/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14863208]

Is global warming real or fake?

[Anonymous No.14863211]

[Anonymous No.14863219]

>>14863211

/thread

[Anonymous No.14863221]

IDK. I'm not fucking paying the carbon tax though. you are more than welcome to though. Taxing people who want away from this gay society isn't going to work either way.

[Anonymous No.14863226]

We know for a comprehensive fact that it's happening because the temperature readings say so, as >>14863211 shows, but the influences are so convoluted that PROOF is beyond our present data gathering and number crunching.

Add in some Deep Time weirdness regarding glaciation cycles, a whole mountain of solar phenomena, and no-joke astronomical alignments (though mostly regarding axial tilts) as known influences and it's an entirely sensible hypothesis that human activity is a minority of the cause.

For an example of ANTRHOPOGENIC Global Warming theory being bullshit, there was a scandal some time back about almost all the models having nothing for cloud cover reflectivity, which means over-estimates of absorbed solar radiation and the absence of a trivially demonstrated negative feedback mechanism moderating any increase.

[Anonymous No.14863230]

>>14863211

We are in an inter-glacial period of an ice age.

[Anonymous No.14863236]

>>14863226
>We know for a comprehensive fact that it's happening because the temperature readings say so
nope, those are all lies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

[Anonymous No.14863239]

>>14863208
the only solution is societal collapse. oh ok, looks like we've got our best people on it.
https://odysee.com/@Realfake_Newsource:9/RFNS-1.22-001-007:a

[Anonymous No.14863264]

>>14863211
>starting with 1800
Why don't you want to talk about the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods?

[Anonymous No.14863285]

>>14863221
you will be taxed for Israel and you will suck tranny cock if you dont want to the gulag nazi

[Anonymous No.14863313]

>>14863236
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
>University of East Anglia
>four climatologists
sensational media-manufactured "controversy" was fake & gay

[Anonymous No.14863320]

>>14863313
global warming is fake

[Anonymous No.14863360]

>>14863320
go back

[Anonymous No.14863377]

>>14863208
Fake obviously.

[Anonymous No.14863379]

>>14863313
They're some of the most important climate scientists in the IPCC.

[Anonymous No.14863384]

>>14863264
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#27

https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

[Anonymous No.14863387]

:/

[Anonymous No.14863389]

>>14863264
>1800
1850
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#Thermometers_(1850-present)

[Anonymous No.14863398]

>>14863384
"skeptical" science lmao

[Anonymous No.14863400]

>>14863387
>orwellian lying
worthless "source"
https://climateclock.net/

[Anonymous No.14863401]

>>14863398
>i have no argument

[Anonymous No.14863408]

>>14863401
I don't need to argue with a debunked source.

[Anonymous No.14863412]

>>14863379
L0Lno fgt pls

[Anonymous No.14863415]

>>14863408
>I don't need to argue
lol, oc not.
pathetic retard

[Anonymous No.14863424]

>>14863412
>>14863415
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.14863425]

>>14863400
>Just zoom out, bro

[Anonymous No.14863426]

>>14863226
I think your post has good information about the whole topic. It's often presented by the media that we are the only cause, because of greenhouse gases, why temperature rises. It happened many times before without an industrial civilization.
Still we might be involved for the rising speed of temperature change and cutting down on polluting the planet isn't a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.14863461]

>>14863211
please post global temperatures 1000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.14863469]

>>14863221
We already pay tax on literally anything. Often times it's called a "fee". I live in a european country and I pay a progressive income tax 39 - 55%, i pay tax on diesel, and when I buy my car, and I pay property tax and estate tax, 25% VAT on every purchase, I pay "tax" when I pay for my electricity and water and plumbing because those companies have to pay a fee to the government. Whenever I sell my investments, I am taxed yet again. I wonder how much of our income we actually end up paying in taxes, probably around 50%

[Anonymous No.14863472]

>>14863469
>We already pay tax on literally anything.
So why do we need to pay it twice?

[Anonymous No.14863481]

>>14863211
this is misleading by the way because climate is a dynamic system with a lot of lag
so the big swing at the end was caused not by the year 2015 or 2016 but many years prior
and we have yet to see the effects of 2015/2016++

[Anonymous No.14863487]

>>14863472
exactly.. we need to get rid of them instead.. politicians don't give a fuck about the climate, or even the people they rule.. They take expensive paid vacations and eat at fancy restaurants and drive expensive cars on the tax payers dime.. they are the biggest hypocrites, it's just an excuse to tax the everyday person even more and make them more dependable upon government handouts.. You see it with the increasing gas and electricity prices too now.. prices increases, well we can keep them down by getting rid of some, if not all of the fucking outrageous 100% or something government tax on it, do they do that? No, because the only way that shows (or doesn't) is a reduced gas bill, so they "pay back" citizens so there's green coming into their account (of course that is taxed first too)... Then the retards to greated all the problems to begin with can go out there and say "look, we helped you with the problems! vote for us"

[Anonymous No.14863491]

>>14863461
>temperatures 1000 years ago
relevance?

[Anonymous No.14863493]

>is global warming real
yeah shit's getting slightly hotter bro
>is that weird
no but it's going like way faster than normal bro
>is it man made
yeah like probably bro like after accounting for everything other than human activity it just dont add up at all bro
>should i do what the left tells me to with regards to this shocking revelation
fuck no bro you think giving more money to the stupid ass governments and corporations that put us in this supposed mess is gonna fix the fuckin weather? fuck nah dawg all this "green" shit is ran by the oil companies and shit, they just chasin the money and the media is in on it bro, bro, bro
i wish i was joking. to speak technically, scientifically, we're fucked

[Anonymous No.14863495]

>>14863487
this. the big companies and the stupid politicians pretend to care yet they still ride private jets everywhere (so they can touch children). it's a scam. global warming is real but the people claiming to solve it are just making it worse (while touching children in an illegal and immoral fashion).

[Anonymous No.14863496]

>>14863384
>https://skepticalscience.com
lol

[Anonymous No.14863502]

>>14863491
it was 1.5 degrees warmer back then and everything was fine.. but I guess the vikings caused global warming

[Anonymous No.14863648]

>>14863384
>#27

>Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern.
Low grade whataboutism.

[Anonymous No.14863660]

>>14863502
>>14863384

[Anonymous No.14863663]

>>14863648

[Anonymous No.14863669]

>>14863211
>>14863491
>relevance?
Pic

[Anonymous No.14863675]

>>14863384
>skeptical science
Utterly debunked already
https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Skeptical%20science

[Anonymous No.14863694]

Climate change is irrelevant at best, insidious at worse. There are far more tangible environmental issues which will impact upon the biosphere. These have been well known and documented for many decades, species extinction, soil degradation, declining water quality, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, atmospheric pollution, etc, etc. All of which lead towards the collapse of the food chain.

Climate change makes a convenient straw man to distract attention away from the above issues. Climate change is nebulous, the science isn't complete, it can be argued and debated ad infinitum, and the impacts and long term consequences are uncertain. This makes it a perfect smokescreen for obscuring concrete environmental issues which already have had a far more immediate and tangible effect. The 6th major extinction event is not going to happen, it is already happening. Fuck this gay world, the arseholes who ruin it and the fucking dumb rabbits that are so easily manipulated.

[Anonymous No.14863695]

>>14863675
"Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006."

lol, a cult leaflet

[Anonymous No.14863701]

>>14863695
One promotes skepticism, the other promotes blind acceptance

[Anonymous No.14863704]

>>14863701
projection, the post

[Anonymous No.14863707]

hey
a wild thought:
since the formation of planet earth the climate has always varied, there is no "correct" climate.

[Anonymous No.14863709]

>>14863701
Daily reminder that regurgitating the mainstream government/corporate narrative can never be an act of skepticism by definition.

[Anonymous No.14863724]

>>14863230
It's very funny how zoomed out graphs can hide the relevant bits easily.

[Anonymous No.14863726]

>>14863724
Thanks for admitting that global warming is fake.

[Anonymous No.14863750]

>>14863709
>by definition
oh bs
if there is evidence, then there is evidence.
no matter who it benefits

[Anonymous No.14863753]

>>14863750
Skeptics are people who challenge the mainstream narrative, not the ones who peddle it. Corporate-programmed skeptoids are not skeptics.

[Anonymous No.14863801]

>>14863753
You seem to think that skeptics must be contrarians but that's not true.

[Anonymous No.14863804]

>>14863753
>Skeptics are people who challenge the mainstream narrative
no, skeptics are sticklers for evidence

[Anonymous No.14863813]

>>14863208
Global warming is real and man made

[Anonymous No.14863814]

>>14863801
>You seem to think that skeptics must be contrarians but that's not true.
I didn't say they must be contratians. I said they are people who challenge the mainstream narrative. Ponder the difference in your free time, smoothbrain.

[Anonymous No.14863815]

>>14863804
>skeptics are sticklers for evidence
Yes, they are sticklers for evidence who challenge the mainstream narrative. They don't peddle it.

[Anonymous No.14863824]

>>14863230
>>14863264
Long term global temperatures have been changing for millenia, and NONE of the governments proposals have any measurable change/effect, especially considering that countries like China (and basically all of Africa) aren't doing shit about climate change, which negates any effort that the US/Europe makes.
Until we know how/when Ice Ages form, all "climate science" is untestable pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.14863848]

>>14863663
>hazy scibbles is now a valid argument
Sure.

