>Antarctica is actually gaining ice
Remember all those lofty claims this cunt made, all those sourceless pie charts he compiled, and none of it came true? And the exact opposite of what he said would happen, happened?
How much money did this fucker get exactly from teary eyed liberals, and when will he go to prison?
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/13/al-gore-wrong-again-polar-ice-continues-to-thrive/
>>55259299
Source on the Antarctic gaining ice?
>>55259549
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/world/antarctica-ice-gain/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/11/04/antarctica-ice-global-warming-climate-change/75155630/
>>55259549
the north pole
>go and fucking look fagget
You can't disprove a long-term trend with a single data point.
>>55259943
The long term "trend" that the liberal media made up?
>>55259988
If you want to try and show the trend is false, go ahead. But saying "it was colder than usual this year" doesn't cut it.
>>55259549
>needing a source when this has been reported for years
fucking wake up
>>55259299
Greenland on the other hand continues to increase it's melt, and Greenland has enough ice pack to raise the global ocean level 20 feet. Shifts in the global climate are like that, floods in some places and droughts in others. Unusually warm winters in some locals and bitter ones elsewhere.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/omg-nasa-project-oceans-melting-greenland
OP is engaging in the classic "it's cold outside, so global warming must be a hoax" bullshit. Tell that to the Islanders who are literally watching their islands being covered by the ocean.
>>55260254
>Tell that to the Islanders who are literally watching their islands being covered by the ocean.
source please
>>55259299
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Read before posting.
Tbh the problem with going green is the liberal aspect behind it, I just hoped they changed the word. Going Green is a horrible expression that screams of faggotry and degenerate people, however being more friendly to the environment and efficient in power use would save you:
-Billions spent on AC in the summer due to Urban Heat Islands
-Billions spent on Medicine due to the polution
-Billions spent on outdated coal and oil energy production
-Millions spent on cleaning up every single time some major company fucks up and leaks something toxic
-Trillions spent on relocating the major economic centres of the world after sea-levels rise enough
I don't want to live in a world where every summer gets a record heat wave
>>55259299
got a buddy in an ice core lab
he said his PI and graduate students were kekking at the guy who made this paper because shitty science
>>55260323
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34642692
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/18/disaster-after-disaster-in-low-lying-marshall-islands.html
>>55260323
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/science-environment/75039-first-inhabited-island-lost-global.html
>>55259854
>Antarctic
>north
full retard mode engaged
>>55259854
>Antarctic
>north pole
>>55259943
How come they can but we cant?
Al gore said we'd all be under water by now, the fact that they can change when the global catastrophe is going to happen is bullshit. Yet claiming global warming is a buncha hooie and not a result of a natural cycle of earth's climate is taboo. How does that make sense?
Yes humans have an impact, but nature is much more powerful than we are.
Mars is heating up too, we don't have any power plants over there to my knowledge.
notwithstanding scientists who get paid for researching this shit, why do normal people give a shit about global warming?
i truly don't get it, can some libtard treehugger enlighten me please
>>55259299
The gain is down to increased snowfall in the inner Antarctic region. Rain (and snow) increase with temperature.
>>55260546
>How come they can but we cant?
They can't either. You can't point to the record heat waves this year and say that proves global warming. It's years and years of data that does that.
>Al gore said we'd all be under water by now
If he did, he was wrong and I doubt any respectable scientist at the time would have agreed with him.
>Yes humans have an impact, but nature is much more powerful than we are.
Nature isn't what's sent atmospheric CO2 levels skyrocketing to prehistoric levels in the last 200 years.
>>55260323
Do you read National Geographic this month's publication (Nov 2015) ?
The journalist covered the village of Niaqornat, 300 miles above the Artic Circle on Greenland's west coast.
Only special kind of morons and ignorant would believe climate change is not real.
>>55260751
this is a good answer t.bh
Actual scientist here.
No seriously I publish peer-reviewed papers on paleoclimate, and while I haven't been keeping up with the latest polar ice data... I can tell you categorically that the guy who wrote the article in OP is generally full of shit. As in >90% of the time he is completely full of shit and is deliberately misleading. It's often quite easy to show how Anthony Watt is being deceptive with data.
Anyway, all ad hom attacks aside (sometimes they are justified; this guy has ZERO integrity), the fact is that conclusions about Earth's "climate" are only meaningful if we are talking about climate timescales. This means averaging data over decades (3 decades is a typical minimum). Notice how Watt's article is making a big fuss over a temporary uptick in summer Arctic sea ice from 2013-2015.
Let me repeat that: 2013-2015. And what is the big claim about sea ice over this interval? That sea ice was "larger than on any December 28 in the past five years." Wow. Holy shit. 5 years. Stop the presses.
This isn't a meaningful time scale. There are secular variations in WEATHER that have larger amplitudes than the overall CLIMATE signal for a region. This is normal. It is to be expected. EVERYWHERE. So for someone to make a big deal about ups and downs in an overall downwards trend... is incredibly dishonest.
Get your news elsewhere, OP.
Meanwhile, actual climate scientists are quietly worried about the oceans going anoxic... starting with the Mediterranean and Gulf of Mexico. It's not a matter of "if" but "when." We can't decide if this will be a problem in 1000 years... or 500 years... but either way it is too soon and too big of a problem to ignore now.
>>55259299
The liberal excuse is that it's gaining ice because ice is being taken from other parts.
>>55259299
Fuck off, faggot. I like our Europe friends.
>>55260419
>>55260397
"Seas are rising in the Marshall Islands at least twice as fast as the global average, according to tide gauges and satellite data provided by the country’s government — echoing reports by researchers in other countries who have found indications of regional differences in sea level rise."
The sea level does not stay constant. It has always changed over time. The ocean is not also perfectly "flat" or spherical across the globe. There are variations which change over time. Measuring the sea level is notoriously difficult because it's often hard to determine whether the sea is rising or the land is sinking. There are areas in the world where the sea is receding.
None of this constitutes proof of human-caused climate change.
>>55260637
Some concerned organization who tried to PREVENT MAN-MADE ARMAGEDDON, you idiot fucker.
>>55260809
I dont give a shit about saving the planet if whites are becoming minorities. Best to let of chlorine atoms into the atmosphere to destroy it before I die
>>55260964
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/global-daily-ice-area-withtrend1.jpg
Looks pretty stable to me.
I believe man made climate change is real, but holy christ I hated "An Inconvenient Truth."
He takes scientific facts and twists them. He says stuff like "the ice caps will melt and the ocean will rise 20 feet, driving millions out their homes."
It's a fact the ice caps are melting. It's a fact that if they completely melt the oceans could rise 20 feet. It's a fact that if the oceans rose 20 feet then millions of homes would be uninhabitable.
However the information he completely leaves out is the timescale. For the timescale let's assume in this case 5000 years. Let's assume every inch the ocean rises drives a million people from their homes. How many climate refugees does this give us every year? The answer is 50,000.
That's fucking nothing compared to this Syrian bullshit.
Oh by the way "the ice caps will melt in 5000 years" "each inch of sea level rise is a million refugees." These claims are both completely hyperbolic. So even if you combine his most hyperbolic claims, you still don't get an international crisis on the level he wants to make it appear there will be.
