It's all a hoax

Nov 12, 2015 1:36 AM

Swaarley

Views

297702

Likes

15019

Dislikes

812

What's Really Warming the World

Skeptics of man made climate change offer various natural causes to explain why the Earth has warmed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. But can these account for the planet’s rising temperature? Scroll down to see show how much different factors, both natural and industrial, contribute to global warming, based on findings from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Is It the Earth's Orbit ?

The Earth wobbles on its axis, and its tilt and orbit change over many thousands of years, pushing the climate into and out of ice ages. Yet the influence of orbital changes on the planet’s temperature over 125 years has been negligible.

Is It the Sun?

The sun’s temperature varies over decades and centuries. These changes have had little effect on the Earth’s overall climate.

Is it Volcanoes?

The data suggest no. Human industry emits about 100 times more CO than volcanic activity, and eruptions release sulfate chemicals that can actually cool the atmosphere for a year or two.

Is it all Three of these things combines ?

If it were, then the response to natural factors should match the observed temperature. Adding the natural factors together just doesn’t add up.

So If It's Not Nature, Is it Deforestation?

Humans have cut, plowed, and paved more than half the Earth’s land surface. Dark forests are yielding to lighter patches, which reflect more sunlight—and have a slight cooling effect.

Or Ozone Pollution?

Natural ozone high in the atmosphere blocks harmful sunlight and cools things slightly. Closer to Earth, ozone is created by pollution and traps heat, making the climate a little bit hotter. What’s the overall effect? Not much.

Or Aerosol Pollution?

Some pollutants cool the atmosphere, like sulfate aerosols from coal-burning. These aerosols offset some of the warming. (Unfortunately, they also cause acid rain.)

No, It Really Is Greenhouse Gases

Atmospheric CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were in 1750. The green line shows the influence of greenhouse gas emissions. It's no contest.

See for Yourself

Greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. Aerosols cool it a little bit. Ozone and land-use changes add and subtract a little. Together they match the observed temperature, particularly since 1950.

Compare and Contrast

Putting the possible natural and human causes of climate change alongside one another makes the dominant role of greenhouse gases even more plainly visible. The only real question is: What are we going to do about it?

But you can ignore all the information because it was cold out and he found snow so there's that.

sauce:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Your graphs are nice but your data set is inadequate.

10 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 6

I think your scale is too small in comparison to the age of the earth.

10 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 10

Actually the biggest problem with human induced climate change is the timescale. It is changing much more rapidly than it has before.

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 3

We need cleaner energy alternatives. Try warming your house this winter with wood fire instead of gas. For added heat soak the logs in wood.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I'm just still worried about that island sinking or flipping over

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Every day that Inhofe is in Hell, the Devil will hand him a snowball and laugh.

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

I am not sure charting things that are correlated along a different axis really proves it. Flush toilet sales would also be increasing....

10 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 13

Pretty sure the axis are made to fit. What determine the maximum height in these examples? Co2 could also be scaled down to not make a diff.

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I swear I expected the cause to be John Cena

10 years ago | Likes 104 Dislikes 0

Thank you! All those "is it...?" I just kept waiting for "IT'S JOHN CENAAAAAAA!!!"

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

For future viewers, here in the comments you can see conversations that shouldn't happen in 140 word segments.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Maybe we should all stop farting in greenhouses.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

For how old the earth is...only going back to 1880 doesn't really seem like a real evaluation...

10 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 6

I agree. I studied this stuff in grad school and this only fuels that it's a hoax given the mini-ice age from the early 1800s

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Not to mention global temperature data only became semi-reliable in the 80's with satelites.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The number of downvotes = number of imgurians who live by TL;DR

10 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 15

seriously

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 10

Yeh my bad

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

As an Oklahoman, I apologize for our Rep.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Whether or not global warming is a thing, what is so wrong about living healthier, less destructively, and more respectful to Earth? Fuck

10 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 1

This is my exact point to my friends when talking about climate change. +1

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Global warming is a thing so don't use other tertiary arguments. It distracts from the real need to do something about it.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

This. Yes.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Mankind pollutes a lot,in many ways. Pollution is bad, in many ways. We gotta work on this problem. How's that?

