JarateKingWe've known every step of that process since the 1800s. John Tyndall discovered the concept of greenhouse gases in 1859. Svante Arrhenius calculated the impact it would have if atmospheric CO2 was doubled in 1896 (though it didn't factor in everything because climate science wasn't mature at that point, but it got the jist and observed the core concept). To my knowledge, no credible papers since then have suggested otherwise in either of these -- and they are simple enough concepts that if there was anything wrong about them, it wouldn't have taken us over a century to find out if they were actually false somehow (hint: they're true).
That said, we did manage to further support them beyond any doubt:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.475774
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc05400j.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2141868/
along with four-digits worth of other papers agreeing with the same
To support all of the above, we have papers meta-analyzing that 97% of climate scientists & papers agree with man-made (or anthropogenic) climate change:
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/metaAmong abstracts expressing a position on [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
(for those who aren't knowledgeable about the science community, 97% is really fucking good and may as well be considered scientific fact).
tldr: man-made climate change is absolutely supported by the scientific community, and there is far beyond enough research and evidence to take action on it
Not one of those studies you cited proves that humanity has contributed any significant amount to climate change. CO2 levels and global temperatures were constantly changing well before modern man even existed. Since climate scientists draw conclusions that vary so wildly regarding the extent to which human emissions have affected the climate, an impartial observer might say that climatology is just a pseudoscience and none of them really know what they're talking about. You may as well claim that 97% of strippers endorse the man-made climate change theory and it would carry the exact same weight.
[quote=JarateKing]We've known every step of that process since the 1800s. John Tyndall discovered the concept of greenhouse gases in 1859. Svante Arrhenius calculated the impact it would have if atmospheric CO2 was doubled in 1896 (though it didn't factor in everything because climate science wasn't mature at that point, but it got the jist and observed the core concept). To my knowledge, no credible papers since then have suggested otherwise in either of these -- and they are simple enough concepts that if there was anything wrong about them, it wouldn't have taken us over a century to find out if they were actually false somehow (hint: they're true).
That said, we did manage to further support them beyond any doubt:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.475774
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc05400j.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2141868/
along with four-digits worth of other papers agreeing with the same
To support all of the above, we have papers meta-analyzing that 97% of climate scientists & papers agree with man-made (or anthropogenic) climate change:
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta
[quote]Among abstracts expressing a position on [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[/quote]
(for those who aren't knowledgeable about the science community, 97% is really fucking good and may as well be considered scientific fact).
tldr: man-made climate change is absolutely supported by the scientific community, and there is far beyond enough research and evidence to take action on it[/quote]
Not one of those studies you cited proves that humanity has contributed any significant amount to climate change. CO2 levels and global temperatures were constantly changing well before modern man even existed. Since climate scientists draw conclusions that vary so wildly regarding the extent to which human emissions have affected the climate, an impartial observer might say that climatology is just a pseudoscience and none of them really know what they're talking about. You may as well claim that 97% of strippers endorse the man-made climate change theory and it would carry the exact same weight.
[img]https://cdn.betterttv.net/emote/5d2cee1fff6ed3680130e287/3x[/img]
don't argue with climate change deniers, they aren't worth the energy. Let's focus back on the fact that a shitty billionare is dead.
don't argue with climate change deniers, they aren't worth the energy. Let's focus back on the fact that a shitty billionare is dead.
tfw you go through the trouble of linking studies proving him wrong and then he just hits you back with the "nope i'm right actually"
tfw you go through the trouble of linking studies proving him wrong and then he just hits you back with the "nope i'm right actually"
[quote=scrab][/quote]
[img]https://media.giphy.com/media/srTYyZ1BjBtGU/giphy.gif[/img]
JarateKingDoom1JarateKinghttps://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.475774
You've linked a study thats behind a paywall mr big brain.
Yeah that's something that happens in science all the time. You can read the abstract to get an idea what it's about (I included it because it makes it clear that we are actively fine-tuning the accuracy of our models, which only works if the concept behind it is essentially undisputed and well-tested).
