Global warming shill thread

Why?

>>127740040
So which men are you going to get rid of?

File: someone say enrichment.png (315KB, 432x438px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 432x438px

So do I.

How long do you think we have before the full melting of the polar ice is assured?

I think if the planet isn't carbon neutral by 2090 we will have released so much CO2 only action to rapidly reverse the melting trend can stop it all melting eventually.

That won't threaten Sweden of course. Your land rises as the weight of snow and ice is lifted from Scandinavia.

Of course slowly losing masses of land isn't the real threat.

>>127740698
35% something increase in atmospheric CO2 which is a green house gas

>>127740040
What sort of an argument do you want me to make against that claim? Would a simple let me google that for you link be enough?

>>127740999
shits going down when one billion Asians get reduced crop yield

>>127741614
Any argument that is not debunked using high school level science

What's that Michael chrichton book that explains it really well? Can't remember the title

>>127741808
Argument: Human CO2 emissions are absolutely nothing compared to the CO2 emissions that the planet produces naturally
Reference: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+percentage+of+CO2+emissions+are+from+humans


Id suggest that for arguing global warming, we should move the topic from human co2 emissions to humans destroying forests and plants that help reduce the co2.

>>127740040
>fite me
Over what? The least contested point? There are far more important questions.

a) Is it worth stopping, or are the wind turbine efforts just pissing in the ocean and / or attempting to close the stable door after the horse has bolted

b) If so, will dialing down on global warming contributions even be worthwhile or will the loss of quality of life be too drastic compared to either doing nothing or hoping that technological advances in the future will be the solution rather than windmills

c) Even if you can convince some countries to play ball, can you convince all of them - especially the developing world?

>>127742134
Congratulations! You are 100% correct!

Our planets natural CO2 release completely dwarfs the human release!

You just forgot to count for all the CO2 that earth also absorbs..

>>127742134
destroying forests is another part of the human-effect on climate change
also the second link from that google search explains why you're wrong

File: 1490167465877.png (164KB, 409x325px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 409x325px

-our planet has been in a cooling period for the last 20 years
-there has barely been any extreme weather let alone a real hurricane to hit US oil in years
-our planet had more co2 emissions previously in its existence
-there are numerous reasons for weather abnormalities related to solar flares, plate shifts, and tons of other things unrelated to co2 emissions
-heat is not "trapped in the ocean" waiting to pop out, this has never been proven
-every climate prediction model ever created has been wrong, even the most modest ones
-it is commonly agreed our planet has heated up 0.6 degrees in the last century - you can't even tell the fucking difference
-vostok ice core debunked, or at the very least challenged, the relationship between temperature and co2
-the infamous hockey stick graph was based on fucking rings in trees and has been eviscerated in the professional field
-the IPAA is a meme organization that doesn't welcome dissenting opinions
-the amount of co2 we release into the air is comical compared to the rest of the planet
-the planet "getting warmer" is not enough evidence to directly correlate co2 emissions from humans as the source of the issue

This is before we even get to the absolute 100% fact that the entire industry is plagued by skeptic-punishing, carbon fraud money, and active silencing of legitimately scientific critics.

>>127742479
How are humans stopping the absorption?
>>127742260
>Pissing in the ocean
Everything we do regardless to warming/cooling currently is pissing in the ocean, id argue probably because we arent trying to do anything.
If humans were to decide to turn planet unhabitable due to CO2 we could probably do that in a few months if everyone dedicated themselves to doing so.

>>127742653
Forests we agree on.
The article still says that we emit a really small amount and then also says that 40% of that amount is absorbed and the rest goes into the atmosphere.

This planet had its hot and its cold phases through out its history. And none of it were man made. In due time even this small emission, will become an issue, because it never stops. But i find that its easier to slowly develop and ease into it and maybe find a solution that keeps everyone happy, but lets say 10 years later, rather than rush everyone into a life they dislike.
Its not an unusual thing that humans sacrifice physical for mental.

