You have 1000 years to prove that man made global warming is not bullshit AND is catastrophically dangerous AND requires immediate GOVERNMENT action
You can start now
Global temperature warming and cooling as well as staying the same
Kevin Brooks
Other urls found in this thread:
pnas.org
pnas.org
pnas.org
pnas.org
en.wikipedia.org
reddit.com
garnautreview.org.au
wikiwand.com
en.wikipedia.org
wattsupwiththat.com
skepticalscience.com
youtube.com
iopscience.iop.org
archive.is
archive.is
youtube.com
science.sciencemag.org
advances.sciencemag.org
science.sciencemag.org
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
judithcurry.com
nasa.gov
beta.dmi.dk
iopscience.iop.org
wikiwand.com
twitter.com
Liam Martin
pnas.org
pnas.org
pnas.org
pnas.org
Now get the fuck off my board.
Sebastian Brooks
Threadly reminder that only [math] you [/math] can prevent cancerous threads.
>sage
>hide
>report
Just don't reply to it.
Isaiah James
There is not a chance in hell they can solve this without decoupling emissions from GDP... with a cheaper alternative to coal. At least not until we are basically technologically powered gods in 100 years.
Using the IPCC's own calculations, I will show that the policy recommendations to "stop" climate change are insane.
>The IPCC figured a 5% cut in emissions when
>Australia implemented it's carbon tax by 2020. (the largest and most ambitious plan implemented to date) source source2
>100% of Australia's emissions are 1.2% of global emissions.
>The 5% cut of Australia's global amount of 1.2% is 0.07% of total global emissions.
>IPCC figures Co2 will be 410ppm by 2020
0.07% of 410 is 409.988 ppm
>IPCC equation for Co2 forcing is (5.35 * ln(current Co2 / revised Co2 )) or (5.35 * ln(410/409.988)) source
>(5.35 * ln(410/409.988)) = 0.00016 w/m2 of reduced forcing
>Climate sensitivity parameter is simple the change in temperature per w/m2 increase. In other words, the actual change in temp divided by the change in energy 'imbalance' since the start of the industrial revolution(150 years). Accounting for El Nino it's risen ~ 0.7-0.8 K over the last 150 years, but lets just say 1 C.
>(5.35 * ln(400 / 280)) = 1.90821095007 w/m2
>1 C / 1.90821095007 = 0.52 K per w/m2 (PS, This number is unlikely to rise because it's derived from a natural logarithm, thus will asymptotically approach zero as Co2 concentrations rise)
>Then figure the climate sensitivity parameter of 0.52(0.00016) and you get 0.0000832 C reduction in global temperatures.
James Edwards
>sage
>doesn't sage
Jonathan Phillips
But I did it was the other faggot that didn't.
Isaac Ward
Read that again... it's 1:12,000th of a single degree Celsius.
Now... for the kicker... The IPCC estimated it would cost Australia 160 billion dollars over the 10 year carbon tax plan to get 0.00016 w/m2 of reduced forcing.. source, 2011 Garnaut Report, 11.2 billion per year tax, plus other indirect costs
To save a full degree Celsius of warming, based on the IPCC's own math on the Australian carbon tax plan, would cost 3.2 quadrillion dollars.... or 43 times total global GDP.
Does climate change really matter if the only realistic solution is an economic apocalypse?
According the the stern report(the biggest economic study ever done on climate economics, by the Royal Society of the UK), global costs, under a worst case(nothing done) scenario are expected to be ~ 5% of GDP per year. en.wikipedia.org
That means that if the costs of a carbon tax costs the average person more then 5% per year, then it is not worth it. Given that emissions are basically synonymous with GDP, a 5% cut in emissions would have an impact on temperatures literally too small to measure, but huge economic ramifications.
To use the above math on how long it would take to achieve a single C drop in temps spending 5% of global GDP on it.
(5.35 * ln(400 / (400+ (20 * 0.05)))) = -0.01335830906 w/m2 (co2 rises ~ 2ppm per year, figured a 5% cut over 10 years, or 400 +(20 * 0.05))
(0.52) * -0.01335830906 = -0.00694632071 K
1/0.00694632071 = 143.96 * 10 = 1440 YEARS
Well fuck. 1440 years to mitigate a single degree C at 5% GDP cost(3.5 trillion per year). How many star systems can we colonize before then?
