What do you guys think.
>>77444767
>1 post by this ID
>>77444767
>1 post by this ID
>>77444767
> "global warming"
> coldest summer in 50 years
>>77444767
Climate change obviously exists.
The question is whether or not humans have a major impact.
I think we have a marginal impact and it certainly is no excuse to stop our energy industry.
>>77444942
true
>>77444767
thats only a measurement of sea ice on the surface, which is constantly fluctuating. the actual volume of ice (recorded with radar from satellites) has been plummeting for decades now.
>>77444882
>coldest summer in 50 years
>hottest summer in 50 years
Hoax
>>77445025
I agree but do you think that politicians are using it as a way to money off of companies who "threaten" the increase of heat. In other words is it manmade.
>>77444767
US PEOPLE HAVING INTELLEGENCE, HOAX OR NOT?
>>77444767
>man-made
Hoax
>natural cycle
Real
whats so hard to believe that humans have an impact on the climate
>>77445462
cause of hoaxs and policians and mediaiaa are tryifdng to brainwash uus with memesauer
>>77444833
>>77444873
Please stop with this one post shit. The IDs are bound to the thread. Fuck off to b you retards.
>>77445632
You ok there? Having a stroke?
>>77444767
IT IS A FUCKING HOAX
A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
In 1988, a former Canadian Minister of the Environment told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France said: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#1a566c5076fb
>>77445244
>man-made
>Hoax
Don't think so. Don't you guys know about Dust Bowl?:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
>The widespread conversion of the land by deep plowing and other soil preparation methods to enable agriculture eliminated the native grasses which held the soil in place and helped retain moisture during dry periods.
tl;dr: Farmers fucked the soil and then caused a huge mess in the form of constant storms of dust.
Every living organism has an impact in his medium and we as humans (as the dominant species of the planet) have the ability to cause serious impact in it, that (some day) could be bad for ourselves.
No, the answer is not "HURR LET'S DROP THE OIL AND NUCLEAR POWER AND LIVE LIKE HIPPIES BRO" but we should work on alternative forms of energies and apply them in what is possible. That's all.
>>77445815
“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
This is actually a good opinion.
>>77445174
And yes: as always some people are going to try to push some weird agenda using this as excuse. That doesn't mean this is false.
It's real. It's man made. It's too late to turn back now. Enjoy your doom.
>>77447620
Ah no.
>>77445641
2 posts by this ID.
Take it easy there, champ. Wouldn't want to slide too much now.
>>77447059
So that dust bowl that occurred 100 years ago is still fucking us over today?
Regardless of global warming opinions, we should really pushing for nuclear power and better fuel technologies for cars anyway. Because 1) much of that oil is coming from parts of the world full of Quran licking goatfuckers who don't deserve any more of our damned money and 2) oil is a pretty finite resource and it's better to wean off it before it gets so expensive we have to post armed security at all gas stations.
>>77447916
As far as I know: nope. And that's because the government toke a really good and smart action to stop it.
>>77448066
This desu. Don't get why some people get so defensive about it.
Nibiru
>>77448081
So how again does the dust bowl relate to global climate change?
I think that global warming is reall!
Because there are so many people now, and the overpopulation will make things get warmer over time!!
Like when there are lots of people in a room and it gets gross LOL.
Thanks~
・ﾟ: *・ﾟ:* *:・ﾟ*:・ﾟ .・
- Missy_Starshine
>>77447059
Yeah I know we can change it hugely and I agree would should take steps to have care about our environment but I meant climate change as its known now was not caused by man made methods.
>>77444767
>>77444882
are people here just fools? Do you know nothing about the Permian era? Do you not know that during global warming its a cycle between extreme cold and extreme hot? In the Permia era, the era that killed off 90% of every species, formed ice caps nearly the size of a hemisphere, yet the cause was global warming still.
>>77448167
Praise kek, the destroyer cometh
>>77448204
>A group of farmers caused a quite big mess for being negligent while managing land
>Humans after the industrial revolution are (maybe) too focused producing and using all the available resources without knowing that those thing are bad for ourselves.
tl;dr: Humans have the power to affect his own planet.
>>77448366
I think we should be careful. That's all.
>>77448577
I'm confused. Did the dust bowl contribute to climate change or not?
>>77448676
i think he was using an analogy
Our energy usage isn't really the main issue. Changing to renewable sources will help only a tiny fraction.
The real issue is that we have AND/OR:
1) A too large world population in general to feed (incorrect at this time but may happen in the future so it's good to control it somewhat, i.e. immigrants and native sandniggers need to be limited to 2 kids)
2) A too large middle class world population that wants to eat dairy, eggs and meat. This is already starting to be the case. Most gases which "could" affect our climate come from agriculture. it's also by a big margin the #1 reason for deforestation.
As it takes way too much space, water and other resources to create beef and other sorts of meat we should be looking for alternatives which can be:
1) Increase prices of meat heavily so that only rich people can eat it on the regular
2) Introduce a diet which involves meat only once or twice a week
3) Figure out technologies to grow steaks and the like in labs at a fraction of the resource and space costs.
As I would never want to become a vegan, I'm hoping they figure out #3 before 1 or 2 are necessary.
>>77448717
Analogy to what?
>>77448423
Well also this: "HURR GLOBAL WARMING MUST PRODUCE HEAT. and that's not how this things work.
The Day After Tomorrow gave a simple explanation about that, actually.
>>77448676
Pretty sure he just was using the Dust Bowl as an example to demonstrate the effect we can have on the climate.
>>77447059
>Venezuela
Go back to your breadline, commie
>>77448066
>>77448118
I agree with using a mix of advanced nuclear technology (effectively banning the use of outdated plants and forcing governments to keep them updated at all times) with renewables where possible and some coal/oil to fill gaps here and there.
About oil being a finite resource: Of course there isn't an unlimited amount of oil in the earth but we're not even close to that limit with fracking etc. The thing is you don't WANT to have to get all the oil as it costs so many other, more precious resources like water.
>>77448849
Who here is denying that humans have an impact on the global climate?
>>77448423
We could, with concerted effort, quite probably survive another Permian ice age given current technology. It would be a mother fucker, but we could do it.
The real big bit though is we need to get our assets and start building lots more nuke plants, especially given that the vast majority of the waste from them comes from weaponizing uranium and creating plutonium.
>>77448883
Of course.
>>77448880
I hate commies m8
>>77444942
It doesnt matter what you think, you're not a climate scientist. Its cute you have an opinion though.
