Global warming hiatus disproved — again

I watched Herzog's Lo and Behold last night. Chilling. It makes you realize we quite possibly have even less time left than we think.

If global warming isn't real then explain to me why I have yet to see snow on the tri-state area.

Checkmate fags

environmental science has been corrupt for a long time

why can't anyone prove it's taking place? it is such a simple theory. it shouldn't be so difficult to do.

but I have yet to see any clear evidence, which is strange since the only factors are co2 and temperature.

by the way, how does one measure the earth's temperature? lol

fuck your shit

>>97156
have you ever studied something about climate sciences? you seem to be completely oblivious to any experimental method and mathematical model used is such field of study.

>>97165
I'm aware that climate science is based on models.

and the models have proven to be wrong. (were supposed to be underwater by now)

why does your post contain no information? you people swear like you're so informed on the science, but it's bullshit.

you aren't informed, you are merely siding with the majority and virtue signaling.

nows the time for you to Google a shitty article and pretend you read it.

>>97183
why do you complain so much about my post being devoid of information when you just post bullshit like "environmental science is corrupt how do they even measure the temperature of a planet lol"? If you ask those kind of questions then it is clear that you never studied anything about it.

Anyway note that I never said that I believe in any environmentalist BS that happen to be posted on the internet. I just said that, given what you wrote on your original post, it is clear that you never studied anything about the matter.

>>97188
you could have at least pretended to be informed. I even told you how to do it.

>>97190
Do you have some kind of comprehension issue? I'm not implying that I am particularly well informed about the matter nor I said what I personally think about climate change. To spell it clearly I'm saying that you are an ignorant fuck, and my reason to think so is the content of your original post.

>>97195
>I admit I'm not informed but I can tell you aren't either

this is what you just said. think about it for minute.

don't project that your ignorance onto me.

>>97156
According to the Oil Barons.

>>97197
There is big money on both sides of the issue.

>>97199
But mostly to Oil Barons who wanted to abolish all the regulations that prevent them form extracting and selling resources in the cheapest way possible.

>>97196
No, I said that that I never said anything about my level on knowledge on the matter. I may be someone that have more or less casually read something about it or maybe someone that actually works in that field or in something related to it. Again, reading comprehension?

>>97200
ok

>>97201
ok

>>97156
>scientists are behind a massive conspiracy telling us we need to reduce our use use of non-renewable energy sources
or
>oil companies have billions of dollars to throw at politicians and scientists to ensure that their market still exists in the future
Which sounds more likely to you anon?

>>97213
I never said there was a massive scientist conspiracy. No need to create strawman.

Scientists are only experts in their given field. This means that a biologist is not likely to critique an environmental scientists work.


In addition, scientists are some of the most politically correct people on the Earth. If you understand how pervasive political correctness has become, you may understand how this can silence great numbers of people.

So, most scientists either are not experts on climate change, or they have no interest in studying anything politically incorrect. Their careers, and social lives rely on agreeing with colleagues.

Furthermore, there are still some scientists (a growing number) who are speaking out against the supposed settled science.

>>97218
>In addition, scientists are some of the most politically correct people on the Earth.
"Scientists" are a pretty big group of people and doesn't all adhere to the same particular political ideology only because they work in science. I personally know a professor and some phd students which are a little classist and dislike the immigration policy of my country.

>>97156
you haven't seen evidence because you haven't looked. Everybody who:
a) has researched this
and b) isn't too dumb to understand science
knows that this is happening

>>97218
>Scientist doesn't know much outside their field - but i know better
>Scientist are all political correct morons which likes to silence who doesn't agree with them and science is just a circlejerk of people that agree with each others.
>And anyway they are now starting to doubt about science themselves

The level of utter bullshit in this post is astonishing

There is a lot of erroneous data being used by climate change supporters.
A weather station that was once in a green field moved to a car park.
A weather station on top of a building that now has other glass fronted buildings reflecting light on it.
Sensor buoys that have not been calibrated in ten years.
Satellite sea level measurements that are based on control datum points affected by earthquakes.
"Adjusted" measurements used in papers, but they never state the adjustment protocol.
All this and many more issues are available through USC.

