Three years left to avoid escalating climate change

Let me guess, we can only solve this global crisis with socialism and a one world government run by Jews.

I'd rather burn.

We already passed the point of no return when we wet over 350 ppm. It's over.

We're only three years away from environmentalists funded by NGOs to move the goalposts and say we're another 3 years away from the tipping point (but only if we act now and take in more refugees and also destroy all churches)

File: SettledScience.jpg (104KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 800x531px

January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund (in a NY Times interview) on mild winters in New York: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”

1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect will be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska will be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico.”

June 30, 1989, AP: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

>>131859703
read the article
this doesn't come from environmentalist NGOs, it's from some of the leading climate scientists in the world, published in the most prestigious scientific journal in the world

>>131859921
>leading (((climate))) scientists
Are you the german bro who call me "shit birth"? why are you huns so angry?

>>131859425
It really is the only way. All that CO2 pumped out by international freighters delivering rubber dog shit? They must continue to operate. Just give us full control.

File: 1447536941187.jpg (7KB, 227x209px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 227x209px

>he thinks anthropogenic climate change is real

>>131858649
>If on the US would send a bunch of money to Africa we could have our eden back
I'll take my chances...

>>131859921
>it's from some of the leading climate scientists in the world, published in the most prestigious scientific journal in the world
Implying the field hasn't been polluted by politics and (((funded))) with intention to lean towards an agenda. Authority is not reliable anymore.

File: CO2-vs-Temp.png (221KB, 1154x867px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1154x867px

>>131858649
>>131859506
>yfw you realize that CO2 and temperature have no correlation and haven't for decades
>and the entire AGW idea is based on a period when CO2 and temperature were rising together, apparently coincidentally, between 1970 and 1995

This is why statisticians will tell you that correlation does not equal causation.

>how to more refugee?
>apply sanctions on 3rd world
>climate refugees
>win

>>131858649
why can't we just blot out the sun with sulfates again?

>>131858649
THC levels are up bois, good times ahead

I hope everyone remembers
Options - sage

3 words: Atmospheric aerosol injections

File: sato2016.png (124KB, 980x669px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 980x669px

>>131860205
no one who has bothered to look up anything on the climate expects CO2 and the temperature to perfectly mirror each other, because
a) climate has both interannual and decadal variability
b) CO2 is not the only factor influencing the climate. Besides GHGs, there is also a substantial cooling effect from aerosols, which is very uncertain and may mask as much as 50% of the warming by GHGs.

People who think they can refute 100 years of climatology by looking at two curves over 15 years are just making a fool of themselves.

>>131860363
>>131860526

several reasons why this is a bad idea:
a) it can't be a permanent solution because the lifetime of aerosols in the stratosphere is a few months to a year. So we would have to keep doing this forever, because as soon as the aerosols fall out by dry deposition, the warming will come back full force.
b) there is a threat that an intentionally increased aerosol load will change weather patterns even more dramatically and cause an increase in extreme rainfall events (because aerosols act as water vapor condensation points). This has actually already been observed in parts of China that are heavily polluted.
c) it can't solve Ocean acidification, which is easily as dangerous as climate change

>>131860205
C02 levels raise the global temperature to be greater than they normally would be at each point, just like other factors can lower it. If you understand how greenhouse gases work you wouldn't need statistics to prove this to you.

>>131860916
we'd only need to do it for three years
then it'll be 2020, we'll sneak in under the escalation point and avoid all the feedbacks

File: IMG_2893.gif (551KB, 245x220px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 245x220px

>>131859909
>Someone said X in 1992
>CLIMATE CHANGE ISNT FUCKING REAL
>YOURE AN ALARMIST BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE SAID SOMETHING RETARDED

You can do better

File: Mr-Freeze.jpg (67KB, 571x800px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 571x800px

>>131858649
I thought it was two years left five years ago.

>>131861455
>obama
>no argument
you can do better

>>131858649
We reached "the tipping point" of CO2 last year, fucktard. The Paris agreement wasn't going to stop or remove any of it. Just stop

File: OhDear.jpg (158KB, 931x760px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 931x760px

>>131861455
>B-b-but the world really is gonna end THIS time guise!!!111!!1!!
>Drink the Kool-Aid and get on the flying saucer if you wanna live!
>I'm extra super cereal!

Nah. We should be going into a new ice age any day now. The experts done said so.

>“Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."

>“Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

>April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

>1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,”: “This cooling has ALREADY KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”

>June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”

>>131861587
that's how you know how serious this list is:

Not only is Lubos Motl (the second item on the list) a climate denier, he furthermore wasn't even alive in 1969.

>>131858649
the world was supposed to end from climate scam 30 years ago or someshit. fuck off. worse than those christian fags and mayian calender.

>>131861957
fact is we don't know.
>do you want your land flooded with shitskins fleeing 140 degree summers
>do you want the oil companies to keep rich

>>131859909
>>131861957

this is always what it comes down to.
you know you don't have a leg to stand on in the actual referee journal literature, so you do what any tenth-rate conspiracy theorist does: you change the subject.

And the tactic is a very good one because you win, even when you lose. Suppose we were to refute every single one of those quotes, you've still won because the subject has been changed. The subject is no longer the real topic, namely the crucial facts climatologists have been able to uncover and document about the Earth system, now we talk about whether some people said some wrong things three decades ago.

>>131858649
Yeah I heard this six years ago. This was going to happen any way, humans are just speeding it up.

File: 1970s_papers.gif (14KB, 500x285px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x285px

>>131861957
The vast majority of papers back then predicted warming. The ones that predicted cooling were modeled around the increase in aerosol emissions (which would have cooled us).

Don't blame the scientists just because you're too stupid to read past the headlines.

>>131861428
kek

File: 1486825713468.jpg (192KB, 786x566px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 786x566px

>>131858649
you are fake news

File: CryWolf.jpg (100KB, 600x394px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 600x394px

>>131862488
>now we talk about whether some people said some wrong things three decades ago.

The simple fact is, doomsday cults have existed as long as language. They're are a relic of evolution. We live in an uncontrollable world, yet desperately feel a need to control it and everything else; so, we assign human culpability to natural processes in order to have an enemy we feel capable of fighting. No different really than ancient peoples who invented gods to explain things like thunder and rain that they could then blame or praise for the condition of their crops.

Climate Change prophets have been predicting an apocalypse for at least the past 50 years; first it was Global Cooling—we were supposed to be entering a new ice age 20 years ago, caused by particles from industrial processes blocking out sunlight. Then it was Global Warming—the ice caps and Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2012, and there would be no more snowfall.
Now It’s Climate Change™, a wonderfully vague term that covers anything that could possibly happen.

