So I saw this pic in a previous thread that was trying to 'scientifically' debunk climate change. I looked it up and saw the 'edited by' bit and decided to dig, and someone down that line found the same data but unraveled the years of overlapping lines. The edited chart was made to purposefully confuse and make it look like there has been no change, but the correctly presented graph has a clear trend line moving downwards in volume of arctic ice. If anyone wants to try and fite me with your BS data on anti-climate change, then you're welcome to drop by. Might be amusing to educate some trolls, if anyone wants to help.
We're on the verge of forced globalism and likely WW3. Fuck the trees.
Nathaniel Wilson
Just nuke murica and the world would be a better place
Dylan Bennett
murica and china, two birds on stone
Gabriel Kelly
Anyone who thinks the entire world working together toward the same goals is a bad thing can eat my motherfucking dick.
Owen Foster
While I'm at it, if anyone who is on the fence about the reality of climate change I have a website that you can read up on. It contains many of the usual climate change denial myths and thoroughly debunks them. skepticalscience.com/
Adrian Gutierrez
That was my pic and I wasn't using it to prove anything. I was simply asking for alarmists' proof of climate goblins. Out of all you fags, you failed to produce one piece of evidence. I even offered to show a temp graph for the last 80-150 years of a US city of your choice and they quickly deflected. I could've also shown precip, min temps, even sea level from all over the globe but they all decided to act retarded. Stay cucked, by choice.
Grayson Murphy
agreed, I mean why is it going to affect you in a bad way? what would be terrible about it?
Blake Miller
>skepticalscience.com Nothing on that site is based on reality. It's based on Michael Mann's hockey stick and Hansen's failed models. It's an activist site.
Evan Reyes
We are nowhere near evolved enough for that. Globalism is just a way to unify the elites power, over the 99%. Humans would have to completely evolve past greed and thirst for power and fame, for globalism to ever work.
They are stealing trillions of dollars and they want to take your electricity, heat, and transportation away. There isn't even a goal after "get money".
Chase Rogers
I mean, by presenting the CORRECT graph it takes one step towards proving climate change by showing the effects of global warming on arctic ice volume. It is but one of many, many, many pieces of evidence that must all be taken into consideration when proving a hypothesis. Which has already been done a decade ago of course, I'm just debating you so any uninformed people passing by can be exposed two both sides of the coin.
And by all means, you're more than welcome to start showing temperature graphs of specific cities. But do keep in mind the "Bullshit Asymmetry Principle." If you want to cherrypick data I might just have to start linking global temperatures on the same date to give the whole picture. Thats the funny thing about averages.
Eli Green
why take away all that stuff when they can just sell it to me? seems like a better way to make money
Charles Richardson
So nothing is based on reality, except for the dozens upon hundreds of source links to research data? Try again.
Jace Clark
This made me fucking cry laughing. Fucking christ
Leo Thomas
What do you mean by "the correct graph"? That second one was the same as yours, just not stacked up. That's how the DMI displays it, stacked up.
Jeremiah Peterson
You can have all those things you mentioned, heat, electricity and transportation with renewable energy (wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectrical and maybe a few other sources) and electric cars, trains, maybe boats. Airplanes are tricky, but they might be a necessary evil for the next few decades until technology for cleaner air travel catches up to viability. Next concern, please.
>Which has already been done a decade ago But. It. Hasn't. I can't be more serious about this. I'm also not showing shit anymore. When everyone's in the sandbox of hockey sticks and claiming things like "the vast body of science", I know you fags are in way too deep into groupthink. There's no explaining to you. You even deny the basics of thermodynamics.
Chase Wright
Yeah - @KiryeNet ought to be hanged for the murder of data presentation. That is either a color-blind scientist, a graphic artistry moron, or a sciostitute for a fossil fuel concern.
William Hill
what is the sigma value of the calculations? currently global warming is sitting at a sigma value of 5, aka a 1 in a million chance its a statistical fluke.
Sebastian Gray
>the dozens upon hundreds of source links to research data There has been nothing repeatable or that has stood up to any scrutiny. And you'd find there isn't that much. Not even one thousand.
