What do we know about climate change and is it anthropogenic or not?

[Trump's Chosen]

In your graph, the most rapid change (from the last ice age to the holocene) shows a 5 degree change over ~11,360 years.

How granular do you think the graph of 11,360 years is?

I'm not trying to prove either direction, I'm curious about the subject. I agree that my graph doesn't disprove anthropogenic climate change, but the other graph doesn't prove it either, which mine was meant to illustrate. I don't think we have any way of knowing year to year temperature changes globally before we started measuring it. Though our measurements for some locations are quite granular, like greenland ice cores (1-10 years), they result in a global analysis that has a granularity of about 100 years between data points.

So It's misleading to say that the most rapid change is 5 degrees over 11,360, because it's like checking where my car is every January 1st for 5 years and seeing it in my driveway every day and concluding it barely moves ever for 5 years, and then following me for week and concluding it moves rapidly and alarmingly compared to the period of 5 years before.

edit: Oh @teriyakiburns said the same thing more concisely.

 

[Doktor Grimm]

Climate change is happening, it's almost definitely caused by us, and it's been used as an excuse for some of the most retarded government policies ever implemented in countries that have very little to do with it. There's not a whole lot we can do about the issue short of dropping nukes on China & India.

I know fuck all about the science of it, all I know is that one of my chemistry teachers was skeptical about it and would talk about more carbon not just reflecting heat back in, but also would reflect more sun radiation out before it hit the earth. I've also watched people explain why this would be different and not comparable.

The gist of it is: heat is emitted from the Sun as shortwave radiation, which is able to penetrate the greenhouse gas layer, but re-emitted from Earth's surface as longwave radiation, which cannot, or at least not as easily. There do exist substances that reflect incoming solar radiation before it reaches the surface, but these are aerosols such as mist or smoke.

The earth's surface temperature is moderated and stabilised by the huge amount of water on its surface and in its atmosphere, which already absorbs and transports all the energy from the radiation bands that CO2 is supposed to "block". Adding CO2 makes no difference.

As far back as we've been able to measure, atmospheric GHG levels have correlated almost exactly with surface temperature. Are you suggesting there's a third variable which is responsible for both?

 

[Trump's Chosen]

Climate change is happening, it's almost definitely caused by us, and it's been used as an excuse for some of the most retarded government policies ever implemented in countries that have very little to do with it. There's not a whole lot we can do about the issue short of dropping nukes on China & India.


The gist of it is: heat is emitted from the Sun as shortwave radiation, which is able to penetrate the greenhouse gas layer, but re-emitted from Earth's surface as longwave radiation, which cannot, or at least not as easily. There do exist substances that reflect incoming solar radiation before it reaches the surface, but these are aerosols such as mist or smoke.


As far back as we've been able to measure, atmospheric GHG levels have correlated almost exactly with surface temperature. Are you suggesting there's a third variable which is responsible for both?
View attachment 7074737

Judging purely by your graph, wouldn't it be evidence against anthropogenic climate change? After all, we don't see a temperature change with the carbon dioxide change at our time period.

Why isn't there an accompanying hockeystick to encircle for the global temperatures?

 

[teriyakiburns]

As far back as we've been able to measure, atmospheric GHG levels have correlated almost exactly with surface temperature.

CO2 lags temperature. It is possibly an effect of changing ocean temperatures.

Your graph attaches the instrument record to proxy data. This again ignores the low resolution of the proxies. We do not know if there were any large, brief changes in the composition of the atmosphere, any more than we know of any large, brief changes in temperature. We know they must have happened, because we can see them in the few long-term instrument records available to us (CET series and such), but we don't know when. The data doesn't exist, making the comparison invalid.

And, again, co2's attributed warming ability can only occur in dry air. Water vapour absorbs essentially all of the radiation in the same wavelengths as co2 and already saturates those bands in the atmosphere.

 

[Radola Gajda]

I put it into same category as kung-flu, is it real ? yeah. But are media, politicians and even self proclaimed experts (TM) telling us truth? Hell no. How many articles were there in 2000s that claimed that in 2030s half of Europe will be under water. 25 years later and still nothing.Lol

 

[pollution jim]

We do have examples that some humans can destroy the environment, but most examples are not from the west. It's not reasonable to be forced into being a germophobe because everyone else is wiping their ass and nose with their hands, you should make them stop wiping with their hands. Before doing anything about eating ze bugs, something that will heal the earth 1000% more efficiently would be to annex the Ganges and Haiti, move its inhabitants out and clean it ourselves, because clearly whites care more about conservationism than jeets and niggers

 

[Male Idiot]

I think it is a very complex system that isn't entirely up to human control.

We maybe partly doing it, but the Earth and the Sun's cycles are set in... stone, and plasma.

This may be even worse than if it was purely human. We can control human influence, with a lot of effort.

We can't control the Sun. That's a giant fusion reaction in space that we can yell, gnash our teeth at, it won't give zero shits. If the Sun decides that heat goes up, heat goes up and we need to be a good simp and just accept it gaping.

