Does anyone have red pills on climate change? This is the last

File: climatechange.png (2MB, 1891x4901px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1891x4901px

It's real, but humans didn't cause it and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

>>134386894
It's real, it's not going to kill us all, it WILL cause some problems, it is going to continue regardless if we stop using fossil fuels or not, but most important of all...
IT IS ANOTHER WAY TO TAX YOU

>>134386894
it's going to fuck up third world countries pretty bad. if you think the refugee problem is bad now wait until the climate refugees come

>>134386894
Watch the documentary, "The Smartest Guys in the Room."

It's no longer free on JewTube apparently. But that's the basis for the 1992 Rio summit that lead to the carbon meme going full force.

>>134386999
Checked
Also, do these graphs indicate that we're headed toward another ice age?

>>134386999
Is it going to kill us all though?

I'm less concerned about the cause than I am the effect

>>134387201
Give me a hasty gestalt

File: Rewriting Temperature Records.gif (90KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x480px

>>134386894
>Does anyone have red pills on climate change?
Most modern temperature charts you'll find have older data adjusted downward from the raw data to invent the appearance of greater warming. Another 20-30 years from now, the charts for 1880-2000 won't match what the same 1880-2000 charts say today. "Scientists" will claim 1900 was another 0.2C colder than current claims.

This doesn't prove or disprove man-made climate change, but it does prove man-made climate data.

>>134387335
>Give me a hasty gestalt
It's financial in nature. I'd have to explain to you things like derivatives.

But I'll give you three names: Al Gore, Ken Lay, Maurice Strong. Just spend the $3 and watch if off amazon or whatever. You have to understand the system and the criminal mind.

>>134386894
Fact is the planet has naturally had a fluctuating climate. Man-made global warming is a farce. The same scientists making those claims today were claiming that there would be an ice age in the 70s-80s. Only when their guesses didn't pan out did they change their narrative. It is nothing but a cash grab for these climate change scientists. I guarantee that they would not be willing to put their own lives on the line on one of their claims.

>>134387438
Alrighty, thanks anon

>>134387588
Thanks anon

File: gisp2 labeled.jpg (101KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x720px

>>134386894
look at the data yourself. Over a long period of time, the changes in temperature we see now are quite mild. However, it is absolutely true that humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, which is causing our planet to warm significantly. Is that a bad thing? Not if you are white.

1/2

File: image.jpg (63KB, 249x460px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 249x460px

>>134386894
Your going to have to back up fir a while, your not there yet. The Titanic was sunk on purpose. Check the passenger ledger, also realize; Ice doesnt Cut through steel. Call me when your done, i have about 50 more before your ready for the climate change hoax which is just another tax on us. Now get to work

>>134387599
Checking numbers. Bear in mind that's only going to get you the Ken Ley angle, but it was really key to building on the older Club of Rome type stuff.

It's a big topic. This documentary is very entertaining. And if you're not laughing with them then you don't understand the criminal mind behind it all.

>>134386999

check'd

Also, "climate change" or whatever we're supposed to call it, is actually a good thing.

Nature culls the weak and stupid.

Bring on the fire and flood, and after it the ice ages.

Only the strong survive. And white people are better at it than almost anyone.

>>134387884
There were certainly a great many important people on it, I'll look further into that

Do you have any others?

All I have to say is that it's interesting how the only things science is 100% settled on are the issues that vex the Right.
Science hasn't figured out if eggs are good or bad for you, but don't question climate change or abortion or evolution. Even questioning them makes you a retard in their eyes.
Which is exactly why I think there might be a case for all the "right wing science". You wouldn't censor and silence things you could easily disprove would you?

File: watermelon.jpg (9KB, 235x215px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 235x215px

>>134386894
It's another excuse to tax western industry into nonexistence and import billions of subhuman """climate refugees""" into our countries.
>>134387335
>effect
Earth's been hot with high CO2 before and it didn't kill everyone.
Africa and india might dry out but they're literally all starving and swarming into the west already anyway climate change makes no difference there, and canada and siberia might become arable so we'll be able to grow more food.

File: image.png (11KB, 495x460px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 495x460px

>>134386894

File: World_Koppen_Map hd.png (2MB, 4250x2815px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4250x2815px

>>134387873
What makes global warming a good thing for whites?

Whites (particularly northwest Europeans) are adapted to a specific lifestyle and cimate that can be characterized as "sedentary agriculture at high latitiudes". We have light skin to ensure adequate vitamin D production with as little as 1 hour of sunlight exposure, as well as blue eyes to see better in potentially 20 hours of darkness found in Northern Europe. We rely on agriculture to produce the massive amounts of food necessary to support our population, and we manage to grow food nearly anywhere. Except, as yet, the taiga, which also represents the majority of land held by (historically) white nations.

Should the earth significantly heat, it would open up that taiga to established forms of agriculture, producing real colonization opportunities for an agricultural civilization suited to high latitudes. As an added bonus, increased CO2 concentration increases yields of agriculture, meaning we can support a higher biomass (i.e. more white babies). As has been noted, we are actually entering the downswing of this warm age and will in a few thousand years likely descend deep into another ice age. With global warming, this ice age can be nullified, and preserve high latitudes for agricultural habitation.

>>134388450
You would want to go at least back to "The Limits on the Growth" by The Club of Rome. It's basically a rehash of John Matlthus.

It's a subtle subject, as you might expect if there is an entire allegedly scientific field eating free money for years like there is no tomorrow to finally come up with the real True Proof.

>>134386894
Don't worry about it anon, you're in America the site of New JerUSAlem.
We'll get some shakes when the Dove returns, but it's the rest of the world that will be eliminated.
I started my journey because I was worried for my own children's safety, but with all the thousands of hours spent researching the past couple years, I am happily awaiting the end times.

>>134389388
See those digits?
>proofs yo

>>134389388
Let's see some information, Dr. Doubles

File: OBanana.jpg (44KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x960px

Yes: "When in history was climate ever a constant?" also ask such common sense questions as: "How does global warming cause droughts here, but when we get more rain than usual, it's because of 'global warming' too"?

File: Heronbleachingsml.jpg (2MB, 2240x1494px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2240x1494px

>>134386894
>Does anyone have red pills on climate change?
We are so fucked. And I'm a Trump voter.

>>134391257
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

https://climate.nasa.gov/

File: 1463545219151.gif (3MB, 720x775px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x775px

>>134386894
>Does anyone have red pills on climate change?
Blindly disagreeing with what you're told doesn't make you sceptical.

>>134386999
This image confuses a number of things. The two largest:

First of all, it confuses different timescales. The pattern of changes on the million-year scale is entirely separate from what happens on the hundred-year scale. As an analogy, it's like invoking continental drift to try and get out of a speeding ticket.

Secondly, that "Climate-Model-Predictions.jpg" graph has a number of issue. It averages together a bunch of model runs, but (IIRC) a number of those runs are based on input conditions that didn't actually occur. It also uses "Avg 2 Satellite datasets" which I presume is UAH+RSS. UAH is widely considered to significantly underestimate the warming trend (It's WAY below what surface records show), and RSS has recent been revised upwards (twice?). Finally, it's comparing surface predictions to mid-troposphere measurements.

>>134387418
The justification for the adjustments is published in peer-reviewed journals. If you want to claim it's inappropriate, you would actually need to show the methodology they used isn't sound. You can't just leap from "I don't like the results" to "They must be lying".

>>134387873
>Over a long period of time, the changes in temperature we see now are quite mild.
The current rate of warming is incredibly fast, and vastly exceeds the rate of most changes in the past.

>>134390476
>When in history was climate ever a constant?
Compared to right now? Most if it.
Again, timescales matter.

>How does global warming cause droughts here, but when we get more rain than usual, it's because of 'global warming' too
Because climate systems are big and complicated, and adding heat can move high-precipitation areas from one place to another. That's like asking how central Australia can be dry and central South America wet when they're at the same latitude..

>>134394058
>The justification for the adjustments is published in peer-reviewed journals
That's been the worst part for me. 10 years ago most of that would have been laughed out of the room.

Sadly, it's a cult, just like in my field. These people are so stupid. But I guess that's why I took a tour of being a part of """"((((science)))"""" to find out if they were really this stupid or just misguided.

>>134394758
>That's been the worst part for me. 10 years ago most of that would have been laughed out of the room.
For actually doing their jobs, rather than finding the results you'd like?

>>134394979
Quite the opposite. I used to work with some old Bell Labs kind of guys who actually gave a crap about science.

Granted it you look in to the history of it, and I might recommend, "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" by Rene Wormser as part of the most recent congressional investigation into the anti-American activities of the tax-free institutions, but when NPR announces to me 3 years after introducing the notion of carbon trading that Al Gore has just invested some more millions of dollars to -- and I quote -- "help prove global warming" -- years after the science was settled?

I think I dropped some clues already in this thread. I don't think they found the results they liked.

>>134395374
>Foundations: Their Power and Influence
As far as I can tell, that book says nothing about climatology or climatologists. What am I missing?

