To all you global warming deniers:
Stop saying there's no evidence for anthropocentric climate change. This took like five minutes to find, and it's all recent evidence and in the best scientific journals.
>science.sciencemag.org
>advances.sciencemag.org
>science.sciencemag.org
>science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
>science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/465
>science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1517
>nature.com
>nature.com
>nature.com
>nature.com
>nature.com
>nature.com
>pnas.org
>pnas.org
>pnas.org
>pnas.org
To all you global warming deniers:
Other urls found in this thread:
lavoisier.com.au
static.skepticalscience.com
static.skepticalscience.com
i.guim.co.uk
static.skepticalscience.com
nsidc.org
youtube.com
foxnews.com
newsbusters.org
archive.is
youtube.com
sciencedirect.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
ppg.sagepub.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
books.google.com
twitter.com
>appeal to authority
read the sticky faggot
Faggot I mean OP isn't appealing to anythig hes presenting evidence
This is biaised.
See
Refute the central argument with evidence supporting your claims or gtfo.
Perhaps you haven't heard but all of the pro-global warming/climate change (whatever they'll call it next week) scientists deliberately change their data to match the Liberal agenda.
You cherry picking articles to support your claims is not proof. There is *NO* climate change, it's a hoax, the purpose of which is to STEAL MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKET.
Pic related is actual data, unadjusted temperature record. Shows cooling, same as the satellite data.
Oops.
>muh global warming
Complete and blatant fraud. Fuck off.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. In other words 10 million people could say the sky is green it doesn't mean shit.
What appealing to authority is
>Sup Forums is a text board not an image board because Moot said so hes the founder
What it isnt
>Based on the evidence gathered by top scientists we conclude X
be sure to pay your carbon tax goyim
Everyone knows that global warming is real, politicians are just afraid of meat and oil companies killing them off with hitmen.
Link satellite data? Also it needs to be adjusted. Measuring global temperature is far from perfect and stations are constantly moving, the instruments are being updated and local influences such as the urban heat island effect are all non climactic effects that must be accounted for if all variables are to be controlled. We know this process of homogenisation of the data works because we've done plenty of control experiments which show that the adjusted data is always far more accurate than the raw data, see pic.
You're using logical fallacies by completely dismissing evidence found (and peer-reviewed) by respected scientists.
Because your gif has been verified and credited by top scientists, and concludes that global warming is a hoax based on supposed temperatures by a certain organization.
Ad hominem fallacy
I'm going to clarify what I said earlier: refute the central argument in these credited, peer-reviewed papers by top scientists that backed it up with studies and years of research with a credible source (not memes) or gtfo
btw if anyone wants to know why this graph looks so retarded its because its a single study that shows the warmest MWP and the coldest current temperature out of all other studies. In pic related its the light blue line
OP here.
You fags were probably too lazy to read it or "couldn't possibly be wrong" so
tldr: global climate oscillation occurs AND there is sufficient evidence to conclude humans are making a non-negligible impact that is currently increasing exponentially on the overall temperature and co2 output on earth
Take a look at the temperature graph below. A TRUE scientist would need to answer these BASIC QUESTIONS to make claims that HUMANS have caused/are causing "Global Warming" OR "Climate Change":
1) At which point in the graph did CO2 levels cause temp increase and temp decrease? (ANSWER: Zero (0))
2) At which point in the graph which covers 4,500 years of human history, could or did humans INFLUENCE CO2 levels? (ANSWER: Zero (0))
Case Closed. "Climate Change" is a FRAUD and scheme to tax and control the masses.
Too late. Try reading the material.
...
>humans have 0 influence on co2 outputs
Come on, even famous global warming deniers list humans' impact as negligible (above 0).
The negligible impact hypothesis has been disproven though.
>At which point in the graph did CO2 levels cause temp increase and temp decrease? (ANSWER: Zero (0))
How about we look at a temperature CO2 graph of the entire earths history rather than your graph depicting the single study of close to one hundered reconstructions which shows today's temperatures be colder than the MWP
>2) At which point in the graph which covers 4,500 years of human history, could or did humans INFLUENCE CO2 levels?
No for the past 200 years we have. Unless you don't think we're farming livestock or using fossil fuels
Next, as to fossil fuel usage, refer to Fig 12 and the following:
Global Fossil Fuel Use and Temperature Change.
