How do we reverse the effects of global warming? Apparently

Emit C2O.

>>8555936
remove china

its the only way

>reverse the effects
Doesn't work that way. That'd be like asking how do we unscramble an egg.
We have to minimize our emissions o slow the rate at which the warming occurs and/or find ways to make sure we continue surviving in the heated world.

>>8555936
As a last resort kind of measure we can throw a ton of sulfur into the air and cool the earth using the fact that sulfur aerosols will reflect incoming sunlight and help global cooling.

This is a risky as fuck move because it can cause plenty of problems of it's own, but it's certainly an option and may have to be seriously considered given the current state of american politics.

>>8556193
>unscramble an egg
False equivalency. You can lower the average temperature, you can regrow plants and trees, you can bring the water back, you can re-establish the ecosystem.
You just gotta stop fucking shit up.

Limit everyone to 1 child and stop urbanization/deforestation.
Or nuke China and replace it with a forest lol.

>>8556225
C02 also reflects incoming sunlight and helps global cooling or homeostasis.

You idiots still don't get it. Policies based on AGW are scams.

The legit ONLY effective way is to stabilize population and reduce demand for ruminant livestock production, perhaps switching to poultry or eliminating the need for meat at all.

>>8556233
>C02 also reflects incoming sunlight and helps global cooling or homeostasis.
>implying CO2 can absorb and emit light with wavelengths of 0.29 to 3.2 nanometers

You do know what the emission and absorption spectrum are, correct? I don't want to waste my time talking to a brainlet who can't chemistry 101 or physics 101

>>8555936
Go back in time and warn the past. Except they still wouldn't do shit because they were already warned.

File: Lake Oroville.jpg (23KB, 569x182px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 569x182px

>>8555936
The North American Drought Atlas is a database of drought reconstructions based on tree rings from species including California bristlecone pines and giant sequoias.

In 1580 rivers flowed at just a quarter of their usual volume, and giant sequoias grew no new wood. California's climate history is marked by much longer droughts, including megadroughts lasting 100 years, and several decades-long droughts, which makes the current drought just one of many minor dry spells.

8 Mar 2016
Lake Oroville rises 20 feet in 3 days.
25 Mar 2016
Lake Oroville, California's second-largest reservoir, is now 84 percent full.
Oroville Dam releasing water over spillway for the first time in five years.

>>8555936
>reverse

Anyway: kill consumerism. If people don't buy stupid shit that means there is less need for deliveries, shopping trips, stores, workplaces, commuting, storing, shipping, manufacturing, energy generation... Alternatively you have to kill six billion people or at least outlaw births and wait 60-70 years. But none of this will happen.

>>8556227
I think most climate scientists agree that climate change is largely irreversible

>>8556312
the mass pollution of the air with oxygen from cyanobacteria did however come under control pretty well, thanks to life starting to react up the oxygen. thankfully weve already got life that reacts up co2, we just need a lot more of it or more efficient lifeforms.

>>8556324
And a lot less humans. But no one wants to discuss this...

>>8556230
>Limit everyone to 1 child
Everyone would want a male kid though, this is a horrible decision.

>>8556324
I think the best plan is reducing the emissions as much as we can and doing everything we can to help nature rebuild itself. Planting trees in abandoned land that used to be farmed, trying to, concentrate people to let nature have a single big space instead of small pieces, but at the same time trying to lower the number of people in the biggest cities and so on.

tl;dr we should shift from reducing co2 to reducing human impact as a whole

>>8555936
>How do we reverse the effects of global warming?
With enormous amounts of difficulty.

>Apparently cutting CO2 emissions is not enough.
It's not, but it would still be massively better than the fuck-all that we're doing right now.

>>8555936
with this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

File: Noes.gif (188KB, 289x240px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 289x240px

>>8555936
That's not a picture of the effects of global warming, that's a picture of water diversion. Use this for your next global warming thread instead.

File: 1438443396292.jpg (24KB, 299x499px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 299x499px

>>8556333
>a lot less humans
Let the legacy of this man be your Guidestone: Strike at the root.

>>8555936
>global warming

I'll take "Natural Disasters That Went Beyond the Tipping Point a Decade Ago" for $200 please!

>>8556385

What's going on with this graph?

>>8556409
Who knows but I think it implies an incoming ice age. In any case, panic is called for?
Personally I fully support all warming and if man can make it all the better, winters are brutal where I live. I also fully support increasing CO2 levels up to 800ppm if possible. I support a controlled depopulation of California as well.

>>8556241
>reduce demand for ruminant livestock production
The WHO went into panic mode last year about meat and cancer, did that affect anything?
And what could possibly be worse than that?

From one side we have less cows since 1974 because we optimized production.
http://www.beefmagazine.com/cow-calf/relationship-between-cow-size-production
from another side, you either kill all the cows, convince people (well mostly americans probably) to eat less red meat or

>invest billions into making artificial meat
>make sure that the process to produce it does not have the same impact or worse than with normal meat
>somehow convince enough people to buy it to offset the R&D costs
>wait years until you finally recoup all the costs
>overcome meat market

>>8555936
>global warming
hmm. no. just water cycle

File: spectral-content[1].gif (20KB, 400x295px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x295px

>>8556243
>0.29 to 3.2 nanometers
A sliver of the x-ray spectrum. What's your point, shill?

>>8557137
he got the wrong numbers, co2 absorbs infrared light at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. point still stands though

File: accumulated_20161221.png (87KB, 330x680px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 330x680px

>>8556427
Same page here, pro warming and pro CO2, because 'global greening'. Unfortunately CO2 has almost nothing to do with global temperature (CFCs have some influence). As to the warming, the modern warm period is essentially over and during solar cycle 25 we (in the North) may learn again why a year without winter is a blessing compared to a year without summer.

An early indicator for developing cooling conditions would be a marked increase in precipitation around the 60N belt, moving northward. Eurasia first, then North America. A parameter to monitor is the accumulated surface mass balance of Greenland (southern tip is at 60N). The short melting season starts in June and ends in August. Apart from this I'd suggest to watch solar activity (SN and TSI) and (for entertainment) RSS, UAH and ESLR :)

When the time comes I'll be in Malta.

>>8555936
How do we reverse the effects of global warming?

> get a really long metal rod.
> stick it 'down there'
> metal rod sticking outside space, sub zero freez
> metal rod cold now
> acts as heatsink
Voila problem solved.

global warming is a good thing

>>8557192
Not if you're human
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

File: gw-spectrum-tropical-pacific.jpg (119KB, 1024x763px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1024x763px

>>8557137
His point is this, you scientifically illiterate fuck

The spectrum of light coming in is different to the spectrum going out. CO2 is transparent at more of the incoming spectrum than the outgoing spectrum, ergo it retains energy in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape to space. You can't argue with simple thermodynamics. Well, YOU can, but that's because you don't know any better.

