/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15884152]

How come Nature says that the last time it was the climate was warmer than it is currently was during the previous interglacial when the Egyptian warm periods, the Roman warm period and the medieval warm periods were all warmer than it is currently?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00063-w
>Warmer temperatures than today, over a period spanning millennia, most recently occurred in the Last Interglacial period, about 129,000 to 116,000 years ago

[Anonymous No.15884170]

>>15884152
Because nature is a political propaganda magazine and not a scientific journal.

[Anonymous No.15884225]

>>15884152
>the Egyptian warm periods, the Roman warm period and the medieval warm periods were all warmer than it is currently?
Source: a plot with no y axis or x axis

[Anonymous No.15884233]

>>15884225
It's a copy of a well-known IPCC graphic.

[Anonymous No.15884235]

>>15884233
I don't know it.

[Anonymous No.15884238]

>>15884235
That's because you're unqualified.

[Anonymous No.15884249]

>>15884238
Wanna be a dick about it or provide the original with the axes?

[Anonymous No.15884258]

>>15884249

[Anonymous No.15884260]

>>15884258
Go back.

[Anonymous No.15884268]

>>15884249
You chose the terms of engagement when you commented.

[Anonymous No.15884279]

>>15884268
The terms are not providing any data? How did I choose that?

[Anonymous No.15884302]

[Anonymous No.15884368]

>>15884152
How come you post the same unlabeled graph about Europe's climate instead of the global climate.

>>15884233
No it's not.

[Anonymous No.15885091]

>>15884170
This

[Anonymous No.15885236]

>>15884302
you were already banned for posting that image previously this month, why are you still spamming up with it?

[Anonymous No.15885409]

>>15885236
I wasn't.

[Anonymous No.15886199]

>>15885236
delicious chud tears

[Anonymous No.15886647]

>>15884152
Nature is fake and gay political propaganda just like all the other publications of it's ilk

[Anonymous No.15886733]

reminder that climate change has very little to do with science and very much to do with formulating an excuse to further state control over our lives

[Anonymous No.15887486]

>>15886647

[Anonymous No.15887489]

>>15887486
Did you read it?

[Anonymous No.15888736]

>>15884279
you decided to talk to the shitposting idiot

[Anonymous No.15889067]

>>15887489
why would anyone bother reading garbage?

[Anonymous No.15889602]

>>15889067
low IQ people read dumb stuff

[Anonymous No.15889608]

>>15889602
It's arguably lower IQ to chimp out at headlines without even reading the article they're upset about.

[Anonymous No.15889656]

>>15889608
arguably?

[Anonymous No.15890661]

>>15884368
It's a copy of a well-known IPCC graphic.

[Anonymous No.15890671]

>>15890661
No it's not.

[Anonymous No.15891023]

[Anonymous No.15891057]

>>15884152
Well there's money and state control on the line now

[Anonymous No.15891127]

>>15891023
>SCNR
>their homepage
Nice source chud
>looks up specific article
>Experts Debunk Viral Post Claiming 1100 Scientists Say...
Kek. So predictable

[Anonymous No.15891194]

>>15891127
>Kek
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.15891211]

>>15887489
Only a retarded moron like you would post links to those ignorant crackpots. Nobody needs your low effort spam.

[Anonymous No.15891356]

>>15891023
Most of them are not even scientists but literally fossil fuel industrialists. The scientists are morals retired geologist and other people from unrelated fields. Also, everyone is overwhelmingly geriatric. Even if they're not senile, they won't care about the future. I once checked the first 30 signatories or so, you can probably find the post on warosu.

[Anonymous No.15891364]

>>15891356
Didn't find the warosu one, so I'll link someone else's work instead of mine: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/oct/09/tweets/did-1609-scientists-sign-a-declaration-saying-ther/
Doesn't matter who looks it up, there geriatric oil industrialists one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.15892579]

>>15891364
>politifact.com
why do people come to 4chan to spam the boards with globohomo propaganda?

[Anonymous No.15892591]

>>15892579
Refute the argument, not the source.

[Anonymous No.15893466]

>>15892591
you're a propagandist, you're not interested in science >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.15893593]

>>15891356

>Most of them are not even scientists but literally fossil fuel industrialists.

like those """scientist""" who said climate change is caused by humans?

[Anonymous No.15893627]

>>15884152
Those warm periods were all allegedly localised

[Anonymous No.15893635]

>>15893593
Learn English, Evgeny.

[Anonymous No.15893683]

>>15893627
The historical record tells us that they were worldwide and climate proxies seem to agree.

[Anonymous No.15893698]

>>15891356
>okay, so they're scientists but they're not the right kind of scientist
>and they're being paid by companies that have invested heavily in solar and wind since the 2000's
>and they're too old
>they're probably all stupid too
>and they hate children

[Anonymous No.15893725]

>>15893683
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.15893759]

>>15884233
>>15890661
>well-known
>IPCC graphic
come on now

[Anonymous No.15893880]

>>15884152
Because we hadn't razed all the wildlife so most of the planet was more of a jungle and had more water vapour which is very good at creating a greenhouse effect

[Anonymous No.15894435]

>>15893698
>and they hate children
nobody hates children more than the pro-abortion crowd

[Anonymous No.15894609]

>>15893593
There is not a single scientific institution on planet Earth that denies man made climate change. Not a single one. The very last organization which signed a declaration that climate change is real, dangerous, and caused by humans was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists nearly 20 years ago. That’s how overwhelming the evidence is.

