Just
Climate change is a psyop.
http://www.snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/
> believing pictures with words on them
>>70217061
Cute meme, find that on funnyjunk?
Go and fact check that.
>>70217061
You have to wonder how incredibly stupid someone has to be to believe the shit in that picture.
>>70217061
>An unsourced caption on a pic told me so
>>70217263
>snopes
>>70217061
>legitimately thinking climate change doesn't exist
Holy shit
I am beyond stupefied
>>70217061
Pretty certain your big fat ass produces a bit more than a "miniscule footprint", American. That's why they're taxing you.
>>70217718
Nobody is denying that, dumbass. What's being denied is that humans have a significant impact on it and that more taxes can solve it. Fucking imbeciles.
>>70217061
I hear ya op
Don't listen to these shills
Keep warming that tundra up making Russia new geoppoltiical superpower
>>70217817
Humans DO have a significant impact. More tax is less incentive to produce more man made CO2. Do you not have the mental power to think in a manner that is logical or do you completely live your life in abstract and allegory. You dumb cunt obviously I understood the image.
Even if climate change is real how is it a problem? Nature never has a plan as it were but the planet and society adapts. The cause of the changes shouldn't matter, no?
Is it just the feeling that "we did it" that causes people to freak out or am I missing something?
![0wIJq2t[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BINRSMJ.jpg "0wIJq2t[1].jpg")
>>70217061
>>70217941
>Humans DO have a significant impact.
No. We impact CO2 levels. But the actual measured greenhouse effect is not enough for a cause of concern.
The models add magic numbers to inflate the potency of CO2 to get alarmist results out of them. It's also why there hundreds IPCC models all diverge from actual measurements.
>>70217061
This picture has been thoroughly debunked. Do not use it
>>70218182
that's not the right quote
>>70217941
>unsourced claim
>opinion
>ad hom attack
they were right, /pol/ IS the SJWs now!
This is a reminder that climate change is a political narrative, not a scientific fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc
>>70217061
AMEICAN EDUCATION EVERYONE!!
You are just pathetic, you are in the top 3 most c02 producing countries and yet you try to find excuses that all the climate changes that are happening have nothing to do with C02 emissions way to go america , way to go....
>>70217061
funny thing is that volcanic explosions cause global cooling rather than global warming
http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=gillen-darcy-wood-1816-the-year-without-a-summer
>>70217941
melbourne sjw pls
>>70217061
is there a source?
>>70217263
fuckin snopes, jesus, stop listening to the jews you faggot
>>70217341
>>70217396
>>70217409
>>70218270
jesus faggots, if he is wrong, then prove it
never seen so much mindless fuckery
>>70217941
95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, of which humans only produce 0.001%
>>70218184
>It's also why there hundreds IPCC models all diverge from actual measurements.
not hundreds, ALL!!!
>>70218463
The not funny part is that some green idiots advocate artificial long lasting aerosols to be injected into the stratosphere to replicate that effect in an attempt to fight global warming.
>Decade without summer
>"oops, but atleast we saved ourself from the heat :^)"
>>70218335
Saved.
>>70217061
you dumb fuck.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
>Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
>Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
>>70218463
I believe it's because volcanoes also release sulphur dioxide which counters the warming effect of carbon
The main problem with the CO2 argument is that it ignores more potent chemicals which contribute to greenhouse effects, really we need more regulations regarding fluorocarbons, NOx and sulphides.
I guess that's a bit much for the general public to grasp though, so we should keep shouting "CARBON" to get support.
>>70218355
Unsourced claim, top fucking kek. Go read any literature that different your opinion rather than sitting in an echo chamber. Taxing corporations that produce carbon emissions leads to them switching to emissions free sources.
>Ad hominem attack
Shut up cunt.
>>70218416
These are the CO2 levels and the average global temperature for the past 600 million years.
Also, you sound like a triggered liberal irrational shit.
>>70218792
but greentard hipsters literally consider SO2 a greenhouse gas
>>70218605
>then prove it
But you scream DA JEWS!!!!!! whenever somebody does, so what's the point? Go fuck yourself.
Climate changefags = Fedorafags = Anti-lifefags = Literal fags = libtards = plebbitors
They're all the same people.
>>70218846
We do regulate CFCs.
And that logic is like saying a cancer patient shouldn't worry about a stab wound because there's a tumour to be busy worrying about
>>70218910
No, it's considered a pollutant which contributes to acid rain, not warming. It has been suggested that we may have to pump SO2 into the atmosphere in an attempt to reduce warming in the distant future if things get too bad.
>>70218949
>saying random expletives constitutes an argument
>>70218962
We also regulate CO2, not nearly tightly enough.
That is an incorrect allegory. It's more like saying a cancer patient shouldn't solely focus on one of the tumors, there's another seven right beside it. So treat them all.
>>70219157
Precisely, CFCs have been taken care of, the ozone is slowly recovering, but the carbon train is still going full steam ahead
>>70217061
please kill yourself
>>70218846
> fluorocarbons
They might be 10 000 more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but their concentrations are on the order of over 1 million times lower, so the actual effect translated into CO2 PPM equivalents, is a single digit value, like 3-4 PPM for all of them.
If you start chasing ultra low numbers such as those you' might as well try to ban nuclear energy because it's an artificial source of heat and therefor a horrible contributor to global warming.
>>70219287
Why are we suddenly on CFCs? I didn't mention them.
>>70218887
At no point in the past million years has co2 been at its current level. And looking back much more than a million years is kinda daft given how drastically different the earth looked (continents in different places, temperatures).
So we have to ask why over the past two hundred years the levels of atmospheric co2 have risen by 40%. Most likely answer by far, human activity.
Out of interest, seen as we've had these threads since the very start of /pol/, has anyone ever changed their opinion on the matter?
>>70219351
You said flourocarbons
>>70218605
You don't have to prove it, because it's so mindblowingly stupid.
Seriously, you think one small Volcanic eruption produces 10,000 times more CO2 than all of mankind, throughout our entire history? It's not just a claim of one Volcano producing more CO2 than mankind in a year. It's 10k times all of mankind's history.
You have to be an absolute fucking retard to believe this.
>>70219157
Doubling CO2 will almost double the plant-growth rate worldwide
But yeah, go ahead and tell me why CO2 is horrible for the environment. Despite the fact that it's been much warmer in the past, and that life flourishes under warm conditions.
During the dino days, CO2 levels were as much as 5 times higher than today, and the land was so productive it could support giant creatures the size of a house
>>70219428
>past million years
Come on man, that's intellectually dishonest.
Just say recorded history.
>>70218355
an insult isnt an ad hom fallacy
>>70219351
CFCs are flurocarbons you clinical vegetable
>>70217061
Op you are fucking retarded.
1) liquids and solids occupy dramatically less volume than gases.
2) the primary byproduct of burning fossil fuels are gasses.
3) Volume X of fossil fuel transforms into volume Y > X of gases.
