Climate Change Real

Yes Climate change is real. Climate change happens every day 24/7.
The globe has always been restless, nothing new. What is new is the fact that it is a cash cow for some people that hype it.
The movement was started as "Global Warming", but that didn't take so they made a "Cant miss change to climate change.
Global change is natural. We live in a restless world.
Just before the earth start a warming period it rapidly cools down. Same as an Ice age. The warming excelerates then suddenly starts cooling very fast.
This is a natural cycle of the earth. The Earth is self correcting. The science people, from what I understand, believe the water level was down to minus 300 ft. What I see is the surface was closer to minus 15000 feet or more. This, tells me we are closer to a new ice age.
In the last 50 years the water level of the earth, maybe, rose a half inch. So you can see if the population of the earth gets to large, we have an epidemic that kills of many people, or if it gets to cool it warms up and if it gets to warm up it will get cold. Open for discussion.

Other urls found in this thread:

publicfinanceinternational
naturalnews.com/055151_global_warming_science_hoax_climate_skepticism.html
archive.fo/VelN5#selection-972.1-2598.7
edsanders.com/global/c02up2.htm
telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
americantraditions.org/Articles/New Evidence that Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming.htm
archive.is/i29K7
rt.com/news/256861-climate-change-un-hoax/
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/
rense.com/general67/oils.htm
arxiv.org/pdf/1304.6148.pdf
notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.8ZXuSkxc.dpbs
friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
imgur.com/a/xlCmu
pastebin.com/03q36Yp7
surfacestations.org
www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now
youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Ae4DES9z8
populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Ocean
theguardian.com/politics/2006/dec/11/uk.greenpolitics
theguardian.com/environment/2006/jan/24/business.travelnews
arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/07/olivine-weathering-to-capture-co2-and-counter-climate-change.html
youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=-NQPolcYoIc
realclimatescience
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Yes and (((they))) have been using chem trails to change it more dramatically to justify more billions for climate change funds.

The kikes will hang for their crimes against humanity, their favorite accusation.

Post your climate change redpills. I'm lacking in my folder.

A problem is the lack of consensus against climate change. Among those that disagree with it, there is a lot of variation, which doesn't help convincing normalfags who define everything in 'right vs wrong' terms.

(nice digits btw)

Chem trails? How could they use chem trails to change the climate?

Go for Atlantic conveyor and IR sat images, those are fun

Ignore anything on nitrogen filtering, its IR transparent below 300 C in diatomic form. Its importance in windows is not much, outside of high tempetature regime items the 20 perecent difference in density is not going to have an impact, xenon is better anyways as it has teduced tunneling issues.

OP that picture looks like a nice maple tree that was never pruned hence it never grew tall and turned into a "big bush".
Also I can't tell if the color is off or not but it appears that the leaves are not a nice dark green color and it is suffering from manganese deficiency.

For the last 4000 years, the Earth has experienced a dramatic rise in heating, literally every 1100 years.
Temperature is known to correlate heavily to solar activity -
During Solar Minimums, (about ever 110 years), the Earth experiences a drop in temperature (on average).

Global Warming is a hoax spouted by the dumbest niggers in the world.
The Goal of Carbon taxes, is the creation of a Wall Street Futures Market called "Carbon Emission Futures"
The Goal is also to decimate the economy of white nations, meanwhile China will continue to use insane amounts of cheap coal

Climate change is pushed so they can tax you for carbon bullshit while deregulating pollution because it costs less for lobbyists. Cloud seeding can be used to alter the Earth's temperature, clouds at night = earth gets warmer because radiating heat doesn't escape up through a cloudless sky, clouds during day = earth gets cooler because radiating heat from sun doesn't penetrate the atmosphere as much and bounces off the clouds. Chem trails are usually just cloud seeding efforts, those unnatural clouds you see in the sky aren't the chem trails themselves, but are from commercial jets who fly through an atmosphere littered with cloud seeding chemicals like silver iodide.


And this, big time.

Here is a great place to read about the climate fraud.
I have been reading him for years now.
realclimatescience.com

Won't climate change mostly just kill shitskins and New Yorkers? I say bring it, it's too damn cold where I live anyways.

publicfinanceinternational org/news/2016/03/china-worlds-largest-investor-renewable-energy

Archive blocked on my end right now.
China is actually dropping coal usage, not reducing increase, down 3%.
Coal simply competes on inertia now, and is nonviable for any 50 year planned plant.

ONLY NEWFAGS ARE THIS FUCKING STUPID
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE
ONLY SOLAR FLARING CAUSES TEMPERATURE CHANGE

Thanks lad.