>>127742707
>How are humans stopping the absorption?

We're not (apart from deforestation if that counts)

My point is that the net release of the planet is around 0 while the human net release is a couple of gigatons/y

>>127741362
Why do you think himans are a part of that and can do anything about it?

>>127742695
So, in order, no is hasn't, yes there has, you're right about that, doesn't discount the problems that are caused by global warming, yes it has, no they haven't, not an accurate number, one location doesn't represent global averages, one study not representative of the field with a worst case scenario projection, it's not opinions it's facts kind of like disagreeing with the existence of Big Ben just because you haven't seen it in person, the amount released by the planet was steady with its absorption rate while the additional we release is not especially with destruction of carbon sinks, and your final argument would be based on the planet getting warmer which you spent your previous arguments trying to deny making you possibly the most retarded person ever.

Look, these threads are always a waste of time, this conversation is always a waste of time, nobody on either side is going to move no matter the amount of evidence or the fallacious arguments against. Even on /pol/ this is pointless.

>>127742695
>-the infamous hockey stick graph was based on fucking rings in trees and has been eviscerated in the professional field


umm no you get the same curve if you just take the average atmospheric CO2 concentration.

We have jumped from 280 to 410ppm in just 200 years, a rate which has never been seen before

File: Pyramidz.jpg (159KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1000x667px

>>127740040

Earth has had Climate cycles for a long time. The "Climate Change" Agenda is designed to De-Industrialize the West, Promote mass Eugenics/Population Control & Relates to UN Agenda 21/24.

Also, the correct term would be "Women Made" due to Women being the biggest consumers & how Men will purchase things to impress/court them.

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/subject/knowledge%20bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/%21%219O2tecpDHQ6/

>>127743408
Yes yes i agree. Read a few more articles while sitting around.
It is true that were heating a planet, but at a slow rate. And as such it means that we have slightly more time to figure a solution that keeps everybody happy.
STOP DRIVING CARS RIGHT NOW = Noone will do that
Drive your cars but later, when theyre good enough, switch to electric cars = More people will do that.
Cannot rush people into stuff like this.

File: caused by humans.jpg (59KB, 700x453px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 700x453px

>>127742134

>Argument: Human CO2 emissions are absolutely nothing compared to the CO2 emissions that the planet produces naturally

Bullshit: See graph of human cause increase in CO2


>>127742707
>How are humans stopping the absorption?
The huge natural production of CO2 is matched by a huge natural absorption. Humans are adding to CO2 not stopping it.

>>127742134
>>127743773

PIC RELATED

>>127743895
>Cannot rush people into stuff like this.
The deniers are trying to hold people back, so they can profit and leave the next generate to solve the problem. There is no need to purposely slow things down but still they try.
.

>>127740040
I don't really give a shit. I think if the left was actually adamant about fighting global warming they would go for the nuclear option or hydroelectric dams instead of pussyfooting around with horribly inefficient solar and wind power.

>>127742260
I hate windmills to, more of a nuclear guy

>>127744288
I have no idea why anyone would be against nuclear power
jill stein tweeted that nuclear power plants are nuclear bombs waiting to go off

>>127744420
If you cool nuclear plants with other coolants than water it's literally impossible for them to blow up. If you use liquid fuel it's even impossible to have a meltdown

Nuclear has insane potential

>>127744087
Id argue that there is a need to slow things down.
A ridiculously small percentage of humans are living their lives completely in tune with whats healthy and beneficial to their bodies and their communities.
Its a normal thing for a human to sacrifice physical to help the mental.
Smoking, drinking, doing drugs. These are things of the every day human, and none of them are healthy, but they feel good so people do them.
Junk food is not healthy but it tastes good and makes your brain feel better so you do it.
Saying STOP CO2 EMISSION NOW is the same as saying EVERYONE JUST STOP EATING JUNK FOOD NOW. I could see that co2 emissions are a bigger issue when you look at the big picture, but the principle is the same.