>Al Gore
Why do you care so much about what Al Gore says? He's not a climatologist, he's a former politician and a minor celebrity.
If Al Gore announced that the Sun goes around the Earth, would that discredit modern cosmology?

>I think I dropped some clues already in this thread. I don't think they found the results they liked.
I'm not asking you to drop clues, I'm asking you to post evidence that they adjustment’s weren't justified.
You still haven’t done that.

File: Sattelite TMT v projections.png (231KB, 1280x912px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1280x912px

>>134386999
Everyone stop posting this shit.

No you don't need to prove a causal link between the existence of man and global temperatures to prove AGW (even if you did the scale on these graphs are inappropriate) you just need to prove the causal link between CO2 and temperature and prove that we can then have an impact on CO2 levels.

Why is no CI shown and why would you average two different satellite data sets and four different balloon sets in the projection? Why test projections against the two most error prone forms of measurement?

File: adjustment v reference.png (204KB, 896x444px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 896x444px

>>134394758
Adjustments are necessary because:

1. There are local non-climactic influences that can alter a stations recorded temperature (roads, construction, urban heat island)
2. Different methodologies and instruments have different systematic bias
3. Temperature stations are often moved and coverage in certain areas changes. If I move one station from a valley to a hill its not as if temperature in that area has changed.

Pic related shows how raw data becomes much more useful via homogenisation

>>134386894
I remember reading how if the paris accord succeeded and every country on the planet stopped polluting and spent billions of dollars in protecting the environment, we'll see a 1 degree celsius decrease in temperature at around 2100.

That marks how useless it is in the long run.

>>134396004
>As far as I can tell, that book says nothing about climatology or climatologists. What am I missing?
Within about the first 1/3 in, you'll get an explanation about how money dictates science through the various ministers of power. The Kinsey scale will be an easy one. I might be more receptive to it because I work in science and have to deal with funding issues.

>Why do you care so much about what Al Gore says?
Because he was one of the trios of bright ideas who got paid after the 1992 Rio conference to figure out how to sell all this. Skull & Bones, too. Really, you should just discard anything and everything he's ever said because his Armand Hammer literally USSR communist spy father who only cares about money doesn't even mean much any more. Al Gore is about as ready to get a brain tumor as John McCain for how irrelevant he is these days.

>they adjustment’s weren't justified.
For that we'd actually have to read the publications, and I stopped keeping citation lists at around the time of the Copenhagen Treaty, so you'll have to ask somebody else. It's wroth looking in to just to see how you'd laugh it all right out if you were to work in a real field of science.

>>134386894
Check it out op. You're very welcome.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29

>>134396709
Thanks anon

>>134396367
Adjustments should be focused on the measurement devices, not endless complications on the models in order to make money backing up what they're paid to try to prove.

It's worse than an art degree.

>>134386894
I'm a global lukewarmist. I don't throw it out altogether, but I'm deeply skeptical of the more apocalyptic prognostications. People who want me afraid are probably just trying to control me. Fuck em.

>>134386894
>I'm terrified of climate change killing my children and grandchildren
Don't be. In the 1970s we were bombarded with "the Ice Age is coming!!!" Check out old magazine covers, like Time, from the 70s, you will see it. Then in the 1980s it was the Oxone hole and how it was growing and we were all going to fry. Then in the mid-1980s newspapers were stating that the Ozone Hole over South America was huge and was already killing people.

They keep us in fear. Remember that. That is how they stay in power and keep their strengths. They feed off of our fear and stress and other negative emotions.

Watch the elites. That will tell you all you need to know about the state of things. They continue to fly around the world in their private jets, to one of their six homes around the world, all of which have pools and fountains and 13-car garages. They spend Summers floating around on their huge yachts. Their kids have "Rich Kids of [name country}" instagram accounts, showing their luxurious lifestyle. My point being, the elites are living opposite of how they say we need to live to save the world. They yell at us to live in Tiny Houses while they own six houses around the world and mega-yachts.

They lie.

>>134396814
>Adjustments should be focused on the measurement devices
They are.

> not endless complications on the models in order to make money backing up what they're paid to try to prove.
That's not how climate models OR research funding works.

>>134396817
>People who want me afraid are probably just trying to control me. Fuck em.
I take it you don't go to doctors either?

>>134396619
>For that we'd actually have to read the publications, and I stopped keeping citation lists at around the time of the Copenhagen Treaty, so you'll have to ask somebody else. It's wroth looking in to just to see how you'd laugh it all right out if you were to work in a real field of science.
You don't get to assume that scientists are lying, just because it fits your political views.
That's laughable bullshit.

>>134386894

Climate change is real.

MAN MADE climate change is a scam to fleece tax dollars. Carbon credits are all the evidence you need to understand this. It's literally the government saying "yeah, pollution is bad, but if you pay us enough money we'll let you do it anyways."

It's complete bullshit.

>>134386894
20k years ago the pacific northwest was LITERALLY covered in ice, an ice age if you will. somehow all that ice melted well before the invention of cars.

so ask yourself, "how much of climate change actually caused by humans?" it's a certain percentage but it's vastly overblown

>muh acid rain
>muh hole in the ozone layer
>muh overpopulation
>muh nuclear power will kill us all

all fucking kike lies

File: carbon tax economists.png (105KB, 942x703px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 942x703px

>>134396455
This, the red pill is that a carbon tax or cap and trade is what we need

>>134396619
>It's wroth looking in to just to see how you'd laugh it all right out if you were to work in a real field of science
>tfw all could be revealed to this guy in a two minute google search but he instead chooses to discredit a full field of science

>>134396814
>Adjustments should be focused on the measurement devices, not endless complications on the models in order to make money backing up what they're paid to try to prove.
Why? Do you actually think that temperature has increased if a nearby traffic has increased or the station has been moved?

Consider this, what if the models are correct simply because thousands of the smartest people to ever live have been studying this data for decades allowing us to refine our understanding of the earths climate?

>>134397045
>They are.
Would you care to cite a body of literature for me to do with how to correct for these devices?

>You don't get to assume that scientists are lying, just because it fits your political views.
Sure I do. Lying and political views are how I scrape money out of the Jew money machine working in science. Do you even work in science for a living?

>>134397332
>Consider this, what if the models are correct simply because thousands of the smartest people to ever live have been studying this data for decades allowing us to refine our understanding of the earths climate?
Sounds like I'd have failed out of my freshman year in college, which I almost did.

>>134386894
Its, real, its too late, but its not going to be as bad as you think.

1. people are adaptable. its our biggest trait
2. we have technology and energy production that's only getting better
3. earth has had periods in its history where there were no ice caps, ecological niches are hard to fill, but i think people are still surprised at just how fast a species can fill a niche it finds, and micro organisms and insects usually have the fastest mechanisms to adapt.

the only fear of climate change is if we destroy the earth for human life. all life will continue. and to me we're already past the point where we can manufacture any needs we as a species will need in any sort of ecological disaster.

>>134397049
Carbon taxes are insanely unpopular though and don't even claw in that much revenue. Raising the corporation tax by a few percent is both far more politically viable and probably brings in more revenue.

>>134397428
Tell me why adjustments are unnecessary for some reason other than they disagree with what you think is right

>>134397045
I do go to doctors. Wtf does that have to do with this?

File: image_manager__max_marcott_1deg.jpg (69KB, 768x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 768x600px

>>134386999
>an appropriate baseline must include millions of years
What a crock of horseshit. Climate itself is measured over a span of 30 years. Even so, we have data from thousands and even hundreds of millions of years ago that don't contradict current evidence that humans are the dominant cause of current climate change. Such as this pic.

>>134397611
>Tell me why adjustments are unnecessary for some reason other than they disagree with what you think is right
Because in my field of study that would get you kicked out of the department before your advisor would allow it to be known that he had funded this kind of non-science.

I'm not saying my field isn't also pay for play, but we have to at least make a show of integrity to pass peer review.

>>134386894
I literally just made a thread about this: it is real: here's the culprits: 1: Africa burns grassland because they're niggers, 2 china (and japan) make your electronic shit, and they chip it from boats and planes,
3. truckers and planes ship foreign products everywhere
4. we use electronics (power plants) and gas (cars) daily.
5. trees absorb basically all of our bullshit: methane, nitrous and co2, but we cut them down, and build houses around them, and don't let them grow.
Older trees absorb more bullshit then other smaller newfag trees,
so the solutions:

here's my top three sensible solutions:
1:
get one of these for your tablet/phone:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=hand+crank+power+generator&form=PRHPR1&src=IE11TR&pc=EUPP_HRTS
2:
use cattle grazing for natural land renewal, instead of burning grassland.

3:
manual transmission: it uses less gas/
https://mobiloil.com/en/article/car-maintenance/car-maintenance-archive/how-to-convert-an-automatic-to-manual-transmission

buy food at farmers markets, and fix your computer/build one: (they're both cheaper, local markets use less gas)


These 4 solutions will also save you a little money. (even the grassland one because burning will cost you in the long run)

>>134386894

It's worth being concerned about whether or not it's true since either way we're running out of resources

>>134397799
>Because in my field of study that would get you kicked out of the department before your advisor would allow it to be known that he had funded this kind of non-science.
You do realise this is the reality of all observational sciences right?