There seems to be two kinds of what they call 'climate change denial'. One is stating that temperatures are not increasing at present, and the other is that the change is natural. I'm in the latter camp.

Guess what (((they're))) going to do to further destroy white nations climate refugees from apefrica

No matter what all Jews must die. Maybe we can blame natural climate change on them.

All the Jews must suffer.

Yea I know, but china isn't going to stop any time soon. But I get the feeling China is more keen on replacing coal, b/c the number one threat to their power right now, are the smog filled cities.

I'm in the former. The burning of hydrocarbons accelerated a natural process, no different than bubbling a sida stream makes acid water.
It'll balance out later on, just the calthrates have cooked off so it'll be 60 ish years for things to normalize.
This would have gone off 180 or so years from now, which is where the lie of natural amd artificial comes in.

Yes
No
However I do feel something needs to be done about our pollution, so much shit winds up in the motherfucking oceans I'm worried more about all the fish dying than some polar bears drowning. We need to get a replacement for plastic bags, get more effective PLASTIC recycling methods in general (fuck paper recycling), and stop faggot countries like China and South America in general from fucking shit up for everyone.

HOLY FUCK GOD, TEACH ME PATIENCE
CO2 Does NOT affect Temperature at a constant rate.
>As CO2 concentration increases, its additional effects become exponentially less

Bah misread, I'm an advocate of anthrogenic.


They already are stopping though. Coal is extremely cheap, simply too easy to get while only being good for power.
So it can only exist by volume, which is why the 83k coal miners in the US are getting 11k ayear rather than 12k.
No reason to save a dying industry, especially as there are better products everywhere.
Fracking killed coal, nothing else.

Don't get me wrong, the CO2 argument is retarded. More CO2 means more plant growth. It's not man made, certainly.

Because the cheap ass cunts won't fit their coal fired generators with scrubbers.

Look up the calthrate gun and then some RT articles on Siberian grass bubbles.

naturalnews.com/055151_global_warming_science_hoax_climate_skepticism.html
Dear Lord, give me the strength not to murder these stupid fucking newfags
I fucking hate the ill-informed. Such little patience, I need a break…

Actually its home use now over powerplants for smog. Got to fire that dog somehow.

And cripple chair man and magic negro opine on AI fields all the time. Those 30k are a combo of out of field and their opinion.
Meanwhile last infield I saw had 650k Steves.

Beat me to it. Beer-Lambert is a gross approximation that we teach gen chem students so they can feel good about the world. Any scientist, particularly atmospheric, ought to be familiar with how the universe actually works, yet it's a constant deluge of idiocy and ignorance out of these PhDs.

Yeah I just graduated with a degree in biology
I dont believe in global warming but I do with climate change
industry emissions and deforestation have sped up the natural warming period that follows the ice age
the worst effect of this is the holocene extinction event
should look it up, we're looking at a world where the cockroaches and rats inherit the earth otherwise

The climate is always changing, every fucking second. That why kikes renamed Global Warming to Climate Change, because in the times Al Gore was spouting his lies we faced harsh winters. Pollution or not, it a has had zero impact on the climate itself. Fuck plastic that contains PBA though, that shit is what made the cuckmales into things they are today.

Nobody questions that naturalistic climate change transpires.
Nobody questions that anthropic climate change could transpire.

The question is whether or not anthropic IS transpiring.

If that is the case then China is going to be like London back in Dickens time.
There used to be a sooty smog over London all winter long.

It is.
Temember, 300 died in London from a thermal inversion.

The warning will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 the world faces increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.

archive.fo/VelN5#selection-972.1-2598.7

Please.
Austrailia absorbed 2% of the world's water. Turns out the interior lacks meaningful ways out for water.
Also very bad as it leached lots of salts to the surface further precludig meaningful deabbofication via tree planting.

Yeah I know about the solar activity phase
wrote a thesis on it for one of my papers and got a distinction for it ;^)
a prediction of how the global cooling phase caused by solar activity would affect freshwater molluscs

No it fucking isn't.
They're putting 2 gigantic coal-fired plants into commission every week and never plan to stop.
Why do you give credence to the jew's lies?

Climate change is obviously real. Its also obvious that climate change is a natural.

Prime example is of European countries being able to grow grapes during the medieval era to make wine who can no longer grow grapes because the earth has cooled since then. There's a specific name for what I'm thinking of but it escapes me.

Theres very little to actually support this.

