Is global warming real?

why did we have a global warming during the neolitic revolution, why during the bronze age, why in the middle ages ?
So why is the most likely explanation suddenly the industrial age ?

Global warming is partially an independent phenomenon but also related to industrial activity. The ice age ended during the industrial revolution not because of grand coincidence but because the process of warming has been ramped up.
Any goal of bringing temperatures down to pre-industrial levels is basically impossible for the next couple hundred years; the natural and artificial factors have both set it in motion. This basically means we can only do damage control for coastal cities affected by rising sea levels and failing regional crop yields.
I can't tell what the hell you're trying to ask

If you think this shit can be solved by anything other than acquiring more planets then we are doomed. How are you going to stop Countries like China and India from increasing their birth rates? You can't. You can't stop the Chinese from revoking their one child policy like they have already done. You can't Stop Africa from burgeoning their population to 4 billion by the end of the century and anything you do to European western states will only weaken us against our opposition which i suspect is the real reason behind this shit.

warming happened without human activity many many times so why should it be this time unnatural, what proof other than "its warm" is there ?

And to make this short.If you can provide a model that can predict the development of the climate you have a point if not, and there is none you dont.Thats how science works.

so how do you know the little ice age ended because of industrial activity ? That doesnt even make any sense.The climate began to warm from around 1850.Industrialisation began around 1750.And it does not explain the lack of warming (which is cooling) from 1915 to 1975.

There is no idication whatsoever that this warming is unnatural or dangerous or that it will lead to warming of global mean + 3 or 4 degrees.

On the other hand supressing any opposing sciencist and opinion while demanding basically unprecedented total control over humans is very suspicios.And no real country despite globo homo schlomo slobs clown countries will follow suit and commit suicide because " its ...hot".

What anthropogenic climate change advocates demand is global control over every other nationstate and to regulate almost every human activity.

That will not happen.This is an insane plan.

It will destroy the ability of western countries to project power ,soft or hard.

youtube.com/watch?v=szt7f5NmE9E&t=628s

there is , and there is nothing wrong with it as it is happening since few thousand years ,
and then you will have global colding

so many things to be unpacked

first anthropogenic climate change is at this point bullshit
second carry capacity is a function of technology and civilisation.
thirdly space exploration is the next step in the human development thats why a real country like China is doing it.
next the solution by these insane advocates of human global climate change is to dissolve any nation state and put it under control of a globalist body that can enforce whatever it wants on anybody on this planet and this is why this will lead to conflict with China and other real countries inevitably.This climate change bit is the latest expression of late stage liberalism which is in its core universalist and totalitarian and antihuman.

I don't see how that's relevant to what anybody said. I didn't say it could be stopped.
Warming won't happen without geological factors in play, but can certainly be changed by industrial (and even biological) activity.
You can't bring up so many non-connected and largely irrelevant points and expect to sound coherent. You're citing imaginary claims and bringing no sources to even argue against for your own train of thought.
If you want to debate yourself, go ahead. But please leave it off of the internet.

>is global warming real
Yes. The average temperature has risen in the last decade.
>is this related to increased production of CO2 or other human activities
Not known and the evidence for this is shady, as the temperature is constantly changing.

>12 years until we're fucked
This is a strawman created by the right beause their based is too bluepilled to understand anything nuanced.

12 years is the time-frame scientists are giving us to do something significant. It's the time frame to do something to avoid the worst consequences of no action. The longer we wait the worse the issue will be. We'll end up paying more in damages and what not because it will spiral out of control.

One thing to understand is that some of the effects bare out over decades and even longer. Even if we don't feel it now, what we are doing today will impact the future.

start killing bees

Attached: 436474.jpg (573x960, 43K)

Wrong.

The temperature constantly changing has already been factored in. The only reason we even know that temperature has constantly changed throughout history is because of the same science that climate deniers say is wrong regarding the current rate of heating.

I don't see how it is relevant at all other than to weaken us against our geopolitical opposition.
Yes it is a very complex topic that has been diluted into sounds bites and has a great deal that needs to unpacked and examined critically.

It is already spiraled out of control the moment we liberalised trade with the third world and gave them the technology to advance their nations to a comparable level with ours.
That's it game over instead of 1 billion people with a western lifestyle there will be 4 billion then 8 billion.

