/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9319652]

So are we gonna solve global warming or are we likely to be extinct in 100-150 years?

[Anonymous No.9319659]

>>9319652
I not only welcome global warming, I embrace it. It can't come soon enough. The human race is a bloated festering sore and the sooner the herd is culled the better.

[Anonymous No.9319670]

Neither. It's gonna be helluva ride.
Billions will die.

[Anonymous No.9319678]

Once people realize that global warming is a matter of (simple) economics, then it will be managed quite quickly. And evidence suggests that's already happening in part.

[Anonymous No.9319685]

>>9319678
-No one is going to give up their meat.
-Only 2% of vehicles on the road right now are electric.
-Coal and plants and other forms of fossil fuels continue to pump out emissions everywhere.
-The ocean continues to acidify because we dump our shit there
-No one gives a fuck.

We're fucked.

[Anonymous No.9319704]

>>9319678
>implying it'll all unfold in a linear way
>implying there are no tipping points

[Anonymous No.9320147]

First of all Global Warming isn't a significant issue and should not be viewed as a potential extinction level event.
The amount of carbon currently in the atmosphere is manageable by the plant life that physically stores it and would be so for the foreseeable future.

No matter what 1st world countries do right now to lower their emissions their efforts will be statistically insignificant compared to the pollution caused by India and China. Unless they were able to create cheap, efficient, clean, reliable renewable energy and such technology is decades or more away.
Global Warming is a fear tactic of the Democratic party to gain votes and raise taxes, their proposed solutions to Global Warming would drastically lower the standard of living for the average American and weaken the competition of the market against countries that do not adopt the same policies.

Overpopulated developing nations are the real issue, that's where all the pollution is coming from, so if you're looking for solutions there's a good place to start.

[Anonymous No.9320149]

>>9320147
>First of all Global Warming isn't a significant issue

Stopped reading right there.

[Anonymous No.9320158]

>another doomsday cult thread
fuck off to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9320162]

>>9320158
fuck off to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9320167]

>>9319685
>No one gives a fuck.

why should anyone? i have no stake in the future of humanity, so why should i give a damn?

[Anonymous No.9320174]

>>9320147
>First of all Global Warming isn't a significant issue

I can imagine that you only devolve further into partisan bullshit from here.

[Anonymous No.9320178]

>>9320174
Global warming is about as significant as today's horoscopes

Five years from now the "scientists" will probably be back to the old global cooling theory since this one won't pan out

[Anonymous No.9320179]

>>9320147
>The amount of carbon currently in the atmosphere is manageable by the plant life that physically stores it and would be so for the foreseeable future.
False. The total amount of annual carbon emissions far exceeds the amount of carbon absorbed, due to man's contribution. Which is why the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is rising rapidly.

>No matter what 1st world countries do right now to lower their emissions their efforts will be statistically insignificant compared to the pollution caused by India and China.
Also false. The United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world. First world countries have the most capability to reduce emissions since they have the highest emissions per capita. India has less than 1/5 the emissions of the US and 1/8 the emmissions per capita.

>Unless they were able to create cheap, efficient, clean, reliable renewable energy and such technology is decades or more away.
Nuclear energy and renewables could replace fossil fuels today, and would save money by mitigating climate change.

>Global Warming is a fear tactic of the Democratic party to gain votes and raise taxes
I don't see how scientific facts can be a fear tactic. A fear tactic would have to be something made up, like the lies in your post.

>their proposed solutions to Global Warming would drastically lower the standard of living for the average American and weaken the competition of the market against countries that do not adopt the same policies.
See, this is a fear tactic.

>Overpopulated developing nations are the real issue, that's where all the pollution is coming from,
But that's wrong.

[Anonymous No.9320182]

>>9320179
>The United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world.
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.9320183]

>>9320178
It's nice to know that in 5 years you might still care. You'll still be wrong, but at least you will still care.

[Anonymous No.9320184]

>>9320183
>It's nice to know that in 5 years you might still care. You'll still be wrong, but at least you will still care.
Care about what?

[Anonymous No.9320188]

>>9320182
RIGHT

an average muttican consumes five times more resources than an average Indian or Chinese. The per capita emissions are higher for US as well

[Anonymous No.9320189]

Global warming is a giant hoax.

>global warming
>oh fugg, the earth isn't warming, so let's rename it
>climate change

[Anonymous No.9320190]

>>9320182

[Anonymous No.9320191]

>>9320184
Chicken butt.

[Anonymous No.9320193]

>>9320190
>cumulative
lol

[Anonymous No.9320195]

>>9320190

[Anonymous No.9320197]

>>9320190
That's a cumulative graph that includes the 1970s which does not accurately represent the China of today.
This is why no one trusts climate scientists, they cherry pick graphs and fudge the number to support their agenda.

[Anonymous No.9320199]

>>9319652
Global warming will not cause humanity's extinction.

Do you really believe that a specie that can live pretty much anywhere on this planet, with the ability to manipulate its surroundings even with an extremely primitive technology and with knowledge far greater than the times that technology was used can be extinct with this? Yes we may lose our current civilization, but we would be far from extinction.

I have to say though, I don't mean that global warming is not a threat. It is, but even if it happens as it is predicted by the most pessimistic minds, we will prevail.

[Anonymous No.9320200]

>>9320197
That doesn't respond to what I said.

"First world countries have the most capability to reduce emissions since they have the highest emissions per capita. India has less than 1/5 the emissions of the US and 1/8 the emmissions per capita."

[Anonymous No.9320201]

>>9320200
>That doesn't respond to what I said.
How does a graph showing that China is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world not respond to the lie that the United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world?

[Anonymous No.9320202]

>>9320189
Global warming is current climate change, you nut.

[Anonymous No.9320205]

the problem with the whole climate change scheme to raise taxes is that the numbers the "scientists" fudged imply it's too late to do anything about it anyway (if it were real)

[Anonymous No.9320206]

>>9320179
>Nuclear energy and renewables could replace fossil fuels today and would save money by mitigating climate change.
They are not cheap, reliable and readily available, you just can't build a nuclear power plant in every city in every country, they're expensive and if corners are cut shit is bound to go wrong. And you'd be a fool to believe that right now the whole world can run on wind and solar.

[Anonymous No.9320210]

>>9320201
China is the biggest source of CO2 in 2017, not the biggest source. Global warming did not begin in 2017. Avid again you fail to respond to what I said, which is that arguing China and India are the most responsible is flawed since first world countries have the highest emissions per capita.

[Anonymous No.9320212]

ITT watch as literal brainlets turn climate science into partisan bickering and conspiratorial nonsense.

[Anonymous No.9320216]

>>9320210
>Avid again you fail to respond to what I said, which is that arguing China and India are the most responsible is flawed since first world countries have the highest emissions per capita.
But that's not an argument, why would per capita matter?

[Anonymous No.9320217]

>>9320205
It's too late to completely halt future warming, but it's never too late to mitigate future warming. Why do you need to constantly lie and misrepresent if you actually believe your position?

[Anonymous No.9320223]

And so it has come to pass.

[Anonymous No.9320224]

What I think of all of you.

[Anonymous No.9320229]

The influence of emissions seems overblown - anybody remember the evidence they trot out every once in a while, where industrial age coincides with warming? if that was proportional we'd be like Venus right now, China alone shits out more co2 in a year than all of the ye olde mechanical turke' cotton mills in a century. There's either significant lag, in which case we are dead already, just don't knwo it yet, or the level of correlation is incredibly inaccurate.

Also, can all the alarmists explain why they never seem to advocate more funding to initiatives such as ITER (which runs at a pitiful budget, considering the number of backers and the potential prospects), instead focusing on increasing regulation and muh solar powah'? Fucking hell, you know full well that 75% fo the world can't adapt to that w/o halting its economic activity altogether, essentially committing genocide. If you're certain this is our pending doom why are all your solutions selected for looking "in tune with nature" and otherwise appealing to hippie sensibilities? If this is THE problem maybe we should escape it out pacing it technologically - which would actually have a chance to attain unilateral support because of the potential gains - instead of demanding humanity which mostly still lives hand-to-mouth to cut industrial activity by 50% "or else". That is never gonna happen. India might rise to 2.4 bln, Africa to 4.4 bln eventually.

[Anonymous No.9320230]

>>9320216
Because we are attempting to reduce emissions, not reduce populations.

[Anonymous No.9320231]

we should all die, period.
we want food and wont grow our own, been dumb for long time and asking to die lol.

[Anonymous No.9320234]

>>9320230
>Because we are attempting to reduce emissions, not reduce populations.
What does that have to do with my post?

[Anonymous No.9320237]

>>9320147
Source mayne?

[Anonymous No.9320239]

>>9320231
We as a species have been growing our food for a long ass time m8, what you on about?

[Anonymous No.9320241]

>>9320167
Well, other people care about the continuation of the species and about the well being of their off-spring. You don't have to care if you don't want to, just accept that other people have valid reason to care.

[Anonymous No.9320243]

>mfw undergrads defending their belief in climate change

[Anonymous No.9320244]

>>9320230
Reducing populations is the best method for reducing emissions though, why remove cars from the road when you can just remove people entirely?
Although there is no good way to lower populations, China tried the 1 child thing and it failed really badly, social engineering is tough work. Easier just to invent a superbug,

[Anonymous No.9320245]

>>9320147
>Global Warming is a fear tactic of the Democratic party
Then why do other countries, where it isn't a partisan issue, join in with the fear tactic?

[Anonymous No.9320247]

First everything will go to shit.

Then war. Then political unrest. Then we fix democracy and get rid or capitalism.

Then we start working towards cooling the planet, again.

Just my prediction.

[Anonymous No.9320252]

>>9320247
>get rid or capitalism.
lol no

[Anonymous No.9320254]

>>9320230
You have a special kind of autism.
That graph shows the us isn't 1st in gross emissions or emissions per capita.

If total emission is what contributes to global warming, then per capita emission is a meaningless stat. The only thing that matters is whether it's there or not.

[Anonymous No.9320255]

>>9320167
You are part of it though? Unless you know that you're not going to be alive in 20+ years

[Anonymous No.9320259]

>>9320252

How do you propose to fix climate change while retaining capitalism?

The reason we will not do anything about climate change is because rich people don't want to lose money.

[Anonymous No.9320260]

>>9320241

i am aware of this. it was a rhetorical question, but i suspect that many people don't care one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.9320261]

>>9320189
'climate change' doesn't have the word Global in it, you numb nut
Climate change is local
Global warming is very real, 16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001

[Anonymous No.9320262]

>>9320189
Do you have any actual argument?

[Anonymous No.9320266]

>>9320243
It's sad that they have to believe in it.
A belief about anything isn't going to make it real.

[Anonymous No.9320267]

>>9320255

not really. i have little stake in society as a whole.

[Anonymous No.9320270]

>>9320229
>anybody remember the evidence they trot out every once in a while, where industrial age coincides with warming? if that was proportional we'd be like Venus right now, China alone shits out more co2 in a year than all of the ye olde mechanical turke' cotton mills in a century.
What is this evidence? Surely you know that warming from GHGs is logarithmic, which is why warming is measured per doubling of CO2. So exponentially increasing emissions produces a linear or less exponential warming trend. And surely you know that none of this is based on correlation, but causation based on fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics. Surely you aren't just talking out of your ass.

>Also, can all the alarmists explain why they never seem to advocate more funding to initiatives such as ITER
Can you explain how you know I don't support more funding fornuclear and fusion, when I do?

