Is CO2 responsible for climate change?

What does this graph mean?

Other urls found in this thread:

mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/
climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change.pdf
sourcewatch.org/index.php/William_Happer
desmogblog.com/william-happer
documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html
youtube.com/watch?v=uhykhXxjzGE
youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ
cambioclimatico-bolivia.org/archivos/20120226005942_0.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Maybe. How would you go about proving that?

Experiments

What experiments, user?

One that shows that if Co2 rises temperature rises.

How are you controlling for all of the other variables?

...

...

...

Fucking water and a ton of other chemicals cause temperature increases too.

Also, in OP's chart there are massive dips in the temperature at the beginning when CO2 started to rise quickly. If more CO2 means higher temperature, how does that explain the large dips? Too many variables to scientifically say CO2 is definitely causing the rise in global temperature. A "scientific consensus" isn't science at all, it is a fucking guess

What chemicals?

Happer is also on the CO2 coalition board, a well known climate change denial think tank. Not really scientific if you ask me...

Do you have the entire email?

>Oil companies caught paying scientists to push their view

mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

Methane (farts from just about all animals around the world), natural gas, isoprene (produced by plants), and anything else that is a volatile organic compounds.

Not necessarily correlated according to more history.

You would need some type of machine that where you could numerically control the variables while changing one at a time to see which variable explains the empirical data.

It seems to go up significantly once the liberals took over. Maybe all that hot air?

I thought plants took in co2 and produced oxygen?

>is CO2 resposible for climate change
Not really. It has mostly to do with galactic/solar system climate variables. What man does has only a slight effect. None of the models have successfully predicted jack shit, because none of them consider the dampening effects of natural feedback loops in Gaia's "immune system".

< Also

How can they project a mini ice-age if the last 3 years have all showed record warmth?

the last three years haven't shown record warmth. was much hotter eight thousand years ago. the overall trend since then has been a gradual cooling.

HOLY FUCK I AM THINKING AT FIFTEEN QUADRILLION THOUGHTS PER SECOND AAAAAHH

You take in oxygen and produce co2 yet that doesn't mean you also don't produce methane farts. We don't run on pure oxygen so our waste contains other gases. Same goes for plants.

So farting is responsible for the rise in temperatures in the last 50 years?

I thought they announced 2016 as the hottest year on record? How can this make this claim?

There seems to be no correlation except right at the end of the graph, where it shows temp and co2 rising together. It seems as if you zoomed in to that area, you'd probably see something to the graph I first posted? Are climatologists onto something?

Read any of the nine reports finding no misconduct
skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

You might be right if they weren't so closely correlated over the entire history of the earth

Sure, you could form that argument just like how the argument for co2 is formed. The human population did grow over the past 50 years, and with it fart producing livestock.

I'm unaware of Gaia's "immune system". What is that?

What does this graph mean?

absolutely nothing, they fiddled with the number so the graph would look like that, it has no correlation whatsoever to what the actual raw data, when graphed, looks like.

Are you implying that liberals have been in charge since 1880?

Can you show me the raw data? You seem to know the truth. I'd like to look at that raw data if you don't mind.

Explain why it was like ten degrees warmer early in earths history, where co2 was low due to the massive amount of plants.

The main driver of long term temperature is the sun so if you want to examine the relationship between CO2 and temperature over the long term you need to factor out pic related. If this is done you get this graph

pretty pixels, unfortunately doesnt have any validity when it has been shown that historical temperature data has been inaccurately reported

That's a single reconstruction of past temperature from Greenland. For reference this is all of them, the light blue line is your pic

Because other factors impact the climate

>have giant box with high concentration of CO2
>have giant box with low concentration of CO2
>shine light through the box
>measure the amount of light that makes it to the other side

If global warming is actually attributed to lower albedo due to more land usage, isn't that still man made global warming? It's not like cities naturally grew..

where did you get this graph from? what raw data did you use to support it? did you take these measurements yourself? did you rely on someone else? why do you think they were trustworthy? do they have an agenda? are there independent 3rd parties to verify their methodologies and data?

CO2 is transparent to shortwave radiation (sunlight). Wouldn't the same amount of slight shine through?

>use of the word "denial"
>scientist
pick one

Knock yourself out reading the truth on here:

realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

...And other factors other than co2 are affecting the climate today.

Yeah global warming is man made. Besides that albedo is just one of the feedbacks, its mainly due to evaporating water

see

I thought this was what pol does. Obviously it is, based on some of the responses( ) that i've received. Why do you hold me to a higher standard but not them??

freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/

you tell the truth, you lost your job, under that dirty ass nigger's presidency.

You know, it's almost as if Co2 raises the temperature of the earth. No it can't be that, must be the jews thag done did it.

>Why do you hold me to a higher standard but not them??
You know very well. Most of Sup Forums has a barely laymen understanding of science and objectivity.

you started the thread. you asked what the graph meant. How can I tell you what the graph means if you dont help me with context of your question

unless of course, your question was less of a question and more of an inferred statement

Yeah I know, but no where near enough to account for warming see for the CO2 attribution

Besides that the typical culprit for climate change (solar activity) has been decreasing for some time now

pic related is long term correlation of solar activity and temp

Rebuttal to this shitty piece by Happer. Happer is a known fraud.
climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change.pdf

Also see:
sourcewatch.org/index.php/William_Happer
desmogblog.com/william-happer
Also read his leaked emails showing what a shill this guy is:
documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html


tl;dr - he is funded by the fossil fuel corporations, he has lobbied for the tobacco industry before switching over to climate change denial.

