SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
How hot is too hot for the human body?:
Some climate models predict that we're going to start hitting wet-bulb temperatures over 95 °F by the middle of the 21st century. Other researchers say we're already there. In a study published in 2020, researchers showed that some places in the subtropics have already reported such conditions—and they're getting more common.
While most researchers agree that a wet-bulb temperature of 95 °F is unlivable for most humans, the reality is that less extreme conditions can be deadly too. We've only hit those wet-bulb temperatures on Earth a few times, but heat kills people around the world every year.
[...] Heat acclimatization builds up over time: It can start in as little as a few days, and the whole process can take six weeks or longer, Hanna says. People who are more acclimatized to heat sweat more, and their sweat is more diluted, meaning they lose fewer electrolytes through their sweat. This can protect the body from dehydration and heart and kidney problems, Hanna says.
Acclimatization is why heat waves in cooler places, or heat waves early in summer, are more likely to be deadly than the same conditions in hotter places or later in summer. It's not just that places like Canada and Seattle are less likely to have air conditioning, although infrastructure is another big factor in how deadly heat waves will be. Residents of cooler places are also just less acclimatized to the heat, so wet-bulb temperatures below 95 °F can be deadly.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 19 2021, @04:41AM (46 children)
And organisms adapt.
Those that don't go the route of dinosaurs.
As Picard said, turn the page.
(Score: 4, Funny) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @07:42AM (45 children)
lol they adapt by species dying out and new species adapted to the new conditions taking over. organisms adapt. An organism dies.
given that, the key quote here is "wet-bulb temperatures" - that means at or over 95% humidity. The hot areas do not have 95% humidity - they have like 10% humidity.
>heat kills people around the world every year
yes, so do stairs. we have areas that are too cold to live. we have areas that are too high up to live. the CA coast might be underwater and the super-rich will lose their prime real-estate. Connecticut becomes the new beach town, while Alaska and Canada become the midwest. Siberia will be the new Sochi.
People will have to move. No one is going to die. Been to Dubai many times. It's usually over a hundred there. Plenty of people living just fine.
>some places in the subtropics have already reported such conditions
cool. and the ocean has too much undrinkable water, and no land on which to build a house. and your compass won't work at the South pole. and we can't live up in the air, because we'd fall and die. and just like all those places, don't build your house in the subtropics. The planet is mostly empty, we're not running out of space.
but yes, some people will have to move. probably a billion people will have to move, and lose the house they own, and lose the land they own. well, you won't lose your house - you'll simply not leave the house as a viable inheritance to your kids, because it'll be under water or uninhabitable. And for a billion people, that's a terrible thing. but it's not "we're going to all die and humans will be extinct." It's more on the level of the housing bubble when a bunch lost their home.
Here's the issue, and I'll use a different example. Smoking is bad for you. The Truth(tm) anti-smoking ads on TV:
if you smoke, it's guaranteed to kill you. reality - only 10% of smokers die of smoking. which is terrible, but I guess not terrible enough.
cigs contain this huge list of poisons (list poisons in the filter, released if you smoke the filter, not the tobacco).
vaping contains heavy metals and all these poisons (if your vape is empty, has no auto-shutoff, and you hold down the fire button for 30 seconds till it melts down).
smoking is bad. spreading complete lies and bullshit about why it's bad makes people not listen to anything you have to say, because you're a liar and a faggot, and who listens to anything a lying faggot says.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @08:14AM (44 children)
Question is not how do we stop AGW but rather - what is the ideal climate and how do we get there?
Nb: In terms of cost, 1e9 people is say, 2e8 houses ~ $1e5 each construction cost => O($2e13) i.e. $20 trillion. Gives order of magnitude for the appropriate spend on terraforming tech.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @08:58AM (41 children)
"we" are not going to terraform shit. we can't agree on anything within a single country. getting everyone to change - from the polish guy just trying to put food on the table, sawing off the catalytic converter because if he doesn't, the shitty gas destroys it once a year, to the vegan suppliers cutting down the rainforest for palms.
in addition, your cost estimate makes a false dichotomy. a portion of the population losing 20 trillion in equity is not the same as all population spending an extra 20 trillion. in the same way totalling your car is not the same as buying a new car.
