Is Global Warming real?

is global warming theory real? half-truth?

was al gore right?

please provide articles or facts to prove or disprove this

Other urls found in this thread:

royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-2.html
annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441
dailycaller.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/
marketoracle.co.uk/Article56515.html
xkcd.com/1732/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png
youtube.com/watch?v=iFBU828ZzHE
youtube.com/watch?v=-ynkn0RHPwU
youtube.com/watch?v=0p4drWtJ0Ug
bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/05/greenland-ice-sheet-moving-slower-now-than-in-the-last-9000-years/
skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Its real, but thats what nature does, its not only because of much CO2

There's a lot of money in it. And the party and types of people who are the loudest about it tend to create or exaggerate other problems (e.g. the wage gap, police-on-black brutality) in order to siphon tax money into government, university, and think tank jobs.

Really makes you think

The world changes its own temperatures and it is called Climate Change. Humans have practically 0 effect on the climate. The only reason Bill Nye is supporting it is so he can get more buisness. Only bad thing about it not being true is that Florida hasn't sunk yet.

This was released in association with the American NAS. Pretty comprehensive.

>Is the climate warming?
>How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities?
>CO2 is already in the atmosphere naturally, so why are emissions from human activity significant?
>What role has the Sun played in climate change in recent decades?
>What do changes in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature – from the surface up to the stratosphere – tell us about the causes of recent climate change?
>Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?
>Is the current level of atmospheric CO2 concentration unprecedented in Earth’s history?
>Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?
>Does the rate of warming vary from one decade to another?
>Does the recent slowdown of warming mean that climate change is no longer happening?
>If the world is warming, why are some winters and summers still very cold?
>Why is Arctic sea ice reducing while Antarctic sea ice is not?
>How does climate change affect the strength and frequency of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes?
>How fast is sea level rising?
>What is ocean acidification and why does it matter?
>How confident are scientists that Earth will warm further over the coming century?
>Are climate changes of a few degrees a cause for concern?
>What are scientists doing to address key uncertainties in our understanding of the climate system?
>Are disaster scenarios about tipping points like ‘turning off the Gulf Stream’ and release of methane from the Arctic a cause for concern?
>If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?

tl;dr yes. The only real issue is how much warming co2 will cause. Some argue it's not enough to justify preventative measures.

Forgot link.

royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

really activates your almonds thanks

C02 is not very good at holding heat energy. The thinking is/was that the heat held by C02 would cause a lot of extra water vapour to be drawn into the atmosphere. Water is good at holding heat. However, the extra water vapour added is proving to be no where near the amount scientists predicted. So no. Global warming is a bust, but it is a great source of tax revenue. Expect the climate change meme to continue as long as the political climate supports it.

>However, the extra water vapour added is proving to be no where near the amount scientists predicted.

How do you come to this conclusion? Have you got a link to a paper saying the water vapour feedback is insignificant or just basing this on your own experience?

Here's NASA's view on the issue of water vapour.

>Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

and the American Chemical Society.

acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-2.html
>In the current climate, clouds exert a cooling effect on climate

>warming creates water vapour
>water vapour creates clouds
>clouds reflect sunlight, cooling the earth

Oh shit

>is global warming theory real?
yes
>was al gore right?
no

CO2 emissions likely aren't causing it in any significant measure. It's also impossible to tell without experiment as the whole system itself is complex.

It's a real theory.

>C02
CO2, not C02

The problem is with the models themselves.

annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441

dailycaller.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/

It's warm as fuck here, and its September, so you tell me.

I have a feeling that we are being lied to by both sides. Am I the only one?

Not all the water vapour in the system is clouds. Clouds only form when water vapour condenses.

Climate change is real but IMO its effects are probably being exaggerated. I'm very suspicious of humanity's role in it all because CO2 levels were much higher in prehistoric times and the planet was fine (there were a couple of mass extinctions but whether or not those were climate-related is apparently unclear).

The day Al Gore was born there were 7,000 polar bears on Earth.
Today, only 26,000 remain.

The models have historically over-rated the effects this is true. But the NASA link ITT is a step towards a better understanding as it measured the concentration of water vapour in the air as temperature varied.

Bad habit. Thanks.

Yes, and the way humans are living is not helping. What we don't know is how bad things will go and change and how much of the warming we are guilty for, but I feel like that doesn't justify doing nothing about it.