The "this past year has been the hottest on record" always has a high degree of uncertainty, as well as a very slight degree of rise that isn't significant except to say that it's higher than before.

...

what explains the difference 7000 years ago? Could it be that solar spots and temperature do not always correlate, and therefore something else must be causing the changes?

MAN CREATED CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FRAUD, SHIT FOR BRAINS

>denial
propaganda term. this conversation is over.
if you have to lie and manipulate people's perceptions to make your point you don't likely have a valid point.
conversation over. send real scientists, please.

No they correlate

...

x-axis is "millions of years ago?"

...

But the current Co2 observations show us at 400 ppm, yet your graph only shows us at 280? Whose wrong? And what does your x axis represent?

Without the graph of jewish population it's incomplete

>BAN EARLY SEA LIFE
>BAN TRILOBITES
>BAN PREHISTORIC FISH
>BAN EARLY DINOSAURS
>BAN CAVE MEN

What caused past climate change

I hope this is real, love the cold

No.

Dunning-Kruger effect detected.


Call it whatever you want, you're not skeptics anymore.
youtube.com/watch?v=uhykhXxjzGE
youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ

Skepticism is not the same as denial. When you outright ignore the scientific evidence, you are a denier, not a skeptic anymore. You have no credibility left.

Always hilarious that when a climate scientist is wrong 1/1000 times, it's all a massive conspiracy. Yet when the deniers are wrong 999/1000 times, it's pure science.

Go read Merchants of Doubt, or Requiem for a Species, or Climate of Doubt. Understand how you have been manipulated by a massive industrial effort to spread misinformation and doubt about climate science.

Another good read on climate change denial:
cambioclimatico-bolivia.org/archivos/20120226005942_0.pdf

...

Co2 ppm are observed at 405.25 PPM currently, yet your graph only shows us at 280. Why is there a difference in observed data??

OP's graph is fake.

>Greenland
This set has already been invoked twice in this thread. I wonder why 'sceptics' love to focus on it when there are so many other reconstructions which all show a consistent and different temperature record to the greenland set

>b-b-but CNN showed me a scary graph of the past 100 years, w-w-why show a big one?
It shows your dumb asses that the earth has natural reoccurring cycles if you non-science fags could understand data.

...

The current observed temperature on Earth is 58.3 degrees? Why the discrepancy between observed data and your graph?

...

>Those on the left are as predisposed to sift evidence through ideological filters; but in the case of global warming it happens that the evidence overwhelmingly endorses the liberal beliefs that unrestrained capitalism is jeopardising future well-being, that comprehensive government intervention is needed, and that the environment movement was right all along. For neo-conservatives accepting these is intolerable, and it is easier emotionally and more convenient politically to reject climate science.

>In a curious twist, climate deniers now deploy the arguments first developed by the radical social movements of the 1960s and 1970s to erode the authority of science. This was perhaps first noticed by Bruno Latour when he lamented the way climate deniers set out to explain away the evidence using a narrative about the social construction of facts.10 However, while constructivists developed an epistemological critique of science, climate deniers, adopting the heroic mantle of “sceptic”, claim to be protecting official epistemology from internal corrosion. The strategy required an attack on the system of peer-review11 and sustained attempts to “deconstruct” the motives of climate scientists. They are always on the lookout for biases and prejudices that could lie behind the claims of climate scientists, explaining away the vast accumulation of evidence by impugning the motives of those who collect it. That was the genius of the “Climategate” scandal—the emails were hard evidence that the “hard evidence” had been fabricated. The leaking of routine private exchanges between professional colleagues tarnished the public image of scientists as whitecoated experts too preoccupied with their test tubes and retorts to be political.

Pretty good summary of why climate change denial exists. If you get suckered into this shit, you are getting played by special interests.

cambioclimatico-bolivia.org/archivos/20120226005942_0.pdf

Why no conservatives always focus on macro and liberals always focus on micro?
Is there any intrinsic benefit to have no foresight?

Learn how to read a graph.

Not only have you resorted to REEEEing but your charts have been refuted and show wrong data. I cannot understand why you don't believe there is a correlation to CO2 and Temperature.

>Using metric tons of different fossil fuels and expecting anything meaningful
>Only arctic air temperature not global
If you don't think the person who made this was intentionally trying to mislead you then idk what to say

>No adjustments made for changing instrumentation, local effects (heat island) and changing station locations
>US only

see
see

Trilobites, fish and dinosaurs driving cars and building factories, obvioulsy.

PAY YOUR CARBON TAXES, GOYIMS!!!

Wouldn't an increase in CO2 be balanced out by rapid plant growth?

Global warming cultists are the only ones denying scientific data. Their beliefs are supported only by fraud.

But it would go against "Muh Juden" by charging them more money...

I did quite well. Your graph says the current global temperature is 53.4 degrees, but the current observed global temperature is 58.3 degrees. Why is there a 5 degree difference. Why do you question my intelligence rather than simply answering my question? Is it because you don't know?

The earth is flat senpai desu

...

No. CO2 means jack shit compared to water and methane.

...

lot of people don't realize we are still in an ice age, and the natural state of the Earth is ice free all year long.

...

...

It's all just a coincidence. People that think the world was created 4000 years ago told me so. Climate change doesn't exist.

...

I'm basing this on trees. Trees are only carbon stores meaning that if we regrew cut down trees in Indonesia and Brazil we would lower the increase of CO2. When trees are cut down/die the carbon they built themselves on is released, meaning we actually need to grow more trees. Furthermore a warmer temperature would be better for crops, but it would also induce migration and make dry areas deserts.


How about you post actual data and stop jerking off Wall St?