i would use almalinux looks good for a server
i wouldnt use ubuntu , it looks bad

Because all evidence provided is from the 60's onwards and not before the 60's... or is that taboo to bring up?

No clue. It's pointless.

Alright here's the truth. There's climate, and it changes all the time. 4 seasons. Sometimes it's hotter, sometimes it's colder. Sometimes we have ice ages and sometimes we don't. All of how hot/cold we are is determined by distance from the sun and the sun's output. The end.

Now back to linux discussions.

Speaking of science denialists...

I'm not sure you realise that during 1940s-1970s aerosols were cooling the atmosphere quite a bit. It wasn't until sulfur scrubbers were installed in dirty coal power plants that the scarier underlying rapid heating was truly noticed.

Hint - you should have used that as your main argument, not some imaginary conspiracy theory how scientists ignore data points before 1960s...though the "scientists predicted ice age in the 70s!" argument can also be easily debunked.

Wow. Astounding. All answers correct on your middle school exam! Congrats on your A.

You just neglected one small thing - the rate of rapid recent warming is unprecedented. That's what is meant by climate change, or anthropogenic climate change ACC for the longer terminology.

And the Sun cannot be the culprit. Since the 2nd Industrial revolution (1890s) total solar irradiance has had a slight cooling trend.

I'm so glad you have so much respect for scientists who for a living research these things and that you are under the belief they have not thought about these explanations and investigated them.

Here comes rtcvb32! The prodigy of man, who has single-handedly debunked climate change with his infallible counter-theory and data. All cower in fear.

Well, that was fun. Back to glorifying Linux, I guess. Where's the guy who thinks we're all mental toxic heads, according to science? I liked him. He's probably right anyways.

And yet if you implemented ALL the changes (all changes everywhere) they want to do, you might get a 0.05C difference in temperature by 2100.

Doesn't that mean we have literally no effect? If that's the case there might be some external factor. Gee i'm scratching my head but can't think of anything... Maybe it's something that gives us heat in the first place as a floating globe in the middle of this galaxy....

No, there's been crying of calamities and the earth burning up or freezing for 100 years and none of it has come to pass. Yet each time we have 'only 10 years' to do things. Sorry if i don't believe any of it.

Yawn

Let's try again, for science ;)

That is a completely false and made up figure. I don't know which source of misinformation you got it from, but consider this - if in a mere 150 years we've managed to heat the atmosphere by 1.3 degrees, why do you think we have no effect on the climate?

We went through this already. Total solar irradiance has not only not increased to explain the rapid recent heating, it has actually had a slight cooling trend. The Sun is not the culprit, easily demonstrable through multiple lines of evidence.

We already went through this too. Scientist's warnings were right about the ozone layer, global cooling in the 70s and so many other predictions. Take the massive ozone hole prediction - it took thousands of scientists to come together and show that and what was the result? Pretty much all the governments in the world came together to heed the scientists' warnings and banned the destroying refrigerants from being used, thus allowing the ozone layer to recover after many years. The scale of that global issue is dwarfed in comparison to climate change, yet the political action is completely lacking, even in 2022. And this is mostly due to the misinformation peddled by the fossil fuel industry, casting doubt on the rocksolid science and evidence. The people who do not understand science, who are prone to science denialism (note how this is different from skepticism!) gobble it all up, because they don't know any better. Case in point, you.

It's not a matter of belief any longer. Do you have to believe that the Earth orbits the Sun? Does your lack of belief make it false? No, it is true no matter what you choose to believe. Same as climate change.

Wow this thread evolved in a weird way.

Yes, evolved, not devolved, oh yes I am a scientist too.

Science is about questioning things. So let's question them.

How about we back up, and you provide proof that global warming is actually happening.

Then the data that shows that humans are the sole contributor and result of said warming. (It's not like we're building bonfires every night in every neighborhood everywhere to raise the global temperature).

Lastly suggest a solution and why the solution would work.

Oh dear god. You don't even acknowledge the fact that the climate has warmed rapidly 1.3 degrees since 1890?

What can you possibly say to a Flat Earther or a person who believes still the Sun is orbiting the Earth to convince them of the truth? Tell me, what does it take to convince you of facts? What would it take?

Then maybe the de-programming can continue.

Note - not even Exxon, Trump, or China dispute this fact. I think you're severely out of touch with whatever it is you're supposed to argue.

Non-sequitur. Citation and data needed.

So what is causing it? I'm sure it's not just because there's more humans on the earth, human is just a type of carbon-based lifeform like all creatures.

And how do you suggest we prevent it?

It's not easily verifiable to me.

Oh yes i agree using thermometers 100%. But data has been altered, i prefer a source that has it unaltered.

Also apparently the founder of the Weather channel, (a scientist) says there's no Global Warming/Climate Change, and CNN tries to shut him up rather than asking for more details.