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

It's bad...and wrong...It's...Badong!

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Can't argue with that. I just don't want the gov't using CC as an excuse for a new form of taxation and control. There's got to be a way.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

Influencing behavior in times like this is exactly what the government is supposed to do. Bad climate = no resources = no economy.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

What we don't need is a carbon tax (or credit system) that is wide open to enron style corruption and that which will do nothing 4 climate.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

True, and it also disproportionately effects the poor. Policy only works if the people want to follow it.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

140 characters is not enough to explain how stupid it is to start talking about global climate change with the year 1880.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You should probably soak the logs in wood. Just saying.

10 years ago | Likes 182 Dislikes 14

Amen

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I have no idea what this means so apparently I'm stupider than 106 people here.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Soak the logs, save the world

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Pro tip!

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Just in case.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Read the WHOLE THING, my fellow Imgurians! There's a twist worthy of M. Night Shyamalan!

10 years ago | Likes 431 Dislikes 21

Mr Inhofe doesn't realize the y-axis is scaled as 2ºF, (meaning you can't prove any change by confirming snow).

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Almost downvoted...but then I finished reading the post. +1

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

In other words, a complete disappointment?

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

WOAH. Someone has not seen 'The Visit'

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Despite my better judgment, I might go watch that. Sounds intriguing.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Wouldn't that imply that it starts out with promise then blasts diarrhea on our hopes and dreams? I think this is a bit opposite

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

M. Night Shmayalmyladingdong

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

how clever

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Nah, the real reason is obvious you liar!

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Nah, it's because of the decline of pirates.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That opening picture doesn't do this post justice.

10 years ago | Likes 985 Dislikes 15

I think that was the point. It gets arrogant non-believers into a tizzy so they actually read it instead of ignoring it like they want to.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I read this post only because of this comment. First I thought this is about how climate change is a hoax

10 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

Ditto!

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I'll fix it.

10 years ago | Likes 154 Dislikes 3

Got me real riled up when my gf showed that to me. I was just beginning my rant as she scrolled down

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Now my comment is going to look awfully odd, haha.

10 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 1

Hey, your comment seems really out of place because the picture does do it justice...

10 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

what was the picture?

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

pshh no one will be able to tell

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That would be nice.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Still isn't fixed.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah it is. It was the album cover before.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

AGW or not: humans are not going to radically alter their industrialization practices - especially in emerging economies

10 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 10

[2] Same with energy, they can choose to not invest in expensive, centralized power plants and skip straight to decentralised renewables.

10 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

That's just not true. And also, per capita, they're not the culprits.

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

Especially with an attitude like yours.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

[4] End result: emerging economies being cleaner, greener and more efficient than the economies they are learning and adopting tech from.

10 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

and then there's China which uses anything it can gets its hands on to produce enough electricity for its population, green and not

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

[1] Nope. Many emerging economies are 'leapfrogging' their technology choices. Like going direct to mobile phones and skipping the landlines

10 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

[3] Renewables can cover baseload in many countries. Nor does it have to be 100% renewable, back up gas power can cover any shortfalls.

10 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

Backup gas plants? Really? Nuclear is the answer. People are so irrationally hysterical about it. What we really need is Fusion of course.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

[2] and waste disposal, all of which require careful handling to prevent radioactive contamination, for backup generators.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Agreed, but nuclear scales really well and --on average-- is cleaner/greener than gas.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[3] or we could just use small gas burning turbines, using existing pipelines. Much cheaper, much less environmentally destructive.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But you are still picking up carbon from the ground and dumping it in the atmosphere. I do agree that moving from coal to gas is cheap tho.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[1] Where I live, there is no nuclear industry. We would have to create an entire industry of mining, transportation, refining, storage...