You'd be kicked out of any reputable earth science department if you insisted on not adjusting a stations recording if a new highway caused a 4C jump in average recorded temperatures.

What do you say to results such as pic in >>134396367 which show that if one adjusts for temperatures it essentially gives you a series as if the artificial bias never existed.

>>134397854
This is dumb and you aren't convincing or in a position of power to impose these measures so just wasting time.

>>134397356
>Would you care to cite a body of literature for me to do with how to correct for these devices?
What do you want?
Different instruments and different artefacts need different approaches. There's no "one-size-fits-all" correction.

> Sure I do. Lying and political views are how I scrape money out of the Jew money machine working in science. Do you even work in science for a living?
How is that evidence for anything at all?
I asked for evidence the adjustments weren't legitimate, not that you suck at your job.

>>134397029
>Don't be. In the 1970s we were bombarded with "the Ice Age is coming!!!"
Nope.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

>>134396248
>posting that chart
>thinking it makes climate models look good
LMAO, an ensemble of drift-free random walks with historically estimated standard deviation probably has a better Brier score than your shitty climate models.

>>134398075
Obviously we'd have to recalibrate the individual sensors. Are you this fucking dense? They got the drop on that like a decade in advance and the field is just like
>NOPE MUH RUSSIA

>>134398213
m8 I just want a new paper that isn't focuse on how to rejigger all the data. I want a paper that is focused on what is not old '90s bullshit, like the magnetosphere. It's high time to defund this very, very hard.

File: 1428021238895.jpg (32KB, 261x214px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 261x214px

>>134397029
>in the 70's we were bombarded with "the ice age is coming"

This is a full on meme at this point, and its wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms&index=3&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

>>134398168
I'm trying here, I'm going to do these things... and I think if we all do these things, then we will save money, and also reduce carbon emissions, I'm just making suggestions here. I can literally do all of these things in time, except I don't own natural land, so I can't use catle as an alternative to burning: that is a government issue, but we can sign something, I'm sure I can find something to sign let me see...are you a leaf? do something about this:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1345725-foresters-target-biomass-burner-with-growing-petition

File: Time magazine covers on Ice Age - 1977 - 1979 - 1973.jpg (140KB, 796x348px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 796x348px

>>134398423
>>134398735
>>134398854
You are lying to the wrong person. I lived through it, I know that of which I speak. My siblings and I used to ask our parents about it as it was on the nightly news a lot and of course, being kiddies, it scared us.

Oh, look, Time magazine covers about the coming ice Ages (covers from 1977 - 1979 - 1973, in that order). Take your lies and shove it.

>>134398168
also in America: this:
https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-toxic-chemicals-the-timber-industry-is-spraying-into-our-communities
we need to do something about this.

File: CMIP3.png (55KB, 345x284px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 345x284px

>>134398506
Well I can't post a model against land results to show how dishonestly a model against satellite results has construed the figures.

pic related shows the models against the most reliable form of temperature data, surface stations

>>134398508
Re calibrating every station every time it was subject to some artificial influence would give you the exact same result with many times the effort except instead you'd be missing a few data points where you had to pick up on the artificial influence which you would've kept if you had instead adjusted.

Another advantage is what is noticed in hindsight in the record. As an example a large adjustment that has been made to the record has been one made this century to correct for the fact that US and UK ships back in the 40's used two different methods of testing for surface sea temperature both with different biases.

>>134397332
Politicians and businessmen need to live too

I don't see why (((they))) would allow this to happen when they very obviously have control over it

Also

>muh incorruptible acedemic institutions

Lil

>>134397854
The problem being that none of those things do anything measurably when you, or even everyone on /pol/ does them

>>134398508
>Obviously we'd have to recalibrate the individual sensors
The problem isn't just the individual stations, it's where the stations are and how they make the measurements. Also, climatologists aren't the only users.

> I just want a new paper that isn't focuse on how to rejigger all the data.
Then what do you want? Perfect data doesn't exist, and working with imperfect data requires "rejigging it".

> It's high time to defund this very, very hard.
Because it reaches conclusions you don't like?

>>134386894
It's real, but it's part of the natural cycle. The majority of emissions are actually coming from solidified and frozen methane deposits beneath the ocean. Because the planet is naturally warming up, the methane deposits are melting and rises to the atmosphere, causing the planet and the oceans to warm up even more and release more methane. This affects the ocean currents and weather, causing harsher weather events (storms, etc.), ice melting, places experiencing extreme drought/desertification, and so on. Factor in other naturally occurring events like volcano eruptions that is dumping all manner of pollutants/emissions in the atmosphere, or the sun's output increasing or decreasing, or the planet's orbit around the sun shifting slightly as a normal phenomenon or influenced by other heavenly bodies. Because of said natural events, it gets worse and worse until it hits peak which usually ends in an Ice Age or extreme rise in temperatures, then an equilibrium which brings it back to normal (or as close to a normal as it could get, which becomes the new normal). That explains the "Little Ice Age" that happened all the way to the 19th century. That explains the permanent changes in regional climate, turning arable land into deserts or turning tundras into arable land. It also explains the migrations that happened throughout Earth's history. People back then didn't move just because--regional climate change may have been responsible. Humanity's effect on the natural cycle is negligible.

The truth about the climate change push is the monetization of emissions by creating a market where "carbon credits" are traded. The introduction of this carbon trading market wouldn't reduce emissions at all. In fact, the energy/fossil fuel market and the carbon trading market need each other. It's just another Jewish scam making money out of nothing, like (((banking))). (((Leftists))) control the carbon trading while (((cuckservatives))) control the energy/fossil fuels.

>>134398950
I don't care about your anecdotes of people spreading false information to you. It is a fact that there were over six times as many papers predicting global warming than those predicting global cooling. Getting your scientific information from Time covers is your first mistake and means jack shit.

3. It's real and liberals use "but think of the children" and NIMBY to push pollution onto third world countries and buy back products made in dirty conditions so that we can pretend we're green and clean

>>134399196
but they do, a very, very tiny amount, and they are financially beneficial. so, yeah...

File: image.jpg (34KB, 369x161px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 369x161px

>>134398423

File: 1386607280339.jpg (2MB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x5000px

>>134398950
>implying Time is a scientific journal

>>134399384
>>134399384
>It is a fact that there were over six times as many papers predicting global warming than those predicting global cooling.
Bullshit. And where is your proof? Easy today to make up crap on the computer and claim it is a study from the 1970s. You are a liar. I lived it. I was in school at the time. Never on the news did I see them counter the coming Ice Age with cooling. You lie to push your Agenda 21.

I never got my news from Time mag. But back then they actually reported news and were rather trustworthy, and were a nationwide magazine that was on top of the news of the week, so yeah, I will use their covers if I want.

>>134399547
First of all, Time isn't a scientific journal.
Secondly, isn't that penguin cover fake?

>>134399154
>Re calibrating every station every time it was subject to some artificial influence
Wow not really. That's why I still have my job is to look in to those disalignments. I'm sorry you're so emotional about your job. I wouldn't hire you.

>>134399216
>Then what do you want?
It's quite simple
>The problem isn't just the individual stations, it's where the stations are and how they make the measurements. Also, climatologists aren't the only users
These must be modeled in addition to the global models.

>>134399560
I never implied it. Look up the history of Time magazine. It used to be a well respected news magazine, nationwide, came out weekly, giving the latest news going on in the US and the world. The news at the time was the coming Ice Age and, of course, peak oil (how we were running out of gas for our cars). That dominated the news in the 1970s. You want to know what the news was in that era, you look at news magazines and newspapers from that era. Duh.

>>134399603
Maybe your middle-aged eyes didn't see it, but I linked a paper in a peer-reviewed journal showing that in the OP. Here it is again:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

>>134399656
>First of all, Time isn't a scientific journal.
Who said it was, idiot? Al Gore isn't a Ph.D., and neither is Leo DiCaprio, but you stupid libs sure listen to everything they say about global warming. Shut your pie hole. You just lie.

>>134399747
Time Magazine was always the house organ of the CFR. Do we really have alleged scientists who don't know the first thing about history?

I think in that case they can't possibly have realistic priors.

File: 1486921997717.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Climate change is real and it's going to kill all the demons.

>>134399675
Regardless if the method the result would be identical to a homogenised data set

>>134399656
Time journalists wrote their articles based on their sources of climate experts predicting incorrectly about the weather. The climate scientists of that time stirred up fear off of their guesses just like the current ones are doing now. When you actually look at the natural planet cycle, there is nothing unusual. Man-made global warming is nothing but a money grab.

>>134399603
>And where is your proof?
Someones already posted it in this thread.

> You are a liar. I lived it. I was in school at the time.
You read scientific journals while in school?

>>134399675
>These must be modeled in addition to the global models.
What are you even trying to say?

>>134399929
Why would you want the result to be identical to the homogenised data set?

