I'm tired of seeing people claim that climate change has always occurred in the last, therefore human activity cannot possibly result in climate change. Global temperature trends aside, carbon levels in our atmosphere are obnoxiously high and will only go higher at this rate.
So what does this mean for us? It means that our atmosphere will quickly become filled up with carbon, which creates a greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is real and occurs when heat is reflected back from the atmosphere to the Earth's surface. The thicker our atmosphere, the stronger this effect. There is no scientific debate about the realness of the greenhouse effect. It is real and well documented and NO ONE denies it.
Moving forward, we should now understand that the greenhouse effect is real, our atmosphere is directly affected by our carbon emissions, and that previous temperature changes on the planet are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION without the context of the composition of our atmosphere.
So what this means for the planet and our future? Luckily, there are planets with greenhouse gas-rich atmospheres such as Venus that we can study and learn from. The atmosphere of Venus is very thick and is about 90 times more massive than Earth's atmosphere. It is mostly carbon dioxide gas (about 96%), with some nitrogen (about 3%) and a very small amount of water vapor (0.003%). Venus is also significantly further from the sun than earth, yet in spite of this fact, it has a surface temperature around 800° F.
So it doesnt take a genius to figure out, the more carbon we release into our atmosphere, the closer Earth gets to becoming an uninhabitable heat sink like Venus. Are the carbon levels entirely man created? Probably not. There is evidence that termite and cow farts also contribute to the carbon problem in a significant way, but humans are the only species capable of taking action to correct our atmosphere.
>>72141346
didn't they tell you what the plan is now? If you know, you shut up, because its too late, and we need to do some purging
And I didnt really write an ending, but I hope at least one of you will take the time to pill yourself and be well informed on a very simple and important problem that our societies and our children's children's societies will collectively face and hopefully resolve. Stay classy, /pol/
You're preaching to the choir bro, but there are a lot of Jesus loving trailerpark retards on /pol/ who believe every conspiracy they read and cannot into logic.
>>72141346
>Venus is also significantly further from the sun than earth
>>72141346
But if you take that same chart in temperature and not CO2, temperature is not increasing with CO2.
Assuming the ice core CO2 concentrations vs more recent measurements are accurate--and that's a big if--then there is something majorly wrong the the hypothesis that CO2
>>72141628
Is the plan to raise the water levels and purge all the people living near the coasts? That's a mean plan, and I don't see it purging anyone. The water level doesnt move that fast.
>>72141819
Forgot pic.
>carbon dioxide levels high
>plants use carbon dioxide to produce oxygen
>>72141819
>>72141860
...then there is something majorly wrong the the hypothesis that CO2 increases Necessarily cause global temperature increases.
>>72141819
Temperature will increase with CO2 eventually. Too many different things alter temperature thats why I said temperature is irrelevant to the discussion. What you need to be looking at is the atmosphere's composition. Other data will mislead you.
>>72141923
>plants cant keep up
>oceans acidify
again with the climate change myth
>global warming
>it's been getting cooler
>>72141826
Nuclear plants will
>>72141346
>implying higher CO2 concentrations are bad
Why do you hate plants?
>>72141923
It's where the carbon dioxide goes that is important. There arent any plants in the upper stratosphere. Carbon dioxide is obviously needed, but it is possible to have too much.
>>72141819
>>72141860
Not to mention that CO2 increases and in-line with temperature 800 years AFTER, not before raises in temperature. This must be that "Inconvenient truth" fembot Gore was talking about.
>>72142058
>reading the entire post
For the rest of the thread im ignoring anyone discussing recent temperature changes because you're illiterate fucks that comment on things you never finished reading. Like the lazy kid in english class who didnt read the book everyone's discussing, you're just wasting time.
>>72141346
>bluepilled
CO2 was way higher a few million years ago, we have saved ourselves from an ice age.
>>72141985
Youre not good at reading graphs. Please avoid scientific discussion in the future until you can read a graph.
>>72142439
climate change is bullshit, I didn't have to read you post
>>72141346
How the fuck can they know what temperature was 300 thousand years ago did the Dinosaur have thermometers?
>>72142673
Our atmosphere was also very thin millions of years ago. Just because the planet benefitted from high CO2 in the past doesn't mean the same holds up now. Like I said, this whole topic is about analyzing the composition of our atmosphere and realizing what our atmopshere could become in the future.
>>72142928
Its actually quite easy and their are multiple proxies that can be used. You need to learn some science leaf.
