/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10181928
OP Continued:

But that's only the beginning. We've had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last
Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again
4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity.
It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping
arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once
extended south to Long Islan and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance
(except for a few mountain remnants). That's one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global
warming - and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history - it seems highly likely that
it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution
to the greenhouse effect.

Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered
on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age
in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human
greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

>>10181928
OP Continued:

The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11],
and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted. The idea that we should be spending
hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention
and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects
in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological
and political in nature, and I predict that Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down
as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

>>10181928
OP Continued:

[1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition
by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere.
HYPERLINK "http://www.physicalgeograph......" http://www.physicalgeograph......

[2] ibid.

[3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al..
HYPERLINK "http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Con..." http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Con........ See p. 4.The 0 - 4% range is widely
accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range.
An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than
the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end).
Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or
more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.

[4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ]
HYPERLINK "http://webbook.nist.gov/" http://webbook.nist.gov/

[5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the
atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However,
the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems
likely to be small if not nil.

>>10181928
OP Continued:

[6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
HYPERLINK "http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa..." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa........
The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm,
equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution
to the greenhouse effect.

[7] History of Earth’s Climate. http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-...... This account was written by someone for whom
English was a second language and focuses on Scandinavia, but it draws together evidence from around the world,
and provides insight into the challenges of judging temperatures in earlier geological times.
[8] New York Nature - The nature and natural history of the New York City region.
Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.ne......

[9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle
HYPERLINK "https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs..." http://www.azgs.az.gov/ariz......
This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author
in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009
HYPERLINK "http://wikileaks.org/wiki/C..." http://wikileaks.org/wiki/C........
See also HYPERLINK "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/..." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...... and
HYPERLINK "http://online.wsj.com/artic..." http://online.wsj.com/artic...... and, more diplomatically:
HYPERLINK "http://www.nytimes.com/2009..." http://www.nytimes.com/2009........ Et al.

>>10181928
Look guy, here's the plan.
-Burn lots of hydrocarbons to bind up existing O2
-Sequester this now formed CO2
-Pump it deep underground where it will be thoroughly locked away in the name of saving the planet
-De-industrialize most of the world as well, also to save the planet, while also sterilizing and killing off the bulk of the population, and leaving the rest as dependent as possible
-Herd people into megacities via eg UN Agenda 21
-Bring about a massive global drop in usable oxygen
-Make farming near impossible for anyone other than industrial "approved" farming operations
-Control people with oxygen availability

Alright? Sounds good. Let's get those serf cattle under control.

>>10181938
>HYPERLINK "http://wikileaks.org/wiki/C..." http://wikileaks.org/wiki/C........
>.................
Look guy, you gotta be fucking kidding me. How about you get it together, huh?

>>10181932
Look guy, climate is controlled by solar activity. We've known this for quite some time, alright?

>>10181938
Gotta copy the entire links fucktard

>>10181928
The things is, many people disregard human impact on warming because leaks have shown that some researchers especially at the university of Sydney have faked evidence of it to get more research funding.

>>10181928
Was your discovery of this info on CO2 recent? I've been posting several links along these same lines showing the absurdity of the greenhouse gas theory for at least a year now, albeit infrequently, choosing mainly to reply to the plethora of threads started in staunch support of the AGW party line.
Either way, good on you for taking the time to actually consider some "alternative" scientific media, rather than taking one-sided propaganda as gospel and shaming those who don't.

>>10182073
What do you think of this?
>>10181952

I'm evaluating every branch and every possibility with every new piece of information.

>>10182073
>I'm retarded
Ok

>>10182092
Shut up you dirty weaponized whore.

>>10182096
Point proven.

>>10181952
>>10182077
>-Burn lots of hydrocarbons to bind up existing O2
>-Sequester this now formed CO2
>-Pump it deep underground where it will be thoroughly locked away in the name of saving the planet
That'll never work in time! We need the quick fix.
>-Control people with oxygen availability
You might be onto something here...
If only there existed a high frequency band capable of disrupting the molecular spin and thus structure of oxygen, it could be used to silently choke people by simply inhibiting respiration, slowly ramping up the signal strength.
'Boil' 'em slow, like 5 froGs in a pot.
It would be so clever... Hohoho!

>>10182098
>If only there existed a high frequency band capable of disrupting the molecular spin and thus structure of oxygen, it could be used to silently choke people by simply inhibiting respiration, slowly ramping up the signal strength.
Hey, I know! We could use 60GHz!

Wait, someone already did that. It's called WiGig / wifi 6! Darn!

>>10182043
Wrong.

>>10182098
You have to go back.

>burger time
>climate change deniers run rampant
>Eurochads have to show them their place
Are you really that stupid, my burger friends?

>>10182104
The fuck is your problem? Do you have to go all 'paranormal witch hunter' every time you read any speculation on /sci/? Way to contribute nothing.
Can we get a based mod to just ban these losers?

>>10181928
>Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.039% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or
more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least
25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5].
This is all irrelevant. The vast majority of the greenhouse effect keeps the Earth from being a giant ball of ice. It's not the vast majority of the greenhouse effect that's the problem, it's the change in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution that has rapidly taken us out of the climatic optimum. That change is caused entirely by man's emissions. Your source is feeding you a gigantic red herring.

>>10182104
Hey kiddo, I see you posted le epic /x/ meemee on /sci/.

Alright, now I need you to pay attention. You're on a science board so standards are slightly higher around these parts, so what you need to do is go to www.google.com, acknowledging subconsciously that Google, apple, and Microsoft et al are pure evil while you do so, and then you need to look up absorption spectrum of diatomic oxygen for me. Okay? Now you need to brush up on your basic chemistry concerning what happens when something is irradiated in such a way, and then attempts to bind to another compound, oh I don't know, like hemoglobin. Should be a neat little exercise for you.

Now I need you to look up something you haven't heard of before, so put on your learning hat or thinking cap if the former is not available. I need you to look up "wifi 6" or "wigig". Okay? Now I need you to look up what frequency it's set to operate at.

Gosh, I wonder what could go wrong. They're the experts though, I'm sure someone is looking out for me and testing this stuff for safety.

>>10181930
>But that's only the beginning. We've had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age.
This is a lie. The end of the last ice age was millions of years ago, you mean the end of the last glacial period. Interglacial warming stopped about 7000 years ago so we haven't had global warming since then. We were slowly cooling since then until man started rapidly dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. This source does not deserve any further attention considering how egregious its misrepresentations and outright lies are. Use your brain next time and have a little skepticism.

>>10182114
>speculation
LOL >>>/x/

>>10182127
Saved.

>>10182114
>speculation
U wut? This shit ain't speculation, it's physical fact how it works. We know this shit already. There's not much to speculate about beyond why "they" are doing it. Why a point near the maximum dielectric loss of water was left as unlicensed spectrum and chosen for wifi. Why wigig is now going after oxygen as well. That's what we're speculating about. But to imply we're speculating about what it'll do? Way too generous.

>>10182128
Read a book kiddo.

>>10182119
Very interesting, but did you take a look at >>1018210. ?

>>10182134
Don't know. What was it?

>>10182132
Oh I see now. What do you think of >>1018210 though?

>>10182137
A very interesting post you should read >>10182104

>>10182143
Refer to:
>>10182119

>>10182119
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/

>>10182150
I didn't move to the city, the city moved to me, and I want out desperately.

>>10182152
kys

>>10182157
no u kys
kys m8 LO)L

>>10182145
Refer to >>10182150

>>10182159
Refer to:
>>10182157
>>10182158
>>10182145

>>10182161
Refer to >>10182159

>>10182163
>Less post links than me
You're losing ground, and I see you're becoming daunted by the strength of my arguments.