There is always talk of believers and deniers; the choice of words betrays Climate Change™ for the religion it is.

Climate Change hasn’t been around as long as Christianity, but it’s had as many failed prophecies. Somehow, we've been a few years away from the end of the world my entire life, and yet nothing has happened.
Of course, there's always some true believer squawking about how the prophecies are finally coming true because it's cold in December or hot in June.
It's all very silly.

Science is a process, not a belief.
Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something.

>>131858649
get off the snaps Hans

>>131863697
All I found in your post is a lot of babble about religion and inconsequential arguments from semantics (that aren't even true when you get down to it), which gets the same response I already gave you.

File: Tglobal_verification_Hansen81.png (883KB, 1388x881px) Image search: [Google]

883KB, 1388x881px

>>131863697
> caused by particles from industrial processes blocking out sunlight

These are called sulfate aerosols and guess what? WE REDUCED THE EMISSIONS.

>the ice caps and Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2012, and there would be no more snowfall.

What paper predicted this?

pic related: was published in 1981 and was one of the first projections made. Pink line represents observations.

File: 19812.png (143KB, 338x387px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 338x387px

>>131863697
>>131864238

Here's another view. Made in 9000 hours mspaint etc.

>>131860636
>there is also a substantial cooling effect from aerosols, which is very uncertain and may mask as much as 50% of the warming by GHGs.

This is an important fact that many people don't realize. Furthermore, as China modernizes it's going to enact many regulations to reduce it's air pollution problem which will exacerbate warming.

File: 1486479902032.jpg (799KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1080x1080px

>>131858649
>200 years of industrial revolution. temperature drops.
>Trump wins election, suddenly runaway fire across the entire earth that will kill us all.

File: 2000.png (233KB, 1133x945px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1133x945px

>>131863697
Here are some model projections published ~2000 by the IPCC

File: fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017-panela-1.png (1MB, 2633x1350px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2633x1350px

>>131863697
And now the latest models from 2005.

Maybe yall should stop genoengineering the warming for a start.
Make no mistake,the climate change is engineered,not natural in any way.

File: climatecuck.png (960KB, 2633x1350px) Image search: [Google]

960KB, 2633x1350px

>>131864500
mine says otherwise

File: 11000years.png (189KB, 614x340px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 614x340px

>>131864231
My posts aren't for you, Mr. Gruber.
I've lived long enough to know you can't argue someone out of belief in their religion.

But other anons reading might not be fully indoctrinated yet and look at the constant stream of catastrophic prophecies with a critical eye.

Changes in the climate are governed by hundreds of variables, and the belief that we can control these changes predictably by taxing and manipulating the margins of one politically selected factor (CO2) is bullshit.

Of course the climate is changing—sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. It's quite a bit more complicated than Climate Change™ missionaries care to let on (or often understand).
Many people are too blinded by their faith to ask or consider difficult questions.

Hasn't the climate always changed? Are we capable of stopping the climate from changing? What are the negative consequences for attempting to stop it? Is it economically viable to do so? Is it necessarily a bad thing that the climate is changing? To what degree are humans really responsible for current trends; for example, there were no SUVs during the Younger Dryas or the Older Peron transgression, so were those caused by campfires and caveman farts?

For anyone interested in current scientific knowledge about drastic changes in the climate during the Pleistocene, go read about the following:
Bolling oscillation interstadial
Older Dryas stadial
Allerod oscillation
Younger Dryas
8.2 kiloyear event
Holocene climatic optimum
Older Peron transgression
Piora Oscillation
5.9 kiloyear event
4.2 kiloyear event
Roman warm period
Medieval warm period
Little Ice Age

>>131861455
But I thought the polar bears were going to be extinct by 2015

>>131864892
Its like economics. I'm starting to think politics are a fucking waste of time.

>>131861455
But they told me we were going to live in boats by 2010

>>131858649
politicized (((science)))

>>131858649
What does RCP stand for in that graph? Are they models?

And what's the deal with this >>131861957 pic related?

>>131859909
>Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

remind me, again, why this would be bad

>>131864500
>>131864426
>>131864313
>>131864238
that may all be true but I'm always desperate to point out that climate models aren't used and have never meant to be tools to predict the future like a weather forecast.
The output is a general evolution of the average climate state in response to a set of given boundary conditions. And the accuracy of this model is solely dependent on the accuracy of the boundary conditions and the parametrizations.

Something I find extremely creepy about climate models is the following: models (both those of high and intermediate complexity) are known to 'crash' at certain positive and negative forcings of around 20 W/m2. The negative downturn probably represents the runaway albedo of the snowball earth instability, while the positive upturn is either a value going beyond its parameter validity or the terminal state of a runaway greenhouse effect.

>>131864892
>Pleistocene
Meant Holocene, damnit.

>>131864892
let me ask you this:
do you think climatologists know about all these events and intervals you listed?

>To what degree are humans really responsible for current trends; for example, there were no SUVs during the Younger Dryas or the Older Peron transgression, so were those caused by campfires and caveman farts?

this is almost too stupid to respond.
Have you ever tried to find out what climatologists say about this?

>>131865171
RCP stands for Represenative Concentration Pathway. Those are different scenarios for human CO2 emissions. The red one for example is the "business as usual" scenario, in which humans undertake no effort to curb their emissions. (The numbers show the resulting forcing by 2100 in W/m2)

>>131865599
Can you tell me why every shill shills the CO2?
You know,the stuff that every plant eats.

>>131865731
because CO2 is the principal control knob of Earth's climate and the main driver of temperature during Earth history besides solar luminosity

File: climate models vs observation.png (111KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1440x1080px

>>131858649
>the globe will overshoot the Paris target of 2°C.
Sure thing kiddo.

File: Beautiful-girls-laughing.jpg (59KB, 550x340px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 550x340px

>>131865845
>he doesn't know CO2 is a weak trace GHG

DAILY REMINDER

* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.

* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor and that more water vapor will lead to a lot of warming.

* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.

* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 17 years. They are all trending too high.

* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.

* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.

* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.

* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."

File: Hypocrites.png (126KB, 750x1217px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 750x1217px

>>131865453
>this is almost too stupid to respond.

I feel the same way when talking to Climate Catastrophists.

When any of those climatologists or extremely concerned politicians decide to lead by example, I might give a shit about what they have to say.

>>131865845
Is it really?I had the idea there is more water vapor in the atmoshpere doing more heat catching that CO2 could ever contribute to the greenhouse effect.You know,the blue sky is blue because the water in there,not the CO2.
I laugh at everyone who tries to convince anyone that CO2 is BAAD EVERYONE IS GOING OT DIE,because thats a retard parroting what they read on facebook.
Talk about methane and other stuff like cloride and bromine that destroys the ozone and hinders the plants ability to eat up the CO2.
Or,you know,the CO without the 2,that really causes cancer in citys.
But noo,CO2 is the black sheep for the idiots because its easy to repeat and only complete retards buy it.

