How true is this data/information?
geologist here. Looks decent.
Higher res version.
What is your interpretation of the data if any? Based on your geological background.
>>16407013Thanks. I am aware of the data already though, it's pretty standard.
>>16407012I am Retard and didn't quote>>16407017
>>16407017Are you asking because you're uncertain about Man-made climate change?I don't want to start an entire climatology course on 4chan. Back in college I took Meteorology, climatology 1 and 2, astronomy, geological history, hydrology 1, 2 and 3 and oceanography. All of which are related in one way or another to your graph.
So, lets get into this as best I can in a 4chan post.The graph is logarithmic. So you're seeing billions of years on the left and hundreds of years on the right.There really is only 4 things that affect Earth's climate.1. The sun. Duh. In the early days the sun was 10% dimmer than today. That's how stars work. This is known as the Faint Young Sun Paradox. You can look it up.2. The amount of water to land on Earth. Water's specific heat is very high compared to soil. So it takes longer to heat up and longer to cool down. The relative position of the continents is also vital. If continents exist on the equator that's much different than continents existing on the poles. How they block or allow currents to flow around the globe is also vital.3. The tilt, eccentricity and rotation of Earth. This is vital because right now Earth's northern hemisphere has more land and its southern hemisphere has more water. This is why we're currently in an ice age.4. CO2. No, not water vapor, CO2. Water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere for more than a week. It cannot drive climate. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades to centuries. It can drive climate. While water vapor is a greater greenhouse gas it is a consequence of changes in heat, not a driver of it. Basically it drives the temperature higher after CO2 has raised it.Any questions?
>>16407007here, have a diagramm for the last 20k years with error bars.at some point I saw a diagram with error bars going back way further but I cant find it now.
>>16407097Medium emissions for 4 c and high emissions for 7?? What is considered medium, is RCP 8.5 only medium on this model, thats the one where we just keep burning coal at 2013 rates for the next 75 years
>>16407187>>16407181Climate change is a direct result of human emissions from fossil fuels. The proportion of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere prove that we are responsible for the increase of carbon dioxide, and the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxides contribution to it has been well studied.
>>16407203>fake graphshttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50668Cope harder.
>>16407203This is now willful ignorance.
>>16407195I know that, I'm just saying I think its very unlikely we burn enough fossil fuels to get to 7 C by 2100 when even the extreme ramping up coal as fast as possible scenarios that is RCP 8.5 only has us burning enough to get to 4-5 in that time.
>>16407235You are wrong.
>>16407246You paper does not refute anything in the paper I posted. It's basically just an update that's slightly more accurate at depths correlating to hundreds of thousands of years ago.>Bias is confined to 13ppm and the deepest 200m (600–800kyr B.P.)A bias of 13 ppm at 600,000 years B.P. means nothing. It is not enough to explain the difference in carbon isotopes in the atmosphere over the last couple hundred years. Cope harder.
>>16407262In RCP 8.5 we burn fossil fuels, especially coal, at greater and greater rates from now until 2100 and get to 4-5 C. We reverse all gains in clean energy and bring back coal full force and never slow down. Do you seriously think its a real possibility we go even worse than that worst-case-sceanario and get to 6 or 7 C? I feel like if we get to even 3 C warming it will be enough economic and human damage to lower emissions on its own even if we don't give a fuck.
>>16407273If you think adding co2 cools the planet in the way you described doesn't warm it by the greenhouse effect why hasn't the planet cooled as we've added co2? It has increased plant growth as you said, so why isn't it cooler than preindustrial times?
>>16407266If CO2 (44 amu) is biased 13ppm relative to air (28 amu), then how can you trust 2 permil bias on 13CO2 (45 amu) relative to 12CO2 (44amu).
>>16407289Because that's the absolute limit of the bias that they found which corresponds to more than half a million years ago. You're so desperate to use a paper you don't understand to try to refute well established facts.Let's try this another way. How could a bias of 13 ppm erroneously cause this graph >>16407195
>>16407293If CO2 concentration is biased by process they dont fully understand, how is the isotope not biased?
>>164072991. It's not. Read the paper you linked.2. That's not an answer to the question I asked you. How can a bias of 13ppm create that graph? How could it show that that very regular curve that corresponds so well to the increase in carbon dioxide if no such correlation existed?
>>16407299How could concentrations of co2 in total bias the ratio of one isotope to another, retard. Biological and atmospheric co2 is a slightly radioactive isotope because its getting hit by the sun in the upper atmosphere. The co2 that has been increasing in the atmosphere is a totally unradioactive isotope, almost as if its been sitting and decaying to a more stable state for millions of years... like the fossil fuels in the ground.
>concentrations of co2 in total bias the ratio of one isotope to another, retardhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_fractionationYou are the retard. Isotope values are extremely sensitive to physical, chemical, and biological alteration of the main substance.
>>16407742Retard
>>16407802Cope harder, fag. You're grasping as straws because you've just had your asshole blown out.
>>16407867>>16407899You're just grasping at more straws. It's sad and pathetic. Talking to you is clearly a waste of time. Unless you can properly address this graph and this paper you will not get any more responses from me.>>16407195>>16407213
>>16407923The values are altered and not reliable dude, graph is wrong. People thought bubbles in ice are archive of Earth past atmosphere, but they are altered. What don't you understand
>>16407934Wrong.
>>16407036op here sorry based geology anon i really brought out the glowsters with this one, learned a lot from this writeup
>>16407923You are a retarded gorilla monkey nigger. Isotopes weren't even known about before 1900. Your graph is fake and gay. Data without context is worth less than piss faggot.