>Fucking hell, you know full well that 75% fo the world can't adapt to that w/o halting its economic activity altogether, essentially committing genocide.
>instead of demanding humanity which mostly still lives hand-to-mouth to cut industrial activity by 50% "or else".
And you call me an alarmist, what a hypocrite. Where do these nice round numbers come from?

[Anonymous No.9320271]

>>9320244
Then we best start with reducing the population of countries with high per-capita emissions, since reducing those is most effective

[Anonymous No.9320273]

>>9320234
Surely you can't be this stupid. Do I have to explain everything to you like you're a baby? Per capita emissions removes the effect of population size.

[Anonymous No.9320274]

I just explained this in another thread
Let me shift attention away from global warming and other particulars and explain the general process of our problem, here global warming is an element of the "shifts in boundary conditions" I referenced
>Actually with the biodiversity loss and shifts in boundary conditions that we are experiencing there is more free energy than there has been in almost any point in time since the Cambrian explosion.
>Of course this is very bad news and spells doom for most of the complex life forms on earth and the higher level entities of which they organize, most likely including our particular human life form. We aren't in any direct threat, but the world we live in, those entities that exists at a higher level of organization in which we exist in, what we abstract as "ecosystems" are eroding, releasing the enslaved energy that bounds their parts together. To reiterate we are parts, we are plummeting into a world of loneliness and entropy, our chances of survival along with our comrades are slim. Which is rather unfortunate on the evolutionary scale, as humans and their unique ability to create and manipulate symbols was an avenue for life to understand itself.
>I hope I wasn't being too mysterious in this explanation, I hope you understand. I know that it isn't the answer to the question you asked, but I took advantage of semantics to try to explain a much more pressing problem, the literal existential crisis we face.

[Anonymous No.9320276]

>>9320205
So you're saying that not only have they lied to you, for some reason, but also they lied so poorly as to make it not accomplish their goal? Are you fucking retarded? You're really trying to claim that years worth of peer reviewed study is false, but not just false, blatantly false and doesn't even accomplish the goal that it was set out achieve? How many scientist would have to be in on this lie? Why does it benefit them?

[Anonymous No.9320277]

>>9320245
My fault, I should have said left-leaning parties. So why do all left-leaning parties join in on the rhetoric? Well like I said it's for votes "Vote for me, and I'll stop the world from ending" And then they can use it to increase taxes like implementing a carbon tax to fund their other socialist endeavors. Right-leaning parties are more interested in jobs and economy so they don't want to go full retard with taxes and funding that would lower the standard of living, but they would still claim to be against global warming only to stop the triggered screams of the left.

[Anonymous No.9320278]

>>9320276
>So you're saying that not only have they lied to you, for some reason, but also they lied so poorly as to make it not accomplish their goal?
Yes.

>How many scientist would have to be in on this lie? Why does it benefit them?
Some people don't think things through very thoroughly, foresight is a rare trait these days, and I certainly wouldn't expect it from pseudoscientists

[Anonymous No.9320279]

>>9320212
Every thread on both /pol and /b these days.

/sci is getting just as a bad. It's ridiculous, they have ruined any ability to have an honest dialogue.

[Anonymous No.9320281]

>>9320205
>Drive car towards wall
>Can't brake in time to stop before wall
>HURR DURR WHY SHOULD I BRAKE AT ALL I'M GOING TO CRASH ANYWAYS

[Anonymous No.9320283]

>>9320254
>That graph shows the us isn't 1st in gross emissions or emissions per capita.
And where did I say the US had highest emissions per capita? You just can't follow an argument can you?

>If total emission is what contributes to global warming, then per capita emission is a meaningless stat
Per capita emissions removes the effect of population size. I don't think anyone is or should attempt to use population controls as a response to global warming. Again try responding to what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.9320286]

>>9320243
Non-argument.

[Anonymous No.9320287]

>>9320279
What anon said is true though.
Why is it most science is non partisan but climate change is?

[Anonymous No.9320288]

>>9320287
>Why is it most science is non partisan but climate change is?
because leftists are trying to use pseudoscience as an excuse to raise taxes

[Anonymous No.9320292]

when/if people are convinced of climate change, will most of them actually care?

[Anonymous No.9320293]

>>9320283
>Also false. The United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world

You literally said it.

I never said anything about population control. The emissions are a problem regardless of where it comes from.

[Anonymous No.9320296]

>>9320206
Of course it will take a long time to feasibly transition away from fossil fuels, but it can be done today, the technology exists, unlike what the person I was replying to claimed. And yes it requires a large investment up front that will save money in the future.

[Anonymous No.9320297]

>>9320278
>I certainly wouldn't expect it from pseudoscientists
Why do you assume that what they are? What is your evidence of that? What is your qualification on the subject? How are you not a just a pseudointelectual?

[Anonymous No.9320301]

>>9320287
Quite a few sciences are turned partisan by the toxic left.
>Racial differences of IQ
>Gender differences
>The number of actual genders
>Climate change
It's very hard to hold skeptical positions in these fields without vile retaliation of the regressive left.

[Anonymous No.9320303]

>>9320297
>Why do you assume that what they are?
Who said anything about assuming?

[Anonymous No.9320306]

>>9320259
Then how is any regulation passed? An optimal carbon tax is simple, could be implemented today, and will maximize net savings from mitigating climate change.

[Anonymous No.9320308]

>>9320274
Dad I'm scared

[Anonymous No.9320313]

>>9320306
Yep, raise prices of goods and services so that people can no longer afford them. Then production goes down, cutting emissions.

Just kidding, everyone will just go to china.

[Anonymous No.9320315]

>>9320287
Fossil fuel companies and their ability to profit. This is just how capitalism works. They will do everything they can to make as much money as possible, that includes making it as hard as possible for any competition to have a chance. Their not evil like people say they just do what makes the most money, lobbying does that, putting out misinformation does that, making people fear nuclear does that.

[Anonymous No.9320318]

>>9320277
Note how none of this even attempts to disprove global warming.

[Anonymous No.9320319]

>>9320306
I'm glad I don't live in a technocracy so that I could be saved from morons like you. A carbon tax won't solve anything it'll only weaken the economy while competing counties like China would just financially rape us.

[Anonymous No.9320323]

there's a reason why most people don't believe in climate change while believing in any actual science...

even rednecks believe in gravity, but anyone with at least a GED should know better than to believe in climate change

[Anonymous No.9320329]

>>9320303
You did, you called peer reviewed study the work of pseudo scientists. You are making the assumption that they are pseudo scientists

[Anonymous No.9320330]

>>9320293
>Also false. The United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world
Yes that's me saying the United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world. Which it is. See >>9320190

Nowhere did I say it's the biggest per capita or the biggest in 2017 emissions. So not only did you lie about what I said, you also got the facts wrong.

>I never said anything about population control.
I never said you did. I said that per capita emissions is a relevant stat because it removes the effect of population size. Why is population size relevant to mitigating global warming?

[Anonymous No.9320332]

>>9320329
>You did, you called peer reviewed study the work of pseudo scientists. You are making the assumption that they are pseudo scientists
I'm not making the assumption, you're just assuming I am. I'll say it once more so it's clear: I'm not assuming they're pseudoscientists.

[Anonymous No.9320334]

>>9320323
You're fucking retarded. Just leave you oil company shill. You have not contributed to conversation and I don't believe you have the capacity to. Just leave.

[Anonymous No.9320336]

>>9320334
>Just leave you oil company shill.
You're stuck at the bottom of pic related

Next?

[Anonymous No.9320338]

>>9320287
>Why is it that evolution is politicized science? They should just keep it out of our public schools.
Science tends to become politicized when one group had an ideological interest in denying reality.

[Anonymous No.9320339]

>>9320332
But you called them pseudo scientists. Where is your evidence of that? What hives you the ability to make that assessment?

[Anonymous No.9320343]

>>9320336
Any you're where on that pyramid? How are you contributing to this conversation other than to just insult me and posting an unrelated info graphic?

[Anonymous No.9320345]

>>9320313
>Yep, raise prices of goods and services so that people can no longer afford them.
What you don't seem to realize is that people cannot afford the effects of climate change. An optimal carbon tax is by definition the most affordable option.

[Anonymous No.9320346]

>>9320343
>How are you contributing to this conversation other than to just insult me and posting an unrelated info graphic?
Where did I insult you? You're the one throwing out memes like 'oil company shill'

[Anonymous No.9320347]

>>9320338
Do you believe in racial differences in IQ caused by genetics? Answer honestly.

[Anonymous No.9320349]

>>9320319
I'm so glad people like you ignore the effects of climate change because MUH CHINA IZ TAKIN ER JABS

[Anonymous No.9320358]

>>9320319
Unlike the USA, China does not deny climate change though

[Anonymous No.9320359]

>>9320349
Must be nice living on mommy's credit card and not worrying about the jobs and economy.

[Anonymous No.9320360]

>>9320347
Give me a clear deffinition of race and qe can go from there.

[Anonymous No.9320364]

>>9319652
Global warming is a work of fantasy like the lord of the rings,so it can easily be solved using imagination.Like writing fan-fiction or something.

[Anonymous No.9320365]

>>9320270

>What is this evidence?

So I guess you never encountered it? Whats the fuss about then? Oh no, wait, you go on to defend it later on, no point in forcing me to produce the graph then, no? We both know that Al Gore horseshit, c'mon.

>GHGs is logarithmic, which is why warming is measured per doubling of CO2. So exponentially increasing emissions produces a linear or less exponential warming trend.

It still won't line up into an cataclysm, just like the last 6 times the alarmists predicted in the past. We were supposed to flood the Himalayas by now, 'member?

>And surely you know that none of this is based on correlation, but causation based on fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics.

So I guess "the science is settled" then? lel

You know full well we don't understand the exact dynamics of our atmosphere yet, its not like pumping gases into an aquarium and extrapolating. Its correlation that you actually have hard evidence for, not exact impact of co2 on the system. you can't produce a formula that'd predict the median temperature 2 decades from now. Manmade warming can be riding a larger short term fluctuation we can't yet recognize and you wouldn't know. Hell, you can go back to global cooling theory in that span of time.

>Can you explain how you know I don't support more funding fornuclear and fusion, when I do?
>I do?

You individually don't matter. I want someone to respond for the movements the millions of "concerned" bourgeois exhibitionists that don't support it. The talking heads mounted atop of them don't. its theatric and unconcerned with outcomes, just "trying". Does mortal fear really inspire such a reaction?

[Anonymous No.9320367]

>>9320347
>racial differences in IQ caused by genetics
This is not a scientific statement, you'll have to be more specific.

[Anonymous No.9320371]

>>9320359
Of course I'm worried about the economy, you're not. An optimal carbon tax maximizes benefit to the economy.

[Anonymous No.9320373]

>And you call me an alarmist, what a hypocrite. Where do these nice round numbers come from?

The drastic demands coming from influential environmentalists since the 70s at least, like cutting emissions by a minimum of 50% "or were all dead in 50 years", while populations boom. Yeah, sorry, 50% decrease in industrial output per capita is the least we'd require. The whole thing about those demands is that they will never amount to anything. Not only that if you manage to squash emissions here most of the activity will just shift to Asia anyway and people will keep buying the same products, essentially. And judging from how they tolerate pollution Asians will keep guzzling till they're "walking on sunshine" as long as the money's right.

Fusion is the only way as far as I can tell. That or some freak climate manipulation.

[Anonymous No.9320375]

>>9320360
>>9320367
>Deflecting the question rather than answering it
no need to come comment further I already know you're anti-science retards that don't believe in evolution.

