Arctic temperatures surge in the dead of winter

[Anonymous No.9549399]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/weather/arctic-temperatures-record-high-intl/index.html

So, what do we do?

[Anonymous No.9549409]

>>9549399

fuck nigger I can't wait for global warming to happen I'm freezing my ass off here

IDGAF I'll eat hydroponic spinach if I have to but -20C in march is no fucking joke this side of the planet.

[Anonymous No.9549627]

>>9549399
>Gets colder earlier than usual
>Gets warmer earlier
>implying this is the first time it's been above freezing in the arctic
>Implying this is the first time Europe has been cooler than the arctic
>Uses dictionary definition of when seasons should be rather than when they naturally occur
>Combines the earlier, natural seasonal shift and warming with the dictionary definition of when seasons should end and start to incite panic.
>Still no evidence humans are the cause for global warming but says they are just because that's the hypothesis and not all other factors have been disproven yet.

[Anonymous No.9549648]

It is 12 degrees Celsius right now in Ontario. The seasonal average for this time is 2 degrees Celsius.

[Anonymous No.9549683]

>>9549627
M-muh consensus? Climate "scientists" believe! No, they have evidence in the form of ensemble of inequivalent models and data so inaccurate they have to "fix" it if it doesn't agree with said ensemble!

[Anonymous No.9549685]

>>9549683
You don't know anything about how science is done in the real world. Chemistry and physics babbies have it easy with their predictable experiments and nice neat static numbers.

[Anonymous No.9549701]

March is the beginning of spring. This is not the dead of winter. Winter started in like november.

[Anonymous No.9549719]

>>9549685
How come geophysics can come up with sound theories and models (Milanković) but all climate "science" can offer is fudging and fearmongering? How come climate "scientists" are only looking for evidence of their theory, instead of trying to falsify it? At this point, climate "science" is below even biochemistry, medicine and psychology because those occasionaly provide useful results.

[Anonymous No.9549727]

>>9549719
>looking for evidence
>bad
you should study something besides science
Milankovich cycles ARE climate science
climate science is multidisciplinary, but it rests on geochemistry pretty hard
climate science isn't only about the modern day climate, it barely is that's why scientist are overwhelmingly confident in AGW

[Anonymous No.9550262]

>>9549719
How come the only argument you can come up with is making shit up and blaming climatologists for it?

[Anonymous No.9550283]

>>9549627
>ha the earth is really old so this means that any large deviation from the norm isn’t actually abnormal because it’s not the absolute extreme
do you fuckers even know the motherfucking definition of context?

[Anonymous No.9550287]

>>9549719
>looking for evidence is bad
the absolute state of /sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9550532]

>It's colder
>No it's warmer!
>It's 45 degrees warmer in the Arctic!
>Antarctica has grown by 45%!
>There's no Ozone!
>There's MORE ozone
>It was hotter in 1945
>It's hotter now!
>It's actually colder now
>10 years ago was warmer
>That's when global warming started!
>it was colder back then that it was 70 years ago

Can these fucking idiots shut the fuck up about global warming?

[Anonymous No.9550539]

>>9549409
>hydroponic spinach
t. cu/ck/

[Anonymous No.9550578]

>>9549399
> cnn
And I'm sure the Russians hacked us with the same console used in fallout

[Anonymous No.9550599]

>>9550532
>It was hotter in 1945
>10 years ago was warmer
>That's when global warming started!
>it was colder back then that it was 70 years ago
i’m very certain that no one specifically claimed these things. stop pulling stuff out of your ass to support your argument

[Anonymous No.9550601]

>>9549399
First time on /sci/ in years, but I remember my impression that you were well-researched.

Am I wrong in thinking that nuclear energy is the true answer to climate change? It's clean energy (emission free), but unlike other hippieshit energy sources, it actually produces large amounts of energy that can theoretically meet energy demands. It seems like there is a lot of push-back against nuclear energy because accidents have happened in less than 1% of nuclear plants worldwide.

