US government report says that climate change is real — and humans are to blame

Sup Forums BTFO forever!

nature.com/news/us-government-report-says-that-climate-change-is-real-and-humans-are-to-blame-1.22958

Other urls found in this thread:

nov79.com/gbwm/equations.html
nature.com/news/us-government-report-says-that-climate-change-is-real-and-humans-are-to-blame-1.22958
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Literally no one on here said climate change was fake, we've been saying overpopulation was a main reason for it in the first place

no it's cow farts

I did

Im calling you out liar

Where do you live m8

I'll fight you in real life

I actually want climate to get warmer as this will improve farming conditions in Poland :^

>government makes shit up to justify more taxes, more at 11

...

Climate change is fake you fucking retard

...

Capitalism destroyed the planet.

The world is warming, but the effects will be minimal. It will mostly likely balance out in 30-40 years with 0.5 C growth. Not mention its been warming for like the last 100000+ years.

The problem is the models are assuming linear growth while the growth is Logarithmic especially the warming due to CO2, which approximately 99% finished.

trusting the "JEW US gobernmint"

ever


ever ever ever

Won't more CO2 cause more plants to grow and absorbe it fixing the issue?

It will cause bigger plants yes, but the IR adsorption of CO2, which is the warming affect, achieves 99% of all absorption at 400 ppm.

So 20000ppm vs 400ppm is a 1% difference which might cause 0.5C or 1C increase.

Checked.
Given the trends that the ice core gave us, going up 1 and down a half is likely, just as you said.
(Even the article OP posted spouts the 4 degree C raise.)

The more shitskins you force me to live with, the less I care about preserving the environment.

> Literally no one on here said climate change was fake
Man made climate change is. People here say it all the time dipshit. And everywhere else too.
> we've been saying overpopulation was a main reason for it in the first place
> we've

where do you get this idea from?

nov79.com/gbwm/equations.html

an explanation of Logarithmic warming

another fun graph

Sup Forums doesn't care about scientifically proven shit, which is why there's so many Christcucks on this board. They shill for gas/oil companies for free, can you imagine that? Cucks.

>based Augustyn

Another example of CO2 warming

>Studies cannot be incorrect
So you agree blacks are incredibly violent with the lowest IQs on Earth.

Sup Forums and science don't go hand and hand, They still believe that debunked shit of race and IQ

I am actually a massive nuclear advocate. I do agree that the world is warming, but the rate is pure alarmist garbage.

That IQ with race stuff is shit.

>believing what the government tells you
Your goyness sickens me.

>nature.com/news/us-government-report-says-that-climate-change-is-real-and-humans-are-to-blame-1.22958

US government scientists said on 3 November... AKA Someone who don't want to lose their Job, and Benefits...

No comment what I am showing?

>US government says
Then we know what isn't true

What?

this guy apparently doesn't even understand the greenhouse effect and thinks it's a "sham" - when in reality it's the necessary consequence of Stefan-Boltzmann, CO2 IR opacity and a negative tropospheric lapse rate.

In reality, the idea of a 400ppm saturation point is contradicted both by basic physics and the paleoclimate record (which shows temperatures to be significantly higher when CO2 concentration was >400ppm)

>So you agree blacks are incredibly violent with the lowest IQs on Earth.


I sure do, but what does that have to do with climate change?

Then you are wrong if you believe that shit

>US government report says that climate change is real
Sure.
>and humans are to blame
God no, humanity is just along for the ride on a planet that continues to go through the same cycles.

I just I linked you the wrong website, I was doing a quick search and gave the wrong one.

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

this is the one I wanted to link, my apologies.

The saturation shit is stupid btw.

...

let me just ask you:
do you think that climatologists aren't aware that the climate forcing of CO2 is proportional to the natural logarithm of its concentration (as opposed to linear)? Do you think you surprise climatologists by saying that?

>climate change is real
obvious
>humans are to blame
blame is a very euphemistic word here. climate change was the result of centuries of industrialization which lead us to our current high tech advances and you're on a computer right now which is both the result of these advances and directly created/powered by them.

only a stupid luddite would think that climate change is a travesty. it's something we have to deal with over the next century, but it isn't nearly to the degree of the leftist narrative.

No, but the models they all produce seem to be linear growth without much reason for it. Not to mention most "Climate Educators" lie through there teeth about it. Example Bill Nye and Al Gore.

*YAWN*

I might do something if the elites in the academy and in government started acting like it's a real emergency.

But considering our super-duper elites are still flying everywhere on private jets, and going to lavish places to hold their annual "Global warming is real!" conference, nah bro, you aren't taking it seriously enough to make me take it seriously.

Fun twist: "humans are to blame" simply means overpopulation. Just feeding everyone creates more CO2 than what is needed to 'cut' if we want to avoid a temp change. So literally nothing short of mass genocide has any effect.

Also the actions of those pushing it are also a tell for me.

does anyone else see the ironic anthropocentrism when comparing this debate to the debate of the Pope vs Galileo?

so because Bill Nye gives wrong information and Al Gore flies in a jet means we can make up lies about climatologists, accuse them of lying and throw around brain-dead blog posts that dismiss/misrepresent basic thermodynamics (like the water vapor feedback or the greenhouse effect)?

>Global warming is getting worse fellow white people! Quickly sell your old cars (especially diesel) and buy one of these new electric cars that our greatest ally has a 95% stake in!

Climate change scientist cherry pick data. We have been measuring temperatures with some accuracy for approx. 135 years. The current instrumentation has about +/-2% of accuracy which equates to about 1 degree, which happens to be the amount we have risen in the past 30 years. This along with the sources from which sea surface temps are acquired seem to fail the scientific method for proving a hypothesis that seeks to prove 135 years of data (if assumed accurate) and 5o million years of earth's climate (assumed accurate) completely fails to be convincing.

No, the general lack of understanding of the impact CO2 has on a global scale, as demonstrated by all the inaccurate predictive models that've come out these past 30 years, is doing the trick just fine.

>us government performs report
>us government discovers problem
>oh look, the only way to solve the problem is to give the us government more money and power

yeah, okay.

>We have been measuring temperatures with some accuracy for approx. 135 years.
I didn't know pirates were so ahead of the curve.

You have to understand most data can easily manipulated to say whatever you want. It is actually my job to do so. So yes i am skeptical of the economic reasons behind the sudden concern. Most scientists live by publish or die, so they will always so a result, regardless of significance. Most climate scientists will see grants dry up if there is no crisis. Not to mention the actual warming so no where near that level of predicted warming.

be a freethinker

You can criticize climate models all you want but you forgot to mention mistakes often consist of *under*estimating the magnitude and speed of the Earth system response. I can give you more details and references if you want but it's really apparent to me that frivolous babble about climate models usually is the only refuge for people who really neither know nor care anything about the topic

You could say that about literally any of the natural sciences. So yes, it's perfectly true that there is a lot of pressure to publish (in fact, many scientists themselves complain about this and this is a widely discussed issue, with major sections in the journals nature and sciences dedicated to it), but to use that as a carde blanche to dismiss any and all conclusions of >100 years of research is literally indistinguishable from any other paranoid conspiracy theory in existence (anti-vaxxers, chemtrails, creationists,...). Call it what you will, it's not scientific.

bump 4 science