hi Sup Forums .. science major here.
can someone explain to me why trump is opposed to policies to reduce carbon emissions?
it seems pretty widely accepted now that the ice caps are shrinking and global temps are rising, possibly much faster than we even expected.
so i am at a loss as to why republicans are still holding on to the anti-science view.
if it wasn't for that, i could be moderately ok with trump, since most other things he seems like he might fuck up are reversible.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
news.yale.edu
cnbc.com
en.wikipedia.org
ncdc.noaa.gov
surfacestations.org
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov
theguardian.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
He wants California, India and eastern China under the sea, at all costs. I'm with him on that one. Fuck Hollywood and fuck China.
Because who cares?
Republicans care about practical applications for science. Hence why Trump talked about conquering space in his speech today.
hollywood has been ready to move inland ever since they knew about the san andreas fault. global warming will just move hollywood. why do you think they created las vegas, anyway?
if anyone will benefit from rising seas it's not going to be trump, lol, he owns real estate in NYC which will get flooded.
putin, on the other hand, could benefit from siberia thawing out and all of russia warming up, don't you think?
the USA has enough space that all the people in the cities will just move inland, which i'm sure that all the country yokel trump supporters will enjoy.
of course when the gulf stream stops, it will basically turn half of the US into a glacier, so that will be extra interesting.
i guess he was just inaugurated so he hasn't received The Briefing yet, lol.
They are underestimated fellow STEM major
news.yale.edu
I doubt the gulf stream will halt (where did you hear that I'm a bit curious), although certain effects on the ocean's thermohaline circulation are unknown and similarly harmful
Also
cnbc.com
You better hope things keep warming up.
pic related
>current geological time period
>denying well reviewed scientific fact
kys
Pathetic as expected
What the fuck is a science major? Do you major in general Science?
>using mid tropospheric data
>comparing this to post glacial sea level rise after NYC was under A MILE OF FUCKING ICE
>implying this is due to milankovitch cycles when earth's eccentricity is further from the sun than normal
>implying the fact that the eocene fucking extinction event (with the thsome data suggesting a METEORITE IMPACT) was hotter than normal is evidence of this being a non-issue
en.wikipedia.org
Shirley this must be b8
"Reduce Emissions" is another way to say "raise taxes on all things that cause emissions"
Honestly this
Global Warming is actually not that bad, it could even be beneficial.
are you really using a Sup Forums post, which lists no reputable sources, as a source to back up your argument...? this explains a lot about why there are so many Trump supporters here.. lol. you actually believe random people posting graphs they don't understand without any attribution or peer review.
but i suppose peer review is a conspiracy to suppress the truth, right?
btw, there is a simple experiment you can do to test whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or not (i.e. whether it traps heat). mythbusters did an episode on it. you fill up a greenhouse or equivalent space with air and vary the co2 level and see if it traps heat. guess what? it fucking traps heat... duh.
this is basic physics, not some kind of speculative hypothesis held by a few rogue scientists.
and what's wrong with that considering the ramifications on the global economy the destruction of all financial centers and loss of agricultural stability would yield alongside massive ecosystem loss (less food and oxygen) and a huge increase in destructive natural disasters.
>ur source is shit
>science major
>believes that humans are causing climate change
topwew lad
Global warming is good. Unless you live at 3rd world latitudes.
>carbon emissions
>ice caps are shrinking and global temps are rising
which is supposed to be seen as an incentive to invest in technologies that emit less, but of course your victim complex sees it as an attack on you for causing emissions
Because "widely-accepted" is meaningless in science. The models predicting massive increases in temperature coinciding with human carbon dioxide production have not proven correct for twenty years. Moderate warming or cooling in the climate is normal and part of a long process - looking at data going back thousands of years is helpful to understand this. The current headlines about "hottest year ever!" are horse shit because it's almost impossible to gauge planetary temperature over the entire globe and we have poor data to compare with for such a measurement in the past. In essence we don't even know if the climate in general is warming up or not, and even if it is, it's not necessarily out of the ordinary. Finally, it doesn't appear that our theories about human carbon dioxide production and the greenhouse effect were accurate. Were the sciences not politicized we'd see a rush of research right now into the question of how the earth adapts to changing conditions because it appears it is much more resilient than theorized. Further, the carbon tax, UN climate change, Paris treaty, etc, DO NOTHING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. So they should be thrown out regardless. All in all, it's refreshing and GOOD NEWS. We're not all going to cook and drown because of coal plants. We should still work on reducing our pollution for other reasons, and we will. We should work to manage our infrastructure to adapt to changing sea levels and climate - there is actually big opportunity in this area. We should not go forward with the arrogance that we can necessarily halt a changing climate on this entire planet when we don't understand the forces involved. The ones we thought we did, well we turned out to be wrong. Move forward.