If you're not satisfied with that one, maybe the 3 other examples and the 3 meta-analyses going over thousands of papers should be enough for you
You know jack shit about science if you link study that's behind a paywall as an argument. Reading an abstract does not equal reading the study. Also the 97% thing you cite also does not work as an argument at all, and it certainly doesn't make anything a "scientific fact." Furthermore, again, Intergovernmental panel on climate change says it's extremely likely, not 2+2=4 type of proven, yet you act like listening to and considering what the 3% are saying is something outrageously stupid.
[quote=JarateKing][quote=Doom1][quote=JarateKing]
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.475774
[/quote]
You've linked a study thats behind a paywall mr big brain.[/quote]
Yeah that's something that happens in science all the time. You can read the abstract to get an idea what it's about (I included it because it makes it clear that we are actively fine-tuning the accuracy of our models, which only works if the concept behind it is essentially undisputed and well-tested).
If you're not satisfied with that one, maybe the 3 other examples and the 3 meta-analyses going over thousands of papers should be enough for you[/quote]
You know jack shit about science if you link study that's behind a paywall as an argument. Reading an abstract does not equal reading the study. Also the 97% thing you cite also does not work as an argument at all, and it certainly doesn't make anything a "scientific fact." Furthermore, again, Intergovernmental panel on climate change says it's extremely likely, not 2+2=4 type of proven, yet you act like listening to and considering what the 3% are saying is something outrageously stupid.
https://i.imgur.com/Rg3UYA0.png
Doom1You know jack shit about science if you link study that's behind a paywall as an argument.
Researchers generally don't benefit financially from studies being locked behind paywalls either. Academic publishers like Elsevier make a 40% profit margins, while they're asking scientists to do the peer review process for free. In any case, if you want to see the article you can always go on sci-hub (this article is available for free there).
Open access journals are actually less trustworthy in some cases because a lot of publishers have a model where you have to pay to have your study be open access. This will often incentivize the publisher to publish the article even if it's not very good, which sucks because I do think science shouldn't be behind paywalls.
All that being said, people should be skeptical of any article they read because a lot of absolute bullshit makes it through peer review.
[quote=Doom1]
You know jack shit about science if you link study that's behind a paywall as an argument. [/quote]
Researchers generally don't benefit financially from studies being locked behind paywalls either. Academic publishers like Elsevier make a 40% profit margins, while they're asking scientists to do the peer review process for free. In any case, if you want to see the article you can always go on sci-hub (this article is available for free there).
Open access journals are actually less trustworthy in some cases because a lot of publishers have a model where you have to pay to have your study be open access. This will often incentivize the publisher to publish the article even if it's not very good, which sucks because I do think science shouldn't be behind paywalls.
All that being said, people should be skeptical of any article they read because a lot of absolute bullshit makes it through peer review.
Rebitedon't argue with climate change deniers, they aren't worth the energy. Let's focus back on the fact that a shitty billionare is dead.
I haven't once denied that climate change is happening. Also, this thread has gone from shitting on some dead rich guy to a well-reasoned, thoughtful, and rigorous scientific debate. I have not only greatly improved the quality of discourse in this thread, I have raised the bar for all future threads.
You're welcome.
[quote=Rebite]don't argue with climate change deniers, they aren't worth the energy. Let's focus back on the fact that a shitty billionare is dead.[/quote]
I haven't once denied that climate change is happening. Also, this thread has gone from shitting on some dead rich guy to a well-reasoned, thoughtful, and rigorous scientific debate. I have not only greatly improved the quality of discourse in this thread, I have raised the bar for all future threads.
You're welcome.
I've never seen someone get an ego boost from denying climate change being real MAN-MADE.
Sorry I guess he hasn't denied climate change existing, only that it's just CLEARLY A COINCIDENCE AND NOT OUR FAULTS.
This site never stops amazing me.
I've never seen someone get an ego boost from denying climate change being [s]real[/s] MAN-MADE.
Sorry I guess he hasn't denied climate change existing, only that it's just CLEARLY A COINCIDENCE AND NOT OUR FAULTS.
This site never stops amazing me.
lmfao wtf is this tread stop engaging with idiots
lmfao wtf is this tread stop engaging with idiots
scrab CO2 levels and global temperatures were constantly changing well before modern man even existed.