And as someone who graduated with a degree in bio and chem several years ago, let me assure you: Scientists are some the most corrupt scum you could possible imagine, especially in the softer sciences.

If they can get away with falsifying data, and doing so improves their chances of getting a grant to continue doing research, they will definitely falsify that data.
And, oh, would you look at that…


>Climategate had a significant effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists.
> The loss of trust in scientists, however, was primarily among individuals with a strongly individualistic worldview or politically conservative ideology.
> Nonetheless, Americans overall continue to trust scientists more than other sources of information about global warming.

Don't fall into the trap.
Science is NOT the new religion.

Then provide some evidence.

is less than convincing.

oh yeah i can get that
fucking hate writing grant applications its so fucking tedious
I know theres tonnes of lies out there already but im of the better safe than sorry crowd
I know they used falsified data on the seasonal melt of the arctic ice sheets to spread fear and paranoia about global warming
but in the antarctic krill have been dropping at an alarming rate and thats thought to be the result of some major fluctuations in antarctic sea ice melts and refreezes
apparently its fucking with the krills mating strategies or something and they're dying off like southern China in the 13th century
all im believing is the dramatic loss of forest and the pumping of shitloads of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere over the last 2 centuries has altered the composition of the atmosphere in a manner unfavourable to eukaryotic life on earth

Yes, climate changes. But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever. In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration. Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation. Not only are we not in a period of “record high temperatures,” we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.

ONE

There is absolutely no evidence that current temperatures are outside the trend of totally natural variation, and all attempts to make it appear that way are misleading you by truncating the data to a sample of statistically insignificant size. And then they apply their misleading, exponential curve-fits and smoothing effects for dramatic purposes. The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years. The picture shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates.

TWO

The sea level has been rising at a very steady and predictable rate over the past 8-10,000 years since the emergence from the last major glacial period with no deviation at all from this trend even as humans began industrializing. When environmentalists show you graphs going back 50-100 years of rising sea level data, they omit the fact that this is both on-trend and completely expected.

THREE

We have no actual data that indicates that climate is in any way behaving abnormally, much less due to human impact. The only thing we have is a hypothesis that CO2 affects climate in a meaningful way, which is what climatologists attempt to model. But those models make terrible predictions.

FOUR

If your hypothesis consistently churns out inaccurate predictions–no matter how many times you tweak the knobs and change little fudge-factors here and there–then your hypothesis is shit and must be discarded. Morons who believe in this garbage have no understanding of basic epistemology, let alone science–and that goes for the so-called “scientists” peddling this mystical bullshit.
CO2 is only hypothesized to have the impact on global climate that the alarmists claim. But this has failed to be demonstrated in two major (but related) ways. First, carbon dioxide levels are currently being measured at several hundred ppm higher than measured from ice core samples. Now, it must also be cautioned that you can’t necessarily compare these two sets of data because they represent two different methods of measurement, and have other potential biases. However, even assuming that its true that CO2 levels are much higher–and that they’re caused by human activity–current temperatures are not deviating from the normal historical trends in line with CO2.
A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere. Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).

FIVE

The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached.
The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather. Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H2O feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.
If there is no positive H2O feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about. The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.” The more you know.

SIX

Not only are current temperatures not outside the normal trend, we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Also, current temperatures (at the peak of the current 100ky cycle) are actually lower than past 100ky cycles, meaning that we are expected to either warm further just by way of natural variation or we are in an unusually cold peak period.
Second, climate models that use CO2 as a major driver for global temperatures are not producing accurate predictions for global temperatures. This is at least good initial evidence that the alarmist stance on the CO2/climate hypothesis is false. Notice that current temperatures are in no way deviating from normal trends. and that the two “scary red dots” are not observed data, but “predictions.” But, as we already know, the observed data is wildly lower than the predictions. These people are completely full of shit.

Ivy league professor and geologist here,

Yes, climate change is real and yes, it is, to some extent, anthropogenic. The science behind it gives certain positive conclusions and from a logical point of view, you cant put something 'new' into the environment without it having any effect. Our emissions most certainly have to have an effect on the climate, because how could they not? They didn't exist in the past.

The question and point of uncertainty is the magnitude of this effect. Climate models are very complex and often use factors as placeholders that we cannot even measure, so we call them "fudge factors". Scientists use a reasonable estimate for placeholder values and throw the uncertainty into a generalized factor of uncertainty calculated at the end. We do not have a 'good' climate model yet that gives us conclusive results. All models show that climate change is happening at an accelerated rate due to some anthropogenic effect, be it emissions or something else, but the best case scenario isn't anything, and the worst case scenario is catastrophic. The range of outcomes is extreme.