But when he presents it, to the women it sounds like an emergency. It sounds like there's millions of people dying out there. Meanwhile other faggots hear and and can see he's distorting the truth, so they start thinking this whole climate thing's a hoax. It just pisses me off so much.
Another thing people don't talk about is what humans are doing to reverse the rising levels of CO2, which is industrial farming of trees for paper, and putting paper into landfills. These acts reduce the amount of CO2 in the air and trap that carbon in a solid form. When I hear people talking about trapping carbon gas to reverse the effect I'm like "are you fucking retarded."
>mfw was an elementary school teacher back in 06
>part of the curriculum was to bring every class to go see that climate change movie in the theater
I'm sure schools all over the Western world were indoctrinating kids like we were. And that's why we have all these green cunts in their early 20s wandering around.
>>55260546
You're a fucking idiot. The government has been mandating construction of thousands of secret power plants on Mars. These plants churn out liberal media, PC culture, and gay people, along with GMO's designed to kill everyone.
>WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!
>>55260254
>caring about some pacific rim tribal gooks
>>55261048
i appreciate you using english, but you should put more effort into making the answer coherent
>>55260809
I like how you don't touch mars
Maybe it has something to do with the solar cycle of the sun?
Anyway, how many articles do you see that don't include some countdown to doomsday?
>Scientists confirm the caps will be melted by 2050
>2040
now it's 2100
That's speculation, and it's constantly change by people who believe in global warming.
The theory is Global warming, which was created by al gore and over 90% of scientists believe in it. Not to say climate change isn't real though.
As a liberal I fully expect you not to read all, or understand, all of what i've written or fully comprehend that there isn't a black and white idea of climate change.
I'm not saying humans are not contributing, but there are other more prominent factors like volcanos and cows that contribute as much or more than we do.
Anyway wern't we supposed to into an ice age too or something? MORE speculation. It's nonsense and not backed up by anything other than ideas.
Anyway i'm not here to debate global warming but to put in my 2 cents on how liberals are fucking wobbly pieces of shit.
>>55259943
The long term "trend" was fabricated by Gore though.
There's no scientific data for what he claimed, other than the data he collected himself.
>scientists say something
>annoying liberals agree
>therefore, the scientists must be wrong
>>55261223
What? You clearly missed the point my friend.
Everyone ignores the biggest factor to our planets temperature which is the sun.
>>55260254
>Tell that to the Islanders who are literally watching their islands being covered by the ocean.
Lmao so? 20 feet of water, who gives a shit? Unless you live in Florida that would barely affect anyone.
Also at the rate it's going, that's like an inch a year. It'd take a hundred years to get to 20 feet.
>>55260964
>Meanwhile, actual climate scientists are quietly worried about the oceans going anoxic... starting with the Mediterranean and Gulf of Mexico. It's not a matter of "if" but "when." We can't decide if this will be a problem in 1000 years... or 500 years... but either way it is too soon and too big of a problem to ignore now.
Is the problem caused by agricultural runoff?
>>55261286
>shit post
no, but seriously, my only gripe with the c.c. community has to do with how toxic the participants are. i can care about the environment in my own way w/o associating w/ annoying liberals
>>55261238
>The theory is Global warming, which was created by al gore
>>55261257
>The long term "trend" was fabricated by Gore though
I don't even know what I'm dealing with here.
>>55260254
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Greenland is blowing away all records for ice gain this year. They have gained almost 200 billion tons of snow and ice over the past two months, which is more than 50% above normal. The surface of the ice gained more than 200 billion tons during the previous 12 months.
>>55261301
>>55261223
Sorry if I got riled up and misinterpreted your post as genuine and then mockery.
>>55259943
Science doesn't work on assuming something is true and then disproving it, that's religion.
Wasn't most of the Antarctic ice depletion from the seasonal ozone layer depletion that was being made worse by CFC's?
We reduced CFC's so the ozone hole should be closing. October through November is when the hole was the worst.
I sill hate al gore though.
>>55261389
It was though, that term didn't exist until gore put a name to it.
Climate change != Global warming m8
That fucker should be in jail for scamming you dibshit liberals as much as he did.
>>55260964
>Get your news elsewhere, OP.
There's like 20 of the top news sources covering this story. No matter where I turn it's the same story, you dumb cunt.
Also
>guys im a scientist!
>guys trust me!
>im not just some snot nosed intern at community college in a shitty lab, and my 'peers' arent my professors reading my shitty thesis!
>guys im an authority on this subject
Lmao fuck off.
>>55259299
>How much money did this fucker get
Don't forget about dat prestigious Nobel Peace Prize goy.
>>55260964
Can you elaborate on "scientists are quietly worried about the oceans going anoxic.." or provide a link please? Genuinely curious. Thanks
>>55261321
>20 feet of water, who gives a shit? Unless you live in Florida that would barely affect anyone
This is why you can't discuss anything intelligently on /pol/
>>55261414
The trend is not assumed, there's evidence for it. If you want to disprove it, you need your own long-term evidence. A single data point does not disprove a trend.
>>55261468
I've literally never heard anyone claim this before today.
>>55259943
You can't prove a trend by ignoring all the data points that go against it.
Like you know, winter every year? When the ice comes back? Instead of taking measurements every summer, when all the ice is melting.
Do you understand that it's all a lie, and that the main reason you can't accept it's a lie is because the lie is so stupid, you're ashamed to admit you were ever tricked by such a stupid, stupid scam.
Like you could admit it if you were cheated by some great con that took months of effort by hundreds of con-men like in that Paul Newman movie, The Sting. But you can't admit to falling for the Nigerian Prince scam.
With Climate Change, they went STUPID, actually made their con stupid on purpose, so that if anybody ever saw through it, they'd have to double-down and start living more and more in a confirmation bias loop because they're now clinging to the lie for PURELY emotional, irrational reasons.
This is to create a two-stage effect, where the first stage is very smug and self-assured and full of pseudo intellectualism and intellectual vanity, and then past the tipping point, stage two will be totally defensive, bias-confirming, irrational emotional thinkers who can't be reasoned with.
The reason they went with the two-stage approach is that the con only has to last for a few more years, maximum. This is all just one thread in a big tapestry they're making that will underpin the coming global government. We've only seen the first stirrings.
>>55261146
>Let's assume every inch the ocean rises drives a million people from their homes.
Lmao, let's not.
>>55260964
Got any papers you've published that might be available online and not behind a paywall? /sci/bro here pursuing a degree in Geology. This kinda interests me, anon
>>55261558
>>55261389
Those statements are both true. Do some research. A teacher Al Gore had in college (he got Cs in the class and the teacher never remembered having him) suggested carbon as a greenhouse gas in a paper in the 50s. It was widely refuted. Al Gore revived the paper and brought it before Congresd years later to get funding for his Global Warming campaign. The man who wrote the original paper said Gore had taken much of it out of context and didny actually think man was causing the planet to warm.