I love when I see this line trotted out because it immediately tells me the person is arguing in bad faith. There's two eplanations for using it. Either you're being deliberately misleading or you're an idiot who accepted that line from someone else who was being deliberately misleading.
https://i.imgur.com/mziFO4v.jpg
[quote=scrab] CO2 levels and global temperatures were constantly changing well before modern man even existed.[/quote] I love when I see this line trotted out because it immediately tells me the person is arguing in bad faith. There's two eplanations for using it. Either you're being deliberately misleading or you're an idiot who accepted that line from someone else who was being deliberately misleading.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/mziFO4v.jpg[/img]
fireindaarcadescrab CO2 levels and global temperatures were constantly changing well before modern man even existed.
I love when I see this line trotted out because it immediately tells me the person is arguing in bad faith. There's two eplanations for using it. Either you're being deliberately misleading or you're an idiot who accepted that line from someone else who was being deliberately misleading.
https://i.imgur.com/mziFO4v.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/KOSoHhH.jpg
What about this tho
Seems like it's more about the sun here my man, nearly everything here has something to do with solar levels
[quote=fireindaarcade][quote=scrab] CO2 levels and global temperatures were constantly changing well before modern man even existed.[/quote] I love when I see this line trotted out because it immediately tells me the person is arguing in bad faith. There's two eplanations for using it. Either you're being deliberately misleading or you're an idiot who accepted that line from someone else who was being deliberately misleading.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/mziFO4v.jpg[/img][/quote]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/KOSoHhH.jpg[/img]
What about this tho
Seems like it's more about the sun here my man, nearly everything here has something to do with solar levels
[img]https://assets.amuniversal.com/4f7a8a5c37b8102d94d7001438c0f03b[/img]
CaptainZidgelhttps://assets.amuniversal.com/4f7a8a5c37b8102d94d7001438c0f03b
Right, nothing bad will happen out of it. Except the EU telling Poland to shut down coal mines and therefore thousands of jobs because enviroment. Meanwhile Germany mines twice the amont of coal that Poland does, but quotas are quotas hehe. We must destroy weaker economies that can't afford to go green, right?!
[quote=CaptainZidgel][img]https://assets.amuniversal.com/4f7a8a5c37b8102d94d7001438c0f03b[/img][/quote]
Right, nothing bad will happen out of it. Except the EU telling Poland to shut down coal mines and therefore thousands of jobs because enviroment. Meanwhile Germany mines twice the amont of coal that Poland does, but quotas are quotas hehe. We must destroy weaker economies that can't afford to go green, right?!
Doom1CaptainZidgelhttps://assets.amuniversal.com/4f7a8a5c37b8102d94d7001438c0f03b
Right, nothing bad will happen out of it. Except the EU telling Poland to shut down coal mines and therefore thousands of jobs because enviroment. Meanwhile Germany mines twice the amont of coal that Poland does, but quotas are quotas hehe. We must destroy weaker economies that can't afford to go green, right?!
I would actually like Germany to stop mining coal as well! I'd like every country to do so! I see you're from Poland. You've made the bizarre assumption that I share the opinion that the way forward is to do whatever happened in your country. Yikes, dude. I'd like countries like the USA and China to pull their big boy pants up, act as a good example, then help tiny countries create renewable resource infrastructure. Not sure about what Germany did to you regarding climate, but I do not endorse climate hypocrisy.
[quote=Doom1][quote=CaptainZidgel][img]https://assets.amuniversal.com/4f7a8a5c37b8102d94d7001438c0f03b[/img][/quote]
Right, nothing bad will happen out of it. Except the EU telling Poland to shut down coal mines and therefore thousands of jobs because enviroment. Meanwhile Germany mines twice the amont of coal that Poland does, but quotas are quotas hehe. [b]We must destroy weaker economies that can't afford to go green, right[/b]?![/quote]
I would actually like Germany to stop mining coal as well! I'd like every country to do so! I see you're from Poland. You've made the bizarre assumption that I share the opinion that the way forward is to do whatever happened in your country. Yikes, dude. I'd like countries like the USA and China to pull their big boy pants up, act as a [url=https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/]good example[/url], then help tiny countries create renewable resource infrastructure. Not sure about what Germany did to you regarding climate, but I do not endorse climate hypocrisy.
fireindaarcade
It's weird how your graph is limited to only the last 800,000 years, despite the Earth being billions of years old. It also says CO2 levels were rising rapidly thousands of years before modern technology was even invented. Nice self own.