then there's the thing I like to say which gets a bunch of antivaxx retards to think I'm in their group: I don't think most of the climate change is human-made. If you look at the geological records, on the millions of years scale, pull up the graphs of temperature and greenhouse gasses. there is a very weak correlation. if you take the slope, it's not a linear relationship. there are points where CO2 goes through the roof, and the temperature barely changes. There are also points where CO2 barely changes and temperature goes up exponentially. Yes, qualitatively greenhouse gas has to warm up the planet. But the planet warms and cools at 100x the rate on its own, for some other reasons. If you're drowning in a lake and I throw a glass of water in the lake, the glass of water didn't cause the drowning.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @09:29AM (15 children)
> we can't agree on anything
Fair point.
> If you're drowning in a lake and I throw a glass of water in the lake, the glass of water didn't cause the drowning.
I think the metaphor is a bad one because the temperature oscillations are more like few % (say, 10/300 deg C).
> If you look at the geological records, on the millions of years scale
On the millions of years scale there are big systematic effects. Just as a stupid example, day night cycle was way shorter. Continental structure was completely different (what effect one big sea and one big continent would have?). What about air pressure?
https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/11/28/3642932.htm [abc.net.au]
> Since the dinosaurs lived during the Mesozoic era, from 250 million years ago to 65 million years ago,
> day length would have been longer than 21 hours and probably closer to 23 hours.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2713 [nature.com]
> P_{atm} = 0.23 ± 0.23 (2σ) bar
--
For the last million years, where we can guess that the atmosphere was less dissimilar to the one today, the correlation is pretty strong.
This one looks quite strongly correlated (last million years)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Temperature-change-and-carbon-dioxide-change-measured-from-the-EPICA-Dome-C-ice-core-in-Antarctica-v2.jpg [wikipedia.org]
On longer timescales - probably you are correct
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @09:58AM (14 children)
But I'm talking about correlation, not amount of change - the slope of change for CO2 and temperature. Take that whole graph of yours, and make a single datapoint out of it. Now plot it against others, and you have almost no correlation:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sivakumaran-Sivaramanan/publication/280548391/figure/fig1/AS:670051329912835@1536764094158/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008.ppm [researchgate.net]
BTW, even you graph doesn't seem to show a Human cause of climate change. What it does show, is that over the last million years, we've had the exact thing, with the same slope as now, 7 times.
Take a graph of how much time people spend outdoors, to how much time they spend sick. The less you spend outdoors, the more sick you are. According to the logic you're using for your graph, being indoors makes you sick more. Of course, it's the opposite - you're exposed to many more pathogens outside. But people who are sick tend to stay in bed, inside.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @11:04AM (13 children)
Your reference is not a peer-reviewed paper. I didn't have time to read it, but the corresponding address is a hotmail address! So not credible. I wonder what the timecube folks have to say about AGW.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @12:15PM (12 children)
i didn't link any paper. my reference is a google image search for 'co2 vs temperature millions years'
the image i picked is the one that looked pretty. they all show the same thing. i first blindly believed in human-made climate change. my dad, a geologist with a doctorate in chemistry, did not. i made fun if him, then did some research. strangely, prettt much no geologist believes in human-made climate change. the do believe in humans being a tiny, supersuper tiny contributor to it. why? because all the graphs look like the one i linked, showing weak correlation, not cause and effect.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @01:24PM (11 children)
> my dad ...
good for him
> i didn't link any paper
The image you posted comes from this self-published article:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280548391_Global_Warming_and_Climate_change_causes_impacts_and_mitigation [researchgate.net]
It is not reliable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @02:00PM (5 children)
not sure what to tell you here, try reading my last reply again i guess. fox news shows a photo of the whitehouse, you go 'it is not a reliable source so it's not the whitehouse.'
this is a standard chart, same from any source, because it's data the world has had for like a hundred years. it hasn't changed, but i'm sure you won't even bother to google, because you'd rather have it unanswered than spend 10 seconds to prove yourself wrong.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-539be9f47112048e24a6d516d068161c [quoracdn.net]
here's the same chart. google has about a thousand more of it, from a thousand sources. it's literally in a bunch of geology textbooks.
you want to be dense, i'm not here to convince you of anything. i also see you left the point about Your chart unansweted. Your chart literally shows humans don't cause climate change. it shows the change we have now, has happened 7 times in the last million years -before all our emissions.