As a farmer on a family owned farm that we have been working for a hundred and twenty two years, I have access to daily wind, rain and tempriturr records that are only surpassed in completeness by the Royal Observitory. We have been using that data to predict planting and yealds. When I graphed the data a few years ago, I showed a slight rise from 1900 to 1950 than steady to 1977 and falling a degree per twenty five years since. This prediction has allows us to effectively change irrigation and crop choice and remain viable while nearby farms failed.

Knowing other successfull farmers, we all agree, weathers scientists who spend all their time indoors reading second hand data know nothing.
Get outside, pay attention to the current weathers like your life and livlyhood depends on it and you start to doubt all the climate change data.

>>97156
I'll respond to you troll.
>by the way, how does one measure the earth's temperature? lol
Everyone measures their local temperature, take the average of every temp for that day and that's the temperature of the Earth for that day. If you can't extrapolate how to get the average temperature for a year, you may want to retake grade school math.

>why can't anyone prove it's taking place?
They already have...

>but I have yet to see any clear evidence, which is strange since the only factors are co2 and temperature.
CO2 and temperature are not the only factors. CO2 emissions from humans is something we can control so there is more emphasis on it. You neglect the greenhouse gases Ozone, Methane, Water vapor, NO2, and many many more. I have listed the big ones that have a significant effect and are present in greater quantities.
You also neglect the factors of the carbon cycle, how the oceans are a big sink for greenhouse gases, agriculture, energy plant emissions, automotive emissions, icecaps melting, the lumber industry, and consumer products that produce said gases in significant quantities. There is more shit that people are doing that do contribute but please go on your happy day and ignore everything. lol

>>97253
>Everyone measures their local temperature, take the average of every temp for that day and that's the temperature of the Earth for that day. If you can't extrapolate how to get the average temperature for a year, you may want to retake grade school math.
totally false. they cannot measure the average global temperature. it doesn't even make sense.

what they do is measure temperature changes.

see what I was saying? you fucking environmentalists dont even know your own shit.

>>97230
so basically, I shouldn't generalize scientists because you know a professor and some students who aren't politically correct?

>>97235
one person >>97253 on your side has already demonstrated ignorance of the most basic aspect of climate change science.

so no, people do not believe in global warming because they read the science. shut the fuck up with this shitty argument.

>>97243
only the parts you added are bullshit. I never implied that.

>>97263
that's just a random example, he said that scientist are like that and I answered that I can find a lot of examples where that's not true without much effort.
You should not generalize because it's most of the time wrong, and science is not some kind of social group.

>>97156
What are you talking about? People have proven it's taking place, and the article in the OP isn't about whether it's taking place or not, it's about the rate of temperature increase over the last few decades.

>>97277
so you are arguing that generalizing doesn't work

got it

"girls have long hair" is a wrong statement?

>>97278
>People have proven it's taking place
so I've heard

can you show me the proof? I would love to believe humans are capable of destroying a planets climate so easily.

who knew planets were so fragile? lol

>>97278
>What are you talking about?
Anthropogenic climate change, of course.

>>97248
>As a farmer on a family owned farm that we have been working for a hundred and twenty two years, I have access to daily wind, rain and tempriturr records that are only surpassed in completeness by the Royal Observitory. We have been using that data to predict planting and yealds. When I graphed the data a few years ago, I showed a slight rise from 1900 to 1950 than steady to 1977 and falling a degree per twenty five years since. This prediction has allows us to effectively change irrigation and crop choice and remain viable while nearby farms failed.

Where you're are, you're okay for now;

Climate change is where the earth hastily re-adjust the weather patterns to the environmental terraformation of the planet by us humans, weither it's on purpose (deforestation for agriculture and resource extraction) or by accident (CO2 emissions caused by fossil fuels used by vehicles and factories). It may be global cooling to you, but it's global warming to some.

>>97283
The planet isn't "fragile". The planet will be fine regardless of what happens. It's the conditions for complex life that are fragile. Venus is a planet that is doing just fine, but we have yet to discover a single lifeform that would survive within its' conditions.

While Earth is far and away from becoming like Venus, slight changes to Earths environments are deadly to many forms of life.

