Climate change

Red pill me on climate change.

Is the earth really dying, ozone layers going down and world gone to shit?

Or is it a big Jew lie by the megacorporations for us to recycle things for them to save production costs while racking up profits?

Any inforgraphics welcome. Seems my university is shilling to us that Climate Change is a thing because several notable (((scientists))) are vouching for it while some aren't.

Other urls found in this thread:

imagefap.com/pictures/5405273/Heidi-in-black-swimsuit
swimsuitvids.blogspot
conservativetribune.com/global-warming-farce-picture/
breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/08/climate-change-the-hoax-that-costs-us-4-billion-a-day/
wnho.net/global_warming.htm
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4
fr.pichunter.com/gallery/3181126/British_teen_Heidi_gets_horny_in_the_kitchen_
freeones.co.uk/html/h_links/Heidi_Harper/
youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/91192309
nature.com/articles/srep31245
grapevine.com.au/~pbierwirth/co2toxicity.pdf
billshoneysfree.com/heidihoneyonhoney/
forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/08/07/the-green-jobs-scam/#5b8a27bd548f
earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-31.71,69.57,512/loc=-37.208,80.621
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum#Grand_solar_minima_and_maxima
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum
friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
youtube.com/watch?v=4Ew05sRDAcU
imagefap.com/organizer/245215/Heidi
nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=711#UHI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways
joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/
worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797920904984X
climatechangedispatch.com/the-sea-level-scam/
fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=24DP1uG-MEM
worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732
dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page3.php
climateaudit.org/2015/03/19/the-implications-for-climate-sensitivity-of-bjorn-stevens-new-aerosol-forcing-paper/
jstor.org/stable/4300338?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
youtube.com/watch?v=kotqWXZkZS0
worldscientific.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/pdf/10.1142/S021797920904984X
wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/
youtube.com/watch?v=Aeoa_nQ5cHc
youtube.com/watch?v=LgyfTePw9io
forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#5fc6ed92171b
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Global_warming
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Went to Singapore once on business. Forgot my wallet so I paid the Taxi driver in Juicyfruit gum instead of cash.

Even if the world temperature is fine, you've got bigger problems.

I live right next to NOAA and you can see Climate Change occurring all over the planet. Go to Beijing and tell me cars and factories aren't visibly destroying the planet. Ask the smartest scientists on the planet (the ones involved with cutting-edge technology)

I did not know there were other pictures of this whore

Let's fuck her?

...

imagefap.com/pictures/5405273/Heidi-in-black-swimsuit

swimsuitvids.blogspot
.fr/2011/05/heidi-black-wetlook-mizuno-speedo-s2000.html

fapfapfap

It's true. but I'm not having kids, so I couldn't give a fuck. In fact, seeing all the liberals get assblasted makes me support policies that make it even worse.

I don't care.Let the next generation worry about it.

>Is the earth really dying, ozone layers going down and world gone to shit?
The Earth isn't that fragile. It survived numerous meteor strikes, one which is alleged to have created an ice age that lasted for hundreds if not thousands of years. Life as we know it might be "really dying" but not Earth.

The climate has always been changing, our continents even shift and even the north and south poles move around.

Global warming is also a natural occurrence, we're currently in a rapid spike right now due to the sun being overly active and our planets polar reversal being well over due with our magnetic field and atmosphere not deflecting as much of the suns harmful rays as it normally would.

Instead of wasting money and time on point fingers at blame we should be reshaping civilisation to deal with this because for up to 10,000 years we're going to experience a peak of +8celsius above normal levels before we sink back into a small ice age again.

conservativetribune.com/global-warming-farce-picture/

breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/08/climate-change-the-hoax-that-costs-us-4-billion-a-day/

wnho.net/global_warming.htm

anything that is suppose to "climate change" is blue pill demagoguery

Climate change is only brought up when the left wants something. They haven't mentioned anything about it in 3 years but now that Trump says he doesn't believe it's happening, the media brings it back up so they can use it against him.

Pollution certainly isn't good for anyone, but the polar ice caps aren't going to melt no matter how many scientists are paid to say they will.

>The climate has always been changing,

On complete different timescales.

...

you know what causes global warming? the sun

That girl is a fukkin qt

Probably. Follow the money. We have evidence of ExxonMobil covering up the evidence and astroturfing against renewables, climate change awareness, etc.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

If you know a little bit about science, it makes sense - the greenhouse effect has been known for over a century, and even Lyndon B. Johnson and Congress were briefed in the seventies.

The irony is that climate change is going to be the most redpilling fucking thing on the planet. Sub-equatorial shitskin societies are going to completely collapse and chimp out. Border walls, eugenics, nationalism, and nuclear energy are probably the only way to survive the coming darkness. We need to eliminate cucks and nature-worshippers; the truth is, our planet is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet, and no amount of liberal whining will save what kikes and anglos murdered for shekels and pounds.

Its real that the natural process has sped up however it is heavily over exaggerated and blamed towards the common person for driving a car when the real problem are the jewish power companies

Climate change is kind if like vaccinations, you kind of want to believe the conspiracy theorists but its a big risk if you do. Don't really want to fuck the environment and don't really want sickly children.

Plus you face ridicule for criticising either.

More people die from cold related causes than heat every year. Climate Change is saving lives.

Yes, it is changing in a negative way. But I don't believe we need to do anything about it.

The only thing that needs to be done is end oil. But you go tell (((them))) that.

4 U

She doesn't have nudes right? Shame.

IMO, is real. The mechanism (greenhouse effect) is real and well enough understood. The tl;dr being co2 traps heat. The 'cycles' of the earth and sun that we know aren't enough to account for the warming observed the past 100 years or so (am total of about 1C). So we have a mechanism for warming, and have observed above the norm. The only questions are about how bad it will be.

Does she do penetrative porn?

Yes, see pic, before industrial revolution and after industrial revolution.

>Is the earth really dying
no
>ozone layers going down
no
>world gone to shit
no

global average temperature will go up. maybe 1 or 2 degrees celsius over the next 100 years.
sea levels might rice a few centimeters, too.

climate change is happening, but it's a non-issue. adapting to it will be trivially easy for the vast majority of humanity.

also, there's no feasibly way to stop it. to actually slow it down, you would need to force the entire world to actively reduce economic activity. since we all know that this is not happening, the best course of action is to let it happen and adapt to the upcoming changes as necessary.

I don't know, I just had that picture from a long time ago.

Thanks OP. The URL helped. Still no nudes tho.

Really man?

The stupidity contained in that image is just astounding.

Climate change is literally Y2k for libtards. Nothing will happen

I meant sixties for LBJ.

>that brit tier face

christ this island sucks

This.
Many organisms will come out of the changing climate but World Economies are going to be affected.
The food surplus from California for the States is on borrowed time, they keep digging water up further and further underground but there are only so many reserves and no matter how big they are, they can't last forever at the rate farmers are pulling them up for water-intense crops like Peanuts and Walnuts that are all the rage these days.
It's going to affect the civilized world something fierce, that's why it's better to get on top of it and (A) try to affect it with technology as best as we can and (B) try to start adjusting for different climates just inc ase.
As for technologies, Solar Cells, Nuclear energy and wind turbines are all solid options with Nuclear being the best for a transition-energy while we develop Solar Cells to be better.
We can also do two things to actually manage the CO2 we put into the air: Remove it via certain types of filters and weather-balloon add-ons like China is doing with Beijing Smog AND place unique metal-alloys that perform the job of the ozone in the barren patches to 'patch up' the ozone.
You make me laugh, and I want to bang your president.


On the whole, it's good for the economy (albeit disruptive) and a safe-stance to try to prevent man-made global warming.
If the planet warms even after we repair it, then we can call it a natural cycle aspect but there's not many down-sides to taking a safe-stance on this issue.

>what are heat islands

If she was pissing in that swimsuit it would a be a 10/10 image.

Hoax created by the Chinese to cripple US manufacturing.

Would need to be a thinner material swimsuit to be 10/10. But you're still mostly correct.

>muh evil carbon dioxide even though more of it increases plant growth

You're a man of superior taste.

it's real.

It's worse and more dangerous than you think.

