Is Climate Change real or fake?

Melted seas add moisture which then turns into snow - lack of moisture has been a bottleneck.

Exactly this.

It's important to understand that
a) CO2 does cause the atmospheric temperature to increase (but is the source of carbon for plants and bacteria to photosynthesize).
b) Weather cycles are complex systems which take 10 thousand to hundreds, are even millions of years to complete.
c) We don't fully understand the extent of those systems and what causes them.
d) CO2 isn't the only emission of concern. There are many compounds which ruin ecosystems (from coal combustion, car exhausts, etc.) that don't cause the temperature to increase.
e) CO2 wasn't responsible for the end of the last ice age, and we don't know what caused the global temperature to increase exponentially to end it.

What I have never understood about the whole climate change argument is why do people even care? You're dealing with a population of people who just got scammed into going to college, have bleak and unfulfilling career prospects, little to no money to their name, and are generally unhappy with their financial situation. So instead of campaigning for some sensible economic reforms, they decide to attack the mythical climate change boogeyman and go to bat over a potential 1.5C change in temperature? Yeah, I get it, the earth is important, but you aren't even in a position to care.

I dunno. Maybe I am just old fashioned. But if you're financing a smart phone, you have much bigger problems than worrying about what the planet is going to look like 100 years from now...especially based on something as poorly understood as "man-made climate change"

>this kind of events would have been impossible if global warming was real
Yes clearly warming could not be happening in the Arctic. Just ignore the actual temperature change.

>Same bullshit as last year
youtube.com/watch?v=bEieWJghRNY

You idiots really have no shame.

>Partly natural, partly human caused.
Actually it's practically all human caused. Natural forcings are providing a net cooling which is counteracting some of humanity's net warming.

>IMO, climate change < pollution
What is the difference exactly?

>Life is naturally suited for adaptation, but you can't adapt to the destruction of nature.
Most life can't adapt to rapid changes to the global climate, I agree.

>a) CO2 does cause the atmospheric temperature to increase
So CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? You're going to have to disprove a massive amount of evidence that it is, including fundamental physics and chemistry to argue that.

skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

>b) Weather cycles are complex systems which take 10 thousand to hundreds, are even millions of years to complete.
Weather? Sounds more like climate. I know the distinction is hard for you idiots to understand. But please enlighten me about which "weather cycle" is causing current global warming.

>c) We don't fully understand the extent of those systems and what causes them.
We understand enough to know that CO2 is the primary cause of current rapid warming. We don't fully understand much of anything, doesn't mean we know nothing.

>d) CO2 isn't the only emission of concern. There are many compounds which ruin ecosystems (from coal combustion, car exhausts, etc.) that don't cause the temperature to increase.
And?

>e) CO2 wasn't responsible for the end of the last ice age, and we don't know what caused the global temperature to increase exponentially to end it.
Dead wrong, as usual. It certainly was responsible for the end of the last ice age:

"Earth's increased planetary albedo produced by the expanding ice sheets would lead to positive feedback loops, spreading the ice sheets still further, until the process hit limit. Falling global temperatures would eventually limit plant growth, and the rising levels of oxygen would increase the frequency of fire-storms because damp plant matter could burn. Both these effects return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, reversing the "snowball" effect and forcing greenhouse warming, with CO2 levels rising to 300 ppm in the following Permian period. Over a longer period the evolution of termites, whose stomachs provided an anoxic environment for methanogenic lignin-digesting bacteria, prevented further burial of carbon, returning carbon to the air as the greenhouse gas methane.

Once these factors brought a halt and a small reversal in the spread of ice sheets, the lower planetary albedo resulting from the fall in size of the glaciated areas would have been enough for warmer summers and winters and thus limit the depth of snowfields in areas from which the glaciers expanded. Rising sea levels produced by global warming drowned the large areas of flatland where previously anoxic swamps assisted in burial and removal of carbon (as coal). With a smaller area for deposition of carbon, more carbon dioxide was returned to the atmosphere, further warming the planet. By 250 Mya, planet Earth had returned to a percentage of oxygen similar to that found today."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age

it's real but anyone who says they can predict complex trends 100 years out is retarded

Well they've been doing it for 30 years, so I don't see why not.

realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

i'm not talking about simple warming trends, dipshit
i'm talking about people who say they can tell you a specific location is going to become moister/cooler/warmer/more prone to thunderstorms

That's weather, not climate. This thread is about climate change.

why is it even a topic to talk about? i think we talk here about the climate change and how people still deny it and cherry pick facts

Found the moron who can't think critically. Do you get paid per post to shitpost trying to make Veeky Forums "unusable".

