"This graph proves man made climate change"
Is he wrong /pol?
"This graph proves man made climate change"
Is he wrong /pol?
Other urls found in this thread:
My Graph shows Carbon Isotopes you negroid.
>implying temperature is correlated with co2
Because polacs are so retarded I will explain the the argument.
Fossil fuel reservoirs have a different isotopic characteristic. They are enriched in C14, so we can see that after industrialization that the ratio of C14 to C13 isotopes in the atmosphere drastically switched.
sounds super fucking jewish if you ask me.
"climate change" is the result of shitty industrial agriculture turning the world into sterile deserts. CO2 is actually a negative feedback in this process by increasing the rate at which plants can accumulate biomass.
You have it backwards
>implying co2 is correlated with temperature
Link to journal article? Anyone can pull a graph out their ass OP
Biomass doesn't mean shit if it's from higher CO2. Overall nutrients don't change.
Doesn't account for this graph. Nice try.
most conservatives don't claim that climate change isn't real, they argue that mankind has less (not no) impact than argued and that solutions put forward by democrats are not fit for purpose (which they aren't)
Rubino et al., 2013 J. Geophys. Res.
>man made climate change
I don't care. Right now acknowledging AGW is a death sentence for nations, and a win for globalism. I'd rather die than give up my nation.
I feel the same way burger.
All "solutions" seem futile or will end in democide.
it's called the seuss effect and is good support for human driven climate change
that's not what I'm talking about at all, the effects on weather are a result of desertification, not the other way around. bare dirt soaks up heat and evaporates off all the water, look at the middle east, the "fertile crescent" is a glimpse at what the entire developed world is charging toward. I'm not familiar with the carbon isotopes line of argument, I'm just offering the observation that many of the world's deserts are man-made and it is proven that they can be made green again. The problem in modern agriculture is that it kills off all the soil life that would normally take insoluble nutrients from the mineral fraction of the soil and make it available to plants.
This is true. I am familiar with that logic and it makes loads of sense to me personally.
Desertification totally changes the hydrologic cycle. Plant uptake from the shallow water table ends. Daily/seasonal transpiration by plants ceases as well.
Off to planet B.
The right should take back the climate change issue from the left. The left hasn't been able to do shit anyways. Caring about the environment in your own country works with Nationalism. For instance in Holland we could rebuild the dykes, making them simultaneously a landmark of pride and a defense against rising sea-levels.
looks like the graph of trumps likelihood of victory on Election Day
the graph doesnt relate to climate change effects though?
Yeah it doesn't. I guess thats a separate debate. Kinetically we know that the greenhouse affect is true though, right?
also if the sea levels rise a couple feet i really couldnt give a shit
that data was collected near cities and collected during the day
cities are made out of concrete which heavily eats up during the day
the earlier data was collected around woods, forests and the occasional hut so it´s obvious that the data would spike as urbanization went on
those numbers however don´t reflect the entire planet
CO2 reflects longwave radiation coming off the earth tard.
Climate change will never end. Your children will live in a shit standard of living from all the negative externalities of ongoing extreme climate change.
He's right. Africa is going from 1 billion to 4 billion in 2100. The worse climate threat are the niggers and the Asians. STERILIZE NIGGERS AND GOOKS FOR CLIMATE
Clima change is the idea from al gore. This retrad dumbass lie
errrr... did you dig this out of the paper or from your own ass?
uhhh, no they wont. the earth didnt always have oceans of oil in the ground; there was a time when all that carbon was on the surface
fun fact: the kyoto protocol makes it possible to buy up giant plots of land in Africa, kick all the inhabitants out, and farm it for carbon credits.
>not knowing the meaning of correlated
>implying that life on earth today can survive in prehistoric earth conditions that of which humans have never faced.
one thing you have to admit is that it has happened quite faster that other times, i mean it's prettu obvious industrialization has something to do with it
hitting the ice cap tipping point would of ramped up as fast as it would now because of the trapped methane below the ice.