>>77448905
The post I was replying to originally:
>>77445244
>>77444767
no way it's not real and it's almost certainly human-caused. That being said, most models have utterly failed to calculate its effects properly.
>>77449056
So you believe climate change is real but humans didn't cause it and/or aren't the major contributors to it?
>>77448883
Yeah, they banned frakking in my state because of how badly it fucks stuff up. It can be done safely, but you are depending on an industry that cuts as many corners as possible and has a history of accidentally blowing up a 500 million dollar oil rig in order to save a few hundred thousand thousands on safe countenance.
>>77448081
eh they actually did not do that much before it was over. They tried to grow a fuck ton of trees to stop the dust and some other things but before those programs were completed it ended. But either way, why do ppl care so much. I dont really give a shit, imma die before it effects anyone anyways.
ok how many of you actually have science degrees?
>>77448848
how living m8y?
I don't watch news and don't believe it. So how's living?
I'm an idiot, somebody explain to me why the ice in the poles melting is important without mentioning muh poor polar bears.
>>77449530
If all the ice melts, the sea levels will rise and flood Manhattan and the Netherlands and shit like that. Probably not going to happen though
>>77448423
>yet the cause was global warming still.
the cause was a fucking gigantic volcano eruption
>>77447059
nuclear power is one of the most eco friendly and efficient forms of energy generation known to man
>>77449144
m8 I know my english is not good but you are doing this a lot harder than it should.
Humans CAN cause climate change.
>>77449400
Bad.
>>77449361
Studying Biology.
>>77449530
Land gets submerged.
>>77449732
Ok(?)
>>77449627
So basically just land below sea level gets washed away, my life is unaffected and I get a nice Happening™ out of it. I'm pretty motivated to drive around tomorrow now.
If accurate predictions cannot be made, what you have is not science but philosophy.
>>77444767
so can someone explain to me why is it a hoax? who has anything to gain from that? whats the point of it not being real?
>>77444767
>Ice caps shrink and grow every year.
>It just gets worse and worse.
Whats so hard to understand about this conservashits?
hoax
the earth's average temperature has barely changed
less than a degree in over a century, it's fucking nothing
I hope people here are trolling when they say it's a hoax
>>77444767
That u r a retard desu senpai
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/05/spiral_optimized.gif
>>77450340
>I hope
Go back to fucking plebbit with your hopes, faggot.
>>77450019
And they never seem able to make accurate predictions. Anthropogenic climate change is just a trojan horse for socialists with dreams of world domination.
>>77450465
>166 years is significant and it proves the cause of my boogeyman is anthropogenic
Dude. Naw.
>>77444767
The "Warming" Part is not by our increased output of CO2. Most areas experiencing extreme heat are those with ozone layer holes created when we were ramapantly using CFC's.
We still are fucking our environments up by other means. Its not just the "warming" that's the issue.
What we forget is that we aren't trying to save the earth, we are trying to save ourselves from the retribution from the earth which will occur via natural processes.
For example, at the rate we are going, bees will be no more in about 150 years. Within 50 years of the extinction of the bees and no other major pollinator species arise, we will see vast deforestation and from there CO2 release will actually fuck us in our ass because there is nothing to mitigate it.
There is also the possibility of an HIV type bacteria emerging as something that's infectitious in other ways than bodily fluids because we keep making new vaccines and medicine and at one point we might not completely kill off some bacteria/virus and it will evolve into something unstoppable.
The Malthusian theory combined with modern science suggests the earth can only handle 4 billion humans if we don't significantly change our way of life.
What im trynna say is that if we dont do anything and just discuss and fight over the matter we will get fucked desu
>>77450465
Weren't there mini ice ages along the way? Wouldn't that sort of skew the result similar to how it would if you just measured temps from morning to noon and made projections based on that.
>>77450787
>my opinion is worth spit when almost every climate scientist alive says the opposite
Dude. Naw.
>>77445208
Hoax duh
>>77445729
Underrated.
>>77450881
along the way as in since 1850? No there werent.
>>77450794
>Malthus
>after the Industrial Revolution
Dude. Naw.
>>77450787
DUDE. NAW.
>autism, the post.
Course it's a hoax
Reason 1: daddy trump said so
Reason 2: Scientists get payed by the green energy companies to say that shit
Reason 3: The Earth's temperature always fluctuates.
Reason 4: If those liberal faggots are saying it it can't be true.
>>77451049
>forgets the "combined with modern science part"
>Burgers being scientifically illiterat again
Boy am i surprised
>>77445815
>forbes
>>77450909
>guys who used to only have research and tv weatherman as career options say that they have some important news that also happens to make them more important and well-funded
You know the rest.
>>77444767
all the IPCC models were disproved, it's just bullshit
>>77451251
>doesn't realize that technology and science and trade have made Malthus wrong
>misspells "illiterate"
>can't see truth through epicanthic folds
>>77450019
The predictions have been shown accurate. The GHG theory is over 100 years old. Basically, we add more GHG to the atmosphere, we see warming. We have and we have.
>>77450073
> Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding
This is just the latest in a long line of such incidents.
>>77449020
Well I sort-of am (Geologist, close enough). And humans are partially influencing it but the effects are wildly exaggerated, some places along the coast below or at sea level are fucked (New Orleans) but that's going to happen regardless of human activity. Really it's a matter of politics in the field, it's bloody suicide to speak out against the idea that humans are a plague killing the Earth and there aren't enough people who give a fuck about the actual science to bother peer-reviewing most of the studies so false or exaggerated data is rarely actually called out.
>>77451511
They are now claiming that, since the models are obviously correct, it's certainly the observations that are wrong. Seriously. And fuckers believe that.
>>77450794
>we will see vast deforestation and from there CO2 release will actually fuck us in our ass because there is nothing to mitigate it.
Since the industrial revolution we've increased atmospheric co2 by 45%. CO2 is a GHG.
>>77451574
He was wrong in his prediction but we still use his models in many population/resources related issues.
Also,
>you forgot a letter so your argument is wrong
Burgers please
>>77451801
And???
How does that even remotely relate to what I said other than that those are facts regarding CO2
>>77450794
>The Malthusian theory combined with modern science suggests the earth can only handle 4 billion humans if we don't significantly change our way of life.
The estimates of Earth's "carrying capacity" are all over the place. There's no rigor or consensus. It ranges from 1 billion (though I did read one that said 500k-750k) to 10 trillion. It'd be absurd to use any of this weak science for policy decisions.