So you are stuck in a paradox. Either you drastically lower the average living standard to a level far worse then climate change would ever cause, or cut emissions to a level that would have no discernible impact on global temperatures. In either case, it makes no sense.
Liam Gray
You can argue about the plants and animals... But I can guarantee that any cut that is forced on people strong enough to have a measurable impact... would cause an economic apocalypse large enough to cause widespread environmental destruction. Starving people will burn the forests for energy and hunt everything to extinction, in order to survive.
To end this... Nuclear power is the only realistically viable path to disconnecting the carbon emission = GDP connection, But It's not "deniers" stopping the nuclear revolution... it's environmentalists.
Christopher Miller
sage and move on
literally reposted directly from r/climateskeptics
>reddit.com
protip: typing "source" and "source2" after your claims doesn't count as actually sourcing them.
back2leddit
William Ortiz
These people won't go away if you just ignore them.
Chase Parker
Can you respond to these claims though?
Why are climate scientists making it so hard to take them seriously with all their shady graph and statistic manipulation?
Why resort to meme claims like "97% of scientists agree"?
Joshua Nelson
Yes, they will. The only reason these threads keep cropping up is because they're guaranteed replies. Worst case is they're made and 404 in a couple of days, max.
Wyatt Campbell
That's not an argument.
Sebastian Russell
>Didn't say a single word from these, or insulted anyone
>Not even from /pol/
Absolutelly ebin :D now i believe in climate variations
PROTIP: If you actually believe in it, then it means you believe that it's going to be catastrophic for earth.
If you believe that, then it means you have to put some effort to convince people of it, specifically people who have a lot of money and a lot of impact.
Specifically people who doubt climate change claims, like me.
Gabriel James
/thread
Nathan Torres
But the post you ignored is, stefan.
Nolan Harris
Can you respond to the post beforehand?
Or answer my questions? Just because they're not arguments doesn't mean you should ignore them
Why use bullshit claims like 97% of scientist agree, MAKING IT A GLOBAL DOGMA, if the truth is on your side anyway?
If 90% of your supporters are dogmatic idiots that support bullshit manipulated statistics, it's hard to be convinced to change lifestyles for this
Ryan Jackson
I'll happily respond to those claims when you source them. FireFoxG says that he's using the IPCC's own predictions; can you point to where the IPCC said any of that?
additionally, he does a little handwaving and comes up with a climate sensitivity parameter of 0.52, when this is significantly lower than estimates with actual research backing this up. (the usual range reported is 1.5-4.5)
any particular reason he handwaved a value and completely ignored the actual research on the topic?
>Why are climate scientists making it so hard to take them seriously with all their shady graph and statistic manipulation?
I can only assume you refer to the adjustment of instrumental data to account for bias/error in the measurements, which deniers breathlessly declare is TOTALLY FRAUD, GUYS.
>Why resort to meme claims like "97% of scientists agree"?
because the lay public doesn't have the background (or, frequently, the intelligence) to understand the technical basis.
and it's not "97% of scientists agree"; it's "97% of studies agree". one is popularity, and the other is the concordance of evidence.
Hunter Lee
>Just because they're not arguments doesn't mean you should ignore them
nay, we laugh at them instead.
>bullshit manipulated statistics
this right here is the root of the problem. deniers dismiss any evidence that goes against their uhpinyuns by unilaterally declaring it to be fake, manipulated, or otherwise fraudulent. do they have actual evidence of this? no, but that hasn't stopped them in the past and it is unlikely to stop them in the future.
