[HN Gopher] Ocean-surface temperatures are breaking records
___________________________________________________________________
Ocean-surface temperatures are breaking records
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 194 points
Date : 2023-05-06 14:32 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| xwdv wrote:
| Starting to feel like the end, oceans would always go first.
| foverzar wrote:
| "always"
| mysterydip wrote:
| Are there calcs for how much energy these consistent rises take?
| I know it's basic chemistry so I assume those numbers have been
| run. Is warming from greenhouse gasses alone enough to cause, or
| are there other unknown contributors?
| [deleted]
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Albedo of the ocean changing over time can mean significantly
| more heat is absorbed. An example of this would be a loss of
| ice reflecting light rather than absorbing it. This won't
| account for all of this energy, but it's an example of one non-
| gas origin of warming.
|
| Evidence of albedo changes impacting arctic ice:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08467-z (I believe
| there are more studies like this; I've read one before, but it
| wasn't this one).
| mysterydip wrote:
| I hadn't considered side effects like that, very interesting.
| Makes you wonder what else has consequences we haven't
| realized yet.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| The answer so far has been "a lot", and I think it'll
| continue to be the answer.
| flangola7 wrote:
| Why would the albedo of water change?
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| The change in albedo is due to ice receding and revealing
| darker water, which absorbs more energy than ice does. The
| net effect is more solar energy being held in the ocean and
| atmosphere.
|
| The same thing happens anywhere there is ice. Think of
| mountain tops revealing dark gray rock which heats to 30
| degrees Celsius in summer in a location where there was
| previously ice. The ice would melt, yet reflect energy and
| still be cooler than the air, but the rock just radiates
| heat into the atmosphere (and remaining ice surrounding
| it).
| olddustytrail wrote:
| Because ice is shinier than dark water.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Warming from greenhouse gases is the driver of the warming, but
| there are multiplies. Most obvious one is water vapour which is
| a very powerful greenhouse gas. So the warming caused by the
| raised CO2 enables more water vapour in the air (warmer air can
| take up more water) which amplifies the greenhouse effect. Then
| come all the secondary effects like melting of highly
| reflective ice and others.
| Etrnl_President wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| I wonder if this is how the pendulum swings from interglacial to
| glacial periods. More water vapor in the atmosphere means heavier
| rains overall and heavier snowfall in polar regions. More snow
| takes longer to melt in the summer making it more likely that
| snow remains to be buried by more snow the next winter. Increased
| albedo of polar regions reduces global temperature making winter
| colder allowing the ice caps to creep towards the equator.
|
| I think it is good to remember that Earth has cyclic glacial
| periods. We just happen to live during a warm period.
| Timon3 wrote:
| This feels a lot like someone saying "Volcanoes have periods
| with high pressure and low pressure. We just happen to live
| during a high pressure period." in Pompei, as it ignores the
| problem in-between: the current change in glacial period is
| unprecedented for natural cycles.
| mvdl wrote:
| We are all going to die.
| ulnarkressty wrote:
| Well, eventually, yes. Personally it's hard to see parents
| around me trying to do their best for their children (gadgets,
| comfort, road trips, holidays) and inadvertently make their
| life difficult in the future. I try to gently point them to
| articles like this, however denial is strong, even among
| cultured people.
| tormeh wrote:
| Individual actions make so little difference it's negligible.
| By preaching change in individual actions you're trivializing
| the challenges we face.
| aliasxneo wrote:
| I'm not trying to discount the article, but why do these things
| show up on HN? Seems completely unrelated to the primary theme.
| citizenkeen wrote:
| What do you think the primary theme of HN is? Because the
| stated theme is:
|
| > Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That
| includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce
| it to a sentence, the answer might be: *anything that gratifies
| one's intellectual curiosity.*
|
| (Emphasis mine.)
| aliasxneo wrote:
| Thanks for taking the time to respond (seems I got mostly
| downvoted). I guess my understanding of hacking meant most
| technology related.
| jounker wrote:
| Global warming is a direct result of technological change.
| metadat wrote:
| https://archive.today/ulnga
| stanwesley wrote:
| [flagged]
| joebiden2 wrote:
| Energy doesn't come from nowhere. It comes either from the sun,
| from nuclear fuel, or from fossil fuels being burned. If it's not
| one of those three, we have a nobel prize winner.