I don't believe that we should make policy decisions based on something with so much uncertainty. My climate alarmist colleagues argue that because we continue to emit so much into the atmosphere on a daily basis, it is better to prepare for the worst case scenario than dig ourselves into a deeper hole while we research the effects, however I disagree with them. Preparing for the worst case scenario would include passing incredibly restrictive legislation that hinders our economy, expands government and allows certain 'interests' to corrupt other aspects of our lives under the blanket of "climate change prevention legislation" (like the UN).

Cleaning up local pollution is good and necessary, but ask yourself why people who support climate change legislation also support the TPP and other free trade agreements that outsource labor to nations that don't even have decent emissions regulations. Before someone argues that the TPP had portions that seek to enforce environmental regulations on countries like China (it actually did), understand that it is a toothless bullshit policy that would be unenforceable because it would rely on Chinese 'regulators' to check the emissions standards of every sulfate-spewing factory in a nation of 1.3 billion people, whereby every single regulator will either be tied up by the government or bribed.

Enforcing climate regulations on other nations in the TPP is basically there to assuage the concerns of lefties and make the TPP more palatable.

...

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
edsanders.com/global/c02up2.htm
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Man-Made Carbon Dioxide
americantraditions.org/Articles/New Evidence that Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming.htm
Objective Behind Climate Change Is Economic, Not Climatic
archive.is/i29K7
Climate change is UN-led hoax
rt.com/news/256861-climate-change-un-hoax/
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/
Oil Is NOT A Fossil Fuel - It Is Abiotic
rense.com/general67/oils.htm
Sea level rate change is a natural oscillation
arxiv.org/pdf/1304.6148.pdf
“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets
notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.8ZXuSkxc.dpbs
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN
friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

And finally, thousands of peer-reviewed (because that word is literally all the liberals care about) studies that disprove every single facet of this shit.
populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Yep thats what I've been learning at uni
still think nuclear powers the way to go
co-opt some of that lefty rhetoric and pull funding from solar and wind and put it into nuclear

0% accurate. Kill yourself.
It’s not new, and the effect is already there. See:
Because that’s a fallacy, you cocksucking faggot.
There was more CO2 in the past by an order of fucking magnitude. IT DID NOTHING.
See image 4:
All estimates are wrong. See image 4.
So stop treating them as gospel.
And all models are wrong. The world is not warming at all.

REMINDER THAT EVEN UNTIL THE 1950s, SCIENTISTS STILL “AGREED” THAT THERE WAS LIFE ON MARS

REMEMBER THAT EVEN UNTIL THE 1960s, THERE WAS “ONLY ONE SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD” WHO ACCEPTED THAT CONTINENTAL DRIFT WAS REAL.

The data you're linking me too doesn't support your argument. You're literally retarded and should stop posting.

Give your Ph.D. back, you fucking faggot.

It’s not even in question. We know it isn’t.

TY lord for intelligent anons. Nice post

HOLY SHIT THE WEATHER ACTUALLY CHANGES?

Seriously, such fuckin dank chart porn… feelsgoodman

The data you linked to shows CO2 having a warming effect that slows down as you get higher ppm and it develops some opacity. We already know this. Our CO2 is at 400 ppm, higher concentrations of which haven't been studied. The cooling effect you list is documented in some lab studies but not well documents in the atmosphere yet. There is no general consensus yet on the cooling effect of CO2 on the atmosphere, only that the rate of warming attributed to CO2 slows as the concentrations of CO2 increase. Your other link shows a climate model with a large spread of data, all of which shows increasing temperatures.

Also, kill yourself.

Niggers how no idea how close they are.

Environmentalism is one of those things that are so frustrating because the left has latched on to it and claimed it for themselves so that they can make themselves feel good for how great and good they are. It needs to be thoroughly taken away and disassociated with them.

I don't know if man made global warming is real. It's pretty hard for an individual to be able to figure it out through evidence. They say "oh it's like gravity. You don't question gravity do you?" Well I can see gravity you piece of shit. The only way to know about global warming is for other people to tell you about it.

I'm sure the carbon mechanism or whatever they're on about is probably real, vid related from bell labs, who invented radio telescopes, the laser, and the transistor, so I trust them.

But the thing that's really fucking funny though is that we have solved that problem many decades ago. We've had unlimited carbon neutral power all this time… and the people who are opposed to nuclear power the most are the same fucking retard people who now consider themselves champions for the cause of global warming…

Hey, how about that. Your entire argument destroyed.
ALL OF WHICH ARE WRONG, AS THE ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS PROVE.