[Anonymous No.14863951]

>>14863491
Uh, I don't know. Maybe because they didn't have FACTORIES 1000 years ago.
So we can evaluate the temps and compare.
FUCKING RETARD.

[Anonymous No.14863954]

Climate change in real, in that Earth's climate is dynamic (static) and constantly changing and oscillating. The fact that, during this latest period, Earth's temperature rose by 0.75 degrees over a period of 120 years is real. The idea that this implies global doom or calamity is sheer speculation that is being co-opted by crisis merchants.

[Anonymous No.14864071]

OMG THE SAME PEOPLE WHO HAVE BROUGHT YOU THE REPRODUCIBILITY CRISIS, CLIMATEGATE AND 40 YEARS (SO FAR) OF "THE WORLD WILL END IN 10 YEAR IF YOU DON'T GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR MONEY TO FIX GLOBAL WARMING" ALSO HAVE A JPEG WITH LINES AND DOTS ON IT AND THE LINES AND DOTS SAY THAT THE WORLD IS ABOUT TO END BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING.
I AM 100% CONFIDENT THAT THE LINES AND DOTS ON THOSE JPEGS TOTALLY ENDED WHERE THEY DID THERE HONESTLY AND WITH NO MANIPULATION IN MIND.

[Anonymous No.14864130]

fake as fuck
the addition of 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere does not appreciably augment the greenhouse effect
it's just "hotter" than it was 100 years ago because there are more cities and pavement everywhere
ocean temperatures haven't changed one bit

[Anonymous No.14864180]

>>14864130
No idea why you would say that considering that ocean temperatures have changed quite a lot in the last century

[Anonymous No.14864185]

>>14864130
>more cities and pavement everywhere
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#26

https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm

[Anonymous No.14864192]

>>14864130
>does not appreciably augment
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#13

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

[Anonymous No.14864211]

>>14863469
While the government efficiency and allocation of funds is debatable, you are getting quite a number of services in exchange of that money.

[Anonymous No.14864214]

>>14863211
Thank you

[Anonymous No.14864303]

>>14864211
>While the government efficiency and allocation of funds is debatable, you are getting quite a number of services in exchange of that money.
Over here i have to pay extra for any "services" in need for a living. But when you regard "services" as military spending to meddle far away with tribes of no interest, feeding EU, science TV , Sports med migrant LGBT etc parasites and hordes of clerks doing nothing than work among themself and waiting for holiday and pensions i must admit i see a lot of "services"

[Anonymous No.14864306]

>>14864303
But what about the heckin' roads?

[Anonymous No.14864308]

>>14864185
Did you read it or just post as a reflex?

>is therefore very likely to show UHI.
>Another way to explore the UHI
Language like that means they have not shown it, nor have they explored it. Otherwise they would have phrased it differently.

As for the diagram, you can see that the un-adjusted blue line sometimes are even below the rest. That should make you stop up and think. It didn't.

[Anonymous No.14864318]

>>14863724

You don't think that differences in time sensitivity of measurements may contribute to that?

Ice core data is not sensitive to the year.

Satellite data is sensitive to the minute.

[Anonymous No.14864320]

>>14863208
>Is global warming real or fake?
Was real, now it's cooling down .You can see an every long term indicator outside the clima science dung heap of parasites. Inside this church of asslickers of power they only change wording. Climate change, a term so dumb as meaningless that any human being outside the realm of soul- and brainless apologists can only shake his head. The absolte state of scoence and /sci

[Anonymous No.14864332]

>>14864306
>But what about the heckin' roads?
You pay way more on taxes on car, gas,and extra VAT on top than any road possible will cost.
After privatization of the Post now telekom 2/3 of the workers were obsolete. That is the key figure everywere in this parasitic structures.

[Anonymous No.14864350]

>>14864185
>>14864192
posting links to political propaganda websites is not an argument, it is admitting that you are unable to come up with an argument.

[Anonymous No.14864387]

>>14863230
Is this accurate?

[Anonymous No.14864388]

>>14864350
>political propaganda websites
bullshit

[Anonymous No.14864390]

>>14864308
lol, keep on hand waving

[Anonymous No.14864415]

>>14864387
>we can measure the temperature from 2000 years ago to 0.1 of a C
>t. climate scammers

[Anonymous No.14864450]

>>14864415
weather =/= climate, retard

[Anonymous No.14864466]

>>14864387
How can tht be credible? The warm period is a rough decline and previous years are warmer.

[Anonymous No.14864502]

>>14863211
There's a bunch of potential flaws even with this. It was excedingly cold in the 1850s for one. You could argue it's a biased starting point.

Secondly there's plenty reason to be suspicious of current warming. There's little doubt that we have an urban heath Island effect and human activity changing Albedo. How much of the warming is due to such effects? Where are those measurements from? Is it the same measurement stations throughout the period? Have they changed some measurements retroactively to better fit their model? The last one isn't entirely uncommon and there's some debate to whether it constitutes good or bad science.

[Anonymous No.14864505]

Scott Adams just got canceled for mocking ESG by the people who own the newspapers
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-dilbert-apos-author-scott-001605663.html

[Anonymous No.14864782]

>>14864502
>It was excedingly cold in the 1850s for one.
Not really. Pic related.

>There's little doubt that we have an urban heath Island effect
It has no significant effect on the warming trend.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

[Anonymous No.14864787]

>>14864387
Nope. That's Michael Mann's hockey stick scam.

[Anonymous No.14864796]

>>14864502
>human activity changing Albedo.
The net affect of albedo changes is a slight cooling.

>Where are those measurements from?
Thermometer stations.

>Is it the same measurement stations throughout the period?
No, but the highest quality, longest lasting stations show the same trend.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

>Have they changed some measurements retroactively to better fit their model?
No.

[Anonymous No.14864825]

>>14864787
Nope, it's the PAGES2K reconstruction. Michael Mann was not involved. Try another excuse.

[Anonymous No.14864857]

>>14864466
>The warm period is a rough decline and previous years are warmer.
And your point? The Medieval Warm Period was a warm period in the North Atlantic region, not the globe.

[Anonymous No.14864858]

>>14863208
unfortunately it's impossible to even speak about this subject because people want to use it in a war against this that and the other in their personal policy conflicts, as opposed to remarking calmly on observations and recorded data.

[Anonymous No.14864861]

>>14864415
t. doesn't know what confidence ranges are

[Anonymous No.14864866]

>>14864320
>Was real, now it's cooling down .
Proof?

[Anonymous No.14864904]

>>14864318
That graph is fake anyway, it's not based on any measurements.

[Anonymous No.14864918]

>>14863954
>The fact that, during this latest period, Earth's temperature rose by 0.75 degrees over a period of 120 years is real
Why are you lying? It's double that. See >>14864866 and even if it was what you say, that would still be an order of magnitude faster than the interglacial warming in your graph. Yes, that is a calamity since previous rapid changes have caused mass extinctions.

[Anonymous No.14864932]

>>14863669
The first two are not even global climate, they show the temperature in one place in Greenland. They are from ice cores so they don't even show modern temperatures. They end in 1855. The third is simply a strawman, no one shows a graph of the last 700 years. Are you really this dumb or are you deliberately misrepresenting everything?

[Anonymous No.14864954]

>>14863707
We know that you dumb pigfuck. What matters to us is habitability for the current biosphere. Anaerobic bacteria and mega-fauna can get fucked.

[Anonymous No.14864965]

>>14864825
It's exactly like his proven fraudulent data, so it must be fraud. We know the temperature doesn't look like that in reality.

[Anonymous No.14864970]

>>14864857
All proxies show it was global. You can stop lying now. The IPCC admitted it in the 90s.

[Anonymous No.14864974]

>>14864965
>It's exactly like his proven fraudulent data
Where was it proven fraudulent? And no, it's not exactly like his reconstruction, just similar.

>We know the temperature doesn't look like that in reality.
Because...?

[Anonymous No.14864977]

>>14864974
>Where was it proven fraudulent? And no, it's not exactly like his reconstruction, just similar.
He lost a lawsuit trying to silence his critics because he was unable or unwilling to prove his data was real.

[Anonymous No.14864987]

>>14864970
>All proxies show it was global.
Well that graph is the temperature reconstructed from all proxies, so you're clearly wrong. What proxies did you actually look at?

>The IPCC admitted it in the 90s.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.14864989]

>>14864977
>He lost a lawsuit trying to silence his critics because he was unable or unwilling to prove his data was real.
Source? His data and code are publicly available and his results have been replicated numerous times by different methodologies. You have no clue what you're talking about.

And you didn't answer my questions.

