Climate change skeptics btfo never to recover

...

Other urls found in this thread:

scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="space weather"
youtu.be/LUWyDWEXH8U?t=15m10s
forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/#eb1f7157ac8d
azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2017/05/02/snowbowl-open-first-cinco-de-mayo/101181294/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>implying anyone cares what a single person has to say
Science is done by thousands of people corroborating results with each other, trying to worm their way to the top. One weather observation is insufficient, you need data.

But don't worry, the deniers will look at this, take it to be exactly equal as the statements of thousands of scientists, and go on their merry way.

>statements of thousands of scientists

Bitch, please. We've already gone over how bogus the "consensus" is.

>unironically posting leddit
lel you faggots are completely pathetic, you come here to try and make a point and they're all so shallow. Climate change is real just not what these (((scientists))) say. Don't believ me???? Go watch al gores first an unconvinient truth from 2006 and see how many failed predictions he made. Sage

>doesn't understand science or statistics

Sad

Because you are also a knowledgeable climate scientist or statistician that knows how to comb through the data, right?

Nah, you were just told what to think. Told that the big bad scientists with their infinite grant money are conspiring against you. Told that the good, strong oil companies are the best way to go! Slurp it up, shill.

Science is a religion

>Oh no, this published data disagrees with the perspective I've been led to believe! Better double down and use the insults that science uses against us back at them, that'll show 'em!

Meanwhile temps below freezing in Germany, in May. New snow in Helsinki, in May.

science is your god and you faggots worship idols like bill nye, Neil degrasse Tyson, etc. go look at all the predictions "scientists" have made since the 70s.
>oh the climate is cooling
>oh no I mean the climate is warming, global warming
>oh no scratch that I mean it's climate change, now give me tax money to combat this exaggerated boogie man of the world
It's like you lefties want to get ass raped. Also look into space weather, pleb. The climate has always been changing and nothing's gunna change that, man doesn't have the effect on the climate like they say it does. Fuck off to Reddit please

Oh and forgot: April was below the 200 year average.

Ah, that's why I talked about those celebrities and 50 year old predictions instead of about the current state of the data.

>Also look into space weather, pleb
scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="space weather"
Explain to me what even one of those papers means and I'll believe that you have any idea what you're talking about. But you can't even read them, so why do I give you a task you cannot complete?

(hint, literally less than 0.01% of those papers support your argument)

The U.S. government, or at least the secret hidden hand government is spraying countless tonnes of aerosols in to the atmosphere to modify the weather. They are creating droughts. The people who believe the official party line are just delusional. They get very emotional when you don't go along with them.

The next time they tell you that man made climate change is real, tell them you agree and that (((they))) are doing it, not cars.

WEATHER. IS. NOT. CLIMATE.

how many times do you retards have to be told that neither does a unusually cold month disprove anthropogenic climate change, nor does an unusually hot month corroborate it.

You're bickering about annual variability, while what you SHOULD be arguing about are interannual and multidecadal trends

Its the scientific consensus of people wearing lab coats- 90% of doctors smoke non-filtered camels, and you should too.
>T-Zone deniers should be jailed.

They don't share their data, just their (((conclusions))).

That's why "Global Warming" was rebranded as "Climate change", no matter what happens with the weather cycle, they can fix it by taxing you and chasing industry to India and China.

Climate is changing alright.
But humans have very little impact on it
And we cant control our influence there

From 1750 to today, the ammount of co2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 43%
Co2 however still takes up only about 400/1,000,000 m3 of the trophosphere and thats only a fraction of ALL the greenhouse gasses present, where some of them have been unincreased or increased by sources other than human industry.

Even if we pretend that this is significant, and that a 20% reduction in emmision you would get by switchig some of the worlds energy to green energy after investing stupenous ammounts of money into it, and even if we imagine that the teperature will increase by 10°c in the next 10 years

What happens then?

