Pick a side and get in here faggots.
Me, I believe the mainstream line on global warming, that human emissions are leading to more heat being trapped in the atmosphere thus rising temperatures.
I base this on
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas
>The greenhouse effect is real and can be demonstrated
>human activity has been the main factor causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution
>warming (above what scientists consider normal) has been observed over the past century
>nobody has offered an alternative explanation for this warming
I believe that global coordination is required to attempt to cap our co2 emissions as soon as possible while at the same time developing and deploying 'carbon scrubbing' tech.
Now fight me cunts
>>70816454
>global coordination
Good luck with that. What will happen is any of the following:
>Nothing
>We die
>We discover alternative power
There will be no global cooperation or whatever the fuck.
>>70816604
Much of the globe is cooperating though. China are realising that even if the science is wrong (they don't think it is) it is in their interest to clean up their act anyway. India will be next for this realisatii. And both India and China are deploying Thorium reactors over the next decade. This is a step in the right direction. Thorium is actually so safe that I can only assume some kind of merchant is the reason it isn't being taken up much more widely.
who gives a fuck? yeah, agw is real. Thin the fucking herd. The hardiest intelligent superior man will continue on while the weaklings die. Bring it!
>>70816958
>yfw
Problem with the Georgia guidestones is they suggest a population of 500,000,000. Or less than 10% of the global population. Giving you less than a 1 in ten chance of making it. Fancy them odds?
>>70817061
I fancy the fuck out of them. If I or my children aren't strong enough, we don't deserve to be here. How do you "fancy them odds" fuckstick
>>70817356
I don't care either way about your genocidal fantasies and ego-masturbation. Crack on lad.
>>70817871
Crack on? What kind of faggot shit is that? lol
>>70816454
>I believe that global coordination is required to attempt to cap our co2 emissions as soon as possible while at the same time developing and deploying 'carbon scrubbing' tech.
Put some actual numbers around that plan, you badly baiting britbong. Even if it's all real, there's no way it will be curbed.
>the Paris accord is about redistribution of wealth on an international scale
>>70816958
If your suicidal,just kill yourself now
>>70818560
Numbers eh? actual numbers are hard... We (human activity) puts out about 24Gt a year of co2. So how about a plan to reduce this to 12 globally over the next 15 years?
I agree that we can't realistically stop all co2 emissions with current tech. This biggest target should be power generation first. Not sure how legit this graphic is but even assuming it overstates power generations co2 by 50% it is still by far the largest single factor.
>>70816454
I'm not convinced that the A of AGW is real but I do believe that the earth is warming. It goes on long cycles of heating and cooling and the AGW models seem to ignore other factors - like variability of the output of the sun.
I am all for a culling of humanity. It's time to stop allowing the uncontrolled breeding of inferiors i.e.: Niggers and Muzzies who consume but do nothing positive for society.
>Global Warming
That was last year you faggot
It's climate change now you fucking racist
>>70816454
I believe in it as well, our civilization is going to go extinct. If not nature then other people will get us wiped out.
>>70816454
>>nobody has offered an alternative explanation for this warming
Bullshit, people just plug their ears when anyone suggests it's a natural occurrence or because our calendar system is a month or so out of whack with the seasons of the planet.
>>70818949
>it's the seasons
>>70816454
CO2 is incredibly beneficial to plant growth.
A doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels would almost double the plant-growth rate worldwide. More plants means more animals, and more biodiversity all around.
Life loves warm temperatures and high Carbon environments. Back in the dinosaur era, CO2 levels were as much as 5 times higher and the planet was a tropical paradise. The land was so productive it could support giant creatures the size of a house.
Oil is compressed biomass. All of the Carbon contained within oil was originally in the atmosphere. Taking another perspective, you might say that humans are simply liberating trapped CO2 back into the atmosphere where it can once again be used in the Carbon cycle rather than sitting unproductively underground.
In short, increasing CO2 levels will have very minimal effects on warming, but could potentially double global food production and lead to an explosion of biodiversity to an extent we've never seen before.
>>70818823
>like variability of the output of the sun.
This has been taken into account. The suns output is measured in irradiance or w/m2. This has increased a little over the past few decades but not by enough to account for the warming observed.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
>Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
>Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
btw I do agree with the sentiment ITT re overpopulation and the two are linked. But a cull is never going to happen. It is time to start encouraging population planning though.
>inb4 commie
>>70818949
Even natural occurrences have underlying physics anon. What is the source of this extra heat(assuming that its not just more heat being stored)?
>>70816454
>I believe the mainstream line on global warming
You mean the SCIENTIFIC line on global climate changes. Only politicians against science calls it "global warming"
it has become religion, no longer science. Scientists with opposing findings than the narrative set by exploiting politicians and jews gets lit fucked off and out of work. It's not serious. I blame my flags pol for this, they have been the worst. Another hobby of theirs to illustrate the problem is to hire a team of "scientist" for getting proof or support of any political goal... "scientists have found that..."
these are not scientists, because they have an answer from the start. so yeah it's not research. This is also glogging so much researchers you wouldn't know.
globalw shit: make pols look good and make a merked of quotas. bull the facts we are given now.
fact: natures temp varies all the time, eventually we will get an iceage again in a few k
Also this bees go bye bye shit? Utterly false, same shit here. We did some extensive research on this, and found that they never had it better. It's all lies, and false researchers keeps pushing this too. Frankly they should have their degrees pulled for such unserious actions.
