Global Warming

>>8709981
Are you just willfully ignorant? The evidence abounds. Use fucking Google.

Here I'll spoonfeed you like the mental child you are.
>https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>>8709981
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Now if you would kindly rebut the extensive research proving that humans are a leading cause in global warming, i would be happy to engage.

The research is out there and has been for a while by many international and national bodies.

The burden is on climate deniers to explain why the overwhelming evidence is incorrect or wrong in some way, since the evidence exists showing that humans in fact do have a large impact on global warming. Prove me wrong.

>>8709990
>>8709997
I'm not denying climate change.

I'm just saying where is the proof that humans are too blame.

Yeah okay nice chart in pic related, but It only goes back 400,000 years.

Pro Tip: The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years.

It's a pretty bullshit claim to say Earth is in at the highest peak ever when you don't have data for all those years and just only 650,000 years.

"Scientist" today still can't prove how or why the Ice Age happened and we don't know how many cycles of glacial advance and retreat prior to the Ice Age actually occurring.

>>8710009
You didn't fucking read anything. The proof is right fucking there you fucking fucker. Fuck. Fuuuuuuck.

I'm too mad today, I'm done. Have fun trolling.

File: 203_co2-graph-021116.jpg (289KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1280x800px

>>8710009
Nasa chart I'm referring to that was inside the source. Forgot to post.

>>8710013
Not an argument.

>>8710009
>I'm just saying where is the proof that humans are too blame.

You are clearly ignoring both the pages posted which include MANY international and national bodies and institutions showing clear cut evidence that HUMANS are the main or leading cause to climate change.

There are two general types of arguments. One is positive in which you forward an alternative, provide evidence and add an argument to the discussion.

The other type is negative, meaning you rebut presented evidence by your opposition, thus removing it from the discussion.

You have done neither, and are just assuming you think you know what is right for no logical, evidence based, or expert based reason.

Engage with the science supported by essentially every scientist in the field with your own logical or evidence based argument or go back to /pol/

Still waiting..

>>8710015
>Not an argument.
FUCK YOU

>>8710015
>Not an argument.

Not engaging with the literal evidence and simply assuming you're right without looking at the actual evidence or engaging with it in any meaningful way.

>also not an argument

>>8710021
Wow, you gave up quick for a troll.

Off you're game tonight?

>>8710019
>the /pol/ bogeyman
...

>>8710039
>...
>>>/facebook/

>>8710031
There is a way to distinguish naturally occurring carbon dioxide from fossil fuel carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, we can determine not only the growing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but also how much of it is generated by us.

> http://www.bitsofscience.org/natural-anthropogenic-co2-differentiation-monitoring-5732/

>>8710031
Right, the one telling you to study what he was given is the troll. I'm just tried of willful ignorance and am generally pissed at existence.

Telling you to fuck off is satisfying, but probably not healthy.

Climate science noob here, so if I make a mistake, please correct me.

I understand that there is significant scientific evidence to show that humans are a major contributor to the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and I understand that carbon dioxide is capable of trapping heat. Logically, it makes sense that more carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere means a warmer earth. But have there been any scientific studies that directly prove that the increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming of the earth? Logically, it makes sense, but logic is not evidence. The NASA website says "There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response," but it doesn't provide a source for that claim.

Don't get me wrong—I fully believe in climate change, and the logical relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and heat is obvious to me, but are there studies that go further than logic and have data to explain that?

>>8710068
>>8709981
http://pastebin.com/4x1mkZTU

I compiled this from an old thread
knock yourselves out

>>8710068
Carbon levels are measurable, and the physics of C02 trapping heat are well understood. There is no room for misunderstanding in the basic fact of this.

>>8710083
Thanks, anon. I'll read through those studies.
>>8710085
Like I said, logically it makes complete sense, and it's more than enough to convince me. I just want to see experimental evidence that proves this idea.

>>8709981
lets like use electric cars, solar panels and windmills durr ride your bikes not cars durr. Nuclear energy bad, hydro good.

Good god why do global warming people have the stupidest fucking remedies? Get rid of gmos to thin the population and take solar/wind/car subsidies and put it in nuclear.

>>8709981
With the mountain of evidence and continuing increasing average temperatures it is only the stupidest among us who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. Unfortunately for the rest of us, stupidity is obviously a major characteristic of the majority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

>>8709990
This page of evidence proves only that climate change is real, but does not prove that it is due to human activities. Not OP but just saying, if you want to actually refute him provide some actual evidence

>>8709981
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#33 #57 #73

The evidence that humans are directly responsible for climate change is both environmental pollution which is affecting the water cycle and the increase of particulates and gasses in the atmosphere which are the biproduct of industrialization.

It is both natural changes and man made changes together. If all man made changes are stopped and even reversed it might still continue to warm due to the natural processes occurring, that are not yet fully understood.

If you want to elevate the third world out of it's poverty you have to keep on polluting for another 50 years at a minimum.

A lot of the Global Warming climate change people have a vested interest in not creating behemoth economies and corporations like China. They don't want another China, because they couldn't control world affairs anymore. For many of them, China was a big mistake, and they have realised this and are rapidly mobilizing to head India, Russia, the African nations and Eurasia off at the pass, before they bring their 5 or so billion people up to first world standards and create competition to the established power structure, post WW2 American and German multinational corporations.

>>8710235
See >>8710062

Prez sez it's a hoax

'nuff said

>>8709981
In very simple terms, you can easily calculate how much sequestered carbon is released into the atmosphere. In lay terms, burning fossil fuels. One contention: how much gets absorbed by the oceans. Also not a good thing, as that changes the pH, and we're starting to see creatures that use calcium to create their shells have problems.

The second part of this is, how much carbon dioxide is needed to trap infrared radiation from escaping into space? Here's where it gets a bit squirrelly, and is one source of debate.

I have no idea what you mean ...
>The ice had already melted long before Humans started even using Fossil Fuels.

>>8710676
If it's a science they should be, in very simple terms, easily be able to calculate the proportion of warming attributable to man. In lay terms, calculate the exact carbon tax applicable to stop or even reverse the warmings.

>>8710009

>I'm just saying where is the proof that humans are too blame.

I'll try to make this as simple as possible.

The endgame of Climate Change policy is not about preventing the planet from suffering extreme heat or cold, that's mostly a meme. The point is prevent the climate from reaching a different paradigm (that we are unfamiliar with) that takes us out of our economically productive comfort zone we have been utilizing for the past several thousand years.

Actions such as farming, industrialization and nuclear testing (bombs not factories) has caused increased land erosion and emissions that alter the constitution atmosphere composition.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

relevant

Nye is such a fucking jackoff and people like him are the reason so many people distrust climate scientists. You can't run around and claim its all "settled science" and then refuse to answer the perfectly reasonable follow-up of "how much of the climate is affected by humans?" I think at one point he even blurted out that 100% of climate change is caused by humans and then he brings up those grapes as if the climate has changed so much that we're now growing crops in places where we shouldn't. The climate has not changed that much, a much more reasonable explanation for why we're growing grapes in Britain is that we've developed hardier strains that can grow in colder climates.

If you're a climate scientist you should be speaking against Bill Nye being your public face because he's doing you a great disservice.

>>8710745
>people like him are the reason so many people distrust climate scientists

no, we distrust them because it's all been pretty thoroughly debunked by Trump and his team. Liberal shills like Nye are all they have to be their public face, because reputable scientists know it's all bullshit.

>>8709990
>Doesn't adress to anything OP asks
the global warming cultists are back

How will Bill Nye the B.A. in engineering guy recover?

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157823678756/tucker-carlson-induces-cognitive-dissonance-in

File: 43.png (174KB, 825x427px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 825x427px

Shouldn't there be a steady increase in temperature?

>>8710068
Yes we can directly measure the amount of infrared heat coming from CO2. Look it up.

>>8710062
Note the roaring silence when incontrovertible evidence of our actions causing this is brought up.

>>8710676
>The second part of this is, how much carbon dioxide is needed to trap infrared radiation from escaping into space? Here's where it gets a bit squirrelly, and is one source of debate.
Huh? No it's not. Any CO2 molecule absorbs and radiates heat. There is not some threshold amount at which heat is trapped. More CO2 leads to more heat trapped. We have directly measured the radiative forcing, so it's not even a matter of how much heat is trapped.

>>8710685
This has already been done. Look at the IPCC AR5.

Also the optimal carbon tax rate has been formulated by economists.

>>8710853
There is a clear steady increase over the time period of humans emitting significant amounts of CO2. There are other factors that affect the trend in shorter timescales and longer timescales.

If more CO2 means more warming then why hasn't the rate of warming increased from the early 1900's despite burning more coal?

>>8710685
This has been done. There's even a layman article about it
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/

Here is the primary citation
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

>Knutti and Huber found that greenhouse gases contributed 0.6–1.1 degrees C to the warming observed since the mid-twentieth century, with the most statistically likely value being a contribution of about 0.85 degree C. Around half of that contribution from greenhouse gases—0.45 degree C—was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols. These directly influence Earth's climate by scattering light; they also have indirect climate effects through their interactions with clouds.
The authors calculated a net warming value of around 0.5 degree C since the 1950s, which is very close to the actual temperature rise of 0.55 degree C observed over that period. Changes in solar radiation—a hypothesis for global warming proffered by many climate skeptics—contributed no more than around 0.07 degree C to the recent warming, the study finds.

