![19590033-Apocalyptic-background-giant-tsunami-waves-small-coastal-town-city-asteroid-impact-Stock-Photo[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/US7qKnu.jpg "19590033-Apocalyptic-background-giant-tsunami-waves-small-coastal-town-city-asteroid-impact-Stock-Photo[1].jpg")
Are you enjoying the view ? This is the world you'll be living in if you don't do something about global warming !
>>7871738
>Meteors
why on earth would the rate of meteors depend on the temperature of the planet?
>>7871738
>this tryhard falseflagging
>>7871753
>thinner atmosphere
runway greenhouse effect will create thicker atmosphere, look at fucking Venus.
>>7871753
>I... I'm not a GW denier, I promise
You go back to /pol/, shitposter, nobody is going to fall for your bait threads.
>>7871763
No I'm not, I promise. I don't want these apocalyptic events to happen so we must stop GW NOW !
>>7871766
>I don't want these apocalyptic events to happen
Well, it's too late now; you won't see meteorites falling down to Earth, but global warming is already unstoppable, and nasty stuff is bound to happen. Have fun while you can.
>>7871738
I don't believe in the climate change NWO perpuated myth.
But I'll sign on if you can give me pic related on a daily basis in the next 50 years
Looks fun.
>obvious falseflagging
gee I sure hope nobody takes the bait...
>>7871738
Do they pay well?
>>7872130
>hey guys!
>you all sound ridiculous
>I shall prove this to you by saying something fuckstupid and insane
the fact that everyone immediately identified you as a falseflagger is proof that actual AGW arguments are drastically different from the bullshit you posted. so, WHO exactly sounds like an /x/ meme now?
> global warming
seriously fuck off
>>>/x/
>>7871753
>YOU are responsible for the death of thousands.
fine with me.
As long as billions of normies die, idgaf
>>7871738
>best fucking surfing waves ever
>natural fireworks
Holy shit, that's AWESOME.
Brb starting some refinery fires.
>>7871738
My vacation is fucking ruined.
>>7871738
/pol/ here
Yes, global warming (climate change) is real
No, you can't stop it
that's the fatal mistake with your premise
You. Cannot. Stop. It.
related;
>>>/pol/64677767
and;
>The Earth will be fine. It’s humanity that needs to better plan for its future.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/atlantic-currents-changed-40-years-ago-a-warning.htm
>>7873410
>You. Cannot. Stop. It.
nigga I'm a geoscientist
don't tell me what we can or can't do.
man, even when /pol/ admits that climate change is real, they still manage to be absolute faggots about it desu senpai
>>7873410
Climate change is natural. Rapid climate change is caused by human activity. We can't STOP it, but we can significantly slow it. A gradual change is easy for us to adapt our infrastructure to. Rapid change will fuck everything up unpredictably. Hard to plan for that kind of future.
>>7873410
Take your meds.
>>7874094
Climate change is a misnomer meaning human caused change on a global scale
Just like organic foods
It's brilliant marketing but anyone with a brain sees through it.
Also, if Pol thinks it's real, you know it's nwo level propaganda
>>7873410
>You. Cannot. Stop. It.
What are you basing that on? Anything at all?
>>7873410
This is exactly why climate change meme threads belong to /pol/ and /x/. Now fuck off somewhere else with your end of the world roleplaying
>>7871738
lol europeans
trying to save the world whilst forcing mudslimes to rape them and women to fuck up the place with debt and socialism
![global-warming[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BNCYrL5.jpg "global-warming[1].jpg")
>>7873410
>>7873844
>>7874094
>>7874117
>>7874363
>>7874366
>>7874367
Questions for you.
1) Can we not work on global cooling, as in either deflecting the sunlight to recieve less heat from the sun or somehow dump the heat to space somehow
2) Will any attempt for global cooling bring back the polar cap levels back to normal ?
3) If everything else fails, what is waiting for us in the next 100 years ?
>>7874374
1.) No
2.) No
3.) Asia-tier environment, very bad
>>7874374
We can easily dump heat into space, we just choose not to. That's how you know this is all a farce.
