Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 775 KB, 1280x720, 51de151ff2870f30c857aa0b80b15e7c.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12151718 No.12151718 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

How can anyone deny climate change?
Let's imagine for a moment that all the data was made up by climate scientists to push an agenda, and let's ignore all real-world observations of how things have changed over time.
That still leaves two undeniable things:
>humanity takes carbon out of the ground and turns it into CO2, and there is no process for that carbon to go back into the ground even in the long term let alone the short term
>CO2 creates a greenhouse effect, as can be seen with how Venus is far hotter than a planet that is far closer to the sun, and as can be understood with pure optics

I've never heard an argument against either of these things, because denying basic science is even dumber than denying data. But if you believe both of these things, you can't possibly deny that humanity must be increasing global temperature.

>> No.12151968

Because there is no noticeable changes.

>> No.12151983

>>12151718
>How can anyone deny climate change?
Because of politics and lots of money being pumped into by oil & gas industries.

>> No.12152012

>>12151718
Because they are delusional. If you show them the greenhouse effect they will have no response or give a non-sequitur like "the amount of CO2 is small" or "the greenhouse effect has diminishing returns."

>> No.12152014

>>12151718
I don't deny climate change, I just notice that all the environmental organizations have turned their backs on their previous stances, meaning if was an environmentalist then, I'm not now. For example, environmental organizations were against mass migration until around 2000, because it couples 3rd world fertility to 1st world per capita consumption, invalidating the 1st world strategy of lowering population to manage consumption, now they have all embraced the diversity meme. They all side with the petrochemical lobby against civilian nuclear power, and they all now operate as a Trojan horse for critical race theory, critical gender theory, etc ideology. Look at any "Green Party", or any climate organization, or any activist group, and it's the same ideology, every time.
If people actually saw climate change as a threat, they would be focusing their attention on the people using environmental organizations as a Trojan horse, because these are the people who actually erode public confidence.
Nobody is going to trust the same retards responsible for CHAZ, BLM, SJWism, etc to micromanage the entire planet, regardless of what they think about climate change.

>> No.12152032

there is a process in the very long term to turn carbon back into the ground. it's called "dump it back into the ground".

there is also a process for turning CO2 into carbon and water. this is slow. thats what plants do.

>> No.12152035

>>12151718
The people who deny climate change are dumb redneck hick fucking retards who only deny it because right wing news sources told them to.

>> No.12152057

>>12152014
>For example, environmental organizations were against mass migration until around 2000
Source?

>If people actually saw climate change as a threat, they would be focusing their attention on the people using environmental organizations as a Trojan horse
No, they would be focusing on the climate, not some culture war bullshit you're attempting to distract them with.

>> No.12152073

>>12151718
Dumb anime poster no one is denying, what people deny is that HUMAN ACTION is the greatest cause for climate change.

Science is a method, science is a thing that you can AND should. That's why there's nothing wrong with terraplanists, sure they are retarded, but they're still contributing to science proving that their theory is wrong.

That's the whole basis of it. You have to compare. To know for certain that human action is the greatest cause of climate change we would need 2 Earths. Does that make sense for you pea sized brain now?

>> No.12152084
File: 377 KB, 1244x524, eco-stalinism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12152084

>>12151718
Because it doesn't have a human face.

>3000 mutts drop dead, US army gets sent to middle east
> 200000 mutts drop dead, no one gives a damn.

You'll see. When things get so intolerable refugees are coming by the shiploads, I promise you, you will see my ecological dictatorship rise to the occasion.

>> No.12152087

>>12151718
your first point is wrong though, carbon sinks exist lol

they’re just not efficient enough to counteract human co2 emissions

>> No.12152090

>>12151983
Oil and gas are on the same side as the green lobby. It's Big Oil + green vs nuclear and has been since forever.

>>12152057
>Source?
>Um, citation?
>Yikes, gonna need a source for that
>1+1 = 2? you got a source for that?
They literally admit it on their own websites.
https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2018/11/how-sierra-club-s-history-immigrant-rights-shaping-our-future
This shit is why people hate modern science btw, and why I, as a scientist, now resent being associated with the term.
>>12152057
>you're attempting to distract them with.
They are the ones pushing the culture war bullshit. If they cared about the environment, they would purge the culture war faggots, but they don't. If you want the public to be more accepting of climate politics, get the ideological leftists out of environmental organizations. If you don't support removing them, then you are basically admitting you care about ideological leftism more than the environment.

>> No.12152093
File: 1.06 MB, 1754x1474, ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12152093

>>12152073
>Dumb anime poster no one is denying, what people deny is that HUMAN ACTION is the greatest cause for climate change.
So you are denying the basic science of climate change. We can directly observe the human effect on greenhouse gases and their effect on temperature with radiative spectroscopy.

>To know for certain that human action is the greatest cause of climate change we would need 2 Earths.
There is no certainty in science. Two Earths is not necessary for an empirical understanding of the climate and would not give you a perfect understanding anyway. Go back to >>>/pol/.

>> No.12152094

>>12152084
>refugees are coming by the shiploads
Environmental organizations are the ones shilling for welfare migration. People who create problems don't get to create solutions.
When 10 million more North African dudebros show up to take advantage of European altruism and white male betafaggotry, you will be up against unironically literally Hitler, and people will side with the latter, because you created the problem.

>> No.12152096

>>12151718
Dude the earth is flat

>> No.12152098

>>12152012
Biodome watch the movie

>> No.12152107

>>12152093
Enjoy faulty conclusions then.

>> No.12152126

>>12151718
how did the CO2 get into the ground in the first place lmao
if humans didn't exist there would eventually be mass extinction and climate change due to low CO2

venus is not comparable to earth, the amount of total carbon on the planet is ridiculously higher

climate change is real but it's not as scary as some politicians want you to think

>> No.12152139

>>12151718
climate change deniers are either con men or their marks

>> No.12152223
File: 49 KB, 640x580, 2a884aaa5e95aa9e1c68a841d77c8595c3611cc68fa13f770b8dc2b90f825324_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12152223

>climate change is real
>lets clear entire ecosystems to house hundreds of millions of foreigners

>> No.12152276

>>12151718
>OMMMG WE'RE ABOUT TO RUN OUT OF OIL THE END OF CIVILIZATION
>Nothing happens
>OMMMGG WE'RE ABOUT TO RUN OUT OF PHOSPHORUS AND ALL STARVE
Nothing happens
>OMMMG SWINE FLU/KUNG FLU WILL KILL BILLIONS
>Nothing happens
>CLIMAATTE CHANGE WILL KILL US ALLL WITH KILLER HURRICANS AND 90 METER RISE IN SEA LEVELS
>Nothing happens and the Maledives are still above water
Climate change is real, but it is not nearly as dangerous or devestating as you retards claim. I'm honestly more worried about plastic making its way into every living being on this planet than a 2+ degree average increase, especially since no one can predict or even make any serious claims about what this will exactly entail. Earth's climate is probably the most complex dynamic system there is, it would be a lot more helpful if you did not engage in this doom fetishism.

>> No.12152286
File: 455 KB, 648x1080, CC_virus_eco_cc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12152286

>>12152276

>> No.12152299

>>12151718
The earth releases far more carbon dioxide into the atmostphere. Also, the carbon gets absorbed by trees and plants in the water. The reason behind climate change is excess CO2 like many activists claim, it's disturbing the balace to such an extent that the glacial periods release more carbon into the atmostphere than what is absorbed by trees and plants in the water. This might end up creating a runaway effect where more and more excess carbon gets relesed by natural processes that the earth starts to heat up. This may disturb natural processes that depend on stable glacial periods like currents and even the weather. It is the unpredictability and the potentially disaterous consequences that global warming can have that makes it so scary.

>> No.12152575

>>12151968
Its become a lot drier over the last 15 years where I live. Heat is the same though.