Bill Nye happen to not remember this number on top of his head. I know he has done a lot of great job for advocating climate change, but as climate scientist myself I don't think he should be the face of climate change. Most scientist would probably be fine with taking interview on TV, especially outspoken public ones like James Hansen, but most media just want "the science guy" and a TV guy for flash and showmanship, rather than having a real scientist on a panel.

Also a 7-8 minutes shouting match is never enough to explain properly the basis of anthropogenic climate change, and what's left is that you try to take as much potshots as you can against the other talking heads

>>8710754
Thanks for the laff m8

>>8710958
Because latent heat and lag time of the Earth. When you turn on the stove, the water doesn't boil instantly.

>>8710963
kys

>>8710975

I'm not sure if you understand the question. If CO2 is causing the temperature to rise at an observable rate, then why hasn't that rate risen parallel with our increased consumption of coal which is introducing more and more CO2 into the environment?

>>8711004
>>8710975

For the sake of argument think of it this way. Suppose for every 100 tons of coal that we consume, this causes the temperature to rise 10 degrees. Now if we consume 200 tons of coal it should follow that the temperature rises 20 degrees but it's not doing that, and instead the temperature only rises 10 degrees. This is kind of what we're seeing in the real world. The temperature is rising at a steady rate despite the world consuming more coal than it did in the early 1900's. The question I'm asking is how could that be?

>>8711033
First off, the vast majority of CO2 is going into the oceans. The oceans are also a massive sink for the Earth's heat, and are storing a lot of that energy and heating up in the process (I think almost 1C globally in the past 100 years or so). There is also a lot of physics with atmospheric gasses that you need to understand better:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

>>8709981
The media is still talking about cc like this
Jeeezypeats, mass suicide when?

File: Hansen1988_CO2_eqn.jpg (8KB, 376x113px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 376x113px

>>8710961
>as climate scientist myself
Very good. I'm writing an essay about the first generation of climate activists where Dr. Hansen played a prominent role. You're probably familiar with his famous CO2 equation. Can you explain to me why this equation was considered to be dimensionally consistent, or was it?

My astronomy professor said that water vapor is the #1 green house gas in out atmosphere. Thoughts? Is this true?

>>8710722
1. A webcomic? That's really all you've got?
2. Even your own shitty comic shows that the Earth's orbit can cause warming AND that it was warmer in 5000 BC than it is today.

I seriously can't wait for the EPA to be abolished

>>8711288
It's true, though water vapor basically just reinforces existing trends. If temperatures are already rising, then you get more evaporation out of the oceans and thus more water vapor in the atmosphere. When other factors increase temperature, you get more water vapor and thus an even bigger increase in temperature. Without something to kickstart the warming process, water vapor will eventually balance out in terms of evaporation vs precipitation as water vapor moves on through the water cycle.

Normally, CO2 is in a similar situation, as in nature there isn't really a way to dump vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere without also throwing up a lot of particulate matter that will have a cooling effect as well. Prior to humanity, CO2 would rise as temperatures rose, reinforcing an existing warming trend. Of course, humanity has "solved" this problem very neatly by burning fossil fuels, releasing large quantities of CO2 and thus kickstarting what would normally be only a reinforcing factor.

File: China_pollution_AP971430398958_620x350.jpg (8KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 620x350px

>>8711294
Enjoy your "construction dust."

>>8711322
> posts an example of government control leading to awful air quality as an argument for more government control
Liberalism really is a mental disease.

>>8711004
Why are you assuming the increase in warming is proportional to the increase in CO2 if all that was said was more CO2 means more warming?

>>8711273
It's just fox news and daily mail that does this.

>>8710853
Humans also increased aerosol production. There is a bloomberg-hosted NASA visualization that might help you understand.

>>8711290
And? Climatologists know orbital eccentricity causes interglacials and it's been warmer millions of years ago. Neither are relevant to the validity of AGW.

>>8711387
>Liberalism
This word literally means "freedom-al-ism." What you are saying is that the concept of more individual freedom (liberalism) is a disease of the mind.
Contextually, I can tell that you did not mean to say that, so I figured you should know.

>>8711513
Not him, but modern american liberalism has nothing to do with the original meaning and the term has kind of become an ironic name.

>>8710097
>There is an increase in average temperature
>There is an increase in CO2
>We know how the greenhouse effect works.
I don't understand why you think this isn't substantial evidence.

File: libertarian.png (11KB, 253x102px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 253x102px

>>8711544
A modern liberal feels entitled to control the liberty of others ('faceless fascism') while a libertarian has no such affliction.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-28 at 5.45.27 PM.png (262KB, 771x1089px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 771x1089px

>>8711279
Not sure what you meant by "dimensionally consistent."

I take that's the empirical equation for climate sensitivity used in the GISS GCM model. It is just an empirical fit based on simpler 1D model, described in detail here:
http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/warming_papers/Hansen_etal_1984.pdf

The basic idea is this. Energy in must equal energy out, 2nd law of thermodynamics. In 1984 paper they did a 1D model assuming various CO2 concentration (and other greenhouse gases too), what would happen if you double or triple or quadruple CO2, what change in temperature of earth needed so that the energy equation balances. You received a finite amount of energy from the sun, given at solar constant. This energy is absorbed by earth 100% since earth is essentially a blackbody. Then the energy is re-emitted by the Earth following stephan boltzmann equation energy out = sigma*T^4. T here represent temperature of earth's surface, sigma is stephan boltzman constant. Energy out is simply a single function of Earth's temperature. Now here's the slightly tricky part. A FRACTION of this energy out is reabsorbed in the atmosphere and reflected back to earth. If you increase greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, you're gonna get more IR reflected back to the surface, because your reflectance got "thicker". You basically integrate from bottom to top of atmosphere, assuming every layer of atmosphere absorbs and re-emit infrared radiation continuously based on prescribed concentration gradient (based on partial pressure of said molecules) with infinitesimal dz. In the very top of the atmosphere the energy must balance, energy from the sun = energy leaving the earth. Then you solve for T earth, that's your equilibrium T for a given greenhouse gas concentration.

They then take an empirical relationship for a given concentration range from this 1D model and use it in the 3D GISS model as climate sensitivity parameter

>>8711666
Just to add, it's called 1D model because it doesn't have spatial nor time component in it. It treats the earth as a single blackbody and solves for equilibrium thermodynamics, so it doesn't really know HOW FAST would the of the Earth temperature respond, just how hot it would get eventually if there's a black ball in space at the same distance from the sun with earth, and same radius as earth, that is blanketed with atmosphere containing various greenhouse gases.

File: 180 Years of Atomosphere CO2 Analysis2.png (89KB, 960x535px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 960x535px

>>8710015
How often do people have to post this garbage where they tack on high frequency instrumental data, to low-frequency, low-accuracy data? Instant hockey stick. What crap.

Here's an apples to apples graph, pic related.

Source
Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

>>8709997
>https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
NASA is an agency of the U.S. Federal Government. $Carbon $Taxes will make FedGov $Billions.

In related news, Phillip-Morris Scientists have proven that tobacco is safe. Of course, Phillip-Morris will make $Billions
off tobacco.

File: simplified.png (33KB, 800x194px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 800x194px

>>8711666
>>8711677
Thank you. I'm aware of how energy balance models work. What I meant is that the left side of the equation has the dimension of a temperature while the right side is dimensionless. In physics, dimensional consistency is a basic requirement. This was later covered by the introduction of alpha (implicit dimension Wm-2), which of course needs another factor (K/Wm-2) to arrive at ∆T.

Sun is rising soon here, good night and thanks again.

File: Fig 9 Jaworowski 1997a.png (43KB, 347x498px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 347x498px

>>8710068
>I understand that there is significant scientific evidence to show that humans are a major contributor to the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and I understand that carbon dioxide is capable of trapping heat.

Actually there is not significant evidence that humans are a major contributor to the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The correlation between anthropogenic CO2 flux and the change in atmospheric CO2 is almost non-existent. Pic related. Source, Jaworowski (1997)

Also see:
Jaworowski, Zbigniew. "Ice core data show no carbon dioxide increase." 21st Century Science and Technology 10.1 (1997): 42-52.

And see Selegstad (1998)

Concerning the CO2 "Hockeystick," Selegstad said:
"A false representation of the CO2 atmospheric concentration trend scientific scandal of our time.
over the past 10,000 years. Values before 1958 do not represent the atmospheric concentrations, but the artifacts caused by depletion of CO2 from ice, and by arbitrarily changing the age of
samples."

Segalstad, Tom V. "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the" Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma." Global Warming the Continuing Debate. Cambridge, UK. European Science and Environmental Forum. 1998.

File: Diminishing CO2.png (48KB, 624x376px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 624x376px

>>8710085
>>>8710068
>Carbon levels are measurable, and the physics of C02 trapping heat are well understood. There is no room for misunderstanding in the basic fact of this.