Parker Torres
if you don't have the need, you never evolve.
giving the elites nothing else to conquer resolves these greed/want issues. They will literally have everything there is to offer. and there will be nothing else for them to do.
they will eather a " drink and abuse themselves into decay and death, which means their spoils will be divided up around the populace.
hire more and more people to do their work for them, seeing as it can no longer grow. giving more to more people.
Evolve humanity through science to achieve "science finction" dreams they may have.
Landon Morales
Except that the goal and purpose of making a graph is to cleanly disseminate data from multiple sources. All the data from both of those charts came in the form of numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. Dates, times, locations maybe, volumes, hundreds if not thousands of man hours worth of research, measurement and notation.
There IS a correct way to make a graph, and if it involves a line you want ONE line when possible. So you take the ice volume, plot it by time and thats all you need. Both graphs convey the same information, but one is done in a way that doesn't require a microscope to pick and follow the colored lines, as opposed to the other chart that just...follows a single line. Its clear, the purpose of your graph was to obfuscate and confuse. You could ask anybody what the graph means and nobody would be able to tell. My graph, especially with the trend line overlay, tells a clear picture instantly without even needing to look at the X and Y values.
Ryder Wright
This is where they get you. They just plan to take away, not replace with something better. If it was simply upgrades, there wouldn't be so much pushback. They want everyone living in highrises and riding bicycles, like a proper proletariat. This is what they like to call 'sustainable'...
Angel Russell
are you joking ?
ive looked up about 12, and they all correlate to the same story. - climate change is occurring.
they only questions remaining is. how heavy is the humans hand involved in it.
Dominic Cook
>Wind Nope >Solar Nope >Nuclear I wish, but environmentalists think it's evil >Hydro Yes, but dams are considered worse than nuclear We will simply return to the middle ages. The blackouts in California right now are a preview to the "green" future.
Nathan Morgan
is misleading.
the law negates murders that are occuring because they are now legal.
same amount of events are occuring, just less in terms of them being labeled "murders"
Ryder Cook
OPs pic is what the DMI provides. If you don't know who the DMI is, you shouldn't be in this topic.
Austin Brown
this. Pretty much no denying the climate is changing at this point.
But we can deny how much effect we will have on it one way or the other. Shit's happened before we existed as a species shit will probably happen after too.
William Cook
Haha. Sure. I will admit, scientific consensus will never be 100% about anything. But someone complied a huge library of research documents onto climate change, if you'll allow me to continue posting a graph.
It was GENERALLY known more than a decade ago that the planet was warming. I know that Obama made some claim about 99% of scientists agreeing on it, and someone fact checked him about it only being like...80-90% maybe? But climate change IS about 99% agreed upon by all scientists. The climate IS changing. And going by all the research documents done from 2011-2015 show 99.94 of all research documentation even pointing towards Human caused climate change.
And that honestly really is sad you don't want to show me any more charts. Who knows? Maybe the next one might break through and convince me? It actually isn't too hard to find specific examples of things that aren't immediately supportive to climate change. Like that one study on some ice sheet that actually regrew from the previous year.
you telling me I can't be here? who the fuck are you? you gtfo
Alexander Scott
What? It's a 1 in 1 chance of being a fluke. It was invented by politicians.
Elijah Bell
implying that somehow right now, or the recent past in the optimal temperature for earth and it should, under no circumstances, ever change.
Jaxon Miller
the blackouts in California are due to PG&E wanting to avoid billions of dollars of lawsuits on top of the billions they're dealing with from last year due to setting the north of CA on fire
Nicholas Martinez
>you shouldn't be in this topic Nigger, do you know where you are? Paid shill much?
Evan Lewis
The real question is, how is it proven? Man can't change the weather. This racket is so old that we burned 20,000 witches for it.
Camden Sanchez
Really, man? Solar and wind energy is already expanding greatly. Just imagine if all those people working in fossil fuels were given training and education to work in the renewable energy sector. Like...fossil fuels are being replaced as we speak. Coal is on a massive decline, mostly due to natural gas, but the renewable sector is still growing.
