Explain Yourselves

[Anonymous No.8700397]

Man made climate change is a farce. Intelligent people have known this for a long time.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13817/scientists-we-know-what-really-causes-climate-james-barrett

[Anonymous No.8700401]

>>8700397
We have this thread every single day, yet you still don't learn

[Anonymous No.8700409]

>>8700401
>new finding comes out a couple of days ago
>everyday

kys

[Anonymous No.8700432]

>>8700397
How does this disprove man made climate change? And, more importantly, why does this evidence "count", but the evidence for man made climate doesn't?

[Anonymous No.8700436]

>>8700401
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Anonymous No.8700445]

>>8700432
CO2 has a minimal effect on warming because of its Lewis Structure, its laughable actually.

You don't have any evidence to support your claims, because CO2 does fuck all to warming.

[Anonymous No.8700448]

>>8700445
what about the insane amounts of methane released through cattle ranching?

[Anonymous No.8700469]

>>8700397
While evidence that the earth's orbital variations impact radiation levels and thus global temperatures does not of course necessarily mean that man is not in some way impacting the climate, studies like these highlight that the role man plays on the planet is dwarfed by natural phenomena utterly out of our control.

> did you even read the article

[Anonymous No.8700478]

>>8700445
>CO2 has a minimal effect on warming because of its Lewis Structure

Sounds like an interesting thesis, care to expand on it anon?

[Anonymous No.8700481]

>>8700397
>daily wire
KEK IT'S LITERALLY NOTHING

[Anonymous No.8700483]

>>8700448
Methane contributes a small amount, but its also not pushed by climate peeps.

>>8700478
Linear Lewis Structures are incapable of retaining infrared energy.

[Anonymous No.8700484]

>>8700483
>Linear Lewis Structures
Surely Lewis structures are just heuristics, they have little physical meaning. Meanwhile normal modes are explicitly physical, and power transfer is very efficient near normal modes.

[Anonymous No.8700491]

>>>/pol/114148198

>self bumping 5 times because not even /pol/ gives a shit about your bait

[Anonymous No.8700548]

>>8700448
methane is readily consumed by bacteria in the air, and ocean, and underground

they even postulated that some organisms on other planets or moons in this very solar system solely exist because they can metabolise methane

[Anonymous No.8700557]

>>8700409
>New finding gets utterly misrepresented because science deniers can't read properly
Every day

[Anonymous No.8700580]

>>8700397
Most likely true. I personally think it's because of the sun. Also when my cousin was a kid, it was 'global cooling' literally. They were worried about another ice age.

Then when I was a kid it was 'global warming' and now they've had to change the name because of being busted, to 'climate change' which of course, the climate is ALWAYS changing.

[Anonymous No.8700599]

>>8700491
lel

[Anonymous No.8700783]

>>8700397
If we're talking methane we should include:
- from melting permafrost
- from ocean methyl clathrates
- from cattle
Nothing like a little de-oxygenated methanol to kill us off. CH4

[Anonymous No.8700798]

lol i aint got to explain shit

[Anonymous No.8700826]

>>8700580
>I personally think it's because of the sun.
It's obviously not. Firstly because the sun's not doing anything that should be producing trends on the ~100year scale, and secondly because of stratospheric cooling - If the Sun was warming the Earth, the top of the atmosphere would also warm up.

>when my cousin was a kid, it was 'global cooling' literally. They were worried about another ice age.
Maybe you read some shitty news articles about that, but global cooling was never the majority view among climatologists. We've understood the basics of greenhouse gas forcing for a long time now. Also, "scientists were wrong in the past, so we can't know anything" is a complete failure of an argument.

>when I was a kid it was 'global warming' and now they've had to change the name because of being busted, to 'climate change'
That never happened. The terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' have always been used more-or-less interchangeably.

>of course, the climate is ALWAYS changing.
What a dumb statement; People worried about AGW are worried about the scale, rate, and effects of the changes.

[Anonymous No.8700967]

>>8700484
>did you not learn anything.

[Anonymous No.8701042]

>>8700826
Not that guy, but he got you upset didn't he. Anyway, how about the climate models proposed over the years? They're basically always assuming the temperature of the ocean, air, whatever, will be vastly beyond the reality, based on their increased co2 tripling the feedbacks stuff. And they're wrong.

[Anonymous No.8701072]

>>8701042
>sciencespeak.com
https://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans
Literally zero (0) published papers on climate, what are his qualifications exactly?

[Anonymous No.8701080]

>>8700826
>That never happened. The terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' have always been used more-or-less interchangeably.

No, it wasn't. You're obviously younger because you're trying to argue with someone's actual experience who was actually alive during that time. People used to just refer to it as 'global warming' including in school.

You're not going to get anywhere pretending you know something against someone who was actually there. That's like trying to argue with someone what their name was when they were 10.

No one EVER called you John. YES they did, that was my birth name before it got changed to my middle name, Nick! That's what you're doing.

[Anonymous No.8701095]

>>8701080
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming-basic.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract

[Anonymous No.8701100]

>>8701042

Which climate model is that graph even referring to?

[Anonymous No.8701112]

>>8700967
The answer is no, clearly.

[Anonymous No.8701126]

>>8701042
>he got you upset didn't he.
Nah. I've been upset with deniers before in these threads, but it took much more than that.
I haven't called anyone "fuckface" yet.

