is global warming real?

The global temperature average is rising, therefore global warming is occurring. Whoa that was hard.

>>8456250
I'm confused by your image. What is it supposed to show?

>>8456250
The tide came in.

File: gistemp_station_2016-04-13.gif (16KB, 656x446px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 656x446px

>>8456250
Yes.

>>8456250
Holy fuck that platform is alive and growing

>>8456259
that AGW appeals to retards that don't know about tides.

Yes.

If you look up "hottest year on record" the first four are within the past 6 years. The first 15 are after 1997. This includes all years since 1880.

>>8456250
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzkRHFl2ppw

>>8456410
What is the resolution we have of temperature records going back further than that?

>>8456410
>muh surface stations
>muh adjusted historical record

>>8457064
1936 was way hotter than anything recent
the surface record nowadays is totally fake, and the urban heat island effect is massive.

>>8456257

Wow I go outside at midnight and it's cold
I go out at noon and it's hot
It's settled, ban carbon.

>>8457084
1936 is only one year. We're talking about trends over time, so that doesn't really refute my point.

>>8456250
No its a chinese ploy to destroy american companies

File: last 240.png (9KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 640x480px

>>8456250
>global warming real?
Yes, fast rise after the Little Ice Age. Not much left now, last 20 years trend +0.0065 K/year (pic). Soon going negative because climate always changes and after warm comes cold, always has.

>>8456250
The old pier was better to be honest.

>>8457074
Ill ask this again.

What is the resolution we have of past temperatures before records started being kept. How many years are averaged within each data point for temperatures thousands of years ago?

For all i know it could be absolutely normal for average temperatures to swing up and down by a degree or more every 100 years, while maintaining the same overall average temperatures over a larger period.

File: earth_temperature_timeline_1.png (304KB, 740x5000px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 740x5000px

Temperature cycles are a thing. But the last few decades have been crazy.

File: earth_temperature_timeline_2.png (224KB, 740x5000px)

224KB, 740x5000px

>>8457245

File: earth_temperature_timeline_3.png (317KB, 740x5007px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 740x5007px

>>8457245
>>8457251

>>8457245
>>8457251
>>8457254

now that is a reliable source, thanks reddit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

File: 1456585714264.jpg (734KB, 1180x842px) Image search: [Google]

734KB, 1180x842px

>tfw two smard too belief in chinaese lyes

>>8456250
Yes and no.

"global warming" being caused by carbon emissions is false. The planet is warming due to a natural cycle.

HOWEVER

When it comes to environmental policy we should be careful not because of global warming but rather because local pollution.

I apologize, I do not keep a list of sources for this particular subject on hand.

>>8456257
/pol/

File: 1458807838870.jpg (36KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 680x680px

DENIALISTS GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>8457576
its just not true shill

>>8457568
>"global warming" being caused by carbon emissions is false.
So you deny the greenhouse effect?

>The planet is warming due to a natural cycle.
Which natural cycle? How does it work?

File: 1478298818628.png (493KB, 600x602px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 600x602px

>>8457568
so, you're for just standing aside and letting china solve clean, renewable, and free energy, did I understand you correctly?

>>8457183
>cherrypicking by starting at El Nino
>satellite data for upper atmosphere and not direct temperature measurement of surface

>Soon going negative because climate always changes and after warm comes cold, always has.
Yeah but when does the warming end? Fucking retard, stop pretending to know what you're talking about.

File: proxy_span_resolution_graph.jpg (41KB, 448x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 448x480px

>>8457228
There are several proxies with high enough resolution and span to determine whether the current warming is normal or not. Such rapid warming has only occurred a few times across this span and corresponds both with increases in CO2 and with mass extinctions. So saying that it happened before doesn't mean that it's good for us, nor does it allow you to ignore the greenhouse gas effect. On the contrary, the historical record supports AGW theory.

>>8457077
>muh surface stations is wrong
>muh adjusted historical record is wrong

File: tides.jpg (100KB, 1224x464px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1224x464px

>>8456250
>Posts photo comparing ocean at different times of day, years apart, resulting in a low tide vs high tide comparison

I think you've cracked the case sherlock.

