Why is this you?

Why is this you?

Don't be this.

Other urls found in this thread:

scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/
google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAjfiA8aDUAhXFOyYKHbbdDNoQjRwIBw&url=https://phys.org/news/2015-02-iconic-graph-center-climate-debate.html&psig=AFQjCNFh0fqLgCb7_VtELlTd6R29aPRlmg&ust=1496552035260817
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_co2.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

None of the bullet points on tat slide correlate to a global temperature change catastrophe as is always pushed by climate change (((scientists))). We are in fact in one of the colder periods of the climate cycle.

Why do you use false data? Who are you protecting by destroying our world? I hope they're paying you well.

It's all real data, go check the studies yourself, the names are at the top.

Now why don't you show the class the data where the average temperature has risen in an almost identical pattern to the rise of the industrial revolution.

>What if the people asking for money are just pocketing it instead of doing anything about their supposed cause
>What if the proposed solutions are not only ridiculous but line up exactly with proposals to sabotage nations

You: I'm too blind to see the above user

>In b4 muh cow farts

Feed your cows a different diet instead of taxing farmers for something you aren't going to directly measure...

>But you still don't understand

see: Solution vs. Gibs

never understood why pol is vehemently against environmentally friendly ideals. what does pol have to gain from denying the obvious? i can't imagine we have that many big oil execs browsing this board. let's say there isn't a 99% consensus among all of our researchers and scholars, aren't the dangers of not doing anything much, much greater than over regulating? over regulating means the big oil companies paid a few extra bucks, not doing anything means we fucked the only planet in our observable universe that's habitable by humans.

that plastic sludge in the ocean and irregular concentrations of methane in the atmosphere aren't natural and aren't going to disintegrate into the environment, you fucking dolts

Just because the industrial revolution happened as global temperatures were on their way up does not correlate to the industrial revolution being the cause of the global temperatures going up. How would you explain the temperatures in the past ()
() dropping below that they are today and rising far above what they are today multiple times? Multiple industrial revolutions? No.

>aren't natural
what does that even mean?

>they match on an almost identical rate
>TOTAL COINCIDENCE THAT WE SYNCED TO NATURE ON A 100K+ YEAR SCALE

Do you even hear yourself talk?

Because we do.

>For nothing
The problem is that it's not for nothing, it's at a drastic price thanks to using fucking windmills and the like, when maybe if we wait a few decades science will have produced something that actually makes an impact instead of a drop in the ocean change at a ludicrous cost.

You realize that there are countries in this world that are 100% renewable energy, right?

The technology already exists. And it'll get better.

>ON A 100K+ YEAR SCALE
yes that's a very long time for things to happen and the temperature rises slowly but steadily and drops slowly but steadily. Just because we are in a steady upwards climb does not indicate that the industrial revolution is the cause of the rise just because it occurred during it, as it has been shown that the rise is completely in correlation with the previous cyclic thermal fluctuations.

Now if you can provide some arguments and data to the contrary without resorting to only sarcasm and green text memes I'd be happy to listen.

You have contradicted yourself in this thread.
We saw an increase in literally the same very same timespan that it took humans to industrialize. At almost the same rate. Yet a very short period in the grand scheme of things.

That's the stupid thing with climate deniers. Their own data proves how wrong they are. They talk on huge spans of Earth's history and yet we've only been polluting for a hundred fucking years.

You argue with yourself. All you deserve in response is greentext and memes, because what you spout is literally no more intelligent.

>what are polymers that take thousands of years to even remotely break down

educate yourself, moran

Do we really have environmental shills invading?

So you're dodging again and not providing an argument or data to support it? Great, good to know you aren't trying to convince anyone at all.

What's your point? Define "not natural".

...

No, son. You already agreed with me on the rate of increase coinciding with the rate of industrialization earlier in the thread. And now that I point out that that totally doesn't mesh with your natural temperature changes of Earth over long time periods, you're ready to move the goalposts and try to proof meme.

I've actually seen people better at denying than you. Just tell your jewish overlords that you tried.

Sorry for the quality Im on mobile, did my best but i fixed it for ya

Good effort, better than the leaf because at least I laughed.

they leave out planned technocratic economic collapse

and

ushering in one world government

we can achieve all that other shit without them

>I point out that that totally doesn't mesh with your natural temperature changes

That's all you've done, said it. You haven't provided any proof, any data that shows that the industrial revolution significantly impacted the rate of global temperature change. All you are doing is parroting talking points and projecting.

