Is climate change real?

as real as the square root of -1

This is some grade A misinformation.

>But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever
So there is no evidence that CO2 concentration effects the climate and that humans are significantly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? This is a boldfaced lie and is disproved by the entire climate record, as well as basic physics which prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We can measure directly the effect of our CO2 emissions on the climate by analyzing the spectra of infrared heat irradiating our planet. Each source of infrared heat has a signature spectrum, so we can see exactly how much heat is coming from the sun, water vapor, CO2, methane, etc.

I have to go to dinner but I will respond to the rest of this post afterwards. It's really quite outrageously misleading.

It sounds like op is having a conversation with himself

>boldfaced lie
Baldfaced sounds better.
>water vapor, CO2, methane, etc
CO2 is the lesser of these "greenhouse gases" by an order of magnitude but the only one that is taxable and can be used in a rather large hydro carbon control grab. Just admit it you shithead. It's the oil stupid and has nothing to do with fixing anything, more about installing global communism.

An ice age is just as likely as more warming and no amount of UN computer simulations employing the manipulated garbage in garbage out theory can change that.

>outrageously misleading
why then did you post it

>more about installing global communism.
>An ice age is just as likely as more warming

Sometimes I'm wondering. Lots of people say /pol/ is mostly ironic, jokes and stuff, that many of its posters don't take it seriously. Is this a legit post? Or a falseflagging bait to make polacks look even worse? The possibility that this post is the genuine """opinion""" of a real person is quite distressing.

> The possibility that this post is the genuine """opinion""" of a real person is quite distressing.

Been here long?

I have actually, but even /x/ babble can be attributed to mental illness for a logical explanation of how such "opinions" come about. These seem to be genuine politically-motivated opinions, which is why it's more real and more shockingly alarming.

>hasn't provided a single well constructed argument
>"EVERYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH ME (AND BY EXTENSION THE IFUCKINGLOVESCIENCE BLOG) IS MENTALLY DEFICIENT"

ok

OK, I'm back.

>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.
This is a pretty clever way of framing the argument incorrectly in order to trick people. It completely ignores the actual mechanisms that cause natural variation in climate, which we can study and separate from man-made causes. If these natural mechanisms should be causing the Earth to cool, while man-made causes are making the Earth warm, then we would not see the Earth going outside of natural variation. It's a completely illogical argument to suggest that if an effect is in the range of a natural effect, it must be a natural effect. What if the man-made effect is in the same range? The fact that having 4 aces in your hand is a perfectly possible result of randomly drawing cards from a deck does not tell us that you must have gotten those cards by randomly drawing from the deck. This image is essentially arguing that you must have 5 aces in your hand in order for you to be cheating. It's simply backwards logic.

Not to mention that the Earth being hot millions of years ago does not mean that level of heat is good for humans at this point in time. We are not dinosaurs and neither are the animals and plants we depend on. And AGW is not simply bad because it is hot, it is bad because it is a rapid warming that the ecosystem does not have time to adapt to. These are facts that are often ignored by denialists in order to construct a strawman of AGW. One has to wonder whether the person who made this image is simply parroting what others have told them without thinking or deliberately making misleading argument. Are they stupid or lying? Either way, I don't think it's worth responding to the rest of the image given the level of delusion displayed in the first part.

Nope. It's literally /x/ tier.

>CO2 is the lesser of these "greenhouse gases" by an order of magnitude but the only one that is taxable and can be used in a rather large hydro carbon control grab.
Not true at all. The only thing you could argue is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2 is water vapor. But water vapor varies too greatly from day to day and cycles through the atmosphere too quickly for our additions to matter much.

And to argue that only CO2 is taxable is fucking stupid.

>Just admit it you shithead. It's the oil stupid and has nothing to do with fixing anything, more about installing global communism.
First you have to construct a tin foil hat for me. You're embarrassing the more sane deniers with this conspiracy quackery.

>The only thing you could argue is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2 is water vapor.

methane has roughly 10x the greenhouse effect of CO2 by volume/#mol (not by mass, but only because it's a much heavier molecule)

But methane is not emitted nearly as much as CO2. So what is the point of saying that CO2 is a "lesser" greenhouse gas when it has the largest effect? Ignoring the actual volume of the gasses while talking about their effect by volume serves no purpose other than to mislead people.

Methane also has a short residence time. CO2's residence time is in centuries.