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

the thing with nuclear is that the output is awesome, it be cheaper to extend the power lines than to build a gas plant near the city.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Extending powerlines is one cost. All the rest of the mining/transporting/storage/power generation is huge costs and timeframes to complete.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[4] fusion has been 10 years away for about 30 years. If it ever works, yay. Until then, renewables are the best real option.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The problems with wind and solar is that the output is bad AND you have to build a dam. But we should still keep researching Solar.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

When did dams become involved? There are more ways to store energy than hydro. Look up solar thermal - perfect storage for the evening peak

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm an environmentalist and shit but I have two points:1) Correlation does not show causation.(see internet explorer usage vs. suicide data)

10 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 15

The graphs are all of temp vs. time using different models. The models aren't perfect, hence error bars, but the mechanism is understood.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

here, a degree is a degree.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I think the idea is to counter the many people who say it's because of volcanic activity or astronomical reasons.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

2) Only green house graph shows significance. They measure it with carbon content of ice layers in arctic and methodology is controversial

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 6

But don't get me wrong. I support using more renewable energy sources and lower fossil fuel consumption. But I also want truth !

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

"You can't handle the truth!"

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

usage of a program and suicide cannot be in the same units. you have to scale the graphs relative to eachother to make it work.

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

# of people using a program, # of people who commit suicide. Sounds like same units to me.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

using a program is an ongoing activity. committing suicide is one time per person.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The scientist have already established that climate change is real.

10 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 18

Scientists several thousand years ago established that the earth was flat and the entire sky orbits us.

10 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 28

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth 2000 years ago. Definitely didn't think it was flat

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

How does it feel knowing you are actually an idiot?

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

But we we're discussing man made global warming and no matter how many times Gore says so it hasn't been proven that man caused diddly poo.

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 25

So, the majority of scientist are wrong?

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 4

They very well could be. A bunch of people agreeing that they're right doesn't make them right.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 7

No, but the vast, vast majority of experts working in the field agreeing shows that there's some pretty damn convincing evidence, no?

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

The majority of scientists are paid to proof this and not to look for other possibilities. Its an industry.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 6

Actually it's the big fossil fuel companies who have the most money and vested interest in this.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes, and they're also paid to disprove each other while they compete for funding and notoriety, just like any other scientific field.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

How does it feel knowing you are actually an idiot?

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

The climate changes every fucking day. Whether it's causes by humans, there is no reliable science, partly because they would be put ofa job

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 28

Congrats on all you who don't have a grasp on "statistical sample size" and other basic facts about statistics.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

"Climate changes every fucking day." You lost the argument right there.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

you seem to have a very poor grasp of the subject.

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 3

You don't understand science.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

What they said.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

How does it feel knowing you are actually an idiot?

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Perhaps, but catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not.

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 8

when the temps appeared to be rising, they were also rising on Mars... no doubt because little green men were driving their SUV's around

10 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 13

Appeared?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

yes

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Simply google "Is mars warming?" and see all the evidence that proves mars is indeed not currently warming.

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 3

And neither is the Earth currently rising. They comment in the article about that being a coincidence.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Can you show me the data on that?

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

So one guy, with a un peer reviewed article, goes against a century's worth of scientists and you consider that a good enough reason to 2/2

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

no, that was just one article

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Doubt man made climate change?

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

There you go. Congrats on not just being another sheeple

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You didn't bother to read the second page of that article did you?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I did

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

humans are 100% a contributor..but a graph that starts in 1880 shows nothing earth is billions of years old, 130 years is too insignificant

10 years ago | Likes 230 Dislikes 47

Also, I wonder where the temperature graph was created. If it's 'corrected' data, we need to know more about the corrections.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

3/ next ice age because warm water won't be being brought from the equator to the northern regions. Can't remember if it goes south as well.

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

we are currently in an ice age so there is not a next. what you described has already happened prior to humans called snowball earth

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Ya I was pretty sure it had happened before. Didn't think we were technically in an ice age. Hm

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

the "Ice age" is a glacial period obviously we are not in that but there are still polar ice caps

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

ice sheets*

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

If I'm reading this post right, humans are valiantly fighting back an inevitable ice age and we are winning! See you all at the beach

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

Since 97% of scientists around the world agree, I think we should try to fix not debate.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

2/ Once it warms enough to melt a critical mass of the ice sheets I believe it's going to change the ocean currents enough to trigger the

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Go look at a graph of as far back as we have data and it's incredibly easy to see that what's happening now *isn't* natural.

