Global Warming/Climate Change

Holy shit!!!!! that graph goes back 1000 years! Wow, what a massive data set for a 4.5 billion year old planet. I guess I'm a #whoreforgore now

My question is, if global warming an SJW agenda, why is China the leader in green energy now?

This.

Where is the medieval warm period?

Yes I'll take geology for $500 Alex.

>Implying 1000 years is enough to determine a trend, let alone deviations from the trend.

Climate change is real and has been ever since the earth got its athmosphere.

The severity of the false graph? 7/10

Probably is real.
Even if it's not.
Putting people to work and creating a lot of jobs in building renewable energy sources is a great idea.
My personal favourite is dams that double up as bridges.

Pulled the graph off Google.

Climate change is so vague

Do you guys believe it's manmade?

ross mckitrick BTFO this "hockeystick" graph. it's a load of shit.

It's been proven to be real, I think your graph shows that. The question now isn't if it's real, it's if it's man made, which I sort of have to agree that it is.

Fucking Exxon found proof of it in the late 70's and started a propaganda campaign against it. So there's that.

commondreams.org/views/2015/10/14/exxons-climate-lie-no-corporation-has-ever-done-anything-big-or-bad

I didn't read that source, it's looks a bit (((liberal))), checked some of the bullet points... seems legit.

Climate changes all the time. it has never been otherwise.

Holy Shit.

Steady as a Rock!

The true redpill is that big corporations have been behind some of the worst events to unfold in our lifetime

Big corporations pushed for (((free trade))) and removing protectionist economic policies, causing millions of Americans to be offshored and displaced by H1B workers

Big corporations have cut costs to the point where every product, from milk to shampoo, is shot with xenoestrogens, causing the estrogen levels to rise in young Americans. Bring on the girls with oversized tits and beta nu males with low testosterone and high estrogen levels

Big corporations caused the financial collapse by gambling with the retirement accounts of ordinary Americans

Big corporations are pumping shit into the atmosphere and bringing on the environmental equivalent of the Great Recession in the sense that people want to deny it's happening while complete disregard of safe long-term practices is potentially going to kill us

They've been behind all of it, and yet shills keep sliding these threads as if the corporations are good boys who dindu nuffin

What the fuck is this? Who's paying you people?

Nuke china and india. Problem solved

Yes I agree, stop the coalburning

>Big corporation
I think you mean big government. A truly free market would never allow for global warming to happen.

Because they realized that giving every one of their citizens lung cancer probably isn't a good idea.

Yes it's real, pump 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere a year and the trees and ocean can only absorb 55% of it. It should be at 280 ppm and now it's over 400, and if you're saying that's part of a natural cycle you're a dumb fuck. The planet is heating up and lil' ol Kiribati here will be gone in 25 years. They're moving villages in Louisiana and Alaska already and it's not for shits and giggles.

It's not as apocalyptic as the media portrays it.
Yes global warming exist, no there isn't much we can do about it already.
1. We are slowly moving closer to the sun every single moment that this world exist.
Regardless of our effect on this planet, it will eventually get hotter on its own, there is nothing that can be done. It takes roughly 8 minutes for a light ray to hit earth, every year the tiniest fraction of that is taken off, meaning more rays at a faster rate. Mixed with the earth being hit by more rays due to larger surface area.
Google the Venus (Earth's sister planet) theory.
Venus is almost identical to Earth, the only difference is it has the extreme version of global warming (the kind the jews want you to believe) its atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide as of this point. It is also so close to the sun that it doesn't have time to ever release its heat.
Venus probably at one point contained life, maybe even human life (very possible the same asteroid belt that contained the bacteria we evolved from landed on Venus also).
However due to its closeness to the sun I doubt it ever evolved to the point of being human like we are.
I digress,
2. The earth has a natural filtration system for all toxins, planets/animals evolve to stay alive with the chemical compounds in the air and water.
We could not change this so drastically within a thousand year period without massive amounts of plants and animals dying.
Fish in particular are a good indicator because they are so sensitive to chemical alterations.
However we keep over farming fish so we don't have a chance to record in great details the effects of our pollution.

Really this all comes down to
>can we slow this down
yes
>can we prevent it or reverse it
no

Oh, shit. Thermometers caused global warming. Look at this the temperature rises right after they were invented. I can't believe no one has noticed this.

> those axes

>Libertarians are actually this retarded

Because when it's bad there it's really bad. They shut down industry when visibility and smog density rises. It's truly shit and I expect India to pass them up in tech.

Imagine the sustainability of running on poo

Of course it would. CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to make a profit for shareholders, above all else. If they don't deliver on that promise, then they get fired by the board of directors. It is in their best interest to do everything that I've mentioned since it cuts costs and increases their profit margins.

