Why do people still believe in this "white man made" climate change bullshit?
It's so obvious that that it is nothing more than another version of christian "original sin" and "white guilt". What kind of scientific truth is not allowed to be questioned? What kind of truth needs to be taught so dogmatically?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we are putting a lot of it in the atmosphere really fast. However for it to be catastrophic there needs to be powerful positive feedback which doesn't really make sense. A negative feedback seems more likely considering that extremely high CO2 levels in the past didn't make the earth uninhabitable.
CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and makes up only a very small percentage of the atmosphere. The human contributions among this small percentage are negligibly small.
...
>co2 is a very weak ghg
True enough
> makes up only a very small percentage of the atmosphere
Again, true enough
>The human contributions among this small percentage are negligibly small.
3 for 3 hanz. Not bad. But your second point,
>makes up only a very small percentage of the atmosphere
Is irrelevant. The majority of the gases in the atmosphere aren't ghg, so are irrelevant to global warming.
Our small contribution is adding up. This leads to rising temperatures. When the temp rises, so does the atmosphere's ability to retain water vapour, exacerbating the effect. This is why the focus is co2.
Water vapor also increases albedo which should moderate the warming.
>Strawman and use out of place comments from randoms to represent the entire scientific community
We're not always right but our data is trending towards our production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases correlating with the rise in global temperatures
>The majority of the gases in the atmosphere aren't ghg, so are irrelevant to global warming.
But look at the attached infographic above. Even among the greenhouse gases, CO2 is only a minor one. Water vapor is much stronger and makes up the vast majority of ghg.
The problem is that a little goes a long way. The greenhouse effect is cumulative. A small increase can cause a snowball effect.
Rise in temperature? Fall in termperature? I thought they changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change". Basically they're just saying climate is somehow gonna change. What a meaningless prediction. They should just admit that they don't know shit. Can't even predict the weather tomorrow.
Whats with all these cuckservative threads? Like you are glad for deforestation and you cant into basic science lmao nice concern troll well played.
>White man made
>The 1st contribution is made by the chinks
Whoever says it's just white is dumb as fuck. Liberal or not.
Can anyone link to a good introductory source refuting climate change? I'd like to evaluate the arguments against it, having heard more than a few people calling BS on 'climate science', however I'm unable to find a good starting point.
Clouds increase the albedo effect. Water vapour in the atmosphere takes two phases. Water vapour condenses to form cloud. An increased atmospheric temperature stops this condensation occurring, leaving more of the atmospheroc h2o as water vapour not condensed to cloud. ie. increases the greenhouse effect.
>It's so obvious that that it is nothing more than another version of christian "original sin" and "white guilt".
Fucking hell, never thought of it like that before. Good point.
I think nearly everyone can agree climate change exists; simple fact of the matter is that if you continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, something is bound to change eventually.
What hangs everyone up is the question of how fast is it happening?
If it is slow, does it even make sense to stop it, or should we just adapt to it? We'll run out of oil in a century or two anyways.
Global temperature is still increasing. I don't know what you're on about
98% of all GHG effect is from water vapor, and humans only produce 0.001% of it
also, all the IPCC prediction models were proved wrong by observation
and why don't you address OPs pic?
>species that live longer in warm climates is some how bad when it warms up
The greenhouse effect is very sensitive. Constant increases in CO2 causes more and more heat to remain in the atmosphere.
But only white men are being harassed with this shit. The chinks don't care. But here in the western world we are being bullied into buying "eco friendly" or "climate friendly" products from Mr Shekelberg for double the price of what they are actually worth. We are bullied into donating our hard-earned money for "environmental" projects with questionable strategies. We are being shamed and despised for "ruining" the climate. White middle class men suffer the most from this shit. We are the only victims of this pseudo-scientific propaganda.
I know Sup Forums is contrarian, but that doesn't mean it has to be retarded in the face of overwhelming evidence
right but water vapour largely self regulates. It is short lived. If there gets to be too much in the atmosphere, it condenses to cloud, cloud which acts as a negative feedback part of the system. Basically, human activity has minimal effect on the concentration of atmospheric h2o directly. It is pretty constant. But if the temperature increases in the whole system then more water vapour will persist in the atmosphere amplifying the warming effect.
The Chinese are actively working on producing alternative energy sources because they have firsthand seen the effects on their own country.
Climate has always been changing -- naturally. All the millions of years before humans evolved, there have been much larger changes in climate than we see today. Yet there is still enough life on the planet.
These two charts only go back to a century though.
Take a look at the last inter-glacial period; no humans were around. Temperatures and sea levels were higher than they are now.
The Great Reef has been around for 700,000 years and survived no less than 5 inter-glacial cycles.
