Daily reminder that if your greatest concern currently isn't climate change then you're a retard

Daily reminder that if your greatest concern currently isn't climate change then you're a retard

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s
youtube.com/watch?v=-AwNKQqLESc
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/kim-et-al-2012_grl.pdf
researchgate.net/publication/222409250_Models_on_Snowball_Earth_and_Cambrian_explosion_A_synopsis
researchgate.net/publication/222818998_CO2-forced_climate_thresholds_during_the_Phanerozoic
atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf
object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/agu_2014_fall_poster_michaels_knappenberger.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

fuck you my greatest concern right now is figuring out what to say to this chic im crushing on

in the other news: op loves to suck dicks
>what did he mean by it?

youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

Oh I'm sorry for worrying about the 200,000 shitskins arriving yearly in Aus. Green fag

>The models are wrong!
Except when they're almost always right

You seriously think that they're a greater threat to humanity than the eventual collapse of our modern civilisation?

>We're destroying the environment because of overpopulation!!1! White people need to stop having children!
>But we need to send billions to Africa so every family there can have 7 children!!
>OMG there aren't enough white people to buy our junk!! We need to import shitskins because lazy white people aren't having enough babies!!
>but also Climate Change™!! We all gonna die
>Drink Coca-Cola.

Well if one prediction was wrong they all are

Then what did you do op?
Have you stopped consuming meat and dairy products?

Tbh if the future is "beige" I don't care about the planet. Let the world burn if it's going to be inherited by brown hordes.

Everytime i see shit like this i burn a pile of tires.

Nope

>Everytime someone tells me arsenic is poisonous I drink a few millimetres

Two piles now i have shit loads laying around the property from spare cars so keep pushing libtard.

...

(((Climate change))) is just another form of white guilt tbqh

i'm about 100 meters above sea level so i don't give a fuck if you and your rape rims star in the new finding nemo movie.

if climate change is real, it's a great way to take revenge on normies
i won't have kids or feel the effects largely within my lifetime. normies who reproduce will be putting their kids through all the resultant issues.

Climate change is real, but extremely exaggerated.

demographic change concerns me more than climate change

How? You think they just made up the numbers to justify everything?

mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf

5%-20% of global GDP annually

>I'm the only person in the world
Then please, die, so the simulation can end already.

>You seriously think that they're a greater threat to humanity than the eventual collapse of our modern civilisation?

this world is worth nothing if it is inherited by a bunch of shitskins

No it will be you who dies land lubber and then i can finally get some peace.

>show 0.000001% of the earth's climate

LOOK GUYS IT'S TRUE WE SHOULD DO SUMFIN OR WE'RE GOING TO BE TOO HOT AN STUFF

Its correct projections

But those are mostly projections, that may or may not happen. Plus there are several other factors like technologic development which can decrease the effects of global warming (or even global warming itself). I still think it`s too early to say it is the greatest threat of this century.

They happen, see OP

>Plus there are several other factors like technologic development which can decrease the effects of global warming
Maybe, but that will only ever happen if its acknowledged as a great threat

The ultimate real Red Pill
>Algebraic proof
>Alg((h))ebraic
>hebraic

Have you swallowed the hardest red pill yet? So called ((science)) and ((mathematics)) are a jewish creation, an instrument to subjugate and destroy the white man.
>create ((science))
>build a whole structure around it to make it look logical and reasonable
>attribute every invention the white man achieved through his intuition to ((science))
>foster ((science)) to religious status and use it to subvert centuries long traditions and supplant Christianity
>use ((science)) to push sexual perversion and loathing of the white man
>use ((((scientific consensus))) to create the global warming hoax
>use ((global warming)) to create the perfect tool of white genocide: carbon tax

PROVE ME WRONG
YOU CAN'T

youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s

youtube.com/watch?v=-AwNKQqLESc

>(((global warming)))

Spooky

idk why people always post stefans videos on this topic especially considering OP. His entire argument rests on the models being inaccurate when they clearly aren't

what about the second video uh?

Oy Vey!

Global cooling is the biggest threat to the US!

Overpopulation is the biggest threat to the US!

DDT causes cancer!

All the birds are going to die!

The ice caps will all be melted by 2000!

Salt will kill you!

Fat will kill you!

Eat a shitload of carbs!

Global warming is the biggest threat now! Just implement a massive carbon tax to make your companies noncompetitive and everything will be great! Don't disagree or you are an ant-science DENIER.

my greatest concern is population growth

>Muh models!

Hahahahha no.

ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

> whites move to europe and adapt to harsh environments
> centuries later the subhumans of this planet still need help dealing with climate

Can't wait for the shitholes of this world to have humanitarian disasters of epic proportions.

Climate change isn't even in my top 10. It's far too broad and completely out of my control.

is that you in the picture?
makes sense

We actually do have a pretty good idea about how much we influence climate

What exactly do you want me to be looking at?

>We actually do have a pretty good idea about how much we influence climate
which is 0. that's why it's a hoax

A planet full of jews and mud could burn for all I care.

What you think is irrelevant. deal with it neathercuck

Most models have overstated the effects of warming. Chapter 9

Almost. Science and government love each other due to funding. The left is big government and wants more science funding, so it is not unexpected that science shows them a bias.

Socialists additionally hold the belief that science should run society to a certain extent, furthering the relationship between the left and science.

(As we know and as was written by Hayek, allowing science to run society would be a disaster. So many misleading conclusions and false alarms.)

>Most models have overstated the effects of warming
Yeah but all that I know of have still been within the confidence interval. Surface temperature records do tend to be slightly on the lower side but often the arctic ice extent and sea level projections underestimate change greatly.

It's a hoax. Molynuex said so, he's much smarter than me

judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/

>that second video

So fucking obnoxious. Cringey even. He didn't even get the congressman's point...

My greatest concern is having 10 billion human beongs on 1 planet by 2050.

...

>not worried about the federal reserve
>not worried that our "dollars" are worthless dyed fibre
>not worried about the petro dollars imminent bust
>not worried about cultural subversion
>not worried about the slippery slope, i.e pedos and beasties being next in line for acceptance

You guys have your priorities fucked up.

it's a hoax you cuck

Negroid

GTFO MY THREAD KIKE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

nothing wrong with being a pedo if you dont touch kids or fucking an animal if you're not hurting it

Your previous reply was so absolutely braindead retarded I am 100% certain you are a negroid.

>He wants to return to the gold standard

Feel free to refute the article at any time

Demographic decline and the potential for whites to become minorities is a far more immediate problem than climate change.

Fuck off yid we won't get taxes out of existence. Burn coal NOW!

I'll explain it to you. You did not read or consider my comment, retard. I essentially agree with you.

You also youtube searched "global warming is a hoax" and posted the first two results, one of which was pro-global warming alarmism. Mongoloid.

One of the graphs have been refuted. I can't help but feel the other two are similarly misleading however both are still show measurements within the confidence interval

>video title: global warming is a hoax
>urr urr not it actually says the opposite
you fucking inbred false flagging jew kike. we know your tricks you can fuck off

...

why are you posting pictures of your mom? she's disgusting. stupid kike

You are extremely easily convinced.

You .gif meme essentially said "but look at these models, some of them are right!", and complained at the way in which it was presented. The information is accurate.

...and that is enough for you to entirely throw out scientific papers presented in the article. No wonder you are convinced by heavily biased politicized scientific alarmism.

False flagging kike-loving nigger, making those who are skeptical seem stupid.

thanks rabbi, your opinion is very important here. now fuck off back to your synagogue

daily reminder that i am a very open minded individual and you people are garbage at convincing others to support your claim

>weather

yes, checking the forecast is a great way to start ones day or week

it's a jewish hoax
I got proof

Yes new Ice Age is coming, we need to increase greenhouse gases production.

>and complained at the way in which it was presented. The information is accurate.
Alright then find me a graph that has consistent smoothing, shows model spread, shows structural uncertainty and has a conventional baseline and I'll take it to be such. Don't bother pic related is what you get if you present the data honestly

>and that is enough for you to entirely throw out scientific papers presented in the article
The data presented falls within confidence intervals, the models are correct.

> No wonder you are convinced by heavily biased politicized scientific alarmism
Even being shown how dishonestly this person has chosen to present other peoples work you still believe every word they say?

Besides that why take one of the worst data sets we have (satellite) look at one model predicting one physical value over some period and then from there conclude that all models are completely off? Even just looking back at temperature records for surface temperature measured by more accurate land stations we can clearly see several models going all the way back to 1981 proven to be accurate. Then look at all the other correctly predicted physical quantities such as arctic ice, sea level and sea temperature many of which underestimated change and tell me that current models are just alarmist predictions.

>that massive 1.25C margin of error for predictions @ 2015
>a margin of error wider than the entire claimed warming from 1880-2000
>observations still literally dropping out of the bottom
>if you plotted the actual model predictions you would realize that more than half are now outside any reasonable margin of error
>and the rest are following
>SEE THE MODELS ARE CORRECT!