>>70819134
Many things were different of a geological scale when the dinosaurs were about.
>>70816454
>>70816454
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas
water is a 4x more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and is found in FAR higher concetrations in the atmosphere than CO@'s paltry 0.04%
>The greenhouse effect is real and can be demonstrated
yeah, and gravity is real too. what's your point?
>human activity has been the main factor causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution
ORLY?
How Much?
thats the question you (and the IPCC) cant answer.
how much of "global warming" is man-caused?
according to the IPCC's latest backpedaling in IPCC5, less than 0.25 degrees C over the past half century.
seriously, you can look it up
>warming (above what scientists consider normal) has been observed over the past century
what do "scientists" consider "normal"?
is the observed 2 degree C warming on mars ALSO "anthropogenic"?
the sun has increased it's energy output (in energy measured a the earth's surface) by ~2% over the last century, and earth surface temps have gone up ~2%
ZOMG!
correlation is not causation when it doesnt fit the narrative!!!
>nobody has offered an alternative explanation for this warming
who just DID offer an alternative solution?
that would be ME
(and several thousand actual scientists who study the Milencovik cycle, glacial cycles, the 3 holocene periods that were warmer than current temps, and solar irradience cycles)
>>70819134
>increasing CO2 levels will have very minimal effects on warming, but could potentially double global food production and lead to an explosion of biodiversity to an extent we've never seen before.
But anon, that's not a good reason to make wealthy countries pay compensation to poor ones.
>>70819215
Global warming is still accurate. Averaged out across the global the tren is warming. Hence global warming. Climate change was adopted cause of retards who'd point to snow and say
>global warming
is it really worth letting government piss literally trillions every year on "green" bullshit to cool the earth fractions of a degree over the next many decades? now that they can't use the "moral" obligation of taxing us to death to dish out money to allt eh dindu's and gibme's they've just invented another "moral" reason for high taxation. regardless of whether its true or not i don't think governments should be steering the change.
Webe proven that more CO2 equals more heat
Weve proven that through or methane and co2 production were dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
Weve proven that the medival warming period was not global
The science is settled but the new issue is what do we do to stop this without destroying modern society.
>>70819260
>[Post a Reply]
>[W] [Return] [Catalog] [Top]
>24 / 8 / 14 / 1
>[Updat
Literally this
Communists used to be atheists.
Now they're global warming cultists.
They use the mythology to justify their totalitarianism.
>>70816454
I'm on your side OP.
>>70819260
can i please have some sources
>>70819268
Make Greenland great again!
It was a lot better there when we settled, though the Green was actually sneaky jewish propaganda to trick people following eric the red.
Anyways this land mass has enormous potential and resources, much of the ones we used to have as we wuz once physical shitrock and sheeeeit
>>70819407
> WE
you got a mouse in your pocket?
"We" have "proven" none of that shit
extremely high concentrations of CO2 can TRAP more heat in lab e3xperiments, but 0.04-0.05% CO2 is what scientists call a Trace Gas, and it does NOT drive climate.
ice core4s have repeatedly demonstrated that "warming" does not follow CO2 increases, but rather CO2 increases follw warming by ~800 years.
Protip: the earth has been on a "Global Warming" trend for the last 12000 years, a return to the mean temperature of the earth over the last several billion years would be a return to an Ice Age. (without the cutesy dinosaurs)
>>70816454
>Global warming is real
>Climate change is real
>Aryan scientists pressed the 'red button' to initiate it..
>To finally finish their job once and for all
YFW earth is one big gas oven
>>70819260
>water is a 4x more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and is found in FAR higher concetrations in the atmosphere than CO@'s paltry 0.04%
water is also shortlived, see rain and clouds. As such water vapour is better at self-regulating. Clouds also stop sun rays getting in in the first place so some of their effect is offset.
>yeah, and gravity is real too. what's your point?
Nothing. Just wanted to make it clear in the first post.
>human activity has been the main factor causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution
Turns out we can measure this pretty accurately. Human activity is the only thing we have that burns fossil fuels. Because they are so old some of the radioactive carbon has decayed. So we can tell by looking at the isotopes of co2 in the air where they came from.
>How Much?
pic related
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-3/
>is the observed 2 degree C warming on mars ALSO "anthropogenic"?
source?
>the sun has increased it's energy output (in energy measured a the earth's surface) by ~2% over the last century, and earth surface temps have gone up ~2%
and again. The link I posted above would put the increase at 0.5% tops. And 'normal' warming, according to NASA, is about 1 degree/1000 years. We've managed almost 1 degree in 100 years.
>that would be ME
Go on.
>>70816454
What exactly is the solution then?
This is literally feminism levels of
>men rape
with no mention of a solution.
>>70819769
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
>>70819464
>Huh?