Apply yourself.

Engineer in renewables here

Looks about right

How the fuck do I get out of this industry. Its a fucking obama scam, they don't even pay the technical people all that well.

top kek

........except you already agreed to it, therefore it means you're acknowledging the data.

But I'm going to give you a talking point that will put your foot in your mouth for good. 2/3 of Canada's electricity is from renewable sources. So are you saying Canada is stupid? Are you saying America is better for using more coal? Are you saying America is better for polluting more? Are you saying Canada is being hindered because of this?

As the image in the original post said, what is the point of denying when obviously it works effectively without all these dumb memes?

GEE I REALLY WANT TO BE TAXED MORE SO THAT THE EUROFAGS ACCEPT US AND GET TO REGULATE OUR ENERGY USE AND PRODUCTION, I WON'T REST UNTIL THE EUROS THINK WE'RE AS PROGRESSIVE AS THEY ARE!!!!

>We shouldn't be spewing toxic gas into the air constantly and dumping our shit directly into the fucking ocean

Sup Forums: HURRRRR TOXIC GAS? IM NOT DEAD SO NOT TOXIC HUH? LOL

I haven;t agreed to it, all I agreed to is it happened during the already rising temperature (a perfectly normal rise in accordance with the data before it). What I did not agree to is that is is the cause of the rise in temperature, in fact, I pointed out that correlation does not equal causation and you are attributing causation to an event within the rising temperature trend because it is convenient to your narrative. It's no different than saying "The first central bank was established in England during this temperature raise therefore establishing central banks in England is the cause of global temperature increase."

I'm still waiting for your data that supports your point.

How do they know temperatures from 10k years ago

No. You agreed earlier in the thread when I mentioned it. We're not playing this silly game. You stepped in it, you made yourself look stupid, and now you're going to eat your words and deal with it.

Luckily not all Canadians are dumb shills like you and are making the progress that America should be making.

odds are you are poor as shit and work some piece of shit minimum wage job. there is statistical proof the majority of americans benefit more from higher taxes than they do from low, check out how utter shit red states are compared to blue. you know who doesn't benefit from higher taxes? the 1% MUH GOD EMPEROR trump but keep slurping that corporate cock, your descendants are fucked at the behest of your millionaire overlords

Ice caps

ice core drilling and analyzing the many layers that have been frozen in time over the period for the characteristics/composition of the ice as well as the particulates that are entrapped within the ice.

>You agreed earlier in the thread when I mentioned it. We're not playing this silly game.

See: >Just because the industrial revolution happened as global temperatures were on their way up does not correlate to the industrial revolution being the cause of the global temperatures going up.
>does not correlate to the industrial revolution being the cause of the global temperatures going up.

sure thing bud.

That's pretty badass

Nowhere with an even remotely high population.

Again, the argument isn't that the technology exists, it's that you'd need to build a veritable forest of bloody windmills to do it.

If the technology is getting better, then I'd rather wait for something sensible.

USguy, you're getting owned and you sound triggered and unreasonable as fuck.

I mean, your first argument was that all his data was false.

Honestly, it's a pretty persuasive graph too.

Why do you want people to pay thousands of dollars a year in carbon taxes when we can just build a big mirror in space between the Earth and the Sun to reflect 1-2% of sunlight and have the problem solved for about $10-$20 per person?

The only explanation is that you are (1) retarded or (2) an evil conman.

Hundreds of millions of people are starving right now. Overpaying to solve a carbon problem is literally the same thing as genocide.

You are a disgusting genocidal freak.

I am and I hope most here are for nuclear energy, a proven and easily accessible and safe source of energy that's also clean. Most "environmental" shills promote solar energy which is inefficient and actually pollutes damn near as bad as FF. Also a 'carbon tax' is another way for bureaucrats to havr control pver busimesses and himders business growth and startups

...

for nothing? It would lead to more poverty. Are you okay with more poor and suffering people just in the name of "muh blue sky" ?

More like

>what if this is only an excuse for western government to put in place always more regulations and taxes, destroying our lifestyle and industry, while the rest of the world can still do whatever they want and none of this would have any positive impact anyway?

FTFY

...

The pact was basically being broken by China, Russia, NK and half the world. It was a net loss for American money when other countries don't even fucking follow it.

