Or was it just a hoax by some conspiracy nuts who did not want to believe in global warming?
>>71901261
Global warming is a meme.
Imagine if the trend was reversed?
Then we would have the television jew shilling about "global cooling" and how we need to "reduce our emissions to prevent it from getting even colder" and then they would go find some bird that went extinct in buttfuck nowhere Russia "as far as we know this bird went extinct due to habitat destruction as it got too cold here".
Global temperature change is a boogeyman to justify retarded environmental legislation. Doesn't matter where the trend goes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX-AWaPAaso
NIGS GON NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG
ahem, i believe this is what you are looking for.
inb4 Generation of ADD
God +0,6 on the ocean temperature.
There is a giant yellow thing in the sky that warms the mediterranean sea every year by 10 degrees. But holy shit, this year temperature increased by 10,6, it must be human made.
Find something more relevant. Quantity of ice is increasing in Antarctic. The sun and earth have their own life and we weight absolutely nothing.
> sun
> perpetual nuclear fusion and fission creating varying quantities of warmth
> +0,6 humans are responsible
> shieeeeet
>>71901496
>No more snow in Vienna.
>Global warming isn't real
Get real anon. Look at our glaciers. Shits fucked.
>>71901261
It exists if you are very specific with the data you use. 1998 was abnormally warm. If you use this as your first data point then the increase from 1998 to today is pretty small. But if you choose any other year as your start point or indeed draw a line of best fit it becomes clear this is simply a manipulation of data.
go here
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/
Play about with data and graphs and see for yourself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tdyU_gW6WE
^^^^ important followup video ^^^^
>>71901574
What effect do sunspots have on temperature?
>>71901693
I know that snow has disappeared from the city.
But think about the opposite like it happened in America. They have even more snow than ever now, and they are still blaming "extreme weather".
We cannot control the climate, not by a long shot. We are just riding out the cycle of weather on this planet before the next ice age hits, which should be soon iirc.
I'm not denying it, I'm denying it as a justification for legislation.
>>71901856
Stop looking at local events. This is weather. Look at global averages and you'll see why it was, and still is, global warming.
It's mostly the sun.
If we are altering the temperature, it would have more to do with dumping shit into the ocean.
The oceans store most of the energy received at sea level. It's absorbed and released more slowly than people realize. Weather is the Ocean/Atmosphere system attempting to reach a natural equilibrium.
But the ((merchants)) can't sell that as a way to tax us, and not dumping everything imaginable into the oceans is bad for ((business)).
They don't really care about the environment, it's about control.
>>71901934
>why it was, and still is, global warming.
Sure it can warm up.
That doesn't make it fair game for lawmaking.
>>71901833
Sunspots release electromagnetic radiation called coronal mass ejections and solar flares.
This magnetic radiation interacts with the magnetosphere of the earth, and causes earthquakes, large storms, hurricanes, etc.
>check out the youtube channel, suspicious observers!
Over longer periods, it is responsible for heating and cooling of the planet. Google really has been cracking down on this by getting rid of images in their image search. too bad.
>Search for MAUNDER MINIMUM.
>Notice that as the solar activity drops to near 0,
>it coincides perfectly with the mini ice ages of europe.
The oceans are like a big battery, except for heat. But just like an electric battery, when you alter the makeup of the electrolyte, it changes the battery's performance in unusual ways.
We have no idea of knowing what we have already done.
But "carbon" is easier to sell to illiterate idiots who spend all day on kikebook posting pictures of themselves.
>>71902209
Most of the shit from CMEs is blocked by our magnetosphere. >>71902209
Also we've had a warming trend for at least 50 years. This is observed. Solar cycles only run for 11 years. So we've been warming through thte maximums and minimums.
>>71902211
Carbon is also observed as rising in the atmosphere. People who beleive that mainstream line on global warming endorse limiting out carbon emissions as a way of reducing our impact on climate change. This makes sense as co2 is the GHG that we can most affect.
>>71902211
Two of my advanced chemistry professors tried to explain to me, while i was in my brainwashed state, that global warming is a hoax.
The explained that co2 is a caused by warming oceans. Not the other way around.
He explained that when water is heated, it releases the stored up gasses in it.
Then he explained that the earth heats and cools in a cycle every 400-500 years.
NOT TO MENTION, that we literally just exited the real ice ages like 10,000-13,000 years ago.
>Pic related
>>71902637
appears as if we are ready for the next ice age, as I said early.
