Redpill me on climate change

redpill me on climate change
is it man made after all?

Other urls found in this thread:

sacredgeometryinternational.com/redemption-beast-carbon-cycle-demonization-co2
youtube.com/watch?v=0PIRz2tv6nk
theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

...

Well you see, the globes temperature is rising, and humans have released a bunch of carbon emissions in the atmosphere and it's making it rise faster.

Not sure, but the thing I do know is that a lot of these "Go green" Climate change ultra nutjobs are like a cult, it's weird.

whats the evidence supporting this statement?
>inb4 antisemite

yeah it feels hollow to me to
the west is literally circle-patting themselves on the shoulder for moving all production and emissions to the third world in order to reduce there own (((carbon footprint)))

The Greenest and also most effective method of Energy production we have at the moment is Nuclear energy, why are these people so afraid of Nuclear energy?

i dont know, why?

Well I'm sure the common person thinks about incidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl, but those Powerplants were built before we even developed proper safety checks, people are just being scared into a position.

it's both real, mainly man-made and one of the most serious threats to organized human existence

I have a screencap here

Honestly who cares? I'm going green not because of some doomsday bullshit but because I'm tired to breathing the carcinogenic jew and because I'd love to see more than a couple of dim stars at night.

The greenest? What do you do of all the wastes it produces and we have no idea how to get rid of

This is actually the best argument, don't do it for some green hippie doomsday crap, do it because it just makes the world look nicer

I wanted to write "The greenest method that is at the same time the most effective", the nuclear waste is indeed a problem.

Genuine question: why is the observed temperature anomaly in your pic different to OPs?

which of the OP pictures are you talking about?

Sustainable development means we don't fuck up earth for the sake of future generations. Rn we're just delaying a major problem that they will have to face.
It's definitely not the greenest

climate change isn't real, it is man made however because jews made it up

In my speech class.

An Asian user (Chinese) used these graphs to prove climate change is natural.

The whole class was like "wha" -

how does a one or two degree Celsius change over a century affect the planet in any significantly harmful way, and also how do you prove it doesn't help as much as hurt

this guy Randall Carlson, who's going to be on JRE today, has done a great series of pieces showing the case against the notion that man is the sole cause of climate change.

sacredgeometryinternational.com/redemption-beast-carbon-cycle-demonization-co2

on here he is on a podcast talking and showing graphs n shit about it as well
youtube.com/watch?v=0PIRz2tv6nk

It's a real phenomenon, but it's still currently up for debate in the scientific community whether or not humans play a role.
The future effects of it are being exaggerated by the media though. The main thing you should be worried about is the acidification of the oceans, not a slight increase in temperature.

one to two degree increases in the average global temperature, which, by the way is 14°C, as you can tell, now, is not a small amount

Ofc climate change is natural, volcanos have been releasing massive amount of carbon through the years. The thing is that human activity has made it drastically faster and we're going in a direction that will lead to a dramatic future.

As mentioned, it's a 14% increase on the average, therefore, if the average temperature in one place is twice that of the average, there is double the increase, or a 4 degree + increase in temperature

...

no

>2 Celsius increase
havent we "increased" the temperature by 2 degrees already?

Ah right my bad. The graph on the bottom right.

But from what I've looked up so far: apparently HadCRUT3 measures surface temperature whereas the satellite and balloon datasets in OPs graph (pic related) measure tropospheric temperature.

no, by roughly 1°C above the 1960-1990 baseline (for the continents it's a bit over 1°C actually), but we have "locked in" a rise of at least another 1°C with the current concentration of GHGs before we reach the new equilibrium temperature by way of the transient climate response function

0 evidence but it is sponsored by China who controls the monopoly for solar panels.

here is the collection of the temperature anomaly by all the main terrestrial temperature monitoring bodies

the average is only 14? i think we could jack that up double and be fine.

1950-1980 baseline*

I'm not doubting the surface measurements. I was just confused about the different types of observations.

Why are the models so off for the troposphere?

and also they don't account for new technology coming online during the entire next century? that shit don't make no sense.

[Bender, Michael L., Mark Battle & Ralph F. Keeling (1998) The O2 Balance of the Atmosphere: A Tool for Studying the Fate of Fossil-Fuel CO2: Annual Review of Energy and Environment, Vol. 23, pp. 207-223]

“CO2 is added to the atmosphere by biomass burning and the combustion of fossil fuels. So added CO2 remains in the atmosphere. However, substantial amounts are taken up by the oceans and land biosphere, attenuating the atmospheric increase. . . Man is currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at the rate of about 6.4 Gt C/yr by combusting fossil fuels and (to a small extent) by making concrete. We are adding another ~1 Gt C/yr by deforestation, mostly in the tropics. If all this CO2 remained in the atmosphere, the CO2 concentration of air would rise by about 3.5 ppm/year, much more than the observed increase of about 1.5 ppm/year. The difference between fossil-fuel input and accumulation, today as in the past, is attributable to the CO2 uptake by the oceans and by the growth of the land biosphere, as demonstrated by C. D. Keeling in a series of seminal publications.”