I don't understand what people have against taking preventive measures that keep the environment cleaner.

Figure out a car that doesn't run on oil, fuck the Saudis and Russia

Use energy from natural sources, such as the sun, dams, what have you: fuck the Saudis and Russia

Use less plastic or find another thing to wrap your stuff in, fuck the Saudis and tasks since plastic comes from oil too, and you'll reduce part of the estrogens you come into contact with, making for healthy males.

Recycle your crap, and yes you can't fuck the Saudis and Russia with that one, but how is not stuffing your soil full of crap a bad idea?

>it's true

Global Warming is real but whether or not it is man made, or just a natural cycle of the earth, is whole other kettle of fish.

Here is an interesting article I read this morning about it from The Market Oracle

marketoracle.co.uk/Article56515.html

He believes it is man made, and with (((them))) pumping billions in AID to Africa to support their population growth (to make sure Europe has a large enough supply of cultural enrichment), things are only going to get worse.

Climate change is real and severely affected by human action

global warming is real
it wasn't created by humans, we only were a small factor to it
its just another white guilt propaganda created to promote globalism and open border policies

You are a real scientist, i guess

First it was threats of an ice age, then it was global warming, then they changed it to "climate change", so they can contradict themselves and it's ok. You have to be a brainwashed idiot to be able to believe these contradictions. If you believe in global warming, you believe that 2 + 2 = whatever the government says it is. If they changed it back to threats of an ice age again, most global warming believers would instantly start calling it "science" and they'd be 100% confident and secure in it. That's how delusional they are.

>severely affected by human action
no, it isn't.
read some studies/articles other than tabloid trash and see how much the climate has been swinging for the past few 1000 years, and realize the current situation doesn't differ from those changes by jack shit

Real but often at least partially misrepresented, with too much fear-mongering.

What's the difference between global warming and climate change? The temperateures are still rising. Global warming is just as valid. The only reason climate change was introduced is that people would point to weather and say 'if global warming is real how come it is snowing'.

No point in the past 1000 years, or indeed much longer has co2 got to above 300ppm. We're currently over 400ppm. co2 is a greenhouse gas.

No it's a hoax created by China. Mein führer said so even though his clothing was made from there. Throw in some Jewish conspiracy so I can fit into the edginess of Cred Forums

>buzzword buzzword look at me i'm trying to sound smart buzzword
i specifically said to read something other than tabloid trash

>What's the difference between global warming and climate change?
You're proving my point. You're so brainwashed you don't see a contradiction as a contradiction.
>The only reason climate change was introduced is that people would point to weather and say 'if global warming is real how come it is snowing'.
Which is actually a valid point, because if it's snowing then global warming must not be such a severe problem after all.

It's all just a big shitty socialist excuse to control people.

the true red pill is we've never had any substantial influence on how the earth rolls, and we never will. Worst case scenario, we nuke to place to Kingdom Come. The surface will be uninhabitalbe for the next what? 10 to 15000 years? Which is barely even a footnote in earth's existence. After that, existence will resurface, literally. There's nothing wrong with extinction. But I like how humans are trying to preserve certain species of animals. It tells me they have hope, in spite of knowing what is real. The moon is moving further away from the earth, each year. Nothing is built to last. Not even this universe. Also it is my honest opinion that hope, love and morality are human constructs. There is nothing wrong with being unhappy. The sun shines down on everyone. even child molesters. The only real question is: do you want to be here? Or not? And are you prepared to face the consequences? Nothing has consequenses, but to you, as a human, it does.

also the ever changing orbit of earth around the sun has a million times more impact on earth's temperature than "greenhouse gases" will ever have.

CO2 concentration is a buzzword? Ok then, I'm sure you're right

You consider statistics buzzwords?

>Which is actually a valid point, because if it's snowing then global warming must not be such a severe problem after all.

You seem pretty confused. It is called global warming cause the global average temperature is increasing. A couple of days of snow doesn't affect this. If we had ten record breaking years of low temperature winters then you'd have a point. But we've not. So you don't.

Oh shit you're right user. Better tell NASA so they can recalculate.

Global warming is a process that happens on different planets as it accumulates atmosphere. Climate change can refer to a human or an event caused change in climate. The debate is on man made climate change.


Also we have to account for all ghg.

It's true that it has changed a lot but you could also attribute that to panic and lack of understanding. We've collected more data over the years. Stay speculative but also stay objective and maybe have a thought experiment where you suspend belief.

