/sci/ - Science & Math

Bump

Also the IPCC hadcrut4 dataset for temperatures underwent an audit and are unreliable

When are you going to stop posting these /pol/ memes and pretending you don't have an agenda?

>>10760888
When (if) someone debunks them

>>10760894
That's already happened in every thread you've made so why are you still here?

>>10760898
Explain why sea level rise is significant when it has happened over the past 8000 years and risen much more

>>10760913
That's not an explanation for why you're still here and sea levels don't disprove climate change in any way.

Why are you still here?

>>10760919
Ok, tell me why global warming is bad, but actually reference a study and not an article

>>10760947
No. This has been explained to you multiple times and that's still not an explanation for why you're still here.

Why are you still here?

>>10760826
>But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever
We know humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere via isotope analysis and we can directly observe the warming from this increase in CO2 via radiative spectroscopy. It's not simply that there is evidence of it, it's well proven in a variety of ways. The fact that this image begins with such a baldfaced lie means that the rest is not even worth responding to.

>>10760885
This post underwent an audit and was found to be unreliable.

>>10760826
>pol post
>legit source
Show us a peer-reviewed study

>>10761014
CO2 rises are not a significant cause of temperature increase
Also sea levels have been rising naturally for 8000 years

How about you OP tell us why you oppose climate change action?
What in particular rustles your jimmies?
Cause I really doubt you're heavily invested in oil and coal, and if you are you can get out now and put your money in a better investment.

>>10761047
>Imagine being this retarded

>>10761052
None of the predictions about storms and droughts have come true
In fact I've yet to see a scientific study on catastrophic effects of climate change

>>10761065
Tell us why you are so opposed to climate action.

>>10761069
it's climate justice now old man

If you watch Elon Musk on Joe Rogan you can see his view on the topic.
He acknowledges there is no conclusive proof there will be a catastrophe but he sums it up as a very dangerous experiment that we are playing with.
Because if it turns out being catastrophic then the resources to change it will be overwhelming.
But I personally don't give a shit. If we really care then it is time to blow up China and India.

>>10761078
That's a good name but let's keep it on point, why do you oppose climate action?
What is this thing about climate action that really rustles your jimmes? What is triggering you so much?
Just be honest with us, for once.

>>10761081
>but he sums it up as a very dangerous experiment that we are playing with.
That's such a stupid argument.
>We don't know whether not sacrificing a goat will make the gods angry, but if they end up angry there'll be hell to pay, so better kill that fucker

>>10760826
Who do I trust? I can’t rely on retarded morons with a big mouth to disagree because he read on a privately owned newspaper that climate change is natural. Can morons who have nothing to contribute ie no hard evidence please just stay silent? I want to listen to the experts!!!!!

>>10761088
you probably want op mr. schizo. we are not all the same poster.

>>10761110
You might as well be. All you NPCs run on the same script.

Now answer the question

>>10761069
See >>10760894
IPCC literally overestimated their temperature data https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/

>>10761113
anon are you feeling well?

>>10761110
>>10761115
Honestly doesn't matter who you are. Just tell us why climate action is triggering you so much? Cause there is no clear relationship between you getting this butthurt and climate action. Just doesn't make sense at all.

>>10761134
Nice argument pal

>>10761134
he's just doing his job. even if he is only larping to be employed.

>>10761136
Just fucking tell us already. What are you hiding? You are literally anonymous on 4chan. Come on. Be honest. Tell us the real reason why you care so much.

>>10761149
I'm a skeptic that doesn't believe everything cnn and vox tells me

>>10761155
So you are telling me that all I have to do to manipulate you is to make Fox News/Breitbart push for Policies_I_Want and make CNN and VOX push for Policies_I_Dont_Want?
And you call yourself a skeptic?

>>10761179
No, i look at the actual science, see the OP pic for example

>>10761179
Also perhaps the sun is responsible as sunspot activity correlates with warming

>>10761190
It's not. Solar intensity is on the downswing

>>10761187
Lol no. Now you cannot go back to that charade. Let's keep this on topic.
You obviously implied that your position is informed by whether or not the "libshits" support it. Do you realize how easy it is to buy an segment on CNN or an article on VOX to manipulate people like you?
You need to sort yourself out. You cannot just go through life believing this one dimensional team A vs. team B fantasy story. That's now how it works.

