/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12064668]

Why is global warming such a big deal if humanity survived warmer temperatures?

[Anonymous No.12064681]

The problem is not the heat per se, but it's effects on environment and society.

[Anonymous No.12064693]

>>12064668
>the whole story of human civilization as it is taught to us predates agriculture, written language, the industrial revolution and the digital revolution.
you should be embarrassed to have posted that image.
enjoy your garbage ass thread, because I won't be here, it will be my current 28th hidden thread on this shithole board.

[Anonymous No.12064705]

>>12064668
Global warming threatens business and crops. It doesn't threaten humans or life on Earth.

[Anonymous No.12064742]

Humanity survived, but individual humans didn't. Just look at the deaths of some random ass river flood in India or China. Now, with global warming these will become worse and more frequent. Now add in cities like Jakarta in there and you've got quite a bit of death going on. Of course, people in Chicago, Dallas, Phoenix are going to be fine, but this isn't true for the whole world.

[Anonymous No.12064878]

It’s a conspiracy by oil companies who will lose trillions on heating every winter.

[Anonymous No.12065002]

>>12064668
turns out that all of the people don't live in central greenland

[Anonymous No.12065037]

>>12064668
Humanity will be fine, it's civilization that faces an existential threat.

[Anonymous No.12065069]

>>12064668
Why does your picture claim to show "present" "global" warming when the data is only for one place in Greenland and ends in the mid-1800s?

[Anonymous No.12065370]

>>12064668
It's not the value of the warmth ... it's rate of change of the warmth that is unprecedented and alarming. If you pull too fast and firm on a spring, it deforms, and it is unable to return to its original shape, thus, environmental homeostasis is threatened.

[Anonymous No.12065376]

>>12064668
We didn't. It in fact threatens to make daily survival impossible. The heat and humidity could get so hot to make many places completely unlivable, as you would be guarranteed to die without AC.

[Anonymous No.12065380]

>>12064668
Climate change are normal earth cycles, global warming is a retarded leftist scam to push more taxes and give governments complete control over our public land.

[Anonymous No.12065383]

>>12064668
We didn't. It in fact threatens to make daily survival impossible. The heat and humidity could get so high to make many places completely unlivable, as you would be guarranteed to die without AC.

[Anonymous No.12065386]

>>12064668
there are people that want you to pay 100% taxes, they are people that want you to lick their boots.

[Anonymous No.12065570]

>>12065386
>t. orange diarrhea gargler

[Anonymous No.12065615]

>>12064668
>Temperature in greenland is the same as global warming
>human civilisation in the past is comparable to today
>"""""survived"""""

[Anonymous No.12065817]

>>12065380
>Climate change are normal earth cycles
Which cycle is this? We haven'twarmed like this in at least 600,000 years. What is the cause of the cycle and what is offsetting the greenhouse effect from massive CO2 emissions?

>global warming is a retarded leftist scam to push more taxes
Then where are the taxes?

>and give governments complete control over our public land.
What the fuck? They already have complete control if it's PUBLIC. Massive retard.

[Anonymous No.12065825]

>>12065817
>Then where are the taxes?
I think they meant carbon tax.
Because taxing faggots that pollute atmosphere is bad, probably.

[Anonymous No.12065850]

>>12065825
But only a handful of countries have a carbon tax, and they are insignificantly small. Every country already believes in global warming so when does this massive scientific hoax to enact taxes governments could have always enacted to begin with finally pay off?

[Anonymous No.12065894]

>>12065817
>We haven'twarmed like this in at least 600,000 years
We warm like this at the end of every single glacial stage of the Pleistocene. The only thing odd about this warming is that it's occurring after an interglacial has already set in. On the flip side, THANK GOD, because this interglacial is colder than like the past 4.

[Anonymous No.12065909]

>>12065894
>We warm like this at the end of every single glacial stage of the Pleistocene
No, this warming is an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming. It's completely uncorrelated with the precession of Earth, the cause of interglacial warming. And it's occurring at the wrong time. It has absolutely nothing to do with the glacial-interglacial cycle.

>On the flip side, THANK GOD, because this interglacial is colder than like the past 4.
Yes, the last 10,000 years were so horrible for human civilization, thank God we're rapidly leaving it.

[Anonymous No.12065925]

>>12065909
>No
Yes. The end of the interglacial about 11.5kya happened so fast it's literally remembered as a global flood myth. Stop drinking kool-aid, retard and learn something about geologic time.

>It's completely uncorrelated with the precession of Earth, the cause of interglacial warming.
This is an assumption on your part. Nobody is actually sure what causes ice ages or their glaciation-interglacial cycles.

>And it's occurring at the wrong time
There you are correct, but I've already said that.

>It has absolutely nothing to do with the glacial-interglacial cycle.
I didn't say it did. Learn to read.

>Yes, the last 10,000 years were so horrible for human civilization, thank God we're rapidly leaving it.
I don't care about humans.

[Anonymous No.12065984]

>>12065925
>The end of the interglacial about 11.5kya happened so fast it's literally remembered as a global flood myth.
LMAO, this is the science board, not Ancient Aliens. Pseudoscientific comparative mythology tells us nothing about the magnitude of warming. Luckily we have actual data, which shows the last interglacial warming at its fastest was about 1 degree C per millenia. Current warming is 1 degree C per 60 years.

>Stop drinking kool-aid, retard and learn something about geologic time.
Nice projection, kook.

>This is an assumption on your part.
No, it's not. The climate has followed a very predictable pattern over at least the past 800000 years, and current warming is completely against that pattern. And speaking of assumptions, what do you call your claim that flood myths are about interglacial warming?

>Nobody is actually sure what causes ice ages or their glaciation-interglacial cycles.
Wrong, retard.

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

>There you are correct, but I've already said that.
Them how is it similar to interglacial warming?

>I didn't say it did.
You said we warm like this at the end of every single glacial stage of the Pleistocene. We don't warm like this. You said the only thing odd about this warming is that it's occurring after an interglacial has already set in. It's not the only odd thing.

>I don't care about humans.
Then why do you care about the interglacial being cold?

[Anonymous No.12065999]

>>12065984
You think you're so fucking smart because you can repeat what you've gleaned from reddit. Not a damned thing you've posted has refuted anything I've said. That's how clever you are.

[Anonymous No.12066005]

>>12064668
Primitive nomadic Humans could migrate to follow their prey when the environment changed. Modern civilization is sedentary and static, based on cities and intensive agriculture.

Surely, you must understand the logistical difficulties involved when comparing 20,000 nomadic Humans migrating to billions today.

The Earth's regular seasons are already challenging enough for Human activity.

[Anonymous No.12066020]

>>12065999
Nice cope retard. Let's review your retarded claims that were refuted:

>We warm like this at the end of every single glacial stage of the Pleistocene
Current warming is 15 times faster.

>The end of the interglacial about 11.5kya happened so fast it's literally remembered as a global flood myth.
Comparative mythology is pseudoscience and tells us nothing about magnitude of warming anyway.

>That current warming is unrelated to interglacial warming is an assumption
It's completely against the glacial interglacial cycle in magnitude, timing, and cause.

>Nobody is actually sure what causes ice ages or their glaciation-interglacial cycles.
Ice ages are caused by continental drift blocking the flow of warm water to the poles. Glacial-interglacial cycles are caused by the Earth's orbital eccentricity,
axial tilt, and precession. This has been well known for decades.

[Anonymous No.12066024]

>>12066020
You're refuted nothing.

[Anonymous No.12066036]

>>12066024
I refuted everything and you have no response. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.12066043]

>>12066036
You were already responded to. You rejected reality. That's your problem now.

[Anonymous No.12066058]

>>12066043
>You were already responded to.
>You think you're so fucking smart because you can repeat what you've gleaned from reddit. Not a damned thing you've posted has refuted anything I've said. That's how clever you are.
>You're refuted nothing.
These don't respond to anything I said. Try again. Here, I'll post what you failed to respond to again:

>We warm like this at the end of every single glacial stage of the Pleistocene
Current warming is 15 times faster.

>The end of the interglacial about 11.5kya happened so fast it's literally remembered as a global flood myth.
Comparative mythology is pseudoscience and tells us nothing about magnitude of warming anyway.

>That current warming is unrelated to interglacial warming is an assumption
It's completely against the glacial interglacial cycle in magnitude, timing, and cause.

>Nobody is actually sure what causes ice ages or their glaciation-interglacial cycles.
Ice ages are caused by continental drift blocking the flow of warm water to the poles. Glacial-interglacial cycles are caused by the Earth's orbital eccentricity,
axial tilt, and precession. This has been well known for decades.

You also failed to answer these questions:

And speaking of assumptions, what do you call your claim that flood myths are about interglacial warming?

How is current warming similar to interglacial warming?

Why do you care about the interglacial being cold?

Chop chop.

[Anonymous No.12066086]

>>12065925
>remembered as a global flood myth
Back to watching Joe Rogaine

[Anonymous No.12066119]

>>12064668
Classic brainlet move of showing Greenland ice core reconstructions that end in 1850 before anthropogenic warming and passing them off as global temperature.

[Anonymous No.12066129]

>>12066043
Yoohoo, retard, is there anyone in there? Why can't you respond to any of your idiotic lies being refuted?

[Anonymous No.12066134]

>>12066129
Because I've dealt with your kind a million times. Here's how it plays out:

1: You make a dumbass claim equal to a reddit education on the subject
2: I correct you, knowning more about the subject than you
3: You throw a tantrum and post "refutations" that amount to what you already said. You keep doing this until I'm tired of replying to you.

There used to be a step 2.5, which is me proving you wrong by posting stronger sources, but I learned a long time ago that your kind is more about the argument than the truth. You'll argue this til you're blue in the face, whether you're right or wrong.

[Anonymous No.12066148]

>>12066134
This level of projection, denial and hypocrisy is truly amazing. You have provided 0 sources. I've given you a temperature reconstruction and a wikipedia page that directly refutes your claims. You haven't "corrected" anything I said. I have. If you think these posts with 0 substance are a valid response then read your own posts as my response.

[Anonymous No.12066153]

>>12066134
Looks like you failed once again to respond to anything i said. Try again:

>We warm like this at the end of every single glacial stage of the Pleistocene
Current warming is 15 times faster.

>The end of the interglacial about 11.5kya happened so fast it's literally remembered as a global flood myth.
Comparative mythology is pseudoscience and tells us nothing about magnitude of warming anyway.

>That current warming is unrelated to interglacial warming is an assumption
It's completely against the glacial interglacial cycle in magnitude, timing, and cause.

>Nobody is actually sure what causes ice ages or their glaciation-interglacial cycles.
Ice ages are caused by continental drift blocking the flow of warm water to the poles. Glacial-interglacial cycles are caused by the Earth's orbital eccentricity,
axial tilt, and precession. This has been well known for decades.

You also failed to answer these questions:

And speaking of assumptions, what do you call your claim that flood myths are about interglacial warming?

How is current warming similar to interglacial warming?

Why do you care about the interglacial being cold?

Chop chop.

[Anonymous No.12066155]

>>12066148
>>12066153

[Anonymous No.12066159]

>>12066155

[Anonymous No.12066169]

>>12064668
i hope we will be okay

[Anonymous No.12066174]

>>12066155
What happened in the Paleocene is completely irrelevant to what's happening now. The planet was in a different continental and oceanic configuration. The life that lived back then developed and evolved in that steady state of a warmer planet and its been cooling ever since.
The evidence of anthropogenic CO2 leading to rapid warming is clear.

