CO2 emissions should be taxed properly and in the most equitative

>>127959586
Exactly, carbon taxes are the best thing the government has done in forever. If Trump drops the climate accord I'm not going to support him anymore.

>>127959586
How do you tax countries with no money like India. How are you going to enforce the tax on China and African nations?

>>127959836
Doesn't matter, places like the USA are the primary culrpit, if we can halt emissions here we will likely reverse climate change.

>>127959586
>Excessive CO2 emissions are a danger to our whole planet
Prove it. No one has done so thus far.

>>127959984
99999.9% of scientists agree that its real, give it up.

its real

File: 1495247425767.png (62KB, 265x297px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 265x297px

>>127959910
>oh no he's retarded

>>127959910
>primary culprit
Why are you lying? We aren't even close to China's emissions

>>127959910
Nope. Go back to your Japanese comic books.

>>127960224
>places like
We are a primary culprit, we need to do our fair share to help the planet.

>>127960355
fair share yes, but saying that us alone would reverse climate change is total horse shit

sorry bud, you're retarded

yeah let's tax people based on the hypothesis that "global temperatures" (whatever that means) will continue to increase and will only have negative consequences on the planet.

>>127960430
of course not ALONE

There are MANY offending countries in the paris climate accord. We are the lynchpin to that deal, if you care about the planet you should support carbon taxes.

File: SmokeStack2.jpg (13KB, 374x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 374x300px

>>127959586
Shut up faggot I think smokestacks are cool

>>127960467
>leaf
spotted the controlled opposition

File: 1494549283395.jpg (20KB, 540x355px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 540x355px

>>127959707
Kys shill

>>127959836
>India
>No money
india is an almost pure oligarchy disguised as democracy, the people without money dont have cars anyway so why would that matter? its the industries and companies that have money, industry, and cars

>>127960355
>the west is a primary culprit
>we've already done more than most countries to combat it
Have you ever heard of the phrase "diminishing returns"?

>>127960586
>more than most
but not enough

>>127960643
so why the fuck are you griping to the US about it? go somewhere else and whine to them about it

>>127959984
>>127960529
>>127960557
its already proven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euhLuWNEi0g
Venus is the prime example of what uncontrolled emissions do to a planet's weather

the hard thing to understand is how long-term it is, so you might go "oh well we emitted 30000 tons of CO2 yesterday and nothing happened today" but its actually 50 years from now that you will see the real effects.

>>127960643
Define "enough."
Because quite frankly any carbon tax we get would have negligible effects in stopping the supposed climate change.
Again, why are you not going after what would actually help stop this?

>>127960779
Because Trump is threatening to pull out of the deal, we need to protect it.

>>127960847
no, nigger

>>127960816
>muh Venus
I wasn't aware that they had fucking cars on that gassy ball.
If there is an effect by the emissions we have, it's completely negligible compared to what is beyond our control.

>>127960931
uh yeah

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_CLIMATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-05-31-09-01-31

>>127960847
Have you even read the rest of the deal and what it entails?

>>127961015
All I need to know is that we're saving the planet retard.

>inb4 muh taxes

fuck off, ill gladly pay another 5 dollars a year to save the planet

File: IMG_0767.jpg (38KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 240x240px

>>127959707
Fuck off, he was very clear from the start about his stance on coal and climate.

>>127959707
>>127959910
>>127960124
>>127960355
>>127960526
>>127960643
>>127960847
>>127960999
if you want to a troll, at least be a funny or creative one.

>>127960973
Venus weather is the effect of CO2 poured on the atmosphere, the more CO2 the harder it is for the heat to get out, so it gets even hotter and hotter

>>127961141
I assumed that was just 4d chess to placate the retards in the republican party. I had no idea he actually believes that climate change wasn't real.

>>127961106
Your kind already whines about 7.25 an hour not being enough to afford the next gen iPhone, exactly where are you gonna get the money?
That's not even including the fact that the fucking agreement could say that we are now officially slaves to the EU and you'd gladly sign because you think it MIGHT help stop the world from dying in a manner that you do not fully understand.
You're no better than cultists, honestly.

Wrong.

>>127961342
>could say
but it doesnt say that
>MIGHT help
it will help, fewer carbon emissions is a good thing

>>127959910
>pretending to be retarded

lad...

>>127961197
Perhaps I was unclear. I understand the concept, I meant how it was being affected by us humans.
The earth's weather has been unstable for most of its life. We aren't having any significant effect on it. If we die due to runaway greenhouse gases, it would have happened regardless of our input.

>>127959586
We could cut CO2 just as easily by nuking Spain

>>127959586
We dont we tax instead:
Niggerdom
Negro cum drinkers (aka lefturds)
LGVTBBQ

Much more noxive than co2.
And by taxing I mean 20gauge shave

>>127960124
> 99999.9%
american education

>>127961663
>Carbon Emissions by country:
>1. China 8715.31
>2. United States 5490.63
>3. Russia 1788.14
>4. India 1725.76

Explain to me how the USA is not a primary culprit.

>>127961835
>20gauge
Why the bitch load?

CO2 is a non-pollutant.
You should be more worried about all that toxic dumping China, India and the rest of third world do. Also prescription drug residue in the water supplies. Also the booming nigger and shitskin populations which are destroying endangered species and ecosystems. Also globalist consumerism.

>>127961870
>tfw you are emitting 5490.63 CO2s and you dgaf

>>127961197
>>127961197
One day on Venus = 243 earth days. Which is why it's so goddamn hot on one side and so fucking frigid on the other.

>>127962115
This isn't about real problems, anon. This is about _taxable_ problems.

>>127960816
When scientists can actually accurately model this alleged warming, then it might be worth academic discussion. Considering the fact all of their models have been incapable of predicting climate trends and are based on revised temperature data rather than raw, the science is far from settled.

>>127961910
Why bot use a bitch load for your bitch killing?

File: IMG_7072.jpg (203KB, 801x823px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 801x823px

>>127961440
>but it doesn't say that
You dense motherfucker you're still not getting the point.You don't know that for a fact because you didn't fucking read it you goddamn idiot. People have been falling for end of the world scams for all of our history and yet you somehow think that this one's different.
>it will make a difference
By what? Us roasting at 4999 degrees instead of 5000?
If you genuinely cared about this you'd be tearing China a new asshole. But you don't. You'd just rather lecture the US on not blindly following every other country into an agreement that the ones who actually emit the most, which you don't even seem to care about by the way, won't follow at all.

>>127962303
Fair point.

>>127962194
what the speed of the rotation? couldnt we have a mobile city that stays in the sweet spot?

File: 50225507.jpg (102KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 400x400px

>>127959586
c02 refraction has never been proven to have an effect on global or even local temperatures no matter how much of it is in the atmosphere. faggot.

>>127960816
>mfw a 4 minute youtube video is settled science

Okay I'm done yelling at bait threads. Sorry I'm bailing Spainanon but it's late. Thanks for not sperging out like I did.

>>127960355
Ight well you better start by killing yourself so you dont make dat carbon footprint boi

>>127962466
>get proven wrong
>decide to bail out

like pottery

File: asina_N_stddev_timeseries-1.png (328KB, 1050x840px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1050x840px

This is the one thing that blows my mind.
Set aside all the indentity politics bullshit, this is THE most pressing issue on the planet, objectively, and people picked T rump cause they were more concerned about twinks dying their hair, piercing their noses and telling everyone else to call them by their made up names. Unfuckingbelievable

>>127962728
this 100x

File: 33ba5e37a710467c9925c41ded04d19c.gif (4MB, 379x300px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 379x300px

Any recommended reading for climate-change pill, while we're on the topic? Spent a year at a liberal uni just assuming they were somewhat full of shit, but haven't found anything concrete against the notion of climate change.