Factories and manufacturing plants don't tell you how much they really pollute. All the climate math is made off false pretences

yes that's true, climate is always changing

How can recycling be directly linked to jews?
I get that blm and globalism as a whole is pretty shilly.
But recycling?

It is dying. Everything is.

We all are.

>Is the earth really dying
Do you really give a fuck? We all gonna die before something actually happens to this gay planet anyway

It is very real

while I eat her out

It's a thing, but it's neither due to humans nor as pronounced as claimed.

Basically, atmospheric modeling is fucking hard. We have good algorithms for getting a general picture in the short term, but predicting things in the long term--especially accounting for extreme phenomena like hurricanes or the fertilization of South American soil by dust carried by the jet stream from Africa--is unreliable and subject to a lot of trial and error.

With global warming what happened is that models were produced that assumed certain feedback loops in the atmosphere which would magnify the effects of greenhouse gasses. Fortunately those models turned out to be inaccurate, the feedback loop didn't really exist, and temperatures remained much lower than predicted.

Unfortunately, like the anti-vaccination movement, the idea that science advances by debunking previous science is lost on the media and masses, and they kept running the same EARTH IS DOOMED narrative.

As for Jews, yes, they make a killing off goyim buying solar panels (which are actually rather messy to manufacture) and the like.

If you're worried about the environment, worry about things like the helium shortage and the drug residue in the water and the depletion of soil nutrients.

pollution is a real problem, but CO2 is not a pollutant

watch this, good introduction to all the basics of the whole thing:

youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4

I'd say actually the whole co2 thing is being used as a cover for pollution, imagine if they actually had to do something about acids, heavy metals, toxins, particles etc. instead of just buying some carbon bonds and having inneffectual meetings in bella center every couple of years

nothing wrong with solar panel when lets say you're not connected to the grid
otherwise no

My sandnigga

>stop breathing, you create co2, don't move you create heat when molocules vibrate

really makes me think

I wanna change her climate

How does people think Climate Change is a conspiracy to decrease production costs?

If anything climate standards and pollution controls are costing companies a fortune.

Aussiebro gets it.

Our earth has always experienced temperature variations. Look up Milankovich cycles.

>AWG are the anti-science ones

Nice try at reversing the roles. The models being wrong does not invalidate the theory for the very reason you stated, atmospheric modeling is hard. Now ask yourself, what is feedback? We're already seeing melting permafrost.

>the model being wrong does not invalidate the theory that the model is based on

oy vey

Party on Garth!

fr.pichunter.com/gallery/3181126/British_teen_Heidi_gets_horny_in_the_kitchen_

>1 increase degree over a period of 30 years
wow that's fucking nothing

It doesn't. The theory is based on the interaction of certain gases and certain frequencies of Infra-red. This interaction holds true. It is observed that less IR is leaving the earth than should be, with the missing bit being trapped in the atmosphere. This is the mechanism for warming unless one of you chucklefucks wants to dispute it?

also this graph didn't include the decrease of temperature from 1940 to 1970 even when global warming was supposed to happen

1 degree can fuck you up magnificently, my man.

Are you trying to say politicians, corporations and leftist government scream Global warming when it suits their narrative to push profits or influence????? Wow this is blatant name calling do you have any proofs? Yeah I think not shill harder

This all her?

freeones.co.uk/html/h_links/Heidi_Harper/

SHe looks much better in OP.

would 1 degree cooling have the same effect or just warming?
Why won't it have a positive effect?

of course man made climate change is real. how much of an impact we are having is certainly up for debate, but it doesn't even take a scientist to realize we are messing with shit, just look around. all this human pollution on a global scale is obviously going to have some impact, and the science backs it up. people who don't "believe" in it usually fall into two camps,

1. they are just ignorant or stupid. ignorant in that they are too lazy or apathetic to actually do the research but still feel qualified to argue against it, or too stupid to understand the science, and again tend to still feel qualified to argue about it.

2. they are smart and maybe even somewhat informed about the subject but are selfish enough that they convince themselves it isn't real anyway. they understand that if we collectively admit we are fucking the planet up for future generations and actually make changes to prevent it, that would mean giving up a lot of comforts. maybe you don't get to have a personal car anymore, maybe you only get a new smartphone every 3 years instead of 2, you get the idea.

I think a lot of people from Cred Forums fall into the second category and part of me even understands, i'm selfish too and don't want to give up anything. But then again i don't have or plan to have any children. Nothing is going to happen if you just accept reality here, I really don't see the world changing to stop this from happening. Scientists are pretty much in agreement minus the ones paid off from big oil and the like, and fuck all is being done, so you can relax. For those of you that have kids and are intelligent enough to understand the science though, kinda messed up to be honest, at least pretend to care about the future of your children and grandchildren

Cheers, Mario. You ain't so bad.

If you're thinking like that, then it's time to leave this place and start living

>3. People who refuse to see this as primarily scientific, with a right and wrong answer and instead treat it as a political issue

This is the crowd who take the 'skeptical' position because they think that global warming = communism.

youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Ozone layer has been recovering after the bans. Megacorps are the ones that loose out in this, they wouldn't be the ones shilling it. Earth is not dying, no matter what humans will do earth would recover, however we're shooting ourselves in the foot by damaging biosphere.

My personal opinion is that warming will only have positive effect. More ariable land, longer growth period, and if you count in the increased CO2, dramatically increased crop productivity (the optimum is around 400 ppm). It's actually cooling that fucks you up (or me I should say, you might as well be in florida).

Read this thread, specifically the posts by ID: FGAU3SO0

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/91192309

4. they're smart enough to read and understand the literature and draw their own conclusions based on the available evidence

it doesn't matter, going green is simply an excuse to be kiasu and save money

well i won't deny that some people, typically liberals in the US use climate change to further their political goals, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

>I'm smart because I believe a set of models which have yet to predict anything correctly
>only ignorant and stupid people would question the validity of such a model
wew

this is literally the exact same as the "it was cold today guess GW aint real" argument but reversed

The posts I'm talking about reference a wide variety of topics related to climate change. Again read the posts by ID: FGAU3SO0

>ozone layers going down

No. Ozone will exist as long as there is oxygen and sunlight. It's called the Chapman cycle; an oxygen molecule gets split up into oxygen atoms under the right frequency of UV light and forms ozone, which gets broken down again under influence by lower wavelengths.

The cycle is a natural process greatly influenced by our sun, and as such, the ozone layer can vary in thickness dependant on season, solar activity, geographic location, etc., etc.
It's no coincidence that the Europe usually got the bad news about the "hole in the ozone layer" in the southern hemisphere when it was the northern hemisphere's summer.
Also, a "hole" in the ozone layer is as bogus as saying there's a whole in a body of water's surface when you take a scoop out.

Carbon levels were higher during the Roman Empire than they ever were between the Industrial Revolution and RIGHT NOW. Do you know why they started calling it climate change? Because they had to save their "give us monies plz" narrative once people started realizing the ice caps were getting bigger, not smaller. It's another method of Liberal control, so they can dictate which industries and businesses get to exist.

Had it ever occured to you that the harsh opposition to global climate change is both facilitate and encouraged by those who heavily invest in petrochemical industries?

IMO, there's more of a profit motive to DENY global warming than to accept that petrochemicals are a bad idea.

> CO2 is not a pollutant

Yes

Yes it is. It is carbon once deposited to the ground being released again

We have gone from 250ppm before the industrial revolution to 400ppm today.
Even if it is a small part of greenhouse effect (water vapour is the biggest), the earth is a huge and complex system which only needs small changes to have large longterm consequenses.

Look up methane plumes on the Northern coast of Russia
Look up decreasing ice levels on Greenland
Look up average glbal temperatures.

Sure, the climate changes over the millenia, but we are pushing it to change and it will bite us in the ass

Why do you think Copenhagen is going to invest billions of crowns in flood management systems?

nature.com/articles/srep31245

>CO2 is not a pollutant
Stupidest thing I've seen all day. Read this paper:
grapevine.com.au/~pbierwirth/co2toxicity.pdf

You misunderstood. I was referrring to the group of people who see it as a partisan issue, that is 'only leftist communist faggots believe in climate change'. This kind of thinking leaves some people unable to look at evidence objectively.