>>97260
>totally false. they cannot measure the average global temperature. it doesn't even make sense.

Actually, they can though a thermometer and simple fucking math, you moron.

>>97264
No, it's because you don't want to give funding to hippiefags that using it to convince everyone to revert back to the fucking stone age for the sake of "Mother Nature".

>>97293
wrong. I'm quite the hippie myself.

we should be cleaning the oceans yesterday. big oil should get fucked in the ass sideways when they spill their product.

but this global warming stuff is a smokescreen for agreeable ideas like that.

this is what we debate about forever (you cannot prove anthropogenic climate change atm) instead of doing things to actually protect the Earth.

>>97291
oh I didn't realize they could do that, wtf

>>97282
well I can find (and know) a lot of girls who likes their hair short, but it's true that most of the times girls keep their hair long.
Now you can keep making obvious statements forever (people have hair on their head, sky is blue, etc..), but going back to the original context we were talking about ideology of group of peoples, where generally (in the previous post I say "most of the times") generalization doesn't work unless we are talking about something related to particulars social groups/phenomenons (like emos, hippies, etc).
So for example we could say that all scientist believe in the scientific method but things like all "scientist are right or left wing", "like eating fish", "prefer French cinema to Hollywood" are just an unfounded generalization which, again, are usually wrong.

>>97296
>things like all "scientist are right or left wing"

generally, scientists are left wing.

most scientists are politically correct.

end of story.

>>97299
"it is like I say, end of the story", nice one. You couldn't show more ignorance in other ways that imposing your idea with no argumentation like you just did.

>>97303
it is the end, because those are irrefutable generalizations.

which is why you concocted that stupid ass insult instead of refuting them.

you shouldn't have denied such obvious facts.

>>97309
I did refuted them in my post, but you only quoted like a single sentence (apparently I am right in thinking you have reading comprehension issues). You are the one that is calling irrefutable facts anything that pass in your mind without proving anything.

>>97311
>scientists are not left wing generally
>scientists are not politically correct generally

this is what you're saying, right?

>>97299
They went through a lot of schooling. Makes sense.

>>97126
I hope you are young now so you can live your whole life thinking that.

>>97314
Not him but what in the hell does political partisanship or political correctness have to do with anything with global warming? We all live on the same planet.

>>97248
So you did the Farmer's Almanac thing. How very innovative of you. What was your irrigation method before the 1950's?

Your anecdotal evidence is interesting, but your conclusions aren't. You are a single point of data. Climate is much larger than a single point of data. And as the climate changes, because it does change, weather patterns are affected and can alter an area in more ways than just heat, such as rainfall, precipitation or lack thereof, wind, severity, etc. Of course a climate scientist would not hand you specifically perfectly useful data. You are looking at a fixed point; climate scientists are analyzing large scale trends.

>>97315
yeah our schools are basically leftist indoctrination camps. it's fucked.

>>97317
political correctness has a great impact on what people think and say. part of the reason there is a "scientific concensus" is because stepping out of line on this issue is social and career suicide.

>>97325
>political correctness has a great impact on what people think and say.
Are creationists politically correct?

>>97315

Nazi scientists who determined Jews were inferior went through a lot of schooling too

>>97327
that was forced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science#Eugenics
>The Nazis manipulated scientific research in Germany, by forcing some scholars to emigrate, and by allocating funding for research based on ideological rather than scientific merit.

>>97329

>and by allocating funding for research based on ideological rather than scientific merit.

Which is precisely what's going on right now with the so-called climate change research... all politics. Btw wikipedia is not an acceptable source in higher education for a reason.

>>97218
Biology and environmental science are very closely linked. Biologists deal with climate change issues daily.

A few examples:
Coral bleaching due to rising ocean temperatures
Reduced snow pack for mountain species that rely on them such as wolverines and pika
Invasive plants overtaking native ones due to the increase in wildfires and changing weather patterns

You just don't actually know what you're talking about. Your feelings and ignorance are not facts like you seem to be treating them as.

>t. Biologist

>>97337

None of these prove anthropogenic climate change is happening, Earth has been warming and cooling by itself for eons. Typical leftist distortion of reality to fit their agenda.

