Global Warming Thread

>>9101097

why don't you read the scientific papers for a start?

notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/
notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-2/

Factual.
But like anything, it's used by ignorant marketers to make stupid trends and sell unrelated products and do anti consumer moves with GW as their shield.

Same with environmentalism.

Both are factual and very important, but the general public is literally too stupid to do things right.

Remember thst these people are mainly millenial hipsters that "love green movments" , hate consumerism, but yet they drink starbucks and have the latest iPhones

>>9101119
I have read way too much I think most of it is bullshit, i can't be sure when there are plenty of papers that show contradicting trends. both sides seem to be completely biased towards confirming their position

both. Climate change is factual and humans are somewhat responsible but there are other factors at play and it's hard to isolate a single parameter to measure its effects. It's a very normal thing that has been happening since the beginning of the earth and the rising sea levels and temperatures increases are not really worrying as "scientists" try to make everyone believe

>>9101133
>>9101123
The fact that everyone in the media shills this topic really hard makes me suspicious that this is all just a meme intended to get people to do shit.
I understand that humans do contribute to climate change, I just don't think this shit has any real significance

>>9101142
Well, it's a pretty big deal.
CO2 levels are at 400PPM now, highest in any registered atmosphere probe from different geological layers.

And we know that the Greenhouse effect exists, and the temperature rise is also true.

Now, this trend picked up starting at the kndustrial revolution.
We have all the evidence to point that human activity is damaging the planet in many ways.

Media is shit. Period. The government should enforce much harsher measures, but they're pussies because they want to branwash the people into voting for then again. Instead of what the earth needs.

>>9101097
It is in fact true that the earth is warming in a faster hate than ever, and it seems really likely that the Humans play a large role in that heating.

Models considering only natural sources of greenhouse gases can't explain the rate of reating, but modeling with human contributions does.

Also, there is industrial propaganda to try to deny or make climate change seem less worrisome than it is, the same doubt mongering happened when:

1. Cigar vs Cancer relation was first found, the Tabacco industry made a massive propaganda campaign to discredit that.

2. Sulfur polution causing acid rain - same thing again

3. Second hand smoking causing cancer- same thing again

4. The Hole in the ozone layer was linked to CFCs - same doubt mongering again

And now it is climate change that is being merchandised against, and the people behind this are basically the FUCKING SAME (ex: Fred Singer)

You can find sources for this, and more about this stuff, in the great "Merchants of Doubt" from Naomi Oreskes, a really interesting and revolting book

>>9101123
>anti consumer moves
>marketers
Wtf? Give me an example

>>9101142

> I just don't think this shit has any real significance

The significance is buried beneath the rhetoric. Two of the biggest problems climate change will bring forth is a series of paradigm shifts in how diseases will spread and the reduction of accuracy in weather forecasting by rendering collected data years past useless due to more radical patterns.

>>9101142
The media actually hardly talks about it compared to how big the problem really is. The media also completely ignores the ecological side and that makes the problem look not as bad

>>9101160
Another example
Myron ebell
Besides being a paid sociopath for big tobacco and the fossil fuels industry, that claims the endangered species act is tyrannical, he also lead Donald trumps EPA transition team.

>>9101154
>400 ppm

400 per 1,000,000

What is the LD50? 50,000ppm
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

The only people in favor of government intervention are those leftists and 3rd world pooNloo's like this fag who want to destroy your 1st world lifestyle.

Ice core data shows this is not dangerous unique or "harmful to the planet". These people are Ecoterrorists.

Quite funny to see how many people in /sci/ ignore the scientific comunnity and good evidence and trust "alternative facts"

>>9101178
Globalists and their alternative facts are scarey and not funny.
>>9101160
>warming
1 degree F warming +/- 3 F
>muh false equivalency
these are unrelated and also not as settled as you imply

This is why no one takes you seriously.

>>9101133
>Climate change is factual and humans are somewhat responsible
Climatologists agree that humans are mostly responsible for the warming trend since the industrial revolution. What information is telling you otherwise?

>but there are other factors at play and it's hard to isolate a single parameter to measure its effects.
That doesn't mean we don't know to a good level of certainty how much warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions and other forcings. We can measure that directly via radiative spectroscopy.

>It's a very normal thing that has been happening since the beginning of the earth and the rising sea levels and temperatures increases are not really worrying as "scientists" try to make everyone believe
No it's hardly normal. It's the fastest rate of warming in the paleo record. Consider that the fastest warming prior to this is interglacial warming over ten thousand years, and is an order of magnitude less than current warming. It's hardly normal for humans to pump record GHGs into the atmosphere this quickly.

>>9101176
>What is the LD50?
Wow I have never accused anyone of being a shill but the massive irrelevance and misdirection before your argument leads me to believe you are one.

>>9101154
>>9101160
Suppose the earth is warming! How is that a bad thing, this leads to more vegetation, sounds like a pretty good solution to population growth and deforestation

>>9101178
The community was overtaken by communists anon. the community had a good reputation which leads to shills, just fucking shills everywhere

>>9101190
>climatologists
Post grad stem degree here, am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy? This line of reasoning is offensive to /sci/
>good level of certainty the temp increase
No you dont, the estimates are miniscule and within the margin of error for the testing instrumentation.
>Fastest warming ever
This is a lie. The 1-2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 100+ years isnt conclusively happening nor the biggest if it were

Overall you got a nice troll, but there is never raw data supporting your dire warnings to stop eating meat and driving an H2.

>>9101195
POO

>>9101202
>Suppose the earth is warming! How is that a bad thing, this leads to more vegetation, sounds like a pretty good solution to population growth and deforestation
Yes because everyone knows deserts have the most vegetation!

It's a bad thing because humans are adapted to live in a certain type of climate, and the ecology we rely on is adapted to live in a certain type of climate. If you rapidly change that climate, that ecology does not have time to adapt. This is why many of the major extinctions of the past are tied to rapid changes in the environment. Not to mention that rising sea levels will damage the infrastructure humans have built on the coast and having to shift agricultural infrastructure is costly. We know the effects will be negative, and we know that the benefits of mitigation far outweigh the costs.

>>9101123
oh bullshit, it's big oil using the same playbook that tobacco used earlier
Even some of the spin doctors that still are alive, are at it still, spewing shit to a new master

https://youtu.be/pRenGy0cg5s?t=4m

File: map-of-ancient-egypt.png (73KB, 709x1187px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 709x1187px

>>9101223
cheeky cunt, deserts can exist at any temperature, as long as their is no water, the increase in temperature would help it by accelerating the water cycle

>>9101142
I'm a pretty sceptical person but I think this is one of the very few topics where people, including those who work in media, are genuinely worried for the long term survival prospects of both our species and others, given we're not migrating to other planets any time soon, there already being plenty of wars and conflicts and CC is only set to make matters worse. I mean there's no shortage of corruption, greed, stupidity and whatnot in this world but even non-scientists must occasionally give thought to the distant future. Of course on the whole they keep pumping out CO2 and over consuming like there's no tomorrow but then there's every financial, social and cultural incentive to do so (Ie: how spending is massively encouraged) and somehow that just weighs more than any long term considerations, on the whole.

>>9101233
t. salesman who wants to sell you a farm in death valley

>>9101211
>Post grad stem degree here, am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy?
I asked you what information is telling you otherwise. Instead of telling me you whine that I'm not allowing you to interpret it. Of course you are allowed to interpret anything you want, however if you won't share your reasoning I have no reason to believe anything you say. That's how /sci/ works.

>No you dont, the estimates are miniscule and within the margin of error for the testing instrumentation.
I don't know what you're even referring to. Which estimates? Which instruments?

>This is a lie. The 1-2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 100+ years isnt conclusively happening nor the biggest if it were
It is happening according to temperature record and it is the biggest according to the temperature record. Again what is telling you otherwise?

Since you won't share your data and reasoning, I'll have to assume you have none.

>>9101202

That's like asking why a forest fire near a village is a good thing. Yeah it clears the growth for new plants but also kill the people living there and burns down their homes.

>>9101223
>rising sea levels
7.3 billion fucking keks, the deserts and the soil will absorb all of the displaced water, essentially acting as dessicants.
also the water cycle will just run faster, more water in the atmosphere, more rain, said rain evaporates

>>9101236
death valley maybe not,
northern africa, and middle asia, hell yes

>>9101233
>cheeky cunt, deserts can exist at any temperature, as long as their is no water
Yes that's exactly my point. Global warming causes more water to evaporate from the soil and water sources and less regular precipitation in the world's agricultural centers. It doesn't "accelerate" the water cycle, it increases the severity of droughts and flooding in critical areas.

>>9101238
Forest fires occur due to sunlight not hot weather, muh activation energy faggot,
also CO2 will help with the sunlight

File: Winkel_triple_projection_SW.jpg (733KB, 2058x1262px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 2058x1262px

>>9101256
when did this

>>9101243
>7.3 billion fucking keks, the deserts and the soil will absorb all of the displaced water
Ah yes all those coastal deserts...

And yes the soil will eventually absorb the water after it floods coastal cities. That doesn't actually help at all. You have the reasoning abilities of a toddler.

>also the water cycle will just run faster, more water in the atmosphere, more rain, said rain evaporates
Yes, just look at California's ever increasing cycle of droughts and flooding to see how great it is.

File: molumen-world-map-1.png (81KB, 2400x1323px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 2400x1323px

>>9101269
turn into this

>>9101269
>>9101273
Is there a coherent point in there or are you having a stroke?

>>9101270
you idiot do you understand how circulation works, the increase in temperature just increases the amount of water in circulation

>>9101274
The point is that most of the water lies in muh oceans and that the increase in temperature just increases the distribution of rainfall

>>9101223
Deserts occur adjacent to mountain ranges that block water vapor from jet streams... NOT muh global warming.
>if you rapidly change the environment
You assume your theory is valid without supporting it.
>sea level
The rate of rise is less than the rate of of concrete degradation in marine environs. Literally not an argument.
>>9101230
This is a false equivalency logical fallacy. Conflation makes you appear dumb.
>>9101235
This is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.
>>9101236
Desert formation is actually understood. Youre wrong.
>>9101237
You are attempting to deny agency to anyone who's smart enough to read and interpret data. A "card carrying climatologist" would get the same fallacies and tricks thrown at him too, this can be easily observed in the media with underhanded attacks on any climatologist who doesn't say what you want. Reminds me of Google engineer who got fired for stating biological facts on gender. The left is insane and uses intellectually dishonest tactics to silence reason and truth.

