What was in 1650 or 1550?
What was it in 300 BC?

What is your proof that this is not just a normal slow temperature fluctuation that has been taking place since the birth of our little planet?

What was in 1650 or 1550?
What was it in 300 BC?
What was it 10 000 BC?

What is your proof that this is not just a normal slow temperature fluctuation that has been taking place since the birth of our little planet?

File: Hansen_52_million_2C_7_8C.png (254 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [Google]

254 KB, 1280x720

>>689874266
>slow

lol this is so far from 'slow' dude

we actually do know the temperatures for those times, albeit less precisely, from methods such as measuring tree rings and ice cores, and there has NEVER been a change of this magnitude on this timescale that wasn't accompanied by a mass extinction event. The last one was 65 million years ago

>>689874107
the temp naturally fluxuates over hundreds of years due to change in the orbit around the sun.

File: 1465148994042.jpg (54 KB, 419x750) Image search: [Google]

54 KB, 419x750

>>689874107
it's too late, it always been too late
in 50 years we had kill all the animals
all the trees
all of us

>>689876811
the earth temperature rise up but we're moving away from the sun so what's up ?

>>689875650
20k-10k a +5 jump without anthropological help but OMFG WE HAVE GONE UP A HALF DEGREE WHY ARENT WE DEAD YET? to say there haven't been large jumps is erroneous the data is literally right in front of you. Do you even graph bro?

>>689874107
I can make shit up and falsify data too. I wouldn't ever do it because of something called ethics.

But if I was ever caught altering data to suit my agenda, I sure as hell would be ostracized but the entire scientific community at large. But somehow every time global warming enthusiasts get caught doing it, it's no big deal.

Tell the truth, use REAL scientific methods, do it ethically, and then people might take you seriously.

Why are people still discussing this..

Climate IS changing and so it did over the last billion years. We had ice ages and heat phases. Yes climate is changing, yes its faster due to humans, no it's no catastrophy. It is called nature.

So calm your fucking tits and let nature do its stuff

There will be worldwide famine by 2030.
Think about that. 14 years ago, climate change was barely a subject. In 14 years it will be too late.

>>689877535
20k-10k that is TEN THOUSAND YEARS
that 4F (not C, 4F is only 2.2C) jump is the transition from the previous ice age into our current greenhouse age. We should have hit the peak and started falling again about 5000ish years ago according to the pattern, but the temperature instead stabilized, possibly due to the invention of cattle farming increasing global Methane levels to counter the cooling, possibly for some other reason we haven't discovered yet.

These time scales are on a completely different level to the warming we've seen recently. Temperature has risen 0.8C globally in the last 100 years. That is 35x faster than the warming that occurred at the end of the last ice age, and that kind of warming is pretty much the fastest natural warming effect in nature.

It's not (yet) the amount of warming that's dangerous, it's the rate at which it's happening.

>>689878468
>no it's no catastrophe

There are several times in earth's history that global temperature has changed at the rate it's changing now. We call them 'mass extinction events'

please explain how that is 'no catastrophe'

>>689874107
This some dumb /r/dataisbeautiful shit.

File: tmp_6213-1465363007513-1516557199.jpg (79 KB, 717x960) Image search: [Google]

79 KB, 717x960

>>689874107
I highly doubt anyone denies climate change but you can't prove we are having any affect on it. The climate has been changing for millions of years

>>689879005
>calls reddit dumb
>proves he visits reddit

>>689878996
Maybe we should be colonizing other planets and exploring the galaxy instead of altering the data sent from temperature sensors and complaining that the world is coming to an end.

>>689879018
>The climate has been changing for millions of years

This and we've only been truly studying and recording the weather for the past 100 or so years.

>>689879018
This is obvious bait yes? The climate has always changed but the carbon dioxide we're adding to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel is heating up the planet. Eventually though, this will cause the earth to have another ice age similar to The Little Ice Age but worse. I mean, we'd all die but hey, at least then, Global warming would stop.

>>689879647
>carbon dioxide we're adding to the atmosphere by

Breathing

Stop doing that

>>689879647
Please post irrefutable proof of that please

>>689879809
Of which part? Carbon Dioxide or the Little Ice Age part?

File: climatechangegraph.jpg (36 KB, 500x307) Image search: [Google]

36 KB, 500x307

>>689879018
>>689879533
>>689878201

no we can't 'prove' it, nothing in observational science can truly be 'proved' to 100%. But we don't need to. We use historical science to build models to make predictions about observational science, and keep and improve on the models that make the best predictions.

Our best climate models which consistently make the best predictions (the same ones we use daily to forecast the weather) all predict that global temperatures will rise due to our CO2 output, and have been correctly predicting the increase we have already been seeing for decades. There is no possibility for a conspiracy here either. The creators of these models (mostly weather forecasters) all have large financial interests in making them as accurate as possible so their weather forecasts are as accurate as possible. In order to create a conspiracy there would need to be a vast and incredibly obvious long-term financial incentive to every single owner of any moderately sophisticated weather model.

There still obviously remains a non-zero probability that they are all wrong, but unless you have a good argument to suggest that they ARE wrong, and HOW they are wrong, then there's no point arguing against them

The most ironic thing about people who use the term climate deniers is the fact they completely deny how many times climate scientists have been caught fiddling the numbers and making shit up.

That's not science.

>>689879809
see >>689879991
'irrefutable' proof in science is a fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

File: All_palaeotemps.png (90 KB, 1753x565) Image search: [Google]

90 KB, 1753x565

>>689875650
Here's a better version of that graph.

I mean, here's a good link for those that want to read about it. https://www.climate(dot)gov/news-features/understanding-climate/carbon-dioxide-earths-hottest-topic-just-warming It has graphs and everything for you guys

People deny climate change for the same reason they oppose gun control... those who profit from it have convinced the gullible to take their word as gospel.

>>689874266
>Normal slow temperature fluctuation
>Ignoring increase in CO2 produktion and other gases
Again the natural change is based in carbondioxide and now we are part of it and can effect it a bit. So why not do that to our advantage?

>>689879991
>... have been correctly predicting the increase we have already been seeing for decades

No they haven't. At all.
They have given us so many predictions and outcomes that at any given time one of them is likely to be correct. Or very close to it. And that's one they use for the moment to make their latest point up.

>>689879991
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

>>689878575
What bubble have you been living in?
Global warming has been a thing since the late 80's.

we are still coming out of the last ice age. its going to get hotter no matter what we burn. its inevitable.

>>689874107
Lol assholes worried about the climate change but no one bates an eye regards the destruction of our soil. Fix the soil you fix the air.

I mean, there are 3 ways for us to die from Climate change. 1.) Earth keeps heating up and we all die from heat. 2.) Glaciers melt, rains more often and worse, and we all die from floods. 3.) Water evaporates more, we get more clouds blocking the sun's heat, the Earth cools back down and we all freeze. Then again, these are all theories(last one being my own).

>>689880356
>They have given us so many predictions and outcomes that at any given time one of them is likely to be correct
Politicians abuse this shit really hard. That part I can 100% agree on. Expecially Bruxelle and EU

>>689878575
Then just enjoy the next 14 years. If we're that close to it nothing we do can stop it in time.

>>689880660
>Water evaporates more, we get more clouds blocking the sun's heat, the Earth cools back down and we all freeze
Just to note this would make Earth keep a lot of the heat that is already here. It's pretty much the reason Venus is fucking hot.