>Anyway, how about the climate models proposed over the years?
They're pretty good.
I don't know what the hell happened with your graph, but that un-sourced straight line labelled "all models" really doesn't fill me with confidence. You wouldn't happen to be comparing surface air predictions with <700m ocean buoy measurements, would you?

>>8701080
>You're obviously younger because you're trying to argue with someone's actual experience who was actually alive during that time.
Anecdotes really aren't going to convince anyone here but you. Your childhood is not a representative sample of all communications about climate change.

[Anonymous No.8701146]

>>8701095

My gosh, you didn't even read what I said, or the articles you posted. It even says riiight in the articles you posted that it was commonly called global warming and then they deliberately started saying climate change.

Just because scientists may have been using it in tandem for decades it doesn't mean that's what teachers, politicians, television, and everybody else were saying.

You can't trick someone who was actually there. No amount of word games are going to change my mind. You're younger than me, I'm 100% sure or you wouldn't even be trying to argue this for no reason. So in the interest of not wasting both our time, I will leave you to believe whatever you want about the time when you weren't alive, and move on. *waves.

[Anonymous No.8701155]

>>8701126
>Anecdotes really aren't going to convince anyone here but you.

I don't need to convince anyone because everyone who was alive for that time already knows I'm right. lol Thanks though! I'll say to you what I said to the last kid: In the interest of not wasting both our time, I will leave you to believe whatever you want about the time when you weren't alive, and move on. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.8701156]

>>8701042
What climate model is that graph referring to?

[Anonymous No.8701165]

>>8701146
>>8701155

[Anonymous No.8701169]

>>8701146
>It even says riiight in the articles you posted that it was commonly called global warming and then they deliberately started saying climate change.
It always astounds me how science deniers are willing to straight up lie about something that anyone can easily check.

[Anonymous No.8701171]

>>8701146
>>8701155
> It even says riiight in the articles you posted that it was commonly called global warming and then they deliberately started saying climate change.
Where? I've not read them thoroughly, but I saw nothing like that.

>it doesn't mean that's what teachers, politicians, television, and everybody else were saying.
People have been saying whatever the hell they like. Besides the US Republican memo (which doesn’t appear to have done shit), there's no evidence that anyone significant has tried to intentionally push for one term over the other.

>You can't trick someone who was actually there.
Again, your own personal experiences simply aren't representative. I don't care what you saw when you were growing up, because it wasn't the whole world.

>everyone who was alive for that time already knows I'm right.
They must be very good at staying quiet then.

>So in the interest of not wasting both our time
Ahahaha

>I will leave you to believe whatever you want about the time when you weren't alive, and move on. Thanks.
Yeah, no.

[Anonymous No.8701172]

>>8700397
Such garbage sources are biased

[Anonymous No.8701173]

>>8701169

You have to read past the first paragraph or two and actually think about what you're reading.

[Anonymous No.8701177]

>>8701171
do you guys enjoy being angry or something?

[Anonymous No.8701178]

>>8701173
If by "think about what you're reading" you mean "ignore what you're reading and replace with the most convenient misrepresentation of it." sure.

[Anonymous No.8701192]

>>8701173
>You have to read past the first paragraph or two and actually think about what you're reading.
Why don't you actually post a quote from one of those articles? That would make it obvious where you’re getting this from.

>>8701177
What gives you the idea I'm angry?

[Anonymous No.8701202]

>>8701192
what the guy is describing is correct, at least for the us and canada I can't answer for england or other enlgish countries.

global warming was way more popular, pretty much never heard the word climate change until the 2000s. theres nasa article about it but it's not very deep: https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

so yah, both terms have been used for a while, but climate change was not popular or even heard of as a term by a lot of people, now that's switched for whatever reason. Don't think it's a conspiracy, it just is.

[Anonymous No.8701218]

>>8700432
The news article is putting a spin on the journal article.
The journal article says "We have evidence that the minor changes in the orbits of Earth and Mars are what influence the global climate change that caused the ice ages."
The news article says "That article proves that global climate change dwarfs man-made climate change," when it should be clear that neither phenomena really have much to do with each other.

[Anonymous No.8702306]

>invokes processes operating on timescales of millions of years
>to explain a hundred-year trend
I shiggy that diggy

Brad Sageman is cool though. I volunteered in his lab for a little while when I was an underageb&. Neat professor, does interesting research.

[Anonymous No.8702367]

>>8700397
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Anonymous No.8702384]

>>8701100
The deniers always use the RSS dataset, its old version which was admitted to be false in 2016.

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m55s

[Anonymous No.8702549]

>>8700557
>The discovery promises not only a better understanding of the mechanics of the solar system, but also a more precise measuring stick for geologic time. Moreover, it offers a better understanding of the link between orbital variations and climate change over geologic time scales.
>Moreover, it offers a better understanding of the link between orbital variations and climate change over geologic time scales.
>climate change over geologic time scales.


From the literal article, published by the college. Is your reading level that of a kindergartner?

[Anonymous No.8702584]

>>8701156
How the fuck is anyone suppose to make a reasonable prediction out of this?

Maybe I'm retarded, but to me this looks like a graph that is saying "shit could be hot OR cold!"

[Anonymous No.8702589]

>>8701172
Then read the article from the college and kys.

