https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ

>>8908015
No, the video you link to is a scam. Patrick Moore is not even a scientist. Yes, simply the title of the video is a lie, as is every word out of his mouth.

>>8908015
>global warming hoax
score 1 point

File: 1.1.png (140KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x486px

>>8908065

>>8908068
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ

Nigger fucking christ! This again?! For real?
Yes it's true, and I don't get why people don't just look at the freaking numbers instead of wondering who's right. Global Temperature HAS risen, as has the CO2 emissions. Direct correlation was proven a long time ago, before the age of flat earthers and other degenerates. A simpler time when people who didn't have the knowledge to talk about something would actually shut the fuck up and listen to the people who did (in this case NOAA). 1/10 for making me reply

File: 1493519577991.jpg (314KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1920x1080px

>>8908015
>doing /pol/'s homework for them
Hey OP did Lauren Southern turn on you neck bearded ledditors in denial yet?

>>8908278
>natural and anthropogenic sometimes went below natural only

isn't that a bit strange

>>8908293
not recently

>>8908293
who knew it would be complicated

its a win win situation, either most people die or no one dies.

>>8908068
God is real

>>8908293
There are anthropogenic negative forcings.

>>8908293
Aerosols

>>8908015
CO2 has always lagged temperature and we don't have enough data to know if this time is any different. It could rapidly cool for the foreseeable future and CO2 would increase for a hundred or so years before trending back down. As far as it being a scam goes, no. For the most part it was overhyped and the most obnoxious alarmists had their egos swell way past healthy. Plus it turned into a gravy train they don't want to end. Nobody gave a rat's ass about climatology until Gore created a mega church around it. They'll still be bending spoons with their computer models even if the earth freezes over.

>>8910183
One thing that's never mentioned is the natural CO2 cycle and that it varies annually and is far larger than the man-made kind.

Nor are Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all showing global warming until very recently, which points to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate.

>>8910183
>CO2 has always lagged temperature and we don't have enough data to know if this time is any different.
Wrong. We know why CO2 has lagged temperature, due to the feedback loop between CO2 released from oceans and warming. So if you start the feedback loop with warming you get a CO2 lag. If you start the loop with CO2 you get warming after CO2 increase. Additionally, you are talking about trends over hundreds of thousands of years, while AGW is a much more rapid warming over hundreds of years. In short, you are talking out of your ass.

>It could rapidly cool for the foreseeable future and CO2 would increase for a hundred or so years before trending back down.
How would it rapidly cool?

>>8910203
>One thing that's never mentioned is the natural CO2 cycle and that it varies annually and is far larger than the man-made kind.
What man-made cycle? Natural sinks absorb more CO2 than they release, man does not. The exponential increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is due wholly to man.

>Nor are Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all showing global warming until very recently, which points to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate.
Of course the sun is the dominating influence on the climates of planets that do not have people drastically changing the atmosphere... What are you even trying to argue?

File: co2_data_mlo.png (114KB, 694x543px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 694x543px

>>8910203
>natural CO2 cycle and that it varies annually and is far larger than the man-made kind
Do you even understand what "annual" means? It means yearly. Annual CO2 variation is about 6ppm while the whole anthropogenic forcing from the preindustrial is +120ppm, therefore anthropogenic CO2 forcing is literally 20 times the amount of annual CO2 variation. I don't understand how people can spout this uninformed bullshit that is absolutely wrong and can be easily proven to be wrong

File: hPovBcQ3c1g9W.gif (2MB, 640x352px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x352px

where can i follow some news on climate change

what's some good websites

>>8908115
That man is full of shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

File: 1494625149957.jpg (34KB, 575x446px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 575x446px

Haha GLOBAL WARM IS REALL
STUBIT IDITOS >:(

File: 1493521529966.jpg (129KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 900x900px

>>8912691
IT IS

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

60KB, 402x204px

>>8910384
The temperature rate always changes before the CO2 concentration rate.

File: Phase relationship detail.png (531KB, 968x774px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 968x774px

>>8913069
more

>>8908015

Global warming is a meme desu. Any serious applied mathematician can tell you there is no meaningful trend in temperature of the earth atm

>>8908015
>Patrick Moore
>AND CROWDER
Jesus christ, even Monckton is more credible than these morons.
Crowder literally posted an article on a paper (unpublished) claiming that man has no effect on the climate, global cooling is happening and the sun is causing it even though the head scientist of the paper literally said the exact opposite.

>>8913075
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257875187_Comment_on_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature_Humlum_et_al_Glob_Planet_Change_100_51-69_Isotopes_ignored
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000891

The paper from whence those graphs originated were met with some strong criticisms.
Among them:
>This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
>Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.

File: co2_temp_1900_2008.gif (13KB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 450x360px

>>8913069
>The temperature rate always changes before the CO2 concentration rate.
No it doesn't. Only in the timescale of the Milankovich cycle does it lag temperature. It doesn't at the timescale of current global warming, over a a hundred years or so.

Your graphs do not show the actual relationship between CO2 and temperature, since they have isolated the noise by removing the dominant upward trend in temperature and CO2. What they show is the random effects on temperature and CO2 of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO):

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

I find it funny that people who don't really understand what these graphs mean think they can be used to argue global warming isn't caused by CO2 when they have the entire global warming trend and its cause removed.