[Anonymous No.14864997]

>>14864977
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

[Anonymous No.14865015]

Regardless of whether climate changes provides an existential threat or not, what is painfully obvious is that all efforts to address it, and the the other issues raised by >>14863694, are all futile. Protests, speeches, campaigns by activists, warnings given by scientists, and media attention in support of conservation, have all failed to achieve any significant reduction to the impact of humans on the world's ecosystems. For every species "saved" from extinction at least a hundred others are eradicated. For every new "nature preserve" created a far greater number of indigenous habitats are destroyed. For every attempt to limit pollution by law a dozen loopholes leap into existence, along with the next generation of pollutants.
At this point it should be clear that scientific warnings and peaceful protests will achieve nothing substantial. However since the very people who are acutely aware of the consequences of environmental degradation are also generally opposed to violence the net result will be very much the same as if they just merely shut up and did nothing.
Therefore the only other weapon in their arsenal is fear. Which has been used but badly mismanaged for the past 100 years ever since conservationists became aware of the impending global environmental situation. Their mistake is to paint a gloomy picture of the future. The future is intangible to most normies and so easily discarded, and when predictions in the propaganda war do not match reality the entire movement is discredited. There are better ways to engender fear, more secure from the counter propaganda and moles, and it can be done without recourse to violence.

[Anonymous No.14865136]

>>14863469
13 things that the government spends your money on. You WON'T BELIEVE number 50!!

[Anonymous No.14865160]

>>14863236
>Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[18]
Nice reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.14865162]

>>14863824
>Long term global temperatures have been changing for millenia
Not this rapidly.

>NONE of the governments proposals have any measurable change/effect
Proof?

>especially considering that countries like China (and basically all of Africa) aren't doing shit about climate change
Proof?

>Until we know how/when Ice Ages form
Ice ages begin when continental drift blocks the flow of warm water to the poles.

[Anonymous No.14865201]

>mfw someone with a personal financial or emotional interest says they have data

[Anonymous No.14865217]

>>14863694
This so much. Even if cc is a real threat, even if it could be reversed overnight, there would still be all that stuff to be concerned about.

I think the problem is cc can be treated as a singular topic, and its relatively easy to either denigrate or hype, depending on what data set and global time frame you choose. "The climate will change and we will all die" is an easy catch phrase to throw on the normies with click bait, rather than "Due to factor x, factor y and factor z, taking into account parameters a, b and c, and applying model alphabetagamma, the food web will collapse."

There could also be an element of enviro-weariness. People have heard about species extinction, pollution, deforestation, for such long time they are tired of it. Climate change as a topic is relatively new and fashionable. It will probably be replaced with another go-to for fashionable teen-aged activists within the decade. Just like the Amazon rain-forest was such a hot topic years ago and barely gets a mention now.

[Anonymous No.14865251]

>>14865201
>/sci/ Comics and Ad Hominem

[Anonymous No.14865299]

>>14865160
"We investigated our friends and found them not guilty on all charges."

[Anonymous No.14865303]

>>14865201
Climate Soience in a nutshell. "Our models fail to predict reality, but you should believe them this time because we went back and faked reality to match the models."

[Anonymous No.14865332]

>>14865299
>our friends
Source?

[Anonymous No.14865362]

>>14865332
the name "peer review" is synonymous with collusion. peers are incapable of objectively evaluating themselves, they require an authority for that purpose.

[Anonymous No.14865367]

>>14865332
The aforementioned panels.

[Anonymous No.14865405]

>>14864502
>There's little doubt
source: your ass

[Anonymous No.14865407]

>>14865162
>how/when Ice Ages form
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws

[Anonymous No.14865891]

>IS THAT A-A-A I-IS THAT A T-T-T-T-T-TILTED SQUIGGLY LINE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I'M GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOING INSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.14865898]

>>14865407

[Anonymous No.14865899]

>>14865405
It's quite literally observable in temperature increases in urban temperature stations, compared with the lack thereof in ones which remained rural (until NOAA closed the majority of rural stations for some reason, not sure why they'd do that!).

[Anonymous No.14866199]

>>14865362
>the name "peer review" is synonymous with collusion.
No, it's more like critiques. And what does this have to do with proving that they were exonerated by friends?

>peers are incapable of objectively evaluating themselves
They're the only ones capable of evaluating themselves. "Peer" does not mean friend, it means scientist with relevant expertise.

>they require an authority for that purpose.
Like the eight authorities that investigated them and you keep ignoring? lmao

[Anonymous No.14866201]

>>14865367
What about them?

[Anonymous No.14866206]

>>14865407
Your video is about what causes interglacial/glacial periods, not ice ages.

[Anonymous No.14866207]

>>14865898
The third cover is fake and the rest are about cold weather in the US, not global cooling. Gullible retard or lying shill? You decide!

[Anonymous No.14866211]

>>14865899
It's removed by homogenization. See >>14864782

>until NOAA closed the majority of rural stations
Source?

[Anonymous No.14866262]

>>14863848
>too stupid to click a link
>>14863384
lrn2read

[Anonymous No.14866290]

>>14863208
It's real, but acceptance of it isbad for the bottom-line of some multibillion/trillion dollar industries (ie; fewer people consooming your crap, spending to adhere to regulations, cleaning up their own messes, paying fines, etc...)

[Anonymous No.14866643]

>>14865891
LKMAO

[Anonymous No.14866798]

[Anonymous No.14866830]

>>14863208
>ignore the ones that look wrong to us

[Anonymous No.14866853]

>>14866830

[Anonymous No.14867179]

>>14863208
Fake. It's just more slavery tactics.

[Anonymous No.14867202]

>>14863669
did you know that the earth used to be a volcanic planet with lava flowing on its surface 4 billions years ago? checkmate climate!!!! normal average temperature was 1000 degrees!!!!! we were experiencing a convenient ice age!!!!

[Anonymous No.14867787]

>>14866207
Who cares? It's stinky media.

[Anonymous No.14867794]

>>14866201
They were in collusion to prop up the narrative they also supported. If your funding relies on something being true and you're complicit in the lie of course you'll find your fellow travelers innocent.

[Anonymous No.14867795]

>>14865015
>have all failed to achieve any significant reduction
Maybe because a obviously staged protest in the western world neither is an research nor an concept how to do it better (even in the most polluted areas outside there comfy zone)?.

[Anonymous No.14867797]

>>14866211
>Source?
NOAA

[Anonymous No.14867802]

>>14864866
Posting a magnified model calculation out of a whole planet without showing the absolute range is the typical behavior of everyasshole with an bad and misleading intention.

[Anonymous No.14867813]

>>14863208
>"we have tons of models that simulate reality to some extent that are applicable to limited situations and so we ignore model results that are obviously inapplicable and study those that are consistent with reality"
>noooooo you can't do that! The science is heckin biased!! You can't use knowledge of logic and statistics to support a theory!!!
/sci/ will defend this mindset

[Anonymous No.14867819]

>>14867813
A single-factor model that doesn't even simulate cloud cover albedo is peak retardation. That you soience types still believe in this is a discredit to the field.

[Anonymous No.14867827]

>>14867819
ignorance of the details of climate modeling is what powers trust in the soience

[Anonymous No.14867833]

>>14867827
Climate soientists are like John Mandlbaur claiming that if you tug on a string it's not adding energy to the system. "No clouds don't matter! If I change the energy outputs and inputs the system will still match my models so I don't need to calculate it! Zombie!!!"

[Anonymous No.14867916]

>>14867833
ignorance of the details of basic physics is what powers climate soientists' trust in their own models

[Anonymous No.14868424]

>>14867819
>single-factor model
One sentence in and we're already making stuff up. Who said anything about single factor models?

[Anonymous No.14868463]

>>14867787
>lies
>gets caught
>"who cares?"
Lying shill it is then.

[Anonymous No.14868465]

>>14867916
>ignorance of the details of basic physics
Such as?

[Anonymous No.14868471]

>>14867833
>No clouds don't matter! If I change the energy outputs and inputs the system will still match my models so I don't need to calculate it!
Who said this?

[Anonymous No.14868496]

>>14867794
>They were in collusion to prop up the narrative they also supported.
Proof? Just give one example of something the reports were wrong about.

>If your funding relies on something being true and you're complicit in the lie of course you'll find your fellow travelers innocent.
What funding does the Department of Commerce get that relies on climate science?

[Anonymous No.14868497]

>>14867797
Where did NOAA say this?

[Anonymous No.14868501]

>>14867802
>Posting a magnified model calculation
What magnified model? And how does this respond to my question?

[Anonymous No.14868504]

>>14863208
It doesn't really matter. We're running out of oil so we need to move away from oil, gas and coal.

[Anonymous No.14868511]

>>14868504
>We're running out of oil
According to the same people orchestrating your green scam?

[Anonymous No.14868585]

>>14868511
Surprisingly no, they just keep talking about climate change.

[Anonymous No.14868658]

>>14863208
> Is global warming real or fake?
real
> Is it man made
probably not. The fucking giant ball of fire in the sky probably has more effect on it than human hubris ever will
> will global warming stop if I send money to some "non profit" or if I elect some politician?
No, you will only be enriching some sociopaths at the top of said organization, while they use a fraction of the money to generate fear porn, so more people donate money to them.
Non profits are a scam and the people who run them DO profit from running them
Same apply to politicians, except that they will fuck everybody over, even the ones who didnt vote for them
The best plans they have involve spending trilions of dollars to delay the inevitable by a couple of years
> is global warming bad?
Not really, it would mean more plants and the entire north of canada/russia + antartica would be inhabitable.
By the time it becomes a problem we will be using other sources of fuel

[Anonymous No.14868714]

>>14868658
>probably not. The fucking giant ball of fire in the sky probably has more effect on it than human hubris ever will
More greenhouse gases means more greenhouse effect. That's not "hubris", that's simple logic.

