Global Warming is bullshit

Just like a bunch of other Marine Biologists, I too have just returned from Svalbard after four years of research.

Throughout these four years we even went to the North Pole and Greenland. As time passes in these two places, each summer-winter cycle creates a new layer of ice which traps bubbles of air from that time. These bubbles remain preserved forever.

We drilled through around 450.000 of these layers and gradually tested what elements and gases are there in the air bubbles. They were always the same, different proportions. Pic related is the graph of the proportions throughout time.

As you can see, the overall global temperature rises, then it goes down. The next cycle was always almost identical to the previous.

A volcano erruption pollutes the world more than a couple of generations of humans. Carbon dioxide, sulfur either as sulfur dioxide or hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen etc. A bunch of fucking cars and plastic bags won't hurt it, a meteor strike is also way worse.

Go on now, beat my information with your: "i read it on the Internet so it must be a fact"

Other urls found in this thread:

eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001RG000105/epdf
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000621
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
researchgate.net/publication/222818998_CO2-forced_climate_thresholds_during_the_Phanerozoic
atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf
ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904093523.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=zbT8vzX4sZY
youtube.com/watch?v=LsnW6L7VBp4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>As you can see, the overall global temperature rises, then it goes down. The next cycle was always almost identical to the previous.

Source for the graph? Our current period is warmer than the medieval warm period.

>A volcano erruption pollutes the world more than a couple of generations of humans

No it doesn't eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/

Your graph is of global temperatures.

OP is miscontruing temperature in greenland as global temperatures.

I've seen this same misinformation repeatedly today. Like anybody with a brain will look between the years 1900-2000, notice global temperatures haven't been bouncing up and down in that timespan, and realise OP didn't post a picture of global temperatures.

Your link doesn't make sense.
I don't have source for the graph as it's just there so you'd get what's happening.

Your graph makes no sense either. The temperature shifts of this magnitude happen every 10.000 years or so, we can't compare the years 2000 A.D. and 100 B.C.

There are also larger climate shifts that happen every few 100k years, every few million years etc. Not enough data has been gathered on them to claim them as a fact.

Also in regards to

>A volcano erruption pollutes the world more than a couple of generations of humans.

Depends on which volcano we're talking about. If the Volcanos in Hawaii erupted that would probably be roughly true. The 50-70 volcanos that erupt yearly do not all individually create several generations worth of human pollution. OP is using a technically true fact in an incredibly misleading way.

Sup Forums sure loves its global warming misinformation and sucking Exxon Mobil dick.

It's definitely not warmer than the medieval period.

>Norway
Never trust the Arctic Arab

I've seen the same misinformation 3 times in one hour now with people implying that greenland temperatures = global temperatures.

What a (((coincidence)))

>Your link doesn't make sense.
Sorry heres a paper that estimates CO2 emissions due to volcanoes yearly to be far lower than that of humans
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001RG000105/epdf

>Your graph makes no sense either. The temperature shifts of this magnitude happen every 10.000 years or so, we can't compare the years 2000 A.D. and 100 B.C.

The graph is just there to demonstrate the positive correlation with CO2 and that temperatures are higher now than they were in the medieval warm period

>There are also larger climate shifts that happen every few 100k years, every few million years etc. Not enough data has been gathered on them to claim them as a fact.

What do you mean, via ice cores and other proxy temperature measures we have plenty of information on those climate changes

ok, let's assume global warming is real.

but what's rustling people's jimmies?
You shouldn't use plastic bags often?
You should uses public transports?

Those are acceptable despite global warming is real or not, right?

what exactly is triggering people?

Aren't Greenland ice sheets (along with Antarctic and such) how people estimate temperatures in ancient/pre-history? It's not like there's a single point on Earth where you can just measure and say "Yup, that's the global temperature"

Thats because your graph only goes up to 95

Buddy, I have done research in Anchorage, you fucking Americans are savages. You don't have the right to fucking speak about who's shitty.

I live in a city where the last serious crime was a murder in 2002. Go buy guns you hamburflap superpoofter.

Yes I'm a shill for big oil.
We're obviously fucking the planet up with fossil fuels.
Without the greed of man we'd have cleaner means of production that I'm sure of.

The ice cores of Greenland are used for a reason though.
You really think all these people waste all this time just to find out the temperature of Greenland over millions of years, really?

kek, I like you guys, but you clearly have a conflict of interest here, without all that oil you guys would be poor as fuck and have to do more than just extract black gold all day

I'm saying it isn't. I don't know, arrogance.

You think the mean global temp has risen over a degree since 95?

>tfw i wanted to live in a comfy little age ice but born in a shitty warmming

That's 95 years before present

you're wrong and retarded.
You're not a biologist, even basic knowledge of biology should be enough to understand global warming and you obviously don't

Besides I can't find anywhere the actual source paper for the graph

I know there's no way it has risen that much in such a short time frame. The rise in global temperature is exaggerated as shown by climate-gate leaks.