Remember to report every /x/ linking shitpost as spam, off-topic, or trolling.

>>10182173
Should be stickied.

>>10182173
The entire thread is off-topic. Also >>>/x/

>>10182190
Debating the scientific merits of the anthropogenic climate change framework is off topic for a science forum? Where do you think you are, /religion/? /dogma/?

Look kiddo, that's all well and good if you have beliefs and live by the faith and all that, but I think you're really in the wrong place. I also suggest you lay flat and try not to get trampled by the real thinkers in the world while you sit fixed like an inanimate object, cycling your crude programming.

Behavior like that, someone could write you in an hour, buddy boyo. I have an idea. >>>/out/, go detach and find yourself.

>>10182197
>Debating
You dumping mental diarrhea, because that's all I see

>>10182198
That's nice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpDvtIt6Lsc
>How it feels to destroy >>>/x/ posters

What motive would the system have for using wigig for purposes of mass murder?

>>10182300
There are a number of branches which would include this aspect. Ultimately it's all about control and depopulation. We're already being dumbed down and sterilized, death rate is being increased, now of course they also want us to be as weak and sick as possible.

UN has stated they want the global population to be 1 billion. Georgia guidestones state 500 million. Who knows the full plan and control structure, it's irrelevant to how this works anyway.

>>10182300
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNxPVj0hejg

>>10181928

So I was looking through "Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition
by Michael Pidwirny" and I found the following statement:

"The fifth most abundant gas in the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. The volume of this gas has increased by over 35% in the last three hundred years (see Figure 7a-1). This increase is primarily due to human induced burning from fossil fuels, deforestation, and other forms of land-use change. Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas. The human-caused increase in its concentration in the atmosphere has strengthened the greenhouse effect and has definitely contributed to global warming over the last 100 years. Carbon dioxide is also naturally exchanged between the atmosphere and life through the processes of photosynthesis and respiration."

If you're going to be anti-semites and disguise yourselves as scientists you should probably read your own sources before you post them.

C02 and temperature track, and there hasn't been this much in a long... long time.

Does it even make sense to you to imagine that billions and billions of metric tons of oil could be dug up and set on fire and that somehow that wouldn't have some effect on the atmosphere?

>>10182319
>anti-semites
Everyone go home, all possible discussion is now over. We are no match for this non-sequitur-fu.

>>10182337

You could begin by explaining why you were deliberately misleading with the information you presented? If the "contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide
is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable", then why has it risen by 35% to and quote "definitely contributed to global warming over the last 100 years".

I'm not done reading through your sources, I think you have some interesting material here, and I'll keep an open mind, but so far it looks like you just cherry picked some data and drew some conclusions on your own.

>>10182319
>anti-semites
Got em'!

The jews don't want to kill you. They just want to make a lot of money and climb the social ladder. You want to kill the jews, so you invent a boogeyman story to justify your homicidal intent. The Jew inhabits the same place in your mind that satan inhabits in the mind of a Christian; a kind of omni-present puppetmaster who works through others to deceive you and is always out to get you, and in who's existence you would never disbelieve regardless of what proof you were shown.

Everything that you project on to the jew and on to the rest of society is actually coming from inside of yourself. All of that ugliness inside projected on to an external tormentor so you can continue to believe yourself a virtuous struggler for truth.

The people who are the most unconscious of their own evil are the most dangerous.

>>10182361
The Jews are an instrument. They've been used for decades, that's why trauma programming and shared sacrifice, the mark of the covenant, is the core of their religion.

>>10182364
>decades
Centuries rather. Where is my mind today.

>>10182357
>>10182337

Come on boys, don't retreat to your safe spaces and echo chambers so quickly. I'm open to talking to you - and I'm telling you it took me less than five minutes to find out you've been misrepresenting your source material.

>>10182364

That's interesting (and new). So who's using The Jews as an instrument? Lucifer himself? Please say extra dimensional entities because that would freak me out.

>>10182371
Loosely, "the cabal". The amorphous "them". People have plotted out many control structures over the centuries, some with persistent elements that remain a solid line through time (Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Monarchies and political dynasty which are all conveniently descended from Vlad the impaler, etc) and others that have a facet come into view for a short time but can't really be tacked down. I'm not really an expert on the finer specifics, and I'd recommend books by Eustace Mullins. But I am quite familiar with their pattern of operation and certain key periods of history, as well as the overall agenda that's coming strongly into view at the moment.

For trauma programming, systematic use of torture and social stimuli to either get the mind to splinter into pieces, which are then programmed, or as a non-compartmentalized mechanism of strong behavioral control, you'll have to refer to related literature on trauma and dissociation, satanic ritual programming, etc. Mengele, MKUltra, and Monarch programming are also good leads.

Jews are essentially middle management. A front. A compartmentalized layer between those who are really in control and the broader serfs. One side of my family actually has Jewish heritage. Traveled through Russia, to Germany, then to France, then to Canada, and interbred with the native americans. I think these Jew genes, though diluted, may afford some insight into the Jew mind.

>>10182390
Also, just to tell you I'm not excluding other species puppeting the human race. A species that was here all along, aliens, "big brained hominid" or primates with the elongates skulls that those of the vatican could conveniently hide with their hats... Probably not descendants of the giants though.

>>10182368
Why even bother, they are larping as people who can digest scientific studies

>>10181928
Picked some cherries for you since you've been busy harvesting today. It's from assessment report 5 by the IPCC in 2015.

> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia

> Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years

> Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

I'll easily take a very large bet on your prediction it's all a widespread fraud and conspiracy by thousands of scientists across the world. I'd gamble my house on it.

>>10182115
>climactic optimum

>>10182312
>We're already being dumbed down
You're the prime example

>>10182477
How so?

>>10182481
Because you're dumb as shit

>>10182487
How so?

>>10182312
> UN has stated they want the global population to be 1 billion
Imagine being so fucked in the head that you actually believe this shit.

>>10182520
Why? They sterilized a bunch of girls in Kenya with tetanus vaccines. They have the sights on other countries as well, using the templates tested in the third world.

>>10182464
>Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia
"millenia" relies on an accurate assessment of the average global temperature in the distant past, these assessments are controversial

> Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years
The OP does not necessarily dispute this

> Human influence on the climate system is clear
But to what extent is not so clear.

>human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010
Doesn't specify Co2

None of these points contradict the OP's argument.

>>10182475
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

>>10182546
What about WiGig?

They chased me around with a pair of scissors for years, now I'm being chased with a noose. Why, anon?

>>10182546
>"millenia" relies on an accurate assessment of the average global temperature in the distant past, these assessments are controversial
How are they controversial? If anything is controversial it's the pseudoscience you're posting.

>The OP does not necessarily dispute this
It attempts to distract from this with irrelevant statistics about the whole atmosphere and the whole greenhouse effect.

>But to what extent is not so clear.
Wrong, see pic.

>Doesn't specify Co2
Keep reading.

>None of these points contradict the OP's argument.
That's because the OP's argument is a red herring.

>>10182648
>How are they controversial?
Climate change tends to involve average global temperature changes of only a few degrees.
Take this unsourced graph for example
>>1018321
which purports to measure average global temperature over 100,0000 years ago to within 1 degree Celsius.
Do you really believe in the accuracy of the temperature curve of this graph ?
If so, please explain your confidence.

>>10183604
oops this link
>>10182321

>>10182541
How do you know they aren't just racists who want fewer Kenyans?

>>10181928
There is no point in your statement. 99.9% of the atmosphere aren't greenhouse gases. That's like saying drugs can't kill you because it's just some grams that cause an overdose. How can some grams cause an overdose if my body is almost 100kg, amirite?!?!?!?!?!

