It's real

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

accept it

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
nature.com/news/us-science-agency-refuses-request-for-climate-records-1.18660
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/
youtube.com/watch?v=S7wntm7QVXQ
dailykos.com/story/2013/1/18/1180151/-Seawater-electricity-jet-fuel
wired.com/2015/03/batteries-last-longer-arrive-really/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

HOLY SHIT Sup Forums BTFO, NASA JUST DEDICATED AN ENTIRE SITE TO PROVING YOU TRUMP LOVING FUCKS WRONG. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU GUYS DENY C.C. AFTER ALL THIS EVIDENCE?

so what?

Dude carbon lmao. Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't more carbon dioxide = more food for plants = more oxygen for us? Seems like a good deal desu

Better warn china

problem is it reflects heat, so we are first gonna have shit heat on up like a real sunuvabitch once it equalizes everywhere, then once that heat finally escapes less and less sunlight is gonna get through, plunging us into eternal winter.

Europe will go under water... nothing of value will be lost.

Lol, what if I do believe global climate change is reasl, but I think you're just pollution shaming? The earth can handle a little heat, buddy ;)

earth can, hoomans can't. That being said, humans will destroy each other long before earth gets too fucked.

Yeah, we're fighting wars, right now. This concept is so unimportant to humanity at the moment, and just means more tax dollars.
>BRO LE ERTH REVALUSHUN

We are at the end of an ice age, actually, but I guess even NASA has to abide by the government's agenda.

Underage b&

Typical for middle eastern halfling niggers. They shit where they eat and then they wonder why they got some shitty disease and die.

At higher levels than those in the "evidence", plants will die way before they can do anything to suck it out of the atmosphere. Add that to the deforestations and you will have a SHTF situation.

>le everybody has an agenda especially government shady groups that want more dollars
>some youtube pseudo intellectual found some shit evidence to show us that we are on the contrary actually so we won't die
>don't believe scientists they are shills
>believe youtube nuts and insane conspiracy theorists

KYS favela nigger

Yeah, it's unimaginable for a government agency to work for the government. I don't know what I was thinking.

yeah that isn't the problem, the problem is the almost nuclear winter, although personally I can't think of anything more fun to survive in

I turned on my trip for you to know me by, refute me, don't insult, argue, why is my logic flawed, give me evidence

Confirmed underage

What I want to know is what made this possible and what kind of a event would trigger this

As a chemist i can say that relax your asses.

It's almost as if (((someone))) has been releasing dangerous chemicals into our atmosphere

not an argument
you sound like a leftist, it's pathetic

It seems it is unimaginable for you to think that a government agency that doesn't want us to fuck ourselves up. If you forgot, they live here too.

And i saw enough shit to convince me that we're slowly fucking ourselves up. I mean we didn't have tornadoes here in Romania up until 2004-2005. Now when there's a storm and go to the nearby fields i can easily spot 1-2 tornadoes that touched down and 2-3 that didn't. Not to mention temperature fluctuations of 15C in 6-8 hours and flooding that never happened in my neighborhood happen now every 1-2 weeks. (i don't live in a shitty city either not even in a valley neighborhood)

true. It just makes unimportant libtards feel better about themselves when driving prius and braking about muh environment.
The truth is, europeans' and americans' lives are too quiet.

Do you even know what you are arguing for/against anymore? I was arguing at the fact that NASA supports that climate change is man made, not that climate change isn't happening. Did you even bother reading the link in the OP?

>leftists want to further destroy americas economy so we can go green and further rely on other countries for goods that will just produce the same if not more pollution

What do you see in this picture?

Sage

The sky is falling. Get your tin foil hat out to save yourself.

and he goes fucking silent what a surprise

And how exactly can science tell us the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide 400,000 years ago?

>only studying the data for 50 years
>its going up higher then we've ever seen guys
>trust us handrubbingman.jpg

Polar ice thicker than any time in decades,
>climate is real guys.
www.reddit.com - more your speed.

everyone says climate change is real.
Nobody talks about how to fix it

and what exactly does that tell us?

very easily! we can find representative air in glacial ice! did you not go into a stem field?