>>127744678
couldn't we stop giving money to middle eastern countries that hate us if western countries used only nuclear?

>>127744420
>jill stein tweeted that nuclear power plants are nuclear bombs waiting to go off
You answered your own question, they have no clue how nuclear power works. People hear the words nuke or nuclear and they think of giant explosions and radiation. I honestly think every high school should include stuff like how common forms of energy generation work in civics or economics classes. I could explain nuclear power pretty much perfectly in 5-20 minutes depending on how in depth you want me to go and how much you want me to simplify it.

I mean my father is a manager of some sort or another at a nuclear power plant (I think now he mostly just manages personnel for outages though) so I've always had a pretty comprehensive understanding of nuclear power, but a 5 minute search through wikipedia should show someone that the dangers of nuclear power are perhaps the most overstated dangers on earth. You have better odds of being struck by lightning while being attacked by a shark than of dying in a nuclear power plant accident.

>>127745003
Most ME-oil is used for transportation, if we want to get rid of ME-oil we need to revolutionize the car industry. I think lithium-ion electric will win that one

File: 1481153047283.png (2MB, 1891x4901px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1891x4901px

>>127740040
Here ya go. Incidentally, Co2 is what plants need to thrive. More Co2= increased plant growth. Also, one question I have is this; The Earth is a closed system. Aside from statistically negligible amounts of atmosphere stripped away by solar wind and an even less statistically negligible amount of material falling to earth from space over its four billion years of existence, the Earth has the same amount of material as it has always had since it coalesced from a cloud of gas and debris billions of years ago. So, The amount of carbon on earth is the same. Now fossil fuels, basically plant matter that was buried in the form of ancient fern tree forests, peat bogs and massive algae mats that were buried and compressed before they had a chance to decay store a lot of that carbon. But life existed just fine when all that carbon was out in the ecosystem. In fact, it thrived. Dinosaurs were able to reach tremendous sizes despite not having diaphragms to breath as well as modern mammals because the abundance of plant life cranked out oxygen in significantly higher concentrations than exist today. As Pic related shows, the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, and it is hubris of the highest order to think we actually have any real impact on that. finally, if the actual prediction models were accurate regarding the effect of Co2, I'd be more inclined to believe we were having an appreciable effect. But hose models have been consistently wrong. Manhattan didn't go underwater seven years ago as was predicted in 2000 and rich people are still willing to pay top dollar for beach front property, which leads me to believe that the Global Warming and Climate Change proponents are a modern day doomsday cult who are more than happy to reschedule the Apocalypse every time it fails to materialize on time.

>>127745330
Even if true, you do have to consider that these plants can go on for a very long fucking time, so even if it is a low chance, it becomes higher the longer it works. For instance chernobyl, and when that happens its pretty devastating.

>>127744087
>deniers
>not "sceptics"
>we're not a doomsday cult, I swear

>>127745581
Most things you bring up here are true, but I don't see your point?

Are you agreeing that the sudden spike in CO2 release is man-made?

>>127745770
>chernobyl
>31 people dead
I mean the long term environmental factors aren't nice but wildlife is already returning to that area and Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen, there were so many lapses in judgement and many of the crew were extremely overworked that had it been a coal power plant it probably would have exploded killing everyone inside.

I mean look at all the people coal kills, if you total all coal mine disasters in the US with over 100 people killed the total comes to a whopping 4,450 people.

I love these fucking threads, let's do this shit

>>127747456
Hm interesting, didnt know things are starting to liven up over there. Though its partially because i thought Lake Karachay is connected to it.
I definitely see your points.
I was always for nuclear but this does strengthen my will to support it.

>>127746592
>Are you agreeing that the sudden spike in CO2 release is man-made?
Sure. The problem being that climate prediction models based on an increase in global temperature due to increased Co2 have failed to match actual observed data. So, one possible conclusion is that Co2 is actually a pretty shitty greenhouse gas but is environmentally beneficial in other ways and that as long as were scrubbing the poisons out of various exhausts of combustion processes, Co2 itself is not a threat to our long term survival. But, yes, the burning of fossil fuels is releasing carbon that has been removed from the ecosystem for millions of years. I'd point out that all life on earth is carbon based. Carbon is the base element at the very bottom of our food chain. Demonizing Co2 is like demonizing water. We need it to survive. Or, rather, plants need it.