This.
whats the problem with ice caps melting and temps rising?
Melting icecaps means more freshwater in the ecosystem and deserts and shrinking. Carbon in the atmosphere was like 4X higher during the dinosaurs. Humans flourish during warming periods. What exactly is the danger you are so scared of?
>current geological time period being a drop in the bucket
>denying the sun has anything to do with warming of cooling the planet
>denying we are in a long term cooling period
kys
You realize that means great migrations due to changing climate, right? You might not care about Africa, but plenty of poor countries are going to be hurting for food and water because of AGM. And they'll be coming to the U.S. and Europe in droves because of it.
And no, you can't stop it unless you stop climate change; Europe hasn't been able to stop the flow of war refugees.
Ice Caps melt, this means more freshwater as you say, but it fucks up the oceanic currents. This shuts them down which eventually leads to global cooling.
The quality of our global climate data is shit. We actually don't really know if our measurements correspond to our historical record beyond a few decades at most.
oh I see you didnt read any of my greentexts
this ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the sun warms the planet
kek. you're a retard. The sun has little to do with our increased climate.
Carbon is bad. Please stop breathing, OP.
the US isnt that bad
China and India are causing the problem
>Humans flourish during warming periods.
Truth
Hallo major Science! Did you know that free-range goat herding is causing desertification and therefore no more trees and grasses are left to absorb the carbon because fucking Arabs and sheeeit? How about exterminating all the troglodytes if you really want to save the planet from extinction?
kys retard
>The sun has little to do with our increased climate.
The sun has short cycles and long cycles.
Look up the Maunder Minimum, and the Dalton Minimum.
LOL that is a laughable fake produced by republishills.. here is the real data from that study
ncdc.noaa.gov
citation needed?
I've never heard this argument before, temperature data, especially recent data, is collected with highly sensitive equipment from NOAA buoys and lower tropospheric sensors. If you meant longer scale, antarctic ice columns are completely undisturbed, and their insight into temps is incredibly accurate due to the thousands of samples collected being so similar (in elementary school terms: temp measured by differences in color/viscosity due to previous melting, carbon measured through bubbles)
also melting sea ice leads to less thermal reflection and more ocean absorption -> warmer oceans and less land ice leads to higher sea levels while higher temps just causes a fucked feedback loop feeding the process
earth is a rhombus pls respond
sure as long as that warming period is nice and tiny (due to natural volcanic emissions/milankovitch cycles) where the environment can rebound, unlike this unprecedented rapid rise, and now even ice cap loss
So, warmer is better.
We agree....
Again true, half true, or false none of that matters. Answering your original question politically global warming doesn't matter. The left has so politicized the issue since old Al gore and his incontinent truth that any bipartisan efforts on the issue are never going to happen. Combine that with the repeated over the top predictions of disaster we've seen over the last 15 years and nobody cares anymore. The greens have cried wolf too many times.
Trump is a big businessman he clearly loves science when its involved in building things. That's the stuff he and the gop care about. Not theories propped up by leftists politicians to advance Marxists policy.
You're probably a larping fag but for anyone who truly does care about environmental issues my advice is drop the partisan politics. There was a time, just 20 years ago when environmentalism was a bipartisan issue and decent environmentally friendly laws and regulations could actually get passed. Now its just us vs them garbage like OP that accomplishes nothing.
>and now even ice cap loss
What ice cap loss?
>crips
>relevant
They've been getting constantly btfo by the cartels in California
>republishills
Yep larping fag
Koch Brothers pay them off
serious non meme answer
showing data from before humans even evolved does NOT make your argument stronger, idiot.
what it says is that you have no clue about science or logic whatsoever.
no climate change scientist has ever tried to say that the earth has never been this hot before.
but what we are saying is if the temperature changes very quickly it will cause major fucking problems and the resulting climate may not be one in which mankind is able to thrive like it now does. note that most of the species alive during the periods you reference NO LONGER EXIST.