Here we see recent global temperatures, which "rose from 1860 to 1875, then cooled until 1890, rose until 1903, fell until 1918 and then rose dramatically until 1941-42. We then experienced the long cooling until 1976, the year of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and since then temperatures have risen by about 0.4°C.
"There is essentially zero correlation between the temperature curve and the anthropogenic CO2 curve over this 140-year period. This fact alone should have brought the carbon dioxide-induced global warming debate to an end."
You can read more about the various data and see additional charts at this website:
Nine Facts About Climate Change
lavoisier.com.au
Again, the 'global warming/climate change' mantra is a means to tax and control the masses. There has been no evidence of heating for about the past 18 years. And in the 70's the mantra then was the was going to be a human caused 'global impending ice age' which didn't pan out. That's why it became global warming, which hasn't panned out, then they switched it to climate change (how convenient, because climate is always changing, no matter what humans do or don't do).
oops...too bad for you; that was addressed with a diagram and link.
stuff your lies about human caused global warming. You should be ashamed for believing such pablum
The impact on nothing is nothing.
>Global Fossil Fuel Use and Temperature Change.
Good thing for my argument, CO2 isn't produced in equal amounts by each fossil fuel. Find me a graph showing no correlation between atmospheric concentration of CO2 and temperature
>There is essentially zero correlation between the temperature curve and the anthropogenic CO2 curve over this 140-year period
No, there is little correlation between fuel consumption and temperature.
Ad hominem
Provide sources
I don't know if you heard, but climate oscillation has several "sub" oscillations.
The evidence provided says humans are increasing global temperature and at the current rate will be a threat to life very shortly.
I don't believe this is "code red" and unless imminent action (forbidding coal companies) is implemented we'll all die. Even if this were the case, we couldn't stop other countries. The best approach is to continue improving green energy until it is cheaper than coal. Laissez-faire
Fake News
Your chart is fucking retarded. AGW is fucking retarded. Do you really think anyone on Sup Forums is going to buy into this scam?
>Refute the central argument with evidence supporting your claims or gtfo.
No problem, retard. There is literally no hard evidence that CO2 is behind any changes in climate. The only supporting evidence are the models, which have no predictive power.
Your chart is shit because it is not raw data. It has been molested by statisticians. Climate science is as much of a science as opinion polling is, that is to say: it's shit and not at all reliable. "Radiative forcing" is a metric that is COMPLETELY made up, supported by gay hippie models that have no place alongside real science.
The efficacy of Co2 is computed by the models, which are shit, and do not reflect reality.
Once the "modeling" that AGW scam artists use for their "science" is 99.99% accurate like every other piece of technology science affords me, I'll consider the evidence again.
continue improving
dream on
>No problem, retard. There is literally no hard evidence that CO2 is behind any changes in climate
See
>Your chart is shit because it is not raw data. It has been molested by statisticians
See
>The efficacy of Co2 is computed by the models, which are shit, and do not reflect reality.
No yours just wildly misrepresents the data and models. Here are models that are correct
static.skepticalscience.com
static.skepticalscience.com
i.guim.co.uk
static.skepticalscience.com
nsidc.org
Provide sources shill
This is to all future shills as well.
Final paragraph
If you'd like raw data, the source is in the picture. And co2 definitely impacts global temperature, that's not even the argument (which is exactly how big of an impact do humans make and will continue to make).
So Sup Forums is unable to refute global warming
Your post is worthless and contains not one argument. It's just a bunch of graphs that have been raped by statisticians like you claim mine was.
>If you'd like raw data, the source is in the picture.
Raw data for "irradiative forcing" doesn't exist because it's not based on measurements that exist in reality. It's a metric that exists solely to assign all blame to CO2 so that it can be taxed and controlled.
>And co2 definitely impacts global temperature, that's not even the argument (which is exactly how big of an impact do humans make and will continue to make).
You're right, certain physical processes of CO2 are well understood and subject to empirical measurement, which I accept. However, "Climate sensitivity" takes into account the efficacy of CO2 which is "calculated" by the models themselves.
It's a scam.
>So Sup Forums is unable to refute global warming
Wrong.
Convice me why anyone should care.
>This took like five minutes to find
spend 5 years studying it skeptically, then come back. IPCC admits it has no idea what the central mechanisms of climate change are, and no predictive models. The entire discipline of climatology is in decline.
youtube.com
foxnews.com
>Your post is worthless and contains not one argument. It's just a bunch of graphs that have been raped by statisticians like you claim mine was.
