO2 settles is an extremely relevant
It's a gas. What do you expect? That it settles at the bottom? That gases separate by density? That's not what gases do.

[Anonymous No.14678078]

>>14678062
>>14678049
Those studies have been made many times. If you don't know about the topic why can't you do some research beforehand?

[Anonymous No.14678079]

>>14678070
>tfw you realize you’ve been arguing with someone that doesn’t understand archimedes’ principle
Anon, everything in both the troposphere and the stratosphere is a gas. The gases settle in different distributions at different altitudes according to particle size/density. We don’t know where the CO2 is settling and in what distribution because an in-situ study has never been done.

[Anonymous No.14678082]

>>14678079
>We don’t know where the CO2 is settling and in what distribution because an in-situ study has never been done.
so fucking clueless

[Anonymous No.14678084]

>>14678062
>The two are not thermally coupled!
What's that even supposed to mean? Heat transfer from greenhouse gases works almost exclusively by radiative transport, not heat conduction.

[Anonymous No.14678089]

>>14678078
What was the scope of your study? How can we know it was representative of global levels across many years?
>October
When most of the foliage on earth is dead? Show me the studies! Send links! I have asked atmospheric scientists for a long time for them and they have come up short. Maybe you know something they don’t.

[Anonymous No.14678094]

>>14678089
Fuck off, troll. There's absolutely no reason all the CO2 of the atmosphere should clump up in a corner in December or May. Gases mix. The concentration variation as a function of altitude is extremely small compared to the overall changes.

[Anonymous No.14678097]

>>14678089
This stuff has been studied for the past 20 years
Read some literature then come back
https://ps.uci.edu/~rowlandblake/publications/177.pdf
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c882/815b353aa089a354264f46a9e2e8ed83b0ff.pdf

[Anonymous No.14678101]

>>14678094
>there’s no reason CO2 should be reduced when plants are around to consume it
>>14678082
Show me the links!
>>14678084
Pic rel is from a textbook on Mie scattering.

[Anonymous No.14678105]

>>14678089
Next you're going to ask about the profile above Kiribati on Christmas? The CO2 gets everywhere, gases are not like liquids that settle according to their density.

[Anonymous No.14678110]

>>14678101
This is talking about particulates not gasses… two completely different things are you having a stroke?

[Anonymous No.14678111]

>>14678097
>1st study onboard a CO2 emitting aircraft
>second says this:
>This reconstructed CO2 product is based on a Lagrangian backward trajectory model driven by ERA-Interim reanalysis meteorology and tropospheric CO2 measurements.
Try again!

[Anonymous No.14678121]

>>14678101
Mie scattering has absolutely nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. Mie scattering describes scattering (duh!) on particles of similar size as the wavelength. CO2 is a factor 2000 times smaller than the light were talking about. We're talking about absorption and emission. Are you trying to muddy the waters here? Must be, otherwise you wouldn't have a book on Mie theory at hand. You know that gases mix. You know that there's no Mie scattering on CO2. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.14678122]

>>14678110
Of what do you think gasses are comprised?

[Anonymous No.14678124]

>Ice cover decreasing
>Heat waves across the world
>Droughts of unheard-of severity in the Western US
>Wildfires on multiple continents
>All resulting from a century or so of nonstop fossil fuel use
>Retards STILL don’t believe anthropogenic climate change
You guys deserve to be gassed. My only solace is that when collapse really kicks into high gear you guys will suffer just like the rest of us.

[Anonymous No.14678126]

>>14678121
It is in a textbook from a course I took on Mie scattering. Bohren and Huffman, I welcome you to read it and educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.14678128]

>>14678126
I know Mie scattering, it is even mentioned in my dissertation you clown. Who do you think you can fool by throwing in random physics processes that have nothing to do with CO2 or the greenhouse effect?

[Anonymous No.14678131]

>>14678121
Gases mix to some extent but anyone who’s studied thermo knows about distributions. The distribution is what matters.

[Anonymous No.14678135]

>>14677380

[Anonymous No.14678136]

>>14678128
Illiterate nigger, it is simply in the book we used for a Mie scattering course. You can cry and bitch about what to call it some more, or you can read what the argument says and try to refute it.

[Anonymous No.14678137]

>>14678122
Individual, free, unbound molecules. Not particulate matter.

[Anonymous No.14678139]

>>14678137
So CO2 is a particulate then! C is bound to two Os!

[Anonymous No.14678140]

>>14678136
Mie scattering has nothing to do with anything here. Why even bring it up, faggot?

[Anonymous No.14678146]

>>14678139
Kys, independently of whether you're trolling or actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.14678148]

>>14678140
>SSA isn’t discussed in scattering courses
>SSA isn’t relevant to global warming
I only mentioned Mie Scattering in passing to provide context. You are the sperg fixating on it. Are you possibly… an affirmative action PhD?

[Anonymous No.14678149]

>>14678111
>ignoring the balloon dataset
>thinking that the team put their instrument on the plane exhaust
You’re being purposely dishonest or completely clueless. In thinking the latter since you didn’t know vertical co2 profiles have been a thing for decades

[Anonymous No.14678153]

>>14678146
In the textbook cited, CO2 is counted among particulates (rightfully so):
>>14677668

[Anonymous No.14678155]

>>14678148
Greenhouse effect is not scattering. End of discussion. Do you have questions regarding the greenhouse effect or do you just want to annoy people?

[Anonymous No.14678161]

>>14678153
It says carbon, not carbon dioxide. Tiny difference.
I'm starting to think you're really dumb. Respect if you're trolling.

[Anonymous No.14678164]

>>14678149
>the balloon dataset, presented without source
Yeah, I’ll ignore it.
>>14678155
>greenhouse effect is not scattering
Anon… I’m sorry to inform you we must revoke your Mie Scattering PhD (probably some worthless measurements anyway kek)

[Anonymous No.14678166]

>>14678153
Do you have dementia? There’s no carbon dioxide listed anywhere there unless you think carbon combustion particulate is CO2 in which case you do have dementia

[Anonymous No.14678171]

>>14678161
The carbon in CO2 is included in “natural carbon”. Read the book.

[Anonymous No.14678172]

>>14678164
You didn’t even bother to read the methodology or the references

[Anonymous No.14678177]

>>14678166
See: >>14678171
I love that climate alarmists have to fixate on irrelevant things like “what is a particle” and “that’s not real Mie scattering!!!1!”
How about you justify some of your dogma for us? We are all still waiting.

