When people ask me what I think about global warming, this is what I tell them:

When people ask me what I think about global warming, this is what I tell them:

I'm pro-global warming. That is, I'm for it - I think it should happen, and that we should accelerate it by any means necessary.

I know that this is not what people typically believe about global warming. If you ask most people, they'll tell you that they're against it, or that it doesn't exist. I'm actually in favor of global warming - I am a global warming advocate.

Anyone can tell you what the potential downsides of global warming are, but something almost nobody ever discusses are the potential *benefits*. I don't want to get too deep into this right now, but just off the top of my head: No more Los Angeles. No more Miami. No more New York City. Most of the big urban centers all over the world will be snuffed out, and the rest of us can finally live in peace.

Oh, and there'll be a lot more beaches, I imagine. I don't know, I'm not really an expert on how the Earth works.

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencemag.org/news/1998/03/ancient-ruins-found-antarctica
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

This is what I tell them.

Global warming is a future warning.

This isn't even a good troll. You sound retarded.

I remember when it was global cooling.
What the fuck is it now?

This. Saging another shit thread.

Babies blood, great when it is inside the baby.

leave it at that.

Unless you're nearly 50 you don't remember it being called global cooling.

I remember when deforestation of the rainforest was going to cause us all to die from lack of oxygen by now. What happened to that?

They taught us that in elementary school, in Seattle of course.

Meant to reply to him

1986 born. We were taught that the earth was said to be heading for a new ice age. we were taught that it doesn't happen fast enough to be scientifically proven so we're gonna be alright. We also learned that we're actually at the end of a glacial period and the ice is more likely to melt than the earth to freeze further.

Then in 1996 or 1997 they suddenly said we can't use deodorant sprays anymore because it causes global warming.

The map that the left always posts that shows how much of a disaster so-called "climate change" will cause always shows the nigger and shit skin countries suffering the most.

I say lets make it happen.

Amerifats are stupid :D

Yes this also. remember the videos of big bulldozers plowing down acres of forest?

Who's talking about that now?

I sincerely doubt that very much. By 1986 no credible scientist would have conjectured that global cooling was a thing.

>Not realizing that global warming will completely annihilate the economy
>Not realizing that as the global temperature increases, crop yields will be affected on a cataclysmic scale
>Not realizing that as the temperatures rise, the oceans will be almost completely devoid of life

You fucking faggots on this board are so dumb, you don't realize that humans and our civilization will crumble once the environment does. We have been so cut off from our own human nature that we have failed to integrate with nature, rather than just manipulate it and exploit it at all costs. There is no good picture for humanity once temperatures rise. It's not going to be nice or pretty, it's going to be the Walking Dead with out zombies.

Unfortunately there is no saving us, you still have a massive portion of the population who doesn't believe it is happening because they still have all of the luxury that has been brought about through raping and exploiting nature, and we will pay dearly for what we have done to the planet.

Edgiest shit I have ever seen
*tips maga hat*

>hoping global warming affects only the areas they want it to

Sure, why not...

>No more Miami or NYC

feels bad, man, I like those cities, even for all the faggotry they produce.

LA can rot though

Can you actually read comprehensively? No?
I wrote we were taught that EARTH WAS SAID TO BE HEADING TOWARDS ICE AGE but that it was debunked. Nothing was wrong and we were additionally taught that we live at the end of an ice age and the ice is more likely to melt than there forming more.

Understood now? We were also taught that people believed the earth was flat and why that was false also.

I don't know about the American school system but we are taught like this: "people used to believe this and that. But in the end we found out that it's really like this"

cry more

Dude, chill. I think global warming is important to solve but please don't go all tree hugger on us.

>I'm pro-global warming
Stopped reading right there you retarded autist
Sage

I don't understand what the fuck your argument is. There is no way your school system in 1986 was (not to mention the fact that you would be learning complex science roughly eight years from there so more like 1994) telling you that the earth was headed towards a fucking ice age.

If you were taught that, then your experience is entirely anecdotal and has no place in an argument unless you can prove that a majority of schools were teaching that.

Kek

I think the truth is actually that 90% of the planet's oxygen is produced in the ocean by single-celled organism. We have an entire ocean of algae and only a little bit of rainforest. This is what our middle science teacher told us, and she had a PHD in biology. When left-wing environmentalist political ideology gets in the way of science, they say shit like the rainforests produce all our oxygen.

Kek. This is the equivalent to
>dude I know you gotta eat, but try to eat vegan

Nobody needs that shit, it's all leftist propaganda. We're at the end of a fucking glacial era the ice is supposed to melt you dumb fuck.
Earths natural state is ice free.