>> No.12152612

Even if man made climate change is real, the effect on the planet is small as evidenced by historical fluctuations in the earth's environment. And if man made climate change is real, the responsibility for change is on the governmental and corporate level because the change is caused by industries, not people. Trying to shame the common man who is working just to get by will get you nowhere. Address it on an industrial level or shut up.

>> No.12152621

>>12152090
>They literally admit it on their own websites.
Your link says the opposite though, that the Sierra Club voted against anti-immugration stances twice. Why are you lying?

>This shit is why people hate modern science btw
What does the Sierra Club have to do with modern science? It seems like you are desperately grasping at straws in order to distract from the science.

>They are the ones pushing the culture war bullshit.
No, you are by trying to distract from climate change with political tribalism.

>> No.12152624

>>12152107
Like what?

>> No.12152646

>>12151718
Maybe if you retards started pushing nuclear instead of shoving meme energies like wind and solar down my throat I'd give a shit.

>> No.12152650
File: 45 KB, 300x449, 0470666757.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12152650

People don't feel it. Only when the severe consequences are present will there be a lived experience to mirror the data and models. At that point it will be far more expensive than if we had intervened early. But I guess it might be something we have to go through. However I wonder if in the future people will come up with alternative explanations and conspiracies for climate change. Like the government made a weather machine to fuck with us or some bs. I say this because people don't believe there is a coronavirus. So I suppose there will always be doubt within us.

>> No.12152709

>>12152098
Why?

>> No.12152716

>>12152646
You'd just find some other variant of the "it's all da libs fault!!!!" excuse.

>> No.12152735
File: 15 KB, 899x713, shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12152735

>>12152612
>Even if man made climate change is real
It is.

>the effect on the planet is small as evidenced by historical fluctuations in the earth's environment.
It's 15 times faster warming than interglacial warming, which until now was the fastest warming mankind experienced.

Why do retards make claims about topics they have no understanding in.

>> No.12152751

>>12151968

Nah, winters are much milder here, compared to the 90s (central Europe).

>> No.12152759

Its not about denying it, its about avoiding the retarded measures leftists want to take

>> No.12152766
File: 33 KB, 360x450, GoofyGooberRock.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12152766

>>12151718

In general I just think it's new version of druidism. It's religion for people who think they are atheists
>How can anyone deny climate change?
On a personal level I have very little control over the temperature of the freaking globe, and yet people who flunked out of college are shaming me for not agreeing with them
This leads me to wonder if climate change is ideological rather than scientific in origin, which would explain the general misanthropy and superiority complex exhibited from it's adherents.

>> No.12152770

>>12152126
>how did the CO2 get into the ground in the first place lmao
The evolution of CO2 eating phytoplankton caused a decrease in CO2 and cooled the climate into the one we evolved in. That CO2 was sequestered at at the bottom of the sea floor over millions of years, where it turned into the fossil fuels we are burning over a few hundred years. Gee what could go wrong?

>> No.12152776

>How can anyone deny climate change?

Fossil fuel industry generously funds climate change denial orgs. Also anti-nuclear groups. They put out a lot of high quality propaganda, and dumb people fall for it. Its all documented.

>> No.12152777

>>12152766
You sound about 13 years old.

>> No.12152784
File: 53 KB, 403x448, cvbbmwwe4rzz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12152784

>>12152759
>I'm not denying reality because I believe it's false, I'm denying it because it will lead to policies I don't like.

>> No.12152785
File: 201 KB, 495x503, 1598549886324.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12152785

>>12152766 (me)
>the general misanthropy and superiority complex
>>12152777 (you)
>You sound about 13 years old.

Like clockwork

>> No.12152786

>>12152612
That's factually incorrect. The rate of warming and CO2 increase is many times faster that what we can see in the proxy records.

>> No.12152794

>>12152784
Yes, thats what people do when arguing with you is like arguing with a wall. They feign dementia.

>> No.12152811

>>12152794
Sure, it's all my fault you're retarded.

>> No.12153300

>>12152073
>what people deny is that HUMAN ACTION is the greatest cause for climate change.
this

>> No.12153306

>>12151718
stupidity, and an unwillingness to change

>> No.12153335

>>12152276
shut up idiot; what the media decides to harp on has no bearing on the severity of issues in real time

>> No.12153347

>>12151718
>That still leaves two undeniable things:
>lets only look at two things and not any others
>lets ignore that we have living organisms which adapt and change their environment unlike all other planets
you cant have a model of the earth with only two things

>> No.12153348

>>12152759
What retarded measures would those be?

>> No.12153356

>>12153348
doing something about it

>> No.12153591

>>12151718
Climate isnt weather

>> No.12153609

1)If some theory is used to harm me, then such a theory should be fought against
2)Climate change theory is used to harm me
3)Therefore it should be fought against

>> No.12153615

>>12152784
Accepting policies you don't like sounds masochistic.

>> No.12154027

>>12151718
Yeah I exhale CO2 which warms the planet by 0.00000000000000000003 +/- 0.5 degrees per year, not denying that. But the sun coming up warms the planet by 30 degrees per DAY. Mexico used to be covered in glaciers, the Sahara used to be a jungle, the oceans were 300ft shallower only 10,000 years ago, all changed by the sun. The sun continues to warm the planet to this day and climate alarmists have not proven otherwise.

>> No.12154091

>>12152770
"millions of years" is still a very short time in geological history
CO2 levels are still very low, nothing bad will happen for a while

>> No.12154108

>>12152716
it is the libs fault for fighting against the only viable solution

>> No.12154114

>>12152575
how is that related to co2 induced climate change?
australia is a lot drier because we sold our water rights to china and they are deliberately destroying the ecosystem

>> No.12154128

>>12153335
Call me when the Maledives have gone below sea level.

>> No.12154162

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

This video explains how climate change is a religion not science.

>> No.12154169

>>12154027
>But the sun coming up warms the planet by 30 degrees per DAY
Imagine being so retarded that you thought that the global average temperature increased 30 degrees each day

>> No.12154189

>>12152716

How many libs are actually in favour of nuclear power?

>> No.12154864

>>12153348
>demonizing nuclear energy
>advocating downsizing measures instead of population control
>responsabilizing America and Europe while ignoring China and India
>shilling veganism

>> No.12154875

>>12153615
Do you like paying taxes?

>> No.12154884

>>12154027
>Yeah I exhale CO2 which warms the planet by 0.00000000000000000003 +/- 0.5 degrees per year,
Breathing is carbon neutral, moron.

>But the sun coming up warms the planet by 30 degrees per DAY
Amazing, so in one month we'll be 900 degrees warmer?

>Mexico used to be covered in glaciers, the Sahara used to be a jungle, the oceans were 300ft shallower only 10,000 years ago, all changed by the sun.
Nope, those were caused by Earth's orbital eccentricity. They also occurred about 15 times slower than current warming.

>The sun continues to warm the planet to this day and climate alarmists have not proven otherwise.
Why would scientists have to disprove an irrelevant fact? See >>12152093. The sun has warmed the planet, by a minuscule amount compared to the change in greenhouse gases.

>> No.12154894

>>12153347
>>lets only look at two things and not any others
Even if you showed something else was causing warming, you would have to explain how CO2 isn't. It's fundamental physics.

>>lets ignore that we have living organisms which adapt and change their environment unlike all other planets
How does this respond to the point?

>you cant have a model of the earth with only two things
What model?

>> No.12154908

>>12153609
>1)If some theory is used to harm me, then such a theory should be fought against
So of 2+2=4 is used to harm you, you will deny it? Or will you fight against being harmed?

>2)Climate change theory is used to harm me
How?

>> No.12154919

>>12154091
>"millions of years" is still a very short time in geological history
Why would you care about geologic timescales? Are you a planet or a human?

>CO2 levels are still very low
Meaningless.

>nothing bad will happen for a while
It's alreadyy happening. There is not some magic CO2 concentration at which bad things happen. It's the change in concentration causing a change in temperature too rapid for us to adapt to without suffering serious damage which is the problem.