>>10182319
> The fifth most abundant gas in the atmosphere is carbon dioxide
This is not really relevant.
What matters is the concentration level.
It's kind of like when you buy certain juice drinks. The real juice is the 3rd most abundant ingredient, but 99% of the product is water and corn syrup.

>The volume of this gas has increased by over 35% in the last three hundred years
True the argument uses 25% instead of 35% which represents just the increase from the modern industrial revolution beginning around 1900. The other 10%, if you want to include it, doesn't change the basic argument that: observed climate change is on the order of .6 to .8 degrees while the "expected" portion for Co2
at a 35% increase is only about .14 C.

>contributed to global warming over the last 100 years
The OP argument does not deny some trace amount of contribution

>>10183657
OP literally has no clue what he is talking about and just copy pasted some wikipedia texts while not understanding them and thinking that 0,1% of the atmosphere means carbon is irrelevant to the global climate.

>>10182126
The graph, if it is representationally accurate enough to be of real use, only shows a strong connection to man activity and temp, and does not prove that increased C02 emissions are the primary cause of the spike near the end.
Since much of the graph represents a timeframe before modern meteorological technology some might take issue with it in the first place.
Look a this graph. You are saying you know within .2C what the average global temperature was 20,0000 years ago.
Really now.

>>10183651
You need to show a multiplicative effect from the trace amounts of CO2 such as was shown with CFCs ( the refrigerant flourocarbons) and the ozone layer.
The relationship seems multiplicative based primarily on the empirical data of the CO2 climate change theory itself.
The planet Venus for example, has runaway greenhouse climate, but the atmosphere is over
96% CO2 and the atmosphere is much denser,
over 90 times earth pressure with approximately the same gravity. The idea that trace amount increases of C02 gases in Earth's atmosphere will cause runaway climate change are very doubtful.

>>10183670
>copy pasted some wikipedia texts
it's worse than that, actually. he cuntpasted a 20-year-old opinion piece by Thomas Gale Moore, a fairly well-known denier who literally shilled for tobacco interests back in the day and now works for the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute doing much the same thing.
>https://web.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

>>10182115
> The vast majority of the greenhouse effect keeps the Earth from being a giant ball of ice
This is not true.

Take are own moon for example which has no atmosphere to speak of. The surface temperatures vary from +260F to -280F.
As you approach the core the temps increase to an estimated +2500F. Hardly a "ball of ice".

So it would be more correct to say the Earth's greenhouse gases (and atmosphere itself) stabilize what might otherwise be wide fluctuations in temperature.

>>10182648
>Doesn't specify Co2
>Keep reading.

An experiment has shown that Stratospheric water vapor has increased an average of 1% per year over the period from 1980 to 2010 since the experiment began.
So Co2 is not the only thing changing.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216809524_Stratospheric_water_vapor_trends_over_Boulder_Colorado_Analysis_of_the_30_year_Boulder_record

>>10184373
>the humidity changed.
This happens constantly all over the world and has since land before time.

>>10184373
>the humidity in this one town changed over thirty years! Carbon taxes now!

>>10184381
> the temp changed
This happens all over the world and has since land before time

What is important is the average aggregate effect. 1% increase per year is significant. The effect seems to be tied to methane somehow, but according to the NOAA there is uncertainty.

"Some of the mid-latitude increase of stratospheric water vapor (1% per year) over the period of 1980-2006 can be explained by the increase of atmospheric methane, but not all. Is this an early indication of the feedback of water vapor in climate change, transport, or unknown chemistry?"

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/forcing/

>>10183604
>Do you really believe in the accuracy of the temperature curve of this graph ?
Yes. Why wouldn't I?

>If so, please explain your confidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)#Ice_cores

>>10183729
>The graph, if it is representationally accurate enough to be of real use, only shows a strong connection to man activity and temp, and does not prove that increased C02 emissions are the primary cause of the spike near the end.
It was not intended to. CO2 emissions causing warming is proved directly by measuring the spectrum of incoming infrared heat.

>Since much of the graph represents a timeframe before modern meteorological technology some might take issue with it in the first place.
Those who might take issue with it might not know what they're talking about.

>The planet Venus for example, has runaway greenhouse climate, but the atmosphere is over 96% CO2 and the atmosphere is much denser,over 90 times earth pressure with approximately the same gravity. The idea that trace amount increases of C02 gases in Earth's atmosphere will cause runaway climate change are very doubtful.
Who said it will result in runaway warming? You realize warming does not necessarily mean runaway warming right?

>>10183792
>You need to show a multiplicative effect from the trace amounts of CO2 such as was shown with CFCs ( the refrigerant flourocarbons) and the ozone layer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback

>>10184476
Let's assume you can, with enough ice core samples, using oxygen isotope ratios, assess to within a fraction of a degree average temperatures 100's of thousands of years ago,
(which you can't because not all parts of the world were cold enough at the right times for the type of probability sample required), but assume you could.

How do you explain the tracking of Co2 to temperature, since there was no industrialization like today. How do you know the climate didn't actually drive the environment and that somehow drove the Co2 levels ?
In other words in terms of geological epoch timeframe events the Co2 can still be incidental or at least not the cause of the estimated temperature changes.

>>10183905
>Take are own moon for example which has no atmosphere to speak of.
LOL, without an atmosphere there is nothing to keep water from evaporating and no ice. I didn't say Earth without an atmosphere, I said Earth without a greenhouse effect.

>So it would be more correct to say the Earth's greenhouse gases (and atmosphere itself) stabilize what might otherwise be wide fluctuations in temperature.
The atmosphere does, the greenhouse effect doesn't. If anything the feedback effects related to the greenhouse effect destabilize the climate.

>>10184486
>It was not intended to. CO2 emissions causing warming is proved directly by measuring the spectrum of incoming infrared heat.
That graph alone does not prove Co2 global climate change, it describes radiation characteristics of the materials actually on the list, although it definitely could be used for a full theory on the matter.

>Who said it will result in runaway warming?
Some actually have claimed that.

>>10184373
>An experiment has shown that Stratospheric water vapor has increased an average of 1% per year over the period from 1980 to 2010 since the experiment began.
>So Co2 is not the only thing changing.
Yeah, that's because as the Earth warms more water vapor is released from the oceans. Water vapor is part of a feedback loop, not a forcing.

>>10184582
Of importance here is that the whole matter could still be mostly independent of Co2 in loop.

>>10184521
>How do you explain the tracking of Co2 to temperature, since there was no industrialization like today.
Milankovich cycles produce warming which initiates the release of CO2 and water vapor from the oceans, which causes warming, which causes more water vapor and CO2 to release, etc.

>How do you know the climate didn't actually drive the environment and that somehow drove the Co2 levels ?
It did.

>In other words in terms of geological epoch timeframe events the Co2 can still be incidental or at least not the cause of the estimated temperature changes.
It's not the initial cause but its effect is necessary to explain the amount of warming.

>>10184573
>That graph alone does not prove Co2 global climate change
It was not supposed to. There are multiple pieces of evidence that need to be put together to get to our current understanding, but you keep trying to isolate those pieces and attack a straw man.

1. The amount of GHGs we emit

2. The greenhouse effect

3. Feedback loops

4. Natural forcings

See pic in >>10182648 for a quantitative summary of the forcings.

>>10184573
>Some actually have claimed that.
Who?

>>10184599
>Of importance here is that the whole matter could still be mostly independent of Co2 in loop.
Which matter?

>>10184608
>Milankovich cycles produce warming which initiates the release of CO2
For the uninitiated - why does the Co2 level initially change ?

>>10184634
It seems like if there is a problem with the OP argument the error relates to items 3 and 4 of your post.