>so i am at a loss as to why republicans are still holding on to the anti-science view.
republican science demands we confront each threat in order of danger to mankind, fukushima reactor is first priority, Japan and Israel need to pay
>Fuck Hollywood and fuck China.
funny how these 2 ended up in bed together
I was going a bit fast but it's what I mentioned earlier with sea ice melting due to warmer temps, and that leading to less reflected thermal radiation (ice reflects), which is then absorbed by the ocean, which warms the ocean, which melts more ice -> feedback loop
melting land ice is driven by increased thermal radiation reflected by greenhouse gases, which then leads to sea level rise once it reaches the ocean
>still believes the CoJew is causing global yawning.
That highly sensitive equipment hasn't been in place very long, and it creates a measurement that is not directly comparable to that of the ice cores because they are of entirely different methods. Further, the ice cores cannot tell us what the temperature was in Ghana. Something the highly-sensitive equipment may also be failing to do. You haven't heard this argument before because it greatly undermines the mythology. The only genuinely trustworthy evidence for climate change is the increased glacial melting that we are seeing, but it's not at all certain why that is happening or if we can do anything about it or not (we probably cannot). Archaeological and anthropological evidence suggests that human settlement has been repeatedly disturbed by changing climates and we have been forced to migrate constantly as a result. Why should the present era be any different? If our greenhouse models are failing we have to throw out their conclusions, not bend the data to fit them, as is being done. Most important, the political solutions that have been proposed thus far are not solutions at all.
Because it's game theory. Everybody's emissions affect everybody equally, across the whole world.. whatever the combined efforts to reduce emissions are, those who reduce emissions the least will benefit the most comparatively to the others who do attempt to reduce emissions at the detriment of their industry. It's global government or nothing. Since global government doesn't exist, it's nothing. Got it?
>mfw northern mexico 1140 over sea level masterrace
Eat shit sudacas
These feedback-loops have not been demonstrated. They are the height of arrogance as they attempt to simplify an extraordinarily complex system (earth's atmosphere) that we don't properly understand. "Global dimming" was proposed years ago, suggesting that increased carbon and pollution actually acts to filter out some of the effects it causes. This is not to say it's accurate, but serves to point out that there are many forces involved and that our models that rely on a few theories have FAILED to be predictive, meaning they're shit.
I was telling OP to die because according to OP carbon emissions should be restricted.
wow sir, you are incredibly uninformed.
firstly the science is not politicized. republicans accuse it of being politicized because they don't like the policies that would result—it's bad for oil companies that support them. period.
saying climate science is politicized is like saying cancer is politicized, and you should just smoke cigarettes anyway because nobody really knows what causes cancer and hey, you're going to die anyway, right?
the fact is that we do have very solid evidence on global temperatures; they come from NASA and NOAA other sources (just look at their websites) that monitor the earth and the sun constantly with lots of instruments.
monitoring global temperatures is not some impossible task, it's actually pretty straightforward with the tech we have today.
also, CO2 trapping heat is basic physics and is a scientific fact, easily testable in any lab, and not up for debate. it's like trying to say gravity isn't real or that the freezing point of water isn't 0 degrees Celcius; you just look like a retard.
lastly, policies to reduce emissions will work if they are followed. that's why it's important that people actually fucking follow this shit.
you don't have to look very far to see what a planet looks like after a runaway greenhouse effect, check out venus. you imagine we can't possibly fuck earth up, but we can and we are.
yes but the temperature in ghana is irrelevant, as we're comparing global temperatures (climate trends over time). The equipment is failing argument is very weak, as that is just an unfounded assumption that is not reflected in the data - it's collected by multiple sources and the same throughout. There's no "mythology" to science kek, it just makes little sense to me when the data says the opposite. Decreasing carbon emissions can lead to eventual stabilization of temperatures and greatly reduce lost ice cap melt, and it's incredibly certain what's causing it scientifically, although exxonmobil would argue otherwise. Changing climates happen, milankovitch cycles are present, but unprecedented temperature rise during an expected low temp milankovitch cycle? Unprecedented - there is no co2 temp correlation - It's CAUSATION. Physics. The political solutions are solutions, unless you're one of the many energy companies which run the government and will lose profits (koch brothers, rex tillerson). I've got to go but this argument makes very little logical sense, outright denying data is dangerous and I suggest reading up on peer reviewed scientific literature instead of whatever claimed greenhouse models are failing - if so gravity isn't real.
