Ok Sup Forums lets have an honest conversation about climate change. I only want to talk about the science of it...

Ok Sup Forums lets have an honest conversation about climate change. I only want to talk about the science of it, so don't bring up the Jews or globalists.

Other urls found in this thread:

wattsupwiththat.com/
tallbloke.wordpress.com/
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/10/deep-sixing-another-useless-climate-myth/
youtube.com/watch?v=X0VVWy_MYcw&t=368s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
climatechangedispatch.com/wsj-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/
newstarget.com/2017-02-03-1000-science-papers-challenge-the-false-narrative-of-man-made-climate-change.html
barrettbellamyclimate.com/page15.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=gWT-EWKIR3M
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

what science? CO2 is plant food.

The science is that there is no science.
They have no fucking clue what the fuck they are talking about.
There's no freedom to explore multiple options, they always find 1 idea they get stuck on for decades until it is so obviously wrong they have to change to a new fad and they refuse to explore other alternatives beyond that.

Before the earth was cooling, then the warming was good and then the warming became bad but now it's a climate change instead and who knows what they will push next.

So yeah.
The science is that there's no real science, there's no scientific method pursuit exploring multiple options to find what is most logical.
There is no science.

Why?
Well, jews, globalists, shills, etc.

Jews and globalists.

>Climate Change
Yeah
>Global Warming
No

Isn't the whole reason it changed because they found new data and adapted it accordingly?

What changed? The push for environmental wellness and responsibility? That's just a tax write off that corporations are pushing to make them look better and get less taken in taxes. There may be minute changes but nothing like how it is being reported or spread.

It's pretty fucking obvious and fairly easy to test.

Green house gasses are real. They cause the green house effect.

You have to completely deny reality to claim that:

A. the direct correlation between temperature of closed system and the amount of green house gasses inside of it when receiving energy from the sun

B: Humanity produces incredible amounts of these gasses.

Please explain why you would not expect the Earth as a closed system inside of it's atmosphere to not experience temperature changes as green house gasses increase in quantity?

The data was already there, a few "extremist and fringe" scientists were already trying to bring it up but they were ignored because it was not the consensus narrative of the time until it became impossible to continue pretending it was true so they had to adapt.

Climate "science" isn't science.
It's politics, with science behind it.
But it's no different from the "studies" by the tobacco companies that totally proved that smoking was 100% safe back in the day.
It's business taking charge of politics to scientific consensus without actually attempting to use the scientific method to explore the facts in pursuit of truth.

>Edited version

It's pretty fucking obvious and fairly easy to test.

Green house gasses are real. They cause the green house effect.

You have to completely deny reality to claim that A and B are false:

A. the direct correlation between temperature of closed system and the amount of green house gasses inside of it when receiving energy from the sun

B: Humanity produces incredible amounts of these gasses.

Please explain why you would not expect the Earth as a closed system inside of it's atmosphere to not experience temperature changes as green house gasses increase in quantity?

science?

the science is being driven by models. The models keep falsifying themselves, there is no science.

we don't even know for sure if the net forcing from co2 is 1 (ie, if positive or negative feedback).

they consider sun to have zero effect on climate.

it is a shitshow

can't even trust the data, it is so manipulated, so we are probably warming, but the error margin is so great we don't actually know.

>It's pretty fucking obvious and fairly easy to test.
>
>Green house gasses are real. They cause the green house effect.

nope. GLASS causes the greenhouse effect, by restricting convection.
>
>You have to completely deny reality to claim that A and B are false:
>
>A. the direct correlation between temperature of closed system and the amount of green house gasses inside of it when receiving energy from the sun
>
>B: Humanity produces incredible amounts of these gasses.

prove that CO2 forcing is above 1
>

the whole greenhouse gas idea is a big pile of stinking shite,

>climate change IS occurring
>global temperatures ARE increasing
>this is a natural process
>which is made worse by humans

Climate change is always happening, it's stupid to say the climate was going to stay the same. Global temperatures have overall been on the rise before human mass pollution although at slower rates. Pollution and green houses gases do affect this process and the rate of warming. Humans are not the cause of the warming, we just make it slightly worse. That's really the basic gist of it.

get into these sites. there's so MUCH (sceptical_ science this board will not cope.


