Daily Climate Change Debate Thread

How serious is the problem and what steps should be taken about it?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
msc.fema.gov/portal
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>asking Putin's Puppets about climate change

by the way

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

The problem is not serious at all. In fact, there is no problem. If your time-lapse gif covered the last 20,000 years it would be much more entertaining.

If it did cover the last 20,000 years we could watch the glaciers retreat from as far south as Kentucky, watch the Bering Land Bridge disappear, see the British Isles for as the English Channel is created, and watch the gulf shoreline of Florida retreat 140 miles as global sea levels rise nearly 400 feet.

All that shit already happened, and no one caused it. Global temperatures have been constantly rising (except for a few pauses here and there) for the last 20,000 years. And they will eventually fall again.

Not a problem at all.

Round up all the owners and heads of the Fossil Fuel industry and nuke them. The bullshit anti-science denialist campaign would come to a sudden and glowing end and also the resulting nuclear winter should offset the temperature increase for a couple of decades.

Looks like its bad for brown people, so what's the problem? Oh browns aren't people.

post the map that shows crop yields without a beneficial carbon fertilisation process

Find another planet, we are going to be 9.6 billion people until 2050, almost 12 billion in 2100, if we don't leave until 2100, we are going to die here, alone, surrounded by blacks and chinks. So yea, better leave fast or we're fucked.

If they are so concerned why do they use icebreakes?

>not a problem
>not realizing that our cucked govt.s will take in all the "starving refugees from the third world"

no one in the world is disputing that glaciers/ice sheets have melted, that there have been warming and cooling trends and major changes in climate in the past, long before human beings existed.

But what argument are you trying to make in pointing this out? That humans can't be responsible for the current climate change?

I don understand why people always blow off any and all data contradictory to climate change as a product of "muh big oil and fossil fuels"
We need a Plague or major war to hit the third world FAST, or better yet, have the chinks go all in on colonizing Africa, take out the nogs

If its a problem, shut down coal plants and start nuclear.

If its a hoax, dont do what I just said.

Until the gov. takes real action I'll assume its bullshit

but you don't expect anyone to take a graph that doesn't even have a scaled y-axis seriously, do you?

Here is an ensemble of quantitative 2000 year reconstructions

>massive third world migration caused by whitey
>christians will uber cuck because poor children of gawd cant die of starvstion
>Definitely not a problem!

we are past the point of unavoidable annihilation

options now are:
-use only renewable energy which would cause global market crash and total destruction
-continue on, pretending things are okay, and hope we're wrong about the repercussions

no point in worrying about it anymore

Nignogs refusing to farm is caused by whitey. Got it.

Because that's literally what happened. Exxon was one of the first groups to start throwing serious fucking money at climate change research way back in the 1970s purely so they knew what the arguments were going to be and could come up with convincing lies against them. They admitted to doing this last year.

You know our (((govt.s))) will blame climate change and then blame "privileged whites" for said climate change

But that doesn't make EVERY claim that contradicts climate change false or in valid
This for example is dismissed entirely by someone saying "that was PROBABLY researched by big oil"
I'm not a flat out denier of climate change, however I would like to be ABLE to question it without being called a denier or fossil fuel shill

Tbh, I wish we'd all get into nuclear power, its relatively cleaner and more efficient

The steps should be to reveal to the public the multinational magnetosphere manipulation projects so that they understand what's going on.

And then also preemptively gas the lying kikes.

can you tell us an example of a claim that contradicts climate change that you feel is valid?

We're freaking out over accelerating the end of this process by a small amount. We should be putting out energy into finding ways to capitalize on the inevitable future instead of spending vast resources trying to fight a phenomenon we don't really understand.

Probably that humans aren't the sole contributor to the phenomenon and/or it would happen regardless of human presence.

Calling AGW "Climate Change" is disingenuous at the very best because all but the dimmest of light bulbs would agree that the climate of Earth is dynamic in nature. Of course it's changing, it's always changing.

>Collapsing foodchains, causing even more famines in shitskin countries, triggering hundreds of millions of niggers to flee to westerrn countries is not a problem.