Ocean rise is very relevant to many countries (not just Florida). Even minimal projections are going to cause billions upon billions in damage, so you do need to weigh the preventative costs against the cost of redevelopment.

+11C and raining here tomorrow just like in the fall.

Not really if it is gradual like you say and some of those predictions are assinine. If you have sea levels rise like that we may as well fuck off to Mars because there wont be anything worth while left here when the ice caps go.

We're not the one who has to elaborate, we're not the ones making the claim.
Burden of proof is yours.

It's wrong to plot "global" temperatures from 1880 without any confidence intervals

WAIT WAIT WAIT

I see a lot of people saying climate has always changed, but how do we know that?

Attached: 73dc799662afd7d46155fd9c0dfb2049.jpg (400x300, 19K)

I would consider the higher estimates of seven foot rise to be unlikely (it depends highly on how ice masses break apart), but two to three feet before 2100 seems inevitable. It's also not just beachside property that will be at risk, since a lot of slightly inland areas are below sea level.
A gradual threat is not any less imposing if you think about how long buildings can be in use for.

>What anthropogenic climate change advocates demand is global control over every other nationstate and to regulate almost every human activity.
What's needed is decarbonization of energy sources and reduction in meat consumption, particularly beef, lamb, and large sea fish, as well as changes to rice production (targeting field drainage windows) to reduce methane production. All doable without crippling inconvenience.

Jew disinfo look at a chart going back 1000 or 2000 years then look back millions of years that chart is cherry picked from a small out of context sliver of time just type into your search bar global temperature or global c02 2000 years. We arent abnormal high for either and 150 years is less than a blink on a geological scale

100 years max for buildings and i have seen what landfill can accomplish so again i am not worried overly much about a small rise. Yes some countries are going to get fucked up that happens we can't control weather when it changes and turns to drought and i don't think we can control the effects of global warming we just don't have the clout to do it anymore. Any attempt to reduce our emissions will see our competitors increase theirs to gain economic advantage over us. Increase the cost of electricity (for example) and our goods become more expensive while they shit out coal plants and produce goods cheaper. GG no re, living like Sambos in Africa and chasing Zebra won't stop this from happening.

Au contraire, China and India birth rates are dropping like a rock. As they are everywhere. INCLUDING the Middle East.

The only wildcard is subsaharan Africa, it’s hard to tell if they’ll ever develop enough to reach low fertility, but their birth rates are dropping too.

Global population will peak relatively soon and then decline forever. By the time your grandkids have grandkids, the world population will be much, much lower than it is now. Wilderness will reclaim vast swathes of the earth.

Stand your post on its head and it’ll be correct. There is nothing we can do to INCREASE birth rates short of the government conscripting women as breeding slaves (not gonna happen, not even in China)

Isn't that graph a small section and when taken the full picture into account its average. And more CO2 makes the climate colder

It’s almost certainly real

Scientists and the media almost certainly exaggerate it and its consequences

At present the only real solutions we have involve dramatically reducing everyone’s standard of living, which is a terrible idea.

I am skeptical about a continual decline in population numbers they will bottom out and climb back up like is happening in Europe.

Landfill itself is a costly solution. If it's the only viable option economically, so be it. However, decreasing general pollutants will have the side effect of also partially reducing acceleration of climate deltas (on top of improving environments), so I'm for exploring that path.

>larger graph
Which one? The one that extrapolates based on CO2 levels from ice core samples?

Oh and Japan.

Attached: Japan.jpg (655x440, 43K)

Can't remember where I saw it, might not be that graph in OP but there is one that when you see more of the graph the change seems normal

Reliable and precise proxies extending beyond hundreds of thousands of years don't exist. The proxy methods for many millions of years ago have poor resolution. The current warming trend is unprecedented in rate for at least tens of thousands of years. It's fossil fuels and agriculture.

You mean the graph where the values are extrapolated because there aren't accurate measurements going that far back so it's literally based on the same science that climate change is based on?

This one?

Attached: 1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png (1000x291, 76K)

Did you know here we have a fucking Ozone hole above my country during the summer because of CFCs? This was back in the 1980s and they banned the use of CFCs globally to stop it growing. It was shrinking recently until some assholes (we don't know who) started using CFCs again in manufacturing and now it is growing again and we can't do anything to stop it this time.

