GLOBAL WARMING BTFO

>(CNSNews.com) --No “major” hurricane--defined as a Category 3 or above--has made landfall on the continental United States since 2005, according to records compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division.

>That is the longest stretch of time the United States has gone without a Category 3 or above hurricane striking somewhere on the mainland of the country, according to NOAA hurricane records going back to 1851.

>cnsnews.com/news/article/kathleen-brown/noaa-says-its-record-no-major-hurricane-has-struck-us-mainland-10-years

you hear that global warming faithful? longest stretch without a major hurricane since 1851. i thought you told us global warming would increase the frequency and severity of hurricanes? OOPS.

pretty funny that whenever we get a record hot day or a big snowfall the MSM is quick to point it out as an example of global warming. seems like they forgot to mention we're in a RECORD dry spell for hurricanes though. lying by omission, like always!

REMINDER THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX

Other urls found in this thread:

alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=29902
cbo.gov/publication/21444?index=11477
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

for the truth

>global warming
>meanwhile, climate has been constant for 10 years with no warming

He also claimed that in 10 years water level will rise by 5(? or 10, can't remember exactly but a number he took out of his ass) meters globaly.

are you fucking retarded? The temperature IS going up.

nothing in that movie turned out to be true. whenever i bring it up in a debate people just dismiss it as the science back then being off. but apparently im supposed to believe that the science isnt off now?

source?

>did we say more hurricanes? We meant less..... Yeah that's it

because El Niño

El Niño also gave us a fucking tornado outbreak

Its been constant for the last 10 years.

That's because its summer retard

Theres sun coming up here at about 7am.
You can't explain that you climate change denier

>literally copy and pastes that the longest stretch is from 2005
>OP says its from 1851

I don't care about global warming but shit you have a reading skills of a two year old

Not sure if you're ironically shit posting or just plain retarded.

What? It says records started in 1851

2005 to present is the longest stretch without a CAT 3+ hurricane since 1851. what did i get wrong here?

BECAUSE OF THE POSITION OF EARTH'S ORBIT TO THE SUN DURING THIS PERIOD. AKA SUMMER YOU FUCKING SEAHORSE

#triggered

YES
Get to ask this question before the thread becomes a shit storm.

Ok, so can someone explain to me why the hell would Global Warning be beneficial to lie about?
What do the Jews benefit from convincing everyone that the world is heating up due to our pollution?

I never entirely understood why they would go through the trouble of exaggerating or outright making up a lie about the state of our environment.
So what's the point guys, what do they really want out of this?

Kek has heard our prayers and is saving all the energy for a big one. This is the calm before the storm, lads.

OK, let me rephrase.

>longest stretch without a CAT 3+ hurricane in recorded history.

You can use all the scientific mumbo-jumbo you want.
How do you explain tides then mr. Scientist, tide goes in, tide goes out , hwo does that happen ha

wow... really makes you think

Why do deniers never read up on facts?

Tax co2 emissions? Scientists who want government funding?

>uncited graph
>facts

nobody is denying that the temperature is rising. the question is whether it is man made or not. the scientists told us global warming was caused by people. the scientists also told us global warming would increase the frequency and severity of hurricanes.

they were wrong about the hurricanes so that increases the likelihood that they're wrong about the warming trend being man made.

LOL :D

Its basic knowledge if you've finished school :D

alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=29902

No worse than all the charts Sup Forums pulls out of its ass.

Climate change is very sensitive to the sun, But with carbon emissions? Not so much.

In the end of the day, Global warming is a useful idiot we can use to push nuclear and end poo in loo tier coal power.

People literally denied it in this thread.

Otherwise I agree with you.

BTFO

This. Fossil fuel has gotta go either way.

>People literally denied it in this thread.
that dude was saying temperature has been steady in the last 10 years and i dont think he's wrong.

you should have told him the overall trend is up.

think you guys were just talking past each other.

see

What politician is even trying to push toward nuclear though?

>Fossil fuel has gotta go either way.
fossil fuel WILL go either way. it's a finite resource. let's explore alternative forms of energy because we will eventually run out of oil. not because some bogus theory that we're cooking ourselves alive.

I have a coworker whose biggest issue is "climate change". He claims it's this horrible thing that is absolutely true. I tell him that we have went up very marginal numbers over several years, and since we've only been able to accurately measure temperature for less than 100 years, the data set we are basing global warming off of isn't enough to come to a conclusion.

Also the fact that every single conclusion that has been reached so far about the climate has been wrong, like that it was first an ice age, then global warming, now they've settled on "climate change" since they realized it's bullshit and it's easier to not look so stupid by claiming it's hour and we get record snowfall.

