Global Warming

>I've read a bit on polar shifts, periodic changes, and emission rates but I'm still looking for a "nail in the coffin" type analogy to explain this to others
There is none. Conspiracy theories, by definition, do not have a "nail in the coffin" piece of evidence. They have a bunch of small thumbtacks that may or may not be misinterpretations, false negatives/positives, purposefully misleading cherry-picked data, or other anomalous but ultimately explicable pieces of evidence.

So you just automatically dismiss anything and everything here:

ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming

Just because it's from the government?

>ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming

No, I don't disagree with these facts. I think they have the scale wrong here. Sure, the past 20ish years have been the warmest on record. But humans have been reliably measuring temperature for the past 200-ish years. Climate change/global warming is a process across Millions of years and you cant describe it over a period of thousands

If you look at all the planets you will clearly see that the temp and/or brightness of all of them have increased as much as 4000% in some cases since the 70's.
Global warming is not man-made nor is it unusual. We fully entered the high density energy patch of put Galaxy in 2012, which was what the Mayan calendar referenced, but fear mongers wanted us to think it was the end of the world.
The sun is now at full solar minimum and will soon shed its corona which will cause the biblical three days of darkness.
It will reignite with higher density energy and negative beings will be destroyed due to incompatibility.
This will be the start of the Golden Age.
This is why the solar observatories across the world have been shut down.

I can tell you didn't read anything on that website. If you have questions, why not try and find where the data that they have ADDRESSES your questions instead of just assuming that they're wrong because you can't instantly find the answer you're looking for on the first page I linked you to.

Do you really think scientists wouldn't be looking all the time for evidence against climate change? Actual evidence would be some of the most hot, publishable shit imaginable.

Started out autistic, ended up straight up retarded.

I'm not concerned with you believing me or not, especially when you spent no time verifying before you responded.
It will happen whether you like it or not lol, I'm very excited.

At least we agree this is retarded

Solar forcing is wholly underrepresented in all the models the global warming shills use.
They only account for UV, infrared, and visible light, they completely ignore charged particles which have an immediate effect on the earth's atmosphere from the ionosphere down to the ground.

Global warming may or may not be real. We have real pressing environmental issues that they are ignoring that affect us right now. Single use plastics for example. Third world countries trashing the worlds water supplies. Women destroying the worlds fish population with birth control. Those are things that are actionable that we can do right now. Can't really do anything about global warming because we passed the tipping point 20 years ago.

Have you ever tried telling a roastie bitching about the environment how much her pill popping is affecting it?

Hey, retard! We are losing ice. Wrap your head around that.

I usually say that the trash epidemic coming from india/china is worse and talk about the terms of the paris accord and how they penalized everyone except china and its used as an anti-american scam whether its real or not

Statistically we have gained ice in the South Pole while we have lost Ice in the Arctic

Yes, it makes them shut up about global warming and they start talking about killing babies. An aesthetically pleasing direction to take the conversation.

also if they mention scientific consensus mention how harvard fudged studies on sugar to divert the attention to fat so everyone would load up on sugar and soda. Scientific consensus cant be trusted

How do you establish the "normal" of a system that has period lengths of hundreds of years when we have only been observing it for less than a century?

Simple. By ignoring everything that happened before 1850.

>do you really think scientist...
Nice appeal to authority. "Scientist", aka grad students, like money just as much as the next guy. It is a giant conflict of interest when the only thing the government will happily through money at is climate science.

this. Climate "scientist" do not give enough credibility to the sun's influence over climate.

We've only been gathering accurate data since the 1950s though. Hell some could even argue that all data before satellite readings is inherently flawed.

Attached: 6B149E31-EF69-4494-A0AF-AC6E994A5A3F.jpg (800x308, 61K)

Literally, demonstrably false. Antartica is losing ice faster than ever before. 250 gigatons per year(thats 250.000.000.000 tons of ice) lost. Melted.Each and every year.

And everywhere you look neglects to mention how much ice has been added. It isn't ALL melting, ice gets added to it at the same time.

Don't bother, it's a cult. You need hoverbikes to cure them.
youtube.com/watch?v=ebSAotH6B7w

>its not happening
>it is happening, but humans aren't causing it
>it is happening, but its neutral
>it is happening, but its actually beneficial
>other environmental issues are more important
>they can't even decide what to call the problem, must be fake
>it's just the government bribing scientists to take our freedom
>mixing up weather with climate
>we can't possibly make any conclusions if temperature data has only been collected for 200 years
>graphs of temperature for the last 200,000 years or whatever
>the words cult, "scientist", hoax, scam, libtard, moron, libs
>general massive amounts of boomerposting

there, I just posted the entire thread, we can all leave now

Attached: 1429918086753.png (548x546, 57K)

>>Alot

These numbers are NET loss(total gain over a year minus total loss over a year).

Lookup polar NET ice gain

If you are actually interested, here's the study i got my numbers from.

pnas.org/content/116/4/1095

What am i supposed to find?

>believe

Ask them when they became religious.

tell them to go outside

The climate is supposed to change, and even though the changing climate is a problem for us, it's not our fault, nor can we do anything about it.

Earth's climate has a cycle of about 120.000 years. We have a warm period of 35000 years, which is alternated by an ice age of 85000 years. Not only is our temperature in our climate phase normal, it's actually colder then it used to be. Our previous warm periods were a couple of degrees hotter then ours right now.

Attached: takealookatthis.gif (500x221, 11K)

Maybe the Antarctic is supposed to lose some ice around now: nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

>NOTE: The findings reported here conflict with over a decade of other measurements, including previous NASA studies.

There have been more accurate measurements showing a net-loss. The study makes some assumptions that may be incorrect.

Rolls Royce engineer tells kikes to fuck off:

anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-global-warming.net/index.htm