Climate Change

Does Sup Forums believe Humans are doing irreversible harm to the atmosphere?

Should something be done to stop it?

What?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
iceagenow.info/demolishing-link-co2-climate/
youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M
money.cnn.com/2017/05/11/investing/opec-oil-u-s-supply/index.html?iid=EL
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-03/leaner-fitter-faster-u-s-shale-oil-2-0-challenges-opec-again
money.cnn.com/2017/05/18/investing/opec-oil-prices-us-shale-saudi-arabia/index.html
money.cnn.com/2017/01/19/news/economy/us-oil-shale-iea/index.html
oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Shale-Is-Immune-To-An-Oil-Price-Crash-In-2017.html
indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90
youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No one doubts that the climate is changing.

We doubt the liberal's talking points on how to fix it.

They want to charge and tax the fuck out of you and limit how you live.

Meanwhile, in reality, China and India are producing literally 98% of the world's chemicals into the air that leftists are complaining about it.

They are fucking clueless.

lefty here
pol is split hafl and half. most who aren't retards are wise enough to know regulations are necissary as well as nuclear power. theyre a small minority among conservatives though, and their hatred for women voters is ironic since women are far more supporting of climate change being real than men.

Commies correlate with CO2, so I say; Let's kill the commies!

...

>durrr
this is retarded and so are you. China and india aren't producing 98% of the worlds Co2 and methane.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
the list is right fucking here nigger. try doing some research instead of going full obama hur durr 1% of muslims are violent.

There's nothing we can do anymore. We're all fucked. We just need to clonize Mars and gtfo before we get jewed

wrong chart

The fact that you made this thread while the other one is still alive is evidence that you've found another way to start arguments to slide the board.

The fact it's you're full of shit and then entire argument is bullshit. What's more relevant is how we have to put a stop to these god damned kikes.

Didn't take long for the fidget spinner to show up!

Fidget spinners are a kike-hypnotic devise.

Hey man how come there is no "I don't care" option?

Humans are a cancer to the planet and need to be Fucking culled. The irony in libs wanting to support third world shitholes and their shitty populations while crying about the environment is too rich to be delicious and is just downright disgusting

I am not a leftist but the truth of climate change is lost upon them as well.

We are already pretty much set for climate apocalypse NO MATTER what we do now. Clean energy is a dead end, technological progress is purely cosmetic focused.

There was a speech by some Israeli kike military offier couple of years ago on YouTube basically saying that Israel is simply prepping for worldwide collapse. Can not find video today.

niggers, jews, and mudlimes are taking over and you're arguing about lines on a chart that NEW YORK JEWS would be better able to gamble on

I like to think of global warming as nature's chemotherapy. It's going to kill off some healthy cells along the way, but hopefully there will be enough viable biomass left over to repopulate the Earth once the cancer has been eliminated.

FINNISH FARM CATS ARE BEING RAPED BY RAPEFUGEES AND YOU SHITARDS ARE ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL BE NICE OUT TOMORROW

AND YOU CALL THIS SCIENCE

>Does Sup Forums believe Humans are doing irreversible harm to the atmosphere?
Possibly, but I doubt it is eternally irreversible even if it is irreversible with current technologies and strategies.
>Should something be done to stop it?
Yes
>What?
Continue to invest in research and development of new innovations, technologies, and strategies to clean the air, clean the water, reduce environmental impact, produce more renewable energy and (slowly) move away from non-renewable energy.

I support making efforts to both reduce/reverse our environmental impact. However; I do not believe the "concensus" that immediate action must be taken to avoid catastrophe. I have faith that one day we will invent new innovations and technologies that will solve the "climate change problem" before we feel any major repercussions man made climate change.

The higher solar radiation fuels the human population explosion.
Idiots got it backwards, as usual.

This.

Either we are FUCKED because of China and India, period. OR our technological advances will save us from ourselves without having to take any drastic measures liberals call for.

Because if the climate is so "on the verge of destruction" then no amount of carbon taxing etc will fix it with china/india shitting all over the place.

