Hey there faggotry experts, how are you preparing for the ne

Does anyone else find it funny that everyone is worried about global warming and yet we will live the rest of our lives in an ice age?

File: IMG_0204.jpg (97KB, 780x393px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 780x393px

https://m.youtube.com/user/MyanmarLiving

Can't wait, going to stay right here and get all winter comfy. This next few years is going to be fun.

>>886143
>Russian
>scientist
Pick one.

>>886143
>faggotry experts

The correct term is 'spider expert'.

>>886143

You do know that in the last like 300 years, we have had a few mini ice ages like the one you're talking about?

Nothing new, just bundle up more.

We had more snow during the winters when I was a kid. My nostalgia demands more snow.

>>886143
>“This research shows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are likely to be larger than the global effect, but it’s still nowhere near big enough to override the expected global warming trend due to man-made change,” Ineson said in a statement.
next time read the article before making yourself look like a dumbass.

globe is warming and will continue to do so over the next centuries.

File: the-corporate-media.jpg (36KB, 635x391px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 635x391px

>>886193

Nice try warmist. The person you are quoting is a government shill the media put in the story to try to discredit the Russian scientist.

>>886187
The last one coincided with the Great Famine that wiped out a third of europes population.

>>886214
>i can discard all the evidence for global warming because it's all shills but the tiny amount of evidence to the contrary is all the real stuff trust me

>>886424
Why are you so angry we are entering an ice age?

>>886446
We aren't though
Milankovitch cycles would indicate that we should be going back into an glacial period soon but CO2 is a much more powerful driver of global temperatures

>>886460
CO2 > The SUN.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Canuck living in Ontario here. I golfed on Christmas day last year. Ice age my ass

we are in the end of and ice age that has been ongoing for like a million years, and ice age is defined as when the polar caps have ice present

>inb4 smithsonian magazine article

if you weren't 19 years old you would have been taught this almoat unanimously agreed geology in middle school before the socialists silenced everyone

>>886471
It's true though, it's the reason that Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite being further from the sun
Why don't you educate yourself before you start talking about a subject?

>>886143
>Implying I won't willingly head into it to escape all these fucking idiots.

With climate data, you can look at it from a few different perspectives. Annually, our global and regional temperatures have been steadily going up for about as long as we have recorded climate data. Because we have only been recording detailed climate data for less than a century, looking at our climate data from a centennial or millennial perspective is impossible if you want any shred of validity. Unfortunately for us, centennial and millennial data would be the most useful, partly because we don't have any data of that scale, but also because climatological and astrological trends happen at a slower rate than we can observe. The reason I despise the term "global warming" is for two reasons: 1, it makes people assume temperature is our only or most important environmental issue at the moment (which is untrue) and 2, because it allows idiots to use temperature as the only proxy for the state of our ecosystems and overall environment. The unstable temperatures are certainly a big concern of ours, but there are much more immediate environmental issues at hand that could end up killing billions of us long before the temperature becomes an immediate, irreversible problem. We should still be concerned with our temperatures, but the term "global warming" needs to die because it gives the layman an untrue impression of the state of our environmental issues

t. a guy who studied ecology and climatology in college

>>886662
>College
>Educated

Pick one granola boy

>>886143
I just want a new ice age so people fuck off towards the equator and only true believers will be left to live a comfy simple lifestyle in the snow

File: tumblr_obwykw69WC1rf77lbo1_540.png (206KB, 540x407px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 540x407px

>>886662
>billions of us
>humans

Choose one.

>>886143
>Russian scientist

>>886460
i hopes so. pollution is fine by me so long we don't get freezed up.