It's happening, but the greenhouse effect is a lie to make the goyim blame China.

When in reality the problem is Jews bulldozing every green space in sight and putting up shitty over-priced condos (and the retards who buy them).

yeah nah he's just a sensationalizing shill

the reality is being discovered literally as we have this conversation, RIGHT NOW major discoveries are underway that will completely flip the understanding of these topics on their head and all you fucks can do is spew tired old propaganda from the 90's

if we're fucked for any reason this is it, wilful and sustained ignorance

You do know that more CO2 = more leafs = more oxygen, right?
It's almost as if the planet is self regulating.

>Had it ever occured to you that the harsh opposition to global climate change is both facilitate and encouraged by those who heavily invest in petrochemical industries?

oh that's absolutely true, but i'm more trying to talk about the people ITT as an example who aren't invested in that but still buy into it

What's your point? The claim of the guy I was replying to was:

>CO2 is not a pullutant.

That's incorrect.

>Observation reveals less IR emission than theory predicts, theory is wrong
>Observation reveals lower temperatures than theory predicts, theory is right anyway
Yes, the mechanism exists. There are also other mechanisms clearly mitigating it that we have yet to understand.
Do you think people could fly before gravity was explained?

>nature.com/articles/srep31245
And?

That wouldn't be a problem had we not bulldozed most of the world's woodlands and failed to replace most of it.

Brah...

>pic-related

>c02 is toxic in large concentrations

yeah no shit, what's that got to do with global warming? we're talking parts per million here

look up the thing I linked you that tells you everything you need to know and then get your brain out of your ass and research more

possible carly rae summers?

Real reason for "climate change".

...

It almost looks like the "too much CO2" narrative so they can destroy more trees and pollute the oceans. Because more CO2 means healthier trees and oceans, since they are carbon sinks.
Warm periodes and high CO2 levels were periodes where humans flourished.
But now we want to kill a lot of trees and oceans.
Climate change is real but beyond our control, and it doesbt have mean trouble.

underrated joke

>mitigating it

It? It as in global warming? The excess heat being trapped in leading to warming by pretty much any metric you can think of. If the sun has been ruled out, as have the Milankovitch cycles then surely it makes sense to focus on the one mechanism that could be directly responsible?

Think about it this way, if we act on co2 then we don't have to act on methane. So you can still eat meat. The longer we leave it the more drastic the action required will be.

The world is currently far more leafy than it was 100 years ago m8.

>It almost looks like the "too much CO2" narrative so they can destroy more trees and pollute the oceans.

That's some retarded projection right there user.

You do realize that most of Greenland used to be habitable in the 1000s because of the medieval maximum

We're going through a earth heating period, and the main effect of global warming is cow farts releasing tons of methane into the atomosphere, mass herding of them is our biggest problem not fucking cars, Freeman Dyson and WIllie Soon have talked about how more carbon dioxide means a greener earth which is a good thing

Climate change is definitely a thing but it's caused by chink and pooinloo factories not my fucking miata

>the world started in 1950
wew

Dude, your 0.00001% of global output is what's pushing it over the edge. We better shut down all of our industry and efficient power plants and get the chinese to do our industry for us with their inefficient power plants.

that's the third world countries, you realize we have tree farms?

glaciers have been receding since the latest lce age

Who's buying up shit from third world countries?

Jesus Christ people are fucking dense.

It's our consumer culture that's driving environmental exploitation in the third world.

It's literally caused by retards like you falling for the Jew.

thanks for this

she went full fat at 25

billshoneysfree.com/heidihoneyonhoney/

>Climate change is definitely a thing but it's caused by chink and pooinloo factories not my fucking miata

you know what pisses me off the most about this? I have heard on multiple occasions liberals in my country, the ones who are supposed to be the champions of global warming and the environment say shit along the lines of, "well we have no right to tell them to stop polluting like crazy because 100 years ago we did the same thing". even though 100 years ago we had much less knowledge about the effects that would have on the earth and they are doing it on a scale much much larger. they fucking know better and don't give a shit. fuck those shitskins.

Things are already happening

Climate change is real, global warming is not.

You want a real hot red pill? The ol' spicey redpill?

We made that hole in the ozone layer just to see if we could. It will fuck us and hard.

but I already fapped to her so all is well

Sauce

The hole in the Ozone layer has shrunk steadily since the use of CFCs became heavily regulated. It's literally a non concern at this point.

>1 degree increase over 30 years and after a minor decrease the previous 30 years
>happening

>Global Warming is caused by the greenhouse effect (ie. heat cannot escape)
>There's a hole in the ozone layer so all the heat can escape again
>Global warming stops
Warmists BTFO

Accurate measurements for these metrics did.

>your 0.00001% of global output is what's pushing it over the edge

Pretty much yes. Natural sources and sinks are larger than human activity, but before massive burning of co2 the system was about in equilibrium. That is the sinks dealt with the sources holding co2 at a constant 280ppm-ish, as it had been for most of the past million years (read the entirety of human existence). Only since the industrial revolution has it been climbing. Isotope analysis of the atmospheric co2 confirms that more and more of it % wise comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

That said, the focus should absolutely be on heavy industry and power generation first. Do what we can with them and people my be able to keep their V10s.

Whites should be using global warming as a god damn weapon against the hordes of illiterate apes that breed like rabbits.

Global warming will impact "developing" nations first, all White countries have to do is close their borders and let them get fucked back to the stone age.

The hole isn't what will kill us, it's the damage that has been done by having it in the first place.

>implying it's real
>implying a warming won't be good for first world countries

A slight historical fluctuation in incoming ultraviolet light that no longer exists is what will kill us?

I can see it being true when the summers here become unbearably hot even when its not summer it can get high. Also having maybe a 30-40 typhoon/year helps

the arrogance to think that slight disturbances would bring it "out of balance"

if that was enough to cause global disaster it would have happened by chance millions of years ago, and continued to happen naturally on a regular basis

it's a self defeating argument

>Only since the industrial revolution has it been climbing
I see, so you're basing your belief in destroying your country's industry on a hunch, two things happen at roughly the same time and you base a religion off of it.
Tell me, what model of man made climate change has been able to correctly predict anything? Since you will be unable to provide one, why should I believe in your hypothesis? Why should I destroy my country to appease your hunch?

I am disappoint. Swimsuit girl was one of best 3d girls.

Has every girl on the net done porn?

Global warming is good for first world countries, the world has over a billion people living in land that will be swallowed by the oceans with increasing Temps.

FUCK EM, you ain't getting my parents' tax money apes.

>Cred Forums is all about reason and evidence
>unless it's climate change, then the scientists are working for the [boogeyman relevant to discussion] and their data and conclusions are faulty

he conveniently leaves out the parts prior to the industry where it was also climbing, and the ones after where it was dropping

global cooling was the scare in the 60's and 70's

the temperature has currently stabilized for an unknown amount of time in anticipation of some great change, probably the next ice age

enjoy the warm summers while they last

Ozone hole was a hoax targeted at driving out competition by Dupon and Imperial Chemical Industries.

>White countries have to do is close their borders and let them get fucked back to the stone age.

never gonna happen mate. the traitors among us have too much power and want to let the hoards in

that's what a reasonable reading of the evidence shows, yes

you're just like a shill who would call a holocaust denier irrational, or a race realist irrational

...

That's not the case, Bill Nye doesn't have the academic credence to say it's axiomatic

The fact that there's reputable scientists like Freeman Dyson questioning the models because it's blown out of proportion.

OMG she looks so much like my ex gf..

this whole thing is about muh carbon dioxide boogyman, not that

May or may not be good for India.

If all the trash in the shitholes die then it may cleanse the country.
Won't solve their problems though, they will continue to generate their waste and in maybe a hundred years they'll be just as populated and even more cramped.

Same with America, most Mexicans will probably flood into this country.

what if just reducing co2 will do none of those things? which it won't

I beIieve you, but I need sources to prove it to friends.
Sources?

So what did these climate summits actualy acomlish? Renewables are the way to go though, but still far from being commercialy viable.

Dude, the science is settled!

>better world
>one without energy
wew

>then the "scientists"
Good goy, remember to smoke 10 a day so your bones grow big and strong. :^)

>what if none of it actually matters and we move to inferior technology and destroy jobs for no benefit whatsoever to anyone

This.