Graph source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/

Just make CO2 into things. Polymers, fuels, you name it.

>>8555936
Hey thats Shasta great lake. And i dont think we can fully reverse climate change the reefs are liteally dying as we speak and wont come back for a very long time.

File: Canadaunits.jpg (61KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x534px

>>8557177
I think I have detected the problem with California.

>>8555936
Changes too rapid to adapt to (more than 2 degrees C above the pre-industrial average by 2100) can be staved off if carbon neutrality can be achieved by the mid 2030s, with carbon capture and storage increasing beyond that point to become carbon negative being assumed. If carbon negativity is achieved as early 2025, then the warming can be limited to 1.5 degrees C by 2100 - for reference, the 1 degree mark was passed recently.

As for reversing it, you can't unless you manage to shove almost all the carbon we've released in the industrial period back into the ground. As it is, the warming will continue indefinitely until a new equilibrium is reached (as the Earth gets hotter, it will radiate more until the outgoing radiation is equal to the incoming radiation again) or some other climatic shift happens, like our orbit shifting, but it may be tens or hundreds of thousands of years before that happens. That's the thing people don't mention - it's not just a couple of degrees warming or a few meters of sea level rise we're talking about here, those things are what will happen by the end of the century. The warming will go on for millennia - when the present becomes as distant to us as we are to the construction of the pyramids, the seas will still be rising. Unless we pull all that CO2 back in, that is.

>>8557430
how many meters has the sea level risen since the XIX-century?

>>8556180
This year, China:
>banned the construction of new coal mines
>installed 20GW of solar panels in the first six months, triple the amount as the same period of 2015
>approved $1 billion in renewables investments as part of the BRICS New Development Bank
>ratified the Paris Agreement
>remained the world leader in renewable power production (equal to total power output of France and Germany combined)
>produced more wind turbines than anyone else
>produced more solar panels than anyone else
>all while being the world's factory (i.e. the place everyone else exported all their emissions to)

If global warming really is a Chinese hoax, the Chinese sure as fuck seem to have fooled themselves

File: Sea-Level-1.gif (12KB, 500x202px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 500x202px

>>8557445
About 0.2 m on global average - some places will have risen more, some less. This mainly reflects thermal expansion of the ocean water as it absorbs heat, which is currently proceeding at 1.2-1.6 mm per year. Large increases in sea level will begin once the melting of the land-based ice sheets starts to accelerate - so far, mainly sea ice has been melting which obviously does not raise the sea level (due to the mechanics of buoyancy). As such, the contribution of glacial melting is around 20 mm so far and from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet unknown, but current estimates are around 0.2 mm per year. This will increase in future, of course. Additionally, in the far future, once these ice caps have significantly melted, the decrease in mass pushing down on the Earth's crust will cause it to rebound (as it is currently doing in the northern hemisphere, in response to the melting of the ice from the last ice age) which will cause the Earth to become more spherical, redistributing water from the poles to the equator. Needless to say that won't be good for anyone living there, but by that point they'll have had thousands of years to get used to high seas anyway.

Graph source: http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

>>8556233
CO2 does not reflect sunlight moron. If it did you would be able to see it.

>>8557485
I've read somewhere that the Hudson bay area was so caved in by the massive glaciers of the ice age that the gravity there is actually slightly weaker, since you're closer to the earth's center. Not talking about anything noticeable to a human, but satellites with precise equipment can detect it. Interesting stuff. I wonder how lower the gravity is down in the Marianna trench.

>>8557177
Delusional nonsense

plant great spots of trees from coast to coast.

they will pump the humidity inland

>>8557538
>I wonder how lower the gravity is down in the Marianna trench.
Certainly not a fraction enough to counteract the immense pressure. (But maybe that's silly to take time to point out)

How does carbon sequestration figure into all of this?

>>8557561
What specifically do you want to know. Carbon sequestration on the global scale is a key factor in the global carbon cycle, and thus also the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

>>8555936
unburn coal

>>8557457
>all while being the world's factory
Jevon's Paradox. The EROEI among so called 'renewables' like solar and wind which actually require an oil based infrastructure to manufacture and are very application specific are the worst. In some cases they will use more energy over their lifetime than they give back. Without the massive subsidies coming from the west it is doubtful that much energy would have gone into those particular renewables to begin with that China is happy to peddle. Don't mean to piss in your cornflakes but pushing wind and solar would not make any difference in CO2 emissions and perhaps increase them through the manufacturing process, increase the release of toxic compounds into the environment and in no way shape or form a replacement for fossil fuels. They can supplement some fossil fuel driven grids at most and only in ideal locations. Just an artifact of living in the oil age really.

>>8557457
>believing what a communist government publishes they're doing

>>8557573
refund toll

>>8557586
>The EROEI among so called 'renewables' like solar and wind which actually require an oil based infrastructure to manufacture and are very application specific are the worst.
They're not as high has things like coal plants, but they're still workable.

>In some cases they will use more energy over their lifetime than they give back.
Not in any modern cases I'm aware of.

>pushing wind and solar would not make any difference in CO2 emissions
Basically everything I've read says they will.

>and perhaps increase them through the manufacturing process, increase the release of toxic compounds into the environment and in no way shape or form a replacement for fossil fuels
Utter nonsense.
The pollution from things like photovoltaic panel production are insignificant compared to coal mines and oil wells.

Where are you getting this crap from?

>>8555936
you dont

you embrace them

>>8557394
That was a glorious summer.

File: EROEI.png (38KB, 1140x899px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1140x899px

>>8557905
>Where are you getting this crap from?
China apparently, the country is an environmental nightmare.
The panels and mills are made mostly from composite materials that require modern manufacturing to construct and mass produce. These facilities suck enormous energy and consume massive quantities of fresh water not to mention the manufacture of the power electronics required to control them, attach them to grids. Factor in the battery banks to make them feasible and they have a huge environmental footprint. I doubt all factors are being taken into consideration when calculating EROEI for panels and mills. Mills are especially prone to mechanical and electrical breakdown, panels of course subject to breakdown by the elements and the sunshine itself. Time will tell, and as the price of oil climbs, as it surely will, so will the cost of manufacturing these things as they compete for a limited resource - Jevon's Paradox.

Solar and wind have their niche applications, can supplement a grid. They sure don't address liquid fuel use as in transportation.

>>8558127
The source for your numbers and graph really isn't all that impressive, and basically everything else I've read list EROEIs many times higher for wind and photovoltaic power. In particular, you're relying on information about solar panel manufacturing that's now more than a decade out of date.