> he believes NOAA
I bet you donate to AL gore

go suck sessions' dick back at /pol/ you worthless elf molester

I don't need to go back to pol. Everybody knows about NOAA whistle blowers unless you live under al gore's cock

oh yeah sorry i forgot local moisture and temperature trends have nothing to do with climate
since i have been so eternally btfo by your superior brain i'll go back to growing palm trees in the atacama desert now

where was the guy in the video wrong? please tell me

>don't use NOAA data
Ok.
youtube.com/watch?v=X1hJYLw7OlM
youtube.com/watch?v=wE4ynZB0Wj0
youtube.com/watch?v=8eFTkeUYpfQ
youtube.com/watch?v=dUdd83_pzdE

>oh yeah sorry i forgot local moisture and temperature trends have nothing to do with climate
Nice try at being obtuse. Our ability to predict weather is irrelevant to climate change.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
>Climate is the statistics of weather over long periods of time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather
>Weather refers to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity, whereas climate is the term for the averaging of atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.

Our ability to predict the weather is irrelevant to predicting the climate.

>oh yeah sorry i forgot local moisture and temperature trends have nothing to do with climate
>local moisture and temperature trends
>trends
Trend: the general movement over time of a statistically detectable change; also :a statistical curve reflecting such a change

I don't really see the point here. If he was referring to weather than my point still stands. If he was referring to climate my point still stands.

The forcings that dominate weather are completely different from those that dominate climate, which should be no surprise since this is true in many statistical scenarios. Scale matters and chaotic behavior can be dependent on scale.

This question is irrelevant to me.

The important question is: will lowering the average global temperate by 2 - 3 degrees Celsius actually protect us from natural disasters?

>no, it won't

k tell me whether mean annual precipitation in albany new york will increase or decrease over the next 100 years

Lowering the average global temperature would decrease the risk of droughts, the intensity of storms, and flood levels. This would save hundreds of billions of dollars.

May well be real, but climate science is fake science. See Lawrence Solomon's The Deniers.

Increase.

Source:
nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/precipitation-change

this 2bh. Even if all the doomsday theories about the oceans rising and eating up land or the massive amounts of land becoming unfarmable turn out to be completely bunk, why the fuck do people take that as justification for allowing corporations to poison local environments by scaling back EXISTING regulations? There are plenty of existing cases of urgent danger caused by pollution, ie. water in Flint, smog in california and china, etc. The excitement trump stirred up about fucking COAL MINING during the last election boggles my mind.

all those natural disasters would still occur

>The Deniers
>A book promoting climate scientists who believe humans are causing global warming
>Proves climate science is fake

lol yeah and this one says it will be a desert
nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/24/world/asia/living-in-chinas-expanding-deserts.html

here is my imbecile reply
remember those horrible droughts in ethiopia? occured also when it was colder.
flood levels can easily be maintained with strutural measures. same with droughts btw. storms are storms sorry and they derive from a temperature delta not absolutes. earthquakes will still occur.

I was unaware Albany, New York was in China...

No, there would be less droughts and other natural disasters that would occur would be less intense. So how is that not good? Why is the "important" question how many natural disasters would occur rather than how much damage would be incurred from natural disasters? Do you really think your sophistry is convincing anyone?

>remember those horrible droughts in ethiopia? occured also when it was colder.
And sometimes it snows during warm winters. I am more concerned with the overall causes, effects and trends than outliers.

>flood levels can easily be maintained with strutural measures.
Last I checked those cost money too, especially if you have to build them overt the entire coast.

>same with droughts btw.
The cost of droughts in the first world is moving water to drier areas, which costs billions of dollars.

>storms are storms sorry and they derive from a temperature delta not absolutes.
The intensity of the storm is effected by how much water vapor there is to fuel it, you're just wrong.

>And sometimes it snows during warm winters. I am more concerned with the overall causes, effects and trends than outliers.
but climate scientists insist on weather extremes
>Last I checked those cost money too
they actually _save_ lots of money

you cannot stop a single storm by lowering temperature
I'm convinced of my own opinion, I'm not trying to convince anybody
>more humidity in the atmosphere
>there would be less droughts
you do not convince me

This is extremely dishonest, because we came from a little ice age that ended just when this graph starts.

>but climate scientists insist on weather extremes
I don't know what that refers to. You'll have to be more specific.

>they actually _save_ lots of money
Relative to flooding, not relative to mitigation of climate change. Stop being misleading.