Even compared to other shitposters you're the biggest retard in the room OP. I hope you're proud of your accomplishment.

> Earth is 4 billion years old
> many major geological catastrophes over this time - volcanos spewing carbon, ice ages, tectonic plates
> earth is still habitable


Explain this warmingfags

File: tenor.gif (981KB, 498x450px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 498x450px

>>127962728
>this is THE most pressing issue on the planet, objectively

File: 1472384121331.png (375KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 600x800px

>>127959586
Governments are the largest polluters. We should be taxing them.

File: gw-graphic-pie-chart-co2-emissions-by-country-2011.jpg (64KB, 840x610px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 840x610px

>>127960219
>>127960224
>>127960329
>>127961173
>>127961663
He's pretty much right. USA emits just less than china in total, but twice as much per capita. North american lifestyle is oppressively gluttenous

File: lacis.png (23KB, 732x295px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 732x295px

>>127962415
on which internet blog did you read that?
the greenhouse effect of CO2 is the most important long-term driver of temperature on earth besides the sun

File: temperature_nca-1991-2012_lrg.jpg (1MB, 3219x1776px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3219x1776px

>>127962829
>muh global warming

File: 5be.jpg (135KB, 1333x1000px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1333x1000px

>>127963054

>>127959586
>implying we can go back by taxing people
Wew

>>127963054
>the greenhouse effect of CO2 is the most important long-term driver of temperature on earth besides the sun
Are you forgetting water vapor?

File: Figure31-350x270.png (30KB, 350x270px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 350x270px

>>127962334
China has cancelled dozens of coal plants, are decomissioning many pre existing ones, and are the current world leaders in solar output.
They are leaving the us and canada in the dust

>>127962906
those events are highly consistent with the idea that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas
in fact, you wouldn't be able to explain most of them without taking the effect CO2 has on the planetary energy balance into account

the geologic record demonstrates some of the most powerful evidence for the importance of greenhouse gases like CO2

>>127963252
no actually I'm not
water vapor might be more powerful than CO2 because of it's absorption spectrum and abundance, but water vapor can't be a prime driver of climate because
- of its short residence time in the atmosphere (only a few days)
- its concentration within the atmosphere is a function against temperature

the result of this is that water vapor can't induce temperature changes on its own, rather it works as a very powerful amplifier.

tldr: H2O can only act as a positive feedback, not a prime driver

>>127962906
Umm, sweetie, there was extinction events that wiped out all animals on earth several times since the first living things appeared

>list of animals that survived extinction events
Horseshoe crabs
Crocodiles

>>127963495
And what makes CO2 a prime driver?

File: solar-farm (1).jpg (100KB, 700x369px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 700x369px

>>127963268
Oh boy can't wait to knock down forests for those solar panels that take up massive amounts of land area which could have the output of just one fucking nuclear plant.

File: Englander 420kyr CO2-T-SL rev.jpg (497KB, 1200x906px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1200x906px

>>127962906
Well, you and everyone else researching this subject should just go to nasa's website and read about it.
But, the difference is, over 4 billion years, the earth has been cooling, and 'settling'.
The crust hardens and the core settles down, and over 800 000 years, we've had a consistent rise and fall of co2/tempratures, from ice age to melt and back. Over the last 10 000 years temperature has been very steady, and we've been just past the peak of a warming cycle and starting our decent into a cooling cycle. Of course, the industrial revolution changed that, and now that we've increased the ppm levels of atmospheric co2 by almost 40% in less than two centuries, our earth is warming at a rate unprecedented in over a million years.
The earth will survive, but the glorious white civilization /pol/ prides itself on will fall.

>>127963681
>what are deserts
>american education

>>127963745
I guess we'll just have to wait and find out. Al Gore said Florida would be underwater by 2020. That's only 3 years away. Should be able to find out one way or the other pretty soon.

File: AreaRequired1000.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>127963681
Just fucking stop.
You can put a solar panel on every rooftop, and you can use deserts and grasslands.
And nuclear plants take way too long to build, we don't have that kind of time.
Stop being such a disingenuous cuck, we can't afford it

>>127964092
Ah yes because new york is local to a desert...

>>127964159
I agree. There's simply no time. We will have to get those solar panels installed quickly if we hope to have any chance at all by 2020.

>>127962906

Carbon dioxide absorbs more infrared radiation (heat) than other common atmospheric gases such as N2, causing the greenhouse effect and warming as their concentrations increase. Volcanos cause ash and sulfur oxide to be released, blocking solar radiation and causing global cooling. Global conditions change drastically as a result of these emissions and have big implications for plant and animal life. Earth will not become uninhabitable overnight because of global warming, but changes in temperatures cause more extreme storms, desertification, ocean level rises, and reef die-offs which will lead to massive movements of refugees. You fossil fuel cucks are just perpetuating a system that will leave your grandchildren with massive refugee influxes from coastal developing nations and massive environmental issues. Fuck off with your anti-science bullshit.

>>127964159
they're just playing mental gymnastics to defend their orange fatass in chief

File: 1492431504401.jpg (55KB, 524x451px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 524x451px

>>127964299
not an argument

>>127959586
Friendly reminder that plants thrive the more CO2 present in an environment and there's no proof that it's a bad thing

File: GlobalCooling.jpg (23KB, 461x382px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 461x382px

>>127964128
Florida spends millions of dollars annually to prevent their coasts from flooding.
The city of venice spent millions making giant air filled blocks to prevent their whole city from flooding every time the tide comes in.
The predictions may be off but the symtoms are clear as day, and should be a clear fucking sign of worse things to come

File: royer2009.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>127963615
good question
by contrast, the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of 100,000 years and it's concentration in the atmosphere is independent of temperature

the importance of this difference can be made clear in a simple thought experiment:
if you inject all the water on the planet into the atmosphere (by evaporating every lake, ocean and river), what would happen is that since the atmosphere can only hold a specific amount of water wit ha given temperature, pretty much all the water would fall back to the surface in the form of rain within a few days. This wouldn't change the equilibrium temperature of the planet at all.

However, if you inject all the amount of carbon on the planet into the atmosphere (by burning every drop of fossil fuels and breaking down every carbonate rock), what would happen is the CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for long enough (as I said, hundreds of thousands of years) to induce major warming.

That's why climatologists draw the distinction between "condensing Greenhouse gases" (water vapor, essentially) and "non-condensing Greenhouse gases" (CO2, methane, CFCs, ozone, etc).

Out of the non-condensing GHGs, CO2 is the most important because it has the highest concentration and longest atmospheric life time out of all of them.

To demonstrate all of this, you can take a look at the geologic record. If you take the temperature record of the past and compare it with the combined forcing of the two prime drivers of temperature on Earth (the sun and CO2), you can get a very good correlation between the two, with major glaciations (that's the blue vertical bars) only happening when the combined forcing is at a minimum

>>127959586
The PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change.

The carbon tax would be a tax on everything, complete control and regulation. Big biz supports it because it monopolizes big biz. Its about energy poverty, when energy is expensive we all suffer and slave. Al Gore said every climate deal "leads to global governance"

>>127963176
you also might want to take a look at that plot >>127964484

>>127964415
The arguments have already been made, go read the hundreds of studies that prove it to be real retard

File: 126647228655920110724-22047-1vwn5su.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>127959586
Increase carbon taxes to raise the price of oil!
Houston and Dallas can finally put people back to work again with more than $50 bbl
The rig towns in Oklahoma/Montana too
FUCK TRUMP for BOWING to the SAUDIS!

>>127964449
Plants also need nitrogen and water in similar proportions, but won't be receiving them, because we aren't emitting the type of nitrogen they need and water is becoming more scarce by the day, therfore they won't grow massive and won't absorb the co2.

>>127959586
Yeah... tax the USA but not China and not all the third world countries that the manufacturers move to avoid the climate tax scam.