Its more in-depth, but ultimately says the same thing.

http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/

[Anonymous No.8703328]

>>8702584
>Maybe I'm retarded, but to me this looks like a graph that is saying "shit could be hot OR cold!"
Treat it as a probability distribution. Yes, shit could be hot or cold, but it's far more likely to fall somewhere in the middle.

>>8702589
>Its more in-depth, but ultimately says the same thing.
It says nothing like the same thing.
OP's link (falsely) claims that the study in question contradicts AGW. Your link just describes the study.

[Anonymous No.8703425]

>>8700397
>Feel like man-made climate change is partially responsible, but feel it may also be the start of a radical, natural change in earth's atmosphere.

Is it both?
Is man-made CO2 emission just accelerating a natural process?

What do climatologist believe?

[Anonymous No.8703448]

>>8700826
The sun does a lot more than most people think to our planet.
There are a ton of scientists against the man made global warming view, in fact climate change is real but it could be a natural process.

[Anonymous No.8703482]

>>8703328
Correct, the article does talk about AG being a faggot and the college source one doesn't.

The end result is the same though. Climate changed is caused by planetary orbits and their fuckery. Honestly we should be taxing Mars.

[Anonymous No.8703522]

>>8703425
>What do climatologist believe?
The Earth would probably be cooling slowly without human activity.
This is entirely on us.

>>8703482
>The end result is the same though. Climate changed is caused by planetary orbits and their fuckery. Honestly we should be taxing Mars.
The changes the study talk about are on an entirely different timescale to the changes we're causing. Claiming the study discredits AGW is like bringing up continental drift to try and get out of a speeding ticket.

[Anonymous No.8703529]

>>8703448
>The sun does a lot more than most people think to our planet.
Vague.

>There are a ton of scientists against the man made global warming view
Vague.

>in fact climate change is real but it could be a natural process.
Vague

You're so transparent.

>>8703482
*some climate change is partially caused by planetary orbits, but not the current change

[Anonymous No.8703557]

>>8703522
>>8703529
So we're still going to tow the line that CO2 is the big bad boogie man in global warming?

CO2 is a pathetic greenhouse gas, given its linear structure.

[Anonymous No.8703560]

>>8703522
Can you cite me a good source?
There's so much political shite attached to the topic of global warming.

[Anonymous No.8703568]

>>8700397
Except it's not and you're a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.8703569]

>>8700397
dude its like 20% man made and 80% aliens fucking with our sun.

[Anonymous No.8703588]

>>8703568
Solid argument m8 i r8 it 8/8

[Anonymous No.8703591]

>>8703557
You're a delusional moron.

[Anonymous No.8703598]

>>8703591
With arguments like that, you're going to go far kid!

[Anonymous No.8703657]

>>8702549
Actual geologist here. Do you have any idea whatsoever what 'Geologic time scales' even means?

[Anonymous No.8703667]

>>8703598
>argument
You just proved my point, delusional moron.

[Anonymous No.8703672]

>>8703657
Dating method using strata, which people hate that Kent Hovind pointed this out, but he's right, that it uses circular reasoning.

They date the strata based on the fossils found in there, and then they date the fossils by the strata.

I don't remember how it all got started but I'm sure with a little googling you can find out how all this got decided in the first place.

Btw, I'm not the person you were talking to last. Or, maybe you weren't the one who they were talking to either? Is this just a chain of different people responding? XD hahaha

[Anonymous No.8703675]

>>8703667
You just pointed my proof, macoroni delusion!

No seriously though, why'd you have to call the guy a delusional moron, you think he's actually going to listen to you or care what you have to say after that? That's mean man. And it's childish.

[Anonymous No.8703681]

>>8703598
With a thousand lies
And a good disguise
Hit 'em right between the eyes
Hit 'em right between the eyes

[Anonymous No.8703684]

A professor at my university did a ton of research in the 80s and 90s about how Solar fluctuations are the major cause of temperature change. This was before global warming was really a thing, so it wasn't really controversial research back then.

Eventually people dug up his work and he even testified before congress. He essentially had to disavow his previous research for the sake of his career, or else he would be branded a "climate change denier"

[Anonymous No.8703689]

>>8703684
Interesting, thanks for the post.

[Anonymous No.8703694]

>>8703684
cool story bro

[Anonymous No.8703714]

>>8703684
And what was that professor's name? Albert Einstein.

[Anonymous No.8703753]

>>8703684
>Things that never happened.

[Anonymous No.8703782]

>implying that CO2 isn't transparent to the Sun's radiation spectrum and opaque to Earth's blackbody radation

[Anonymous No.8703788]

>>8700397
>>>/pol/

nobody cares that you're too stupid and annoying to learn anything. fuck off already

[Anonymous No.8703799]

>>8703788
I bet your post /really/ made a difference. I bet calling him stupid and telling him to f-off really made him think.

Or maybe, just posting insults with no substance is a waste of only your time.

[Anonymous No.8703807]

>>8703799
Pretty hard to say something of substance to OP when he posted nothing of substance.

[Anonymous No.8703825]

>Literally a climate scientist
>Read shit like this every day
>Drink alcohol every day
>Correlation is not causation....

[Anonymous No.8703903]

so climate changes here on earth by the suns fluctuating rays, the surrouding planets orbits, our own contributions to earths amosphere as well as the natural contributions of volcanoes an n nd. . its kind of odd but The climate can be a reflection of emotion. yeA. what else can cause climate change? chemical spills in the oceon? nukes. . . are we headed in the right direction as a people to mitigate mans contributions to climate change?

be it electric cars, magnetic trains, repurposing of waste. . mabey even pesticides or gmos can effect the climate indirectly, by killing off the bees... tho I tell you drones can replace em..... heh what do you think of it all?