If the picture is true, then all the fossil fuel that we burned in our entire time on earth, occupies at leas 10000 times less volume than that little burp.
So op, do you think we burned, in our entire existence, just a few cubic meters of fossil fuels? Do you see how retarded you are? Are really hope so.
>>70217061
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
This gives global volcanic co2 emissions as 200 million tonnes, or 0.2 gigatonnes. In 2014 co2 emissions from humans was 32 gigatonnes. Human emissions far outstrip volcanic emissions.
Also it's a documented effect that violent volcano eruptions toss a ton of dust in the air that cools the area. After the Mt Pinatubo eruption global average temperature dropped by 0.5 Celsius.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html>>70217713
>>70218605
>disregarding arguments because of who said it
>>70218947
WAAA, I'M RIIIGHT, I JUST KNOOOW IT, YOU EBIL BIGOT WHY WON'T YOU JUST BELIIIEVE ME
what do you think of my graph?
>>70219445
>You don't have to prove it, because it's so mindblowingly stupid.
appeal to incredulity is a logical fallacy
i.e., you are a dumb fuck
what do YOU think of my graph? dumb fuck
>>70219445
Volcanic eruptions sent the world into a small ice age in the 13th century that lasted for almost 600 years.
>>70219644
ok, thank you
do we have any other sources?
>>70218057
Why is it a problem that we are sawing in the branch we are sitting on?!
>>70219528
How so? Ice core data shows this to be the case.
We recently topped 400ppm.
>>70219435
Yes, Not CFC, vastly different problems, one depletes the ozone layer through radical formation, the other is a greenhouse gas.
>>70219341
The difference is more a matter of remediation after the fact, lots of sinks for CO2, CF4 not so much, also the whole human contribution argument applies, a pretty large portion of the CF4 in the atmosphere is on us, it's probably worth dealing with that emission pretty sharpish.
>>70219593
Interesting how you called them "fossil fuels". That's because these fuels come from organic material.
Like all organic life, the carbon from which they are composed ultimately comes from the atmosphere. All of the Carbon we are currently burning USED to be in the air, before it was trapped underground by geological forces.
You might say humans are liberating trapped Carbon back to the surface where it can once again be used in the Carbon cycle instead of being trapped unproductively underground.
>>70218846
CFCs were eliminated awhile back.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo
>>70218184
Breaking news! Limited models that do not include all variables in nature does not produce 1:1 predictions of nature.
>>70218790
>.gov
>>70219497
>During the dino days, CO2 levels were as much as 5 times higher than today, and the land was so productive it could support giant creatures the size of a house
And in the 'dino days' the global ecosystem was adapated to the levels of carbon and other factors it presently had. The current system is adapted to 280ppm, and anything significantly off from that leads the whole food chain to spiral out of control, which is what is happening today. The whole world's ecosystem is a finely tuned machine, and when you rapidly change one of those factors there is chaos. Saying we'll be fine because life in the past existed in different conditions is irrelevant, it matters WHICH life. It's like saying that camels can survive in deserts therefore polar bears will be fine if the whole world were a desert (I'm oversimplifying obviously). You're comparing things to something which is not he same in both cases.
>>70219729
Typical alarmist rhetoric. Don't think just get with the programme we're going to die unless you clean your garbage!
>>70219830
That maybe true but like you said those carbon trapped fossile fuels were produced over the span of million of years now you do realise that we are releasing literaly all that trapped carbon in the atmosphere all at once by burning it ? what do you expect would happen?
https://www.youtube.com/user/1000frolly
that channel is all u need if you want to be red pilled on the global warming scam
bad thing is...this is the greatest scam in the history of man kind, and its impact on prosperity and actual good progress in the world is enormous
>>70219497
>Doubling plant growth rate.
Holy fucking shit, 9/10.
>>70219559
Totally different classification, totally different problems.
>>70217263
the claim is made here that the US alone had a """projected""" 35 billion metric tons in 2010, yet International Energy Statistics puts the US at just 5270 million tons in 2012; http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8
and a recent scandal has erupted in china, the world's largest producer of emissions, over one billion tonnes. http://www.sciencealert.com/china-emits-nearly-1-billion-tonnes-more-co2-a-year-than-it-discloses-report-claims
that's one, causing a scandal, vs the 35 billion these cranks claim the US produces. the discovery by the way, resulted from underreporting; apparently about 70% of america's worth of potential emissions was unaccounted for. therefore it's all but impossible for the US to have been responsible for much more than 1 billion tonnes of the stuff.
so in conclusion, yes humans produce more than volcanoes, but not such an absurd amount more that volcanoes would not have an impact, and given that volcanoes have been doing their thing for pretty much all of the planet's history, they have a pretty vast lead in overall emissions.
Outsnope'd
>>70217061
Go vegan, it is the only sane choice
>>70219830
That's pre life earth.
The early Earth atmosphere was mostly co2. For millions of years plant life photosynthesized the carbon atoms into organic matter like glucose and starch and put the oxygen into the atmosphere.
>>70218887
That graph is 100% bullshit. Even the oldest complete marine records barely scratch 5 million years.
The co2 levels there are all one man's guess. Only a utter retard would believe this.
>>70218873
Aren't you just being an echo of your own predetermined bias now though?
>>70219908
This, plus in dino days you didn't have Miami Beach or people living in the Maldives, so no one cared if sea levels rose or what.
As far as we know/care a catastrophe could have occurred in dino days that if it happened today would have decimated modern human population were it to happen again, and we can't even tell it happened.
>>70218416
Are you fucking stupid? We also happen to have the 3rd highest populatiom you fucking retard.
>>70219497
Life will go on fine, WE will go to the shitter. Melting poplar ice caps, more droughts and floods, increased extreme weather events. Global warming mostly screws us over.
>>70217061
text on image is a nonsense
>>70219908
No you dumb fuck. The ecosystem is not a "finely tuned machine".
The ecosystem is a homeostatic, adaptive network of complexity. As the environment changes, the ecosystem changes to match. As easily as pie. This whole "delicate balance" argument is a load of crap.
In general, more carbon in the air means more plant life. More plant life means more animal life. Denser ecosystems, more biodiversity all around. This is a wonderful thing.
The polar regions are relative deserts compared to the massive burgeoning rain forests in the tropics. Life loves warmer temperatures and higher Carbon environments.
A boosted plant-growth rate would mean crops grow much faster, potentially doubling global food production. How is this not a good thing? It's not up to humans to micromanage the ecosystem to try to preserve it, the ecosystem evolves, as it has for millions of years. It never has and it never will stay the same.
The idea that humans should doom themselves to poverty conditions because they're afraid of changing one little thing about the environment is insane.
>>70219552
I never said it was a fallacy
>>70219796
>CF4 not so much, also the whole human contribution argument applies, a pretty large portion of the CF4 in the atmosphere is on us, it's probably worth dealing with that emission pretty sharpish.
