What are Veeky Forums's opinions on climate change?

What are Veeky Forums's opinions on climate change?

Other urls found in this thread:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/06/29/butter-not-bad-for-healthbut-what-you-spread-it-on-might-be/
nytimes.com/2016/07/01/science/ozone-hole-shrinking-montreal-protocol.html?smid=tw-nytimesscience&smtyp=cur&_r=0
ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I want /x/ memes to stop leaking into Veeky Forums

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you're a Trumpcuck

I'm not. But I hate /x/ endtimes memes with zero evidence to stay in /x/

If anyone says that climate change is fake, they're trolling.

yeah. same with UFOs and Santa Claus

Saying that human's produced CO2 is the reason of climate change is the same as saying as single person's fart is enough to kill a human in a gas chamber.

Noone is seriously denying climate change these days. The focus has shifted to how much humans were part of it.

please don't try to speak for everyone, you're just embarrassing yourself. People still ridicule the church of AGW and its desperate members

This is a math and science board, let's do math and science.

Earth gets 1370 watts per meter squared energy from the sun. There is no other source of energy on the surface of the earth which is significant (for comparison the Earth's core delivers .6 watts per meter squared, 20,000 times less energy than the sun). The Earth's average albedo is .3

Type that in to the Steffan-Boltzmann equation
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

and you get the effective radiating temperature of the Earth at 255 degrees kelvin. Or about 33 degrees TOO LOW. The world is a frozen iceball and we all die. The extra heat comes from the fact that while the incoming radiation from the sun passes easily through the Earth's atmosphere the outgoing radiation does not. Some of that radiation is captured by gases in the atmosphere (so called greenhouse gases) primarily water vapor (about 85%) Carbon Dioxide (about 10%) and methane and other minor gases as the rest. If you double CO2 you WILL increase the temperature by about 3 degrees, no debate. We've known this for 120 years.

We don't concern ourselves about water vapor because water vapor has a residence time of about a week. Methane's residence time is about a year. And carbon dioxide's residence time is in CENTURIES. Once you put CO2 into the atmosphere it ain't coming out again for a long long time.

Carbon-14 is radioactive. It's half life is about 5700 years. A million year old piece of wood will have 0% C-14. When you burn it, it releases no C-14. We can monitor atmospheric C-14 and see that it's percentage is DECREASING. The only way you can do that is by burning oil, gas, and coal. Burning your crops won't do it. Sticking Jews in an oven won't do it. Your grandmother's nasty burnt casserole won't do it. The only way to reduce the percentage of C-14 in the atmosphere is burning fossil fuels.

So we know goddamned well where the C02 is coming from. It's man made. There is no argument anymore.

The last time science has really argued about man made global warming was whether or not the amount of aerosols we pump into the air will balance out the amount of CO2 we pump into the air. Because aerosols reflect sunlight. Well the argument is good and over. CO2 won.

The only people who don't agree with man made climate change are people who don't understand it, or people who are paid by oil, gas, and coal companies to lie about it.

>If you double CO2 you WILL increase the temperature by about 3 degrees


What about weather? Water cycles? Or simply diurnal cycles? If CO2 is so pivotal then why did we end up having ice ages? And why are there past eras with various very high concentrations of CO2 but without a matching linear relationship in temperature?

Have you heard about that physics meme where a cow is a spherical inelastic uniform object in a vacuum? That's what the models are.

>opinion
Yeah, nah.

Larger ice caps in the past means more sunlight gets reflected back into space thus countering CO2

But don't worry about that and keep cherry picking shill

The manmade CO2 emission also caused the ice age to end. Which proves that global warming is not a natural process.

oh wait...

Global warming is a Chinese myth used to undermine US manufacturing.

That's not true which means the opposite is true :^)

It's true. /pol/- pot and trump told me.

>I'm totally ignorant of anything climatological, the post

It's not nearly as powerful as alarmists want us to believe. I's a natural cycle of warming and cooling over millions of years, and we are likely in a warming period, and humans have no impact

Climate has always been changing and will always continue to change. It's just nature.

>BUT of course I don't have any proof for any of the things I'm saying

>shifting the burden of proof

Milankovitch cycles...

Unfortunately I actually know what Milankovitch cycles are. I took both Meteorology and Climate and Earth Systems, which is basically 400 level meteorology for Earth Science majors. Current warming cannot be blamed on the Milankovitch cycle which causes changes to occur over eleven thousand or longer cycles.

