If climate change isn't real, how do you explain this?

If climate change isn't real, how do you explain this?

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#3e661ec226d6
climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/
epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
youtube.com/watch?v=u9L49p9Y8Mg
essic.umd.edu/~parkin/NSF_2009/relevant papers/Soden et al. 2002.pdf
waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html
nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/01/the-decline-in-coal-jobs-in-one-chart/?utm_term=.d71151360978
georgesoros.com
scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
climatechangereconsidered.org/
archive.is/igJd5
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>explain this

Gullibility mixed with narcissism and autism.

I'm confused, what do those have to do with hard data?

It does exist.
Sup Forumsjust never wants to agree with what the left says.

Most informative blog post you'll ever read on climate change:

blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science

I agree we should be skeptical, that's why we might go to 2-3 doctors to get second opinions. Would you believe you had cancer 10,000 doctors told you that you did and you were showing symptoms?

There has been no warming this century, so obviously other factors come into play, and it's not just "higher carbon means warming".

Don't let this stop you from handing over a bunch of money and power to a one world government though.

Way to miss the point of that article.

this still doesn't say anything about whether that's bad or not

so we have a lot, so what? since CO2 has never been this high we have literally no idea what it means

You realize that a lot of scientists actually disagree with global warming being man made instead of naturally cyclical?

The 99% of scientists agree meme was pulled from a minuscule group that was screened for their belief in climate change beforehand by having gone through a first poll. It is all out there to read about in the details of the poll.

That's a graph of CO2, it doesn't prove anything except there is more CO2 in the air

higher carbon does mean more warming, that's why it's called a greenhouse gas...

>The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.

Do you want to read the sources on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change ?

CO2 traps heat.
Refer to This shows how the more CO2 we have, the hotter it is getting.

co2 was around 1000 ppm during the Holocene Optimal, a time in earth's history when the earth was teeming with an explosion of plant and animal life.

>since CO2 has never been this high we have literally no idea what it means
dunno if you know this mate but science can let us predict future consequences of things, before they happen, using data collected from past patterns and immediate observable truths

It shows no such thing. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, providing 95% of the greenhouse effect. Co2 provides a little less than 5%, with man's contribution less than .02% of that. The max amount of heating that man's contribution could possibly have added, according to the same science used by climate alarmists, is 1.6 watts/sq meter, which is equal to the heat of a 2 watt light bulb for every column of atmosphere one meter square and 12 km tall.

I read through those sources and a lot are things like the Australian Coral Reef Society or the Network of African Science Academies. It absolutely confirmed the lack of serious climate scientists who agree.

Try my link instead.

forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#3e661ec226d6

Carbon monoxide is a huge problem we need to stop it

timescales are important for considering CO2 change, sense dinosaurs CO2 has been above 400 multiple times.

You are trolling, right? There are tens of thousands of scientists who dispute that conclusion.

>“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

Co2 is the biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Humans are most certainly the cause of it as well.

Jews are desert people, right?

...

You are surely trolling, or you are abysmally ignorant. Your chart shows only the 5% of the greenhouse gasses that are not water vapor, a depiction commonly used by alarmists, which is one of the reasons no one takes alarmists seriously anymore. The largest contributor to Co2 is the world's oceans.

The whole global warming alarmist scenario depends on Co2 somehow driving water vapor to trap three times the heat of Co2, which will result in the catastrophic destruction of mankind. Get serious.

>The largest contributor to Co2 is the world's oceans
Jesus Christ. I have heard a lot in my day about what is the cause of Co2 contribution. Everything from volcanoes to cows farting. But oceans? You got to be kidding me.

Just in case you aren't trolling me, this source shows all the contributors to this Co2 crisis.
>epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Please show me a source on your ocean theory.

youtube.com/watch?v=u9L49p9Y8Mg
essic.umd.edu/~parkin/NSF_2009/relevant papers/Soden et al. 2002.pdf
you're speaking a half truth due to your limited scope of knowledge on the topic, do try to avoid these things in the future

Once again, an alarmist, sensationalist depiction of man caused contributions that does not consider natural causes. Natural causes are responsible for the 280 ppm we began with in 1880, of the remainder, 120 parts per million that brings us up to the present 400 ppm, some part of that is due to man's activities.

So where did the original 280 ppm come from? waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html

Oceans contribute 17% of atmospheric carbon dioxide, man contributes .04%.

>Oceans contribute 17% of atmospheric carbon dioxide, man contributes .04%
Perhaps you have some sort of chart that agrees with you on that claim?
I am finding this all completely absurd.

>essic.umd.edu/~parkin/NSF_2009/relevant papers/Soden et al. 2002.pdf

>posts paper using a global cooling study as a proxy for alarmist global warming model conclusions

>smugly expects to be taken seriously

>what a maroon

sorry i dont see any actual counterclaim in your post so im going to ask you to rewrite it and turn it back in at the end of class

If you are finding it absurd it is only because you haven't studied the subject very thoroughly. I already provided you with a detailed, accepted explanation of the ocean/atmosphere interface. Sorry I can't provide you with a simplistic chart promoting my agenda, as you guys like to do, If you just read a little bit you will see that what I say is true though.

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.

Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

I tried reading it, but it made no sense and didn't agree with my source from the actual EPA website.
Idk what to tell ya.
Find something that makes more sense and find a better source.

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

And I didn't see any actual claim on your part. However, my counterclaim is that the 750 climate models currently in use by alarmists that promote a water vapor amplification effect of 200 to 300 percent have all vastly overprojected the rise in temp that would occur with doubling of co2, which is why they changed the narrative from global warming to climate change. Try harder, faggot.

>YOU DON'T NEED SOURCES, BELIEVE IN MY ANONYMOUS WORD YOU SHITLORD!!!!

extend that graph past 400,000 years and lets see how it looks like now faggot.

Global temperature scales logarithmically with respect to CO2 concentration.

Don't care.

>which is why they changed the narrative from global warming to climate change.
nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
>Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."

good god shut the fuck up, do you believe every meme you read so long as its contrarian?

The problem you are having is that you don't understand that the EPA only considers man caused co2 contributions, and you simply cannot make the leap to consider that carbon dioxide existed before man, that carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated wildly over earth's history, and that instead of being a pollutant carbon dioxide is an essential component of life. I won't waste my time finding other sources for you, because no matter how compelling the science, you will still deny it because you are a climate change believer, a person who has a world view to protect, like all true believers. Acceptance of any evidence contrary to your belief system would destroy your worldview, and your ego.

Oh ok, so you don't have any other source because there literally aren't any that agree with you.
Gotcha.

Without even looking we can safely assume it is greencuck propaganda.

If you thought you weren't a fag how do you explain this?

first of all, I'm pretty sure that graph is straight out of some shit I watched Al Gore spew a few years ago. There are much more accurate sources than anything validated by that senile old man.

Second, I don't know many people who have passed a basic geology course that would disagree with the fact that climate change is real. It fucking is. The planet warms and cools cyclically, as demonstrated by that graph. Over the period that this particular graph chooses to display, our current Co2 numbers are drastically larger, sure. But there have been periods in our planet's history where the Co2 has been upwards of 1000ppm.

Did humans contribute to the rapid rise in certain greenhouse gases? Sure. Taking the alarmists' sensational and exaggerated argument as truth, it looks like we probably fucked up. But this massive space rock that we live on is going to travel the course we set it on. Giving some rich dick your money for a goddamn Prius isn't going to do anything. At this point, we're gonna have to ride it out or die lol. Don't think this is a fixable issue.

I ignore it. lel

Very good chart. It demonstrates a direct correlation between the desire to suck numerous black cocks and the desire to promote faggot agendas. Very telling.

ah shit you got him good

...

By showing the temperature data that you conveniently left out. Temperature moves first, then co2 follows. An event cannot be caused by something that happens after it; that's not how cause and effect works.

who cares?

Were ascendinnnngggg

Here you go faggot, a simplistic chart you may be able to understand, produced by a university that promotes global warming.

if you noticed something about his chart and mine is that they provide no source
now since we have established sources are out the window I'm going to assume you are also a fag yes?

Ok, is it saying that fossil fuels don't go back down? Meaning they just stay up in the atmosphere?
If I am understanding this graph correctly, oceans do bring Co2 into the air, but it gets brought down more than it brings up...
But my point still stands how mankind is the real cause of global warming because fossil fuels aren't bring "brought down".
That is what I am understanding about this graph.

>marine organisms are contributing more Co2 than they're taking out.

Organism carbon tax when?

I have a better idea. Every year let's spend more than $10 billion dollars getting opinions of doctors who all think we have cancer, and then let's spend $100 million getting opinions of doctors who don't think we have cancer. I wonder how many of each type of doctor we'll end up with??

that appears to be a graph of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not climate

and then let's charge everyone in the country for a cure that won't change a thing unless you plan nuclear war and invasions of china and other various contributing nations not willing to bend to our taxes

Why is your graph different from OPs? It doesn't have the spike up at the end.

>the neighbor doesn't clean his doorstep, so i won't too!

Amazing mentality you people have

>Earth
>over 10,000 years old
Retard alert! Next are you going to talk about Trex eyesight based on a kneecap you found?

This basically

>destroy our society to virtue signal to the rest of the world
Wew lad

stops at 1950 level

>he thinks environmental legislation will destroy the country

Amazing mentality you people have. Can you guys think without resorting to Fox News Talking points?