That's a garbage tier argument. "It lasts a long time and is made by humans. It's not a problem in any way but lets waste effort on getting rid of it anyway!"
>>70219830
This argument does not make OP's picture any less retarded.
Also, we don't live on a planet filled with gigantic trees anymore. In fact, the trees we do have are being cut down. The planet could take care of itself, but we are messing with it. Plus, I'm not worried that much about CO2. Personally I'm worried about the noxious gases, and nano soot particles, that are also byproducts of burning. Releasing things (that we see in labs, with death warning on them) in the atmosphere, for everybody to breath, is not very normal, don't you think?
>Humanity has raised CO2 levels by about 30% or so
>MT etna did it in a day
Top kek, better believe every image macro I see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_I4Euwj8Mw
the very fact that global warming proponents do not want a debate at all because they label anyone who questions it a 'denier' which has increasingly negative connotations should be extremely suspicious
>>70220253
Correct but that only aplies to little changes over the course of thousands of years not in a few decades.
>>70219861
And replaced in many cases by Fluorocarbons.
>>70219940
You have to be a daft cunt to think that a record high extinction rate. A unsurstainable energy source and record warm years every decade resulting in unprecedented draughts. Does not influence survivability of a species depended on such systems.
>>70220218
Why would there be increased extreme weather events?
A stronger greenhouse effect would be like putting a blanket around the earth. It should spread out temperature differentials, and therefore decrease extreme weather.
There is no scientific evidence, or even a bare bones theory that could even attempt to prove that more CO2 means more extreme weather. This is hyperbolic media rhetoric.
And in fact, as time goes on the number and severity of hurricanes and tornadoes is actually decreasing, not increasing. Although even if this was not the case, I'm not sure why you're so concerned with crippling the global economy just to save 5 lives a year in the next tornado season
>>70219908
>The current system is adapted to 280ppm, and anything significantly off from that leads the whole food chain to spiral out of control
Nope.
If you bumped global CO2 levels up to 800ppm overnight the only result would be an agricultural windfall.
If you drop the levels to 100ppm instead the result is that trees will suffocate and die.
>>70220253
This.
Carbon is not the problem. Its the other things like plastics in the ocean, waste management, agricultural chemicals building up in the soil, destruction of fresh water resources etc.
>>70217061
yeah that's not true. I mean commie sites refuted it with commie numbers but it seems like it's false. We should stick to the argument that if the US halted all CO2 in 2050 we would only reduce warming by .05 C and that China, India, and Africa will never sign on to limiting emissions. CO2 tax and green-stuff is just a commie scam to hamstring the Western world and lower our standards of living
>>70220253
>This whole "delicate balance" argument is a load of crap.
Haha, it's almost as if this retard has never heard of an invasive species.
Senpai ANY changes to the food chain have massive catastrophic side effects. But hey, you'd know that if you ever went out into the woods or learned to fish and hunt and didn't shitpost on 4chan all day.
>>70220557
>If you drop the levels to 100ppm instead the result is that trees will suffocate and die.
Need to take it down to 0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmzeYYWntxw
>>70219652
>dumb fuck
Oh, the irony.
>>70219675
And if that "burp from Etna" had sent 10k more CO2 into the atmosphere than the combined CO2 of all humanity, we'd all be dead.
>>70217061
>Believes scientists are fabricated global warming data
Posts image exageratting relative volcanic CO2 emissions by a factor of a 1,000,000
>>70220253
>ecosystems are adaptive systems
That's life. Ecosystems are delicate. When environment change ecosystems are destroyed and replaced.
It's a bad thing because of the weather and disasters. You brought up an interesting point. Global warming has a mixed effect on crops. If I remember right Canada can expect better crop growth and can grow more kinds of crops because of global warming and in China some crops will suffer. It depends on the crop.
But global warming only makes everything hotter on average. The bad part is events like El Nino will be made worse, leading to way less moderate weather. Weather on extreme ends become more frequent but the average of the weather rises.
>>70220253
>The ecosystem is not a "finely tuned machine".
No you're right, it's random. Are you aware of what finely tuned means?
>In general, more carbon in the air means more plant life.
Fact, probably the only one here.
>Denser ecosystems, more biodiversity all around. This is a wonderful thing.
First statement true, second statement pure opinion. Ask Europe about that biodiversity. Or any island that's been exposed to cats.
>A boosted plant-growth rate would mean crops grow much faster, potentially doubling global food production. How is this not a good thing? It's not up to humans to micromanage the ecosystem to try to preserve it, the ecosystem evolves, as it has for millions of years. It never has and it never will stay the same.
How does something evolve and stay the same? How much crack do I need to smoke to come to this same conclusion?
>The idea that humans should doom themselves to poverty conditions because they're afraid of changing one little thing about the environment is insane.
You should of just posted this.
>>70220475
I just wanted an explanation but I a dumb fuck for doubting your narrative on any level?
Brainwashed much?
Mfw none of this matters because I'll be dead in 60 years
>>70220648
Species will invade, adapt, diversify, and life will go on
This is what nature does. Let nature do it's thing, and we'll do ours.
>>70218605
>Make claim
>"if that claim is wrong, then prove it's wrong"
That's not how it works you little shit. I bet you believe in Scientology as well.
>>70217061
1970s: THE EARTH IS GOING INTO AN ICE AGE IF YOU DON'T PAY X TAXES!
1990s: THE EARTH IS GOING TO OVERHEAT AND THE COASTS WILL FLOOD IF YOU DON'T PAY X TAXES.
2010s: Oh, it's just this umbrella term called "climate change" now. You remember how it was kinda cold last week but now it's hot? Climate change™. Now give me your money.
>>70220253
>As the environment changes, the ecosystem changes to match. As easily as pie.
Yeah I'm sure if you dropped the Amazon onto venus or Mars it would survive and adapt easily.
Small changes over time are necessary, big climactic shifts caused by differing events gave us the mass extinctions.
>>70220253
10 year old's science understanding: the post
>>70220872
>Let nature do it's thing, and we'll do ours.
And when natures thing is killing us off because we fucked everything up?
>>70217713
>>snopes
People argue it has a liberal bias but it is entirely possible that conservatives just tend to send (and believe in) more of those random viral email claims that they receive from strangers. Their internet rumors and appeals to emotion get debunked and then they cry foul or blame the liberal elite.
Truthers are especially buttdevestated over snopes because the site undermines the fiction that makes up their sad lonely lives.
>>70217061
Wrong, fuckhead.
>"Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010"
>"global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year"
http://www.snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/
>>70220516
>A stronger greenhouse effect would be like putting a blanket around the earth. It should spread out temperature differentials, and therefore decrease extreme weather.
Nice pseudo-science man.
>There is no scientific evidence, or even a bare bones theory that could even attempt to prove that more CO2 means more extreme weather.
Warmer oceans mean hurricanes can form more easily and in new areas for example, and obvious drive up drought rates.