>>77451511
The warming is slower than some models predicted. Does this mean the whole theory is incorrect?
Wouldn't the reduction of forest alone make the area around it warmer? A forest has a different albedo then ground vegitation or barren land
>>77451809
He was right for a brief period. Again, the Industrial Revolution took care of that.
I told you why you're wrong and it had nothing to do with a typo... I just thought it was an amusing one.
>>77444767
Its real and a threat, but not as much as a direct threat as the third world hordes at the moment.
>>77452011
Why do alarmists charts generally only go back a century or so? The planet is billions of years old, y'know.
>>77452037
Actually vegetation generally warms the area so no. Helps trap heat in through the night among other things; relatively barren areas often cool significantly at night
>>77452220
>Why do alarmists charts generally only go back a century or so? The planet is billions of years old, y'know.
You're not any better. Billions of years doesn't matter. What we're concerned about is the climate for the duration of human civilization (agriculture), which would only be back 10k years.
>>77451905
You say
>The "Warming" Part is not by our increased output of CO2. Most areas experiencing extreme heat are those with ozone layer holes created when we were rampantly using CFC's.
You're wrong. This increase in co2 ties in with observed increase in temperature. Even the mechanism is known. The UK for example has experienced year on year of record breaking highs in temperature recently. Are you suggesting we're sitting under a bit hole?
I agree with your above point about the exploding population being part of the issue, but co2 is one of the better understood 'direct' factors we can affect.
>>77452220
We don't have much in the way of temperature records from before then.
>>77449694
KID, THERE WERE SO MANY DEAD TREES UNDER GROUND THAT TURNED INTO COAL BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING TO DECOMPOSE THEM, AND THE VOLCANO ERUPTED, BURNED THE COAL, AND RELEASED A SHIT LOAD OF GREEN HOUSE GASSES CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING. DO U KNOW NOTHING? NECK YOSELF FOOL.
>>77452220
Last week it rained four days. It rained only once the first four days of the week then it rained the last three days.
This is a trend. We will have rain every day forever but it might just be a drizzle if you pay me and my patrons.
>>77452011
yes
>>77444942
It also depends on the scale, large scale negative climate change (which is really what is considered "global warming") is the only thing I personally am unsure about because we have not been in a situation where we could impact the climate on a large scale for long enough. There are plenty of small and medium scale examples of severe climate change caused by humans.
For example Baotou lake in China which was a climate which could harbor life and is now not.
I'm not well researched into this enough as I don't hugely care so I'm not making any claims just saying how I see it.
I'm not thinking anything.
>FACT: the earth is warming up
>FACT: the earth cycles between ice-ages and warm periods
We're right now coming out of a cold period. Classical scientists have always believed that more energy == good, because more energy == more food == more life.
The fact is that we don't know for certain WHY the earth is warming up; volcanic, solar or anthropogenic activity may all play a significant role.
We also don't know for certain if we should care; biodiversity is a real thing, but the history of the world is rife with extinction and some animals are really fucking stupid. Koala's only eat eucalyptus leaves and Panda's only eat bamboo.
>>77452302
Doesn't that kind of only make sense if you want to make the cause seem anthropogenic? Surely long-term patterns are relevant.
>>77452492
Kind of cocky to make such grand claims with incomplete data, no?
>>77448066
Agreed, I wish my country would stop being autistic cucks and make a few Nuclear power plants so energy would be less fucking expensive.
And although oil is technically finite, we will never run out of fossil fuels, possibly specifically oil and even if it does, we will find a way to make petrol out of other things.
>prehistoric ice age
>Renaissance warm period
>mini ace age from 1700's to the 1930's
>temperatures get hotter as industry coincidentally is at its peak
>people think it is a cause not a coincidence
IT MUST BE HUMANS
PLEASE BUY MY BOOKS ABOUT MADE UP SHIT!
>>77448718
>can't feed the world population
Where did you get this from? You pulled it out your ass. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone. We even destroy vast amounts of food to keep prices high so farming is profitable. You are fucking stupid.
>fallig for global warming meme
Enjoy your euro6/EPA17
>>77449092
You can't calculate such complex systems. See: complexity theory.
>>77449020
Calling climatologists scientists is deceptive. They can only utilize inductive logic in their research; not the scientific method. They've been inaccurate for the past 30 years as a result.
>>77453211
They think Malthus is still relevant.
>>77452968
>Human invent fire
>Fire release CO2
>It end the ice age
Prehistoric proof of man made Global warning, why didn't we learn!
>>77444767
I mean, it's probably real, but such an insignificant amount that'd it'd never be a problem unless China and other countries never got off coal for like 200+ years.
>>77451606
The GHG theory hasn't successfully been isolated from other causes or effects. In context of the earth's natural climate cycles, watching 100 years of global temps and extrapolating is like watching the sun start to rise and concluding that the sky will get brighter and brighter indefinitely.
>>77453303
>>77450019
these
>>77451646
>Well I sort-of am
>Geologist
Into the trash you go.
>>77453504
Do you actually have an argument or just trying to hide the fact that you know jackshit by saying no one else is qualified?
>>77453211
Of course we are currently feeding our population though the methods used are not sustainable and even now we could not uphold the western lifestyle if adopted by the third world.
It's measurably real, but there is data to suggest that the increases fall within expected levels given its cyclical nature.
>>77453422
>>77452601
these
>>77453422
>The GHG theory hasn't successfully been isolated from other causes or effects.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but the effects of co2 can be easily shown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
> In context of the earth's natural climate cycles
The natural cycles are relatively well known.
>watching 100 years of global temps and extrapolating is like watching the sun start to rise and concluding that the sky will get brighter and brighter indefinitely.
What would you suggest? We have a theory, that GHG in the atmosphere traps heat. This can be demonstrated in a lab, and observation shows that the same effect is occurring in the atmosphere. There are numerous ways we can see the effect of additional co2, mostly where in the atmosphere the warming occurs, and satellites showing less IR radiation leaving the earths atmosphere than should be. This IR is being absorbed by atmospheric co2.
>>77444767
IF , the situation was dire enough to bring catastrophies upon us, the world leaders would have taken action. Regardless being jew puppets even jews need the world intact , fuck global warming
>>77453796
What natural warming are you talking about? The 'leaving an ice age' warming?