Cannot wait for the shitskins to freeze and us glorious whites to live in nuclear-powered domes under meters of snow.
Nature will make sure whites prevail.
>>71901934
But the question is: "is it man made or natural ptocess?"...
>>71902431
The solar cycle is 11.5 years, true.
but there is an overall trend that lasts 70-90 years, and an even larger one, that last 400-500 years.
Pic related
Finding the old picures i used to have is VERY VERY HARD. Google is seriously censoring everything on this
>>71902850
Yea, if we fucking live that long. I doubt we last another 1000 years.
If we ever get out of this, I will personally make sure every shill and low iq person is exterminated.
>>71903005
>I doubt we last another 1000 years.
We lasted the last few thousand years.
We will last many millennia to come. We are the heirs to this world, the ones who created value where there was none.
Sieg Heil!
>>71902939
>Google is seriously censoring everything on this
surprised goy?
BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN
>BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN
BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN
>BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN
BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN
>BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN
>>71902939
The sun's power at earth is measured. It has been observed increasing in recent years. But only by 0.05%/decade. This is not enough to account for the observed warming. Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas is known to have a much larger effect that the increase in solar irradiance.
>>71902895
Most scientific bodies (National academy of sciences, royal society) say that most warming from the past 50 years is due to human activity. Think about it the other way. If we accept it is warming this extra heat energy must be coming from somewhere. But the variation in soalr irradiance is not enough. Where else can heat come from? If it's not the case that more heat is being added, then it follows that more of what we are getting is being trapped. And we have a known mechanism that explains some of this, the greenhouse effect.
>>71903259
bustin makes me feel good
>>71902850
>appears as if we are ready for the next ice age, as I said early.
This is an interesting point. Yes, looking at the cycle suggests we are due another glacial period soon, say between 500-1000 years from now. The problem is that our average global temperature is increasing. There is also the chance that we will increase it so much as to fuck up the glacial/interglacial cycle.
>>71902637
>The explained that co2 is a caused by warming oceans. Not the other way around.
Then they should not be professors, least of all chemistry if they cannot conduct a simple isotope study that would have proven this wrong.
It is true that warming causes the oceans to release some co2. But this is usually on a lag of 200 years or so. The warming and increase in co2 we are seeing today are happening in tandem. Another way to think about it is that if what you claim is true, we are due for a massive spike in co2 over the next 50 years (the lag I mentioned above). Teh problem here is we are already at levels of co2 globally that are unseen in almost a million years. ie through numerous glacial/interglacial cycles. This should raise the question of why is co2 hitting these unprecedented levels?
>>71903276
Shilling SO HARD right now. EPIC
Go to the second comment, find the interview with william stuart, and get btfo already you fucking shill.
>>71903259
Amazing how you are happy to accept historical temperatures (derived from data by [spoiler]SCIENTISTS[/spoiler] only when you think it supports your argument. Besides, why focus on Greenland? The issue is GLOBAL warming.
>>71903746
Shilling pretty hard right now eh?
>>71902637
"Global Warming" seems to be a common umbrella term for retards when discussing climate change. As if it's solely about temperature graphs.
No one disputes the cycular nature of the earths temperature. We're taught this as children via basic geographic principles in school.
However the CO2 quantity far exceeds what it ever has been for the past 400,000 years.
Oceans are becoming more acidic. The balance of the very thing that gives us the bulk of our O2 from oceanic plant life is being damaged at a scale not seen before whilst supporting human life.
Factors a little more nuanced than whether you can pick up a snowball are at play here.... wait, i forgot i was on /pol/. My bad. Ready to drop science and statistics in a flash as soon as it doesn't fit your world view. How very SJW of you all.
>>71903709
I skimmed through your first video til he mentioned agenda 21.
How about you explain how I'm wrong in your own words instead of relying on this author? Who is William Stewart and what are his credentials?
>>71903865
>>71903709
Two epic posts in a row lad. You sure showed me.
>>71903974
I hope you get paid for this.
>>71903709
Nice response shill
>>71901261
ambient CO2 levels are rising, this much is observable.
but everything related to the climate is pretty much conjecture
>>71903899
CO2 is a gas found in the oceans and oceanic crust. When the oceans are heated by solar activity, the oceans released more co2.
Two of my advanced chemistry teachers tried to teach this to me a few years ago. Too bad i didn't listen to them.
& for the record, you are on a website that actively teaches that jews are the illuminati who own the earth.
