Do you still believe in the global warming jew?

Greenland Ice Sheet growing like crazy.

beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

CBS news reported that the poles are melting and that Michu Cacu guy says the sea is rising and the ocean will be in peoples living rooms. Oh yes, and that a piece of antarctic ice the size of India has melted

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000621
rt.com/viral/369539-ice-melting-arctic-india/
epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change
tntcat.iiasa.ac.at:8787/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome
youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4
corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position
ndbc.noaa.gov/
sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Bring on the ice age

it's cold as shit here

The Greenland ice sheet is not growing like crazy. It is melting, like crazy. Although sea ice is different from the continental ice sheet, sea ice was at at all time-low in october of 2016. Temperatures in Greenland were 36 F above normal for this time of year. Further, temperatures were still rising in greenland during october 2016, even though they have minimal day light this time of year.

Is it growing in volume or in area?

Yes, surely there is nothing out of the ordinary about this.

Humans cause climate change, global warming is real, just fucking accept it.

100 gigaton above normal in just 2.5 months, we might be getting our ice age after all. This is off the charts.

How about we look at long term trends of all sea ice and ice sheets?

Jet stream isnt a constant. U cant look at one regions avg temp and determine anything.

2000 years? Kek, try 15,000 years.

dec 21 is the day of minimal sunlight for greenland. temps lag the seasons by a few weeks anyway. also, do you live in Greenland and how long have you been surveying the ice sheet there?

>in central greenland

Also why does Sup Forums think that somehow looking at climate over longer periods of time disproves the connection between CO2 and temperature?

That graph is objectively incorrect, we are currently in a warmer period than the medieval warm period.

It takes like two seconds of research to figure this shit out.

Who is paying you guys?

It shows abnormal temperatures because its only taken in central Greenland. In fact the graph in is actually featured in as the light blue line, a radical outlier in the scope of all reconstructions and the only one as far as I'm aware to show a warmer medieval warm period. Comes from this study
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000621

Global warming is very well. No doubt about it. At one point, before any of our lifetimes, global cooling was very real.

But let's just cut right to the good stuff. No graphs, no doomsday scenarios, no bullshit.

When the EPA was questioned, under oath, in front of the Congress, they were able to produce 0 (zero) scientific models which were able to predict the measurable physical effectiveness of their proposed increased regulations.

Let me be perfectly clear: 0 (zero) scientific models.

Not 1 (one). Not 2 (two). Not 3 (three), but 0 (zero) scientific models demonstrating the measurable physical effectiveness of their regulations.

In other words, no results, no funding. I want the environmental Jew out of my wallet.

Chunk of ice ‘the size of India’ disappears from polar regions

rt.com/viral/369539-ice-melting-arctic-india/

Are you sure?
epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change

It "disappeared" because it was never there.

ITT
>graphs without sources

Idk man, but global warming is showing some signs here, winter used to start from late October to March here in Delhi, now it starts mid-late December to Feb/Early March.

Winters have become shorter but way much colder.

Also summers are having an average temperature of 45 degrees Celsius (113 F)

>still believing humanity is the main reason for climate change
wew i love watching retards believe that humanity is more than a parasite in this world

>Agency paid by the US government is saying things that agree with the US govt.

Really sparks those neurons...

>(((Reconstructed)))

get out of here with your fake jew garbage.

Its not produced by the EPA, if you read the source it says the data comes from here:

tntcat.iiasa.ac.at:8787/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome

Besides that I was responding to a point made by someone who said the EPA has no knowledge of any models that predict temperature change in different emissions scenarios when they clearly do

That's just what a temperature construction is referred to if it relies on proxy data

Absolutely sure. Watch any of Mike Pompeo's confrontations with the EPA in front of the Congress. Hell, the aftermath even spilled over into plebbit at some point when the EPA was having an AMA and they were still unable to answer.

Well they clearly have an answer to the question now, its on their website

as a former coastal researcher I can speak more in depth for a bit - the reason it's growing in volume is well documented and expected with higher precipitation rates resulting from a general warmer planet have led to greater accumulation of ice in certain regions of the arctic (mostly land ice), although current rates of loss and melting in both ice caps are still by far unprecedented and far from reversible at this point with the energy market in no mood to change

Does their scientific model predict how much ice regrowth will occur if the regulations are followed by the US?

Don't worry, I'll wait.

>I want the environmental Jew out of my wallet.
You are paying a carbon tithe or will be nailed to a weather vane and burned alive for climate heresy.