>>689880660
lol, and famine along with many other ways.

File: 1454193327842.png (181 KB, 625x626) Image search: [Google]

181 KB, 625x626

>>689880098
Funny you would call them "climate scientists" when it's established that fiddling the numbers aint science. It would do the debate a lot better to differentiate between actual scientists, and hippiecunts who fiddles the numbers.

File: 6a010536b58035970c01538f886886970b.png (42 KB, 1188x570) Image search: [Google]

42 KB, 1188x570

>>689874107
Climate's changing alright - always has, always will. The mistake is claiming that human activity has any effect.

>>689880813
PS: Not that much water though, it got bigger problems with sulphur

>>689880395
indeed they do, and with all ordinary evidence, such as the graph I added, pointing to a strong link between CO2 levels and temperature, the claim that they are not linked is an extraordinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence to back it?

>>689880439
actually the temperature should have peaked ~5000 years ago. Exits from ice ages happen relatively rapidly and are followed by a longer period of slow cooling (which you can see clearly in the long-term graphs in this thread. We should be early on in the cooling period right now

File: tmp_6213-1465992195495-1887671388.png (117 KB, 320x263) Image search: [Google]

117 KB, 320x263

>>689880249

>>689880463
Avaaz is hammering Monsanto
If that's "not bating an eye", I'd like to see you care.

File: 6a010536b58035970c017d4195a98a970c.png (679 KB, 1284x809) Image search: [Google]

679 KB, 1284x809

Just have to wait 5-15 thousand years, it'll get cooler again and the CO2 levels will go back down with it, like it always has.

Climate scientists are literally trolls.

File: 2014_08_29.jpg (66 KB, 630x630) Image search: [Google]

66 KB, 630x630

>>689880883
That's not a mistake.
We have had some effect.

The mistake is claiming we can fix it.

>>689880883

You realize all the pre-human climate change events coincided with massive increases in atmospheric CO2?

I bet you didn't.

I bet you also don't know we are now adding CO2 to the atmosphere far, far faster than the natural processes that did it in the past.

>>689880813
I aint no god diddly dang scienmatist. I'm just a fag that thought the earth would cool down after retrieving less radiation from the sun which is a really good reason why it gets hot and cold on Earth. Plus I "feel" like the clouds would block out the sun before it gets too hot on Earth and it would cool down due to lack of the Sun and we would all freeze to death. Wouldn't we lose like 15c because of that(Sun being blocked out)?

>>689881344
Sounds reasonable except that it doesn't block UV radiation. At least according to my study book. Not completely sure though since I haven't read enough on the subject.

Doesn't sound stupid though. And checked.

>>689880422
And in the seventies the big scare was global cooling.

Here's the deal all of the climate models suck, they can't even hindcast correctly. If I were paid to create a computer model to predict airplane accidents and the the numbers and data hindcasted that the day the Wright brothers flew there were 5 airplane crashes I'd be fired. But these kooks create a climate model that doesn't match KNOWN temperature data without all kinds of tweaking. And yes the climate scare does match up with gun control, people for it use inflated numbers (including suicides and justified homicides) as a baseline to "prevent crime".

This push for climate change is nothing more than "white guilt" and wealth redistribution on a global scale. The most prosperous countries are mostly western style democracies and we are lead to believe that it's our fault that some retards are living in squalor. To make up for their lack of keeping their shitholes tidy we should all give them money to clean up their mess.

I don't clean my kids room when they fuck it up and I don't feel it's my responsibility to pay some shitskin to learn to use a toilet and quit shitting in the street.

>>689878996
After each mass extinction event the biodiversity has exploded, forming way more new species than there were before the MEM.

>>689880883
again, it's not (yet) the amount of warming that's dangerous, it's the rate at which it's happening.That graph shows changes over tens to hundreds of thousands of years, compared to the decades that the latest change is taking. Every other time in history when temperature has changed as fast as it is now has been a global mass extinction event, the last time being 65 million years ago.

During that previous event the temperature dropped 2-5C sharply for <10 years before rising again to several degrees above previous average for <100 years, which was enough to annihilate 75% of all species of life on earth.

If you don't think human activity is what's causing this insanely fast change, what is? And how do you propose we stop it?

>>689881257
You are forgetting the reasons why the co2 levels would go down.
And as it is, too much of the land is cultivated, that is, not enough space for nature to build the mechanisms to reduce co2 as effectively as say, three hunnerd years ago.

On top of that, the slight increase in global temperature is already causing massive amounts of methane, previously locked in the crust by cold, to be released.

It's sheer numbers. There's too many of us, and we are too greedy.

>>689881566

*tips tinfoil hat*

>>689874317
>>689874266
/thread

>>689881520
"Each water droplet in a cloud scatters some incoming UV radiation back into space, so a thick cover of clouds protects organisms and materials from almost all UV. The larger the percentage of the sky that is covered by clouds, the less UV reaches the ground." Source: http://earthobservatory.nasa(dot)gov/Features/UVB/

>>689881333
see my other post

>I bet I did

>>689881566
Fuck that shit, I would like a government that uses it for becoming more self sustaining on energy instead. Reasonable reasoning for it when it comes to money and also good at not effecting the environment too much.

Even if the politicians sucks, being self sufficient with energy is good

>>689882039
Going to check it out

>>689881344
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
It sounds good to me, and I would like for you to be correct, but that's not exactly how it works.
The clouds do a better job at keeping the heat in than out. Sorry.

>>689882244
triple dubs checked

>>689881566

>models aren't accurate

Testing climate models against the existing instrumental record suggests CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

> TLDR; Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.

>>689881630
yes that's what evolution tends to do in times of crisis, it's possibly evolution's greatest feature of all. However it takes several million years and can only happen once the vast majority of life on the planet is killed, which is undeniably a catastrophe. That includes the majority of us. We are on the wrong side of this event to be worrying about what happens in the aftermath.

When the rains in the Midwest fail and the land turns to desert, and Lake Mead runs dry forcing the California Central Valley farms to be abandoned, and the US can no longer feed it's 300 million and rising population, and similar catastrophes worldwide halt exports of food from nearly every country in the world believe me you will no longer be laughing.

>>689874107
explain how human use of fossil suels is contributing to global warming when the biggest cold spike on your timeline is at the same time we started wideley using them at the turn of the 20th century?

>>689882244
I would like to think that as time goes on, the little amount of heat that gets released back into space along with the amount of heat it takes to heat up the oceans/seas along with the ice would make the heat, although still really hot, still not be enough to replace the sun as a heat source.

>>689881566
>One subject will never be enough, as long as I can derail by throwing shit into a debate.

The cattle in the US produce more methane than the people of India. Even if they DID poo in loo, the net sum of shit and methane wouldn't be reduced. You make no sense.
Poverty is not a part of the warming/cooling/not-our-fault debate either.
Grow up.

>>689882074

Then you understand that past warming events CONFIRM the current process of man made global change, because these events coincide with huge increases in atmospheric co2 -- the difference being in the past it was caused by natural processes and today the increase in co2 is caused by human activity.

To admit that past warming events were caused by increased co2 but deny current warming events are caused by the same thing, you would have to be arguing the laws of physics have changed.

>>689882105
Problem with that logic is wind farms take up huge areas, rely on weather, kill migratory birds and (here in the US) the rich fucks that live along the coasts don't want there view obstructed. For solar again they take up huge patches of land, rely on weather, kill migratory birds and aren't all that efficient. No one wants a nuclear power plant in their backyards. So until the technology improves we (The US due to its size and pop.) are reliant on fossil fuels.