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

you mean the rate* because CO2 has always been dumped in the atmosphere so it is natural

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 7

No, I mean both the rate of change and the levels it's currently at. Neither have been observed on such a shortened time-scale.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

not its just the rate.. and the level is time independent, rate is time dependent

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

The level has never been this high in the last 800,000 years at least... (which is all we really have reliable data for from ice cores)

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Actually, CO2 is only 5% of all green house gases, people with an agenda don't inform the public about that.

10 years ago | Likes 75 Dislikes 22

exactly and thats truly the problem

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

It's a small portion, but one that's rapidly changing and that's due to humans. Majority is water vapor which is influenced by the temp.

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

The most common greenhouse gas is water vapor.

10 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 1

And the most effective greenhouse gas, at that!

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That doesn't make it the most significant effect. I can have a 2 liter of soda or a milligram of cyanide, which one do you think is worse?

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

However, unlike CO2, WV is relative to temperature. This changes the comparison a bit.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

CO2 is 0.04% of earth's atmopshere. I know you said "of all green house gasses", though.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But at the beginning of the graphs, CO2 was 0.03%.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ahem....

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

This graph is hard for normal people to read.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Very low in the cretacious and jurassic eras because of the massive butt loads of vegetation soaking up co2.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Meteor strike caused global blackout and monster greenhouse effect like one of yo mommas chili farts and caused an ice age due to melted ice

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Caps and an overflow of dat agua that soaks up co2 by the truck load and froze the shit like Santa's jolly red balls.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

1/5, or 20%. 5% is all the CFCs and other minor contributors. Majority is water.

10 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 3

Water vapor tends to control itself. If there is more in the atmosphere, more will rain out. CO2 won't do that.

10 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

Exactly! The number one greenhouse gas is water vapor, its WAY easier to control, and we wouldn't have to go back to the stone age to do it.

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 10

What is the residency time of water vapour? Now NO2, CH4, and CO2?

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Clouds. The word you're looking for is clouds.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I really hope you're not being serious...

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

And a bonus benefit: More clean water!

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Water is part of the natural atmospheric system. Carbon, methane, etc. in the quantities we are pumping out are not.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

I heard they already have a viable way to reduce temperatures. They make drone ships that vaporize sea water and spout it into the air to

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

create clouds. This would reflect away some radiation and help cool things down. Pretty interesting

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Human activity does not skew the water balance like it does with CO2, however.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Do you know that the data goes back farther? This just picks up where the variation starts.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Earth has been heating and cooling in cycles for a long time. Adding greenhouse gasses is going to speed it up unfortunately.

10 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

[deleted]

[deleted]

10 years ago (deleted Feb 2, 2018 3:23 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Some guy looking at the sun with his telescope guessing how much heat it is emitting, I guess. We dont even know if all the data is legit.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's the problem, things are changing at a more human scale and not a geological scale. Too fast for natural systems to respond.

10 years ago | Likes 84 Dislikes 9

Sorry OP you are missing the obvious: http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

10 years ago | Likes 1528 Dislikes 13

Next time you plunder a booty tell them it's to save the earth

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Shiver me timbers!

10 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

There are probably more pirates today than ever.

10 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 3

I think zerozerotwo meant sea pirates, but there are also quite a few of those around Africa.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Actually so did i. The seas around south asia are plauged with pirates and outlaws.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

ARRRRRe you sure? Ok I'll see my self out.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I KNEW IT

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

ow.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I would have to agree... OCCUM'S RAZOR ANYONE??? https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-472ff75f73e2b38bbc9de017b0c53ab3?convert_to_webp=tr

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(See also). And I quote "...together they match... ...particularly since 1950." (2/3) (another linked image in reply comment)

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So pirates ᴀʀR cool

10 years ago | Likes 59 Dislikes 3

smooth

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Is this how they graph in Australia? I know their toilets flush upside down and backwards.

