Climate Change

Nice meme
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/63_years_of_climate_change_by_NASA.gif

Millions of illegals from the tropics swarming north to burn millions of gallons of heating oil

BONUS - Overwhelmed border cities are now treating raw sewage for drinking water.

Attached: illeggga.jpg (700x466, 71K)

solar output, the fact that were coming out of an ice age and probably right back into one, the 97% consensus line was horse shit and it was something like 97% of climate scientists out of 30% (who would have a vested interest in drumming up $$$)
youtube.com/watch?v=5yMetc4ZBjk

>Water vapor and clouds by far are the most dramatic in terms of determining how much solar radiation reaches the surface
No one realizes this and its a HUGE factor, possibly the largest. Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas we have. Dont want the Earth to warm? Destroy clouds.

>Government: OMG!!! We must import millions of 3rd worlders!!! The corporations need cheap labor and we need more non-white "diversity"!!!
>Government: OMG!!! The planet will die if you do not pay your carbon tax and submit to global warming agenda!!!
I say accelerate global warming and kill off this cancerous planet. Burn a barrel of oil and a stack of old tires just to help global warming

>63 years
kek just kys while you still can

we have to talk about both

no u

ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Comparisons-of-simulated-and-reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-temperature-changes-v2.jpg

It's real and shit is probably going to start getting bad in our lifetime. However there's not enough water on Earth to cover it like Waterworld. So I imagine what will happen is we'll start taking it seriously when it starts to get bad, and then it will slow down and hopefully slowly reverse

the earth's climate is changing, and man is mostly responsible.

Human-made Climate change is real. BUT it's not caused by CO2 or any other crap lobbyists, and government are fooling you with. It's actually Geoengineering, which similar projects like HAARP are a part of.

Why do all the solutions involve giving government more power but never involve lowering consumption? Eliminating the cargo ships and everybody planting bamboo would make a huge difference but they’re never considered as solutions. Funny how that works huh? Haha the only solution is importing as many poor brown people from cultures without cars and aircons and shit so they can consume more and more.

Source on this? It seems like the general purpose of geoengineering is to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.

Most of the pollution is being done by large corporations. Individual changes aren't going to do shit. If the problem is to be fixed it has to be done from the top down.

b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240

>California, Florida and New York under the sea

We should be encouraging it.

globalresearch.ca/haarp-secret-weapon-used-for-weather-modification-electromagnetic-warfare/20407

Geoengineering definitely won't be only used to adverse effects of climate change.

climates always change, the rate of change can vary too. the single greatest factor in our climate is the sun, atmospheric composition is completely secondary. as the sun goes through changes during its lifespan, it will cause dramatic changes in earths climate. there have been many ages of colder temperatures, and maybe ages of warmer temperatures.

Attached: gfdgfhg.jpg (268x265, 33K)

why was it called global warming just two-three years ago

nuclear is satan confirmed fuck me

Weather modification being used as a weapon and climate change seem like two entirely separate issues, no?

skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

>not getting my point.
And no, actually not. If weather modification is used as a weapon, these issues become one and the same, since the source is one and the same. Geoengineering, not CO2 or any other crap that (mostly leftist) governments uses to get your money.

the temperature is changing but the climate is mostly staying the same. they can't predict any real climate events with any accuracy because it's too complex so it's mostly shills and activists making things up. I do believe in sea level rise though, because that's well documented.

OP, watch this series, look up more information along this path, and BTFO everyone in your class.
youtube.com/watch?v=m71uQPhwhTk

Attached: space weather climate forcing.png (1216x631, 320K)

I don't necessarily disagree that HAARP or similar weapons can contribute to climate change, but the idea that it's the main cause of climate change is bizarre. Also to say that CO2 doesn't contribute to climate change, is just demonstrably not true, I can cite you loads of studies on this so I don't really know what to say about that.

>OH NONONONOONO HE PULLED OUT THE 2000YR BASELINE
You missed the apocalypse by 50 million years. Run into traffic if you have such a hard on for panic attacks

It's not about whether or not the climate goes up or down over time naturally or not. The climate reacts to whatever forces make it react, and at the moment that's humans. Usually these changes in climate over millions of years happen slowly so it's no big deal but sometimes it does change abruptly and it's always been detrimental to life on Earth. The point is we're digging that grave for ourselves.