I was unable to post this because of the spam filter. You are welcome to type them in yourself.

What kind of sheltered life do you lead? Are you 12? Fossil fuels drive everything in modern society down the the grid that powers this Mongolian cartoon board and the computer you fornicate with. They make the tin foil you are so concerned about. It's not conspiracy you retard, its a fact of modern life.
>deniers
This is really the smoking gun marking AGW as the religion it is, even after repeated failures of the UN climate priests and their computer simulated climate doom prophecies the religious dogma sticks through sheer repetition?
Even if earth were warming this is completely in line with what we would expect considering the last glacial maximum was only 20k years ago, a blink in geological time. The ignorance and gullibility is astounding in these threads!

Any rise in CO2 - plant food - can be easily attributed to massive deforestation in all corners of earth and it obviously does not have the effect the AGW climate priests claim. The science is this, carbon is the element of life and the powers that be want to tax it on a global scale, to control it in order to control life on a global scale. You need to be extremely naive to think that will fix anything or end well! History, read some!

>Any rise in CO2 - plant food - can be easily attributed to massive deforestation in all corners of earth

The last century has seen a bloom in forests across the West, lad.

Methane is a qt alkane desu.

YES
>is it an issue
TBD and honestly i'm too ignorant about climate science to have an opinion though i do feel the consensus is that to be a scientist you have to agree with the scientific consensus. what a friggin joke the scientific community is.

Yes, and the earth is flat but duh gubberment says its round in order to control land!

Holy fuck you are delusional. You need to invent a vast conspiracy just to ignore scientific evidence, and I'm the one following a religion? Here's the difference: if scientific evidence that disproves AGW were found tomorrow, I would accept it. Your entire worldview on the other hand is predicated on ignoring all scientific evidence that proves you wrong. Religion is belief in something regardless of the evidence, that is what you are practicing.

>Even if earth were warming this is completely in line with what we would expect considering the last glacial maximum was only 20k years ago, a blink in geological time.
The warming period after the last glacial maximum ended 10,000 years ago. Temps plateaued since then and now have spiked due to AGW. We've been in the interglacial for several thousand years and according to the Milankovitch Cycle we should be cooling now. So once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Stop pretending to, no one is fooled.

>Any rise in CO2 - plant food - can be easily attributed to massive deforestation in all corners of earth
No, deforestation only accounts for 12% of total emissions. Another retarded lie that anyone can easily disprove with a google search.
nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n11/abs/ngeo671.html

>The science is this, carbon is the element of life and the powers that be want to tax it on a global scale, to control it in order to control life on a global scale.
youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

>Milankovitch
I bet that cycle was ""discovered"" by the Soviets?

No, Milankovitch was a Serbian. But I'm sure you can fit that into the grand conspiracy, loon.

Lol did the mods get Triggered by a smug fox?

daily reminder that CO2 is food for plants:

Oh no. Not this thread again.

If you actually read the entire thread you'd know that's a massive simplification and that the CO2 is actually released back.

The simple fact is its a theory for which evidence can no be found, simulations of every carbon molecule on earth and their relation to climate is laughable, projecting it all out 1 year is asinine and 100 years insulting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

Like I've said before, it bares all the marks of a new age religion. Prophecies of doom that are unprovable yet garner occult traction. A hunt for deniers, a classic inquisition. All backed by mountains of mumbo jumbo being churned out a rate unfathomable and indigestible by a person, let alone an entire planet of people.

It is an obvious power grab, literally, they are taking control of hydrocarbons through global taxation and soon to come, draconian regulation. i don't blame anyone here for aspiring to be a new age climate priest, but make sure you start getting paid before pulling the plug on your own future energy source which in this day and age, is fossil fuels, for better or worse.

>Is climate change real?
yes

Is it fucking significant?

FUCK NO

Boldfaced refers to bold typing. Fat letters etc.

There is no such thing as a static environment.
There is also no science to support homeostasis as a long term concept.
Living organisms are just inherently selfish and see their survival as being "normal" and "the way things are supposed to be"
This belief is without merit or evidence to support it.
Life will exist for only a short time in comparison to the entirety of existence.
Shifting blame is an obvious tactic.
Humans are manipulating the planet, but it's irrelevant.

>but it's irrelevant
If that's your ultimate conclusion, do us all a favor and kill yourself. (Or just stop posting. Whichever is easier.)

