/evg/ - Environmentalism general

It's high time for conservatives to practice what they preach and show some responsibility.

The climate is changing fast and humans are the cause of it. No memes will change this fact no matter your political position.

Other urls found in this thread:

bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90
m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/photos/rivers-run-dry/
shoebat.com/2015/03/23/the-nile-and-the-euphrates-are-drying-up-both-rivers-are-in-the-news-and-both-rivers-are-in-the-bible-an-inevitable-famine-is-plaguing-the-muslim-world/
climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/lakes-and-rivers.html
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0303_060303_africa.html
worldwatch.org/human-activities-contribute-drying-major-river-headwaters
ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-5.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
climate.nasa.gov/effects/
npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/12/15/251437395/global-warming-explained-in-about-a-minute
skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

How much of it is due to natural random variation, natural phenomena and human phenomena. Give me the break down.

Moreover, why have climate models systematically overestimated the negative outcomes of climate change (e.g. temperature predicted to be much higher than it actually was)

>How much of it is due to natural random variation, natural phenomena
The El Nino has made the past few years 2013-present warmer than they should be but correcting it still gives you the warmest years on record
Milankovitch cycles do not account for any significant amount

>human phenomena
There is no other consistent factor that comes remotely close to explaining the 100-something year trend.

>Give me the break down.
Hard to fit into a Sup Forums comment but here's a summary of the data:
bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

>(e.g. temperature predicted to be much higher than it actually was)
This is a myth based on outdated models. Recent models (90's and later) have been very accurate in predicting the climate

>This is a myth based on outdated models
Show me models from the 80s, 90s, 2000s and 2010s and the respective predictions. Your pic might be a model from 2012 predicting what happened in the past. That's useless.

>There is no other consistent factor that comes remotely close to explaining the 100-something year trend.
But natural phenomena have affects for hundreds or thousands of years. Geological time is on a whole different scale compared to human time.

youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90
This video goes through it decade by decade and has observed data all the way to 2015.
Even the 70's models are reasonably accurate.

>Geological time is on a whole different scale compared to human time.
That's the point. There is no natural factor that explains this rapid increase in temperature over such a short period.
No climate denialist has ever pointed towards anything remotely credible.

In that bloomberg article, why are they using a non-stationary series? This immediately strikes me as weird.

>Even the 70's models are reasonably accurate.
Before watching the video, it looks like there are two sides saying wildly different things about early models at least. Even you said early models sucked. What the hell?

>No climate denialist has ever pointed towards anything remotely credible.
Why so much disagreement, then? What are disagreeing about?

>Even you said early models sucked.
Yes, they would be considered outdated today and their predictions do not line up as well as they should.
But denialists have taken this truth and spun it to the nonsense you're spreading that all the models have always been completely wack.

>Why so much disagreement, then? What are disagreeing about?
What disagreement are you referring to?
There is an overwhelming consensus among the climate science community that man made CO2 is the only reasonably explanation for the warming.

What do you mean?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

Here's the real facts faggots.

NOAA and NASA have been systematically removing rural weather and temperature stations. It's a well known fact that urban areas give higher temperature ratings. They have also erased the warm period in the 30's which was much greater than what we are seeing currently. They called it the dust bowl for a reason.

About 100 million years ago the planet had nearly 5000ppm of C02, and we didn't experience runaway warming, in fact those carbon levels facilitated massive plant growth that could support massive life forms that couldn't survive on today's plantlife.

Our current carbon dioxide levels are borderline suffocation levels for plantlife. Greenhouses regularly pump C02 into their atmosphere for enhanced growth and healthier plants.

Carbon dioxide is the lifeline of planet earth, it is nothing but good and anyone with a basic chemistry/biology background will tell you this.

Carbon creates and oxygen destroys. Oxygen erodes metal, and kills cells in your body. Carbon compromises metal and gives life to plants which in turn feed the rest of life.

>NOAA and NASA have been systematically removing rural weather and temperature stations. It's a well known fact that urban areas give higher temperature ratings.
This nonsense argument does not account for the fact that the oceans and high altitude weather balloons show the exact same trend.