Look, 'pal. I don't care about your studies or whatever. I have also seen people posting me petitions of scientists signing that climate change is real. (which is obviously not an argument aka, an argumentum ab auctoritate) I can also give you a few sources of information/studies/etc that show a completely different picture.

The alleged clarity on climate change is (even if the IPCC falsly claims it; by the way, one must not forget that the IPCC is not made up of researchers, respectively don't research themselves. The IPCC only gathers data by the scientists and draw their own conclusions, which the scientists didn't even propose in their papers) and in reality there is a real dispute as to whether the allegations are true at all. It is thanks to politics that the science here becomes blurred, making it increasingly difficult to approach the subject objectively.

>I don't necessarily disagree that HAARP or similar weapons can contribute to climate change, but the idea that it's the main cause of climate change is bizarre.

It's not bizarre. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. A good step towards making weather manipulation (or in general: geoengineering) globally acceptable.

look into the work of Steve McIntyre, Steve Goddard and all these people: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

spend any amount of time on the talks from the Heartland Institute about climate change and you will not be short of any material

Climate Change is modest and benign.

Learn the basics here: sealevel.info

Attached: compilation.png (1120x4504, 1.48M)

>I can also give you a few sources of information/studies/etc that show a completely different picture.

Please do.

>Writing a whole paragraph basically saying you don't know what a meta-analysis is.

I can't really help you there. If science is too cucked for you or whatever and you'd rather believe some one off project is the main cause of climate change, go right on ahead man.

it doesn't matter if its real or not. until there is a business interest in it nothing will change. it economic suicide to do anything until then

reasons it's bullshit:

Urban Heat Island affect biases the datasets into showing more heating due to more maintained temperature stations being closer to cities than out in the middle of nowhere.

CO2 is currently around 410ppm (up from 180ppm in 1860) so it's roughly doubled, but during the Eocene period it was at 4000ppm and the Earth magically got out of this high CO2 cycle all on its own without any human input whatsoever.

Radiative forcing due to CO2 is logarithmic meaning that you need to add in MORE and MORE CO2 as it increases in order to get the same equivalent increase in radiative forcing over time, which implies that the worst of the heating has already happened.

NASA/NOAA and the Climate Research Unit have all been found manipulating their datasets to create artificial warming trends by underestimating the cooling period of the 1950s and overestimating the warming of the 1980s. Look into the ClimateGate email scandal.

Even if the temperature datasets (remember all the climate scientists involved here are working from the same datasets, and if the data is bullshit then the entire foundation they are working from collapses) even if they're not manipulated bullshit (which they provably are) then even in that case we can STILL easily solve AGW by removing CO2 from the air via BECCS, via direct air capture technology, by dimming the heating effect with sulphur dioxide aerosol injections into the atmosphere, AND through biological sequestration through oceanic iron fertilisation. This is what stopped warming in the Eocene period. Look up something called the Azolla Event. "Give me half a tanker of iron and I will give you an Ice Age." - John Martin

its almost like the free market creates irrational outcomes lmao

Climate change is real user. The real debate is over whether or not humans are causing it, and to what degree.
Both sides lie all the time. Figure the truth out yourself.

The IPCC states that the earth’s climate is too complex to reliably predict future climate states. The TV just never mentions this part.

well said...
also, the empirically observable "sensitivity", the increase for each doubling, is about 1.5, and not 3 as the IPCC currently claims...

Attached: sensitivity3.gif (600x394, 18K)

>
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the genera- tion of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statis- tics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.
t. The IPCC assessment page 774 (Advancing our Understanding).

Nice meme, finish the quote.

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of newmethods of model diagnosis, but such statistical informationis essential."

Basically what they're saying is while it would be extremely difficult to determine whether or not a coin would land on heads or tails at any given time, you can predict outcomes statistically.

and then continues to spend millions of dollars and thousands man hours doing exactly what you claim they say is impossible. Either they have absolutely no logical consistency or you're taking a quote out of context.