What freaks me out is permafrost melting.

Four hundred parts per million is four hundredths of one fucking percent. It's literally nothing.

no shit its real. the only political side is over-exaggerating and retarded denial.

Yeah there's a cycle, and yeah we've had impact on it.

>Global warming is a process that happens on different planets as it accumulates atmosphere. Climate change can refer to a human or an event caused change in climate. The debate is on man made climate change.

I certainly missed the memo on that one. Global warming is still a perfectly valid description of what is happening, AGW when you're referring specifically to man's impact on it.

Does the earth have natural climate cycles?
Yes.
Are those cycles influenced by man?
Maybe.
But it is interesting to note it's was much warmer in the Medieval period than it is right now. They grew grapes and made wine in northern England.

xkcd.com/1732/

You tell me OP, if the data is not being manipulated, this is some scary shit

Who gives a shit? The same people who will tell you you need to be concerned are the motherfuckers who want to give 10 gorillion dollars in AID to Africa and bring millions of skitskins into socialized Europe so they can have 15 kids each.


Liberals wanna act self righteous about this shit but make it 50 times worse with their """"""""""humanitarian"""""""""" efforts

It's also interesting to note that climate change modeling has been consistently wrong in its predictions despite constant fiddling with the variables.

Each extra co2 we put up there has a chance of interacting with an IR. This is the mechanism by which the greenhouse effect works.

I studied ancient climates at uni, especially pleistocene to holocene transition, and while large temperature fluctuations took place, there aren't any even close to the kind of rapid pace that the climate is changing at the moment.

If you look at a period with similar and higher temperature ranges: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian you can see that the effect on sea level alone will be devastating to human populations near low-lying coast, and will completely fuck up the ecology of nearly everywhere.

Don't be cucked by your multi-nationals into thinking your children or the USA won't be effected by this.

The earth has been tropical throughout much of its existence. The warmest year of the last few thousand years was cooler than the coolest year of the previous few billion. The earth is cooling if anything.

Yes but human race has nothing to do with it. In medieval times the winter and summer were much warmer than today. In XVIIIth century Baltic sea was freezing and people had taverns on its frozen surface. Its normal. Its a sinusoide.

What people fail to realize is that despite the earth having higher CO2 levels, and temperatures, it was at a time before humans existed on this earth. It was before we put civilization along low coastal lands. The earth can handle the climate change without any problems, but this is an event that humans have never faced before.

I wonder what humans consume and use on a regular basis that uses CO2 for fuel? Forests are abundant and plentiful. Crops better than ever. Hmm.

>Real?
more than likely
>Man made?
Absolutely not
>Anything we can do about it?
Not really, even if the entire United States switched to hybrids and clean fuel it would be like a drop in the bucket when you consider the amount of pollution China puts out alone.

The real issue here is that the earth goes through nature cycles of heat and cold. We just had a mini ice age like 200 years ago. Probably going through a mini heat phase. Either way you will be dead before the earth is.

>was al gore right?
did all ice in the north pole melt? did the sea level rise by 10m?

Most scientists agree that the current warming is not part of a natural cycle though. All these things are considered when they make their models.

Not that anyone would ever pull their heads out their asses, but here I go..
imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png
Link because resolution is too big

Really? Well god damn I guess we did cause it. Still though probably can't fix it now. And will die before that happening.

He doesn't care about scientists and probably can't understand anything related to science or at least will never try.

There are two sides to this subject, the side of science that observes man made climate change, and the side of pure tribal emotion that rejects it due to partisan marketing for political brands.

Have they managed to accurately predict anything yet?

>And will die before that happening
You're one selfish cunt now aren't ya. Your children won't have an Earth to inherit because of this apathy. Then again, I guess I should've said your wife's children.

>hurrr global warming is fake
>so let's keep on fucking our air quality with more pollutants

Fucking stupid ass hicks, you make me embarrassed to be a Burger.

Is the earth going through a warming period again? Yes. Are humans affecting the current warming period? maybe. Did humans cause the current warming period? No.

Nobody believes climate change isn't real. After all, we had the ice age so even the most clueless person understand that climate changes. Well, maybe bible thumpers don't believe it since some of them think the earth is only 6000 years old.

