What are Sup Forums's thoughts on climate change?

What are Sup Forums's thoughts on climate change?

Other urls found in this thread:

metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/k/5/Climate_impacts_on_food_security_and_nutrition.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Climate change spelled geoengineering

we arent all going to die.. it means -

Longer Summers
Longer Winters

late seasons (summer comes early or late etc)

Earth's climate has been in a constant state of change from its inception.

The science behind it is solid but needs tuning up
It's been partly politicized and covertly adopted to serve an ideology, to a lesser degree

It's real but it's not a big deal from our perspective as humans. It is for other species that migrate and for the life on the ocean. We won't die, a lot of other species will do instead.

It's real but there's nothing we can do about it, and the world will return to its state after we've moved on. Even if the United States wanted to do something about it it'd have very little impact because developing countries don't give two shits about MUH ENVIRONMENT

>CAPTCHA: Parking Nissan

Man's influence is probably over exaggerated, which is possible because the data is sketchy and insufficient so there is a lot of room to 'interpret'.That said we are clearly having an environmental effect on the planet on a hell of a lot of fronts.

Almost all plans to reduce emissions are bullshit globalist power grabs though, which results in first world western countries suffering economically while the actual pollution is effectively outsourced to third world shitholes. It's become a political and ideological issue, like says.

IMO instead of handicapping ourselves with self regulation there should be MUCH more of a focus on not just DEVELOPING greener technologies (which is usually there only stance that results in anything other than economic suffocation) but more so on also developing technology to repair the damage done.

Taxing companies, strangling industries in red tape, running propaganda campaigns... it's useless and barely benefits the countries these things are done in. The focus needs to change to a methodology that creates job and economic growth in first world countries. Capitalism can and will fix most problems because the prize of being among the first to do so is so damned large.

Don't misinterpret me, I'm not saying someone will 'solve' global warming if government just steps back. I'm saying that technologies that are cleaner and more efficient will be developed. That technology to reverse specific types of 'damage' will slowly develop. All because there is so much potential monetary and political capital to be gained by those that can manage it.

I was going to call you a kangaroo-fucker, but your arguments are fairly reasonable

CO2 is great for plant growth
Greenland will become inhabitable
Coastal (liberal) cities will flood
Africa will get scorched

What more do we want?

I thought this was a politics board.... Are we really supposed to talk about religion here?

I think both the people who reject man's contribution completely and the alarmists like Al Gore who hype up hysteria, are both a bit incorrect. It's happening but we're not going to solve it with shitty solar panels.

two things about CO2 fertilization of plants:
it's generally accepted by climatologists that any fertilizationby CO2 in crops will be strongly outweighed by the effects of water stress, drought and flooding

secondly, a plant might get bigger with higher CO2 concentrations, but the same plant is also going to get less nutritional. That's also why one of the predictions of global warming is an increase in insect herbivory.

>kangaroo fucker
I wish, those cunts are hard to pin down though.

Talking about climate change is depressing. I can't do it IRL much any more. Any position other than the mainstream one is socially untenable with most people, even if you DO agree that we are damaging the environment.

I hate how petty a lot of people have become when it comes to having different beliefs/politics/viewpoints.

Every time I ask why we should convince everyone climate change is real they tell me so that we can tax everyone.

They also never have solid proof and just use the "muh 97% of scientists" when truth is, scientists have never agreed that much on a single issue

There certainly is a problem with global warming but I don't think it could be fixed within a few years. Beside there's a bigger priority.

And you think liberals are doing their best to fix the problems by not driving a car? I'm doing much more than them and I'm neutral on this issue.

It's an excuse to convert to renewable energy and that is a good thing

>human contribution is tiny
>the only way to stop is CO2 is with a permanent global recession
>scientists can't predict the weather next month let alone 20 years from now
>if you think it's happening start investing in infrastructure to prepare

As long as you're not outright denying our impact and the science behind it, it's actually good to hear different opinions on the matter
There is even some room to discuss the extent of our influnece, for sure, but agreeing with the premises puts you above 99% of all the climate change skeptics out there

>water stress, drought and flooding
>predicting the weather in 20 years
Okay hanz you just believe whatever they tell you

I'm sure some parts of it are true but it is severely exaggerated.

Natural climate change is a thing, human caused climate change not

>generally accepted
sauce plz

typical eurofags. Why do you swallow the propaganda so easily? Oh right, you are basically the new soviet union with your state-run media.

go unclog a toilet or whatever low-end job your failing brain allows you to do and let the educated people talk, thanks

Originally championed by the British government as a political weapon to beat down the coal unions, it then spiralled out of control as the go-to science grant application padding to become a $1.7trillion international scam.