>> No.12154921

>>12154108
How is a carbon tax not a viable solution?

>> No.12154923

>>12154128
>MUH MALDIVES
This old canard again. When are you getting new material? Did your favorite denier blog stop updating?

https://youtu.be/41TCWEl-x_g

>> No.12154926
File: 289 KB, 576x2992, 20120321.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12154926

>>12154162
>Old man talking outside of his area of expertise
You sure did gobble up that sermon

>> No.12154927

>>12154189
How many libs will it take to suck your cock before you stop using them as an excuse to deny reality?

>> No.12154940

>>12151718
Climate change is probably real but now it's a leftist driven political tool. Assuming the main cause is only man-made CO2 is not scientific. Making predictions about the state of the planet in 100 years is also non scientific because Jesus fucking Christ the entire field/mathematics of chaos theory says it's impossible to predict the outcome of an inherently chaotic system, and climate is certainly such type of system. A lot of really prominent intellectual deny the real impact of man-made CO2. If you are having trouble publishing your paper just find a way to link it to the subject climate change, this is a disgustingly real fact.

I want to emphasize that climate change is a leftist well funded effort to twist public opinion on a lot of things. Most of the most hardcore proponents of climate change are basically suicidal vegans.

>> No.12154962

>>12154940
>Climate change is probably real but now it's a leftist driven political tool.
Denial is a rightwing political tool, scientific facts are not.

>Assuming the main cause is only man-made CO2 is not scientific.
Who assumed it?

>Making predictions about the state of the planet in 100 years is also non scientific because Jesus fucking Christ the entire field/mathematics of chaos theory says it's impossible to predict the outcome of an inherently chaotic system, and climate is certainly such type of system.
Weather is chaotic, climate isn't.

>A lot of really prominent intellectual deny the real impact of man-made CO2.
And how many don't? How many are experts in climatology? Is this really how you argue?

>If you are having trouble publishing your paper just find a way to link it to the subject climate change, this is a disgustingly real fact.
Then do it.

Deniers prove themselves retarded with every post.

>> No.12154969

Bc that would hurt the money, and hurt the money and make the money go away

>> No.12154979

>>12154962
>Weather is chaotic, climate isn't.
Congrats on being the most retarded person on this entire site.

>> No.12154983

>>12154927

I believe in global warming though. That's why I hate the demonisation of nuclear power. Anyone who thinks wind/solar power are sufficient to replace fossil fuels is an idiot who is arguably doing more harm than good.

>> No.12155012

>>12154926
>he cant refute them so he draws a comic of them getting systematically murdered
yikes

>> No.12155019

>>12154921
Are you taxing China?

>> No.12155115
File: 24 KB, 700x465, 15_co2_left_061720.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12155115

>>12152299
This is the difference in carbon dioxide for a time period
[math]\sum_{i=0}^t C_{tot}(x_i, y_i)=\sum_{i=0}^t C_{in}(x_i)-C_{out}(y_i)[/math]
If [math]C_{tot}[/math] varies about zero then the sum hovers around zero. However if at each time step you add a little bit of Carbon dioxide from humans then. It grows by [math]\sum_{i=0}^t C_{humans}(x_i)[/math].

As humanity has been industrializing rapidly you can near approximate new output as an exponential function.

The world processes a shit load of carbon every year but tipping the balance while also reducing the ability of the world to sequester carbon through fucking destroying the biosphere (ocean acidification killing phytoplankton) means that we are still dumping shit loads of carbon in the atmosphere that nothing is pulling out.

>> No.12155125
File: 8 KB, 769x533, ax.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12155125

>>12155115
Random graph, no supporting data, excellent job.

>> No.12155148

>>12154875
I don’t pay taxes.

>> No.12155405

>>12154884
>See >>12152093. The sun
Shit model, shit output.

>> No.12155427

Go read IPCC report #5, that's your primary source. Don't worry, you'll have no difficulty reading it. The target audience is scientifically illiterate government officials. You'll quickly notice that the fear mongering media only talks about the worst case model while ignoring 6 models of negligible impact.

>> No.12155714

>>12154979
Wow what an argument. You're wrong retard. Weather is mainly determined by the stochastic movement of energy through the atmosphere while climate is mainly determined by the amount of energy in the atmosphere.

>> No.12155717

>>12154983
It doesn't matter what environmentalists say, you'll still complain about them as an excuse to do nothing.

>> No.12155720

>>12155012
>He can't refute the science so he posts a YouTube video of an old man with no expertise in what he's talking about

>> No.12155722

>>12155019
Yes, I personally am taxing China.

>> No.12155731

>>12155405
>Shit model
How so? Radiative forcing can me measured directly. You have no argument.

>> No.12155734

>>12155427
>while ignoring 6 models of negligible impact.
Which ones?

>> No.12155742

>>12151718
The relationship between co2 concentratio and back radiation is logarithmic.

How much 'heating' this causes is dependent on the form of climate sensitivity. What is the form of climate sensitivity- no one knows, but in most models it is a constant or 1st order. Do you trust a model to simulate earths climate using a linear or fist order climate sensitivity?

I dont. Thats not to say the models are 'wrong' - there is going to be a temp increase because of CO2, probably around 4 deg by end of century. What form will this take? who knows? the actual physical consequences that need a response? who knows?

My point is the models we have are crude but better than nothing. However, using the current models to track any of our proposed 'pro climate action' - ie to see if what we do has any effect, is not going to work.

eg - sensible proposal, (would cost 50 bn)- what is the effect going to be if i iron fertalise the indian ocean? No one knows.

>> No.12155812

>>12155742
>Do you trust a model to simulate earths climate using a linear or fist order climate sensitivity?
Which model are you talking about? Typically when discussing climate models, we are referring to global coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models. Climate sensitivity is not an input to those models, it is an output calculated from the results of those models. Don't just make up shit, research what you're talking about. And you don't need to trust models, you can look at their results and compare them to reality.

>Thats not to say the models are 'wrong' - there is going to be a temp increase because of CO2, probably around 4 deg by end of century.
Why? Because you trust models?

>What form will this take? who knows? the actual physical consequences that need a response? who knows?
Scientists know, I suggest you read what they're saying.

>> No.12155818

>>12152014
>petrochemical lobby
not to mention the head of the EPA being a former coal lobbyist
Regulatory capture HAS happened with the EPA (and many state agencies), but that doesn't mean the science of climate change is incorrect. It's happening no matter who's in charge.
Really sucks that it's somehow a partisan issue, like every fucking thing else. We deserve extinction.

>> No.12155892

>>12155812
k bud

>> No.12155903

>>12152621
>Your link says the opposite though, that the Sierra Club voted against anti-immugration stances twice. Why are you lying?
Kill yourself. Tie the noose and kick the stool
I am actually asking, please do it, I don't value your life and if you were drowning I would not help you

>> No.12155912

>>12155812
ocean-atmosphere general circulation models do use climate sensitivity wtf are you talking about?

They have to by design. Most are based on a 1% increase in CO2 / yr and that co2 increase is projected a warming effect- ie an inbuilt but crude climate sensitivity.

You don't know what you are talking about.

>> No.12155943

>>12152084
>Because it doesn't have a human face.
What do you think the attempt with Greta Thunberg was? All the best PR agencies, all the money in the world, all of the media.

>> No.12155945

>>12151718
Would the carbon cycle ever be able to correct the CO2 levels?

>> No.12156026
File: 51 KB, 600x467, 001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12156026

>>12155903
Someone's mad

>> No.12156082

>>12155912
>ocean-atmosphere general circulation models do use climate sensitivity wtf are you talking about?
They don't. There are two methods of estimating climate sensitivity. One is to look at past temperature changes and the other is to run radiative forcing through a GCM and see what temperature you get.

>Most are based on a 1% increase in CO2 / yr and that co2 increase is projected a warming effect- ie an inbuilt but crude climate sensitivity.
No, the direct effect of CO2 is a radiative forcing. Climate sensitivity is the response of the entire climate to that forcing, which is what the model is designed to simulate. Why are you continuing to make things up?