[Anonymous No.12066175]

>>12066159
>tfw 16° C (29° F) hotter than current temperatures

[Anonymous No.12066179]

>>12066175
Life on Earth LITERALLY CANNOT EXIST at 4° C higher than current temperatures!!!

[Anonymous No.12066181]

>>12066174
will it ever stop?

[Anonymous No.12066198]

>>12066179
NOOOOO!!!! YOU CAN'T JUST BE THE TALLEST LAND MAMMAL OF ALL TIME AT 2° C HIGHER THAN PRESENT!!!

[Anonymous No.12066201]

>>12066174
Yeah and it's good. Despite all the extinction you filthy demon-apes have caused, you've freed up the locked up carbon. Thank you. This planet was getting too cold for our liking.

[Anonymous No.12066213]

You guys wanna hear a funny joke? Global Warming kills coral reefs! HAHAHAHAHAHA

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405094523.htm

>It's actually human exploitation of the organisms and humans constantly dumping freshwater pollution onto them. Shhh! It's a secret!

[Anonymous No.12066216]

>>12066198
>>12066175
>ecosystem that evolved in a warmer planet
Whoa

[Anonymous No.12066225]

>>12066213
You guys wanna hear another funny joke? The current genus of corals dominant on reefs around the world - Acropora - literally appeared during the hottest point in the Cenozoic - the PETM when temperatures were about 17° CELSIUS than they are now.

I'm sure this fact doesn't matter for some reason.

[Anonymous No.12066227]

>>12066175
>>12066179
>>12066198
It's not the absolute scale of temperature people are worried about. Earth has existed in a massive range of temperatures in the past, you're right. What people are worried about is the large change in temperature over a short time period, perhaps faster than any animal on Earth can adapt to.

[Anonymous No.12066237]

>>12066216
And yet, we're constantly bombarded with the propaganda that life on Earth LITERALLY cannot exist above about 4° C, which is literally insane propaganda that requires widespread ignorance of Earth's history to swallow.

>>12066227
No sweaty, what HUMANS are worried about is losing money to massive crop failures, flooding and sinking coastal cities. Perhaps you shouldn't have overpopulated the planet and started a crusade to kill every single plant and animal on its surface? Just a suggestion.

[Anonymous No.12066248]

>>12065383
This guy gets it. If you haven't been somewhere that is both very humid and very hot, you probably wouldn't understand just how oppressive the heat is. It feels like there is no cooling off from it, because there isn't. The extent of these regions and times during summers will increase in size and duration.

[Anonymous No.12066249]

>>12066237
Interesting how you switch from "humans" to "you" in the same line, as if all your accusations don't include yourself.

[Anonymous No.12066251]

>>12066155
>>12066159
Are these supposed to respond to my posts? How do they disagree?

[Anonymous No.12066255]

>>12065850
Nice try calling it a hoax, but AGW has abundant empirical evidence supporting it. It is a serious threat. We should take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.12066258]

>>12066181
Will what ever stop?

[Anonymous No.12066263]

>>12066213
>While it is encouraging to see such clear recovery, we need to be mindful of the fact that the coral recovery at Scott Reef still took over a decade. If, as the climate change trend suggests, we start to see coral bleaching and other related disturbances occurring more frequently, then reefs may experience a ratcheting down effect, never fully recovering before they suffer another major disturbance.

[Anonymous No.12066267]

>>12066225
Amazing how they haven't evolved in all that time. Have you told the creationists about this? Moron.

[Anonymous No.12066269]

>>12066237
>And yet, we're constantly bombarded with the propaganda that life on Earth LITERALLY cannot exist above about 4° C
Source?

[Anonymous No.12066271]

>>12066255
Yes, it's called a rhetorical question.

[Anonymous No.12066276]

>>12064668
Okay, so we've got to pull apart what you're saying and the truth behind it.

The last time Earth was this warm was 125,000 years ago. This was the warmest it's been in the last 10 million years and we've now matched it. Saying it was 'hotter' is no longer possible, we can now only say it was 'as hot'.

You're ignoring rate of change. We've never seen warming this quickly ever in the fossil record going back over 800,000 years. After that rate of change is not something we can study. There are many ways of studying temperature in the geologic record such as studying sediment density, isotopic changes and magnetic properties of rock.

However the best temperature proxies are biologic. Foraminifera and Diatoms are some of the best temperature proxies because they change their shells based on the temperature of water. Plants also thrive only in certain temperatures so if their pollen is found you know how warm it was when it was formed. The problem is we can't discern rate of change in the deep geological past as easily because thin sections of sediment represent longer time periods the further back you go in time.

So we can say for certainty that no time in the last 800,000 years has Earth warmed this quickly. It's also possible that Earth has NEVER experienced a warming change so rapid but there's no way to know. The closest proxy we've got to what's happening on Earth now is the Eocene thermal maximum where what's believed is an underground pocket of fossil fuels was burned, about 7000 gigatons, most likely by volcanism, and in a short time of 10,000 years the earth warmed 8 degrees.

During the Eocene Thermal maximum species died and the tropics became an unlivable dead zone. Pause. Think of that a moment. THE TROPICS BECAME AN UNLIVABLE DEAD ZONE. 35-50% of all Foraminifera died during the Eocene Thermal maximum. This is not something we wish to repeat. Last year alone we burned 37 billion tons of fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.12066277]

>>12066263
That's right, you cherry-pick as much as you want. The fact remains that the widespread destruction of coral reefs on this planet is caused by freshwater pollution and overhunting of the organisms on those reefs. But fixing those problems requires human depopulation, and we can't even suggest that, now can we?

[Anonymous No.12066278]

>>12066271
It sounded like you were calling AGW a hoax because you don't like the proposed taxes on fuel usage.

[Anonymous No.12066287]

>>12066276
>During the Eocene Thermal maximum species died and the tropics became an unlivable dead zone. Pause. Think of that a moment. THE TROPICS BECAME AN UNLIVABLE DEAD ZONE. 35-50% of all Foraminifera died during the Eocene Thermal maximum. This is not something we wish to repeat. Last year alone we burned 37 billion tons of fossil fuels.
It's over for humanity. We had a good run but short-term motivations won.

[Anonymous No.12066288]

>>12066276
At the rate we are going we are well on our way of recreating the Eocene Thermal maximum only we're doing it faster. The results will be absolutely devastating. Anybody who says climate change isn't an unmitigated disaster for humanity is a liar, a grifter and a cheat.

It is up to all of us to make sure that real science informs our decisions and to make sure that people who deny science are never put in charge of our government or policy. We've got to outvote the science denying idiots wrecking our world.

[Anonymous No.12066289]

>>12066277
>That's right, you cherry-pick as much as you want.
How exactly is it cherrypicking to point out that the author believes climate change is a threat to coal reefs when you attempted to cite him to argue the opposite? You truly are pathetic.

>The fact remains that the widespread destruction of coral reefs on this planet is caused by freshwater pollution and overhunting of the organisms on those reefs.
And how does this address the fact that climate change is also damaging reefs?

>But fixing those problems requires human depopulation, and we can't even suggest that, now can we?
I know one person we can start with.

[Anonymous No.12066292]

>>12066278
If you reread my post you'll see I'm questioning the logic of calling climate change a hoax in order to enact taxes when no such taxes have been enacted and the hoax is not even necessary in the first place.

[Anonymous No.12066293]

>>12066276
>The last time Earth was this warm was 125,000 years ago.
Actually, it was significantly warmer. There were hippos in what is now London.

>This was the warmest it's been in the last 10 million years
Demonstrably false and insane. I don't know where the hell you even got this. Going back 10 million years puts you in the miocene. The pliocene was warmer than today, as were several interglacials during the pleistocene, including the last one.

>and we've now matched it. Saying it was 'hotter' is no longer possible, we can now only say it was 'as hot'.
We haven't even come close to matching it. I don't know where the hell you're even getting this.

>We've never seen warming this quickly ever in the fossil record going back over 800,000 years.
Why are you choosing such a small time frame?

>After that rate of change is not something we can study
Again, not true. Where the fuck are you getting this shit? I hope this isn't what the hell they're teaching in colleges today. Fucking Wikipedia articles disprove this idiocy.

>During the Eocene Thermal maximum species died and the tropics became an unlivable dead zone. Pause. Think of that a moment. THE TROPICS BECAME AN UNLIVABLE DEAD ZONE.
During the eocene the planet was a giant forest, you fucking absolute retard.

[Anonymous No.12066296]

>>12066288
Fuck humanity. You're the disease. Global warming is the cure.

[Anonymous No.12066307]

>>12066289
Every modern scientist believes political nonsense. Every single study that has shown that Overkill is what actually killed off the pleistocene megafauna still has some kind of simpering, supine apology about not focusing on climate change being the culprit, despite there being zero evidence that climate change is responsible and abundant evidence for Overkill.

You guys want to hear another joke? Even the one species - the woolly mammoth - that every moron tries to use as "proof" that "climate change killed the mammoth" didn't even die from climate change. Woolly mammoths survived until about four thousand years ago because they found an island that humans didn't know existed, and existed there right up until the very moment humans discovered the island and wiped them out. And the best part is, the woolly mammoth is the most boreal of the mammoth species. There were other mammoth species that were temperate or tropical that also went extinct that climate change can't even begin to explain, not to mention the gomphotheres in the tropics.

[Anonymous No.12066312]

>>12066293
No, you are using preindustrial data to make your claims. The Miocene was only 2 degrees warmer than preindustrial temperature. We are now at 2 degrees from that making us yes, just as hot as the Miocene.

All rate of change past 800,000 years use computer models, which, while likely true are not direct evidence from the geological record.

The rest of your post doesn't even warrant a response.

[Anonymous No.12066315]

>>12066307
>Every modern scientist believes political nonsense.
LOL, you're the one who cited him on coral reefs, and now you abandon the only thing he said relevant to this discussion. By the way, isn't only listening to certain parts of the article called "cherrypicking," that thing you just accused me of doing? You truly are scum. Depopulate yourself.

[Anonymous No.12066331]

>>12066307
>Every single study that has shown that Overkill is what actually killed off the pleistocene megafauna still has some kind of simpering, supine apology about not focusing on climate change being the culprit, despite there being zero evidence that climate change is responsible and abundant evidence for Overkill.
There's plenty of evidence climate change was a factor in the extinction. You're giving a false dichotomy.

By the way, when are you going to respond to >>12066153?

[Anonymous No.12066347]

>>12066225
>>12066213
You know nothing about this subject. Tolerant reefs exist but they're few. If you look at the actual statistics the amount of reefs irreversibly killed by ENSO events and warming you'll dee how much has died.

[Anonymous No.12066359]

>>12066267
If they can be ID'd as Acropora or even a closely related genus 50 million years ago, that implies the genus or tribe is extremely conservative. And they've always lived in the tropics, so...I don't think there's much ground to claim coral reefs are being wiped out by global warming. We also have various studies about reef-crest vs lagoon specimens of the same species and corals from the Red Sea and other more extreme places compared to more stable climates. Corals will be fine as long as humans stop smothering them with their literal shit.

