/CCG/ Climate change general

Its real guys. I mean come on - it should be freezing -20 celcius with blizzards and shit but no... Im wearing a t-shirt cuz its constantly around 0.
Theres barely any snow this year, not normal at all

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YCcLggcPcj0
econtalk.org/archives/2015/06/matt_ridley_on.html
econtalk.org/archives/2013/12/judith_curry_on.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>tfw that awkward transition period where you can't grow wheat in the yukon and the midlands are too dry to produce as much as they used to

Tune your cars for peak HP boys, we're at the point of no return so we might as well go all the way.

>Climate change
funny, couldn't find anything about it on the US gov site, you sure you're not making shit up?

>palm trees in estonia 2020

Please pol refute the climate change claim. I would love to see a debate on this matter because alot of college kids i go to school with believe this shit. I dont think we have enough scientific data stored to prove this matter accurately and even if we did its other countrys that do most of the polluting, but liberals will argue this shit day and night and cry climate change and everyone is onboard. The climate effects everyone, thats why this topic is defended so passionately by everyone and relevant to everyone, so lets hear your best pol. Prove its a myth, consider it a challenge by a fellow user.

Climate changes all the time, 4 times a year at least, the real question is are humans contributing to it, and for that there is no good evidence.

youtube.com/watch?v=YCcLggcPcj0

^ Probably the single best video on the topic of global climate change out there atm.

Thats hardly proof user, show me why you think that. Im not arguing with you, i think its bullshit, but prove it to me. Im researching it myself but if you have some sources, by all means.

Here's the thing: climate change is real, and there is a solution but it will never happen. To avert it, we would need to stop the population growth of the world, and possibly reduce it. Every environmental problem is exacerbated by having too many people. But that won't happen because people will never stop fucking.

Fortunately, once we hit the human carrying capacity, there will likely be a massive population crash and 30-40% of the population will die, and we'll repeat the cycle. Just like unregulated animal populations.

There's no evidence c02 emissions cause climate change, I don't have any unsourced graphs or anything because I don't really care.

Ok, il bite. Why wouldnt alternative energy sources be the solution? Dont you think we have enough smart people in the world to create alternative forms of energy/resources that we could "evolve" and have a higher population then thought of in the past? We split the atom, we can come up with an alternative.

>There's no evidence c02 emissions cause climate change, I don't have any unsourced graphs or anything because I don't really care.

Than stfu you fag. Your opinion means fucking nothing. Quit making baseless claims like a Trumptard

>implosive propulsion systems based on the structure of touroidial fields

Would be dank senpai

Its not just emissions from industry.
Its also due to massive amounts of cattle and human waste, looking at you, India

shut the fuck up russian finland
its minus five here and i dont remember a colder january ever. maybe 2012 thats it.
i m 35 years old.

Its not just industry. Massive emissions from cattle and 7 billion people play a role too. Looking at you, India.
Also algae produce most oxygen and oceans are polluted as fuck...again, thanks india for pooing on beaches ffs

Yes also listen to both interviews
econtalk.org/archives/2015/06/matt_ridley_on.html
econtalk.org/archives/2013/12/judith_curry_on.html

Yes also listen to both interviews

econtalk.org/archives/2015/06/matt_ridley_on.html

econtalk.org/archives/2013/12/judith_curry_on.html

Yes also listen to both interviews

econtalk org/archives/2015/06/matt_ridley_on.html

www.econtalk org/archives/2013/12/judith_curry_on.html

Climate change not GLOBAL warming, learn the difference

Not an argument.

>it's true guys
Correct
>are humans contributing to it
Hai
>are humans the sole cause
Nein

the evidence for human contribution is actually quite straight forward
- we know about the radiative absorption effects of CO2 and how increased concentration of CO2 will lead to a rise in avg temperature (because it can be measured in almost every laboratory)

- we know that the current increase in CO2 is largely anthropogenic because of isotopic data and because we can measure the carbon fluxes

- we know the current temperature rise is due to CO2 because of comparison between the temperature trends in the Troposphere and the Stratosphere

>no one anywhere is denying climate change

Fuck you, I'm freezing down here.

>- we know about the radiative absorption effects of CO2 and how increased concentration of CO2 will lead to a rise in avg temperature (because it can be measured in almost every laboratory)
Except historically that's not true at all, c02 actually rises after global temps have risen not before it, it has been shown that the sun is the major factor in global warming.

Further, c02 has continued to rise in the last century while temps have not.

>because alot of college kids i go to school with believe this shit

And they might be right.

But here's the kicker: are they going to kill themselves to ease this "climate change"? Because that's what would have to happen on a *massive scale* to avert the "calamity" they're predicting.

Ask yourself this: do the people who cry and moan about "climate change" eat food trucked in by gasoline and oil powered engines? Do they use electricity to refrigerate and cook their food? Do they use electricity to heat/cool their homes and charge their cell phones? Do they use things made of plastic? Etc etc.

Here's the truth: no one in the First World is going to give up their standard of living. Ever. if there's a "disaster" coming it's unavoidable.