> <Img src= C:\ Deez-&nutz.jpg>
I thought /pol/ supports Trump?
Trump clearly states that global warming is a hoax.
Daily reminder:
* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.
* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming.
* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.
* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. (Pic related.)
* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.
* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.
* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."
>>70816454
>>nobody has offered an alternative explanation for this warming
Nice meme bro.
I guess solar variability, planetary motion, and ocean currents just don't fucking exist amirite? The bio thermostat is just a joke right?
Look, I'm not saying that climate change isn't real, the earth goes through changes all the time including if it's acted upon by an outside source such a an astroid or humans. However it's really naive and vain to think that we are the only factor. Not calling you vain though senpai. I'm jus sayin
>>70819227
>fact: natures temp varies all the time, eventually we will get an iceage again in a few k
This is what historic data would suggest, that some time over the next 500 to 2000 years we go back into ice-age. But with temps rising by a whole new mechanism, there is no guarantee that we will. Even if we do, 500 years is plenty of time for us to get BTFO by an angry Earth.
>>70819996
All of those don't explain it
The sun is in a cooling phase
Planetary motion hasn't changed dramatically
The seas are warming as well
>>70816454
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a grain of sand in the desert.
>>70819469
Atheism predates communism lad.
>extremely high concentrations of CO2 can TRAP more heat in lab e3xperiments, but 0.04-0.05% CO2 is what scientists call a Trace Gas, and it does NOT drive climate.
4u
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
Why do you think it is different in the atmosphere? The underlying reaction is the same.
>>70819639
Sources:
> IPCC report no 5
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
> Mars Warming
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
> water as greenhouse gas
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
> 12000 years of "global warming"
google Holocene Period
> milankovic cycles
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154612/
>>70819847
>'normal' warming, according to NASA, is about 1 degree/1000 years. We've managed almost 1 degree in 100 years.
This is absolute dog shit. The Medieval Climate Optimum saw warming nearly as fast as what we're observing now, and the Little Ice Age was a literal fucking temperature crash.
1C / 1000 years my ass. Earth's temperatures have NEVER been that fucking stable.
Also: your comments on water are hilarious. The physical properties of CO2 are not in dispute and there's no way CO2 can, by itself, lead to more then about 1C of warming for a doubling of preindustrial levels. H2O is the CENTER PIECE of your precious theory. Without a +H2O feedback there is no "run away global warming OH GOD WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING LET'S TAX PEOPLE!"
H2O is THE dominate GHG by a wide margin. Its response to global changes is literally the only thing that matters. If it's not responding to CO2 increases then it's a waste of time to worry about CO2.
>>70819950
Looks like you may need to freshen up the pasta
>New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html
>co2 is a greenhouse gas
How do you know this? Have you seen the effect demonstrated in am experiment or do you trust the 5 jewish owned publishers responsible for ALL scientific studies published he past 15 years?
bongs and aussies are usually global warming alarmists. it's drilled into their heads as kids
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zLpfNnGMxM&nohtml5=False
>>70817061
Seriously? The georgia guidestones?
>A side
I believe human activity has an effect, yes. And there are probably more negative consequences to that effect than positive ones.
I don't believe in any of the chicken-little "runaway greenhouse effect," "We's gon b Venus n' shit" bullshit though. If the climate were that fragile and unstable there'd be no fucking way life could have gone on existing here for two billion fucking years. I also dismiss the allegation that the changes we've caused are permanent (or effectively so); just looking at the numbers it's quite clear that the environment has already sequestered most of the carbon we've produced throughout the industrial revolution (since it clearly didn't ALL stay in the atmosphere).
>>70819996
OK. I've already addressed solar variation above. It is not enough. Planetery motion is well known. Are you suggesting we are abnormally close to the sun? Ocean currents do not generate heat, simply move it about.
Nothing you mentioned can explain the increase in the earth's total heat content (oceans, land and atmosphere)
>>70820282
>How do you know this? Have you seen the effect demonstrated in am experiment
Yes.
>2016
>not STEM
>>70820266
Looks like you may need to buy a clue. Temps are in line with CO2 operating on its own. They show no evidence of H2O amplification.
Too bad the study didn't address the evidence.
>but muh theoreezee!!!
>>70819769
> "Nuhh Uhh!" The Post
imma powder your butthole then sodomize you faggot.
Bite The Pillow, I'm Goin' In Dry
>CO2 classified as a Trace Gas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_gas
>CO2 follows warming
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
>12000 yeas of "global Warming
See attached image
Source:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-easterbrook-fakes-his-figures-hides-the-incline/
ohh yeah, right up in your guts.
i just stamped my cock's signature on tomorrow's turd
>>70820204
>Also: your comments on water are hilarious. The physical properties of CO2 are not in dispute and there's no way CO2 can, by itself, lead to more then about 1C of warming for a doubling of preindustrial levels. H2O is the CENTER PIECE of your precious theory. Without a +H2O feedback there is no "run away global warming OH GOD WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING LET'S TAX PEOPLE!"
funny, you contradict yourself right here >>70819950
This is what happens when you keep recycling the stale pasta.