|
| So, it probably comes from the sun1. The sun didn't change its
| output much according to relevant science in the last few years,
| solar cycles notwithstanding. So, it must be related to the
| amount of energy not being reflected into space.
|
| Which is where greenhouse gases come into play. The earth
| reflects a certain amount of energy it receives back into the
| vastness of space. The ratio of how much it reflects is affected
| by greenhouse gases.
|
| Now, there are a lot of greenhouse gases. CO2 is one of the least
| potent of all, but its sheer volume in the atmosphere - being
| increased by human emissions - makes it the most relevant actor
| here: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
|
| So, we're keeping more solar energy within earth's atmosphere. We
| can use that energy as solar energy, or as wind energy, or
| whatever we like, but as long as it is solar energy, the energy
| budget within earth's atmosphere won't change. We either have to
| reflect it back to space, or we'll suffer the same consequences
| as not using it as renewable energy2.
|
| That's it. This is just a collection of facts which are really
| obvious, but from my experience few people really consider in
| their threat model. I think not one fact I just posted is false,
| but I would really welcome to be educated where I am wrong.
|
| 1 Energy generated on earth compared to energy received from the
| sun is almost negligible: the energy generated on Earth is
| roughly 0.0000000000054% of the energy received from the Sun (3.8
| x 10^26 watts, compared to a ballpark around 10^15 watts of
| fossil + nuclear fuels combined).
|
| 2 This is probably obvious, but by reducing greenhouse gases in
| absolute terms, we reduce the albedo of earth, which in turn
| means reflecting more energy into space. Right now, we're just
| focusing on reducing the 2nd derivative of greenhouse gas
| emissions. In 2023, we do nothing at all in terms of actively
| increasing the albedo, that is, reflecting energy back into
| space.
| tuatoru wrote:
| Re footnote 2: Good effort, but it's not reflection (albedo).
| Greenhouse gases are all about the part of solar radiation that
| isn't immediately reflected.
|
| Most incident sunlight is absorbed (either in the lower
| atmosphere or on the surface). At the same time long wave
| infrared radiation (heat) is emitted, proportional to the
| temperature of the surfaces. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
| slow down the rate at which that heat escapes to space.
| joebiden2 wrote:
| This is one definition of albedo1, a more sophisticated one
| is here2
|
| 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
|
| 2 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1918770116
|
| Please think about the effects to understand albedo. It can
| be perceived as a complex topic, but in reality, it isn't.
|
| Good night
| effnorwood wrote:
| [dead]
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Yeah, and they're going to keep breaking records for the next 100
| years at least, and as a consequence atmospheric water vapor will
| continue to increase, with the various knock on effects of
| drought in some places, floods in other places, and increasing
| random extreme weather events all around the planet. Get used to
| it, and plan to adapt, because it isn't going away. Ask the
| chatbot, it seems to understand the current state of science
| (this is after querying it about Fourier, Manabe, planetary
| science etc. for a bit)
|
| > "Let's say we take an Earth-like planet with a similarly sized
| ocean, increase the concentration of infrared absorbing gases in
| the atmosphere about two-fold, then stabilize the atmosphere. How
| long will it take for the ocean to stop warming, from the
| perspective of both transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity
| estimates?"
|
| Transient: > "Using this model, we can estimate that it would
| take roughly 100-200 years for the ocean to stop warming,
| depending on the specific assumptions used."
|
| Equilibrium: > "Depending on the specific assumptions used in the
| model, it could take several centuries or even millennia for the
| ocean to reach a new equilibrium state."
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| > _Equilibrium_
|
| The closest thing to this is lifeless planets. Mercury is in
| pretty good equilibrium.
|
| Life is chemical reaction, and chemical reactions are
| inequilibria.
|
| Life and equilibrium are opposites -- life _is_ inequilibrium.
| It 's possible because Earth has been in constant change,
| facilitating energy transfer between organisms, which
| themselves have been causing changes, like what we're doing or
| like that one time that cyanobacteria killed everything by
| creating oxygen[0] or like that other time that methanogens
| killed everything by creating methane[1].
