Global warming isn't re-

> What are sun cycles
> What is a grand solar minimum

You must be new

>Report: Africa's population is exploding and they will be migrating to Europe and the US
>Report: Global warming could end all life on the planet
Hmmmmmm... so you are saying that Africans and other 3rd world trash will be allowed into the US and Europe and the governments will do nothing to stop them and at the same time "global warming" could result in the eradication of all life on the planet. I say lets accelerate "global warming" and end this non-sense once and for all.

I will not support or pay a carbon tax and I will not support the importation of an unlimited flood of 3rd world trash. I will happily aid "global warming" and kill all birds with one stone.

Attached: 1546013311017.png (1200x900, 92K)

Attached: MLO_weekly_VP8_001.webm (720x480, 206K)

>This is white people's proble-

It's real, just retards who can't understand the complexity

Attached: Want to see 168 years of climate change in two minutes - - Here is our movie, updated through 2017._ (720x480, 2.58M)

Attached: Jo.png (1000x600, 180K)

Attached: PPR2VFEP3BFE3PWGDK4XRR6H4Q_VP8.webm (1280x720, 212K)

Attached: r8gc9lwuso721.jpg (960x546, 86K)

Attached: CO2 550my Extinction Chart from Ward.jpg (1200x787, 405K)

The AGW hypothesis relies on the melting of the northern ice cap so Greenland is more relevant

Attached: 272716E400000578-3018740-Lake_Powell_has_lost_4_4_trillion_gallons_of_water_this_century_-a-14_14277 (962x991, 250K)

Attached: 1540397592252.jpg (1280x720, 213K)

Wow what happened between 6500 and 6000 I wonder

Of course it's real you clown. The earth would be just about the temperature of outer space without it.

Attached: 1341843611736.jpg (450x495, 38K)

>50 year sample size

OK then look at the ice accumulation rate from the same source in the image I replied to.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

Tip: Higher number means that more ice is melting into snow, decreasing the mass of ice found on Greenland.

Isn't that just cause by a dam further up the river?
Maybe I am thinking of another but I can assure you any lose of water when it comes to river beds in the desert are caused by man made irrigation efforts.

Just because you're retarded doesn't mean other people are leaf fag. There's an entire field called paleoclimatology, and their study of seasonal layering of debris on glaciers can tell us what the climate was like up to 800,000 years ago.

>athmospheric CO2 is increasing
No shit faggot. The question is if the increase in global temperatures in the past 200 years are due to the increase in CO2 or it is just a natural increase in temperature that is not related to CO2 at all.

That's a trend that has been going on since before the industrial revolution you've literally just refuted the assertion that it's man made

Why do you measure CO2 in close proximity of volcanic area?

Also, will not eliminating 3 billion niggers and shitskins polluting this world by deforestation and wild life consumption plus 10 million of their most rabid supporters, improve CO2 levels to the (arbitrary) level deemed "right"?

Faggot it's because it doesn't rain anymore like it did and getting warmer and the result. This is why it will be a fucking drought in the next 10 years

Attached: DKRCS20181016008.jpg (1940x1291, 970K)

>40 year sample size

And where is the proof that this is man made?

I can literally use part of this chart to show the opposite of what you're showing. E.g. 1878 to 1976, or 1944 to 1992.

Yeah.. That's called cherry picking

they keep manipulating the charts every few years

I bet that the charts will still go "up" even if we enter an Ice Age

Attached: MSU RSS GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage With201505Reference.gif (880x481, 28K)

I don't think this figure is based on anything credible. Pic related is what the atmospheric CO2 over the last 400 million years looks like according to the best proxies.

It's true nevertheless true that all of these events are associated with a rapid addition of carbon into the atmosphere.

Attached: F3.large.jpg (660x462, 94K)

wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/02/australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/

filtering low temperatures / deleting them as not to "tamper" with "reality" = science today

Large scale volcanic eruptions causing mass cooling.

In general, these statistics are doctored by NASA. That is the trick.

theyre changing the numbers to tax you

you really are brain dead commie master

All the AGW alarmists can do is scare brainlets with graphs they don't understand in the hope that no one with a triple digit IQ pays attention

Yeah but ultimately you can't prove it and the whole science is untestable and therefore unreliable

Can you give a scientific based argument for what has driven the global climate development for the last century without human contribution? If not, th only possible explanation is human contribution.

Attached: cancer.jpg (1920x1080, 359K)

Do you understand the greenhouse effect? It's really very simple:

CO2 is see through for visible light, but there are different colors or spectra. In the infrared spectrum of 12–15 micrometers it absorbs the outgoing heat radiation that radiates from the surface into space. It's like visible light comes in, gets turned into extremely red light (IR heat radiation) but we made our atmosphere more opaque to that color.