>>16408198If you want some extra information. About 150 years ago there was a guy heating up various objects and measuring the light they give off. He came to understand that everything absorbs energy then gives off light in a specific curve. This curve peaks at a different spot on a light spectrum according to its temperature IF it were a perfect "blackbody". Which doesn't exist. A perfect blackbody would emit light without reflecting it. Stars are pretty close to an ideal blackbody and we can measure a star's blackbody radiation curve. Our own star's blackbody radiation curve peaks in the green. It is technically a green star. However, our eyes are built to recognize the greenish hued light given off by our star as "white". That's how our eyes evolved. This is why there are no green stars. We will perceive any star which peaks in the green as a white star.Light interacts with every element (and compound) according to its electron cloud. When electrons absorb a light photon they are promoted to a higher energy level, then give off a photon and fall back down to their base state. How they do this is unique to every element and its how a mass spectrometer works. Light passing through the sun's atmosphere will be absorbed by hydrogen and helium on its way off the sun. This is how Helium was first discovered and is why it's called "helium" after the god Helios, the sun God. When it reaches our atmosphere high end blue and ultraviolet light from the sun gets absorbed by O3 in the atmosphere, ozone. This is the "ozone layer" which protects life on Earth. Without it, we die as high radiation photons would tear apart our bodies at the cellular level. This is also why the sky is blue. Due to "Raleigh scattering" from absorption and scattering of blue light.
>>16408238 Once it hits Earth it's either reflected back into space (about 30% of light is reflected back into space) or absorbed. The 70% which is absorbed heats up the Earth which acts as a blackbody and radiates light deep in the infrared (this is why a sidewalk is warm during the day). Some of this light radiating outward, deep in the infrared is absorbed by CO2, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide and other so called "greenhouse gases" although they don't act as a true greenhouse they are responsible for heating up the Earth.Finally. There is an equation which you can use to calculate all this out. It's simply chemistry and physics after all, called the Steffan-boltzmann energy balance equation. You can use it for any planet in our solar system. For Earth it shows that greenhouse gases are responsible for about 30 degrees of warming with CO2 specifically responsible for 3 degrees. The sun is responsible for the other 285 degrees. The sun doesn't change much over eons. Water vapor is not a driver of climate (see above) and a doubling of CO2 will raise the temperature by about 3 extra degrees. Which is what we're currently seeing.Cool?
>>16407997Explain how - I just put "gas fractionation ice cores" on google scholar and get tons of papers admitting that the bubbles inside ice cores are not representative of past atmosphere
>>16408355Oh my fucking hell, the paper you cite even explains how they use air with known ages to tune the profile to optimize the fit.This is just deliberate misinformation or total misunderstanding
>>16407232No, posters like this are not ignorant. They are just trying to feed their families. You see, the coal lobby pays them money. I hope this helps you understand.
>>16408742How is it misinformation. They know the correct answer beforehand, what they measure is nowhere near the correct answer, then they tune the measurement so it gets the correct answer. Now what happen when there is no correct answer to tune?
>>16407007Climate science is breached and compromised, so the data is not likely to be true.
>>16409620>Imagine being this retarded
How do people figure out the temperature of the earth hundreds of millions of years ago. At best this is only guessing.
>>16409972Climate proxies. So, here's some which are used.Oxygen-18Oxygen-18 has two extra neutrons but is an otherwise stable element of oxygen. Because O-16 is lighter it evaporates easier. This means that in the ocean there is a higher concentration of Oxygen-18 to Oxygen-16 than in the atmosphere, in rainwater, or in ice. When you raise the temperature you increase the amount of Oxygen-18 which evaporates off leaving behind a smaller concentration of Oxygen 18 in the ocean and a greater percentage of Oxygen-18 in the atmosphere, in rainwater, or in ice.Next, small marine organisms like Foraminifera use Oxygen to build their shells (calcium carbonate). This means that when these organisms die and leave their shells behind on the sea floor we can use them, analyze the ratio of Oxygen-16 to Oxygen-18 and determine the water temperature at the time the organisms lived. This also works for average atmosphere temperature for non marine organisms with carbonate shells, such as lake and river species.Next. We can use the shell patterns of marine organisms, like radiolarians, foraminifera and cocoliths to determine ocean temperatures at the time the organisms lived. Certain shell patterns occur at greater frequency the higher or lower the temperature of the water. Check the percentage of one shell pattern over another shell pattern and you determine the temperature of the water at the time the organisms lived.Specifically Globorotalia truncatulinoides and Neogloboquadrina pachyderma have shell coiling direction dependent on water temperature. While Radiolarian species are determined by water temperature, so seeing how many Radiolarians are in a given fossil compared to another species of Radiolarian in the same bed will give you an idea of the temperature while Cocolith size and shape are dependent on temperature.Cool?
>>16408238>>16408240Based sharer of knowledgeis this why plants are green? (the sun being green i mean)why only high end blue/ultraviolet light can be absorbed by O3, hwat about other colors/wavelengths? is it becuz they are more violitile? what happenz to the O3 then, it becomes isotope of O3? why then is sky other colors in morning and evening? that explains why sky is never green i guess. furthermore i have heard some skitzo theory that light, electrons, magnetism, and even gravity are controlled by the same sort of force, a kind of force bits that when interacting in different ways give the appearance of either being a proton, as the force of gravity, or as strong/weak forces, is that too skitzo? it also proposed that gravity is simply the emergent phenomenon of these force bits hitting an object but not hitting it from the other side due to another object being there, therefore the first object is "pushed" by the bits into the "shadow" of the other but to us it looks like the second is "pulling" the first. does that make sense? thanks geology anon.
>>16409998Why do control test masses vary over time?