In particular, there is no point at all in politicizing science. Nobody is telling you to get your information from CNN or VOX. In the US alone there is some 12 departments each working on climate change. Even the DOD has published regarding climate change. Then of course there are international organizations like the UN and IPCC. The only people interested in politicizing this topic are the ones who want to manipulate you for their own gain.

>>10761205
Ok then, tell me why global warming is actually something to worry about
When can we expect disaster?

>>10761220
>When can we expect disaster?
Depends on what you mean by "disaster". We're already experiencing some effects of climate change such as reduced crop yields here due to changing weather patterns in the US. Furthermore people are already dying from such weather alterations such as the heatwaves in Europe and the coldsnap in the US from the polar vortex breaking up.

No matter what you actually mean there is no specific date for any continuous process.

>>10761236
Source?

>>10760826
>>10761115
debunking the "predictions are overestimating the amount of warming" meme graph, see pic related

>>10761245
Google it, faggot. The polar vortex breaking up and European heatwaves are all over the news and the deaths they've caused have been tallied. And as for crop yields, farmers here in the US haven't been able to plant corn because of heavy rains. One of them threw a big party instead.

Also, proxy reconstructions are vastly inferior to thermometer measurements. Here's the surface temperature mean from thermometer measurements in the 20th century and present century.

>>10761263
There's been rises in the past like this, nothing new, probably natural

>>10761250
Mid-tropo is way off, surface temp measurements are unreliable given the aforementioned lack of integrity in the data, sea level rise isn't off-trend from the past 8000 years, and there isn't enough data for melt rate measurements to form a meaningful baseline. The fact that sea levels have been rising at the same rate for thousands of years with swings much higher than any recent increases is strong evidence that nothing at all abnormal is currently happening

Denialists love proxy reconstructions as long as they confirm their desired conclusions. Here are some proxy reconstructions plotted alongside the thermometer data that tell a story very inconsistent with denialist meme graphs. They always attempt to exaggerate past temperature variations to imply the modern warming is not abnormal, whether by using a local proxy to improperly represent the global mean, or just by pulling the graph straight from their asses.

>>10761263
>>10761259
since the emergence from the last glacial period sea levels have been rising at the same rate, even up to modem periods. Notice the wide variation. To demonstrate modern abnormal rises in sea level they would need to be demonstrating sustained levels much higher than the established trend. They don't, it's all within demonstrated variation. This alone means that temps arent especially abnormal either--if they were it would show up in the sea level data

>>10761271
>>10761276

I don't get the argument that because it's natural, we shouldn't do anything about it. The effects are real, so why don't we do something about it even if humans aren't responsible?

>>10761288
The rates of change in the paleo data, both up and down, are higher than anything we've seen in modern times. And unless you can demonstrate sea levels significantly higher than the variation observed in the paleo data, it's a moot point anyway; we have much higher resolution data sets for modern periods, so we can observe rates of change for narrower time periods, but if it's all within established norms, there's literally zero cause for alarm.

>>10761278
The widespread errors and the fact no such audit had ever been done are pretty damned alarming considering the kinds of decisions being based on these datasets. A really damning issue that all of the surface temp datasets suffer from is the biased coverage... it's extremely sparse over huge continental areas and obviously much denser in areas of population growth
See >>10760894

>>10761271
>There's been rises in the past like this, nothing new
Sure, every time we see warming at this rate it's always accompanied by mass extinction.

>probably natural
Atmospheric isotopes tell us otherwise, unless you take the perspective that humans are natural and therefore so are the repercussions of their actions.

>>10761278
Fake graph

>>10761276
>surface temp measurements are unreliable given the aforementioned lack of integrity in the data
There is no "lack of integrity" in the surface temperature data. The thermometer record is vastly more precise than any proxy reconstruction. The "climategate" emails are no evidence of data fraud, but rather evidence that denialists don't understand what systematic errors are or how they can be error corrected out of the data. You have no other evidence that the data is fraudulent, because it isn't.
>sea level rise isn't off-trend from the past 8000 years, and there isn't enough data for melt rate measurements to form a meaningful baseline. The fact that sea levels have been rising at the same rate for thousands of years with swings much higher than any recent increases is strong evidence that nothing at all abnormal is currently happening
It's not strong evidence of any such thing. We can completely ignore sea levels, and find enough compelling evidence to conclude that AGW is occurring. There are the direct surface and ocean temperature measurements, and there is the isotope analysis showing that C-14 fraction of atmospheric carbon is decreasing, as is C-13 fraction. In reality, sea level rise is also being exacerbated by the warming.