>They have also erased the warm period in the 30's which was much greater than what we are seeing currently.
In America yes. Globally the 30's were significantly cooler than today.

> and we didn't experience runaway warming
It is believed the Cretaceous period was far warmer than today

>Our current carbon dioxide levels are borderline suffocation levels for plantlife. Greenhouses regularly pump C02 into their atmosphere for enhanced growth and healthier plants.
>Carbon dioxide is the lifeline of planet earth
This is true but irrelevant.

>Carbon creates and oxygen destroys. Oxygen erodes metal, and kills cells in your body. Carbon compromises metal and gives life to plants which in turn feed the rest of life.
This is just nonsense with no substance.

Human released CO2 is warming the planet and extremely fast. No nonsense about plant food will change that.

omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

Greenhouses altering C02

Past C02 levels in pic related.

>But denialists have taken this truth and spun it to the nonsense you're spreading that all the models have always been completely wack.
Okay, show me models made in, say, 2000 predicting temperatures in 2012-2015.

>There is an overwhelming consensus among the climate science community that man made CO2 is the only reasonably explanation for the warming.
No, there is an overwhelming consensus that humans CAN affect climate.

>their predictions do not line up as well as they should.
Also, can you point me out to a paper or article saying why early models failed and what was done to solve their issues?

really enjoying the path the weather is heading

while everything else gets worse, at least we can count on the weather getting comfier

see

>This nonsense argument does not account for the fact that the oceans and high altitude weather balloons show the exact same trend.

They altered data from the 30's I'd be surprised if those numbers were real.

>In America yes.
So you agree they erased that data but believe the rest of what they release?

>It is believed the Cretaceous period was far warmer than today
Not an argument for anthropogenic climate change because the climate cooled afterwards on it's own. Evidence for systems of carbon sequestering we are currently unaware of.

>This is just nonsense with no substance.
What is oxidation? Why does iron rust?

Iceland wtf is your problem?
>Iceland
Get with the program, for one thing warming is good and if man can help that's great but unlikely.
NOAA manipulates their data and propaganda to fit the narrative.
>According to NOAA 2016 was 0.07°F warmer than 2015, which is 0.04°C. Considering the error in the annual temperature is +/- 0.1°C this makes 2016 statistically indistinguishable from 2015, making any claim of a record using NOAA data specious.
wtf is the problem with NOAA? Why are they now in the fearmongering business?

>show me models made in
Here's one from 1990 pic related.
But if you watched the video they go through a lot more models.

>No, there is an overwhelming consensus that humans CAN affect climate.
This is false. There is an overwhelming consensus that man made CO2 is currently warming the earth and is by far the biggest factor in the recent observed warming.

They get more grants that way.

It's like the CDC, if there is no disease then how do they get money? So they have no interest in controlling disease or they lose a job.

highest worldwide crop yield ever, and lowest level of natural disaster damage as percent of GDP ever recorded.

muh catastrophic climate change

Blame the left and all their bullshit. Even if true, we're not rushing into a bullshit money making/control scheme. We'll stop polluting when the technology advances enough to allow us to do so. No more liberal manipulation.

If the earth has been above 5000ppm of C02 why is 400ppm bad?

>Here's one from 1990 pic related.
I want a metastudy not a bunch of random models. For all I know, they could be selecting only the success cases.
And the model you showed still overshoots.

>This is false. There is an overwhelming consensus that man made CO2 is currently warming the earth and is by far the biggest factor in the recent observed warming.
Source on this. The original 97% paper was about humans affecting climate not actual CO2 driving climate change.

Reminder that TRUMP will reduce global CO2 emissions due to his trade war with china.

Algo, give me a study showing what are the negative economic consequences from climate change. Who is going to be affected and how? How are costs going to be distributed across the world. In other words, tell me why I should care.

>This is false. There is an overwhelming consensus that man made CO2 is currently warming the earth and is by far the biggest factor in the recent observed warming.

>CO2

Opinion automatically disregarded. Atleast pick the right greenhouse gas.
Aside from that, human created CO2 doesn't even begin to compare to natural CO2 emissions that have been happening since the dawn of this planet's atmosphere.

