[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 50 KB, 1024x576, 170164829606994510.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15903276 No.15903276 [Reply] [Original]

Prove to me why Climate Change is or isn't a hoax

>> No.15903282

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

>>>/sci/sqt/

>> No.15903287
File: 110 KB, 1440x1080, gwcc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15903287

>>15903282
This assumes that Earth's climate only has one variable.

>>15903276
The reality is that there are multiple variables when it comes to the temperature aspect of the Earth's climate, including reflectivity (known as albedo) of clouds and ice (white objects reflect heat, dark objects absorb heat), the ocean's capacity to absorb heat, and the Earth's ability to absorb greenhouse gasses.

The assumption that AGW advocates make is that carbon dioxide is a super-greenhouse gas, that the Earth absorbs carbon dioxide very slowly, and that there is no other explanation other than industrial pollution. However, all of these same points were made about other pollutants during the 1960's and 70's only in reverse, that they would cause a global ice age due to a cloud of smoke that would envelope the Earth. There is currently no model that has accurately predicted global temperature changes, and all changes either positive or negative are pre-assumed to be the result of AGW.

>> No.15903293

>>15903287
>This assumes that Earth's climate only has one variable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model
>>>/sci/sqt/

>> No.15903294

>>15903287
Oh, one other thing. AGW assumes that due to warming there will be a runaway effect on albedo. Ice reflects heat, but if the ice melts then more heat is absorbed by the darker ocean.

This can work in reverse. A snowball earth scenario has resulted when a small swing towards colder temperatures during a bad ice age caused more and more heat to be reflected until the Earth was almost completely covered in ice.

>>15903293
Please fuck off cultist.

>> No.15903298

>>15903294
>Please fuck off cultist.
>hates science
why are you here?
>>>/x/

>> No.15903299

>>15903294
>AGW assumes that due to warming there will be a runaway effect on albedo
No it doesn't.

>> No.15903301

>>15903298
>taking a neutral position and providing an explanation is "hating science"
You're not exactly helping your case.

>> No.15903302

>>15903287
>The assumption that AGW advocates make is that carbon dioxide is a super-greenhouse gas
No it doesn't.

>> No.15903304

>>15903299
Yes it does. That's not the only factor, but it's one of the reasons it posits that warming will lead to more warming.

>>15903302
Yes it does. AGW assumes that carbon dioxide is one of the only relevant greenhouse gases when there are multiple.

>> No.15903310

>>15903301
>>taking a neutral position and providing an explanation is "hating science"
Which you aren't doing. You are instead dismissing climate modeling and lying about greenhouse gasses, dismissing models refuting your bullshit. So far, on the grounds of... "fuck off cultist"?
>>>/x/

>> No.15903314
File: 213 KB, 400x399, why.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15903314

>>15903310
>if you don't agree with AGW 100% then you are 'dismissing climate modeling' and 'lying about greenhouse gasses'
What parts did I lie about? Are you suggesting methane isn't a greenhouse gas? That cloud and ice albedo isn't relevant?

>> No.15903317

>>15903314
>if you don't agree with AGW
For bad/no reasons.
>Are you suggesting methane isn't a greenhouse gas?
deflection
>That cloud and ice albedo isn't relevant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

>> No.15903321

>>15903317
So, to summarize:
1. There's nothing I lied about
2. You are a cultist who assumes anyone who disagrees with you must be acting on bad faith
3. You think wikipedia is a valid source.

>> No.15903325

>>15903317
How do you not see why rational people call you cultists?

>> No.15903331

>>15903310
Why shouldn't modeling be rejected? Which part of them is testable?

>> No.15903338

>>15903325
>How do you not see why rational people call you cultists?
I do. It's because you can't argue the evidence and can't deal with the real science, so when confronted by pointing out you can't you have to lash out. In effect, narcissism.
>3. You think wikipedia is a valid source.
It's a primer and often useful for those who know nothing about a subject. Given not a single post so far addresses a single model it's clearly one you need.
>>15903321
>2. You are a cultist who assumes anyone who disagrees with you must be acting on bad faith
No assumptions needed given the first response wasn't to explain some inadequacy in the used models but instead to call someone a cultist >>15903294
>>15903331
>Why shouldn't modeling be rejected?
Are you really this dumb?
>Which part of them is testable?
All of them. There are many ways of testing. Hindcasting, and of course how accurate they've historically been, pseudo-data, etc. Method of testing depends on what aspect of a model is being tested. Which you'd know if you knew the first thing about modeling.

>> No.15903341

>>15903331
It is inherently testable in that you make a prediction about tomorrow and tomorrow we see that it comes true, but the problem is the Earth's atmosphere is mind numbingly complex and you basically need extremely accurate data on things like cloud formation patterns and solar activity in order to make a usable prediction. It isn't impossible, it's a problem of getting accurate data.