>>9101275
No it doesn't "just" increase the amount of precipitation, it affects the timing and type of precipitation which in turn leads to droughts and floods. This was predicted by climatologists 30 years ago avid we are now living it:

http://news.stanford.edu/2017/03/21/heavy-california-rains-par-course-climate-change/

>>9101277
But it doesn't just do that. I've already explained this to you.

>>9101281
Entropy you nigger

>>9101281
>muh ice caps
Is this enough reason to abandon the 1st world and give all our food and resources to those poor african chilrrens? Is my 1st world lifestyle inherently evil? What's your end goal, to drop white nations 10 pegs down in order to raise africa and POO-istan just 1 peg?

I didnt believe them at first but /pol/ was right.

>>9101237
Not him but neither of you have provided sources I believe.

>>9101290
Pol is always right

>>9101278
>Deserts occur adjacent to mountain ranges that block water vapor from jet streams... NOT muh global warming.
That explains cold deserts. I'm talking about warm deserts, which cannot retain moisture due to heat. Try to keep up.

>The rate of rise is less than the rate of of concrete degradation in marine environs.
Yes because the rate of concrete degradation matters, not the actual cost of surrounding your coasts with ever increasing amounts of concrete, the production of which emits large amounts of CO2 which in turn exacerbates the problem which is being fixed.

>You are attempting to deny agency to anyone who's smart enough to read and interpret data.
You are illiterate, since I asked for the reasoning and data which led to these claims and all you retards do is whine about it Instead of telling me how the research is wrong.

>>9101284
You have no argument and you know it. You lose, scum.

>>9101292
Climatologists have not provided published data and research for their claims? I am simply asking for the reasoning and data which led him to the opposite conclusion of the published consensus.

>>9101301
Kill yourself.
The argument is that the heat will make water more fluid on the planet if all of the waters go to the fucking oceans then it results in massive precipitation over landmasses that don't get water and the land masses that do have water will lose water due to heat, the water will be distributed, for fucks sake please tell me you understand entropy

>>9101299
If that was you demonstrating your ignorance of desert formation you shouldnt pretend you are now an expert. Thanks for the laugh at your expense though.
>concrete
You keep pretending like sand and portland cement is expensive, or that inches of sea level rise is an issue, but the co2 comment made me chuckle at your naivety again..

>>9101313
>the earth is an isolated system.
What a moron.

>>9101160
What about lead gasoline?
>>9101163
>paradigm shifts in how diseases will spread
Last winter was mild, above average temperature and then in the spring the media was saying that insects like ticks and mosquitoes will be bad because the mild winter.

Unrelated question. what about carbon sequestration? I remember years ago seeing something in scientific american magazine like a carbon scrubber, but where is it?

>>9101319
It can be viewed as an isolated system being supplied with heat

>>9101318
>If that was you demonstrating your ignorance of desert formation
You're the moron who claimed all deserts are rainshadow deserts when in reality most deserts are not.

>You keep pretending like sand and portland cement is expensive
You keep making up strawmen. Cement and Saabs are not expensive, building barriers to prevent flooding over the entire coast is. Far more expensive than simply mitigating climate change.

>or that inches of sea level rise is an issue
Inches of sea level rise is huge, yes.

>>9101323
An isolated system being supplied with heart is not isolated you utter moron. And it destroys your argument that entropy on earth must increase.

>>9101330
The only difference between the earth and an isolated system is that the earth gets heat, fuck off with terminology, it is a system nonetheless

>>9101336
>The only difference between the earth and an isolated system is that it's not isolated
Wow, what an insight. You really helped your argument and convinced everyone tagging you know what you're talking about.

P.S. the earth also gives off infrared heat, you fucking dunce

>>9101344
>infrared
My dick also gives off infrared.
You're anal on the technical shit, you know the fucking argument you dunce entropy related, look at the earth as a whole.
The problem is that you don't want to explain to me why my reasoning is wrong

>>9101360
>You're anal on the technical shit
Your argument relies on the assumption that entropy on earth must increase. Clearly that is false. Your argument is not simply technically false, it's logically incoherent.

>>9101372
It's supposed to increase, prove that it wouldn't increase, thermodynamics nigga check em

>>9101097
>What do?
Produce less waste, recycle shit, etc.
Saving the planet starts at home©.

>>9101383
Kek

>>9101379
>It's supposed to increase
No it's not. Go back to high school you fucking moron. Only the entropy of the isolated system containing earth is supposed to increase, and it does, since the sun loses energy. This is elementary stuff.

>>9101176
>What is the LD50? 50,000ppm

What are you fucking retarded? I'd smash your head with a rock if you were anywhere near me

>>9101388
what fucking system containing the earth.
Earth is the system in question if the system is supplied with heat that it cannot lose according to you caggots, then entropy increases. If you say that the earth can lose the heat significantly to the universe then you don't need to worry about global warming, global warming is about trapping heat, heat Increase will go towards increasing entropy.
Go back to middle school retard

>>9101396
>If you say that the earth can lose the heat significantly to the universe then you don't need to worry about global warming

I guess that's why we're all frozen solid right now

>>9101400
The earth is being supplied with heat constantly by the sun, you caggots are saying the earth is going to have more heat than is usually supplied due to atmospheric change, what are you even on about. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling shill

>>9101388
>only the energy of the isolated system containing earth is supposed to increase, and it does, since the sun loses energy
jesus fucking mohammed in the benis you are retarded.

Δ S = Q ln ( T2 / T1 )

the earth is a good calorimeter, it can take in heat and keep it .

>>9101202
Droughts lead to famines
Famines lead to conflict
Conflict leads to displaced populations
Displaced populations lead to shitskins moving in next door to you

>>9101489
Well the thing is, it doesn't lead to droughts, it actually has the opposite effect I dare say

>>9101499
Well you're wrong about that

>>9101511
actually it leads to more rain, more flooding and more droughts.

>>9101513
Yes bb butt that's only initially, it reaches equilibrium eventually (equilibrium between dry and wet areas)

File: Untitled.png (12KB, 1152x648px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 1152x648px

>>9101511
look, the heat increases the amount of water in circulation at any given instance, which may lead to a seesaw pic related is the disparity of hydration over time

The higher amount of CO2 has actually led to greening. The Earth is greener now than it has been in the past, and our CO2 level is not even particularly high compared to Earth's history. Plants love CO2.
The question is can we survive higher CO2 levels. To which I would say. Yeah. CO2 isn't harmful to humans except when there so much of it we can't get enough oxygen and we asphyxiate. And the levels of CO2 to do that are absolutely enormous. For that I point to two factor.

Greenhouses operate at 5000ppm CO2. Workers do not require breathing masks or breaks for fresh air.
Submariners. They frequently operate at 9000ppm CO2 levels. They are similarly fine.

The sea level has been steadily rising since before recorded history as well. There is no indication the rising sea levels are accelerating or increasing at anything but the same slow, steady trend under real world observation of the sea level. Computer models are not hard data and yet the models are frequently referenced in regards to rising sea levels.

This thread is just sad. I thought that the general /sci/ population was a little above average in terms of knowledge and common sense but god dammn i'm impressed of how bad this place is

And it's not even shitposting but people who believe they know about what they're talking like
>>9101176
It's just sad.

>>9101578
Citations
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/02/23/sea-level-expert-rips-study-claiming-fastest-rise-in-2800-years-study-full-of-very-bad-violations-of-observational-facts/

>>9101580
>ecoterrorists
I think that dude was shitposting

>>9101097

like others have said in this thread

read a fucking scientific paper. the evidence is overwhelming. 97% of scientists agree that it exists. dont buy into normy memes and get joked about by anyone with more IQ than they have chromosomes

File: about to deliver.jpg (42KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x451px

>>9101176
>LD50
LD50 of inorganic lead is 70 mg/kg (using a rat model). Since it would take a whole 50 grams or so to kill you, I'm sure you won't mind if there's a few milligrams in the paint on your walls, the food you eat, and the dragon dildos you shove up your ass. after all, if it's way less than the LD50, surely nothing bad could happen as a result!

>>9101211
>Post grad stem degree here, am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy?
post grad geoscience degree here. the problem is that you're not reading and interpreting data. you're hearing stuff that's been filtered through other sources. if you disagree, go ahead and post the primary sources from which you get your info.
>the estimates are miniscule and within the margin of error for the testing instrumentation
literally a lie. also, you don't know how MOE works with a large number of measurements.
>The 1-2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 100+ years isnt conclusively happening nor the biggest if it were
this is the fastest warming in the ice core record, to be certain.

>>9101278
>>9101299
you are both faggots. warming leads to Hadley cell expansion, which pushes subtropical deserts to higher latitudes, eating up what previously was arable land.

>>9101313
more evaporation != deserts suddenly getting more precipitation.

>>9101323
>an isolated system
>being supplied with heat
what part of the word "isolated" do you not comprehend?

>>9101336
>The only difference between the earth and an isolated system is that the earth gets heat
literally a lie. there is significant mass exchange between the Earth and its surroundings.

Disband the capitalist system.

Help China.

Save the planet.

Obey your leaders (not prumpf though).

Report any suspicious activity to the Authorities.