>> No.12156095

>>12155945
Yes, several hundred years after CO2 levels stop increasing.

>> No.12156112

>>12151718
>>humanity takes carbon out of the ground
>>CO2 creates a greenhouse effect
>> Increased temperature increased water vapor in air and cloud coverage.
>> Temperature returns normal.

Climate change is real, global warming is absolute alarmist bullshit.

>> No.12156153

@12156112
bait

>> No.12156245

>>12156082
How do GCMs calculate the temperature increase?

>> No.12156253
File: 2.83 MB, 720x775, CC_1850-2016 gtt.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12156253

>>12156112

>> No.12156259
File: 7 KB, 400x222, CC_global carbon cycle.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12156259

>>12155945

>> No.12156283

>>12151718
What proportion of the variance in earths climate over the past 500 years is due to co2 emissions?

>> No.12156295

>>12154875
Do you like being mass-executed?

>> No.12156323

>>12154908
>So of 2+2=4 is used to harm you, you will deny it?
Sounds very racist.

>> No.12156378

>>12156245
Why are you asking questions you should already know if you are making claims about how GCMs work?" Oh right it's because you have no clue what you're talking about. The idea that GCMs plug in climate sensitivity as a "constant or 1st order" is ridiculous on its face. If that were the case the entire model would simply be an equation!

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

>> No.12156387

>>12156295
I don't know, I've never tried it.

>> No.12156389

>>12154908
>How?
"Climate is changing, so you should stop travelling, ditch your car, stop eating meat and a lot of other abuses". Actually sounds like corona too.

>> No.12156396

>>12156387
You should try it, if you will be gone, you will save the world from the further warming.

>> No.12156418

>>12156396
Sure, you first though.

>> No.12156425

>>12156389
How does someone saying that harm you? Does me telling you to stop being such a fucking retard harm you?

>> No.12156441

>>12156418
You are against warming, so you start with yourself.

>> No.12156446

>>12156425
>How does someone saying that harm you?
If someone says you should be put into concentration camp, will that harm you?
>Does me telling you to stop being such a fucking retard harm you?
If you tell that to someone outside, then of course it's an act of aggression which requires countermeasures, like smashing your face.

>> No.12156447

>>12152057
>umm can you provide a peer reviewed double-blind study that proves that the ecologists were against mass migration till the 2000s?
>checkmate atheist

>> No.12156455

>>12152057
If they saw climate change as a threat they would be against biomass and for nuclear.
Also if they weren’t retarded they would be against intermittent sources.

>> No.12156456

>>12156441
Yeah that's why I want to make sure you do it.

>> No.12156459

>>12156456
You want me to be killed? You just proved once again that climate truthers are murderers who should be fought against.

>> No.12156467

>>12156446
>If someone says you should be put into concentration camp, will that harm you?
/pol/tards do that every day and I'm unharmed.

>If you tell that to someone outside, then of course it's an act of aggression which requires countermeasures, like smashing your face.
And what countermeasures do polluting the air and rapidly warming the climate require?

>> No.12156480

>>12156459
Why are you getting upset at your own proposed solution?

>> No.12156481

>>12156467
>/pol/tards do that every day and I'm unharmed.
Great, so guess you wouldn't mind if /pol/ will come to power.
>And what countermeasures do polluting the air and rapidly warming the climate require?
No countermeasures. Climate sect, on the other hand should be stopped from enforcing >>12156389 abuse.

>> No.12156486

>>12156480
Because it's a solution for climate truthers problem.

>> No.12156491

>>12156481
>Great, so guess you wouldn't mind if /pol/ will come to power.
I would, doesn't follow.

>No countermeasures
So harmless words require countermeasures but fucking up the climate doesn't? Seems inconsistent and deranged.

>Climate sect, on the other hand should be stopped from enforcing >>12156389 # abuse.
Who is enforcing abuse against you?

>> No.12156494

>>12156389
>stop travelling,
Not necessary
>ditch your car
Yes, we should switch to environmentally friendly trains and such
>stop eating meat
Yes, the meat industry is one of the biggest polluters and meat should be altogether banned
None of these are abuses.

>> No.12156497

>>12156486
Why are you getting upset at your own proposed solution?

>> No.12156509

>>12156491
>I would, doesn't follow.
Wonderful, then I don't mind climate truthers, but only if they are harmless sect.
>So harmless words require countermeasures but fucking up the climate doesn't?
Yes, malicious actions of climate truthers require countermeasures, meanwhile fight against them is good.
>Who is enforcing abuse against you?
Climate truthers. Are you losing your short-term memory?

>> No.12156518

>>12156494
Great, so you just confirmed that you want to enforce terrible abuse on others.

>> No.12156522

>>12156497
You are finally murdering yourself? Bye, anon, we will miss you.

>> No.12156558

>>12156509
Who are these "climate truthers" abusing you? Are they only visible to you?

>> No.12156581

>>12151718
Fuck off out of here you tranny
NIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOTNIGGERFAGGOT

>> No.12156622

>>12156604

>> No.12156625

>>12156518
None of that is abuse.
You don't need cars, you don't need meat.
If it comes down to "we drive cars and eat meat and DESTROY THE PLANET vs. giving up those things that aren't even necessary", then YOU are the one enforcing terrible abuse on others.

>> No.12156641

>>12156447
All I asked for is a source, retard. If you are just making shit up then don't get upset when you get caught.

>> No.12156651

>>12156455
>If they saw climate change as a threat they would be against biomass and for nuclear.
Doesn't follow.

>Also if they weren’t retarded they would be against intermittent sources.
Why?

>> No.12156698

>>12156378
Never said any of that what are you talking about?

>> No.12156701

>>12156698
Then don't respond to a conversation you haven't read.

>> No.12156716

>>12156701
why not. It was just a question?

>> No.12156726

>>12151718
There isn't an argument against them. I just think we have bigger problems.

>> No.12156727

>>12156716
And I answered it.

>> No.12156734

>>12156727
No you linked a wiki?
Thats not an answer.
I'm just interested - like how does a GCM actually compute a temperature increase?

>> No.12156735

>>12156726
Such as?

>> No.12156740

>>12156625
>You don't need cars, you don't need meat.
That's the climate change fighter for you. Remember, climate truthers are not harmless, they are death cult and if you will not fight them, they will kill you or put you into a perpetual slavery.

>> No.12156758

>>12156735
Lots of things:
Ecosystems- like not cutting down the rainforest and actually farming properly
The next regime change
Stopping huge violence during the inflection point of the next regime change (and now)
The obesity pandemic and naf 'consumerism'
Plastic and toxic waste disposal

>> No.12156762

>>12156740
You objectively don't need to eat meat, and you can use trains for travel.
Stop coping. The destruction of the planet is not worth your dumbfuck addictions. Get over it.
The movement is growing and you will not stop it.

>> No.12156763

>>12156740
Oh yeah, they're all like 'reduce consumption' and 'stop using cars' despite the fact these are engrained ways of doing things. They could enforce these things if they took over a government, but they are all weak as shit.

Plus never met an ardent environmentalist whos even heard of Buckminsterfuller- makes you think.

>> No.12156764

By the way, shilling against cars and for public transport is extremely funny now when climatists also scream about scary coronavirus. But their stance shouldn't actually be consistent, being always abusive is enough.

>> No.12156773

>>12156762
Cars account for 13% of CO2 production.
Most (50%) co2 production is due to manufacture (iron, steel, electrolysis, plastics, refining...).
The fact you focus on cars shows how little you know about this topic.

>> No.12156775

>>12151718
when you close the pan it takes a litle bit of time for the heat to build up inside, the amount of co2 and methane we pumped in the atmosphere is already enough for fuck things up in many years to come, the globe hasnt reached its stable temperature yet = (

>> No.12156778

>>12156762
we do need meat, the problem is the world is already overpopulated

>> No.12156783

>>12156778
No you don't, humans can survive entirely on a herbivoric diet.

