Climate Change

>contentious
Not really though.

But to answer your question, I haven't looking into that part of it too much.. When a high number of the population are still calling it contentious and dragging their feet, I feel my efforts are best to look at ways to change their minds.

I know you like to feel smart while providind little effort, but you don't. If you would like to have a shot at me I'm all ears.

I have not.

The maximum deviation from the average temperature is less than 2 degrees, and this is actually trying to present data from prior to the 1960s as accurate... wew lad

The models have been utter dogshit. Carbon dioxide follows warming, it doesn't drive it. In order to get CO2 to drive warming you have to smuggle in a positive feedback mechanism that only exists in electronics and computing and has never been observed in nature. AGW is a naked power grab that ignores actual issues like pollution and ground contamination. Reduce your carbon footprint and go fuck off into the woods.

The current warming we are seeing is different than mmost in the past in that it is a rapid change, increasing at an unprecedented rate.There is no natural cause driving this.

If you found one that no one else has I'd be interested to know.

You will believe only when your children burn

"I have no idea what I'm talking about, but you're a dumb dumb if you doubt me!"

Are you aware that successfully combating "global warming" will put us back on track for the next ice age?

Can you further expand on why you don't like data prior to the 60's? You like to look superior but you don't know how to back it up?

But they've been pretty good when you get past all the bullshit posted here.

Attached: climate-models309342.gif (500x281, 859K)

You should look it up if you're interested in a serious take from the other side of the issue

They keep adjusting the temperature data upwards, even in places where measurements are taken near cities and should be adjusted down. There was a scandal some years ago where ONAA got caught adjusting data from Puerto Rico WAY up. AGW is a fraud.

Lets say that its true, and in my opinion it very well could be. What do you propose as solution? Or … Are you aware that there are right wing economy measures that could be effective?

Whites thrive in cold temperatures, could be a good natural solution to the N problem

>But they've been pretty good when you get past all the bullshit posted here

No, they haven't. None of the catastrophic predictions have come true. I don't have beach front property in central NJ like I was promised. The ice caps haven't melted. You're a complete retard.

I'm 300 years old weather changes, we've only been keeping record of the weather for lets look at your wittle video since 1882 so you need to grow your foreskin back and suck your own pee pee.

Because gasses have been trapped beneath the ice sheets that are melting. The ice sheets also work to reflect the Sun's rays. If you know the science, you're being disingenuous.

Could have something to do with the fact that prior to TIROS I, the standard method for collecting temperature data was having a dude run outside for a bit with a 2 cent thermometer.

Who fucking says climate models ain't anything but meaningless?

Attached: 1551918037835.jpg (1097x1097, 30K)

The western world could stop power plants and driving cars right now and it would stop nothing (if it was real that is) pic related and my Chinese friends are the ones causing all the trouble, they don't sign any paris climate change agreements because it's all about handicapping western countries.

Attached: 1551759460361.jpg (1200x800, 230K)

Ameriga is only 4.4% of the world's population, even if we all kill ourselves global climate warming change will continue.

Thanks, it may be better than what I've seen posted here.

These seem to be pretty close to one another, no? You also vaguely mention cities are being biased and use Puerto Rico as your only example? Some sources would make your point more credible.

I don't think I can accurately talk about that part of things as that would be where my gap in knowledge is. Some people say it's too late and we're already fucked, some give us another 10 yers to clean up our act. Without solutions being a global effort it is pointless I think.

Attached: climate-models0392.webm (640x554, 2.44M)

Have you considered suicide to take away the burden of a high carbon footprint over the duration of your merely pointless consumer life?

>they didnt change the name because they got it wrong

uhh....

>Called global cooling in the 80s since the most agreed upon model predicted an ice age.
>Changed to global warming in the 90s because the old model was wrong and its actually getting warmer
>Changed to man-made global warming in the 00s for propoganda to get environmental lobby groups more funding.
>changed to climate change in 2010 because the old model was wrong
>changed to man-made climate change in 2015
>????
>profit

>ask
>sea level rise
Hello, my geophysics faculty professor goes around the world measuring sea levels each year. His data shows there has been no rise in sea level at all that can't be accounted for by the general rise in sea level that's been going on since the ice age turned. So how do you explain this discrepancy with the UN funded climate academies claiming there has been a rise in sea levels and the media going on about rise of sea levels, while in reality there has been no rise in sea levels attributable to anything but natural causes?