I think we might have to cancel the Anglosphere.

>>134399935
>Time journalists wrote their articles based on their sources of climate experts predicting incorrectly about the weather.
>climate experts
>predicting weather
If you're retarded enough to think *climate* scientists are studying weather, don't bother speaking.

>>134386894
History is the redpill.
We're nowhere near being too hot.
Earth has an equilibrium and there isn't much we can do to alter it. It corrects itself.
We should be building sea walls though. It's going to get hotter with or without our help and cities will be flooded eventually.
Also, oil is renewable.

>>134400064
I don't want it to be anything I'm just telling you what the result would be.

>>134400041
Because you get paid to prove that the variations all fit in to the payment program. Jesus Fucking Christ, are all the Australian """(((scientists)))""" this stupid?

I mean I have to put up with a pig trough of 3rd world shit who all just do what their told because that's how they get visa money but my god is Australia this far gone?

>>134399841
>Al Gore isn't a Ph.D., and neither is Leo DiCaprio, but you stupid libs sure listen to everything they say about global warming
Someone else using a dumb source doesn't make it okay for you to do it too.
Also, Ive repeatedly toldy people NOT to cite Al Gore.

>>134399766
>Maybe your middle-aged eyes didn't see it,
I did see it, almost Satan, as I have great vision. I pulled it up, saw it was written by three guys in 2008 and shut it. I am not wasting my time on an obvious scam to push the UN Agenda 21. How convenient that just as Al Gore is pushing his global warming scam, a paper comes out to try to convince us who lived through it that there actually was no Ice Age scare in the 1970s.

And if you bothered to go through their References list. you will note that many of their articles debate if an Ice Age was actually going to occur (just like today you have scientists debating if global warming will actually occur). , Which is the point I was making, they lied to us then and they lie to us now. I don't see any article from the 1970s that says global warming is coming, just a few articles that say certain things cause the atmosphere to heat up. You fail.

>>134400129
Tell me more about what the result will be.

>>134398950
DELETE THIS.

Those issues are in the memory hole. We've always been at war with global warming, global cooling has always been our ally.

>>134399945
>Someones already posted it in this thread.
That lame article is your proof? Sad.

>>134400290
No worries, it's "climate change"

Unless the Paris Treaty comes along, and then it's back to "global warming" again. Good thing Macron had at least five remaining neurons.

>>134400262
Thats it. Given you employed the best practice process (using nearby historically correlated stations to re calibrate for the artificial influence) then the result will be the same

>>134400205
>Because you get paid to prove that the variations all fit in to the payment program.
What variations? What payment program?
Aren't we still discussing sensor adjustments?

>>134400475
>Aren't we still discussing sensor adjustments?
Yep. You only get to continue your funding if you find what they paid you to find.

https://youtu.be/V5YdsYJR5Qw

watch

>>134386999
Humans have greatly accelerated it.
>>134386894
Notable effects won't appear for another 600-1000 years, OP. Your grandchildren will be fine, the generations after will suffer a permian-like extinction event once the frozen methane becomes unfrozen and seeps into the atmosphere from beneath the ocean and tundra permafrost.

>>134400255
>And if you bothered to go through their References list. you will note that many of their articles debate if an Ice Age was actually going to occur

And if you actually read the paper you'd see that from 1965-1979 there were a total of 7 papers predicting global cooling and 44 papers predicting global warming. Whatever shitty education you had growing up is irrelevant to what the actual scientific literature said.

>>134400548
And now we're back at the beginning of this conversation.
I asked you to provide evidence that the adjustments weren't justifiable. You've done everything possible to try and weasel out of that request.

>>134400759
Are there specific adjustments you'd been asking about?

This really isn't a winning game for you.

>>134386894
Climate change is real, but the whole cataclysmic doom and gloom thing is a lie. There are multiple instances of natural disasters that dumped CO2, SO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere in orders of magnitude greater than what humans have put out since the industrial age. And there were effects. Increase in temperature, followed by mini ice ages. These events were documented from Medieval through the Victorian Era. These events corresponded with years of plenty followed by famine. And it was shitty. For people at that level of technological development.

Today, we'll more than survive. Might be a bit uncomfortable but it'll be business as usual. Your grocery and electricity bill might get a slight bump. You'll probably be bitching more about gas prices. And in 5-10 years, it'll all go back down and you'll forget all about it. Is it no surprise that the ones who are preaching doom and gloom are also trying to sell you their brand of solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars? Carpetbaggers and quacks selling snake oil and divining rods.

File: 1403496677196.jpg (19KB, 300x188px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x188px

>>134400255
so basically
>you're an impressionable kid
>media whips up a narrative to sell news, despite what scientists are actually saying at the time
>you fall for it, and believe the media narrative, until they change their story, making you doubt whatever they're saying now
>scientists get caught in the crossfire because they were misrepresented by the media, and now you doubt the media so much that anything that isn't some blog you already agree with you refuse to look at
>even though the entire original problem was that they weren't using the scientific papers in their reporting
>so you getting presented with a paper about how the media was lying about what scientists in the 70's were saying, somehow makes you think that that paper is part of the media and can't be trusted

LITERALLY what the fuck is your argument here

>>134400954
>Are there specific adjustments you'd been asking about?
My original post was responding to someone upset with GisTEMP, so let's stick with that.

>>134400657
Funny those so-called "44" papers predicting global warming are not in their References.

My entire point, which you seemed to miss, is that they (like you) lie. The media was bombarding us in the 1970s with "the Ice Age is coming!!" Just like the media is bombarding us today with "global warming!!"

Whether scientific papers existed refuting it or not is moot. because that was not the agenda so it was not the headline. The headlines were the fear mongering that we were entering an Ice Age. That is what they talked about, that is what the discussed. That is what kids heard and thus feared.

Then in the 1980s we were bombarded with the growing Ozone Hole and the destruction it was wrecking in South America. So then got to walk around fearing that and worrying about all the people getting cancer from the huge Ozone Hole in South America that would soon be big enough to be open above the USA. Also, constantly told how "14 football fields a day" of Rainforest were being cut down. So, walked around with an aching heart at the loss of the Rain forest. But, lo and behold, today, the Rain forest still exists. And I never hear about an Ozone Hole.

>>134401322
I'm not interested in sticking with that. I'd like to know what you have to say about the magnetopshere.

In my field, it just makes me want to go home at the end of the day and put my head under a train car to end it when they're so fucking myopic because all they want is to dig for money or fancy paperwork.

File: co2_temp_570_000_000.jpg (48KB, 712x534px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 712x534px

>>134386894
It's better just to learn things about climate. Simple variable analysis can resolve this issue.

>>134386894
Climate change is real, but it is not the result of man. The Earth has experienced at least 5 ice ages over million and millions of years. The most recent ice age started approximately 1.8 million years ago and ended roughly 20,000 years ago. The Earth and its climate does not answer to man nor the Jews.

File: co2_temp_400_000.gif (15KB, 500x221px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x221px

>>134386894
Here's another.

>>134401394
>And I never hear about an Ozone Hole.
PLEASE tell me you're trolling.

File: co2_temp_rate.gif (24KB, 550x304px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 550x304px

>>134386894
And how about some of this?

>>134401130
OMG. This is exhausting. Does any one have reading comprehension skills anymore??

I had no argument, I had a point. My point was for OP to not fear the global warming fear mongering because that is what they do, they lie to us. They lie to us to keep us in constant fear and stress and all the other negative emotions. Because when the populace is in fear, they keep their power and strength. And I used the example of how I grew up in the 1970s hearing and reading about the coming Ice Age and as a kid, is scared me. Then in the 1980s no more Ice Age talk but huge growing Ozone Hole. And the loss of "14 football fields of Rain Forest" a day.

It is always something they bring up to scare us and make us change our lifestyle (Tiny Houses) and give them money (carbon tax).

And then I pointed out to watch the elites. As long as they keep flying around the world in their private jets, owning six homes around the world, all with swimming pools and fountains and 13-car garages, and hanging out on their mega-yachts, then I don't buy one word about global warming.

>>134391273
Stop posting fake news and learn real science for once:

http://landscapesandcycles.net/falling-sea-level--bleached-great-barrier-reef.html

>>134401394
>Funny those so-called "44" papers predicting global warming are not in their References.
Wrong. They're all listed in Table 1 and cited in References.

>The media was bombarding us in the 1970s with "the Ice Age is coming!!"
Which, again, means fuck all nothing. The media is not a primary source of scientific knowledge and shouldn't be treated as such.

>And I never hear about an Ozone Hole.
That's because CFCs are banned and the hole in the ozone has been healing. The ozone hole is actually a prime example of a massive environmental issue that was fixed through massive worldwide cooperation and legislation.

>>134401497
>I'd like to know what you have to say about the magnetopshere.
What about the magnetosphere? That seems kind of irrelevant.

>>134396367
Fraudulent data is necessary because it keeps the AGW scam afloat and the government money rolling in.

>>134401834
It's multivectoral. In the worst case, we might consider having most of the atmosphere blown off if the magnetosphere were to falter enough while the sun had an ejaculation.