Robert Murphy
Christian Nelson
The 97% claim only accounted for the studies that even mention that climate change might be man made, and out of those only a small part of them said it's as bad as they claim it is
Bentley Reed
I'm asking you a question you pretentious faggot, I'm not making an argument
Graphs are constantly being edited to remove extreme points that disagree with the consensus, "97% agree", "the debate is settled"
if you want people to believe your claims, stop being so shady and anti science about it
Benjamin Peterson
Why are leftists so unfunny, this is reddit tier humor
>change name from global warming to climate change
>the main point is still global warming
:D
Easton Allen
...you do realize, neither of those documents contain sourcing for the claims you cuntpasted, right? for example, there's no mention in either of the "IPCC equation for Co2 forcing" as it's written in the post you borrowed.
did you think that nobody would actually read your links?
yes, they only looked at studies that took stances on whether climate change was anthropogenic, when seeking to answer that question. what's your rationale for including hundreds of studies that don't even relate to that question, when trying to gauge empirical support for it?
if you surveyed a few thousand evolutionary biology papers, you'd probably find that the vast majority of them don't explicitly say that evolution by natural selection is real, because that's not the question most studies seek to answer.
>I'm not making an argument
I'll say
>Graphs are constantly being edited to remove extreme points that disagree with the consensus
and your evidence of this is...let me guess, it's a gif showing three unlabeled graphs that show slightly different trends because they're drawing on slightly different datasets?
>if you want people to believe your claims, stop being so shady and anti science about it
this from the side that constantly posts unlabeled, uncited memegraphs and insists that every bit of evidence against them is fake. projecting much?
Elijah Gray
I mean, we only do that because you fags do stupid shit like pic related.
and you still don't get the joke, presumably because you don't understand what's going on here.
Alexander Rogers
But it's still not even close to 97% of that group
Jordan Gutierrez
The difference is those people are literally denying climate is changing, not just that it's manmade
Owen Allen
A ship sinking isn't analogous to climate change
For one end of the ship to be lifted so high, it would actually HAVE to mean that it's sinking, there isn't a case where a ship would be oriented like that without sinking
Zachary Stewart
>I said it on the internet so it must be true
you may have a (You)
you may post Legates et al. if you wish, but that's been pretty thoroughly debunked already, so don't expect it to wow anyone here.
Luis Nelson
>there isn't a case where a ship would be oriented like that without sinking
there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio...
>en.wikipedia.org
Ethan Rogers
wattsupwiththat.com
>inb4 greentext of site name
Jacob Allen
I wasn't including dark magic in my claim
Kayden Hall
y-y-you realize that what you posted was just a book review, right? it doesn't actually provide any evidence to support your point; it just says that the book does, without going into any detail.
also:
>Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
>we don't like the IPCC's conclusions
>so we'll start our OWN IPCC
>that'll show 'em!
>literally lists the Heartland Institute as its contact info
CREDIBLE
oh also
>WUWT
pic related
Jonathan Clark
Anthony Gutierrez
>Be a scientist
>Try to provide counter evidence to manmade global warming
>Be denied research money, shunned and shamed
>97% OF SCIENTISTS AGREE :DDDDDDD
nice system :D
Luis Green
>...you do realize, neither of those documents contain sourcing for the claims you cuntpasted, right? for example, there's no mention in either of the "IPCC equation for Co2 forcing" as it's written in the post you borrowed.
did you think that nobody would actually read your links?
It would be nice if you then didn't include all those climate studies that don't mention it in your pie charts to show how little deny it :)
Charles Carter
Settle down fellas, it has been debunked
Joseph Jenkins
Prove your conspiracy or don't post it.
Cameron Harris
...
Julian Gutierrez
to recap:
me: please provide sources for your claims
you: here are some sources
me: these sources don't support your claims
you: ARGLE BARGLE FAKE CONSENSUS
nice diversion
but, in fact, Cook et al. 2013 did NOT do what you're accusing them of doing. the 97% figure is of papers that took a position on the issue, not including the studies that didn't take a position one way or the other.
it's literally RIGHT THERE IN THE ABSTRACT, you actual retard.
>We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
>iopscience.iop.org
Kevin Clark
>muh 97%
archive.is
It's pretty funny how global warming alarmists respond to skepticism in a similar way that evangelical Christians do. It's like you're a cult or something...
Jonathan Butler
99.9% of scientist agree the sun is orbiting the earth
Isaac Green
I love how that list starts with a long list of arguments against it that the authors don't like.