>>16409863good job, you mad it, you didnt lie.but how can you believe these data?it was hundreds of million years ago, nobody was there.is it that you trust those estimations now?I mean, then you would also trust this graph here.>>16407097now you just have to realize what an earth with a 20°C higher average temperature looked like back then with the dinosaurs.lets make it short: not so cool lulbut Im sure youre making up some nonsense again, Im curious to see what it will be.let me guess, you will just adress completely new things or post from your graph collection.or will it be only insults this time?like you always do when you have your back to the wall.you little faget.
>>16412455something from the graph collection, I see.look what I just found:Wrong context. The graph, which is more than 20 years old, shows data reconstructed from a Greenland ice core, which on its own does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about global temperature trends. In addition, the graph ends in 1885 - before the effects of man-made climate change began to appear. Scientific studies show that temperatures in recent years have been higher than during almost the entire Holocene period. There is also evidence of global warming as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
>>16409874Explain then, what's with the "tuning"See pic - all ice core values are "tuned"
>>16413325>Imagine doubling down on being this retarded
>>16413325Just to add, let's establish some facts1. Gas compositions in ice cores are altered by natural process, as such, they are not direct archive of Earth's past atmosphere2. So-called scientists use ""models"" to tune their result and achieve the correct answer.I tried reading the papers and I cannot understand what they are doing in their ""models"". I have background in science and engineering, what they do is they obfuscate their malpractice behind jargon, just like the quantum healing people. People are not concerned with this? That the whole society changing threat hinges on ""models"" so-called scientist use to tune their wrong measurements to a correct result????
>>16413336>have background in science and engineeringI really doubt that. Why don't you start with some climate science textbooks and go from there?
>>16413349None of the textbook I searched through Google Books goes into tuning the results from ice core measurements. You have to go to the primary papers on Google scholar, it is out in the open
>>16413351You need to start with textbooks because you don't understand anything. When you learn more about the climate and how it works then you can start reading papers about how the models have been refined over the years. If you did have a background in science then you'd know that the papers you can't understand are built from previous work.
>>16413391You don't know how it works either, you are same as me, the only difference is you are taking what (((they))) said as blind faith. From a quick primary literature skim, these two are still factual1. Gas compositions in ice cores are altered by natural process, as such, they are not direct archive of Earth's past atmosphere2. So-called scientists use ""models"" to tune their result and achieve the correct answer.Unless you understand how they tune their measurements to achieve the correct answer, and whether their tuning is valid when extrapolated to million years worth of ice core record, you are in the same boat as me
>>16413404Explain some quantum mechanics models to me. Explain everything about every decision they make. Can't do it? That's because you're ignorant. You could explain it to me if you studied quantum mechanics and then read a bunch of papers explaining these models, but you haven't, so you can't. Repeat for every field of science you've never studied. Why would you expect climate science to be any different?
>>16413408>Explain some quantum mechanics modelsOne can easily find the derivation of Schrodinger equation online, in textbooks, on wikipedia, and on youtube tutorials. I used to understand how they are derived when I took Physical Chemistry ~10 years ago. Got an A- in that class. Quantum mechanics is out in the open, taught to thousands of people every year, and has stood the test of time for >50 years from scrutiny by world's smartest geniuses. The papers about how so-called scientist massaged their data, tune their measurements from ice cores have only been around for 10-20 years, and only legible/taught by people who had PhD with other people who developed the models, it is all incestuous, niche field of science with no transparency
>>16413414>One can easily findSo you can't do it. Why would you expect to be able to understand any models from a field you've never studied? Start with a textbook.
>>16413416You are so fucking dumb. My point is that quantum mechanics models are out being taught in textbooks, in youtube videos, khan academy tutorials. It has stood the test of time and taught to thousands of people every year. It is easily accessible.Meanwhile the skeleton in closet of ice core science is only discussed in niche journals behind paywalls and taught/passed down amongst people with correct PhD lineages who are hiring each other and citing each other
>>16413423That's not true at all. You're just worried that the models make perfect sense and that you won't be able to deny them when you lose your ignorance.
>>16407195cult hysterics. fanatics should be culled.https://odysee.com/@Realfake_Newsource:9/RFNS-8.21-003-011:2
>>16413424I don't remember now how to derive Schrodinger equation, but I know where to start. The beginning of quantum mechanics, all the way to Schrodinger equation was meticulously detailed and there are plenty of resources available. I could probably understand/remember the whole thing in 1 month if I have the time. Analogously, t some point, you forgot how to do Taylor Expansion to explain derivative, but you still remember that derivative rule and chain rule. Meanwhile, not only ice core correction, a lot of climate science, their models, how they massage their data (see NOAA "Adjusted" temperature - pic related) are completely non-transparent. You have to join the cult, the price of entry being getting PhD in climate science, endure the brainwashing, to understand how the whole thing works. This is why climate science has been called out by outside scientists, mostly physicists, see Ivar Giaever and John Clauser - both of whom have won Nobel Prize in Physics found themselves to be climate skeptic
>>16413441So in other words you can't do it. You're just worried that the models make perfect sense and that you won't be able to deny them when you lose your ignorance. Why else would you refuse to learn?
>>16413443I don't want to upend my whole life to get a PhD in paleoclimate and glaciology, yes. They need to make their stuff more accessible and open to scrutiny.
>>16413448You have two choices: learn enough to understand the models, or trust the experts who made the models. Pick one and stick with it.
>>16413451>trust the experts who made the modelsThere you go.
>>16413454Those are your options. It sounds to me like you need to get a textbook.
>>16413451>you can't criticize the church until you are a clergy member>you can't criticize jews until you eat your first foreskin>you can't criticize witchcraft until you sacrifice at least fifty catslmfao. You are the retard who can't make a cogent argument.
>>16407036>Basically it drives the temperature higher after CO2 has raised it.Which doesn't affect climate, lel
>>16407203>science is settledLol, just let them write down how much additional co2 contributes to an increase of X°F.