[Anonymous No.14868716]

>>14868658
>fire in the sky probably has more effect
nope

[H.T. No.14868759]

This abomination presented to you by Excon and Mobol1, leader in climate denial ism proppogandi

[Anonymous No.14868770]

>>14868658
>Not really, it would mean more plants and the entire north of canada/russia + antartica would be inhabitable.
Antartica is getting colder, even the clima parasites can only ignore that.
>>14868716
>nope

Showing measured data against an made up model with doubtful input with an up to the extremes magnified scale. Science hoaxers@work.

[Anonymous No.14868923]

>>14868770
extreme cope

[Anonymous No.14869446]

>>14863694
low iq typed this post

[Anonymous No.14869453]

>>14868471
Climate soientists.

[Anonymous No.14869458]

>>14868497
In their public statement where they laid off employees and closed a large number of climate stations in the US. You can just look at the data and see a lot of stations stop reporting due to closure when the warming scam ramped up.

[Anonymous No.14869482]

>>14863211
bros...

[Anonymous No.14869508]

>>14869446

[Anonymous No.14869527]

>>14868759
The largest armies of paid shills are employed by the United Nations, the American government and by George Soros' network of NGOs. Starting pay for Soros shills is $9/hr.

[Anonymous No.14869716]

>>14869453
Where?

[Anonymous No.14869722]

>>14869458
>In their public statement where they laid off employees and closed a large number of climate stations in the US.
Where is this statement? It would be huge news if they shut down thousands of stations.

[Anonymous No.14869743]

>>14868658
>probably not. The fucking giant ball of fire in the sky probably has more effect on it than human hubris ever will
Wrong, solar forcing is negligible over the past 250 years. See >>14864796

[Anonymous No.14869786]

>>14868770
>Antartica is getting colder
Why do deniers constantly lie? Antarctica is below latitude -65 and this area is the fastest warming on the planet.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

>made up model
What model?

>with an up to the extremes magnified scale.
You're right, the solar activity scale should be much smaller since the variation is so tiny. It would only account for a tenth of a degree.

[Anonymous No.14869860]

>>14869722
On the NOAA website. If you want to fact check me you can extract their raw climate data and see that many stations drop off the list over the last 20 years due to being closed. Over 600 were closed in 2015 alone.

[Anonymous No.14870092]

[Anonymous No.14870109]

>>14870092
>random Twitter literally who
Nice source bro

[bodhi No.14870110]

>>14863208
it's real fake

[Anonymous No.14870113]

The TL;DR is that having more carbon in the atmosphere makes the atmosphere hotter for approximately the same reason that having a black interior in a car makes it heat up more during the summer. It just absorbs more heat from the sun.

With this being said, China produces like three times as much CO2 as the US does now, so liberals are kind of living in the past when it comes to the actual policy implications.

[Anonymous No.14870119]

>>14870113
>It just absorbs more heat from the sun.
How? Solar energy enters the atmosphere at a steady rate, how does adding CO2 to our atmosphere make the sun emit more energy?

[Anonymous No.14870126]

>>14870119
Solar energy doesn't leave the atmosphere at a steady rate.

CO2 reduces the rate at which solar energy is emitted back out of the atmosphere into space. This is why it's called the "greenhouse effect," because it's equivalent to one of those glass greenhouses that gets really hot in the sun.

To give a really extreme example within our own solar system, Venus has a thick, mostly CO2 atmosphere, and because of that it's hotter than Mercury, despite being farther away from the Sun.

[Anonymous No.14870133]

>>14870119
It doesnt make the sun emit more, it retains the heat that enters our atmosphere.

In the same way a black car interior does not make the sun emit more heat. Rather, the heat that touches the interior is absorbed by a black interior.

[Anonymous No.14870136]

>>14870126
venus's atmosphere is supercritical co2, it is not comparable to out atmosphere, supercritical co2 has far, far different properties than gaseous co2.
supercritical co2 can dissolve copious amounts of organic and inorganic molecules.
mars has an atmosphere composed of gaseous co2 and mars has no measurable "greenhouse effect" according to the european space agency

[Anonymous No.14870144]

>>14870136
Mars has an atmosphere that is less than 1% of the thickness of the earth's atmosphere.

Also, CO2 concentration is measurably correlated with atmospheric change. Look at the graph in >>14870113. You can even see the pace of temperature change increase when emissions rise.

[Anonymous No.14870173]

>>14870144
>Also, CO2 concentration is measurably correlated with atmospheric change.
Except for the last 200 million years of history, where it was always a lagging increase behind temperature.

[Anonymous No.14870179]

>>14870173
>CO2 magically happened to predict temperature increases in the precise period where the most reliable readings of temperature and CO2 concentration were available
>the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 200 million years is purely a spurious correlation or reverse causality or some shit, even though doubling the CO2 concentration in the modern era led to an increase in temperature
>it's almost impossible to make a model of anything approaching earth's atmosphere and have higher CO2 levels not mean higher temperature, but that's a coincidence

doubt it desu

This isn't even a recent thing, the first scientist to propose the greenhouse effect did it in the 1890s.

[Anonymous No.14870201]

is there a consensus that the major causes are:

-China
-India
-Shipping
-Air Travel
-Poor maintenance, storage, and disposal of AC/refrigeration equipment (mostly from previous era)

[Anonymous No.14870208]

>>14870179
>This isn't even a recent thing, the first scientist to propose the greenhouse effect did it in the 1890s.
They didn't understand the vast complexity of the sun-earth energy system back then. More than 80% of the heat energy retained by the planet is inductive heating via the magnetic field, not radiation.

[Anonymous No.14870211]

>>14870201
>China

Yes, absolutely yes. They're the biggest culprits by far.

>India

They're still behind the US and EU. But they're also refusing to play ball by agreeing to cut emissions the way the US and EU do.

>Shipping, Air Travel

Shipping and air travel are about 3% of the global total each, which is about what Japan does.

>AC

Not really, especially now that CFCs have been phased out. Most current warming is from CO2.

[Anonymous No.14870219]

>>14870211
>Not really, especially now that CFCs have been phased out. Most current warming is from CO2.
CFCs were a scam. The ozone hole is natural and expands and shrinks based on the time of year. It's hardly changed at all since the CFC ban, even though that's touted as proof of climate soience working.

[Anonymous No.14870812]

>>14863211
>every data point was created equally

lol

lmao

[Anonymous No.14870856]

>>14868716
irradiance isn't the only solar input to the system. we know solar wind and space weather that alters it also puts energy into the system (jupiter is heated this way, and there is no mechanism i know of that would prevent something equivalent to jupiter's auroral heating from having an impact on earth's atmosphere, given earth's magnetosphere)

an auroral heating incorporation also goes a long way to explaining why the anomalies/deviations in temperature are so much higher at the poles relative to everywhere else

[Deko<3 !A4jsQTgi.Q No.14870860]

Global warming is 100% real if you want to know why I can show you.

I'm not going to waste my time debating deniers, but anyone genuinely seeking truth I can help. Check out Potholer54. He is an academic journalist who made it his work to show the academic evidence for global warming and disprove deniers.

[Anonymous No.14870876]

>>14870812
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HadCRUT#HadCRUT4

[Anonymous No.14870892]

>>14870113
>With this being said, China produces like three times as much CO2 as the US does now
Wrong, they produce twice as much with more than 4 times the population.

>so liberals are kind of living in the past when it comes to the actual policy implications.
Global problems require global solutions.

[Anonymous No.14870930]

>>14870136
>supercritical co2 has far, far different properties than gaseous co2.
In terms of the greenhouse effect? Source?

>mars has no measurable "greenhouse effect" according to the european space agency
Your own image says the opposite. Why are you lying?

[Anonymous No.14870959]

>>14870208
>More than 80% of the heat energy retained by the planet is inductive heating via the magnetic field, not radiation.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.14870984]

>>14870219
>CFCs were a scam. The ozone hole is natural and expands and shrinks based on the time of year.
Doesn't follow.

>It's hardly changed at all since the CFC ban
Why are you lying?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL074830

[Anonymous No.14871020]

>>14870856
>we know solar wind and space weather that alters it also puts energy into the system
It's negligible, and has no long term trend to cause warming anyway.

>an auroral heating incorporation also goes a long way to explaining why the anomalies/deviations in temperature are so much higher at the poles relative to everywhere else
No it doesnt, it's because the poles have large albedo changes and large energy transfers from the rest of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.14871225]

>>14870892
>Wrong, they produce twice as much with more than 4 times the population.

True, but the fact remains. We aren't going to cut our own emissions when our biggest rival doesn't.

>Global problems require global solutions.

Correct, which is why we should push for global approaches to climate change which don't allow for some countries to free ride.

[Anonymous No.14871275]

>>14871020
>It's negligible
it's presumed negligible largely alongside the presumption that CO2 concentration is sufficient for climate trend prediction. to my knowledge it's only been robustly studied on Jupiter because there's literally no other way to explain why Jupiter is as warm as it is as far away from the sun as it is - irradiance doesn't cut it, so auroral input and subsequent thermal conduction towards the equator explain its temperature

>has no long term trend to cause warming
we literally haven't had the technology to measure it for long enough to know this, or know what delay might be present. older climate data is the closest we get, and it suggests periodicity in alignment with the longer modes of the solar cycle that have been theorized from general solar cycle trends given the brief snapshot we have.