>weather getting comfier
Maybe first it might getting comfier, but in the long run weather will just get more and more extreme.

As the glaciers melt, basically almost all the rivers that come from glaciers will dry out.
When the rivers are dried out then humanity is fucked.

environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/photos/rivers-run-dry/

shoebat.com/2015/03/23/the-nile-and-the-euphrates-are-drying-up-both-rivers-are-in-the-news-and-both-rivers-are-in-the-bible-an-inevitable-famine-is-plaguing-the-muslim-world/

climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/lakes-and-rivers.html

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0303_060303_africa.html

worldwatch.org/human-activities-contribute-drying-major-river-headwaters

ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-5.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

just go here

www.climatedepot.com

and get some REAL facts, not bullshit.


thank me later

the man made climate change argument continues to:
>destroy the stranglehold of oil producers
>create carbon credits as a commodity

Just use biomass, sugarcane and hemp. Neutral on carbon, no deforestation necessary (can use crap fields). Hemp good for plastics too.

Massive variations this year are due to El Nino / La Nina switching. (anyone got a pic for nino/nina?)

Any graphs going further back than that? Pretty tiny sample size, given the topic.

tons of comments here give me a few minutes to go through them all

You can read the methodology straight from IPCC. But it seems to mainly consists of tweaking of numbers to get more accurate climate sensitivity.

There is no argument here.

>So you agree they erased that data but believe the rest of what they release?
No they didn't erase any data. I don't know where that myth is from. The point is the 30's were exceptionally high in North America but not worldwide so the US high in the 30's doesn't show up in the models, because they are supposed to account for global climate.

>Not an argument for anthropogenic climate change
Nobody claims it was. But the fact that the Cretaceous was a lot warmer and had a lot more CO2 is not an argument against it either.

>Evidence for systems of carbon sequestering we are currently unaware of.
Over millions of years things even out. That's not debated. But we're worried about the very rapid warming now in the next decades and centuries.

>What is oxidation? Why does iron rust?
This is irrelevant.

> for one thing warming is good
This is nonsense for all but the northernmost regions of Russia and Canada and maybe Scandinavia. Everywhere else we'll see increased desertification and ecological catastrophes.

Rest of the comment is against the NOAA which is not relevant to the facts of climate change.

This is even worse than the generals that I post from time to time.

>You can read the methodology straight from IPCC. But it seems to mainly consists of tweaking of numbers to get more accurate climate sensitivity.
I've opened one of these reports. It's thousands upon thousands of pages which makes it look like the typical russian psyops of disinformation to make the people disengage the issue. I consider this a non-answer, then. Surely, as having models fail is such a crucial point raised by skeptics, there must be some effort to clarify what is going on to educated laymen, no? The fact there isn't sounds fishy.

>general
fuck off with this shit, you've already destroyed Sup Forums

>They didn't erase any data
Yes they did.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

If we stabilised here it wouldn't be the end of the world but that's not very likely.

It feels good sounding tough but unfortunately it's not a valid argument.

Because the current ecosphere and agriculture adapted to a much smaller amount will have a very hard time adapting to the heat.

>And the model you showed still overshoots.
Which is why the models are being improved every year.

>The original 97% paper
Pick any number of papers you like, pic related. Feel free to google them and find their exact wording.

>Atleast pick the right greenhouse gas.
Human CO2 is the wrench in the system that's the cause. Methane is being released because of the heat, not the other way around forming a feedback loop. Water vapor in the atmosphere is also decided by the heat, not the other way around, forming another feedback loop.
This is a diversion tactic to obfuscate the real issue.
>Aside from that, human created CO2 doesn't even begin to compare to natural CO2 emissions that have been happening since the dawn of this planet's atmosphere.
In the timeframe we're talking about it does absolutely. Human CO2 emissions are the reason for the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