>>16407830We accept your concession
>>16413630Go pull up a Terrance Tao paper and explain it to me. Your ignorance is not as good as other people's knowledge.
>>16414055It is the job of scientist to communicate their results to the public, and be transparent about treatment and correction of their data. They are using our public funds (through NSF, IPCC, and other governmental organization) to fund their research and pay for salaries
>>16414445Incorrect.>>16414461>>16414465Retard.
is this a falseflagging campaign or does that retard really think that spamming "faggot" will achieve anything
>>16414644botpost
>>16407262are you accounting for the effect of CO2 concentration having a logarithmic increase in temperature?
>>16414970t. moron
>>16414861it doesn't, atmospheric CO2 has no measurable impact on planetary temperature anywhere in the known universe. there are a good number of planets with CO2 heavy atmospheres and none of them have temperatures any different than whats predicted by the ideal gas law and their solar flux
>>16415072Wrong.
>>16415148You have to go back >>>/pol/
>>16410063>is this why plants are green?I don't know. I have very little knowledge of biology outside of the basics of paleontology I learned for my degree. I hear it's not the case but honestly this is outside my field. You are just as equipped as I am to answer that question.>>16410097The creation and destruction of isotopes is not constant. Mostly isotopes in the atmosphere are changed by interactions with high end solar radiation and cosmic rays from the sun. There *IS* technically some interaction with cosmic rays but a glowing ball of radioactive fire 93 million miles away is going to cause changes a million times more often than stars a million light years away no matter how many there are.This means that we need to look at changes in isotopes over time with known dates in order to calibrate our data. The two best ways to calibrate our isotope ratios is tree ring data and lake sediment data. Because we know lake sediment and tree rings are built in specific yearly patterns we can build a database of years going back from, today, to tens of thousands of years with tree ring data and hundreds of thousands and into the millions of years with lake sediment data.So if we take, say, 30,000 years ago with known tree rings and we sample the amount of C-14 and O-18 in the tree ring we know therefore the exact amount of those isotopes at 30,000 years ago. If we then find that exact amount of C-14 and O-18 in a sample of volcanic ash, we know exactly the date it was laid down.
>>16415568This is how carbon dating works and also how we calibrate our O-18 data. Since your question is specific about O-18 and not carbon dating you should understand that the process is relatively the same. We know the temperature from proxy data, say Foraminifera, then calibrate what the O-18 ratio is at that temperature. When we then find O-18 deep in the past we estimate the temperature from it. It's not exact because as I explained, the rate of creation and destruction of O-18 in the upper atmosphere is not constant so there are error bars but those are taken into consideration whenever a paper is published.This is why multiple tests are so important and why we're always looking for new ways to determine paleo climate.>>16413667I don't understand the complaint. Water vapor is not a driver of climate, it's only in the atmosphere for a week. CO2 IS a driver of climate because it stays in the atmosphere for decades and potentially centuries.You can look up "Residence Time" for CO2 or water vapor or whatever other atmospheric gas you want. You should study reservoirs and residence time and cycles for more understanding. Otherwise I honestly don't understand the point of your post.
>>16415568The SI masses are varying over time. There is currently no reason to believe this doesn't effect every composition. If isotopes are experiencing variable forcing, then ratios are wrong as well. The idea would be chemical measurements are linear approximations and they grow grossly in error over time.
>>16415587Duh? I don't understand, are you just figuring out how science works? This is, as I explained, literally why there are error bars. We know approximations and we're not going to get wild variations even over long time periods and we also can check our numbers with other sources of paleo-climate. O-18 is simply one tool in the box.
>>16415696Incorrect. The error bars are not taking into account variations in mass. There is no study on the subject aside from raw data measurements coming off of the masses. They literally have no idea what is causing it. It is really something in the neighborhood of anything older than 100 million years is completely fabricated.
>>16415755I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage then friend, you are referencing something I've not heard of. I would appreciate being enlightened.
>>16415986He will never substantiate his claims with evidence.
>>16419296This, climate science is so immature its still is in it's pre-Galilean era & unwilling to admit that any significant universe outside Earth exists
>>16413630>>16413454>I don't understand science, it must be witchcraft!>The corrupt establishment won't recognize my genius on brain surgeries and let me operate, even though I half read and barely understood some paper.I have not seen anyone ITT that is whining about science make an actual criticism of it, at least one of real value.
>>16422198Start here.https://open.oregonstate.education/climatechange/
>>16407007Mesozoic temperatures have been getting fiddled with for a long time now and nobody has been quite certain of them. There are some general trends of understanding in climate from that time, such as a slight dip in temperature during the Maastrichtian, followed by a slight rise in the earliest Paleocene, but much of the temperatures after that are pretty correct. The PETM has been placed below Cretaceous temperatures recently though, but who knows if that's actually correct.
>>16407097This chart isn't even remotely correct for even the past few centuries.
>>16407195Climate change isn't driven by CO2 basically AT ALL. Its effect is far too low.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6tWEjkEiZU
>>16423678Nonsense.>links a youtube video What are you doing with your life?
>>16413423Find a handful of scientists that work on ice core samples, typically university professors, and email them nicely to ask how they tune their models. I’ll venture to say most won’t respond without frequent nudges as professors tend to be very busy, but as long as you ask nicely and curiously, (scientists often don’t suffer fools), you can hear from the source what they’re doing. Since you seem to be quite caught up on this “tuning” term, can you imagine situations where upon measuring something, some normalizing equations are applied to make statistics easier to perform or consistent? For example if you wanted to measure the direction house flies go relative to a bowl of honey, instead of having a super wavy graph with peaks and valleys or a noisy scatter plot, one can utilize the data to paint a clearer picture.
"Greenhouse gas/effect" is a misleading pseudoscientific term to bolster the claim co2 and other gases are responsible for heat retention on the earth instead of density.