>Is global warming real?
Yes
>Is pic related wrong?
Probably not, but the data from 1900 could have errors.
>Is it really only 12 years until we're fucked?
It's still kinda unknown what will happen and how fast. Predicting the climate is really hard.
>Is it really all that bad?
Well, it could be. Mankind can probably survive through it though.

Even if climate change wasn't real, you should still support ecological energy production atleast.
Coal, oil etc fuck up nature in other ways too.

That might be it, not sure it went back millions of years

Are you aware of somewhere in Europe that has climbed above replacement levels that I’m not?

Replacement fertility is over 2, dude... we’re talking about a slightly less catastrophic decline, not a reversal

>Is global warming real?
Yes, the earth has been warming since the ice age turned.

>Is pic related wrong?
It's very misleading. It only shows a very short time period, and even throughout this period the data we have is pretty sparse and our ways of doing measurements have changed pretty drastically. Even today our methods of measuring global temperatures is pretty primitive, for instance there are three or four measuring stations on Antarctica, so that's four thermometers on an entire continent. A big one. Beyond that you have to trust guys like NASA, but the problem with their data is that it's impossible to verify for yourself. That's much of the problem with all of this, most of it is impossible to verify or test.

>Is it really only 12 years until we're fucked?
I don't know any prophets I trust, who knows. Anyone who claims to be able to predict the future 12 years ahead should provide some evidence for this claim. I do note that these predictions "doom in x years!" come along from these people regularly like clockwork. In the 90s I was told the Maldives would be under water in the 00s. In the 00s I was told by the people who hyped the Gore stuff that we'd be living in a mad max desert now.

>Is it really all that bad?
I'd say it's probably worse politically than climatically. When I take a walk in the forest, the weather is pretty normal, the insects are pretty normal, the animals are pretty normal, everything is green and calm and clean and nice and... normal.

When I take a walk through a city it's fucking clown world.

Attached: 1441677806929.gif (500x400, 879K)

No, maybe France and the UK but i can tell you a number of governments that are aiming for this and population growth is trending in that direction.

Attached: tfr EU.jpg (795x558, 126K)

1/2 degree variance over 100 years. Really makes you think.

That's rough, dude. I guess for reasons less related to climate, though.
I feel like punishments for these things usually aren't severe enough to deter certain companies.

It's bullshit of course. Right now Germany is experiencing the coldest May in history. This morning it was sub-zero. Tomorrow it will be the same.

over 1C from pre-industrial era already and accelerating

High Variant blows population control out like a roasties vagina.

Attached: tfr EU 2.jpg (1138x588, 147K)

New york was supposed to be under water during the 70s already. Climate change is a scam. It does exist but the consequences are greatly exaggerated to scare people into paying more taxes etc

It is relevant because it shows how little impact international treaties have on actual practices when you lose economic clout. Also fuck Asia they can submerge under water for baking me until red with a fusion reactor every summer.

That Graph does go back millions of years. Look at the scale at the bottom.

Attached: Red pills.png (1200x350, 120K)

They don't call it "global warming" anymore, because that's getting too ridiculous to defend. Now it's called "climate change" which means pretty much any weather whatsoever confirms their wild hypothesis. A week ago it was a bit warm here so all the media ran climate change stories. This week it's a bit cold, so now they're busy running climate change stories.

>a bit cold
climate change
>bit warm
climate change
>a bit dry
climate change
>a bit wet
climate change

Can't win with these people. They're so invested in their untested and unproven hypotheses now and there's so much money involved on the state levels that they're never going to change their minds. It's an "emperor's new clothing" story playing out in real life right now. And in the end when the hysterics become too indefensible they're going to turn around and say "hey, see the climate is normal, all those taxes we collected and all that power we consolidated over you... it saved the climate!"

>under water during the 70s
People have this conception but I really don't think there's any research that has suggested that.
That's true for sure, but I think there have been some significant strides in pollution management. A lot of it might be coincidence though, since nuclear and oil are leagues better than coal. Corporations more likely get away with stepping around the laws because they're able to pay people off. Kind of sucks for the average person who doesn't have that ability.

There's no shifting narrative. More than one term exists and that's no evidence of a conspiracy. "Global warming" and "climate change" are both appropriate terms for modern warming.