>>10761299
Co2 is likely not the cause and since when did 2° warming cause extinction

>>10761236
1.weather is not climate.
2. weather and climate related deaths have plunged in the last 100 years.

>>10761283
Oh, well I'm sure Europe the US Midwest feel much better about all those deaths since they don't have to worry about the sea rising.

How dumb are you?

>>10761278
>>10761263
>0.6+ in one graph 0.8+ in another same year
Yes very accurate...

>>10761305
So you're just going to ignore the fact the sea levels argument is moot
And yes the temperature data is unreliable, the IPCC has been lying for decades, see the hadcrut4 audit

>>10761301
this graph is consistent with >>10761278 , the only difference is that the thermometer record is not plotted on it

sources for >>10761278 are listed at:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

>>10761311
Anecdotal

>>10761308
Weather patterns are climate, moron. When longstanding weather patterns change that's an alteration of the climate. This is very different from pointing at snow and saying "look, it's not warming at all!"

>>10761306
That's an extraordinary claim you've got there. Did you have something other than your misunderstanding of science to back it up?

>>10761320
then show proof of radical changes in weather

>>10761326
You have to prove current warming is significant

>>10761319
>Physical phenomenon are anecdotes
Pretty fucking dumb then, huh?

>>10761331
>US midwest proves sea level rises are significant

>>10761327
Stop living under a rock

>>10761315
I'm ignoring the sea level data because AGW can be established without even considering it. Regardless, the sea level data does not confirm the denialist conclusion.
>And yes the temperature data is unreliable, the IPCC has been lying for decades, see the hadcrut4 audit
A claim with no evidence in support of it. Your "audit" means nothing. The fact that thermometer data is suspicious to you while proxy reconstructions of the far past are essentially gospel is very telling as to what your agenda is. Thermometer data is VASTLY MORE ACCURATE than proxy data is. And the thermometer data shows a rapid warming trend in only a century.

>>10761336
show proof of radical changes in weather. global not local, and over a period of many years.

>>10761319
There's no source on this image

>>10761338
See >>10761115
Also see pic, climate change is benign

>>10761329
>The dinosaurs lived when it was hotter so we'll be fine
What a fucking idiot. All of the life currently existing on Earth has adapted to our climate which has remained stable for thousands of years and the rate of the current warming does not give most things time to adapt. Mass extinctions are inevitable unless we massively curb the rate of warming and those extinctions will cause ecological collapse.

>>10761345
Reverse image search newfag

>>10761335
You're obsessively pushing this one point because you can't defend your position without a gray area to hide in. Are you denying the unprecedented heatwaves or the polar vortex breaking up? That's climate change. That's a literal change in the climate.

>>10761341
>I don't know how to use Google
https://www.google.com/search?q=change+in+global+weather+patterns&oq=change+in+global+weather+patter&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.7503j1j7&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

The first couple links are from the EPA and the NOAA. Enjoy, fag.

>>10761349
Marcotts paleo temps wildly disagree with both ice core and ocean sediment reconstructions

>>10761349
>Mass extinctions are inevitable unless we massively curb the rate of warming and those extinctions will cause ecological collapse
Source?

>>10761368
nice try. i said radical changes, noob.

>>10761347
see >>10761250 for a debunking of the "predictions are overestimating temperatures" graph

The sea level/CO2 graph is consistent with AGW. Warming rate, and therefore sea level rise, is logarithmic with respect to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

The rest of the graphs really don't have much to say about the facts of AGW, because they are indirect impacts. Greening in particular is completely irrelevant to AGW and entirely expected from increased CO2 concentrations.

>>10761377
Those are radical changes, moron.

>>10761383
nope, they are linear noob

>>10761378
No, sea level rises are not agw see >>10761283 and see >>10761276

>>10761375
not the same anon, but here is a good resource for some of the current research and evidence on the ecological impacts of climate change:

https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/science/climate

>>10761375
Here, have 19 sources compiled in a way even you should be able to understand

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_risk_from_global_warming

>>10761386
Nothing you've posted is inconsistent with AGW. It doesn't actually disconfirm what you're hoping it disconfirms.