>>8456250
>How to make environmentalists look dumb

>>8457052
It's a strawman

It's a low IQ discussion subject.

Example of why:
- What solutions in terms of geoengineering can be done to slow down or reverse the changes? Can you list three?

I simply wrote that question to prove that people scared of climate change are essentially fake believers. They just are scared of technology and are similar to anti-GMO people. They don't want change and want a return to simpler times. Their rally is against oil and big business and with regards to wanting to inflict economical pain on other humans. Not on actually caring about geoengineering.

If for instance you told them we invented something that could cheaply stop global warming but it didn't involve emissions changes and we could still use fossil fuels, they wouldn't want it.

>>8457694
Average global warming brain architecture

- Hates GMOs, technology, anything besides natural farming
- Wants to call other people stupid fuckheads over not believing in science
- Does not want to hear any solution not involving a global government crackdown on emissions
- Basically wants everyone ELSE on earth to stop driving and consuming anything.
- Has no interest in being realistic about climate change but rather predicts death of all humanity.

>>8457705
Forgot to add:
They probably think China is an awful country despite life expectancy continuing to rise post-industrialization and would rather they be poor starving agriculturalists.

>>8457694
There are legit economic issues when it comes to stopping global warming or GMOs, but it's easier to scare brainlets than to educate them on the economic side of it all.

>>8457694
>They just are scared of technology and are similar to anti-GMO people.
Anti-GMO people are scared even though scientists agree there is nothing to be scared about. People who deny AGW are not scared even though scientists agree there is something to be scared about.

>If for instance you told them we invented something that could cheaply stop global warming but it didn't involve emissions changes and we could still use fossil fuels, they wouldn't want it.
Yes I would. Well, looks like your "argument" fails.

If you don't want to trust science then maybe you'll trust the very companies that have the most to lose from climate change being real?
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

File: eb.gif (1MB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x200px

>>8457629
this
it won't be human extinction, but

>>8456250
Yes.

>>8457694
geoengineering? pollution over the years "that couldn't possibly have an effect in our "huge" atmosphere" is NOT engineering. it's tincering if anything.
Also all you're argument revolves around is your Stereotype of a dumb protestor. You neither despute their argument scientifically, nor do you present your own.
Same jerking-off-superiority-complex continues here >>8457705
>>8457711

For the love of god, kill yourselfs. ..or educate yourselfs, but if that ends like this again, then kill yourselfs.

>>8457723
Scientists agree it is happening. That is all.

Most humans don't understand the most basic abstract understanding of climate change, even the believers.

Example
- There is a certain amount of carbon in the current carbon cycles on Earth
- A small amount is lost each year and "buried" in the earth.
- Climate change is the result of going in and unlocking this buried carbon. (sequestered)
atmosphere in various ages of earth.

Essentially we are reversing the natural slow process of sequestration. The earth may warm a little in the process. Again we are not at risk of a runaway effect and boiling of the oceans though as historically there are time periods with far higher (20x) carbon ppm in the atmosphere.

>>8457741
god damn your sentence is absolute shit

>geoengineering? pollution over the years "that couldn't possibly have an effect in our "huge" atmosphere" is NOT engineering. it's tincering if anything.

>>8457743
Pretty much this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw

>>8457748
no? absolute fucking gold right there m80

>>8457743
>Again we are not at risk of a runaway effect
You have absolutely no evidence that can make you say that so confidently.

>>8457753
Worst case scenario the permafrost thaws and releases a bunch of methane leading to very rapid heating and leads to mass extinctions worldwide. Still nowhere near the temperature required to be a tipping point on Earth's way to becoming Venus.

>>8457753
we are alive
Jurassic Period 1800 ppm
Cambrain Period 7000 ppm

Basically I know this sounds crazy to most thinkers.

The world leaders of today should be discussing and finalizes treaties on what atmosphere levels to keep Earth at for the future. Not worrying about global warming. Although even that is presumptive in many ways.

>>8457760
I never said anything about Venus or boiling oceans. But to say that the consequences wont be grave is plain wrong.
Besides the obvious rising sea levels, it will cause a massive change in the ecosystem resulting in massive extinctions of animal and plant species.
That's gonna affect humans as well.
Sure we'll survive, but at what cost?