Regardless, if it's getting hotter and hotter, why did it get colder from 1940-1970 before going back up?

50 years failed predictions

That is not a "we" problem, that is a "you" problem.

The increasing surface temperature trends are confirmed from multiple, independent sources (land, sea, satellite records and instruments, etc.).

You can use the IPCC report for instance, which is a global collaboration of scientists collecting evidence and proposing policy, or some other authors have collected the evidence and provided links to peer reviewed papers, like here:

https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-intermediate.htm

- Surface temperature analysis by NASA GISS finds strong agreement with two independent analyses by CRU's Global Temperature Record and NCDC.

- Weather balloon measurements have found from 1975 through 2005, the global mean, near-surface air temperature warmed by approximately 0.23°C/decade.

- Satellite measurements of lower atmosphere temperatures show temperature rises between 0.16°C and 0.24°C/decade since 1982.

- Ice core reconstructions found the 20th century to be the warmest of the past five centuries, confirming the results of earlier proxy reconstructions.

- Sea surface temperatures, borehole reconstructions and ocean temperatures all show long-term warming trends.

You plot these on the same graph, and they are all remarkably similar and confirm the fact that we've already warmed over 1C since the end of the 19th century, so in only 150 years or so, which is unprecedented in any record that we have managed to ascertain.

There really is no debate whether we are rapidly warming - there is not a single temperature record that argues against this. Or do you have one?

About the biases and corrections in the raw data:

"In 2009 some people worried that weather stations placed in poor locations could make the temperature record unreliable. Scientists at the National Climatic Data Center took those critics seriously and did a careful study of the possible problem. Their article "On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record" (Menne et al. 2010) had a surprising conclusion. The temperatures from stations that critics claimed were "poorly sited" actually showed slightly cooler maximum daily temperatures compared to the average.

In 2010 Dr. Richard Muller criticized the "hockey stick" graph and decided to do his own temperature analysis. He organized a group called Berkeley Earth to do an independent study of the temperature record. They specifically wanted to answer the question is "the temperature rise on land improperly affected by the four key biases (station quality, homogenization, urban heat island, and station selection)?" Their conclusion was NO. None of those factors bias the temperature record. "

You can access the replicate the analysis by Berkeley Earth online, it's all available and open to scrutiny.

https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-basic.htm (peer reviewed sources within)

So first of all, you can link as many youtube vids as you like, but unless you write out your arguments in text, you might as well link nothing. Youtube vids are fine and all for entertainment, but for any kind of argumentation they are absolutely awful. I would have to sit there and watch anti-science drivel first of all, write out their arguments for them down, and then debunk them. Really? Who the hell is going to do that? If you cannot even write out what the Youtube vid is about, I'm def not gonna bother arguing for you, against myself.

I can only imagine this is about correcting biases in the land temperature records for the urban island heat effect, which was already shown not to affect the warming trends (in fact, the bias-corrected data was cooler than the raw data in a lot of cases!).

"They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (a park within the city)."

https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-intermediate.htm


If he is a renowned scientist in the field, you can quote me his peer reviewed paper where he debunks climate change and/or proposes a theory to explain the recent rapid warming? Else, it doesn't matter what he says, to be honest, especially since his claims are easily fact-checked.

I already went through this in my previous post - aerosols, coinciding with scientists warning about global cooling. If you didn't bother to read, that's not on me.



So, are you at least past the first step - do you agree that the climate is rapidly warming? Or do you dispute a mountain of empirical evidence? We can at least then move on to the de-programming of your brainwashed mind further.

Well we have a solution then! We need to use more aerosols!

Climate saved, world cooled, problem solved!

If you say so. The videos have plenty of sources they reference up front and prominent. I don't exactly see you listing a table with individual temperatures of every day/week of every year since 1890, so obviously you haven't provided anything either, nor images of aggregated data.

But i'm sure this is just as sufficient as your link.

https://www.realclimate.org/

But i think you've derailed this topic enough.

It is one of the more drastic geo-engineering solutions being considered. Cannons shooting sulfite aerosols into the upper atmosphere/stratosphere. Shame about the 1 million potential adverse effects though, or so.

Did you click on my links and their references? All you have to look at is a figure with all temperature records compared in one. Like it was there.

Or do you really expect me to screenshot figures for you and attach them here with this antiquated forum software? How lazy are you? Wait, don't answer that.

That's a fine blog, not sure what your point is? It provides sources to peer reviewed papers, and does investigation on its own. Still, nobody linked to it, so not sure why you brought it up...?

Anyways, it has been brought to my attention that you are not arguing in good faith. After all, who could be so opposed to basic facts that they reject even basic empirical evidence that is known to everyone, climate is rapidly heating? Instead of assuming you are that dense, I rather attribute your behaviour to malice.

However, if you accept that basic fact, we can move forward in de-programming you. I'll just close my eyes and take the bait (again), he-who-dwells-under-the-bridge.