[Anonymous No.14678178]

>>14678166
Come on, let's leave it be. 80% sure he's trolling, 20% that he's actual Dunning-Krugering here and just goes from fallacy to fallacy with the occasional obnoxiousness "you didn't show the CO2 concentration at 17km above Burma on March 4th". No idea if anyone would actually think of that as a good point. Either way it's a waste of time to interact with him.

[Anonymous No.14678181]

>>14678178
>>14678171
Yeah, make it 95% sure he's trolling.

[Anonymous No.14678182]

>>14678172
Point me to it: >>14678078
all I see is a pic with 0 citations

[Anonymous No.14678192]

>>14678177
You’re conflating two completely different things. Particulate (aerosol) distributions and CO2 (gas) distributions. You don’t even bother to read the papers and claimed that vertical CO2 distributions were unknown when they have been studied for decades. Looks like you’re the one hitting that crack pipe

[Anonymous No.14678193]

>>14678178
>>14678181
>when climate alarmists can’t prove their arguments they simply give up
K. Even if we grant that your fallacious CO2 arguments are reliable, there is no evidence of the contribution it has to tropospheric temperatures. Even if we granted that, again without evidence, there is no evidence that reducing CO2 emissions is the only solution or even a tenable solution.

[Anonymous No.14678197]

>>14678172
>>14678182
Don't. I shift to 100% sure he's trolling. I mean, you have to be a literal mongoloid to not see the source.

[Anonymous No.14678198]

>>14678192
See: >>14678193

[Anonymous No.14678207]

>>14678197
I’m waiting on a mass spec to run some samples so I have time to call him out on his blatant lying

[Anonymous No.14678208]

>>14678197
Still waiting on that source bud.

[Anonymous No.14678210]

>>14678177
>>14678193
>>14678182
Yeah, of course everyone gives up if you talk complete nonsense and pretend you don't see the links posted here: >>14678097
I mean, no one believes you honestly have trouble clicking on it and scrolling a bit down. And if you do, you need some other kind of care than we can offer. So either you're pretending to be retarded, or you are. Why would anyone interact with you then?

[Anonymous No.14678216]

>>14678207
>>14678208

[Anonymous No.14678218]

>>14678207
I hope you're not in Europe, otherwise you should go home soon. Have a good day, I'm getting dinner now.

[Anonymous No.14678219]

>>14678139
You don't even know what a molecule is. LOL

[Anonymous No.14678224]

>>14678210
I *saw* your links and found them unconvincing. You’re pretending you don’t see my problems with them, here:>>14678111

[Anonymous No.14678226]

>>14678216
>>14678208
>>14678210
>>14678097

[Anonymous No.14678228]

>>14678164
>Yeah, I’ll ignore it.
Thanks for admitting you have no argument.

[Anonymous No.14678230]

>>14678224
You're pretending that there are no sources when you saw them. Why? Seriously, why? Is it picrel?

[Anonymous No.14678231]

>>14678219
Pretty arbitrary definition for particulate matter you have, and one which conflicts with the author of the book cited. Use his definition if we’re to have a conversation.

[Anonymous No.14678235]

>>14678198
There are direct measurements of increasing radiative forcing by CO2 but Why should I bother to post links when you don’t even read them?

[Anonymous No.14678238]

>>14678230
Who cares? Address my issues or admit you can’t: >>14678111

[Anonymous No.14678241]

>>14678231
The book quite literally does not define CO2 as an aerosol because the author isn’t a dishonest liar like you are

[Anonymous No.14678245]

>>14678235
I read enough to see the flaws. If the setup is flawed why should I care about what results they got?

[Anonymous No.14678249]

>>14678238
Read the methodology and you’ll see that they use aircraft measurements and balloon measurements. Your argument is nonsensical because the aircraft is not affecting the CO2 readings

[Anonymous No.14678256]

>>14678241
>still fixating on irrelevant parts of the argument
>still can’t prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.14678258]

>>14678249
Are you still talking about the Fall study? When most of the foliage on earth is dead (CO2 is left unconsumed)?

[Anonymous No.14678260]

>>14678245
>measurements are wrong because I say so
Embarrassing

[Anonymous No.14678261]

>>14678256
We're talking about wavelengths of 14μm and you're talking about 200pm. You don't have a point.

[Anonymous No.14678271]

>>14678258
>(CO2 is left unconsumed)
What difference does it make? I mean, there's a seasonal effect in the concentration (picrel), but what do you expect to be different in spring or summer?

[Anonymous No.14678272]

>>14678260
>measurements are representative of all seasons because I say so
Tragic

[Anonymous No.14678274]

Since the crazy carbon tax shill is probably in this thread as well...
>>14676399
>i claimed exactly the opposite
You claimed there is some unknown negative feedback preventing the water vapor from being part of a feedback, in response to being told water vapor amplifies warming from CO2. Remember?
I didn't make that claim either you idiot. My only claim from the start was that the effects of irrigating formerly dry land may be underestimated.

[Anonymous No.14678279]

Since the crazy carbon tax shill is probably in this thread as well...
>>14676399
>>i claimed exactly the opposite
>You claimed there is some unknown negative feedback preventing the water vapor from being part of a feedback, in response to being told water vapor amplifies warming from CO2. Remember?
I didn't make that claim either you idiot. My only claim from the start was that the effects of irrigating formerly dry land may be underestimated.

[Anonymous No.14678282]

>>14678272
Again, not reading the source. The more recent study includes balloon data spanning 20 years and different locations and seasons.

[Anonymous No.14678284]

>>14678271
I expect the seasonal effect to be more thoroughly studied and accounted for. I expect better than some Lagrangian model based on tropospheric measurements alone. You want people to upend their lives and abandon luxuries they’ve become accustomed to, you’re going to have to do a damn sight better than this to convince them.

[Anonymous No.14678294]

>>14678284
So you think that in spring all the CO2 moves elsewhere after it's been super well mixed? Because.... why exactly? The concentration on the ground varies by 5ppm due to biomass? Seriously, do you expect an effect >5ppm anywhere?

[Anonymous No.14678307]

>>14678294
>super well mixed
Read your own source dipshit

[Anonymous No.14678319]

>>14678307
How big is the difference?

