Does this confirm climate "science" is really just pseudoscience?

Nope

I think they are more spooked by the fact that autism is easily spread. Make sure to wash your hands next time when you visit this board.

this is not a valid argument

There it goes again! My, what have you done? Why didn't you listen? All you had to do was wash your hands.

ice is less dense than water

Bazinga!

...

>literally retarded

>act like /pol/
>get called /pol/
>REEEEEEE IT'S A BOOGIEMAN
if you didn't come from there it's where you belong

>act like reddit
if you didn't come from there it's where you belong

>>act like /pol/
>>get called /pol/
>>REEEEEEE IT'S A BOOGIEMAN
Who are you quoting?

Today I will remind them

by posting a blatantly false and misleading image with multiple graphs that have been debunked over and over and over again both here and elsewhere. Now fuck off back to

>by posting a blatantly false and misleading image with multiple graphs that have been debunked over and over and over again both here and elsewhere. Now fuck off back to Do you need to swear? It really invalidates your post

>It really invalidates your post
No it fucking doesn't.

Another great thread.

>No it fucking doesn't.
Wrong.

Ok so like all the ice that's melting is below sea level because icebergs n stuff so the sea level goes down well that would still probably be very bad like the mississippi drying up or some shit but yeah let's just continue to assume earth is invincible

>believes a /pol/tard, just because he posted some graphs
>a /pol/tard that posts a graph on ice age temperature changes
>says temperature variations are normal
>literally can't see that those temperature variations happened over tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
>forgets that temperatures have risen 1 °C in only the last century and is expected to rise another 3 °C in this century.
>20,000 years worth of temperature rise condensed into 200 years.
>Thinking that this won't have any effect on the plants and animals that are already adapted to this climate.

Yeah, that is definitely not going to damage our food supply in anyway, or cause mass extinctions.

Also, that graph that measures mid-troposphere 20s 20n is pretty outdated. It only measures a small section of the atmosphere, but even then, recent data still show that it's warming.

skepticalscience.com/Warming-of-the-Tropical-Troposphere-Hotspot.html

carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

>2018
>still replying seriously to bait

This is why you are weak Veeky Forums and will always be cucks.

Misinformation spreads regardless of whether or not it's bait.

This shit is actually getting out of hand. I'm about to call my ISP and support the fuck out of them charging money to visit this site. $25 a month for every single board you want to visit. That way, if you fucks want to spread your cancerous bullshit at least you have to pay for your shit posts.

it just snowed in fuken sahara

hahaha

>This shit is actually getting out of hand. I'm about to call my ISP and support the fuck out of them charging money to visit this site. $25 a month for every single board you want to visit. That way, if you fucks want to spread your cancerous bullshit at least you have to pay for your shit posts.
Are you okay?

>Ok so like all the ice that's melting is below sea level
Ever heard of land ice? Ever heard of Greenland?

This just means that in the long term sea level will distribute around the planet more uniformly as I understand it

Ice melts - Sea Level Rises - Sea Basins Sink - Ice stops melting - Seawater drains into sunken basins

This won't stop sea level rise of at least 1 meter this century

Why would the ice stop melting?

>skepticalscience.com/
>skeptical

Will climate "scientists" EVER be able to prove causation and not just weak correlation?

>water expands when frozen
>same weight + more volume = less density
this is grade school shit get the fuck out

>Will climate "scientists" EVER be able to prove causation and not just weak correlation?
Yes, they've been able to do that for decades.
Isotope balance + outgoing radiation.

Melting floating ice doesn't (directly) alter the water level.

>blatantly false
>misleading
>that have been debunked over and over and over again
[citation needed]
Also, if your biggest refutation for an argument is repeatedly throwing out emotionally charged denials, you're relying too much on pathos.

Oh yes. I forgot how legions of journalists/scientists come to Veeky Forums to find some nice facts to put in their papers.

You worthless cunt come here o ver and over again to spread misinformation and lies while ruining other peoples legitimate discussions. At somepoint you stop wanting to have a discussion with people whos only go to arguments are factless

Floating ice that melts doesn't change the water level, the ice below matches the ice above it. Try it.

>[citation needed]
Go visit any archive of Veeky Forums threads. There's a handful of "AGW isn't real" images that are spammed in nearly every thread, and they get an in-depth debunking in about half of them. I'm close to just putting together an image response that can be spammed back.

youtube.com/watch?v=FKih6nRw2d8

That’s funny, because in all of the threads I’ve shitposted in, rarely was there a response backed up by facts, and none have come close to tackling the anthropomorphic side of things. Please make that image.

>Vice
Literally worse than pop-sci

>I was just pretending to be retarded!

>they get an in-depth debunking in about half of them
[citation needed]

>Asking a non-political question
>REEEEE GO BACK TO POL

Holy fuck you sound retarded.

>No really! /pol/ wins arguments on Veeky Forums ALL THE TIME!
Fuck off.

is obvious horse shit.
The Christy graph is torn apart by Gavin here: realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
and the rest of the image is one long misunderstanding of timescales, with plenty of wanking off in the text. The author seems to think that a sharp spike on a million-year-long graph is equivalent to a sharp spike on a hundred-year graph, so there's nothing alarming about the current warming trend. That's obviously wrong, as anyone who understands even primary school maths would notice.
There's also a bunch of stupid claims: "a *hypothesis* that CO2 affect climate in a meaningful way" and so on. I can't even be bothered with those: just check wikipedia or something: we've known about the greenhouse effect for more than a century.

>>No really! /pol/ wins arguments on Veeky Forums ALL THE TIME!
Who are you quoting?

>Fuck off.
Do you really need to swear? It invalidates your post

I don't give a rats ass who posts it. Debate the evidence.

youtube.com/watch?v=yAKZaQkWSIo
youtube.com/watch?v=-JbzypWJk64

You don't even deserve a better response

What "climate science journals"?
Climate science is published in the normal major journals, along with everything else important.

>this is grade school shit get the fuck out
A straight up admission that you failed grade school.
Ice doesn't float on top of the water, it floats in the water at the surface.
There's a reason icebergs only show around 1/10th of their total size above the surface. The ice displaces as much water as it's mass, in water. So when it converts back into water there is no change.

Of course, this all only applies to sea ice, not things like glaciers that are melting into the ocean.

No not really, scientists get things wrong all the time. It's a pretty normal process to figuring out what's actually going on. Normalfags just don't trust scientists because "just gimme tha answer! What do you mean you don't know!"

>Climate science
>important

>what is an aggregate?

I'm not saying it's true I'm saying regardless why the fuck are we still wondering if we effect the planet? If we affect it at all in either direction it wouldn't be good. How could billions of machines running on fossil fuels not affect shit?

Do they mean polar glaciers then? That would make sense if most of it used to be under water