I know partial gas pressure experts don't know about anything, but sometimes I hope they do.

File: 578578834.png (94KB, 321x386px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 321x386px

>>134396367

>>134401785
>in the 80s it was ozone hole.
Stopped reading.
We fixed the ozone hole. We banned CFCs and other ozone depleting substances and the damage we were doing stopped. The ozone is now slowly rebuilding.

It's a textbook example of how global agreements and straight up bans of harmful products work.

>>134402014
What the fuck does that have to do with GisTEMP?

>>134401800
>>The media was bombarding us in the 1970s with "the Ice Age is coming!!"
>Which, again, means fuck all nothing. The media is not a primary source of scientific knowledge and shouldn't be treated as such.
See >>134401785
You are putting words in my mouth and creating something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with my original post and what I have been saying.

I have no argument. I don't care about those scientific papers from the 1970s. They mean nothing to me. All I care about is what I heard on TV and read in news magazines and the paper when I was growing up, and that was that the Ice Age was coming. End of. No debate. That was my life. The life of many in the 1970s. Why are you arguing that? You did not live it so who are you to argue my life experience with me? I never once said in any of my posts that I believed it, I was a kid for God's sake. It scared me, yeah, but what kid wouldn't be scared by that cnostant fear mongering?

Just like kids today will say 30 years from now how they grew up fearing global warming because it was all they saw and read. And then I will come along, like you are doing to me, and post "you are wrong, there were many scientific\c papers claiming that the earth was not going through global warming." See how stupid that is?

I am done.

>>134386999
Agreed.

"Global Warming" is a scam. There are forces actively trying to destroy and restructure America and more generally all of the free west world.
It's a scam to attack our energy production and waste lots of time, effort, and money to solutions that don't have any benefit.
They also slap regulations and taxes onto our shit.

Interesting how we need a clean energy source but libs are 100% anti Nuclear power? Nuclear power and Fossil Fuels are the two most powerful energy sources, yet the left is against both? They don't want us to have energy, wealth, or power. It's evident they are pushing for economic collapse.

>>134402014
>when you look online for climate change evidence, but the internet is anti-green because they want you to stay on the internet.

>>134401507
>>134401565
>>134401646

The winning answers have been given. Learn to read graphs and the answers are all obvious.

>>134386894
>Does anyone have red pills on climate change?
Read something about earths historic climate and you will soon find out that nothing is scary about todays full natural climate change.CO2 levels are very low as is temperature.The climate is also very very stable.Infact the CO2 levels are the lowest on record in earths climate history of higher life as are the temperatures.The only exceptions are the times of iceages which are not that common as people think they are.A few million years ago the north pole didnt even have ice caps and yet the predecessor of man thrived.The corals developed in a time period of much higher CO2 levels and much higher mean temperature.If there is one thing you should worry about it would be another glaciation event.That thing is overdue.It would be natural and it would be catastrophic.

>>134402144
Did you even ever take a physics class in high school? I'm not talking about the average energy that constitutes temperature.

I'm talking about solar radiation and its interaction and its magnetic interactions. For fuck's sake do you even know how a CRT works?

>start new run
>complete tutorial no problem
>decide to do first quest pitch black for loot
>beat the 2 skellies and the corridor fight
>head to the right with the arbalest
>pass in front of sack
>*whistles*
>mfw Reynauld stole a bloody herb
Fuck this piece of shit

>>134402228
What's pro-green? Tell it to me.

I thought this was about climate change but now you're saying it's about pro "green" or anti "green?"

Surely you can't even have a STEM degree.

File: 1385363330167.png (220KB, 400x384px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 400x384px

>>134401785
elites are elite because of money, not fear. if you'll recall, fear of global warming hasn't actually changed the western lifestyle besides hippies buying tote bags.

>it scared me
and then you preceded to not care.
>ozone hole
still exists, but is naturally closing because of a shift away from CFCs, which was a result of bringing it to peoples attention, with no quality of life sacrifices
>rainforest
this was literally just a fad to care about, and its still getting fucked. just cause you dont hear about it doesnt mean it disappeared
>tiny houses
not a thing outsise of hippies in portland
>carbon tax
politically impossible
>elites
scientists are not elites, and depending on the industry, the elites will be both for or against AGW

even then, you cant say the media is wrong BOTH times when they've said yes and no on an issue at different times, thats retarded

>>134402227
>It's evident they are pushing for economic collapse.
Exactly. One of the points I have been trying to make. Agenda 21. They are communists-globalists. They are purposely destroying our countries, our culture, our lifestyle. They are pushing Tiny Houses for us, no car ownership, no meat eating, carbon taxes, and other horrors all because of their "global warming" lie. Meanwhile, they live as the elite of every communist country lives - a life of extreme lavish luxury.

They keep coming up with lies to push their agenda and keep us in fear.

>>134402254
>Read something about earths historic climate and you will soon find out that nothing is scary about todays full natural climate change.
Did you skip the part about mass extinctions?

>CO2 levels are very low as is temperature.
Not compared to the conditions we developed agriculture in.

>The climate is also very very stable.
Fuck no.

>Infact the CO2 levels are the lowest on record in earths climate history of higher life as are the temperatures.
Where is this nonsense coming from?

>>134402236
/thread

>>134402711
Who are "They" David Suzuki lives a fairly regular life on his professor salary.

>>134402711
this is a better example:
>>134402423
who here thinks alex is just saying all of that so people can keep watching? internet media is anti-green. or else that'd be less internet traffic for them.

it's a good excuse for countries to invest into energy independence. Also:

THE AGE OF COAL IS OVER. THE TIME OF SOLAR HAS COME.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OceeL7i1Qec

>>134402771
I'm just replying to say that I really appreciate your efforts. How does a smart guy like you end up in this stupid thread?

>>134402163
>I have no argument.
Oh bullshit. You're a denier and using stupid examples to justify it like some media outlets saying there'd be global cooling (even though the climate scientists didn't) and the ozone hole, which was fortunately dealt with, and complaining about rich people. It's just a stew of emotion-driven trash.

Read the research. Stop letting feelings cloud your judgment. You're like the 1000th person I've seen try to discredit AGW by citing some supposed fear-mongering 30 years about global cooling. It's pants-on-head retarded.

>>134401785
>As long as they keep flying around the world in their private jets, owning six homes around the world, all with swimming pools and fountains and 13-car garages, and hanging out on their mega-yachts, then I don't buy one word about global warming.

Like their going to change their lifestyle and accept the facts anymore than you will (apparently). If your only argument is propaganda scare, though not unfounded, it does spit in the face of what is heavily unusual and disconcerting weather patterns. This was already the year without a winter, C02 levels are the highest in earths history (known to us), glaciers the size of nations are breaking away and going adrift, permafrost's are now melting and releasing their 1000+ year cache of pollutants. The list goes on. People will try to take advantage of you using propaganda and scare tactics (for that's human nature), but I'm sorry to say that does not mean the predicament is any less real.

If you're to be unmoved still, well, your gonna die sooner or later. And no mater how or why it comes (old age or weather related famine) chances are the dieing will be painful (and the death will be relief).

>>134386894
In a century the temperature is projected to go up by a whole degree. Your grandkids are fine

>>134403049
solar is so inefficient, also shit doesn't work in the winter

>>134401646
>Assumes a climate sensitivity of 0.15 C/W/m2
Holy fuck no.

>>134402930
He's probably thinking of Dicaprio occasionally using his jet/yacht even though he constantly advocates for solutions like a carbon tax that'd be far more effective than any single effort he can do himself. It's just feelings-based moron logic.

>>134403206

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=solar+cheapest+source+of+power

File: nasa_to_deceive.jpg (197KB, 1100x935px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1100x935px

>>134386894
Alright. Pretty good bait anon.

The solar system is in a natural warming cycle, and the people that run things want to capitalize on it to seize power, much like liberals wait for shootings and blame the guns so they can take them away and control people.

Pluto has risen 5 degrees centigrade in the last decade and nobody ever drove a car on it. Also, it's not a planet now so I wonder if that's the info piece that made it 'go away'.

Also, look at the fruits of the labor of the people who espouse that climate change is real, and you'll see that they aren't being honest, which is enough to discredit anything they say. They fly in private jets to ecological conferences to blame people for wasting energy. So by that alone you owe their claims no solidarity; there's no moral backing where they can ever prove it.

Just look at people arguing for refugees who are terrified, moving out of Europe or not letting any in to their mansions, so clearly they don't care enough to show by example. It's not worth your time to worry about it.

ALSO ->(and more importantly) look to history for ways ancient kings kept their populations under control. It was always science based on floods (Egypt) or celestial events like meteor showers and eclipses (China). Think about it this way, f you didn't know stars could be mapped and your god/king told you that he needed farmers to give up some land or else the sky would go dark or there would be a famine, and then when the sky went dark used it as a way to control more land, wouldn't you believe he had caused the event?

pic related (also NOAA's false data from the last decade where they changed numbers to make it look like global warming is real).