[Anonymous No.9320378]

>>9320254
So you set a country a target of x tonnes of CO2 a year to get down to, and they're not going to divide that up among each of their states/provinces, because 'per state' is a meaningless stat?

[Anonymous No.9320379]

>>9320367
Are you sure? /pol would disagree. They seem like smart guys to, they also say climate change is fake and that the Las Vegas shooter was a liberal becuase he drank Pepsi. I doubt that their wrong about this if they are correct so often.

[Anonymous No.9320383]

The history of Earth's climate is essentially the history of the carbon cycle being forced by tectonics (on the million-year-timescale) and orbital elements (on the (multi)millennial timescale) and geologic history provides us with a number of imperfect analogues:

The first analogue that we are already beginning the enter is the Eemian (120,000 years ago), when sea level was 6 - 9 meters higher.

The next one are the interglacials of the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period (3 Million years ago), which was the last time the atmosphere had a CO2 concentration of 400ppm. At that time, Greenland, the WAIS and the Aurora subglacial basin were ice-free and sea level was ~22 meters higher.

The next one is the Miocene (~12 Million years ago), when a CO2 concentration of around 500 ppm and a surface temperature of 3 - 4 °C warmer than pre-industrial times lead to a sea level ~40 meters higher than today. Ice was at that time largely restricted to the interior of Antarctica.

The last analogue will be the Eocene (more than 36 million years ago) when CO2 concentration was above 650 ppm, the planet was in the ice-free condition and thermophilic reptiles roamed the Arctic.

[Anonymous No.9320384]

>>9320375
Okay, go back to whatever board you came from. Have fun.

[Anonymous No.9320393]

>>9320378
>So you set a country a target of x tonnes of CO2 a year to get down to, and they're not going to divide that up among each of their states/provinces, because 'per state' is a meaningless stat?
States pollute different amounts, per capita is an equally dishonest statistic

[Anonymous No.9320401]

>>9320371
By raising unemployment and the prices of goods and services?

[Anonymous No.9320402]

>>9320401
>MUH ECONOMY is more important than the future of the human race
Good luck winning your "economic war" (which you already lost to China) at the expense of the planet

[Anonymous No.9320403]

>>9320401
Fear tactic, again.

[Anonymous No.9320407]

>>9320402
>>MUH ECONOMY is more important than the future of the human race
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.9320408]

>>9320365
>So I guess you never encountered it?
It's hard to tell when your description is so vague.

>MUH AL GORE
Of course.

>It still won't line up into an cataclysm, just like the last 6 times the alarmists predicted in the past.
Sorry I again don't know what this refers to. You'll have to provide an example.

>We were supposed to flood the Himalayas by now, 'member?
Is this what you're referring to? I don't see how it's relevant.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/devastating-himalayan-floods-are-made-worse-by-an-international-blame-game-83103

>You know full well we don't understand the exact dynamics of our atmosphere yet, its not like pumping gases into an aquarium and extrapolating.
We don't understand much of anything exactly, doesn't mean we don't know enough to see that GHGs can drive the climate, and that our GHG emissions are currently driving the climate.

>Its correlation that you actually have hard evidence for, not exact impact of co2 on the system.
Actually we can directly measure that via radiative spectroscopy. The exact impact of CO2, the radiative forcing, is well known.

>you can't produce a formula that'd predict the median temperature 2 decades from now.
A formula? No, but there are several models that have been accurately predicting global temperature for decades:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

>Manmade warming can be riding a larger short term fluctuation we can't yet recognize and you wouldn't know.
Yes, but you could say that about anything. It could all just be caused by magic unicorn farts. The problem is, until you come up with an alternative explanation that makes as much sense and is as well evidenced as current theory, the current theory stands. Do you understand how science works?

[Anonymous No.9320411]

>>9320403
Just look at the market index right now following a speculation of a Trump tax cut, cutting taxes increase the strength of the economy.

[Anonymous No.9320412]

>>9320365
>You individually don't matter. I want someone to respond for the movements the millions of "concerned" bourgeois exhibitionists that don't support it.
Sure, as soon as you admit AGW is a scientific fact and explain why millions deny it.

[Anonymous No.9320413]

>>9320330
Pretty sure that graph shows China as the largest contributor to emissions. And that is from 2013.
I never claimed you said anything about 2017.
You are purposefully omitting information between posts, you specifically said population size is relevant to global warming because population control isn't a viable mitigation plan. (It is)

I think you're doing this to try to autistic ally screech out "GOT YA" when someone doesn't or can't tell why you're arguing against yourself.

Anyways, you've been proven wrong. US hasn't been the top emitter by weight or capita for a number of years.

[Anonymous No.9320415]

>>9320281
But hitting the brakes isn't the only way to avoid collision, so maybe we should be concentrating on avoiding the wall altogether.

[Anonymous No.9320422]

>>9320345
You mean people of the future. They can't afford anything because they don't exist. It's ridiculous to say that we should lower the quality of our life so that other people won't have it as shitty. That's the same as any other socialist model and it never works.

[Anonymous No.9320425]

>>9320401
Global warming that would be mitigated by an optimal carbon tax would do more harm to the economy than the tax itself, by definition. You're only looking at one half of the equation.

[Anonymous No.9320426]

>hey guys we need to stop having kids in the developed world, this will solve the problem
>because developing world doesn't aim for the same lifestyle in the long run or anything
>muh refugees doe

[Anonymous No.9320429]

>giving a shit about climate change
what a millennial thing to do

[Anonymous No.9320432]

>>9320422
Does your cult even have a date for doomsday, you just say "future"? They seem to be changing around constantly, at least the Mayans were consistent.

[Anonymous No.9320434]

>>9320373
>The drastic demands coming from influential environmentalists since the 70s at least, like cutting emissions by a minimum of 50%
That doesn't answer the question. You claimed that industrial output would be cut by 50% not emissions. So not only did you put up a straw man of 50% emissions cut, you then misrepresented it.

[Anonymous No.9320436]

>>9320426
Are you retarded? Nobody said we should stop having kids, the suggestion was to cut the carbon dioxide emissions.

>>9320415
What do you suggest? Praying that we are just imagining the wall ahead?

[Anonymous No.9320438]

>>9320393
Now per capita or per state have gone from being meaningless to dishonest? Come on, now.

[Anonymous No.9320442]

>>9320375
Just give me a scientific statement and we'll see what the evidence says. Are you afraid?

[Anonymous No.9320445]

>>9320383
And that's only mentioning the effect of sea level. Indeed, under high-end scenarios (RCP6 and RCP8.5), another effect could overtake sea level as a global force.

At normal temperatures, human bodies can dissipate excess metabolic heat by convection and evaporation of sweat. However, when you shift the mean of global temperatures, certain regions of the planet (mainly the tropics, because of high relative humidity) could go beyond "wet bulb temperatures" for which the human body can cool off by evaporation of water. For temperatures beyond that, longer exposure of air will induce lethal hyperthermia and make human survival physiologically impossible. These zones will appear around the equator and start to expand poleward with increasing temperatures.

This could become more significant than sea level rise because
(a) the total affected area could be larger
(b) these conditions arrive more or less instantaneously, while sea level rise is a multi-millennial process

[Anonymous No.9320446]

>>9320436
>Nobody said we should stop having kids

I'm not quoting anons, I'm quoting the Bill Nyes of the world. You know, the people with a voice and a media presence?

[Anonymous No.9320450]

>>9320438
>Now per capita or per state have gone from being meaningless to dishonest?
Since when were they meaningless? They're statistics of course they have meaning, but your use of them is dishonest, just like the dishonest use of the cumulative chart earlier

[Anonymous No.9320452]

>>9320436
>What do you suggest? Praying that we are just imagining the wall ahead?
Make sure our technology is being used to its fullest extent to hopefully get out of the problem completely, whereas 'hitting the brakes' is still going to hurt, IF scientists are claiming it's already too late. Surely if technology doesn't achieve this, it will still lessen the impact.

[Anonymous No.9320462]

>>9320306
Why implement a carbon tax that will keep gasoline vehicles on the road when you could just tax people and then reimburse them for an electric vehicle a few years down the road?

[Anonymous No.9320463]

>>9320450
>Since when were they meaningless?

>>9320254
>per capita emission is a meaningless stat

Follow the conversation. And explain how the use is dishonest, rather than just saying it is.

[Anonymous No.9320464]

>>9320446
Firstly, I'd like to see that quote, and secondly, the media is dominated by people who (a) either are not vocal about climate change and (b) anti-scientific climate change deniers like Trump. Bill Nye is relatively unknown to most people, especially if they are not from the US

[Anonymous No.9320469]

>>9320413
>Pretty sure that graph shows China as the largest contributor to emissions.
I think you need to get your eyes checked, China is behind the US.

>You are purposefully omitting information between posts, you specifically said population size is relevant to global warming because population control isn't a viable mitigation plan.
No, I said that population size ISN'T a relevant factor, thus we need to remove its influence.

>Anyways, you've been proven wrong. US hasn't been the top emitter by weight or capita for a number of years.
The US is the top emitter according to the data. If you have more recent data I suggest you present it. And again I never claimed it was the top emitter per capita. Why do you keep lying?

[Anonymous No.9320470]

>>9320462
much more effective at reducing emissions

[Anonymous No.9320471]

>>9320452
>We should use our technology to stop climate change
Oh, yes, how come nobody thought of this sooner...
Are you a genius by chance?

[Anonymous No.9320473]

>>9320463
>>9320254 isn't my post.

>And explain how the use is dishonest, rather than just saying it is.
Because it misrepresents reality, like using the chart to falsely claim that the US is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world.

[Anonymous No.9320496]

>>9320422
>It's ridiculous to say that we should lower the quality of our life so that other people won't have it as shitty.
Actually it's reducing our quality of life so that future people won't have it even shittier, but if that's ridiculous to you then I guess you shouldn't mind implementing these policies after you're dead.

[Anonymous No.9320498]

>>9319652
climate change suffers from the same problem as christianity, I'd be willing to support it if the rest of the proponents weren't so insufferable about it

[Anonymous No.9320504]

>>9320462
I don't understand, which tax are you talking about? I would expect the revenue of a carbon tax to go towards clean energy infrastructure and poor people harmed by the tax.

[Anonymous No.9320519]

>>9320464
>Firstly, I'd like to see that quote,

See the archived bill nye thread: >>9318415

And why do you need to see it exactly, since you're about to dismiss it anyway? So I have to do an extra task, thats all the reason, isn't it?

>muh drumpf
>muh media is on the side of my opponents
>like drumpfpff

Yeah, see. this is why I don't engage you people much anymore.

>Bill Nye is relatively unknown to most people, especially if they are not from the US

He's known by most people in the US under 40 years of age. I'm from Europe and i know him for at least 8 years now.

I'd say most people in the environmentalist circles seem pretty goddamn malthusian to me, even passing into antinatalism, but then your anal retentiveness would compel you to ask for some kind of statistic. Since you align yourself with the general ideological spectrum those people come from they're off limits for ridicule I guess. Don't wanna harm the Cause(tm).

[Anonymous No.9320523]

>>9320504
A carbon tax will make people feel like they're being punished and will just generally take money; people would continue eating meat still, driving gasoline cars, etc that contribute to C02 emissions; Wouldn't it be better if each person were instead taxed until there was a certain amount of money that was good for an electric/environmentally friendly car? Reimburse them after a certain amount is saved in the form of a voucher strictly only good for an electric vehicle. Do that to every citizen and it would make a massive and much faster change to switching from gasoline cars to electric and would reduce emissions much faster than just a general carbon tax.

