Why is it getting hotter?

>>8348266
Because these dubs are hot fire

File: ourguy.png (836KB, 1013x678px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 1013x678px

>>8348266
>>8348277

>>8348266
>>8348277
Checked and Keked

>>8348266
>>8348277
Shadilay.

The data is being fidled with.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/

>>8348266
does it even matter?

>>8348330
You're lost, the right wing retard brainlet board is:
>>>/pol/

>>8348330
>breitbart

Lol. You are aware this is a science and math board?

>>8348380
>>8348335

>being this brainwashed
>you won't even read the article
>will deny it anyway

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

>>8348392
>posting a link to that blog written by industry oil shills
>again

pls go away to your brainlet board /pol/luter idiot

Not a denier, just interested. What actually is the explanation for all of the data adjustments? Assuming they are being presented accurately

File: image.jpg (112KB, 626x563px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 626x563px

>>8348403

>criticizing the source instead of the data

>>8348392
>cherrypick a handful of curves
>look they show a rise where they didn't before!
so what? Actually a bunch of records do show a reduction of the temperature increase after adjustement for urban heat, likes the writer expect.
See for example the very first one I picked:
before
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=425004861950&dt=1&ds=12
after
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=425004861950&dt=1&ds=14

This took me 30 seconds to check.
So the guy had to cherrypick some stations in south america to make his point and you, like a good little dunce, just took his word for it
Damn man you really are fucking retarded. Like, offensively so.

>>8348408
They are not being presented accurately, most adjustements don't introduce a temperature increase that's not in the raw data, contrary to what the brainlet who wrote this believes.

The reasons for adjustments are presented here on NASA website: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

Those damn Jews trying to hide their temperature adjustment by making a public faq about it!

>>8348418
>All powerful kgb agents using mind control rays convinced professors 50 years to teach SJW material all without being arrested or reported even once
shows how childish and simple the average /pol/ brainlet is in their worldview

>>8348418
Normally I would agree, but that source is genuinely fucking retarded.

>>8348429
Much obliged

File: 1438638915348.jpg (78KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 550x550px

>>8348392
Devolving into this level of skepticism is absurd and borderline deluded. I'm open minded but if you can't provide a reasonable amount scientific evidence to support your claim then don't speak at all. I doubt you'll change your opinion; its easier to ignore elementary science then accept your world view might be wrong. But then again I'm part of a NASA secret society attempting to redistribute the worlds wealth to transgender blacks.

Venus is warmer than Mercury for a reason.

>>8348507
>Venus is warmer than Mercury for a reason.
Nobody denies that the greenhouse effect is a real thing

>>8348308
>>>/b/, newfag.

>>8348515
Except for the large segment of "skeptics" that do. So which particular scientific fact pertaining to AGW do you deny?

>>8348542
>Except for the large segment of "skeptics" that do
What really? I mean I know some of them deny that it is happening here on a noticeable scale but I wasnt aware that any flatly denied that it occurred

File: 1473450979781.jpg (17KB, 403x312px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 403x312px

>>8348515
Are you sure?

Debating the impact greenhouse gases have on the climate is fine. Flat-out denying the relationship between higher temps and greenhouse gases is absurd.

>>8348266
because you're a faggot.

>>8348561
I know, that was my point

>>8348266
measurments are no longer scientific, they are cherrypicked to provide statistics that run along the lines of a political movement.

Science is political, thus not science, better known as propaganda

File: AS9Xg9r.jpg (79KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 750x750px

>>8348565
Increased global temperatures and rising sea levels would indicate that we're experiencing a warming period (not related to the sun's energy) or greenhouse gases are having a major impact.

Your pick, but ether way we need to lower the planets temperature.

Many important microbes, plant, and animals will die with a 2C temperature change. Plus diseases love warm/wet climates. [I could go on but you get the idea].

