Can somebody PLEASE post some fucking FACTS AND SOURCES about climate change. I have seen 20 graphs on the same topic all with different statistics.
I understand the climate changes but
I see so many 'facts' about man-made CO2 being the cause of climate change.
I see so many 'facts' about natural CO2 being the cause of climate change.
I see so many 'facts' about CO2 not being the cause at all.
What am i supposed to believe.
The Jews are behind it? That's getting pretty old.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
scholar.google.com
youtube.com
giss.nasa.gov
nature.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
science.sciencemag.org
tandfonline.com
ipcc.ch
ipcc.ch
cdiac.ornl.gov
mises.org
drroyspencer.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
thehill.com
boeing.com
e360.yale.edu
twitter.com
"climate change" was invented by the council of rome as a means to have a global tax on life, and a reason for global government
scholar.google.com
This really shouldn't be so difficult. Those are the papers, read a shit ton of abstracts and draw your own conclusions.
So basically, Carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitorus oxide, and a few other gases are greenhouse gases. They all are molecules composed of more than two component atoms, bound loosely enough together to be able to vibrate with the absorption of radiation, creating heat. The major components of the atmosphere, oxygen and nitrogen, are two atom molecules too tightly bound together to vibrate and thus they do not absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.
So the idea is the more of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more radiation is being converted to heat in the atmosphere.
The Gases remain in the air for different periods of time and the planet absorbs them through "sinks".
These are facts, the arguments usually deal with, effect on temperature, rate of buildup/breakdown, natural ability to offset, causes and consequences.
thank you leaf
np m8
climate changes, the projections are iffy.
if i was a climate change science intellectual i'd fudge the numbers to get more funding for ((research)) year after year
The problem with all these graphs is that you do not know how theyre made or what the techniques were used.
Some of the older graphs dont even include information from satellites for example.
Though humans emit not alot of co2 compared to the earth, without us earth is perfectly fine in balance of emission and absorption. However we emit more than the planet can absorb and on top of that we remove plants that are supposed to absorb that.
But its not like tomorrow itll be 50000 degrees. Its a slow process however it is a process that wont stop.
More co2 for any reason will heat the planet which will make the planet emit even more co2, its just going to keep going and going.
Simply not emitting co2 i doubt will be enough however, since even then we reduced the planets capability to absorb co2 by great amounts through deforestation.
Here you go, OP. Complete with source.
youtube.com
Ivar Giaever: Global Warming Revisited (2015) - YouTube
and a
Just know it's real and there's very little we can do about it.
World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year, the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2
Humans cause more damage than its portrayed in your image
Let's start with the basics:
1. CO2 allows visible light to pass through and absorbs infrared. The Sun radiates mostly in the visible range, the Earth is cooler and therefore radiates in the infrared and microwave range. CO2 is transparent to visible light, but absorbs strongly in longwave bands thus, incoming solar radiation passes through, but outgoing terrestrial radiation is trapped. What we commonly know as the "Greenhouse Effect". 19th century physics and pretty much undeniable.
2. Since the preindustrial revolution, humans have caused CO2 in the atmosphere to go up from fossil fuel combustion. Again undeniable fact.
3. Add 1 and 2 together, you would expect the Earth to warm, hence anthropogenic global warming. This is confirmed by satellite observation, energy in from the sun >> energy out, 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy must be conserved, hence Earth is warming
giss.nasa.gov
4. Changes in solar irradiance due to orbital eccentricity start the interglacial warming which is then amplified by the GHG feedback loop. This is the reason why interglacial warming is so rapid while glacial cooling is slow. We warmed out of the glacial period thousands of years ago. The global temperature was flat for thousands of years and then suddenly we are seeing warming again when the expected natural change would be leaving the interglacial, i.e. cooling.
This is true, however.
5. CO2 is probably the main deciding factor on why our planet looks the way it looks today, and how some of the large-scale shifts occurred in the distant past. Leaving out CO2 as a factor means we can't account for shit and nothing makes sense; factoring it in puts the puzzle pieces together:
nature.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
science.sciencemag.org
tandfonline.com
And of course, I'm sure you've all seen graphs very similar to this before. (source: ipcc.ch
To sum up (tl;dr):
- We're damn sure greenhouse gases, and therefore all the CO2 and methane emitted by humans, has a very important effect on climate.