>>8457743
>Scientists agree it is happening. That is all.
Wrong. See http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

>The earth may warm a little in the process.
A little relative to what? You are completely avoiding the issue of whether this will be significantly harmful to us by being vague.

>Again we are not at risk of a runaway effect and boiling of the oceans though as historically there are time periods with far higher (20x) carbon ppm in the atmosphere.
The runaway effect and boiling of oceans is simply a strawman. The consensus doesn't think there will be a runaway warming effect. And again, just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is fine for us now.

When you want to actually discuss the science instead of this puerile sophistry, tell me.

>>8457766
An affordable cost well worth industrializing and far better than billions of humans starving and suffering.

>>8457772
low IQ poster detected

Tell me what capability to carbon capture will humanity have in 2050?

>>8457766
When I hear runaway all I picture is the most extreme circumstance doomsayers spout. The tipping point for human extinction is not the same as a runaway greenhouse gas effect like it was on Venus. This isn't even the tipping point for all life on Earth.

>>8457780
No one knows.

When you want to actually discuss the science instead of this puerile sophistry, tell me.

>>8457785
So I can not make deductions about carbon capture technologies in 2050

But you can make deductions about 2100+ doomsdays and climate as if we are on a predictable rocket?

These low IQ fuckheads who cry themselves to sleep about global warming are really the most unintelligent vermin on earth.

The dimwitted give themselves the power to linearly predict climate in 2100 but allow absolutely no other thoughts into their little fucking brains.

>>8457786
In short, yes. The climate is well enough understood that we know that continued CO2 emissions = continued warming. What technology develops is completely unknowable.

When you want to actually discuss the science instead of this puerile sophistry, tell me.

>>8457778
I also forgot the human health issues that come with higher CO2 levels as well. These will be much harder to deal with since you can't easily filter them out.
Those simple paper masks those Chinese wear help absolutely nothing.

>>8457795
Of course those paper masks are designed for spit.

>>8457794
Bravo, what a relationship to predict 2100 from.

>>8457786
The faster carbon is emitted into the atmosphere the shorter time span we have for a solution. Telling people it's not an issue when we for certain have to come up with a solution to this problem is only delaying the solution. Accept the science and that it's a problem and then we can think of ways to solve it, a solution won't just come out of thin air.

>>8457802
What is the relationship between industrialization and energy usage vs technological advancement?

Where do you get the prediction model from?
Do you have science supporting a slowdown in human momentum via fossil energies doesn't also slow down the search function for new technologies?

>>8457810
For example
How long does it take a pre-industrial civilization to convert to solar power?

AKA the momentum offered by fossil fuels might create the conditions needed to replace them in an improved time period.

>>8457799
Bravo, what a counterargument.

Are you even trying?

>>8457820
Here is my science experiment

I'm going to go out in a hurricane and test a catapult. The only relationship I will analyze or use to predict results is a very simple model excluding the hurricane.

Are my predictions going to be accurate in the 100+ mph wind?

>>8457335
>in an interglacial period
>glaciers are retreating
who would have thought

>>8457810
>Do you have science supporting a slowdown in human momentum via fossil energies doesn't also slow down the search function for new technologies?
No, do you have proof that it does? Do you have proof that cutting subsidies to fossil fuel industry and instead switching to nuclear energy halts production of technology?

>>8457836
Ah, yes, so we can discuss how fucking AWFUL these global warming "scientific" predictions of life on earth in 2100 are?

if global warming isn't real, why did the ice age end?

>>8457839
If we keep carbon emissions at the rate they are then those predictions are accurate. Only way to change it is to stop the current trend.

>>8457831
What exactly is excluded? You took my short answer as the entire theory. All you can do is strawman AGW into these ridiculous caricatures, because you aren't smart enough to argue with the real thing.

>>8457854
No, what you do is set all the variables to whatever you want, aka confirmation bias to predict 2100 outcomes for life on earth and call it "science".

Everything revolving around the discussions on global warming is garbage ASIDE from the basic fact we are altering the rate of carbon sequestration/release.

>>8457856
What real thing?

You are taking a single thing, CO2 PPM in atmosphere/ocean and using it to predict 2100+ outcomes while pretending it is scientifically backed up in any way.