>>127964159
By the time were even done mining for the sheer amount of minerals for these things we would be outputing crazy amounts of carbon into the air.

>>127959586
Prove that models of chaotic systems (e.g., climate) remain even remotely accurate for longer than 10 years.

>>127963681
Why knock down a forest? urban roof spaces, desert, and pay farmers to have panels on unused acreages. Look up silicon solar batteries :)

>>127964484
>by contrast, the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of 100,000 years
I feel like now you may be forgetting plants.

File: 43_24_g-co2-l.jpg (140KB, 700x496px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 700x496px

>>127964662
>What is the paris agreement
Kill yourself

>>127964449

>Meme argument

Not for all species, higher CO2 will reduce nutritional contents of some crops like wheat and can make plants more susceptible to pests, plus enhanced growth requires more water and other nutrients.

>>127964560
jesus fuck you really are retarded, I NEVER SAID THE STUDIES WERE FALSE, what I REALLY said was it's bullshit to be crawling up America's ass over some shit like global warming when other countries are MUCH FUCKING WORSE than we are

so again i say again

>not an argument

>>127959586
>equitative

Equitable?

>>127964823
>I don't know what the Paris Agreement is: the post

>>127964732
no because what removes CO2 in the long-term from the atmosphere isn't plants, it's chemical weathering of silicate rock

>>127964823
>only one other country is worse than the USA
>don't crawl up my ass!!
>t. trumptard

>>127959586
can we have a bait tax

>>127959586
Only if the CO2 emissions bring less human development than the money you'd get from taxes. If you're China a few years ago in a country of peasants, high CO2 emissions are acceptrable as they better the well being of millions of people.

TL;DR: people > the environment

The PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change.

The carbon tax would be a tax on everything, complete control and regulation. Big biz supports it because it monopolizes big biz. Its about energy poverty, when energy is expensive we all suffer and slave. Al Gore said every climate deal "leads to global governance"

Here are 1,000+ peer reviewed, scientific papers disproving man made climate change:
http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-2/
http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-1/
http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-3/

>>127960526
Man man global warming is a conspiracy theory

>>127964944
the people who wrote the agreement themselves said there is no legal binding of it, what difference does it really make

>hurr durr i have a magic piece of paper that will make global warming go away

>>127965007
>chemical weathering of silicate rock
Why do I feel like you are on summer break from your geology classes at university and are pulling terms and explanations out of your ass?

>>127965282
>notrickszone.com

First several papers I looked at were not published in academic journals or had been submitted but not accepted

>>127965496
That's a lie and every single one is peer reviewed.

>>127965467
Just like muh Russia.

>>127964654
But water vapor is the #1 cause of global warming.

File: weathering equation.jpg (28KB, 576x237px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 576x237px

>>127965493

what I said is completely uncontroversial, well known to geologists and easy to understand

>>127965657
The rise of the delusional left.

>>127965680
And has nothing whatsoever to do with proving how CO2 is the primary driver of temperature change on this planet.

>>127965680
The ocean is the #1 storage of CO2, hans.

>>127965768
didn't you read my posts from earlier? Your response was about plants absorbing CO2 and my answer to that was chemical weathering being much more important at geologic time scales.

So where does your argument go from here?

>>127965823
the carbon that is stored in the Earth's mantle is orders of magnitude bigger than in the ocean

>>127962728
For about half of climatological history there have been no ice caps on the poles, interglacial periods aren't some unheard of occurrence, brief interglacial occurred during the Paleolithic era.

>>127966117
>mantel carbon capture has any effect on atmospheric carbon

Love this meme

File: notrickszone.png (249KB, 1416x882px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1416x882px

>>127965621

#7 wasn't plus the third paper has this diagram showing CO2 has a large positive radioactive forcing. #13 also says that monsoons are affected by greenhouse gas concentrations.

>>127966240
chemical weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere and the resulting carbonate rocks are introduced into the mantle through subduction

this is a very well understood and important part of the carbon cycle.

>>127966117
>Out of the non-condensing GHGs, CO2 is the most important because it has the highest concentration and longest atmospheric life time out of all of them.
Your whole point was that CO2 is a problem because it hangs around in the atmosphere a long time and doesn't condense. How does this prove CO2 is driving temperature change on earth?

File: CO2andTemp600millionyrstopresentgeocraft.gif (28KB, 660x417px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 660x417px

>>127964770
Oh wow, it's nothing!
If that little uptick in atmospheric carbon concerns you so much, start advocating the extermination of niggers, spics, pakis and curryniggers and the reforestation of Africa, South America and South Asia.

>>127959586
>duscuss
you're a faggot, but I do not reject the proposition.

>>127964193
i think electricity cables have more range than a few city blocks

>>127959586
I love laughing at retards who have never done their own independent research with regard to the earth's climate.

Spanish people are so fucking dumb and leftist and all think being an sjw is a good thing. I hope Islam kills you fucking retards.

Spain: the EU helps us by putting into debt which we can never pay off.

Hahahahahaha fucking Spanish tards.

File: COfuckyou.png (263KB, 1624x1306px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1624x1306px

>>127966515
literally from the same website - geocraft

I'm all for making the world colder as it would make it a more ideal environment for whites.

>>127966610
>looking hard enough in the internet to find misinformation about proven facts
yeah, i havent done enough "research" to be a major shithead
im not even a leftist, its just common sense and proven science

>>127966465
I don't mind repeating myself if it is forced on me
if you look at the geologic record, the combined forcing of what climatologists say are the two most important drivers of Earth's climate (CO2 and solar irradiance), you get a very good correlation with temperature

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

Fucking weed smoking Spanish hippies.
Have you even see the state of your country.
It's dirty, houses are abandoned and crumbling down, and there's way too much degenerate graffiti.
>this isn't Spain, this is Galifffia

>>127966834
>you get a very good correlation with temperature
I really hate to do this to you anon... but as I'm sure you are well aware, correlation does not in fact imply causation.

>taxing co2 that plants crave
Dunno why anyone believes in manmade global warming

>>127966970
it does when there is a very clear, observable, calculable and explainable mechanism to link the two together (which there is)

>>127961870
It is literally the secondary. Look up what primary means.

>>127966515
this graph has become a tell tale sign that the poster has no clue what he's talking about

>>127967106
And what is that mechanism?

>>127959586
I believe the peon masses should not pay carbon tax because they are not the ones producing ridiculous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and we are obediently doing what we are told. Why the fuck should i pay a carbon tax when these big companies have been producing ridiculous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere for fucking years? Blame it on the consumer all you want, this isn't our fault.

File: thermometer.png (67KB, 639x366px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 639x366px

>>127962829

>>127964484
Oh wow this changes everything lol 1° HAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHHAA

>>127967250
the atmospheric greenhouse effect
have you been asleep during the last hour? That's the entire subject under discussion

>>127967324
what?

>>127959586

just design a fucking filter for those things if its so bad, wow problem solved man that was hard

>>127967333
No, the subject under discussion was specific to CO2 and proving how it was the prime driver for temperature change. Saying the greenhouse effect is the mechanism that links CO2 in the climate record with global temperature is not in itself proof.

>>127967937
so the fact that there is a well understood mechanism linking CO2 to temperature and the fact that CO2 correlates well with temperature means nothing in your mind?

why can't we just make this easy and you tell me what I would have to show you that would convince you of CO2 being a prime driver?

>>127960124
You're wrong it is 6,666,666.6% gorillion of scientists agree that it is muh climate change, I should give it up.

>>127968176
Google "co2 vs water vapor" - I'm clearly not the only one, anon.

>>127960816
>>>127959984
>>>127960529
>>>127960557
>its already proven
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euhLuWNEi0g
>Venus is the prime example of what uncontrolled emissions do to a planet's weather
>the hard thing to understand is how long-term it is, so you might go "oh well we emitted 30000 tons of CO2 yesterday and nothing happened today" but its actually 50 years from now that you will see the real effects.