Anyway, have you got a proper source for this claim you keep making?
>* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.
I'm sure I've asked you before...
>>70820400
>Nothing you mentioned can explain the increase in the earth's total heat content (oceans, land and atmosphere)
Sorry, but you have to explain why temps are too low. The OBSERVED increase is in line with natural variation + CO2 and no H2O amplification.
Nonsense. All the millions of gallons of emissions we are pumping into our atmosphere every day just magically vanish once they get there by the power of the mystical pink unicorn.
>>70820440
>2016
>falling for the stem meme
I wish I hadn't. My degree in enviormental chemistry landed me a job in deforestation.
>>70820510
funny how the global warming of the 20th century ties in rather nicely to the decline of the british empire
perhaps if you bongs were to Make England Great Again, you might put a stop to the runaway warming your faggotry has caused
>>70820555
Most of it is absorbed by phytoplankton in the ocean. The ocean itself is between 50% - 80% of the Carbon cycle (scientists aren't completely sure).
>>70820204
>1C / 1000 years my ass.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
>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.
>>70820282
see video here >>70820148
>>70820510
>funny, you contradict yourself right here >>70819950 (You)
No, I did not contradict myself. Re-read both posts until you understand them.
>>* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.
>I'm sure I've asked you before...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming+absent+feedbacks
The fact that you don't know the forcing of CO2 absent feedbacks is proof that you have no business discussing this on 4chan or any where else. Go learn something instead of parroting the fear mongering that's pushed on the public by politicians. I'm sick and tired of science being corrupted by useful idiots like youself.
what if we move to the sun? i mean, it's close to the earth, it's warm and it might burn the co2 we release on a daily basis
>>70820309
The earth is great at self-regulating. It's just the adjustments it has to make to deal with teh acidified oceans and higher temperatures may not go so well for us.
>>70818429
lol?
>>70820802
>cherry picking data: the post
Once again for the special ed students: the Medieval Warm Period saw a ramp up almost as "fast" as this one.
Also: the IPCC claims a warming of 0.6C from 1900-2000, and they only attribute half to man. (I fucking hate warmingtards who don't know their own data.)
>>70820445
>Temps are in line with CO2 operating on its own.
I..is this a concession? So now your entire argument for doing nothing hinges on 'feedback won't happen'? How about methane release? Besides, is it not pretty well accepted that hotter atmosphere = more water vapour?
>>70820488
>joannenova
This is a shill.
Yes, co2 has historically followed temperature. This time the mechanism is different. ,But lets assume for a second you are correct. We have seen at least .7 degrees warming the past 100 years. The 'co2 lags temp' model shows the lag of 200-400 years. That means the increase in co2 from teh current warming IS YET TO HAPPEN. But already atmospheric co2 is at levels not seen for almost a million years. If we are due for another increase this will presumably put us closer to 800ppm or so? This would be a trippling of pre-industrial co2. So how would this affect:
>* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.
>>70821112
>I..is this a concession?
No, because AGW theory was never about CO2 alone. And AGW predictions that politicians use to try and scare people into "doing something" are impossible if CO2 is acting alone.
>So now your entire argument for doing nothing hinges on 'feedback won't happen'?
The +H2O feedback isn't happening, isn't going to happen, and was a stupid prediction when it was originally made in the 1980's.
>How about methane release?
Also not happening.
>Besides, is it not pretty well accepted that hotter atmosphere = more water vapour?
By idiots maybe. H2O's role is determined by weather, and weather is highly chaotic. It was foolish to ever believe that CO2 could alter average H2O levels over time by any meaningful amount. It's equally foolish to assume such an alteration would be all warming and no cooling. Clouds can warm, cool, or a combination thereof, all on the same day or in the same hour.
And we can't model any of it accurately.
What we can do is look at the evidence. And the evidence shows no run away warming, no dangerous feedbacks. None of the scary stuff that Hansen and the rest of them predicted throughout the 1990's.
>>70820815
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming+absent+feedbacks
Is this the best you can do? How about the actual paper?
> Go learn something instead of parroting the fear mongering that's pushed on the public by politicians
This is rich given your favorite copypasta is ripped straight from some skeptics handbook site. Link incoming.
>>70821025
The whole article is just a click away. One better than you've managed in this thread or indeed any of the previous iterations of it. Also the MWP was not global.
>>70819227
>religion
Well it has all of the ingredients.
End of Days climate doom prophecy
Massive one sided propaganda bombardments
Denier inquisition, heretic hunt
Manufacture of paid priests - climate scientists
Tithes - carbon tax
Indoctrination of children
Ignorant of geological history, acts as if world was created with invention of fossil fuel.
>>70819948
>hoax
It is fraud, trillions of dollars are on the line now. Pope of Rome calls for Jihad on deniers while hanging with the leader of the largest communist plantation on earth? Wew lads! This is gonna hurt!
>>70821468
CO2 will lead to more water vapour and methane. CO2 is the easiest GHG we can attempt to control our emission of.
>Also not happening.
Take it you missed the bit last year with the melting permafrost?
>By idiots maybe. H2O's role is determined by weather, and weather is highly chaotic.