>>10761372
Alright, then look at your graph here
>>10761329
See the flat line for thousands of years? See the uptick at the end?

>>10761395
And it's literally nothing compared to history

>>10760826

Notin to worry 'bout mon.

>>10761385
>Imagine being this retarded

>>10761399
>Imagine being this retarded
Historically this rate of change has been accompanied by mass extinctions

>>10761404
imagine being this noob with zero (0) arguments

>>10761406
Source?
>>10761388
>bold claims with only one early 2000s paper as a source
Fuck off

>>10761407
You don't have to imagine it, you're living it. I've shown that there are significant alterations in longstanding weather patterns and all you have to say is "it's linear" which is a nonsense argument and even assuming it weren't, you haven't demonstrated this linearity.

>>10761412
This is common knowledge

>>10761423
It's the sun idiot

>>10761417
it's not significant, you're a noob that links EPA doubletalk that doesn't mean anything. anybody can say small shit is extreme. my farts are more extreme.

>>10761406
>CO2 clearly causes high temperature, look at the information in the red square you uneducated trump-supporting bigot

>>10761047
>CO2 rises are not a significant cause of temperature increase
Based on what? There is a massive amount of scientific evidence that shows the opposite, so are you lying or are you just ignorant of basic climatology?

>Also sea levels have been rising naturally for 8000 years
Recent sea level rise is much faster than the natural sea level rise of the past thousands of years.

>>10761438
Are you high? Your graph backs up my point.

>>10761443
No they aren't see >>10761283
Notice the axis is metres

>>10761429
It's not. Solar intensity is dropping

>>10761447
Modern temperature and co2 is pathetic and it's rate is normal for history as seen in the graph

>>10761430
>it's not significant
That's an extraordinary claim. Prove it

>>10761451
Minor fluctuation, for most of the 20th century it rose, see >>10761429

>>10761438
>he still thinks the greenhouse effect is based on correlation and not causation

>>10761446
Literally every one of the disaster predictions failed

>>10761412
It's literally an entire research department's research outputs organized into a more digestible form. There's far more than one academic source available there if you bothered to look.

>>10761455
>Imagine being this retarded
So now that it's dropping so is the temperature, right? Oh no, wait, it's not

>>10761454
prove extreme changes in weather over a long period of time, global not local. and over a period of many years.

>>10761456
You have to prove modern warming is due to humans and not natural things like natural gas release, milankovitch cycles or something with the sun

>>10761459
One person getting a news segment and being wrong doesn't disprove anything. Did you have a real argument?

>>10761459
Wow, this means absolutely nothing as to whether or not global warming is happening. "Some asshole predicted something one time and it turned out to be wrong" is the most idiotic argument denialists have. You're basing your beliefs on the number of failed prophecies. It's YEC tier.

>>10761468
But literally all the alarmist predictions failed
What is there to worry about? Post a meta analysis or something

>>10761464
I have, moron. If you're too stupid to understand what constitutes significant changes in weather patterns then that's your problem.

>>10761462

>>10761474
No they haven't. Every climate model I've seen is well within their margin of error. You're confusing sensationalism with science.

>>10761475
epa is not global. prove extreme changes in weather.

>>10761372
>Marcotts paleo temps wildly disagree with both ice core and ocean sediment reconstructions
The Marcott reconstruction was created from ocean sediment data and other proxies you lying sack of shit. Why do you feel the need to constantly lie?

>>10761478
>Solar intensity drops
>Temperature keeps rising
>Correlates with atmospheric CO2
Hmmm... It's almost as if something was retaining more of the sun's heat, like some kind of greenhouse or something...

>>10761485
How do you explain this, modern temperatures are well below recent historical temperatures

>>10761481
How about the NOAA, moron?

>>10761489
It's literally nothing

>>10761494
source noob. prove extreme changes in global weather.

>>10761497
It's the rate of change that's important, dipshit. Remember all those mass extinctions we talked about?