Why did you forget to mention that the "heat trapping" effect of CO2 decreases at a logarithmic rate, making additional CO2 have a negligible effect? It seems that you are not being forthright about the physics of CO2. It comes down to Quantum Mechanics. There are only certain wavelengths that CO2 can absorb. When those wavelengths are absorbed, there is nothing more that CO2 can do. Yeah, that's a part of the physics of CO2 you really should mention.

File: unnamed.png (69KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 300x300px

>>8709981
>What is the evidence that humans are directly responsible for climate change?
DELET THIS EARTHLING

File: Erasing Global Cooling2.png (104KB, 647x340px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 647x340px

>>8710853
Usually, when there's not a steady increase in temperature, NASA "scientists" change the graph.

>nb4 hurr, durr, only delusional people distrust "new climate information"
There is no new temperature data for that time period. The only delusional fool is the one who sees altered data, and goes "of course its true, there were no graphs of global cooling in the past!"

>>8710928
>here are other factors that affect the trend in shorter timescales and longer timescales.
Factors such as rewriting the temperature history of the globe, and then shouting, "Hurr, durr if you don't believe rewritten data, you're just delusional."
>>8711983

File: Gavin Schmidt Admits Theory is Wrong.jpg (88KB, 442x852px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 442x852px

>>8710975
>>>8710958
>Because latent heat and lag time of the Earth. When you turn on the stove, the water doesn't boil instantly.

Except climate change theory says that the troposphere will warm faster than the Earth's surface, and that isn't happening.

>>8709990
>here's technology to make your stuff cleaner and more efficent
vs
>hey guys you cant refute this now pay my environmental organizations thousands of dollars to get our certified label stamp on your products or we will call you out and make you lose customers
Not saying it's made up, but it is so blantly abused and it's the reason most blue collar workers voted Trump instead of Clinton. Literally destroyed any profitability of the paper (and many other industries) in the U.S. and caused us to rely on getting it all from cheap labor in China and Mexico, where the pollutants are unascertainably more polluting and devastating to the environment then they were with regulations in the U.S.

File: Total-Solar-Irradiance-1900-2013-Yndestad-and-Solheim-17-Close-Up.jpg (47KB, 352x312px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 352x312px

>>8710961
>Changes in solar radiation—a hypothesis for global warming proffered by many climate skeptics—contributed no more than around 0.07 degree C to the recent warming, the study finds.

If you use the cherry-picked studies (like NASA) that show weak solar variance. There are studies that show significant solar variance, Pic related. And this argument also pretends that solar modulated cosmic rays have no effect. But they do, see below:

Kirkby, Jasper, et al. "Ion-induced nucleation of pure biogenic particles." Nature 533.7604 (2016): 521-526.

Bianchi, F., et al. "New particle formation in the free troposphere: A question of chemistry and timing." Science 352.6289 (2016): 1109-1112.

>>8712021
See Yndestad, Harald, and Jan-Erik Solheim. "The influence of solar system oscillation on the variability of the total solar irradiance." New Astronomy 51 (2017): 135-152.

>>8711971
I'm waiting for someone to address this. Also couldn't watch the Bill Nye interview cause I got embarrassed for him.

>Add 10 trillion tons of co2 to atmosphere every year

>hey guys, that co2 doesn't do anything. It just disappears and doesn't count for anything.

>>8711971
Do you have a source for this supposed effect?

File: human-global-warming.jpg (79KB, 582x240px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 582x240px

>>8712061

>>8710062
I like the source, but who is to say that all carbon dioxide released in the last 15,000 years is "man made", is there not at least the potential explanation that the shifting polar ice caps and general temperature increase seen over this period could be both causing this abundance of green-house gasses, and being worsened by it?

Not to scream that humans are in no way responsible for global warming, as in my mind we fundamentally must be, as for 2 unprecedented events (civilisation, global warming) to occur concurrently in such a vast timeline seem far more likely to be cause and effect than pure coincidence.

There is also a possible explanation that in fact it is rising temperatures out of the previous ice-age that have caused increased human development, rather than the other way around.

I can see correlation, I just have yet to see solid evidence of causation.

>>8712209
you know what? it doesn't even matter
the consequences are the same
if the trend continues, we'll suffer the consequences
who is to blame isn't even relevant at that point

so, regardless of whether humans are causing the warming or not, humans need to do something to stop it

The denialism comes down to the fact that there are three responses to our increasingly shitty planet:
>Mobilize everything to preserve the Earth--think WW2 but victory is saving the environment. We're late enough that some things will still go extinct, but it'll mean that 100 years from now living standards and the biosphere will be quite nice.
>Shift resources to fight climate change, but don't make it the defining struggle of humanity. Many species will go extinct, there will be a ton of refugees, but we can still ensure that 100 years from now our grandchildren can have decent lives.
>Do jack shit, or actively encourage burning fossil fuels. If this happens, well, try not to have children.
In short, nobody wants to be the guy that goes "yes, Earth is fucked, but gas is so cheap right now." It's so much easier to throw doubt and confusion into the air so you can live with yourself. Folks who rely on inconvenient trades such as all the coal miners up in the Appalachians will be forced to choose between crushing poverty or a better life for people who aren't even born yet. If you repeat a lie often enough, you don't just convince other people. You convince yourself.

We are going to run out of Earth long before we run out of fossil fuels. This comes down to our self control as a species.

>>8712280
>This comes down to our self control as a species.
we're fucked

>>8711983
I don't believe that picture at all and the reasons why are very simple.

I don't need climate data to prove warming. I have explained this again, and again, and again, and again, and again. You're either willfully ignorant or lying. I imagine it's lying but it's probably a bit of both.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/up-and-up-plants-and-animals-migrating-as-climate-changes/2011/08/18/gIQAzlTxNJ_story.html?utm_term=.939795d3ea94

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140725-climate-change-tropical-fish-animals-ocean-science/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4I8tYnxP4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5wpCo0Sqg

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/snow-ice

https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=126692

What's your response sir?

>>8711939
http://www.biomind.de/treibhaus/180CO2/author_reply9-2.pdf

>>8712229
I agree, but by this reckoning we need to be very careful that we are not going to slow down our progress through carbon taxs and the like, when we may actually need technology we are currently on the cusp of to save ourselves from an "unavoidable" atmospheric fuckup.

If you see what I'm saying, we need to know more about what is causing the issue for sure, as otherwise we are wasting valuable time on bandaid solutions.

>>8712229
so maybe we should seed clouds right? with planes? maybe with reflective particles like metallic ones?

does anyone else feel global warming is comfy? More sunny days, less rain, more time at the beach. Fuck the third world and animals.

Would it be possible to halt or stall global warming by sending up a solar shade to block out some of the light coming from the Sun?

>>8712396
Greenhouse gas emissions are the cause. Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions is the solution. If we eliminate greenhouse gas emissions we can take millenia to figure out the climate completely. Otherwise we aren't going to make it to even 2100 considering wars are soon and we won't have the luxury of scientific progress when we're busy dealing with famine.

>>8712488
>famine
Pipe down with that and enjoy your Soycaf omae.

>>8712493
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378003000827

File: Burn.jpg (19KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x375px

>>8711290
>it was warmer in 5000 BC than it is today
I Can't Read Graphs: The Post

>>8711939
oh look, you posted Beck 2007 again
>better CO2 measurement methods invented in ~1855
>insanely high reported values for CO2 drop to levels consistent with the following century or so, almost overnight
>physically impossible for those amounts of CO2 to be emitted in the absence of major flood basalt eruptions
>physically impossible for those amounts of CO2 to suddenly disappear without massive changes in ocean chemistry
>no biological signals of such enormous swings in CO2 concentration
surely this couldn't be the result of instrumental error, could it?
>published in E&E
zozzle
>http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/found-in-margins-recently-eli-has-been.html

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

3MB, 720x775px

>>8711942
Yes, because Donald Trump and the Republican party are well-known advocates for carbon taxes.
Fucking moron.

>>8711963
>21st Century Science and Technology 10.1 (1997): 42-52.
>Global Warming the Continuing Debate. Cambridge, UK. European Science and Environmental Forum. 1998.
What the hell are you citing?

>>8711983
>>8711990
Just because you huff and cry doesn't make it a conspiracy. Refining and reconstructing old data is a pretty normal part of climatology.

>>8712167
A 3,4% increase in something that's a big part of the greenhouse effect of our planet is a pretty big deal. And you're ignoring the fact the water vapour is held in pretty tight equilibrium, so it's purely a feedback - putting it on the chart is entirely misleading.

Also, did you just cite the fucking Heritage Foundation?

>>8712209
>who is to say that all carbon dioxide released in the last 15,000 years is "man made"
No-one says that, where are you getting your info from?

>I can see correlation, I just have yet to see solid evidence of causation.
C12/C13 ratios. The carbon buried in fossil fuels is measurably different to the carbon dioxide in circulation.

>>8711939
>>8712372
E&E is a bullshit journal. You may as well link to Answers in Genesis.

>>8712483
Not with the resources and tech we currently have.

>>8712488
Yes, but if we are not yet absolutely 100% certain that the correlation of higher abundance of greenhouse gasses and human development is a causal link, then should we really be jamming the breaks on further development?
We may need to advance our space programs fast, what if it is actually the Earth's core dumping superhot green-house gasses at never before seen rates through deep-sea vents?