[Anonymous No.9320524]

>>9320464
>Bill Nye is relatively unknown to most people, especially if they are not from the US
literally everyone in Canada knows Bill Nye

[Anonymous No.9320532]

I've noticed a lot of /b/like arguing over mass media talking points but no one(except for me same fagging) has addressed my post here
>>9320274

Why is this?
Btw the only solution is ecological literacy and anarchy

[Anonymous No.9320540]

>>9320411
Market index isn't an evaluation of the strength of the economy, it's an indicator for sure but by no means is it a proof of your point.

[Anonymous No.9320544]

Deluded leftists like the ones ITT who believe in climate change are in what is called the 'reality-based community,' i.e. people who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. But that's not the way the world really works anymore, the US is an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. Us Republicans are history's actors…and you leftists, all of you, will be left to just study what we do

[Anonymous No.9320546]

>>9320523
>A carbon tax will make people feel like they're being punished and will just generally take money; people would continue eating meat still, driving gasoline cars, etc that contribute to C02 emissions;
So what? It would decrease emissions.

>Wouldn't it be better if each person were instead taxed until there was a certain amount of money that was good for an electric/environmentally friendly car? Reimburse them after a certain amount is saved in the form of a voucher strictly only good for an electric vehicle.
Taxed based on what? Any tax is going to feel like a punishment and reduce economic activity. A carbon tax would reduce emissions specifically, and the revenue could be spent on a voucher for an electric car or on any other measure designed to reduce emissions further. So I don't see how this is an alternative to a carbon tax.

[Anonymous No.9320548]

If you cunts don't start buying green energy products you will melt to death. We know this because of the data. The data from government organisations who measure this shit, we know it's trustworthy. Science cannot be manipulated or used to deceive so just fucking do what we say otherwise you're basically destroying the world. FACT.

[Anonymous No.9320549]

>>9320197
>That's a cumulative graph that includes the 1970s which does not accurately represent the China of today.

Cumulative emission is the most fair way to count emission. Industrialized first world countries have started their carbon emission since the 1850's and were responsible for majority of current warming. Later industrialized nation like China and India might have high carbon emission today, but cumulatively they still trails behind US and EU.

It's like for example you and your buddy got a pizza. You ate half of the pizza for lunch, then you and your buddy shared the other half for dinner. Should it be 50-50? Nope, you should pay 75% and your friend should pay 25%.

Same with carbon emission. If you look at area under the curve in the atmosphere in pic related, + 50% more of emitted carbon from industrialized nations that has been absorbed by the earth systems (contributing to ocean acidification, and some plant growth/greening of northern hemisphere, not in pic because it only shows cumulative fraction remaining in the atmosphere) then the US+EU were responsible for close to 75% of the cumulative carbon.

Also >>9320200
>"First world countries have the most capability to reduce emissions since they have the highest emissions per capita. India has less than 1/5 the emissions of the US and 1/8 the emmissions per capita."

What happens to conservative personal responsibility? US and EU dumped all those carbon into the atmosphere, most of which still lingers because residence time of CO2 is >100 years. In 100 years, half of the CO2 in the atmosphere would be China's responsibility, so it is only fair that China take their fair share 100 years from now.

[Anonymous No.9320563]

>>9320532
>>9320274

Phrased somewhat unnecessarily poetic or mysterious but essentially correct. In fact, this has been recognized by ecologists.

For example, as the pic related source points out, even ecosystems that are either very remote to the anthroposphere or are carefully protected and nurtured (like Yellowstone National Park) are going through quite radical transformation that - taken on a global scale - may elicit rapid responses of the biosphere as ecosystems get knocked across a critical bifurcation and into a new state of operation.

[Anonymous No.9320566]

>>9320549
>Cumulative emission is the most fair way to count emission.
>counts it since before we knew for sure warming was linked to co2 emissions

yeah, boy, super fair

dose dastardly foken' tophatters ruining it for the rest of us with their technological progres! Damn em, damn em all.

[Anonymous No.9320575]

>>9319685
>-No one is going to give up their meat.
We've been eating meat for as long as we've been human, this is not the real problem.

[Anonymous No.9320576]

>>9320147
>human induced mass extinction and ecosystem collapse isn't a big issue
>over consumption of natural resources leading to scarcity isn't an issue
>Toxic pollution of the oceans with billions of tons of plastic particle waste (some of it even making it into the deep sea) isn't an issue
>Mass emission of GHG into the atmosphere, increasing every single year causing increase in global average temperature isn't an issue
>Melting land ice due to depletion of arctic multi-year sea ice leading to SLR threatening the vast majority of human civilization that is based in the coastal zone isn't significant
>Coral bleaching due to warmer ocean temperatures and acidification due to increased CO2 absorption into the ocean isn't a significant issue
This is what you sound like retard. You can't just say something isn't a significant issue when it clearly fucking is. It's pretty damn clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, maybe go read some actual scientific literature on climate science and stop being such a twat?

>>9320178
You are completely and totally ignorant, and uneducated on the issue. Climate science is robust and evidence based. Your petty conspiratard """logic""" does not change that.

[Anonymous No.9320578]

>>9320546
>A carbon tax would reduce emissions specifically, and the revenue could be spent on a voucher for an electric car or on any other measure designed to reduce emissions further

... That's literally what I just suggested.
A tax would only be good for that reason, because it would actually enact massive reduction in emissions by encouraging getting rid of gasoline vehicles, those things pump out a shitload of CO2.

Infrastructure funding from the tax would not do as much of a change as getting rid of all the gasoline vehicles on the road. And also, politicians have always said a carbon tax is just to force people to use less resources, but humans don't give a shit and would continue to waste shit. Instead, it'd be much more effective to reimburse an individual's tax money with a voucher for an EV.

[Anonymous No.9320579]

>>9320544
And what exactly is it Republicans are doing?

[Anonymous No.9320586]

>>9320575
It is the real problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production#Greenhouse_gas_emissions

[Anonymous No.9320588]

>>9320469
If you look at the graph we were talking about, China emitted about twice what the us did. I don't know why you're trying to argue that us put out more when they clearly haven't.

If population size isn't relevant, then why have you been arguing that per capita emissions matter?

No Graph in this thread supports your claim that the US has been a top emitter in the last 10 or so years, which is what we're talking about.

[Anonymous No.9320591]

>>9320566
>yeah, boy, super fair. dose dastardly foken' tophatters ruining it for the rest of us with their technological progres! Damn em, damn em all.

If anything it is a moral responsibility for industrialized nations like the US to help poorer 3rd world nations, because we dumped bunch of pollutants into the atmosphere on the way of our means to obtain said political stability and technology. Again what happen to personal responsibility? All I hear is you crying about WE WUZ GOOD BOY, WE DINDU NUFFIN.

[Anonymous No.9320593]

>>9320591
>moral responsibility
nice meme

[Anonymous No.9320604]

>>9320588
>No Graph in this thread supports your claim that the US has been a top emitter in the last 10 or so years, which is what we're talking about.
Not him, but the most fair way to count it is cumulative emission.

You cant be dumping bunch of poo in the loo into the river for the last 150 years, then when your neighbor who just moved in last week dumped more poo in the loo you cry foul.

[Anonymous No.9320608]

>>9320604
>Not him, but the most fair way to count it is cumulative emission.
Why?

[Anonymous No.9320609]

>>9320593
>responsibility is a meme
What happen to /trad/, being moral, and personal responsibility you Drumfling /pol/ution

[Anonymous No.9320611]

>>9320576
>Climate science is robust and evidence based. Your petty conspiratard """logic""" does not change that.

Where does the "evidence" come from? Have you personally verified it by doing your own experiments? At the moment you just have blind faith, much a like a religious person.

[Anonymous No.9320612]

>>9320591

>Again what happen to personal responsibility?

it tends to die with the individual

[Anonymous No.9320618]

>>9320609
>What happen to /trad/, being moral, and personal responsibility you Drumfling /pol/ution
Morals are a meme, I don't know what 'Drumf' or /pol/ has to do with it

[Anonymous No.9320619]

>>9320608
Because of dispersion. When a nuclear plant in Germany emits pollution, it is not a "German" problem.

You cannot contain emissions; it's a cumulative thing.

[Anonymous No.9320620]

>>9320578
I don't think having everyone buy an EV would reduce emissions as much as replacing fossil fuel infrastructure. Electricity and heating is the largest source of emissions.

[Anonymous No.9320623]

>>9320612

PS Also, if they don't like the way West did tech progress they can give back all that shit, lobotomize themselves and figure it out themselves.

I bet it would be super clean if they were the ones pioneering the modern world, considering the track record of hominids burning things for energy w/o figuring out climate science first. lel

[Anonymous No.9320625]

We're fucked, it's very simple, don't be delusional.

Our last hope as a species is to colonize Mars

[Anonymous No.9320628]

>>9320608
I just gave the example. 2 people were in a mess together. One person has contributed more to the mess than the other, then he's more responsible.

Just flip it around with your dumb /pol/ logic so you can understand. Say a bunch of Muslims have been killing westerners and fellow muslims with terrorist attacks and have killed thousands of people for the last 10 years. Then a /pol/cuck went haywire and shoot up a mosque and kill 5 people. Is it fair to say that both sides are equally responsible? No, one side, in this hypothetical case the Muslim has contributed more to their fair share of violence, and one /pol/cuck who went Brevik is not representative of the rest of law abiding, tiki torch wielding alt right retards

[Anonymous No.9320632]

>>9320628
>Just flip it around with your dumb /pol/ logic so you can understand.
Can you go a single post without mentioning /pol/? I get that you're spooked by some /pol/ bogeyman but it draws away from whatever else you're trying to say

[Anonymous No.9320633]

>>9319652
DUDE WHY DON'T WE JUST GROW A BUNCH OF WEED THAT WILL CONSUME THE CO2 DUDE WEED LMAO

[Anonymous No.9320634]

>>9320519
Your source is an captioned image? And you see nothing wrong with that? You're making me worried...

>And why do you need to see it exactly, since you're about to dismiss it anyway? So I have to do an extra task, thats all the reason, isn't it?
I realize that you're not familiar with it, but that's the usual procedure in scientific community: If you make a claim, provide a proof

>being this assblasted because someone mentioned Trump
He believes (or at least claims) pic related despite scientists around the world telling him otherwise. And anything he says reaches a lot more people than anything any climate scientist or Bill Nye ever says.

>lots of strawmanning
Just what you'd expect from a /pol/tard

[Anonymous No.9320635]

>>9320620
The biggest problem I have with a carbon tax is when politicians want to use it to "encourage" people to use less. That won't do shit because of human nature and I worry politicians would just pocket the money. I support a tax only if it's good for buying EVs or replacing infrastructure. But the money would actually have to go into it.

[Anonymous No.9320643]

>>9320632
>muh deflection
The point is clear, you need to count cumulative emission

[Anonymous No.9320648]

>>9320643
>The point is clear, you need to count cumulative emission
Why?

[Anonymous No.9320659]

>>9320611
Nice strawman.
Where does any scientific evidence come from, are you seriously trying to argue that climate science is not testable, or not based in a robust scientific method? How far is your head up your own ass that you've come to believe this, how warped has your worldview become in which you think this is a rational position?
Explain how exactly you believe an entire scientific field is not valid with zero evidence to support it, because you are such a fucking moron that I can't believe I'm even wasting my time typing this bullshit out right now.

