Explain Yourselves

Methane contributes a small amount, but its also not pushed by climate peeps.

Linear Lewis Structures are incapable of retaining infrared energy.

>Linear Lewis Structures
Surely Lewis structures are just heuristics, they have little physical meaning. Meanwhile normal modes are explicitly physical, and power transfer is very efficient near normal modes.

>self bumping 5 times because not even /pol/ gives a shit about your bait

methane is readily consumed by bacteria in the air, and ocean, and underground

they even postulated that some organisms on other planets or moons in this very solar system solely exist because they can metabolise methane

>New finding gets utterly misrepresented because science deniers can't read properly
Every day

Most likely true. I personally think it's because of the sun. Also when my cousin was a kid, it was 'global cooling' literally. They were worried about another ice age.

Then when I was a kid it was 'global warming' and now they've had to change the name because of being busted, to 'climate change' which of course, the climate is ALWAYS changing.

lel

If we're talking methane we should include:
- from melting permafrost
- from ocean methyl clathrates
- from cattle
Nothing like a little de-oxygenated methanol to kill us off. CH4

lol i aint got to explain shit

>I personally think it's because of the sun.
It's obviously not. Firstly because the sun's not doing anything that should be producing trends on the ~100year scale, and secondly because of stratospheric cooling - If the Sun was warming the Earth, the top of the atmosphere would also warm up.

>when my cousin was a kid, it was 'global cooling' literally. They were worried about another ice age.
Maybe you read some shitty news articles about that, but global cooling was never the majority view among climatologists. We've understood the basics of greenhouse gas forcing for a long time now. Also, "scientists were wrong in the past, so we can't know anything" is a complete failure of an argument.

>when I was a kid it was 'global warming' and now they've had to change the name because of being busted, to 'climate change'
That never happened. The terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' have always been used more-or-less interchangeably.

>of course, the climate is ALWAYS changing.
What a dumb statement; People worried about AGW are worried about the scale, rate, and effects of the changes.

>did you not learn anything.

Not that guy, but he got you upset didn't he. Anyway, how about the climate models proposed over the years? They're basically always assuming the temperature of the ocean, air, whatever, will be vastly beyond the reality, based on their increased co2 tripling the feedbacks stuff. And they're wrong.

>sciencespeak.com
desmogblog.com/david-evans
Literally zero (0) published papers on climate, what are his qualifications exactly?

>That never happened. The terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' have always been used more-or-less interchangeably.

No, it wasn't. You're obviously younger because you're trying to argue with someone's actual experience who was actually alive during that time. People used to just refer to it as 'global warming' including in school.

You're not going to get anywhere pretending you know something against someone who was actually there. That's like trying to argue with someone what their name was when they were 10.

No one EVER called you John. YES they did, that was my birth name before it got changed to my middle name, Nick! That's what you're doing.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming-basic.html
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract

Which climate model is that graph even referring to?

The answer is no, clearly.

>he got you upset didn't he.
Nah. I've been upset with deniers before in these threads, but it took much more than that.
I haven't called anyone "fuckface" yet.

>Anyway, how about the climate models proposed over the years?
They're pretty good.
I don't know what the hell happened with your graph, but that un-sourced straight line labelled "all models" really doesn't fill me with confidence. You wouldn't happen to be comparing surface air predictions with You're obviously younger because you're trying to argue with someone's actual experience who was actually alive during that time.
Anecdotes really aren't going to convince anyone here but you. Your childhood is not a representative sample of all communications about climate change.

My gosh, you didn't even read what I said, or the articles you posted. It even says riiight in the articles you posted that it was commonly called global warming and then they deliberately started saying climate change.

Just because scientists may have been using it in tandem for decades it doesn't mean that's what teachers, politicians, television, and everybody else were saying.

You can't trick someone who was actually there. No amount of word games are going to change my mind. You're younger than me, I'm 100% sure or you wouldn't even be trying to argue this for no reason. So in the interest of not wasting both our time, I will leave you to believe whatever you want about the time when you weren't alive, and move on. *waves.

>Anecdotes really aren't going to convince anyone here but you.

I don't need to convince anyone because everyone who was alive for that time already knows I'm right. lol Thanks though! I'll say to you what I said to the last kid: In the interest of not wasting both our time, I will leave you to believe whatever you want about the time when you weren't alive, and move on. Thanks.

What climate model is that graph referring to?

...

