What you guys think about Climate change? Is it really a thing or is earth just goint through its natural climate cycle

do you agree to stfu if nothing has changed in 9 years?

I'd agree with this if you could actually provide any scientific studies that are actually against it.

The worst thing people do not realize is that the north pole is made out of 100% ice pretty much, and ice is very good at reflecting light. about 80-90% of the light if I'm not wrong. since the north pole is malting, the ocean around it will absorb more than the ice. therefore in not too distant future when the north pole is nearly gone. it will already be too late. there are some ideas about using solar panels not only for a clean energy source, but also as a way to reflect back the sunlight, but honestly It's probably too late anyways now. not that everyone will die, but a lot of what we take for granted will be soon lost. such as the Maldives islands. the highest point in the Maldives is about 2 m ~ 6 ft

look up Alan Carlin, Patrick Michaels, Ian Plimer, Kiminori Itoh or Freeman Dyson

and this is why america should spend more money on the science rather than waste it on giving welfare to whores and spend it on invading another third world countries

Lists of Skeptical Papers
populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
c3headlines.com/peer-reviewed-research-studies-climate-change-related-other.html
chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html
notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/
notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/
notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/
friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav bibliography LONG VERSION Feb 6-07.pdf

The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye

Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C

Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C

Revised 21st century temperature projections
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system"
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

* Reply to comment by Andrey Ganopolski and Thomas Schneider von Deimling on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition”
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-2.3 °C

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C

Increased Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere WILL increase the temperature. This is basic physics.

We can track atmospheric CO2's source by tracking Carbon isotopes, especially C-13 which is lower in plant matter (including coal and oil) than it is naturally in the atmosphere.

Tracking C-13 shows percentages lowering, this can only happen through burning huge amounts of plant matter (coal and oil)

cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html

There is no further argument. If you deny that humans are causing modern climate change then you are denying physics, chemistry, and math.

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
- Andreas Schmittner et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.6 °C

Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, November 2011)
- Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
- N. P. Gillett et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-1.8 °C

Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
- Magne Aldrin et. al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Ring, Michael J., et al. "Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century." Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2.04 (2012): 401.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.8 °C

Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
(Climate Dynamics, April 2013)
- Troy Masters

Climate Sensitivity: +1.98 °C

A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 40, Issue 11-12,pp. 2651-2670, June 2013)
- J. H. van Hateren

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.3 °C

An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
(Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp. 7414-7429, October 2013)
- Nicholas Lewis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

The Potency of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse Gas
(Development in Earth Science, Volume 2, pp. 20-30, 2014)
- Antero Ollila

Climate Sensitivity: +0.6 °C

The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp. 229-237, February 2014)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3 °C

Otto, Alexander, et al. "Energy budget constraints on climate response." Nature Geoscience 6.6 (2013): 415-416.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °

A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 276, pp. 80-84, March 2014)
- Craig Loehle

Climate Sensitivity: +1.99 °

A lot of your sources are already debunked. You might want to look into changing your copypasta

a. “Reconciling observations of global temperature change” Richard Lindzen & Constantine Giannitsis. Geophysical Research Letters V 29 (2002) No 12 10.1029/2001GL014074

Analyzes the discrepancy between global mean temperature trends, obtained by satellite
microwave data, and surface temperature measurements.

b. “Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs climate reality” Robert Balling Jr & Randall Cerveny Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 103-112

Documents the mismatch between popular perceptions, as created by media reports, and
climate reality, which does not show extreme weather as increasing in the USA.

c. “On destructive Canadian Prairie windstorms and severe winters: A climatological assessment in
the context of global warming” Keith Hage Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 207-228

Documents a temporal frequency peak in severe windstorms and associated tornadoes
during the 1920s and 1930s, then a steady decline since 1940 through 1980s. A steep rise
in tornado frequency since 1970 is attributed to increasing awareness and reporting of
tornado activity in recent years, and NOT due to change in tornado climatology.

d. “Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the Unites States: a result of societal
changes, not global warming” Stanley Changnon Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 273-290

Documents that increasing economic impacts of extreme weather events in the USA is a
result of societal change and NOT global warming.

e. “The global warming debate: A review of the present state of science” M L Khandekar T S Murty &
P Chittibabu Pure & Applied Geophysics V 162 (2005) p. 1557-1586

Concludes that the recent warming of the earth’s surface is primarily due to urbanization,
land-use change, etc. and not due to increasing green house gas in the atmosphere.

f. “Extreme weather trends vs dangerous climate change: A need for a critical reassessment” M L
Khandekar Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p.327-331

Shows that extreme weather events like heat waves, winter blizzards, rainstorms, droughts
etc are not increasing anywhere in Canada, USA or elsewhere, where sufficient data are
available for adequate analysis.

g. “The interaction of climate change and the carbon dioxide cycle” A Rorsch R S Courtney & D
Thoenes Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p. 217-238

Argues the relatively large rise of CO2 in the 20th century, was caused by the increase in
the mean temperature which preceded it.

h. “Can we detect trends in extreme tropical cyclones?” Christopher Landsea et al Science V 313
(2006)p.452-454