>milankovitch

how do they straight up change the dude's name so that english speakers could read it? kind of messed up.

back to

Climate never changes, it's been the same since forever

Pretty sure it started off here on earth as a fiery ball of molten goo and has been cooling ever since, eventually it will be a frozen lifeless rock.

Upside down world, we really need to burn fossil fuels, all of them, leave nothing to run a globalized totalitarian police state and then go from there. It's the best solution, deep down inside, every human knows this to be true.

Because this is an English-speaking website and English uses the Latin character set.

Do you think Russians use Latin characters for European names?

*tips fedora*

The earth was created, in its present state, by G-d 6000 years ago.

Now that the Modern Warm Period is over
the prudent investor bets on Solar Cycle 25

Sometimes it does.
Other times it doesn't.
Right now it does.
But a while ago it wasn't.

Opinion?

My opinion is fuck it.

Warp Drives and you no longer need the planet

> Climate. Climate never changes.

Climate change is real by definition. It could be an increase or decrease in avg. temp. It is a self fulfilling term.

The majority of scientists opine that the global increase in avg. temp is man-made. Some disagree and have posited alternative theories.

If global av.g temperature increases is man made it is very difficult to reverse the factors claimed by pro "Climate change" scientists. You just are not going to get enough countries willing to destroy their economies to eliminate let alone reverse the increase in avg. temperature worldwide.

I think there is no realistic coordination to reduce CO2 emissions.

The market for fossil fuels is global, so is the atmosphere; if you tax CO2 emissions in one place, you have to tax it everywhere or else it will just be burned elsewhere with the same end result.

Humanity has never coordinated on this scale against economic interests this big in a time this short.

I'm cool with it, whatever happens, happens. I don't have kids and we'll all die of ageing in a measly few decades anyway.

theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

Follow the money

Hasn't Greenpeace had plenty of scandals and dishonesty on its own?

Tu quoque. Learn your fallacies.

I didn't hear about any, but please enlighten me.

Wew, then God wills it - the climate change.
Why do people constantly resist the will of God in the year of our Lord, 2000 + 16?

>cause irreversible damage to nazca lines for a silly stunt
>vandalize golden rice test fields and claim locals did it, even though local superstition forbids destroying a growing rice plant
>spread conspiracy theories about microcephaly in latin america, switching from "it's the GMO mosquitos" to "it's the pesticides used to control the mosquitos" with no evidence whatsoever

Also they're anti-fission, anti-fusion, and seem to reflexively oppose any biotech, especially if it benefits the poor.

You guys seem to know shit. Could you recommend some books or other sources for I educate myself about climatology, meteorology and atmospheric sciences in general?

>Also they're anti-fission, anti-fusion
they are also anti hydroelectric power too.

>its true because i say so

Most of the videos in Paul Beckwith's youtube channel are worth watching.

Of course you can also use a search engine to do your own literature research.

This remainds me of that news telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/06/29/butter-not-bad-for-healthbut-what-you-spread-it-on-might-be/

So called scientists says us that butter is harmful. But suddenly oops we made a mistake. This is hilarious

It is almost like people sometimes make mistakes

Are you 50? My parents have been bringing up the butter back and forth science for my entire life.

>What about weather?
Weather is a local phenomenon.

>Water cycles?
What about them?

>Or simply diurnal cycles?
Huh? How would diurnal cycles effect the long term trend? By definition they don't since they recur every day. Do you know what these terms mean?

>If CO2 is so pivotal then why did we end up having ice ages?
Orbital eccentricity and axial tilt of the earth limits solar radiation causing the planet to cool. Once the the eccentricity reverses, the planet starts to warm, which starts a positive feedback loop between warming and CO2 being released from the oceans. This is why interglacial periods start quickly and end slowly. According to the current orbital eccentricity, we should be in the cooling phase at the end of the interglacial, but instead we are warming due to man's contribution of CO2.

>And why are there past eras with various very high concentrations of CO2 but without a matching linear relationship in temperature?
It's not a linear relationship, for one. But there is a clear historical correlation between temperature and CO2, it's just lagged because of the positive feedback loop. Current increase in CO2 was not caused by natural warming so we don't see the same lag. This is exactly what AGW predicts.

According to Milankovitch cycles we are in the cooling phase of the interglacial... So why aren't we cooling?

Daily reminder that only a retard would draw a conclusion to one way or another at this point.

Nicely done my friend. Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten the fact that clouds factor for half of earths albedo. Do you know what clouds are made of and what causes more clouds? Leaving hydrological cycle and all its implications out of the calculations is surely an easy way to come to a definitive conclusion. But sad as it is, not one person on this planet understands perfectly the huge number of variables in our planets thermodynamic mechanisms.