The denialists are law firms for oil billionaires, coal companies, and hedge fund managers that band together to protect their money through organizations like the Heritage Foundation. A non scientific conservative think tank who literally hired tobacco industry law firms to keep the denialist train rolling.

[Anonymous No.15894678]

>>15894435
What about the school shooting enablers?

[Anonymous No.15895065]

>>15884152
>How come Nature says that the last time it was the climate was warmer than it is currently was during the previous interglacial when the Egyptian warm periods, the Roman warm period and the medieval warm periods were all warmer than it is currently?

They are not. The graph you posted is severely outdated. Past temperature reconstruction are done via proxies, like for example water isotope in ice cores, pollen in lake sediments, diatoms in ocean sediments, etc.

Early paleoclimate has northern hemisphere bias, because mostly science of the 18th and 19th century were predominantly done by people in the northern hemisphere. Pollen and plant fauna record from Danish lakes for example, show clear medieval warm period and warm roman period. However, people don't realize the concept of bipolar seesaw until way later when we managed to synchronize antarctic and greenland ice core (the first antarctic ice core was in 1970s)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_see-saw

What happen most of the time is local NH warming is balanced by Southern hemisphere cooling, due to the ocean conveyor belt redistributing heat. A more modern GLOBAL (not regional, not greenland ice core, not the classic northern hemisphere like the north atlantic Iberian margin 'Shackleton' ODP site) like for example pic related, or PAGES2K reconstruction do not show this bias.

[Anonymous No.15895545]

>>15894678
680 people have died in school shootings since 1970
a million babies were murdered in abortions last year
the two problems aren't comparable, school shootings are vanishingly minuscule compared to the abortion problem

[Anonymous No.15895644]

>>15895545
What's worse? Never being born or getting shot in school?

[Anonymous No.15895678]

>>15895065
>Medieval Warming? Oh, that was regional.
>Ice cores? Yes, those are perfect representations of global climate - completely immune to any regional fluctuations
Were the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, and Medieval scholars all liars?

[Anonymous No.15895688]

>>15895678
>Ice cores?
Plus sediments. Plus speleothems. Plus corals. Plus fossils. Also, ice cores don't come from just one location, you can compare ice cores from Greenland, Antarctica, the Himalayas and the Andes. Please explain how local effects show up in ice cores from around the world.

[Anonymous No.15896159]

>>15895678
As you noticed, they all live in Northern Hemisphere

[Anonymous No.15896265]

>>15895644
That's a philosophical question and I'm not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.15896268]

>>15895644
>>15896265
Obviously being shot is worse. A fetus has no understanding of what's happening around it, especially before the third trimester.

[Anonymous No.15896921]

>>15894609
>appeal to authority
essentially thats just admitting that you don't know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.15897589]

[Anonymous No.15897600]

>>15896921
An appeal to authority is valid. It raises the burden of proof significantly.

[Anonymous No.15897719]

>>15897600
No it doesn't, its an admission of personal ignorance

[Anonymous No.15897900]

>>15895688
Answer the question. Is every historian pre 19th century a liar?

[Anonymous No.15897904]

>>15897900
If you define liar as someome who doesn't talks with absolute empirical certainty

[Anonymous No.15897923]

>>15897904
So historical records of agricultural production, astronomy, weather data, and so on isn't 'empirical certainty' because it wasn't peer reviewed?

[Anonymous No.15897937]

>>15897900
I know you are.

[Anonymous No.15898283]

>>15897900
No, but they are geographically biased bc historical record keeping were mostly done by northern hemisphere culture. What part of this do you not understand

[Anonymous No.15898286]

>>15897923
The medieval warm period was a local effect as local proxies and local historical records show.

[Anonymous No.15898860]

>>15898286
>Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240837
>The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events

[Anonymous No.15898875]

If anyone's keeping track, I’ve recently switched from 60% sure climate science is more useful to humanity than to politicians, to 60% sure it's more useful to politicians than it is to humanity. I would still kill a politician to save a generic scientist but I'd need more information if the generic scientist were specified to "climate."

[Anonymous No.15899587]

>>15897900
no, but all of the global warming hysterics are

[Anonymous No.15900255]

>>15898860
That article is about finding evidence that the medieval warm period also affected coral in the Maldives. It is not evidence of the medieval warm period being global.

[Anonymous No.15900287]

>>15898860
>Rosenthal et al.
Trolling is a rule violation.

[Anonymous No.15901045]

>>15900287
>science triggers me emotionally
why are you even on this board if seeing science upsets you so badly?
just stop looking at /sci/ and all of your anger will disappear, its that easy

[Anonymous No.15901847]

>>15898286
debunked by >>15898860

[Anonymous No.15901849]

>>15901847
Debunked by >>15900287

[Anonymous No.15903327]

>>15901849
nope, thats antisemitic

[Anonymous No.15903330]

>>15903327
Global boiling advocacy is radical leftism, and all radical leftists are antisemites.