[Anonymous No.14678326]

>>14678284
Again you show how clueless you are because there’s observational data of radiative forcing changing along with seasonal CO2 variability

[Anonymous No.14678327]

>>14678319
The question you should be asking is this: how much does it take to increase the temperature of the troposphere? If there is no answer, then we can go in circles about CO2 levels all we like and never answer anything about global warming.

[Anonymous No.14678329]

>>14678326
>no source
Where you pulling the graph from bud?

[Anonymous No.14678331]

>>14678326
So radiative forcing increases directly with the CO2 concentration in the air? That was one of your questions wasn't it? So you provided proof yourself

[Anonymous No.14678335]

>>14678327
No because the difference is 5-10ppm, which is our emission in 2-4 years. Whatever minuscule effect you might find is completely overshadowed after 4 years. Same for your seasonal variation.

[Anonymous No.14678337]

>>14678335
So tell me how much CO2 it takes for us to see appreciable temperature changes in the troposphere.

[Anonymous No.14678338]

>>14678337
IIRC, it was first proven in 1942, so not much.

[Anonymous No.14678349]

>>14678337
Actually, the answer is in your own plot: >>14678326
a difference of 5ppm has a clearly visible impact on the radiative forcing.

[Anonymous No.14678350]

>>14678329
Why should I bother doing your homework? You’re not going to read it anyway. These are well known data. The fact that you didn’t know there were balloon datasets of CO2 shows you have little knowledge of the topic

[Anonymous No.14678354]

>>14678349
You’re confusing the clueless denier with me. I’m proving him wrong

[Anonymous No.14678355]

>>14678338
Not an answer.

[Anonymous No.14678366]

>>14678350
>why would I bother convincing people of saving the world?
If you really believed the stakes were so high, you’d bother. Also >>14678354
radiative forcing =/= temperature. What’s the equation relating the two?

[Anonymous No.14678369]

>>14678337
At least what was emitted between 1970 and 1996. Next question.

[Anonymous No.14678377]

>>14678369
Brightness temperature =/= temperature, much less does that give any indication of biologically appreciable temperatures.

[Anonymous No.14678380]

>>14678369
In fact we see no change in this part of the spectrum!

[Anonymous No.14678384]

>>14678377

[Anonymous No.14678390]

>>14678366
Wow it’s truly a mystery how increasing energy reaching the surface from the CO2 greenhouse effect has an effect on surface temperatures

[Anonymous No.14678393]

>>14678384
>frogposting
Answer the questions, climey.

[Anonymous No.14678399]

>>14678390
No one will deny there’s a relation, but how drastic is it? It’s possible you’re crying about something trivially unimportant. Prove otherwise.
>you won’t, and now you realize why the dogma shifted from “global cooling” to “global warming” to “climate change”

[Anonymous No.14678419]

>>14678399
So we went from "is there proof" to "how much is needed to find it" to "ok we can prove it, but how drastic is it"? Did I get this right?

[Anonymous No.14678425]

>>14678399
Hmm I wonder why temperatures have been increasing 20x faster than in the onset of the interglacial period in the Holocene

[Anonymous No.14678427]

>>14677375
Why do we pretend to care about all these tiny changes in temperature? Really?

[Anonymous No.14678429]

>>14678419
No, I am still not convinced that the CO2 studies are reliable. Less so now that I’ve seen more studies showing the inhomogeneity of the CO2 distribution ITT. I am, for the sake of argument, suspending my disbelief of your argument and allowing you to take it to its rational conclusion. You claim CO2 is causing global warming. Show proof of the degree to which temperature changes with changing CO2 levels. When you fail at that, I’ll suspend my disbelief again to counter the third and final part of your argument: that we should reduce CO2 emissions.

[Anonymous No.14678434]

>>14678425
Zoom out nigger

[Anonymous No.14678439]

>>14678429
>confusing instantaneous CO2 distributions and ignoring the fact that the gas is well mixed in the atmosphere within a year

[Anonymous No.14678441]

>>14678429
>the inhomogeneity of the CO2 distribution
By 5-10ppm. If that causes "doubt" then I really don't know what to say.

[Anonymous No.14678445]

>>14678434
>racism
Not cool.
Are you gonna tell us that 500 million years ago everything was hotter again?

[Anonymous No.14678451]

>>14678445
>>14678441
>>14678439
Again, you haven’t convinced me and you won’t with what you’ve shown. Let’s move on to the CO2 vs Temperature relationship. All I’ve seen is >>14678369
which actually shows no change at one of the CO2 wavelengths >>14678380
(which would refute your first argument, but let’s ignore that). Explain to me how much CO2 is needed to change the Earth’s temperature appreciably.

[Anonymous No.14678455]

>>14678445
>muh racism
>>>/r/eddit
Downvote me if you don’t like it, nigger.

[Anonymous No.14678458]

>>14678279
You did:

>Just because you can't name any negative feedbacks preventing runaway warming caused by a small increase in water vapour doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Anonymous No.14678467]

>>14678451
>lying again
Increasing greenhouse forcing has been directly measured. You just have no ability to even read a graph

[Anonymous No.14678468]

>>14678451
Look, just click through skepticalscience.com yourself.

[Anonymous No.14678473]

>>14678467
That is a negative sign anon. Are you saying it causes cooling? Either way, you’re ignoring my questions about this graph: >>14678377
>>14678380
>>14678451

[Anonymous No.14678486]

>>14678467
Maybe I should be more specific: What is the mathematical relationship between radiative forcing and surface temperature? I want to know how much radiative forcing has to change before we feel an appreciable temperature change.

[Anonymous No.14678487]

>>14678486
>before we feel an appreciable temperature change.
We already do. Does that not answer your question?

[Anonymous No.14678496]

>>14678487
No, it doesn’t. Your graph >>14678425
is a terrifically short time span and doesn’t even establish correlation between temperature and radiative forcing / CO2 levels. How can we possibly claim that >>14678425
is proof that CO2 is the dominant factor?

[Anonymous No.14678509]

>>14678496
>How can we possibly claim that >>14678425 # is proof that CO2 is the dominant factor?
Yeah how can we possibly? I bet this was never proven, so I better ask the billionth time

[Anonymous No.14678520]

>>14678509
Okay, you’re not proving your assertion so let’s move on to the third part of your argument: that we should reduce CO2 levels. Why do you consider this the only solution, when we could simply add aerosols to the stratosphere to cool the earth? It wouldn’t force us to abandon an industrial way of life, upending our society. Why is your approach better?