>>wattsupwiththat.com/
>>tallbloke.wordpress.com/

And hamburgers are human food but look what too much of that does.

most scientists agree that we climate change is real and that humans are causing it

/thread

Ironically, we're also slowing it down with soot from industrial activities and contrails (NOT CHEMTRAILS). If the whole system shut down we could expect a warming increase of about 0.3C. No carbon emissions wouldn't matter because it takes about 40 or so years for produced CO2 to alter the total level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence why we're all a sudden seeing a huge-spike in temperature.

its fake

most of our plants evolved for far higher levels of CO2, the world is in starvation mode, plant wise, and the tiny rise in CO2 we've seen so far is a great thing. There's a reason they pump CO2 into greenhouses, and that reason is plants are clinging to life atm, not flourishing

no, they fucking DON'T /thread

Scientists think you can visually see the clean air act in ice cores. It's a religion to some scientists/politicians and they think they are seeing Jesus on toast.

yes they do
you're just a science denier

The science is false.
The bilderburg group told me so.

from >>wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/10/deep-sixing-another-useless-climate-myth/

"only 41 abstracts of the 11,944 papers Cook and colleagues reviewed – a whopping 0.3% – actually endorsed their supposed consensus. It turns out they had decided that any paper which did not provide an explicit, quantified rejection of their supposed consensus was in agreement with the consensus. Moreover, this decision was based solely on Cook and colleagues’ interpretation of just the abstracts, and not the articles themselves. In other words, the entire exercise was a clever sleight-of-hand trick."

i've got multiple science qualifications and consult on all sort of fun things.

climate scientism is fucking corrupt

CO2 isn't rising. Burning millennial old bio-stored solar energy doesn't change the climate.
>source: rockafeller family

youtube.com/watch?v=X0VVWy_MYcw&t=368s

they exposed themselves and alex jones had to cover it up autistically.

>nope
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

this is how the atmosphere keeps the earth warm enough for life in the first place

exactly which part of this do you disagree with? because this is by far the least controversial part of the climate change hypothesis since everyone knows this part is true, the (somewhat) contentious part is the extent to which human activity causes the effect. I say (somewhat) because in reality it isnt contentious at all

the science is that it's real. That's why it's too dangerous to have kids. The gender of climate varies much like the quality of sex. If you don't believe it, you should be in jail.

>Ninety-seven percent of scientists say it is real so it must be real.
I guess science is a democracy.

>so don't bring up the Jews or globalists

Edit: go away
Edit pt2: pls stay Reddit
Edit: wow I didn't expect this to blow Up!

R.I.P Inbox.

climatechangedispatch.com/wsj-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/

do you understand the subject, or are you just repeating half understood memes?

do you know how IR interacts with CO2? the difference between the wave nature of IR and the particle nature of the resultant atmospheric thermal energy?

the models repeatedly fail to predict reality, they falsify the theory.

CO2 works through coupling IR to kinetic energy. Increasing CO2 increases coupling. That coupling works in BOTH directions, and has a complex interplay with H2O. the models have failed to get that interaction right, which is why THEY FAIL.

you can't keep predicting losing horses and claim your doomsday gambling model has any legs at all.

CO2 and warming is good for life.

So how do you explain the fact that Mercury with virtually no atmosphere, with no green house gasses that is, could, despite being drastically closer to the sun, be colder than Earth?

Any person who went school should understand that one of the reasons why Earth is hospitable is because it has an atmosphere that helps regulate its temperature as well as protecting the planet from radiation.

I don't think it's a Jewish conspiracy, I mean, Tuvalu is literally sinking and they have to move NZ to live there

This. Best greenhouse level for CO2 is 1500 ppm, we are now at 410 ppm. Plants want more.

All of the earth's calories come cyclically from the sun.

When we take pollution out of the geosphere and put it into the atmosphere all we are doing is choosing how we want to face the guillotine; throat or neck. Pollution is pollution, humans are definitely a catalyst but if we didn't produce greenhouse gases then the earth would catalyse greenhouse solids (see Toba Catastrophe).

What we can do however is work on survival and adaption, and yes, fighting against greenhouse gases in order to create 'enclaves' of the 'pre-climate change' world is definitely a rational option.