[Anonymous No.15903527]

>>15903330
does that, by america logic, mean if you are against the idea of global warming you're a jew?

[Anonymous No.15903529]

>>15903527
No but it would behoove Jewish people to be against global boiling activism, since it ultimately stems from an antisemitic movement.

[Anonymous No.15903548]

>>15900255
>claim: "the Medieval Warm Period was a local event!"
>evidence: the Medieval Warm Period affected Europe, China, South East Asia
>moronic refutation: "W-well all the other places we don't have accurate records for, or any records at all, must have not experienced it!"

[Anonymous No.15903551]

>>15903548
You've encountered the "bailey" part of the argument. Congratulations on realizing they're not arguing in good faith.

[Anonymous No.15904147]

>>15903551
Atheists never do anything in good faith, atheists have no faith, they are faithless and unfaithful, they don't know what faith is, nobody ever bothered to teach them and they never decided to learn on their own

[Anonymous No.15904353]

>>15903548
>>15903551
>>15904147
Are you actually retarded? Finding evidence of the medieval warm period in coral in the Maldives is not evidence that the medieval warm period was global or that it affected all of China and Southeast Asia. Even if it were evidence that it affected all of China and Southeast Asia that is not evidence that it was global.

You will never be a scientist.

[Anonymous No.15904693]

>>15904353
finding that it affected various different parts of the world is evidence that it was a global event

[Anonymous No.15904735]

>>15904693
Ok, quick question: El Niño, local or global phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.15904848]

>>15904693
Lol no.

[Anonymous No.15904855]

>>15904735
Are you saying there was a local phenomenon in the Middle Ages that happened to affect Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, China, and SE Asian islands - all regions with completely different local climate systems, like monsoons and so forth - and it was merely coincidence these are also the only regions which wrote anything down?

[Anonymous No.15904910]

>>15904735
>>15904848
yes

[Anonymous No.15904962]

>>15904855
If it was global, why can't you see it in global temperature plots (aka the hockey stick) the way you see it in plots of the temperature in the North Atlantic?

[Anonymous No.15904977]

>>15904962
>experts said there was no medieval warming period, so there wasn't any
So when do you guys meet? On Sundays like Christians, or on Saturday? I can't do Mondays.

[Anonymous No.15904980]

>>15904962
Because it was produced before better proxy data was collected. Science isn't some static process, we re-evaluate our hypotheses when new data arises.

[Anonymous No.15904989]

>>15903548
It was a regional event most pronounced in Europe. Just like now, where warming is more pronounced in certain regions.

[Anonymous No.15904998]

>>15904989
>the hockey stick meme
fake and gay

[Anonymous No.15905015]

>>15904998
>Europe temperatures vs global

[Anonymous No.15905021]

>>15904998
Multiple studies with many more proxy reconstructions have been done since Mann's and they all confirm he was right

[Anonymous No.15905025]

>>15904998
Thanks for proving my point here: >>15904962
The North Atlantic (European) data shows a clear warm period in the medieval times. The global data doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15905042]

This argument is going in circles.
>Position: "The hockey stick graph is false. Just look at the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods, from which we have evidence from not just Europe but China and SEA as well."
>Counterargument: "But the Hockey Stick Graph shows that the Medieval Warm period was a regional event!"

[Anonymous No.15905047]

>>15905042
I don't know why the chud keeps circling back to the unfounded claim that the "hockey stick" is fake either.

[Anonymous No.15905747]

>>15904998
Michael Mann is jewish

[Anonymous No.15905786]

>>15905747
So what? I'm an atheist and no journal ever asked me about religion when I submitted a paper.

[Anonymous No.15906084]

>>15905047
we have been tracking global temperatures for a bit more than 100 years, so we really do not know how much global temperatures oscillate within hundreds and thousands of years

[Anonymous No.15906105]

>>15891023
hello pol

[Anonymous No.15906135]

>>15906084
Nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15907025]

>>15905786
atheists lie about everything, so you're lying about that

[Anonymous No.15907759]

>>15884152
>Warmer temperatures than today, over a period spanning millennia, most recently occurred in the Last Interglacial period, about 129,000 to 116,000 years ago

how come all life on earth didn't get wiped out by the runaway greenhouse effect back then

[Anonymous No.15908054]

>>15907025
You're right, you caught me. The editors usually ask about my religion.

[Anonymous No.15908704]

>>15908054
nice larp, you've never published anything

[Anonymous No.15909710]

>>15884152
If you still do not understand, that climate panic has nothing to do with doing good for the environment but only controling people then you are absolutely retarded.

No government or NGO or the UN goes after big polluters and destroyers of nature.