Please look up Dunning-Kruger, you're definitely a type-specimen of this cognitive bias.
Are you arguing that there hasn't been an increase in GHG in the Earth's atmosphere? Are you arguing that humans have not caused this increase? Are you arguing that the scientific fact that CO2 contributes to global warming via the greenhouse effect isn't real? All of these are testable in a labrotory setting, you can prove that humans are emitting the CO2 that has built up in the atmosphere by isotopic ratios. You can prove the greenhouse effect exists, and show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in a laboratory setting. We have physical evidence of climate changes occurring in the Arctic, in coral reefs, in global circulation patters, in ocean temperature data, and in atmospheric temperature data.

So what the fuck are you trying to argue here, are you seriously this delusional of a person? Let me remind you that THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS *NOT* ON YOUR SIDE. You do NOT have any ground to stand on here, yet you're arguing as if you're in a position of authority, how fucking pathetic.
That's the greatest irony about people like you, you have NOTHING to support your arguments except insults, conspiracy and cognitive biases. You can't even be skeptical about your own positions, because that would involve actually examining and critiquing all the fallacies.

pic related, it's how people like you think.

[Anonymous No.9320661]

>>9320659
>Nice strawman.
>Where does any scientific evidence come from, are you seriously trying to argue that climate science is not testable, or not based in a robust scientific method? How far is your head up your own ass that you've come to believe this, how warped has your worldview become in which you think this is a rational position?
>Explain how exactly you believe an entire scientific field is not valid with zero evidence to support it, because you are such a fucking moron that I can't believe I'm even wasting my time typing this bullshit out right now.
>Please look up Dunning-Kruger, you're definitely a type-specimen of this cognitive bias.
>Are you arguing that there hasn't been an increase in GHG in the Earth's atmosphere? Are you arguing that humans have not caused this increase? Are you arguing that the scientific fact that CO2 contributes to global warming via the greenhouse effect isn't real? All of these are testable in a labrotory setting, you can prove that humans are emitting the CO2 that has built up in the atmosphere by isotopic ratios. You can prove the greenhouse effect exists, and show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in a laboratory setting. We have physical evidence of climate changes occurring in the Arctic, in coral reefs, in global circulation patters, in ocean temperature data, and in atmospheric temperature data.
>So what the fuck are you trying to argue here, are you seriously this delusional of a person? Let me remind you that THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS *NOT* ON YOUR SIDE. You do NOT have any ground to stand on here, yet you're arguing as if you're in a position of authority, how fucking pathetic.
>That's the greatest irony about people like you, you have NOTHING to support your arguments except insults, conspiracy and cognitive biases. You can't even be skeptical about your own positions, because that would involve actually examining and critiquing all the fallacies.
>pic related, it's how people like you think.
cringe

[Anonymous No.9320686]

>>9320625
Mars is a fucking meme. We have a perfectly good planet we're living on right now that has a crisis we can solve by not being such greedy, narcissistic twats of a species.

[Anonymous No.9320688]

>>9320686
>a crisis we can solve by not being such greedy, narcissistic twats of a species.
t. soyboy

[Anonymous No.9320690]

>>9320661
Nice response, clearly you don't have any you fucking brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9320694]

>>9320611
>Have you personally verified it by doing your own experiments? At the moment you just have blind faith, much a like a religious person

I'm not the guy you talked to, but I'm glad you asked Mr. Skeptic, because I have done the experiment myself. I run measurements of past greenhouse gases trapped in ice core bubbles, as a way to reconstruct past atmospheric greenhouse gases concentration and its correlation with other proxies of climate change. Pic related is my lab. SPC stands for South Pole Core and NICL is National Ice Core Laboratory. I've been down to Antarctica and Greenland for more than half a dozen times each.

Even on thanksgiving weekend I'm still running samples and arguing with fellow /sci/bros about whether you can or cannot divide a number by zero between sample runs.

Anyway manmade climate change is real

Manmade climate change

[Anonymous No.9320697]

>>9319685
They recently discovered new kinds of animal feed that makes cattle produce 90% less methane.

[Anonymous No.9320698]

>>9320659
How can the scientific method apply to something that is ever changing? Do "climate scientists" claim to know every variable involved in the behavior of the climate? Is there even an objective definition of "climate"?

A lab setting is not the climate, do you see how that's not empirical evidence of anything? A computer model is not the climate, it is not empirical.

The only science I believe in is observable, testable and repeatable by many different scientists who don't have an agenda. The only "scientists" who have the technological capability of measuring global temperature (which will still be very inaccurate) are government scientists.

[Anonymous No.9320707]

>>9320690
>Nice response, clearly you don't have any you fucking brainlet.
As soon as I saw you incorrectly call out a strawman, and skimmed down to see some incorrectly used Dunning Kruger label and a bunch of caps I knew there was nothing that needed responding to

[Anonymous No.9320711]

>>9320611
Made some spelling errors so I deleted my previous post

>Have you personally verified it by doing your own experiments? At the moment you just have blind faith, much a like a religious person

I'm not the guy you talked to, but I'm glad you asked Mr. Skeptic, because I have done the experiment myself. I run measurements of past greenhouse gases trapped in ice core bubbles, as a way to reconstruct past atmospheric greenhouse gases concentration and its correlation with other proxies of climate change. Pic related is my lab. SPC stands for South Pole Core and NICL is National Ice Core Laboratory ttps://icecores.org. I've been down to Antarctica and Greenland for more than half a dozen times each.

Even on thanksgiving weekend I'm still running samples and arguing with fellow /sci/bros about whether you can or cannot divide a number by zero on the other thread between running my samples

Anyway manmade climate change is real.

[Anonymous No.9320718]

>>9320588
The graph we're talking about is here >>9320190 . You responded to my post quoting that post by saying it shows China is the largest emitter when it doesn't.

>If population size isn't relevant, then why have you been arguing that per capita emissions matter?
I have explained it several times, including the post you responded to. Per capita emissions removes the effect of population size.

>No Graph in this thread supports your claim that the US has been a top emitter in the last 10 or so years
The graph referred to above shows this. It was the top emitter as of 2013, and is still the top emitter today. If you mean that the US is not the top in 2017's emissions, I never claimed otherwise. You seem to have a big problem in literacy, I suggest you fix it before going further.

[Anonymous No.9320726]

>>9320611
Mac is that you?

[Anonymous No.9320728]

>>9320628
This isn't /pol/ logic,this is the usual "i'm sorry for what i did i'll be a good cuck now" logic.
This is one of the problems of "global warming",the west stops and pays others to industrialize,because since we are industrialized they need to be too,as we are all equal.But we are not equal.The west has polluted way more than anyone else?Too bad,we could and we benefited from it.Why should we damage ourselves so that others can thrive?

[Anonymous No.9320731]

>>9320611
Mac is that you?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0

[Anonymous No.9320735]

>>9320698
>I don't understand what empirical evidence or scientific models are: the post
Leave /sci/ please.

[Anonymous No.9320742]

>>9320635
A tax on something encourages people to use it less. Basic economics.

Also, politicians don't pocket tax money, I'm sick of this meme. It just goes to their favorite pork, unless the legislation enacting the tax explicitly says where the revenue has to go.

[Anonymous No.9320746]

>>9320694
>I'm not the guy you talked to, but I'm glad you asked Mr. Skeptic, because I have done the experiment myself. I run measurements of past greenhouse gases trapped in ice core bubbles, as a way to reconstruct past atmospheric greenhouse gases concentration and its correlation with other proxies of climate change.

Is this theoretical or actual fact?

>I've been down to Antarctica

Who owns Antarctica?

[Anonymous No.9320750]

>>9320698
>How can the scientific method apply to something that is ever changing?
You have dozens of glacial cycles recorded in the past by your proxies whether it is marine sediment or ice cores. Each proxies contain different information, whether it is ocean salinity, greenhouse gas concentration, noble gas ratios, etc.

>Do "climate scientists" claim to know every variable involved in the behavior of the climate?
I'm pretty sure we know all of the major knobs and variables and how they interact with each other based on first principle physics like conservation of mass, momentum, energy, and continuity equation

>Is there even an objective definition of "climate"?
https://eo.ucar.edu/kids/green/what1.htm

>A computer model is not the climate
No it's not. But an ensemble of measurements and proxy reconstructions to best of our knowledge are.

>The only science I believe in is observable, testable and repeatable
NASA GISS ModelE (which is one of model for IPCC) is open source and have nightly builds.
https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/.. Feel free to download it and open all the FORTRAN90 guts inside it. The HOWTO run it is also well documented, but you have to compile it from git
https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/gcm/doc/HOWTO/..
If you pick the low res 5x5 lat lon grid, and have at last 16GB of CPU RAM you should be able to run the model from initial condition to at least half a day of model time before you run out of memory and the model crashes. If you see any fundamental problem with how the energy equation, or the continuity equation are parameterized feel free to let my boss know
[e-mail] and we appreciate it

[Anonymous No.9320755]

>>9320742
>It just goes to their favorite pork
Which is often their pocket. Do you think politicians have "charitable" foundations out of the goodness of their hearts?

[Anonymous No.9320766]

>>9320746
Theoretical, because air bubbles trapped in ice cores are literal sample of air from the past atmosphere.

If you could measure whatever you want to measure, dust, aerosol, methane, CO2, CO, N2O, in modern air, and your analytical system is good enough that you only need about a single digit cc STP air then you can measure bubbles in ice cores with the exact same technique that you measure your analyte today in the modern atm

>Who owns Antarctica?
Nobody. Antarctica is under Antarctic Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
which means that it is a demilitarized international governship zone where the only allowable activities are scientific research.

[Anonymous No.9320769]

>>9320726
>>9320731
i'm glad I'm not the only one that thought the exact same thing when i saw his post

[Anonymous No.9320775]

>>9320755
Hmmm no, there are conflict of interest laws that prevent that. As soon as that happened, the oppossing party would be all over them. The best a politician can do is get away with some subtle form of insider trading. And most politicians are already wealthy, since you have to be rich to afford a campaign.

[Anonymous No.9320784]

>>9320766
>Theoretical, because air bubbles trapped in ice cores are literal sample of air from the past atmosphere
Welp duh I meant experimental sorry I've been up since 9am yesterday

[Anonymous No.9320786]

>>9319652
autistic rambling goes to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9320787]

>>9320750
>You have dozens of glacial cycles recorded in the past by your proxies whether it is marine sediment or ice cores. Each proxies contain different information, whether it is ocean salinity, greenhouse gas concentration, noble gas ratios, etc.

Is this theoretical or fact?

>I'm pretty sure we know all of the major knobs and variables and how they interact with each other based on first principle physics like conservation of mass, momentum, energy, and continuity equation

Pretty sure? Aren't there potentially infinite variables? Potentially I could take a huge shit and cause climate change with your theory.

>https://eo.ucar.edu/kids/green/what1.htm

Climate = weather? Circular logic.

>NASA GISS ModelE (which is one of model for IPCC) is open source and have nightly builds.
https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/.. Feel free to download it and open all the FORTRAN90 guts inside it. The HOWTO run it is also well documented, but you have to compile it from git
https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/gcm/doc/HOWTO/..
If you pick the low res 5x5 lat lon grid, and have at last 16GB of CPU RAM you should be able to run the model from initial condition to at least half a day of model time before you run out of memory and the model crashes. If you see any fundamental problem with how the energy equation, or the continuity equation are parameterized feel free to let my boss know

I want to have the same instruments to measure global temperature, not software. I'll ping Gavin an email and make an offer to buy the satellites.

[Anonymous No.9320793]

>>9320147
- robot detects trigger words "global warming"
- oil company shill arrives within minutes, talking points list and copypasta at the ready

[Anonymous No.9320795]

>>9319659
Plot twist, it was a gringo.