>As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
>>77453884
It's not about "end of the world, catastrophic ruin." That's just fear-mongering that ecoterrorists used because the first thing that is effected by climate change is fragile ecosystems.
The second thing that is effected by climate change- and this is why you finally start to see people starting to take action- is the economy.
Global Warming is not about "sane people trying to prevent the world coming to an end" vs "insane people who close their eyes while they ride the bomb waving a cowboy hat in the air." Global Warming is about "short term benefits, long term costs." And that's generally the time when government and international (since it's an international matter) oversight kicks in.
>>77453842
I meant that the GHG theory hasn't been placed in the context of natural climate change. Whilst we know how CO2 works its not as easy to figure out how much human activity effects the climate. Chances are it does but we can't separate it from natural change when examining global temperature fluctuations. This can justify moderate policy to move the energy sector away from fossil fuels, problem is that most Climate activists want to go full retard.
The other issue is that governments and international institutions can use the impending doom to justify any level of state authority.
>>77452871
the germans made synthetic petroleum during the war
>>77453842
>We have a theory, that GHG in the atmosphere traps heat. This can be demonstrated in a lab, and observation shows that the same effect is occurring in the atmosphere
and is the equation linear? or are there diminishing returns? and are there any mechanisms which increase the amount of heat lost?
>>77453842
also, what about water vapor? I read a guy who claims that 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor, and that humans contribute only 0.001% of this
>>77449569
Supremely underrated post.
>>77444767
Notice how theres less ice on the land, and more on the sea. This picture proves global warming.
>>77454848
Water is widely considered to be the main greenhouse gas and while it is true that we do not directly effect the amounts of it in the atmosphere to any significant extent, this doesn't mean that other emissions are neglectable.
On the whole this is about quite minor differences that amount to significant changes in our environment.
Also, increased co2 levels in the atmosphere has been considered to lead to a H2O feedback, meaning that we indirectly might end up increasing it.
>>77455179
and by that I mean chunks of land are melting and going into the ocean
>>77448718
nobody is fucking hungry.
thanks, rich white people.
>>77455184
so 95% of the greenhouse effect is nothing to do with us?
and maybe more when you factor in the other parts of the 5% that we don't cause
>>77455538
Of course most of it has nothing to do with us.
Without the greenhouse effect no life as we know it could exist on our planet and, obviously, life have existed long before humans.
Our impact is quite small as such but even a slight change in our climate can have a profound effect on life as a whole .
>>77455801
not sure how you can argue for global warming being man made, when our emissions are only a few % of the total
>>77444767
OY VEY
I-ITS C-CLIMATE CHANGE NOW GOY
Father's part of the Houston Geological Society. They had the (at the time) leading Climate expert in North America. Direct quote, "You want to know what all the climate research in the world has proven? Sunspots affect the climate. That's it."
Also played tennis with a couple of chemists. One of them brought it up. I inquired further. He replied, "Chemically impossible".
Looked it up even further. Spent a few weeks researching it as a project for an internship. He's only wrong about one thing (Unless I missed something): Aerosol would have actually kind of screwed over the Ozone layer if presented in large enough quantities.
So then, why does the data show a trend in heating? Well, looked into that... The only trends in heating are sourced by the NOAA and sources derived from the NOAA (Like most of NASA's research).
So, why's that a problem? Because the NOAA and NASA get their funding from the American government. As such, most of their research is politically motivated (which has been shown in the past with several cases of data tampering).
Which is why, if you've followed the whole argument from a chemists perspective, you'd be at the point where you're arguing how effective the ocean is at being a carbon sink... Which depends on its acidity...
Which, you guessed it, is also NOAA territory. And, wouldn't you know, the data has also shown a history of being tampered!
So, what does this all mean? It means that the next time someone tells you, "There's no debate when it comes to climate change", you should probably let them know: Science doesn't work that way; its facts are only molded and eroded from years of scientific debates.
>>77454773
>and is the equation linear? or are there diminishing returns?
Unsure whether diminishing returns or not. There's a lot of talk of 'saturation', the point at which adding more co2 will stop, or at least drastically reduce the increase in trapped heat.
> and are there any mechanisms which increase the amount of heat lost?
Good question. You got an answer?
>>77454848
Water vapour is clouds. So in a way, it is one of the strongest greenhouse gasses. Just look at a cloudy day and the affect this has on the intensity of sunlight reaching you. This works the other way too. A cloudy night will genrelly be warmer than a clear night. The thing with h2o compared to co2 is accumulation. h2o is far more capable of self-regulating as rain acts as a release mechanism if h2o starts to get to dense in the atmosphere. co2 on the other hand is long living in the atmosphere.
>>77455901
Because those few % can make all the difference.
Without greenhouse gases the earth would not be too different from the moon and as such it is vital for life.
But of course we did not change it from something similar to the moon to the lush green planet that we have now. This process took billions of years.
Only a few % increase could leave our planet far less fertile.
>>77456293
you do know that CO2 is plant food right? weed growers often pipe in CO2 to make plants grow faster and bigger
CO2 has also been much more highly concentrated in the past
anyway, the role of CO2 in warming has not been adequately understood, since the "great pause", or "hiatus(as the IPCC calls it)", occurred even while CO2 was increasing
>>77455901
Because since we started pumping out billions of tons a year co2, co2 has started accumulating in the atmosphere. prior to the industrial revolution atmospheric co2 was around 280ppm. Looking at ice samples and the air trapped inside them, this figure of 280ppm is pretty steady for the best part of a million years. The earth was in near balance. The co2 from farming and natural sources was offset by trees and oceans. Our additional contribution, mainly from transport and industry, was enough to disturb this balance leading to accumulation.
>>77456278
>h2o is far more capable of self-regulating as rain acts as a release mechanism if h2o starts to get to dense in the atmosphere. co2 on the other hand is long living in the atmosphere
this sounds pretty vague
>>77456126
one source I read claims that the IPCC models(all of which were proved wrong) assumed a positive feedback effect, when there are actually negative reinforcing effects.
one negative effect is that more heat = more clouds which = more heat reflection
>>77456463
This whole idea of a pause is sketchy at best. It only works in any way because 1998 was so abnormally warm. For trends, surely decadal variation would be a better measure?
>>77456542
>this figure of 280ppm is pretty steady for the best part of a million years. The earth was in near balance.
near balance? top kek, did you ignore the temperature fluctuations?