>>70220914
>comparing "le climate change" levels of variation to the atmosphere of Venus
Aren't you going overboard there?
>>70220775
>It's not up to humans to micromanage the ecosystem to try to preserve it, the ecosystem evolves, as it has for millions of years. It never has and it never will stay the same.
>How does something evolve and stay the same? How much crack do I need to smoke to come to this same conclusion?
Nice reading it comprehension
>>70220872
>Species will invade, adapt, diversify, and life will go on
Except extinction is a facet of that, and our extinction is very possible
>>70217061
This picture is shit.
It is made of lies and deceit.
>>70221042
>Using an assumption to prove an assumption.
This nigga right here.
>Truthers are especially buttdevestated over snopes because the site undermines the fiction that makes up their sad lonely lives.
That moment when you find out subconsciously you have no argument and so you break out the projector.
>>70220253
Humans cannot easily adapt to quickly changing ecosystems. You will see even worse mass migrations of poor people as a result.
Some regions will see increased productivity, others will see desertification.
More biodiversity isn't always good. I don't want tropical diseases to move further north.
We already have enough food to sustain 7 billion people, why do we need to grow more?
The idea that having to pay a little bit more tax is equivalent "humans dooming themselves to poverty conditions" is the worst alarmism of all.
>>70221106
>Nice reading it comprehension.
Oh, the irony.
ONLY DUMB YUROPOORS BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING
FOR THE SAME REASON, THEY ARE LETTING IN MUDSLIMES
>>70221081
Regardless, previous climatic shifts likely caused the Permian–Triassic extinction which killed 70% of land vertebrate species and 96% of marine species. It was likely caused by extreme volcanism flooding the atmosphere with CO2 and changing the climate dramatically.
>>70221428
Extreme what now?
This is on par with that dude from that Resistance documentary trying to say that habitual antibiotic use in animal feed doesn't contribute to bacterial resistance.
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE BECAUSE OF THESE RETARDS
>>70221197
>Humans cannot easily adapt to quickly changing ecosystems.
Congratulations, you made the dumbest fucking statement in the entire thread.
>>70221197
Honestly if we could just kill all subhumans and leave about a billion of us the earth would be much better.
>>70221197
Further increased destertification is going to see a lot of fucked fertile land, coupled with an extra 1-2 billion population increase this century.
A massive change in agricultural will be needed, such as vertical farms in urban areas.
>>70220896
Give all of your shekels to alternative energy goyim, don't mind the tonnes and tonnes of toxic byproduct from making solar panels, just remember, nuclear is dangerous and you don't want to end up like a chernobyl.
>>70220516
Because the atmosphere is not a static blanket of air. A lot of complicated, geography specific things happen in it. I know a local example but I can't speak much about the US.
Our wet season is caused by the south west monsoon. During December to January Asia tilts towards the sun and Australia tilts away. Cool air travels towards warm air forming wind. Cooler Australian air travels north west then is deflected north east (because of the weird Coriolis effect). Along the way it picks up moisture from the Indian ocean.
Last year we had our wet season early. Usually it's in December and January but it started in October. Because of global warming, two things happened.
One, Asia was hotter so stronger winds were produced. Two, more moisture evaporated and condensed over the Indian ocean.
Our monsoon was worse this year. It flooded at one point, which is pretty rare.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Extreme_weather
Few hundred thousand years ago earth was warmer than it was now
>>70221171
>Using an assumption to prove an assumption.
What? that the vast majority of viral intenet rumor junk mail is sent by conservatives? That is pretty widely documented.
>Of the 79 chain e-mails about national politics deemed false by PolitiFact since 2007, only four were aimed at Republicans. Almost all of the rest concern Obama or other Democrats. The claims range from daffy (the White House renaming Christmas trees as “holiday trees”) to serious (the health-care law granting all illegal immigrants free care).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-it-comes-to-e-mailed-political-rumors-conservatives-beat-liberals/2011/11/17/gIQAyycZWN_story.html
>>70221197
A huge amount of past human migrations (as well as the rise and fall of civilisations) are directly related to changing climate. If youre able to access them for free, there's some great journal articles and documentaries on the subject
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19968-fall-of-roman-empire-linked-to-wild-shifts-in-climate/
>for past five years there was no real winter
>going through entire autumn/winter season in a tracksuit
>no global warming
kek, fool somebody else, shill
global warming is real and happening right now
>>70220253
The plant argument is hilarious, and all props to whoever in your family thought it'd be funny to use you as a football when you were little.
High CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will begin to wear through the ocean's calcium carbonate buffer as the CO2 dissolves into the ocean's water, as this happens, you will start to see the ocean's pH dropping, this will result in a myriad of things happening, certain chemicals immobilised at certain pH in the ocean will become mobile, some good, some bad, a few thousand species will die out, acidic water is pretty shit for some building materials, so expect that problem.
The environment can only adapt to a certain extent, some of these adaptations that it may have to make to accomodate pollution may be pretty unpleasant, not to mention expensive to deal with.
>>70221729
I'm going to start off by saying I understand you have Canadian education but that's no excuse.
>People argue it has a liberal bias but it is entirely possible that conservatives just tend to send (and believe in) more of those random viral email claims that they receive from strangers. Their internet rumors and appeals to emotion get debunked and then they cry foul or blame the liberal elite.
Wherein this statement lies any facts?
Like I said don't use your education as an excuse.
>>70221894
>he is measuring global scale weather events using a time frame of 5 years
oh man OH MAN Croatia you need to step it up man
>>70218057
>Is it just the feeling that "we did it" that causes people to freak out or am I missing something?
no, that's entirely it.
they believe they can control the climate
>>70219869
so if the models are based on the theory, isn't the theory wrong?
>>70218057
Niggie u tryna blow our mother fucking cover. No shit it doesn't matter negus, we tryna get free shit, chucklefuck take a seat.
How many engneering firms do you think want a nu-male with multiple gender studies degrees.
>>70221597
>muh global warmings!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o
>>70220101
there's always one retard
>>70220427
precisely, they just claim everything is settled, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic
>>70220475
>a record high extinction rate
higher than the younger dryas period?
>>70220736
>Oh, the irony.
makes a joke
does not comment on the graph
grade F moran detected
>>70220881
I don't know if the OP claim is true or not, those anons I quoted didn't add anything to the discussion apart from claiming it was wrong
you don't believe scientology exists?
>>70221042
it's run by jews
many of their claims are wrong
>>70221197
>You will see even worse mass migrations of poor people as a result
our survival is more important than theirs, fuck em
>why do we need to grow more?
Africoons and sandniggers tripling/quadruipling, or more, per generation
>>70220790
You asked for no explanation. There was not even a question mark. Your flag says proud Scandinavia, but your dumb shit talk says Ahmed.
>>70222042
>Emery estimates that more than 80 percent of the political e-mails that he’s vetted over the past decade were written from a conservative point of view. “The use of forwarded e-mail to spread [false information] around is overwhelmingly a right-wing phenomenon,” he said.