>> No.12156795 [DELETED] 

>>12151968
>>12151983
>>12152012
>>12152014
>>12152032
>>12152035
>>12152057
>>12152084
>>12152087
>>12152090
>>12152093
>>12152094
>>12152096
>>12152098
>>12152107
>>12152126
>>12152223
>>12152276
>>12152286
>>12152299
>>12152575
>>12152612
>>12152621
>>12152624
>>12152646
>>12152650
>>12152709
>>12152716
>>12152735
>>12152751
>>12152759
>>12152766
>>12152766
>>12152770
>>12152776
>>12152777
>>12152784
>>12152785
>>12152786
>>12152794
>>12152811
>>12153300
>>12153306
>>12153335
>>12153347
>>12153348
>>12153356
>>12153591
>>12153609
>>12153615
>>12154027
>>12154108
>>12154114
>>12154162
>>12154169
>>12154189
>>12154864
>>12154864
>>12154875
>>12154884
>>12154894
>>12154908
>>12154919
>>12154921
>>12154923
>>12154926
>>12154927
>>12154940
>>12154962
>>12154969
>>12154979
>>12154983
>>12154983
>>12155012
>>12155019
>>12155115
>>12155125

>> No.12156799

>>12156795
>>12155148
>>12155405
>>12155427
>>12155714
>>12155717
>>12155720
>>12155722
>>12155731
>>12155734
>>12155742
>>12155812
>>12155818
>>12155892
>>12155903
>>12155912
>>12155943
>>12155945
>>12156026
>>12156082
>>12156095
>>12156112
>>12156153
>>12156245
>>12156253
>>12156259
>>12156283
>>12156295
>>12156323
>>12156378
>>12156387
>>12156389
>>12156396
>>12156418
>>12156425
>>12156441
>>12156446
>>12156447
>>12156455
>>12156456
>>12156459
>>12156467
>>12156480
>>12156481
>>12156486
>>12156491
>>12156494
>>12156497
>>12156509
>>12156518
>>12156522
>>12156558
>>12156581
>>12156625
>>12156641
>>12156651
>>12156698
>>12156701
>>12156716
>>12156726
>>12156726
>>12156727
>>12156734
>>12156735
>>12156740
>>12156758
>>12156762
>>12156763
>>12156764
>>12156773
>>12156775


why do retards even have conversations about this on 4chan?

You will change no ones mind
This will be repeated and is itself a repeat
Nothing will come of it
Go outside
Stop pretending you know shit- none of you have enough knowledge of stats, climate models or maths to even talk about this topic. Especially those pretending to know about this bc they saw youtube video

>> No.12156820
File: 122 KB, 882x624, replied.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12156820

>>12156799

>> No.12156827

>>12156820
yeah pmuch.
What now indeed?

>> No.12156838

>>12156799
>none of you have enough knowledge of stats, climate models or maths to even talk about this topic.
Wrong

>> No.12156850
File: 92 KB, 463x493, 7f4f6d67cd3d28d7104398567b83d42d84cfb627d9d98055603e06416af5eb63.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12156850

>>12151718
Ugh. Covid is the new world threat media meme so why do you still talk about old stuff like climate change? It's like 2020 so get on with the times.

>> No.12156886

>>12156827
Now you the cock of everyone you replied to of course

>> No.12157083

>>12156734
They discretise the equations for mass and energy transfer and radiant exchange into a grid and then solve them.

>> No.12157089

>>12156758
None of those are bigger problems than climate change. We are taking about the entire ecosystem not just one part of it.

>> No.12157153

>>12157089
Those are all bigger problems than a 4 degree increase in temperature by 2100.

We could offset it tomorrow with 50bn dollars and iron fertalisation. The fact we don't shows how much of a non issue it is.

Sorry to hear you got sucked into the hysteria that we have to focus all our energy into this one issue- that isn't even solvable without a stable regime, good farming practice or finding a sustainable approach to consumerism, all which i mentioned.

>> No.12157163

>>12157153
Or we could just release a virus that kills 70% of humanity. It really wouldn't be hard.

>> No.12157171

>>12157163
Or that, but i dont want to kill people.

>> No.12157181

If you're anti-nuclear you're not serious about climate change.

>> No.12157182

>>12157171
People and animals will die either way. Arable land loss, ocean acidification, anthrax in melting permafrost, changing migration patterns of deadly african parasites and a steadily increasing fertility rate in nations that can not provide for themselves which will result an exodus out of Africa and the Middle East, all together will be far crueler than just pushing a button and attacking ourselves with biological weapons. The only real issue is it needs to be done in a way which is fair.

>> No.12157187

If ...else

https://youtu.be/wnbtkWQBMDo

>> No.12157198

>>12157181
But nuclear doesn't give us any political power, green energy does.

Think about it- we already can produce high quality nuclear plants that fit our grids perfectly (output profile etc).

That means, if we choose nuclear: no money for my lab, no 'green' political power, no chaos as we adjust the grid to exploit, less profit for oil companies that massively subsidise green energy, less concern in the population about energy security, energy independence! I mean, imagine being a politician and enforcing 'nuclear energy'- its suicide!

>> No.12157289

>>12157198
>Imagine being this retarded

>> No.12157290

>>12157153
>Those are all bigger problems than a 4 degree increase in temperature by 2100.

>I know some math. 4 is not a big number. How is that a big problem then, huh?

>> No.12157407

>>12151718
>and there is no process for that carbon to go back into the ground
Yes there is, it's called life.
>CO2 creates a greenhouse effect
that diminishes logarithmically with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
>>12152012
Those aren't non-sequiturs, they're vague and misleading straw-man counterarguments.

>> No.12157413

>>12152735
>Temperature anomaly
>anomaly
>Not temperature
kys

>> No.12157593

>>12157413
dos mios...

>> No.12157650

>>12157153
>Those are all bigger problems than a 4 degree increase in temperature by 2100.
They're not.

>We could offset it tomorrow with 50bn dollars and iron fertalisation. The fact we don't shows how much of a non issue it is.
Or it means you have no clue what you're talking about.

>Sorry to hear you got sucked into the hysteria that we have to focus all our energy into this one issue
We don't, you're the only one who seems to think that.

>that isn't even solvable without a stable regime, good farming practice or finding a sustainable approach to consumerism, all which i mentioned.
You just said it could easily be solved. What a retard.

>> No.12157665

>>12157407
If they're straw-men why did you say exactly what I predicted you would?

>> No.12157668
File: 50 KB, 645x729, 1515194851321.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12157668

>>12157413
Deniers are actually this stupid...

>> No.12157913

>>12157665
That is a non-sequitur.
>>12157668
OP wants to know the answers to the questions he asked. He also said we can assume all climate scientists are liars for the sake of argument, so there's no need for you to regurgitate data that features their intentionally flawed metric.

>> No.12157980

>>12152575
15 years is weather, not climate.

>> No.12157985

>>12155125
It's literally a graph of co2 vs. time and a simple logical argument as to why humans dumping carbon into the atmosphere doesn't suddenly create an equivalent sink out of nothingness.

>> No.12157993

>>12151718
>deny climate change?
because the fear mongering is coming from universities and politicians.

trusting a politician is inherently stupid.

academics are increasingly discrediting themselves.

https://twitter.com/realpeerreview

>> No.12158150

>>12157913
>That is a non-sequitur.
It's the opposite. A straw man would be something you wouldn't realistically say, but you just said it.

>> No.12158158

>>12157913
>OP wants to know the answers to the questions he asked.
Yes, it would be nice if you could answer them instead of attacking literally nothing. There is no relevant difference between temperature and temperature anomaly.

>intentionally flawed metric
Please explain how temperature anomaly is flawed.

>> No.12158162

>>12157980
Source?

>> No.12158166

>>12151718
Let's accept that co2 is bad. How much is how bad, and how much worse is abandoning how much co2 production?