[Anonymous No.8703910]

>>8703672
Well, you know nothing. What a surprise.

There are several age dating techniques from relative age dating to absolute age dating. Relative age dating uses things like deposition and erosional rates and cross cutting relationships.

Absolute age dating uses techniques such as radiometric age dating, lake sediment dating, and tree ring dating which can then be used to calibrate your strata and your fossils which allows strata to be constrained to specific time periods.

It is most certainly not circular reasoning. But you wouldn't know anything about that because you've never even taken a moment to google 'how do geologists date strata'

And by the way, I was not talking about dating techniques. I was talking about how geologic time scales is at the very least hundreds of thousands of years old and has nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion on modern anthropogenic warming.

[Anonymous No.8703934]

>>8703807
Then why say anything at all?

If you were trying to influence him, calling him names etc. is definitely going to fail. So it was just a wasted post.

[Anonymous No.8703947]

>>8703934
You keep assuming we're trying to influence him. The only reason I call him a moron is because he can't be influenced. And neither can you. People who deny the vast majority of the evidence to preserve their position can't be reasoned. This is proven by the threads like this we have every day.

[Anonymous No.8703950]

>>8703934
This is a useless post.

[Anonymous No.8703951]

>>8703910
Radiometric dating etc. is all addressed by Hovind. You can dismiss him all you want but that doesn't make him wrong. He has quite a lot of sources too.

Same with me actually, you can think I know nothing, but it doesn't make me wrong just because you think that. Maybe I've looked into this more than you. I don't think I have, but I don't think I haven't either. I don't assume any such thing about you.

What I do believe, is that almost never, does someone who believes in evolution ACTUALLY spend the time to look through the sources of something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

And really research it. They just automatically dismiss it, because its easy, and lazy, to dismiss people you disagree with without looking deep into their argument.

It's only people who have a bit of doubt and are seriously interested in the truth who look into it.

[Anonymous No.8703954]

>>8703950
>This is a useless post.
Not really, at least it said something. Now THIS is a useless post. This one, here. And the one it's replying to.

[Anonymous No.8703955]

>>8703951
Have you looked into the various sources debunking everything Hovind has ever said? Of course not, hypocrite. Hovind is a proven con artist and liar. You're only studying what you already agree with.

[Anonymous No.8703960]

>>8703954
Every post says something. You're just mad that someone insulted someone you agree with.

[Anonymous No.8703961]

>>8703947
Let's read the original post again to make sure you're right: >>8703788.

Hmm, sure SOUNDS like you're trying to influence him.

[Anonymous No.8703969]

>>8703960
I'm not actually sure I agree with him about climate change. And neither am I mad, actually, I smiled a little bit at remembering you typing that. XD

All I'm really doing is responding to someone angrily posting an empty comment for no reason. I'm doing what they were trying to do, but without insulting the other person.

When you go on a random thread and the first and only thing you post is this: >>8703788 I'm actually masochistic enough to try and help that person, by bringing them back a bit, to see what they're really doing. Wasting their time, and not really making any difference.

Either that or they are venting their feelings online, as if there isn't a real person on the other end. In either case, it's unhealthy.

You guys seem to think I'm weak for actually caring, and trying to help, but I feel it's worth it, so I don't care. That and I'm older. I know you can insult me to my face, but it might actually have made a difference despite you denying it or without me seeing the results. For all I know the next post that guy makes he'll change his tactic because I made a good point.

And believe it or not, that kind of thing happens all the time.

[Anonymous No.8703973]

>>8703825
>CO2 and historical temperatures aren't correlated

[Anonymous No.8703978]

>>8703714
Heinz Shekelberg

[Anonymous No.8703980]

>>8703947
Yet nobody talks about the structure of CO2 and its inability to interact with IR.

[Anonymous No.8704444]

>>8703955
I have looked into some and there are errors, but it's not foolproof. He makes some truly great points. No one man is going to be right on everything. I'm not willing to through out everything just because of someone's religion or lack thereof.

I do have a bias to study what I feel is mostly right or at least on to something based on what the evidence is. I'm only human, no one is completely cold or perfectly unbiased. Aren't you the same? Do you think you're perfect or immune to being human?

Thinking the man is wrong about everything when he's dedicated so much to to genuinely studying this, that isn't realistic.

[Anonymous No.8704460]

>>8703672
>Kent Hovind
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8704499]

>>8704444
>Thinking the man is wrong about everything when he's dedicated so much to to genuinely studying this, that isn't realistic.
Wait, what the fuck?
Every single point he's been challenged on, he's failed utterly to defend. Every claim he makes about evolution get's shot down so fast it's not funny. But he's put lots of time into this, so you're just going to believe him blindly?

[Anonymous No.8704613]

>>8703522
>Claiming the study discredits AGW is like bringing up continental drift to try and get out of a speeding ticket.
this desu senpai

>>8703557
>CO2 is a pathetic greenhouse gas, given its linear structure.
CO2's absorption spectrum has been measured over and over again experimentally. The results are consistent with it having a significant effect on the transparency of the atmosphere to infrared light.