Learn how to read a fucking chart, “professor”.

Being smart is really like being alone.

I made a pastebin of your post. It was that good.

Holla Forums has some smart faggots on it exceedingly smart as well.
Here is my question.
Please explain to me how you can establish an average temperature for the whole earth.
It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever when on any given day you easily have a 100ºF temperature difference from the equator to the poles and you can possibly have close to 200ºF difference.
That alone to me makes no sense but then when they start to sort the flyshit from the pepper and they forecast a 0.1ºC temperature rise from the past year I have to think their measurement error exceeds their predictions.

Thanks. I made a hosted album for the images a while back, so here’s that to add. imgur.com/a/xlCmu

this is the kind of contribution i like to see on Holla Forums, well done user

I'd like to discuss the overall weakness of evidence as it relates to studies of climate change. As previous anons mentioned, temperature and weather on Earth change at both a micro and macro level. It's easy to walk outside and feel whether it's hotter today than yesterday, or whether it's raining, and we have reasonably accurate instruments now to measure these things. Such instruments have not existed for all that long in the grand scheme of things and I would question the accuracy of historical temperature measurements even 100 years ago without separate studies of the relative accuracy of their measuring equipment versus what we trust today.

In order to understand historical variations about macro-level temperature variation, the only thing that can be done is to perform observational studies. Even within this limited realm, the accuracy of the numbers and measurements and their interpretation is far from certain. Clearly nobody had a thermometer 2 million years ago that could actually measure the temperature, so inferences based on other data are made. However, that very quickly becomes a chicken and egg problem. If we wish to establish a primary variation (like temperature) from a secondary observation (like ice core density), the accuracy of your projection is entirely dependent on humanity's ability to observe correlative effects at a smaller scale.

Let's say you take an ice core sample, and it has density patterns that seem to indicate the Earth was much colder during a period of time. Let's further hypothesize that the density pattern is different than anything that has been observed on Earth using modern equipment, both to analyze the ice and to record the temperature and environmental factors. Given that we have never made a direct correlation between this specific ice density pattern and an observed, reliable temperature measurement, the only way we can come up with a temperature estimate is extrapolation. We would be forced to take the data we do have, which exists over the domain of actual observations, and extrapolate that data to reach a conclusion about the prehistoric ice core sample. The problem is there is no way to verify the relationship of ice density versus temperature variation behaves the same outside of the modern measured domain. Hypothetically speaking, modern temperature to ice density correlations could look completely linear, but across a larger domain they may be logarithmic or exponential and the observable domain is simply too narrow to see the larger scale change. This is very similar to what another user brought up with regard to the warming effects of CO2 in this post

(continued…)

(from above…)

That is already a serious flaw in our ability to infer a non-observable data point via the correlation of many other data points. Although multiple correlations might relate to each other (for example, tree rings vs temperature and ice cores vs temperature), we are still strictly confined by the domain of modern observations and having to extrapolate that data to fit results outside the observational domain. In other words, if ice density is proportionally correlated to tree ring observations, that still doesn't give us an actual temperature measurement, assuming those factors are outside the known observable domain. Further, said studies must also take in to account any other variables that might have an effect on the observed data. If temperature is not the only thing that correlates to tree ring size, then external contributions must also be studied and modeled.

All of that is just for an observational study, the utility of which is to only suggest how things once were, and potentially forecast - but not guarantee - future behavior. In other words, if you observe the Earth has a consistent, cyclic variation in historical temperature that extends into the modern era, it's reasonable to think the cyclic variation will continue, and you can make a falsifiable prediction suggesting specific things we should be able to observe if that hypothesis is true. I don't think such a pursuit is unreasonable or unscientific, outside of the domain extrapolation and unknown variable problems I mentioned.

However, the study of anthropogenic global warming is utter non-science because the hypothesis is not falsifiable. Within the scope of that study, the variable being analyzed is mankind's influence on the climate. In order to construct a control group we would need to observe Earth in a natural state without the existence of man. Without that ability, it is impossible to make a legitimate conclusion that relates variation of the variable being studied with the hypothesized outcome. Given such a situation is completely impossible outside of jewish interests in the total eradication of mankind, science has relegated itself to making models that predict historical temperatures with historical data - the accuracy of which is already in question - and then similarly extrapolating the historical model in to the future. However, a definitive causal relationship cannot be constructed from this kind of forward modeling because there are any other number of variables or causes that are outside the scope of the model and which may themselves have great influence on its outcome. Fundamentally that is why the entire study of AGW is bullshit.

sorry for the longpost boys, in a wordy mood today

What is your guys opinion of solar cycles/ solar flares effect on Earths climate? The more energy from the sun that hits Earth would mean an increased greenhouse effect from rising ocean temperatures. We seem to hardly know anything about the cycle of solar flares and yet liberals are so quick to blame global warming on human activity while they overlook the most powerful force in our solar system.