10 years ago | Likes 102 Dislikes 2

I love the non-linear scale of the x-axis

10 years ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 1

I've seen this graph so many times and never noticed that

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Look at me. I'm your global warming correlation graph X axis now.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Isnt this included in the lore of pastafarianism?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ah venganza...case closed

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It is, praise thy meaty balls

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Great comment, but I am truly amazed at how many upvotes you have. Figured this somewhat mocking comment would get DV'd to hell.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

10 years ago (deleted Nov 12, 2015 12:21 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Then public school has failed again

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Start with the numbers

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Came here looking for this, leaving satisfied.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You're just a bigot that wants to steal my booty!

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Brb. Gonna go plunder some stuff and save the planet in the process.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Just made this my desktop image. Thank you.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I volunteer

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I watch Cowspiracy in a failed attempt at Netflix and chill and I learned that methane from cows is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2...

10 years ago | Likes 57 Dislikes 2

Netflix and chill with cow farts may be why you failed.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

well i believe it has a bit to do with the diet we give them vs what they usually eat???

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Ok. So let's do a randomized controlled trial. We will have control planets and planets where we change co2 levels and watch their temps :/

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I went to college and studied environmental engineering and learned that the amount of CO2 we release makes up for it.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The ocean itself has TONS of Methan which is released slowly. Our and the cows doing is nothing in compare of.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 9

So are you saying because we have water let's waste resources on agriculture?

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

? No. I'm afraid, I cant follow you.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

True, which is one of the better arguments against farming cattle and other livestock.

10 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 1

Science is REALLY close to growing steaks that taste just like an actual steak from a cow. I'd eat one. But what do we do with the cows now?

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Stop breeding them or clearing land for them to live on.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

That was a legitimate question though. We have TONS of cows. Do we just allow them to go extinct then? Or let them roam free?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We eat them.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

It will be like when the automobile made horses obsolete. Slow decline, rather rarer now, but still around.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Oops, was responding to someone else. Don't know why it popped up here

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Watched that too, had seriously never considered how much cow-emitted methane affected the atmosphere. They pollute more than cars, 1/2

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2/2 boats, and planes combined, annually. But the movie ended up turning into a "pro-vegan" documentary, which admittedly turned me off.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Nothing against vegans, just ain't the lifestyle for me.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I am sure that film selection didn't get you laid.

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Let's tax cow farts to save out earth

10 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 1

If anything, we should seriously consider no longer raising cattle for meat and/or milk. It's gotten that bad.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You're right, we aren't getting taxed enough already

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You are being facetious, but yes, meat should be given an extra carbon tax.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Fun fact: cows burp CH4 rather than fart it.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Downvoting, not because warming is not real, but for shit science. Google global temperature chart 10000 years for a better picture

10 years ago | Likes 124 Dislikes 51

There weren't 7 billion humans that long ago that we had to keep alive.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Climate change zealotry IS based on shit science. Just ask the retroactive data revisions used to "correct" raw temp data showing cooling.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Cropping data just to convince people is the reason why people don't trust science.... You are killing science.

10 years ago | Likes 60 Dislikes 17

Smoking is good for you there is facts some where if you cut copy and crop hard enough.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

You want them to use your aribtrary scale instead of their arbitrary scale? How would increasing the scale of the x axis help this?

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

If I shorten the arbitrary scale to the last five years, there would be global cooling. In general, a longer scale is better.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes. Or even freaking add 100 more years to the same charts! The only reason we even have temperature data is because of the mini ice age!

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The climate has been much hotter in the past. AGW isn't a problem for the planet, its problem for the people. /1

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Life will continue but humans will likely be wiped out. /2

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Pssht. MOST humans. Some will likely survive. Humans are like cockroaches, only bigger.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It does encompass the problem though. Climate fluctuates over geologic time, but it is the rate that it is changing now that is the issue.

10 years ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 3

Also because we can pinpoint the cause. We can actually figure out the cause for rising temps but people still deny the evidence.

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

I wonder how accurately we measured temp & co2 100+ years ago. Surely we continue to get more accurate readings. How does that factor in?