Like I said, utter nonsense.

>>8556628
A simple switch to cultured meat or veggie pesudo-meats(infused with hemo for flavour) would do the trick. It's very feasible but large Corporations such as "Cargil" make huge profits off the animal industry.

File: post-glacial_sea_level.jpg (85KB, 1450x449px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1450x449px

>>8557485
Different source, similar result. Added bonus for those addicted to a daily dose of doom porn: There's still enough land-based ice left (Antarctica and Greenland) for another 60 m rise in sea level.. [source=nsidc.org]

File: PREM_crop.jpg (18KB, 775x235px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 775x235px

>>8557538
>gravity there is actually slightly weaker
no, it is stronger because density distribution

>>8556230
>Limit Africansto 1 child and stop urbanization/deforestation.
>Or nuke Africa and replace it with a forest lol.

Fixed. It is racist to admit the problem is purely Africa. Everyone else is plateauing, only African population is drastically increasing.

>>8558539
Africa isn't that relevant in terms of coal/oil/whatever consumption or emissions. If you genocided the entire continent we'd still use up fossil fuels and cause major warming quite rapidly.

>>8555936
Moar trees?

File: you_control.png (78KB, 366x579px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 366x579px

>>8558569
Can't find Africa.

>>8557529
This is correct.

>>8557137
How do I block you?
Is there a filter here on mobile?

File: 2mantle_melting_ice_greenland.jpg (649KB, 2061x1733px)

649KB, 2061x1733px

>>8555936
Is that the I-5 in north California??
Getting Bad.

>>8555936
>Apparently cutting CO2 emissions is not enough.

LOL ........
CO2 IS NOT the problem! ...CO2 is NOT the problem!

Nitrates, CO, ... Methane! , but NOT CO2!

BTW the Earth, the mantle/ core itself is heating up !

Ice in Greenland and Antarctica is melting from BELOW.

Don't believe me --- look it up yourself Greenland ice melting from below.

No matter what the Truth is, the GOVT is lying!

>>8558635
Well, there's Egypt, but they're the least african of african states.

>>8558733
You're right; I also missed South Africa :/

>>8558729
Delusional nonsense.

>>8558876
good news for you:
paramount-to-release-a-sequel-to-al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth
global laughing 2.0

>>8555936
Large scale GeoEngineering.

As in to artificially cool the planet itself in order to stabilize and reverse the Anthropocentric Climate Distruption caused by large scale capitalism.

The problem is the cost and technology of achieving said task.

>>8555936
icecubes

>>8557457
you have to be a special kind of retard to defend china environmentally.

>>8555936
Switch to 100% thorium power and electric cars. Then use some of that power to run massive CO2 scrubbers.

Geo engineering and mov8ng population into space

>>8559711
We can outsource everything to China, including the 'CO2 problem'.
China is now building a global electrical grid! It will be powered primarily by windmills and solar panels. Your bill will be printed in Engrish.

>>8555936
Genetically engineer superior photosynthetic organisms.

>>8557457
good post anon

people need to be honest about china

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT4133vfTmk

We kill all the polar bears

File: Min.png (450KB, 1556x1024px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1556x1024px

>>8557177
>Eurasia first, then North America.

File: Feulner_fig3.png (42KB, 1000x425px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1000x425px

>>8555936

File: TBL01_0T2.jpg (104KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 800x600px

>man carbon
>having any true influence

File: p2a.gif (35KB, 400x277px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x277px

Here are the real climate changers

>>8555936
By ignoring everyone whining about it.

An Inconvenient Truth inconveniently (for Al Gore and all the greenies) predicted a bunch of shit that never came true, just like every other """documentary""" or study on global cooling/global warming/climate change ever. The system is too complex for us to model.

https://youtu.be/-W6Lftgq8mg

>>8560348
No it isn't.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf

And I don't give a shit what predictions Al Gore made, he is not a scientist. Predictions actual scientists made are coming true right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1hJYLw7OlM

>>8560345
Really gets the gears grinding.

>>8560354
If you throw 1000 darts at a dartboard...the real value of the meme is the fear mongering not 1 correct weather prediction.

>>8560350
Start at 12:00

>>8560354
Then why is it I'm constantly hearing about how they've gone back and totally redone the models because they forgot to take into account volcanic eruptions or how something was more/less effective than previously thought?

Have there been any models that have accurately predicted the current climate without the model being fucked with after the face to just spit out the current conditions? If not, you'll have to excuse me when I don't believe people saying "In 50 years X will happen to the climate."

The way climate change is treated almost as a type of religion by so many people, and that green energy subsidies have turned out to be the epitome of pork barrel spending and crony capitalism only makes me more suspicious.

>>8560359
You don't believe asteroidal impacts have and will again change climate dramatically? The last ice ace was ended by an asteroid impact. Smacked right into the North American ice sheets. We never would have warmed at all if not for that.

The earth leans cold, the my point for dropping in.

>>8556334
>Everyone would want a male kid though, this is a horrible decision.

maybe current year minus 50, but not in current year, dont you dare think this

>>8560364
>Why are scientists constantly changing the model because of new data and better theories?
>What the fuck, I hate science now!

You are a moronic living meme.

>>8560380
Sorry, but if you can only tell me the score after the game is over, I have no reason to trust your predictions on the next game.

>>8555936
block out the sun

Like a large parasol for the Earth.

>>8560382
Temperature projections have been accurate for several decades though. Of course you will ignore any evidence that disagrees with your denier religion, so all this is pointless.

https://skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#bib_1

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1788.html

>>8560399
I never said temperatures weren't changing. It's the reasons for the change I'm skeptical of, and whether stealing money from people at gunpoint (aka taxation) to pay for so called "green" tech that causes a whole bunch of other problems is worth it or is just a scam by crony capitalists to make themselves rich.

>Of course you will ignore any evidence that disagrees with your denier religion, so all this is pointless.

Congrats, you're being the exact type of cunt that makes me care less and less about this every time I look into it.

>>8560410
>I never said temperatures weren't changing.
I never said you never said this. I said that the claim that climatologists aren't "predicting" accurately is false. I also explained that complaining about climatologists making changing their model is idiotic, as the scientific method demands it.

>It's the reasons for the change I'm skeptical of
If you were actually skeptical, you would look at the evidence and either accept it or explain how the evidence is faulty. You have done neither, nor could you as the greenhouse effect and its related feedbacks are the strongest part of climate science and are based on fundamental physics and chemistry. You are simply espousing a claim convenient to your political ideology. This is the opposite of skepticism.

The fact that you completely ignored the arguments I presented and started politicizing the issue is proof that you aren't a skeptic.