Long story short, the science is wrong but the engineering is right.

...

pic from yesterday...

>Tuvalu
Those island nations fascinate the shit out of me. How lucky do you have to be to end up being born on one of them?

More rain, more usable farm land, longer growing season. It's all good.

mercury 'could' be cooler than the earth? 4 real?
>>Any person who went school should understand that one of the reasons why Earth is hospitable i

you mean that any person with a half baked comprehension might be able to dream up a shit theory and declare it true in the face of evidence. for sure.

there is no denying that our atmosphere supports life. It does that through homeostasis - which is characterised by NEGATIVE feedback, not positive. If CO2 had a forcing >1, then the planet would have cooked millennia ago, back when the temp and CO2 levels were far higher. this is hype shite, and you swallowed the kike bait

You are spot on and a realist instead of an alarmist. You have not been affected by the lefts propaganda and thus is why we are here on Sup Forums

>the planet has a self regulating C02 system that continually corrects itself accordingly there is no such thing as global warming....this subject is being hijacked by globalists to create an unfair industrial playing field.

Every time you breathe, you exhale CO2. Do the planet a favor and KYS.

first they tried claiming there was going to be an ice age
then they said hole in the ozone would grow bigger and we would die of radiation
then they said we would be under water by early 2000's
now theyre saying "climate change".

you can see why people think its bullshit.

>Be heiress of rothschild banking family
>Marry fellow jew Ben Goldsmith
>Fuck Jay electronica.
KEK

The most simple way to gain insight is to just take a quick look at the smog in china on any given day. Then ask does that look good for the planet and anything that lives on it?

You have your answer right there. No science, no politics.

I honestly do worry about the spike in CO2

I would be fine with substantial government money going into research

but not just 100 guys doing basically the same shitty temperature prediction models with altered variables
fucking pointless


and if I hear "the temp rise the past 100 years is the highest in thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands of years", I'm going to choke a nigger

>Green house gasses are real. They cause the green house effect.
So think a bit about that process.

CO2 absorbs energy on set wavelengths. Those wavelengths overlap with other atmospheric gasses absorption spectrum.

If you absorb all the energy at those wavelengths then adding more gasses doesn't cause more warming, because their is no extra energy to cause warming.

CO2 is now saturated. We could go up to 1500pp and have no change in temperature due to CO2.

The fact we have celebrities pushing it means it is fake as the celebrities are controlled by the Jewish elite ergo climate change is one of their many plans to destroy western civilization and enact the new world order.

that's unrelated to the science. We can agree that _pollution_ is bad. CO2 is not pollution

Exactly my friend. Also, with increased CO2, plants pores close a bit and they lose less to evaporation. Plants need less water in a high CO2 environment. You'll never hear that from Bill Nye, the non-science guy.

I know some here want to see the polar caps melt just so we can see what's beneath it. Also flood Jew York.

Think about it. The sample size is just too small. Ask your self when did we start collecting temperature data for THE ENTIRE WORLD? It's called global warming, not one city warming. What does it matter if one city experiences "climate change"? So yes you would need temperature data for the whole world pretty much. I'll even give you 1-2 centuries.

Then ask yourself how long has earth been around? Before we even existed, long before the dinosaurs became extinct. BTW, earth can survive a meteor that blocks the sun and kills off gigantic creatures and still survives --- just shows you how resilient earth is and would continue to exist even if we became extinct.

So you have 1 to 2 centuries of data compared to the hundreds if not thousands of centuries earth could have been around. And you're going to tell us, oh no climate change is going to destroy earth? That man has the power to destroy earth when a meteor shower that created such big dust storms could make massive animals go extinct? How much of a sample size is that really?

Anyone who says a "natural disaster" is a sign is a retard. Imagine we weren't around and didn't build gigantic concrete cities. Would a flood even happen, would it even be a disaster? Water would just be absorbed by the ground, rather than clog street drainage system that drains it out to sea. If an earthquake happens, is it a massive disaster? The ground shakes, animals get scared and run. It's only a disaster because we're not nomadic and build these huge structures that are prone to being knocked over and killing dumb humans inside them. Imagine if humans were nomadic and didn't have these "homes".

bingo. Going further, increasing CO2 increases COOLING, since the reverse coupling, from atmospheric kinetic collisions to IR radiation (via the CO2 bending states) is NOT saturated, so at night time, the atmosphere can dump more energy back into EM than it absorbed during the day

Are you talking about high/low energetic emission fall out (noise)...caused by standard modern human apparatus... Or the radiological/pathogenic emissions caused by nuking/gassing, testing the WORLD?