You're an idiot. The models are falsified. The only reason there's an up swing in your now old graphs is because of the last El Nino. Temps are collapsing from that El Nino as we shitpost.

Why?

DAILY REMINDER

* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.

* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming.

* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.

* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 17 years. They are all trending too high.

* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.

* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.

* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.

* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."

Daily reminder, if you believe in manmade global warming, you are a retard.

>You seriously think that they're a greater threat to humanity than the eventual collapse of our modern civilisation?

Civilization would not collapse at +1C. Or +2C. Or +3C. 4, 5, 6, 7, even fucking +8C. All your doomsday scenarios are bullshit. At the low end we will get longer growing seasons for wider swaths of land. At the high end we would have to deal with some land use changes along the coasts, and you could probably kiss some ski resorts goodbye. But the Earth would be bursting with increased biomass and biodiversity.

And the actual, real forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 is probably 0.6-0.8C. Guaranteed half the warming since 1880 has been due to natural forcings. And the max of +1.2C absent feedbacks can't actually happen due to IR bandwidth overlap.

>that massive 1.25C margin of error for predictions @ 2015
Are you retarded? You do realise it has to follow the specific trend set out by the model to reach that point.

>a margin of error wider than the entire claimed warming from 1880-2000
I don't think anyone believes the model was produced before 1880 its just showing that it can predict that warming given the conditions prior to 1880

>observations still literally dropping out of the bottom
In some graphs. In many graphs its almost launching out of the top

>if you plotted the actual model predictions you would realize that more than half are now outside any reasonable margin of error
They have though

>The only reason there's an up swing in your now old graphs is because of the last El Nino. Temps are collapsing from that El Nino as we shitpost.
Also CO2

>The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate
Or they account for unpredictable events such as el ninos and la ninas, volcanic eruptions and solar output

>Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 17 years. They are all trending too high
No, if they fall within the confidence interval then they were correct

>There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past
Earths deglaciations?

BUT BUT MY EXXON MOBILE PROPAGANDA

...

But a slightly warmer environment will be nicer for Ireland. India and China mean nothing we do to prevent CO2 release matters.
I suspect that this is just a drive to furher reduce our dependance on fuels that come from outside the West.

I mean if the developing world has all the mineral wealth, fuel and cheaper labor what is to stop all industry moving away from developed countries?

Yeah...rednecks typically know about things like CO2 temperature forcings, IR bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, and the history of global circulation models.

kys

5%-20% of GDP annually
mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf

>But the Earth would be bursting with increased biomass and biodiversity.
Are you serious? You do know just how delicate some ecosystems can be and just how much damage rapid change in salinity, acidity and temperature can do to ecosystems right? Things just can't adapt that rapidly.

>Guaranteed half the warming since 1880 has been due to natural forcings
see for forcing of CO2

>Alright then find me a graph that has consistent smoothing
Someone graphing data in a way that you don't like doesn't mean its false.

Models have historically been inaccurate. This is widely documented. curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/kim-et-al-2012_grl.pdf

>Even being shown how dishonestly this person has chosen to present other peoples work you still believe every word they say?
That's strange, since I never said I believed every word they say.

Is it reasonable to look at this piece of scientific information I have given you, or are you so anti-science that you are going to disregard it entirely?

>>that massive 1.25C margin of error for predictions @ 2015
>Are you retarded?
No, but you are.

* Those graphs average relevant GCM model runs to produce one prediction line. First dishonesty.

* It then wraps that one line with an excessively large margin of error. A margin of error so large that it renders any century scale predictions worthless. It's like trying to place a sporting bet with a score spread so large your team could win or lose. Second dishonesty.

* It then compares that big gray band with observations. Third dishonesty.

Pic related: it's actual GCM plots versus observation. Most of the GCM predictions are so far out that those model runs are scientifically falsified. Even the model runs with the weakest assumptions about feedbacks are trending away from observation and towards falsification.

>>a margin of error wider than the entire claimed warming from 1880-2000
>I don't think anyone believes the model was produced before 1880
The point.
Your head.

>In some graphs. In many graphs its almost launching out of the top
Not even once. Are you referring to the uptick at the end of graphs to 2015 due to El Nino? Yeah, that's disappearing as we speak.

>>The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate
>Or they account for unpredictable events such as el ninos and la ninas, volcanic eruptions and solar output
>El Nino / La Nina
>unpredictable
>accounting for temporary spikes in a model designed to predict trends
No.