>>8560410
>Congrats, you're being the exact type of cunt that makes me care less and less about this every time I look into it.
Which is hilarious, since you just wrote this:

>The way climate change is treated almost as a type of religion by so many people

>>8560420
And you're proving it.

>>8560422
Massive hypocrite. I presented evidence, you ignored it. You're the religious one.

Not directly related to climate change, but I have a question about the impacts of large scale desalination. If a large enough number of desalination plants was built to overcome the drought, and assuming the resulting salt isn't just dumped in the ocean, would it negatively impact the ocean? Like would it negatively impact the water cycle of the ocean and over time reduce the salt level in the ocean to a dangerous level?

>>8560455
>resulting salt isn't just dumped in the ocean
Why not? Does pissing in the ocean raise the sea level?
Regarding drought see >>8556268

>>8558539
>le overpopulation meme
Africans produce a miniscule amount of carbon emissions and pollutants. Getting rid of them wouldn't solve anything. Also, because of the climate there solar energy is looking very likely

>>8560359
>not 1 correct weather prediction
Okey dokey artichokey

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110121/full/news.2011.33.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140725-climate-change-tropical-fish-animals-ocean-science/
https://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/fact_sheets/pdfs/Climate_Change_and_Wildlife_Health.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/understanding-link-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather
http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

You ask, I deliver. This is called the preponderance of evidence of climate change. Predictions by scientists decades ago are happening NOW

>>8557457
I'm glad they did all that, but they're still pretty far away from limiting their environmental impact, considering they still dump their garbage in the rural areas and pump out 1/3 of the world's human made carbon emissions. That's not even considering what they do with human waste in their countryside. They're still a cancer that the 1st world cannot compete with in terms of staving off carbon emissions. By the time all is said and done, even with China making huge strides, we're pretty fucked because of them.

It's pretty simple

Remove humans

>>8560469
>Getting rid of them wouldn't solve anything

Yes it will

Having a lot of people still causes lots of environmental degredation. Not only that, but when they eventually improve economically emissions will skyrocket.

>>8556299
edgy

>>8560533
>(You) go first

Also, removing the only species actually capable of conscious geoengineering in order to prevent massive climate changes seems a bit retarded, lad

>>8560556
>wow look at me I'm holding a match over a gas line
>I'm such a nerd xd lmao b00bz

>>8556334
>Everyone would want a male kid though, this is a horrible decision.
No, not when you aren't allowed to slap 'em up a bit.
Males are fuckin' retarded.

The flower grows naturally to its greatest state.
The iron needs constant beating and fire to be anything more than a mess of crap.
The problem is, that the iron is shaped by the iron that came before. If you let the iron weaken and become soft, it can only create soft iron.
A flower can't shape the iron, it would be shredded and destroyed.
It needs hard iron and fire, to become what it is meant to be.
Hard iron has come into short supply, and the fire is all but died out.
Iron shaped by soft iron and flowers is soft, weak, and brittle. It also smells of flowers. It breaks at the slightest provocation, since it was not forged in the fire.
It was simply stacked six feet high and told to figure it out.

>>8560556
>Something is causing warming periods after ice ages and without man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

>Earth may be warming because there was an ice age only 20K years ago? The claim science can pinpoint mans impact on climate through CO2 emissions, can model that accurately and that it is a serious problem and mans emissions need sequestering or restriction right away in order to save earth from runaway global warming is just bullshit. What you cited is meaningless conjecture in this regard.
The links were posted as proof of successful predictions from climatology. You didn't even look at them did you?

>You cannot prove AGW because the "science" relies completely upon highly questionable computer models put together by "scientists" with very questionable motives
No, AGW relies on basic physics and chemistry along with direct measurement of radiative spectra.

So let's see, your only arguments so far are to ignore and misrepresent evidence presented to you and to posit a conspiracy with no evidence. The great part about these arguments is that you can apply them to any facts: evolution, vaccines, round earth, etc. It's an incredibly versatile method, if you're delusional enough to think your feelings trump science.

>>8560466
It would raise the salt levels in that immediate area, killing the ocean life and probably ruining any nearby beaches.

>>8560556
>98% of climate scientists are lying and have been lying for decades to get a fat paycheck from the flush green industry industry rather than lying and getting a paycheck from the flat broke fossil fuel industry
I think you should know that you're retarded. It's rather important.

We need to grow a whole bunch of plants and bury them deep underground. Stick CO2 back in the Earth at a faster rate than we're extracting it with coal and oil.

>>8555936

why would we want to? it will affect shitty third world countries many times more than us, improving our power. why stop it?

>>8560533
>Le remove humans meme
You faggots are the worst. What's the point of a life sustaining planet if it doesn't brew constructive life.

Oh wait. You'll just tell me nothing has any meaning.

>>8560600
>basic physics
>direct measurement
>delusional
>misrepresent
The planet is not a controlled lab, there is nothing basic about modeling the earths climate with all variables accounted for and any claims saying 'they' can is horse shit. They don't even include margins of error because they are so enormous as to render these models useless. They serve one purpose and obviously biased, to make people afraid of CO2 molecules, make them out to be an enemy of mankind when in fact they are critical to life on this planet. There is no arguing with the AGW cult because it is now interpreted like religious dogma and there seems to be a heavy sunk cost bias, too much time pouring over all those graphs and charts or something? The very premise is unsound, to call it a science an insult to real science which may be the idea?

>>8560613
>98% of climate scientists
Geologists, petroleum engineers and the assorted fields of science that come together to make up the evil fossil fuel industry provide a tangible product that you use every single day in many ways including - indirectly - shit posting on this board.

Climate scientists do not belong in such an industry because creating ridiculous computer models of this planets climate on a garbage in garbage out principle is unproductive and benefits no one.

We should no doubt be looking for good alternative sources of energy though, perhaps hiring more environmental scientists and chemists, not running a crusade against fossil fuel and an inquisition of the CO2 molecule. Attach a huge bureaucratic governmental parasite to that process and it will not be efficient, accomplish nothing of value and may make it worse. The real problem is fossil fuel depletion, not the emission of that spent product. If you are looking for a pop religion there are probably better choices out there, than the damaging, prophetic AGW religion.

>>8560593

Not that anon but cut the metaphor bullshit. It's bad to select male children not because of the effort in raising them but because the imbalance would favor and give more power to females even more than they have now due to scarcity.

The thing I find hilarious about these threads are all the bleeding heart greenies that think humans impact on the planet is the worst thing to happen to the planet. So much to the point that they think "remove humans" sounds like a phresh idea.