No one seems to have succinctly refuted the OP argument.

>>10184646
Increase in solar radiation due to a very long cycle in Earth's orbital eccentricity warms oceans which releases CO2.

>>10184669
I refuted it here >>10182115 and >>10182126

It's simply logically and factually incorrect. I don't need to prove AGW in some 4chan posts to show that.

>>10184641
> Which matter?
the matter of moisture levels in the stratosphere

>>10181938
OP Continued: Nevermind I sucks cocks!

>>10184676
Those two posts haven't refuted anything.
And most certainly haven't refuted the OP argument by clearly explaining a contradiction or such.
The "refutation" relies on the main talking points of a theory that even the IPCC itself admits is at a less than perfect 95% confidence level.

>>10184683
That can't be independent of CO2 levels since the moisture level is a function of temperature and CO2 is the main forcing causing the change in temperature currently. If your point is that there are other greenhouse gases and other factors affecting the climate, then this is nothing new.

>>10181928
There are big problems with these made-up 'importance to greenhouse effect' ratios you're pulling out of your ass. Nobody in climate science uses these techniques.

But honestly the more compelling issue is this - what's the worst thing that could come from reducing pollution and switching to sustainable energy? We stop making the atmosphere give us cancer and cause our kids to develop asthma? We don't render species extinct that support entire ecosystems and produce unique, life-saving biomolecules? What a fucking travesty.

>>10184693
>Those two posts haven't refuted anything.
The first refuted the entire line of argument focusing on the irrelevant percentage of the atmosphere or percentage of the greenhouse effect.

The second refuted the claim that we've had global warming for 10,000 years and that this is part of that natural cycle.

Please explain where these posts fail.

>The "refutation" relies on the main talking points of a theory that even the IPCC itself admits is at a less than perfect 95% confidence level.
How are those talking points wrong?

>>10184670
So the salt water spontaneously just starts emitting Co2 ?

>>10184702
Gas solubility in water is inversely proportional to temperature. Get water warmer and it stops being as good at dissolving gasses.

Ever boiled water before? When it starts getting hot but not yet boiling - you get stationary bubbles at the bottom of your pot. That is the atmosphere, previously dissolved in water, now precipitated out as a gas.

>>10184702
What? When you increase the temperature of water with CO2 in it, more CO2 evaporates into the atmosphere. The warming is not spontaneous, it is caused by an increase in solar radiation due to orbital eccentricity.

>>10184700
You are seemingly content with the 90-95% probability estimate of primary Co2 driven climate change.
Fine.
But I think this thread also discusses issues in that 5% to 10% area of uncertainty, so just crowing about the main points is not a good enough of a refutation.

>>10184706
>>10184708
Is anyone claiming the the solar radiation changes start a different oceanic biological phenomena or a we sticking with basic chemistry ?

>>10184715
I have no idea what you're smoking. If you warm up the oceans (potentially by having the planet absorb more solar radiation), the oceans will release CO2 due to decreased gas solubility.

By 'biological phenomena', I guess you could also bring up the fact that shell-bearing marine life and phytoplankton are substantial sinks for CO2, and their contribution to sequestering carbon goes away if you boil the oceans and kill them all.

>>101847
This post alleges then that in geological time without industrial Co2 being released into earth's atmosphere that solar radiation causes the temperature to rise and oceans to give up Co2 which then causes the Co2 levels in ice cores to correlate with global temperatures determined with oxygen isotope analysis of the ice cores.
No ???

>>10184715
There are other factors involved with Milankovich cycles like feedback loops between ice coverage and albedo. I'm sure there are some theories about biological factors too.

>>10184713
OK, but even if you ignore the evidence behind the consensus, the first point is essentially a strawman since no one claims that the entire greenhouse effect is a problem. And the second point is an empirical claim that has to be decided based on the evidence available. What evidence is there that global warming occured for the past 10,000 years? None as far as I can see.

>>10184763
Could be very complex.

>>10184698
>what's the worst thing that could come from reducing pollution and switching to sustainable energy?
You heat the situation like in Germany. Spend billions of tax payer's money to fail to achieve set goals. Renewable energy still cannot replace fossil power plants, due to the closing down of plants people lost theirs jobs and the average Joe is paying record prices for electricity. But hey, at least we reduced global co2 emissions but 0.1%

>>10184777
looks like they made substantial progress to me
https://www.indexmundi.com/germany/carbon-dioxide-emissions-(co2),-metric-tons-of-co2-per-capita-(cdiac).html

>>10184777
yes this is why we must protect the economy and continuing burning fossil fuels, after all, only in a few decades when the leftist cucks have been taken out of power and the whole world converts to nuclear will it be feasible, and by then the biased leftist beta faggot science will be gone and we will be on our way to moon base and mars base and aldeberan base. The leftist cuck faggot beta incel dweeb nerds do not realize that all of this is our dominion, this planet is ours to destroy. think about the germanic elite and the jews and all the hard working billionaires and millionaires and the average joe, hans and fritz, they won't be able to watch their cuckold porn anymore if we do not continue destroying all ecosystems on earth faster than we can technologically compensate and continue trying in vain to extract fuel from the earth and make everything just awful. Think about Hans and Fritz anons, there are bigger things in this life than the entirety of the biosphere.

>>10184769
>What evidence is there that global warming occured for the past 10,000 years? None as far as I can see.
Not sure what you mean.
If you look up "ice age" on wiki for example, it clearly shows a general warming trend from a low of around 11,500 years ago continuing to present.

>>10184782
Our "renewable energy act" was passed way later. Since we decommissioned nuclear power plants at the same time we have to buy electricity from abroad. Over the recent years electricity bills have increased by about 300€ a year

>>10184785
Any comments on the meteoric increase in the first derivative of that global temperature curve that happens to coincide with the beginning of the industrial revolution?

>>10184784
And if Hans and Fritz are not happy with your climate change bullshit they will vote you out of office and start building those sweet coal plants again

>>10184787
That's a substantially lower cost to consumers than what other countries are going to have to do to meet their MDGs.

It's not like I'm saying that there aren't short-term economic costs to the consumer for combating emissions. But the long-term costs associated with climate change pretty much dwarf that by orders of magnitude. Check out how much economic damage an extra severe hurricane per year would do worldwide.

On another note - migrant issues are a major political problem in Germany, no? Are you all ready to accept even more migrants fleeing drought-induced famines?

>>10184788
Like the IPCC says, it seems to correlate too strongly with man's activities to be coincidental.

>>10184802

>>10184796
Migrants can fuck off. They are just trying to get into our social welfare system

>>10184792
>he thinks that the little folks will have choice ever again within the next 30 years
:^)

>>10184811
Sounds like you've got another reason to support sustainable energy, considering that climate change is already starting to destabilize the developing world and will absolutely push migrants into your country.

>>10184813
Please, Mr. Finkelstein. Dont steal my dreams >:^(

>>10184815
No, we just build a wall. We are full

>>10184817
>he thinks I mean the kikes
Oh Anon

>>10184820
That's not going to happen tho :^/

>>10184823
First you steal my hopes and dreams and not you are telling me that my mortal enemy is my friend? Fiendish

>>10184803
At least three potential problems here.

The anthropogenics are complex and involve so much more than Co2.
The tracking of Co2 to mean temperature has been shown within this thread to not rely on man caused sources.
Any model may be biased politically or otherwise.

Its not 'global warming' you dumb fucking ape

THE SEASONS ARE BEING PUSHED BACK.

Its fucking 65 degrees in st. louis on DECEMBER 2 2018.

IT HAS NEVER EVER EVER BEEN THIS WARM HERE IN HISTORY OF DATA BEING TAKEN IN THIS AREA.