>>888342
Sorry bud but Kek has decided to btfo Al Gore.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/11/02/colder-winters/

>>888347
You do know that global warming isn't as simple as the name makes it sound, right?
Average global temperature rise causes all the climate systems to CHANGE, not necessarily increase in temperature uniformly
Colder winters in places that didn't have those temperatures previously are actually evidence of global warming

>>886143
Louisiana
>80 degrees F in december
>coldest i've ever felt in Louisiana was 8 degrees F
even in a full ice age Louisiana would still be hot as fuck

>>886548
You're been serious? Venus has a completely different stratospheric make than Earth. A few parts per million of carbon is not going to have a greater effect on our climate then much less UV and sun activity. This isn't something a few eccentric russian professors and libertarians believe in, a lot of the scientific community is looking at this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vTiH6Itu_aQ

>>886143
>http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/31/the-next-little-ice-age-is-already-here-russian-scientist-claims/
>russian
>scientist
pick one.

>>886214
Yeah ofc. Climate scientists are all wrong but some russian scientist is 100 percent right. Tell.me why do right wing nutters worship authoritarian soviets?

>>888590
>oh hai thar, im a blithering idiot

>>886214
God damn, you people are fucking stupid. What seems more likely? That all climate scientists nd environmentaliats are lying or that there is a concerted effort on the part of.multi national, multi billion dollarr carbon based energy companies to discredit climate science bc it is inconvenient to their bottom line? You shout shill while you shill for big oil. How stupid are you people?

>>886765
High school drop out detected. That GED get u that management position at jack n the box yet?

>>890003
>that all climate scientists and environmentalists are lying
>implying they're all singing off the same hym sheet

What normally happens in these discussions is the Warmists never back up anything they're denouncing with actual science as they don't actually question anything nor understand the machinations going on within the IPCC.

>>890065
>provides no proof
>meanwhile "warmists" constantly produce new studies showing warming and back it up with prehistoric records of climate change

>>890075
>meanwhile "warmists" constantly produce new studies showing warming and back it up with prehistoric records of climate change

They do constanty and they get it incredibly wrong a lot too. I'm old enough to remember when the IPCC was throwing out models predicting Madmax levels of warming. Alarmists they are now known as. It didn't materialise.

The 'backing it up with prehistoric records' is relatively new after the avalanche of skepticism it got from within the scientific community itself and data can be interpreted in multiple ways. No one is arguing that increases in carbon dioxide doesn't warm a planet, the argument is that it is not the only variable or cycle at work. There is simply not enough data available to accurately predict the weather in six days time nevermind the global climate and sunspot activity is a relatively hot subject right now within the lukewarmist community. I say lukewarmists as the earth will eventually return to a hothouse environment if we're working on cycles moving in the hundreds of millions years and geoengineering, once ostracised within the IPCC is now also a hot topic.

File: IMG_0379.png (511KB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1334x750px

>>890111
Pic related. Do you not see a correlation? Other pics show the possibilty of a maunder minimum like cycle approaching. Suppose its upto (You) to believe it or not.

Time to redpill a few kids here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ew05sRDAcU

File: 2011warmingindicator_update.png (212KB, 659x733px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 659x733px

Why is there a new thread on climate change so often, and why is it packed with stupid assholes who think that they can just post a goddamn Youtube video and suddenly they're a fucking expert

Like this cunt:

>>890145

Anyway the chances any of you who are skeptics would actually read an entire IPCC Working Group report is incredibly unlikely, so I'll point out the major historical publications and recent studies that are relevant to establishing the anthropogenic cause of climate change. I know you won't read those either, but it's just to demonstrate the concreteness and convergence of all the evidence.

For a general historical overview, I encourage you to read Spencer Weart's book, The Discovery of Global Warming. If you're good at the whole math and physics thing, then Pierrehumbert's Principles of Planetary Climate is the standard text, or David Archer's Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast for something shorter for undergrads, and with excellent supplementary material.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674031890

Supplement for Weart (actually much more comprehensive than the book): https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/climatology-and-climate-change/principles-planetary-climate?format=HB&isbn=9780521865562

supplement for Pierrehumbert:

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/PrinciplesPlanetaryClimate/

1/?

File: Atmosphere_Transmission_Blackbody_Only.png (30KB, 900x457px)

30KB, 900x457px

>>890148

The fundamental physics were first established in the 19th century by Joseph Fourier, with refinements and early experimentation by Joseph Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. They established that the Earth requires greenhouse gases for the surface to remain at the temperature that it is. Otherwise, any solar radiation striking the Earth would just escape into space, the our planet's surface would be frozen even in the equator.

