Actual understandable evidence of the looming threat of climate change:

Actual understandable evidence of the looming threat of climate change:

When people say 'hottest year on record' that means fuck all. We only started recording temperatures globally in like the 1800s, and trends in temperatures are indistinguishable even up to the 10,000 year scale. The 1800s was a mini ice-age, and before that, evidence shows that temperatures were actually much hotter than now.

This is also the reason why it is not possible to compare the CO2 levels with temperature on this scale and get any amount of cohesive result. People will truncate the data they show you to fit whatever narrative that they want.

To get the most accurate results, we need to go as far back in time as we can, and to do this we can measure ice from deep permafrost, which gives us average temperature and CO2 level data. On the largest time scale, the evidence is clear: It seems that temperature is closely linked to CO2 percentages in the air, and not at least the last billion years have the CO2 levels been anywhere near as high as they are today.

Other urls found in this thread:

scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/
fau.eu/2015/11/10/news/research/idea-of-slow-climate-change-in-the-earths-past-misleading/
aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2164/5249/ncomms9890.pdf;sequence=1
futurity.org/climate-change-heat-global-warming-1501062-2/
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R&
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

*million, not billion.

If it was correlated that strongly shouldn't it have hit +20 Celsius already? It's almost like C02 and temperature are BOTH correlated with something else and NOT each other. Or maybe C02 is (at least in the past) dependent on temperature and NOT the other way around.

Fuck off before i burn the tyres lying around my property you cunt.

Most of the studies ignore the most important factor: The sun (which is the primary source of heat for Earth, other than the Earth itself). It is known to have 12 year cycles of activity spikes, when the magnetic poles flip. It also appears to have other, stronger cycles that affect it even more so on the long run.

false. All major climate change models have the sun as a forcing factor built in.

this is a lie by big oil to try to undermine the science - suggesting the scientists have foolishly left out a major factor for thirty years, despite the fact that big oil proxies point this out on a daily basis - just silly to believe they have not thought of this.

I am sorry; I don't see the sun activity factored in in any of the charts I see that promote this narrative - only CO2, and sometimes CH4 . Do you?

>Muh sun it's slowly exploding

Explain the lead levels in the atmosphere then.

>actual evidence

>measuring ice from permafrost


Pick one. These faggots can't even tell me what the temperature was 20 years ago without changing the data 8 times to fit in with their horseshit hypotheology

We do not have sufficient understanding of our planet, our solar system, our oceans to draw any conclusions. We barely know enough to make predictions about the weather 2-3 days in. And no, predicting that is gonna be sunny and hot in the Summer isn't proof that we know anything.

And when the richest people and government try to tell us, normal people that pollute too much and should be taxed more, you can bet there's an agenda right there.

Ok then, do you we have a working experimental model of what happen if we lock you inside a car with CO2 slowly filling it?

Comparing a closed, controlled experiment where you can monitor all the variables with the magnitude, complexity and dynamic nature of the universe.

Do you have a working model of your brain being replaced with a peanut? Probably nothing will change.

But we know that abnormal concentrations of CO2 ain't good, for sure, multiply that for ewvery metal and toxic elements that we drop into the atmosphere on a daily basis.

wtf is wrong with all of you? nigga ts a graph that shows average temperatures of the last 1 million years, it can't tell you what the temperature was last month and it cant predict what it will be next month. Do you dumb motherfuckers really think that because CO2 is high that temperatures must be high immediately or else it isn't true? When you turn on a heater does your home instantly get hot? fucking retards... If you ignore any evidence against your point just because 'da sun is hotter sometimes' then there is no hope for you or your invalid bloodline. If you claim that evidence isn't evidence purely because it isn't evidence for your point then you are fucking stupid. CO2 gets trapped in permafrost when it freezes - not fucking hard to understand.

How the fuck could they know temp from ice cores? They dont. They estimate it based on CO2 which is why the graphs match until they dont.

The government isn't completely retarded, by the way, they don't just make up scientific facts. They cherrypick and truncate but they still use publically available raw data, which is all there for people to see. If you look at any graph from a scale smaller than 100,000 years then there is too much noise to get any info from it, and people that say 'yea well there was cooling in the 3rd month of 1986 so global warming is a lie' need to seriously consider suicide - not because their side is inherintly wrong, but because their ability to function as a logical being is wrong.

scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/

you fucking monkey. just make a single quick google search. do you know how to do that?

Since you cant shut your leftist yap i am going to light a fucking pyre and send years worth of carbon into the atmosphere, any good you think you have done will be erased by my hand.

Its pretty basic 5th grade science and future generations are royally fucked.

