geologist here. Looks decent.

File: 357656376735.png (350 KB, 1130x328)

350 KB PNG

Higher res version.

What is your interpretation of the data if any? Based on your geological background.

>>16407013
Thanks. I am aware of the data already though, it's pretty standard.

>>16407012
I am Retard and didn't quote
>>16407017

>>16407017
Are 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?

File: last 20k years.png (460 KB, 1369x851)

460 KB PNG

>>16407007
here, 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.

>>16407097
Medium 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

File: 1667539018898642.jpg (60 KB, 750x462)

60 KB JPG

>>16407187
>>16407181
Climate 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 graphs
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50668
Cope harder.

>>16407203
This is now willful ignorance.

>>16407195
I 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.

>>16407235
You are wrong.

>>16407246
You 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.

>>16407262
In 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.

>>16407273
If 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?

>>16407266
If 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).

>>16407289
Because 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

>>16407293
If CO2 concentration is biased by process they dont fully understand, how is the isotope not biased?

>>16407299
1. 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?

>>16407299
How 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, retard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_fractionation
You are the retard. Isotope values are extremely sensitive to physical, chemical, and biological alteration of the main substance.

>>16407742
Retard

>>16407802
Cope harder, fag. You're grasping as straws because you've just had your asshole blown out.

>>16407867
>>16407899
You'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

>>16407923
The 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

>>16407934
Wrong.

>>16407036
op here sorry based geology anon i really brought out the glowsters with this one, learned a lot from this writeup

>>16407923
You 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.

>>16408198
If 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?

>>16407997
Explain 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

>>16408355
Oh 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

>>16407232
No, 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.

>>16408742
How 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?

>>16407007
Climate 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.

>>16409972
Climate proxies. So, here's some which are used.

Oxygen-18
Oxygen-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
>>16408240
Based sharer of knowledge
is 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.

>>16409998
Why do control test masses vary over time?

File: loverlord.jpg (41 KB, 500x600)

41 KB JPG

>>16409863
good 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.
>>16407097
now 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 lul
but 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.

File: klimawandel-grafik-temper(...).png (92 KB, 706x386)

92 KB PNG

>>16412455
something 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.

File: Untitled.png (105 KB, 896x752)

105 KB PNG

>>16409874
Explain then, what's with the "tuning"

See pic - all ice core values are "tuned"

>>16413325
>Imagine doubling down on being this retarded

>>16413325
Just to add, let's establish some facts

1. Gas compositions in ice cores are altered by natural process, as such, they are not direct archive of Earth's past atmosphere

2. 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 engineering
I really doubt that. Why don't you start with some climate science textbooks and go from there?

>>16413349
None 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

>>16413351
You 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.

>>16413391
You 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 factual

1. Gas compositions in ice cores are altered by natural process, as such, they are not direct archive of Earth's past atmosphere

2. 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

>>16413404
Explain 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?

File: Untitled.png (948 KB, 1318x825)

948 KB PNG

>>16413408
>Explain some quantum mechanics models
One 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 find
So 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.

>>16413416
You 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

>>16413423
That'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.

File: Untitled.png (142 KB, 611x445)

142 KB PNG

>>16413424
I 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

>>16413441
So 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?

>>16413443
I 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.

>>16413448
You have two choices: learn enough to understand the models, or trust the experts who made the models. Pick one and stick with it.

File: raf,750x1000,075,t,8DB3D2(...).jpg (64 KB, 750x1000)

64 KB JPG

>>16413451
>trust the experts who made the models
There you go.

>>16413454
Those 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 cats
lmfao. 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 settled
Lol, just let them write down how much additional co2 contributes to an increase of X°F.

>>16407830
We accept your concession

>>16413630
Go pull up a Terrance Tao paper and explain it to me. Your ignorance is not as good as other people's knowledge.

>>16414055
It 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

>>16414445
Incorrect.

>>16414461
>>16414465
Retard.

is this a falseflagging campaign or does that retard really think that spamming "faggot" will achieve anything

>>16414644
botpost

>>16407262
are you accounting for the effect of CO2 concentration having a logarithmic increase in temperature?

