Is global warming a hoax?

>'Cept the "global warming scare" has been, for years now, claiming that the Oceans are releasing CO2 and that we've triggered a positive feedback cycle
The oceans both absorb and release CO2. Globally though, they're a net sink.
I don't know what told you they were a net source, but you should probably be more careful about your sources.

>So, I guess there's no danger?
The fact that you don't understand it ought to make you more concerned, not less.

>Let's face it. Hysteria will end only when all the economy is under one, central control.
Let's face it, conspiracy theories have never been an effective substitute for actual scientific evidence.

Here's a source if you don't just want my word for it:
cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/LDEO_Underway_Database/air_sea_flux_2010.html
>The equatorial Pacific (14°N-14°S) is the major source for atmospheric CO2, emitting about +0.48 Pg-C/yr, and the temperate oceans between 14° and 50° in the both hemispheres are the major sink zones with an uptake flux of -0.70 Pg-C/yr for the northern and –1.05 Pg-C/yr for the southern zone. The high latitude North Atlantic, including the Nordic Seas and portion of the Arctic Sea, is the most intense CO2 sink area on the basis of per unit area, with a mean of –2.5 tons-C / month / km2 (1 Ton = 106 grams). This is due to the combination of the low pCO2 in seawater and high gas exchange rates. In the ice-free zone of the Southern Ocean (50°S-62°S), the mean annual flux is small (-0.06 Pg-C/yr) because of a cancellation of the summer uptake CO2 flux with the winter release of CO2 caused by deepwater upwelling. The annual mean for the contemporary net CO2 uptake flux over the global oceans is estimated to be -1.4 ± 0.7 Pg-C/yr. Taking the pre-industrial steady state ocean source of 0.4 ± 0.2 Pg-C/yr into account, the total ocean uptake flux including the anthropogenic CO2 is estimated to be –2.0 ± 0.7 Pg-C/yr in 2000.

Yes. Climate science is just like social science but without any control group.

No
It's real
It's caused by humans
It's a threat to the future of everyone browsing this board
It's not a threat to the vastly wealthy people responsible for it
It's being constantly belittled by them and their cronies because responding to it will reduce their short term profits

The oceans are a CO2 sink, because they absorb it in the form of carbonic acid (fucking up all kinds of sea life, but whatever)

The threat is methane-bearing clathrates on the sea floor in the higher latitudes, which have a high potential to melt with increasing temperatures leading to a massive release of methane which is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Not this shit again.

this

Is it true that pumping sulfates into our atmosphere could potentially be our emergency "out" method?

Yes, but it's only a temporary fix if emissions continue because you can only pump so much sulfates before affecting the ozone. It also won't help with ocean acidification.

Of course.

>Yes, we're already committed to getting hit pretty bad, but there's still a lot of room to make things worse.
Are you talking about the carbon tax or climate change?

>won't help with ocean acidification
Of course it would. The production of H2SO4 is inevitable. Have acid rain, get lower pH. Added bonus: it stinks like hell. What more can you ask for.

I'm afraid so comrade.

Is your brain a hoax?

it is, but like the 6 gorillian you'd better believe it or face the left wing death squad.

The environment does seem more energetic, and energy is heat. So, too, the science model on which global warming seems to be proven does seem to work within reason for electronics, gadgets and all sorts of useless stuff.

However, I'd say it is more "denial" than hoax. It never started with a story that no global warming was happening: It started with the assumption that global warming was happening and causing problems.

Deniers either see only money or they're afraid to face truth, which, unfortunately, is how we ended up in this crisis.

Once we reach peak oil we'll either have a total collapse of the oil industry and enter a long collapse scenario, or we'll shift over to more environmentally friendly and renewable options. Peak oil is coming soon, it's just about how soon it's going to come and if that will be fast enough to save the environment.

There are no "environmentally friendly" energy sources capable of sustaining modern technology.

Kill yourself

Waiting untill we've burned all the oil in the ground before doing anything about AGW would be INCREDIBLY irresponsible, and massive amounts of harm would have already occurred and//or been committed too by then.

>There are no "environmentally friendly" energy sources capable of sustaining modern technology.
Sure there are. Hydropower in particular is incredibly mature and well proven, and other renewables have been improving at a incredible rate.

>Climate science is just like social science but without any control group.
The predictive models are the control group in a sense, but they are constantly changing and are unreliable. Otherwise, this is essentially true.

but /pol/ says its a hoax

Only because they aren't widespread yet. Wind and solar will dominate the future, especially Solar. Geothermal can be used in some areas, but it's uncommon, and hydroelectric is already widespread, and some of the largest capacity power plants on Earth, in fact almost all of them are hydroelectric.