>>77456463
Plants live in more or less equilibrium, releasing as much as they consume and their biomass can't really increase. Algae in our oceans can probably buffer it to a certain degree as their biomass can still increase.
Past CO2 levels have occasionally been far higher than today's, though the rate of which it is currently increasing is quite unprecedented.
Now life must withing decades adapt to changes that before took millennia.
>>77456657
why use the 1951-1980 mean?
>>77456692
can you tell me what % of the atmosphere is CO2 today? and what it was just prior to the industrial revolution?
I do hope you climate alarmist guys realize that what you are advocating is genociding the niggers, dunecoons, and possibly the chinks too?
>>77456607
>this sounds pretty vague
Vague how? It's pretty simple, the atmospheric levels of h2o aren't increasing because h2o self-regulates.
>one negative effect is that more heat = more clouds which = more heat reflection
Not quite that simple. Remember at night clouds warm the surface.
>>77456843
We are quite aware of that there are no smooth solutions to this.
Regarding CO2 levels it something about 360 ppm?
Before it was like high 200?
An increase that is quite unprecedented.
>>77456670
I meant in terms of atmospheric co2. But I suspect you knew this.
>>77456735
Why not? Look at the decades prior to the 40s. All - compared to 51-80. So choosing an earlier period would simply have shown more on an increase in recent decades. Picking a more recent 30 year period would have shown every prior decade to be substantially cooler. Whatever way you cut it the trend remains the same.
>>77444767
Look I'll break it down for the people in this thread who are fucking retarded and can't figure out how nature works
So our atmosphere is mostly air, which is oxygen. It's a pretty light element.
Then we have CO2 (carbon dioxide) which is obviously (you can fucking SEE it) a heavier element.
CO2 doesn't magically disappear when it goes into the air. It stays in the fucking air.
It disperses, but the element itself doesn't vanish.
Since oxygen is light but CO2 is not, what happens when the heavier element CO2 is released (40 billion tons PER YEAR) is that it slowly but surely makes the atmosphere thicker.
A thicker atmosphere is like a thicker layer of insulation. Get it?
That means 40 BILLION TONS OF CO2 PER YEAR is having an effect on trapping more heat in our atmosphere, thus "Global Warming".
>>77456735
Why not? It dosen't change the result?
>>77457050
I just wanted to know what % of the total it was, then and now
>>77457119
Well done
>>77456843
pre-industrial revolution, 280ppm
today, 400ppm
>I do hope you climate alarmist guys realize that what you are advocating is genociding the niggers, dunecoons, and possibly the chinks too?
That's one option. Far better we stop the debate about whether real or no real and set a global target, say do not allow co2 to increase above 450ppm then work to bring it down. Currently co2 is increasing 1-2 ppm/year. So we've got 25-50 years. Carbon capture tech can buy us a few more decades. That's 60 years or so for us to globally move away from carbon. Easy done were there the will.
>>77457119
Fuck off faggot
>>77457253
see this
>>77457261
Faggot
>>77457119
Sure, but it's probably an insignificant amount. A few degrees of warming over the next few centuries doesn't really worry me.
>>77457147
Then convert it Should be 360/10000% now
and 280ish/10000% then
>>77456905
>the atmospheric levels of h2o aren't increasing because h2o self-regulates.
but more heating leads to more evaporation, which I believe is what forms clouds?
>Remember at night clouds warm the surface.
so during the day they reflect heat out, then during the night they trap some of the heat. do we have any numbers on the relative effects?
>>77457052
>I meant in terms of atmospheric co2. But I suspect you knew this.
nigger, you just told me the world was in balance, despite the temperature fluctuations that I just showed you. these were all before man made CO2 was a factor, so it puts a bit of a spanner in your theory. there were temperature fluctuations naturally
>>77457052
>Why not? Look at the decades prior to the 40s. All - compared to 51-80. So choosing an earlier period would simply have shown more on an increase in recent decades. Picking a more recent 30 year period would have shown every prior decade to be substantially cooler. Whatever way you cut it the trend remains the same.
none of that proves mankind caused it
and we're talking about less than a SINGLE fucking degree?
>last week it was 104f in fucking oregon
>yesterday it was 50 and hailing
G L O B A L
W A R M I N G
>>77457319
Jurassic period was 5x hotter and produced one of the most diverse species of life in Earths history
>>77448774
that humans can have an impact on environment.
>>77457319
When you'll starve I think you will.
>>77457119
what % of our atmosphere is CO2 today, and what was it pre industrial revolution?
>>77457328
10,000% jesus I hope you are being retarded on purpose
>>77444767
B-but it 2016!
>>77457444
we'll starve because of an increase in available farmland due to slightly hotter temperatures?
>>77457261
Would bigger trees offset the increase in temperature? Also what was concentration 'AMB'? Also link.
>>77457368
A SINGLE FUCKING DEGREE is ENORMUS/INSANE/PREPOSTEROUS
Also it is a few degrees, not one.
>>77457261
You have no argument and nothing to refute science bitch. You're a twat.
>>77457319
"A few degrees of warming" is having a significant impact on the ice caps. Polar bears have been dealing with accelerated shrinking land. Their land is ice.
>>77457467
Motherfucker do I look like google to you?
>>77457467
Oh...
I meant 360%/10000
and 280%/10000
>>77444767
It's probably real and probably caused by humans, but
>it's not as bad as people say
>switching to renewables would harm our economies more than it'll help th environment
>if Africans burn to death in the sun that's fine by me
>>77457549
google it yourself you fucking retard. just google the fucking name of the file.
Do I have to fucking do everything for you? This is why your generation lacks information retention
fuck off cunt
>>77457584
you want to go me cunt?
I'll fucking bite your nuts off
>>77448066
if it was so easy it would already have been done. The first oil crisis was a good incentive. And the conclusion was - it's harder to ween off the oyl than expected.
>>77444767
Green is the new red. Environmentalism is just a disguise for communism.
I think people get hung up on the fact that it might be a cyclical global event, and that prevents them from seeing that even if it was mostly natural its still going to completely fuck us if it continues.
"Its natural / humans aren't responsible" isn't really an argument or solution against "We're going to get the shit flooded out of us"
>>77457747
but neither is taxing carbon is either
>>77447059
>1935
>take out grass
>put in plants that are actually useful
>dust happens
DUDE SHIT THIS WAS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!
Get off my board indian nigger. Only whites allowed here.