I remember them teaching that in the late 80s, but then they started teaching global warming and there were jokes about how global warming would cancel the ice age.

Oh my god.

The people in class. The teachers. Of Biology and History. They taught us. That they used to learn. That there would be a new ice age. But that that was false. And then showed us. what actually is true . Do you understand? Now?


Are you really this autistic?

Why would this make oceans devoid of life

>Not realizing that global warming will completely annihilate the economy
Nope
>Not realizing that as the global temperature increases, crop yields will be affected on a cataclysmic scale
Yes, in a very positive way. As the ice melts away and fertilizes the soil there will be more land to crow crops on.
>Not realizing that as the temperatures rise, the oceans will be almost completely devoid of life
Look a little temp rise wont boil the ocean relax lmao

They were teaching it to us too, at least as late as 1989. I was quite young though and don't remember it well.

>Earths natural state is ice free.
NO. NO IT FUCKING ISN'T.

We have nearly half a million years of ice data that says the ice caps have always existed since the earth cooled. That is it's natural state.

Oh, so then you agree with me then? Well great!
>Nobody needs that shit, it's all leftist propaganda

Ooh. Swing and a miss freind-o

Yea and that you can drink any water where algae is unless it is red.
Do you remember when they actually brought us out at night and showed us the stars instead of going to a planetarium?

But no, that's not true, the 2000s kid says I didn't learn this.

...

I'm a programmer and I know that creating a computer simulation to predict what will happen to the environment in the event of global warming would be impossible. Too many variables. Considering rising temperature has never hurt life on Earth before, I don't see how it would harm the must successful species in the history of the Earth.

Oh ok sure that's why there are settlements under 3km of ice in Antarctica right?

Kek sit down you 20 year old knowitall.

We're at the end of a glacial era, the ice needs to melt. Earths natural state is free of ice. Only during ice ages is ice present on the surface.

We actually did go outside quite a bit during science class. They probably never do that in modern schools.

Is it true that ice caps change over time due to the natural progressions of the climate? Sure. But at the current rate they're receding there won't be any ice caps left in a few centuries.

It's accelerating like never before. The only cause that fits the models is human and variable climate change. Not to mention we know man made carbon is getting up there.

Also
>Oh ok sure that's why there are settlements under 3km of ice in Antarctica right?

*Citation needed

It's because the temperature doesn't work on factors involving us.
It involves the orbit around sun and sun activity. Read the following, there are many many spikes and drops in the last 250.000 years many unexpected and sudden.

>Analysis of ice cores of the entire thickness of the Greenland glacier shows that climate over the last 250,000 years has changed frequently and abruptly. The present interglacial period (the last 10,000 to 15,000 years) has been fairly stable and warm, but the previous one was interrupted by numerous frigid spells lasting hundreds of years. If the previous period was more typical than the present one, the period of stable climate in which humans flourished—inventing agriculture and thus civilization—may have been possible only because of a highly unusual period of stable temperature.

This. I don't give a shit whether sand people and negroes die by the millions. I welcome it.

>No more New York City.

Why?
Wouldn't the climate get nicer there?

So far climate has also become nicer here.
Rising sea levels are a concern, but I'm confident we can handle them for at least my lifetime.

I'm all for it.
No more Africa and Iceland gets cozy warm.
Sounds good.

Same. But I'm more about it being the only thing that will push us into space exploration.

The earth is basically our mom's cozy basement. Were never going to get a qt alien gf if we spend our whole lives down here.

Again wrong. There is no correlation between the sun activity (which is wildy fluctuating I might add)

sciencemag.org/news/1998/03/ancient-ruins-found-antarctica

I don't suppose you remember this. This was before you were born. Also in 2012 NASA showed pics of settlements under ice supposedly up to 10000 years old.


Also, read this:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

>The Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation or the current ice age, is a series of glacial events separated by interglacial events during the Quaternary period from 2.58 Ma (million years ago) to present.[1] During this period, ice sheets expanded, notably from out of Antarctica and Greenland, and fluctuating ice sheets occurred elsewhere (for example, the Laurentide ice sheet). The major effects of the ice age are erosion and deposition of material over large parts of the continents, modification of river systems, creation of millions of lakes, changes in sea level, development of pluvial lakes far from the ice margins, isostatic adjustment of the crust, and abnormal winds.

Do you English? This now. All normal.