Should be worried about global cooling brought on by the next grand solar minimum.

yeah, i know that you're trying to say it's not real.
but let us assume if it's real.

though global warming is not real, we do see what plastics do to the environment.
dumb animals eating the plastics.
in 3rd world country/poor areas, dumb anim-.. humans dispose them right where they live and make the environment very dirty for generations to come.
it also caused pests to breed and infest people with diseases.

so, it's totally reasonable to look for replacement of plastics and reduce usages.

I'm going to have to go with the piles of sourced data I have showing a cooler medieval warm period before I go with a graph who's source can't be verified

I don't think it's close to the temp of the medieval period. Just my option though.

Remember Climate gate?
Wouldn't put much faith in any noaa and co graph personally.

Literally nothing wrong with any climate gate emails

If you cannot see that there's groups with vested interest in charging money for carbon then so be it.
Like I said before, I hate what we're doing to the planet through inefficient energy production.

>If you cannot see that there's groups with vested interest in charging money for carbon then so be it.
lmfao yeah and the most profitable industry on the face on the earth has no vested interest in anything here. Post an actual scientific refutation of climate change.

20sec to verify on google. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000621

Co2 follows on from temp, not the other way round.

What's your thoughts on Randall Carlson's idea of a massiv flood/meteorite-happening 12-13000 years ago? Legit?

I don't know much about climate science. Someone linked this to me and since I watched it I'm very suspicious of graphs & statistics about this subject.

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

Hi, UNIS Sup Forumsack! Been to Svalbard last automn!

>A volcano eruption pollutes the world more than a couple of generations of humans.

Mate i live on a huge fucking collection of volcanoes and that is patently false. Volcanoes mostly spew ash, of greenhouse gases, and the ash serves more to block sunlight than anything. If you drive under an ash cloud, you can feel the temperature getting slightly colder.

Also why would a marine biologist be analyzing ice core samples

>20sec to verify on google
Its behind a pay wall

>Co2 follows on from temp, not the other way round.
Sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't thats not really relevant to the point though. The fact is several deglaciations would've been impossible had it not been for the greenhouse effect which followed an initial temperature increase due to orbital forcing and amplified this initial change in temperature. It does typically lag temperature increase yes but it always then amplifies the current temperature.

researchgate.net/publication/222818998_CO2-forced_climate_thresholds_during_the_Phanerozoic
atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf

what is that supposed to prove? that there are other forcings than co2? or that co2 doesn't cause forcing? please tell us what you're trying to say here

Here is the temperature record from an ice core site 29km away from GRIPS2

Also despite what the graph says, the data actually only went up to 1950, not 2000, because of scientific convention. The person who made the graph misread the data because this isn't explicitly stated in the study so he assumed present meant up until when the study was published.

Also, the first data point was 95 years before present. See ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

So really, the most recent data point in the GISP2 ice core study was actually in 1855, but the graph makes it look like it has data going up to 2000. So what happened since then? Well lets look at some data from the GRIP site just 29km away from the GISP2 site. We see +1.44c in temperature change, and the absolute temperature is higher than any temperature ever recorded at the GISP2 site. So really, if we assume GISP2 followed the same trend, if that graph was REALLY up to date to 2000, the line would be over the "medieval warming" peak but below the "Roman warming" peak.

But all that isn't really as important as the bigger point that the GISP2 study is just one study of one ice core and there are many many techniques to estimate past temperature and many ice core sites that have been measured. Using the local temperature trends of one specific area of iceland to go "the global temperature isn't rising! Climate change BTFO!" is supremely retarded.

I'm done though, Sup Forums doesn't want to believe the truth, they just want to suck exxon mobil cock.

I can't unfortunately. You wont get funding, let alone review for going against the narrative.

The rising trend in world temperatures ended around 97.

er, one specific area of greenland, not iceland.

>The rising trend in world temperatures ended around 97.

If your talking about ''''''''the pause''''''' have a look at what happened to ocean heat content about that time

>Global Warming is bullshit.

I heard somewhere that it was a hoax started by the Chinese.

Co2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas. There are much greater forces both internally within the atmosphere and externally from solar wind and cosmic rays.

OP BTFO in the first two posts.
Nice.

hello, I asked you a question.
what are you trying to show with that picture? are you saying that because co2 follows warming, it can't lead warming? are you saying that co2 doesn't cause forcing? are you saying that climatologists say that co2 is the only kind of forcing?
surely you had a reason to post this picture, what was it?

It's just oscillations. It will drop soon.