>>12066269
Literally every global warming alarmist. In the past about 4 or so years, you retards have been covering your asses and changing your tune to focus on global warming ONLY wiping out human civilization, but before that, there were regular rants that it was going to end all life on the planet. This is from 2008:

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/global_warming_and_life_on_earth/index.html

>climate change will cause more than a third of the Earth’s animal and plant species to face extinction by 2050 — and up to 70 percent by the end of the century

If you go to any online discussion even now where libs proliferate - say reddit - there are regular histrionics about how we're all going to die and the planet will melt with 3-4° C of warming, which is patent fucking nonsense.

[Anonymous No.12066372]

>>12066258
the warming. im scared. i dont want to die

[Anonymous No.12066373]

>>12066312
Are you fucking retarded? You literally don't even know what you're talking about. The Eemian and Sangamonian fauna and flora of what are now temperate regions were subtropical 125 kya. You have a serious overconfidence in your superficial knowledge of the subject. Again I ask, who is feeding you this shit. PLEASE tell me you aren't learning this in college.

>The Miocene was only 2 degrees warmer
Only if you cherrypick its coldest points, which were brief. Most of the Miocene was 3-4° C warmer. I literally posted charts in this thread. You can just look at them.

>All rate of change past 800,000 years use computer models
No they don't. They mostly use faunal and floral fossil data combined with isotopes. When you see palms and crocodilians in what are now temperate regions, it's not hard to figure out the climate was warmer.

[Anonymous No.12066376]

>>12066359
Meanwhile, denialists relentlessly lie, misdirect, disinform, and otherwise try to obfuscate basic facts from being understood. Anthropogenic global warming is unprecedented for civilization and within the most reliable part of the geological record. We have an understanding of what the effects will be as temperatures rise. They will cause serious problems for humanity.

[Anonymous No.12066383]

>>12066376
am i gonna die?? im worriec about this

[Anonymous No.12066387]

>>12066383
Probably not.

[Anonymous No.12066394]

>>12066315
Dude, you don't get it. Scientific fields are WRACKED by political struggles. Each unique to that field. Anyone in these fields can tell you this. It's like the feathered dinosaur autism. But imagine that level of autism for all kinds of different personal reputations and pet theories unique to each field. The fact is, that data is there. It can't be refuted. Either the corals are dead or they fucking aren't. And in the cases where humans are absent, they fucking aren't. Coral reef collapse is OBJECTIVELY caused by overwhelmingly by siltation and nitrogen waste pollution from human freshwater sources. Everything else is speculation and I ignore it because politics has pushed that every single problem in nature right now is caused by global warming. Just like how the Golden Toad supposedly went extinct due to global warming. No it fucking didn't. It went extinct because all its fucking habitat got logged and humans spread a fungal disease that fucks up amphibians due to the out of control global pet trade introducing non-native fucking species everywhere.

>>12066347
They're few because humans are everywhere. Do the research yourself. There are multiple papers published on the subject of remote reefs recovering completely from bleaching events.

>>12066383
Yes, but most likely due to civil unrest, pollution or some new hyperdisease due to overpopulation. Unless you live in the Maldives and refuse to move as the waves cover your head or in the tropics during a famine, global warming probably won't kill you. It will likely kill millions in the third world due to famine alone though.

The human world, on the other hand, is already beginning to collapse at an alarming rate. That's what happens when you overpopulate AND have stupid leadership worldwide.

[Anonymous No.12066398]

>>12066359
>If they can be ID'd as Acropora or even a closely related genus 50 million years ago, that implies the genus or tribe is extremely conservative.
>>12066359
>If they can be ID'd as Acropora or even a closely related genus 50 million years ago, that implies the genus or tribe is extremely conservative.
Yes, conservative in the factors that determine classification. We already know coal reefs are sensitive to rapid tempurature and acidity changes. Millions of years of slow adaption to their current environment is irrelevant to the effects of rapid global warming.

>Literally every global warming alarmist.
Then why can't you provide even one example? The only source you gave says the opposite:

>In fact, scientists predict that if we keep going along our current greenhouse gas emissions trajectory, climate change will cause more than a third of the Earth’s animal and plant species to face extinction by 2050 — and up to 70 percent by the end of the century. Such a catastrophic loss would irreversibly diminish biodiversity, severely disrupt ecosystems, and cause immense hardship for human societies worldwide.

Up to 70% and immense hardship doesn't sound like "life on Earth cannot exist."

[Anonymous No.12066401]

>>12066372
It will eventually stop when we run out of fossil fuel and the Earth slowly cools into a glacial period in tens of thousands of years. If anything we should be saving our emissions for when we actually need them to warm the planet.

[Anonymous No.12066404]

>>12066373
I thought 0 baseline in these charts is 1850 preindustrial because we don't use modern temperature as a baseline because it changes too rapidly. Since we're 2 degrees warmer than that doesn't that put is in the Miocene? 10 million years ago?

If I'm wrong you need to explain it to me.

[Anonymous No.12066405]

>>12066401
disinfo

[Anonymous No.12066407]

>>12066398
>We already know coal reefs are sensitive to rapid tempurature and acidity changes
"Sensitive" does not mean "extinct". You are "senstive" to a 5° F temperature change or 20% humidity increase. That doesn't mean the planet bursts into flames. What you global warming Bill Nye lite retards don't understand is that bleaching is a coral ADAPTATION. It's an intentional response to TEMPORARILY adverse conditions. The problem is, siltation and nitrogen pollution are NOT temporary threats. They are cumulative, long-term problems because human populations never just go away or stop shitting in the river. Again, you're arguing against objective data here. Coral reefs near humans that bleach collapse. Those away from humans do not. This is not for your opinion to decide. Nature is instructing you in what is real and you are rejecting the truth because you favor your own ignorant opinion.

>Up to 70% and immense hardship doesn't sound like "life on Earth cannot exist."
What a stupid, pedantic fuck. You must have a lot of karma on reddit.

>>12066404
The difference is insignificant. It's less than half a degree C.

[Anonymous No.12066409]

>>12066407
>The difference is insignificant. It's less than half a degree C.
Unless it was unclear, I mean the difference between current average global temp and 1850.

[Anonymous No.12066415]

>>12066405
it is? whats the truth i dont know who to trust

[Anonymous No.12066416]

>>12066407

>What a stupid, pedantic fuck. You must have a lot of karma on reddit.

Its not pedantic. You are making up a strawman that all life on Earth will go extinct, scientists are actually saying that there will be a mass extinction, but obviously Earth wont be sterilized, humans are not capable of such a feat even if they detonated all nukes.

Its irrelevant anyway, mass extinction is bad enough, so we need to stop CO2 emissions either way.

[Anonymous No.12066419]

>>12066409
source! I need to learn something! Where am I getting that we're 2 degrees warmer than preindustrial? Am I in Fahrenheit?

[Anonymous No.12066424]

>>12066419
sorry, I'm overly excited at learning new information. I'll go look it up myself.

[Anonymous No.12066426]

>>12066394
>Dude, you don't get it. Scientific fields are WRACKED by political struggles.
So you can just deny any scientific evidence without providing proof it's flawed? Wow, what a fun way to argue.

Retard, conspiracy logic doesn't work. Simply proposing a motive does not prove a crime occurred.

>The fact is, that data is there. It can't be refuted. Either the corals are dead or they fucking aren't.
More retarded black and white thinking. Corals can be in the process of being damaged and healed, without being dead. This process can change over time. You are so desperate to deny reality that you fail at basic logic.

>Coral reef collapse is OBJECTIVELY caused by overwhelmingly by siltation and nitrogen waste pollution from human freshwater sources.
And/or by rapid temperature change and acidification.

>Everything else is speculation and I ignore it because politics has pushed that every single problem in nature right now is caused by global warming.
Yeah this is called cherrypicking. You're not even doing it for any rational reason, you just don't like a certain conclusion therefore you deny any evidence for that conclusion. Have you considered your own political bias is affecting your argument? Of course not, that's impossible.

>Just like how the Golden Toad supposedly went extinct due to global warming.
As far as I can see in the literature, it's unknown what the cause was and global warming is one possible factor out of many. But keep whining about strawmen and not actual science.

[Anonymous No.12066429]

>>12066415
Not him, but there are multiple factors in global warming. Not all caused by CO2 and some that ARE caused by it, but have a delayed effect. The Earth is a big reservoir of heat. It can take some time for it to warm up or cool down the entire system. There are also Methane clathrates in various parts of the world that haven't "defrosted" yet. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so it will also have an effect. The planet will probably continue to warm for a while yet, even if all human activity stopped.

>>12066419
No. That would still only be nearly a degree F. I don't know where you got the 2 degrees thing. The Earth is very much not 2 degrees warmer in either C or F than it was in 1850. Just google it.

>>12066424
Yeah there you go.

[Anonymous No.12066431]

>>12066405
How so?

[Anonymous No.12066433]

>guys, what if we systematically released back all carbon that has been slowly removed from the atmosphere during millions of years of fossilization in just 200-300 years?

You have to be retarded to believe this wont have a massive destabilizing effect on the whole planet.

Its about the rate of change, dumbfuck.

[Anonymous No.12066437]

>>12066429
does that mean we cant stop it?? that sounds scary

[Anonymous No.12066438]

>>12066429
Nope, this isn't helping. I need to figure out where my misinformation comes from. If we're 4 degrees cooler than the Miocene even today I've got to figure out why.

[Anonymous No.12066440]

>>12066426
>So you can just deny any scientific evidence without providing proof it's flawed?
But that's exactly what YOU are doing. I'm telling you the exact fucking opposite. YOU are the one triggered by direct observational evidence that global warming is not the causal factor in reef destruction.

>More retarded black and white thinking. Corals can be in the process of being damaged and healed, without being dead. This process can change over time. You are so desperate to deny reality that you fail at basic logic.
This sounds like bargaining. Because it has NOTHING to do with the studies I'm citing. You're making me repeat myself A LOT here. Remember what I said here?: >>12066134

You're an "I fucking love scienc!" NPC. And it's god damned annoying as hell.

[Anonymous No.12066450]

>>12066437
There is no reason to fear global warming. The best times in Earth's history were all during periods that were 8 or more degrees C warmer than current temps. If you want to worry about something, worry about human overpopulation, because that's causing a literal mass extinction event and will likely end the human species unless it gets under control in literally like the next 5 years.

>>12066433
"Destabilizing" is a sort of political description. I would consider it restabilizing the global climate since the planet has been cooling worryingly for the near entire span of the Cenozoic.

>>12066438
I'm not sure what their source is, but that image is fucking nonsense. The Earth is not 2° C warming now than it was in 1850. That's absurd.

[Anonymous No.12066461]

>>12066450
I just noticed the image only goes to about 1.5 degrees. That still seems too high.

[Anonymous No.12066466]

>>12066450

>There is no reason to fear global warming. The best times in Earth's history were all during periods that were 8 or more degrees C warmer than current temps. If you want to worry about something, worry about human overpopulation, because that's causing a literal mass extinction event and will likely end the human species unless it gets under control in literally like the next 5 years.

>"Destabilizing" is a sort of political description. I would consider it restabilizing the global climate since the planet has been cooling worryingly for the near entire span of the Cenozoic.

Holy shit, a-are you an actual reptilian? I knew they were secretly among us!

[Anonymous No.12066472]

>>12066407
>"Sensitive" does not mean "extinct".
OK, and? Again, your thinking is very black and white.