You know what I hate about climate scientists? they all claim 'yada yada global warming hath to be prevented' and then they all rush to Antarctica to do their 'research', fly to conferences, use computers and air condition their institutes, causing even more and serious harm to the ecosystem.

>you cannot stop a single storm by lowering temperature
Again you're being misleading. Why does mitigating climate change need to stop storms if it makes storms less intense?

>I'm convinced of my own opinion, I'm not trying to convince anybody
Good, because you're not.

> Stop being misleading.
so, you don't want to build dikes to protect humans?

>Good, because you're not.
neither are you

Reliable continuous record start around 1850.
that's just the way how history went.
Google it.
Too bad if it doesn't fit your narrative, guess that happens a lot with you and facts.

How does that make it misleading? Are you trying to imply that global warming's speed or magnitude are simply a rebalancing from the ice age? Because it's not.

Stop being misleading.

Anyone reading the thread can see that you are not responding to my arguments honestly.

>>more humidity in the atmosphere
>>there would be less droughts
You are confused about what type of drought is being referred to and which is particularly harmful. Many of the world's agricultural centers depend not simply on the amount of precipitation per year, but the timing of that precipitation. If you are increasing humidity throughout the year, you get lots of rain in the summer and less snow/faster snowmelt in the winter. But farmers want the opposite, since too much rain in the summer causes flooding, and too little snow in the winter reduces the snowpack, which is a big source of water when it's not raining. This is why California and the Southwest US is suffering from more and more flooding and drought. This was predicted several decades ago and now it's coming true.

Personal choices or setting and example aren't going to solve shit at this point. If something is to be done it will have to be with legislation / technology.

human caused climate change? I'm not really sure, desu. who says it couldn't be the sun, or yet another cycle, or another one of the many possibilities potentially causing earth warming?

they are a bunch of hypocrites

>The sun
Solar irradiance is currently decreasing and is not strong enough to cause the observed warming.

>or yet another cycle
If it was merely cyclical, such rapid warming would not be unprecedented, but it is.

>or another one of the many possibilities potentially causing earth warming?
See pic.

>If it was merely cyclical, such rapid warming would not be unprecedented, but it is.
Can we really rule that out?
What's the resolution of the data we can gather from ice cores or whatever?

>The excitement trump stirred up about fucking COAL MINING during the last election boggles my mind.
Tens of thousands of people depend on coal mining jobs. For many rural towns, that's all they have. If the coal mine closes, the whole town is fucked, not just the coal miners. You fags go on and on about how fragile the environment is and how killing just one species off can throw the entire thing out of whack, but you don't seem to get that the same thing is happening with the economy.

The resolution of various proxies is comparable to the instrumental record. See Also, cycles don't simply exist, they have to be caused by something cyclical. What major climate forcing are we missing?

>Tens of thousands of people depend on coal mining jobs
>But the economy and everyone in the world doesn't depend on the climate humans evolved in, plus coastal, agricultural, and oceanic infrastructure
>But muh ten thousand!

Do you really expect people in coal mining towns to not vote in their own interest?

Do you really expect that that is a relevant response? How popular climate change mitigation is irrelevant to the fact that it needs to be done to save trillions of dollars in future damages.

Ok Mr. Gore.

It's amazing to me how the same exact misconceptions about global warming pop up every single thread. Always the same old myths and falsehoods such as "climate has always changed," or "It's the sun!" or "It's real but it's not manmade!" or "more atmospheric CO2 is GOOD!"

Time after time all of these claims (and many more) have been debunked, yet another retard comes into the thread spouting them every single time as if they're up for debate.

It just goes to show you how absolutely powerful the misinformation campaign by special interests (fossil fuel corporations, etc.) about climate science has been on the public. The fact that these companies still get away with handing out money in the millions behind closed doors to support "think tanks" that spread this kind of nonsense is despicable. These myths won't die, and they continue to get perpetuated in the same circles of morons that spout anti-science nonsense daily.

Compelling argument, there needs to be a "Godwin's Law" but for Al Gore specifically for these threads.

On the bright side, it makes arguing with deniers and showing onlookers their severe ignorance exceedingly easy. I barely have to think since there are no original arguments, and I can harangue them again and again for not knowing well known, easily available information.

OK, and who says these gasses aren't because of:
- the lots and lots of forests european colonizers burned some 300-100 years ago, and
- more active vulcans
or whatever other reasons?

go do something practical against these interests, then.
find a better, cheaper, less pollutant way to make PV cells and sell them
find a way to get clean water (from the sea, lakes or whatever) from green energy
find a way to make cheaper, better batteries
and so on

Just a bullshit bandwagon for brainlet normies to jump on and pretend to know and care about "science." In reality for them it's just a talking point to signal how virtuous and progressive they are.