>the poles have large albedo changes
the entire planet has large albedo changes because of clouds; ice is not a mirror, and the ocean isn't vantablack - besides, albedo is wavelength dependent, we don't have perfect reflectors or absorbers. one of the biggest reasons to expect a warming effect from CO2 is it's opaque in some IR wavelengths that water is transparent to

> large energy transfers from the rest of the Earth
this doesn't preclude energy transfer from the poles to the rest of the atmosphere, it just suggests that whatever is happening at the poles is either a concentration of equatorial absorption OR the source of diffusion for energy input from auroral input (we know the latter is how Jupiter's atmosphere works). i'd say Earth's much greater solar exposure from its proximity should increase both impacts, but possibly increase the irradiance importance more quickly - however, i still think it's likely they're both contributing, and dismissing auroral heating because academic institutions are afraid it will erode climate rhetoric (despite, y'know, literally improving climate data/science/modeling) irks me nearly as much as dismissing CO2

[Anonymous No.14871290]

>>14871275
you type like a redditor and your shit's all retarded

>data confirms that atmosphere is increasing in temperature at a rate which appears to be unprecedented in geological history
>data confirms that CO2 is increasing at a rate unprecedented in geological history
>data confirms that the rate of temperature increase increases as the rate of CO2 (which people who understand science call an independent variable) increases
>data confirms that CO2 concentration is correlated with temperature over the last 200 million years
>data confirms that other celestial bodies with CO2 atmospheres experience a greenhouse effect and are hot as fuck
>computer modelling shows that it's almost impossible to build a model of the atmosphere in which more CO2 doesn't equal more hot

>if I talk about a bunch of unrelated issues and pretend that we don't know anything, maybe they'll ignore the mountain of factual evidence

[Anonymous No.14871370]

>>14871290
>you type like a redditor and your shit's all retarded
behold: science

>other celestial bodies with CO2 atmospheres experience a greenhouse effect and are hot as fuck
ah yes
the hot as fuck planet
Mars

>computer modelling shows that it's almost impossible to build a model of the atmosphere in which more CO2 doesn't equal more hot
ignoring for the moment that a computer model built on assumptions will likely be consistent with those assumptions, i did not even remotely imply anything about CO2 other than a warming effect
if you'd actually bothered to read what i said, i was talking about energy balance between auroral heating and irradiance heating for Earth

because guess fucking what

if higher CO2 reduces the efficiency of energy loss, it ALSO amplifies AURORAL HEATING

you brainless fucking pube

[Anonymous No.14871388]

>>14871370
reddit spacing, dumb opinion

>hey, this planet which literally doesn't have an atmosphere capable of retaining heat isn't hot
>LIBERALS BTFO

>i did not even remotely imply anything about CO2 other than a warming effect
>in a thread about whether CO2 causes a warming effect, when his only replies have been arguing against it

[Anonymous No.14871398]

>>14871388
his only replies are directly to a single chart, not the whole thread - unless you think he's someone else

[Anonymous No.14871414]

>>14871398
Entirely possible desu.

[Anonymous No.14871436]

>>14866798
Russians fail to understand that for Europeans, "energy crisis" means "some poor people might need extra gibs and I might not be able to take the kids to Disneyland Paris next summer". They hear that gas prices have risen and assume Europeans are freezing to death and going bankrupt en masse, because that's what would happen were gas prices to rise by the same amount in Cold Nigeria.

[Anonymous No.14871472]

>>14871225
>We aren't going to cut our own emissions when our biggest rival doesn't.
That argument might hold water if the average American wasn't emitting more than twice as much as the average Chinese person. Why should the Chinese go on a diet when Americans are the ones overeating?

[Anonymous No.14871512]

>>14871472
Because we aren't going to hamstring our own economy while our biggest rival doesn't. If they want to enjoy the benefits of reduced emissions, they have to contribute to them by reducing emissions.

[Anonymous No.14871543]

>>14871472
>Why should the Chinese go on a diet when Americans are the ones overeating?
Why should Americans go on a diet when Chinks intend to offset this sacrifice and render it pointless?

[Anonymous No.14871575]

>>14863208
"Global warming" (tm) is Fake. It's a data fraud.

They locate temperature sensors in the hottest areas of cities - airports, office asphalt parking lots etc.
The fraud was so wide, they had to rebrand "Global warming" (tm) and rename this fraud differently.
They now call it "Climate change" (tm).

The same data fraud still applies, temperature censors weren't changed.

[Anonymous No.14871649]

>>14871275
>it's presumed negligible
No, it's measured. The only viable way they can influence Earth's climate is via cloud seeding, but again there is no long term trend to cause warming. Because cosmic ray flux is largely determined by the strength of the solar magnetic field, it just has a similar but smaller effect than insolation, which itself has had very little effect over this timeframe.

>largely alongside the presumption that CO2 concentration is sufficient for climate trend prediction.
No one even says this.

>we literally haven't had the technology to measure it for long enough to know this
We have, since 1950.

>or know what delay might be present.
What mechanism is there for a delay?

>the entire planet has large albedo changes because of clouds
This doesn't respond to what I said. Ice is an additional source of albedo in addition to clouds.

>ice is not a mirror, and the ocean isn't vantablack - besides, albedo is wavelength dependent, we don't have perfect reflectors or absorbers.
Nothing I said implied any of this. Try responding to what I actually said.

>one of the biggest reasons to expect a warming effect from CO2 is it's opaque in some IR wavelengths that water is transparent to
And...?

>this doesn't preclude energy transfer from the poles to the rest of the atmosphere
No, it doesn't. It just says energy transfer is different at the poles so there are bigger temperature changes.

>OR the source of diffusion for energy input from auroral input
No, it doesn't.

>we know the latter is how Jupiter's atmosphere works
Earth does not have a volcanic moon spewing charged particles. There is no comparison.

>i'd say Earth's much greater solar exposure from its proximity should increase both impacts
Wrong.

>dismissing auroral heating because academic institutions are afraid it will erode climate rhetoric
Proof? So far the only argument you've given is that if it happens on Jupiter it must be happening here, but that's just incorrect.

[Anonymous No.14871655]

>>14871370
>if higher CO2 reduces the efficiency of energy loss, it ALSO amplifies AURORAL HEATING
Amplifying 0 hearing still gives you 0 heating.

[Anonymous No.14871661]

>>14871512
>I'M NOT GOING ON A DIET UNTIL THE CHINESE DO, THEY EAT MORE THAN US
Deranged.

The thing is, everyone needs to reduce CO2 emissions, but fat Americans need to reduce their emissions more than most. And using China as an excuse to not do so is pathetically transparent.

[Anonymous No.14871664]

>>14871543
Because you're fat. When you're as skinny as the average Chinese guy, then you can complain, fatty.

[Anonymous No.14871668]

>>14871664
Why should Americans go on a diet when Chinks intend to offset this sacrifice and render it pointless? You didn't answer the question.

[Anonymous No.14871673]

>>14871575
>They locate temperature sensors in the hottest areas of cities - airports, office asphalt parking lots etc.
Nope. The temperature record has the same trend as the highest quality stations.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

>The fraud was so wide, they had to rebrand "Global warming" (tm) and rename this fraud differently.
They now call it "Climate change" (tm).
Both terms are used simultaneously, no one changed one into the other.

[Anonymous No.14871676]

>>14871661
The point isn't to be fair. The point is to solve the problem.

We aren't going to give up our strategic advantage over a competitor for the sake of empty moralizing. If they want to enjoy the benefits of a better climate, they need to contribute equally. If not, we're going to continue to do exactly what they do.

[Anonymous No.14871709]

>>14871668
See >>14871664

[Anonymous No.14871717]

>>14871676
>The point isn't to be fair. The point is to solve the problem.
False dichotomy. The point is to fairly solve the problem.

>We aren't going to give up our strategic advantage over a competitor for the sake of empty moralizing
It doesn't really matter whether you consider it empty moralizing or not. Too bad, enjoy your carbon tax.

>If they want to enjoy the benefits of a better climate, they need to contribute equally.
Contribute equally when Americans have pulled unequally? No.

[Anonymous No.14871727]

>>14871709
I'm not American. Anyway, you're clearly mentally ill and retarded. Rational decision-making isn't about what feels intuitively fair to a 90 IQ monkey like you. If China continues increasing its per capita GHG output, which they obviously will regardless of what the US does, then it's completely irrational for anyone else to bother decreasing theirs.

[Anonymous No.14871736]

>>14871717
>The point is to fairly solve the problem

If America cuts emissions and China doesn't, that isn't fair, and it doesn't solve the problem.

Google "free rider problem" and then come back when you've learned something.

>It doesn't really matter whether you consider it empty moralizing or not. Too bad, enjoy your carbon tax.

Apparently not, given that America completely trashes every climate initiative as soon as the Republicans get into office. This decision is made by the voters, and there absolutely is not bipartisan consensus behind making unilateral concessions to China.

[Anonymous No.14871804]

>>14871673
>Both terms are used simultaneously, no one changed one into the other.
Even google trends tells a different story, but that is only a weak hint. But mainstream media wording over here is "climate change" now. Btw:before "global warming" it was "climate catastrophe".