Big poluting countries like China and some Arab countries need to be punished so hard that poluting becomes less profitable then not poluting

It doesnt help to keep pushing climate change policies because the west is not a polutor anymore

Basically, telling the US to be less poluting while not giving China or opec countries shit is like telling one kid not to pee in the pool while ignoring the 5 fully grown adults blasting diahrea in the poolwater

Most climate deniers these days actually just look at all the failed predictions of alarmists and dismiss it as a fever dream of some fuckin hippie communist. The truth is closer to that than big oil spinning lies. This isn't the 70's anymore.

It will benefit white people. Everyone else can get fucked.

The elite are deathly afraid that the antarctic perimeter of flat earth oceans will melt, thus revealing a passage through antarctica to other continents, thus smashing for the last time the ball model (if it's not destroyed enough already).

This is the only cause of the elite angst about so called "warming".

economics
1st world stop burning -> oil price drops -> 3rd world burns more or worse,
1st world buys oil from 3rd world instead of drilling -> 3rd world invests more in oil production

Well, I think one thing that's overlooked is the midevial warming period and the little ice age that soon followed. There's evidence from the 11th century I believe that grapes were grown in England, meaning that temperature at least as far north as England were temperate enough to grow grapes.
Then you factor in the little ice age which lasted between 1400s- late 1800s, whichepuld mean through out the 19-20th centuries the earth has been "warming up"

I guess my point is that I think the Earth's natural climate changes are ignored, I don't deny that humans have an impact on their environment, but I believe the Earth's natural climate changes are more significant

Drill baby drill

We've already passed every 'point of no return' atmospheric carbon concentration that's been jammed into the positive feedback loop models. If there is a positive feedback loop we're literally in a doomsday scenario and we should prepare for the end of the world. If that model is bullshit we should continue as normal.

How are climate scientists behaving?

just build a wall and turn sardinia into a prison island.

>humans aren't the sole contributor
but you don't have to go back 20,000 i n the past to demonstrate that. Climatologists have been saying this for many decades now

>it would happen regardless of human presence
there is nothing in that argument that would lead you to that conclusion. And that's also contradicted by the fact that there is currently no other forcing besides direct anthropogenic GHG emissions that could explain the rise in temperature

>Of course it's changing, it's always changing
Yes, everyone is already agreed to this, why do you keep pointing out things that aren't in dispute?

>Calling it "Climate Change" is disingenuous
Why is calling a change in climate "climate change" disingenuous? And please note that "global warming" and "climate change" are not interchangeable terms

What am I looking at here?

what are you talking about? the gif clearly shows it just grows back

This
I remember in first grade they told us Virginia Beach would be under water in a decade or so, now 15 years later, my uncle is still living a mile from the beach just as he was 15 years ago

trade routes when the northern icecap melts. It will also make it possible to unify america Russia and Europe.

why dont we just freeze some water?

That is fucking sick
If we can uncuck our govts. By that time, I'll be diamonds

>Why is calling a change in climate "climate change" disingenuous?
Stop playing stupid.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. No, some bullshit carbon taxes on the USA won't do jack shit.

In fact, I hope it keeps happening. The earth right now is actually much colder than it's traditionally been throughout the eons. For most of earth's history, there aren't even any ice caps at a poles, for example. We're in a "cold period" right now. I hope it keeps warming up, and then the white man can colonize siberia and antarctica

The modeling in my opinion as a professional scientist is absolute bullshit. However, there are some reasonable takeaways, like how we could potentially see unusually large sea level rises along the east coast given the stoppage of the gulf stream.

>no ice caps at poles for most of history
Can I have a source on that? I'm very intrigued

have you ever tried to figure out what climatologists say about the MWP and the little ice age?

Far from ignoring it, they have been studying this and publishing research for several decades now. The case is far from closed but that they have found is that these times are associated with high- and low-points in sulfur-rich explosive volcanic activity, and this explanation breaks down completely when you try to apply it to the current warming trends.

As for grapes in Northern England - sure parts of Northern Europe and Greenland were quite mild, but we both know that the world consists of more than those places. When paleoclimatologists looked at other geographic areas during this time, they found severe drought conditions (sometimes called a "mega-drought) in large parts of North America and East Asia.

He's got to justify slurping government grants to study ice cores even though 'the science is settled'. This whole thing is a racket that's only going to get more obvious as the decades go by.

So I don't see us going back in our demand for technology, and attempting to curb population for the end of less output of byproducts has left us open for replacement.

There's no stopping this.
Just prepare.

