My cousin is in denial that climate change is caused by people, and that it's a really big fucking problem...

>He's convinced it's some sort of conspiracy by the government so that they can tax us.
He's not wrong
Where do you think the money from a carbon tax will be going?
Hint: certainly not towards efforts to slow climate change

K so carbon tax and buy carbon credits works like this: you buy some carbon credits and that funds some organization somewhere in the world that preserves say a section of Amazonian rainforest. They estimate the price of carbon with some pretty complicated shit so yeah.

The levels of greenhouse gasses produced by human industry surely have nothing to do with the rising temperatures and it's all an evil conspiracy by the illegal immigrant green communists to overthrow america. Yes. We know.

Nice Microsoft Excel 98 graph.

It has to be as simple as possible because climate change deniers are often less intelligent that flat earthers. Too stimulating images might lead them to self harm.

> ±0.5°C
golly it's really cookin'.

golly it's really easy to maintain cities when the fucking entire ocean rises by several meters.

Or you know, the calendar is wrong and that would accomdate for different temperatures floating across historic monthly lows and highs.

That couldn't be though. I mean, it's not like DECember is suppose to be the tenth month or anything.

>when the fucking entire ocean rises by several meters.
Still waiting on that btw...

skepticalscience.com/argument.php

...

I read the first two and closed the page. First one had a typo making it sound retarded. Second one had a just didn't even attempt to make sense.

Looking at this graph, I'm convinced. Thanks user.
>when they say it don't really be like it is but it do

Maybe he can but the cousin is refusing to listen to it

>be grammar nazi
>had a just didn't even attempt to make sense.

If i was a grammar nazi I'd have stopped reading after the first one. It didn't matter to mention it until seeing the next one which had a just didn't even attempt to make sense, which at that point was 2/3 fails and tournament rules says that is a loss.

Yeah, that's the problem with retards like you: They don't know what "prevention" is

Who knows how long the months have been fucked or if they've continued to be fucked. Maybe the transition from February/12 to February/2 even had a February/1 in there at some point.

At any rate its not like the current calendar is accurate. Needing leap years or leap days at all is literally accounting for an oopsie.

The problem with calling climate change a people factor is that people can't then stop it.

Sure you'll have "science-oriented" white liberals hollering about carbon tax, windmills, solar energy and reduced fossil fuel usage - but on the other hand you have the 6 billion non-white foreigners who are the actual culprits of the supposed carbon emissions, not only because of their number but also because their countries are poorshit and they still run garbage diesel trucks from the 50s.

it's paradoxical thinking. No, us white people aren't going to solve "climate change" by thinking really hard about it. It would take wars and famines to eradicate the foreigners who make up 85% of the world population and an even high percentage of the carbon emissions - and the paradox comes from these same people screaming about climate change also being the same people who want to ban guns and open borders and see no reason any person should have to die or any reason for war.

Liberalism is a mental disease, don't fall for it or you'll be a permabrainlet.

There's no incentive to buy carbon credits unless there's a tax on carbon

Carbon credits are immoral as hell if the funds from them leave the country (which most of them do)

According to your graph, there has been no net warming in the last 120 years.

We can't agree on the data, let alone the cause.

>Redpill me on (((global warming))) Veeky Forums
You're asking the wrong board.

>

edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-5

the first world started it

So your argument is that climate change is real, it's also influenced by humans, but we shouldn't try to fight it because large segments of the world can't or won't fight it. What do you suggest? Do we just prepare for the realistic but enivitable results? That doesn't seem to be the conservative platform, that my seem to think it's just not a real thing.

>it's paradoxical thinking. No, us white people aren't going to solve "climate change" by thinking really hard about it. It would take wars and famines to eradicate the foreigners who make up 85% of the world population and an even high percentage of the carbon emissions - and the paradox comes from these same people screaming about climate change also being the same people who want to ban guns and open borders and see no reason any person should have to die or any reason for war.
>Liberalism is a mental disease, don't fall for it or you'll be a permabrainlet.

You're on the wrong board
>>

3 pretty simple lemmas:

1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.

2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.

3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA. earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php On average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.

In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand

But what you keep failing to prove is that there's enough co2 for the greenhouse effect to cause the "temperature increases" that supposedly exist.