>>55261558
>I come to pol to have intelligent, mature conversations
>>55260964
>Actual scientist
>not stating area of expertise
Actual opinion actually discarded, actually.
>>55261664
at least most of the shitholes on the east coast will be gone and all of florida too!
>>55261487
>There's like 20 of the top news sources covering this story. No matter where I turn it's the same story, you dumb cunt
Do those new stories actually source any OTHER papers? Cause how it usually goes with science in media is that they take a poorly-supported thesis with extraordinary claims and just run with it, as if it were the scientific consensus.
>>55261607
I can't really tell what you're claiming. Are you saying they don't take or use measurements in the winter? Are you that deluded?
>>55261712
>carbon as a ghg
kek. CO2 is a greenhouse gas anon. Nobody denies this.
>>55261604
yea the name was changed when winters started to get more fierce and chilly due to climate change (caused by man and/or nature)
The fact that it changes like that just makes it all less credible and laughable.
>>55261810
No. Co2 was not considered a greenhouse gas until Al Gore brought the paper before Congress. This is a fact. Have you completely forgotten history?
>>55261664
I for one welcome this
>>55261257
I'm a total sceptic, but there has been a long term upward temperature trend coming out of the little ice age. Temperature trends are normal. There is always a trend -- up or down.
The rate of change we're seeing in perfectly normal.
>>55259299
playing devil's advocate here so be patient
>global temperatures rise
>more water is evaporated from oceans
>water vapor breezes to poles because jet streams where it freezes and makes more ice
am i doing it rite?
>>55261165
I'm not even western world, but my elementary school teachers told us that Humans were causing the ozone lair to melt and we were all gonna die and take all the animals with us as long as we live and polute the earth.
>>55261664
>los angeles
>untouched
i can't wait, my property value is about to skyrocket
>>55261793
The sourcw for the claim 'Antarctica is gaining ice' is these guys.
http://www.dmi.dk/en/vejr/
In the original article, at least the transalteion, they didn't say anything about this disproving AGW. This bit was just added on by WUWT, the Daily Express and other fucktards who've made a career out of being the outspoken voice for truth against a worldwide conspiracy to give us clean air.
>>55260964
>actual climate scientists are quietly worried
So they have a conspiracy theory and won't publish on it?
That's not science.
>>55260964
By the same logic, why should we be freaking out over a few decades of minor warming or ice loss? In the grand scheme of things this is nothing.
>>55261257
You're being an idiot. Al Gore doesn't collect data. The hockey stick graph that he used was total excrement though. Faked to hell and back.
>>55261928
Wouldn't currents change due to dramatic changes in the climate and oceans?
Thus maybe moving warmer water up there and preventing more ice from building, then the oceans release their co2 and a greenhouse effects takes over and we all die.
>>55261128
>posting a link to an image
>not just fucking uploading the image
What the fuck
>>55261876
Where are you getting this from?
You're literally 100 years behind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#History_of_scientific_research
>In the late 19th century scientists experimentally discovered that N
2 and O
2 do not absorb infrared radiation (called, at that time, "dark radiation"), while water (both as true vapor and condensed in the form of microscopic droplets suspended in clouds) and CO2 and other poly-atomic gaseous molecules do absorb infrared radiation. In the early 20th century researchers realized that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere made Earth's overall temperature higher than it would be without them. During the late 20th century, a scientific consensus evolved that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause a substantial rise in global temperatures and changes to other parts of the climate system,[132] with consequences for the environment and for human health.
>>55260326
i understand your position to an extent, and I agree with your points that you made but the effects are spread out over 1000 years, the sea levels arent going to rise bc of man they are rising faster bc our planet goes through changes, we have been recording meteorological data for not that long, and to look at our recorded history and make a judgement while ignoring the 99% of all other historical data we couldnt get is not legit enough to say we need the central government to tax us bc of our carbon emissions, its just silly. unless you live in shit tier citities like some chinese cities that dont protect their clean air, then its not really a big deal, just push for "smarter" effecientcies NOT more government regulation
>global warming causes extreme temperatures of hot and cold in different areas relative to the season
>antarctica gains a lot of ice on it's eastern side
>this somehow explains away climate change despite cool temperatures being expected
>this somehow mitigates the fact antarctica on it's western side and the artic are losing ice at a record rate
>/pol/ doesn't understand the difference between land ice and sea ice as usual
Man made climate change denialists are some of the most retarded people that have ever lived. If this were the 60s, you'd be denying smoking caused lung cancer.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-happening-antarcticas-ice-sheets-180957139/?no-ist
>>55262014
Thing is, we have a mechanism that explains the recent warming. Greenhouse gases. Plus the rate of change in temperature is quite high.
>>55261367
Agricultural runoff is important in local anoxia, but we don't have a precedent (that I am aware of) for run-off (agricultural or natural) causing basin-wide anoxia. So no.
The most important factor by far is a diminished equator-to-pole temperature gradient. When greenhouse gases are the culprit behind rising temperatures (as they are today), the poles warm up faster... as is occurring today. This is a dangerous situation, because it can shut down overturning... which is essential for mixing oxygen to deeper parts of the ocean.
This was a huge problem during the Cretaceous, when the North Pole was warm enough to support sub-tropical plants, like lotuses. The following image is a simplified model for how local basins might go anoxic.
>>55261664
> New york, LA, Sanfrancisco, philly, boston and all of fucking florida gone
Pic related, please make this happen in my lifetime.
>>55262151
>denialist
There's that word again
>>55262186
Adding some more points to your statement:
a. 13 large US airports have at last 1 runway at an elevation within 12 feet of the current sea level
b. In New Orleans, the Twin Span Bridge has been rebuilt 21 feet higher
c. The atmosphere can hold 7 more water vapor for every rise of one degree Celcius, affecting crop growing in some part of the world due to droughts and flooding. Moreover, rising average temperature due to high heat will affect yield in agriculture.
d. River erosion, intensified by climate change, has destroyed part of Newtok, Alaska. By 2017, if left unchecked, will drown most villages surrounding Alaska.
Source: IPCC, IFPRI, USDA...
Basically, why do you believe
When I was in school it was
>By 2010, we'll all have to wear hazmat suits to go outside from the atmosphere being destroyed!
A few years later
>By 2030 the sea levels will rise 10000% and most of the earth will be covered in water
Now
>Uhhh by 2100 the sea levels might rise a few feet.
lel
climate kucks, not even once
>>55262250
Am I the only one who got the stuff about humans destroying the ozone layer with industrialization?
>>55262085
So you are saying having an atmosphere makes Earth warmer? Ever been to Mars, shithead?
>>55259299
This is the fuck that sold CurrentTV to oil rich Qatar to start Al Jazeera America
>>55260949
Do you read National Geographic,where they even state that the IPCC is full of shit bc they delete huge chunks of information from their report?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140703-ipcc-climate-report-deleted-data-global-warming-science/
>>55261876
Please stop arguing for the climate catastrophists by being a jackass. Everything coming out of your mouth is wrong.
Read up first.
>>55262222
>If you deny something, you're a denialist.
Well done, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, you and Ted Cruz both have a basic understanding of English.
>>55262222
I saw this before and it's disgusting.