- Yes, even a "small" amount of warming like +2C or +4C is extremely concerning if you care at all about living in a stable prosperous human civilization
- You cannot prove me wrong with the available evidence and expert opinion
Endnotes
1. The Sun's output is too stable to change climate dramatically, and is not correlated to any recent warming. The Milankovitch cycles alone can't explain the ice age cycles either, at least not without factoring strong positive feedbacks from greenhouse gases, especially CO2.
2. You may have heard of a time when "Snowball Earth" states prevailed and the ice sheets reached the tropics. This occurred when CO2 concentrations were on the order of 4000ppm, four times higher than that of today's! How is that possible? Well, ice sheets reflect nearly all solar energy back into space, and the Sun was ~30% weaker in those days. Overall, scientists are able to account for all these factors. See Lacis et al. 2010, linked above.
3. The Eemian sea level was up (or even more than 9m) higher than today's, but thankfully, those changes prooobably do not occur very rapidly. By 2100, we may see a maximum of 2m of sea level rise, but this is complicated by various factors like local variations in gravity, isostatic rebound, coastal erosion, groundwater depletion, and the like. Overall though, this poses an enormous challenge for cities to adapt to, or otherwise be forced to move.
Aye, and it would be in-genuine to assert that that isn't also manmade.
>abstracts
>not the rest
that's the most autistic way of analysizing evidence, it's almost as if you're falling for (((clickbait)))
Lets believe for a microsecond that humans drive the climate change.Lets forget about plant food like CO2, and just tell me please if you would be so kind how the actual fuck will it help the climate change to stop if im being taxed for alive?
Can you seriously state that climate change will stop if you have to pay if you want to produce CO2?
>"climate change" was invented by the council of rome as a means to have a global tax on life, and a reason for global government
Sweed is right.
I say we stop feeding the 3rd world and let all the low IQ shitskins die if overpopulation is a thing.
I dont care about that.
I WANT a shill to answer me already what he fuck differense does it make to the climate change if i am being taxed for being alive and i have to pay if i want to produce CO2.
But nobody dares to answer me all day long.
If you are too lazy to read this then just look at this chart.
ipcc.ch
These measurements are taken from samples of Antarctic Ice Cores.
Black is estimated temperature.
Red is CO2.
Other colours are other Greenhouse Gases. (CH4 and N2O)
You can see how temperature changes closely follow CO2 levels. The stars indicate levels in the year 2000.
>muh correlation is not causation
The causation is explained in the posts quoted above.
Answer me
Capitalism follows the path of least resistance. If it's economically unviable to do a task with carbon emissions they simply won't.
Sure if its economically unviable FOR ME BECAUSE IM DROWNING IN TAXES you retard but big corporations just put co2 intense manufacture where there is no climate law.
Who's fucked then again ?Yes,the PLANET is fucked.
So tell me what difference does it make ?
And since this is 100% true and you're not wrong where is the outrage? I think you need to do more research
About what?
Big corporations takin their carbon emissions to climate havens without losing any profits
No absolutely not. It's a fucking scam. It is established to take power out of the hands of nations and hand it to the global cabal. The "donor" nations create a veritable welfare state globally by subsidizing the industries of poor developing nations, which grants them access to police them in effect to make sure they are complying with terms.
In terms of it's democracy, it takes away the freedoms of the consumer buy subsidizing technologies for which there is no demand, putting competing energy industries at a disadvantage and forcing artificial morals on the tax payer to purchase a product they don't want or wouldn't be economically feasible otherwise.
The truth is, if people were that interested in "saving" the planet, they would be giving up fossil fuels and buying solar panels, we aren't seeing this in any significant level so they globalists are trying to make us an offer we can't refuse by stealing our money.