Section 14.2.2.2

You have to be retarded to think that the climate doesn't change

>finish the quote
I did and it never contradicts its blatant statement that long term climate states can’t be predicted. Earlier in the section, it talks about significant weaknesses that create “tension” within the climate change research community, as well.

If you want to find out how not-genuine the alarmisim from climate activists is, propose nuclear as a solution to replacing fossil fuels.

Watch them suddenly have other priorities & actually climate inst that time critical.

Attached: renewableoptions.jpg (1200x598, 76K)

The oil companies host those conferences.

>Urban Heat Island affect
Is accounted for, rural stations around the world sea based stations and satellite monitoring all show the same warming trend

>Earth magically got out of this high CO2 cycle all on its own without any human input whatsoever.
Please tell me exactly how long it took for natural processes to sequester all that carbon.

>Radiative forcing due to CO2 is logarithmic
This isn't entirely untrue but it assumes climate sensitivity factors that have been proven to be false.

>manipulation
A couple of out of context emails proves nothing, and there is absolutely no credible evidence of intentional tampering.

>Geoengineering
It might be necessary but all those solutions have both potential side effects and are considerably more expensive than not emitting CO2 in the first place. By the way how long did the Azolla event take?

>I did and it never contradicts its blatant statement that long term climate states can’t be predicted

???

I understand that you can't just pick out an arbitrary moment in the distant future and predict what the climate is going to be. As I've already explained, that's not how this works lmao

>Earlier in the section, it talks about significant weaknesses that create “tension” within the climate change research community, as well

That's not what it says at all

>inter governmental panel on climate change
Well there are several governments run by oil companies so you aren't entirely wrong.

Define hurt this planet
Because we have already filled the oceans with plastic. driven species in extinction, dried seas, chopped down forests.
I am by no means hippie, while humans still cannot make the Earth's core explode and literally destroy it, we are pretty good and destroying it, we are pretty good at ruining it.

while humans still cannot make the Earth's core explode and literally destroy it, we are pretty good at ruining it*
my bad

the climate has barely changed and it's probably no big deal

No one cares about the planet, we care about the planets effects on humans realistically mostly economics. Effects on the ecosystem are also a concern as the two go together.

It's the sun. All the planets in our solar system are warming.

Co2 causing forced warmth in even something like a simple container with no recycling at all at earth atmosphere has never been proven with an experiment that can be replicated successfully.
Co2 radiative forcing isn’t possible at such a low concentration, all experimental attempts have falsified the theory, only lofty bullshit that intentionally avoids this empiricism gets through.

Attached: TvsTSI.png (2889x2209, 396K)

Ya I mean Exxon Mobile, GE, and other companies like them.

>it assumes climate sensitivity factors that have been proven to be false.
we should point out here that the climate sensitivity coefficient is unknown and unknowable and thus the temperature projections of the IPCC are based on nothing but fantasy

AKA the American government

Don't ever ask the retards of this board about anything related to science. All you will get is a bunch of armchair, autistic fuckwits that are so low-information, so ignorant, and so completely clueless that all they can do is parrot the same falsehoods and debunked images / arguments over and over again. We have a board that actually can have some form of intelligent discussion on the issue over at .

>all those solutions have both potential side effects
it's weird how they say that climate change is this gigantic planetary disaster and then when you suggest an actual real world solution suddenly "potential side effects" are far more dangerous and risky than just letting the planet explode. so strange.

you have to be 18 to post here user.

>all they count is total solar irradiance
Yeah nevermind the gigatons of charged particles beating down on the ionosphere constantly.
Refer back to my picture, look at all that other stuff they don't consider with total solar irradiance.

IS GLOBAL WARMING THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY? - Dan Pena
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=NjlC02NsIt0

If CO2 is sooo dangerous why is it still allowed in soda?

Attached: CORTEZ EYES.jpg (456x215, 7K)

The Chinese profit the most I think, like Trump said. These American companies like to have their manufacturing done in China.

This. If we assume human activity is toxic to its environment, then the population explosion and subsequent mass migration from 3rd world nations to lower population western ones is pure cancer.