>Unless you are a shill, you are kinda stupid....
https://soundcloud.com/neilcic/dear-dinosaur
^^^ MORE IMPORTANT VIDEOS ^^^
>>71904264
>but everything related to the climate is pretty much conjecture
How'd you figure? I consider the IR-activity of CO2 and other gases rather simple quantum mechanics, which a teenager can show you an every school's lab equipped with a spectrometer.
>>71904352
Lol, this is some serious shilling.
>>71904122
do you?
>Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate
tl;dr the skeptics goto site, WUWT was founded at the behest of the Heartland Institute. These are the same people who fought the idea that smoking was bad for you. Seriously, go look it up.
Funfact, two of Frobes magazine's leading 'skeptics', Peter Ferrara and I forget the other guy's name, they also work for this very same Heartland Institute.
One of us is being played lad...
Seen as you are yet to offer any of your own thoughts on the issue, try this. Is co2 a greenhouse gas?
>>71904352
>When the oceans are heated by solar activity, the oceans released more co2.
Oceans also take up more CO2 through gas exchange (sometimes sloppily referred to as 'acidification'), which is shown by measurements - thus countering your argument.
>>71904352
BUY MY WATER FILTERS
top kek shill
>>71904533
Nah he is right on this bit. warmer oceans release more co2. It doesn't matter though. Isotope analysis shows much of the co2 accumulating in the air to be from human sources. >>71903651
Presumably those arguing against AGW have no issue with increasing co2 in the atmosphere. So I ask what if anything would you consider an upper limit for atmospheric co2? Reminder that for the entire human existence it had been steady at about 280ppm.
>>71901693
>being afraid of change
Ignorant
>>71904595
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-22/weather-channel-founder-slams-global-warming-theory-has-failed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN BUSTIN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tdyU_gW6WE
>>71904958
>John Coleman founded The Weather Channel in 1982. He is currently the weatherman at station KUSI-TV in San Diego, California. He spoke as a global warming skeptic at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change and the International Conference on Climate Change (2009). Both events were organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. [1]
You're making this too easy lad.
>>71904737
Global warming is a hoax made by jews who want to trade carbon credits in a highly leveraged, commodity futures market called "carbon emissions market".
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-trading.htm
In fact, you can trade carbon emissions right now.
>>71901261
We are in a cold phase, it naturally is more likely for conditions to become more warm from here.
People should stop memeing about global warming to hog funds and start combatting shit like desertification. Getting warmer is ok, turning hot and dry is not.
>>71905165
I've no doubt there is some jewery involved. Capitalists gonna porky. You still haven't answered my question though. Is co2 a GHG?
>people actually spend time fighting the global warming meme on a hungarian racing pigeon mating imageboard
>>71901496
>Imagine if the trend was reversed?
Shit would still be fucking awful, crop failures would be a fuckton more common. Temperature changes of a few degrees are fucking massive.
>>71905187
Hotter temps lead directly to desertification. Overpopulation doesn't help.
>>71905244
I highly doubt CO2 will have any impact on us.
If you want to see how the earth will be most impacted, watch the sun.
search for suspicious observers
I am not fully convinced that climate change is real or a hoax. I am undecided, but look at what's happening here.
Why is it snowing in April?
Took this pic a few hours ago. Is this going to become more common in the future? Is this normal? Is this just a one time fluke?
I don't remember stuff like this ever happening, but then again I haven't paid that much attention to the weather.
>>71905588
>search for suspicious observers
I remember that YT channel. As I've said though the sun isn't doing enough to explain the observed warming. So if it is not the case that we are warming due to recieveing more heat then it must be the case that the heat we do get is getting trapped. And co2's absorption and re-emission of IR is an understood mechanism for this.
>>71905415
>crop failures would be a fuckton more common.
I don't think so.
When the summer hits >30 C here in Austria most crops start suffering, with lots of water being used to just to keep the crops alive.
All temperature extremes harm crops, not just the cold.
Besides, we could easily just GM them to be a bit more tolerant to the cold.
Plants aren't a mystery anymore.
If it is real then when is Europe and China going to get their shit together? Look at this model and how much CO2 those places pump out in a year. The US is cutting emissions but it looks like the rest of the world is saying fuck it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
>>71905318
There's only so much cuckposting I can take.
>>71905693
>Why is it snowing in April?