It's all about guilttripping the little people.
Not the companies that aquire big chunks of nature, to destroy it.
No no no they tell YOU:
>you did this to the nature because you [consoom product]
>we have NO CHOICE and NOBODY STOPS US from doing this to nature
>it's YOUR fault

>Oil spill
It's YOUR fault
>Plastic in the oceans
It's YOUR fault.
Man there are people who pedantically seperate trash, and still think:
>its my fault thet there is a trash island in the ocean
People in highly taxed countries pay for recycling, and they obey trash seperation to the max. AND STILL if they pay and do their best, the agencies and institution that THEY pay to seperate and recycle and securely dispose of the trash, fuck up the environment, and NOBODY blames them.
These people whip themselves all the time.
And this is desired.

Nobody blames the perpetrators that swindle the public with greenwashed PR into obedience.
Nobody blames the perpetrators that fuck up south americas and other unfortunate countries with their mining operations and monopolisation of the water supply.
It's always YOU or WE.
>Bro we destroy the planet
no it's not we.
It's a subset the 1% of the 1%.

[Anonymous No.15909720]

>>15909710
You bought BP's narrative hook, line, and sinker

[Anonymous No.15909775]

>>15909720
BP, you mean the company currently investing billions in solar and wind?

[Anonymous No.15909829]

>>15909775
You mean the billions they're pouring into natural gas to greenwash their use of fossil fuels? Yep. Same company that manufactured the carbon footprint narrative that you bought into and are criticizing environmentalists for. You fell for it hard, bro. I'd be embarrassed if I were you.

[Anonymous No.15909866]

>>15909775
Can you really blame them for trying to not become irrelevant in the coming decades?

[Anonymous No.15909878]

>>15909775
>BP is reviewing solar and onshore wind: renewables chief
>Firm plans to retain 80% of the green power it produces
>Aims to supply own EV charging network, hydrogen business
They just don't get high on their own supply.

[Anonymous No.15909885]

>>15909878
The "green power" they produce is natural gas thanks to the EU deciding that natural gas counts as renewable energy.

[Anonymous No.15910312]

>>15887486
>trust in democracy make him the only choice

[Anonymous No.15910317]

>>15884152
>when the Egyptian warm periods, the Roman warm period and the medieval warm periods were all warmer than it is currently?
Because you're lying.

[Anonymous No.15910333]

>>15891127
Hi jew

[Anonymous No.15910399]

this looks very scientific

[Anonymous No.15910763]

>>15909885
natural gas is renewable energy, always has been

[Anonymous No.15910782]

>>15910763
Lol no.

[Anonymous No.15911170]

>>15909720
The so called "environmental" movement only has one boogey man:
>CO2
Also you pretend like BPs only investment is "oil" kek
Who owns BP ?
>Banks and the State

They have a interest in running people into walls.
First making them rely on only "Gasoline" by making alternatives impossible.
Then blaming YOU for it.
It's easy.

They pull the strings, they generated the "environmental" movement that only focuses on one thing:
>CO2
While ignoring:
>Fucking up forrests (big mega corps)
>Fucking up soils with Pesticies (by state regulations forcing farmers to use Herbicides and Pestcides from Big mega corps)
>Fucking up the water supply (Mega corps & Big Chem)
>Displacing a buckload of people and forcing them to live in trash (Big mega corps with mining operations)
>Starving people and drying out rivers by monopolizing the Water supply (Big mega corps)
>Polluting the environment with toxic solvents from mining operations (Big metal)
>Polluting the water with shitty chemicals from fracking (Big Oil)
But no it's not them It's YOU.
You the little guys the people who are already taxed the shit out and will never be able to afford a home.
You the little guys who constantly touch elbows in public transportation to "help the climate".
You the little guys who cannot afford or even get offered non plastic wrapped, organic locally grown food
You the little guys who mostly have the option to buy imported long distance travelled fruits and processed shit from accross the globe.
It's your fault.
It's not the State working hand in hand with mega corps to ensure farmers MUST grow monocultures of nutritionless corn all over the state, instead of diverse vegetables.
It's YOU and your meaningless consoomer existance who is at fault.
Not the Framework that is constructed to be that way.
YOU feel guilty.
Live in the pod.
Move to walkable 15 minut open air priso... uh cities.
Consoom only high processed optimized food like "Soilent" or "YFood" or some shit like that.

[Anonymous No.15911176]

>>15911170
95% of the environmental movement is local fights against development, forestry, and mines that you never even hear about.

[Anonymous No.15911210]

>>15911176
>local fights against development
local is a codeword for Nazi
>against development
Is a codeword for "anti science"
>forestry
Is a codeword for anti Wind and solar plants
>mines
Is a codeword for Anti electric vehicle

In my country, I know this shit.
All local fights against, companies and "projects" which tear down forrests and dry up wetlands, any within the inland media they will be propagandized against and described as:
>right wing esotherics

While people who glue themselves on the streets and destroy property they are called "climate warriors".