>It even says riiight in the articles you posted that it was commonly called global warming and then they deliberately started saying climate change.
It always astounds me how science deniers are willing to straight up lie about something that anyone can easily check.

> It even says riiight in the articles you posted that it was commonly called global warming and then they deliberately started saying climate change.
Where? I've not read them thoroughly, but I saw nothing like that.

>it doesn't mean that's what teachers, politicians, television, and everybody else were saying.
People have been saying whatever the hell they like. Besides the US Republican memo (which doesn’t appear to have done shit), there's no evidence that anyone significant has tried to intentionally push for one term over the other.

>You can't trick someone who was actually there.
Again, your own personal experiences simply aren't representative. I don't care what you saw when you were growing up, because it wasn't the whole world.

>everyone who was alive for that time already knows I'm right.
They must be very good at staying quiet then.

>So in the interest of not wasting both our time
Ahahaha

>I will leave you to believe whatever you want about the time when you weren't alive, and move on. Thanks.
Yeah, no.

Such garbage sources are biased

You have to read past the first paragraph or two and actually think about what you're reading.

do you guys enjoy being angry or something?

If by "think about what you're reading" you mean "ignore what you're reading and replace with the most convenient misrepresentation of it." sure.

>You have to read past the first paragraph or two and actually think about what you're reading.
Why don't you actually post a quote from one of those articles? That would make it obvious where you’re getting this from.

What gives you the idea I'm angry?

what the guy is describing is correct, at least for the us and canada I can't answer for england or other enlgish countries.

global warming was way more popular, pretty much never heard the word climate change until the 2000s. theres nasa article about it but it's not very deep: pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

so yah, both terms have been used for a while, but climate change was not popular or even heard of as a term by a lot of people, now that's switched for whatever reason. Don't think it's a conspiracy, it just is.

The news article is putting a spin on the journal article.
The journal article says "We have evidence that the minor changes in the orbits of Earth and Mars are what influence the global climate change that caused the ice ages."
The news article says "That article proves that global climate change dwarfs man-made climate change," when it should be clear that neither phenomena really have much to do with each other.

>invokes processes operating on timescales of millions of years
>to explain a hundred-year trend
I shiggy that diggy

Brad Sageman is cool though. I volunteered in his lab for a little while when I was an underageb&. Neat professor, does interesting research.

skepticalscience.com/argument.php

The deniers always use the RSS dataset, its old version which was admitted to be false in 2016.

youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m55s

>The discovery promises not only a better understanding of the mechanics of the solar system, but also a more precise measuring stick for geologic time. Moreover, it offers a better understanding of the link between orbital variations and climate change over geologic time scales.
>Moreover, it offers a better understanding of the link between orbital variations and climate change over geologic time scales.
>climate change over geologic time scales.

From the literal article, published by the college. Is your reading level that of a kindergartner?

How the fuck is anyone suppose to make a reasonable prediction out of this?

Maybe I'm retarded, but to me this looks like a graph that is saying "shit could be hot OR cold!"

Then read the article from the college and kys.

Its more in-depth, but ultimately says the same thing.

news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/

>Maybe I'm retarded, but to me this looks like a graph that is saying "shit could be hot OR cold!"
Treat it as a probability distribution. Yes, shit could be hot or cold, but it's far more likely to fall somewhere in the middle.

>Its more in-depth, but ultimately says the same thing.
It says nothing like the same thing.
OP's link (falsely) claims that the study in question contradicts AGW. Your link just describes the study.

>Feel like man-made climate change is partially responsible, but feel it may also be the start of a radical, natural change in earth's atmosphere.

Is it both?
Is man-made CO2 emission just accelerating a natural process?

What do climatologist believe?

The sun does a lot more than most people think to our planet.
There are a ton of scientists against the man made global warming view, in fact climate change is real but it could be a natural process.

Correct, the article does talk about AG being a faggot and the college source one doesn't.

The end result is the same though. Climate changed is caused by planetary orbits and their fuckery. Honestly we should be taxing Mars.

>What do climatologist believe?
The Earth would probably be cooling slowly without human activity.
This is entirely on us.

>The end result is the same though. Climate changed is caused by planetary orbits and their fuckery. Honestly we should be taxing Mars.
The changes the study talk about are on an entirely different timescale to the changes we're causing. Claiming the study discredits AGW is like bringing up continental drift to try and get out of a speeding ticket.

>The sun does a lot more than most people think to our planet.
Vague.