File: globalwarming.jpg (2MB, 1891x4901px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1891x4901px

>>8348424
>>8348429
> Being this gullible
>>8348561
> P, therefore Q
> Q, therefore P
Flawless logic.

>>8348431

>strawmanning this hard

The data is fake

They literally "adjusted" the measurements so they said something they didn't say

Flagrant fabrication of temperature records is whats going on.

>>8348675
>>8348660
Brainlets please go

>>8348515
Venus is warm because it has an atmosphere, a very thick opaque one.

Not because of any stupid "greenhouse effect"

>>8348622
>clear rebuttal
>refuses to address it and instead posts more random bullshit
Listen buddy boy, we all know it's easier to make up bullshit that to disprove it. Your point about the NASA adjustment was retarded. The rest is probably of the same quality.

>>8348686
Then prove it for us, lord of arguments.

>>8348710
>Then prove it
Prove what? I already showed the adjustments don't necessarily introduce a temperature increase.
Want another one randomly:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=425002380510&dt=1&ds=12
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=425002380510&dt=1&ds=14

You can pick them yourself at random.
That's funny because the guy writing your article says "you can check it yourself on NASA site", yet he relies on you being a lazy brainlet and not doing it.

You people are so fucking manipulable it's incredible.

>>8348731
I'm no climatologist. Can you read through the post in >>8348622 and give me solid analysis of it? I've seen the arguments for climate change but I don't see what's wrong with that counter argument.

It's not that we're manipulable; it's that we don't know how to prove it ourselves and we'll be damned if we just take someone's word for it the way most do. So help me learn, help me understand, don't lord your knowledge over me.

File: 1467930895193.jpg (33KB, 746x691px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 746x691px

>>8348622
Wow I didn't know cavemen had weather satellites! /s

Those peaks and troughs are happening over the course of thousands of years. For example: those melting rates are measured in millions of years. Earths climate temp is rising incredibly fast over a shot period of time; much quicker then historically expected.

You do realize our atmosphere was prominently carbon rich during those warmer year?

What are the factors causing Earths temperature to rise and fall over these large periods of time? Volcanic activity, orbital periods, sun temperature, or greenhouse gases?

It seems like you're friend is misinterpreting data for his own benefit or is lacking any knowledge of historical climatology. He is however correct about over speculation by certain climatologists; the debate currently isn't over IF but HOW MUCH.

> P, therefore Q
> Q, therefore P
Just like historical climate data has no relationship with the greenhouse gas effect :^)

The greenhouse gas effect is real, here I found a page for your level of education: http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

>>8348680
Venus's atmosphere is made up of 97% CO2 (resulting in much higher surface pressure than Earths) . I'll remind you that the gas giants are also opaque, by your logic they should be incredibly warm as well.

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/3987/1/INGjas69c.pdf

>>8348740
Being skeptical is a great thing to do, just be well informed when doing it.

>>8348774
>I'll remind you that the gas giants are also opaque, by your logic they should be incredibly warm as well.
they ARE incredibly warm...
especially for being so far out..
Not sure what your point is.

If venus was Nitrogen/Oxygen like Earth it would still be hot as hell. Since its 100 times as dense as earths atmosphere.

>>8348515
>Nobody denies that the greenhouse effect is a real thing

>>8348680
>Venus is warm because it has an atmosphere, a very thick opaque one.
>Not because of any stupid "greenhouse effect"

Sometimes I love /sci/

File: 1471153146431.jpg (23KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 184x184px

>>8348780
Most of Jupiter isn't warm, it produces more heat from its core then the sun provides. Its relative solar intensity is incredibly low (Earth:Jupiter 1,0:0.0369). Its only warm internally due to its massive gravity.

If Earth's atmosphere was 97% CO2 it would retain more heat (and have significantly thinker atmosphere)! CO2 is heaver then oxygen and nitrogen, no shit it retains more heat that's what the greenhouse effect is all about.

I haven't a clue whats more dense, Venus's atmosphere or you. Read the damn pdf.

