Global warming

>Half of the month the temperature here has been up to 10°C when it's normally BARELY goes above the freezing piont.
>This january will be set record as the hottest in history BY FAR
>florescence WAY TO EARLY for some plants
And Sup Forums still discusses whether climate is real or not. It's real, it's man-made and it's a GLOBAL WARMING.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
nature.com/articles/nature14240
cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>15 days of temperature readings in one location progress global warming
pathetic

Lol no, polar ice caps aren't the Earth's normal state.

Fake and gay

Surely amiremutts believe that global warming is hoax created by the chinese
Oh yeah let's revert the state back to when the surface temperature was so hot that water would evaporate.

Global warming is beneficial for the planet. This is how europe will look like soon and it‘s beautiful.

strawman

That’s funny. In Texas it snowed TWICE and we reached temperatures below 20f degrees or 6c.

>thinking january is the middle of winter

>Netherlands not flooded despite being like 85% below sea level already.

We good at building them dams, man.

>human population is increasing
>the amount of physical newspapers printed is decreasing
>buy more newspapers goy! reading fake news on the internet causes overpopulation!

North America is freezing right now. Better check your thermometer again

No such thing as a normal state. Equilibrium can never be reached.

Every other nation btfo.

We'd get flooded too
Texas is big state, so snowing in the northern part may not be so uncommon.
>thinking january is not in the middle of winter
>american education
North america is always freezing in the winter

Röstigraben will be a rösti moat.

what

Global warming is faker than your fake tits, faggot.

Good. Fuck them Welsch.
Where is your proof, mutt?

correlation does not equal causation

Are you suggesting that people blame industrial activity for the warming because they noticed that the temperature change correlates with rising CO2?

Plus we‘ll have a huge navy.

Yup. They label co2 as a greenhouse gas while omitting the fact that water vapour is a greenhouse gas too and that methane is 200 times more potent than co2, besides the fact that co2 makes up less than 1/1000th of our atmosphere. But the biggest lie of all is that they think we can do anyting about the the amount of co2 we pump into the air, like we'll ever stop using oil.

>Yup.

So how will you respond to the fact that man-made global warming was predicted more than 100 years ago on the basis of principles of Co2 chemistry?

They predicted a lot 100 years ago. Some of it became true, some didn‘t. At this point it‘s a coincidence.

Did you not read my post? There is no such thing as man-made global warming. The fact that you use terms like 'principles of co2 chemistry' tells me you've never open a chemistry book, or any science book whatsoever.

You call it coincidence, scientists call it predictive power. But you do admit now, that the attribution of global warming is not based on simple correlation?

So how do you explain the warming then?

Can confirm.
Overpopulation is biggest contributor at this point. Do not feed niggers.

The earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years. There are hundreds of geo-processes all interacting with eachother that causes the change in climate/temperature. If you look at temparature records from the 19th century onwards(the moment we started to officially measure) you see a clear and constant rise in temperature that does not even slightly correlate with the exponential amount of co2 released each year.

help us,massa.

says who?

In other words, you have no explanation. You now also claim that there is no correlation between Co2 and temperature yet earlier you've claimed that the attribution of the warming is based only on correlation.

Meanwhile in Canada, coldest New Year's in 100 years and my pipes froze twice

It is. They used to claim it would cool the earth down, but then it started to look like it‘s warming up again, so they discovered an „inconvenient truth“ in the late 90‘s.
Basic instinct should tell you that 100 years worth of data doesn‘t describe the earth‘s climate cycles, which can last something between 50 to 1000 years, even 10000 if we‘re unlucky.
I‘m not disputing the idea that pumping industrial waste into the environment is bad, but I firmly reject the methods these ‚scientists‘ use to arrive at their conclusions. They do more harm than good.

No one here argues that climate is not real.

>They used to claim it would cool the earth down

Who claimed that Co2 will cool the earth down? Be specific, please.

it's same in my country aswell, senpai

propably most of europe is experiencing one of warmest winters in recorded history

Easy.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

greeks 'predicted' the earth's equator lenghth with accuracy of 2 kilometers, it was propably a coincidence aswell?

it's true that correlation alone does not prove causation, but you know what does prove causation?

A plausible and measurable physical mechanism and direct observation
nature.com/articles/nature14240

I want you to do me a favor

I want you to look up the avarage global temperature for the last 18

then, I want you to look up the increase in man-made CO2 emmisions over the same period of time.

Post results

>industrial waste
>CO2

time for some carbon taxes goy

In terms of the knowledge at the time, yes.

See, there is the problem. You think it's so easy that you don't even need to read the article. Not only that it contradicts your original point (most scientists predicted warming), but also the cooling effect in question in not related to Co2, but to sulfate aerosols!

*18 years

Phoneposting is pain

...

Republicuck logic in a nutshell
>Oh it was warm ONCE? What a dipshit proof of "GLOBAL WARMING" idiot
>SEE ITS FUCKING COLD IN THIS BUMFUCK NOWHERE USA TOWN WE TOLD YOU GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX

Same here, almost. We may have been recording history for a bit longer than you. Because we've seen that shit before. A little over a thousand years ago it was warmer than this, for decades before it cooled down again. Greenland was called green for a reason you know. Southern Greenland was glacier (and eskimo) free back then. Guess what, it wasn't the end of the world.