>what are the negative economic consequences
Food shortages, water shortages, famines, and draught. More powerful hurricanes. People cant work anymore because of extreme weather, starvation, or dehydration. Many countries will experience regular flooding and some islands will be permanently submerged in water.
>Who is going to be affected
Every human being, the poor will be the first to go.
>how?
Death.
>How are costs going to be distributed across the world?
It doesnt matter. 90% of humanity will not exist anymore whitin the next 100 years.
>Why I should care?
Its already too late to care.

climate.nasa.gov/effects/
>Who is going to be affected and how?
To begin with we'll see desertification in Africa, South America, Central America (leading all the way into the South/mid US as in the dustbowl) and Southern Europe but the real issue is that agricultural regions all over the world will be strained.
We might also see fisheries collapse, more hurricanes and we will definitely see tons of migrations into northern Europe and Asia from the Middle East and Africa.

>give me all the details
>gets all the details
>that's too much information man it must be fake

20 years ago you were talking out your ass about global temps. today global temps are the same as they were. 20 years from now, youll still be talking out your ass about it still. and global temps wont be much different from today or even from 20 years ago.

If you still believe in climate change I have some Amway products I'd like to show you.

bro there is no evidence that natural disasters are increasing in number or severity. Roger Pielke Jr. has published multiple papers on this. He was an original columnist for Nate Silver's 538 site when they relaunched on ESPN.

After he published one article showing his findings he was blacklisted and 538 prevented him from writing any more articles about his research.

The fact is, you are nowhere near as certain about any of this stuff as you present to everyone else. And, any scientist who dares to publish against the narrative is blacklisted, demonized, and cut off from any additional funding.

I don't understand the logic of climate change deniers.
Suppose climate change is indeed man-made. We fix it. All good. Or we don't fix it, and we're fucked.
Suppose climate change is not man-made. We try to fix it to no avail, we're fucked. Or we don't fix it, and we're fucked.

Given the possible outcomes, why would you decide to not do anything about it? That way in either case you're fucked. Why not try to fix the problem?

>Pick any number of papers you like, pic related. Feel free to google them and find their exact wording.
Google the most recent one. It mostly interviews mostly non-climate scientists.
Of 698 respondents, about 94 percent said they believe average global temperatures have "generally risen" compared with pre-1800 levels, and 92 percent said they believe "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." Note the meaning of "significant" for scientists is very different from the meaning for non-scientists.
Nearly 79 percent said they "strongly agree" and about 15 percent "moderately agree" that climate science is credible. About 64 percent said climate science is a mature science compared with their own field, and about 63 percent rated climate science as "about equally trustworthy" compared to their discipline.

Why did they start including water temperatures in that graph hmmm?

what are you even asking for man?
the information is right there
the fact that you and 99% of people are too lazy/uneducated to go through it is why we have experts who dedicate their life to this stuff and big suprise something like 95-100% of them agree that man made CO2 is the primary problem

I'm not going to watch a 50 minute video but even if US measurements from the period are inaccurate climate models are based on global data, not US

>20 years ago you were talking out your ass about global temps
this is false
90's models hold up reasonably well to this day

>today global temps are the same as they were.
This is absolutely false, the last 3 years have been the hottest 3 on record and the last 15 years much hotter than the last 15 years
see pic in the op
>and global temps wont be much different from today or even from 20 years ago
considering this is nonsense even today I suggest you restrain from making too bold predictions

>It feels good sounding tough but unfortunately
>it's not a valid argument.

You're a fucking moron, user. This is the truth, not "sounding tough". Jesus Christ.

>Food shortages, water shortages, famines, and draught. More powerful hurricanes. People cant work anymore because of extreme weather, starvation, or dehydration. Many countries will experience regular flooding and some islands will be permanently submerged in water.
Really sounds like it will only affect developing countries. Why should I be so worried? Why aren't developing countries doing more to avoid their doom instead of negotiating based on a moral high ground?

>It doesnt matter. 90% of humanity will not exist anymore whitin the next 100 years.
lol club of rome much
have you thought of non trusting in giant systems of non-linear chaotic equations to predict anything for once? Those always explode to + or - infinity.

lmao you're such a retard. go get a relevant degree or iq above 120 if you want to preach about weather predictions

>To begin with we'll see desertification in Africa, South America, Central America (leading all the way into the South/mid US as in the dustbowl) and Southern Europe but the real issue is that agricultural regions all over the world will be strained.
Can humans do anything to prevent this?
Did you know the region which is supposedly being desertified in Portugal became the largest agricultural producer in Portugal during the last 20 years?