>>8704444
>Thinking the man is wrong about everything when he's dedicated so much to to genuinely studying this, that isn't realistic.
investing loads of time and effort doesn't make you right. Lysenko spent decades working on Soviet agrobiology, and he too was wrong about EVERYTHING.
can you give an example of a specific claim that you think Hovind is right about? and maybe explain his position?

remember, Hovind's "dissertation" is basically elementary-school level writing, complete with rampant misspellings.
>http://rationalia.com/gawdzilla/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

[Anonymous No.8704630]

>>8703961
1. That's not me

2. No it doesn't

Stop projecting your delusions onto others.

[Anonymous No.8704634]

>>8703980
Shhh little child, don't cry.

[Anonymous No.8704640]

>>8703969
I'm pretty sure you do agree. The fact that you are doing the 'every sentence is its own paragraph thing' which every schizophrenic shitposter does for some reason doesn't help. Oh and the fact that you are espousing Kent Hovind in this thread. Yes, you do agree with him and you are quite angry that no one will take your tinfoil opinions seriously. Don't bother replying, it will be ignored.

[Anonymous No.8705325]

>>8704630
If it's not you then why are you responding, quit wasting my name. I think we're done here. I will have to assume the original poster has left.

I made my point to them, and you aren't God almighty so you have no idea if it made a difference tot hem or not.

Go be arrogant somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.8705771]

>>8704613
>The results are consistent with it having a significant effect on the transparency of the atmosphere to infrared light.

I'm a retard and break this down. Because this sounds like IR passing by CO2.

[Anonymous No.8705775]

>>8704640
>Don't bother replying, it will be ignored.

Psssh.... Nothin personal... kid

[Anonymous No.8705904]

>earth travels around d the sun at 67000mph
>our solar system is travelling through space at 490000mph

What if we're just going through a warm patch? Yeah sure we should look after our planet but penalising everyone and taxing us out the ass sure isn't the answer.

[Anonymous No.8705950]

>>8705904
>earth travels around d the sun at 67000mph
>our solar system is travelling through space at 490000mph

What the fuck officer, you can't give me a ticket and penalize me for going 200 km/hr in a 30 km/hr school zone! What if the rules of the universe just changed for that half hour and are now back to normal. Yeah we should protect the children but penalising everyone and taxing us out the ass sure isn't the answer.

[Anonymous No.8705954]

>>8705950
>he doesn't want to to investigate space weather

kys

[Anonymous No.8705969]

>>8705954
I'm all for increasing funding and taxes for scientific research of any kind. More good will come out of that than leaving more money to uneducated taxpayers who waste it on frivilous bullshit like iphones and drugs.

[Anonymous No.8706096]

>>8705969
>I know how to spend your money better than you

Morally corrupt.

Your example is also self defeating. Its because retards buy shit like iPhones that the technology develops further.

Whats more striking is people leading the charge on CO2 emissions don't provide any solutions beyond "gib us more money". Shit is basically indulgence payments.

[Anonymous No.8706190]

>>8706096
>morally corrupt
Ah yes let's talk about morals. Nothing screams morally sound like yelling "FUCK YOU I GOT MINE!" to future generations. Jesus would be so proud.

[Anonymous No.8706229]

>>8706190
>Nothing screams morally sound like yelling "FUCK YOU I GOT MINE!"

Literally what? That's some conclusion you've drawn up there...

Somehow using a gun on the masses to steal personal wealth to be spent in the hands of a few is moral and just.

What does that faggot Jesus have to do with any of this? You're shit at arguing, kys.

[Anonymous No.8706327]

>>8700798
found the trailer-park Fundamentalist

[Anonymous No.8706337]

>>8705771
the atmosphere is partially transparent to infrared; most terrestrial radiation (infrared) is absorbed and then re-emitted somewhere in the atmosphere; since re-emission is in a random direction, half the absorbed radiation goes back to the surface and half goes out to space.
CO2 and other greenhouse gases increase the percentage that is absorbed and reemitted, meaning that less passes through and more gets trapped.

teal deer: SOME does pass by, but the odds of getting absorbed increase as CO2 concentration increases.

[Anonymous No.8706341]

>>8705904
>What if we're just going through a warm patch?
LOL WHAT IF THE VACUUM OF SPACE HAS TEMPERATURE
back2middleskool4(You)

[Anonymous No.8706378]

>>8706337
I understand how greenhouse gases absorb IR and contribute to warming. However, why is CO2 listed as a greenhouse gas at all when its structure is linear and doesn't absorb IR at all?

[Anonymous No.8706414]

>>8700826
>Cherry picked model of weak solar influence.
Funny how NASA always ignores studies that show significant solar activity.

[Anonymous No.8706424]

it is well known that changes in exposure to solar radiation influence Earth's climate, but these sorts of changes can in fact be measured and it would be necessary for them to not just explain changes in thermal energy trapped by oceans and climate but changes at the rapid rate the Earth has been experiencing over the course of decades.

In comparison, laboratory-scale experimentation has already established the greenhouse effect and the only known variable that explains the unusual rate of temperature increase is contribution of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere as a consequence of human industry.

[Anonymous No.8706429]

>>8701126
Nice fraudulent graph from that Liar, John Cook. Let's look at actual predictions.