File: Climate_Sensitivity_Summary.gif (21KB, 275x744px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 275x744px

>>131866003
I already responded to this 5 times
Rejecting the water vapor feedback or, even worse, thinking that it is negative is insane and goes against basic physics as well as observation.
A doubling of CO2 concentrations would result in a warming of around 3°C (probably a tiny bit more)

>>131860636
So in effect it's a very bad science. Good thing we agree.

File: 568933.png (18KB, 657x262px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 657x262px

>>131866128
It's true that water vapor is a more powerful IR absorber than any other greenhouse gases, but there is something else that sets H2O apart: it condenses. Its residence time in the atmosphere is extremely short and the concentration is limited by the temperature . The necessary consequence of this is that water vapor can't lead temperature change as a prime driver, rather, it amplifies it as a positive feedback.

That's not the case with the other well-mixed Greenhouse gases and of those, CO2 is the biggest forcing because it has by far the largest concentration. That's why historically, CO2 was the main atmospheric constituent modulating temperature, not H2O

File: 1498464523831.png (57KB, 777x304px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 777x304px

>>131864892
Your figure is misleading and doesn't show the abrupt uptick at the end. Not only that, but it's only talking about the Northern Hemisphere.

>Hasn't the climate always changed?
Yes. But current rate of warming is unnatural.

>Are we capable of stopping the climate from changing?

We are capable of slowing down the rate of warming.

>What are the negative consequences for attempting to stop it?

Greener technology and more jobs.

>Is it necessarily a bad thing that the climate is changing?

No. But the current rate of warming is bad.

>To what degree are humans really responsible for current trends

Almost entirely responsible. Solar activity hasn't gone up (going down now, actually). Oceans aren't responsible because they cool when the heat transfers to the atmosphere (oceans are warming). Milankovitch cycles aren't responsible. The only thing that continues to significantly change is the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. I mean honestly, what natural phenomenon do you think is causing warming today?

Maybe you should read up more on all the things you've listed.

>>131865215
Yeah, but I think it's important to kill this meme that climate models are consistently wrong and promote alarmism.

>>131865847
see
>>131864500
>>131864426
>>131864313
>>131864238

>>131858649
Just make a solar powered carbon filter. Problem solved. Oh wait, those are trees right? Plant more trees, perhaps of the marihuana variety.

Have you cookers ever considered that an ice free Arctic in summer is a good thing?

>>131866905
Maybe then all those research ships looking for a lack of ice will stop getting stuck in the ice.

File: Fear.jpg (42KB, 462x350px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 462x350px

>>131866482
>Your figure is misleading and doesn't show the abrupt uptick at the end.

The "abrupt uptick" is a prediction.
See the graph in the OP for a fine example of this.

>I think it's important to kill this meme that climate models are consistently wrong and promote alarmism

THREE YEARS LEFT TO AVOID ESCALATING CLIMATE CHANGE is the fucking title of this thread. Sounds like more alarmism to me.

Fables like Chicken Little and The Boy Who Cried Wolf need to be taught in schools again.

File: 1498596775575.jpg (88KB, 575x687px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 575x687px

>>131864500
None of your models include external factors besides solar radiation. Put in cloud cover from cosmic rays, and the model doesn't work. This is just one external factor. Cosmic rays make clouds. More clouds equal less radiation warming the earth's oceans. The opposite is true obviously. When the sun has a strong magnetic field the cosmic rays are blocked from Earth, resulting in less cloud cover and a warmer planet. Quit Being So Small Dumb Thinking CO2 Is The Only Thing That Is Contributing To Climate Chang. Other planets are going through climate change as well, many much worse than on earth. It's not because I drive a car to work instead of sitting on a bus with a bunch of minorities and pot smokers.

File: 1490707338519.jpg (35KB, 460x396px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 460x396px

>>131861957
yup, remember watching in the early 2000, a few documentaries on discovery channel that by the year 2005, USA will be under ice and snow, niggers don't know shit, they just want to tax the shit out of a poor man and keep him poor, fucking jews, Hitler did nothing wrong

>>131867162
that's not "prediction", it's observation.
See this graph >>131860636 which uses the same 1880-1920 baseline and thus has the same temperature anomaly of a bit more than 1°C

>>131858649
OH NOES

File: 1490141042491.jpg (209KB, 640x384px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 640x384px

>>131858649
see pic
/thread

>>131867162
Figure in OP includes projections, mine doesn't. Look at both carefully.

>THREE YEARS LEFT TO AVOID ESCALATING CLIMATE CHANGE is the fucking title of this thread. Sounds like more alarmism to me.

That has nothing to do with the predictive power of climate models.

>>131867175
>None of your models include external factors besides solar radiation
That's horseshit.

>cosmis rays
>magnetic fields

The trends for these don't support your argument

File: Marcott.png (55KB, 909x705px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 909x705px

>>131867682
If people would just for once look at the actual literature instead of internet blogs, they might even learn a thing or two.
This is what an actual global reconstruction of the Holocene with the actual global instrumental temperature record looks like

File: Warmings.jpg (101KB, 550x327px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 550x327px

>>131867453
>the same temperature anomaly of a bit more than 1°C

Are you seriously trying to claim that's an unprecedented rise in temperature? Add that 1 degree rise to the tail of a long term chart and it's not nearly as drastic as you're pretending.

>>131866478
Sure thing,Hans.Individual atoms spend short time in the atmoshpere.
Your logic fails you when you think there is no supply of it and the overall ratio stays the same regardless how much time individual atoms spend in the atmoshpere.
You have no fucking clue what you talk about.
CO2 is an indicator of the vegetation of a planet.Earth barely reaches now 400ppm overall.
Did you know that under 200ppm most of the plants you see today will die?
Did you know that the scary-scary black sheep of yours has records with 7 000 - seven thousand - ppm in the atmosphere?
You fuckers are retarded to eat up the CO2,and not question why they want to task you breathing,and no steps are prepared to do something about the cattle industry and the fucking geo-engineering warfare.
Staggering logic you have there.

File: arctic ice.jpg (17KB, 427x237px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 427x237px

>>131858649
And in 5 years time when the CO2 level is even higher and the temperature is the same?

Also are you guy that bet if their would be any ice in the arctic in 2040?
I made a calendar notification.

>>131867960
nice selfown. Where did the rise 10.000 years ago come from? CO2?
Even with this "actual literature" your point is falsified by yourself.