>>16414970
t. moron

>>16414861
it 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

>>16415072
Wrong.

>>16415148
You 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.
>>16410097
The 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.

>>16415568
This 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.

>>16413667
I 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.

>>16415568
The 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.

>>16415587
Duh? 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.

>>16415696
Incorrect. 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.

>>16415755
I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage then friend, you are referencing something I've not heard of. I would appreciate being enlightened.

>>16415986
He will never substantiate his claims with evidence.

>>16419296
This, 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.

>>16422198
Start here.
https://open.oregonstate.education/climatechange/

>>16407007
Mesozoic 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.

>>16407097
This chart isn't even remotely correct for even the past few centuries.

>>16407195
Climate change isn't driven by CO2 basically AT ALL. Its effect is far too low.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6tWEjkEiZU

>>16423678
Nonsense.

>links a youtube video
What are you doing with your life?

>>16413423
Find 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.

>>16408240
How does it show greenhouse gases warming the earth?

>>16407012
Glowing.

>>16429884
Nonsense.

>>16415578
>water vapor is only in the atmosphere for a week
The 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.

>>16430040
Onsense.

>>16413427
>calling other people hysterical while declaring that anyone who disagrees with him should be killed

>>16413468
How 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

>>16430521
The 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.

>>16429952
What 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?

>>16430624
Y

>>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!

>>16430621
Here's a free one. You really have no excuse for staying ignorant.

https://open.oregonstate.education/climatechange/

>>16407036
Imagine not knowing anything about the carbon sinks

>>16430772
Chapter 5 >>16430667

>>16413451
There are other experts who understand the models and don't trust them. I trust those experts.

>>16430950
Who?

>>16430968
Willis Eschenbach

>>16431251
He 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.

>>16407007
It's gonna be really, really bad.

>>16431516
>nooo you have to believe our anti-science and not their anti-science
when 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 hear
NGMI

>>16431639
Just get out of here.

>>16431251
Why should I care about his opinion?

>>16432321
That'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?

>>16430177
Completely 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 days
Please learn about the hydrologic cycle before posting again. I beg you.

>>16429915
The 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.

>>16433726
The 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.

>>16433823
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_yearly_temperature

Lots of the warmest countries (average annual temps, not daily maximums), are tropical island/rain forest countries.

>>16433823
Wow, I thought you guys didn't know the basics but you don't even understand principles.

File: racetrack playa.jpg (643 KB, 960x632)

643 KB JPG

>>16433823
Okay, 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.

>>16434757
This 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.

>>16407007
50/50

>>16439204
Kek

File: 1721701000652736.gif (1.44 MB, 498x276)

1.44 MB GIF

>>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

>>16439944
Wow 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

File: $41 billion.png (1.43 MB, 1057x1060)

1.43 MB PNG

more evidence that people who think global warming is real do so on the basis of their inability to do math

File: counterfactual.jpg (264 KB, 858x505)

264 KB JPG

>>16407017
we 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 colorblind
Ummmm, colorblindness is white supremacy chud.

File: .png (714 KB, 633x868)

714 KB PNG

Pictured: Two equally-severe threats to the climate, t. cultists.

File: 094-4064850577.jpg (113 KB, 720x455)

113 KB JPG

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

File: graph.png (56 KB, 620x259)

56 KB PNG

>>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.

>>16442163
The 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

File: ancient-aliens-1.png (375 KB, 768x432)

375 KB PNG

>>16442185
Hear 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
>>16441944
Hi, 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-fingerprinting

This 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 y
This is one of the most insane baits I've ever seen.

>>16442231
>taking denialists seriously
>responding to denialists
>ever
Shiggy diggy

>>16407007
it's all averages based on guesswork until recently

>>16442074
There 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.

>>16442287
I 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.

>>16442733
Based

File: A-Berriasian-140-Ma-map-o(...).png (127 KB, 850x595)

127 KB PNG

>>16442074
The 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.

File: 1628937087067.jpg (30 KB, 346x574)

30 KB JPG

>>16443319
Physicist 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

>>16443319
John 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.

>>16443629
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_physics

>>16445258
Notice how that's not quantum physics

>>16445258
Which part refutes anything I said?