Ice cores in the antarctic hold air bubbles that show these atmospheric concentrations. The deeper you put the drill, the older in earths history you go

>fill a bottle with pure carbon dioxide
>it sits slightly above room-temperature
>slightly increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
>GLOBAL WARMING WE'RE DOOMED

Its time

Isotopic ratio's from ice cores senpai.

If it was a period of warmth you will have heavy more heavy H2O in your samples (e.g. Deuterium and Tritium for hydrogen, and 18O for oxygen) compared to a standard sample, such as Vienna standard mean ocean water.

The reason your sample will be enriched with heavy isotopes is because the lighter isotopes evaporate first.

I've read it. And an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere coinciding with arguably the second industrial revolution and post war economic boom kind of proves we are to blame.

Leftists, liberals and communists are not the answer to everything burger bro.

Wasted trips.

Evidence you can clearly see with your own eyes by just leaving your basement is now tinfoil.

lel

The world getting hotter since industrialization and burning of fossil fuel with an increase since mass production began.

>snow falls through the atmosphere
>snowflakes take CO2 particles in them
>snow sets in the polar ice caps
>snow freezes
>CO2 levels preserved

yet all their predictions were wrong

Millions spent for NASA to research how civilization will end but zero dollars for Apollo cucks to figure out how to remove CO2? Jesus Christ, it's not that hard to find the logical errors

It broke the resistance level, went up and is bullish right now. The breakout seems of speculative nature and might be a bubble. I suggest buy and hold until the second peak of a double top, then dump it, short, buy back at buttom, buy more.
Also line charts are shit, where's the candle, some indicators would be useful too.

Oh, neat.

Why should I care?

muh CO2
>he doesn't know that excess co2 makes the forests grow back
>sea levesl rise
>whites build dikes to handle the 2-3 meter rise
>shitskin and chinks get fucked by the floods, hurricanes, tornadoes daily
>they start losing the economic race
>temperate europe and upper half of north america make a miraculous comeback in 2050 even though everybody was shilling for china and india up until then
I, for one, welcome our new global warming overlords.

As a free market chap myself, I believe that if energy wasn't regulated like it is, then industry would eventually develop cheaper and better nuclear alternatives. As it currently is, anyone who wishes to get into "green" energy would be a fucking dipshit to go into nuclear, simply because of all of the red tape and the fact that they would get substantially more money from government subsidies in going with non-scalable technologies, such as solar/wind/hydro.

If the market were allowed to run it's course properly, then technologies that can ultimately profit corporations more would triumph and be perfected, with new tech being placed upon the back shelves of R&D departments for gradual development. Nuclear is substantially more profitable than solar/wind/hydro in terms of output. Without subsidies that promote a technological status quo, competition would promote new innovations.

Nuclear is the obvious next step in human energy output. It's safe if done properly and puts out plenty of energy. The next required step would be the development of better energy storage mechanisms for easier transportation/storage of excess.

yeah science is nifty as frick

Looks periodic

please explain the following:


why has there been widespread manipulation of temperature data in order to make it look as if the planet is warming?


telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Why when congress conducts an investigation into this manipulation does the agency responsible refuse to hand over their documents?

nature.com/news/us-science-agency-refuses-request-for-climate-records-1.18660


Why does non-manipulated satellite data show no global warming at all (pic related), this should be especially highlighted as NASA themselves in 1997 state that these readings are more accurate

science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/


I know this is probably a bait thread but I would still like some answers

Fun fact, plants grow better the more co2 there is.

Actually I have a MSc. in Environmental Science and work with satellite-derived hyper-spectral radiometry. Of course, it's fun trolling faggots such as yourself, because you always get worked up over it. Have a nice morning, sweetheart.

are you that this map is legit? My country is made of deserts ands valleys yet its not in red

aw sheeit nigga better plant more trees

hey mr.science guy answer my questions , genuinely asking

Where is the link between increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and decreasing ice volume in the caps?

Exactly what I meant.