The seasons (This case 'winter') IS BEING PUSHED BACK TO FEBRUARY/MARCH time period Instead of RN.

>>10184825
The problem is that we did not contribute significantly to anything, we do not bomb the middle east and we are literally full. Anymore shitskins and we would literally become the Third World

>>10183792
Lol, dipshit, whos talking about venus? We live in a world where a couple years of drought cause wars and mayhem, what do you think 4 degrees warmth and 50 metres rising sea levels will do?

>>10184830
Fortunately, y'all get a say in whether you want slightly cheaper power bills, or global destabilization of agriculture that will promote fun stuff like migrant crises and terrorism.

ISIS doesn't exist anymore and the Syrian Civil War is more-or-less ramping down at this point. You gotta look ahead to the next possible social crisis hitting your country - not being fixated on the one that happened already.

>>10184837
ISIS and the Syrian Civil War were not caused by global warming by any means. It was western interventionism to replace a democratically elected government. Even without any sort of climate change Africa will fuck itself over because the entire continent is a desaster

>>10184845
>ISIS and the Syrian Civil War were not caused by global warming by any means. It was western interventionism to replace a democratically elected government.

Correct. Just because droughts do not cause /all/ wars does not mean that they do not cause wars period. Fighting climate change will not prevent wars induced by imperialism, but it will prevent wars induced by crop failure and mass starvation.

>>10184848
I think that the lack of contraception will lead to massive starvation way before climate change will ever kick in within my life time. That's exactly my problem. Why fuck ourselves over for something that will happen way in the future if we completely ignore current problems
I don't care about an additional degree Celsius in 100 years if Germany doesn't exist anymore at that point

>>10184845
Arab spring was caused by rising bread prices, and during the arab spring a civil war within Syria started. This has nothing to do with whitey boogeyman. Access to fresh water, which also plays a huge role in the palestine-conflict, is also already playing a role in Syria.

>>10184859
>I don't care about an additional degree Celsius in 100 years if Germany doesn't exist anymore at that point

But you will if Germany does exist at that point - so why ensure failure when there are potential futures where emissions will matter a lot? Population growth is much less of a big deal if it isn't coupled with massive pollution due to industrialization.

>>10184862
>be hungry
>fuck up your country
I don't see the profit there

>>10184859
>I don't care about an additional degree Celsius in 100 years if Germany doesn't exist anymore at that point

The best way to keep Germoney alive is to stop climate change, because the REALLY BIG refugee crisis didnt even start yet.

>>10184866
But overpopulation is a huge problem in any case. And judging by the current trends in birth rates the native population will disappear at some point. It's a very real problem if you have been to a German town recently. Yet, politicians only talk about abstract shit nobody cares about. If the authorities wouldn't parrot the climate change narrative nobody would care. Most of the population hasn't even heard of statistics and science. It's just an appeal to authority and even then most people just pretend to care. If we wanted to cut pollution we would continue nuclear power but I guess that's bad too.

>>10184875
Overpopulation is a big problem but it has a built-in solution: human population growth follows a logistic trajectory, not an exponential. When societies become post-industrial, birth rates slow down dramatically. Japan's population is actually declining as a result of this.

Emissions has no such control. People still need to drive cars, eat food, and shower with hot water in a post-industrial society. The switch to carbon-neutral energy sources has to happen or the total emission curve just keeps going up.

>>10184827
>Any model may be biased politically or otherwise
read as:
>I will handwave away any evidence I don't like by claiming it's biased

>>10184879
And we will never reach a sufficiently low emission level. I don't really care about climate change but I don't wanna pollute the environment with coal for example. Obviously I would gladly replace those power plants but there is no decent alternative right now. Large energy companies are only investing in renewable energy sources because of subsidies. And even if we had reached our emission goals we would have still be dwarfed by countries like China or India. It's utterly pointless for us. Just look at the French riots because of mere gas prices. As long as current problems are ignored we don't even need to talk about what is going to happen in fifty years

>>10184889
The bigger role that Germany can play is political - large international communities can exert significant economic pressure on polluters. To be party to something like that, Germany has to play ball and follow the same rules.

For what it's worth, nuclear power is a completely valid approach to this. I am not entirely familiar with the history of nuclear in Germany, but if they've cut it back, that's obviously a bad move.

>>10184881
You climate alarmists are getting increasingly nervous every year, so much you hate to admit the complexity of the climate and go to juvenile namecalling. When CO2 is compared to the earth's temperatures millions of years ago, there is no direct causation. Your argument? Measurements going back that far isn't accurate... Well how convenient. Still doesn't explain why there was a mini ice age during the 1500s-1600s so much the baltic oceans froze to the point Sweden became a military power by land armies. Again how convenient climate science tunnel visions the 200 year period.

>>10184827
>i have no argument so i'll just pull shit out of my ass

>>10184902
>You climate alarmists are getting increasingly nervous every year
yeah guess why

>>10184889
french riots were staged by the saudis

>>10184897
Our nuclear power plants are pretty good. But Merkel decided to fish for Green votes but phasing them out due to Fukushima.
In my opinion you can only truly push for emission reduced power sources if you have the population willingly participate. As long as climate change is just another tax on top of everything else there will be no real change

>>10184915
That is shitty about your nuclear power plants. I agree that policy has to follow education but there's also a time limit on this kind of thing. The US is boned quite bad on this front because education is less predictive of support for climate science than political party - because of course it is. But apparently that's not the case everywhere.

>>10184881
This article discusses some of the problems with climate change models:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

An excerpt from the article:

Possible biases from non–unit forcing efficacy, temperature estimation issues, and variability in sea
surface temperature change patterns are examined and found to be minor when using globally complete
temperature data. These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5
climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.

>>10184924
>>10184881
This is from the IPCC itself:

The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) relies heavily on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5 (CMIP5), a collaborative climate modelling process coordinated by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP).

http://www.ipcc-data.org/sim/gcm_monthly/AR5/index.html

>>10181928

OP is either a troll or a shill. Move on.

>>10184924
Here is a direct link to the paper:

https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf

Here is a somewhat easier to read paper on the subject:

https://www.nicholaslewis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/LC18_LewisCurry_The-impact-of-recent-forcing-and-ocean-heat-uptake-data-on-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity_2018_article1d.pdf

>>10184961
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.

>>10184827
>The anthropogenics are complex and involve so much more than Co2.
CO2 is by far the dominant forcing. See pic.

>The tracking of Co2 to mean temperature has been shown within this thread to not rely on man caused sources.
What is that even supposed to mean? Of course naturally emitted CO2 impacts the climate in the same way as human-emitted CO2.

>Any model may be biased politically or otherwise.
So you're just going to ignore the models that say things you don't want to hear.

>>10184993
>CO2 is by far the dominant forcing
Claimed based on model data against the items chosen to be in that table. You don't seem to understand that this is theoretical science not scientific law.

>Of course naturally emitted CO2 impacts the climate in the same way as human-emitted CO2
Yes insignificantly for the amounts in question according to OP argument.
Are you saying that pre-industrial CO2 is more likely to track temperature or temperature is more likely to track CO2 ?

>ignore the models
No the models do show something, but the conclusions are subject to debate

>>10185016
>I don't know what a scientific theory is
Ok, shill

How about this as evidence for OP argument:

On average, total annual precipitation has increased over land areas in the United States and worldwide (see Figures 1 and 2). Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.08 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.17 inches per decade.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation

>>10185077
What a NPC like rebuttal.

>>10185095
How much do you get paid?

>>10185089
First you have to explain how it relates to OP's argument

>>10185131
Fact: CO2 isn't that dangerous and the effects quite reversible.