Likewise the head professor of the meterology faculty from our sister university in Denmark measures ice cap loss. Same story, no ice cap loss to speak of. How do you account for the UN funded climate academies claiming there is ice cap loss and the media going on about ice cap loss, while in reality there has been no ice cap loss attributable to anything but natural causes?

I have many, many more questions but we can start with those.

Tell us more about the unprecedented scale of changes that would need to be made in order to keep global warming to within 1.5 C in the next few decades.

Isn't "unprecedented" (scientists' word, not mine) just a nicer way of saying "unrealistic"?

I've posted peer-reviewed forecasts that have been pretty well in line with reality. I'm not sure where you're first claim comes from though I think the second is from Al Gore maybe?

You really can't be so vague and expect to be taken with all seriouness.

Weather changes, climate should not be changing as it is now. Thanks OLD MAN.

>dodge
Yeah, that's what I figured.
You need to be 18 to post on this board.

No, I'm not being disingenuous because if there was something I knew then *I wouldn't be arguing for climate change.*

That being said....... why do you think the ice sheet are melting in the first place? This is like a chicken and the egg situation lol. So yeah I wouldn't point to that as being what's been causing climate change, though it's certainly not going to help things. If you had more information on that I would gladly listen.

Can you tell me the accuracy difference between the TIROS I and these so called 2 cent thermometers?

Lots of people will shit on you because they assume you're being disingenuous and if you'd been here for as long as them you'd know why
This place is filled with shills/b8ers/retards/larpers/jews so it's very hard to take anyone seriously but if you keep posting and you're genuine you'll get some anons to effortpost

CO2 and warmth are good for the planet. Longer growing seasons, more food. CO2 the natural plant fertilizer.

See:
and
I don't look at all the stuff about what we can do about it and such - just at why it's real. Hard to do anything about it if no one can agree!

Nope, don't get to annoy you with facts if I do that :)

minus the melting icecaps of course

Nope, melting ice caps are good. The Eocene epoch was another time when the earth was forested from pole to pole and we humans evolved.

Nope!

Global cooling was looked into during the 60s and 70s, however it was not "THE MOST AGREED UPON" by any measure.

Why do you lie user?

Do you have a link to anything your professor has published on this?

Attached: cooling.gif (500x285, 14K)

You're a fucking ignorant mongoloid.

> Global warming is one of the results of climate change along with sea level rise, ice cap loss, extreme weather, etc.

That's literally backwards you pants pissing pansy. The earth is experiencing Global Warming, an increase in average temperature. This drives climate change, changes in local weather patterns that include increases AND decreases in local temperature.

> Yes, it has been warmer in the past

ooh fun fact.

> Unfortunately there wasn't 7 billion humans on the planet during the Mesolithic period

so the fuck what? go back to eating ass, at least you're better at that than you are at making an argument.

That the earth was warmer and without humans doesn't change the base fact that (seemingly) the earth could sustain life despite higher temperature equilibrium due to (presumably) higher radiative forcing.

> Climate models have been pretty decent actually.

No. Short run climate models are decent. Long run climate models are nearly indistinguishable from chance alone. Fact is we don't know very much about the long-run effects of climate increase, with a variety of consequences of warming implying a mitigating or exacerbating effect.

The core and insurmountable problem with the research on this front is the extent to which the academe has been tainted ideologically in favor of (mis)representing the issue as a global catastrophe which demands collective government action to address.

The truth is that we have no reason to expect individual choice to live lower-energy lifestyles, nuclear energy, and future carbon (or rather, GHG) sequestration technologies to fail to mitigate the extent of climate change. A basic fact is that Wind Energy has been cheaper to build and operate than any carbon energy technology for what? half a decade.

Again, go suck the farts out of the nearest asshole.

> is also the RATE at which we are increasing now

It isn't. Temperature hasn't increased significantly since 1998. The recorded temperatures are lower than all model predictions.
i.e. The hypothesis has been falsified.