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

The helpful thing is that we can compare historical readings with modern ice cores

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think more accurate readings means more and more accurate predictions over time :D

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Temperatures rise and fall over the centuries, yes. But what WE'RE doing blows previous warmings out of the water.

10 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 11

thats not true..only recently..(last couple thousand years) but the earth has warmed far faster before, and cooled just as fast as well

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 8

info ?

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

to deny humans have contributed to warming is foolish, but its also foolish to say we are the only factor. we are still in an ice age

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

thats the problem in this debate people use partial truths like this starting from 1880 i mean there are people almost that old

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

http://imgur.com/WtO1Uz9 from epa but must admit its tough to find non biased info

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

and in between

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

another problem with this graph is that it's unintentionally misleading when you have huge numbers on the scale in such a small space >

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Just FYI to everyone, that's from http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/past.html and misses the important part of: [1/3]

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I agree data for the past 135 years is not enough but that's all we've got.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

What data is that based on? I can't find the basis of that anywhere.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

this timeframe from 1880 to now isn't to crop data, it's because that's the time we've been measuring.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

This. Of course we could use longer temperature data but then we would have to use secondary sources (e.g. O18 isotopes) /1

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Also the question is about human interaction which starts at industrial revolution. A graph of last million years has too low resolution /2

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

to show the human impact of last 250 years.There are big temperature changes in the Quaternary but again the timescale for them is longer /3

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We do have papers about longer timeperiods, (which confirm the same theories as current measurements) but this timeframe is pretty common ;p

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Correlation is not causation. We need to remove the excess green house gases to see if the global temp goes down. Then we'll know for sure

10 years ago | Likes 624 Dislikes 61

Yup. The "SAVE THE WORLD!!!" hippie bullshit is an important obstacle to reducing pollution. Much better arguments get pushed to the side.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 10

You know his post was sarcasm right

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Yeah. I'm thinking a large vacuum cleaner will suffice. One with a few more options than your regular vacuum cleaner. You know. Science.

10 years ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 2

The next dyson?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Megamaid

10 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

"She's gone from suck to blow!"

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

https://www.studioroosegaarde.net/project/smog-free-project/info/ Thought this was funny, it is kind of like a huge vacuum

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

How 'bout vacu-maid?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Sadly that's a converse error. There's no guarantee that if +GHG-> +GT, then -GHG-> -GT. Not all processes are neatly reversible

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

It's better to assume your actions could be harmful and prove they won't be, instead of causing harm and denying it to avoid responsibility.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"greenhouse gasses" are so dense that they are not even near the upper atmosphere where they are supposedly doing their damage.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But...but what about my new Hummer???

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Are we patient enough to wait 100 years for each experiment to be complete? Removing the excess greenhouse gases all the while?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

no, correlation leads to inference, which leads to hypothesis, which leads to research, which leads to models, which leads to understanding

10 years ago | Likes 207 Dislikes 20

As a Texan, I can attest to it still being short sleeve and blue jean weather. His snowballs mean nothing down here.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

this is some proper scienceation right here!

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

FOR THAT THERE SCIENCE

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I feel like you read the first part and thought I was serious, and skipped the second part which demonstrates that I wasn't

10 years ago | Likes 78 Dislikes 5

Shoot. I get it now...

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Welcome to the interwebs - where even the most batshit crazy statements must be taken @ face value, b/c some ppl would have said that srsly.

10 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

guilty as charged xD

10 years ago | Likes 44 Dislikes 0

that was a pleasantly mild exchange

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm going to just read the last word you wrote and assume this has all been positive. ;-)

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

puns..... +1

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Positive? Oh, my gosh! I'm so sorry. What's the prognosis?

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Which leads to models, which leads to parties, which leads to (hopefully) banging models, which leads to satisfaction

10 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

Which leads to guilt, which leads to feeling empty inside, which leads to depression, which leads to suicide

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

or a career as a stripper

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

step three: profit

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

True, that might take a while...!