Yeah I was directing you to places which if you have actually read you would see that I addressed the 'raping' and why its done. see
>IPCC admits it has no idea what the central mechanisms of climate change are
I highly doubt that but source.
>no predictive models
All of these are correct
static.skepticalscience.com
static.skepticalscience.com
i.guim.co.uk
static.skepticalscience.com
nsidc.org
You have interviews and a journalist with no citations, and I have research papers by respected scientists and organizations. All of which have been approved by other scientists in the field.
It took me 5 minutes to find it, rephrasing that to say I've only ever done 5 minutes of research is yet another ad hominem fallacy.
Bump
Who cares about the silly graphs. I want to see major cities permanently underwater like I was promised. If you predict doomsday, I'm going expect doomsday (although not really, because it's pure alarmism and you've cried wolf too often).
>I want to see major cities permanently underwater like I was promised
There was never that consensus among scientists
> If you predict doomsday, I'm going expect doomsday
We should only start preparing for a war once we've been bombed as well
>One chance at interplanetary manifest destiny
>born in the same taxon as these faggots
>tax and control the masses
>the masses
That's not how you spell ExxonMobil
...
...
That graph you show is the light blue reconstruction on this graph
...
>"We'll have WW3 by 2030, prepare the shelters!!!!!!!! Spend your money, stock up!!!!!"
>"Shut the fuck up nutcase"
>"Oh we should only prepare after we're bombed???"
This is how liberals really think
>Antarctic sea ice
>Global warming
Try again
Doesn't account for solar output. This is what it looks like if you do
Anthropogenic global warming is a psuedoscientific fraud which has been promoted for solely political reasons.
It's the worst example of the subversion of science in history.
proactive
no one ever said there wasn't global warming. If you do some research you'll find out the Earth has warmed up for a 100 year period every 1200 years. We're now 46 years into that 100 year period. Science! That's called a pattern - brainiac enough for you?
Same chart you just end it at the latest decrease whereas he includes the last 7 years of increase. You love yourself downward trend curves more than the actual data
They could easily introduce policies that lower emissions that also benefit the average citizen like eliminating property taxes which incentivize urban sprawl. But they don't just keep pushing more taxes and nothing else.
Do you know who funds skepticalscience.com?
>tfw too intelligent to believe in global warming
All disproved by Lord Munckton
Paper will be published in March next year
All government funded researchers BTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus fucking christ.
Climate is indeed changing and always has and always will be.
We are also contributing. However, our level of contribution isn't crazy, and isn't going to lead to these insane runaway climate change models.
The fact is that around 6 million people die each year due to climate change alarmists. That's right, a literal Holocaust every year. These people could be saved if money was diverted and they were given access to fossil fueled based electricity.
The cost of reducing our impact on the globe at this point is far more than it will be in the future. Remember how much cheaper solar cells got? The answer is simply to not go nuts with pollution and continue on. This shit is literally going to fix itself.
Also, I'm not convinced that moderate warming and more carbon in the atmosphere is that bad. Keep in mind that levels of both were far higher in previous eras. That shit is great for life. Why do you think shit grew so fucking much bigger back in the day than it does now?
The poster was suggesting that once the 'apocalypse' comes we begin to act. That's the same thing as beginning to prepare for a war once we've been bombed
I debunked everything you posted immediately. Your being misled by Sup Forums and blogs who don't care about science
No the point was to look at the ice trends of varying sheets and global ice not just one. The antarctic is gaining ice even mine shows that
>muh-lankovitch cycles
The procession of this system is much too gradual to explain climate observations over the last 70 years.
>Climate is indeed changing and always has and always will be.
Alert the climate scientists
>However, our level of contribution isn't crazy, and isn't going to lead to these insane runaway climate change models.
They've been correct so far
>Keep in mind that levels of both were far higher in previous eras.
>That shit is great for life.
>mfw
He implied it never will because an apocalypse was promised snd never came but you're still pedding that same tune and it is getting old at this point
No, the model of sea level I showed in Near underestimates sea level rise and never predicted whole cities being fully submerged at this point
>doesn't include the eruption of krakatoa
Literally shit.