>>9101594
> literally a lie.
The intended idea is that it's getting a specific amount of heat and trapping it and releasing a specific amount of heat.
>significant mass exchange
is said mass exchange really significant or just minute.
>isolated
the idea is to put it in perspective, it was the wrong term to use
>muh evaporation
most of the water that will evaporate will evaporate from the oceans, and will precipitate on the deserts. resulting in the distribution of water favouring the fucking areas without water. muh water cycle

>>9101606
Hi lunatic

>>9101616
Just to elaborate on > literally a lie
the concept of a static transfer of energy being ignored in a model isn't new, it doesn't matter where the energy comes from retards, what matters are the energy levels

>>9101195
>>9101389
>>9101580
>>9101594
>400 ppm
So if that is such a bad comment, make me terrified of 400 ppm. Because when put into perspective it sounds like nothing and then none of you even bothered to rebutt. Why is this so bad when literally nothing changes. Make me swear off my sinful 1st world life and join antifa. I'll wait.

>>9101097
I am as well. I've read the papers, I understand the overall theory. Know very well what the machinery of nature overall can handle and what processes can occur to bring on a chain of ecological collapse. Ocean acidification relates, rising sea levels and their economic / social impacts (read: we're animals, and we cause structural problems when resources are scarce. Mad Max style, possibly.), global cooling, etc.

All that. The overarching mechanics however, I'm uncertain about. What if this is being done, through many other means, on purpose? What if it's being misrepresented to control populations and culture in various ways, UN Agenda 21 style. Is someone benefiting, is it strictly opportunistic? Are other things that are happening an attempt to purge humans before we do any more damage
(eg cell phones, wi-fi, etc, compromising brain function, fertility, and capacity to produce viable offspring)?

There are many questions. Its purported nature is likely incomplete and disingenuous. Just like the organic market. Organic food is almost inherently superior, but it became a thing, now it's corrupted and mostly just marketing bullshit for the masses. You really have to look, and even then you generally don't know.

File: 2_22_16_John_CC_NuisanceFlooding_GlobalSLR_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg (239KB, 1050x718px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1050x718px

>>9101578
>The higher amount of CO2 has actually led to greening.
Which has little relevance to humans since it doesn't help agricultural production. CO2 is not the limiting factor in agriculture, and it produces warming which negatively effects the limiting factors. More CO2 will harm agricultural production:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/08/30/1606734113.full.pdf

>The question is can we survive higher CO2 levels.
No, the question is whether more CO2 will be harmful, and whether mitigating that harm is cost effective. Survival is an idiotic straw man.

>To which I would say. Yeah. CO2 isn't harmful to humans except when there so much of it we can't get enough oxygen and we asphyxiate. And the levels of CO2 to do that are absolutely enormous.
This is so braindead stupid you must be a shill. Is your brain broken? The harm from CO2 emissions is from the warming it causes, not asphyxiation. Address that and stop spreading this puerile misinformation.

>The sea level has been steadily rising since before recorded history as well.
Yes and it's rising much faster now. Funny how all of your arguments are conveniently missing key facts such that they lead to an incorrect conclusion.

>>9101834
CO2 is bad because of warming? There is no warming.

>>9101834
Did you ignore the article purporting using hard measured evidence that the sea level's rise has not been acelerrating and how the scientist is calling all the models that show that bumpkis based on faulty data models and not observed change?

>>9101746
>hurr you can't make me scared because it doesn't sound scary
Yeah that's the point you utter buffoon. If you are too stupid and too delusional to understand what climatologists have already explained to you in very simple terms, you are not going to be scared. Your stupidity and delusional mind do not somehow reflect on the validity of scientific facts.

>>9101842
If you are going to ignore basic science and data I suggest you get the fuck off this board.

>>9101846
The article claims Mils Axel Morner is a sea level expert when he is just a delusional individual who has been spreading the sane debunked lies for over a decade: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

Please don't try to pass off fringe blogs as "hard data."

>>9101883
Hm alright. Sorry.

>>9101097
>What do?

Just because Al Gore wanted to make money off of fixing the problem doesn't mean it isn't a real problem.

>>9101850
>>9101746
This guy once again completely ignored an easy question. Whats so bad about 400ppm? Seems small and insignificant considering nothing changed.

>>9101941
There's nothing bad about 400ppm. It's the rapid rate of warming that is harmful, not the amount of CO2.

File: 1502316683254.gif (664KB, 498x342px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 498x342px

>>9101119
what if the papers were written by normies though

>>9101142
thats because youre mentally challenged, unless your body specifically evolved to live in different conditions than the rest of the 6bil people on earth

>>9101980
This. There are certain things that just disqualify a paper from any kind of consideration, and this is one of them.

More research is need to determine the percentage of a given paper that was in fact generated by a normie. Only above 80% non-normie will be considered, and even then it's on thin ice.

well if this thread is anything to go by we will still be arguing over the reality of climate change when the massive impact of india, china, and brazil turning into first world nations obliterates the ecology and our civilization ends

>>9102014
agreeeeeeed

>>9102014
>india 2030

File: Capture.jpg (145KB, 943x870px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 943x870px

>>9101097

File: image55.png (14KB, 434x276px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 434x276px

>>9101119
>>9101123
>>9101154
>>9101160
>>9101178
>>9101292
>>9101578
>>9101580
>>9101592


http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/10/new-science-scandal-us-climate-report-edits-out-highly-embarrassing-section-temps-warmer-in-1920s-30s/

>>9101097
Global warming factual but the causes and solutions are propaganda.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf

>>9101127
>I have read not nearly enough to know what the fuck I'm talking about
FTFY

>>9102742
>http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/10/new-science-scandal-us-climate-report-edits-out-highly-embarrassing-section-temps-warmer-in-1920s-30s/


"NEW SCIENCE SCANDAL: US CLIMATE REPORT EDITS OUT HIGHLY EMBARRASSING SECTION – TEMPS WARMER IN 1920s & 30s"

Seems highly trustable and scientific...
By the " Global Warming Policy Foundation"

A "The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4]"

I mean, you are getting your data from a Think Thank, not scientific sources.

>>9102733
>hey guys the temperature is increasing rapidly but only look at this year involving AL GORE

>>9102742
>Hey guys temperatures are increasing rapidly but only look at the years when the middle of America was turned into a giant desert by improper farming

The stupidity and dishonesty of deniers is truly astounding.

>>9102993
And he is also looking at like, 2 Decades at a time most of the time... Really understand the time scale and all.

>>9102993
am i right this is just as retarded as people who say natural climate change is fake although their most people who believe that also believe in 15 sexes/genders

>>9102986
>title of graph identifying it as Greenland ice core and not global temp removed on purpose
>improperly identifies "present" as 2000 when it means 1950
>doesn't show temperature from 1855 to now, i.e. doesn't show the entire period of global warming
Truly astounding.

>>9103001
95 = 1950
holy fucking shit

>>9102762
Utter garbage

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/burrow-project-gerlich-and-t-have.html?m=1

>>9103005
"Present" in paleoclimatology means 1950 you dumb fuck. Can't you read?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

>>9103014
> ( years before present 2000 AD)
1950 was 95 years before 2000 holy shit i had no clue , wow

>>9103020
Let me explain this to you in a way even you might understand:

THE WORDS ON THE RED AND BLUE BOX WITH SQUIGGLE ARE WRONG

THE WORD P-R-E-S-E-N-T MEANS 1-9-5-0, NOT 2-0-0-0

PUT THESE INTO MAGIC MATH BOX: 1950 - 95 =

>>9101160
You forgot leaded gasoline.

This is just another in a long line of corporate lies to try and make money off ignorant consumers by pretending there's no problem until a disaster occurs.

OP, I am an Earth scientist, I can explain everything you need to know about global warming, why we know it's happening and why we know it's human caused. The best place to start is here.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf

It is the best condensed explanation of global warming that I've found so far. If you have questions I'll be around for about another hour or so.

>>9103045
> cites harvard
at least cite a .gov website if you want people to take your word

>>9103051
The source is irrelevant. The data speaks for itself.

This is simply the best condensed explanation of global warming I've found. It goes through a quick explanation of the photoelectric effect, blackbody radiation, and the steffan-boltzmann equation. None of which is in dispute anywhere. It gives a basic college level understanding of climate I find 99.9% of everyone, from proponents of climate change to deniers are wholly unaware of.

>>9103062
> source doesn't matter
let me just cite articles stating how Jews did 9/11 since source doesn't matter only if it agrees with my opinion

>>9103063
Go ahead. I bet anything you cite will be found to be horribly flawed easily discovered through simple research.

I don't understand what your argument is supposed to be. In science the person speaking doesn't matter, what's being said matters. Go read a scientific paper published in a major journal and tell me where it states what the person's qualifications for publication are. You will find none, ever. To find out about a person's qualifications you'll need another source than the paper. A college website or something. The journals don't give a rat's ass who's publishing only whether their research is valid.

Science is about DATA, not who tells you what to believe..

>>9103067
> implying scientific data will have an opinion attached to it
science is an opinion less matter it is what it is not muh opinions gov websites give you direct opinion less info , just cite the gov website and we can end this boring bs unleess you want to cite buzzfeed while your at it

>>9103067
The guy is unhinged, just ignore him.

>>9103072
> unhinged
just because you were proven wrong doesn't mean you need to get salty

File: 1440452100677.png (260KB, 320x371px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 320x371px

climate cult threads are the best
they always devolve into shitposting

climate change denialism is a russo-chinese scam
russia WANTS the permafrost to melt so they can start mining in siberia

obviously that's why donald trump rejects it, wake up you libtard sheeples

>>9101164
They've been talking about it for decades. Flipping between warming and ice age concerns. Whatever helps the sell the most commercial time. The problem is that Gore and his alarmist ilk ran it into the ground and their predictions never materialized. You can't cry wolf like that for fifteen years.

>>9103278
>Flipping between warming and ice age concerns.
No they haven't, we're in an ice age.

File: really makes you erupt.png (420KB, 473x540px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 473x540px

>>9103051
>I won't listen to one of the top five research institutions in the nation!
>I'll only listen to THE GUBBERMINT
remember when deniers kept refusing to read anything from a .gov domain, claiming that it was all a government hoax? and now that Orange Daddy is in power and is having his mooks take down all the data and reports they can, suddenly NOW the deniers trust the government. pic related.