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
|
| 1:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanosarcina#Role_in_the_Per...
| BobbyJo wrote:
| That's not really a relevant comment. We aren't talking about
| Earth being in equilibrium, we are talking about ocean
| temperatures ending their rise. Parent used equilibrium to
| describe the end of warming, not to suggest that we'd reach
| some kind of desirable global homeostasis. I think we'd all
| be happy with a disequilibrium that made things cool down
| from where they are presently, or from where they'll be in
| 200 years.
| tjr225 wrote:
| [dead]
| omilu wrote:
| [flagged]
| JoshTko wrote:
| Given that the energy needed to change ocean temp is massive and
| the current momentum, no tech solution will be able to prevent
| ocean ecosystem collapse of 90% ocean lifeform death. We're
| probably past the point of no return already.
| thriftwy wrote:
| In the last few million years there were massive swings in
| Earth (and sea) temperature.
|
| A couple hundred million years ago there was a warm era, there
| were no ice anywhere on Earth.
|
| I can see how climate change might be highly destructive to
| human habitat, but "90% ocean lifeform death" is the best
| excuse for not taking climate activists seriously.
| marcyb5st wrote:
| It all depends on the rate at which things change. Greenhouse
| gasses we emitted already changed temperatures faster than
| ever before (1ish degC in less than 2 centuries). Nature
| doesn't have time to adapt to such a repentine change and so
| another "great dying" is a concrete possibility.
| kaba0 wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/1732/
|
| Also, oxygen and CO2 solubility changes heavily with
| temperature.
| trallnag wrote:
| Did it also fluctuate as quickly in the past?
| civilized wrote:
| Why do so many people believe this notion that current trends
| of warming imply looming mass extinction? What is the argument
| or evidence for this?
| pvaldes wrote:
| > Why do so many people believe this notion that current
| trends of warming imply looming mass extinction? What is the
| argument or evidence for this?
|
| A truck filled with ecological research
| kaba0 wrote:
| Warm water can't solve as much oxygen, plus there are plenty
| of self-reinforcing effects that might have already started
| happening.
|
| Life won't die, we had plenty of mass extinction, but most of
| current species do like their oxygen. Also, their shells.
| zosima wrote:
| But there's also plenty of negative feedback processes. Why
| assume there'll be extreme runaway apocalypse from the
| warming.
| graeme wrote:
| There's negative and positive feedback processes. On
| balance the positive feedback processes outweigh the
| negative ones. e.g.
|
| * Melting ice caps mean more heat absorption
|
| * melting permafrost releases methane
|
| * Warming oceans freeze frozen methane
|
| I'm forgetting a bunch, doing this from memory. What
| negative feedbacks do you believe outweigh these?
| BobbyJo wrote:
| Why assume there won't be? Seems like the risk there is
| greater.
| baq wrote:
| What's runaway is our rate of change in releasing co2,
| compounding annually at something like 1-2%
| Daishiman wrote:
| The velocity of change is historically unprecedented and we
| have a good amount of empirical evidence of what it takes to
| collapse ocean ecosystems.
| Retric wrote:
| We've been collapsing ocean ecosystems simply through
| fishing.
|
| 200 million tonnes of seafood per year is an unprecedented
| and unsustainable change. Global warming will of course
| make things worse but it's not like the oceans are
| currently healthy.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| _historically unprecedented_
|
| Unprecedented in the last 100 years, million years, or 500
| million years? That's a lot of precedent with some major
| and rapid climate changes.
| jbay808 wrote:
| Pre-history usually refers to a time period approximately
| up to the invention of writing, so some several thousand
| years. If your time scale is the past 500 million years,
| there have been some real big mass extinctions to go
| along with those rapid climate changes. Not sure that's
| an encouraging precedent.
| briantakita wrote:
| The climate has rapidly changed throughout Earth's
| history. Our current period of warming over the past
| couple of centuries began at the end of a mini ice age,
| so its not surprising temperatures rise when exiting the
| ice age. Just like its not surprising that temperatures
| rise after winter into spring & summer. CO2 is more
| likely a side effect of warming, coming from the warming
| ocean, than it is the driver of the warming.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| This is just badly wrong and ignorant. Ask anyone who's
| actually studied the interglatial periods - in other
| words, the scientists who've provided the temperature
| information you're referring to - and they'll tell you
| why you're wrong.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| Unprecedented in the era of human farming is sufficient
| enough for my worry. Yes, life as a whole probably
| survives whatever happens in one form or another. But
| those rapid climate changes tend towards seriously
| limiting the resources available to species living
| through them. Modern civilization relies on keeping
| things in a situation where it's possible to grow enough
| food to feed 7+ billion people, and I'd rather we not
| create our own mass environmental change that has a
| serious possibility to disrupt said food making process.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Are you aware of the climate and antmosphere ever
| changing so abruptly according to ice core records?
