Questioning global warming

Ignore this thread. Someone with Autism is having a bit of a tantrum after everyone ignored his stupidity in the other climate change thread, so he made his own. Literally copy-pasting the same shitposts you made there too, how pathetic.

rate of change

nothing about glaciers is in the listed source.
and for that matter, how is it that the figure displays data through ~2005, when the paper you claim to have gotten it from was only published in 1982?

why must deniers always lie about where their copy-pasted, unsourced, poorly labeled, and misleadingly scaled figures come from?

>nothing bad could possibly happen!

>Nothing bad could possibly happend from oxygen. Oh wait it was the cause of one of the biggest massive extinctions on earth nvm lololo

>but this doesn't answer a fuck about the carbon thingy!

abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce120799.html

topix.com/forum/news/global-warming/TIV65IJHHHB4NC37C
youtube.com/watch?v=rzYfJP-HWcQ

>“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues.“Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

---------------------------

P.S.:
1) CFC were forbidden in 1996 but the climate continues being at risk (according to experts lol).

2) science.sciencemag.org/content/254/5032/698
friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Solar Cycle - Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf

>Although diverse life forms prospered in the oceans, the land was comparatively barren—with nothing more complex than a microbial soil crust
Yup, sounds great. #MakeAmericaBarrenAgain!

sun's output was lower

>xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/0707.1161
>invokes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in order to claim that the planetary greenhouse effect can't possibly be real
>implying the Earth and its atmosphere are a closed system
stoppedreadingthere.bmp

this is pretty autismal even for a denier meme

I'm sure C3 updated their graph and posted it again, right?

dunno, maybe because both the graphic and the research belong to two different sources that you can google research?

Just saying.

"Woodfortrees.org" sounds legit

This is why this shit cannot be taken seriously, the constant cooking the books and shitty models - the whole CO2 meme is just to push the carbon tax Jew. Now obviously I don't want shitty air like China to the point I'm wearing a SARS mask but the muh co2 shit people are waking up to

take your middle school-tier funposting elsewhere

The source is irrelevant, what is plotted is the data that is sourced directly from RSS / NOAA ESRL

Let me guess, NOAA / RSS isn't a legitimate either to you in your moronic conspiracy mindset, no?

This is why arguing with you loons isn't worth the time or effort. It's all conjecture and conspiracy without the slightest sign of critical thinking. I don't know why I waste my time.

uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM

the carbon tax jew

>but earned a lot of money meanwhile
hahahahahhahahah

>shitty models
I would love to know how you came to that conclusion.

I'm especially interested in the circumstances under which you consider a model to be shitty.

>the onset of glacier recession and the output of significant industrial carbon dioxide coincide closely. Putting a divide at the start of hydrocarbon production is a bit of sleight of hand, a subterfuge to distract from an actual close correlation. Why don't the slopes match more closely? There could be many causes, but the list would certainly include the 19th century clearing of farmland and deforestation of North America. Those both would contribute significantly to carbon dioxide output.

No, and my arguments are the following:

1) The figure assumes an increasing in coal and wood usage since the exact beggining of 1800 and doesn't make any difference according to the few places where it took place (very differently with the vehicle and industrial usage that we do nowadays, where cars and factories are in every single city OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, and not only Germany, France and England as in their beginnings... I doubt that the pollution was so high to contaminate THE WHOLE WORLD so much from 1800-1870 from such few contaminating points as these three cities were, the trend doesn't make any difference and the growing is literally the same). Besides, coal and wood had to wait until 1860-70 to be notorious or the main reason for the glaciers to shorten.

2) The graphic data doesn't count with the Great Depression from late XIX century. There it should be a decreasing in the glacier shortening since coal and wood weren't so used as in decades before.

[math]Yeah[/math][math]but[/math][math]where[/math][math]are[/math][math]the[/math][math]spectrums[/math][math]here?[/math]

Your arguments are wrong because Jews. It's as simple as that. How do you feel that I can negate every single sentence you write by summoning the Jew hatred?

cuz it says what I don't like and global warming is a hoax therefore it's bad!

What is that which makes a system closed?

you are wrong user, your data doesn't fit with the conclussions

a system is closed if there is no exchange of energy, matter, or force with its surroundings. the only truly closed system is the universe itself.