(Score: 1, Troll) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @03:43PM (3 children)
> you won't even bother to google
I didn't find it on search, sorry.
Do you have a graph that shows e.g. air pressure on a similar time scale?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @04:22PM (2 children)
yeah, yeah, you didn't find it, even thought different versions of this graph are half the images returned for when you google temperature vs co2 millions of years. i believe you.
>Do you have a graph that shows e.g. air pressure on a similar time scale?
nah, but I got a photo of a dumb faggot being purposely dense. I stuck it to your mirror.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @04:51PM (1 child)
Sinking into trolling...
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @06:11PM
when I encounter someone like yourself, who is being purposely dense, and is unable to have a discussion - yes. At that point, when you claim you can't find something in a google image search where half the results on the page are the chart in question? Yes, since you started trolling, your only purpose for me at that point is someone to entertain me and to shit on. You've put on clown makeup and are now complaining about being treated as a clown. Which is very entertaining to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 19 2021, @04:20PM
*it's not a reliable source so it may or may not be the whitehouse. it's a house and it's white but is it THE white house"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Socrastotle on Monday July 19 2021, @02:33PM (4 children)
He is mostly right. The exact CO2 levels on a geologic time scale are not well understood, but do not seem to support the notion that CO2 levels drive temperature changes. You can find various papers discussing the topic by searching for something like 'geologic CO2 levels'. Here [nature.com] is one. One thing you might also notice even in the graphs of contemporary times is that CO2 changes tended to follow [nasa.gov] temperature changes rather than vice versa. The idea is that our impact on the atmosphere has now changed the relationship with CO2, normally a product of feedback systems (e.g. - temperature goes up, melts frozen gases, increases CO2 levels, etc), is now the primary driver itself rather than Milankovitch cycles and other normal reasons the planet regularly cycles through extremes of hots and colds.
The entire idea of CO2 driving temperature came largely from Venus as well as a basic understanding of how CO2 (and greenhouse gases in general) work. They do not react to high frequency energy (such as much of the energy coming from the sun) but tend to reflect lower frequency energy, such as the infrared energy emitted by the Earth after absorptions. It's the exact same way a greenhouse works. Light enters the greenhouse through the windows, which do not reflect much high frequency (UV) light, its absorbed, and then reemitted primarily as infrared energy but the windows are opaque to infrared energy, so it gets trapped and you get a nice warm area, even during cold days outside. Same reason the inside of your car is dramatically hotter than the outside, but can be cooled by simply covering the windows.
I don't have much an opinion one way or the other beyond a general disdain for model based science, which is the entirety of current climatology. Models do not tell you whether something is right or wrong; quite the opposite - they can work to affirm invalid views. For instance when we assumed the Earth was the center of the universe, we were nonetheless able to predict the normal cycles of the models using painfully complex models that involved absurd assumptions such as celestial bodies doing figure 8s (as the sun appears to do if you map its position each day), going in reverse, and so on. But in spite of every single assumption being wrong, the model was able to derive the position by simply correlating it over time. And the so the model, which worked in spite of the assumptions, worked to offer undeserved validation to the assumptions.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @03:32PM (1 child)
> general disdain for model based science
I agree to a point - but in the end, science is an endless loop of model vs data.
(Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Monday July 19 2021, @06:41PM
Indeed, but bad models can completely freeze this loop. And while there are many important aspects to good science including testability, and creating novel predictions, I think the most important is simply falsifiability. How do you falsify geocentricism given the technology available to those at the time? You simply cannot. Any deviation could be quite reasonably dismissed as minor imprecisions in the epicycles [wikipedia.org]. After all if it gets everything 99% right, how could that 1% really matter?