You want to know why you selfish sadistic leftists?
its not because we all explicitly think "m-muh global warming" isn't happening
its not because we "anti-science"
its not we're somehow a bunch of racist nazis or whatever other excuse your insane mind can come up with

We refuse this shit because YOU keep trying to force more and more clauses onto agreements, such as paying for "third world countries" carbon taxes so that they can do whatever they damn well want...
And your "third world" nations include...China...and India.
and that's just one fucking part of it
The immigration clauses?
the migrants?
all that bullshit that we would have been forced with had we accepted it?
NO
we are NOT going to put up with your awful agenda anymore, even the most blind can see that, even for those that you do forcibly relocate here, all you do for them is make their lives even worse, and stir up hatred against them by shilling them so fucking hard

you will never understand this. you will never understand why you are so vehemently and increasingly hated.
We may not be "the good guys", but we are the ones that will survive. We are the ones that will emerge from this and still exist, your violent and extremist ideology is untenable, and you will reap the awful consequences of what you sow. "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" as they say, and your sword is being very violently and aggressively handled.

The climate has never changed this fast before. It's currently changing about 10x faster than the fastest changes previously. There's no way it's a coincidence. We know how much climate change we would expect from only natural causes today and it's no where near what we see.

the math used by the group shows that to actually change the temperature of the world by 1 fucking degree, we would need to level society completely, globally and try to forage for food. oh, and that was within 200 years.

Whereas I agree China is a big time producer of pollution, I wouldn't say any country had broken the pact yet. Violated rules that are in the pact? Yes. But the pact doesn't go into effect until 2021. Russia hadn't even signed it yet!

Don't worry, be happy

scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/
google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAjfiA8aDUAhXFOyYKHbbdDNoQjRwIBw&url=https://phys.org/news/2015-02-iconic-graph-center-climate-debate.html&psig=AFQjCNFh0fqLgCb7_VtELlTd6R29aPRlmg&ust=1496552035260817
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
sorry forgot to link sources

Yes.

>The climate has never changed this fast before. It's currently changing about 10x faster than the fastest changes previously.

Care to provide some evidence for that claim? If you refer to the graphs I have posted and direct your attention to the previous rising trends you can see that several of them have a steeper rise than the current trend.

Looks especially at the rising trends just after 350,000 years and just before our current state at roughly 10,000 years in this graph: The rate of temperature increase is far greater than it is currently and the data shows that the current rate temperature increase has slowed since ad noted by the "dome top" of the present temperature readings.

Because this

kek
you are beyond stupid
blue states tend to be wealthier because wealthier populations tend to be more liberal on average
not because liberal policies lead to wealth

...

>Care to provide some evidence for that claim?
yeah sorry, I forgot to link my sources.
scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/
google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAjfiA8aDUAhXFOyYKHbbdDNoQjRwIBw&url=https://phys.org/news/2015-02-iconic-graph-center-climate-debate.html&psig=AFQjCNFh0fqLgCb7_VtELlTd6R29aPRlmg&ust=1496552035260817
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

And my argument is heavier then your

>The climate has never changed this fast before.
>It's currently changing about 10x faster than the fastest changes previously.
>t. Doesn't Know About the Little Ice Age

That is the most autistic chart I've ever seen. Cite the source.

Chrisy, I remember 5-10 years ago when id see arguments like the one in the image and thought it was totally justified. Now I barely recognize that person I used to be.
>image makes zero sense

>create a better world
>by crippling our own economies
>by enriching our enemies

kill yourself

Liberal girl i work with doesnt like repubs, I mean neither do i, but her family is currently selling their house for 700k. I highly doubt she understands the plight of average Americans from her ivory tower

>carbox tax
>better world
lel

How do we determine CO2 levels of the earth from 10000 years ago

Church of Goremon thread

It's a combination of data points. In order,

cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

Your first source is Californian "Anne C. Mulkern, West Coast Bureau Chief for Environment & Energy News." And provides no academic data to the claims.

Your second source is based off a graph on only a range of 1000 years and on a scale of decimal points of temperature degree changes therefore doesn't focus on the temperature fluctuations for the past hundreds of thousands of years which often have risen hotter than today at a greater rate .

The graphs on the Nasa website only account for decimal points of temperature degree as well and only date as far back as 150 years which is AFTER the industrial revolution.