Obvious power grab by entities that seek nothing else but concentration of power. Some of the largest parasitic entities to roam earth are in on this one and it's not going away no matter what the weather does. AGW was spawned in the Club of Rome. Look no further than the despots of the ages, of course...Da Jooooos!

>tntcat.iiasa.ac.at:8787/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome
>Information about the RCPs and the scenario development process for the IPCC AR5 can be found in the IPCC Expert Meeting Report on New Scenarios


>The IPCC receives funding through the IPCC Trust Fund, established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Costs of the Secretary and of housing the secretariat are provided by the WMO, while UNEP meets the cost of the Depute Secretary.

Yeah, they do

>weather
>weather
>weather
>weather
>implying
>ep fucking a
find a better argument please

That's every fucking thread. Just graf wars and "le russian scientists debunk global warming xdd"

bump because this really makes me think.

I'm not going to convince you if you won't accept any science funded in any way by a government.

Here's an interesting comparison of the recent lack of correlation between solar output and temperature due to the conflicting factors of - yep, anthropogenic climate change.
Ice ages are caused by milankovitch cycles in the earth's rotation, leading to greater solar output and consequent higher temperatures, although we are obviously not currently in that cycle

also these variations in output are what causes el nino la nina cycles

Just curious, to all those who deny AGW why is it that the models have be so correct?

It also takes like two seconds of research to know that the hockey stick graph is complete shit

Care to tell me why the graph doesn't indicate where the emissions originate from? And out of their 30 or so areas of interest to determine the effect of climate change, is this the only model they were able to produce?

And 10 or so years after those models were made, we can see how many have matched up so far.

Whoops almost none of them have.

Of all the controversial topics, this is the hardest one to 'come out' to people I know about

I'm openly racist, only love Trump, hate PC culture, etc etc

But on the global warming thing, I can't bring myself to let people know I don't believe 90% of it

They've been caught skewing the numbers more than once.

People have straight up lost respect for me when I tell them. Although I care less when I ask them about certain things and it turns out they know almost nothing about it other than what they hear every now and then through the media.

Gotta say the biggest respect-loser for me was when people found out I believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins.

>Care to tell me why the graph doesn't indicate where the emissions originate from?
I don't think it matters, it'd have to primarily be a global effort if thats what you're getting at. The US alone couldn't reach the low emissions scenario.

> And out of their 30 or so areas of interest to determine the effect of climate change, is this the only model they were able to produce?
Well pretty much all models feature low emissions and high emissions scenarios and damn near everything has been modelled.

Because all of those models only "predict" data we already have - ie u tamper you model to fit current trends and keep publishing new models each year that continue to track the observed data.

>cfact.org
CFACT received $710, 000 between 1991 and 2002 from Richard Mellon Scaife controlled foundations, the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation

Also surprisingly, this is a somewhat valid argument, although not to this extreme, while I was working in the lab I learned in the scientific world it's only necessary to be accurate 80-90% of the time due to the massive amount of processes necessary to predict, while in engineering you must be right 99.9% of the time in your predictions as the problem is already written out- you only need to complete the problem with a formulaic approach, not identify and answer a problem we don't even know the constraints of
It's not you fault, it's the work of the massive companies behind pseudoscience sites like cfact.org, but if you wish to join the rest of the world in modern society I recommend using unbiased scientific sources in forming your opinions on an indisputable scientific truth, which isn't even necessary in the slightest.

*your
shit

see
2013 was an outlier year in the modelling of satellite data. All models to my knowledge are correct around 98% of the time.

That's just data homogenisation and its pretty much required if you want accurate data. Because hundreds of stations world wide are used in measuring global temperatures its impossible to control all variables so there will inevitably be artificial changes in the temperature record due to changes in instrumentation, positioning as well as nearby local effects. We know this homogenisation works because we've compared the homogenised data to controlled reference stations and it matches up almost perfectly. Using just the raw data would result in data which doesn't accurately reflect actual temperature changes.

Feel u, even when i drop hard facts with my intelligent mates they still look at me like i raped their mum, I can however be as racist or sexist in front of them with no problems.

It's bazaar too cos all it really comes down to is - do you believe people can model the average global temperature to any degree of accuract from isolated measurements let alone predict the future average temperature. Anyone with a basic understanding of stats should see why the entire concept is flawed.

They can though

No, your talking shit - go study maths and come back and tell me you have any confidence in the methods used.

They have 8 stations in the south pole and 147 in Antarctica for NASA GISStemp or whatever they call it, its fraudulent statistics and science.