Liu, Zaihua, Wolfgang Dreybrodt, Haijing Wang (2010) A new direction in effective accounting for the atmospheric CO2 budget: Considering the combined action of carbonate dissolution, the global water cycle and photosynthetic uptake of DIC by aquatic organisms: Earth Science Reviews, vol. 99, pp. 162-172

“One of the most important challenges in the science of global change is effective accounting of the global budget for atmospheric CO2. Anthropogenic activities have clearly altered the global carbon cycle and significant gaps exist in our understanding of this cycle. Roughly half of the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere, and the other half is absorbed by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere. The partitioning between these two sinks is the subject of considerable debate. Without robust accounting for the fate of CO2 leaving the atmosphere predictions of future CO2 concentrations will remain uncertain.”

both this and taken from

I don't know, I'm not knowledgeable on models (mostly because I find them really boring)

thanks

what I do know however is that modelling is notoriously hard for the tropics. The modelling actually becomes very robust for moderate and extreme latitudes (especially in the Northern hemisphere)

see
theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

yes climate change is real, and the denial is lead by big oil and coal.

not all greens are against nuclear - int he short term, but most understand that the long term problems are serious, and the risks (while remote - the tech is pretty good now) are still huge.

>teh grauniad
Come on, could you get a source that isn't one of the most trash lefty rags out there?

Sustinable power generation cannot support a major nation.

If we outlawed fossil fuels billions would die.

>against the notion that man is the sole cause of climate change

you don't need a whacky internet guru to tell you that. Climatologists have said for decades that the climate is influenced by a multitude of factors with varying importance

Posts a commie rag as sauce
Brings up denial and muh big oil
Is cowardly Frenchy Frog
Fucking shill detected!

Thorium is the best type of nuclear power.
Thorium is safer due to a ice plug that melts and shuts down the reactor if it loses power.
Thorium is as cheap a material as granite rock vs plutonium or uranium which are more expensive than platinum.
There is enough Thorium on earth to power our civilization for thousands of years at 100x our world energy consumption.
Not even an autist could prove any of this wrong.

here is a PRO Autist explaining Thorium Power
youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

>the nuclear waste is indeed a problem.
no it isn't
you use the waste in breeder reactors and then the remaining waste is inert after about 100 years.

the amount of nuclear waste produced in the entire history of the US wouldn't fill a football field and that stuff isn't re-processed and hasn't run through a breeder reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

...

>carbon emissions from industry cause temperature to rise
>(((industrialists))) deny it
>(((they))) keep making money
>temperature rise causes chaos in Middle East and Africa
>mass exodus to Europe

Autist on thorium - "we will never run out it is simply too common"

>temperature rise causes chaos in Middle East and Africa
>mass exodus to Europe
The migrant crisis is because Muhammad and Jamal now have access to the internet, so they can see how good things are in Europe.

I'm not saying that the current migrant crisis is caused by rising temperatures, but rising temperatures will in the future cause an even bigger one.

Though some claim the Syrian civil war was caused indirectly by climate change.

How do they know which warming is natural and which is anthropogenic?

is it jus me or does everyone seem to not even care about nearly infinite energy?

Like think about the world if it were a video game dont u think that nearly infinite power would be a good lvl up that would undercut your competition completely.

Man-accelerated at best and even thats a far fetch, another ice age was supposed to happen a few hundred years ago long before industrialization

It didn't singlehandedly cause it. But there is a mountain of actionable evidence, that humans have a significant and strong effect.

Even if you are skeptical about it, there are more than enough reasons to enact the same solutions. Green/nuclear energy are a very profitable industry, make environments healthier (imagine cities with breathable air), reduce mining needs, help with energy independence (imagine not needing oil from Saudis/Russians anymore), etc.
It is also a sustainable way to help developing countries with their energy needs (especially since it is easier to implement there). Though I know most of Sup Forums doesn't care about that...

Yes it's real and man made.

We need to pay al gore the 10 trillion he asked the US gov to fix climate change

you have to be careful here: the graph is visualizing different forcings, which is a measure for the change in energy balance of the planet.
We can measure/estimate the different forcings, some of which are natural (like changes in solar insolation or injection of sulfate aerosols by explosive volcanic eruptions), while the principal anthropogenic radiative forcing is the increase of condensing greenhouse gases (mainly CO2 and CH4).

A forcing gives us a change in the equilibrium temperature because of a relatively simple mathematical relationship:
changes in temperature are equal to a change in forcing times lambda ("climate sensitivity").

