Climate

Redpill me on climate change

it seems pretty convincing, how do your explain the sudden spike of average temperature in the last century?

Other urls found in this thread:

encyclopediadramatica.se/Fendippitous_Eggmen
newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s
researchgate.net/publication/222409250_Models_on_Snowball_Earth_and_Cambrian_explosion_A_synopsis
researchgate.net/publication/222818998_CO2-forced_climate_thresholds_during_the_Phanerozoic
atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
youtube.com/watch?v=sLmTX_e6Vf8
amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00CEYK1EA/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481648046&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=c02 generator&dpPl=1&dpID=41TBAbki9NL&ref=plSrch
scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The Fendippitous Eggmen are returning soon.

Global warming doesn't fucking exist but I wish it did so you would drown

There is no redpill for global warming. It's as real as gravity or evolution, and we are not only responsible, but have the power to slow it down

its real there's evidence around the world of changing climates, displaced animals, melting ice in certain areas. The debate is how much of this is truly manmade? And whether going fully green and banning carbon emissions will truly do anything. When CCS has been done in labs many times successfully, it would he smarter to fund perfecting CCS for clean coal. That's if they care about the environment, but with their many pointless regulations which are also screwing over poorer countries. I mean the democrats love letting China succeed, the real problem is not whether it's real it's just the overall way it's being handled

I believe climate change is real but I don't think man is the cause. Shit is constantly changing and we may help to speed it along but it was happening anyway.

>Asking for redpills

Anyway now that this is out of the way global warming is pretty much evident right now.

If you want a more 'redpilled' answer I'll just give you this. A lot of scientists have been predicting numerous extreme 'mass extinctions' for a long time and have been wrong, now this isn't to say global warming is the same. Weather can be unpredictable and proof of that is that we can't 100% accurately predict the weather a year from now at this very moment on the same day next year.

The thing that counters that is the fact of increasing temperatures etc etc BUT just know that it does seem like a lot of the pro-environment people and companies aren't actually in it for the world as much as they are in it for their own pockets.

So is global warming real? Most fucking likely.

Can it be argued against? Yes. The problem is that most anti-global warming arguments don't have much body and the people supporting them are usually pretty fucking cancerous.

Hope that helped Ameribro

>PROTIP

If you're worried buy a house far in land and don't live in mudslime desert countries.

What does "redpill me on climate change" even mean? It's like saying "redpill me on gravity" or "redpill me on 2+2=4". It's not a political stance, it's not something you get to choose to believe. It's a reality that you either understand or deny.

Surely it can't be related to the population spike of billions of useless fucking brown people.

Nah, it's probably my air conditioning.

>comes from country with absurdly high greenhouse gas emissions, both in an absolute sense and per capita
>blames poverty stricken foreigners who use virtually no fossil fuels

Okay.

The ultimate real Red Pill
>Algebraic proof
>Alg((h))ebraic
>hebraic

Have you swallowed the hardest red pill yet? So called ((science)) and ((mathematics)) are a jewish creation, an instrument to subjugate and destroy the white man.
>create ((science))
>build a whole structure around it to make it look logical and reasonable
>attribute every invention the white man achieved through his intuition to ((science))
>foster ((science)) to religious status and use it to subvert centuries long traditions and supplant Christianity
>use ((science)) to push sexual perversion and loathing of the white man
>use ((((scientific consensus))) to create the global warming hoax
>use ((global warming)) to create the perfect tool of white genocide: carbon tax

The Fendippitous Eggmen are returning soon.

>poverty stricken people don't engage CO2

>What does "redpill me on climate change" even mean? It's like saying "redpill me on Yahweh" or "redpill me on Allah, PBUH". It's not a political stance, it's not something you get to choose to believe. It's a reality that you either accept as holy truth or else you're a filthy heretic.

It's a left wing religion.
Much like how they believe that gender is a social construct, but being a fatass is genetic.

>*exhale

Climate has changed before, but it hasn't changed this rapidly for hundruds of thousands of years. We are definitely the reason behind this sudden shift in global average temperature.

There's no debate on how much of it is man made, but I do agree, the real debate js on policy and where do we go from here?
Obviously business as usual will not work, and 'clean coal' is still more emittivr than solar or wind. However, carbon tax is highly controversial and works in some places, but not others. It's imperative though that the populace is on the same page with the science, then we can collectively figure out what to do.

>haha carbon tax will discourage pollution!
>just like alcohol tax discourages drunk driving!

So at what point in history would you say we started fucking everything up?