>>97326
tricky. they have some politically incorrect views (like anti gay marraige) yet most of the time the abide political correctness.

so the answer is yes most of the time.

>>97337
>t. Biologist
lol

you think this adds weight to your post?

>>97299
Why aren't there more females and minorities if they're so SJW?

>>97341
>None of these prove anthropogenic climate change is happening, Earth has been warming and cooling by itself for eons.
And this is your only proof that AGW is not happening, because the climate changed before? Do you think scientists have so far ignored this? Where do you think a lot of our understanding of macro scale climate processes comes from? You must go deeper m8.
Start here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>Typical leftist distortion of reality to fit their agenda.
Typical conservative deliberately ignoring facts/data/scientific findings whilst producing none of your own to suit muh feels

>>97366
because females and brown people don't like science as much

dum dum

>>97374
It should be easy money if what you say about welfare queen scientist is true. Brown people and women should be shoeins for positions with how progressive and political scientist are. I mean, wouldn't it send a message to all those blue pilled sheep that niggers and women can be as smart as anglo men if there were more of them in science? Wouldn't the SJW scientist like to see that happen?

>>97377
yes

>>97370

The same people who tell us 100 years of human farts is having such a drastic impact on the climate tell us it would take 100,000 years to terraform Mars. Yea I'm not falling for this bullshit, go be a hippie somewhere else.

>>97200
>>97197
"Oil Barron's" spend a few tens of millions on research projects for climate change, governments around the globe spend hundreds of billions.

>>97380
So your point is that all scientists are incompetent bcos muh feels and we shouldnt believe any of them. Cool bruh. Go be a redneck elsewhere the adults are talking here

>>97384
Actually from what I understand NASA specifically was found to be manipulating data to favor AGW.
Anyway, anyone who goes to any of the global climate conferences says there is not a concensus on weather or not it is anthropogenic or not.

>>97380

There's a lot of stuff going on when it comes to terraforming Mars for human habitation beyond just temperature. Key issues include:
>Martian gravity is weaker than Earth's, at about 1/3 Earth Gravity. This limits Mars's ability to retain atmosphere, which segues to the next problem...
>Martian atmosphereic composition sucks for human life. It's almost entirely carbon dioxide, with less than 2% nitrogen and 1% oxygen (for comparison, Earth is nearly 4/5s nitrogen and 1/5 oxygen with less than 1% carbon dioxide). Exchanging all that CO2 for O2 would require massive amounts of plants, which would have a hard time existing because...
>Martian water is all frozen at the polar caps. Unfreezing this would require a roughly 70 degree Celsius increase in global temperature, which is hard because...
>Mars is on the edge of the habitual zone, making temperatures generally much lower compared to Earth.

Right now the "realistic" solution for terraforming mars involves building a shitload of factories to dump greenhouse gasses into the Martian atmosphere (which again won't retain it well due to low gravity) while also having multiple hydroponics gardens to begin the slow process of converting CO2 to O2. Once Temperatures reach the critical point and the water melts, allowing for widespread planting outside of hydroponics, the process becomes much faster. The problem is reaching that critical point still takes a long time, with the only proposed way to reach it faster involves building giant orbiting mirrors to focus more sunlight on the planet. Meanwhile just about everything would have to be shipped from earth (from the seeds to the factories) making the entire project completely unreasonable given current technology.

>>97384

Yes they're manipulating data to fit a specific agenda. Or do you think scientists never lie? Well then if that's the case then I accept climate change is happening and Jews are inferior, as Nazi scientists proved.

>>97389
>>97387
You know, when Trump takes office, the United States will be the only country left on Earth with a leader who denies climate change, and the Republicans will be the only major political party in the world who denies it. But I guess it's a conspiracy by the rest of the world and the scientist within our own borders to destroy the economy so that Israel can establish a global, new world Jewacracy.

>>97390
that's because the USA is #1

>>97390

>appeal to authority

Yep because science is determined by the number of people who agree on something, not actual data. Do you believe the Earth is the center of the universe because the entire catholic clergy in the Renaissance said so?

>>97392
Do you believe the Earth isn't the center of the universe just because the entirety of the science community say it isn't so?