The problem is that when a model cannot be falsified it becomes easy to simply assume it must be true, and at worst needing of greater refinement. And so more and more is built upon it, and at some point it goes from the *assumption* that it must be true, to the *demand* that it must be true because so much comes to be invested in it. Scientific careers become built and completely invested in it, centuries of scientific literature becomes contingent upon it, and political authorities (in the past this would have been the Church) integrate the idea into their very existence. Geocentricism, for instance, was adopted by the Church as evidence of the uniqueness of man and of Earth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 19 2021, @04:56PM
Nothing in science tells you whether you are "right" or "wrong," only that you are or are not (or can't tell) consistent with observation and experience. All science is model based. Models can be "wrong" if they fail to describe observation, like how the Rayleigh=Jeans law broke down as you approached ultraviolet light, but some models describe things pretty well even though they might be very complicated. Even models that are obviously wrong can be useful if they are used where the model is accurate, such as over a narrow range where the relationship is linear, or basically anything that engineers deal with in their everyday work, where classical physics based models are more than sufficient to do the job.
Regarding physics based climate models, I tend to put a lot of value into what they predict, especially if many independently built models generally point in the same direction. You have to act on the best information you have available, and if most of the models are suggesting dramatic changes are in store over relatively short time scales, it would be very irresponsible to claim that since we don't know if these models are "right" that we should not do anything. Perhaps if you only had one model, but regarding climate models, that is far from being the case.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 28 2021, @04:25AM
On that timescale. There are two key differences between studying over that and studying over the past 150 years or so. First, no humans in those geological records so you are comparing random dynamics to a very specific change from human global industrialization. Second, there are all kinds of confounding factors that don't manifest in 150 years, such as continental scale geology, evolution of plant cover, and the pressure and density of the atmosphere.
Then you aren't doing science.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 20 2021, @04:02PM (24 children)
Let us note that more than a third of the Earth's land surface has already been modified to suit human interests? We've already shown considerable ability to terraform a lot of shit (even Earth can be made more Earth-like for humans!).
Except, of course, the cost is the same. Notice the use of the phrase "In terms of cost" - just as advertised.
The most important point to remember about "geological records" is that they don't show humanity's footprint because humanity isn't there. So when you add a glass of water, that is half the size of your lake, you're doing something new to that lake that wasn't being done before.
And while there's plenty wrong with climate change extrapolation (which I'll briefly mention below), the direct, short term heating of roughly 1.5 C per doubling of CO2 is well established by a solid radiative model. That incidentally corresponds to about a 0.9 C increase in temperature since 1880, which is about three quarters of the observed temperature increase over the same period of time. I'm working from memory, so there is some error there, but it's not going to change the basic observation: that we have a pretty solid physical model for the direct effects of heating from CO2 and other greenhouse gases, that we have pretty good estimates of how CO2 and equivalent changed over the past century and a half, and observation matches that estimate pretty well.
You can talk about "100x the rate", but we're not seeing the natural changes that would be needed to explain near past heating of the Earth (even with some elevated solar output). Meanwhile we are seeing heating in line with what is predicted by the basic radiative models, which incidentally are much more conservative than actual climate change estimates. On that last point, the absence of significant present day heating beyond the base radiative model indicates to me an absence of significant net positive feedback and tipping points in the near future.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday July 20 2021, @06:35PM (23 children)
>that is half the size of your lake
and this is where every geologist disagrees with the climate change scientists. if you look at the earth's co2 levels vs temp, over the last few hundred million years, there is almost no correlation.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-539be9f47112048e24a6d516d068161c [quoracdn.net]
>we're not seeing the natural changes
says you. the chart over the last billion years says otherwise. the chart over the last million years shows this exact thing has happened 7 times, when humans weren't making any co2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#/media/File:Temperature-change-and-carbon-dioxide-change-measured-from-the-EPICA-Dome-C-ice-core-in-Antarctica-v2.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Yes, I get it, pretty much all climate scientists say we're causing the climate change. They've been saying it for 40 years now, and every decade they give estimates, and every decade they move their current estimates 10 years more into the future. I'm not doubting climate change - it's happening clearly. And it's happened hundreds of times before, when we weren't around. And literally every geologist disagrees with the climate scientists. Now if you can actually address the two points I've made here, I'm open to changing my mind. Until then, all I'm seeing is adding a glass of water to a big lake, not adding half a lake to a lake.
>it's not going to change the basic observation
then explain the 7 other observations of this exact thing happening in the last million years.