Well the icecaps will still not be at melting-point, mayority of the ice will stay frozen
And the much higher teperaturebwould lead to a lot more evaporation in the oceans, causing a lot of the newly gained water mass to shift into the atmosphere instead, that would lead to more rainfall and the minor COOLING of the moderate and hot belts of the planet.
Arid zones like the sahara desert and mexico would fall into the newly expanded tropical belt
Temperate areas would get more rain and thus there would also be a flourishing ecosystem there
Earth would gain so many more green surfaces that they would easily cancel out any extra co2 emmisions into the atnosphere

The effect would be reversed, and after 10 more years the net increase in temperature would be more like 2°c
And the sea level would remain mostly unchanged, with the only mayor climate impace being more wildlife and forests.

All of this has happened before
And will hapoen again
It doesnt take 10 years tho, it takes several centuries, and our co2 emmisions wont magically speed the process up twentyfold

John Titor says these are normal weather variations, nothing to worry about, and you think climate change skeptics are "btfo"? Do you even know who John Titor is?

...

It's colder where I live than it should be at this time of year. Climate change BTFO.

>CO2 has increased but it's still only 400ppm
irrelevant, it's the absolute amount of carbon in the atmosphere that determines its climatological impact

>mayority of the ice will stay frozen
not the sea ice, ice shelves, glaciers and the Greenland ice cap wont. They're already experiencing large-scale ablation at this very moment
>more water in the atmosphere means cooling of hot belts
not true, increased moisture in the atmosphere is one of the important feedback mechanisms that amplify (not diminish) temperature increases

>sea level will remain unchanged
where do you get that idea from? that just flies in the face of simple physics

the consensus is only among people that have been trained to think like jews. in many disciplines, "scientific consensus" is just intellectual authoritarianism with the purpose of social engineering. Here are some quotes from one of the greatest living scientists, Freeman Dyson:

>The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in

>I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.

>[T]he environmental movement [has been] hijacked by a bunch of climate fanatics, who have captured the attention of the public with scare stories. China and India have a simple choice to make. Either they get rich [by burning prodigious quantities of coal and causing] a major increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or they stay poor. I hope they choose to get rich.The good news is that the main effect of carbon dioxide … is to make the planet greener, [by] feeding the growth of green plants of all kinds [and] increasing the fertility of farms and fields and forests

and notice that he has actually proposed a solution that doesn't require a one world global government, just hard work, volunteers and funding.

>Dyson has suggested that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could be controlled by planting fast-growing trees. He calculates that it would take a trillion trees to remove all carbon from the atmosphere.

Don't bother. Trolls and idiots abound.

I hope the sea doesn't raise an inch and kill everyone on earth. We should all stop using fossil fuels.

Except china and India. They can do what they want.

They have a different atmosphere than we do.

Other gasses that contain carbon are measured in ppb
Co2 is still the mayor source of carbon in the atmosphere.

Do you realise how big of aj increate it would take to melt the north pole away?

And it is true, moisture is exactly why the sahara is hotter than central africa.
Hot moist air feels less confortable to humans, maybe
But its less hot than the arid desert climates.

Sea level wouldnt increase by 20 feet just because of a 2°c increase

youtu.be/LUWyDWEXH8U?t=15m10s

Damn Republicans gerrymandered the atmosphere.

Climate deniers are worse than niggers, literally sub human IQ you fucking retards must have. Yep. human industrialization has had zero affect on the Earth. It's certainly not why coral reefs are dying in droves, the Arctic is melting, and why there won't be any fish in the ocean by mid century. I honestly hope you and your family starve in the coming turmoil, even as the crops fail because a few degrees increase in temperature, you faggots will likely die deniers. The good times don't last forever and I will take pleasure knowing when the crops fail again and again that there will be retards like you sitting in your house, wondering why no one had warned you this was going to happen.

>irrelevant, it's the absolute amount of carbon in the atmosphere that determines its climatological impact
How do you know that it's causation and not correlation? Point is we have seen spikes in the past that directly mirror what we see today and we see it happen frequently. Earth is cyclical

>Co2 is still the mayor source of carbon in the atmosphere
yeah, so? How does that help your case?

>Do you realise how big of aj increate it would take to melt the north pole away?
an "ice-free Arctic" is thought to occur in the middle of this century, when CO2 concentration will be at roughly 500ppm

>Sahara blabla comfortable to humans
all completely irrelevant. The water vapor-feedback is still positive, period.