I think it's mostly natural peaks and valleys, but at the same time the just shitting out pollutants like nobodies business isn't a good idea, but most western nations can't hope to bring China, India, or wherever manufacturing ends up under wraps so all the a country can do is negated by their imports .
I'm fucking tired of morons going "HURR IT WAS COLD/HOT THIS WINTER/SUMMER GLOBAL WARMING/DENIERS BTFO!" it happens way too frequently on both sides of the argument and it's fucking retarded no matter who says it.
Also posting this for the retards in the thread, who don't know how fucking nature works.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html
Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750. Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic. CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades.
Plants DO convert CO2 into oxygen, but at the rate we're destroying plants (see deforestation) + the absurd amount of CO2 we (humanity) emit all the time, it's not sustainable. It's like we're TRYING to kill our own species by being materialistic and ignorant as fuck
The world is getting observably hotter. Human activity is the most likely cause.
However, most climate models are biased towards extreme pessimism, meaning the field of climatology has a bias, and I haven't seen it demonstrated that warming will kill any significant number of people, let alone eradicate humanity or collapse civilisation.
High carbon dioxide concentration probably won't be good for ocean life, warmer temperatures might make desertification worse, and some cities may have to build sea walls in a couple of decades. That's a problem, like any other, and needs to be dealt with, but people have a semi-religious belief that global warming is going to be the new apocalypse.
>>77454684
you can "liquify" coal into oil; the brazilians also got fuel from sugar cane in the past.
>>77444767
Chinese conspiracy.
Obama is a Chinese terrorist. I sent investigators to Hawaii, and they found proof, which I will release VERY soon now. Disgusting.
>>77457632
-0.273
+0.513
=
0.786 of a SINGLE degree
moran
>>77457632
jesus christ your a fucking cheeky cunt, I'll give you that
those calculations are not calculating the % of CO2 in theatmosphere
>>77457736
this, and increased taxes on 1st world countries to encourage all our manufacturing to leave for cheaper power and taxes
>>77457368
A hotter atmosphere will hold more water. water vapour is a function of temperature.
>so during the day they reflect heat out, then during the night they trap some of the heat. do we have any numbers on the relative effects?
I don't sorry but I'm sure there'll be papers.
>there were temperature fluctuations naturally
Nobody denies this. The warming we are seeing now is faster than 'natural'*
>natural is kinda a misnomer, there are mechanisms behind the natural variation. These are pretty well known and not in play here. They include the earths relative position to the sun, the point at the precession cycle and solar cycles relating to the suns activity.
>and we're talking about less than a SINGLE fucking degree?
We're talking then about warming 10 times faster than natural warming expected coming out of an ice age.
>>77450238
Colder colds, hotter hots.
Average stays the same.
Good meme leaf.
>>77457812
I assume the intent is to switch over to fuels that won't be running out soon, as well.
Economic pressures will mean that using oil will become unsustainable eventually anyway. Carbon tax just makes that come earlier.
>>77457747
It does change how we try and solve it.
>>77448718
underrated post
>>77457679
So I googled it and the first result was
>lord monckton on climategate [Archive] - Blender Artists Community
Good effort...
So who "wins" id climate change is a hoax?
>>77444767
Yeah. Explain that.http://www.thelocal.de/20160523/tornado-rips-off-roofs-as-storm-batters-western-germany
http://www.thelocal.de/20160608/tornado-hits-hamburg-as-experts-predict-more-bad-weather-to-come
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32601555
Thank you global warming.
>>77457934
bull shit.
advancement can occur without being forced.
Hybrids have been around longer than the Militant Alarmist agenda
>>77457844
>materialistic and ignorant
retarded marxist faggot who hates people detected
>>77457854
mmm, it's a good plan. not as efficient as getting it from the ground though.
I would assume that any source of carbon and hydrogen could be turned into propane, butane, hexane etc
>>77457909
>We're talking then about warming 10 times faster than natural warming expected coming out of an ice age.
less than a degree a century? omg, I'd better get the hose and water the plants before they spontaneously combust!!!! PANIC PANIC PACNIIIIC PANCICCIICIII!!! OMGOMGOGMOGMGMOMGO
>>77457884
Those first numbers i don't know where you got them from.
And those calculations does describe the level of CO2
>>77457934
Carbon tax just means high carbon energy solutions cut corners, theyre already superior economically.
Itll take a mountain of taxes to make solar and wind compete with coal.
It doesnt solve anything, incentivizing > taxing
>>77450238
That is an insane amount for a century.
>>77444767
We didnt listen
>>77458083
from>>77456657
>And those calculations does describe the level of CO2
I want to know what the current and past % of CO2 was in the atmosphere
NOT the rate of increase, or the % increase
>>77458121
solar and wind are about 274x as expensive as gas and oil
>>77457812
Why not? Look at the guardian article I linked above. Tax first the producers and heavy consumers, who're making billions in profit.
>inb4 edgy Ayn Rand bullshit
>>77458242
What?
That is how you convert ppm to % though
>>77457852
>kill any significant number of people, let alone eradicate humanity or collapse civilisation.
Only the crazies say this. Likely effects,
rising sea levels threaten coastal cities (100s of millions of people people globally)
Rising temps (central africa is expected to warm by up to 6C) make farming near impossible in large parts of africa and the ME (another 500,000,000 people)
Water supplies diminished
Oceans BTFO
Taken all together, its not the end of the world. Just the world as we know it.
>>77458307
>Look at the guardian article
>>77458079
1C is averaged globally. Someplaces will warm by more, some much more. Some places will cool. And the IPCC realistic target is to avoid 2C warming over pre-industrial temps by 2100. So 2C/300 odd years. Compaerd to the natural warming predicted by NASA to occur at about 1C/1000 years. The rate of change is a large part of the issue.
>>77458242
>solar and wind are about 274x as expensive as gas and oil
Nukes are the answer. Just not nukes built and owned by the Chinese and French. That's treason.
>>77458666
all the IPCC models were proved wrong, what they are doing isn't science, it's fraud
>>77458372
it's 0.04%, it's been as high as 7% in the past
>>77458555
Nice digits. Go on. Just look at it. I swear you won't catch communism. tl;dr, big coal busted paying 'skeptics' to be skeptical. Exxon were also caught doing this. As was the Heartland institute. The Heartland link is also why Forbes have zero credibility on this topic.
>>77458789
So what?
That proves nothing?
>>77458516
>central africa is expected to warm by up to 6C) make farming near impossible in large parts of africa and the ME
couldn't happen to nicer people
and you say we get warmer summers and milder winters too?
are there any disadvantages?