99% of life on this planet has gone extinct before humans. This planet is merciless despot being a goldilocks planet.

we don't

but we should go full nuclear energy regardless

File: Seasalt.jpg (89KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1200x900px

>>8560602
Free your mind from the doom porn trap - discover the business opportunity.
I always thought Americans were born entrepreneurs.. What went wrong?
www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/other/health-benefits-of-sea-salt.html

>>8560702
Cold fusion?

File: image.jpg (195KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1280x720px

>>8557177

>>8557177
Whether or not anthropogenic climate change leaves us with more arable land, the transition is already displacing millions of farmers and the communities they feed.

The economic implications aren't limited to the developing world either.

>>8560715
why did they do to Uruguay?

>>8560718
heh idk
I hadn't noticed that.

File: Miami_high_tide.jpg (386KB, 720x578px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 720x578px

>>8560696

>Geologists, petroleum engineers and the assorted fields of science that come together to make up the evil fossil fuel industry provide a tangible product that you use every single day in many ways including - indirectly - shit posting on this board.

Floods and droughts are also tangible products.

>>8560728
And yet the water always manages to receed.

>>8560590
Are u gay?

>>8560717
Has it to do with the land & water grab and the corruption enforced by the TNCs? Has it to do with the globalisation of war?

File: English cow.jpg (51KB, 500x371px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x371px

>>8560728
People have been living in floodplains since the agricultural revolution, every natural flood and drought is now just fodder for the AGW meme machine.

>>8560824
Modern farming has probably reached or passed peak efficiency. We basically eat oil. We put about 10 calories of energy in and harvest about 1 calorie of food out. Getting more inefficient every day as all the best arable land has been farmed for a century or more and growing that by chopping down rain forest to plant crops or seed for grazing is a huge error in planning as that soil is not good, most of the nutrients were in the vegetation. Mass famine is inevitable at this juncture and it has not much to do with changing climate, more human population overshoot and everything being done to extend that well over the cliff. Same error ruling modern economic theory, perpetual growth in a finite world.

>>8560696
>science isn't valid because fossil fuels are useful
You are literally retarded. Fire is also useful but that doesn't mean we never should have made flame retardants, ya fucking retardant.

>>8560731
>>8560856

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article115688508.html

>>8560696
>The planet is not a controlled lab, there is nothing basic about modeling the earths climate with all variables accounted for and any claims saying 'they' can is horse shit.
Exactly. the earth is not a controlled lab, there is nothing basic about modeling the history of all living things. You can't know how every single organism lived and died. Were you there? Evolution is a lie propagated by "scientitsts" who will say anything to get their paycheck. They serve one purpose and that is to make everyone think there is no need for G-d to create everything so they should worship the government instead! There is no arguing with the evolution cult because it is now interpreted like religious dogma and there seems to be a heavy sunk cost bias, too much time pouring over all those fossils and charts or something? The very premise is unsound, to call it science an insult to real science which may be the idea? ARGLEBARGLEABLOOBLOOBLOO

>>8560696
And yet again you fail to respond to the evidence. Thanks for admitting you have no argument and that AGW is real. You lose.

>>8561378
> And yet again you fail to respond to the evidence
A collection of government shills screaming about how the world will end if people don't repent and pay their climate indulgences isn't evidence.

>>8561574
And yet again you fail to respond to the evidence. You lose. Again.

>>8561577
What evidence? You people never present any, just more dogma.

>>8561584
Stop admitting you lose, we get it.

>>8557457
China is doing all this because they've fucked their environment horribly, and everyone can see how awful pollution is just by driving to the nearest city and taking a deep breath. America hasn't been that bad for a long enough time that people are starting to forget what being afraid of the air they breathe and the food they eat is like. Also while I don't like the Chinese government, they are ruthless enough to solve problems even if a few eggs have to be broken.

>>8561574
>>8561584
>if I don't like the evidence then it isn't real
Full retard.

File: the_donald.jpg (4MB, 1900x1336px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1900x1336px

>>8561587
On the contrary. We won, you lost. AGW is dead and its purveyors are done. The climate change conmen will be driven out and real science will finally resume.

>>8561653
No you lost. That's what happens when you don't respond to the argument.

>>8555936
Cutting co2 was never going to be enough.
Practical ecoengineering is the only way. But that's going to take lots and lots of energy so we need an energy source that won't make the problem worse but will also generate enough energy to wrangle the climate.

>>8560533
The knife is in the kitchen. We'll be right behind you.

>>8561676
Argument's already done. It was November 8, and you lost.

>>8561733
>Still posting telling everyone you lost
Why?

>>8556233
>O3 +CO <=> CO2 +O2
CO2 is bad for da URRFF

>>8555936
Too late. We reached the tipping point weeks ago. No need to worry about it now.

>>8556225
The Chinese are already throwing a ton of sulfur into the air. Nothing like choking 5-10 years off the life expectancy of the urban Chinese, and the rain being made more acidic, and Japan and California having to deal with extra pollution.

>>8557457
They just got tired of breathing the smog.

>>8558569
>most of the population cooks on charcoal stoves
>wants to industrialize like the west
>population of 1.216 billion
>not relevant to emissions

>>8561782
>they want to industrialize
>but they'll keep their deathtrap coal stoves
Fucking retards in this thread arguing with science and common sense. God fucking damn.

File: haiti-dominican-republic-border.jpg (162KB, 1024x926px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1024x926px

>>8561809
Charcoal stoves. They cut down the trees, cut them up, and burn/cook them into charcoal.

In the west, Haiti has also done this. They share the island with the Dominican Republic, and yet, their border is visible from space due to the deforestation. They have the same resources, and yet use them poorly.

>>8561816
Haiti is a 3rd world shithole, not industrialized, fuckwit.

>>8556227
>You can lower the average temperature
L0L fgt pls

>>8556344
>>sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid,
>>hydrogen sulfide, or sulfur dioxide
>all of which are toxic
great idea, Anon

>>8556628
>And what could possibly be worse than that?
And what is cardiac failure and cancer?

>>8556233
>C02 also reflects incoming sunlight
Lrn2atmospheric-optics fgt pls

>>8556225
>throw a ton of sulfur into the air
sulphur is toxic fgt pls

>>8561809
>Fucking retards in this thread
↑ for example

File: CFCs.png (52KB, 495x392px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 495x392px

In search of the 4%..

By getting rid of the water cycle since water vapor makes up 95% of the earths insulation.

can we please separate environmentalism from climate change? using more resource-intensive technology to cut c02 emissions is not environmentally sound

>>8562432

I dont think anyone can disagree with keeping the air clean for themselves and their kids. It is only possible, when your life depends on trying to kill the environment for them $ like the inefficient coal industry that is being propped up in the U.S.

but the idea that industries should be made more inefficient to control for things which have a neglible impact on the global temps is stupid. Natural gas pipelines release tons of methane that is vented into the atmosphere because of inefficient standardized seals on pipe connectors. Or is simply burned because the energy market isn't ready to buy it because its stuck on fucking coal.