Now the economic end. If the US, the EU and Canada are the only ones adhering to any kind of environmental treaty and we reduce manufacturing etc. the nations that don't give a shit (China for example) will ramp up production to fill that void which is worse for the environment than us maintaining our own manufacturing.

>>689882770
But that's what I'm hoping. Don't you fucking steal my hopes! Build your own, fuckwad.

>>689882679
you explain the warm spike after.

>>689881900
Long story short, we can't stop it any more than we can stop the changes of the seasons - just something we have to adapt to.
Within those long cycles of temperature change are much smaller cycles and within that smaller cycles. A good visual analogy would be a financial chart (another complex system) like the Dow Jones or the EUR/USD. If you look at the monthly chart you can see the cycles over the years and decades, if you look at the daily or 4-hour chart it looks more or less the same, but the cycles are over days and weeks. With the amount of data the scientist are using (and the questionable accuracy is another story), it would be like looking at the EUR/USD 1-minute chart, examining the cycles that have taken place in the last two hours, and making a sweeping conclusion on where the price will be ten years from now based on the trend.

>>689882679
Not OP but it's adding CO2 to the atmosphere which is a leading factor in Climate change and by adding more of it(by us humans) than naturally before, it's causing the earth to heat up more than past data on climate shows. There was a steady cycle in climate change and now we're breaking apart from it now. It would heat up, then cool. heat up and then cool, and now it's just heating up longer before the cooling occurs.

>>689882679
Anthropogenic CO2 is not the only contributing factor. Solar cycles, volcanoes, etc. also have an effect
>>689879991

>>689882913
Fuck off m8. Make your own hope. Your hope never even existed until now while mine was already stated. It was my hope before yours.

>>689882887
Good political point at the end. That is essentially the big problem, and I would like to add some other countries to that list as well. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates

When it comes to being self sufficient I can only agree on most of them not being that efficient, but the best is to continue research and improving what we can. This is going to take decades for small nations like Denmark, and most likely generations for big nations like the US or France.

>>689882798
>Poverty is not a part of the warming/cooling/not-our-fault debate either

Except that it is, when countries ship manufacturing to countries with higher poverty levels/less environmental restrictions those countries tend to have more waste generated and with little to no regard for waste management (India for example)

>>689882930
a continuation of the earths natural climate cycle. tons of graphs explaining this have been in the thread already>>689881257
has the first one i saw scrolling up.

you still havent explained why the first spike in human co2 emissions caused a DROP in global tempurature, feel free to field this one >>689883035
>>689883128
both of you also mentioned that "co2 makes it hotter" but provided no evidence when i have clear evidence that was provided by a climate change conspiracy theorist that shows co2 making it colder

>>689883169
No, I am older than you, and have had this hope before you were even born, you cockgobbling imposter cuntface.

>>689874107
Colorful graph... must make it true.
Don't bother asking even basic questions like:

1) Who took the data.
2) How was the data collected.
3) Where was the data collected from.
4) How consistent was the data taken.
5) What was the frequency that the data collected.
And on and on and on... You know... the fucking basics.

Oh... fuck.. nevermind all that....A colorful graph!,... that is all the evidence needed for op to make this retarded thread.

With that said - raw data alone is not proof of anything, you have to show causality and in fact that the data is showing what you are asserting that it is. An example of your retardation in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B271L3NtAw

Also, a yuge red flag is the key is in centigrade (1.5C), when in fact, the most change purported even by the most fringe of religious climate-changers is 1 degree FAHRENHEIT.... so... fuck you and fuck your wrong ass and misleading graph.

>>689883425
Post your evidence then. I always like to see newer information that can possibly make me reconsider my beliefs(belief that what I read of Co2 making the planet hotter is true).

>>689882941
actually no, the scientists have plenty of data to measure and predict the cycles to very good accuracy and precision, easily good enough accuracy and precision to know that the last 100 years, and the last 50 especially, are a glaring outlier. There are no known cycles that could cause this kind of warming, and no good explanations for it other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Also, we know of plenty of ways to stop it, the most obvious being to simply stop emitting CO2, something the world is working as hard on as a greedy capitalist world is ever likely to on something this expensive right now.

Another way would be to deliberately spray aerosols into the upper atmosphere, which is much cheaper, but it may come with other problems, which is why it's not happening right now
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page3.php

>>689883425
It takes a little while for manmade gaseous pollution to evenly distribute itself in the atmosphere.

>>689883425

see >>689880165
Don't forget to read the numbers on the bottom.

>>689883425

>the natural climate cycle

The warming periods that have happened in earth's past were caused by increased atmospheric co2. The increase of co2 was caused by natural processes.
Today, the current warming period is being caused by increased levels of atmospheric co2, just as in the past. Except this time human activity is responsible for the increase.

It's the same warming process, just with a different source of the change.

>>689875650
> mass extinction
No one denies the temperature is going up, they deny human activity is the sole cause of this rise. Maybe this rise is normal and it's just our time to go the way of the dinosaurs.

I don't understand why people are wanting to deny this man >>689883425 when the most data we can get from anything is having something proved wrong. I mean who knows? I'm open-minded for things like this because if it's so clear of evidence then I might have to consider. >>689884003 So... You're just saying the previous source completely vanished and that we're not adding onto it?

>>689883839
>>689883831
im sick of all you climate change pussies dodging my question WHY DID IT GET COLDER WHEN HUMANS FIRST STARTED PRODUCING LARGE AMOUNTS OF CO2 AS SHOWN IN OPS GRAPH?

>>689883752
for you the graph is ops image. it shows a dip in global tempurature at the begining of the 20th century, the same time that people were driving automobiles for the first time and industry powered by fossil fuels was exploding throughout the developed world

>>689874107
From what I see of this data, this trend started in the late 30s and early 40s and progressively has gotten worse.

>>689884198
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novarupta

>>689884198
I'm a denyer, the change is gradual. Even if we all died today and we in fact were the sole cause of this rise, it'd be a couple decades before shit started to go back down. Nature can handle a certain amount of abuse.

>>689884198
A cold spike lastning a couple of years with no data to support any kind of explanation? I'd hafta guess that if you were presented with anything other than the explanation you've already decided must be true, you'd respond religiously.

My best "explanation" would be nature. If you take a gander at what data we have, you'd see quite a few of these short spikes, both ways. There's no need to throw a fit over those. It's the anomalies we need to examine.

>>689883425
>tons of graphs explaining this have been in the thread already
none of them deal with the timescales we are talking about, so all of them are irrelevant

>you still havent explained why the first spike in human co2 emissions caused a DROP in global tempurature
no they didn't cause the drop in temperature, they were simply insufficient to counter the drop that was caused by some other effect, probably the several large volcanic eruptions around that time

>both of you also mentioned that "co2 makes it hotter" but provided no evidence when i have clear evidence that was provided by a climate change conspiracy theorist that shows co2 making it colder
where is that evidence you speak of? The reason CO2 causes a greenhouse effect is simply because it is more opaque to the infrared light that the Earth gives off than it is to the mostly visible and UV light that it receives from the Sun. Therefore it reflects more back down than it does away, resulting in a net warming effect. The mechanism is well researched and understood, and we know the exact magnitude of the effect, and can measure the effect in experiments both in the lab and in nature, and can accurately predict the effect it will have on the climate not just on Earth but also on Mars, Venus, and Titan, and have been doing so for decades

Here's my evidence:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/108/9/10.1063/1.475774
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

is that enough dry scientific documents for you or do you want some more?