>>8348266
Because they are moving all the temperature recording instruments from temperate grasslands and fields to hot tarmacs. Use satellite data instead.

Even if global warming is a lefty hoax or not, why wouldn't we want to move away from fossil fuels? Seems like it would be better for everyone in the long term.

>>8348887

Cheaper, easy to use. It's an economic issue mostly.

>>8348830
>! CO2 is heaver then oxygen and nitrogen, no shit it retains more heat that's what the greenhouse effect is all about.

Total bullshit, your just talking out your ass. Mass and specific heat capacity are not consistent with one another.

For instance one kg of gold has the same specific heat capacity as 36.4 grams of lithium.

>>8348676
I am not a brainlet. Have you ever LOOKED at the studies?

It literally says in them that the original temperature records were discarded and instead replaced with an adjusted version.

>>8349149
>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/
They adjust for changing station locations, changing equipment etc to improve the long term reliability of the datasets. They're not just making it up...

>>8348266
damn that graph is giving me a hard-on

>>8349138
>Cheaper, easy to use.
Cheaper, only because of huge oil and coal subsidies.

Easier to use, definitely.

>>8348330
>breitbart.com
L0Lno fgt pls

>>8348680
>"greenhouse effect" not due to atmosphere
/sci/ence illiterate fgt pls

>>8348740
>we'll be damned
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>>8349149
>I am not a brainlet.
>I am not, I am not, I am not
Yes, you are.

>>8348740
>we
Hahaha look at this faggot. It thinks it's people!

File: ThatsGreat.jpg (154KB, 750x556px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 750x556px

>>8349147
I never said they were consistent with each other. Forgive me that was poorly worded, haven't done any thermal problems for quite some time.

It should be possible to see the impact CO2 vs N2+O2 has on an atmosphere.

Known:
------------
[1] Specific heat capacity of CO2, N2, O2, ect..
[2] Mass of both Venus and Earths atmospheres.
[3] Contents of each atmosphere.
[4] Relative solar intensity for both planets

(you get the idea)

It shouldn't be that hard for someone to come up with a reasonable estimate. That someone won't be me however, I'm going back to watching my romance comedy.

>>8348830
The greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse agents having the ability to absorb and reemit longwave radiation while being impermeable to shortwave radiation. Think sunlight in, passes through greenhouse gasses, gets absorbed by earth, reemitted at longer wavelength, gets partially absorbed by greenhouse gasses then remitted towards earth.

>>8349359
*while being permeable to SWR rather

File: Dog.jpg (52KB, 657x613px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 657x613px

>>8349359
Wouldn't having a higher molar mass mean absorbing more light? So CO2 (44.01 g/mol) would absorb more light then O2 (15.9994 g/mol)?

(I know little to nothing about light; its pretty much witchcraft to me).

>>8349389
Nah, higher molar mass doesn't have anything to do with it, it's caused by the electrons requiring a specific energy photon to "bump" them into a more energetic state, iirc.

>>8349338
anon it's not specific heat capacity that makes a greenhouse gas, it's absorption of IR light by CO2. Any gas with characteristic vib frequencies near the wavelength emitted by earth are greenhouse gases

>>8348622
The 4th picture actually shows some decent predictions, they're clustered very heavily around the actual observations and only seem to be slightly biased to higher temperatures (as in less than 0.2C bias)

File: 1472088155298.png (65KB, 408x660px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 408x660px

>>8348277

>we don't know
The only thing you don't know is that you wuz kangz. Why do you think greenhouses exist if greenhouse gases don't warm up shit

>>8348266
>>8348277
>>8350488
My word...

File: 1473773082469.jpg (318KB, 736x942px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 736x942px

>>8350547

>>8348266
The more pertinent question is what the fuck are we going to do about it. How are we going to get all the poor, industrializing countries collectively to stop burning coal and oil? How are we going to stop burning coal and oil in a way that doesn't just offshore the problem?