>atomic measurements in 1800
>unprecedented number of record high temperatures set for multiple years in the last couple of decades alone
>LOL GUSY IT'S GETTING COLDER IN THIS MODIFIED GRAPH I MADE
Karakatoa did.
>makes up role playing fantasy literature about impending disaster
>Makes up lore and etymology to accompany fantasy
>Tries to get other people to role play
>People say they don't want to, they see no point in playing your game
>Become so entrenched in fantasy that you think its real
>Try to coerce governments to join fantasy
>People again say they don't believe in your made up fantasy
>However, they have not debunked your fantasy by using your made up etymology so you don't listen to them.
Besides it looks like it does include Krakatoa
You don't need any sources btw I believe you that its just a fantasy
I never see what the point of global warming proponents is side from convincing others (usually on the Internet) that its real. If global warming is real you're not going to fix it by convincing neck beards on a taiwanese paper mache art forum of its existence.
ppg.sagepub.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
books.google.com
inb4
>volcanoes don't do shit except the few times they do
I would honestly alike it to one side of politics flat out refusing to acknowledge that WW2 was happening whilst it was going on
Yeah but I still don't know what your point is. Volcanic forcing in all those instances is clearly accounted for on the graph
They're called ice inclusions asswipe
Nowhere in this research does it say that it will happen that soon. None of it confirms it WILL happen either, as people may find alternative energy, etc.
See
("Very shortly" is relative to the geologic scale brainlets)
>what's glaciers and the evidence they provide?
Global warming is in fact happening.
However, it is not a big deal and is not going to be the cause of some imminent crisis.
wtf i hate global warming now
>people in third world countries dying
Ah, now I see. I might actually support global warming sky-is-falling nuts now.
>implying humans are doing anything
>implying it's not sunspots
>captcha is "cote judes"
huehuehue
global warming is awesome and I'm going to surf in Antarctica with penguins, you can't stop it!
In about a month there will a be peer reviewed paper released that completely proves all the previous models and evidence are based on incorrect math based off of electric feed back equations. I've been hearing horror stories since 1991 in school back then and somehow everything that way spun to us has not come to pass.
>what is the Year Without a Summer
>global temperature decrease so severe farmers in Europe starve after a volcano in the East Indies erupts
Let us celebrate the anniversary of 1816 and the year with no summer
You're not seeing the forest from the trees.
In 2015, if the United States cut CO2 emissions by ***100%***, worldwide emissions would be down by 5262 million metric tons.
If China cut CO2 emissions by 50%, worldwide emissions would be down by 4123 million metric tons.
We're giving all we can give. We can't single-handedly carry all the cost of emissions controls when we are currently only putting out only half as much as China is. We've already given all of our fucks, and if you really care about climate change, you'll stop encouraging energy and manufacturing outsourcing to third world shitholes that haven't given a single fuck since it's been on our radar.
Youre making such vast assumptions as to the degree of radiative forcing these things actually cause that your whole point is basically garbage based on garbage. If any if the papers you cited ever created an accurate computer model that played out irl with all the assumptions they made, that might lend then some credibility. But they never have. Why should we believe people who have been wrong so many times?
How about we actually use a more appropriate measure
By who
Yeah but thats looking at a single year. In the long term volcanoes typically have little effect on temperature
>If any if the papers you cited ever created an accurate computer model that played out irl with all the assumptions they made, that might lend then some credibility
All of these are correct
static.skepticalscience.com
static.skepticalscience.com
i.guim.co.uk
static.skepticalscience.com
nsidc.org
Then we will shitpost in the heat!
>11 year average
Did the data enjoy that massage?
Those numbers are faked to match the predictions. IPCC was caught red-handed doing this. Yet here you go, believing every self serving chart they pump out
Yes that's a factor faggot. How well we retain the heat and the impact of humans is the argument.
Source
>actual fallacy of appealing to authority figure here
See
Solar cycles last 11 years on average
If your talking of adjustments see
Look up "climategate" emails. All IPCC data is suspect
Plenty have those have been debunked. Which one you talking in particular?
No they havent
alright post one
Al Gore intensifies
Dont have to. You're posting data from a group that was caught falsifying data. It's worthless
And even if temperatures are rising, it most likely wont change much, mother nature too powerful
Here's one.
Decline refers to the decline in the reliability of tree ring proxies to reflect temperatures after 1960
'Trick' refers to the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with reconstructed data so that current warming trends may be seen in context of past warming