>> No.12158173

>>12157993
>>Even if we assume climate scientists are liars you still have to explain thes basic facts
>they're lying
>you can't trust them
>they're discredited

Why are /pol/tards braindead? They're incapable of instantiated the argument,
let alone giving any substantive response.

>> No.12158181

>>12158166
https://academic.oup.com/restud/article-abstract/87/1/1/5587774

>> No.12158190

>>12158181
>Lint Barrage

obviously this is a simulation, quit worrying

>> No.12158206

>humanity takes carbon out of the ground and turns it into CO2, and there is no process for that carbon to go back into the ground even in the long term let alone the short term
>CO2 creates a greenhouse effect, as can be seen with how Venus is far hotter than a planet that is far closer to the sun, and as can be understood with pure optics
1)Cows fart
2)Neptune has a lot of methane
3)Therefore if we will not kill cows, we will turn into Neptune

>> No.12158209

>>12158206
Where did he say Earth would turn into Venus?

>> No.12158215

>>12158209
Then his analogy is even less relevant. "This planet has X, and this planet has Y, therefore... one planet will not turn into another, but you still should do the unrelated Z just because."

>> No.12158263

>>12158215
>>This effect can also be seen elsewhere
>nuh uh because they aren't exactly the same so your analogy fails
Learn how to read.

>> No.12158276

>>12158263
Great, I'll think about moving to Triton... Moon I mean.

>> No.12158675

>>12152650
That is a foolish assumption to make, there are people who still believe coronavirus is fake.
These people will die still insisting that climate change is no threat.

>> No.12158828

>>12151718

The issue isn't with climate change, it's with their retarded policies to deal with a fairly minor problem. It's like saying "Fertiliser runoff into rivers is bad: nobody can deny the water quality effects, algal bloom..."

That's true! But if you go onto say "Global fertiliser use must be cut 65% by 2050" then there's a problem. You're deliberately endorsing a policy of mass starvation to counter a much smaller problem.

World climate policy is intolerably bad. Trillions have been spent making electrical power generation worse in first world countries. Power prices have risen. There are follow-on costs on industry, employment and therefore suicide. In third world countries, environmentalism is budget Maoism. Megadeaths are inevitable. That money could've been spent on something useful instead. We've had decades where our brightest minds and R&D has been spent making products slightly more energy efficient but otherwise worse. Modern washing machines and dishwashers are garbage. Modern toilets don't fucking flush properly. And all of it has had next to no impact on reducing temperatures by mitigating the increasing CO2 output. What we need is nuclear and geoengineering: but that would actually work so it's off the table.

Better to deny the problem exists than make a nuanced argument which will immediately be used to support braindead policies, communist revolution and the steady deterioration of western civilization.

>> No.12159019

>>12157650
I didn't say we could solve it, i said we could offset it. Those are different things retard. 'offset' does not mean 'solve'- poor vocab= poor iq.

>> No.12159020

>>12157289
(you)

>> No.12159035

>>12158828
>Trillions have been spent making electrical power generation worse in first world countries. Power prices have risen
this is absolutely true, but not for the reason you think.
In Australia, for example, the rising power prices are a result of the governments refusal to update out increasingly obsolete, decades old coal fired plants with literally anything else at all. South Australia went ahead and started adding loads of wind and solar to their grid, with the result being a significant decrease in power prices and an increase in power supply.
Renewable energy is cheaper and more effective than fossil fuels, yet governments around the world are wasting trillions subsidising obsolete technology and forcing up power prices as a result.

>> No.12159055

>>12158828
>Trillions have been spent making electrical power generation worse in first world countries.
Source?

>Modern washing machines and dishwashers are garbage. Modern toilets don't fucking flush properly.
Source?

>And all of it has had next to no impact on reducing temperatures by mitigating the increasing CO2 output.
Because retards like you won't let actual solutions be implemented. It's a completely circular argument. You deny the problem exists because it's not being solved, and you deny the solution exists because the problem doesn't exist.

>> No.12159064

>>12159019
>I didn't say we could solve it, i said we could offset it.
If offsetting doesn't solve the problem why did you bring it up in the first place?

>> No.12159065

>>12159055
Yes could no one could have a more nuanced opinion than you could they?

>> No.12159071

>>12159065
Your opinion isn't "nuanced," it's just the same old excuse for /pol/'s retardation: "is all de libs fault!!!!"

>> No.12159073

>>12159064
Because offsetting a problem is better than letting it occur, usually. Gives more time to think about a proper solution.

Like medicine, very few things have actual cures- but we can still treat the symptoms and 'offset' a lot of the problems. Its like using analgesics for back pain- wont fix your posture, but will help you fix your posture.
>inb4 'the planet isn't back pain'
Its a fukin analogy- i swear

>> No.12159075

>>12159071
So im pro sorting out the planet but not in the way you want so I must be from /pol?

No wonder no one takes this place seriously.

>> No.12159078

>>12159071
Clearly you know my opinion on everything aswell o-fountain-of-knowledge-and-telepathy.

>> No.12159079

>>12156455
I see it as a threat, biomass is at least cyclical and I’m astonished how any green parties can justify fighting against nuclear energy.

>> No.12159083

Climate change is not science. It's a religion. I prefer the previous one, thanks bye.

>> No.12159172

>>12159083
>Evolution is not science. It's a religion. I prefer the previous one, thanks bye.

>> No.12159178

>>12159075
>So im pro sorting out the planet but not in the way you want so I must be from /pol?
LOL, you're projecting. The only one here who demanded policy follow the way they want it to be is you.

>> No.12159180

>>12159078
I know the opinion you've stated here. What exactly are you whining about?

>> No.12159189

>>12159073
>Because offsetting a problem is better than letting it occur, usually.
So $50 billion would help but not solve the problem? Then how does this show that the problem is smaller than the others? Your explanation doesn't make sense at all.

>> No.12159199

>>12151718
>there is no process for that carbon to go back into the ground even in the long term let alone the short term
How did it end up in the ground in the first place then? And when did plant uptake of carbon stop?

>CO2 creates a greenhouse effect, as can be seen with how Venus
Why do you even bother to try when you don't even understand the pro-AGW arguments?

>> No.12159232

>>12159073
>HELLO DOCTOR
>MY COMPUTER MODEL SAYS I WILL HAVE IRREVERSIBLE BACK PAIN TIPPING POINT IN 10 YEARS IF I DON'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT NOW
>GIVE ME 500 BILLION OPIATES NOW TO SAVE MY FUTURE BACK

You had the same argument 50 years ago, we didn't fill your dirty junkie prescription then and your back pain still isn't here. Take your drug-seeking behaviour elsewhere
>inb4 'the planet isn't back pain'

>> No.12159236
File: 750 KB, 2600x2192, Carbon_cycle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12159236

>>12159199
>How did it end up in the ground in the first place then?
See >>12152770

>And when did plant uptake of carbon stop?
It didn't, it's just too slow to absorb the CO2 we've reintroduced into the atmosphere.

>Why do you even bother to try when you don't even understand the pro-AGW arguments?
What didn't he understand?

>> No.12159247

>>12159236
But you said in the OP post that there's no long or short term way for it to get back into the ground?

Why should I listen to a liar who keeps changing his narrative?

>What didn't he understand?
Everything, else he wouldn't use Venus as an example of co2-induced greenhouse effect.

>> No.12159261

>>12159247
>But you said in the OP post
No I didn't.

>Why should I listen to a liar who keeps changing his narrative?
Your inability to distinguish between different people doesn't make me a liar.

>Everything, else he wouldn't use Venus as an example of co2-induced greenhouse effect.
So it's not an example? You're not actually making an argument.

>> No.12159275

>>12159261
>You're not actually making an argument.
Neither did you. Burden of proof is on your table because you're coming here with your extraordinary claims.