I do resent being called an idiot by a few of you though; I'm probably the smartest person in this entire thread.
https://i.imgur.com/pJWAl0c.jpg
140 IQ. Read it and weep. One. Hundred. And. Forty. I already know what you're thinking. You're thinking "b-but it's only an online IQ test, it doesn't mean anything", aren't you? That's just cope. You're shying away from the truth - you know you can't do better than me. You wouldn't even get close.
http://test.mensa.no
Anyone who replies to me with a proven IQ lower than 130 will be ignored from now on, you're simply not worth my time.
[quote=fireindaarcade][/quote]
It's weird how your graph is limited to only the last 800,000 years, despite the Earth being billions of years old. It also says CO2 levels were rising rapidly thousands of years before modern technology was even invented. Nice self own.
I do resent being called an idiot by a few of you though; I'm probably the smartest person in this entire thread.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/pJWAl0c.jpg[/img]
140 IQ. Read it and weep. One. Hundred. And. Forty. I already know what you're thinking. You're thinking "b-but it's only an online IQ test, it doesn't mean anything", aren't you? That's just cope. You're shying away from the truth - you [i]know[/i] you can't do better than me. You wouldn't even get close.
http://test.mensa.no
Anyone who replies to me with a proven IQ lower than 130 will be ignored from now on, you're simply not worth my time.
[quote=scrab][/quote]
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/018/489/nick-young-confused-face-300x256-nqlyaa.jpg
Doom1Seems like it's more about the sun here my man, nearly everything here has something to do with solar levels
You're saying this as if climate scientists are somehow unaware of other time periods. In fact they are quite aware, and graphs like that are in-part based on their work in the first place:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc03000u.html
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/lu08000d.html
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc00100w.html
The temperatures in that graph are due to a variety of factors -- sometimes it is CO2, sometimes it's not (for the record, Scotese's graph says nothing about "solar levels" and the sun does not work the way you seem to think it works). And importantly, Scotese's methodology is not very well suited for reconstructing the global mean temperature as evidenced by how few data points there are (his area of expertise is in continental positioning). Better suited methodology will give you a global mean temperature graph like:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png
Which still has its problems (its logarithmic scale is kinda messy), but it does make it a bit more clear that the current rate of climate change is completely unheardof. We're projected to suddenly exit a very stable time period with a change of +8F by 2100. The shortest previous jump of the same temperature difference took several thousand years. What we are currently undergoing is not normal.
And in general, humans would not survive in these other warm time periods. If we are reasonably confident that the cause we're experiencing right now is CO2 related, that's what we should be focusing on. And that's the consensus of nearly every single credible person who's spent their life studying this.
Doom1Except the EU telling Poland to shut down coal mines and therefore thousands of jobs because enviroment. Meanwhile Germany mines twice the amont of coal that Poland does
I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but my understanding is that the EU is only blocking subsidizing coal mines. If the coal mine makes a profit then it's not a problem, but if it needs bailouts to keep running then it can't. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
On that note though, you should be happy to hear that by 2020 solar and wind power will be priced competitively to fossil fuels, and continue to get cheaper. In a relatively short amount of time, it wouldn't even make economic sense to keep coal mining for energy anyway.