Also, that line about "everyone living in highrises" is a strawman. Sorry. Unless you can find me a source stating that.
Jayden Garcia
>The blackouts in California right now are a preview to the "green" future. are seriously this stupid? you obviously have no clue why there is a planned power outage
Joshua Miller
A consensus is the opposite of science. Stopped reading right there, it surely won't be better.
No, it's not that it shouldn't change. A slow change is something that we could adjust to as a species and environment, if it took place over thousands of years.
For example though, we're passing a parts per million CO2 level that we have never seen as a species, in all of our existence. From this point on we are treading unseen environmental territory. Change is still 'slow' by Human standards, but on large scale we're burning rubber. climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938
Asher Wood
If you say so. If you have nothing else important to say could you kindly stop posting, please? Grown ups are trying to have a discussion.
Uh, the people voted on it and Gavin Newsome signed a bill that they have to shit it off. I really don't think they started that fire. I live just south and that place was asking for it. They wouldn't allow clearing. Hell, they actually mounted their power lines in trees in some places. And then there were reports of some guy shooting at transformers. This is all scaremongering to get us to pay more for electricity.
Jordan Martinez
I'm fairly certain that nobody burned witches being accused of raising the greenhouse gas level of the planet's atmosphere.
But really though, that is one major indicator by itself. We can track how much CO2 is in the air, and we can investigate sources. Does it come from volcanoes? Some of it does, of course. Does it come from nature? Of course, but not the amount that scientists are recording. The only other source is us, and through the traceable amounts of emissions being added. Burning forests, massive amounts of methane producing livestock, burning fossil fuels...I think we've used something like 3 million years of fuel in 300 years or something like that? I could be fact checked on that, if someone doesn't mind.
Dylan Rogers
yea I agree with the other guy about the idea of "consensus". Science is fact and there is no need for consensus, and it has not been factually proven that humans are a significant factor in climate change.
James Reyes
one man cant,
but 7 billion can.
Julian Edwards
Wind and solar are huge failures. It's 3x the thermal price, it's always down, and it's completely unpredictable and unreliable. Look at how the energiewende in Germany left 50k people without heat last winter. Look at how hornsea is already causing blackouts in the UK.
Camden Harris
I surely do. Do you? I bet you'll give the "fallen trees" answer and you'll think that makes sense.
Cameron Bennett
Except it's been much higher and it didn't affect life or temps. This can be easily found. In fact, it's been falling for the last several thousand years.
Luis Robinson
A consensus forms because of science, silly. Someone investigates something, forms a hypothesis, tests it, evaluates it, then issues out their knowledge to be tested by others. Other scientists take the experiment and perform it to see where the results lead, and if it comes to the same result then it is agreed upon as correct. Mind you, they're not testing to see if it's true. They're testing it to see where it leads, and to see where the conclusions leads.
The research and testing can come to a point where it becomes a known thing. Gravity pulls to center mass, speed of light is a hard limit, atoms slow when cold and speed up when hot, and Humans are causing the planet to warm. Now, if someone comes along with compelling evidence of the contrary, that goes through the SAME process of testing and evaluation. As of yet, there are no peer reviewed research articles that state anything other on the subject of climate change that Humans are the cause, and it is happening.
Landon Sanders
One thing I know for sure is that I am no expert, therefore my opinion means jack shit... but as a resident of this blue marble I'll offer some thoughts on the matter. I think it would be foolish to assume that there are absolutely no biases/politics woven into this climate change debate, and when I say climate change debate I mean whether or not humans are the catalyst. I just feel like the hysteria is over-hyped...
Nicholas Myers
implying all change on earth was gradual before us, and nothing abrupt ever happens. but hey, its easy to fearmonger and an easy powergrab for elites if we scare everyone.
but hey, the world is ending in 12 years, so why does it matter anymore.
Could you cite a source for the outages in Germany and this homesea thing? I googled them both and can find nothing related to power cuts due to anything but a construction OOPS! and folks not paying bills.