>>97394

No I believe the Earth orbits the sun because there is solid, mathematical proof of this and not some pre-determined, half-assed studies to further an agenda.

>>97387
>>97389
Ah the old data manipulation argument. See
>>97213

>>97350
I have the training, education, and experience to interpret data and scientific literature. Asking people if they would like fries with their meal, living in your mother's basement, reading conspricacy blogs, and being angry at black people on the internet hardly qualifies you to do so.

>>97398

Your childish oversimplification is not an argument.

>>97399
not fooling anyone

as if your biology experience means anything.

>>97400
Yet disregarding the findings of thousands of independent scientists because they undertook data transformations isn't?

>>97407
more like disregarding the predictions/conclusions bwcause they have been wrong so far.

>>97420
So a scientific model of the entire climatic system correctly predicts the direction of change (a warming planet) yet cant predict the magnitude of change correctly to 2 decimal places so your response is to disregard all of the findings and predictions of the multidisciplinary science that is climate change prediction. Real clever conclusion m8

>>97429
the models were way more inaccurate than that.

>>97432

And yet the temperature keeps rising.

Every year higher and higher, but until a mathematical model predicts it perfectly, it could all just be a hoax perpetrated by greedy scientists and globalists.

>>97434
I know the temperature is rising. we're coming out of an ice age.

got any proof humans are making it warmer?

got any reason to think a warmer planet is a bad thing?

>>97441
>got any proof humans are making it warmer?
Everything listed here: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

>got any reason to think a warmer planet is a bad thing?
Everything listed here and hell of a lot more once you start getting into the massively understudied effect on ecosystem dynamics:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

>>97264
give me one legitimate reason to believe that the greenhouse effect isn't real, and that some magical force is the real reason that surface temperatures have been rising.

Just one single argument, one that can't be easily disproven by anybody who has done actual research on this issue.

>>97506
no.

my main issue is the co2. there were times in the Earth's history when co2 was 10x what it is now.

and it wasn't hot.

>>97506
>Asking for evidence from a denialist that doesn't include "muh feels"

Hahahaha

>>97517
in the Earth's past it had way more co2. despite the gas, the glaciers grew.

ice core sampling is a useful tool, which suggest it is safe to burn fossil fuel.

>>97506
Read a science article before you comment. The Earth goes through periods of climate changes. It has done so in the past and is doing so now. Do you really expect the Earth to have the same climate for millions of years with no variations? Have you not heard of the ice age?

>>97522
yeah but this time there's extra co2 in the air (even though that doesn't correlate with heat) if we don't send all our jobs to Asia we are gonna overheat/freeze

>>97530
How do we overheat and freeze at the same time?

>>97535
I meant we will over heat or freeze, or maybe it'll be extreme weather.

who knows, all we know for sure is co2 is the blame.

more taxes now!

>>97522
>Read a science article before you comment
read my comment before you reply. Give me a reason. Climate doesn't just change on its own, in the past or present. So give me a reason that is causing the CURRENT warming aside from an increase in GHGs

>>97552
>Climate doesn't just change on its own
yes it does.

>I don't believe it because muh gut feelings!
>Fuck the ice core data!
>Scientists are corrupt leftist SJWs!
>b-b-but Global Cooling in 1970s magazines!
This thread is embarrassing.

>>97557
Most climate change deniers are>>97341

>>97553
>I literally believe in magic
Christ you people are hopeless
>Milankovich Cycles aren't real
>Changing solar intensity isn't real
>Changes in volcanic activity never affect climate
>It's literally all just the climate magically changing on its own for no reason
This is what AGW deniers unironically believe

>>97552
I'm not reading your shit post, you are NOT a scientist.

>>97561
>Milankovich Cycles
>Changing solar intensity
>Changes in volcanic activity
>Anthropogenic

Anon...

>>97565
I think you're confused. There are specific natural causes for previous warming such as those. But the anon I was replying to says that there are no causes for any warming, it just happens on its own.
Previous warming didn't just magically happen, there were specific causes such as those. But all of the known causes for previous warming have been shown NOT to be the cause of current warming. One important fact is that while the lower atmosphere is warming, the upper atmosphere is cooling. This is consistent with more heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere, but is not consistent with more heat reaching the earth itself (as would be the case with for example increased solar radiation). In addition, none of those natural causes coincide with the current warming.