>Two seperate Y-scales that can be modified to show whatever results youd like
>Science

>implying it will be a giant wave all at once
>implying city people won't have time to flood into the countryside
>implying we won't have to build more walls to keep undesirables in the floodzone

>netherlands at risk

Kek okay sure. The CO2 levels that are lower than ever are the worst ever. Global warming is killing us oh my oh my

>I don't know what correlation means

>under 3km of ice in Antarctica
Literally no mention about the depth of ice. Sick argument dude.

Also I never denied that quaternary glaciation was a normal process for the earth, but it doesn't account for the change we're seeing both in terms of ice and sea level change. It's too rapid to be explained by quaternary glaciation

What's wrong with this data? Tell me user. Would you like the source, to read the abstract? fucking idiot.

>lower than ever
*citation needed

We'll grow oranges in Alaska.

> and there'll be a lot more beaches, I imagine. I don't know, I'm not really an expert on how the Earth works.
If you think about it this is the opposite of the truth. There will be new beaches tho 8)

Japan and the Netherlands will be missed, but otherwise global warming seems like a good idea.

>the last paragraph

>The CO2 levels that are lower than ever
doesn't make much sense with all the massive deforestation.

I mean that's what "global warming" and "climate change" really is. A tax for carbon produced by cars because they've cut so many forests down that more carbon actually gets into the air and they can support their data

Provided they ignore the solution of planting forests, of course.

That chart is wrong.

We will never flood.

>new zeland
Where the fuck are they gonna shoot the next Tolkien movies then?

Look it all up here
ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND I AM NOT YOUR DADDY
IF YOU KNEW AS MUCH AS YOU SAY YOU WOULD KNOW ALL THESE THINGS BUT YOU ARE TWENTY YEARS OLD YOU ARE NOT INTELLIGENT

Look up the co2 levels during the dinosaur period for example. Was 15 times higher than today.

And?

Climate was also much hotter

LMAO. At 3m per year of change and the 60m they said the amphitheatre was AT MOST this could be ~300m below the ice. Get the fuck out of here with this pseudoscience bullshit.

Skepticism is healthy, blatant defiance of even the most basic scientific methods and the thousands of papers that prove that this climate change we are experiencing is anthropogenic in nature... that is just insanity.

Oh yeah.
>dem massive plants.

we really should be planting trees though

Exactely. So this doesn't mean it is bad for the planet. It's just bad for human life.
It's not the end of the world and the planet will not die. Only humans.

What else did Tolkien write that is worth a movie?

Fucking Honkeys lmao. I bet you're from Wisconsin and on welfare.

Nobody said we shouldn't plant trees. Nobody said there were not any trees back then.

Think about this: If there were more trees and the co2 was still higher, how high would it have been under today's measurements with way less forestation

>Only humans.

And most plants and animals.

Fire bombings was also not bad for the planet, just for Dresden.

Middle East will be first to go.

Yeah that's what I don't get. Mind actually explaining it?

How is there MORE carbon in the air in prehistoric times, yet massive plants that are obviously eating their fill of carbon?

What happened?

Like where did all the carbon go?

>volcanoes
Oh yeah. We don't have a violent planet any more...

Could be some geological reason, such as constant violent eruptions which have now settled down. Pure guessing, but if true there must be some explaination such as that.

It can still be bad for the planet. Runaway greenhouse effects (like venus') is *highly improbable* but with gross negligence it is a possibility.
This is something scientists are still trying to figure out, most people quote a figure of around 4000ppm. But the truth is that we don't know much about the time period. Most probable solutions assert that sun was drastically cooler at the time. nearly 400 irradiance levels actually.

The truth of the matter is that there is high variability of the data from records extending beyond 450,000 years

It's almost as if all that plant material was converted into some kind of black liquid, or black lumps, huh?

That's low but true. I can kek with you.

Volcanic activity was extremely high back then, also the temperature was higher so gases were quicker to bind.

Also think about giant gas machines walking around shitting and dead ones rotting away.

Co2 gets bundled in wet sediment etc so earth basically cleans itself of old co2 by storing it in the bottom and cleaning it over time.

Exactly my thoughts. The plates moving around definitely meant more active volcanoes.

Also air breathing life that expelled carbon became more and more dominate on the planet were ass before it was mostly plant matter.

Sun actually seemed a lot hotter back then due to the atmosphere being denser.

Yup this is actually a great idea, but we should save New York, the hood is okay though, they got dank timbs.