>>16446010
He doesn't know how science works so he figures that any kind of physicist is every kind of physicist.

>>16443435
Troon avatarposter with a degree in titty skittles doesn't understand climate but relentlessly shills online telling people that they don't understand climate anyway.

File: (You).jpg (311 KB, 1556x990)

311 KB JPG

>>16446622
I don't think that's accurate.

>>16447493
Both Greenland and Antarctica lost ice mass over the last 20 years

>>16447681
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31166/

>>16443435
he isnt a physicist, anon, hes a faggot.

File: jkj.png (117 KB, 900x900)

117 KB PNG

>claim to know how global warming works
>can't even explain the faint young sun paradox

>>16447493
This is not even remotely true.
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-speeding-up-in-antarctica-225951

File: 1729230037951644.jpg (55 KB, 680x680)

55 KB JPG

Climate change is real (and that's a good thing)

>>16449852
That's sea ice, not land ice.

File: 1727252030_nsidcsieglobal(...).jpg (243 KB, 1800x1200)

243 KB JPG

>>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 1982
climate doomers btfo again

>>16449866
A 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.

>>16450480
If 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

File: scott adams says.png (407 KB, 1007x1280)

407 KB PNG

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 eyes
who would have thought.

File: watc.jpg (214 KB, 850x850)

214 KB JPG

>>16455282
I don't care anymore about evidence of your wrongdoings. You and all your family must be butchered like the pigs you are.

>>16442256
Why is that a problem? Seems kind of smart actually considering usually one side is just left blank.

>>16407007
My 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.

>>16455776
Hi, 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?

>>16452024
Sea levels are rising, that are you talking about?

File: ice_extent_historical.webm (1.78 MB, 1280x720)

1.78 MB WEBM

>>16407007
>>16407097
Hasn't the ice been receding for 20k years at least?

>>16455885
>Hi, geologist anon here again
>mfw the WEF infotrannies think credentialism works here

File: long term sea level trends.jpg (80 KB, 832x1488)

80 KB JPG

>>16455909
Sea levels aren't rising

>>16455973
>Posts two graphs showing sea levels are rising
>Sea levels aren't rising

>>16455929
Meds

File: 11.png (299 KB, 1438x783)

299 KB PNG

https://oeco.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Ripple-et-al.-2024.pdf

month 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.

File: Percent-Of-Stations-Reach(...).png (191 KB, 1290x1362)

191 KB PNG

>>16456045

>>16456049
How 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?

>>16456045
Measurements, that are modified without any apology by government agencies, and used to push agendas that supposed invalidate political opposition. Clown show 101.

>>16409407
Why 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 models
I know enough to understand them, they simply will not show them. That is not an understanding problem, it is a keeping secrets problem.

>>16432366
Why 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 Carboniferous
How 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"?

>>16455205
Way off. There are a couple hundred, not millions.

>>16455885
>So when we see glaciers retreating it’s a big red flag that something’s wrong
No it isn't. You might not like it, but there is nothing wrong. Glaciers have retreated many times in the past.

>>16456212
It is a conspiracy theory theorist. He believes that everything that isn't in the status quo can only be illegitimately defamed by schizophrenics.

>>16456194
dont be so hasty with your make-up, after all you still want to get fucked.

>>16456194
What modifications? Be specific.

>>16456213
Dunning-kruger as fuck

>>16456218
Local atmospheric water concentration is driven by local temperature, you simpleton.

>>16456229
Retard take.

>>16456212
>>16456240
Look 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.

>>16456476
Yeah, they pay guys like Patrick Moore you dumb shit, not random faceless idiots.
>>16456462
>Local atmospheric water concentration is
completely 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 concentrations
NGMI

>>16456498
Projection.

>>16456500
It is literally fake, retard. There is no Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>16456501
Lol what a retard.

>>16456171
>>16456218
I 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 turnip
Neat. 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.

>>16456520
Retard.
>>>/trash/

>>16456521
Yes, 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?

>>16456539
Retard.