Pablo, are you suggesting that there were 6 gorillion scientists in Venus agreeing that climate change is real?

>Excessive CO2 emissions are a dire threat to the future of the planet
>so we should tax them

How does this approach even make sense? Taxes are going to stop this?
Why don't we open up the nuclear silos and threaten every country that doesn't reduce their emissions to whatever level is necessary to fix things?

The fact that taxes seems to be the preferred solution for global warming is what makes me wonder if the crisis is as serious as some want us to believe.

>>127968318
again, what would in your mind constitute proof of CO2 being a prime driver of planetary temperature?

>>127960816
>>>127959984
>>>127960529
>>>127960557
>its already proven
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euhLuWNEi0g
>Venus is the prime example of what uncontrolled emissions do to a planet's weather
>the hard thing to understand is how long-term it is, so you might go "oh well we emitted 30000 tons of CO2 yesterday and nothing happened today" but its actually 50 years from now that you will see the real effects.

Pablo, are you suggesting that there were 6 gorillion scientists in Venus to agree that climate change is real?

File: 1495676338911.jpg (35KB, 378x700px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 378x700px

>>127968176
False, false and more false. There's a reason why they don't call it global warming anymore krautz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

stupid german niggers trying to rule the world one last time before we exterminate you roaches.

>>127968688
instead of post half-hour videos, how about you explain what's wrong with it in your own words?

P.S. it's still called global warming

>>127963052
>17%
>Pretty much right
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHA

>>127968456
>what would in your mind constitute proof
That's not how science works, anon. I thought you were a college student?

>>127969009
come on now, let's not play this game. I'm asking you what you're demanding as evidence. That's not a fallacy

The case that there is a direct relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature (which was known since 1896) and a good correlation between the two over Earth history is about as straight forward as it gets.

I'm asking you a very simple question of what is missing in your mind to convince you that CO2 is an important driver of temperature.

>>127969267
>which was known since 1896
I know you're not talking about the Arrhenius study...

Point is, science is all about evidence and theories. You presented evidence that CO2 levels rise when global temperature levels rise, theorizing that an increase in CO2 means an increase in temperature.

I pointed out, as have many others, that this is not necessarily the case and that you can also see this relationship with water vapor and other gases.

WHY ARE WE DESTROYING OUR PLANET AND DOING NOTHING?

>>127969563
>I pointed out, as have many others, that this is not necessarily the case and that you can also see this relationship with water vapor and other gases.

I've already explained to you over an hour ago that water vapor can't be a prime driver of temperature because of how it behaves in the atmosphere, so this argument falls apart as soon as you start to take a closer look at it.

I'm asking you what crucial piece of evidence is missing in your mind to establish CO2 as a prime driver.

>>127969563
also I don't know what you mean with the first part, because I am talking about Arrhenius

File: wva-coalminer.jpg (97KB, 450x301px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 450x301px

>>127969663
CAUSE WE WUZ KINGZ AND SHIT

>>127969978
I know you are, which is why I'm not taking you that seriously. ;P

Arrhenius was disproven - temperature drives CO2, not the other way around.

Google around a bit, you seem like a smart anon.

>>127970135
>Arrhenius was disproven
can you please post the paper you're talking about?

What piece of evidence is missing to show CO2 is a prime driver of temperature on Earth?

>>127969978
>http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html

Also, check out what the man himself had to say about it in 1910. Also check out what he claims the CO2 concentration is back then.

>https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NOT19100416.2.32.24

>>127959586
>danger to our whole planet
No, it's a danger to our children's and grandson's planet. So why bother?

>>127970313
What piece of evidence is missing to show CO2 is a prime driver of temperature on Earth?

what you cite is a blog post by a chemical engineer, not a scientific article published in one of the peer-reviewed referee journals. If you claim to be able to overturn one of the central findings of climatology, you better have something extremely solid to back it up and this fails in that regard

File: download (2).jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>127959586
>99% of people believe a lie
>lie must be true

first prove climate change is real
next prove climate change isn't natural
next prove climate change is man-made
next prove we have any impact on it
next prove that paying climate tax changes anything at all

then i'll agree

problem???

File: natural.anthropogenic.forcing.jpg (95KB, 946x671px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 946x671px

>>127970749
points 2, 3 and 4 are the same

>>127959586
I'm okay with carbon taxes as long as they're revenue neutral, put a tax on emissions you gotta cut equal taxes somewhere else. Don't like it get the hell out of my helicopter.

>>127970931
3+4 are the same, 2 isn't

>>127971051
regardless, what's your response to the graph?

>>127970740
Since you are clearly too lazy to actually think for yourself, I will lay it all out for you and then go to bed. From the newspaper clipping I linked you:

>HOW THE BURNING OF COAL VITIATES THE ATMOSPHERE.

>Every ton of coal, it has been found, which is burned uses up 300,000 cubic .feet of air and renders it unfit for breathing. Suppose that there were no danger of exhausting our coal supply, and that we had enough to last forever; it would only be a few hundred years at our present rate of increase in coal consumption, until all the atmosphere on the earth's surface would be rendered incapable of sustaining life. However, as has been called to our attention by Prof. Arrhenius, the consumption of coal at present is returning to the atmosphere the carbon dioxide of which it was robbed when the deposits of carbon were stored away in the coal beds during the carboniferous period. The present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500. This would be about doubled, if it were not modified by vegetable life, by the consumption of the present known coal deposits, and it is stated that a doubling of the quantity in the atmosphere would more than double the rate of growth of plant life.

Not only has the "Father of Global Warming" himself said that burning coal and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere was a good thing and would promote plant life growth, he also claims that the CO2 atmospheric concentration in 1910 was "about one part in 2,500" or about 400ppm. The same as what's been claimed to be a record high for our planet just recently.

Global warming is a fraud and has been since its inception.

>>127959586
>he believes in the climate jew

File: Sunspot-Number-and-Temperature-Since-1850.jpg (88KB, 659x495px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 659x495px

>>127971101
my response to the graph is another graph+informations
enjoy


>Study finds a natural cause for early 20th century Arctic warming – but kowtows to CO2 in the present
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/30/study-finds-a-natural-cause-for-early-20th-century-arctic-warming-but-kowtows-to-co2-in-the-present/

>Mark Steyn’s Stand Against Climate Alarmism: In-Depth with the Climate Crybully Conniption-Inducer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wQp0Ir5Vc&t=11s

>This is the way the climate scare ends; not with a bang, but a whimper
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/28/this-is-the-way-the-climate-scare-ends-not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper/

>Tide Gauge Evidence: Sea Levels

Rose Faster Before 1950 Than Since
http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/25/robust-natural-variability-affirmed-in-global-sea-level-rise-rates-no-correlation-with-co2-forcing/#sthash.zxkFaj7W.V6pqCoB4.dpuf

>Examining the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/21/examining-the-carbon-dioxide-cycle/

>Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming
http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/
now stop unknowingly being shills for people who want to steal your money and manipulate you just because 99% of 'scientists' agree. lmao.
did bill nye tell you this was true too?
most scientists who disagree with the herd are ridiculed and discredited too.
good job feeding into this cancerous cycle.

File: 148756544.png (67KB, 350x338px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 350x338px

>>127971807
>info BTFO'ing climate change bullshit
now stop paying jews money as a 'climate tax'
/thread

>>127971518
are you illiterate? Nothing in that article supports the conclusion you posted.
The only time Svante Arrhenius is mentioned is in the explanation that the carbon in the coal deposits were once part of the atmosphere, which is broadly true. There is no mention by Arrhenius whether it is "good" or "bad" to be emitting this carbon back into the atmosphere, everything you claim in your conclusion (that it's good, that it promotes plant growth and that concentrations were at 400ppm are the conclusions of the unnamed author of this piece, not Arrhenius.