>>134402933
>who here thinks alex
Not me. My first clue was reviewing a slideshow from really only my MS dad who fucked up his PhD and had to get this really awful slideshow from a colleague. I guess this is what idiot studends go through, but at least it has citations.

It didn't get much better from there. I wouldn't put my name on with those citations. But it was instructive to chase them down a bit to try to understand how these people think.

>>134402610
>elites are elite because of money, not fear
That would be a thread in itself to debate.

>you cant say the media is wrong BOTH times
I used to trust the media, I no longer do. I think 99% of media is just lies and half-truths now. And most scientists are on a corporations payroll, so they push the agenda they are told to push. It is no longer the America I grew up in. No one is honest anymore. It is all about pushing an agenda and money.

>>134402930
>Who are "They"
The communists-globalists

>>134403081
>Oh bullshit. You're a denier
Oh, waaaaaaa. I know I am a denier. I don't believe in the global warming lie. I have stated as such in a few posts already. Do I believe temperature fluctuates and weather patters change over the course of years? Of course! Do Ii believe warming trends happen? Of course! Do I believe Ice Ages have existed? Of curse! Do I believe in global warming now? Nope.

File: e75.jpg (5KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 251x251px

>there are people who unironically dent climate change.

File: captainplanetwouldbeproud.jpg (347KB, 695x1516px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 695x1516px

>>134386894

It's not about is climate change real or not. Climate change is always real, our climate always changes.

Fuck know it alls that don't know shit. Look to the experts.

Search these things and learn for yourself. Don't listen to me or any other idiot.

"Famous Atmospheric Physicists"

Look at who all the leaders are in the actual field that studies climate change. Richard Lindzen is by far the leading expert. He wrote Trump a letter to pull out of paris treaty. He lead the way on middle atmosphere research and models. No one knows better then him.

"Earth is getting greener"

Earth has gotten 26% greener since 1985. Agriculture is up, FIsh are coming back. Carbon IS life. Look at the far eastern desert in Australia that is now a greenland. Look at China and how green it became.

"Permian Era" "Mesozoic Era"

Look when life evolved. Just use common sense... Even humans came to be in 3000+ PPM carbon, we are currently at a low level of carbon, just 400 PPM. Plants actually had to evolve to cope with the current low carbon levels. The planet will only get stronger as carbon levels are restored.

The most important thing is to use common sense. Look outside. Does the planet look like it's dying to you? If carbon is so dangerous, why do greenhouses regularly pump 3000+ PPM carbon into them with maskless workers, who work decades in them without harm from the carbon. Look at submarines. Navy soldiers in submarines spend months out at see in EIGHT - THOUSAND PARTS PER MILLION CARBON. Do they die to it? Suffer ill effects? Of course not.

DON'T TRUST ME, look for yourself. Read the opinion 1 by 1 of every credible atmospheric scientist. They all agree there is no cause for alarm, and though the planets temperature is rising, and see level is rising... They have always done this after an ice age.

>>134403393
>Pluto has risen 5 degrees centigrade in the last decade and nobody ever drove a car on it.
Pluto is in a highly elliptical orbit. It is currently literally falling towards the Sun.

Climate change/global warming/global cooling=ManBearPig™

>>134403104
>Like their going to change their lifestyle and accept the facts anymore than you will (apparently)
They are the ones pushing it, though. Why should I listen to Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio cry about global warming and beg me to change my lifestyle to save the earth, when they live their mega-carbon eating lifestyles? If they don't care, must not be that big of an issue.

>glaciers the size of nations are breaking away and going adrift,
But prove that is global warming. Prove that it has not happened throughout the history of earth. In 1967 Chicago had a huge snow blizzard, dumping 28-inches of snow. It was the single greatest snowfall in one storm in Chicago history. The highest temperature ever recorded in the United States, 134 degrees Fahrenheit, was in Death Valley on July 10, 1913. My point being, weather is unpredictable and fluctuates. I just am not ready to believe in global warming.

>well, your gonna die sooner or later
True, dat.

>>134401507
Not controlling for changing solar luminosity

>>134401565
Too large a scale to see temperature change as it has recently been significant to humans

>>134401646
CO2 output is exponentially increasing, also climate sensitivity is assumed to be far too low.

>>134402318
Solar irradiance has been decreasing though. I don't think increasing temperatures are the result of a weakening magnetosphere

File: deadly.png (380KB, 597x319px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 597x319px

>>134386894
Ask yourself this anon. If you look at our planet where is it the warmest, where is it the coldest. Then ask yourself, where is it the greenest with the most diversity of plants and animals, and where is it lacking animals and plant diversity? Common sense defeats the climate change debate. Just think about this shit, don't get clouded in graphs and manipulated data.

Is the 97% of scientists believe it still a thing?
I always thought that was a terrible way to pitch an agenda.

Without any other data how is anyone supposed to make a decision based on 97% of scientists?

As in how am i supposed to know the remaining 3% arent remarkably smarter than their peers rather than remarkably stupider

File: 1424714675134.jpg (59KB, 453x459px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 453x459px

>>134403517
so you get shown proof of how scientists weren't saying what the media said they were saying in the 70's, proving that you were being lied to, and you still somehow think that things are
>no longer the america i grew up in
when apparently they were always dishonest fucks.

im sorry, but you have some serious cognitive dissonance going on right now

also, there are tens of trillions of dollars invested in keeping the world as consumerist as possible. if AGW was actually real, the sure fucking bet would be to say that they're dedicated towards making sure as little changes as possible

if everyone's lying, then you're picking a side to be lied to from

>>134403569

It's not the carbon. Higher temperature causes two predictable results:

1. dry desert areas get more dry and more hot
2. wet places get more rainfall, because of the increased oceanic evaporation

So, some places will get worse, some will get better. We need to calculate the balance.

> Does the planet look like it's dying to you? If carbon is so dangerous, why do greenhouses regularly pump 3000+ PPM carbon into them with maskless workers, who work decades in them without harm from the carbon. Look at submarines. Navy soldiers in submarines spend months out at see in EIGHT - THOUSAND PARTS PER MILLION CARBON.

I don't believe it. There are health effect above 1000 ppm. Air stinks with more than 600 ppm.

>>134404081
Carbon levels rise and fall has always followed temperature. Look it up, suddenly were supposed to believe temperature is now following carbon? You ignore all of history, common sense missing.

File: 'lag'.jpg (117KB, 946x1031px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 946x1031px

>>134404250
>Carbon levels rise and fall has always followed temperature
Sometimes it leads sometimes it follows, however the bulk of the warming tends to take place after a small initial warming

>>134404081
Solar irradiance has been decreasing though

That's true. But people who build models for a living are tasked to build high-demensional models. So now more of the higher frequency UV is coming in. Take note of how many people just get burned these days instead of tan like like usual.

File: solar activity v temp.gif (10KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 500x335px

>>134404454
Well TSI has also been decreasing and that covers all frequencies

>>134404228
>I don't believe it. There are health effect above 1000 ppm. Air stinks with more than 600 ppm.

Good thing you can't google it or anything. Facts are hard for some I guess. Try it!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/

>dry desert areas get more dry and more hot

So you just decide to make up your own mind? The earth is getting greener, it's a verifiable fact. What kinda sources you like? NASA ok for you? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Google it, opinions don't mean shit to me. Show me the deserts expansion. Because every piece of data we have shows the opposite. Deserts are disappearing. Look at Australia.

>wet places get more rainfall, because of the increased oceanic evaporation

And? Of course they do. Are you saying that's a bad thing? Not a fact? Again. Earth is 26% greener since 1985. That's a fact. HQ images of earth for 4 years straight confirmed it. https://www.space.com/32713-earth-getting-greener-co2-climate-change-and-more-to-blame-video.html

>So, some places will get worse, some will get better. We need to calculate the balance.

What got worse? Feeding people? Notice the spike in Agriculture that coincides with our CO2 increase? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_productivity

Better come at me with some facts instead of opinions. I actually know what I'm talking about.

>>134404678
That graph doesn't seem to cover which frequency ranges are being blocked or let in.

>>134404763
TSI is just an analysis across all frequencies of EMR

File: wrong.png (19KB, 740x218px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 740x218px

>>134404366

Wrong. It follows it.

>>134386894
The greenhouse effect from co2 is real however its actually a good thing. The number of climate related deaths (mainly cold exposure) have dropped significantly over the years. Plants die at 200 co2 ppm. We are at 400ppm. Optimal levels for plant growth is 1000ppm. Phytoplankton (which provides half of the worlds oxygen) have grown massively (quadrupled?) Over the past 40 years. Global greening has massively increase. Basically more co2 means more and bigger plant growth. This means more food for animals and humans and also more oxygen. More oxygen leads to bigger healthier humans. The greenhouse effect also regulates temperature and evens out extremes. It does this best for the big continental landmasses.

Article ice melting also will open up trade lanes across the north pole.