A skeptic is someone who doesn't believe a claim that has little to no evidence.
A denier is someone who doesn't believe a claim despite the large amounts of evidence.
Scientists should be skeptics, not deniers. You can argue against the evidence, you can't argue the evidence doesn't exist.
>>55261664
>>55261558
Wasn't this supposed to happen 40 years ago?
>>55262345
I like Aussies better when they ironically shitpost.
>>55261975
R A R E F L A G
A
R
E
F
L
A
G
>>55260964
Really? What about the fact that the whole Pacific ocean is fucking dying, you dipshit?
Think that might be "too big to ignore?"
enenews, guys. The Pacific ocean is experiencing massive die-offs every single week. millions and millions fish and marine life, washing ashore dead. From to to bottom of the ocean food chain.
And "scientists are baffled" about it because they're not allowed to look at Fukushima as a possible cause. Oh yeah, did you know Fukushima meltdown that started in March 2011 is LITERALLY ongoing? Still belching out radiation. No end in sight. Thyroid cancer already starting to skyrocket in Japan.
If you're a scientist, you must be one of these "baffled" ones I always read about in every headline about Pacific die-off the last four years. Fuck you buddy, do the whole world a favor and eat at Red Lobster tonight.
Why do you think seafood keeps getting cheaper and cheaper? Notice all the seafood specials lately? Yeah, why don't you save a buck, Dr. Scientist?
>>55262318
>July 2014
Not even.
>>55262250
>When I was in school it was >By 2010, we'll all have to wear hazmat suits to go outside from the atmosphere being destroyed!
As I recall we managed to alleviate the damage to the ozone layer because we actually did something and passed laws banning CFCs and such. And that worked.
Yet somehow the measures intended to alleviate global warming are just crazy and will never work.
>>55260107
>long term trend
>data from timeline of less than 100 years
That's a short term trend.
>>55259299
Needs more study, data inconclusive.
>>55262402
>believing that a single nuclear reactor in Japan can release enough radiation to poison an ocean literally half the size of the entire planet.
Why don't you do the math on that and get back to us.
>>55261983
The thing with wattsupwiththat is that he's not claiming that that article alone disproves AGP. If you monitor his site regularly there is a never ending stream of evidence against your theory.
>>55262498
It's a hell of a lot longer than OP's one year.
>>55260964
>Meanwhile, actual climate scientists are quietly worried about the oceans going anoxic
>>55262422
>ignoring that the leading investigations models ARE REFUTED by real time data
>ignoring the fact the ipcc came up with excuses as to why their model is more accurate than reality with bs like pollution, bird migration, too much rain
>>55262474
China is burning 17% more coal than they claimed
Kyoto Protocol would have only applied to developed countries, while shit holes like China and India had no restrictions.
>>55262474
Or maybe it was all just alarmist bullshit by world-wide organizations seeking more control
>>55260254
The gaining ice pack in Antarctica offsets the rising sea levels caused by Greenland. Quite literally causing the oceans to, and this may shock you, NOT RISE. You didn't read the OP's articles did you?
>>55261223
source?
>>55262292
>So you are saying having an atmosphere makes Earth warmer?
Eh.. yes? Are you still saying that
A) Al Gore invented global warming
B) co2 is not a GHG
Or do you concede you were just talking shit?
>>55262552
Yeah that's bullshit, they should be subject to the same restrictions. But those restrictions are probably a good idea.
>>55262560
There is literally nothing that would convince you then, is there?
>>55262498
>>55262541
I fucking hate that
>It broke all records that we've recorded, for the past 130 years
It's the same shit every time someone says it's the coldest or hottest month on record
>>55262515
Oh shit, I can see my house from there.
>>55262474
>As I recall we managed to alleviate the damage to the ozone layer because we actually did something and passed laws banning CFCs and such
>bc we banned CFCs the planet was saved
my sides will never return from this. dude, americas+ europes lightbulb production doesnt mean a thing compared to all factors of pollution, animals, farming wastes, waastes of all kinds etc. dont be so naive
>b-but just cause there's proof that the ice sheet is increasing instead of melting doesn't mean global warming is wrong
Liberals literally bent over and fucked in their faggy little assholes.
Kek SJW senpai
Send all climate change advocates to china and third world countries that pollute orders of magnitude higher than first world countries. When they get on our level then you can start talking to us again.
Until then fuck off.
>>55262523
But this bit you've posted here DOES NOT disprove it. Not even close. What parts in particular lead you to trust a blog over every major scientific body on the planet?
>>55262552
If the US had done Kyoto it would have been much easier to pressure China and India into doing something. US inaction has set us back 20 years.
>>55262167
>the rate of change in temperature is quite high.
Bullshit. There's even been a 20 year pause in warming.
That rate of change BS all started with Michael Mann's phony hockey stick graph where he deleted the little ice age and medieval warming period with terrible proxy data.
>>55261664
>>55262382
The flood idea has been a major trope in New Age spirituality, which is tied to the environmentalist movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5m65EPHLg0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX727DZuw3s
![Ice-Age-616937[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GdtEDEa.jpg "Ice-Age-616937[1].jpg")
Mini ice age predicted as sun ‘hibernates’
>A freeze, “the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.”
>A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.
>At the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations in the 11-year solar cycle would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.
>From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen.
>She said: “In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun.
>“We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum., said Professor Zharkova.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates
VIDEO: http://bcove.me/2lb248rx
>>55262712
>americas+ europes lightbulb production doesnt mean a thing compared to all factors of pollution
Maybe I'm mistaken, but what exactly do you think CFCs are? They were mainly used in aerosols, not light bulbs.
![climatedenierspapers.jpg.CROP.original-original[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/EjtM650.jpg "climatedenierspapers.jpg.CROP.original-original[1].jpg")
I bet you guys think evolution is a myth too.
>>55260809
>Meanwhile in reality
>>55262226
You realize that New Orleans and many other places on land are sinking?
Look it up.
>>55260468
Arctos = Bear, because of polar bear (ursus arctos).
Antarctos = Antbear
>>55262541
It's still a short term trend.
>>55262763
Yes this is literally what it means. The increase was down to increased snowfall, itself a symptom of warmer weather.
>>55262772
This neglects the fact that we've been polluting for 100 years longer than they have. You're right. China and India are the biggest problem today but we can't demand they act before we do.
>>55262226
>River erosion, intensified by climate change
You sure it's not just river erosion? They live in the middle of a fucken delta.
>>55259299
>people are actually upset that this man didn't become president
It must have been a bad 8 years for Democrats to have lost to W twice. They put up the only two guys that could possibly look worse than him.
>>55262861
You must be kidding now. There is NO dispute that CO2 levels have skyrocketed since the industrial revolution. All your pie chart shows is that CO2 makes up a small part of the atmosphere. That means nothing.
>>55262782
Yet Obama hasn't tried to revive it
That kek isn't trying to do anything until now, his last year
>>55262792
this 20 year pause is the biggest line in bullshit in this whole topic. Compare the average of the 90s to the average to 00s. Or consider the fact that 9/10 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998.