File: facepalm.jpg (14 KB, 474x355)

14 KB JPG

>>16456539
Oh 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

>>16456590
Meds

File: spain flooding.jpg (1.45 MB, 2096x1454)

1.45 MB JPG

8 hours rain, almost half a cubic meter per square meter
158 dead people so far (still counting)

File: Michael Mann.png (678 KB, 647x647)

678 KB PNG

>>16443319
This is mike mann, btw.

>>16451682
The only "barren landscape" comes from sprawl. Not global warming. A warmer planet is moister, not drier.

>>16455205
He's correct. They literally ignore things like cloud cover, water vapor, the ever increasing sprawl of human heat islands due to plastering the Earth in concrete and air conditioner outflows, and all the other shit that actually drives the global climate.

>>16457430
the fact that your anecdotal evidence is so unusually noteworthy only proves that it is a sporadic event rather than part of recurring, ever more commonplace pattern.

File: 1682851937274669.jpg (455 KB, 802x1072)

455 KB JPG

>>16455993

>>16456532
>water vapor is not a driver of climate
>>16456539
>It is not a driver of climate CHANGE
These are BOTH factually incorrect statements. Water vapor AND cloud cover have the MOST effect on global climate AND on global climate change, after ocean currents and orogenies, which are actually #1. When an area warms, it also tends to become wetter, which is more favorable to plant life, which through transpiration and guttation cause a feedback loop of warming. The only reason rainforests exist is because rainforests exist.

ALL climate models treat the planet as though it were Mars, with no plant life or water, which is fucking batshit insane.

>>16457621
The climate models which currently exist are extremely crude, I saw one a few years ago that used such a large block size for the surface model that the Himalayas averaged out to a mere high plateau and the Indian monsoon flowed freely into Central Asia making notoriously arid regions like Afghanistan into moist locations. Someone was still using massive amounts of expensive computing to run that trash, probably because they were getting a publication out of it or for some other petty reason, they sure as heck weren't learning anything relevant to the reality we're inhabiting.

>>16457625
They're not "crude", they're intentionally inaccurate. It's the same exact reason that no climate "scientist" dares mention paleontology.

File: 1897 Valencia floods.png (642 KB, 459x946)

642 KB PNG

>>16457430

>>16457625
>>16457634
>>16457636
Meds

>>16457755
You're a dumb bitch, you know that? I want to break this down for you.

1: You're dumb, as in low IQ. You're probably borderline retarded so your opinion is worth less than nothing.

2: You're a bitch. You have BPD and nobody likes you because of it.

Know your place and everyone will get along.

File: DF2A7EE6-B030-4ACD-A40D-7(...).png (783 KB, 3630x1615)

783 KB PNG

>>16407007
Interesting

>>16457759
>>16457761
Meds

>>16457615
>anecdotal evidence
>sporadic event
>commonplace pattern
you broke my faggotmeter.

>>16457430
update
at least 205 people dead by rainfalls.

>>16458789
ok, but 17% of those people weren't even spaniards

>>16447683
>nasa.gov
fake af
same organization says trannies are real women

>>16459973
>>>/pol/

>>16461673
>An email I don't understand means there's a global conspiracy!

File: NASA fabrication.jpg (162 KB, 1463x880)

162 KB JPG

>>16456453

>>16461673
>>16462734
retarded
no cure
no pity

>>16407036
Cold water holds more CO2. As the temperature gradient diminish between the poles and the equator so will the ocean streams until a complete shift whereby new polar glaciers will form, cooling the water which absorbs gas.
Magmatic activity is another unaccounted for factor of massive importance.
Climate scientists are measuring farts in a shower. Useless!

>>16465559
Retard take

>>16462734
>we need the climate to rise faster to ensure everyone eats bugs

>>16468792
>climategate

from german wiki

Within two days of the theft, a number of organizations heavily funded by fossil fuel companies, such as the Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute, launched an international PR campaign against climate research and the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen a few days later.[2] The incident and the subsequent accusations of scientific dishonesty made against the climate researchers concerned caused a stir on blogs in the run-up to the climate conference and were mentioned in the international media. Climate deniers used the affair as “proof” that climate change does not exist and that it is a hoax[1].