It's the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Which is influenced only by the sun activity.
1)Sun activity higher
2)some time later water vapour amount rises
3) this rises CO2
4) combination of all previous stuff increases average temperature
It's the Sun and pretty much nothing else

If I ever get rich, I'm going to buy a 55-gallon drum of crude oil every week and just light it off for the hell of it.

also, since when were belief in facts-based scientific theories considered political stances? I would have hoped fellow kiwis would be abode the shat bed that is the US cultural dichotomy.

All i fucking hear
>muh global warming
Sick of it fuck off you monotone cunts.

OK, so the sun cycle that goes for 11 years is the reason for the temperatures increasing continuously since at least 1850? I'm not saying that that is because of the CO2, but if you think it is the sun then you are a fucking mong.

literally present any good evidence against it and then we can talk.

No. Shut the fuck up about it or i will do the exact opposite of what you want to happen.

you know you can just leave this thread right?

What I want to happen is for people to take precautionary action until we have enough evidence, but it seems that your camp is providing none so you can suck a nut and die until that happens.

That data isn't reliable. I won't go as far as to say that it's faked, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that it's anywhere near the truth.

The problem here is that it's impossible to measure past co2 levels for every single year. What can be measured (and is actually shown in the majority ofthis graph) is the average co2 level - from the looks of it (4 data points in a 20000 year intervall) I guess the average over 5000 years. And that is only if they used a real average instead of a weighted average (which would reduce the influences of extremely high or low values since those are regarded as errors in the measuring process).
Now imagine what the graph would look like if instead of putting in a single data point for 2014 they'd put in the average of the years 3000BC-2000AD.

What I wrote so far were only statistical errors - in theory, it would be possible that co2 levels barely deviated from the 5000 year averages.
If however you look at actual scientific studies instead of what the media make of it, you'd find stuff like for example this (a report by a well respected german university):
fau.eu/2015/11/10/news/research/idea-of-slow-climate-change-in-the-earths-past-misleading/
You'd find that in fact, both co2 levels and temperatures flucutate quite a bit.

In fact, it is highly likely that climate changes like the on currently in progress happened in the past as well. Now of course, this one might be man-made - but still, it isn't nearly as unusual or threatening as somepoliticians would have us believe.

Besides, if those politicians seriously feared climate change, they wouldn't try to "stop" it by closing nuclear power plants, forcing globalization and supporting electromobility - but going into detail on these matters doesn't belong in this thread I guess.

Even if that Data might accurate that is a prediction ffs. You can't make solid facts of shit that hasn't happened yet. Just look at how accurate meteorologists are, they can't even predict the weather accurately three days in the future, how do you expect them to predict three fucking years?

stupid bait is still bait.

Fake data to support fake warming

Gore won a nobel prize?
Shiet, they hand them like candy nowadays.

Thanks for actually providing some evidence.
I can accept the idea that maybe we are heating up at a rate that isn't unheard of, but from what we can see, in the long term, correlations of CO2 and temperature are present, and we have plenty of evidence showing that the greenhouse effect is real. Given that we know the change in CO2 is definitely unprecidented in recent times, I believe there is reason to be concerned. According to those correlations, the earth is destined to have a temperature rise that will be too much too quickly, and we risk losing many animal species, potentially collapsing ecosystems.

Until I can see evidence that CO2 levels in the air and temperature are not cause-and-effect, I believe we should be doing what we can to prevent anything bad from happening.

any idea how those "precautionary actions" are supposed to look?
cause everything I've heard this far was either scientifically impossible (scrapping old cars in favor of new ones that use a little less gasoline, using regenerative energies even though the tools for harvesting them need more energy to be produced than they create before breaking, using electric cars made of polymer and alumium since they need less energy to drive etc.) or were completely inhumane (slaughtering every cloven-hoofed animal since they fart out CH4, starting another world war so there's less people creating co2).

In the end, all the people offering "solutions" seem to be either lobbyists (regenerative energies, modern cars, chemically extracting and storing co2 from the atmosphere etc) or foolish idealists (vegans, ww3 fanatics, hippies, church of suicide etc).

I have yet to see a single solution that I (chemical / mechanical engineer, so somewhat informed on what is possible) wouldn't be able to logically disprove with half an hour of research, well, other mass suicides. But that would kinda defeat the purpose of saving the earth for our childrens children I guess.

meteorology isn't even relevant. we are talking about the difference between 2 or 3 variables and literally infinite variables

kk

Then why do you shill so much for something you have so little information?