>>131868093
keep me updated on this

>>131868011
That doesn't actually end at 2000. When climatologists tried to reconstruct easterbrooks figure they found that the data ended at 1855. but instead of labeling the end date as 1855, he wrote modern era or 2000. Totally fake.

>>131866482
>I think it's important to kill this meme that climate models are consistently wrong and promote alarmism
so which of the AR4 IPCC models were correct?

what is your opinion of "the hiatus"? which models predicted it?

>>131868011
So what's your argument now?
First you claimed that the uptick at the end is just prediction - now you accept it as real but think it's insignificant. I guess if we wait 5 minutes more, we will get a new position again.

I can't think of any reason other than obfuscation why you would insist on using data from a single location, when there are global(!) reconstructions available that have been posted multiple times.

Furthermore, the warming in the extreme northern latitudes is significantly stronger than over the rest of the globe because of a phenomenon called "Polar Amplification", so you would have to add 2 to 3°C to that, not 1°C.

File: Oops.png (77KB, 603x510px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 603x510px

>>131868703
>That doesn't actually end at 2000.
No shit, Sherlock?
Maybe that's why I said
>Add that 1 degree rise to the tail of a long term chart

>>131864238
wow, i guess we should increase them then to stop global warming ?
you actually solved golbal warming mate here take a nobel prize

>>131869146
>doesnt answer me because I btfo him

>>131867873
>That has nothing to do with the predictive power of climate models.

When over 99% of models fail in their predictions within 5-10 years, it's safe to assume that the 1% which got it right were just lucky, and not any better at actually modelling the climate.

Ask any engineer who works with fluid systems If we can adequately model the global climate system. Listen to him laugh.

File: climate models vs real world, warming predictions.jpg (68KB, 555x456px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 555x456px

>>131859425
This.

File: 1498289659792.png (669KB, 680x926px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 680x926px

>>131858649
Friendly reminder, kraut.

>>131868244
I pose the same question to you that I already posed to another person:
Instead of asking smug questions in the confident expectation that there couldn't possibly be an answer to them, why don't you just look up what paleoclimatologists are saying about this?

I could explain it to you but there is an extensive documentary record of the mechanisms that lead to deglaciation in the past, that is easily available to anyone with a pulse, a keyboard and an internet connection.

File: Presstitutes.jpg (22KB, 462x350px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 462x350px

>>131869146
>First you claimed that the uptick at the end is just prediction

The massive 6.5 degree uptick in the graph in your OP that I specifically referred to earlier is a prediction.
Unless you're now trying to claim that you've directly observed temperature data 483 years into the future.

Playing stupid is for the kikes, Hans.

>>131864313
But it's wrong.
>b-b- the temperature anomaly is even higher than predicted

It's still wrong, demonstrating that it isn't adequately modelling the processes governing global climate.

>>131869379
I know the feeling.But its entertaining watching him sweat blood

File: climate ice ages 415k year temp graph.jpg (63KB, 720x468px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 720x468px

Perspective. The Earth is on the cusp of entering an ice age. If anything, we're prolonging global survival with a warmer Earth in total.

>>131858649
Man made climate change is as much as a meme as overpopulation.
>stop factories so we do not kill the Earth!
>chinks run a factory-country polluting everything
>stop having kids so there is enough resources
>nigger pop explosion

Fucking idiots the lot of you.

>>131869787

I've never seen this graph posted with sources cited.

>>131868083
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The point was that because of physical behavior of water molecules in the atmosphere (the residence time and the dependence on temperature) means that any access is precipitated out of the atmosphere before it can cause any warming on its own.

>>131858649
Wasn't it 3 years left 20 years ago? Fuck your ever shifting goalposts.

>>131869997
You dont understand one bit what you parrot,mate.
I told you facts,you keep parroting like the good brainwashed zombie you are.
Go on,entertain me.Everyone gives you (you)-s because its funny to watch how you sweat blood.

File: IMG_5269.jpg (50KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 700x400px

>>131858649
Someone better tell scientists that 3 years of China and India polluting the planet is what's causing this, not the rest of the world.

lol "tipping point"

>>131859425

GEOENGINEERING

CONTRAILS

>>131869577
do you not think this >>131866482 qualifies as "abrupt"?
in the matter of a few decades, the entire planet was beyond the entire range of Holocene climate variability

File: 12345.jpg (159KB, 613x591px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 613x591px

>>131870183
It's both interesting and terryfing how he's incapable of drawing conclusions of his own anymore, isn't it? Germany is truly fucked.

>>131870183
you can call me parrot or zombie all you want, but what's your response to what I wrote? I gave you the condensed explanation why CO2 and not H2O is the important driver of climate on Earth and all I got back from you was word salad about how every plant will die if CO2 is below 200ppm (hint: at the LGM, CO2 was at 180ppm and I'll let you guess if every plant died back then)

>>131861455

THIS.

>>131870553
>swallowing internet memes without checking is 'drawing your own conclusions'
anything will do as long as you can pat yourself on the back for being a freethinker

File: bait.jpg (34KB, 474x270px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 474x270px

>>131870438
>do you not think this >>131866482 qualifies as "abrupt"?
>10000 hours in MS paint

A graph with no references, that has an obviously scribbled in red line at the end that doesn't show any of the other drastic temperature changes of the past 11,000 years?

Nah.

>>131861957

YOUR RETARD GRAPH ARGUMENT:

you can't take the estimation of past temp from one location, because LOCAL climate can switch from one mode to another. Especially when glaciers change the salinity of local seas.

What matters is global temp average.

obligatory video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

must be a sad existence to believe in doomsday cult

File: climate ice ages noaa warming 400000years.jpg (120KB, 760x296px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 760x296px

>>131869913

>>131870936
What matters is my dick in your ass
>>131858649
Good

>>131870934
I can give you the source if you want

and I already gave you the reason that this graph doesn't have enormous temperature swings like the graphics you posted: because it's a GLOBAL reconstruction, while your graphics all come from a single location, which means that it has hemispheric and localized effects dispersed within it.

That's why actual experts try to use data from several locations, to smooth out stochastic local variability. In fact, there was a major reconstruction by over 80 expert authors of the global temperature over the last 2000 years and one of their conclusions was:

>There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age [...].

which means that those swings (which you mentioned earlier) were mostly phenomena of the Northern Hemisphere. That's why you need to look at global temperature trends.

File: CveDAw8WEAAGYb2.png (353KB, 686x943px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 686x943px

>>131871434

File: 1498813230486.png (56KB, 300x753px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 300x753px

>>131871457
>I can give you the source if you want
>babbles on without the source

Show me the real graph, while you're at it.

