I was discussing global warming with a denier, at some point

>>8676849
Have you tried hand-waving? Always works for me.

Heat death is a long way away, retard.

>>8676849
Try covering your ears and yelling LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALA

>>8676849
Why not try stabbing yourself in the throat? Heat death of the universe means everything dies anyways right? What difference does it make if you died now or at the heat death of the universe?

>>8676869
that doesn't answer anything

It could only be used as an argument of "well if it's going to happen anyway, who cares" but that would assume people place no values in the sustainability of their descendants lives or their own living standards which is not true.

>>8676849
What does heat death have to do with global warming?

>>8677208
>>8677212
The universe is getting colder and colder and you're worried it's getting too warm here... If anything we need it to get much hotter and start storing heat for the long universal winter.
Our concern should not be global warming but universal freezing.

>>8677407
We're not worried about what temperature it is, we're worried about how fast the temperature is changing. We can always burn more CO2 when we need more heat, but we can't just sequester atmospheric CO2 as easily.

>>8677419
good thing plants like CO2

>>8677422
Good thing plants like drought.

>>8677419
>We can always burn more CO2
CO2 is the result of burning hydrocarbons (hydrogen with oxygen). CO2 doesn't burn.

>>8678073
I meant burning for more CO2, I admit the wording is ambiguous and I could have done better and been more specific if I cared enough.

>>8676849
big believer in catastrophic climate change and gotta admit, that's a pretty good argument. universal effects trump local effects

>>8679006
Their argument doesn't disprove global warming.

Unless they >>8676898 then their argument doesnt mean shit.

>>8679051
you're just missing the point

>>8676849
The argument is crap because:

1. Heat death is a result of the universe expanding so much that all energy gets spread so thin that eventually nothing has enough energy to move (movement = heat, something that is hot has a lot of energy in the form of moving atoms). Once everything stops moving, that's it, the universe freezes and it's all over. Trying to conserve heat on Earth literally doesn't matter, because you're not changing the total amount of heat present in the universe, and you're not doing anything to stop the universe from expanding, which is really what causes heat death. Making the Earth hotter does not do anything to stall the heat death of the universe.

2. Heat death won't happen for literally trillions of years. The sun will have gone out long before that becomes an issue. By then, humanity will have either advanced and changed so drastically that it no longer matters, or we will have died out.

In short, the two have nothing to do with one another, any more than you dieting has an effect on the lifespan of stars elsewhere in our galaxy. The argument isn't powerful at all, it's actually pure nonsense.

>>8679051
If I'm reading this right:
The argument isn't that everything dies anyway, it's that the universe is heating up and the planet is just heating up from contact with the universe. It's kind of stupid, but it's a decent counter on the surface.

>>8679097
Enlighten me please

>>8679097
What is the point?
How does increasing heat on earth stop the heat death of the entire universe? Any heat that is stored up on earth now will eventually dissipate within a few billion years, and heat death won't happen for many trillions of years. Doing stuff now has zero impact on the heat death of the universe.

>>8679110
Doesnt Heat death describe the exact opposite of what you said though? as most of the universe is very cold?

>>8679110
That's retarded. The universe isn't heating up. Our planet's surface is heating up because we're altering the composition of the atmosphere and thus trapping additional heat that we get from our sun.

Bringing up heat death isn't a counter to anything. Heat death will eventually happen, and what we do now will have zero impact on it because it will happen so far in the future that our entire solar system will be long gone by that point.

>>8679115
That's why it's a counter. Global warming is false because the universe isn't heating up at all, it's cooling down, and we should be trying to trap as much heat as possible so that we can survive longer.

>>8679119
If we are talking about using earth as a habitat for that long the most prevalent threat would be the Sun's death, not heat death.

>>8679116
> The universe isn't heating up. Our planet's surface is heating up
> implying the planet's surface isn't part of the universe
GTFO brainlet.

>>8679122
But heat death is a threat to the entire universe, so it should take priority.

>>8679127
The topic of the original discussion was global warming not universal cooling my dude

>>8679131
The topic was always about how global warming relates to heat death. See >>8676849
> this guy brought up the heat death of the universe and as a lifelong believer in catastrophic global warming I was stunned.
> How can you refute such a powerful argument?

>>8679127
it will also happen in 10000000000000 years so we can't care about it

>>8679135
Then why care about global warming? That's happening in the future too.

>>8679133
>How can you refute such a powerful argument?
You can refute it by saying that other things are bigger threats i.e. our sun blowing up

>>8679143
How is the sun blowing up a bigger threat than the entire universe freezing? See >>8679006
> universal effects trump local effects
Even other warmists can see it, why can't you?

>>8679176
I can see that the universe freezing is a bigger threat than the sun dying. I just dont think heat death is relevant in this context. As in, global warming (if it is gonna happen) will do catastrophic damage way much sooner than heat death will.

>>8679214
How is it not relevant? We're running out of heat, so we should be saving it up rather than trying to stop "global warming."

>>8679119
exactly

>>8679111
see >>8679119

>>8679217
think about what you are saying

>>8679227
You think about it. If the entire universe is cooling, shouldn't we be trying to trap as much heat as possible to survive the long winter?

>>8679006
Not if the local issue is going to kill us long before the universal one.
We should focus on the most pressing issue, the one closest to us.
We will have a long time to figure out the other stuff.

>>8679217

Do you realized that even if we survive Global Warming, the Earth will still be destroyed when the Sun blows up, way earlier that effects of heat death

So, 1- There's no logic in trying to save a planet from a threat billions of years in the future beacuse it will probably reamin no planet by then, and 2- If somehow Earth survives the sun englfing and then blowing up, the heat death will still be too large of a timelapse for us to do anything about it

>>8677193

Neither does the heat death of the universe.

>>8679261
the sun will not blow up, it's not massive enough for that, bainlet

>>8679303

I doubt that statement. Still, it's gonna engulf the Earth and there's nothing to do 'bout it

>>8679340
it might or might not. still by the time we will have figured out a way to move earth's orbit just enough not to get engulfed and to keep stocking up heat for the upcoming universal freeze

File: wintergoes_16_and_goes_13_comparison_from_the_same_day_Jan_15_2017.jpg (2MB, 4572x2252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4572x2252px

>>8676849

>>8676849
well he's right we better start stocking up heat for the long universal freeze ahead of us

>>8676849
>lifelong believer in catastrophic global warming

Anybody else spot a problem with that?

>>8677419
>but we can't just sequester atmospheric CO2 as easily.

We should maybe be trying harder -- but that does not achieve political ends dear to the hearts of those most concerned about warming as an issue. It might be time for such people to embrace some answers other than "kill the evil western male racist technocracy, live in trees and eat yurts" approach -- if they are really concerned about warming, and not about their own ideology.

>>8677457
Right, because droughts tend to happen in the summer, when it is hot, so we all know that warmer temps will mean more drought.

>>8678083
"Toss another log on the fire" seems a handy metaphor.

>>8679360
Can you post a bit about what that image is supposed to show, and what you think it means?

>>8680214
Don't encourage the schizoids.

>>8680199
what's the problem with that? what are you a skeptic?

>>8680205
okay the single constructive post in this thread

Are people here being serious or is it just one idiot responding to one troll about the fate of the universe in the context of the earth's cimate?

>>8676849
nice thread faggot

>>8676849
sage

>>8676898
Why not instead spend all your free time rubbing your hands together as quickly as you can? The heat death will arrive a little bit sooner this way, fucking up life for everyone else at the same time

>>8677407
Expending energy only accelerates heat death, anon.