Suggests the Dvorak technique, developed to estimate hurricane strength, was not
available in the late 1960s and early 1970s or before, when some of the hurricanes and
tropical cyclones may have been stronger than estimated.

i. “Trends in western North Pacific tropical cyclone intensity” M- C Wu K-H Yeung & W-L Chang EOS
Transactions AGU V 87 (2006) No 48 28 November 2006

Suggests that the western North Pacific tropical cyclone climatology does not reveal
increasing strength for typhoon records from 1965 to 2004.

j. “On global forces of nature driving the earth’s climate: Are humans involved?” L F Khilyuk & G V
Chilinger Environmental Geology V 50 (2006) p. 899-910

Presents a comprehensive review of the global forces driving the earth’s climate over
geological times. The present warming of the last 150 years is a short warming episode in
the earth’s geologic history. Human activity (anthropogenic green house gas emission)
may be responsible for only 0.01°C of the approximately 0.56°C warming of the 20th
century.

Impact of solar variability on the earth’s climate

a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview” George Reid Space Science
Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11
Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little
Ice Age as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the
solar/climate link.
b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review
Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007
Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how
this in turn would impact the mean temperature.
c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?” Wibjorn Karlen Ambio,
Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350
Argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2°C than the previous ones
during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was
100 ppmv less than at present.
d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677
Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little
Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the
solar/climate link.
e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584
North Atlantic oscillation is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as
identified through sunspot cycles.
f. “Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?”
Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208

Arctic & Antarctic temperatures: from Holocene to present
a. “First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediment reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat” C J Pudsey
& J Evans Geology 29 (2001) p.787-790
Documents that the Larsen A & B ice shelves in the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula were
probably altogether absent about two thousand years ago.
b. “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response” P Doran et al Nature online 13
January 2002 (DOI:10.1038/nature 710)
Documents a cooling trend in the Antarctica using recent temperature data.
c. “Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the maritime Arctic, 1875-2000” I V
Polyakov et al J ournal of Climate 16 (2003) p. 2067-2077
Presents a long series of temperature and pressure data (1875-2000) over the Arctic basin,
and documents strong multi-decadal variability on a time scale of 50-80 years.
d. “Holocene climate variability” P A Mayewski et al Quaternary Research 62 (2004) p. 243-255
Identifies Rapid Climate Change throughout the Holocene, involving cool polar regions
and wet (or dry) tropical regions.
e. Global warming & the Greenland ice sheets” P Chylek, J E Box & G Lesins Climatic Change (2004)
63 p. 201-221
Shows that a rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s. Average
annual temperature rose between 2° and 4°C in less than ten years.
f. “A multi-proxy lacustrine record of Holocene climate change on northeast Baffin Island, Arctic
Canada” Quaternary Research (2006) 65 p. 431-442
Shows a pronounced Holocene temperature maximum, about 5°C warmer than present.

Temperature reconstruction using proxy data: The Hockey-Stick Graph
The following studies demonstrate conclusively that the highly publicized Hockeystick
graph was based on several erroneous calculations and assumptions.
a. “Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature
series” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Energy & Environment Vol. 14 (2003) p. 751-777
b. “Reconstructing past climate from noisy data” H von Storch et al Science Vol. 306 (2004) p. 679-
682
c. “Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance” S McIntyre & R McKitrick
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32 (2005) L03710
d. “Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution
proxy data” A Moberg et al Nature Vol. 433 (2005) p. 613-617
e. Wegman Edward, Scott D W and Said Yasmin H 2006: Ad Hoc Committee Report to Chairman of
the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House sub-committee on
Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick global climate reconstructions. US House of
Representatives, Washington USA. Available for download from
ITTP://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006 Wegman Report.pdf
f. “Reconstruction of temperature in the central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a delta18O
stalagmite record” A Mangini, C Spotl & P Verdes Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 235 (2005)p.
741-751

Hey, Mr copypasta. You don't understand 1/10th of what you're posting and that's obvious as fuck.

I'm grabbing links as fast as I can and none of them I've seen so far say anything that denies climate change at all. You can't just grab onto uneducated garbage websites that latch on to scientific papers they think deny human caused climate change.

These papers are about solar cycles ... from the early Quaternary, changes in solar output ... from the 16th century, things we already know about plants role in absorbing carbon.

You've got to be fucking kidding me if you think this shit you've gathered means anything you dumb fuck.

I'M GOING TO BUILD A GREAT, GREAT TEXTWALL

There is a lot of evidence to suggest we have influenced the climate.

There is next to no evidence to suggest it is natural.

Cherry-pick what you will.

Levitus, S., et al. (2012), World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L10603, doi:10.1029/2012GL051106.

Just 0.09°C – 0.18°C Of Net Warming In 0-2000 m To 0-700 m Ocean Since 1955

Non-Correlation Between Human CO2 Emissions & Ocean Heat For Most Of The 1900-2010 Period
Gouretski, V., J. Kennedy, T. Boyer, and A. Köhl (2012), Consistent near-surface ocean warming since 1900 in two largely independent observing networks, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L19606, doi:10.1029/2012GL052975.