>You are "senstive" to a 5° F temperature change or 20% humidity increase.
I'm a lot less sensitive to it than coral.

>That doesn't mean the planet bursts into flames.
Who said it does? Get your head out of your ass and start responding to what scientists are actually saying.

>problem is, siltation and nitrogen pollution are NOT temporary threats.
Neither is rapid global warming due to CO2 emissions. Fucking idiot.

>Again, you're arguing against objective data here.
Which data have I argued against?

>Coral reefs near humans that bleach collapse. Those away from humans do not.
According to your own source, they could if global warming continues. I don't know why you are arguing with your own source, but it really has nothing to do with me.

>What a stupid, pedantic fuck. You must have a lot of karma on reddit.
You seem to be very angry at your inability to read the sources you cite. Learn how to read and stop projecting your anger at yourself onto others.

[Anonymous No.12066478]

>>12066450

DESU from the longterm POV it would probably be good for life on Earth to release all that locked carbon. But again, its about the rate. Slow release over millions of years is good, life can adapt. Extremely rapid release over 200-300 years is catastrophic, life wont adapt and the result is a massive extinction event (which might include humans).

[Anonymous No.12066485]

>>12066450
>I would consider it restabilizing the global climate
You're ignoring the timeframes of the changes.

>since the planet has been cooling worryingly for the near entire span of the Cenozoic.
Why exactly is it worrying to you?

[Anonymous No.12066490]

>>12066466
More amphibian.

[Anonymous No.12066503]

>>12066478
is that going to happen to us??

[Anonymous No.12066509]

>>12066440
>But that's exactly what YOU are doing.
Which scientific evidence did I deny? You keep claiming this without actually saying what it is.

>YOU are the one triggered by direct observational evidence that global warming is not the causal factor in reef destruction.
What observational evidence have you provided of that? The only source you provided said both pollution and climate change are factors. And I never denied that. Fucking sperg.

>This sounds like bargaining.
No, it sounds like the source you provided.

>Because it has NOTHING to do with the studies I'm citing.
Which studies?

How many times are you going to lie and misrepresent arguments? How many times are you going to fail to respond to >>12066153? When exactly are you going to depopulate yourself?

[Anonymous No.12066513]

>>12066450
>I'm not sure what their source is, but that image is fucking nonsense. The Earth is not 2° C warming now than it was in 1850. That's absurd.
HADCRUT4, show your data that says otherwise.

[Anonymous No.12066518]

>>12065002
they also don't live in the US and in cities where there is the city heat island effect.

[Anonymous No.12066527]

>>12066478
>DESU from the longterm POV it would probably be good for life on Earth to release all that locked carbon
There is no question about it. Even in the short term it would be - that is, if humans weren't still chopping down all the forests, plowing all the grasslands, killing all the animals and destroying all the wetlands and reefs.

>But again, its about the rate.
Not so much as you think. People don't seem to realize how fast climate change occurs naturally. The last glacial maximum only 20 kya was about 8-10° C colder than it is now. Glaciers literally covered many northern US states. Those same glaciers don't even cover most of Canada today. When you compare the difference between 20 kya and 125 kya, the last interglacial, the difference is even more extreme. The animals in what is now Germany were subtropical and included Elephants, Rhinos, Water Buffalo and Hippos.

>Extremely rapid release over 200-300 years is catastrophic
For whom? Humans are catastrophic for all life on Earth other than dogs, rats and cockroaches.

>life wont adapt
Life isn't adapting now to humans spreading like a disease across the planet. There's a little test I like to give all global warming alarmists. How do you feel about vegetarianism? Almost 100% of global warming alarmists are unwilling to become vegetarians - not even vegans, just giving up red meat. That tells you everything you need to know about what they actually believe.

>massive extinction event
The extinction event has been going on for 3 million years. Don't get scared now that it will also include you. You weren't scared when it was just all the animals.

>Why exactly is it worrying to you?
Why wouldn't it be? A tropical world is better for life than a temperate or - god forbid - cold one.

>>12066503
No. Humans will be eradicated due to instability in human civilization caused by overpopulation, combined with famine due to the same, then eventually world war which will pretty much finish the job.

[Anonymous No.12066531]

>>12066509
You're going to be ignored now. As I said multiple times. You ask for answers, then are given them, then ignore them, then claim you weren't given them. No more (You)s. If you want karma, go to reddit.

[Anonymous No.12066533]

>>12066518
That old canard? Yawn.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

[Anonymous No.12066539]

>>12066531
That's a whole lot of projection. The only one who has ignored points and failed to respond is you. You know it and I know it. You lose.

[Anonymous No.12066543]

>>12064681
Isn't it possible that warmer temperatures would have positive effects on the environment and society?

[Anonymous No.12066554]

>>12066543
It probably does have positive effects, but on the whole the effects are negative.

[Anonymous No.12066555]

>>12066543
i hope so, i dont want snow to go away though :( but some people said that wouldve happen because of currents and clouds or something

[Anonymous No.12066560]

>>12066555
*wouldnt

[Anonymous No.12066561]

>>12066543
>Isn't it possible that warmer temperatures would have positive effects on the environment
Absolutely. As soon as you get rid of the humans.

>society
Lol no. That's where there is so much global warming alarmism. Humans are threatened by global warming, not the biosphere.

>>12066554
To human civilization. Make sure you caveat your propaganda.

[Anonymous No.12066567]

>>12066561
*that's why there is

[Anonymous No.12066571]

>>12066561
>To human civilization. Make sure you caveat your propaganda.
Sorry, I forgot I'm speaking to nonhuman scum.

[Anonymous No.12066574]

>>12066255
sure buddy sure, serious threat. But no, agw is a hypothesis that hasn't been proven, and no computer simulations aren't proof.

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/

[Anonymous No.12066576]

>>12066531
/pol/tard you got BTFO

[Anonymous No.12066578]

>>12066571
That's rich coming from the only species in the fossil record of this planet to be single-handedly responsible for a mass extinction.

[Anonymous No.12066580]

>>12066578
but you are human too :(

[Anonymous No.12066583]

>>12066578
Cats?

[Anonymous No.12066585]

>>12066574
It's an extremely well evidenced theory, even without computer models:

https://youtu.be/OJ6Z04VJDco

[Anonymous No.12066586]

>>12066578
i dont want to die, dont you want to survive too??

[Anonymous No.12066590]

>>12066561
>>12066527

>guys, its OK, global warming is not a threat to all life in general, just to humans

A very poor argument. Why should I as a human not care about humanity?

[Anonymous No.12066591]

>>12066578
As opposed to the retarded freak so deluded he thinks he's not human.

[Anonymous No.12066605]

>>12066578

Humans are very important, they are our biosphere's way of passing the Great Filter. Without them, all life will go extinct in 800 million years when Sun increases its output. With them colonizing space, life can continue even afterwards.

[Anonymous No.12066608]

>>12066561

>self-hating c-u-c-k

What a surprise.

[Anonymous No.12066617]

>>12066555
I doubt it, global warming will cause what, one degree celsius difference? That leaves plenty of snowy temperatures

[Anonymous No.12066622]

>>12066605

This.

In the long-term, Earth is disposable. AGW is a threat precisely because it can destabilize human civilization, threatening progress in space colonization, not because some dumb species of frog goes extinct somewhere.

>>12066617

GW will cause 2C difference at a minimum, but most likely 3-4C. Even if we act now.

[Anonymous No.12066631]

>>12066622
>GW will cause 2C difference at a minimum
We know this how?

[Anonymous No.12066637]

>>12066631
its just some predictions, probably wont be accurate

[Anonymous No.12066641]

>>12066637
I'm guessing computer models
C02 increases temperature logarithmically, so to say "GW will cause 2C difference at a minimum, most likely twice as much" is doubtful

[Anonymous No.12066643]

>>12066058
are you really still trying to make this >>12065999 kind of retard think? the kind of retard that uses the "well, TECHHHHHHHHHNICALLY you've not contradicted me" argument?

[Anonymous No.12066648]

>>12066580
No.

>>12066583
That's still a part of human activity, you realize. Those non-native species didn't get spread all over the planet by nothing.

>>12066586
Who said I was threatened by global warming?

>>12066590
I'd say it was an excellent argument. Fuck humans. And it only furthers the evidence of your narcissism that you've tried to claim that a problem that YOU CAUSED that almost exclusively affects YOU is the entire biosphere's problem. LOL

>Why should I as a human not care about humanity?
If you actually really did care about humanity, you'd do everything in your power to reduce your population size. If the biosphere collapses, you don't survive either. There is no scenario wherein humans "win" vs nature. It's like cutting your carotid artery and claiming victory over your own circulatory system.

You'd better get right with god as a species.

>>12066605
The great filter isn't a thing. Humans are just universally delusional. And you've actively prevented a significant number of species from even having that opportunity. Once again, humans trying to claim the devastation you've caused to this planet is actually an "essential function". The one and only good thing humans ever did for this planet was dig up all that oil and coal and set it on fire.

>>12066608
Self?

[Anonymous No.12066666]

>>12066249
he thinks he's above everything and everyone. probably the typical 14yo edgelord

[Anonymous No.12066667]

>>12066431
"Burning all of the fossil fuels" would cause a massive increase in average temperature. And the temperature would not begin to come back down until that carbon started to be removed from the atmosphere through the usual biological mechanisms. So, "saving the fossil fuels to burn when it's cold" is an idiotic mischaracterization that will never actually happen in any future scenario where we continue burning fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.12066668]

>>12066585
it isn't, it is flawed and corrupt.

https://youtu.be/CqsvYAW1idg

https://youtu.be/FqjQxv6HtUA

https://youtu.be/rEWoPzaDmOA

[Anonymous No.12066682]

>>12066648

>Self-described non-human entity on /sci/

I have seen various kooks here, but this type is new. Nice delusion, lol.

[Anonymous No.12066697]

>>12066668
Ah, yes. The famous intellectualism and scholarship of YouTube. This will be an authoritative, scientific accounting of AGW in the proper contexts.

[Anonymous No.12066698]

>>12066648

AGW is a bigger threat to humanity than overpopulation, which is pretty much limited to third world shitholes. Developed world has negative birth rates.

[Anonymous No.12066712]

>>12066617
It's already caused more than 1 degree C.

[Anonymous No.12066719]

>>12066697
Are you looking for an establishment outlet which is disproving establishment narratives? Good luck

[Anonymous No.12066721]

>>12066712
And it still snows. It seems like temperature increase should go slower and slower instead of faster, that's how homeostatic systems work

[Anonymous No.12066722]

>>12066641
>C02 increases temperature logarithmically, so to say "GW will cause 2C difference at a minimum, most likely twice as much" is doubtful
GHG concentrations have been increasing exponentially, so the result has been a linear warming trend. Simply saying "logarithmic" does nothing to limit the warming to a specific number.

[Anonymous No.12066734]

>>12066698
He says, as the world's only remaining superpower is literally burning to the ground due to civil strife and russia and china are just overtly claiming other people's countries.

[Anonymous No.12066737]

>>12066722
>exponentially
Nah. Why would they increase exponentially? It's not like GHG emissions cause additional GHG emissions. They would grow polynomially at best

[Anonymous No.12066739]

Unfortunately human civilization as a whole now is unsustainable and has little to no foundation. Any amount of prolonged stress may crash it, and since most people are in some way dependent on it, you can expect a lot of death and destruction.