Increased CO2 allows a plants pores to be less open. Resulting in less evaporation from the plant and resulting in less of a need for water. The best CO2 level for plants is 1500 ppm.

Sorry, as mentioned I do not look at the "action" side of this. As long as people are flat out denying it, I don't think it's worth my time. There may still be time or the future will be a bit more difficult, not sure.

Nope, as I've replied to about 20 people so far I don't have all the solutions - just describing the problem!

I have been here for quite some time, I know how it works. :)

>Can you tell me the accuracy difference between the TIROS I and these so called 2 cent thermometers?
>I don't have an argument, so rather than rendering a rebuttal, I'll ask for some hyper specific data, and then claim the obvious as false
Clearly an actual weather satellite is able to eliminate far more variables than a 2 cent thermometer. Your "evidence" is indicating at a maximum, a temperature deviation of less than 1.5 degrees Celsius. This deviation is so minimal, that were you to place two thermometers in two different locations in your room, you'd likely have at least a 2 degree variation.

Canada has had record crop yields the last few years. So much that it had trouble transporting it. Warmth is good.

> The ICE AGE cover

wat? who gives a shit.

> Yeah China and India doing more would be fantastic, but that's no excuse for inaction.

Well congrats retard. Did you know that the US has been decreasing tons CO2e / GDP since like the fucking 90s, because (hold on to your piss-soaked breeches) people *generally* are inclined to prefer cheap energy and clean energy, and SURPRISE they're actually one and the same. There are like no new coal plants being built because coal is fucking expensive, and instead we're building some addtn'l nat gas plants (still carbon) which emit somewhere on the order of 1/8 the GHG per KWh.

Anyways.

The reason people point to china and india is because $1 of mitigation effort in those countries is worth $100 of mitigation effort in the US.

And on another note, you should really be concerned about Africa, not China and India.

Side note, did you know that Indians cook and heat using cow shit. No fucking joke "biofuel". Actually carbon neutral though, minus the cow farts.

You made an argument from Authority that if I knew anyting the scientist don't about the natural uptick, that I should share it. Then, you moved the goalposts to say that it is a chicken-and-egg scenario, which just points to it being cyclical and no one is arguing against that. It is kind of the whole point.

>old man
Nice argument kid

There are some good things to come out of it, in the short term it may definitely be a benefit to some. Long term though most agree it won't be good.

climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming/

The problem with 7 billions humans is that it will fuck shit up. We won't go extinct, but it will fuck shit up.

Also I posted about models in this thead already.

Attached: warming-future-29389129.gif (400x250, 3.51M)

We are still 3 degrees below the last 65 million year average temperature. We were going into an ice age. Now we have avoided it. Ice ages are BAD for life and cause mass extinctions.

Do you remember the 90s and all the shit about the sea level rising?
youtube.com/watch?v=Uz0HzS1O-ug
According to this 1990 show, the sea should have swallowed NYC and LA since 2015

>Temperature hasn't increased significantly

That's just like your opinion man. You can see my posts on climate models throughout this thread if you're interested in seeing why you're wrong.

OK? Are we plants? LOL

>I have been here for quite some time
Then you shouldn't be surprised that people will call you a niggerfaggot before answering seriously

>The problem with 7 billions humans is that it will fuck shit up.
You're right, we should cull niggers

LOL, what an idiotic response. No, we're not plants but we do eat them. You know, food for instance.

Dont you think that signing global convention about globaly lowering taxes to any company that is on the market of storing electricity and electric transport is to be reduced to 5 % could help?

It will be good for that in the short terms and some will benefit for awhile. The harm caused on a global scale will outweigh that unfortunately.

You'd be surprised, it gets posted in almost every climate thread as proof scientists are dumbbb!

Africa will probably be a very big problem I agree..

I do want to try to not give out facts like "99% of scientists say it so it's true!" or anything like that. But if there was some other competing non-human source I would be surprised if I didn't already hear about it because that would be a BIG DEAL.

I'm not moving any goal posts - if you are saying the cause in the warming is from these ice caps melting, WHY ARE THEY MELTING AFTER 50 MILLION YEARS SUDDENLY?

Everything I'm seeing talks about this in the last couple years, what was causing the warming since the early 1900s? From my perspective, global warming is causing the ice caps to melt which unforunately is releasing this methane which will make things worst (to what extent I do not know).