The sons of Hurin is definitely good enough for a movie in my opinion
Then I would also like something like the the story of Beren and Luthien, or the Mariner's wife, or the story of the fall of Numenor, but I know that won't happen also because, unlike the story of sons of Hurin which later got its own book, those ones weren't that well expanded beyond what you find in the Silmarillion

Fuck you winter a best
I don't want pussies and nogs moving north. It's nice here

>Volcanic activity was extremely high back then

Volcanoes have a cooling effect.
They emit sulfur-oxides, which have the opposite effect of CO2/methane/etc.

Some people have actually suggested shooting loads of sulfur powered rockets into the atmosphere to slow down global warming.

I'm sure it did to all the plant and animal life, but a 4% reduction in output considering that the sun was 500 million years younger could help explain why we didn't enter into a runaway effect and why life was generally unaffected (apart from huge plants and animals).

>i want our economic megacenters to be forcibly abandoned

Yes thanks for that.
I actually meant the fact they heated up the planet because of activity. Might have misunderstood it because I put the comma at the wrong spot.
It's supposed to read "was extremely high back then also, the temperature was higher"

And when they say, "How can you think this way?" You can respond, "How can liberals want Muslims here?"

Ok. Let me ask you this:

Do you solely mean human life when you say life? Because only human life will die out when co2 increases.

Many animals have a sack in their lung that cleans or stores air. Basically to work under low oxygen levels. Of course many animals will die. Most will survive though. All insects. 90% of plants.

But they pump green houses into the atmosphere and after the ash being blown up into the air that blocked the sun, the cooling affect you mention, settles the planet then warms up. Volcanoes are what brought us out of iceball earth.

"According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)"

>Do you solely mean human life when you say life? Because only human life will die out when co2 increases.
It depends! The results in the short term is hugely increased crop yields resulting from increased CO2, in our lifetimes this will alrgely be the effect we see besides increased el nino's and weather effects. But as it continues to trend upwards droughts and flooding and generally unstable weather resulting from wind and sea level changes could ravage crops, and therefore most animals therein.

I read a great paper about this as part of one of my classes but the upshot of it was that crops could be reduced by nearly 50%. It would be a massive struggle for sure.

green house gases(like c02)

>Oh, and there'll be a lot more beaches, I imagine. I don't know, I'm not really an expert on how the Earth works.

kek. thanks user, heartily keks were had reading your post

200 million tons is next to nothing compared to the output of burning fossil fuels. 29 billion tons annually. Like I said before though, any predictions of data that extend 450,000 years ago (just read something that extends that to 5my) is largely conjecture. The time period you're talking about was nearly 450 million years ago. Things have changed drastically like I mentioned in the first few sentences of this post.

But there were a lot more, and a lot bigger, active volcanoes back them. ours is small time.

As you can read in my previously linked article to the current glacial era, everything you said is concurrent with what scientists say will happen when the ice age ends.

Did you not learn in school that half of the countries at the coasts weren't there 5000 years ago? Coastal lines were further out.

France almost extended all the way to England. At one point they were connected.

This is all normal. I never understood why from 1996/97 on they made these crazy allegations

You do realize that there were 500 times more volcanos back then yes?
Almost every somewhat "crater" on land was a volcano. Europe alone has over 1500 frozen volcanos.

Again we'd have no way of knowing. Our current understanding of plate techtonics don't (in general) call for volcanoes being much different than they were 450 million years ago. The only remaining supervolcano fromt hat era to my knowledge is the yellowstone caldera.

>This is all normal
Except it isn't. in 450,000 years CO2 has never been this high. The ice caps have never melted this rapidly, and the temperature swings have never been this violent.

This is explicitly *not normal* not even for the glacial era ending.
Yes I do, I was responding to his assertion that volcanoes were somehow different than current ones today.

Wait no I was confused, I thought I had already written a response to that. Yes there were more of them and at 200 million per thats a lot of CO2, but there are again a lot of variables to account for. Like the cooler sun.

>But there were a lot more, and a lot bigger, active volcanoes back them. ours is small time.

>Again we'd have no way of knowing.

what you said to me

>You do realize that there were 500 times more volcanos back then yes?
Yes I do, I was responding to his assertion that volcanoes were somehow different than current ones today.

What the fuck man did you contradict yourself in the same post?

Do you agree there were more active volcanoes back then, yes or no?

I have to admit, I like (you)

Ok let me show you, for the last time, because I'm getting tired of you wanting to be right.

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."


But yea. Global warming.

In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]

You say you're American but neither the reading comprehension, nor the intelligence is befitting.

I'm leaving now. Thanks for the unletting know it better attitude.