Why is CO2 especially important? It has to do with the residency time in the atmosphere, water vapour is dependent on the temperature and not the other way around. It can be a positive or negative feedback in the climate system, but it can't affect it You can't pump water vapour into the atmosphere endlessly to increase the water vapour concentration, because at some point it turns into clouds and rain. CO2 will eventually saturate too, but that's what Venus looks like (96% concentration versus 400 ppm on Earth).

A modern paper modelling a world without any CO2 finds that a CO2-less world will be too cold for life, but increasing the H2O concentration just results in the climate returning to an equilibrium after it rains out:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

http://www.tellusb.net/index.php/tellusb/article/view/19734

File: HvN50_1024.jpg (40KB, 1024x773px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1024x773px

>>890152

Presumably there's no disagreement that the Earth is currently warming. But let's discuss that for a moment.

"Global warming" refers to the increase in the global average surface temperature of the Earth, which is a simple way of expressing the Earth's energy balance. So the overall heat content of the Troposphere (the lower part of the atmosphere where most weather occurs), the oceans, the Cryosphere (all the ice sheets and shit) and the land surface, they are all increasing. It's not alarmist, it's a statement of fact.

Of course, fossil fuel combustion has impacts that go beyond just the temperature increases. Weather patterns are changing, sulphates pollute the air as smog and stop some of the warming, the oceans are acidifying, and the sea level is rising. Overall, we could call this climate change. A separate cause of climate change would be like the natural Milakovitch Cycles, changes in the properties of Earth's orbit which are thought to have caused the glaciation cycle of the Holocene ice ages.

It was actually Frank Lutz who did some research on how voters respond to language, and he discovered that "global warming" freaks people out more than "climate change" does. He wrote a memo to the Bush administration encouraging them to only use the latter term and not the former.

3/?

File: Warming_Indicators.png (140KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1024x768px

>>890156

Supplementary image for the last post.

It's also worth noting that paleoclimate proxies show that a concentration of CO2 at 400ppm is unprecedented in perhaps over 5,000,000 years. The temperatures we are now seeing may have occurred during the warmest part of the Holocene, but the climate is like a supertanker. It is imbued with tremendous momentum, so if we magically stopped all anthropogenic carbon emissions today, the concentration would keep going up for decades, and the temperature increase and ice sheet wastage would keep going on for millennia.

4/?

File: Human_Fingerprints_1024.jpg (151KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1024x768px

>>890167

So how do we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human activity is causing the global warming we've detected over the past century? Goddamn everything:

1. No combination of natural forcings could be warming the climate over the past 100 years. If anything, we should be slightly cooling.

2. If you measure the change in radioactive isotopes of the air, there is now a greater percentage of fossil carbon than natural carbon (fossil fuel sources have heavier isotopes.)

3. The isotope measurement is corroborated by proxies measured from corals.

4. The structure of the atmosphere is changing: the tropopause is rising, and the troposphere is expanding. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling. All of these would happen due to increased greenhouse gas emissions, and they wouldn't happen due to some kind of solar forcing.

5. The days are not getting hot as fast as nights, which indicates that increased fossil fuels are the cause. If it was something to do with the Sun, it would be the opposite.

6. Ocean acidification.

5/?

File: Action_vs_Inaction.png (89KB, 1024x768px)

89KB, 1024x768px

>>890171

>But it was cold today!

Irrelevant. Climate is a long-term average and not what happens at one point in space and at one time. Climate is the change of four seasons in the Northern hemisphere, or the Monsoons in the tropics. Or the fact that there's a desert in Arizona. It might be chilly at on a desert night in Arizona, but we can reasonably expect that there won't ever be 30cm of snow in Arizona. In fact, there may be a new polar vortex this year which makes our (North American) winter exceptionally cold again. This is not inconsistent with climate change.

>But it doesn't matter!

Injecting 36 billion megatons equivalent of TNT of energy into the Earth system doesn't matter?