>Sea level wouldnt increase by 20 feet just because of a 2°c increase
Paleoclimatologists looked at the last interglacial, which was 2°C warmer than the pre-industrial Holocene and they identified (besides some other things) rapid fluctuations in sea level of 6 to 9 meters above the current sea level

Eat a dick OP Remember when Galileo proved the Earth is round? yea that was one single person

and he was fucking right

>anecdotal evidence
Sure showed me. Who cares about science.

>How do you know that it's causation and not correlation?
very simply: because we can measure the radiative effects of CO2 in almost every laboratory since the early 19th century. The physics have been known in detail for quite a while now, this isn't supposition

>Earth is cyclical
very much so. Why do you think this contradicts either the importance of CO2 or the way humans are influencing the climate right now?

Here in Toronto it's freezing cold. Can I get some of that global warming?

>A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.
>The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming.
>The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.
>Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 17 years. They are all trending too high.
>In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
>There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.
>If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.

The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."

Earth needs more CO2

Earth and its inhabitants need more, not less, CO2.
More CO2 means:

More Plant Growth
Plants need less water
More food per acre
More robust habitats and ecosystems
CO2 is Earth's greatest airborne fertilizer. Without it - No Life On Earth!

lurk moar newfag

Global warming is a hoax created by the Jews to establish a world government.

There is a minor impact, yeah
But is there anything we can really do about it?
If every coal power plant shut off today, there wouldnt be much of a difference
You cant expect to remove the cars, factories and heavy machinery all together
Cutting on your own air pollution by just 5% does literally nothing for the enviroment


And if you seriously think that the consequences of the warming will be *catastrophic* you are deffinately delusional, earth was way hotter than it is now and the nature survived just fine
It will in fact flourish. Crops happen to love the rain
Rain happens to come from water vapor
Water evaporates when heated
Most of the earth is water
Worst case scenario the ocean levels increase by a few feet
That is hardly cataclysmic
It helps point out that our carbin contribution really is negligent.

An ice free arctic in 23 years?
Are you listening to yourself? Miami was to be flooded in 2008 then 2012... How many bogus predictions are we supposed to believe in?

It is relevant; the hottest air temperatures on earth are not along the equator only for this one reason
Humidity.

The last interglacial was 12000 years ago, climate wasnt just 2°c hotter. There were many massive differences in vegetation, climate patterns, ice caps... You cant just say that today+2°c=10 more meters of sea
Year to year averages can vary more than that and the sea level sees no change

What type of science seeks to jail it's critics?
> forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/#eb1f7157ac8d

obligatory

let's just take the first claim
A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.

- it's actually more lie 1.0°C
- 1.2°C isn't a "forcing", it's a temperature change
- that whole fact is pretty useless since feedbacks DO exist in the real world, which is why most analyses put the climate sensitivity around 3°C (with more outliers on the higher than the lower end)

>Climate change

So which way is it changing?

>Because you are also a knowledgeable climate scientist or statistician that knows how to comb through the data, right?
Anthropogenic Climate Disruption.

>Arizona Snowbowl ski resort announced it will be open for the [Cinco de Mayo] holiday for the first time ever.
>Resort officials extended the season through Sunday thanks to this year's impressive snowfall. Snowbowl, located near Flagstaff, has received 328 inches of snow this season, its biggest snowfall in 12 years and providing its longest ski season on record.
Really jogged my noggin

azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2017/05/02/snowbowl-open-first-cinco-de-mayo/101181294/

>Anthropogenic Taxation
Yeah, that'll fix it!

>our carbin contribution really is negligent
the human carbon footprint is about 100 times larger than all the volcanoes on earth combined, which were the main source of carbon during the course of earth history. I'd say that's the exact opposite of "negligible"

>An ice free arctic in 23 years?
yes. most Model ensembles have actually UNDERestimated the speed of ice sheet disintegration in the Arctic ocean

>humidity
do you understand that water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas? On a global average, the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere will amplify the warming. It's just pure confusion to be talking about temperature differences between deserts and the equator

>The last interglacial was 12000 years ago, climate wasnt just 2°c hotter There were many massive differences
none of the things you mentioned were significantly different back then except of course the ice caps, which were rapidly disintegrating at that time. The interglacials are literally the best analogues for our current one in the entire geologic record.
I should also mention that all of these rapid changes during the Eemian took place in response to an initial radiative forcing that was much SMALLER than the one we have introduced into the energy budget of the planet right now.