>we are seeing heating in line with what is predicted by the basic radiative models
and in the last 40 years, that model has been adjusted 4 times. it's what happens when you quantitatively change your formula till it fits the data. sorry, that's not qualitative science, and quantitative science, as in my first chart, does not show that correlation.
go ahead, change my mind - I'd love that actually, but there's a reason geologists disagree with the climate scientists.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 20 2021, @09:31PM (22 children)
Do they? I disagree with climate scientists too, but in the matter of degree.
I'll note that I'm greatly understating the actual contribution from humanity. Last I checked about 55% of CO2 emitted by humanity got sinked. So we've actually added, past tense, a glass of CO2 (and equivalents) that is a bit larger than the lake. The 50% or so increase is what actually still in the air.
Unless, of course, there is that correlation, and your data is garbage since it's all heavily proxy data. Also, you're ignoring the confounding effects of geological changes like movement of continents, which can alter formation of polar ice and the eventual albedo of Earth. That's not going to play a role in a time frame of roughly 150 years.
There is considerable futility in extending such observations to a time when humans are making significant changes to CO2 concentrations over the span of human lifetimes.
You are also conflating climate models with a particular primitive model, the one dimensional radiative model. My point is that this primitive model [rsc.org], which incidentally is based on some pretty solid physics and is over a century old, does a good job of explaining heating of Earth without the conveniently adjustable parameters of the many climate models out there (or the exaggerated feedback mechanisms that have yet to be observed).
When people talk about how solid the science is, they're talking about this model.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday July 20 2021, @09:54PM (21 children)
>Do they
yes, they do. as I've stated, my father is a geologist w/ a chem phd.
https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/why-its-so-tricky-for-geologists-to-think-about-climate-change.html [slate.com]
the issue here, is geologists study the earth and hence long-term climate cycles, which are a recorded fact. pretty much all climate change scientists however are meteorologists and study short-term cycles, which are observed facts. to study climate change however, the climate meteorologist takes geological data and applies what he learned to it. It's similar to a handyman doing soil analysis to determine if it's safe to build a house on a piece of land.
>Unless, of course, there is that correlation
you didn't look at the graph, did you.
>your data is garbage since it's all heavily proxy data
this is recorded data from ice and core samples, which is not in doubt here by the people educated in this field. so when the data collected by the geologists doesn't fit your feelings, then their data, which they have consensus on, must be garbage? gotcha.
wait, so you lead with "human-produced CO2 causing climate change," I show you two graphs that disprove that, now you're telling me "forget that, it's H2CO3 causing the climate change?
>When people talk about how solid the science is, they're talking about this model.
when people talk about human-caused climate change, they're talking about human-caused CO2 emissions. If you're here to pretend they don't, the reasonable part of the discussion is over, and I'm going to just start making fun of you for my personal entertainment.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 21 2021, @12:36PM (20 children)
The ice core data did show extensive correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. So it actually confirms the basic narrative. The 600 million years of data OTOH is so tenuous and has such extreme confounding factors (like continental scale geology and the introduction of new branches of plants, both which can modify Earth's albedo and temperature a great deal without changing CO2 levels), we can't use it to support your argument.
No, they don't. Among the other things I already mentioned, there weren't humans producing CO2 back then.
Since when does "talking about this model" mean "human-caused CO2 emissions"? I'm not "pretending" by talking about something different.
And as long as that soil analysis is done well, then it works. One of the early things that got me concerned about the direction climate research was going, was the take by people in nearby fields, not just geology, that there was something weird going on in climatology, particularly with how they handled their model building, data manipulation, and statistical analysis.
For example, every major extinction and a few other significant geological events in the Earth's geological past have been examined through the lens of greenhouse gases emissions. Greenhouse gases have varied by enormous amounts over those times so it's not unreasonable to expect it to be a significant contributor or even a trigger for some of these events. But too often, these events were viewed through that lens only to generate hysteria in the present. For example: [stanford.edu]
What's missed is that at best, the sampling of that period has a resolution of tens of thousands of years (that is, even the most finely measured data of that event is averaged over a considerable span of time). My take is that relatively modest chemical changes over a few tens of thousands of years doesn't reflect the harm of volcanic activity which might have inputted most of those chemicals in a few gigantic episodic eruptions rather than steady state for the entire time. But it's great for creating alarm today.