[Anonymous No.14871809]

>>14871736
>America cuts emissions and China doesn't, that isn't fair, and it doesn't solve the problem.
How do you cope the fact that you are way more responsible for the total human part of this trace gas in atmosphere in your "fairness" meddling?

[Anonymous No.14871816]

>>14871809
I cope by remembering the reality that China is an economic competitor and the reality that the free rider problem exists and the issue isn't going to get solved if climate change regulation is a de facto subsidy to the Chinese.

The point of this exercise isn't to find who deserves to burn CO2 the most and only give them permission to. The point is to decarbonize the global economy gradually and split the cost of doing so between the major stakeholders.

[Anonymous No.14871827]

>>14871673
Buddy I am going to send you from random guys from 4chan to real scientists who track real weather.

The best resource, and REAL (not faked) discussion on weather and climate (not faked "greens" paid by Big Oil or globalists):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/

Here's an article about 96% of sensors being in too hot spots and unreliable:

New Surface Stations Report Released – It’s ‘worse than we thought’
MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% OF U.S. CLIMATE DATA IS CORRUPTED
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/27/new-surface-stations-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought/

Uncertainty Estimates for Routine Temperature Data Sets
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/24/uncertainty-estimates-for-routine-temperature-data-sets/

LIVE – Corrupted Climate Stations
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/29/live-corrupted-climate-stations/

The parking lot effect: temperature measurement bias of locations
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/26/the-parking-lot-effect-measurement-bias-in-locations/

Is The US surface Temperature Record a Reliable Indicator of Warming?
https://everythingclimate.wpcomstaging.com/the-us-surface-temperature-record-is-unreliable/

[Anonymous No.14871831]

>>14871827
meds

[Anonymous No.14871847]

>>14870113
>>14870136
RE: CO2 and greenhouse effect.
Water vapor produces 95% of greenhouse effect, not CO2. And it's sun and oceans.
CO2 is miniscule in comparison.

>venus mars
Bringing those is science fiction not science. You can literally make anything up and nobody can check it.
Science means you check and recheck your data hundreds of times, and it matches your theory.

[Anonymous No.14871849]

>>14871847
meds

[Anonymous No.14871856]

>>14871831
Why don't you read those, including hundreds of comments under those articles.
I also advise shadow follow that website , because real scientists frequent it. You can literally see many things (especially politically driven "global warming" and climate change" agendas) discussed and unraveled.

[Anonymous No.14871902]

>>14863208
Dilbert man got banned from 77 newspapers because he started to call out the ESG score btw

[Anonymous No.14871914]

>>14865162
>Ice ages begin when continental drift blocks the flow of warm water to the poles.
Okay easy, just dam the Bering Straight.

[Anonymous No.14872072]

>>14870860
Potholer is a retard though. He doesn't even understand the data he's reading.

[Anonymous No.14872076]

>>14871290
>>data confirms that other celestial bodies with CO2 atmospheres experience a greenhouse effect and are hot as fuck
Runaway greenhouse on venus has been categorically disproven.

[Anonymous No.14872182]

>>14863208
It's totally real, just as the hottest temperature in UK ever measured this year in the middle of an airport.

[Anonymous No.14872384]

>>14872072
Example?

[Anonymous No.14872386]

>>14872076
Where?

[Anonymous No.14872411]

>>14871727
>then it's completely irrational for anyone else to bother decreasing theirs.
It's completely rational for the US to decrease emissions when they have some of the highest per capita emissions. What China does is not an excuse.

[Anonymous No.14872426]

>>14871736
>If America cuts emissions and China doesn't, that isn't fair, and it doesn't solve the problem.
And what does this have to do with my post?

[Anonymous No.14872434]

>>14872386
In the scientific literature. Venus is a naturally hotter and younger planet in its earliest stages of formation, and the "hothouse" stage is simply where Earth was billions of years ago.

[Anonymous No.14872441]

>>14871804
>Even google trends tells a different story
It shows that both terms have been in use simultaneously.

>But mainstream media wording over here is "climate change" now.
Wrong.

Here's the NY Times using the phrase global warming today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/climate/malpass-world-bank-climate.html

[Anonymous No.14872519]

>>14871649
you do realize the Earth's climate history predates 1950, right?

[Anonymous No.14872543]

>>14871649
forgive my ignorance but doesn't the earth have a potential "source" of ions in the Van Allen belts? wouldn't the strength of the auroras on both jupiter and the earth be a pretty good indicator of how much energy transfer they were facilitating (once you control for scale of course)?
>>14871655
if auroras exist at all there's got to be at least some energy there

what would worry me is this might be an overlooked way for CO2 to warm the planet - since it wouldn't block or reflect the incoming energy like it might for some irradiance, but would still potentially slow down energy loss. same applies to any greenhouse gas, really. also applies to stuff like volcanic heating but i don't know how the energy transfer comparison would look.

[Anonymous No.14872547]

>>14872543
There's an immense amount of energy transformed down through earth's circuit. But to keep the scam running they have to deny it happens, even when we can see it happening when ionization on high solar impact events causes auroras down to the tropics.

[Anonymous No.14872652]

>>14870201
Considering that those two nations contain just over 1/3 of the total world population there fuck all anyone else can do to adress climate change even if wanted to.
Not to mention that both China and India are still fast tracking development without giving a flying fuck about any environmental concerns, global or local.

[Anonymous No.14872790]

>>14871827
>Buddy I am going to send you from random guys from 4chan to real scientists who track real weather.
Oof. We're off to a bad start when you don't even know difference between weather and climate. TV meteorologists know nothing about the climate.

>The best resource, and REAL (not faked) discussion on weather and climate (not faked "greens" paid by Big Oil or globalists):
This is the guy that said he would accept the results of Berkeley Earth and then reneged when they came up with results he didn't like:

https://skepticalscience.com/the-best-kind-of-skepticism.html

Oh and he is fine by Big Oil. OOPS.

https://www.desmog.com/2012/02/14/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine/

>MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% OF U.S. CLIMATE DATA IS CORRUPTED
This is just a rehash of claims that were already refuted: https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

>Uncertainty Estimates for Routine Temperature Data Sets
This again showed you don't know the difference between weather and climate. Individual temperature measurements are irrelevant. Your own "scientist" said that Berkeley Earth followed correct statistical procedures and here's what they found, with 95% uncertainty range.

[Anonymous No.14872794]

>>14871827
>The parking lot effect: temperature measurement bias of locations
Insignias effect thanks to homogenization: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

And are you going to respond to my post?

[Anonymous No.14872804]

>>14871847
>Water vapor produces 95% of greenhouse effect, not CO2. And it's sun and oceans.
>CO2 is miniscule in comparison.
Non sequitur. It doesn't matter how small it is if CO2 is compared to water vapor if CO2 the only causal factor that is significantly changing. Water vapor concentration is determined by temperature, it's a feedback, not a forcing. Warming is caused by the change in greenhouse effect, not the total greenhouse effect.

[Anonymous No.14872807]

>>14871856
I suggest you read some actual scientific papers instead of relying on one denier blog for misinformation. If that's too hard for you then try skepticalscience.com

[Anonymous No.14872808]

It's real. Stop posting this.

[Anonymous No.14872818]

>>14872434
>In the scientific literature
Where, you seem to be having trouble posting a link or even just telling me the name of one paper. You aren't just making shit up are you?

>Venus is a naturally hotter and younger planet in its earliest stages of formation
Yes, how does this disprove runaway warming? It is in fact the reason runaway warming occurred, since all water boiled away.

>and the "hothouse" stage is simply where Earth was billions of years ago.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.14872825]

>>14872519
I'm still waiting for you to explain what mechanism causes a delay in warming. When did the 70 years of flat temperatures begin? I'm also waiting for you to explain how galactic rays can overpower insolation when they have the same effect but insolation is stronger.

[Anonymous No.14872832]

>>14864505
Scott Adams has a lot of really good ideas and reflections. If you're up for a few laughs read, "The Dilbert Principle"

[Anonymous No.14872868]

>>14872825
i didn't say anything about galactic rays, though those should be deflected and concentrated towards the poles by the magnetosphere in the case of ions. would expect those to have a higher impact on climates less dominated by solar energy transfer and without strong magnetic fields through which to transfer that energy (i.e. Mars-like)
the delay would presumably be from the time it takes to transfer energy thermally away from the poles. as for the 70 year thing, we have about 2.5 centuries of good direct temp measurement, and thousands of years of good indirect temp measurement from stuff like ice cores and even tree rings, but we don't have enough data on solar storm variance over periods longer than about a century. it can indirectly be measured from sunspot records (more sunspots means higher likelihood of solar storms; also slightly reduces solar photon radiance), which are about as far back as the direct temperature data

if solar storm activity can influence climate, the older climate data might be able to indirectly measure solar storm activity. feedback loops may make CO2 concentration a signal/accelerant rather than solely a cause

though personally i think CO2 capture is a bit... missing the point. it's a great indicator of how much has been burned, but i feel like everyone sleeps on the greenhouse effect of the water released by hydrocarbon combustion - methane, for instance, burns to release 1 CO2 molecule but 2 H2O molecules

[Anonymous No.14872879]

rips

[Anonymous No.14872912]

>>14872832
It's a shame he went so insane over coof. He became a shut-in and his trophy wife left because he's horribly afraid of death, and refuses to admit that vaccine skeptics were right.