>religious deluded criminal organizations with a shitload of money try to hide reality from people
who would have thought.

from english wiki

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[18]

>eight committees
>eight

not two or three - hell - not only four or five, not even six or seven BUT fucking eight committees couldnt find shit.
not a single shit.
its was made up, the entire atteck was made up.
climategate: how to fail as a thinktank collective at manipulating people.
still gets posted 15 years later.

I cant think of a better proof that climate change must be real.
thanks.

>>16468859
Based

File: Musk says wikipedia is fa(...).jpg (350 KB, 1010x1410)

350 KB JPG

>>16468859
>its true because its on wikipedia

>>16468970
What on that page is wrong? Be specific.

File: exxon paper graph.png (237 KB, 640x772)

237 KB PNG

>>16468970
>its true because musk posted so
oh in this case I will stick with believing wikipedia.

or I look up the sources that are given on wikipedia.

or I look up one of the roughly 1,000 sources about the so called 'climategate' you could have googled.

or I could have a look on what think tanks like the heritage foundation are doing, where they came from, who pay for them and if they are trutsworthy.

or I just use my brain and ask myself the question 'who benefits from it?' and realize there is a lot more money in selling oil than in releasing scientific papers.

or I - since we are on /sci/ - could look up some of the other 1,000,000,000 papers about climate change that were released in the last 60 years and confirm its true.

or I look up the released papers from exxon from the 70s showing that they did climate research themselves and knew the connection between CO2 and temperature for almost 50 years.

sorry, that I cant back up my opinion, anon.
I might have fallen for a manipulation.
on opposite day.

>>16469076
>1,000,000,000
You can't even get through a post without lying. Evaluate your own position and do all of those steps. You are only lied to when you accept the lies.

>>16469088
>You can't even get through a post without lying
The irony

>>16468976
Its wrong because its on wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a political propaganda site posing as an online encyclopedia.
If your source of information is wikipedia that means you're lying

File: 1503347180354.jpg (84 KB, 528x792)

84 KB JPG

>>16469088
honestly, who pays you or for which ideology are you fighting?
fucking nobody is willing to sacrifice their time for such an obviously dishonest and deceitful campaign without a ulterior motive.
at least tell us, is it money, religion, an autocratic system, your employer?

or do you seriously think anyone still buys this?
is it advanced trolling tourette over years or something?
be a brave man and give us a glimpse of what makes you post this and all the stuff before.

>>16469108
Retard take.

>>16456238
So your argument is that forest fires are caused by lightning therefore humans can't cause forest fires?

File: 1714645801861346.jpg (94 KB, 700x497)

94 KB JPG

the retard(s) is/are silent now.
otherwise he still left a post, posted some fake picture or threw some wild claim.

I have been observing this for several weeks in this thread, at least 6.
the time span between a new post and a countermeasure from him was sometimes so short that you have to assume that he keeps an eye on what is happening at intervals of less than 15 or 30 minutes.

so he does it neither for the keks nor out of personal conviction, because what would have stopped him from posting this time?
consequently, we most likely are dealing with an agenda.
this would be plausible, as it is strategically best to take a back seat when credibility is at stake like its now.
a troll wouldnt care, he would even start posting more and enjoy the attention he gets.

in the meantime, I think we can also rule out oil companies or such, they are more concerned with practicing greenwashing atm.
so the think tanks remain.
it is therefore a case of religiously or politically motivated manipulation or both or in between.

russia or one of its partners or the conservative religiously deluded think tanks on the western side.

so if you are wondering whether public opinion is manipulated or not, here you have a clue that can be based on various indications.
dont let the manipulation on the internet make you stupid.
have the courage to use your brains.

replace the word press with 'science' in ths strip or replace it with 'independend press' or call it whatever you like to call it.
the objective is obvious, public reporting and science provide independent knowledge.
this is to be deliberately prevented by damaging their credibility.

>>16469213
If trees could only ignite by being struck by lightning this comparison would be on spot.

There's no industrial concern melting glaciers or mining them away, it's purely the will of nature where humans have no say.

Completely safe and natural.

>>16469111
Why do you tell people to do the things you refuse to do? Why do you lack self awareness like this? If you don't care about a topic, just don't post about it instead of coming off like an insufferable douche.