The former head of Greenpeace quit because the entire movement had been usurped by communist ideologues and nobody actually gave a shit about the environment anymore.

You will never have a clean environment as long as you have Jews.

You must have missed the bit about isotope analysis confirming the co2 in the atmosphere is increasingly from burning fossil fuels (ie. human activity).

>if that was enough to cause global disaster it would have happened by chance millions of years ago, and continued to happen naturally on a regular basis

There have been huge shifts in the climate in the past but they don't just come about for no reason. This time, we are the reason. The earth will be able to cope at way higher levels of co2 than we are currently at. But it will look very different to today. This is why it is an issue. We struggle to feed everyone here as things stand. The places likely to be hit hardest are those least able to deal with it. So they'll all be moved here. At best this sets humanity back hundreds of years.

>that's what a reasonable reading of the evidence shows, yes

so you didn't read the evidence. someone in high school would have an easy time coming to the same conclusion the best climate scientists have. you read one or two pieces of propaganda funded by some oil company and think yourself an expert. if you had gone over the data you would know how painfully obvious it is, and how stupid you sound right now

Also
>green jobs
forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/08/07/the-green-jobs-scam/#5b8a27bd548f

if you think carbon dioxide is the cause of this, it's a shitty greenhouse gas
heat islands caused by cities, solar cycles and water vapor all have more effect

>implying it will be your decision

I meant their human waste and disgusting polluted waters and streets.

We're heading into a grand solar minimum indicating future, lower temperatures around the globe.

Global warming per se was not a hoax, it was just a sensational theory which has unraveled itself into fiction. Of course greedy assholes took advantage of it and continue doing so.

At what point did I mention CO2. We're talking about muh man made climate change. The climate change is not the CO2.
Maybe your terrible reading comprehension explains your blind belief.

What? co2 is what causes man made climate change. You can't talk about one without the other. Well you can but you'd likely be talking shit.

Solar cycles (that you refer to here) are only wat, 7 or 11 years long?

>muh co2

lol, you're buying a lie

>Solar cycles (that you refer to here) are only wat, 7 or 11 years long?
Oh, about a century...

Keyword : GRAND

Yet no models of man made climate change have been able to predict anything other than their initial conditions.
It's almost as if the two aren't as closely related as you believe them to be.

>boogeyman
lmao they aren't working for the boogeyman, they are working for the jews
jesus retards these days

Sick of hearing about >muh ice caps

They're going to melt. That's what happens when you come out of an ice age.

The definition of an ice age is literally 'permanent ice' on the surface of the planet.

The caps are melting, the north pole is melting faster than the South pole is gaining ice. Global ice mass is decreasing, according to NASA.

stfu you have no idea

Yeah I bet you also believe we went to the moon, cuck.

girls like to try porn. they like sex, or rather guaranteed good sex and money, and they either get unnoticed after doing a few videos, or they become famous. Plus, they know that there will always be a man ready to provide for them, since today most men accept that the woman they provide for had a sexual past.

no, co2 is what trees eat to produce oxygen.

They take Carbon dioxide, and release the dioxide after a reaction (photosynthesis) as two separate oxygen atoms which then conbine or convert carbon monoxide into dioxide and the cycle begins anew.

If you inhale O2 you output cO2, so you see, we need trees, and smoke creates more trees, and trees need us.

Green parties are as much communist death cults as freemasons are satanic.
Most of them don't understand it and see it as a way to survive in the world, but the people at the top are all pure evil.

>co2 a lie

In what way? It is a ghg. The greenhouse effect is real. Human activity is leading to accumulation of co2.

I suggest you google 'radiative forcing'. THe effect of co2 alone is pretty well known . The hard part is modeling what else may result. IPCC models put the warming between 1.5-8 degrees by 2100. Even 1.5 is an issue and the warming doesn't magically stop there.

Got a link?

check this out

earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-31.71,69.57,512/loc=-37.208,80.621

>Got a link?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum#Grand_solar_minima_and_maxima

>Red pill me on climate change.
Climate changes naturally all the time, fossil records prove that. That said, pollution control is common sense.
>Is the earth really dying
Don't be stupid, of course it isn't
>ozone layers going down
No, it's repairing since the ban on CFCs
>world gone to shit
That one is true, but is mostly political, little to do with actual climate change.

Nature itself produces over 750 billion tons of CO2 per year while all of human activity combined produces 24 billion. This combined with seeing myself how once formally isolated weather stations have been swallowed up into urban heat islands have lead me to be sceptical of any man-made climate change bull.

Having said that, I am an advocate of pollution control. The ban on CFCs made sense as did acts for clean air and clean water. Spilling chemicals into rivers and filling our lungs with smog is beyond stupid. The hippies used to go on about this all the time, which made a bit of sense to me, but then for some reason decided to change to pushing this sensationalist climate change nonsense. Surely photos of rivers filled with junk or turning pink with poison is a far more effective than some graph saying temperatures MIGHT rise 1 degree in 100 years time?

yeah but the effect of co2 as a greenhouse is small

The earth wont die for a long time, its us that are going to die when earth turns hostile to current life.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum

>The Modern Maximum refers to the period of relatively high solar activity[1] which began with Solar Cycle 15 in 1914. It reached a maximum in Cycle 19 during the late 1950s and may have ended with Cycle 23 in 2000 as Cycle 24 is recording, at best, very muted solar activity.

So we're out of the maximum? Besides, the link between solar activity (sunspots) and global warming is minimal at best. Some of the hottest years on record have been after 2011.

>IPCC models
The same models which have failed to predict anything correctly?
You're going to believe a prediction 100 years in the future, made by a model which can't even predict 10 years in the future?

I know that you fully believe what you are saying but let me show you how ridiculous you sound.

I have a theory that rubber tyres are causing global cooling. To demonstrate I take you to my lab and start stretching bits of rubber, letting them sit and then letting them contract. Doing this I'm able to reduce the temperature of some object by 10 degrees.
You're convinced that the effect is real.
I say look, all these rubber tyres, they're getting stretched when people are driving then cooling the planet when they stop driving.
I say look at this model, made by this man from the plastic tyres industry, it says that the global temperature will decrease by 2 degrees by 2100 if nothing is done!
Ten years later you look back at the predictions made by the model and see that they don't align with reality at all. You dismiss this because you were convinced by what the man showed you in his lab. You are convinced that, even though the model has yet to be correct, that in 100 years it will be correct.
You then go on the internet and shitpost about how the rubber menace is out to get you and try to convince people that rubber made climate change is real because of what you saw in the lab.

Do you appreciate how ridiculous you sound?

I have the theory that a jew body produces really high pollution when it's exposed to fire.
So yeah, it was Hitler who produced the climate change

>still believing in CFC hoax

There has not been an increase in solar activity.

And sure, global temperature seems to be cyclic, but the current change is quite fast and coincides very nicely with our emissions. It might be that our activity increases the frequency and amplitude of the cycle.

Just because it has happened before and is mostly natural doesn't mean it's not potentially dangerous. Even if it were 100 % natural, we still would have an incentive to stop it.

how about you just do research and form your own opinion as opposed to asking random people for their opinions?

>and coincides very nicely with our emissions
it doesn't though it only coincides very roughly

Assuming zero positive feedback (unlikely) you get an extra 1.4C average for each doubling of co2 over pre-industrial levels. Where (if anywhere) would you suggest humanity decides enough is enough?

>current change is quite fast
The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.

Sorry I forgot my name

source of that quote?
I need sources for shit to convince peopIe.

shit senpai. thats a milf tier president.

friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

>Do you appreciate how ridiculous you sound?

holy shit the irony here is unreal. why do you insist on arguing about something you have clearly done no research on? just like arguing for the sake of it or what?

>Besides, the link between solar activity (sunspots) and global warming is minimal at best.
so our source of heat dimming is insignificant but co2 in the atmosphere will kill us all... ok

And why do you think I've done no research on the matter?
Because I don't believe in models which have yet to make one true prediction?

well when you put it like that...

no. Certainly no more ridiculous than saying that every scientific body is conspiring with the UN to slow down global development cause reasons.

