Post ITT

1. IQ
2. Believe in anthropogenic climate change?

>80
>yes

Other urls found in this thread:

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

144.
Yes but only because I subscribe to the beliefs of scientists wiser and more popular than myself.

138
Yes, do the research. Look at the trends, not just the individual results.

>194
>no

>121
>I don't even know what anthropogenic means

131
no

~145
I don't believe anything either way unless I've studied it extensively, but the non-anthropogenic models look more rigorous and logically consistent to me so I'm more inclined to believe them. I'm just a layman though.

>135
>same

To deny climate change is anthropogenic, you must:

- Deny GHG's have a marked impact on the environment

- Deny the ozone layer is depreciated by GHG's

- Argue with the professional opinion of 98% of scientists.

- Let big oil dick you.

147
No

137
No. Prove were not waxing into a warm age. What ((climate scientist)) receives additional funding if he doesnt prove the results he was funded to produce. Prove the degree isnt designed toward a prefabricated bias. Prove plants dont offset carbon production. Most research is just the earth is warming and it sucks for penguins. Show research the tropical amazon is expanding and there are parrots in texas if you want to claim unbias science

1) ~130
2) No, there is no known relationship between human C02 emissions and anomal climate effects.

Where does this 98% come from?

Was there a questionnaire a group of scientists filled out?

I have an iq of 154, and anthropogenic climate change is SETTLED. SCIENCE.

I'm so tired of brainlets thinking they can argue with the FACT that 98% of scientists support climate change.

Repeat after me, retards: CLIMATE. CHANGE. IS. SETTLED. SCIENCE.

140
yes

i do believe that changing the chemical composition of a gas changed its thermodynamic properties.

not sure why anyone wouldnt believe this.

>guys, we might be able to change earth's average temperature by 1ÂșC/milllion years!

Bad argument.

put words in my mouth, then refute them
well played
you arent worth my time

For someone with such a high IQ you exhibit a unwavering inability to convey any form of credence towards your supposed "settled science".

Besides, why the fuck would anybody give a shit what 98% of scientists support. I mean, i take what a virologist says about climate change with the same grain of salt as what my car mechanic thinks.

It's about quantities.

In a nominal cubic meter of atmosphere, there's a mere 0.03% CO2. Now you tell me where all the energy goes when a supposed double of that CO2 increase to 0.06% somehow heats up that entire cubic meter of atmosphere by a whopping 2 degrees Celsius.

>doesn't acknowledge context of anthropogenic climate change
>haha i was just saying that humans can change it
>how much can they?
>i dunno lol they can just check thermodynamics
The discussion is based around the topic of global warming and poles.

Bad strawman.

When talking about climate change people generally mean change that will have a meaningful impact on what they care about. In the most literal sense humans do change the climate, but the real question is that change meaningful when applied to what people value (crops, homes, weather, families, etc)

>ignoring the context of global warming
>make strawman to make him explain his point
>i'm not going to say anything more
Ok

...

It's 97% of those that answered yes/no. Only 20% did, so it's 97% of 20%, which pretty much conludes all the alarmists.

>In a nominal cubic meter of atmosphere, there's a mere 0.03% CO2.
In a nominal liter of a driver's blood, there's only 0.08% alcohol. Therefore he could not have been drunk.

>Now you tell me where all the energy goes when a supposed double of that CO2 increase to 0.06% somehow heats up that entire cubic meter of atmosphere by a whopping 2 degrees Celsius.
The energy gets radiated back towards the atmosphere below. Instead of the heat simply passing through it gets bounced around like a ping pong ball the more CO2 is in the atmosphere. The largest fraction of the atmosphere are made of inert gas. What does the amount of CO2 in relation to an inert gas have to do with anything? If you took out all
the N2 in the atmosphere that would greatly increase the percentage of CO2 you wouldn't change the greenhouse effect at all, since the effect is based on the actual amount of CO2 molecules and not is percentage.

In summary, you are a moron.