Thanks lad, here's it is if you're interested.
pastebin.com/03q36Yp7

Can we stop thinking in political terms for 2 seconds and just answer why you think altering the composition of our atmosphere would have no measurable effect on our climate? Forget about whose stats are right and wrong, just: Why do you think thing adding millions of tons of CO2 and Methane to the air would have no effect on weather? A 2nd grade science experiment can prove these gasses retain more heat. Why this magically doesn't apply to planetary scale?

Because the total mass of the atmosphere is on the order of a quintillion tons?
CO2 is measured in parts per million IE 400 ppm now, methane CH4 is measured in parts per billion 1700 ppb or 1.7 ppm.
A cubic foot of beach sand is about 1 billion grains a quintillion is a billion billions.
It is what is referred to in chemistry as a trace amount once you start measuring in ppm or even smaller ppb.

The only way I can think of would be to measure local variations against their own historical observations. In other words, you can't average the total temperature of the planet on any given day, but you could compare previous measurements from the same measuring station to the present day and see whether any change had occurred, and then aggregate those deltas together, potentially via mean or median. The important part is using the same station's historical data against itself, not against any other station or at a larger geographic scale. That whole idea might well be non-viable or flawed for a variety of reasons that I can't bother to think about since I'm just shitposting on Holla Forums right now.

However, even if you assume that kind of study would work, you then also have to worry about the huge variety of other variables - things you're measuring unintentionally. For example, do you know with 100% certainty that your temperature measuring equipment has the exact same accuracy as it did one year ago? If not, your data is broken already because you could just as well be measuring the slow failure of your equipment instead of an actual environmental change. The same is true for any factor you don't have 100% control over - you're forced to attempt to model the influence of that factor on your data, and at the end of the day you might just be measuring your own modeling error instead of a real change.


First, you seem to be implying that the atmosphere functions like a glass of water. If you add a fixed quantity of water, the quantity in the glass increases by the same amount. Unfortunately the glass of water can be modeled as a completely closed system, and you could even factor in measurement error on both sides to realize that the measured effect is entirely within the scope of the hypothesized predictions. You cannot do that with the atmosphere, because there are so many variables that change the quantities of various gases, and so many mechanisms of action, that you cannot simply model it as a closed system. You might induce some sort of change, sure, but it might very well be hidden in the noise of other fluctuations.

Second, why should a 2nd grade science experiment of almost infinitesimally small scale suddenly magically apply to planetary scale? What if the domain of observation in the 2nd grade science experiment is incredibly small compared to the domain of observation on a planetary scale?

The way I see it is:

1. The Earth is definetely warming up

2. It isn't CO2, they're clearly lying about the cause of the warming

3. CO2 emissions should still be curbed because of the ocean acidification, but it's mostly China and India polluting so good luck stopping them

Stuff like "carbon tax" is a literally Jewish tax on existing though, much like other "anti-climate change" measures.

There's a bunch of talk about it causing another mini ice age in the next few years (or decades depending on who you ask) based on reduced activity. I won't be surprised (because I'd be underwater five years ago if the libshits were even close to correct about our climate).

http:/ /www.collective-evolution.com/2016/01/06/researchers-predict-that-a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-very-soon/

I couldn't find a non-shit newsite for it but it's being said just about everywhere.

user I appreciate your answer to my question. I understand every bit of it and concur, but somewhere I can't remember now I had read that the average temp of the earth was "X" I think it was around 45ºF. The fact that they could even put out a number to me was just plain ludicrous. Another thing I noticed in the official weather measuring stations is a majority of them in the USA are what you would consider poorly sited. At one time they had been good for measuring temperature but then buildings were built parking lots were paved etc. and the site data would reflect the surrounding infrastructure by showing an increase in temperature, when a similar station without the manmade additions would show no such increases.
Here is 2 examples of weather stations that I am talking about and a picture of the inherent error of 80% of all weather stations in the US from this web site
surfacestations.org

user I found what I was speaking of.
www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now

X=57.2ºF

I guess I am retarded because I just don't buy it no matter how much statistics and data they throw at me.