Then there's Nuclear, not renewable, but it is definitely something that, without such stiff regulations, could be used as a stopgap in switching from fossil fuels to renewable, much to the environmentalist's demise. Fuck what they did to Yucca Mountain.

Man made climate change is a governmental and economic expression of peak energy. As the bounty of energy provided through fossil fuels dwindles through the 21st century, the man made climate will certainly be altered in ways hard to fathom yet.

No. Trump is a fucking retard.

Never mind that Climate Change is a $7 trillion dollar industry.
business.financialpost.com/investing/climate-change-initiatives-a-7-trillion-funding-opportunity-for-capital-markets-carney

I mean if a cartoonist turned psychologist says that Climate Skeptics get tremendous funding, and draws a diagram, it must be true!

Reality is that Climate Change Believers are funded at a rate of a 1000 to 1 to skeptics.

Nice diagram of an authoritarian circle jerk. The use of the term "your source is shit" is the dead giveaway.

"You source is shit" = "not reviewed by certified warmists, not accepted by a warmist editor, not published in a warmist believer journal."

In short if a source doesn't fit inside your echo chamber (UN IPCC), it doesn't count. Therefore climate change is true!

Being well funded doesn't dispute the facts produced by said research though.

Also 2009 was almost a decade ago.

>John Cook isn't a reputable source because he's not a publishing climatologist
>it's biased and wrong to exclude sources just because they're not climatology journals
clue meter is reading zero

Climate change is real in the sense that it's happening. It's a hoax in the sense that entire government-funded industries have jumped up to convince you you want to pay more in taxes so they can be rich.

At the last major conference, all these countries that were going to be so negatively impacted by climate change ended up not wanting to spend their own money to do shit about it.

It's science tainted by gibs and corruption. Now every fucking storm is evidence of climate change according to retards at NPR.

...

It's real, but fuck all if we're going to stop it. China and India are becoming industrialized, and it would be extremely hubristic to think they're going to slow down because the West is suddenly so concerned about atmospheric CO2, just as it's transitioning into renewables.

The world is going to change, a lot, but ultimately life will adapt. There will be extinctions in the wild. Humans will continue on.

Before the great peer adjustment.

>US temperature trend
>global temperature trend
pick one and only one.
pic is from GISS "Global Temperature Trends: Continued Warmth in 1999" showing relatively little change in US temperature from 1895 to 1989, even as the world warmed significantly

This is our real problem:
google.com/patents/US4686605

...

no one lives in globalistan

your soursu a shit

I thought the meme was to push inefficient renewable or green energy products on third world nations and keep them more or less in the dark so didn't pay much attention to it.

It's apparent now the meme is being primarily targeted at the first world which makes sense, they are the only populations with spare time to absorb it and have some spare change to tax.

You are correct, anyway the meme machine rolls, modern industrial society is going to be scaling down along with populations through the 21st century but the big check will be resource depletion, famine, disease or all of those, not bad weather. I enjoy a good storm myself. Pic related, the dreaded boob clouds.

>"You source is shit" = "not reviewed by certified warmists, not accepted by a warmist editor, not published in a warmist believer journal."
Wait wait wait.
Are you trying to argue that mainstream climatology journals aren't trustworthy sources, because they tend to reflect the views of most climatologists? Because that's fucking retarded.

We have a new record and an exxon outlook

Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc. concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased. Similarly, environmental enhancement could be achieved by causing the breakup of various chemical entities such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and the like.
Owner name: BAE SYSTEMS

It won't go much over 100 and then after a brief leveling off goes into permanent decline of 1 to 10% per year so goes the theory. Peak oil theory has stronger more scientifically proven legs than man made climate change theory but obviously the 2 are joined at the hip. The latter just a governmental expression of the first since there is no 'solution' to peak oil theory.

>even more reason for Memelon Musk to go to Mars

...

GLOBAL WEIRDING

>peak oil
The big flaw in that assumption is that the oil output of certain types of land-based wells in the US can somehow be extrapolated to apply on global oil production.

I understand though, you need to convince people that this type of energy is finite and that we need to take action into finding alternative energy sources. Except that it is not really science based.

>Wind and solar will dominate the future
except that they won't

For wind energy you need at least back-up systems in case there is no wind, or power plants you can turn off in case there is too much wind as to not destroy the electric grid.

Solar could work if there would *finally* be an efficient solar panel without net energy costs during its lifetime tbqh famalam.

>problem with unconventional oil sources, peak oil theorist?

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#/media/File:Hubbert_Upper-Bound_Peak_1956.png

Peak oil is not a "theory" any more than the temperature at which water boils is a theory.

When you use a resource that is only replaced over millions of years, you eventually use it up. All the drilling technology in the world can't change that.