Thanks for explaining your point.

1. 9001
2. No, it's not a matter of belief.

Pic related, a figure from one of EPICA's (european ise coring in antarctica) publication in nature. Let me quote

>The climate of the last 500,000 years (500 kyr) was characterized by extremely strong 100-kyr cyclicity[...]However, the reasons for the dominance of the 100-kyr (eccentricity) over the 41-kyr (obliquity) band in the later part of the record, and the amplifiers that allow small changes in radiation to cause large changes in global climate, are not well understood

Making predictive models without understanding basic historic data is not really good science. Bottom line is, we understand too little to somehow relate C02 to temperature, because modeling the earth inside the solar system as a giant static greenhouse is, simple at best.

Please stop talking out of your ass. The statement you quoted does not say we don't know what caused such changes, it says we don't know why one cause (orbital eccentricity) dominated the other (orbital obliquity), additionally we know that CO2 and water vapor form a feedback loop that amplifies changes in radiation, but we don't understand them enough to answer the former question. The fact that we do not completely understand everything about our climate does not mean we don't know enough to relate CO2 to temperature. That's just nonsense. Especially since we're talking about a few centuries that we've directly observed and not cycles of hundreds of thousands of years in prehistory.

>In a nominal liter of a driver's blood, there's only 0.08% alcohol. Therefore he could not have been drunk.
What? You're going to have to explain the meaning of this analogy to me a bit more in depth. It doesn't makes sense to me.

>The energy gets radiated back towards the atmosphere below.
Yeap, you're right about that. See the gif. It traps nothing, just re-emits it.

But like i said (and you so carelessly wave away), it's all about quantities. There isn't nearly enough CO2 in the atmosphere to warrant the freakishly large increase in temperature. Not when you double it, or even triple it.

Which is what i was trying to show you by explaining that there is just 0.03% of CO2 in a normal atmosphere. That's not a lot. I don't see how you can heat up the entire earth's atmosphere with 2 degree Celsius by increasing it's composition of CO2 from 340 PPM to 680 PPM. That's ridiculous.

If heat trapping was that simple, we could solve the energy crisis by simply building an enormous green house over a solar farm and pump it full off CO2.

I have found it

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

It's total bullshit.

>134
>I believe in science, not (((science)))

>The statement you quoted does not say we don't know what caused such changes

Read again. It means precisely that, ie. we do not understand why the changes in climate are so strongly related to changes in radiation.

> The fact that we do not completely understand everything about our climate does not mean we don't know enough to relate CO2 to temperature.

We know to relate CO2 to temperature in a greenhouse, however we also do know this to be a poor model when assigning to earth's climate, which is what I emplied.

>CO2 and water vapor form a feedback loop that amplifies changes in radiation

What if there is no net amplification, but damping? We really cannot tell. There is nothing wrong with not knowing, there is something wrong with alarmism.

>What? You're going to have to explain the meaning of this analogy to me a bit more in depth. It doesn't makes sense to me.
There is too little alcohol in the blood to make you drunk. Only 0.08%. How is this hard to get?

>But like i said (and you so carelessly wave away), it's all about quantities. There isn't nearly enough CO2 in the atmosphere to warrant the freakishly large increase in temperature. Not when you double it, or even triple it.
According to what analysis? How much warming does it cause? Your feelings do not refute climatology.

>Which is what i was trying to show you by explaining that there is just 0.03% of CO2 in a normal atmosphere. That's not a lot.
First of all, you didn't show me anything. You just asserted it. Second, I already explained how the percentage of it in the atmosphere is irrelevant. If you took out every other gas from the atmosphere, making it 100% CO2, then the greenhouse effect from CO2 would be exactly the same as it was before. What matters is the amount of molecules of CO2 not it's proportion in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect from that amount of CO2 is well known and measured directly via radiative spectroscopy.