NOBODY EVER DENIED CLIMATE CHANGE.

>PEOPLE DENIED "GLOBAL WARMING".

NOW THAT YOU HAVE MOVED THE GOAL-POSTS, STOP ATTACKING THE "GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS."

THEY NEVER DENIED CLIMATE CHANGE.

It's a byproduct of it mate.

I'm a master's level physicist from McGill University in Canada. I have no idea what you mean by IR to kinetic energy coupling?
Either the verbatim is totally different in Aussie or you're not a scientist.

Can you support the idea that all energy is being absorbed?

climate change is certainly happening, as it has for the earths entire life. global warming on the other hand really has no other proof then "LOOK WE GOIN THROUGH WARM SPOT MUST BE US!!!!!1!11!"

5 ice ages before we got here, climate changes every day, 50% of co2 emissions are cow farts and commiefornia is now taxing cow farts.
1,000+ peer reviewed scientific papers disputing man made climate change.
newstarget.com/2017-02-03-1000-science-papers-challenge-the-false-narrative-of-man-made-climate-change.html

That's what the picture is of.

just kys, you don't know what you are fucking talking about. go back to your fucking retard march

FUcK YOU.
YOU'RE NoT REAL.
CLIMaTE CHANGE IS A HOAX
BLACK LIVES DON'T MATTER

The question is NOT whether or not "climate change" or "global warming" or whatever buzzword of the day exists.

Instead, we should be asking to what degree do these issues negatively affect our operating world?
Is it largely due in part due to human activity?
Are the effects worse enough that government intervention should take place/

And most importantly - are the solutions presented economically feasible and do not in large part impose large scale, unnecessary regulations disguised as precautionary measures, that are really just ways to help a certain "clean company" that does no such thing?
Do the solutions in any way impose a too high of a burden on the common man's taxes?

See, liberals want to focus entirely on whether or not you deny climate change. Notice how no one every actually brings up solutions, because they know they are horrible.

Is there a source for the picture and the measurements made for it?

So your saying manufacturing and power production emissions are totally devoid of CO2?

Can't tell if troll of autistic.

The dark side of mercury can reach −280 °F

And no, you clearly don't understand science.

For there to be life to support homeostasis, conditions already have to be set and regulated, like with an atmosphere of green house gasses to regulate the temperature so that living organismd doesn't get cooked to death.

10/10 chance Christian autist.

>>I'm a master's level physicist from McGill University in Canada. I have no idea what you mean by IR to kinetic energy coupling?

oh dear, what do they teach these days?

The earth loses energy in the EM spectrum, in the form of IR. CO2 has a bending mode which resonates at that frequency. CO2 couples the EM resonance with atmospheric thermal energy by imparting kinetic energy when it collides with other gas molecules. The bending state vibration gives each molecular collision extra 'omph'.

Likewise, when CO2's bending state (i forget which one atm. 2nd, maybe) isn't resonating, and CO2 undergoes a molecular collision, extra kinetic energy is absorbed, and stored in the bending state, then radiated as IR.

pretty basic stuff. Quantum physics plus thermodynamics

Tbqh ur requirements make it an impossible question to answer kys

It's real and we have to stop it to save many natural wonders and our beautiful balanced climates in the North. Too bad it's packaged with regressive leftist retardation.

a good coal powerstation no longer produces pollutants.

which scientists?
"scientists" like bill nye?

also
>science is done by consensus and not evidence

Thats the least scientific thing possible

The fuck is wrong with you people?

Absolute scum

Climate changing?
>Yes
Because of humans?
>No

If all the ice melts I will be just mere miles from a beach so Im all for it too bad its not real though

the dark side. you didn't specify only one side.

of course it gets cold, its radiating directly into space.

tell me, how can the atmosphere be homeostatic AND have previously been much hotter and have had much higher CO2, if A) CO2 is positive feedback and B) current levels are a worry

Lear to use the image search function.

barrettbellamyclimate.com/page15.htm
Don't know if that is the source or not. But you have something to read if you want.