How do you explain this graph of the ice sheets if climate change isn't real, you retard?

ah so you agree that co2 causes atmospherical forcing! good. then what are you trying to prove with your picture of the ice core graphs?

Same thing

btw stated source for this graph is included in .So pick out the one that confirms your argument and ignore all the other ones if you want

Climate has a sensitivity of ~3C for doubling of CO2

ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm

Confirmation bias, dipshit. There will always be some years that are outliers. How do you explain 2016 being middle of the road in the spring?

That Co2 usually lags behind temperature and that the global temps are cooler than during the medieval warming.

>Co2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas.

If you have a somewhat close equilibrium, like a certain amount of water falling into a bucket with a hole in it, the water rises and falls a little with minor changes.

Now you add just a small little drip to it.

Over time it will overflow. You have to realize that. And if you do realize that, you also understand all the principles at play here, and your own appeal to ignorance is unfounded.

>That Co2 usually lags behind temperature
Already debunked this shit here> global temps are cooler than during the medieval warming.
If you believe the one study which confirms your argument

The past 40 years has seen intense heating.
It has stopped though.
The heat was from the sun.
Look at the sunspot graphs to see the correlation.
So we're still seeing the effects of this. However they will dissipate with time.

I blame Trump for the 2016 anomaly, the guy is obviously too hot even for the planet to handle.

ah, great. then I can educate you. the reason why co2 lags behind is because co2 is less sollulable in warm water. when the temperature rises, co2 is released from the oceans. in the cases of the graphs you are showing, the forcing is likely orbital. orbital forcing causes warming, warming causes co2 to be released from the ocean, co2 contributes to warming, warming releases more co2.

hope that helps you

You're right there isn't a single point you can measure to determine global temperature.

That's why you see the same GISP2 core meaurements that go up to 1855 but are advertised as going up to 2000 multiple times in this thread. Because GISP2 only shows you local temperatures of one specific area of greenland. That makes it perfect for the purpose of showing people misleading information about global warming by pretending one specific area of greenlands temperatures up to 1855 = global temperatures in 2000. People are clearly and unapologetically misleading people in this way in this thread.

Global warming skeptics are allergic to using composite data including a wide array of temperature measurements because the truth goes against their narrative.

>It has stopped though.
And the oceans have continued to warm

>The heat was from the sun.
And kept in by the greenhouse effect

>Look at the sunspot graphs to see the correlation.
This one? Why is the ocean still warming then?

I have never denied that climate change is real. The burning of fossil fuels has spiked the Co2 levels up around 400ppm and that's terrible for the greenhouse .

I just believe that external factors mainly govern the temperature on earth. And that these factors can change dramatically.

I also think that noaa and co fudge graphs in order to further the profits of some.
It's just my opinion though.

Because water holds energy. It will relax eventually. It's all oscillations.

> just believe that external factors mainly govern the temperature on earth

What are some examples

>A volcano erruption pollutes the world more than a couple of generations of humans.
can we please stop with this meme? spewning this shit that can be proven wrong in 30 seconds worth of google search only hurts negationism

he is right to say that there are many factors that affect temperature. we usually refer to the factors as various types of forcing in our work. forcing through green house gasses, forcing through changes in orbit cycles, forcing through changes in solar output.

>I'm a marine biologist
Prove it

Also
>Marine biologist doing research on global temperatures
You what? I mean, I know interdisciplinary work is a thing, but this seems quite far out.

>My information
You have posted no information so far, just a tale. Post data points or fuck off.

Get your Nobel Prize for discovering a way to accurately know the atmospheric composition from 500k years ago, without using ice cores.
Or continue to spout bullshit complaints about available evidence that counters your enviromental religion.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904093523.htm
Cosmic rays and cloud formation.
When the sun's cycle drops. It's radiant output along with it's EM field is reduced. this has a sympathetic response on Earth EM field. More cosmic rays penetrate as a result. Colder weather.

Shit graph m8
Obvious b8

Sorry for my terrible grammar. Pretty drunk, just button mashing ere.

>Without the greed of man

That settles it, genocide Man, leave the world to ants and termites.
Oh, wait, they produce more CO2 than Man. Shit........

hey this shit can be solved by simple regression ven, 1D number..

Where link to data, as big as possible?
>I'm gun predict the futurure temp

An ANN very simple one and also test ecc.