>I doubt that the pollution was so high to contaminate THE WHOLE WORLD
nice argument from incredulity. just because it doesn't sound right to you doesn't mean it's not true.

I'm pretty sure that a single active vulcan like Paricutin or Krakatoa emits 10 times more CO2 that any industry from the XIX century you can give as example; needless to say a whole vulcan pacific belt

You're quite right OP, why don't you prove all of science wrong and go breathe in some Cambrian atmosphere. About ten minutes worth should do it.

No, you're dead wrong. You could have prevented making yourself look like a retard, shame you lack the basic skills to do a simple amount of research. The funny thing is, your Krakatoa anecdote is so old, and is a complete myth. It really goes to show how plain ignorant lies and deception spread through climate change denial circles continue to circulate despite being disproven.

This is why climate change denial exists, people like yourself rely on anecdotes and hearsay to form their opinions on empirical science, instead of searching for the facts, which begs the question, why is someone like you even posting on a science board?

First off, when we're talking about Volcanism and climate, volcanos can actually drastically reduce global temperatures after a massive eruption, causing a volcanic winter in which global average temperatures drop a few degrees C. This last occurred in 1991 with the eruption of Pinatubo in the Philippines, which dropped global temperatures 0.5°C from 1991-1993. This is due to the amount of stratospheric ash and SO2 that gets ejected high into the stratosphere during a massive eruption like this.

Volcanoes emit CO2, yes, but the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes is absolutely dwarfed by the cumulative emissions of CO2 every year by industry, transportation and energy generation.

Let's do a comparison. Last year, human civilization emitted ~38.2 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This number has generally increased every year for decades due to increased energy usage in developing countries.

On average, volcanoes emit

in addition to what posted, a few threads ago someone argued that a single supervolcano eruption would dwarf human CO2 emissions.
I did the math, and it turns out that even if a HUGE eruption (comparable to the one that created the Fish Canyon Tuff) happened, and the magma feeding it was quite gas-rich, the total CO2 emitted would still be only 1/3rd of what human activity produces in a year.

It's absolutely insane that people like you are still parroting that meritless claim about volcanoes. The correct answer to your conjecture is easy to find, but you lot aren't actually interested in facts of any sort.

Why are global warming """"skeptics"""" so stupid?

>The figure assumes an increasing in coal and wood usage since the exact beggining of 1800 and doesn't make any difference according to the few places where it took place
What the fuck? This reads like gibberish to me.

If we look at the actual greenhouse gas concentrations, and not just a few conveniently picked sources, we see that the exponential increase correlates very well with glacier shortening at 1800.

>2) The graphic data doesn't count with the Great Depression from late XIX century. There it should be a decreasing in the glacier shortening since coal and wood weren't so used as in decades before.
There was no slowdown in GHGs during the Great Depression.

...

Not to mention that large volcano eruptions cause much more cooling by blocking out sunlight than by the greenhouse effect of the CO2 it releases...

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas that retains more of the sun's heat? Yes.

Is human activity putting more CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes.

Will this cause of the end of the world or at the very lease human civilization? If you answer 'yes', you're just one step above a manic street preacher claiming Armageddon is just around the corner. Yes, excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere could be the end of us all, but past predictions as pointed out has been wrong. The issue with AGW how much an effect will CO2 will have on the climate. Climate models are just that-models. If they aren't accurately predicting changes to the climate, then go back and fix the models before announcing the end of the world.

>1) The figure assumes an increasing in coal and wood usage since the exact beggining of 1800 and doesn't make any difference according to the few places where it took place (very differently with the vehicle and industrial usage that we do nowadays, where cars and factories are in every single city OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, and not only Germany, France and England as in their beginnings... I doubt that the pollution was so high to contaminate THE WHOLE WORLD so much from 1800-1870 from such few contaminating points as these three cities were, the trend doesn't make any difference and the growing is literally the same).

usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/05/26/year-without-a-summer-1816-mount-tambora/84855694/

Some of this warming in the 1800's, if not most of it, is probably the climate returning to normal after a massive eruption ejected 19 cubic miles of volcanic ash into the atmosphere.