>irrelevant, it's the absolute amount of carbon in the atmosphere that determines its climatological impact
Correct, to the absorption limit in the spectrum CO2 absorbs energy at. After that point it doesn't matter until you start having a meaningful impact on the total mass of the atmosphere (well past the lethal limit in almost all animal life).

However we have other interactions that come into play. For example; if you heat the oceans they will release more low pressure steam (water vapor to you and me) in accordance with the partial pressures law. That extra water vapor forms more clouds which tend to have a massively higher albedo that the ground does. This lowers the temperature of the ocean below. However clouds also trap heat better overnight and regulate the temperature to a greater degree. The exact interaction between ocean temperature, cloud formation and the energy cycle is more or less impossible to model. Add into this outside factors to cloud formation like what effect cosmic rays have on the initial formation of a cloud and you have a system so complicated that climate scientists that can barely get software models to return the same results from identical starting data are simply out of the depth to make predictions. Let alone be called on to set public policy covering trillions of dollars.

How could anyone complain about such nice weather? I don't give a shit if it's unnatural.

>Implying I give a fuck.

>yes. most Model ensembles have actually UNDERestimated the speed of ice sheet disintegration in the Arctic ocean
What happens in 23 years when we still have as much or more ice?

>Gender is a Spectrum: Updated (((Science)))
>Global Warming: Settled (((Science)))

You're absolutely right about the clouds. Climatologists are not sure what net radiative effect an increase in cloud cover has because the modelled ranges of the forcing intersects with zero.
But let's just take your argument about uncertainty in the climate system.
Being uncertain what kind of effects you will get in response to an increase in GHGs means two things:
either things will be not as bad as expected
OR
things will be much worse than expected

Do you really feel that it's either moral or logical to take a gamble of that kind with human civilization and the entire planet? I tend to think, not knowing the non-linear effects it will have is even more of a reason to keep human influence on this chaotic system to a minimum

that won't happen, even if human CO2 emissions were to drop to zero tomorrow

Not surprising you didn't want to touch the rest of my post.

>1 post by this id
>reddit

everyone who posted in this thread before me will lose a loved one to throat cancer
anyone reading this and doesn't sage/reply with
>BETTER DEAD THAN RED
will lose their next pet to a horrible traffic incident right in front of them

because I don't feel like writing a giant wall of text
the short response is that it is hilariously stupid to suggest that the water vapor feedback doesn't exist

>Being uncertain what kind of effects you will get in response to an increase in GHGs means two things:
>either things will be not as bad as expected
>OR
>things will be much worse than expected

I guess things are better than expected is technically covered in not as bad as expected but your use of language to shape conversation is highly dishonest.

>Do you really feel that it's either moral or logical to take a gamble of that kind with human civilization and the entire planet?
I don't believe this is a gamble, I believe when you look at the physics of the greenhouse effect and the actual non 'corrected' data I think you will find that we are not at any risk of civilization destroying warming.

However I can tell you the damage that will be done by a zero carbon combustion global economy and it would be the largest intentional killing of human life in all of history.

You have only one option to maintain at least some humanity and prove you are not just another genocidal anti human greenfacist; Do you support the development and mass deployment of nuclear power?

>that won't happen, even if human CO2 emissions were to drop to zero tomorrow
So you feel really strongly about that. I do but in the counter. So the only question is how do we in 23 years make one side or the other accept how wrong they were?

Do I take a screen cap and wait 23 years to post?

Get wrecked, see you in 2040.

I beg to differ, taking retreat in an argument about uncertainty is to take a gamble. It means to keep going undeterred in hopes that the cards end up falling on the better rather than the worse end. That's exactly what a gamble is.

I can't comment on wether we're at risk of "civilization destroying warming" because that's a completely arbitrary condition. What I do know is that with this human civilization is facing the biggest challenge since the development of nuclear weapons. Just the phenomenon of sea level rise alone is hugely significant on its own.

P.S. I am in favor of nuclear energy and so is the most famous American climatologist James Hansen, whom I cited earlier

can you explain to me what possible reason there could be for ice sheets melting to stop with rising GHG concentrations?