>But it doesn't matter to me specifically!

Economic projections of business-as-usual emissions, and the resulting climate change, would mean that the globally we would lose 20-25% of GDP or higher every year, essentially forever. This is the equivalent to burdening ourselves to a neverending Great Depression. Now it's true those projections are for the year 2100, but those estimates don't factor in sea level rise, and generally made very optimistic assumptions.

I'm sure New York City can maybe probably afford to build massive seawalls, storm defenses, etc. to protect itself, but imagine now that every major city in the world, every nuclear power plant relying on seawater for cooling, and every important naval base also bad to build these things too. I'm sure taxpayers will love it.

By 2050, when I think most of us will still be alive, we also might start seeing the Middle East becoming so hot, that on some days it would be impossible to stand outside for more than a few hours without succumbing to heatstroke. In addition to the nice things this will do to agricultural production, imagine the refugee flows. A million refugees in 2015 will look like nothing compared to what's coming.

>>890179

tl;dr

If you think the Earth isn't warming significantly, you are uninformed.

If you think that warming isn't caused by humans, you have no alternative explanation backed up by evidence and theory.

If you think that the warming won't be a problem, then you might be delusional.

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, because that would be a very wonderful thing. By this point though, I highly doubt you could do that. It's a damn shame because, presumably, we all love the outdoors, and I've only mentioned the impacts this will have on humans.

7/7

File: Screen-Shot-2015-08-07-at-1.51.33-PM.png (911KB, 873x470px) Image search: [Google]

911KB, 873x470px

>>890182
The earth hasn't warmed in 18 years, which is longer than your lifetime.

There are lots of real environmental problems and you focus on a made up one.

>>890230
the earth has warmed in the last 18 years
there are lots of real environmental problems, and all should be addressed accordingly and in all situations we should listen to the advice of the experts, and not let the minority of fringe scientists and lobbyists have as much input.

>>890242
The "fringe" scientists are the only ones doing science. The rest are propagandists for the establishment. I don't know why you believe bought and paid for shills . probably mental illness

>>890255
>i-it's shills, I swear!
Really convenient way to dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your world view
Tell me, do you have any evidence?

>>890255
wewww lad cool down on the buzzwords

You've got a weight of scientific evidence, versus selective cherrypicking and miscalculations from fringe scientists who are bought and paid shills (by a variety of far right think tanks and vested interests), as you mentioned.

>>886144

Try learning about how climates work sometime. Especially if you plan on trying to talk about it.

File: 2016temperature.png (380KB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 3000x2400px

>>890230
>>890230

Whether I'm 18 years old or not is completely immaterial. If you were right, I could be 5 years old or 95 years old, you'd be able to rebut me.

Personally, I remember that back in the 90s we used to have a layer of snow on Christmas, every year. Now we're lucky to have cold rain. By itself, this doesn't matter at all-- if it was a statistical artifact of my regional weather, it wouldn't matter for the science. Be wary of the fallacy of anecdotal evidence and personal experience. That's why we have science in the first place.

>The earth hasn't warmed in 18 years

You are completely wrong.

Statistically you can drown out a climate signal by cherrypicking start and end dates, and enclosing a period that is absurdly long (e.g. "The Earth was warmer during the Jurassic Period!") or meaninglessly short. You tried to do the latter, but here it doesn't even work. 2015 is the hottest full year ever recorded on the instrumental record, and 2016 is very likely to exceed that (see image). If you wanted to trick us, you should have said "There was no statistically significant warming from 1998-2014." then you might be able to fudge the numbers enough to make the "pause" argument work.