So I'll have to repeat myself (again) that you really have to do a bit better than that if you want to overturn one of the corner stones of climatology.

>>127959586
Sounds reasonable...pay Al Gore 10,000,000,000,000 dollars, and the planet will be magically saved! Kill yourself faggot!

>>127972095
>and it is stated that a doubling of the quantity in the atmosphere would more than double the rate of growth of plant life
It is stated? Who is stating it? The author himself or perhaps the person he is interviewing?

You call me illiterate yet you ignore the obvious fact that everything said after
>as has been called to our attention by Prof. Arrhenius
is related and can be attributed to Arrhenius.

>>127971807
your graph doesn't even have a scaled y-axis for the sun spots. Here's what the real sunspot evolution

There's not a single real scientific paper in the list you posted, just a bunch of blog posts and youtube videos by non-experts. If you would just take a look at the actual referee journal literature, you would find that solar physicists think that the sun can at best explain "less than 30%" of current warming (and that's at the high end of the spectrum)

>>127972548
>Who is stating it? The author himself or perhaps the person he is interviewing?
We don't know, because the author doesn't say. Also, what makes you think this is an interview of Arrhenius? There is not a single direct quote from him anywhere, he's just mentioned once.

The article clearly says Arrhenius says the carbon in the coal was once part of the atmosphere, then the sentence ends and the topic shifts to something completely different. Nowhere does it say "Arrhenius also says..." or "Furthermore, he also points out...". There is just no indication that these are Arrhenius' conclusions.

But there is a very easy way to demonstrate that: instead of quoting a newspaper from New Zealand allegedly quoting Arrhenius, you can just directly post the articles where Arrhenius says these things himself. To the best of my knowledge, his 1896 is his only work regarding climatology, and the conclusions you posted and nowhere to be found in there.

File: 1490931199849.jpg (296KB, 636x636px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 636x636px

>>127972755
>hurdur i didnt look at any of the sources from the blog posts so they must just be opinions haha

you're like a feminist who thinks that because women are paid less, as a whole, the system must be a sexist 'patriarchy'
heh

i love how you nearly have 30 replies
most of which are bullshit

File: 9402306.png (133KB, 712x267px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 712x267px

>>127973975
science takes place in the scientific literature, not internet blogs, I'm sorry.

I also forgot to finish that second sentence: I meant to say here is what the actual sunspot number through time looks like

File: Sunspot_Numbers.png (78KB, 1020x425px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1020x425px

>>127974234
wow science

>>127974234
climate change is natural, deal with it muslim

This thread is complete bullshit. Why are we trying to subsidize peoples morals ? Regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, ultimately it is the consumer who will decide it's viability.
If the public is so consciously aware of the need to change our habits then the demand for change will drive manufacturing in that direction.
Subsidizing green technology creates an artificial demand and pushes a product that would otherwise not be economically viable based on low demand. It's authoritarian and it's an infringement on our freedom to decide what we believe is best for our lives.
Also, it is a band aid, what these rejects fail to realize is that because the demand is artificial, any surplus in the green energy sector is going to create an excess in the carbon sector and drastically reduce pricing.
So in effect the globalists just want to take money from oil and gas producing countries and give it directly to poorer countries who will reap all the benefits of this deal.
There is no "trick" you can pull to accomplish the stated goals of environmentalists except to actually convince people that they need to act. Obviously they have failed to do this so far.

We should stop letting people from poor, undeveloped countries move to rich, developed countries because they'll just end up consuming more like people in developed countries.

We should stop sending foreign aid to poor countries because they will just consume more and cause more pollution.

We should stop giving welfare to people who don't work because welfare recipients will just use the money to consume more and cause more climate change.

For more conservative answer to climate change, see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvWWqWbLAPQ

File: globavg.temperatureanomaly2016.png (380KB, 738x525px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 738x525px

>>127974477
yes exactly. Compare this graph with the unscaled one you posted first here >>127971807

total solar irradiance (which is closely followed by sun spot numbers) has plateaued or even declined slightly since the 1980s. But if you take a look at what temperatures have done - they've not followed solar TSI but CO2 concentrations (upward)

>>127974519
the current temperature trends just isn't explainable without taking the anthropogenic forcing into account, which is exactly what the first graph I posted at you was showing. There is just no natural forcing right now that is big enough to cause a temperature increase like that

>>127974519
>>127974477
That shows sunspots have declined since 1950, while temperature has increased.

The true /pol/ position is that climate change is real but exaggerated. It is worth taking small steps to reduce emissions but not changing everything about our society.

File: TvsTSI.png (396KB, 2889x2209px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 2889x2209px

>>127974477
The actual science doesn't support your position

>>127959586
people breathe out co2

tax breathing? good idea gorich

>>127968445
It isn't, this is government shilling at it's finest.

File: Psycho Pepe2.jpg (6KB, 152x144px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 152x144px

>>127959586
>CO2 is the natural byproduct of oxidation reactions.
>Oxidation reactions are responsible for 100% of natural and the vast majority of artificial energy.
>Climate change legislation therefore gives moral authority for the government to regulate your literal means of existence
>The more statist / authoritarian the politician, the more they are pro climate change legislation

Just coincidences, surely.

>t. Science fag who realized CC was a Hoax at age 6; when he noticed his science teacher sounded just like a priest, complete with original sin

File: 1474211673264.jpg (118KB, 640x880px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 640x880px

>>127974554
Fossil fuels in canada are subsidized $3 000 000 000 anually.
Fossil fuels took a great deal of subsidies to start out initially in most countries.
Lobbyists and disinfo campaigns by dark money groups manipulate the free market, therfore it wont correct in time. Government intervention is required

>>127959586
Carbon taxes do nothing to limit emissions. They are simply a form of government cash grabbing in a thinly veiled disguise that they can get simple minded hippies to support.

File: KYS2.jpg (9KB, 211x295px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 211x295px

>>127974823
>>127974977
>Graph starts at 1800s
>1800s unusually cool


>Ignores increased crop yields higher temperatures and elevated CO2

Fuck off. It's like watching a lamb jump on the sacrificial altar. Disgusting.

File: loehle2kyr-tempreconstruction.png (13KB, 461x348px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 461x348px

>>127975335
Fine, here is a 2,000 year temperature reconstruction instead if you don't like the 1800s

File: Pepe An.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>127975248
>Starts system wherein goverment robs others to pay for "clean energy"
>Annoyed that oil companies are better at exploiting your shitty system than the idiots that want to regress back to the windmill

File: PepeI.png (36KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x640px

>>127975461
>Still using the debunked hockey stick graph

Hans, why are you always so eager to sacrifice yourself for daddy government?

File: 34234.jpg (172KB, 598x765px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 598x765px

>>127962415

>>127975538
feel free to explain in what way the Hockey stick has been debunked

>>127975109
That's all it is anon. One big shill.

>The fund, established in 2010, is financed by wealthy countries and used to assist developing countries with adaptation and mitigation. It was widely seen as a key measure to bring both rich and poor countries to the negotiating table.
The US pledged $3bn towards the fund, making up nearly a third of the $10.3bn pledged in total. But so far, it has only transferred $500m.

http://archive.is/n6Ww0

It is all concieved under the premise that once poorer countries become developed, they are going to give a fuck about a 1degree rise in global temperatures. BULLSHIT.

They will take the gibs and build all the coal fired plants they want when the time is right, and the tech will be cheaper because we will have excess energy in the grids because of subsidized windmills and solar panels.

Like I said, people really don't give enough of a fuck for this to work and the propaganda machine hasn't done enough of a brainwash for people to believe their hocus pocus charts based on frivolous data. The ocean absorbs 90% of the atmospheric heat and they keep using surface data temperatures like it's scripture.