If this is the case dont fucking blame the west, fucking blame Asia and India, they're the ones killing the planet. Also the bigger issue is over population, fucking blame South America, India and Africa. Fucking shit Africa is suppose to be undergoing mass starvation yet their population has doubled, how the fuck does that make sense?

Kinda hurts to say this as a spic but fucking look at the Mexican / White ratio in America. California used to be White and now its Latino. Fucking California turning white to brown is literal fucking evidence of human effect on a population and breeding irresponsibly. The entire planet is a zombie apocalypse of over population but nooo let everyone in, "we can support them!"

More people = more smog and carbon going into the air and more cows being bred to feed burgers and tacomeat to those same fucker but nooo people aren't the problem, we dont need to fix the human element, we need green energy! Ignore the fact that irreplaceable fresh water reservoirs and forest is also being mowed down for resources and living space is getting smaller, green energy will fix that, its not like they need those same resources to fuel itself!. Fucking misguided.

lol, scientist already switching back to global cooling, they just want more founding so they make shit up as if fits the current weather. there was a link few days ago on drudge, but can no longer find it.

>tfw I've realized that the "global warming" is a bubble made to raise the CO2 levels and eventually crush them.
It time to invest into gas tanks and get some of that CO2 before the collapse, sparkling water manufacturers and garden fags gonna buy that shit in few years.

>gypsies dying due to climate change
>niggers starving due to climate change
>pajeets drowning due to climate change
>chinks drowning due to climate change
Tell me, why is climate change bad again?

I have no idea how legit it is but it's from an actual study, not just some colors thrown around. Might as well believe in it if you believe in climate change.

Global warming and CO2 emission would be good for deserts. It's only arabs and niggers that get fucked by increased temperatures. Look at Mongolia and Kazakhstan.

Stop lying.

For starters, your graph only goes back to 1979, so the only thin you can really see is a slight upward trend from 1979 to present...but big deal. What was happening before then?

Second, a lot of the weather stations where the temperature data were pulled from were next to objects that radiated heat and/or EMR, giving an inaccurate reading. A crude example: a weather station will read cooler in an open field with vegetation underneath it as opposed to the same weather station in a massive parking lot with asphalt underneath it.

Third, the types of weather stations varied. The equipment used was not consistent through out each station.

Fourth, how were the instruments calibrated, to which standard, how often and by who?

Fifth, a weather station may have been properly setup in 1979 and surrounded by vegetation, and later on maybe it was moved to the top of a building or beside a building...introducing inaccurate readings.

It all primarily came down to human induced errors, then people lying about it to keep their stupid fucking grants.

yea but that would mean the entire world would have to abide by what you call "the government subsidies

now extend the graph before 400,000 years

now explain how more CO2 will create doomsday scenarios despite the fact that we cant accurately predict weather past 3 weeks.

It can eventually acidify the ocean closer and closer to the surface it will eventually even eat away types of plankton leading to tropic collapse of an ecosystem that covers 70% of the planet

WHERE'S THE HEAT?

im ready for the nuclear winter

youtube.com/watch?v=S7wntm7QVXQ

FLORIDA IS SO HOT NOW

Of course it's real

Only retards who didnt attend school think other wise.

>durr whats gonna happen when I pump greenhouse emissions into the air

>durrr i dunno *thumps bible*

I'm not denying it + right-wing.

Where do you think the people in the red countries will be heading?
What will your share of that extra GDP be?

carbon dioxide turned my son gay

...

>conveniently ignores antarctic

>trusting NASA

I should trust the FBI too, right?

You do realize that this is demonstrably true, correct? In western nations which are subsidizing (heavily) the non-scalable technologies, we see little new nuclear development. The US has only 61 reactors, but we've been playing the nuclear game the longest. China hasn't been in the game as long as us, and thanks to them using our economy as a springboard to industrialize, they've finally gotten the capability to develop nuclear plants. They've got 33 reactors build and 22 plants in production right now, and if their development trend continues then they will quickly overtake our palsy 61. I can't attest to their plants quality, however you can't deny that it's impressive the amount of focus that is being put into nuclear development.