I worry about people who think like this. It's the same kind of "magic bullet" bullshit you find on Moon Landing Hoaxers and other conspiracy theorists. They reject any kind of complex view of a topic where elements can be connected to each other in multiple ways, and then insist that any negative element they stumble across "will collapse the house of cards". Reality simply doesn't work that way.

Yes, rising CO2 level can under some circumstances increase plant growth. Those circumstances aren't universal however, and there are many other ways that climate change will affect crop growth that outweigh this effect.

>The simple fact is its a theory for which evidence can no be found, simulations of every carbon molecule on earth and their relation to climate is laughable, projecting it all out 1 year is asinine and 100 years insulting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
The fact that you clearly don't understand a topic doesn't mean that no-one does. Also, large-scale trends don't only exist as sums of small-scale trends. No-one is trying to predict the weather 100years out, or model every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere: We simply don't need to.

>Like I've said before, it bares all the marks of a new age religion.
Yes, except that's completely wrong. Have fun whacking strawmen though.

>Is it fucking significant?
>FUCK NO
That's not what the evidence shows.

How does any of that shit relate to AGW?

>Humans are manipulating the planet, but it's irrelevant.
Unless you redefine "irrelevant" to mean something absurd and unhelpful, no it is not irrelevant.

The lives of many people are closely coupled to the behavior of the weather, the oceans, and to other living things. AGW can, will, and is making rapid changes to those. Failing to address and prevent those changes is going to lead to famines, conflicts, and large-scale displacement. None of those things will be fun.

Why?
The context is:
>Humans are manipulating the planet, but it's irrelevant.
Why do you have an emotional reaction to that?
Why are you associating it with meaning something else?
I never said life was meaningless.
Not once.
I said the fact that humans are manipulating the planet is meaningless.
But you are beneath me.
Only a retarded person requires someone to repeat himself.
You jump to irrational conclusions.
You have no right.

...

>Unless you redefine "irrelevant" to mean something absurd and unhelpful, no it is not irrelevant.

Oh, inferior one.
It is irrelevant.
If human interactions lessen their existence by a million years, then it's still only a twinkle.
Your inferior minds lack infallible and perfect perspective.
I laugh, yawn and grow tired of your lack on completely perspective.

>He doesn't want to assists life's continuation

t. pic related (well explained as the parasitic strategy in terms of evolutionary game theory)

That's not even close to what I said.
Your inferior mind can't comprehend that humanity isn't the center of the universe.
That is the infallible fact that I am presenting, but your inferior mind can't grasp it.
What you're doing is making things up, which is what stupid people do when their self-importance is challenged.

>I worry about people who think like this.
Don't. You either care about this issue or you care about your ability to talk at length about this issue.

I don't want to read posts written by someone who only cares about talking at length. If I'm going to care about this issue, I want to hear about it from someone's that's done their research well enough to NOT CARE WHO LISTENS OR DOESN'T.

Are you such a person and can you state your basic claim for me, yes me, individually, because I matter, or do I have to wait for the next user who might have done their research?

>>He doesn't want to assists life's continuation
>t. pic related (well explained as the parasitic strategy in terms of evolutionary game theory)

Hey, idiot.
Look at my pick.
Do you understand "irrelevant"?

Perspective is a game of facts and numbers.
You just refuse to accept the facts and numbers.
Because you are inferior.

>Why do you have an emotional reaction to that?
I don't, dipshit. If you conclusion is that it's irrelevant, then your conclusion is anti-constructive to any rational discourse. Irrelevant things are the ones that you aren't supposed to bother saying. I'm recommending that you kill yourself not because I have any kind of emotional reaction to your existence or the claims you make, but because the level at which you've chosen to operate is so well below that of rational and relevant discourse that you'll actually improve the quality of our dialogue if you literally shoot yourself in the face. It's just a simple mechanistic reaction to objectively improve the quality of posts on Veeky Forums, that's all.

Who's talking about global warming?

*pic

>believing in inferiority
It's almost 2017 and you're still warping that horseshit into a pretense of relevance?

Climate change/Global warming
Only idiots play with semantics to win a debate.
You all lost. I won. It's an infallible fact.
We will survive at the moment, but eventually humans, and all life on Earth will die.
You must accept that.
If you can't then you're not really intellectual.

>muh permanent growth

You're actually a real shill aren't you?

>Why do you have an emotional reaction to that?
Because it means that either your rejecting warnings of harm made by experts in an area, or you don't regard the wellbeing of other people as meaningful.
The former is view is dangerous, and the latter sociopathic.