>>10181928

"Environmental scientists" will try to refute your points by claiming that the added CO2 from human emissions disrupts a feedback loop and destabilizes the climate, but will utterly fail to explain how this feedback loop even works in the first place, what the coefficients are etc.

The models fail to predict weather even one week from now.

Is anything OP is saying false or misleading that can be explained away with direct science not involving climate change history statistics
or models ?

The basic premise is that trace amounts of the CO2 molecule in the air cannot compete with the normal water vapor present to produce a significant change in greenhouse effect to produce real temperature changes measured.

What is the nature of the CO2 molecule in relation to much larger amounts of N2 O2 and H2O, and how is its direct contribution to thermal absorption and reflection calculated in this mix of molecules ?

Using the language of other posts:
How does the CO2 molecule win the "forcing
contest" explained with molecular chemistry/ physics, not statistical empirical observation ?

>>10185233
>doesn't even deny to be a shill
HAHAHAHA
So, how much?

>>10184785
Where do you see that?

It's simply not true. We were cooling for several thousand years after interglacial warming.

>>10182464
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Why isn't water vapor included in the forcing calculation?

>>10185307
https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

>>10182464
>https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Why isn't water vapor included in the forcing calculation?

>>10182126
/biz/tard here

How do I short this?

>>10185336
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

If you read the article (and the comments) it does not answer the question.
The article does not explain the "water vapor feedback" process well enough. Presumably it relates to initial CO2 effects warming the ocean to evap more, but does not mention CO2 released from the ocean itself, nor justify the CO2 effects in the first place.

>>10185330
right hand side a ways down on wiki page ice age
I think it's actually a glacial period though

>>10185307
This is the formula for CO2 radiative forcing:

delta_F = 5.35 * ln(co2_new / co2_old) Watts / meter exp -2

How they came up with this and how you correct this for atmospheric conditions is beyond me.

>>10181928
>>10185307
https://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-three/
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-four/
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-five/
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-six-visualization/
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-eight-saturation/

>>10181952
>Control people with oxygen availability

>>10185324
>heat from the sun is the same every year
Like clockwork eh, every year forever, sure. Good thing most people have common sense not to buy into CO2 lies.

>>10185518
How much? Just tell me already, I might become a shill too

>>10185521
How about you create something that can be repeated experimentally? Why should anyone believe CO2 is the main driver and not other greenhouse gases? No show me your data I wanna see it.

>>10185533
Why are you evading my question? Very suspicious... I smell a conspiracy
Also >>10185464

How do I become a shill?

>>10185534
If anything stated on his page was true the effect of CO2 emission would be instant. That obviously hasn't been the case even in your lovely 200 year timescale. Admit that the climate is much more complex than a simple input output with CO2 as a single variable, and has many more paremeters. This is why every model fails and a new one has to be crafted all the time. This isn't science, this is just sad and pathetic.

>>10185552
>this is just sad and pathetic
No that's you, dumb shill

You know the ice sheet in the south pole is increasing in thickness atm. Yes not as much as it used to but still, hey those poor icebears. Nothing to do with anything cyclical, all CO2.

>>10185574
Why do you suddenly believe "mainstream science"?

>>10185574

>>10185615
Pic related is from NASA btw.

>>10185378
What you circled is way bigger than the last 10000 years, look at the x axis. Warming ended before the last 10000 years.

>>10185307
>The basic premise is that trace amounts of the CO2 molecule in the air cannot compete with the normal water vapor present to produce a significant change in greenhouse effect to produce real temperature changes measured.
This was already refuted here >>10182115 . There is no "competition" because the change in temperature is caused by the change in greenhouse gases from the baseline, not the total amount of greenhouse gases. If you are comparing CO2 to the total atmosphere or the total greenhouse effect you are already off topic.

>>10185518
Heat from the sun is decreasing though. Less heat from the sun causes warming?

>>10185669
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
Link related is from NASA btw.

>>10185337
Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. It's a function of temperature.

>>10185716
Yes the temperature is slowly decreasing, doesn't happen overnight.

>>10185734
It was very hot a few days ago that means you're wrong

>>10185362
>The article does not explain the "water vapor feedback" process well enough.
Did you read the citations?

>Presumably it relates to initial CO2 effects warming the ocean to evap more, but does not mention CO2 released from the ocean itself, nor justify the CO2 effects in the first place.
It's any initial warming, not just CO2. Why would an article about water vapor specifically justify the greenhouse effect? If you want evidence of the greenhouse effect read another article.

You're obviously just grasping at straws with no real argument.

>>10185552
>If anything stated on his page was true the effect of CO2 emission would be instant.
This is like saying that if flames actually radiated heat then water would boil instantly. Doesn't your complete ignorance of basic physics deter you from speaking on such topics? Or are you just delusional?

>>10185727
Ah funny how they don't match for the period of 2002-2008 period. Odd how european satelites report it differently.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/983F196E23C3A6E7908E5FB32EB42268/core-reader

>>10181928
>but muh trace gas !!!!!
Yeah .. since we have such a nice person on the internet who has already explained this before for those who have a hard time with breathing .. here you go, little sand-monkey:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

sage'd

>>10185773
Obviously within a short timeframe. Notice how there was a cooling in the economic boom of 40-70 and there was an increase in temperature during the oil shortage. Don't exaggerate now.

>>10185793
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=10&t=477&&a=21#126518

>>10185734
What's causing the rapid warming?

>>10185861
Leprechauns

>>10185734
When will the temperature go below the temperature prior to the industrial revolution?

>>10185805
>Obviously within a short timeframe
Short timeframe is vague and not instant.

>Notice how there was a cooling in the economic boom of 40-70 and there was an increase in temperature during the oil shortage.
Already explained:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm

>Shills getting blown out again

>>10185935
Funny how Solar activity matches those of aerosols emissions. Really makes you think.

>>10186043
How much?

>>10186051
Depends how much I lie about it.

>>10186084
So you're getting a lot right now

>>10186102
Yes.

>>10185796
This series argues for support of CO2 theory but makes all kinds of subtle assumptions same as the main theorist do.
It does debunk/ clarify some of the worst of the deniers speculation but the series itself is too biased to mediate the two sides in a truly severely critical manner.
This series does have a lot of interesting chit chat on various topics, just don't totally believe either side.

Daily reminder that models which predict solar activity also predict changes in climate far better than any climate scientist.

>>10185796
The only things I could find in these videos directly related to OP argument was the notion that there is a limit to how much water vapor the atmosphere can hold that doesn't apply to the CO2 gas, and a brief graph that shows blocking spectrum for H20 is slightly higher in IR frequency than that of CO2.
Not enough there to quantitatively show OP claim of water vapor 75X more important to greenhouse effect is false.

>>10185796
This video is interesting:

"The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC"
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

It presents a theory involving pre-Cambrian "snowball earth" being rescued multiple times by volcanos erupting through the ice and releasing large amounts of CO2. The time frame we are talking here is on the order of 1 billion years ago.
Is this "evidence" any more believable than the contemporary IPCC models ?

>>10185711
Again, you have not refuted anything.
If nothing else for a very simple reason: you have NO NUMBERS that are DIRECTLY relevant.

The forcing charts presented here do not even show the relative weight of CO2 vs normal N2O2 gas let alone the added contribution of H2O in the complex system of trapping heat near the Earth's surface.
The OP argument has numbers and references for justification, what you are doing is repeating the same thing: "I found some IPCC modeling data that looks official and that is all that matters.

>>10186043
Funny how it doesn't.

>>10186786
Why do you keep lying?

>>10186943
>Again, you have not refuted anything.
I have. Present a counterargument argument or fuck off.