>>16408240How does it show greenhouse gases warming the earth?
>>16407012Glowing.
>>16429884Nonsense.
>>16415578>water vapor is only in the atmosphere for a weekThe second time you've said this.I wasn't aware that it has only rained once and never again.Gotta get my head checked. Those clouds must be imaginary.
>>16430040Onsense.
>>16413427>calling other people hysterical while declaring that anyone who disagrees with him should be killed
>>16413468How much does the texttmbook cost?>8 years and 100k>Wow I'm a sientest!Nice false dichotomy" those who pay for education are better off with none." Chad Kroger nirvana
>>16430521The internet police have been alerted please shelter in place/ delete winsys32 for your own safety. Do not attempt to apprehend the suspect he is behind 7 proxies. I repeat 7 proxies.
>>16429952What didn't you see his long list of credentials? He sounds legit for sure. Let's talk about something else like sports you like sports fellow 4chan science enthusiast?
>>16430624Y
>>16407036>4. CO2. No, not water vapor, CO2. Water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere for more than a week. It cannot drive climate. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades to centuries. It can drive climate. While water vapor is a greater greenhouse gas it is a consequence of changes in heat, not a driver of it. Basically it drives the temperature higher after CO2 has raised it.This is dumb water vapour doesn't behave in a uniform way.Thin high clouds have different effects to low thick clouds. And if the total average cloud cover on the earth can be modified, then even though individual molecules of water don't last very long, the average concentration and form of it in the atmosphere can lead climate variability.
We just need to harness co2 blast it with ir in some contraption and spin a rotor. It could be like nuclear power!
>>16430621Here's a free one. You really have no excuse for staying ignorant.https://open.oregonstate.education/climatechange/
>>16407036Imagine not knowing anything about the carbon sinks
>>16430772Chapter 5 >>16430667
>>16413451There are other experts who understand the models and don't trust them. I trust those experts.
>>16430950Who?
>>16430968Willis Eschenbach
>>16431251He has a B.A. in psychology. He's not a climate scientist and he's regularly paid by the Heartland Institute to make anti-science statements. If that's where you're getting your information then you have fallen for propaganda.
>>16407007It's gonna be really, really bad.
>>16431516>nooo you have to believe our anti-science and not their anti-sciencewhen either cult makes an accurate prediction those'll be the ones i listen to, though I do lean toward those who aren't saying we need to give all our tax money to china so the weather doesn't kill us
>>16431639>I believe a paid shill with no relevant expertise because he tells me what I want to hearNGMI
>>16431639Just get out of here.
>>16431251Why should I care about his opinion?
>>16432321That's your mistake. You think that your ignorance is as good as the wisdom of others and you conflate activists with scientists.Tell me. What does a psychologist who doesn't even have enough credentials to practice psychology know about climate science?
>>16430177Completely misunderstanding residence time is your problem not mine. I even told you to study reservoirs and residence time and cycles.https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121312983>Water molecules have a short residence time in the atmosphere, on average about nine daysPlease learn about the hydrologic cycle before posting again. I beg you.
>>16429915The Steffan-Boltzmann energy balance equation will only tell you what the temperature of a body is in an ideal state without an atmosphere. So you calculate the temperature without an atmosphere, check the actual data, and subtract out the calculated temperature to find out how much the atmosphere contributes. This works for all planetary bodies in the solar system. One of the great achievements of our day is sending probes out into the solar system and gathering data that proves the Steffan-Boltzmann equation is accurate. You can actually use solar flux, the square cube law, the reflectivity of each celestial body and the distance each body is from the sun to calculate out the temperature of every rocky planetary body in the solar system. I did that in college for the hell of it. It works for Mercury, the Moon, Ceres, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, all the way out to Pluto. When you calculate out Venus, Earth and Mars you get temperatures that are too low because the atmospheres of each increase their temperature above what the Steffan-Boltzmann equation predicts. Science, baby!In the case of Earth what is happening is that water vapor, CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and so on, absorb the long wave infrared radiation given off by the Earth and heat up the atmosphere. They also emit some of that radiation back down toward Earth when the electron falls back to its base state which is reabsorbed by the Earth and reemitted again, repeating the process. This happens to the other planets with atmospheres, just with different gases.
>>16432366>Please learn about the hydrologic cycle before posting again. I beg you.Good luck, anon.
>>16407036>Water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere for more than a week.So since last week atmosphere is drained off? >Any questions?Not even one.
>>16407036>CO2. No, not water vapor,CO2 is an isolator. It filters out more incoming wavelengths than blocking outgoing (both in extreme small spectral bands btw.). In its ppm concentration it has near 0 heat transportation capabilities. Water and water vapor is the opposite. That's the reason why everyone is using water for that purpose and not CO2.That has nothing to do with the fact that humans pollute the atmosphere beyond retardation and that e.g UShithole fuckers should be all shot by wasting 25% of resources for driving to Walmart and buy useless stuff out of insanity.
>>16433726The more water vapor in the atmosphere the hotter it gets. The hotter it gets the more water vapor the atmosphere holds. The more water vapor the atmosphere holds the hotter it gets. The hotter it gets the more water vapor the atmosphere holds.Please explain then sir, if water vapor is the driver of climate and not CO2 as you suggest in your post, why the oceans haven't boiled away billions of years ago leaving Earth dead and dry.
>>16433823https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_yearly_temperatureLots of the warmest countries (average annual temps, not daily maximums), are tropical island/rain forest countries.
>>16433823Wow, I thought you guys didn't know the basics but you don't even understand principles.