That's the point. Previous warming happened naturally, but it didn't just magically happen on its own. There are actual specific causes for previous warming, and none of those causes explain the CURRENT warming

>>97374
the number of female scientists is growing though.

>>97377
>welfare queen scientist
it's only true if you are successfull and have a lot of marketable patents. but for the majority of scientists you would get payed more by just doing some laymen's job and have more stable contracts also.

>>97377
Have you heard of crispr cas m8?
women are already contributing to groundbreaking scientifical discoveries. A female scientist duo is going to get a nobelprize in the next few years for probably revolutionizing genetic therapy by developing the crispr cas method.

>>97557
To be honest it's mostly just one guy who's either enjoying being a troll or is so wrapped up in memes that he's beyond help

>>97572
that's not what I was saying, you're just retarded.

>>97596
prove anthropogenic climate change.

maybe just prove that co2 in the atmosphere makes it hot. ice core samples show that co2 was way higher in the past, but it was cold.

>>97599
>prove anthropogenic climate change
There's been several decades of research on the matter, and the scientific community is really quite united in their proclamation that human activity is causing climate change. If you're looking for a good summary, or at least a place to start reading some of the published work on climate change, here

Various authors, 2007: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[email protected]


email

>>97607
Are you posting this on the wrong board?

>>97605
notice how you can never actually prove it.

you've never even seen the proof yourself, so of course you can't show me.

that's why people "deny" this science. I've even heard religious tier arguments, like Pascale wager applied to this theory. that's not a good sign! this is supposed to be science!

>>97610
I really don't see why I should engage with the content of your post given that you refuse to engage with the content of mine

Read the paper, it's got the answers you're looking for

>>97615
what content? "read this" us not content.

why can't you just state the proof... Probably cause you can't.

>>97622
lol k

We're done here

>>97625
you didn't even give a link

like I'm really going to Google something you haven't even read yourself

>>97622
>cant summarise decades of climate research into a 2000 character post
>therefore AGW is fake
Stop being a lazy dumb cunt and read some scientific literature if you're interested in having an educated opinion on climate change. Until then your opinion is nothing more than 'muh feels' and is completely meaningless

>>97698
take your own advice.

>>97702
I've read more than you ever will through 5 years of unversity science degrees. Ive posted 3 links above. Go read them

>>97712
k thanks

>>97622
>>97702
>>97714
>Inadequate cognitive faculties: The Post(s)

>>97716
>2017
>samefagging

>>97717
>referencing the current year
>claiming samefig on a board that I'm not capable of posting proof on
That was the first post I've made ITT. This is the second and you are a dumbass.

>>97719
ok buddy

>>97599
What weren't you saying? You weren't saying that climate change happens on its own? If you're that anon, here is the conversation:
>>97552
>Climate doesn't just change on its own
>>97553
>yes it does.

Idk, it kind of sounds like you're saying climate change does in fact just happen on its own without definitive causes. If that's not what you meant then why did you say that? When I asked for a specific reason for the current warming, why didn't you give a reason?
>not knowing how words work
>calling others retarded

also
>ice core samples show that co2 was way higher in the past
Ice core samples only go back around 1.2million years. And they show that CO2 is way higher now than at any point during that time. There are other methods for older data, but not ice core.
As for CO2 being higher while it being colder, there are multiple factors in climate such as the ones mentioned >>97561
But as has been said time and time again, none of those factors are at play here. Once again, global temperatures don't just magically change for no reason. They can change because of changes in orbit/axial tilt, but that's not causing the current changes. They can change because of changes in solar radiation, but that's not causing the current changes.
>talking about a topic without doing a shred of research
>calling other people retarded

>>97738
the debate about climate change is about whether it is caused by humans or natural processes.

so I meant that the climate does change without human involvement.

you could have understood this. what went wrong?