[Anonymous No.14678541]

>>14678520
Ok since for once you were not an annoying little shit, I even reward you with picrel.
>Why do you consider this the only solution, when we could simply add aerosols to the stratosphere to cool the earth?
Because that's ridiculous. Even if you could match the exact emissions, what's the plan? Let's emit aerosols while we keep burning dinosaurs? Until when? Until we're covered in smog? Seriously? And how do you ensure that the radiative forcing is perfectly balanced?

[Anonymous No.14678546]

>>14678451
>you haven’t convinced me
Non sequitur. You ignore any evidence that would convince any rational person.

[Anonymous No.14678555]

>>14678541
Until we can get fusion technology which, as I said >>14677637 is the ultimate solution. THAT’S our cure. Taking oil from a society that runs on oil is like taking the blood from a person to “cure” them of some illness. Yeah, they’ll be cured, but they’ll also be dead. Such would be the case for society. If, on the other hand, we accept temporary remedies/treatments like controlled stratospheric pollution until we have fusion (the cure), the society can survive and continue to thrive.

[Anonymous No.14678558]

>>14677375
I don't get it, but I'm saying right now that I'm not eating any bugs

[Anonymous No.14678567]

>>14678541
>how do we tune the pollution right
A subject for further research I suppose. It seems a lot easier to pollute than to reduce pollution at this point. The costs of reducing CO2 emissions are tremendous and would necessarily decimate human populations. Reduction of CO2 is the misanthropic approach.

[Anonymous No.14678568]

>>14678555
>the ultimate solution
No, fusion is not the Endlösung. It's just the icing on the top of your idiocy.

[Anonymous No.14678573]

>>14678568
>he doesn’t want limitless clean energy
We have come closer and closer to breaching Lawson’s criteria with every attempt. You truly are a misanthrope if you don’t want that for humanity.

[Anonymous No.14678591]

>>14678458
if i admit defeat at this little word game we're playing is it going to make you feel good about yourself? fine. i admit defeat. savor your "victory".

[Anonymous No.14678593]

>>14678568
People like you have been preaching “the end is near” for fifty years. Humanity will survive another fifty years or so on its current trajectory while it figures out fusion, the more so if it takes precautionary measures like controlled stratospheric pollution.

[Anonymous No.14678596]

>>14678573
I'm not against fusion, I'm against holding my breath the next 20 years. Also, the transition to electricity is necessary either way.

[Anonymous No.14678602]

>>14678593
>controlled stratospheric pollution
This sounds horrible, like adding a different color of poop to a toilet and pretending the poops cancel out. What the fuck dude,

[Anonymous No.14678623]

>>14678596
See >>14678593
20 years is not going to doom us. There is a clear political agenda behind such fearmongering. There has been since 1973 at least. We need to look at ways to alleviate the pressure of the situation without abandoning our way of life altogether. You’re right about electricity, 100%. But we need to get that energy from somewhere. A vast majority of it will continue to come from fossil fuels until fusion is here. The answer is not to unplug our society altogether, live in pods, eat bugs, and abandon all modern comforts, though.
>>14678602
That’s how a lot of people feel about cell towers, satellites, street lamps, even roads. In the name of progress we put up with such things. If it’s a matter of survival then we should do it, even if it’s unpleasant. I can assure you there are many that would prefer to try that over “eating the bugs”.

[Anonymous No.14678632]

>>14678623
It's been 20 more years for 60 years already. If you don't believe the clear evidence of global heating but believe that we'll have fusion power in 20 years, you're the ultimate midwit.

[Anonymous No.14678643]

>>14678632
The difference is that we have tangible evidence of progress toward fusion, while there is no tangible evidence that continuing to use fossil fuels will result in irreparable global catastrophe any time soon.

[Anonymous No.14678646]

>>14677634
Nuclear it is then.

[Anonymous No.14678649]

>last year
>record cold in antarctic for months on end
>science: "i see nothing"
thats why the rest of us see nothing when the scientists chimp out over warmer than average weather, they're just a bunch of greedy charlatans who willfully abuse logic and reason in order to try to justify gibes and other free money for themselves

[Anonymous No.14678655]

>>14678496
We have comparable data going back 400k years and such a high rate of temperature change has not been observed

[Anonymous No.14678657]

>>14678649
>thats why the rest of us see nothing when the scientists chimp out over warmer than average weather
You literally are doing the thing you accuse scientists of doing (which they aren't). Global heating is about global effects, not "it was warm/cold once in that location"

[Anonymous No.14678658]

>>14678655
A. Show me the data
B. How does this = irreparable global catastrophe
C. Why can’t we reverse this with controlled stratospheric pollution instead of eating bugs?

[Anonymous No.14678665]

>>14678623
lulz...

[Anonymous No.14678685]

>>14678658
>A
Read the thread
>B
>what are tipping points
>C
Are. You. Serious?

[Anonymous No.14678704]

>>14678643
omg it's elon bezos in the thread
posting horseshit rationalizations for gluttony and consumerism again
so fun!!

[Anonymous No.14678713]

>>14677634
tell. this. to. chyna. india.

[Anonymous No.14678728]

>>14678713
we don't speak chinese. and anyway why would they listen to some gwailo? better chances of conveying an idea to someone of your own culture, no?

[Anonymous No.14678733]

>>14678713
The average pajeet and cheng emit less than you.

[Anonymous No.14678736]

>>14678685
A. I’ve read the thread, I’ve written half the thread. Try to keep up
B.
>what is evidence?
C.
>EAT THE BUGS!
>STOP DRIVING CARS!
>LIVE IN POD!!
Are. You. Serious?

[Anonymous No.14678738]

>>14678733
Geopolitical average is the dumbest possible take. It's only the assholes and actors who travel to climate conferences in private jets that matter.

[Anonymous No.14678742]

>>14678733
>my "workers" can live off the bugs in a pod when they're not working to provide me with the stuff i need to CONSUUUUUUUUME
>its all about the per capita, you deplorable little bigot

[Anonymous No.14678751]

>>14678738
>Geopolitical average is the dumbest possible take.
Well, individually. You're to pajeets what jetsetters are to you.

[Anonymous No.14678753]

>>14678751
Nope, not even close.