Agreed. I actually said something similar above. Now how about you address the assertion that warmer water vapour has a higher maximum vapour pressure?
>>70821310
>This would be a trippling of pre-industrial co2. So how would this affect:
>>* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.
It would hardly affect it at all. As CO2 increases the forcing (warming) decreases. It's like putting multiple ND filters on a camera lens. Most of the light is blocked by the first one.
One of the dirty little inaccuracies of current climate modeling is the IR band overlap with H2O. The forcing of CO2 is less in the presence of higher levels of H2O because the water molecules have already absorbed / released some of that energy. But there's no way to accurately estimate and model this because H2O's presence in the atmosphere is so chaotic (weather). This is why CO2 warming would affect deserts more than the tropics.
Put simply, we should expect less than 1.2C of forcing globally for a doubling of preindustrial CO2. We just can't say how much less.
>>70816454
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas
CO2 is increasing
Temperatures not increasing.
Let me repete:
Temperatures not increasing.
>>70821493
>Is this the best you can do? How about the actual paper?
Oh fuck off. The CO2 forcing absent feedbacks is WELL ESTABLISHED and AGREED UPON BY ALL PARTIES because it's basic god damn physics.
Too lazy to google search? Want a "paper?" Then why don't you read an IPCC report sometime. It's right fucking there.
>This is rich given your favorite copypasta is ripped straight from some skeptics handbook site. Link incoming.
I would love to read that link since I'm the fucking author of the copypasta.
>>70822040
But this more co2 would suggest we are already warmer?
>>70822116
Based on the shoddiest manipulation of data in a long time, yes. Go here. Play about with the graphs. See if you can identify a trend.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/
>>70822270
>I would love to read that link since I'm the fucking author of the copypasta.
Coming right up.
>>70816815
China is trying to build a huge power line to supply cheap coal power to Europe. China is building new coal fired power plants all the time. They don't give a shit about global warming
>>70816454
Why is this thread made everyday?
Watcha slidin rabbi?
>>70821890
>CO2 will lead to more water vapour and methane.
CO2 has NOT led to a significant increase in water vapor or methane. Observation trumps theory. Anything else is NOT science.
>CO2 is the easiest GHG we can attempt to control our emission of.
>implying it's "easy"
Assuming the AGW theory based GCMs are correct and we're facing 2-8C of "runaway warming WE MUST DO SOMETHING" then we would have to slash global carbon emissions by at least half to have any impact.
That means pretty much getting the entire globe on nuclear fission for electricity.
Anything less and you're pissing in the wind.
Good luck with that!
>>Also not happening.
>Take it you missed the bit last year with the melting permafrost?
The permafrost that wasn't there during the Roman or Medieval Optimums?
>Now how about you address the assertion that warmer water vapour has a higher maximum vapour pressure?
I'll be glad to just as soon as you address the complete failure of the GCMs to model climate for the past 20 years.
>>70822341
>>70816454
Global warming is a real thing, but it's not happening nearly as fast as people say
>>70816454
>CO2 is plant food
>if we stopped our carbon emissions 1 in 7 plants on earth couldn't survive
>water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas
>CO2 still makes less than a single percentage point of the atmosphere
>our climate has never been stable
>all projected doomsday global warming nut statistics have been proved wrong in the real world
what are you on about, there aren't even enough fossil fuels on the planet to burn for the ice caps to melt
>>70816815
>India can't clean streets
>but will clean climate
POO
>>70822305
>telling people to use a climate activism site as a source for data proving climate change
fucking lel
>>70820283
Yeah it's called an STEM education you should try it some time
>Check flag
Oh right, you're probably too poor
Couldn't it be just some sort of reverse Ice Age? I mean that shit didn't happen from one day to the other.
>>70816454
Why has their been almost no warming in almost 20 years while during the same time period 1/3 of the carbon emissions in human history have been released?
Why should we take the predictions of climate "science" seriously when they are consistently wrong, and they are always wrong in the same way (overpredicting the rise in temperatures and the melting of sea ice)?
Why is the Anarctic sea ice at RECORD HIGHS when the opposite was predicted by climate "scientists"?
How can the long term predictions of climate computer models have any validity whatsoever when the climate is a non-linear dynamical system (aka a chaotic system), which means that minute differences in initial conditions can yield completely different results due to the butterfly effect? I don't trust the local weatherman to accurately predict the weather two weeks from now, why would I trust climate "scientists" to predict what will happen with the climate in 10, 20, 30 years? They literally have no clue at all what will happen.
>I believe that global coordination is required to attempt to cap our co2 emissions as soon as possible while at the same time developing and deploying 'carbon scrubbing' tech.
This is precisely why the global warming scam is so dangerous. Since the beginning it has been a myth perpetuated to allow a backdoor for a global socialist government. This is exactly why climate "science" should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Not only is it horrendously bad science (it's doesn't even qualify as science because the scientific method isn't being employed), but there's a very sinister political agenda behind the movement.
>>70816815
Can I come live in fairytale land with you too?