>No, if they fall within the confidence interval then they were correct
NO. They are ALL trending too high. Most are now clearly falsified. The rest will be within...5 years.

>>There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past
>Earths deglaciations?
Were NOT driven by CO2 increases. Quite the opposite, CO2 increases followed the warming trends.

>5%-20% of GDP annually
>actually believing this shit
I'm not interested in fantasy.

>>But the Earth would be bursting with increased biomass and biodiversity.
>Are you serious?
Life fucking LOVES warmth and CO2. What, did you think the dinosaurs reached those sizes during ice ages?

>Things just can't adapt that rapidly.
>things that survive 30-40C swings every year with the seasons
kek

>>Guaranteed half the warming since 1880 has been due to natural forcings
>see for forcing of CO2
>see the graph that assumes feedbacks that have since been falsified
ok kiddo

>Models have historically been inaccurate.
>falling outside a margin of error larger than the 20th century warming
>"accurate"
Wrong.

what do you mean by this?

>Someone graphing data in a way that you don't like doesn't mean its false.
Its not in a way I don't like if you smooth the data so it changes towards the end your going to end up giving an almost wholly different graph. Excluding the model range is also completely misleading

>This is widely documented
This doesn't make any such conclusion, mainly because it doesn't look into that.

>Those graphs average relevant GCM model runs to produce one prediction line
They don't though they show have a confidence interval

> It then wraps that one line with an excessively large margin of error
That's just the bound within which 95% of simulations fall, its not excessive thats pretty standard of any science.

>it's actual GCM plots versus observation
No its Incomplete model spread, inconsistent smoothing, no structural uncertainty in the satellite observations and an unconventional baseline

>Most of the GCM predictions are so far out that those model runs are scientifically falsified
Yeah if you take one model and two sets of our most inaccurate data then you can exaggerate how far off one model is

>Not even once
see , you know there are other quantities other than troposphere measured by satellite?

>No.
what a refutation

>Quite the opposite, CO2 increases followed the warming trends
Oh my god you're fucking thick. You've heard so much bullshit its just crossing lines now. You're referencing the 800 year lag often used to falsify this point which we know is bullshit with several pieces of empirical historical evidence such as:

In the snowball earth whilst all other factors remained constant or were accounted for CO2 concentration increased causing the warming of the earth and eventual melting of the snowball earth
researchgate.net/publication/222409250_Models_on_Snowball_Earth_and_Cambrian_explosion_A_synopsis
Deglaciation periods preceded by orbital forcing would not have been possible in their scope if it were because of orbital forcing alone, the greenhouse effect due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases must have taken place to cause this
researchgate.net/publication/222818998_CO2-forced_climate_thresholds_during_the_Phanerozoic
atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf

The fuck? That graph (which was nothing near the entirety of the article) is the same thing as this one presented in a cleaner less cluttered way. They communicate the same fucking thing.

I'm don't defending fudging data, but nothing of the sort is going on here.

>This doesn't make any such conclusion, mainly because it doesn't look into that.

Short term memory?

ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/kim-et-al-2012_grl.pdf

object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/agu_2014_fall_poster_michaels_knappenberger.pdf

I'd also like to hear your answer on my previous question: Is it reasonable to look at this piece of scientific information I have given you, or are you so anti-science that you are going to disregard it entirely?

>I'm not interested in fantasy.
wtf that report now doesn't exist

>Life fucking LOVES warmth and CO2
Yeah but what it can't deal with more than anything is rapid change which is what we are currently seeing

>>things that survive 30-40C swings every year with the seasons
kek
And they depend heavily like all living things on predictable conditions in which their previous generations have lived in for thousands of years. If the warmer seasons become slightly colder less food will become available slowly eating away at biomass above it in the food chain.

>>see the graph that assumes feedbacks that have since been falsified
You literally think one prediction that wasn't even outside the 95% confidence interval is evidence that all the models of forcings are worthless?

"Don't be a global warming fraud denier!!!"

Plebeian mouthbreather detected

>Newzealand savagery

You're an abo, aren't you?

too bad you don't anything about those things. picture's still accurate. that's what you look like to anyone but your mom

>is the same thing as this one presented in a cleaner less cluttered way
Its produced by the exact same guy if you didn't notice and has the exact same smoothing issues and lack of structural uncertainty

> Is it reasonable to look at this piece of scientific information I have given you, or are you so anti-science that you are going to disregard it entirely?
I take that several studies have given lower estimates for climate sensitivity but the bulk conclude that the climate is sensitive within the degree given by the IPCC