>>72142928
Carbon dating.
>>72141346
CO2+heat+water rising= paradise for plants and humans.
>>72142742
GREENHOUSE EFFECT DENIER! YOU BELONG IN THE LOONEY BIN.
>>72142673
Life was also drastically different millions of years ago.
>>72141346
>>72143040
>>72143148
I do not think that US based education you rc
received has worked out too well.
>>72143480
Good counterargument bong, but do you have a source to support your claim? I cant find any.
>>72141986
This is terrible epistemology. What you have is a hypothesis that CO2 might cause global temperatures to increase in -some fashion- based on deductive reasoning from laboratory results.
What you don't have is any evidence that this hypothesis holds true in reality, outside of the laboratory setting. And in
order to predict what problems, if any, will arise from CO2 increases, you need to actually demonstrate in empirical terms--in the context where you're making the prediction, reality--that your predictions are panning out.
But no model has produced any accurate predictions, and if CO2 were such a driving force for temperature in the manner proposed, we should at least be seeing some off-trend temperature increases.
You people are literally witch-doctors.
>>72142124
I thought this would also lead to higher oxygen levels, creating Franken-insects?
>>72143040
>Our atmosphere was also very thin millions of years ago.
+
>>72141346
>Venus is also significantly further from the sun than earth
>>72143645
Well then it's time to gear up the DDT production again.
>>72143632
Is venus not a good enough example?
>>72141860
so each bar on the bottom axis is 50,000 years apart. and the massive uptick starts 3/4 of the way from 50,000 to 0... so around 2000 years ago?
>>72143337
So we might cause a small extinction event. So what? The best evolution occurs when life is stressed.
Plus I am somewhat inclined to refute the idea that life was drastically different. If anything CO2 levels were so low during the ice ages they were approaching levels where the mechanism in which 99% of plants undertake oxygenic photosynthesis was becoming nonviable.
>>72143646
Thin was probably the wrong word since I meant to say low in Oxygen, I'm not perfect and my presentation of the information isnt perfect, but I've yet to hear a decent rebuttal from anyone.
>>72143564
For what?
Your incorrect belief that carbon dating can tell temperatures?
Or do you mean the planets temperature? It is shown on the lower plot of the graphs i posted. It shows a cooling, glaciating planet.
>>72144140
Oxygen levels were way higher millions of years ago.
You obviously don't know jackshit about the atmosphere so you should stop posting and read a book instead.
Sheeeeeit
>>72144140
Oxygen levels have been relatively constant over the last few hundred million years due to negative feedbacks.
>>72141923
>these are the people i am arguing against
can't wake up
>>72144603
O2 was non existant/nearly non existant when there were no plants/early plant life. At that time, Earth's atmosphere was carbon rich.
>>72141346
>Venus is also significantly further from the sun than earth,
You might wanna look into that again before you continue shitposing.
>>72144881
That was hundreds of millions of years ago. Stop moving the goalpost you fag.
>>72143934
Not for what I'm discussing. You would need to demonstrate that a Venusian atmospheric composition could even be achieved on earth using known processes.
You also need to remember that all of the evidence points to Venus having started with a thick CO2 atmosphere and a lot more trapped heat than earth did. The most you can say in comparison is: "If earth was like Venus it would be like Venus." But to say that humans can somehow cause some kind of never-before-observed "runaway effect" to create another Venus is total speculation based on no verifiable evidence.
Again, you people are witch-doctors with no grasp about how to think in actual scientific terms.
>>72144881
Lad, do you think plants are a recent phenomenon? That there were none several millions of years ago?
>>72144670
Cool. Deleting the thread until I can look into this. Thanks for being the only poster with evidence.
>>72141819
Temperature =/= climate
>>72142439
>ignoring anyone discussing recent temperature changes
Whatever it takes to cling to your religion.
>>72143234
paradise for jungle monkeys
>>72145165
>no plants several millions years ago
Full retard
>>72144670
This. Everyone read this and prepare to be completely redpilled about the fraud of AGW alarmism. That thread was epic with based Russiabro absolutely destroying the Lefties from /sci/.
>>72141804
>>72143646
>>72144916
Came here to say this.
>>72143040
>Our atmosphere was also very thin millions of years ago
Just pulling shit out of your ass now.
>>72141346
>It means that our atmosphere will quickly become filled up with carbon, which creates a greenhouse effect.
It doesn't
>COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION without the context of the composition of our atmosphere.
The temperature is calculated based exactly on the composition of the atmosphere.