Sources:

NASA 2016 - "2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records"
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

Rajaratnam et al. 2015 - "Debunking the climate change hiatus"

Lewandowsky, Risbey & Oreskes 2015 - "On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming"

Lewandowsky, Risbey & Oreskes 2016 - "The “Pause” in Global Warming: Turning a Routine Fluctuation into a Problem for Science"

Santer et al. 2011 - "Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale"

>There are lots of real environmental problems

I completely agree with you. Fortunately we're able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

i'm not scientist, not denier, not globalist, and the amount of data circulating makes almost impossible to separate true to shit.
but i live in patagonia and i'm almost 50 years old, and i can tell you for sure that wether is hotter and glaciers are getting smaller every year. i'm an avid hiker and i use to camp over perennial ice and snow in places were now there's rock and small trees growing. i use to carry heavy winter garments even in summer, and now a light jacket is more than enough.
we use to ski from march to october, now is very rare to ski in may or ends of september.

i don't know if it's going to last or if is a short burst of heat, but where i live, the actual warming is undeniable.
check this photo: http://www.balticuniv.uu.se/images/stories/SBRupdate/Chapter-2/upsala-glacier-1928-2004-d-beltra-greenpeace-2.jpg
30 years ago i use to hike this place and that grey rocky hill you see under the mountain in the center use to be covered in ice all year long.

No one is stopping you from believing in global warming, you can believe in the Easter Bunny or that Bruce Jenner is a woman if you want. But if you do believe in global warming and care about the planet your only solution is to kill yourself. But you won't do that because you only pretend to care. Thus you are nothing but a shrill schoolmarm bullying people who believe in science

>>890584
>But if you do believe in global warming and care about the planet your only solution is to kill yourself. But you won't do that because you only pretend to care
thats not the only solution at all and I dont know why you would present such an inane and blatant lie. If we had leaders with a backbone they'd be listening to scientists and putting a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and trying to limit warming to 2 degrees. Realistically, keeping global temp at 2 degrees is now almost impossible, but we can still keep it limited if we reduce our emmisions outputs and divert subsidies away from old industries without a future and towards lower emissions technology

>>890584
1. Believing in something and caring about it aren't the same thing. (i.e. I believe Africa has an absolutely horrif AIDS epidemic).
2. Solutions to problems like climate change are complex and require realistic solutions. (i.e. acknowledgements, consessions, and policy changes as opposed to calls for 4 billion people to suicide themselves away)

>>890395
>Whether I'm 18 years old or not is completely immaterial
Yes it is neet faggot.

File: IMG_0381.png (718KB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 1334x750px

>>890148
>Anyway the chances any of you who are skeptics would actually read an entire IPCC Working Group report

I read the third assessment extensively, more on the cue of a Aus pal who was quite actively involved and who also had his own concerns.

Lets get some prospective, carbon needs reduced, whether or not you agree with the macro level narrative of carbon dioxide driving global warming or not, it does and will have adverse affects.

File: IMG_0382.png (811KB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 1334x750px

>>890152
>Why is CO2 especially important?

Within the IPCC framework anything outside of man made emissions isn't important. The Sun itself is a constant variable. That's the point.

>>886143
>mankind is killing the planet
The planet can't fucking die. Enviromentalists need to realize that we're trying to preserve the environment for the future of HUMANITY, not for the future of the fucking planet--it's not going anywhere.

File: Holocene.png (663KB, 1280x768px)

663KB, 1280x768px

>>890156
>A separate cause of climate change would be like the natural Milakovitch Cycles, changes in the properties of Earth's orbit which are thought to have caused the glaciation cycle of the Holocene ice ages.

Fact check, this isn't the warmest period within the Holocene.

File: 1280px-GlaciationsinEarthExistancelicenced_annotated2.jpg (19KB, 1280x99px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1280x99px

>>890167
>It's also worth noting that paleoclimate proxies show that a concentration of CO2 at 400ppm is unprecedented in perhaps over 5,000,000 years. The temperatures we are now seeing may have occurred during the warmest part of the Holocene,

Nice to see Warmists looking beyond the last 200 year trend.

File: newminiiceage.png (430KB, 1280x768px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1280x768px

>>890179
[pic]
Inter-governmental panel looking for a mean to tax and control. That's the crux of the matter.

>there may be a new polar vortex this year which makes our (North American) winter exceptionally cold again. This is not inconsistent with climate change.

Global warming = cold. Guess we'll see soon enough.