>If heat trapping was that simple, we could solve the energy crisis by simply building an enormous green house over a solar farm and pump it full off CO2.
I can't tell if you're trolling or retarded but solar power does not make energy from heat, so trapping heat would have no effect. Redirecting sunlight on the other hand is a strategy that many solar arrays use. Please stop embarrassing yourself with this nonsense.

>Read again. It means precisely that, ie. we do not understand why the changes in climate are so strongly related to changes in radiation.
We do though. Radiative changes from orbital eccentricity are amplified by various feedback loops.

>We know to relate CO2 to temperature in a greenhouse, however we also do know this to be a poor model when assigning to earth's climate, which is what I emplied.
We don't need to model the Earth as a greenhouse, we measure the infrared heat signature from CO2 directly. The model only explains how this relation exists.

>What if there is no net amplification, but damping? We really cannot tell.
We really cannot tell if we ignore the massive amount of research on this, which proves there are many significant feedbacks. You don't know what you're talking about, so please stop pretending.

>125 (iqtest.com), 82 (mensa)
>yes

...

>According to what analysis? How much warming does it cause? Your feelings do not refute climatology.

Not him however there have been times in earth's history (according to data) with C02 values above 1300 ppm, yet with about the same mean temperature.

> We do though. Radiative changes from orbital eccentricity are amplified by various feedback loops.

So the guys publishing in nature are all clueless? At least they admit to not knowing how milankivic cycles influence the earth's climate to such a degree. Again, before making prognoses, the basic science needs to be understood.

>We really cannot tell if we ignore the massive amount of research on this, which proves there are many significant feedbacks.

Massive amount of research = massive amount of funding, not massive amount of knowledge. You should know that if you worked in science.

>There is too little alcohol in the blood to make you drunk. Only 0.08%. How is this hard to get?
But how the fuck does that correlate to climate change? Just because there's a percentage in the statement you think you can somehow use it to do what exactly? Argue that because 0.08% of alcohol in someone's blood has intoxicant effects on a body, 0.03% of CO2 in the atmosphere also must be significant damaging to earth?

Nice reasoning man!
(sidenote: 0.08% is the legal limit in England. Which is hardly drunk)

>According to what analysis? How much warming does it cause? Your feelings do not refute climatology.
I couldn't tell you even if i tried! Because it has never been measured!

If you want to floor a climate scientist ask them exactly that.

How much CO2 would one need to add to a cubic cm of nominal atmosphere to increase its temperature by 1 degree Celsius.

And watch them squirm, sweat dripping off their foreheads! Unable to answer such a quantifiable question.

>First of all, you didn't show me anything.
See the picture in . Better yet, google it. What's the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. How much is actually there. Well, NOT A LOT. 0.03% or 340ish PPM (If you so desire to stray away from using percentages).

Step back here for a second, and think really deeply about what an ENORMOUS change in energy you are trying to attribute to something that's measured in parts per fucking million.

>solar power does not make energy from heat
Nope, you're right. But it does from radiation. "Solar-powered photovoltaic (PV) panels convert the sun's rays into electricity by exciting electrons in silicon cells using the photons of light from the sun".

The same radiation that gets "trapped"(according to you) and reflected (as per the image in ) back down by CO2! So effectively, by placing a solar panel inside greenhouse filled with only CO2 that re-emmits the photons back down you could increase the efficiency.

130

Why believe in anthropogenic climate change when we know it is real?

>128
>Yes

That said, I also believe in racial realism, so make of that what you will.

1. 117
2. A deadly or destructive anthropogenic, no. Climate change as a common event with the Earth that is further lightly influenced based on the degree of our emissions, yes.

>Not him however there have been times in earth's history (according to data) with C02 values above 1300 ppm, yet with about the same mean temperature.
Because there are other things that can affect the temperature, like solar activity. Low solar activity can balance out the greenhouse effect and feedback loops.

>So the guys publishing in nature are all clueless?
No, they were simply taken out of context. They were not saying we do not understand the relation between CO2 and temperature.

>Again, before making prognoses, the basic science needs to be understood.
It is understood.

