Is global warming real?

>muh surface stations
>muh adjusted historical record

1936 was way hotter than anything recent
the surface record nowadays is totally fake, and the urban heat island effect is massive.

Wow I go outside at midnight and it's cold
I go out at noon and it's hot
It's settled, ban carbon.

1936 is only one year. We're talking about trends over time, so that doesn't really refute my point.

No its a chinese ploy to destroy american companies

>global warming real?
Yes, fast rise after the Little Ice Age. Not much left now, last 20 years trend +0.0065 K/year (pic). Soon going negative because climate always changes and after warm comes cold, always has.

The old pier was better to be honest.

Ill ask this again.

What is the resolution we have of past temperatures before records started being kept. How many years are averaged within each data point for temperatures thousands of years ago?

For all i know it could be absolutely normal for average temperatures to swing up and down by a degree or more every 100 years, while maintaining the same overall average temperatures over a larger period.

Temperature cycles are a thing. But the last few decades have been crazy.

...

...

now that is a reliable source, thanks reddit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

>tfw two smard too belief in chinaese lyes

Yes and no.

"global warming" being caused by carbon emissions is false. The planet is warming due to a natural cycle.

HOWEVER

When it comes to environmental policy we should be careful not because of global warming but rather because local pollution.

I apologize, I do not keep a list of sources for this particular subject on hand.

/pol/

DENIALISTS GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

its just not true shill

>"global warming" being caused by carbon emissions is false.
So you deny the greenhouse effect?

>The planet is warming due to a natural cycle.
Which natural cycle? How does it work?

so, you're for just standing aside and letting china solve clean, renewable, and free energy, did I understand you correctly?

>cherrypicking by starting at El Nino
>satellite data for upper atmosphere and not direct temperature measurement of surface

>Soon going negative because climate always changes and after warm comes cold, always has.
Yeah but when does the warming end? Fucking retard, stop pretending to know what you're talking about.

There are several proxies with high enough resolution and span to determine whether the current warming is normal or not. Such rapid warming has only occurred a few times across this span and corresponds both with increases in CO2 and with mass extinctions. So saying that it happened before doesn't mean that it's good for us, nor does it allow you to ignore the greenhouse gas effect. On the contrary, the historical record supports AGW theory.

>muh surface stations is wrong
>muh adjusted historical record is wrong

>Posts photo comparing ocean at different times of day, years apart, resulting in a low tide vs high tide comparison

I think you've cracked the case sherlock.

>How to make environmentalists look dumb

It's a strawman

It's a low IQ discussion subject.

Example of why:
- What solutions in terms of geoengineering can be done to slow down or reverse the changes? Can you list three?

I simply wrote that question to prove that people scared of climate change are essentially fake believers. They just are scared of technology and are similar to anti-GMO people. They don't want change and want a return to simpler times. Their rally is against oil and big business and with regards to wanting to inflict economical pain on other humans. Not on actually caring about geoengineering.

If for instance you told them we invented something that could cheaply stop global warming but it didn't involve emissions changes and we could still use fossil fuels, they wouldn't want it.

Average global warming brain architecture

- Hates GMOs, technology, anything besides natural farming
- Wants to call other people stupid fuckheads over not believing in science
- Does not want to hear any solution not involving a global government crackdown on emissions
- Basically wants everyone ELSE on earth to stop driving and consuming anything.
- Has no interest in being realistic about climate change but rather predicts death of all humanity.

Forgot to add:
They probably think China is an awful country despite life expectancy continuing to rise post-industrialization and would rather they be poor starving agriculturalists.

There are legit economic issues when it comes to stopping global warming or GMOs, but it's easier to scare brainlets than to educate them on the economic side of it all.

>They just are scared of technology and are similar to anti-GMO people.
Anti-GMO people are scared even though scientists agree there is nothing to be scared about. People who deny AGW are not scared even though scientists agree there is something to be scared about.

>If for instance you told them we invented something that could cheaply stop global warming but it didn't involve emissions changes and we could still use fossil fuels, they wouldn't want it.
Yes I would. Well, looks like your "argument" fails.

If you don't want to trust science then maybe you'll trust the very companies that have the most to lose from climate change being real?
corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

this
it won't be human extinction, but

Yes.

geoengineering? pollution over the years "that couldn't possibly have an effect in our "huge" atmosphere" is NOT engineering. it's tincering if anything.
Also all you're argument revolves around is your Stereotype of a dumb protestor. You neither despute their argument scientifically, nor do you present your own.
Same jerking-off-superiority-complex continues here For the love of god, kill yourselfs. ..or educate yourselfs, but if that ends like this again, then kill yourselfs.

Scientists agree it is happening. That is all.

Most humans don't understand the most basic abstract understanding of climate change, even the believers.

Example
- There is a certain amount of carbon in the current carbon cycles on Earth
- A small amount is lost each year and "buried" in the earth.
- Climate change is the result of going in and unlocking this buried carbon. (sequestered)
atmosphere in various ages of earth.