>>16433823Okay, I'm not certain where my explanation failed. So let's figure this out together. Your example is a good question. Why does it get hotter in deserts with less water?The answer is two fold. 1. There's not less water in the atmosphere. There is actually less water in the Antarctic atmosphere than there is in a place like Mexico or the Sahara desert. Significantly less. Looking it up there's about 20 grams of water vapor per cubic meter over the Sahara while the Antarctic has about 5 grams per square meter. You feel less humidity when it's warmer out. Colder temperatures fool your body into thinking there's more water vapor in the air but this isn't true, so it makes sense why you would be confused. It's only natural.2. When the sun goes down deserts get cold extremely fast. This is because there's less water vapor in the atmosphere to trap heat than there would be in a temperate or tropical environment. So while it seems that places with lower humidity have the highest temperatures this is only because of the amount of sunlight those areas get. Once the sun goes down those places freeze.A good indicator of this is the rolling stones of Death Valley. Death Valley gets the highest daytime temperatures in the United States but at night it gets so cold that it freezes allowing wind to push the stones across the playa.
And you did nothing, you even obstruct the very reason of being here. Not to mention you're disgusting, and your methods are weak. You'll definitely pay for this.
>>16434757This graph is bullshit. The only way this can even be remotely true is if someone confused gross carbon inflow with net contributions.The GHG effect pie chart is also pure fiction.
>>1640700750/50
>>16439204Kek
>>16407007>my toyota caused exactly as much global warming as the time a 50 mile wide asteroid smashed into the planet, set the entire thing on fire, and killed literally everything
>>16439944Wow I wonder if there was an actual intellectually honesy attempt to critique the article, and not just righteous indignation from someone that grows enough food in a year in their garden to feed one person for one day, at best
more evidence that people who think global warming is real do so on the basis of their inability to do math
>>16407017we live in a post fact world. facts are not wanted in a globo homo world.Nothing can stop man made climate change.even facts.
>>16407097>here have my cherry picked data that confirms what i believe
>>16407195>Climate change is a direct result of human emissions from fossil fuels.what i called the great human saving of the plants
>>16442008>AI should be colorblindUmmmm, colorblindness is white supremacy chud.
Pictured: Two equally-severe threats to the climate, t. cultists.
During the Cambrian period, which occurred approximately 541 to 485 million years ago, the climate was generally warmer than today. Estimates suggest that atmospheric temperatures were around 21 degrees Celsius (70 degrees Fahrenheit), significantly warmer than the current global average. Ocean temperatures were similarly elevated, with tropical sea surface temperatures estimated to be around 30 to 40 degrees Celsius (86 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit). This warm climate supported the rapid diversification of life known as the Cambrian explosion. Moreover, at certain points of Earth's history there was no ice on the planet's surface. One of the most notable times was during the Late Cretaceous Period, about 100 million years ago, when dinosaurs roamed a very warm planet. Another significant ice-free period occurred during the Eocene Epoch, roughly between 56 and 34 million years ago, when even high-latitude regions like the Arctic and Antarctic experienced very mild, temperate conditions without any ice caps. These periods were characterized by high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and significantly warmer global temperatures than today.
>>16442065>log falling on house vs termites
>>16442074
>>16442109>burning the entire exposed surface of the planet is "a log"
Earth spawned humans to nudge it out of the current ice age by burning tons of carbon.
>>16442163The chicxulub asteroid isn't even close to the worst extinction event. Cute though that you're suddenly trying to be all serious, after making such an un-serious point
>>16442185Hear me out.Earth is an extraterrestrial experiment in terraforming a planet.Theia was deliberately crashed into the Earth from outside the solar system to provide water.They didn't like where it was going.Extraterrestrials gave humans advanced technology to spew CO2 everywhere to reengineer to atmosphere.
>>16441305>>16441944Hi, geologist here. I was at an anime con last week so I was unavailable to respond to your posts here. You really ought not get your information from denialist blogs. Reading through his website you can immediately tell what he's doing wrong on pages such as this one:https://www.abeqas.com/2-3-of-the-planet-are-not-warming/This would never get past peer review, which is why he's forced to create his own blog site and post his bullshit there.>Temperature trend for the full atmospheric thickness (geostrophic), from the surface through to the Top of Atmosphere (TOA)No credible scientist would ever do something so stupid. This is because the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. Here's a simple news story explaining this.https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/stratospheric-cooling-vertical-fingerprintingThis is because the troposphere is where carbon gases such as CO2 and methane are trapping heat, which means outgoing radiation is being blocked and therefore cooling the stratosphere. By making an undergraduate mistake and taking bulk atmosphere data he's not only showing how little he understands about climate change he's also obfuscating the rise in temperature by adding stratospheric cooling to his models.His website gets an F
>>16407013>C on left y>F on right yThis is one of the most insane baits I've ever seen.
>>16442231>taking denialists seriously>responding to denialists>everShiggy diggy
>>16407007it's all averages based on guesswork until recently
>>16442074There was no land life during the Cambrian.There is also the elephant in the room that the deniers are blissfully unaware of - the Carboniferous. This period is from 360-300 millions of years ago. During that time the Earth had a very low global temperature an flow level of carbon dioxide. But here's the funny part - the name. It means "coal-bearing", from the Latin carbō ("coal") and ferō ("bear, carry"), and refers to the many coal beds formed globally during that time. Where did the coal come from - peat from the massive rain forests and swamps that covered the Earth at that time.