Polar caps have more ice now than it did 50 years ago
In 100 years, oil based dollar will be replaced with carbon tax based dollar. Otherwise everything will be the same
>>7874374
1. Yes
2. Maybe
3. Big disruptions to climate, widespread drought, possible collapse of world's fisheries
>>7873844
>muh geoscientist
cool story and everything, but can you read? the article says a transformation is in place that hasn't happened in millennia
then add the likelihood (essentially nil) of the world actually being able to cooperate to get something done in time, as well as the prospect of ww3, and you're fucked, period.
>>7874117
do you have an actual argument? and you guys pretend to be intellectuals? kek
"when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -Socrates
>>7874094
>but we can significantly slow it.
[citation needed]
for that matter, you guys are warning about x cm rise of the oceans in x decades. it's bullshit. ww3 will introduce "climate change" on a scale many orders higher and much, much sooner than anything y'all are talking about
then the question, of course, for you becomes; can you stop ww3? of course not
>>7874366
reality
>>7874367
another poster without a shred of substance
this is why I abandoned this place. what a joke
>end of the world
it's not the end of the world. it's just a phase change. see;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory
>>7874374
>1) Can we not work on global cooling, as in either deflecting the sunlight to recieve less heat from the sun or somehow dump the heat to space somehow
>2) Will any attempt for global cooling bring back the polar cap levels back to normal ?
the problem isn't just "warming". it's change. it's destabilisation. there is no magic bullet that puts humpty dumpty back together again
on the other hand, the next world war will likely result in nuclear winter and trigger secondary catastrophes like volcanic eruptions, that will likely trigger more cooling than you're probably bargaining for..
>3) If everything else fails, what is waiting for us in the next 100 years ?
self-contained, climate-controlled human living for many years; then a new world. maybe flying cars for a while. then sticks and stones. see Einstein's quote on ww3/ww4
without a globalised economic/educational/political/etc. supply chain and such high population pressure, it will be practically impossible and unnecessary to maintain our current sophisticated technology (think "The Time Machine")
>>7875797
>an ocean current is changing for the first time in 1800 years
>therefore nothing can be done about climate change
leave the geoengineering to actual geoscientists, /pol/.
>[citation needed]
oh the irony of you saying that...
wow great argument fagtron you sure convinced me with those hot opinions
>>7875941
the changing north atlantic current is just one piece of the puzzle. what happens to global ocean currents if/when the arctic melts entirely?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/18/scientists-are-floored-by-whats-happening-in-the-arctic-right-now/
>oh the irony of you saying that...
not at all. I have supported my arguments with numerous sources. /sci/ in return has responded with insult, conceit, denial, etc. - not a single link.
you didn't even try to address the prospect of ww3, and the implications for the global climate
inb4 "hurr durr ww3 conspiracy". feel free to argue with Einstein.
>>7875797
>[citation needed]
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-es.html
>Even the most stringent mitigation efforts cannot avoid further impacts of climate change in the next few decades [...], which makes adaptation unavoidable. However, without mitigation, a magnitude of climate change is likely to be reached that makes adaptation impossible for some natural systems, while for most human systems it would involve very high social and economic costs.
Satisfied?
>>7872192
like i said IDGAF
life is selfish
death is the inherent natural state of all things
>>7876122
>numerous sources
>http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/atlantic-currents-changed-40-years-ago-a-warning.htm
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory
literally a popsci writeup and a Wikipedia article that don't even relate to most of your claims
2/10, annoyed me a little
>>7876784
I linked to more than 2 sources. In fact, the post you responded to had another source you failed to mention. Then there's the post linking to /pol/ with a ton of sources
you're not fooling anyone
and the "popsci" articles refer to actual research
meanwhile, still waiting on that substantive counter-argument..