>I really don't think there's any research that has suggested that.
Obviously not. I dont see nyc under water. All im saying anyway is that they are trying to scare people with this since forever. When media says its bad you can be assured that everything is fine

6000 years ago oceans levels rose which placed shallow water over fertile tropical soil. This created what is now the Great Barrier Reef. This rise in sea level is told in Aboriginal stories, and even they approximate it to 6000 years ago.... Keep in mind these people are subhuman. Subhumans recognise the Earths climate has always changed.

This is just one example.

No, that's not true. The narrative has been shifting dramatically over the last decades. From global cooling, to global warming to climate change now. Most of the actual institutions that are driving this "research" doesn't use the term global warming anymore, and the media doesn't use it much anymore either. Now the term "global warming" pretty much only exists with the zealots such as yourself who were indoctrinated in last decade's mindset.

IPCC and the like have shifted the hockey stick stuff way back in their projections, because there are limits to how long and how much you can fudge data like that. There are national meteorological institutions all over the planet after all.

Alot of those countries don't have access to Oil in the quantities they need to keep up with their demand. You are right about Nuclear but that has its own dangers in the hands of subhumans and i don't want any three eyed fish like in the Simpsons. We shipped boats load of coal to the Chinese along with Australia until they found cheaper supplies locally as well.
I just think climate change is going to happen so accept it and move on with life we had a window we missed it and decided to get stoned instead. Now the buzz is wearing off and the 'Oh shit" Panic vibe has returned.

From 1880. The pre-industrial era extends far far beyond that and includes ice ages and so on. The most recent cold snap ended around 1850, right around the start of the chart. Funny that...

The Great Barrier reef is currently dying off at an incredible rate...

Again not even the climate scientists disagree that climate has always changed. That's literally part of the theory. Look:

Attached: coralbleaching.jpg (400x225, 39K)

It's even worse, user. I wish we head 12 years left, but it's already over.

lmao

Attached: 4 years left.jpg (583x251, 41K)

He's asking a question dumbass

Yeah thats what I meant, wasn't sure if the one I saw did.

>There are national meteorological institutions all over the planet after all.
And the overwhelming majority agree with the general trend of current models.

poltards usually cherrypick one or two incidents of hyperbolic or outright wrong models but they can't and don't debunk the vast majority of research.

>The Great Barrier reef is currently dying off at an incredible rate...
Thats how life goes. In 6000 years theres going to be a new one and so on

most reasonable post ITT

Nuclear power is only a risk when legislation is the liability. There are ways to economically ensure that countries like China won't let it get out of hand, maybe similar to how we've been acting with the trade war.

Uhm sweaty... that 16 year old girl says we need to act now sooo

>that's how life goes
Half of the reef is now dead.

We're also living through the 6th mass extinction even in Earth's entire history. Human induced global warming is cited as the reason.

The reason I bring this up is because this ISN'T just way she fuckin goes, it's under our control. It's not out of our hands. It's completely in our hands.

"Global cooling" is not supported by the measurement evidence. The modern trend is clearly warming. Nothing you said invalidates the point that both "climate change" and "global warming" are both appropriate and justified terms.

ITT: How could my political thought leaders lie to me!

Why the fuck would an organism/ecosystem that was created by one act of natural climate change stick around forever? How many billions of years old is the Earth? Are you retarded? Do you grasp how much change this planet has gone through.... When Co2 was 0.2% of the atmosphere we had megaflora of mind boggling genetic diversity. Now Co2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, and plant life is smaller and generally more homogeneous.

It would have happened no matter what. Maybe we accelerated the process but that doesnt really matter anyway. This "problem" will solve itself

We've been growing out our reefs here in FL. Maybe the Aussies could help it out and stop bitching.

Thermometers weren't invented and systematically used until around then. The most reliable proxies for determining older climates show that modern warming is unique in its high rate of change for many thousands of years.

>why would it stick around forever
The point again my friend is that what's happening isn't all due to natural phenomenon. Usually those take place over much larger time frames. What's happening is due to our activity meaning we can actually do something about it instead of being apathetic and cynical.