>>9101097
Well either thousands of mostly underpaid climate scientist have been sitting at their desk for the last 50 years drawing indecent stick figures only to make up a graph or two at the end of a lazy working day.
Or.
All of these people did their job as scientists, made hypotheses, conducted experiments, peer reviewed their works and came to the public with their findings once everyone agreed and now some big corporations didn't like the results and tried to start a campaign to discredit science.

>>9101176
you know 200 ppm vs 0 ppm are the difference between a dead, frosted earth and all of what we have now?

File: climatechangesci.png (157KB, 816x776px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 816x776px

>>9104819
That is a fantastic false dichotomy.

>>9104841
I'm confused as to what side you're batting for

>>9101211
>am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy?
i wouldn't expect a geologist to properly interpret a biology paper, and i wouldn't expect a physicist to understand a psychology paper.

being able to properly interpret scientific data isn't just running over some goal mark in education in another field, it requires you to be familiar with the history of the field, the accepted theories, the current open questions, and which hypotheses have been rejected by evidence.

so if you're not properly trained in the discipline, you're allowed to read and interpret the data, but you're not allowed to act like an authority on the subject

>>9101578
You forgot how more CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which is at this point pretty much irreversibly going to make corals go extinct.

>>9102014
Considering china is doing more about climate change than the US right now, I'm optimistic.

>>9104841
>That is a fantastic false dichotomy.
I don't see how.
Either you trust the scientific method and its conclusions or you have to assume that every single person working in it is either lying or hilariously incompetent. I don't really see much of a third option there.

Also your meme image isn't particularly accurate. /pol/ and infowars didn't even come up.

File: goat castle.jpg (130KB, 441x640px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 441x640px

>>9104966
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368?journalCode=phgb
>Either you trust the scientific method and its conclusions or you have to assume that every single person working in it is either lying or hilariously incompetent. I don't really see much of a third option there.
Are you serious? Do you honestly trust the conclusion of linked feminist study?
>>9104880
What do you think after accusing a warmie of a logical phallacy?

>>9105011
You seem to have some trouble reading, friendo. Here let me help you:

>Either you trust the consensus of climatologists and its conclusions or you have to assume that every single person working in it is either lying or hilariously incompetent.
Now try to tell me feminists are climatologists.

>>9103278
They have been talking about Climate change without explaining it. Same with al gore. The corporate controlled media also gives way more air time to "public relations" than it does to people who know what they are talking about.
The ecological side is rarely mentioned, I assume because 99% of people are too illiterate to understand. The break down of synergistically maintained order is a mystery to pop culture.


BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND ANTHROPOGENIC PHASE SHIFTS UNRELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE ARE JUST AS DANGEROUS AS CLINATE CHANGE AND MAKE CLIMATE CHANGE MUCH WORSE.

>>9101336
In thermodynamics a system can be:
a) open, if both matter and energy transfer is possible through its boundary;
b) closed, if only energy transfer is possible;
c) isolated, if neither matter, nor energy transfer is possible.

>>9101336
>>9105143
>thinking earth systems are thermodynamic systems
>what is life even lol?
Dunce

>>9101164
>>9101142
>>9101154
>>9101278
>>9105024
The problem is the media sensationalizes and reduces it to the point of not teaching about climate change, but just saying "if you don't believe in it yet, you're just a stupid rural hick that should go die." Who the fuck, out of anyone who still has any skepticism of this, is going to listen to that? No one. The media is destroying the climate change discussion by turning it into propaganda machine of peer pressure. They, along with our politicians, have politicized a topic that should have broad support from both sides.

>All the deniers can post are news articles and blog posts
Kek.

So do Climate change deniers not believe that CO2 is a green house gas or do they not think humans are the ones causing CO2 to increase?

>>9101142
>The fact that everyone in the media shills this topic really hard makes me suspicious that this is all just a meme intended to get people to do shit.
Do you doubt the reality of the Iraq war because it was in the news all the time? Of course not, because the media cover big stories a lot.

>>9101594
>LD50 of inorganic lead is 70 mg/kg (using a rat model). Since it would take a whole 50 grams or so to kill you, I'm sure you won't mind if there's a few milligrams in the paint on your walls, the food you eat, and the dragon dildos you shove up your ass. after all, if it's way less than the LD50, surely nothing bad could happen as a result!
Or a bullet flying towards your head -- that can't weigh more than a gram, that's far lower than the LD50.

>>9101360
>You're anal on the technical shit
No shit: you're talking about science

>>9105220
THIS
Why do we have to have the same level of discourse as the jersey shore in the media that most people rely on to inform themselves. It's just not fair, social media can't help because it has been so thoroughly framed as a partisan debate.
Yeah, big business is actively trying to manufacture doubt with public relations campaigns, but it is the corporate media that gives them air time. It's the corporate media that sensationalized it into a two sided debate.
It's just not fair, people need to wise up and take control of the means of production for mass media.

>>9101842
>There is no warming.
Fake news

>>9105306
>The only thing causes earth to heat up is CO2 and nothing more which is all humans fault

Yeah, the ice age ended because of all our excessive CO2 emission. Damn those factories in the roman ages releasing greenhouse gases and heating earth up like that.

Is the climate getting warmer?
Yes.
Is it a major world problem that needs attention?
Somewhat. In some areas definitely.
Is it completely overblown by hippy treehuggers who make mountains out of molehills on the regular?
Absolutely.

>>9101097
What the fuck is even the point of these threads? People always bicker about if its true or not but thats it.

What if it's real? What's the next step then? Why is nobody talking about this?

>>9105374
Yeah, heh, those dumb climate scientists probably never even heard of Milankovitch cycles, unlike us enlightened /pol/acks.

File: 1499389811703.jpg (85KB, 1012x566px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1012x566px

Will carbon capture ever be an option? Also, no matter what happens, I refuse to stop keeping old cars on the road. Their contribution becomes smaller by the day as non-enthusiasts adopt more efficient vehicles.

>>9105385
>Is it completely overblown by hippy treehuggers
Explain how it is overblown.
It seems to me that the people who are most concerned are climate scientists and ecologists.

>>9105374
>Yeah, the ice age ended
When exactly was that?

I love it when you retards show how stupid you are by pretending to know what you're talking about.

>>9105391
The only reason people deny climate change is because they are afraid of having to accept that it can't be solved by their political ideology.

>>9101154
>And we know that the Greenhouse effect exists,
If you understood how it works you would know that CO2 greenhouse effect is very limited.

>>9105576
Limited compared to what? Is it or is it not what climatologists claim?

OK, guize, let's try this. Post a fuckton of papers PROVING that the Earth is still getting warmer since 2010 and we can chew through them.

I've seen a lot of stupid shit, mostly ado with (scientists) saying something along the line of:
>"to the untrained eye, these numbers appear to be decreasing, because their numerical value is decreasing, however, if we apply polynomial regression of order 7 we can see that the function obtained continues to increase long after the measurement timespan, thus, when science was considered, the temperatures have been proven to increase"

>>9105581
Greenhouse works base on change of frequency of EM radiation. The IR span that CO2 captures is very narrow. CH4 can capture much more IR and so can H2O. When you surpass that maximum it has no effect.

>>9105593
>>9105581
But the problem of humanity is that those physicists, who didn't want to study, studied climatology. Sad how time and again, the lowest species assumes control and fucks everything up.

File: trendsince2010.png (5KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 640x480px

>>9105588
>Post a fuckton of papers PROVING that the Earth is still getting warmer since 2010 and we can chew through them.
Why would you need "a fuckton of papers" when the temperature record clearly shows this? More importantly, why is the trend since 2010 important?

>>9105593
>Greenhouse works base on change of frequency of EM radiation. The IR span that CO2 captures is very narrow. CH4 can capture much more IR and so can H2O. When you surpass that maximum it has no effect.
And? Are you claiming climatologists don't know this? What are you saying which is different from what climatologists conclude?

>>9105600
>>9105610
>Brave Sir Denier ran away!
>Bravely ran away, away!
>When reason reared it's ugly head
>He bravely turned his tail and fled!

File: NO.jpg (71KB, 474x358px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 474x358px

>>9105011
>Do you honestly trust the conclusion of linked feminist study?
>some sociologists said some dumb shit about glaciers in a shit-tier soft science journal
>therefore we can't trust climate science
dickhead

>>9105011
But the image you posted was specifically showing how deniers use the same tired, irrational arguments in every thread and get btfo the same every time.

Or did you just not actually look at it? That would, of course, be exactly as expected of you.

>>9101123
>these people are mainly millenial hipsters that "love green movments",
>hate consumerism, but yet they drink starbucks and have the latest iPhones
You seem to have made quite a study of "these people".

File: backinmyday-bet.jpg (33KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 350x500px

>>9103067
>I bet anything
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa

>>9101499
Lmfao

Fuck u stupid sci niggers

>>9105385
Nice proof backing up your claim there. I see you are an expert on the subject and posted evidence to support your claims.

>>9105374
>Ice age ended during the Roman times
How are you this dumb sir?

>>9105374
>Look at all these people who die of natural causes, stupid murder fags think Ted with his head blown off must have died to a bullet!

>>9105374
The ice age ended because of an increase in CO2. Do you understand how increasing CO2 levels might be a bad thing?

>>9106029
For fuck's sake, the current ice age never ended. You are referring to glacial periods within the current ice age. Learn the terminology, everybody.

>>9105220
Maybe its just the republican's fault for being retards, no?

>>9106051
Yeah, OK I'll give it to you. I blame Hollywood though for confusing interglacial cycles with ice ages

>>9105684
I went to sleep, really. Sad you have to resort to personal assaults, but such is the way of more primitive human specimens and it is to be taken into account when dealing with social matters.

>>9105610
No, the climatologists don't take that into effect. I bet some of them understand it. There is only one paper insofar that I have read that actually deals with finding out what part of heating is attrituted to CO2.

>>9105600
I see a nice unsourced graph on 4chan. How does that explain the e-mail found in climategae (yes, it's illegal to view it, wait for CNN), where two scientists talk to one another how problematic the lack of temperature increase is.
>inb4 sauce it
look up climategate emails, preferably without google.