>See, liberals want to focus entirely on whether or not you deny climate change. Notice how no one every actually brings up solutions, because they know they are horrible.

actually if you delve deeper, the people who push climate change the hardest would still push to eradicate the use of fossil fuels even if climate change was somehow fully discredited

they just use climate change topic as a vehicle

This is an issue with many areas where public policy and science meet. The left wants to make the argument "If you accept any part of the science, you must accept all of our policy proposals to address it.". Nobody wants to talk about the cost benefit analysis and risk analysis.

And before some elitist says that's why we need the technocracy, not until we no longer have to worry about (((them))).

Its not possible to be 100% renewable. POWER DENSITY

its hot somewhere, must be global warming!!!

Exactly
They push Stone Age like standards for what our power sources should be.
Doing so because of a maddening desire to beat the evil global warming I can understand, a bit.
What I like to know, is why the issue is pushed so hard in our time. As in, I'm a fairly paranoid guy all around, and like to think there is some bigger, grandiose reasoning for the push towards battling the climate change issue.

energy poverty. When energy is expensive, we all suffer and slave, its about keeping us down.

Also to push for a carbon tax which is a tax on everything. Complete regulation and control. Lets also not forget Al Gore said all climate deals "lead to global governance"

fucking mcgill normies

Anyways I'm a phd in physics from u of t (not atmospheric physics mind you) and I can tell you whether the talking points are or are not bullshit:

>CO2 is plant food
it is indeed good for plants, doesn't necessarily mean it's good for the environment
>CO2 causes extreme weather
evidence is extremely sparse
>The science of climate change is settled
the science is obviously not settled since it's an active field with lots of science going on. In settled fields no one debates anything anymore. No one is sitting around debating newtonian mechanics.
>97% of scientists agree global warming is man made
that figure is tough as the wording is what really matters. I would certainly agree that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 has an impact on global temperature, however the exact fraction of warming since 1850 is debated, at lower end in the literature it's probably 20%, upper end is closer to 100%. No one knows for sure what exact figure is because science isn't settled

If anyone wants to ask any other questions I'll be happy to answer for a bit, but again I'm not a climate scientist so i'm not an expert in the field, but I have read many papers about it and taken a class in it.

Huh. Very solid points fellow anons. Duly noted.

more taxes means higher startup costs for new energies which means less competition

globalists are pushing for "climate change" taxes because it directly benefits their bottom line. They can afford to pay the new taxes, smaller companies can't and get pushed out.

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.

>Ok Sup Forums lets have an honest conversation about climate change. I only want to talk about the science of it

Carbon Dioxide is plant food, the process of photosynthesis has plants transform carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight into simple sugars that the plant uses to build starches and for energy.

Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has been PROVEN to increase plant grown and crop yield, forming a biofeedback effect for the carbon cycle.

Global warming is alarmist bullshit peddled by the banks to institute a world tax.

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.

Jews and Globalists caused climate change nothing else to it.

'clean coal' is just a political meme. It is cleaner, but still contains SO2 and NOx along with CO2, just in lesser amounts. Plus 'clean coal' is generally washed, a plethora of methods are out there but all use some form of pretty nasty shit which then is generally dumped into the sea after use.

Point I'm trying to make is anyone can see that pumping pollutants into the atmosphere is a bad idea and CO2 generally is among the nasty shit everyone agrees is bad. So the solution is to reduce all emissions, regardless if you ignore or agree with the science behind climate change, instead of turning the entire issue into a meme.

industry uses climate change as a scape goat, while poisoning the planet.
my work for 15 years is to change ingridients of particular widely used chemicals and lubricants, because they are now deemed too problematic - when it's already known for, well sometimes up to 50 years. just depends on, how cost effective it is...

we're about to fuck this planet up, once this happened, the climate will change, yes.

also. My work has been referenced in nature, so i clearly don't understand science. desu

youtube.com/watch?v=gWT-EWKIR3M

t. uneducated dumbass
read a book instead of whipping out pasta

im calling BS. deal with the pollutants, don't label something that is not a pollutant as a pollutant. be honest, or gtfo.