Literally every model takes the observed temperatures and uses that to conclude that co2 by mass is causing the temperatures.

I'd like to see a paper that actually predicts the forcing from first principles.

Is the earth warming now? Looks like it.
Is it going to warm more than it should to correct long term patterns? Probably not.

I've made it a point to ask any of the biologists I've worked with about global warming. In my experience the ones over 50 instantly compare it to the global cooling alarmism of the 1970's. Uniformly those under the age of 45 all seem to believe it without question.

I would be interested if anyone else has notice a similar phenomenon, I will also say professor emeriti I have talked to just give no shits and are very fun to talk to too.

ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

>Takes IR specs of greenhouse gasses
>Makes model from first principles using said information
>Model says that the current amount of CO2 does have a significant impact on the global temperature change

here you go

and folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf
for good measure

That's exactly what I didn't want.

I want to see the absorption and emission of a system of molecules stated explicitly. I want to see that that emission is reabsorbed and emitted by non greenhouse gases, contributing to an overall increase in kinetic energy of the atmosphere. Because that's what temperature is. From that, I want to see statistics applied to the model to show the .0004% of co2 in the atmosphere produces the temperatures measured over the last 1000 years or so.

I don't want to see an over tuned model that assumes the temperature is based on the emissions. It's circular logic that will always show agw, because it was designed to.

Here is a modern(ish) review of completely theoretical derivation of the radiative budget
jstor.org/stable/pdf/4314548.pdf

Annherius literally did all you asked for in 1896. Here is the orginal paper.
tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14786449608620846
He numerically integrated the radiative thermonydamic equation over the whole column of atmosphere to predict what equilibrium T of the surface should be given concentration of certain greenhouse gases. If you take any decent atmospheric thermodynamics this is the subject of the 1st chapter

If we just paused our activity for a year, nature would flourish and thrive again, weather would return to "normal."

Prove me wrong!

If the Earth lacked an atmosphere, mean surface temperature would be just below freezing. Simple radiation equilibrium calculation.
If Venus didn't have such a heavy atomosphere (and greenhouse effect) the place would be uncomfortably warm but not like a furnace. Back in the 40s, SF stories imagined Venus as a tropical jungle.

The greenhouse effect is quite real and atmospheric CO2 corresponds well with temperature rise.

How to convince your cousin? Beats me. We just avoid the topic when we get together at Thanksgiving. Some people will still be skeptical when they're treading water above where their home used to be.

Wrong because the average lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is 100-200 years

Global warming is really caused by methane but no one is going to advocate the extermination of people or livestock to drive down ppm.

Surprise!
China has begun a carbon trading market.
forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/12/19/the-china-carbon-market-just-launched-and-its-the-worlds-largest-heres-how-it-can-succeed/#520d50d17ce6

CH4 atmospheric lifetime is 10 years because Earth's atmosphere is an oxidizing environment (20% oxygen gas). Also CH4 is in ppb range (1800 ppb) while CO2 is in ppm range (400ppm).

In 10 years CH4 oxidizes into CO2, which last 100-200 years on average in the atmosphere. This is why despite being a more potent GHG mole per mole, the majority of the focus is rightfully so on CO2 cutbacks

t. carl sagan
your methane hypothesis was wrong, remember that?

>The "facts" don't even show a warming trend the last 10 years let alone humans causing it.
Where did you hear this tripe from? Let me guess, Fox News, or Breitbart, or some other conservative media outlet that you consume solely because it confirms your biases?
Just so you know, the entire "global warming hiatus," or the "no global warming in 10 years" garbage is such an old, outdated and debunked talking point that for some reason refuses to die, because idiots like yourself keep parroting this vague statement that you overheard somewhere without even bothering to fact check whether it has any evidence backing it up.

No, there is no "hiatus," and no, the Earth has not stopped warming, and yes, we are incredibly certain (>95%+ certainty) that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from our civilization are to blame. These are not hypotheses, these are simple facts that are based on observational data. The trend continues to be a positive one, and global average temperatures are rising, these are simple facts that are easy to confirm by looking at the available data for surface temperature / ocean temperatures and CO2ppm.

...

couldn't you just build an ocean wall several meters tall? what's the water going to do, go around?

now show the past 1000 years you homo.