I've said already and will keep saying

We know co2 is a ghg
we know the greenhouse effect is leading to heat being trapped
we know human activity is responsible for increasing the atmospheric concentration of co2. This is enough for me.

jew body decreases temperature
wtf based Hitler protecting us from evil global warming

I like Jurassic Park's perspective that the world will be okay no matter what, if we kill ourselves and suffocate with Co2, LOTS of plants will benefit and benefit even more with less Ozone and a higher radiation amount from the sun.

Life itself will go on, you just can't be greedy and cherry pick your own life.

user, everyone profits of something.

To say, climate change is true, because people loose money when it's true, doesn't make any sense.

There is also a whole new greedy industry behind "climate change".

So, your argument is not valid, look at the facts.

climate change is the euphemism for a globalist kike plot in order to tax human activity

it has no grounding in science, this planet has been fluctuating between warm and cold periods since time immemorial, we are merely experiencing one of those cycles

minarchy can't come soon enough, UN needs to die asap, it has become nothing but a new age platform for niggers, sandniggers and death cultists

>every scientific body
It isn't every scientific body though, is it. It's only a fraction of so-called "climate scientists". I also didn't mention the UN.

>I've said already and will keep saying
We know that rubber cools down when relaxed
We know the first law of thermodynamics
We know that human activity is responsible for increasing the road concentration of rubber. That is enough for me.

>who makes the solar panels and wind turbines which need replaced every 5-20 years.

youtube.com/watch?v=4Ew05sRDAcU

here, this is my favourite tin foil hat

Look at this image: The trend is increasing even though at parts it decreases.

You're not going to convince anyone based on quotes when they can see the truth in a simple image.

I can't wait until we burn up all our fossil fuels and realize that nothing bad happened

because if you had done the research and had an iq above 70, which i think you probably do, you wouldn't be saying the things you are saying. the models are getting better but they still aren't very good, something climate scientists readily admit. however man made climate change is painfully easy to spot. pinning down exactly what is going to happen and when as a result of it, that's another matter and something up for debate.

what isn't up for debate is that humans are fucking with the climate, and while we may not be sure of all the consequences, since our entire society is built based on the current climate, any change is going to give us issues.

imagefap.com/organizer/245215/Heidi

For decades it was:

1. Erma Gerd, ICE Age is a coming!!! WE GOTTA DO SUMPTINK!!

2. Then somehow, for decades now, it changed Erma Gerd, the pola bears be drowning an shit... WE GOTTA DO SUMPTINK!!

3. Now the data suggests the world is cooling or no longer heating up... Its Erma Gerd, the climate is changing... WE GOTTA DO SUMPTINK!!

Well shit...

What is odd is we, globally, did NOTINK to "change" the course of either 1 or 2...According to the left/media over the decades. Or any other asshole seeking to capitalize on this profitable new age religion. Its all about money and power. No one gioves a fuck about the pola beerz. Especially the dudes flying around in provate jets to talk about how you need to start riding a bike.

The variation due to solar cycles is roughly 2w/m2 on an irradnaince of 1350w/m2.

This is not enough to account for the observed warming.

nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

>You're not going to convince anyone based on quotes when they can see the truth in a simple image.
yes but the peopIe I'm specificaIIy trying to convince are physics honours students at university and they are gonna ask for sources to graphs etc too.

...

>Photosynthesis mention ONCE in entire global warming thread.
>It was you

idiots

So you're saying "I fell like it's true therefore it's true and it's no longer up for debate".
You've admitted yourself that the models are wrong and that no one has been able to find any mechanism.

Why should anyone believe your hunch?

>le oil company fund

the opposition is not funded by the oil companies, they are fired from their jobs and have no money whatsoever, ironically, environmental groups and people like al gore, are

The source for global temperatures is NASA and it's all freely available: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

the solar connection is not from direct irradiance you retard

Yes, 60 million years ago we had a mass extinction. Do you want to follow that trend too?

friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=711#UHI

yeah but what about these ones

>It isn't every scientific body though, is it. It's only a fraction of so-called "climate scientists". I also didn't mention the UN.

One decent scientific body that dispute it? (by decent I mean one that had credentials to put on the line, not teh NIPCC or related bodies formed specifically to contend the science). Show me one national academy for example.

Your rubber analogy makes no sense. The heating in the rubber is due to the stretching ie. adding energy to the system. The cooling is this energy radiating away as it returns to it's natural state. There is no external source of heat being applied to the rubber nor any change in the chemical composition of the rubber that makes it a better storage medium for heat.

This is excellent news. To celebrate, I'm going to dump some used motor oil down a storm drain because apparently actions no longer have consequences.

The problem exists with the models based off of natural CO2 degasification being in the MegaTons while studies have shown it to be in the GigaTons. If we accept CO2 as the boogey man, we must honestly consider this discrepancy. A common argument is that man is producing much more than the earth was intended to handle.This argument holds up well in a representative graph, and when considering the carbon cycle (gotta save the sea shells). However, when considering the GigaTon model, the argument showing mans CO2 production being many times greater than that of the earth becomes impossible to accept.

Astrobio. "Volcanoes Ate Oxygen."Astrobiology Magazine. Astrobiology Magazine, 12 Aug. 2005. Web. 06 Dec. 2014. .
Casey, Timothy. "Consulting Geologist."Volcanic Carbon Dioxide. Consulting Geologist, 07 June 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. .
"Explorations."NOAA Ocean Explorer Podcast RSS. NOAA, 06 Dec. 2014. Web. 06 Dec. 2014. .
Hemsbury, D. J., Palmer, M.R., and Fones, G.R., Rates and mechanisms of oxygen consumption in the marine environment: Goldschmidt Conference Abstracts, p. 1006
"Volcano World."Submarine Volcanoes. Univeristy of Oregon, 01 Jan. 2014. Web. 06 Dec. 2014. .
"Welcome to the USGS - U.S. Geological Survey."Welcome to the USGS - U.S. Geological Survey. USGS Faq, 07 Jan. 2014. Web. 06 Dec. 2014. .

what? nowhere did i say hunch or feelings. i said if you looked at the data, did the research it would be painfully obvious to you. there's no hunch, the data is out there. you are arguing like you have been through it when you clearly have not, because you keep using words like feelings and hunches.

i also never said the models are wrong, only that they aren't very good. those are not the same thing.

bottom one takes place over 800,000 years
no major extinction, just look at the trend

What are you trying to prove? That it's warm near fire? That's probably why temperatures are measured on meteorological stations in the middle of nowhere.

>1. Erma Gerd, ICE Age is a coming!!! WE GOTTA DO SUMPTINK!!

Was never the consensus

>3. Now the data suggests the world is cooling or no longer heating up... Its Erma Gerd, the climate is changing... WE GOTTA DO SUMPTINK!!

The 'global warming has stopped' takes an interesting interpretation of statistics. How can the warming have stopped 18 years ago when 9/10 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 2000 for example?

honestly, this goes over my head and i have to go to bed now
bye

$0.02 have been deposited into your account

Solar conncetion? The graph shows the variance in the suns output over the course of the solar cycles. This variance isn't enough to account fro the observed warming. If we rule out Milankovitch cycles too what does this leave?

Whether or not you believe in climate change, why would you want to allow companies free reign to destroy the earth. Money is not real, the earth is.

Easy to dismiss as 'appeal to authority' when your side hasn't a single authoritative voice arguing its point. Fits well with the global conspiracy too. Appealing to authority is fine unless YOU can show the fault with the authority's reasoning.

My point was that just because it has happened before does not mean that we want it to happen again. Global warming might be 100 % natural, maybe even inevitable, but it is still going to have destructive effects on our agriculture and we have reasons to try to prevent it from happening.

>One decent scientific body that dispute it?
Most scientific bodies don't have a position on it either way. The only thing "climate scientists" agree on is that climate change is real. I agree. Even your muh 93% figure demonstrates this.

>Your rubber analogy makes no sense
Again your reading comprehension has failed you or you're autistic.

You believe in a model because you've seen something in a lab - CO2 directly causing temperature increase.
You've seen that the models aren't correct yet you believe that they will be correct in 100 years because of your belief that what you saw in the lab can be extrapolated to the whole atmosphere.
You blindly repeat your mantra that CO2 exists therefore man made climate change exists.