End immigration and foreign aid to these countries now

The problem with these discussions is when people point to hyper-specific data points and graphs to draw an overarching conclusion about the state of climate change, like I really don't think any of us are qualified to do that.

>McIntyre has remarked on how his suspicions of this graph were aroused: "In financial circles, we talk about a hockey stick curve when some investor presents you with a nice, steep curve in the hope of palming something off on you."[17]

advocates of global warming alarmism never actually deal with the substantial critique of their movement, which is that it is not scientific, but that it is a human fraud which uses manipulated science to justify its narrative and uses underhand human tactics to bully and suppress critics. they want to portray their movement as nothing more than objective science, when the reality is that it is a global billion dollar political and public relations initiative that simply uses science as a way to bamboozle the public into accepting their narrative.

When you reduce everyone who doesn't agree with you down to a straw man it might seem like that.

You'll have to explain the mechanism for heat transfer then, as well as why the stratosphere is cooling not warming.

Like this, with all things, ask "cui bono"? Turns out that the people who push the narrative will make a ton of money from renewable energy and carbon credit systems.

(((Them))) benefiting is enough to make a rational person question its validity even apart from the science.

First it was acid rain, then it was global warming, then it was global cooling, seems the brainlets can't decide which angle to attack because nature doesn't cooperate with them long enough for any narrative to stick.

End result will be the same though; Jews want to carbon tax you. A racket tax, literally taxing you for exhaling.

The fact that deniers have never actually provided any science to the contrary and have had a pathetic track record of predictions destroys this argument.

so what do you think is more dangerous then, letting climate change happen or "potential side effects" ?

This, I'm way more concerned about plastic slumming up the environment - if that's even true either. Can anyone confirm that there really is an island of plastic junk in the pacific the size of texas??

Acid rainfall was very real and was almost entirely mitigated due to environmental regulations, global cooling was only a handful of discredited papers that the media blew out of proportion.

Attached: 1970s_papers.gif (500x285, 14K)

>Still believe the world flooding thing because of the ice caps
Even if all the ice from the north pole melts will have zero effect on sea levels since their volume it's already dispersed (and water has the special property of having more volume in solid state than liquid): youtube.com/watch?v=550ovNHCxAg

Also if the Ice of Antarctica were to melt there's the water cycle (which has worked in all other continents), all the water that melts from our mountains form water sources (rivers, lakes, ponds) which in the end reach the sea/ocean, but once there it doesn't stay there but rather evaporates due to the sun and comes back to the source.

All of what I've said is science 101

Attached: water-cycle-diagram.jpg (1299x1048, 332K)

if your hypothesis only survives through massive amounts of funding, government authority and propaganda campaigns it isn't science to begin with

If CO2 emissions aren't curbed in the next century geoengineering might be necessary but it will be more expensive and harmful to the ecosystem and economy than simply reducing emissions now.

op check this
apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Yet no denier can provide scientific evidence, how strange.

Nice meme, Greenland is still melting at a dangerous rate.

>destroying the economy is less harmful to the economy than taking no action

welcome to climate retard land, ladies and gentlemen

uhhh just a question, what percent of polar ice is on land?

you don't understand falsifiability if you think that anyone can provide proof of something *not* happening. they prevented evidence for their case which was found wanting, therefore their hypothesis is no longer standing.

>Even if all the ice from the north pole melts will have zero effect on sea levels since their volume it's already dispersed

>not knowing how glaciers work

climate change is good for civilized countries

Attached: 8B4A3895-6987-4E60-9E97-8501D9ED621A.jpg (640x1007, 215K)

>this time it's for real goyim!

I'll make this easy for you

Explain in detail how a global carbon tax, payed for mostly by wealthy western nations, is going to alleviate your current panic racket scam. This should be entertaining.

Reduce the number of people in exploding population centers in Africa and asia is a much easier way to mitigate emissions

Either disprove the physical mechanisms of climate change such as the greenhouse effect. Should be easy if it's fake, or just watch the planet cool. Either one will falsify the theory.

No. You have to prove gh effect first.