It's not happening. The email leak showed the scientists invovled with monitoring it were deliberately extending their research to make bank, and that the evidence couldn't demonstrate the effect was real.

It is now an excuse for empty suit politicians to go on holiday to nice places with an entourage of hundreds, a weapon to beat down African infrastructure development, and a way for China to storm ahead of the rest of the world by disregarding the agreed industiral limits.

There couldn't be a more discredited ideology, and yet the gravy train continues to shit money for the liars and cheats who couldn't care less that they are single-handedly undermining trust in empirical science.

>be french
>always surrender
Have you even researched it yourself, pierre? I still don't understand how anyone can have a shred of self-respect and be french at the same time.

it's not weather, it's called "climate" for a reason
weather is the more or less stochastic conditions of weathering, climate is usually defined as the 30-year mean of all meteorological phenomena

take a random example:
the highly respected metOffice of the United Kingdom
metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/k/5/Climate_impacts_on_food_security_and_nutrition.pdf

I'm not sure about Sup Forums but my personal beliefs based on factual information are this:

The Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles naturally. "Scientists" collected data on historical trends. Then, some politicized globalists got a hold of the data and manipulated and embellished their numbers. They then reintroduced the data as infallable and expect governments worldwide to collect more in taxes to combat a fake problem.

Let's suppose for a moment that climate change was real and we levied a 50% tax across the board on everyone to address it. How do we legislate the distance between the Earth and the Sun? How, when the fuck ups at the EPA can't even keep a tributary of the Colorado River from turning orange with mine waste?

Since it isn't real, why the fuck should I care?

>>tl;dr Fake News.

Nicely done.

Totally primarily caused by humanity and it needs to be stopped now. Do your part goy, pay massive direct and indirect tax hikes, sacrifice a super cheap and efficient energy source that we swear the rest of the world will also sacrifice and also stop having kids.

I mean just look at this chart of temperature of the course of recent human history. Its NEVER been this hot before oy gevalt.

t. uneducated moron

no one on here has any scientific knowledge, they will probably spout the same lies they hear from right wing news sources. sad

science is hard huh :(

I can't deny that we are having an impact on the environment, we clearly are and on an awfully large number of fronts. To say otherwise seems ant-intellectual to me.

I am sketchy about the science though, to be honest, and mostly in regards to future forecasts. The issue has become so corrupted by non-scientific influences that I simply can't take most of the forecasts and warnings at face value.

At the same time though, I can't claim to have anywhere near the expertise or knowledge to make any semblance of a reasonable forecast or conclusion by myself.

It's an uncomfortable position to be in, but my belief in human ingenuity in the face of adversity gives me hope and optimism. I have a strong belief that a POSITIVE approach, an approach that creates wealth and growth and happiness, will reap better end results than a negative approach especially when you look at the rate of technological advances these days.

>the fucking frog thinks that the correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide is causally linked to CO2 and not the reverse.

Surrender monkey please. CO2 follows temperature rise.

I do agree with this. Unfortunately the vast majority of people on the left haven't taken Chem 1 and they just cling onto the issue to say its capitalism fault.
That being said it is the biggest concern of our time in my opinion, I am mostly concerned about soil erosion and food supply.

>What are Sup Forums's thoughts on climate change?

>kill niggers in Africa
>make winters warmer and comfy
>make Siberia, Canada and North Europe inhabitable.

Climate change, a change for good (tm)

let me ask you this: have you ever tried to find out what climatologists say about the lag between temperature and CO2 during the glacial cycles?

>This thread again
Oh man, I am getting tired of those, so here's the short form.
Climate change is irrelevant, what is biting us in the ass right now is active poolution and destruction of nature. If we would focus on fixing that everythign else inclucing Co2 bilances would fall into place by themselfs.
Besides creating less waste and be less destructive it would help to reduce humans. Lots of them

You do realize that all previous climate optimums, which registered much higher temperatures, were periods of extreme growth and prosperity for our species precisely because of huge agricultural yields, right?

Climate Change is a Pseudoscience. Evidence by the convulsions you all have when it is challenged.

it's talking about drought in Africa and Asia. places Sup Forums does not care about (see my first post)

if you care about the people in Africa and Asia makes no difference at all about the conclusions of the case studies

You do know that all water in the world is connected and that there are no isolation in the world?

>implying I need a bullshit excuse

Atmospheric CO2 clearly lags behind temperature, and the period between 350 and 300k years ago, as well as between 150k and 100k are particularly telling, because CO2 remain high inspite of a precipitous drop in temperature.