>>10761485
Sea level increases linearly yet co2 increases exponentially
Explain that

>>10761507
the climate is not that sensitive to co2

>>10761504
I have you the link to Google since you're too incompetent to figure out search terms. Literally just scroll down a few links

>>10761509
I win

>>10761511
prover extreme changes in global weather

>>10761506
The current rate is nothing new
There used to be swings of 0.3° yearly

>>10761514
Go read the facts

>>10761518
>Imagine being this retarded
The rate of change is absolutely new. It's been exponential since the start of the industrial revolution

>>10761521
prover extreme changes in global weather

>>10761525
With nothing to show for it
Temperature goes up, fuck all happens

>>10761052
But we don't have a glass dome
The planet s not a greenhouse

>>10761543
Also greenhouses actually pump co2 in as plants need it more
Modern plants are starving for it

>>10761459
Can you give me a source for a single one of those? You can't because it's a lie.

>>10761447
Notice the x axis is thousands of years, and the graph doesn't show modern sea level data. It's proxy data from hundreds of years ago. Recent sea level rise >>10761443 is much faster than the historical sea level rise in your graph. Try again.

>>10761543
>>10761551
>Imagine being this retarded
See >>10761052
Also plants cannot survive extreme weather changes no matter how much CO2 they have

>>10761533
You're conveniently forgetting those mass extinctions again

>>10761467
That's already been done.

>>10761526
Go read about them. I led you to water, now drink

>>10761579
And there are none right now
You're ignoring how there has been no increase in extreme weather conditions as shown >>10761533

>>10761423
LOOOOOL
Best climate alarmist chart ever. :D :D :D

>>10761543
We have a sphere of greenhouse gases that keeps infrared heat from escaping.

>>10761576
have you ever seen a greenhouse without a glassdome fucktard? Do you think that having a physical barrier to stop heat exchange with the exterior is not important then?
Show me open greenhouses.
I'm waiting

>>10761590
You either have a physical greenhouse or you don't. No such a thing as greenhouse gases that work properly without a fucking greenhouse

>>10761586
>And there are none right now
Wew, lad. Extinctions are already happening and once enough happen to consider it "mass extinction" it's already too late.

>extreme weather conditions
Hurricanes are not the most important weather patterns. The US has already been impacted by changes in weather patterns, as have many other countries. Do you really need 100% crop failure to convince you?

>>10761588
That's not an argument. You're conveniently forgetting all the other mass extinctions

>>10761597
Show me an increase in extreme weather

>>10761507
>Sea level increases linearly
It's been increasing exponentially since global warming began. Why do you feel the need to constantly lie? And why do you constantly fail to respond to arguments and instead spout different lies?

>>10761591
>Do you think that having a physical barrier to stop heat exchange with the exterior is not important then?
You mean like the atmosphere acting as a barrier to the vacuum of space? We only lose heat through black body radiation

>>10761600
Your thumbnail image is impossible to read

>>10761490
Simple, that's Greenland. Ice core anon already explained this last time he was here. Greenland cores have serious issues with organic matrer contamination that introduce large amounts of error in reconstructions based on CO2 levels in the ice.

>>10761583
prover extreme changes in global weather

>>10761601
>extreme weather
There you go again. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally dishonest or if you're just legitimately retarded. What we're experiencing is changes in WEATHER PATTERNS which is impacting crop yields and killing people

>>10761490
There are no modern temperatures on your graph, it's mislabeled ice core data that ends in 1855. Also the local temperature from one place in Geeenland is not the global average. Before demanding an explanation for something make sure that it's actually real.

>>10761603
The same atmosphere that is dynamic and interacting with a huge temperature and co2 buffer, namely the oceanic bodies

>>10760826
It really doesn't matter, because only good will come out of it either way.

If climate change is not going to have any big effect the environment, then there's nothing to worry about.

If climate change is going to drastically change the environment, then that's good too, because it's only going to affect future generations and not my life.

>>10761609
anon please. you're like a hysterical woman.

>>10761608
Glasses have existed for hundreds of years. Maybe you should get a pair

>>10761605
Why would greenland not warm like the rest of the planet on average

>>10761619
prover extreme changes in global weather

>>10761609
We were told more droughts and hurricanes yet there has been no change

>>10761613
Yep, that's why the ocean is acidifying which is another massive problem, and the CO2 levels are still rising because it's not a significant enough sink. Wait until the ocean can't hold anymore and you'll see some real shit.

>>10761615
Intentionally dishonest then. Glad we cleared that up

>>10761623
I never mentioned hurricanes, moron. I mentioned droughts and heavy rainfall. Guess why US farmers are having problems planting.