[Anonymous No.14678771]

>>14678736
>/pol/ buzzwords and memes

[Anonymous No.14678773]

>>14678496
The greenhouse effect, which again has been directly measured

[Anonymous No.14678785]

>>14678124
t. climate cultists who typed this on his plastic keyboard while wearing polyester clothes

[Anonymous No.14678800]

I approach the climate problem like I approach most things; I try to imagine just how corrupt/ignorant/malicious/institutionalized climate science must be in order for most of it to agree on an issue and that issue to be not in at least some part, an issue.

My conclusion? It's probably an issue.

[Anonymous No.14678974]

>>14678591
>if i admit defeat at this little word game
That's funny since all you've done is make up strawmen about "runaway warming" and ignore that water vapor isn't even a radiative forcing.

[Anonymous No.14678982]

>>14678771
Go ahead, tell me YOUR solution to climate change.
>>14678773
You’re on /sci/, you have to post proofs

[Anonymous No.14679028]

>>14678366
>posts endless bait
>wh...wh...whyyy wont they keep taking it??? WAAAAHHHHHHH! YOURE THE RETARD FOR NOT SPOONFEEDING ME!!!!
log off and read a book, faggot. dont bother asking me one of your retard questions, I won't answer because it's a waste of my time. nobody is "saving the world" by entertaining a summerfag on /sci/

[Anonymous No.14679038]

>>14679028
>nobody is “saving the world” by answering reasonable questions about climate change alarmists
Okay, but you see how that sort of proves my point.

[Anonymous No.14679043]

[Anonymous No.14679053]

>>14678974
>water vapor isn't even a radiative forcing
yes, of course. whatever you say buddy. i already admitted defeat. so now you can run along and tell all your friends over at reddt how much of a hero you are

[Anonymous No.14679057]

>>14678593
The first two covers are about cold weather in the US. You're a fucking hack.

[Anonymous No.14679061]

>>14678425
HOLY SHIT IT'S HOTTER IN AN INTERGLACIAL PERIOD THAN DURING A GLACIATION!?!?!?!?!?

You know we're still in an ice age, right?

[Anonymous No.14679075]

>>14678643
>irreparable global catastrophe any time soon.
Look at all these weasel words. Almost anything can be repaired, the question is at what cost.

[Anonymous No.14679089]

>>14679053
>REEEEEEEEDDIT
Let me know when you're done with your tantrum and have anything substantive to say.

[Anonymous No.14679090]

>>14678982
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

[Anonymous No.14679094]

>>14679061
>HOLY SHIT IT'S HOTTER IN AN INTERGLACIAL PERIOD THAN DURING A GLACIATION!?!?!?!?!?
You competent failed to respond to anything he said. Look at the last post of the graph. Notice how it's warming 20x faster than the last interglacial warming. Explain.

[Anonymous No.14679108]

>>14679089
>water isn't even a radiative forcing
you've won. you're a real winner. ive admitted defeat so you can now go off to enjoy relishing your victory here in this huge internet debate.

[Anonymous No.14679113]

>>14678773
On Mars, the European Space Agency measured nearly 0 greenhouse effect and Mars has 2000% more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Earth does. CO2 can't be a greenhouse gas on Earth if it do the same thing on Mars.

[Anonymous No.14679118]

>>14679108
cue him posting a smug reply like he actually out-argued you... in fact i wouldnt be surprised if I get beaten to the punch while typing this because he's sniffing this thread's ass like a crackhead looking through his carpet for the last crumb of rock

[Anonymous No.14679121]

>>14679108
Still having your tantrum, just let me know when you're done.

[Anonymous No.14679122]

>>14679113
yeah and much less actual atmosphere in the first place. try looking at venus instead, einstein

[Anonymous No.14679130]

>>14679090
Oh, look. The same retard who posts the same nonsequitur paper he hasn't read in every thread lol.

[Anonymous No.14679134]

>>14679113
>On Mars, the European Space Agency measured nearly 0 greenhouse effect and Mars has 2000% more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Earth does.
Because Mars gets less every from the Sun, or has no water vapor, and it has a thin atmosphere so no pressure broadening effect. But you already know this.

>CO2 can't be a greenhouse gas on Earth if it do the same thing on Mars.
It does the same thing, just with less energy and less pressure broadening. It produces exactly the amount of warming expected from the greenhouse effect when you consider all relevant factors.

[Anonymous No.14679137]

>>14679118
he's a staple around here.
his passion in life is winning debates on the internet.
i don't know what we'd do without him, or what he'd do without us.
god bless his special soul

[Anonymous No.14679140]

>>14679118
>cue him posting a smug reply like he actually out-argued you
Any argument is out-arguing no argument. You gave up and decided to throw a tantrum instead.

[Anonymous No.14679141]

>>14677631
CO2 output =
(number of people) x
(economic prosperity per person)
Chose what combination of the two you want to reduce.
Then realize that it's not enough, because of already active positive feedback mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.14679143]

>>14679137
Why are you talking to yourself, samefag?

[Anonymous No.14679145]

>>14679130
Explain how the paper is a non sequitur. (You won't)

[Anonymous No.14679158]

>>14679145
>Explain how the paper is a non sequitur.
The paper qua paper isn't a nonsequitur. Your posting it is.

>(You won't)
Thanks for proving you lie in every post.

[Anonymous No.14679162]

>>14679143
no. the frodo poster seems to be a casual observer in awe of your awesome and impressive internet debating skills.

[Anonymous No.14679174]

>>14677757
Particles reflect light before it turns to IR

[Anonymous No.14679179]

>>14679158
>Your posting it is.
Exlain how. For example, you could describe what the paper says and explain how this is different from the greenhouse being measured. But you won't. Because you just post bullshit that you never are able to back up. Your disgusting behavior is so predictable that I can easily say you will never explain your claim, and you'll just prove me right in every subsequent post. lmao

[Anonymous No.14679180]

>>14677375
>oh me oh my I AM GOING TO DIE
Well, of course we are all going to die. The way we die is almost beside the point.

[Anonymous No.14679184]

>>14679162
frodoposter here, yup spot-on assessment my friend

one silver lining of this thread is I now have some great joke arguments to troll my lab coworkers with tomorrow. thank you for your dedicated service, spamtard anon!

[Anonymous No.14679187]

>>14679162
You're as terrible at samefagging as you are at climate science.

