Is global warming real or are my science professors lying to me?

Is global warming real or are my science professors lying to me?

Other urls found in this thread:

skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s
geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
youtu.be/nLuBgZ1bgoY?t=21s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

They're not lying but they aren't telling the complete truth.

>real
yes
>caused 100% by humans
no
>Going to kill everyone and everything
no
>Preventable?
no

It's a hoax invented by the TIDF.

this

what happens is people ask "is global warming real?"
and someone goes "well i don't think it's caused by humans"
then the other guy goes "omg you dont' believe in global warming you fucking idiot!!! lol!!! what a idiot" and shutdown the debate.

This. I had one who was comfortable to admit that the warming effect is perfectly normal part of climate change since it's a continuously fluctuating process anyway.

Well you're just objectively wrong if you say that. You're kind of acting like an infant child so I can see why people get frustrated.

skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm

>Posts TIDF propaganda

Get the fuck out of here, shill.

Can you refute the facts?

The average temperature of the Earth has been getting warmer, but it's not caused by humans, it's just part of the natural cooling/warming cycle that the Earth undergoes over time. There is nothing we humans can do to prevent the earth's temperature from increasing, and our own actions only represent a small percentage of the warming that we're looking at.

This. Climate shift is evident by ice ages. Happening long before cumbustion engines or before white men harnessed fire and bestowed it unwotingly unto the leeser races

>"Facts" based on predictive modeling with tampered/flawed data from a relatively small sample period.

TIDF shill doesn't even know what a fact is.

Do you have any models at all that show different results?

I can't find any peer reviewed ones. In fact I can't find any at all. (this one was. You can peer review it yourself.)

My qualm with that article is that it legitimatizes the study of "Climate Change" which in itself is a pseudoscience and purely an invention of the TIDF to get funding for their pathetic Tuvaluan shithole.

yep its warming up.
because we are still recovering from the last Ice Age.

Can you refute the facts?

Prediction are by definition not facts

yep its real
humans are causing it. People are just afraid of statistics.

How long have weather statistics been recorded? How long was the last ice age said to have lasted? How do these two numbers compare?

There weren't any humans around during the last global warming cycle...

The entire purpose of science is to analyze the facts. Prediction is literally the entire purpose of science. Without it there is absolutely no point to it. The defining feature of a theory is an ability to make predictions. Those predictions should then be tested.

Are the predictions because made by models inaccurate?

No, they've been extraordinarily accurate thus far.. That's a fact. Can you dispute it?

Climate models can make predictions like "Each year will be hotter than the last", and they're right, every time. Many go into more specific details

Do you have any models or theories that can make any predictions? Have any predictions made by your models or theories come true?

No?

Do you have any facts, any science, any data, anything at all?

Inb4 you ignore the argument and resort to fallacies.

toothpaste stay in line lol

>Are the predictions because made by models inaccurate?
Yeah, didn't Al Gore say ice caps are gone by 2015?

>Do you have any models or theories that can make any predictions?
Yeah, we are living in an interglacial, a period in time where temperatures are supposed to be rising.

lol at exponentialy scaled graph nice bait
its just the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Maybe the earth is set to warm up to where it is now but the probability of it happening in such a short amount of time is laughable. You don't have to be an oil cuck its ok

plants literally breathe c02 it is not a pollutant

Of course it's real

Then please tell us what is causing it?
>the sun
nope, solar intensity hasn't increased to account for the warming and if that were the cause, the upper atmosphere would be warming too (but instead it's cooling)
>Milankovitch Cycles
nope, those are on a scale of 10s of thousands of years and again would warm both the lower and upper atmosphere
>Volcanoes
SO2 from volcanoes can have a temporary cooling effect (see, e.g., Pinatubo in the 90s). While a sustained decrease in volcanic activity would therefore lead to a warmer atmosphere, volcanic activity has not been steadily decreasing so that is not the cause
>natural increase in GHGs
CO2 levels are higher than they've been in at least 800k years (per ice core samples) and are rising at a rate ~50x greater than normal. There is nothing natural about jumping from 300ppm to 400ppm in only a hundred years

so then what? What is causing it?

Trump literally doesn't think it's happening though. He says that because it gets cold in NYC in winter time, the earth is not warming. A lot of other idiots on Sup Forums also believe that.
And again: If humans aren't causing it then what is?

The answer to global warming just happens to be the same goal of all globalists.

what do you think?

I think is called chaos theory, or butterfly effect.
You simply cannot make models over a too complex dynamical systems.
This is why real scientists cannot make weather predictions of anythings past a week.

>lol at exponentialy scaled graph nice bait
Are you sure about that?

>Yeah, didn't Al Gore say ice caps are gone by 2015?

I have no idea. What does that have to do with anything?

>Yeah, we are living in an interglacial, a period in time where temperatures are supposed to be rising.

Where is your model that takes into account all of the data we know to make future predictions?

Surely since your side is correct there should be more scientific data showing the story you are telling me? Can you please provide a shred of proof or evidence?

There are countless studies, models, predictions, etc that show Anthropomorphic climate change and make accurate predictions about the future.

I feel like you don't know at all what you're talking about, and are making up wild ideas that are backpacking off climate change.

You KNOW the temperature is rising, so you have to admit it, but you have no models, no science to back up your reasons why.

How can I take that more seriously than everything that shows humans are responsible? you're just guessing while admitting the temperature is rising, and blaming specific things without any evidence to back it up..

Let me ask you this. If the air had 500x more CO2, would temperatures rise, yes or no?

If yes, at what point does this stop being the case?

Do you have any models or studies or data at all that can refute the increases in temperature CO2 and Methane cause?

...

Weather and climate are completely different and almost entirely unrelated. You appear very, very confused.

>I think is called chaos theory, or butterfly effect.
>You simply cannot make models over a too complex dynamical systems.

But they're making predictions that are accurate

>animals went extinct before humans, therefore humans cannot cause extinction
>there were fires before humans existed, therefore humans cannot create fire
Are people on this board literally this stupid or are you all just trolling?
You can't just say "this happened without human intervention before therefore humans can't be causing it now." If humans aren't the cause than what is? All of those natural cooling/warming had causes that cannot explain the current warming. The fact that the lower atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling means that the only plausible explanation is something to do with the atmosphere, and the only significant change we've seen there is from human GHG emissions

>I'm going to ignore your post and link an irrelevant picture
Those are largely caused by Milankovitch cycles which as I said would warm the upper atmosphere too, but it's not

>You KNOW the temperature is rising, so you have to admit it, but you have no models, no science to back up your reasons why.

Look at ()

What about that graph?

You need to actually make an argument. I know you don't have one so it's hard, but try. Amuse me.

They are making guess, often erroneous. Not accurate predictions.
Climate Changers are making new theory each 10 or so years, they have lost any credibility and our planet is doing just fine, evolving and adapting to any change.

They're not lying, they're just being used to push for more government control of resources.

Why aren't we planting a shitload of trees on the government-owned land out west? Why aren't we using biochars to sequester carbon? Why aren't we fixing the broke-ass electric grid that wastes tons of fossil fuel derived power? Those would certainly help the issue, right?

Instead we are STILL funding research into this issue even though we know the cause because every study ends the same, more or less:

> government will need to intervene to prevent a disaster

Funding research into climate change is like going to 100 doctors, 97 say you have cancer and its because you smoke, 2 say you have cancer, but cant tell if it is from smoking, and 1 says you're fine...and then deciding to go pay those doctors more to check again.

It's all being hyped up to advocate for more government control. Like the DNC and black peoples plights, they have no intention of solving the issue because it gives them power.

Basically, I am looking at this periodic interglacial cycle and I wonder why this time would be any different.

Why would 500,000 years of temperature records be trumped by some computer model predictions that have been invaded with political influence?

>caused 100% by humans
Lets put it this way, the planet's climate does not fit models going back several million years.

What could have changed on the planet to have made our climate no longer fit those models?

>Going to kill everyone and everything
The last time CO2 was this high, humans didn't exist. Climate Change might not kill us directly, but it's going to put stress on human societies and historically human societies respond poorly to stress.

Think nuclear weapons in Pakistan getting in the hands of religious extremists as the country gets ravaged by climate.

>Preventable?
You really are like a spokesperson for Exxon Mobil.

But hey, at least you aren't as stupid as you were five or so years ago. I'd bet $100 that you denied climate change right out then.

This. We use real science here, we aren't /x/

Ironically, if we were following historical climate shifts the Earth would be cooling right now.

we are entering an ice age

but pollution is real and preventable and that greatest threat to QOL and access to potable water. This should be a real concern for everyone as republicans will move to privatize things like air and water.

>Why would 500,000 years of temperature records be trumped by some computer model predictions that have been invaded with political influence?
Because Humans weren't around with our industry 500,000 years ago?

How are you this dumb?

>ravaged by climate

Genuine question here:
Greenhouse effect is based on the fact that some gases like CO2 reflect infrared.
doesn't that mean that infrared emmited by the sun are also reflected and doesn't hit earth?
Does that also mean that if there is a global warming because of greenhouse effect, there is more infrared emmited by the earth than by the sun?
how does that even make sense??

>Is global warming real or are my science professors lying to me?


CO2 is an atmospheric gas in minuscule amounts. It has no effect on overall climate.

Yes. You are being lied too. AGW is all about control, money, and power over the masses.

>Because Humans weren't around with our industry 500,000 years ago?

Yes, and the climate change happened anyways right? It happened 4 or 5 times in a row.

Flooding, drought, storms, ect.

Venus is hotter than Mercury even though it's farther away from the sun. Since Mercury has no atmosphere it's tempurature ranges from 800 Fahrenheit during the day to -280 Fahrenheit at night.

Greenhouse gases obviously are a thing. What humans are doing is taking all the Carbon from in the earth and putting it into the atmosphere. We're also deforesting massive amounts of rainforest at the same time. So yes climate change is real and yes humans contribute.

>Yes, and the climate change happened anyways right?

No, climate change like exists now did not at all happen in the past. There's completely different causes and effects.

That's weather.

Humans cause .28% of ghg. Global warming is a natural occurence

Notice how he was plural?

Yes, as well as other spectrums
No
Also no, its a massive nuclear explosion that we're orbiting, its far, far larger then the Earth. Ask /sci/ about it if you really wanna know details.

>No, climate change like exists now did not at all happen in the past.

Completely false. Even the most religious of climate zealots acknowledge it has happened before.

> There's completely different causes and effects.

This is what people dispute.

Source

I'm almost 100% certain this won't take into account agriculture

It also seems misleading. .28% can be a significant amount in a system so large - could be far, far higher than natural deviation. Would like to see your data.

CO2 is much much lower now than it has been relative to most of Earth's history. The recent rise due to fossil fuels appears dramatic only compared to recent history. Earth is fine, we're fine, don't buy the fear mongering.

Honest question:

Are you climate-niggers going to kill yourselves once Lord Christopher Monckton BTFOs your little (((theories)))?

youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s

>>Completely false. Even the most religious of climate zealots acknowledge it has happened before.

Can you please show me even one person claiming that human intervention caused climate change in the past? Thanks.

Earth is going to be fine no matter what. It could be like Venus and still be fine. Humans will theoretically be fine if we don't give a shit about other species or their well being.

The supposedly "pro-science" crowd blames "carbon" and many of them don't even seem to realize this is meant to be short for "carbon dioxide". Which is entirely different than "carbon" because: compounds. The first hint that global warming isn't a real threat caused by man is that marketing is used to even identify the supposed problem. "Carbon" sounds dirty. "Carbon Dioxide" sounds like exhaling. So alarmists always call it "carbon" which just strikes me as anti-science. The other give away is that their main argument is "consensus". The number of people they got to give lip service to their hypothesis. But a "consensus" is a political method, not a scientific method. And the "consensus" is comprised of the broadest spectrum of opinion other than flat out saying denying climate can change. So people that denounce the amount of money and regulations wasted on the subject can still find themselves included in the "consensus". But the real test will occur if and when the earth enters another deep cooling cycle. Do the alarmists start promoting the creation of more CO2 to offset this? I'm guessing not only will they not, but they will then decide that CO2 is the cause of global cooling. But every generation gets one of these group think eco scares and it's all part of your future red-pilling when you watch it fall apart. So I don't get too annoyed by this kind of indoctrination other than colleges seem to increasingly embrace their ability to tell you what to think rather than teach you how to think.

No one likes your meme.

Most of the light emitted by the sun is in the visible light spectrum. Visible light passes through GHGs, then hits the earth's surface and loses energy. When it loses energy it moves down the spectrum to infrared when it leaves the earth's surface. While visible light passes through GHGs, infrared light is absorbed and some of it is reflected back to earth.
This is the same way glass works btw, which is why leaving your car windows up in the summer will cause the car to be so hot. Visible sunlight passes through the glass to get into the car but infrared light does not escape

Sulfur Dioxide has the opposite effect: Visible light is blocked while infrared light passes. This is why following certain large volcanic eruptions the temperatures drop. The "year without a summer" in 1816 followed one of the largest volcanic eruptions in recent history. SO2 emissions were also why temperatures dropped slightly in the 70s. SO2 has other harmful effects on health so legislation like the Clean Air Act was created to reduce SO2 and similar pollutants. Even without the reduction in SO2 emissions though, SO2 has a much shorter lifecycle in the atmosphere, generally being out of the atmosphere in a few years compared to 100+ years for CO2. So the "global cooling" from SO2 would have given way to global warming even without the CAA or other measures

If you put a decimal point in front of a number it appears small, but small rises in tempurature have massive effects globally.

For example if the ice caps melt even a little bit then the earth loses some of its ability to reflect sunlight, which you then add into the factor of how much heat is being trapped in the atmosphere, which then melt more of the ice caps, etc.

>agriculture
that;s the real kicker here, and that's human's biggest factor in this, is how we change our environment, not the emissions we produce.

>all the Carbon
Some* of the carbon. FTFY. No one is denying that the green house effect is real. The questions is how much of an effect the small amount of CO2 we add has on temperature. If you take paleo climate records into account then not very much at all.

Climate change is real, it was always real even before human existed.
It's only exaggerated to instill fear in the weak minded.

The maximum heat contribution humans could have made, using the same science alarmists use, is .3 degrees C over a period of 136 years. You can't even see .3 degrees on a thermometer.

geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

>Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

>Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Don't drink the kool aid pham

you have to go back literally millions or even 10s of millions of years to find higher levels of CO2. Sediment core samples going back 300 million years indicate that the RATE of CO2 increase might be greater than at any point in the past 300 million years

Do you think weather events are climate?
Do you actually know what climate is?

Have you ever heard of a floody climate?
It floods every year where I'm living now and noone has ever described as being a floody climate.

Anyone who claimed that fossil fuels and Free Market caused Anthropogenic climate change, along with stating that those need to be eliminated, needs to be shacked immediately

>No, climate change like exists now did not at all happen in the past.
Yes it did, it happened 4 or 5 times in a row. The temperature went up, the ice caps melted, and the sea levels rose. There's a clear historical pattern in that chart that you can't deny, global warming was happening regularly and cyclically.

>There's completely different causes and effects.
I'm an engineer, not a climatologist. I try to read scientific journals (not pop-science) to understand what is happening. I don't know enough to comment on what is the mechanism causing the warming, but I'm going to default to the obvious historical trend in that chart in the mean time.

I genuinely don't give a shit about other species. The Earth is changing. If they can't adapt, something else will eventually take its place, that's been the story of evolution for millions of years.

What does it matter?

If you cut your oil use to cuck the Saudis and go on the throw off the consumerist jew you'll be doing more to stop global warming than 99% of its advocates. And that's without even addressing the question of whether it's real or not.

So you're saying that the atmosphere only reflects IR emitted by earth but not those emitted by the sun that would hit earth. Kind of like a one way mirror?
how's that?

>Strawmanning 'carbon'

user, John Tyndall knew what carbon dioxide does with longwave radiation before there were cars. This isn't a meme, this isn't a advertising campaign to make 'carbon' seem dirty. The science isn't in on how much of an impact humans have had on themeasured increase in world temperatures, but the science in no way points to 0%.

Grow up.

See pic-related Also see the discussion of CO2 in Specifically, we know what caused the cooling in the 70s and we know why it stopped. Climate scientists knew it at the time too, and knew that even if we didn't curb our SO2 emissions we would still have long-term warming because CO2 and methane have longer atmospheric lives than SO2.

I can't help but notice all the """skeptics""" in this thread are parroting disproven talking points. It's almost like you get all of your information from Fox news and have never bothered to research any of this...

that is not at all what I said you French retard. The atmosphere reflects a percentage of the emissions from the sun, as well as diluting those that come through, this is basic fucking science here.

Do you know what climate is? I mean really, do you? It has a specific meteorological definition, do you know what that definition is? If you do, please tell us so we can be as smart as you.

Those were oil shills.

Yeah but earth never even had ice caps originally and they are a recent anomaly over geological time. Global warming is a good thing, man made or not. Earth is always cooling since its formation, eventually out gassing will stop, sheets of ice will plaster earth, the atmosphere will blow away and life will end for ever and ever. Stop being such a silly rube and buying into this new age earth worship save the Gaia bullshit, they want your energy and that is all.

Who knows what the communist dictator on the right wants but power is a given along with the despot on the right when his minions aren't fucking little boys.

You seriously do not want to enable this, we little people have as much right and as much sense to spend the remaining fossil fuels as we see fit, put that power into the hands of despots like these and it will be lights out, for ever and ever. That is historical fact.

>floody climate
no, they would describe that as a "wet climate" or a "rainy climate." Sometimes a "tropical climate" as well

If you're talking about flash floods in a desert that would be along the lines of "desert climate with regular flash flooding during the rainy season"

retards, the lot of you.
Global ocean temperature rise has already killed 50% of earth's coral reefs.
THIS IS NOT A NORMAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION THAT LIFE CAN ADJUST TO

Global Warming is Fake Science.

youtu.be/nLuBgZ1bgoY?t=21s

I don't think that's what he's implying.

Every fucking climate change thread is filled with some mouthbreathers always spouting the same ignorant, uninformed opinions.

>Hurr climate has changed before, where were the humans then? Pretty sure the boys didn't leave open the beer cooler lolol
Duh, climate is always changing. But we're making it change at an unprecedented rate in over 800 000 years because of the co2 we pump out every year.
The earth emits and absorbs a relatively similar amount of co2 annually, but when we add that extra bit every year it can't keep up with absorbtion.

We are undoubtably causing global warming that will have dangerous effects in the coming years

OH MY GOD, WHAT IF WE CREATE A CLEANER WORLD FOR NOTHING! The agony! baka....climate warming deniers are basically just assholes who want an excuse to do nothing. Pretty much describes all of /pol.
....

>our planet is doing just fine
retard detected. We're going through a massive extinction event as we speak. 50% of earth's coral are already dead due to increased global water temperatures. Climate is changing faster than animals can evolve.

earth is not normally this cold we are in an ice age, some life adapted to the cold and will die out when earth returns to its standard temperature
its called evolution, your crowd isn't too big on it but its real just like ice ages

i hope so

No one is claiming the green house effect is not real. You need to prove the correlation between CO2 and temperature is strong as they claim it is. I don't know how your going to do that given the paleo climate record.

Prove it.

>We are undoubtably causing global warming that will have dangerous effects in the coming years

Why, because you an emotional attachment to being right? Gonna need something more convincing than that, like real life unadjusted data.

Problem is the left's """""""solutions""""""" are shit. Carbon tax? Are you fucking kidding me? I would be okay with subsidizing research into cheapening electric cars and alternative energy (probably nuclear) but only if we stop wasting money on other useless shit.

Well the whole point is : is there more IR that the sun emmits and that is reflected by the atmosphere or is there more IR emitted by the earth reflected by the atmosphere?
The SO2 example you took states perfectly my question: if you put a gas that reflect emissions (IR or visible), wouldnt it tend to cool the earth rather than warm it?

the warming time period is markedly different this time, causing massive changes which life cannot adapt to effectively.

That whole post went way over your head. The point being, it's not "carbon". If you mean "carbon dioxide" then call it "carbon dioxide". Don't call it something else. If that's too long for you, call it "CO2". Calling it "carbon" is anti-science and makes alarmists sound like complete retards to anyone with a real degree.

the earth is always in a mass extinction event. it's called evolution.