>>689884198
The consumption for Co2 has only increased since the time you're talking about. More people were made since then and thus more Co2 being used since then. Also for your only evidence being 1 graph that isn't really backed up isn't "clear evidence" like you were talking about. What you do is you collect data from a bunch of different people. Compare them and if you see a pattern, like a similar trait or same results in their graphs then you can conclude that to be the most likely thing to be true. You're using only one graph. There's always going to be errors in different graphs made by different people so for you to cling to 1 graph without considering it has mistakes in it and for that to possibly be one or at least it has nothing to back it up with, that's pretty stupid.

The only easy answer to climate change is to launch every nigger into orbit, Since they are black they will absorb a good deal of the solar energy radiating from the Sun and prevent it from reaching the earth. This will in-turn cause a gradual cooling effect and keep our balls from swimming.

>>689884168

>completely vanished

No. The Mid-Cambrian extinction was caused by a massive amount of volcanic activity over the course of 3 million years that released a huge amount of co2. The planet can adjust to small and gradual increases in co2 by altering things like ocean chemistry, atmospheric gas balance, and biological adaptation.

But even in the past when there were small and gradual co2 increases, those increases were accompanied by massive extinction events because it takes incredibly long time frames for the planet to adjust.

And today's increase in atmospheric co2 is neither small nor gradual. Human activity is adding co2 to the atmosphere at a faster rate and in higher quantities than the warming events in the past -- you know, the ones that caused mass extinction.

>>689884143
>No one denies the temperature is going up
well yea actually some uneducated tinfolhats actually do believe there's a massive conspiracy going on

>Maybe this rise is normal and it's just our time to go the way of the dinosaurs.
Maybe it is, but why settle for a maybe when we have the scientific method to settle it? In fact the scientific method already has settled it, it's not normal at all. Even if it was, why should we just accept that 'it's just our time' when we can actually put up a fight against it with modern technology?

if you want evidence, see here: >>689885006

Get ready for the next Ice Age fuckers

File: temperature_aerosols_1850-2000.png (20 KB, 720x166) Image search: [Google]

20 KB, 720x166

>>689884198
will you shut up about that cold spike already. It's already been addressed several times. VOLCANOES caused it, pic related
>>689883752

>>689885527
I was addressed in it specifically so I responded. That's all.

>>689885312
first I'd like to make it clear that I agree that we should launch all the niggers into orbit.

But actually that wouldn't work out how you wanted. You actually want to launch white/shiny stuff (to reflect the light) not black stuff (which would just absorb more light and transfer it as heat to the air).

>>689874107
You see the fine yellow line in 1945? That was the great year of the best bordeaux red wine ever. The last bottles of that famous year are sold like liquid gold.
We are getting more great years lately. Horray for the Grand Bordeaux!

>>689878996
First off: If nature thinks it should get rid of us, it does, nothing we can do.
So I'd rather call it natural cleanse instead of catastrophy.
And if humanity isn't prepared enough to survive than I'm perfectly fine with a reboot

>>689885788
Rustoleum chrome spray paint is fairly cheap and sticks to skin pretty good.

File: 1464691185538-2.jpg (41 KB, 599x309) Image search: [Google]

41 KB, 599x309

science deniers getting BTFO in this thread

File: correlation.png (35 KB, 942x456) Image search: [Google]

35 KB, 942x456

>>689879991

>>689885378
Don't say volcano shit.
Yes major eruptions cause drops but they are short lived. The Philippine eruption in the 90s was larger and lasted about a year.
There was 5 major eruptions between 1900-1940. By major eruptions I'm talking Mt.St Helens size and larger. One was the Novarupta. Others were st Helens size.
Not saying the effects didn't happen but they weren't the sole cause of that big of a drop and I'm not saying there wasn't other factors, just if you don't know it RESEARCH IT, don't say and other shit.

Just unban cfcs and this will help slow the rise.

>>689886253
Except no one has ever actually died from being tangled in their bedsheets. That is completely faked data.

File: 1024px-The_green_house_effect.png.png (338 KB, 1024x713) Image search: [Google]

338 KB, 1024x713

>>689886253

>>689886564
how?

>>689875650
Ice core data is extremely unreliable as a temperature record because of how co2 migrates through layers of snow before that snow becomes ice in glaciers. What is important is to take the integral of temperature over time to understand the total amount of energy that is changing, but most retards don't understand this and think their is some global temperature. Temperature only applies to the tiny place in space that you are measuring it. A thermometer tells you the temperature at that point, not 10 feet away from it, and certainly not even a mile from it. Learn to physics retards

>>689885905
>if humanity isn't prepared enough to survive than I'm perfectly fine with a reboot

humanity is busy throwing trillions of research dollars at trying to prepare itself to survive but the main thing slowing it down is people like yourself who anthropomorphize 'nature' as if it's some kind of deity that we should allow ourselves to be controlled by, rather than viewing it as what it is: a natural process that we are absolutely capable of learning to control, and are within our rights to do so.

with an attitude like yours we will never be prepared to survive such an event and would not deserve to survive either. It terrifies me that people like yourself have the right to vote.

File: global-warming.jpg (336 KB, 2598x1417) Image search: [Google]

336 KB, 2598x1417

it's all laid out right here

>>689887525
With enough ice core data you can get a reasonable estimate of the temperature, after accounting for CO2 migration.

>>689886253
yes, obviously correlation does not imply causation. That's why we invented the scientific method - to investigate correlations and ascertain whether or not there is causation, and to support the findings with evidence.

I posted plenty of evidence here >>689885006
if you actually care about the truth enough to actually read about it

>>689887525
>from methods such as

ice cores were just an example. They are far from the only record we have of the past

Well I mean the chart says it all really. It's literally a change of 1 degree over almost 200 fucking years. I'm pretty sure that falls under the category of the earth just doing its thing.

>>689879991
You can't model something that you don't even understand all the variables to, let alone do so accurately. It's a fool's errand to think we will be able to predict the weather or the climate accurately.

>>689887901

Denying that global temps are influenced by atmospheric co2 is one of the dumbest positions you could have.

I mean, the greenhouse effect is elementary school shit, dude. If you don't even understand that you're just embarrassing yourself.

>>689887173
CFCs destroy Ozone, which is a stong greenhouse gas. They are the reason why temperatures across most of Antarctica have dropped sharply. Reducing ozone obviously comes with a lot of other problems though...

Also CFCs are greenhouse gases themselves (actually the strongest ones we know of) so if you release too much then their warming effect will overshadow the cooling effect they have through ozone depletion

>>689888019
So expound on the hundreds of ways we can deduce temperature of the past and their relative accuracy. I'm all ears.

>>689886564
I think you might have replied to the wrong comment

>Not saying the effects didn't happen but they weren't the sole cause of that big of a drop and I'm not saying there wasn't other factors, just if you don't know it RESEARCH IT,
I have researched it, and I've been spamming evidence for it all through this thread. So far you have nothing but unsupported assertions to back up your arguments. Where is your scientific data? Where are your climate models?

>>689887931
What does reasonable mean? We're getting bent out of shape about fractions of a degree, so unless your ice core data measurement produces a level of accuracy on a similar scale it's all conjecture. Don't fuck with me I know all about error analysis.