>>127747844
I mean nuclear is dangerous, make no mistake we are dealing with the same concept that can destroy small cities. But some common misconceptions should be cleared up in general.
>Nuclear power plants WILL NOT explode into a nuclear blast, ever, it isn't possible
>Nuclear power plants have an extremely tiny direct death toll even from the worst accidents. Not a single American has died in a nuclear power plant accident.
>Nuclear meltdowns are essentially impossible

Care should be taken with nuclear power plants, and ideally they should be away from large population centers if something does happen but with modern safety procedures the chances of that happening are low. For some perspective the worst nuclear accident in US history gave surrounding populations up to (at absolute max) 100 milirem of radiation, pretty much the same as you would get in a year due to background radiation. There was no marked increase in cancer in the surrounding population despite numerous studies.

>>127747938
>Co2 itself is not a threat to our long term survival.

strongly disagree, I believe we will survive but things might get ugly. Ocean acidification is probably the biggest threat, we might even be looking at a new extinction event.

Usually when the planets ecosystem change rapidly there have been large extinction events.

File: foster.royer.png (27KB, 630x286px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 630x286px

>>127745581
you're absolutely right that the absolute amount of carbon in all the spheres of the planet is roughly the same as it was at the formation of the Earth and "Life existed just fine" in parts of the past when CO2 concentrations were much higher than today - but here is something you didn't consider:

The sun, the second prime driver of atmospheric temperature besides CO2, was significantly weaker in the past. Solar luminosity was about 70% of todays value 4.5 billion years ago and 96% 540 million years ago.

TSI has increased generally increased over the course of Earth history, but it has been mostly balanced out by a generally falling concentration of CO2.

Therefore, if humans continue to undertake major steps to change atmospheric chemistry, we could end up in a situation that is mostly unprecedented in the history of complex multicellular life.

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-30 at 8.49.29 AM.png (4MB, 1952x1438px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1952x1438px

globalwarming is re-

>>127748987
Cannot really tell the sun to stop being a cunt however.

>>127747938
>one possible conclusion is that Co2 is actually a pretty shitty greenhouse gas

but that's contradicted by the facts that
- we can measure the radiative effects of CO2 in the present (which show it to be a very powerful greenhouse gas, due to its IR absorption spectrum)

- we can look at what CO2 did in the geologic record, which also shows CO2 to be hugely important

>>127749250
that's right
but we can take steps to reduce human influence on atmospheric chemistry to a minimum

>>127746592
the spike only exists if you use a statistically insignificant timeframe, using data collected from numerous devices, that were not standardized (to the point of +/-5F!!!!) interpreted through subjective equations which serve as the basis for climate models that have a 100% failure rate.

File: image_57166.jpg (51KB, 640x417px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x417px

>>127749344
>- we can look at what CO2 did in the geologic record, which also shows CO2 to be hugely important

and ZERO correlation

File: earlgrey.png (123KB, 699x674px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 699x674px

>>127741362
The planet is cooling down, go back more than 100 years. That's why it was rebranded "Climate change" from global warming. None of the accepted climate models are able to predict the future or accurately model the past climate. It is another scam on a global level, to tax people to exist.

>>127749500
And id argue that it is on a minimum.
As ive previously said, you cannot forcefully make the minimum from for example 50 to 10%, people need to be easied into this and we have to wait for a better solution other than quitting everything that emits co2

>>127740040
I don't really give a fuck. I live halfway up a mountain. Rising sea levels will never reach me.

File: https-%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F365247%2Fc177e390-f28a-40e7-9f78-b07d32f35cfb.jpg (30KB, 188x233px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 188x233px

Stop burning fossil fuels.