And this makes sense, because CO2 is an incredibly weak greenhouse gas. Many times weaker than methane or water vapor, both in the short term and over centuries.

But lets hear your justification krautfuck.

I believe climate change does exist, but we have little to no impact on it ourselves. Anyone who drives a smart car in order to "help the environment" is an utter tool.

Man-made climate change is just another way for limousine liberals like Al Gore to scare the peasants of society into doing their bidding.

t. no chemistry knowledge

Climate change is 100% real and man made and will cause extreme damage to the world if nothing is done. The science behind it isn't perfect and has been manipulated at times but it's still real.

Political solutions of restriction or taxes etc. have failed, the only realistic solution is a faustian bargin, to push full speed forward and figure out a technical solution. The problem isn't that hard (relatively) and given the ~50 years we have before climate change starts to cause extreme damage, it should be easy to achieve.

This path also has more upside because the technology used to manipulate the climate on our own planet will be used to terraform other planets and will allow the eventual colonization of the milky way when humans progress further into the cosmos.

Discussion on climate change in America is usually horrible because it's dominated by hippies on the left who want to forever live in a garden and commune with the trees and idiots on the right who want to drink oil and burn coal in more ways than one.

Not doing anything currently except research is probably the cost efficient solution.

This guy gets it, the problem is not the climate on itself but what we do to our environment.
At the end the REAL problem is demografics, almost all big problems on our society would be lessened if we were less. Infact we the westerns are doing that, but developing countries don't.

You more or less summarised my position succinctly, thank you.

man made climate change is fucking horseshit

this 100 times this.

I am a food scientist not exactly hippis favorite guy (large scale food processing and development of shelf stable products.) but the hippis say "the earth will punish us for treating it badly" and the right wingers say "god will never flood us again".

If fucking Osama bin Laden can realize it's the biggest threat to humanity I don't think that there's much room for conspiracy

so let's first realize that the answer to the question wether you looked at what climatologists have to say about it is clearly "no".

If it was 1979 maybe you could convince people who actually know something about the topic with that argument, but paleoclimatology has moved on considerably since then. It's common knowledge at this point that the glacial-interglacial cycles are paced with modulations in earth's orbital elements. What's not so well known is that it was recognized very early on that the solar forcing caused by the Milankovitch cycles is actually much too weak to either bring earth out of or precipitate a glacial period. Nevertheless the timing of the cycles was clearly linked, so the conclusion that was reached in the early 1980s was that there had to be some kind of positive feedback that exacerbated the weak orbital forcing. And that's exactly what we're looking at here: Orbital forcing causes an initial warming (that's called a "prime driver"). This warming heats up the ocean and terrestrial soils, which release CO2, since thesolubility is a function against temperature. This new CO2-GHG forcing amplifies the warming, which causes an additional release of CO2 and on it goes to eventually (in combination with the ice-albedo feedback) bring earth out of a glaciation.

In summary: Orbital cycles are the prime driver, CO2 is (besides the ice-albedo) the necessary strong positive feedback. That's why there is a temporal lag between the two.
So the facts are the opposite of what you're describing. The glacial-interglacial cycles is a prime example of what important role CO2 plays and why paleoclimatologists call it the "principle control knob of earth's climate".

Malthus was wrong and malthusians throughout history have generally always been wrong. Peak oil was malthusian too. The Great Leap Forward and the 5 year plan were also projects funded on malthusian assumptions.

Overpopulation is not a problem and western countries need to start populating their own nations.

Pollution is a problem though. That shit is not a joke.

>I'm too stupid to understand it so I'll just cover my ears and pretend it's a conspiracy

I would love San Francisco to fall into the ocean, and my new house will be beach front property? hell ya!

Except that 1) there is already a massive CO2 sink in the biomass that exists literally everywhere on planet earth
2) CO2 has extremely diminishing returns in terms of albedo
3) release of methane also functions under the same rules. Methane on the other hand happens to be FAR more potent than CO2. Like dozens of times more potent. And the methane sink is not nearly as big as the CO2 sink.It might have a shorter half life in the atmosphere, but it would theoretically be much more dangerous than CO2 in that if anything would have an accelerative effect, it would be methane. But we cant control methane can we? We can tax methane. Natural gas sure, but its marginal. Most methane released is biological. Convenient that the more dangerous of the two is never mentioned. Almost like solving an imminent problem is not the goal. Almost like turning a buck is the goal.

-40 celsius in mongolia

It's real. Denying climate change is anti-white.