[Anonymous No.9320796]

>>9320793
>oil company shill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

[Anonymous No.9320797]

>>9320445
doctor in english please. are we fucked? i live in aruba and its been getting way hotter here than ever. my balls are always saggy and sweaty.

[Anonymous No.9320802]

>>9320766
>Theoretical, because air bubbles trapped in ice cores are literal sample of air from the past atmosphere.
>If you could measure whatever you want to measure, dust, aerosol, methane, CO2, CO, N2O, in modern air, and your analytical system is good enough that you only need about a single digit cc STP air then you can measure bubbles in ice cores with the exact same technique that you measure your analyte today in the modern atm

Ice was once water, water has fish in it. Fish exhale CO2 into the water.

>Nobody. Antarctica is under Antarctic Treaty
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
>which means that it is a demilitarized international governship zone where the only allowable activities are scientific research.

Nobody owns Antarctica and yet there are laws there? How does that work?

[Anonymous No.9320803]

>>9320742
>Also, politicians don't pocket tax money, I'm sick of this meme. It just goes to their favorite pork

And this is why I advocate reimbursing that taxed money towards electric car vouchers. Actual change would happen, and would speed up the transition to EV's from gasoline.

Another reason it'd be better to use a tax to reimburse for EVs is because people would more likely support that idea vs supporting a tax that forces people to use less. People like getting something in return, what better way than a new car.

[Anonymous No.9320805]

>>9320796
When it's true, it's not an ad hominem. For instance, if you're really retarded, and I say, "You're retarded," that's not an ad hominem, that's a factual statement.

[Anonymous No.9320808]

>>9320805
>When it's true, it's not an ad hominem.
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.9320815]

>>9320787
It is experimental measurement, so it is a fact within the precision and accuracy of the instruments.

>Aren't there potentially infinite variables?
Not really. There are finite amount of major climate knobs, greenhouse gas concentration and solar insolation alone can account for most of the glacial interglacial cycles. If you go to geologic time then volcanic activity and mountain building takes over. First you have to state the problem correctly, for a given long timescale, whether it is centennial, or thousands of years, or million of years (e.g. climate, not weather) there is only a finite controlling variables (each corresponds to different timescales).

>I want to have the same instruments to measure global temperature, not software
Berkeley Earth was not a government organization. http://berkeleyearth.org/
They're even funded by the Koch brothers

But like 5 years ago they came out and said that their T measurements, averaging and reconstruction agrees really well with NOAA Temperature data and HADCRUT (which is the british NOAA). Quote from the head of Berkeley Earth project
>"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all
This is coming from a guy who takes Koch brothers money.

How many more independent measurements do you want? You're sounding like that dumb flat earther who build his own rocket and risk his own life (after multiple launch failures already) because he doesn't trust the GUBERMENT.

[Anonymous No.9320817]

>>9320808
So you're admitting that you're a paid shill?

[Anonymous No.9320823]

>>9320817
>So you're admitting that you're a paid shill?
Yes, and I'm also admitting you don't even understand one of the most basic logical fallacies. I highly suggest re-reading what an ad hominem is.

[Anonymous No.9320833]

>>9320823
You're aware that ad hominem is not logically fallacious when it pertains directly to the legitimacy of an argument? Or you didn't get that far into logic?

[Anonymous No.9320836]

>>9320802
>Ice was once water, water has fish in it. Fish exhale CO2 into the water

Ice was once water. Water has fish in it. Fish exhale CO2 into the water. The water then evaporate into the atmosphere. When the H2O(l) -> H2O(g) all the dissolved inorganic carbon in it did not turn into gas. Water vapor then got transported by hadley cells into the poles where they snowed. It is basically a multiple distillation process that reject all impurities. Snow that are deposited in both Greenland and Antarctica are the most distilled cleanest H2O that you could ever get. During snow densification process, as it gets buried it traps air bubbles, in which thousands of years later from your taxpayer money we drill and retrieve the ice core for analysis.

Good troll question though

[Anonymous No.9320839]

>>9319652
Congratulations you have accepted a fake crisis and the political solutions that don't even fix the problem it is meant to address.

[Anonymous No.9320840]

>>9320149
Look at past climates, namely the ones with dinosaurs

[Anonymous No.9320842]

>>9320823
>>So you're admitting that you're a paid shill?
>Yes
/thread

[Anonymous No.9320845]

>>9320839
t. paid shill

[Anonymous No.9320846]

>>9320802
>How does that work?
How does a treaty work? How can independent 2 or more parties make a binding agreement together?

t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.9320853]

>>9320840
>Look at past climates, namely the ones with dinosaurs
The dinosaurs were fine because they didn't live in sheltered buildings. This is how the Earth looks like when CO2 is >1000ppm.

Did you see Florida? the middle East? American West? Australia? Half of India? Western Europe?

Nope, they're all underwater because Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet didn't exist back then

[Anonymous No.9320857]

>>9320845
Cut off your balls faggot. Not breeding is the best thing you can do for the environment. Maybe you can reduce the population too by euthanizing yourself.

[Anonymous No.9320859]

>>9320853
Forgot pic

[Anonymous No.9320863]

>>9320853
OMG you mean that populations will relocate over multiple centuries? I don't fucking care about some boomer's beachfront investment that has to be rebuilt every five years when a hurricane comes through.

[Anonymous No.9320865]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT EVERYONE IS SO STUPID WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.9320866]

>>9319685
>We're fucked.
Africa, India, island nations, and other shitholes are fucked. The First World is going to be fine.

[Anonymous No.9320875]

>>9320840
You're a human. Your life depends on the stability of the current human civilization that we live in. Climate change is not going to destroy our planet, life will go on pretty much no matter what we do, even in the worst mass extinction scenario. What's at risk is human civilization due to all the instabilities that will be created with a changing climate, including stressing already stressed natural resources, crop failures in the developing world leading to mass migrations, civil strife, etc. Think what's happening with migrants in Europe now, but 100x worse, and throughout the developing world.
SLR is a major threat to our civilization. Coastlines change throughout the geological history of the Earth, but the changes we're going to see in the coming decades / centuries are going to likely be some of the fastest SLR events in recorded history. Not only will this cause mass migrations for cities that don't spend billions to build seawalls and other protections (like NYC for example), but will damage the global economy. It's not good for anyone. Add all the other fucked up shit humans are doing over the world into the equation and we are truly fucked. Over fishing, overpopulation, pollution in the seas, depletion of mineral and water resources, pollution of soils and the environment, warming temperatures causing crop failures, droughts, etc.
That's the funny thing about climate change deniers, most of them are politically conservative / libertarian, and these are the same people that constantly go on about the migrant crisis of brown people into white countries. Well, your climate change denialism and support of politicians that uphold these fallacies are literally going to destroy white countries for good in the future. Mass migrations are only going to increase, and resource scarcity is going to get worse and worse in the coming decades. Prepare for the future you asked for.

[Anonymous No.9320878]

>>9320866
>The First World is going to be fine.
Says increasingly nervous man whose wife is getting BLACKED on the back alley

What do you think would happen when Africa, India, and the Middle East plunges into war over basic natural resources like food and water? Do you think the liberals in northern countries aren't gonna open the floodgate to humanitarian crisis?

Even the most anti-refugee anti immigrant loudman cannot raise his daughter properly to tow his line

[Anonymous No.9320879]

>>9320866
They're fucked anyways because they import their food for free and have no farms because it isn't worth the effort because you get food aid for free. And since nobody has jobs they just fuck have lots of children.

[Anonymous No.9320883]

>>9320866
lol, where do you think all those people are going to flee when they start starving in the streets? Where do you think people are going to go when there's no more groundwater to pump out and it stopped raining so all your crops have failed?
First world will already be dealing with these problems themselves. Migrants will flock to these already stressed countries and things will spiral downhill from there. You think the US is safe? Hordes of central Americans will be coming North. Hordes of Africans and middle easterners will be going north. For people that care so much about the first world being white, you're sure helping to kill white countries.

[Anonymous No.9320887]

>>9320875
>Staple foods can be grown at the equator up to the artic circle
>Somehow we will be unable to use 10,000+ years of agricultural experience to adapt
I wish the situation was as dire as you limpwrists think just so I could watch you morons become cannibals and die.

[Anonymous No.9320898]

>>9320875
>>9320878
>>9320883
Hmm... 3 replies at the same time directly invoking race mixing. I wonder who could've been behind this...

And people say that climate change is not a globalist propaganda

[Anonymous No.9320925]

>>9320898
Kek it's another /pol/ BTFO episode rerun

[Anonymous No.9320927]

>>9320815
>It is experimental measurement, so it is a fact within the precision and accuracy of the instruments.

How can bubbles in ice be atmosphere? The atmosphere isn't in the water.

>Not really. There are finite amount of major climate knobs, greenhouse gas concentration and solar insolation alone can account for most of the glacial interglacial cycles. If you go to geologic time then volcanic activity and mountain building takes over. First you have to state the problem correctly, for a given long timescale, whether it is centennial, or thousands of years, or million of years (e.g. climate, not weather) there is only a finite controlling variables

Are you then claiming complete knowledge of how the climate works?

>Berkeley Earth was not a government organization. http://berkeleyearth.org/
>They're even funded by the Koch brothers

Where are they getting their data to analyse from?

>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all
>This is coming from a guy who takes Koch brothers money.

An organization funded by the Koch brothers is trustworthy?

>How many more independent measurements do you want? You're sounding like that dumb flat earther who build his own rocket and risk his own life (after multiple launch failures already) because he doesn't trust the GUBERMENT.

Many more independent measurements. The government aren't stupid, they are masters of control. They want anyone who doesn't go along with mainstream science to be labelled as a moron. "Mad Mike" is a moron, or at least pretending to be one, which is why he's getting media attention. People will immediately think of "Mad Mike" when they hear the words flat earth and then instantly dismiss it. I don't hate the government either, they are just a product of nature like everything else, a necessary stage in our development as a species. They provide a lot of insight into how humans think and behave,

[Anonymous No.9320928]

>>9319652
back to >>>/x/ schizo freak

[Anonymous No.9320936]

>>9320927
>How can bubbles in ice be atmosphere? The atmosphere isn't in the water.
Snow is porous and have low density. They compacts into ice under weight of the other snow above them. It's called firn densification process.

Jesus fucking christ dude, maybe before arguing in /sci/ educate yourself first. Your room temperature IQ questions only exposes how dumb and uninformed you are.

[Anonymous No.9320954]

>>9320927
>Are you then claiming complete knowledge of how the climate works?
For a given timescale, we know the majority of the processes >90% that govern the variance. That's all we need to know. Projection doesn't have to be 100% accurate, but we know where the climate system is headed given our prior knowledge.

This is the last time I'm gonna spoonfeed you information, gotta run another samples. If you don't bother educating yourself, and keep asking room temperature IQ questions then you did nothing but embarass yourself and the case you make.

Anyway here is a visual guide on how bubble trapping in polar snow to ice transition works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGuUO-gu9Ho

[Anonymous No.9320955]

>>9320857
Here, let me illustrate how ad hominem is not always a logical fallacy:

- You're a liar.
- That's an ad hominem.
- It's a true statement.
- It bears directly on the credibility of your "arguments."
- So it's not a logical fallacy.

This is used in courtrooms all over the world every day.

[Anonymous No.9320958]

>>9319652
Global warming has been over exaggerated by Al Gore in an attempt to redistribute wealth from oil niggas to solar panel niggas.

[Anonymous No.9320999]

>>9320936

We're talking about ice. According to mainstream science, snow is different to ice, compacted or not.