File: wat-what.jpg (15KB, 319x318px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 319x318px

>>886143
>You may not post in this thread if you don't believe that mankind is killing the planet but that God saved us by BTFO Al Gore.

>>890763

>Global warming = cold.

If it's cold outside

>Global warming = hot

if it's warm outside

>Global warming= hurricanes

If it's windy

>Global warming = bribes

If you are a "scientist"

>Global warming = power

If you are a politician

>Global warming = a real problem

If you are a useful idiot

If it gets cold, move somewhere warm. If it gets warm, move somewhere cold. Problem solved.

>>886188

This. tfw you will be COMFY in your /out/ rated winter gear while the normies freeze to death and run from heated building to heated car to heated building, leaving your woods all for you and solitude.

>>890230

This. I hate the global climate change "debate." It takes away attention from the more real and actionable problem of pollution. But oh god, if they talked about pollution people might actually need to change their daily habits! OH NO, a mild inconvenience? You mean they might need to wash a dish rather than using disposable styrofoam for everything? They might need to reduce packaging bulk? Or, gasp, walk somewhere or take a rail/bus with the poors instead of driving a hummer to the mall?

>>890956
>Or, gasp, walk somewhere or take a rail/bus with the poors instead of driving a hummer to the mall?
that is PRECISELY the kind of lifestyle change global warming demands, though.
that and cutting down on electricity. a lot

>>890962

Don't tell me, tell them. I already bike commute or use rail for longer missions. These same cunts who eat at starshit because MUH ETHICAL COMPANY who would never give up the giant SUV they drive around a city in, or the weekend shopping sprees, or the disposable goods, and how DARE you suggest they take public transport?!?!?!!? Or they stop eating enough to feed an entire ukrainian village. Or stop buying their spoiled brats 100 toys each for christmas and their birthday like they're dudley dursley. Or to repair something instead of throwing it away. Or how DARE you suggest they wear USED clothing or use USED furniture like they're some sort of POOR?

If they were just burning down their own homes I wouldn't care, but unfortunately my beautiful wilderness must suffer due to their selfish, lazy ways.

>>890926
>some nebulous organization has managed to bribe 97% of all scientists in the world
>ALL of them were so unconcerned with their integrity that they caved

>>890182
>If you think that warming isn't caused by humans, you have no alternative explanation backed up by evidence and theory.

Instead I have no significant correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature. Nor an explanation related to carbon emissions of the Medieval Warm Period, subsequent cooling, and the warming during the 30s (and subsequent cooling) while carbon emissions continued to rise exponentially. As carbon emissions continue to rise at an increasing rate, global temperature does not seem to be rising at any increasing rate. Over the last 20 years 1/3 of all carbon emissions since the discovery of oil have been released, yet the temperature doesn't increase faster with the rate of emissions. There seems to be a closer correlation with solar activity and global temperature, though.

Coming back to your initial statement about lack of explanation or evidence- neither do you.

>>890979
>Corrupted 100% of government 'scientists'

Geez buddy, if you haven't heard of the kikes is this your first time here?

>>890171
>1. No combination of natural forcings could be warming the climate over the past 100 years.
Maybe the giant fireball in the sky doesn't produce a constant supply of energy.
Maybe sometimes it varies up and down based on how many multi megaton explosions happen at its surface.
Maybe 0.02% of the atmosphere doesn't have as much of an effect as purported.
Maybe everything "preventing global warming" is purely political in nature and designed to give control over your life to governments.
Maybe if the people telling you these things believed in them, they wouldn't continue business as usual- oh wait.

File: Phanerozoic_Climate_Change_Rev.png (30KB, 600x448px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x448px

>>890718

Whether I'm a NEET or not is also immaterial. If you were right, you'd be able to tell me how and why.

So are you right? If so, how?

>>890746

That blurry ass graph is total nonsense and a frequently posted bullshit meme. People who do these very long temporal scale paleoclimate reconstructions agree that CO2 has a correlation and likely an important impact on global climate. The critical importance of CO2 as a driver of climate change is discussed in Lacis et al. 2010, and Lacis et al. 2013, cited above.