>>689888190
Although it is generally not possible to predict a specific future state of a chaotic system (there is no telling what temperature it will be in Oregon on December 25 2020), it is still possible to make statistical claims about the behavior of the system as a whole (it is very likely that Oregon's December 2020 temperatures will be colder than its July 2020 temperatures). There are chaotic components to the climate system, such as El Nino and fluid turbulence, but they all have much less long-term influence than the greenhouse effect. It's a little like an airplane flying through stormy weather: It may be buffeted around from moment to moment, but it can still move from one airport to another.

>>689888476
really?
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+temperature+record+methods

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
and yes, in all the places where these methods overlap in timescale they agree with eachother

>>689888317
Did you know that water vapour by far is the largest green house gas? Clouds. There is evidence that cloud formation is stimulated by cosmic radiation. But that fucks with your carbon credit scheme do nobody hears about this stuff.

>>689888847
>But that fucks with your carbon credit scheme do nobody hears about this stuff.
no it doesn't, it's just another contributing factor which climate models include alongside the other factors including CO2 levels. There simply hasn't been a recent increase in cosmic radiation activity to explain the recent rise in temperature though.

>>689888781
Spare me the lecture agw fanboy. It's well known now that these simulations are tweaked to fit reality, after the fact. Yes they run them backwards, but that tells you nothing. As you point out a chaotic system is heavily dependent on initial conditions, and even if you know them, but don't understand the full equation for that chaotic system, you will never be able to predict it's future behaviour. So build as many Sims as you like it will never account for every variable in such a complex system as the earth's climate.

>>689888847
But water vapor leaves the air naturally by rain, so it is always around the same amount. Carbon dioxide does not rain out of the sky.

>>689888847

>water vapor is a greenhouse gas so we shouldn't care about co2

What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere -- making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further -- a positive feedback.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect than water vapor.

>>689888845
You could have a hundred methods that are equally inaccurate that will agree with one another. Correlation does not indicate causation.

File: 1464688588504.png (156 KB, 270x271) Image search: [Google]

156 KB, 270x271

>>689874107
dat ggplot

>>689889296
Extra co2 in the atmosphere stimulates plant growth, plants absorb the co2.

>>689888658
>I know all about error analysis.

Then you understand the difference between accuracy and precision. The ice core record's accuracy is indeed far from optimal, but it has excellent precision. It isn't great at giving an absolute value for temperature at a given time, but it is very sensitive to temperature changes over time, and can quantify these accurately.

>>689889288

>simulations are unreliable

Models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 MUST cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional tweakings.

At this point you're basically arguing that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, which is elementary school stuff dude.

>>689889435
go and research statistical analysis and Occam's Razor, then realize why that statement is fallacious

>>689889764

>plants absorb co2

This fails to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to take effect. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for plants.

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. Additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.

As is confirmed by long term experiments, plants with exorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, lack of other nutrients soon erase this benefit.

>>689890022
No the argument is that man is solely responsible for this climate change. That term always makes me laugh because climate changes not matter what the reason. Remember when it used to be called global warming? Yeah me too, it's a cya terminology change.

You also realize that according to ice core data that co2 levels were way higher in the ancient past, and co2 levels did not follow temperature changes. My point is that everyone declares the science is settled, but if you have a scientific mind, science is never settled.

>>689890169
It's not fallacious, it's true. Just because two variables correlate to one another, it does not indicate the nature of the relationship between them, only that their is a relationship.

>>689874107
You do know that the databhasvbeen "corrected" multiple times. Therefore cant actually be trusted

>>689891346
>man is solely responsible for this climate change

This time, that's true. The past increases in co2 were caused by natural processes (like continents full of volcanoes erupting for millions of years straight), but this time it's being caused by human activity. The co2 isn't coming from anywhere else, and methane only has a small impact on raising temps.

The data simply cannot be explained in any other way. If you could do it, you would probably win a Nobel prize (and overturn hundreds of years of physics and chemistry in the process).

>>689879647
Single volcanic explosion produce more then humanity ever

>>689887696
First off: I don't know how to stop it and only have a vague idea how to survive it. We got specialists for that. I do what I can to not increase the growthrate as much as it's possible for me (which isn't that much).

We shouldn't be controled by anything (no human is controled by nothing btw) but you simply CAN'T control nature. You just can't. It has been prooven many times (tsunamis, hurticanes etc) and we are FAR away from controling it, period.

The reason why I think we need a reboot is because there are people like you (who are btw also allowed to vote sadly). Ignorance, immidiate personal attacks, still believing that humanity can do everything. Newsflash: we can't.

I don't believe in higher forces, but I can see when something is stronger than us. And atm nature is, at least in many parts.
Maybe at some point humanity will be ready, but as long as there are trumps, kim jong uns, racists and other small minds.

I think that man has caused an increase in temperatures, I just don't think it is a big deal.

For all the greenhouse gasses we've put into the atmposphere the global temp has only risen by 1C. We will run out of fossil fuel before we reach a cataclysmic change in climate

>>689892369
Chemistry and physics is being overturned on a regular basis. That is the very nature of an honest scientific method. Feynman once said that the easiest person to fool is yourself, meaning, don't fall in love with your theory. He also expounded on something as fundamental as the Milliken oil drop experiment to determine the charge of an electron. Subsequent more accurate environments determined that Milliken was incorrect, but these subsequent experiments only gradually moved the value to what is accepted today. The reason is that Milliken was such a highly respected scientist that nobody initially wanted to believe that he was wrong, so they fudged their numbers to bring them closer to his results, even though their results were more accurate. It's human nature. You cannot tell me for one second that this so called climate science (a very messy science at best) isn't motivated politically and economically. I very much doubt that the IPCC scientists are allowed the freedom to buck the party line of something is discovered that doesn't jive with the collective opinion. I have a great deal of mistrust for the sad state of affairs that the scientific community is in and how truly fettered it is.

Global warming is a hoax perpetuated by muslims so that we stay preoccupied with this shit while they slowly eat away our way of life and take over the world

>>689891578
>Just because two variables correlate to one another, it does not indicate the nature of the relationship between them, only that their is a relationship.

this is not fallacious, I never implied that it was. The fallacy exists where you increase these two variables to 'a hundred', then assert that they are all inaccurate without supporting the assertion.

According to Occam's Razor, if all the available evidence supports a model, that model is taken to be fact until either a simpler model is designed which is also supported by all the evidence or new evidence is discovered which refutes the model.

All available evidence supports the current model for the global temperature record. If you genuinely think you have serious evidence which refutes it I suggest you write a paper on it and submit it to some journals so it can be properly discussed by actual experts.

>>689893517
The problem is how fine the balance of the planet is. 3c rise would have massive and devastating effects worldwide.

File: hot.balls.jpg (9 KB, 267x189) Image search: [Google]

9 KB, 267x189

I say this...

If you look closely you'll see what I mean.

>>689894160
That is withou a doubt true

>>689893684
Good luck if you think you're going to overturn the greenhouse effect. If you did you would win a Nobel prize. And if you think all the evidence against your worldview is a conspiracy, you're delusional. You're not going to win an argument when it comes to the science and you're not going to convince anyone to join your side since your argument's foundation is a conspiracy theory.

this stuff is not even that hard to grasp.