Old guy I know tells me he has a running bet with his friend about there being snow somewhere in the UK the first two weeks of April. Dunno why. But April snow is nothing new. Nor does it change the fact that looking at it globally, temps are rising.
>>71905693
Climate change is just a hoax by jews who want to create a global taxation system.
They want to tax you just for living / driving / eating.
>Not only do they wanna tax you on your carbon,
They want to be able to trade your taxed carbon emissions in a leveraged futures market.
> http://www.investing.com/commodities/carbon-emissions
You canliterally trade carbon emissions right now inthe above market.
>>71905936
I also can't help but to notice the biggest polluters in the US are also the most liberal too.
>>71905936
What? Europe has been way ahead of the US in this regard. Kyoto anybody? And as to China, why should they have done anything when the US was emitting ten times the co2 per capita and refusing to act? Now that the US is onboard China and India can be pressured to do more and act quicker.
>>71905472
hotter temps coincide and synergize with desertification, they don't cause it. Plenty of rainforest around and doing fine where people did not rip it out and leave and untended desolate wasteland.
>>71906094
If what you're saying is true so fuck? Just stop using carbon to generate your power and mr Mercahnt can't tax you for it.
>>71905936
This (incredibly nice looking) model visualisation shows you atmospheric concentrations, but not the fluxes. Remember that natural fluxes dwarf human emissions, the inter-seasonal and inter-annual variability of CO2 fluxes (and therefore the atmospheric concentration) is mainly driven by plant respiration and plant uptake. The human contribution (as a function of season) is more or less a linear or exponential trend that is superimposed, but can't really be seen in this animation.
What you do see, however is obviously industrial sources as well as how the resulting plumes are transported.
I'm pretty sure EU emissions have gone down by 20% since the 90s.
>>71906263
There is no doubt in my mind that you are a shill
>>71906170
No, they cause it. Not alone but desertification occurs when plants and trees die off and there is nothing to bind the soil together, which in turn dries out and blows away. Higher temperatures are a direct contributing factor. I suppose it would be fairer to say the combination of low rainfall and high temps. Meet you halfway?
>>71906378
deal.
>>71906345
Saying so half a dozen time does not make it so. I've tried to provide argument backed up by observable fact, physics and experts. You've dumped half the Heartlanders in the hope that nobody notices. It is possible I guess that you genuinely don't know why this may be an issue.
>>71906141
Then explain the red pouring out of Europe. And the US has cut emissions, used clean coal technology, has cut fuel usage standards on all vehicles. By the way, Kyoto was stupid and needed to die.
>>71906467
>Then explain the red pouring out of Europe.
And you didn't notice the elevated levels from US industrial and urban areas?
>>71906467
Europe has twice the population of the US in half the area?
>>71901574
Except that chart couldn't predict the warming happening over the past few years. We should have reached 1999 levels around 2059, but we're passed those levels now.
>>71901693
>>71901856
>>71901934
https://youtu.be/RkdbSxyXftc
>>71907584
Nobody is denying temperature have been different in the past. What is different this time is the concentration of a known ghg, co2.
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-5/
>In the early 1960s, results from mathematical/physical models of the climate system first showed that human-induced increases in CO2 would be expected to lead to gradual warming of the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) and cooling of higher levels of the atmosphere (the stratosphere). In contrast, increases in the Sun’s output would warm both the troposphere and the full vertical extent of the stratosphere. At that time, there was insufficient observational data to test this prediction, but temperature measurements from weather balloons and satellites have since confirmed these early forecasts. It is now known that the observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling over the past 30 to 40 years is broadly consistent with computer model simulations that include increases in CO2 and decreases in stratospheric ozone, each caused by human activities. The observed pattern is not consistent with purely natural changes in the Sun’s energy output, volcanic activity, or natural climate variations such as El Niño and La Niña.
>>71907998
https://youtu.be/WDWEjSDYfxc
>>71901580
Global Warming is real, just the 'anthropogenic' aspect I have trouble grasping. Humans are so self-important they think in 150 years of industrialism we can obliterate a planet.
>>71908470
This guy is a soulless shill. He knows better. He is lying.
Nobody is suggesting removing all co2. Since the industrial revolution WE have increased the atmospheric concentration of co2 from 280ppm to over 400ppm.
That co2 was higher ten million years ago is irrelevant. The world was dramatically different back then and probably unlikely of sustaining 7bn people. Prick also totally ignores the uptake by the oceans and these effects.