>can someone explain to me why trump is opposed to policies to reduce carbon emissions?
Because it's a waste of fucking time and money.
>it seems pretty widely accepted now that the ice caps are shrinking and global temps are rising, possibly much faster than we even expected.
Uh, no. Pic related.
>so i am at a loss as to why republicans are still holding on to the anti-science view.
Fuck off. IF the IPCCs models were correct (they are already falsified) and IF the US reduced CO2 emissions to zero...fucking zero...do you know what impact that would have?
The warming curve would be offset by about a decade.
Trillions of dollars spent...one fucking decade.
KYS if you think that's worth it.
Earth will never experience a runaway Greenhouse gas effect. More warming causes more water vapor, more water vapor more clouds, more clouds less shortwave radiation, less shortwave cooler temperatures. It's a negative feedback loop. Water is a conserved quantity on Earth, we can neither gain or lose more water than what exists in all forms within earth's atmosphere as of right now. A runaway effect would essentially be saying that the planet got so hot water disappeared into space.
oh jej
Cancer is highly politicized, are you retarded or just blind?
We do have good recent solid evidence for temperatures, but there is no such thing as a 'global temperature.' Our recent attempts to assemble such a thing using the instruments you describe are great, but they do not date back very far and can't tell us anything about 1923 much less 1640 or 3000 BC.
CO2 trapping heat was not disputed and is not shown in the models to actually be the key driver of climate change. Those models that attempt to predict temperature changes rely on water vapor feedback loops which are far less established. Nice try though!
Finally, evidence needed that "policies to reduce emissions will actually work." Sounds good in a spreadsheet, yet fails to know anything about humanity. You've never managed a complex project with varying groups of people I'm certain.
To suggest that our emissions levels are on the level of Venus is just hilarious. Go back to your undergrad lab and call us when you're old enough to have actually learned something in life.
Pic related is inaccurate in that it shows only global temps between 20 N and 20 S, while the models show global predictions. It is incorrect to say that the lack of warming in this thin belt accurately depicts global changes in temperature, which is what this graph is trying to convey. The tropics will experience the least amount of impact from global warming due to the high water content in the atmosphere. This acts to regulate the climate. The poles will be the hardest hit areas from climate change.
>The equipment is failing argument is very weak, as that is just an unfounded assumption that is not reflected in the data - it's collected by multiple sources and the same throughout.
70% of the surface stations have a margin of error >= 2C. surfacestations.org
The ground data set has never been in agreement with the sat or radiosonde balloon data. And on top of all that...people continually fuck with the data sets to "hide the decline" and show warming.
>Decreasing carbon emissions can lead to eventual stabilization of temperatures
No. Earth's climate has never been "stable."
>unprecedented temperature rise
No such thing. Fuck, we've been in a "pause" for 17...18 years now?
>there is no co2 temp correlation - It's CAUSATION. Physics.
The maximum possible forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 is +1.2C. PHYSICS BITCH. The reason the IPCC claims 2-6C of potential warming is because of a claimed net positive H2O feedback that quite frankly doesn't exist.
CO2 is a weak GHG.
>The political solutions are solutions,
No they are not. NOTHING put forth by the IPCC or the world's governments would affect temps by more than 0.1C according to their own models.
You must not believe in God. Obviously mother nature destroys anything man made. Our "carbon emissions" made by us are a drop in the bucket of the atmosphere and we are well on our way to innovating new forms of energy to power our world with.
See the problem with your short sighted thinking is that, eventually, if you kept projecting calculations of man made measurements you will be telling me that the I am not worth the air I breathe because I don't contribute anything to those who also believe as you do.
BTFO only God knows the true measurements of which he created this universe and we as humans could never fathom the ultimate truth.
There is no "the equipment is failing argument" but nice straw man - either you're intentionally doing it or your comprehension is poor - neither is helping your credibility.