>do you grasp how much change this planet...
This is a broken record. We completely and utterly understand how much change the earth has undergone. It's already factored into our models, friend.
I know this is hard to accept.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

Those proxies are inaccurate as fuck compared to a thermometer, and even old thermometers are compared to modern ones. You can't claim that with any real certainty.

>this "problem" will solve itself
What? How so?

>maybe we accelerated the process
You're eventually going to die. What if I just accelerated the process? No big deal no?

you don't want their help trust me, they will blow it up and tell you to build a new one.

Always have healthy skepticism of any conclusions that are not peer reviewed. As it stands all global climate data and modelling originates from IPCC and to date they have NEVER allowed access to their raw datasets for review. There are local sets that are open, but global climate data has never been peer reviewed. Any global models and sports made by other orgs also use this exact same data.

Their claims may be legit, but can't say. And they have been caught red handed fucking with data before when local organisations contributing to their datasets have called them out for manipulating data to better fit expected curves.

I can't see an reason why they refuse to open their raw datasets to scrutiny unless they are trying to control the narrative for political purposes

>You're eventually going to die. What if I just accelerated the process? No big deal no?
I absolutely agree. Dont be a smug asshole. If it really is as bad you pretend many people are going to die thus fixing the problem. Also the planet is never going to die through climate change. It isnt even guaranteed that humans are going to go extinct.

>global temperatures
>before space age

So AGW is definitely false then? At best you have an Occam's razor argument here, and even then some stubborn evidence in the way of it. Proxies are less precise, but ice cores are considerably better than pretty much any other proxy. Thermometers are excellent comparatively, even the old ones.

>also the planet is never going to die through climate change
What do you even mean by this. This isn't anything that I said. What does it mean for the "earth to die"?

>it isn't even guaranteed that humans are going to go extinct
This isn't what's claimed by scientists or myself. What is proven is that the 6th mass extinction of biodiversity on earth is a result of human induced rapid onset climate change which is faster than most animals are able to adapt though evolution.

People dying off doesn't fix that problem because humans tend to insulate themselves from these environmental issues. No mass dying of humans anyway. That won't fix the problem nor is it at all necessary. Seems to be a reflexive and stubborn retort to not accepting that HUMANS CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I don't think you understood my analogy.

Maybe certain people were wrong. Is that still so hard to admit?

>Is global warming real?
No.
>The trends are accurate
No they're not lmao. Every single model is wrong, year after year. That's why these idiots have to keep 'fixing' them.

How would you deal with the problem realistically i told you my complaints with current policy direction. Take into account that we cannot reduce our position relative the globe without it being mutual.

So AGW is extremely questionable. It could very well be an artifact from trying to stitch together multiple data sources with wildly different levels of accuracy. You're going from an educated guess based on tree rings and shit to digital thermometers on a satellite. One has the resolution so see rapid short term changes, the other does not.

>WAIT WAIT WAIT
>I see a lot of people saying climate has always changed, but how do we know that?
Fossils in the Sahara, for one.

>citing wikipedia
>friend
You have no idea on what scale or time frame change will take place, because all "you" have is models. Just because you're half way through an environmental science undergrad, doesn't give you the credibility to suggest that human activity has in any way had an affect on global climate. You're working on the horrendous presumption that the Earth has been anything remotely like what it is today for the majority of its timeline. When it's more likely that the Earth has been like what it is today for the tiniest period. Go back to wikipedia you raging faggot.

Attached: 1557565855855.jpg (540x960, 40K)

Just like me dying faster has nothing to do with this subject. Can you tell me how bad less biodiversity is going to be for us? just saving animals from going extinct because some blue bird is pretty isnt very reasonable.
>Maybe certain people were wrong. Is that still so hard to admit?
What are you even talking about

>Is global warming real?
Yes, the Earth is still warming from the Ice Age that happened from 10,000 years ago.
>Is pic related wrong?
Dunno lol.
>Is it really only 12 years until we're fucked?
There's no evidence for this.
>Is it really all that bad?
Maybe. Might be bad for people who live in hot climate.

>all you have is models
Actually we have over a decade of temperatures rising that match the general forecasts and they continue to.

>earth has been anything remotely like what it is today
We know it isn't specifically because of the work of climate science much of which is the same theory that is used to extrapolate.

If you're so certain of your rightness and my wrongness, why are you so hostile?