You're retarded

Not an argument

>have any confidence in the methods used.
You do see just how closely the reference stations and the adjusted temperatures match up right?

How about 650,000 years?

Atmospheric CO2 max from 648,000 BC to 1890: 300PPM

Atmospheric CO2 today: 400PPM

We know for a fact that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, and plays a large role in determining average global temperature. We've increased the content of it by 100 PPM in just over a century. How could that NOT change the temperature.
CO2

They can produce a model which will show some level of significance in predicting average temperatures at whether station locations - however the only data they have is data they can already fit - that says nothing about future accuracy of their models.

This entirely fails to take into account that theirs a lot of areas that they don't have temperature data and they just guess and say they are right in those places - on top of that surface temperature does not account for upper atmosphere temperatures or air temps at higher altitudes. When your trying to talk about the WHOLE globe warming making a shitty model for the bottom 100m of air in the 20k high atmosphere is a bit naive no?

The reference stations and the adjusted temperatures.

You mean that the person doing the modeling ensured that the model matches the actual data points they have?

Why don't you try and learn the mechanics of the English language before arguing about something far beyond your underage mental capacity

Uh, no I'm sorry what you've just said is wrong. Watch this video to see how wrong you are? You honestly believe (((scientists)))

youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

This man is a professor of physics as Princeton and his word > than the rest of the community because he refuses to fall in lie (GET IT?) with the rest of the libtards

I'm trying to dumb down quite complex statistical concepts in such a way burgers can understand.

>take the lowest estimates from the past periods
>get the highest estimates today
>put in a chart
>"omg, global warming is true!!!"

Sorry, but just because you make things complicated on purpose dosn't mean we won't see thru you're lies

IT's fucking snow now, glibal warming? PLZ

Measurements are now taken through satellite and due to the greenhouse effect we're focusing on the temperature trends as on the surface as the hadley cell (convection currents in the atmosphere) push heat nearer to the surface

That's why NASA GISS is based on 5000 odd temperature sample stations is it?

> however the only data they have is data they can already fit - that says nothing about future accuracy of their models.
It's just homogenised data i.e. data that actually means something

>This entirely fails to take into account that theirs a lot of areas that they don't have temperature data and they just guess and say they are right in those places
Source?

>on top of that surface temperature does not account for upper atmosphere temperatures or air temps at higher altitudes
We do, we can only measure lower troposphere temperature though

>You mean that the person doing the modeling ensured that the model matches the actual data points they have?
What? You do realise models are made prior to the dates they model right?

That's all reconstructions collated retard

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks

Listen to these fucking scientists lie, listen to them...


OH FUCKING WAIT


corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

...

We know you're being sarcastic, but this is truly about the level of intelligence that the rest of the developed world sees burgers as having.

>all time

where in kek did I deny that?
What I'm saying is I value the data pictured more because of what I said earlier (if you bothered to read/comprehend it)

I don't blame them, a whole lot of people in this country are scientifically illiterate and it amazes me that they can scream ''climate change isn't real,'' ''god will help us,'' or ''evolution is a lie.'' If there is a god, he's laughing at idiots who are convinced by some YouTube video or meme posted on Facebook.

Source, go look up the locations of the GISS temperature stations its all on their website but they hide it because it doesn't support their arguments so u have to dig a bit.

You realize people struggle to correctly sample lakes to count fish populations using fixed place fish traps - expand that metaphor to a globe sized pond and think about the amount of sample stations you need to accurately cover it.

The amount of weather stations and locations is not sufficient to provide an accurate profile and there is a significant lack of over ocean temperature stations too. This means any "homogenization" is basically arbitrary data tampering. (it needs to be done but their sample and methodology is so flawed that it won't make their model accurate)

Statistically the assumptions used for these models make them way too much of a stretch to be taken as anything other than a guide. IE not concrete science or even anything more than a rough theory.

They might be nice models that match observed data but even if their predictions are right - statistically speaking this is just a fluke and not due to the models being good.

How many sample stations do you need to accurately cover it? Since you know they're not using enough, 3,000 the last time I checked, what is the correct amount? You did say you knew when you said they weren't using enough, you realize that right? Share your wisdom with us, please.