>inb4 RSS graph 'proving' the pause
>>55259943
This coming from the side that thinks the California drought is totally caused by fossil fuels and wasn't totally overdue as the tree rings show?
>>55262828
THANK YOU, WINTERCHAN
>>55261128
Yeah, Anthony Watt's graph of polar sea ice might look "pretty stable" to you, but his graph is shit. It is deliberately misleading.
Here is some non-bullshit data on Arctic sea ice extent. This interactive graph shows every single year and month, if you are that interested.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Now look at the data another way: averaged monthly. Arctic sea ice is still falling over climatic timescales, despite a recent pause in the data.
It is idiotic to obsess over a few years worth of data. Trends, people. We are interested in long-term trends.
Furthermore, arctic sea ice extent is just one indicator (of many) that the poles are warming. Arctic sea ice isn't crucial to our survival; it is just one metric that we use to quantify climate change, in addition to water temperature and air temperature.
What matters most - to the rest of the planet - are those last two variables.
>>55262912
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Do you have a problem with the statement "You can't disprove a trend with a single data point"?
>>55261664
Cool, California looks like a dick hanging off the country now! It replaced Florida as our countries dick.
Damn, we had a chode before, now..... now we have a pencil
>>55262318
Notice how the IPCC deleted Michael Mann's phony hockey stick graph without comment. After using it as their poster child for two years.
That's how this mania really got started.
>>55262712
CFCs, not CFLs
If trolling, 9/10 you hooked me
>>55261975
>my elementary school teachers told us that Humans were causing the ozone lair to melt and we were all gonna die
That actually happened. Then we banned CFCs and now the ozone layer is recovering.
Actually the greenhouse gases scientists blame global warming on helped ACCELERATE the recovery of the ozone layer.
>>55263006
ayy le ants are getting a little bigger this year we should figure this out before they become mammoth sized.
>>55260964
>actual scientist
>probably neckbeard computer scientist
>>55262288
No, we got that too. But it became too obviously false so the younger kids haven't been taught that lie.
>>55262849
Daily reminder all those scientists were offered money to give their "opinion"
>>55262250
Funny thing about dooms day cults, when they miss the date of the Apocalypse they just change the date.
They just made some minor miscalculation, but rest assured we are all gonna die.
>>55263180
>How can this tiny drop of cyanide kill me?
>>55259549
>clearly doesnt keep up with news
it was front page shit on every news site and most newspapers
>>55262515
Yeah, its just a portion of the ocean next to the plant that neighbours east asia and western US. Small part really
Fuckwit
>>55260254
Honestly /pol/ this isnt the place to talk about this. If all you retarded american armchair politicians debate on a scientific matter its just going to be pointless. Become an actual scientist and study it yourself before debating something you have no clue about.
>>55262782
>every major scientific body on the planet?
This is an appeal to authority not science.
The The catastrophic climate scare is being promoted by governments now. They py for the results they're getting.
>>55262348
There is little to know evidence to it. If 97% of scientists claim something, yet publish little to know evidence, you have a moral obligation to be a skeptic as a scientist.
>>55259943
When the predicted trend fails to materialize, the model it was based on is wrong.
>>55261542
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10839/20141202/climate-change-keeping-baltic-sea-starved-oxygen.htm
You're going to see more about this in the coming years. It is something that we discuss at conferences and at meetings (like at the climate research building where I have a second office).
Right now the state of ocean anoxic event (OAE) research is firmly focused on past OAEs (something I have looked at). Only recently have people started to put models together. I am part of that early research... and what is clear - even without the models - is that we are on a path that will kill the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Mexico (possibly the Red Sea as well). Those are our two biggest concerns right now.
Unfortunately there is little funding available for forward-modeling of OAEs, and I think part of that has to do with "urgency." The assumption is that this problem is 500+ years away... and would ultimately be addressed in the same way as global warming anyway. So why bother?
My response to this: what if this assumption
is wrong?
>>55263038
I talk about rate of change and you counter with averages.
Temperature records are, of course, going to happen frequently during a long term temperature trend. This is normal and to be expected.
>>55262226
Don't get me wrong: I think that run-off is an important factor in amplifying OAEs (and perhaps helping initiate them), but the bigger factor by far has to be ocean circulation.
>>55263473
saying appeal to authority does not change the facts, that most scientists believe the currenty throries are correct. If you can present even one scientific body who states otherwise, your point may have some merit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Joint_national_science_academy_statements
>They py for the results they're getting.
The other side are confirmed to be paying people. WUWT was funded by the Heartland Institute using Exxon money.
The shills that write attack pieces for Forbes also work for the Heartland Institute.
>>55263087
Anthony's graph showed article sea ice or world sea ice?
>>55263473
All thats going to happen is your precious oil addiction will fade away. You wont get muh muscle cars, or muh MIC. Stop shilling for your small penis.
>>55259549
It's been gaining ice for a couple years now, but the problem was the ice thinning and spreading outwards.
>>55263711
I apolifgies. It's usuialy your side who go for switch tactics. Now how is it I know you're going to dismiss or ignore this.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
>As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
Its really tragic how america cant recognize a noble righteous cause and lumps it in with "lefty hippies" because "muh bombs, muh power, muh too stupid to make efficient systems"
>>55263542
The model doesn't make predictions for specific years, so data from a single year can't constitute a failed prediction.
>>55263921
It's a vocal minority.
Global warming will be good for the white man. Why try and stop it?
>>55263772
>saying appeal to authority does not change the facts
Nor does appealing to authority.
>>55263823
Oh good point, thank you for reminding me of just how misleading Watts is being.
The title of the article: "Al Gore, wrong again – Polar ice continues to thrive"
First sentence of article: "In his 2007 Noble Prize acceptance speech, former Vice President Al Gore warned that the “Arctic ice could be gone in as little as seven years.”"
Y-axis on graph: "Global Sea Ice Area"
So in other words, Anthony Watts commentary is all about "Arctic sea ice" (i.e. North Pole sea ice), but all of his assertions are based on data that ARE NOT FOR ARCTIC SEA ICE. He is using GLOBAL SEA ICE data to make a point about arctic sea ice.
Can you see why scientist view this man as a dishonest piece of shit?
To address another poster: the recent news has been about ANTARCTIC sea ice and Antarctic ice cap growth in the recent past. This is an entirely different issue.
>>55263772
>The other side are confirmed to be paying people. WUWT was funded by the Heartland Institute using Exxon money.
Where's your evidence?
>>55259299
Temperatures have been warmer than today for almost all of the past 10,000 years.In fact, if the chart went further back, you’d see that temperatures have been warmer than today for most of geologic history.
>>55259854
COMMON CORE
>>55263433
>Years of nuclear bomb detonations on various Pacific islands didn't do a damn thing to the ocean beyond localized radiation
>One nuclear plant disaster has irrevocably ruined the largest ocean on earth
>>55261748
>What is your area of expertise?
Isotope geochemistry and paleoclimate.
>>55264160
We have recorded the temperature for about 150 years... Geo-dating is not 100%
>>55264086
Facts? Stop me when you see something you disagree with.
