Can anyone tell me if climate change is real...

This
I fucking hate hysteria around it , though.
Litteratly every decade has it's own reason why climate change occur.
Not even mentioning (((them))) making a goof fortune of that .

No you fucking retard, people who actually know what the fuck they're doing have crunched the numbers many times before. The entire heat generated by humanity is literally fucking nothing compared to the energy the sun irradiates us with.

Why are you stupid fucks so hellbent on defending (((oil companies))) that would gladly walk all over your dead corpse if it meant an extra million dollars in profit?

Depressingly real. 0.8C already last century, and expect another 2C this century.

Ask the libshit if they want to sterilize all of Africa, destroy all industry in India and China, and send the US Army to seize the rain forests in Brazil and Indonesia to stop logging. If climate change is real and the species in extinct in a century then awareness concerts with over the hill singers isn't enough. Lets see how firm in their beliefs they really are.

Attached: 1453660776057.gif (353x209, 2.62M)

And just to be clear, CO2 absorbs the infrared light re-emitted by the Earth better than the light coming from the sun, as you can see in the image. The sun emits visible light more than any other frequency, and visible light easily makes it through the atmosphere. On the other hand, the atmosphere absorbs and scatters much more infrared light.

Attached: Solar_Spectrum.png (800x595, 36K)

I'm actually American. I'm on vacation culturally enriching Canadian bitches.

Attached: 1533033547584.jpg (617x357, 94K)

The climate is an inherently dynamic system. Declaring that the climate is changing is akin to adamantly stating that water is indeed wet as fuck and that anyone who doesnt think so is alergic to science.

>climate change is real because the climate is always changing. Thats what dynamic systems do.

Direct heat pollution is a problem, but it pales in comparison to long-lived GHGs that contribute to extra radiation trapping in the Earth's natural daily/seasonal cycles.
>The real redpill is that global warming is caused by the exponential population growth of worthless pajeets, niggers, chinks, Brazilians and Indonesians. Yeah maybe my low emissions corolla which runs for twenty minutes a day is causing global warming or it could Mbutu O’Malley’s worthless 24 hours of breathing and farting that’s causing global warming. The problem is CO2 right? No amount of taxation carbon credits is going to make Rajesh exhale oxygen
Western countries are among the largest polluters, and also have to mitigate for the best chances.
>so it should be pretty obvious that it’s clearly some Jew scam.
muh Jews, what a convenient way to reject evidence and a field of hard science
>If you wanna sell me a line that the fuckin weather can be predicted ten years in advance with such accuracy that we need to enact a global taxation regime
The temperature record is robust and shows a rapid warming trend that is unprecented in speed in the direct record, as well as the estimated temperatures based on atmospheric gas trapped in ice cores.
>rest of the post
has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is true

The real concern, however, is over the rate at which the climate is warming due to human activity.

Man Made global warming is bullshit.

The climate constantly changes due to natural cycles. Right now, with us being in a solar minimum, the jet stream is all fucked up. Europe is broiling, but it's still snowing in parts of Russia, the ice hasn't melted in Hudson Bay (they had to send an ice breaker there last week), parts of Australia are having record cold

you are incorrect

We emit billions of tons of GHGs into the atmosphere every year, and the warming trend is happening over decades instead of the usual thousands of years.

Your an actual idiot if you think climate changes legitimacy matters in the slightest. REGARDLESS of wether or not its real, we should be acting like it is. You should treat the earth well no matter whatever the fuck greenhouse gasses or cosmic fag rays are hurting the ozone layer. IT DOESNT MATTER, act like its real

Check out Joe Rogan with Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson, there's a few of them. But yeah what we're going through now is nothing like what naturally can happen on this planet and it's ludicrous to read in such a small sample size. It was warmer during the Roman era and Humanity flourished

Kek

>Argument from ignorance

Agreed. It's not even the cause I object to - it's the religion that climatology has devolved into.

>preventing ecological catastrophe is a religion
I guess my religion is not wanting to be the cunt that killed the planet because he liked his shiny toys and cheap junk.

>being this retarded

Do you blindly follow everything you are told without asking questions first? I'm not that kind of guy, you need to show me the facts if something is to be believed

>having zero arguments
I'm also not a misanthrope.

here you go

Attached: 1533404920703.jpg (700x509, 47K)

Can the data be provided for years 0 to 1880? To get a more and complete picture?

>using jewbook

besides that i completely agree with everything you typed

youtu.be/jAWbRWlSlpk

Attached: 192752782.png (800x400, 417K)

No. Well, it can be estimated from ice core composition, but the instrumental temperature record only exists for about the last 150 years.