>>97744
But it doesn't just change magically, there are actual fucking reasons that it changes and those reasons don't apply to what's happening now. "natural processes" is a broad brush, there are SPECIFIC natural processes that caused previous warming and you STILL can't name a single one of them that could plausibly be responsible for the CURRENT warming

>>97744
>>97758
If you don't think magic is the cause of the current warming, then please tell me what is. What SPECIFIC natural cause is causing the current warming. Until you can name a specific natural cause, I'm going to assume you just think it's magic

>>97263
What, exactly, is "political correct"? What does that term mean? Give a definition.

>>97760
you're the one who claims to have the answers.

co2 wasn't the cause of temperature increases in the past. in fact it followed temperature increases by 800 years.

I don't blame you for believing this, but it's not enough for me.

most earthlings eat co2, ya know.

I hope you are right though, because this planet is too cold anyways.

>>97770
conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

Here's the scary thing to me.
We have these climate oscillations that some can happen ever few years, some every few decades, some every few centuries, and so on.
What happens when a more pronounced oscillation occurs in the future?

It would be a good precursor for the not so distant future. Say you have a Hale Cycle, during a Pacific Decadal, and an El Nino' Southern. On top of that you have some other climate change event. It could trigger something very catastrophic for an ecosystem which could snowball into some really fucked up shit for everyone.

>>97104
We need more stories about confirming/disproving scientific papers. The community needs that loads more than any innovations.

>>97773
>he thinks it's magic

>>97777
prove the theory or go be fat somewhere else

why is that so difficult -_-

>>97773
>what are positive feedback cycles

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

>>97776
That's basically what scientific papers are for, if that's what you're looking for you should be reading journals about environmental science or climate change

>>97777
Nice quads

>>97789
I already read that.

looks like scientists don't fully comprehend what's going on. there is correlation, but not causation.

>>97782
>>97773
There are three possibilities:
1) increasing levels of GHGs is increasing the greenhouse effect
2) other "natural causes" are raising the earth's temperature
3) motherfucking magic

You don't believe it is #1. Evidentally you don't believe it is #2 either, otherwise you would say WHICH natural causes you are talking about. So we have to assume you're going with #3.

>>97827
you're a real nasty person, aren't you?

Of course it's number 2 that I side with.

Earth's history shows temperature and co2 rising and falling.

Why should this time be any different? That would be truly amazing.

are you suggesting that we fully understand The Earth's climate? Not very scientific of you.

>>97831
But the climate doesn't just change on it's own. It has SPECIFIC causes. And you can't name one single cause of the current warming, whereas we can name the SPECIFIC causes of the previous warming. Until you can actual give a SPECIFIC cause that is even plausible, we have no choice but to assume you are talking about magic

>Not very scientific of you.
You're entire argument is "I'm too dumb to understand this topic, therefore it must be fake." I don't think you can lecture other people about being scientific

>>97832
You seem to have this idea that if I don't have the answer, I must default to your best guess.

Wrong.

I'll wait for more convincing evidence.

That is especially appropriate for this issue, which could lead to a total reshaping of the world's infrastructure.

Have you not been paying attention? None of the climate alarmists predictions have come true. Either they exaggerated, or they misunderstood the climate.

>hurr durr, i am smrater than the world's best scientists

god you people are arrogant

>>97856
I used to trust them on this issue. did hippie school reports any everything.

then their preductions wrong. then they were wrong again, and again.

how can you blame people for doubting this? it's not like people doubt science generally, it's only race/gender/climate where they are clueless.

>>97841
>global warming scientists have predicted for the past 120 years that if GHG levels increase, temperature will also increase
>this is exactly what happened
"hurrr durrr they've been wrong about everything!"

They've been wrong about minor details, mostly because of explainable factors. Eg, humans have been good at controlling our methane emissions, so there's not as much methane in the atmosphere as earlier models predicted there would be. There has also been more particulates in the atmosphere countering the GHGs. And I think they've done more research on the ocean and how the ocean's currents can move heat underwater.

But the underlying science, that there is a greenhouse effect which traps heat in the atmosphere, isn't disputed by anybody who has any clue what they are talking about. This is literally just "people who are scientifically literate" vs. "people who are too dumb to understand science and too arrogant to trust those that do"

You fall into the latter category

>it's only race/gender/climate where they are clueless
pretty high overlap between AGW deniers and creationists, people who think God controls the tides, etc. This is science denialism, plain and simple

>>97104
data doesn't support the premise
>>two sets within the variance, muh muh grant gibs...
>let's just adjust that.
> Ahhhhhhhhh. Much better.