Just saying senpai, I read through the evidence posted so far, and this level of correlation is no mere chance I agree, but we need to be sure that it is about future emission reduction before we put all of our eggs in that basket imo.

>>8712596
>15,000 years
>wut
>goes on to describe exactly why I (and the cited study) used 15,000 due to carbon isotope decay

XD first year geographist here XD

>>8710021
Heh
I know these feels
It's painful to love this place
Like eating sunflower seeds shell and all

Big Oil checking in just to remind you that we paid good money to some people with PHDs to try to convince you there was a chance that anthropogenic climate change isn't caused by humans and might not be a big deal.

Go on about your lives, buying oil and coal. Don't pressure your congressmen to change anything.

Thank-you for your cooperation in our record quarterly profits.

>>8713133
Did you not see the speech last night?

Trump's hard reset was the nail in the coffin for you libshits. Get used to it faggot, 8 more years.

>>8709981
>ignoring the fact that coal and oil takes many many years to form
>ignoring why the ice age began in the first place
>maybe the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling

Huh?

File: Poor Roy Spencer.png (111KB, 2700x990px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 2700x990px

>>8711995

File: chinachart2.png (102KB, 800x522px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 800x522px

>>8712005

NO

FACT: The fastest way to slow man-made climate change is to release the entire Earth nuclear weapon arsenal onto China and India.
Are you a bad enough dude to approve that?

File: CO2_per_capita_per_country.png (72KB, 800x370px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x370px

>>8713451
Nope, their per capita carbon footprints are lower than Amerifats, the Gulf states, Canadian and Australians.

If you want least amount of human death per emission cut then these are the area that needs to be nuked

>>8711971
>>8712060

https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

>>8713502
Less people using more carbon is always humanities best bet, not more people, more poo. Poo is our real enemy not carbon, carbon along with its dioxides is our friend and ally. We have always been at war with poo.

File: Deleted CO2 data points.png (88KB, 444x320px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 444x320px

>>8712534
>oh look, you posted Beck 2007 again
>>better CO2 measurement methods invented in ~1855
>>insanely high reported values for CO2 drop to levels consistent with the following century or so, almost overnight
>>physically impossible for those amounts of CO2 to be emitted in the absence of major flood basalt eruptions
Beck adamantly stated that there was no such thing as a global "background" CO2 level. That is nothing but the Keeling dogma. Its "proof" is wonderfully circular. Any data that violate that dogma are thrown out. Pic related.

File: Ad Hominem Attack.jpg (12KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 275x183px

>>8712596
>>>8711939
>>>8712372
>E&E is a bullshit journal. You may as well link to Answers in Genesis.
>Only journals controlled by warmist editors count.
FTFY

Ad hominem buddy.

>>8712167
3.4% in flux*

File: Stomata CO2.gif (29KB, 624x345px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 624x345px

>>8712534
>Beck
>only ice core data with its very low resolution counts.
Plant stomata data have much better resolution. And they show significantly higher CO2 in the past.

File: 1358621982749.jpg (297KB, 790x764px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 790x764px

>>8714723
> -1000 years before present

File: skepticalscience treehouse boyz.jpg (99KB, 450x491px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 450x491px

>>8713715
>>>8711971
>>>8712060
>https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

I rarely look at SimpletonScience because 95% of there arguments are strawman arguments, the rest are inane or flat out lying. This one LIES somewhere between inane and strawman. Seriously, look at this:

"By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further."

Nice strawman with some good stupidity thrown in. That "argument" begs the question as to whether or not CO2 has a diminishing effect. It simply argues that it doesn't by, get this, assuming the effect "By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space." If the effect of increased CO2 is diminishing then the "force[ing] the radiation" is diminishing also.

How can anyone take these clowns, Crook and Nuttercelli, seriously? They prey on the gullible.

File: Absorbtion Spectra of CO2.jpg (319KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 720x720px

>>8712075
Quantum mechanics is hardly a "supposed effect." The quantification of absorption to specific wavelengths is not in dispute. But see the attached graph for the absorption bands of various greenhouse gases. Notice that CO2 has only a couple of narrow bumps. Outside of that range, it is IMPOSSIBLE for CO2 to absorb electromagnetic radiation. Once the radiation from those wavelengths are absorbed, there is nothing more that it can do.

File: 3 Tampering Graphs.png (119KB, 672x1778px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 672x1778px

>>8712596
>>>8711983
>>>8711990
>Just because you huff and cry doesn't make it a conspiracy. Altering and tampering old data is a pretty normal part of climatology.
FTFY

Never said there was a conspiracy. You're just engaging in pathetic Ad Hominem. What is going on is terrible statistical methodology.

File: Phase Relation of CO2 and Temperature.jpg (60KB, 402x204px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 402x204px

>>8712596
>>>8712209
>>who is to say that all carbon dioxide released in the last 15,000 years is "man made"
>No-one says that, where are you getting your info from?
>>I can see correlation, I just have yet to see solid evidence of causation.
>C12/C13 ratios. The carbon buried in fossil fuels is measurably different to the carbon dioxide in circulation

That causation is so powerful it moves backwards in TIME! Change in temperature rate always precedes change in CO2 concentration rate.
>nb4 hurr durr ENSO
Sorry buddy but if Climate "Science" were true, the (discrete) derivative of the CO2 atmospheric concentration would be very similar to the anthropogenic CO2 flux over time; which is roughly hockey-stick shaped. But that graph shows that its not at all like that.

>>8712338
>I don't need climate data to prove warming. I have explained this again, and again, and again, and again, and again. You're either willfully ignorant or lying. I imagine it's lying but it's probably a bit of both

If you don't need data, you're not doing science.

File: Satellite Divergence.png (8KB, 258x196px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 258x196px

>>8713426
Exactly. Troposphere is warming much slower as shown by satellite data. Completely contradicting climate change theory. As Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA GISS, admitted >>8711995

>>8709981
stupid people always have a hard time understanding complicated things. That's why they usually assume things they don't understand must be bullshit and prefer to use explanations they understand (believing in god).

File: 100 Billion is all we want - IPCC.jpg (169KB, 1537x715px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1537x715px

>>8713133
>Big Oil checking in just to remind you that we paid good money to some people with PHDs to try to convince you there was a chance that anthropogenic climate change isn't caused by humans and might not be a big deal.

Nice try Soros Shill. The enormous amounts of money paid by FedGov (which will make many $Billions off $Carbon $Taxes), UN (which will make $100 Billion a year) and "Progressive" NGOs, dwarves the tiny amounts of money that oil companies give to skeptic research.

http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/climate-change/Documents/climate-finance-roadmap-to-us100-billion.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/Projecting%20Climate%20Change%202020%20WEB.pdf
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/han-chen/countries-release-100b-climate-finance-roadmap-2020
https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/getting-to-100-billion-final.pdf (site sometimes is down)

Its all about tricking you out of your hard earned $$$

File: Diverging data.gif (21KB, 668x508px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 668x508px

>>8714829
Here's a larger version with the data source info.

File: image.jpg (58KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x500px

>>8714806
I am the causation anon, and not to be rude but I can't tell who you are berating through this word salad.
If it is me, please rephrase the comment, if not, continue on my good man.

File: CO2 Correlation and Water Solubility.png (16KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 640x960px

>>8714866
>>8714806
>I am the causation anon, and not to be rude but I can't tell who you are berating

I am berate anyone show looks at the sometimes (but not always) high correlation between CO2 concentration and temperatures and things this proves that CO2 drives temperatures. It doesn't, because, of course, correlation doesn't prove causation.

In the physical world, cause must precede effect. Which makes causal arguments for CO2 increasing temperature very suspect. That graph shows temperature rate Change happening BEFORE CO2 concentration rate Change. Strongly suggesting that CO2 increase is mostly an effect of temperature increase and not vice versa.

Indeed, warming water holds less CO2. As oceans warm, their net CO2 flux is outward.

Even if global warming is human caused, what do you plan to do about it? Impose taxes and restrictions on what I can and cant do, infringing on my rights? Yeah right, you're all a bunch of authoritarian fascists.

>>8715007
Have you seen what the fossil fuel industry is doing to infringe on the rights of anyone trying to support renewable energy? Do you know how much money you're paying in taxes to subsidize fossil fuels? Are you aware of how fossil fuels are funding terrorism and those acts of terrorism are stripping away your freedom? If you're against government intervention you should be doing everything you can to prevent climate change. Floods, drought, and wildfires all require government intervention.

>>8714842
you're a pinhead tool congratulations of being stupid enough to believe the propaganda.

>>8715023
Lmao infringe on whose rights? some dark folk in third world countries? all i know is the less taxes the better the society and the freer the people. also how does terrorism take away my rights??? we should be killing those towelheads without a second thought. And nothing should require government intervention. we can handle ourselves without some oppressive dictator telling us what to do thanks.

>>8709981
The sun drives climate, we have meta seasons that come and go as well, and seasons of seasons etc. sometimes iceage, sometimes warming

>>8715034
^ this

>>8715034
Good job making it to /sci/ and not being able to read. Must have been a challenge to get here.

>>8714842
The UN is not going to make $100B/year. The UN is not asking to be given $100B/year. Repeating this shit in every thread does not make it true.

>>8714862
>Cherry-picked endpoints.
>Old, discredited data.
>Bullshit offset.
No.