>>8556333
Fucking christ, even just limiting any couple to two children would make a vast improvement.

But NOOO, people still believe that it's humanity's sole purpose to spread and multiply despite not even considering the end goal, just like how people still believe in the fucking "healing" properties of crystals. YOU CAN'T LIMIT MUH CHILDREN FAMILY IS PRECIOUS AND HAVING A BIG FAMILY IS PART OF MUH CULTURAL TRADITION etc. etc. Ever stop and fucking consider the fact that the ancient people who popularized those traditions didn't even fucking know that other humans lived on nearby continents? Or that there were other continents? Or that humans would spread across every inch of all these continents until we can't produce enough animals and plants to feed them all? Or that the world, and all humanity, could get crushed under its own weight, ending the world before some malevolent god even has the chance?

But no, gotta have like six fucking kids that you can barely afford to feed and educate. Who cares if those kids even have a world left to live in after you're gone? Gotta have a big family and fulfill that sentimental part of your child-like brain so that you feel happy and are content, regardless of who else has to suffer for it.

Doesn't help that most first-world welfare systems reward bigger families with greater payouts, encouraging the recipients to pump out a fuckload of kids, live off the handouts, and just get the older kids to raise the younger ones.

>>8562447
Even in developing countries the birthrate is almost down to 2. something.

>>8562447
>Fucking christ, even just limiting any couple to two children would make a vast improvement.
Yeah you say that like just passing a law would stop people from being able to have kids without some horrifically oppressive totalitarian level enforcement either castrating or forcibly sterilizing people or ripping children away from their families because the state deems them not worthy to raise them.

Like you talk about the happiness of people raising children like it's some worthless sentimental crap...but then your only argument against it is that it infringes on your own happiness...or not even your own happiness the happiness of some hypothetical future generation that might not even be born.


Like I'm sorry you're too mentally ill to live a fulfilling life like a healthy fully functioning person but you don't get to institute a police state just to take your bitterness out on others.

>>8562447
>Doesn't help that most first-world welfare systems reward bigger families with greater payouts, encouraging the recipients to pump out a fuckload of kids, live off the handouts, and just get the older kids to raise the younger ones.
Yeah, those Niggers.
And your president.

>>8562447
In many parts of the world, their children are their only retirement option. They grow old, the live with their children. If they live in a part of the world where 4 out of 5 do not live to adulthood, then they will have 5 or more children.

File: deniers.jpg (13KB, 450x250px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 450x250px

>>8562432
You can act to mitigate environmental destruction and above all, progressive toxification. You cannot regulate climate. Confounding these issues is a tried and tested tool of deception. Pic: The climate changers even invented new weaponised expressions to hide the obvious.

Off the Charts: The thousands of U.S. locales where lead poisoning is worse than in Flint
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-testing/

>>8562480

Making sure every country in the world has undergone at least industrialization stage 3 would be an improvement, The impoverished countries of the world are currently in stage 2, where modern medicine and agricultural innovation has allowed populations to boom, but there has not been social forces to drag down the birth rate to a replacement rate.

Not to sound /pol/, but these people of the world are then imported to stage four countries, to then keep those countries wages stagnant and create a serf class of voters loyal to the government that sends out the welfare checks that allow them to wield undue power to enrich themselves.

>>8562469
Niggers?
It's happening up here in Canada with our gimmedat aboriginals too. Oh, what's that? It turns out the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars in reparations that the government has paid your people (money that the corrupt chiefs pocket instead of distributing into their own reserves) is not enough again? Big fucking surprise. It always never seems to be enough, yet they always insist on taking the money anyways. Maybe we have to admit that money won't fix the issue and stop dumping it on them wholesale?

>>8562468
>like just passing a law would stop people from being able to have kids without some horrifically oppressive totalitarian level enforcement either castrating or forcibly sterilizing people or ripping children away from their families because the state deems them not worthy to raise them
Holy slippery slope Batman! Why didn't you just go all the way and say that doing this would bring the Nazi regime back into full swing and plunge the world into darkness? There are pragmatic and even-handed ways to enforce these kinds of regulations. Would some people end up having extra kids illegally and end up getting them confiscated? Yes. They knew the risks, they knew the laws, and they chose to break them. The same way that murdering someone ends up taking several years of your life while you sit in prison. Crimes are met with punishments, and appropriate punishments for the crimes. It's not like I'm saying "NO MORE KIDS!", I'm just saying that we shouldn't be living beyond our means.

(1/3)

>>8562514
>you talk about the happiness of people raising children like it's some worthless sentimental crap...but then your only argument against it is that it infringes on your own happiness...or not even your own happiness the happiness of some hypothetical future generation that might not even be born
That might not even be born? You yourself are advocating for no restrictions or regulations on childbirth. You think that the future population ISN'T going to skyrocket the way it already has been? The only way there may not be future generations who have to live with the consequences of our hedonism is if we end up killing off all humans before the new generations have a chance to deal with our runoff. It's not about my happiness, the results of chilbirth regulations wouldn't even be seen in my lifetime. It's about the fucking long-term prosperity of the future of humanity as a whole. It's about being part of the generation who staved off the end of the world instead of being part of the generation who hastened its onset by contributing to overpopulation.

>I'm sorry you're too mentally ill to live a fulfilling life like a healthy fully functioning person
And that's what I'm talking about. You're the problem. You're the kind of person who doesn't think beyond themselves, the person who thinks that the only way to be "healthy" and "fully-functioning" is to have as many kids as you can make. And as for your "police state", you do realize that most fascist regimes promoted plentiful childbirth to spread their influence and build their armies? Curbing population expansion isn't a personal agenda, it's a fucking global agenda. World governments are already trying to find ways to get people to have less kids in places where they're expanding too fast.

(2/3)

>>8562517
>>8562480
>If they live in a part of the world where 4 out of 5 do not live to adulthood, then they will have 5 or more children.
I'm not talking about those populations, those are the ones where the extra childbirths are negated by early deaths. In those cases, rampant birthrates are required for a stable population, for pure survival. In North America, it's a newspaper-headline-making rarity for a child to die before adolescence, so there's no excuse for more than two kids aside from pure sentimentality. It serves no purpose other than to make the parents happy, to "spread and conquer" under their family name, or to make a bigger welfare check.

(3/3)

>>8555936
Carbon sequestration.
It's not that fucking complicated.