>Will this cause of the end of the world or at the very lease human civilization?
Strawman.

>but past predictions as pointed out has been wrong.
None of those predictions were made by scientists, except for the fake quote attributed to Carl Sagan who was incorrectly paraphrased, and the fake quote Lubos Motl who didn't even *exist* in 1969 and is a climate change denier.

>The issue with AGW how much an effect will CO2 will have on the climate. Climate models are just that-models. If they aren't accurately predicting changes to the climate
But they are. You're in the last stage of denial, time to accept the scientific evidence instead of listening to bloggers who need to lie and misquote.

>"This is due to the amount of stratospheric ash and SO2 that gets ejected high into the stratosphere during a massive eruption like this. "

>No CO2 involved at all, CO2 doesn't contribute
>ohwait

scienceblog.com/8318/clean-skiesfaster-global-warming/

It's even possible that CO2 has no direct relation with any increasing in temperatures as its hypothetical originator:

researchgate.net/publication/264003309_Phanerozoic_Climatic_Zones_and_Paleogeography_with_a_Consideration_of_Atmospheric_CO2_Levels

Reminder: 65,000,000 years ago, dinosaurs lived in a climate with 3,300 ppm. Not a single one died because of that

----------------------
>"the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes is absolutely dwarfed by the cumulative emissions of CO2 every year by industry, transportation and energy generation. "

Agriculture emmits THE MOST AMOUNT OF MAN-MADE CO2 and nobody talks about it:

1)webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Salinger 2007.pdf

2)onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000503/full

3)szie.hu//file/tti/archivum/Algaidi_Dissertation.pdf
fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf

Oh wow, another denier myth that refuses to die. Funny how people like yourself can never admit when they're wrong.

realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets
ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnider-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/
blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

*

Source: James K. Glassman, in “Administration in the Balance,” March 8, 2001, Wall Street Journal.

Extracted from: probe.org/global-warming/?print=print

Beck (2007) showed that data about CO2 levels extracted from ice bubbles from pre-industrial stages were wrong, as clathrates distort the results. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_compound

biomind.de/realCO2/

At first, the levels found were about 350 ppm. Further researchs that beared in mind these processes showed higher levels of about 500 ppm.

books.google.es/books?id=aObzJfC5D4IC&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=Neftel 1982 500 ppm&source=bl&ots=YPGQrXfmOp&sig=cuNjHlCFEejDuWtBYzaQNb9BMcQ&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic5tOnwMrTAhWBvBQKHYZQBEYQ6AEIOTAG#v=onepage&q=Neftel 1982 500 ppm&f=false

>This is due to the amount of stratospheric ash and SO2 that gets ejected high into the stratosphere during a massive eruption like this.
How exactly does that respond to the fact that volcanoes do not emit 10 times more CO2 than any industry, which you claimed?

>It's even possible that CO2 has no direct relation with any increasing in temperatures as its hypothetical originator:
It's possible, just like unicorns are possible. Your source doesn't say that by the way.

>Reminder: 65,000,000 years ago, dinosaurs lived in a climate with 3,300 ppm. Not a single one died because of that
Yes, because the dinosaurs and the ecosystem they relied evolved for that climate. You are not a dinosaur, you know that right?

>Agriculture emmits THE MOST AMOUNT OF MAN-MADE CO2 and nobody talks about it:
Nobody talks about it because IT'S DEAD WRONG. And none of your sources come even close to saying agriculture is the largest source of CO2.

biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evidence-var-corrRSCb.pdf

>And none of your sources come even close to saying agriculture is the largest source of CO2.

>Agriculture
>Since 8.000 b.c.

>Industries
>Since 1900

>how is it possible that a man can be this autistic

Also, the sun has been heating up at a slow but constant rate since then. I wonder if that has anything to do with this.

>Nobody talks about it because IT'S DEAD WRONG. And none of your sources come even close to saying agriculture is the largest source of CO2.
Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the air shows that the change is due primarily to fossil fuels. Therefore your point here is wrong.

>Beck (2007)
Long debunked pathological science.

rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/found-in-margins-recently-eli-has-been.html

Deniers just can't stop themselves from getting BTFO.