The Earth's climate was never stable when we look at deep time scales.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

I put it into same category as kung-flu, is it real ? yeah. But are media, politicians and even self proclaimed experts (TM) telling us truth? Hell no. How many articles were there in 2000s that claimed that in 2030s half of Europe will be under water. 25 years later and still nothing.Lol

I'm reminded of a coworker with whom I saw this fisherman very politely and carefully tell Al Gore that he was a very meticulous man and that the water had not risen to the degree that Gore claimed.

My coworker then went off on a rant how stupid and blind this man must be.

I think the poll results are pretty interesting. One of the more balanced results I've seen on the farms.

 

[Fek]

Efforts of humanity can only (and very ineffectively) delay inevitable corrections taking place to this world. No amount of junk data, fearmongering, topics placed out for debate, or head in the sand behavior over clear differences in one's local climate can change that. Sooner or later soonerer, the climate will be precisely as it is supposed to be.

On a related note: you should see what the 'geoengineers' are doing out in select Midwestern states attempting to delay the inevitable*. It's almost cute just how much..let's call it "bottled desperation"..is being dumped into the skies on a daily basis right now. It's orders of magnitude more in frequency and amount than it has ever been.

*Do note there's nothing to fear in this, in spite of whatever <your choice of media> is telling you.

 

[Twat in a Hat]

It absolutely is anthropogenic, oil and gas companies predicted the current crisis in the late 70s. Their predictions wound up being far more accurate than NASA's. Most conspiratards would rather blame Jewish space lasers than see the conspiracy staring them in the face.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

It absolutely is anthropogenic, oil and gas companies predicted the current crisis in the late 70s. Their predictions wound up being far more accurate than NASA's. Most conspiratards would rather blame Jewish space lasers than see the conspiracy staring them in the face.

Do you have somewhere I can read more about what they predicted and when? Is this from public statements? Leaks? Employee tell-alls?

 

[Twat in a Hat]

Do you have somewhere I can read more about what they predicted and when? Is this from public statements? Leaks? Employee tell-alls?

There was an investigation into ExxonMobil's archives about ten years ago, this article gives a fairly detailed rundown.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

There was an investigation into ExxonMobil's archives about ten years ago, this article gives a fairly detailed rundown.

This is one of the most convincing refutations of my current position (I voted "probably not"). Thank you.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

It's not real. Even if the idea of "greenhouse gases" made any sense (it makes no sense with what we know about physics) there still isn't enough data to show us any kind of trend.

Accurate temp record keeping only goes back 150 years or so. That's basically 0 data if you're making the claim that the earth is 6 gorillion years old or whatever

It absolutely is anthropogenic, oil and gas companies predicted the current crisis in the late 70s. Their predictions wound up being far more accurate than NASA's. Most conspiratards would rather blame Jewish space lasers than see the conspiracy staring them in the face.

They didn't predict it. They invented it

 

[Twat in a Hat]

This is one of the most convincing refutations of my current position (I voted "probably not"). Thank you.

no problem man.

 

[ilovejews]

I put it into same category as kung-flu, is it real ? yeah. But are media, politicians and even self proclaimed experts (TM) telling us truth? Hell no. How many articles were there in 2000s that claimed that in 2030s half of Europe will be under water. 25 years later and still nothing.Lol

Precisely.
Climatologists' credibility is shot much like in the case of the boy who cried wolf one too many times. Pair that with the fact that the educated adults in charge do not act in accordance with their doomsday preaching, and you have the perfect recipe for terminal cynicism and distrust.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

It's all bullshit. Either you have data to predict it with high degree of certainty or it's just conjectures without real proof. And with the flip flopping between whether it's warming or only unusual patterns (every place will have something unusual happen once a few years), none of the models fit. And as our ability to use machines to learn patterns increases, it's absolutely retarded that it's somehow impossible to make a model for weather.

Add to it the fact the scientists seemingly let big businesses and government dictate what's bad and just so happen to align with their goals. It all stink to high heaven.

 

[Bonesjones]

You can tell me climate change is real when you can prove you can accurately predict what the sun is and was doing for the past and future million years. You can't predict why you are hot or cold if you don't know what the weather outside is doing. It's just retards chasing their tails because they are paid to.

 

[teriyakiburns]

There was an investigation into ExxonMobil's archives about ten years ago, this article gives a fairly detailed rundown.

The fatal flaw of this paper is that they weren't ExxonMobil's projections. The documents they cite were informational memos prepared for the board of directors, which laid out projections made by others. Similar memos at the time would have also outlined the then current global cooling scare. To claim that Exxon had some special insight that they concealed or ignored is to place far more weight onto what were little more than a superficial analysis of the information publicly available at the time.

 

[Twat in a Hat]

The fatal flaw of this paper is that they weren't ExxonMobil's projections. The documents they cite were informational memos prepared for the board of directors, which laid out projections made by others. Similar memos at the time would have also outlined the then current global cooling scare. To claim that Exxon had some special insight that they concealed or ignored is to place far more weight onto what were little more than a superficial analysis of the information publicly available at the time.

They were literally penned by scientists employed by ExxonMobil. If it were all a hoax perpetrated by outside parties why the hell would they would they sit on it for forty years?