>Perhaps the best theory comes from Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s first press secretary. Fleischer points out that conservatives traditionally mistrust mainstream news. E-mail is another way for them to put out their own messages, countering the perceived biases of traditional media sources, he says. “If you believe the liberal media is covering up,” Fleischer explains, then you might be more susceptible to believe and pass on an outrageous e-mail.
>>70222316
I literally did ask a question, Viggo.
>>70221532
If by "adaptation" you mean "abandoning your now unprofitable farmland and jumping on a FluchtlingesBoot to welcoming Europa", then sure, adaptation is easy.
>>70222416
>Estimates = proof
Wew lad.
>Perhaps the best theory comes from Ari Fleischer....
Fleischer.... Being this new...
>>70222499
>now unprofitable farmland
Better growth conditions are unprofitable to your cuckvision of reality?
>>70222424
Jesus you dumb shit. Highlight your question: "Typical alarmist rhetoric. Don't think just get with the programme we're going to die unless you clean your garbage!"
>>70222310
>I don't know if the OP claim is true or not, those anons I quoted didn't add anything to the discussion apart from claiming it was wrong
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
inb4 attacking the website. Have a google there a thousands of objectively reliable sources which will tell the same story. OPs image claim is completely fabricated and overstates the relative volcanic emissions by a factor of 1 million
>>70218693
>Scientists and politicians who i can't name and have not looked into the topic says its real
>>70222745
>Bush's press secretary
>Secretly a liberal jew
I wish I too could live in truther fantasy land and was able to shut off the outside world on a whim whenever my feelings were hurt simply by mumbling those magic words "muh jews".
>>70221197
>having to pay a little bit more tax
tell that to the old folks and poor people who have to decide weather to freeze or starve
you know, the ones that you socialist marxists like to pretend you care about
>>70221552
it may come to that, since that would be the most obvious way of reducing demand for fossil fuels and other resources
>>70221848
>A huge amount of past human migrations (as well as the rise and fall of civilisations) are directly related to changing climate
why didn't they just stop climate change back then?
>>70221932
>The plant argument is hilarious
wow, w-w-what a great argument, very much
you seem to ignore the fact that plants will take a portion of the CO2, and that the science behind so called acidification is as likely to be true as that behind the IPCC models(all of which were proved wrong)
>1990
>the ozone layer is being depleted by CFCs guys
>the sun's rays will cause genetic mutations in crops and we'll all die
So much for that.
>>70217061
>in 103123 years the world will get 0,123142 degree hotter and +0123,12312 nigger-oxides...
science is mostly lies
if you believe in climate change ur dum
>>70223026
>inb4 attacking the website
that protects your website from being dodgy, does it?
did you look at any results which supported the OP claim? or did you only look for negative results?
the number of sources supporting your refutal of the OP claim is not relevant, you seem to be committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy
>>70222162
No. I'm fucking baffled that you cannot see this. So how can a model be wrong and the theory right? You may ask.
Well if your model is too simplistic or simply garbage, then it can be wrong. However the models are not wrong, models are getting better with more data and if you today think that man made global warming is not a thing, you are a fucking half-wit. Muuuh global conspiracy. Even if and I cannot stretch how large that IF is, all scientist sit and fake data for the Jew. Everyone is still better of assuming it is true and be wrong, than assuming it is not true and be wrong.
>>70218335
That's not the right quote either
>>70217941
>almost catch the bait
>check flag
Never change, Shitpostrailia.
>>70222891
Most of the positive effects will be in Europe, and northern Asia and America. Africa and South Asia (i.e. where the rapefugees come from) will have increasing droughts and reduced yields.
>>70223334
That's because we banned them
>>70218947
Your "proof" is Snopes, a website that has been shown to have a political bias and an agenda when it comes to EVERYTHING they prove/disprove.
Don't forget that snopes is owned and operated by Bernie's granddaughter.
>>70222310
>Africoons and sandniggers tripling/quadruipling, or more, per generation
You know, they are not growing food, they are just consuming.
We are the ones feeding them by sending external aid to shitty african countries.
If we were to cut off all external aid to these countries they would just starve out in less than a year, leaving all their natural resources and land for the taking.
>>70223334
We banned CFCs around that time, so that saved us from the horrible ozone terror!
Except for 2003 and 2006 when the ozone holes were record size, but lets applaud our efforts anyway even if the models were wrong and the danger sold through dishonest hype.
>>70223334
Because we 'banned' the use of CFC's you retarded pakistani.
>>70219445
Why do you think CO2 is dangerous? Historically, we are at a CO2 low in our atmosphere. Shit shrunk because plants aren't growing as big due to a reduction in CO2.
>>70223220
>and that the science behind so called acidification is as likely to be true as that behind the IPCC models(all of which were proved wrong)
Pic related
>>70223441
>desires facts
>I provide them
>argues they're wrong because there's too much support for them
>Humans aren't increasing CO2 levels
>increased CO2 levels aren't changing the climate
>changing the climate will be good for humans
Why are climate change deniers so inconsistent? Stop moving the fucking goalposts
>>70221075
Storms, just as any other weather phenomenon, are formed from differences in temperature, humidity and pressure.
Not from a bare increase in temperature alone.
So, yeah, this guy has a point >>70220516
>>70217941
>having a tax for simply being will make it so you emit less co2
>>70223920
CO2 is not dangerous, what is dangerous is the greenhouse effect becoming so strong that global temperature rises.
For instance, there was a summer in 2011 I think that a heat wave killed every single lenore cattle in my region, literally wrecking our main export product and causing meat prices to rise suddenly.
I am not worried about current levels, but we do need to either stop emiting more co2 or create a way to remove this co2 from our atmosphere and trap it in fuel form.
>>70223622
How convenient that your doom and gloom fanfiction is so precise in who to reward and punish.
Was it the same 100% failure rate models that suggested the doom and gloom in the first place that painted those maps for you?
>>70223220
>Implying the science behind gas solubility and partial pressures is false
This isn't some theory, nobody is debating the fact that increased CO2 concentrations in air lead to increased CO2 concentrations in water and the formation of carbonic acid, that's not up for debate, that's not some obscure theory, it's easily replicated under lab conditions, hell, you can observe the problem with a strip of universal indicator and a soda stream.
I am absolutely ignoring the fact that plants will take a portion of the CO2, it's already countered by the observed increases in CO2 concentrations in ice core samples, the plants are not keeping up. Plant more plants? sink more CO2, great, it won't be enough to keep up with what we're putting out, it's a nice thought though, it'll soften the blow a bit, but then we face the issue of increasing oxygen concentrations in the air, I'm sure nobody needs to explain the problems that can cause.
>>70223537
>the models are not wrong
so which of them accurately predicted?
>>70224042
wow, what a nice pic, did you make it yourself?
global cooling - megahyped by scientists and media - WRONG
global warming - megahyped by scientists and media - WRONG
changed to "climate change" because how can we be wrong about that? ALL IPCC models proved WRONG!