>>9106584
>>9105610
Most climatologists chanting only makes sense if you think that global temperatures are linearly dependent upon CO2 emission levels.

>>9106584
> climategate
You mean the climategate emails that turned out to be a whole lot of nothing?

>global memeing
>implying there exists a globe

>>9106594
>You mean the climategate emails that turned out to be a whole lot of nothing?
To the people who think for themselves the emails clearly prove that the "anhtropogenic CO2 self destruction" is mere propaganda.

For the more gullible it was ofcourse brought to court (what the fuck do lawyers and judges know about scientific method), were it was "debunked" (what the fuck is there to debunk).

Now ofcourse, the easiest way to move forward is to decide that the media (studies have shown that journalists have the lowest IQ among all professions btw) has thouroughly analysed the emails and somehow concluded that they should not be read nor considered by the public.

If you are not one of the type who wants the media to tell you you are intelligent and if you are not one of the type to believe the media that something must not be read them ofc you're not buying it. I work in academia and if anyone in my team was as unprofessional as the authors of climategate emails they would be fired immediately.

>>9101097
Pretty sure this graph is the one where a climate skeptic got the author to admit that there is no statistical confidence in that spike at the right end. I remember seeing the XKCD comic by some fruitcake on facebook and looking into the cited authors and learning this.

File: hahaha2.png (3MB, 1600x885px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1600x885px

>>9105023
We all can see you originally >>9104966 referred to the scientific method in general, not limited to climate science. Your feeble failed attempt of backtracking and editing older posts can be read like an open book.
>>9105709
If science is corrupted to some degree, you would be a fool to take the word of any scientist for granted.
>>9105814
The image reflects the type of low-level discourse of both sides on 4chan very well, which is why I posted it.
>>9105600
>>9105600
Hmmmmmmmmm...
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

>>9106610
>no statistical confidence in that spike at the right end
The data at the right end are *data*, for which your concept of "statistical confidence" (whatever the fuck that is) has no relevance.

>>9106586
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

>>9106584
>No, the climatologists don't take that into effect.
Liar.

>There is only one paper insofar that I have read that actually deals with finding out what part of heating is attrituted to CO2.
Ah well if you haven't read it, it must not exist, since you are the expert on these things.

>I see a nice unsourced graph on 4chan.
When the source is right there in the image... There seems to be a theme here of you mistaking your ignorance of something for its nonexistence.

>How does that explain the e-mail found in climategae (yes, it's illegal to view it, wait for CNN), where two scientists talk to one another how problematic the lack of temperature increase is.
Why would a graph of global temperature have to explain your delusional conspiracy theory? You're really grasping at straws here. I provided what you asked for and now you are shifting the goalposts. And you didn't answer my question: Why is the trend since 2017 important?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

>>9106600
>clearly prove
Enlighten us

>>9101097

Honest Reality : Environmentalism is an Anti-science Cult @ Amazon books

>>9106646

>>9105023 (You) #
We all can see you originally >>9104966 #
Wrong.

>referred to the scientific method in general
Where is the scientific method in the paper you posted, retard? You truly are illiterate.

>Hmmmmmmmmm...
>https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
When your "paper" is so notoriously bad even snopes has an article on it:
http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

File: clip_image002_thumb.png (152KB, 602x329px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 602x329px

>>9106748
>le graph of global temperature maymay

Global temperature can be defined in infinite ways. Look here and tell me how you would measure the "Earth's temperature":
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-115.59,71.99,1106/loc=-116.014,67.051

>You're really grasping at straws here. I provided what you asked for and now you are shifting the goalposts.
You provided an image on the internet. Plenty of those.

In fact, even too many. Seems that any one can push an omnious graph these days. What matters is if it holds up
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-
>The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

>>9106885
>In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.
Citation and rationality needed, where is the evidence for this?

>>9106885
I can say this. As being politically non-conforming to any party I find that debating climate change with those "in the know" is much like debating everything else with politidrones. You can prove it and show it, but in the end you're just wasting time, because they have made up their mind and are just pushing a larger political agenda. The fact is that Earth has been through far worse than industrialization and that the CO2 in coal was in the atmosphere before. In 30 years this will all be over, but let's face it. Climate conformists will not admit to have been wrong.

>>9106891
As a politically non-confirming scientist who's primary source of information on the topic is science. You are retarded

>>9106885
>graph starting at 1998 El Nino and ending in 2014 in order to cherry pick a trend
You are scum.

>Global temperature can be defined in infinite ways.
It is only defined one way, the averaged temperature across the Earth. It can be measured accurately in many different ways, but all of these ways agree that there is a warming trend between 2010 and now. Once again you have avoided the question I asked, why is the trend since 2010 important? Obviously you thought you could cherrypick that trend to show no warming but you were so pompously ignorant that you just assumed that without even checking. So instead you post another cherrypicked, arbitrary trend and post it. Truly pathetic.

>You provided an image on the internet. Plenty of those.
Being obtuse is not a response.

>The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality
See >>9106879 for the snopes article debunking this nonsense.

Truly pathetic how deniers can only post the same handful of widely debunked junk over and over again. They know it's false but they post it anyway.

>>9106891
>The fact is that Earth has been through far worse than industrialization
The earth will be fine, I'm more concerned with how humans will be. Humans and the ecology we rely on have never experienced warming this rapid, sea level rise this rapid, ocean acidification this rapid. Why are you talking about what the Earth has experienced?

>the CO2 in coal was in the atmosphere before.
Millions of years for CO2 to accumulate in coal = the same amount being released over a hundred?

Dunning-Kruger in action, everyone

File: Q6Z7Sk1.jpg (49KB, 550x870px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 550x870px

>>9106935
I am a more or less climotology-illiterate bystander, but posts like these make me feel sane after all the denial propaganda thats seeping through the cracks.
Like , is there any argument at all that holds up for their side?

File: 10.jpg (100KB, 636x1029px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 636x1029px

>>9106962
Just read about climategate.
>>9106890
The link to the paper was already posted. But I am a polite person that is going to post it again for your convenience.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
>>9106879
The scientific method and peer review has become a joke in the year 2017. You can either inform yourself on Climategate to observe heavy corruption in its process as well as reading this site:
http://retractionwatch.com/
Also you made yourself a fool by trusting Snopes:
https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/

File: RSS.png (27KB, 835x552px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 835x552px

>>9106885
RSS is bullshit, it was shown to be so in March 2016.
Only morons like you refer to it anymore.

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m55s

>>9106962
>is there any argument at all that holds up for their side?
No. 20 years ago before a lot of satellite data was in you could still legitimately have doubt but not any longer. The only way you can deny man made climate change any longer is through ignorance.

>>9106962
Pic is blurry as fuck, what's the deal?

>>9101123
Whoa there gramps don't hurt yourself.

File: Antarctica.Pliocene.jpg (71KB, 685x550px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 685x550px

the last time the planet had similar temperatures compared to the present, was 120 000 years ago, when sea level was 6 to 9 meters higher

the last time the planet had the present CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, sustained for thousands of years, was over 2 500 000 years ago, when sea level was 20 to 25 meters higher

File: climate5.gif (45KB, 768x585px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 768x585px

>>9108521
The only way the AGW lies can be maintained is by cooking the books.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/why-temperature-fraud-matters/

File: UAH vs. GISTEMP.png (7KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 640x480px

>>9108633
Let's go through the scumbag denier checklist:
>improperly baselining at a single year to propagate difference in that year throughout the data
check
>starting at El Nino
check
>claiming that only satellite data is uncorrupted, even though satellite data clearly shows the same trend
check

I'm glad that you finally admitted global warming is real, so now we can move on to what causes it.

>>9108501
>The scientific method and peer review has become a joke in the year 2017.
Oh, so then you should be able to show me using an argument the flawed climatology that invalidates AGW. And I should not be able to destroy that argument in a few seconds. So far you've utterly failed.

>Also you made yourself a fool by trusting Snopes:
So instead of responding to the argument, you are just going to attack the source, while using the "Foodbabe" as your source. Ironic.

Are deniers really this stupid or is this a troll?

>>9108633
satellite data = RSS

RSS is a piece of bullshit

>>9108503

File: 748ba296fd5d729db6cb331b9609ad67.png (1KB, 800x70px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 800x70px

>>9106935
>El nino increased global temperatures.
>El nino happened in 1998 and that's iti
Most graphs that show warming intentionally finish in 2000.

File: pareidolia.jpg (22KB, 338x450px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 338x450px

>>9108503
So when one instrument does not fit your hypothesis, it must be adjusted in order to make it fit? How typical of climate scientists.
Furthermore your video was pathetic; full of cheap strawman arguments.
>>9108702
Have another (You) you are so desperate for.
>>9108668
You completely missed the point. No doubt you did not even scan the article I linked.
>>9108679
>Oh, so then you should be able to show me using an argument the flawed climatology that invalidates AGW. And I should not be able to destroy that argument in a few seconds. So far you've utterly failed.
Climategate
>So instead of responding to the argument, you are just going to attack the source, while using the "Foodbabe" as your source. Ironic.
Your own argument was it is Snopes, so you lose.

>>9108756
When Carl Mears, the lead scientist behind the RSS satellite data says he made a mistake, why do you trust the data instead?

Protip: "it's what I like" doesn't count

>>9108754
So you don't even understand why it's misreading. Hilarious. Deniers start the graph at El Nino because it makes the first part of the graph warm in order to reduce the trend. Why not show all the satellite data if you think it's correct?

>>9108822
>Why not show all the satellite data if you think it's correct?
Implying I even have satelite data.

>>9108822
The warming graphs are focused on 1950 to 2000.
The non-warming graphs are generally focused of the past 20 years.

Why would that be?

Because the Earth has STOPPED GETTING WARMER.

>>9105152
life obeys thermodynamics too

File: Abraham_2013.png (140KB, 751x467px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 751x467px

>>9108844
>Because the Earth has STOPPED GETTING WARMER.
or because the majority of the heat has gone into the oceans rather than increasing surface temperatures

>>9108907
>15 joules
(+/- 20 joules)

>>9108844
bullshit

>>9108503

>>9108832
>implying that's what I said
Why do you think being obtuse is a valid response?