The world is already seeing the beginnings of peak oil, as Europe increasingly bases its energy needs on natural gas from Russia.

The collapse of the oil industry is peanuts compared to the collapse of industrialized farming. The world won't end with a bang, nor with a whimper. It will end with either Soylent Green or the Road.

>when you pretend to have idea about how much oil there is
looool

Peak oil is most definitely a theory.

No one is denying that oil is finite. The way oil will be extracted and the whole idea that there is a peak in oil extraction is that it is a prediction on how oil is going to be extracted.

Maybe the theory is accurate for conventional oil reserves but since unconventional oil is being extracted better and better the original theory no longer holds.

>the theory was conceived in the '50s so it's not strange at all that peak oil is not accurate anymore.

Experimental support
nrl.navy.mil/PressReleases/2013/27-13r_Artificial_Plasma_Cloud_HAARP_1200x597.jpg

Who are you quoting?

I'm building a self encloed biosphere in the souther chile at a high altitude so IDGAF you cunts can off yourselves off

Oil will also become more and more expensive. Unconventional oil requires initial R&D investment, and the techniques to extract are still more expensive when put into use. Eventually, and I believe it to be very soon, the cost of oil will exceed other alternatives. It won't be a sudden panic, but a slowly accelerating growth of inflation that won't be reversed unless we develop better alternatives - which we will. This is also why it's important to explore and invest in alternative energies now so that the market doesn't have to rush to find long-term alternatives.

peak oil is a guarantee. what we don't know is when it'll happen, due to improvements in extraction and prospecting.

...

>/pol/ is never wrong
In longer perspective we are having a small ice age at the moment. It all depends on perspective. Global warming like they advertise it is complete bullshit.

Ice age simply means that there are ice sheets at the poles, completely irrelevant to whether there is significant warming relative to humans, being caused by humans. You are a human with a human perspective right?

I mean, even if someone takes the view that humans aren't the single direct cause for an increase in global temperatures.

Can't those individuals be reasoned with that we ought to limit the amount of particulates we spew into the air from factories and power plants and overall negative effects to the quality of air and water that we breathe and drink?

I really have trouble seeing why we haven't agreed overall on reaching a common target, even if we are standing at slightly different positions all across the board.

>we are having a small ice age at the moment
O RLY
climate.gov/news-features/features/2016-shatters-record-alaskas-warmest-year

>Are you trying to argue that mainstream climatology journals aren't trustworthy sources, because they tend to reflect the views of most climatologists? Because that's fucking retarded.

They reflect the views of government sponsored climatologists who will be fired or driven out of their jobs if they don't tow the line. Example Judith Curry former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology:
judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

These climatologist know exactly who pays there bills. Since government will make enormous amounts of money from carbon taxes, they know they have to be careful.

Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

Even oil companies admit it though. You literally have no allies

corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

>there's no such thing as good and bad sources
guess how I know you're scientifically illiterate

>They reflect the views of government sponsored climatologists who will be fired or driven out of their jobs if they don't tow the line.
Then why didn't they start publishing papers saying global warming wasn't real during the Bush years?

>Example Judith Curry former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology:
So your example of climatologists being forced to tow the line is a climate skeptic who won research awards, held a prestigious position at a university for decades, and retired of her own choice? Wow, how persecuted.

You people are so delusional it's funny.

what I fail to see in the whole "global warming is a hoax invented by the government/china/globalists/nwo/jews/mothman/etc." is what exactly is the endgame here? Having people use less carbon-based fuel sources? Which are finite anyways? Even if global warming was totally fake we would still have to transition from coal/oil/gas to be able to survive.

>who will be fired or driven out of their jobs if they don't tow the line. Example Judith Curry former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology
She retired after a long and highly successful career. If "they" are trying to push out climatologists who don't support AGW, then they're doing the worst job imaginable at it.

>Since government will make enormous amounts of money from carbon taxes, they know they have to be careful.
This conspiracy theory gets repeated by deniers like it's obvious, but it makes no damn sense whatsoever.
Firstly, the scientific consensus on AGW PREDATES any political calls to actions - politions were/are the last to get onboard with doing anything about it, not the first.
Second, if the government wanted to raise taxes, they could just do it. They don't need to fake an entire field of scientific study, or to conspire with every other government on earth (even the ones they don't like) to make sure that they're all forging the same results. And you've completely ignored that a) a good half of the proposed carbon taxes are tax-neutral or b) all of the other costs of dealing with AGW, which are what's causing every government to drag their feet as much as possible before agreeing to do anything.
It doesn't even work as a non-conspiracy by individual politicians - they get money and power by looking nice to the public and sucking up to industry, and pushing a response to AGW harms both of those goals. They don't get paid more for raising taxes.