It's convincing when people fuck the numbers up

Red pill you on climate change. Ok, climate change is happening, climate change is natural, climate change is the result of over population.
Until the population of the earth is brought down by a few billion, the natural result of over population. The unbalanced climate will continue.

I see climate change as a nonissue. If it's not happening then there's nothing to worry about. If it is then the Earth is going to be terraformed and have new trade routes opened up through the arctic and Africa might become more hospitable. It's a win-win either way.

>We are definitely the reason behind this sudden shift in global average temperature.
nice proof, it all makes sense now. except CO2 spikes lag temperature spikes in several hundred years.

the industrial revolution

industrial revolution

I keep seeing you post this. I thought it was fucking word salad. It's a real thing.

>created sometime in early to mid-April 2010 by newfags on Sup Forums in an attempt to confuse other newfags with their cryptic posts so that the aforementioned newfags would feel superior.

encyclopediadramatica.se/Fendippitous_Eggmen

Not killing off all the brown people after WW2

calthrate gun already fired.

don't worry hans. not everyone can be smart

how much of it is manmade?

There's been direct observations of co2 affecting the climate, your argument is invalid

newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

Quickest way to get red pilled on climate change is to either read the book or watch the documentary called Merchants of Doubt.
youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s

Then you'll know the extend which corporations will go to deny climate change or even benefit from it.
Another one is to understand that the addiction to oil is probably the greatest weakness United States currently has.

That would be most people's argument who believe that it is man made but that would mean we are having a cumulative effect over a long period of time. I can share some local history from my area that shows significant change as far back as 1915 if there's any interest.

Sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't, we have plenty of empirical evidence however showing that CO2 influences climate:

In the snowball earth whilst all other factors remained constant or were accounted for CO2 concentration increased causing the warming of the earth and eventual melting of the snowball earth

researchgate.net/publication/222409250_Models_on_Snowball_Earth_and_Cambrian_explosion_A_synopsis

Deglaciation periods preceded by orbital forcing would not have been possible in their scope if it were because of orbital forcing alone, the greenhouse effect due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases must have taken place to cause this

researchgate.net/publication/222818998_CO2-forced_climate_thresholds_during_the_Phanerozoic
atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf

>tfw to kids these days, 'elfstedentocht' is just a myth of the past.
>tfw 'white Christmas' is nothing more than slang for snorting coke in December

I wonder if climate change is real..

Climate change is a real nature phenomenon however humans have caused the rates at which those naturals events to occur to increase dramatically.

There is no doubt or debate at all that human activity has affected it.

There is valid criticism and debate by the magnitude though.

There are other factors at play as well such as the magnetic pole reversal. This is a slow process but it does affect climate as well as the "thickness" of the atmosphere.

In conclusion: Did humans contribute, in a detrimental way, to climate change? Absolutely.

Are humans the sole cause? No.

Should we seriously change the way we use natural resources? Yes.

the data shows that the climate is getting warmer. the real questions are:

1) how much has mankind influenced this versus natural cycles
2) what policy changes should be made

The debate over global warming is a sticky one, because leftists/environmentalists believe that it's entirely manmade, and that we need to make drastic changes to core tenets of modern human life. They might be correct, however partly what they're after is another means of big government regulation and control of the population. These are the same people who push for TPP type shit and want to end the 2nd amendment. I'm with them that it might be a thing to be concerned about, but at the same time, the people pushing this shit are not trustworthy. Just look at Al Gore, he made millions off of global warming scare shit, yet his personal actions are completely terrible for the environment. THEY want you to stop polluting but don't give a fuck about their own actions.

Additionally, for us olderfags that grew up in the 80s/90s when all this worry started, you have to realize that the lefty envirofag predictions up until now have mostly been totally fucking false. Back in like 1992, environmental scientists were predicting that florida was supposed to be under feet of water by the current year. The one thing they were right about was the ozone hole, which is currently reversing itself due to policy changes regarding HCFCs.

So basically it's something to be aware of, but we really shouldn't be freaking out about it as hard as all the leftists say we should.

This

I'm a lefty who recognizes that we only emit 5% of the total co3 in the atmosphere annually, yet that 5% stacks every year due to natural carbon sinks not being able to handle the extra output, causong the rapid shif in warming. I also think that the TPP is garbage and that guns are a basic right, there should just be better screening processes for those who wish to own one.