>There are a ton of scientists against the man made global warming view
Vague.

>in fact climate change is real but it could be a natural process.
Vague

You're so transparent.

*some climate change is partially caused by planetary orbits, but not the current change

So we're still going to tow the line that CO2 is the big bad boogie man in global warming?

CO2 is a pathetic greenhouse gas, given its linear structure.

Can you cite me a good source?
There's so much political shite attached to the topic of global warming.

Except it's not and you're a fucking retard.

dude its like 20% man made and 80% aliens fucking with our sun.

Solid argument m8 i r8 it 8/8

You're a delusional moron.

With arguments like that, you're going to go far kid!

Actual geologist here. Do you have any idea whatsoever what 'Geologic time scales' even means?

>argument
You just proved my point, delusional moron.

Dating method using strata, which people hate that Kent Hovind pointed this out, but he's right, that it uses circular reasoning.

They date the strata based on the fossils found in there, and then they date the fossils by the strata.

I don't remember how it all got started but I'm sure with a little googling you can find out how all this got decided in the first place.

Btw, I'm not the person you were talking to last. Or, maybe you weren't the one who they were talking to either? Is this just a chain of different people responding? XD hahaha

You just pointed my proof, macoroni delusion!

No seriously though, why'd you have to call the guy a delusional moron, you think he's actually going to listen to you or care what you have to say after that? That's mean man. And it's childish.

With a thousand lies
And a good disguise
Hit 'em right between the eyes
Hit 'em right between the eyes

A professor at my university did a ton of research in the 80s and 90s about how Solar fluctuations are the major cause of temperature change. This was before global warming was really a thing, so it wasn't really controversial research back then.

Eventually people dug up his work and he even testified before congress. He essentially had to disavow his previous research for the sake of his career, or else he would be branded a "climate change denier"

Interesting, thanks for the post.

cool story bro

And what was that professor's name? Albert Einstein.

>Things that never happened.

>implying that CO2 isn't transparent to the Sun's radiation spectrum and opaque to Earth's blackbody radation

nobody cares that you're too stupid and annoying to learn anything. fuck off already

I bet your post /really/ made a difference. I bet calling him stupid and telling him to f-off really made him think.

Or maybe, just posting insults with no substance is a waste of only your time.

Pretty hard to say something of substance to OP when he posted nothing of substance.

>Literally a climate scientist
>Read shit like this every day
>Drink alcohol every day
>Correlation is not causation....

so climate changes here on earth by the suns fluctuating rays, the surrouding planets orbits, our own contributions to earths amosphere as well as the natural contributions of volcanoes an n nd. . its kind of odd but The climate can be a reflection of emotion. yeA. what else can cause climate change? chemical spills in the oceon? nukes. . . are we headed in the right direction as a people to mitigate mans contributions to climate change?

be it electric cars, magnetic trains, repurposing of waste. . mabey even pesticides or gmos can effect the climate indirectly, by killing off the bees... tho I tell you drones can replace em..... heh what do you think of it all?

Well, you know nothing. What a surprise.

There are several age dating techniques from relative age dating to absolute age dating. Relative age dating uses things like deposition and erosional rates and cross cutting relationships.

Absolute age dating uses techniques such as radiometric age dating, lake sediment dating, and tree ring dating which can then be used to calibrate your strata and your fossils which allows strata to be constrained to specific time periods.

It is most certainly not circular reasoning. But you wouldn't know anything about that because you've never even taken a moment to google 'how do geologists date strata'

And by the way, I was not talking about dating techniques. I was talking about how geologic time scales is at the very least hundreds of thousands of years old and has nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion on modern anthropogenic warming.

Then why say anything at all?

If you were trying to influence him, calling him names etc. is definitely going to fail. So it was just a wasted post.

You keep assuming we're trying to influence him. The only reason I call him a moron is because he can't be influenced. And neither can you. People who deny the vast majority of the evidence to preserve their position can't be reasoned. This is proven by the threads like this we have every day.

This is a useless post.

Radiometric dating etc. is all addressed by Hovind. You can dismiss him all you want but that doesn't make him wrong. He has quite a lot of sources too.

Same with me actually, you can think I know nothing, but it doesn't make me wrong just because you think that. Maybe I've looked into this more than you. I don't think I have, but I don't think I haven't either. I don't assume any such thing about you.