No, you said that if you look at the data then take a leap of faith that it would be painfully obvious.
If the models can't predict anything then they are wrong, not "not very good". The models don't roughly follow the real data, the miss it completely.

>Money is not real

DELETE THIS.

>Go to Beijing and tell me cars and factories aren't visibly destroying the planet.

Nobody is disputing garden variety pollution.

>destructive effects on our agriculture
shouldn't a warming be a beneficial effect?

>Appealing to authority is fine
>YOU must do all the work at my demand :^)

just stop trying, you have discredited yourself enough already

Ask the farmers in Sahara.

Icecap melts, sea level doesn't really change nobody is flooded out.
Equals..PANIC IT IS CLIMATE WARMING TIME AGAIN!
40 years ago the 'experts' predicted a return to the ice age.
Therefore; no cunt fucking really knows anything.

There is FAR more money being spent to promote climate change fanaticism than there is opposing it.

>on record
>air temperature data only reaches back 2 centuries

Not an argument.

Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warmingsince 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

>No, you said that if you look at the data then take a leap of faith that it would be painfully obvious

alright you gotta be trolling. not gonna argue with you if you clearly can't be bothered to even do the research. you just assume it's based on feelings or leaps of faith because reasons and can't be assed to look it up yourself. come the fuck on, if you aren't trolling I can't even think of a word to describe how stupid you are acting

Here's what we know.

USGS accepts an annual output of volcanic carbon dioxide to be between .26 - .76 Gt vs 35 Gt from anthropological sources. (Data from seven active volcanoes, and three hydrothermal vents)

Does not take into account carbon dioxide contributed from faulting events or from CO2 produced from volcanic activity that only includes degassing

Grossly neglects the scope and amount of sub-oceanic volcanoes

Ignores any volcanic activity at divergent plate boundaries

Under the Sea

Estimated 3,477,403 million sub-oceanic volcanoes

4000 volcanoes per million km2 in the pacific

Conservative estimates put the active level at around 4%, or, 139,096 active

Apply the average output of similar, average mid-oceanic emissions (Kilauea 870 kT annually) We arrive at 121 Gt annually, almost 4 times the amount of anthropogenic CO2.

Ignoring all by significant outgassing events, we arrive at 24.2 Gt annually.

Sources provided in an earlier post.
Science is not science unless it is understood to be falsifiable, and thus, scrutinized. That is the reason creationism (not equivocating the two) is not taught as a science. Dramatic Climate Deviation (current term?) is being treated more closely to an institution than a field of study. We understand the processes involved, but we haven't even come to terms with the inputs to come to a definitive conclusion.

On the 'It is real' side we have

Royal Society
National Academy of Sciences
NASA
American Chemical Society
American Physical Society

On the other hand we have???

>:You believe in a model because you've seen something in a lab - CO2 directly causing temperature increase.

Wrong. I believe that there is a physical process, consistent with first principals, that shows that certain gases are capable of, and do, trap IR radiation.

I also accept the global climate is one of the most complex models we currently consider and as such errors are likely IN MODEWLING it. This doesn't change the validity of the science.

Whereas you've offered nothing at all to the thread and avoided the one direct question? Good job Agner.

Yeah, nothing is permanent..

There are many species that actually 'choose' their gender by how hot/cold it is.

1 degree is enough to throw that cycle off and make more males than females.

I'm inclined to believe in man made climate change, but, to be fair, those same institutes would also claim that there are no differences between races.

...

>1 degree is enough to throw that cycle off and make more males than females.

ROASTIES BTFO BY GLOBAL WARMING

I don't even know why people herd stuff, we have shops for a reason

Here we go, back going around in circles.
There is no predictive model of man made climate change.

Again, why should I believe in a model which has failed to predict anything other than it's initial conditions? Because it will hurt your feelings if I don't?
If you've developed a model on your own which has predicted something correctly then I'll believe you. Until then you're just saying "have blind faith or else I'll accuse you of being a troll".

>climate change is man made climate change
wew

Again, "I saw something in a lab so I can extrapolate the model to the whole atmosphere even though my model doesn't actually match up with reality"

>This doesn't change the validity of the science.
Correct, playing with false models doesn't make them any more valid.
The models are not "just a little off". They predict change when there has been no change and when they do correctly predict that there will be change, the predicted change is wildly off from the real change.

You're saying "I believe this model because it's accurate in a lab, even though it is completely wrong when extrapolated to the atmosphere".
Are you also an Einstein denier? Newtonian gravity is accurate over small distances but inaccurate over long distances. Does this mean that GR is wrong?

Provide ONE model of man made climate change which has predicted anything beyond linear terms.

Most of these volcanoes you mention are unda da sea right? Thus they'd fall under emissions from the sea, or around 300GT a year. But over millennia the earth had adjusted to it's current temperature and geography to balance this. So we had a system, almost in balance (at least in terms of atmospheric co2) that we started adding co2 to. This new source of co2 was enough to knock the system of balance, leading to accumulation.

>Science is not science unless it is understood to be falsifiable

Would tend to agree. But proper falsification to the level that skeptics demand would require another earth no? So falsifiability here is impossible wouldn't you agree?

I suspect most wouldn't offer an opinion on race unless pressed. They all actively pursue research relating to global warming though.

yeah neither did i, i was so excited to find this on pol like 2 weeks ago. i reposted it a couple times and every time people (you'd) me being like woah, where do i know that whore from.

I can't find controlled and annual atmospheric temperature tests, but there's lots of data on land and ocean temperatures. Both of which have increased, and I'm sure you'd agree that ocean temperatures are not subject to the urban heat island effect.

>accumulation
There is no correlation between increased CO2 from manmade sources and an increase in either warming of the earth or in catastrophic weather events.

yeah I guess, but artic and temperate locations have most to gain
going full circle. co2 hardly doesn't cause climate change

But you fail to mention that the Chapman cycle is horribly interfered with by CFC's and other things of that nature?

It's a natural process, just like the water cycle. But when you mess with one part, you are bound to mess up with another and get acid rain.

I offered plenty you just ignored it like shills always do

"The planet is fine, the people are fucked."

Discard the model all you like. Do you need a model of gravity to know you'll accelerate towards earth if you jump off a cliff?

>muh models
>muh models
>MUH MODELS

This really is all you have to go on huh? Like you're not even going to try dispute that co2 is a ghg or that we have led to a build up of it in the atmosphere? As long as the modes are wrong you're right, right?

Here are the current models.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways

if the models are wrong then there can be as much greenhouse gas as there wants to be, it still will not cause the predicted outcome

you need to try harder

>The oceans as measured by ARGO are warming, but that warming is not only far less than the models predicted, it is far less even than the instrument error.
joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/

Sure there is. Radiative forcing.

Did you? Did you really user?

>human co2 is too low to matter

Nope. >not an argument

Did I miss something?

The 300GT is also based off of the commonly accepted model of degasification. The US institutions you mentioned, along with the USGS, all base there data off of a single commonly accepted study (ten sources, aireal, subaireal, and sub oceanic providing for the mix). That single study was from 2001, and then referenced by another study in 2011 from the same researcher. So, again, divergent plate boundaries were ignored. All I am saying is that we still grossly neglect proper inputs. Very few actual studies are being performed, and this have evolved into a political battle. And no, we do not need a new earth. We need to trash data 'A' when data 'B' proves otherwise and vice-versa. You simply cannot have accurate models without proper inputs.

To you point, however, I will go and explore the complexities of the suboceanic 300GT figure, because I need clarity on that point.

I need the correct model of gravity if I want to land something on mercury.

>This really is all you have to go on huh?
You're the one trying to convince me that your model is correct. The mathematical sciences don't work by saying "I feel like this should be true, so it must be true regardless of our inability to make our hypothesis match reality"

>Here are the current models.
>almost every possible future trajectory
Yeah, very accurate, not blindly stabbing at the dark. :^)

The fact that oceans are rising at ever increasing rates is pretty strong evidence that the ocean warming is happening.

They're also """models""" of CO2 levels, not of man made climate change. Your reading comprehension problems are flaring up again.

we've gone from 250 to 400 ppm
150 ppm rise

We've used up about half of earths fossil fuel resources

550pm by burning it all it should be

but why 1250??????