FACT. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
FACT. The greenhouse effect traps more heat in the atmosphere. More ghg, more heat trapped.
FACT. Direct measurement and proxy data show a clear warming trend since roughly the turn of the century
If 90+% of the worlds scientists agreee on something, they're probably right. Especially when you can offer no alternative.
>>55264082
Cause all the people in the red zones will want to come stay with you.
>>55264160
>ice age ends ~10-12k years ago
>it's warmer now than during an ice age
fucking shocker
>>55264337
Who gives a shit what they want? Just wall up the borders.
>>55262186
>This was a huge problem during the Cretaceous
A problem for what? Life on earth? Not based on the evidence. Pic related shows numbers of animal genera vs time in mya. Extinction events are highlighted by the arrows; for reference, the ele that ended the Dinosaurs shows up very clearly 65mya.
There is absolutely no evidence that the much warmer temperatures of the past had any negative impact on life, even when there were no ice caps.
Incidentally, the earth has only had ice caps for about half of the time over the past 500 million years. It is not abnormal for this to happen.
>>55264153
About WUWT, exxon and Heartlanders? Glad you asked.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
He admits it himself here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/some-notes-on-the-heartland-leak/
After being so completely made.
>>55260964
>>55263087
>>55262186
>>55263038
>>55262167
It's extremely refreshing to see intelligent, unemotional discourse on this muddied topic. It's honestly more than this shit place deserves
Judging from the amount of animosity directed at scientific consensus, and the tenacity with which boorish ignoramuses cling to misinformation they've been spoonfed, it becomes clear that this reactionary echo chamber might not be the best forum for a factual argument.
>>55262849
http://www.petitionproject.org/
>>55259299
anti-climate change fags please explain why i'm in the middle of summer in november?
>>55264160
>for most of geologic history.
You realize there was no life on the planet for "most of geologic history"?
>>55263857
Have you ever heard of low frequency variability?
Up .7, flat, down .4, up ..4, etc.
Also, keep in mind that the proxy data for such long geological periods has low resolution.
Unfortunately, I have a couple of errands to run and they're not happening while I'm here. I leave the field to you.
>>55263087
>Yeah, Anthony Watt's graph of polar sea ice might look "pretty stable" to you, but his graph is shit. It is deliberately misleading
Sea level is a decent indicator of global ice extent. Tell me if you notice anything about the sea level trend over the past 8000 years. That's right, a very stable and predictable trend with a slightly positive slope.
And notice how much more rapidly ice melted (and how drastic sea level changes were) as we emerged from the last glacial period 10,000 years ago. It makes the alarmism about the very modest recent sea level ruse--which has been happening for the past 8000 years--look completely ridiculous.
>>55259299
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPP7P43wulg
required viewing
>tl:dw
burt rutan, an engineer, examines the data that climate scientists have been using and uses their own data to disprove them.
>>55263834
Sometimes I just want to reach out and slap the fucken shit out of an Australian.
>>55263128
not suprised but I didnt know that, even more glaringly obvious then that they are full of shit.the people who beleive the ipcc is some kind of demi god are cant even speak normal they are so full of shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tos677I6224
>>55263140
i wish, I will admit, I am retard,never mind. id like to add that perhaps that did some good for our own air but the "global climate change" debacle is retarded bc places like africa burn cow paddies which is a major co2 emission. what I dont understand is why people call for more taxes? why not call for an interest in science and efficiency? things like new restrictions of oil rigs arent about efficiency they are about ideals and limiting production not bettering it. the satelite data for the past ~20 years show no warming what so ever, and now all the sudden people are saying its climate change bc warming and cooling both are failed concepts
>>55260546
>we'd be under water
Nah senpai pretty sure the actual estimations were more along the lines of sea levels rising by a dozen meters
>>55264798
No idea. Noticed this shit too, that the seasons are getting 'slower'. Like I remember growing up that sept/oct were autumn. But it's just the past week that trees around here have started shedding their leaves.
>>55261389
yo i hope your trolling have you even watching an inconvenient truth?
>>55264833
False.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/14/1517557112.abstract
>>55265084
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-oldest-rocks-20151031-story.html
>>55263404
>Carbon dioxide
>Cyanide
try harder shill
>>55263087
>Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries
this really captures the credibility of the corporate-funded climate change deniers
if only we weren't all so gullible and afraid of what the truth suggests
>>55264160
>if the chart went further back, you’d see that temperatures have been warmer than today for most of geologic history.
Yeah... We're in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Yet life was thriving in the much warmer temperatures. See pic related and
>>55264452
>>55264337
>If 90+% of the worlds scientists agreee on something,
I don't think 90% agree with catastrophe theories. You can believe co2 is a GHG without turning into an apocalyptic screwball.
You'll cite the usual debunked studies, of course.
Damn, I really got to go do things.
>>55265084
Holy shit. Well I stand corrected. But still, not human life. Or most life as we know it today.
>>55265173
My point was that just because something is present in very small amounts doesn't mean it can't be harmful. But you knew that, you're just a disingenuous jackass.
>>55264452
Great labels there, friendo. I'm sure that everyone here has the exact time boundaries of the geologic periods memorized.... and that it's obvious that the Y-axis is "thousands of (well-defined) genera."
To answer one of your assertions, that "there is absolutely no evidence that much warmer temperatures of the past had any negative impact on life"... well... you couldn't be more incorrect.
A few (of many) examples:
1) The Permian-Triassic extinction: The largest mass extinction of animals by far. Was almost certainly driven by global warming. Volcanism covered all of modern Siberia, releasing a bunch of GHGs (fast geologically, but slow compared to today). Things got a lot hotter, the oceans became stratified and anoxic/euxinic (sulfidic). ~96% of all marine species died (trilobites included).
2) End-Triassic extinction: Similar story except on a much smaller scale. Pangea was breaking up, and an *enormous* amount of volcanism (and GHG activity) was associated with this. You can go to Angel Falls in Venezuela and witness the amazing terrain built by this volcanism.
3)Multiple mass extinctions leading up to the extinction of dinosaurs
I'm bored of listing examples now. The point is that your assertion is incorrect - massively incorrect.
>>55265300
See
>>55264452
There is no evidence that warmer temperatures did anything but help life on earth.
>>55260254
>OP is engaging in the classic "it's cold outside, so global warming must be a hoax" bullshit. T
That's cliamate change now you shill
>>55261229
what about Florida
>>55265298
>you can nominally label it as such
>without applying its characterization
I'm not sure you even know what you yourself believe - is your default position to distrust scientific consensus? This might mean you're not qualified to participate in this discussion under the grounds that you're an impressionable dunce
>>55264510
I'll look in to that. In the mean time check out the rico 20 and then Shukla's gold to see how scientists are enriching themselves.
I got to go.
>>55263594
will you describe your theory(based on your work thus far) as to the leading causes of anoxic events for the mediterranean/gulf of mexico/maybe red sea? i dont understand how more c02 could mean that the ocean has less oxygen
>>55265421
I'm not particularly concerned with how warmer temperatures affect life on earth. I'm concerned with how massively elevated CO2 levels will affect HUMAN life on earth.