What I do believe, is that almost never, does someone who believes in evolution ACTUALLY spend the time to look through the sources of something like this: youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

And really research it. They just automatically dismiss it, because its easy, and lazy, to dismiss people you disagree with without looking deep into their argument.

It's only people who have a bit of doubt and are seriously interested in the truth who look into it.

>This is a useless post.
Not really, at least it said something. Now THIS is a useless post. This one, here. And the one it's replying to.

Have you looked into the various sources debunking everything Hovind has ever said? Of course not, hypocrite. Hovind is a proven con artist and liar. You're only studying what you already agree with.

Every post says something. You're just mad that someone insulted someone you agree with.

Let's read the original post again to make sure you're right: .

Hmm, sure SOUNDS like you're trying to influence him.

I'm not actually sure I agree with him about climate change. And neither am I mad, actually, I smiled a little bit at remembering you typing that. XD

All I'm really doing is responding to someone angrily posting an empty comment for no reason. I'm doing what they were trying to do, but without insulting the other person.

When you go on a random thread and the first and only thing you post is this: I'm actually masochistic enough to try and help that person, by bringing them back a bit, to see what they're really doing. Wasting their time, and not really making any difference.

Either that or they are venting their feelings online, as if there isn't a real person on the other end. In either case, it's unhealthy.

You guys seem to think I'm weak for actually caring, and trying to help, but I feel it's worth it, so I don't care. That and I'm older. I know you can insult me to my face, but it might actually have made a difference despite you denying it or without me seeing the results. For all I know the next post that guy makes he'll change his tactic because I made a good point.

And believe it or not, that kind of thing happens all the time.

>CO2 and historical temperatures aren't correlated

Heinz Shekelberg

Yet nobody talks about the structure of CO2 and its inability to interact with IR.

I have looked into some and there are errors, but it's not foolproof. He makes some truly great points. No one man is going to be right on everything. I'm not willing to through out everything just because of someone's religion or lack thereof.

I do have a bias to study what I feel is mostly right or at least on to something based on what the evidence is. I'm only human, no one is completely cold or perfectly unbiased. Aren't you the same? Do you think you're perfect or immune to being human?

Thinking the man is wrong about everything when he's dedicated so much to to genuinely studying this, that isn't realistic.

>Kent Hovind

>Thinking the man is wrong about everything when he's dedicated so much to to genuinely studying this, that isn't realistic.
Wait, what the fuck?
Every single point he's been challenged on, he's failed utterly to defend. Every claim he makes about evolution get's shot down so fast it's not funny. But he's put lots of time into this, so you're just going to believe him blindly?

>Claiming the study discredits AGW is like bringing up continental drift to try and get out of a speeding ticket.
this desu senpai

>CO2 is a pathetic greenhouse gas, given its linear structure.
CO2's absorption spectrum has been measured over and over again experimentally. The results are consistent with it having a significant effect on the transparency of the atmosphere to infrared light.

>Thinking the man is wrong about everything when he's dedicated so much to to genuinely studying this, that isn't realistic.
investing loads of time and effort doesn't make you right. Lysenko spent decades working on Soviet agrobiology, and he too was wrong about EVERYTHING.
can you give an example of a specific claim that you think Hovind is right about? and maybe explain his position?

remember, Hovind's "dissertation" is basically elementary-school level writing, complete with rampant misspellings.
>rationalia.com/gawdzilla/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

1. That's not me

2. No it doesn't

Stop projecting your delusions onto others.

Shhh little child, don't cry.

I'm pretty sure you do agree. The fact that you are doing the 'every sentence is its own paragraph thing' which every schizophrenic shitposter does for some reason doesn't help. Oh and the fact that you are espousing Kent Hovind in this thread. Yes, you do agree with him and you are quite angry that no one will take your tinfoil opinions seriously. Don't bother replying, it will be ignored.

If it's not you then why are you responding, quit wasting my name. I think we're done here. I will have to assume the original poster has left.

I made my point to them, and you aren't God almighty so you have no idea if it made a difference tot hem or not.

Go be arrogant somewhere else.

>The results are consistent with it having a significant effect on the transparency of the atmosphere to infrared light.

I'm a retard and break this down. Because this sounds like IR passing by CO2.

>Don't bother replying, it will be ignored.

Psssh.... Nothin personal... kid

>earth travels around d the sun at 67000mph
>our solar system is travelling through space at 490000mph

What if we're just going through a warm patch? Yeah sure we should look after our planet but penalising everyone and taxing us out the ass sure isn't the answer.