>>16442287I don't really post for his sake I post for yours. The problem is that denialist anon is posting what looks like it could be convincing information. His original post about Global Temperature and Sunspot Numbers is accurate and can be confirmed. So it can trick people who know little about how the atmosphere works into believing the scientific narrative is false and scientists can't be trusted.I'm here to make sure he gets no new recruits. When I checked his source:https://www.abeqas.com/a-correlation-between-sunspot-numbers-and-earths-temperature-record/I suspected something was wrong when I read:>This is only a blog and my learning curve remains steep.That this yokel is not a scientist and may not know what he's talking about. I followed a link and it was confirmed that he was taking bulk atmospheric data rather than only looking at the troposphere where man made climate change is taking place. This would give him a false understanding of the data.In fact now that I read further on the top page it's once again obvious what he's done:>For what it may be worth, the 60 layer ECMWF ERA-Interim series weights the parametric layer divisions. Because the bulk of the atmospheric mass is found within the first 10 to 15 km of altitude, the bulk of layers (about 30 of the 60 total) are found there as well.Yeah. You can't do that. Of course it will look like only the sun is responsible for warming if you mash the entire atmosphere together, it's the primary source of heat for the Earth (for reference the core of the Earth provides 10,000 times less heat at the surface of the Earth than the Sun because of how good an insulator our crust is). So he's adding in the troposphere which is warming with the stratosphere which is cooling and showing no warming. He's basically cooked the books and I won't let him get away with it.If anything were this simple to prove man made climate change is false, we'd know it already. Just FYI.
>>16442733Based
>>16442074The climate was also very arid for a large part of the Earth during the early Cretaceous, so I don't know where you are getting the lush rainforest planet vibes from.
>>16443319Physicist doesn't understand climate but tries to give his opinion on a subject he hasn't studied simply because he has a Nobel prize. News at 11
>>16443319John Clauser lied that clouds only reflect sunlight when in reality depending on cloud type, height and time of day they either reflect or trap heat. His Nobel prize is for quantum entanglement, so not relevant. And a weird appeal to authority from those that claim all science is corrupt.
>>16443629https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_physics
>>16445258Notice how that's not quantum physics
>>16445258Which part refutes anything I said?
>>16446010He doesn't know how science works so he figures that any kind of physicist is every kind of physicist.
>>16443435Troon avatarposter with a degree in titty skittles doesn't understand climate but relentlessly shills online telling people that they don't understand climate anyway.
>>16446622I don't think that's accurate.
>>16447493Both Greenland and Antarctica lost ice mass over the last 20 years
>>16447681https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31166/
>>16443435he isnt a physicist, anon, hes a faggot.
>claim to know how global warming works>can't even explain the faint young sun paradox
>>16447493This is not even remotely true.https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-speeding-up-in-antarctica-225951
Climate change is real (and that's a good thing)
>>16449852That's sea ice, not land ice.
>>16449852
>>16447940>The highest temperature ever recorded on Antarctica was 19.8 °C (67.6 °F) recorded at Signy Research Station, Signy Island on 30 January 1982climate doomers btfo again
>>16449866A barren hellscape to inhabit and assert human dominance, where the strong survive and the weak perish. The weak have infiltrated our academic institutions and media; they know that if climate change reaches its conclusion, they will die and suffer, while the strong will live on. We must continue fossil fuel emissions to purge this world of the weak.
>>16450480If levels are so low how the sea level didn't rise?
>>16450538>>16451671>>16452993>Muh cherry picked data points are more important than averages or the rest of the data!ISHYGDDT
Scott Adams says that the climate scientists are all lying about the reliability of their climate models, how accurate is his assessment?
chlimate deniers are just russian bots and/or MAGAtards?>surprised and astonished inhalation, widened eyeswho would have thought.
>>16455282I don't care anymore about evidence of your wrongdoings. You and all your family must be butchered like the pigs you are.
>>16442256Why is that a problem? Seems kind of smart actually considering usually one side is just left blank.
>>16407007My theoretical physics take on the mathematical content of climate models is that they are very toy-like and primitive, modeling the earth in simplistic ways, using nonlinear differential equations for thermal fluids which will obviously produce unstable results and can be cooked into anything.It's hard to give a specific critique because they aren't even serious scientists. They are paid to support a pre-determined conclusion. They aren't even trying to produce correct models, they don't use the scientific approach of making prediction and then discarding models that fail. These models would be fine for some kind of undergraduate project, doing applied math just for fun, but pretending that they are reliable enough for influencing real-world political decisions is absurd. The models are entirely ad hoc and include each effect they imagine to be important, ignoring countless other effects. Instead of the burden of proof being on us to debunk the models, the burden of proof should be on them to prove the validity of the models by making correct predictions. If you can't do that then your models aren't science.
>>16455776Hi, geologist anon here again. You should study climate science before discounting it. First off, we do not need models to prove man made climate change, we can take measurements of the Earth directly and see what’s happening; models merely help explain what we see. For example:Glaciologists can measure how ice is melting around the world. Glaciers are not created by directly freezing water. Glaciers are formed when snow builds up in winter and can’t melt in summer. More snow in winter packs on top of the old snow, it can’t melt all again, more snow packs up, it can’t melt, and so on until it gets crushed by all the weight of the snow on top into glacier ice. Glaciers are a consequence of summer temperatures being lower, not so much a consequence of winter temperatures. It’s always cold in the winter and in many parts of the world it snows each year. It’s when it can’t melt in summer that glaciers form.So glaciers take tens of thousands of years to form, they aren’t going to melt and reform each year. So when we see glaciers retreating it’s a big red flag that something’s wrong. They only retreat when the temperature is going up and we’re witnessing glaciers melting around the world all at once everywhere. For example, Of the approximately 3000 glaciers in Alaska 300 have melted away completely. They’re gone. 5 or 6 are growing due to changes in weather patterns and the rest, all 2,700 of them are shrinking.We can also tell how large glaciers have been in the past by how tall up the mountain the edge of the glacier scraped the rock so we know how many and how large they were deep into the past and we can use dating techniques on the rock to see how long the glaciers existed at the site. At no time have we ever seen glaciers melt this quickly. Something very bad is happening and nothing like it has happened in the geological record for the last 50 million years. What is your explanation Mr Theoretical Physicist?