[Anonymous No.14872954]

>>14872543
>forgive my ignorance but doesn't the earth have a potential "source" of ions in the Van Allen belts?
This is like saying a shield is the source of arrows being fired upon you. The Van Allen belts are full of charged particles that would have hit the Earth if they were not trapped by the Van Allen belts. And this just reinforces my point: cosmic ray flux on Earth is determined by the solar magnetic field, so it has the same trend as insolation.

>if auroras exist at all there's got to be at least some energy there
Insignificant amount.

[Anonymous No.14872956]

>>14872547
Electric universe retardation belongs on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14872977]

>>14872868
>i didn't say anything about galactic rays
I meant to write cosmic rays.

>the delay would presumably be from the time it takes to transfer energy thermally away from the poles.
How does that take 70 years? What's the mechanism? You haven't explained the magnitude or the timing of warming. Too bad CO2 emissions do perfectly. And we can directly observe this, so it's not even a question of which explanation is correct.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

>we don't have enough data on solar storm variance over periods longer than about a century
Wrong, we have sunspot counts for longer than the thermometer record. So you have no data to prove your claim, and not even a model. OK.

>but i feel like everyone sleeps on the greenhouse effect of the water released by hydrocarbon combustion
It doesn't really matter how much water you put into the atmosphere, the same amount will precipitate out of the temperature doesn't change. So it's a feedback, not a forcing.

[Anonymous No.14872991]

>>14863208
fbpb

[Anonymous No.14873132]

>>14872977
>How does that take 70 years?
what exactly happened to the sun 70 years ago? i don't get why you're so obsessed with this particular timeframe, i never said it would take 70 years
>cosmic rays
didn't say anything about them but ok
>Wrong, we have sunspot counts for longer
you didn't read the sentence after the one this was responding to, did you?
>the same amount will precipitate out of the temperature doesn't change
the temperature isn't changed by the injection of water vapor if the temperature isn't changed by the injection of water vapor. bravo.
water vapor concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing, by the way - and guess what, because CO2 accumulates but is sequestered by the process that turns water and CO2 into carbohydrates, a buildup of CO2 means the H2O on the surface is also not able to be consumed as quickly, which doesn't just impact atmospheric water vapor; it also impacts sea level, cloud cover, precipitation volume, etc.

[Anonymous No.14873538]

>>14873132
>what exactly happened to the sun 70 years ago?
Nothing. You're the one claiming something happened we don't know about prior to 1950 which is causing the warming today.

>didn't say anything about them but ok
Oh no... Solar wind and space weather are cosmic rays. I thought you at least had some clue about what you're talking about but now it's clear you don't. Are you just parrotting what your read on some blog?

>you didn't read the sentence after the one this was responding to, did you?
I did, you contradicted yourself.

>the temperature isn't changed by the injection of water vapor if the temperature isn't changed by the injection of water vapor.
No, water vapor concentration and temperature aren't changed simply by the emission of water vapor because the same amount will precipitate out. These require a radiative forcing that allows the atmosphere to accept more water vapor, so water vapor is a feedback loop that amplifies warming from radiative forcing. It's not overlooked at all. Try responding to what I actually said.

[Anonymous No.14873555]

>>14863208
Global warming from the sun is real. Humans do not cause Global warming.
Only our Sun creates GB

[Anonymous No.14873677]

>>14873555

>>14868716
>>14863400

[Anonymous No.14873680]

>>14873538
>something happened
the population went from 3 bn to 8 bn
retard

[Anonymous No.14873700]

>>14863208
>Is global warming real or fake?

The sun shines, the globe is warmed.

how are you defining your terms?

[Anonymous No.14873744]

>>14870201
>-Air Travel
The COVID closedown had no visible impact on the CO2 trend measured on Hawaii.

[Anonymous No.14873751]

>>14870860
>He is an academic journalist
This is the worst bait I have seen this week.

[Anonymous No.14873759]

>>14873744
commercial tourism air travel is only a tiny, tiny proportion of all air travel, the overwhelming majority of it is government business and the largest fractions of the remaining portion is private jets and commercial cargo.
all of those other sectors were complaining that the tourism travel we cutting into their airways and moves were made to reduce use of the skies by normies

[Anonymous No.14873801]

>>14863491
dumbest post of the month

[Anonymous No.14873835]

>>14873680
What the fuck does that have to do with solar wind and space weather? You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.14873842]

>>14873835
nothing.
with CO2 emissions, everything

[Anonymous No.14873849]

>>14863208
scientists say it is real
scientists are proven liars
there is no reason to think it is real (yet)

[Anonymous No.14873923]

>>14873759
>the overwhelming majority of it is government business
Source?

>all of those other sectors were complaining that the tourism travel we cutting into their airways and moves were made to reduce use of the skies by normies
Is this a parody?

[Anonymous No.14873926]

>>14873842
Read the posts I'm replying to, you're clearly lost.

[Anonymous No.14874656]

>>14873538
>You're the one claiming something happened we don't know about prior to 1950
no, you're misunderstanding the fact that we don't have long enough sunspot OR space weather data to establish what the cycles look like to be implying some specific timeframe, when what i actually said was we don't have enough data to establish space weather periodicity

>Solar wind and space weather are cosmic rays
this is easily the most retarded statement in the entire thread
the solar proton flux is a source of a small portion of cosmic rays, but is not the exclusive form of space weather. and is by far the less energetic source.

modern weakening of the earth's magnetic field would reduce deflection of galactic rays and increase their ability to force deeper atmospheric heating by the way

and if you want a timeframe... the field has weakened by about 10% over the last 180 years.

>you contradicted yourself
no, you misunderstood something i said earlier and whined about a contradiction that your own lack of comprehension invented.

>water vapor concentration and temperature aren't changed simply by the emission of water vapor
read the rest of the statement - water vapor concentration isn't the only thing water vapor release impacts; there are ways besides vapor that water at the surface can force temperature, which you've already alluded to in regards to polar albedo, and combustion increases the water at the surface (especially combustion of sequestered hydrocarbons) by literally creating water chemically that had not been present in the troposphere for millions of years

[Anonymous No.14875618]

>>14863208
anthropofaggot carburized heating of the planet is bullshit
but i wish it was true

[Anonymous No.14875620]

>>14863211
> no acktually they did factor in the urban heat island affect
the current weather we will experience the next 2 years is caused by reduced albedo from the chinavirus era
in fact, that was part of the intent

[Anonymous No.14875623]

>>14875620
but why?
why?
hwhwhwhhy?
10 years on here and none of you know why
none of you
question:
what's the ONE THING that can never be talked about on here or pol? ONE THING
if you've been paying attention you should know
3 characters

[Anonymous No.14875627]

>>14863387
there is a direct correlation though in these graphs
add a highlight for which ones got more funding
and you'll see
the more bigger the lines the more bigger the funding
SCIENCE.
I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE
KYIV
2 MORE WEEKS
MASKS PROTECT
VACCINES STOP YOU GETTING COVID

[Anonymous No.14875662]

>>14863208
its a political agenda and in the current state not science at all

[Anonymous No.14875791]

>>14874656
>and if you want a timeframe... the field has weakened by about 10% over the last 180 years.
It's weakened by 10% over the last 30 years. We're around 25% reduced strength by now. It's way worse than people think.

[Anonymous No.14875898]

>>14872804
understanding this feedback loop is the filter. you could as well try to explain why a small change in the base current of a BJT results in a great change of the emiter current. they won't get it.

[Anonymous No.14876147]

>>14874656
>no, you're misunderstanding the fact that we don't have long enough sunspot OR space weather data to establish what the cycles look like to be implying some specific timeframe
If 250 years of sunspot data is not enough to establish what your alleged cycle looks like, then you need to explain the magic that makes a 250 year delay in the signal. Good luck.

>when what i actually said was we don't have enough data to establish space weather periodicity
You don't just need to establish periodicity. Because the observed energy contribution from cosmic rays is so tiny on Earth, you also need to hypothesize some great contribution far in the past, and some mechanism which delayed the signal until now. You have no data abs not even a model, just wishful thinking that it's something else besides CO2. Meanwhile the warming from CO2 is directly observed, but you just ignore evidence that doesn't fit:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

>the solar proton flux is a source of a small portion of cosmic rays, but is not the exclusive form of space weather. and is by far the less energetic source.
What more energetic sources are there? The only model ever proposed for indirect solar influence on the global climate over this time scale is via cosmic ray cloud seeding. But it's much too weak and going in the wrong direction to explain current warming.

>modern weakening of the earth's magnetic field would reduce deflection of galactic rays and increase their ability to force deeper atmospheric heating by the way
What ability? They seed low-level clouds which cause cooling.

>no, you misunderstood something i said earlier
What did I misunderstand?

>read the rest of the statement - water vapor concentration isn't the only thing water vapor release impacts
It doesn't impact anything without a radiative forcing, because the same amount of water vapor precipitates out. Concentration doesn't change and neither does anything else.

[Anonymous No.14876148]

>>14863208
fake

[Anonymous No.14876162]

>>14863387
Fake graph.

