you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]clownworlddropout 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (45 children)

Nobody thinks "only men can cause warmening" dude, what are you smoking?

[–]Psychosomatic 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

It's commonplace for mainstream narratives to pursuede public opinion beyond that which is real bro. When polled, the general public thought COVID was 20 times more deadly than reality due to the propaganda pushed on them. So too, the public have been encouraged to believe only man made carbon is responsible for climate change to ensure that they continue to collect carbon taxes and sell books. The general consensus is of course that the climate has always been changing and always will, and that frankly, man made climate change is minimal compared with natural influences such as the sun. But there are those who simply absorb the nonsense in the media that we as a civilization are bringing on the climate apocalypse lol

[–]clownworlddropout 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

Well yeah, I'm pretty sure the sun has slightly more impact on the heat of the Earth than literally anything else. lol

I've seen enough change in my lifetime alone to know we're heating up, and fast, and it's not rocket science to tie that heating up to industry. We actually are causing this, denying it is a little odd, on the level of flat-earther crap.

[–]Psychosomatic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

You see the weather, global climate is not going to be seen out your bedroom window. Weather locally here has barely changed in 30 years, if anything we used to have marginally colder winters and warmer summers 20 years ago. Climate change is measured in centuries and millennia, not a few years.

We record higher temperatures locally these days due to taking the readings from airports, else there are even drops in global temperature in many places in recent years. It's all a farce to keep you scared and thinking we're all going to die.

Just because the world is warming up slowly doesn't mean we are responsible or that we can fix it.

[–]ActuallyNot 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

We record higher temperatures locally these days due to taking the readings from airports,

The instrumental temperature record corrects effects like that.

It's still warming.

https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/2022-06/ClimateDashboard-global-surface-temperature-graph-20220624-1400px.jpg?itok=L92HCm6n

else there are even drops in global temperature in many places in recent years.

The global mean is warning fast.

Just because the world is warming up slowly doesn't mean we are responsible or that we can fix it.

No. We know that by measuring the increase in greenhouse gases, and modelling the temperature effect of that. Then, by comparing to the instrumental temperature record, we have learned that we are responsible for it, and that we can fix it by not burning fossil fuels.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Correlation does not prove causation.

Rising temperatures can cause CO2 to go up.

Co2 has doubled in the last 100 years and temperature has not.

Co2 and temperature has decoupled and still you claim there is a causal link. Clearly you don't really give a fuck about the data, except when you can use it to push an agenda.

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Correlation does not prove causation.

The causation is known from first principles. If you don't understand the greenhouse effect Google it. The wiki page on the subject used to be a decent primer.

Co2 has doubled in the last 100 years and temperature has not.

For a doubling of CO2, you will get about a 3 kelvin rise in temperature, once the new equilibrium temperature is reached. It takes a few decades for most of that to occur.

It doesn't go from 287 kelvins to 574 kelvins, that's a good 9500% out.

Co2 and temperature has decoupled

Nope. You've just got a bad misunderstanding of how they relate.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

For a doubling of CO2, you will get about a 3 kelvin rise in temperature, once the new equilibrium

Do you have a source for that claim?

takes a few decades for most of that to occur.

Then why is there not such a lag in the graph correlating temperature and co2?

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Do you have a source for that claim?

I can find one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524012/

Then why is there not such a lag in the graph correlating temperature and co2?

Increasing CO2 increases the energy imbalance. The temperature then slowly builds up.

Like how the temperature of the oven doesn't change immediately on turning on the power. You have to pre-heat it for consistent results.

But the oceans are deep and take a lot of energy to increase in temperature compared to the air in your oven, and ice-albedo feedback is particularly slow where ice sheets are thick.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Moreover, the interpretation of each strand requires structural assumptions that cannot be proven, and sometimes ECS measures have been estimated from each strand that are not fully equivalent. This complexity and uncertainty thwarts rigorous, definitive calculations and gives expert judgment and assumptions a potentially large role.

In thier own words they admit this isn't science, it's guesswork. Taking this paper as anything other than an appeal to authority is foolish. All the people making these "expert" opinions are biased and heavily incentivised to come to the "right" conclusion.

Furthermore, if every doubling of CO2 has a linear increase in temperature then the co2-temperature graphs would not overlap. That is a huge flaw in the very premise of thier claim. This paper is claiming that an exponential growth in co2 is needed for a steady linear growth in temperature, and that is not what any of the official models are using.

They also make zero consideration for the possibility that co2 increases are driven by temperature. They are simply making huge assumptions about the data, then extrapolating from that wild (by thier own admission unprovable and contradictory) conclusions.

There are thousands of biased, junk science papers like this. If you never analyze them critically then you are really nothing more than a sheep who is beholden to the propagandist who control the journals. You simply believe whatever they print. And ironically that makes you think you are more informed then everyone else.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Then why is there not such a lag in the graph correlating temperature and co2?

You never answered the question. Your reply is irrelevant to the question. The data does not match your claims. It does not reflect the delay you claim exists.

[–]FourteenDigitz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You’re a user of a shitty Reddit knockoff, you don’t know more than actual climate researchers.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We’re not causing climate change at all.

We’re not even close to levels that change anything here on earth. It’s like 4x what we’re at now is peak carbon dioxide for plants.

It takes a real idiot to say something like, it’s heating up and we’re causing it. You don’t even know what you are talking about. We have a less global temperature over the past 7 ten years than the ten year before it.

You guys literally don’t fucking know what you are talking about.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

We’re not causing climate change at all.

Oh ffs.

So you don't think CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Or you don't believe that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?

Or you don't think increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases increases the greenhouse effect?

Because they're all bleeding obvious, and if all three are true, you're wrong about the cause of climate change.

[–]Psychosomatic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Co2 makes up around 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere, of which we as man contribute around 3%, which is around 0.00012% of the Earth's atmosphere, or 12PPM. Yes, it's likely to be a greenhouse gas. No, I don't think this is the cause of the world warming. The great big ball in the sky is somewhat more convincing. It's also theorised that co2 rises are a reflection of global temperature rises, not the temperature rising due to co2. We simply don't know exactly, but I'd find the former more convincing than the latter.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not rocket science to tie that heating up to industry.

Yeah, it'd not science at all. 🤣

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

and that frankly, man made climate change is minimal compared with natural influences such as the sun.

Not with respect to the last 50-100 years.

Anthropogenic warming dominates.

The paper in the OP is looking at the end of the previous glaciation.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Unless you can show us the accounting of all the BTU's in and out your claim is unscientific.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We've got much better analysis that that. You can look at the global mean surface temperatures modelled using only natural forcing, and compare it with the temperatures modelled using anthropogenic plus natural forcing.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/models-observed-human-natural.png

Anthropogenic is all the warming of the past 50 years, and nearly all the warming of the past 100.

[–]FourteenDigitz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

On what grounds do you have the qualifications to call anything unscientific?

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Appeal to authority is a fallacy.

[–]FourteenDigitz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Lmao. Congratulations. Want to say something of substance now? Naming off a fallacy isn’t an argument.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Your comment us an appeal to authority. You fool. Is that clear enough?

[–]FourteenDigitz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nope. You’re still just naming off fallacies. I’m referring to professionals who know what the fuck they’re talking about. You’re not, and don’t.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Claiming that something is correct because an authority said so is literally an appeal to authority fallacy.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That is essentially the claim when they say global warming is man made. They don't say it is partially influenced by made co2. They don't show the math on where the heat comes from and where it goes. They simply hand wave away all the other forces at play and pin it all on human activity.

[–]FourteenDigitz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They do, you’re just too stupid and arrogant to actually read the mountains of papers that have been released on this topic.