>>8457860
Great so you admit you have no idea about the science behind it at all. Thanks for admitting you don't belong here. >>>/pol/

File: alley20001[1].gif (29KB, 450x361px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 450x361px

>>8457847
meteorite hit the north american ice cap and melted it

>>8457864
No, you braindead zombies think you have accurate predictions of life on earth in 2100 because of CO2 cycles.

Tell me in your 2100 model what role does carbon sequestration play?

>>8457833
We're at the end of a interglacial period. The glaciers that are melting were not meeting until now. Should be cooling but we're not.

>>8457869
If you think you know the science give me one of your scientific articles that actually predict what will happen in 2100 and then we'll talk.

>Being on the global warming side allows me to set up the experiment so the only predictive function allowed is a linear extrapolation of current carbon emissions and levels.

>I can also stop anyone from introducing any other relevant functions that influence anything such as conservative estimates of future technology or capabilities

>using this model I get a prediction of 2100+ life on earth.

>this model is so good and "scientific" it should be used to determine technology and human suffering in government decision making

>>8457877
I'm actually allowed to introduce predictions on life on earth capabilities in 2100?

Well in that case we are post singularity and can basically magic fuck the earth however we want.

global warming is trivial.

>>8457881
just to give this some backing of science

the scientific consensus is for singularity pre 2100.

>>8457862
>You are taking a single thing, CO2 PPM in atmosphere/ocean and using it to predict 2100+ outcomes while pretending it is scientifically backed up in any way.
Where did I do that moron? I said based on the understanding of our climate, which represents over a century of scientific research, massive amounts of data from countless sources and theory drawn from practically every scientific discipline.

>>8457888
Yeah and it's all interpreted as a prediction for 2100

Which is utterly fucking moronic

>>8457878
What?

>>8457878
Give scientific articles for anything you're saying thanks. These points in your argument would help a lot to make it sound rational instead of baseless speculation:
>technology guaranteed to be able to solve the issue with no investment required
>predictions of the Earth in 2100
>steps taken to reduce AGW will cause human suffering
Again thanks if you can actually provide evidence for any of this but I sincerely doubt it.

>>8457895
The propensity of climate change crowd to predict life in 2100 from climate models as if it is "scientific" or predictive in any way.

>>8457896
I've done the math estimates on carbon sequestration using modern technologies and it is fully within humanity's current capabilities to 100% offset current emissions.

I don't think humanity in 2050 is going to have a problem with it. The geoengineering needed is trivial and there are lots of life forms currently that carbon sequester pretty efficiently.

It's just a lel argument from fucking morons that have 0 brains and basically set every variable perfectly and refuse to look at alternatives

>>8457901
Great, sources or you're full of shit. I'm a lot more skeptical than to just take the word of an anon on the internet sorry for the inconvenience.

>>8457904
No source at all

Just calculate arable land vs carbon sequestration potential of the best life forms. It would be extremely costly but completely possible.

There is no point right now to do it though as the problem isn't worth the response compared to future capabilities dealing with it.

Global warming is like the car that's 10 miles away from the intersection you are walking across. If you stop in the middle of the road and wait for it to hit you, it could be bad, but it's really trivial to just keep walking.

>>8457919
So you have no source for calculating arable land vs carbon sequestration potential but you did the math anyways? How did you do that? Just pulled numbers out of your ass and said yup they fit my agenda to a t?

>>8457924
You haven't looked into it?

>>8457926
You said you did the math, sources should be readily available to you. You're making claims but you've provided no evidence for your claims. How does one do this math anyways? Show your work.

>>8457629
No. I deny it being that much that it causes that large of an effect as what the media and some journals depict it as. in the 70s, they said we would be dead by now. Fewer years ago they said it again. I believe that the natural carbon and nitrogen cycle will fix it eventually.

As for the natural cycle, I am not a geologist nor have I any particular interest in the field. I would however suspect the cycle was evident when the ice age was upon the earth in humanity's neo eras.

>>8457636
I said no such thing. In fact I specifically worry about local pollution caused by such things as reactors and other wasteful things.

I do believe in solving the energy problem. Although, it might already be solved and we have yet to implement it if wind farm statistics are to be believed. Honestly I don't know and I don't claim to know.