>gave no answer but writes a three times adhominem reply ending with an insult
anyone knows a better confirmation because I dont.

also note how plenty of threads were bumped in the meantime and how there is no reply to this here.
>>16469541
well Im afraid you need to check all the time stamps by yourself to see this, I will bump the thread by writing a reply of course.
but give it a try and check the time stamps and see how many bumped threads are average of a certain time interval.

the background of all of this is simple statistics.
posts that are at the beginning of a thread and the last ones enjoy the majority of the readers attention.
threads that are on top also enjoy the most attention of course.
that is why they try to hide outstanding content posts in the mass of other replies or bump plenty of other threads if there is something to hide.

this is also the reason why posting something as quickly as possible is so important for the manipulation.
so this is not primarily about the posted content - such as spamming old climate denialist diagrams again and again, which is the easiest way of doing so - but about making the content that could have an effect disappear in the sea of individual posts.

convenience leads you astray and we have all become so comfortable.
but convenience wont help you finding out what is truth.

>>16469585
>>16469551
Retard takes.

>>16465559
So, as I've explained before we know that this is from humans because of the isotopes.
>>16407195
Actually, that wasn't me but they understood the data and explained it so I never did.

But here, let me explain why this is wrong. Carbon fractionation in plants favors C-12 over C-13. When you burn plants you put a higher concentration of C-12 into the atmosphere than you would get from volcanoes or ocean outgassing. Since C-13 is falling in the atmosphere it's proof that the source is burning plants. Since fossil fuels are ancient plants with lower C-13 and no C-14 it's proof that it's from the burning of fossil fuels.

The second problem with your post is that the oceans are currently absorbing CO2 even though the temperature is going up. This shows that the atmosphere is receiving a higher concentration of CO2 than normal which forces more of it into the ocean despite the fact that it should hold less CO2 because of its temperature. This is Fick's Law in action.

Clear? The CO2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels. Not ocean outgassing.

>>16456458
not an argument

>>16462736
not an argument

>>16471401
>>16471451
Retard.

>>16470731
>fossil fuels are ancient plants
are you unironically trying to assert that the methane on titan and pluto is made from plants

>>16472257
This is the most retarded post I've ever read. Methane is a fossil fuel, but not all fossil fuels are methane. Be less of an idiot.

>>16469108
It also means you're too ignorant of the topic at hand to have any sources other than '1st result in google'

>>16442857
Why no equatorial rain forest belt? Or are Hadley cells possible to nudge after all?

File: 1701702761971723.webm (1.52 MB, 460x252)

1.52 MB WEBM

>when you deny climate change in 2024

>>16477086
Never understand those who laugh at disabled people in the olympics. Weren't their fault they were born that way and at least they're trying to achieve something. Seems like he did pretty good actually, he beat the guy in white.

>>16477100
they do it to make people like you get upset

>>16477100
do you know how a metaphor works?

but you are 100% right, anon.
unlike a climate denier this guy archieved something in life.
he has overcome his disadvantage and is facing up to reality.
it wasnt a fair comparison by me.

I would like to apologize to the little guy, he really doesnt deserve this comparison.
sorry man, you are worth so much more.
I admire that you were able to achieve so much with so little, while others have so much and yet achieve so little.
may your example be a beacon of light.
may your dedication be the driving force for so many after you.
may your conviction give courage to others.
may those who refuse to accept reality find motivation in your actions.

File: Climategate-vs-scientific(...).jpg (21 KB, 320x240)

21 KB JPG

>>16468792
What was the decline they were trying to hide?
Why were they trying to hide it?
If its in the data then isn't using tricks to hide it data manipulation?
If the decline doesn't prove that their ideas about science are completely wrong, why try to hide it?

Is this going to kill us all or not?

>>16470731
Does that model account for deforestation and CO2 sources from animals?

>>16478192
ask the people from andalusia, murcia and valencia.
so far they lost rougly 220 people and another 80 are missing.
insurance companies are talking about the largest compensation payment ever.
for the spanish military, it was the largest peacetime deployment to date.
because of local rainfalls.

>>16478353
How do we know which storm is caused by climate change and which isn't?