In nations that have the ability, but subsidize other techs, nuclear is the afterthought. In nations that have the ability, and don't subsidize other techs, nuclear development is prioritized.

You'd be surprised at how little the pH of the ocean has chanced since oceanographers started keeping records. It's on the order of 0.0002% or somethings retardedly small like that. I actually know the guy who runs the data sets for the central Pacific.

Ocean Acidfication is a meme to scare normies into investing into Al Gore and his dreams.

For centuries, there hasn't been 7.4 billion people poluting the Earth. Don't need a fucking graph to understand logic.

Are you pro-nuclear? To me, it is bat shit stupid not to implement it where it can be utilized.

who cares, carbon doesn't have to obey the laws of gravity, all that stupid shit liberals spew can just fly out into space

Solar will become the best option in the future as they keep making better panels and invent batteries that arent shit

Sorry, carbon dioxide has no effect on climate.
That hypothesis was discredited years ago.

Whites could genocide all the shitskins in a decade if they wanted to and I doubt that the modern morals would survive in such a world.

Yes, I'm definitely pro-nuclear. We have shitloads of fissile material that can act as fuel- far more than fossil fuels. It produces much more energy for the work invested than any fossil fuel. It's very safe if proper precautions are taken to safeguard against cooling failures. The most important thing, however, is that it can be done fucking anywhere. Long distance transportation isn't necessary if you can put a plant close enough to run a grid off of the nuclear. The reason solar isn't scalable is due to the fact that we don't have the technology to transport energy long distances, otherwise that dream of a desert covered with solar panels would be feasible. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like there will be a major breakthrough in battery technology, or one that will sufficiently drop the price of energy transportation over massive distances. That would be a necessity to make solar a scalable technology.

As it is now, nuclear is the most important and most likely avenue we have for future energy development.

You realise there are two polar areas, yeah?
Antarctic and arctic sea ice thicker than in decades.
It's bullshit.

well, Sup Forums? what do you have to say for yourself now that pic related has blown your tiny racist brains away?

There is a lot of work being put into batteries. You think mobile phone and car companies would sit on their asses? It's going to take time though

>arctic sea ice thicker than in decades
No.

I disagree. Solar panels at their absolute best are only around 22% efficient, require a lot of land area and only work effectively up to certain latitudes where the means outweigh the costs.

You mentioned batteries, and that is an obvious choke point. The batteries will get better, but where does that battery come from? The amount of energy (derived from all the machines that run on gas and oil) to dig up, transport and convert the raw materials almost makes it pointless...which is why you must always stop and laugh at everyone you see driving a Prius.

I think for private application for single family dwellings, solar is a good option. For commercial...it's not efficient enough.

The future is oil made from nuclear

dailykos.com/story/2013/1/18/1180151/-Seawater-electricity-jet-fuel

I had a google doc bookmarked that broke down the various specifics into how much energy we would need now to go fully solar, and what level of battery we would need. Our batteries are horribly underdeveloped. Unless an earth shattering development is made for batteries that allows us to keep them the exact same size, but hold 100x their current charge, we won't be seeing cheap energy transportation. Perhaps if we found a way to avoid using batteries at all and instead figured out how to transport large amounts of energy without wires and such, but that just sounds like a pipe dream.

Lets not even get into the fact that we've got a rather limited supply of the materials we use to make batteries currently, which will eventually create a choke point for future innovations to overcome.

we need to stop burning that shit m8

>thinking we knew the carbon levels from four hundred thousand years ago
Never go full retard

The levels can be accurately measured from polar ice rods.

wired.com/2015/03/batteries-last-longer-arrive-really/

batteries are happening and their going to be made out of different material, this is only one example

technically the process is carbon neutral because you're taking CO2 out of the environment to make the oil and then burning it

wait what?

solar panels are about 30-35% efficient

>only work effectively up to certain latitudes where the means outweigh the costs.

that is a myth and not true

is the process not to take it from the ocean? You're moving it to the air that compounds the problem

I stand corrected, sir.