That's not what I said. If you don't even bother to explain the bigger picture, I won't bother to listen to you. All sciences do this to effectively spread their views. Stop falling for the "too dumb to understand meme".

You can split hairs as you like but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree here
there is no "controversy" or serious debate within the climate science community sort of like there's no serious debate about evolution among biologists

>Can humans do anything to prevent this?
Yes. Significantly reduce CO2 emissions to slow down or halt the warming.

>the fact that you and 99% of people are too lazy/uneducated to go through it is why we have experts who dedicate their life to this stuff and big suprise something like 95-100% of them agree that man made CO2 is the primary problem
This is why nobody trusts you. All scientific fields present the bigger picture to laymen, even the most complicated ones. If it is hard, they at least try. However, climate science doesn't besides constantly using arguments from authority and presenting you with bible length reports. Sorry, that's the typical overload of information tactic to make people uninterested. That's what lobbyists hire lawyers to do when drafting laws to benefit the people and companies they represent. Don't you bullshit me.

>there is no "controversy" or serious debate within the climate science community sort of like there's no serious debate about evolution among biologists
Instead of linking me to a shit load of papers why don't you simply provide me with the most convincing quotes of a paper where scientists supposedly agree with climate change? Do you even know how memes work? You are terrible at disseminating information.

>Yes. Significantly reduce CO2 emissions to slow down or halt the warming.
I meant besides that. Is there any way to prevent the effects of climate change besides reducing CO2 emissions?

There are hundreds of layman-level explanations out there. Problem is nothing is good enough for you. You demand more and more detail in the hope that I'll concede that I don't know them (and I'm no climate scientist) to claim victory. At some point you either have to be an expert or be willing to go through the serious stuff.

Here's one layman level explanation
npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/12/15/251437395/global-warming-explained-in-about-a-minute

>Even the 70's models are reasonably accurate.
The models based on CO2 induced positive feedback even up to 2013 have all been objectively disproven.

The hypothesis is false.
It is only sustained by politics and Lysenkoism.

Cause it costs loads of money? I'd rather buy sloots and dope

I want this country to turn into swampland paradise. Don't you dare stop that process.

I say this all the time when I get in climate discussions! There have been massive climate shifts during earth's history. What happens do many species during these shifts? MASS EXTINCTION. Regardless of cause of the shift, it's damn important to study and prevent these shifts.

>blame liberals and their bullshit
>it's just the truth

Well, you're quite the thinker.

>present the bigger picture to laymen
see the second line of the OP maybe? Surely it's not the first time you read something along those lines.

>Muh money
Oh no!

Iceland you don't want this, then all the immigrants will come.

>I meant besides that. Is there any way to prevent the effects of climate change besides reducing CO2 emissions?
There are several ideas but none that are commonly accepted and most of them are just as expensive or more so than reducing emissions. Those ideas mostly include putting mass aerosols into the atmosphere to reduce the warming.

This seems like a variation of this tired old argument.

You don't get it. I don't need people to explain me the greenhouse effect. Every kid learns that in school. The point is that the most common point raised by skeptics against climate change is that models have systematically failed. If this is a misconception, tackling it is key. That's why I'm asking you for a bigger picture explanation of why the models have failed in the past. Not existing one seems to be ignoring low hanging fruit. That's why, if there isn't one, it's really odd.

Here's a nice overview:
skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

There's a basic and intermediate level explanation. I linked the intermediate because it has more details.

Is that pic a video? Can you give me the link? The graphs pass on so fast I don't have time to properly read them.

That's nice and all. I still don't care though. I don't care about the temperature warming and I never will. The electricity we have powers the entire world and greenies want us to go back to the stone age. When environmentalists admit they are fine with the US ending all aid to shitholes like Africa, India, and the Middle East which are the actual overpopulated portions of the world, then we can start subsidizing solar and wind. These fucking crybabies constantly bitch that overpopulation is the problem but do so in majority white, western, developed countries saying we need to stop. Let's see them say it to Jamal. I asked one the solution and they said "free birth control for everyone." This is the average solution to their national catastrophe.