Your cousin is right. (((climate change))) is just another plot for transferring wealth (((away))) from the first world.

What, so you can claim "WHOA SEE IT WUZ WARM IN DA PAST TOO THEREFIRE IT DON'T REAL AND HUMANS DINDU NUFFINS!"

and the other that can't be assed to click.
Why? What does it matter?
World get hot an water go up! Fucking move, or drown.
Ice melt and animals die! Fuck them. Do we eat polar bear?
other political faction lies about stuff! Okay, thats cool, when have they ever not.. on both sides.

learn to swim, learn to start fires with sticks, learn to live where live is possible... stop being a cunt.

Early cartography supports the idea that there was a connective ice shelf between antarctica and south america, and the ice shelf widened still before the industrial age even happened.

It is 100% myth to attribute warming to manmade alone, resting on a base 99% myth that any extra CO2 wouldn't first settle into soil or be forced out of the atmosphere via rainclouds than have any detrimental effects on air quality or atmospheric ability to retain an unnecessary amount of heat.

It is pride and hubris to think man had done it and man can fix it.

data doesn't support that, natural warming only accounts for up to 10% of the recent warming

daily reminder that these threads are created by some flat earther sperg and it's not worth the time or effort to argue with him.

I feel like you didn't actually read the post.

lol idgaf I just wrote an exam on this bullshit

Map of antarctica 1531, good job being a stupid goy faggot who only regurgitates his programming.

>any extra CO2 wouldn't first settle into soil
Learn about ideal gas law. Gases don't settle like fluid does, and will continue to mix. This is 19th century stuff.

>or be forced out of the atmosphere via rainclouds
CO2 does dissolve into rain droplet and turn into carbonic acid. However the average lifetime of rain droplet is 2 minutes, which is nowhere near enough to dissolve out the 3000 petagram of CO2 that is floating in the atmosphere.

Speaking of CO2 sink though you almost had it right. There is a large body of water where atmospheric CO2 dissolves into, and act as a major sink for atmospheric CO2. It is called the ocean. When CO2 sinks into the ocean, it takes a hydrogen molecule from water to form bicarbonate ions, and as a result reduces the pH of the ocean, hence ocean acidification which is not a good thing at all for life in the ocean.

what does that have to with anything

Oh yes, can't forget the acid oceans.

... exam? so, university tier garbage; with more than likely an also; if not moreso, biased professor that thinks the earth will burst into flames if mankind (but not woman kind.. because, lets face it, they are perfect) were to just fuck off and die?

How about we keep the planet clean because it would be nice to live on a clean planet. Not because of some horror story that may or may not even be true.

dumb frogposter

Because it would cripple our economy if we enacted policy in the first world and third world would just pick up the slack with more pollution to meet demand

my Prof is actually pretty cool, he's the geochem guy
I wish I could work in his lab but my chem skills are pre shit

Most of the third world needs to go anyway.

Climate change is a myth. We're fine. Doomsayers have been predicting the end of the world due to climate change since the 1800s. Back in the 70s scientists were saying that we needed to prepare for DOOM because a new Ice Age was about to start and destroy civilization as we knew it. What happened? Fucking nothing.

See This is a science board. Please back your argument with primary citations, observational data, and evidence

Earth has been cooling for the past 50 million years and yet in the past 100ish years it's been warming
that's some crazy shit

Heres a map from 1855, you can see that antarctica had receded tremendously from south america. This was not even 90 years since the start of the industrial revolution yet it looks virtually identical to modern day antarctica. 30 years before the first car or electric lightbulb, maybe 1000 trains existed; not a significant amount of CO2 emission to influence anything nearly as much as the past 50 years alone: meaning there was an auxillary reason for the ice shelf melting unrelated to man, and ironically the ice shelf has not dramatically changed in nearly 300 years.

Or maybe people in 1855 don't know shit about Antarctica and can't tell the difference between seasonal sea ice and actual continents

>Please back your argument with primary citations, observational data, and evidence
Can I use the same citations, observational data and evidence that conclusively proved we were going to have a new ice age that would blanket the planet in ice back in the 70s

>seasonal sea ice

Do you have autism or something?
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

you know those maps were super duper inaccurate until we had geospatial tech right?