>50 years from now
>average temperature in Europe goes up to 90-100 F on any summer day
>crops either are genetically engineered or die due to heat
>assuming they're engineered, more yields of crops generated in Europe and the west in general
>third world shitholes effected hardest, can't grow crops due to conflict, famine, etc. since lack of resources to counter-act climate change
>"refugees" are created
>they flood Europe and the West for food
>???
>Europe is now New North Africa

both 1) and 2) are incoherent
notice that the explanation above does not make reference to the living biomass carbon sink. How is pointing out the existence of this sink a response?

as for 3)
you do realize that the entire argument with which you tried to dismiss CO2 (the temporal lag) is just as applicable to methane, right?
So why this suddenly doesn't apply when we'Re talking about gases other than CO2, I don't know. However, there is a very simple response to that: we know that the glacial-interglacials aren't caused by CH4 because we can measure the forcing that is being produced by a given amount of change in CH4 concentrations. And it isn't large to enough to explain the observations. There just is no way around the role of CO2 in the pleistocene.

There was a thing about how there is a bunch of shit going on under the arctic with magma and heat vents doing most of the warming.

same thing under the Bering strait, there are underwater probes that would have these temperature fluctuations of 1-3 degrees in a 19 hour range. thats either the hardware is seriously in need of calibration, or something is causing lots of heat to escape from the seabed.

then again, it could be the foreshadowing of yellowstone exploding too.

1) and 2) are mitigating factors

3) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

The Pleistocene was kiddy stuff.


And all this is incumbent upon the nation that if avoidable, climate change is a bad thing. As I said earlier, every climate optimum since the end of the last ice age has been a boon to human civilization generally marked by periods of agricultural prosperity and population growth. I mean were talking about historically, 20,000 years or less between ice ages. Were 10,000 years into this warming period. Id rather like to maximize the time we have. Im not disputing that we CAN effect the climate, and in fact probably are, but I highly doubt that we are the primary cause of change given just recent history, and the agency we have aside, Im not convinced its so terrible. I dont see why I cant counter "we need to sacrifice the living conditions, opportunities and possibly lives of billions of people for the greater good" with "how about just NYC and LA etc etc". To be frank, it doesnt bother me if the Southwest becomes MORE of a desert. And it doesnt bother me if New York and San Francisco and LA and Miami etc etc sink beneath the sea. What does bother me is impairing significantly the lives of billions of the poor on an academic theory. A theory with a garbage track record.

Pic related, the accolade worthy brilliance of your climate scientists.

so now we completely shift grounds. A few minutes ago the climate of the pleistocene was presented as clear proof that CO2 is irrelevant, now it's "kiddy stuff" and we're off to another topic.

I can only repeat what I said before: explain how the argument about the temporal lag seems to only apply to CO2 but gets ignored in favor of methane. Also notice that the clathrate gun hypothesis was only every proposed for single, insular events in earth history. No one has every suggested that this hypothetical gun was triggered during every single interglacial.

1) and 2) are still incoherent rambling. You have to explain what you're even talking about if you want me to respond to it.
Until then, I rest my case

Amazing scientists never mention what drives our climate, the Sun!.

The last decade the sun has been hyper active. The solar winds have been reduced so that makes the charged particles hit the earth with more intensity. This, of course, warms our planet. The sun will reduce output in the next decade and the Earth will cool.

We cannot and should not attempt to control the sun's output energy.

This has been happening since the beginning of time.

How will taxing us help change the sun's output?

Climate Change has always been real. It's just nothing we can do to stop it. Control the sun, lol, and you can control climate change.

It's real, shit, it's going to be 60f° in Minnesota today.

>incoherent rambling
I fail to see how the existence of a massive carbon sink and diminishing returns dont go any of the distance to debunking the notion that Carbon Dioxide cannot be the runaway factor you and some climate scientists perceive it to be.

But youre dead set on this and neither of us are climate scientists.

So lets just disregard the fact that Europes carbon emissions over the past decade or so have in fact grown at a faster rate than the US'. And lets ignore the fact that no alarmist has ever seriously proposed nuclear energy. And well leave it at this. We have in the US a president that is very friendly to fossil fuels, and regardless of that our emissions have been dropping since before the green craze. And in Europe nearly your entire continent is run by people who allege to be so very concerned and are yet incapable of curbing their emissions. Rest easy knowing that if youre right, within the next few decades Ill no doubt either starve or die due to the horrific consequences of driving American, due to the fact that my apparently feeble genetics and mind will leave me open to the ravages of famine and unrest. But just promise me before you go, that if the horrific cataclysm does not happen within the next 50-60 years, youll hang yourself in a brromcloset for being a propaganda guzzling fucking invalid. Ok?

climate change is hippie broscience.

Still waiting on California to sink into the sea.