>>127975208
This. The Totalitarian system they're proposing to slow/stop 'climate change' (HOW IF YOU STILL LET EMISSIONS GROW?) is even more worrisome than the problem itself.

And no one seems to even account for the possibility of solving the problem technologically, for example by emplying movable satellites equpped with EM drives effectively as sun shields or perhaps genetically engineering new plants converting CO2 more efficiently.

The main trouble is that we can't reasonably use alternative energy without a means to store power. Once we have that, we can propose an ACTUAL solution.

Carbon tax shills are out in force.

File: Canada oil and gas subsidies IISD.png (172KB, 789x399px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 789x399px

>>127975468
>I'm a fucking bootlicker, please fuck me in the ass, big oil!
T. You

>>127976084
When they generate 23B in tax revenue it isn't a subsidy it's a fucking investment you dolt.

>>127975942
>And no one seems to even account for the possibility of solving the problem technologically, for example by emplying movable satellites equpped with EM drives effectively as sun shields or perhaps genetically engineering new plants converting CO2 more efficiently.
This too. Also neglecting the fact that nature itself tends to compensate for carbon levels by becoming greener.
The fucking joke of it is the net carbon composition of the planet has never changed, the fossil fuels are from the plant and animal life that already existed on the planet. If you have a green house and want your plants to grow larger, you add carbon dioxide and they in turn convert it to oxygen so all of the disaster scenarios are pure speculation.
We should also consider that the amount of land in Russia and Canada the will BECOME habitable will bring HUGE benefits in terms of growing area and habitat.
All that is ever considered is cons in this one sided shill-a-thon.

>>127970740
>What piece of evidence is missing to show CO2 is a prime driver of temperature on Earth?
Lots. this kind of proof would be laughable in any serious discipline (you seem to care much about muh credibility).
First of all the word driver is usually understood to mean a direct cause, not a delayed correlation, and CO2 still lags behind temperature.
Second, the effect of CO2 would have to be assessed on a theoretical basis that can be verified independently in various manners. Take the drude model of solid state physics, you can follow mathematically all the derivations from its postulates, and verify many of the claims independently. Most important, you see where it fails. Here you are triumphantly saying that X causes y with no ground in a general theory. what are the conditions under which X type object would be the main driver of temperature? Without a general theory we fall back to correlation and causation meme.

>>127976238
It should be able to stand on its own cause of the free market supposedly. You cunts always move the goal posts.
But, seeing as how thats how you want to play, its really not much of an investment when canadians will get stuck with the cleanup bill when any oilsand company pulls out and reclaims the land. The bill will be in the trillions. Increased wildfire sizes due to global warming also foots us canadians with more bills.
Not very economically sound!

>>127976663
>nature itself tends to compensate for carbon levels by becoming greener

if that were true, CO2 concentrations would have been stable ever since the origin of photosynthesis on this planet. In fact, they have undergone major changes both in speed and amplitude during that time

File: TempsandCO2800KYears.png (106KB, 762x578px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 762x578px

>>127976922
No the total carbon content remains the same, the CO2 levels are cyclical and they vary with temperature as do levels of plant/animal life on the planet.

File: arrhenius.png (150KB, 407x694px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 407x694px

>>127976838
so let's take all of these claims one by one

>CO2 still lags behind temperature
there are several things to point out here:
- this isn't the case at the present where CO2 clearly leads temperature
- this lag is only observed in the glacial-interglacial cycle of the Southern Hemisphere, (while CO2 leads temperature in the Northern Hemisphere at the same time)
- there are many events and periods in the geologic record where CO2 clearly played this role of a direct cause. A random example, to maybe go into specifics, is the Eocene switch from greenhouse to icehouse conditions around the time of the Eocene climate optimum. Or the termination of the Huronian glaciation and the subsequent Cambrian hothouse. Or the answer to the faint young sun paradox. Or the Permian hyperwarming event.

>CO2 would have to be assessed on a theoretical basis that can be verified independently in various manners
you're over 100 years late on this. The radiative absorption properties have been measured by John Tyndall in 1859 and calculated by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
The confirmation of this role of CO2 by "various manners" comes to us both by direct observation of present temperature trends and by look at what effect CO2 had in the past (as per some of the examples I gave above). This isn't supposition or guesswork.

File: cretacioustopography.jpg (79KB, 1080x957px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1080x957px

>>127976922
and so if we look at the topography during the Cretaceous period, or the last CO2 peak, you will notice that there is in fact a direct relation between CO2 levels and vegetation. This obviously makes sense, more plant food = more plants.

The notion of freedom has been noted or implied quite frequently in this thread, but only one type of freedom, the kind which gives people the means to buy gasgussling cars, burn their waste, build large factories with no regard to the environment. What about the freedom to clean nontoxic air, fresh clean water, the freedom to a clean and healthy life.
I realise these are quite idealistic concepts for most of the faggots on this thread, I just wanted to note, that there are many ways to look at freedom, all taxation is not theft or some mischiefous plan. And it's not about bullying the US, just an expectation for a country that wants to lead the world as it once did. If you amerifats want to MAGA, then act like the great country you want to become again and be a role-model for everybody, the chinks, pooinloos ect, instead of acting like an autistic manchild, which you have become.

>>127977595
so plants don't compensate additional carbon in the atmosphere, do they? Otherwise, CO2 concentration wouldn't be able to go up by 100ppm

>>127978174
same here: why was CO2 able to rise to concentrations of 2000ppm when plants compensante any carbon injection into the atmosphere?

File: image.jpg (155KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1000x750px

>>127959586
Do it to China and India and I'm okay with it

>>127978010
I really don't think other anon was talking about measuring absorption but about setting up a axiomatic deductive structure that links the conditions of warming. But you are too far lost in the empiricist maymay.

>>127978618
look at the Arrhenius paper. It specifically talks about what the amount of warming that will result in response to a given rise in CO2 concentrations.
It even calculates what we call "climate sensitivity" for the first time to a surprising degree of accuracy.

>>127978800
There is no reasoning here, mein freund, the world will fall to shit and the consensus is, that it's better to burn out than to fade away, the downfall of humanity will not be a dignified death, but autistic schreeching in the furnace we used to call home.

>>127978449
The reason is, the balance between plant and animal life play out as a result of the CO2 levels and take time to be realized.

You will notice that the cycles always tend to find a peak at around 300 PPM. This is followed by warmer temperatures and periods of gradual vegetative growth. The vegetation removes CO2 from the atmosphere but also provides a food source for animals/insects which produce CO2, so it goes, CO2 peak, long period of vegetative growth, long period of herbivore growth, long period of carnivore growth, leading to a diminished CO2 levels. At this point animal/insect life has increased and vegetation is being consumed, leading to diminished vegetation, then diminished herbivores, carnivores, then increased CO2, and the cycle goes on and on.

File: 1476919788858.jpg (236KB, 658x1080px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 658x1080px

>>127959586
good goy, keep financing our agenda

File: Carbon_Cycle.gif (12KB, 400x222px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x222px

>>127979243
And co2 has risen past 400ppm in less than two centuries, when normally the cycle from peak 300ppm and back down takes over 100 000 years. So EVEN IF your hypothesis had any merit, youve invalidated it, because there's no way that plants can absorb all this extra ghgs we're emitting, which heat up the planet

>>127979243
>take time to be realized
how long do you think this time is?

>>127979243
no offense but your attempt to explain the glacial-interglacial cycle with this is just complete nonsense. For one, your mechanism would involve a large-scale die-off in terrestrial foodwebs every 100,000 years because of a collapse of the plant based ecosystems. There's no evidence for this in the paleontological record of the Quaternary.