Global Warming isn't man made. Who ever says it is, is misinformed.

>Yeah, very accurate, not blindly stabbing at the dark. :^)

You realise the graphs are showijng co2 concentraiton, not temperature right? these are the 4 working models the IPCC use, one (8.5) is inaction. ie co2 production continues at present rate. the 'best case scenario' is a drastic reduction in co2 starting yesterday. The two in the middle are varying levels of action.

Stop focusing on models. Is the science correct at a basic level, yes or no? If you accept 'yes' then the only question is how much warming, not will it happen or not.

We'd used about half til the shale revolution. That'll give us a few more decades at least.

actually, you dont need the correct model of gravity to land on mars, the moon, or mercury. NASA still uses Newtons for this, because nothing more accurate is needed. either way, its not like its impossible without a model at all. though much more expensive, all you really need is trial and error.

>Your reading comprehension problems are flaring up again

What the fuck are you arguing? We are literally posting about the same thing. At most, in an earlier post, I mentioned anthropogenic sources, variances in the numbers, and the representative amounts versus natural sources.

>You realise the graphs are showijng co2 concentraiton
>these are the 4 working models the IPCC use
Yeah, so accurate, there will be anywhere from no change and 4-fold increase. We can sure make predictions based on that.

>stop focusing on predictions
>now believe the predictions
>Is the science correct at a basic level, yes or no?
The question is whether or not your lab model extrapolates to the whole atmosphere. The fact that after decades no such model exists suggests that your lab model does not extrapolate to the whole atmosphere.

I think you have no idea how mathematical sciences work.

The point is that just because you have a model accurate at one scale doesn't mean it applies at other scales. Take QM as another example if you want. There are plenty of other models which are accurate around one set of parameters and wildly wrong elsewhere.

I didn't mean to reply to you.

Please tell me there is porn/videos of here somewhere. On the blog website I see the admin talking about how she is interested in doing everything up to adult videos so there has to be something somewhere. Help an user out.

The real tragedy of this whole situation is the notion that Cred Forums is a functional crowd sourcing board and the archive feature serves as a knowledge works system but nobody really learns a good damn thing.

I was gonna say, If your going to fuck me, at least kiss me first.

>radiative forcing
Except a congressional inquiry into this found that wasn't the case and that there is no correlation between increased CO2 and an increase in catastrophic weather events such as hurricanes. It's just not statistically provable. We know from the predictive modals that CO2 amounts in the atmosphere do not have a direct correlation with the earth's warming when using the most accurate data which is satellite heat maps.

>ID
>again
that was my 1st post in the thread
>just stating facts faggot
the climate model for Co2 greenhouse gas effect is incorrect and that's why no models are accurate without fudging the data...
>worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797920904984X

Duke University says warming ifs a function of the amount of radiation the Earth is taking from the sun. The earth is undergoing a magnetic pole shift right now. This is why the northern lights are moving more south recently(this study predicted this in 2008-09). The sun's radiation is at a minimum but that doesn't matter when the earth was blocking more radiation and now is letting more through.

>lol nope
>long list of quotes

great argument mate

Jesus you're a dumb-dumb. The IPCC cannot control global carbon emissions, so have modeled 4 different scenarios, one where nothing is done and carbine emissions increase. One with drastic global action to reduce emissions. And two in between. You really struggling with this? What the fuck would have been the point in just modeling best case scenario if everybody decided to do nothing?

>The question is whether or not your lab model extrapolates to the whole atmosphere

Yes because co2 acts differently in a lab when somebody watches it to when it is in the atmosphere. Probably something do do with quantum weirdness...

A link posted above had a short video of her pouring honey on her tits and vag.

He literally said "I didn't mean to reply to you." And pole shifts are a pretty cool. The FE arrangement in minerals flip, allowing us to track pole shifts over time.

climatechangedispatch.com/the-sea-level-scam/

Actually I just found her porn name. On the blog it says her name was "Heidi Black" but nothing except bbc came back for that but then user posted a pic with "Heidi Harper" in the corner and ta-da I found her. Only softcore or solo shit though.

forgot this
fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

So basically they can't predict anything.
Okay.

>Yes because co2 acts differently in a lab when somebody watches it to when it is in the atmosphere.
The quasi-static approximation works well at low frequency but is wrong at high frequency, does that mean that electrons behave differently at different frequencies?
No, it just means that the quasistatic approximation is only an expansion of the "correct" model around low frequencies.
It's nothing to do with "CO2 acting differently". It's that your model may only be accurate around small volumes bounded. It's demonstrably wrong at large topologically different volumes.

Attention young faggots.

You will not live forever.

Future generations will not build monuments in your honour for stopping climate change.

They will blame you for the climate change.

Plus niggers and arabs like it hot so just see climate change as doing our future masters a favour.

I think I've done this thread over 100 times.

Am I just not making my case well?

>Except a congressional inquiry into this found that wasn't the case and that there is no correlation between increased CO2 and an increase in catastrophic weather events such as hurricanes.

I was going to ask you to go on until I noticed your crafty switch tactics

>I'll make it about hurricanes instead of temperature as I've been comprehensively BTFO

>We know from the predictive modals that CO2 amounts in the atmosphere do not have a direct correlation with the earth's warming when using the most accurate data which is satellite heat maps.

Please. For your own sake read a little abojut radiative forcing. pls.

>Duke University says warming ifs a function of the amount of radiation the Earth is taking from the sun.

Link? Cause NASA say the opposite, that the variation in soalr activty isn't enough to account for the warming.

nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

From the master of them, thanks.

youtube.com/watch?v=24DP1uG-MEM

listen you bloddy cunt
carbon dioxide is a really shitty greenhouse gas and will not cause global warming
global warming isn't even bad, more arable land

Im confused what are you quoting?

Think of all the cool new plants and animals that will come of a hotter and higher co2 levels.

Few thousand more years of polluting and we could be dinosaurs.

>Am I just not making my case well?
Pretty much, you're telling people to simultaneously ignore the models and believe the models.

Go to any college that focuses on research. Scientists will make up shit just to keep their research funded. They will tell all of their employees to report false or even contradiction info to a topic just to keep cash flow.

It's just a bunch of professional students getting paid for nothing.

Comfy as fuck

my fault. i just got this Cred Forums chrome extension and it is fucking everything up. just trashed it
the study on aerosols from last year has been peer reviewed thoroughly now and it is stronger than it was when it was published. climate change is partially human caused but most of human effects(next to nothing) come from aerosols, not Co2
>worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732

>dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/

>earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page3.php
>climateaudit.org/2015/03/19/the-implications-for-climate-sensitivity-of-bjorn-stevens-new-aerosol-forcing-paper/

not to mention plants grow faster in high co2 environments

>climatechangedispatch.com/the-sea-level-scam/

>A conclusion from the Scafetta paper has implications for climate model predictions: “at scales shorter than 100-years, the measured tide gauge accelerations are strongly driven by the natural oscillations of the climate system (e.g. PDO, AMO and NAO). At the smaller scales (e.g. at the decadal and bi-decadal scale) they are characterized by a large volatility due to significant decadal and bi-decadal climatic oscillations. Therefore, accelerations, as well as linear rates evaluated using a few decades of data (e.g. during the last 20-60 years) cannot be used for constructing reliable long-range projections of sea-level for the twenty first century.”


Here is the most imporant line in this article. Thier bottom line. You cannot measeure climate change or its impacts over a scale of a hundred years or so. This is all the data we have though. So this line of argument boils down to 'do othing fore 300 years til we have more data'. Do you see the issue here?

Even the paper the article cited,

jstor.org/stable/4300338?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

boils down to this same reasoning.

>There is no clear proportional exponential increase in the rate of sea-level rise. If proportionality exists among sea level, atmospheric CO2, and temperature, there may be a significant time lag before an anthropogenic increase in the rate of sea-level rise occurs.

It doesn't however attempt to use this uncertainty to dismiss the entire greenhouse theory.

>It's demonstrably wrong at large topologically different volumes.

It's not though. Satellites directly observe a discrepancy in the amount of IR leaving the earth compared to what should be leaving the earth. This missing IR is being absorbed and re-emitted by atmospheric co2. It is known.

sorry. Was quoting this guy.