We can't say for sure but we can estimate from the geological record: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

Attached: All_palaeotemps.svg.png (2000x583, 179K)

No, no one can tell you it's real. Their statistical models lack predictive power. That's the real test. If you can take their models, pump in known data from the past, you should get accurate data for this year. This does not happen. What actually happens is it spits out the infamous hockey stick graph even if you throw random data at it. Totally worthless.

No one is really acting like it's real. Were it a global emergency we'd be trying everything possible to stop it. All they can think of, however, is communist wealth redistribution schemes - which tells you that was pretty much the entire point to begin with.

False. They're not perfect, but climate models have worked pretty well: skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Attached: ChristyChart500.gif (500x281, 859K)

2C was already predicted and it never happened.

STOP IMPORTING THIRD WORLDERS AND INCREASING THE FUCKING POPULATION IF GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. STOP FEEDING THE AFRICANS.

Blindly worshiping corporate propaganda that enables said large companies (the largest polluters) to benefit from carbon-credit schemes so you can feel good about yourself and blindly reject anyone who questions it as a misanthrope isn't at all like a religion. Blindly believing that recycling is the best thing ever, even though the recycling is loaded up on enormous fossil-fuel burning boats to travel across the pacific to go to Chinese recycling centers with no environmental standards so they can ship back the dirty recycling so that American hippies can feel good about "saving the earth" - not at all like a religion. When progressives talk about not wanting to reproduce because they don't want to have kids that will have an environmental impact on precious Mother Gaia - not at all like a religion.

>the temperature record didn't show a 0.8C increase over the last century
No natural factors account for this. Human activity and industrialization, however, does. This possibility was predicted in the 19th century, not that the truth or falsehood of predictions determines the truth or falsehood of AGW.
>All they can think of, however, is communist wealth redistribution schemes - which tells you that was pretty much the entire point to begin with.
>potential political solutions to AGW are evidence it isn't true
fallacy as far as the validity of the science goes

False. They adjusted the models as they went along. It's a one shot kind of deal. You don't get to go back and match your model once you know the answer. That's cheating.

Attached: 1532623712747.jpg (1024x717, 84K)

>fallacy as far as the validity of the science goes
the fuck does this even mean? do you mean non sequitur? That the end goal of proving climate change to be true is to usurp trillions of dollars from government coffers?

They think that humans will destroy the Earth when fucking metoerites and monstrous "lizard" farts didn't.

Hubris if you ask me.

>No natural factors account for this.
The entirety of pre-history accounts for wild temperature swings, and not all of the factors are known.
>fallacy as far as the validity of the science goes
Yet when someone demonstrates otherwise, they are drummed out of the profession and they are called apologists for the oil industry or some other such smear. Well, they're apologists for global communism.

>Hubris if you ask me.
/thread

Attached: MasterDeflator.jpg (640x640, 59K)

Climate change is fake news.

2C will very likely happen by the end of the century, if not then then surely within the next millennium unless drastic changes are made
>Blindly worshiping corporate propaganda that enables said large companies (the largest polluters) to benefit from carbon-credit schemes so you can feel good about yourself and blindly reject anyone who questions it as a misanthrope isn't at all like a religion.
Carbon taxes are a way of putting a price on negative environmental externalities, but yes they are prone to abuse and yes, energy companies like Exxon-Mobil are poised to remain in control of the energy sector, whether or not this change is demanded.
>Blindly believing that recycling is the best thing ever, even though the recycling is loaded up on enormous fossil-fuel burning boats to travel across the pacific to go to Chinese recycling centers with no environmental standards so they can ship back the dirty recycling so that American hippies can feel good about "saving the earth" - not at all like a religion.
Still waiting on a source for this from the last thread. Shipping incurs considerable cost, and plenty of scrap metal dealers here are willing to recycle aluminium and steel themselves to make a living.
>When progressives talk about not wanting to reproduce because they don't want to have kids that will have an environmental impact on precious Mother Gaia - not at all like a religion.
No comment. I want to have children. Other people do what they will.
An economic plot to profit or seize control has nothing to do with the validity of hard science and empirical evidence. Are you retarded? It's not a non sequitur, it's rationality.
>The entirety of pre-history accounts for wild temperature swings
Not at this rate, even from estimations of temperature from GHGs in ice cores.
>and not all of the factors are known.
You are correct. Many are known, however, and radiative forcing is a relatively established concept with good evidence.

They were saying 2C would have already happened by now. It didn't.