Basically burning fossil fuels is good and will benefit the human race. No wonder Jews hate it so much

>>134404250
>>134404366

Consider the permafrost thawing. We are dealing with it now, but it had to happen in the past, when the ice sheets receded.

warming -> permafrost CO2/CH4 release -> more warming

>>134404821
Right. My point is that you want something more like a probability mass function. Even when I was just a little old EE guy I could understand how one-dimensional thinking was going to be the death of you.

>>134404842
I'm going to need a legend for that or a source because idk wtf those individual coloured lines represent.

>>134404763
Who cares. We don't know shit as a civilization. This planet adapts, it's animals, it's plants. Shit will be fine as long as we control what we dump into ocean. If we fuck up phytoplankton blooms we all die.

File: wireless-indoor-air-quality-iaq-monitoring-in-classrooms-and-laboratorie-4-728.jpg?cb=1346002655.jpg (122KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 728x546px

>>134404733

Sources conflict.

>>134404990
I hope you die.

File: 1482666528588.png (531KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 480x480px

>>134386894
>spraying shit into the atmosphere to make us stupid

it appears to be working

youre an idiot. big time.

File: 111111.gif (26KB, 533x343px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 533x343px

>>134404895
So what if it thaws. Look at when life evolved. Carbon is life. It's a good thing. We are carbon based life forms. We evolved in 3000ppm. Temperatures much higher, plants and animals on poles. very little ice. Let the permefrost melt. I don't see any evidence that higher carbon and temps would result in life doing anything other then benefiting. Prove me wrong. Show me carbon and higher temps killing off life. Or, look at a picture of Earth, and ask yourself, where is life the most strong and diverse? Where it is warmest and highest carbon? Or where it is cold?

>>134404932
Of what frequencies? Why? The sun doesn't emit light at several given frequencies of light it emits it at continuous frequencies across the spectrum.

File: IMG_0469.jpg (61KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x500px

I'll say it for the thousandth time! Climate change is a scam that back peddles money from going to the free market and instead fuels the corrupt CIA and far left groups. Climate change has been around since the dinosaurs no need to worry focus on the real issue which is white fucking genocide.

>>134405007
So submarines and greenhouses are a lie? http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

Tell me, show me actual negative effects not a bullet point picture. Show me the people in submarines who got ill, show me the greenhouse workers who got ill. Go ahead. I'll wait.

>>134405232
>The sun doesn't emit light at several given frequencies of light it emits it at continuous frequencies across the spectrum.
That's kind of a strange statement mang. I don't know where to begin. The shape of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emits is definitional in our assumptions about how things will play our over the next billions of years.

Maybe I misunderstand you?

>>134404977
If you don't recognize that graph then you probably aren't on my level and should find a post to debate about glaciers melting or some other trivial shit like polar bears being too cute to kill.

>>134404733

From your source:

>Given what I’ve learned about the Navy exposure, I think this is just another scare tactic to make CO2 look like an invisible boogeyman.

I don't know, wattsupwiththat.com seems to be sceptical in only one direction. Pick one study, reject the other, why?

>>134405033

When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have truth on your side, pound the truth. When you have nether on your side, pound the table. Pound it hard, just like that black dude pounding your mom while your died cried in the other room with a glass of scotch in his hand.

>>134405212
No, I'm speculating why there might be increase in CO2 after/during warming. We will soon have a chance to witness the positive climate feedback from permafrost thawing and methane clathrate release.

>>134405345
Ok, those are good sources, I can study them. bookmarked for later.

>>134405615

Yup. We will see it just like we are seeing global warming, oops I mean cooling, oops I mean pausing, oops I mean climate change. We will see it like we are seeing already the planet getting greener, fish returning, new species popping up everywhere. Just you wait and see. As time passes the hysteria starts to fall to the truth. I used to believe in global warming too. Why didn't it happen?

>>134405212
But we're not evolving clumps of cells anymore are we.

Ultimately we're interested in human civilisation which is currently entering the warmest period of its existence.

>Show me carbon and higher temps killing off life
Great barrier reef or any other reef system
Bramble Cray Melomy's are thought to have gone extinct due to rising sea levels and temperature

>>134405424
What exactly does this have anything to do with our understanding of solar forcing?

>>134405426
>tfw too smart to provide sources
Tracked it down anyway (https://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-2012.pdf) and what do you know the paper is looking specifically at temperatures in antarctic whereas the study in >>134404366 addresses temperatures globally

>>134405614
This is a good video for the truth. Some people remember the old Mr. Putin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB9ZQ5doRi8

>>134405751
History doesn't lie. Look at the earths history. When did life evolve. When was the planet its most healthy? Why did plants have to suddenly evolve, or adapt to low carbon? You want something to study that will open your eyes? Study this stuff http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094

Learn what a C4 plant is. Learn how we are in a super low point for carbon levels on Earth. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626541/

>>134405802
>>Show me carbon and higher temps killing off life
>Great barrier reef or any other reef system

Uhh, words don't show shit. We THEORIZE that it killed it. ZERO solid evidence of that. Coral reef has died MANY times. It comes back. I think we killed coral reef actually, but not with some warmer water or carbon.

That's a tough one to sell because reefs existed in much warmer waters, with MUCH higher carbon levels. Suddenly they will die to a little warming and a tiny carbon increase? Lol ok.

http://coral.aims.gov.au/info/reefs-mesozoic.jsp

File: 1383381595111.jpg (22KB, 449x577px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 449x577px

>>134405763
>fish returning
what the fuck are you talking about, that's related to fishery policy, and fish stocks worldwide are literally crisis-level depleted already. besides all that, fish get smaller with co2, since warmer water doesn't hold as much oxygen
>new species popping up everywhere
such as? and even if a few pop up, vastly more are going extinct at the moment.
>why didn't it happen?
are you one of those dumbasses who thought sea levels would rise 100 feet by 2005 or something? its a process, not an event

>>134405802
What exactly does this have anything to do with our understanding of solar forcing?

Because the models do not take into account the obvious variables. I'd be fired if I came up with this bullshit in my field.

Or maybe I wouldn't because often times I'm kept on board because I can explain why we do things this way or that way. It makes me feel dirty, but that's how I retain my job. I'd rather explain how to take down anti-human technologies and other anti-productive things but people are stupid and I want to pay for food, housing, heat in the winter, and things like that.

>>134405802
>addresses temperatures globally

Do you even know how antarctic data shows global data? That's your argument? Ignorance?

>>134386894
As far as I'm concerned if there's even the slightest possibility of climate change being affected by human action then we must do all we can to limit our impact.
My nation is a beautiful one, I believe we should be doing all we can to keep it that way by both removing (forcibly need be) paki's and wogs and also by caring for our environment.

>>134386894
I think this is why the White population is dropping.

Niggers just have a bucket load of kids wether he can feed them or not
>whites subliminally understand that the environment is bad for child bearing.

it could be a natural survival reaction, condense the population, but ensure they have enough material to live decently.

>climate change is BS, im a farmer, the weather IS changing but it wont "kill everyone" like the TV says. I wouldnt mind a 50meter sea rise tho, too many people and not enough jungle and forest

>>134406065
>We THEORIZE that it killed it. ZERO solid evidence of that
Well:

Increased CO2 levels has been linked to higher temperatures historically --> Higher temperatures has been linked to higher sea levels historically

Whilst clearly not the only reason it's reasonable to suggest that the Bramble cray melomy went extinct primarily due to rising sea levels due to increased CO2 emissions would certainly be there

>That's a tough one to sell because reefs existed in much warmer waters, with MUCH higher carbon levels
I don't think its fair to equivocate the coping ability of coral from 225 mya and 65 mya to modern day coral.

>I think we killed coral reef actually, but not with some warmer water or carbon
Rising sea levels and temperatures have been linked to coral bleaching. It's probably due to current global warming.

>>134406162
>Do you even know how antarctic data shows global data? That's your argument? Ignorance?
Um, it doesn't. Antarctic ice cores only provide you information about temperature in Antarctica. If what you're saying were to be true why do we not just station all our thermometers at Antarctica instead of ensuring good global coverage?


>>134406127
>Because the models do not take into account the obvious variables
Like what? What needs to be considered apart from the historical relationship between TSI and temperature?

>>134386894
The red-pill is its real and there is no avoiding it.

Climate change is real and humans do have a significant impact on it, however paying carbon tax to the UN isn't gonna be the thing that fixes it. What will fix our climate is the emergence of large clean energy corporations that can rival big coal/oil and hopefully they are coming soon.

>>134407053
>Like what? What needs to be considered apart from the historical relationship between TSI and temperature?

*pfftt* dude...
yeah
yeah dude *pppppppppft*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd6S9CinWZU

>>134386894
Google "CO2 fertilization"

Increasing CO2 levels is basically the only good thing we are doing for the planet, but it is massively good

File: Ben-Bulben-Ireland-Table-Mountain-02.jpg (359KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 600x600px

>>134406838
>Plants are the Apex of all food chains.
Oak trees literally strangle bugs with their roots and disolve them, if something dies it rots and the tree eats it etc.

Animals evolved to link plants together (pollenization, seed distribution)

Animals in general (especially us) are out of whack with nature, now nature will kill the animals it doesnt need.