>If there is a positive feedback loop we're literally in a doomsday scenario
hate to break it to you, but positive feedbacks definitely exist and there are more than one (ice-albedo, ocean outgassing, pedogenic carbon release, talik formation, Anti-CLAW hypothesis,...)

But you still have to make the connection of how this dooms us all to total disaster

>climate is changing
>let's call it "climate change"

at what point does the stupidity come in?

Like this map shows humans has experinced climate change before. And yes of course it's serious. But the leeches only want to tax people more. They don't give a shit anyway whether it's real or fake. Also remember it Won't happen over night like the alarmist will tell you.

And what the fuck does precipitation in america and east Asia have to do with temperatures in England? If your point is that time period wasn't heaven on earth, then well done bud. But temperatures and precipitation aren't the same goddamn thing.

>muh ice is melting
>send money pls

1 degree over 2000 years

I don't have a source off the top of my head, but it's easy to find info on this. I know that dinosaurs used to live in lush temperate forests in antarctica, even though it was still in roughly the same position as today.

FEMA and the NFIP (National Flood insurance program) put out flood maps which show potential flood hazard areas, usually shown as 100 year (high risk) and 500 year (low risk) zones.
So basically, NFIP shows areas of expected flooding based on 100-500 year intervals.
I have always thought it funny that FEMA is basically saying "Expect massive flooding in these areas, in many cases a mile away from main waterway channels." and NASA has recently been saying "OMG look at this ice melting we are all gonna flood, this has never happened before!!"
So which federal agency should we defund? They obviously can't both be right.
msc.fema.gov/portal

If you think it's a good idea to catapult atmospheric chemistry and the planetary climate back by millions and millions of years, then you're going down a path of absolute folly.

There are examples in the geologic record of things of this magnitude and speed happening and the outcomes were not pretty.

You weren't alive when it was global cooling and we had to pump sulfur particles into the atmosphere RIGHT NOW or else we'd all die?

I'm aware the ice age was brought on by volcanic activity, but that being the case if we are now LEAVING this ice age we should be experiencing gradual warming in our temperatures
>pic
That's another problem I have with these scientists, their models. Just how accurate are these models? As I said earlier, they predicted VA beach would be under water according to their models, of course that never happened.
And I'm very skeptical of models they make that are supposed to portray the weather patterns from hundreds of years ago, especially in America where the data on weather has only been recorded for roughly 200 years

overbobulation is a mythz

The climate change denying countries will be brought to their knees.
Trump voters will stay poor and addicted to prescription meds.

The rise of the ecological Reich will be kinder to the loyal as world markets ensure the rise of renewable energy

Positive feedback loops are very rare in nature but you've invented a whole batch of them. Didn't know the cognitive dissonance had reached this level.

The climate changes every day, yesterday it was 66 degrees today it's 63 degrees, that is climate change

temperature and precipitation are parts of the climate, which is the subject under discussion. So after telling me why we can't describe a changing climate as "climate change", you can explain to me why major aspects of the climate shouldn't be part of a discussion about the climate.

how is this a response to what I said?

greenhouse gas mechanism is easy to understand. The greenhouse gas is like a ceiling that lets in sun and traps heat.

Why trust the government with ecology? Governments have messed up ecosystems and caused disasters plenty of times before.

Ehh Russian permafrost is melting, and its a pretty big issue thanks to all the methane it has trapped in it.
Also a whole bunch of old as fuck diseases thawing and starting to spread from the permafrost.

If a decent percentage of the permafrost melts, we are kinda super fucked.

>Of course it's changing, it's always changing.

That's not what climate change means.

Why aren't you concerned about any other greenhouse gas then?

Nope, that's weather.

Because you have to take a proper historical perspective in order to understand how the weather, changing as it might be, is being used as a front for a massive scam.

Check out the Club of Rome, and watch the funny documentary, "Smartest Guys in the Room" to understand the nature of the criminal mind and of financial derivatives that are behind the climate change hoax.

1) the current projection if we keep the status quo isn't pretty. I'd rather have a world catastrophe than let the white race die out and the world get taken over by shitskins
2) I don't believe there's anything we can do about global warming. Even if you do think mankind's industrialization is having a significant impact, none of the solutions are doing or would do jack fucking shit.

Overpopulation is a myth, but mis-allocating resources to non-essential things can make us unable to support increasingly large populations.