Global warming isn't a problem. Overpopulation is a problem. Encouraged weakness is a problem. A car isn't that bad for the environment, but millions of them are.

[Anonymous No.12066743]

>>12066667
>"Burning all of the fossil fuels" would cause a massive increase in average temperature. And the temperature would not begin to come back down until that carbon started to be removed from the atmosphere through the usual biological mechanisms.
Yeah, how does that disagree with what I said? Did you notice I said this would take tens of thousands of years?

>So, "saving the fossil fuels to burn when it's cold" is an idiotic mischaracterization that will never actually happen in any future scenario where we continue burning fossil fuels.
Huh? My point was that we should not continue to burn fossil fuels, and that if anything we should save them for later.

[Anonymous No.12066745]

>>12066533
not that old.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092181811930102X?via%3Dihub

''Homogenization approaches are applied to meteorological tem- perature records to correct them of any one-off step change biases due to station moves or changes in instrumentation. Several authors argued that the homogenization process indirectly corrects for urbanization bias (Yan et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017). Others, such as Soon et al. (2018) argued that by itself it leads to urban blending meaning that the magnitude of urbanization bias ends up significantly underestimated.''

''The results are significant and may indicate the presence of a substantial uncorrected urbanization bias in the Chinese climate records. Under the hypothesis that Tmax is a better metric for studying climatic changes than Tmean or Tmin, we conclude that about 50% of the recorded warming of China since the 1940s could be due to uncorrected urbanization bias. In addition, we also find that the Tmax record from May to October over China shows the 1940s and the 2000s equally warm, in contrast to the 1°C warming predicted by the CMIP5 models.''

[Anonymous No.12066748]

>>12066739
based and tedpilled

[Anonymous No.12066757]

>>12066739
>A car isn't that bad for the environment, but millions of them are.
It's amazing that this very basic statement is non-negotiably true, and yet people will wail and gnash their teeth to try to claim you're wrong somehow.

[Anonymous No.12066769]

>>12066734

>oh my god, there are some political conflicts, we are all gonna die!

[Anonymous No.12066783]

>>12066739

>A car isn't that bad for the environment, but millions of them are.

Petrol car is bad for the environment. Electric car is not.

[Anonymous No.12066787]

>>12066769
>some political conflicts

[Anonymous No.12066794]

>>12066783
Where do electric cars get their energy?

[Anonymous No.12066797]

>>12066697
you are a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.12066805]

>>12066739

Human civilization is sustainable. Tens of billions of people can live with western quality of life. We just need to abandon fossil fuels and end energy poverty, by developing LFTRs. Advanced nuclear is the answer.

[Anonymous No.12066810]

>>12066794

From carbon-neutral energy sources. We are getting there. But yes, dropping the fear of nuclear would help immensely.

[Anonymous No.12066813]

>>12066276
>back then 0.24Gt of carbon emitted per year
>currently we emit 10Gt of carbon per year
>40 times as much
We are sooo fucked. Guess now its the question of "How's that space program going?".

[Anonymous No.12066818]

>>12066787

>some niggers burned some city centers, I am sure USA will collapse, any day now

Doomsayers gotta doomsay.

[Anonymous No.12066821]

>>12066810
>From carbon-neutral energy sources.
I'm sure you would like that to be the case, but it isn't. Also, how will luxury cars for rich assholes fix the environment? Or reduce civil strife? PMCs are so fucking insulated from reality.

>Nuclear energy will save us!
Is it the fucking 70s again already? Why are you zoomers such extremely uncool retards? You realize the boomers are a failed generation, right?

>>12066805
You forgot that last detail
>and exterminate nearly all non-human life on the planet

[Anonymous No.12066824]

>>12066813

>"How's that space program going?"

Starship SN6 hop in progress today. Elon's got our backs.

[Anonymous No.12066825]

>>12066818
You're going to be so very disappointed with the future, you delusional piece of shit. Neoliberalism is a lie and Steven Pinker rapes children.

[Anonymous No.12066828]

>>12066824

[Anonymous No.12066849]

>>12066821

>I'm sure you would like that to be the case, but it isn't.

Hopefully it will be. The trend is there.

>Also, how will luxury cars for rich assholes fix the environment?

Every new technology is for the rich at first, then the price drops and it spreads to common folk. Aviation, gas cars, TVs, mobile phones, computers.. Electric cars will be no exception.

>Why are you zoomers such extremely uncool retards?

Nuclear is cool.

>and exterminate nearly all non-human life on the planet

Thats dumb, nuclear is much better for the environment than fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.12066862]

>>12066825

>muh irrelevant graph

Stay mad. Communism does not work. Nor does fascism. Or whatever extremism you subscribe to.

[Anonymous No.12066866]

>>12066849
>Every new technology is for the rich at first, then the price drops and it spreads to common folk.
You mean like helicopters and space travel?

[Anonymous No.12066874]

>>12066668
>corrections to data are tampering
Why? Oh we're just supposed to take his word for it... Or you could read about why these corrections are done and make up your own mind:

https://www.judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

You could also compare the corrected data to the raw data of high quality temperature stations:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

But Tony will never do that. He only wants to cherrypick the data, like giving you average station temperature instead of the spacial average that is actually used to determine temperature.

>there is not enough high quality temperature data in the 1890s-1920s
Oh we're just supposed to take Tony's word again... Or we could look at Berkeley Earth, a project created by AGW skeptics to answer exactly those questions about data quality and coverage. Pic related shows the data coverage is enough to determine the global average within a small range of error.

>NASA tampered with Iceland data
Isn't it odd how Tony shows the article debunking the assertion but then ignores the explanation given?

https://www.baka.com.au/environment/climate-change/nasa-chief-slaps-down-climate-sceptic-senator-malcolm-roberts-you-hold-a-number-of-misconceptions-20161121-gstp0y.html

>"During this early period there was a large daytime bias in the temperature data from Iceland as presented in this publication," which accounted for much of the "discrepancy" at Teigarhorn and less so at Vestmannaeyjar, Mr Jonsoon said.

>For the latter station, it was relocated in October 1921 to a higher elevation. "Comparative measurements at both sites have shown that the later location is about 0.7 degrees Celsius colder than the former – this relocation has to be 'adjusted' for," he said.

Why is Tony hiding the explanation he's trying to argue against?

[Anonymous No.12066889]

>>12066828

>muh collapse

Any day now, I am sure of it!

Meanwhile, humanity is better than ever. Look I can post graphs too!

[Anonymous No.12066904]

>>12066721
>And it still snows.
Who said it wouldn't???

> It seems like temperature increase should go slower and slower instead of faster, that's how homeostatic systems work
Not if the cause of the increase is increasing exponentially. The climate will eventually reach homeostatic equilibrium several hundred years after CO2 emissions stop rapidly increasing. What does that have to do with anything?

[Anonymous No.12066908]

>>12066866

Yes. Price of aviation has come down significantly, including helicopter flights, common people just dont need helicopters that much, planes are superior for common air transport tasks.

Price of space travel is coming down now, see SpaceX.

Face it, the future is bright.

[Anonymous No.12066921]

>>12066805
I appreciate your positivity, but you saying "we just need" implies that you do acknowledge that something must be done and that it is not now. I agree, it COULD become sustainable, but we have to fix a whole lot more of shit than that.

We produce calories in a non sustainable way. Most phosphorus (needed in ATP for energy path ways in cells (your cells) and a whole lot of other shit) is mined in the middle east.

[Anonymous No.12066928]

>>12066904
>Who said it wouldn't???
This guy >>12066555
>Not if the cause of the increase is increasing exponentially
It's not, see >>12066737. Why would emissions increase exponentially? Emissions don't create additional emissions.

[Anonymous No.12066970]

>>12066862
It's perfectly relevant. It means you're not paying attention when death is at your door. Your society is experiencing total implosion, but because your daddy had money, that shit doesn't exist as far as you're concerned. Until it's too late. The pampered never learn.

[Anonymous No.12066986]

>>12066889
STEVEN PINKER RAPES CHILDREN. Which part of this are you having trouble with?

[Anonymous No.12066991]

>>12066908
I agree. A human-free world is a glorious prospect. Even after all the horrible destruction you cause.

[Anonymous No.12067006]

>>12066986

Humanity is objectively better than ever, even with Pinker raping children left and right. Which part of this are you having trouble with?

[Anonymous No.12067013]

>>12066874
he shows that there is no excuse for data manipulation.
https://realclimatescience.com/no-excuse-for-data-tampering/

Agw scientists have been caught manipulating data
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830503322793632

''The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400–1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.''

YOU HAVE NO EXCUSES.

>there is not enough high quality temperature data in the 1890s-1920s

That's exactly what your images proves.

all of your criticism has been already addressed by tony heller and others but it takes soemone that is actually interested in truth to find the truth, i think you are here just to misguide people.

[Anonymous No.12067017]

>>12066991

I dont think humans will go extinct, we are too widespead for that, even nuclear winter wont kill all of us, some groups of people will survive in many remote corners of the world.

Advanced civilization is at stake, not humanity as a species.

[Anonymous No.12067026]

>>12067017
You're wrong and I'm glad.

[Anonymous No.12067042]

>>12066991
Why is hating all humans morally better than hating e.g. blacks or jews? Seems worse to me

[Anonymous No.12067047]

>>12066737
>Nah. Why would they increase exponentially?
Because we are releasing them exponentially.

>It's not like GHG emissions cause additional GHG emissions.
They do though. Warmer temperatures cause more water vapor, CO2 and methane to be released from oceans.

[Anonymous No.12067054]

>>12067042
Because you're a pest species that is causing a mass extinction event. I like plants and animals. And I don't like you.

[Anonymous No.12067059]

>this entire thread when reminding them that social ills are a greater threat to humanity than global warming

[Anonymous No.12067078]

>>12067054
That doesn't really answer my question

[Anonymous No.12067083]

>>12067047
That graph you posted has been linear since the 60s, negating both of your points. Earth has sustained life for billions of years, feedback loops are much more likely to be negative than positive

[Anonymous No.12067086]

>>12067059
It's not a democracy though

[Anonymous No.12067093]

>>12067083
It's demonstrated by basic chemistry and physics that the warmer it is the more GHG emissions from natural sources are released.

[Anonymous No.12067109]

>>12066745
This is a bizarre paper. Why compare the temperature to model predictions that are probably too large scale to compare to individual cities, and not raw temperature data from rural stations where there should be no UHI? Why use only max temperatures? Probably because the authors already tried it the normal way and it didn't result in the conclusion they wanted.

[Anonymous No.12067162]

>>12067093
Then why is it increasing linearly instead of exponentially

[Anonymous No.12067166]

>>12064668
Your image sites no sources and you should be ashamed.

[Anonymous No.12067172]

>>12064668
>Why is global warming such a big deal if humanity survived warmer temperatures?
Because humanity wasn't dependent on a complex and fragile web of interconnected systems for its survival.

[Anonymous No.12067175]

>>12067086
What isn't?

[Anonymous No.12067180]

>>12067175
The American system of government

[Anonymous No.12067190]

>>12067180
"Our democracy is in crisis" is more of an expression.

[Anonymous No.12067191]

>>12067180
You are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.

[Anonymous No.12067193]

>>12067190
What does it mean?

[Anonymous No.12067196]

>>12067191
Bro I got a 31 on my ACT, what did you get?

[Anonymous No.12067199]

>>12067193
It means shit's going to hell.