It's no wonder that knowledgeable people looking at research like that would wonder what really is going on.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday July 21 2021, @07:11PM (19 children)
>we can't use it to support your argument.
again, the data and opinion of geologists don't agree with your feelings, so you just say "well, we can't use that data." We can and are using that data.
>The ice core data did show extensive correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature
it quite literally shows the opposite. you still didn't bother looking at the data or graphs, did you.
>extreme confounding factors
correct. take those data points on the graph, and throw them out. Now look at places in the graph where no such major events happen - you have many parts where the CO2 goes up and down a little, and the temp goes up and down a little. Many places the temp stays almost constant, while CO2 changes. Example: -250 to -200 mil years ago.
>And as long as that soil analysis is done well, then it works
and here you go again. the reason the graph doesn't fit your feelings is because you're assuming the consensus of all the geologists is wrong, and it must be that they all screwed up their analysis. yeah, that must be it.
>has a resolution of tens of thousands of years
yes, that's the point. and when you're looking at global climate change, that's the scale that's more appropriate to examine.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 22 2021, @03:17AM (18 children)
That would be the smart money bet. They don't have a lot of practice with this, after all.
For example, what was the atmospheric pressure during this 600 million year span? Higher and lower pressures can generate significant differences in heat retention. But atmospheric pressure is hard to determine. For example, this article [acs.org] suggests that the Earth may have started 4.5 billion years ago with an atmosphere of roughly 90 times the present atmospheric pressure (mostly made of CO2) which dropped in half after oceans formed (and dissolved CO2), and then dropped dramatically again as plant life and calcium carbonate-shelled lifeforms started burying carbon in the past billion years. That much atmosphere would have greatly increased the global temperature of early Earth.
Except when change is fast enough. For example, in the ice core example, CO2 levels never exceeded 320 ppm. We're over 400ppm and increased rapidly [noaa.gov] at the rate of roughly 1.8 ppm per year - that means that we're inserting 320 ppm every 175 years which is much less than tens of thousands of years.
My point here is that while the narrative of present day climate change (and its urgency) isn't supported by the science, a lower rate of change is supported. I think it is unwise to downplay human activity as being a minor contributor.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Thursday July 22 2021, @04:04AM (17 children)
yes yes, the "smart" bet would be to assume a bunch of scientists studying the subject matter are all wrong, and all their data is wrong. you don't have to repeat the same dumb shit over and over. i got it. you know better from a youtube video. but here's the big question - who won the election??
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 22 2021, @10:00AM (16 children)
Which bunch would that be? The climatologists or the geologists?
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:04AM (15 children)
either bunch sherlock.
but first, you mean meteorologists, not climatologists - which is a hipster new term for someone with a degree in meteorology. like weather girls.
both groups are a bunch of very smart very educates scientists, who study the same thing. the geologists have studied it for a hundred years, the meteorologists for about 40. it's hard to decide who is right. but here comes "khallow" with a google search, a youtube video, and some feelings, declaring the geological data is wrong, and also that it was misinterpreted. can't exaplain how or why, because he doesn't understand any of it, but "because data points are 10k years apart, and it negates the data, because it does."
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:32AM (14 children)
I would have used that word, if I meant it.
40 isn't much less than 100, and as I noted, the geologists are going to need more than 100 years to get good information about climate change several hundred million years ago. They'll need hard data.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:55AM (13 children)
>I would have used that word, if I meant it.
and had you, you would have been correct. hence me correcting you. there is a chance you could be talking about climatologists though - I'll give you that. most climate scientists are meteorologists, not climatologists. so yeah, I'll give the to you then, I should not have corrected you.
according to you then, we have 2 groups - the geologists, a large group with one opinion, and the climatologists - a tiny small group with a different opinion. you then say "smart money" is on the tiny group of scientists, and the really big group of scientists who have studied this for 2x the time, is wrong, and all their data is wrong. obviously!
which, given your autism, makes perfect sense to you. and which, given your autism, keeps you as my personal clown, here to entertain me.