>desires facts
>I provide them
>argues they're wrong because there's too much support for them
not at all old chap, just simple questions to see if you were researching with an open or closed mind, which you DID NOT ANSWER
agenda detected
>>70223539
Hey fuck off. This is the real quote.
>>70224042
>pH measurements were invented 1990
C H E R R Y
P I C K I NG
>>70223920
Ice cap melts
Rising sea levels (Climate rapefeugees)
The death of coral reefs
Draughts
Lower crop yield
Higher extinction rates among organisms.
>>70224503
The death of Lake Megachad.
>>70217061
that would be outrageous if it was true
>believing images with text on them
>not fact-checking before posting
>posting obvious bait
>>70220648
Shit, look at Chernobyl, life adapted to live there. It takes time, but there's not much we can do short of intentional destruction to get rid of life.
Death is a part of life, but these climate people regard any death as bad. Death is essential to the food chain, and in the grand scale of life on earth a few hundred thousand deaths out of hundreds of millions of animals will not do much at all.
Extra CO2 isn't going to cripple the earth. It might not flourish as well for a while, but given enough time the Earth will adapt and continue on as if nothing had happened.
>>70218605
>if he is wrong, then prove it
that's not how it works, nigel
>>70224396
Gr8 b8ing m8
Thanks for contributing so much to the thread with your wealth of knowledge. You've literally posted nothing scientific in this thread about climate science
>agenda detected
I have 2 science degrees which is not an agenda it's an education, something you are clearly lacking
>>70224699
>Shit, look at Chernobyl, life adapted to live there.
Did you see the mutated babies from the people that live there?
>>70224818
No he didn't because they don't exist.
>>70224099
>deniers
DENIIIEEERR!!! HERETTTIIICCC!!
BUUUURN THE WITCH!
>>70224388
>This isn't some theory,
well if it's not a theory, it must be a proposition or a hypothesis
>under lab conditions
just how the greenhouse effect is? yet all of the IPCC models based on this "science" were proven wrong, were they not?
what do you make of the claim that water vapor is responsible for 95% of greenhouse effects? and 99.999% of it is naturally occurring?
>>70224781
I see, you just make a claim that it's wrong and walk off hands in the air screaming " I AM WIENERRR!!!"?
>>70224797
>You've literally posted nothing scientific in this thread about climate science
address my claims about all of the IPCC models being proven wrong
>I have 2 science degrees which is not an agenda it's an education, something you are clearly lacking
they obviously didn't teach you about argumentum ad authoritam or ad hominem
As a conservative, I strongly feel that other conservatives should understand the benefits of preserving the planet.
>>70217061
The Ice Age cometh.
>>70224503
>Rising sea levels (Climate rapefeugees)
>"Hey, looks like the sea is a meter higher than when I was a child"
>"Ok"
>*crickets*
[Meanwhile in africa]
>"Hey nbongo, looks like the sea level is higher, should we move our beach hut 10 meters inland?"
>"Nah Mbappo, lets abandon our lands and homes here and go to Europe instead!"
>>70225020
no. if you make a claim, you need to provide a reliable source or compelling evidence. something OP didn't do. but keep being a tryhard. it's as fun for the rest of us as it is for you.
>>70224406
there are alot of newfags here that seem to have crawled out of (((bernie Sanders))) ass.
Global Warming, Climate Change, its all bullshit niggers, just look at Rural ambient temperatures. They have them in most almanacs. You can even make a fun graph out of it and then average them by decade and watch with sheer delight and amazement that we are not going to burn up any time soon and that the entire thing is a scam.
yeah.,.. but... washing out my peanut butter jars will save the planet.. right?
>>70224914
>No he didn't because they don't exist.
Right, I must be imagining things...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VffZ2sSZ30M
The survivors should be prevented from breeding, for their own good and for the good of the poor children that will be born like this.
>>70225224
more proof Canadians are garbage.
has anyone watched their television? its fucking terrible. I'm surprised there aren't higher suicide rates by those northern cucks
>>70221042
>snopes
>They didn't pour bleach down her throat to torture her, just to destroy evidence.
>>70225434
>this youtube video is my source
Why argue about whose fault the carbon is when we could be using kelp+mollusc vertical floating farms to actively pull huge chunks of carbon out of the atmosphere?
>>70225224
you can read back through my comments, just click on my id and they will be highlit. Where did I say that OPs claim was correct? I am neutral on the claim. So far we have seen 2 sources that claim the OP is wrong, USGS(government) and some fag website skeptical something.
>tryhard
what kind of faggot insult is that? at least through some obscenities in there, mr nottryingatall
>>70225422
yes bro, but only if you wash in that water too
>>70225478
kek
>>70224396
You do not need a model. You can have a look right here http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
If you want a explantion how CO2 can lead temperature. There is one here
"Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation"
And "The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming", "Man-made carbon dioxide and the "greenhouse" effect" , "A time-dependent climatic feedback system involving sea-ice extent, ocean temperature and CO2".
>>70217061
I'd let her burp on me
>>70225292
During the age of European dominance on the world stage, the world was in an Ice Age. A small one, but an Ice Age. It was during this period that major rivers would freeze and the like. Major rivers do not freeze anymore. The pros of lowering the temperature a few degrees out weigh the cons.
>>70225020
Correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm not, but you merely used the IPCC subject as a comparison for your argument against ocean acidification, which I debunked. You never posed it as a question initially, but claimed I hadnt answered it when it was convenient for you.
You clearly havent learnt about ignoratio elenchi, but at least you've learnt how to use wikipedia, and that's a start.
Anyway it's late here and I need some sleep before I go to my 110k a year environmental consultancy job tomorrow. Enjoy shitposting on pol british teenager
>>70225547
Are you seriously not aware of the deleterious effects of radiation over the reproductive organs of animals?
Fine, here is an article about it: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6589/abs/382352a0.html
Is that source better for you?
>>70222057
it's five years in european metric you dumb burger
that's like 1000000 years in american undeveloped primitive world metric
>>70225731
>You do not need a model
these are not the droids you are looking for
I may be suffering from the dumb, but I can't see an answer to my simple claim
>>70225937
>environmental consultancy
glad to hear you don't have a dog in the race, keep it up mr no bias
>Enjoy shitposting on pol british teenager
I'm 55 with 3 science degrees and a Phd, prove me wrong
>>70226007
Maybe you should actually read what you're linking. That article agrees with me.
>>70225937
wait, you still didn't answer my question about the IPCC models, and now you are running away without doing so?
>>70225937
So you have a vested interest in the scam.
You are literally a paid shill. Go fuck a nigger
>>70218887
>Believing any kind of research telling you the environmental conditions of 600 million years ago when we don't even have a firm grasp of history 10 thousand years ago.
