What's the proof of man made climate change?

>t. I don't know how to click on links

look, it's another stable genius

← this

When I say "cites its sources," I mean a bibliography, not blog links. Come back when you have pubes, kiddo.

Isn't there a wealth of peer-reviewed journal articles pertaining to climate change in nearly every single university library on the planet?

Samefag

>aberrations in weather patterns
>not climate change
lol

...

Honestly, this day and age literally fucking everything is a lie. Proof is more or less irrelevant because in order to understand whether it really is proof or not, you need such a deep understanding of the particular branch of science that only the people who do it for a living would know. And of course, the people who do it for a living have a vested interest in the subject, which makes them inherently biased one way or the other.

Society's fucked up like that, in this age of post-truth alternate facts where people are more interested in whether someone has a dick or not, or whether the dick was there but then removed or not, and wich bathroom should they then take. Oh and you can't forget the mother fucking Kardashians, that shit's more important than the big fucking bang.

I won't bother going through every logical step on the way. Point is, no matter what the subject, in the end there's a degree of opinion and perspective involved. It's sad as fuck, but that's the way it is. So really, the best anyone who's not an expert can do, is evaluate the odds and weigh the risks.

In the case of the greenhouse effect, personally I feel the odds are favoring the idea that it is true and man made. More than that, a simple risks assessment favors assuming that it is even if it didn't look like it. Because everything we need to do to reduce the greenhouse effects is also beneficial to us locally and globally in the long run, while ignoring it - if it turned out to be real - could fuck us up permanently.

>the whole globe is between -4°F and 4°F
American education.

all you need to know:
skepticalscience.com/argument.php
now delete this shit thread

Are you saying you have one, and that's why you don't understand? Or do you have a different excuse?

Like the graph you just showed?

probably the difference between what the temperature was and what it is
(for example, antarctica is now 4° hotter than it was)
idk but that's my best guess

Exactly. Like that graph which comes from the website.

>Now try a website that cites all of its sources
But SKS is pretty good at citing sources. Did you even bother to look?

What is the optimal temperature of Earth?

>skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Any non popsci links?

>What is the optimal temperature of Earth?
There's no single optimum, but any of the conditions found in the last few thousand years would be manageable. The issue is the rate of change: it's possible to adapt to a warmer or cooler climate, but not a rapidly changing one.

>Any non popsci links?
Go nuts:
ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

CO2 ~ 300 ppm

>The Truth About Climate Change
>vixra.org/abs/1309.0069

how many alarmists does Al Gore pay to shill on Veeky Forums?

>vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
God help us all. That's some of the most spectacularly wrong-headed "analysis" I've seen I my life. I'm confident that even I could do better.
Take a look at just this one graph. Without even touching on their choice of dataset, did they really think that there was no batter way to study temperature records than fucking polynomial curve-fitting? I mean, it's not like we've spent the last hundred years or so actually studying WHY the climate warms and cools, so why not just let Excel pick those curves for you?

Why are deniers so obsessed with Al Gore?
If you were throwing a hissy fit over, for example, Michael Mann I could at least understand why. He's a great climatologist, but he's fond of public outreach and can get political. But Al Gore doesn't know shit, and no-one here regards him as anything but a politician.

>Take a look at just this one graph.
Bah. This graph.

wsj.com/articles/city-sues-oil-companies-over-climate-change-1515607107

>backplot fitted polynomial curves to ~1900
>linear still reasonably close fit, some divergence
>2nd, 4th, 6th rapidly diverge from actual temperature record
>BUT, BUT, THERE'S NO REASON TO TREAT THE LINEAR TREND AS MEANINGFUL
deniers are inadvertent self-parody.

>Other trendlines show various possibilities.
... for extrapolation, but the data show warming from 1980-to-present, no matter how you try to fudge it.

>Why are deniers so obsessed with Al Gore?
...bcoz he is a "soft target".
Deniers know they get BTFO taking on any actual climatologist,
so they dogpile the politician, who is clearly out of his depth.

I was about to make a new thread but someone please help I'm writing an essay for uni. What other types of Climate change or Global warming is there? I know man made or human caused but what else? If you can leave some sources as well that would be amazing.

I asked for temperature, not gasses responsible for life being able to existent on this planet in the first place.

>There's no single optimum (tempurature)

Good answer, I guess the climate DOES change. Nothing we can do about it.