>>8457957
>I believe that the natural carbon and nitrogen cycle will fix it eventually.
>I would however suspect the cycle was evident when the ice age was upon the earth in humanity's neo eras.
This is why science is not done with gut instinct. Please if you care enough to post in a thread about science then actually research the science that is happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ

>>8458006
Many scientists I have read the works of seem to believe that it is a cycle of the earth that will come around again. i claim to have no in depth knowledge regarding it, but I do not know absolutely nothing.

https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-science-of-climate-change/climate-variations-natural-and-human-factors/a-natural-climate-cycle/

Comes up with a google search. In addition, more articles claim otherwise. We do not have a definitive answer yet, but soon enough we will.

Not that it matter regarding what policies I would prefer to have implemented in our government because I do believe as I previously stated, that localized pollution is a massive problem.

>>8457568
>The planet is warming due to a natural cycle.

There are no cycles, only cause and effect

>>8458037
There are cycles though, the Milankovitch cycle being a notable one although it in itself is also cause and effect. It does however have a predictable pattern which is defined by a cycle.

>>8458037
Yes, and that cause if the rise and fall of CO2 in the atmosphere.

>>8457228
IIRC, the glacial proxies are effectively something like an 80 year moving average.

>>8457897
That's not even a sentence. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over without any reasoning our evidence.

>>8458060

Yes, causes such as burning of fossil fuels, removal of carbon traps

>>8457684
What are tides

>>8457601
$0.05 cents have been deposited into your account. Thank you for working with ExxonMobil.

>>8458072
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html\

In addition.

I'm not saying it does not. What I am saying is that it is not a problem and will rejoin the carbon cycle. We seem to be back on square one.

>>8458089
>What I am saying is that it is not a problem and will rejoin the carbon cycle

What are you basing that on?

>>8458028
The Milankovich cycle does not explain current warming. If you actually read what you just posted, it shows this.

>>8458074
>What are tides

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides_(organization)

Tides is one of the lobbying organizations of George Soros, in part used to spread AGW alarmism.

>>8458138
Funny, I read the page and there was no mention of AGW alarmism, climate change, global warming, or any of that. Are you sure you read your source correctly?

Are you real?

>>8458078
Now now, no need to attack ExxonMobil they agree with science now.
>>8457733

All this bullshitting is based on the claim that modern land temperature stations give an ACCURATE PICTURE of global temperatures

Which is completely wrong

Also a little climate disaster would be a good thing, our planet needs a nice big die off.

>>8458182
Great, have any sources for your claims?

>>8457792
>are really the most unintelligent vermin on earth.

No, they're just a small sample of the masses of people caught by the media brainwashing narrative.

>>8458195
I suppose you, being so enlightened and unpersuaded by the media, have some scientific articles showing AGW isn't happening?

>>8458203
Nope.

>>8458221
kek they even admit it

>>8458146
Counts under environmental issues.

http://www.tides.org/utility/search/?cx=003949354664956518032%3A9pat6u0jfgw&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=climate&sa=Search

Just a bit of a shitpost in response to another shitpost.

Maybe I've just been hearing too many horror stories, but I'm legitimately getting scared by climate change.

Can I live another 50-60 years comfortably before shit hits the fan? Or will I be a helpless old man in some post apocalyptic scenario? I don't plan on reproducing by the way.

>captcha is choose all bodies of water or oceans

>>8458426
watch
>>8457751
Also watch his other stuff, he cites scientific literature for every claim he makes and does away with all the propaganda spewed by both sides of the political debate.

>>8458426
>nothing has changed at all
>hurr i'm getting scared guys, world is gonna burn!

There are real issues, global warming is not one of em

>>8458433
Name a more important issue than global warming.

>>8458433
>Science doesn't matter if it disagrees with my feelings!

>>8458436
declining global IQ
the dying of the race that has built every aspect of western civilization
the failed God of democracy destroying whole countries

>>8458448
[citation needed]
Sounds like a bunch of social science propaganda to get more funding for their worthless departments.