It's time we weaponized global warming against the Chinese.

this. people pretending they worried about the planet are hypocrites, theyre just worried about themselves.
the planet will survive, makes no difference to it what the temperature is

...

We need to stop building "renewable energy sources" as the required resources produce more pollution and switch to 90% nuclear and the remainder hydro and geothermal. We can recycle nuclear waste enrich it and use it again

>solar radiation
Which also is actually the main (or one of) factor of changes in the global climate, and completely outside of our influence.

The whole mumbo jumbo about climate change is idolized pseudo science.

Wait, why would a fucking huge fusion reactor big enough to draw our planet into orbit around it have anything to do with anything?

...

I agree with you i think. The way you started your post is a little strange. You say we should stop building renewable energy and then list two forms of renewable energy later on in your solution. Solar and wind energy are memes with the current technology and we should focus more on hydro and geothermal. However, if someone wants to continue to develop better technology to harness wind and solar energy they should go for it. Just don't implement it as a widely used source of energy until the technology improves. If I'm not mistaken one of the bigger issues with solar panels is the amount of rare earth metals required to make them. If someone could develop panels made from materials that were cheap and widely available then it might be worth looking into again. That might be impossible/never happen so we should focus on hydro and geothermal. Especially if we get into research investment provided by the government. All of that money should be going to funding hydro and geothermal. If someone wants to privately fund solar energy development that's great, but governments need to stop investing in meme sources of energy.

>What?
There is only one answer to this question if you are actually serious about fighting climate change. Otherwise you have not done anything to stop it.

Put the carbon back where it came from, underground.

And there is only one way to do this, grow algae in massive farms, and then pump the algae into where oil came from to begin with. Nothing else will solve it at all.

As no one ever suggests this, we can safely conclude that either climate change is either a non-issue (or a severely inflated threat), or that whoever is suggesting that we "fix" it wants to keep the carbon on the surface where it can be continually used as boogeyman as a method of control, or both.

If Climate change were an actual issue, we could solve it in a decade or two with this method, for cheap too.

Have you ever wondered why every graph of 'climate change' graphs start in 1880? Because they cherry pick the coldest time before current warming. At the highest point of the industrial revolution, it was getting colder than before it began.

DAILY REMINDER

* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.

* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming.

* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.

* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 17 years. They are all trending too high.

* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.

* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.

* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.

* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."

Yes I was referring to solar and wind my wording was confusing sorry, yeah I mean if someone spends their own money for solar thats their decsion but the governemnt should stay out

We are definitely fucking up species diversity and habitats, but humans being the sole cause of climate change? How do you quantify humans activities on earths climate?

Excellent post. I was unaware of most of this information until I listened to Stefan Molyneux's interview with Lord Monckton. He did another presentation/interview about climate change with another guest (an actual climate scientist) that was very good as well, but i can't remember the name of the guest off the top of my head.

I like living in a first world. I'll take my chances with muh climate change.

Personally yes. But the rest of Sup Forums and the right in general consider climate change a partisan issue, and thus deny it exists.

Funny how being supportive of investmemt in hydro and geothermal energy still gets you labelled as a science denier unless you also believe that the world is ending and the only thing we can do to stop it is immediately stop all use of coal and oil.

>63 degrees in June
no thanks

>Graps doesn't start from 0
Pathetic

>100million years is the unit at the x axis
>That means less than 0,01 mm is 100 year - 200 years so its impossible to compare it with emissions

Always laughing at this

humans have little to nothing to do with climate change

Probably
But I feel like it is a cuck mark to be on track to meet the paris agreement.

Could you put links to interviews?

The ammount of Co2 is driven by the climate not the other way around

Animals at Chernobyl have already evolved to handle radiation and people think the Earth can't handle temperature change. Ridiculous.

I am in favor of a clean environment when possible and would rather see commitment to nuclear energy than anything else

Why don't you go fuck Motorcycle Girl. You could monetize it ten times over via the online porn industry.

I think that's the point of the graph. I don't think it is meant to compare against the effect of emissions/man made climate change. It is trying to illustrate that both co2 and temperature both vary a lot over time. It also illustrates there is not a direct correlation between co2 levels and average temperature.