Just talking about the temp here, i don' know your biology shit basic eng. chemistry

>It's a lot affecting this stuff I kno
just for the keks

Explain why there was arable land in Greenland before the Little Ice Age. Enough to support three or four communities and livestock if it is warmer now than in the medieval warm period.

you seem confused about what co2 is part of the co2 cycle and what is dug up from fossil fuels

>Because water holds energy. It will relax eventually. It's all oscillations.
Yes but clearly in the period of the pause in atmospheric warming the ocean continued to warm. If no warming were to be taking place this clearly never would've happened

>" But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth."

please gib source so I can shove this in up Bill Nye's asshole and edjewcate him

Also same with the bee crap, all these years they have been running around screaming
>muh bees dey be dyings

BULLSHIT!
>You prolly know more about this and might even link us the report, I don't got bibex now, but they did this research here
>Mayor one
>Debunked all the bee shit
>Dey never had it better, old types we haven't seen back, they can wander a bit
All just lies

Because the entire world isn't in greenland

>Our current period is warmer than the medieval warm period.
what a fucking lie

because co2 is not the only kind of forcing. hope that helps you

Show me some contradictory evidence. The data is posted includes most reconstructions to my knowledge

A graph in 10^22 joules?
Such shit posted in this thread.

CERN is working on it now with a project called CLOUD.

local and global changes, as you point out Greenland turned to shit.

They moved south, many of them

How would you measure it Czechanon

What is it?

>Source for the graph? Our current period is warmer than the medieval warm period.

How can you say this when Greenland was habitable back then? We had Vikings farming it.

130 years. half a degree.
Crisis.
Turn the government over to Jews, goy.

> (CLOUD) experiment uses a special cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron (PS) at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science. The results should contribute much to our fundamental understanding of aerosols and clouds, and their affect on climate.

How do they know the global temperature from 1000 years ago?

>.gov

you realise if you don't believe in climate change and work for the government, you get fired, right?

Lmao you posted a graph based on data that only goes up to 1855 that made claims about greenlands temperature in the year 2000.

Like it's not that I'm not aware of stuff like the IARC scandal where a guy put in a claim about glaciers melting explicitly to manipluate politicians.

But you'll believe people that will fudge shit by 145 years fucking blindly.

You believe individual cherry picked examples of temperature data over composite data.

You believe a sunspot meme when temperatures have been climbing higher despite solar activity stagnating and believe that "water holds in temperature" explains why temperatures have been rising since the fucking 80s, like after water stops getting heated by an energy source, it continues to heat up for the next four fucking decades before water holds energy. Have you ever operated a kettle? After you turn the kettle off the water doesn't heat up for the next 40 years before cooling.

You believe there is no money to fund studies denying climate change, when Koch industries has funded groups denying climate change with over 80 million fucking dollars and that's just koch industries. You genuinely believe that there is nobody, no vested interests out there, that will pay scientists to say climate change isn't real, you genuinely unironically believe that in a world where climate change controls threaten to drastically cut oil revenues there is NO money in denying climate change.

You're doing one thing right, being skeptical of climate change groups, and then proceeding to be retarded and suck the dick of big oil. The easterbrook guy that make that crooked graph lying by 155 years was invited to present his views to the heartland institute funded by exxon mobil. You literally publish research from scientists supported by the oil industry and you are so blind you unironically believe there is no money in denying climate change. You may not realise you're sucking exxon mobil dick, but you are.

OP gib data, det ligger vel åpent et sted?

Det skulle bare artig å se hvordan et par AI-er gjor det vs en gjeng forskere. Altså bare tempraturen, så lenge som mulig tilbake i tid.

Dere har en lineær rekke av tall et sted jeg vil ha

because Greenland isn't the entire globe

Thats ocean temperature. Water changes temperature at a far slower rate than air(Higher specific heat capacity)

This seems pretty experimental. The greenhouse effect is a far more plausible explanation especially considering events such as the thawing of the snowball earth

proxy methods of recording temperature (ice cores, tree rings)

No I didn't and I don't believe you

I also think sunspot activity plays a large role in shifting temperature on earth.

>Thats ocean temperature

Sorry was thinking of the wrong graph. The graph I posted though shows 0.5C change in the past 30 years though

climate sensitivity

Face it, you are following a religion, not a science.

youtube.com/watch?v=zbT8vzX4sZY

cycles everything is cycles, thrown around in space in this little ball we call our home, kringla heimsins.

I'm not denying that internal forces are shifting the greenhouse effect.
I just believe it's effected by space weather to a larger degree than most.

Read the Climate Report 2016.

BTW - if climate change is caused by human activity we are doomed anyways and nothing could ever stop it.

youtube.com/watch?v=LsnW6L7VBp4

Styx hit the nail about this in one of his recent videos.

>Thinking there's anything scientific in Sup Forums posts as to prove hundreds of scientists wrong
Arguing about climate change on Sup Forums is like arguing about topology with Somali kids. Nobody here knows shit about the topic, the only real development is some people post the standard research, then someone grabs some non peer reviewed garbage with no source and no error margins to show they are wrong, or they move the goalposts.

Honest question to global warming fags. If the planet is heating up at record temperatures, how come during the late middle ages western Greenland was sprawling with farms, and now it is unfarmable because it is so frozen?