JOHN COOK DEBUNKED:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

JOHN COOK LIES
hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/john-cook-is-a-filthy-liar/
www.forbes.com/ sites/ jamestaylor/ 2013/ 05/ 30/ global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims /
wattsupwiththat .com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/
http://impactofcc.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-cook-et-al-willfully-lie.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.htm

[Anonymous No.8706434]

>>8701072
Ad hominem much? The guy's a Stanford Ph.D.

[Anonymous No.8706447]

>>8701072
Evans, D. M. W. "The Notch-Delay Solar Hypothesis." Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming (2016): 337.

Richards, Gary P., and David MW Evans. "Development of a carbon accounting model (FullCAM Vers. 1.0) for the Australian continent." Australian Forestry 67.4 (2004): 277-283.

Other papers and patents from the Stanford Ph.D.

Evans, David MW. "Digit-reversal method and apparatus for computer transforms." U.S. Patent No. 4,823,297. 18 Apr. 1989.

Evans, David MW. "A second improved digit-reversal permutation algorithm for fast transforms." IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 37.8 (1989): 1288-1291.

[Anonymous No.8706457]

>>8701156
The original graph showed the utter failure of the models. So they added tremendous variability to the "predictions." In short, the usual unfalsifiability. All in a days work for climate "science."

[Anonymous No.8706462]

>>8702384
>>>8701100
>The deniers always use the RSS dataset, its old version which was admitted to be inconvenient for the Warmists in 2016
ftfy

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/roy-spencer-responds-to-rss-pause-busting-adjustments/

[Anonymous No.8706465]

>>8706378
>when its structure is linear and doesn't absorb IR at all?
CO2's linear structure doesn't preclude IR absorption. A symmetrical stretching won't be IR active, but asymmetric stretching and bending is. You've been trying very hard to force this meme >>8700483 >>8703557 >>8706378 but it's simply not based in reality. Again, the absorption spectrum of CO2 has been experimentally measured.
You're insisting based on your misunderstanding of theory that the real-world results are impossible.

>>8706414
>cherry picked model of increasing irradiance
Maybe if those were written by someone with two brain cells to rub together instead of Jan-Erik Solheim

[Anonymous No.8706466]

>>8703328
>>>8702584
>>Maybe I'm retarded, but to me this looks like a graph that is saying "shit could be hot OR cold!"
>Treat it as a probability distribution. Yes, shit could be hot or cold, but it's far more likely to fall somewhere in the middle

Treat it as an example of post-diction to maintain unfalsifiability. >>8706457

[Anonymous No.8706500]

>>8706429
>pretending emissions have followed scenario A instead of actually being closer to C in every respect but CO2
nice strawman, chucklehead

>>8706434
>a Stanford Ph.D.
in EE, and he's worked only as an economist, no real research whatsoever.
Robert Pinsky is also a Stanford Ph.D., and he's a fucking POET. (a good poet, but still just a poet.) should he be treated as an authority on climatology as well?
also, I like how you complain about ad hominem when you're making a blatant appeal to authority (the other side of ad hom), and that other anon is simply questioning the authority attributed to Evans.

>>8706447
in order:
>chapter from a non-peer reviewed book
>not about climate, literally just a GIS setup for tracking land use
>not about climate either, just a programming shortcut for simple calculations in early computers
>ibid

>>8706457
as usual, the super-fast blinking fails to obscure the fact that you've misaligned the graphs. notice how some of the observed values jump around too when the image blinks back and forth?
why do deniers always do this? it's the worst way to compare images; when the image changes so quickly, it's impossible to get a good enough look at either one to see if they actually differ at all or if--...ohhhhhhhhh, I get it now. do you? :^)

[Anonymous No.8706666]

>>8706457
This wins the award for least comprehensible graph in the thread. Who the fuck thought flicking back and forth was a good idea?
Anyway, what value does looking through older, rejected drafts have?

[Anonymous No.8706673]

>>8706465
Right, I understand that bending makes it absorb IR. But just how much CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time has an asymmetrical bend to it? Nobody has been able to clarify this for me and I can't find anything on it.

I think its an important question, because if its not a very large percentage than the effects are very negligible. You got anything on that?

I'm seriously willing to change my position on that fact.

[Anonymous No.8706758]

>>8706673
>But just how much CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time has an asymmetrical bend to it?
>I think its an important question, because if its not a very large percentage than the effects are very negligible. You got anything on that?

I think you're misunderstanding how greenhouse gases work.
It's not an issue of CO2 absorbing IR and converting that into kinetic energy (heat) in the atmosphere; CO2 doesn't do much of that. In fact, when greenhouse gases absorb terrestrial radiation, they re-emit it almost immediately, losing that excitation. The issue is that when they re-emit it, they do so in a random direction, so half the time that photon goes back down towards the Earth (where it is eventually absorbed and turned into heat by stuff that's more opaque to IR).
CO2 doesn't need to stay in that excited state to trap heat; even if it only is excited momentarily, that's enough for it to act as a greenhouse gas. Do you understand?

[Anonymous No.8706760]

>>8706673
I'm not really sure what it is you're not understanding. The IR absorbance of CO2 isn't wild conjecture, it's a well-known fact that's easy to measure.
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC

[Anonymous No.8706775]

>>8706758
But it does have to be in a state besides linear for this interaction to occur, correct?

[Anonymous No.8706786]

>>8700397

>brainlets actually believe this

Go back to /pol/, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.8706798]

>>8700483

Are you in high school, idiot?