So what this graph shows is that the combined effect of every forcing absent the human-induced increase in GHG would give us the blue temperature curve (essentially stable with two dips for the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions). It's only after combining these natural forcings with the anthropogenic once that you get a modelled temperature curve that fits the observed trendline.

tldr: anthropogenic forcing are human CO2 emissions, natural forcing is everything else. Natural forcing can't explain the current rise in temperature

The "97% consensus" is a meme created by an Australian cartoonist who is not a scientist but created a website to promote global warming alarmism. And the media ran with it uncritically. Which is a common trend in AGW promotion.

Watervapor > Methane > NOx > CO > CO2

Partially, but it's not a big deal

>wacky internet guru
have u read it bro?

This. But Sup Forums isn't interested in coherent positions, they just want to be reactionary as a way of passively aggressively lashing out their peers who reject them for being autists. Same reason why this board is filled to the brim with trumpcucks.

Fukushima was pretty solid, bro.

But building a nuclear power plant in an area with a lot of earthquakes and shit is stupid idea no matter how you slice it.

> one of the most serious threats to organized human existence

And CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature. We are supposed to believe this time is different based on the fact that this time humans are here. But if temperatures started to plunge, we wouldn't get a warning from CO2 levels.

yes it is an extremely serious threat. Sea level rise ALONE is so significant that it can hardly be overstated

>rising temperatures will in the future cause an even bigger one.
so stopping global warming is racist?

>. Sea level rise ALONE is so significant that it can hardly be overstated

and yet you alarmist retards do manage to overstate it at every opportunity. forgetting to mention that that the rate of change hasn't changed in several hundred years and that just ten thousand years ago it was four hundred feet lower than it is now. you idiots need to take some valium and jerk each other off with the leather elbow patches from your tweed jackets.

in terms of being a prime driver of climate, CO2 is by far the most important GHG on earth. That's why widespread glaciation (shaded areas) only occured when the combined CO2-solar forcing is at a minimum.

Water vapor might be a powerful greenhouse gas but it can't be prime driver because it has a very short residence time and its concentration is a function against temperature

TY for knowing chemistry for Keks sake.

>rate of change hasn't changed
that's where you are wrong, the rate at which eustatic sea levels rise actually doubled in the early 1990s

And I'm fully aware of the sudden rise in sea level at the end of the last glaciation. Let me ask you this: don't you think it's at all interesting that this multi-meter rise took place in response to a forcing (0.7 W/m2) that was much smaller than the full radiative forcing we have today (on the order of 2 W/m2)?

CO2 lags temperature by 100 years or so. Temperatures trend down for a long time before CO2 followed and vice versa.

>don't you think it's at all interesting that this multi-meter rise took place in response to a forcing (0.7 W/m2) that was much smaller than the full radiative forcing we have today (on the order of 2 W/m2)?

except that what you postulate could not have happened, retard. it took a gigantic caloric input to melt all that ice so quick.

and don't bother posting your fake infographs culled from bill nye the science guy and that coon tyson....holds no weight here.

but if u expand that data set to include all the data of climate back as far as they drilled in the ice then Co2 has been shown to not always track with temp on the large scales of time so that makes alot of scientist think it prolly does effect temp but something or many somethings effect it way more.

that's only true for the glacial-interglacial cycle and only for most parts of the Southern Hemisphere (CO2 leads temperature in the Northern Hemisphere).

And the reasons for that are understood by climatologists for several decades now. I can go into more detail if you want, but the short explanation is that during the glacial cycle, CO2 acted as an amplifier rather than a prime driver.

Climate change is Jewish and liberal malarkey. It was a nice diversion in the early 2000 to keep peoples minds off of the real issues. While western nations were being carried away and manipulated by Marxism and kikery, the media filled the heads of young adults and children with some bullshit about coral reefs dying and Alaska being .07 degrees warmer in the summer. It's hippy non sense, dude weed lmao tier non-sense.

I support Thorium, but much of it is inaccessable or very difficult to extract with our current level of tech.

NO, the short explanation is that you are posting from a dingy, dank room in some basement somewhere in Stalingrad through a German proxy. Please stop parroting your manufactured and manipulated commie data while you shill for your jewish masters, boshy kike bitch.

climate change is real, the world is heating up because we're still recovering from the last ice age.

it is NOT man made though.

"The orbital forcing is, however, relatively weak when considered on an annual globally averaged basis (the total insolation received by Earth has varied by

not credible, more rhetoric spewed by a leftist simply to garner support for a global carbon tax. into the bin it goes, Ugandan tier science.

and here's where my 2 W/m2-number comes from
(a nature cliamte change study from 2015 by Schuckmann et al.)

totally unconvincing. climate change scientists can study hummingbird shit and use the data to show agw.