File: GRIPtempBoxlarge.png (52KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x668px

>>131870904
What "memes" am I swallowing? These? You're delusional if you think global warming is nothing else but a hoax; useful idiot.

>>131871819
>im 12 and whats a logarithmic graph and resolution
>surely data averaged out over centuries/millenia has as many peaks as real time data

>>131872124
The red line is obviously scribbled in over the blue line, Haruto.

>>131871819
the graphic itself comes from Hansen et al. (2017) and it consists of a global reconstruction by Marcott et al. (2013) and the instrumental GISTEMP data set with a 1880-1920 baseline

>>131869567
still: you won't explain the other rises in temperature in the past because you cant. So you cannot prove the global warming angle.

Sad man

>>131858649
Whites are going extinct anyway. I say we take this fucking planet down with us.

>>131869567
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHJE0cpzwGo

also english subs. The whole video is interesting but topic related starts around 5 mins.

Frauke Petry have a degree in Chemistry btw, so she knows what she is saying.

Tell me what you have to say about this?

You have indications, I will accept it that far. I accept that it COULD be our fault. But we are FAR away from proof and you cannot prove it.

>>131872338
I can give you the condensed explanation:

an orbital forcing (~0.7 W/m2) of the NH summer insolation induced a small initial warming, which triggered the response of various feedbacks, mainly the ice-albedo feedback (~3.5 W/m2) and the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the ocean and terrestrial soils (~3 W/m2).

That's the basic mechanism.

>>131872578
can you give me the main point in a sentence or two?

>>131872320
Whoosh.

What's your basis for the assumption that such peaks over stupidly short time scales are remotely unusual?

>>131872329
>Abstract
>Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100

>projections

So, it's not a projection?

>>131872629
tl;dr
Co2 isn't responsible for the global warming
she explains it pretty well. She has a degree in Chemistry. She knows more than you.

>research suggests temperature rising ahead of CO2 levels
>let's ignore that and even alter the graphs to imply correlation

>>131872762
come on now, you can't be serious. I've provided you the sources you asked for and all you got now is that the word 'projection' is used in the abstract?

But if you insist on me answering every stupid question: No it's not a projection. Blue is a reconstruction and red is observation.

>>131869809
I still don't see how even a 10C increase is the end of the planet.

>>131873113
It hast to do with the streams in the oceans. I have no time right now, but it would probably lead to a literal ice age.

>>131858649
We cant avoid it. An ice age is coming and we cannot stop it. Instead of dithering about redistributing wealth, we should begin trying to figure out how to keep a high standard of living while dealing with thousands of years of glaciers grinding the land up again and mass extinctions that will make anything man did look like child's play.

>>131872809
you got it wrong
the tldr is that CO2 is highly important, even during the times at which it wasn't a prime driver, since it's a necessary condition for the glacial cycle. You can't explain it without taking CO2 into account.

>>131872817
the temperature-CO2 lag is only observed for the austral glacial cycle and it is perfectly consistent with the explanation

>>131873063
>red is observation

Stop playing dumb. Red is the projection.
I posted the entire abstract.

>>131871434
Stop flirting.

>>131858649
If you believe the situation is so dire, why do you continue to pollute?

>>131860636
>People who think they can refute 100 years of climatology by looking at two curves over 15 years are making fools of themselves.
Exactly, this is why man made climate change is bullshit because that is exactly what (((climate scientists))) do

>>131873239
Rising temps will force South and North America apart? Very interesting.

File: 1468137427640.jpg (12KB, 255x195px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 255x195px

>>131859425
You mean like we solved the ozone depletion problem with a Jewish world government?

>>131873279
it is a hypothesis. Nothing more. You cant deliver proof. I am out <3

>>131873348
you cannot be that dense
just read the Hansen paper for heaven's sake
there is explicitly says

> centennially smoothed
Holocene (Marcott et al., 2013) temperature and the 11-year mean of modern data (Fig. 2), as anomalies relative to 1880-1920.

>>131860119
We will send niggers instead, ok? We have too many, you can have them back.

>>131873727
I guess it's just a giant coincidence that the climate record happens to be perfectly consistent with this explanation

>>131859909
>we'll be in an ice age
Stopped reading there. There never was anything near of a consensus about global cooling. The mainstream prediction has always been global warming. Stop spreading propaganda lies.

>>131858649
they said this nonsense 3 years ago

and 3 years before that

and yet nothing has happened

>>131873657
A slight tweak in ozone depleting substances and halting the main industrial energy source is not the same equation.

>>131873913
>There never was anything near of a consensus about global cooling

Consensus is the business of politics, not science.

>>131869452
This. If we could model fluid systems it would progress research and work astronomically. Then you have these cuck (((climate scientists))) who think they can model the most complex fucking fluid system humanity has ever known. Let me know when you get it right, I sure would love to know the tricks so I can use it in my work

>>131858649
not real

ok so we can wait until after the 2020 elections?

>>131858649
Paris target is pipe dream. It is just socialist fuckups engaged in greenwash and money grab.

>turns out global warming is real
>africa and middle east refugees flood the US and Europe
>Japan is the only remaining "western" nation

Can't wait for this lads.

>>131860205
Just fuck off.

>>131874794
We could always, I don't know, not forcibly ship them in.

Just one weird thought I had.

>>131874440
>Consensus is the business of politics, not science.
Science is not done by some magical truth finding device. It is done by people who find a consensus on what is the most likely scenario. Unless you are a delusional conspiracy theorist, the consensus of the scientific community ist the best you have.

>>131873927
>halting the main industrial energy source
straw man

>>131874440
so do you have a response to me? Neither the graphic from Hansen, nor the original reconstruction from Marcott contain any projections

>>131874921
Hans, you must gas them. Hitler is the best we can do.

All of them. They must die.

neutron bomb china and india

>>131875039
Relax, EU is set to let in 100M of niggers in next 10 years. They are lost their mind. Any talk about CO and climate change is worth nothing if lunatics still want to give more room for overpopulating niggers. Overpopulation is currently the main player in ecological changes.

File: 9C3A1030-sml.jpg (256KB, 1152x768px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1152x768px

as often this is alarmist exaggeration, but we really have to reduce pollution

>>131875358
If only we had more niggers global warming would grind to a halt.

>>131875442
Nope. Niggers do eat.

Dear Leftcucks

Let me be clear. I don't give a fuck what happens to this planet as long as you will promote the extinction of the white race.

If we are gone, then what is the point of preserving it? If we are gone, because of you, why should we work with you to make the planet a better place... for others?

You are destroying the Western world with multiculturalism, you are doing irreparable damage to our society, why should we care about what you care?

I make my moral duty to pollute as much as possible, because I think Europe is doomed and as a fuck you to you, if we go down, we'll drag you down with us.