>it's possible to adapt to a warmer or cooler climate, but not a rapidly changing one

What is rapid?

>I have no idea how the carbon cycle works!!!!
>But carbon is like a gas necessary for lyfe rite?????
>LOL THEN HOW DOES IT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE CHECKMATE ATHEISTS HAHA

Volcanoes and the Sun could heat up. Also tectonic spreading rate and polar position, albedo etc. There's lots.

carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

let c equal the number of carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere naturally

let h equal the number of carbon dioxide atoms released by humans

c + h = the number of carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere now

it's simple math really, even if you can somehow prove the amount we put into the atmosphere is trivial (you can't) it still means we are not helping.

Also the ocean opening e.g. between the America's allows for more heat to move throughout the world causing a warming. This is another reason the earth was so warm 3 million years ago.

>I have no idea how the carbon cycle works!!!!
Which carbon cycle? Carbon does a lot more than you think it does

>But carbon is like a gas necessary for lyfe rite?????
Yeah, it is.

>LOL THEN HOW DOES IT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE CHECKMATE ATHEISTS HAHA
Well how does it then? I'm waiting.

Also, what is rapid?

the current rate of climate change is rapid

Relative to most other changes, but there was a paper that circled a few months back that detailed a few other rapid changes (though I think they were alongside a number of volcanic eruptions as well.)

>all right officer, if I was *actually* speeding, what is the optimal place for my car?
>>there's no single optimum, your car is allowed to be pretty much anywhere on the roads. the issue is the rate of change of your location; it's dangerous for your position to change so fast.
>Good answer, I guess my position DOES change, nothing we can do about it! LOL GOTCHA THERE METAPHOR COP

>Carbon does a lot more than you think it does
>thinks carbon doesn't cause global warming
lél

The absolute amount of atoms is irrelevant though, since the vast majority of the greenhouse effect goes towards keeping the planet from being an ice ball. It's the *change* in atoms, the change in the greenhouse effect which is causing rapid global warming. This change is very small relative to the total amount of atoms but that comparison has nothing to do with whether the actual effect on the climate is large.

So were those changes good for humans and the ecosystem we rely on?

the amount of atoms in the atmosphere does matter, the larger the percentage of carbon dioxide the warmer it gets.

Yes it allowed the world to cool and people to evolve from (well, the genus homo evolved around roughly the same time period.)

forgot to finish the world cooling allowed humans to move out after they evolved and a lot of the larger animals of the world were killed off either due to climate (the shifts between ice age and non-ice age that keep occuring) or due to people being a creature that easily adapts to new environments and climates (people meaning all descendants of the original Homo Erectus.)

thank you both

>were rapid changes in climate good for the ecosystem?
I dunno, why don't you ask an ammonoid or a blastoid or a eurypterid?

>the amount of atoms in the atmosphere does matter, the larger the percentage of carbon dioxide the warmer it gets.
That naive argument could just as well support the contention that because the addition is so small relative to the total amount, the amount of warming is negligible. Which is in fact what many deniers argue.

>Yes it allowed the world to cool and people to evolve from (well, the genus homo evolved around roughly the same time period.)
Are you referring to cooling during the Pliocene? Because that was not rapid at all. Glacial cooling during the Pleistocene was much faster than that, but still much much slower that current warming. Interglacial warming was faster still, but still an order of magnitude slower than current warming. So I'm not sure what your point. Climatologists already know all of this occurred, it says nothing about what's happening now.

>That naive argument could just as well support the contention that because the addition is so small relative to the total amount, the amount of warming is negligible. Which is in fact what many deniers argue.

It's not entirely that small when you factor in a length of time of more than a century, i.e. two hundred years in the future. And it isn't just carbon dioxide but methane and other forms of waste-gas that are released at a larger rate and come from most things we do as a society (even our trash eventually starts releasing methane from the ground.)

It's a host of factors, and I'm not trying to prove it's entirely our fault I'm saying we are definitely adding to the change in climate because there isn't a way we could be with the amount of greenhouse gasses released by nearly everything we do.

>nterglacial warming was faster still, but still an order of magnitude slower than current warming. So I'm not sure what your point

I was answering the question of whether the cooling that occured helped human evolution, which it undoubtably did. I never said it was a rapid shift in climate.

>I asked for temperature, not gasses
but they're connected at the hip

Pic related

...