>are going to need more than 100 years
clown makeup
>They'll need hard data.
clown hair
autism. a disease you were born with, and die with. there's nothing you can do to escape.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday July 25 2021, @12:33PM (12 children)
Why not? You have anything to contribute to this thread other than the feelz that your scientists are more right than their scientists? The size of the tribe or the length of study doesn't make someone more or less right. Evidence does. And frankly, claiming "most of the climate change is human-made" based on data like "geological records, on the millions of years scale" makes you just as wrong as the climate alarmists because neither of you are using actual evidence.
Just on the data you've given me about ice cores, I see evidence that CO2 levels and global mean temperature correlate - as predicted by the most basic model, the 1-dimensional radiative model of greenhouse gases warming (which also happens to be based on fairly solid physics). That's the scientific pattern - come up with a model based on the properties of the phenomena you are studying, and collect data which happens to confirm that model. I'll note that the model also explains well warming over the past century. One aspect of that prediction is that human activity is predicted to explain about three quarters of present day global warming.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Sunday July 25 2021, @12:48PM (11 children)
I contributed quite a bit. Showed graphs, data, and explanations, and why I think one group is right and the other is not. Your contribution was "data is wrong, scientists are wrong."
>I see evidence that CO2 levels and global mean temperature correlate
this explains a lot actually. the physical defect in your brain is your eyes see one thing, and it gets distorted by the time it gets to your brain - bad wiring.
correlate means when one goes up, so does the other. when one drops, so does the other. the graph I linked does not do that. your conclusion: they correlate. also your conclusion: the data is wrong.
>greenhouse gases warming
yes sherlock. there's the eye thing. the geologists think there is a weak correlation. As in you double the CO2 and temp goes up 1%. while the other 99%, as shown by the graph, comes from something else.
>The size of the tribe or the length of study doesn't make someone more or less right.
I see, so how long you study and collect the evidence, and how many scientists agree on a certain viewpoint doesn't make it right. In fact, it's meaningless, because you feel a certain way. That was pretty clear. People with autism are usually ruled by emotion.
>I'll note that the model also explains well warming over the past century
strangely, if you look on the graph for the last million years, where we do have more granular data, we've been through global warming 7 times already. before cars, before cows, before people.
But I do love this insight into your brain defect - it entertains me. It's like in your head is a rotting kitchen sponge, just making up anything you want to feel about the world around you. words, pictures, probably sounds. That and complete rejection by society at large, it's like you're being punished by god for existing. Every day. And it will never stop.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday July 26 2021, @08:38AM (10 children)
Those can be evidence, but you need more than their mere existence. Even badly wrong theories have figured out how to use these things. Let's review the key graph [wikipedia.org] that's holding you back. It's a graph of CO2 concentration in atmosphere and temperature. There's a very high correlation between the two, for example, peaks and troughs between the two. Any peak in CO2 (that remains a peak for say 50k years) has a peak in temperature nearby and vice versa. Troughs don't correlate quite as well, but it's pretty close too with low parts in one data set matching the low parts in the other.
Right there, I have graphs, data, and an explanation. What makes yours better than mine especially when your data is better explained by my explanation?
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 26 2021, @08:44AM (9 children)
>Right there, I have graphs, data, and an explanation.
you have actually provided none of that - all you've done is claim "data is wrong because datapoints are 10k years apart" - why does that make it wrong? Oh because. But let's say you weren't a dense and autistic social reject.
What I said was, I was first on the side of the meteorologists, then looked at what the geologists were saying and now agree with this other group of scientists. I then invited people to change my mind with their explanations, as I'm fully onboard with that. You then went on a 50-response autistic garble of nothing.
Which, again, is what I'm here for. I would never actually have an intellectual discussion with someone like you, or on this site. I am here so you can say autistic things, and I can then call you an autist. Repeatedly, and neverending - like your autism.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday July 26 2021, @08:47AM (8 children)
An ice core study going back 800k years or so says otherwise.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 26 2021, @09:09AM (7 children)
It's strange. You can clearly go back and reread my responses to that, yet you choose to keep being called an incel and repeating the conversation. Cool.
