Jow Forums consensus on AGW

Although anthropogenic global warming does exist in some small degree, there has been no conclusive evidence supplied by climatologists to suggest that it factors any significant role in the current climate change in the world. It has all the effect of you pissing in the ocean.

There's plenty to verify predictions. It's just that all the talking heads pretend their past predictions don't exist.

Attached: 1989APGlobalWarming.png (804x421, 108K)

Perhaps you didn't see the entire gif
The models do indeed fit the observations

youtu.be/DK856gU9ZBI

CO2 levels have increased significantly at an unprecedented rate

Attached: paleo_CO2_2017_620.gif (620x266, 16K)

Attached: cmp_cmip3_sat_ann-1.png (2337x1891, 506K)

Aka; helps the Jews rob Europeans and also turn them into africanized cattle. (,The next big migrant crisis will be 200 million+ African "climate refugees", hence why the EU just turned sub Saharan Africans specifically into a legally protected and privileged replacement caste).

lel, you're asking here of all places ?
the right wing scum that post here will likely be the last to admit that AGW is a threat.
perhaps they'll realize at the last minute; maybe when they're sitting in a tipped mobility scooter in a flash flood, or gunned down at walmart clutching the last bag of cheetos in the free world - perhaps them there will be a dim realization that science is actually a real thing but i wouldn't expect too much before that.

Here

Attached: Climate model predictions.jpg (2048x1728, 2.34M)

Zoom out

Zoom out

Ok

Attached: marcott2-13_11k-graph-610.gif (610x347, 26K)

z
out
o
m

keep going

Attached: 1547159702085.gif (646x1024, 170K)

hmmm

Attached: blackmat.jpg (845x684, 147K)

I say it exists but that leaves the question of, to what degree, how does this impact weather long term, and to what degree could it raise? Is it that humans cause 60% of it but can't cause more than 2° temperature increase because feedbacks prevent it? Basically it gets hot, water evaporates, it rains, causing it to cool down. Not too mention trees literally live on co2. Food production should increase.

Ok? Why?

Attached: All_palaeotemps.svg.png (800x233, 58K)

Overwhelming amount of literature from the same people say diversity is our strength.

Build nuclear, problem solved.

I need a source for that
The consensus is based on a sample of peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals on the subject of climate change. This is not a survey of just opinion, but published research

As seen here, multiple studies have evaluated the consensus

Attached: Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg (1920x1080, 215K)

It doesn't fucking matter. The only question is, "Can anything be done whether it's real or not?"

Since it takes 120 kWh to compress a ton of CO2 to a liquid from the atmosphere, not counting the energy to make the devices, or store the CO2, there is no solution, human caused or otherwise.

Cutting emissions can prevent causing any further rise in temperature

Irrelevant, fabricated or not
All that matters is the published, peer reviewed research not quotations

It's real but just about every model has proven to be hilariously alarmist vs reality

Mid-tropo is way off, surface temp measurements are unreliable given the aforementioned lack of integrity in the data, sea level rise isn't off-trend from the past 8000 years, and there isn't enough data for melt rate measurements to form a meaningful baseline. The fact that sea levels have been rising at the same rate for thousands of years with swings much higher than any recent increases is strong evidence that nothing at all abnormal is currently happening

Marcotts paleo temps wildly disagree with both ice core and ocean sediment reconstructions

Sources?

>Leaf is a dumb faggot

Not surprising

Incorrect

All these studies show is that agreement that some amount of AGW is occurring, it does not indicate agreement with the alarmist models pushed by the greenies that have been proven hilariously wrong and have to be updated every decade for the last 50 years.

Climate alarmist are the real neo-malthusians, it's a problem but not one that demands the hilariously destructive policies they want to implement. Also, nuclear is our only real solution and most green retards still think solar and hybrids are doing something

no consensus on pol

since the emergence from the last glacial period sea levels have been rising at the same rate, even up to modem periods. Notice the wide variation. To demonstrate modern abnormal rises in sea level they would need to be demonstrating sustained levels much higher than the established trend. They don't, it's all within demonstrated variation. This alone means that temps arent especially abnormal either--if they were it would show up in the sea level data

Attached: IMG_2069.png (512x364, 22K)

I don't care about anything else but the published research

What's the date for 0 change set at?

Just because you're practicing revisionism doesn't mean it's not right, an inconvenient truth reads as hilariously alarmist now just like Mann's UN graphs from 1998 did when he made that

You've forgotten this

Attached: Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png (537x373, 47K)

That's cool, those of us who live in the real world care about the moronic politicking like the Paris agreement that will do nothing to prevent warming but will redistribute Western wealth to the third world for ulterior reasons

And you can see the disagreement between marcott and other datasets in the pic you posted here
Firstly, the general character of the trends they show doesn't exist in any other reconstruction. But more importantly, there's a large amount of variation omitted from marcotts paleo data that gives context to modern, higher resolution data sets. In epica dome c alone you commonly see swings of +- 0.3C per YEAR well before humans industrialized, which is huge and way more substantial variation than any change we've recently seen

Ahahahahhaaa
So you are exposed
Kys

doesn't apply to the point I'm making, which is about the variation and not the value at year 0. You'd have to demonstrate increases outside that established trend to show an abnormal change has happened

>In epica dome c alone you commonly see swings of +- 0.3C per YEAR
Where?