>No point worrying, its like white genocide
, there wont be many Happenings, just a gradual change they will hype up to put retards in a frenzy to bankrupt their countries and gib gibs to tekkers

File: CO2-fertilization-effect.jpg.662x0_q70_crop-scale.jpg (30KB, 662x265px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 662x265px

>>134386894
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

>>134386894

How can you be this legitimately retarded? The whole thing is fake. Everyone knows it, and know one can say a word. This is Totalitarianism manifest.

To get people to publicly affirm an untruth is the only real way to control them. They have to hear themselves say it. Then they're broken - useless for any real purpose of revolt.

It's the same with transgenderism, and immigration, and all the rest. The actual policies matter far less than the ability to terrify people into emphatically affirming something they don't believe. That's the only real goal.

If they can get you to stand up and say things you know are untrue, they win.

>>134386894

If there is climate change, I'm fucking loving it this summer. Two summers ago, we had quite a few days that were 35 degrees celsius, sometimes getting up to 42 with humidity (so that's about 107 fahrenheit in burger measurement). Most of the summer weeks were sitting around 30 degrees. This summer, we haven't had a single day break 30 where I'm living, and the temperature has been sitting around the low to mid 20's most of the time.

I fucking love climate change this year.

>>134408320
or people might, you know, disagree

>>134386894

In my humble opinion the thing that is going to harm you and your children the most is inferior foods from massively intensive farming and the horror of diesel engines which will show up as a plague of lung conditions in the next 50 years. Global warming is exactly what the earth has adapted us for and will be a total non issue for our race.

>>134386999
>humans didn't cause it
>they didn't, they didn't, they didn't
Yes they did, denialist fgt pls.

>>134387071
>ANOTHER WAY TO TAX YOU
>b-but m-muh tax dollers
STFU tax fearfag

>>134405763
YOU NEED TO STOP THAT BULLSHIT ABOUT "oops cooling"

it's not convincing anybody but yourself.

>>134407053
>I don't think its fair to equivocate the coping ability of coral from 225 mya and 65 mya to modern day coral.

Of course it is.Why should it be a difference to today with these minor changes in CO2 or temperature ? It proves that your theory is wrong.Coral coping ability is as it was 225 mya or 65 mya.Its not suddendly destroyed because for the sake of the argument.

"Rising sea levels and temperatures have been linked to coral bleaching"

No they are not linked.If it would be linked corals would have never come into existence in the first place and second its natural global warming.

>>134402143
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/new_atmCFC.html

>>134402771
Shows me that you have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.Agriculture developed during the holocene optimum.A period around 8000 to 4000 BC.A time that was much warmer than now...and dada with the roughly the the lower amount of CO2 levels.Yeah holy shit right ? Busted.

Of course the climate as of now is much more stable than in other interglacial periods if you would actually go and compare the records.


"Where is this nonsense coming from?"

A you fucking kidding me ? Do you really asking me that ?

Do you even ever compared actual co2 levels of earth climate history with our levels ? 380 ppm is extremely low.Compare that to the 3000 up to 5000 ppm in other periods.Stop writing about climate change please.Start reading a bit and then come back and try to argue with people.

"Did you skip the part about mass extinctions?"

What had that to do with global warming.Mass extinctions such as the KT or P-Tr event have nothing to do with our current climate.The causes for these events are unclear.Its clearing typical sjw fear mongering.Pay us or else hellfire.Get lost.

>>134408973
>heh, you're afraid of a large political elite using coercion to involuntarily take the money you worked hard for? taxophobe

>>134410148
Damn you dumb

>>134410162
>a large political elite
you mean "government" fgt pls

>>134408320
>know one can say a word
Did you not just say a word?
GTFO fearfag

>>134407311
>Google
fgt pls

It's real, it's going to kill us, it's too terrifying to think about, the only real solution is to stop having kids, the rich and powerful know this and are either coming up with contingency plans to save themselves or trying to profit from it

there's no solution, the world is ending.

>>134406065
>We THEORIZE
What do you mean be "we", Peasant?

>>134405486
>Pick one study, reject the other, why?
...bcoz preconceptual bias?

Climate change is caused by geo-engineering to destroy the industry of developed countrys.Chemtrails,you may say.
So,climate change is man made,but not the way they tell you.

File: 1950-2003 CO2 vs Welfare.png (110KB, 724x745px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 724x745px

>>134386894
+3F won't kill your babies. very worse case scenario, you may need to leave your ancestral home and move a little further north if you want to maintain the same crops. Markets die, markets are born, life goes on.

Or better yet, focus on climate change and your kids won't die in 100 years, because you're too busy not asking questions and paying your government for the privilege of being beheaded in the name of tolerance so you'll never have kids that can eventually die to begin with.

TL;DR - even if climate change is an assured nuclear holocaust in 100 years, we currently have more pressing matters right now and when they're all addressed, what kids we do have still have a window of opportunity to fix the problem without the additional stressors of racial and cultural genocide imposed by leftist governments opening the doors for reverse colonization breathing down their necks.

Pic semi-related, CO2 emissions correlate with welfare spending. You can reduce CO2 with reduced welfare, as you have less useless people driving around and consuming things on your dime, but the left will never own up to that.

>>134415375
well, they did until Clinton got into office, then welfare spending exploded and shit got more centralized making energy usage more efficient, even as CO2 tries to catch up

>>134411602
the world is ending for errybodyy m8. in 70 years almost all of us will be kill. it is the nature of bein human. eventually tne lights go out and its all ogre.

>>134411234
the government is a large political elite

>>134386894
sure.

The earth picks up energy from the sun, then radiates it out again. Lots at IR frequencies, in the form of electromagnetic waves.

Carbon dioxide happens to be the right size to resonate at the IR frequencies (called 'bending states'), and when other gasses collide with a vibrating CO2, they get kicked off with a bit more kinetic energy ('heating' the atmosphere)

this process is called 'coupling', and CO2 pays the role of coupling IR em radiation to Kinetic energy. in both directions.

the more CO2, the more coupling, so the more heating AND cooling.

AGW people thing net heating, as they thing that the kinetic collisions occur faster than the IR excitation/relaxation, which they figure from comparing the mean free path of the gas molecules to the lab measured relaxation time of the 2nd bending state. (10us compared to nano seconds)

they got it wrong.

The actual math is not from a full relaxation of a CO2 molecule, but the 'mean free path length' version of it - the resultant relaxation times over all the CO2 molecules form near equilibrium to equilibrium. This is in the order of pico seconds.

So the coupling between IR and CO2 bending is faster than between CO2 bending and Kinetic collisions, so the cooling at night is faster than the heating during the day.

So increasing CO2 makes for hotter hots, but for even colder colds, which is why high CO2 preceded every ice age

Invest in coal.

>>134418414
That is not even slightly how the greenhouse effect works.

File: Screenshot_2017-07-21-12-29-56_1.jpg (31KB, 478x266px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 478x266px

>>134386894
It's legit frightening, I can't imagine what summer this year will be like

>>134386894
it doesn't exist.

>>134386894
We could set up camp and survive on Pluto if we chose to. Stop worrying about life on a perfectly habitable planet. Life adapts to it's climate. not vice-versa.

>>134401788
But da ice brok off so it's going to melt and raise sea levels. Whats the problem?

It's all a big scam for more government. Think about it for a second how is the temperature going up a couple degrees going to end all life on earth it sounds so stupid to me. if anything it'll benefit humanity because forzen land will become farmable in russia and canada

>>134386894
co2 makes 0.04% of the atmosphere. Before industrial Revolution it was 0.028%. So we talk here about 0.012% mode co2 in the atmosphere.

Now keep in mind how much of a affect the sun has in the tempetature. Could it probably have somethinng to do with it?

>>134386894
We're all going to die, some are going to die an early death in starvation, this would be your off spring because you didn't listen.

>>134421048
Climate change exist but man made global warming doesn't exist.

We are in a cooling period right now and it should continue for another 10-15 years or so then change to warming period.
Always been like this. Nothing new under he sun.

>>134386894
Watch The Great Global Swindle and look up climate gate. It's fear monger in and another way to tax us. Look up why Patrick Moore left GreenPeace

Mass extinction events are responsible for the evolution of the species. Necessity is the mother of invention. Only the strong survive, Harsh conditions breed strong soldiers, etc Stop being a pussy and let the games begin. This planet is long overdue for a cleansing.

File: TvsTSI.png (344KB, 2889x2209px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 2889x2209px

>>134421785
>Now keep in mind how much of a affect the sun has in the tempetature. Could it probably have somethinng to do with it?
Nope. TSI hasn't significantly increased.

>>134421884
>We are in a cooling period right now and it should continue for another 10-15 years or so then change to warming period.
I think you're being confused by the 11-year sunspot cycle. The long-term (ie, 30+ year) trend is still a rapid rise in temperature.

>>134421967
>look up climate gate
Not this again.
There were multiple independent investigations into the CRU after climategate. None found any evidence of serious wrongdoing. At this point the entire event should only be viewed as an example of the dangers of quote mining.