I personally believe because our scientists still cannot accurately predict weather a couple days in the future with 100% accuracy, why should I believe that they can predict weather 10s of years in the future when every prediction, every model, every conclusion, every absolute "fact", every time they've been wrong?

>I personally believe because our scientists still cannot accurately predict weather a couple days in the future with 100% accuracy,
haha i use this argument all the time too. the weatherman cant even tell me with 100% certainty if it's going to rain so how the hell are they making this projection WITH THE ENTIRE CLIMATE OF THE EARTH

Their enemy (see-Arab countries) has most of the world's oil supply and it's making mad shekels off of it.
Also see
Regarding taxation of carbon emissions and government funding for studies and research.

also, yea first it was
>global dimming
the theory that the earth was going to freeze, then
>global warming
the theory that the earth is overheating, and now just
>climate change
because nobody can argue against a changing climate

Steady? Meaning what?

Also even if that's true why have temperatures increased so much over the last 100 years?

Why have the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000

The Weathermen are still quite accurate for the most part, no?

>Regarding taxation of carbon emissions and government funding for studies and research
Ok so they'll make jew gold from the emissions, but what studies would exaggerating/lying about global warming help fund? Or what studies are not being funded because not enough people accept Global Warming.

>I personally believe because our scientists still cannot accurately predict weather a couple days in the future with 100% accuracy
You don't have to believe that, it's 100% fact that we are not fully accurate yet.

>Also even if that's true why have temperatures increased so much over the last 100 years?

.6°C over 100 years is not something I'd consider as "so much". Plus whose to say that data from 75+ years ago is even accurate considering inferior technology?

>Why have the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000?

Have you considered that the fact we've been in an El Nino now for a while would contribute to that? This is also the same reason the desert, I mean commiefornia, has been in a drought.

>22

>You don't have to believe that, it's 100% fact that we are not fully accurate yet.

So then why should I believe that there is any merit behind current climate science, especially considering almost every conclusion that has been reached has been incorrect?

...

I sense some dense ass trolling but alas i see the flag symbolizing a cry for help of a geographical fucktard

>11

>So then why should I believe that there is any merit behind current climate science, especially considering almost every conclusion that has been reached has been incorrect?
You shouldn't believe it.
From the looks of it, you're right.

So that's why I've been asking, what is the gain, what's the grand plan with spreading this lie?

>Also even if that's true why have temperatures increased so much over the last 100 years?
because that's just how climate moves. check out some graphs that go back thousands of years. there are massive shifts in temperature up and down. sometimes over periods as short as 5 years.

>The Weathermen are still quite accurate for the most part, no?
i mean, they're ballpark accurate. i have yet to see a weather report that tells me the exact time it's going to rain at my exact location. you might think that's too much to ask but really it's not if we also want to rely on their predictions for the overall climate of the earth and being able to say that without a doubt the earth is warming because of humans.

California has been in a drought long before this el nino, lad.

Although, it is despicable how they're using the freak weather it's caused to push global warming dooms day propaganda.

>No “major” hurricane--defined as a Category 3 or above--has made landfall on the continental United States since 2005
So sharks in Manhattan was a dream ?

>not realizing earth is a system of chaos /thread

>Ok so they'll make jew gold from the emissions, but what studies would exaggerating/lying about global warming help fund? Or what studies are not being funded because not enough people accept Global Warming.

That's the point, almost all climate change studies are getting funded. Really the biggest thing though is the emissions tax.

NOT AN ARGUMENT

Mars and most of its moons are getting colder since they are still in an Ice Age. Meanwhile Earth is the only planet in the solar system with its temperature getting hotter while we should still be a cool planet since we are still in an Ice Age. Global warming is real fuck head.

Sweet. Good point.

How about the increase of carbon? Isn't that going to create long term affects.

What is a more reasonable explanation for the earths warming other than "the climate moves" what is making it move? aren't humans influencing that?

So it's just a massive money boost for the government?

No way. They wouldn't go through such an elaborate and over decade long campaign just to get some extra tax money that would go to welfare anyway.
There's definitely something much bigger they would gain.
The holohoax makes a lot more sense than this.

what is that shit they keep repeating about "warmest recorded year in history"? i keep hearing the last years have all been, "the warmest in history", each year hotter than the last

>So that's why I've been asking, what is the gain, what's the grand plan with spreading this lie?
i saw an interview with milo on joe rogan where milo said global warming was a hoax. he said he was working with like an NGO at the time the global warming hoax was being put together. he said it was scientists and environmental activists putting together the global warming theory because they believed they were saving the planet. they also believed that the ends justified the means. that if they had to lie to save the planet then that was alright with them.