>Protip: it's the rain

THERE HAS BEEN NO TEMPERATURE CHANGE FOR 18 YEARS NOW

>>10761594
>You either have a physical greenhouse or you don't.
Both the greenhouse effect and how greenhouses work are completely physical so I'm not sure what you're backing about.

>No such a thing as greenhouse gases that work properly without a fucking greenhouse
The greenhouse effect is just a name based on an analogy with a greenhouse since greenhouse gases and greenhouses both trap heat. Maybe the fact that you don't understand the most basic concept of what you're discussing should clue you off to the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Or just continue making a fool of yourself, I don't care.

>>10761622
Google is your friend

>>10761639
prover extreme changes in global weather

>>10761643
Go read about them. I've already googled it for you and pointed out the problems their causing with crop yields. The rest is on you.

>>10761634
It's a bad fucking analogy because they work completely different. It's the same as calling your feet human tires.

>>10761631
>using flawed satellite data that has been massively corrected since 2014
>cherrypicking the start of the graph to start at an El Nino to reduce the trend
>ending at 2014 and then claiming the graph shows the past 18 years
Why do you feel the need to constantly lie?

>>10761648
>their
They're

>>10761648
prover extreme changes in global weather

>>10761631
Even if you cherrypick the start and end time and only use RSS data you still get warming. Nice fake graph.

>>10761649
Your lack of comprehension does not make it a bad analogy. Greenhouse gasses perform the same job as glass in an actual greenhouse, specifically slowing the transmission of heat out of the system.

>>10761634
Blankets are now "greenhouse fabrics" because we want to raise awareness.
BLANKETS NO MORE

>>10761654
Go read about them.

>>10761590
>infrared heat
There is no such thing as infrared heat.
Maybe you mean infrared light.
You know the same amount and even more light is blocked FROM the sun by green house gases.
So green house gases keep the temperature low and with low amplitude.

>>10761662
prover extreme changes in global weather

>>10761649
>It's a bad fucking analogy, because they work completely different.
The analogy is that they both block the flow of heat. Obviously an analogy is going to be between two things that are different in many respects but have a specific similarity. Plus, it's just a name.
The only one who assumed they're related is you, because you have no idea what you're even arguing against. How embarrassing.

>>10761659
OMG a greenhouse actually needs both to work properly.
If the gases were enough you wouldn't need the glass to close the system, just fucking dump CO2 there

>>10761664
Go read about them

>>10761665
The glass does not block the flow of heat
OH MY GOD YOU ACTUALLY HAVE NO CLUE

>>10761657
Your's is fake
See how easy it is

>>10761668
prover extreme changes in global weather

>>10761666
>Imagine being this retarded
The atmosphere and magnetic field is what closes Earth as a system. Heat can only escape as black body radiation. Also greenhouses don't need CO2 to get hot, they just have to prevent the hot air from escaping.

You are a moron

>>10761672
Go read about them. If you're not willing to educate yourself then you could at least remove that extra 'r'.

>>10761666
>OMG a greenhouse actually needs both to work properly.
No, it just needs glass. The main source of heat loss in a room on the surface of Earth is convection, the movement of heat in the form of hot air. The atmosphere on the other hand does not lose much air to space, instead it loses heat in the form of infrared radiation. You sound like you're stuck in elementary school.

>>10761678
prover extreme changes in global weather

>>10761681
Go read about them

>>10761669
So glass lets hot air through? You fucking mongoloid.

>>10761683
prover extreme changes in global weather

>>10761663
>There is no such thing as infrared heat.
Maybe you mean infrared light.
Infrared light is how heat is transferred as radiation.

>You know the same amount and even more light is blocked FROM the sun by green house gases.
Much of the incoming solar energy is in the form of visible light, not infrared. This passes right through greenhouse gases, like it does through glass. Once this visible light hits the Earth it is absorbed and the energy is turned into heat. The Earth gives of infrared radiation which is then partially blocked by greenhouse gases. So the net effect is that energy goes in but doesn't come out.

>>10761685
I'm not going to spoonfeed you and I'm not going to keep responding. Go read about them or fuck off

>>10761699
prover extreme changes in global weather

>>10761670
Go to the source if you don't believe me. Toy won't, because you already know you're lying.

>>10761423
>>10761600
This chart showing CO2 and mass extinctions.
To mass extinctions they need 8 - 10% CO2.
But there was only 0 - 0.4% CO2. (0.1% = 1000 ppm)
So CO2 and mass extinctions are definitely not relevant.
Nobody knows what caused those mass extinctions.