>>7876592
it's a start, but there's nothing specific there; neither what specific steps to take and, as importantly, how to summon the geopolitical will to implement them
I clicked on the various links in your link, and the closest we get to specific recommendations are things like "Urban planning, building design and recycling" (derp); "Allocation of funding" (kek, good luck with that); "More efficient energy use and renewable sources" (good idea, but until it's economical it's not viable on its own (see "Allocation of funding")); "CDM projects on land use or energy use that support local economies and livelihoods" (uwot; not specific); "Health benefits of mitigation through reduced environmental stresses" (ditto); "M schemes that transfer finance to developing countries" (a repeat of "Allocation of resources", with the same objection; specifically, the indebted West does not have the resources or the political will to environmentalise their own economies, much less China, India, etc.); "carbon taxes and energy prices" (the first is impractical - see China, India, among others; the second is predominantly market driven); "Afforestation, leading to depleted water resources" (fancy word for planting trees (kek); not enough, and, as described, trading one problem for another)
and none of that addresses ww3
>>7871738
>This is the world you'll be living in if you don't do something about global warming
good
>OP makes an obvious joke
>thread full of butthurt idiots
come on lads. for once act at least half as intelligent as you think you are
>>7877931
>ww3
Wew lad, it won't be long now. 1000 years of feudal wars over make believe sky fairies but now the resource crunch is on. 8 billion top predators. It's gonna be epic, not like the first 2 at all, maybe even nuclear depopulation!
>>7878203
>nuclear depopulation
and nukes are 70+ years old.......
those are your grandfather's weapons
they will start the ball rolling; something else will finish it
>>7877931
>I linked to more than 2 sources. In fact, the post you responded to had another source you failed to mention. Then there's the post linking to /pol/ with a ton of sources
yes, in the post complaining about me calling you out for your lack of sources, you posted...ANOTHER news article. and in your sad little thread on /pol/, what did you post? a bunch of news articles, a paper that someone wrote but never had published (mainly because it doesn't actually have any methodology beyond hand-waving conjecture), two Wikipedia links, and a link to another /pol/ thread whose substance I can only describe as "tinfoil hat".
YOU HAVE NOT POSTED ACTUAL SOURCES.
>and the "popsci" articles refer to actual research
so does this
>http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/11/neutrinos
if you trust news media to accurately report the findings of research, you're part of the problem.
>meanwhile, still waiting on that substantive counter-argument..
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
>>7878326
news articles refer to reality; sometimes studies, sometimes intelligence reports. "muh news article" is not a sufficient counter-argument
the /pol/ thread linked also directly to a Los Alamos study.
you're just playing ignorant
the /pol/ thread linked to in the /pol/ thread brought the entire site down for 3 hours... I suggest you trade your conceit in for curiosity and concern, and actually check it out.
sticking your head in the sand is only going to get your ass roasted
>if you trust news media to accurately report the findings of research, you're part of the problem.
>DURRR, 1 article represents all articles
I don't even need to read it to know that's retarded logic
>>7878391
/pol/ likes to say "reality" a lot.
You all can stop responding to this dude btw. I already schooled him with proper scientific citation, and he blabs about how it doesn't solve all the world's problems as well, then goes on about ww3. This is not an intellectual conversation.
>>7878404
>I already schooled him with proper scientific citation
keep dreaming. on your side I see 1 link as basis for support of your argument, and I've already refuted it.
any anons here interested in surviving ww3, check out the links
protip: conceit and ignorance won't save you
>>7878416
You didn't refute shit. You created an argument that didn't exist.
I was arguing a very specific aspect of climate change and you're really fucking making me read through 30-page studies for the part that backs me up.
http://www.nap.edu/read/12877/chapter/4#19
>The capacity to adapt to slow changes is generally greater than for near-term rapid climate change, but different stabilization levels can lock the Earth and many future generations of humans into large impacts that can occur very slowly over time, such as the melting of the polar ice sheets; similarly, some stabilization levels could prevent such changes.
>Actions taken during this century will determinewhether the Anthropocene climate anomaly will be a relatively short-termand minor deviation from the Holocene climate, or an extreme deviationextending over many thousands of years.
There's more like that in the document. There's many more documents. Please don't make me do this anymore.
>>7878455
>you're really fucking making me read through 30-page studies for the part that backs me up.
kek, yes, it's your link - I expect you to know and present the (supposedly) relevant bits
common sense
the quotes you provided are NOT SPECIFIC
I asked for specifics, both policy and practical implementation.
another swing and a miss....
>There's more like that in the document.
kek, I'm sure there is. anything actually relevant and specific?