As for the long-term paleoclimate reconstruction, see Royer 2007 and Came et al. 2007:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/abs/nature05699.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/abs/nature06085.html

>Within the IPCC framework anything outside of man made emissions isn't important.

The IPCC only reports on science that has already been done. If it was possible to link solar output with modern climate change, it would have been done already. Many anons already presented evidence why that was not the case. Have some more:

Lockwood & Fröhlich 2007 - "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature"
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2086/2447

Benestad & Schmidt 2009 - "Solar trends and global warming"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011639/full

>>890926
>>890926

Funny story:

If you go to the University of South Wales in Australia, and you look at the professor's cars in the parking lot, Ian Plimer's is a lot fancier than the others. Professors don't actually get paid much, and all their grant money has to be accounted for. In other words, getting away with corruption would be rather difficult, unless of course all the administrators were in on the conspiracy. Also all the bribed profs would have to not buy any bigger house or a fancy car, they'd just have to hide it from everyone.

Going back to Ian Plimer, this guy is actually on the take, except the fossil fuel industries pay him to convince you guys that climate change is not happening. I wonder where he got all that money from?

What about Willie Soon? Like Plimer, he is a noted "real scientist" who denies climate change is happening or caused by human activity. According to the documents we can access, he has been paid more than $1m over ten years for his work by fossil fuel industries. That's a pretty big incentive, at least $100,000 on top of your normal salary!

It's actually surprising that we don't get a lot more scientists willing to become paid shills for the fossil fuel industry, instead of just a handful.

tl;dr you got the bribers and the shills wrong

>>891007

>Maybe the giant fireball in the sky doesn't produce a constant supply of energy.

It does. Of course, if it literally produces a constant supply of energy, that means the temperature doesn't go up or down over time--it stays the same. The Sun would have to be increasing its output for the temperature on Earth to also rise.

>Maybe 0.02% of the atmosphere doesn't have as much of an effect as purported.

This was already addressed at Lacis et al. 2010 and Lacis et al. 2013. There is no possible way for the Earth to be as warm as it is without greenhouse gases, and especially CO2. If you can account for the Earth's energy balance without greenhouse gases, I would love to see that model.

>Maybe everything "preventing global warming" is purely political in nature and designed to give control over your life to governments.

>Maybe if the people telling you these things believed in them, they wouldn't continue business as usual- oh wait.

Well that's the real challenge isn't it.

(I'd also like to point out that those two statements are mutually exclusive: the government is creating fake science to control our lives, yet governments enacted no policies and raised no taxes about the fake problem?)

Scientists don't get to tell society what they're supposed to do. We as a society learn facts about how the world works, and hopefully we create the policies we need to deal with problems that arise from inconvenient facts. Sometimes we refuse to listen, refuse to do real research, and engage in fanciful conspiracy theories. Consequently we fuck up, like the Soviets did by accidentally draining the Aral Sea. But then that's our fault, not the scientists'.

Tangentially related: ExxonMobil knew as early as 1977 that fossil fuel combustion was causing climate change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

>>890754

Why are all these graphs so blurry?

A primer on the past period in the Holocene when the Northern Hemisphere might have been as warm as today:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

Two XKCD comics also come to mind:

https://xkcd.com/1379/

https://xkcd.com/1732/

They're worth a look.

>>890758

Do you think that what happened 4 billion years ago, or what might happen 4 billion years from now, actually matters to us or our next few generations?

Looking at distant paleoclimates is pretty interesting though. Conditions during the Cretaceous Period were so hot, that modern mammals could not survive anywhere on Earth except perhaps the poles. Sea levels were 200m higher than they are today. Needless to say, a world that is 10 C warmer than ours is not a desirable one.

>>886143
I remember driving there in mario kart

>>891220
Contradicting Yourself mate. Funny To watch though.

File: 10422955_889392937759652_5808830718858459780_n.jpg (32KB, 960x640px)

32KB, 960x640px

>>886460
>an glacial

>>886143
that image reminds me of frappe snowland from mario kart 64