>since 2005
Yep. Don't I remember.

>since 2005
What is Hurricane Sandy...

DENIER DENIER DENIER

DENIER
DENIER
D
E
N
I
E
R

DDDEEEEEENNNNNNIIIIIIEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRR

t. 99% of "climate" """scientists""" with a BA in environmental studies, and liberal politicians


as we all know, real scientists throw a tantrum and start a witch hunt when their made up computer models are questioned

i think it's to create a global threat, just like terrorism, and unite everyone under a world government to combat this threat

"the world has to unite in facing this challenge" and shit like that

>planets millions of miles in difference to their positions to the sun with completely different atmosphere and geological activity have a different temperatures than earth

m8...

a CAT1 you fucking imbecile

>EPA/Obama/Old Congress-mandated mixing of ethanol into gasoline costs taxpayers $1.78 dollars per gallon in terms of tax credits.
>the US made 18 billion gallons of ethanol fuel last year
cbo.gov/publication/21444?index=11477

>if we abolish or reduce the tax credits, our market will be flooded by cheap south-american sugarcane ethanol

WAKE ME UP

Taking/acquiring shekels through regulation of petro producing countries, taxation of emissions, funding of pet companies/corporations for the production of green energy, funding of science/studies of climate change, acquiring votes from uneducated single issues populace, federal acquisition of private land for conservation or green energy projects, etc. I sure I can think of more.

>UUUU

So it's just like that comic, where I think some dude proves that global warming was bullshit and some guy in the crowd says something like "SO YOU MEAN WE IMPROVED THE PLANET FOR NOTHING?!".

What a weak sentiment.

>Really the biggest thing though is the emissions tax.

This. Both governments and oil companies stand to make a boatload of money from carbon taxes and cap-and-trade.

Especially oil companies, who receive massive carbon credits under cap-and-trade schemes. For them, it's then simply a matter of throttling back production, which has the salutary effect of raising the price of oil, and then selling the excess credits to actually productive businesses for even more profit.

They all realized this about 15 years ago and have started dumping money into climate research. Some of the funniest Climategate emails were from noble climate researchers discussing colleagues who were getting Shell money and how to get themselves a slice of the pie.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy

>How about the increase of carbon? Isn't that going to create long term affects.
yes and no. increasing carbon follows a log function in relation to temperature. that is carbon only retains heat up until a certain level. you can get to a level of carbon in the atmosphere where additional carbon will not retain additional heat. hope that makes sense. i can explain further if i wasnt clear enough.

>What is a more reasonable explanation for the earths warming other than "the climate moves" what is making it move? aren't humans influencing that?
honestly i dont think there is another reasonable explanation. if there is one thing we can all agree on is that the climate has been in CONSTANT flux for the entire history of the earth. if anything it would be MOST UNUSUAL for the climate to remain in stasis for an extended period of time. i.e. it has to either go up or down and we happen to be witnessing an up trend.

>The convection diminished while the hurricane accelerated toward the New Jersey coast, and the hurricane was no longer tropical by 2100 UTC on October 29. About 2 1/2 hours later, Sandy made landfall near Brigantine, New Jersey, with winds of 80 mph (130 km/h).
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy

That is barely a Category 1. I've gone out to get breakfast in a Cat 2; northerners are pussies.

Sandy was a Category 2. Or as we call it in Florida "hey y'all its fuckin' rainy out ain't it?"
Jew York is just nearly on sea-level and has done zero preparations for tropical storms despite being a major coastal city.

>How about the increase of carbon? Isn't that going to create long term affects?

That's the point, we don't know anything about the side affects of the increase in carbon, or c02. Every claim they've made thus far has been "inconclusive".

I stand corrected


guess it was only a Cat 1 in Jersey

See

Methane hydrates are the future. There are 2-3 times more Methane hydrates in the world than all other forms of fossil fuels put together.

Isn't that somehow related to El Niño cycles?

>mfw earth hasn't seen carbon emissions this massive since the last mass extinction
>mfw greenhouse effect is scientific fact

It's not even an argument. It's not a hoax. We are the problem. We dump the carbon and it has no where to go.

How far are we from that limit? How much can the temperature increase if it hits its max?

Finaly a burger with a brain!

Last I checked all scientists said is that it would increase the likelihood of catastrophes, not just on the US. And indeed that is the case, just not on the US.

At any rate global warming exists the real questions are:
>Is the manmade effect negligible ?
>is it possible to stop it or control it?
>Isn't better to just adapt?
No true scientist will say that "we NEED to do A or B to deal with global warming" because they are aware this is a new situation for humanity, too many variables, they simply can predict correctly.