Just because you don't understand the data collection methods doesn't mean the scientists don't, that's a very presumptuous assumption delet this

By the way my guys were responsible for ocean temp., NOAA, we have a shitton of buoys across every ocean, and I understand where you're coming from, but this is climate we're talking about, and the consensus is so unbelievably strong that there's no logical way to deny their statistical validity
I still can't view this as an argument, the amount of collection sources they're using is actually excessive - this isn't engineering, it's fucking science

Consensus is not proof of anything

More than one per 170000 km^2.

Probably more than 8 on south pole too might be a start.

Your acting like calling out shitty statistics is unreasonable I don't see why you're so butt hurt.

No, let him answer the question. How many sample stations, at what depths, in what locations, etc. is required? You did say that there wasn't enough, and just like navigation if you know you're not at point A it's implied you know where point A is, so let's hear it. Also, let's hear what you think ''concrete science'' is, for us silly stupid people.

Why not?
I'm not talking about personal consensus, I'm talking about a consensus in data results, such as the data collected in Mauna Loa practically identical to the data collected by the Japanese atmospheric society etc.

>The amount of weather stations and locations is not sufficient to provide an accurate profile
Honestly it seems pretty good idk what you're talking about

>This means any "homogenization" is basically arbitrary data tampering
It clearly isn't though, we have plenty of stations that we can reference who have had controlled conditions as well as a vast network of stations whose data is homogenised and we see that these match up almost perfectly and would not do so if the process wasn't undertaken

>Statistically the assumptions used for these models make them way too much of a stretch to be taken as anything other than a guide
They very much are that though, every quantity that I know of has been accurately modelled

Why do you believe that to be the right number? Have you worked in the field at all and ran experiments on this scale so that experience informs your judgment?

You fundamentally misunderstand science.

lets say you are correct. Man is causing the earth to warm

Do you honestly believe that creating a global govt and giving more power to banks will somehow solve the problem?

Its a scam. you are being used

btw FIRST the earth warmed THEN co2 levels increased. AL GORE openly lied

I'm 1/10th Australian, I know a shitpost when I see one.

>Why not?
Because scientists always had consensus before it turned out they got shit wrong. Show me proof, not a bunch of guys making predictions

What previous consensus are you referring to, Vlad?

was expecting a leaf.......

>Do you honestly believe that creating a global govt and giving more power to banks will somehow solve the problem?
idk why people think this necessarily has to be the case. If more of the right wing were to get on board with global warming we might be able to see greater deregulation of nuclear power as well as plenty of other pro-free market policies which would help in averting global warming

>global warming jew
>big oil and coal companies owned by jews
>trying to jew everyone into thinking global warming is real
>so that they can lose profits?
You bought into the global warming denialism jew, m8.

Are you really that retarded, Johnny? There was a time when majority of scientists believed in alchemy

Buoys float at surface depths, anything below that is completely irrelevant due to the lack of solar permeation. Here's a link to a map, and the only drastic difference in submesoscale temperature variation occurs in the intertidal region, thus why there's more buoys there than in the palegic (open ocean) region.
I'm glad to hear interest in concrete science, to me it's interesting enough I'm working towards a Phd in oceanography (and we normally don't do anything around climate science but I just find it interesting). Let me leave some nice links, and if you're in uni, even if you're a liberal meme major I'd still recommend summer research because it's a great experience.
ndbc.noaa.gov/

I'd recommend reading some articles from here to start out:
sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/
and it's great to question everything you read, even your own work, that is the definition of concrete science to me. I prefer peer reviewed papers, but it gets jargony at times.

Give me an example of shit going wrong with data based consensus first please

....read the UN Climate shit...they want a global govt..... man made climate change doesnt exist. They want a global govt(banks).....

NOT
AN
ARGUMENT

>alchemy
science not pseudoscience, because anybody could partake in that practice. If you mean chemistry, which is a science, I'd like an example, because I don't believe one exists. Prove me wrong.

>You fundamentally misunderstand science.
No, that would be you. A theory only becomes legitimate when it's supported by experiments. So far real life data isn't supporting global warming theory in any meaningful way.

Vlad, look I'm telling you this because I love you put down the Korkodil. You could at least use something more recent, like Phlogistic theory.

That's not true, have you ever stepped foot in an earth science lab? How would an experiment on a system with literally thousands of simultaneously coinciding processes, outside of the simulations you apparently despise, even be remotely possible, and much less valid? This is a field where field work and proper analysis is necessary by virtue of the situation.

supports climate change
IMF, EU, UN, Hollywood, Obama, Media, WALL Street, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, Apple, GE, Steve Zuckerburg,...I can go on and on

Richest most powerful ppl are pushing climate change

OPEN your eyes.