File: 11703357-10205141241593525-3507719565342059491-o-1468335644.jpg (153KB, 945x613px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 945x613px

>>127749742
Samefag here, forgot to point out that climate change is real (a natural process that has been going on since the planet formed). Man made climate change however, is a hoax.

>DNC murdered Seth Rich

>>127749831
If your only concern is yourself, dont worry, most of the issues people are talking about today will be in effect after youre dead.

File: royer2009.jpg (29KB, 450x386px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 450x386px

>>127749729
you should take a look again at my previous post here >>127748987

as I point out: the sun is the second big driver of planetary climate during Earth history.
If you re-make your plot with solar irradiance instead of CO2 concentration, you wouldn't get any better correlation (since TSI over that time would just show a straight upward line)

If you combine the solar and CO2 forcings however (again: the two main drivers of climate) , you get a very good correlation as per pic related.

As you can see, the forcing generally matches the temperature trend and major glaciations (the blue bars) only take place when the combined solar and CO2 forcing is at a minimum

I saw somewhere in a presentation that the correction of historical temperature was very highly correlated with CO2 density (R^2=0.985 in linear regression I believe). I don't know if that's actually true, but if that is the case, and everyone uses the same data/correction model, then the CO2 dependence of average temperature in models is by construction.

But i don't know if the graph i saw was real, so I can't say anything definitively.

>>127748896
>we might even be looking at a new extinction event.
Make no mistake. We ARE a major extinction event. We're the most successful large mammal that has ever existed. But we are a part of the environment and molded by it. We're like the elephants in Africa that tear down forests and leave a thriving savanna in their wake. Even with our technology and inventiveness, we're really only still extremely inventive monkeys who are running on sophisticated programming laid in through millions of years of evolution.
>we could end up in a situation that is mostly unprecedented in the history of complex multicellular life.
I don't doubt it. Of course, the entire system is self regulating. We could even wipe ourselves out, in which case the planet would go on as before and new life would evolve to take our place. We're an evolutionary wrecking crew preforming the function that were designed for. Try to find some peace with that and realize that everything has a beginning and an end. You just have to figure out where you fit in and what it means to you. Because your consciousness is just an evolved trait that you wouldn't even have if it weren't evolutionary advantageous to the species.

>>127740947
The chinese.

File: thoriumMSR.jpg (169KB, 900x521px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 900x521px

>>127749807
I broadly agree. That's one of the points I disagree with the environmental movement on. Their solution seems to mostly be to tell people to "consume less energy".

That's why (like OP) I'm for the development of Generation-IV nuclear reactors to fill the intermittency gaps that are left by renewable energies.

>>127745581
Those times were also incredibly hot. Rich people buy beach front property because they're usually old and climate change won't hurt anyone for a generation or so.

Change doesn't have to be no oils. Just get rid of coal and ensure deforestation (looking at you Brazil and Indonesia) decreases or is at least replenished at a 1:1 ratio. The idiots clinging on to coal should be thrown into the sun to save space.

>>127740040
Is it called global warming, I thought it was climate change now, we've always been at war with Eastasia

global warming is a hoax made to attempt to tax the rich people more
open your eyes sheeple

>>127751037
have you ever considered that the reason you hear two different terms so often might be that both of them are valid and just describe different things?

Global warming is the statistically significant rise in globally averaged temperatures

Climate change is the change in meteorological processes and phenomena that accompany this rise in temperature (changes in wind - patterns, precipitation, ice extent, ocean currents,...)

>>127751232
Do you mean poor people? Why would ((they)) tax rich people?

>>127751331
So different terms that are about different things can be used interchangeaby, like "global warming" "climate change" or "weather"?

>>127751409
>t. homeless
upper class counts too, not just the '1% of everything owning joos'
haha

>>127751823
only if they aren't informed on the difference between those terms

P.S. weather isn't the same as either global warming or climate change, because weather is by definition short-term, while climate is usually defined as the 30 year average of all meteorological processes