[Anonymous No.14679191]

>>14677637
>The world needs fusion.
Absolutely not. All that would accomplish is an impetus to further unchecked population growth which anyone with a brain knows is the root problem of all environmental ills.
The real solution is a series of massive wars, catastrophic diseases, mass starvation, societal collapse which results in a reduction in population by 90 to 95%.
Then you need the rise of a new technology orientated civilization that practices true sustainability, limits population growth, and ruthlessly exterminates anyone who does not. Only then would fusion reactors be okay. Only by such drastic events is Humanity ever going to survive and escape this gravity well before the Sun burns out.

[Anonymous No.14679195]

>>14679187
Yes. Because the best climate science is being done as we speak, right here, by shitposters like you, right on this very internet messenging bored.

[Anonymous No.14679196]

>>14679191
the divination rod tells me you were horrified at the damage to the georgia guidestones and routinely pick up pennies off the sidewalk

[Anonymous No.14679197]

>>14679174
CO2 is transparent to sunlight but not to IR.

[Anonymous No.14679202]

>>14679195
Another idiotic strawman. No science has to be done here for you to misrepresent it terribly.

[Anonymous No.14679205]

>>14679196
My friend once glued a quarter to the sidewalk and watched and laughed as people would try to pick it up to no avail. This was before inflation. I miss him.

[Anonymous No.14679214]

>>14679202
Your sentences are disjointed. I don’t even know what you are trying to say. Punctuation is your friend.

[Anonymous No.14679221]

>>14679205
rip a real bro, sorry to hear that anon, that's hilarious

[Anonymous No.14679227]

>>14679184
>now have some great joke arguments to troll my lab coworkers
what like
>water vapour isn't even a radiative forcing
?

[Anonymous No.14679234]

>>14679179
>Exlain how.
The paper you haven't read (but continually link to for no reason) has no logical connection to any of the posts you reply to by linking the paper.

[Anonymous No.14679237]

I think its weird how there's all this babble but still no proof that climate change is caused by humans. It's like a big marketing campaign.

[Anonymous No.14679246]

lay off the amphetamines buddy, youve posted thrice in a row now with no other interaction from the crowd and youre like 80% of this inane thread. jannies, cleanup in aisle 4!

[Anonymous No.14679251]

>>14679246
>>14679246
samefag

[Anonymous No.14679285]

>>14679251
i imagine you as this strange little twitchy tweaker outcast freak with an extremely dysgenic face. does your little juiced-up heart spike your pulse and blood pressure every time you see that new post notification go off on this thread you evidently keep up and pay attention to constantly? does the anxiety eat at you so bad you need to repetitively post every minute or two to keep it on page one and ensure your racing thoughts continue to get vomited onto the internet? do you also sperg out like this every time you try (and fail) to talk to a real person, scaring them away with your spaghetti? how ass-mad are you right now reading this? i bet you're already crafting a snarky reply in your head to pretend i'm not spot-on. you're in this thread for kicks because it's the only way you can interact with others. you can hide behind a screen and cope yourself a throne of autism. keep spamposting and wasting your life on here, little schizo, at least this zoo cage of a thread is keeping you quarantined from the rest of us irl

[Anonymous No.14679330]

>>14679251
You replied to the same post twice. Or is that the joke? Anyway climate change is fake and we all know it.

[Anonymous No.14679430]

>>14679285
>>14679330
samefag

[Anonymous No.14679496]

>>14677631
I agree, we need more talking about actual solutions rather than debating the origins of the problem.

[Anonymous No.14679505]

>>14679234
>it's a non sequitur
>>explain
>IT JUST IS OK????
lmao, you're so predictable.

[Anonymous No.14679509]

>>14679237
There's plenty of proof, including direct observation. See >>14679090

[Anonymous No.14679518]

>>14678738
No it's the literal billions of people who consume fossil fuels every day you stupid fuck

[Anonymous No.14679530]

>Russian shills still trying to convince people it's not real
Lmao

[Anonymous No.14679551]

>>14679214
>Your sentences are disjointed.
How so?

>I don’t even know what you are trying to say.
Then you're retarded.

>Punctuation is your friend.
There's no punctuation missing, retard.

[Anonymous No.14679553]

>>14679234
I'm going to post that link too since it seems to trigger you so much and you can't even explain why.

[Anonymous No.14679872]

>>14679509
Correlation is not causation.

[Anonymous No.14679972]

>>14679141
>Then realize that it's not enough
And then we start killing off the largest emitters.

[Anonymous No.14679975]

>>14679122
>>14679134
Why do the good people always fall for the same bait?
Why do the jannies tolerate violations of global rule 3?

[Anonymous No.14680042]

>>14678079
In situ study has never been done?
What, like.. In the clouds??

Ay ay ay dios mio, get some four eyed gringos in a hot air balloon right now and go and measure that shit

[Anonymous No.14680055]

>>14680042
They even did. Links to such papers were posted. But first the denier didn't like the month the data were taken and then pretended that no link was ever posted.

[Anonymous No.14680117]

>>14680055
No evidence proving causation in a planet size model has ever been presented.

[Anonymous No.14680121]

>>14679191
You first kike

[Anonymous No.14680142]

>>14680117
>Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.14680385]

>lowest is 2022
>highest is 2014
so that's what happens when you compare individual years to decade averages uh?
>literally no secular trend when you compare decades
Gretabros... look at this fat polar bear... we got too cocky...

[Anonymous No.14680580]

>>14679872
The paper says nothing like that. What correlation are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.14680586]

>>14680117
But that's wrong. See >>14679090

[Anonymous No.14680587]

>>14680580
Read the paper.

[Anonymous No.14680591]

>>14680587
I did. The paper says nothing like that. What correlation are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.14680593]

>>14680591
What part of this are you not getting? Correlation is not causation. Post evidence to support your climate change theory.

[Anonymous No.14680622]

>>14679872
Even though you saying the correlates with the proof presented to you that doesn't mean it's true. Correlation of GPT-4chan showing up and scientific evidence being discussed doesn't mean that the causation of the spambot lies in the falsehood of said evidence.

[Anonymous No.14680626]

>>14680593
Keep parroting this for all I care. It has nothing to do with whatever is presented to you.

[Anonymous No.14680629]

>>14680593
>What part of this are you not getting?
I'm not getting what correlation you're referring to you've avoided the question twice now. If you don't answer, you're admitting you're just making shit up that has nothing to do with the paper.