Al Gore invested heavily in alternative energy scam companies and then tried to push the global warming hype and how we need to switch to technology he invested in. The scam artist invested early then hyped up global warming hoping to profit. He's just basically a low life pump hype up and dump scam artist, too bad it did pan out for him. In 13yrs the piece of shit went from being worth 1.7m to 200m, it wasn't from his global warming investment portfolio but from Apple and Current tv though, if he somehow did hype up his global warming portfolio successfully, he would have been worth billions.

It's going up, but here's the shocking truth, it goes down too!!! TOTAL MADNESS! Sound the alarm! We need to set up thermostats and control the temperature around the world! We need to invest trillions to do this or else we're all gonna die!
Praise Kek, the one and only. Kek will protect the righteous.
Was the data compiled the same way all the way from 1880 to 2000+? How did they gauge temps then and how do they now? Did they use some funky guesstimation work for some data like they always do to fit their agenda? Oh never mind, your graph doesn't have a source, so basically its as good right now as a finger painting a retard drew with crayons.
Fossil fuel has to go, but nuke power has been demonized greatly by the global warming hoax crowd.
praise kek praise KEK!
I live on the coast, Long Island, but guess what, there's a bulkhead in my backyard and a french drain system in my basement, while a lot of other assholes flooded in their bullshit houses during Sandy, mine was untouched, and what did all that bullshit cost me? $50,000. The power did go out, but see, I had a generator and even battery backup just in case I did flood, a few had french drains and pumps, but no backup power, so some of them got jerked.

>heat retentive properties of c02 follow a logarithmic function
>a logarithmic function

more c02 does not equal more heat

Carbon dioxide has a logarithmic cap on how much of a greenhouse effect it has. I think I read that if we upped the co2 concentration to it's MAXIMUM effectiveness, it'd only increase it's overall greenhouse effect on the planet by 5%.

However, I discussed this with a university climatologist. He said before co2 even reaches near those levels, the Earth's ecosystem, according to geological records, seems to like to make a "drastic reset" and overcorrects in the opposite direction. Things such as a gigantic algae bloom and other c02 absorption methods tripping us into another cold spike before returning to normal.

Are guidos still crying about fucking superstorm Sandy? That was nothing compared to what we used to get in Florida. A cat 3 went through my neighborhood and I was eating cookies while listening to tornadoes tear up our trees.

Thanks for the info

and how much impact would that 5% be? I'm sure it must have some sort of significant impact, right?

>However, I discussed this with a university climatologist. He said before co2 even reaches near those levels, the Earth's ecosystem, according to geological records, seems to like to make a "drastic reset" and overcorrects in the opposite direction. Things such as a gigantic algae bloom and other c02 absorption methods tripping us into another cold spike before returning to normal.

So you believe things will reverse if it becomes too shit?

here's a good chart

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png

we're at 400ppm c02 in our atmosphere currently. we are already well above the level where additional c02 contributes to temperature according to a linear function. we could double the c02 in the atmosphere at this point and it would barely contribute to a temperature increase.

Like I said, moved out east on Long Island on the coast from nyc proper, first thing that crossed my mind was what if a super storm comes floods the whole place up, I prepared and spent 40k to protect my home from flooding and built it to withstand high winds, a lot of people prepared in the area, but did it in a half ass way. I don't know that 40k came in handy when my bulkhead stopped all water from making my backyard a 3ft+ swimming pool.

>retard, the comment

embarrassed that you've been duped? your failure to argument suggests so.

2 mistakes:
1- No hurricane doesn't mean no global warming, this is still a short period of time
2- Temperatures don't rise as much because precautions are taken to prevent it

Also, you are taking what scientists say to deny what scientists say, which was only prevented because scientists said something in the beginning.

At least explain why you think he's wrong. Fuck off.

Have you heard of the greenhouse effect?

Climate Change doesn't have anything to do with weather. It refers to.. you know.. climate. Which is not the same thing as weather.

Also, what happens in the mainland U.S. doesn't dictate whether or not anthropogenic climate change is a thing. You guys do realize that there's a whole big world out there, right? And that we aren't even one of the countries that are most susceptible to the effects of climate change? You really have to look to the developing countries to see the full impact it's having on the world today.

Could someone answer me a simple question? Why is it called global warming/climate change when people are basically talking about pollution which everyone knows is bad?

Don't mix environment and climate

Yes. What's your point?

Global warming/climate change is about more than just that. It's about extreme weather events, rising water levels and more.