>>9108988
wrong
>Changes in the heat content of the oceans. Source: Abraham et al., 2013. The 2-sigma uncertainty for 1980 is 2 x 10^22 J and for recent years 0.5 x 10^22 J

>>9108844
>The warming graphs are focused on 1950 to 2000.
Which graphs moron? Its been warming since the industrial revolution. All the temperature records show this.

>The non-warming graphs are generally focused of the past 20 years.
The trend over the past 20 years is warming. The only way you get no warming is by deliberately cherrypicking endpoints, which does not do anything to argue against the fact that the earth has been warming since we started releasing massive amounts of CO2.

>>9101273
Hmmm, so the Caspian and the Aral seas are re flooded? Nice.

>>9101211
>Post grad stem degree here, am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy?
Good Heavens, no. Physics Nobel laureate Giaever expressed doubt about global warming and was immediately dismissed as ignorant. A Nobel prize just isn't enough.

>This line of reasoning is offensive to /sci/
Apparently we need a licence to differ and they are just not handing out those licenses.

>>9109079
>A Nobel prize just isn't enough.
by your standards, having a Nobel in Literature means that someone can speak authoritatively on astrophysics

that's just silly.

>>9109079
Ah well if a NOBEL LAUREATE says 1+1=3 it must be true

https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

>>9101238
>That's like asking why a forest fire near a village is a good thing.
No. It is not. Unless you too think we are approaching LD50 for CO2.

He asked you one simple question and like a low cost shill you went in the wrong direction. As tactics go that was pretty desperate.

>>9101259
>Forest fires occur due to sunlight not hot weather, muh activation energy
Google [code]forest fires caused by lightning[/code]
Got this:
>As many as 90 percent of wildland fires in the United States are caused by humans. Some human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, negligently discarded cigarettes and intentional acts of arson. The remaining 10 percent are started by lightning or lava.

>>9101306
>I am simply asking for the reasoning and data
And another anon asked for your sources.

Nice deflection you got going there.

>>9101259
forest fires also usually need a fuel source. plants that have died from intermittent rain and damaging storms are good fire starters

>>9101328
>the moron who claimed all deserts are rainshadow deserts when in reality most deserts are not
Go on, please tell me more.

>>9101383
The most efficient thing is to put a lot of money into R&D and education so that industry can put together efficient solutions. Governments never do that part.

Tesla is enabled by a lot of high tech few care about like high efficiency batteries, high voltage and high power thyristors, etc. Over time we get the results, like better solar cells, better wind power (soon 10 MW), while the first generations are always expensive and unreliable.

>>9109125
>Governments never do that part.
except the recent explosions in solar power were only possible because of government subsidies on solar power and government loans to energy sector companies doing R&D

File: 001.jpg (48KB, 600x467px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x467px

>>9109093
>LD50 for CO2

>>9109103
Where?

Why do the mods allow this garbage on /sci/?

The only argument these /pol/ retards have on climate change and the race/IQ subject is "science is a liberal conspiracy and everyone is being paid to lie."

This garbage belongs on /pol/ or /x/.

>>9101097
I've taken some classes on shit like that and the teacher was basically /pol/.
tl;dr yeah the earth is getting warmer and we MIGHT be helping it but it's a natural process, it's ok
we shouldn't chop down trees to plant stuff because trees take a lot from the soil, not even worth it, the soil won't have a lot of nutrients so not a good idea
fuck if the x y monkey and other species of whatever are dead, really doesn't matter(in a forest), all we need is the trees and plants doing their thing

File: 2017-08-16 o 21.04.09.png (285KB, 801x965px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 801x965px

Trump saves us again

>>9101834
>More CO2 will harm agricultural production:
>http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/08/30/1606734113.full.pdf
Your source refers to grassland, not general agricultural output. Did you actually study the source you cited?

>>9104925
Considering China appears to be fabricating data this is hard to believe.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449

>>9109238
Most plants and most agricultural products are C3. Read the paper.

>>9109084
>by your standards, having a Nobel in Literature means that someone can speak authoritatively on astrophysics
No.

He is a physicist. Thermodynamics, radiations and more are parts of physics. I have absolutely no idea why you try to bring literature into this.

>>9109152
You really have no idea about this, do you? Research in the technology predates the recent revolution by decades. People like you just look at the last few years and fail to understand the enormity of work that goes into this. Also the commercial R&D people had a degree and an academic foundation that didn't just pop up overnight.

>>9109271
Anon made a wild generalisation. I pointed out the error. Do you even know anything about falsifiability? I just need to point out one single error and his point simply implodes and should be discarded as radioactive waste.

>>9109433
That doesn't mean his arguments employ that expertise or are valid. And they aren't. See >>9109089

When you want to actually make an argument instead of simply attacking/praising sources, tell me.

>>9109433
I brought literature into this because you implied that having a Nobel was sufficient for speaking authoritatively on the subject. That statement is so silly it barely even merits a reaponse.

>>9109437
Of course there's decades of research. That research would also never have left the lab and made it onto homes without government support. We would be where we were fifteen years ago, with solar only existing as specialty installations for special purposes, not large-scale facilities making up significant pieces of the industry. That was only possible thanks to government subsidies that made solar power competitive with fossil fuels.

>>9109441
>I pointed out the error.
The error was you misinterpreting the scope of the paper.

>>9109489
>because you implied that having a Nobel was sufficient
No.

The point was that he had a Nobel in Physics. Really, is this so hard to understand? Stupid arguments like bringing in literature of all things, are what makes global warmerists look so stupid, making them their own worst enemies.

>>9109604
>The point was that he had a Nobel in Physics.
That point has nothing to do with the fact that his arguments have been proven false, which you continue to ignore.

>Stupid arguments like bringing in literature of all things, are what makes global warmerists look so stupid, making them their own worst enemies.
Let's look at the arguments being made by deniers in this thread:

>>9101133
>>9101211
>>9101278
>>9101842
>>9103278
>>9105576
>>9105588
>>9106584
>>9106586
>>9106600
>>9106891
>>9108988
>>9109197
Misrepresentation and denial of the facts (lying), then continuously failing to back it up with reason or evidence

>>9101176
>>9109079
>>9109093
>>9109433
Red herrings

>>9101202
>>9101578
Ignoring any negative effect of warming

>>9102733
>>9102742
>>9106885
>>9108633
>>9108844
Cherrypicking

>>9102742
>>9102762
>>9102986
>>9106646
>>9106885
>>9108501
Long-debunked graphs and papers being posted over and over again, even though these people must be aware by now that they are wrong

>>9103005
>>9103020
>>9108832
>>9106885
>>9105374
Being obtuse in order to avoid responding to the argument, aka "pretending to be retarded"

>>9103051
>>9103063
>>9103070
>>9106584
>>9108501
Attacking the source in order to avoid responding to the argument (Harvard is not a valid source! waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah)

>>9105011
False equivalency

>>9108756
>You completely missed the point.
The point appears to be that climatologists have "cooked the books" in order to create global warming, since there is a difference between satellite and thermometer data. But this makes no sense since the satellite data clearly shows a similar warming trend. Why would climatologists need to "cook the books" then?


>No doubt you did not even scan the article I linked.
The article you linked contains this utterly misleading graph and several like it. Care to actually respond to the fact that the graph you posted is improperly baselined and cherrypicked? Or is that just the modus operandi of your ilk?

>Climategate
Is a conspiracy theory created wholly by taking quotes out of context:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Try again.

>Your own argument was it is Snopes, so you lose.
My argument was what Snopes said about it, you obtuse moron, which you STILL have not responded to.

>>9109604
>The point was that he had a Nobel in Physics.
which is a different field and says nothing about his expertise in climatology. the comparison to literature is completely valid.

>>9109705
>different measuring devices have different inherent biases
WHO WOULD EVER HAVE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, IT'S A COMPLETELY NOVEL CONCEPT

>>9109731
>different measuring devices have different inherent biases
That is exactly why you can't cherrypick the baseline at a year in which the two measurements are maximally divergent in order to propagate that divergence throughout the graph. Again, why did you post an improperly baselined and cherrypicked graph?

File: climate6.gif (49KB, 685x473px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 685x473px

>>9108777
You should read up on Kuhn.
>>9109705
>The point appears to be that climatologists have "cooked the books" in order to create global warming, since there is a difference between satellite and thermometer data. But this makes no sense since the satellite data clearly shows a similar warming trend. Why would climatologists need to "cook the books" then?
Climate people can only make the data fit their narrative after applying adjustments to them. We have seen that they are willing to fiddle any data in the climategate emails.
>The article you linked contains this utterly misleading graph and several like it.
That would be an affirmative.
>Care to actually respond to the fact that the graph you posted is improperly baselined and cherrypicked?
In order to prevent poor baselining or cherrypicking, one needs to take millions of years of reliable and accurate data to obtain a truthful and honest plot. This is simply impossible. Any temperature plot can be accused of cherrypicking or weak baseline. Its child's play to yell: "No LIA, no 40s cooling, you left out MWP, El Nino!"
>Or is that just the modus operandi of your ilk?
Let us look at the modus operandi of key climate scientists like Phil Jones instead.
>Is a conspiracy theory created wholly by taking quotes out of context:
And then comes a link littered with pathetic excuses to exonerate a couple of heinous charlatans. It read like some blockhead is attempting to tell you bananas are straight. It is exceptionally poor damage control.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
>My argument was what Snopes said about it, you obtuse moron, which you STILL have not responded to.
For one peer review is pal review in climate world. For another it is outright lying to claim that adjustments do not consistently cool the past and warm the present.

>>9109678
>Let's look at the arguments being made by deniers in this thread:
Again the assumptions. And by now you should know what they say about assumptions.

