I believe global warming/climate change is happening, but I don't believe human beings are infIuencing it too much. I believe it would be happening regardless of our influence.
What evidence is there to the contrary? Im a brainlet operating primarily off of observation and intuition.
>holding a belief about something you know next to nothing about that contradicts what the people who devote their lives studying it say
why?
I personally don't know what evidence to show you, as I study liberal arts, but when I go to an accountant I don't tell them they're wrong because what they're telling me just doesn't make sense based on my observation or intuition.
We've tallied up the temperature forcings from natural sources and they are insufficient to explain the current warming trend. Only when you include temperature increases as a result of human action does it line up with the observed reality.
What are your observations and what is the logic of your intuition that led you to this conclusion?
It would warm less without human involevement
I dont hold strong beliefs, everything is subject to change at any time. I figure the earth has been going through a cycle of heating and cooling for millions of years. I struggle to believe over the last 100 years we've influenced things enough to be solely responsible for the climate change.
I do believe we're making a mess of the planet though.
>What evidence is there to the contrary?
Humans increase the net amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. GHGs cause heat to be retained in the atmosphere via the greenhouse effect (light passes through it, hits Earth turning into infrared heat, which then gets absorbed and re-emitted by the gas molecules, sending some back to Earth), and the amount of warming caused by the amount of GHGs we contribute is about equal to the amount of warming observed. There is no other theory which explains why the Earth has warmed, and the current theory both explains past climate change and has allowed us to successfully project global surface temperatures for several decades.
All of this is common knowledge, so why are you unaware of it and demanding evidence "to the contrary" as if your position is the default?
We've examined those cycles of heating and cooling, and the factors that were at play in previous natural cycles (things like solar output and the Earth's rotation/orbit) aren't acting up right now. Based on natural forcings, we're suppose to be holding relatively steady in terms of temperature, but we're not.
> I struggle to believe over the last 100 years we've influenced things enough to be solely responsible for the climate change.
Don't underestimate humanity's ability to change our environment. Just totally look at the Aral Sea.
The IPCC has put out several reports that are freely available and detail how we know that the current warming is caused by human action. You can read them here:
ipcc.ch
>I figure the earth has been going through a cycle of heating and cooling for millions of years
It has, but that's very vague. What is that cycle like? The cycle of heating and cooling over millions of years is not like current global warming, which is much faster than anything humans have lived through and appears to be an unprecedented rate of warming in the paleoclimate record. What caused this cycle? Over many millions of years, the orbital eccentricity of the Earth leads to an increase in the amount of light hitting Earth. This increase in energy is exacerbated by various feedback loops. One of the most important of these loops is due to the fact that increases in temperature cause more GHGs to be vaporized from the oceans, which then causes more warming via the greenhouse effect. The difference today is that instead of this process happening very slowly, we are quickly adding vast amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere. So saying the climate has changed before isn't really saying anything of substance. Nothing in the history of Earth's climate contradicts the anthropogenic global warming theory. It only supports it.
Because it's more conducive to get the info in real time from people that might have info or input that published articles may not have
Keep the climate change posts to the brainlet echo chamber please.
The only input that random people on Veeky Forums are going to have that a wikipedia article or a peer reviewed paper lack is propaganda from delusional people.
No nigger, i want to learn
What is there to learn? Look at any relevant graph of atmospheric conditions and notice the huge fucking tumor that starts ramping up sometime after the industrial revolution. Class dismissed.
What are the potential impending consequences heading our way? I figure coastal areas will be flooded and will cause mass migration.I figure thats easy enough to deal with. Anything overly spectacular?
xkcd.com
In terms of there's xkcd.com
Thanks anons
>charts with no source
>calls people brainlets
no wonder why everyone makes fun of you here.
keep your schizo end of the world theories to
>pretending not to know how to Google image search just so you can deny climate change
I think you're the schizo.
isn't this ebcause we are living in the highest recorded period of O2 breathing living in history?
Not only multiple billion huamsn, we raise dmultiple billion cattle heads of all kind. more than they appear naturally
Just in case he can't actually search due to extreme autism, it's from climate.nasa.gov
>there aren't natural sources of carbon dioxide
educate yourself dumbfuck. and don't visit Veeky Forums again
>too retarded to reverse image search
>retarded enough to conflate me providing sauce with agreeing with the other poster
Why are you here if you don't even know how to read?
Source is nasa.com. Not sure who you think I am but I'm not him.
The natural sources of carbon dioxide are displayed by the repeating minor spikes on the graph. The fucking vertical line on the right is what's caused by humans.
I believe the same...
All ice ages ended, didn't they?
>educate yourself dumbfuck. and don't visit Veeky Forums again
You first.
We can distinguish natural and human driven CO2 sources by isotope balance.
...
...
...
...
The amount of CO2 released by human and cattle breathing is dwarfed by that produced by industry, mainly from burning fossil fuels for power and concrete production.
Natural sources absorb more CO2 than they emit. All you retards do is speculate that it's not happening/it's not humans only to be BTFO again and again by basic facts.
Any of these graphs over much larger time scales?
I see that that pcture also "smooths out" some events.
Genuinly curious to see one accounting for things like asteroid impacts ect throughout history.
>when retards take satire threads seriously
...
>interglacial warming of 11 degrees over 10,000 years
>current warming of 1.3 degrees over 100 years
>deniers think this helps them
when did humans even start making temperature records? is there a method of measuring co2 levels from fossils that can be confirmed accurate?
Apparently, scientists go to the poles and get buried ice with old atmosphere frozen in them. Then they measure the CO2 that is released when they melt it. Then.... they somehow infer the temperature using advanced models. That's one way to do it.