>>16452024Sea levels are rising, that are you talking about?
>>16407007>>16407097Hasn't the ice been receding for 20k years at least?
>>16455885>Hi, geologist anon here again>mfw the WEF infotrannies think credentialism works here
>>16455909Sea levels aren't rising
>>16455973>Posts two graphs showing sea levels are rising>Sea levels aren't rising
>>16455929Meds
https://oeco.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Ripple-et-al.-2024.pdfmonth old paper.involved scientists from all over the planet.millions of analyzed data sets.measurements, not opinions, nor feelings.just measurements.not even extrapolation curves.just measurements.measurements with countless independent confirmations, endless comparisons, hundreds of cross-checks from different universities, chairs, professors, working groups, institutes, engineers, expert schools.from all over the planet.sharply proofread by one of the most renowned and hardest-to-reach expert journals for publication and then published.
>>16456045
>>16456049How do you justify such a cherry picked metric?
>>16407036>Any questions?How did you get stupid enough to say "Water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere for more than a week. It cannot drive climate" but still be smart enough to feed yourself?
>>16456045Measurements, that are modified without any apology by government agencies, and used to push agendas that supposed invalidate political opposition. Clown show 101.
>>16409407Why do you imagine that "big oil" or "big coal" are paying random idiots to say dumb shit? Is it projection? How much do you get paid to shill climate hysteria?
>>16413451>You have two choices: learn enough to understand the modelsI know enough to understand them, they simply will not show them. That is not an understanding problem, it is a keeping secrets problem.
>>16432366Why are you pretending residence time matters? It does not, at all. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, this is not at all controversial.
>>16442698>There is also the elephant in the room that the deniers are blissfully unaware of - the CarboniferousHow do you think that is some kind of own? "AKSHULY WE ARE JUST PUTTING BACK THE CARBON THAT WAS SEQUESTERED SO THAT MEANS THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!1111"?
>>16455205Way off. There are a couple hundred, not millions.
>>16455885>So when we see glaciers retreating it’s a big red flag that something’s wrongNo it isn't. You might not like it, but there is nothing wrong. Glaciers have retreated many times in the past.
>>16456212It is a conspiracy theory theorist. He believes that everything that isn't in the status quo can only be illegitimately defamed by schizophrenics.
>>16456194dont be so hasty with your make-up, after all you still want to get fucked.
>>16456194What modifications? Be specific.
>>16456213Dunning-kruger as fuck
>>16456218Local atmospheric water concentration is driven by local temperature, you simpleton.
>>16456229Retard take.
>>16456212>>16456240Look up the heritage foundation, the heartland foundation, the cooler heads coalition, ect. It's a well known fact that fossil fuel companies are paying these organizations to disseminate false information.
>>16456476Yeah, they pay guys like Patrick Moore you dumb shit, not random faceless idiots.>>16456462>Local atmospheric water concentration iscompletely fucking irrelevant, knob gobbler.
>>16456458>MUH FAKE PREDDIT SOIENCE!1111
>>16456497>He doesn't know about astroturfing >He doesn't understand what determines local water vapor concentrationsNGMI
>>16456498Projection.
>>16456500It is literally fake, retard. There is no Dunning-Kruger effect.
>>16456501Lol what a retard.
>>16456171>>16456218I have said this already in this thread, water vapor only stays in the atmosphere about a week. This is not the least bit controversial and is something you should learn in meteorology 101. Please learn about residence time. Here's another simple link I found to get you started:https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/Sigh, I see I need to explain residence time because some people don't understand it. Residence time is the average of how long molecules stay in a reservoir. A reservoir is where molecules are stored. So, the ocean is a reservoir, snow is a reservoir, glaciers are a reservoir, and water vapor in the atmosphere is a reservoir. As water moves through the hydrologic cycle it stays in a reservoir for a period of time before it leaves that reservoir either because it freezes and drops out, evaporates off, transpires from a plant, or is drunk by a dog. Whatever method it moves from one reservoir to another the average time it spends in each reservoir is its residence time. A molecule's average residence time in the atmosphere is 9 or 10 days before it rains or snows out. That's it. 10 days. Therefore each molecule has about 10 days to pass on its heat to its surroundings before it exits the reservoir. That is not enough time for water vapor to drive the climate. This is why we say water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing.IF water vapor were a forcing that would make no sense since the hotter it gets the more water vapor the atmosphere holds, the more water vapor it holds the hotter it gets, the hotter it gets the more water vapor it holds and so on until the Earth heats up to a trillion degrees. It is pure nonsense.
>>16456499>if something is irrelevant then you don't understand it>>>/reddit/
>>16456517>every climate scientist on earth is wrong because I have the IQ of a turnipNeat. There is nothing controversial about water vapour residence time. It does not need explained. Residence time does not matter. Our planet is habitable precisely because water vapour is such a potent greenhouse gas.
>>16456520Retard.>>>/trash/
>>16456521Yes, that statement is also not controversial. It is however misleading because again, water vapor is not a driver of climate.We in agreement? I'm uncertain because I don't understand why you're bringing that up.
>>16456532>water vapor is not a driver of climate.Yes, it absolutely is. It is not a driver of climate CHANGE. If you have no fucking clue what you are talking about, then why keep posting idiocy?>I'm uncertain because I don't understand why you're bringing that up.Because you keep bringing up a completely irrelevant fact and acting as if it is relevant. Is this the new climate denial strategy? Pretend to be a climate hysteric and post absolutely retarded nonsense?
>>16456539Retard.
>>16456539Oh my god, I just can't even.I don't even understand where my explanation has gone wrong. You are saying things which provably don't make any sense and I simply can't explain it to you.
>>16456557>if I repeat it again then every climate scientist on earth will become wrong!111
>>16456590Meds