>>55265286
Life can equilibrate to changing climate over geologic timescales. That's not in question at all. Now it should be noted that some of that "equilibration" involves mass extinctions, but... yes... life WILL go on if we fuck over the planet.
Is that our new metric? As long as we don't kill all life on Earth then we are good to go?
>>55262402
>Oh yeah, did you know Fukushima meltdown that started in March 2011 is LITERALLY ongoing? Still belching out radiation.
it isn't and you're a massive retard
>Thyroid cancer already starting to skyrocket in Japan.
it isn't
in fact, most of the area that was "irradiated" was within livable ranges after a few months.
there's a Brazilian beach that is naturally more radioactive and people go there all the time for fun.
>>55264452
the problem is the speed in which it happens because naturally life has to adapt to the changing conditions. If we introduce artificial chemicals to a natural system, it will speed up the process. The rate of this I do not know, the truth is no one fucking knows what will happen since humans are fucking everywhere. It may not be an issue at present but in a few hundred years it might be. But by then fossil fuels will be all burned up and it might reach an equilibrium if we don't all nuke each other and fuck up the chemical balance even more.
>>55265403
Yeah, the labels were stripped on download and I'm on mobile. You clearly understood it.
>Was almost certainly driven by global warming.
No, there is no such certainty whatsoever. The "global warming" explanations for past mass extinctions became popularized -after- the alarmism was politically entrenched in the academia. The truth is that there are a number of hypotheses with no real way to verify any of them. We simply don't know what actually caused many of these ele's.
But you're missing my larger point. Extinction events were brief. The earth has seen -much higher temperatures than today- sustained for tens of millions of years with no indication that these elevated temperatures harmed life.
>>55265559
If life in general thrives better, humans will have an even easier time. What makes you think that longer growing seasons are going to wipe out humans?
>>55263921
>>55263990
so hows that working out for england?
people are burning books bc they cannot afford the increase in gas prices bc of "green policies"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/05/shades-of-fahrenheit-451-british-retirees-burning-books-to-stay-warm/
and what about spain? they cant even afford the electricity on their electric rails. effeciency IS NOT bureaucracy, more government and more taxes/subsidies wont make tech better, and currently the best 2 energy sources in existance with the smallest footprint are nuclear and petroleum and then others depending on your environment, but solar,wind,tidal, are all crap shoots so far that are stealing tax money
>>55265298
I'm not a catastrophist. The effects will fuck a lot of our shit up though. As I said to anon above, the most drastic efects for us will be the billions of people driven out of Africa and Asia. They'll all be sent over here. Chuck in the growing population and dwindling resources and climate change will make them worse, leading to wars and shit.
>>55265478
Nothing wrong with the removal of a swamp.
>>55265506
I don't think 90% of scientists agree with you precisely. The studies I've seen were flawed attempts to manufacture consensus for public consumption. I also know that "deniers" that have jobs in science for establishment institutions can lose their jobs.
And
>>55263006
>There is NO dispute that CO2 levels have skyrocketed since the industrial revolution
just like how they "skyrocketed" in the medieval and roman warmings right?
if only we learned about the dangers of industrialization back then when Caesar Augustus started massive projects to cover the empire in factories, or when the knights took part time jobs working in their local steel mills and coal power plants to power the kings torches.
or maybe, just maybe, CO2 naturally rises with temperature and it has nothing at all to do with human interaction.
In celebration I'm going to dump my old motor oil right into the storm drain because /pol/ has proven there are no negative consequences to such actions.
>>55263156
>that actually happened
Countries with massively more people than the US still use cfcs, it was total bullshit that some bitch's hairspray was killing the ozone
>>55265557
Sure, I can briefly summarize some of it.
The Gulf of Mexico is at risk because it is already the site of many "dead zones." These dead zones seem to be the direct result of run-off pollution, but the fact that they persist for so long is worrisome.
The Mediterranean is a different story (because anoxia is much rarer there today), but it has some rather unfortunate attributes with respect to ocean anoxia. The Mediterranean is connected to the Atlantic by a narrow strip of sea (the strait of Gibraltar). This geographic feature didn't even exist 6 million years ago (see: Messinian Salinity Crisis).
So there are a number of dynamics arguments to be made there, but that is not my area of expertise. I primarily listen to what the physicists/modelers have to say about this. My interest is in the chemistry of sulfur compounds in the deep ocean.
Sulfate ion (SO4--) is the second-most abundant anion in the ocean. Some of the most prolific - and ancient - organisms on Earth turn SO4 into H2S (hydrogen sulfide). When conditions are right, this can lead to runaway euxinia (anoxia with abundant H2S). Euxinia is highly lethal to plants and animals (see die-offs in Namibia).
For various esoteric reasons, the Gulf of Mexico, the Mediterranean Sea, and the margins of the Atlantic Ocean, are particularly susceptible to euxinia. Temperature, circulation, organic content and run-off are all important factors here.
>>55259299
south pole is gaining ice, and the north pole is losing ice 4 times faster.
>>55259854
fucking retard
>>55263772
>rhe authority in my appeal to authority IS the facts
Lol
BTW the groupings used for that 97% are total bullshit
>>55266129
I'm not seeing any medieval skyrockets. I am seeing CO2 levels rise more than 50% higher than at any time in the past half a million years, within a span of 200 years. Was that natural?
>>55264337
>If 90+% of the worlds scientists agreee on something, they're probably right.
90+% of scientists used to think that the atom didnt exist and that light was a wave, they are now wrong.
science does not work on consensus, it works on skepticism.
>>55266325
Isn't Antarctica bigger though?
What's the net?
>>55265610
Life actually recovers relatively quickly after extinction events. As for adaptation, the evidence suggests that life thriving on earth is largely independent of global climate; as animal genera increased exponentially, the earth went through periods of very warm to very cold climates.
See
>>55264452
>>55266129
co2 levels? Did they?
>CO2 naturally rises with temperature
True. A warming planet results in higher atmospheric concentratrons of co2.. But looking at isotopes proves most of the co2 recently added to the atmosphere is from human sources.
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-3/
>The CO2 level in 2012 was about 40% higher than it was in the nineteenth century. Most of this CO2 increase has taken place since 1970, about the time when global energy consumption accelerated. Measured decreases in the fraction of other forms of carbon (the isotopes 14C and 13C) and a small decrease in atmospheric oxygen concentration (observations of which have been available since 1990) show that the rise in CO2 is largely from combustion of fossil fuels (which have low 13C fractions and no 14C).
>>55265843
>implying higher temperatures and higher CO2 levels = longer growing seasons on a large scale
Dude. Plants have evolved/adapted to low CO2 levels. While it is true that they grow fuller in high-CO2 greenhouses, CO2 is only a small part of the equation.
What about water? This is far more crucial to crop success. Global warming is projected to (and already does) lead to extremes in precipitation patterns. Wet places get wetter and dry places get drier (basically).
CO2 doesn't do much fucking good in a desert. This is a far more complicated issue than you are making it out to be... and guess what? Scientists have already figured that global warming will fuck over world agriculture in various ways. When someone claims otherwise, they are ALMOST ALWAYS a layman who hasn't thought the issue through.