>>77458854
no! the grauniad is a partisan source. and they pissed me off by calling to renew my dads subscription 3 times since he died
>"Man made Carbon Dioxide emissions is the greatest contributor to muh global warming ...uh climate change"
>"Our solution is to tax industries with a minimum operational threshold that can't be reduced...so that they'll produce less CO2"
>"97% of government funded scientists agree"
And so the electricity price goes up
The revenue goes up
And the CO2 production doesn't change
If this were real, why not push for zero emission energy solutions ( Nuclear/Electric) that actually REDUCE CO2 emissions.
>why not do it regardless of the environmental impact to reduce pollution and globalized energy dependence.
>>77458736
As has been pointed out, these systems are incredibly complex, thusnhard to model.
I'm not saying that there aren't scientists with agenda and scientists who're willing to lie. I just cannot accept this is the rule and not a rare exception.
Facts remain, we are warming. This warming is faster than natural. And we have a mechanism that explains this warming, based on well established (over 100 years old) science.
>>77459091
>As has been pointed out, these systems are incredibly complex, thusnhard to model.
>And we have a mechanism that explains this warming, based on well established (over 100 years old) science.
which is it? do we understand it, or is it too complex to model?
clearly all the IPCC models were incorrect, why do you still trust them? the emperor has no clothes
>>77458950
>couldn't happen to nicer people
>So I admit it's happening but it won;t affect white people
Truly, the last refuge of 'skeptics'. Newsflash, look at the EU and UN response to the current migrant crisis. Why do you think our response to a much larger movement wold be any different?
>>77459063
Sensible people are. Unfortunately, the very real concerns re climate change has the attention of the hardcore environmentalists, who're essentially anarcho-primativists. This and the NIMBY crowd of mouth-breathers who see the word nuclear and shit bricks.
>>77459311
>look at the EU and UN response to the current migrant crisis. Why do you think our response to a much larger movement wold be any different?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say
you think the response of the EU and UN to the millions of retarded savage rapey 3rd world savages invading proves that global warming is real?
what is your opinion of climategate?
>>77458516
>Just the world as we know it.
So we stop eating fish, the Great Barrier Reef dies, Africa gets fucked, and yanks stop putting cities and farms in the middle of the desert? And that's the end of the world as we know it?
>>77459207
Regardless the IPCC the science would be the same. We'd still be warming, and we'd likely still be here debating whether real or not. The issue has become so polarised people now will not back down.
Question time. Is there a single poster ITT who has changed their stance on the issue? If so, how come?
Personally I started out as a faith based believer, drifted into skepticism briefly now am back in the AGW camp. Looking at the evidence in total(warming planet, understood and verifiable method of action, observed increase in co2 both atmospherica nd in oceans), the AGW just has the much stronger case. The skeptics attack from 20 different, often contradictory, angles and can offer no suitable alternative for the warming above average.
>>77459433
>you think the response of the EU and UN to the millions of retarded savage rapey 3rd world savages invading proves that global warming is real?
What? That's not what I said at all. I meant look at the response to the current migrant crisis for precedent for what will happen in the event of ecological collapse in Africa. They'll be imported here.
>what is your opinion of climategate?
Overblown.
>>77459552
Fuck off we're full won't work forever brah. How do some UN mandated climate refugees sound?
All the emissions produced by all the cars that have ever been driven since the invention of the internal combustion engine are still dwarfed by the amount of CO2 released in a volcanic eruption.
If the climate is changing, it's not because of human pollution.
>>77459091
>this warming is faster than natural
Would you like to show me the data proving this? And even if it were true, explain to me why I should give a fuck that crops will get more productive and shit cities will collapse into the ocean?
>>77457119
>you can see CO2
no you can't. it's a colorless and odorless gas
>element CO2
you mean molecule
>makes atmosphere thicker
you mean denser
>it stays in the air
plants and oceans can absorb it
>>77459875
>All the emissions produced by all the cars that have ever been driven since the invention of the internal combustion engine are still dwarfed by the amount of CO2 released in a volcanic eruption.
Got a source?
>>77459655
>Regardless the IPCC the science would be the same. We'd still be warming, and we'd likely still be here debating whether real or not. The issue has become so polarised people now will not back down.
>Personally I started out as a faith based believer, drifted into skepticism briefly now am back in the AGW camp
you just contradicted yourself again
and you expect us to take you seriously?
the IPCC has had BILLIONS in grants, and ALL their models were wrong
temperature increases happen BEFORE CO2 increases, the thoing that happens after can not be the cause of the thing preceding it
climategate PROVED that the "scientists" tampered with the data to get the results they wanted, and that their databases are a MESS!
care to address the great pause?
>>77459747
>How do some UN mandated climate refugees sound?
If current trends keep up then in 20 years Europe will be 80% far right, Merkel will have been skinned alive and rolled in salt, and NATO will probably park carrier groups all the way from the Red Sea to the Cape of Good Hope.
>>77459747
>I meant look at the response to the current migrant crisis for precedent for what will happen in the event of ecological collapse in Africa. They'll be imported here.
and your solution to this is to implement carbon taxes which will result in higher energy prices and make it uncompetative for manufacturers to stay here?
you poor deluded lefty moran, sitting their sniffing your own farts, high on your unearned feelings of moral superiority
>>77460040
see
>>77453925
Of course this is based on proxy data as we don't have accurate measurements that predate humanity.
>And even if it were true, explain to me why I should give a fuck that crops will get more productive and shit cities will collapse into the ocean?
I've explained already. Refugees. Climate refugees. Mandated by the UN. This is why even the most selfish out there should give a fuck.
>>77460121
Contradicted myself? It's called reassessing based on evidence. The evidence is in favour of AGW.
>care to address the great pause?
Embarrassing misunderstanding of statistics? I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this. 1998 was an abnorally hot year. Picking 1997 or 1999 as your start point will show a warming trend. You cannot pick an abnormally hot year as your starting point, draw a straight line from then to last year and ignore all other data. Again I point you at the decadal variations I posted here.>>77456657
Initially I thought you were genuinely interested in learning something. Now I see that your mind is already made up. I do wonder when this happened? Have you always been skeptical? Do you have any training in the field? Did you watch 'the great global warming swindle'? Or simply too much time in anti-science right wing echo-chambers?