For my part I have not made up my mind but I am looking forward to better arguments. And the arrogance shown by warmers are really putting the ball in your own goal. Time and again I see the north Pole has been predicted to be ice free within a certain date. Now this is a positive attitude: coming up with a statement that can be tested and falsified. Trouble is, in each and every case the predictions have been falisified. And after a while the "never in doubt - frequently wrong" makes warmers look bad.

Some sources:
http://www.side3.no/vitenskap/spadde-et-isfritt-nordpolen-i-2014/8481230.html
https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/forsker---nordpolen-kan-bli-isfri-i-sommer/66495212
http://www.nettavisen.no/2032560.html

We were promised warm winters. So when we had a particularly brutal winter a few years ago and got the explanation this too was global warming, then the general population gets pretty tired.

t. Norwegian having another cool "summer".

File: noaa-chart.jpg (40KB, 600x402px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x402px

>>9110440
>Climate people can only make the data fit their narrative after applying adjustments to them. We have seen that they are willing to fiddle any data in the climategate emails.
Ah at last I truly see! Yes! The "climate people" have conspired to adjust the data in order to make the warming trend... COOLER! Those bastards!

See pic and >>9106879

>In order to prevent poor baselining or cherrypicking, one needs to take millions of years of reliable and accurate data to obtain a truthful and honest plot.
False, one simply needs to baseline on the average of a few decades in order to avoid divergence of a single year being propagated.

>Any temperature plot can be accused of cherrypicking or weak baseline.
As we have seen, you accuse climatologists of a lot of things which have turned out to be false.

>"No LIA, no 40s cooling, you left out MWP, El Nino!"
LIA, 40s cooling, and MWP are usually things that deniers whine about when they expect global temperatures to look exactly like US or Northern Hemisphere temperatures. It has nothing to do with baselining or cherrypicking, just deniers being stupid. El Nino on the other hand, is ripe for cherrypicking by deniers.

>And then comes a link littered with pathetic excuses to exonerate a couple of heinous charlatans.
Surely you could at least argue against even one? Oh, you still can't?Well, continue having a tantrum and when you want to actually prove your point, I'm all ears.

>For one peer review is pal review in climate world. For another it is outright lying to claim that adjustments do not consistently cool the past and warm the present.
And you once again refuse to argue against the analysis. Why are you wasting time posting nothing?

>>9110550
>Again the assumptions.
Which of my "assumptions" are preventing deniers from defending their dishonest and faulty arguments?

>For my part I have not made up my mind
LOL

>Time and again I see the north Pole has been predicted to be ice free within a certain date.
>Trouble is, in each and every case the predictions have been falisified.
>http://www.side3.no/vitenskap/spadde-et-isfritt-nordpolen-i-2014/8481230.html
Al Gore! Well if a politician says it, it must represent all climatologists right?

>https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/forsker---nordpolen-kan-bli-isfri-i-sommer/66495212
>http://www.nettavisen.no/2032560.html
So the prediction that the Arctic may be ice-free by 2030 has been falsified? You have a time machine?

It seems odd to me that you claim your mind is not made up yet due to predictions which have been falsified, yet all you have presented is a prediction by Al Gore and a prediction which is 13 years away. Why would a neutral party think these are somehow relevant towards the validity of climate science?

>We were promised warm winters. So when we had a particularly brutal winter a few years ago and got the explanation this too was global warming, then the general population gets pretty tired.
You seem to be confusing weather with climate, my friend. A warm winter is weather. The trend of winters on average getting warmer is climate.

it's quite real, despite the "debate"

those with power (if anyone truly has that kind of power) are not going to do anything significant about it, so there's really no point in discussing it

just watch and enjoy the ride, maybe move to somewhere safe and underpopulated and learn to subsist, if you really want to survive or whatever

>>9110550
>t. Norwegian having another cool "summer".
Oh, so us there in continental europe must assume now that we are going to die soon given how hot the summer is getting.
Fucking retard.

>>9110577
>Ah at last I truly see! Yes! The "climate people" have conspired to adjust the data in order to make the warming trend... COOLER! Those bastards!

>See pic and >>9106879
Nice try.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/07/even-more-on-the-david-rose-bombshell-article-how-noaa-software-spins-the-agw-game/
>False, one simply needs to baseline on the average of a few decades in order to avoid divergence of a single year being propagated.
That way you would be cutting out natural variation in your plot. But hiding normal fluctuations in graphs is how it works in climate land, isnt it?
>As we have seen, you accuse climatologists of a lot of things which have turned out to be false.
I have provided plenty of links and arguments to which you have only offered meagre defenses if any.
>LIA, 40s cooling, and MWP are usually things that deniers whine about when they expect global temperatures to look exactly like US or Northern Hemisphere temperatures. It has nothing to do with baselining or cherrypicking, just deniers being stupid. El Nino on the other hand, is ripe for cherrypicking by deniers.
Once again, you are totally missing my point. It has everything to do with baselines and cherrypicking. That plot you posted? Started right in the LIA. Any idiot can throw around accusations if you are going to come up with a plot of 100 or so years and claiming it is climate.
>Surely you could at least argue against even one? Oh, you still can't?Well, continue having a tantrum and when you want to actually prove your point, I'm all ears.
Sure, buddy. Hide the decline. How is that taken out of context? Different instruments are used in order to, literally by their own words, hide the decline of a certain time period to make the data fit the AGW narrative. Apparently this sort of malpractise is broadly accepted.

>>9109740
I didn't post anything. That was a different anon.

>>9110440
>We have seen that they are willing to fiddle any data in the climategate emails.
way to show you dont actually understand what they were saying in those emails

>>9110605
Well, do the approved climatologists differ?

>>9110641
>Nice try.
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/07/even-more-on-the-david-rose-bombshell-article-how-noaa-software-spins-the-agw-game/
So your response to the fact that all the adjustments have created a net DECREASE in the global temperature trend is to post about one kind of adjustment in two states. What exactly did you think was relevant here? Did you just post the first denier blog taking about adjustments and call it a day? Let me reiterate since you seem incapable of addressing the argument: how can you argue climatologists are making up these adjustments to create global warming when the adjustments reduce global warming?

>That way you would be cutting out natural variation in your plot.
What? Are you just typing out random responses? How can baselining remove variation? Baselining doesn't effect trends at all, it's about comparing two data sets.

>I have provided plenty of links and arguments to which you have only offered meagre defenses if any.
Like what? Liar.

>Once again, you are totally missing my point. It has everything to do with baselines and cherrypicking. That plot you posted? Started right in the LIA.
Which plot?

>Sure, buddy. Hide the decline. How is that taken out of context?
Gee that could not be possible taken out of context! Did you even bother researching this before you spewed it?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

How many times are you going to be proven a fool and a liar before you feel some shame?

>still taking the bait
I don't know why janitors don't just delete these threads.

>>9110676
You mean you didn't even try to find out what climatologists are saying, while telling me that their predictions have failed? Seems quite odd.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=605

>>9110872
Please go back and re-ready my question.

>>9101097
Don't worry about it.
If it's naturally going to come back down we have no problem.
If it is caused by humans and only going to increase our grandkids are fucked and there's nothing we can do about it.

>>9111435
Please answer the question and then read the link provided.

>>9111521
>there's nothing we can do about it.
But that's wrong

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.oecd.org/env/Policy_Brief_Cost-effective_actions_to_tackle_climate_change.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjNrMCl4d_VAhUIOyYKHfFACSYQFgglMAA&usg=AFQjCNHxptyXFSVoOUiXyRepvT8O3_IxlA

>>9111521

If CO2 emissions have such a big impact on temperature, then wouldn't reducing emissions have the opposite effect and potentially land us in an ice age?

>>9111780
We're in an ice age already. Educate yourself before posting.

>>9111741
Nice try but waste of time until you try.

>>9101097

Denying climate change is stupid

Seriously what would "they" get out of pushing climate awarness, are you stupid

>>9101142

Fuckin american idiot

File: horse.jpg (56KB, 438x509px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 438x509px

>>9110869
>So your response to the fact that all the adjustments have created a net DECREASE in the global temperature trend is to post about one kind of adjustment in two states.
Bullshit. When your so-called adjustments fundamentally alter primary data to such an extent that it is not even close to the original, that is perceived as cooking the books or data fiddling by normal people.
>What exactly did you think was relevant here?
A link suggesting NOAA is data fiddling which is business as usual for climate science.
>Did you just post the first denier blog taking about adjustments and call it a day?
Attacking the source up to two times (denier, blog); I thought you didnt like this way of arguing.
>Let me reiterate since you seem incapable of addressing the argument:
Ad hominem
>how can you argue climatologists are making up these adjustments to create global warming when the adjustments reduce global warming?
Nobody is falling for your deception regardless how many times you can repeat your mantra. Most people who read this are fully aware LIA, MWP, Roman warming, and no doubt various others are flattened out to acquire hockeystick graphs. Then there are the US and Greenland temperatures that do not display any warming at all that are also flatout ignored since those are anomalous to the AGW doctrine.

>>9111800
No dumbo, we're coming out of one.

>>9112193
It's called shares in "green" energy companies.

>>9112200
>Bullshit
So you think the earth is warming even faster than climatologists. Well that's bigof you to admit. I don't agree, but I guess this discussion is over since global warming is real.

>When your so-called adjustments fundamentally alter primary data to such an extent that it is not even close to the original, that is perceived as cooking the books or data fiddling by normal people.
Well it's a good thing the adjusted data are close to the original then. Your link doesn't even show the magnitude of adjustments since it compares adjusted data to adjusted data. But your argument makes no sense anyway. The magnitude of adjustments have no relation to their validity. Until you actually point out why the adjustments are incorrect you fail. Here I'll help you out, retard. Disprove this:

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

>Attacking the source up to two times (denier, blog); I thought you didnt like this way of arguing.
My argument was not that the source is a denier blog, it's that what's written there is irrelevant. Don't confuse an insult for an argument. Your only response to Snopes was to attack it for allegedly being biased towards... GMOs.

>>9112200
>Ad hominem
No one cares. Try addressing the argument.