>Yet when someone demonstrates otherwise, they are drummed out of the profession and they are called apologists for the oil industry or some other such smear. Well, they're apologists for global communism.
Richard Lindzen is a climate skeptic, and he worked at MIT for many years before choosing to retire. One data point does not prove a general trend, but it is also not a blanket conspiracy to suppress minority opinions that are argued with evidence.

>old predictions mean empirical evidence or new predictions are wrong
come on now, be reasonable

There is not a "blanket" conspiracy, but an open conspiracy to get papers published by linking them somehow to AGW. There are a lot of hungry researchers in the scientific community who want that cheeze.

Please, please read: carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

The models aren't perfect, but the Earth is complicated, and the models are very bad. And the fundamental basis of the theory still holds true, regardless of the precise details of the warming curve: we're increasing the amount of greenhouse gases beyond what the Earth can re-absorb, which increases global temperature, which drives a variety of other changes which also increase temperature (like ice melt).

I didn't say they meant they were wrong. What I'm saying is they repeatedly prove they know less than they do - a common problem when you're trying to simulate something as vast as the entire fucking globe.

this is bordering on incoherent shitposting. you replied to my post asking if you meant non sequitur instead of fallacy, and your retarded ass confirmed that to be true. I said nothing of temp swings and knowable factors, just that the hard science and evidence then goes hand in hand with the schemes developed countries have cooked up to extort money from their citizens. Read a fucking book.

Again with the CO2, holy shit!

We don't really know what the earth can "re-absorb". A fissure could open up in the crust tomorrow and suck in vast amounts of ocean. So much for sea level rise.

Yeah I think I'd feel better if we didn't bet the future of our climate on "maybe a giant crater will open up and reverse sea level rise".

into what? A fucking preexisting void?

Reading this post again, I'm actually pretty amazed someone could write this with a straight face. Is this a highly advanced shitpost, or can someone really be so stupid?

It's a lot better to plan for catastrophic events than to model off of a deterministic universe operating at a steady state. Such models are obviously fragile.
There are pre-existing voids already - quite close to the ocean as well.
Not really that stupid when they just recently adjusted their models again because they didn't account for the sea floor sinking.

And also, though we don't technically "know for sure there isn't some previously-unknown mechanism for the Earth to absorb a bunch of CO2", we have been measuring the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (pic related).

Attached: Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png (600x436, 26K)

And I think you'll find it tracks pretty well with how much we've been emitting (pic related). Together, this indicates we're putting out more than the Earth can absorb. Hence why it is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Attached: 1920px-Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg.png (1920x1440, 119K)

yes the science for establishing that co2 emissions will shift the energy balance isn't very challenging
narrowing down the exact sensitivity with all of the feedbacks and predicting specific impacts are the harder problems
we're probably not going to actually do anything drastic about it, tho
imagine some faggot trying to price you out of eating meat, and you not voting to put him to death

>There are pre-existing voids already - quite close to the ocean as well.
elaborate

Are you truly saying you think global warming is happening, but you think, despite that, the sea level will not rise, because the floor will sink or a void will open up to accommodate all the extra water, and it'll just happen to work out to the sea level staying the same?

Cave systems that can hold hundreds of millions of cubic feet of water, not even counting how much can be absorbed into the soil.

Cope harder

>we're increasing
If we are volcanoes then yes. Since climate change is caused by 1% and 99% natural factors

>I didn't say they meant they were wrong. What I'm saying is they repeatedly prove they know less than they do - a common problem when you're trying to simulate something as vast as the entire fucking globe.
Failed predictions don't disprove empirical evidence, particularly the instrumental temperature record, which shows a rapid warming trend within the last 150 years.
>this is bordering on incoherent shitposting. you replied to my post asking if you meant non sequitur instead of fallacy, and your retarded ass confirmed that to be true.
My point was straightforward; complaints about economic schemes or proposed political solutions has nothing to do with the validity of the science. I suppose that's a non sequitur, yes.
>just that the hard science and evidence then goes hand in hand with the schemes developed countries have cooked up to extort money from their citizens. Read a fucking book.
Your unproven conspiracy does not disprove AGW, and actually has nothing to do with the facts. You complain about me calling out fallacies and then commit one?

We're living on an active planet with subduction going on continuously. Do you not agree that an increase in sea level rise would increase pressure on the sea floor and increase the rate of subduction?

>99% natural factors
Not true. No natural factors account for the observed warming trend and radiative forcing.