>>70823219
Too long didnt read past the first sentence
>>70822623
I've just been through three pages of plebs and cannot find it. I am certain I found an extended version of your pasta of the comments section of another site.
>>70822533
>CO2 has NOT led to a significant increase in water vapor or methane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions#Loss_of_permafrost
How about that a hotter atmosphere will hold more water vapour?
>Good luck with that!
It doesn't hurt to try. Fusion is what, 30 years away (and has been eternally but maybe this time is different). Renewable are become feasible thanks to improving batter tech. And Thorium is credible and safe. It can't go into meltdown.
>The permafrost that wasn't there during the Roman or Medieval Optimums?
Citation? Ice core samples can be extracted from permafrost going back 30k years.
>I'll be glad to just as soon as you address the complete failure of the GCMs to model climate for the past 20 years.
Climate modeling is complex. The bottom line is we are warming and this warming will likely lead to feedback both methane and more water vapour.
>>70822939
You didn't even look at it did you? It uses RSS and UAH data-sets among others.
>>70823219
>take random graph
>draw straight line though
>SEE GUYS, NO WARMING!!
>>70823219
Because peope think choosing an anomolously warm year and using this as the starting point in determining a trend is in any way credible. Go to the site here
>>70822305
Play about with it any way you like. 99% of input data will result in a positive trend.
>>70823476
So what was going on during the late 1800s/early 1900s when we were at the height of the industrial revolution, we were discovering and burning oil and coal like nobody's business? yet the temperature was going down... why?
Why is the end of the graph totally flat even though during the last 20 years we were releasing record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?
You can't hand wave this shit away, faggot. Try actually reading my previous post because it's filled with questions you can't answer.
>Guys look at me!!
>insert provocative statement here
>denies logical and rational facts
>guys look at me i need attention!!
>>70823630
There's nothing "random" about it at all. That's the global mean temperature since early 1997.
>>70823311
Oh so cynical.
>The U.S. is helping China build a novel, superior nuclear reactor
http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor/
http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor/
>>70823819
Genuine question, because I don't know, but were we really burning fuel like 'nobody's business' during the 1800s. We had an earth population of like 1/4 what it is now and we didn't have cars?
>>70823219
R squared = 0.00
Kek. Do you even know what that means?
>>70823819
Are trying to argue that atmospheric CO2 is the only thing that affects temperature, while at the same time arguing it doesnt affect temperature?
>>70823959
Obviously nothing like we are today but that was when carbon emissions first started taking off. If the relationship was as simple as more carbon = more warming the temperature wouldn't have gone down.
>>70822710
Yeah, world will be swimming in poo long before its swimming in melt water. Probably time for the AGW cultists to refocus their energy on the important things, poo avoidance strategies and what not.
>>70824055
>R squared = 0.00
>Kek. Do you even know what that means?
Yes, I know what a regression is and what a correlation coefficient is.
>Are trying to argue that atmospheric CO2 is the only thing that affects temperature, while at the same time arguing it doesnt affect temperature?
No, I'm asking you to answer some questions about why there doesn't seem to be a consistent correlation between carbon emissions and warming.
>>70824632
Maybe give research into a subject a go before talking down to everyone on a subject
>Why has their been almost no warming in almost 20 years while during the same time period 1/3 of the carbon emissions in human history have been released?
See >>70823476 longer term trends are what's more important. Not zooming right in and exclaiming there has been no warming relative to an arbitrary line with a correlation coefficient of 0
>Why should we take the predictions of climate "science" seriously when they are consistently wrong, and they are always wrong in the same way...
Read an IPCC report, they will discuss in detail the reasons why their own models have over predicted warming. As is the humble nature of science.
>Why is the Anarctic sea ice at RECORD HIGHS when the opposite was predicted by climate "scientists"?
Pic related. Tempratures have been increasing in the *Antarctic. B-b-b-ut muh sea ice, aren't we discussing temperature here. As with the rest of your assertions you completely fail to understand the complexity of the world climate system and assume because sea ice has increased, temperature hasnt. 12 year old science logic.
>How can the long term predictions of climate computer models have any validity whatsoever....
Ever learnt about scientific modelling? I took 2 units at university on it. It is incredibly hard to get 100% accuracy in any scientific model. If the scientific principles and observations that a model is based on are correct, which in this case they are. Then the trend the model displays will 99.999% of the time be correct. Especially when there is a trend as strong and one directional as the one we observe in the IPCC's models
>This is precisely why the global warming scam is so dangerous.....
The mere fact you label climate science bad science is laughable. Read a fucking IPCC report. Educate yourself. Dont judge science by what the MSM tells you is science. Judge it by the scientific reports that the MSM misrepresents data from
bampin
>>70816454
Carbon Credits.
The new scam by the rich, is to turn carbon credits into a trable, highly leveraged, commodity. See the futures market.
>>70826720
Are you in favour of reducing carbon emissions?
>in the seventies they all predicted global cooling
>>70819134
Um, CO2 at higher levels may increase plant carbs and reduce plant proteins. We kind of need the plant protein content, and so do lots of animals besides us. See New Scientist this week.
