Two questions on climate change

>1. Has there ever been a climate change study done using the scientific method?

Kind of not really. They try, and can hypothesize, but ultimately there are far too many factors that they have to deal with to come out and say "yes, we are sure it's manmade CO2 which is causing it".

If they did know for sure, we'd have actual numbers in terms of our Co2 output and how much the temp has increased because of us and us alone.

The best they have are prediction models where they try to account for everything that we know to estimate how the rise of Co2 will affect temperature. All of them have been wrong from 10 years ago. We'll see if the models they have coming out nowadays are accurate 5 to 10 years from now.

Anyone who tells you it's settled science probably thinks of science as some kind of meme that's used partially for entertainment thanks to sites like IFLS

[spoiler]wtf that looks correct, does Jow Forums have spoilers disabled or smth[/spoiler]

It is a theather to get shekels and beta test geoweapons.

you're doing it right this board just does not have spoilers

>but ultimately there are far too many factors that they have to deal with to come out and say "yes, we are sure it's manmade CO2 which is causing it".
Except that is exactly what they've done.
There is 60 years of evidence to support that climate change is being caused by human carbon introduction to the atmosphere.
Why talk about something if you know jack shit about it?

Of course goy, now switch to veganism and enjoy your new cuckshed.

HNNNNNGGGGG SOURCE PLZ

Attached: 1A73F998-A0EB-44B7-998E-30FBBBA94926.jpg (236x236, 16K)

DAME TU LECHE SENORITA

>1. Has there ever been a climate change study done using the scientific method?
Sort of. You can't exactly mess with the global climate directly, but you can compare climate models with historical temperature, co2, and other data to see if they match.

>2. Has any climate change prediction in the last 50 years ever been accurate?
Yes, energy flux models have proven to be able to accurately predict changes in temperature due to CO2 and aerosols. However that's different from the mainstream politicized fear mongering which is full of all kinds of pseudo-scientific horseshit. The absolute fastest rate that the ice caps could melt is a few thousand years, and if the CO2 levels are only 600-700ppm or less the rate is more like 100,000 years. At 550 ppms or less the ice caps likely won't melt at all overall.

Also previous interglacials were a lot warmer than the current interglacial, on average. The current interglacial is actually degenerate, and anyone who says there's no risk of a relapse of glaciation is a fucking liar and a fraud.

Attached: ice_ages2[1].gif (540x241, 16K)

geologist-1011.net/

Most geologists and other physical scientists will tell you it's bullshit. Based Dan Pena gives a pretty good layman's breakdown of it, if you don't have time to research in depth. Both sides of the argument have also come to the table to debate, although the alarmists do not like to engage this way because it is easy to see what disingenuous, pseudo-religious faggots they are.

youtube.com/watch?v=jDLucr1-SuI
youtube.com/watch?v=pVXHaSqpsVg

Is there 60 years of a control to compare it too?

Came for a better look at the OP pic. I didnt read anything in the thread nor the replies

Based Pena
youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0
youtube.com/watch?v=m0sY2tjmr_Y

>1980s - The world is cooling, we are going to enter a ice age.
>Late 90s - present The world is heating up, we are all going to die.

Its a way for governments to scare monger and collect ridiculous taxes.

BASED

redpilled

Listen OP. I don't know who you are or what you want...if it's an answer to your post you're looking for, I can tell you I haven't read it. But what I do have, is a particularly massive boner. A boner that makes me a nightmare for people like you. If you give me the name of this semon demon now, that'll be the end of it. You can continue your conversation with the other anons. I won't interrupt and I won't come after you...but if you don't tell me who this girl is and where I can find more of her, I can promise you that I will look for you, I WILL find you, and I will kill you.

Attached: 81BB068C-FC12-4EE4-AC83-4D3580A9BE59.jpg (300x300, 29K)

All I know is she is some 16 year old in Norway

No. There is zero data to support the claim that human related CO2 has any affect on the climate. There is only conjecture. What evidence we do have is either inconclusive or does not support the hypothesis that human related CO2 affects the climate.
Only by extreme cherry picking the data can you show that human related CO2 over the past 100 years might, just possibly might, affect the climate on a very small scale. But if you swap the extremely cherry picked data for any other dataset from the same source data? All possible connection to human related CO2 vanishes.
So, at this point, we cannot show any link to HUMAN related CO2. Why? Because Human related CO2 is so small compared to the total amount of CO2 constantly being added to the atmosphere as well as being removed from it.
However, just because we cannot show any links to human related CO2, that doesn't mean that humans aren't affecting the climate. We are just starting our studies on human related impacts on our planet, climate, and overall environment.
Perhaps human CO2 has such a minor effect, it will take 1000 years of scientific advances to ever be measurable. Perhaps humans just don't put out enough CO2 to ever matter versus the naturally large amounts that are already present. But perhaps human related methane is affecting the climate in measurable ways. Or perhaps human related hydro activity is. H2O vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas, and methane is a very powerful GHG. But "mainstream" climate change focuses only on CO2 and carbon in general, because that is much easier to use to tax the masses of "first worlders" (Western civilization citizens).

poor little girl :(

Attached: 135077065067331.png (1476x1595, 91K)

Lindsey pelas

Attached: images (13).jpg (452x678, 22K)

>Has there ever been a climate change study done using the scientific method?