>If nothing else for a very simple reason: you have NO NUMBERS that are DIRECTLY relevant.
LOL, you're projecting. The numbers presented in OP have no relevance since the total atmosphere or the total greenhouse effect are not being blamed for global warming.

>The forcing charts presented here do not even show the relative weight of CO2 vs normal N2O2
How is their relative weight relevant?

>let alone the added contribution of H2O
Because H2O is not a forcing.

>The OP argument has numbers and references for justification
Justification of what? You can post all the numbers and references you want, you'll still fail if they don't support your conclusion.

>what you are doing is repeating the same thing
Wrong. The refutation of the first argument relies on no figures. The second refuted argument has no data for its claim that there has been global warming for 10000 years so it's not his data vs. my data, it's his baseless claim vs. the data.

Are you just going to ignore this yet again and slink away or are you actually going to argue like a man?

>>10186978
I don't. You're wrong and a disingenuous shill.

>>10185711
>There is no "competition" because the change in temperature is caused by the change in greenhouse gases from the baseline, not the total amount of greenhouse gases.

I think your are saying the formula here
>> 10185444
already has the baseline factored into it.

If so, this formula is still suspect because its existence seems to be, at least in part, a product of statistical based assumptions.

>>10187038
>Present a counterargument argument or fuck off
How convenient. The models used by the IPCC are shrouded in such complexity that almost no ordinary mortal can refute them.

>no relevance since the total atmosphere or the total greenhouse effect are not being blamed for global warming
In a way they are, the very complexity of the ICPP models demonstrates this point.

> Because H2O is not a forcing
Why can't it be deemed a forcing component ?

>no data for its claim that there has been global warming for 10000 years
We could survey people after looking at the wiki graph to try to see whether the OP essay or wiki is over misrepresenting something.
for reference:
>>10185378

>>10187041
>No argument
So you admit you're lying, good.

>>10187107
>after looking at the wiki graph

I don't know whether this is the end all be all chart to use, but it looks like the point of relative maxima for the increase in the last cycle has
not been reached yet, if you compare it to the maxima of the other cycles.
So from this chart, can't we expect further rise regardless of what humans are causing ?

>>10187107
>How convenient. The models used by the IPCC are shrouded in such complexity that almost no ordinary mortal can refute them.
Why do you think they're wrong?

>In a way they are, the very complexity of the ICPP models demonstrates this point.
How?

>Why can't it be deemed a forcing component?
Because it's a function of temperature. I've explained this multiple times already.

>We could survey people after looking at the wiki graph to try to see whether the OP essay or wiki is over misrepresenting something.
for reference:
Sure, but first you should conduct a survey for how many people can read an x-axis correctly.

>>10187154
There is no reason further warming should occur to reach the maxima of other interglacials, the warming phase of the cycle has already ended.

>>10181928
Alexa, filter out all of these shill threads.

>>10187157
> Why do you think they're wrong?
It's not that they are necessarily all wrong, but in this thread, the complexity of the models makes it difficult to refute OP in clear and intuitive way that more lay people can easily grasp.

> Because it's a function of temperature
But since it is also a function of human activities cause, it must be considered as a primary forcing component also.

>>10187157
>read an x-axis correctly

It is not clear the OP argument is using this wiki data. I looked up the reference [7] but could not get past the foreign language.

It seems from wiki, saying earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years is better than saying 10,0000. The flattening at the end could be a real downturn or a temporary leveling off I suppose.

>>10187183
>It's not that they are necessarily all wrong, but in this thread, the complexity of the models makes it difficult to refute OP in clear and intuitive way that more lay people can easily grasp.
I refuted his first point without any reference to models and his second point has no basis so there is no need to refute it, even though I did. This is very easy for lay people to grasp, not that that is somehow relevant towards who is correct.

>But since it is also a function of human activities cause, it must be considered as a primary forcing component also.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but it being a function of human activities means it's not a primary forcing. A forcing is a factor which affects the energy balance of the Earth without itself being determined by the energy balance. Water vapor is determined by the temperature of the Earth's surface. Forcings like changes in solar radiation and manmade emmissions of GHGs are not determined by the energy balance. Water vapor is instead a feedback, which is included in the calculation of the Earth's climate sensitivity, which is the change in temperature that results from a change in radiative forcing.

>>10187200
>It is not clear the OP argument is using this wiki data.
It's not clear that the OP is using any data. If you can refute the ice core data or find data that disagrees then do so. Otherwise you should admit the argument is refuted.

>It seems from wiki, saying earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years is better than saying 10,0000.
It hasn't though, warming stopped 10,000 years ago. The OP attempted to argue that the current warming is explained by the natural cycle. It doesn't matter how far back you go, the cycle is not currently in a warming phase. The argument is faulty, and we don't even need the ice core data to see this. We can see right now whether we are getting an increase in solar radiation that's causing the warming. But we don't see that.

>>10187202
> A forcing is a factor which affects the energy balance of the Earth without itself being determined by the energy balance
It seems like several billion human beings using electricity generated independently of solar radiation collection to boil water 3 times a day would qualify as such.

>Water vapor is determined by the temperature of the Earth's surface
If you study NASA photos of the man made infrared heat profile of various large metropolis on the earths surface, it seems that humans also can control the surface temperature of our planet.

So again, why should this not be considered a forcing component with perhaps as much significance as the CO2 production ?

>>10187294
>It seems like several billion human beings using electricity generated independently of solar radiation collection to boil water 3 times a day would qualify as such.
It might seem like that but the thing about boiled water is that it tends to just condense right back into water soon after being emitted. Humans simply don't emit enough water vapor to increase the amount in the atmosphere. However human land use (specifically deforestation and land use) does indirectly effect global water vapor levels, and human land use is a forcing.

>If you study NASA photos of the man made infrared heat profile of various large metropolis on the earths surface, it seems that humans also can control the surface temperature of our planet.
OK, how does this respond to my point? Many human activities are measured as forcings.

>So again, why should this not be considered a forcing component with perhaps as much significance as the CO2 production ?
It is considered a forcing, but its effect is negligible compared to CO2 emissions.

>>10187456
*(specifically deforestation and agriculture)

>>10187456
Consider:

We know that the "global humidity" is all over the place in time and magnitude the same as temperature.
What would be important is an overall aggregate average delta such as with CO2 that might cause measureable changes
of several degrees, that would then have marked effects on the earth's climate and eco-systems.

For CO2 the presumptive radiation forcing is given as:

delta_F = 5.35 * ln(co2_new / co2_old) Watts / meter exp -2 (Equation 1)

but since water vapor is not considered a forcing factor it is bound up in this equation in a way that has
proven near impossible to unravel.

Assume for a moment that trace greenhouse gasses are not in the picture. That is, the earth's atmosphere consists
entirely of N2O2 and H2O in vapor suspension of varying overall average amounts through time.
Assume also that solar radiation is a flat constant.
Consider a scalar quantity called the "Average Aggregate Vapor Suspension" figure based on a statistical measurement process.
Now suppose we monitor this figure relative to an estimated figure purported to exist in 1750.
So we can have an analogous radiative forcing equation for atmospheric H2O. In fact I would say for the IPCC's models
to make scientific sense there must be an equation analogous to Equation 1.

Where is it ?

That is what is needed to properly refute the OP argument.

>>10185946
>alarmist shills getting BTFO again
FTFY

>>10181928
>The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013,
works out to about 0.00325.
You can't just multiply a bunch of numbers together and then pretend that means something. That's not how physics works.

>>10181928
all current food plants especial high yield grains were all breed under rising CO2.

.013 CO2 is why plants need 100X as much water to make unit of food.

If we go back to 1700 CO2 level, all these crops will suddenly need 40% more rainfall.

40% is tiny when a % of a .013%, but is unthinkable in average rainfall.