>>70826495
>Ever learnt about scientific modelling? I took 2 units at university on it. It is incredibly hard to get 100% accuracy in any scientific model. If the scientific principles and observations that a model is based on are correct, which in this case they are. Then the trend the model displays will 99.999% of the time be correct. Especially when there is a trend as strong and one directional as the one we observe in the IPCC's models
Ever learnt about Chaos Theory? Even the IPCC admits they can't make yet make anything close to accurate predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/504.htm
>The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system. As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously noted, future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve ‘surprises. In particular, these arise from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the climate system.
>Integrations of models over long time-spans are prone to error as small discrepancies from reality compound. Models, by definition, are reduced descriptions of reality and hence incomplete and with error. Missing pieces and small errors can pose difficulties when models of sub-systems such as the ocean and the atmosphere are coupled. As noted in Chapter 8, Section 8.4.2, at the time of the SAR most coupled models had difficulty in reproducing a stable climate with current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and therefore non-physical flux adjustment terms were added.
btw, "flux adjustment terms" means they fudged the data
>>70829193
Well lets just recap. Tell me when I've got it wrong.
co2 is a ghg
The greenhouse effect is real
Human activity is leading to an accumulation of ghg in the atmosphere
This ghg is trapping more heat
More heat will likely lead to positive feedback
This is bad
Where did I go wrong?
>>70828698
Is this counting articles in newspapers & magazines? That is not a source of scientific references, that is pop culture.
Is there a stat of papers published in peer-reviewed journals?
>>70828698
>if an article is published its a fact
why are right wingers so fucking stupid at all science?
Human civilisation has no future.
>>70829403
>More heat will likely lead to positive feedback
See >>70829193
>The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign
>feedbacks could potentially switch sign
>>70829193
Re-read my post which you just quoted from. I just discussed this. That a system has components that are chaotic (eg volcanic eruptions, solar radiation variance) does not mean that valuable information can't be obtained from modelling. It just means that getting predictions accurate to the nth degree is incredibly difficult as the IPCC says here. I can guarantee you that they have modelled situations accounting for random chaotic events. Some simple modelling programs I used at uni had a variable you could change which dictated the frequency of chaotic events. Since these events are chaotic and random, when assessing your model predictions would you choose to accept predictions that are based on guessing the timing and magnitude of random events, or would you accept predictions based on well understood scientific principles and data with limited amounts of these guesses? Obviously the IPCC understands this since you quoted their article
>>70816454
Global Warming is a myth, as is man-made climate change. Climate change has existed on this planet since long before humans ever got in the business pumping gasses into the atmosphere, in fact, climate change is caused by the planet's own activities.
The only thing humans need to do is invest in technology that keeps us alive on the planet, aswell as advances in space faring technology to colonize new frontiers. Anything else is naive at best.
>>70819134
See, Canada, this is how you properly shitpost
>>70819134
>life loves warm temperatures and CO2
Unless that life lives in the ocean
>>70830996
>That a system has components that are chaotic (eg volcanic eruptions, solar radiation variance) does not mean that valuable information can't be obtained from modelling. It just means that getting predictions accurate to the nth degree is incredibly difficult as the IPCC says here.
No, that's not what chaos is. The butterfly effect means that minute differences in initial conditions can lead to extremely drastic differences in results.
> I can guarantee you that they have modelled situations accounting for random chaotic events
Chaos isn't random you dumbfuck.
>Since these events are chaotic and random
Chaos isn't random you dumbfuck. Chaotic systems are deterministic.
>when assessing your model predictions would you choose to accept predictions that are based on guessing the timing and magnitude of random events
Chaos isn't random you dumbfuck.
> would you accept predictions based on well understood scientific principles and data with limited amounts of these guesses
The well understood scientific principle is that predicting the future state of a chaotic system is almost impossible because of the butterfly effect.
>>70830980
This is just being thorough. Even then, you are disputing the science of a coin-toss?
>>70832340
Are both of you so uneducated that you are confusing random behavior with chaotic behavior?
https://www.quora.com/Chaos-Theory-What-is-the-difference-between-chaotic-behavior-and-random-behavior
>Random behavior is non-deterministic: even if you knew everything that can be known about a system at a given time in perfect detail, you would still not be able to predict the state at a future time. Chaotic behavior on the other hand is fully deterministic if you know the initial state in perfect detail, but any imprecision in the initial state, no matter how small, grows quickly (exponentially) with time.
A coin toss has nothing to do with the problems chaos brings to climate modeling, because randomness isn't the issue. It's the non-linearity that's the issue.
>>70831949
I thought the whole thing with chaotic systems is that while deterministic the process was essentially to complex to give a foolproof answer?
>>70833142
>I thought the whole thing with chaotic systems is that while deterministic the process was essentially to complex to give a foolproof answer
Precisely. Not only that, but your best guess of what's going to happen could be way off because of just a minor error in measurement that causes things to go in a completely different direction as non-linearity compounds. The weatherman could predict a scorcher and we really get a blizzard.
>>70816454
Why do you thin CO2 emission is bad?
The caps exist only to tax and slow down developing countries.