Second, it goes against what we know about ecological population dynamics. As long as there is no exogenic perturbation, populations of herbivores and carnivores will consume their food source to the extent of breakdown like you suggest because their own population size is limited by the size of the food source (in other words: the population of herbivores will never grow to the necessary size to exhaust their food supply, same with carnivores).

Third, it's been known for about 100 years now that this temperature cycle is orbitally forced. Do you think it's just a giant coincidence that this biospheric mechanism you describe happens to always peak at exactly the same time as summer insolation peaks in the Northern Hemisphere?

>>127959586
a danger to our whole planet, yet politicians run on transgender rights

i dont think anybody sees a threat

fuck off

>>127959910
>Doesn't matter
/argument


you are a dumb faggot and will never understand the real world
Covfefe

>>127980208
will NOT consume their food source*

China

>>127979735
Well it doesn't invalidate shit because everything is progressing exactly as it should and there is no stopping it, pretending like we are going to change it is a fools errand. If it takes 100k years for the earth to catch up that' what it will do, our input is inconsequential. Life will continue, and the planet will balance itself with us on it and without our help. Imagining we can control the temperature of the planet is as ridiculous as believing we can control the temperature of the sun. But convincing people we can is a pretty good scam.

You can tax your CO2 all you want but if all countries continue to buy cheap crap from China which pumps more than a quarter of total world CO2 then what's the point?
Your industries get less competitive and you must rely even more on China, which will produce more and more carbon.

>>127978508
Let us poo in peace. Leave us out of your covfefe

>>127980208
No you are trying to argue a sum zero game, that's not the point I am trying to make I am arguing that there is without question a correlation between the quantity and diversity of life on the planet with respect to CO2/Oxygen levels in the atmosphere. This is the widely accepted and pervasive view.

I am not going to argue against your strawman because it was not what I said or implied. I am not even sure where you got the 100,000 year mark from.

Earth’s oxygen cycle and the evolution of animal life

A long-standing and pervasive view is that there have been intimate mechanistic links between the evolution of complex life on Earth—in other words, the emergence and ecological expansion of eukaryotic cells and their aggregation into multicellular organisms—and the secular evolution of ocean−atmosphere oxygen levels (1). Molecular oxygen (O2) is by far the most energetic of the abundant terminal oxidants used in biological metabolism (e.g., ref. 2)
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/32/8933.full

>>127960124
>believes that science is a democracy
>assumes that there is a thing such as 'settled science'

...science is not a democracy

>>127981506
let me remind you of my question: You said it takes time for your described coupling to be realized. How long is this time in your mind?

>I am not even sure where you got the 100,000 year mark from
it comes form your own graph here >>127977595
the late pleistocene glacial cycle has a period of 100,000 years

>correlation between the quantity and diversity of life on the planet with respect to CO2/Oxygen levels in the atmosphere
why are you suddenly trying to shift the conversation to oxygen? The paper you cited only talks about oxygen and makes absolutely no mention of CO2.
If the CO2 concentration determined biodiversity, the Permo-Triassic should have been a great time for life on Earth since CO2 concentration shot up by several thousand ppm. What happened in reality was the biggest mass extinction that ever took place in the history of life.

File: germanuniversityeducation.jpg (18KB, 300x180px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x180px

>>127982037
>>127982037
>why are you suddenly trying to shift the conversation to oxygen? The paper you cited only talks about oxygen and makes absolutely no mention of CO2.
Are you just playing dumb ? You are aware that almost all oxygen on the planet is the result of photosynthesis right ? Do I literally have to break down the life cycle to you ?

>>127982623
doesn't mean you can use oxygen and CO2 interchangeably (which is also demonstrated by the fact that the evolution of oxygen concentration during Earth history if completely different from the evolution of CO2). If you think there is evidence for a direct relationship between CO2 and biodiversity, you have to cite the paper that says that there is a relationship between CO2 and diversity of life - NOT cite a paper that says there is a relationship between oxygen and diversity of life

>>127982037
>What happened in reality was the biggest mass extinction that ever took place in the history of life.
And using the mass extinction event doesn't invalidate anything. Most agree it was the result of an unknown disaster likely a meterorite. Nice try though.

>>127983033
Ok, since you are a nitpicker

>Although the title of this book is
Controversies in science and
technology
, there is no question that rising carbon dioxide levels will
differentially stimulate the growth and function of plant species on a
global basis, thereby affecting the flow of energy and carbon through
ecosystems. Indeed, it seems fair to anticipate that, as carbon diox-
ide increases, ecosystem composition itself will change (e.g., cheat-
grass and fires). In any event, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
per se will have a number of consequences for both managed and
unmanaged plant communities, and, hence, for all living things. It is
imperative then, that we begin, in earnest, to assess the positive and
negative aspects of these consequences in regard to both the natural
environment and human society. It is regrettable that in the debate
regarding rising CO
2
levels and global warming, that the direct im-
pact of increased carbon dioxide on plant biology, and the role of
plants in sustaining life, remains underappreciated by all sides.

http://www.liebertpub.com/MContent/Files/Kleinman_ch19_p379-398.pdf

>>127959984
>>Excessive CO2 emissions are a danger to our whole planet
>Prove it. No one has done so thus far.
This.

Kikes want to tax you breathing out lol what's next?

>>127983063
a meteorite impact is completely inconsistent with the evidence and the selectivity of the extinction. It's widely recognized that the ultimate cause was the eruption of the Siberian trapps

File: Shlomo Shekelstein.jpg (157KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 501x585px

>>127959586
Farting should also be taxed

>>127959586
Pre industrial revolution plants were extremely CO2 starved. This is a molecule that is essential for life but is only like 0.01% of the atmosphere. CO2 is green and based.

>>127983518
so the passage you quoted basically says that we need to study the effects CO2 has on the biosphere further.
How is this a response to what we talked about so far? How does that prove that there is a direct relationship between high concentrations of CO2 and biodiversity? How does this show that the temperature evolution of the late Pleistocene was caused by periodic expansion and die-off of plant-based ecosystems? How does this demonstrate that you can use oxygen and CO2 interchangeably?

File: 1495550151309.png (264KB, 415x379px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 415x379px

Pay your carbon tax, stupid goyim

>>127983634
That's one theory.
>Life on Earth was almost destroyed some 250 m.y. ago in the most profound of all known mass extinction events. We investigated the possible role of impact by an extraterrestrial bolide through chemical and mineralogical characterization of boundary breccias, search for shocked quartz, and analysis for iridium in Permian-Triassic boundary sections at Graphite Peak and Mount Crean, Antarctica, and Wybung Head, Australia. Thin claystone breccias at the isotopically and paleobotanically defined boundary at all three locations are interpreted as redeposited soil rather than impact ejecta. The breccias at all three locations also yielded shocked quartz, but it is an order of magnitude less abundant (0.2 vol%) and smaller (only as much as 176 micrometers m diameter) than shocked quartz at some Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary sites. Faint iridium “anomalies” were detected (up to 134 pgṁg−1). These values are an order of magnitude less than iridium anomalies at some Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary sites. Furthermore, peak iridium values are as much as 1 m below the isotopically and paleobotanically defined boundary. The idea that impact caused the extinctions thus remains to be demonstrated convincingly.
Search for evidence of impact at the Permian-Triassic boundary in Antarctica and Australia

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/26/11/979

>>127959586
stop breathing

>>127984048
Still no likey ?Ok, no prob. There are literally thousands of articles on the subject we can do this all day.