Sulfate aerosols yesterday, co2 today, whatever is politically convenient tomorrow. In the end it boils down to minus the jew joke.

so pitagoras law and euclidean algorithm are propably coincidences aswell, right user?

You might be the dumbest person I've encountered on this board, and that says quite something.

that's just complete nonsense. Greenland was called "greenland" as a norseman propaganda term to attract more settlers to their colony.

The youngest geologic evidence for an deglaciated South Greenland dates back to the Holsteinian (~400,000 years ago), when physiologically modern humans didn't even exist.

retarded OP

What it boils down to is your scientific illiteracy, bordering on American level.

I expected you to last a bit longer before capitulating with insults desu.

Global warming is for sure real. The agency to do something about it is however all bullshit.

Everyone on the left not only refuse to talk geoengineering but they actively take steps to shut down all research and work on it. Unless the solution is globalism communism they don't care if we all die.

What's worse is everyone in the scientific community knows this is the case. Trying to fix this by taxes and reform will never work to solve it and geoengineering is the only solution. But there is a grand conspiracy in place among worlds leaders and select rich to let the problem get out of hand as a means to grab power.

If you have a problem with the climate feel free to complain to the sun.

Google roy spencer, bitches.

Manmade global warming is a socialist hoax.

R A R E
A
R
E

R A R E
A
R
E

R A R E
A
R
E

R A R E
A
R
E

R A R E
A
R
E

Those are actually measurable and reproducible, thus the „law“ part.
Back to your earth measuring contest: the assumption was that the earth was round, and based on this, they calculated what the diameter would be. Now, they didn‘t actually know wether it was round or not, that knowledge came into play much later. Funny how no ancient greek predicted the existence of the american continent, huh?

Your lack of critical thinking is disturbing.

Not buying into conspiracy theories = lack of critical thinking?

>I expected you to last a bit longer before capitulating with insults desu.
If I had known I was casting pearls before swine I would have stopped after your first 'what'.

Ow shit you got me. I have converted to the true faith now, global warming is real.
Btw. Can you explain the method by which those holy scientists arrive at their conclusion? Or do you just gobble it up and then post links to papers you don‘t understand?

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.

Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

they predicted it by observing nightsky movement and difference of lenght of shadow depending on time of the day, and used the maths they developed to process the observation

these are pretty much same tools we are using to observe the universe, with the difference we have a lot more sophisticated tools

pardon my repetition

do you think there is any possibility that geoengineering is very contentious because of research like this?

Oh man, it must be so frustrating that your genius cannot shine even on a mongolian basket-weaving forum. Society can be so unfair sometimes.

You want me to explain the scientific method to you? Don't you think it's a kind of a prerequisite if you want to participate in a debate such a this?

oh my jesus you fucking proto-spic newfag bangladesh is not rare

I‘m not saying they were dumb, i‘m saying their calculations were based on an assumption that turned out to be true 1500 years later, when magellan sailed around the earth and didn‘t fall off the edge.
For all the ancient greeks knew, it could have gone either way. Which brings us back to close climate science: sure, those graphs look nice now and the explanations behind them make sense, but wether they are true or not is an entirely different story. We don‘t have the datasets or the tools to verify any of it, claiming otherwise borders on criminality.

Go on. I‘m sure there will be no contradiction between the scientific method and what you‘ve already written.

Yeah!! Americans never produce anything of scientific value amirite.

No and that's bullshit. They scare monger to shut down research any research even experiments small ones in laboratories. They know if geoengineering is allowed a solution could be made and that would end the entire scam of globalism.

...

Global warming is literally the "unite the world to defend against alien invasion" scenario imagined to be a requirement for a global government. Since aliens are not gonna invade any time soon this is the next best thing.

>based on an assumption that turned out to be true 1500 years later, when magellan sailed around the earth and didn‘t fall off the edge.

so black holes will be confirmed only after we'll send a spaceship inside one of these and get readings, right?

observation of phenomenas that are caused by a certain thing like difference of shadow lenghth are same as the photographs taken with radio telescopes

that's just absurd on its face. Clearly, research isn't being shut down since I just gave you a very recent example (from January 2018). Also there are some very prominent climate scientists like Ken Caldeira of Carnegie Global Ecology in Stanford that openly advocate geoengineering.

What contradiction are you talking about?

That's the great irony of it all. USA is a scientific powerhouse, yet almost half the population believes that the Earth is 6000 yrs old. Most of the dumb conspiracy crap also comes from there.

wouldn't this argument hold for literally every scientific discipline that exists? A creationist could stand here and say the exact same thing about evolution, since the theory is based on short-term observations in the real world, physical reasoning, ecological models and inferences from the fossil record.

science isn't political, this bullshit belongs in /sci
>OP is a faggot

Ah nice so you are a cunt shill that will straight up lie like the cunt that you are. German, not even once.