"little information" ok

>we are talking about the difference between 2 or 3 variables and literally infinite variables

There are no good climate models. The basic premise of greenhouse gases outputted by humans causing more warming is fine. But nobody can predict how much, how fast, etc. with good accuracy. The doomsday global warming predictions are all retarded of course. The earth getting warmer doesn't matter much to civilized nations.

I'll buy climate change.

I'll buy CO2 having an effect on global temperatures.

I'll buy that human activity plays a significant role in both of them.

However, ANY solution that doesn't involve changing over the ENTIRE power grid to nuclear and ANY international treaty that doesn't put draconian restrictions on carbon emissions from China, India, Brazil, and all of Africa are disingenuous.

AKA, the left wants climate control but don't want nuclear and is concerned about emissions but not from the largest contributors to them.

Outdated.

The older set of models are even more accurate.

I have never been talking about climate change being immediate, or even needing a trend. I am talking about the spike in CO2 being concerning given the close correlation with temperature over a realistic time frame for climates.

>realistic

The U.S. and China are the largest contributors by far. They ought to do the most.

nigga stop with these graphs, they don't mean shit. These are not abnormal changes in climate.

climates fluctuate like crazy. you only get realistic results on large time frames. Close your mouth and breathe through your nose please.

The issue with climate change is the global approach to it. Plenty of countries would benefit from increased temperatures like Canada, global warming is also infinitely better than global cooling because people start freezing to death.

Yes they are. There is no natural explanation for
the rapid level of warming experienced today.

Just chill, loser.

Some chink will be breeding out your genetics, or an islamist will be sawing the heads off your grandchildren anyway, so why be so fucking triggered?

It's totally fucking irrelevant - it's a Marxist control tool that has obviously worked wonders on you.

> Given that we know the change in CO2 is definitely unprecidented in recent times
The keyword here being "recent times". We simply do not have enough data to say anything definite.
For example, here in germany (and most of europe as well I think) there were times in the medieval ages were for multiple years, it would snow and freeeze in the midst of summer. If, back then, you'd have drawn a diagramm like the one from OP, you'd have reached the conclusion that for some reason, temperatures were plummeting faster than ever before (which in fact, they weren't, similiar things had happened a few centuries earlier) and that there was an urgent need to do something to stop it This "something" back then meant burning witches, just like nowadays it means doing things to lower co2.
even though there is no definite proof that it works (or even doesn't do something completely opposite to what it's supposed to), some people immediately take action to, as you put it, "prevent anything bad from happening" without understanding what they are even doing.

In my opinion, we shouldn't take random action until we know that it's not necessary, but only take action when we know that it is necessary.

Now obviously, reducing waste and exhaust fumes does improve the air quality and as such is justified, but telling people to scrap their old, small cars in favor of new SUVs since those use around 0,1 litre less per 100km and thus emit slightly less co2 has no justification. Still, the german government did exactly this, justifying it with the need to reduce co2 emissions. Now they are doing pretty much the same thing with electric cars (except that you no longer have to scrap the old car to get the money).

Anyways, what I'm trying (and, knowing my lacking skill with words, probably failing ) to say is that we don't even know what is happening or why, and that just doing the first thing some lobbyists offer as a "solution" is just as likely to cause harm as it is to do good.

This is not normal.

Except that the US produces more goods and services per unit of carbon input.

So third worlders produce more pollution to achieve the same amount of economic output.

So to save the planet. All carbon emitting production needs to happen in the US and everyone can get fucked until they develop nuclear power with no intermediary or transitional steps.

have you even been reading this thread?

fau.eu/2015/11/10/news/research/idea-of-slow-climate-change-in-the-earths-past-misleading/

only a 14 year old trying to seems smart would post that many graphs that say the same thing

errr sorry hun

>mfw he only correlates number of sun spots in a single time period and not the general rise in sunspots over time

>because the amount of time spent IN the sun has zero correlation to anything's temperature

It seems you didn't read your own article

>In order to predict how today’s ecosystems will react to increasing temperatures over the course of global warming, palaeobiologists study how climate change happened in the earth’s history and what the consequences were.

This article is not disputing the effects CO2 has on temperature.

by 'recent times' I meant the last million years.
All of the evidence we have shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that there is more of it in the air. we can use that amount to calclulate the approximated energy being trapped by the atmosphere every day and it is more than all of the nuclear weapons on earth or something like that (thunderfoot did a video on it). I don't know how much effect that we have overall, but I worry that if we increase CO2 too much, it will just become much worse. If we decide we don't need to stop now, then when do we stop? 1000ppm, 5000ppm? If we don't make an effort now, we might not be able to stop later. is it worth the risk?

>Except that the US produces more goods and services per unit of carbon input.