Attached: 1534374527929.png (1278x2300, 1.9M)

>. Has any climate change prediction in the last 50 years ever been accurate?

Attached: 1594178700034.jpg (1446x3800, 2.08M)

You all are so retarded. It was changed to climate change because due to the global warming melting the ice caps it would turn the sea colder thus making the climate colder.

We know co2 has increased. We have more factories than ever. And we measure more co2 in the atmosphere, which has created a weakness in it which lets in more solar ray. Weve reversed this the past few years.

I do know that c02 concentrations below .02% seriously harm plant growth.
With out concentrations only at .04%, I'd say we're better off having a little too much c02 than not enough.

Its about getting the balance right. If you have too much co2 the trees cant process it and it will destroy the atmosphere, making the suns rays more cancerous

>she

Aussie bro comes through. I won’t make any jokes about your country for one week.

OP know that you came dangerously close to triggering the day of the grill but you will be spared for now.

Attached: 712E75B2-8753-4189-8BBC-1B81795D0AA7.jpg (496x640, 50K)

>If you have too much co2 the trees cant process it and it will destroy the atmosphere, making the suns rays more cancerous
That's incorrect. More c02 = more plant growth. warmer weather = more rain as well.

>Human related CO2 is so small compared to the total amount of CO2

It's also small compared to water vapor

Attached: 1514712495044.jpg (813x560, 111K)

>If you have too much co2 the trees cant process it

Lol

Attached: 1513397109497.jpg (1257x2439, 745K)

Thank you, very helpful

>It's also small compared to water vapor

It's also nearly not having any effect anymore

Attached: 1553673904989.jpg (1280x720, 253K)

are you guys retarded? literally wiki it nerds

I once thought the same. Until i found alot of the evidence was doctored. They seem to have made the evidence fit the conclusion.

My jury is still out

Yea but if that plant growth isnt facilitated the co2 will have nowhere to go but up
O wow i didnt know that,

>There is 60 years of evidence to support that climate change is being caused by human carbon introduction to the atmosphere.

No, there isn't.

Attached: 1555995176505.jpg (1904x8352, 2.28M)

2/3

Attached: 1523202177580.jpg (1278x1996, 907K)

3/3

Attached: 1582417389104.jpg (1200x1134, 640K)

You don’t need ‘control’ if you can cave reasonable simulations from the first principles.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.

Propaganda. Fuck yourself, degenerate ruining the planet for everyone by spreading misinformation.

ANYONE READING THIS, if you ask ANY post-graduated, non-biased human being EVERY ONE OF THEM will accept HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

Can't believe all you cucks really believe God will bring you to heaven when you try and fuck up the world for everyone. This is a bipartisan issue, don't let Trump or any Shills fool u.

Here are JUST some sources of MANY:

- climate nasa.gov/evidence/ (Unless u believe NASA faked the moon landing LUL)

- ucsusa . org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause

THINK ABOUT WHO GAINS FROM A REDUCTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE TARIFFS - OIL, NATURAL GAS COMPANIES. DON'T LET THEM INFLUENCE YOU. FOLLOW SCIENCE AND LOGIC.

YES.

YES.

Imagine trusting this deluded fuck instead of NASA. I really hope no one gets influenced by this anti-science, pro-oil company bs.

Nice b8

>1. Has there ever been a climate change study done using the scientific method?
It's not really possible because you can't test a hypothesis in a way that will allow you to factor out other variables. However, most climate studies are scientifically rigorous.

>2. Has any climate change prediction in the last 50 years ever been accurate?
Probably not.

That said there's probably some contribution to climate change that is anthropogenic. It's pretty obvious. There's no monster in the sky eating up the carbon we put up there.

>Experience

In the decade spanning 1996-2005, I've worked in the petroleum industry in both Surat and Cooper/Eromanga Basins.

so that's unbiased information to you?

>nasa
Fuck off with your reddit spacing you insipid cunt

Attached: NASAflip.webm (1280x720, 2.93M)

Imagine trusting an agency like NASA that has shown numerous times to rely on at best poorly curated and at worst deliberately doctored data.

Attached: ArcticIce.gif (546x442, 54K)

>(((NASA)))

Fucking faggot

Attached: Adjustments.gif (500x355, 123K)

Climate change isn't real. Oh, the climate will change, on its own, without any human interaction of interference. People have almost no effect on the climate.

Anyone who claims different can't substantiate the claim. They just want you to pay a carbon tax like a good little goy. It's another one of the endless jewish rackets.

That's your redpill for the day, boys.