>>97875
are you denying that climatologists have made many failed predictions regarding climate change?

I did not expect you to deny common knowledge, but I can find a list if you're serious.

>I think they've done more research on the ocean and how the ocean's currents can move heat underwater.

That's the sort of natural process is part of the Earth's climate. It gets hot, then it gets cold. but somehow I'm a retard for disagreeing that buying gas is the apocalypse.

yeah greenhouse gas is a thing. most things on The Earth eat co2. Can't the ocean just support more algae? Can't trees grow taller?


>pretty high overlap between AGW deniers and creationists
I don't like this argument because you're implying that proponents of this theory are well informed. That's nonsense, 99% of these people simply believe the theory because they heard that every scientist agrees.

That doesn't make you much smarter than people who simply trust their preacher.

>>97104
>MUH CLIMATE SCIENCE, ARE YOU SKEPTICAL OR PRO ?

Who gives a fuck about muh fucking carbon and climate change you cuntladm8s ?

What about POLLUTION ? In the ground, air, earth, food, clothes, toys, computers, airplanes, cars, gas you fucking idiots?
That is what is important and factually relevant, not a fabricated debate about nothing.

You're eating cheese with puss, drink water with hard metals and xenostrogens, the air we breathe is toxic tier, our clothes poison us, the plastic we eat from gives us cancer.

How about animal species driven to extinction because chinamen want to give a stiffy from their micropenis ?
How about fish hunted to death by irresponsible companies ?

>>97881
>most things on The Earth eat co2. Can't the ocean just support more algae? Can't trees grow taller?
See this is what we're talking about. You have never done research on this, and are too dumb to understand that if CO2 has increase 33% in a century, that means CO2 LEVELS ARE RISING MUCH FASTER THAN PLANTS CAN ABSORB IT
Literally first grade math we're doing here.

>That doesn't make you much smarter than people who simply trust their preacher.
Yes, because a preacher and the scientific community are definitely on the same level. Oh, and I actually have done a lot of research on this. Maybe you should try it some time, or maybe you should just take note of the fact that everybody who has any clue what they're talking about agrees that the greenhouse effect is real, and only idiots like you who have never bothered to do a shred of research on this deny it

>>97885
It isn't a debate about "nothing", it's semantics.

Pollution is a real bummer, man. Fixing all that stuff would be, like, a lot of work. Fuck that. And there's too much money to be made, ya know?

Puss cheese... I saw that documentary...

>>97871
Every time they were wrong, it was always because they UNDERestimated how quickly this is happening. This isn't even good bait, Rex.

>>97886
>See this is what we're talking about. You have never done research on this, and are too dumb to understand that if CO2 has increase 33% in a century, that means CO2 LEVELS ARE RISING MUCH FASTER THAN PLANTS CAN ABSORB IT
maybe plants and algae need some time to catch up.

could that be why the Earth's climate fluctuates up and down instead of staying in perfect balance.

as some areas warm, plants can begin to spread. but it's seasonal so they can only grow so fast.
>a preacher and the scientific community are definitely on the same level
Bill Nye the science guy is the scientific community now? I don't understand why you need to pretend your side is well informed. As if the average person sits down and critically reads scientific papers.

>I actually have done a lot of research on this
Good for you. maybe you can help crazy science deniers like myself.

>>97890
>Plants will solve everything.
Maybe they would have if this wasn't also causing drought all over the planet. The precipitation needed for that will not happen. You can think of it as the Sahara now spreading all the way to India, and the Mojave engulfing the West coast and all the way almost to Louisiana. As we are all aware, this is happening already today, well in advance of most predictions, most of which were conservative.

>>97885
global warming is still an issue but you're right tho.
the real problem is that humanity (mostly big company and over powerfull people) fucked up and now we need to clean the mess

>>97893
>drought all over the planet
sureee

and flooding, right?

>>97897
>>97897

jokes aside, I am looking up what you say.