The argument is that two methods of measurement taking data from entirely different sources are not necessarily useful for a consistent index. If you can show me that our new methods of measurement are able to match recent ice core samples in a way that allows us to extend the data back then please do so. As for the temperature in Ghana of course it is relevant because it is part of the total global temperature measurement that you need to make in order to draw a proper global comparison. For all you know your data is being fucked by the fact that instead of actual rising or cooling, the heat is actually just moving around to other parts of the globe in a way that your measurements are missing. None of us here work for exxonmobil or really give a shit about them and are not invested in their profits. You however are invested in a career path and school of thought that may have less basis in reality than you'd like to admit. Further, denying data is one thing but denying poorly supported theories in an environment where as many as 50% of published studies are not reproducible is simply critical thinking.
>Pic related is inaccurate in that it shows only global temps between 20 N and 20 S, while the models show global predictions.
NO. The model projections are for the same region. The GCMs CANNOT accurately model Earth's temperatures for any region. This is widely acknowledged by believers in AGW theory. Even James fucking Hansen has acknowledged "the pause."
>It is incorrect to say that the lack of warming in this thin belt accurately depicts global changes in temperature, which is what this graph is trying to convey.
You literally do not know what you're talking about. Or you are a shill. If the latter, educate yourself. If the former, die.
>You're probably a larping fag but for anyone who truly does care about environmental issues my advice is drop the partisan politics. There was a time, just 20 years ago when environmentalism was a bipartisan issue and decent environmentally friendly laws and regulations could actually get passed. Now its just us vs them garbage like OP that accomplishes nothing.
nope, never larped. also, i grew up in a family of scientists and literally all they care about is their work. they are the worst workaholics you will ever meet. they care about getting published and doing real scientific research that will get past peer review.
so, when people say the left politicized science, that is fucking bullshit. the fact is that the left are the only people who base policies on reason and logic, while the right bases policies on whatever corporate interest is buttfucking them. not that the left is free of corruption, but at least it tries to occasionally look at reality and science etc.
republicans are the ones who politicized science, by letting people bribe them into ignoring it. i'm not sure when that mentality started but it has reached a level of insanity that's beyond the pale now.
i mean, this is a slash-and-burn mentality. ditching paris and going back on the climate deal could produce modest short term growth but it's not going to matter one bit if the seas rise significantly.
you all think this is some kind of joke, but you don't realize what an effect this will have on agriculture, which is where all our food comes from.
given how close we are to solar power being the cheapest form of energy, i think you need to be open to the fact that clinging to the oil teats of saudi arabia is not exactly a pro-usa stance.
>it seems pretty widely accepted now that the ice caps are shrinking and global temps are rising, possibly much faster than we even expected.
literally who gives a fuck
>If the latter, educate yourself. If the former, die.
Fucked up. I meant former educate yourself, latter kys.
>No. Earth's climate has never been "stable."
Earth's climate is actually very stable. It is stable in the fact that it has stayed in a delicate temperature range for a long enough period of time for life to develop and evolve. When we see sharp changes in the climate, i.e. a spike in temperature of CO2, is always coincides with a mass extinction event. Co2 and temps have been high before, no debate there, but these have changed over thousands of years, giving life plenty of time to adapt to the changes.
>No such thing. Fuck, we've been in a "pause" for 17...18 years now?
We are not in a pause at all. I'm sure you are referring to the hiatus, which occurred through the 2000's. During this time period, we we're in a phase known as the negative phase of the pacific decadal osciallation. This was causing heat from the atmosphere to be stored 700 m below the SFC of the ocean. In 2015, we came out of this pause as the pacific decadal osciallation switched back to its positive phase, and a strong el nino ensured. Consequently, we saw record year temps in 2015 and 2016. Even during the pause, temps continued to rise, albeit at a slower rate than what we saw in the 90's.
>The maximum possible forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 is +1.2C. PHYSICS BITCH. The reason the IPCC claims 2-6C of potential warming is because of a claimed net positive H2O feedback that quite frankly doesn't exist. CO2 is a weak GHG.
I'm interested in this physics. You're probably going to bring up something about absorption bands of CO2. The IPCC claims 6 C of warming due to the negative feedback of h20 and temperature. CO2 is a weak GHG, but it does trap heat which does create more water vapor, which is a strong greenhouse gas.
>can someone explain to me why trump is opposed to policies to reduce carbon emissions?
because no other country will follow them and there's no sense in shackling ourselves to give others an advantage
>it seems pretty widely accepted now that the ice caps are shrinking and global temps are rising, possibly much faster than we even expected.
We're still coming out of an ice age.
Are there graphs for other regions?
The individual models cannot model Earth's temps accurately. Yes, you are correct. Sort of. This is why we use ensembles, a blend of all the models. When ensembles are used, the ensembles very accuratley model the current empirical data, so we can use those to make predictions about the future.
If they do and let us import any car we want and not get shafted I don't give a fuck
The water vapor and its effect on warming is the linchpin of the entire argument against "consensus climate change." Without correlation between the observed data and the predictive models it remains a hypothesis at best. That's where they got you, bud. If you want to grow a sack and make a name for yourself, focus on that area, it's where the headlines will be made.
I think you know the answer.......
These simple questions usually throw the deniers into a profanity laced loop about how your a jew faggot cuck who doesnt understand science. Just a script, don't take it offensively
>hi Sup Forums .. science major here.
>can someone explain to me why Liberals are opposed to policies to reduce low IQ immigrants?
>it seems pretty widely accepted now that the race-science is robust and global IQ is dropping, possibly much faster than we even expected.
>so i am at a loss as to why Liberals are still holding on to the anti-science view.
>if it wasn't for that, i could be moderately ok with Liberals, since most other things he seems like he might fuck up are reversible, but altering the demographics of the USA might not be, especially since whites are the smallest minority on earth.
what you need to realize is that not all science deals in exact predictions. much of science deals in likelihoods and outcome ranges.
but the current global temperature data is unprecedented and shows that temps are increasing faster than we thought they would.
and yes, we do know it is from CO2.. only a fucking idiot would think that you can put a greenhouse gas that traps heat into the atmosphere and not see an increase in temperature. it's basic physics, just like putting on a coat when it's cold.
the only legit question is how fast will temps rise and how quickly will it melt the ice?
the worst case is that will it rise so fast that it creates a feedback loop which in turn makes it rise even faster, leading to a "runaway" effect.
the real choice all of you have is to listen to the smart people who do science every day for a living and are most familiar with the data... or... listen to some retards posting fake charts on Sup Forums and grossly misinterpreting real ones.
when scientists said the earth was round and it orbited the sun, and that time and space are relative, and all the weird quantum stuff, they got the same reactions of doubt and disbelief. why can't idiots just for once accept what science is telling you?
>but the current global temperature data is unprecedented and shows that temps are increasing faster than we thought they would.
wrong
Bruh he was elected by rural and suburban retards who can barely read.
kek
There is a strong correlation between the spike of CO2 and the spike of temperatures. However, every good statistician knows, and this is one of pols favorite arguments, that correlation does not imply causation.
This is where computers and models come in. They allow us to experiment with the atmosphere to test to see if CO2 is the cause for the warming. Using these models (mind you these are not global climate models, they are much simplier models known as energy balance models, where you simply adjust values to test a hypothesis), we can adjust for the natural factors and for co2. None of the natural factors could account for the rate of warming we have seen in the empirical data. However, when we adjust for co2, it is a near perfect match for the warming we are seeing currently. These are the experiments pol loves to point out and say we haven't done them yet. That there are no reproducible experiments that have been completed to test our co2 hypothesis, when in fact this has been completed many times over.
Invasions are easily repelled if the political will exists to do so. Europeans are pussies. Except for the Russians perhaps. Russia by the way will benefit most from global warming, as they will become the bread basket of the world.
Please elaborate on why user was wrong. With scientific information.
drrr, I dunt know abooot probability or sciencez, i get all of my information from Sup Forums graphics.
This is why nobody gives a shit about twats like you - you make assumptions based on signaling and drip condescension because you think you're talking to someone below you. Your entire self-worth is wrapped up in labels and you cannot comprehend the people who operate outside of that universe. I don't need to flash my credentials to you, and I don't need to debase myself and our audience by quoting formulae to try and look smart. Read my fucking argument again if your language comprehension allows and attempt to actually respond to the actual arguments presented rather than just the ones your puny rote-mind has been trained to understand.
A science major is a future burger flipper unless they spend about another $150k getting a Masters & PhD. Even then, they're making less than I, a guy with a bachelors in Computer Engineering, am.
>None of the natural factors could account for the rate of warming we have seen in the empirical data.
None of the factors you put into the model can account for the rate of warming, therefore either your guess is correct or your model is shit. I'm on team: your model is shit and I'm right, as you'll eventually discover.