Carbon dioxide isn't nitrogen of oxygen, the bonds allow for significant vibration and absorbtion of energy which is reemitted, some of which is absorbed by more greenhouse gasses, by the surface and some goes into space.

[Anonymous No.8706801]

>>8700548

You should kill yourself. You're retarded and your existence and risk of being raped by a woman and her being the victim of said pregnancy is not a risk we should tolerate.

[Anonymous No.8706823]

>>8700445
Just FYAD, dude. First bonds are springs and have vibration. Normal frequencies and such. Do the math if you can, then tell the fucking bond can't store energy? :v ( you're probably not able to do the math yourself chemfag from hell) and suck I THINK that the greenhouse effect account they mean that CO2 stores energy by it's calorific capacity.

[Anonymous No.8706829]

>>8706798
No shit faggot, you're talking about two completely different types of structures. Which are triple bonded and only between two atoms. Fuck off...

[Anonymous No.8706839]

>>8706823
The question is how often is the structure asymmetrical?

Only half of CO2's vibrations are asymmetrical. Is CO2 always vibrating and never in its linear state? Does it vibrate one way more than the other?

[Anonymous No.8706861]

>>8706775
no. an asymmetrical stretch (one bond contracts, the other bond expands) is IR active.

>>8706839
>how often is the structure asymmetrical
as has been mentioned many times in this thread alone, it has been experimentally verified over and over again that CO2 absorbs (and therefore emits) significantly in the infrared spectrum.

[Anonymous No.8706878]

>>8706861
zomg, but only when asymmetric. So this doesn't answer the questions posted >>8706839

[Anonymous No.8706977]

>>8706878
>>8706839
pretty much every molecule is going to have some kind of vibration going on if it's not near absolute zero. but the only vibrational modes we care about in this instance are the ones associated with absorption and reemission of infrared light.
you're asking how frequent these absorption events are, because you're skeptical that CO2 actually contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect. as has been pointed out to you over and over, WE KNOW HOW STRONGLY CO2 ABSORBS, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN VERIFIED EXPERIMENTALLY.

so how often does CO2 do something that allows it to absorb an IR photon? answer: often enough to make a difference.

[Anonymous No.8707002]

>>8706977
You'd think this kind of info would be readily available.

I find the fact that nobody has any idea, that at any given time, what percentage of asymmetrical CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere. I would think that'd be ammo for the claims being made. Without it, doesn't sound solid.

[Anonymous No.8707352]

>>8707002
>You'd think this kind of info would be readily available.
It is. Looking this stuff up is trivial.

[Anonymous No.8707367]

>>8706839
>The question is how often is the structure asymmetrical?
No, it's not.
The molecule will absorb infrared light and THEN do its asymmetric vibration. It does so using the energy it absorbed.
Eventually it falls back into its ground state and emit the infrared radiation it previously absorbed. But that emission is now in a random direction. So from 100 % IR going away from the planet, 50 % of the absorbed will go back towards the planet (because there is an equal chance for all directions).
Maybe a tiny bit less than 50 % since the earth isn't an infinite plane.

[Anonymous No.8707498]

>YFW you realize industry shills are paid to spread misinformation about climate change on public forums

Go home trolls.

[Anonymous No.8707605]

>>8707002
It is known from physiological principles, ecological coexistence, and predation traces that cats prey on mice and other small rodents. such predation has also been observed in the wild and in the lab.
but because nobody knows exactly what fraction of cats have a mouse in their mouths at any given time, it's impossible to conclude that cats eat mice.

it is well known that metallic substances are good conductors of electricity. this has been exploited for centuries for various purposes.
but because nobody knows exactly how many electrons in a gram of copper are moving along a voltage gradient at any given time, we can't be certain that copper is a conductor.

it is known from first principles that OP is a fag. but because nobody besides him and the ~25 other men he blows on a regular basis knows exactly how many cocks he sucks per day, we just can't be sure that he's a flaming homosexual.

this is the argument you're making; you bring up something irrelevant to try and cast doubt on what is known for a certainty both from theory and from repeated consistent experimental evidence.

[Anonymous No.8707646]

>>8700397
Hundreds of scientists urge Trump to withdraw from U.N. climate-change agency

[Anonymous No.8707879]

>>8707646
>copies and pastes headline directly from FOX News, Washington Times, and over nine thousand denier blog
ww

[Anonymous No.8707998]

>>8704444
>>8703951

>Kent Hovind
>whothefuck.jpg

Try to look him up
>Christian theme park operator
>Convicted of failure to pay taxes
>10 years imprisonment and 3 years probation
>Young Earth Creationist

This is the supposed "intellectual" that climate deniers look up to? You're embarrassing yourself /pol/kin, go back to your orange board and jerk of while doing Nazi salute over there

[Anonymous No.8708030]

>>8707998
It all makes sense now, I have been wondering why the climate change deniers I argue with here are so fucking stupid, so incapable of using deductive reasoning or understanding empirical evidence. They're just buttmad creationist faggots that come to /sci/ to argue with their retarded opinions.

[Anonymous No.8708046]

>>8707605
>>what is known for a certainty both from theory and from repeated consistent experimental evidence.

there is zero fucking evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

[Anonymous No.8708062]

>>8708046
Some spicy meme you got there fampai.

Why don't you educate yourself rather than begging to be spoonfed

[Anonymous No.8708073]

>>8708046
Nice bait.