[Anonymous No.15912351]

>>15910782
>i'm smarter than the EU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

[Anonymous No.15912407]

>>15911170
>>15911210
>>15912351
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.15913163]

>>15912407
projection, just because you're addicted to psychiatric medication doesn't mean everyone else is. tell your doctor you're still suffering from delusions of grandiosity, you might need a dosage increase to treat your condition, your absurd fantasy life is completely out of control

[Anonymous No.15914191]

>>15911176
No it isn't, not anymore, all of that has been almost completely consumed by the false and useless concern over CO2

[Anonymous No.15914781]

>>15914191
The late 1990s was the last time the environmental movement showed any concern over local issues, the WTO protest in 1999 marked the end of that and the transition a sole focus on globally focused and globalist controlled environmental movement. That transition allowed to globalists to accomplish things like logging the last remaining old growth timber on the west coast, which had previously been contested by local environmental concerns.

[Anonymous No.15915082]

>>15913163
>The irony

[Anonymous No.15916098]

>>15914781

[Anonymous No.15917668]

>>15915082

[Anonymous No.15917680]

>>15914781
Dude, the logging industry on the west coast has been dead since the 80's.
t. lives in an area with nothing but old growth timber

[Anonymous No.15918588]

>>15917680
estacada was cut and replanted in the 1920s, its not old growth

[Anonymous No.15919472]

[Anonymous No.15919557]

>>15919472
lol
why are scientists too dumb to be able to recognize cyclical patterns? why are linear projections the most sophisticated math they can do?

[Anonymous No.15919866]

>>15919557
Show me the cyclical pattern

[Anonymous No.15920859]

>>15919866
see OP picrel as well as any temperature history of the earth thats longer than 100 or so years and hasn't been "corrected" by Michael Mann or his ilk

[Anonymous No.15920872]

>>15920859
OP’s post doesn’t show data, there’s no scale or anything. It’s a crudely drawn comic, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.15921199]

>>15920859
That shows the local climate of Europe. Not the global climate.

[Anonymous No.15922220]

>>15921199
No, its the global climate.

[Anonymous No.15922224]

>>15920872
It's a reprint of a famous IPCC chart.

[Anonymous No.15922244]

>>15884152
It's probably the oil tycoons paying researchers and publishing houses to say these

[Anonymous No.15922324]

>>15922220
No, it's not.

>>15922224
It's not. If it were then you should be able to link the original.

[Anonymous No.15922339]

>>15922324
Spamming images is against 4chan site rules.

[Anonymous No.15922388]

>>15922339
So OP should be banned? Take your meds and address the facts.

[Anonymous No.15923529]

[Anonymous No.15923842]

Looks like the greta contingent on /sci/ aren't the only ones who are upset about the existence of the medieval warm period

[Anonymous No.15923932]

>>15923842
That is a statement from a geologist who is a member of two think tanks that spread climate change denial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming_(geologist)

[Anonymous No.15923937]

>>15923932
wikipedia is a highly slanted political propaganda outlet, not a source of unbiased information

[Anonymous No.15924771]

>>15923937
Neither is David Deming, retard. He's a geologist who's in two think tanks that produce propaganda for oil companies.

[Anonymous No.15925051]

>>15923932
>There is significant scientific evidence that sex-based differences in spatial and mathematical abilities may be biological in origin. For example, male rats do better in mazes than females. I concede it is possible that those female rats performed poorly because they were distressed by the lack of proper role models, but somehow this seems implausible.
kek

[Anonymous No.15925064]

>>15925051
Exploration is a high risk high reward activity. Female animals that engage in right risk high reward activities endanger their children and so that behavior is selected against. R selected species like rats would demonstrate this much more than K selected species like lions where the whole pride takes care of the children and the males only function is to fend off potential predators.

[Anonymous No.15925280]

>>15925051
His assessment of the situation suggests that he's an honest person who is willing to tell people uncomfortable truths even at the risk of social ostracism.

[Anonymous No.15925850]

>>15884152
Nature is just a stupid magazine these days, it trades on a reputation established in the past but it comes nowhere close to living up to that reputation.
Its National Enquirer tier these days.

[Anonymous No.15926899]

>>15924771
according to wikipedia, which is a fake news outlet

[Anonymous No.15926927]

>>15896268
>fetus has no understanding of what's happening around it before the third trimester
>t. fetus whisperer

[Anonymous No.15927768]

>>15924771
oh no, the evil oil companies. they've only provided the fuel for every major technological innovation as well as inventing a plethora of useful new materials and advancing understanding of geology, those scoundrels

[Anonymous No.15928712]

>>15926899
Right, if its in wikipedia then its probably fake news

[Anonymous No.15929414]

So nobody can explain how or why the cycles displayed in OP come about? Pretty amazing considering the number of self-identifies climate experts on this board.

[Anonymous No.15929428]

>>15929414
It's Europe's climate. Not the global climate.

[Anonymous No.15930412]

>>15929428
no, its the global climate.

[Anonymous No.15930452]

>>15930412
No, it's not. If it were then is graph would not be labeled "climatact changes of Europe" >>15904998 and the medieval warm period and the little ice age would show up in this graph >>15904989 or this one >>15922324

Why do you feel the need to lie to protect your beliefs?

[Anonymous No.15930896]

>>15930452
the hockey stick graphs are all fake news

[Anonymous No.15930898]

>>15930896
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.15930935]

>>15930898
One of the following is going to happen:
>he ignores you and will keep spreading bullshit
>he posts something unrelated and probably equally unfounded, pretends that it’s “truth”
>he reacts with boomer-level Facebook “memes” like greta being angry at photos from landmarks that supposedly prove that sea level rise is not happening.