Science never did anything for anybody
Cause OPs pic is full of shit. Cooling was never the consensus opinion.
As I said, water vapour is a function of temperature, which is in turn a function of co2. Water vapour will not increase in atmospheric concentration unless the temperature rises.
>white man made
China biggest contributor and everyone knows it
we impose sanctions on China and they say "but you got to produce all you wanted in your industrial era, you can't do bad shit, get on top, then tell us not to do the bad shit that put you ahead"
the argument AGAINST climate change is the argument FOR Chinese industry
Do you think smog, exhaust, pollution, carbon dioxide is not a problem? Go look at real photos of Beijing. I've been there, you can't see a hundred feet in front of you.
>hurr durr I'm redpilled cuz I watch industry sponsored fox news instead of industry sponsored CNN and dey tell me the oil companies dindu nuffin
next you'll tell me that mining towns are good ideas, and that they lose jobs because of da gubmint, not because mines go dry
If anyone is worried about permanently disfiguring the planet, that is not going to happen. The planet puts itself through worse climate changes and life still thrives.
Ecofriendly strategies are good if planned and made properly tho. Also, some renewable sources are good considering you can get your own energy.
Also, I'd harass the fuck outta the chinks not just for the shit they throw to the atmosphere.
Most of their energy is still carbon based. Even oil is better than carbon.
Is that chart supposed to show that the increase between 1998 and 2014 was slower than the average of the 20th century? Because then we have nothing to worry about. Then it's in fact another factual argument against the church of climate alarmism.
No one is arguing that temperatures weren't higher in the past before humanity. The issue is that the temperatures are changing rapidly and are projected to continue to change to the point that it will be a sizeable change in environmental conditions for many ecosystems.
China is working on producing alternative energy because of raising levels of Co2
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I said working on
Read up on it
The slowdown coincides where green initiates began to go into effect.
The main reason for alternative energy sources is not climate bullshit but the fact that fossile fuels are limited. We've reached peak oil, so of course China wants to ensure it has enough energy in the future.
>changing rapidly
That is true, but there is also a rapid temperature change between summer and winter. How do we know if the changes we see now are actual signals, or just noise
>projected to continue to change
I'm not a climatologist so I can't comprehend or comment on projection models.
They are just following the meme. Even if it is good it's just a meme at this point.
They don't really care or they would have started researching sooner.
So what? Earth has seen much warmer periods in its 3-4 billion years of existence. And everything went fine -- naturally.
why do we let germans post desu
Media and a fake consensus.
Sup Forums isn't an intellectual board.
Anyone with a high IQ like me can understand that the Keeling curve proves climate change is all us.
Smog and pollution are local problems and have nothing to do with the myth of "white man made" climate change. Got any more strawmen?
Human activity is actually a form of recycling. Carbon is the currency of all life on Earth. We are unlocking the carbon and releasing it into the world:
1. Prehistoric plants and animals die
2. Their bio-matter gets buried underground
3. It turns into bio-inaccessible coal and oil
4. Humans extract the coal and oil from underground
5. We burn it and release bio-available CO2 and soot
6. Plants love CO2 and soot and use it to grow
7. Animals eat the plants and grow as well
>I said working on
Well they are doing a shit job dumbass
>The greenhouse effect is very sensitive.
no, it isn't
there is a negative feedback as opposed to the positive one assumed in all the models
yes, that's true
you have addressed one of the ten claims
you aren't very good at this, are you?
did you know that CO2 rises AFTER temperature changes? the logic is a bit complicated, but I'm of the opinion that if something happens after another thing, the later happening thing can't cause the thing that already happened, what say you?
>The slowdown coincides where green initiates began to go into effect.
You don't seriously believe that? Emissions are still increasing. "Green" initiatives are ridiculous little prestige projects and have no influence on the climate.
>"white man made" climate change
Who the fuck ever said "white man made"?
They'd get laughed at even by liberals
Two things: if you care about climate change or whatever the fuck you want to call it, go after the third world, especially Africa. If they continue with their current birth rates, they are set to pass 2 billion by 2045, becoming a frontrunner for the most populated continent on Earth.
Secondly, the same scientists you cite also claim that the point of no return has been passed. By definition, any altercations we make to our current systems will simply delay the inevitable, so there is literally no point in doing anything.
It's just an excuse to increase regulation and increase taxes. I'm all for a government of righteous men leading the ethnic population, but those are pipe dreams as long as Jews are around, so free market capitalism is more attractive, not some big brother (((government))) taxing businesses out of their asses because muh climate.
It's just something Bill Nye fanboys who "fucking love science" love to blog about. It's all about the y-axis.
SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT BELIEF IT IS ABOUT OBSERVATION MEASUREMENT AND TESTING THEORIES NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU BELIEVE GROW UP
Seasonal changes are not the same as they are a factor which has been constant. Species have evolved around those changes. The climate changes that we have been seeing are not part of a normal natural warming curve and is far too correlated with Greenhouse gas emissions to be coincidental
>it's just a meme
So you know nothing about it and just want to broadly dismiss it without refutation
Excellent points that pollution and energy concerns are also reasons for alternative energies, but the Government of China is certain that global warming as a result of their CO2 production is occuring.
>no, it isn't
Read up on the sensitivity of the greenhouse effect. It is very sensitive
Its a slowdown, not a decrease. Please look at the graph again.
Then why are those climate (((activists))) on the street only harassing white middle class men? Why don't they approach the Turks or Arabs?
yes, they are, because this is what Beijing looks like
For example, you can only drive on even or odd days of the month, depending on your plate number. They did this around the Beijing Olympics to try to reduce pollution. They also salt the clouds to force rain.
>a factory pushing shit into the air is only bad if it's near people ever
out of sight, out of mind, amirite?
first thing, that the earth survived warmer temperatures says nothing to our ability to as a species. Second, this time is isn't natural.
Proofs?
Exactly. That's why I don't buy the "white man made" climate bullshit. You can dogmatically repeat that (((we))) caused climate change, but I still insist in convincing factual evidence. So far I've seen none. Only a weak "correlation vs causation" fallacy and a lot of appeals to emotion as well as ad hominems.
>So far I've seen none
You've posted political cartoons and have at no point actually tried to refute evidence posted in journals by people who research this phenomenon, but rather you just say "I'm not convinced" or you just doubt something because you feel like its wrong. You're not looking for evidence, you're looking for an argument.
>you aren't very good at this, are you?
Rude...
>did you know that CO2 rises AFTER temperature changes?
I did yes. Do you know why this is nd what process is at play here? Also, working through your assertion logically, paying heed to historic temp and co2 data should be enough for you to workj out why that's not the process at play this time. Feel free to ask and I'll explain it to you or if you can't be arsed just take comfort in the knowledge that co2 from human activity can be distinguished from that which is naturally occurring.
>
POSSIBLY ALTHOUGH POSITIVE FEEDBACK VENUS SCENARIO IS NOT RULED OUT
>our ability to as a species.
Don't tell me you give a shit about some poor people in Africa or Asia starving. Actually that would be good, as it resolves the overpopulation and the poverty problem.
>Second, this time is isn't natural.
dogmatic ad nauseam
here's evidence I'll never get tired of posting:
the long-term cooling trend in the stratosphere is clear proof that the tropospheric warming is caused by CO2 (and CH4) because no other forcing factor can produce a temperature pattern like this
>By definition, any altercations we make to our current systems will simply delay the inevitable, so there is literally no point in doing anything.
I'm going to kill you all. You people have spent the last 15 years fighting tooth and nail to do NOTHING now your new excuse for inaction is 'welp it's too late so why bother'. You selfish fuckers.
Trying to ba ecofriendly has become a meme, politicians and some people do it to look good rather than actual concern.
What they do might be good, but they aren't doing it for the wrong reasons. That's why I say it's a meme.
p.s: I' don't deny AGW/CC
>Responding to a groundswell of public anger about smog levels, China’s president, Xi Jinping, threatened in 2015 to punish polluters with an "iron hand." He also promoted green energy.
>China has been the biggest clean-energy investor since 2012, spending $384.7 billion in that period on clean sources of energy such as wind and solar power. And it’s holding onto that lead. According to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, China invested $48.1 billion in new clean energy projects so far this year, compared with $9.6 billion in Japan and $32.6 billion in the U.S.
I'd invite you to come to Germany and walk through my town. If you're white, you'll be harassed. If you're middle eastern, they'll leave you alone.
If you look back far enough, Earth use to have >4,000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, yet temperatures are stable. I don't think humans have the potential to cause a Venus scenario unless they were deliberately trying.
Excellent anecdote on an anonymous image board, You've convinced me
>Don't tell me you give a shit about some poor people in Africa or Asia starving.
Brutally honest, no I don't. But when a billion of them wash up on the shores of Europe I start caring. And don't give me that fanny about 'we'll not let them in'.
They haven't seen Molyneux's video on the climate change hoax from last week.
You probably should, it's comforting.
>no other forcing factor can produce a temperature pattern like this
Where's the proof? Argument from ignorance?