>>131875000
Whaaa? The anti fossil fuel paradigm is exactly that.

>>131875816
Show where any serious plan tries to "halt" fossil fuel usage in the near future. It's about gradually replacing it to limit the release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere.

>>131877140
Meanwhile we could be limiting the release of Chinese, poos, niggers, jews, etc. But no it's all whitey's fault.

>>131871932
>posting local temperature graph to make a point about global warming
Are you really this stupid or are you just bad at lying?

File: correlation causation fresh lemons.gif (23KB, 500x325px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x325px

>>131873905
Lemons being linked to highway fatalities must just be a giant coincidence too.

>>131877647
is there a physical relationship between lemons and highway fatalities that can be observed in a laboratory and be explained by known physical principles?

>>131877801
Give me a couple billion dollars in funding and I guarantee you a full report finding one.

>>131858649
let me kill a ton of third world people or go to hell with your pointless proposals

>>131877887
did John Tyndall, Jean-Baptiste Fourier or Svante Arrhenius have 'a couple billion dollars' of funding?

>>131877896
I don't think I made a single proposal in this entire thread

>>131863697
You are seriously mentally ill seek help

File: JFMSU2.jpg (16KB, 230x260px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 230x260px

>on one hand, my country might change and face serious hardships making my life worse
>on the other hand, billions of niggers will die

fug

>>131877647
>muh correlation is not causation
Get an education. It is understood how carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming. We are not looking for a theory to explain the data. The data on global warming is a confirmation of the theory.

>>131877140
>gradually replacing
The time frame is completely unimportant. The important part is the market. Where is the most profit.

>>131878210
R A R E
A
R
E

File: elmo finders cult.png (210KB, 900x530px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 900x530px

>>131877992
Billions? No. They had white privilege. Why haven't you cited discoveries by non-whites? Are you racist?

Nothing about each scientist's individual pursuits invalidates skepticism of the current prediction models. It doesn't invalidate opposition to proposed "solutions" by globalists trying to force countries like the US into a one world government.

>>131879085
so in conclusion, the greenhouse effect of CO2 (as well as other gases) was proposed, observed and calculated completely without any globalist billions.
So where does this leave your conspiracy that it was all made up for grant money?

Solar activity, orbital eccentricity, magnetic field anomalies, cloud formation, albedo effect, aerosol concentration, volcanic activity, marine currents, etc., etc. But it is only to reduce the amount of a gas that makes up less than 0.1% of the atmosphere that we solve the problem. Okay.

>>131878771
What is your point? "Most profit" in the short term can come with even more costs in the long term. Aside from that, as opposed to people, the market doesn't care about environmental protection.

File: 1450563167984.jpg (208KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1500x1000px

>Muh future generations will be effected by climate chnage

Yeah but I'll be dead so fuck them

>>131858649
I bet in 3 years, we will have 3 more years to avoid escalating climate change.

File: bill the shill nye.jpg (82KB, 943x861px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 943x861px

>>131879265
I repeat. You cited white scientists. Why? Are you racist? Check your privilege.

You're having a misdirected argument. I never said CO2 doesn't contribute to warming. It does. And man contributes to CO2. My total skepticism is directed at alarmists and their alarmist climate models we've been seeing since the 70s. Their heavily funded research is paired with ridiculous legal schemes to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars (yearly eventually) to polluters, raping tax payers, and cucking white western nations. That speaks volumes to anyone who isn't naive. Solar and wind are inevitable without government intervention. The technology is maturing and economical. It also has a lot of voluntary support. Preventing globalist tyranny is priority one while we're already headed in a solar-utilizing economy.

>3 years
>lines up with Donald Trumps relection campaign
>Vote against Trump, or the world will die!

File: Laschamp-event-Climate.png (288KB, 631x481px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 631x481px

>>131879901
>solar activity
changes are very minor and can - at best - explain 30% of observed warming
>orbital eccentricity
operates on much larger timescales, can't produce warming of 1°C in a century. Is also the weakest orbital modulation
>magnetic field anomalities
has no proven effect on temperature (see pic related)
>cloud formation
no evidence for that
>albedo effect
is a feedback, not a driver
>aerosol concentration
has increased, so we would see a cooling, not a warming
>volcanic activity
no evidence for increase, exhalation is dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions
>marine currents
a mechanism for heat re-distribution across the planet, can't produce globally averaged long-term warming trends or TOA energy imbalance

The reason why climatologists regard CO2 as a prime driver of climate right is not because they're guessing, it's because it fits both in timing and is consistent with the spatial characteristics of the observed warming

>>131879265
the budget for climate change related research in the EU for the period of 2014-2020 is 14 billion euro

in 2014-2015 1,7 billion euro was spent

>>131862488
>you know you don't have a leg to stand on in the actual referee journal literature

When Climatologists start setting themselves on fire, en masse, then maybe I'll think about it.

File: CNN-Fake-News-Climate-Deal-Apocalypse.jpg (79KB, 628x381px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 628x381px

>>131880502
If the most trusted name in (((news))) says the world is about to end if globalists don't get their prize, could there be any doubt?

>>131866866
Apart from Scandinavia forest coverage is shrinking everywhere.

>>131879265
>>131880625

and also this
the EU has agreed that at least 20% of its budget for 2014-2020 – as much as €180 billion − should be spent on climate change-related action.

>>131858649
We are living at the end of the world German and our leaders don't care. This is all literally part of the plan I'm afraid. Create a class that is perpetually impoverished from continent to continent and fuck up the food supply.

there are greater things in the world to fear. besides it looks like beach front right at my house.

>>131880542
Why have computer models been consistently wrong about where we should be in regards to temperature

protip: we will overshoot the 2 degree target

>>131858649
I remember that warning fucking 15 years ago when Al Gore was spouting it.

>>131880625
>>131880802
irrelevant to my point - the poster was implying that scientists made up a CO2-temperature connection to get billions of dollars in grants. I pointed out that the physical science basis dates back into the 19th century when scientists got no funding, period. IIRK Svante Arrhenius said in the very paper quantifying the relationship between CO2 concentration and surface temperature, that he had to work with imprecise data because the wealth he had at his disposal at that time wouldn't allow for higher quality instruments.

This "scientists are just in it for the money" falls apart as soon as you take a closer look at it. For one, the billions you mention don't go straight into the pockets of climate scientists. Anyone who ever had to apply for a grant would know this. Everything has to meticulously accounted for and every expense has to be justified to an independent reviewer.

File: europe eu refugees islam migrants world economic forum.png (333KB, 648x774px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 648x774px

>>131880937
The solution of course is to bring 1 billion extra migrants into Europe, North American, Japan, and Australia to dramatically raise the resources being consumed all while advocating for whites to hate themselves and to stop having cultures and families.