>>10760894
L0Lno John just stop pls
https://skepticalscience.com/John_McLean_arg.htm

>>10761620
Because local temperatures aren't global mean temperatures? That's what a global mean is, an average of many local temperatures. Greenland cores have the organic matter contamination issue as well.

>>10761715
>To mass extinctions they need 8 - 10% CO2.
Nope. It's the rate of change that did it.

>>10761329
That is completely irrelevant to our current situation. The rate of warming is much faster than previously observed, life and society have adapted to a specific climate. Our greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating warming and these kinds of climate upheavals are detrimental to life and to our civilization.

>>10760826

>>10761372
The disagreement with the Marcott reconstruction actually point to cooler climate in the Holocene, so you're denial bullshit is doubly fucked

>>10761734
Wow, these news articles have convinced me that measurement evidence isn't real.

>>10761741
do your measurements state the cause of the warming? no they do not. so fuck off.

>>10761745
Actually, the measurements of carbon isotopes do establish the cause of the warming as anthropogenic. Atmospheric carbon-13 and carbon-14 are decreasing from fossil fuel use because plant carbon (and therefore fossil fuel carbon) is mostly carbon-12.

>>10761749
fuck off dude i still get sun burnt in 15 mins in the sun during summer time. there is not that much co2 in the atmosphere.

>also believing some one else's data.

>>10761755
Better not go to the doctor then. All of them use other people's data.

>>10761755
those two things have nothing to do with each other

>>10761732
Wow. So far nobody knew how animals extincted. But you solved it. Your Nobel Prize is on the way.

>>10761801
>animals extincted
>picture of trump
Fitting. Also they died because they couldn't adapt fast enough

why the mods don't move this bullshit to >>>/x/ ?

https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/25/adjusted-unadjusted-data-nasa-uses-the-magic-wand-of-fudging-produces-warming-where-there-never-was/

also: /thread

europe is fucked for all i care.

>>10761490
Where's the error bar? If you want to cite a figure, plot the error bar on it rather than slapping some meme biblical periods on it

>>10761605
>Ice core anon already explained this last time he was here. Greenland cores have serious issues with organic matrer contamination that introduce large amounts of error in reconstructions based on CO2 levels in the ice.

Thanks for citing me, however you got it wrong. Greenland CO2 has nothing to do with the particular graph, which is based on borehole temperature reconstruction. Greenland CO2 record might not be valid, but borehole temperature reconstruction is.

>>10761490
>present
>year 2000
Here's the problem. Go to the actual data.
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

BP "before present" is defined as 1950. The first data point is 1855 lmao, not 2000

>>10761860
more denialtard bullshit
>>10761847
If denialists were actually right they wouldn't have to resort to tactics like this. Science you don't like is still science.

>>10762123
Oops! Sorry, anon. My mistake.

>>10762143
That's alright anon.

Actually Greenland T reconstruction consistently showing that the past 10k has been warmer than today. If only the climate deniers bothered to keep up with modern literatures (pic related, just to sample a few) rather than keep regurtitating the same trite and old Alley 2000 GISP2 temperature reconstruction, they would have plenty of new ammos.

Solar maxima at 10ka (top left) can explain most of why Greenland was warmer 10k ago than today. However, even the present day Greenland temperature is not unusual compared to the last 4k (Kobashi et al. 2011). This show that present day warmth in Greenland is NOT outside natural variability. Unlike the deniers we have nothing to hide and have to be honest with the science.

It is what it is

>>10760888
what, exactly, is wrong with having an agenda? you seem to have a very primitive concept of truth there, one in which one's reasons have a bearing on one being right.

>>10762369
>Imagine being this retarded
Having an agenda that contradicts established science makes you inherently wrong

>>10761869
Actually Europe will benefit from global warming

>>10762124
>Science you don't like is still science.
but climate change is not a science, it's a pseudoscience, therefore it belongs to >>>/x/

>>10761467
>You have to prove modern warming is due to humans and not natural things like natural gas release, milankovitch cycles or something with the sun
Easy. Humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentrations:
https://sci-hub . tw/https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ef200914u
And CO2 concentrations are driving the change in radiation at the surface, via the greenhouse effect:
https://ams.confex . com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm