I can't manage to fully redpill myself on climate change, anyone got some good stuff
(climate change)
Jaxon Williams
Other urls found in this thread:
eesc.columbia.edu
youtube.com
earthguide.ucsd.edu
youtube.com
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
pubs.usgs.gov
nytimes.com
nytimes
archive.is
twitter.com
Jaxson Ward
Bump
William Young
potholer54
stop reading internet blogs. they aren't climatologists and can't even understand how to read a scientific paper.
Dylan Ross
Sun is 95% of our temperature, 5% is internal heat of our core.
It's solar output has an extremely high correlation with our temperature, however it doesn't explain the cyclical ice ages.
William Carter
I'm in the same boat. Would appreciate some solid redpills, lads.
Connor Taylor
The two bell curves are incoming solar shortwave/ultraviolet/visible (left)
Outgoing reflected longwave/Infrared (right)
Earth absorbs 23% directly, the rest is reflected and of that reflection it gets scattered by clouds (14%) blue sky (10%) and atmosphere (17%)
of that 17% atmospheric absorption we now encounter the greenhouse phenomenon. Looking at what is doing that absorption we use spectrographs
Hunter Cox
Its made up by the jews. to keep us from success.
Luis Gonzalez
It doesn't matter.
The solution will never be wealth redistribution shemes of globalist elites, but free market solutions - provided they are not suppressed by globalist elites.
Gavin Hall
eesc.columbia.edu
Putting this in perspective, my conclusion is that the sun's correspondence is extremely close to 1:1. There really isn't room for any other factor that would influence us outside of that. And looking at the atmosphere's absorption of 17.5%, of that being say primarily C02 but also H20, it really is insignificant and not a sufficient explanation convincing me of its importance.
Samuel Green
is "redpill me" slang for "have some moron try to explain climate change on Sup Forums?" or does it mean "sell me on sucking corporate cock?"
> actually believing this shit
Austin Miller
William Clark
The sources do not deny or are skeptical of climate change, I'm simply using them to show perspective that their conclusions are not sufficient. The graphs and charts are all theirs.
earthguide.ucsd.edu
I also posted the unsourced TSI vs TA charts.
Aaron Jackson
Leftypol get out.
Blake Adams
so you're having a hard time lying to yourself? so youre asking to be brainwashed?
i thought libtards were the ones with the mental illness
Josiah Ramirez
Being skeptical of mainstream narratives doesn't make you a moron, nor does it make you a corporate shill. Try it sometime.
Julian Rivera
Again to summarize, left curve is solar emitted, incoming shortwave
And the right curve is reflected outgoing, we reflect about 80%, and that gets intercepted/scattered by clouds and atmosphere.
Then of that atmospheric absorption the spectrograph of the right shows that H20, C02, and 02 (ozone) are what absorbs that outgoing energy and induces the greenhouse effect.
It's in my opinion insignificant from what I've seen but you can put it into perspective and conclude yourself.
earthguide.ucsd.edu
-radiation charts and information
eesc.columbia.edu
-solar radiation budget
Asher Diaz
Nathan Torres
if the sun were the only important factor, when we look at Earth history, what we should see is basically a long-term secular warming trend over the entire Phanerozoic, since the sun's luminosity has gone up by 4% over that time as part of its evolution as a main sequence star
but in fact, when you look, what you see couldn't be further from a straight upward line. So there must be something else influencing temperature on Earth.
What could that possibly be?
Dylan Lee
Firstly that hockeystick is gained from '''administrative changes''' to data, secondly interglacials.
2001 web.archive.org
2012 web.archive.org
web.archive.org
Anyone care to enlighten me on why the annual and 5-year means change every few months? Because back in 2000 it showed a slight cooling trend, then from these '''administrative changes''' it's turned into a vertical line.
Dominic Jenkins
It's happening,and we're causing it.
Oil and dirty energy companies are funding climate change deniers.
That's all.
Grayson Phillips
With the data plotted up to 2000.
Originally the dataset was two significant figures, that representing the degree of accuracy, now they make changes to 100 year old measurements and say it's accurate to four significant figures.
If you measured something with a ruler in 1920 and said it's 9.5 inches, that's not 9.534 inches, you can't gain any more accuracy from past measurements, and you certainly can't do it every few days.
Oliver James
how this a response to what I said?
You said that the correlation between temperature and the sun's output is "extremely close to 1:1" and that "there really isn't room for any other factor", so I'm asking you why temperature on Earth hasn't just followed the slow increase of solar luminosity over that time in the form of a (more or less) straight upward curve.
Levi Howard
This is my thinking too... wtf is paying politicians going to do to help?
The only thing I can see that would help would be less humans, wage full out war on any country that's involved in deforestization... and also anyone country that dumps shit in the ocean.
Jackson Flores
what do you think about a carbon fee and dividend then?
carbon-heavy energy sources get a fee (that is slowly increasing over time) either that the domestic mine or the port of entry and this fee is payed out to every legal citizen as a direct dividend. That makes it revenue-neutral and would also mean that people who have a below-average carbon footprint (that's about 2/3 of the population) would make a net gain in money.
Isaac Hall
The sun has cycles of activity which on a fine and exacting scale show a very strong correlation with our climate. This makes perfect sense when you realize carbon dioxide is frankly irrelevant at impacting climate.
What the sun doesn't explain however are the ice ages, but that's not to say the sun wouldn't also show a near 1:1 correlation during those periods as well on a micro scale.
pubs.usgs.gov
Pretending that carbon dioxide had any effect on climate before 100 years ago I should want you to realize that you have the intellectual capacity of a typical Berlin citizen (a negro muslim)
Eli Campbell
I suppose that is supposed to be directed at me?
I notice that aren't answering my question.
You say that there is a 1:1 correlation between temperature and the sun's output.
When I point out that this just isn't the case, your response shouldn't be to just repeat your claim once more that there is a 1:1 correlation.
I guess I'll just have to pose the question to you a third time:
Why hasn't temperature during the Phanerozoic followed the sun's increasing irradiance as a secular warming trend?
Brandon Wood
I dont believe climate change is mainly human made. But I still think green energy is the best energy source.
Mason Harris
Leo Stewart
Here's the archive
>nytimes com/2017/01/03/world/asia/beijing-smog-video.html?_r=0
archive.is
Henry Green
Here's your redpill:
The data on what's actually going on with the climate is far too complicated and fucked up for laymen to make any useful conclusions from. This leaves it as a matter of trust in various government science institutions (which are not even remotely trustworthy.)
But even THIS does not matter, because while we can't conclude much on the truth or accuracy of the climate data, we don't need to in order to figure out the truth/accuracy of the economic data, and of the proposed solutions.
We know that the economic data and predictions based on the climate data are garbage, because they are all made using the same sorts of economic models that we've been using for financial forecasting for decades, and these models have never been accurate enough to be useful. They are the financial equivalent of astrology, and are used for the same reasons to trick suckers. (Read Taleb for more info on this.)
Even if the climate data is right, the proposed economic policies are worthless garbage. When you see a politician/climate scientist propose things that don't rely on shitty economic models, then they will be worth evaluating. That hasn't happened yet, and probably never will, because it's impossible to propose a decent one (which is why we get economic distribution plans wrapped in climate concern instead.)
There are plenty of possible solutions out there, such as cloud seeding and metal seeding oceans, but they never get talked about by Climate Scientists or Politicians because they are actual solutions that don't benefit any given politician and won't help any Gov scientist get his next grant.
Ignore anyone who is trying to solve things through economics. They are just virtue signalling for votes.