>>131859425
It can only solve if yellowstone emerges, and new ice age will begin

So what does it mean? Pay up to the Jude bankers even more?

>>131880802
That's a waste of the EU budget especially since they're losing what, €15 billion annually from the UK's departure? They're already likely going to be cutting into agriculture subsidies to make up for that, when they should really be carrying out a complete overhaul of how they spend budget regarding climate change-related expenses and begin decreasing other stimulus package policies like Draghi has proposed.

That and just stop spending money on helping "refugees", I'm sure that would save a lot down the road in many ways.

>>131881274
>the billions you mention don't go straight into the pockets of climate scientists.

their grants are calculated into that budget tho and who knows what money they get from other big governments and private entities
even the big bad boogeyman, the oil companies, are pouring money into it.
a billion dollar industry might be hyperbole, but we're talking about millions of dollars and euros

>>131880699
>science consequences
lol

>>131858649

>Muh atheist original sin

Good goy, give us your money and the climate will be saved!

>>131858649
we'll ignore it for 3 years. then they'll say 3 years left to prevent x.

>>131881496
as I said, only someone outside of the academic community would think of this as an industry with dazzling profits and stupendous wealth.
Scientists have to fight for every little thing and provide justification for every little expense. There are actually people whose sole job it is to cut funding for anything that isn't absolutely necessary.
So for example, a bunch of Earth scientists I know who work in the Himalayas couldn't go to dinner with their Chinese colleagues because they would have to justify that expense to an independent reviewer. And since a formal dinner isn't an absolute necessity, they wouldn't be able to justify it, which would jeopardize their ability to get funds in the future.

>>131864238
>>131864313
so this shows that the predictions were wrong
which means their models are wrong
which means they're wrong
AGH btfo

File: islam snake.jpg (103KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 960x540px

>>131881274
It's more than an arm of propaganda. It's a large jobs program. Those thousands of mouths all demand good paychecks from tax payers. It's similar to prison economies filled with parasitic careers and services yearning for each additional prohibition on the books. You're naive if you don't recognize people getting wealthy off of creating fallacious models that fulfill the agendas of globalists who want to consolidate control over the world, as if they're just doing it out of their big benevolent hearts.

>>131882036
i'm not claiming that i think of this as an industry with dazzling profits and stupendous wealth.
it's all about securing grant money like you say, which is rightly under close supervision that the budget is used properly...it wouldn't be the first time governments got swindled by scientists

to claim like you that this never happened/happens is a bit far fetched in my opinion

>>131860059
>huns
take that back right now, bogan
we aren't some cucked kraut garbage

>>131858649

>muh tipping points
>muh positive feedback loops

Why didn't any of that happen when the CO2 levels were way higher millions of years ago? Why didn't Earth turn into Venus? Even if we burned up all existing fossil fuels, we wouldn't reach previous top CO2 levels because CO2 slowly escapes from the atmosphere + large amount of the existing CO2 has been bound in CaCO3 and other pretty much permanent CO2 sinks.

Also humanity's contributions to climate change are micro-tier compared to """natural""" causes.

>b-but muh other greenhouse gases.

No one has been able to show them having any significant effect, despite trying for decades.

File: ball1210.jpg (18KB, 390x284px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 390x284px

>>131859506
We've been over 350ppm for some time. Pic related, a sampling of C02 values, everything circled was considered valid, all the other points were thrown out because they didn't support the premise that CO2 was 280 ppm (at the time).

NYC was supposed to be underwater by like 2015. What ever happened to that? Too many foreigners in NYC now for any significant population of white liberals to be spooped by such fearmongering?

>>131882589
so what's your quarrel then?
securing closely monitored grant money is an issue in literally every other scientific discipline

>>131882036
Bullshit it works like any other corporate hierarchy. The ones at top such as lead researchers and giant teams get the most money and the rest below them do slave work.

Same shit different smell

>>131882410
you're absolutely right
the last time I was at a climatology conference, I felt like I was in a meeting of the Fortune 500.
James Hansen flew in with his private jet and Paul Crutzen almost ran me over with his souped-up Bentley.

Anyone who believes this is a fool. At best.

>>131861531
idiot, we all died from climate change in '80 and this is a sisyphusian punishment for it in hell, the end of the world is always 5 years away

>>131882687
>[citation needed]
No one cares about information that has been copied from some shitty internet blog.

>>131882924
Strawman. "Good paychecks" don't have to equate to millionaire lifestyles.

>>131875559
>moral duty
>as a fuck you to you
Interesting.

File: ice caps, inconvenient truth, climate, al gore.png (469KB, 638x638px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 638x638px

>>131883002
The ice caps melted too, don't forget.

>>131882685
>Why didn't any of that happen when the CO2 levels were way higher millions of years ago?

But it did! Earth was in the ice-free state back when CO2 concentration was above 450ppm.
There are examples in Earth history of intervals of sudden carbon injection into the atmosphere and the outcomes were not pretty.

>Why didn't Earth turn into Venus?
because at the times at which CO2 peaked in concentration, solar luminosity was several percent weaker (which translates to a difference of several dozen watts per square meter)

>Even if we burned up all existing fossil fuels, we wouldn't reach previous top CO2 levels
If we were to burn all fossil fuels, large parts of the planet would literally become uninhabitable, not only for our own species but also many other vertebrates as well. Additionally, convective injection of water vapor into the atmosphere would deplete the ozone layer globally, sending dangerous levels of UV radiation to Earth. Also the global eustatic sea level would rise by 80m or more, displacing hundreds of millions of people. And that's not even mentioning the effects on ocean alkalinity.

You would basically look at the worst event in human history and one of the worst mass extinctions in the planets history. But at least we can take solace in the fact that CO2 concentrations were higher in the Cambrian.

>>131864500
>>131864313
>muh positivist computer models
provide something unfalsifiable or fuck off nigger

>>131882839
my quarrel is that our money is being spent on this climate change thing because of outright lies the scientific community spouted.
how can i trust these people when they themselves were saying the polar ice caps should've melted by 2013, that several americans should've been flooded now and what not predictions they made over the years which never were rooted in reality at all
on top of that, as a scientist to even disagree with anything climate change related can get you ostricized by the scientific community

you want me to believe these people?

and then the policies that grow out of these recommendations made by the scientific community are laughable at best. i read the paris climate accord, it wasn't even about the climate at all...it's all about stunting economic growth in western countries and developing the 3rd world

>>131883445
>that several americans should've
american cities, not americans lol

>>131881222
Your burger politician is not a respected scientist, 56 percenter.