These people usually have no idea what they're talking about. If it snows more than a few inches they'll say "CLIMATE CHANGE! We need science!" It's fucking retarded.

Yes. And?

>the lots and lots of forests european colonizers burned some 300-100 years ago
Then why is CO2 rapidly increasing now?

Also, we know it's not from burning plants because the carbon isotope ratio in fossil fuels is different from those in plants. Plants have a low C13/C12 ratio while fossil fuels do not. The C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere is increasing.

>more active vulcans
Humans release 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually.

You're wrong, you know? And I just entered here

We already have clean energy, it's called nuclear. Unfortunately the fossil fuel interests will do everything in their power to stop nuclear and stop mitigation of fossil fuel energy.

How am I wrong?

I don't see you answer the question you're responding to anywhere. Regardless of what normies REEEEEEEEEE do, is climate change real or not according to the science?

It's not fossil fuel interests keeping nuclear down, it's NIMBY faggots who think Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl is a documentary.

>Then why is CO2 rapidly increasing now?
could be an effect of some other shit? what about that hole in the ozone layer, for example?
I mean, do we REALLY know the physics of this planet well enough to pinpoint to and blame climate change on one specific thing?

>add more energy to the system (whole planet)
>clean
yeah...

...

california drought has something to do with cultivation of almonds and avocado and with swimming pools
if californians weren't morons they would acquire a sustainable lifestyle

stop being your own parrot

argumentum ad populum? oh come on

>and we don't know what caused the global temperature to increase exponentially to end it.
Sometimes I cringe when seeing the level of opinionated ignorance that people have. If you don't know shit, it takes 5 seconds to google most correct answers rather than write out your ignorance out in the public.

The last deglaciation, coming from Glacial maximum about 20ka comes naturally as solar insolation (modulated by combination of the tilt of earth's axis and the ellipticity of earth's orbit) increases. The sequence goes:
> NH solar insolation increases (external input)
> Temperature warms in the poles
> CO2 increases
> Global T increases

This is 100% established science. Next time you're thinking of blathing your ignorance take the time to actually look up what you're talking about

oh, another great point... what does this has to do with the fuel oil industry? I mean, obviously they want you to keep buying their oil, but even if they didn't exist, these industries would still contaminate.
if any, we have to blame capitalism itself... how would you produce so much stuff without contaminating so much? how would you stop people from being such mindless consumerists (me and you included)? do you REALLY think the "cleanest" countries don't simply throw their dirt elsewhere? do you think "climate change" on itself isn't a good business?

>could be an effect of some other shit? what about that hole in the ozone layer, for example?
LOL what the fuck are you talking about?

>I mean, do we REALLY know the physics of this planet well enough to pinpoint to and blame climate change on one specific thing?
Yes.

>>add more energy to the system (whole planet)
>clean
Yes.

The economy is transient; climate change is, after a point, irreversible. The climate is a much bigger issue precisely because our actions now will have an impact in a century.

>california drought has something to do with cultivation of almonds and avocado
Yeah, it's called agriculture, it's pretty important.

I'll stop when you stop lying.

Shortage of water is what Californians had, they can blame their wasteful society for that.
Cultivation of almonds however doesn't make the rainfall small.
The drought is real. They have just had a good year, but as coming decades will show, that is just a blip in the radar.

>oh, another great point... what does this has to do with the fuel oil industry?
Burning fossil fuels is the main source of CO2 emissions, which is the cause of current global warming.

>I mean, obviously they want you to keep buying their oil, but even if they didn't exist, these industries would still contaminate.
These industries would not be emitting as much CO2, because they would be getting energy from cleaner sources.

Stop trying to conflate CO2 with consumption.

>weird aimless rambling

wtf are you trying to say exactly?

I did not lie to you. Building dikes and the like is better than forcing people to drive electric cars and banning their diesel engines.

this type of agriculture is neither efficient nor sustainable.
what about the huge waste of water going on in california?

I wonder if the defender of the "man-made climate change" theory here have a physics or related degree, and even read about the problems cause by, say, changes in agriculture, pollution and energy dumped in lakes and oceans by industries, etc., or if they simply blame every environmental problem, and even the "bad" weather on climate change...

when you use up all your water for unneccesary stuff, you gonna end up fucked when a drought comes. it's california's own fault.