>>8714893
In the past CO2 was a feedback, not a driver. That doesn't mean its not a driver now though, and it doesn't preclude CO2 from being responsible for a large part of those historical warmings.

>In the physical world, cause must precede effect.
In the physical world, cause and effect are rarely completely distinct, and often overlap and interact.

>Indeed, warming water holds less CO2. As oceans warm, their net CO2 flux is outward.
Then the fact that the current flux is large and inward ought to be a clue that something is horribly wrong.

>>8715007
I wasn't aware you had the right to harm others without consequence.

>>8715080
im not harming others im just driving my truck dude

>>8715041
>The sun drives climate
The Sun is far from the only thing that can affect the Earth's climate. The current warming trend over the last ~50 years cannot be explained by only invoking solar variation.
The "smoking gun" here is the stratospheric cooling: An increase in the amount of incoming energy would WARM the stratosphere, but the cooling we see implies a reduction in the amount of outgoing energy.

>>8715093
>im not harming others im just driving my truck dude
Driving your truck is harming others.

>>8715120
uh no its not. your harming my by trying to make me pay more taxes.

>>8715127
Stop driving. You're forcing me to pay taxes to maintain the road that your truck is damaging. Fucking commie why can't you walk like a normal American.

>>8715034
>>8715007
>>8715093
>>8715127
Kek this guy

>>8715133
why are you telling met o stop doing something!! your infringing my rights. ill agree with you taxes are oppressive and we need to put an end to them because they steal from hardowrking amerians

File: wintergoes_16_and_goes_13_comparison_from_the_same_day_Jan_15_2017.jpg (2MB, 4572x2252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4572x2252px

Jan 15 2017 GOES 16 and 13 images.
Courtesy NASA/NOAA

>>8715182
I think you already did a splendid job of convincing us that clouds exist that last few times you posted that.

File: march12017GOES.png (1MB, 1390x782px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1390x782px

>>8715189
How about the picture of the day?

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/imagery-and-data

File: well?.jpg (312KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1440x1080px

>>8715189
Where'd you go Captain Sarcasm? Choking on your words? Or crying in the corner?

>>8715182
What are you posting that for? Climate =/= weather so posting a picture about current weather is meaningless.

File: winter-north_america_med_res_jan_15_2017_0.jpg (927KB, 1300x775px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 1300x775px

>>8715240
Right, the current weather. The current weather that's been going on for about six months now...
"Weather isn't climate!"
Buddy give it a rest...please. Embrace reality and put the climate models away.

>>8715257
You mean half the year it gets colder? Amazing discovery anon, tell me more.

File: australia_430.jpg (31KB, 430x322px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 430x322px

>>8715257
still don't understand the point

>>8715182
>>8715198
>>8715257
The fact that so called "skeptics" will just ignore when someone makes retarded arguments like this really shows them to be intellectually dishonest.

File: Spockonsci.png (134KB, 450x312px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 450x312px

>>8715271
Maybe science isn't for you then? May I suggest >>>wsg? Might be more in line with your intellect.
I've saved your image and will reply to it sometime in August. Stay salty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

>>8714818
No, I don't need climate data. Animal migrations, glacial retreat, and sea level rise are happening now all proving what we see in the climate data but I don't need just climate data to prove it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1hJYLw7OlM&t=226s

The problem is arguing against climate change now is impossible because it covers too many fields all in agreement.

>>8715289
>Richard Lindzen
Nice try.

>>8715289
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/climate-nexus/lindzen-cites-debunked-science_b_6812356.html

File: hmmm.jpg (51KB, 600x511px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x511px

>>8715300
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vc14iVsa1g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8

>>8715316
This is just another form of appeal to authority. Rather than attack the data, which you can't do. You try and find 'experts' and claim that their knowledge makes your position valid.

It doesn't. I can literally find scientists that believe smoking is good for you
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2523949/Nicotine-GOOD-Scientist-employed-cigarette-manufacturers-claims-highly-addictive-drug-makes-brain-work-better.html

So stop with the logical fallacy of appeal to authority and either attack the data or admit defeat.

File: hockeyscience.jpg (9KB, 262x192px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 262x192px

>>8715336
Ok the data is manipulated or outright faked for political or monetary gain. At the very least, cherry picking.

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/climate-change-research-grants

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

>>8710015
>climate (((scientists))) in charge of statistical analysis

File: chrisr.gif (933KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 500x281px

>>8715262
>>8715282
>>8715295
>>8715300
>>8715336
Where'd everyone go? I won again? To easy.

>>8715367
> National Review
Seriously?

>>8715316
Damn, that's a reeeaaally t h i c c forearm

>>8715434
I haven't see anyone this desperate in a debate in quite a while.

>>8715367
>Citeing a Wikipedia article you clearly haven't read.

File: goodjob.jpg (369KB, 1100x1051px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1100x1051px

>>8715457
>Citeing a Wikipedia article you clearly haven't read.
(Citing) are you sure you should be here? Cracking off about my reading, while you can't spell? You win!

>>8715454
How exactly do you debate a brick wall? There's no point. I'm just here to point out hypocrisy and lies.

File: Anteater.jpg (75KB, 600x688px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x688px

>>8714687
>Beck adamantly stated that there was no such thing as a global "background" CO2 level.
well if he said so and he really meant it, it MUST be true!
don't you think it's at all suspicious that we simply stopped seeing really high CO2 levels right around the same time that we started using reliable measurement techniques instead of open-flask methods that allowed ambient air to freely mix with the sample?

>>8714723
>let's take stomatal density proxies from a bunch of different studies focusing on isolated temperate localities and stitch them together
>and let's compare them to a direct record of Antarctic CO2
it's almost as though CO2 levels are significantly lower over Antarctica than in the temperate zones...
the issue of comparing apples and oranges aside, there's another problem; CO2 concentrations aren't the only factor affecting stomatal density. aridity stress can and does also change stomatal density, but none of the referenced papers account for it.

>>8714753
>I don't understand this therefore it's wrong

>>8714778
>Notice that CO2 has only a couple of narrow bumps. Outside of that range, it is IMPOSSIBLE for CO2 to absorb electromagnetic radiation.
not strictly true.

>>8715182
congratulations, that's the same picture taken by two different satellites. what does that prove? that the planet has clouds on it?

>>8715468
You're not that dense, stop pretending. It's abundantly clear what are clouds, and what isn't clouds. I'll help you in case you really are that dense.
Look around the great lakes and north of that, Just ignore the clouds over the States for a minute. Do you see it now? Ok good.

I also find it interesting that they'd only offer one picture of the United States from that time period, with that much cloud cover. Of course they're not trying to hide anything.
Not like they released pictures from Jan 16,17,18... funny that.

CAN'T KEK THE TUCK

>>8715007
>Even if our house is getting knocked down by the wrecking ball I keep hitting it with, what are you going to to do about it? Stop me from demolishing the house and infringe on my RIGHTS?

I can take some comfort in the fact that none of the opinions in this thread actually matter to anyone or anything.

>>8715674
>manufacture fake panic
>use fear of imminent danger as an excuse to do whatever you want to

This has never happened in the history of mankind desu senpai.

>>8715781
They think we're blind and 100% ignorant.

File: Autism.png (516KB, 1243x1342px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1243x1342px

>>8715189
The Autist has returned once again.

File: Seek help.png (1MB, 2536x4776px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2536x4776px

>>8714842
Don't mind me, just posting this to remind everyone to STOP REPLYING TO THESE PEOPLE.

They make these threads simply to copy paste the same shit over and over again, do not engage them. Do not argue with them. Ignore the threads, hide the stubs and move on with your lives. There is nothing to be gained in engaging these people. See pic related, pure 100% denier autism.

>>8715182
>NASA
>Using black & white photos to cover the truth

Go away, shill. NASA uses the most advanced cameras.

>>8715781
ur president's doing it right now tbf

>>8709997
>consensus
Galileo would like a word with you faggot.

There is only a consensus on this because the king willed it, and because 99% of climate scientists work for companies that sell green energy products.

>>8715034
>also how does terrorism take away my rights???
I didn't realize the Patriot Act was done away with

>>8716642
>Galileo would like a word with you faggot.

Always hilarious to see retards like yourself fall into association fallacies and red herrings.
Hate to break it to you, but you're not Galileo. By the way, Galileo was the scientific authority of his time, utilizing the scientific method that used observational data as evidence for his hypotheses. You do realize that this is the way that all science, including climate science, operates to this day, right?

It's always hilarious to see deniers use these fallacies because your ilk are much like the Catholic Church of Galileo's time. You claim authority on an issue which you have no expertise and refuse to accept valid scientific evidence in favoritism of a religious-like faith in a conspiracy that has zero evidence or support.

>There is only a consensus on this because the king willed it, and because 99% of climate scientists work for companies that sell green energy products.
Oh, I see you're just here to spew vitrol and conjecture without backing it up with any evidence because you read some nonsense somewhere and didn't bother to fact-check it. Essentially, you're a brainlet with no actual logical or reasonable argument.