You're just assuming all this shit is a grand conspiracy because you don't want to address actual reality.

I work at a factory cow farm. If I went with my assault rifle and slaughtered as many cows as possible would it help slow down global warming due to methane emission reductions? I'm willing to take one for the team.

make sure to livestream it

didnt they try to change the term to climate change since it wasnt exactly global warming.
and we know climate chnage exist becasue of events in the past. however i think the question that most scientist researching this is if MAN-MADE climate change is a thing and if it is how significant are its effects.

>this is just my interpretation of things tho i could be wrong.

Thanks CO2

>if the government wanted to raise taxes, they could just do it
I don't think so and this is a global tax implemented by globalists to save the globe from itself.

It does nothing to restrict the dreaded poisonous CO2 gases but simply dictates who can emit them. I am sure that will work out well, indeed some people just don't address actual reality.

Wow, you're telling me that a drought is supposed to last indefinitely forever, and never leads to a recovery if precipitation increases? Wow, really opens up the voltage-gated ion channels in my synapses friend! I guess I'm a /climate-denier/ now!

I think climate science is probably correct in their predictions, but I am still uneasy--they have so many free parameters in their models (10,000 for the dude at the last talk I went to), that they can be tuned to fit a whole host of random fluctuations without realizing it. Anybody want to explain to me how this isn't a problem (specifically for projections)?

>didnt they try to change the term to climate change since it wasnt exactly global warming
They changed the term to make it easier to understand for people like you.
For example, warming temperatures cause more intense winter storms. It's easier to just call it climate change than to explain to laymen why warming would cause a blizzard.

What do you mean? They're highly complex models, so of course there's a lot of error.

why did the ice age happen

The Sun will now enter in a minimum phase, people also tend to forget El Nina.. we'll see who's right and who isn't, only time can tell.

For what it is worth, I think there was a scientific solid foundation in this, that would have cleared our understanding in this argument if not derailed. Climate is probably one if not the hardest subject in Earth studies and it is still under active research. Then media and giant foundations hooked up transforming it into a 2012 mayan apocalypse prediction denying criticism.

ice ages happen regularly because of small variations in the Earth's orbit causing the Earth to cool slightly below normal triggering positive feedbacks (such as expanding sea ice) that cool down the entire Earth for a very long time

The margins for error are probably so large as to make them completely useless except for entertainment purposes.

I think there is more to it, earth has been in heat entropy since its creation along with the changing composition of the atmosphere. Then there are sun cycles so right there you have 4 major factors including orbit variations.

The current ice age? A rare confluence of several factors such as Earth's orbital eccentricity, atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases, and the position of the continents around the poles blocking ocean currents.

Solar activity has been low for a while and the temperature has been rising sharply. La Nina and El Nino are only a short term event.

The error distribution is highly suggestive of a systemic problem.

We're not there yet, but you can see it from here.
Droughts come and go, and so does warming.

I like how you cut off the part of the graph that shows it's baselined incorrectly to exaggerate the distance between the data and the model, which is what the part you didn't cut off shows.

You are also comparing measurements of the upper atmosphere to models which predict surface temps.

We know pretty well the relationship between temperature and TSI. Warming from it comes and goes, but AGW doesn't.

Gee, I extrapolate like a climate scientist!

>AGW is based on extrapolation of a trend and not a mechanical model.
Are you people completely ignorant of climatology or do you just feel fine lying about it?

>>Since government will make enormous amounts of money from carbon taxes, they know they have to be careful.
>This conspiracy theory gets repeated by deniers like it's obvious, but it makes no damn sense whatsoever.
>muh politicians never lie
>muh politicians don't want power or money

dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/climate-change/Documents/climate-finance-roadmap-to-us100-billion.pdf
oecd.org/environment/cc/Projecting Climate Change 2020 WEB.pdf
nrdc.org/experts/han-chen/countries-release-100b-climate-finance-roadmap-2020
wri.org/sites/default/files/getting-to-100-billion-final.pdf (site sometimes is down)

>>who will be fired or driven out of their jobs if they don't tow the line. Example Judith Curry former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology
>She retired after a long and highly successful career. If "they" are trying to push out climatologists who don't support AGW, then they're doing the worst job imaginable at it.

What did she say in her blog?
>Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.
judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

Are you stupid, or just pretending to be? She said the politics made it impossible to do good science. Oh gosh, aren't you the naive one who preaches that "science" is neutral? That is anyone who's funding "research" while trying to make billions of dollars will create no bias in the research? At least if its government or UN funding.

But if an oil company puts some money into research (much less than government) then the research is hopelessly tainted.

Your bias or gullibility (both?) is palpable.