The study shows we have had this climate change 7 times already in the last 800k years. My claim, as is the geologists' is that Human climate change is tiny, and the rest is caused by something else. It is that CO2 does cause climate change, on a tiny scale. You are moving your goal posts, because your autistic incel brain needs to be right, and you're too dumb to actually provide the reasoning.
The argument is against the climate change being caused by Humans. You provide a graph with the same climate change we have now, happening 7 times before there were any humans around. Good job retard.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday July 26 2021, @04:00PM (6 children)
Tiny is a matter of opinion. But we can say that human climate change causes significant, observable changes in climate.
For example, about 10% of the Earth's surface (about 40% of land area) has been modified for human use (such as agriculture, pastureland, roads, and urban areas) and we have significant movement and extinction of organisms which can affect climate on a continental scale (ant and rodent invasive species, large mammal extinctions, invasive plants that increase fuel load for wildfires - anything that can change albedo on that scale). As I've noted before, CO2 concentrations are higher now than we've observed from those ice cores (with isotope analysis indicating most of that new CO2 likely comes from human activity).
We have a solid physical model that predicts about three quarters of the observed global warming of the past 150 or so years comes from human activity, given our estimates of human contributions to CO2 and other greenhouse gases concentrations in the atmosphere. On that last point, what's the better model? When climatologists add more complexity, they predict a lot more heating (the consensus of 3 C long term warming per doubling of CO2 is twice the warming predicted from the above model and some models predict a lot more than that). Nobody has a model that predicts less warming than the Arrhenius base model - not even the climate skeptics.
There's not much point to data like the hundreds of millions scale data that ignores a variety of confounding factors (continental-scale geology, evolution of plant cover, and atmospheric pressure/density) as well as the absence of the human-driven dynamics of present day climate change.
The fact that climate changes doesn't indicate the impossibility of significant human-caused climate change. Indeed, it shows the opposite, that such is possible.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 26 2021, @07:26PM (5 children)
>continental-scale geology, evolution of plant cover, and atmospheric pressure/density
we know all of those things lol
>observed global warming of the past 150 or so years
yes, because when we're talking long-term climate change for an entire huge planet in a solar system, we want to look at the day to day, not the millions of years of history. again, lol.
>climate changes doesn't indicate the impossibility
and it doesn't indicate the impossibility of 5th dimension flying unicorns either. the autist's conclusion from this is apparently "see, proof of flying unicorns." you should start a religion for the tards.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 27 2021, @05:28AM (4 children)
Really? Sounds like it's not good for much then!
The problem is that not demonstrating what you want to show is a more serious problem than those 5-dim unicorns.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday July 28 2021, @06:11PM (3 children)
It takes a real dense dimwit to not realize the unicorn is your conclusion. You know, because you literally used that exact wording about impossibility. But I'm glad you agree with me that you're completely full of crap.
>The problem is that not demonstrating what you want to show
right - when the data demonstrates the opposite of what you want to show, you just call the data wrong or useless. whatever keeps you in your little world, refreshing tabs, switching vpn connections, and posting little ac freakout songs all over the place. the effort you make, just to talk online - knowing you make that effort, just for me, is very gratifying. thank you autistic incel - never change. are you watching japanese unicorn girl cartoon porn today, or does the japanese rubber doll need some lovin? do you think of creaming creimer when you make love to the doll?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 29 2021, @05:22AM (2 children)
Apparently, it takes more commonsense than you have to notice that you're the one who brought up the unicorns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29 2021, @05:33AM (1 child)
me: you're arguing proving a negative, like that flying unicorns don't exist
you: i'm autistic and have trouble reading when i don't take my pills. now go away, my asian rubber doll awaits sex
me: yes, however the physical brain defect caused by your autism is not curable, and you will be a dense incel for the remainder of your days. what's it like to live in a brain fog, unable to understand basic sentences? what's it like having sex with dolls? what's it like to be insanely ugly and disgusting to the opposite sex?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 29 2021, @05:43AM
Except, of course, the scenario would be that you would give seven examples of flying unicorns being made naturally, and then arguing that somehow shows that humans can't make them too.
In other words, climate change has nature cooties so humans can't do climate change.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday July 19 2021, @06:23PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 20 2021, @04:03PM