>>8716715
Why do you tell people to "stop responding to these posts" then respond en-masse yourself? Hypocrite much? Or do you just get off on telling people what to do and think? You would be much more persuasive if you weren't so hostile to other peoples thoughts and input, and if you didn't draw such a hard line.
Anyway, I look forward to the fifty responses.
>You can even use the green text you love so much because you think its cool.

>>8716775
More red herrings, hilarious.

>>8716786
No, more like a valid observation. You're not the only one paying close attention.

File: Red Herring.jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x360px

>>8716797
>No, more like a valid observation
No, you bring up your old, tired Galileo gambit, and then fail to even respond to a single point or criticism I made of your shitpost.

By the way, you're damn right I'm hostile against morons like you who rely on conjecture as an argument. People who actively deny scientific evidence in favor of a grand conspiracy that doesn't exist. Making a statement such as:
>99% of climate scientists work for companies that sell green energy products.
Which has literally no basis in reality just goes to show how off the wagon you are. You're not here for a rational or logical discussion, so why should I treat you as anything other than hostile? You clearly have no intention of actually looking at the scientific literature that lays out the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, so why bother?

All you people do is copy and paste the same bullshit into every single one of these threads over and over again. You never evolve, you never change your arguments when new information is present, as your biases are so strong and unscientific that you're a slave to a dogma of irrational thinking.

>Or do you just get off on telling people what to do and think?
Must be confusing me for someone else by the way, I only posted 3 times in this thread, but to make a point, yes I do care in pointing out when someone's "argument" relies completely on conjecture and logical fallacies.

>>8716831
A.) I didn't bring up Galileo, that was another Anon.
B.) I didn't bring up anything about 99% of scientists, that was another Anon.
C.) I did bring up you telling other people what to think.
That gives you a score of 33%. I wonder what else you're wrong about?

>>8716841
A.) Why are you responding to posts that aren't even responding to yourself?

B.) Again, why are you so invested in a conversation that wasn't even directed at you? Seems suspicious.

C.) Where am I telling anyone else to think? Is pointing out logical fallacies telling someone else how to think? I'm not even making an argument for climate change, if I was I would be presenting evidence, which I usually do in these threads. No, started off simply pointing out why using association fallacies is not a rational or reasonable argument, as well as why using conjecture is also not a valid argument.

D.) Why are you so autistic that you're responding to posts that aren't even responding to yourself, or are you that insecure that you cannot even admit when you make grave fallacious arguments?

>>8716861
>>8716831
I'm bringing them up because you only listed my response and no others. Are you really this dense? You can't be, please tell me you're just playing around?
Just stop, you're digging a deeper hole.
P.S. 3/50

File: look i'm projecting.jpg (73KB, 490x333px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 490x333px

>>8716896
>I'm bringing them up because you only listed my response and no others
What the fuck are you even talking about? What others are you referring to? You're the only person that has responded to the post I made about fallacies.

>Are you really this dense?
Is this some kind of self commentary?

>>8716915
I talking about this >>8716831 read your own post.
>Are you really this dense?
Is this some kind of self commentary?

You answered my question vividly with your response. Yes, you really are dense.
One more thing. Is fallacies your big word for the day? You're over using it.
4/50

File: 1487172369970.png (7KB, 620x480px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 620x480px

>>8709981
>Global Warming
There's something for everyone: alarmists love gistemp, lukewarmists like hadcrut, the infidels prefer uah/rss and #45 in his hour-long speech lost not a single word about it.

>>8717259
Look at those bullshit offsets. And you drew trendlines from 1998, how cute.

>>8716642
if the majority is automatically wrong because 'galileo' and all climate scientists are conspiring to sell green energy obviously nothing anyone can say can convince you. so fuck off?

>>8716841
wow, you really showed him by not being the guy he was replying to.

I wish global warming was real because the universe will run out of energy soon and we could stay warm by making pollution (if global warming were real)

>>8709981
Fossil fuels aren't renewable and they're toxic to breath. Surely that would concern you enough to support the reduction of emissions.

>>8718240
Fossil fuels are renewable and the CO2 they produce is plant food. "Green" energy on the other hand takes more energy to make than it gives in return, just look at the insane expense of mining all the rare materials that go into solar panels and wind turbines, and all the ridiculously toxic shit that produces.

>>8709981
You lost your way return to >>>/pol/

>>8709981
>cognitive dissonance

Everyone who uses that phrase unironically should be black listed.

>>8718254
>Fossil fuels are renwable
Citation fucking needed.
>the CO2 they produce is plant food.
Far more complicated than that. The limiting factor in plant growth is soil nutrients, not CO2 levels, and that's under the assumption that plants will absorb the CO2 first.
>"Green" energy on the other hand takes more energy to make than it gives in return
If you use technology from decades ago, which no one does.

>>8718254
What rare materials go into making solar panels?

>>8718365
this tbqh
old denier copypasta is old

>>8710019
>go back to /pol/
I'm sorry, what does this have to do with politics? This was a scientific answer. /pol/ is a politics board, it is not "racism headquarters", no matter how much you kick and scream it is. You can be "right-wing" and post on any board you like

>>8710009


You're denying anthropogenic climate change, which is retarded.

>>8712596
>Yes, because Donald Trump and the Republican party are well-known advocates for carbon taxes.
>Fucking moron.
Hey, fucking moron, NASA was a thing before DRumPf XDDD was in office, and yes, it was doing what that anon said it was doing under Obama and his predecessors

>>8713502
>per capita carbon
Doesn't mean shit when India and China (or even either of those two alone) have more people than the entire Western world put together.

>>8712167

You realize that this does absolutely nothing to discount the idea of AGW, right? This graph is literally "BUT IT'S TINY"

Stay retarded.

Shit troll.

SAGE

>>8719420


Sage all AGW denial threads.

SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE

SAGE

SAGE

SAGE

SAGE

SAGE

>>8718275
>>8719420
You too buddy

They were both fuckin retarded during this interview. Bill was not able to answer questions to defend his claim. He honestly shouldn't be the pop science spokesperson for climate change. Tucker interrupting Bill anytime he tries to make a point and then puts on his cartoon-ish disbelief face when Bill talks. Tucker also asking Nostradamus-like questions like what the climate would be like if there was no human activity affecting it. Typical Fox propagandist to feed his target audience. Also, Bill's sporadic last comment in the interview was odd to be fair. Like he felt like he needed tp be a lightweight whistle blower. Of course leaks are coming from the inside.

File: earth sun blackbody.jpg (59KB, 1006x771px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1006x771px

>>8709981
>What is the evidence that humans are directly responsible for climate change?
Just use the Stefan–Boltzmann law with the understanding that greenhouse gases 'absorb' energy at the spectrum that the earth radiates, thereby lowering the earth's effective emissivity, raising the equilibrium temp of the planet.
Once you get that super overly simplistic equation, you can start actually using a climate model with associated physics and then see what happens with some radiative forcing by manipulating green houses gases.

>>8714893
>. Strongly suggesting that CO2 increase is mostly an effect of temperature increase and not vice versa.
Although technically possible in a specific situation for any number of reasons, this makes literally no sense from an even a basic understanding of thermodynamics as a broad claim for the climate in general.


Go back and look at the emission spectrum of the earth and compare with the asborption spectrum of C02, and let us know what you find.

>>8714806
That is very true. Whenever temperature rises the ocean releases CO2.

However this time the temperature is rising and the oceans are ABSORBING CO2.

Can you explain this please?

>>8719434
>Hey, fucking moron, NASA was a thing before DRumPf XDDD was in office, and yes, it was doing what that anon said it was doing under Obama and his predecessors
And before Obama there was Bush, and NASA & NOAA were publicly talking about AGW back then too. If they were just spreading propaganda they ought to be doing a 180 wherever their leash changes hands, but they clearly aren't.
Do you have any evidence at all that they're reciting a message for political reasons, and not because it's something they believe to be important?

Also: governments don't need to promote AGW to raise taxes - they can do that already without needed to orchestrate massive international scientific fraud. This conspiracy theory needs to die already.

>>8710015

Carbon dioxide has been higher tho. You just arent going back far enough. It was higher and there were more plants as a consequence. There wasn't mass extinction.

>>8720200
No, you're wrong. Largest mass extinction in Earth history is linked to rising temps / CO2 emissions and volcanism. Look up the permian-Triassic mass extinction. In fact, the Earth's temperature probably rose ~8C+ during the extinction, with CO2ppm rising into the thousands. Almost all marine species became extinct, and most terrestrial species as well.

Many of the Earth's past mass extinctions are linked to rising temperatures, increased CO2 ppm and volcanism.

Your entire claim also is a variation of the old "CO2 is always good! It's got what plant's crave!" Almost like you don't realize that human civilization of nearly 8 billion people didn't exist in the past when CO2ppm was incredibly high, not to mention how I already demonstrated that mass extinctions are linked to times in Earth history when CO2ppm was very high.

See also end-Triassic extinction, flood basalts (Siberian traps) and in general learn about how volcanism can lead to increased greenhouse effect on Earth in the Earth's past. Basically, volcanoes emit a lot of particulate matter, as well as volcanic gasses. In the short term, volcanism on a large scale leads to a drop in global temperatures, due to stratospheric ash / dust from the volcanoes which blocks sunlight. However, in a few years after this clears, the gasses that were emitted are still in the atmosphere, and stay there for a long time, leading to global warming.

tl;dr - a denier talks out his ass without any actual scientific basis for his claims.