Ugly coalburner. She looks like fish

No and no

Attached: 9369DA5B-2948-40D8-A993-F0DCAC3D8174.gif (499x270, 2.17M)

Imagine pulling on those nipples while she wraps those lips around your cock.

Son, you're gay.

It's a good rundown on a lot of the arguments that skeptics of global warming employ. There is no unbiased information in this argument. It's all either government funded climate alarmist shills, or petroleum funded energy shills.

Here's a little secret though: Back when Al Gore released his first piece of anxiety disorder pandering garbage, the energy companies invested into renewables so much that now they are in too deep to pull out and not lose money, so they fund two sides of the argument (That it is happening and it will cause catastrophe, and that it is happening and it won't be so bad) and the science that existed before the political carbon debate started (actual physical earth science) is completely drowned out and ignored.

"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817

Attached: SolarActivity&Temp.png (1280x470, 101K)

>16
just broke the law in my head

>probably
They teach this in school?
>the most loaded scientific question of our time.
>they’ll figure it out and tell me
Nice brains kid..
Commies every time.. Worse than leafs

Attached: 0249A348-7F86-4F85-8B68-EDA72CAD7564.gif (460x258, 1.11M)

I wonder what California’s carbon tax would be with all these fires?
When should we hand them the fine?

Attached: 6291F7F9-DF27-4648-A589-2D6740254008.jpg (365x367, 38K)

Also
>Eromanga Basin

Attached: 1505545158008.jpg (333x396, 112K)

>There's no monster in the sky eating up the carbon we put up there.
>wot are plants?

Attached: gGKn8eV.jpg (1920x3400, 814K)

She should probably think about getting them reduced in the future.

Probably is not an answer try again

I LOVE YOU WINTER CHAN!

>Satan doesn’t like tig bits..
Huh? That doesn’t sound right..

Attached: 46C81554-C7EA-4269-A1ED-8B715A408ACE.gif (440x300, 1.28M)

you guys are idiots

You got your thinking license?

tits are heaven, ass is hell

Can you dorks post the scientific literature and findings?

Attached: 32EB8193-3B3F-463A-9C05-4C9A6265A355.gif (400x300, 731K)

Makes sense, I guess..

Checked
Tits give life-sustaining milk to our babies.
Ass only makes poo.

KeK

Attached: FBBDE3D0-3EC3-466D-A302-443C492F29B1.jpg (477x403, 29K)

IF I CAN RESIST THIS I CAN RESIST ANYTHING
IF I CAN RESIST THIS I CAN RESIST ANYTHING
IF I CAN RESIST THIS I CAN RESIST ANYTHING

Attached: 34678836576655.jpg (308x400, 94K)

Here's an audit of the data that the IPCC and others use that found it to be unreliable:

robert-boyle-publishing.com/product/audit-of-the-hadcrut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/

>The flip that killed the west

The truth is far simpler. There's a group of eruo bankers called the 1001 club who pressure multinational industrial companies to sign off on climate change mandates, then they agree to build massive nature preserves as a geopolitical tool in locations around the world. That's why companies like CEMEX literally run a nature preserve spanning the US-Mexican border.

Thanks user..
I’m not going to spend 8 dollars to read it though

"Reasonable" meaning that they make accurate predictions. None of them do.

fag

cumming is good for your prostate

Joanne Nova did a QRD on her website, search for it.

I found the one from ZH

Attached: 1540824329427.jpg (1904x1650, 620K)

Global temperature since the late 19th century:
climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Signs of climate change:
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Basics of how the atmosphere works:
kth.se/social/upload/537ccd0cf27654699fe83876/182Ch2.pdf

Basics of the greenhouse effect:
kth.se/social/upload/537ccd92f276546d706d7e6b/182Ch3.pdf

"Based" Dan Pena is not a geologist or a scientist.

Attached: co2.png (670x498, 35K)

Thanks fren
You too, I suppose

Attached: 9B9E7D0F-B58A-4114-BDE9-0187B99147DF.jpg (320x320, 25K)

Wrong as usual

Attached: 922ABF11-7E2D-4F68-8779-32ACF31AE266.jpg (461x382, 33K)

Good thing CO2 isn’t bad for people and not deadly at those concentrations..
Ohhh wait.. partial pressure...
We’re dead already frens!

>1. Has there ever been a climate change study done using the scientific method?
When you make trend charts out of "manipulated" data, no scientific method will ever bring you to a truthful result.

Attached: 1541756630870.gif (500x448, 65K)

>believing NASA

Attached: (((Adjustments2))).gif (640x480, 108K)

Lying climate kikes make me sick.
(((NASA)))

Attached: (((AdjustmentsExtrapolated))).gif (500x386, 76K)

Yes Marc maran talks about this, some of the predictions are accurate, but only because the UN puts out 50+ predictions a year. It’s like predicting a football game saying “either one team will win, or there will be a tie” and then proclaiming yourself a prophet afterwards.