>>8562514
>Maybe we have to admit that money won't fix the issue and stop dumping it on them wholesale?
Well no, you just have to understand at the end of the day the point of it is harming whites, not benefiting shitskins or righting wrongs

>>8557457
>blah blah blah
they're breathing soot

File: 1482544850824.jpg (10KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 256x256px

>>8556409

Who knows but i think it looks like bowling balls being carried around in wine glasses?

>>8556312
whoa so global temperatures have never been as high as they are now!

>i think
>most
very scientific, faggot

Dumbass oil shills are gonna regret being such faggots

>>8562554
>Science is regurgitating facts you learned from Google Scholar

Welcome to /sci/!

File: CMIP5-INM-CM4.jpg (41KB, 446x545px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 446x545px

>>8555936
>reverse the effects of global warming?
Let the Russians do the models. They have a built-in cold bias.

>>8557586
educate yourself

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es071763q

>>8563100
They're rich as fuck, their future is secured. They don't feel shit about raping the nature

You know the water doesn't actually go anywhere right? It's still on earth.

Without proving a purpose for humanity you can't objectively say whether global warming is bad or not. Hell, you can't even prove if it's going to significantly alter anything, let alone if it's existentially wrong.

Such a stupid fucking waste of time arguing about this garbage. Oil isn't going anywhere.
It will naturally phase out in time when renewable energy becomes cheaper and viable for industry.
Not if, but when.

>>8556334
>plant trees in abandoned land
See, this is why everyone fucking hates agw fanatics. As soon as the land is abandoned shit starts growing there right away anyway. You don't need to go plant trees, they that themselves.

>>8556180
remove usa
it's the only way

>>8557457
>banned the construction of new coal mines
Bullshit

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/energy-environment/china-coal-climate-change.html

>>8555936
Why don't we just let it keep going?
What's the worst case scenario with climate change?
> global temperatures rise 10 degrees Celsius in 100 years
> sea level rises 1 meter

The Southern Hemisphere is fucked, but who cares? They've always been.

Warmer temperatures and higher carbon concentrations would increase crop yields across North America, Europe, and northern Asia.

Higher temperatures would also open up huge amounts of land in Canada and Siberia. People are migratory and we could move displaced populations over there.

In the grand scale of things, if climate change got really bad it would give humanity an huge incentive boost to colonize other planets. Humanitie's survivability is greatly increased when present on multiple planets.

Sure people will suffer, but not everyone. This isn't apocalyptic, it's just change.

>>8563963
>Oil isn't going anywhere.
>It will naturally phase out in time when renewable energy becomes cheaper and viable for industry.
>Not if, but when.

The Koch will make sure that Oil will forever be the energy source of all things. They have their representatives to achieve their goals.

>>8564336
>Why don't we just let it keep going?
>What's the worst case scenario with climate change?

Acidification of Oceans.
Depletion of Oxygen.
Increase of Disastrous Storms.
Increase of Floods
Increase of Droughts.

etc.

File: exxon-mobil-logo.jpg (5KB, 500x300px)

5KB, 500x300px

>>8563836
-and a vested interest in drilling newly-uncovered portions of the Arctic Ocean.

>>8557457
>implying they aren't dumping pollutants into natural bodies of water, causing die offs, and burning their waste / using fucked up industrial processes that will further pollute the air.

I bet you'd eat chinese export rice too huh?

>>8557414
sheeeeeiiiiiit

>>8564364
Before any of those, massive losses in food production. Loss of food security leads to wars, terrorism, failed states, refugee crisis.

Syria, syrias everywhere.

...you know that plants breathe CO2, right?

File: heat-wave-map.gif (22KB, 322x327px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 322x327px

>>8564336
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

>In France, 14,802 heat-related deaths (mostly among the elderly) occurred during the heat wave, according to the French National Institute of Health.

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
>Summer temperatures are projected to continue rising, and a reduction of soil moisture, which exacerbates heat waves, is projected for much of the western and central U.S. in summer. By the end of this century, what have been once-in-20-year extreme heat days (one-day events) are projected to occur every two or three years over most of the nation.

Space mirrors on space unbrellas ive the sun a taste of its own medecine

>>8555936

Restructure carbon taxes/crap so that it isn't a pork barrel mess. Make it an Alaska system with oil royalties by taxing carbon energy and giving everyone a check to those who pay taxes. People will naturally buy cheaper carbon free stuff and those who don't get punished for it. Politicians can't touch the money so no corruption.

Second thing is iron seeding the oceans. From the small scale test, you could sequester 10% of current carbon emissions. It's not much but it is a fairly feasible idea that is fairly cheap and cost effective.

>>8562360
Interesting, but ultimately stupid and wrong.

>What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

Pure bullshit. I don't know who this guy is but he's wrong. There has been no pause in global warming and there certainly as hell hasn't been any cooling. This was published in a journal of physics and not climate or earth science. I suspect the author was a physicist only marginally educated in climate science.

It's a somewhat interesting paper in the fact that we really don't know the role cosmic rays have on climate change and his conclusion requests further study in that direction, I readily admit that. We also don't really know the role of high altitude clouds on climate change but this is like saying 'we don't know the role of rain on a rocket's forward momentum through a rainstorm.' It's incredibly unlikely to change our understanding of climatology.

File: yields.png (106KB, 2008x1346px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 2008x1346px

>>8564364
>Ocean Acidification
So all the fish will die? Won't we already experience shortages due to over fishing? Maybe ocean acidification is a good thing.

>Depletion of Oxygen
I don't see the problem. No one has been claiming that humans are running out of air to breath. Wouldn't that just lower the chance of wildfires?

>Increase of storms, floods, and droughts
All over the world, or just in certain areas? If rising sea levels covers Florida in water, why should we care if it gets worse hurricanes?

You still have very vague impacts, which is why I find Climate Change people not compelling when it comes action. People can adapt to this.

>>8565220
Yeah, seasonal heatwaves would get worse, perfectly normal a in Africa and the Middle East today. France would become more of a Mediterranean climate, and we'd lose a couple thousand pensioners who don't do jack. Meanwhile, yields increase, which your study does not mention.

File: crop yield consensus.jpg (305KB, 946x1374px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 946x1374px

>>8565255
>Meanwhile, yields increase
They really don't.

>>8561760
What is le chatelier's principle

The reaction is stressed my dude

>>8564336
>>8565255
RCP scenarios 8.5 and 6 assume increased population growth, (which is not evident, and contradicted by consensus in which global growth rates will reduce from 1.3% to 0.5% by 2050).
Furthermore, less fossil fuel usage will reflect a future more oriented toward a global service economy and the expansion of nuclear energy.

This follows the storyline of the SRES B1 Emissions Scenario and the predicted outcome is 655 ppm by 2100, RCP4.5 is most likely.