>>7878391
>the /pol/ thread linked also directly to a Los Alamos study
not a study; a review of the literature, and an extremely lazy one at that. the fact that he uploaded it to arXiv (and presumably bought banner ads for it on fucking 4CHAN) rather than actually submitting it for publication is evidence of its quality (or rather lack thereof). he also flat-out rejects the quantization of light as wave packets, sans supporting evidence, and asks that the reader just go with it.
the sort of meme bullshit Bruno proposes as conjecture in the paper, and which you have apparently taken as gospel, are the reason people don't take theoretical biophysics seriously.
and this sort of "THOSE BLOGS I LINKED TO ARE UNIMPEACHABLE SOURCES, YOU MUST BELIEVE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, LEMME REDPILL YA" bullshit is why /pol/ is never taken seriously here or anywhere else (besides /pol/). so the next time /pol/esmokers show up here to force their climate denial meme and wonder why nobody's giving them and their unlabeled graphs the time of day, you can point them right to your sad little ramblings in this thread and say THAT'S WHY. or alternatively, you can keep posting links to UFO blogs (which /pol/acks have literally linked me to in support of their climate denial narrative) and demand that everyone accept your claims at face value.
4/10, clonked my bonkers
>>7878578
the Los Alamos paper is original research
>an extremely lazy one at that
kek, if you do say so yourself, huh? Dr. Bruno is an MIT/Berkeley trained biophysicist. That paper was written during his tenure at Los Alamos, a United States government research facility. Excuse me if I find his word more credible than some random anon posting pictures of Michael Jackson on the internet
>(and presumably bought banner ads for it on fucking 4CHAN)
you presumed wrong. He wrote the paper. I paid for the ad
>he also flat-out rejects the quantization of light as wave packets, sans supporting evidence
he explains the mechanism involved
>"THOSE BLOGS I LINKED TO ARE UNIMPEACHABLE SOURCES
they're not blogs. the first link is a report by the EU Parliament warning that CBRN substances have been snuck into EU capitals
the second and third links are wikipedia articles on Russian bio and chemical warfare programs
the fourth link is the arxiv paper by Dr. Bruno
the fifth link is a report of a warning from Angela Kane, the German UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs from 2012-2015; Stuart Russell, professor of computer science at University of California, Berkeley; Alan Winfield, professor of electronic engineering at the University of the West of England; and Roger Carr, chairman of the British aerospace and defence group BAE
the sixth link is a report by the AP on the sale of bomb-grade uranium to jihadists
the seventh link is a bbc article on a diagram of a cobalt nuclear bomb broadcast on Russian state media
the eighth and final link is the /pol/ thread that brought 4chan down for 3 hours, several weeks ago...
>climate denial meme
another STRAWMAN. I said ITT climate change is real, but that you can't stop it. 2 parts to your premise. only 1 is valid.
and idgaf if you take /pol/ seriously or not. you're a moron. other people here deserve a chance tho
>>7878578
> people laugh at their "evidence" for climate change
> y-you guys don't take /pol/ seriously rite ? rite guys ? I used the words /pol/esmokers and /pol/acks this should be enough evidence for global warming rite guis ?
AHAHAHHAHAHAHA
I love when retards try to make /pol/ their boogeyman as they actually believe it magically proves them right or something.
But you are right, global warming threads belong to /pol/ and /x/
>>7878490
>I asked for specifics, both policy and practical implementation.
The document alludes to these. Look at any suggested mitigation suggestions by scientists. They're literally everywhere. Just needs to be enforced. Easy to find, I don't need to spoon-feed you.
>>7879014
so you've nothing
got it..
>>7879036
Ya you win dude.
>>7878641
>the Los Alamos paper is original research
it literally isn't.
there's no methodology, no actual experimentation, no results; he references other publications and makes an argument (a bad one) based on their results. that is called a review of the literature. if you can't understand this, I really can't help you.
>Dr. Bruno is an MIT/Berkeley trained biophysicist. That paper was written during his tenure at Los Alamos, a United States government research facility.
So? It's a review of the literature that makes a bunch of unsupported conjectures, which has not been published in any sort of peer-reviewed journal in the nearly 5 years since he wrote it. I don't care if he's the fucking God-Emperor of Mankind; I'm going to judge his paper by its merits.
>I paid for the ad
wasted your shekels
>another STRAWMAN. I said ITT climate change is real, but that you can't stop it.
did I attribute flat-out denial to you? no, I attributed it to /pol/. the connection to YOU is the tactic of asserting of a claim without supporting evidence, challenging others to prove your (again, UNSUPPORTED) claim true, and then rejecting all evidence they provide (as seen >>7878490) that goes against your opinion. (and no, posting a bunch of unrelated articles from disreputable sources doesn't count as supporting your argument with evidence)
so basically you think WWIII is imminent, based on some articles you read, therefore it's impossible to do anything about it.