ITS NOT REAL FUCKING BONGPOSTER
POLAR ICE CAPS MELT AND THEN GROW BACK IN THREE YEARS BECAUSE IT'S THE FUCKING WEATHER
>BUT SCIENTISTS SAY
I DON'T GIVE A FLYING DOGSHIT WHAT SCIENTISTS SAY. THEY'RE BEING PAID HUGE GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO SPEW THESE FIGURES BECAUSE """PROVING""" CLIMATE CHANGE MEANS MORE REGULATIONS, WHICH MEANS MORE TAXES WHICH MEANS MORE WAYS THE GOVERNMENT CAN FUCK WITH YOU AND STEAL YOUR MONEY.
IT'S A SCAM. TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG.
(pic not related but still valid)
The answer to your question is that if you subsidize windmills, that becomes an artificially cheaper source of energy to the consumer, thereby shifting market share in their favor and away from fossil fuels. It's basically just making an unleveled playing field, just like tariffs would to create a greater demand for your own products in your country.
This picture is because of the glaciers melting, mixing the fresh water from the glaciers with salt water. This causes the fresh water to "hoover" above the salt water, causing it to freeze. More ice = not good
Simple.
It wasnt called climate change until the temperature dropped and the words GLOBAL WARMING were no longer scary enough to make you pay.
"Jews being behind bad things" getting old is because it is in fact a very old occurrence.
They have corrupted societies for millenia, pic related is countries they have been kicked out of.
sea level lower when the ice melts
Ice is less dense than water
Don't be retarded
You're retarded. Water mixes.
Oops wrong pic
This is the best "quick rundown" you will get for a scientific layperson:
mises.org
Temperatures have been rising dramatically. No drop in the trend.
>believing in global warming means you are a globalist shill
WRONG
If you ask me most of the protocols are a band aid and not doing enough. We need to fund research not only into renewabke energies, but also into Thorium nuclear reactors, and technologies to remove CO2 already present in the atmosphere. We also need hard caps on emissions and population growth not only in the West but in the third world as well. China shouldn't get a free pass.
The whole carbon credits idea is bullshit.
I'm btw
Just on my cellphone, I don't know why the flag shows up wrong now.
>global tax on life
This is the ultimate goal. They've taxed almost everything they can. A tax on life will never end and there's always more tax sources being born.
to top it off, the satellite data in the black line undergoes number fudging equations of its own to pain the most advantageous picture of data to support AGW as it can, so the predictions are even worse than whats shown in that graph
>What am i supposed to believe.
>The Jews are behind it? That's getting pretty old.
I notice your objection to our stating that the Jews are behind it has nothing at all to do with the fact that they are. You just don't want to hear it.
>Temperatures have been rising dramatically. No drop in the trend.
No, but it's very special that you pretend they have been.
that's the point.
there are no reliable statistics or numbers that support the claims being made about climate change.
my proposal
break out the graphs, charts, and predictions that the "experts" prepared 10 years ago and let's check the super accurate and completely infallible predictions of death and gloom against what really happened.
if they were correct, then their predictions should be spot on. i would expect no, to very little deviation from their models.
show me that data and i will concede the point but when it does not match you must give me the same consideration and recant.
if there were a smoking gun report for any of the above, we would have it waved in our faces at every possible opportunity but the truth is that no empirical real-world data exists to support the chicken-little climate change lies.
it's most definitely, without a doubt, NOT habbening.
There are many layers of wrongness, I'm missing a few, but here are the main ones.
1. Regardless of CO2 emissions, is the Earth actually warming or not? By some measures it is not warming.
2. If it is warming, how do we know the warming is going to continue? The Earth exists on a very long timespan, much longer than human life, and much, much much longer than recorded human history. We might warm for a few decades then cool for a few decades.
3. If it is warming, and it is continuing to warm, is there any proof that humans influencing the warming? CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere may thicken the atmosphere and create a sort of insulation to the Earth, but human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse gases naturally emitted on Earth.
4. If it really is warming, and it is really an ongoing trend, and we really are partly responsible, how much effort would we have to spend in trying to reverse this trend vs trying to adapt to the trend?