I've yet to see a compelling answer to these questions, and frankly I don't see how debating a retarded public who don't even know how many sides a triangle has is going to be the solution.

File: 1417017561074.jpg (6KB, 185x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 185x250px

>>8350600
Checked

>>8348266
Because god wants the oceans to boil so that when the temperature begins to fall a treacherous rain will wash away humanity

>>8348266
OP go watch Ted Cruz vs Sierra Club Aaron Mairs for maximum keks

I dunno. Prolly cuz u touch urself at nite LOL

>>8348330
>breitbort
>news
nnnp

>>8348418
>the data is always on the side of my pre-conceived notion
It's called cherry-picking. Or confirmation bias. You are as intelligent as a pigeon.

>>8350831
>The more pertinent question is what the fuck are we going to do about it. How are we going to get all the poor, industrializing countries collectively to stop burning coal and oil?
Setting a god example of how to do it would be a decent place to start.

>>8351190
Honestly our reduction in emissions has been offset by the increase china and co have had to make to meet our demand for goods that came from shutting down our manufacturing.

>>8348740
>Can you read through the post in >>8348622 and give me solid analysis of it?
So you're reposting a bunch of screencaps without actually understanding their content?

File: hqdefault (2).jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>8348330
>some guy on the Internet walked up to a Paraguay weather station and asked for their data and they gave it to him
>the proof of this is a picture I took at the airport
>I'm going to paste "raw" and "adjusted" even though the NASA readings never said that

>>8348392
>Show the data, which were published from 1880 to March 2010 by NASA-GISS,

Hahaha

Conspiracy fags should try harder, NASA edited the records but they forgot to edit the archived ones? And the Harvard and Princeton graduates decided the best way to convince the world of global warming was to leave edited datasets everywhere instead of changing just the new ones?

Now assuming NASA is a conspiracy, which is incredibly lucky since the head administrator changes under every administration, the thousands of universities across the globe with weather stations all say the same thing.

>>8348887
Because it will literally destroy the global economy that is backed by oil money. At least 5 of the Fortune 10 are always oil companies for a reason.

File: Use a Tray.jpg (99KB, 469x493px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 469x493px

>>8348680
okay this HAS to be a troll

File: 1471864298226.jpg (4KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 225x225px

>>8348277

>>8350589
This is actually a good image, since retarded /pol/ mouthbreathers will obviously keep denying hard scientific fact for as long as they breathe through their deluded, angry little mouths. I wonder what their rebuttal to this image would be.

>>8348516
>>8348442
>>8348431
>>8348403
>>8348335
>>8348380
Not an argument

>>8351475
Oil companies don't even try to bribe scientists, that would be a waste of money

they bribe politicians instead

but science is on their side

>>8348266
>Why is it getting hotter?

Thermal island effect

Most long term temperature recording equipment is in large cities, the expansion of such creates islands of heat, influencing the recordings of temperature.

It's not actually getting hotter, the calibration is just shot.

File: Thetruthaboutcarbontax.jpg (124KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 540x720px

>>8350589
Your picture is shit.

Here is the correct version.

>>8351553
But the right side is still far more likely

>>8351550
This is completely incorrect. Stations aren't put in cities for obvious reasons - the few that are there for reasons of historical continuity are statistically adjusted to account for this effect.

>>8351280
Assets do not somehow equal the world economy. No company is a substantial fraction of the world economy. Oil's role in the economy is providing electricity and powering the internal combustion engine.

Oil is a finite resource, sooner or later we're going to run out of it.

>>8351553
Except the World Bank gives loans to third world countries a form of captial investment, and gets its money from member states. Now going to those member states, the majority of tax revenue comes from income tax, then corporate profits tax. Now assuming they can make a lot of money with a carbon tax although it doesn't exist, the senators and congressmen are paid fixed salaries and do not benefit from an increase in tax revenue unlike corporations whose profits go to private individuals.