>>77460135
>imblying democracy
>>77460223
Taxes on the producers and biggest industrial consumers. ie those profiting to the tune of hundreds of billions a year. Why shouldn't they pay more? We all have to live with the consequence of thier profiteering.
I also think we should go much more nuclear and renewables where sensible. Battery tech can help a lot. For example,
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/battery-powered-homes/
Carbon capture is also a good option and can buy us some time. Shit like this.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/09/co2-turned-into-stone-in-iceland-in-climate-change-breakthrough
I think the biggest single factor would be a global decision to set a cap and aim for it. I suggested 450ppm above. 450 may be too high long term, but at least with a target we can start working towards a common and worthwhile goal.
>>77460567
>Contradicted myself?
you claimed no one can change their mind, then you stated you had changed your mind
> 1998 was an abnorally hot year. Picking 1997 or 1999 as your start point will show a warming trend.
the graph I posted started in october 1996, and actually, I tried on woodfortrees some different starting points, picking 1998 as a start point actualy shows a cooling trend.
NOW, the significance of this data is that CO2 continued to increase during this 18 year period. if increases of CO2 cause warming then this should be impossible, and what caused the abnormally hot year?
>Embarrassing misunderstanding of statistics?
if this is true, why do the IPCC(your gods) themselves acknowledge it and call it "the hiatus"?
>You cannot pick an abnormally hot year as your starting point, draw a straight line from then to last year and ignore all other data.
that's not how this graph was constructed
>Initially I thought you were genuinely interested in learning something. Now I see that your mind is already made up.
kek, I'm interested in TEACHING something!
>anti-science right wing echo-chambers
kek, the IPCC is anti-science, NONE of its predictions came true, yet YOU still trust them
>>77460826
this implies we buy into your fraud
>profiteering
this is what pays for your pension
you know, it was so cold the other night that I saw a socialist with his hands in his WON pockets!
global warming is a religion, it has dogma, highpriests, temples(universities) and congregations eager to spread the word and convert others so that the shekels may flow
>>77444767
It is as real as this "refugee" crisis. The powers that be are utilizing global warming to redistribute wealth on a global level and forcing nations to take the poorest from those shit hole countries. Global warming is a scam perpetrated by globalists and it is all coming undone. The two issues are very much related.
>lib friends trying to say that automobiles contribute the most to pollution and not factories
>>77452586
Burn the coal, pay the toll.
Global warming is nonissue, we will run out of cheap easily obtained oil in like 60 years and will switch to nuclear/electric power. Welcome to the free market
>>77444767
>5 posts by this ID
>>77461313
I didn't say nobody can change their minds. I asked if any of the regulars to this thread have as it is very polarising.
>NOW, the significance of this data is that CO2 continued to increase during this 18 year period
The oceans were still heating.
>and what caused the abnormally hot year?
Strong El Nino. Depending who you speak to, the ten hottest years on record have occured since 1998. Only a few datasets show 1998 as hotter than the average year post 2010. Again suggesting a trend.
>if this is true, why do the IPCC(your gods) themselves acknowledge it and call it "the hiatus"?
Or slowing.
>kek, the IPCC is anti-science, NONE of its predictions came true, yet YOU still trust them
And what if any body that you give credence has offered an alternate explanation for the warming?
>>77461517
yeah you're fucked m8.
>>77464265
>hottest years on record
that's a very disingenuous statement, when did records begin?
what causes a strong el nino?
>And what if any body that you give credence has offered an alternate explanation for the warming?
Solar activity? something notably missing from the IPCC models(ALL OF WHICH WERE PROVED WRONG)
do you acknowledge that all of the IPCC models were proved wrong?
>>77444767
Global warming is fake as hell, that's why they changed the name to "climate change"
Still can't prove 100% or even 60% that humans are the cause of it.
The earth does this crazy shit once every few million years
My whole thing about global warming is why are people so against it?? Why argue if it's real or not? If they want to enact stricter control on greenhouse gases and regulate how much energy we use, why the fuck not? Why continue to be a fat idiot who runs the AC in every room of their house 24/7 and drive the most pollutant-spewing vehicle in the world and just say "global warming is a myth lol". IS THERE NO OUNCE OF REMORSE AT ALL?
>>77465469
>If they want to enact stricter control on greenhouse gases and regulate how much energy we use, why the fuck not?
totalitarian government, why the fuck not?
>>77465116
Even if it "isn't" 100% proven, should we not be at least more conscientious of how much fossil fuel energy we waste and could be saving?
To say it's not real shouldn't mean you should keep being a faggot and using needless energy.
>>77453211
We are currently feeding the population in a way that isn't sustainable on the long term.
Currently 50 million square kilometers of the Earth's surface is being used for agriculture. That's over 1/3rd of the total surface.
With middle class people in China, India and other rapidly booming places wanting to eat meat just like us, this will mean that we will rapidly run out of space if we continue in the same way.
I have actually not pulled anything out of my ass as I've crunched the numbers myself using average pound/kcal/proteins/fat/carbs per acre (or kg per ha as we use here) production of different types of meat, crops, vegetables, nuts and grains.
My first conclusion there is that 100g of meat/fish a day for everyone (population of 7.500.000.000) is actually possible in a sustainable way, yet only if each country focuses on being efficient, as in producing the crop or other product that thrives best in their land.
Certain crops/veggies/animal types should also no longer be grown as the amount of Kcals/proteins/fat/carbs they provide is simply not efficiënt compared to the amount of land they require.
In short, humans should reduce their consumption of meat (but not eliminate it), eat lots of nuts (very efficient) and mix vegetables and grains with high kcal per acre output.
OR you could, as mentioned before, reduce population and/or make meat much more expensive...
>>77455184
> Might end up increasing it
So you mean that there's no proof that we have any impact on more than 5% of the greenhouse effects?
PRAISE KEK
>>77465469
>Why continue to be a fat idiot who runs the AC in every room of their house 24/7
That's not how it works, anon. Those controls and regulations are aimed at businesses and manufacturers. By being forcing manufacturers to comply with expensive regulations, they become even less able to compete with Chinese factories that have no regulations at all and now qualms about destroying the environment to save a few bucks.
If regulations were being applied and enforced globally it would be one thing but only enforcing them against Western manufacturers is just another ploy to further erode our manufacturing base.
>>77457119
No, fuck off. You've just said that CO2 is heavier than Oxygen there's a good chance it will stay lower to the surface and be absorbed by biomass/oceans etc.
Please die.