Agriculture since 8000 BC has had a negligible impact on CO2 concentrations compared to industry you utter moron. None of your sources claim otherwise. Stop lying you piece of shit.

What are you talking about? Read what I wrote again.

Sorry about that.

>Scientific article
>you piece of shit
>ARTICLE DEBUNKED

Now I see how Veeky Forums works

>debunked pathological
OK, I looked at the site.
>In Dashiell Hammett’s story The Golden Horseshoe, much of the action takes place in a bar of that name in Tijuana.

Are we talking about a serious scientific study here, user? Why not provide a direct link to an authoritative peer reviewed article?

Failure to respond to the argument. You lose.

>Posts article from Energy and Environment, headed by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen who is quoted as stating the purpose of the journal is to "[follow] my political agenda -- a bit, anyway"
Another quote from this person.
>I'm not ashamed to say that I deliberately encourage the publication of papers that are sceptical of climate change

Here's a good read on why E&E is such a awful journal:
theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat

>The journal also published a much-maligned analysis suggesting that levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide could go up and down by 100 parts per million in a year or two, prompting marine biologist Ralph Keeling at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, California to write a response to the journal, in which he asked: "Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?"

This is the paper you're referring too by the way.

Yeah, sure sounds like a credible source to get your academic articles on climate science from, right?

There's also this critique of the methods of Beck here:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.18.5.635

Also a good read on the paper from RealClimate:
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

tl;dr - Beck's methods are trash, and if he submitted this paper to any other scientific journal that doesn't cater to sceptics, it would not pass peer review.

So basically, instead of reading the critique, you decided to cave into your cognitive bias at literally the second paragraph of the article, because oh no, we can't dare be skeptical of bogus claims published in a low impact, non-respectable journal edited by a climate change contrarian. Pathetic. Maybe take the time to read the criticisms of the article and then respond to them with your own evidence and critique, what are you so afraid of?

>Agriculture emmits THE MOST AMOUNT OF MAN-MADE CO2
land use changes only account for 10-30% of CO2, according to Salinger (2007)
why must deniers cite sources that BTFO their own claims? could it be that they haven't actually read the papers and are merely repeating claims they heard from some other idiot?
>and nobody talks about it:
the IPCC devotes big chunks of their reports to agriculture and the effects of deforestation, you nitwit
>ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf
>ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/srl-en.pdf

>biomind.de/realCO2/
Oh look, another graph showing higher CO2 levels pre-1855, back when they didn't have a way to accurately measure CO2 levels and everything was open-system and therefore contaminated by the lab environment (urban).
>At first, the levels found were about 350 ppm. Further researchs that beared in mind these processes showed higher levels of about 500 ppm.
Your link references Neftel et al. (1982), but you're badly distorting their results.
>biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/neftel82-85.pdf
As you can see in Figure 1, the samples in which high (>350 ppm) CO2 concentrations were recorded are all prone to enormous experimental uncertainties (error bars with spans of 100-250 ppm), and all but one were observed to be contaminated with drill fluid, casting doubt on the accuracy of those readings. Additionally, though the overall trend in CO2 content closely matched that of the d18O signal (proxy for size of icecaps), there are no excursions in the isotopic signal that correspond to the observed spikes in CO2 concentration.
All this just goes to show that you should read the papers you cite instead of just claiming they prove your point. Because actual geoscientists like me WILL read them, and we'll quickly realize whether you're serious or just full of shit.

>not a single living being seemed to die
obvious bait is obvious

The sad part is that it's not bait, and there are genuinely people this gullible / stupid posting among us on Veeky Forums.

Here you have it, Geoscientist guy. Meet Bill Nye and his point of view about man-made CO2

youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo&feature=youtu.be&t=5m14s

“In other words, humans have altered the climate so drastically we’ve almost certainly avoided another ice age.”

So you can disagree and accept human CO2 wasn't so important, or accept that human CO2 has saved us from global ice age.

Because, you know, spectrums. :^)

I'm with you, man! I truly believe CO2 is the originator of global warming, as Bill Nye showed in his Climate 101 experiment which I reproduced... but... well... I guess I'm a brainlet so... I couldn't get the same results so... BUT BILL NYE DID IT SO ANYWAY

wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Oh, I see, so you've been BTFO by multiple people in multiple posts, so you're again deflecting and trying to change the subject because you've lost the argument.