>>16478358
well, we can see how there are more and more events, per year and per location.
the weather does not provide an explanation for this but climate change.

the individual event cannot be assigned and this makes little sense to me.
when meteorologists do that, they use statistics.

so that is a quite comprehensible point of view but I prefer to see it different.
the amount of water in the air increases with the temperature, the humidity.
if the temperatures on the earths surface rise, it is possible that more water is in the air and more rain can fall.
actually a simple connection.
from this perspective, the share of weather events caused by climate change increases over time.

>>16478366
But without a control, you're just making guesses.

File: Mollier_h-x_de.svg.png (275 KB, 1024x901)

275 KB PNG

>>16478371
so you think the isobaric absolute humidity as a function of temperature is a guess?
that would be a retard take since its 120 years old and long settled thermdynamics.
are you retarded, anon?

I just think its interesting that areas with very rough waters have higher temperatures above them.

>>16407013
>>16407007

>millions of years

kek. dating methods are utterly fucking atrocious if you understand them and dont go in with naturalist presuppositions. future scientist will laugh at us.

>soldier is shot repeatedly in the stomach with a machine gun
>some kid throws a paper airplane at him
>cause of death: covid-19.

>when I cant adress it, I will start throwing shit

>>16409998

It is far more likely that it is the proxy that changes, the same average temperature correlating with a difference in the proxy.

File: 1660683936972409.jpg (119 KB, 700x600)

119 KB JPG

bump with a cat

>>16481372
You are cancer

>>16478353
its a flood prone region, there have events like that every few decades going back as far recorded history of the region goes

Hi anons. I don't visit /sci/ a lot, and I work in the humanities.
Do I have an appropriate view of climate change?
>it's man made
>it's not the end of the world
>but we should do something about it
>efficiently, but not in a way that needs to step on people's individual liberties
???

File: penguin in australia.jpg (33 KB, 620x408)

33 KB JPG

>HUMAN
>I HAVE COME TO AUSTRALIA
>TO WARN YOU ALL ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
>LMAO

>>16484916
>it's not the end of the world
if you change this to a much more pessimistic view then you have a standard boiler-plate "academic" understanding of climate change... and also throw out the bit about people's liberties ahahahaha...
I would say that the warming aspect is negligible and that the pollution, habitat loss, and wildlife loss both in quantity and biodiversity are all problems that are both much more serious and much more manageable.
I speculate that "global warming climate change" is a cynical ploy to make worldwide environmental degradation concern for people trapped in cities that really wouldn't care if all the coral reefs or butterflies or bees were dead and gone. Sure, more CO2 does warm the planet but it's potentially negligible. The ice caps melt and reform regularly anyway. CO2 doesn't make a shit of difference there. If you build an industrial hellscape, though, you will get an industrial hellscape.
tl;dr in my opinion climate change doesn't matter and might as well be a hoax because animals and nature are evidently far more fragile than the global temperature

>>16485201
Thanks, that was fairly in line with my previous view and I have adopted your changes.
I am starting a second career in law and 90% of the young people I went to grad school with care or know fuckall about conservation. It's all "climate climate climate" while they drive to and from work in a car their parents pay for.

>>16467414
I think people fundamentally need to draw a line between hard sciences like climate science, which has and continues to prove that climate change is a real phenomenon, and social "sciences" which have become infected with postmodern frankfurt school fuckwits who have never once empirically demonstrated anything they say qualitatively or quantitatively and literally view their profession, not as a science, but as a form of activism. Ecological ideals and understanding are not at all incompatible with right wing thought, in fact, I'd argue the more nativist and right wing you become, the more you understand that we must return to nature and protect the climate you and your ancestors are housed in. Climate change denial is really only an issue for lolbertarians and neo-cuckservatives who really only give a shit about the bottom lines of corporations, and the fact that the USSR's collapse caused a major reduction in fossil fuel emissions show that the left in reality really don't give a flying fuck about the environment either, they just want more power. If you want to understand further about why the social sciences become so leftist, I'd advise you to watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3aTnYQVTOk

>>16478353
0.00001% of Spaniards died?! WTF?