Essentially we are reversing the natural slow process of sequestration. The earth may warm a little in the process. Again we are not at risk of a runaway effect and boiling of the oceans though as historically there are time periods with far higher (20x) carbon ppm in the atmosphere.

god damn your sentence is absolute shit

>geoengineering? pollution over the years "that couldn't possibly have an effect in our "huge" atmosphere" is NOT engineering. it's tincering if anything.

Pretty much this.
youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw

no? absolute fucking gold right there m80

>Again we are not at risk of a runaway effect
You have absolutely no evidence that can make you say that so confidently.

Worst case scenario the permafrost thaws and releases a bunch of methane leading to very rapid heating and leads to mass extinctions worldwide. Still nowhere near the temperature required to be a tipping point on Earth's way to becoming Venus.

we are alive
Jurassic Period 1800 ppm
Cambrain Period 7000 ppm

Basically I know this sounds crazy to most thinkers.

The world leaders of today should be discussing and finalizes treaties on what atmosphere levels to keep Earth at for the future. Not worrying about global warming. Although even that is presumptive in many ways.

I never said anything about Venus or boiling oceans. But to say that the consequences wont be grave is plain wrong.
Besides the obvious rising sea levels, it will cause a massive change in the ecosystem resulting in massive extinctions of animal and plant species.
That's gonna affect humans as well.
Sure we'll survive, but at what cost?

>Scientists agree it is happening. That is all.
Wrong. See ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

>The earth may warm a little in the process.
A little relative to what? You are completely avoiding the issue of whether this will be significantly harmful to us by being vague.

>Again we are not at risk of a runaway effect and boiling of the oceans though as historically there are time periods with far higher (20x) carbon ppm in the atmosphere.
The runaway effect and boiling of oceans is simply a strawman. The consensus doesn't think there will be a runaway warming effect. And again, just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is fine for us now.

When you want to actually discuss the science instead of this puerile sophistry, tell me.

An affordable cost well worth industrializing and far better than billions of humans starving and suffering.

low IQ poster detected

Tell me what capability to carbon capture will humanity have in 2050?

When I hear runaway all I picture is the most extreme circumstance doomsayers spout. The tipping point for human extinction is not the same as a runaway greenhouse gas effect like it was on Venus. This isn't even the tipping point for all life on Earth.

No one knows.

When you want to actually discuss the science instead of this puerile sophistry, tell me.

So I can not make deductions about carbon capture technologies in 2050

But you can make deductions about 2100+ doomsdays and climate as if we are on a predictable rocket?

These low IQ fuckheads who cry themselves to sleep about global warming are really the most unintelligent vermin on earth.

The dimwitted give themselves the power to linearly predict climate in 2100 but allow absolutely no other thoughts into their little fucking brains.

In short, yes. The climate is well enough understood that we know that continued CO2 emissions = continued warming. What technology develops is completely unknowable.

When you want to actually discuss the science instead of this puerile sophistry, tell me.

I also forgot the human health issues that come with higher CO2 levels as well. These will be much harder to deal with since you can't easily filter them out.
Those simple paper masks those Chinese wear help absolutely nothing.

Of course those paper masks are designed for spit.

Bravo, what a relationship to predict 2100 from.

The faster carbon is emitted into the atmosphere the shorter time span we have for a solution. Telling people it's not an issue when we for certain have to come up with a solution to this problem is only delaying the solution. Accept the science and that it's a problem and then we can think of ways to solve it, a solution won't just come out of thin air.

What is the relationship between industrialization and energy usage vs technological advancement?

Where do you get the prediction model from?
Do you have science supporting a slowdown in human momentum via fossil energies doesn't also slow down the search function for new technologies?

For example
How long does it take a pre-industrial civilization to convert to solar power?

AKA the momentum offered by fossil fuels might create the conditions needed to replace them in an improved time period.

Bravo, what a counterargument.

Are you even trying?

Here is my science experiment

I'm going to go out in a hurricane and test a catapult. The only relationship I will analyze or use to predict results is a very simple model excluding the hurricane.

Are my predictions going to be accurate in the 100+ mph wind?

>in an interglacial period
>glaciers are retreating
who would have thought

>Do you have science supporting a slowdown in human momentum via fossil energies doesn't also slow down the search function for new technologies?
No, do you have proof that it does? Do you have proof that cutting subsidies to fossil fuel industry and instead switching to nuclear energy halts production of technology?

Ah, yes, so we can discuss how fucking AWFUL these global warming "scientific" predictions of life on earth in 2100 are?

if global warming isn't real, why did the ice age end?

If we keep carbon emissions at the rate they are then those predictions are accurate. Only way to change it is to stop the current trend.

What exactly is excluded? You took my short answer as the entire theory. All you can do is strawman AGW into these ridiculous caricatures, because you aren't smart enough to argue with the real thing.

No, what you do is set all the variables to whatever you want, aka confirmation bias to predict 2100 outcomes for life on earth and call it "science".

Everything revolving around the discussions on global warming is garbage ASIDE from the basic fact we are altering the rate of carbon sequestration/release.

What real thing?