[Anonymous No.14876780]

>>14876162
global warming evangelists will lie about anything

[Anonymous No.14877312]

If mother nature can do this all by herself surely she can also just increase the temp by 2°?
These are simply forces too large for us to comprehend.

[Anonymous No.14878357]

>>14877312
>These are simply forces too large for us to comprehend.
What are you doing on the science board?

[Anonymous No.14878393]

>>14878357
>What are you doing on the science board
No science board, just a dumb mainstream myth propagation makeup
Otherwise the question were legit.

[Anonymous No.14878409]

>>14863211
I'm convinced.

[Anonymous No.14878819]

[Anonymous No.14879492]

>>14876780
>denier gets caught lying
>calls others liars

[Anonymous No.14879496]

>>14879492
You went to a lot of effort to say that the graph is factual but says something you dislike.

[Anonymous No.14879503]

>>14877312
>If mother nature can do this all by herself surely she can also just increase the temp by 2°?
Yes she can and has increased the temp by more than 2 degrees. However, it takes thousands of years to do this, not a few hundred. See

Also, we know it's us, since warming from CO2 emissions>>14864782
is directly observed: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

[Anonymous No.14879506]

>>14879496
I'm sorry you're illiterate.

[lets exchange contact info No.14879819]

>>14872912
>Where is this statement?

Since >>14869458 is clearly a faggot I spent a few minutes trying to Google the claim. I can't find anything about NOAA layoffs and the closest thing I can find about closing stations is https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/noaa-closes-some-heat-biased-temperature-stations which claims that from 2011-2013 NOAA closed 600 out of 9,000 weather stations.

[Anonymous No.14879823]

>>14879492
Stop accusing people of blasphemy, climatard.

[Anonymous No.14879966]

>>14879823
Stop lying, deniertard.

[Anonymous No.14879981]

>>14879966
Your Chinese handlers need to hire better quality shills.

[Anonymous No.14880458]

>>14879981

[Anonymous No.14880562]

>>14868770
>model
it's not a forward projection you retard, it's just temperature measurements

[Anonymous No.14880578]

>>14869716
deafening silence lol
>>14876147
the entire denialist position at this point is just a god-of-the-gaps crutch immune to falsification because the necessary time will always be t + 1 the time we had available to study the climate, and much more than the time period over which the temperature change of interest took place

[Anonymous No.14880646]

>>14879981
>Your Chinese handlers
Why do you constantly lie?

[lets exchange contact info No.14881195]

>>14872818
>Where
Since >>14872434 is clearly a faggot I spent a few minutes trying to Google the claim. According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgw-hMZi5eA&t=159 it would seem there's some technicality where there's a difference between a "runaway" greenhouse effect and a "super strong" greenhouse effect and Venus is (at least in present day) the latter rather than the former. It's still completely fucked from a "super strong" greenhouse effect according to the video though.

[Anonymous No.14881386]

>>14863208
Adam's comes pretty close to getting it here. It's based on data and climate models. First question anyone should ask is "why don't you guys just show what's wrong with the computer models and fix them?" to every moron that claims it's a hoax.

They don't think that far though.

[Anonymous No.14881390]

>>14881386
>First question anyone should ask is "why don't you guys just show what's wrong with the computer models and fix them?" to every moron that claims it's a hoax.
They do but nobody listens. Look up "unhiding the decline" or Andrew Watts work.

[Anonymous No.14881462]

>>14881390
Please point me the corrected computer models, where the errors in diff eq solvers were fixed. I will gladly have a look.

[Anonymous No.14881714]

>>14881195
The runaway greenhouse effect occurred in the past on Venus, after the oceans evaporated.

[Anonymous No.14881728]

>>14881390
>Look up "unhiding the decline"
I did, it's an idiot blogger who averaged the station temperatures instead of doing an average over the areas covered by the stations. It's meaningless.

>or Andrew Watts work.
That's the guy who said he would accept the results of Berkeley Earth and then reneged when they came up with results he didn't like:

https://skepticalscience.com/the-best-kind-of-skepticism.html

And then there's this:

https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

[Anonymous No.14881768]

>>14881728
"Skeptical Science" is a debunked website.

[Anonymous No.14881771]

>>14863211
oh wow lets let putin take over the world immediately

[Anonymous No.14881773]

>>14881714
Not saying it couldn't happen on earth, but the atmosphere of venus is 97% carbon dioxide.

[Anonymous No.14881777]

>>14863320
this literally happened lmao, temperature readings were taken from next to outdoor heating exhaust

[Anonymous No.14881780]

>>14863491
these are the midwits claiming climate change is real lmao

[Anonymous No.14881801]

>>14881386
'climate science' is unfalsifiable though

[Anonymous No.14881829]

>>14863208
It's probably real and most of the published data and models are probably garbage.

[Anonymous No.14881830]

>>14881768
No, it's not.

[Anonymous No.14881842]

>>14881830
Can I see a peer-reviewed source for that?

[Anonymous No.14881921]

>>14881777

[Anonymous No.14882420]

>>14881773
No one claims it could happen on Earth.

[Anonymous No.14882426]

>>14881780
You didn't answer the question.

[Anonymous No.14882432]

>>14881801
How so?

[Anonymous No.14882436]

>>14881829
>most of the published data and models are probably garbage.
Because?

[Anonymous No.14882560]

>>14863208
It’s both at once.

[Anonymous No.14882590]

>>14882436
>Because?
Because the AGW narrative is bankster-funded propaganda promoted by oil companies among other psychopaths. Also leaked documents show that your posting patterns are used by paid shills. :^)

[Anonymous No.14882828]

>>14882590
>Because the AGW narrative is bankster-funded propaganda
It should be easy to show where is wrong then.

>promoted by oil companies
Delusional. Oil companies have funded deniers for decades.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/

>Also leaked documents show that your posting patterns are used by paid shills.
Source?

[Anonymous No.14884384]

>>14881773
the atmosphere of mars is 99% carbon dioxide and mars has no measurable greenhouse effect. co2 is not a greenhouse gas

[Anonymous No.14884442]

>>14884384
mars is 2x further, and the gas pressure is 1%, compared to earth.
retard

1856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote#Scientific_career

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

[Anonymous No.14884459]

>>14863211Damn that’s crazy, so you’re saying that in a much smaller period of time than a standard global climate cycle it moved very little and then somewhat

[Anonymous No.14884821]

>>14884384
>mars has no measurable greenhouse effect
Source?

[Anonymous No.14884828]

>>14884821
NASA measurements.

[Anonymous No.14884831]

>>14884459
Please explain what a "standard global climate cycle" is and how much the temperature changes within it.

[Anonymous No.14884857]

>>14884828
Which measurements? I don't see any showing no greenhouse effect from CO2.

[Anonymous No.14885186]

>>14884442
So what makes gas presure, as opposed to partial pressure, this significant for the effect?

[Anonymous No.14885375]

>>14884857
the atmosphere of mars is 99% carbon dioxide and mars has no measurable greenhouse effect. co2 is not a greenhouse gas

[Anonymous No.14885407]

>>14885186
>why is a thin coat less warm than a thick coat
wew lad

[Anonymous No.14885829]

>>14885375
>mars has no measurable greenhouse effect
Why are you lying?

[Anonymous No.14886050]

looks like this issue is settled, global warming is officially fake

[Anonymous No.14886352]

>>14885375
>mars has no measurable greenhouse effect
You claimed NASA said this, but have no proof. Instead you just repeat your claim. Why do you lie over and over?

[Anonymous No.14886361]

>>14885186
Pressure broadening. The percentage of the atmosphere that's CO2 is irrelevant when there's very little atmosphere to begin with.

Also, there's no water vapor, which is the majority of the greenhouse effect on Earth. But you already know all this, you repeat the same bullshit no matter how many times people point out the bullshit in your argument. Why?

[Anonymous No.14886491]

>>14886050
agreed

[Anonymous No.14886595]

>>14884831
We don’t know except that geological and plan evidence suggests that both CO2 levels and temperatures have fluctuated widely. The carboniferous period was an immense explosion of biodiversity. The most retarded shortsighted reading of short scale climate data is to draw a simple line extending to infinity from our current position, and any attempt to do so will lead to long term embarrassment. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.14886596]

>>14886595
plant*

[Anonymous No.14886674]

>>14886595
>We don’t know
Oh, so this post >>14884459 is just bullshit. Thanks.

>both CO2 levels and temperatures have fluctuated widely
No one said otherwise. It's the rate of warming that's concerning, not the fact that warming occurs. It's currently about 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming, which has been part of the "standard cycle" for millions of years.

>The carboniferous period was an immense explosion of biodiversity.
So? What a vague non-response.

>The most retarded shortsighted reading of short scale climate data is to draw a simple line extending to infinity from our current position
Who is doing that? You sure do like beating up strawmen. Also, I find it odd how deniers constantly dismiss the climate humans evolved in and have always lived in as "short scale" compared to geological time or periods hundreds of millions of years ago. You are human, right? You're not a rock, or an ancient carboniferous insect. Stay in your lane.

[Anonymous No.14887261]

>>14863208
Global warming is real.
Denial is fake.

[Anonymous No.14887263]

>>14863221
>muh taxx dollers

[Anonymous No.14887696]

>>14887261
$0.0000000001 has been deposited to your account sirs.