>this mentality is why Trump got elected
Carbon Taxes and global warming virtue signaling has destroyed the economic viability of many industries and thousands of middle class workers and threatened to do much worse if they weren't halted. No one gives a shit that the oceans may rise 3 inches a thousand years from now when they have kids starving now and are homeless.

>But my point still stands how mankind is the real cause of global warming because fossil fuels aren't bring "brought down".

That is a fair enough point. However, the point of contention is does man's contribution create so much warming effect that it is something to worry about? There is no observational data to support that this is the case, the only "evidence" to support this assumption are the projections of climate models that assume that each doubling of co2 will cause an increase of avg global temp of 1*C, and that 1*C will cause the water vapor in the atmosphere to increase, thereby increasing the avg. global temp 2-6 times, depending on the model.

This assumption has not been borne out by observational data, as should be apparent to anyone who thinks about the matter. Co2 does not permanently stay warm once it is heated up. It emits heat at the same rate it absorbs it. When the sun is shining carbon dioxide absorbs heat, when night or clouds come it releases that heat. Eventually that heat makes its way to the upper atmosphere where it escapes into space.

Climate alarmists do not like to mention that each doubling of co2 does not cause the same increase in trapped heat, because the heat trapping of co2 is logarithmic in nature. Each subsequent doubling of co2 causes a corresponding decrease in heat holding effect since the co2 is already mostly saturated with the maximum amount of heat it can retain.

>Carbon Taxes and global warming virtue signaling has destroyed the economic viability of many industries and thousands of middle class workers and threatened to do much worse if they weren't halted.
source?

Look up you fucking imbeciles. It's right in front of your face ALL DAY

Source for that would be the closing of coal plants and the shuttering of coal mines in the US, and the shipping of manufacturing industry overseas to countries that do not have the environmental taxes the US has. Which is why Americans elected Trump, he has promised to end those regulations and bring industry back to America.

washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/01/the-decline-in-coal-jobs-in-one-chart/?utm_term=.d71151360978

Welcome to the rust belt, that's only one industry. Meanwhile the steel, automotive, and other major manufacturers have all left to nations that aren't choking their population to death to virtue signal to the rest of the world. Survival of the fittest, nations like China will forge ahead no matter the outcome to be successful economically while our nation throws away its current and past economic success.
The longer people like you go while completely missing the point of elections like Trump the more leaders like Trump get elected. So by all means keep trying to destroy industry, I find the blowback highly entertaining.

>carbon dioxide
How about actual temperature nigger squirter

faggot

>wormwooD?

I'm pretty sure that if you found a graph that went back further you would see very high CO2 levels (like 4-5 times higher than present) and a cold ice age planet.

So 65%? That's anything but settled. Also polls are always bullshit and can be tampered in endless ways

georgesoros.com

This. Its good for plants its got electrolytes.

It's real. But there is nothing we can do about it without sacrificing our extremely comfortable way of life.

please source your findings and the fact is that carbon dioxide keeps heat in not "emit it"

polls are irrelevant. the evidence is overwhelming. read a book terrone

>there is nothing we can do about it
What ((they)) are doing is trying to form up a global totalitarian technocratic energy police state before things really start to unwind, the climate meme is a means to an end, that end is control. With so many people, the ushering in must be voluntary or their would be rebellion. 21st century will be mass human carnage either way.

...

scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

If carbon dioxide never emitted the heat it absorbs, then it could not be used to make dry ice, but we make millions of tons of dry ice per year. See, the reason so many people believe the alarmist hype is because most people never take enough science classes. ALL substances absorb and emit heat. If not the avg temp of the universe would be absolute zero.

genuine question from an absolutely autistic retard: how do we know the carbon dioxide levels from 200, 300, 400,000 years ago?

Yeap.

It's the real reason we didn't go to nuclear power too.

Nuclear energy would mean real energy independence and that would mean loss of control, so they force development wind turbines and solar panels instead.

indeed, read a book terrone, you're not smart

Do more research before you post:
1. climatechangereconsidered.org/
2. archive.is/igJd5

Good ad hominems man those sure make you smart

[citation needed]

if you're really interested don't ask the know nothing retards on Sup Forums. ask /sci/

Those are known from measurements of atmosphere trapped in ice cores and ocean sediment samples, and from indications in fossil plant life.

Russian hacking

Why is co2 bad? If you remember that during the prehistoric periods there was a massive greenhouse effect causing huge swaths of the plant to have huge jungles. Turns out plants LOVE co2

Also what do you expect to do? Take it out of the atmosphere?

That's a carbon graph not a temperature graph.

Prove that its bad?

neat

Earth's history is much longer than 300,000 years.

Maybe I'm being an idiot or maybe it's the heinous lack of logical syntax, but I'm having a hard time discerning what you're calling me out on here. Where exactly is your chart?