>This is nonsense for all but the northernmost regions of Russia and Canada and maybe Scandinavia
>Everywhere else we'll see increased desertification and ecological catastrophes
Good! Earth need a good natural purge of the human monkey. Rather that than some totalitarian global energy government deciding who and who cannot burn the remaining fossil fuels because that's all the meme is about, control of power.

Meet "Doctor" Ottmar. A Jesuit priest of the Catholic Church, I would be very leery of any quick subscription to the new age cult of man made climate change. The prophecies of doom, the promise to save you and the earth, but what do pop religions ever deliver besides misery, poverty and holy war all while engorging themselves like the bloated parasites they are?

they fail because people don't admit or account for the uncertainty in their measurements, and assume their models are the truth, as opposed to the data which is actually the truth.

And, the data they have is only the truth if they are transparent about their methodology for gathering it and the uncertainties in the data.

For instance, what is one 'temperature' point that's graphed on all these fucking graphs? It's an amalgamation of thousands of temperature readings from thousands of different locations using thousands of different types of equipment. Yet there is no acknowledgement of this. There is an exact point put onto a graph.

And don't even get me started on fitting models and all the idiotic things these fucking scientists do there.

>tired old argument
They hypothesis of CO2 exclusively-mediated forcing has been empirically disproven.

The models based on it have no predictive power. They have no significant signal-to-noise ratio. That's it. That's real science.
All public policy is based upon these false models.
It doesn't matter what you want to believe, hypothesis->evidence->conclusion is the scientific method.
A "climate scientist" who denies the scientific method is not a 'scientist', no matter how many degrees he may claim.

it's right there The US will be hard hit though. Particularly the south and midwest where we'll see the great dustbowl pale in comparison.
Also Mexico will destabilize which is bad for the US, especially those that don't like immigrants.

You know there is a fallacy called "the appeal to authority". You make it again and again. No scientist would even believe you if you keep using this fallacy. Google it.

The part I care about is under "Uncertainties in future projections". Still, they don't proper explain anything. I don't want you to show me the cherry-picked instances in which the models have worked, which just tries to shift my attention from failures to successes. Rather, I want you to explain to me why they failed.

>they fail because people don't admit or account for the uncertainty in their measurements
This is nonsense. All the models document their uncertainty vigorously.

source on this graph and this statement

I know you're proud of reading the wikipedia entry for logical fallacies but it's not relevant here.

They didn't "fail". The numbers were off and it's because this is a very complicated system.

What has never changed is that the planet is warming and the primary reason for that is man made CO2, and in fact there has never been a credible model whose predictions didn't pan out to be nonsense without taking that into account.
The numbers just don't add up otherwise.

citing irrelevant fallacies should be listed as a new fallacy

if they documented their uncertainty the points on the graphs would be ranges not dots.

if they documented their uncertainty the range of expected outcomes would be much wider, and include the possibility that warming is not a longer trend.

if YOU took uncertainty into account you wouldn't be making these statements like the US is going to be like the dustbowl

>source on this graph and this statement
The sources for these graphs are all explicitly and exactingly stated in the graphs themselves.

There is no trick. All temperature data is empirically verified and publicly available.

You can manually date-by-date compare Hadcrut and UAH observations to all of the model projections if you want. The margin of error is a gross overestimation. That nullifies any hypothesis of urgency, and all public policy predictive results.

>the points on the graphs would be ranges not dots.
That's what they are if you actually care to look at the graphs from the scientists.
Pic related, gray area is error bars.
I can only post one pic but there are hundreds of these out there.

>and include the possibility that warming is not a longer trend
No, the uncertainty isn't that big and this doesn't fit any plausible model or observations.

>if YOU took uncertainty into account you wouldn't be making these statements like the US is going to be like the dustbowl
This is the worst case if change continues. Whether it happens in 50 years or 100 years doesn't really matter.