The contention is whether people have caused the current warming period. Please see pic related for an illustration of the current warming period compared to previous warming periods and cooling periods. Its obvious the earth goes through cycles on its own. We didn't cause the current warming period....But there's a little spike at the end that some people think is due solely to humans.

I do doubt whether humans can even be affecting this current climate change trend. From a historical standpoint, it appears we're just in another cycle. And from a purely logical standpoint, the earth's mass is 6 × 10^24 kg. That mass contains multiple living systems that work in conjunction, including climate and systems such as the ocean that affects climate.

ALL of the human biomass, including their waste and emissions, is 287 million tonnes. That sounds like a lot, but its ONLY 1 and 1/2 TRILLIONTH the mass of the earth.
That is an insanely small number. It looks like this:

0.0000000000015

That mind-bogglingly small number is the relation of all human biomass, including our C02 emissions and all the rest of our waste, to earth mass. Human biomass comprises only 1 and 1/5 TrILLIONTH of the mass of the earth.

So I have a supremely hard time believing that 1 and 1/2 trillionth of ANYTHING can affect it to any noticeable degree.

'most scientists agree'.

And that is the most troubling thing about climate change assertionists, the logical fallacy that because there is a consensus about something it is true.

You ask for evidence and they keep saying "ho ho ho, don't you know that most scientists agree?"

> But where is the proof m80?

"tee hee hee, could you really believe that the scientific consensus would be wrong and you a lowly non-consensus individual might have one-upped them?"

> I'm not saying they're wrong or they're right, I want to the intellectual satisfaction of knowing the basis of this consensus.

"97% of scientists agree!"

This. Even if it was real and man-made your average citizen couldn't do anything about it and according to scientists nobody can.

And this is why normies support Global Warming.

Because they think it is a useful cover story for reducing pollution and doing something about those nasty corporate polluters.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is not toxic. It is not dangerous. It is literally air. We are not dirtying the earth with CO2.

If you want to make it about pollution, let's address pollution, but leave climate change out of it.

>You ask for evidence and they keep saying "ho ho ho, don't you know that most scientists agree?"
Argumentum ad populum.

>Still though probably can't fix it now.

Stop/fix it, probably not. Limit effects is still an option. The hard part is finding a deal that works for India and China. They're a third of the worlds population and recently developed, so if we try tell them what to do they can simply say 'no fair, you had 120 years of polluting as much as you wanted'. Which is kinda true. Not trying to instill white guild here, it's just them's the facts. I'd like to see building on the recent agreement and pushing for a globally agreed 'safe limit' to co2 (say 450ppm) with escalating action to cap and reduce overall emissions as we creep nearer.

What do you want proof of? That co2 is a ghg? That the greenhouse effect is real? That human activity has led to an increase in atmospheric co2? I can point you at the proof of each of these if you like.

>hurrr global warming is real
>so lets cripple our economy while letting china continue to pump out pollution
Fucking stupid ass liberals, you make me embarrassed to be a burger.

(((Scientist)))

Music pause
1) youtube.com/watch?v=iFBU828ZzHE
2) youtube.com/watch?v=-ynkn0RHPwU

literal translation:

Konung Olaf The Fuck Walrus went in camping!
On the leaky fucking boats in England he swam!
It's fucked up, it's fucked up, in England, bitch, he swam!
It's fucked up, it's fucked up, in England, bitch, he swam!

He seize a shitload of (a lot) fucking Swedish beers!
And drunk in ass Normans set askew sail!
It's fucked up, it's fucked up, set askew sail!
It's fucked up, it's fucked up, set askew sail!

Well and are came at such a pace in the North Caucasus.
Since the steersman was shoot the cat the entire trip and not taxiing, queer.
It's fucked up, it's fucked up, and not taxiing, queer!
He was lying in vomit and listened to the group "Carcass"!

They went to the mountains, fell into the gorge and fuck lost are way.
And the ass Vikings - these are not to find in the mountains!
It's fucked up, it's fucked up, not to find in the mountains!
It's fucked up, listen, ass - peach, not to find in the mountains!
Friend, buy watermelon!

They were ambushed by the Chechens, in the dark gorge.
Konung Olaf The Fuck Walrus almost lost his ass!
It's fucked up, it's fucked up, almost lost his ass!
It's fucked up, it's fucked up, almost lost his ass!

The moral is simple and she's says the following:
Be good prepared to hike!
For the exam, too, and someone will take you for ass!
It's fucked up, it's fucked up, take you for ass!
It's fucked up, it's fucked up, take you for ass!