He also didn't found greenpeace. And that 'university' he claims to be from is worth less than Trump university. It was started by a talk radio host.
Stop posting shils. Make your point in your own damn words.
Is there a specific bit of the theory you disagree with or don't get?
>>71908646
150 years was enough to increase the concentration of co2 in the air by 40%. This is a pretty dramatic impact.
>>71908646
Humans are *also* so self-important that they think human extinction is impossible.
We aren't going to obliterate the planet. The planet is fuckhuge and really old, and it has seen worse disasters. Mass extinctions aint shit as far as the planet is concerned. We are going to obliterate OURSELVES.
>>71909464
Nobody claims that. Worst case scenario, total desertification and depletion of groundwater in africa and the ME. This means over a billion of them coming to Europe and the US. Rising seas will see cities and potentially countries under water, millions more displaced.
>>71904737
Utterly false.
Source: Fig. 12 from Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.
>>71906071
>Nor does it change the fact that looking at it globally, TAMPERED temps are rising.
ftfy
>>71905144
As if pro-AGW people don't receive significant funding for sticking to the political line.
>2016
>believing in magic white coat fairies
>>71906071
0.6 duh-g-reeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!
>>71905144
Hurr, durr NASA receives $Billions to scare us.
U.N. wants $100 Billion a year.
The money skeptics get is pennies on the warmist dollar.
>>71902431
there's been zero net warming for almost two decades now.
your global warming god is dead, ahmed.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/
>>71911877
>>71912109
Yes. NASA are lying to help bring about the NWO.
>"180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods."
Do you know where these figues for co2 came from? As in have you actually read the paper?
>TAMPERED
Kek. Prove it.
>>71901261
We had like 3 days of snow this winter so something is up.
>>71912531
IF you start from 1998 right? That's not how trends work.
Go here
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/
Bring me back a graph that shows cooling that doesn't start in 1998.
Do you honestly not understand why picking an abnormally warm year is bad science?
>>71909170
>a small increase of a trace gas that is one of the weakest greenhouse gasses
holy shit dude, i'm scared. like wow just wow scared.
co2 is totally evil. it like totally doesn't feed the things that create oxygen. we should ban all co2 and kill off all those fucking annoying trees.
on a serious note, you anti-co2ers are literally anti-life.
>>71912714
kinda like how your people exclude 9/11 from US terror attacks.
>>71912619
Climate gate and numerous other upward forcing incidents that you can find on Google once you've cashed your shill shitpost shekels this Sunday.
>>71901580
Nonsense that giant ball of nuclear fire in the sky in no way shape or form produces heat or effects our climate.
>>71912714
Yeah it's almost like that wiki graph that cuts off in 1998, or ignoring the medieval warm period.
>>71912619
>Do you know where these figues for co2 came from? As in have you actually read the paper?
Actual measurements. Idiot. As in, you just believe what you're told to believe.
>>71912800
What the fuck are you talking about? Wait is it the old 'he believes in science, he must be a lefty who hates the USA'? This is why nobody takes you clowns seriously.
>>71912725
>on a serious note, you anti-co2ers are literally anti-life.
Jesus christ are you fucking retarded? Read the fucking thread before spregging all over the place. Nobody EVER has said we should get rid of all the co2 in the atmosphere. Simply that we should stop adding more cause it is a greenhouse gas. Fuck you people are stupid.
>>71912725
>weakest greenhouse gasses
Can't tax water vapor or methane. The hard part was indoctrinating the children that CO2 is a pollutant. Also, rise is due to deforestation, not burning fossil fuel.
>>71912900
The medieval warm perisod was not global so there's your first difference.
>>71912935
Right. Cause in the paper it says they were taken from other papers. Just confirming what I already knew, that you've got nothing.
>>71901496
Hahaaaa what a fucking silly cunt
>>71912935
In addition, what measuremnts do you accept as valid for measuring atmospheric co2? Ice core samples?
>>71913083
Jesus fuck the shills are here in force.
Water vapour is clouds you drooling fuckwit.
Do you reject the greenhouse effect? Or just have no idea what you're talking about?
>>71912619
Look at the gif. By pure coincidence, "corrections" always make the rate of warming increase.
If you believe that, you've gained true cuck status.
>>71913110
>Right. Cause in the paper it says they were taken from other papers. Just confirming what I already knew, that you've got nothing.
He assembled 180 years of data for a scholarly summary which shows significant variation in atmospheric CO2. Much of it before the industrial revolution.