>> No.15903342
File: 83 KB, 498x301, IMG_1523.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15903342

>>15903276
Just ripped a a fat one, expect hell on earth within the next 30 minutes OP

>> No.15903347

>>15903338
You seem perturbed.

>> No.15903350

>>15903347
>You seem perturbed.
>no argument
thought not

>> No.15903355

>>15903350
My arguments have already been made. You've yet to refute anything, you've just linked to wikipedia and accused others of acting in bad faith.

>> No.15903357

>>15903355
>You've yet to refute anything, you've just linked to wikipedia and accused others of acting in bad faith.
This is the MO of cultists. Gaslighting and narcissism are their bread and butter.

>> No.15903358

>>15903355
>My arguments have already been made.
That's just sad.
>You've yet to refute anything
You've given nothing to refute. Hence, sad. You actually think you are making a relevant argument?

>> No.15903359
File: 1.35 MB, 220x321, 1699062161104225.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15903359

>>15903342

>> No.15903360
File: 24 KB, 430x378, 1648342639695.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15903360

>>15903358
>You've given nothing to refute.
So you have no problem with anything said in this post? >>15903287

>> No.15903363

>>15903357
>Gaslighting and narcissism
Oh? So one of you did post and address a single model?
>>15903360
>So you have no problem with anything said in this post? >>15903287
Already refuted >>15903293

>> No.15903366

>>15903363
Posting a link to wikipedia isn't a refutation. Are you 12 by chance?

>> No.15903370

>>15903363
Also, I think I addressed a good dozen or so models in this post >>15903287
None of them match with observations.

>> No.15903373

>>15903366
>Posting a link to wikipedia isn't a refutation.
It is to total ignorance.
>>15903370
>I think I addressed a good dozen or so models in this post
Yeah you really do need wikipedia.

>> No.15903374
File: 222 KB, 352x359, 1341381227622.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15903374

>>15903373

>> No.15903437

>>15903338
Hindcasting doesn’t validate a predictive model, you retarded ass.

>> No.15903441

>>15903437
>doesn’t validate
Define "validate"
>you retarded ass
bet

>> No.15903457

>>15903441
Buy a dictionary, dipshit

>> No.15903476

>>15903276
>Climate Change is or isn't a hoax
Climate always changing so fuck off you propaganda shill

>> No.15903485

>>15903476
Climate Change^TM doesn’t mean “the climate is changing” bozo

>> No.15903489

>>15903457
>Buy a dictionary, dipshit
thought so.
Since you're a high school dropout I guess I have to tell you what people have to tell flat earthers too. You don't use a dictionary definition of the word to apply to a technical usage within a scientific field.

>> No.15903496

>>15903489
There's no "technical usage within a scientific field" of validate you unbelievably dumb piece of shit

>> No.15903498

>>15903496
>There's no "technical usage within a scientific field" of validate you unbelievably dumb piece of shit
lol
>there's no technical usage of validate!
lmao

>> No.15903504

>>15903276
its not a hoax, its man made

>> No.15903506

>>15903498
Glad you can laugh at yourself.

>> No.15903508

>>15903504
All hoaxes are man made.

>> No.15903514

>>15903508
wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry

>> No.15903521

>>15903276
All the solutions steal your wealth and liberty and don't have any logical connection to combat climate change. Even if it was real, you're being scammed.

>> No.15903522

>>15903514
Did you reply to the wrong post?

>> No.15903543

The scientific method is a hoax.

>> No.15903555

>>15903543

What? You disagree?

Look at you...

Come on...

>> No.15903556

>>15903522
No, refuting the premise that all hoaxes are man made.

>> No.15903558

>>15903556
I guess that stretches the definition of a hoax but I'll allow it.

>> No.15903572

its hot outside

>> No.15903621

>>15903276
this shouldn't have to be proven or disproven; the entire concept is tarded.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8AHkAJrpAxd4/

>> No.15903624

>>15903621
>I hate science
Why are you here?
>>>/x/

>> No.15903652

>>15903624
>Why are you here?
Philosophical eschatology isn't science.
>>>/lit/

>> No.15903718
File: 2.77 MB, 2948x3200, TIMESAND___ClimateChange.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15903718

The Truth About Climate Change
https://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
Climatology occupies the intersection of science policy and public understanding of science. In such a prominent position, the wide spectrum of climate opinions is remarkable. Society has achieved a paradigm in which global warming subscribers and non-subscribers are largely segregated by political affiliation. Since science is non-political, only a misunderstanding of the science can facilitate such a segregation. In the first section we analyze a recent study by Cook \emph{et al.} finding overwhelming scientific endorsement for the greenhouse theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). We find the popular reporting on Cook's result is not accurate. The aim of the following section is to clarify the science behind the most popular climate arguments and introduce the reader to some evidence that is not widely publicized. Even the astute non-climatologist should come away from this report with an enhanced understanding of relevant issues in modern climate science.