Even if all those things are true, there are some important questions.

1. What is the relationship of CO2 produced to temperature increase?

2. Does the Earth's climate have a natural equilibrium that will counteract human increases in CO2.

3. What would be the cost in decreasing the temperature by reducing CO2 emissions?

4. What would be the cost in adapting to higher temperatures?


But even with all those questions, the most important one is, should people be forced against their will to do something about CO2 emissions. For example, should people be forced against their will to pay a higher tax for electricity generated with fossil fuels? Is Fascism ok when the climate is involved? The answer is no.

Natural global warming is a veeeery slow process
Global warming is man made there's no question about it, manbearpig was right.

>xkcd

thanks for the totally unbiased and impartial interpretation of the global climate changes with no exaggerations whatsoever

>1. What is the relationship of CO2 produced to temperature increase?

Explained here
>2. Does the Earth's climate have a natural equilibrium that will counteract human increases in CO2.

Kinda. The warming temperatures and rising sea levels are how this equilibrium will be achieved. Fine for earth, not so good for us.

>3. What would be the cost in decreasing the temperature by reducing CO2 emissions?

Was recently estimated at 1-2% global product.

>4. What would be the cost in adapting to higher temperatures?

Hard to say. The warming won't be uniform. Some of the areas hit hardest will be those least able to cope with it. So you're looking at massive, possibly permanent population movements and aid programs.

> should people be forced against their will to do something about CO2 emissions

If it affects us all then yes probably. Your point about taxes, was it fascist of our governments to bring in wartime taxes?

>Explained here

Didn't let me link to skeptical science. Article is called 'How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?'. First result on google.

As the world gets warmer, the Middle East is eventually gonna become unlivable. How will Europe respond to the eventual flood of migrations?

youtube.com/watch?v=0p4drWtJ0Ug

They'll let em in.

>the Middle East is eventually gonna become unlivable
yes, it's not like there's already scientific ways to terraform fucking deserts to have vegetation
realistically, the only areas highly affected by global warming are those close to 0 altitude due to sea levels rising, and the poorest countries in Africa because they kicked white people out so there's nobody to fund the counteractions.

This is a good graphic:

bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Sorry, but it is.

fukin swag

>global warming
>real

Any method you can think of requires water. Groundwater depletion is a major factor over there. Not saying there aren't technological solutions but I don't think they scale as it stands and the countries that will need them don't have the government in place to fund such projects. Not to mention continued migration to Europe fits nicely with the Saudi and muslim brotherhood plans.

>global warming
>not a meme

It's interesting to note that graphs in these threads never cite a source.

...

>tfw 200 years of rising temperatures
>tfw comfy cozy weather is getting shorter every year
WINTER CHAN, MAKE IT STOP

>Study: Greenland ice sheet moving slower now than in the last 9000 years

wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/05/greenland-ice-sheet-moving-slower-now-than-in-the-last-9000-years/

Bear swims 50 meters to bigger hunk of ice.

scientist here, we dead.

skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

>climate """""""""""science""""""""""

humans stopping global warming is definitely a scam and impossible.

Global warming dwarfs the classic /pol issues like muslims, jews or blacks

>It's also impossible to tell without experiment as the whole system itself is complex.

Yes, just like how my computer is impossible to dismantle or build because it's very complex. Are you fucking retarded? Genuinely asking.

The climate is dynamic. In the sense that it heats and cools over periods of hundreds or thousands of years seems to me to be both reasonable and beyond dispute.

The half-truth of it is whether the 'scientific consensus' manufactured by the same god damned pieces of shit running every western nation on earth into the ground is valid. I don't think it is. If I poured as much money into research against humans being the cause as is poured into them being the cause I think the consensus picture would look a lot different. People treat 'scientists' as though they are somehow above corruption. They're not. They do it for the money. Same as you or I.

Al Gore is a retarded liberal asshole who continues to buy beach front property. He either:
a) Doesn't believe what he's saying in the slightest
b) Is on this crusade, not for the planet, but because his little piece of beach could feasibly be ruined.

Entirely self serving piece of shit. Just like almost every other liberal / leftist on earth.

...

This is a shit way to analyse statistics as you've picked an anomalously warm year as your start point for it to work. Compare the decadal average of the 90s to the 00s.