I admit the models have been wrong. It is a complex system. The principals behind the models are sound and demonstrable though.

>Do you see the issue here?
No, operating on icorrect assumptions can lead to potentially disastrous consequences.

>demonstrable
Except it was demonstrably false. The modals predicted a temperature change in correlation to CO2 levels that hasn't occurred.
Therefore the predictions are demonstrably false.
Did you mistype?

>It's not though
Okay, show me one correct predictive model then. If the world is as simple as you believe it to be this should not be a problem. Until you do this you're telling everyone to believe you on blind faith.

>The principals behind the models are sound and demonstrable though.
The quasistatic approximation is accurate at low frequencies that doesn't make id accurate at high frequencies.
The principles are only demonstrable in a lab. The atmosphere is far more complicated than a lab.
You've already grasped that the atmosphere is a complex system yet you're struggling to comprehend that it might be more complex than lab conditions.

>It doesn't however attempt to use this uncertainty to dismiss the entire greenhouse theory
>the climate model for Co2 greenhouse gas effect is incorrect and that's why no models are accurate without fudging the data...
>worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797920904984X

>assumption, co2 results in global warming

This assumption is pretty safe though. Almost beyond doubt. The question of how much is valid but not an excuse for inaction.

the ozone layer problem is actually being fixed due to CFC gases being banned 25 years ago

youtube.com/watch?v=kotqWXZkZS0

>Almost beyond doubt
>because I feel like it should be so, stop focusing on the evidence

>we're currently in a rapid spike right now due to the sun being overly active

no.

i mean youre kinda correct, but not.

the sun does cause the warming, but we aren't warming right now. NOAA and NASA have been fudging numbers for a decade to make the past come into line with their scare mongering. there has been zero warming for over 19 years.

we are headed for an ice age because the sun is abnormally INACTIVE right now.

there will be a lull in solar output from 2018 until at least 2040 and possibly far longer.

buy more clothing.

just remember
when winter comes it'll be a new ice age.
when summer roles around again it'll be global warming.
it's common knowledge that idiots have bad temperature regulation in their body.

The models tried to model more than just the direct warming that results from co2. We're talking in circles and you keep coming back to basically saying 'the computer models are wrong so they whole theory is wrong'. It doesn't work that way.

Model =/= theory. Models are based on incorporating theory into a system. Earth is a complex system making errors in the models more likely.

>The principles are only demonstrable in a lab. The atmosphere is far more complicated than a lab.

Great, this actually sounded like progress. So we agree that the system is complicated. How do you account for the missing IR detected by satellites leaving the earth?

Got ya. Full paper is here

worldscientific.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/pdf/10.1142/S021797920904984X

fallout 5: california when?

and (((they))) say the conservatives are the fear mongers

remember global cooling in the 70's scientists were crying about us entering an ice age and calling people idiots who didnt believe them

wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

he's not quoting anything he's spewing propaganda

leaving this again to try and save a few enlightened souls from this relentless assault on logical sense

youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4

Except they are wrong. And it proved the theory is incorrect. If the theory was correct the predictions would also be correct or at least remotely near target.

They were not.

You claim they are however still correct when the output was not. This is a fallacy. You are clinging on to points that are irrelevant.

youtube.com/watch?v=Aeoa_nQ5cHc

>Model =/= theory
So you've no idea how mathematical sciences work then.

>How do you account for
I don't need to account for it. You're the one claiming your models, which have failed to predict correctly, are capable of predicting accurately 100 years into the future.

Can you or can you not provide an accurate model? If not, why should I believe your predictions?
Your models can't even predict when change will happen let alone how much change will happen so it doesn't even work qualitatively.

You are such perverts. I really think porn should be banned. Porn makes men weak, and it's actually preventing you from going outside and searching for actual girls.

Which is good I guess, considering you are problably rapefugees. I can't imagine a 6'2" tall nordic being such a pathetic cuck. I just can't.

For a proclaimed climatologist surely you know this is false? The majority of scientific papers NEVER supported cooling. btw, have you actually read the paper you posted above?

Model, it will continue to get fucking warmer. If not co2 then what?

You've bring nothing to this debate besides a dozen GOTCHAs. The models being wring DOES NOT disprove the greenhouse effect. Do you even Venus?

Is co2 a ghg. Yes or no?

>Do you even Venus

venus is 50 million miles closer to the sun, faggot.

Can someone teII me quickIy naturaI non-anthropogenic reasons for cIimate change?

co2 is a weak greenhouse gas and there's a very small amount in the atmosphere. 400 ppm is nothing. there's been over 5000 ppm in the atmosphere in the past and nothing 'ranaway' back then.

runaway greenhouse is impossible on earth unless an entire ocean gets boiled away. water vapor is far stronger than co2.

>Model, it will continue to get fucking warmer. If not co2 then what?
Boom.
And there it is ladies and gents. A fucking moron. It has to be because I don't understand what else it could be. Even though everything we've done to try and link CO2 to climate has blown back in our fucking faces.
There we go.
There's the "We can't explain it so we need to fudge the numbers to make it work."
There's the "The theory is sound! Even though we had to fudge the numbers to make it work".
There it is.

the sun
volcanoes
gigantic meteors boiling oceans

sure, maybe if the concentration was 100x more
at 400ppm no

nigga my fleshdrive has 19 gigs worth of porn in it
you aint banning shit

>nordic being such a pathetic cuck
Video related - three average Norwegian men.
youtube.com/watch?v=LgyfTePw9io

>Model, it will continue to get fucking warmer.
Okay but why should I or anyone else believe you?

>If not co2 then what?
It's not up to me to create your model for you.

>The models being wring DOES NOT disprove the greenhouse effect
You can't prove or disprove an "effect". What you've just said is ridiculous too.
"This models being wrong DOES NOT disprove some other model"

Have any of your man made climate change models been even remotely accurate?
Since they haven't, why should I believe their long term predictions?

Water vapoir is also largely self regulating. It is a function of temperature. Hotter air holds more water vapour. So hotter atmosphere will make the effect of water vapour stronger ie feedback.

Also, new thread

The models have to account for more than just co2.

yes and yes, but it was on the news just like today. it got a lot of press just like today and its about the same amount of papers that support catastrophic agw today. you see not to understand how extreme and unpopular your view really is in the scientific community.
>forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#5fc6ed92171b

>If you're worried about the environment, worry about things like the helium shortage and the drug residue in the water and the depletion of soil nutrients.
this. the climate change mania has done more to distract from actual environmental/pollution issues better than anything else ever could.

>Okay but why should I or anyone else believe you?

I can't make you. But you're wrong. One day this will be evident even to you. Then you'll say, 'well, fixing it would have been worse anyway'. Such is life when you've committed to a position so fully that you're emotionally invested in it.

Shut the fuck up you dumb twat. You've blown yourself out of the fucking water. You can't prove squat and every post you make yourself look more like a fucking retard desperately trying to convince people that your failed fucking models are somehow correct even though they were wildly out of target.

>when you've committed to a position so fully that you're emotionally invested in it.
If seems like you're the one emotionally invested in it since you're the one believing in something regardless of it not matching reality.

>But you're wrong
This is the only argument you have - to claim everyone else is wrong when your belief fails.

And I'm the one emotionally invested? :^)

>her

James Taylor is letrally a lawyer for the heartland institute, as is his fellow at Forbes Peter Ferra(sp?).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Global_warming

They literally took money from Exxon to fund WUWT.

But instead of attacking the source, I'veread article. As ever with thse kikes, the trick is in the working.

>Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

So you have a third saying global warming a bad while two thirds say it's entirely natural (24%) or NOT catastrophic.

Also, that entire paper, instead of being about physical science is about reframing the debate to seem their side (skeptics) seem larger. The even talk about how using different terms can make people more likely to show skepticism.

they also say the right are cultish, yet they produce propaganda where people say "we are one" in one overtoned voice

The dem convention was hilarious in that only 15 minutes passed and they used all the tactics that are decried as conservative problems

That co2 is a ghg is not a 'belief' though darling. It's a fact.

>none of my models are anywhere near predictive yet I still believe

>I believe in my heart it's true
Get
Rekt