Can /sci/ provide me sources or tell me if I'm just a retard? It seems like nuclear energy is the way to go.

[Anonymous No.9550612]

>>9550601
Fukushima. One disaster can ruin half the planet.

[Anonymous No.9550616]

>>9550601
It is the way to go, it's just that some schizophrenic people manage to hold both the conviction that global warming is a seriously threatening problem that needs to be dealt with in the swiftest of times, and at the same time we need to build a future where only our hippy green energy sources are used no matter how long it takes.

[Anonymous No.9550618]

>>9550612
There doesn't seem to be any lasting effects associated with that disaster.

[Anonymous No.9550621]

>>9549399

[Anonymous No.9550708]

>>9549727
>>9550287
Since you can't contain your faggotry, ignoring data that disagrees with you is bad. "Correcting" data that disagrees with you is worse, something not even biochem dares to do (although CNRS seems to support it).
Milanković is geophysics. To see the difference, read articles from climate "science" journals and compare them to geophys journals. Nutrition "science" is multidisciplinary and relies on neuroendocrinology but is very, very far from it.
IPCC makes it very obvious that "scientists" are overwhelmingly confident in AGW because of shoddy science, not because the theory has produced useful models. Indeed, the need to readjust the models every decade shows that they're far from good.

[Anonymous No.9550715]

>>9550708
climate science depends on geoscience just like chemistry depends on quantum physics
correcting data is done everywhere that data is used and is (supposed to be) detailed explicitly
You really think you can do the science better than they can?

[Anonymous No.9550736]

>>9550532

[Anonymous No.9550743]

>>9550532
>global warming started in 2008
Find me video of one human being saying this.

[Anonymous No.9550744]

>>9549648
This word "average," I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Anonymous No.9550747]

>>9550578

[Anonymous No.9550748]

>>9550612
Which half of the planet did Fukushima ruin? I want to make sure I don't go there.

[Anonymous No.9550823]

>>9550715
Except models used in chemistry are accurate and their inaccuracies are well-defined and understood while in climate "science", the inaccuracies are not defined, let alone understood. The inaccuracies are completely ignored. Not even touching the use of inequivalent models in an ensemble and pretending it confirms the theory in any way.
Correcting data is indeed done, by the tools of statistics, not by saying "lol measurements were inaccurate so we just pull numbers out of our ass and pretend they were derived statistically".
Any undergrad in a STEM field where scientific misconduct is not touted as gospel can do better than climate "scientists".

[Anonymous No.9550833]

>>9550823
>while in climate "science", the inaccuracies are not defined, let alone understood

How do you know they're inaccurate then?

[Anonymous No.9550836]

>>9549399
It's cold as fuck down here in San Diego
It's like winter came again

[Anonymous No.9550846]

>>9550833
Because they don't agree with the data. If IPCC went to fintech with such poorly performing models (also which model do you choose?), they'd be out of bussiness in few years.

[Anonymous No.9551190]

>>9549399
It is 55F here. I was out in shorts in the sun. It is normally -10F this time of year, but the past 5 years have been getting warmer and the winter shorter. Less animals are migrating south now.

[Anonymous No.9552107]

>>9550823
>The inaccuracies are completely ignored.
No they are not. Have you ever looked at any of the papers that talk about them?

>Correcting data is indeed done, by the tools of statistics, not by saying "lol measurements were inaccurate so we just pull numbers out of our ass and pretend they were derived statistically".
Now you're just throwing around baseless conspiracy theories.

>>9550846
>Because they don't agree with the data.
Yes they do.

>If IPCC went to fintech with such poorly performing models (also which model do you choose?), they'd be out of bussiness in few years.
...I don't think you even understand what the IPCC is, or what kind of work they do.

[Anonymous No.9552391]

>>9552107
He's a poltard, what do you expect?

[Anonymous No.9552397]

>>9550823
this is just baseless shit-flinging