>>55266327
I ask again. Provide one scientific body who say the AGW theory is wrong.
And the page I linked to wasn't about the 97% but a list of all international bodies who officially endorse the AGW theory.
>>55263156
No, there was never a problem with the ozone layer.
WARNING: big words and science follow.
Ozone is an unstable form of oxygen, so unstable that it breaks down in minutes and turns back into natural oxygen.
Ozone in the Earth's upper atmosphere is created by ultraviolet light striking oxygen molecules in the upper layers of the atmosphere, ionizing them.
Absent ultraviolet light--for example, during the six-month-long polar nights--the ozone breaks down, naturally, as it has done for billions of years. When direct sunlight and ultraviolet light return to those regions, so does the ozone, naturally, as it has done for billions of years. That's your "hole in the ozone layer" that was used in lieberal agitprop, in a cultural and legal full court press against the technology of refrigeration.
China now uses more old-style freon every year than the US did over the entire Twentieth Century. Where's the ozone layer? Same place it always was, unaffected, because "freon breaks down the ozone layer" was always a malicious lie.
Environmentalist wackos are incapable of telling the truth except by accident. The truth is not in them. Every word they say is a lie, including "a," "an," and "the."
>>55259299
>Antarctica
Wrong pole you moronic mouth breathers
>>55261558
>>55261664
>murrica is the only place in the world!
Jesus christ, you people are stupid.
>>55260637
>why do normal people give a shit about global warming
they don't. no one cares about global warming
>>55266587
both temperatures and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past than they are now, yet plant life was thriving and the whole world wasn't a desert.
The doomsday projections have never come true, and they never will.
>>55266274
>Sulfate ion (SO4--) is the second-most abundant anion in the ocean. Some of the most prolific - and ancient - organisms on Earth turn SO4 into H2S (hydrogen sulfide). When conditions are right, this can lead to runaway euxinia (anoxia with abundant H2S). Euxinia is highly lethal to plants and animals (see die-offs in Namibia).
>For various esoteric reasons, the Gulf of Mexico, the Mediterranean Sea, and the margins of the Atlantic Ocean, are particularly susceptible to euxinia.
>Sulfate ion (SO4--) is the second-most abundant anion in the ocean. Some of the most prolific - and ancient - organisms on Earth turn SO4 into H2S (hydrogen sulfide). When conditions are right, this can lead to runaway euxinia (anoxia with abundant H2S). Euxinia is highly lethal to plants and animals (see die-offs in Namibia).
interesting opens up an entire another depth, which organisms are you talking about and are those biggest factor in terms of biological factors?
>Temperature, circulation, organic content and run-off are all important factors here.
very interesting. so is there a "biggest single factor"/would you say 1 of those messed up the cycles of the others?
or so far is identifying them is as far as the research has gotten?
troll or not, interesting, so if your so inclined please continue.
>>55266821
>race relations are at the bottom of the list
this cannot be real.
>>55266827
You have to go pretty fucking far back to find CO2 levels comparable to today's. And they sure as hell never changed this rapidly.
>>55261748
Funniest post I've ever laid eyes on, actually.
>>55266821
>Problems US Worry Great Deal About
>some guy's facebook account
This certainly looks dependable and scientific.
>>55266960
No one other than Tumblr SJWs and the talking heads on the evening news has any fucks left to give about "race relations." It's a lieberal code word for "giving the niggers even more free shit."
>>55262873
ursus means bear you dumb nigger
>>55266446
According to that NASA study on antarctica, the last decade has seen 82 billion tons of ice ADDED per year.
The university of Alaska plotted just ALASKAN ice loss at 75 billion tons per year. That's just Alaska, not the entire Arctic.
So the Antarctic ice gains roughly offset the ice losses in Alaska alone.
>>55267059
i'm worried about race relations because they dominate every news show and i'm worried if the niggers get any more pissed off that i'm going to get jumped when i'm heading home from work
>>55266982
Um, a few million years ago have double the modern co2 levels.
>>55266587
>CO2 WILL SHOOT UP
>TEMPERATURES WILL GO THROW THE ROOF
>THE ICE CAPS WILL MELT AND SEA LEVELS WILL RISE TO EXTREME HEIGHTS
>THERE'LL BE NO WATER FOR PLANTS
one of these doesn't make sense. take a guess at which one.
>>55267003
lel. maybe this UN poll is more to your liking
http://data.myworld2015.org/
>>55267233
That's "violent crime," not "race relations."
>>55266982
>And they sure as hell never changed this rapidly.
You have to demonstrate that high levels are somehow harmful in order to present a rapid change as alarming.
And that also isn't exactly true; if the trend of co2 changing with temperature was the same in the geologic past, then there have been even more rapid changes in co2 than today; there have been wild and dramatic fluctuations in temperature over the past 500 million years.
>>55267437
The very basics, rising sea levels and more dramatic droughts is enough for most people.
>And that also isn't exactly true; if the trend of co2 changing with temperature was the same in the geologic past, then there have been even more rapid changes in co2 than today; there have been wild and dramatic fluctuations in temperature over the past 500 million years.
Maybe so. But chemistry shows that most of the recently added co2 is from human activity.
>>55266540
>>55266982
>You have to go pretty fucking far back to find CO2 levels comparable to today's. And they sure as hell never changed this rapidly.
and you'r making this assumption based on what?
the data is simply not good enough to make any kind observation.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
>The data, covering the end of the last ice age, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, show that CO2 levels could have lagged behind rising global temperatures by as much as 1,400 years.
>because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years.
if you have a margin of error that is literally thousands of years, you can't make any kind of prediction or any kind of observation.
the only reliable data we have is goes back only about 100 years.
when you're dealing with system that has been running for billions of years and is known to have natural cycles that last decades if not centuries, a little over 100 years of data is simply insufficient.
>>55263038
you are retarded. Satellites have much better coverage than land based thermometers. To ignore them is simply denying the truth
>>55259299
Loving the source. Might as well be an
>NBC Poll
>>55261558
It's funny because it's never going to happen. The global warming nutter are proven wrong almost weekly these days by science that shows the hysteria is WRONG.
>>55261664
Nice piece of fiction there.
A warmer earth would be great. The shit skins would all die and most civilized countries would be better off.
>>55267693
>The very basics, rising sea levels and more dramatic droughts is enough for most people.
and theres nothing to base this assumption on.
during the medieval warming, greenlands ice was significantly smaller than it is now, yet there was no mass flooding or droughts.
as a matter of fact, there were farms on greenland which we're only now uncovering because of they were buried under glaciers.
>>55267811
You're the one who cannot understand trends anon. Your entire 18 year argument only works cause 1998 was abnormally hot. Again. Compare the decade on decade average between the 90s and 00s.
>>55267693
"More dramatic droughts" is a hypothetical scenario that hadn't been verified. "Rising sea level" alarmism is also unjustified. See
>>55264902
Even -if- rising CO2 levels are human caused, there's no actual evidence that this is harmful. Recall that model projections have all been falsified, and no accurate predictions have been made.