Is it the government's fault that so many corporations are importing shitskins to work high-skill jobs? The government should be putting a stop to it

Is it the government's fault that financial corporation traded with leverage of 50:1 and bankrupted themselves? Is it the government's fault that synthetic CDOs were allowed to build up to the point where the global economy was propped up on nothing more than the US housing market? The government should have had regulations to prevent this sort of behavior that went on to cripple the West for generations to come

And likewise with environmental policy. They're pulling the same shit to keep the investors happy. That's all there is to it. You think the average investor gives a fuck what happens down the road when they can't even see past next financial quarter?

Where the free market fails, we must take action

More like a combination of big (((government))) and (((corporations))). You can't have an ancap market because you'd be stupid to think the biggest fish wouldn't abuse it's power and you can't have a socialist shit market because too much power would also lead to abuse. You have to find some sort of balance with regulation and free markets. The truest red pill is that greed, self righteousness, money, power and influence make you a (((jew))) not genetics.

Recently there was a paper published on a mathematical model which accurately maps the temperatures of rocky celestial bodies, it just earth, based on only atmospheric pressure and the amount of solar radiation received.

Climate change is real but if it's man made is still debatable in light of new evidence.

It coincides with the industrial revolution, the invention of electricity, and increase in technology/consumption. Has to be man-made.

Red data collected different from blue data. Red data shows higher. Really makes one think. Although you must consider this, what if the global warming deniers are controlled opposition to turn people away from voting right?

The sea level has risen by approximately 120m in the last 20,000 years (ie average annual rise of 60mm). The sea level has risen by approximately 2mm a year since industrialization, and that is hardly out of the ordinary compared to the historic record.

Now the current rate of sea level rise likely would have been slower without human input, but it is neither unusual, nor unprecedented. In fact if anything the rates of sea level rise have been slower and more stable during the time period where humans have dominated the planet.

Yeah, huge surprise that the sea would rise when the ice sheets that covered the continents began to retreat and melt.
But you know, what, I don't care if I convince you. What's your deal? Do you hate science? Windmills? Governments?

Where is your evidence that the sea level was stable prior to industrialization?

It follows that for Kiribati to be under threat due to climate change, that it most have either been under no threat, or a greatly diminished threat prior to large scale anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Opinions incoming:

Doing a paper on this at my local goyllege actually.

So climate change is a normal and natural thing as said by some other anons in here. Yeah ice age happens every so often, blah blah, variations and extremes are normal, blah blah yada yada.

However, in the past century, we have exceed records of change exponentially, and it has a strong correlation to right about the time the industrial age came about (xfilestheme.mp3)

so yeah, climate change is real. the world is getting hotter and hotter gradually. just look for fucks sake. No one cares because eco-friendly shit doesn't make money and the elite wanna stay elite.

pro-tip: we already have technology for rail cars that could travel around the world in 4 or 8 hours or some shit. but no one wants to fund or research it because it would DESTROY the road/petrol/diesel/automobile/plane/etc industries and the elite would lose so much money from it.

I didnt realize the industrial revolution started the retreat of glaciers. wow. So the earth was a massive ice sheet its whole history until humans started exploiting hydrocarbons? Or did the dinosaurs have massive powerplants that we havent discovered?

>we have exeeded the rate of change exponentially

Prove it. Ice core data only goes back so far. Proxies for climate going back millions-billions of years dont have the resolution to support the statement you made.

> Cars caused the Ice Age and the heat that melted it

Is excess CO2 good for the environment?

No.

Should we cuck ourselves while China does whatever they want?

No.

>2000 years of climate data
>past 1600 we don't even have reliable modern like data
>1000 years is nothing in world history

Fucking kikes.

Real?

Yes.

Anthropogenic?

No.

Should we be worried either way?

No. We should be more worried about the next inevitable little ice age(s) and the next major ice age.

>Proxies for climate going back millions-billions of years dont have the resolution to support the statement you made

This is correct. Proxies if anything represent an average rate of change, even then they are imperfectly referenced against current observations. You simply cannot say with justifiable degree of confidence that the rate of change in the current observed temperature record is unusual by comparing it to proxies with limited resolution.

Incidentally I went to a lecture by an IPCC lead author (who is probably the most senior climate scientist in Australia) and he made the claim that the current observed rate of temperature change is unprecedented evidenced by European lake sediment pollen cores. His comparison was invalid because each the pollen cores represented an average record over thousands of years. I was disappointed that a senior scientist would misrepresent the both the confidence that could be placed in the data and the conclusions that could be drawn from it.