[Anonymous No.12067205]

>>12067059
Makes a good point, even if it is a Twitter post. The humanities are important too.

[Anonymous No.12067208]

>>12067199
I'd say our "democracy" is in crisis because of state and world governments instantly clamping down on basic freedoms without any democratic process this year, not so much whatever was happening in 2019

[Anonymous No.12067212]

>>12067208
You think this started in 2020??

[Anonymous No.12067216]

>>12067109
maybe the bizarre thing is that you didn't read the paper.

''Very few of the Chinese stations are still genuinely rural. Of these few still-rural stations, many of them are often located in climatically distinct regions to the urban stations, e.g., rural mountainous regions versus the more urbanized plains. Moreover, as said above, in re- cognition of the fact that urban temperatures are unrepresentative of the surrounding countryside, station observers in China occasionally move highly urbanized stations to slightly less urbanized locations every few decades. This makes China a particularly challenging area for estimating the magnitude of the urbanization (warming) bias in the surface air temperature data using conventional approaches. Most of the available data is from stations that are at least partially urbanized. Thus, there is very little rural data for applying the classic urban-minus- rural estimation method.''

anyways another thing this paper points out is that homogenization doesn't eliminate uhi bias from the data.

[Anonymous No.12067219]

>>12067013
>he shows that there is no excuse for data manipulation.
Then why is Tony constantly caught doing it?

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/

Corrections to flawed data is not "manipulation." Tony even shows in your first link that the data has a TOB bias but calls it "minimal." If it's "minimal" why does Tony care whether it's removed or not?

>Agw scientists have been caught manipulating data
>https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/
Where does this show the manipulation of data? It just keeps repeating that Mann didn't share his data and is hiding its manipulation, but his data and code has been publicly available for over a decade: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830503322793632
McIntyre has been thoroughly debunked:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/18/13/2308/30756/Proxy-Based-Northern-Hemisphere-Surface

>It should be noted that some falsely reported putative errors in the Mann et al.(1998) proxy data claimed by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) are an artifact of (a) the use by these latter authors of an incorrect version of the Mann et al. (1998) proxy indicator dataset, and (b) their misunderstanding of the methodology used by Mann et al. (1998) to calculate PC series of proxy networks over progressively longer time intervals. In the Mann et al. (1998) implementation, the PCs are computed over different time steps so that the maximum amount of data can be used in the reconstruction.

[Anonymous No.12067220]

>>12067212
He thinks wearing a mask impinges on his basic freedoms.

[Anonymous No.12067232]

>>12067013
>That's exactly what your images proves.
I'm sorry you don't know how to read a graph, but the image shows that by the end of the 1800s the data coverage is good enough to get a global average within a few tenths of a degree.

>all of your criticism has been already addressed by tony heller
And everything Tony Heller has said has been disproved by scientists. He's a fool.

[Anonymous No.12067235]

>>12067220
By basic freedoms I was thinking more freedom of movement and freedom of assembly, the masks are just a retarded cherry on top

[Anonymous No.12067239]

>>12067212
No I get that freedoms have been being chipped away and power consolidated gradually, it just seems to have gone into overdrive this year. Your criticism applies more to the tweet

[Anonymous No.12067269]

>>12067083
>That graph you posted has been linear since the 60s
You don't seem to understand, today's warming is not just from today's CO2 emissions, it's from emissions many years in the past. The carbon cycle has a pretty slow perturbation response rate. This is we say that even if we stopped emissions today there would still be warming "in the pipeline."

And how does this negate the positive feedback loop between warming and CO2?

>Earth has sustained life for billions of years, feedback loops are much more likely to be negative than positive
What does likelihood have to do with it? We are not choosing a random feedback loop, we are looking at a specific feedback loop that has been studied extensively. Are you claiming it's negative?

[Anonymous No.12067276]

>>12067059
How exactly do more humanities majors stop Trumptards and the last gasp of Boomer conservatism?

[Anonymous No.12067297]

>>12067269
Even if what you're saying is true, the graph would still not be exhibiting linear growth, would it? It would be exhibiting the locally exponential growth from the past. But the second derivative has gone down, which does not indicate a positive feedback process. I'm claiming that the feedback loop is almost guaranteed to be negative becaues if there were a positive feedback loop, it would have likely be triggered by something over the past 3.5 billion years. We have had many large volcanic eruptions sending greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at many points in geological history and still we have not yet become Venus.

[Anonymous No.12067308]

>>12067162
One has nothing to do with the other. The feedback loop still relies on the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming.

[Anonymous No.12067321]

>>12067220
It literally does. The corona nonsense is zombie tier madness.

>>12067276
You're focusing on sand grains and missing the beach. Human society is ALL fucked up.

[Anonymous No.12067365]

>>12067308
That's a dampening effect. There is also directly negative feedback, such as rising temperatures and increased CO2 causing increased plant life

[Anonymous No.12067401]

>>12067216
>maybe the bizarre thing is that you didn't read the paper.
I did. This is a bad excuse. Only 60% of China is urbanized. Similar studies have been done in the US, which is 70% urbanized. Scafetta is doing junk science.

>anyways another thing this paper points out is that homogenization doesn't eliminate uhi bias from the data.
They haven't measured UHI bias in the first place, they measured against a model, not actual data.

Here's a study that compared over 200 stations:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/21/6/1333/31791/Urbanization-Effects-on-Observed-Surface-Air

Here's a study based on comparison with SST data that shows the same small UHI effect as the first study:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2008JD009916

And there is no reason for them to use max temperature except for the purposes of cherrypicking.

[Anonymous No.12067414]

>>12067321
OK schizo

[Anonymous No.12067438]

>>12067297
>Even if what you're saying is true, the graph would still not be exhibiting linear growth, would it?
Why not? Over the long term, an exponential emissions curve will produce a linear temperature trend.

> It would be exhibiting the locally exponential growth from the past. But the second derivative has gone down, which does not indicate a positive feedback process.
How so?

>I'm claiming that the feedback loop is almost guaranteed to be negative becaues if there were a positive feedback loop, it would have likely be triggered by something over the past 3.5 billion years.
It has, what do you think causes CO2 to go up during interglacial warming?

>We have had many large volcanic eruptions sending greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at many points in geological history and still we have not yet become Venus.
Positive feedback doesn't mean runaway warming. The feedback still depends on the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming.

[Anonymous No.12067443]

>>12067365
OK, and what's your point? It's still a positive feedback overall.

[Anonymous No.12067446]

>>12067219

>https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/

doesn't prove anything, contrary to you i have shown that agw scientist do manipulate data.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830503322793632

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/

>Corrections to flawed data is not "manipulation." Tony even shows in your first link that the data has a TOB bias but calls it "minimal." If it's "minimal" why does Tony care whether it's removed or not?

you literally don't understand what you are reading do you? If the TOBS theory is valid, the morning stationswould be warming faster than afternoon stations, instead we don't see that.

>Where does this show the manipulation of data? It just keeps repeating that Mann didn't share his data and is hiding its manipulation

so he is willing to lose a million dollar case even tough he 'supposedly' has irrefutable proof that agw is happening, and all he has to do is share his data, that sure makes sense he is really showing superior logical thinking capabilities, i am glad he is a scientist, anyways i already showed you a study which proves it

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830503322793632

>https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/18/13/2308/30756/Proxy-Based-Northern-Hemisphere-Surface

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958305053516226?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.1

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23972700_Proxy_inconsistency_and_other_problems_in_millennial_paleoclimate_reconstructions

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjU4_7i4sPrAhUHtYsKHXEYDHI4FBAWMAJ6BAgEEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.wharton.upenn.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FWyner_2011_A_Statistical_1.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0gqJxXj-yeI6kjOw2vlK6w

[Anonymous No.12067453]

>>12067438
>Why not? Over the long term, an exponential emissions curve will produce a linear temperature trend.
Because the PPM of greenhouse gasses has the linear curve, not the temperature
>How so?
Sorry, should have said "second derivative is negative". Positive feedback causes acceleration, negative feedback causes deceleration.
>It has, what do you think causes CO2 to go up during interglacial warming?
Idk

[Anonymous No.12067458]

>>12067443
Perhaps locally in time, but eventually negative feedback will reverse it

[Anonymous No.12067494]

>>12067321
>The corona nonsense is zombie tier madness.
Do you have any references to back up your assertion ?

[Anonymous No.12067513]

>>12067494
What's an example of the kind of reference/evidence that you would accept?

[Anonymous No.12067518]

>>12067196
Thankfully I'm not an American.

[Anonymous No.12067521]

>>12067494
1: Supposedly Corona almost exclusively hits people over 70
2: Supposedly America is the worst hit country on Earth
3: Supposedly America "isn't doing enough" to stop the spread

4: No boomer die-off. Not even in nursing homes. This is highly suspicious.

[Anonymous No.12067558]

>>12064668
Because it benefits white people and makes irrelevant third world nations inhospitable. I'll be growing oranges in Alaska and shooting anyone with a tan that wanders too close.

[Anonymous No.12067570]

>>12066134
this has to be a bait, you can't be this fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.12067635]

>>12067521
Oh God. The stupid in this post is impressive. It's like the game of telephones, where someone listened to CDC, WHO et al, then wrote a press release, then the press release was turned into a news segment, then someone watched that news segement, posted about it on Facebook, then someone shitposted about that FB on 4chan and you read the 4chan thread and took it at face value.

>1: Supposedly Corona almost exclusively hits people over 70
This was never claimed. What was said is that COVID has a worse impact on the elderly, as in lots of people can get sick, but the younger and healthier you are, the higher your chance of survival. This statement was to complex for most people to understand.

>2: Supposedly America is the worst hit country on Earth
Never heard this claim before. But I do know that the USA has far more deaths per-capita then (say) Canada or NZ.

>3: Supposedly America "isn't doing enough" to stop the spread
See above.

>4: No boomer die-off. Not even in nursing homes. This is highly suspicious.
180k dead in the USA. I don't know about America, but in Québec we had so many deaths in old folks homes they had to call in the army.

[Anonymous No.12067660]

>>12067635
>180k dead in the USA
How much of this do you think is due to the fact that if you die while having corona, you're registered as a corona death? That's not how we counted flu deaths in the past

[Anonymous No.12067668]

>>12067570
Joke's on you, I am that stupid.

[Anonymous No.12067682]

>>12067660
>if you die while having corona, you're registered as a corona death?
Given how politicized covid is in the USA, I'm sure some people are doing this and other people are under-reporting. We'll never know.

[Anonymous No.12067695]

>>12066020
I was a legit climate change denier until I read this. I seriously thought the global warming debate was about whether humans are causing global warming or not, but I've never seen that we're climbing at a faster than historical rate.

Luckily I was one of those closeted climate change deniers. I just dont feel like arguing with people.

[Anonymous No.12067700]

>>12067682
so "180k" is entirely meaningless

[Anonymous No.12067701]

>>12067660
>How much of this do you think is due to the fact that if you die while having corona, you're registered as a corona death? That's not how we counted flu deaths in the past
The USA is currently at about 180k excess deaths since February. COVID-19 is being blamed for 167k deaths. They're pretty close.

[Anonymous No.12067703]

>>12067635
>This was never claimed.

[Anonymous No.12067712]

>>12067635
>Never heard this claim before.
Literally how? It's been screamed all over the news and internet by histrionic NPCs for months now.