The world can handle more people, but our resources need to be used for that purpose

The idea is climate change causes famine or brings plagues and then they have to move around saying they're moving because they don't like getting bombed by super powers whilst local death cults cut their heads off.

People are concerned about other greenhouse gasses, its just that CO2 is by far the worst at the moment.
If anything other greenhouse gasses like methane are far worse than CO2 as instead of having a linear concentration-energy absorption it becomes more of a geometric one.

Add to that. If we really thought, say, carbon dioxide were the the biggest problem in the world, would we seek to profit off the control of energy, or would we seek to profit off the development of technologies to simply react it away?

>diseases thawing out
I have an Idea, why not ship a fuck ton of this permafrost over to Africa? Take a plane and drop it from the sky or something? I think I may have just solved over population...

but we know that the current rise in temperature has nothing to do with the little ice age ending because we can calculate radiative effects of both the natural and anthropogenic forcings and what impact they have on the Earth's energy budget - there just is no way around the fact that you can't explain modern temperature trends without taking direct anthropogenic GHG emissions into account

Humans don't cause it but they have accelerated it. This is only a problem if you are interested in long term social strategies. Warming trends are accelerated by greenhouse gasses but the numbers are so small as to seem significant to most people. A metaphor for it would be if a jets speed were increased by a minute amount thus creating the potential for collision with another jet. The human element introduces chaotic uncertainty into climate prediction models. This really only concerns the elite as it makes speculation a lot harder to do.

probably because criticizing methane is racis or whatever, I didn't make the choice

*seem insignificant

Who gives a fuck and nothing

>Africa
>-25%
>0 - 0*25% = 0
I don't see the problem

>makes speculation a lot harder to do.
OY VEY IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR PENSION WE NEED TO ASSUME A CONSTANT 7% GROWTH RATE

BUT ALSO BET ON VOLATILITY FUCKING GOYS ALWAYS MESSING THINGS UP

Funny because I've never seen anyone suggest trying to control water concentrations.

Because corporations don't give a flying fuck about anything other than the next quarter's results. Governments can (NB: can, not necessarily do) take longer-term views.

We're already killing tons of species as is. With more people on earth and higher standard of living it's only going to get worse.

I didn't invent those, if you would bother to take a look at the referee journal literature you would have come across all of those I mentioned. They've been known about for decades now and they're based on very simple physics.

If you think there are major scientific problems with them, feel free to point them out instead of trying to psychoanalyze me over the internet

>mis-allocating resources to non-essential things can make us unable to support increasingly large populations.

ie. live in mudhuts so more shitskins can feed on worms

Your post. Temperature changes induced by human industrial and agricultural activities is an extremely limited subset of temperature changes which itself is a very restricted subset of any climate change. Your pretending not to see this (calling the subset of a subset of a thing only by the name of the entire thing) being very odd is playing stupid, and expecting it to work in your favor is being as well.
The naming is imprecise, unpractical and politically motivated. It's as sensible as campaigning to refer to red delicious apples only as fruits. Complete nonsense.
They sure aren't dominant, or we'd have gone the way of Venus during the first of many warm periods in our planet's history.

Precisely they want to convince us that their map is in fact the territory. Sad

look up the definition of climate. Climate is usually defined as the 30-year mean of all meteorological phenomena.

So no, climate does not change everyday.

Not an argument.

Picking the worst examples of scare mongering as an 'argument' against climate change just makes everyone go 'WTF? I've never even heard of the people who said that.'

I agree with this. The world is too complex to model things like that. It's pretty cool they can at least predict the next 14 days with somewhat of an accuracy. There are too many variables for the world.

If we set off strategically placed nuclear explosions around the world it will push the warm molicules out into space and colder ones will replace the vacuum.

Sounds like a final solution to me

Will global warming make Russia great again?

We kind of need water to a much greater extent than co2 in the atmosphere.
And im pretty sure water (in the form of clouds) is beneficial as it's a white surface to reflect off, similar to how it is theorized that part of the reason ice ages last for so long is in part due to the ice reflecting a large portion of the solar energy that would otherwise be absorbed by the ground.

to put climate change into the context of the Club of Rome and all this paranoid garbage would simply be an error, since the science of it pre-dates all of that by a century. Or do you think John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and Guy Stewart Callendar were all retroactively payed by the Club of Rome?