To think mankind is powerful enough to destroy a 4 billion year old ecosystem is pretty self important, life will go on and the earth will be just fine after we kill ourselves off.
The only thing these tree hugging professors want is there own private area to be cleaned and not be inconvienced, fucking selfish pieces of shit
humanity is currently planning to colonize mars, a gradual shift in climate is well within our ability to adapt
Meteorology major here, and recently it was uncovered that the NOAA fudged the numbers on climate change. Google it (id provide a source but I'm in class and shouldn't be on my phone anyway). Either way, as a man of science and weather enthusiast, I lost a lot of respect for the noaa after that
Hahaha 6 gurilllion more c14
>implying it cant
>take all this excess carbon and truck it to mars
>we now have 2 earths
>time is represented in tens of thousands of years
Still waiting on the research that says a higher C12 to C13 ratio is supposed to awake some ancient evil that's gonna be the end of us
Earth has cycles.
Just go back to the Ancient Roman times, tell me what kind of industrialization they had to cause that.
>A chart with numbers on it.
As if I wouldn't want the planet and everything on it to die anyway like it deserves to
Thank you :)
Yes. It can be reversed pretty easily, especially if grazing animals can be cycled through the land, and increasing the biodiversity if needed, texturing flattened out land can help too. It's the stupidity of inertia and only looking at one side of it.
And the green revolution mentality, that just shoving more chemical nutrients into the ground is putting back what was lost. The soil health and the nutrition of the food is destroyed.
Why the fuck is there a drop off in the amount of Carbon 13 in the air if there is a increase in overall Carbon
Literally doesn't make sense, if mass spec doesn't destroy Carbon 13 I doubt a ICE would
There is literally nothing wrong with 13C, the carbon in your body is 1% 13C
Oh look a chaotic non-repetitive unstable oscillation in climate that extends for hundreds of thousands of years . Must have been caused by humans...I mean white people.
He's wrong. This graph only shows that the release of _fossil_ carbon has increased, which nobody argues with. It does not tell however whether this fossil carbon comes from burning fossil fuels or from natural sources, like volcanic activity or release of dissolved CO2
are you fucking retaded
why do the carbon dioxide measurements lag in this graph?
"this graph proves man made change in CO2 content in the atmosphere"
>Man Made Climate Change (Hoax?)
Oy Vey!!! Goyim we worked too hard and too long to fool you idiots into believing our scam for you to turn back now!!! Carbon tax.... I mean global warming... I mean climate change ISRAEL... I mean is real!!!! Now pay your carbon tax!!!!
What it doesn't prove is that CO2 causes 'climate change' (whatever that is--it's a slippery concept).
global warming might actually help your ohioan ass
what's it like shilling for the corporatists? How well do they pay?
>Listen goyim. We got you by the balls now pay our tax!!!
Everytime I read these threads, it reminds me to start getting into buying water rights.
I wonder how they measured this.
Can't we plant more trees to solve the CO2 problem? I don't remember when CO2 became the worst greenhouse gas. I thought it was methane and CFCs. At least that's what I remember from school.
There is no problem with CO2 per se. You have to buy into a lengthy chain of reasoning by the AGW theory in order to find a problem with it.
redpill me on global warming (aka give me counter arguments for homework)
Humans probably do effect climate change but not like these activist make it out. Climate has always changed and a graph of 1,000 years is statistically misleading for the Earth's history. Even then. if we did cripple our own economy and energy production by limiting this, place likes Russia, China, India or whomever industrial next will never stop. Like feminist that worry about opression of women in the West and ignore places under Sharia law, climate change activist want to worry about America when they should be trying to convince China and India (not going to happen).
Yeah it makes no sense when you actually think about it. If CO2 was so bad there would be more emphasis on more green spaces not just taxing CO2. Also CFC are a meme. Do you really think aerosol sprays and shit in refrigerators destroyed the ozone? What the fuck is in space on the other side that doesnt destroy the ozone or fuck with it at least?