I suppose a lot of that depends on how exactly they calculated that number. How are they measuring temperature over the open ocean? Are they gridding the entire Earth and putting measuring stations every so often? (Clearly not.) How are they interpolating the data across the existing measuring stations?

Also remember that data interpolation against existing weather sites is a way to falsify results. If a weather station in the middle of a triangle connecting three other stations shows an unfavorable number (i.e. low temperature) relative to the other three, you can simply claim that station is unreliable and report it's readings as the interpolated value from the other three, thereby bringing the measured temperature up substantially. It's fucking magic!

youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Ae4DES9z8
Jeremy Corbyn's brother Piers is a Metrologist - says its all a hoax and why.

I watched the video you posted the most succinct thing he says is this.
It is a phrase I have used repeatedly for years for a variety of different situations, and it is pretty applicable here as well.

With all the pavements and buildings creating a sort of heat sink; it reminds me of a Caribbean(?) island nation that plants a lot of solar panels which reduce the amount of rain they get. So they purchase water supplies since they are not getting enough from their rain. Unfortunately can't find it.
Think they call the effect heat islands or something, wasn't interested so didn't look at it further.

Can we stop thinking in political terms for 2 seconds and just answer why you think altering the composition of our atmosphere would have no measurable effect on our climate?
Because we’ve MEASURED that it has had no effect.
Because we’ve MEASURED that the ONLY effect it has had is to DIMINISH the number of WEATHER EXTREMES. FEWER hurricanes. FEWER tornadoes. FEWER monsoons. Everything is WEAKENING, not increasing in strength.
Every single last fucking thing you have been told is a lie.

Proven false. It’s cooling.
It’s not warming.
Ocean acidification is a cyclical occurrence. See here: populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Ocean
YEP

everyone on earth will be given the same number of 'carbon credits' so a person living in a village in India, who doesn't even own a car, will suddenly has a 1000 carbon credits. If a family in America wants to have two cars and heat their home in winter they will have to buy credits from poorer countries.

Every citizen would be issued with a carbon "credit card" - to be swiped every time they bought petrol, paid an energy utility bill or booked an airline ticket - under a nationwide carbon rationing scheme that could come into operation within five years, according to a feasibility study commissioned by the environment secretary, David Miliband, and published today.

The idea was floated in a speech in the summer, but the detailed proposals show Mr Miliband is serious about trying to press ahead with the radical idea as a central part of his climate change strategy. Under the scheme, everybody would be given an annual allowance of the carbon they could expend on a range of products, probably food, energy and travel. If they wanted to use more carbon, they would be able to buy it from somebody else. The report admits huge questions would have to be resolved, including the risk of fraud, the relationship to ID cards, and costs. However Mr Miliband said "bold thinking is required because the world is in a dangerous place".

theguardian.com/politics/2006/dec/11/uk.greenpolitics

In a few years from now you will have another plastic card in your wallet - your carbon card. You will start the year with 1,000 points on it and each time you fill up your car, you put the card in a slot on the pump and it will deduct a few points. Each time you buy an airline ticket, it will cost you a minimum of 100 points. If you fly regularly, you may have to buy more points through the carbon market - but since it is all in the cause of reducing greenhouse gas emissions you do not mind so much.

theguardian.com/environment/2006/jan/24/business.travelnews

Whether climate change is real or not, I still maintain that the protection of nature is a huge boon to civilization. Things like deforestation are legitimate problems that have to be looked into, as well as expanding clean energy like wind, hydroelectric and nuclear power.

Two kinds of climate change deniers: Oil shills and people fed up with how climate change is mythologized, exaggerated and used for political purposes by degenerates.

Unfortunately it's real, taking care of the biosphere is absolutely necessary. The future is not going to be easy.

Forget the media, go live in the forests for a while, or the mountains or some remote beach, you'll see the whole world is dying… Unless all you've known is our satanic artificial ecosystems which is not unlikely these days.

There won't be any animals outside of meat and accesory-pets if the kikes get away with their shit, same goes for the forests…

Heat Island is the term they use for cities where there is a large amount of concrete.
Here is the simple explanation when sunlight strikes grass or trees it gets turned into chlorophyl, when sunlight strikes asphalt or concrete it turns into heat, so 50 miles outside of a major urban area it can easily be 20 degrees cooler specially at night, because all the stored heat now radiates back into its immediate environment.

Yes. Certain predecessors of ours thought the same thing. Philosophically I'd say that man's unique ability to tend to nature makes us responsible for taking care of it. However, taking care of nature has nothing to do with the climate, as you said.