Consequences of 2 - 2.5 Degrees of Warming
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_final.pdf

1. 15-30% decrease in annual rainfall for SW North America, Mediterranean Basin, South America and Sub-Saharan Africa extending dry seasons. Tropical freshwater sources are expected to decrease by 1/3. Massive desertification of the Sahel region will result in loss of habitability causing large-scale migration. 200% increase in wild-fire events in areas affected by decreased rainfall.

2. 15-30% increase in annual rainfall for High-Latitude regions extending wet seasons. High Latitude freshwater sources are expected to grow. Growing seasons and precipitation will increase for Britain, Scandinavia and Yukon

3. 15-30% decrease in stream flow for Mid to Low Latitude waterways. Amazon River Basin can expect 90% loss of its far Western aquatic systems, opening land to agricultural development.

4. 45% reduction in Arctic Sea Ice. Freshwater runoff from melting ice caps will raise ocean levels by 1/2 a meter (1.6 ft), resulting in major flooding in low-lying atolls. Ocean altering pH and possibly effecting marine populations. The northern polar ice will erode significantly opening up the Northwest passage for shipping traffic.

5. 90% of summer seasons expected to be hotter than 95% of all summer seasons during the 20th century. Winters at arctic and temperate latitudes will experience a 3 degree increase in average annual temperature by 2100.

>>8565300
6. Permafrost liquefaction will cause increase mudslide activity in artic regions, positive feedback effect will allow for increased vegetation and yields at high latitudes and till from glacier wash will increase soil arability. Species from lower latitudes will intrude into higher ones.

7. Liquefaction from mountain glacier ice will increase mud and rockslides events, particularly in the Alps and Himalayas. Runoff from increased glacier melting will mitigate evaporation of water tables in Southern Europe and the Indian Subcontinent.

8. Coastal areas will face an increase hurricane presence and areas along the Eastern US, Caribbean, East and South Asia and the Bay of Bengal. These areas will experience faster coastline erosion and increased flood events.

9. Warmer ocean temperatures will cause irreversible loss of coral reef ecosystems disrupting several marine food chains. The ENSO cycle will occur more frequently.

These events can be mitigated through technological innovation in agricultural and potable water production, migration and land-use modifications prior to 2100.

>>8565300
>>8565301

Impacts (2,3,4,7) are positive in my mind, and most of the harms are concentrated in Equatorial areas. People can move. It's not wise to tank your economy because you'll get some refugees. India, Middle East and the Sahel will be uninhabitable regardless of climate change. Time for people to adapt.

>>8557405
Creating more CO2 in the process.

File: solar-clouds-climate.jpg (50KB, 851x393px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 851x393px

>>8565246
>stupid and wrong-Pure bullshit-he's wrong-marginally educated in climate science
standard diatribe
>we really don't know the role cosmic rays have
remember the CERN CLOUD affair? remember why Phil Jones said that "all models are wrong"? who is this 'we' you speak for?
>It's incredibly unlikely to change our understanding of climatology.
that's an interesting statement.
oh, and welcome back.

>>8565384
I can win the argument in 5 words

>The climate is not cooling

His entire argument is flawed. As for cosmic rays please do show the connection between cosmic rays and climate.

https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

>>8565312
Do you understand how difficult it is for people to just "move"? You're oversimplifying the literally billions of people that will be displaced. It's incredibly naïve to think that it'll all just be OK.

>>8565439
Humans have only been migrating since the beginning of their existence without plains, trains, or automobiles.

>>8563836
The rare model that came close to observations was from the Institute of Numerical Mathematics (www.inm.ras.ru). Maybe it wasn't so much natural Russian cold bias as professional integrity? They got it right after all while all others danced to their master's tune..

>>8565949
Not billions of them, all at once, to countries that probably don't want them.

>>8565312
>>8565439
they are moving to places with less space tho, hows that gonna work?

>>8565255
>>8565312
Now you're just making excuses.

The point is, if you include the feedback loop (forest fires, methane gases, and rotting corpses) you'll turn planet earth into fucking Venus.

You just don't want to regulate any one of the ruling class for the benefit of everyone else. You don't want to lift a god damn finger and continue to do the easiest route of self delusional in order to die the most comfortable death imaginable.

I wish poltards would fuck off.

>>8564023
go back to plebbit

>>8555936
California being in a drought isn't really a sign of global warming so much as California being really shitty at resourceconsumption and distribution.

>>8566228
>making excuses
The AGW meme is the greatest excuse yet invented to avoid all real root problems and focus on a non problem artifacts like some extra CO2 molecules.

>>8556180
No, you fuck! We need the Chinese to manufacture a giant air conditioner which will be powered by cuckoldry.

File: 1483023792340.jpg (123KB, 654x522px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 654x522px

Peak oil will kill you WAY sooner than global warming. Worry about that instead.

global warming isn't a real thing tbqh

earth goes through climate changes all the time

>>8555936
Why try? At this point I almost want it to happen, just to be able to say 'I told you so'.

All you stupid, scientifically illiterate denier fucks can burn with the rest of us, while your oil baron overlords laugh in their air-conditioned palaces.

File: 2000_years_of_climate_change.jpg (13KB, 420x257px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 420x257px

>>8570926
>overlords laugh

Of course they laugh. They know it's a hoax because they invented it themselves to deflect attention from the more important problem: toxic emissions, not CO2. They want you to feel guilty and hate yourself because you breathe!

Doesn't the decades long failure of CO2-based climate models demonstrate that CO2 is not an important factor? Where did the Vikings get all the CO2 from to melt the Greenland glaciers a thousand years ago? Climate always changes; has, does and will continue to do so - all on its own.

>>8571091
>Using temperature from one are to state that the global temperature is warmer than Today
Try again anon.

File: trend[1].png (6KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 640x480px

>>8565384
>since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere

File: 2002-2014.png (6KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 640x480px

>>8571128
Article was published in 2013
No one knows what's coming next

>>8561777

so we have to start breathing the smog before we do anything about it? What kind of silly moral value do you stand on faggot

>>8557457
>he believes chinese propaganda
lel

Just nuke a bunch of volcanoes give everyone particle respirators and rad pills

>>8560589
Geoengineering doesn't matter much if there aren't any humans to enjoy it. The earth itself won't give a shit, the biosphere will move on.

File: image.jpg (160KB, 792x653px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 792x653px

>>8570008

>>8555936
so you want a quicker appearance of the next ice age u r dumb

Ice ages (with semi-permimant continental glaciers) depend more on the procession of Earth's rotational axis and orbital excentricity than atmospheric composition alone.

>>8557529
kek

>>8556233
>reflects
Leave.

>>8560715
Why is there a taiga penis penetrating the Eastern United States?

>>8576206
Appalachian mountains