Here's another older map, Mercator's, showing the ice bridge again. He even went as far as making a more detailed map of south america looking for a water path through the continent to get to the other side.

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3899

who's the brainlet now

AHHHHH! CLIMATE CHANGE! WE'RE ALL DOOMED! THE EARTH WILL BE A SNOWBALL WE'LL ALL FREEZE! Oh wait, I mean THE EARTH WILL BE A FIREBALL WE'LL ALL FRY! Gotta be right this time!

see
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

The guy didn't even get Madagascar's and Australia's coast correct buddy. This is one of the dumbest line of reasoning there is.

Whoa, so some magazines and newspaper articles reported something that hardly any actual academics were claiming at the time, really gets my noggin joggin

>journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
That some A+ post hoc face saving right there. Do you think we'll have a "The myth of the 2010s global warming consensus" paper in 30 years when the people who pumped up the hysteria fall flat on their face yet again?

Nice strawman bud, maybe if you actually read the paper you would be able to have an actual rebuttal, but all you can do for now is show what a dumb plebeian you are.

Theres a difference between lowballing a shape thousands of miles long and being unable to discern a mile wide path between antarctica and south america.

...

I mean it's clearly just bullshit trying to save face in order to make their current climate change hysteria look valid. The people would wake up too easily if they didn't try to invalidate the shit they were saying back then. In a few years they'll be saying "W-we didn't all agree that the Earth was warming! That was just a few extremists!" and we'll be back to square one.

People back then didn't know the difference between seasonal sea ice, ice shelves, and continents, nor do they have icebreaker ships. They just drew the edge of the continent whenever they see sea ice and their ship cannot pass through.

This is giving these early explorers the biggest benefit of the doubt. Likelier explanation is that they're not that bright and they all die at 40 of scurvy because they don't understand nutritions

ayy lmao

Again, too much of a brainlet to come up with an actual rebuttal and just resort to ad hom and other fallacious """arguments."""
Go put on your big boy pants, and do some reading. Your entire argument of a "consensus" in global cooling in the 1970s is simply put, a fraudulent and false argument with no basis in reality, yet all you can do is rant and rave and try to change the subject because the truth is you have no actual argument to present.
>The people would wake up too easily if they didn't try to invalidate the shit they were saying back then. In a few years they'll be saying "W-we didn't all agree that the Earth was warming! That was just a few extremists!" and we'll be back to square one.
The only "hysterical" person I see in this thread is the autist that took the time to write out this shite and un-ironically believes in it.

The sad truth is you're just another dunning kruger, low information tard that has deluded themselves into believing they have all the answers, and that everyone else is wrong because you're so super smart and special, better than all the (((sheeple))) that blindly believe in evidence based science. Go you for being such an edgy moron I guess.

So you believe things are true because they're a fact? You should be able to argue for everything you hold true to yourself.

kek

>is simply put, a fraudulent and false argument with no basis in reality
Of course you'll say that because if you admitted that they were dead wrong back then it puts a huge hole in your current hysteria pushing. Fact is The exact same percentage of scientists who are sure gloabal warming is occuring now thought global cooling was occuring a few decades ago. Not surprising in the least that a few of them are desperate to go back and scrub the record clean. Doomsaying doesn't carry as much weight when you can simply point back and say "Bt Dr Rosenberg, you said the Earth would be a snowball by now"

>cold weather is ice
Ye i remember winter 2010 when an ice shelf swallowed most of the united states.

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3899

Its a map of sea ice and snow cover. My point is seasonal sea ice fluctuates, therefore early explorers might not get the edges of Antarctica right. Keep deflecting, play linguistics game, and post more pepes though as if you're so smart

No, I present actual evidence showing that there was no scientific agenda in the 1970s among scientists claiming the earth was cooling. The vast majority of earth science papers on climate change published at this time (which was still a small amount because the field was just emerging then) was focused on a warming planet, not a cooling one. You can post whatever newspaper or magazine articles you want, that does not change this fact. What is published in the scientific literature is what matters, that's how those doing actual scientific research communicate their ideas to their colleagues, and it clearly shows when you look at the evidence that the entire cooling consensus is fraudulent.

realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

Do some reading, though I know you won't because it won't confirm your incredibly deep biases. Head is stuck way too far up your own ass to see facts and evidence at this point.