So from that mechanism you can actually calculate how much more power the sunlight delivers to each square meter of surface. That means temperature has to go up.

You could measure the CO2 level in the air yourself, measure CO2 from ice from before industrial revolution, then do experiments to prove to yourself that CO2 does indeed absorb more IR light in that spectrum to have conclusive evidence that more energy is being delivered. It's actually possible for you personally to do this experiments and then know absolutely independent that it's true.

If you don't even learn the science to understand this, you should believe those who actually did do this science. You just don't get to have an opinion on a thing if you don't know the basics about a thing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_gases

PS: Also keep in mind the ethical dimension of your opinion. If you're right, then well, we waste some money I guess. If all the scientific community is right, we are facing +8°C climate that is just not survivable for human civilization. So by denying the dire warnings you are making yourself guilty of aiding the genocide of the human species. For stakes this high the cautionary principle must apply.

Attached: DKRCS20181016010-1024x671.jpg (1024x671, 168K)

Woah CO2 and aerosols completely dictates climate. Magical. Let's not discuss the complex and chaostic system that is the climate, no it's all due to 2 components less than 420 ppm in our atmosphere.

principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

You're a faggot.

sorry faggot, but even if there's an insulating property to increasing greenhouse gases, it just means that the coming ice age will be less severe. how about a thankyou?

His is sourced

>bible says world is ending when Euphrates dries up.
>Multiple references to world ending by fire.
>book of Enoch says world ends in the days of Noah by a flood and the last days will end with fire.
>baptisms by water and fire

It’s habbenin!

for those not smaryt enough that their culture can develope an airconditioner.... :)

The IPCC itself admits that half of all increase in temperature is through natural causes.

They then conclude the remainder is man made without being able to prove it

You dingus, that absorbtion happens when you ramp up the concentration many factors higher than what we have. In fact it doesn't absorb as much heat as much as it spreads it.

Attached: 595px-atmospheric_transmission.png (595x600, 151K)

>Water vapor and clouds H2O 10–50,000(A) 36–72%
>Carbon dioxide CO2 ~400 9–26%
Isn't it interesting when your own source refutes your own argument?

It's called weather

water vapor and clouds can't change independent of the global climate, which is why it only acts as an internal feedback that amplifies the forcing by CO2

Optical absorption occurs regardless of the concentration. It's a fundamental property of the molecule. Absorption intensity increases with higher concentrations. What's being stated is that there's a threshold when shit will hit the fan and we are currently marching rapidly towards that threshold and we can see that as CO2 levels go up, the temperature goes up.

Attached: Global Warming Explained.png (2080x1456, 523K)

Good thing we know for a fact that CO2 concentrations have been much higher than they are today whilst still maintaining life for mammals and other living organisms thus disproving the apocalyptic AGW death spiral posited by the hypothesis

>1979
they always start from there because it was a cold peak

I like how they went from 'Global warming' to climate change. They pretty much fucked over the words meaning with an agenda. It's pretty sad when they have to be sneaky to win

The question (((they))) won't answer, very simple and to the point. One should be able to easily hit the nail right on the head and state the answer as a fact no more than one sentence.
But they can't.
So here it is;

What happens to volume of organic material as a sun total when co2 goes up?

There are plenty ice cores, textbooks and common fucking sense to help you answer this simple question.

I average all the answers I have garnered from this question saved in a word doc. Maybe you will get in to my top ten climatits.

>we are currently marching rapidly towards that threshold and we can see that as CO2 levels go up, the temperature goes up.
Except we're not because CO2 levels are nowhere near historical peaks

>What happens to volume of organic material as a sun total when co2 goes up?
NO, YOU!

it's just a warming period i yell as i'm devoured by the hungry mob

you're right, plants don't get bigger with more CO2; how on earth will we farm!?

wtf, I have to worry about global freezing now?

the times when CO2 concentration was higher than today, besides having a structurally different climate system, were also characterized by much higher surface temperatures.

It should also be noted that these periods and the organisms that inhabited them established themselves as steady-states over the course of millions of years and may therefore provide a poor guide to the future. Instead the best paleo-analogues are probably the few abrupt events that are recognized in the geologic record which I'm sure you're happy to hear, were associated with major biotic upheavals, mass extinction and a transition of the long-term trajectory of the Earth system.

Attached: solar_cosmic-ray_flux_in_c14.jpg (640x360, 49K)

Attached: 1545918701877m.jpg (1024x717, 84K)

>Will releasing millions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere affect our atmosphere

No because just before you get to the stratos layer there are magical invisible pink unicorns that eat it right out of the sky.