> Hurr, durr, that proves nuffin!
You're pathetic.
>>71913445
>This website documents my latest research on the history of carbon dioxide gas analysis. My work had been published by several journals and had been presented at national and international meetings. In literature we can find more than 200 000 directly measured CO2 data since 1800 from which I have estimated the annual CO2 background averages since 1826 to 1960, the end of the measurements by chemical methods. IPCC prefers ice core reconstructions. This new data set reveals remarkable coherence with other geophysical timeseries. Please feel free to check data, methods, stations and historical literature. Comments are welcome.
>estimated
Funny how the trend becomes all teh clearer when done by 'chemical methods' the trend (that he is trying to dispute) is clear
>>71901261
The arrogance of humans is they think that not only are we responsible for these trends but that we can also STOP a global climate trend.
It's best to use or resources to adapt to the new world.
>>71913216
>you drooling fuckwit
How is the AGW religion treating you?
Feeling radicalized yet?
We are in a interglacial period, relax and enjoy it, ice age coming back soon enough.
>>71901261
I dunno, never seen "proven facts" take haitus.
Also note all these quakes occuring around same time, and seeming calming of hurricane seaaons. Possibly alludes to a natural fluctuation being dominant over our influences.
>>71913216
>Do you reject the greenhouse effect? Or just have no idea what you're talking about?
Do you even know what you're talking about? The vast majority of heat transfer in the atmosphere is convective, NOT radiative. Do you reject that?
Venus would be just as warm if you replaced the CO2 with Nitrogen. The radiative properties of CO2 have very little to do with the greenhouse effect because most heat transfer is convective.
>>71913445
Here is a response to Beck.
http://www.biomind.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Response-Beck-by-R-Keeling-2.doc
>As Keeling grasped already in 1957 – before he had shown that CO2 was increasing – the earlier chemical measurements exhibit far too much geographic and short-term temporal variability to plausibly be representative of the background. The variability of these early measurements must therefore be attributed to "local or regional" factors or poor measurement practice (6). Beck is therefore wrong when he asserts that the earlier data have been discredited only because they don't fit a preconceived hypothesis of CO2 and climate. In fact, this hypothesis was not widely accepted until the late 1970's (7). Instead, the data have been ignored because they cannot be accepted as representative without violating our understanding of how fast the atmosphere mixes.
Essentially you've gotta be careful where you measure. Parts of Europe were around 400ppm during ww2 for reasons that should be obvious.
>>71913983
Nice deflection.
Greenhouse effect. real or no real?
Radiative is the only thing we're looking at here. Does or does not co2 absorb IR radiation?
>>71904458
So scientists being funded to purposefully research things from a skeptics prospective is horrible! But scientists getting govt and green-corp money to purpusefully research from a position of already accepting global warming as fact is ok?
>>71913678
>Hurr, durr, because because ice cores where the time resolution of the air in the bubbles is 70 years and grows larger over time is more accurate than specific daily measurements.
Sorry to burst your bubble. But those stupid graphs that tack high frequency data onto data that has a 70 year time window etc. are terrible !
Lrn2stats, Lrn2science
>>71914141
There's a difference between skepticism and outright shills. When people like Peter Ferrer are writing articles for Forbes claiming to BTFO AWG, his readers would be well advised to remember he is a corporate lawyer. And BTW much of the WUWT money didn't come from the HI's own pocket. It came from fucking Exxon. Heartland Institute are literally professional shills. Pay them enough and they'll sincerely tell your audience the earth is flat.
>>71914174
Specific daily measurements? prior to the 50s. Do tell.
Global warming exists but it is a boogeyman
nothing will fucking happen, earth will get a little bit hotter and that's that. Warm weather is good, I don't know why everyone is losing their minds over this.
>>71914140
Its real in greenhouses
Water conducts electricity but you dont see lighting bolts running person to person 24/7
Oxygen is combustable but you don't see flames running through the sky
The earth isn't a greenhouse, many variables at play; to say CO2 is up and absorbs IR radiation so we must accept "global warming" is asinine.
So if CO2 is up, I suppose we are at risk of global suffocation too?
Get a grip. You can have your greenhouse effect, but you can't just tell me the earth is a de facto greenhouse and that effect is occuring here, and that now we must enact policies that affect millions, and will cost billions over your speculations.