5. If it really is warming, and it really is an ongoing trend, and we really are partly responsible and it really is worthwhile, from a utilitarian point of view, to take action we then come to the final point, which is actually the most powerful of all: Is it right to force people through, compulsory government enforcement, to take action? Is it morally justified to steal greater amounts of tax from people? If each individual person believed the following 4 points, then they could voluntarily take action by voluntarily choosing to purchase expensive renewable energy over fossil fuel energy, they could voluntarily choose to purchase products and services that were 'carbon neutral'. If the majority of people acted in this voluntary way, then collectively we would address climate change. So why are we creating taxes and regulations to force people to take action involuntarily? Could it be that individuals do not see the value of these policies?
>break out the graphs, charts, and predictions that the "experts" prepared 10 years ago and let's check the super accurate and completely infallible predictions of death and gloom against what really happened
This already happened.
These are the measurements confirming what was predicted by climate models more than a decade ago.
But if you bury your head in a denialist echo chamber listen to cranks with no peer review there is no much that can be done for you to change your mind.
See pic.
nice pic. a little dry though, any sauce?
i want to see empirical data. third-party verifiable data. there is none.
the best you have is a single .gif of a line chart?
How about a chart showing all of the climate models you retard -- 95% of them have high-balled globals temps compared to actual satellite measurements.
drroyspencer.com
I posted several links here but most of you don't want to read:
>HOLY FUCK U BELIEVE IN MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE THAT MUST MEAN U WANT CARBON TAX U STUPID JEW FUCK U
smart guy, this one
Yes but unfortunately no one talks about cows which produce more than any other industry because MUH STEAK XD
>the fact that there is a direct correlation between industrialization and global warming acceleration, and that correlation is explained by the production of GHG means nothing to me
No climate model will have a 100% accuracy rate, and nobody has ever pretended otherwise. That's why they are called forecasts and not predictions.
It does look like all the ones that predicted long term warming are correct, while those predicting cooling, like Lindzen, are wrong.
here's what the CMIP5 ensemble actually looks like when compared to observation
Without an imminent global threat the U.N. has no reason to exist. It's almost like they want to wreck havoc in order to justify their existence and furthering their influence. I mean, atleast for the EU, most legislative decisions are based on UN agendas already.
great charts but they still prove nothing. ive been around long enough to have lived through the coming ice-age and into the coming planetary fry-pie that you claim is our unavoidable doom.
the planet is fine, it's a lot bigger than any of us and these natural cycles have been recurring for a very very long time. hell, we've only had accurate measuring devices for a blink of a planetary eye.
you apparently see the trend but you also need to look past it. it looks to me like the margin of error in those graphs is more than the total proposed change in temperature.
look at the cycles, the ups, the downs, then the ups and what comes after that? many of those charts seem to only zoom in on the latest uptrend making it appear as if there has always been a steady increase in temps when it's actually only a lie of omission based on cherry picked, and very often fudged or outright fabricated, data.
what i drive, how much i breathe, where and how i live have no significant effect. all of our "footprints" combined are infinitesimal in terms of global impact. none of this is a concern as the proposed rise in temps will have nothing but a positive effect on vegetation.
hows about we celebrate the coming abundance instead of running to buy a fucking indulgence.
If tthose charts prove nothing to you, then prove spheric earth or gravity if data, studies and researchs mean nothing.
You don't even know what you're talking about.
Rightys take off your foilhats and libcucks set aside your feelings. This is the truth:
Climate change is real. Just as there are periodical ice ages, there are global warmings as well
We are entering a global warming, and human consumption has somewhat a say in it. Kind of.
What China does for this, is nothing as they need to keep production up. This affects the whole world, not just them.
What the white man is doing, is feeling guilty about all of this, thus decreasing production. This isn't feasible and the rich bourgeois can't have it that way so they TAX the middle class instead of decreasing production oy vey and the guilt ridden middle class is happy to pay the faux CO2 taxes that supposedly dampen the usage and effects of CO2. Which they don't.
Hence why Norway has a lot of oil, but has the top 3 most expensive gas prices in the world - thanks to "environment taxes" that feed off white guilt. We are being cucked, gentlemen.
The thing is the gobal warming lobby, for variety, is pushing a narrative that backs their interests.