>>8458448
Time for you to go back to your board.
>>>/pol/

File: grin.png (572KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 600x580px

>>8458448
Try harder next time

>>8458470
>>8458457
>>8458455
yea ok so it being 1 degree warmer is the end of the world

but the literal collapse of civilization is nbd
thats the liberal value structure

>>8458486
Try again, but use sentences and punctuation this time.

>>8458448
>declining global IQ
Not Global IQ. That's on the rise. Maybe you're thinking about Western nations?

>>8458486
watch
>>8457751
It really isn't that complicated.

>>8457930

Not that guy, but I remember study about iron seeding the oceans that showed promise. The issue is not causing an algae bloom and getting the local wildlife to eat the extra plankton. It mentioned the arctic oceans being preferred as it had the highest effect of carbon sequestering. More research is needed, but the sole focus of slowing current emissions versus looking at ways to increase sequestering means we are already have exceeded the doomsday point of 2C. It's sad that current climate schemes are just an excuse to siphon more money from taxpayers to corrupt politicians. Nobody wants to solve the problem in any meaningful sense.

>>8457254
>>8457251
>>8457245
this to the maxy maxi maximus max max of le max max maxi mux max

you may call hjim hipster(because of his intelligence)

but he just but destroyered all of your arguments forever

you are now objectively wrong forever so much taht if you even speak one word you are confirmed and idiot forever and ever

seriously
this guy should have your wife, like now, your wife should belong to him, thats if he even considers touching such ugly shit

>>8458505
I'm aware of geoengineering but the political implications and red tape for doing that are far more severe than cutting emissions. The chances of doing geoengineering are more unlikely than cutting emissions and we can't even get that going. The political issues are talked about quite a bit in this video. It's not a scientific paper so it's far from reliable but I honestly don't know if politics even have credible sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY

>>8458492
I'm not gonna watch a 20 min long propaganda video

If the ocean rises 1 meter, we can build 1 meter worth of dikes along the coast

Thats cheaper than trillions of dollars in CO2 taxes or other bullshit

>>8458548
>propaganda
Fine I'll give you his sources instead it makes no difference to me.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.abstract
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236669084_Precipitation_and_its_extremes_in_changed_climates
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378003000827
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a88d/89cdbe8ab8ef0dae4e73e4b77402cebca7b3.pdf
http://www.kewalo.hawaii.edu/docs/richmond/1993Richmond.pdf
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1490.full
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227091041_Global_Warming_and_Coastal_Erosion
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/science01.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00383.x/abstract

And for the cost analysis this should cover it.
http://mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf

>>8457316
It's not supposed to be a reliable source, it's supposed to be a visualization of reliable sources.

File: climate_science_cover.jpg (15KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x400px

>>8458505
>corrupt politicians
and their scientists

>>8458633
Great source, I believe you because you're an anon and anons never lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

Hate to be that type of poster who drops a link without much commentary but here it is...

>>8456410

your specific graph is discussed at length in the video

>>8459076
It's an hour-long rambling from an unqualified kook, complete with climategate bullshit and Al Gore obsession. Do you really expect me to wade through all that shit.

>your specific graph is discussed at length in the video
Oh boy.
Let me guess, NASA faked the data under orders from Al Gore and the (new world order) UN?

>>8459200

no, funny enough NOAA releases both their raw and "adjusted" data so he compares the data, and talks about "extrapolation" of station data and the effects it has on your collected data.

why don't you just watch it?

>>8459209
Tell him to publish it in a respected peer reviewed scientific article and then I'll even consider looking at it. The reason these type of people avoid doing so is because they know there are several flaws in their methodology and that it would never pass any sense of rigor. It's far easier to give presentations that lack any fact checking or possibility of replication. You're pretty gullible for believing this person's opinion over the stuff found in scientific literature.

>>8459209
https://www.youtube.com/user/DDPmeetings/videos
You just know a channel is full of good wholesome credible scientific reports when one of their videos talks about pursuing the truth on the Kennedy assassinations. Truly this removes any misconceptions about the channel being home to a plethora of tinfoil hatters who believe science is based on conclusion first, evidence last.

>MUH natural cycles
Good job inbred bible belt hick, you know a thing. But you forgot that it takes a fucking long time for temperature to significantly rise, it's going way too fast now.