Can you sink any lower?

the coming ice age is scheduled for ~8300 years in the future.
>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0033589472900567
assuming human civilization is still around, we'll be able to adapt to the gradual cooling (especially given the kinds of technology we'll likely have at our disposal then). the sudden (century-scale) disruption currently caused by climate change is far more threatening, and the (uncertain) prospect of tipping over to a hothouse condition (no ice caps, no precessional ice ages) is even more so. ice ages aren't nearly as scary as you want to believe.

nice false dichotomy though, have a smuganimeface.jpg

>MUH WHATABOUTISM
Oh look, he continues to fail to respond to a single point made here
here
or here
Or, when you got BTFO earlier here
and once again quickly tried to change the subject once you realized that you were wrong.

So let's see, how many times have you been incorrect / wrong in this thread so far? That's at least 3 times from just those posts, and 0 times have you refuted a single contradiction to your """arguments."""

Keep on going kid, bring up Bill Nye, someone who isn't a climate scientist and has nothing to do with this thread because you have to deflect so hard.

I honestly feel sorry for you.

I've found a rather interesting page, what do you guys think? :D

co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-d/

co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-q/

co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-r/

I think that your sources are shit because they are not published in a SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC RESPECTAB...

ok nvm

>CO2 can't possibly make a difference because there's comparatively little of it in the atmosphere!
again, argument from incredulity. just because you don't THINK a minor constituent can't have a big effect doesn't mean it actually can't; a (sufficiently sensitive) balance with ten tons on each side will tip if you add ten grams to one side.

>le 1998-to-present graph
this cherry-picked interval has been so thoroughly debunked already it's hardly even worth addressing

>Beck (2007) showed that data about CO2 levels extracted from ice bubbles from pre-industrial stages were wrong, as clathrates distort the results

Ice core scientist here, this claim is absolute dogshit. The occurrences of clathrate/brittle ice in ice cores are well known from the beginning days of ice coring. Clathrate can only form under very high overburden pressure. The clathrate in conventional ice core usually form beyond 200m

See
researchgate.net/publication/268687179_A_review_of_the_brittle_ice_zone_in_polar_ice_cores

and pic related is a table from said paper. The start and end of clathrate ice phase is well documented in every single ice core we have drilled. Now I want you to focus on Law dome, because Law dome is a very high snow accumulation and hence high resolution ice core that is traditionally used to splice the Mauna Loa Keeling curve into preindustrial data like they did here
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/faq_cat-3.html

Now let's go to the real law dome data that has been made available publicly
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt

Say for the sake of argument you're right (for the record, you're not), that clathrate interferes with gas measurement from ice cores. You can see that in Law Dome at ~100m depth CO2 already plunges down to preindustrial value of 300ppm. This is nowhere near the brittle ice zone of ~500-1200m in the ice where the overburden pressure is enough to generate clathrates. So even if you're right, that clathrates interferes with CO2 measurements in ice core, the ice core CO2 measurements from Law Dome is nowhere near the brittle clathrate zones.

How can someone be so dumb, misinformed, and BTFO so hard Jesus Christ

Just to clarify further in case anyone is interested, theoretically YES CO2 and other gas measurements from clathrate zone in ice cores is indeed affected slightly.

However, we can correct for the alteration very precisely. Overburden pressure in clathrate ice causes the ice matrix to lose its integrity and allows for gas diffusion. 80% of air is N2, and 20% is O2. N2 and O2 gas have different diameter and diffuses at different rate. From the ratio of O2/N2 in the ice core bubbles, we can calculate the degree of diffusive alteration and hence correct the CO2 values of said ice.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL036737/full

>Are we talking about a serious scientific study here, user? Why not provide a direct link to an authoritative peer reviewed article?
There you go

dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/

"Michaels and Knappenberger compared observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 to what was predicted by 108 climate models used by government climate scientists to predict how much carbon dioxide emissions will warm the planet.