>not all these papers actually reject AGW...
>>that's a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!
>not all these papers are PhySci papers
>>STRAWMAN
>not all these papers are peer-reviewed
>>STRAWMAN
>some of these papers actually explicitly support AGW...
>>STRAWMAN
>some of these papers directly contradict other papers on this list
>>STRAWMAN
basically just imagine a scientist giving a long presentation on a technical subject while Donald Trump shouts "WRONG" every third word and you've about got the tone of it.
Angel Perry
But it's not happening during the argument but before, it's written before the sources not during
You're purposefully acting like a moron
Jace Torres
>the usual range reported is 1.5-4.5
That's the old ECS estimate from AR5, ∆T after doubling of CO2, not ∆T per W/m^2. The omission of a 'best guess' value in AR5 (in contrast to earlier reports) and the factor of 3 between min and max reflects the results of more recent studies.
The empirical approach is difficult because there are no reliable data about the global temperature 150 years ago. If you use satellite based data you arrive at an ECS of 1±0.3 K. You can verify that yourself, both CO2 and temperature data are publicly available.
Elijah Powell
archive.is
kek. I love how they start with this, it's been debunked a long long time ago. The list includes engineers and mathematicians as somehow 'experts' on climate science.
Chase Turner
science.sciencemag.org
advances.sciencemag.org
science.sciencemag.org
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/465
science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1517
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
pnas.org
pnas.org
pnas.org
pnas.org
Lincoln Bennett
Well the fossil fuels will be spent one way or another up until and probably past the point of EROEI as most of the low hanging fruit has already been picked so to speak. Carbon taxation and trading schemes at this juncture solve absolutely nothing but will enrich and empower totalitarian carbon regimes who will attempt to horde and ration out these dwindling resources themselves. These very people are really just the despots of yesteryear obviously. Parasites. Moons replacement is a devout Catholic so operations are going to be ramping up.
Adam Wood
Howcome you're never skeptical of the skeptics?
Jaxon Walker
>constantly silence any debate, call people retards for doubting ridciulous claims
>create models that constantly fail to predict things properly and contradict satelite observations
>say things like "the debate is settled" and "97% of scientists agree"
>question why people are doubting you
Adrian Lopez
That's not what I asked user. Why aren't you skeptical of the skeptics?
Aaron Scott
pnas.org
" Removal of that hidden variability from the actual observed global mean surface temperature record delineates the externally forced climate signal, which is monotonic, accelerating warming during the 20th century."
False, Monotonic yes, accelerating, no. See
Thomas R. Knutson , Rong Zhang, & Larry W. Horowitz. Prospects for a prolonged slowdown in global warming in the early 21st century. Nature Communications 7, Article number: 13676 (2016) doi:10.1038/ncomms13676
For a graphic of the non-accelerating warming see, pic related:
The rate is linear and equates to a climate sensitivity mere 1.4 C degrees! Keep in mind that this graph is based on the heavily tampered Hadley CRU data, meaning that satellite data would show a much lower climate sensitivity!
I'm sorry that Professor Curry, the former head of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences is an evil denier. So much for a "consensus."
Thomas Sullivan
pnas.org
What did they say?
" The relation between changes in modern glaciers, not including the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica."
Nice cherry-picking! Antarctic Sea Ice is growing:
nasa.gov
and its mass is growing:
Zwally, H. Jay, et al. "Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses." Journal of Glaciology 61.230 (2015): 1019-1036.
And Greenland ice is growing, see pic.
Greenland is growing:
beta.dmi.dk
Alexander Bailey
pnas.org
" the uncertainties of model projections must be balanced with the risks of taking the wrong actions or the costs of inaction."
Muh, Pascal's Wager. Except for they conveniently forget to talk about economic destruction, and the severe risks of acquiescing to United Nations' governance.