>>7879746
Einstein won a Nobel for theoretical research (among other things). original research does not necessarily require experimentation
original ideas are also potentially worthwhile in their own right, and are often, as in Einstein's case, confirmed later physically
It's not just a "review of literature". it is a novel consideration of bioelectrophysical phenomena, with support from various studies in the literature
>any sort of peer-reviewed journal
His research was for the government. He's not a uni academic. the Manhattan Project scientists neither sought nor required civilian academic vetting either
>wasted your shekels
you're not the only one on this site
>I attributed it to /pol/
/pol/ is my home board
there's a saying on /pol/. /pol/ is not one person. clearly, /sci/ is not one person either. better if you leave the sloppy generalisations out of it, eh?
regarding evidence, we're going in circles now. let those who have eyes see.
you decide your own level of involvement, etc.
>from disreputable sources
doubling down on strawman ignorance, eh?
everybody here can see my sources are sound. you, on the other hand, are full of it.
>>7880622
>Einstein won a Nobel for theoretical research (among other things). original research does not necessarily require experimentation
Einstein's theoretical work had the useful property of accurately explaining observed results that were not otherwise understood. it's ironic that you bring him up, because his Nobel Prize specifically mentioned his discovery of the photoelectric effect, and Bruno's paper explicitly denies the quantization of light that is central to said effect.
>everybody here can see my sources are sound.
literally a bunch of news articles, a few wikipedia articles, a /pol/ thread, and a shitty paper that the author couldn't get published anywhere.
meanwhile, other people post reports from the IPCC and you dismiss them out-of-hand for not meeting your arbitrary standards.
as for your bizarre insistence that poor Dr. Bruno has the answers, I'll just mention a few things about the guy. first off, he hasn't been published since 2001. secondly, HE HEARS NOISES THAT AREN'T THERE. Here is a letter he wrote in 2007 telling the government about the noises he hears (that nobody else seems to notice) and BEGGING the National Academy of Sciences to fund his research. (You say his research was for the government? I guarantee that the paper you've been yammering about wasn't.)
>http://www.emrpolicy.org/review/bruno_nas_comment.pdf
In summary, he's a poor guy who's lost his mind. And now tinfoil-hatters like you are acting as though his delusions are proof that geoengineering is impossible and WWIII is inevitable.
3/10, flustered my jimbobs
>>7880717
>Einstein's theoretical work had the useful property of accurately explaining observed results that were not otherwise understood.
right, and that's precisely what Dr. Bruno has done.
>Bruno's paper explicitly denies the quantization of light that is central to said effect.
He doesn't deny it; he simply says it's irrelevant in this case, since "cellphones and cell towers
operate in the classical wave limit of high photon densities."
repeating myself on sources;
the first link is a report by the EU Parliament warning that CBRN substances have been snuck into EU capitals
the second and third links are wikipedia articles on Russian bio and chemical warfare programs
the fourth link is the arxiv paper by Dr. Bruno
the fifth link is a report of a warning from Angela Kane, the German UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs from 2012-2015; Stuart Russell, professor of computer science at University of California, Berkeley; Alan Winfield, professor of electronic engineering at the University of the West of England; and Roger Carr, chairman of the British aerospace and defence group BAE
the sixth link is a report by the AP on the sale of bomb-grade uranium to jihadists
the seventh link is a bbc article on a diagram of a cobalt nuclear bomb broadcast on Russian state media
the eighth and final link is the /pol/ thread that brought 4chan down for 3 hours, several weeks ago...
>the author couldn't get published anywhere.
and yet, he got a job at Los Alamos
you fail at common sense, among other things..
>he hasn't been published since 2001
he hasn't needed to. he's not a uni pleb prof
>(You say his research was for the government? I guarantee that the paper you've been yammering about wasn't.)
you just proved to everybody here you haven't read it, moron. pic related;
>>7880717
>he hasn't been published since 2001.
this is also completely wrong.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1-BcQp0AAAAJ&hl=en
you didn't look beyond the first 3 listings did you? they're not in chronological order