Give this a watch its worth your time youtube.com/watch?v=90CkXVF-Q8M

>Hey, Mr copypasta. You don't understand 1/10th of what you're posting and that's obvious as fuck.
>wah, wah, wah, I'm getting my ass kicked.

>These papers are about solar cycles ... from the early Quaternary, changes in solar outpu
>algore said that its not the sun!

1. Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records, Ka-Kit Tung1 and Jiansong Zhou, 12/2012; “…anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.”

2. Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites, Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu, 10/2012. Read more here.

3. Significant Changes to ENSO Strength and Impacts in the Twenty-First Century: Results from CMIP5, Samantha Stevenson, 09/2012; read more here, “…ENSO amplitude does and does not respond to climate change...”

4. Secular temperature trends for the southern Rocky Mountains over the last five centuries, Berkelhammer and Stott, 09/2012. “Temperature trends in SW US have been relatively stable over last 5 centuries.”

5. Solar forcing on the ice winter severity index in the western Baltic region, M.C. Leal-Silv et al, 09/2012, read wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/solar-activity-linked-to-arctic-winter-severity/more here. “…ice winter severity index is strongly modulated by solar activity at the decadal periodicity.”

6. Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel and its Controls: A Perspective from Observations and Global Climate Models, Miller et al, 8/2012, read more here; “… GCMs underestimated the surface LW and SW CRF and predicted near zero SW CRE when the measured values were substantially larger…”

no thanks I've heard plenty of preachy faggots who don't know shit about science give their two cents on the matter already

And you know shit about science? I don't think so

>forgot links/refs

1. Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records
Kit Tung1 and Jiansong Zhou
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195

2. Po-Chedley, Stephen, and Qiang Fu. "Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites." Environmental Research Letters 7.4 (2012): 044018.

3. Miller, Mark A., Virendra P. Ghate, and Robert K. Zahn. "The radiation budget of the West African Sahel and its controls: a perspective from observations and global climate models." Journal of Climate 25.17 (2012): 5976-5996.

4. Berkelhammer, M., and L. D. Stott. "Secular temperature trends for the southern Rocky Mountains over the last five centuries." Geophysical Research Letters 39.17 (2012).

5. Leal-Silva, M. C., and VM Velasco Herrera. "Solar forcing on the ice winter severity index in the western Baltic region." Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 89 (2012): 98-109.

6. Miller, Mark A., Virendra P. Ghate, and Robert K. Zahn. "The radiation budget of the West African Sahel and its controls: a perspective from observations and global climate models." Journal of Climate 25.17 (2012): 5976-5996.

>not copypasta
>[read more here]
Proof that you don't even read the stuff you copy paste, explaining the flaws with your articles is a waste of time.

>if I pretend to be choosing not to do it that's the same as actually being able to do it

Leo why don't you spend more time on things you're good at, like cocaine

Do me a favor and actually read the articles you've presented here and tell me if any of them actually deny AGW.

The Earth has a natural climate cycle but we basically took that natural cycle and went full retard without realizing it for the longest time... Then we realized it... And didn't give a shit...

Climate change deniers really are a massive cancer that bogs down anything good actually happening to relieve it. Wish it could be like the creationists and everyone else in which the creationists are laughed out of the room and shit actually moves on.

Here I'll even help you out a little, the first article's abstract is located here pnas.org/content/110/6/2058
"The observed global-warming rate has been nonuniform, and the cause of each episode of slowing in the expected warming rate is the subject of intense debate. To explain this, nonrecurrent events have commonly been invoked for each episode separately. After reviewing evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and the longest instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised picture is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each multidecadal episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century. A recurrent multidecadal oscillation is found to extend to the preindustrial era in the 353-y Central England Temperature and is likely an internal variability related to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), possibly caused by the thermohaline circulation variability. The perspective of a long record helps in quantifying the contribution from internal variability, especially one with a period so long that it is often confused with secular trends in shorter records. Solar contribution is found to be minimal for the second half of the 20th century and less than 10% for the first half. The underlying net anthropogenic warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs that included the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s, the accelerated warming of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slowing of the warming rates. Quantitatively, the recurrent multidecadal internal variability, often underestimated in attribution studies, accounts for 40% of the observed recent 50-y warming trend."
Now tell me where in that it proves AGW isn't real.

I know for a fact that change will come. Eventually our other options will be safe, reliable, and efficient/cost-efficient enough to switch to without much controversy, the problem is that it might take another 50 years and we might not develop technology to dig us out of the pit fast enough. The change will come, but It might not save us.

The problem is people waiting for that 100% easy solution that will cause no problems but at some point you have to begin the transition and when you begin that transition it can spark the technology to develop more.

I mean why sit around while my house is burning down while the fire department is on its way when I can get my neighbors to do what we can before then. Hell we might even get it out before the dudes show up.

"... suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century"

"The underlying net anthropogenic warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs that included the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s, the accelerated warming of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slowing of the warming rates."
So uh no it looks like AGW is real, your source not mine.