Leo Gonzalez
i assume whoever edited that picture tried to fold it like it to find the periodic shifts, which is pretty obvious that there is a recurring wave there. the colors more or less match the position of the wave, showing a decrease. stop being a brainlet and learn how to read graphs.
Lucas Wright
They were burned for causing droughts and floods. Just like man is being blamed for droughts and floods, even though we have less of both these days.
CO2 has no effect on anything. It grows more plants and that's it. And now that we have oil, we have more forest. The planet is 14% greener. And goodie fired are abiotic. We find oil hundreds of thousands of feet below any fossil record. Hydrocarbons are found in space. The moon Titan is covered in methane. It's a cosmic mineral.
Kevin Moore
Nope, not enough of us. Termites emit 40 times more than man does. Regular decomposition in the soil is many times that. We're nothing.
Thomas Jones
except that graph is showing proof the arctic ice is melting. are you so retarded that you can't read a graph? let alone one you "made".
Jeremiah Peterson
Actually, there is a coloration between drastic environmental change and say...extinction rates of the life on the planet. Big meteor hits the Earth, throws up enough particulate it blocks sunlight and drastically drops the planet's temperature. Vast deposits of trees that were never decomposed get set on fire by something, and proceeds to burn all over the old planet for thousands of years, raising the greenhouse effect and the planet's temperature raises and oceans acidify. There is even a newly discovered cause where some big meteoric collision cloud passed by Earth, raining down debris for decades and causing another extinction event. Neat stuff.
The thing is though, Humanity has been quite good at pulling carbon out of the Earth and reintroducing it into the atmosphere. Humans put out 90 TIMES more greenhouse gasses than all the volcano activity on Earth combined, yearly. Its something that isn't part of the natural cycle, much like that meteor strike. We're currently living through the beginning stages of a global extinction event too. I can source this for you if you want, but compared to the next MOST drastic rate of extinction, the species on this planet are disappearing at 10 to 100 times the highest rate we've seen on record before. In just a few hundred years the only things that are going to be living on this planet are the livestock we depend on for food, pretty much.
No it doesn't. A consensus is like a vote. You think Einstein found a consensus on relativity? No. He had a theory that they are still trying to disprove today. How many people does it take to disprove him? Just one. AGW fails all this.
Didn't read past that as you're still being unscientific.
Benjamin Sanders
this of course I forgot to add is only the last million years
Jeremiah Hernandez
Big woop, shits gone up a bit in the last million years. Convienient how most information you can find cuts off anything before that.
Zachary Bailey
Nope. You'll just attack the source and ignore the facts, like the last thread.
Dominic Lewis
And then it grows again. Fancy that.
Wyatt Sanders
yea cause it's not like earth has plate tectonics that reuse material in the crust. holy shit are you really that retarded?
There's no greenhouse effect. All planets are an open system. If something gets hotter, it just radiates more heat. The admission is just an insulation layer that slows delta t. Thermodynamics 101.
Ryder Taylor
THIS??? THAT YOU POSTED???
Daniel Peterson
Absolutely none, actually. But one thing the deniers are good at is strawmanning and moving goal posts.
The argument on the side of science was never that the CO2 levels have never been this high before. The argument that is being made is that WE as a species are artificially raising the CO2 level at an unprecedented rate. They never said that it was never this hot before, or that CO2 levels have never been higher before. Who knows? Maybe if we were truly apart from the environment as a species then those levels would naturally rise on their own somehow due to a thousand perfectly explainable reasons. As another fun fact, they have found aligator skeletons and palm trees in the arctic circle, proving that it has been so warm before that they could exist all the way up there.
The point is, Humanity is raising the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere at a ridiculously high rate. Like I said in another post, there would need to be 90 TIMES more active volcanoes to match our greenhouse gas emission output. And there is nothing in the environment that can process all that extra input.
Ryder Williams
yes, that's what a cycle implies. but did you actually see the difference there, champ? i'll give you a hint, it's about 5000 km^3 worth of ice.