>For a given timescale, we know the majority of the processes >90% that govern the variance. That's all we need to know. Projection doesn't have to be 100% accurate, but we know where the climate system is headed given our prior knowledge.

How do you know you know 90% of the processes when you don't know how many processes there are?

>This is the last time I'm gonna spoonfeed you information, gotta run another samples. If you don't bother educating yourself, and keep asking room temperature IQ questions then you did nothing but embarass yourself and the case you make.

Considering numbers are infinite, so is my IQ (if IQ was real).

>Anyway here is a visual guide on how bubble trapping in polar snow to ice transition works
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGuUO-gu9Ho

Animation is not empirical science. Keep sampling ice bubbles (or is it snow bubbles?), easy work for easy money, but don't take it too seriously.

[Anonymous No.9321080]

>>9320999
Holy cow. I've got side with Anon
>>9320936
on this. You are dumb as a sack of rocks.

[Anonymous No.9321083]

>>9320955
OBJECTION

[Anonymous No.9321091]

>>9320955
you're a liar
>ad hominem
you're lying
>not ad hominem

[Anonymous No.9321099]

>>9320999
>Considering numbers are infinite, so is my IQ (if IQ was real).
Holy shit you can't even make this up. What did you mean by this?

The statement that your IQ has numerical value and the statement that numbers in general are infinite are completely unrelated.

Just because something has finite numerical value to it, the value of which is described by numerical notation doesn't mean that it is then infinite.

Real world example,

Anon A: hi anon how many fingers do you have on your hand?

Anon B: ten

(You) :Considering numbers are infinite, so is my fingers (if fingers was real).

[Anonymous No.9321132]

>>9321099
>>9320999
The absolute state of climate ""skeptic""

[Anonymous No.9321147]

>>9321099

Interesting you ignore the climate change arguments.

A number is a representation of itself, but also a representation of every number it isn't. But numbers go on to infinity, there's no such thing as the smallest or biggest number.

Numbers attempt to equally separate the infinite, but that's impossible because the infinite cannot be separated. Science is attempting to do this when describing how reality works, but it's an endless search into infinity.

[Anonymous No.9321161]

>>9321147
>A number is a representation of itself, but also a representation of every number it isn't. But numbers go on to infinity, there's no such thing as the smallest or biggest number. Numbers attempt to equally separate the infinite, but that's impossible because the infinite cannot be separated. Science is attempting to do this when describing how reality works, but it's an endless search into infinity.

tldr; number aren't real, nothing is real

Spoken like a true postmodernist feminist. You're only digging yourself into deeper hole of embarrassment dumbanon

[Anonymous No.9321165]

>>9320167
fucking boomer mentality

[Anonymous No.9321170]

>>9321161

Numbers are real to us, and they can be applied to our observed reality. Numbers make sense, they are useful, I don't have anything against them. Feminism on the other hand I do have a problem with, but I still love real women.

Nice derailing of the thread, why not address the climate change arguments?

[Anonymous No.9321207]

>>9320999
>How do you know you know 90% of the processes when you don't know how many processes there are?

Considering your IQ, you better of taking high school algebra first, but for the benefit of other /sci/ anons who are legitimately interested,

It's called empirical orthogonal function, which is a 3 dimensional version of principal component analysis (the 3rd dimension in climate science usually being the time axis) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_orthogonal_functions..

When you have certain number of finite observations that you believe are representative of the system variance, and you can statistically try to fit a series of orthogonal functions to describe the covariance of the data. The orthogonal functions requires no a priori, hence the name 'empirical.'

Concrete example: 95% sea surface temperature variation in the 20th century can be explained by 2 principal components: steadily rising SST following steady rise of atmospheric CO2 and ENSO (El Nino, La Nina) oscillation.

Another concrete example that is closer to my field, we know that 78% of the variance during the Last Deglaciation T increase (in other words 78% of temperature increase from the last glacial maximum to the present interglacial) can be explained by 2 principal components, this time around (PC1) steady rise in atmospheric CO2 (this time natural byproduct of deglaciation) and (PC2) the strength of atlantic meridional overturning current

Ref
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/19/E1134

[Anonymous No.9321229]

>>9321207
So in short

1. For 20th century warming, we know that the biggest "knob"/variable are atmospheric CO2 concentration and ENSO phase (whether we're in La Nina or El Nino state). The remaining 5% doesn't matter, it could be hyperintelligent being inside the Earth's core changing the thermostat, it could be your fart, it could be any variables there is, but they only account for 5 percent of the variance.

2. For the Last Deglaciation again global temperature trend follows 2 principal components. First and foremost atmospheric CO2 as recorded by ice cores (PC1) and second the strength of atlantic meridional overturning circulation (PC2) as measured by Uranium/Protactium proxy in marine sediment. This time around admittedly we can't explain all the data, 22% of the variance is still unaccounted for, but I'd say on 20,000 year timescale if you can predict 78% of the variance based on 2variables only it's pretty good. This is exactly why paleoclimate scientists are sounding the alarm, because we know exactly what principal component #1 (atmospheric CO2) will do in the next 100, 200 years.

[Anonymous No.9321241]

No and no. Humans have shown to be an adaptable species. We won't stop global warming but we'll find ways to cope.
I mean, I guess there's a chance SHTF and we all die in the next couple decades from WW3 but I doubt climate change will do the deed.

[Anonymous No.9321254]

>>9320711
Actual climate brah
>no (you)'s
Stay classy /sci/

[Anonymous No.9321314]

>>9321254
what do you expect, the people that come into these threads to argue against climate change don't care about actual scientists or actual scientific evidence, they only care about their fee fees, and their fee fees tell them it's all a liberal / leftist conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.9321322]

>>9319685
> talks shit about meat
> doesn't buy local so his veggies cause equal if not more pollution
> buys round up cancerous veggies

[Anonymous No.9321327]

>>9321207
>>9321229

>It's called empirical orthogonal function

Of course it is, god forbid it'd be called something simple. Sounding smart is different to actually being smart.

You can't do any analysis of climate until you have an objective definition of what it is. All I get is it's weather over a period of time. Well we're not talking about weather, we're talking about temperature. If you're measuring temperature, you have to prove that the temperature you're measuring is that of the weather (whatever that is), and not anything else that could have a temperature.

[Anonymous No.9321329]

>>9321147
>Numbers attempt to equally separate the infinite, but that's impossible because the infinite cannot be separated

−∞≤x≤∞

where x is real number. /pol/tard really can't into math is he?

[Anonymous No.9321354]

>>9321329

"Real" numbers are also infinite. 1 is also ∞000000000000000000000000000000001.0000000000000000000000000000000∞

[Anonymous No.9321360]

>>9321354
>∞000000000000000000000000000000001
What did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.9321364]

>>9321360

[Anonymous No.9321365]

>>9321354
>"Real" numbers are also infinite. 1 is also ∞000000000000000000000000000000001.0000000000000000000000000000000∞

Do you have high school diploma? Just asking, are you a burger? I'm curious what kind of country can produce this kind of branletism

[Anonymous No.9321370]

>>9321360

[Anonymous No.9321375]

>>9321360

That numbers represent all the numbers they are not.

>>9321365
>Do you have high school diploma?

Why would I want one of those?

[Anonymous No.9321381]

>>9321354
∞000000000000000000000000000000001.0000000000000000000000000000000∞ = 1

"1" the real number & integer is a finite number. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that that the number 1 (ONE) is an infinite number?

Go ahead dig yourself deeper and I'm really curious how far the mental illness goes

[Anonymous No.9321397]

>>9321381

Zero represents infinite nothingness, ∞ represents infinite something. Stick these concepts together equally and you have numbers.

[Anonymous No.9321399]

>>9321397
OK. How much more than 1 is 2?

[Anonymous No.9321412]

>>9321397
>Zero represents infinite nothingness, ∞ represents infinite something. Stick these concepts together equally and you have numbers.

A-anon I...

That's not how number notation works. For example, 1/3 = 0.333... notated by 3 dots in most countries that uses Roman Alphabet, not 0.333∞

[Anonymous No.9321414]

>>9321399

2 is just another word for infinity ∞0002.000∞

But to our limited perspective, it is different. But also more useful to us that way.

[Anonymous No.9321417]

>>9321414
>2 is just another word for infinity

[Anonymous No.9321418]

>>9321412

Doesn't matter what the symbol is, they both refer to infinity, same with "recurring".

[Anonymous No.9321432]

>>9320336

[Anonymous No.9321473]

>>9321418
Okay let me get this straight. I'm still not seeing any method to your madness, please bear with me. I think you're confusing or legitimately not understanding the meaning of numerical −∞/+∞ and meaningless shorthand notated recursive number.

So just to backtrack, I insulted you of having "room temperature IQ," in which I meant having numerical IQ of 65~75F all of which are real number.

Then your retort was, quote
>Considering numbers are infinite, so is my IQ (if IQ was real).
So I think what you meant by "infinite" in this sentence above is your incorrect definition of infinite, so you're acknowledging that your IQ is
∞0065.00∞ < (You) < ∞0075.00∞

First this doesn't change the context nor the end result of my insult though, your IQ is still clinically retarded regardless of how many infinite zeros you add onto the both ends 65 and 75.

Secondly you seemed to contradict yourself here >>9321147 and here >>9321354. First you said that "Numbers attempt to equally separate the infinite, but that's impossible because the infinite cannot be separated." But by your own crazy notation ∞0002.000∞, you separated the two infinites so it is possible to separate the infinites.

Third I'm puzzled by your quote >>9321161 "Science is attempting to do this when describing how reality works, but it's an endless search into infinity" which I think meant that all scientific pursuit that involves experimental measurement of real quantifiable number are futile.

Finally >>9321354
>"Real" numbers are also infinite
Is flat out wrong. Numerical infinity −∞/+∞ are not a real number. Which begs the question, of which there is a yes/no answer, "do you believe that real number exists??"

I feel bad suggesting you to review highschool algebra on my post describing EOF. I think you should review your grade 8 math first,
https://www.ck12.org/book/CK-12-Middle-School-Math-Concepts-Grade-8/section/7.4/

[Anonymous No.9321536]

>>9321473
>So I think what you meant by "infinite" in this sentence above is your incorrect definition of infinite, so you're acknowledging that your IQ is
>∞0065.00∞ < (You) < ∞0075.00∞
>First this doesn't change the context nor the end result of my insult though, your IQ is still clinically retarded regardless of how many infinite zeros you add onto the both ends 65 and 75.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what numbers you use to represent something, it's all infinite even though it doesn't look like it to us (it's not supposed to).

>Secondly you seemed to contradict yourself here >>9321147 (You) and here >>9321354 (You). First you said that "Numbers attempt to equally separate the infinite, but that's impossible because the infinite cannot be separated." But by your own crazy notation ∞0002.000∞, you separated the two infinites so it is possible to separate the infinites.

There can't be two infinities otherwise they wouldn't be infinite, we just use different words to represent the same infinity.

>Third I'm puzzled by your quote >>9321161 "Science is attempting to do this when describing how reality works, but it's an endless search into infinity" which I think meant that all scientific pursuit that involves experimental measurement of real quantifiable number are futile.

Nothing wrong with measuring things using numbers, it can be very useful, numbers are about the most objective things we have. That doesn't mean they always represent truth however, they can be used to do the opposite.

>Is flat out wrong. Numerical infinity −∞/+∞ are not a real number. Which begs the question, of which there is a yes/no answer, "do you believe that real number exists??"