>Heat is radiated as Infrared light
>CO2 gas absorbs infrared light
>Therefore CO2 heats up when exposed to infrared light
>The earth is cooled by emission of infrared light into space
>The earth is kept warm by greenhouse gasses whitch absorb infrared light before it reaches space
>Therefore more greenhouse gasses means more infrared light absorbed, meaning more heat
>Combustion reactions release CO2
>co2 is a greenhouse gas, which absorbs infrared light
>Therefore we expect both the concentration of CO2 and the temperature of earth to rise
>Scientific theory predicts rise in temperature corresponding to an increase in greenhouse gas
>Empirically, we observe an increase temperature corresponding to an increase in greenhouse gas
>Therefore, man made global warming is real

File: 1286453260382.gif (9 KB, 180x297) Image search: [Google]

9 KB, 180x297

Why don't we just open a temporary hole in the atmosphere to let all the greenhouse gasses out into space?

>>689893270
this is what I originally took issue with:
>Why are people still discussing this..
>Climate IS changing and so it did over the last billion years. We had ice ages and heat phases. Yes climate is changing, yes its faster due to humans, no it's no catastrophy. It is called nature.
>So calm your fucking tits and let nature do its stuff
You want to silence the entire discussion about climate change simply because you personally don't know/care about it. If you don't care, why are you even here?

> you simply CAN'T control nature.
this is obviously false. We absolutely can control nature, we just usually choose not to unless we gain something from it. Here are some examples of ways we could control nature if we wanted to. Some of them we're already doing:

Change global temperature: Not just via CO2 but also through releasing aerosols to reduce temperature, and much stronger greenhouse gases (eg. CFCs) to raise it. There's even a plan to use CFCs to warm up Mars...
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Use_of_fluorine_compounds

Cause earthquakes: Simple - just detonate nukes underground. We could cause a quake with precise parameters up to about 8 on the Richter scale with a single H bomb, and we could easily design a bigger H bomb if we wanted to (H bombs scale as big as you want - just add more Hydrogen). We could also generate Tsunamis with a similar method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale#Energy_release_equivalents

Create and destroy species: Targeting species for destruction is hard, but we managed it with Smallpox, and can and will manage it again. We also obviously accidentally destroy species daily too. As for creation, most of the food you eat is a species created by us for us on land made fertile by us

Move mountains: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/appalachian.pdf

>>689893270
>>689896235
here's some footage of a nuclear earthquake in practice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPwSN9gUG5c

>>689888610
Didn't say climate wasn't changing. Just that we aren't the primary cause.

>>689894864
How exactly do you propose we open a "temporary hole" in the ozone layer, fuckwit?

>>689896235
Then give a solution to the problem. We can cut back on co2 production but that'll just slow the rise not stop it completely.

>>689896656
again, an unsupported assertion. Back it up with evidence and I will be able to address your point as a proper argument

>>689896884
lol he didn't say ozone layer, that one we can actually do (CFCs)

>>689894004
Actually your definition of Occam's razor is incorrect. The correct definition is: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

That is quite different from your definition.

I don't support either position because there is not enough conclusive evidence to support either argument. We're not smashing atoms together in a highly controlled and precise experiment, we are trying to make sense of an extremely complex, chaotic system that we do not even know all the variables of. Making sweeping statements based on so many assumptions, inaccurate data of varying degrees over given time spans. A true misunderstanding of what temperature represents. That is way too messy for me to call science.

>>689897218
Prove it isn't just nature doing it's thing. Prove that it isn't just something we've never seen before.

>>689894703
>Over simplified the real problem
>Man=co2=global warming. Ok let's all kill ourselves.

>>689896932
slowing the rise is better than doing nothing don't you agree?

Besides, there are plenty of ways of actively reducing atmospheric CO2, eg. CO2-negative cement (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/dec/31/cement-carbon-emissions), CO2 capture-and-storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage), and so on.

Also there are many possible and theoretical ways of actively cooling the planet other than reducing the greenhouse effect, the most promising of which being releasing aerosols as I already mentioned ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering))

Plenty of solutions exist, we just need to recognize the problem as a species so we can actually formulate a plan to deal with it and make adequate funding available to enact the plan. Virtually all scientists and affected corporations have already recognized it, but the voting population and therefore the politicians is being incredibly slow to follow suit

>>689881566
Less than ten percent of climatr scientists predicted cooling in the 70s buckaroo.

Might be smart to research something for once instead of assuming you know the answer Mr. Special snowflake

Wouldn't say we're the only or dominant driving force, but it's reasonable to try to minimize any and all pollution and consumption.

>>689897837
we have seen a jump this fast before. It killed the dinosaurs...

I don't have to prove anything if you can't provide evidence. The scientific community has put forward a model and supported it with evidence, plenty of which can be found in this thread.

Experimental science does not work in terms of absolutes and as such a 'proof', as a layman would understand the word, does not exist on either side of the argument. You refute this well-supported model while suggesting no alternative and giving no evidence to support your claim. Where is your argument?

You know what I don't get about climate change deniers? Even if the rise of temperature isn't due to human actions, why risk the existence of the human race by ignoring the issue? Even if all our efforts wouldn't do anything, isn't at least trying to prevent this better than just ignoring it just in case it's all a big scam?
What do you guys have to lose?

Thia thread is filled with so many special snowflakes and pseudo scientists.


IF YOU ADD CO2 TO A CLOSED SYSTEM THEN THE SYSTEM ABSORBS AND HOLDS ONTO HEAT.

in our system (earth) the extra co2 for us is the trapped fossil fuels we use collectively en masse each day.

Some idiot at the start of the thread said something akin to "lol well climate changed 20k years ago so it still will! IM SO SMART LEL XD SMILEY FACE *FEDORA*"

Well you stupid fuck people werent flying thousands of planes and millions of cars 20000 years ago.

If you still think humans dont attribute to the change youre in denial. Anytime you research this subject you only look for reinforcement. Anything to the contrary is obviously some conspiracy. Keep your tinfoil ideas to /b/, because the moment you actually talk to real climateologists youll recognize that thats exactly what they are

>>689898568
Lol, you mean the dinosaurs killed themselves by driving around in their suv's? I think we're talking about a big ass meteorite impact for that one.

So, what have we learned here?

That no matter how far science progresses, there will always be people like
>>689891346
>>689889764
>>689889288 (checked)
>>689888658
>>689886564
>>689883737 (There have been temperature obervations since the late 19th century)
>>689883425
>>689881257
>>689880883
>>689880877 (check'em)
>>689879296
>>689878201
>>689877404 (this hurts me inside)
>>689874317
who ruin it all for everyone. To end this post, the post-Permian glaciation warming was over 25 million years. There, the temperature increased about 25 degrees. That is 0.000001 degrees per year. Now, the temperature is increasing 1 degree over about 40 years. That is 0.025 degrees per year. At that rate, after 50 years, temperature will have increased 1.25 degrees. At the first one, it would have increased 0.00005. That is a huge difference.

>Note: All of those were estimates based on the two long climate graphs.

>TL:DR global warming is real.

>>689898851
Hate to break it to you special snowflake but the earth isn't a closed system. It radiates energy into space you special moron.

>>689874107
Global warming period.

Next.

>>689899059
And the CO2 reflects energy back to Earth.