>But you are beneath me.
>You have no right.
Uh-huh.

>If human interactions lessen their existence by a million years, then it's still only a twinkle.
>Your inferior mind can't comprehend that humanity isn't the center of the universe.
We matter to us because we think we matter.
No-one gives a fuck about your "universal perspective" - it's philosophical masturbation.

Now piss off.

>If I'm going to care about this issue, I want to hear about it from someone's that's done their research well enough to NOT CARE WHO LISTENS OR DOESN'T.
Only an narcissist or an idiot wouldn't care if people aren't listening to them when they talk. If no-one is listening, then clearly I've failed at communication.

>Are you such a person and can you state your basic claim for me
What claim do you want? I've made a bunch.

the chart you've posted is a fabrication:

stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/

Oh, don't get me wrong.
I believe all self-aware beings are equals until they violate the laws of intelligence:
- Never use fallacies
- Never lie
- Never fall to childish psychological effects
- Never falsely accuse someone
etc.
All very on the up and up.
If you choose to be inferior, then you are.
You are inferior. You have no idea that you BECAUSE you are.
There are ranks for a reason.
You're at the bottom, but there is no top.
Only bottom and middle.

Loaded Bulverism?
I don't have to correct you because the number of straw man arguments and fallacies you have used would be a waste of my time to correct.

Pro-tip on how to be infallible:
Never use bulverism.

"Shill"?
On Veeky Forums?
Because Veeky Forums is important?
Get real and get mediated.

>tfw fallacy fallacy

You do realise I wasn't talking about the climate or global warming and you've done nothing but deflect?

That's not a fallacy fallacy.
You're using the fallacy fallacy fallacy.
To be a fallacy fallacy, I must say your conclusion is wrong because your argument is wrong.
Not what I am saying. I am saying your argument doesn't support your conclusion and your conclusion is wrong for other reasons.

You do not understand what the fallacy fallacy is.
Stupid people think it means "if you say someone used a fallacy and it means they're wrong for doing so, that's a fallacy".

That's not what it means.
It means people are wrong when they say an irrational argument can be used to support a coincidentally correct conclusion.

I have pointed this out thousands of times on Veeky Forums, but you idiots never learn.

The personal blogs of two deniers and a statement to the media by a single scientist isn't terribly compelling. Especially regarding accusations of a massive conspiracy.
Is there at least a proper paper published about this, so that we can see criticism from actual experts?

>Loaded Bulverism?
No.

>He's this triggered

>What claim do you want?
Literally any. That was my way of saying I'm too lazy to read the thread. (I also lost a ton of motivation to read anything the moment the hivist showed up and started shitposting his inferior notions of irrelevance.)

also

Or alternatively I can check back tomorrow. It's 5AM on my end here. All I really care about is an honest dialogue with someone who's studied the issue decently.

I don't know that I can really claim to have "studied the issue decently". I know enough to grasp the big picture, but for details I'm just parroting the views of experts.

Are there finite resources? (see economics aka distribution of scarce resources) or is it limitless?

Ignoring the magic of future technology, almost all of the resources we use are very limited. Many won't last a century at current rates.

It doesn't matter what I would do because I've done this before and all my actions are already set in stone. Also, I don't remember anything from the past times this has happened. It really doesn't matter.

> omg globule warmings gunna kill us all xO
why hasn't /x/ left yet ?

>omg globule warmings gunna kill us all xO
What a compelling refutation to modern climatology. You managed to misspell not just one, but two different words!

> why don't you make fun of my autism with proper punctuation
leL r u mad sun =?

> modern climatology
I haven't seen a more inconsistent, baseless and disrespected clown act more than modern climatology. Why are you guys completely incapable of coming up with facts ?

>I haven't seen a more inconsistent, baseless and disrespected clown act more than modern climatology.
Nice opinions. You managed to say the exact same thing as , but used twice as many words. I cant even give you points for creative spelling.

>Why are you guys completely incapable of coming up with facts?
Because your mom is fat.

Are you actually going to raise any points worth discussing, or does baseless accusations of ignorance and misconduct make up your entire circus routine?

> copying opponent
oh thats sad. you hit the bottom already ?
but regardless of all that, unproven ridiculous conjecture belongs to . Now take your agws, take your flat earth and fuck off.