That‘s not what we‘re arguing about though. A black hole is what we observe, as you correctly stated. A greek philosopher speculating on the premise that the world has a certain shape and getting his calculations right is an entirely different thing.

Unless you can find me a graph that shows temperature changing due to change in CO2, then your argument is invalid.

>methane is 200 times more potent than co2
Nearly all the articles I read mention methane. It's not a fact that anyone omits. The other problem with CO2 that you omitted is that the oceans sink CO2 as an acid that dissolves coral reefs and shellfish. That's going to kill our fishing industries for decades to come.

> co2 makes up less than 1/1000th
5/1000 is lethal to human life.
cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

Fucking cold here

It does apply to every scientific discipline. Scientists observe and create models based on their observations. As soon as a better model is available the old one is thrown out of the window.
The problem regarding climate change isn‘t the science, although it is dodgy on its own. Its the fact that we‘re supposed to make policy based on models that cannot be verified in a meaningful way.

Who gives a fuck? The planet won't die. Always this fucking crying like "we're killing the planet." No we're not, we just setting up our own demise (if everything they say is true.) We'll figure something out like we always do. Fucking CO2 sucking mechanical trees or some shit.
I wish people had a bit more faith in our own species, we own this fucking shithole and we'll fix whatever happens.

...

>Nearly all the articles I read mention methane. It's not a fact that anyone omits.
Scientific ones perhaps, but I've never read anything about methane on cnn or any of the fake news outlets, which is where most people get their climate change propaganda from.
>oceans sink CO2 as an acid that dissolves coral reefs and shellfish
This is true and by far the biggest consequence of the increase in co2, however again you very rarely hear anyone talk about this. Moreover it's a shame but I don't really care about coral reefs and the fishing industry, we'll have to find something else to eat.
>5/1000 is lethal to human life
that is just an absurd amount of co2, we would have to increase the current amount of co2 in the air tenfold. also 1200 ppm is the perfect balance for plant growth, which is why most greenhouses artificially pump up their co2 levels to that point.

he based his speculation on series of phenomenas, as stated before - horizon, star movement, and these observations are as legit as the footage of alpha centauri - if I wanted I could speculate that they are not observing alpha centauri but giant forehead of god, and they couldnt prove me wrong since nasa is not able to send there a spacecraft

would that make sense, though?

>There is no such thing as man-made global warming.
Man has pumped 5 gigatons of sequestered ground carbon into the atmosphere and oceans. You're claiming this had zero effect?

>you've never open a chemistry book, or any science book whatsoever.
You left your projector on

What if it turned out you were right? Would you say you had some deep knowledge beforehand or would you say you got lucky?

>(((science)))
>muh always showing just the last 100 years of data to scare the brainwashed zombies

global warming/climate change is an industry unto itself and they want worldwide "carbon taxes" on top of that. it is an insidious thing far beyond that even.

you won't understand wtf i'm talking about unless you look into these things for yourself. so, you can do that (takes effort)... or blindly continue to go along with their agenda. whatever.

did you know having an ice cap is an anomaly? did you know that the earth has been ice cap free for ~90% of its existence? did you know by definition ice caps only exist during ice ages? did you know we are at the tail end of a CURRENT ice age now? did you know the caps extended as far down as missouri/kentucky just 20,000 years ago and have been receding ever since that peak? did you know the caps are going bye-bye even if every person on the planet disappeared 20,000 years ago?

THE OCEAN'S RELEASE *ALL ON ITS OWN* IS FAR LARGER AND MORE IMPORTANTLY *OUT ACCELERATING* MANS CONTRIBUTION

THE OCEAN IS RELEASING MORE DUE TO WARMER TEMPS (WARMER WATER = IT'S A FAR LESS EFFECTIVE C02 SINK)

IF HUMANS NEVER AROSE CO2 WOULD BE INCREASING AT ALMOST THE EXACT SAME RATE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW

THIS HAPPENS AT THE END OF EVERY ICE AGE

STOP BEING SO FUCKING GULLIBLE AND LAZY

LOOK INTO THINGS FOR YOURSELF AND STOP TAKING WHAT THE MSM, EPA.GOV AND NASA.GOV ETC. TELL YOU AT FACE VALUE, YOU LAZY SHITS. IT IS ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL.

ICE AGES AND PERMANENT ICE *ARE AN ANOMALY*

BY DEFINITION AN "ICE AGE" IS WHEN THE EARTH HAS PERMANENT ICE SHELVES

WE HAD ICE A MILE THINK IN CINCINNATI JUST 20,000 YEARS AGO

THE PLANET IS WARMING AND THE CAPS ARE METLING

THAT MEANS = MORE CO2, SEA RISE AND WEATHER PATTERN CHANGES

WE CAN'T STOP OR ALTER IT, WE WILL ADAPT JUST FINE

STOP BEING SCARED INTO TAX SCHEMES AND GLOBALIST POWER PLAYS YOU DUMBED DOWN ZOMBIES

...

...

I would say that Jews made me say that ;^)

in all seriousness you can judge the propabilty of each hypothesis by the amount of evidence collected, which wont change until you collect more evidence

greek mathematicians had more evidence of earth beeing round than catholic church had to prove the earth is flat

...