It's like you literally believe everything you see on the internet must be true
>>70225168
What is holland? Have a look a around the earth at just 1 m http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/. You dumb shit. And then have a look at 63 meters as assumed if all antartica meltes http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm
>>70225020
I don't give a fuck about the water vapor. We're talking about acidity, the temperature arguments of climate change are not the only relevant factor when discussing the problems of increasing CO2 concentrations.
Lab conditions give a very good indication of what happens when A meets B, salt water meets high concentrations of CO2, it's pH goes down, that's scientific fact, I remember measuring that sort of simple interaction in high school. Data recorded in the oceans across the world over the last 20 odd years support this, if you want to argue that lab conditions don't prove anything.
There is no evidence against acidification of water through exposure to CO2, there is plenty for it, gas solubility a core principle of liquid-gas interfaces.
>>70222310
>you don't believe scientology exists?
Believing in and believing it exists are two different things anon. I thought Brits were supposed to know English more better than us rednecks
>>70226187
>Maybe you should actually read what you're linking.
>That article agrees with me.
>Here we report that infants exposed in utero to ionizing radiation from the Chernobyl accident had 2.6 times the incidence of leukaemia compared to unexposed children (95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 5.1; P ≈ 0.003), and those born to mothers residing in regions with high radioactive fallout were at higher risk of developing infant leukaemia.
You can't possibly be that stupid can you?
>>70226130
> I may be suffering from the dumb, but I can't see an answer to my simple claim
> I may be suffering from the dumb, but I can't see an answer
> I may be suffering from the dumb, but
> I may be dumb
> I dumb
There is your problem mate. No cure for that.
>>70226298
And as the global warming scam begins to fade into obscurity like every other doomsday scam before, so we witness the birth of the new doomsday scam: acidification of the oceans.
Let me guess, we're all going to die and the world will end in a few years unless we make very drastic changes immediately.
>Co2 levels over time
>No significant bump when the meteroid earh 65 million years ago and burned everything
Okay seems trustworthy brah
>>70226217
>What is holland?
Below the sea already. Why aren't they climate refugeeing all over the place and crying like you/bitches?
Oh yes, what was it called. Ad.... Ad hominem? Nah that's just a common alarmist fallacy. Adoption? Nah that you. Oh yes...
ADAPTATION
Climate "scientists" depend on fear to keep their phony bologna jobs. So of course they're going to tell you that if the global temperature rises 2 degrees we're all going to die. In reality our pollution might end up killing off a few future generations 500 years from now, but I'd rather have 70 degree winters than have my future descendants keep living. If humanity hasn't moved to other planets by then it's their own fault.
>>70226487
amusing
also amusing how you still dodge the question
would admitting it cause you severe cognitive dissonance?
>>70226459
You're connecting some visceral anecdotal incidents with a statistical study. That's not how it works, lad.
>>70226531
Yeeeah, acidification of the oceans isn't a new concept, it's part of climate change. don't worry, same 'scam'
And no, it won't be quick, the changes won't be drastic, it will be a few things happening slowly over time, acid rain, extinction of certain species, mobilization of some more metal species into the ocean, the ocean is massive, there are a lot of things which will happen with pH changes, some may be good, some may be bad.
>>70226298
you cried wolf too many times bro
and you never admitted the previous hysteria was politically motivated
>>70226007
> deleterious effects of radiation over the reproductive organs of animals?
>>70226459
>infant leukaemia.
Leukemia have nothing to do with reproductive organs you dumfuk.
>>70227021
>Refuse to address my point.
I'll take that as you conceding that you don't understand the chemistry of climate change.
>>70220516
>Why would there be increased extreme weather events?
Warmer arctic water weakens the polar jet stream. The jet stream is what "traps" the really cold air up north.
When the arctic air is no longer trapped up north it moves south and mixes with warm humid air of the gulf of Mexico. This can cause some really unpredictable weather.
The end result can be off-season tornadoes, worse than normal winters in the southern and eastern states, extreme blizzards on the east coast, record snowfall, flash floods, etc.
This happens naturally of course, especially during el nino years, and is nothing new. The "storm of the century" that senior citizens would talk about were typically caused by this phenomenon. The problem is that as the temperature rises these will become the "storm of the decade".
Not all parts of the world will experience a rise in extreme weather if the global temperature rises. Again the east coast of the united states is expected to get it far worse than the west.
>>70227118
do what you like
did you address my point about all of the IPCC models being proven wrong?
>>70227195
>unpredictable weather.
I can predict with full certainty that there will be unpredictable weather
>>70217061
>Co2
>a bad thing for earth
pick one, only one
>>70225731
correlation does not imply causation.
there are hundreds, if not thousands of things that can be correlated to temperature, claiming that CO2 somehow leads temperature is absurd.
>>70226543
Yes Poland. Adapting seems like a good solution especially when you refuse that their is a problem. Solid logic. "We must build higher walls and dams, the water is coming in"..." That would be waste of resources, since that water is not raising". You can force a Pole to a book but you can't make him read.
>>70227255
I've not been talking about the IPCC, once again, I don't give a fuck about them, I'm talking hard, irrefutable science, your feelings don't matter.
>>70227319
"
"Correlation does not mean causation"
No, of course not. Scientists don't just see a correlation and assume causation, they look at the mechanism and what's called the 'correlation coefficient', which quantifies the chances of a correlation being mere coincidence. The correlation coefficient of the CO2-temperature link over the past 500 million years shows that the link is too strong to be a coincidence. And of course the mechanism is known and understood. So while this is not "proof" of a link -- there's no such thing with any scientific theory -- it is yet another piece of evidence. "
>>70227472
ben shapiro? what are you doing in the uk?
>Refuse to address my point.
I'll take that as you conceding that you don't understand the chemistry of climate change
>>70227294
Maybe "extreme weather" would have been a better choice of words than "unpredictable weather"?
That isn't any more helpful a name for it, but the point is that the frequency of it will increase as more arctic air moves south more often.
>>70227396
Adaptation is a form of problem solving. And when it comes to sea levels it's much easier to adapt to their changes than force them to remain constant, which they never have been and will never be.
>>70227297
Furthermore UV band B breaks down CO2 in the atmosphere in less than 100 years.
>>70226863
>You're connecting some visceral anecdotal incidents with a statistical study. That's not how it works, lad.
>gets proven wrong several times and still refuses to accept he is wrong.
Ok lad, you are either trolling or are really fucking stupid, im done talking with you.
>>70217061
OVER 300 CAPTURED IN SYRIA BY ISIS GOING TO BE EXECUTED >>70227531
>>70227623
You're fixated on an organization, not chemistry. You've not presented a point to refute. Summarize your feelings on the acidification of earth's oceans, if they contradict scientific fact, I'll refute them.
That's a challenge, go.
>>70227585
increased temperature causes more CO2 to be released, from e.g. methane hydrates
this is why temperature change happens before CO2 change
>>70227744
given that all IPCC models were proven wrong, why should we accept your shamanistic predictions this time?