>oh thats sad. you hit the bottom already ?
No, I just can't be bothered putting effort into dealing with your shit.

>unproven ridiculous conjecture belongs to . Now take your agws, take your flat earth and fuck off.
I'm so sorry that those mean climatologists said things you didn't want to hear.

yeah its pretty bad when people shit in the name of science like that :(
but we have a proper board for pseudo-science now :D
click the following link to join back with your friends

Jesus, and I was joking about the "entire routine" thing.
You really don't have anything to say other than shouting "not science" over and over, do you?

> why don't you call my bullshit science
because it's not science.

>taking issue with a single phrase instead of the data presented in the image

That's not just a single phrase though. That's the entire premise of the argument being made.
The fact that it's nonsense is very important.

>Being this new
Yes it's real you stupid faggot. You are probably /pol/ shitposting again. Fuck off.

Dumb ghettoposter

...

That quote, while accurate, is out of context it seems. The argument seems to be that modernization of poor countries will lead to massive increases in emissions as can be seen in India and China if something is not done.

>if something is not done

and what do you want to do, de-modernize them? forcing degrowth?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

that shit doesn't even work in theory, let alone in practice

>I haven't seen a more inconsistent, baseless and disrespected clown act more than modern climatology.

Explain in complete sentences and with references

I suggest you read this, it's a very nice summary.
gdrc.org/oceans/fsheet-02.html

Once you're done, read this study. I'll post some excerpts from the results:
>6. Outlook
The importance of a fundamental understanding of marine ecosystem regulation becomes even more pressing in view of recent considerations to manage or manipulate oceanic CO2 sequestration. While the ocean’s capacity to store anthropogenic CO2 is immense, its sensitivity to related changes in environmental conditions is likely to be high. In contrast to the terrestrial biosphere, marine ecosystems have evolved in a comparatively homogenous environment under conditions of relative stability over evolutionary timescales. Even subtle changes in the environmental conditions may therefore have strong effects on ecosystem functioning, with yet unforeseeable consequences for elemental cycling.

adelaide.edu.au/news/news81042.html

The researchers found that there would be “limited scope” for acclimation to warmer waters and acidification. Very few species will escape the negative effects of increasing CO2, with an expected large reduction in species diversity and abundance across the globe. One exception will be microorganisms, which are expected to increase in number and diversity.

From a total food web point of view, primary production from the smallest plankton is expected to increase in the warmer waters but this often doesn’t translate into secondary production (the zooplankton and smaller fish) which shows decreased productivity under ocean acidification.

“With higher metabolic rates in the warmer water, and therefore a greater demand for food, there is a mismatch with less food available for carnivores ─ the bigger fish that fisheries industries are based around,” says Associate Professor Nagelkerken. “There will be a species collapse from the top of the food chain down.”

scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=826

During their lifetimes, plants generally give off about half of the carbon dioxide (CO2), that they absorb, although this varies a great deal between different kinds of plants. Once they die, almost all of the carbon that they stored up in their bodies is released again into the atmosphere.

As you may know, plants use the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 (from the air) and water (from the soil) into sugars. This is called photosynthesis.Plants use some of these sugars as food to stay alive, and some of them to build new stems and leaves so they can grow. When plants burn their sugars for food, CO2 is produced as a waste product, just like the CO2 that we exhale is a waste product from the food we burn for energy. This happens day and night, but since photosynthesis is powered by sunlight, plants absorb much more CO2 than they give off during the daytime. At night, when photosynthesis is not happening, they give off much more CO2 than they absorb. While they're alive, overall, about half of the CO2 that plants absorb is given off as waste.

When you look at a tree, almost all of the body of the tree is made of sugars, which are made from carbon (from CO2) and hydrogen and oxygen (from water). When the tree dies, it rots as decomposers, like bacteria, fungi,and insects eat away at it. Those decomposers gradually release almost all of the tree's stored carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. Only a very small portion of the carbon in the tree ends up staying in the soil or washing out to sea without changing back into CO2.

No, satellite data show no increase in temperature in the past 18 years.

youtube.com/watch?v=9QKM6eSkslY

>Ted Cruz Exposes The Deception Global Warmists Have Been Peddling

I say it is real to spite all of the conservative retards. Truth be told, I don't know shit about climate change. I just say yes to anger people.

>BUT 1998!!!
No-one is impressed by your cherry-picked endpoint.

No one is impressed by your cherry picked start point.