I thought we were making funny jokes like being 300 yrs old.

Long term it just gets better, more and more record crops.

Sudden changes in climate like we are seeing now at an unprecedented rate are what cause mass extinctions.

I think the media has played a big part in failure on this issue and I do not trust what they say.

I am not surprised LOL

So, humans have survived volcanic hellfire and meteors purging the world but will somehow not make it when temperatures increase/decrease by 10F?

>climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming/

that's worse than a wikipedia page, you shitbrick.

> The problem with 7 billions humans is that it will fuck shit up. We won't go extinct, but it will fuck shit up.

You know what will also fuck shit up? The broken window fallacy, or: the opportunity cost of sacrificing a decade of long run economic growth in favor of fruitlessly diverting resources to address what is a minor, self-limiting issue.

Especially since (again) markets seem naturally inclined to chase low GHG energy generation, and there are people right now innovating on carbon capture technology.

The latest report on global warming from IPCC, which included language about Social Justice and "Equity" (the invented orwellian term to describe bigoted discrimination intended to benefit those that are popularly seen as disadvantaged) admitted that they believe carbon capture to be an essential technology for the 2c mitigation effort.

I say that 1 as a demonstration of the corruption of purpose and 2 as a demonstration that aside from massive government intervention "your side" still crutches on innovation and growth.

We're on the brink of developing technology and infrastructure to reliably edit genes in organisms. What's the time frame, do you think, on developing a microorganism that fixes carbon hyper-efficiently? Or plant cells? Turns out, plant cells (presently) are tremendously inefficient at carbon fixation. Improving that biological process could dramatically increase crop yield while also fixing masses of carbon. Recently, Deep Mind started competing in solving the protein folding problem.

Wait, no, sorry, remind me again what your ideas are? The carbon taxes that sparked the yellow vests and were rejected by Washingonians on referendum? Or maybe just giving individuals the power to yay or ney particular enterprises based on ~~how much protection money they spend~~ some arbitrary measure of climate impact?

The Eocene epoch was 6 degree warmer. Forests from pole to pole. The most new species evolved during this period. The early primate could only evolve during the Eocene because of the high oxygen levels. The only reason humans exist were because of the warming planet. Lots of plants, lots of oxygen. Good for life.

Why are you on a computer built upon and powered by fossil fuels? Why not neck yourself and help Gaia have one less human and more fertilizer for the soil for which plants can grow.

When will my home in central Maine become beachfront property? If I leave my car running 24/7 and eat only out of styrofoam containers will it happen quicker? Wanna make some coin

If you are a plant (which I'm REALLY starting to think you are one) and crop yields are the only thing that matters, then sure LET'S GOOO!

However for humans, there are many factors which will make our life a bit more difficult and expensive.

We will survive, it will just cause some problems that we could make some steps to try to avoid. But there is so much disinformation that is spread that we don't even want to do that.

Attached: 849234982342.jpg (620x428, 47K)

>You'd be surprised, it gets posted in almost every climate thread as proof scientists are dumbbb!

I'm not saying 'scientists are dumb'.

I'm saying female SJW's dressed in lab coats who diverted from their english degrees to study a contrived '''climate science''' curriculum at NYU are dumb and are unwilling to pursue any line of critical thinking that undermines the position that "democrats and climate scientists must be given political power to impose policy".

It should SERIOUSLY be concerning when documents that should be objective and scientific start to contain the rhetoric of social justice.

What, you can't use Google, shill?

Sudden changes in climate, LOL, Winter to Summer is a 'sudden' temperature change. We should be all dead, but no, we humans have increased their population by billions in the last 20 years.

No, you haven't. I've already brought up the measurements are total bullshit. "Oh, look at that, our bullshit model match our bullshit measurements! Cut your carbon footprint, whitey!" Lead by example and go fuck off into the woods, shill.

>However for humans, there are many factors which will make our life a bit more difficult and expensive.

Not in Canada where heating costs are down. Farming is less difficult. It's only difficult when people like you want to tax us for carbon emissions.

>I do not trust what they say.
But they're the ones shilling global warming???
Btw they're lying about everything else so why would they tell the truth about this one topic

If global warming is real than how come it's still cold out side.