>Venus is also significantly further from the sun than earth,
It's not.
Fuckin uneducated retard with a false graph trying to push his agenda here.
>CO2 levels at historic lows
>ice caps at both poles
>global temps at record lows
Cool story bro
>>72141346
>CO2 levels 100 years ago
0.037%
>CO2 levels now
0.004%
Guys give it up already we're basically Venus at 90% there's no hope
>Venus is also significantly further from the sun than earth
>>72145916
Meant 0.04%
>>72141346
>Venus is also significantly further from the sun than earth
............................
>>72141346
We're all gonna die, gib all your money's to the George Soros foundation to stop Gerbil warming.
>>72144670
would be interesting to see how models behave that have the sun cycle as their main driving force.
>>72146308
not very good. the sun has been getting cooler while the avg temp went up
>>72141346
i know, i just don't care, humans are the most adaptable species of animal that has ever lived, we'll be fine
we should switch to renewable energy though because its just a good idea
The greenhouse gas effect is absolutely real, what nobody knows is the absolute magnitude of this effect and whether or not it has a relevant contribution to global climate. We can very accurately gauge the relative greenhouse effect of different gases, but there is no model or formula with any sort of extensive testing which actually estimates energy retention on earth as a result of atmospheric composition.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have dramatically risen in the past century, in terms of percentage of its previous levels. However, in terms of the percentage of the total atmosphere it has barely changed at all. Obviously, this does not discount the possibility that the difference has an effect, but saying "earth's CO2 has risen 30 percent above where it probably would have been without humans!" is a little disingenuous when you consider the fact that the change is 100 parts per million. Especially so when you compare earth to venus, with an atmosphere which is essentially entirely CO2.
>Venus is also significantly further from the sun than earth
Oh, you were just fucking with us the whole time, and here I went and spent a few minutes writing this up. Fuck you.
>global warming
>it's cold outside
Hippies BTFO
>>72146706
that switch is not easy. if you mean in theory then yes it's a good idea, like collecting the sun in the sahara in a cost saving matter why the hell not. installing chemical processing co. panels that can barely charge a computer? not a good idea
>>72146706
We already had the next step of human energy production for over 50 years but nobody will comit to it because "muh chernoby"
>>72144670
They really have been lying this entire fucking time.
>>72147501
Is heating water with dangerous elements really the next step?
I mean, it's useful and should be used, but we seriously need the real next step.
>>72147865
>Is heating water with dangerous elements really the next step?
It's literally the safest energy production we have.
>>72146308
There was a /sci/ thread on this a couple of weeks ago. Bretty fascinating.
>>72146701
>sun has been getting cooler
Leave memeth, what you mean actually mean is sun activity and not temperature.
Also we are at the end of the modern maximum, so even when sun activity decreases, it doesn't mean that earth react immediately.
>>72146856
Hippes?
Global communist governance built on a lie, resembles a religion more than science, preposterous prophecies, copious quantity of propaganda, heretic hunts... Absolute power corrupts absolutely and it's only just begun! Obviously they want to control energy first, the despotic world police state fails without that much.
>>72141346
>I'm tired of seeing people claim that climate change has always occurred in the last, therefore human activity cannot possibly result in climate change.
Strawman. Climate change is ALWAYS occurring, therefore we cannot merely assume current change is due to man or dangerous.
>carbon levels in our atmosphere are obnoxiously high and will only go higher at this rate.
"Obnoxiously" is not a scientific term. You used to for emotional effect. It is meaningless in this discussion.
>It means that our atmosphere will quickly become filled up with carbon, which creates a greenhouse effect.
Carbon does not exist by itself in the atmosphere. Nor is "carbon" a GHG. Nor is it possible for us to "fill up" our atmosphere with anything.
Carbon exists in the atmosphere bound in the molecule CO2. CO2 is a weak GHG.
>The thicker our atmosphere, the stronger this effect.
No. This is not how the greenhouse effect works you moron. We are not making our atmosphere "thick" with CO2.
>There is no scientific debate about the realness of the greenhouse effect.
There is plenty of debate about how each factor plays into the effect.
>Luckily, there are planets with greenhouse gas-rich atmospheres such as Venus that we can study and learn from.
Venus is irrelevant. Venus is hot because of the density of its atmosphere. Nothing we do, or could do, would create those conditions on Earth.
>Venus is also significantly further from the sun than earth,
WTF am I reading? What grade are you in? Venus is CLOSER to the sun you dipshit.