>>8720229
Does the SO2 they pump into the upper atmosphere also go away quickly? Seriously asking.

>>8715080
>>>8714842 (You)
>The UN is not going to make $100B/year. The UN is not asking to be given $100B/year. Repeating this shit in every thread does not make it true.

Which part of
http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/climate-change/Documents/climate-finance-roadmap-to-us100-billion.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/Projecting%20Climate%20Change%202020%20WEB.pdf
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/han-chen/countries-release-100b-climate-finance-roadmap-2020
https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/getting-to-100-billion-final.pdf

are you denying? Oh wait, you're just making shit up because reality has nothing to do with your belief system.

File: projection much.jpg (520KB, 2556x1556px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 2556x1556px

>>8720357
>are you denying? Oh wait, you're just making shit up because reality has nothing to do with your belief system.

Projection much?

File: 04 CO2 from Industrial Revolution.jpg (140KB, 1161x1024px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1161x1024px

>>8715080

>In the past CO2 was a feedback, not a driver. That doesn't mean its not a driver now though, and it doesn't preclude CO2 from being responsible for a large part of those historical warmings.

Go back and look at that graph:>>8714893, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your owns facts. And "hurr durr blurry cause and effect" is just nonsense spewed by SimpletonPseudoScience.

File: A U T I S M.png (343KB, 2520x1332px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 2520x1332px

>>8720365
Pathetic. Did John Cook rape your mum or something? Man you are so asshurt when you get called out on your bullshit, so sad.

File: 02 Total-Solar-Irradiance-1700-2013-Yndestad-and-Solheim-17.jpg (90KB, 708x573px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 708x573px

>>8715120
>>The sun drives climate
>The Sun is far from the only thing that can affect the Earth's climate. The current warming trend over the last ~50 years cannot be explained by only invoking solar variation.

It does when you add the PDO, AMO, the influence of Cosmic Rays as well as an acknowlegement of the strong variability of the sun, instead of the cherry-picked weak variability studies that NASA uses. >>8720365


The CO2 drives warming hypothesis fails to explain equal rates of warming prior to the huge increase in Anthrpogenic CO2.

>>8720363
>>>8720357 (You)
>>are you denying? Oh wait, you're just making shit up because reality has nothing to do with your belief system.
>Projection much?

>Look mommy! I can compensate for a lack of a cogent rebuttal with a nice search of the Chinese Ironing Board Archives!
You really need to get out of the basement more.

File: Projection much.jpg (30KB, 300x203px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x203px

>>8720376
>You really need to get out of the basement more.
Projection much?

>>8720371
>>>8720365
>Pathetic. Did John Cook rape your mum or something? Man you are so asshurt when you get called out on your bullshit, so sad.

> Mommy, mommy if I show a repeated picture of a graphic which debunks climate pseudo-science, that graph will go away, right?
Nope, archival searches are no replacement for a cogent counter-argument. Pity you don't have one.

>>8720380
>>>8720376
>>You really need to get out of the basement more.
>Projection much?

I'm on the couch in the living room of my beautiful house, with my beautiful wife sleeping by my side.
I hope your basement isn't to uncomfortable, but autists tend to prefer those places.

>>8720381
I'm not even the guy you're responding your copy pasted arguments to moron. Just here to point out what a shill you are. Same images every thread, same shitty arguments. You're so pathetic.

Pro-tip, change your filenames, you're really starting to look desperate.

File: projection.jpg (86KB, 1000x610px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1000x610px

>>8720387
>I'm on the couch in the living room of my beautiful house, with my beautiful wife sleeping by my side.
I hope your basement isn't to uncomfortable, but autists tend to prefer those places.
Do you work at a movie theater, because you should be getting paid for this amount of autistic projection.

>/pol/ makes another global warming thread
Holy shit. Jesus christ I fucking hate you idiots but I will feed this retardation.
>CO2 is a known greenhouse gas
>The isotope of CO2 that is created by man in factories and other industrial ways is the type of CO2 which is increasing in concentration

File: Climate Foil Head.jpg (351KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1024x768px

>>8720389
>I'm not even the guy you're responding your copy pasted arguments to moron.
Pathetic boy, I do not know who you are, nor do I care.
>Just here to point out what a shill you are. Same images every thread, same shitty arguments. You're so pathetic.
Damn you're easily triggered. Must be a SJW. I can't wait to trigger you over and over and over.
>Pro-tip, change your filenames, you're really starting to look desperate.

Pro-tip, when you resort to simply searching archives of Indonesian Checker Boards, You've lost. It demonstrates that you have no substantive counter argument to the data presented.

File: Skeptical Asshurt.jpg (691KB, 2496x1952px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 2496x1952px

>>8720397
Did I trigger your autism by pointing out what a shill you are?

By the way, searching the archives is great fun. Really shows how absolutely delusional you are. This is some high level autism we have here.

Pro-tip, when you result to posting the same arguments over and over again despite constantly getting BTFO, you've lost. It demonstrates that you have no substantive counter argument to the actual scientific evidence presented.

By the way, I'm going to keep searching the archives every time you post the same old tired images. It's great fun to see you get "triggered" yourself buddy. You're really quite sensitive about this subject, no?

>>8720395
These threads are fun. It's always the same denier autist coming into them posting the same images and copy pasted links over and over again. Always good fun to watch him get triggered.

>>8720229
>No, you're wrong. Largest mass extinction in Earth history is linked to rising temps / CO2 emissions and volcanism. Look up the permian-Triassic mass extinction. In fact, the Earth's temperature probably rose ~8C+ during the extinction, with CO2ppm rising into the thousands. Almost all marine species became extinct, and most terrestrial species as well.
>Many of the Earth's past mass extinctions are linked to rising temperatures, increased CO2 ppm and volcanism.

so my car did all that?

File: image3_650.jpg (113KB, 650x501px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 650x501px

>>8720365
Wow, it's fucking nothing.

Humans contribute only about 3% of total CO2 flux. A huge spike in CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is literally nothing compared to the amount of CO2 given off by rotting vegitation, animal expiration, and ocean outgassing. So a huge spike in production of CO2 does not have immediate consequences in the atmosphere.

You would know this if you studied climate science instead of searching uneducated denialist blogs.

The problem with human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere is there is no CO2 sink for human made CO2 so it builds up over time. While rotting vegitation and animal expiration contribute CO2 to the atmosphere growing plants absorb it. While the ocean outgasses CO2 when it warms up during the summer and during the day it reabsorbs it at night and during winter.

So claiming that CO2 emissions don't match temperature rise only proves that you're an uneducated moron. Instead of looking at emissions look at total CO2 concentration, which surprise surprise is rising at a steady rate, as expected of the temperature data.

File: CO2 flux.png (113KB, 875x585px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 875x585px

>>8720407
First off, cars are not the main contributor to GHG emissions, look at industry, electricity generation and shipping first. Second, the amount of CO2 we are emitting is absolutely massive, more massive than volcanism by far, and we are doing it in an incredibly small amount of time geologically speaking. The Siberian traps erupted over millions of years to put the permian-triassic extinction into perspective.
The rate of emissions continues to climb year by year. Current volcanic GHG emissions are a drop in the bucket compared to what humans emit every single year. Humans are emitting something like 35 billion metric tons of CO2, and increasing every year. Right now, volcanism ranges from ~150-300 million tons per year depending on activity.

Now I'm not sure on the figures for what CO2 emissions from volcanism during large volcanic activity from the past would be, but part of me doubts it even comes close to what humans emit every single year.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/carbonbudget/2016/

File: 0 - GISS1982_2002_2014_20152.gif (173KB, 657x594px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 657x594px

>>8720406
>Pro-tip, when you result to posting the same arguments over and over again despite constantly getting BTFO, you've lost.
>BTFO
In your fantasy world. In the real world, all you can do is search archives. Indirect ad hominem, the last resort of the delusional autist clinging to his desperate faith in a Death Cult.
>It demonstrates that you have no substantive counter argument to the actual scientific evidence presented.

And Oh good, time for you to get triggered.

Trigger Alert! Proof of heavily altered/tampered temperature data!

File: Consensus on Global Cooling.png (240KB, 513x460px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 513x460px

>>8720406
Trigger alert! Proof that global cooling was a real concern.

>>8720429
the 3% added each year adds up retard.

File: Mobilizing the Billions and Trillions.png (1MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x900px

>>8720406
Trigger alert! Proof that its all about the money.

They want Billions and Trillions
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/04/18/raising-trillions-for-climate-finance

File: Fake Consensus.png (28KB, 492x457px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 492x457px

>>8720406
Trigger Alert! Proof that the "Consensus" is fake and that only 75 out of more than 10,000 scientists stated their believe in significant AGW.

File: No warming from 1958 to 1995.gif (63KB, 768x294px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 768x294px

>>8720406
Trigger Alert! Pre-tampered radiosonde data showed no warming from 1958 to 1995

File: 0 Real Arctic.gif (54KB, 546x442px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 546x442px

>>8720406
Trigger Alert! 1990 IPCC Arctic Ice data, combined with Vinnikov (1980) data show that the Arctic sea ice has been just a low before; that melting and growing are a natural cycle for arctic ice. NOT Anthrpogenic.