YOU HAVENT READ VERY MUCH THEN. JUST LOOK AT HOW SMALL THE VOLUME OF ATMOSPHERE IS RELATIVE TO HOW MUCH HUMANS ARE COMBUSTING. ATMOSPHERE IS PRETTY THIN RELATIVELY, WE ACT LIKE ITS INFINITE.
ARRHENIUS PREDICTED THIS WITH JUST GUESSTIMATES IN 1880S OR SO
Just because some use it as a feelgood position doesn't mean most do.
Once again you just play the "I can't refute this but I'm not convinced/I'm doubting" card. There is nothing else known that could cause what is happening. There's your proof.
You think saving the rainforests is a motherfucking joke?
What people don't realise is that a billion people live in Europe (Russia included) and the USA combined. I'd say another 600 mil lives in Latin America and the Caribbean. The other 5-6 billion live in Asia and Africa, The home of the countries that have just begun industrialising. Even if climate change was man-made, it's china and india and nigeria that will be the cause.
>hurr durr, don't question muh belief
Sorry kid, but science is about rigorously questioning everything. Maybe you want religion instead?
>ARRHENIUS
1896: Based on information from his colleague Arvid Högbom, Arrhenius was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes were large enough to cause global warming. In his calculation Arrhenius included the feedback from changes in water vapor as well as latitudinal effects, but he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors. His work is currently seen less as an accurate prediction of global warming than as the first demonstration that it should be taken as a serious possibility.
>Read up on the sensitivity of the greenhouse effect. It is very sensitive
tht's what all the prediction models assumed, yet all were disproved by the observations
>Rude...
we try
>co2 from human activity can be distinguished from that which is naturally occurring.
please explain how a later occuring thing can cause an earlier occuring thing to happen. how is causality violated?
I see we're back on co2? what % of the GHG effect is caused by co2?
care to address the other 9 claims made in the OPs pic?
here's a random (earlier) example of one of the many dozens of papers that have been written about this effect, explaining the science and how we can measure it directly
gfdl.noaa.gov
>Maybe you want religion instead?
Says the one who believes that climate science isn't respectable and believes that the evidence is wrong or forged
Maybe you should question your own stance first and the evidence presented in favor of it.
>tht's what all the prediction models assumed, yet all were disproved by the observations
Citation needed please
>Sorry kid, but science is about rigorously questioning everything.
Sure is. So if you've been practicing what you preach you must have your own ideas about what is causing the warming. Or are you of the 'it isn't warming clan'?
>over 100 years ago
B..but muh club of Rome in the 70s???
look at the watermelon, green on the outside, red on the inside
>54 years
>somehow a relevant trend
Thats not even the blink of an eye for the earth, the sample is too small to say its definetely a trend and not a random walk. Problem of induction as its finest
Lord CrazyEyes is a known kook though.
Smog is not created by Co2
They are investing in clean energy because their industry has been recklessly polluting the entire country for 50 years and people are dying from cancer left right and center.
They are not investing in clean energy because of climate change they are doing it because river villages and cities are becoming almost uninhabitable.
damn look at all that climate change in the river
Not me, the guys you cite.
>dude Drumpf fearmongerer
>le world will be all ice if we don't bring carbon taxes up bro
A balloon has substance on the outside but has a whole lot of nothing backing it up internally.
read the AR5, plot the observation data on the CMIP graph
Climate fags themselves are backpedalling and call it "climate change" instead of "warming".
>Record high oil production
>Record high proven reserves
>Record decades low oil prices
>We've reached peak oil
k
ALEX JONES HAHAHA
>please explain how a later occuring thing can cause an earlier occuring thing to happen. how is causality violated?
What you even saying here? Are you saying that co2 can ONLY lag temp? And yet you didn't even explain the mechanism by which it does this? You're not interested in learning anything. You've already decided on this topic. Maybe best if you just quiet time m8.
>I see we're back on co2? what % of the GHG effect is caused by co2?
I'll answer this if you tell me what temp we'd be without the greenhouse effect. Cause I have feeling you haven;'t the first idea what you're talking about.
How am I a commie exactly?
If climate sensitivity is low then explain the climate changes in the past, as solar radiation is less impactful than greenhouse gases.
I'll take the AGW crowd seriously when they start demanding nuclear plants
I say we push this as a "white man lie"....
Get liberals to change their position on (((climate change))) because white people are always saying it exists... yet your chart shows the hypocrisy.
wanna talk about trends huh. When was the last time (before current) that atmospheric co2 averaged over 400ppm globally?
>They are investing in clean energy because their industry has been recklessly polluting the entire country
They also want to corner the alternative energy manufacturing market early so they can grab all that dosh that world governments promised to invest and subsidize in alt. energy.
why is this board so retarded?