| Retric wrote:
| Ice core records don't go back that far. But some past
| mass extinction events were believed to be caused by more
| rapid climate swings resulting from asteroid impacts etc.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| The thing about our situation is that no asteroid strikes
| or major geological events have occurred. So we know it's
| possible to have major swings, but it's less clear that
| they should occur without some obvious trigger.
| zosima wrote:
| What resolution does ice core records have? Do they
| really show year-over-year change or are the core records
| being smoothed through natural processes?
| joshuahedlund wrote:
| I read a book about this once, forget the title.
| Greenland's cores have clear annual layers for several
| thousands of years (validated by extra ash layers from
| known volcanic eruptions), and they can measure carbon
| and temperature from the isotopes trapped inside (temp is
| measured due to some effect of oxygen isotopes following
| a reliable temperature gradient or something like that,
| they had a couple independent measurement methods that
| matched up). At some point the compacted layers start to
| merge but they can still reliably estimate because the
| overall cyclic trends (on multi thousand year scales, due
| to mathematically regular wobbling of earth's rotation
| and other factors) follow the same trends from the
| clearly annual layers. This goes back several hundred
| thousand years, with temp increases always following
| carbon increases.
|
| Edit: the book was The White Planet by Jean Jouzel,
| Claude Lorius, and Dominique Raynard
| [deleted]
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Great questions, and I don't have the answers. I'll
| definitely look into it though.
| mjhay wrote:
| The mass extinction isn't looming. We're in the middle of it
| right now.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| The current mass extinction doesn't have much to do with
| the climate crisis though, it's caused by good old
| fashioned massive exploration of the environment for human
| gain. (This is, of course, not a good thing. It's an
| already massively fucked with ecosystem that climate change
| is causing increasing strain in)
| jackmott wrote:
| [dead]
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| As others have explained, there is the unprecedented loss of
| diversity of species and change in climate. I'd add that
| there's also no evidence this will slow or stop (at least
| that I'm aware of), but there is mounting evidence that it
| will continue and even accelerate (which we are possibly even
| witnessing today).
| tuatoru wrote:
| The loss[1] of diversity is primarily due to the way we
| abuse the ocean - bottom dredging of shellfish beds
| destroying whole slow-growing ecosystems, dumping
| sediments, toxins and excessive nutrients (which amount to
| toxins) in the ocean via runoff from land, indiscriminately
| catching whole populations of free-swimming fish, and so
| on.
|
| Climate change is just the cherry on top, really, compared
| to our other efforts to reduce biodiversity.
|
| 1. I don't know why we use the word "loss", which implies
| an accidental outcome, when we're systematically setting
| out to plunder and strip-mine ecosystems.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Do you know if diversity collapses in the ocean is more
| severe than on land? I know vast deforestation and
| destruction of the water cycle (either by reduction or
| degrading via pollution) has a virtually incalculable
| impact on this, but perhaps in the ocean it's even worse.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Ad absurdum, dust in the higher parts of the atmosphere can
| cause to literally freeze over the whole planet.
|
| I am no optimist, but not due to technological limitations, but
| economic ones -- the only hope is "unknown unknowns". We might
| invent some new technology that could wipe clear our existing
| estimates for the better.
| George83728 wrote:
| These ocean- _surface_ temperatures concern the top few
| millimeters of the ocean. The thermal mass in question is far
| far lower than the ocean itself.
| pvaldes wrote:
| > only the top few millimeters
|
| This is not how we measure ocean surface temperatures. The
| researching cube is sink entirely. Two m deep is still
| surface.
| myshpa wrote:
| I've spent some time last week reading about this ... pretty
| scary.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)
|
| https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/global-warming-led-c...
|
| Peter Ward: "Oceans - What's the Worst that Can Happen?"
