Global warming

Tourists losing their climate religion.

...

(continued)

Guys, this climate change thing is stupid, carbon dioxide isn't increasing, global warming isn't real, and anyone who says differently is stupid.

if global warming saves the sahara then we need more of it.

Is that official? They were so certain about "global warming" I am surprised they have modified their position.

Mind you it seems like their models suggests more like regional warning and some regional cooling (in the North Atlantic).

Deserts are defined by a lack of moisture/precipitation, not temperature.

Next

nice reddit memes my friend

Global ENERGIZING (heat is energy): Energy allows all kinds of extreme weather, cold and hot.
It's not so much CO2 and all the chems: It's the lack of O2 and in the body lack of it produces malformed cells (cancer) and an inability to deal with toxins, poisons...

The average global temperature is increasing
This increase is causing the climate to change

>2018
>using 1850 memes
How much does exxon pay you?

Are you in the right thread?

someone post the titanic pic with the /pol/ack

Stupid liberals are wrong again!!!

You must be 18 or older to post b8 on my /sci, at least make it entertaining nigger

You have to go back.

Friendly reminder that climate change deniers are the same nazi retards who make racebait threads. Get out /pol/

I honestly attempted to educate the mentally unstable at /pol on their climate and that shit was almost better than this cancer thread

But that's correct. The reason the recent El Nino is the warmest ever seen is because of AGW. Cold weather is not evidence against AGW as it's not the norm.

Why is this thread even here?
Global warming is objectively non science. It fails the main purpose of science: to predict by modeling.

Sage

>Global warming is objectively non science. It fails the main purpose of science: to predict by modeling.
Citation needed

The bush administration coined the change btw it was a way to lessen the impact of the term. Seasons change, warming is a linear kinda thing.

Turned out they acadentaly made the easy agrument of DURRR SNOW harder to use.

>Classic bush fuck up.

If warming was the norm, we wouldn't be worried about it.

I don't know where you're going with this.

>hur global warming means it's always hotter in every single spot on earth always

you realize you're a fucking retard, right?

Warming is currently the norm, and we are worried about it. Normal does not mean safe. I don't know where you're going with this as this doesn't even address the point I'm responding to.

No need.
Agw isn't falsifiable.
You can't even show me a model that accurately predicts co2 emissions vs. Avg temp let alone the supposedly numerous second degree effects.

Of course AGW is falsifiable.

Showing basic chemistry is wrong and that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist would falsify it.

Showing that we haven't been increasing the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere would falsify it.

Showing that the earth hasn't been warming dubbed we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere would falsify it.

Every basic fact AGW rests on is completely falsifiable. Only a completely delusional cultist would argue otherwise.

You have to prove that the two events warming and co2 emissions are causal.

Youre right that those things would falsify it, but your points don't prove or predict it either.

...

get the fuck back to plebbit you... you... DOUBLE NIGGER!

This is far too theoretical, we're not proving basic chemistry wrog anytime soon, but if ice core data is proven inaccurate for certain periods the argument for unprecedented climate change may appear weaker comparitively, although effects validating climate theories are already occuring, and the rate or temp. rise appears consistent before the past century regardless of error.

Again, they're not theories.
There have been 0 predictions using models about agw as it relates to climate or weather

can anyone give a convincing argument against global warming (with sources included) because all i can find on google scholar are articles supporting global warming

I should have worded it better, that what you're saying is a stretch if it's meant to be viewed as an example at all, because the same could be said about practically everything we know, and there have been quite a few predictions simulating different potential scenarios by a variety of research institutions, the example with the largest dataset found here:
nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-releases-detailed-global-climate-change-projections
And if youre talking abot noone predicting agw's effect on the climate, theres billions of papers on the greenhouse effect and the relatively absurd levels of emissions attributed to human activity going back to papers in the 1950s

Climate models predict that if greenhouse gases are to blame for heating at the surface, compensating cooling must occur in the upper atmosphere.. As emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, their cooling effect on the stratosphere will increase.. The observed cooling of the upper atmosphere in recent decades is strong evidence that the warming at Earth's surface is due to human-emitted greenhouse gases. It should also give us additional confidence in the climate models, since they predicted that this upper atmospheric cooling would occur. (Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. - Director of Meteorology)

Will we need a new narrative?