What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred."

object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf

drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/

NO ONE CAN SAY THAT, ALMOST TWENTY YEARS LATER, EARTH IS WARMER THAN IN 1998.

wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/the-gore-a-thon-on-wuwt/

>RSS isn't a legitimate
you got that right, RSS was admitted to be faulty in march 2016

The issue is that our society is built around current temperatures rather than higher ones with higher water levels.

But the climate changes regardless of our actions. It has in the past, and it will in the future. Nothing is static, so we have to adapt.

Trying to control the climate to keep it in a pseudo static condition so humans can keep up their current population numbers, isn't going to do any good.

The best solution is to allow things to continue like they are. The crash will come, and with it, countless human death. Things will balance out and the societies that emerge will be better off for it.

Every global warming thread
bunch of graphs
graphs graphs graphs graphs graphs graphs
going insane boys
cant take it anymore

>What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred.
Wrong. What the data shows is that the models agree very well with observation. Their false interpretation of that data was a foregone conclusion.

>NO ONE CAN SAY THAT, ALMOST TWENTY YEARS LATER, EARTH IS WARMER THAN IN 1998.
This really illustrates how dishonest and deranged you people are. 1998 was a huge El Nino spike. The Earth has been warming at the rate predicted by climatologists since then and has not yet reached that spike (except for the 2016 El Nino). Funny how the statement is not "NO ONE CAN SAY THAT, ALMOST 1 YEAR LATER, EARTH IS WARMER THAN IN 2016"

You really are lying dishonest scum, and your namefagging is highly accurate.

>MUH AL GORE
Fuck off retard.

>But the climate changes regardless of our actions. It has in the past, and it will in the future.
The climate has never warmed this fast. Such fast warming is very harmful for humans and the ecosystem.

>Nothing is static, so we have to adapt.
If you actually want to fix the problem then mitigation is just as important as adaption to it.

>Trying to control the climate to keep it in a pseudo static condition so humans can keep up their current population numbers, isn't going to do any good.
Why not? It sounds much better than the alternative to me.

>Why not? It sounds much better than the alternative to me.

Science, you bunch nasty ugly utterly faggotry nonsenseless branch of pile of dicks put in a pile and burnt into ashes in front of all your dead family members, is not what sounds much better to you.

>OP gets BTFO over and over again, doesn't respond to a single post refuting anything he posts
>Shitposts even more bullshit links to WUWT

I thought you couldn't sink any lower, but you keep proving me wrong.

What kind of autistic babbling is this? You can't even string together a coherent sentence.

Alarmists BTFO

How will they ever recover?

I posed two very simple questions. You failed both. Well done, user, are you a warmer?

>So basically, instead of reading the critique
Oh I read the critique. That is exactly why I asked the two questions you somehow failed to understand.

I prefer to get my information closer to te source than someone who brings in noir fiction into what allegedly is serious science.

Speak like a clown, be treated like a clown. Just don't get surprised.

This is nonsense babbling

>I thought you couldn't sink any lower, but you keep proving me wrong.
They don't care about what's correct. Ironically, they only care about what's POLITICALLY correct, what fits the agenda etc.

/pol/ has become a parody.

You firm analysis, clear headed articulation and sheer brilliance dazzle me no end, user.

Indubitably you are what all warmers aspire to. We submit to your greatness.

His graphs all check out on google and he is talking in a logical and coherent manner. I find that Russian very convincing. Care to explain why you perceive it as "nonsense babbling"?

Yet you completely ignored the OTHER SOURCES that were provided here: You also failed to respond to a single point either me or the other guy who refuted this bullshit E&E study said.
As well as the debunking of this garbage study posted on RealClimate, a website that is run and contributed to by actual climate scientists.

It really is, it's a shitty cropped image of some garbage posts on /pol/ that you're taking as gospel. How fucking pathetic, that's where you go to get your information on climate science? A random shitposter on /pol/, not the scientific literature? I've been over that shitty image dozens of times and you retards just keep posting it. I'm not going to waste my breath yet again, suffice to say that everything in that image is inaccurate and not based on the evidence, it's just a bunch of nonsense spewed from some random russian shitposter.