>>70227255
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
>>70227884
as soon as you confirm or deny that none of the IPCC models were correct
>>70227907
I will watch that straight after you confirm or deny that the IPCC models were all wrong
>>70226298
>Lab conditions
are far removed from real world conditions, you again try to push a sterile and retarded two-variable model as some kind of perfect representation of real world global oceans.
>>70227750
It is much easier cleaning after a Nuclear meltdown than stopping it in the first place. I do not think that you can grasp the costs associated with passively looking a the problem. I do however agree that nothing will be done. It is all a red herring so that people can feel good while they the ship sinks.
>>70227985
What? no. That organization is not relevant to scientific fact. I'm not advocating their studies and I'm not interested in some company which is a political tool.
We're talking about science, not people. At no point have I referred to or advocated for any IPCC models.
I am talking about globally accepted scientific fact that CO2 dissolves in water and decreases it's pH. Do you disagree with this?
>>70218873
>emissions free sources
>surely these new environmentally """""friendly""""" power sources and their manufacturing processes will be better for the environment then the evil CO2 emissions
>China is definitely going to forgo it's all important economical growth in favor of slowing down its production and switching over to more expensive """""clean""""" energy sources.
>even if all the countries don't comply and some (China) continue to produce more CO2 then most countries combined at least my country can feel good about itself that will help things out immensely
Hahaha ha haha hahaha
I can't believe this hasn't already been posted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzZL4M1yVbY
>>70227886
>given that all IPCC models were proven wrong, why should we accept your shamanistic predictions
They are not my predictions. I am just explaining to guy who didn't seem to understand that warmer arctic water could lead to more extreme weather.
He assumed the earth would heat evenly "under a blanket of CO2", and I was just poiting out that it doesn't work like that.
Even if the arctic air is a few degrees above nromal, if that air moves too far south it does cause problems.
It doesn't matter if you believe in the temperature rise or it's cause. This phenomenon already occurs.
>>70228119
>It's easier to reverse the perfectly normal postglacial sea level rise on a global scale than it is to do what he Netherlands did.
I do not think that you grasp anything at all or is capable of thinking.
>>70228309
>globally accepted scientific fact
mate in 3
confirms IPCC models all wrong - discredits organization, own pride and admits scientific consesnus can be wrong
denies IPCC models all wrong - ask for the models which were right, can not provide since all were proved wrong
I thought scientists were supposed to be open to changing there minds based on new data
>>70228564
>It doesn't matter
You sound like Noam Chomsky saying it doesn't matter who did 9/11. It does matter, the (hydro)carbon (energy) grab is already into the trillions making it the largest fraud in the history of mankind.
>>70217061
The jews are trying to get us to destroy the planet now
>>70217061
False.
http://www.snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/
>>70228564
> This phenomenon already occurs.
All weather happens because a temperature delta but that's not proof or supporting for the extreme weather hypothesis.
>>70228073
>taking an OLS trend line from time series data
>time series data that's clearly non stationary
>time series data who's variance depends clearly on the time.
This is why amateurs shouldn't do science.
>>70226130
>>70226188
>>70227255
>>70227985
>>70228681
Fine 1 more post b4 bed to settle your 'dumb' mind. The IPCC models are obviously inaccurate as are all scientific models to some degree. If you've read any of the official IPCC documents, which pretty clearly you haven't, you'd find that even the IPCC doesn't deny this. So your focus on this subject is quite perplexing. This does not discredit the relevency of the well understood scientific principles and observations that the models are based on, but illustrates the difficulty in numerically modelling hugely complex systems. Now an obvious response to the second part of my last sentence is to decry that all of the IPCCs claims about global warming are a myth based on the false pretenses of their own modelling. But that claim ignores the fact that there are massive bodies of scientific evidence external from IPCC modelling that suggest increased CO2 emissions will warm the planet. This scientific data and the intricacies of scientific modelling are a subject too complex and long for pre-bed 4chan bantz and I would encourage you to do some/any research if you are at all interested in making a serious comment on them. Good night britcuck
>>70226209
I'd tell you to go get an education Ameridumb, but you're probably too poor for that. My work is in soil and groundwater contamination. Education and actual research on a subject =/= an agenda
>>70218873
What companies have even done what you're saying. Humans aren't perfectly rational lol just because less emissions is better doesn't mean they'll actually elect to do it. Also yeah teenager detected in this shitposter.
>>70228681
Why do you keep talking about people? we're talking about science. not people.
The IPCC are people.
Henry's law is science, Henry's law backs up my argument, what backs up yours?
And no, the IPCC being shit doesn't back up an argument which flies in the face of observed and well documented physical chemistry.
If you admit that CO2 concentrations in air are increasing, then that means through the application of Henry's law that CO2 will dissolve in the ocean to a greater extent and modify it's pH.
>>70227585
that's not even close to being a "scientific theory".
its not even a scientific hypothesis, there is only guesswork involved here, where are the experiments? these so called models are based on correlation of historical conjecture.
There is literally hundreds of other correlations to temperature, furthermore, there is no direct correlation to CO2, as it would be apparent in the 19th and 20th century where C02 rates exploded but rural ambient temperature did not escalate. The real truth of earth temperature rests not in bullshit IPCC 'models' but rural ambient temperatures. No matter what they tell you about urban temperatures and special algorithms, the farmer's almanac doesn't lie.
>>70218605
>95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor,
Yeah but water vapor has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere.
>>70228806
Reading comprehension. I am explaining what causes extreme weather. Extreme weather happens with or without climate change. That is what I meant when I said "it doesn't matter" because I was talking about the present and not a future prediction.
I was just pointing out what a rise in arctic temperature does to existing weather patterns. The pics I posted were 2014-2015 winters and they were not future predictions.
>>70217061
I, for one, welcome our new climate change overlord.
Pros of global warming:
>Large swats of eurasia become habitable
>more co2 causes exponential plant growth
>shitskins in africa and asia starve to death or get flooded to oblivion
>europe gets a comfier sub-tropical climate
>the northern withdraw of the climate zones means europe, usa, canada and russia become global food and water suppliers or otherwise said, undisputed superpowers
>libs butthurt through the roof
>the time of emergency might bring the right back on track
Cons:
>libs might gain some ground
>occasional floodings of major coastl cities
>>70218614
>artificial long lasting aerosols to be injected into the stratosphere to replicate that effect in an attempt to fight global warming.
Maybe 8 years ago they wanted fleets of ships to dump iron ore into the oceans to fight carbon. How come dumping all that into the ocean isn't pollution?
>>70229226
>suggest increased CO2 emissions will warm the planet.
It's a greenhouse gas. If we plug in the basic physical greenhouse gassiness of CO2 without the IPCC magic we get a scenario where we can burn all the fucking fossil fuels we want with shrug-tier changes in temperature from it.
> IPCC doesn't deny this
Is not the same as admitting the problem, dishonest wordplay as expected from climate proponents.