[Anonymous No.14680633]

>>14680629
The correlation of him being a retard and parroting "correlation is not causation" doesn't mean that there is causation. Maybe he's a retard and has different reasons to parrot this.

[Anonymous No.14680646]

>>14677634
Or: reflect the sunlight with humongous amounts of low-altitude clouds with cloud machines powered by renewable energy

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Clouds
>the high thin cirrus clouds tend to enhance the heating effect, and low thick stratocumulus clouds have the opposite effect, while deep convective clouds are neutral. The overall effect of all clouds together is that the Earth's surface is cooler than it would be if the atmosphere had no clouds.

[Anonymous No.14680649]

>>14680633
Could just be a shill. Either way, he's making shit up.

[Anonymous No.14680652]

>>14680646
We need sunlight to grow food.

[Anonymous No.14680654]

>>14680646
There's no proof that this works.

[Anonymous No.14680663]

>>14680629
Nobody has avoided any questions. Just accept you have no evidence to suggest manmade co2 is causative of temperature change.

[Anonymous No.14680678]

>>14680663
https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

[Anonymous No.14680679]

>>14680663
>Nobody has avoided any questions.
Lie. You've avoided the question "What correlation are you talking about?" three times now. Thanks for admitting you're just making shit up.

>Just accept you have no evidence to suggest manmade co2 is causative of temperature change.
Lie. The evidence was already provided to you. See >>14679090

I think this shill is trying to make deniers look even more retarded than they are. That's the only possible explanation for lying over and over again. That or mental illness.

[Anonymous No.14680685]

>>14680652
Not above the oceans.
>>14680654
The information reflects the best current knowledge.

[Anonymous No.14680692]

>>14680685
There are no studies proving anything, so why should we rely on that? Let me guess: troost the aerosol scoience

[Anonymous No.14680700]

>>14680678
>>14680679
Correlation is not causation

[Anonymous No.14680707]

>>14680700
That's why I sent you a link that proves causation. Go ahead, open it, it's not a virus.

[Anonymous No.14680724]

>>14680685
>Not above the oceans
Ever heard of phytoplankton? They are the basis for the entire ocean foodchain.

[Anonymous No.14680725]

>>14680700
Shillbot is broken.

[Anonymous No.14681008]

>14677378
>260+ responses
>the climate alarmists ignore how the ice increased in 2014
curious, dontcha think?

[Anonymous No.14681017]

>>14680593
>>14680663
The basic molecular properties of CO2 means it absorbs and reemits IR back to the planet. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this

[Anonymous No.14681200]

>>14681008
It increases every year Anon, that's called winter.

[Anonymous No.14681210]

>>14679505
Not an argument, thanks for continuing to lie in every post.

[Anonymous No.14681212]

>>14679553
>says he's going to post the link
>doesn't post the link
Another proud liar and/or retard, nice lol.

[Anonymous No.14681221]

>>14681212
Just like all deniers. It's simply what they do, being retarded and lying.

[Anonymous No.14681256]

>>14681200
it decreases every year, anon. that's called summer --- so what's the problem?

[Anonymous No.14681277]

>>14681256
Correlation is not causation.

[Anonymous No.14681403]

>>14681210
Show one lie. The only one who lied is you since you claim the paper is a non sequitur but can't explain how. Thanks for proving me right, again.

[Anonymous No.14681435]

>>14681403
Let me just focus on the lies that can be uncovered by just the information in this thread. No need for external validation.
>>14678153
Here, you claim that CO2 is listed in your book, when it clearly says carbon.
>>14678208
>>14678164
Here, you were lying and pretending that the other anon did not post a source, which he did earlier: >>14678097

[Anonymous No.14681665]

>>14681435
None of those posts are me, schizo.

[Anonymous No.14681722]

>>14681665
Then use a fucking tripcode if you want people to recognise you.

[Anonymous No.14681803]

>>14681722
How about you read the thread instead of claiming posts with no connection to each other are made by the same person.

[Anonymous No.14681822]

>>14681803
How about you stick your finger up your butt and lick it?

[Anonymous No.14682031]

>>14681403
>you claim the paper is a non sequitur
Thanks for lying again in the very same post you asked me to show a lie. Saves time.

[Anonymous No.14682758]

>>14682031
Not a lie. Here's the proof:
>Oh, look. The same retard who posts the same nonsequitur paper he hasn't read in every thread lol

Thanks for again proving me right. Loser.

[Anonymous No.14682997]

>>14682758
Proof of your intentional lie right here:
>The paper qua paper isn't a nonsequitur. Your posting it is.
Thanks for being unable to write a single post without lying.

[Anonymous No.14683031]

>>14677378
Ice extent doesn't mean an increase of ice, it just means that more ice spreads over the sea. The continental ice is literally spreading outwards as it melts away.

[Anonymous No.14683036]

Why are climate alarmists so unreasonable and disingenuous? It's outrageous, really.

[Anonymous No.14683038]

>>14682997
>>The paper qua paper isn't a nonsequitur. Your posting it is.
Irrelevant. No one said the "paper qua paper is a non sequitur." You said the paper is a non sequitur. Not only have you continuously failed to explain how, as I predicted, now you're lying about it.

[Anonymous No.14683046]

>>14681008
See >>14683031

[Anonymous No.14683047]

>>14683038
You lied and you're tripling down on your lie. Thanks for always being the most consistent liar in these threads.

[Anonymous No.14683050]

>>14683036
Who are you talking to?

[Anonymous No.14683159]

>>14683046
His next words will be: we can't measure the volume directly so it's fake data.

[Anonymous No.14683182]

>>14683159
why would he say it's fake data? wouldn't he just he it's useless data? i mean for example i could measure how long it takes for a shit to swirl down a toilet drain on the same day every year and it's not like my data would be fake

[Anonymous No.14683195]

>>14683159
>>14683182
you two literally have no idea what i'm talking about, do you? look at op's image. from 1979-2012 ice is decreasing and
>OMG GLOBAL WARMING
then in 2014 the ice INCREASES and suddenly it's
>crickets
>excuses
>but muh ice is just covering more area
then in 2022 the ice decreases and suddenly it's
>OMG SEE IT'S MELTING
dishonest fucks.