Tell people we are currently in an ice age, watch them shit their pants.
The definition of an ice age is literally ice at the poles.
At some points in earths history, earth was not in an ice age.

ice layer samples, gypsy

Because they are so reliable especially when comparing them to modern thermometers.

w.a.i.l.a?

there is no evidence to support the claim that humans are affecting in any way the temperature of the earth

>data in the red is where we "adjusted" the temperature readings to fit our hypothesis.

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

The more you know

Well they are reliable enough.

ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/reports/trieste2008/ice-cores.pdf

They're not perfect but its still good enough.

excellent retort. i see gypsies and us Americans have more in common than just our early education.

>At the highest latitudes and altitudes, they are generally the only proxy data archives available.

>he primary hindrance has been an insufficient number of records either to quantify or to improve the signal to noise ratio.

>A fundamental challengeto quantifying the uncertainties is presented by the paucity of primary instrumental climate data in the generally remote regions where ice cores are obtained; in the Antarctic, this is limited essentially to the last 50 years (Steig et al., in review).

Such reliability many amaze.

I'm not super educated on climate science, but I did study geology with an emphasis on paleoclimate and seeing high level climate scientists abuse data like that is what makes me so skeptical about climate change.

I am convinced that human activity is contributing to warming, but I have seen nothing that convinces me that the warming is unprecedented or catastrophic, and some of their predictions are just laughable. Fact is, as far as I understand it, climate is astonishingly complex, often counter-intuitive. We are far from understanding it. The level of hubris in some of the climate scientists I've seen is disturbing.

I've definitely noticed a lot more skepticism in people with a geologic background. Some say it's all the petroleum money, but I think it is being more used to looking at the big picture.

Nigger you are comparing cores of ice with at most assumptions about fossils and plant matter around the time and trying to calibrate it with modern temperature and newly formed ice.

When you are arguing changes of a few degrees Celcius is not exactly the pinnacle of accuracy or something you should really trust.

Especially when 20 years ago climate change advocates said that by now we would be under water.

Can someone explain to me why they compare the values to the average from '61-'90?

That seems like a completely arbitrary time period. Is it just that 1961 marks the start of some new paradigm of data collection? What does the grey areas on the graph represent? Uncertainty?

This is why the hockey stick graph is such a fraud. It glues high frequency data onto data that's averaged over 100s of years. Climate 'Scientists' flunk statistics 101.

Yes the grey areas are uncertainty and, as you might expect, they get bigger the further back you go. The red line represents instrumental data, rather than proxies, in this case tree rings. Its a bit odd that there isn't a figure caption explaining that in most of these graphs. Also, the tree ring data was selectively used to give the biggest uptick at the end and avoiding any major variation further back. That graph is scientific malpractice.

wow, I'm dumb, it is in the figure caption

I'm being paid by CTR. Can't speak for others.

This.

what a video.

Studying this in Uni right now:

1. Global temperature data is all bullshit, because localized temperature trends have no correlation to each other, and we only collect data for a tiny fraction of points on earth's surface

2. There is a correlation between the bullshit temperature data we have and literally everything else (as everything has been growing exponentially with population and technology since the industrial revolution), not just CO2. CO2 was specifically chosen because other gases that had been suggested as causes of climate change would cause starvation/economic-collapse in the third world if their production was limited.

3. It appears that there is an inverted exponential decay (growing to an horizontal asymptote) between CO2 levels and temperature, so a small increase in CO2 will cause a large rise in temperature, but as CO2 levels continue to increase, temperature is hardly affected.

4. That said, even tiny fluctuations in temperature can have a YUGE impact on natural processes, and fuck up whole ecosystems. eg. plants germinate at the wrong time, insects migrate at the wrong time, food chains collapse.

5. Atmospheric composition does impact heat retention (eg. venus is deadly hot, mars is deadly cold)

Protect the environment faggots, mother earth is all we got, but global warming being caused by human produced CO2 is a bunch of pseudoscience. It could be happening, but there isn't valid data to support that.

Global warming is good, it's preventing the next ice age from happening

We're in an ice age you god damn retard.

see
>
Also it means bigger agricultural profits in Afuckingleafistan and a longer mining/oil extraction season

We are in an interglacial period of the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

I guess yes, technically we are in an ice age, it's better to say that climate change is preventing us from transitioning to a glacial period.

>the btfo hockey stick graph
It's been proven that if you feed random data into that algorithm, it always returns a hockey stick shape. It's biased.

The only thing the anthropogenic global warming "theory" is built on is the logical fallacy ad argumentum numerum, or appeal to number.

Here's another example of concept floated on ad argumentum numerum alone: 1.1 billion muslims can't be wrong.

It's real, it will kill off our rapidly expanding population growth, which is in the long term a good thing.

Can you please show me the temperature 17324 years ago? For comparative purposes

...