Return to 1700 CO2 would trigger crop failure as has never been imagined.

Return to 1700 CO2 levels only possible if human population returned to maybe 1800 level.

IMO, first job of US Govt and maybe UN would be build massive grain surplus and storage in tradition of old Pharaohs to safe guard against end of "man made climate change".

>>10187533
>but since water vapor is not considered a forcing factor it is bound up in this equation in a way that has proven near impossible to unravel.
You appear to be assuming that radiative forcing is supposed to calculate the total the change in temperature and therefore has to implicitly include warming from water vapor. It's not.

>Where is it ?
Did you attempt even a single google search to look for it? It's called climate sensitivity.

Don't you think it would be easier for you if you actually did a bit of research on the science you're attempting to criticize instead of guessing what it contains and having me refute you guesses?

>>10187593
Just admit, it's not easy to refute the OP using those complex climate models.

In over 200 posts no one has refuted the OP in a way that ultimately doesn't require a Phd to understand.

>>10187624
is this supposed to be a compelling argument? just because you aren't trained to follow a line of reasoning doesn't mean it's wrong

>>10187574
>all current food plants especial high yield grains were all breed under rising CO2.
Large scale agricultural breeding began about 10,000 years ago. CO2 was between 260 and 280 ppm that entire time.

>If we go back to 1700 CO2 level, all these crops will suddenly need 40% more rainfall.
[citation needed]

>Return to 1700 CO2 would trigger crop failure as has never been imagined.
A return to 1700 CO2 would remove the negative effects to agriculture caused by rapid warming: droughts, low soil moisture, and heat damage. On the whole it would benefit agriculture.

>Return to 1700 CO2 levels only possible if human population returned to maybe 1800 level.
This is just a blatant lie. It will take hundreds of years to remove our emissions but it does not necessitate any loss of population.

>>10187624
>Just admit, it's not easy to refute the OP using those complex climate models.
I didn't even use any complex climate models, so it's very easy.

>In over 200 posts no one has refuted the OP in a way that ultimately doesn't require a Phd to understand.
In over 200 posts no one has refuted my refutation in any way whatsoever. You lost, get over it.

>>10187593
When the north polar ice caps freezes again in 30-40 years, remember back in this thread when your stance helped interfere with human economic progress. Screencap this.

>>10187705
>remember back in this thread when your stance helped interfere with human economic progress

>>10187705
>I'm completely ignorant of the science and data relevant to predicting the climate
>Every single argument I've made in this thread has been BTFO
>But trust me, I know better than the climatologists, and my prediction will come true
Deniers truly are mentally ill.

>>10187640
>This is just a blatant lie. It will take hundreds of years to remove our emissions but it does not necessitate any loss of population.
It does because we can't feed nor generate energy to sustain the current much less the late 21st century projected population of 10 B people, especially since 90% of them are going to be <100 iq

>>10187744

>>10187744
>Analysis Summary:

Since a dangerous accelerating climate warming simply does not exist after decades of vast amounts of human greenhouse emissions being released, it is fair to conclude that the consensus of a catastrophic runaway global warming is debunked and entirely without any empirical merit or validity.

>>10187756
>Trend per century
My God, you are truly retarded. This is literally a meaningless statistic.

Yeah clearly there is no correlation, pic related.

And clearly the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.

>>10187777
>Since a dangerous accelerating climate warming simply does not exist after decades of vast amounts of human greenhouse emissions being released
What is "dangerous acceleration"? The danger is in the rapid rate of the warming, not its acceleration. This is a retarded strawman.

>it is fair to conclude that the consensus of a catastrophic runaway global warming is debunked and entirely without any empirical merit or validity.
The consensus is that runaway warming will not occur, you just confirmed that this is a strawman.

>>10187782
>greenhouse effect doesn't exist
Literally no one is saying that. We aren't on a course for doomsday within 100 years.

>>10187640
IIRC claim is we have 40% more CO2 than before industrial era.

That means all new man bred plants have luxury of needing 40% less water.

Conversely, if CO2 reduced, all plants will need 40% more water, and that ain't ever gonna happen by long shot.

We don't even know if modern grains can function at 1800s levels of CO2. Who knows, maybe they just can't pull that much water to exchange that much CO2 starved air.

>>10187804
You just posted a graph that claims there is no correlation between surface temperature trends and CO2 levels. The greenhouse effect directly disproves this via causation. Not to mention that your graph doesn't show what it claims to show.

>We aren't on a course for doomsday within 100 years.
Climatologists don't talk about doomsdays, they talk about damage to infrastructure and ecosystems we rely on that is occurring right now and will continue to occur. Why do you keep attacking strawmen? Are you just ignorant of what climatologists are saying or are you lying about it?

>>10187834
>IIRC claim is we have 40% more CO2 than before industrial era.
>That means all new man bred plants have luxury of needing 40% less water.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DENIER SCIENCE EVERYONE

Oh wow, you can't make this shit up.

>>10187834
>IIRC claim is we have 40% more CO2 than before industrial era.
>That means all new man bred plants have luxury of needing 40% less water.
So you're telling me once we double the CO2, plants won't need any water? Wow, so all we need to do is pump our greenhouses with some CO2 and we'll never need to water again. The desert will bloom.

Thank you brave anon, you're Nobel is in the mail.

>>10187834
Wait, wait, what if we do more than double the CO2? That means plants will GIVE US WATER

FREE WATER FOR EVERYONE.

>>10187834
Posting in epic thread, Nobel Prize confirmed.

>>10187840
Good because Al Gore's alarmist attitude is total bs. Nice we finally can agree on that.

>>10187848
>>>10187834 (You)
> >IIRC claim is we have 40% more CO2 than before industrial era.
> >That means all new man bred plants have luxury of needing 40% less water.
> So you're telling me once we double the CO2, plants won't need any water? Wow, so all we need to do is pump our greenhouses with some CO2 and we'll never need to water again. The desert will bloom.
> Thank you brave anon, you're Nobel is in the mail.


correct, if you increase CO2 for a water critical plant the plant will use correspondingly less water.

this would be nice easy experiment for you.

CO2 is easy to come by.

Plants open pores depending on how much CO2 they need, and how much water they can spare.

We learned all about this in HS science! :)

Exchanging their inner "air" at 100% humidity for outside air is an "issue" no plants have ever been able to "work around", even cacti.

Once you grasp a few concepts you wont follow people like Al Gore.

>>10187756
>Plotting temperature rate against CO2 anomaly.
What are you even trying to accomplish?

>>10187868
There is evidence for high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm,
and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm.

In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC, equivalent to 33.5 gigatonnes of CO2 or about 4.3 ppm in Earth's atmosphere)
were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide.

The natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the
release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year.

At current atmospheric pressures plant photosynthesis shuts down when atmospheric CO2 concentrations fall below 150 ppm
and 200 ppm although some microbes can extract carbon from the air at much lower concentrations.

A 1993 review of scientific greenhouse studies found that a doubling of CO2 concentration would stimulate the growth of
156 different plant species by an average of 37%.

Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans.

>>10187925
Do you have some kind of point?

>>10187934
nope

Come on, shills. Refute this >>10185464 I'm waiting

>>10187868
That doesn't answer his question. If reduction in water needed is equivalent to growth in CO2, then that means a 100% growth in CO2 would allow plants to reduce their water consumption by 100%. Meaning plants would need 0 water. Obviously this is biologically impossible and your hypothesis is wrong.

>>10187879
$0.10 cents per post. Right now I'm at $0.03 for just text and $0.05 for ones with one's with images.

>>10188273
>increase CO2 by 200%
>plants need negative water

>>10189706
That's exactly my point.