Not to mention, even if global warming is 100% as bad as the worst estimates, if the west goes full green tomorrow, it wont matter. We would have to enter nuclear war to destroy China and other chief producers of carbon emissions. They aren't dumb enough to follow our example on that. Beyond cleaning up their smog they have little interest.
>>71914601
>Water conducts electricity but you dont see lighting bolts running person to person 24/7
You've just BTFO yourself.
> to say CO2 is up and absorbs IR radiation so we must accept "global warming" is asinine.
what part of the above is false?
Why the hell do you seem to think atmospheric co2 is incapable of absorbtion and re-emission of IR?
>>71914295
Except the only "evidence" of shilling I see is that they disagree with you, that seems to be the deciding factor.
We should both agree, money from Exxon and money from the govt (purposefully being given out to one side of this issue) or green-corperations, is all an equal conflict of interest.
This is tobacco and pharma all over again imho. One side researching for their product which is bad for you at least to a degree, the other side researching for "solutions" (nicotine patches, pills) which wont ever work, and over state the problem however much they need to (Al Gore laughing to the bank with his carbon credits).
>>71914823
Its the greenhouse effect not the greenhouse law.
By that logic, if the universe is getting hotter or colder we should be able to tell the universal concentration of CO2; would you say that is likely true?
There are many variables, laws against certain chemicals have been good, preventing ozone damaging gas leaks is good (like refrigerants that are much more powerful), but whole sale conversion of our energy sectors reguardless of the cost? No I need more evidence before I accept that.
Things like removing lead from gasoline are simple, that clearly had immediate heath concerns, that didn't even involve complex global weather patterns over many years.
>>71914862
I agree tehre are corrupt cunts on both sides. But I don't think it is fair to dismiss the vast majority of serious scientists who agree with the basic theory. I have heard literlly every argument against co2 as causing some warming. Nothing else holds up.
Back to HI for a second, check this out. C'mon man. This is shilling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Tobacco_regulation
>Heartland has long questioned the links between tobacco smoking, secondhand smoke, and lung cancer and the social costs imposed by smokers.[38] One of Heartland’s first and most prominent campaigns was against tobacco regulation.[6] According to the Los Angeles Times, Heartland's advocacy for the tobacco industry is one of the two things Heartland is most widely known for.[39]
>>71915151
Unrelated but from what I have seen, second hand smoke isn't as decided an issue as previously claimed by many, thing is, if you're a group against tobacco, you want to rail on it whether its decidedly true or not, because in the end, it hurts your opposition.
Of course smoking is going to increase your chance of lung cancer, especially modern cigarettes.
Here is the thing I see though, I see specific industry's being targeted as "their money is evil" and others not; that is what annoys me.
I can see why from the point of view of environmental skeptics that the issue of tobacco second hand smoke is related.
Now we have laws where the government can decide whether or not a business can allow smoking indoors. Its their business, or is it now? So whats next, forced coercion on issues pertaining to carbon emissions?
All this energy being spent on trying to convince skeptics using correlations that arent consistant should instead just be applied to improving cleaner sources of energy, clean coal tech, solar tech and nuclear tech (who's methods have been blocks repeatedly, including recycling nuclear fuel, and the use of safer storage areas like yucca mountain).
Why do you think these safer nuclear methods are blocked? They'll say its dangerous despite france recycling their nuclear fuel without issue. The real reason is, those with money interested in destroying domestic fossile fuel industry, are either domestic interests who run "green" company's that are NOT nuclear, OR are foreign fossile fuel consumers (china) who would love the cheaper prices that would occur when the west lowers its demand. Not to mention the Saudi's would just love if we stopped fracking so we can go back to complete dependency.
>>71913994
>>As Keeling grasped already in 1957
Keeling is circular. He assumes a generalized CO2 background, and then argues that anything that differs is false.
Does not invalidate direct CO2 measurements as opposed to air bubbles in ice which have a huge 70+ year time uncertainty. Put the data through a 100 year smoother. Gosh, it will look ice core data. Oh and the dropped data. Look at all those deleted points. Sloppy to say the least.Pic related.Some seriously dishonest pseudo-science going on to "tell a story."
What we have here is Climate Change "Science" as usual. Have a preconceived story. Delete/alter data that doesn't fit the story. There's nothing scientific about that.
>>71914140
>Radiative is the only thing we're looking at here. Does or does not co2 absorb IR radiation?
Do you realize have much of a Sophist you sound like. Here's how your conversation is going:
You: "So is there gravity or is there not gravity!"