[quote=Doom1]Seems like it's more about the sun here my man, nearly everything here has something to do with solar levels[/quote]
You're saying this as if climate scientists are somehow unaware of other time periods. In fact they are quite aware, and graphs like that are in-part based on their work in the first place:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc03000u.html
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/lu08000d.html
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc00100w.html
The temperatures in that graph are due to a variety of factors -- sometimes it is CO2, sometimes it's not (for the record, Scotese's graph says nothing about "solar levels" and the sun does not work the way you seem to think it works). And importantly, Scotese's methodology is not very well suited for reconstructing the global mean temperature as evidenced by how few data points there are (his area of expertise is in continental positioning). Better suited methodology will give you a global mean temperature graph like:
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png[/img]
Which still has its problems (its logarithmic scale is kinda messy), but it does make it a bit more clear that the current rate of climate change is completely unheardof. We're projected to suddenly exit a very stable time period with a change of +8F by 2100. The shortest previous jump of the same temperature difference took several thousand years. What we are currently undergoing is not normal.
And in general, humans would not survive in these other warm time periods. If we are reasonably confident that the cause we're experiencing right now is CO2 related, that's what we should be focusing on. And that's the consensus of nearly every single credible person who's spent their life studying this.[quote=Doom1]Except the EU telling Poland to shut down coal mines and therefore thousands of jobs because enviroment. Meanwhile Germany mines twice the amont of coal that Poland does[/quote]
I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but my understanding is that the EU is only blocking subsidizing coal mines. If the coal mine makes a profit then it's not a problem, but if it needs bailouts to keep running then it can't. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
On that note though, you should be happy to hear that [url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#18a67a0a4ff2]by 2020[/url] solar and wind power will be priced competitively to fossil fuels, and continue to get cheaper. In a relatively short amount of time, it wouldn't even make economic sense to keep coal mining for energy anyway.
scrabrubbish
who or what the fuck are you and what are you on about
[quote=scrab]rubbish[/quote]
who or what the fuck are you and what are you on about
Scrab is trolling you guys btw. Don't worry I fell for it too. It was really believable.
Scrab is trolling you guys btw. Don't worry I fell for it too. It was really believable.
i thought climate change was man made but then somebody pointed out on a tf2 forum that the sun exists and my entire worldview has been shattered
i thought climate change was man made but then somebody pointed out on a tf2 forum that the sun exists and my entire worldview has been shattered
Sherwoodfanscrabrubbish
who or what the fuck are you and what are you on about
He's a fucking comedy genius I tried to tell you guys. Hilarious takes on climate change and politics it's so funny
[quote=Sherwoodfan][quote=scrab]rubbish[/quote]
who or what the fuck are you and what are you on about[/quote]
He's a fucking comedy genius I tried to tell you guys. Hilarious takes on climate change and politics it's so funny
Scrab Debunks Climate Change, Proves 97% Of Scientists Wrong. "How Could We Be So Naive? - Scientists
"It's Simple Really, My IQ Is Too High For You. MAGA" - Scrab
Scrab Debunks Climate Change, Proves 97% Of Scientists Wrong. "How Could We Be So Naive? - Scientists
"It's Simple Really, My IQ Is Too High For You. MAGA" - Scrab
Good job agent ‘Scrab’, payment’s in the mail.
Good job agent ‘Scrab’, payment’s in the mail.
I'm honestly surprised that neither has linked a pragerU video yet lol
I'm honestly surprised that neither has linked a pragerU video yet lol
Why are these "world events" threads more active than the Lan/tf2 threads?
Why are these "world events" threads more active than the Lan/tf2 threads?
DwapkingWhy are these "world events" threads more active than the Lan/tf2 threads?
Because people at lan aren't posting/browsing as much and those who aren't at LAN don't feel a need to post in LAN threads (for the most part).
[quote=Dwapking]Why are these "world events" threads more active than the Lan/tf2 threads?[/quote]
Because people at lan aren't posting/browsing as much and those who aren't at LAN don't feel a need to post in LAN threads (for the most part).
So I take it no one has an IQ even approaching mine? Makes sense, video game players are of lower intelligence than the general populace, and Team Fortress 2 players are lower still. Only brainlets would trust climatologists to know anything about climate projections, in the same way that only brainlets listen to economic predictions from economists.
Another internet debate won with ease.
So I take it no one has an IQ even approaching mine? Makes sense, video game players are of lower intelligence than the general populace, and Team Fortress 2 players are lower still. Only brainlets would trust climatologists to know anything about climate projections, in the same way that only brainlets listen to economic predictions from economists.
Another internet debate won with ease.