[Anonymous No.15931078]

>>15930452
>>15930935
imagine defending establishment opinion #31 on 4chan (formerly 4channel)
truly hope youre getting paid, if not this is just next level mental illness
and btw in the time it took me to make this post not only did the oceans not rise a single cm (no matter how much you try to handwave this away it doesnt change reality), nor did the temperature rise a single °, but the ice sheets both expanded.
you now have my permission to circlejerk over made up graphs created by academic welfare queens.
1st post itt btw, before neurotically try to brand me as some other imaginary anon youve been debating your entire life.

[Anonymous No.15931085]

>>15931078
>4chan (formerly 4channel)
>checks url
huh wait when did that happen

[Anonymous No.15931087]

>>15931078
Oh, I forgot the fourth option:
>IT’S A CONSPIRACY, NO ONE WOULD DISAGREE WITH ME WITHOUT MONETARY COMPENSATION
Also,
>made up graphs
Please take a look at OP’s graph and tell me it’s not made up. Try to find context, or read off any value.

[Anonymous No.15931088]

If gubbal balming is reel? how come i cold rite nao?

check bait a thesis

[Anonymous No.15931101]

>>15931087
I dont remember referencing OP in my post. The ice sheets are indeed expanding, both in volume and surface area. You were, are, and will keep being wrong. Anthropogenic climate change is a meme.
You want to discuss soil, ocean pollution? Im right there with you. Deforestation, all the same. But instead you retards look at the shiny stick every government and major corporation on the planet points your way and think youre actually "fighting the system. fucking kek. useful idiots the lot of you.
I wouldnt have an issue with you if you just didnt try and destroy the already declining quality of life on the planet. If you used your public grants and academic graveyards to produce gibberish in any other direction that wouldnt affect my daily life, I genuinely would not give two shits. Until then, you can go fuck yourself while I drive my 91 mitsubishi montero with the A/C on and the windows open.

[Anonymous No.15931106]

>>15931101
> I dont remember referencing OP in my post
And I never claimed you did.
> The ice sheets are indeed expanding, both in volume and surface area
I mean…. No! Just no. That’s simply bullshit. Do you know if and just want to piss me off or are you literally retarded? I won’t even read any further because it’s clear that you’re either trolling or an idiot. Probably both.

[Anonymous No.15931122]

>>15910782
Where does the methane on the moons of Saturn come from? Fossilized ayy lmaos?
Natural gas is abiotic.

[Anonymous No.15931127]

>>15923932
Attack the statement, not the author.

[Anonymous No.15931133]

>>15910782
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-rewriting-textbook-fossil-fuels-technologies.html
>"We have clear and growing evidence of abiotic methane on Earth. What is not clear is how much there is. These investigations have found incredible complexity in the way methane is produced, and these complexities connect inorganic and organic chemistry on Earth in fascinating ways."
>for some hydrocarbons, especially methane—the colorless, odorless main ingredient in natural gas—nature has many recipes, some of which are "abiotic—derived not from the decay of prehistoric life, but created inorganically by geological and chemical processes deep within the Earth.
>DCO experts believe an abiotic origin of methane explains most of the unusual occurrences of the gas, including the flames of Chimaera in southwest Turkey. Chimaera does not sit atop conventional deposits of oil and gas produced from the decayed organic residue of earlier epochs. And yet, dozens of small fires have burned at this mountaintop site for millennia.
>Jesse Ausubel of The Rockefeller University in New York notes that the popular definition of "fossil fuel" doesn't cover abiotic methane.

>"Thousands of samples from many settings tested with super-sensitive instruments are producing a global picture of the abundances and fluxes of deep energy. Much of the very deep hydrocarbons is not conventional fossil fuel, as popularly defined."

[Anonymous No.15931223]

>>15931122
>methane on Saturn's moon is abiotic
>therefore, all methane on earth is abiotic
???

[Anonymous No.15931226]

>>15931127
>I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor's degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is...
The author decided to make this about himself, so it's fair to attack the author.

[Anonymous No.15931231]

>>15931226
He was listing his credentials to assert his expertise in the subject area. Pointing out that he is associated with people that disagree with some of the conventional consensus on AGW doesn't invalidate what he says.
>>15931223
>abiotic methane is abundant in our solar system
>some of the methane on earth is biotic, therefore all methane is an unrenewable fossil fuel

[Anonymous No.15931241]

>>15897719
>dinosaurs had feathers
some did
some didn't
where is your god now?

[Anonymous No.15931257]

>>15931231
>He was listing his credentials to assert his expertise in the subject area.
And the other anon was deconstructing them to assert that he's biased and has a financial interest to come to particular conclusions.