>Hs graphs all check out on google

kek, you are one dumb gullible fuck, aren't you? Learn to be skeptical of whatever nonsense you read on /pol/ or your shitty denial blogs.

The fourth graph for example in that image I already went over here in this thread:

Read the sources I posted and understand why it's a garbage graph. Some of the other graphs he uses he ripped from places like Wikipedia, but his interpretation and analysis of the graphs is completely invalid and inaccurate, yet you trust everything this stupid shitposter says because you're that stupid yourself.

It doesn't even matter if I go into extreme detail debunking everything that guy says with sources, it won't change your cognitive biases, so there is no point. You've reached a level of delusion in which there is no coming back from your biases. This is known as Group Polarization. Learn to understand your own cognitive biases and be a true skeptic, not a pseudo-skeptic who laps up whatever contrarian opinion says about something widely accepted.

Here's also an updated image (From January 2017) showing various climate models compared to the current observations.

>Figure 1,2 and 6 pertains to geologic scale estimated temperature change as you see the axis is in million of years.
What's concerning about AGW is the rate of change, the Earth has never warm faster definitively in the last 800ka of ice core records, the maximum extent of which high res paleoclimate data is available. We're even pumping greenhouse gas/hydrocarbon into the atmosphere at faster rate than PETM (Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum), the tip of figure 1 where the earth was at its warmest in the past 65 million years.

>figure 3 is deceptive because it only shows last glacial maximum - current interglacial sea level change
Of course sea level rise as the north american ice sheet melts over the transition between interglacial - glacial state. However we're now moving BEYOND interglacial state. Why don't you plot sea level reconstruction from the last interglacial and show that our current sea level is already beyond the usual quarternary interglacials?

>figure 4
That figure is straight up from WUWT. It cherrypicked balloon and satellite dataset that has been debunked over and over again. Do you really think there's only 4 balloon datasets and 2 satellite datasets available with terrible resolution? Why not plot Berkeley Earth, HadCRUT, or NOAA surface station data against model projection?

>figure 5
The poster claims that the measurement techniques between ice cores and atmospheric monitoring is different. If anything, since releasing gas from ice cores involves an extra step, one should expect that gas measurements from ice cores have higher blanks and biased towards the higher side than atmospheric measurement, which goes counter against the poster's claim.

Also we've shown as in pic related, that in high accumulation site like Law Dome, Antarctica you can splice the CO2 record in the ice core right into Mauna Loa data.

What else do you got bitch? I'll BTFO every pasta you have all day

based

Lol, are there still people that believe in this fake science? After multiple climategates have revealed major manipulation with primary data? Is it not obvious that climate "science" solely consists in models full of unknown parameters without any control in place? It is all used for a political agenda, idiots.
>haha /pol/ memes
No way that the temperature has increased since 1997, cooked numbers you are showing here.
Nothing you are saying here comes even close to attacking Russian's first point: demonstrate modern deviation on the historical trend in a statistical way. Moreover, accusations of cherrypicking and deception from alarmists are hilarious.
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

1st archive arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

The reply worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X

And the answer to the reply arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf&embedded=true

"In our falsification paper we have shown that the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects as takenfor-granted concepts in global climatology do not fit into the scientific realm of theoretical and applied physics.

Halpern et al. did not refute our conclusions. Rather, they make false statements about the contents of our paper, on which they erect their system of objections. Their main mistakes are:

1. Halpern et al. make false statements about the contents and the rationale of our paper.
2. Halpern et al. do not understand what a physical effect really is.
3. Halpern et al. - adapting Georg Hoffmann’s view - apparently do not know how to apply the second law of thermodynamics.
4. Halpern et al. do not understand our critique on the abuse of diagrams in the context of simplistic radiative balance models.
5. Halpern et al. like many others do not understand that any supposed warming effect (or cooling effect) cannot be derived from spectroscopic analyses or radiative transfer equations.
6. Halpern et al. neither define a greenhouse effect nor offer a mechanism how the concentration change of the trace gas CO2 influences the climates.
7. Halpern et al. do not recognize the fundamental errors of the paper by Bakan and Raschke.

In summary, the paper of Halpern, Colose, Ho-Stuart, Shore, Smith, and Zimmermann is unfounded [9]."