>Hurr durr the world is ending
>Hurr durr spending hundred on billions on mitigation is useful, even though our own calculations show that the results of those billions are less than instrumental measurement errors
>Hurrr durr all our previous predictions missed their mark by a few hundred magnitudes, but ™This time it's differen(C)(TM), sponsored by pepsicoke.

I Wonder why no one takes your death cult seriously anymore

>> No.12159319

>>12159275
>Neither did you.
The argument you're responding to is that you have to explain how the greenhouse effect from CO2 isn't causing warming of you want to deny it. It's not that hard to understand yet you failed miserably.

>>Hurr durr the world is ending
Who said this?

>>Hurr durr spending hundred on billions on mitigation is useful, even though our own calculations show that the results of those billions are less than instrumental measurement errors
Which calculations?

>>Hurrr durr all our previous predictions missed their mark by a few hundred magnitudes
Which predictions are those?

I wonder why deniers can never actually prove anything they say.

>> No.12159330

>>12159178
didnt demand. made a comment on a degenerate anime board retard

>> No.12159336

>>12159189
I didn't offer an explination. I think those problems i listed are more important bc you have to solve those before you solve the climate problem.

Offsetting the issue is easy (as above, iron fertalisation). The fact alarmists have not yet called for iron fertalisation shows they are larping- as it is something that could be done cheaply with small political capital and 'buy us more time'. It will also allow the third world to develop which i am not against.

>> No.12159383

>>12159336
You don't have to solve any of those issues to solve climate change and you can't offset climate change with iron fertilization. Stop reading so many blogs.

>> No.12159509

>>12159319
>deniers can't prove anything
Hoaxers have the burden of proof resting on them.

>> No.12159519

>>12159383
I think you do. thats all there is to this

>> No.12159574

>>12158158
>There is no relevant difference
Yes there is, because to a layperson, positive is conflated with "hot" and negative with "cold". The media then conflate hot with "bad" and cold with "good". Also notice that the baseline period is exactly the one during which alarmists were warning us about global cooling.

>> No.12159596

>>12159574
el atrocidad...

>> No.12159919
File: 14 KB, 500x285, 1970s_papers.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12159919

>>12159574
>Yes there is, because to a layperson, positive is conflated with "hot" and negative with "cold". The media then conflate hot with "bad" and cold with "good".
How is that relevant? It's not even a difference between temperate anomaly and temperature. 72 degrees and 1 degree hotter than a baseline of 71 degrees are equally "hot." If your objection is that stupid people misunderstand temperature anomaly then don't be a stupid person.

>Also notice that the baseline period is exactly the one during which alarmists were warning us about global cooling.
Another denier lie that has been disproven for years yet still gets repeated. Why does the choice of baseline even matter here? The graph would look exactly the same regardless of the baseline. You are incredibly retarded.

>> No.12159924

>>12159509
>Hoaxers have the burden of proof resting on them.
You've already been provided with massive amounts of scientific evidence, you're incapable of refitting it so you deny reality exists.

https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5/

>> No.12159935

>>12159519
You're wrong. That's all there is to this.

>> No.12159944

>>12151718
Climate change is real, because the climate is in a constant state of change. It is not supposed to stay fixed. It is clearly changing right now.

The greenhouse effect is real. This is not difficult to prove. Humans are almost certainly contributing to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is a part of the greenhouse effect.

However, and I mean however because this is very important, "climate scientists" have no idea how the climate will change going forward, and they have no way to prove that humans are causing the climate change that is happening right now. They don't understand how the earth's climate actually works, so they can't create models that accurately predict its changes going forward. They can create complex regression models using past data to predict its changes going forward, but because of the mathematical nature of the problem and the fact that they don't understand it, these models are hopelessly doomed to fail, as they always do.

>> No.12159946

>>12159336
>I didn't offer an explination
You attempted to explain that offsetting doesn't mean solve. But that explanation doesn't make sense in context.

>I think those problems i listed are more important bc you have to solve those before you solve the climate problem.
Then why did you say those problems are bigger?

>Offsetting the issue is easy
If offsetting doesn't solve the issue then how is the problem small?

>The fact alarmists have not yet called for iron fertalisation shows they are larping
Or it shows you have no clue what you're taking about.

>> No.12159954

>>12159330
>didnt demand. made a comment on a degenerate anime board retard
Those aren't mutually exclusive. You're whining about "leftist" solutions to climate change.

>> No.12159985
File: 314 KB, 1536x1244, cmp_cmip3_sat_ann-2-1536x1244.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12159985

>>12159944
>However, and I mean however because this is very important, "climate scientists" have no idea how the climate will change going forward
Then why are their predictions successful?

>they have no way to prove that humans are causing the climate change that is happening right now.
It's directly observable: https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6_noSplash_b5903aebfe105b4071103e11197138f8.pdf

>They don't understand how the earth's climate actually works
They unbranded more than enough to see humans are causing current warming and that warming will continue if CO2 emissions continue.

>so they can't create models that accurately predict its changes going forward.
They already have. Why are you making claims that are obviously false?

>They can create complex regression models using past data to predict its changes going forward
Which ones are those exactly? Because modern models are based on solving discretized thermodynamic and fluid dynamics equations, not regression. Why are you making claims that are obviously false?

>> No.12160001

>>12159946
I'm not that guy, but you're pretty retarded. He's clearly stating that he thinks his method will put off climate change for a while, and that means more immediate problems can be dealt with. He's just using the fact that alarmists haven't done his method as an example that their position isn't motivated by fear, it's motivated by a desire for political gain using panic. An actual counter argument would be to explain why his method isn't being used.

>> No.12160045

>>12159985
>Then why are their predictions successful?
Sorry, can't check them out, already died from ozone holes.

>> No.12160050

>>12159924
It's politics (aimed at >>12156740), not science.

>> No.12160053

>>12156799
I have a degree in Geology and am studying Planetary Sciences. Saying I don't have enough knowledge of climate models or maths to even talk about this topic is lunacy.

>> No.12160105

>>12160001
That doesn't respond to anything i said. Why would we need to put it off if it's a smaller problem than the others?

>He's just using the fact that alarmists haven't done his method as an example that their position isn't motivated by fear, it's motivated by a desire for political gain using panic.
As I already said, there are multiple conclusiond that could be drawn from this, like having no clue what you're talking about.

>> No.12160112

>>12160105
Being able to put if off is why it's a smaller problem than the others is exactly his point. At least that's what I gathered

>> No.12160118

>>12160045
>we shouldn't mitigate global warming because the ozone hole was solved
It's almost like you're trying to make deniers look as retarded as possible.

>> No.12160121

>>12159954
didnt say leftist. i mentioned communism. stop projecting

>> No.12160127
File: 83 KB, 900x900, dxl2ui5v2r611.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12160127

>>12160050
>scientific evidence is politics
Deniers are mentally ill.

>> No.12160128

>>12160112
>Being able to put if off is why it's a smaller problem than the others is exactly his point.
if it was a smaller problem you wouldn't need to put it off in the first place.

>> No.12160134

>>12160121
This doesn't counter anything i said.

>> No.12160156

>>12160127
Of course, politics can easily destroy science. See communist dictatorships for example.

>> No.12160162

>>12160118
No, we shouldn't listen to the climate truthers because they are people who deserve no respect.

>> No.12160165

>>12160128
Alright, think about it this way. Which problem do you give more priority: An imminent political crisis, or a problem that you can put off solving for years to come? Immediacy is a big part of what makes a crisis top-priority.

>> No.12160319

>>12160156
Then it should be easy for you to show how the science is wrong.

>> No.12160323

>>12160162
The evidence speaks for itself.

>> No.12160327

https://climateaudit.org/

>> No.12160332

>>12160165
There is no imminent political crisis and it's not clear that the problem can be put off for years to come. Not to mention that humanity does multiple problems at once, so this entire line of argument is an irrelevant distraction from the topic at hand.

>> No.12160334

>>12160319
Of course: if the aim of a certain "scientific" research is to promote the teachings of Mao/put everybody in labour camps/ban cars and meat, then such a research isn't trustworthy.