[Anonymous No.8708124]

>>8708046
That post was about CO2 absorbing in the IR spectrum.

Retard.

[Anonymous No.8708142]

>>8707367
CO2 has to be asymmetric before absorbing IR.

[Anonymous No.8708150]

>>8708124
>That post was about CO2 absorbing in the IR spectrum

Are you talking about experimental evidence that CO2 absorbs and re-emit IR? It's already explained here>>8706760

Hell, this is how scientists measure CO2 in the atmosphere, concentration wise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_ring-down_spectroscopy
You pump air into a cavity, shoot laser at it, have the laser bounce off ultra reflective mirrors, and the laser would attenuate at corresponding certain wavelength based on the concentration of certain greenhouse gases, whether it's CO2, CH4, or N2O

[Anonymous No.8708180]

>>8708142
CO2 is asymmetric in 3 out of 4 of its vibrational modes.

[Anonymous No.8708355]

>>8700436
1984 is over

[Anonymous No.8709296]

>>8706500
>>>8706457 (You)
>as usual, the super-fast blinking fails to obscure the fact that you've misaligned the graphs. notice how some of the observed values jump around too when the image blinks back and forth?

The graphs don't perfectly align, because the changed the baseline to maintain unfalsifiability. Duh.
Why do warmists always rewrite their failed predictions?

[Anonymous No.8709316]

>>8706500
>>>8706429 (You)
>>pretending emissions have followed scenario A instead of actually being closer to C in every respect but CO2
>nice strawman, chucklehead

Dumbshit. They did follow scenario A. Arnell et al. (2013) show total growth of GHG emissions (in CO2 equivalents) from 1990 to 2015 of about 50%; pic related. Solving for the annual growth rate:

1.5 = (1+r)^25 or
exp(ln(1.5)/25) -1 = r
= 1.6%

More than 1.5%. That's growth rate is Scenario A.


Arnell, Nigel W., et al. "A global assessment of the effects of climate policy on the impacts of climate change." Nature Climate Change 3.5 (2013): 512-519.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n5/fig_tab/nclimate1793_F1.html

[Anonymous No.8709323]

>>8706666
>>8706457
>This wins the award for least comprehensible graph in the thread. Who the fuck thought flicking back and forth was a good idea?
>Anyway, what value does looking through older, rejected drafts have?

That graph is illustrated here: >>8709296
It illustrated the predictions of the UN IPCC climate models. And it illustrated how yhey failed miserably. So the IPCC went back, changed the baseline and ramped up the variability of the models to pretend that the predictions weren't violated. All in a days work for Climate "Science."

[Anonymous No.8709442]

>>8709296
>misalign two graphs
>"no no, it wasn't me! it was the WARMISTS that misaligned the graphs by faking the data!"
niggapls

>>8709316
>Arnell et al. (2013) show total growth of GHG emissions...of about 50%
does it occur to you that a paper published in 2013 (and written in 2012, probably using data running only through 2010) might have trouble reporting emissions through 2015? seriously, we went over this in detail something like 5 threads ago, and you kept insisting that you were reporting actual measurements rather than projections.
if climatologists tried to claim that a prediction was actually a measured result, you deniers would shit your pants with rage. but when you do it, it's all fine and good because a) it's okay when you do it and b) you don't realize you're doing it because you don't actually read papers, you just look at the pretty pictures.

I'll give you the same rundown I gave you the last time you tried to take this weaksauce bullshit in here.
Okay, let's assume those modeled results are accurate IN THE PAST. after all, the model is made to fit the past in the hopes of also fitting the future. since the paper was written in 2012, and detailed information takes a few years to become available, let's say it was made using data from 2010, and therefore that the modeled results up until 2010 are reliable indicators of the actual data. still with me?
total emissions rose ~30% between 1990 and 2010. so:
1.3 = (1+r)^20
r = 1.3^(1/20) - 1
r = 0.013
that's a 1.3% growth per year, well below the rate in Scenario A.

note also that Hansen et al. (1988) assumed that emissions of CFCs and other poorly-understood trace gases would continue to grow at the same rate. not only did they admit IN THE VERY PAPER that those particular figures were only rough estimates, emissions of those gases shrunk to nearly nothing BEFORE 1990.

so in summary, you cited a paper to claim something it doesn't say about a different paper you didn't read. nice try.

[Anonymous No.8710024]

>>8708030
I'd hazard a guess that well over half of conspiracy theorists are biblical literalists as well.

[Anonymous No.8710027]

>>8709442
I should come here more often. You guys get psuedoscientific shitposts just as much as every other board, but you slap them down expertly instead of putting up with it. Thanks, is what I'm trying to say.

[Anonymous No.8710416]

>>8708142
I've never heard about that. Any source?

There is no net dipole, sure. But The oxygens atoms are still partially negatively charged and the carbon partially positively. So even in a symmetric CO[math]_2[/math] molecule in a uniform electric field will the oxygen atoms be "pushed" into the opposite direction of the carbon atom. Resulting in an asymmetric vibration, by absorbing the energy.

[Anonymous No.8710422]

>>8708150
I think you got it wrong. It was as follows:

>Claim that CO2 doesn't absorb IR
>Statement that experiment and theory show otherwise
>Claim that man-made climate change was not shown in theory and experiment
>Me telling them that the post was talking about CO2, not climate-change
>You telling me some stuff about CO2 absorption