Guess you didn't read past the part you copied, where I explained CO2 is the reason for the warming.
Actually current climate models are pretty damn accurate. it's you who are full of shit. if you actually did any research into climate models recently, you'd see they've been vindicated and it's a myth that their predictions are false.
climate models work with a margin of error, like steph curry's 3-pointer. they predict where things will be within a range of accuracy, and they are correct in those predictions. people who do not understand how science works, look at that and say, "omg its wrong" but that's like saying steph curry sucks at shooting three pointers because he doesn't make it 100% of the time.
all scientific predictions have a given margin of error to which they are accurate. that doesn't make them wrong or less useful; but it does make them science and not belief or religion.
>Science major here
You vastly overstate the accomplishments of those studies, and we both know it.
Better question: Let's assume for argument sake that the alarmists are right and we stand at the cusp of climatic catastrophe, do you honestly think the US government can do shit about it?
You expect the same people who run the DMV to control the weather?
It took them a five fucking days to get water to the Superdome.
Technologies that emit less what? I bet you have no idea how detrimental semiconductor fabrication (solar panel production) is to the environment. This for a technology that is less than 10% efficient and only works part time.
Wind turbines, eh? Too bad you need around 3,000 gigantic wind turbines to replace one coal fired power plant (accounting for the wind not always blowing, constant maintenance, and their inability to ramp up for peak demand).
Your arguments are getting weaker but I'll keep trying. This was no major accomplishment. It was simple science. There is a correlation between Co2 and temperature (observation). Rising co2 must be causing the rising temps (hypothesis). We put all the information we know, external and internal forcings, the rise in co2 into very simple energy balance models to see what explains the warming (experiment). The experiment shows natural factors do not explain all of the warming. They also show the when we adjust the co2 levels in the model into the current observations, it accurately accounts for the warming. Therefore, co2, and not natural factors, are responsible for the warming (conclusion).
> NY, Louisiana going under fastest
Yes, keep moving those goalposts! Fifteen years from now you'll sadly still be repeating this, scratching the straggling, greying hairs on your head, occasionally considering how you've wasted your life and moderate intellect. Upon therapy, probably paid for by the likes of me, you'll discover that you were emotionally attached to a virtuous mythology of yourself and that you work supported that and propped up your identity for all of those years, allowing you to forestall the inevitable mirror-staring moment where you discover that a lie, no matter how beautiful, can only sustain for so long, eventually dissipating with the passage of time. What does your model say about that? Mine is solid, and it is actually prescriptive, giving it real utility and value to the world. Apply that test and you're gold, ignore that advice and your future is above.
If the models are so fucking good why she's the IPCC constantly fuck up their temperature predictions? If they started actually getting things right maybe I would listen to them.
LOL what is your source for that pic? Sup Forums? who made it? what journal reviewed the data to make sure it wasn't falsified?
it's pretty telling to come in here and have people use unsourced charts as if they were gospel.
i suggest you review the work of john abraham... start here with a regular newspaper since evidently scientific literature is beyond you. theguardian.com
Because he doesn't give a fuck and america wants cheap petroleum products nigger.
Also I'm not saying ONLY the US should implement these policies. the whole world needs to, but are we going to lead or not? i was under the impression we were the example setters. no?
how can we expect anyone else to comply if we don't?
Christ, do you just repeat the same thing over and over or what? Do you realize that you are a robot, that your statements could actually be programmed right now and spat out on command should someone find a way to make money off of that? You offer nothing but repetitions of easily refuted trash and do so in a tone suggestive of someone who has never once questioned if mommy and daddy and professor roberts actually knew what they were talking about or not. Your model is shit because you get out what you put in. This is not complicated science, it's basic operational discipline. The mechanism you are describing has two key factors, the c02 and the after effects. The after effects are what actually matters to humans because a couple C temperature shift is entirely manageable whereas a five C shift presents real challenges. The weakness is in the complexity of part two and the difficulty in showing that climb from 2c to 5c in REALITY rather than in a model you keep fucking with to get it to spit out something that can get your grant renewed.
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015
Not an argument from authority, because he explains his position (climate change is pseudo-science) in detail.
Literally one of the smartest men on the planet, explaining to a room full of some of the smartest men on the planet, that climate change is pseudo-science.
If you haven't seen this and you think climate change is real, you're a shill. Pure and simple.