>>70829403
Poo is real
Human activity leads to an accumulation of poo
Poo traps more poo leading to a positive poo feedback loop
This is bad
wtf is your point?
The problem is poo, not an innocent and harmless plant food molecule called CO2.
What if some shady world government entity decided to tax poo? Would it really make a difference or just make people start hiding their poo? Mixing it into the food, throwing it in the neighbors yard and so on.
>>70831949
I-cant-string-together-an-intelligent-comment: the post
Why even bring up chaos theory when you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh wait, your previous climate change comments
>I-i-i know what a regression is...
Stop shitposting on pol and get an education Ameridumb teenager
>>70833526
>science is hard bcos muh chaos why bother with science
>>70834158
This coming from the moron who thinks that chaotic behavior is synonymous with random behavior. You've discredited yourself.
Your beliefs in climate "science" are faith based religious beliefs.
>>70834337
I'm not saying they shouldn't bother but they should be more up front about the fact that the predictive power of their models is absolute shit, and that they constantly have to fudge the numbers with "non-physical flux adjustment terms" when they get a result that doesn't make sense according to the partial differential equations they they've worked out.
yet when they do PR they act as if all their predictions are an absolute certainty.
>>70816454
>Now fight me cunts
I'm not sure what to believe. Science is usually correct in the long term, but Jews are quite good at Jewing Goys out of money so I don't know. Keep in mind there was an Ice Age 10,000 years ago. An ice age where massive glaciers, frozen mountains slowly carved out the entire great lakes basin, then melted with no human industry threatening the environment. The planet seems to regulate its temperature with little human intervention.
>>70833526
Is it not better to go with the best guess on this one? Scientists take their integrity very seriously. They generally will not put their names to something unless they think it to be true. And besides, even IF it starts cooling globally in 50 years, will it not still have been worth it? Nuclear will have come a long way, maybe even fusion.
>>70834349
The level of autism you are displaying is amazing. If you read your own fucking post >>70829193
You'll find that the IPCC quote specifically says:
>components in the system are inherently chaotic
>COMPONENTS
>COMPONENTS
because volcanic eruptions have a chaotic nature this does not mean the entire climate system is unable to be predicted.
Your whole muh chaos theory argument is rubbish. I can't believe I've had to waste my explaining this.
>>70834588
>They should be more up front
THEY ARE!! You posted a link where they could not have been any more up front about it limitations in what they do. Just because they're scienstist and dont put everythibg in laymans terms doesnt mean theyre being dishonest
Again I would say don't just take what the MSM tells you as a full explanation for the science behind predictions. Put in some effort and look deeper into how they came to these predictions, rather than skimming the surface to justify a political opinion
>>70834932
>Scientists take their integrity very seriously.
These people aren't really scientists. They don't employ the scientific method.
>even IF it starts cooling globally in 50 years, will it not still have been worth it? Nuclear will have come a long way, maybe even fusion.
No, because we would have sacrificed an ungodly amount of economic growth to appease the "Green" gods.
>>70835155
>there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner
>central processes
>central
>Your whole muh chaos theory argument is rubbish
Sounds like damage control since you confused chaotic behavior for stochastic behavior.
>>70835658
>confirmed rubbish
>>70836103
>confirmed religious nut who accepts alarmist predictions about the climate on sheer faith and emotional attachment to "green" politics
>>70833667
yet most call to action places onus to act on the developed world? Can we at least decide who's jewing who?
>>70836789
Is there anything more hilarious than Americans talking about science?
Sometime during the dark ages there was a period of global warming for hundreds of years.
During the 1400s there was a little ice age that lasted for a few hundred years.
None those times had any heavy human industrial activity and the world was fine.
>>70831250
how do you know that?
>>70831250
>naive
>>70834786
>The planet seems to regulate its temperature with little human intervention.
Correct. The issue is that even during previous glacial/interglacial cycles the concentration of co2 in teh atmosphere has been, for the past million years about 70% of what it is today and is still rising. This as I said is unseen in the last million years of glacial/interglacial cycles. The source for this co2 is us. The difference is this time we ARE altering the planet. Sure, it can adjust. But not quickly enough and not in a way that guarantees not to fuck out shit up.
Oh and for anyone claiming it is all a club of rome conspiracy, check this out.
>>70835658
>No, because we would have sacrificed an ungodly amount of economic growth to appease the "Green" gods.
You realise teh west is stagnating anyway? China is slowing down. If you give a shit about growth then keep your eye on Africa. Africa will in your lifetime have a larger population than China. Africa also has a shit ton of sun. No reason not to use solar power there.
And going back to the west for a second, our heavy industry was gutted before Al Gore came along.
>>70837530
None of those periods had a co2 concentration of 400ppm and rising.
>Polar Bears often ride on smaller cracked ice to avoid swimming across bays
>They also lay in ambush for a seal to come up to rest on one
>People photograph this preparation for hunting and imply that Polar Bears are all drowning as the North Pole melts something
Fucking hell yes the glaciars are retreating but you dont' need to use deceptive photography
Also the Polar Bears only migrate away from the main land (Canada Russia etc) and onto the ice for hunting they don't fucking live out there