Swallow the greenpill. CO2 is not a problem.

Source:
>The planet is a spinning rock precessing around a plasmic nuclear reaction.

We need nuclear power everywhere.

Also, the best way to remove the carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere is cutting down all trees and planting them again.

>humans are the cause of it
[citation needed]

Fake and Gay

They failed in the sense that the observed values are outside of the confidence intervals.

>What has never changed is that the planet is warming and the primary reason for that is man made CO2
That's the hypothesis. If the models fail, that is to be questioned.

But since we are dealing with time series, is there any model saying anything about the relationship between CO2 and temperature using granger causality? That's not perfect but it's better than the simple controlled correlational models being used to claim success.

where is this graph from?

That graph was made in 2009 and it goes from 1970 to 2009. This is what I'm talking about. Fitting data you already know is fucking easy. Look at this graph:

97% of scientists agree the earth is the centre of the universe.

97% of scientists agree the earth is flat.

Skepticism is no more at home than among the sciences.

the picture you posted shows observed data outside the range of projected values... not sure how that helps your case at all.

These models fail to predict the future, they fail to prove any cause, and they fail to prove any method that would make temperatures lower.

What's important to the people publishing them is that THEY get to decide how to act, THEY know what is right.

Go back and look at the predictions made by Al Gore in Inconvenient Truth. It's ridiculous. Why anyone continues to believe that current doom prophets are credible is crazy.

>where is this graph from?
I'm just casually googling the IPCC data. Image search and you'll find a ton of real, cited, peer reviewed evidence disproving the hypothesis.

>worst case
Let's look at the "worst case" the UN council of real scientists with real doctorates came up with.

I believe you'll find that even the "best case" was overestimated by at least DOUBLE the subsequently observed rate.

Remember, almost all public policy around 'climate change' is based on these official international models from "climate scientists".

>Neckbearded loser sitting in basement shoveling pizza into mouth
>Grease from pizza clogs last good artery in brain
>doesn't realize that he's using a graph that indicates a clear increase in global temperature to try and disagree with global warming

I can't find the source of these graphs.
Is this troposphere data? Because it has been known for warming slower than expected (unlike surface and ocean temperatures).

There is no other plausible explanation. No other credible solution has ever been given.

This particular graph was made in 2009 but based on the IPCC 3rd report from 2001 which was looking at models from 1990.

Thats the bullshit NOAA chart that they fudged 1.5 degrees. Repeating fake science doesn't make it true. You are only making yourself look stupid!

Wait yes, the second graph is definitely troposphere data according to the label.
And yes, the models didn't work too well there but the more relevant surface temperature models have been pretty damn accurate.

>dat pic
>HA-HA! THE WORLD ONLY WARMED UP BY 0.5 DEGREES IN 30 YEARS INSTEAD OF 0.7! GET FUCKED SCIENTISTS! CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT REAL!

If you actually read the article based on the court case:
>He agreed that Gore's film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change...
there were some slight inaccuracies (mostly due to Kilimanjaro glacier) but the film is still mostly correct on all of its big points

>cut down all trees and plant them again

Here's why that's a stupid idea:

>cut down all trees
>species across all kingdoms and phylla die out due to habitat/food loss
>planet heats up even more in the planting period due to sun rays directly hitting the earth surface, where as large trees block it, and cool the air during transpiration of the water/sun's rays
>Soil dries up, SUPER DUST BOWL XXXXL commences
>eolian drifts clog water ways, killing river species

All because you want to cut down and replant trees. Let me guess, you are one of those types that parades around the fact that America has 8x as many trees now than in the past, though you fail to mention that they are all young trees that process 75% less carbon dioxide than their old growth counterpart?

no man you don't get it. its you said you were 95% sure the thing that happened wouldn't happen... so maybe you don't know as much about this shit as you claim.

Because this is true about almost all climate change models.

>This particular graph was made in 2009 but based on the IPCC 3rd report from 2001 which was looking at models from 1990.
Granted. My point on models failing to predict temperature still remains. I want to know why. Don't you try to shift my attention towards the successes only.