Doesn't really matter. It still out-pollutes much of the rest of the world.

Solar irradiance has been steadily decreasing.

>Being such a cuck that you shill for oil and gas
>Sucking the cock of fossil fuels while they fuck your air and water table
Degeneracy.

appart from Auckland, New Zealand is 100% renewable, so lick a dick

>STEM dropouts and NEETs debating scientific topics

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

What about the proposition that perhaps there's a fuck ton more people in the world, more pets and more cattle?

Say we exterminate just all non whites we'll fix the global warming problem. Since most of the emission are invoked by China and India and the developing world anyway

>sun cycle that goes for 11 years

That is one cycle. Other sun cycles causes ice ages & periods of warming.

...

>kekistani existing at all
Back to r*ddit

And New Zealand produces fuck all that other people use. Any country with exports requires carbon emissions to effectively keep the world running.

So renewables are a one way ticket for the world sliding back into feudalism.

How does climate changing quickly in the past change the fact that humans are causing it to happen now?

Have you read the article you posted?
>the temperate increase over the Permian-Triassic boundary was no different to current climate change in terms of speed.
>The increase in temperature during this event is associated with a mass extinction event during which 90 percent of marine animals died out.

So the article is saying that current warming is comparable to the biggest mass extinction in the history of the planet.

By the way the paper is open access. Have you read the paper?

aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2164/5249/ncomms9890.pdf;sequence=1

The conclusion literally says that past events demonstrate the risks of such rapid change - they are not disputing current AGW. In fact, the 2 periods of warming cited in the paper, the End-Permian and the Eocene Thermal Maximum, were both caused by rapid spikes in atmospheric CO2. The End Permian caused a mass extinction and the PETM caused a minor extinction. The End Permian saw a massive CO2 rise due to the Siberian Traps, and the PETM saw a rise due to (possibly) Methane Hydrate from the sea floor.

Saying 'climate has changed before' or 'climate has changed quickly before' is not relevant if you ignore why the climate changed, or the result of this change.

Also scientists have known that climate change has been rapid - this paper is about better measuring these rapid changes.

Chances are we're already fucked if we don't take steps today.

futurity.org/climate-change-heat-global-warming-1501062-2/

>A new study shows only a 5 percent chance that Earth will warm 2 degrees or less in that time—and shows a mere 1 percent chance that warming could be at or below 1.5 degrees, the target set by the 2016 Paris Agreement.

>The new, statistically-based projections, that appear in Nature Climate Change, show a 90 percent chance that temperatures will increase this century by 2.0 to 4.9 C.

Even an increase in 1.5 degrees is going to fuck over alot of poor regions, but atleast we'll be pretty old when things really begins to fall apart.

>It still out-pollutes much of the rest of the world.

And if someone else makes a bigger mess comparatively and then starts doing more work, what happens in the long run?

Also, you are now arguing in favor of NOT producing less emissions and in favor of egality that exists in your head.

>Solar irradiance has been steadily decreasing

Except is the total number of sunspots less than the average or the threshold of causing warming. Or are we still seeing the general warming trend from a longer period of time with higher sunspots.

Also your graph has a plateau fairly recent in time yet the CO2 trend would indicate only a far sharper spike in the world's temperature. Care to explain that?

IMO we will geoengineer, this is inevitable.
People will get butthurt because 'muh natural processes' but we are deep into the Anthropocene. We must accept that we have taken responsibility for the climate.

Know what's going to fuck over poor regions even more?

Massive carbon control laws that prohibits economic development to both provide them jobs and provide cheap access to goods.

>Outdated.
So, you fucking liar, you're saying if we put the latest temperature data onto that "outdated" graph, the models will suddenly stop being miserable overshoots?
When are you going to get honest and admit that all the CMIP5 models-the ones you fucking ASSURED US were accurate-were dismally wrong?

Let's spray sulfure in the atmosphere, reflect 1% of the sun's output into space, and undue the warming from CO2 emissions.

It worked when mount st helens blew her top in the early 90s.

If judging by this graph CO2 is tied to temp, shouldn't the temp be ridiculously hot?

SHHHHHH!

Can't alarm the normies without a big asymptotic jump at the end to nowhere in CURRENT YEAR.

>RSS

Nice cherry picking
Oh btw, RSS has updated their readings after correcting for orbital decay

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R&

>The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other midtropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites. It is also shown that the new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy.

>particularly after 1998

When scientists started shilling global warming hard?

The end of el ninio?

Or did something change in the fundamental laws of the universe making Carbon a much better absorber of infrared light that in previous times?

Can I see what it looked like before 800k years? That's not even a very long time geologically speaking.