>explain the sudden spike of average temperature in the last century

Solar output. Pro tip: Temperatures have risen on our Moon, on Venus, and on Mars.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Also, the Earth was much warmer many hundreds of years ago. In the time of the Roman Empire, England was the grape-growing/wine-making capital of the world. Greenland was actually warm and green. And all global warming science is based on computer-generated models — NOT on actual collected data. The far-left's non-solution solution to the invention of global warming? Wait for it... More taxes and regulation! Who woulda thunk it.

All the hot air from SJW

...

Solar activity =/= Solar output

Post some data

>how do your explain the sudden spike of average temperature in the last century?
what are instruments nigger?

Seven years ago today, Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be ice free in five years. The North Pole ice cap has grown since that speech was made. Demagogues gonna demagogue. Scare mongers gonna scare monger. Oh, and since that speech, Al Gore's personal wealth has increased 720%. Hmmm.. really fires up those neural synapses.

youtube.com/watch?v=sLmTX_e6Vf8

>faggot who hasn't red his own link

When I was younger it was cow farts then it became s.u.v's and it was called global warming (because we were on a warming cycle, I'm guessing) Now it's called climate change. Do you know why? Because climate changes. Look at the solar cycles.

>There's a 75% chance that we could see no ice during the summer, SOME of the summer months, within the next 5 to 7 years
>All 10 of the lowest summer extents in the satellite record have now occurred in the past 10 years

>Hurr his predictions fits a trend but wasn't 110% accurate, therefore there's nothing to worry about and nothing is happening!

Considering that the youtube video you linked said tea party in the channel name, I'm not surprised by this level of retardation

They added the term 'climate change' because although the global average temperature was increasing, hence the correct terming of global warming, it wasn't fully comprehensive.

When the arctic ice completely melts, that cold water will pour into the warm jet stream that feeds europe, and europe will become colder. Hence the term climate change. Because although the average temp globally is increasing, there will not be a uniform increase of temp in every place on the globe.

And car emissions and cow farts are still bad, they all contribute.

records were corrected

>sudden spike
Combination of coming out of a little ice age ~200 years ago, bad math, fudged records, and using inappropriate proxies as "data," in that order. Also, global average temperature doesn't mean a whole lot - it's what's happening to localized climates, esp. at the poles, that drives things. Trouble is, all the predictions are failing. Warming is not nearly as much as models predict, sea level rise is not increasing anywhere near the predicted rate, and "severe weather events" are not increasing either. None of that means that the idea itself necessarily isn't sound, it just means that the specifics that scientists are working with are off, for various reasons.
Even assuming everything Al Gore says about climate is true, the question becomes: what should be done? Can anything be done that will be effective? What costs are we willing to pay, to what effect? Just what is the end goal? Is the climate of [YEAR] ideal?

Sure.

Sure, I believe in anthropogenic climate change.

I don't have a problem with it, because the fix for it will be a drastic reduction in the human population. By its very nature, climate change will affect so-called "developing" countries far, far more than it will most of the wealthier countries of the West, and most of those people are both hostile to us and sitting on resources that the West needs. In addition, the affects will be felt in the West disproportionately among the extremely poor and minorities, and those populations have been due for culling for a long, long time now.

There'll be some interesting wars and "incidents" as the next dozen decades or so go on, but global population should stabilize with around 2-3 billion happy, technologically advanced people and very small handful of sane and stable political and economic systems, none of which are going to be socialism or communism, with very few minorities or poor people in most western countries.

So relax, we'll be fine :)

So if global warming will actually make it colder, will we actually make it more hot by stopping it?

>We are definitely the reason behind this sudden shift in global average temperature
How can you prove that?

I think it's because we make all of the co2, all of it. Just look at this co2 generator claiming co2 is actually good for plants, how ridiculous!

amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00CEYK1EA/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481648046&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=c02 generator&dpPl=1&dpID=41TBAbki9NL&ref=plSrch

>prove
>in science
this isn't mathematics, you're an idiot

Europe will get colder, but the equator regions will most certainly increase in temperature and have severe, consistent droughts

"Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a colorless and odorless gas that is vital to life on Earth. This naturally occurring chemical compound is made up of a carbon atom covalently double bonded to two oxygen atoms."

- How can a colorless gas become a greenhouse gas? It is invisible to light.

>Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together make up close to 100 percent of the atmosphere. But all three are invisible to incoming "short-wave" radiation from the sun and outgoing "long-wave" radiation from the Earth's surface. They play no role in regulating the planet's atmospheric temperature.

But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation.

So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn't have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe's average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower.

scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/

...