>abiotic methane is abundant in our solar system
>some of the methane on earth is biotic, therefore all methane is an unrenewable fossil fuel
That's not how it works. If you claim that it's renewable you need to show the mechanism and prove it. Let's say I have some rocks in my garden. My wife keeps taking them, so I remind her that there's only a limited amount of rocks in the garden. Is it a good counter argument that there are rocks on mars as well? Does that mean the rocks in my garden respawn in a reasonable timeframe once she took them all?

[Anonymous No.15931268]

>>15931257
>If you claim that it's renewable you need to show the mechanism and prove it.
By this metric solar and wind are not renewable either - the technology underpinning them relies on some of the scarcest minerals on the planet.

[Anonymous No.15931269]

>>15931078
>the ice sheets both expanded
?

[Anonymous No.15931279]

>>15931268
>the technology underpinning them relies on some of the scarcest minerals on the planet.
Those minerals aren't used up though.

[Anonymous No.15931280]

>>15931257
>you need to show the mechanism and prove it.
Sure OK
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Geo....24..351B/abstract
>CO2 reduction processes occurring during experimental serpentinization of olivine at 300 °C and 500 bar confirm that ultramafic rocks can play an important role in the generation of abiogenic hydrocarbon gas.
Olivine is thought to make up more than half of the Earth's mantle. The mantle is orders of magnitude larger than the crust that makes up our entire lived world. There is no shortage of olivine to produce natural gas from.
You can argue that it's not renewable because there is ultimately still a limit to the amount of olivine in the Earth, but eventually the sun will die too, so solar isn't "renewable" by that metric either.

[Anonymous No.15931282]

>>15931279
They're not recycled at 100% efficiency so yes, they are used up.

[Anonymous No.15931290]

>>15931282
They are not used up by any definition. It's just cheaper to mine more and throw the previously used ones in a landfill. They're still there. Unlike fossil fuels or uranium, which is gone after you extracted the energy.

[Anonymous No.15931304]

>>15931290
They are absolutely used up in the sense that the economically extractable ones are depleted. Yes, the trace amounts that exist in every solar panel and wind turbine are TECHNICALLY retrievable - if you use an awful lot of hydrocarbon energy to gather and process them. Good luck doing any of that without fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.15931313]

>>15931304
>economically
Well, then it's time to recycle. Which is possible with minerals, but not fossil fuels. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for you.

[Anonymous No.15931334]

>>15931313
>Well, then it's time to recycle.
That's not how it works. If you claim that it's recyclable you need to show the mechanism and prove it. Remember, no fossil fuels allowed.

[Anonymous No.15931336]

>>15884152
woah its really cool how they noted all temperatures down back from 10000 years old

[Anonymous No.15931348]

>>15931334
>Remember, no fossil fuels allowed.
What would you even need them for?

[Anonymous No.15931369]

>>15931078
So you are unable to back up your claims with evidence. Big surprise.

[Anonymous No.15931542]

>>15931348
>What would you even need them for?
recycling needs some form of energy

[Anonymous No.15931545]

>>15931542
What if you used solar energy?

[Anonymous No.15931714]

>>15931542
And fossil fuels are THE ONLY form of energy in the world, right?

[Anonymous No.15931728]

>>15931714
global warming isn't real, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. if global warming were real and CO2 was a greenhouse gas then we would have seen massive changes in climate and temperatures by now, instead there are none

[Anonymous No.15931749]

>completely, totally, and unequivocally BTFO's climate change deniers for all eternity

[Anonymous No.15931753]

>>15884225
X is obviously time and y is obviously average temp , but common OP Is just trying to hide his lies in ambiguity.

[Anonymous No.15931757]

>>15931728
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.15932416]

>>15931757

[Anonymous No.15933706]

>>15931753
>ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23348-paranoid-schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.15934339]

>>15884152
Nature isn't a legitimate source of scientific knowledge, its articles are retracted very regularly.

[Anonymous No.15934933]

>>15931753
>y is obviously average temp
Average where? In Europe? The northern hemisphere? The ocean surface? Also, what's the scale? Was the medieval warm period 0.1K warmer than average or was it 20K warmer?

[Anonymous No.15934935]

>>15931728
>global warming were real and CO2 was a greenhouse gas then we would have seen massive changes in climate and temperatures by now
You mean like the ones we are seeing?

[Anonymous No.15935561]

>>15895688
>Plus fossils
How?

[Anonymous No.15936545]

>>15934933
keep on crying about the graph
everyone knows you're only upset about it because it shows that the previous warming periods were mysteriously warmer than today regardless low CO2 levels, which proves that CO2 is not a significant factor on global temperatures

[Anonymous No.15937348]

>>15931336
>t. science denier

[Anonymous No.15937355]

>>15931728
>Aral Sea disappears
>Glacier National Park now has no glaciers
>Amazon Rainforest has 80% loss in size
>Nile River used to flood, now it doesn't
>2/3rds of the Arctic sea ice are permanently gone
>even Mount Everest now has ice loss
By the end of the century, New York and all of Florida will be completely underwater.