The trend shows no increase for 2000 years

The stdev of the paleo data is on the order of meters, variation within 20cm is in no way alarming

in the raw data, which you can download yourself

But you can still see it shows no variation

It's increasing slightly, with a stdev on the order of meters

The black line is the mean of the measurements, which have a large amount of variation

That line is literally flat for 2000 years

>redistribute wealth from the first world middle class to the internationalists.
Using the poor as a conduit to transfer that wealth through. It’s all a scam like the welfare system. Walmart is the largest recipient of food stamps. The middle class pays for the food stamps, the poor use them, and the money goes to Walmart executives and investors. Global warming taxes are the Walmart food stamp scam on a global scale.

the measurements aren't, which demonstrate the variation. They're up and down by meters. You'd need to show sea level rise higher than these swings to show anything abnormal is happening

Also i don't see why you think it's valid to ignore 20cm average sea level rise, it can cause salination of inland water and destroy important coastal infrastructure

youtube.com/watch?v=3QmkHr0W5Vk&t=1s

It's the rate of rise that is alarming though

It’s real, but even if not isn’t we must protect nature and end mass pollution. Eco fascist gang out

Attached: earth chan fuck china india.jpg (1024x1400, 164K)

It's all about the rate of rise

Attached: 1561649498918.jpg (700x420, 32K)

Does it exist? Yes. Is it an existential threat to human civilization? No.
These are the only correct answers.

The US and Australia by far have the highest carbon footprint per capita

>Mid-tropo is way off, surface temp measurements are unreliable
Exactly the opposite, mid-tropo measurements are unreliable because it's difficult to separate from the stratosphere (which is cooling due to GHGs), plus satellite temperature measurements are less reliable in general. Surface temps are reliable
because there is a lot of redundancy in the data.

The rates of change in the paleo data, both up and down, are higher than anything we've seen in modern times. And unless you can demonstrate sea levels significantly higher than the variation observed in the paleo data, it's a moot point anyway; we have much higher resolution data sets for modern periods, so we can observe rates of change for narrower time periods, but if it's all within established norms, there's literally zero cause for alarm.

If co2 doesn't have the impact claimed by alarmists, though, it's a moot point.

More droughts, storms, coastal uninhabitability, wildfires, heatwaves, flooding etc.
It's pretty threatening considering this will worsen if left unimpeded

What I mean by unreliable is the egregious numbers of errors discovered in MacLean's audit of ground station data. Think it'll make a difference if you record F measurements in C?

predictions that never came true

>The rates of change in the paleo data, both up and down, are higher than anything we've seen in modern times
Post a graph or something for this.

Every time climate scientists predicted the apocalypse they’ve been wrong. Every single time. So why should I believe that

>MacLean's audit of ground station data
Link to paper?

Actually, the temp change predictions from the past were pretty accurate.

Attached: Hansen et al 1981.jpg (1260x754, 573K)

Which papers predicted apocalypse?

google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/science/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now.amp

Some aren't even scientists and none are from published research

Where are you taking those goalposts?

Why does it even matter? The only countries that will be effected along the equator are shitskin countries in the first place.

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED GOYIM.

Attached: the point of no return.png (2000x4458, 2.52M)

>I don't care about anything else but the published research
>Which papers predicted apocalypse?

We are already being affected right now.

Curious, none of those images are from scientific papers

First of all, your claim that none of the research in that article was published is false. Read it again.

Curiouser, what percentage of the population has ever seen a scientific paper?

I don't know, is that relevant to the discussion?

Please do give an example

It’s in the article. Not my fucking job to spoonfeed you, you dolt. Click the hyperlinks and they take you right to published articles and book chapters

The planet doesn't care about per capita. Our population isn't in the billions and each of their billions will live as close as they can to how we do given an iota of an opportunity.

So it's perfectly fine for a millionaire living in a high maintenance mansion to say to some slum urchin in india that he needs to reduce his carbon footprint?

The data is freely available and sourced in the pic I posted, but either way the rate of change is irrelevant if you have no baseline for a meaningful rate of change, and the variance in the baseline data you DO have is way higher than modern sea levels anyway

researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/1/52041-mclean-2017-thesis.pdf
The widespread errors and the fact no such audit had ever been done are pretty damned alarming considering the kinds of decisions being based on these datasets. A really damning issue that all of the surface temp datasets suffer from is the biased coverage... it's extremely sparse over huge continental areas and obviously much denser in areas of population growth.

oops, wrong paper. mea culpa, on mobile. anyway its this one.

Attached: McLean-HadCRUT4_small_image.jpg (171x234, 18K)

So this is just some guy's thesis that was turned into a report published on some website? Get outta here.

I don't give a shit about some millionaire. If you say that the third world can keep spewing out people and that each human is entitled to the same quality of life, the planet is doomed unless the whole world is reduced to third world level living standards. There are three choices: massively reduced population, massively reduced living standards, or disproportionate living standards.

Or they will eventually undergo the DTM and population numbers will reduce as standard if living improves