I'm not sure. All the mass that will be contributed to the sea level rise is already on Earth, in the form of ice on land. So it's not like anything new will be pressing down on the tectonic plates of the Earth. if anything, it all melting would distribute the same weight over the much larger water area of Earth vs. the land area.

So no, I definitely wouldn't assume that.

Not regarding the user you are replying to, yes people shitpost on Jow Forums. Go back to r.e.d.d.i.t.

of course it's real, autistic righties just deny it because they don't like the lefts solutions, but instead of arguing against those, which is too hard or most brainlets, they just say its not real

I'll make a prediction then, and there is a model that can prove it - increased pressure causes rapid subduction, an incursion of superheated water which would then blast through the crust, creating new candidates for volcanic activity - followed by a gigantic blow off of dust, sulfur, etc which would decrease insolation for years, decreasing the Earth's overall temperature. The model for this is a steam piston operated at overpressure. It's just as reliable as CO2 in a box...

>millions of cubic feet
Also, your sense of scale of the issue is way off. There's about 900 quadrillion cubic feet of ice in the Antarctic Ice Sheet (26.5 million cubic kilometers).

>Stop and really think about it for a minute. Sure, CO2 can hold in heat but where exactly is this extra heat coming from? The sun is giving off the same amount of heat, right?

Why does the temperature in an oven keep rising when you close the door? The heating elements are giving off the same amount of heat, right?
Holy shit user

just fucking stop

hundreds of millions of cubic feet is fucking nothing. When talking about the ocean and it's level, you need to be talking about cubic miles.

>Your unproven conspiracy does not disprove AGW, and actually has nothing to do with the facts. You complain about me calling out fallacies and then commit one?
Okay, brick wall. point one: I am not arguing the validity of anything having to do with the climate, in any way. two: the largest polluters in the world get exemptions because they spent billions of dollars lobbying the people who also pay the climate researchers. point three: I am not arguing the data is falsified or paid off, but that the people receiving this data then spin it as a world-ending threat, and that we need to drive electric cars that get free energy from nothing but magical wind and solar power, creating another issue involving fuel taxes and road maintenance funding.

My argument is taking the idea of global warming, the data to prove it, and the solution as one package. My issue doesn't lie with the theory or the numbers, but with how those numbers are being used to defraud the developed world.

I didn't say millions, I said hundreds of millions - and I didn't say all cave systems. Just *one* cave system can hold hundreds of millions of cubic feet of water direction.

Again, you haven't really convinced me there'd be a pressure increase. Because the same mass (currently in the form of land ice) will be spread out over a larger area (the surface of the Earth's oceans), the pressure on the surface of the Earth should become more even. It'd push on the ocean floor more, but the land area less.

I'm not a geologist, so I'm not going to pretend I know exactly how that would play out. And you've given me no reason to believe you know how it'd play out either.

You'd need 1 billion cave systems each holding 100 million cubic feet of water to accommodate even just the melt from the Antarctic Ice Sheet.

there are 5280 feet in a mile

Fortunately you don't need to store all of the ice sheet in those cave systems - just enough to cause a large amount of volcanic activity. The "great melt off" will not occur. Far more likely we'll have many years without summer.

>Okay, brick wall. point one: I am not arguing the validity of anything having to do with the climate, in any way.
Fair enough.
>two: the largest polluters in the world get exemptions because they spent billions of dollars lobbying the people who also pay the climate researchers.
Well that, and the POTUS withdrawing from the Paris accords and increasing coal mining activity.
>point three: I am not arguing the data is falsified or paid off, but that the people receiving this data then spin it as a world-ending threat, and that we need to drive electric cars that get free energy from nothing but magical wind and solar power, creating another issue involving fuel taxes and road maintenance funding.
Do the math. A 0.8C temperature rise in the last century, likely due to human activity, combined with the largest ever and continuoudly growing world population, combined with virtually no decrease in demand for energy resources, means even more temperature rise this century in all likelihood. Greenhouse gases other than water vapor are long-lived, on the order of hundreds or thousands of years. 3C warming or more will have very damaging effects on wildlife habitat, at the same time that deforestation, topsoil erosion, overfishing and fishery collapse continue rapidly. It is absolutely a crisis of potentially catastrophic proportions.

What do you think formed those cave systems in the first place? Superheated steam under pressure. Where do you think the steam came from?

>but with how those numbers are being used to defraud the developed world.
All I can say to this is that the problem is already worse than people realize, and based on current human behavior, will very likely become worse at an ever more rapid pace, and we are already facing numerous serious environmental problems that will be exacerbated by further warming and population increase. Every country needs to cut emissions, sharply and quickly.