[Anonymous No.15938362]

>>15937355
>Glacier National Park now has no glaciers

[Anonymous No.15938401]

>>15884225
>science isn't real when I don't like the conclusion
I'm glad we can agree that cutting holes in ice and rock is not fucking science.
Global warming is a christian narrative after all

[Anonymous No.15938970]

>>15937355
>2/3rds of the Arctic sea ice are permanently gone
ftp://osisaf.met.no/prod_test/ice/index/v2p2/nh/osisaf_nh_sie_daily.txt

[Anonymous No.15940144]

>>15938970
>There is currently more arctic sea ice than there has been at any point in the last two decades except for in 2012
How do the global warming proponents explain this?

[Anonymous No.15940719]

>>15940144
Area =/= volume

[Anonymous No.15941083]

>>15940719
There is currently more arctic sea ice than there has been at any point in the last two decades except for in 2012, How do you explain that?

[Anonymous No.15941098]

>>15938362
Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.15941157]

>>15941083
By pointing out that "extent" refers to area and not volume or mass. Did you graduate high school?

[Anonymous No.15942081]

>>15884170
This, Nature lies about everything and in return the government pays Nature half a billion dollars annually via soience grant funding that goes to publishing fees, plus further government funding for universities that end up buying Nature subscriptions. Nature is an entirely government funded publication, but the source of that funding is slightly disguised because they want you to think of Nature as a private organization rather than what it truly is, which is a government mouthpiece.

[Anonymous No.15942788]

>>15941157
There is currently more arctic sea ice than there has been at any point in the last two decades except for in 2012

[Anonymous No.15942796]

>>15942788
Actually 2023 is the first year with no winter sea ice whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.15942815]

>>15942788
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.15943602]

>>15942815
it was already proved in >>15938970

[Anonymous No.15944136]

>>15943602
OK, sorry I missed that one. I concede that Arctic sea ice is in pretty much the same condition as it was when the global warming meme was started by politicians in the 1980s

[Anonymous No.15944430]

>>15943602
Wrong. Did you want to try again?

[Anonymous No.15944945]

>>15944430
>science denialism

[Anonymous No.15945304]

>>15937355
>Aral Sea disappears
that's due to the russians wanting grain; it's not due to climate change
>Nile River used to flood, now it doesn't
that's due to the egyptians wanting grain; it's not due to climate change

[Anonymous No.15945714]

>>15945304
>that's due to the russians wanting grain; it's not due to climate change
It was actually due to the Uzbek cotton industry, all of the profits of which were embezzled by Yuri Churbanov, Brezhnev's son in law. He was caught with $5 billion in his private Deutchebank account in the early 1980s after his boss and protector had passed on. Reminiscent of the tale of Hunter Biden. Thats how communism works, its just fancified organized crime.

[Anonymous No.15946722]

>>15884249
Its in one of the PDFs I have, but I don't remember which one, I'll post the original next times I happen across it

[Anonymous No.15946896]

>>15944945
>He thinks area is equivalent to volume
Everyone point and laugh.

[Anonymous No.15947285]

>>15946896
arctic sea ice has increased substantially over the past decade, why does that upset you? shouldn't you be ecstatic to learn that all of your global warming doomsday scenarios aren't coming true? it seem odd that it angers you when you find out that the global warming you're so concerned about isn't taking place. its almost as if you're some sort of insane doomsday cultist who wants the world to end

[Anonymous No.15948399]

>>15947285

[Anonymous No.15948856]

>>15948399
>i want to be mad
they want an excuse to make demands

[Anonymous No.15949722]

>>15948856
Right, they're just like young children who presume that they can get whatever they want by crying because they haven't yet outgrown the infantile stage

[Anonymous No.15950271]

>>15938970
and thats just last year's numbers, this year's arctic sea ice growth is outpacing last year's by a good margin.

[Anonymous No.15950285]

>>15938401
That's not science? Science entails measurement, modeling, accuracy, etc. That's just some graphic someone made, it doesn't even say what "dataset" it was made from (spoiler: there is no dataset).

[Anonymous No.15950611]

>>15947285
>arctic sea ice has increased substantially over the past decade
You have completely failed to prove that, and further, you have demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between two dimensions and three.

It's never too late to go back and get your GED.

[Anonymous No.15951252]

>>15950611

[Anonymous No.15951270]

>>15951252
>He thinks area is equivalent to volume
Everyone point and laugh.

[Anonymous No.15952170]

>>15951270
arctic sea ice has increased substantially over the past decade, why does that upset you? shouldn't you be ecstatic to learn that all of your global warming doomsday scenarios aren't coming true? it seem odd that it angers you when you find out that the global warming you're so concerned about isn't taking place. its almost as if you're some sort of insane doomsday cultist who wants the world to end

[Anonymous No.15952310]

>>15952170
It hasn't and you have repeatedly failed to prove that it has or demonstrate that you understand the difference between a square and a cube.

[Anonymous No.15953588]

>>15952310
you don't understand the difference between volume and area.
the ice in 2023 would've melted faster if it was less volume than in2012, thicker ice melts slower. arctic sea has grown in area, volume and total mass since 2012, which proves that global warming is fake. ice sheets in the both the antarctic and on greenland also follow the same pattern

[Anonymous No.15953763]

>>15952170
>arctic sea ice has increased substantially over the past decade
No it hasn't.