>>689899059
Wow wow wow that was for sake of example wow wow wow


The co2 stays trapped here wowowowowowowowowowwlwowowowowowowow

>>689899036
Best post in the thread

>>689899036
And their will always be hippocrates like you and Leo DiCaprio spouting off about how we're doomed but then fly off in private jets, or continue to drive a fossil fuel vehicle, live in a house powered by the grid, buy food in a grocery store who's contents came by truck spewing co2 into the air. What are you doing about the problem? Why aren't you living off the grid in a solar powered home, growing your own food? Driving an electric car charged with solar panels? Should I continue?

>>689897416
yes that is the definition of Occam's Razor, but I never attempted to define Occam's Razor. I opened the sentence 'according to Occam's Razor'. Everything I said logically follows from the definition you gave.

At this point I'm not even sure what it is you're sitting on the fence about. If it's simply the accuracy of long-term temperature record measurement, then sure I can understand your position. If, however, you doubt the veracity of climate science as a whole, then you are misinformed as to the sheer quantity of consistent and dependable data available to support modern climate models. Without this data we could never hope to produce daily global weather forecasts with resolutions better than one mile over periods of 30 minutes or less

>>689899212
>Thinking you can ignore all the moving parts of a complex system, and just focus on one.

>>689899162
Not all of it.

>>689898880
...you think the meteor itself is what killed the dinosaurs? Maybe the Mexican ones, but the majority survived the initial impact.

The thing that actually caused the mass extinction was the temperature fluctuations immediately after the impact. The dust it kicked up initially dropped the temperature by 2-5C for about a year, then after it settled the temperature rose by several degrees above baseline for several decades due to the massive amount of CO2 and Ozone released by the impact.

Those quantities and timescales look awfully familiar don't they...

>>689899514
Hippocrates? The guy who invented medicine? I'm no doctor, nor do i own a private jet, nor do i live off the grid. There are renewable energy sources. Nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc. But the only reason global warming denial exists is because of the oil industry. And you useful idiots.

>>689899708
But more than it was before.

>>689875650
what are you talking about, fuck head? the last ice age ~10,000 years ago saw temperatures change more significantly than your figures are showing in a comparable time period.

now fuck off.

>>689899059
he never said it didn't fuckwit. His statements are all true and their meaning is obvious. Assuming he meant that adding an arbitrary amount of CO2 makes it hold ALL the heat is retarded and unnecessarily argumentative

>>689900197
You mean the other graph? Have you heard of scale? That second graph is over 300 years, the ice age one over 20000.

>>689899605
I'm on the fence about the temperature record for sure, and also the models. The models can only be reconciled relatively accurately from only a short time period of satellite derived data. There is no way until thousands of years pass to be sure a given model accounts for a longer term cycle that we cannot accurately determine because of the lack of information. The time window is akin to viewing an object through a tiny pinhole up close to an animal, the skin looks like it could be an elephant, but it could also be a rhino. No way tell until that window is made bigger. I'm not going to accept sweeping statements pawned off as absolute gospel based on at best a somewhat educated guess. We don't even fully understand our own sun, it's magnetic field and how that interacts with our planet. How can you make definite statements based on indefinite information?

>>689900035
Well we're going to stop using oil either way. When we run out or when it gets more expensive than renewable energy.

I think we'll be fine until then. It isn't far off

>>689900197
i challenge you to find evidence of a single other period in the last million years when the temperature rose by 0.5C (an extremely conservative estimate for the last century, most data suggests ~0.8C) in a single century. I doubt you'll even find a change that big over a millenium.

Check the facts before opening your mouth and embarrassing yourself fuckwit

>>689900410
Why don't you suck his dick fanboy.

>>689900684
there is still oil to be discovered, such as when global warming melts arctic/antarctic ice, there will be oil under there. Oil sands. Shale oil.

>>689900695
Ok let me check the satellite record for 2million BC.....fuck I can't find it.

and what can i do about this?

>>689900695
you get your figures from "scientists" who have fudged all their findings in favor of "global warming" and the funding it guarantees them. have you noticed that the legions of real scientists who disagree with this bullshit all lose their jobs or have their funding cut?

global warming is a hoax as great as terrorism

>>689901032
they keep the annunaki satellite records tightly sealed

>>689900652
>How can you make definite statements based on indefinite information?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
It is a law of nature that all information is indefinite to some degree. The difference is simply by how much. As such, all of science is simply an educated guess. We use the principles of the Scientific method and Occam's Razor to make the best guess we can possibly make with the available data, and then test that guess by making predictions.

If you want to throw out Climate science due to uncertainty you may as well just throw out all of science altogether. You will find the same hand-waving and guesswork everywhere in science if you dig far enough. The difference between climate science guesswork and guesswork elsewhere in science is simply that you can understand where and how the assumptions and guesses have been made in this situation. However neither you nor I fully understands WHY they were made that way, or indeed the extent to which they are able to make accurate predictions.

Unless you want to reasearch and fully understand the whys in a field the logical route is to believe the majority, while remaining skeptical and open minded

>>689901128
Congratulations! You can make assertions while wearing a tinfoil hat! Now explain why anyone should listen to your assertions, and provide the evidence to back up your claims
Please show me these 'legions' of out-of-work climate scientists, and the funding made available to global warming proponents.


I can actually think of plenty of places where the exact opposite is true. Scientists working for universities don't tend to have collective agendas and their funding is relatively unrelated to their findings (as long as they keep producing findings that is)

Private sector researchers, however, do have incentives, but most of the funding originates from corporations, the majority of which stand to lose a lot of money through CO2 taxes etc., so have a strong incentive to DISPROVE and generally downplay climate change, which they (oil companies in particular) have so far succeeded in doing to an alarming extent

>>689901751
You cannot deny that climate science has a great many holes to fill, whereas looking for a new particle in the LHC is a highly controlled, albeit statistical approach to discovery. Big difference is that in that system everything that could interfere with the measurements are eliminated or compensated for with incredible accuracy. You cannot say the same for climate science. Again, we don't even fully understand all the variables and mechanisms involved so when someone states emphatically "man is the cause of global warming" that doesn't sit right with me because there are so many loose ends. My personal belief is that the earth is far less fragile than you would be led to believe. Honestly a slight rise in temperature is better than a cooling, because stuff doesn't grow in winter. Just because I sit on the fence does not mean I'm all for polluting the planet either. I'm going to be building an off grid house powered by solar array and a heat pump system powered from that array. I will have a greenhouse to grow my own food. I'm on board with this, but I will not concede that we have figured this all out, not by a long shot.

File: 2992-09-17.gif (17 KB, 520x600) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 520x600

On September 7th, 2992, there will be a solar eclipse over the US. Let's hope we haven't ruined the world in the interim. We can choose not to have global warming, or we can choose to. We can try and set up renewable power resources, or not. We can try and lower CO2 emissions, or not. We can stop global warming, or not. You want to choose not to. I want to choose to.


You say climate scientists are messing with the data; they aren't. You say water vapor is more important than CO2; it isn't. You say that the models, temperature proxies, land/satellite measurements,etc. are all wrong; they're not. You say that this is just a natural variation of temperature; it isn't.


I could be fapping, yet I am arguing with people who don't want to analyse the evidence; who don't want to see charts, graphs, tables, lists, bars, lines, averages, records, analyses, predictions.


The reason is because my area of expertise is meteorology. I know the minimum central pressure of Typhoon Tip (970 hPa). I know the two ways frontal cyclones form (Norwegian and Shapiro-Keyser models). I know that Hurricane Sandy was extratropical at landfall, had a minimum central pressure of 940 hPa, winds of 100 mph at that time.