Attached: global warming debunked1.jpg (1891x4901, 1.77M)

>the times when CO2 concentration was higher than today
You mean the times when they were orders of magnitude higher than they are today meaning non-trivial increases

>global climate development
So global climate "development" is not possible without human contribution. Nice "science", fucktard. Sun, volcanoes, regular winds, ocean currents are constantly shaping the Earth climate. Is not a fix process, is a dynamic one with fluctuations of up to 10 degrees over large periods (or smaller in case of catastrophic events)

What cause the dramatic change called the last Ice Age? Hungry humans living in caves?

There is pollution? Sure. Is the European/US the most polluted area? No. Are the niggers and shitskins and asians the main culprits for pollution today? Yes. Who taxed us to feed and vaccinate them for free to the point they multiplied 10x? You commie fucks. Are you bringing them here by millions to shit up the last clean areas of the planet? Yes.

You did the same with plastic - removing regenerable paper and chemically inert glass to fill every corner of the Earth with plastic bits.

Same with nuclear energy - instead of training people to research new tech including the consumption and safe removal of nuclear waste, we're stuck with mechanical windmills prone to defects and low-yield solar panels, both having a HUGE conventional, polluting industry upstreamanddownstream.

Do you have any vague idea what is needed for a wind mill to start producing energy, and continue to do so for at best 10-15 years? At least you can see,I hope, how often you must change a new battery (3 years top) until will not charge anymore. Imagine manufacturing and dispose billions of those yearly.

Cambrian had between 8 to 20 times more CO2, and temperatures were 10 degrees higher. It was a lushword. Why are you an idiot. CO2 is the least dangerous gas released by the industry.

>guilty of aiding the genocide of the human species

you hypocrite. You want gazillion of shitskins or to save the planet? What's the big deal if this fucked up humanity, half cock sucking fags, half head chopping savages disappear?

yes, I posted the most up-to-date data here (though it's only one order of magnitude, not several)

And how would we hope to reach such levels whilst factoring in peak oil?

>peak oil

Attached: 1496793582919.jpg (266x227, 17K)

Exactly, never a simple straightforward answer. It's as if, once you accept the underlying fact, the foundation of the climate change arguement crumbles like a house built on sand.

...ally a big deal. How do you propose we solve global warming? I've yet to hear a single solution to it other than kill all life on the planet

damn, what happened in the 1950s to 1970s?

Aerosol emissions is literally the official account.

Climate alarmists are on par with those that preach about Revelations from the Bible. It's literally equal science.

keep in mind oil is only a small fraction of carbon stored in fossil fuels. The total fossil carbon reservoir (including coal and gas) is sufficient to raise atmospheric CO2 to levels to 5000ppm.

But also keep in mind that the paleoclimate record shows quite clearly that the CO2 concentration doesn't have to rise by very much to elicit large-scale planetary responses. For example, it is thought that the Pliocene had a similar atmospheric CO2 concentration as today (~400ppm), yet surface temperature was between 3 and 4°C higher, sea level was around 22 meters above the present level and a reduced equator-to-pole temperature gradient.

Yes thank you for stating my point and no that threshold is far away.

>Pliocene had a similar atmospheric CO2 concentration as today (~400ppm), yet surface temperature was between 3 and 4°C higher, sea level was around 22 meters above the present level and a reduced equator-to-pole temperature gradient
Doesn't really reinforce the AGW narrative

how so?

Your contributions are high quality and a joy to read.

Because it shows that CO2 isn't the main cause of temperature change

When presented with evidence that past intervals with higher CO2 concentration were also warmer, the conclusion you draw is that therefore CO2 isn't important?

You've literally just demonstrated that it's possible to have vastly higher temperatures with no increase in CO2

You have to realize the effect isn't instant.
Even if the concentration stays at 400ppm, temperature is predicted to rise about 2 degrees, and it could even be 3 or 4 degrees if frozen methane gets released.

>Climate alarmists
should be enslaved to such jobs.

Attached: Windrad Flügel tötet Fahrer.jpg (1200x675, 99K)

>temperature is predicted to rise about 2 degrees
Based on a failed model

the pre-industrial Holocene had a CO2 concentration of 275ppm
the mid-Pliocene had a CO2 concentration of ~400ppm but was 3 to 4°C warmer

so how is that not an increase in CO2 concentration?

Based on historical evidence and actual science.
You're denying it based on feelings.

Global warming isn't real. Maybe have a wider view than the last 200 years? We just came out of an Ice age, one of many, and are headed to a predictable temperature peak that's been repeated several times over the last 800,000 years.

Attached: ice cores.jpg (1200x470, 82K)

There is no successful climate model
You are extrapolating from insignificant sample sizes
Your models are pseudoscience you have no clue what you are doing

>global temperature
>prior to satellite launches

climatists should be shot

Do you understand what the phrase "main cause" means?