Ian Taylor
Oh look, another hockey stick! Why do you hate yourself?
Caleb Foster
ITT: humans bad
Mason Davis
>what is a blackbody >what is opacity go back to middle school, the grownups are talking.
Brody Robinson
That graph is completely wrong. See
Thomas Peterson
no, actually both graphs are correct, the first graph is over ~500 million years, the second is the most recent 1 million years
what the fuck does this change about what I'm saying? Not sayin shit can't be found bud. Just the overwhelming majority only shows "recent" history. Like we just ignorin the past. I judt dont see the urgency. Shits lived before, shit'll keep on living. Even if we die out. Sounds like thats what the greenies want anyway.
Isaac Wright
Yeah I saw it and I'm aware. Did you think it would stay at 100% constantly? There used to be no ice there. Now there is. Some places are growing, others are shrinking. It's holding stable as long as we've been measuring it, which is what, like 35 years. Surely your not confusing weather with climate.
Connor Brown
Either the events happened or they didn't. Source shouldn't matter.
Adam Brown
So you still don't get it? You think a cooler body can warm a warm body even higher? Good job.
Brayden Hughes
Of course, I can't disagree with that statement about Einstein. At least...until after all the scientists in that field reviewed his findings and came to a consensus that he was mostly correct.
Anyone can come up with some scientific idea. That doesn't mean that it is inherently correct or incorrect. It has to be reviewed and examined.
Kevin Wright
7/8ths of the planets DENSE forests burning with VERY LARGE % of oxygen
thats becuase a massive asteroid FUCKED EVERYTHING UP
Caleb Peterson
maybe because only in recent history can you get close enough to see that sudden spike in co2 levels because of how quickly it went up
Grayson Butler
Not acknowledging anything. It could be huffpo, Al gore, science mag, NASA, whatever, and you'll just make up some way to dismiss it. Nice fallacy though. It shouldn't be hard to find. Both made pretty big news for a while.
Zachary Richardson
It matters to alarmists. It's a chink that slows them to dismiss the facts by making up some insult about the source. Ask OP, he, and others, did it nonstop in the last thread.
Matthew Peterson
we get our data from samples deep in the crust. guess what lies in the crust that forms volcanoes, fault lines, trenches, etc? when those plates subduct, guess where they go. no, what's holding stable is the ice growth and shrinkage over the course of a year due to the axial tilt of the planet. what's changing is that there's less ice to undergo this cyclical shift. do you not know basic things? no, you don't understand why a gas is called a greenhouse gas. i'll give you a hint: it's opaque to the infrared wavelengths. i'd explain blackbody radiation but i doubt you'd be able to keep up considering what you've posted so far.
Parker King
>Asteroid hit at end of cretaceous period >Barely even a rise happens in the Cret. chart.
Ok mate, it was the meteorite.
Xavier Moore
They didn't come to a consensus, he provided a reproducible theory that hasn't been defeated yet. There is no correct, it's a theory. It can be disprove at any time. It's just the vast answer we have so far. Climate change does not stand up to that. The large majority of scientists that disprove AGW far outweigh the 78 that are part of the consensus.
Nathaniel Ward
Well, if you'll allow me to paint a picture of our immediate future it might give some idea as to why people are wanting to do something about it. This might be SLIGHTLY exaggerated, but not by much.
Temperatures are also rising. The equator might get so hot that it is unlivable by Human standards for long stretches through summer, and it is going to be a driving force behind desertification of once fertile territories. This leads to food shortages on a massive scale. time.com/4087092/climate-change-heat-wave/
Oceans are acidifying, and there is a good chance that global food stocks in it are going to diminish greatly too. This all leads to further resource scarcity.
Combine all that, and you have mass migration, resource shortages and probably large scale war. All of this within the next 100 years at the very least, too.
Alexander Brooks
If you're past the third grade, you know that never happens.
Elijah Mitchell
no other animal burns oil or coal.
these are the largest contributors to the human factor
that and destruction of environment that takes c02 out of the equation.