I have better things to do. That i could be doing. That I'd rather be doing. Than posting a fucking essay on fucking /b/.

>TL;DR: agw is real, you are wrong, and you are dumb because you are wrong


>hPa=hectopascals, btw

Sorry about the tl;dr, this issue is important.

>>689902433
Imagine you are a ippc member research scientist and you find something that doesn't fit with the whole argument for agw. What do you do? Answer honestly.

>>689902975
Meteorological expertise does not give you some special powers to deduce that climate records are absolutely correct and everything you read on the net (certainly not the net) or in published papers is absolutely correct. A proxy record is called a proxy record because it isn't a direct marker of the real quantity to be measured. I've read published papers that show these proxy records are susceptible to all kinds of error. If you're comfortable with that good for you, but I'm not.

>>689902975
you have forgotten that co2 increases in the atmosphere as a result of temperature increase, not the other way around.

or perhaps you never knew this

>>689903475
>>689903790
this is my reaction:
>facepalm

I will not tell the truth to someone who does not want to know,

oh ,and >>689903790, you cannot know a false statement

and >>689903475, that was the reason i am so passionate about this debate.

>>689904239
you're a fool, man.
you have swallowed their whole narrative.

don't you think, that - if 'global warming' was real and not just a fabricated narrative to be fed to the masses - there would be some mention made of the millions of gallons of mystery aerosols and particulate being sprayed in the high atmosphere?
and don't tell me they don't spray. the skies didn't used to look like this.

but no, no mention of that. why would that be part of the equation? let's just make everyone buy a more efficient fridge instead. let's make people buy new cars, as if the amount of exhaust fumes from an old 2l engine is somehow significant when compared to the amount of pollution that comes from industrial sources.


by virtue of the knowledge that everything we read and see in "news" is engineered and fabricated bullshit, why would this story be any different? news is a propaganda tool. global warming is propaganda.

you're like these faggots who claim to know what killed prince because "you saw the coroner's report"
(in the newspaper)

>>689904930
Tip-o-the-tinfoil to you, mister

You swallowed the conspiracy whole, in one bite, didn't even chew. Have you ever thought that your conspiracy theories are ,in fact, a conspiracy?

>>689904239
swallowed their whole shit narrative, and now you're so up your own ass you're shit dildoing yourself with the shit made of their shit. you're full of shit.

>>689902719
>You cannot deny that climate science has a great many holes to fill, whereas looking for a new particle in the LHC is a highly controlled, albeit statistical approach to discovery.
Actually the two are very similar in their methods. Both make models based on assumptions, controlling for all assumptions that have so far been confirmed, then run simulations to create predictions, then test the predictions against reality to test the model. Both are highly statistical in nature and both have large uncertainties in individual data points. They also both gather massive amounts of data to reduce those uncertainties to levels low enough to be statistically confident that the model is accurate or inaccurate
Again, the difference that you are actually perceiving is nothing more than your level of understanding of the subject matter.


>when someone states emphatically "man is the cause of global warming"
when a layman says that what they mean is 'scientists tell me that man is the cause of global warming'
when a scientist says that what they mean is 'the available data is consistent with the anthropocentric explanation of the recent global warming'

> Honestly a slight rise in temperature is better than a cooling, because stuff doesn't grow in winter.
stuff doesn't grow in deserts either. Or underwater. Rising temperatures will reduce plant growth much more than they will increase it in the short term for certain, and probably in the long term too.

>I will not concede that we have figured this all out, not by a long shot
and nor should you. We blatantly don't. But we have put a lot of effort into making the best estimate we can possibly make, and we can quantify the uncertainties and show that the likelihood that our estimates are at least correct enough to support the anthropocentric climate change model is essentially certain.

>>689905441

>>689905434 applies to you to

>>689905434
there's also a good documentary about this syndrome you and other like you have

>the conspiracy theory conspiracy

the kikes who control your mind by way of information transmission have trained and conditioned you so well that something could be sitting in front of you, self evident, clear as day, and you'd still disbelieve it because someone said
>conspiracy

well guess what, moron? conspiracies exist

you think powerful people don't get together and scheme to try and increase their power, wealth and influence? did you grow up in a fucking cartoon? this is the real world. it's fucking corrupt.

>>689902719
Also, the number of 'holes to fill' is, as far as we know, the exactly the same in both subjects: infinite. We have no reason to believe the Standard Model is the ultimate model for Quantum dynamics, in fact we know for a fact it isn't. Both fields consistently uncover more questions than they do answers, the difference, again, is understanding.

>>689905845
Jews?

You are arguing for the jews, so they can make more shekels with oil. You really think they want to make less money? Wake Up!

>>689906337
you wake up, jews already own all the world's wealth. any tangible wealth they don't own or control already, they trade worthless pieces of paper for. the final frontier for jews is to control all of humanity. control of humans is the greatest form of wealth

which is why our rights and freedoms are being taken apart at the seams as we speak and we live in surveillance states.

>>689906337 (me)
Who do you think wanted the US to go to war with Iraq? You know, with all their oil?

>Hint: the Jews

>>689874317
> 10 000 BC
Dude, het over yourself, the planet is only 6000 years old.

>>689906579
it has nothing to do with oil. they want to create "greater israel"
read about it.

as i said, they already control all the wealth through control of governments and multinational monopolies.

>>689906579 (me)
Now, ISIS controls Iraq, and Syria too. They are Muslims. Therefore, the US (Jews) will go to war with them and set up a Jew government in Iraq, and make it part of Israel, along with all the Middle East. Then, the Jews wil control the Muslim areas. More money there. Then, the jews will have won. Climate change is real, and the Jews want us to think it is not.

>>689906944
all correct until you got to the climate change part

if jews want us to think that climate change is fake, why do they use their news agencies to tell us about it 24 hours a day? why have they made all our governments "go green"?

the jews will have won once white people have gone to holy war with muslims. the ultimate plan is for muslims to be eliminated and whoever's left over gets to serve the jews

>>689907258
Two factions of jews. Some people believe, some dont. Now, they can sell alternatives to the first group, oil to the second. That doesn't change it, though. But,I suspect they will brainwash everyone to use one of those.

>>689907509
I worded that wrong. The first "jews" should be "'goyim"

>>689907509
ultimately, "climate change" is about control. if the planet is getting warmer, the jewnited nations gets to set up its international governing body (IPCC) that gets to inflict rulings on member countries that couldn't be done by the country's own government for various reasons. for example: government of a given country wants to restrict fossil fuel use or restrict transportation but can't, as implementing such regulations would violate the rights of their citizens. but the unelected panel at the IPCC can go over the head of your own "elected" government and inflict rulings on a country.

it's all about making people less free. the zionist plan is to enslave all nonjews. and as a result they want as few goyim left as possible, hence the 500 million number for human population that they like so much. this is why everything is being robotized.

>>689908040
I think they'll just brainwash the children.

>>689908233
they already have. look at the curriculum in public schools. look what's going on in public school culture right now with all this transgender shit and the muslim shit. they're trying to turn all children into mindless little one world government loving shemales

>>689874107
help the planet. kill yourself.or you're a hypocrite.

>>689908040
holy fucking shit dude

>>689875650
wow we had thermometers 500 million years ago.

>>689908501
yeah. don't take my word for it man, do the research. read the protocols of zion to get an idea what jews are really about

>>689908609
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record