>Nobody is falling for your deception regardless how many times you can repeat your mantra. Most people who read this are fully aware LIA, MWP, Roman warming, and no doubt various others are flattened out to acquire hockeystick graphs.
So you agree with the raw data, which says that the earth is warming faster.

See >>9110577

>>9112351
So you agree we're in one?

>>9101097

READ SCIENTIFIC PAPERS YOU AUTISTIC TRUMPFAG

>>9112200
>When your so-called adjustments fundamentally alter primary data to such an extent that it is not even close to the original, that is perceived as cooking the books or data fiddling by normal people.
they came to a new understanding that certain data sources were reliable for parts of their record but had recently become unreliable, so they omitted the records they knew were unreliable and retained the reliable ones

that's exactly what any sane person would do.

>>9112401
It is interesting to see that warmers believe ad hominem will work.This thread is full of it.

>>9112487
>waaaaaaaaah he insulted me on 4chan

>>9112393
There are ice ages, and then there are ice ages. Remember when climate scientists used to say we were heading into an intense ice age? Now they are saying we are going the opposite way Can't trust these pseudo-scientists.

>>9112487
simply insulting people is not an ad hominem

File: 1970s_papers.gif (14KB, 500x285px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x285px

>>9112516
>Remember when climate scientists used to say we were heading into an intense ice age?
even during the short period of time when some scientists were saying we might go into cooling (because the majority of our emissions were negative forcing aerosols), there were just as many if not more that were predicting warming

>>9112516
>There are ice ages, and then there are ice ages.
No, there are just ice ages.

>Remember when climate scientists used to say we were heading into an intense ice age?
No, because that never happened. You are confusing your delusional fantasies for reality.

>>9105598
Your assumption is illogical ; physicists who didn't want to study went studying climatology? Are you mentally ill?

I don't want to argue a lot about global warming but it is a fact. There were two global mass bleaching of coral because of the acidification of the oceans (yes, it will provide more food for sea plants but globally, there is more species than algea, etc) and this is a bad thing ; if the oceans are sick, the planet will be sick. Soon enough when thermal expansion will rise the level of ocean, there will be (in the first time of history) environmental immigrants all around the world and I can assure you that no government is ready for this. More drought, less plants, less food... what else? More pollution will result in more rain, unstable weather, bigger storms.. We are already into the Anthropocene era and yet - almost - no one is acting like it.

>>9112598
>I don't want to argue a lot about global warming but it is a fact.
As rhetoric goes that one is particularly cheap.

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

240KB, 513x460px

>>9112539
Lots of cooling papers from that time period

Bryson, Reid A., and Gerald J. Dittberner. "A non-equilibrium model of hemispheric mean surface temperature." Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 33.11 (1976): 2094-2106.
Wendland, Wayne M., and Reid A. Bryson. "Atmospheric dustiness, Man, and climatic change." Biological Conservation 2.2 (1970): 125-128.


Kosiba, A. "The problem of climate cooling after 1939 (in Polnisch)." Czas. geogr 33 (1962): 63.

Fletcher, Joseph O. "Polar ice and the global climate machine." Bull. Atomic Scientists (1970): 40-47.
"... the cooling effect of the 1950s and 1960s shows that some other factor is more than countering the warming effect of CO2.... Man's contribution to the atmospheric dust load is increasing at an exponential rate.

Rasool, S. Ichtiaque, and Stephen H. Schneider. "Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate." Science 173.3992 (1971): 138-141.
" An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background... is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Bray, J. R. "Climatic change and atmospheric pollution." Proceedings (New Zealand Ecological Society). New Zealand Ecological Society (Inc.), 1971.

EUSAESSER, HUGH W. "HAS MAN. THROUGH INCREASING EMISSIONS OF PARTICIPATES, CHANGED THE CLIMATE?." Atmosphere-Surface Exchange of Particulate and Gaseous Pollutants (1974): 41.

File: Hansen 1981.png (120KB, 689x628px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 689x628px

>>9112539
Frisken, W. R. "Extended industrial revolution and climate change." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 52.7 (1971): 500-508.

Lamb, Hubert H. The current trend of world climate: A report on the early 1970's and a perspective. Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, 1974. "Much has been written about the global cooling... has been overstressed as regards to its practical implications... There are solid grounds for regarding this as a dangerous misconception."

Kukla, George J., and Helena J. Kukla. "Insolation regime of interglacials." Quaternary Research 2.3 (1972): 412-424. "...the prognosis is for a long-lasting global cooling more severe than any experiened hitherto by civilized mankind."

NEEDS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. "LAWRENCE UVERMORE LABORATORY." (1972). "Global cooling of natural origin could exceed in magnitude changes experienced in historical times.

Potter, Gerald L., et al. "Possible climatic impact of tropical deforestation." (1975): 697-698.

Kukla, George J., and Robert K. Matthews. "When will the present interglacial end?." Science 178.4057 (1972): 190-202.

Gribbin, John. "Cause and effects of global cooling." Nature 254 (1975): 14.


Lamb, H. H. "Changes of climate." Wright & Moseley (1975): 169-188.

File: NOAA Radiosondes show 0.6 degrees cooling.png (212KB, 768x628px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 768x628px

>>9112539
Fletcher, Joseph O. MANAGING CLIMATE RESOURCES. No. RAND-P-4000. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, 1969. "We may already be inadvertantly influencing global climate. ... a weakening circulation, southward shifts of ice boundary..."

Braslau, Norman, and J. V. Dave. "Effect of aerosols on the transfer of solar energy through realistic model atmospheres. Part I: Non-absorbing aerosols." Journal of applied meteorology 12.4 (1973): 601-615.

Bray, J. R. "Climatic change and atmospheric pollution." Proceedings (New Zealand Ecological Society). New Zealand Ecological Society (Inc.), 1971. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide content was concluded to have Had An Ambiguous Climatic Influence and may be less important than sometimes considered. Several studies have suggested increased turbidity has produced a recent global cooling trend.

Carter, L. J. 1970. The global environment: M.I.T. study looks for danger signs. Science 169: 660-662. Increased turbidity causes gobal cooling.

Lamb, H. H. 1969. Activite volcanique et climat. Revue de Geographie Physique et de Geologie Dynamique 11: 363-380.

Paterson, J.T. and Bryson, R.A. 1968. Atmospheric aerosols: increased concentrations during the last decade. Science 162: 120-121.

Bryson 1974. A perspective on Climate Change. Science. 184:753-760. The "debunking" paper falsely classifies this as "neutral." Bryson thought anthropogenic aerosols were causing global cooling.

Byerknes, J., 1958: "Related Fluctuations of Trade Winds and Northern Climates," Geophysics Helsinki, Vol.6 , No. 3-4. 169-177

Budyko, Mikhail I. "The future climate." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 53.10 (1972): 868-874.

File: Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.jpg (63KB, 509x304px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 509x304px

>>9112539

285 PEER REVIEWED GLOBAL COOLI|NG REFERENCES RIGHT HERE!
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

File: Global Cooling with NASA GISS.jpg (80KB, 937x568px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 937x568px

>>9112539

NASA GISS believed in global cooling

File: CIA Global Cooling.gif (76KB, 640x351px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x351px

>>9112539
The CIA believed in global cooling>>9112539

File: US National Science Board.png (77KB, 413x167px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 413x167px

>>9112539

U.S. National board believed in global cooling.

File: Cooling 1969.jpg (49KB, 631x430px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 631x430px

>>9112539

The Japanese Meteorological Agency believed in Global Cooling.

File: Hubert Lamb Global Cooling.png (501KB, 703x588px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 703x588px

>>9112539
Hubert Lamb, generally considered the father of modern Climatology believed in global cooling.

>>9113073
not a paper

>>9113070
>>9113066
>>9113061
>>9113056
measurements of cooling not predictions (the planet cooled in the 50's-80s. Nobody disputes this.)

>>9113043
>>9113045
>>9113046
Pure gish gallop but it is clear you have not read these papers.
Let me check one or two and see what they say

>Kukla, George J., and Robert K. Matthews. "When will the present interglacial end?." Science 178.4057 (1972): 190-202.
>With the end of the third cycle at about 18,800 years AP, the Present Interglacial will end and the First Future Glacial Age begin. Further information about the climatic conditions during the “cold” cycle 117,700–107,200 y. a. is necessary, however, before a really

Not a prediction of 'global cooling'

>Bray, J. R. "Climatic change and atmospheric pollution." Proceedings (New Zealand Ecological Society)
1. Journal not on master journals list
2. paper has this in its conclusion
>the present division of humanity into sovereign states seems a dangerous anachronism. The federation of mankind into a world parliament would be one alternative which would permit the adoption of pollution controls sufficiently stringent to prevent climatic alteration and its social and economic consequences.

trash

>Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: effects of large increases on global climate.

> although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
>or aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content.
Not a prediction, just a discussion

Cherry picking bullshit as always from the deniers. Besides, we now KNOW FOR A FACT that we are warming because the cooling of aerosols has been overwhelmed. Why pretend otherwise? ALSO 'cover up' but the papers are all available online? are you a retard?

How the fuck are there climate change deniers on /sci/? Why are you even on this board if you draw conclusions before the evidence comes, and then lie about data and cherrypick the things that suit that predetermined conclusion? What do you gain by acting so irrationally?

>>9113520
/pol/

File: chart.png (51KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1200x800px

>>9113520
Reminder that 4chan's population doubled with gamergate, then it doubled again with Trump's campaign. The majority of 4chan is now /pol/tards. The best course of action is to ignore them.

File: science_merchant.jpg (5KB, 200x232px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x232px

>>9113520
kek
>>9113857
>>9113888
woosh

>>9113888
Ah right, I forgot that the internet has been painting 4chan as some kind of rebel hideout for failed ideas for almost a decade now. No wonder every board has slowly been becoming more retarded.

Yo, globol worming is racist!!! Blacks b ment 2 feelz it worse den whites, n dats nature being racist.

face book , c ō m / jimmylkennedy
San Jose, CA

>>9113888
97% of scientists believe it will surpass the human population by 2100.

>>9113070
>50 years ago

kek