File: TRIGGERED ALERT.png (605KB, 1928x2000px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 1928x2000px

>>8720455
>>8720458
>>8720463
>>8720465
>>8720470
>>8720474
>Claims someone else is triggered
>Proceeds to image dumb about how triggered someone else is
Projection much? Are you, dare I say it, TRIGGERED?

Don't mind me, going to keep pointing out how pathetic you really are.

File: youkilledmyplanetpreparetodie.jpg (113KB, 1000x624px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1000x624px

>>8720458
> One newspaper article
> 1974
> Disproven thousands of times
> consensus

File: USHCN Adjustments vs CO2.png (21KB, 659x524px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 659x524px

>>8720406
Trigger Alert! USHCN temperature "adjustments" correlate almost perfectly with CO2 levels. Giving "man made warming" a whole new meaning.

>>8720481
We're reaching autism levels that I didn't think were possible! Keep going, all you're doing is proving everyone what a sperg you are.

File: 05 Sherwood trys to find a hot spot.gif (71KB, 1017x400px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1017x400px

>>8720406
Trigger Alert! The Hot Spot, a fundamental prediction of Climate "Science" has never been found. And no, Sherwoods Kriging of wind correlates to demostrate a tiny 0.2 C change in a very small area is not a hot spot. Especially when this only happened after adding data from a time When There Was No Tropospheric Warming.

File: 03 - NO HOT SPOT SANTER 2005.gif (140KB, 1022x707px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1022x707px

>>8720406
Trigger Alert! Warmist Santer published and admission that there was no hot spot.

File: flat stratosphere 20 years.gif (30KB, 837x603px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 837x603px

>>8720406
Trigger Alert! No stratospheric cooling for 20 years. Despite 1/3 of all anthropogenic CO2 being produced during that time. Climate "Science" is falsified.

File: flat temps.png (157KB, 741x816px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 741x816px

>>8720406
Trigger alert! Several climate scientists published a falsification criterion; no troposphere warming for 17 years.

Prof. Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models. (2.5% chance to one side of the interval).
"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature."

Paper: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105

The NOAA said 15 years is enough:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Paper: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

15 years is long enough for climate scientist Phil Jones of Hadley Climate Research Unit:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Source: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4199.txt

>>8720406
Trigger alert! Climate "Science" is really just a way to give the United Nations power of global governance; and to redistribute wealth.

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick,said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

File: ENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!.jpg (443KB, 900x873px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 900x873px

>>8720481
>>8720489
>>8720493
>>8720495
>>8720501
>I'M TOTALLY NOT TRIGGERED GUYS
>Proceeds to go on an autistic posting spree

pic related: (you)

File: hansen 1988.gif (303KB, 897x597px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 897x597px

>>8720406
Trigger alert! Hansen's 1988 predictions utterly failed. Scenario A happened ( >=1.5% GHG growth) but that temperature increases did not.

File: 00 Summary of Evidence.png (2MB, 2898x2226px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2898x2226px

>>8720406
Trigger Alert! The summary of evidence shows the Climate Change is a failed "science."

>>8720460
I'm confused. We're on the same side.

Posting more already debunked graphs does not help your case any.

>>8720509
Pretty sure these shit posters are propagandists. Not sure why they'd post the same shit every thread. Pretttttyyyy obvious this imageboard is overrun with shills lel

Or maybe I'm just too cynical?

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

File: lysenko.jpg (6KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 183x275px

>>8720479
>>>8720455
>>>8720458
>>>8720463
>>>8720465
>>>8720470
>>>8720474
>>8720481
>>8720489
>>8720493
>>8720495
>>8720501
>>8720508
>>8720511
>>8720514

Sorry about the ass-kicking buddy. Your cognitive dissonance must be very painful. But I'm sure that mommy will give you a big hug before you go back to the basement.

Have fun hugging your 2D waifu. I'll have fun hugging my beautiful wife.

File: coldsteel the hedgeheg.jpg (72KB, 680x671px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 680x671px

>>8720527
You can keep posting your delusional debunked images over and over again. No matter how many times you do it doesn't change anything. Keep on acting like you "won" an argument because you got so triggered that you proceeded to spam dozens of images in response to a single post. You seriously have some mental issues that need addressing. Seek professional help, for your own sake.

>>8716715
>le galileo meme
Galileo was not the scientific authority of his time and was silenced because he was stirring shit up against the Catholic Church without having enough evidence to prove what he claimed, with the heliocentric model being the big one that sent him into house arrest.

>>8720541
History repeats first as tragedy...a denier which you obviously are is the new heretic. It's an appealing position especially with such a farcical new age authority - climate priests.

>>8720541
>was not the scientific authority of his time
Yes, he was, in the modern definition of science, his contributions to the understanding of the solar system for his time were revolutionary. He was one of the most prominent scientific figures of his time. Are you trying to imply that Galileo didn't make significant contributions to our understanding of the solar system / astronomy?
>without having enough evidence to prove what he claimed
Again, false. He presented his scientific findings and the Church objected because it did not fit with the biblical narrative. He used the phases of Venus, as well as the moons of Jupiter as scientific evidence, which was valid in proving his claims of heliocentrism.

He used telescopic evidence to show that Venus was orbiting the sun, he wasn't just theorizing that planets were orbiting the sun, he was backing it up with his own observational data. Showing that moons were orbiting jupiter showed that planets can orbit around a planet that wasn't Earth, it served as a model to how the planets in the solar system orbited around the sun, with the moons of Jupiter being the equivalent of the planets in the solar system orbiting the Sun. These observations directly contradicted the geocentric model. To claim that Galileo didn't have any evidence is either extremely ignorant, or you're being purposefully deceptive.

>>8720548
Back with the buzzwords again? Funny how the word denier triggers you so much, yet you turn around and use the world "warmist" or "climate priests" completely unironically. You are the textbook definition of a hypocrite. Keep on playing your victim complex up though, just because you're a retard and you're ridiculed for being one, doesn't mean you're right.

>>8720562
Heliocentrism couldn't be proven because they were not able to observe stellar parallax which was not observed until ~200 years after him.
Tycho's geocentric model with the sun revolving around the Earth and other planets revolving around the sun explained observations better. Most scientists of the time disagreed with Galileo and preferred Tycho's geocentric model. The church only got involved after political maneuvering by other scientists because Galileo wouldn't shut up despite not having enough evidence to back up his claims.

>>8709981
Fuck off /pol/tard, stop making these shit threads. They belong on your board, not ours.

File: oops.png (966KB, 1161x1024px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 1161x1024px

>>8720365
>let's use an arbitrary scaling factor when displaying two entirely different graphs on the same axes, so it looks like they're following disparate trends
here's the same graph, only with the emissions axis rescaled. oops, now it suddenly fits the temperature curve pretty nicely! remember, both scalings are equally valid.

File: I've seen through your tricks.jpg (33KB, 746x691px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 746x691px

>>8720372
>cherry-picks paper (written by unabashed denier, natch) that claims solar irradiance is increasing
>accuses consensus that solar irradiance is holding steady of being cherry-picked
Projection much?

if solar activity were responsible for the warming, we'd expect days to warm faster than nights, summers to warm faster than winters, and the tropics to warm faster than the poles. and yet we're seeing the opposite. care to explain how that is?

>>8720455
>>8720458
>>8720463
>>8720465
>>8720470
>>8720474
>>8720481
>>8720489
>>8720493
>>8720495
>>8720501
>>8720508
>>8720511
>>8720514
>Oh good, time for you to get triggered.
>proceeds to throw shit fit
Projecting much?

oh and of course it's the usual suspects:
>blinking gif so you have to take his word for it instead of actually comparing the graphs side by side
>one old newspaper article, because """"science reporting"""" has ever accurately reflected the state of the science rather than a garbled and sensationalized riff on it
>most geoscientists aren't climatologists, therefore there's no consensus even though 75/77 climatologists agree
>unsourced graphs hastily edited together
>sea ice figures from before we had reliable methods for measuring sea ice
>hotspot graph comparing changes over different time intervals as if they're the same thing
>le 1998-2015 time interval
>muh UN boogeyman
>lappi graph claiming no warming, doesn't include any temps after ~1910
same old, same old

>>8720357
>Which part of .. are you denying?
None of it. You should actually try reading them - nowhere do they claim that governments should be giving the UN $100B/year. What they say is that governments responsible for the majority of the CO2 emissions should be supporting reduced-emissions development in less-developed nations. Otherwise, shit's going to get bad.

>>8720365
>Go back and look at that graph:>>8714893
That doesn't seem to show much at all.

>And "hurr durr blurry cause and effect" is just nonsense spewed by SimpletonPseudoScience.
It's also part of basically every remotely complex model anyone has ever built. What do you think a feedback is?

>>8720455 >>8720463 >>8720465
>>8720470 >>8720474 >>8720481
>>8720489 >>8720493 >>8720495
>>8720501 >>8720511 >>8720514
Not this shit again.

>>8720508
And here's the pearl in the oyster.
You talk about data tampering and solar cycles, but the one thing you really stand on is a paranoid conspiracy theory about how "they" are trying to seize power. This was never about climatology for you, it's a political wank in a labcoat.