I mean if you want to learn the difference between climate change and global warming, that's where you would learn.

I don't really work in the solutions department unfrotunately - I just provide points that it is an occurance.

You really want me to think you are a plant don't you?

I think you're the 4th person who said I should off myself for the climate lol. But I'm going to pass, educating people is more useful!

It probably won't make much of a difference, you can look into the latest projections of sea level rise and maybe look at that.

You haven't answered the objections that the data is falsified and the model uses concepts alien to climatology.

Where are these extinctions happening?

>You really want me to think you are a plant don't you?

Everything I said in my post is factually true. I'm afraid you are a plant who doesn't know what is good for you. If you think anything I said is false, prove me wrong.

He can't, he's retarded.

>an entire thread of nuh uh
Haven’t read it but I know. You should all be ashamed.

I probably don't disagree with you to be honest. I don't really look into that side of it that much but I'm sure many people like that do exist and they are doing a disservice by putting in their own bias.

Everything I posted in relation to temperature does not show what you are alleging - so I ask you for your source?

Sudden temperature change between seasons is not the same as sudden climate change.

They are doing their job for the purpose of not informing viewers accurately but rather getting more people to watch. Being accurate is boring. They can be on the right side of the issue but still be a bad source to learn from.

China and India HAVE to do more or else nothing can be done. The less we do, the more they will because they know they can outcompete us in the global market by doing so.

So, if you want the Chinese to run the world economy in a few years (and have basically control over the world through the money) then keep trying to cut down on what we can produce (we already barely produce our own raw materials here in the West as it is).

I know bro, he talks about sudden temperature changes but we go from -10 degrees to 90 degrees winter to summer and I haven't extincted.

>deviation from 1951-1980 mean
kys

>Sudden temperature change between seasons is not the same as sudden climate change.

How's that? It's still sudden temperature change. You state things but don't have reasons to back it up. You're lazy.

Attached: 1551970390446 (1).jpg (1024x717, 84K)

Attached: 1551975391235.jpg (1280x761, 237K)

Attached: 1551978446318.png (634x813, 413K)

Its a Political Ploy not a reality.

Attached: 1551970657210.jpg (1754x1241, 470K)

Attached: 1551972928414.png (638x749, 209K)

Attached: 1551973086281.png (635x742, 152K)

oy vey

Attached: 1551970900548.png (637x506, 210K)

we're all going to die
implement the carbon tax goy

Attached: 1551971049575.png (632x768, 499K)

Attached: 1551971160044.png (636x759, 646K)

That's actually a better question than you might think. Whenever we do see record colds such as the 2009-2010 winter, what you don't see are the other regions where it's warm. It balances out, however we are seeing a warming trend in recent years....

>"Human activity, the consumption of fossil fuels, the acidification of the oceans, pollution, deforestation, and forced migrations threaten life forms of all kinds. It is estimated that one-third of corals, freshwater molluscs, sharks, and rays, one-fourth of all mammals, one-fifth of all reptiles, and one-sixth of all birds are heading towards extinction". This resounding paragraph taken from the book The Sixth Extinction (2015) by journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Elizabeth Kolbert is a good summary of the current situation of the natural biodiversity on planet Earth.

Just copied and pasted that, there are plenty of reasources out there that can be found easy.

Only a plant would ignore rising sea levels, droughts, mass extinctions, droughts, etc.

But sure WE WILL HAVE PLENTY OF PLANTS YOU ARE 100% RIGHT

I am better than you.

Attached: ITS-COLD.gif (350x356, 33K)

deja vu

Attached: 1551975611356.jpg (600x805, 149K)

1. The whole planet was once covered in ice.
2. The presence of ice sheets helps to delay the emergence of a hothouse.
3. Icehouse/hothouse is still a cyclical phenomenon, though, due to nature.
4. The melting of the ice sheets accelerates the process.

I was stationed at Ft. Sill in 2012 when HAARP was doing their test run. The technology to change weather already exists. You're fighting for the privilege of paying for useless earmarks in the form of carbon taxes. You're playing yourself.

hmm

Attached: 1551973959070.jpg (970x815, 255K)