What..

...

Neither Co2 nor humans have any effect upon climate.

iceagenow.info/demolishing-link-co2-climate/

Hoe new4u? Chernobyl Bitch's motorcycle rides are extra-comfy.

I'm phone posting from work. Sorry, m8. Just go to stefan molyneuxs youtube channel and search for climate change. Shouldn't be too hard to find. I try to only take 5 minutes at a time to post then get back to work. If thread is still active in a bit and you/others are still interested and can't find them i will see what i can dig up.

...

kek

i heard plants crave CO2, it's a conspiracy done by plants

Nice source

Actually the investment in clean energy is still pretty good, because we wont have any fucking oil anymore in the next 10-20years

t. Saudi

They maybe also care for the animals???
Those are the main victims of global warming

90% of known oil deposits have not even been tapped yet.

Just the easy stuff has been gotten, what's left is oil shales and sands. Basically, fracking is the future.

Fracking is a failure, which is why Warren Buffet bought up the heavy rail so he could store the waste water in the tank cars and move it around until it was technically old enough to dump into the ground.

Never forget about the water.

Most oil is used for fuel, so to reduce consumption you need more efficient engines (Hybrids for instance) to become more affordable. In regards to electricity the federal government should not play favorites, but it should subsidize some research in all forms of electric generation.

Also, while we're on the topic if schemers like Buffet, lets think about loans. Even the bean counters screwed up (were they perhaps paid to do this?) and fracking in a ponzi scheme where they had to keep expanding the operation just to maintain the loans they had to take out to start in the first place.

It's retarded how ignorant people are, but that's the price of literally paying for the Jew media.

MUH SUN XDDDD

this theory has been debunked

youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M

Monkton is a fucking fraud

The sun has been debunked?

Well I guess a stopped clock is right once a day. Ask Mars or Venus, or Neptune for that matter.

>Fracking is a failure
Maybe it was a few years ago; but its back, and better than ever.

money.cnn.com/2017/05/11/investing/opec-oil-u-s-supply/index.html?iid=EL

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-03/leaner-fitter-faster-u-s-shale-oil-2-0-challenges-opec-again

money.cnn.com/2017/05/18/investing/opec-oil-prices-us-shale-saudi-arabia/index.html

money.cnn.com/2017/01/19/news/economy/us-oil-shale-iea/index.html

oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Shale-Is-Immune-To-An-Oil-Price-Crash-In-2017.html

>the jews double down again on the ponzi scheme

k

No the idea that solar irradiance causes current warming has been debunked. this was a debate mostly by Frii Christensen (who is an actual scientist) and Svensmark. But this has long ago been put to bed.

Oh, I see. The Sun has nothing to do with it. It must all be from the molten core of the Earth.

OH WAIT NO IT'S COW FARTS BECAUSE WATER VAPOR IN THE ATMOSPHERE WOULD MEAN JACK SHIT IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE SUN

I have not once claimed the sun does not have an impact on climate.
Of course it does. But so do other factors, such as CO2, the tilt of the earths orbit and the position of the continents.

The current warming, in recent decades is CO2 driven. If the sun was the only driver then global temperature would be steady right now.

Cow farts release methane, not CO2, although methane is an even worse GHG

Stop using dead arguments.

Oh, now it's the tilt of the Earth? Maybe it should stop drinking so much.

We are one asteroid away from getting BTFO, climate change should be the last of our worries.

If we indeed reach a time of harsh weather conditions because of it, a lot of people will die... less CO2... problem solved.

Hey I get it, all the Boomers invested their money since the late 70's into a false ideology generated by Iron Maggie and Ronald McDonald to bait the hippy generation into taking loans and become Green, Sustainable Consumers for Capitalists. Acid rain, Chernobyl, HFCs, the rainforest, atom energy, Whales, Tibet, Africa, R2P, the big flood.... Everything just because it was rational to become the boogey man you created in the 60's high on ACID; The Man™, and like The Man™, you try to pull the strings in an egoistic manner to keep your Shekels flowing. The poorest bastards in this game are the generations after the Boomers, who really bought into that story, and are actively destroying their own land and security (energy, food, housing, security) because they BELIEFE the shit their parents told them, while they had an eye on the stock exchange chart of that small Solar Panel company a friend of a friend started with tax money in the third world.