Generally speaking, Climate 'Scientists' vastly underestimate the uncertainties in their models, pic related. And go back and look at:
Thomas R. Knutson , Rong Zhang, & Larry W. Horowitz. Prospects for a prolonged slowdown in global warming in the early 21st century. Nature Communications 7, Article number: 13676 (2016) doi:10.1038/ncomms13676
Adam Perry
pnas.org
Cherry picking the Southern Peninsula of Antarctica. What about the rest of that continent? Oh yeah,
Flat to negative temps for decades. Pic related. And go back and look:
World record sea ice:
nasa.gov
Growing Antarctic Snow/Ice mass:
Zwally, H. Jay, et al. "Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses." Journal of Glaciology 61.230 (2015): 1019-1036.
In short, a deceptive article.
Jose Wood
>Prospects for a prolonged slowdown in global warming in the early 21st century.
>Global mean temperature over 1998 to 2015
It's pretty funny that the first sentence of the paper invalidates it. Everyone by now knows the old denier trick of starting the trend at 1998 El Nino
>we estimate that the warming slowdown (
Luis Murphy
>What did they say?
>" The relation between changes in modern glaciers, not including the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica."
>Nice cherry-picking! Antarctic Sea Ice is growing:
So you don't know the difference between glacier, ice sheets, and sea ice? Here's a hint: non-continental glaciers are in danger of disappearing, ice sheets not so much.
Brandon Campbell
>muh tropospheric hotspot paper from 11 years ago
Dominic Thomas
Why aren't climate change deniers permabanned from Veeky Forums?
Charles Hall
Yes, the South pole is seeing little to no warming. That's news to no-one.
>World record sea ice:
>antarctic-sea-ice
You're retarded.
Noah Cruz
>Be me
>Gone for few years
>Check back every now and then
>Be now
>Check back to Veeky Forums see if things have gone to shit and if the old shitposters are still around
>Literally same copy paste on the front page as 5 years ago
Jacob Peterson
REKT
Hunter Adams
How scientific of you.
Daniel Turner
t. open minded scientifically minded scientific method scientist of truth
Jaxon Rodriguez
>ignores evidence that goes against his opinions
>invokes conspiracy theories to explain his positions
"hey, think constant conspiratard shitposting should be a b&able offense"
>yfw
Josiah Perry
Just like the church thought Galileo should be banned.
Dominic Roberts
>in the proud tradition of speaking truth to power,
>much as Galileo Galilei once did!
>I shall cherry-pick 1998 as a starting point, conflate sea ice with glaciers, and insist that all evidence against my position is fake.
Nolan Howard
Trepanning was the medical consensus in the ancient era for treating headaches. Guess we should all go treat headaches with trepanning.
Jeremiah James
I have no opinion on global warming, I was just showing you the hypocrisy.
Levi King
Wilful denial isn't a type of scepticism.
Matthew Davis
They don't silence any debate, there's nothing left to debate.
Jonathan Wilson
Wew, hypocrisy is the new hotness. The church of AGW is gathering a loyal following. They are led by a merry band of climate priests churning out reams of climate doom prophecies in the form of charts and graphs, their fellow clergy vet these rigorously. The prophecies can be forestalled by repenting through a carbon tithe, of course in order to save yourselves, your souls from mortal sin and save all of earth from a hell fire of CO2 and brimstone. History repeats and you can see it in action if you live long enough.
Dominic Barnes
There's plenty left to debate, it's just reciting debunked nonsense from PR groups isn't debating.
Yes, 1998 was a warm year. Yes, global warming is north-biased. Yes, the satellite record has a shallower trend than surface records. No, none of that is news, and it's been addressed by actual climatologists a thousand times.
I mean. look at this crap: There's not even any actual claims here. You could replace "AGW" with anything and get a just-as-convincing argument for creationism or the flat fucking earth. How is that scientific debate?
Hunter Sanchez
TRUMP LITERALLY MADE MY LIFE SHORTER BY 40 YEARS BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Landon Sanchez
Shut up you dazziling insuficient cunt, just because your graph looks good doesn't mean you logic behind it poses the same logic and background info as the Fukien graph you twisted shit head. I can look at this graph and shove a pair of ass-spreaders in my ass and pry hard just to find out that shit comes out.