>> No.12160347

>>12160323
Sure, and it tells us to avoid the climate-fighting measures.

>> No.12160363

>>12160327
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/on-yet-another-false-claim-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=mcintyre&x=0&y=0

>> No.12160365

It's simple, I see US left-wing philanthropists shilling it and I assume it's false or misleading at best. It works for most other things. How do I know "atmospheric and planetary sciences" aren't total junk like social sciences and economics? What's the average IQ of an atmospheric and planetary scientist?

>> No.12160369

>>12160334
What scientific research aims for that and how is it wrong?

>> No.12160370

>>12160363
lol slander. The best you can do.

>> No.12160374

>>12160347
How does it do that?

>> No.12160379

>>12160374
In a very simple way.

>> No.12160380

>>12160365
It's simple, anyone using an ad hominem argument is wrong or misleading at best.

>> No.12160384

>>12160369
Wonderful, you then go to labour camps by yourself.

>> No.12160386

>>12160370
>lol slander.
The best you can do.

>> No.12160390

>>12160379
How? Can you give an example?

>> No.12160392

>>12160380
Ad hominem as in "but you are not a scientist!!" way?

>> No.12160394

>>12160384
Why can't you answer a simple question about your claims?

>> No.12160396

>>12160390
>>12160369

>> No.12160399

>>12160392
Anyone can cite scientific evidence to support their claims. It's a shame you can't and immediately resort to fallacious reasoning.

>> No.12160403

>>12160394
Loaded question.

>> No.12160410

>>12160399
Fallacy fallacy.

>> No.12160411

>>12160386
wheres the lie.
I've seen the top two posted ad nauseum.
McIntyre has dealt with them if you would care to look, but you don't.

After that he was just ignored because he could...argue his point.

>> No.12160416

>>12160403
Rhetorical question. Is a shame you have no clue what you're taking about and can't provide any evidence.

>> No.12160420

>>12160416
Oh no, that's not a rhetorical question, that's a clear loaded question. Read about the question types before trying to discuss something.

>> No.12160421

>>12160410
Where do you see a fallacy fallacy?

>> No.12160432

>>12160332
Well, the entire discussion started with you disagreeing with the guy saying that there were bigger problems than climate change and that's why he didn't care. That's what the argument was about. If you want to say that the problem can't be put off then argue that it can't be put off. Also, the statement about there not being an imminent political crisis is pretty subjective. 2020 has been a pretty crazy year after all. You're right in that humanity can solve multiple issues at once, but I believe the argument was that alarmists are too eager to damage people's daily lives for something that can be put off to later. I don't really agree with his statement that can be put off, but the way you argue seemed kinda gay.

>> No.12160436

>>12160421
>>12160399

>> No.12160449

>>12160411
>wheres the lie.
They're right there.

>McIntyre has dealt with them
Where? His papers were thoroughly debunked and the results he claimed were flawed have been replicated several times independently, with more modern techniques. The field has moved on, and the only people clinging to this garbage are deniers who can't deal with reality.

>> No.12160456

>>12160420
Why are you refusing to answer >>12160369?

>> No.12160457

>>12160456
Loaded question again.

>> No.12160460

>>12160436
Pointing out that your reasoning is fallacious is not a fallacy fallacy.

>> No.12160466

>>12160457
Why are you failing to answer >>12160369?

>> No.12160469

>>12160466
>>12160457

>> No.12160471

>>12160396
Is this supposed to be a response?

>> No.12160476

>>12160460
If something you mention isn't related to the discussion, then keep it to yourself.

>> No.12160482

>>12160469
So you're not failing to answer it? Where is the answer?

>> No.12160487

>>12160471
That's a very good question. Anon, is >>12160396 supposed to be a response? Try to answer this simple question by yourself.

>> No.12160493

>>12160476
What wasn't related to the discussion?

>> No.12160495

>>12160482
False dichotomy.

>> No.12160502

>>12160493
You don't even remember what you claim?

>> No.12160506

>>12160495
How is it a false dichotomy? Either you failed to answer the question or you answered it. We both know you didn't answer it, and you will not bring any substance to this debate.

>> No.12160515

>>12160502
I do. What wasn't related to the discussion?

>> No.12160569

>>12160449
McIntyre has moved on too.

Its only been 10 years.

>> No.12160585

>>12160569
So McIntyre doesn't continue to harp on about the hockey stick? That's big of him.

>> No.12160615

>>12160585
no

>> No.12160646

>>12160515
If you do, then you probably can remember that.

>> No.12160651

>>12160506
>Either you failed to answer the question or you answered it.
Of course not. That's exactly the false dichotomy.

>> No.12161104

>>12160646
I can't, why don't you point it out?

>> No.12161108

>>12160651
How is it a false dichotomy? And why haven't you answered the question?

>> No.12161144

>>12161104
I'm giving you an easy task to do by yourself, because it will improve your mind.

>> No.12161162

>>12161144
No, you're stalling the inevitable conclusion that your a lying retard.

>> No.12161182

>>12161108
It's clear, it is false dichotomy in a sense that you pretend that it's a dichotomy while it is not, in fact, a dichotomy.

>> No.12161191

>>12161162
Oh no, I am telling pure truth, and I am also clearly more clever than you (unless you pretend to be retarded).

>> No.12161192

>>12161182
So please explain how you neither answered the question nor didn't answer the question. What is in between them?

>> No.12161197

>>12161191
t. lying retard

>> No.12161210

>>12161197
That's a nice... not ad hominem, since you were unable to have a civil discussion in a first place.

>> No.12161217

>>12161192
It's clear, the term you used was "failed". I may not do something without "failing to do it"

>> No.12161405

>>12161210
I had a civil disccusion, you derailed it with your idiotic trolling.

>> No.12161418

>>12161217
You not answering the question means you failed to answer it. Answer the question already or fuck off.

>> No.12161433

>>12161418
>You not answering the question means you failed to answer it.
That's clearly false. You can fail what you really want to do or what is your duty. I don't really want to answer you and it is clearly not my duty. Therefore I don't fail to answer you even if I don't answer you.

>> No.12161436

>>12161405
You can continue to discuss the teachings of Mao on a specific forum then.

>> No.12161452

climate cultist lefties always get so brutally mangled in these threads itd cringe to watch

>> No.12161597

>>12161433
So you failed to answer it and you're not going to. You could have just said so, retard.

>> No.12161616

>>12161597
No, my Mao-loving climatist friend, I didn't fail anything, as shown before.

>> No.12161641

>>12156783
they can survive, but they will suffer health issues ranging from losing teeth to colon cancer (interesting as eating nothing but meat will do the same). A healthy human diet is varied and moderated, using a combination of plant and animal matter. Denying someone any animal products whatsoever is unhealthy and constitutes abuse. The current meat industry in developed nations is gluttonous and sustained by absurd government subsidies.

>> No.12161989

how do scientards reconcile the fact we need as much greenhouse as possible to insulate all the warmth we can get to prepare for the impending supervolcanic winter?

>> No.12163897

>>12161989
If that were the case then we should be saving all of our fossil fuels for then instead of releasing the CO2 now and letting it get sequestered by soil and oceans. So you would be even more intent on stopping emissions than environmentalists.

>> No.12163901

>>12161616
You failed to answer the question because you have no answer. Thanks for admitting you're full of shit.

>> No.12163901,1 [INTERNAL] 

Today we all need to think about climate change and as in other issues, there will always be those who say not how things really are and there is nothing we can do about it. I know it's true and I notice it myself. I think the main thing is to do everything possible to reduce the damage to our planet and use renewable energy sources more productively.
http://www.eawctechnologies.com/

>> No.12163901,2 [INTERNAL] 

As you continue working on your homework papers, at some point, you'll get the thought, "Should I pay someone to do my homework?” This is primarily because you’ve stopped enjoying the process of preparing homework and lack the motivation. https://myassignmenthelp.com/us/pay-someone-to-do-my-homework.html

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action