Sage this shit
kys literally

No. Current warming is caused by CO2 rise due to human emissions.

indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

This is what I mean by the tilt of the earth. This is likely what caused the glacial periods throughout history. However, these changes are too slow to explain current warming.

>too slow to explain
>proven
Are you a Jew or just an ordinary schizophrenic?

30 years ago it was HFCs. What will it be next season. Little hint plox

nuke Chyna, then build more nuke plants

But that's too controversial for most people. Therefore we are doomed

Wow you are really stupid. No way human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. No engineer or anyone familiar with science believes this.

OP image is an appeal to authority. Give us an actual argument you sub-human.

No model using CO2 as a driver for climate change has ever been even close to being correct. The relationship is correlation at best. Anyone claiming causeation is making assumtions that have actually been disproven over and over.

???

The milankovitch cycles don't explain CURRENT warming because they take thousands of years to have an impact

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

>Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
>cook et al, 2013
>We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

But i suppose that peer reviewed, journal published scientists know nothing right?

>quantifying the consensus
top lol

Check out the RAND Corporation's Delphi Method. And yes I am a peer-reviewed published scientists who has had to decline multiple invitations to be a reviewer because it's only the top 1% of the 1% who has a clue.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck when the ONLY options being given to us is

world government,
tyranny- slavery
depopulation
....

You are okay with trusting a "concensus" in which two thirds of scientists asked responded with "no opinion"? I find it funny you posted this without deleting that little part. BTFO by your own source. Nothing personnel, kid.

>consensus

>Humanities
>Biological/chemical/physical processes
>on a global scale
>influenced by astronomical factors
>not observable, or measurable
>an argument
>consensus
in
>sience

youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

models are, generall fairly accurate. the IPCC tend to underestimate warming as they ignore feedback effects

I am not even trying to argue with you. This is a very serious issue, and I am concerned that so many do not trust the science. I encourage you to PLEASE take a very hard look at the Science and data.

youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

This is a great series by a scientific journalist with several fully cited and referenced videos. He also does not use the IPCC as a resource. Please watch and see if your opinion changes.

Are you a woman?

>nigger
Wut

>Humans are a cancer to the planet and need to be Fucking culled
EDGY

Co2 isn't a pollutant bud. the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change.

Yes, how is that relevant?
to show you how serious I am, I have had my tubes tied so I can't have kids because I don't want them to come into a collapsing, 4 degree warmer world. In my lowest times I have inserted algae into my vaginal cavity and sunbathed with my legs open to capture CO2 from the air. This is a dangerous issue. Please at least try to be serious and investigate.

0
Tits or GTFO
on a second thought, just gtfo

So, your saying that CC is real?

That makes more sense then. Women are categorically more emotional and alarmist, and contribute less to science than men.

I had the unfortunate experience of working for a woman when I first got in to the field. I'm pretty much a beta, so we got along and I was able to adapt to her catty ways. But the clear trend is that they contribute some good ideas here and there but that they're completely irrational and have no ability to mount an argument.

My problem is that there are no actual solutions presented. No one can show the math of how much emission we need to cut, or if it's impossible to ever cut enough, how much time we're buying. It's an extremely nebulous problem with a million interwoven factors, but people are selling a magic solution that's going to make a lot of people very rich without bothering to prove it will even make a dent on the problem. If every single person on the planet disappeared, the climate would still continue to change and probably continue to move in the exact same direction it's moving now. Eventually the Earth will become very unfriendly to human life, as it has been many many times in the past, with or without human help. It's selling highly profitable snake oil instead of actually coming up with things that will work.

We can't even predict whether or not the magnetic poles are on the verge of flipping.

And yet these assholes want you to believe that you have to pay for your co2 crimes. It's unbelievable.

if they trap heat then why doesnt heat get reflected back into space?

Because niggers don't understand quantum physics