The diversity and coevolution of Rubisco,
plastids, pyrenoids, and chloroplast-based
CO2-concentrating mechanisms in algae

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/G_Price/publication/249543672_The_diversity_and_coevolution_of_Rubisco_plastids_pyrenoids_and_chloroplast-based_CO2-concentrating_mechanisms_in_algae/links/02e7e52647384dc3f6000000/The-diversity-and-coevolution-of-Rubisco-plastids-pyrenoids-and-chloroplast-based-CO2-concentrating-mechanisms-in-algae.pdf

>>127959586
>penalize people for creating plant food

Kill yourself spaniard

>>127984657
it's by far the leading explanation, because (unlike the impact hypothesis), it fits with the timing and the selectivity of the event in the oceans, whose magnitude depended on the calcification of organisms. That's completely consistent with ocean acidification due to CO2 (coming from volcanic exhalation) uptake and completely inconsistent with an impact

>>127959586
> CO2 = Plant Food.
> CO2 = What humans exhale

Taxing CO2 emissions = Taxing the air we breath.

It's a slippery slope. What about all that "natural gas" that escaped in california a couple years ago? You're not worried about that? What is "natural gas"???

Methane.

Methane is much worse than CO2 for "GLobal Warming". It's much more virulent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Quit pushing globalist agendas.

>>127984969
what the hell are you doing? You're just throwing unrelated articles around

you claimed that there is a correlation between the quantitiy and diversity of life and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere - and the evidence you presented so far included a paper about the oxygen cycle and one paper about algal physiology.

>>127985045
Either way, it's a red herring based on speculation and can't really be used to argue one way or the other. Whether you believe that it was a meteor or the siberian traps emitted a dust cloud that blocked out the sun has nothing to do with this argument.

>>127985822
the extinction mechanism of the Siberian traps doesn't include a dust cloud. It basically consists of apocalyptic global warming, associated with acid rain, soil erosion, ocean anoxia and ocean acidification

remember: what would logically follow from your argument is that the rising CO2 concentration would lead to an absolute explosion in number and diversity of both plant and animal genera.

>>127961440
"People lining up for food, that's a good thing"

>>127961197
ok so explain to me how gas in an atmosphere can trap heat from leaving but doesnt stop it from entering in the first place. like im 99.9999% sure that insulation works both ways and everybody is fucking retarded

>>127986105
Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants.

A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.

Climate sceptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.

But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.

They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.

The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

>the extinction mechanism of the Siberian traps doesn't include a dust cloud.

Of course it does.

One that has some suggestive evidence is volcanism on a very large scale that occurred at the close of the Permian. The amount of material that was erupted during this volcanic phase was huge, up to about 2.7 million square miles of lava, about the area of Australia, and recent research has shown that about 20 % of the material from the Siberian Traps eruptions were of a pyroclastic nature, that is released explosively, throwing large amounts of ash and aerosols high into the atmosphere, the remainder being in the form of flood lava, the lava flows out without putting ash or dust into the atmosphere.

>throwing large amounts of ash and aerosols high into the atmosphere
http://austhrutime.com/permian_mass_extinction.htm

File: Power generators.jpg (328KB, 720x1216px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 720x1216px

Agreed, government should tax your air.

>>127986826
is that pic supposed to be an argument for sustainable energy sources?

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-01 08-57-27.png (37KB, 401x321px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 401x321px

>>127986105
Some more for you.

Greening of the Earth and it's Drivers.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004.epdf?referrer_access_token=mmOVmpNNLvJnq1h8bkU7-9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OYJHZxvEebXSMq9zMi6Q2vWe61M7QFieokWQcY1PQbxR4gAi8CQShwirX-GNMfMbB7JlnUTFMOkqRUD6C92ct5jwqJe4v6nhm8R7B81mKAzl98Ul_reSpOghIsPkiVnLNzNsiJ2E7ynCAVTN5Uhp7-RSh7O7QEjfI_yrYnDe9Svg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.com

File: IMG_0927.jpg (262KB, 942x959px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 942x959px

>>127959707
Thanks for Sharing™ Your™ Blues™!

0.00076 beta male credits have been deposited into your Mom's bank account.

>>127986785
>>127987933


I know all of that. In addition to the effect diminishing over time, I also know that with higher pCO2, plants might grow bigger, but they're actually nutritionally poorer because of a rising carbon to nitrogen ratio within the plant.

But much like your previous two articles, there is nothing there that supports your claim of diversity correlating with CO2 concentrations during Earth history.
I get the feeling you're trying to quitely drop that claim and shift the conversation on whether increased CO2 concentrations cause a temporary greening (note: "temporary", as the article you yourself cited points out)

As for the Siberian traps: notice that I didn't say there weren't any aerosols. I said it wasn't part of the extinction mechanism, because if it were, the selectivity would be much more like the K-Pg event

>>127959910
>reverse climate change
Nope
>US worst culprit
You mean China?

>>127986750
have you ever been in a greenhouse? the sun can enter through the glass with little resistance, it hits an object inside and the light gets converted to heat, the heat can't go through the glass with the same ease

File: 645645.png (25KB, 449x357px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 449x357px

>>127959586
This. Except when it comes to China, India, Pakistan and Africa. This countries should not be taxed, this is racist.

>>127963052
17% now qualifies as "Most"

Holy shit leftists are subhuman

>>127988523
yes. south east asia also. they dindu nothing so leave them alone!

File: IMG_4137.jpg (293KB, 1267x713px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1267x713px

>>127963568
>Sweetie
Fuck off proxy-fag fat girl shill

>>127988779
>south east asia also.
No they are gay hating communist, fuck them!

File: 1496039923683.jpg (46KB, 424x470px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 424x470px

>>127959586
The (((Climate Change))) agenda is basically yet another incarnation of the of the 'seize the means of production' communist theory. Enforce an artificial limitation as an effort to controls economic, industrial, and overall development.

I find this thread to be hilarious that on /pol/, the so called home of the fascist and commie destroyers, that the obvious communist agenda piece that is the very essence of (((Climate Change))) is not called out 24/7. Instead you have so many young and newfags who do not understand how Communism actually works and they actually start believing the (((Climate Change))) lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

>INB4 But.. but... anon the weather is 1.7364782 degrees warmer than last year and my college professor said that the science is settled and (((CNN))) said that anyone who questions (((Climate Change))) is a "denier".

Seriously, if you want people to get on board with your (((scheme))) you are going to have to force all of Asia and Europe to self impose strict limitation and then we will still not get on board but rather be ahead. There is no real circumstance in which you will get any nation to self impose restrictions... even if everyone else pinky swears they will also.

>>127989065
top kek

>tax c02

Only the c02 emitted by left wingers should be taxed. How about that? You want it, you get it. leave the rest of us alone.

>>127989116
this

File: IMG_0964.jpg (20KB, 302x148px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 302x148px

>>127989338
/fred

>>127959586
All you're going to do is give an economic advantage to the countries that think you're a cocksucking faggot.

>>127988221

>>127984969
>But much like your previous two articles, there is nothing there that supports your claim of diversity correlating with CO2 concentrations during Earth history.
I get the feeling you're trying to quitely drop that claim and shift the conversation on whether increased CO2 concentrations cause a temporary greening (note: "temporary", as the article you yourself cited points out)
No it doesn't say temporary it says diminishing, which has been my argument all along, and I already posted a paper that addresses diversity which you ignored.

Also,
From my article on the Eruption,

>The ash and dust clouds produced by these eruptions could have cut sunlight reaching the surface, the resulting reduction of terrestrial and marine photosynthesis could cause the collapse of food webs in both. The basalt lava released in the Siberian and Chinese eruptions and the associated intrusion of lava into carbonate rocks and coal beds that were forming would have released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. It has been proposed that the ash and dust clouds would have produced a cooling effect, but once the dust and ash had been washed out of the air the raised CO2 levels, about double what it had been previously, would have lead to global warming, based on climate models the temperature would have been raised by about 1.5-4.5o C (2.7-8.1o F). Some have doubts that even such large eruptions in the Arctic Circle could have a global effect, suggesting that it would need to be closer to the equator for a global effect.

And stop being obtuse obviously and extinction size volcanic event is going to darken the skies, we have seen this even with minor eruptions.