Democrat btfo's global warming more succinctly than Jow Forumsacks... the absolute state of this board

Climate change is indeed real, however the reason for it is up to debate.

Problem is:
Even if the cause for it was anthropogenic, we already passed the point of no return.
The siberian permafrost already started to melt, the more of it melts, the more CO2 and methane are released.
The more CO2 and methane, so the common belive, the more climate change, the more climate change, the more it melts.
It is a runaway spiral by now, even when ignoring the CO2 that will gas out the sea and the methanehydrate gasing out in the deep sea.

Attached: Download (3).jpg (231x218, 9K)

You haven't even demonstrated to me that these gas-filled sub-ocean caves even exist, or that the melting ice will cause more volcanic activity. I was just trying to make good faith arguments: assuming they did, there'd need to be an incredible number of immensely huge ones to accommodate anything on the scale of the possible sea level rise.

And also: an 80 meter sea level rise would increase pressure by 9 bar, increasing the pressure at the bottom of the ocean from ~1000 bar to ~1009 bar. I'm not at all convinced that'd cause a super volcano that will somehow magically balance out and cool the Earth. When the dust all settles, will all the CO2 be gone too?

I'm here to BTFO denialists that know not the seeds they sow and the consequences they will reap. Also fuck spics, economic migrants increase their carbon footprint to the same levels as the host population. If leftists truly cared about the environment, they would be anti-immigration into developed countries. I truly do care about the environment and the current state of affairs, to the point I am willing to give up as many conveniences and learn as many strategies as possible to not cause catastrophe for all humanity, including and especially the white people.
>however the reason for it is up to debate
Not in academia. The warming trend is not accounted for by natural factors.
>Even if the cause for it was anthropogenic, we already passed the point of no return.
An expressed doubt of the evidence without addressing it, followed by defeatism.
>The siberian permafrost already started to melt, the more of it melts, the more CO2 and methane are released.
The clathrate gun hypothesis is just that, but certainly an alarming one if it were to actually occur.
>The more CO2 and methane, so the common belive, the more climate change, the more climate change, the more it melts.
It is a runaway spiral by now, even when ignoring the CO2 that will gas out the sea and the methanehydrate gasing out in the deep sea.
I can't agree that all these things will necessarily happen, but the situation is clearly already dire.

the only solution is drastic population reduction, and no one wants to mention it.

This is why i dont browe Jow Forums anymore because fuckingretarded shit like this.
And i cant tell if this is ironic shitposting or a burger is really that fucking retarded

The ability of water to bind gases is lower at higher temperatures, when the seas warm up, they will no longer be able to contain the CO2 they contain now.
Methanehydrate is already gassing out in several locations and the loss of permafrost is undenieable.

They're really that fucking retarded. People aren't taught about it correctly, so they have easy-to-answer questions like "Sure, CO2 can hold in heat but where exactly is this extra heat coming from? The sun is giving off the same amount of heat, right?" and think it's a big hole in global warming. Then they come to places like this, and the first response they get is "This is literally the first time I've heard something reasonable.".

People aren't taught about it correctly because schools and the media have failed us, and people don't research it themselves because they're lazy or don't care, then they talk about it in bad faith.

Cave systems are formed by superheated steam rushing through the crust. The water that creates the steam was initially trapped within subduction zones and saturating porous rock. We could argue about how much water a cave system could hold, but that would only be the strict volume of the cave, not how much the rock within it can be saturated - which multiplies the total volume many times.

>~1000 bar to ~1009 bar.
And attendant temperature increase, also increasing pressure.

>When the dust all settles, will all the CO2 be gone too?
The CO2 will be again trapped in new ice sheets and underground aquifers.

A Mount Tambora style event is more likely to occur than continuous CO2 increases.

>extra heat
>greenhouse effect
The "extra heat" is just retained heat.
Just like when it is cold and you wear a jacket, the jacket produces no extra heat, but reains your heat better than your shirt alone.

>The CO2 will be again trapped in new ice sheets and underground aquifers.
This isn't what will happen. is right.
>A Mount Tambora style event is more likely to occur than continuous CO2 increases
Volcanic eruptions temporarily decrease surface temperatures due to sulfate release, but these eventually disperse and the eruption ultimately releases CO2 and warms the clinate, contributing to this trend.

>(((climate change)))
Is real. The Climate has been changing since the earth solidified out of astral dust... The real question is why the fuck does the gubmint want to use this fact to tax you out the ass?

>that long an argument for that simple a point
You’re not wrong, but also not very clever