There's no reason to "refute" climate change because nobody's going to take the drastic measures necessary to avert the oncoming "disaster", not America, not China, not India, etc.

a few thinkgs to point out there

> c02 actually rises after global temps have risen not before it
the "time-lag" between CO2 and temperatures is a well known phenomenon of the glacial-interglacial cycles in the Quaternary. Paleoclimatologists have been discussing and investigating this for several decades now and far from going against the importance of CO2, this time-lag is a good example of why CO2 is widely regarded as a "principle control knob" of climate on earth:

I'm sure you heard that the glacial-interglacial cycles are caused by modulations in earth's orbit. And there is indeed a close correlation between those things, but it was discovered quite early on that the changes in solar insolation we receive by these cycles are in and of themselves much too weak to either precipitate or bring earth out of a glaciation. That's where the CO2- feedback comes in to play. At the end of a glaciation, orbital modulations slightly increase the amount of insolation per meter squared earth receives (this is the prime driver), and this increase causes GHG, mostly CO2, to be released from soils and the ocean (that's the feedback and also the explanation for the time-lag). The CO2 will then raise temperatures, which releases more CO2, until earth enters a interglacial. So far from debunking CO2, this pattern actually confirms the importance of it. This is no mystery to the actual experts in the field

And remember we're talking about a single short interval in earth history where CO2 was a powerful feedback and not a prime driver. If we go back a little longer into the past, you'll easily find events and periods where CO2 was a prime driver (Cambrian hyperthermal for example)

>it has been shown that the sun is the major factor in global warming
If you mean "over the course of earth history", then yes, but if you're referring to the current rise in temperature then you're wrong.
Which of those do you mean?

theyre not the solution because people aren't the problem nigger, polar ice caps melting are pumping out hundreds and hundredsof times more gas into the atmosphere than we are.

Climate change is a trivial problem because we are going to build a space elevator.

With an elevator in hand, mitigation of climate change with something like a sun shade costs around $100 million.

If we assume the space elevator is good for nothing other than climate change mitigation, and purchase it for $430B solely to build a sun shade.

People who advocate for drastic reductions in CO2 emissions will project at least 20% increases in the price of energy. Let's only consider the cost of grid electric power. We currently spend about $600B per year on electric power from the grid.

A 20% increase in cost amounts to $120B per year. In other words, a mere four years of what the anti-carbon activists want us to accept is enough to pay for an alternative solution.

It is already possible to build a space elevator:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0Y

The key idea is the Orbital Ring version of the space elevator, not the geosynchronous tether concept you are familiar with.

See, for example, Paul Birch's writings:

www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-I.pdf

The orbital ring only requires tethers about 300 kilometers long which is technically feasible with common material like steel, but ridiculously straightforward with better and already available material like kevlar.

There are some important questions. First, how much would it cost to do something like this?

We need to send about 160 million kilograms of material into space (See Birch's boot strap estimates in part 2: www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-II.pdf )

We have rockets available at $2000/kg costs to LEO today in "mass production" mode, which is only about 10-20 launches per year. Compared with the couple thousand launches necessary for a space elevator, $2000 is an unreasonably high upper bound for launch costs.

We also need to include the cost of materials. A space elevator is about 98% steel and aluminum, 1% kevlar, and 1% other such as superconducting magnets. Most of the mass (98%) cost around $1/kg, with an average cost per kilogram of no more than about $10 per kilogram.

Summing the above up, we get about $430 billion in launch costs plus another $1-2 billion in material costs.

In other words, we can have a space elevator for less than $450 billion - significantly less than one year worth of DoD spending, one bank bailout, many times less than a variety of pointless wars, etc. This is well within our reach financially in other words.

What do we get in return for this $450 billion investment?

Virtually unlimited value. For example, with a space elevator we can reliably launch our nuclear waste into the sun. We've spent $100 billion building a waste repository in Nevada, but it was ultimately decided not to even use it. Now it costs only a dollar or two per kilogram to get rid of all of the nuclear waste in the world.

Second, we have immediate access to viable asteroid mining industry. Because the cost of delivering payloads to LEO drops to about $1/kilogram, we can not retrieve asteroids with trillions of dollars worth of minerals for mere tens millions of dollars in addition to having an easy viable way of returning those resources back to the surface.

We acquire the ability to deploy profitable solar power in orbit above cloud cover and with the ability to return said power back to the surface with near zero loss by running power transmission cables down the elevator.

Just how profitable?

With increased luminosity in space, enhanced exposure time, and the ability to deliver base loads, solar panels pay for themselves in only 1-2 years while having a 20 year life time.

In other words, if you put $5 trillion of solar panels into space, you get your $5 trillion back by the end of year two and a $5 trillion income stream each year thereafter.

In other words, the US could cut everyone's taxes, both personal and business, income, capital, death, or otherwise, all to 0%, not even cut any benefits or current spending, and pay off the national debt within a decade.

It should already be obvious that the entirety of the political debate spectrum is cointelpro.

Are taxes too high or too low? Irrelevant, we don't actually need taxes.

Is social spending bankrupting us? Irrelevant, we can retire the national debt without cutting spending all while having no tax whatsoever.

What does this have to do with taking the red pill?

We've had the technological ability to undertake such a project for decades.

That means all the squabbling you have heard your entire life, money, debt, spending, taxes, scarcity, whatever, is all bullshit. Not only is it bullshit, anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the world has known that it is all bullshit for all of this time.

In other words, once you come to understand the such a project is and has been technically feasible for decades, you have to reevaluate many things.

Why is there nothing of this in the conspiracy media? They are not really trying to expose or solve any problems. One hundred percent of it is cointelpro. From the Young Turks to Infowars or whatever, they are all completely full of shit because solutions to our problems not only exist, are easy to carry out, but this has been the case for a very long time.

Similarly, you now know that 20%+ annual GDP growth is possible. If Trump gives you 3-4% instead of Obama's 2%, he is simply working with the establishment to try to placate and subvert a rising tide. If we see the easily achievable 20%+ growth rates, it is at least possible that he isn't a subversive. Anything less and you know he is a fraud.