But higher temperatures are better for life. Why prevent that?

>correlation = causation
kys

>And if someone else makes a bigger mess comparatively and then starts doing more work, what happens in the long run?

>Also, you are now arguing in favor of NOT producing less emissions and in favor of egality that exists in your head.

Bit of a strawman, I didn't argue these things. The U.S. is responsible for its large share of emissions and so should be one of the first in line in reducing them.

>Except is the total number of sunspots less than the average or the threshold of causing warming. Or are we still seeing the general warming trend from a longer period of time with higher sunspots.

Solar irradiance levels is a better metric in examining the sun's effect on the Earth. There's no real consensus on what is a sunspot and what isn't.

>Also your graph has a plateau fairly recent in time yet the CO2 trend would indicate only a far sharper spike in the world's temperature. Care to explain that?

It's not linear because as far as I remember only around 2-3% of warming is transferred to the atmosphere and land temps. Just about all of it goes into the oceans which is where you can find rapid increases in warming.

Because toxic fumes aren't better for life and that's what we get the most.

try reading the paper?

>A follow-on series of instruments, the Advanced Microwave Sounding Units (AMSU), began operation in mid-1998.

Because you can't try to punish the West by saying, "maybe an increase in global temperatures by .4 C over a century aren't so bad from a production standpoint."

Fascinating.

Shame the two biggest contributors to global temperature - the sun and cloud cover - can't be modelled.

The trillions of dollars spent on this nonsense could have gone into providing energy and food for populations starving to death but no, this fool's errand is much more important. A global tax.

Higher temperatures don't mean toxic fumes.

The actual goal was to slow down industrialism, but that's truly a fool's errand.

We can see the smog m8.

>is responsible for its large share of emissions and so should be one of the first in line in reducing them.

That was EXACTLY your point and you do not get points for saying, "I didn't think about the unintended consequences of my beliefs."

The US produces comparatively more goods for the same amount of carbon emissions.

Therefore: ANY attempt to reduce the US's carbon output by purely reducing productivity will only see a greater rise in carbon emissions as less efficient economies and countries pick up the slack to support their own economic development and growing populations.

Therefore: if you ACTUALLY cared about reducing carbon emissions globally over the long term, you'd be in favor of centralizing all economic activity that produces carbon emissions in the most carbon efficient country and tell every other nation to "FUCKING DEAL WITH IT."

And again, going back to my first post, if you stray from that single line of reasoning you are NO LONGER arguing in support of reducing carbon emissions.

So all data from before is either invalid or needs to be corrected for the new model from the instruments currently used.

So we add a 2-3F bump to all past trending data or do we let it stand because it makes the current trending data stand out more?

Isn't higher temps and CO2 good for plant life => good for all life? In before muh sea levels and hurricanes.

Netherlands is having a fucking cold ass summer. Can you guys put out more CO2? its fucking 15 degrees here.

>ANY attempt to reduce the US's carbon output by purely reducing productivity

This is another strawman. I didn't say that. The US can reduce its carbon output through green energy and investment in green tech. Creating more nuclear plants is another good avenue for now.

>Nice cherry picking
There's no "cherry picking," faggot. This is model ensemble with 95% certainty bars versus reality.
>Oh btw, RSS has updated their readings after correcting for orbital decay
That's not gonna help, bitch. We're going to get the same black line if we use satellite of balloons because they are in good agreement.

JUST ADMIT YOUR MODELS ARE WRONG.

Here's WHY your models are wrong: They all assume POSITIVE FEEDBACK from the atmosphere, but all the hard data shows that the feedbacks are negative, which makes logical sense because if they weren't, the earth would have frozen or burnt to a crisp eons ago.

Science is not the friend of climate alarmists like you.

>The U.S. is responsible for its large share of emissions and so should be one of the first in line in reducing them.
Why faggot? We have also contributed more to the world than virtually any other nation. Surely that should be taken into account.

>through green energy and investment in green tech

We tried that for 12 years.

Turns out. "Green tech" has a terribly high carbon footprint upfront.

It also continues to underperform in the amount of energy it produces.

And it succeeds in only increasing the general cost of energy due to reducing supply.

So fuck you.

>Creating more nuclear plants is another good avenue for now
>For now

We can literally power the entire world for the next 400 years with nuclear power with zero carbon emissions.

And it's good enough "for now."

>Chances are we're already fucked if we don't take steps today.
You actually told us that years ago, told us the "tipping point" was coming and gave us a date, which we passed, so you gave us another, which we passed.

JUST ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.

CO2 shows no resemblance to temperature at all in the long run. Clearly the temperature is NOT dependent on CO2.