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We also need to remove asshats like imhofe.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I appreciate the sarcasm, but also feel obliged to note that paleoclimactic data shows that lower greenhouse=lower temperatures.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

That's why I said excess green house gasses

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The best thing I read on this issue was : weather is not climate - good answer if someone is trying to prove you wrong with a snowball

10 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 0

Or the increasing ice volume in Antarctica, so many "skeptics" blew a load when that study was released. Now theyre circlejerk

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

*ing each other like small toddlers who just realized the joy of fondling their pp

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

These dudes are PR morons for sure, but global warming is a natural occurrence.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You have a point. Look at the Vostok Ice Core samples and this is actually a natural event... CO2 levels go up every thousands of years.1/2

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Its too late. Deep sea frozen methanebis now being unleashed

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Ok, what are you talking about?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

In simple terms there are greenhouse gases frozen at the bottom of the oceans. They are now melting and will increase warming even more.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Essay are you talking about?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In simple terms there are greenhouse gases frozen at the bottom of the oceans. They are now melting and will increase warming even more.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

What*

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The oceans will set fire. this is not a joke.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Its not to late regarding sea methane, the deposits in permafrost regions how ever. Frozen methane underwater can be stabilized.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I have one word for you. Venus.

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

I have one word for you. Jesus.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Venus lacks tectonic plates

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

So?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

So its reason forbhavijg super heated tempratures are multi faceted?

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It's closer to the sun and has more atmosphere, I think that sums it up. What would lacking tectonic plates do with it?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You're going to get downvotes from people who read this as trying to disprove human caused global warming, I think.

10 years ago | Likes 1879 Dislikes 37

Absolutely correct. This is Imgur, not a symposium.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You mean from the "idiots"?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm not a warming denier, but I'm still terrified of Lysenkoism.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

True. I was confused. Never give a boardroom presentation, OP.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Every good scientist will try to disprove it, and prove it. Most have found it proven to be true.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Well. Your comment took care of that.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I was hoping the charts would show it's a hoax. I'm still waiting on a cogent, statistic-based argument from people holding that viewpoint.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

You would appear to be incorrect. Yeah, some people hit the down without looking, but pretty overwhelmingly positive

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Fortunately proven wrong, yup. Made the comment in part hoping that people would see it and revisit the content, you know?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well, your comment out scored the downvotes by more than a thousand, so you got that going for you, which is nice

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I feel like a mother goose when a post I saw in the negatives in User Sub reaches the FP with such a high score. The points are just gravy.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think a big part of our social issues come from calling it "Global Warming" ... "Climate Destabilization" is a much more accurate term.

10 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 1

needs more threat, how about "climatetia"

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So many people don't realize the importance of language when speaking about things that a lot of people don't understand

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

It is human caused, there is a garbage mass in the ocean the size of fucking texas. BUT NO OMG SATANIC STARBUCKS WATCH OUT GUYS.

10 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 14

As a Christian, Im still confused as to what happened

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

been hearing about that for 20 years,... and yet no one can find it!

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 8

There's a three part vice documentary on it - it was okay, but did explain somewhat how it's there, but not visible

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

didn't some chinese chick invent some relevant cheap autonomous garbage boats a while back?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The great Pacific gyre has been "found". It was never even lost actually

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The pacific gyre.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I think you need to do some Google searches.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

I did. Nothing

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

Why doesn't GreenPeas go out there and have a hunger strike or place a hand painted bed sheet banner on it or Something?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

People don't realize the garbage is comprised of mostly smallish objects.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

People don't realize the moon is also comprised of mostly smallish objects.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch "the patch is not visible from satellite photography"

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Charles J. Moore came upon an enormous stretch of floating debris. [7] Most of its contents are suspended beneath the surface of the ocean,[

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

enormous stretch of floating debris suspended beneath the surface? Gee, how could anyone not be convinced that this invisible patch exists?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

its in the pacific ocean and is now TWICE the size of texas, mb.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

gee, you would think there would be a picture of it.. it should even be visible from the space station... and yet, nothing.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

It's just too big for some peoples brains, berbanke, depopulation, global warming, californians drought, all because of that mass. 1/2

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Oh, I did find one picture but the "mass" was only the size of a Buick.. and while Buicks are big cars they're not exactly 2X Texas sized