[Anonymous No.14683197]

>>14683182
Because I literally had this exact same conversation yesterday. I noticed during a binge of making fun of tards on /pol/ that they all repeat the same arguments. And when they're cornered, they'll dispute the method used to derive the data while uncritically presenting misleading graphs. That popular one showing the CMIP5 predictions don't match the measurements? It doesn't even use the same baseline temperature. God it's so tiresome. Some of them aren't even trolling.

[Anonymous No.14683203]

>>14683197
>the climate alarmist shill who's always whining about /pol/ posters invading /sci/ literally admits to browsing /pol/
fucking lol. you can't make this stuff up.

[Anonymous No.14683205]

>>14683195
>>14683197
Or they'll just ignore everything you say. Not even considering a steel-man for the sake of discourse. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.14683209]

>>14683205
i gave up steel-manning you retards a long time ago when it became clear all you do is project. seethe and cope, alarmist idiots.

[Anonymous No.14683210]

>>14683203
I don't regularly browse either board because both have degenerated into wastelands. I came here because the inevitable heat wave climate threads might be fun. Please consider that your faculties of pattern recognition may be giving false positives.

[Anonymous No.14683213]

>>14683195
You have a low IQ.

[Anonymous No.14683217]

>>14683213

[Anonymous No.14683225]

>>14677375
why did they group together 9 year intervals? what hapens when you try to do the same graph but in reverse? (group starting from 2021 using the same 9 year interval)

[Anonymous No.14683229]

>>14677375
wait, where are the 2019, 2020 and 2021 data?

[Anonymous No.14683244]

>>14683047
>You lied
Prove it. (You won't, just like you'll never explain how the paper is a "non sequitur")

[Anonymous No.14683252]

>>14683229
all polar bear deaths for those years were reported as covid instead of ice displacement

[Anonymous No.14683263]

>>14683195
>I don't know the difference between a trend and an outlier
OK

[Anonymous No.14683270]

>>14683263
Not an argument. Climate change is fake.

[Anonymous No.14683275]

>>14683263
>2014 is an outlier but not 2022
so you don't understand statistics.

[Anonymous No.14684694]

>>14683270
It is an argument. You're conflating two different things. Climate change is proven.

[Anonymous No.14684702]

>>14683275
Correct, 2022 is consistent with the recent trend of antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past decade, dropping to its lowest levels since measurement began, even though 2014 was a peak. This is extremely worrying.

[Anonymous No.14684712]

>>14684702
Um sweaty? Look at Op again. The trend is ice increasing. Zoom in if your too blind to tell. Why do climate shills lie so much?

[Anonymous No.14684738]

>>14683195
It's not unreasonable to wonder how, if the planet is warming, Antarctic winter sea ice can set record highs. Antarctica's sea ice growth spurt may be down to stronger winds and slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves.

Much of 2014’s sea ice growth occurred late in the winter season, and weather records indicate that strong southerly winds blew over the Weddell Sea in mid-September 2014. Antarctica is a continent surrounded by open ocean. So unlike the Arctic, where surrounding landmasses constrain how much sea ice can expand, Antarctic sea ice can spread out over a bigger area. Winds blowing from the land toward the ocean encourage ice growth in the waters north of the continent.

Winds probably did not act alone to spur so much sea ice growth; melting land ice may have played a role. Most of Antarctica's ice lies in the ice sheets that cover the continent, and in recent decades, that ice has been melting. Along the coastline, ice shelves float on the ocean surface, and much of the recent melt may be driven by warm water from the deep ocean rising and making contact with ice shelf undersides.

How does the melting of land ice matter to sea ice formation? The resulting meltwater is fresher than the seawater. As it mixes with the seawater, the meltwater makes the nearby seawater slightly less dense, and slightly closer to the freezing point than the ocean water below. This less dense seawater spreads out across the ocean surface surrounding the continent, forming a stable pool of surface water that is close to the freezing point, and close to the ice onto which it could freeze.

So as counterintuitive as expanding winter Antarctic sea ice may appear on a warming planet, it may actually be a manifestation of recent warming.

[Anonymous No.14684750]

>>14684738
>Warming causes more ice
Kek. Kys retard.

[Anonymous No.14684762]

>>14684712
>The trend is ice increasing
Wow, such a strong trend!
You are technically correct, although your deductions are probably wrong. At least if "climate shills" doesn't mean the lying oil lobbyists.

[Anonymous No.14684767]

>>14684750
Well, it is warming. Are you denying that?

[Anonymous No.14684773]

>>14684750
There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

Antarctic sea ice is complex and counter-intuitive. Despite warming waters, complicated factors unique to the Antarctic region have combined to increase sea ice production. The simplistic interpretation that it's caused by cooling is false.

[Anonymous No.14684813]

>>14683244
>same lie four times in a row
You just can't help yourself, can you?

[Anonymous No.14684844]

>>14684712
>The trend is ice increasing.
Not since 2014, no. Antarctic sea ice was at its highest point and now keeps dropping to its lowest points.

[Anonymous No.14684854]

>>14684813
Abs now you've proven both of my predictions correct. lmao

[Anonymous No.14684873]

>>14684854
Thanks again for proving you lie in every post.

[Anonymous No.14685475]

>>14684873
See >>14683244

[Anonymous No.14685549]

>>14685475
>>14685475

[Anonymous No.14685660]

>>14685549
No proof. Thanks for admitting you lied.

[Anonymous No.14685669]

>>14685660
>No proof.
See below, and thanks.
>Thanks for admitting you lied.

[Anonymous No.14685747]

>>14685669
You failed to provide any proof of your claims. You lied.

[Anonymous No.14685849]

>>14685747
I never claimed I did. Lying is what you do, I just point it out. Thanks for yet another example.

[Anonymous No.14685903]

>>14685849
>I never claimed I did.
I didn't claim you did.

>Lying is what you do
See >>14685475

You again failed to provide proof of your claims. You know you lied.

[Anonymous No.14685912]

>>14685903
Thanks for confirming you lie in every post.

[Anonymous No.14685964]

>>14685912
See >>14685903

[Anonymous No.14686088]

Fucking bots are getting out of control.

[Anonymous No.14686119]

>>14685964
>>14685964

[Anonymous No.14686891]

>>14677631
Fission until fusion is viable

[Anonymous No.14687057]

>>14686119
See >>14685964

[Anonymous No.14687277]

>>14687057
>>14687057