Maybe in a hundred years we have enough conclusive "evidence" one way or another, as it stands its pointless to argue over semantics.

>all climatologists are retards
OK buddy.

>clouds factor for half of earths albedo. Do you know what clouds are made of and what causes more clouds?
Do you know water vapor is also a very effective greenhouse gas?

The caption under that graph is very silly. The CO2 level of the current interglacial was the same as every other interglacial UNTIL we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's trying to equivocate the average temperature over thousands of years before we started pumping in CO2 to the current CO2 level, and saying "see, high CO2 doesn't mean high temperatures". But that's a very disingenuous argument as the CO2 has only been high recently and it was only cool before that.

>all climatologists are retards
Who are you quoting exactly?

Ofcourse i do. Water vapor + clouds together intercept 60-75% of the longwave radiation and the reflectivity of clouds is 1/3-1/4 of that figure. And as i said none of those numbers are definitive because the system has a huge number of variables and factors.

>Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten the fact that clouds factor for half of earths albedo
You know that climatologists are aware of this fact and account for it, right?

WTF? NOOO!! DELETE THIS

I'm not knowledgeable in that field desu but it's probably real and whatnot if most scientists working on it think so

Why not pump up more aerosol?

user, you did it!

You solved global warming. This is fucking huge and I'm getting the press involved right now.

I'm not quoting anyone. This is what you implied by saying "Daily reminder that only a retard would draw a conclusion to one way or another at this point."

wft is indeed a flexible tool.
AGW now has a new meaning.

>only spike in temp has been el nino years

>only a retard would draw a conclusion to one way or another at this point.
Fucking this.

LOL, nice cherrypicking
>land only
>upper air
>from 1998

All that and you still showed a warming trend. Good job.

Indeed, ozone depletion was also completely natural; humans could definitely not have been part of it.

Nice try.

...

We observe a net loss of sea ice in the arctic year by year. That means we have an finite thermal buffer that is being depleted.

If you have 1kg ice at 0°C and you warm it until it is melted, you have water a 0°C. If you then add the same thermal energy, you have water at 80°C.

This means that we have warming that is not yet visible on any thermometer, but will be once the ice is gone or stabilizes at a lower volume.

just checked it and it seems correct. before retards keep drooling they at first should refute this

No one born after 1998 has ever experienced global warming.
Always start at the little ice age.

What happened to ozone hole? Why is nobody talking about it anymore?

How much is AL Gore paying you? You fucking shill cuck Jew!

I watched a 16 minute video that proves global warming is a conspiracy to end the white race.

We stopped the mass production of CFCs and the hole is getting smaller.

>studies that conflict with agw are oil shills
>but government funded research is perfectly valid

honk for carbon taxation

They're experiencing it right now you fucking idiot. You can selectively choose time periods across the extent of the AGW timeline of arbitrary length in which the trend looks flat. But the trend across it is warming. If you need to selectively ignore data to justify your conclusion then you've lost the argument.

You're just not paying attention

nytimes.com/2016/07/01/science/ozone-hole-shrinking-montreal-protocol.html?smid=tw-nytimesscience&smtyp=cur&_r=0

nicely done user, pic related
maybe this thread won't be the usual shitshow...

kek

can confirm this is true

>2 MANY VARIABLES, U CANT KNO NUFFIN
you know, there are a lot of educated professionals who spend their careers finding ways to accurately model these systems based on the data we do have. your claim that it's too complex to understand is argument from incredulity, nothing more.

>we're looking at a 100-year effect
>so let's zoom way the fuck out and look at an 11 thousand year timescale

yeah but why is it only changed sometimes?
why is it not Leonard Oyler but Leonhard Euler?

Also, Milutin Milanković was Serbian and the Serbian language actually uses two character sets, one of them IS latin! Milankovitch is phonetic

sorry for offtopic and autism

Why are deniers so clueless? I just don't get it.

he's right, only a retard would draw a conclusion based on the currently available data
but only a climatologist is retarded enough to submit it for a funding grant

Second largest 2-month drop in global average satellite temperatures. Largest 2-month drop in tropical average satellite temperatures. The rapid cooling is from the weakening El Nino and approaching La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall, but the temperature anomaly can also temporarily rebound for a month, as it did in late 1998.

Disclaimer: The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

Nice try. There are fluctuations within 2 months! Therefore, we can't predict warming trends.

Nice fallacy. I hope at least you get paid for writing this nonsense.