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eM1aakTzMw
| itissid wrote:
| And WTF is wrong with Chinese Govt policy when they want to
| just have these ivory doo-dads so much that if their populace
| don't have access to ivory they eviscerate Clam population in
| the south china sea.
| sebmellen wrote:
| Truly, driving giant clams to near extinction for ivory
| because elephant poaching is harder now is insane. Same with
| the Pangolin scales for used for "libido enhancement" (which
| don't even work)! What is wrong with China?
| xnx wrote:
| > Same with the Pangolin scales for used for "libido
| enhancement"
|
| The second order impacts of Pfizer/Viagra as a savior of
| endangered species is wild
| xorbax wrote:
| China has "traditional" medicine, the US has the prosperity
| gospel
|
| Maybe the human race is fine on average, but the stupid
| outliers are an order of magnitude more destructive than
| the average person in unpredictable and ignorable ways.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| >> China has "traditional" medicine, the US has the
| prosperity gospel
|
| Better analogy would be chiropractic and homeopathy. Both
| are total junk and are held up by nothing other than
| anecdotal evidence (and massive amounts of PR and
| lobbying).
| Jare wrote:
| So is religion tbh yet here we are.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Religion is on a wider scale, more like society at large.
| dumpsterlid wrote:
| [dead]
| Haga wrote:
| [dead]
| itissid wrote:
| That peter ward stuff is really scary:
|
| - Slowing of ocean cycles leads to a miasma of hot H2S and then
| swampy jungle like place.
|
| - Slowing Reproductive cycles is nearer than wet bulb
| temperature related issues.
| sebmellen wrote:
| Wow, that Peter Ward podcast is the least sensationalist, yet
| most terrifying piece I've heard on the future of climate.
| Damn.
| bertil wrote:
| I was not ready for the sperm twist on the wet bulb
| temperature...
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Hm, maybe there is something to the Gaia theory, after all.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| [flagged]
| cloudripper wrote:
| Do you have a source for that data? According to NOAA [0], that
| doesn't appear to be true for world average sea surface temp
| data. 2021 and 2022 data appear to be tracking fairly
| consistently.
|
| [0]: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| Could be true. What I remember is the Atlantic being cooler
| and below average hurricanes, and also some of the major
| reefs recovering.
| coldtea wrote:
| Confirmation bias. People select what they want to
| remember.
|
| In any case, it's the trends that matter, not the year-to-
| year variation. Some years will be cooler than the
| previous, but both will be part of a worrying multi-decade
| trend of upward temperature trends.
| jwilber wrote:
| Why post at all if you don't know?
| jjulius wrote:
| Temperatures can increase without going in a straight line
| up (eg, last year _may_ have been cooler than the year
| before, but it 's still up overall and continuing to go
| up).
|
| Saying what you said in your original comment is akin to,
| "Look, it's January and I just made a snowman, so much for
| global warming huh?".
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| I looked up a source since everyone loves to downvote
| controversial statements these days.
| https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/atlantic-hurricane-
| season#:....
| jmclnx wrote:
| True I guess (I did not search), but records were not broken on
| coolness. There is always an up/down variance over the years,
| as other people posted, the trend is up, not down. So being
| cooler than last year is not an "event". Breaking records is an
| "event".
| sdenton4 wrote:
| 2015 was the last year with much time at all below the +2-sigma
| line for daily mean ocean temperature since 1980. That's
| terrifying - the mean is moving upwards /very/ quickly.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Really? I'm surprised -- every other time I visit my parents I
| overhear conservative media gloating over how the latest
| downward fluctuation in something or other casts doubt on
| global warming. They've been doing this for at least 20 years
| but the lines keep going up.
| cloudripper wrote:
| Time-series chart of Daily Surface Sea Temps compared year-over-
| year from early 80s to previous day:
|
| https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
|
| Edit: This is the same source used by the article.
| brabel wrote:
| You can hover with the mouse over the year labels at the bottom
| to highlight their curves... go on and do that for each column
| of years, from top to bottom... that will let you see how the
| curves rapidly went up for every single column, which is
| roughly a decade for each row. And it seems to be going up
| *faster* for the latest decades. This is really scary.
| kortilla wrote:
| How are sensors added to a system like this without it no
| longer being a year to year comparison?
| wpietri wrote:
| The system in question has always been something that
| combines various sensors, interpolating and adjusting to
| produce broad numbers. There's an extensive academic
| reference list here under the "About" tab:
| https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/optimum-interpolation-sst
| mhh__ wrote:
| Meta Point: Ideally it'd be done very carefully.
|
| Climate change research is often people's first look at how
| professional scientists operate, so things which are merely
| carefully working around systematic errors in other contexts
| may be suddenly deemed evidence of a fraudulent conspiracy.
| surume wrote:
| Yes, unless the data has been doctored or outright fabricated to
| present a dismal picture that has the effect of coercing society
| to adopt globalist elitist agendas that rob the populations of
| their rights and power "for the greater good". We can no longer
| "trust the science". There are too many examples of it being
| utterly corrupted to substantiate narrow and extremist political
| goals.