It seems to me that they are focusing on the most recent upward trend with no attention spent on the trends the earth has undergone in thousands of years previously. Such as this image (). Quite disingenuous to focus only on the latest trend and act as if it is some huge concern when bucnh more radical trends have occurred multiple times in the past. We are literally coming out of an ice age, it's pretty normal to have temperatures have a noticeable increase in relation to the recent past.

cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
And they explain more in depth as to how they got it here (under the data subsection)
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_co2.html

>switch location and data source
>get different results

Who would have expected.

Surely a series of volcanic islands has the same CO2 concentration as an arctic ice core.

ice cores from greenland. we pull out a tube of ice that's like a mile long, we know how much ice is deposited each year, we can analyze the ice to see dust particles and whatnot and figure out with pretty good accuracy what the average temperature was and a few other things

>crippling our own economies
Im pretty sure having most coastal regions flooded hurts the economy. And even then, not relying on a very finite source of fuel is the future. If we could ween the world off of gas, we'd actually cripple the hell out of Saudi Arabia and Russia.

DAILY REMINDER

* 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 and that more water vapor 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."

Ice cores

>on a scale from 270 to 350 ppm

Also, how does that prove that an increase of co2 to the effect of 80ppm has had a significant measurable effect (not to mention dangerous) on the increase of global temperature?

>ice core
>ice core
>volcano
Might as well prove global warming by first checking my fridge and then my stove for temperature

So you're literally the dude in the OP image, rofl

Or weathers naturally stupidly noisy and you can find peaks pretty much wherever. Historical data is smoother because it's from lower resolution measurements.

>waves move back and forth
>i throw a ball at it as it moves out
WAOW THROWING BALLS AT THE WAVE CAUSE IT TO MOVE OUT! SAVE THE OCEAN!

>rip apart the theory scientifically
>"hurr you're the guy in the image"
No further commentary from the

Climate change is happening, but the Paris Accord is a shit deal.

Valid point, however taylor dome and law dome are both in Antarctica. Neglecting the hawaii data, it's still very high.

Shockingly enough replacing energy sources with metric tonnes of heavy metal laced solar panels and batteries doesn't help the environment. Of course, we could do the smart thing and go nuclear for ridiculous amounts of clean energy on demand but NUCLEAR SCAAAAAAAARY.

>takes REGIONAL data and passes it off as GLOBAL data
Different regions go through milankovic cycles where they have cooling and heating periods, the problem is that when you average ALL regional data sets, it leans to warmer temperatures, noticeably so. This is the problem with this issue, its full of people who dont know how to interpret scientific data and literature.

Because it's a rapid increase. The rate of change of that graph is insane near the 1900's.

Literally go ask about this shit on /sci/
It's so pathetic seeing you faggots get ripped apart every fucking day.

>Neglecting the hawaii data, it's still very high.
No, it's not. It's well below the level required for an optimum biosphere (maximum biomass and biodiversity). One of the great ironies of the stupid AGW debate is the side that claims to be for the environment wants to starve the environment of carbon.

are you even a scientist? doubtful. you are like that annoying guy who thinks he can cure cancer with a leaf and doctors are just out to steal your money

>all cars are going electric while 1 container ship pollutes more than a million cars combined

Hate to break it to you, but the Roman and Medieval optimums were global and were warmer than today.

it's a rapid increase on a small scale, it only proves that we generate more co2 than before the increase but doesn't tie in how that drastically effects the global temperatures at a concerning rate that is any different than the past thermal fluctuations.

>the future of this planet's habitability is a partisan issue

not even mad, just sad

So what caused the rise since it started pre-industrial revolution then? It seems silly to accept that temperature can fluctuate wildly naturally, yet when CO2 does it's a herald of the apocalypse.

if you have to ask that then you have lost your common sense.

correlation doesn't equal causation my dude.

Could you give me a source for that claim? I'd like to read what optimum levels for co2 should be, then.

Except we're not creating a better world, were lining the pockets of a bunch of faggots and warlords though. Also look into the environmental damage caused by mining materials, processing, and manufacturing solar panels. Finally China doesn't give a fuck, they even refused to allow third party auditors. If it still isn't clicking I can't help you, you're probably too retarded.

...

Define "not natural" please.

I'll send you 1ETH if you can name me one single actual economic benefit for the USA in the Paris Treaty. One. That means where the money couldn't better be spent elsewhere. I'm waiting.

only feeble minded slaves believe this.

Explain how funneling money to developing nations with unstable governments helps save the world faggot.