What do you mean by "real" number? We see numbers as finite things because our reality appears finite, there's a beginning and an end. 0 has no beginning and no end, neither does infinity, nor anything we call a number, numbers just pretend they do.

[Anonymous No.9321544]

>>9321536
>There can't be two infinities otherwise they wouldn't be infinite, we just use different words to represent the same infinity.
There is absolutely a negative infinity and positive infinity

[Anonymous No.9321547]

>>9321536
>What do you mean by "real" number?
Dude seriously look it up, it's 8th grade math
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number

[Anonymous No.9321553]

>>9321544

What's separating these infinities?

[Anonymous No.9321557]

>>9321553
Every finite real number ever. I ain't your 8th grade tutor man, you're a fucking high school dropout moron >>9316173

[Anonymous No.9321564]

>>9321547
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number
>Real numbers can be thought of as points on an infinitely long number line

How can something be infinitely long? Length implies a beginning and an end.

[Anonymous No.9321569]

>>9319652
we already have solutions. people are just too chicken shit to implement them.

[Anonymous No.9321573]

>>9321564
Public education up to 12th grade is free in the US. Get some high school diploma mang

[Anonymous No.9321581]

>>9321573

It's free for a reason.

[Anonymous No.9321616]

>>9321536
>Ultimately it doesn't matter what numbers you use to represent something, it's all infinite even though it doesn't look like it
Tell that to your credit card balance

[Anonymous No.9321628]

>>9320859
>If the ice caps melt sea level will rise over a mile
This is the problem with the debate. There is retardation on both sides.

[Anonymous No.9321647]

>>9321616

Money is too good at pretending it's finite.

[Anonymous No.9321654]

>>9321628
>There is retardation on both sides.
Only one side did >>9321354

[Anonymous No.9321667]

>>9319652
Global warming or Muslims... either way the planets fucked.

[Anonymous No.9321691]

>>9319652
A single supervolcanic eruption deposits more CO2, Sulfur dioxide, and other particles which contribute to climate change than all carbon emissions humans are responsible for throughout history.

[Anonymous No.9321694]

>>9321691
the bigger the catastrophe, the less often it happens

[Anonymous No.9321754]

>>9321667
>Global warming or Muslims... either way the planets fucked.
Which one is worse (assuming global warming is real)?

[Acbn !7CUUUUUUUU No.9321773]

>>9320697

Sounds fake but okay

[Anonymous No.9321777]

>Extinct

Ancient tribes found ways to survive in fucking 110-120 degree environments you moron

Modern human isn't going to go "extinct" because the average global temp goes up by 3 degrees

[Anonymous No.9321813]

>>9321691
False. The 35 gigatons of CO2 released annually by man is equivalent to one or one or more supereruptions.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/pdf&ved=0ahUKEwja4sn2o9vXAhUl7oMKHegsBooQFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw0WbfzcR8mttransjRNF5Sq

[Anonymous No.9321849]

What's the difference between heat and CO2?

[Anonymous No.9321854]

>>9321327
>Well we're not talking about weather, we're talking about temperature.

[Anonymous No.9321858]

>>9321849
Well they're spelled differently, for starters.

[Anonymous No.9321868]

>>9321654
True, but there are infinite degrees of retardation. The infinity anon tends toward the mongoloid side.

[Anonymous No.9321912]

>>9321854

So all of temperature is caused by weather?

>>9321858

Global warming states that CO2 "traps" heat - how does that work? Apparently heat is the result of atoms moving around. CO2 catches them in a net?

>>9321868

Ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.9321985]

>>9321912
>Ad hominem
Not if it's true.

[Anonymous No.9321993]

>>9321985

Ad hominems don't address the actual argument. A retard can still have a valid argument. If I say 1 + 1 = 2 is that retarded too?

[Anonymous No.9322001]

>>9321985
>Not if it's true.
Ad hominem is still ad hominem irregardless of truth.

[Anonymous No.9322002]

You know how your local weather forecast breaks down after a few days and becomes inaccurate? Well the computer models that forecast years into the future have lower resolution than the models used for your local weather. That means the projections you read about in alarmist publications are less accurate than the stuff you see on TV in the morning.

You can't take the blink of an eye (which is what our satellite era is with respect to the planet's history) and correctly discern the causes of the pattern you see.

Yes, CO2 is a GHG. A weak one. Yes, there is more of it than there was 130 years ago. But, if you look at the last 500 million years, the two do not trend with each other. CO2 is not the primary climate forcing that is driving temperature.

Interesting aside: A "Random Walk" is a statistical phenomenon in which a strange trend line can appear from a series of binary outcomes. Like a drunk walking home, who can drift left or right with each step. Over a long distance, he should travel roughly in a straight line. But over a short distance, he can veer off in strange patterns.

The likelihood that the temperature trend of the last ~130 years can be caused by a Random Walk is approximately 56%.


But anyway, you're wrong about everything and you'll continue to be wrong. Enjoy.

[Anonymous No.9322022]

>>9322002

[Anonymous No.9322026]

>>9321993
Which retard do you think has a valid argument?
If a retard says that Colorado will be underwater if the icecaps melt, pointing out that he's retarded is a simple factual statement.

[Anonymous No.9322032]

>>9322002
>t. drunk shitposting

[Anonymous No.9322034]

>>9320147
Bomb India now! Americans, get to work please.

[Anonymous No.9322039]

>>9321912
>CO2 "traps" heat
https://youtu.be/x26a-ztpQs8?t=39m

IR =/= visible light

[Anonymous No.9322040]

>>9320927
>How can bubbles in ice be atmosphere? The atmosphere isn't in the water.
HAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAvvHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHA

[Anonymous No.9322045]

>>9322034
No! Don't! Do you know how much air-borne poo there will be in the atmosphere? All of that sublimated methane gas from pooite suddenly released into the atmosphere will cause runaway global warming. Worst idea ever.

[Anonymous No.9322051]

>>9322026

Focusing on the arguer rather than the argument is fallacious.

[Anonymous No.9322059]

>>9322002
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window

[Anonymous No.9322075]

>>9322039

Oh cool a Google talk. I'm sure Google is reading this since because they own reCAPTCHA. Hope I'm helping your AI to recognise street signs and whatever else.

>>9322040
Nice answer.

[Anonymous No.9322122]

>>9322051
Fine then. The argument is retarded, almost as if advanced by a retard.
>This is how the Earth looks like when CO2 is >1000ppm.
Showing areas that may be flooded if ice caps melt by posting a reconstruction of the Cretaceous world is retarded. He focused on muh ppm and missed the whole continental drift thing.
>Did you see Florida? the middle East? American West? Australia? Half of India? Western Europe?
Central North America was a basin and arm of the ocean, not high plains like it is today. In the picture, India is off the coast of fucking Africa.

>Nope, they're all underwater because Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet didn't exist back then
What a retard.

[Anonymous No.9322258]

>>9322075
>stupid and incapable of taking in new information
k

[Anonymous No.9322427]

>>9320197
>which does not accurately represent the China of today.
thanks to the Swiss measurements we already know the Chinese lie and lie again about emissions. We have little idea about the real picture in China and attempting to obtain it can get you executed as a spy.

China is very much interested in CO2 quotas - for the simple reason they are one of the main beneficiaries. Again massive Chinese corruption means you will never really know where the money ends up and if the money was used for projects that were not going to be made anyway.

Oh and did you know Goldman Sachs is bin in this trade? They are only in projects if there are billions involved.

[Anonymous No.9322436]

>>9322022
I have never seen the curves as smooth as in that picture. Strange, very strange. It is almost like they have been "simplified".

Meanwhile we had the coldest summer for 26 years - not shown on any graph.

[Anonymous No.9322513]

>>9322436
if only the graphs had some number indicating year

[Anonymous No.9322594]

>>9322513
I know. That brings out the jagginess every time.

[Anonymous No.9322659]

>>9322002
>Well the computer models that forecast years into the future have lower resolution than the models used for your local weather. That means the projections you read about in alarmist publications are less accurate than the stuff you see on TV in the morning.
Resolution does not imply accuracy. Of course climate models have lower resolution that weather since by definition climate is weather averaged over space and time. If climate models had the same resolution as weather, they'd be weather models. As to accuracy, they've been predicting global surface temps for decades:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

This is because weather is too chaotic to predict while climate is not. Weather is dominated by randomness while climate is dominated by certain global factors. Scale matters.

>You can't take the blink of an eye (which is what our satellite era is with respect to the planet's history) and correctly discern the causes of the pattern you see.
Except you can, you babbling troglodyte.

>Yes, CO2 is a GHG. A weak one. Yes, there is more of it than there was 130 years ago. But, if you look at the last 500 million years, the two do not trend with each other.
The fact that CO2 is the current primary driver of climate does not imply that it is the only possible driver. In the past over long time scales, solar activity is also important. If you input both the effect of solar activity and CO2 concentration, this explains most of the trend over the last 500 million years. Which means CO2 was still a driver of climate.

>CO2 is not the primary climate forcing that is driving temperature.
Of course it is now. Sylmar activity had been decreasing for decades whilethe temperature goes up.

[Anonymous No.9322663]

>>9322002

>The likelihood that the temperature trend of the last ~130 years can be caused by a Random Walk is approximately 56%.
If you ignore everything we understand about the climate, which would be a pretty stupid thing to do. If you the into account what we know about the climate, then this chance is essentially 0, since the simple model of a random walk violates all our data.

>But anyway, you're wrong about everything and you'll continue to be wrong. Enjoy.
Oh the irony. You know, I remember seeing all these arguments put together before. And I debunked them before, and received no counter argument. Which means that you go around dumping this misinformation even though you know it's wrong. You're scum.

[Anonymous No.9322675]

>>9322659
>If you input both the effect of solar activity and CO2 concentration, this explains most of the trend over the last 500 million years

Not him, I'm on your side buddy, but a couple of correction, first we don't have high quality observation that dates back beyond 100 million years (oldest ocean sediment core).

Second in million year timescale, actually the driving factors are tectonics, like volcanic outgassing and mountain building (when you build mountains, you weather rock and sequester CO2).

On thousand years timescale, like the quarternary glacial interglacial cycle then it is atmospheric CO2, driven by changes in solar insolation from Milankovitch cycles.

[Anonymous No.9322897]

>>9322675
There have been several proxy compilations that give us a pretty good idea of the carbon cycle going through the Phanerozoic.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

>Second in million year timescale, actually the driving factors are tectonics, like volcanic outgassing and mountain building (when you build mountains, you weather rock and sequester CO2).
This doesn't contradict what I was talking about, I didn't say that changes in CO2 due to solar activity explain most of the trend, I said that changes in solar activity AND changes in CO2 explain most of the trend. Any factors that work by changing the concentration of CO2 are included in that assessment.

[Anonymous No.9323020]

>>9320287
because right wing shit ideology refuses to accept a collective solution because right wingers have no understanding of ethics and are motivated almost exclusively by selfishness. It's why all of these worthless fucking nerds on 4chan are nazis because the world doesn't give a shit about them and they think it's because of immigration, not because they're useless.
>>9320338
This right here. They've constructed their own false reality so they can pretend they're productive useful humans. No amount of data matters. They will always believe the convenient lies that let them keep their little amount of power that they have.

[Anonymous No.9323341]

>>9323020
>ethics
literally a meme

[Anonymous No.9323391]

>>9322897
Eh I wouldn't call stomata density, paleosols or boron isotopes great, but that's all we have.

>I didn't say that changes in CO2 due to solar activity explain most of the trend, I said that changes in solar activity AND changes in CO2 explain most of the trend
Sure, that's pretty fair