You are taking a single thing, CO2 PPM in atmosphere/ocean and using it to predict 2100+ outcomes while pretending it is scientifically backed up in any way.

Great so you admit you have no idea about the science behind it at all. Thanks for admitting you don't belong here.

meteorite hit the north american ice cap and melted it

No, you braindead zombies think you have accurate predictions of life on earth in 2100 because of CO2 cycles.

Tell me in your 2100 model what role does carbon sequestration play?

We're at the end of a interglacial period. The glaciers that are melting were not meeting until now. Should be cooling but we're not.

If you think you know the science give me one of your scientific articles that actually predict what will happen in 2100 and then we'll talk.

>Being on the global warming side allows me to set up the experiment so the only predictive function allowed is a linear extrapolation of current carbon emissions and levels.

>I can also stop anyone from introducing any other relevant functions that influence anything such as conservative estimates of future technology or capabilities

>using this model I get a prediction of 2100+ life on earth.

>this model is so good and "scientific" it should be used to determine technology and human suffering in government decision making

I'm actually allowed to introduce predictions on life on earth capabilities in 2100?

Well in that case we are post singularity and can basically magic fuck the earth however we want.

global warming is trivial.

just to give this some backing of science

the scientific consensus is for singularity pre 2100.

>You are taking a single thing, CO2 PPM in atmosphere/ocean and using it to predict 2100+ outcomes while pretending it is scientifically backed up in any way.
Where did I do that moron? I said based on the understanding of our climate, which represents over a century of scientific research, massive amounts of data from countless sources and theory drawn from practically every scientific discipline.

Yeah and it's all interpreted as a prediction for 2100

Which is utterly fucking moronic

What?

Give scientific articles for anything you're saying thanks. These points in your argument would help a lot to make it sound rational instead of baseless speculation:
>technology guaranteed to be able to solve the issue with no investment required
>predictions of the Earth in 2100
>steps taken to reduce AGW will cause human suffering
Again thanks if you can actually provide evidence for any of this but I sincerely doubt it.

The propensity of climate change crowd to predict life in 2100 from climate models as if it is "scientific" or predictive in any way.

I've done the math estimates on carbon sequestration using modern technologies and it is fully within humanity's current capabilities to 100% offset current emissions.

I don't think humanity in 2050 is going to have a problem with it. The geoengineering needed is trivial and there are lots of life forms currently that carbon sequester pretty efficiently.

It's just a lel argument from fucking morons that have 0 brains and basically set every variable perfectly and refuse to look at alternatives

Great, sources or you're full of shit. I'm a lot more skeptical than to just take the word of an user on the internet sorry for the inconvenience.

No source at all

Just calculate arable land vs carbon sequestration potential of the best life forms. It would be extremely costly but completely possible.

There is no point right now to do it though as the problem isn't worth the response compared to future capabilities dealing with it.

Global warming is like the car that's 10 miles away from the intersection you are walking across. If you stop in the middle of the road and wait for it to hit you, it could be bad, but it's really trivial to just keep walking.

So you have no source for calculating arable land vs carbon sequestration potential but you did the math anyways? How did you do that? Just pulled numbers out of your ass and said yup they fit my agenda to a t?

You haven't looked into it?

You said you did the math, sources should be readily available to you. You're making claims but you've provided no evidence for your claims. How does one do this math anyways? Show your work.

No. I deny it being that much that it causes that large of an effect as what the media and some journals depict it as. in the 70s, they said we would be dead by now. Fewer years ago they said it again. I believe that the natural carbon and nitrogen cycle will fix it eventually.

As for the natural cycle, I am not a geologist nor have I any particular interest in the field. I would however suspect the cycle was evident when the ice age was upon the earth in humanity's neo eras.

I said no such thing. In fact I specifically worry about local pollution caused by such things as reactors and other wasteful things.

I do believe in solving the energy problem. Although, it might already be solved and we have yet to implement it if wind farm statistics are to be believed. Honestly I don't know and I don't claim to know.

>I believe that the natural carbon and nitrogen cycle will fix it eventually.
>I would however suspect the cycle was evident when the ice age was upon the earth in humanity's neo eras.
This is why science is not done with gut instinct. Please if you care enough to post in a thread about science then actually research the science that is happening.
youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ

Many scientists I have read the works of seem to believe that it is a cycle of the earth that will come around again. i claim to have no in depth knowledge regarding it, but I do not know absolutely nothing.

theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-science-of-climate-change/climate-variations-natural-and-human-factors/a-natural-climate-cycle/

Comes up with a google search. In addition, more articles claim otherwise. We do not have a definitive answer yet, but soon enough we will.

Not that it matter regarding what policies I would prefer to have implemented in our government because I do believe as I previously stated, that localized pollution is a massive problem.

>The planet is warming due to a natural cycle.

There are no cycles, only cause and effect

There are cycles though, the Milankovitch cycle being a notable one although it in itself is also cause and effect. It does however have a predictable pattern which is defined by a cycle.

Yes, and that cause if the rise and fall of CO2 in the atmosphere.

IIRC, the glacial proxies are effectively something like an 80 year moving average.