>Massive amount of research = massive amount of funding, not massive amount of knowledge. You should know that if you worked in science.
There is a massive amount of research and a massive amount of knowledge about feedback loops. Not compete knowledge. Certainly not such a lack of knowledge that we can't tell the decide between positive feedback and negative feedback! The deniers in this thread are simply exaggerating the amount of uncertainty so that they can reach their preconceived conclusion. I doing so they reveal their ignorance of the subject and willingness to lie. In reality, we have enough evidence to conclude there is significant warming, it's caused by manmade emissions, and there will be significant negative consequences.

140
Yes.

>Prove we're not
>Prove the degree isn't
>Prove plants don't
Get the fuck out.

>But how the fuck does that correlate to climate change? Just because there's a percentage in the statement you think you can somehow use it to do what exactly?
Do you have brain damage my friend? I employed the same argument you were using to show you that it is absurd. The percentage of something being "low" does not tell you whether the effect is significant. Yes or no?

>I couldn't tell you even if i tried!
You just tried to tell me that it is insignificant! Thank you for admitting you are arguing dishonestly.

>Because it has never been measured!
Easily refuted lie.

ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

>How much CO2 would one need to add to a cubic cm of nominal atmosphere to increase its temperature by 1 degree Celsius.
Ignoring feedbacks, you would need to double the current amount of CO2. With feedbacks, about 120 ppm increase. About 100 ppm ago, the temperature was 1 degree cooler.

>142
>yes, but I doubt it's as catastrophic as libruls want to believe and although I believe we should gradually move towards a clean energy economy it would be unwise to do so by implementing tons of subsidies for "green" energy and huge taxes on fossil fuels.
>also I hate it when dumbfuck liberals blindly believe all the climate hysteria without actually understanding any of it and then scolding anyone who dares disagree with them
>I also support Trumps move to leave the Paris agreement

go ahead, debate me.

>See the picture in #. Better yet, google it. What's the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. How much is actually there. Well, NOT A LOT. 0.03% or 340ish PPM (If you so desire to stray away from using percentages).
Avid as I've explained several times in ways even a young child should be able to understand, the percentage does not tell us anything about the magnitude of its effect.

Things measured in ppm which have significant effects:

the amount of iron in your body

the amount of arsenic in your drink

the amount of ink in water

the amount of alcohol in your bloodstream

I could go on and on. How many times are you going to repeat this canard?

>Nope, you're right. But it does from radiation. "Solar-powered photovoltaic (PV) panels convert the sun's rays into electricity by exciting electrons in silicon cells using the photons of light from the sun".
>The same radiation that gets "trapped"(according to you) and reflected (as per the image in #) back down by CO2!
Sunlight is NOT the same radiation as infrared heat. Sunlight passes through CO2 while infrared heat does not. That's the entire point of the greenhouse effect! You should probably know basic physics before you try to debate someone about it. Your ignorance is laughable.

50
Yes

>IQ
135, +/- 5, sigma 15
>Believe?
Yeah but I don't think it's as much of a an issue as the alarmists want us to think

Dude he is a mongolid, even if he is trolling. Dont give him the satisfaction

>somehow heats up that entire cubic meter of atmosphere by a whopping 2 degrees Celsius.
>atmosphere
you're an idiot. It's not just any atmosphere. It's very special atmosphere that will heat up 2 degrees. It's the atmosphere right by the earths crust. And remember that there are a FUCKLOAD of cubic meters of air in the atmosphere.

>no idea, hopefully over 100
>yes

>Yeah but I don't think it's as much of a an issue as the alarmists want us to think

It might not be as big an issue as people think but only because there is already a lot of progress on renewable energy. If india and china were building up to the same level of CO2 production per capita as the U.S. has right now then we would be right fucked.

Man made

>- Argue with the professional opinion of 98% of scientists.
The rest of your post is right but the fact that you had to put this in makes me think you're just another brainlet.

>138
>no

151

Yes