| sebmellen wrote:
| If the data has been doctored, it's in the opposite direction.
| You are completely misguided if you think the majority of
| wealthy "elites" are making any serious efforts to address
| climate crises.
|
| https://www.climateofdenial.org/track-climate-change-denial/...
| surume wrote:
| [flagged]
| enraged_camel wrote:
| Project Veritas? You can't be serious.
| surume wrote:
| Verified and certified video of CNN executives discussing
| their plans - why not be serious? CNN never even denied
| it. Those are their employees. Do you have any proof that
| this isn't legit?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| The claim wasn't that the elite are making a serious effort
| to address the climate issue. The claim was that the elite
| are making a serious effort to use the fear of the climate
| crisis to push everyone else to give up freedom and give the
| elites more control.
|
| Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with the claim. But before
| you dismiss it as baloney, at least be sure you know what is
| actually being claimed.
| phaker wrote:
| With this attitude you'll see conspiracies everywhere, and
| that's a self reinforcing spiral.
|
| If this is how much evidence you need to dismiss something
| without checking, then you'll dismiss everything and you'll
| never find out if/when the hunch was wrong.
| surume wrote:
| My attitude is scientifically based. When you see data that
| is "too good to be true" for a certain political side, you
| should assume that it likely is. If this "completely
| vindicates" the drive and cause of the left-wing globalist
| elites, and is then used to substantiate their argument that
| personal freedoms need to be removes so that they have
| "enough power" to stop the oncoming Climate Armageddon, then
| no, the data should not be trusted. Too many studies have
| recently been proven to have been entirely fabricated or
| heavily doctored to back up a political cause. We should not
| be sheep.
| sveme wrote:
| So who are these globalist left-wing elites that are using
| fake climate change to achieve what, exactly?
| surume wrote:
| The World Economic Forum, led by Klaus Schwab. Excellent
| question.
|
| https://youtu.be/0uhiYcG0Psg
| mikub wrote:
| How many studys of this kind did you read yourself? How
| many of those studys you read, if you read some, you were
| able to understand? In my experience, people talking about
| not beeing sheep are the ones who get their "information"
| from some obscure youtube channel that tells them to not be
| a sheep.
| surume wrote:
| No. Please read for yourself.
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/09052820374
| 5.h...
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02035-2
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#:~:text=
| The....
|
| We have a crisis in science where the data for too many
| studies has been doctored. So we must trust in common
| sense, defend personal freedoms, and reject globalist
| elitist agendas that promise us easy solutions and
| impossible utopias.
| mikub wrote:
| Believe me, scientists are very well aware of the
| problems in academia, publishing papers, peer reviewing,
| it is not perfect. But don't make the mistake to turn
| this into a global elitist conspiracy, yes there are some
| people who like to control the narative, but you really
| need to learn to distinct good from bad scientists. For
| starter, people who make money only by telling some other
| people that everything they believe in is crap, and that
| all other people except your little group needs to wake
| up and dont be sheep, that shouldnt be the guys/girls to
| trust.
| surume wrote:
| No. This study can be used to change public policy in
| hundreds of countries. Its importance is paramount, and
| the findings can be used to radically alter and remove
| your freedoms, so the default position should be to not
| trust it. Before we believe a shred of it, every input
| needs to be thoroughly investigated and reviewed by
| multiple independent parties. The reason I am claiming
| this is a conspiracy is because it perfectly lines up
| with globalist elitist talking points. That flawless
| supporting study is their dream come true, which is
| enough of a reason to cry foul.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| No, you're just talking bollocks. There is no replication
| crisis in everyday, known physics. We know how the
| greenhouse effect works, better than we know how gravity
| works.
| foverzar wrote:
| Ironically, we know precious little about gravity. We
| couldn't even properly scale our classic understanding of
| gravity to orbital mechanics without significantly
| upgrading our models. And discoveries in particle physics
| expand our understanding of the phenomenon in completely
| wild ways.
| surume wrote:
| What is your evidence? What is your proof besides simply
| claiming something is a lie? I've given you my sources.
| Why don't you give me yours.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| My sources for physics? Do you want me to link to some
| textbooks or something? Learn some stuff is the best I
| can do for you just now, I think.
|
| Edit: oh wait, Khan Academy has some physics courses I
| believe; you could probably do that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-06 23:01 UTC)