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Yep. Downvoted, kept reading for no reason, understood, upvoted, finished, laughed at Americans and their candidate.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Who say's the globe wasn't too cold back in 1880?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

you mean the people who think for themselves?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

To be honest at first I was like this fucking guy. but I guess if he has good sources then okay then realized I was wrong about this post.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I nearly downvoted but then I checked the comments first to see how much hate it was getting, turned out not very much

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

True. That's where I thought it was heading at first. Thankfully I kept reading to be sure. I'm glad imgur residents hadn't upvoted bunk.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I think that we should reduce our emissions as much as is practical and then be very creative with replacing what we can to maintain equ.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This is the only easy to read chart i have ever seen that actually addresses climate sceptics concerns. Most of the time its all

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

hail the environmentalists they are our gods. We don't need to actually prove anything to you laymen. Just Believe us when we say we

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

need to take your jobs and destroy your economy for the "planet". This is an actually useful set of charts to help the layman understand.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Thank You

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

That's what I thought this was at first, glad I stuck it out to the end. Very informative OP +1

10 years ago | Likes 63 Dislikes 1

Same here. OP is lucky that I usually read the article too before deciding whether to up/downvote (or just skip) ;)

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

thanks... that's why I shared it. :-)

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I just realized that... Is going up and down from people not seeing the whole album.

10 years ago | Likes 506 Dislikes 11

I was angry, then relieved. So many feelings at once

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I downvoted Because the gif graphs(grifs) were hard to read. But decided that it was good enough to upvote despite.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Good post. But yeah, downvotes will come due to the switcheroo clickbait.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

That's exactly what I did. Downvoted, read whole album, upvotes.

10 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

Just to be clear though. the 5 year mean of global mean surface temps have gone up 1.34 Centigrade from 1882-2012, that's ca 2.4F, not 1.4F

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I was ready to put up my fists but I'll put them away now.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I did that. I'm sorry. I downvoted, then I re-read the last couple frames... I'm part of the problem, OP! Forgive me?

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

forgiven! I just thought it was interesting data so I wanted to share... and well irony doesn't always work well in the internet.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Very interesting and very well presented. I was just too impatient at first.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I liked it, you certainly got my attention and seething hatred. Great post btw!

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yep, downvoted for that, kept reading and then upvoted. The HOAX pic is confusing.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

The first picture made me skeptical, then I read the whole thing and favorited. Good luck. Good album.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

or simply because I already know all that. I'm sorry, it's just not the kind of content I go on Imgur for, nothing personal.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Shoot. Ok... Going back and seeing the whole album.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2/ so you basically substituted centigrade with farenheit: Here's the tabular: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.txt

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I admit I was going to, but I knew this had so many points for a reason. Awesome post!

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I used to "work with" Lonnie Thompson. I worked in the same department, but I am not a world renowned Paleo-climatologist.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'll be honest, I was waiting for a correlation with Dickbutts.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You might wish to make your sources a little clearer than one sentance.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The thing that really annoys me about all this, it breaks everything down, except "greenhouse gases". Which it puts the blame on...

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I would like to see a break down of the "gases" to see which gases/sources contributed how much to global warming.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

it was off-putting. I only scrolled down to see if you were being ironic or something.

10 years ago | Likes 154 Dislikes 2

Nothing about it was "ironic." If anything, he was being sarcastic.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

I scrolled to see how fucking retarded he was and then I realized he wasn't.

10 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

I scrolled down to try and see some evidence against man-made global warming. Nothing wrong with looking at evidence against your ideas

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

"You should be off pudding"

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

And I was!

10 years ago | Likes 93 Dislikes 1

I thought your final image was going to be some underground dragon species responsible for global warming.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I was wondering how this was going to turn into a badly photoshopped Micheal Cera

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That would of been funny

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

TBH I only read this because I love graphs. Moving graphs are even better. Then it was informative too, so that was nice. Thank you OP :)

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

hence the read, the updoot, the reply, the reply's reply, the flipping from porn to this and back again...wait

10 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 2

Sorry for interrupting your porn watching.... Carry on.

10 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 0