>>8459209
>NOAA releases both their raw and "adjusted" data so he compares the data, and talks about "extrapolation" of station data and the effects it has on your collected data.
Why doesn't he just go directly to the papers where the adjustments are laid out and justified? Hell, why doesn't he publish a response?

>why don't you just watch it?
Because the folks who try to spot aliens in the ISS live feed are funnier, and barely less credible.

File: Neil words.jpg (60KB, 610x402px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 610x402px

>>8457901
>I've done the math estimates
well there, PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED!
if some guy estimated how things are going to be in the future using a little simple arithmetic, SURELY that means we're okay. never mind those complex models with all their actual evidence and everything!

>>8457957
>in the 70s, they said we would be dead by now. Fewer years ago they said it again.
"they" being scientific publications? or MAGAZINES?
>I believe that the natural carbon and nitrogen cycle will fix it eventually.
do you have any idea what timescales those cycles operate on? by the time they "fix it", our civilization could have gone to shit. it's like appealing to the Invisible Hand
>I am not a geologist
lucky for you, I am.

>>8458182
>our planet needs a nice big die off.
you weren't there for the P-Tr extinction. neither was I, but some rocks were...and it ain't pretty.

>>8458448
>the dying of the race that has built every aspect of western civilization
you have to go back >>>/pol/

>>8458505
I'm with you there. another possibility is spreading powdered mafic rocks around to increase the rate of chemical weathering, speed up that long-term carbon cycle control.

>>8459209
ah yes, the ADJUSTED data.
whenever a trend is inferred from adjusted data, you lot whine that it's ALTERED AND TAMPERED WITH AND TOTALLY FAKE! and whenever a trend is inferred from raw data you whine that it's TAINTED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T ADJUST FOR THE UHI EFFECT!
you don't get to have it both ways.

>>8459350
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YezbREhH_Eg
Your approach to this is all wrong, you're going to burst a blood vessel if you keep this up. You don't get anywhere acting as if you have all the answers, especially without citations.

>>8459350
>im a sjwtard
that was more than enough to dismiss your moronic post.

>>8456250
>global warming meme
>>>/x/ you schizo freak

The idiots saying it's a natural cycle really rustle my jimmies, just like creationists who believe in "microevolution" but not "macroevolution".

Point me to a natural cycle happening in the span of a few hundred years then.

>>8459421
How does it even relate to creationists you dumb retard? Your bullshit gets more desperate with each post.

>>8459425
Who do you believe I am? I just entered the thread, comrade.

It relates to the selective acceptance of facts. I thought it was obvious with the comparison.

>>8457778
Hundreds of millions of people are starving atm, and the cost is only the death of billions of animals and humans alike.

>>8459306

ad hominem

>>8459230

here is a parallel: in financial mathematics any paper that suggests that the market may not be efficient is instantly rejected.

its like a religious organization almost

>>8459430
Obvious is a subjective term, facts are not. Just like the fact that global warming memes and similar bullshit are contained within >>>/x/

>>8457799
>Bravo, what a relationship to predict 2100 from.
Are you fucking retarded? You're "able" to predict the technology we'll have in dozens of years without a clue, but u're doubting something else that actually have something backing it off

>>8459438
I agree completely. I can only feel sad for all those flat earth articles that try to get published but are censored out due to the spherical Earth religion.

>>8457141
>doesnt know what average means
/pol/ get your retardation off our board

>>8459439
Continue with your faith of climate creationism then. Whatever floats your boat.

>>8457810
Petrol is a very profitable business, most people invest in that fossil energy instead of renewable ones.

File: Vatican-workshop-page-banner-21[1].png (257KB, 620x304px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 620x304px

>>8459445
>church of AGW claims to own a board about science
Made me giggle. Back to your board you creep >>>/x/

>>8457074
>>8457228
I know xkcd is kinda popsci, but this is a rather good chart.
http://xkcd.com/1732/

>>8459405
>>8459439
>>8459451
Is your best argument telling people to go to /x/? Sad.

>>8459456
Keep your delusions contained
>>>/x/

>>8459460
Why do you think AGW is delusional?

>>8459462
Because he's an alt-right /pol/ack clearly.