>180k dead in the USA.
So literally nothing.

[Anonymous No.12067716]

>>12067701
I bet after the epidemic we'll see a period of negative excess deaths, since most of the casualties have been people already on their last lags

[Anonymous No.12067726]

>>12065817
>massive CO2 emissions
0.0412%
we're doomed. But seriously, that is the equivalent of 4 seats in a 10,000 seat stadium. And some how that magically retains all the heat in the atmosphere.

>>12065850
>believes in global warming
faith based science is best science

>>12065984
>at its fastest was about 1 degree C per millenia
That explains the flash frozen mammoths still chewing grass as they died by the tens of thousands.

[Anonymous No.12067736]

>>12067703
Your graph proves his point.

[Anonymous No.12067786]

>>12066874
>this relocation has to be 'adjusted'
That is the most mealy mouthed thing I have seen in this thread. Adjusted data is a nice way of saying falsified. Changing the historical record is fraudulent no matter how you try to spin it.

[Anonymous No.12067797]

>>12067446
>doesn't prove anything
Not an argument. It proves Tony goes through extreme cherrypicking to arbitrarily manipulate the data to get the conclusion he wants. There is no justification for it.

>i have shown that agw scientist do manipulate data.
Where?

>you literally don't understand what you are reading do you? If the TOBS theory is valid, the morning stationswould be warming faster than afternoon stations, instead we don't see that.
They are, Tony just calls the rates "nearly identical." Did you read your own source?

>so he is willing to lose a million dollar case even tough he 'supposedly' has irrefutable proof that agw is happening, and all he has to do is share his data, that sure makes sense he is really showing superior logical thinking capabilities, i am glad he is a scientist, anyways i already showed you a study which proves it
Nowhere in the court documents does it say he refused to share his data, you are so gullible. The hockey stick is not even about whether AGW is occurring, it's about past temperature changes. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Mann's results have been replicated over a dozen times by other researchers using state of the art methods, cry more.

[Anonymous No.12067809]

>>12067453
>Because the PPM of greenhouse gasses has the linear curve, not the temperature
Not over the long term.

>Idk
Climatologists do.

[Anonymous No.12067813]

>>12067458
A negative feedback won't reverse it, a negative forcing will.

[Anonymous No.12067819]

>>12067695
Very interesting to know, thanks for the insight. I usually point out that current warming is much faster but I don't normally quantify it so specifically.

[Anonymous No.12067875]

>>12067726
>NUMBER SMALL!!!!! SMALL THING NO DO BIG THING YOU STUPID HAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.12067882]

>>12067809
>Not over the long term.
Over the long term it's neither linear nor exponential

[Anonymous No.12067905]

>>12065925
Based retard

[Anonymous No.12068115]

Here's what I don't get: if CO2 from fossil fuels has a warming effect on the planet, that should mean
a) the permafrost in Siberia and Canada starts to thaw, causing the vegetation line to move north
b) the vegetation line also moves up to higher elevations worldwide
c) the rate of cloud formation increases, causing dry deserts to receive more rainfall

So doesn't the Earth's capacity to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere increase along with temperature, cancelling out the warming? Also, wouldn't the existing vegetation just grow larger in areas where CO2 availability was the only limiting factor? I mean, shouldn't our coal consumption actually be increasing our crop yields?

[Anonymous No.12068273]

>>12068115
But anon how am I supposed to get grant money if I can't pitch global warming as a looming existential threat?

[Anonymous No.12068331]

>>12068115
>So doesn't the Earth's capacity to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere increase along with temperature, cancelling out the warming?
No, the terrestrial biosphere contributes a fraction of the carbon cycle with a short residence time. The ocean is the main control of the carbon cycle and the main producer of oxygen. We're actually decreasing the ability of the ocean to effectively scrub the extra CO2 by reducing its solubility and slowing down the currents that transport it to the deep ocean.

>Also, wouldn't the existing vegetation just grow larger in areas where CO2 availability was the only limiting factor?
CO2 is a well mixed gas and not a limiting factor when it comes to plant growth.

[Anonymous No.12068332]

>>12068273
The other side of the argument funds studies, too. Reach out to carbon salesmen.

[Anonymous No.12068345]

>>12067726
>0.0412%
0.0412% of what? And why is it relevant?

> And some how that magically retains all the heat in the atmosphere.
Huh? The vast majority of the greenhouse effect keeps the Earth from being a giant frozen ball. We're talking about the *change* in greenhouse gases which is causing a *change* in temperature. The total amount of heat in the atmosphere is not the problem and is irrelevant.

>believes in global warming
Why would I need to believe in something there is plenty of scientific evidence for?

>That explains the flash frozen mammoths still chewing grass as they died by the tens of thousands.
Oh no... you're really this retarded... Nothing was "flash frozen." All frozen mammoth remains are from mammoths that died and then slowly froze since their bodies were not producing heat. This has nothing to do with climate change.

[Anonymous No.12068380]

>>12068331
The way I heard it, all of the carbon in a typical plant comes from the atmosphere. The other factors are water, nitrogen, and micronutrients taken up through the roots. So if there were an overabundance of these in the soil, how would more CO2 in the air not allow for larger growth as long as the sun kept shining?

I'm not sure what you mean by short residence time. Hasn't all of that sequestered carbon been residing in the Earth's crust for millions of years? As long as the plant doesn't burn, the carbon just sits there locked up in biochemicals, right? And if the CO2 doesn't dissolve in the ocean as rapidly, doesn't the land just pick up the slack?

[Anonymous No.12068388]

>>12067786
The adjustment is clearly justified, since the data set is measuring the temperature in two different places. Without the adjustment it would incorrectly be combining the data from two different places as if they are one place. Calling any adjustment fraud while ignoring the reason for it is not a valid argument. Whining about data integrity while refusing to correct known errors is yet another example of denier's hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.12068394]

>>12067882
It's clearly exponential over the long term, the graph is already in the thread.

[Anonymous No.12068396]

>>12064681
>but it's effects on environment and society.
What if people use climate legislation as a Trojan horse for political malware, which then leads to wars, creating even worse effects for the environment and society?

[Anonymous No.12068411]

>>12068115
>c) the rate of cloud formation increases, causing dry deserts to receive more rainfall
It's the opposite, Hadley Cell expansion will mean dry deserts (oxymoron) will get drier.

>So doesn't the Earth's capacity to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere increase along with temperature, cancelling out the warming?
Well is it? No, CO2 is increasing as fast as ever. Human emissions massively overwhelm the carbon cycle.

[Anonymous No.12068415]

>>12068380
>would more CO2 in the air not allow for larger growth as long as the sun kept shining?
Generally yes in controlled conditions, but when you have shifts in rainfall, temperature and general local conditions as a result of climate change then the ecosystem dies.

>Hasn't all of that sequestered carbon been residing in the Earth's crust for millions of years?
No. The terrestrial biosphere as in the trees, soil and wetlands does not sequester carbon for a long time. You're thinking about rocks like carbonate which are marine. With things like coal, only a small percentage of the carbon is sequestered into coal which forms in very specific conditions.

>As long as the plant doesn't burn, the carbon just sits there locked up in biochemicals, right?
No, see above.

>And if the CO2 doesn't dissolve in the ocean as rapidly, doesn't the land just pick up the slack?
No. It would be evident if it did. Moreso peatlands and permafrost that hold carbon longer in the surface have started releasing that carbon.

The problem of ocean uptake is a really bad, because the as the carbonate ion concentrations drop with ocean acidification the organisms that build carbonate shells to sequester CO2 are greatly affected.

[Anonymous No.12068417]

>>12068396
Oh right, I guess we have to abolish the government to prevent that from happening with any law.

[Anonymous No.12068457]

>>12068411
>dry deserts (oxymoron)
Well, I was thinking of, like, you know, the tundra and stuff. Where there's water but little grows for other reasons. I looked at the Wikipedia article about the Hadley cell...the idea that deserts will expand seemed rather conjectural, though. "This might lead to large changes in precipitation in the latitudes at the edge of the cells. Scientists fear that global warming might bring changes..."

>CO2 is increasing as fast as ever
What is a good resource for keeping tabs on measured CO2 levels around the world? Is there a central clearinghouse somewhere online for all the data being collected by the world's governments from all of their weather stations? I presume this is done on at least an hourly basis to capture daily cycles as well as long-term trends.

[Anonymous No.12068464]

>>12068457
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
This is basic stuff anon

[Anonymous No.12068473]

>>12068417
The issue is that climate laws tend to be global, meaning if something sneaks in, it fucks up everything everywhere.
Most laws don't have this property.
People in the Europe don't need to abolish the government if Argentina becomes corrupt.
If Argentina becomes corrupt, the consequences are local, and the people can look to the outside world to know that an alternative is possible.
This dynamic breaks down if laws are global.
If corruption seeps into a global system, there is no "outside".
There is nowhere to escape to, nowhere to look to for a vision of how things could be different.
There is nothing to compare system to in order to determine how bad things are.

This is why people tend to be much more critical of climate legislation than of other laws, and why globalism in general attracts criticism.
Borders are not useless relics, they function like bulkheads in a ship.
Their utility is to contain social disasters.
Imagine if multiple currencies were replaced with a single world currency, and it was mismanaged like that of Zimbabwe.
Localized currencies => Zimbabwe goes to shit => most of humanity is still fine => everyone else can help.
Global currency => entire world goes to shit => entirety of humanity is fucked => nobody can help.

[Anonymous No.12068478]

>>12068464
No, no, I know about Mauna Loa. I meant, from ALL of the monitoring stations. I'm not interested particularly in how much carbon dioxide is coming out Mauna Loa on a moment by moment basis. I was asking about *atmospheric* data!

[Anonymous No.12068494]

>>12068478
There are satellites that map the global distribution of CO2 as well as many stations around the plane it can be seen as a layer in weather visualizations like Windy.
CO2 is quickly mixed in the atmosphere, that's why remote places like Mauna Loa are good indicators of how it's doing on average.

[Anonymous No.12068496]

>>12068473
>The issue is that climate laws tend to be global
There are literally no binding climate laws you fucking retard
Half the fucking criticism against climate change action is from retards who don't want to do anything because we can't bind countries like China or the US into reducing emissions

[Anonymous No.12068501]

>>12068457
>What is a good resource for keeping tabs on measured CO2 levels around the world?
Satellite spectral imaging and direct air sampling via ground stations and/or balloons

[Anonymous No.12068505]

>>12068478
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco2/index.html

[Anonymous No.12068512]

A reminder that climatists want to halt progress, impoverish everyone and ban travel. Coronists (mostly the same people) also want to force everyone under house arrest, introduce total surveillance and ban travel. By now coronists are more successful.

[Anonymous No.12068524]

>>12066648
>No
>Who said I was threatened by global warming?
Never argue with a schizo, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[Anonymous No.12068535]

>>12068501
Is this something only the United States does? Do the other countries have similar programs? Or are they just participating in the Boulder lab's project?

[Anonymous No.12068566]

>>12068535
EU is implementing theirs now (probably already up?) https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/05/27/eu-plans-satellite-fleet-monitor-co2-every-country/

[Anonymous No.12068569]

>>12068394
That's medium term. It's not just gonna exponentially go off to infinity.