Jose Price
>leader of major widespread religion publicly meets with head of international federation of world powers
CONSPURRCY
John Howard
AGW has the tax, there is no flat earth or creationism tax yet. Also a climate heretic hunt is already on. Look what happens to a climate "scientist" who doesn't tow the line, they are excommunicated from the club and will never proselytize in the realm ever again.
Well the Vatican played a huge role in both world wars but have since managed to write themselves out of much of that sordid history. Of course the UN manifest from those wars. There are plenty of smoking guns here and it didn't take long for the Papacy to endorse AGW which is odd on a few levels but bringing one billion new cultists on board, many in positions of power certainly will further the cause. New UN head coming in January 17th is a devout Roman Catholic. Don't be allergic to conspiracies son and a new age literal power grab seems highly plausible and apparently doable. In fact it's a done deal.
Jackson Wright
(You)
Liam Gomez
I don't see a problem with casting frauds out of a community dedicated to truth. We don't go around reserving a seat at the table with researchers who claim to have found ESP. This world is heading into full on /pol/tard post-fact bullshit and we're not going to be able to survive unless we mount an active defense against the politically brainwashed denialists.
Anthony Miller
>AGW has the tax,
The tax isn't even a part of AGW. It's a single proposed method to reduce CO2 emissions from industry. If you don't like it, push for others like a credit-trading systems or hard emissions limits like other pollutants get. Or come up with a new suggestion. But don't ignore reality because it disagrees with you pet political beliefs.
>Also a climate heretic hunt is already on. Look what happens to a climate "scientist" who doesn't tow the line
Yeah, look at all of the horrible shit that happens to Fred Singer, Anthony Watts, "Lord" Monckton, Willie Soon and friends. They get to be famous and have totally-not-oil money thrown at them.
Well, Soon got too greedy and got caught with his hand the cookie jar, but the others are still fine.
>Don't be allergic to conspiracies son and a new age literal power grab seems highly plausible and apparently doable. In fact it's a done deal.
??????????
What the fuck is a "new age power grab"?
And do you have any actual evidence for any of that shit, besides pictures of people shaking hands?
Cooper Cruz
God I hope there is a new world order apocalypse just so that I know faggots like you would burn in it. Get off of Veeky Forums.
Isaac Rivera
same thing happened to this guy wikiwand.com
scientific "community" is cancer
David Ortiz
>Denying that global warming is manmade
>Same as saying ghosts exists
t. tolerant scientist
Leo Young
Sage and you should feel bad op
Robert Bailey
>You have 1000 years to prove that man made global warming is not bullshit
You mean 2 weeks?
once trump is president the things he will do will be catastrophic for the environment and push it past the point of no return
and since it's essentially impossible to convince enough people in such a short time frame; we're fucked
Nicholas Stewart
>climate gets hotter
>hurr global warming
>climate gets colder
>hurr global warming
Kayden Gomez
I'm so happy that climate alarmist will finally be BTFO
But sadly, they'll never admit to being wrong, just change the names of things
Hunter Flores
>bro get off the tracks the train is coming
>>No, you're just being a train alarmist
>>As soon as this train doesn't hit me you'll change your tune!
Zachary Torres
Enjoy your shitty earth you red team-blue team mongoloid
Easton Baker
the fucked up thing is that it will hardly effect him
it'll be people for the remainder of the history of our species that pays the price
Aiden Russell
epic analogy, thanks for enlightening me
Ayden Barnes
+5 virtue points, thanks for signaling!
Luke Rogers
This year is colder than ever where I live.
Ryan Torres
I thought it was pretty good myself. you're welcome
Leo Phillips
At least one user posted something substantial: a calculation, a simple sanity check. Barely anyone addressed it.
Mason Ramirez
it's a troll thread, you aren't supposed to take responses seriously
Jaxson Thompson
>virtue signalling
Apparently being opposed to harming people is a bad thing now.
Logan White
Ugh, apparently being A GOOD person is BAD now. Sigh. Ugh. -_-
Matthew Murphy
science.sciencemag.org
advances.sciencemag.org
science.sciencemag.org
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/465
science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1517
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
nature.com
pnas.org
pnas.org
pnas.org
pnas.org
Isaac Martinez
prove me wrong