What do you mean by new narrative?
This has been known for quite a while by atmospheric scientists, as a byproduct of hadley polar/etc. cell circulation, the atmosphere above the tropopause gets colder while that below gets warmer

>Will we need a new narrative?
Why, this isn't going against the current one.
Also, cite your graph better.

>You have to prove that the two events warming and co2 emissions are causal.
This has already been done. Greenhouse effect.

Are you ignorant of the basic facts pertinent to the debate or are you just pretending that those facts don't exist? Are you stupid or lying? Which is it?

Lacking accurate ice core data would not falsify AGW, it would simply take away a supporting argument. The way to falsify AGW is to falsify its foundational pillars. Falsifying ice core data would be one step on the road to arguing with a plurality of evidence, not falsification.

Yeah that's not necessarily what I meant, thats why I added the bit about the proportions of historical change being important, and although ice core data falsification across both poles and a massive number of samples is unfarhomable, I brought it up to highlight how impropable it is to falsify this data, lest we change everything we understand about the world up to this point, which isn't regressing to allow the falsification of climate simulations.

No stratospheric cooling in 20 years despite the emission of 1/3 of all anthropogenic CO2 during that time. Only cooling coincides with volcano eruptions.

Then why does the increase the rate of CO2 concentration change always happen AFTER an increase in the rate of temperature change.

> nb4 we've talked about it.
Never answered it. Hurr, durr, lagged noise is not an answer.

Are you fucking retarded?
I hate linking people this stupid but this shitty graph you plopped in with no source IS the greenhouse effect. Of course it lags, that's how it fucking works. It's like arguing with children, every point brought up is a misunderstanding of a well-known fact due to laziness or manipulation, where the hell are your sources. The increase i co2, which is typically due to volcanic activity (from less tectonically stable time periods) leads to the accumulation of carbon in the thin atmosphere, which acts as a "greenhouse gas" by reducing the typical amount of solar radiation that escapes the atmosphere after it is reflected by the earth's surface, ice and to a lesser extent oceans. That buildup in solar radiation leads to an increase in temperature, because you're probably too stupid to know heat is radiation as well (thermal radiation).

>Then why does the increase the rate of CO2 concentration change always happen AFTER an increase in the rate of temperature change.
The CO2 concentration increases BEFORE and AFTER warming, because warming releases CO2 and water vapor from the oceans which then cause more warming via the greenhouse effect. In the past, that feedback loop was started by increased solar radiation from the eccentricity of Earth's orbit around the Sun. This is called the Milankovich cycle, which explains the Earth's cycling between glacial and interglacial periods. Today however, such warming was started by us increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is why CO2 does not lag behind temperature today.

Again, all of this is basic shit anyone attempting to talk about the climate should already know. So are you ignorant or just pretending to be?

No stratospheric cooling in 20 years because you cherrypicked that length of time to start at the Mt. Pinatubo eruption moron. Your graph is as clear an example as any of the delusional propaganda deniers rely on, since they have no science supporting their argument. The trend is clearly decreasing.

also I meant to add the reflection process in the oceans is referred to differently as it's responsible for this perceived lag, the time it takes to release the radiation leads to a temp. rise after the co2 rise for obvious reasons

did you not read the two posts on this being an expected cycle by all scientists, why don't you give your thoughts on that unless you're brain's a little too undeveloped for rational discussion - the upper atmosphere is cooling - as expecting - the lower atmosphere - where people live - is warming - no new narrative.

Climate change.
Weather =/= Climate.
Local =/= Global.