[Anonymous No.12068575]

>>12068512
Climatists are going to piggyback on the coronists
>Remember how pollution noticably went down during the covid crisis? That's why we're starting Stay at Home Sundays

[Anonymous No.12068657]

>>12064668
Last time CO2 was this high the ocean was 100 feet higher than it is now. Humanity will survive, but life will be shit and billions will die to flooding, storms, wildfires, disease, famine, etc.

[Anonymous No.12068679]

>>12068569
>That's medium term.
I don't care what you call it, it's exponential.

>It's not just gonna exponentially go off to infinity.
No one said it will.

[Anonymous No.12068680]

>>12068657
lots of nice land will open up in northern climes though, it'll be a new frontier experience unless SJWs fuck it up

[Anonymous No.12068685]

>>12068679
If it doesn't go off to infinity in the long term then it's not exponential in the long term.
Ffs it's just like when everybody was saying coronavirus spread was exponential. "that means in three months we'll all be dead!"

[Anonymous No.12068694]

>>12068512
If you want to subject the economy to unmitigated global warming then you don't care about progress or poverty.

[Anonymous No.12068702]

>>12068694
you only believe that because of decades of propaganda from a cottage industry propping itself up

[Anonymous No.12068703]

>>12068685
>If it doesn't go off to infinity in the long term then it's not exponential in the long term.
You're an idiot. We're talking about a term from the past to now, so it can't "go off to infinity." You can call this term whatever you want, it makes no difference. If all you have is nonsensical semantics then stop posting.

[Anonymous No.12068710]

>>12068703
What the hell do you even mean by exponential

[Anonymous No.12068715]

>>12068710
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

[Anonymous No.12068719]

>>12068702
You only believe the opposite because of decades of propaganda... wow substance-less shitposting is so fun.

[Anonymous No.12068722]

>>12068715
The graph of greenhouse gas PPM only looks like this on one arbitrary window of time

[Anonymous No.12068728]

>>12068722
How exactly is the window of time between the beginning of global warming and now arbitrary when that's exactly what we're discussing?

[Anonymous No.12068734]

>>12068719
It's true though. The idea that global warming leads to poverty and no progress isn't a scientific idea, it's a sociological / futurologist one, and at least half of those guys turn out dead wrong. Yet because those predictions are tied to actual scientific fields like climatology, you treat them as scientific. By "cottage industry propping itself up", I mean the fact that climate scientists have actual financial incentive to be alarmist.

[Anonymous No.12068743]

>>12068728
It was not clear that that was what we were discussing. I'll grant that the graph >>12067047 here looks superficially exponential, but it's not. And the ones here >>12066737 are definitely not. Which of these two graphs is wrong by the way? They're actual graphs published by real scientists and yet one of them is necessarily wrong

[Anonymous No.12068761]

>>12068734
>It's true though.
I know it's true that your alarmism over mitigating global warming is base in propaganda at odds with all scientific evidence.

>The idea that global warming leads to poverty and no progress isn't a scientific idea, it's a sociological / futurologist one, and at least half of those guys turn out dead wrong.
No, it's a climatological/ecological/economic one. Yours is political and therefore invalid.

>By "cottage industry propping itself up", I mean the fact that climate scientists have actual financial incentive to be alarmist.
Ah right, and fossil fuel companies have no incentive to be alarmist about their industry being regulated. And conservative politicians have no incentive to be alarmist about their policies failing. How many times does the fallacy of this conspiracy logic have to be pointed out to you retards? Simply inventing a motive does not show that anything is a hoax.

[Anonymous No.12068780]

>>12068743
> I'll grant that the graph >>12067047 here looks superficially exponential, but it's not.
It is.

>And the ones here >>12066737 are definitely not.
They are, if you actually look at them instead of just assuming they're linear, they are accelerating. It's the same data, you're just zoomed in.

[Anonymous No.12068789]

>>12068761
>at odds with all scientific evidence
>all
mmm sign of propaganda fren
>Ah right, and fossil fuel companies have no incentive to be alarmist about their industry being regulated.
No, they do. Both sides have incentive to skew facts in a way that results in them getting more money more easily

[Anonymous No.12068839]

>>12068789
Then it's time for you to present evidence of skewed facts instead of just insinuating them.

[Anonymous No.12068844]

>>12068839
How do you present evidence against a prediction?

[Anonymous No.12068861]

>>12064668
NOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST QUESTION GLOBAL WARMARINOOOO NOOOOOOOOOO
YOU MUST BELIEVE THE WORLD IS ENDING SO YOU'LL DO WHAT WE SAY, GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS TO GO OUTSIDE AND SIT INSIDE YOUR WAGIE CAGIE WHILE WE TAX YOU AT 50% TO SAVE THE WORLD THAT YOU CAN'T ENJOY ANYMORE
DO WHAT WE SAY AND NOT WHAT WE DO PEASANT

[Anonymous No.12068871]

>>12066213
A professor at my university went against the climate agenda. He was a marine biologist and a physicists and he said that the alarmism around coral bleaching was just to garner government grants and that coral reefs that were reported dead just 10 years ago were already recovered. He was subsequently fired after refusing to lie and take back the claims. He then won a lawsuit. This is the state of climate propagandists.

[Anonymous No.12068893]

>>12068115
Oh you poor fool. You just don't understand! All the fluffy white snow and giant chunks of frozen freshwater and SUPER IMPORTANT because I want to go on holiday and spend 10 minutes looking at it one day so I can make a vapid post on twatter after I take a picture of it. If it all heats up and turns into a lush forest, increasing food production and biodiversity, that would be bad because then how can I go on a holiday to look at cold water?

[Anonymous No.12068894]

>>12068332

[Anonymous No.12068907]

>>12068871
>On 16 April 2019, Ridd won the lawsuit,[4] with James Cook University found to be in violation of the Fair Work Act 2009; in September 2019, Ridd was awarded in excess of AU$1 million, together with AU$125,000 pecuniary penalty. While the two parties continue to disagree whether the case related to academic freedom, the ruling judge said the case was "purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement",[4] although he also stated James Cook University had "not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom".[12] In July 2020, James Cook University won an appeal against this judgement from the full bench of the Federal Court.[13]

>Provost Professor Cocklin maintained in the statement that Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his "scientific views". "Peter Ridd was never gagged or silenced," the statement said."We maintain we have not taken issue with Dr Ridd's, nor any other employee's, rights to academic freedom. "What was in issue was how to he communicated about others, how he denigrated others, and how he breached confidentiality, which impacted not only on him, but on others."

this really doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Anonymous No.12068909]

>>12068894
I have absolutely 0 idea what this image is trying to say.

[Anonymous No.12068913]

The state of science education in the USA is truly appalling.

Sadly, many do not have the ability to understand processes and data that they are presented, and so default to trusting their own political sources no matter how unbeleivable. kinda sad.

to the deniers, just do the MIT climate physics course. It doesnt lead you to conclusions, but lets you study the processes and do the math yourself. its free. the main lecturer is neutral.

[Anonymous No.12068915]

>>12068909
an antisemitic meme pretty common in conspiracy theories

[Anonymous No.12068927]

>>12068909
it's a attempt at refuting this
basically the same schitzo shit that the rothschilds and the rockefellers control literally the entire planet. despite the fact they're both pretty irrelevant as far as billionaires go

[Anonymous No.12068932]

>>12068913
sadly laziness is the one thing all conspiracy theorists have in common.

[Anonymous No.12068936]

It's not like Exxon knew about and modeled anthropogenic warming then buried it and funded disinfo right?

[Anonymous No.12068940]

>>12068907
then enlighten me. I'm sure your wikipedia sources are much more accurate than someone who had him as a professor in my classes.

[Anonymous No.12068943]

>>12068894
there is no
>The Rothschild and the Rockefellers have no idea what's happening and just trying not to fuck up and be a generation that ended their lineage
which is probably more down to reality?
Believing there are benevolent/malevolent beings (that inherit large sum of money and have that much of control over events implies they have a fucking clue what's happening any time of day) is actually on par with believing in God.
They actually do shit for profit but their control over events is much limited and there are also massive counter-parties involved. The world is a fucking chaos.

[Anonymous No.12068944]

>>12068927
>when you're retarded

[Anonymous No.12068945]

>>12068940
yeah I'd agree statements from the judge and university are far more accurate than your anecdotal trash

[Anonymous No.12068946]

>>12068943
plus there's the fact that exxon alone is worth 20x more than both familie's entire fortunes combined.

[Anonymous No.12068948]

>>12068945
>Judge: JCU had "not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom"
>JCU: "reeeee we did nothing wrong, this had nothing to do with bad science"
wow looks like you can't read.

[Anonymous No.12068957]

>>12068948
sounds like an opinion to me, either way the case has absolutely nothing to do with whether Ridd's attacks were factual or not. Is JCU really accepting students with such poor reading comprehension? Are you like an abbo on a diversity scholarship or something?

[Anonymous No.12068965]

>>12068957
where did I say that they were factual you absolute mongoloid. I only stated that JCU wanted him to censor his views, and after refusing he was fired, not that they were factual. Learn to read and then kill yourself after realizing the only CO2 we need to eliminate is your breathing.

[Anonymous No.12068971]

>>12068965
>the only CO2 we need to eliminate is your breathing

dont think this troll knows what he said here lol

[Anonymous No.12068972]

>>12068965
>>JCU: "reeeee we did nothing wrong, this had nothing to do with bad science"


>this had nothing to do with bad science"
>this had nothing to do with bad science"
>this had nothing to do with bad science"
>this had nothing to do with bad science"
>this had nothing to do with bad science"

[Anonymous No.12068974]

>>12068972
>implying they'd try to censor good science
that also has nothing to do with your retarded claims here >>12068907 which you still haven't addressed and instead deflect like a bitch

[Anonymous No.12068988]

>>12068974
So back to your first post, some physicist wrote a bunch of incredibly unprofessional shit that has been debunked by basically everyone else in the field, the university called him out for it, he refused to admit wrongdoing and was fired. The judge determined that strictly how his contract was written the university wasn't able to fire him. The university has now won an appeal and the case is ongoing. From this we can conclude no meaningful information about "the state of climate propaganda", find no evidence of censorship, or anything else. Basically you're a dumb abbo so fuck off.

[Anonymous No.12069001]

>>12068988
>bad science bad
let's hear the unprofessional shit that needs to be taken back and censored then. That is, after all, the entire point of the lawsuit. And even though the win was based on the contract the judge still recognized that JCU hadn't understood the concept of intellectual freedom. Also it's harder to win an appeal than the original case so good luck with that. Back to your meme science degree I guess.

[Anonymous No.12069029]

>>12069001
at this point we've already agreed there's been no censorship, and nothing meaningful can be said about the state of climate change. As such i'm tired of spoonfeeding you, everything he said and did is public as well as the universities statements both in public and in court. So read it yourself. Don't you have some retarded cherrypicked graphs to be posting anyways?

[Anonymous No.12069033]

>>12069029
>we've agreed there's no censorship
lmao if you say so

[Anonymous No.12069042]

OP here. Glad to see my shitpost reached bump limit

[Anonymous No.12069199]

>>12069033
burden of proof friend

[Anonymous No.12069418]

>>12068946
exxon is an organization made up of thousands of people

[Anonymous No.12069485]

>>12068861
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.12069494]

>>12068844
>how do I prove my claim?
How exactly is it my problem that you're full of shit?

[Anonymous No.12070391]

>>12065999
Ahaha fucking retard.