Many scientists have demonstrated that CO2 or even greenhouse gases might not be the main cause of global warming.
The most common asumption by scientist is that they still do not fully understand the climate change factors.
Even if after all they are right blaming CO2 they are interfering in the investigations silencing anyone that may have a different view.
There are many documentaries speaking about the nefarious act
youtube.com
Also simple intuition will tell you to follow the money.
thehill.com
boeing.com
e360.yale.edu
Most companies with interests are already planning and investing in the future routs of the Arctic
>The thing is the gobal warming lobby, for variety, is pushing a narrative that backs their interests.
Or they are trying to stop alarmists, using inaccurate data, from killing their businesses.
>it's a lot bigger than any of us and these natural cycles have been recurring for a very very long time
this is incredibly lazy thinking. 'I'm small, the Earth is huge, how much of a difference can I really be making?'
>we've only had accurate measuring devices for a blink of a planetary eye.
Scientists gather a lot of their data by drilling through the ice in the Antarctic and other areas, where they can reach ice that fell as snow thousands or even millions of years ago. By doing chemical analysis of this they can determine that the climatic conditions when the ice was formed. Scientists can also do something similar with soil; by digging down into layers of soil that were laid down thousands of years ago they can measure things like the prevalence of pollen, which gives them an indication of what the climate was like in that area.
To cut a long story short, scientists can measure historic conditions quite accurately, and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere strongly correlates with higher temperatures.
Can they predict accurately what's going to happen? No. Can they be absolutely sure that this isn't part of a natural cycle? No. But the physics of how carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere is very well understood - it definitely is a greenhouse gas that can affect the temperature. So really, even if the fire did start naturally that doesn't mean it's okay to keep pouring gasoline on it.
>none of this is a concern as the proposed rise in temps will have nothing but a positive effect on vegetation.
this is just childish. Any change in climate would be incredibly disruptive, as certain areas dry up and become infertile, and others thaw. All our infrastructure for collecting transporting food is predicated on it being in certain places, as well as on the sea being at a certain height. If you think the worst that could happen if CO2 levels rise is slightly larger sunflowers then you simply do not understand how the world around you functions.
By global warming lobby I meant the people who impose the carbon taxes, the solar pannels and so on.
*nefarious activities of the lobby
*future rutes of the arctic
Your retarded set of opinions and folk lore are worthless
Venus is hotter than Mercury, Mercury is closer to the sun. The reason? Greenhouse gases. You are an idiot and I hope you never vote.
It is not the Jews per say
It is globalists trying to sell shitty green energy to help their cronies in the green energy industry. You the tax payer and consumer are getting screwed by massive energy cost inflation
Idk if someone posted it yet, but the Brits had a documentary called "the great climate hoax" or something like that. Look for it on YouTube. Very convincing studies
>me small earth big = intellectual laziness
think bigger. i'm not talking about literal size.
ice core data, like carbon dating, is guesswork that, on it's best day, produces shotgun accuracy with a potential deviation of several orders of magnitude. we can certainly run samples through the equipemt that we have, but determining the exact content of any given gas in the atmosphere in the far past is rathar like saying, it was brighter back then... just brighter... let's not get hung up actual lux.
as i stated earlier, i've watched and lived this long enough to have noticed the correlation between any change and all of the propaganda. i understand science and technology.
cutting your long story short, i agree with your statement but take umbrage to your use of the term "accurately" to descibe our measurement of historical climate.
>any change...disruptive
i must disagree here. anyone want to talk about photosythesis?
...
did you wash your tinfoil hat today
I give up.
I posted a huge block of text with sources, citations and accounting for most denialist "arguments" and you retards keep bringing up the same points that have already been addressed without bothering to read.
You are part of the problem of why civilization is going to shit. I guess humanity peaked in the 1980s, we've been living on borrowed time ever since. You are as bad as the SJWs you claim to hate, ignoring facts for feelgood propaganda.
Provide us a climate model that accurately predicts global temperature changes then. Even within the given the margin of error.
I'll wait.
Until then, it's still just a theory.