>>8459462
because /x/tier autism is 100% retarded
Now you have you go back or that global warming will melt your brain!!! >>>/x/

>>8459463
wow, I didn't know only white nationalists don't believe in ghosts and global warming. Learn something new everyday :-)
>>>/x/

>>8459456
It's a meme that /sci/ frequently used first for flat-earthers or other paranormal topics like spirituality and religion and then for normal stuff just to troll the OP. Unfortunately, /pol/acks hijacked the meme and turned it into the unfunny mess that you see in this thread like the memeforcing redditors they are.

>>8459476
t. nervous /x/tard trying to damage control for being told to fuck off from /sci/

Oh and by the way, the tooth fairy isn't real >>>/x/

File: 331925843fff887ef741f2096b5c7a80[1].jpg (122KB, 600x414px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 600x414px

>>8459476
I can't decide if flat earthers are worse or agw dumbfucks are.

>>8459483
+1

xDd

>>8456278
It waited a long time, huh.

>>8457684
I thought global warming is causing the oceans to rise?

>>8456250
Let's say it is not 100% clear if smoking causes cancer or not, but most scientists assume that it does. Are you going to start smoking, or not?

>>8456250
That's in Scheveningen dude.

>>8458491
>african iq will go up from 70 to 75
that's really gonna help us

>>8459520
judging by how hard you missed the point, I'm guessing you've not lived near a beach

>>8457684
Funny, it looks like that construction crane hasn't moved in over 30 years. I wonder what they are making. That pile of sand too, I'd bet they are on strike.

>>8459666
toppolino lelloletto

>>8459524
Yeah but you can opt out of tobacco taxation. How about make the AGW tax and carbon trading schemes voluntary? Then this meme could die but nooooooo! Fuck new age religions.

>>8457957
The types of Carbon Isotopes that are rising in the atmosphere point to the isotope that is released from the burning of long dead organic materials, ie oil, coal, etc.

This conflicts with the view that the carbon is coming from another source such as recently deceased organic material or volcanoes because those each produce a different isotope

>>8459746
>science isn't real because one of the potential outcomes is a tax
This is why nobody takes you seriously. All that would have to happen would be to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies (obligatory tax) and switch them over to nuclear energy development. It's that easy and doesn't cost the tax payer a dime but you're freaking out because the media told you it would collapse civilization.

>>8460300
>reminders that some of the staunchest opponents of nuclear energy are hippy lefties

>>8460317
Why do you consider the opinions of potheads to be relevant here?

>>8460317
Yeah no shit, politics is a shit show on all sides which is why it's normally contained in /pol/. Let me know when a political party that actually listens to experts in their respective fields pops up. It's truly pathetic that technocracy is a fictional form of government.

>>8460324
Nigga we have a technocracy in the USA

>>8456250
bait

>>8460317
>implying the opinions of anti-nuclear retards are worth paying attention to

Friendly reminder not to respond to /pol/tards, no amount of evidence will change their beliefs.

>>8460432
they are worthy since they have real life implications

>>8460397
If that were true, researchers wouldn't have to find ways to pitch their projects as military applications in order to get any funding, as many are forced to do now.

We also wouldn't have states putting disclaimers on science textbooks that maybe science isn't real after all.

http://burtrutan.com/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf
http://burtrutan.com/downloads/MoncktonLogicalCaseAgainstClimatePanic.pdf
http://cfact.org/pdf/MoncktonReplytoSkepticMag.pdf
How accurate are these? I read them awhile ago, but they're pretty one sided.

>>8458078
I had a thought about this today. Big oil is bad and has a lot to lose from global environmentalism and agw being true. But at this point there's people even bigger that have even more to lose if it turns out agw is false, for example the current government of germany, who is wrecking their budget in the name of alternative energy.

Too bad all the global warming denialists dont change the facts through the willpower of their imagination and were still all gonna die. Boo hoo it isnt real (cooks alive)

File: Back to pol.png (322KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 546x700px

>>8459391
>I don't like what he said therefore SJW SJW SJW!
le back le to le >>>/pol/

>>8460397
nigga we have creationists etc. on the House SST committee

>>8460712
>How accurate are these?
>By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Monckton is a raving lunatic who goes around claiming to be a British Lord.