You didn't get the above point though. Climate change does not equal pollution. Just because climate change is bullshit does not mean that pollution is bullshit too, by the way. To forcibly associate the two things is a disinformation tactic.

It's clear you haven't read the thread because man-made climate change is absolute bullshit, and there's plenty of evidence that the doom and gloom bestowed upon us by the nu-priests of AGW is complete bullshit too. Also, the kikes are the ones pushing the climate change agenda so they can push for carbon credits, because they obviously are pretty try hard when it comes to exerting control over the goyim. They'd also be equally happy if climate change was rejected and so was the anti-pollution sentiment, since they seem to want to fuck the whole world at every opportunity.

You know about methane emissions, right?

Sage because 90% of this thread is retarded bullshit.

Listen, I can both hate the bullshit Jews do in this world and look at the scientific data and theory to see what such a massive increase in CO2 will do.

I also am wary of any AlGore solutions, that fucking faggot!

At any rate, there is no fixing this problem, there is no fucking way that fossil fuels will not be all used even if we killed all the jews today.

We are in for a very rough ride with sea level rise and massive desertification.

Honestly the only solution to this problem of excess CO2 would be something like this:

arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/07/olivine-weathering-to-capture-co2-and-counter-climate-change.html

The CO2 levels rising are not "wrong" or "evil" but they are a resetting of the climate thermostat which will melt the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

And we have all of our ports and very large cities at sea level. If all of our ports and cities at low elevation were portable, then who gives a fuck. But it they are not and this will kick us in the balls fairly soon.

Again, just get ready and don't waste your time thinking it will be stopped.

Look at this old video from 1958.
youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

CO2 level changes the earths radiation balance.

We just got unlucky with what CO2 does.

Piers Corbyn is as fucking stupid as his socialist brother. The CO2 lag he talks about is fully explained in many places. During the upswing of the Milankovich cycle the amount of solar radiation increases and this warms the oceans and makes CO2 be released. This increased CO2 will further heat up the earth. This will start to melt the ice sheets and decrease reflection and further increase the temperature (or total energy content of the earth).

The reverse happens during the downswing of the Milankovitch cycle.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

video about milankovitch cycle from a major but funny nerd:

youtube.com/watch?v=-NQPolcYoIc

Oh, look, the "ivy leauge professor" has nothing left to say the second he was seriously challenged. Too bad you were forced to engage with actual evidence and not a sockpuppet with an intentionally shit argument.


It's not just disinformation, it's intentionally conflating two entirely different things in order to redirect well-intentioned people towards funding a kike programs promising to save them from a kike made conspiracy. They're not only responsibly for destroying the environment for profit, but also profit even more off the white man's hope to save the environment and make no mistake, it's exclusively whites who care about our planet by pointing out a boogeyman they blame for destroying the environment and pocketing the money given towards killing the boogeyman.

Exactly, any time you talk about bogus CO2 or man made climate change everyone starts talking about physical pollution which is caused almost entirely by non-white countries anyways. and will never once mention things like chemical runoff or some other legitimate pollution that may be happening in say the US.

Bump for both of you being 100% on point with respect to kikes and their involvement in the AGW and pollution debate. We all know they are the ones who most want to see the world burn. Also, I am highly amused that all of the climate change promoting shills in this thread were so badly BTFO that most of them just (1)'d and never came back. Excellent work anons.

The kikes will hang for fucking up our environment.

Why are you putting this here? We know all that.

The CIA invented the term in the mid 50's to hide the harmful effects of nuclear weapons testing. They had professors write bullshit papers which have poisoned the well so to speak of academia so badly, that the top guys today all went through university believing bullshit was real mixed in with some truth. The foundation of their understanding is corrupt.

It's like breast Cancer. For like 40 YEARS hahaha everyone was looking at shit hat had nothing to do with breast Cancer!. Google it.

Something like this today;
realclimatescience dot com/2016/11/record-global-cooling-over-the-last-eight-months/

Lefty fucks will spin it to suit themselves. Because it's about power and shekels, not the planet. It's utterly pathetic. We're dealing with mentally ill children and because we have to (or do we?) deal with this shit, the environment suffers.

Climate change is about kikes trading hot air futures, our paying another tax on EVERYTHING you buy and global government. They will steal and spend trillions over decades and by that point, we will be fucked. Because of deforestation, soil erosion, depleted water tables from too many fucking immigrants, polluted bodies of water and on and on.

If we don't genocide cucks and kikes the planet and everything on it will die xD. It's imperative we get started on that.

Reflective nano particulate.