>>131883205
Is just Guy Callendar's work on CO2, i can't help where he put it.

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.

Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

>>131883445
the only actual example of a supposed lie by scientists is the polar 'ice caps' (I think you mean the Arctic sea ice) disappearing by 2013.

Of course, when you actually take a look, no climate scientists has ever predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2013. That's a claim that goes back to Al Gore, who in turn misunderstood a single paper by Wieslaw Maslowski that said that Arctic MINIMUM sea ice extent COULD become NEAR ice-free ['ice-free' in this case is a technical term for an ice-covered area of 1 million square kilometers or less] between 2011 and 2016.

But that paper alone is already an outlier, because most studies project an ice-free arctic between the 2020s and the 2040s.

So Al Gore took an outlier study and misrepresented that. And out of that grows the internet myth that climate scientists allegedly thought that the ice sheets would be gone and every city flooded by 2013.

So we have a misrepresentation of a misrepresentation of an outlier. an myths like these completely dominate the discussion and suddenly no one is interested what's actually written in the scientific literature anymore.

Can you see how this could make one a bit angry?

You guys haven't heard about methane hydrates in Siberia yet. Basically we are going to melt this planet and you are fucked.

>>131884462
>not wanting to take all the niggers, jews and chinks with us

>>131884462
Forgot to turn cosplay mode off CУКA

File: al gore nobel peace prize 2007, climate.jpg (172KB, 479x527px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 479x527px

>>131883854
But Al Gore claims to be relaying what all the alarmist "scientists" are saying. You aren't suggesting those scientists are wrong, are you? Of course, winning a Nobel Peace Prize for being influential and helping globalists is just par for the course (see: Obama).

>>131884362
>So we have a misrepresentation of a misrepresentation of an outlier. an myths like these completely dominate the discussion and suddenly no one is interested what's actually written in the scientific literature anymore.
>Can you see how this could make one a bit angry?

well shouldn't the scientific community put more effort in debunking claims made by enviromentalists and politicians alike who are abusing the climate change debate for their own personal gains and social expirements?

especially towards enviromentalist NGO's, which i have never even seen a rebuttal towards from the scientific community

File: Knut.jpg (31KB, 220x295px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 220x295px

King Knut the Great, who ruled over England, Denmark, Norway and parts of present day Sweden, had the people in England carry his thrown on to the beach at a low tide and had them watch him sitting in it trying to command the sea not to rise. He did this to make them understand that a king has no power over nature.
(A saga king of Sweden was once according to a legend executed and sacrificed to the gods, because the weather had been bad for three years in a row.)

Politicians these days lacks Knut's wisdom. They have hubris and think they are omnipotent gods who even have control over the weather.

>>131885009
scientists tend to avoid the public discussions for several reasons. Most of them just aren't good public communicators. The most outspoken climatologist right now is probably James Hansen and he himself often says that he isn't comfortable with public speaking and would rather sit in his office and do his science. And I think you can see that: he often stutters, makes long pauses and sometimes doesn't finish sentences.
I think the best spokesperson for climate science was Stephen Schneider, who sadly died of a heart attack in 2010.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YZ84pD895Q

The other reason is that climate scientists are often the target of outlandish campaigns of defamation and harassment. To take a random example: the current director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Dr. Gavin Schmidt said that he fell into deep depression after he (and other climate scientists at the university of East Anglia) were subject to tremendous personal attacks after the so-called "Climategate" debacle.

>>131860916
Ocean acidification is the stupidest meme ever. The fucking seabed is made of lime. I'm not saying you couldn't chance the pH of a small area with enough industrial or mine waste but to think that absorbed CO2 is going reverse caco3 deposition is ridiculous.

>>131884691
peace prize, you retard. aka bullshi prize.

if sciece is settled, where is the fucking physics prize?

>>131885887
then how do you explain the examples in the geologic record that DO show ocean acidification in association with a fast increase of carbon in the atmosphere?

Take a big example:
At the Permo-Triassic boundary, massive volcanism ejects huge amounts of mantle-derived carbon in the atmosphere (and likely also ignites large coal seems). Paleontologists say that the resulting ocean acidification was the main mechanism that killed 95% of marine species (because the event was selective against heavily calcified groups in the ocean)

>>131885879

well i think it's not only their moral duty to do so, we're giving them money so they should nip abuse of their research in the bud every chance they get. their silence is what is causing a lot of people, who aren't scientifically literate like me for instance, to be not interested in it at all

that they're too socially inept to do press conferences and want to sit in their office and do science is not my problem.

>>131861957
This specific graph has been debunked in its entirety by potholer54
That graph you are showing is based on one location, not the whole world.
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7aZ6vqCk2E&t
Thank me later

>>131886632
they know, in their heart, it is bullshi. it is just some highly tuned computer programe with gross uncertainty.

>>131884691
FYI, The Nobel peace prize, is always dealt out ironically, to people who actually never did a thing for 'peace'.

>>131886632
what should also be mentioned is that many scientists in general (not just climate scientists) don't see it as their place to become media figures, not only for the reasons I already gave (bad communication skills, subject to personal attacks), it also jeopardizes your own scientific career. That's again something James Hansen would say: if you respond to every falsehood uttered in the political arena and give an interview every day, you really can't work on the topics you were trained and are interested on anymore.

>>131865847

it'll be well below that, probably not even 1C. the targets keep going down so they set new lower ones to keep the doom going.

how many times are they going to set this "irreversible" timeline?

what a bunch of cuckold retards that believe this garbage.

you could sell them a dollar for 5 if you got a disabled black man to do it.

>>131886466
They don't think the volcanos spit out just CO2 they think it was acidic aerosols.

"The Emeishan and Siberian Traps eruptions may have caused dust clouds and acid aerosols, which would have blocked out sunlight and thus disrupted photosynthesis both on land and in the photic zone of the ocean, causing food chains to collapse. The eruptions may also have caused acid rain when the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere. That may have killed land plants and molluscs and planktonic organisms which had calcium carbonate shells. The eruptions would also have emitted carbon dioxide, causing global warming. When all of the dust clouds and aerosols washed out of the atmosphere, the excess carbon dioxide would have remained and the warming would have proceeded without any mitigating effects.[99]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

>>131889069
Isn't the source of the pH decrease (wether carbonic or sulfuric acid) irrelevant to the point you're making? You said that it's ridiculous to think that the ocean can acidify on a large scale, so the question of the source is neither here nor there.

the same article:
In addition, an increase in CO2 concentration is inevitably linked to ocean acidification, consistent with the preferential extinction of heavily calcified taxa and other signals in the rock record that suggest a more acidic ocean.[67] The decrease in ocean pH is calculated to be up to 0.7 units.[68]