Me: "Gravity is not the only thing that determines what happens in motion"
You: "Gravity is the only thing we're looking at here. Therefore planes can't fly."
Yes, that's how bad you are. Desperately trying to set up a strawman argument. Basically all you saying is, "CO2 can absorb shorter wavelength radiation and re-emit longer wavelength radiation." (true) and then, "Therefore the world will heat up and we'll all die." (false).
Nice strawman.
What you conveniently ignore:
1) CO2 is VERY weak with a logarithmic temperature response curve.
2) Water vapor covers almost all of the CO2 absorption spectrum
3) Radiative heat transport in the atmosphere is only 1/7 of the effect, the rest is convective. So, at most, CO2 is 1/7 the effect of altering heat transfer.
Your scientific ignorance is showing.
>>71914140
Hey buddy, why do CO2 concentration differences change AFTER temperature differences change?
>>71915151
>Hurr, durr, look at my Ad Hominem!!!
That's a poor substitute for rational argument.
Two can play that game. Fedgov and the U.N. hope to make $Billions of wealth transfers and carbon $taxes. The stand to make gigantic amounts of money. Pic related.
If Yellowstone was about to erupt, wouldn't it make sense to create a massive high pressure zone around it's perimeter to limit the spread of ash?
>>71915144
What? No. For fuck sake you're being obtuse, presumably in the hope I lose interest.
> if the universe is getting hotter or colder we should be able to tell the universal concentration of CO2
I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here. co2 doesn't make heat. It traps it. IR going back into space is lower than it should be because some is absorbed by co2 in the atmosphere. Is this clear enough for you?
>>71915933
>Now we have laws where the government can decide whether or not a business can allow smoking indoors. Its their business, or is it now?
I tend to agree with what you're getting at here. I assure you, here in the Soviet republic of Scotland I am all too aware of authoritarian governments using scare tactics to impose their will. We were one of the first countries to ban smoking. Like yourself, I think it should be at the business owner's discretion.
>All this energy being spent on trying to convince skeptics using correlations that arent consistant should instead just be applied to improving cleaner sources of energy, clean coal tech, solar tech and nuclear tech (who's methods have been blocks repeatedly, including recycling nuclear fuel, and the use of safer storage areas like yucca mountain).
The reason we are still having these arguments is because there is still resistance in governments, especially lobbyists. Frank Luntz hit the nail on the head.
'the science is almost settled but we should focus on the fact that it is not settled to create the idea that it is not a certainty'. This put US policy on the matter back 15 years.
I am all for nuclear. If I was king for a day, I'd force 90%+ power generation straight onto nuclear and renewables, leaving oil for transportation and plastics. There is no reason for Europe not to go near fully nuclear given our relatively low levels of seismic activity.
>>71917043
How about instead of spregging out you point me to one of the papers Beck derived his work from?
I lose respect for the people who try to claim an ice age ended 10k years
the ice age is still on-going
if both poles have ice, you're in an ice age
>>71918202
>How about instead of spregging out you point me to one of the papers Beck derived his work from?
You're a big boy, I'm sure you're capable.
>>71917593
co2 DOES absorb IR. This is why there is a discrepancy between what is observed leaving the earth and what is expected. This IR is then re-emmitted and causes heating.
>So, at most, CO2 is 1/7 the effect of altering heat transfer.
Like the 'small' human contribution to the total ammount of co2 emmitted by all sources, such changes can and do affect complex systems.
>>71917796
Already addressed. But fuck I'll do it again. The 'co2 lags temp' is true. But not the only mechanism for increasing co2. IF this was the mechanism in play then we'd be expecting a massive spike in co2 in the near future (after the lag it follows temp right?). The problme here is that will take us to crazy high levels comparativly to the past million years. Levels that didn't occur during previous glacial/interglacials. So why the extra co2 this time? On and btw the oceans are also holding more co2 now than usually. So if there is more in the atmosphere, and more in the oceans, where has this excess come from?
>>71918003
It wasn't an ad hom attack. Simply pointing out that HI are not a credible body when it comes to science. Not credible based on their own record of anti-science campaigns.
>>71918425
Likewise though I'm sure you're not. You're the one making the claim (previous levels of co2 in human history were comparable to today). You obviously just took this on blind faith though if you've not got even one such primary source paper at hand.
>>71918235
A lot of people confuse ice age with glacials/interglacials.
